eyes wide shut.

i was 16 when "eyes wide shut" came out in theaters and i remember all of the controversy about it due to the sex.  back then i had no desire to see it, it wasn't the type of film i would see. i probably would have never saw it but since the lacma has their kubrick exhibit so i finally watched it.

and i know it was critically acclaim and all but i wasn't impressed by it.  i wouldn't even place it in kubrick's top 5.  its called a erotic thriller but there was nothing too suspenseful about it, not like "the shining" suspenseful.  other than maybe expecting nicole kidman to be revealed as the masked woman.  the orgy didn't shocking for me.  maybe it's because i knew what to expect or maybe our media is so sex driven that what was controversial in 1999 is kid's play in 2013.  also i am not surprised that the super rich engage in things like orgy, i mean with all the money, time and power they have, of course they would have some weird sex fetishes.

"eyes wide shut" was based on (just like all of kubrick's work) a literay work, arthur schnitzler's novella "dream story" which was written in 1926.  it did raise an interesting discussion of gender roles and sex and of course the repression and denial of female sexuality.  but again being in 2013 versus 1999 and a woman raised by "sex and the city" and catchy commercials about birth control, i feel i am free to have sex as i want and on my own terms.  i am not saying that prejudices do not exist but i am not affected by them; i do not need to conform to society's views of female sexuality.  it's like being samantha from sex and the city.

the film did not have any wonderful shots or scenes like kubrick's other films.  though all the naked ladies did remind me of "a clockwork orange".  the lighting especially with the christmas lights did remind me of "barry lyndon".  but other than that nothing really stood out.  i did appreciate the inclusion of the prostitute with HIV, with all of the sex in that film, there did need to be a cautionary tale of AIDS/HIV.  and i also wonder if tom cruise being called gay in the film was kubrick poking fun at rumors about cruise's sexuality.  and alan cummings was great as the hotel clerk, the perfect element of weirdness, reminiscent of peter sellers. i will add, i could have done without cruise and kidman, cruise was fine but i do not find kidman attractive and so seeing her naked and during sex scenes was more gross than sensual.

though the film was ho-hum, i will say i loved all the conspiracy theories about the illumanti killing kubrick. i mean would the world really pay attention if kubrick revealed their secret.  also kubrick is one man, it seems impossible for him to actually topple the illumanti.  but while looking up articles about kubrick's death and all of the illumanti signs in his films, I came across gawker's comprehensive guide to the illumanti, enjoy!  lol

rabbit hole.

yes that's the dvd cover.  i don't get it either.  when i picked it up, i thought to myself, isn't this supoose to be about a couple coping with the death of their young son?  so what's with the pornographic photo?  and with hole in the title, it sounds like some sick twisted sequel to "eyes wide shut'.  but it's not. 

but let's get serious cos this is a serious film.  the other day while googling to see when "midnight in paris" came out in theaters. i found a list of movies released in may 2011 and came across "rabbit hole".  i wanted to see it in theaters but for one reason or another never saw it.  i loved "hedwig and the angry inch" and wanted to see a john cameron mitchell film with a more serious screenplay.  (not that "hedwig" wasn't but you know, mitchell minus the camp.  also i haven't seen "shortbus".)  "hedwig" is one of my faovrites, so i was game to see another one of his films.

mitchell did not disappoint.  though i am not a parent and though i have never lost someone unexpectantly in my life, this film had me in tears.  like barely five minutes into the film kinda tears.  the screenplay is very well written.  it is by David Lindsay-Albarie who also wrote the award winning play 'rabbit hole" on which the movie was based. again though i have never experienced it, i feel this film is a an honest portrayal of life after losing a young son or daughter.  it shows that there really isn't one way to cope or even a right way to cope.  also one should expect to experience a full spectrum of emotions. 

without giving too much away, i will say that i appreciated how nicole kidman's character was anti-religion when it came to coping.  i have never found and probably will never find comfort in god when tragedy strikes.  i have explained to friends that i hope there isn't a god because human suffering shouldn't be justify by the idea that "this is what god wanted."  really god wanted horrible events to happen?  also how can one have faith in a god who lets horrible things happen to innocent people.  i can't believe in a god that places souls into families where sexual abuse happens or to parents with drug habits.  how do you justify that?  i always say i can't be job; i will question god about my suffering.  and for me i don't want to justify the horrible things that happen to me as something that god orchestrated.  who can have faith in someone who creates horrible situations for the people he love and created.  i think kidman's character summed it up best by calling god a "a sadistic prick."  a god that causes suffering would be one.  

the film touches on other topics but this is one i was left with after watching.  i was also left with puffy eyes from tears.  i think if i watch it after i have childern, i might have a different impression.  i could sympathize with the characters but i couldn't empathize with them.  this movie was good and i recommend it.  but make sure to have some discuss handy cos it is very emotional.