From Jonathan Pacheco, Anna, TX:
When the release of "Eyes Wide Shut" drew near, a lot of the buzz was around it being a "sex film," and some (fools) went as far as to claim that its ambition was to be the "sexiest film ever" (after all, Kubrick had broken the molds of other genres). After "EWS" came out, the buzz was that it was a letdown -- due largely to the fact that it was "not sexy." Subsequently, many felt that it was a sub-par film, almost unworthy of the Kubrick moniker.
Unfortunately, they missed the point. The opening shot to "Eyes Wide Shut" is short and simple: Nicole Kidman's character getting undressed. I'm sure many saw this as a tease, a promise of what's to come. But I believe Kubrick was using it for the exact opposite purpose, telling us to forget about our preconceived notions of what this film was going to be (or, as you pointed out, Jim, what a narrative should be). In essence, the shot is so brief that it's almost as if Kubrick is saying "Okay, here: Nicole Kidman naked. Satisfied? Now get that out of your mind and let me tell my story." Many films don't have their nudity so early on, so perhaps Kubrick put that quick flash in there to see if we're paying attention. The next time we see Kidman, she's doing something very unsexy (using the toilet), and further events tell us that some things are not what we expect them to be (for example, Tom Cruise's character turning off what we believe to be the background score).
Yes, more nudity follows in the film, from Kidman and many others, but Kubrick is telling us that the nudity and sex is not really the point; he's not setting out to make the "sexiest film ever." What is his point, then? I'm not sure. It's a film that can be watched many times and still not be totally understood -- just like some other great Kubrick films.
JE: You're quite right, Jonathan. That eye-opening first shot IS a ravishing tease, but not in the way viewers might expect -- plucked out of time and space, floating in isolation between the white-on-black titles for Cruise/Kidman/Kubrick, and the name of the movie itself. Blink and you'll miss what Kubrick is doing from the moment the picture starts. "EWS" had been accompanied by the usual hyperbolic pre-release rumors that invariably swirled around rare and secretive Kubrick projects while they were still in the works. In 1979/80 "The Shining" had been touted in advance as "the scariest movie ever made" (did Kubrick really say that was his goal?) and in 1986/87 "Full Metal Jacket" was anticipated as as "the ultimate Vietnam movie" (whatever that was meant to mean). This sort of buzz, whether or not inflamed by Kubrick himself, helped intensify general interest in the movies but, as you point out, it was also ultimately misleading. Kubrick, more than any other filmmaker, taught me not to get distracted by the movie I was expecting, and to simply watch what was happening on the screen instead -- because "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut" were absolutely NOT the movies I thought I saw the first time I watched them.
Allow me to riff a little on this "EWS" shot: The first thing you notice is, of course, Kidman dropping her dress. The dominant color is the (warm, feminine) red of the drapes that frame her -- and that are reflected in the mirrored closet doors to the left. The shot is not perfectly symmetrical, but in addition to the reflected curtains and the fleshly symmetry of Ms. Kidman, there is a lot of twinning going on here: Two pairs of identical columns mask the image; a couple of overlapping tennis rackets lean in the corner; pairs of shoes are lined up, rather haphazardly, underneath the window...
View image Bill (Cruise) near the beginning of shot number three, which begins with him (facing away from the camera, like Alice in the first shot), looking out the window. Ever the voyeur -- rarely seeing what's in front of his face. Notice nice reflection at left.
After the title of the movie comes the second shot: An establishing shot (stock footage?) of city street at night. (Looks like the Upper East Side of Manhattan.) In the third shot, we follow Bill (Tom Cruise) around the room as he and his wife Alice (Kidman) prepare to go out. He's impatient because they're late; she's a bit apprehensive about the way she looks. We follow him around their bedroom (same curtains as in the first shot) and into the bathroom where she asks him how she looks and he replies without looking at her. He checks his own tie in the mirror instead. (And in the first shot, we can't see her face -- in a movie that will prove to be all about masks and identities.) So, now we place the first image in its apparent context: What may have seemed like a woman disrobing (at home? in the bedroom of a lover? in someone's imagination?) turns out to have been Alice trying on dresses in preparation for whatever event these two are now about to attend.
Or... was it? Look at the shot again -- and compare it with the beginning of the third shot, which starts with Bill at what we assumed was the same window. This time, the dominant color (at the beginning of the shot) is a cool, masculine blue -- but that isn't all that's different. The mirrored closet is still on the left, but now we see bookcases on the right. Were those just out of the frame before? There are still shoes lined up under the window, but where are the tennis rackets and the floor lamp in the corner? Now there's an area rug on the floor. So, is this the same room or alcove we saw in the first shot? Well, no... and yes. This is a dream story (derived from Arthur Schnitzler's "Traumnovelle" -- how much clearer can that be?), and it employs the associative logic of dreams throughout. (Another echo of the movie's dream-state, as Jonathan mentions, is that Bill actually "turns off" the opening-titles soundtrack waltz during this shot.)
I could go on and on and on about all the things that are happening in this third shot (when we go through the bathroom door and Alice is on the toilet -- a moment I'd argue is an intimate and sexy variation on the first image)... but that's a bit outside the province of this Opening Shot contribution. Just let me to that, unless you pay close attention to "EWS" shot by shot (the way you know Kubrick did in the years it took him to painstakingly shoot and assemble it), and sequence by sequence (or movement by movement, to put it in musical terms), you're not going to "see" what the movie is doing. Every scene or sequence offers a thematic variation on an earlier one, commenting upon it and bringing its assumptions (or Bill's, or yours) into question. Once you revisit "Eyes Wide Shut" with this kind of scrutiny, superficial objections to the "unrealistic" aspects of the film (the Greenwich Village set, the formal pomposity of the orgy scene, and so on) are soon revealed as absurdly beside-the-point indeed. (Hey, Bill "walks" through the Village on a treadmill with back-projection -- nobody's making any claims to "realism" here. Quite the contrary!)
To be continued (eventually) in an essay on "EWS"...
A few thoughts:
1) Realism in film. Who needs it?
2) Definitely a very sexy film, but sexiness is not inherent in the flesh or the exposure of such. People who want that should go through the beaded section of their local video rental store.
3) When this first came out, a fellow (and older - I was only 14) Kubrick fan recommended I steer clear. Now, ironically, it's one of my two or three favorites in his catalogue.
4) I always love it when Tom Cruise turns off the music at the beginning. Now that he's passed, it feels like Stanley winking to us from beyond the infinite.
Excellent, Jim. Please write that EWS piece soon. This is a film I've been avoiding seeing again for a while. I think you need to put time between your initial immersion in a Kubrick movie and your subsequent screenings, which almost always reveal a different movie than the one you though you initially saw. A cynic's question: Do you think that's really a dream state shot at the beginning or just bad continuity?
'EWS' has so many thematic, visual and design elements in the movie you can deconstruct, that it can become delightfully overwhelming. Touching on what you said about the intentional continuity lapses to enhance the dreamlike nature, in my essay on 'EWS' I noted a particular shot in the orgy scene where Bill is clearly with a different actress as he enters one of the mansion's rooms -- even though she's wearing the same mask.
I remember when the film first came out, several reviewers complained about the lack of realism. They said the film felt removed from the contemporary world, and they wondered if perhaps Kurbrick had gotten somehow out of touch. It's a tribute to the man's genuis that with a little distance, EWS has begun to blend in with his other work, and the issue of whether or not the film feels contemporary has become irrelevant. Now that the hype has faded away, we can consider the film against Kubrick's others, and for me, that distance has really had it stand out as one of his best and perhaps one of his most representative films. The issues of lust, power, and identity that EWS address directly are the subtexts of pretty much all of Kubrick's best films. Dealing with those themes so directly seems like a fitting end to his career.
allow me to echo tlrhb's enthusiasm for the anticipated piece on "ews", one of those films in which, when i first saw it in the theater, i knew something important was happening before my eyes but i wasn't quite aware of what it was or where it might be hidden. i figure this was a result of kubrick's constructing it shot by shot or movement by movement, as you say, jim, a progression so subtle it was hardly noticeable but did manage to register on some level of consciousness as undeniably and yet indefinably important. i've always loved the film but could never construct an adequately cogent defense of it when arguing with its (many) detractors. so i can't wait to read your piece and have some light shed on the mystery.
I've been wanting to buy the movie for years, but the uncut version needs to be released before I can justify giving Warner Bros. my money. Maybe by the time the 10th anniversary is upon us, there will be enough people who appreciate the movie enough, to complain enough, to actually get it released. I mean, enough is enough.
I love the opening shots series, since I'm constantly amazed at how often the first few frames of a film, upon deconstruction, reveal the entire movie.
Eyes Wide Shut, like many Kubrick films (2001, Clockwork Orange come to mind), will only gradually become appreciated as a masterpiece. Jim uses the word dream. The word that always came to my mind was fantasy. Same difference I guess. But a fantasy about what? Sex, love,lust, trust, marriage, jealousy, and fidelity. (the password is "Fidelio"). And the interaction of above.
At what point the dream begins and reality ends, who knows. We are never meant to know for sure. I think the closing scene in the toy store is in the real world, and sums up Kubrick's points nicely.
People cleary were expecting something different, and were caught off guard by narrative, or lack therof. The movie plays like a thriller, but there is no big payoff to that storyline, and open ended thriller's turn an audience off. Only that's not the real story at all.
And continuity gaffe's in a Kubrick film? Please. Ebert and Scorcese had a special ranking the 10 best movies of the 90s, and this made Marty's list. I'm not sure I agree, but i probably will sooner or later. (I can't find a link for those lists, maybe Jim can help?)
"Open Your Eyes"
- Vanilla Sky (The very poor man's EWS)
This is a film about notions, about fantasies, and about what they can do to you when you disregard the possibility of someone you love having them just the same as you.
I think Kubrick is saying alot with the first shot, and many people have said this before that he is taking advantage of people's expectations. Consider in his past work with the use of the shameless cuts to titles telling the audience what day it is in The Shining or his strange placement of the 2001 record in A Clockwork Orange. Kubrick is surely playing with people's expectations, trying to tell us that there is nothing that should be expected. In The Shining he tells us with cheap scares that this isn't a horror film, or atleast isn't about cheap scares. And in Clockwork he tells us that this film won't be about what he did before, but what he's talking about right now.
He's surely a topical filmmaker, and he won't have people labeling his films with false expectations, or even any expectations.
The second thing I see here is Kubrick's use of Mirrors, in the first shot we see Kidman take off her clothes, when we come back into the apartment, we see Cruise walking in thought. (mirrors/reflections are often used in interesting ways throughout Kubrick's work)
I think this is obviously something in Cruise's mind, or something that illustrates what he expects of his wife. To simply be an object, to disrobe, with little to no protest (I think its especially impressive to notice the fact that her back is turned, she is faceless). But once we see her, she begins to use the bathroom. Kubrick is telling us that there is no reason to think this women is special, or an object, like Bill would rather her be.
Once this image of her comes crashing down, Bill is thrown through the sexual underground, or as some believe, his sexual subconscious. Domino, the prostitute Bill meets has a roommate named Sally that Bill tries to have sex with before finding out Domino died. Sally's and Alice's (Kidman) name's are aural anagrams, thus connecting them in dreamlike fashion. Much like Mandy (the coked out prostitute) and Domino, the sexual objects of the film, who are associated by the identical consonants of their names. This is interesting because in the first two shots of the film, the main shots that is, show us these two realities, one exists, and one doesn’t.
I think its interesting to think that this film has really two stories, two main female characters that might be the same person, in Bill’s mind.
But who knows, it could just be two shots that aren’t contiguous. I find that to be totally impossible to someone who took so long, and had reshot some of these scenes, with such attention to detail. Especially since most of the film has the overdone blue coming in from the window, (the first shot lacks this) pushing my assumption further, telling me that this isn’t occurring in the film’s reality.
Despite its many flaws (eg. the crucial 'pot-fueled' argument scene just doesn't work), there is so much going on throughout this movie that it is one of my favourites. I'm looking forward to JE's EWS essay.
I forget if this has yet been mentioned on this blog, but check out R. Lee Ermey's comments on what Kubrick told him about EWS:
http://www.radaronline.com/features/2006/10/tough_love.php
Somehow that rings true to me.
By the way, the 'uncut' version is soon being released in North America, in a 16:9 anamorphic edition. It is currently available as an import from Hong Kong (4:3 edition; region 3 encoding). I found it in my friendly neighbourhood Chinatown DVD store.
Shortly after his comments about EWS, Ermey also said, "We're doing just fine" in Iraq. Pardon me if I don't take his word that Kubrick thought EWS was "a piece of shit."
While this film can probably be deconstructed shot by shot, moment by moment, and movement by movement - I found the film to be not terribly intriguing in the slightest. Kubrick showed us his mastery as a chess player of visual themes sure, but left little or no story. It was the same way I felt the second half of "Full Metal Jacket". Yes, he's made his point, and yes he's a damn fine filmmaker, but it always disappointed me when his themes never asked the truly interesting questions, and that's where I felt "EWS" fell short. The book itself was written when such questions were taboo, when such promiscuous thoughts were as well, shocking even. Tom Cruise being followed by the "bald man" who stares at him from underneath a streetlight - amateurish at best. He may have been stretching his visual and filmic mastery, but not his thematic. Because of this "EWS" will always be disappointing to me.
I remember Kubrick saying in one of his rare interviews that to be a good director you have to be a good photographer. He reminds me of Bertolucci in that the visual image is more important than the narrative. Marshall Mcluhan used to argue that it takes more concentration to absorb a visual image than a written text and I tend to agree; We are conditioned to construct a linear, narrative form in our minds even when viewing a film. It takes careful study and effort to appreciate the nuance and subtleties in a photographic image.
In this shot we see Roman columns, a hazy half-light and tomato red curtains. I think its purpose is to set the stone and style of the film, as a kind of vampish sexuality. It doesn't matter what it is "about": it is what it is. It is erotic in a kind of abstract, indirect way, rather than in an orgiastic cheerleader way. Nicole looks like a sculpture - even like one by Antonio Canova. She is part of the setting, like the centrepiece of the room. I suppose the scene, including the use of mirrors, establishes a touch of fragility. Nicole's character is hard and rich and she looks as if, if broken, she would shatter.
Interesting mention by Ermey about Cruise and Kidman having control over Kubrick rather than the other way around. I am always extremely puzzled by his choice of this couple in EWS.
i've questioned the veracity of ermy's statements since i first read them a few months ago, although i have no real reason to doubt him. still, i wonder if he didn't misunderstand what kubrick meant. it seems contradictory that at one point in the interview ermy says one of the things he admires about kubrick is that he takes actors' ideas into account and incorporates them into his films (for instance ermy's adlibs in full metal jacket) but then describes him as timid and shy and insinuates that cruise and kidman ran all over him and for all intents and purposes took over the film? so what fine line did ermy's suggestions walk between constructive input and bullish control that cruise and kidman's did not? and in what way is ermy, a former usmc drill sgt. somehow more tactful in that way than cruise and kidman? i'm not calling ermy a liar, but the whole thing just strikes me the wrong way. if i had to put money on it i'd guess that kubrick meant pressure from censors, although i know the major censoring came after his death.
i'd love to be able to kubrick's thoughts on what he would have wanted to do with the film, because, as much as i like it as it is, i can only imagine it would be even better if his full vision had been realized, as ermy suggests it was not.
/i've always wondered what ermy thought about the jack d. ripper and buck turgidson characters in dr. strangelove.
Great discussion, as always, folks.
Todd: Here are the top 10 1990s films for Scorsese and Ebert:
Martin Scorsese's Top 10
10.) Malcom X
9.) Fargo
8.) Crash
7.) Bottle Rocket
6.) Breaking the Waves
5.) Bad Lieutenant
4.) Eyes Wide Shut
3.) A Borrowed Life
2.) The Thin Red Line
1.) Horse Thief (late 1980’s)
IMDB says Zhuangzhuang Tian's Dao ma zei was made in 1986. Not sure why Rog let Marty get away with this choice, since this was supposed to be a 90s list, but hey, he's Scorsese... he could've picked The Red Shoes and not gotten an argument from me.
Roger Ebert's Top 10
10.) J.F.K.
9.) Malcom X
8.) Leaving Las Vegas
7.) Breaking the Waves
6.) Schindler’s List
5.) Red White Blue (trilogy)
4.) Fargo
3.) Goodfellas
2.) Pulp Fiction
1.) Hoop Dreams
(source:
http://www.amateurhometheater.com/Reviews%202/ebert-scorsesetopmovie1990.htm)
Thanks Steve. I've been looking for those lists for a while. Funny Marty liked Thin Red Line too, another "painterly" movie, with incredible visuals and dreamlike narrative.
I think I remember them saying that Horse Thief was released theatrically in the US in 1990. Or something like that.
Regarding Ermey's quote about Kubrick: "He was kind of a shy little timid guy. He wasn't real forceful. That's why he didn't appreciate working with big, high-powered actors. They would have their way with him, he would lose control, and his movie would turn to shit."
Anyone who's watched the shining documentary knows that Kubrick was not shy or timid on the set. He was very forceful and not at all indimidated by superstar Jack Nicholson. He was notorious for micromanaging everything.
nicole kidman has the nicest legs ever!
i would like t watch but unfourtunatly in my country it is prohibited and isnot in hand if it is posibl pleas send it for me thanks
To be continued (eventually) in an essay on "EWS"...
Jim, it's 2009.
JE: Is it eventually now? Actually, I was going to take a look at my Blu-ray disc of "EWS" just this weekend... and my damn Panasonic BD35 player is acting up. I get to the menu and then, no matter which button I push on the remote, I get a SET 2 message on the front of the player and nothing happens. You're supposed to be able to reset it by pushing "1" and "OK" on the remote, but that doesn't do it. I've tried everything, including unplugging, but I can't get it to play... or anything else. ARRRGH. I have an e-mail in to Panasonic tech support. Wonder when I'll hear back...
Jim,
Eyes Wide Shut is a real work of art. I don't declare myself a true film buff/critic but its films like this that really open my eyes to the art form. I believe that sometimes interpretation in film is incorrectly assumed. There a films that demand interpretations and then there are ones that simply don't (although people will tell you otherwise). What's truly great about EWS is knowing right off the bat that here is a film that absolutely demands interpretation. The composition and pacing demand it from the viewer. And this opening shot analysis proves it. Thanks so much for analyzing one of my favorites! I eagerly await your other EWS essay.
P.S. - Just thought I'd also take a second to suggest another opening shot. "Jackie Brown" has a great one, although I don't believe it's as suggestive for interpretation as EWS. It's just a well conducted scene.
I agree this film is a masterpiece. As soon as it had finished I wanted to watch it again. It stays with you for days afterwards.