Compared to "2001" ...

Rating: 10/10 (11 August 1999)

I was reminded of "2001: A Space Odyssey" in a number of ways. Both it and "Eyes Wide Shut" are indescribably, wallowingly, gloriously slow. But whereas "2001" made an immediate impact, and all but clubbed me over the head while I was watching it, I felt as if "Eyes Wide Shut" gently tapped me on the shoulder - and THEN clubbed me on the head, an hour or two after I left the cinema. Maybe it's the movie, maybe my reflexes have decayed. Whatever: my opinion of the movie has been steadily rising since I finished watching it.
I'm going to run with the comparison for a bit. In both films it's ambiguous - or it appears to be ambiguous at first - exactly what happens. But whereas "2001" has a "what the hell just happened?" kind of ambiguity, there are exactly two obvious ways of interpreting what happened in "Eyes Wide Shut", one of which, I think, is determinately right, and the other wrong. It all hinges on how seriously you take the title, "Eyes Wide Shut". (There. Let anyone who hasn't seen the movie try to get some meaning out of THAT.)
Both films have a key moment of terror. The moment in "2001" occurs when something goes alarmingly wrong way out beyond the orbit of Mars. The feel of "Eyes Wide Shut", the sense we get that the central character is miles away from society and beyond all help, is quite similar. Somehow the terror is much greater in "2001". But terror gives way to something else in "2001", whereas here Kubrick manages to keep up the quiet fear in subsequent, seemingly innocent, scenes.
In both films Kubrick's use of music is something else again to that of people who plaster bits of Sibelius or Beethoven or Puccini or whoever over scenes in their films because they think it sounds good. "Eyes Wide Shut" made me hum Shostakovich to myself on the way home, but that's not what I mean. More importantly I get the impression that Kubrick has looked at every piece of music ever written and chosen exactly the right one to fit in with his story, whatever musical territory he had to explore in order to get it. (Normally I wouldn't listen to Ligeti in a pink fit - but try to imagine "2001" or "Eyes Wide Shut" without him.)
I do side with those people who describe the opening scenes as too slow. Sort of, anyway. Kubrick is merely adopting the pace - surely it's the right pace - he will stick to throughout; so it's not sloth that's the problem. Rather, we're not being fed enough of immediate interest in "Eyes Wide Shut" (this is in stark contrast to "2001") to get us through the scenes the first time round. I think this IS a defect. (Of a sort.)
I can understand that there are people who dislike "Eyes Wide Shut", but it's futile to deny that it's very good. We haven't been given very many Kubrick films since about 1960, and this is the last. If you miss this one you'll probably regret it.