Eyes Wide Shut

Scott Tobias at the AV Club has an interesting discussion of Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut as part of his interesting (and increasingly indispensible) "New Cult Canon" series.

My first thought on the piece is that I'm not sure that the movie deserves the "cult" status that is Tobias's project. I think that EWS is larger than a "cult" movie (although it's not unfair to say that the "New Cult Canon" has grown beyond the project's original ambitions as a whole). My second thought is that the movie deserves a deeper reading that Tobias provides (and really can provide in that format).

It's not that I disagree with most of what he's saying. Not in the least. Mostly I think that his reading is incomplete, and leaves out large stretches of the film that I think are important to the essential reading of it. The British Film Institute did an excellent little (and I do mean little) book reading EWS, as well. The BFI book suggested that the film is a discussion or meditation on parenthood, and the ending of the movie conincides with the conception of a male child. I'm not quite sure that I was convinced by that argument. John Rosenbaum has a critique from the Chicago Reader that I'm going to visit after posting this.

I haven't thought hard about this movie in a little while. There are a couple of themes wandering around in it that I'm still trying to fuse. One has to do with masculinity in the face of modernity (this is really the most obvious). Another has to do with sexuality and power--the way that social structures interact with the fragility of the human body. I think that may be the fusing element of the movie--which is a lot about romance in maturing relationships that are supposed to become more secure with time, but perhaps become more fragile.

But beyond that, I think the overarching feeling is that Eyes Wide Shut is a dreamscape. That's the thing that you hear most frequently in the criticism for the film. Everything's dreamlike and there are themes that recur, but this isn't a movie that is supposed to work on the thinking brain. Like most of Kubrick's best work, it speaks to the subconscious part of the brain (again, like a dream). These themes circle, but never join (much like Cruise during the orgy sequence).

The film is beautifully composed and shot. Each section is a feast for the eyes, despite the clumsy inclusion of the CGI figures. The images are in a way beyond-vivid.

There are sections of the film that I just can't yet put together, though. I'm not sure what to do with LeeLee Sobieski and her father the costume renter. I'm not sure what to do with the return visit to the hooker's house, to find out that she has AIDS (or something). There's a lot of Christmas in the film, and I'm not sure what to make of that, either.

I really believe that it's a cop-out to say that because it's a dream, these portions defy explication. That's just not true, because they feel intricately woven into the fabric of the film, as well. The movie would lack from their exclusion. But the great thing about Kubrick movies is that they have a timeless quality that will allow revisiting when I'm better equipped to put them together.

UPDATE: I just finished reading the Rosenbaum piece that I linked to above. It's a really nice analysis, though I don't totally agree with his final thoughts, either.