DVD Review: Eyes Wide Shut
Published April 23, 2008
Nine years after Stanley Kubrick left us with his final film, Eyes Wide Shut, I am surprised by my view on it. Where most of Kubrick's films are hard to appreciate upon their initial release, this one wasn't, at least for me. A decade later, the esteem lavished on any of his films usually grows. But, in my opinion, this one's hasn't. As anyone familiar with Kubrick's work knows, his films were (and still are) more often ahead, not behind the times, in their themes and state of the art of cinema. And while I initially blamed the publicity angle used to promote it, and the censorship inflicted on it, for most of its denigration, I now wonder why almost a decade later, with those problems now non-existent, the film seems out-of-step.
The VHS age had arrived in the mid to late eighties, so by the time the nineties were just about over, it was no surprise that the erotic film genre had benefited the most during that period. Americans no longer needed to be ashamed of enjoying sexually-charged cinema. They could just rent a movie and watch it at home. That movie came in many forms depending on your proclivities. The most obvious was pornography, but if you were too timid to try that out, you could rent a direct-to-video softcore film such as the ones seen on late-night Cinemax channels. For more intellectual value you could obtain an NC17-rated film, like Henry and June. More mainstream viewers could rent a movie that used to be rated R in theaters, but would have added sex scenes in a newly released unrated version, like Basic Instinct. The possibilities were limitless, and the market followed suit to a degree where it became oversaturated with such films: Wild Orchid, Showgirls, Zandalee, etc.
Back in 1999, as the hype was building regarding Stanley Kubrick's collaboration with then-husband-and-wife Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, Eyes Wide Shut's marketing contributed to all kinds of notions being thrown around, some correct and some not. The ultimate gladiator film is Spartacus, a Kubrick film. The ultimate sci-fi film is 2001: A Space Odyssey, a Kubrick film. As we go forward it becomes a little more arguable. The ultimate horror movie is regarded by many to be Kubrick's The Shining. And Full Metal Jacket has just as much right to be regarded as the ultimate Vietnam movie as Platoon. So when the trailer is released for Kubrick's latest film, and it features the hottest celebrity couple in the planet nude in front of a mirror, about to engage in lovemaking...was it any surprise that people were going to misconstrue this as Kubrick's take on the erotic film. Rumors circulated. Cruise and Kidman's relationship was straining under Kubrick's pressure to make Eyes Wide Shut the ultimate sex movie. The scenes were so pornographic the movie would have to be gutted to make it work for American cinema.
![Full Metal Jacket (Deluxe Edition) [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Q-rN%2Bw6QL._SY90_.jpg "Full Metal Jacket (Deluxe Edition) [Blu-ray]")
- DVD Review: Eyes Wide Shut
- Published: April 23, 2008
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Writer: Tony Dayoub
- Tony Dayoub's BC Writer page
- Tony Dayoub's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
El Bicho,
"First, I don't see what leads you to believe the couple will work things out, but if you can't release the actors from their real life, I don't see how can you enjoy any movie with a known celebrity in it?"
IMHO, I think the reason this film is different is that Kubrick was most likely capitalizing on the actors' real=life relationship to inform the film's characters, and to substitute the use of exposition in viewer's minds as they saw the movie.
Now as to why I think things will work out, it is because Kubrick chose to end it when the family unit has been reunited and is out shopping instead of ending it earlier in the previous scene when Alice is in tears over finding out what Dr. Bill was up to all night.
Thanks for the comments.
As an ardent supporter of Kubrick, I must admit it took a repeat viewing of the film before I came around and finally recognized the brilliance of Kubrick's vision of the film. Many of the elements of the film remind me of the Nathaniel Hawthorne short story "Young Goodman Brown"; I would venture to suggest this is probably the closest anyone has come to adapting that tale as a film.
Quote: "The DVD has been improved by the fact that it is the first release of the film in widescreen. The images are presented beautifully as Kubrick intended."
The first sentence is a matter of opinion. The second is simply INCORRECT; Kubrick intended it to be in 1.33:1 (aka 4:3 or academy ratio). He seems to have preferred it to "widescreen" for certain films. Perhaps, because this film shot mainly in intimate interiors, urban scenes, and other "vertical" environs; but this only conjecture. What is not conjecture, is the fact he intended the film to be presented in "academy" not "letterbox"; these are the facts. Research and fact checking are an important JOURNALISTIC RESPONSIBILITY.
Joe,
I appreciate your comments, and upon further research find that his longtime assistant, Leon Vitali asserts the same point you are trying to make in an interview with The Digital Bits on 5/4/01:
"Bill Hunt: ...And our understanding is that there were only three Kubrick films that were intended to be seen in a widescreen aspect ratio...
Leon Vitali: Correct. There was Spartacus and 2001. And then there was Lolita, which was 1.66. The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation - in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted."
So my apologies for the misinformation, and I stand corrected.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/76132)
I enjoyed the film also and thought it had a lot of interesting things to say about marriage, sex, and the masks we wear. It certainly says more than marriage is safe.
The lights that streamed down the wall at the party were great as is the soundtrack. I should crack that out. Haven't listened to it in a while.
"It is hard to accept the couple in the film will work things out when we know that in life they broke up."
First, I don't see what leads you to believe the couple will work things out, but if you can't release the actors from their real life, I don't see how can you enjoy any movie with a known celebrity in it?