Not bad, Doug! This film was dismissed by many upon its release but it lingers and I think it may be Kubrick’s best film. It’s certainly his most ambiguous, and I think there are many more layers to uncover than even the ones you’ve mentioned so far.
Oh, that’s for sure. Every frame seems to have something more complex in it throughout the entire picture. I just love it!
^^I don’t think the ‘shut’ reference is only to their personal relationship, it also relates to Cruise’s naivety to the evil around him. To the company he keeps. which makes the ending problematic. to accept it as a ‘optimistic’ ending, you have to accept that the couple have wiser than they were previously, and i’m not sure that is the case. it is certainly debatable.
Personally i don’t see any value in analysing films to death. Once i’ve reached a conclusion on what a film is about, and do some independent research(if necessary), i just simply move on, unless i’m discussing with friends or a new interpretation comes to light.
Personally i don’t see any value in analysing films to death.
I’m with you there, Joks. Honestly, I either like a film or I don’t. Analyzing it to force myself to “like” it based on interpretation rather than my experience of the film at the time I saw it is like justifying a beating from your spouse.
Not the way I get my jollies.
House — his best film? We had better never see it together. Talk about beatings… lol
“. Every frame seems to have something more complex in it throughout the entire picture”
There is nothing complex about watching a bald man walk cross the street to Ligeti in overwrought faux-thriller mode though is there? or when Cruise looks at the newspaper and his pupils dilute and the camera moves in closer just to make sure you get the point? So there clearly isn’t complexity in every frame now, is there Douglas? ;-)
ODI: it’s not that i don’t value the work others put in, it’s just that i’m more of a leech and have lots of other things to do. I can’t get stuck on a few handfuls of films. Also, i tend to think that not all films are worthy of such analysis. Most aren’t imo, and when i mean most, i’m not just talking about blockbusters here ;-0
I do agree that you must feel it on a gut level. All the academic analysis in the world could not help me appreciate a lot of the old Hollywood films i watched as an undergraduate, because they didn’t work for me on a number of the fundamental levels necessary for me to give a shit about what was supposedly happening underneath.
Yeah wouldn’t say it’s his best, I save that for Barry Lyndon. I’m overly analytical in my day to day so I find it easy to take a film for what it’s worth. I don’t set out to convince myself that I like something where I really don’t. It’s a good film to watch every few years for me.
I didn’t read through the entire OP but I hope you mentioned the recurring Christmas lights motif in many of the scenes.
Joks — yeah, it’s ok that others put that work in but I just can’t get interested enough to even think about layers if the film didn’t speak to me on a gut level in the first place.
Also, I lose interest after a few “layers.” Even if I loved the film.
Sorta like, at a certain point I’m like — Yeah ok. I loved it. I’m done.
^ FYI you can see why I decided not to go into academia, though I was a very good student.
Moderated
I never thought of Cruise’s character as gay in the film, but it’s certainly a valid interpretation. The only argument I can think of against it is that at one point in the film he is harrassed when walking down the street by some college kids who accuse him of being gay. It seems the reference is a tad too obvious, considering the rest of the film. That is just nitpickin of the worst kind though.
I haven’t seen it in many a year but I remember Cuise’s character being someone who was entirely self conscious, defining his identity through the way others perceived him. There is often an awckward lag between when something happens to him and when he reacts to it, almost as if he is trying to decide the course of action that would best portray him as the man he is desperately trying to come across as. His interactions with other women are essentially a series of aborted sexual encounters where he seems to be going through the motions of how someone of his “stature” would respond before “gallantly” turning them down. Conidering his response (“I trust you”) to his wife asking him how he is so sure she would never cheat on him that kicks off Kidman’s monologue, it is as if even unconsciously he cannot give her the satisfaction of being right about him: defining himself as someone who would rather martyr himself than become that guy, which gives me the impression is the reason his marriage is in trouble in the first place.
Douglas, nice piece about a film I just don’t care for. I think sometimes when big names are attached to a film, names we know have produced quality work, we tend to want to find the deeper meaning in a vase. While I’ll admit it’s been years since I’ve seen the film, the main thing I have against it is the poor performances, I feel, of Cruise and Kidman.
I felt that Cruise was still in his “I idolize Jack Nicholson” phase and trying to do his best Jack impression, and while Kidman is a vastly superior actor than Cruise, I felt she was not up for the role.
I know I’m in a minority here about this, and Rossi and Cecil railed against the allusion, but I feel that the only reason Eyes Wide Shut is even talked about is because of Kubrick’s name. If Isaac Foreman directed the film without a single frame different, would it be anything more than an NC-17 film that just wasn’t up to snuff?
(and I think everyone was lying to Cruise’s character in the film, except Field’s character and girl, and they both end up dead (or at least missing)).
^ I’m in the minority with ya, Uli.
“He told her the secret. But Kubrick didn’t share it.”
I see the core lie in the film as being Cruise’s complicity in the cover-up of Ziegler’s prostitute, Mandy. Cruise’s Hippocratic responsibility as a doctor (how often does Cruise say “I’m a doctor” in the movie) is to provide for Mandy’s well being, but that is hypocritically compromised by his desire to remain in the good graces of Ziegler and his monied stratum and even ascend higher in that social realm. While it would be ideal for her to receive emergency attention after the overdose, a more discreet handling of her health situation is used by the two men as a bargaining chip for social power. And I think this scene in Ziegler’s bathroom is one of the movie’s earliest explicit examples of women as a commodity, as trade-able objects in a man’s world. This becomes symbolically echoed in the sacrifice of the woman at the masked ball for the life of a man (also, oddly, fitting with the Christmas time theme, though I suppose an Easter-time theme would be more appropriate, if less atmospheric). Kubrick’s outlined state of imbalance between men and women in the world of EYES WIDE SHUT obviously bears upon Bill and Alice’s relationship, perhaps because she herself suspects that her, I presume, one-loving but now clearly checked out husband may no longer truly respect her as a real individual in the same way he would a powerful man with status.
I think that when Cruise tell’s Kidman that he will tell here “everything,” he basically gives her the story about the prostitute at the party and the events borne from it: “No, I wasn’t fucking those models…I was pettily kowtowing to an amoral, privileged billionaire.”
“one of the movie’s earliest explicit examples of women as a commodity, as trade-able objects in a man’s world.”
also seen in the second shopkeeper scene, where he has obviously prostituted his daughter.
I count myself among the (seemingly tiny, at least in mubi) faithful that believe “Eyes Wide Shut” is very near the top of the list of Kubrick’s best films.
If “Eyes Wide Shut” had been directed by some no-name it would have been far better received. Part of the reason for the mixed reviews and the (inexplicable) hate is the fact people had a very specific idea in mind about what a film by Stanley Kubrick starring Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise should (and should not) be.
Hellshocked, that’s interesting, what do you think was expected?
I am both a pro “Eyes Wide Shut” and anti “Eyes Wide Shut” viewer. There are so many flaws on the basic narrative level that one is almost forced to enjoy it as a dream. But it is NOT what I think of as a “dream movie” (like Last Year at Marienbad) it is very much a narrative film with a good deal of surreal content. David Lynch works in this way, but has a much better grasp on how take surreal material and somehow make it feel cohesive.Like Uli I think the usually good Nicole Kidman is really pretty awful in this. In her “high” scene, she sounds more “pretentious” then “high.” It is very bad! I kind of wish Sydney Pollack could have played all the parts, because he puts in the only good performance (as far as the main characters go). I also sense a kind of immature impulse on Kubrick’s part to be edgy and shocking in a way that does not work. The ending is very “teenage irony”. “Immature” and “teenage” are the wrong words, but I can’t think of the right ones. Also: using a mask as a symbol is way too basic, and thus I find the super fast zoom in on the mask kind of…funny. Though I just saw Le Plasier which uses a mask as symbol, so maybe the mask could have worked if it was handled with a lighter touch. All that said, the visual control and uniqueness of the film make it still very interesting to me. I have watched it many times because it is fascinating, but the flaws do not diminish over multiple viewings. I think its a great misfire.
^ Well put, Two Plus Two. I agree about the misfires and flaws you name.
Sorry, but I’m not clear. What are the “flaws on the basic narrative level” in EYES WIDE SHUT?
As I recall, Kubrick had long been interested in making a mainstream porno movie and there were all sorts of rumors about whether Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman would have hardcore sex on screen, something the marketing campaign (particularly the brilliant trailer) cleverly played into. I have a feeling (this is entirely 100% opinion on my part, of course) that people expected a study on eroticism or, at the very least, a film about sex that would push boundaries. Something closer to “Last Tango in Paris”, perhaps, than the film that was ultimately released.
It also doesn’t help that it came on the heels of Kubrick’s two most accessible films in a while, that the two year production was very publicized and that he died just before its release. Expectations were through the roof and anything other than the greatest film ever made by anyone in the history of cinema was bound to be at least a minor letdown.
Also: few people, if any, talk about “Spartacus” today…
Kubrick had long been interested in making a mainstream porno movie and there were all sorts of rumors about whether Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman would have hardcore sex on screen, something the marketing campaign (particularly the brilliant trailer) cleverly played into.
Yawn…
Why didn’t he just go ahead and make a porno movie then?
Can’t disagree, Hellshocked. I remember somehow getting the impression that the film was going to be some kind of latterday DANGEROUS LIAISONS set in NYC.
And of course my impressions were wrong — I had to see the film a couple of times before I was able to put aside what I had been expecting and get a handle on what I was actually being shown.
“…anything other than the greatest film ever made by anyone…”
I don’t disagree with you there, Hellshocked, and I think what you see in our differing arguments are the flipside of the same coin, I say some people love it because it was made by Kubrick, damn the actual quality of the film, and it seems part of your argument is that that because it is Kubrick and not maybe it didn’t live up to their expectations, they dislike the film, damn the actual quality of the film.
“Why didn’t he just go ahead and make a porno movie then?”
Can you imagine how dry a Kubrick porno would be?
“Do you wish to engage in coitus?”
(Woman glares into camera)
HA HA HA HA
And THAT is why EWS so goddamn ineffective. Kubrick + sex = zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
is so
Can you imagine an orgasm scene?
(Cue “Ode to Joy” while the man thrusts violently in slow motion, sweat flying from his body)
The stuff of hilarity and worthy of infinite mockery, definitely.
Look, Kubrick was not made for sex anything. Really.
Douglas Reese
Re-posted from different topic thread, I wanted to linger and discuss this (and other interpretations) more.
Eyes Wide Shut is about a marriage built on lies (shown by the first scene, in which Cruise already finds himself untruthful to his wife even after she possesses tender care for her husband in a situation as simple as finding a lost wallet) both small and large. It’s also about jealously – not of sexual attraction, but of companionship. When Kidman’s character sees her husband speaking with two models at the party in the opening, she’s obviously jealous of it. Even though it seems like it’s because she fears he fucked them, I think it’s really just the fact that a man she shares strong emotions with is so comfortable around them (I mean, when we see his side of the moment, we realize he’s not really flirting – just being friendly. In fact, he doesn’t seem to be the least bit sexually attracted to the girls – or ANY in the film, even when they all obviously want to get into his pants.)
Why is it called Eyes Wide Shut? It’s because the film it told in both awake and dreamlike states. Cruise’s character seems to be walking around in a dreamlike state because he’s so untruthful to himself and the film is ultimately about their marriage and what grounds it exists on. (They’re eyes are wide shut, meaning it’s found on lies and denials as much as it is dreams and reality.) One of love, one of compassion and care – but one without intimacy and without, well, passion – as the film’s only sex scene between the two (which was cleverly used by Kubrick in the advertisements) is only 30 seconds long and involves the two “making love” in front of the mirror. But Kidman keeps staring into the mirror, suspicious that that spark isn’t there. When Kubrick pans into the mirror into her eyes, the fact that her name is Alice and she’s looking through the mirror makes that much more sense when the film alternates between dream and reality (seamlessly, intentionally).
When she reveals of a “past incident” in which she was willing to drop her entire life and family for the sake of the lust she had for someone else, it seems like this story isn’t brought up to make Cruise jealous. It’s brought up to make him uncomfortable. “You’re TRYING to make me jealous,” he says, not a bit jealous. “Why aren’t you jealous?” she screams. “Because you’re my wife, and I know you’d never be unfaithful to me.” And the fact is, hell, she probably HAS been faithful. It’s just she’s using this fictional account to throw their “faithful companionship” of a marriage out the door. If he can’t trust her, because he DOES trust her and he DOES love her – even if not sexually, it kind of puts him in the predicament where he can’t help but re-evaluate his own unfaithful feelings within himself. As the old college pal (Todd Field) hints at… Cruise’s character is gay. And Kubrick spikes that throughout when homoeroticism left and right. (Notice how Cruise is more flirtatious and comfortable with the passes made to him by the male characters in the film, as compared to the female.) Kubrick shows the film as a waking nightmare, where we dreamily wander through Cruise’s thought processes in the form of archetypes and motfs made from symbolisms layered in the frames of his cinematography, as well as characters. (One played by Vinessa Shaw is called Domino, sporting a black-and-white zebra pattern fur coat, living in apartment 13, in a room decorated by wild animals. Of course, it’s eventually revealed she’s HIV positive.)
Throughout Eyes Wide Shut, there is a pattern of mirrored/reflected scenarios. When there’s one moment in the “dreamlike sequences of the city streets” (aka – a fantasy version of NYC, obviously Europe, colored melancholically in Christmas lights), there’s a chance that character or place will appear or be visited to once again later, where things are better “revealed” – as Alice’s stare into the looking glass seems to finally open her closed eyes to the truth about her husband. There’s a scene midway in the film, where after one of these “dream walks”, Cruise sits in bed after Kidman wakes up laughing. She once again spews out a sexually explicit story that mirrors the orgy we had seen prior. It’s because Kubrick is operating his film on multiple levels of narrative. This is just obviously her character approaching more and more with forcing him to analyze his own truths within himself that he’s hiding from her. (Something that Alice is ignoring and sacrificing her trust bond with him – an aspect Kubrick shows in the dream state with the also masked prostitute that sacrifices herself for his safety.)
The mask in Eyes Wide Shut is the film’s biggest clue of Cruise hiding his true self. In the end, the mask ends up mysteriously “missing”. It’s not until the end of the film, when the dreams are no longer being shown (and Kubrick lingers on Cruise entering the apartment as Cruise shuts off the lights on the living room Christmas tree… makes more sense, doesn’t it?) – he enters the bedroom and sees the mask on the bed. The way Kubrick edits this scene is vastly important to note. Before Cruise is seen entering the apartment, Kubrick shows the mask there… right beside Kidman. When Cruise has finished his dream state of mind, we watch as he breaks down into tears (in short, he’s waking up beside her from this dream nature and finally feeling the guilt… time to tell her the truth). And then, abruptly (as that repetitive piano score is struck and struck), a bleak cut is made to Kidman sitting on the couch the next morning, a cigarette in her hand (almost echoing the fragility of Shelley Duvall in The Shining, in a way). He told her the secret. But Kubrick didn’t share it. And with her reaction, the way Kidman plays it, it’s with acceptance.
It paints new layers to both the performances of Cruise and Kidman and the way Kubrick directs everything throughout the film (rainbows, anyone?)… and it makes the final scene more poignant. That sexual spark may not be there, but they have a commitment to each other nonetheless, and they are now truthful more than ever. They have their daughter to remind them that. Eyes wide open. Awake. The marriage is healed by the pure, simple act of honesty. But there’s only one thing left to do, you see. Keep this marriage going. They still need to fuck.