Eyes Wide Shut

Eyes Wide Shut is a movie like Casablanca or The Wizard of Oz (which is subtly referenced in the film) in that the more times you view it, the more you get out of it. (I imagine at some point you would wring out all the meaning, but that would take scores of viewings.) One infamous scene is so over-the-top it is easy to miss all the subtle references in the film, which necessitates multiple viewings. Fair warning--the more times you watch it, the more you go down the rabbit hole Kubrick digs (a reference to Alice in Wonderland, also evoked in Eyes Wide Shut).

Eyes Wide Shut was inspired by an Austrian novella called "Traumnovelle." The film is indeed dreamlike. Kubrick recreated Greenwich Village on a sound stage in London, which, like a dream, is slightly off from the real thing and contains no superfluous elements. This evokes the perfect atmosphere for the movie as we accompany Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) on his all-night, humiliating, surreal odyssey.

To me, the title of the movie, Eyes Wide Shut, implies willful naivete, particularly Dr. Bill's, and by extension the viewers', which seems to be (one of) the theme(s) Kubrick intends to highlight. Even the movie's poster seems to imply this: a mirror image of Nicole Kidman's character (Alice, as in Through the Looking Glass), looking right through the mirror in what appears to be an Illuminati image, while Dr. Bill has his eyes closed. In fact, all the shots of Alice looking in the mirror started to creep me out on subsequent viewings.

The movie then indulges in conspiracy-theory dog whistles to anyone whose eyes aren't wide shut. The Harfords are a WASPy family living in a luxurious apartment in Central Part West, which may be out of reach for a doctor (basically, a highly paid member of the working class) whose wife doesn't work. Furthermore, Dr. Bill Harford (whose name sounds like "Dollar Bill Harrison Ford") throws around money like it's no object. Which raises the question of how he really makes his money--apparently by making house calls to the ridiculously wealthy who can afford to avoid hospital waiting rooms. Dr. Bill seems to aspire to rub shoulders with these people, but he is spectacularly naive to the realities of the world he is tangentially involved in and his actual role in it. It seems to me the reason he was invited to the Victor's (as in an economic "victor's") luxurious party at the beginning is because it is a house-call in disguise in case of something like the OD that indeed occurs at one point. I determined this by reading between the lines when the two models hit on him, and he seems oblivious to their allusions of taking him "to where the rainbow ends" (more on that below) and when he is taken away at Victor's call, they exchange looks that seem to say they had mistaken him for one of the elites, not a working-class schlub.

FULL-ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES BELOW.

If Dr. Bill's eyes are wide shut, then Alice's are partly open. This is implied in the very first dialogue exchange in the movie, when Alice knows exactly where Dr. Bill had left his wallet, while he had forgotten, and he doesn't remember the name of the babysitter, which was mentioned like 30 seconds earlier. This comes to the fore when he simply can't imagine Alice being unfaithful to him because women don't think like men, and she falls to the floor laughing and divulges a depressing sexual fantasy. Alice looks in the mirror a lot, most memorably when she stares in the mirror as Dr. Bill begins kissing her. Is Kubrick implying Alice is a former sex slave who is going "through the looking glass"--the mental space sex slaves go to mentally block their abuse? Is that why Alice is constantly grooming their daughter, Helena? Is she subconsciously grooming her daughter for a similar fate? Is that why in the final scene, when Alice and Dr. Bill are wrapped up in their conversation at the toy store, Helena can be seen running away in the direction of two men in the background, who had also been in the background at Victor's party? Among the strange toys at said toy store are stuffed tigers and a game called "Magic Circle"--resembling the imagery at the secret society's ritual/party Dr. Bill crashed and apparently a prop created for the movie. The stuffed tigers are identical to one on Domino's bed, a streetwalker Dr. Bill meets in Greenwich Village. Is Kubrick implying Domino is a sex slave, having undergone "Beta Kitten" programming, and the juxtaposition of the same toy with Helena in a toy store implying the girl's fate as well as the creepy conditioning the elites are subjecting the masses to?

Then there are the references to "rainbows," as in "Somewhere Over the Rainbow," another reference to sex slave conditioning, similar to "through the looking glass." The two models at Victor's party offer to take Dr. Bill "to where the rainbow ends"--where they go mentally when they're having sex. Then there is the costume shop "Rainbow" where Dr. Bill obtains the cloak for the secret society's party and where the proprietor's daughter prostitutes herself. The girl runs from her enraged father, gets behind Dr. Bill for protection, then whispers something inaudible into his ear. The version of the movie I own has Japanese subtitles that translate what she said: She tells him which cloak to choose. Does she infer where he is going with that cloak and does she have knowledge of what goes on there? That would seem to connect her with the rainbow image in the store's name.

Finally, I question how accurate Kubrick's depiction of the elite's secret society is. It seems to be a hodgepodge of hellfire club, Bohemian Grove, Illuminati/Freemason, O.T.O. imagery. Are there elite cadres involved in these types of ritual debauchery? I'd guess Kubrick was close enough to these people he probably saw a lot and knew enough to guess at the rest (such as the sort of parties the Rothschilds threw--the exterior of the house of the party was one of the Rothschilds' residences). There are disturbing parallels with Eyes Wide Shut in the Jeffrey Epstein case and his "suicide." I'm guessing it is true in broad strokes. I think Kubrick was telling us society's elites engage in depravities that would frighten and disgust the masses if we knew about them, and therefore we shouldn't be so naive to grant the economic victors any moral authority.

Initially was at a loss for words with this one. I can't necessarily explain the feelings this film brings out, but I can say they feel real personal and there's just something so off yet so painfully real about (most of) this movie and it is just really undervalued in Kubrick's filmography, I think. Besides being one of my favorite looking movies ever, the midpoint turn is one of the scariest heading down rabbit hole reveals I've really encountered in a film and it just disturbed me for the entire time (you know the point) and after as it continued provocatively building to the disturbing and bizarrely cathartic ending, which haunts me as the final scene in a Kubrick film. It's perfect in it's imperfectness and I get an insane level of both joy and sadness watching this movie.

I remember when Kubrick passed away. I read it in the morning newspaper, and was struck with deep sadness I couldn't explain. Mind you, I was not even 12 years old at the time and had barely seen any of his films.

So I went to see "Eyes Wide Shut" (1999) at the cinema. I credit it, along with Terrence Malick's "The Thin Red Line" (1998), as an experience that ignited my interest in film, since they were both films like I had never seen before. Sure, there's that one reason why a young lad might be interested in this, but I was so struck by its atmosphere and narrative flow that I had to read Schnitzler's "Traumnovelle". And how disappointed I was in how unalike they were. The film was in a world of its own that had a sense of time that was its own, a sense of colour that was its own, a sense of light that was its own. Every movement was languid, every word deliberate.

I never really thought about the connection between this and Malick's film until now, but really, they both move in the realm of dreams and memories and projected, subjective realities – between something that did happen (to someone) and something that might have happened. There's ellipsis, ambiguity, metaphor. Both work their magic in visual terms. I'm soaked in that light from the ball even by recalling the images in my mind as I'm writing this.

Fidelio – enter.

With the exception of a late-occurring scene of deadening over-explanation wholly unnecessary to the film on every level (and rather unusual for Kubrick), Eyes Wide Shut is utterly sensational, and represents another gleaming jewel in the master filmmaker's already studded crown. Cruise and Kidman surpass all of their previous work, turning in spectacular performances infused with nuances only hinted at prior to this outing. Their real-life union appears to bring every bit of unique tension Kubrick intended, as the movie wholly depends on the verisimilitude of the central couple's relationship. Kubrick's tone fulfills all the promise of the title, consistently delivering an elevated texture of almost uncanny imagination perpetually hovering between fantasy and reality. The director additionally mines many of his familiar thematic concerns, including deceit, paranoia, and blinding frustration. Eyes Wide Shut is certain to be as closely scrutinized as many of Kubrick's other films (particularly because it is his final work), and its thoughtful and challenging treatment of such lightning-rod topics as marital honesty, sexual jealousy, and the perceived risks of disclosing one's fantasies (even to the single person you trust more than any other) is sure to draw some people in while pushing others away.

Eyes Wide Shut is ill-suited for the summer movie corridor. It has no explosions, no running, shouting, or a single gunshot. What it has are long scenes in which characters talk to one another. Slowly and carefully. The problem is that the film is marketed as having white-hot sex scenes and plenty of gratuitous nudity, while it has neither. There is plenty of naked flesh, don't get me wrong, but in exactly the opposite way that the ads make it appear. This is not a movie about being sexy and naked -- it's a movie about how flesh is just another part of being human, so what is all the fuss about? The marketing campaign is misleading, and led to disappointment in the audience that I saw the movie with, who were just looking for some skin.

The tension in the plot and the issues that the film discusses aren't telegraphed to the audience, they're hinted at in the dialog. There is no neat resolution at the end, life simply goes on. You may watch the whole film and think "that wasn't about anything!" Then think about what you've seen and realize it has a great deal to say.

The film is a meditation on sexuality and how it relates to marriage, death, and money. It's a fascinating commentary on modern life, and a rare movie that dares to examine sex as impassionately as any other issue.

The directing and cinematography alone would be worth the price of admission without the social commentary. The sets are an integral part of the movie; they breathe and glow and live. Kubrick was a master director, and he uses long shots and dissolves to great effect. Cruise and Kidman are at their best, and the supporting cast is also strong. It's Kubrick's magic work with the camera that holds the film together.

All in all, definitely worth seeing for the un-uptight. It's possible to watch this film and actually think about it for hours afterward. That's something you won't get with the Wild, Wild West.