2019 was the 20th anniversary of the release of Stanley Kubrick’s last film, Eyes Wide Shut. In recognition of this fact, it was given a re-release in cinemas. This gave me the chance to see it for the third time in the cinema, having seen it twice when it was first released. I’ve also seen it on DVD more than once, as well as individual sequences which I love to watch from time to time, notably the masked ritual sequence.
And so I have finally decided to write about the film. A film which has been endlessly written about and which is one of my favourites, for reasons which will become clear as the article progresses.
One unifying factor of Kubrick’s filmography is that, on initial release at least, his films always seem to divide critical opinion. This being as true for EWS as much as any film he made. I personally find that the films that divide critical opinion with strong feelings both for and against, are often the most interesting films, even more so than those that have universal acclaim. (Although of course there are exceptions). In the case of EWS, it was deemed “not erotic enough”, “not sexy enough”, “unrealistic”, “slow”, and so on. To me, I’ve always felt that critics were attacking the film for things the film was never trying to be in the first place. So it’s “not erotic enough”? Who says that Kubrick wanted to make an erotic film anyway? Not realistic enough? Who says that Kubrick wanted to make a realistic film? It’s as if these critics went into the screening with this mental picture of what the film was “supposed” to be, and when it didn’t reflect their mental picture, they attacked it. Attacked it for not achieving what it was never trying to achieve. Added to the fact that critics don’t like to be made to feel dumb. Faced with Kubrick’s superior intellect, they resort to negative sniping.
Furthermore, EWS is a film which comes with an immense amount of contextual baggage that makes it hard to treat as as just a film. Most obviously, this stems from the fact that Kubrick died just 5 days after the film was previewed to Warner executives. Given the subject matter, it was always going to be difficult to remove this background context from any appreciation of the film.
I’ll never forget going to see the film for the first time. I’d been anticipating it for a long time. I first read that Kubrick was going to make it in 1996, so it had been a long wait. Coupled with the fact that some of the topics it dealt with, namely conspiracies and the occult, had been something that I had become massively interested in for the same amount of time. So my expectations were sky-high. And I’m pleased to say, they were met. I really loved the film. It was quite unlike any other film I had seen, it had an enigmatic, dream-like quality and a sense of ambiguity which made it endlessly intriguing.
Having just seen it again I noticed some things that I’d never noticed before. Near the beginning of the film, when Cruise is being seduced by the two young women, one of them is introduced as “Nuala Windsor”. Of course this makes complete sense, and also one of the girls mentions “Rockefeller Plaza”. So, within the first 10 minutes of the film, Kubrick references the Windsors and the Rockefellers. This can’t be a coincidence, he knew exactly what he was doing. And now events have caught up with the film – I saw the film just a day after the Panorama programme in which Virgina Roberts Giuffre was interviewed about having sex with Andrew Windsor (aka Prince Andrew). As always, Kubrick was ahead of the game. He knew full well what was going on, and this film was his parting shot. And the sooner the monarchy and all it represents comes crashing down the better.
One scene that stood out to me more than ever this time is the one in which Cruise visits the costumier and we meet a Lolita-like girl (played by Leelee Sobieski). There is an obvious echo of Kubrick’s earlier film Lolita here. It turns out that her Father, the costumier, is pimping her out to clients. I immediately thought of the similarity of this girl to the many girls who were being pimped out by Jeffrey Epstein and Guislane Maxwell. Kubrick’s ahead of the game again.
By the end of the film I always have so many questions, such as:
Who put the mask onto the pillow?
Just who were those Asian men at the costumiers?
Was Nicole Kidman at the masked ritual?
Was Mandy ritually sacrificed or was she really “just a junkie”?
What does the Lolita-like girl whisper in Tom Cruise’s ear?
Which is the dream and which is the reality?
Why do so many verbal interactions include characters repeating exactly what has just been said to them? Just one example of many: Character 1: “Remove your clothes”; Character 2: “Remove my clothes?”
Why is the prostitute called Domino?
But that’s what I love about the film. So many questions, so much ambiguity.
Another thing I noticed this time is how everything is reduced to transactions, exchanges. Is Kubrick saying that the modern world has reduced sexual relations to a transaction? It’s certainly possible. It can’t be a coincidence that the lead character is called Bill.
Another question: why is it called Eyes Wide Shut? Some people say this is a mind-control trigger but I’ve not seen any evidence of that. My view now is that it refers to the state of mind of much of humanity, that walks around with its eyes open but still can’t see what’s going on in front if them. Key example: Jimmy Saville. I rest my case. He even DRESSED like a paedophile. It’s all hidden in plain sight.
And as for the orgy, the criticism it received for not being realistic enough begs the question, by what yardstick are they judging it? Maybe it’s an exact representation of what goes on, in which case it is the height of realism.
People speculate on whether the film was fully finished or not. I personally think it WAS fully finished, Kubrick himself said it was his best film and he had previewed it to Warners. If anything he may have tampered with it slightly up until its release as he did with many of his films. But those would just have been cosmetic changes. I personally think it was the sheer relief he felt in completing the film that may have contributed to his death.
Another question: was Kubrick sacrificed, or did he just die of a heart attack? Consider this scenario: after the preview, the powers that be get wind of what he is exposing and order that he be assassinated as punishment. A directed frequency weapon is targeted at him to induce a heart attack.
Or……he died of a heart attack in his sleep. The choice is yours…….a s with the film itself.
Finally, look at the poster for the film. Look again. The eye in the pyramid is there. Hidden in plain sight.