Kubrick narrates a strong sense of ambiguity in his films. In this particular film, the central characters, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, are not only playing a married couple, but are also a married couple in real life. By the nature of this arrangement, they not only bring authenticity to their roles, but infuse their private histories--an inescapable mirroring of past interactions. As an actor, where do boundaries in playing such roles exist? One might argue, Kubrick has successfully enlisted a real life husband and wife team to play a married couple and is unaware of how he might be exploiting their real life relationship. An important question emerges, does the nature of filming (i.e. take after take) push these individuals into foreign territory in their relationship, affecting their ability to function as a married couple post or even during filming? In the 50th take of a scene, would something new emerge? Although Cruise and Kidman, like any other actor have free will to accept or decline such a role, are people ever fully informed (i.e. can people ever visualize the emerging dynamics/transference of their interactions)? Where Cruise and Kidman aware of the depths and blurred aspects of acting a character which is so closely related to the person you are in your personal life? It seems logical to think that the unconscious dialogue will naturally continue in all settings where there is a transference in place. There is also the tendency to get lost in the image, in this case not only in the self, but also acting with someone whom you carry an unconscious connection with already. The potential to get lost in the self is infinite. It seems actors have to fight the encasement that their image traps them in if they chose to evolve. One might ask if their relationship had the type of flexibility it takes to maintain a favorable relationship climate despite the depths that filming such a film might take them. Are these actors acting or has Kubrick lured these two actors under the pretense that their job is simply to act the characters that had been scripted for them? Does he in fact hope to get at the unconscious dynamic that already exists in Cruise's and Kidman's real life marriage? Years later Cruise and Kidman did divorce. It is difficult to finely tune which aspects of events are indeed with consequence. In Kidman's interview, she touches upon the unfinished nature of even her relationship with Kubrick. The interviewer also seems to quietly pry into nature of her role in this film. Please see below to view excerpts from Kidman's interview.

Was this film a prelude or dress rehearsal for future outcomes? Can you reverse causality?

In this sense, what else might we expect from Kubrick? Is Kubrick toying with the unconscious aspects of all his characters, audience included. There's a certain persistence and intentional quality about the music he has selected. Typically in films, music tends to precede action, meaning the music tends to build awareness and heightens the viewer's expectation that something is about to occur. However in Kubrick's case he does not decrease tension levels, but rather frustrates the viewer and typically leaves tension levels unresolved. In the following clip, Kubrick also narrates a feeling of being followed, singled out and chased--there's also a question of whether we, the audience, are the chaser the chased.

Kubrick also uses limited dialogue and stiff acting to again stir tension levels. Camera angles and saturated colors also add to the surreal quality of this film. While Kubrick was an artful and skilled director at the physical product he created, some might argue that what he was most skilled at, was what was left unsaid and ambiguously implied--provoking at the hidden aspects of a collective unconscious.