|
I’d been meaning to post my thoughts on
Eyes Wide Shut for over a month now, but was unable to get around
to it over in the Fray. So, here goes. Some point form thoughts
on Eyes Wide Shut: - The cinematography and set design are both
exquisite, lush even.
- Nicole Kidman is exquisite, lush even.
She does a sinister Meg Ryan impression, and I say this, not as a
critique, but as a compliment to her talent. Kidman is excellent
in this role.
- Many critics have said that Cruise brings
nothing to the movie but a quizzical stare and a pretty face, but
I thought he was pretty good – especially in the taxi scene,
when he projects an ironic glee with what he perceives to be his
adept maneuvering into the night’s intrigue.
- Kubrick’s
meticulous attention to detail is impressive. One example: when
Cruise comes home, dejected and confused, at the end of his
misadventures, he immediately turns off the Christmas tree lights.
Another: when Cruise is in the hooker’s bedroom, the camera
subtly glides through the room, touching upon such details of the
lady’s life, as a book entitled Introduction to Sociology.
-
Kubrick seems to structure most of the film in couplets, moving
back and forth between Cruise’s domestic/professional
situation and the decadent hyper-sexualized other-world that is
emerging as a potentially subversive commentary on his life. And
this structure is adeptly handled, with Kubrick drawing sly
parallels between the two realities. An example: One scene has
Cruise wandering around his doctor’s office in the evening.
As the camera pans across the office it takes in a sign which
reads something like: Payment is required when services are
rendered. The next scene: Cruise hooks up with a hooker . . .
-
I was highly disappointed with much of the critical response to
Eyes Wide Shut. Too much of the professional criticism involved
churlish nit-picking devised to somehow one-up Kubrick by showing
that he was less a genius than an idiot-savant with no clue about
the real world. Worse, much of this criticism was just
superficial and wrong. One example: many critics said that it was
dumb of Kubrick to have the first hooker say, “I don’t
watch the clock” -- the gravaman of such criticism being
that hookers prefer to get the job done quickly. Well, no shit,
hookers prefer quickies at work. But, that doesn’t mean a
hooker isn’t going to try to sell her product by engaging in
coy, manipulative, and insincere talk with her John. And such off
base criticism was rampant. (See Stephen Harrigan’s piece
“Plot Holes” posted on Aug. 10 in Slate, is a
particularly egregious example of this criticism.) It really is
kind of sad when you think about it. Professional critics were
handed the gift of a star filled, thoughtful, art film that was
aggressively (and successfully) marketed to a general audience,
and rather than deal with the film on its own terms, many of them
indulged in superficial axe grinding. What a waste of a grand
opportunity to elevate the level of public dialogue on film. And
finally 7) I was amused by much of the brouhaha over the issue of
NC-17 ratings. In particular, I thought it ironic that much of
the talk focused on the movie’s potential to pollute young
minds by inducing them to become horny and sex obsessed. I mean,
come on, sexual obsession is the adolescent mind’s basic
default mode. Further, if Eyes Wide Shut is subversive (and that
is a debatable point) it is targeted, not at the adolescent, but
at the adult. It critically examines the institution of marriage
and explores the erotic potential of infidelity, dalliances with
prostitutes, and adult sex with a minor – so, if one is
going to worry about polluting minds, it is the adult and not the
adolescent version that should be the subject of protection.
Although, honestly, I kind of like the NC-17 idea, in so far as
it works as a courtesy gesture to adults. Some movies you just
want to be able to see outside the presence of teenagers who feel
a need to.
|
