Eyes Wide Shut

Rating:
Summary: Surely a collector's item.
Review: An excellent story combined with an equally excellent screenplay. Arthur Schnitzler must have been one of the finer writers of his time and the late Stanley Kubrick immortalizes the latter's genius through his screen adaptation. Although some says the movie version was overrated, I still believe that the production gave justice to what the story wants to tell -- the inner struggle of a husband and wife and their quest to test their fidelity to each other.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful book; bland screenplay.
Review: Anyone confounded by Kubrick's unsuccessful, if interesting, final film should take a look at the book on which it was based. It's one of the greatest books from this century that I've read. It is unfortunate that Kubrick could not transform it into a better movie, as maybe he could have at the height of his powers. The screenplay (or shooting script, anyway) is also included here, and after reading them both, it's easy to see why he failed. Kubrick's movie is basically a transcript of the exterior action that takes place in a book that deals mostly with the internal. Kubrick tries to illuminate the internal struggle with music, set design and mindscreen shots, and while all this adds to the unsettling atmosphere of the film, the core of the book, and the meaning of the events are lost. This is not helped by a sloppy job of updating the novel to 1990s New York. Most of Kubrick's movies (if not all) were based on novels (some great, some not so great), and one of his greatest talents was always to single out what he found to be the core of the novel, and the ability to shape it into his own vision (and in the process, infuriating some of the original writers). But in this case, Kubrick has updated the novel only superfically, and ultimately, he missed the point of the book. It's a shame, because it should have made a marvellous movie, and I feel it could have been one of his greatest achievements. Despite all this, Schnitzler's book stands on its own, and if nothing else, perhaps the movie will lead to something of a rediscovery of this masterpiece.

Rating:
Summary: Soomewhat interesting read for those who liked the movie
Review: I found it particularly interesting that Kubrick's very adult final movie was based on a short story written back in 1926. Kubrick fans know his movies are full of interesting camera angles and great characters, but underlying all his movies are a combination of temptation and agony. He was a master of titillating the senses and arousing curiousity but not quite giving you what you wanted to see. I was a little surprised, then, when his final movie seemed to leave little to the imagination.

I was surprised by the other reviews on this site that claimed the original story was overly risque. While the story was similar in concept, I found it rather tame compared to the movie. One reviewer said the main character had an infatuation with underage minors. Were we reading the same story here?

I enjoyed the movie but critics complain the movie was too focused on overt sexuality and shock value. Perhaps that's true. It's unlike his previous works which left more to interpretation of the viewer. I do agree that Kubrick attempted to solve the mysteries that were left unanswered in the story. I believe the movie would've received higher acclaim if he remained focused on the tension regarding the affairs of the heart.

One final note, as another reviewer noted, the screenplay differs from the final work. As he/she correctly pointed out, many of Kubrick's works were written "on the fly" as additional ideas and modifications to the original script were incorporated during production.

Rating:
Summary: Soomewhat interesting read for those who liked the movie
Review: I found it particularly interesting that Kubrick's very adult final movie was based on a short story written back in 1926. Kubrick fans know his movies are full of interesting camera angles and great characters, but underlying all his movies are a combination of temptation and agony. He was a master of titillating the senses and arousing curiousity but not quite giving you what you wanted to see. I was a little surprised, then, when his final movie seemed to leave little to the imagination.

I was surprised by the other reviews on this site that claimed the original story was overly risque. While the story was similar in concept, I found it rather tame compared to the movie. One reviewer said the main character had an infatuation with underage minors. Were we reading the same story here?

I enjoyed the movie but critics complain the movie was too focused on overt sexuality and shock value. Perhaps that's true. It's unlike his previous works which left more to interpretation of the viewer. I do agree that Kubrick attempted to solve the mysteries that were left unanswered in the story. I believe the movie would've received higher acclaim if he remained focused on the tension regarding the affairs of the heart.

One final note, as another reviewer noted, the screenplay differs from the final work. As he/she correctly pointed out, many of Kubrick's works were written "on the fly" as additional ideas and modifications to the original script were incorporated during production.

Rating:
Summary: Short, mysterious & unusual
Review: Like everyone else, I imagine I felt driven to acquire and read this book in the name of the forthcoming Stanley Kubrick movie. To hear such a genius refer so highly to a single work instills a deep desire to see for yourself. After finally landing a copy (without tossing too much from the old wallet), I completed the book in a near single sitting. Schnitzler's Rhapsody mesmerizes. He deftly tapped into the hidden desires and uncontrollable urges, thoughts and desires of us all. To want what we do not have; and when (or if) we seek that which is at most times forbidden - we find ourselves in an often worse position - showing us the damaging course our libidos and dark halves will send us upon. I found myself often times reading with a nervous, yet libidinously charged smile - feeling both the exhillaration and the utmost despair and hatred. The story of Fridolin is the experience which we all are capable of. It is indeed Rhapsody. A mere 5 stars is not enough for this tryst.

Rating:
Summary: Keep your eyes wide shut to Kubrick's script
Review: Reading Raphael and Kubrick's flat, uninteresting script next to Schnitzler's haunting and enigmatic novella, one gets a first-rate lesson in how you can preserve the structure of a story and lose its soul.

Schnitzler carefully renders his tale to produce an underlying uncertainty over whether these events are real or dream-like. Moreover, he doesn't attempt to tie up any loose ends; they're left deliberately loose as they would be in dreams. Kubrick and Raphael, I'm afraid, are far more literal in their depiction of wandering sexual angst and the screenplay, like the film, is rambling and unfocused. Beside, Ziegler's scene with Bill towards the end, where he exposes the mystery of all that's gone on before, is easily the worst scene Kubrick ever wrote, co-wrote, or directed. Since the Schnitzler novella is only available in this form for now, I'm compelled to rate this book highly. If the screenplay was published on its own, it'd rate **.

Rating:
Summary: TOO WEIRD
Review: The interesting thing about reading the screenplay and the story it was based on was seeing how Kubrick took the story and translated it into modern times and a different locale.

The story itself, in both its screenplay and original short-novel form, isn't that good. It's too weird, and too shallow, and the conclusion doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps it was Kubrick's legendary film-making that overcame those flaws. Having not seen the movie, I don't know. Readers, in my opinion, would be just as well to give this book a pass.

Rating:
Summary: Definitely a page turner
Review: This is an incredible book. To read the original story, "Traumnovelle," is an enthralling experience. To think that it was written in 1926 adds to its mystique. The screenplay was worth looking at, though at times I felt it was more of a transcription than a screenplay. The narrative follows the final movie cut's directing instructions too closely, though there are some very minor deviations. I'd rather read the original script rather than a shooting script. The short story differs from the movie greatly. It a captivating read, and I can see why Stanley Kubrick spent most of his life wanting to see it on the screen. I think reading the short story gave me an appreciation of what Mr. Kubrick added to it to make it a remarkable film. The structure from the original story is vastly improved in that there is a confrontation of what the main character witnessed. In the short story, it is left up in the air as to the true nature of what he saw, with the strongest suggestion being that it was harmless debauchery of aristocrats. One aspect of the short story that was not explored (and thankfully so) in the movie was the main character's obsessive longings after extremely young women (including the young daughter of the rental costume owner). You'll have to see "American Beauty" for those scenes.

Rating:
Summary: Definitely a page turner
Review: This is an incredible book. To read the original story, "Traumnovelle," is an enthralling experience. To think that it was written in 1926 adds to its mystique. The screenplay was worth looking at, though at times I felt it was more of a transcription than a screenplay. The narrative follows the final movie cut's directing instructions too closely, though there are some very minor deviations. I'd rather read the original script rather than a shooting script. The short story differs from the movie greatly. It a captivating read, and I can see why Stanley Kubrick spent most of his life wanting to see it on the screen. I think reading the short story gave me an appreciation of what Mr. Kubrick added to it to make it a remarkable film. The structure from the original story is vastly improved in that there is a confrontation of what the main character witnessed. In the short story, it is left up in the air as to the true nature of what he saw, with the strongest suggestion being that it was harmless debauchery of aristocrats. One aspect of the short story that was not explored (and thankfully so) in the movie was the main character's obsessive longings after extremely young women (including the young daughter of the rental costume owner). You'll have to see "American Beauty" for those scenes.

Rating:
Summary: Good Script, Terrible Book
Review: While the screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Frederic Raphael seems to take us from Point A to Point B, it's very interesting and is a good, read. As it was Kubrick's final film, it was a good move of Warner Brothers to publish the script of it.

The source novel of the film, "Dream Story" by Arthur Schnizler, has a lengthy, tedious and confusing narrative. It's almost unreadable and it's amazing how Kubrick enhanced the story and made it into one of the best films of the 20th Century.

See the movie and purchase this book. It's well worth it if you're a fan of excellent, quality films and the good screenwriting that makes it.