Eyes Wide Shut Chad'z rating: *** (out of 4 = good) 1999, R, 159 minutes [2 hours, 39 minutes] [drama/thriller] Starring: Tom Cruise (Dr. William Harford), Nicole Kidman (Alice Harford), Sydney Pollack (Victor Ziegler), Todd Field (Nick Nightingale); written by Stanley Kubrick, Frederic Raphael; produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick; inspired by the novella `Traumnovelle' by Arthur Schnitzler.
Seen July 24, 1999 at 8:45 p.m. at Crossgates Cinema 18 (Guilderland, NY), theater #12, by myself for free using my Hoyts season pass. [Theater rating: ***: very good sound, good seats, average picture]
I was just on the Internet chatting with a friend of mine and fellow film critic Ian Waldron-Mantgani who's usually anxious to hear my verdict on most newly-released films since I get to see them before he does (he lives in England and most films don't open overseas until a few months after their American premiere). I told him `Eyes Wide Shut' is a lot like every other Stanley Kubrick film - weird. But when he asked me if it was `good weird' or `bad weird' I couldn't think of an honest answer, so I guess I would just have to say yes. How could a film that had undergone super-ultra-mega-secretive production for 18 months not have some kind of stigma attached to it? I, and the entire world for that matter, really didn't know what to expect from `Eyes Wide Shut.' All we'd been told officially is that it's a story of sexual jealously and obsession, but everyone (myself included) suspected it was going to be a twisted, surreal drama that would push sexuality in movies to another level (a la `Crash' or `The Cook, The Thief, His Wife And Her Lover' - two films which disgusted and offended me). And now that the film is finally released as its auteur intended it to be (well... there is that controversy over 65 seconds of digitally-superimposed figures - more on this later), is the final product as extreme as the hype said or is it just the way Kubrick makes movies? Yes. It's hard to think of any other movie where I could tell you that probably everything you've heard about it is true and false at the same time. Yes, it is a surreal, sexual drama pushing the boundaries of mainstream movies. Yes, it does have outrageous sex scenes and innuendo. Yes, Cruise and Kidman endure a helluva lot to get through this picture. But it's not softcore porn for the masses and it really isn't that `sexy' per se. Every Kubrick film is different from every other film in terms of genres and storylines, but the theme and mood to `Eyes Wide Shut' are in the same spirit of style of his complete filmography. It's weird, surreal, shocking, intriguing and bizarre - but it's up to the individual viewer to determine whether these elements work for them or not. The story is basically realistic and believable on some levels, but I don't think it expects us to believe it could take place in the reality we know (it better not). The first half of the film is told in classic Kubrick fashion - it slowly lays the foundation of the story and emphasizes the characteristics of the main players. It is also tricky in its delivery so that when the plot begins to boil, slowly at first but then very rapidly, we realize we've mistaken the obvious for the subtle and vice versa. We meet Dr. William Harford (Cruise) and his wife Alice (Kidman), an upscale Manhattan couple who may or may not be part of the higher social order among New York's wealthy and important people. They attend a huge party hosted by their friend Victor Ziegler (Pollack) and after separating we're led to believe they are either an unhappy couple or swingers. This scene is one of the most important parts of the film and also one of the strangest. Alice has a bit too much to drink and finds herself swept off her feet by an extremely dapper South American man who speaks in the kind of eloquent phrases you only hear in soap operas but with all the suaveness of James Bond. Meanwhile, William is charming two beautiful models in the same overly-eloquent small talk which has kept his wife at bay. But just when you think you know where this is about to go a small emergency crops up and suddenly the tone is serious. The film then spends a long duration exploring the Harford's martial bliss and fidelity. They find themselves arguing over the other's actions at the party which then leads to even more exploration of their sexual curiosity. They do seem to be compatible and a few romance scenes back that up, but there seems to be something missing. During an argument Alice tells William, in explicit detail, about a fantasy she had about another man which she's convinced she could have followed through on and it would have been worth the repercussions at home. I'm not sure if married people ever have to deal with these kinds of problems, but the atmosphere here is so tight and so chiseled with the finest details that the drama definitely seems believable and goes a long way towards establishing William's character and what happens to him after the turning point in the story. And what that point is could be one of the strangest and most perverse in film history. Because William is so subconsciously outraged that his wife could possibly have such strong sexual desires he finds himself sucked into the New York underworld. First, he comes close to patronizing a prostitute and then visits his friend from medical school, Nick Nightingale (Field) who is now a piano player in a jazz bar, and amazingly (and coinincidentally) enough has connections to a secret society. This is the part `Eyes Wide Shut' will be remembered for. It involves a twisted, unsettling plot element which is also photographed in such a way to `set a new record' for a commercial motion picture. Considering that almost everything about the film has been about sex, sexuality and the various taboos associated with it, and the fact that Harford is about to crash a secret society's meeting, it's clear what's going to happen here. It's also wherein a controversy lies over the digital altering of 65 seconds of the film. Suffice to say that if you don't know what has been superimposed you probably won't be able to tell. I really don't have a problem with this digital imagery, even if it was done against Kubrick's wishes (most say he would never approve of this form of censorship, but others argue he would have to get an R rating), what bothered me the most is just the idea of it all. The tone and the attitude of the society is scary because it seems to be a religion about sex, yet at the same time, once the ceremony is over it's not much different from a porno movie. Kubrick can be weird at times, but when he dabbles with sex it almost always comes off as gratuitous and completely unnecessary (one of the major reasons `A Clockwork Orange' falls short of true greatness). What's more, it's not what the society does that accounts for the turning point in the story, it's just their sheer existence. Since this is the case, why not stick with the secret religious cult aspect? From here the film takes a sharp turn towards a different mood, plot and storytelling form. It becomes an intense psychological thriller and an interesting mystery as Harford realizes he has been part of something so unbelievable he can't comprehend it and refuses to believe it. Especially after his life and safety and that of his family are threated by these strangers who somehow know everything about him. Like the viewer, he starts to look for logical answers but the more he uncovers the more paranoid he becomes. The second half of the film is just the continuation of Kubrick's elaborate mind game. In some ways it's just as surreal and bizarre as all the sexuality explored during the first half. Not unlike `The Game' and `The Spanish Prisoner' we're suddenly feeling for a common man trying to figure out why the entire world suddenly seems against him and how he can fight them without much power of his own. Slowly the story begins to unwind and many answers are provided, but not all of them and especially not the most important ones. Is it because the screenplay is lacking? Possibly, but I'd suspect it's just Kubrick toying with us as he does so well. Aside from the direction and use of theme, many other aspects of `Eyes Wide Shut' deserve kudos: Cruise's performance which proves once and for all he's not just a pretty-boy (do I hear another Oscar nod?); the cinematography which manages to blast each frame full of glowing, rich light but simultaneously gives a sense of darkness, fear, and mystery; the outstanding set and production design which completely captures the essence of modern New York City (the film was not shot on location, everything was constructed on a sound stage!); along with some other subtlties such as its sense of humor, the score and soundtrack, etc. To answer Ian's question, I'd have to honestly say that `Eyes Wide Shut' is that the good weird parts outweigh the bad weird parts, but there's so much more that could have been done. Kubrick leaves us wanting more, but I have a feeling if we look at this hard enough we'll be content with what we have.
--------------------------------- Please visit Chad'z Movie Page - over 230 new and old movies reviewed in-depth, not just blind ratings and blather capsules.
Associate member of The O.F.C.S. (Online Film Critics Society)
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