MovieChat Forums > Eyes Wide Shut (1999) Discussion > Harrison Ford as Bill

Harrison Ford as Bill

posted 5 years ago by degree7 (821)
17 replies | jump to latest

Cracked had an article about if Harrison Ford was cast in the film instead of Tom Cruise, and the writer makes a good point:

Kubrick made the unfortunate decision to stunt-cast Tom Cruise and his wife Nicole Kidman, well before anyone realized what a horrific idea that was. Of course, the couple weren't so much "vanilla" as they were way more uncomfortable around one another than any married couple should be. According to R Lee Ermey, Kubrick regarded the film as a "piece of shit," and claimed that Cruise and Kidman "had their way with [him]."

The film wasn't as bad a Kubrick feared, but his concerns do raise the question: Why not go after the guy you're patterning the character after?

You get a better actor who maybe, invigorated after working with Kubrick, doesn't turn into a perpetually stoned stroke victim. Ford probably then ends up taking the lead role in Traffic instead of abandoning it to Michael Douglas, and wins himself an Oscar for it. Any possible future where we're spared Hollywood Homicide is a future worth pursuing.

And Eyes Wide Shut? Han Solo fumbles with his junk at an orgy. Indiana Jones awkwardly hits on a 15-year-old Lelee Sobieski. Jack Ryan starts licking his wife while checking himself out in a mirror. It would have been Harrison Ford as you've never wanted to see him. The most squirmingly uncomfortable thing Kubrick ever put on film -- just like he wanted, but for all the right reasons.

https://www.cracked.com/article_18455_5-movies-that-were-one-flaw-away-from-being-classics.html

[–] bobbydallas (8620) 5 years ago

i was OK with Tom & Nicole.... their characters were a perfect fit. Ford would be too much of a know-how badass for this.

Tom Cruise already has the snotty attitude of Dr. Harford, who for the most part, got his way. Except when he ran into some real wealthy buds..

I wouldn't call it a mis-cast even if Kubrick was unhappy with it. Then again was perfectionist Kubrick ever satisfied ?! lol

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

It’s just too bad that Kubrick modeled the entire character after Harrison Ford - evident by the name Harford - and then decides not to cast him for whatever reason.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 5 years ago

What good point do you think the article makes?

It's highly hypotetical, and stories of what if in Hollywood there's 100 per movie.
Lots of choices get made, of course it would be totally different with Ford instead of Cruise.
I doubt it for the better.

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Yeah, discussions on film boards generally revolve around hypotheticals. Good job you complete ingrate. Did you even pass the third grade?

What good point do you think your comment makes?

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 5 years ago

Wow, what an abrasive little rotten cunt you are....
I just asked politely what good point do you find the article is making.
Why did you get so irritated?
Anyway, don't worry, at this point I don't give a fuck about your opinion.
For future reference, try to get that pole out of your asshole, asshole!

[–] bobbydallas (8620) 5 years ago

Apparently the general public HATED Sydney Pollack & Alan Cumming but I thought they were both great in this!
Also, I don't think it was a situation like Clockwork Orange where if McDowell was unavailable no movie would be made..

I guess Kubrick figured they'd be alright = )

anyWAY I'm glad Ford didn't make the cut.. he was 57 in 1999 !! Cruise was 37 and had the young naive look.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

I liked all the performances in the film. Cumming was hilarious and terrific, although I was waiting for him to make a more direct move on Cruise and see what kinds of thoughts that inspired in Bill... Pollack was good, too.

[–] Moonglum9 (11320) 5 years ago

gggg

[–] BillySlater (4246) 5 years ago

My only problem with the film was Kidman´s "stoned" scenes.

[–] bobbydallas (8620) 5 years ago

i skip that scene when i watch the movie..

it's pretty bad : (

[–] einstein (2587) 4 years ago

would have been amazing, but tom gave his best.

[–] sONOMArEturns (1274) 4 years ago

I don't think movie would have worked. Tom Cruise works in the role because nearly every single female character he encounters (and even some males) falls instantly in lust with him. Harrison Ford has a handsome quality but he doesn't have Cruise's charm, nor does he have the hair or body. It's hardly believable to so many women throwing themselves at Cruise in this movie. It would be absolutely impossible to see a dozen separate gorgeous women foaming at the mouth for dad-bod normal doctor Harrison Ford.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

For that reason, yes, but also because Cruise is much more "golden boy" than Ford. Ford is rough around the edges, so his descent into Hell wouldn't be quite as shocking. You need that sense of falling, spiralling down, and Bill has to "have it all" at the start.

Put it this way: is it more shocking and horrifying to watch Cruise or Ford "get corrupted"?

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 3 years ago

For that reason, yes, but also because Cruise is much more "golden boy" than Ford.
--
Spot-on. I have no great love for Cruise as an actor, but I think his casting works because of that sense of "golden boy" naivete at the start of the movie. Ford in his 50s would not have pulled off that quality. He comes off as too worldly wise, whereas Cruise evokes an overconfident charisma and unknowingness.

I also liked Kidman in the film, even if her "stoned" scenes are shaky. Tbh, as far as "stunt casting" goes, this worked out pretty well. I can understand finding EYES WIDE SHUT slow and ponderous, but the casting was well-conceived IMO.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

I actually think Cruise is underrated as an actor, although I know that's personal taste; if you don't dig him, you don't dig him.

Kidman was good here. I didn't like her drunk at the party scene so much, but the one where she's stoned and revealing way too much, I thought the over-the-top style worked there. She was shaky and upset and coming undone, and that all came through in her weird performance. And she has some subtle moments, too; there are many "looks" she gives the camera/Cruise that really work.

Somebody might find EWS slow and/or ponderous, but not me. I was intrigued, repulsed, amused, and quite taken with the film. It's a bleary stumble through a quasi-real night-world. It really works, and I think I missed a lot of its depths on my initial viewing.

Of course, maybe that's just me giving Kubrick the benefit of the doubt.

[–] RedVIII (78) 3 years ago

Even though Kubrick modelled the character on Harrison Ford, wasn't Kubrick's first pick actually Alec Baldwin (and his then wife as co-star) before Cruise and Kidman got the roles?

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

If it turned out that the shadowy elites who are exposed in the film secretly commissioned that terrible article, it suddenly all makes sense.