Eyes Wide Shut 1999

Stanley Kubrick's Christmas movie. What makes it a Christmas movie? (besides the story's time frame) Its a deconstruction of the cliche "true meaning of Christmas". Kubrick delves into the clash of religious moralities that plays out unseen in the lives of the American family. The story opens with a young couple, new to money, invited to a holiday party thrown by bourgeois occultists. As a male Satanist tempts the wife, angelic and demonic females tempt the husband. Neither gives in, but the wife wants to. As the story progresses, this marriage faces consequences for these separate moral attitudes to marriage. And in the end, having experienced each other's dreams, they move on from their black and white views on fidelity to start a new life beyond outdated dogmas and bonded by traumatic memories.

This would be Kubrick's farewell to our phenomenal world and his final say on the philosophical conflicts of modern man. I think this is his masterpiece. I rarely cover the plots of films because A. I don't want to spoil much B. its usually unnecessary in a review and C. most film's don't have plots worth discussing. But EWS has one of the most complex plots ever devised for a motion picture.
Kubrick's genius is in leaving us with so many questions. Profound ones. How much of Tom Cruise's absurdly coincidental story is truth? Did the group of Satanists kill the hooker? If so, does it really matter? Who put the mask on the couple's bed? Did the husband make up everything to get even with his wife or did he turn down 3 women in one night? Kubrick leaves all avenues open and leaves both husband and wife guilty of repressed desires and muted satisfaction. Neither religion can survive alone. Kubrick explains Christianity and Satanism are a binary, symbiotic and extreme wings of the same faith. And it is faith that is needed in any marriage and believing any story. Eyes Wide Shut is inspired by a novella called Dream Story and we never know whose dream we are watching. I assume it is a shared collective dream of reality. We all experience this fantasy of morals, truths and desires. We are trapped in this ideological version of history and it effects the spiritual journey of everyone through structuralism, even if you may be an atheist (as I assume Kubrick was).

Kubrick, I think, sides with Sydney Pollack's character, the Luciferian friend of the husband who is a decent man who rejects Christianity for the orgies, drugs and small crimes. The two readings of the film hinge on whether this character is lying to Tom Cruise or not. You must decide whether Kubrick condemns or upholds the codes of this elite group of masked celebrities and aristocrats. Some theorists claim the Illuminati killed Kubrick for revealing too much. On the other hand, I could see Kubrick going to Eyes Wide Shut parties in his youth. But maybe the film is a depiction of Kubrick's own fear of or rejection from the bourgeoisie. His own mistrust of their practices or a friendly envy of them. These questions remain.

The film is still a fascinating mystery and fans dream that it would've been made clear if he had handled the final cut. Some say that is part of the conspiracy. I know that the film as is is a beautiful experience. Sure, Kubrick would've selected better takes or improved the edit or sound design had he lived, but the final cut of any film could be better. Its a monumental work of art regardless.

Finally, it is a perfect Christmas allegory because its about which version we choose to believe. Kubrick doesn't lead us either way because it is the viewer's own subjectivity and moral prejudices that will choose the narrative. Can you believe? Do you still have faith?

War of the Worlds 2005

Summer's soon so I'm in the mood for big spectacle. Who better than Spielberg? (like my alliteration?)

I missed WOTW when it was released but  now I'm quite warm on the idea of big blockbuster CGI fest filmmaking. This is very much a minor Spielberg movie, but I was impressed by its modernity and the huge influence its had on Hollywood stylistically. But some would say that influence isn't positive and that this is Spielberg on the decline.

WOTW is totally a directorial "job". Its schlocky and the script isn't worked out at all. It feels like a one-note short story that was stretched out to focus solely on special fx. Its Spielberg showing off and collecting a check, which isn't so bad because it more than works as light entertainment and the man has given us enough classics that he's allowed to fuck around.

While technically it is dazzling - full of sweeping camera movements that keep the pace up, and the large scale sets and wonderfully composed action shots that made Steven Spielberg a legend - it shows the weakness of Spielberg: his lack of emotional range. WOTW focuses on the recurring Spielberg themes: imperfect fathers, childhood trauma, the horrors of genocide and systematic murder.

I theorize the undercurrent of Steven's artistry is the fear, insecurity, disgust and anger that was ingrained in him as a Jewish youth learning about the realities of World War II. Whether he is directing stories about slaves or alien invasions or android children, he relates it to this childlike view of a beautiful world suddenly turned monstrous. His films are full of sadistic, faceless, unstoppable evil antagonists and Earthy, innocent, human hordes as the fodder protagonists. So War of the Worlds is one of the most pronounced of his films in this regard.

Worlds links back to his earliest "spectacle" work in Jaws and 1941 especially, two films about worldly disaster hitting a small populated community. Oddly, this is more 1941 than Jaws and thats unfortunate. 1941 was a screwball extravaganza of wild camera gags, fx, cartoonish acting and an extremely loose plot. WOTW would've benefited from Jaws' pathos, characterization, political commentary and more adventurous narrative. Characters are evaporated and turned into mists of blood and the other characters hardly react or intellectualize it. Where's the feeling? I'm also disappointed that Spielberg's films have grown colder visually, further deadening the emotion. The terror and heroism in this film would've been stronger if it looked as vibrantly alive as Jurassic Park.

So on the surface War of the Worlds is a very personal, stylish piece of fluff but it may be too by-the-numbers and familiar for many, especially older fans of Spielberg. But its Spielberg so its not going to be a bad movie. It keeps you glued with pacing and visual treats but it might not stick you when its over. A mixed bag.