The Shining (1980)

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Uh huh. Yeah I saw it. Have you seen any of the criticisms that its over rated?
Basically, Jack is great, the rest of the movie is superficial. It being a work of art is not a universal notion. I saw one list where someone said it was overrated and they wished it was only 1/5000 as good as the Simpsons version. lol

Both movies are works of ART. That's not the issue. It whether they are in the same "league" as psychological thrillers.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by retablo

Yes, the found footage film dates back to (as far as I know) Cannibal Holocaust, but Blair Witch made it a marketable and relevant genre. But I hesitate to say The Shining itself influenced much — it didn't inspire rip-offs and usher in a whole new way of telling stories, although Kubrick's use of Steadicam was groundbreaking at the time. I like The Shining okay and hate Blair Witch, but BW had much more influence on horror and the state of modern cinema than The Shining ever did.

The Blair Witch Project has, indeed, spawned a genre within a genre... the 'found footage' horror films. There's no argument there. It wasn't the first to follow this route, sure, but it certainly was the first film to get a whole slew of films of a similar nature to be made after the fact.

But I'm really not sure how anyone can deny The Shining its influence... there are many modern directors that attribute their desire to push forward with filmmaking due to this film. The Shining wasn't a film that sparked a new TYPE of film such as The Blair Witch Project did, but it WAS a film that many filmmakers used as an essential blueprint for creating decent horror that had legitimate scares.

The Shining didn't invent the 'slow burn' horror concept... not by a long shot, but it was one of the finest films to have implemented the technique. The movie made you feel uncomfortable practically from the start, and only enhanced that feeling, coupled with mounting dread, all the way until the frightful end sequences. There was a lot that filmmakers took away from The Shining... implementing a feeling of claustrophobia despite having an entire hotel to a single family... lots of camera angles and shots... just, everything.

It's fine if in your personal opinion you don't see how such a film could be so influential... but the fact of the matter is... it WAS.

[surfdude12]

One thing I loved about Blair Witch was
(1) the use of spontaneous external stimulation of the cast by the crew, and
(2) cast had the cameras, so could film their (semi-real) startling reaction to having

[Show spoiler]their tent shook or rolled over at 3am in the middle of the cold woods.

(3) use of planted actors & normal people in the town to be interviewed - not sure if the cast knew which was which - again: you're putting the cast through a semi-real experience, and thus getting a much more genuine acting performance out of them.

anyone know if this specific technique had ever been employed in a horror film? seems like a creative way to get your actors to "act without acting"?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

By who? How about a mere footnote in cinema history, Martin Scorsese? It's his favorite Kubrick movie.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with someone stating that Barry Lyndon is one of the best period films ever. I think Scorsese himself said that he couldn't name a favorite of Kubrick's films, but he "keeps going back to Barry Lyndon".

Rather than asking Scorsese to name the best or favorite Kubrick movie, go ask Mr. Scorsese what he thought was the best period film ever made. See what you get.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

See what you get.

A lot more than mere candlelight talk.

[csdot]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

And its mostly Jack Nicholson getting those ratings. Even the reviews that butchered The Shining like the one in the Toronto Globe and Mail said:

ok. theres bad reviews for Blair Witch too. we get it.
the difference is, in the subsequent years The Shining has only become more and more beloved and revered for its artistic merit, yet all Blair Witch is remembered for is the gimmick.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

And its mostly Jack Nicholson getting those ratings. Even the reviews that butchered The Shining like the one in the Toronto Globe and Mail said:

Lots of films could have been potential failures if not for the proper casting. 'Cast Away' is a good example here.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Lots of films could have been potential failures if not for the proper casting. 'Cast Away' is a good example here.

I think the Shining was miscast, unless Kubrick intended to tell the story of a crazy man who becomes caretaker of a deserted hotel and proceeds to act crazy.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by csdot

the difference is, in the subsequent years The Shining has only become more and more beloved and revered for its artistic merit, yet all Blair Witch is remembered for is the gimmick.

It also helps a little that Kubrick is now gone. Artists tend to be held in a higher light after passing, and their works (some of which are often dismissed in their own time) are suddenly more than they ever were because the artist is now dead.

For me, The Shining has gotten better with age. I remember not thinking too much of it when I was younger, but as time has passed I've grown to appreciate it more and more. And like all Kubrick films, it is very enjoyable to break down from an artistic point of view. 2001 for example is a god awful piece of entertainment, but there are so many wonderful and iconic shots in that film that I can appreciate it on the merits of art alone. When I watch it, I'm normally not watching it as a whole narrative, but as a person that appreciates the art of cinema and Kubrick's eye for film.

.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by csdot

ok now use you google skills for The Shining and tell me what you get and stop threadcrapping. this thread is about The Shining not Blair Witch and has been derailed enough.

The thread is called "Is the Shining Good"? I'd definitely rent before buying. And your continual baiting kept the thread derailed.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

And its mostly Jack Nicholson getting those ratings.

ACtually, Nicholson is often the #1 cited fault of the film.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I think the Shining was miscast, unless Kubrick intended to tell the story of a crazy man who becomes caretaker of a deserted hotel and proceeds to act crazy.

Speak of the Devil!

(1) as we've discussed before, Kubrick addressed this with Spielberg, who had the same complaint, but now rates the Shining as one of this all time favorites. its all about taste in acting style

(2) your logic is actually 100% correct: if you were a spirit looking for a human candidate to turn crazy, you'd pick a person pre-disposed to being crazy, to minimize your efforts. why pick a Buddha type dude who still won't be nuts even after the snow has broke? its like picking a piece of wood to cut: start with a piece that requires minimal cutting!

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

The thread is called "Is the Shining Good"? I'd definitely rent before buying. And your continual baiting kept the thread derailed.

I fully agree. Like most of Kubrick's films, it may or may not float your boat. I happen to really like it and am glad I own it.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

A Spielberg, who had the same complaint, but now rates the Shining as one of this all time favorites.

Source?

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Source?

Blu-ray extras interview.

Remembering Stanley Kubrick: Steven Spielberg (Paul Joyce 1999) - YouTube

7:45-9:20

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

ACtually, Nicholson is often the #1 cited fault of the film.

(1) as we've discussed before, Kubrick addressed this with Spielberg, who had the same complaint, but now rates the Shining as one of this all time favorites. its all about taste in acting style

King had the same complaint. He said Jack was a normal man that basically gets possessed by the demons of the hotel, but Nicholson was just "crazy right from the start."

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I think the Shining was miscast, unless Kubrick intended to tell the story of a crazy man who becomes caretaker of a deserted hotel and proceeds to act crazy.

I've seen other people say that too and I wonder how much of that is hindsight. Nicholson wasn't really that associated with over-the-top-crazy characters prior to Witches of Eastwick, Batman and The Shining.

Sure, there was Cuckoo's Nest (though the whole point there was that he wasn't crazy) but there was also Chinatown and The Last Detail. It's easy to look back now and think 'oh, that's just Jack being Jack' but I'm not sure would have been a fair take at the time.

That said, while I don't blame casting I do somewhat agree about the way the descent into madness elements were handled. At times it did seem a lot more like a lateral move than was likely intended.

[oildude]

Originally Posted by JAGUAR1977

Must be weird, I don't like any of Kubricks movies.

Well, no sh*t. What do we have here, a f**king comedian! Private, Joker! I admire your honesty.

What is your major malfunction, numbnuts? Didn't Mommy and Daddy show you enough attention when you were a child?

You little scumbag! I got your name, I got your a**! You will not laugh, you will not cry, you will learn by the numbers, I will teach you!

I will PT you until you f**king die. I'll PT you until your a**hole is sucking buttermilk.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Well, we also have to remember too that Kubrick intentionally portrayed Nicholson as nuts. He often had his actors do take after take after take, then later on chose how to frame the overall emotional mood of the characters in the editing room. You probably could have made six more characters out of what was left on the cutting room floor.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by csdot

im confused, you seem like youre arguing with me but you basically just reworded my post.

Hmm, I guess there's a difference in reading what I wrote and actually understanding it.

You said BW didn't invent the found footage movie. I agreed, but said (and this is true) that it's the reason for the genre being popular today. So in that regard, it's way more influential than The Shining, which was an adaptation of a book and didn't invent or popularize anything.

In regards to, what, the Steadicam? Films like Rocky and Marathon Man used it very effectively years before Kubrick did.

It doesn't help that neither film is that great. The Shining is easily Kubrick's worst film, and BW was a movie with no acting or plot. It's kind of like arguing which animal's feces smells worse. Although The Shining made $44 million of a $22 mil budget, whereas BW made $248 mil off a budget of under $1 mil. BW is the clear winner.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Blu-ray extras interview.

Remembering Stanley Kubrick: Steven Spielberg (Paul Joyce 1999) - YouTube

7:45-9:20

So he didn't like it the first time he saw it. But he went back again and again and now its one of his favorites. Well, there ya go. Maybe I just need to watch it 24 more times.

The Jacob Burns Film Center is playing some of favorite films as a tribute. The Shining is not among them.


http://www.burnsfilmcenter.org/films...s/detail/41021