Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

A New York City doctor, who is married to an art curator, pushes himself on a harrowing and dangerous night-long odyssey of sexual and moral discovery after his wife admits that she once almost cheated on him.

Director:

Stanley Kubrick

Writers:

Stanley Kubrick (screenplay), Frederic Raphael (screenplay),

Stars:

Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Sydney Pollack

Nominated for 1 Golden Globe. Another 5 wins & 15 nominations.

Cast

Cast overview, first billed only:
Tom Cruise	...	Dr. William Harford
Nicole Kidman	...	Alice Harford
Madison Eginton	...	Helena Harford
Jackie Sawiris	...	Roz
Sydney Pollack	...	Victor Ziegler
Leslie Lowe	...	Illona Ziegler
Peter Benson	...	Bandleader
Todd Field	...	Nick Nightingale
Michael Doven	...	Ziegler's Secretary
Sky du Mont	...	Sandor Szavost (as Sky Dumont)
Louise J. Taylor	...	Gayle (as Louise Taylor)
Stewart Thorndike	...	Nuala
Randall Paul	...	Harris
Julienne Davis	...	Mandy
Lisa Leone	...	Lisa

Storyline

A doctor becomes obsessed with having a sexual encounter after his wife admits to having sexual fantasies about a man she met and chastising him for dishonesty in not admitting to his own fantasies. This sets him off into unfulfilled encounters with a dead patient's daughter and a hooker. But when he visits a nightclub, where a pianist friend Nick Nightingale is playing, he learns about a secret sexual group and decides to attend one of their congregations. However, he quickly learns he is in well over his head and finds he and his family are threatened.

---

Plot Keywords:

party | patient | sexual fantasy | doctor | city | 

---

Taglines:

Cruise. Kidman. Kubrick.

---

Genres:

Drama | Mystery | Thriller

---

Motion Picture Rating (MPAA)

Rated R for strong sexual content, nudity, language and some drug-related material

Details

Official Sites:

Warner Bros. [United States]

Country:

UK USA

Language:

English

Release Date:

16 July 1999 (USA)

Also Known As:

EWS

Filming Locations:

Berners Street, Fitzrovia, London, England, UK

Box Office

Budget:

$65,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend:

£1,189,672 (UK) (10 September 1999)

Gross:

£5,065,520 (UK) (22 October 1999)

Company Credits

Production Co:

Hobby Films, Pole Star, Stanley Kubrick Productions

Technical Specs

Runtime:

159 min

Sound Mix:

DTS Dolby Digital SDDS

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.66 : 1

Did You Know?

Trivia

The film was "pushed" two stops in processing, thus enabling Stanley Kubrick to film using existing source lighting (table lamps, overhead lights, etc.) whenever possible. The light level remained low even when lighting had to be supplemented with Lowell or Chinese paper ball lamps as fill or key lights.

---

Goofs

While Dr. Harford is arguing with Alice on the bed after smoking a joint, his hair is sticking up in one shot and is flat in the next.

---

Quotes

[first lines]
Dr. Bill Harford: Honey, have you seen my wallet?
Alice Harford: Isn't it on the bedside table?
Dr. Bill Harford: Now listen, you know we're running a little late.
Alice Harford: I know. How do I look?
Dr. Bill Harford: Perfect.
Alice Harford: Is my hair okay?
Dr. Bill Harford: It's great
Alice Harford: You're not even looking at it.
Dr. Bill Harford: It's beautiful. You always look beautiful.

---

Crazy Credits

Special thanks to the staff of Hamleys of London.

---

Connections

References Rosemary's Baby (1968)

---

Soundtracks

"Naval Officer"
(1999)
Performed by Jocelyn Pook and Electra Strings
Written by Jocelyn Pook
Published by WB Music Corp. and Chester Music Ltd.

User Reviews

A fitting completion to Kubrick's study of humanity

I managed to swallow my expectations before the film, setting myself to judge it on its own without judging it as a Kubrick film. No need, no need! This film IS a Kubrick film, without any doubt, and as all Kubrick films are it was absolutely stunning. Absolutely. Visually it is brilliant, though I should warn that this isn't quite as visual a film as most other Kubrick works. A lot of the film focuses on the characters, on human interaction, something rather new to this director. Of course, all the Kubrick trademarks are there, cold analytical gazes, sharp introspection. Tom Cruise seems like Jack Nicholson in 'The Shining' and even Malcolm MacDowell in 'A Clockwork Orange' at times, a rather striking fact considering that this is Tom Cruise. The performances were excellent all around, even from places not expected. Again, this is typical for Kubrick. He wasn't much of a people director, but he still knew how to direct people.

Almost every moment of this film was flawless, perfect and pristine. The dialog is predictable, but in some solemn and holy fateful sort of way, as though the words and the moments are matched so essentially that nothing else could possibly fit. Beyond that the sounds and images all fit together beautifully, creating an almost unblemished whole. The only part that didn't seem right was the sequence that had been digitally altered. While the alterations were not nearly so obtrusive as I had feared (not knowing about them one probably wouldn't notice them) they do grow a bit noticeable for redundancy (you see a lot more backs than you'd expect, and always in the same places). Unfortunately these came right in the middle of one of the most visually amazing pieces of the film (one of the most amazing pieces of cinema as a whole, in my opinion), a very unwelcome distraction.

Is this movie about sex? Yes, it is, but more importantly it is about people. The sex part is simply a product thereof. This is one of the most disturbingly honest portraits of human behavior and motivations ever made. The most honest I've ever seen, at least. To be put simply: It is about sex because people are about sex.

I'm still trying to sort through this movie. It's been a good twelve hours since I saw it, and I can still feel it, hard and definite, rotating in my stomach. The film itself seems mostly void of opinion (not entirely, but mostly), serving more as a general statement and commentary than any specific moral warning, but the questions it inspires are very strong indeed. The film, being objective, provides no answers, no justification for humanity. There is no redemption, either, none whatsoever. The film's final word sums it (it being the film and humanity) up pretty well, for better or for worse. I guess that depends on you.

A common thread in Kubrick's films since 2001 has been the contemplation and examination of human intentions, the essence of human behavior. Motivations. He's shown us violence and madness and everything else, all tracking the path back to the dawn of man. I think he finally figured it out with this film, however anticlimactic the discovery might have been. At least he did finally figure it out. That's something.

I am one of many. I never had the privilege to know Stanley Kubrick. I don't even know that privilege is the right word. I do know his films, though, and while I am in no position to say that I will miss him as a person, I can say, without doubt or hesitation, that I will miss him as a filmmaker.