Quote from hapaboy:
I thought Eyes sucked.
Off topic, so I apologize. But I gotta come to Kubricks defense. I feel some weird obligation (maybe because Strangelove to me was the best "War" movie, or perhaps any movie ever, and that is on topic enough to justify this response).
Kubrick made a movie for himself....not the first one.
Eyes wide shut to me was very much like 2001 (A Space odyssey).
Completely visual. No explanation, no discernable plot, barely a theme as far as we know (other than it was about sex).
Was Kubrick entitled to do this? He was entitled to do anything he wanted, because he was undoubtedly the best director ever. (Apoligies to Mr. Spielberg, Cecille B., Francis Ford, and so many others, and especially from me, to Quentin).
Space Odyssey came out when I was in college. Major motion picture. Box office smash. Very "psychedelic" which was quite "in" in 1968.
Only problem was no one knew what it was really about. Which was even better than knowing, 'cause it gave us all something to argue about.
Everyone had their own interpretation of what it was about. All kinds of symbolism was inferred.
Then I read the book. And saw the movie again. And guess what? The movie followed the book almost exactly (Saturn instead of Jupiter...big deal). And the book was clearly about a very straightforward and understandable subject (evolution assisted by an alien race). There was no way I am aware of to have truly discerned this without having read Clark's book...certainly no one I ever spoke with had been able to figure out the simplicity of the story having just viewed the film.
But Kubrick, for whatever reason, decided to rely on visuals exclusively. Sort of like a silent movie without subtitles. Without dialogue, or without narration, most movies would not make sense (Any one ever see "What's Up Tiger Lilly?...If you have, you understand that visuals don't tell a story by themselves).
I think Eyes Wide Shut was just Kubricks visual interpretation of how he felt about the subject of sex. From jealousy, lust, guilt, deception, etc.......It was just his visualization of his own fantasies (or nightmares). As in Space Odyssey, he left out his explanation. Though in Space odyssey, by reading Clark, we could KNOW what Kubrick was showing us, in Eyes, I guess there's only conjecture.
So yeah, the movie sucked if you wanted it to make perfect sense.
But tell me how many movies had the kind of visual impact of Eyes? 2001 comes to mind.
When Tom Cruse goes into the costume store in the middle of the night, and deals with the proprietor, and searches out a costume, was there ever a more stunningly filmed visual sequence?
Kubrick painted his canvases. Picasso was never asked to explain his art. Rembrandt didn't have to. Very straight forward. Was Picasso a failure if you didn't "get" his work? Or Dali? (name your own, too many examples).
I think Eyes Wide Shut has to be considered the same way as soft clocks or women with their noses where their eyes should be. Just visual art. Some things are not explainable. And many things need no explanation.
Certainly if Kubrick filmed his own "dreams", how could we understand them? We can't understand our own.
Eyes has to just stand on it's own as a "painting". That's art for you. You like it or you don't. But if you don't, that doesn't mean it sucks. It just isn't your taste.
Truthfully, I too was disappointed in the movie. Because I am a simple guy, and I want an explanation. But old Stan died, and I guess unless Sidney Pollack wants to explain the movie to me (assuming he could, which may be expecting too much), I will die too eventually, and the difference between me and Stanley will be he knew precisely what every aspect of the movie was about and I will go out not knowing. And of course my family will not inherit as much money as his did. Unless trading get a WHOLE LOT BETTER before my time is up!
Rs7
