The Shining (1980)

[Packerfan75]

Discusses The Shining:

Stephen King discusses Kubrick's The Shining - YouTube

[/QUOTE]

Even though he took forever to get there, he made a good point at the end about Jack Nicolson's character. I never really thought about it that way but afterwards, it's so obvious and funny.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

Yet again, what is the source for this idea that Kubrick preferred the shorter European cut? Everything I've ever read has said that he cut the film for purely commercial reasons- he wanted THE SHINING to be a huge hit, and while it was financially a hit in the U.S., it wasn't as huge a hit as he wanted, so he cut the film to a more commercial length for a horror film before it played European cinemas months later.

Chris

Google it. It's pretty widely known (and reported) that he preferred the shorter version, although both are "director's cuts". He cut down the US version because of scenes he felt weren't working for audiences, or ultimately weren't necessary.

"But more substantially, Kubrick reduced the running time down for all prints overseas to under two hours, making some big snips (detailed here) to the movie we know so well. While this was apparently his preferrred cut of the movie, the longer version is one most commonly viewed and celebrated... "

"However, evidence suggests that this version may not be Kubrick's preferred version. The last version of the film on which Kubrick himself worked was the 113 minute version, which he approved for theatrical release outside the United States. Additionally, when the film was first released on Home Video in the United States, in 1981, Kubrick endorsed the 113 minute version as the 'official version' of the film, not the 144 minute version."

And so on.

[I KEEL YOU]

Yet again, what is the source for this idea that Kubrick preferred the shorter European cut?

What is the source for anything with regards to Kubrick? The man gave like 3 interviews in his lifetime. Not only that, but he was even more reclusive in his later career which The Shining is a part of.

And again, I must ask that if the longer cut means superior, then I guess that the longest cut which ran very briefly in the theaters, that has an ending scene in the hospital where Ullman says to Wendy that they couldn't find Jack's body in the snow is the most superior cut, right? Only that scene would've messed up the psychological impact of the movie entirely and made it into a corny ghost story.

I guess that means that a longer cut of 2001 that had scenes with aliens as Arthur C. Clarke mentioned were shot or almost shot would've been more superior, huh?

Personally, I believe he preferred the shorter, more claustrophobic cut because the aim of the movie is to create claustrophobia which the shorter cut definitely does better... And the reason he chose to keep the longer cut in circulation is because The Shining is the most cryptic film of all time and it has hidden messages embedded in its timeline, like how the first time Jack takes a sip of bourbon is exactly 66 minutes and 6 seconds into the movie (of the US cut).

[Nicolawicz]

That has to be just a coincidence. I don't see Kubrick compromising the editing for something like that. He probably kept the longer cut because... I don't know. It had already been released and seen by too many people in America, maybe.

[frogmort]

Maybe I'm just a big dumb American, but the extended American cut is my absolute favorite film of all time. I couldn't imagine losing even a second of what I'm used to seeing.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

What is the source for anything with regards to Kubrick? The man gave like 3 interviews in his lifetime. Not only that, but he was even more reclusive in his later career which The Shining is a part of.

And again, I must ask that if the longer cut means superior, then I guess that the longest cut which ran very briefly in the theaters, that has an ending scene in the hospital where Ullman says to Wendy that they couldn't find Jack's body in the snow is the most superior cut, right? Only that scene would've messed up the psychological impact of the movie entirely and made it into a corny ghost story.

I guess that means that a longer cut of 2001 that had scenes with aliens as Arthur C. Clarke mentioned were shot or almost shot would've been more superior, huh?

Personally, I believe he preferred the shorter, more claustrophobic cut because the aim of the movie is to create claustrophobia which the shorter cut definitely does better... And the reason he chose to keep the longer cut in circulation is because The Shining is the most cryptic film of all time and it has hidden messages embedded in its timeline, like how the first time Jack takes a sip of bourbon is exactly 66 minutes and 6 seconds into the movie (of the US cut).

[FaceInTheLeaves]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

I always "thought" that I preferred the European cut and for the longest time I've tried to make myself like it, but in the end... In the end, the U.S. cut is superior in every possible and imaginable way. No comparison.

The U.S. cut sets the mood better, the pace, and the flow of the whole darn thing. The Euro trash cut feels choppy and nervous in comparison and not in a good way.

I'm the first one to advocate the cutting of pointless exposition (The Dark Knight would be 8 minutes long after I'm done), but NEVER at the expense of the mood and flow and the proper amount of time necessary to tell a story.

The U.S. cut is a masterpiece.

What do you mean by Euro trash?

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by FaceInTheLeaves

What do you mean by Euro trash?

He's just trying to be rude: "Eurotrash is a derogatory term used in North America for Europeans, particularly those perceived to be arrogant, affluent, and expatriates in the United States." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotrash_(term)

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

Yet again, what is the source for this idea that Kubrick preferred the shorter European cut? Everything I've ever read has said that he cut the film for purely commercial reasons- he wanted THE SHINING to be a huge hit, and while it was financially a hit in the U.S., it wasn't as huge a hit as he wanted, so he cut the film to a more commercial length for a horror film before it played European cinemas months later.

It's kind of amazing that folks are arguing that the shorter, haphazardly faster-edited European version of THE SHINING is somehow the more 'intelligent' version of the film. The exact opposite is usually the case- the European versions of most movies are longer, while the U.S. cuts are cut down in order to "improve the pace" (ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, THE LEOPARD, DEEP RED, DUCK YOU SUCKER...). So in the singular case of THE SHINING, it was the exact opposite? Somehow Kubrick magically found a formula for this one film wherein removing character motivation and detail somehow made it "more intelligent" and better? Yeah, okay...

Chris

+1 on all that. Why anyone would want to see less of The Shining rather than more is beyond me!

If Im going to watch The Shining I want to see the whole thing - not a cut down version.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by frogmort

He's just trying to be rude: "Eurotrash is a derogatory term used in North America for Europeans, particularly those perceived to be arrogant, affluent, and expatriates in the United States." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotrash_(term)

The eurotrash term was rather stupid!

And an equally derogatory term could be thrown the other way of course!

American cut is still better than the Euro cut though.

[Eny-]

I read that he particularly didn't like the skeletons scene. I do prefer the longer US cut (who doesn't love more Kubrick?) but I don't like it either. It doesn't work and feels corny.

[CM Putnam]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

+1 on all that. Why anyone would want to see less of The Shining rather than more is beyond me!

If Im going to watch The Shining I want to see the whole thing - not a cut down version.

Because it's a better movie. Because the cuts were not the product of censorship, but were a creative decision made by the artist himself. Because it's a different version of the film. Because all the scenes cut add nothing to the film. Because the longer version drags on and on. I believe all fans of the film should watch the shorter version and vice versa and come to their own conclusions. I have both and actually found the film works much better in its shorter version.

[confusedcrystal]

Kubrick and "short version" dont mix. Period. Although... it is true it was his decision to cut it weeks after that release...but he did alot of shit to appease those douchbags who never really understood his work to begin with. Im not so sure it wasnt Warner Bros who forced him. He did it because of bad reviews.. from people like the guy posting above me. If only he had ignored critics.

[MrHT]

Let me try and settle this...

In short, Kubrick preferred the short version for Europeans and he preferred the longer version for Americans. He thought different cuts suited different people. That was his reason for having two different versions of the film.

End of story.

[nagysaudio]

Originally Posted by frogmort

He's just trying to be rude: "Eurotrash is a derogatory term used in North America for Europeans, particularly those perceived to be arrogant, affluent, and expatriates in the United States." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotrash_(term)

I'm European. Try again...

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by MrHT

Let me try and settle this...

In short, Kubrick preferred the short version for Europeans and he preferred the longer version for Americans. He thought different cuts suited different people. That was his reason for having two different versions of the film.

End of story.

Wrong.

[shogun123]

Originally Posted by retablo

Google it. It's pretty widely known (and reported) that he preferred the shorter version, although both are "director's cuts". He cut down the US version because of scenes he felt weren't working for audiences, or ultimately weren't necessary.

"But more substantially, Kubrick reduced the running time down for all prints overseas to under two hours, making some big snips (detailed here) to the movie we know so well. While this was apparently his preferrred cut of the movie, the longer version is one most commonly viewed and celebrated... "

"However, evidence suggests that this version may not be Kubrick's preferred version. The last version of the film on which Kubrick himself worked was the 113 minute version, which he approved for theatrical release outside the United States. Additionally, when the film was first released on Home Video in the United States, in 1981, Kubrick endorsed the 113 minute version as the 'official version' of the film, not the 144 minute version."

And so on.

The definitive version exists in its complete form but only the trailer circulates, here it on youtube:

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfout_rgPSA

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by retablo

"However, evidence suggests that this version may not be Kubrick's preferred version. The last version of the film on which Kubrick himself worked was the 113 minute version, which he approved for theatrical release outside the United States. Additionally, when the film was first released on Home Video in the United States, in 1981, Kubrick endorsed the 113 minute version as the 'official version' of the film, not the 144 minute version."

For the record, there is no such thing as a 113 minute cut of the Shining. The cut is in fact 118 minutes long, but because this cut was only released in countries that use PAL, the video versions were always 113 minutes long until blu-ray came along.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

+1 on all that. Why anyone would want to see less of The Shining rather than more is beyond me!

If Im going to watch The Shining I want to see the whole thing - not a cut down version.

Sure. But there's this little thing called pacing, which is shot to hell in the US cut. It goes on and on and on without much actually happening, and Kubrick realised this. He was nothing if not pragmatic, as proved by his last-minute edits to 2001 and indeed The Shining (to remove the original ending). No-one forced him to re-edit the movie then, just as no-one forced him to re-edit the Euro version.

He had that kind of clout at Warners, and he exercised it whenever need be (see also: withdrawing A Clockwork Orange from UK distribution). He genuinely felt that he could tighten up the movie, so he had another go and produced something which, arguably, holds a greater sense of psychological intensity because it's not stretched over too long of a running time. It's also the more enigmatic version of the two, as we 'Europeans' didn't need a spectacularly cheesy shot of a bunch of cobwebbed skellingtons in a ballroom to let us know that this was in fact A GHOST STORY, dun dun dunnnnnnnnn...

But, like I said before, I'm not gonna disparage anyone for liking the US version and I'm so glad that we can all choose which one we want. I'll definitely rewatch the US cut one of these days, I just hope I can get through it without falling asleep.

[shogun123]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sure. But there's this little thing called pacing, which is shot to hell in the US cut. It goes on and on and on without much actually happening, and Kubrick realised this. He was nothing if not pragmatic, as proved by his last-minute edits to 2001 and indeed The Shining (to remove the original ending). No-one forced him to re-edit the movie then, just as no-one forced him to re-edit the Euro version.

He had that kind of clout at Warners, and he exercised it whenever need be (see also: withdrawing A Clockwork Orange from UK distribution). He genuinely felt that he could tighten up the movie, so he had another go and produced something which, arguably, holds a greater sense of psychological intensity because it's not stretched over too long of a running time. It's also the more enigmatic version of the two, as we 'Europeans' didn't need a spectacularly cheesy shot of a bunch of cobwebbed skellingtons in a ballroom to let us know that this was in fact A GHOST STORY, dun dun dunnnnnnnnn...

But, like I said before, I'm not gonna disparage anyone for liking the US version and I'm so glad that we can all choose which one we want. I'll definitely rewatch the US cut one of these days, I just hope I can get through it without falling asleep.

Kubrick was a master mason and this was why he had full powers over his films, even though it is true that his preferred cut is the European version I myself prefer the longer cut just because it is longer, I'm just being objective and the Americans get all hot under the collar about it.

I would love to see the version that played the first week with the coda (I am sure I saw this once on ITV years ago, the hotel guy walking down the hospital corridor with the camera following behind (like the opening scenes of Jack walking through the lounge) I also remember the scene with the state trooipers walking around in the snow.

Is it at all possible that Kubrick allowed this version to be shown once on British telly? He did live there after all.