Eyes Wide Shut (rewatch)
Posted by martinteller on December 8, 2007
It has become fashionable, after the initial critical lambasting, to declare that Eyes Wide Shut is a masterpiece, even Kubrick’s best. Perhaps some people desperately want, even NEED, Kubrick’s last film to be a masterpiece, especially after a mixed bag like Full Metal Jacket. In my opinion, it’s not a masterpiece, but it is a fascinating little enigma. The viewer is left to sort out which parts are real and which parts are a dream, or somewhere in between, or if it should even be thought of in those terms. On the surface, one’s instinct is to accept the entire story as reality and then dismiss it as ridiculous. There is even the possibility that Kubrick simply made a ridiculous movie; he’s not infallible, after all. But any film that leaves so much room for interpretation (and this one has endless interpretations, they’re all over the internet) is at least worth thinking about. And the cinematography is, as one always expects from Kubrick, phenomenal. The use of colored lighting is really something special… although I did notice a couple of nagging lens flares that did not seem intentional to me.
What brings EWS down most of all is the acting. Let’s not kid ourselves, Cruise and Kidman are awful in this movie. Kubrick famously said “Real is good, interesting is better”. That’s fine, but the problem here is that the performances are decidedly NOT interesting. They are flat and phony and by all appearances the work of two Hollywood hacks doing what they think is real. Kidman is almost embarrassingly bad, which is surprising because in general I think of her as the more talented one. In my opinion, Kubrick simply made bad casting choices. Remember, this is the same guy who cast Matthew Modine. Rating: 7
Martin Teller's Movie Reviews 
Alan said
Hmmm… This moview was on TV last night and i decidd to watch it again, as i had only seen it once a few years ago. It reconfirmned for me how much Kubrick appears to dislike women. They are consistently exposed in the most physical sense. Nicole ‘s first shot is sitting on the toilet, when she’s finished peeing she stands up and wipes herself. She is shown numerous times standing up from behind but reflected in mirrors, to show her boobs. Other women are consistenly exposed. Sidney Pollack is show with his drugged out hooker, he is in pants but she is stark naked with her boobs and pussy on full view. In the orgy house the women are nude and the camera pans around to show all of them, Several of them are shown wandering around (parading) fully , frontal nude- with just one or 2 of the non male leads in non- esposed s/ distance shots. It reminded me of the couple of rape scenes in “Clockwork Orange” in one the girl is stripped by a mob of men,-and her tits and are grabbed and squeezed, although none of them reveal themselves and then Adrienne Corri, has her clothing cut off -first her tits and then her pussy are exposed before she is fully nude. I am kind of surprised that you haven’t commented on this as you seem so politically aware when describing ‘Gone With The Wind”. Also think about the Shining and the Shelly Duvall character, she not only looks somewhat retarded she plays it that way too.
martinteller said
There is certainly a misogynistic streak in Kubrick’s work. The only strong, somewhat sympathetic females in his entire filmography that I can think of are Lolita and maybe Lady Lyndon (I actually do think Duvall is sympathetic, but she is deliberately portrayed as annoying and was notoriously bullied by Kubrick on the set).
Whether or not I comment on certain political/social aspects is just a matter of how much they stick in my craw at the moment.
Alan said
Sorry did not realize that you had responded, until today. I think the Duvall character is sympathetic for what she is going through. But her character- is as you observe really annoying and with the best will in the world slow at the least verging on retarded.
Anonymous said
I was thinking about this movie again. And considered the important scene where Tom Cruise is told to “Take off Your clothes”. which he does not want to do, as he is spying in basically an orgy house, and he is a Doctor, and there has been several scenes featuring full on female nudity. It would seem a relly practical request- ie: Take of your clothes so that at least we know you are here for the same reason everyone else is..” / ie validate yourself. But instead he does not react when the nude girl basically sacrifices herself, we know something terrible is supposed to happen- but not necessarily her death. The Cruise character is aware that she will have to suffer some kind of serious penalty,, . But he says nothing, does nothing. He could have spoken up and said “No it’s Ok , I’ll strip…” but he doesn’t. And I think it’s a political move that benefits the movie, but makes little sense.
We can’t have Tom getting stripped in front of everyone, so let’s kill the girl> It sounds absurd, and it didn’t occur to me on initial viewing, but once it did, it sure niggles at me.
martinteller said
I think at that point he’s petrified he’s about to get killed.