Talk:Eyes Wide Shut

R. Lee Ermey Quote

"he was kind of a shy little timid guy. He wasn't real forceful. That's why he didn't appreciate working with big, high-powered actors. ... he would lose control".

This either needs to be balanced or deleted. It is well known that Kubrick was a perfectionist and often forced stars to do endless retakes. Jack Nicholson famously remarked somewhat irritatedly, after film The Shining, "Just because you're a perfectionist, doesn't mean you're perfect." It does not get much more "big, high-powered" than Nicholson at the time of filming The Shining, so if Kubrick was standing up to him, I can't see why this aspect of Ermey's quote has any merit. 76.19.140.208 (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)pkmilitia

one of the websites corroborating this story. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0053.html

Nude model actors

Were they all credited in casting at imdb? models or actors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.212.240 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 November 2007

Soundtrack

The song "Wien, du stadt meiner traume" is credited on some versions of the movie. I've checked my copy carefully and can't find it on the list. Does anyone know why that is, and exactly where in the movie this song is used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.217.179.200 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 17 June 2006

Production

It would be nice if a production section was included, because, as I can recall, Kubrick died before finishing the movie, so the crew had to figure out how to finish it.

The movie had been finished, at least up to the last steps of post production. As the article and most books on the subject say, Kubrick had screened the movie with his family and some of the stars a week before his death. The only part that would have been unfinished may have been last-minute edits as the NYT review noted, and plans for marketing for the movie. The rumour about the film being incomplete is almost entirely untrue.--64.114.135.25 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summary

The summary seems longer than the Wiki watchdogs usually allow. I'm actually not against long plot summaries (if something can be long and a "summary" at the same time), but I suspect that it will have to be chopped up and sectioned off into the main article. There's also a lot of factual errors or questionable interpretation for a summary. E.g.,

1. "During the party, an older Hungarian man (Sky Dumont) tries to seduce Alice, while two younger models try to seduce Bill. Alice and Bill both resist their respective temptations. "

Bill doesn't "resist." He's interuputed and asked to go upstairs. A key plot detail is that, later, when the conversation arises about the party girls, Bill can claim to have not been going to have sex with them. True, he might of had he had time, but he didn't have a chance to resist as it turns out.

2. "Bill goes to the apartment of the patient and the daughter, Marion (Marie Richardson), says she wants to give up her life to be with Bill...."

Actually, she said that even if she could never see Bill again, she wanted to at least live "near" him. She did not say anything about giving up her life (or presumably her marriage). She simply said that she did not want to move to Michigan. I wouldn't want to go to MI either, but that's different from saying that I want to give up my life.

3. "His interest piqued, Bill coerces Nick into divulging the secret party's requirements: a black robe with a hood, and a mask. He also learns the location and more importantly, the password: Fidelio..."

Nick only said that Bill wouldn't be allowed into the party dressed as he was. He then explained that he would need to wear a costume. He gave no details. The fact that Bill showed up at the party wearing precisely the costume that everyone else was wearing was, well, something that helped to make this movie a "mystery."

There are other examples where things might be clarified or corrected, but I was just wanting to point out that we probably should think of re-doing the plot summary. I can help work on it if needed. C d h (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You think the scene with Marion is about MI being boring??? Let me get this straight. Marion says "I love you", after french kissing Bill. She then says "I dont want to go away *with Carl* (not TO MI, WITH Carl), even if I cant be with you, I want to be NEAR you". She then says "I love you I love you I love you" like a madwoman (seem familiar coming RIGHT after the scene of Alice confessing to being willing to irrationally abandon her daughter for ONE fuck???) Bill then says how crazy he thinks she is since they've never really spoken. This is CLEARLY some odd message about how crazy women can be since this scene comes RIGHT on the heels of Alice's confession about being fully willing to throw her entire life out the window and abandon her daughter for one night with some schmuck. BAM... two seconds later... some other woman is willing to do the EXACT SAME THING with Bill. And you think this is all about MI eh? Yeah... You might want to either 1) examine why you interpret the scene that way or 2) watch it again, because you CLEARLY *completely* missed the purpose of that scene. You somehow think the scene isnt about Marion being willing to throw away her life with Carl when that is actually the *only* reason the scene is in the movie - to juxtapose it against Alice being willing to throw away her life with Bill and show Bill that maybe she wasnt kidding or exaggerating and that it COULD possibly happen..

Also, the costume part isnt even remotely a mystery. How could you have missed the scene where his buddy, who gives him the password and tells him about the party, tells him how the reason he knows whats going on AT the party is because his blindfold wasnt full on last time. Dont you think that MAYBE he told Bill what kind of costume to get?? Did that REALLY need to be explicitly spelled out? Just because all of the minutiae of a conversation isnt painstakingly spelled out doesnt mean the director is trying to create some big mystery. After that scene, Bill said "ok, what kind of costume do I get, I know of a store" and his friend said "ok... robe and hood". Either way, how about you steer clear of injecting even MORE bias into an already biased and overly long plot summary.

The plot summary is absurdly long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.64.184 (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dream Story

Is it really relevant to have a comparison to 'Dream Story'? I'm sure lots of films resemble lots of other films. Lots42 (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Eyes Wide Shut is based on a novella called Traumnovelle (Dream Story). They do not merely share similarities.Alwimo (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary Errors

It may be the cut that I'm watching at the moment, but this version has a number of significant differences to the article version :

• The return of the costume to the shop is before the return to the mansion ;
• One of the Oriental types, in the brown jacket, emerging from the back of the costume shop has a joint missing from his right little finger. And we all know what that means - Yakuza (Japanese Mafia, loosely).
• The note from the mansion instructs Bill to "give up your inquiries which are useless" (sic), which is a clear exhortation to "continue with those inquiries which are not being useless". I've not read the original book, but my Russian-speaking wife sees the distinction in the interpretation of the noun-phrase too. It may be a translation error.

On the subject of summary length : I'm not bothered by long summaries, but it could be less of a single block of text. Aidan Karley (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

What nothing about the esoteric nature of this film?--MacRusgail (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would involve a lot of OR that no one has done yet. --WickerGuy (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is ONE movie produced in Hollywood that shows how the Illuminati do their rituals, this is it! Kubrick was a known freemason and the movie is also full of Illuminati symbolism (as are all his films). He died 4 days after he delivered his "final" cut, while he was in good health. It is said that the real final cut never made it to the cinemas (it revealed too much) and that his death has something to do with the fact that he exposed the Illuminati a little too much with this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.76.10 (talk • contribs) 21:36, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

You're not alone in thinking this? See and However, there is no clear evidence that Kubrick was as you put it a "known" Freemason, though he may have known a great deal about it. He could have gotten most of the stuff in this movie from Arthur Schnitzler's novella.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Production history

Shouldn't it say something about the length of time the shooting took - and weren't there reshotts after Ziegler was recast ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What does the phrase 'zoomed in' mean exactly?

I'm referring to the sentence: "The scene in which Kidman dances naked in front of a mirror has been zoomed in on DVD copies after Cruise enters the room."
Is this a kind of censorship? Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaian-Orlanthii (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reason for Reversion

I just took the rather drastic step of reverting all changes made in the past two days, most by one user. These are my reasons.

1) The new material about Harvey Keitel was entirely irrelevant to the section it was in- # 5.1 Claims about Kubrick's opinion of the film. It may belong in some other section of the article but not here.

2) The new business about Christmas in the film is entirely irrelevant to the section it was in 1.1 Comparison with Dream Story. It also may belong in some other section of the article but not here. It also has WP:NPOV and WP:OR problems.

I'm a bit surprised these weren't reverted earlier. It seems people need to be watching this article. --WickerGuy (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Saw this on recent changes. Unfortunately, it's not a very well-developed article. I agree with the changes made. I was wondering, though, why is "Comparison with Dream Story" a subsection of the "Plot" section? It should be moved out into a section specifically analyzing the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Originally, it was a separate section (and almost all written by me), and then it got moved into the plot section by someone and it was not contested. I agree it should be a separate section entirely.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The audio in the ritual scene is a Romanian Orthodox liturgy backwards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFwDbmbJy7I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCxL6p8P7fc Playing it backwards obviously has a satanic connotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.183.46 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The melodies are still the same. Some electronic modification has been done, but I am not convinced this is the audio played backwards.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Smiley's People

The phrase is used in Smiley's People episode 3. Gam3 (talk)

—Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC).

Can you be a bit specific where? The entire episode 3 is currently online at

http://www.guba.com/watch/2001004343/4-Bea-Smileys-People-Parts-1-thru-4-only-5-and-6-posted-April-9-yEnc-Smileys-People-3of6-xvidvol5146PAR2?duration_step=0&fields=8&filter_tiny=0&pp=5&query=644259186&sb=7&set=5&sf=0&size_step=0&o=1&sample=1261790249:4fe98d427705743948ba2ad826b548426dc07768 --WickerGuy (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Roger Ebert's censorship criticism

The controversy section gives undue weight to the claim that Roger Ebert was "misquoted" in referring to the N. American version as the "Austin Powers" version. First, while the claim may be true, it is currently original research because Ebert does not claim to be "misquoted" in the source provided (see WP:SYNTHESIS). Second, while Ebert says the final version is technically better, he still strongly criticized the censorship.

I made some appropriate edits. I did not delete the claim entirely, although it needs another source about "misquoting" to not be original research.94.222.208.225 (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This may be technically an instance of synthesis, but it is easy to find sources claiming Ebert said this about the final version, and it is easy to verify that Ebert said this about the rough cut.

If I remove the actual assertion about misquotation, but simply state that Ebert's review says what it says, I think we are in the clear re WP policies. Will address this soon.

--WickerGuy (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more refs, but I had to add an tag, because this is really a good example of improper synthesis. Perhaps you could simply find a source that makes the "misquotation" claim and cite that, rather than relying on original research. If no one else has made this connection, than WP is not the place for it. Your suggestion about removing the "misquotation" claim might work, but it was never done.94.222.221.68 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was acting in a good faith hope that this would be a legitimate instance of Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules.

(See also Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means). This an unambiguous black and white matter once the reader is supplyed with both the direct reference/link to the original Ebert review and the various misquotations. However, I will change "misquoted" to "quoted" for now. This is an unusual case of an entry being WP:OR not because of the addition of a clause to a sentence, nor by an entire second sentence, but by the mere addition of a prefix to a word. The "mis-" makes all the difference between synthesis and mere reporting.

--WickerGuy (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to revert an edit in the section regarding Ebert's quotes, so I felt it appropriate to put something in the discussion. Here's the deal--it's completely out of balance to have two paragraphs just talking about Roger Ebert's comments on the movie. Furthermore, and perhaps more telling, the spacing on this section is erroneous. The fact that somebody is so devoted to keeping this second paragraph while not even noticing that they need an additional space demonstrates a lack of attention-to-detail.

If somebody wants to revert this back, I think it would be appropriate if it is done by a neutral third party. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it adds to the quality of the article. Thanks. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments are not about Ebert's general review/rating/ranking of the film so much as an editorializing about the American censored version. Ebert is both a critic/reviewer and an editorial commentator on film history, just as some journalists are both reporters and political pundits (which may explain why Ebert is just about the only film critic ever to win a Pulitzer Prize). It is not in his capacity as critic/reviewer but in his capacity as historical commentator that Ebert's remarks here are being cited, hence I don't really think anything is out of balance here. The two paragraphs are quite short, and the second is about a common and widespread misconstrual of his views. I take the responsibility for the faulty paragraph spacing. I may have omitted it because the paragraphs were more related than to other paragraphs in the section.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Tamil & Hindi as languages

The original IP editor who changed the musical cue reference from "Hindi" to "Tamil" failed to note that the cited reference immediately after that sentence only mentioned Hindi chanting. As such MarnetteD was quite right to revert this. However, other sources mention there is a line in the Tamil language. I have both amended the sentence to reflect that both languages are used and have correctly repositioned the original source to reflect that it speaks of Hindi being used. (That source is written by the film's music supervisor, Jocelyn Pook, so should be reliable.) And I have inserted new (apparently reliable) citations to justify the usage of Tamil. This section could use further work and research.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Kubrick is Jewish?

I am curious to know why in this article Kubrick is claimed to be Jewish. I ask this because an interpretive argument is set up on the basis of Kubrick being Jewish. In the Stanley Kubrick article, we are told that while Kubrick had "Jewish heritage", there was no form of religious observance practised in his childhood home, and that he himself did not subscribe to any organised religion. His daughter is also quoted to the same effect, noting that she thought he believed in "something". Since Kubrick himself claimed he was of no religious persuasion (again, quoted on the Stanley Kubrick entry, and since we have no other evidence for Kubrick being Jewish (including any forms of Jewish observance even from childhood), I propose that the claim made in this article be deleted, and likewise should the interpretive argument that flows from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.54.125 (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The influence of Kubrick's Jewish heritage on his films has been discussed in multiple film studies of Kubrick's work, particularly with his unrealized attempt to make a Holocaust film. Kubrick's collaborator on 2001: A Space Odyssey Arthur C. Clarke routinely referred to SK as "Jewish" in interviews, as did Kubirck's collaborator on Eyes Wide Shut, Frederic Raphael. Articles on Kubrick's work have appeared in journals that cover Jewish theatre. His bio is covered in the anthology "American Jewish biographies" and also in "American Jewish Filmmakers". He is described as Jewish in recent editions of Encyclopedia Britannica. Yes, he was not a practicing or believing Jew, but Judaism is a cultural heritage and ethnicity as well as a religion.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the unsigned post, this article states that "SK" is Jewish, whereas on the article about his life it clearly states that he did not follow any earthly religion, nor did he have a religious upbringing. Just because Encyclopedia Britannica says something doesn't make it true, especially when there are numerous quotes from Kubrick himself saying he was not religious. Please amend the article. <Hoj ferwerk (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)>

I have amended the article to read "of Jewish descent" but honestly American Heritage dictionary defines "Jewish" as "adj. Of or relating to the Jews or their culture or religion." (emphasis added). Anyone who grew up in a Jewish neighborhood (as I did) knows that the word "Jewish" can mean "culturally Jewish" or "ethnically Jewish". They are what is known as a Ethnoreligious group. See also Who is a Jew?. Jews regard anyone descended from a Jew by matrilineal descent as "Jewish". As noted above, multiple screen collaborators and scholars routinely refer to Kubrick as Jewish.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Venetian Masks in Eyes Wide Shut

In addition to various vendors of Venetian masks using EWS as publicity (as I noted in the edit summary), two actual stores in Venice are on record as having supplied masks to the actual production of EWS. The are Ca' Macana and Il Canovaccio. However, I am puzzled as to why simply observing the masks are Venetian would constitute original research. Virtually any undergrad theatre major specializing in costume design could tell you they are Venetian. It is what I would call "textbook" knowledge - i.e basic literacy in the field- ultimately no more OR than saying James Bond wears a Hawaiian shirt in the film Die Another Day or Burt Reynolds drove a Pontiac in Smokey and the Bandit. (I was going to refer to Ferris Bueller's Ferrari, but it is mentioned in the film dialogue that it is a Ferrari, so it doesn't support my point.)
It was correct to delete the plot point about the sex party being "a hierogamy-inspired sexual ritual". Although this is highly probable, given the monk's robes and chanting, it is not directly stated, and it has to be inferred through a line of reasoning, thus indeed is WP:synthesis.
However, observation and inference are not the same.
I would thus think that simply stating the masks are Venetian does not constitute original research.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Because you are identifying them as such in the absence of reliably sourced references. You may know what a Venetian mask looks like. You may know that they wore masks in the film. to connect the two uses you as the crucible, and that constitutes synthesis.

The problem here is that you note that " (v)irtually any undergrad theatre major specializing in costume design could tell you they are Venetian". As I am sure you are aware, we do not write for undergrad theater majors. We write for the common man, who knows them as a mask. If the fact that they are Venetian masks were vital to an understanding of the plot, someone citable would have said so. In the absence of such, we cannot connect the dots.

As for the examples you noted, the article for Die Another Day doesn't mention bond wearing a Hawaiian shirt (though part of the film was indeed filmed in Maui). As for the Smokey and the Bandit Pontiac Trans Am reference is arguably important because it introduced a line of cars in the film. that said, the plot of that article is a crufty disaster, begging for clean-up. I also wanted to point out that I thought it was exceedingly stand-up of you to note that the Ferrari reference in Ferris Bueller didn't fit your hypothesis. I applaud that.

In short, we cannot add out personal expertise as text. We can use that expertise to eliminate clearly incorrect viewpoints (the masks were not of ex-Presidents, a la Point Break or various clowns), but we cannot specify what they were. We need someone citable to do that, and then we include them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've added references, plus deleted another mention of Venetian in the plot where it obviously is wrong. (Nick Nightingale does NOT tell Bill Harford he has to wear specifically a Venetian mask. That was in the plot summary and is just wrong.) I was never claiming the WP articles on Bond or Bueller said any such thing. Those were just hypothetical examples. A long article on the symbolic significance of specifically Venetian masks in Eyes Wide Shut (not one of my official references in the article) is at http://madamepickwickartblog.com/?p=9198 --WickerGuy (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, your addition:

"Men and women watch, clad in black robes and wearing masks (mostly Venetian) and while Nick plays the organ blindfolded."

I am still having a problem with the way you are offering this information, Wickerguy. You are yourself qualifying that only "some" of the masks are Venetian in design. As well, you are noting that "multiple" vendors have used EWS as publicity, yet your citation only notes only one that makes an unsubstantiated claim that they were purchased from Ca' Macana. Again the problem is that you cannot add your knowledge of the subject matter here. At all. Ever. Pardonthe forcefulness of that statement, but it cannot be impressed upon an editor enough that we are not writers; we will never, ever receive stand-alone credit for our contributions here, and one can either write a book about it, accept the anonymity or leave eventually in authorial frustration.

That said, here is an alternative to your text:

"Men and women watch, ornately masked and clad in black robes while Nick plays the organ blindfolded."

This avoids having to identify the types of masks being presented (as they seem tertiary to the actual story) while simultaneously recognizing the fact that the masks are fancy, and not, like a child's Transformer Halloween mask (and dude, seeing something like that would have made me bust out laughing).

Madame Pickwick's blog (which i am not sure we can use, as it is explicitly a blog by unknown and unidentified raconteurs ) aside, I am still not convinced we have any proper citation of the masks being Venetian. Maybe you could get some input on the Madame Pickwick Art Blog from the RS noticeboard. if you choose to seek confirmation there, please post a link to the discussion, so we can follow it.

As well, i will be trimming out the sneaky OR about the mansion being Mentmore Towers. It might have actually been such, but it neither belongs in this section (production is better), and a strong argument exists for it not being mentioned at all, as it is rather pure synthesis. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind; I've initiated discussion there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of quick notes

a) I didn't put in the stuff about Mentmore Towers. It clearly does not belong.

b) I didn't put the Madame Pickwick stuff in the main article, only in the Talk page, but it is a modest indicator that there is potential significance to the masks being Venetian.

More to come.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Case closed (I hope)

The closing credits to Eyes Wide Shut contain a credit for "Venetian Masks Research". But want to incorporate what reliable published Kubrick books say about them in article. Later today.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wickerguy, I am sorry if I intimated that you were responsible for the Mentmore Towers addition; I haven't the foggiest as to who added it. I was just noting that I removed it for the same reasons I was leery of using the references to the Venetian masks. As well, I am aware of the presence of the Pickwick citation being used only here in discussion. However, due to the weight that cited references have in discussions, it is usually best to use the same sorts of citations that can used in the article, as intimations aren't the same as solid proof.

I look forward to seeing more of your research later on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just being sure about Mentmore Towers. Mentmore Towers is a place in England. If (a big 'if') it was used in the film it was as a location, but since it isn't in New York, it could not possibly serve as a plot point, unlike the location of Somerton. (There is no Somerton district in New York, but the film says there is one, so that is a plot point. Fictional sub-locations are nothing new, just as the TV series The Shield is set in the "Farmington" district of Los Angeles- no such district exists.) More anon--WickerGuy (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Several sources do in fact say Mentmore Towers was the filming location of the mansion in EWS. However, a link to it (without mentioning it) in the "plot" section does seem inappropriate to me. Some other section on "production" could mention it.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The following sources all confirm the masks are indeed Venetian

"Kubrick, inside a film artist's maze" by Thomas Allen Nelson p. 322
Depth of field: Stanley Kubrick, film, and the uses of history by Geoffrey Cocks, James Diedrick, Glenn Wesley Perusek p. 290,
The wolf at the door: Stanley Kubrick, history, & the Holocaust by Geoffrey Cocks p. 143
Cinema's illusions, opera's allure: the operatic impulse in film by David P. Schroeder p. 293

It would be overkill to list all in the main article just to establish they are Venetian so I will use the last one.
Will also add the research credit and A second footnote will mention travelogues mentioning the mask shops Kubrick used.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I wish to add that this still seems a bit pedantic. The list of folks who could easily identify the masks as Venetian not only includes virtually all professional costume designers (as I previously noted), but also any opera afficionado, and virtually every resident of Italy. The rule against original research means just that, "original". I comply here on the grounds that WP says "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source". Well, the material was challenged (condition 1), but before it happened I would have considered it highly improbable that it would be (condition 2).--WickerGuy (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for seeking out those sources, WickerGuy. Btw, see below for the way you likely should have cited the books here, so the examples could be perused. For the article, you can use instead either the citeweb or citebook template:

• Kubrick, inside a film artist's maze by Thomas Allen Nelson (1)
• Depth of Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History by Geoffrey Cocks, James Diedrick, Glenn Wesley Perusek (2)
• The Wolf at the Door: Stanley Kubrick, History, & the Holocaust By Geoffrey Cocks (3)
• Cinema's Illusions, Opera's Allure: The Operatic Impulse in Film by David P. Schroeder (4)

This way, we can verify that the usage of Venetian masks in EWS is explicitly stated. I stress 'explicitly' because you knowing what a Venetian mask is and seeing it in the film does not equate to you being able to remark that the mask is indeed of Venetian design/type in the article - that would be you using uncommon knowledge to advance the theory that they are indeed Venetian masks. And that would be the definition of synthesis. For that reason, you should likely choose a source that more explicitly notes the usage as a choice than #4 is. I think your winner would be #3.

That said, these four sources would seem to provide a pretty solid framework for a themes subsection of a production section. All talk about the usage of Venetian masks as an explicit choice with allegorical overtones. Good job in finding them. I admit that I had previously been of the opinion that the types of masks used were simply props and of trivial importance. It would appear from the four sources above that this is not the case. Again, good job in locating them. :)

I know it seems nitpicky (pedantic) to require citation for the masks, but people were using the masks as a launching point for a crapload of uncited info. We do not write for a select group of people, such as Italians, opera fans or costume designers. We write for everyone, which includes folk who don't know a Shop Mistress from a Garden Hoe. This doesn't necessarily require us to dumb it down (for precisely that reason, we use citations, so the reader can choose to pursue more info thataway), but it does require us to avoid making intuitive leaps (or logical deductions based on our personal expertise). We allow the reader to make their own assumptions and connections.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

I've removed the recently added text:

"Bill takes a cab to the party in a mansion on Long Island. What he finds inside is an orgy involving women clad in masks and G-strings and led by an ominous man dressed and masked in red. Men and women watch, wearing black robes and Venetian (See Cinema's illusions, opera's allure: the operatic impulse in film by David P. Schroeder p. 293 The film contains a closing credit for Venetian Mask Research at 2:35:47 on the DVD) (Numerous manufacturers of Venetian masks used Eyes Wide Shut as publicity after the release of the film. At least two published travel guides to Venice direct readers to shops where Kubrick purchased the masks. See Venice and the Veneto by Damien Simonis p. 159 and Venice. Itineraries, shopping, restaurants, hotels by Giunti, Gruppo Editoriale p. 51) carnival masks while Nick plays the organ blindfolded."

Again, we cannot frame the information, Wickerguy. The quality of the citations is nice, but not sufficient to the claims you are making about them. We do not go into detail in footnotes about the info. We make a statement and cite it, much like I did above. Take a look at some featured articles for some hints on how it is done. That's what we are aiming for her; anything less is a waste of time and energy. If you are going to cite the DVD, you need to use the citevideo template; realize that it is one of the weaker sorts of citations we use, and it is always a bone of contention.
Also, understand that you need to keep your language as neutral as possible. "At least two travel guides" is not neutral; "some travel guides" is. As well, do not exceed what the citations says. I saw one travel guide notation - and no provenance for it all. That could be some loon with a typewriter, for all you know. Find it in Fodor's or something equally reliable and notable, or its going to be removed as trivial or non-notable.
A better way of writing the above passage would be as follows. I am using the citebook template, which uses the original book as a source, but includes a weblink to the Google books entry I found earlier:

"Bill takes a cab to the party in a mansion on Long Island. What he finds inside is an orgy involving women clad in masks and G-strings and led by an ominous man dressed and masked in red. Men and women watch, wearing black robes and Venetian carnival masks while Nick plays the organ blindfolded."

See? Short and sweet. Part of finding citations (usually, for something a bit older, there are loads of citations) is sitting down to ensure that the citation you finally use is the best of the lot, not just the quickest. We are not in a hurry here. Allow me to repeat that: we are not in a hurry here. Take your time, pick the right source and add it using the correct method. There are certain stitches that should be avoided in certain fabrics, like silk or velvet. The same principle applies here; measure twice and cut once, or rather, weigh your citations twice and then insert them correctly. that way you never have to do it more than once. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed underutilizing the templates you mention, and will strive to make more use of them.

I appreciate your point "but people were using the masks as a launching point for a crapload of uncited info." I don't wish to draw much of an inference from the masks being Venetian, only to note they are such and let readers draw their own conclusions (many of which may be inappropriate for WP). However, your immediately following assertion seems strange.

Italians are not a "select [or specialized] group of people". They are an entire nationality!! I'm inclined to guess that over a third of Europeans can instantly recognize the masks as Venetian, though I imagine relatively few Americans and Canadians can. There is a section Wikipedia:When to cite that says you do not need to cite "subject-specific common knowledge" specifically

Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions."

Are we saying if something is common knowledge in some countries but not in the USA, it still needs a citation?? This is looking like a debate between Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue

I realize I failed to mention the publisher of the travel guide, but don't leap to the unwarranted conclusion it has "no provenance". It's a real book published by Lonely Planet the largest publisher of travel guide books in the world, and owned by the BBC!!! Not exactly the folks who hire "some loon with a typewriter"!!!

I confess I utterly fail to understand why "at least two travel guides" is non-neutral, and "some guides" is. It simply means I know of two such guides- there may be others.

According to WP:Footnotes (Emphasis added), "Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes. First, to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article. Second, they are used to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article." The first of these is exactly what I was doing with the business about travel guides to Venice. It's interesting & useful supplementary information which would be distracting in the text.

Holding changes for now. Need to look into the templates which I have neglected for too long.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are looking at this a bit differently than I am WickerGuy. In answer to your initial question, yes - if the answer isn't common knowledge, then it should be cited. for example, in China (home of most of the world's population), people point with their middle finger (∧), not realizing the )context of the gesture in the West. Also, wearing a green hat there means that your significant other is cheating on you (∧∧). Now, since most people in China know this, do we need to cite that? Of course we do; its called context. It is at the core of Cite/Don't Cite the Sky is Blue is the kernal of common sense; look at the context in which the sky is being called blue and decide if it needs citation. This is an encyclopedia. When in doubt, cite it and cite it well, if for no other reason than to ensure that the citation stands the test of time and does nothing to interfere with the stability of the article. In short, if it isn't common knowledge (ie, water is wet, rocks are hard), cite it and move on.

You make a valid point about the footnotes, and would be accurate here were it not for the fact that you were adding your own interpretation and synthesis to them. It is almost always better to simply cite the material and allow the reader to explore on their own. If necessary, footnote the precise text of the citation text, so the reader can see the context of the remarks, including prefatory or concluding information surrounding the citation.

As for the travel note about the place that makes Venetian masks, there was a one sentence blurb, with attribution. A similar quote could be some greasy spoon claiming to have the best burger west of the Pecos. Without substantiation, it has no support. Perhaps noting the author of the section, as well as naming the book, would have nipped my comment in the bud. I'm pretty good at reading people and situations - i absolutely suck at reading minds.

Looking outside the box here, it is almost always a mistake to use citations in plot summaries. look at the featured articles (I provided the link earlier); few if any have citations in the summaries. the in depth exploration of this info should be moved to a production section. As there isn't one in this article, create one (after plot and before cast is the standard modus). Also note that the analysis section should be a subsection of the Reception section or an entirely new section entitled Themes and allegory (or some such thing).

A tiny little note here about your use of line breaks, WickerGuy: I've noted that you tend to end your paragraphs using the forced line break "<br />". You don't need to do that, and it tends to turn short conversations into those that involve a lot of scrolling. If you are initiating a conversation (ie, no idents), you can add a simple line break, "<br>" is all that is needed. If you are indenting consecutively, you don't even need a line break; it's done automatically for you. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparison to novel

I think that pointing out every little difference between the film and story is going to denigrate into a trivia section. figure out what the author of the story was trying to say and then figure out ewhat Kubrick was trying to say. Adaptations to film are always rife with alterations from the source material. What is important is the change in how the story is told and why it is told, not the props and plot e devices used to carry the story. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a tough one. Many of these changes are relevant to a thesis developed by both Randy Rasmussen and Rainer Kaus (boht of whom compare the film to the book at great length) that Kubrick's alterations fundamentally revolve around a change in the basic character arc of the husband and wife (Fridolin/Bill and Albertine/Alice). But how far to go on this is hard to say. I kind of see it as a expanding/contracting section. It could next go into some trimming phase. (I also need to find my copy of Mike Chion's essay on the book.)--WickerGuy (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a cite on the password switch, which really needed one. --WickerGuy (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity; is there a notable reason for the password switching, or is the cite simple note the change in password? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That particular cite simply notes the change in password, but it switches emphasis from the wife's fantasy of infidelity (which took place in Denmark in Schnitlzer's story) to the husband's problematic fidelity. Lots of commentators seem intrigued by the password switch, but they aren't always sure what to make of it. It frequently seems to get noted without being interpreted. In short, lots of (non-WP) commentators seem to think it notable without really being sure why.

I think the Fodor's stuff you removed is easily dispensable and not terribly necessary, but I didn't say Fodor's was "notable", I said it was "reliable" in the sense that if they (in particular) say Stanley Kubrick bought masks there one can be virtually certain that they did. Admittedly, it is kind of "icing on the cake" to note they also supplied masks to Branagh and Zefferelli--WickerGuy (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

But you are correct I used "peacock" language. It would be better to describe Fodor's as the "largest and oldest" publisher of travel books (should this get restored) which is more verifiable and objective than "especially reliable".--WickerGuy (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Back to the password. The password change certainly fits with a widespread view that Kubrick has altered the dynamics of the marriage & the personalities of the husband and wife in the story, but I so far know of no one who has actually specifically used the password switch as supporting evidence for this. A widely (though not universally) held view is that Kubrick had made Bill Harford a typical Kubrick protaganist as a sort of over-mechanized person who is sleep-walking through life without being fully aware of his surroundings or the darker elements of life. Some (by no means all) also think Kubrick has made the wife (Alice) into a redemptive figure- hence his major alteration of her dream which is far far darker in the novella. The password change could certainly be one part of that argument, but I know of no one right now who has actually made it. I think it best to just note the password change (as so many others have) and then let readers draw their own conclusions.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is always best when we do that. Our interpretations get in the way of that. That's why we use cites instead. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)