The problem is there is so much intentional subliminal imagery in his films it's hard to tell what is and what isn't intentional, and no two people will agree on which is which. So it can seem like people are saying EVERYTHING ever claimed about Kubrick's films was intentionally subliminal, which is almost certainly not true.
My suggestion would be when making claims about subliminal references in Kubrick's films, try to contextualize it with examples of things Kubrick said in interviews, or similar patterns found in his other films. For example, Kubrick in at least two films made reference to Greek mythology. In 2001: A Space Odyssey you had references to Ulysses and the character Dave Bowman (Ulysses was an archer) seem pretty certain to be correct. The insertion of a hedge maze into The Shining is a pretty clear reference to the legend of the minotaur, plus co-screenwriter of The Shining Diane Johnson specifically mentioned the minotaur and the labyrinth in interviews about The Shining. Further proof that Kubrick had a fixation with Greek mythology can be found all the way back in 1955. Kubrick named the production company of his second film The Killer's Kiss "Minotaur Productions".
With that in mind, it is at least reasonable to consider whether two characters in Eyes Wide Shut with similar names: Ilena (Ziegler's wife) and Helena (the Harford's daughter) may be a reference to Helen of Troy. Some people have suggested Helena is being "abducted" at the end of the film. Helen of Troy was either abducted by Paris or seduced to run off with Paris in The Iliad - it is ambiguous whether she went willingly or not. A literally abduction seems a bit melodramatic and crude for such an elusive and subtle film, but the Helena/Helen/abduction /seduction angle may have some merit to it in a metaphorical sense. Kubrick didn't live to give any clues or interviews about the film unlike the other two examples, so it will have to remain a strong possibility rather than a certainty.
The point is this theory is at least based on patterns in Kubrick's work in the past, not something just pulled out of left field.
To answer the main question: "How detailed are Kubrick's films?" the simple answer is extremely detailed, probably without precedent in cinema. However, he was just a mortal human and sometimes "a cigar is just a cigar".
reply
share