Non-fiction Essay: "Eyes Wide" Cut

July 14, 1999


In a move sure to anger just about anyone with a brain, Warner Brothers will alter 65 seconds of Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut in order to avoid being given an "NC-17" rating from the MPAA. Not one frame will be cut nor will any footage be replaced. Instead, the company will digitally insert human figures in front of the "offensive" images.

The scene we're talking about here is the fluid long shot in which a naked woman shows a masked Tom Cruise through a mansion in which atypical sex acts are taking place in every room. From what I understand, it's one of the most artfully filmed pieces in this already important film and depends on its carefully controlled build-up to inspire a sense of dread in those watching. Those that have already seen Warner Brothers' bit of hocus pocus say this editing procedure instantly negates its intended effect and dilutes its powerful imagery. At the present time, there are no plans to release an unedited, unrated version of the film in North America or Canada although the director's original vision will play throughout Europe. This is curious because both of the former countries currently have an adults-only rating specifically designed for exactly this type of situation. This rating, the "NC-17" (which forbids anyone under the age of 17 admittance into the film whether they're accompanied by an adult or not) was meant to differentiate between films of serious intent and plain old pornography. Established in 1990, this rating became instantly obsolete when almost the entire industry refused to have anything to do with films branded with it (theaters didn't want to show them, newspapers wouldn't carry ads for them, etc.). In fact, the "NC-17" rating is so shunned that I don't know of any filmmaker, even someone as powerful and respected as Kubrick was, whose studio contract doesn't demand an "R" rating or less.

Obviously, none of this would be an issue if Kubrick hadn't died just five days after turning in his final cut last March. Either he'd do some fine tuning with his own hand or he'd publicly support the studio's decision, both of which would be infinitely more palatable than hearing the industry suits speak on his behalf and declaring that this is what Stanley would have wanted. Also strangely quiet on the subject is Cruise, who vowed at the time of the director's death to protect the integrity of the film and stated he would not let one frame be cut from it. Not so quiet is film critic Roger Ebert who's already let slip one or a hundred times that he considers what Warner plans to do a "travesty" and that "We need an adults-only rating, something between an R and porn that doesn't penalize theater-owners and distributors." In lieu of the complete failings of the "NC-17," I don't understand a word of what he's saying.

Another alternative would be to release an unedited version of the film in tandem with the one we're discussing. Sure, hardly any theater would carry it but at least we'd have the option of seeking it out if we wanted to. And just imagine the statement that would be made if the unrated one had better box office! All across the land, movie buffs everywhere would be yelling "Freeeeedom!" louder than Mel Gibson at the end of Braveheart.

Ultimately, I don't understand how any of this came into play. Hypothetically speaking, an "R" rating prevents any minor from seeing the film unless accompanied by an adult. Why not simply bend the MPAA's rules in honor of a great director's last film and release it with that rating as is? This is a three hour art film we're talking about here and after it's first week of release, word of mouth between the kids that the film isn't worth their trouble will be swift and total. If the studio really cared about "protecting" today's youth, it would have done just that and the film would have glided effortlessly under the radar into the laps of its intended audience: adults. Having said that, I'm beginning to think the Warner Brothers hypemiesters are as smart and as good at their jobs as the late, great Stanley Kubrick himself ;)