After three years of waiting, EYES WIDE SHUT has finally come out. So now after all this time, the delays, the rumors, the teases, the sad death of its director, Stanley Kubrick, we finally get to answer the question, Does it live up to the hype? For the first time this year, the answer to that question is a resounding yes. This is, so far, the best film I've seen this year, and it deserves its place among other Kubrick masterpieces like DR. STRANGELOVE, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.
Although I had been looking forward to this film, I must admit I was unsure about it at first. After all, since CLOCKWORK, Kubrick's films(BARRY LYNDON, THE SHINING, and FULL METAL JACKET), while having some good parts, have all been somewhat flawed, particularly THE SHINING. But my misgivings were quickly put to rest within the opening scenes, where we get a glimpse of both what's right on the surface(nine happy years of marriage, wealth, a healthy 7 year old daughter, both husband and wife with jobs) and the possibility of storms that lurk underneath(the practiced way they get ready for the party, hardly looking at each other), and I stayed enthralled throughout.
Now I'd like to use this forum to deflect some of the criticisms I've read of the movie so far. One, of course, is that this is not really New York City, but a soundstage in England. I've lived in New York City and visited several times, and the surface details seem right, but more importantly, this is set in the "rich" area of Manhattan, which has always been idealized in movies(particularly the Woody Allen ones), and thus it's appropriate in a dream-like movie to play to the fantasy of the city, rather than the reality.
Secondly, we are given no hint that this is a dream Cruise's character may be walking in, since it looks so real(yes, that's inconsistent with the criticism up above, but to be fair, I've only seen a couple of reviews which make that mistake). First of all, dreams rarely look like they were designed by Salvador Dali(at least, my dreams). Secondly, if the whole nighttime sequence looked like a dream and nothing else, we would laugh when Cruise goes back to the various places he visited at night; how would he know to go back to them if they weren't real? Finally, in the way the narrative unspools, it's played like a dream, complete with scene where he might be awakening(the scene with Domino(Vinessa Shaw), the prostitute, where his cell phone rings and Kidman is on the phone right before he can do any damage).
Thirdly, that Kidman is only in the film for 40 minutes of its 2 hour, 40 minute running length. Now granted, that is all of her screen time, but when Cruise enters his "dream state", she is always in back of his mind, not just in the flashback scenes(when he imagines her having sex with the sailor she had fantasies about), but in the fact that all the other women he comes across are meant to make him think of Kidman. And her performance is certainly strong enough(especially in her monologues) to linger in the mind.
Fourth, that Cruise is completely flat here. Again, at least in the dreams I've had and read about, often in dreams we react to events, not provoke them, and that's what his character does. Secondly, Kubrick and Cruise play off of his image, to make him the object of desire of everyone he meets, and not just women(I like to think the scenes where he's harassed by a group of teenage thugs who think he's gay, and where hotel concierge Alan Cumming seems to be coming on to him, are Kubrick's way of joking about the rumors of Cruise being gay which have dogged him). For all of that, I think he plays it exactly right.
Finally, that the film is flat and not really sexy. Once again, unless it's a nightmare, dreams aren't played at MTV speed. Secondly, contrary to what we heard at first about the film, this isn't about sex. Rather, this is about sexual obsession, so it's not supposed to be about sex the act. It may seem like the film cheats a little by asking us to play off our expectations of Cruise and Kidman as a couple, so we just picture in our heads them having sex, rather than us seeing it, but isn't it good that some things are left to our imagination? Besides, it's only on the surface that things look good, as I said before.
Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to read DREAM STORY, the novella this is based on, and so have no answer to those who claim this is a poor adaptation(though what some have called stilted dialogue I think adds to the dreamlike quality, and I'm normally on the lookout for flat dialogue), and that may be true. But this is an excellent film, a fitting epitaph for Kubrick, and proof once again that Cruise can act when he's teamed with a real director.
Although I had been looking forward to this film, I must admit I was unsure about it at first. After all, since CLOCKWORK, Kubrick's films(BARRY LYNDON, THE SHINING, and FULL METAL JACKET), while having some good parts, have all been somewhat flawed, particularly THE SHINING. But my misgivings were quickly put to rest within the opening scenes, where we get a glimpse of both what's right on the surface(nine happy years of marriage, wealth, a healthy 7 year old daughter, both husband and wife with jobs) and the possibility of storms that lurk underneath(the practiced way they get ready for the party, hardly looking at each other), and I stayed enthralled throughout.
Now I'd like to use this forum to deflect some of the criticisms I've read of the movie so far. One, of course, is that this is not really New York City, but a soundstage in England. I've lived in New York City and visited several times, and the surface details seem right, but more importantly, this is set in the "rich" area of Manhattan, which has always been idealized in movies(particularly the Woody Allen ones), and thus it's appropriate in a dream-like movie to play to the fantasy of the city, rather than the reality.
Secondly, we are given no hint that this is a dream Cruise's character may be walking in, since it looks so real(yes, that's inconsistent with the criticism up above, but to be fair, I've only seen a couple of reviews which make that mistake). First of all, dreams rarely look like they were designed by Salvador Dali(at least, my dreams). Secondly, if the whole nighttime sequence looked like a dream and nothing else, we would laugh when Cruise goes back to the various places he visited at night; how would he know to go back to them if they weren't real? Finally, in the way the narrative unspools, it's played like a dream, complete with scene where he might be awakening(the scene with Domino(Vinessa Shaw), the prostitute, where his cell phone rings and Kidman is on the phone right before he can do any damage).
Thirdly, that Kidman is only in the film for 40 minutes of its 2 hour, 40 minute running length. Now granted, that is all of her screen time, but when Cruise enters his "dream state", she is always in back of his mind, not just in the flashback scenes(when he imagines her having sex with the sailor she had fantasies about), but in the fact that all the other women he comes across are meant to make him think of Kidman. And her performance is certainly strong enough(especially in her monologues) to linger in the mind.
Fourth, that Cruise is completely flat here. Again, at least in the dreams I've had and read about, often in dreams we react to events, not provoke them, and that's what his character does. Secondly, Kubrick and Cruise play off of his image, to make him the object of desire of everyone he meets, and not just women(I like to think the scenes where he's harassed by a group of teenage thugs who think he's gay, and where hotel concierge Alan Cumming seems to be coming on to him, are Kubrick's way of joking about the rumors of Cruise being gay which have dogged him). For all of that, I think he plays it exactly right.
Finally, that the film is flat and not really sexy. Once again, unless it's a nightmare, dreams aren't played at MTV speed. Secondly, contrary to what we heard at first about the film, this isn't about sex. Rather, this is about sexual obsession, so it's not supposed to be about sex the act. It may seem like the film cheats a little by asking us to play off our expectations of Cruise and Kidman as a couple, so we just picture in our heads them having sex, rather than us seeing it, but isn't it good that some things are left to our imagination? Besides, it's only on the surface that things look good, as I said before.
Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to read DREAM STORY, the novella this is based on, and so have no answer to those who claim this is a poor adaptation(though what some have called stilted dialogue I think adds to the dreamlike quality, and I'm normally on the lookout for flat dialogue), and that may be true. But this is an excellent film, a fitting epitaph for Kubrick, and proof once again that Cruise can act when he's teamed with a real director.