Eyes Wide Shut

yes

A friend of mine and I were talking about Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" last weekend. My friend observed that whenever he asked his guy friends if they liked "Eyes Wide Shut", an overwhelming majority praised it, but when he would ask his women friends what they thought, an overwhelming majority said they hated it.

Being curious, I looked at the ratings for EWS on the movie database, and indeed there is a pretty significant gender split, with males rating the movie much higher than females across age groups.

Of course, I'd take the movie database's ratings with a grain of salt, but assuming it might reflect a true difference...theories? Perhaps women find Nicole Kidman's character more interesting than Tom Cruise's, but given the short-shrift in the storyline?

oh dere's tits

Hmm, I hate admitting that it might be the fact I'm a woman. But I did hate it at the time. The idea seemed terrific on paper but I hated the way it played out. Now, after so many years and having read his biography (well, both Kubrick's and Cruise's), I think I might actually turn around and actually enjoy it. At the time I hated it because it was a late 19th century Freudian book converted to a 20th century story. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? I think I was (maybe still am) very hesitant to praise Freud.

I watched it again recently and I was really struck by how AWFUL Tom Cruise is.

Cruise seems willfully bad in this film. I feel like Kubrick must have directed him to be so incredibly flat for a purpose. In a way it feels appropriate, as the doctor is dreaming all these scenes and he is not really functioning as an agent. Rather, this action is happening to him, and his blankness can be seen as an indicator of his remove.

it was a late 19th century Freudian book converted to a 20th century story.

Still seemed very 19th-century Viennese to me (under the veneer, where it counts).

to be honest, i never thought his performance was that bad and i've seen it many times. i see how it could be seen as flat though -- that seems to be his attempt to act dumbstruck by what's happening to him, which actually does lack depth.

but nicole kidman is awesome to watch in this -- it's the sort of unstable character she knows how to play.

also um yeah the boys like this movie cuz there are like, 40 naked women in it?

only in the newly available Euro version.

Dr, I don't agree, really, the story was transposed to Hollywood/LA. I shoudl see it again. I'm relying on my (crappy) memory. What I now realize: how painful it is to see their marriage fall apart on screen. Very weird and, in a way, painful.

It's set in New York! An invented Kubrickian one, of course.

at the same time that you were more dear to me than ever, i would have given everything -- everything -- for just one moment

with him

xpost with HOLLYWOOD ACTORS. :-) Yes, yes, I know,you're right.

Men are more likely to be kubrick fanboys would prob answer the question as to why men like it better.

Regarding cruise: movies like ews always make me feel sort of confused when people criticize performances. I don't have any idea if a performance is good or not. Why criticize cruise and not, say, an actor in a bresson film?

Which is to say, that all talk about the goodness or badness of a performance seems to be ignoring the very large gap between intention and effect. I am always dumbfounded when asked to consider the quality of a performance and I don't quite know how to resolve that.much of the time people's responses to an actor seem to involve either massive amounts of projection or a sort of consumer choice as to whether you find the actor generally palatable.

if you don't have the 2.5 hours free to watch EWS then just watch the video for Laura Branigan's "Self Control" which is the same plot and many of the same shots but is like 5 minutes long, predates EWS by 15 years and has a really cool song over it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZtn9AwgfQQ

"I don't have any idea if a performance is good or not."

i find this truly bizarre. i can watch any old crap if the performances are good. acting seems to vary wildly in quality, to me, and that's not just projection.

But how do you know it's good? I don't get it :/

how do you know ANYTHING's good? most stuff ilx talks about is subjective

how do you know a shot is well framed or that dialogue is good?

xpost

surmounter, watch that video. you will thank me.

guys maybe women don't like it because it's about a dude cheating on his wife?

Well you know that stuff is good because there are usually accepted criteria for what good framing is, namely that they are effective. So can a good performance exist in a totally worthless film or vice versa? How do you separate the performance from the film in general?

For example: "cruise is stiff and blank and therefore bad" vs. "it's supposed to be that way don't you see"

There is an infinite distance between those two statements.

So we just throw our hands up at that and proclaim that it's subjective?

gabb its about a dude wanting to but not cheating on his wife after she told him how much she wanted to but didnt cheat on him

xp no, but we shouldn't dismiss arguments based an actor's performance, either

good call deez

I guess the fact that it's acceptable to make both of those statements when talking about movies is what is disturbing me. There's something inconsistent in the discourse.not meaning to be annoying here, just a quibble.

i think gaps like that are the basis for any discussion about any art form

it's not annoying :-)

gabb its about a dude wanting to but not cheating on his wife after she told him how much she wanted to but didnt cheat on him

right, what i said

wouldnt you basically evaluate an actors performance the same way youd evaluate its framing or whatever else, ie how well it achieves what you think the movie wants it to?

oftentimes. what was the director's intention etc? you don't always know that either.

That's a great point surmounter! (about the gap being necessary for conversation)

I do suppose you have to take into account what the actor is "trying" to do in order to judge the performance, however problematic that may be.

I just also wonder if there could be a different way to approach a performance. Maybe not!

By the way, I take back what I said upthread about antonioni six years ago!

ryan, i don't know how to talk about it because i'm so baffled by that take on acting. to me the acting is the single most prominent feature in any film. can a bad film be saved by good performances? most definitely. can a film be very good if the acting is bad? most definitely not!

"Well you know that stuff is good because there are usually accepted criteria for what good framing is, namely that they are effective."

there are accepted criteria for what makes acting good and they are as hard to pinpoint as what makes a shot good or bad.

lots of xposts

jed,

you're not the only one who's noticed that Laura Branigan/EWS connection. check out the edit of the two someone put together:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

"can a bad film be saved by good performances? most definitely. can a film be very good if the acting is bad? most definitely not!"

see i disagree w/ this - i dont think id ever watch a film purely for a performance or performances

PP, you got me!

Jed, I guess it's the difference between seeing acting as a "craft" and seeing it, as someone totally uneducated about it like me may be likely to do, as an attempt at "realism" or the production of some unstated intent on the part of the filmmakers.

deeznuts, would you watch a film for the cinematography alone?

i totally love EWS

yeah, but - to be 'clearer', & to flip what you said on its head, i definitely dont think bad acting can kill a good film, but im equally sure good acting cant save a bad one - i guess my prob with your statement is that i see acting as a definite part of the whole, & thus yr opinion inherently doesnt make sense to me: if bad acting kills a good film, its not a good film, & vice versa

it might be true that i value cinematography, or plot, or whatever, more than acting, but at the same i wouldnt say any one of those could in & of itself make a movie good or bad

ok yr right. i just meant it can make a bad film better or even enjoyable.

i think really excellent acting can make a film that is otherwise a trifle totally compelling. i'm not sure how i'd regard something like 'the good thief' if it didn't have such a great cast. but there are a few films in which "bad" acting is beside the point. like ryan said, bresson's pics.

deez breakin it out

so many good directors manipulate bad actors for the sake of their scenarios, though (Joan Crawford, Ali MacGraw, Keanu Reeves, Scarlet Johanson, to name a few).

^^^ this

See, like, in the scene in which Tom Cruise goes back to the hooker's apartment the next day and encounters her roomie, there are a lot of agendas going on there:

-- Tom Cruise thinks he's being Tom Cruise
-- "Dr. Bill Harford" also thinks he's being "Tom Cruise," or whatever the equivalent of "Tom Cruise" is in his universe.
-- Stanley Kubrick thinks both Tom Cruise and Dr. Bill are being smug jerks with not half the mad ladykilling skillz they think they have.
-- Red-haired roomie is all "lol u might have AIDS, Tom Cruise"

Kubrick wins, and both Tom Cruise and Dr. Bill are none the wiser.

you don't usually go to kubrick for good performances, but this being what it is, ie a psychological drama where not much really 'happens', good acting is required, and, in this case, not forthcoming.

^nonsense^

bad actors ... (Joan Crawford, Ali MacGraw, Keanu Reeves, Scarlet Johanson, to name a few)

really, Ali MacGraw stands alone in this group. The others are frequently good movie stars.