So, The Penis Tray.
Did Film Historian, and Producer, Geoffrey Cocks spot that one?
Another ludicrous thing that there's no actual evidence to back up.
Ignore Republicans; then you rob them of their lies having any influence. http://foxnewslies.net/
that was early on in the film, and it was my first clue that this film would be chock-full of some pretty ridiculous conjectures. Then, he goes on to say that Kubrick is air-brushed up in the clouds... uhhh no...
share
Did anyone notice how most of the commentators where in their 50's, 60's?
They went through the 70's...
I had very high hopes for this movie as I actually did a huge english 1103 report several years ago about the hidden messages and meanings in this movie. I was looking forward to seeing this since I heard of it, and I actually enjoyed the first 10 minutes or so. And then I saw the dick tray scene and knew I was being set up to be majorly disappointed.
Seriously, a dick tray??? C'mon man!!!!
I was actually looking for a DILDO in that penis tray scene. I figured, if Jack thinks he's getting himself in trouble reading Playgirl magazine, he might be reassured that his boss is even more of a sexual predator than he is!
www.foebane.co.uk
lol, in the scenes were they tried to show it you cannot notice it at all. I really tried hard to look on whatever it was that was supposed to look like his penis and I couldn't see it.
They should have shown clips a few seconds later when he's standing straight. Then it is much more obvious.
later in the documentary they show it, but then they don't talk about the penis anymore.
Well, it's funny actually...
If you forward the film to the scene where Danny is talking to Holloran.
There's a few frames where the pans over Danny's head, look like a circumcised penis and balls.
Does this mean that Danny is of Jewish origins?
Yeah, that was annoying.
What's irritating with any kind of analysis is that some people think that by "finding" these "symbols," it somehow elevates the art form. Let's say the tray was supposed to be a penis. Let's say Kubrick's face was in the clouds. I say: so what? Does that make it a better film? Does that make the themes more intriguing or profound? No!
This film had a mix of ridiculous and compelling theories. Things like the penis tray were totally absurd. The more fascinating theories are one that have some substance and actually give the film more depth, like the ideas that it reflects coping with history and trauma. Not that every little detail supposedly referencing the Holocaust or killing of Native Americans is legitimate, but there's at least a significant amount of evidence supporting some variations of those analyses.
Yes, the Penis Tray should have been edited out.
Methinks, he might be projecting slightly there.
It's just one guy's opinion.
------
www.abner-dee.com
Since it was a standard office-documents dual tray thing-
Was it the 'in box' or 'out box' ?
He then goes on to say the movie contains several scenes like that, only elaborating that they are even more disturbing -?
Thankfully he stopped there.
Who invited E.T. -?
Geeze, people.
The point of including this (which, by the way, is easy to see; the black bar of the tray just happens to end at the boss's crotch in this one frame) is to show that some of the interpretation of the film is absurd. We are supposed to be laughing at the "expert" at this point. (Hence the next shot, with the invisible Kubrick face in the clouds.)
This is only bad and disappointing filmmaking if you wanted a dry, film-school doc about reasonable interpretations of the film. Which would be a reasonably dull movie. But this is a doc on how interpretations of the film run the gamut from insightful to absurd. The former are meant to be enlightening and the latter are meant to be comical. And they were!
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.share
I seriously doubt that the Commentator had intentions for it to be funny in the way, we find it funny.
Oh, absolutely. Hence "laughing at" the expert as opposed to laughing with. Although I know that some will just roll their eyes ...
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.share
Well... You know what they say...
One man's Penis, is another Man's tray. Of course I'm laughing at him, have you seen the actual scene? A few seconds later, his secretary walks up and sprouts a magical black plastic penis.
Does that mean she is a Transgender?
Equally, does that mean that the "expert" (as you put it), meant for us to post-room 247, laugh at that fact? With him in mind?
More to the point, is Stanley Kubricks face supposed to be in the clouds, so's to, attempt to make it look like he is perving on our good man's plastic tray cock?
Or am I being as ludicrous as the Penis Tray itself?
I think the fact that these people have spent god knows how many hours looking through the film for these kinds of coincidences is pathetic.
'Oooh, look! That tray is positioned right where his cock would be if he had a boner!!'
http://www.lacma.org/sites/default/files/styles/Exhibition_Highlighted_Object_Popup/public/Eyes%20Wide%20Shut.jpg
And I said to him, "Stand there, it'll make your cock look this big."
When we watched this and the commentator said that he was saving most of his theories for his own film, I was disappointed, thinking they might be cool. Then he explained the penis tray, and it become "That's okay. We don't need to see the rest of them."
"You liked Rashomon."share
"That's not how I remember it."
I think "His film", may well be something to do with Cocks.
Will probably be called something like "Stainley Kubrick".
[deleted]