Stanley Kubrick: EYES WIDE - WTF??
October 7, 2013 11:44 PM Subscribe
IFC Channel has helpfully been replaying Stanely Kubrick films lately. At the same time, one of the guys related to The Sync Book, Always Record podcast, and 42 Minutes podcast, recently stated he thought EYES WIDE SHUT was Kubrick's best film.
Please explain this to me or point me toward online discussions that argue this same view. More after the jump.
I studied film in college before I majored in television, then worked in TV, before eventually going to culinary school and becoming a chef.
I understand Art and visual mediums. On first viewing in the way back, I thought of Eyes Wide Shut (a) that the final editing (we saw) was not overseen by the same Master that created films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Lolita, or The Shining, and (b) that the symbolism was so clunky and overhanded, so, not Kubrick-like, at all.
I. Don't. Get. It.
Additionally, now that we're on the subject, I saw the (LACME) Los Angeles County Museum of Art exhibition of Kubrick memorabilia. Kubrick was known for his research and archiving. Maybe I missed something from the exhibit, but I remember stuff from his early works, research from an unproduced film, A Clock Work Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, and 2001 covered in the exhibit, probably a bit of Lolita, Full Metal Jacket, and How I Learned To Love The Bomb thrown in there... But nothing from Eyes Wide Shut.
(True Story: I walked out of this exhibit I expected to love and told my friends, "I feel like I need a Silkwood Shower, a strong drink, and an exorcism. In that order.")
After IFC running most of his films this past weekend, Kubrick is again totally endearing to me. Lolita will always be brilliant. The Shining is a GREAT riff on a Stephen King novel, and I've appreciated the differences between the two going way way back.
Eyes Wide Shut is terrible (IMHO) by comparison.
Did I miss something??
I am very well aware of all the Krazy Konspiracy Theories surrounding Kubrick. In EWS the symbolism seemed visually remedial 101 college course level. The acting by Kidman and Cruise was pure shite (and knowing how Kubrick tortured his actors into great performances, I can't help but wonder if his interference during this project did not push this married couple towards divorce, which may have negatively, rather than positively, effected their performances...?)
This movie was not a Kubrick-level film. In my opinion.
Please convince me otherwise or point me to online discussions that reference and answer my objections.
Thank you in advance.
I studied film in college before I majored in television, then worked in TV, before eventually going to culinary school and becoming a chef.
I understand Art and visual mediums. On first viewing in the way back, I thought of Eyes Wide Shut (a) that the final editing (we saw) was not overseen by the same Master that created films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Lolita, or The Shining, and (b) that the symbolism was so clunky and overhanded, so, not Kubrick-like, at all.
I. Don't. Get. It.
Additionally, now that we're on the subject, I saw the (LACME) Los Angeles County Museum of Art exhibition of Kubrick memorabilia. Kubrick was known for his research and archiving. Maybe I missed something from the exhibit, but I remember stuff from his early works, research from an unproduced film, A Clock Work Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, and 2001 covered in the exhibit, probably a bit of Lolita, Full Metal Jacket, and How I Learned To Love The Bomb thrown in there... But nothing from Eyes Wide Shut.
(True Story: I walked out of this exhibit I expected to love and told my friends, "I feel like I need a Silkwood Shower, a strong drink, and an exorcism. In that order.")
After IFC running most of his films this past weekend, Kubrick is again totally endearing to me. Lolita will always be brilliant. The Shining is a GREAT riff on a Stephen King novel, and I've appreciated the differences between the two going way way back.
Eyes Wide Shut is terrible (IMHO) by comparison.
Did I miss something??
I am very well aware of all the Krazy Konspiracy Theories surrounding Kubrick. In EWS the symbolism seemed visually remedial 101 college course level. The acting by Kidman and Cruise was pure shite (and knowing how Kubrick tortured his actors into great performances, I can't help but wonder if his interference during this project did not push this married couple towards divorce, which may have negatively, rather than positively, effected their performances...?)
This movie was not a Kubrick-level film. In my opinion.
Please convince me otherwise or point me to online discussions that reference and answer my objections.
Thank you in advance.
This post was deleted for the following reason: I'm sorry but "convince me of the value of this work" isn't a practical enough question for Ask Metafilter. Feel free to repost next week asking specifically for online discussions and not for people's opinions. -- goodnewsfortheinsane
Response by poster: Thank you Sara C. - but oh, no! I specifically reference the guy's creds because The Sync Community does A LOT of research and do not simply spout opinions out of hand.
The person who stated this very much has a grounding in Kubrick and Esoteric Knowledge (symbolism, religion, history) greater than my own.
I don't doubt this opinion, rather, I want to understand why I missed whatever I missed.
posted by jbenben at 12:06 AM on October 8, 2013
The person who stated this very much has a grounding in Kubrick and Esoteric Knowledge (symbolism, religion, history) greater than my own.
I don't doubt this opinion, rather, I want to understand why I missed whatever I missed.
posted by jbenben at 12:06 AM on October 8, 2013
The thing about opinions is they're subjective.
The thing about this:
The person who stated this very much has a grounding in Kubrick and Esoteric Knowledge (symbolism, religion, history) greater than my own.
Is that all that makes no difference, except maybe as motivation for that person to take a deliberately contrarian point-of-view in order to differentiate himself as an "expert." Elaborate justifications for bad art do not make bad art good. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:13 AM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
The thing about this:
The person who stated this very much has a grounding in Kubrick and Esoteric Knowledge (symbolism, religion, history) greater than my own.
Is that all that makes no difference, except maybe as motivation for that person to take a deliberately contrarian point-of-view in order to differentiate himself as an "expert." Elaborate justifications for bad art do not make bad art good. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:13 AM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
There's actually been a few comments praising EWS here through the years. Here's a thread about it, the main link is to this article. But I'm quite sure I've seen people here claim it as their fave Kubrick film in a number of places.
posted by LionIndex at 12:14 AM on October 8, 2013
posted by LionIndex at 12:14 AM on October 8, 2013
I think some of the "un-Kubrick" flavor you're picking up on is that he just really wasn't finished with it yet. I think he had a rough cut that he'd shown to Cruise and Kidman before he died, and I'm absolutely positive that he'd have gone ape-shit bananas over the digital alterations done to the film to earn a box office friendly R-rating. (I believe that the version I saw in full was uncut, but I walked out of the theatrical version because I was bored to tears. My opinion did not improve.)
You may find a reason to love this film by reading other people's opinions of it, but I caution you to not discount your own out of hand.
posted by xyzzy at 12:33 AM on October 8, 2013
You may find a reason to love this film by reading other people's opinions of it, but I caution you to not discount your own out of hand.
posted by xyzzy at 12:33 AM on October 8, 2013
I believe I was actually working at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image when that particular exhibition had its world premier (sidenote: Malcolm MacDowell basically looks like a muppet of Malcolm MacDowell these days). Anyway, the upshot of this was that I got to see most of Kubrick's films and many of them more than once (seven Barry Lyndons was getting a bit much, I grant).
I saw Eyes Wide Shut on release, and wasn't really impressed. But you know my subsequent re-watching of the film years later impressed me much more. I think of it has "a good movie" now, whereas I had really thought of it as "a bad movie" before.
Why is this?
1) I picked up a lot of subtle stuff I missed the first time, being agog at ham-fisted masked orgies: On rewatching, I really took the film much, much more metaphorical than I did the first time round. To the point of even questioning how much of what happened to Harford when he leaves the house that first, actually happened at all. It's really an internal journey. I gained a new affection for the metaphor of the masks - the whole film is about facades, really, the masks we wear to each other, even ourselves. The orgy can be viewed as a metaphorical equivalent to the ball at the start, for example, right down to a woman dying.
2) I appreciated the excellent music (especially the use of the Ligeti) and Kubricks always-gorgeous cinematography. It really is beautifully shot and edited. I love the contrast between the coldness and sterility of Kubrick's lens, and the tumult the Harfords, especially Bill, endure. It gives the whole film a surreal, dream-like quality and renders Bill more human, frail etc. There are not many who shoot and edit like Kubrick. It's always a treat.
3) I appreciated the casting of Cruise and Kidman. I think it's quite inspired in a way. They were, superficially, just like the Harfords - successful, glamorous, shallow, out-of-their depths. Cruise leading man charaterstics work perfectly in the context of a man who is out of is league, a fraud in some ways.
That's some of the reasons why I came right around to it. Have a read of the wikipedia entry; it links to lots of substantive reviews and criticism that might give you some more leads.
I don't think it's an incredible film, by any means, but I thought it was a very singular, interesting one. And there aren't to many of those in my opinion.
posted by smoke at 1:04 AM on October 8, 2013
I saw Eyes Wide Shut on release, and wasn't really impressed. But you know my subsequent re-watching of the film years later impressed me much more. I think of it has "a good movie" now, whereas I had really thought of it as "a bad movie" before.
Why is this?
1) I picked up a lot of subtle stuff I missed the first time, being agog at ham-fisted masked orgies: On rewatching, I really took the film much, much more metaphorical than I did the first time round. To the point of even questioning how much of what happened to Harford when he leaves the house that first, actually happened at all. It's really an internal journey. I gained a new affection for the metaphor of the masks - the whole film is about facades, really, the masks we wear to each other, even ourselves. The orgy can be viewed as a metaphorical equivalent to the ball at the start, for example, right down to a woman dying.
2) I appreciated the excellent music (especially the use of the Ligeti) and Kubricks always-gorgeous cinematography. It really is beautifully shot and edited. I love the contrast between the coldness and sterility of Kubrick's lens, and the tumult the Harfords, especially Bill, endure. It gives the whole film a surreal, dream-like quality and renders Bill more human, frail etc. There are not many who shoot and edit like Kubrick. It's always a treat.
3) I appreciated the casting of Cruise and Kidman. I think it's quite inspired in a way. They were, superficially, just like the Harfords - successful, glamorous, shallow, out-of-their depths. Cruise leading man charaterstics work perfectly in the context of a man who is out of is league, a fraud in some ways.
That's some of the reasons why I came right around to it. Have a read of the wikipedia entry; it links to lots of substantive reviews and criticism that might give you some more leads.
I don't think it's an incredible film, by any means, but I thought it was a very singular, interesting one. And there aren't to many of those in my opinion.
posted by smoke at 1:04 AM on October 8, 2013
« Older Ideas for helping elders get access to Internet... | I want to trust the hospital, but I don't . . . Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
That guy is probably wrong.
Or, really, he's just picking a provocative view, either to distinguish himself on a personal level or to inspire listeners to engage with the content.
Another idea: maybe that guy is around 30 and Eyes Wide Shut is either the first Kubrick movie he saw or one of the first serious adult films he saw, period. So it has a much larger bearing on his own personal relationship to film than it does for most people.
posted by Sara C. at 11:58 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]