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.
posted by jbenben to media & arts (7 answers total)
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