Stanley Kubrick's Christmas Carol

Rating: Null/10 (27 November 2001)

"What a bunch of weird crap" I loudly proclaimed after we watched "Eyes Wide Shut"; but I cannot get it out of my head and I'm writing this in the hope that it will make it go away. This is a very grown up movie. Kubrick takes his characters, his actors and his adult audience places they all know about but don't want to go, at least not in "decent company".

I never did understand "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968), but I guessed it was about life, the universe and everything. I wish I couldn't understand "Eyes Wide Shut" because it's about everyman (generic!), with Kubrick playing psychotherapist. Under our clothes we are all naked, and even the Queen starts the day on the throne, toilet paper in hand. We put on our uniforms to pretend we are different, and so we don't have to confront the reality underneath. Kubrick's titles sequence uses these facts and tells us we're in for a rough ride.
Is the plot thin? Does the plot matter? Like Bogart and Bacall's "The Big Sleep" (1946), it's not the plot that matters here, but rather what is really going on in individual scenes as snapshots of different angles of everyman's psyche. If you want a more substantial plot, add what has gone before for yourself .... if you know. (Alice's last words may be a clue). In any event, Kubrick's view was that "a film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."
As a mirror held up to our dark side, "Eyes Wide Shut" did not disturb me as profoundly as did "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" (1977) - but it came close. As for the exotic, Peter Greenaway probably does it better in "Prospero's Books" (1991) or "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover" (1989). Where it is really dangerous, is in the confusion it inevitably generates between its characters and the real life people who portray them. In this it is reminiscent of Taylor and Burton in "The Taming of the Shrew" (1967) and "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" (1966). Only I'm convinced this confusion in "Eyes Wide Shut" is deliberate; Kubrick is too good for it to be otherwise. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, Kubrick didn't live long enough to see the extent to which he had scored a direct hit.
Is this a good movie? Without doubt. Did I enjoy it? I'm not sure I was meant to. Did I understand it? I'm not saying! Will most adults understand it? Yes, probably - but I really don't want to know that.