in EWS is pretty painful, especially in the scenes with Nicole. At
least she can act!)
But if Cruise were able to perform (in the many meanings of that term), then he would not be effective. (Remember the last line: "Fuck.")
As with Marisa Berenson in BARRY LYNDON, Kubrick uses Cruise as an
iconic element of mise en scene rather than in a conventionally actorly
fashion.
>From 2001 onward, Kubrick abandoned conventional performances in his films:
they don't fit with his evolving mise en scene. LOLITA and DR. STRANGELOVE
both have performances that can be appreciated unmoored from their mise en
scene.
But starting with 2001, Kubrick achieves ever greater integration so that
performance
becomes mise en scene. Think of the delicious interplay of Shelley Duvall
and Jack
Nicholson in THE SHINING. Have Ryan O'Neal or Keir Dullea ever been as
effective
in any other film as they were when they worked with Kubrick?
The line deliveries are slowed down in EWS almost to the point of abstraction. There are no "good" performances in the entire film. Kubrick is as radical as George Cukor or Joseph L. Mankiewicz in playing with the nature of performance in a Hollywood studio film (and for all his innovation and experimentation, Kubrick was a studio director for the vast majority of his career).
j:
> cruise thinks himself purer than he is, inhumanly pure, and certainly more
> so than
his fallen wife.
A great insight which is supported by the cab scene where Kubrick films Harford sans any mask whatsoever and you see the savage beneath the skin (which goes back all the way to 2001 in some ways).
Brian