It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In 1986, Saroo was a five-year-old child in India of a poor but happy rural family. On a trip with his brother, Saroo soon finds himself alone and trapped in a moving decommissioned passenger train that takes him to Calcutta, 1500 miles away from home. Now totally lost in an alien urban environment and too young to identify either himself or his home to the authorities, Saroo struggles to survive as a street child until he is sent to an orphanage. Soon, Saroo is selected to be adopted by the Brierley family in Tasmania, where he grows up in a loving, prosperous home. However, for all his material good fortune, Saroo finds himself plagued by his memories of his lost family in his adulthood and tries to search for them even as his guilt drives him to hide this quest from his adoptive parents
The treatment of Kubrick illustrates both the strengths and the weaknesses of the book’s hit-and-run style. Are his films “almost always about diminishing lives”? Maybe. The notion that “all of Kubrick’s characters get trapped, often because the circumstances they set up become out of their control” sounds right, as do many of Kolker’s observations about Kubrick’s camera placement, endings, and—who knew—bathrooms (it turns out they are ubiquitous across his oeuvre).
In his discussion of Eyes Wide Shut, Kolker shares the relationship that many have with Kubrick films: he finds that he likes it more and more with each screening. Initially indifferent to the movie, he now “can’t seem to stop talking about it.” But those elaborations, however well informed, are ultimately prosaic, and could have pushed harder on the ways in which Kubrick’s films express their key themes. And the observation that Kubrick is “a brilliant manipulator of color” demands more commentary than “just note the palette of Eyes Wide Shut.” Even within the confines of a 1,500-word review for the New York Times, Janet Maslin was able to offer this: “it overpoweringly deploys certain colors, most notably red and blue. The conjugal life is bathed in red, at first, and death and danger in blue—until the film begins switching and juxtaposing them incessantly to create underlying tension. The advent of purple, first on the dress of a young prostitute and later on the sheets where Alice sleeps, has its own innate drama.”
originally posted by: scientist
I love this analysis, although I feel like the biggest detail left out, is that the world will likely never see the director's cut of the film. Whatever we ended up with, is probably missing the most important scenes. It's one of the few things that really bums me out when I think about it. We'll never see Kubrick's true vision for what I imagine was an expose that just exposed a bit too much.
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Davg80
I had no idea Nicole Kidman's father was accused of heading a child pedophelia ring.
That adds quite a twist to the plot. Thank you for sharing.