Eyes Wide Shut

[lorenzo]

Yes I know i am behind the times but eventually got round to watching this last night. It is always on so late on Sky and as I am getting older I neeed my sleep :rolleyes:

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed it and was captivated for the entire duration of the film. I am a big Tom Cruise fan (yes really ;)) but this wasn't his best performance IMO. However, I need some expert opinions on what it was all about :p I think I got the general idea and if I did then I am definitely a Kubrik convert. As far as I can see it was about ...

...the balance betwen carnal desire and committment in a relationship. Both had their passions although each differed in their lust. As far as I can see neither was unfaithful (physically that is) and both agreed at the end in the shop that they were equally to blame and equally right. The end suggested to me that marriage, relationships, call them what you will, require a certain degree of acceptance by both parties of the others natural desires and wants and that whilst these are natural they shoudl not be acted upon.

Have I lost the plot or what??????

[lorenzo]

Over 50 peaks and not a single reply - come on guys :)

[kerbcrawler]

That sounds about right to me although the beauty of films like this is that they can be open to interpretaion - but like I said it sounds about right.

For the record I liked it too - not hugely so but seemingly more than most others.

[lorenzo]

Thanks kerbcrawler :) It's nice to know I was at least on track ;)

[Steviey]

Yeah, I too was captivated with this movie. I nearly didn't watch it after it was panned by most critics. I found the soundtrack superb - especially the ceromonial ritual scenes - very haunting. Mr Cruise was ok but Nicole certainly out-shone him completely. She has a natural flare and effortless grace with her acting.

[craigb]

Saw this at the cinema and have watched it several times on DVD. The g/f and I could not stop talking about it after seeing it (the only other films to merit such a discussion were AI and Vanilla Sky).

I liked all the different themes and how the 'is thinking about being unfaithful the same as being unfaithful' theme ran through the film.

I can see why many people dont like it but I would watch it anytime.

[Noel M]

Superb film and very much underrated. I think you are on the right track with your summary of the film, Lorenzo, but I think it operates on many other levels.

For me, the greatest achievement of the film for me is that Kubrick made a film about sex and fidelity in marriage without falling into the trap most films do, which is being voyeuristic and exploitative at the same time and falling into the cliches of cinematic depictions of sex. Rather it's an exploration of sex from an internal viewpoint. It all takes place more in thought than in deed and I don't think is meant to be a literal representation of events, but an internal musing on real situations. It represents male and female fantasies without pretending to be realistic.

For example, immediately after Tom Cruises character's feelings of jealousy over what his wife has told him, he starts to see promises of sexuality and infidelity in every subsequent situation he finds himself in. I don't believe these situations really happen as depicted, but are just projections of his mindset at that time, mixing fantasy and reality. Hence the drawn-out, dreamlike quality of the sequences. Unfortunately for some, Kubrick doesn't make it easy for viewers to see the dividing line between fantasy and reality.

I know one director who entirely missed the point when he criticised the orgy scene, saying it was ridiculous for all these women to be kissing wearing masks, and dismissed the film on this point. The point was that this was a representation of a male fantasy - uninhibited sex with nameless, faceless women.

Ultimately, I don't think the film entirely succeeds, but only because it is trying to do the impossible - representing what goes on in the head, rather than what is actually said and done. But to even attempt to make a mainstream film from this point of view is extremely brave and the reason why the death of such a unique and challenging director is a great loss.

[lorenzo]

Thanks for all the comments guys :) I'm glad you sare my passion for the film. I am probably the worst critic / assessor of films on the Forums and have always struggeld with artisitc intepretation. However, as I get older I am becomming more open minded and believe I am analysing things more critically. Whilst I am not seeking reasurrance, it is rewarding to know and indeed hear other peopels viewpoints if only to see additional aspects that you may have missed. That is my biggest concern - fatally missing or misinterpreting the messages within filsm. I do appreciate that many are open to debate and deliberately so but directors do have a general theme and notion they want us to understand.

Thanks again - thought it was to be the shortest thread ever :D

[dunctay]

With hindsight a lot of critics who dismissed this film upon release should return to it...i know i do.
I hated the movie i found it long and boring where nothin interesting happened.....but i was expecting somthing altogether different due to the warner brothers press machine.
After some months i returned to the movie with different expectations and found it totally engrossing haunting and a superb piece of visual cinema.
In my top 20 for many years to come, and perhaps more thought provoking as the years in marriage go on.
Its very interesting to watch now as Cruise and Kidman have since divorced....was this film a crystal ball or did being in it place incredible strain upon our leading players relationship? Who knows i may be way off the mark but still food for thought, placing a very famous hollywood couple under the perverse gaze of the always clever and knowing Kubrick could have been fuel for the flame.
Watch again id say ...........

[lorenzo]

Yes it is interesting about their subsequent separation - who knows :confused:

Interestingly I have just read the IMDb review on the film and was seriously disappointed :(. You wonder whether the reviewer actually saw the film or indeed listened to it because they make several mistakes in their rendition and seem to miss the key points (which we all know now ;)). I always thought it was a sort of God amongst reviews??

[Sputnik]

Fantastic film, I love it :) A perfect note for Kubrick to go out on, but tragically underrated and misunderstood by a lot of people. In a way it's a shame it was sold as a Cruise/Kidman/Kubrick film, had it starred less-knowns it would have attracted the more mature Kubrick audience alone. But the personal story of the stars does add a lot of mysteriousness :eek:

I strongly recommend the book Eyes Wide Open by screenwriter/novelist/critic Frederic Raphael (he adapted the story for the screen, btw). A very easy book to read and not too long, it's his account of the five years from when Kubrick first shared his ideas for the film to his final days, and contains a lot of fascinating thoughts. Very interesting looking at how the writer (established and intelligent as he was) was a distant second-in-command during the writing process, and his struggle to get past the public Kubrick into the private Kubrick. Great book :) Excellent film :)

[lorenzo]

Sounds like a must Sputnik - any ideas where I can get it , at a decent price of course ;)

[Sputnik]

Originally posted by lorenzo
Sounds like a must Sputnik - any ideas where I can get it , at a decent price of course ;)

The ISBN is 0-75380-955-9

Amazon (support the forums!) :D (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753809559/redirect-home?tag=thedvdforums-21)

Cheapest www.bookbrain.co.uk can find is Blackwells (well that link didnt work!)