I think it is a finely crafted, intricately constructed artistic failure. I admire the skill of the execution (except for Cruise. Unlike Cervaise, I think the film exposed his weaknesses all too clearly.Sure, the detached air of the initial scenes matches Popgun’s traditional blank delivery, but the same cannot be said for the internal journey the Kubric lpastered all over the screen and Cruise studiously failed to notice was happening.) But the film failed to resonate with me on teh visceral level that the material demanded.
I admire it as an essay. I could perhaps respect it as a phantasmagoric internal documentary. But it fails as a dramatic piece.
I don’t think your (very well-written, BTW) review really answers my question.
I admit that my impression of “Eyes Wide Shut” is that it’s essentially The Emperor’s New Movie. (Note: That’s a play on “the Emperor’s New Clothes,” not the stupid “Groove” movie.) People seem to desperately, desperately want to see something there, and in so doing convince themselves they’re fools if they can’t see it.
Well, I don’t think anything was there. I like art house film, complex film, and I’m one of the hardest movie buffs in the world to bore; I prefer a slow-moving film, at least in the sense “slow-moving” is commonly meant. I loved “The Thin Red Line,” to keep with that example. And I thought “Eyes Wide Shut” was a colossal drag and a waste of my eight bucks. Now, as I see it, there are three possibilities here:
“Eyes Wide Shut” is an objecively atrocious movie.
It’s all subjective anyway, so it sucks to some and is great to others.
Some people just aren’t smart, perceptive or knowledgable enough to “Get it,” and I’m one of them.
My honest belief is that it’s about three quarters 1, one quarter 2, and not a whit of 3, but I’d happily compromise and say it’s all 2 because I’m not going to say someone’s opinion is wrong. But I still cannot shake the feeling it’s just a bad movie that people are fooling themselves about.
Stanley Kubrick was undeniably a man of immense talent and vision, but just because he made a movie does not make it a masterpeice. I liked “Full Metal Jacket,” but it wasn’t the best war movie ever made as some have claimed, and it wasn’t one of the twenty best. “The Shining” was a very routine horror book adaptation - really GOOD, but not a great artistic acheievement. “Clockwork Orange” was, IMO, exploitative garbage. I don’t feel I’m a fool or an ignoramous because I didn’t “get” these films; actually, I think I “got” them just fine. I got “Happy Gilmore,” too.
I am reminded, watching “Eyes Wide Shut,” of the infamous “Voice of Fire” painting by Barnett Newman, which caused such a huge furore when the National Art Gallery (of Canada) bought it. “Voice of Fire” is just a canvas divided into three vertical stripes, blue red and blue again. It looks like the flag of a European country stretched vertically. It cost the country $2 million or so, which was widely seen as a scandal at the time, although it’s probably doubled in value since.
Now, “Voice of Fire” was undoubtedly a very wise investment, since it’s worth a lot more than it used to be. It is also a perfectly reasonable work of art to display in a national gallery, it being a work by an influential artist and thus a valued part of the history of modern art.
But as art, let’s be honest: it would be silly to pretend that “Voice of Fire” makes a significant artistic statement. This isn’t a matter of “Gosh, that Barnett can’t even draw;” abstract art is art. It’s simply a matter that entirely random explanations and justifications were offered to support the alleged mastery of the painting. Newman’s as dead as Elvis so we can’t ask him, but my honest opinion, which is supported by the weight of the evidence, is that 99.9% of all the convoluted, elitist rationalizations supporting the genius and meaning of “Voice of Fire” never once occurred to Barnett Newman. If that’s the case, I would suggest there is no genius at all in “Voice of Fire.” Here is an honest-to-God review of “Voice of Fire”:
Hey, I’m a university graduate too, and in technical terms I believe this is referred to as bullshit. I would offer my new Siskel’s Law of Paintings, aka the Qix Question: “Does this painting evoke more genuine emotion, thought, or reflection than a screen shot of a game of Qix with the same artist’s name attached to the placard?” “Voice of Fire” fails the test. (Extra points if you remember “Qix.”) This was wonderfully lampooned in “I’ve Heard the Mermaids Singing,” wherein two pseudo-snobby art hacks coo and rave over a blank canvas.
Well, I think “Eyes Wide Shut” is the “Voice of Fire” of film. Both were made by a noted but underappreciated genius who croaked shortly after making the work (well, in Newman’s case it took a few years) and so are off the hook for explaining it. Both don’t, to my eyes, have a really substantial amount of artistic merit. I’ll grant it’s not a universally held opinion, but I cannot help but notice that many of the rave reviews for “Eyes Wide Shut” seem to be based on two things:
Stanley Kubrick’s a genius
If you don’t like “Eyes Wide Shut,” you’re a stupid dummy head.
Now, to be fair, YOUR review was at least detailed and gave some reasoning as to why you liked the movie. I don’t agree with much of it, although I love your theory as to its true meaning and I think there’s something to it, but at least you justified it. The left/right mise en scene, for instance; it’s a neat theory, but to be honest as I run through a list of movies in my head I don’t see much correlation (note that in Full Metal Jacket, GSgt. Hartman stands to the right of the recruits he terrorizes) between right/left position and dominance.
Quoting your review:
No, I’m not, and that doesn’t make it a complex film. Yes, I saw the symbolism behind the switch in aspect after he kissed her hand. Frankly, Kubrick might as well have put up a big sign that says PLEASE NOTE SUBTLE CHANGE IN POWER RELATIONSHIP HAPPENING HERE. CONSULT YOUR FOUCAULT CHEAT SHEETS. DRINK DIET COKE!
That’s not to say there isn’t something to it. You’re right in that Kubrick is a master of mise en scene. He does use colour very nicely. What I do honestly believe, however, is that none of it amounted to a hill of beans. Splashing a symbolic colour at certain times and position your actors in certain places is fourth-year-of-a-film-studies-degree stuff. Imaginative violation of the 180-degree-line is fourth-year-of-a-film-studies-degree-stuff mixed with the creative freedom you get when you’re Stanley Kubrick. The truth is that ANY film technique, in and of itself, is unimpressive. A film is a synthesis of hundreds of points of artistic merit, including photography, editing, writing, acting, music, art and direction. Any one of those things is a hell of a thing unto itself, but a movie is THE all-encompassing art form, and the parts have to add up to a satisfying whole or they’re wasted. I wasn’t satisfied. I saw a great many filmmaking techniques that didn’t add up to a very good movie. And it wasn’t because I didn’t get it. The film, for all its savvy little symbolisms, to my mind fails the Qix Question; “Does this movie generate any more genuine emotion, thought or reflection than would a random collection of artsy filmmaking techniques with equivalent production values and the same director’s name run on the credits?”
Now, is that because I just don’t get it? And if that’s the case, does that mean I didn’t get “Big Daddy,” either? 'Cause I HATED that movie.
My vote: loved it. I’ve only seen it once though so the jury’s still out. I suspect I will love it even more upon second viewing. Waiting for the ‘cartoon free’ USA DVD release: maybe for a long time. I wish Stanley hadn’t passed away before the release because he would have been tweaking it right through the first week. Sadly this film goes down in my book as incomplete. But still great. And not just for arthouses either.
While I first viewed this film in July’99 I thought it was a great Christmas movie. I now think it was the perfect Valentine to his wife.
RickJay: Thank you for your compliments regarding my analysis, and for your thoughtful response. Given what you say, I completely respect your viewpoint. You sound like somebody I’d greatly enjoy having a beer with, even though we’ll have to agree to disagree on this particular movie.
And you’re right about one thing: Big Daddy was a big heap of steaming diaper filling.
Was Eyes Wide Shut related somehow to The Ninth Gate? It just seemed to me that the cult of which Baroness Kessler spoke in The Ninth Gate sounded vaguely and eerily familiar.
Some of the symbolism in EWS was quite interesting, like the astrological symbols represented by the masks in the ceremonial circle… (while the “priest” was still singing) And I imagine the “priest” was burning… what? incense in that little burner he was waving around? Riiight.
I liked both of these movies, but I just couldn’t help seeing them as somehow connected. Both left a lot of little questios unanswered, but movies that I find interesting (thought provoking) always do.
Jeez, I completely missed all the symbolism and stuff but I enjoyed the movie anyway.
I’ll have to watch it again and pay attention.
BTW, great review Cervaise. I’m printing it out so I can refer to it when I watch the movie again.
Why did they have to go through that somber, eldritch, imitation-Catholic-ripoff ritual and everything before they could get down to the real business of fornicating? What was all that about? What did it have to do with rich playboys getting their rocks off? How come the ringleader didn’t take part in the orgy? What was he chanting?
Anyhow, I liked it and I would see it again (with the sound turned way down or off–that piano note is the sonic equivalent of an ice-cream headache).
