The Shining (1980)

[martymc80s]

you have the long version - what I would call the original

[AKORIS]

thanks!

[hostelmovies]

Originally Posted by demoni

hehe, hail to the king!!!!!!!!!

x1000

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Frere Fitch

Personally, I do prefer the intensified shorter cut, not least because it removes (what I consider to be) unnecessary exposition scenes which only serve to make explicit what is easily, and satisfyingly surmised through character behaviour and interaction. Actually, whilst 24 minutes of excised footage does sound like a significant amount of content, in a film where the scenes play so slowly, it really isn't such a great amount of material. I certainly prefer the film without the upfront Anne Jackson scene, which I feel taints our view of the family dynamic at too early a stage of the narrative (eg, the first Jack/Lloyd scene is considerably more potent when it becomes the first time we learn of Danny's prior injury).

I subscribe to the school of Hitchcock that says I can surprise you for a moment if I suddenly, out of nowhere, have a scene with a bomb that goes off, but if I show you that bomb hidden from view first and then draw a scene out with characters milling about that are unaware that bomb is underfoot and about to go off, then I draw out exquisite, palpable, unforgettable suspense. Knowing Jack's violent history right off the bat makes us dread every subsequent scene with him, chewing our nails to the quick as we watch the effects of isolation in the Overlook slowly peel away his fragile layers of self-control and reveal the monstrosity within. Without that setup, there are shocks to be found in the film, sure, but the UK edit is damn near inert compared to the US original when it comes to drawing out and ratcheting up the dramatic tension thoughout. In fact, without that chilling setup, the first 30 minutes comes off as just dull, pointless assorted scenes of a dude getting a job, moving his family up to a hotel and getting settled in.

[PGW]

Originally Posted by jdc115

...I recall reading that his preferred choice for his films was 4x3 for home viewing as well which nobody here would want.

I would.

I clearly remember reading that he wanted the film to be seen in 4 x 3. Lopping off the top and bottom of it to make it widescreen just so some people can fill their widescreen TVs is not acceptable to me.

I also wish they had looked a little harder and found the final scene. I remember seeing that in the theater when the film came out, and I thought it gives a needed upbeat coda to the film (Wendy and Danny survive) rather than the confusing and kind of trite close-up of Jack in the the photo.

Just my $0.02.

[Scooby Blu]

I love it to see this much interest in one of the BEST movies of all time!!!

When you have a "smoke" and a drink of Jack D. this movie really hits the spot!!! Tech aside. The reason I spend my time not working is to have a great time! And this movie always takes me away from where I'm at in the real life. For a movie to do that is a work of art!

[Vidya]

When I think of great horror, I think of The Shining. To this day I havent seen anything that can really compare.

[mayorofsmpleton]

He wanted it to be seen in 4:3 on Home Video because he felt that TVs were too small. When screened theatrically he preferred the 16:9 ratio. I'm sure that in today's modern age of HOME THEATER televisions, etc -- he'd fully back the widescreen edition of The SHINING.

[Jeremiah]

I truly do love this movie, but the fact that he changed so many things from the book sort of disturbs me. Nevertheless, it really is brilliant!

[kaitoe]

Originally Posted by jdc115

After all, I recall reading that his preferred choice for his films was 4x3 for home viewing as well which nobody here would want. I assume his opinion would probably change these days with HDTV, projectors and large screens.

If this storyboard picture is real:


Then Kubrick had composed for 1.85:1, while making sure that the movie still looked good for 1.33:1. He probably wanted to avoid The Shining being Pan-And-Scanned by, instead, opening the top and bottom for televisions with a 4:3 aspect ratio. Therefore, information wouldn't be lost by going to a 4:3 aspect ratio. So going by the image, 1.85:1 is the correct aspect ratio if the viewer wants what was 100% intended -- not the biggest picture possible.

[#Darren]

2 words. Helicopter shadow.

Originally Posted by PGW

I would.

I clearly remember reading that he wanted the film to be seen in 4 x 3. Lopping off the top and bottom of it to make it widescreen just so some people can fill their widescreen TVs is not acceptable to me.

[Frere Fitch]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

I subscribe to the school of Hitchcock that says I can surprise you for a moment if I suddenly, out of nowhere, have a scene with a bomb that goes off, but if I show you that bomb hidden from view first and then draw a scene out with characters milling about that are unaware that bomb is underfoot and about to go off, then I draw out exquisite, palpable, unforgettable suspense. Knowing Jack's violent history right off the bat makes us dread every subsequent scene with him, chewing our nails to the quick as we watch the effects of isolation in the Overlook slowly peel away his fragile layers of self-control and reveal the monstrosity within. Without that setup, there are shocks to be found in the film, sure, but the UK edit is damn near inert compared to the US original when it comes to drawing out and ratcheting up the dramatic tension thoughout. In fact, without that chilling setup, the first 30 minutes comes off as just dull, pointless assorted scenes of a dude getting a job, moving his family up to a hotel and getting settled in.

I do agree that the original cut does provide greater tension at the front-end. Though I find that the remaining scenes do heavily suggest a dark-side to the family unit: notice Jack's wandering eye; the parental conflict during the car journey; Wendy's (arguably insensitive) assertion that Danny's expression of distrust through Tony is simply the innocuous behaviour of an infant, not to mention her failure to pick up on Jack's incessant sarcasm. For me, the accumulated impression, ascertained through these interactions, is one of latent turmoil. So when Jack first snaps at Wendy for interrupting his writing, I do not experience a shock which has materialised from thin air; rather, I feel that my suspicions of the family dynamic have been confirmed.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Frere Fitch

I do agree that the original cut does provide greater tension at the front-end. Though I find that the remaining scenes do heavily suggest a dark-side to the family unit: notice Jack's wandering eye; the parental conflict during the car journey; Wendy's (arguably insensitive) assertion that Danny's expression of distrust through Tony is simply the innocuous behaviour of an infant, not to mention her failure to pick up on Jack's incessant sarcasm. For me, the accumulated impression, ascertained through these interactions, is one of latent turmoil. So when Jack first snaps at Wendy for interrupting his writing, I do not experience a shock which has materialised from thin air; rather, I feel that my suspicions of the family dynamic have been confirmed.

All the stuff you mentioned would do no more than imply Jack is a jerk; that's a huge, quantum difference from the U.S. cut letting you know he can, and has, rendered actual physical harm to his loved ones. In the UK cut, you're never on pins and needles waiting for him to go off on his kid or wife again, with possibly fatal results.

[Frere Fitch]

That's a fair point. With the euro-edit, it's only up to the first Jack/Lloyd scene where we truly understand Jack's violent potential, which does certainly change our reading of several scenes before this exchange, eg. the scene where Danny asks Jack "would you ever hurt mommy or me?" does become more abstract, and you do lose the sense that Jack's response of "I'd never hurt you" is psychological cruelty, simply because we know he has. Here the context adds.

But overall, I think the gradual unveiling of the family past is a successful alternative.

[6AM]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

He did the same thing to "2001". After opening to questionable reviews in April1968, he cut some scenes and re-released it. I can't remember the exact amount of time cut out, but I think it was close to 20 minutes.

Just because he cut it to make it more palatable to an audience doesn't mean that he preferred that cut.

[#Darren]

Director's cuts are occasionally shorter, it's not unheard of.

Also, a lot of so called DC's are nothing but studio cash grabs, where they just insert scenes the director didn't even want in the film to make it seem special - and this incorrectly leads to the general assumption that a real DC will generally be longer.

[hostelmovies]

This is my favorite horror movie of all-time, I wish they had the other cut that you'all are talking about, because I have never seen it.

[davidlg1971]

Originally Posted by Vidya

When I think of great horror, I think of The Shining. To this day I havent seen anything that can really compare.

Agreed. And in fact, I'm not much of a horror fan.

But there are so many ideas in the Shining, and it's so well made. It's horrific, but not on a gore and slash level; it's intellectually scary.

In a way I suppose there's an easy comparison to Hitchcock, since it's all about suspense and buildup to the crescendo and reveal. But what gets me about the Shining is how minimalist it is, how bleak it is. Kubrick got the idea that pure quiet can be creepy. There's a you're-alone-but-something-lingers-in-the-air foreboding.

All that said, it's a deliberate, slow movie. And it totally works - the first time. But on the 2nd or 4th viewing you'd want to see it paced a bit faster, which is a great reason to have a shorter cut. I've never seen the second cut of the film, now I'm curious.

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by iDarren

2 words. Helicopter shadow.

from: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index.html#n1s1

AMK is lucky to have as an occasional contributor Gordon Stainforth. Gordon was an assistant editor on The Shining (he took over from Ray Lovejoy when he became ill) he actually cut the title sequence. Here's what he has to say.

"I want to try and put at rest the interminable [helicopter shadow] debate re. an apparent mistake in The Shining. I cut the title sequence, so I speak with some authority. I've said quite a lot about this before, so I hope this really is the last time!

While I did the first cut, it is just possible that Ray Lovejoy made some alterations to the picture when he was finalising the front titles and credits - I have a distinct recollection of him asking me for the trims - but I think not. But I do have a recollection that at one stage in the movie some of those cuts were going to be dissolves. It is just possible that when we changed that mix to a straight cut we went back slightly beyond the centre point of the dissolve to get the absolute maximum length out of the shot. Musically and emotionally I remember we needed absolutely every usable frame of that first long shot with the titles.

OK, some key facts:

Although The Shining was shot with the full academy aperture, it was designed and composed entirely for the 1.85:1 ratio, and that is the only way it should be projected in the theatre.

All the Steenbecks in the cutting rooms accordingly had their screens marked, or even masked off, with the 1.85:1 ratio. The 6-plate Steenbeck in Stanley and Ray's main cutting room was masked off with black masking tape, because you cannot cut a movie properly unless you can see the frame exactly as it will appear in the cinema.

However the helicopter shadow IS almost certainly visible for about 4 or 5 frames at the edge of the 1.85:1 masking. But it was NOT visible on any of the correctly marked-up Steenbecks, or in the main viewing theatre at Elstree, at least, not as the first version of the film left Elstree in 1980. I think now that this mistake may have crept in very late during the editing of the movie when the first caption-title 'The Interview' was shortened by 8 frames on 23 April 1980 and the Main Title/credit sequence was lengthened accordingly by 8 frames, since the music could not be shortened. (This information is based on my original cutting room notes)

Every one of the show prints of the first 6 interpositives for the American release of The Shining was personally checked in the viewing theatre at Elstree by Stanley himself. IF the helicopter shadow was fleetingly visible, either Stanley did not notice it, or it was so trivial that it did not bother him.

Unfortunately the masking and racking in many theatres is incredibly inaccurate. [...] I therefore suspect that people who have seen this "awful" shadow for any length of time on the cinema screen must have seen it projected at completely the wrong ratio (probably 1.66/1!), or incredibly badly racked, or both. Or of course they've seen it on the video, where it's visible for just over a second!

Incidentally (or not so incidentally!), Stanley was NOT at all bothered by the vague shadow of the rotors at the top of the frame in the last shot of the main titles."

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

I truly do love this movie, but the fact that he changed so many things from the book sort of disturbs me. Nevertheless, it really is brilliant!

I think that The Shining, along with Jaws are the best examples of movies that completely botched the adaptation of the book, but remain 2 of the best films ever made!!