The Shining (1980)

[crazybeats]

If Kubrick was that bothered about America, why didn't he live there?

[peschi]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

I'm the opposite! I also knew nothing of the longer cut for years and then when I finally got to see it was a real novelty. And I still prefer the longer cut now.

thats not how opposites work.

[OgamiittoMcJ]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

Even though they were never included in any released cut of the film, I'd love to see the "Scrapbook" scenes Kubrick shot for THE SHINING. Stills exist of the scene where Jack finds the scrapbook, and of course the scrapbook is visible in the final film on his writing desk, but the scene of him finding it was cut before release. There's also a scripted scene on-line of him showing the scrapbook to Wendy, but I've never seen any stills of that scene. In an interview from a couple years back, co-writer Diane Johnson said she argued for the scrapbook scenes to be kept in the final film but obviously Kubrick decided otherwise.

Chris

often less is more

‘In all things mysterious – never explain.’

Stanley Kubrick, quoting H.P. Lovecraft in an interview with John Hofsess of the International Herald Tribune, 1980

‘I do not want to give any rationalizing explanation of this story. I prefer to use musical terms and speak of motives, variations and resonances.
With this kind of narrative, when one tries to offer an explicit analysis, one tends to reduce it to a point of ultra-transparent absurdity.
From this point on the musical or poetic utilization of the material is that which is most appropriate...
With this kind of story one is apparently in a region not only where intellectual exploration ceases but also where no-one is able to tell
whether what happens is true…
I like those realms of narrative where reason is of little help. Rationality takes you to the frontiers of these regions and
then it remains for you to explore the poetic or musical level'

Stanley Kubrick, discussing The Shining with film critic Michel Ciment in 1980.

[OgamiittoMcJ]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

His thinking most likely was, "Gee, this wasn't as big a hit as I wanted it to be in the States. I guess I'll reduce it to a more commercial running time overseas. 2-hours on the nose sounds good!"

Chris

have you seen his other films since Spartacus
all are over 2 hours except FMJ
so nothing to do with run time
he didn't do anything he didn't want to do after Spartacus

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by OgamiittoMcJ

have you seen his other films since Spartacus
all are over 2 hours except FMJ
so nothing to do with run time

"Dr. Strangelove" is 94 minutes.

[OgamiittoMcJ]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

"Dr. Strangelove" is 94 minutes.

oh yes thanks forgot that somehow

mind you FMJ is 117m so basically 2hrs

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by crazybeats

If Kubrick was that bothered about America, why didn't he live there?

"elitist" snob

[Egbert Souse]

I don't know if that's meant to be in jest, but Kubrick was from the Bronx and only moved to the UK in the 60s.

[Kyle15]

He also had a fear of flying and met his wife there. So he simply set up shop there and stayed.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

met his wife there.

Incorrect. They met on the set of "Paths of Glory" shot in Germany.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

Incorrect. They met on the set of "Paths of Glory" shot in Germany.

oop, I was thinking about Europe in general

[LeChiffre]

Is this dvd-release forgotten within the fan community? Sure, the recent BD-releases of this spectacular movie is great but..this dvd version is almost - well - up there.
I´m not sure which master/source has been used or if the scan is from a negative or a print or what but the fact remains; the PQ is very good looking in many respects. What I do know is that the dvd offers a progressive scan of the movie, which is great! Extras are interlaced.

PQ:
I like the blacks and the contrast seems well balanced. The colors are also well balanced with a warm feel to them (maybe a slight red-ish).
Sharpness feels movie-like with no DNR applied (to my eye). Grain is present through the movie. No visible halos or antialiasing. When I watched this edition on my home theater setup (my BDP is the oustanding DENON DBT-1713UD), the picture is very..very good! The dvd signal being upscaled to 1080p on my Panasonic plasma is quite enough for my palette.

AQ:
DD 5.1 sounds great. Great is a relative word but what I mean is that it..sounds very good. The dialog is for the most part clear (enough). The disturbing music comes off very haunting and with a strong sense of mood on my Cantons fronts - powerful.
The surrounds delivers what can be expected from this slow and eerie film by mr. Kubrick. The Shining has its moments of shock and the occasional "gore" but for the most part this films chills lies not in splatter but in disturbing events and moody setups. Plus of course the acting. The Acting!
So; not much LFE stuff in here but what is there we get.
On the minus side, no original 2.0 stereo mix...

Extras:
- "View from the Overlook: Crafting The Shining" Documentary (30:22)
- "The Visions of Stanley Kubrick" Featurette (17:17)
- "The Making of The Shining" Documentary with Optional Commentary by Vivivan Kubrick (33:35)
- "Wendy Carlos, Composer" Featurette (7:31)
- Audio Commentary by Steadicam Inventor/Operator Garrett Brown and Historian John Baxter
- Theatrical Trailer (1:31)

Subtitles: English, French and Spanish
Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
Picture Format: 16:9 Anamorphic

Verdict: Highly recommended dvd edition! Superior over every other dvd version on the market and not thaaaat far from the BD-releases! Or...?

So; I´m ready for your replys and I got my helmet and kevlar vest on...!

[OgamiittoMcJ]

Originally Posted by LeChiffre

On the minus side, no original 2.0 stereo mix...
So; I´m ready for your replys and I got my helmet and kevlar vest on...!

original sound was mono,
here's a good comparison of different home video releases and the various changes over the years

Home Video Philology: A Case Study of “The Shining� (1980) - Abridged for YouTube - YouTube

[LeChiffre]

Originally Posted by OgamiittoMcJ

original sound was mono,
here's a good comparison of different home video releases and the various changes over the years

Home Video Philology: A Case Study of “The Shining� (1980) - Abridged for YouTube - YouTube

Hello,

Yes, that is correct. My mistake. Is that 2.0 mono or 1.0? Must be 2.0..right?!
Also; I am firm in my opinion that the 2007 S.E. dvd is good..very good. You?

Regards
//Jan

[BaronVH]

This has been stated (maybe even on this thread, but I am too lazy to check). It was common for movies at this time to be edited during theatrical release. I clearly recall scenes from films I saw multiple times being removed. The most prominent for me as a kid was The Empire Strikes Back. Movies did not get released everywhere all at once. Even massively successful films would not always make it to major cities until weeks later. While considered a brilliant film now, the Shining did not get rave reviews, and it was changed. I certainly do not know why, but like most, if not all of his films, I consider it damn near perfect. He cut 2001 significantly as well, but that was just before release, although some of that footage has been found. I would love to see it. Despite my little tangent there, it was not unusual for films to be edited after a premiere.

[yellowcakeuf6]

The theatrical mono would have been center channel only. Cinemas could really muddle the sound by sending the signal through 2 or more screen channels with mono presentations, especially larger cinemas. 2.0 mono in the home is OK as long as you are sitting in the middle.

DVDs had gotten very good by the mid 2000s (when Blu-ray came along): enhanced/anamorphic transfers, progressive scan, sourced from new HD masters.
The 2007-8 SE DVD is one of those very good SD presentations, but I think the reds lean a little orange compared to the Blu-ray, and with the resolution improvements I'd go with the BD.

With the UHD coming in October, that SE DVD will become even more of a distant memory.

[LeChiffre]

Originally Posted by yellowcakeuf6

The theatrical mono would have been center channel only. Cinemas could really muddle the sound by sending the signal through 2 or more screen channels with mono presentations, especially larger cinemas. 2.0 mono in the home is OK as long as you are sitting in the middle.

DVDs had gotten very good by the mid 2000s (when Blu-ray came along): enhanced/anamorphic transfers, progressive scan, sourced from new HD masters.
The 2007-8 SE DVD is one of those very good SD presentations, but I think the reds lean a little orange compared to the Blu-ray, and with the resolution improvements I'd go with the BD.

With the UHD coming in October, that SE DVD will become even more of a distant memory.

Hello,

I agree with you on the whole (DVD vs. BD vs. UHD). With that in mind, I´m one of those subversive humanoids that still can find pleasure in watching a solid DVD edition of a movie.
With a good and well calibrated setup, DVD: s can still deliver (which all of us within this fine community of course knows).

Personally, my opinion, I will not upgrade to "4K" (in reality 2K) in the near future. I´m satisfied with 1080p

Regards
//Jan

[jackinbox]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

Incorrect. They met on the set of "Paths of Glory" shot in Germany.

I've always been curious as to Kubrick's timeline of residences. To the best of my knowledge:

Up until Killer's Kiss, he lived in NYC. Before the Killing he moved to Beverly Hills where he remained (other than shooting Paths Of Glory in Germany) until he went to England to shoot Lolita. At some point before 2001, he returned to NYC. Obviously 2001 was shot in London, but I thought I remember reading that he attended a premiere in Manhattan. As far as I can tell, once he left to work on A Clockwork Orange he never stepped foot in the U.S. again. The only time he ever left England (to the best of my knowledge) was during the filming of Barry Lyndon.

If I have any of the above wrong, I'd love to know.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by jackinbox

At some point before 2001, he returned to NYC. Obviously 2001 was shot in London, but I thought I remember reading that he attended a premiere in Manhattan.

He took a boat just to be there for the premiere; I've seen some claims that he was actually still editing on the boat, but I'm not sure I believe that.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

Well the EU is awful so good riddance I say.

I don’t believe for a minute Kubrick favored that cut over the US cut.

It was released in the US first (May/June) to mixed reviews and Kubrick cut about 30mins off of it for its European release (Sept/Oct) a few months later.
This makes me think it is Kubrick's preferred cut, but who knows. He may have later decided those cuts were a mistake. He obviously tried to cut out a lot of the scenes with the main characters interacting with the outside world. Which are the biggest cuts he made. Maybe to create a better feeling of isolation and tighten it up more. Atleast that is how I always perceived the cuts.