Eyes Wide Shut

Eyes Wide Shut is a 1999 erotic mystery psychological drama film directed, produced and co-written by Stanley Kubrick. Based on the 1926 novella Traumnovelle (Dream Story) by Arthur Schnitzler, the movie transfers the story from early 20th-century Vienna to 1990s New York City. The film follows the sexually charged adventures of Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise), who is shocked when his wife, Alice (Nicole Kidman), reveals that she had contemplated having an affair a year earlier. He then embarks on a night-long adventure, during which he infiltrates a masked orgy of an unnamed secret society.

Kubrick obtained the filming rights for Dream Story in the 1960s, considering it a perfect text for a film adaptation about sexual relations. He revived the project in the 1990s when he hired writer Frederic Raphael to help him with the adaptation. The film, which was mostly shot in the United Kingdom, apart from some exterior establishing shots, includes a detailed recreation of exterior Greenwich Village street scenes made at Pinewood Studios. The film's production, at 400 days, holds the Guinness World Record for the longest continuous film shoot.

Kubrick died six days after showing his final cut to Warner Bros. Pictures, making this the final film he directed. In order to ensure a theatrical R rating in the United States, Warner Bros. digitally altered several sexually explicit scenes during post-production. This version was released on July 16, 1999, to moderately positive reactions from film critics. Box office receipts for the film worldwide were about $162 million. The uncut version has since been released in DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc formats.

Summary
After his wife, Alice, tells him about her sexual fantasies, William Harford sets out for a night of sexual adventure. After several less than successful encounters, he meets an old friend, Nick Nightingale--now a musician--who tells him of strange sex parties where he is required to play the piano blindfolded. All the men at the party are costumed and wear masks while the women are all young and beautiful. Harford manages to find an appropriate costume and heads out to the party. Once there, however, he is warned by someone who recognizes him, despite the mask, that he is in great danger. He manages to extricate himself, but the threats prove to be quite real and sinister.

Why It's Kubrick's finale

 * 1) Nicely-done performances, especially from Nicole Kidman as Alice Harford.
 * 2) Excellent cinematography.
 * 3) Terrifying soundtrack.
 * 4) Father faithful to Arthur Schnitzler’s novel.
 * 5) Give up your inquiries which are completely useless and consider these words a second warning. We hope, for your own good, that this will be sufficient.
 * 6) The orgy scene is very entertaining and intense.
 * 7) A few relatable references here and there.
 * 8) Really nice Mask designs.
 * 9) Although it may seem like a pornographic film on the outside, it is not like that.
 * 10) It is not afraid to show what a real nightmare can be like, and it shows.
 * 11) It was a fantastic note for Kubrick to finish his career on.

Bad Qualities

 * 1) Sydney Pollack doesn't give a great performance.
 * 2) The scene inside the mansion is rather explicit.
 * 3) At 159 minutes, it may get a bit much for some viewers.
 * 4) Like with A Clockwork Orange, it can get very sexual at times, making it feel more like a pornographic film.
 * 5) It caused a lot of controversies and it was even banned for a short time. It was banned in Singapore and Malaysia.

Reception
Eyes Wide Shut received generally positive reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 76% based on 160 reviews, with an average rating of 7.50/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Kubrick's intense study of the human psyche yields an impressive cinematic work." Metacritic gives the film a weighted average score of 68 out of 100 based on 34 reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews". Over 50 critics listed the film among the best of 1999. French magazine Cahiers du Cinema named it the best film of the year in its annual "top ten" list.

In the Chicago Tribune, Michael Wilmington declared the film a masterpiece, lauding it as "provocatively conceived, gorgeously shot and masterfully executed ... Kubrick's brilliantly choreographed one-take scenes create a near-hypnotic atmosphere of commingled desire and dread." Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club was also highly positive, arguing that "the film's primal, almost religious intensity and power is primarily derived from its multifaceted realization that disobeying the dictates of society and your conscience can be both terrifying and exhilarating. ... The film's depiction of sexual depravity and amorality could easily venture into the realm of camp in the hands of a lesser filmmaker, but Kubrick depicts primal evil in a way that somehow makes it seem both new and deeply terrifying."

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film a score of three and a half stars out of four, writing, "Kubrick's great achievement in the film is to find and hold an odd, unsettling, sometimes erotic tone for the doctor's strange encounters." He praised the individual dream-like atmosphere of the separate scenes, and called the choice of Christmas-themed lighting "garish, like an urban sideshow".

Reviewer James Berardinelli stated that it was arguably one of Kubrick's best films. Along with considering Kidman "consistently excellent", he wrote that Kubrick "has something to say about the causes and effects of depersonalized sex", and praised the work as "thought-provoking and unsettling". Writing for The New York Times, reviewer Janet Maslin commented, "This is a dead-serious film about sexual yearnings, one that flirts with ridicule yet sustains its fundamental eeriness and gravity throughout. The dreamlike intensity of previous Kubrick visions is in full force here."

Some reviewers were unfavorable. One complaint was that the movie's pacing was too slow; while this may have been intended to convey a dream state, critics objected that it made actions and decisions seem laboured. Another complaint was that it did not live up to the expectation of it being a "sexy film" which is what it had been marketed as, thus defying audiences' expectations. Many critics, such as Manohla Dargis of LA Weekly found the prolific orgy scene to be "banal" and "surprisingly tame". While Kubrick's "pictorial talents" were described as "striking" by Rod Dreher of the New York Post, the pivotal scene was deemed by Stephen Hunter, writing for The Washington Post, as the "dullest orgy he'd ever seen". Hunter elaborates on his criticism, and states that "Kubrick is annoyingly offhand while at the same time grindingly pedantic; plot points are made over and over again, things are explained till the dawn threatens to break in the east, and the movie stumbles along at a glacial pace". Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly complained about the inauthenticity of the New York setting, claiming that the soundstage used for the film's production didn't have "enough bustle" to capture the reality of New York. Paul Tatara of CNN described the film as a "slow-motion morality tale full of hot female bodies and thoroughly uneventful 'mystery'", while Andrew Sarris writing for The New York Observer criticised the film's "feeble attempts at melodramatic tension and suspense". David Edelstein of Slate dismissed it as "estranged from any period I recognize. Who are these people played by Cruise and Kidman, who act as if no one has ever made a pass at them and are so deeply traumatized by their newfound knowledge of sexual fantasies—the kind that mainstream culture absorbed at least half a century ago? Who are these aristocrats whose limos take them to secret masked orgies in Long Island mansions? Even dream plays need some grounding in the real world." J. Hoberman wrote that the film "feels like a rough draft at best."

Lee Siegel from Harper's felt that most critics responded mainly to the marketing campaign and did not address the film on its own terms. Others felt that American censorship took an esoteric film and made it even harder to understand. In his article "Grotesque Caricature", Stefan Mattesich of Loyola Marymount University praises the film's nuanced caricatured elements, and states that the film's negation of conventional narrative elements is what resulted in its subsequent negative reception.

For the introduction to Michel Ciment's Kubrick: The Definitive Edition, Martin Scorsese wrote: "When Eyes Wide Shut came out a few months after Stanley Kubrick's death in 1999, it was severely misunderstood, which came as no surprise. If you go back and look at the contemporary reactions to any Kubrick picture (except the earliest ones), you'll see that all his films were initially misunderstood. Then, after five or ten years came the realization that 2001 or Barry Lyndon or The Shining was like nothing else before or since." In 2012, Slant Magazine ranked the film as the second greatest of the 1990s. British Film Institute ranked the film at No. 19 on its list of "90 great films of the 1990s". The BBC listed it number 61 in its list of the 100 greatest American films of all time.

Videos
zoTNVSArKxM Haj0K2_JP0s k-HuCn29iOs PwJONQVnb8M pvzNPX98bzw w5RIQVC-CE8 pfSW57FDna0 2eY0n8kNScc

Trivia

 * 1) Stanley Kubrick died just four days after presenting Warner Bros. with what was reported to be a final cut of the film, after a legendarily long shoot. His friends and family, as well as the cast and crew of the film, all claimed that Kubrick's death was completely unexpected and that he never seemed to be in poor health while making the film.

Comments
