Talk:Eyes Wide Shut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:

New York Magazine: The Eyes Wide Shut Conspiracy - Did Stanley Kubrick warn us about Jeffrey Epstein? by Lane Brown

Stanley Kubrick's death

Stanley Kubrick's death has to mentioned in this movie page because there are a lot of clues about a secret group that wanted him dead before the Eyes Wide Shut release =) Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If the clandestine cabal wanted him dead before the release, then why didn't they kill him... before the release? Why didn't they kill him before the film was anywhere near completion? Why didn't they see to it that the film never felt the pure illumination of a xenon projection lamp? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.148.214 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Film Ends - Daughter handing over to the satanic sect

The film finally ends with a scene in the store where Alice says that one has to "fuck" now.

I ask for completion of the article at the end of the film:

In the department store scene you can see at the end 2 older men who were also at the party to the beginning of the film. These two older men take the daughter with them. Father and mother are unconcerned and let this happen, even handed over by facial expression, gestures and lead with the hands of the daughter to these 2 older men. It can be assumed that father and mother are now also in this satanic sex and murder sect and even sacrifice (child sex, rituals) their own daughter for it. We can interpret the whole movie in such a way as to show how such a powerful evil circle, new perpetrators and victims are fed.

We can interpret the whole film in a way that shows how such a powerful and satanic circle, new offenders and victims are fed. The film shows how such a satanic sect works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:7F18:405B:6453:226E:5BCA (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You can interpret it that way but that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH]] and does not belong in the article. It could go in your blog or facebook page though. MarnetteD|Talk 16:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Genre

Is "dream-logic" really a genre? The link goes to Oneiric (film theory), which specifically states that it applies to film analysis and it is not a genre in itself. I think the genre should be "erotic drama" or maybe "psychological erotic drama" or something along those lines. "Dream-logic" doesn't really count as a genre because it's more related to the style of the film than it is the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whovian99 (talk • contribs) 06:30, December 16, 2018 (UTC)

No, it should not be included as a genre classification. Perhaps it can be used elsewhere in the article body with reliable sourcing, but not in the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculously written

This article may be the worst I have ever read on Wikipedia. It appears to have been written by a fan obsessed with the film who enjoys discussing the intricacies of every detail of the film. Encyclopedia articles should be concise and to the point. Much of what is included in this article should be left to the clubs of movie buffs. I encourage other editors to join me in removing the unnecessary and obsessive details of every element regarding this film. MarydaleEd (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried to partially remedy it but it still needs a lot of work, particularly since the film it's about deserves better quality. That being said, I've seen worse. CodeInconnu (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Kubrick’s Dark Rainbow (?)

Book is not a source of reference used for the Wikipedia article. In my opinion, the book is only noted as ‘further reading’ as advertising for a self-published product. Amazon reviews written in a very close timespan that are very similar in writing style and tone. I’ve read every and anything Kubrick-related that my library (and inter-library loans) can access and have never seen or read mention of the author anywhere. Marketing over merit. WJPK (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Peer review

Eyes Wide Shut

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article looks to me good enough to be promoted to at least GA and I'd like a peer review before submitting it.

Thanks, Oneiros (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

I added some citation needed tags to the article
The "Controversies" section needs a revamp. A section heading like "Controversies" is not recommended on Wikipedia as it is not WP:NPOV. The section also overly relies on block quotes, when articles should be summaries of content. I think the debate about the film's completion should be moved to "development" as it is discussing that aspect.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Plifal

some of my comments will likely be more fac level, but hopefully should be helpful!

lead

"centers on a Manhattan doctor" should probably be something like "a doctor living in Manhattan", a Manhattan doctor sounds like a drink lol
"infiltrates a masked orgy of a secret society." > "infiltrates a secret society that hosts masked orgies."
"international co-production" this information isn't found in the body. the lead should be a reflection of the content of the body so the citation here should also be unnecessary.
"The film's production, at 400 days, holds the Guinness World Record for the longest continuous film shoot." > the body doesn't mention 400 days, instead giving the figure in weeks.

plot

looks good, no notes.

production

link Dream Story in its first appearance in the body.
remove the 'see also' template under adaptation.
suggest placing the adaptation sub-section under the development sub-section (as in, use sub-heading 2 and have 'adaptation' as a sub-sub-heading).
MOS:FILMDIFF encourages real-world context as to why the changes were made, or interesting production differences that necessitated these changes; occasionally it feels as if the film drifts into listing differences (particularly in the unsourced statements). i would keep the bit about the jewishness of the film's character and the "character with no counterpart", the rest can be cut or edited down/around.
"Film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum notes that both passwords echo elements of one member of the couple's behavior, though in opposite ways." > closer to themes or analysis than production.
include the year of release following the titles of Dr. Strangelove (1964), The Shining (1980) and Lolita (1962).
ideally the information regarding jason-leigh and keitel should be split between casting and filming, as they encompass both.
- suggestion, casting: "Both ultimately dropped out of the production, reportedly due to scheduling conflicts.[38] Leigh was replaced by Marie Richardson, and Keitel by Sydney Pollack.[12]

filming: "During filming, Keitel departed the project to appear in Finding Graceland,[39] followed by Leigh, who was shooting eXistenZ with David Cronenberg.[40] Decades later, Keitel said that he had quit after feeling like Kubrick had "disrespected" him; Gary Oldman added that the breaking point was after Kubrick asked Keitel to do dozens of takes for a scene of his character walking through a doorway.[41][42]"

include the year of release following the titles of Finding Graceland (1998) and eXistenZ (1999).
"The Guinness World Records recognized Eyes Wide Shut as the longest constant movie shoot that ran "...for over 15 months, a period that included an unbroken shoot of 46 weeks"" should be rephrased to avoid quotation.
include the year of release following the title of Barry Lyndon (1975).
"The color was enhanced by push processing the film reels (emulsion) which helped bring out the intensity of the color and emphasize highlights." > a general reader won't understand what is meant by "push processing the film reels (emulsion)" and the sentence includes a description of enhanced colour twice. would recommend rephrasing this.
"Kubrick's perfectionism led him to oversee" > suggest "Kubrick's perfectionism caused him to oversee"