Eyes Wide Shut Director: Stanley Kubrick Screenwriters: Stanley Kubrick,Frederic Raphael Based on Arthur Schnitzler's novel, Traumnovelle Country: GB; Year: 1999 Rating (4 star system): ****
Historical epic. Dark, satirical comedy. Science fiction parable. Costume drama. Horror. If one were to categorize Kubrick's films, these would likely be the categories some of his greatest known works would fit into. While much can gained from such a pursuit, I usually try not to categorize films excessively, but, while viewing Kubrick's final work, it occurred to me that this may be the one that would be most difficult to place in a specific genre. Kubrick is an auteur and, like all great auteurs, his work usually gains more value when viewed as part of a greater body of work. This may sound as if it is some sort of excuse to like the film more than I probably should, but it is not. Instead, I am merely trying to state that Kubrick has always had a unique style and vision. His body of work can nearly be considered as a genre unto itself-- a quality seemingly inherent to the films of many auteurs. The category Eyes Wide Shut most seems to fit into at times would be that of the psychological thriller. I often found myself comparing the film to Carol Reed's The Third Man (1949), and, but for the pacing, I think the parallels hold up well: A man who seems relatively happy with his place in the world finds that the whole basis of his security may have been faulty; he then descends into an underworld that, while always present, he was never aware of. If one considers the scene in which Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten) witnesses the results of Harry Limes' (Orson Welles) black market dealings in the hospital full of bed-ridden victims as the centerpiece of The Third Man, it really makes a nice parallel to the centerpiece orgy scene of Eyes Wide Shut. It is this voyeuristic scene in which Cruise's character, Bill Harford, begins to finally realize that he has entered a world he is not prepared to deal with. An oddity about this scene is in the simple fact that it is a centerpiece. Kubrick's films usually conclude with a scene that offers a final seductive twist or irony, but the "twist" in this film seems to be nearer the middle section. Oddly enough, considering the controversy surrounding the sexual content of the film, this may be Kubrick's most mainstream film yet-- even more so than Spartacus (1960). The conclusion of EWS is so mainstream that it really changes the entirety of the film and, in fact, because of this, perhaps one could say that it is a characteristically "twisted" Kubrick ending. The strength of the film's plotting is that it simply flows... It is much like the frequently repeated piano notes of the film's highly-recognizable, yet somewhat simplistic, score. The film begins somewhat lightheartedly [relatively speaking], then seems to crescendo up to the centerpiece scene and decrescendo to the conclusion. Just as with the most well-crafted symphonies, every moment of the dynamic change is as intense as the next-- it is not a case of peaking intensity, but of peaking dynamic. The credit for this can lie firstly with Kubrick himself. His direction is as fluid as usual, adding just the right touch to every moment, whether it be with camera angle or movement, mise-en-scene, or anything else. Secondly, the film is able to rely on great performances (apparently all those call backs for reshoots paid off). Tom Cruise may give his best performance to date, and proves that he has come a long way since his roles in such films as The Outsiders and Risky Business (both 1883). He matches and compliments the intensity of the film itself with his own intensity, often quiet. I especially liked the way he seemed to be faking sincerity every time he would assume his role as physician-- this may not have been intentional, but it worked. I must say I was surprised by how little Nicole Kidman was actually in the film, but when she was on screen, she was incredible. It may have been a smaller role than expected, but it's the best I've ever seen her. Kubrick is a man of details, and that is why his films have so often taken so long to complete. It pays off here, as it usually does. The most prominent details are the supporting cast members. Even some of the seemingly least important roles are filled with actors of apparently high prowess, making the illusion of the film seem all that more real. Beyond that, the art direction must be mentioned. The entire look of this film is composed of details upon details. New York is so realistically simulated in England that I often found myself thinking I recognized certain places. A testimony to the attention paid to details: the Village Voice newspaper dispenser below a street light in the Greenwhich Village setting. The lighting and decoration of most of the interiors suggests such decadence that it becomes quite believable that you have entered another alternate reality where orgies and over-dosed models are as ordinary as a filthy kitchen sink. All of this leads back to the story, as it should. Of course, every viewer may have their own opinion (and that is one of the charms of Kubrick), but it seemed to be the story of a man whose faith is challenged, and, through numerous brushes with danger beyond belief, is restored-- but not until he has confessed and received forgiveness (or the nearest thing to it). Basically, it is a double-jointed attempt at enforcing certain values by challenging them and, in my opinion, it is successful.
-- TyroneZero's Movies, etc. http://members.tripod.com/~TyroneZero/film.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews