10 Giant Unanswered Questions Posed By Stanley Kubrick's Movies

10. What Does Milich€™s Daughter Whisper to Bill Harford? (Eyes Wide Shut)

K1 While the reputation of legendary filmmaker, Stanley Kubrick, evokes a variety of admirable artistic traits, subtlety isn€™t chief among them. Mischief and provocation rank higher, so it was perhaps along these lines that a scene in Eyes Wide Shut ended up with an intentionally inaudible, whispered line of dialogue. In a film which purposefully strains the audience€™s credulity to the point we question whether it€™s better understood as a dream, this absence of information is tantalising. And Kubrick€™s death, having occurred before its completion, raises the question of whether its content was ever supposed to have been revealed. Given the technological environment and filmmaking culture typical of Kubrick€™s career, it was perhaps reasonable of him to expect that those present could be bound to secrecy; that the screenplays would be archived; that he would have control over his film€™s subtitles, should they be added. Perhaps his sudden death altered history; that and the rapidly increasing capacity of the internet to erase the divide between €œthe scene€ and everything behind it. Personally, I €˜solved€™ the mystery by renting the DVD and reading the subtitles: €œYou should have a cloak lined with ermine,€ is the line, apparently. Certainly, once you€™re listening closely, Leelee Sobieski€™s lips and barest whisper do match it. And the screenplay which eventually found its way online expresses essentially the same idea. So I guess that€™s it, then? Well, no€”not really. The fact remains that, due to Kubrick€™s death, we€™re not sure whether the line was supposed to be inaudible€”whether it would have been the director€™s final intention. By the same token, it€™s foreseeable that Kubrick realised the line would eventually come to light, providing a clue as to the film€™s meaning, hinging upon the significance of ermine. Clues, I should say. Ermine€™s two most obvious significations are virtual opposites. On one hand, its association with European royalty (especially in the context of a costume shop), suggests that Milich€™s daughter (who€™d just been indulging in a little role-play herself, by the looks of things), meant, either sincerely or ironically, that Bill Harford should play a king (or at least binge like one). Its other relationship is to masochism, thanks to Sacher-Masoch€™s novel Venus in Furs, whose titular dominatrix is draped in the stuff, head to toe. Ultimately, we€™ll never know what the line means, or whether we were even meant to hear it. And like many of the ambiguities in Kubrick€™s films, the interpretation we prefer will always be a projection of our own fantasies.
Contributor
Contributor

Can tell the difference between Jack and Vanilla Coke and Vanilla Jack and regular Coke. That is to say, I'm a writer.