Eyes Wide Shut

[fueryhk(redux)]

Eyes Wide Shit.

I sat through it when it came out and hated it and I'm a big, big SK fan. Think it just showed how totally isolated from the real world SK had become. There are far better and more rewarding of his films to re-watch.

[pcqgod]

It didn't do much for me. 15 minutes of an Eric Rohmer film say more about relationships and sexuality than this entire movie did.

[Cage Free Brown]

Well, Rohmer had a higher opinion of the human animal than Kubrick did. When it's all said and done, Davey's observatins aside, Kubrick pretty much DID make a fuck movie.

[fueryhk(redux)]

Well, Rohmer had a higher opinion of the human animal than Kubrick did. When it's all said and done, Davey's observatins aside, Kubrick pretty much DID make a fuck movie.

When people talk about SK's EWS being his attempt to make an erotic film, I always think about that quote about Al Gore being an old person's idea of a young person...

[Ghost of Harry Smith]

I think it was marketed like an erotic thriller but doubt that was Kubrick's intention, my guess is that his hands were a little tied after spending $65 million so the studio steered that aspect. Which is a shame because it gave viewers false expectations and, viewed as an erotic thriller, it's very unsatisfying, as some comments here bear out.

[Dizzley tha Fat Boy]

Well, Rohmer had a higher opinion of the human animal than Kubrick did. When it's all said and done, Davey's observatins aside, Kubrick pretty much DID make a fuck movie.

Sure. But I think the fucking he had in mind was more thorough than Showtime After Dark.

[Remember (Quaco)]

Well, Rohmer had a higher opinion of the human animal than Kubrick did. When it's all said and done, Davey's observatins aside, Kubrick pretty much DID make a fuck movie.

When people talk about SK's EWS being his attempt to make an erotic film, I always think about that quote about Al Gore being an old person's idea of a young person...

[Geezee]

I wouldn't mind seeing it again to refresh my memory - and I'd also like to read Traumnovelle upon which it is closely based - but I remember watching this at roughly the same time as Mulholland Drive, which as I've mentioned elsewhere is probably my favourite-ever film, and thinking that there are alot of parallels with that movie. I feel Mulholland Drive tries to do to Naomi Watts essentially what EWS is trying to do to Tom Cruise: destroy him. And although I think Lynch is trying to do that at a metaphysical level with Watts' perky introductory character, I think Kubrick is actually trying to physically destroy Cruise as a person. He fails, simply because Cruise does not understand what the film is trying to say about himself, even if it would appear as if he is a "broken man" at the end of it. This may be wishful thinking on my part, but although I'm aware that Kubrick had respect for Cruise as an actor, I genuinely think he is trying to do something that is actually deeply menacing in this movie, something that had never really been done before: openly mock and vilify its lead actor. In my mind Kidman gets it - she understands what is going on - and I'm talking about her as an individual, not her character. And I'm almost certainly reading too much into it, but like Mulholland Drive it's the kind of movie that lends itself to this. And whilst EWS is much more subtle in the way it handles the dreamlike sequences and deeper meanings, it is also much more obvious in its intentions - which is perhaps why it is also a less satisfying movie.

[inthenextlife]

Wow Geezee! Fascinating interpretation but what would Kubrick's motivation be for humiliating the Cruiser? I think it's Cruise's best film by far, I think he's underrated totally as an actor and for me the movie is about fidelity in a relationship and how that word means different things to different people. Kidman might have got 'it' but she is an appalling actress highlighted in all her limited ability here.

[Geezee]

Wow Geezee! Fascinating interpretation but what would Kubrick's motivation be for humiliating the Cruiser? I think it's Cruise's best film by far, I think he's underrated totally as an actor and for me the movie is about fidelity in a relationship and how that word means different things to different people. Kidman might have got 'it' but she is an appalling actress highlighted in all her limited ability here.

Again - this is an entirely personal interpretation and probably miles off the mark - but my feeling is that Kubrick didn't feel Cruise deserved Kidman. Not in the sense that Kubrick was in love with Kidman, but rather that Cruise is so clearly a dramatically flawed human being and Kidman is completely out of his league, but Cruise's self-perception, distorted through years of cinematic ego-massaging, fails to see/appreciate what he has. Kubrick is trying to hold up a vicious mirror to Cruise, but all that Cruise can see is his self-projected image of himself, not the actual reflection.

[Dizzley tha Fat Boy]

I dunno guys. Somehow I don't see Stanley Kubrick going into a film with ambitions as small as all that. Hard to imagine he didn't have bigger fish to fry than whether Tom Cruise deserved Nicole Kidman or not.

[Geezee]

I dunno guys. Somehow I don't see Stanley Kubrick going into a film with ambitions as small as all that. Hard to imagine he didn't have bigger fish to fry than whether Tom Cruise deserved Nicole Kidman or not.

I think attempting to showcase dysfunction in marriage, relationships and communication through the destruction of arguably the biggest actor of his generation onscreen is fairly ambitious.

[Dizzley tha Fat Boy]

I dunno guys. Somehow I don't see Stanley Kubrick going into a film with ambitions as small as all that. Hard to imagine he didn't have bigger fish to fry than whether Tom Cruise deserved Nicole Kidman or not.

I think attempting to showcase dysfunction in marriage, relationships and communication through the destruction of arguably the biggest actor of his generation onscreen is fairly ambitious.

The great thing about art is that it is open to interpretation. That reading doesn't jibe for me, but fair enough if it does for you.

[Snarfyguy]

I think it's an utterly cockamamie reading, but also a really fun one to entertain.

[Geezee]

I think it's an utterly cockamamie reading, but also a really fun one to entertain.

(i agree btw...but it's one of those things that i almost "wish" was trust...and there are a few occasions in that movie where that feeling grew in me, and also to an extent supported by some of the interviews in the aftermath over the effect that the movie had on their relationship)