Warning: This is a review of an R-rated film with sexual content.
In 1999, the final film from Stanley Kubrick, Eyes Wide Shut, was released to middling reviews but box office success. The financial success was due to a few factors, one of which was the fantastic marketing campaign for the film. The teaser trailer, I would argue, is one of the first great trailers and the posters are sexy and enticing. It’s also worth mentioning that Eyes Wide Shut has one of the all-time greatest taglines, which is just “Cruise. Kidman. Kubrick.”
The excitement for this film was electric, and who could blame anybody? This was the final film from one of the greatest directors of all time (Kubrick died before its release), starring two of the biggest movie stars (and real-life couple) of the decade. Unfortunately, the factors that led to surprise box-office success also led to negative reactions from audiences and critics. This isn’t a surprise, though. Any critic who was hoping to get another Paths of Glory or 2001: A Space Odyssey would immediately be turned off by the off-kilter performances, dialogue, and structure, while any audience member hoping for a steamy-thriller in the style of Basic Instinct or Fatal Attraction would be turned off by how shockingly unerotic Kubrick’s film is (it’s most certainly the least-erotic film to feature an orgy as a major setpiece).
The cause of Eyes Wide Shut’s mixed reactions go beyond just these expectations, though. The lead-up to the film’s release included extensive tabloid-journalism about the production. It’s famously one of the longest film shoots for any film ever, with the cast and crew filming for over 400 days. The post-production time wasn’t what anybody would call “short,” either. Additionally, Kidman and Cruise were a hot couple, and there were rumors floating around that Kubrick filmed the two of them having actual sex. Also, Kubrick famously had small, closed sets, which meant that there was an abundant lack of reliable reporting on the film. That is all on top of the fact that Kubrick is quite possibly the most scrutinized-over director of all time. Films like The Shining have yielded wild conspiracy theories (one in which Kubrick faked the moon landing). People loved—and still do love to believe—that Kubrick was trying to tell us something. All of that is what led to people’s excitement over Eyes Wide Shut. In short, people wanted to solve this thing. Too bad for them. Kubrick had no interest in doing that. And this refusal to be solved is what makes Eyes Wide Shut great.
For those unfamiliar with the plot, the film opens with a shot of Alice Harford (Kidman) undressing just before the title card appears. It’s the sort of sexy and enticing shot that one might have expected going into the film on opening night in 1999. However, the next shot of Alice is a shot of her peeing while her husband, Dr. Bill Harford (Cruise), walks in on her asking if she’s seen his wallet.
The great Jane Campion (director of such masterful works like The Piano and The Power of the Dog), once said that for every sex scene she puts in a film, she tries to also add an awkward scene of somebody peeing. Peeing while your husband lackadaisically asks about his wallet is pretty much the farthest you can get from an erotic sex-scene. “Uh-oh,” somebody might’ve said in 1999. “This isn’t quite what I thought this movie would be like.”
In the next scene, Alice and Bill are attending a party thrown by one of Bill’s rich patients, Victor Ziegler (Sydney Pollack). If you can’t sense that something weird is going on after the pissing scene, it’s very apparent that there’s something wrong going on at the party. Bill, while in the process of talking “flirtatiously” to two women, is asked by Victor to tend to a nude woman (who isn’t Victor’s wife) who had a drug overdose in his bathroom. While that’s happening, Alice is dancing with an older man (Sky du Mont—a silver fox, if I ever saw one) and “flirtatiously” talks with him. I put “flirtatiously” in quotes both of those times because of how undeniably odd these interactions are. One of the lines the older man says to Alice is, “Don’t you think one of the charms of marriage is that it makes deception a necessity?” Alice laughs uneasily at this, in a way that only a very drunk person would, and yet—she’s only been at the party a short while. In fact, Kidman’s performance feels off for much of this scene. It carries over into the following one. In this scene, Bill and Alice smoke pot and fool around. After this, Alice admits to Bill that she’s had fantasies of another man. I hesitate to call either Kidman’s or Cruise’s performance bad, but there’s something indescribable about them and you can imagine every single audience member in 1999 going, “What the Hell is going on?”
Before we get into why the film feels like this, let us first address how Kidman, Cruise, and Kubrick technically achieved this feeling. Kubrick (much like David Fincher after him) would famously do an astonishing number of takes for every single shot, but with Eyes Wide Shut he went to the next level. One famous anecdote involves a shot of Cruise walking through a door 95 times. It’s with this technique that Kubrick created the appropriate vibe of a nightmare. The way these obviously very talented actors deliver their lines are the sort of thing they would only get to with the fiftieth, seventieth, or hundredth take.
After Alice admits to Bill of these fantasies, he spirals and becomes obsessed with having some kind of sexual interaction with another woman. This eventually leads him to an insane cult-like orgy that he clearly isn’t supposed to be at, and things ensue from there until eventually he just wants to be with his wife and away from all of that craziness.
Kubrick’s intentions with Bill’s journey are clear: Bill represents the general filmgoing audience in relation to Kubrick’s films. He’s searching for an answer and solution to why he’s feeling the way he is and he cannot find it. It drives him almost to the point of madness. For decades, people have scrutinized over Eyes Wide Shut’s true meaning. Theories range from it being about Scientology to some people claiming that it’s Kubrick’s way of telling everybody about Jeffrey Epstein. When, in actuality, it’s so simple! It’s about movie-going audience’s obsession with solving things! “Why,” might Kubrick have asked, “does everything have to be a puzzle?” Bill drifts from place to place, attempting to figure out why he’s feeling what he’s feeling, until eventually he and Alice come to the conclusion that some questions are better left unanswered.
In case it’s not clear, much of the last paragraph probably should be taken as a joke. Here I am claiming that Eyes Wide Shut is about how some things shouldn’t be solved, while at the same time I’m claiming I have the grand solution to it. Film is always—yes, always—up for interpretation. Certain interpretations might seem crazy (sometimes forever and sometimes just at first), but they’re all valid. Eyes Wide Shut is Kubrick’s way of telling us that. At least, that’s how I see it.
No dream is ever just a dream, just like how no film is ever just a film. Every movie will have an effect on somebody, but I like to think that Eyes Wide Shut is one of the most affecting films. Somehow, it’s the culmination of an entire century and yet it also feels as though it’s entirely in its own time, different from everything else. It’s also, somehow, one of the best Christmas movies (one that both Christians and atheists can enjoy!). For lots of reasons— one of which is that the conclusion Bill and Alice make at the end of the film isn’t too different from the one they might conclude if their daughter asked them about Santa Claus—some questions are better left unanswered. Or, perhaps, answered truthfully, with a hint of deception. Is that a reach? Maybe, but that’s the fun of art analysis.
Happy holidays from the Little Hawk. See you again in January.
