The Shining (1980)

[eiknarf]

Whether or not Kubrick put hidden narratives in his work or not is beside the point. If he did, we can enjoy analyzing em. If he didn't, the irony is that we can STILL enjoy analyzing em.

But nobody in here should be getting upset, let alone MAD, if there are hidden narratives, or, if people think there are.

Why is it so offensive? Let's say 0% of what Rob Ager extrapolated is true? Let's say 85% of what Rob Ager extrapolated is true? What's the harm?

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by English Patient

Not sure if this has been posted before, but this site has the original treatment of The Shining that Kubrick wrote - it's fascinating, and it's A LOT different than what ended up on the screen.

https://cinephiliabeyond.org/stanley...f-the-shining/

Wow, great link! Almost everything changed in the actual film is superior to the treatment. Can't believe Kubrick ever even considered incorporating those flashbacks to be honest. I will say that the portrayal of Jack's descent into madness/abuse/attempted murder is more believable in the treatment. The stylized and almost cartoonish approach in the film is probably more interesting though.

Btw, there's a PDF of an old interview on that page that includes a quote from Kubrick that I found rather curious (emphasis added):

'There are a number or scenes ... that I deleted from the film screenplay because I thought they would look hokey. There are no creaking doors, no skeletons tumbling out of closets; none of the paraphernalia of the standard horror film.'

The skeleton scene has never bothered me as much as it seems to bother some but the fact that Kubrick would use the very same word I've seen other to describe skeletons in a horror film and still put them in the American cut is pretty baffling.

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Sorry, I call calling The Shining "boring" silly. There is nothing boring about the longer cut. I have both on blu, and like them both. I do consider the shorter cut to be much more of an efficient horror, but I wouldn't call the longer version boring

Funny that you chose to cut off my quote right where I explained that by 'silly' I meant that Kubrick himself seemed to have doubts about the American cut's runtime. I also walked back my use of the word 'boring' a bit so I don't get the eye roll.

To focus on what is probably the best set of trims in the Euro cut, I don't see how anyone can be an unapologetic defender of including 100% of Halloran's phone calls and subsequent journey to the Overlook included in the American version. It's mildly interesting as a red herring but that's about it (NCFOM did that much better IMO). The scenes left in the Euro cut are the most interesting and contribute to the sense of dread rather than distract from it, especially the fleeting glimpses you get of the horrible accident he drives past. The conversation with the auto repair shop guy is especially pointless: do we really need to know how he got the Snowcat? I've seen many say that the American cut over-explains things, including Kubrick himself supposedly, and that conversation is a perfect example.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

The shorter UK cut completely guts the most important themes of the film :
(1) all information about Jack's history of alcoholism and injury of Danny
(2) haunted history of the hotel , i.e. the walking tour where they announce haunted history of hotel

The story is a metaphor about alcoholism, i.e. about how the mind of an alcoholic is particularly susceptible to "spirits" - why else do we see "spirits" on the side of every liquor store we drive by? Because the alcohol literally awakens evil spirits within the alcoholics mind.

The "spirits" tempt the alcoholic to take the drink and once he does, the spirits literally take him over. In same way, the "spirits" in the hotel (left over from Indian burial ground) tempt Jack to take a drink, after which Delbert Grady in bathroom represents the spirits ordering him over to "correct" his wife and son(note Jack is talking to himself, since Delbert is between Jack and mirror, thus the spirits in Jack's head are literally talking to Jack).

When you remove all reference to Jack as an alcoholic and the haunted history (spirits) in the hotel, the UK version becomes a very bland horror tale.

I think both cuts do a fine job of making it clear that the hotel is haunted but I agree that the family's backstory is a little thin in the Euro cut. I love the cut straight from the blood to the drive up in the Euro version but losing the doctor scene does hurt as it reduces some of the ambiguity of the film, namely just how much of Jack's insanity was due to personal weakness rather than the haunted hotel.

Can't say that I agree on the 'spirits' interpretation though. From what I've heard that's a big part of what King was driving at but Kubrick didn't seem to find that element of the story particularly interesting. It's rather telling that he made a point of minimizing those elements of the story in the Euro cut; I don't think that was unintentional.

Originally Posted by English Patient

Wait, the miniseries has a Return of the Jedi ending?

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Whether or not Kubrick put hidden narratives in his work or not is beside the point. If he did, we can enjoy analyzing em. If he didn't, the irony is that we can STILL enjoy analyzing em.

But nobody in here should be getting upset, let alone MAD, if there are hidden narratives, or, if people think there are.

Why is it so offensive? Let's say 0% of what Rob Ager extrapolated is true? Let's say 85% of what Rob Ager extrapolated is true? What's the harm?

It's just human nature, people tend to get upset when someone sees, thinks or interprets something different from them. Look at all the bickering you get when discussions get political.

You get lots of people who seek out hidden meanings and subtext in everything and get angry at people who take things too literally; then you get people who take most everything at face value and think that someone who digs deeper is out to lunch unless there is some sort of "official" declaration from the writer and / or director that absolutely, yes, there was a specific hidden meaning to something.

I used to post a lot on IMDB and I remember heated discussions over films as benign as The Seven Year Itch where one group insisted Marilyn's character was real, and another group who claimed she was a MPDG manifestation.

[MifuneFan]

The people who feel strongly about certain theories are the ones being more adamant to those that don't agree with them

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

The people who feel strongly about certain theories are the ones being more adamant to those that don't agree with them

Indeed.

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Ager throws a ton a shit at the wall hoping something sticks. If you want to hang on his every word, so be it, but please don't claim anything as definitive based on it. If you look hard enough, and you have a certain theory in mind, you can get anything to fit it.

[postmodel]

My favorite Kubrick/The Shining story involves Tobe Hooper. In a tribute podcast (either told by Mick Garris or Jared Rivet), a story was recounted about how Texas Chain Saw Massacre was one of Kubrick's favorite films. Hooper went to the offices of Kubrick as he was told he wanted to meet. Kubrick's secretary basically told him to leave as "Mr. Kubrick is busy" and she had zero idea who this tiny bearded man in front of her was - CUT TO - Kubrick hearing who's out in the front office and he rushes out gushing over TCM and Hooper's directing...Kubrick was editing The Shining at the time, the kicker? This happened either in like '83 or'85...still editing after the film was well passed release.

Probably a known fact, but even Kubrick was a tinkerer. I am not as familiar with the man himself as I am with his movies and just really enjoyed that story.

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by postmodel

My favorite Kubrick/The Shining story involves Tobe Hooper. In a tribute podcast (either told by Mick Garris or Jared Rivet), a story was recounted about how Texas Chain Saw Massacre was one of Kubrick's favorite films. Hooper went to the offices of Kubrick as he was told he wanted to meet. Kubrick's secretary basically told him to leave as "Mr. Kubrick is busy" and she had zero idea who this tiny bearded man in front of her was - CUT TO - Kubrick hearing who's out in the front office and he rushes out gushing over TCM and Hooper's directing...Kubrick was editing The Shining at the time, the kicker? This happened either in like '83 or'85...still editing after the film was well passed release.

Probably a known fact, but even Kubrick was a tinkerer. I am not as familiar with the man himself as I am with his movies and just really enjoyed that story.

I guess that explains the seven year wait between The Shining and FMJ.

[HitchcockLang]

Re: All this talk about people over-analyzing this or other films.

As an English teacher, I hear this far too often. Students roll their eyes and say something like, "Do you think Shakespeare really thought he was putting a metaphor in here?" And I always tell them, it doesn't matter what Shakespeare intended. W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley wrote about the "intentional fallacy," saying that "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a literary work."

Since none of us can call up Shakespeare or Kubrick and ask, "Did you really mean XYZ," we must rely on the text (or the film) as the primary evidence for interpretation. Even if we could call them up, as a fan of reader response criticism, I would argue that the author is only half in possession of the work and the audience sharing the work in co-custody. Each one of us carries our own unique backgrounds, experiences, morality, etc. to a book or film and cannot help but view the film through that lens.

So I would say that it's possible to develop very interesting and meaningful interpretations of The Shining even if Kubrick never intended them, and that Kubrick's lack of intent does not in any way devalue that interpretation.

Can a work be over-analyzed? Sure. I think that happens most often when a critic tries to force a work to fit the interpretation they want for it without grounding it firmly in the evidence provided.

In short, I tell my students, in criticism, there are no right answers and wrong answers, but merely good answers and bad answers.

[MifuneFan]

I have zero problems with theories and analysis in general, I just don't believe anyone should be speaking so definitively about them as if they're fact. Saying there's no denying that this is exactly what Kubrick intended, etc..is just silly. I love theories about The Shining more than probably any other movie, and was very excited when Room 237 came out. It turned out to be a let-down to me, but I still like the idea of people coming up with theories for the movie. I think there are some like Ager who really try to overanalyze everything, and some of his legit theories get lost in the minutiae of some of his other ones. I still find it fascinating all the same.

[Vidya]

I prefer the longer cut.
canterbury03.jpg

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Lots of people visit bars to drink who aren't alcoholics. Hell, who wouldn't want a drink being stuck up in a hotel for 5 months? Anyone.

Learning 66 minutes into a film that someone visits a bar looking for a drink makes for a completely different movie experience than definitively learning 12 minutes into the film that
(a) a man is an alcoholic
(b) has given up boozing for months
(c) has hurt his kid from drinking

Also, UK cut removes scene at bar where Jack exclaims "here's to 5 miserable months on the wagon..." before drinking the bourbon

I don't really wanna get too heavily into this (because there's no changing peoples' minds) but doesn't that kinda play into the whole "we know Jack's gonna go mad" thing that often gets levied at Nicholson in this flick? I mean, Nicholson is Nicholson in both cuts (sharp as a tack, me ) so on the surface level the complaint would seem to apply to both, but learning so early on that Jack was a drunk and that he basically abused his kid because of it telegraphs his descent into madness so much earlier. I don't have to know he was a drunk to appreciate that he becomes as mean as a rattlesnake when he gets some of Tyrell's ghost liquor into him, you know?

I think that's why the longer cut in general feels like it's padding the whole thing out to me, I'm told very early on that this character has a very dark side and from there it's just a waiting game until he pops his top. And the longer that takes the more I find my interest waning, whereas the Euro cut doesn't feel the need to expound every little detail and it maintains that tension, not constantly puncturing it with Halloran's travelogue and not capping it off with that rather indulgent and not scary in the least skellington ballroom scene.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by HitchcockLang

So I would say that it's possible to develop very interesting and meaningful interpretations of The Shining even if Kubrick never intended them, and that Kubrick's lack of intent does not in any way devalue that interpretation.

It depends, because a lot of the interpretations seem to be based on intent. It's fine to say there is a motif of Native American imagery, but to then say that the film is intended to be a metaphor for the genocide of the Native Americans, that seems to require intent. Certainly, "Kubrick was delivering coded messages confessing that he faked the moon landing" becomes (even more) nonsensical if it has no intent behind it.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't really wanna get too heavily into this (because there's no changing peoples' minds) but doesn't that kinda play into the whole "we know Jack's gonna go mad" thing that often gets levied at Nicholson in this flick? I mean, Nicholson is Nicholson in both cuts (sharp as a tack, me ) so on the surface level the complaint would seem to apply to both, but learning so early on that Jack was a drunk and that he basically abused his kid because of it telegraphs his descent into madness so much earlier. I don't have to know he was a drunk to appreciate that he becomes as mean as a rattlesnake when he gets some of Tyrell's ghost liquor into him, you know?

I think that's why the longer cut in general feels like it's padding the whole thing out to me, I'm told very early on that this character has a very dark side and from there it's just a waiting game until he pops his top. And the longer that takes the more I find my interest waning, whereas the Euro cut doesn't feel the need to expound every little detail and it maintains that tension, not constantly puncturing it with Halloran's travelogue and not capping it off with that rather indulgent and not scary in the least skellington ballroom scene.

Its a very fair criticism of the film. I just don't share it because even though you're right that we likely know the what (that Jack will likely go mad), we don't know the how or the when or most especially...the why. Just because we can predict he'll go mad at some point and that his alcoholism or the haunted hotel will play some role, that only gives us a vague sense of the how and the why. Heck, the "why" is still being debated. Was it his alcoholism? Was it the Native American spirits and nothing about his alcoholism (he never took an actual drink)? Was it Delbert Grady's spirit ("The first time I came here, I had extreme deja vous. We've all had deja vous, but this was ridicolous.")? Did he literally become Delbert Grady ("You've always been the caretaker")?

The other reason U.S. Cut is better, IMO, is that even if one chooses not to interpret Jack as going mad from alcoholism and instead simply going mad from supernatural spirits in the hotel, the alcoholism plot actually provides a diversion that actually does the opposite of what you claim - sets the viewer up to falsely predict Jack will go mad from alcoholism when he actually goes mad from supernatural spirits in the Hotel. Kubrick answered an interview hinting at this once.

QUESTION: It is strange that you emphasize the supernatural aspect since one could say that in the film you give a lot of weight to an apparently rational explanation of Jack's behaviour: altitude, claustrophobia, solitude, lack of booze.

KUBRICK: Stephen Crane wrote a story called "The Blue Hotel." In it you quickly learn that the central character is a paranoid. He gets involved in a poker game, decides someone is cheating him, makes an accusation, starts a fight and gets killed. You think the point of the story is that his death was inevitable because a paranoid poker player would ultimately get involved in a fatal gunfight. But, in the end, you find out that the man he accused was actually cheating him. I think The Shining uses a similar kind of psychological misdirection to forestall the realization that the supernatural events are actually happening.

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't really wanna get too heavily into this (because there's no changing peoples' minds) but doesn't that kinda play into the whole "we know Jack's gonna go mad" thing that often gets levied at Nicholson in this flick? I mean, Nicholson is Nicholson in both cuts (sharp as a tack, me ) so on the surface level the complaint would seem to apply to both, but learning so early on that Jack was a drunk and that he basically abused his kid because of it telegraphs his descent into madness so much earlier. I don't have to know he was a drunk to appreciate that he becomes as mean as a rattlesnake when he gets some of Tyrell's ghost liquor into him, you know?

I think that's why the longer cut in general feels like it's padding the whole thing out to me, I'm told very early on that this character has a very dark side and from there it's just a waiting game until he pops his top. And the longer that takes the more I find my interest waning, whereas the Euro cut doesn't feel the need to expound every little detail and it maintains that tension, not constantly puncturing it with Halloran's travelogue and not capping it off with that rather indulgent and not scary in the least skellington ballroom scene.

I generally agree with this but one thing I'd say is that omitting the doctor scene makes Wendy's and Danny's behavior around Jack before the first room 237 incident seem a little over the top, especially upon first viewing. I've always like Duvall's performance but that might be in part because I grew up with the American cut. She really does seem to become hysterical at the drop of a hat in the Euro cut whereas her rationalizing and embarrassment in the American cut's doctor scene establishes her battered wife characterization quite well. Duvall does a great job in that scene too, as does the doctor. The final shot of Anne Jackson's deadpan expression after hearing how Danny got his injury is just perfect.

But you're absolutely right that the American cut telegraphs Jack's future actions far more directly than Nicholson's acting/persona. I wish I could go back and watch the Euro cut first. I'll bet it would have been a far more unsettling experience than my own first viewing.

[StingingVelvet]

1) Which cut you prefer is likely centered on which you grew up with. I grew up on the US cut and can't imagine those scenes missing, but I am sure those "new" scenes being added is strange to people who grew up with the opposite. Both versions are masterpieces I am sure, and I will cut you if you say the US cut is slow or boring. It's excellent.

2) Nothing wrong with English teacher style analyzing and symbolism, as long as everyone doing it realizes it's usually a circle-jerk of the imagination. I do agree Kubrick did it for real a lot more than most directors, but I still think there's only so far you can take it. I think the Native American stuff has some real evidence on-screen but not much else, other than story craft stuff like Jack becoming "one with the hotel" or whatever.

Now you all agree with me and we go home happy for ice cream and wafers.

[Boggle]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Now you all agree with me and we go home happy for ice cream and wafers.

Yay!

[bobbyh64]

My favorite scene in The Shining:
“How’d you like some ice cream Doc?”

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

My favorite scene in The Shining:
“How’d you like some ice cream Doc?”

And then Matt Damon quips, "How do you like them apples!?"

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

My favorite scene in The Shining:
“How’d you like some ice cream Doc?”

You analyzed my referrence!!! We have the SHINE!!!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Its a very fair criticism of the film. I just don't share it because even though you're right that we likely know the what (that Jack will likely go mad), we don't know the how or the when or most especially...the why. Just because we can predict he'll go mad at some point and that his alcoholism or the haunted hotel will play some role, that only gives us a vague sense of the how and the why. Heck, the "why" is still being debated. Was it his alcoholism? Was it the Native American spirits and nothing about his alcoholism (he never took an actual drink)? Was it Delbert Grady's spirit ("The first time I came here, I had extreme deja vous. We've all had deja vous, but this was ridicolous.")? Did he literally become Delbert Grady ("You've always been the caretaker")?

The other reason U.S. Cut is better, IMO, is that even if one chooses not to interpret Jack as going mad from alcoholism and instead simply going mad from supernatural spirits in the hotel, the alcoholism plot actually provides a diversion that actually does the opposite of what you claim - sets the viewer up to falsely predict Jack will go mad from alcoholism when he actually goes mad from supernatural spirits in the Hotel. Kubrick answered an interview hinting at this once.

QUESTION: It is strange that you emphasize the supernatural aspect since one could say that in the film you give a lot of weight to an apparently rational explanation of Jack's behaviour: altitude, claustrophobia, solitude, lack of booze.

KUBRICK: Stephen Crane wrote a story called "The Blue Hotel." In it you quickly learn that the central character is a paranoid. He gets involved in a poker game, decides someone is cheating him, makes an accusation, starts a fight and gets killed. You think the point of the story is that his death was inevitable because a paranoid poker player would ultimately get involved in a fatal gunfight. But, in the end, you find out that the man he accused was actually cheating him. I think The Shining uses a similar kind of psychological misdirection to forestall the realization that the supernatural events are actually happening.

Some very good points but, as the interviewer themselves posits, there are already so many things that can be attributed to Jack's behaviour that laying out the alcoholism & abuse of Danny so early still feels much too on the nose for my liking, for even as a misdirect it still feels like a cheap shot.

But Velvet's right, I'm used to the shorter cut (I had the Laserdisc of the longer version for years though) so naturally I would try and rationalise it any way that I can. As for my ice cream, mint choc chip please.