Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

O

OldCorpse

Rockin the Boat
Last night I rewatched Stanley Kubrick’s last film, Eyes Wide Shut (1999).

I first saw it in the theater when it just came out, with a friend who is a massive Kubrick fan. We came out both very nonplussed by how poor the film was. He mentioned that Kubrick liked to edit his films right up to the release, and this time he didn’t have the chance to do those last second tweaks, because sadly he passed away. However, no amount of tweaking would have rescued this steaming pile of doodoo, short of recasting, rewriting and reshooting a complete 100% junking and starting over.

Upon rewatching it last night I could not believe just how atrocious this film is. To begin with, it was miscast, with Tom Cruise laughably out of place - not to mention I didn’t for a millisecond buy him as a doctor; and Kidman was not good here either... weirdly, although I know they were married in real life, there seemed no on screen chemistry between them, so it all felt terribly mismatched. Sidney Pollack was good as always, but that’s about it - many of the other actors were outright bad, although part of it was no doubt due to the horrific lines they were forced to spout. The hotel clerk was outright offensive, even for 1999 level of cliche gay portrayal... it just felt out of touch.

Where to start with this trash? To begin with, the screenplay is garbage, and basing it on a novel from decades ago without updating the mentality just shows up as completely outdated in sensibility - social concerns that felt acute in the 1920’s don’t resonate the same in 1999. But perhaps if it was updated and restructured, maybe it could work - unfortunately, Kubrick absolutely botched it, so thoroughly it was beyond rescue.

Instead of “dreamy” all the proceedings felt forced, implausible, grating, out of touch and naive, like an old man’s idea of “scandalous goings on” which merely end up hokey and embarrasing.

But what’s most tragic here is that it appears Kubrick simply lost all artistic judgment here - scenes are insanely badly plotted. He lost his timing 100%. Every scene seems 2/3 too long for the dramatic content. To begin with the dramatic content such as it is, is laughable - no doubt due to the 1920’s mentality - the endless toothachingly boring convos between characters we don’t care about talking about stuff we don’t care about in the least and carrying on as if it’s high drama while it’s the tritest of trite faux concerns. And the delivery is sheer torture - one word per minute interspersed with “meaningful” pauses, snivelling, weeping, pointless tears - all at interminable length... I’d rather have needles driven under my fingernails. And that’s true of almost all such interactions Cruise-Kidman, Cruise-Pollack, Cruise-Prostitute, Cruise-hotel clerk and so on... endless poorly structured with zero dramatic tension. It’s like deliberate choices were made to make it as boring and uninvolving as possible - seriously, I’d rather eat rocks than listen to two stoned people holding an endless stoned convo. And relating of dreams - is there anything more boring than listening to someone describe their dreams? Nails on a chalkboard. Why oh why are the scenes so long??? And so cringe?

And those imaginings of Cruise as he’s picturing Kidman being unfaithful - what on earth told Kubrick it was a good idea to depict Cruises thoughts?? What is this?? And in black and white, so we get the idea it’s his thoughts, I guess, because thoughts are in black and white, I guess? Faceplam. It’s like something a highschool student would think making his first movie. And then, we hear how Cruise recalls Kidman’s words echoing for us helpfully again, so we remember... moviemaking straight from the 1940’s. Kubrick straight up lost his mind. Maybe he had a stroke of some kind? I’m at a loss to explain any of this.

Then we have the bad music - the piano notes which serve to underscore how bereft of ideas everything is in this film.

I struggle to find a single good thing to say about this film - and OK, the first 45 seconds to a minute or so of the ritual of masked figures in a circle with the incantations and hooded figures. And then it goes to sh|t too - but fine, the first minute is OK.

I’m sad on a human level for Kubrick’s death. But based on this film, I can’t say it was a loss to the world of cinema at that point, he had nothing more to give. It was hands down Kubrick’s worst film - by leagues. And not just for him, but by any measure, a bad movie, one of the worst I’ve had the displeasure of watching. I only stuck it out because I wanted to revisit my opinion from when I first saw it. I will not watch it again, ever. Seeing that film is seeing the complete unravelling of a once great filmmaker, who so completely lost all artistic judgment along every axis that it seems like something made by someone suffering from some kind of mental breakdown, perhaps dementia (apparently he was in very poor physical health while shooting this film).

The film is an atrocity. I give it 2 stars out of 10, the two stars because he took the lens cap off and there was that one minute or so of decent footage. Avoid at all costs, IMHO, if you ever wanted to rewatch it - a waste of time you’ll never get back. YMMV, of course.
 
That's funny. My wife just showed me a few days ago the stoned bedroom scene with subtitled context and I remarked on how well executed it was, both the dramatic timing and the camera work (I love how he switches to handheld just for her spasmodic laughter)


Someone once told me to watch it as a comedy, and then it made more sense to me. It's not Kubrick's best, and the flaws and shortcomings of his earlier filmmaking are only exaggerated and more problematic, but the cinematography still outshines all his competitors.
 
ahalpert said:
That's funny. My wife just showed me a few days ago the stoned bedroom scene with subtitled context and I remarked on how well executed it was, both the dramatic timing and the camera work (I love how he switches to handheld just for her spasmodic laughter)


Someone once told me to watch it as a comedy, and then it made more sense to me. It's not Kubrick's best, and the flaws and shortcomings of his earlier filmmaking are only exaggerated and more problematic, but the cinematography still outshines all his competitors.
Click to expand...

That scene is too long, but I thought was well acted too & on a short list of interesting ones in the film. I do really like the look of it as well. It is most definitely a dry, old-fashioned (at the time) comedy for elitist men who felt like they'd been married too long.

I cringe thinking about that I saw it on release as a late teen in the theaters with my vietnam vet, mostly serious dad. Just squirming in my seat for the absurd orgy scenes, man that was uncomfortable.

I was trying to mount a counterargument in my head to 'balance' OldCorpse's criticism and then have to remind myself it really is a pretty awful movie on most levels.

Has anyone else heard that there is a shot of Jeffrey Epstein's Straus house? I heard it from someone at a party and then looked it up and nothing popped up, never bothered to look into it much.
 
If I've seen the film once - I've seen it fifty times over the years. I can't wait to see it again.
"But based on this film, I can’t say it was a loss to the world of cinema at that point, he had nothing more to give."
I'm on Candid Camera right?
 
Thanks, Kevin Baggott for that review link. I always find it super helpful to see what fans and thoughtful critics think of a movie I find extremely inferior. I trust my own judgment and have a healthy level of confidence in my opinions, because as the joke goes about a politician berating a voter “whom do you trust, me, or your lying eyes?” - I trust my own eyes every time, thanks. That regularly results in my having a contrary opinion about various sacred cows or critical darlings. However, there’s a difference between confidence and arrogance, and so you always must check yourself - what if I’m missing something in this alleged masterpiece? That’s why thoughtful fans and critics are so valuable, because they can point to what it is that they see as merits, just so I can make sure that I’m not missing anything.

And so it is here - Ebert and Scorsese both explicate and defend the film, and it’s instructive. Instructive that I’ve not actually missed anything - that the design is exactly what I thought it was. Ebert (and Scorsese agrees) points out that it’s a mistake to hold the film to a physical realism standard, because it’s meant to be a depiction of a dream state of reality. Oh goody, then, I perceived it correctly as to what the design intention was (and I stated so in my OP) - though, to be fair, I’d hardly claim any credit here, as it’s plain as day - in fact, it’s stated outright by the characters, so unless you’re deaf... mostly I’m puzzled that anyone would think anything else, after all, even if you never watched the movie the design of the novel on which it’s based has the very idea in its title “traumnovelle” (traum - dream). So, um, yeah, “I get it”.

The problem here is not realism as such. After all, there is the broader concept of film logic and film reality. Reality we all live in is not what film reality is. Every film creates its own reality with its own logic. When we say something is unrealistic in a movie, we often mean that it’s unrealistic within the movie logic itself. Your character can have magical powers (at odds with reality), but we accept it - what we don’t accept is a violation of internal logic. In the same way we always look for psychological truth in fictional characters. The character may be fiction, but the psychology should be realistic on a human level - it should ring as “true”.

That’s one issue I have with EWS - I personally don’t find it psychologically true. In the famous stoned convo we referenced here, I find it quite tiresome and implausible that a woman who has been married to a doctor for at least seven years, all of a sudden now wonders if her husband’s interactions with his female patients are sexualized in the context of a breast examination. I know a lot of doctor couples. I cannot think of any wife in this scenario having that particular concern - I mean, *maybe* that would be a thought for a very young and naive bride to be to a newly minted doctor, but not a spouse who has lived the reality of a doctor’s wife for close to a decade. It simply doesn’t ring “true” - that’s the realism problem here.

The issue is not with the “dream reality” here - as I said, maybe if it was well written and well directed this particular design could be pulled off, but as I said in the OP, Kubrick simply botched it horribly. The poverty of imagination and the psychological shallowness of the mind is the ultimate problem. It’s the depiction of what’s in the mind of the director who is cut loose to show us what DREAM REALITY!!!!!UNO!!!! IS GONNA BE BLOW YOUR MIND, and when you see it, it’s embarrasingly barren. It’s like when you ask someone what they’d do if they won the lottery, and they tell you about all the best burgers they’d eat in a brand new lamborghini while surrounded by the most expensive escorts. It’s sad.

Scorsese says it’s the psychological journey of a couple through sex and infidelity and the meaning of marriage. OK. Then why is that journey so uninteresting here? Why so trite? Why so extremely boring and banal? Why on such a low shallow level?

It’s because that’s who has made the movie. Subtle psychological states are not Kubrick’s strengths. Look at his filmography. What stands out is visual power, men in war and the impact of war and conflict, and such. What you don’t see is an exploration of psychology on a subtle level. That’s not his strength and here, in EWS he’s clearly not playing to his strengths - to the detriment of the result. He’s no Bergman or Fellini or Antonioni even. There is nothing wrong with trying something new - but you better have the muscle to deliver it. Michael Bay is smart to limit himself to his kinds of films - but if he wanted to do a subtle movie, fine if he can pull it off. But if he can’t? That’s the problem with Kubrick. He tilted at the wrong - wrong for his particular abilities - windmill.

By the way, if you want to see how a brilliant dream reality is done, see Fellini’s 1980 City of Women - which also happens to explore masculinity, femininity, marriage and attitudes toward each. Very striking comparison. Here we have depth, and spectacle and an amazing journey - but, as I mentioned in another post, it’s down to the artist’s “soul” - Fellini has a “big soul”, or to put it more plainly, he has a psychological depth lacking in Kubrick. Doesn’t mean Kubrick isn’t a master, a great director. But each director has his strengths, and Kubrick did not play to his in EWS - instead he took us on a tour of his ideas around sex and marriage and it’s an tiresome slog in a cramped wagon across a barren landscape.

All IMHO, of course. This doesn’t mean that others may not enjoy the film, as we all match our tastes and intellectual makeup to the work of any artist. If Kubrick’s exploration of sex and marriage speaks to you, I would be the last person to say it shouldn’t - what’s trite to me, may be profound to you and the other way around.

As to why I thought Kubrick had nothing much left to give cinema - the guy was making movies toward the end every 10-12 years. Looking at what he did with EWS at 70 doesn’t leave me with much optimism as to what he’d do at 80 - he completely lost his sense of timing and scene dynamic - these things don’t get better. It’s an odd parallel I see with some AMA fighters - I was just watching old fights of Fedor E. and how brilliant he was... and then he hung around too long, couldn’t quit and the beatings he’s still taking these days are just extremely sad and pitiful - he is not the fighter he was decades ago, and he’s the only one, tragically, who does not realize it... it’s almost unethical to watch his fights these days of brutalizing a once brilliant fighter (I for one refuse to watch his new fights anymore - just as I will never rewatch Eyes Wide Shut again). YMMV, of course.
 
As I'm sure you know Old Corpse - Kubricks two big film projects that got away from him was Napoleon and War-Time Lies. Supposedly Kubrick knew every minute of what Napoleon was doing during those years when he was stirring things up. Kubrick couldn't have had in mind showing one campaign after another. Surely he was going to lift the wig off Napoleon and drill into his noggin. With Wartime Lies - Kubrick knew everything about the Holocaust and those years. He would give to everyone he knew as a gift, Raul Hillberg's book, The Destruction of the European Jews. All three volumes. His wife hoped he wouldn't make the film as it was tearing him apart emotionally. Finally, he pulled the plug on it telling her (according to his wife) that people would not believe if I showed them what I now know. I just think it's not true that he was not gifted in portraying, 'Subtle psychological states.' Anyway... I started reading Sinead O'Connor's new autobiography and she talks about how in Ireland as a kid Mormons were there trying to convert Catholics to warm up to Joseph Smith. At the moment I feel like one of those Mormons.
 
Well, Kevin, I guess we’re looking at different things. In none of the scenes you linked to do I personally see particularly subtle emotions explored. Barry Lyndon - falling in love, that’s a pretty big, robust, hardly unexplored emotion; not what I’d call the height of psychological subtlety exploration, although admittedly very nicely shot, the worldless exchanges of glances, very nice indeed, well conceived and executed. Although not my favorite film of Kubrick’s - it’s another instance of Kubrick’s shocking miscasting which he was prone to from time to time - Ryan O’Neal and Marisa Berenson... facepalm. Dreadful choices. In both cases, as in EWS he went for a “star” that was big at the time and it was a terrible decision. That said, on the whole, Kubrick was decent with casting decisions - with those shocking instances being the exception. Barry Lyndon as a film fails for me because again, the design was misconceived and Kubrick’s interests were elsewhere (all that battle formation marches and army movements and various technical challenges with lighting etc. is what truly interested him!) - overlong, draggy, uninvolving. I still cannot get over how awful the casting of Tom Cruise was in EWS - that’s no medical doctor by any stretch of the imagination, all I could think with him on screen was how unconvincing he is, how he can’t mimic a normal home life, how he can’t walk down the street without a sign over him “that’s certainly a long coat for such a short man” and how defined Tom Cruises range is and how he can’t step outside of that range, even though inside it, he’s great (Jerry Maguire and so many other excellent movies!) - he’s not an actor with the range of a De Niro for example, and so casting him needs great, great care in order to get good results, because you’ll always get TOM CRUISE tom cruising it to the hilt and if it doesn’t work for that role, your movie will not work.

Paths of Glory - fantastic movie, but again, exactly like I said, insofar as any psychology is concerned, Kubric’s interests are in men at war and the war’s impact, which your scene illustrates very well. We’re not talking intimate interpersonal exploration. Very big, big, big on screen understandable emotions with crowds of people, no less, LOL.

Lolita - I’m at a bit of a loss here... what’s this supposed to tell us? I mean, the wife discovers the filthy diary and she’s outraged - perfectly fine, but not exactly subtle on any level that I can think of.

I’m talking about those subtle interpersonal explorations of psychological states that often don’t even have a name, something that’s done on the regular by the likes of Almodovar and Fellini. Love, sorrow, anger are all something that’s bread and butter as in the scenes you linked to. That’s not where you reach the deep soul of what it means to be human, a landscape unexplored, something we’re grateful to journey to, and priviledged to be guided by masters. Kubrick has told us nothing new emotionally, or particularly deep - it’s meat and potatoes boiled and thrown on a plate, salt to taste as you wish.

That he wanted to do Napoleon - yes, of course. Of course. He had a deep interest in Napoleon, and he had a deep interest in war and men at war - just look at how many of his films are either directly or tangentially connected to that - Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket, Dr. Strangelove, Barry Lyndon, Spartacus. I rather suspect it would’ve been a more interesting movie than Barry Lyndon, but I’m not sure it would be much better for all that - there would be a lot of marching and fighting, you can be sure of that, and insofar as he’d be getting into Napoleon’s “noggin”, it would be all from that perspective, just another extension of his interest in “men at war”. But maybe it would be a fantastic spectacle - who knows, it’s hard to speculate about unmade movies.

His Holocaust project - I’d genuinely be interested. Certainly there’s a crying need for it. I don’t believe Hollywood has ever tackled it properly (it’s possible I missed it) - I know Spielberg had his heart in the right place, but, and I’m trying not to be harsh here, he does a very shallow hollywood gloss on the holocaust in Schindler’s List, it’s really kind of tragic... but Spielberg is simply not the man for such a project... his soul is not of the depth required - which is not to say he can’t do a terrific war movie, where the breadth, and psychology is much more limited, as in the excellent Saving Private Ryan. Would Kubrick do a better Holocaust movie - I don’t know. I am always willing to be pleasantly surprised, but I guess at this point we’ll never know.

But again, it’s all about what speaks to you. It’s interesting that you linked to Ebert. I like and respect Ebert a great deal. That said, the man had his limitations (as we all do!). He was a product of his environment, and his psychological “ears” did not range beyond that. These limitations are on display in his review of Blue Velvet, where it’s obvious that he simply wasn’t understading what Lynch was doing psychogically, because Ebert does not receive on that particular frequency. It’s like so called supertasters who can taste a range of bitter beyond that which most folks can - a guy who is not a supertaster will simply not “get it”. This was particularly acute when I read his reviews of Polanski’s “What” and “The Tenent”. There is a particular sense of humor honed in Eastern Europe that Polanski is using in those movies, which simply fly under Ebert’s radar - as a result, he’s completely baffled and utterly mises the point making ludicrously inappropriate reviews. Nothing wrong with limitations. We all have them. But it’s just a mistake to send Ebert to review an exotic cuisine, when he’s a meat and potatoes guy who just doesn’t have the taste buds to detect those exotic flavors. Sending Ebert to review those particular Lynch or Polanski movies is similarly misguided.

On the flip side, EWS was apparently just Ebert’s speed. Smack in the middle of his sensibilities - he thought the world of that movie. What I saw as trite and banal to the point of deep embarrasment (I actually had fight the instinct to look away from the screen, so embarrased was I for everyone involved in those Cruise-Kidman stoned convo and others), well, Ebert thought were “deep” I guess, smh. Again, this is not to dismiss Ebert - he’s a very insightful and intelligent critic for the movies that fall into the broad American centered cultural universe, which to be fair is vast. But sometimes he can be rather limited when confronted by different material. But aren’t we all? I know I too have my own blind spots and pyschological limitations, prejudices and biases (f.ex. in general, movies with kids bore me stiff - and that’s a limitation, no question).

Anyhow, it was not my aim to in any way poopoo the enjoyment of the movie for the fans of EWS. Any time anyone finds art that moves them, it’s an unqualified win!
 
Thanks for your response. Too much to tease apart. It wasn't Ebert's review so much - I think I said I agree with Scorsese's take on the film. I guess they shared similar likings for the film.
Anyway - good to hear yer thoughts.
 
Tarantino famously declared that he will only make a limited number of movies, and that he will not linger on with filmmaking, because the rule is that directors start making sh|t movies toward the end of their careers. Now, there certainly are exceptions (ex. John Huston’s splendid last movie 1987 The Dead, directed when he was very old, or even his previous 1985 Prizzi’s Honor), but the rule does seem to hold for most. And Tarantino doesn’t want to deliver dreck which merely tarnishes the legacy of a filmography. I came across this recent piece, wherein QT muses that he may actually call it quits on the high note of Once Upon A Time in Hollywood. As I was reading this piece, I thought of how relevant it is to Kubrick and Eyes Wide Shut, a last movie that is a disgrace and why I thought that it would’ve been extraordinarily unlikely that Kubrick would’ve given cinema anything of value post that monument to his artistic decline.

Quentin Tarantino thinks Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood would be a good movie to end his career on

One quote:

“ On an episode of Pure Cinema Podcast dedicated to final films, the famed director explained, “Most directors have horrible last movies. Usually their worst movies are their last movies. That’s the case for most of the Golden Age directors that ended up making their last movies in the late ’60s and the ’70s, then that ended up being the case for most of the New Hollywood directors who made their last movies in the late ’80s and the ’90s.” That’s the last thing Tarantino wants for his own career. “Most directors’ last films are ****ing lousy. Maybe I should not make another movie because I could be really happy with dropping the mic on Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood,” he said.”

I agree with this so hard! And unquestionably, as I said in my OP, I regard EWS as Kubrick’s worst film and a truly horrible display of complete collapse of artistic judgment. He should’ve quit on the quite good Full Metal Jacket - or even the materpiece of The Shining.
 
Wow, I didn't expect those critical opinions on this movie! But a lot of it makes sense. Especially the choice of the main characters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top