The Shining (1980)

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by oildude

This is exactly how I felt about the character. Recall how

[Show spoiler]Shelly Duval tells the doctor about Jack's drinking. He has not been clean very long when they go to the hotel.

This makes him more vulnerable to possession.

King has also noted that although he was unaware of it at the time, he was wring about himself. He didn't feel his drinking was out of control at that time, yet something inside of him was telling him otherwise.

He played up the drinking angle much more in the book than Kubrick did in the movie. As Jack gets lost in the evil of the hotel (in the book), his addiction makes itself much more prevalent. Nicholson looks bothered by it right from the beginning, but Kubrick doesn't fully emphasize it right away.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by rebelmswar

There were two scenes also shot, but never used, that makes the ending more, or slightly less, ambiguous, depending on your opinion on what actually went on.

[Show spoiler]One scene was police walking back and forth in front of the frozen Jack yet not seeing him. The other was Ullman visiting Danny and Wendy at the hospital and giving Danny the tennis ball whilst trying to convince Wendy that nothing supernatural happened.

I'm glad neither ending was implemented, especially the second one. In the book, such endings are irrelevant, as

[Show spoiler]the neglected hotel boiler explodes and burns the entire structure to the ground

. I wonder if that is why John Carpenter decided to

[Show spoiler]burn down the camp at the end of The Thing

? Maybe he was influenced by the ending of King's book?

[rebelmswar]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

I'm glad neither ending was implemented, especially the second one. In the book, such endings are irrelevant, as

[Show spoiler]the neglected hotel boiler explodes and burns the entire structure to the ground

. I wonder if that is why John Carpenter decided to

[Show spoiler]burn down the camp at the end of The Thing

? Maybe he was influenced by the ending of King's book?

I agree with you in regards to the ending, I think it was fine as is. If I can remember correctly Kubrick said that it would be "one to many rugs to pull from under the audience"

I also agree that many aspects of "The Thing" is influenced by the book.

[Show spoiler]My main gripe about the movie, Shining that is, is poor Halloran, getting all the way there to be axed. I feel a better ending would have been for Halloran to survive, as in the book, then get to the tool shed and stop and slowly pick up a roque mallet. Black. That is if you wanted to change up the ending from King's which, to me, is superior.

[Ernest Rister]

[quote=easyrider;5363991]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I believe Kubrick published (or was quoted) saying that it [spoiler]was in reference to "Jack's resurrection". Not sure if that means:

I've always gone with option b -

[Show spoiler]b) 1980 Jack lived as caretaker, was overtaken by evil spirits (Grady) to try to kill wife/kid. It was like a ghost fraternity: in exchange for Jack "correcting them" (killing wife/kids), the spirits would let Jack into the timeless spiritual dimension of the hotel. they deemed his efforts worthy, so let him in, and IT WAS ONLY THEN (in 1980) that the 1921 photo was modified to show Jack had entered the past of the Hotel. /SPOILER](b) 1980 Jack lived as caretaker, was overtaken by evil spirits (Grady) to try to kill wife/kid. It was like a ghost fraternity: in exchange for Jack "correcting them" (killing wife/kids), the spirits would let Jack into the timeless spiritual dimension of the hotel. they deemed his efforts worthy, so let him in, and IT WAS ONLY THEN (in 1980) that the 1921 photo was modified to show Jack had entered the past of the Hotel.

Explain Grady though...

[Show spoiler]he says he's "always been the Caretaker".

One could infer that the Overlook is so evil, it is rather like Hell - and time ceases to behave in ways we undertand, hence Grady "always" being part of the Hotel, and Torrance "always" a part of the Evil mosaic, as well.

I think it is merely supposed to be a distrubing note to end the film on, and I wouldn't spend too much grey matter on the logic of it. Some things are not meant to be explained, they are meant to be felt.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Explain Grady though...[spoiler]he says he's "always been the Caretaker".

Jack also mentions during the first conversation with Wendy when they're alone in the hotel (in the U.S. version), that he felt like he was in the hotel before and that the strength of that feeling exceeded a mere deja vu.

But about Grady: How could Grady have "always" been there like he says and therefore known that Jack has always been the caretaker when the story on Grady is the same mysterious story that surrounds Jack. He was employed as the caretaker in 1970 and murdered his wife and children.

I do find it somewhat ridiculous that in a space of 10 years, the resurrections of two of the hotel's previous residents were employed as winter caretakers at the hotel. The odds of that happening are ridiculous.

[MovieFanatic2010]

Anyone interested in a 8 1/2 x 11 glossy print replica of The Shining Ballroom Photograph let me know. Just please pay the shipping.

[Gremal]

The whole key is in the title not necessarily the details of the quotes from Grady. It's all about "shining", in that some places have a "shine" to them and give off an energy of the collective people and events that have happened there. Different people reacted differently to the Overlook depending on their ability to tap into the supernatural; to succumb to or withstand the evil that seemed woven into the place. In the context of "shining" the details don't matter so much as a more impressionist effect of the people who had gone through the hotel and what they did.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Gremal

The whole key is in the title not necessarily the details of the quotes from Grady. It's all about "shining", in that some places have a "shine" to them and give off an energy of the collective people and events that have happened there. Different people reacted differently to the Overlook depending on their ability to tap into the supernatural; to succumb to or withstand the evil that seemed woven into the place. In the context of "shining" the details don't matter so much as a more impressionist effect of the people who had gone through the hotel and what they did.

+1

I loved the part where Scatman Crothers: "if someone burns toast, it'll leave a trace behind. not something that anyone can notice. but only something that people who shine can see."

Kind of like watching stars in the sky at night: we're not watching them as they are. We're watching them as they were millions of years ago. Looking back in time - literally.

By the way, there were two Gradys right?

[Show spoiler]Jack Grady who was a real person that killed his daughters and himself and Delbert Grady who is a subconcious entity in Jack's head - like Danny's friend Tony

. For those interested, I read this fascinating thread pointing out how 99% of what Delbert Grady says in the bathroom is a lie.
http://faqtheshining.blogspot.com/20...-ever-lie.html

[spiritfox]

I hadn't watched this movie for many, many years and didn't remember much about it. I got it the other day from Amazon and watched it--really loved it. Didn't really find it scary to my tastes but incredibly enjoyable. Jack Nicholson is certainly incredibly evil and plays the role to perfection. Also found the boy a bit scary too espeically when he brought Tony out. This is a fantastic classic for the Halloween season.

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by spiritfox

Didn't really find it scary to my tastes but incredibly enjoyable.

I've never found any horror movie scary, to be honest.

Nevertheless, The Shining, while I didn't find it scary, is an excellent film. I highly recommend it!

[retablo]

Originally Posted by csdot

which is exactly what i said.

Way to ignore the rest of my post though, all of which contained valid points.

[I KEEL YOU]

I just realized something while I was on my daily evening walk, thinking about this movie that changes my (at least) interpretation of the movie completely. I've read a lot of observations on this movie, but I don't believe I've seen this being mentioned:

Every single interpretation of this movie I've read mentioned the fact that Grady opened the door for Jack as irrefutable evidence that there was indeed an evil within hotel that could manifest itself physically. This meant that the 100% psychological interpretation of the movie, that Jack was imagining all the stuff he was seeing could not be used (which it could up to this scene). But we never actually see Grady open the door, let alone Jack walk out of it. We only hear the sound of the door being opened while Jack is standing completely still looking at the door. And then the scene is cut. Now, the very next time we see Jack is swinging an ax into the door of the room where Wendy and Danny are. But we have no idea where he got the ax from. Theoretically, the ax could've been stashed somewhere within that storage room where Jack was locked in, allowing him to free himself somehow, by at least smashing the locking mechanism with it. If Kubrick really wanted us to know that there was indeed an evil presence within the hotel that could manifest itself physically, he could've just shown Jack walking out of the room. It would've been really simple to show, but we never see that. Now that I think about it, the closest thing we see where the evil within the hotel shows itself in physical form is when Grady spills the drinks on Jack.

[Lacit170]

Originally Posted by topdolla69

does any1 know what the hell was with the guy in the dog suit at the end? It completely baffled me as a child, much as it does today. I mean there was no mention of guys wearing dog suits let alone any ****ing dogs. I dont even think where were any weird "Furry People" back then that would be turned on by such a thing.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

if you're referring to the guy in the bear costume giving fellatio to the guy in the suit:
The Shining - Weirdest Scene - YouTube

here is the explanation I would give:

[Show spoiler]
(1) note the native american chanting in the background of the video
(2) remember in the film they said the hotel was built on a native american burial ground
(3) we see cans of "calumet" baking powder in the food storage area, with an indian logo on it
(4) during the intro sequence of the film (car driving to hotel), we hear what sounds like a native american woman screaming
(5) the hotel is called the "overlook" in reference to our (USA) overlooking the slaughter of native americans
(6) because of (1)-(5) above, the hotel is arguably haunted/cursed by native american spirits
(7) jack and danny can communicate/see spirits via "Shining" - and they start to invade/corrupt Jack right when he steps foot in the hotel
(8) shelly can't see/communicate with the spirits UNTIL THIS SCENE: this is the first scene (I think?) when she actually sees spirits/ghosts. Why now? Good question. Perhaps because the spirits are so prevalent and strong that they've invaded Shelly's psyche to the point that they are detectable by her

Im a few years late lol...but in the book it was just Wendy seeing spirits from the house for the first time....the book goes into showing party goers in the elevators etc more than the movie did...

Originally Posted by retablo

The real question is what version to get - the longer, slower US cut or the shorter, tighter UK cut. Both have merits, but I think (and it's suggested that Stanley also preferred it) the UK cut is superior.

US, full uncut

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I just reject that theory outright. If he was "crazy right from the start", then this implies that

[Show spoiler]swining an axe, chasing your son in a maze to kill him, typing the same lines over and over and saying "I'm going to bash your head in" to your wife

is even REMOTELY similar to

[Show spoiler]discussing cannabilism on a car trip, saying your wife is a horror film addict and hitting your son

nicely said.... people always argue that they didnt like the movie because he was "always crazy"... BS...they just want a reason to say the book is better

To believe he is a "crazy guy" who just went "crazy" implies that he just continued his current behavior patterns, and that there wasn't a HUGE change in them. Can't buy that for a second.

nicely said.... people always argue that they didnt like the movie because he was "always crazy"... BS...they just want a reason to say the book is better

Originally Posted by MovieFanatic2010

Anyone interested in a 8 1/2 x 11 glossy print replica of The Shining Ballroom Photograph let me know.

absolutely! PM me... thanks!

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Every single interpretation of this movie I've read mentioned the fact that Grady opened the door for Jack as irrefutable evidence that there was indeed an evil within hotel that could manifest itself physically. This meant that the 100% psychological interpretation of the movie, that Jack was imagining all the stuff he was seeing could not be used (which it could up to this scene). But we never actually see Grady open the door, let alone Jack walk out of it. We only hear the sound of the door being opened while Jack is standing completely still looking at the door. And then the scene is cut. Now, the very next time we see Jack is swinging an ax into the door of the room where Wendy and Danny are. But we have no idea where he got the ax from. Theoretically, the ax could've been stashed somewhere within that storage room where Jack was locked in, allowing him to free himself somehow, by at least smashing the locking mechanism with it. If Kubrick really wanted us to know that there was indeed an evil presence within the hotel that could manifest itself physically, he could've just shown Jack walking out of the room. It would've been really simple to show, but we never see that. Now that I think about it, the closest thing we see where the evil within the hotel shows itself in physical form is when Grady spills the drinks on Jack.

http://faqtheshining.blogspot.com/20...nny-as-he.html

i think you'll find this read good. right on-point of your post and offers great argument to support a 100% psychological interpretation and opening of the door

[josephga]

I haven't watched this in years. I had a gift card from best buy ended up picking the shining and the crow up with it

[MoviesandSGs]

some people and maybe himself have said his role in the shining is actually him.
This in my opinion is the best Jack Nicholson movie there is. I would buy like a super collectors edition of this movie. Too bad it hasnt gotten a really cool release.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by MoviesandSGs

some people and maybe himself have said his role in the shining is actually him.
This in my opinion is the best Jack Nicholson movie there is. I would buy like a super collectors edition of this movie. Too bad it hasnt gotten a really cool release.

I like him better in Batman personally, but you're right he's great in this one too.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I like him better in Batman personally, but you're right he's great in this one too.

Hes great in Batman.

But hes best in The Shining and Chinatown in my opinion.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

Hes great in Batman.

But hes best in The Shining and Chinatown in my opinion.

The Shining (1980 - Making of The Shining - Part 1 of 3) - HD - YouTube

check out 4:50-5:00 here

OMG this is SOO FUNNY. @4:50 Jack is warming up for the axe scene. The cameras are OFF. He starts to jog around the room and says out loud "die die!!! axe murderer kill!!!!"

[evoll]

I just watched this the other night scince i got it for good price at B.B. and it looks great on blu ray. I also paid alot of attention to the little things in the movie and you can see him losing his mind and becoming part of the hotel early in the movie,def a good movie.