Retro Cinema: Eyes Wide Shut
Filed under: Warner Brothers, Tom Cruise, Home Entertainment, Nicole Kidman, Retro Cinema

I was at a dinner party recently, and the conversation turned to movies. Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut (1999) came up, accompanied by the usual groans of disapproval and boredom. I felt obligated to say what I usually say in such situations, to say something that results in shock and disbelief: that Eyes Wide Shut is the best movie I've seen since I have been a professional movie critic.
The initial responses to Eyes Wide Shut revolved around the following: 1) The MPAA, their threat of an NC-17 rating and Warner Bros' decision to alter the offending scene by censoring it with "digital figures." 2) Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman's marriage and how it was affected by the filming. 3) Kubrick's death in March of 1999 and whether or not the released film was as he intended. 4) The fact that the film was set, but not shot in New York City and didn't look at all like the real thing; that Kubrick was an exile who hadn't actually been to New York for more than three decades. There were other rumors, and specific complaints about certain scenes that colored nearly everyone's opinion, but none of these had anything to do with the movie itself, as it actually exists.
When I originally reviewed the movie I praised it, and lumped it in as a genre film, an erotic thriller addition to Kubrick's sci-fi (2001: A Space Odyssey), horror (The Shining), noir (The Killing), and war films. But I've gradually come to see it as his greatest achievement, the closest he has come to peering into the fragile human soul. Like 2001, it's an odyssey, but a sexual one. Dr. Bill Harford (Cruise) attends a swanky Christmas party with his wife Alice (Kidman). Two sexy girls flirt with him, and he helps a patient, Victor Ziegler (Sydney Pollack), revive an overdosed, naked girl in his bathroom. Upon arriving home, Alice admits to Bill that she once almost had an affair. Bill receives a house call and another woman throws herself at him. Sexually overwhelmed and frustrated, Bill opts to go out on the town.
He gets picked up by a prostitute, Domino (Vinessa Shaw), and goes back to her apartment before deciding to move on. Some frat boys taunt him, believing him to be gay ("Go back to San Francisco," one says). He meets an old friend, a former med student and current pianist, Nick Nightingale (Todd Field). Nick tells him about an ultra-secret party, a kind of high-class orgy. Bill obtains the secret password, a mask, and a costume and enters. The party is a sinister, mesmerizing affair, filled with soulless, pounding sex and accompanied by a maddeningly rhythmic chanting on the soundtrack. One naked, masked girl warns him to leave. His identity is discovered, and it's inferred that he has endangered himself and others. The next day, he tries to find out what really happened, but to no avail. (Ziegler speaks with him, but more or less encourages ambiguity rather than finality.)
Meanwhile, Alice finds Bill's costume, and the two of them have their first real conversation in some time, while walking through a toy store at Christmas. The film's final word, "fuck," suggests that Alice and Bill try to bring sexual passion back into their home -- the opposite of the routine, naked bathroom scene that opens the film. (The screenplay was co-written by Frederic Raphael, who had also written one of the cinema's other masterpieces about a marriage, Stanley Donen's 1967 Two for the Road.)
One easy way to explain all this is that it's based on Arthur Schnitzler's 1926 novella Traumnovelle, the title of which translates into "Dream Novel." (Schnitzler's work was also adapted by Max Ophuls into the great 1950 film La Ronde.) Hence, everything is either a dream, or dreamlike, and has no business being interpreted through reality. Bill experiences everything in a sexual way, and almost every character reacts to him similarly; even the costume shop man's daughter (Leelee Sobieski) flirts with him. He's looking for some kind of outlet, but has no idea what it could be.
The film's detractors have said that Kubrick's slow, deliberate filming has little to do with the raw, animal energy of sex. And indeed, the famous orgy sequence is fairly chilling, but it's meant to be (even in the uncensored version, which I've seen on a British import DVD). After all, the participants are wearing masks, and without identity, there can be no intimacy. All of Bill's outside searching for sex turns out sour; even the lovely, cozy Domino discovers the next day that she has contracted HIV. And, of course, Bill's secret password for the party was "fidelio," or "fidelity," which indicates that he should have just stayed home.
The film's slowness is meant as a purposeful exploration, savoring the journey, the learning experience, rather than the payoff. The scene in Domino's apartment has a powerful, erotic charge as the pair awkwardly tries to discuss what comes next in their business transaction. The film has a preoccupation with mouths; Bill and Domino get closer and closer to a kiss without actually following through, leaving an unfulfilled burning buildup. Earlier at the party, a lothario flirts with Alice, and their dialogue spills out with excruciating slowness as each gazes at the other's lips.
Not to mention that no one lights and glides a camera through a room quite like Kubrick (except perhaps Ophuls), which is why he was able to take on a wide variety of genres and retain his singular touch. His previous forays into sex were sniggering and boyish (Barry Lyndon), or perverted (Lolita) or even violent (A Clockwork Orange), and so Eyes Wide Shut represents a giant leap forward in maturity, not only for the artist, but also for the American cinema in general.
For most of his career, Kubrick has been misunderstood; it takes years for one of his movies to earn its stripes and become accepted into the public canon. 2001 was a head-trip movie, but not necessarily a masterpiece. Barry Lyndon was a flop and only recently has come to be regarded as one of Kubrick's greatest films. The Shining was disregarded as not much more than a lowly horror film, and Full Metal Jacket is just now picking up a cult following. It may take a few more years before Eyes Wide Shut gets its due, mainly because of Tom Cruise's recent odd behavior and Nicole Kidman's recent string of flops. But I'll just say this: Charlton Heston starred in Orson Welles' Touch of Evil, and it's still a great film.
Note: I recently received word that, on October 23, 2007, Warner Home Video is finally releasing the unrated, letterboxed version of Eyes Wide Shut on a two-disc, Region 1 DVD.









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-22-2007 @ 3:20PM
rebecca said...
i could not agree with you more.
Reply
8-22-2007 @ 3:50PM
Vince said...
I have to say that as a long time Kubrick fan, I was disappointed with this film. It appeared to me to be "passed" its prime in that what would have been explosive in the 60's became passe' over time and perhaps Kubrick missed the change in morals and attitudes.
Of course the master is still evident in framing camera work and lighting. But the topic works against his actor's technique of leaching all emotion out of the readings.
I would love to praise this film but unless the final edit is discovered in Stanley's estate, I have to assume it was too long in the oven.
Reply
8-22-2007 @ 4:05PM
J L said...
Wow. I have adored this movie since I first saw it in the theater, and have meet almost nobody whoever seemed to like it the way I do. I also beleive there was an elements of gender reversal in the film, as Nicole Kidman has the lusty sexual desire generally associated with men, whereas Tom Cruise is more exploring himself.
You have found I knew reader for your reviews today.
Great post
Reply
8-22-2007 @ 4:32PM
Patrick said...
Fantastic review. I could not agree more. Kudos for giving this film the love it deserves.
Reply
8-22-2007 @ 4:47PM
David said...
As I recall, when Martin Scorsese joined Roger Ebert for the first "Best of the Year" show after Gene Siskel died, Scorsese called this the second best film he'd seen that year.
Reply
8-22-2007 @ 7:10PM
Mr. R said...
Agree 100%! Every aspect of a man's dreams and fears is there. Perhaps this movie came out, as usual, years before it should have. The general public was just far too obsessed with reality shows and CGI generated images of destruction. Most people had their mind set when they read Tom and Nicole in the poster, everyone wanted sex and violence but there is much more humanity to it than it seems. Great, great movie.
Reply
8-22-2007 @ 7:32PM
Jordan M. said...
I feel slightly better about secretly loving this movie now. Every time I bring it up in any movie conversation, I get the same reaction- "That movie sucks." At least I know a few other people feel the way I do about it.
Reply
8-22-2007 @ 7:55PM
Marie Line said...
In my country, france, the movie is reviewed as master piece. And Cruise got a lot of respect for playing such a difficult part. He's a passive character, but very intense. What he can do with his eyes blow me away. I started to be interested in him there.
Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut will be understand many years from now. Just like 2001 was bad reviewed at the time it get out. It's difficult for common people to understand his movies. it's like asking people to understand Houelllebecq's books.
It's not "popular". Thank God for that. I LOVE this movie. I'm glad I'm one of those people who can love it and have a journey with it.
The other people are just media gossipers, who can't forge an opinion by themselves and doesn't have enough brain to understand it. Let's be real. Not insulting.
This is a universal theme. It concern everyone on earth. But it's for limited kind of men and women.
Loved it. The light, the mise en scène, the timing, the music, ,the performances (yet kidman overact as she smoked 10 funny cigarets) all is magnificient.
Kudos to you and your critic.
Reply
8-22-2007 @ 7:58PM
Cath said...
I found the film compelling and masterfully told, the slow pacing being integral and operatic to let the story reveal itself rather than the usual shorthand spoonfeeding you get in standard Hollywood fare.
Reply
8-23-2007 @ 12:19PM
Kilgore said...
Completely agree, i think it's a criminally underrated movie. I'm a huge Kubrick fan and have seen everything he's done several times, but I think i've watched EWS the most. The atmosphere that he is able to create is remarkable.
Reply
8-23-2007 @ 11:19PM
Proteus said...
This is very well done, but deserves to be seen in light of the greatest critical response to EWS I've seen - Jonathan Rosenbaum's "In Dreams Begin Responsibilities" - http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/archives/1999/0799/07239.html .
Together, I think this entry and Rosenbaum's essay would compel anyone with a stron negative opinion of hthe film to look again, to try to think differently.
Thanks for this. It's a fantastic film, but a very poor swan song.
Reply
8-23-2007 @ 5:02AM
bongo123 said...
it had boobs, was good enough for me
Reply
8-23-2007 @ 5:51AM
Benjamin said...
Nothing to add; just wanted to echo the love for this film in the article and the talkback.
Reply
8-23-2007 @ 10:03AM
Brandon said...
Glad to read this review & the majority of the comments that followed it. Nice to see people coming around to it.
I heard something a long time ago that was very simple, but also rang true: If you are watching this film to see a Tom Cruise movie, you will probably hate it. If you are watching this film to see a Stanley Kubrick movie, you will probably love it.
I fell into the Kubrick category. I was prepared for the unexpected & got it. This film gets better with age, like most of Kubrick's films.
Reply
8-23-2007 @ 11:23AM
Garfinkel said...
On first viewing, aside from some fantastically naked women, I was disappointed. But, it was playing constantly on cable, years ago, and I couldn't not watch it just to see the few "dirty" scenes. But, the more I watched it, the more I started to get it. Something was up. There is a lot of depth and complexity to this movie that feels like it has none at all. The symbolism is deep, though I cannot say I've figured much of it out.
I would say, yes, it is a total dream. Piece together all of the situations, and they don't add up to what we all know as a waking experience.
Take a look at some of the clues: all of the women are redheads -- like Alice/Kidman. The colors of lighting. The strangeness of each character and the tone. Masks in lots of scenes, not just the "party."
It is more than about sex. It seems to be about fear. The fear of being thought of as gay (hm... never heard that one about Cruise, have we?); fears of a stale marriage, fear of infidelity, fear of AIDS, fear of being exposed, fear of death, and so on.
I've watched this movie very closely, and taken pages and pages of notes (now burried in a box somewhere after moving). Too many things connect for it to be anything other than a dream. The "fake" New York works to this advantage, and I think was quite purposeful, rather than Stanley not wanting to shoot on location.
But, at one point, I had another theory. In a way it is a film about film. Seriously, at the time, Kidman and Cruise? AND Kubrick? And, all of this artifice? To me, it was Kubrick pulling one final joke, and saying "Guess what? It's just a movie... Read into it what you want." Just in the movie itself, Cruise spent an entire night wandering over nothing. Alice only imagined being with the sailor. Yet it was enough to send Bill off. He made much ado about nothing.
Much as we all do about these silly things called films.
Reply
8-23-2007 @ 1:09PM
hassannasrallah said...
CLASSIC MOVIE
classy directing
amazing art
great atmosphere.
(i disagree with the "full metal jacket just recently got cult following" it has been cult/famous for a long time now ...)
Reply
8-24-2007 @ 1:16PM
Peter Nellhaus said...
It figures that now that I have a Region 2 version of EWS, Warner Brothers would get around to releasing the unrated version in the US. By the way Jeff, I think that EWS is very much influenced by Ophuls in other ways that came into focus when I saw "The Earrings of Madame De . . ."
Reply
8-24-2007 @ 4:15PM
Craig Keller said...
It's seemed to me, since at least July 16th, 1999, that 'Eyes Wide Shut' is a supreme masterpiece.
BTW, this "letterboxed" business about the new Kubrick transfers is extremely muddy territory. Kubrick accepted the 1.85:1 "widescreen" of the theatrical releases a necessary compromise, and as such retained the 1.33:1 ratio for the video versions of 'The Shining,' 'Full Metal Jacket,' and 'Eyes Wide Shut.'
Aside from the release of the unrated version of the film, there's a lot about these new Warner Bros. Kubrick editions that positively STINKS — starting with the widescreen ratios, moving on through the totally uninspiring "commentary" participants, and culminating in the horrid graphic design of the new '2001' and 'A Clockwork Orange' covers.
craig keller
http://cinemasparagus.blogspot.com
Reply
8-27-2007 @ 12:22PM
Adam Greene said...
I agree with your assessment of Eyes Wide Shut. I loved the film with I first saw it on a large screen in Savannah, GA. I found it gripping and was on the edge of my seat most of the film. Every scene is infused with tension and boils with a sexual subtext.
I found most people's criticism of the film to involve their reactions to the ad campaign rather than the actual film. Most of the comments involved how little chemistry Cruise and Kidman had, which is the point actually. They are at that point in their marriage that they need a jolt to destroy the boring routine. The only filmic criticism that I heard was about the pacing, which is fair but I could always ask if they knew they were going to see a Kubrick film.
I'm excited about the release of improved versions of the discs but I'm wary of the aspect ratio issue touched on my some of the comments to this post.
dudehesthestallion.wordpress.com
Reply
8-29-2007 @ 2:18PM
sinfrost said...
This may be Kubrick's most personal and profound works. The entire theme of men seeking control over things they can't and mustn't control (women and death) is beautiful. The fact that Kubrick suggests women may control a lot more than we realize (men's ideas of the "American Dream", men's fantasies and their dreams) is gutsy, to say the least.
Kubrick's rebellion is in true form throughout by putting the female in an honest and complimentary light. Kubrick single-handedly shattered the typical, male-based, heterosexual narrative of filmmaking that has occupied Hollywood (the ultimate boys' club) for so long.
Reply