This summer, two
auteur directors, Stanley Kubrick and Spike Lee (Summer of
Sam), take on the theme of
marital discontent and sexual disloyalty. Neither attempt is really satisfying in creating
an emotionally engaging metaphor for how we overcome the grip of sexual fantasy or
obsession.
To us, Eyes Wide Shut brought greater disappointment. As cold, cynical, and
implausible, it failed to capitalize upon its bizarre mystery and deeper human issues.
We can stipulate that Kubricks oxymoronic world aims to warn us against taking our
mates and relationships for granted. On the surface Eyes Wide Shut offers a hopeful
resolution, but at its core it offers nothing except "Lets fuck and move
on".
Maybe at a time when Arthur Schnitzler (1862-1931) wrote the novella this film was
based on, its themes and scenes were revolutionary or challenging to cultural
sensibilities. Similarly, the effect may have been avant-garde if these literary themes
were brought to the screen in the 60's. The hype and mystery surrounding the film promised
hot stuff between the principle actors, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Such was just not
present except in one very minor mirror scene.
The flap over the NC-17 versus R rating (reportedly because of the "orgy"
scenes, which whatever they showed or didnt show, were static and boring) seems a
kind of reverse marketing ploy, sort of like having the Christian righteous right
complaining about a bad film with no real appeal which ultimately has the effect of
increasing its box office returns.
Not many teenagers are going to be interested in this film except that it is a kind of
controversial, forbidden fruit. With or without heads blocking undulating
hips (apparently added to get the R
rating), this movies availability to teens should not be a
very important issue.
The long "orgy" scene is really a parody of a black Mass with weird music and
booming noises when a high priest dressed in red cape bangs a stick on the ground. At the
start, everyone else wears a black cape and a Mardi Gras like mask. As the events evolve
(ever so slowly), even the naked beauty queens keep their masks on. It may have seemed
risqué, bold, or sexy in the 60s, but now it seems ridiculous.
For Bill (Tom Cruise), attending this secret orgy was supposed to be the source of
great danger because he didnt have proper authorization. One young lovely warns him,
talking from behind her static mask, that he and she are in danger of dying if he does not
flee. Yet there was no blood, sadism, or anything else to make this party seem like
anything other than a highly stylized, harmless enough diversion for a bunch of old guys
who chose it over Viagra to get "it" up with expensive hookers.
And how about the "artistic" follow up with a coffee shop into which our man
retreats while in the background chimes Mozarts Requiem? Kubrick goes on to signal
peril and danger with a two or three note piano piece which had the distracting effect of
wet chalk on a board. And if we buy the danger, our Doctor then returns to the mansion of
the orgy after suspecting they have killed a friend and may kill the young lovely who
warned him. He goes to the gates, is spied by a camera, and then receives an incriminating
note telling him to stop investigating. Oooooh.
The theme, worthy of better treatment, revolves around the difficulties of a couple
with a child in a stable marriage of nearly a decade. To mar the vision of their idyllic
upper crust life, attractions to others spring up, if only in fantasy.
While this issue may often arise to challenge seemingly perfect marriages, to us,
Kubricks characters are utterly disappointing with their lack of intimacy and
integrity. Alice (Nicole Kidman) surrendered to her frustrations to the extent that she
could no longer muster the love or the clarity to show her husband that, for whatever
reason, shes hurting inside. Instead, she castrates him with her dreams and
fantasies. Her husband on the other hand, after nearly losing his life in pursuit of
retaliation, comes home into her arms and fails to put events in proper perspective. As
tainted or troubled as his wifes love for him may be, she is still there, in their
bed, in their home, trying to love him as best she can. A man who ignores that fortune
in order to continue down a path of apparent suicide seemed unrealistic to us. We
dont deny that some people may live this reality, but we hoped for a deeper
exploration and more hopeful resolution.
We usually avoid technical criticism, but if one accepts the concept of eye candy, i.e.
visual effects that delight through the eye, this film has all the delight of eye bitter
herbs, a kind of medicine taste that brings no healing. Much of the photography was grainy
and partly out of focus. In major, long sequences and in other scenes throughout, the
rooms were decorated with irritating bright lights. This kind of cinematography accents
the unrepairably fragmented vision of the couple and to that extend serves its
purpose, but like the story, we found it distracting and superficial.
Eyes Wide Shut Revisited
As critical as we were of this movie, we must praise it for giving us a foundation for
profound conversation. Time and time again, weve come back to the challenges of Bill
and Alice Hartford, finding in them the confirmation of our views on marital intimacy.
Apparently, Mr. Kubrick intended to explore a husbands denial of the power and
complexity of female sexuality. In this case, the husband is not only out of touch with
his own desires and passions, but he underestimates the breadth and depth of his
wife's fantasy life.
We are still trying to imagine what it would mean for either of us to confess to the
other that we had a sexual temptation so strong that we nearly sacrificed our whole
relationship for it.
As an exploration of an unacknowledged and perhaps even murky unconscious reaction to
Bills wifes tale of near betrayal, the unfocused lighting creates a sense of
living in a dream.
Even so, Bills many near brushes with sexual adventure as a sort of retaliation
against his wifes attack are dated and stylized. The whole thing smacks of symbols
for desire and passion rather than the deeper reality. As such, the film suffers from
obtuseness and abstraction.
We still think the movie failed to recognize the Hartfords inability to
synchronize with their deeper discontents, which far transcend sexual function. Their
forays into temptation and fantasy seemed to us like a person stumbling through a dark
room rather than turning on the light. In both cases when the
troubling issue is brought up and discussed, the Hartfords are in some state of
intoxication. First, at the reception, they are drunk. Later at home, they smoke
marijuana. Maybe, they are no longer capable of escaping the darkness of limited sensual
joys and learning to share their souls. The cure and resolution that the story embraces
suggests that just might be the reality of their lives.
If Kubrick made this film as a vision of what our lives may become when we get so
engrained in the habits of our relationships that we forget to rediscover the magic, then
the lesson is well taken. We appreciate the opportunity to open our eyes and
talk about some of our issues and discontents.