My jury is still out on "Eyes Wide Shut"

Rating: Null/10 (17 July 2001)

I always ask myself two questions when crticizing a film. The first question is, "What is this film trying to be?". And the second, "Did it succeed?". In other words, I judge films on whether or not I feel that filmmaker accomplished what he set out to do. Holding films to a certain standard doesn't work for me - there's no point in comparing "Porky's" to "Citizen Kane". One is a intriguing portrait of an almost unknowable character, brilliantly painted through flashbacks of his associates with a thread of mystery thoughout which is finally revealed to the audience, but not the characters in the film, at the very end. The other is a rip-snorting goofball beer-and-pizza T and A movie with some pretty hilarious, if pedestrian, humor. Both films become exactly what they set out to be.
Given that method, I'm undecided about Stanley Kubrick's final film, "Eyes Wide Shut". This is not to say that I think it's a bad film. I was completely absorbed during the entire film...at times by the psychological conflict between the characters, at others by the bizarre suspense offered, but at all times by the photography. It is a magnificently crafted film. However, I'm not sure what Kubrick intended "Eyes Wide Shut" to be. It's not a character movie, although the characters are intriguing. It's not pornography, although the film is perpetually sexual. It's not a thriller, although there is suspense and tension. And it's not a horror movie, although at times it's very disturbing. Kubrick's films are usually fairly specific in tone or message, with technology running amok in "2001: A Space Oddysey", society run amok in "A Clockwork Orange", and stupidity running amok in "Dr. Strangelove". "Eyes Wide Shut" is certainly thought-provoking, but I'm not sure what Kubrick was going for. If his intention was to jar the viewer from one emotional state to another, the film is a great success.

A fascinating aspect and example of the emotional ping-ponging of "Eyes Wide Shut" is that there is much sexuality in the film and much nudity, but rarely are the two occurring simutaneously. The entire film has an undercurrent of raw sexuality, however the nude scenes are mostly cold, clinical, or disturbing. The only time nudity and sexuality occur together, the actors involved are far from the camera and only peripherally part of the scene. The close up, in-your-face nude scenes are scenes of tension or peril, almost as if Kubrick was saying "I'm going to wave this gorgeous nude woman before your eyes and not allow you to enjoy it!" . Also, I should mention that as far as the nudity is concerned, this is a film for the guys: I can't remember if there was male nudity in the film...if there was, it was buried (so to speak) in the female nudity. So ladies, I can only tell you that there's not too much for you to look at as far as beefcake is concerned. But guys, I can only say two words to you: Nicole Kidman. And she ain't all there is in that department, either.
The photography, as in all of Kubrick's films, is at once stunning and exsquisite. I still can't quite identify exactly how Kubrick achieved the look of all his films, but the cinematography in "Eyes Wide Shut" is distinctly Kubrick: it's so good that it's almost distracting. The lighting in this film is especially well done. It is either meticulously crafted to look like available light, or it actually is available light perfectly captured. It's really too good to tell.
It's difficult to say what I thought of "Eyes Wide Shut". It's definitely not for everyone, although I think it's a fitting farewell from the late Stanley Kubrick. Like life, dreams, nightmares and even death, "Eyes Wide Shut" is enigmatic and defies definition. It must be experienced personally.