‘Eyes’ Open to Criticism

It is interesting to note that both the Los Angeles and New York film critics associations have taken the ratings administration of the Motion Picture Assn. of America to task for threatening to give an NC-17 rating to “Eyes Wide Shut” in its original form (Morning Report, July 22 and 27). Rather the critics had used this occasion to point out that all the nudity and explicit talk (and talk and Talk and TALK!) allowable on this planet does not necessarily constitute an erotic experience or, more to the point, an engaging film.

“Eyes Wide Shut” provides a ponderous and silly coda to the extraordinary career of Stanley Kubrick.

I have heard more attempts to rationalize this film since its release than I’ve heard explanations for the behavior of politicians in time of scandal. Among my favorites: The film is actually a satire, a black comedy. Maybe so, but what is one to think of a comedy whose chief laugh is provided by a huge, digitally inserted, disembodied . . . costume? Lamp shade? Your guess is as good as mine.

There are those who claim the film requires repeated viewings. Perhaps. I will not soon be able to prove them wrong. But most of the films that I’ve grown to appreciate more with time gave themselves a head-start by at least sustaining my interest the first time.

Then there’s the old standby of blaming it on the cast. Rubbish. Nicole Kidman goes a long way toward making this film seem better than it is, and Tom Cruise is always admirably game. I cannot think of another actor who would have had much more success in attempting to portray such a reactive protagonist.

A more interesting, if less plausible, theory holds that the film actually works when viewed as Kubrick’s commentary on the cult of Scientology. I personally can’t imagine anyone finding it worthwhile to reach that far, but as implausible theories go, it is interesting.

Finally, I would like to throw myself into the act by pointing out that the film seems to be Kubrick’s personal Titanic--no, not the recent film of the same name, but his actual Titanic. All the time and care affordable went into its pre-production and shooting schedule, the sets are magnificent, the costumes sumptuous, the guest list star-studded, the unveiling an event in and of itself--and in about 2 1/2 hours it all goes down before our incredulous, wide-open eyes.

Fun though all this game-playing may be, none of it would be going on if the film was not such a crushing disappointment.

One is aware of many relevant truths at the core of “Eyes Wide Shut.” When told simply and directly, there is much that can be said of how frightening it can be to confront the innermost feelings and desires of ourselves and those we are closest to. Cinematically such themes have been dealt with memorably in films as diverse as John Huston’s “The Dead” and David Lynch’s “Blue Velvet.” It’s unfortunate that these points are made to seem trivial when clouded in stilted dialogue and repetitive, heavy-handed direction. I found myself wanting to scream for Cruise’s character to buy a sailor suit, go home to his wife and have some fun.

I have not read “Dream Story”; perhaps it is a novel best appreciated on the page. However, Kubrick has dealt successfully in the past with novels one could make the same case for, most notably the somewhat similar “Lolita.”

The largely reverential critical support for this film truly baffles me.

I suppose it’s considered bad taste to point out the truth about the emperor’s new clothes once the emperor has died, and especially if his prior accomplishments include several of the finest films in cinematic history. But Stanley Kubrick is one emperor who left us naked. Way too naked.

George Pappas is an actor and writer wending his way through life in Los Angeles. He is in the early stages of writing a book on the recent controversy over Elia Kazan’s honorary Oscar.