Eyes wide shut revisited (spoilers-a-plenty)

Rating: Null/10 (25 August 2001)

I used to wonder why some people would want to post two or even more comments on the same movie on IMDB, but when I bought a copy of Eyes Wide Shut the other day and saw the film for a fourth time, I decided to update my comment from last year, which, although it goes on just about forever, seemed a bit inconclusive.
I still stand by my original rating: a seven, or, having switched to star -or asterisk- rating: *** out of ****.
This film is open for interpretation, and your appreciation of this film is largely depending on how you interpret it. A lot of people on this pages have interpret this film in an intellectual way that works for them; unfortunately many of these people feel sublime and openly resent the people who didn't like this film. Many of the people who gave this film a negative review are more down to earth and DO have a point when they state that if Kubrick hadn't been involved in the film, it wouldn't have received so much attention.
Many people are quite harsh on Cruise's performance, calling his performance wooden, a performance on the automatic pilot. I think Cruise's acting is just fine -- it's his character who is wooden. Dr. Bill is a passive individual who makes the impression that he didn't spend enough time on the streets. He constantly flashes his medical license, as if to justify his every move to others; he repeats almost everything that is said to him, suggesting his insecurity; his many smiles are forced, insincere; he constantly crosses his arms, another sign of insecurity, a sign of shutting himself off. This is a person who watches, but does not dare touch. 'I'm in your hands', he tells the friendly prostitute he stumbles upon. The story of his life. Not a very enterprising chap.
Unfortunately, although Dr. Bill might be one complex dude, it doesn't make him particularly interesting (or challenging for the actor) -- and he is in almost every frame of this 160 minute film. His sexual odyssey isn't all that interesting either. There is no firework in this film. Stephen King called "The Shining" a firecracker that failed to go off in the end, but EWS exist entirely of scenes that go out with a wimp. Every scene is a joke without a punchline, without dramatic payoff. I think this, too, was done intentionally: the presence of Alan Cumming's roundly criticized gay hotel clerk and the clinical, detached orgy with its not very erotic parade of Baywatch-extras are a direct result of Dr. Bill's state of mind. It has been suggested that a lot of Dr. Bill's odyssey takes place in his head. With his superficial and not very creative mind, he reduces everyone, including his wife Alice, to stereotypes he's seen on television or read about in a book. Bill says Alice looks great without looking (he just expects her to look perfect, to be the faithful wife and mother) and when she tells him a perfectly innocent seven year itch fantasy, he simply can't handle it. (not unlike the Heather Donahue character from "Blair Witch", Dr. Bill takes a lot for granted; expects things to go a certain way, and when it doesn't, he doesn't know what to do, he looses his grip).
Thus begins his journey through nightly Manhattan and his encounters with erotic cliche's: the Julia Roberts-esque hooker whom you'd actually like to take home and introduce to mom; the Lolita; the feminine homosexual; the orgy where girls straight out of Playboy magazine have suggestive, Playboy channel-style sex. (and don't forget Bill's visualisation of his wife's adultary, which looks like a straight-to-video cheapy). But, in the cold light of day, reality comes crashing in. He learns the friendly hooker has aids and Lolita's father doesn't disapprove of his daughter's behavior anymore; on the contrary, he's even more than happy to cash in on his daughter's premature sexual activities.
Again, enough room for a variety of interpretations, but the film itself never becomes really interesting or stirring.
I agree with the people who say the film is too long. I didn't really care for the boring 'let's wrap it up in a neat package'-scene with Pollack and Cruise (although it is for us to decide whether the lad was or wasn't telling Dr. Bill the truth). This scene came about 2 1/2 hours in the film; at a point where I just didn't care anymore. I think this is the longest dialogue-scene in Kubrick's oeuvre, and it made painfully obvious that the man was a visual director, not an actor's director. (those who read co-writer Frederick Raphael's insipid memoir "Eyes Wide Open" know who's really to blame for the inclusion of this scene). After that long, long scene, it still wasn't over yet. I saw the movie twice in the theatre and at this point, many people became extremely restless and clearly wanted it to come to an end. When the screen finally went to black, most people uttered a sigh of relief and immediately got out of there. Four or five people stayed for the closing credits.
I also agree with the many, many people who found this film's musical theme, Ligeti's Musica Ricercata II, very annoying. It really gets on your nerves. This film's main theme should have been Liszt's Grey Clouds, a similar but much more subtle piece that can be heard in the morgue scene.
So, as is the case with most of Kubrick's films, there's lots of room for interpretation. But whereas those films are also powerful and rewarding when you just sit back for the experience, that's not the case with EWS. Kubrick's 2001, for example, was far more enigmatic, but few people felt the need to analyze it as the film's sincerity and brilliance was clear and present. Analyzing EWS isn't the bonus of enjoying the film on another level; coming up with our own intellectual interpretation of the weak material is the only way to convince ourselves that EWS, too, is a masterpiece. But in resolving to this form of auto-eroticism for the mind, we actually allow ourselves to live in denial, to keep our own eyes wide shut.
Even Kubrick's best work has its share of minor flaws, but in the case of EWS there are very few merits.
Then why do I still give this film *** out of ****? I guess because I recognized a lot of myself in Cruise's behavior and mannerisms. That was sorta nice and it worked therapeutically. And there are some fine scenes in this film: the smoking dope scene had its moments; the run-in with the 'rowdy college students' is a fine moment; the scene in the morgue and the short scene where Cruise comes home from work and chats with his wife an daughter, are all echoes of Kubrick's genius and seem to belong in a better film.
Keeping in mind that Kubrick often worked on a film even after it premiered, I think, that if he hadn't died on March the 8th 1999, he probably would have reduced EWS's runningtime, tightening its pacing and perhaps even deleting Pollack's long, long explanation.
Anyway, liking or disliking EWS has got nothing to with how intelligent you are. If you were disappointed by the film, I really can't blame you; if you DID like the film, you apparently had the time and willingness to consider this film as the sort of puzzle where, in the end, you had to decide for yourself if you solved it or not.
Again, *** out of ****