The Shining (1980)

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Michael Bay? possible accidental errors. Stanley Kubrick? not in a million years.

C'mon, man...

STANLEY KUBRICK'S LOLITA -- CONTINUITY ERRORS

"When Humbert and Charlotte Haze discuss sending Lolita to a girls' camp, Charlotte holds a smoking cigarette in her left hand in some shots, but not others."

"When Humbert starts his journey to pick up Lolita, you'll see at Camp Climax sign, the white station wagon has a license place that reads 2178 and seems to be from a different state than the other plates. The car Humbert parks at the service station has a lamp attached to the front grille, and carries number plate 17459. A few minutes later when he has the blowout (which seems to leave all four tires intact) the lamp is missing and a white number plate that reads AC629. The car that has been trailing them also has this same type of license plate, too. It is visible on the front of the car and on the back, when it turns around. At the end of the film, the car has the 17459 license plate again."

"At the dance, Charlotte takes a bite out of a fresh hot dog and less than five seconds later has polished off half the sandwich."

STANLEY KUBRICK'S PATHS OF GLORY - CONTINUITY ERRORS

"After General Mireau slaps the soldier in the trench, he continues on to Colonel Dax's dugout and and three soldiers carrying a machine gun pass him. The same three soldiers with the machine gun pass him again when he and Colonel Dax are looking at the Ant Hill through the binoculars."

"In the scenes of the men's executions the sky repeatedly shifts between gray and overcast in some shots to bright sunshine in others, noticeably changing the natural light, causing shadows and sun glare to appear and disappear from shot to shot."

STANLEY KUBRICK'S DR. STRANGELOVE - CONTINUITY ERRORS

"When General Jack D. Ripper is firing the .30 caliber machine gun with the assistance of Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, he is holding the machine gun by the barrel. In reality, this would quickly cause serious burns and would not be possible for more than a few seconds."

"General Turgidson learns from his secretary, Miss Scott, of General Ripper's ordered attack on the USSR at 3 a.m. Washington D.C. time. However, the concurrent scenes at Burpleson Air Force base (somewhere in the Western United States) take place in the daytime."

----

Do I need to keep going? Kubrick was not a perfect God, he was a man who made movies. His cameras captured a particular moment in time for several seconds, and then he combined these moments into stories and projected them onto screen via film. You do him a disservice elevating him to perfection, because that's a lie - instead, appreciate him for the human he was.

[retablo]

Or, as it's well known, Kubrick was just copping The Twilight Zone...

http://www.thewordslinger.com/posts.php?id=281

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

You do him a disservice elevating him to perfection, because that's a lie

So, anyone who disagrees with you is a liar.

Its unfortunate that you've chosen to use such condescending and arrogant words to convey your views.

[oildude]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

So, anyone who disagrees with you is a liar.

Its unfortunate that you've chosen to use such condescending and arrogant words to convey your views.

????? I did not think this at all reading Ernest's posts. He is simply pointing out examples that even a filmmaker of the stature of Kubrick was prone to continuity errors in his work. These happen all the time in film, even when there are efforts to prevent them. He is not calling you a liar. He is merely stating that Kubrick was not perfect, and to think otherwise, as though he was so in control as to be absolutely flawless, is false. He is not disrespecting you in any way.

Welcome to the problem with conducting discussion via email or in a forum like this one: unless carefully crafted, the tone implied in the written exchange is frequently a mirror of the reader's preconceptions and not the writer's intent. Thank god for emoticons. Peace, dude

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I didn't read that - I read him arguing that Jack did send Halloran back:

[Show spoiler]"Grady: Did you know, Mr. Torrance, that your son... is attempting to bring an outside party into this situation? Did you know that?
Another lie as it’s Jack with his ability to “Shine” who alerts Dick Hallorann that something is wrong at The Overlook. If you find this hard to believe remember that Dick Hallorann knows something is wrong only when Jack walks into room 237 and not when Danny is strangled, which happened earlier. This is very important; as Jack meets the old woman he is “Shining” that image of room 237 into Dick Hallorann’s head. Danny never telepathically calls Dick Hallorann when he's attacked, in fact there is no place in the dialogue or on the screen that proves that he ever calls on him at all."

Hmm, you're right. Some of his stuff's interesting, but there are times when he goes completely off the reservation.

At another point in his analysis, he claims that The Shining can only be viewed as dialectic in nature, meaning (he says) that Halloran ("the good guy") never lies on screen and Grady ("the bad guy") never tells the truth. Because this is axiomatic in his analysis, he is forced to contrive leaps like the one I mentioned -- when renting the snow cat, Halloran tells his friend that it was Ullman who dispatched him to the Overlook, therefore it's the truth, even though the logical conclusion is that Halloran simply doesn't want to arouse suspicion.

Sorry I don't have a direct link to the spot, but it's in there unless he's redacted it. He's been involved in some pretty feisty debates over at IMDb, in which he comes off rather stubborn, unwilling to acknowledge that the views of others might have merit. Whenever folks would point out the above about Halloran's return, he'd ask us to find one example of Halloran saying anything that's not true in the movie, because if we can't, that proves his point.

Also, because Halloran tells Danny that "it's just like pictures in a book," it follows that there is no supernatural threat at the Overlook Hotel. The logic seems a bit circular to me.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

C'mon, man...

STANLEY KUBRICK'S LOLITA -- CONTINUITY ERRORS

"When Humbert and Charlotte Haze discuss sending Lolita to a girls' camp, Charlotte holds a smoking cigarette in her left hand in some shots, but not others."

"When Humbert starts his journey to pick up Lolita, you'll see at Camp Climax sign, the white station wagon has a license place that reads 2178 and seems to be from a different state than the other plates. The car Humbert parks at the service station has a lamp attached to the front grille, and carries number plate 17459. A few minutes later when he has the blowout (which seems to leave all four tires intact) the lamp is missing and a white number plate that reads AC629. The car that has been trailing them also has this same type of license plate, too. It is visible on the front of the car and on the back, when it turns around. At the end of the film, the car has the 17459 license plate again."

"At the dance, Charlotte takes a bite out of a fresh hot dog and less than five seconds later has polished off half the sandwich."

STANLEY KUBRICK'S PATHS OF GLORY - CONTINUITY ERRORS

"After General Mireau slaps the soldier in the trench, he continues on to Colonel Dax's dugout and and three soldiers carrying a machine gun pass him. The same three soldiers with the machine gun pass him again when he and Colonel Dax are looking at the Ant Hill through the binoculars."

"In the scenes of the men's executions the sky repeatedly shifts between gray and overcast in some shots to bright sunshine in others, noticeably changing the natural light, causing shadows and sun glare to appear and disappear from shot to shot."

STANLEY KUBRICK'S DR. STRANGELOVE - CONTINUITY ERRORS

"When General Jack D. Ripper is firing the .30 caliber machine gun with the assistance of Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, he is holding the machine gun by the barrel. In reality, this would quickly cause serious burns and would not be possible for more than a few seconds."

"General Turgidson learns from his secretary, Miss Scott, of General Ripper's ordered attack on the USSR at 3 a.m. Washington D.C. time. However, the concurrent scenes at Burpleson Air Force base (somewhere in the Western United States) take place in the daytime."

----

Do I need to keep going? Kubrick was not a perfect God, he was a man who made movies. His cameras captured a particular moment in time for several seconds, and then he combined these moments into stories and projected them onto screen via film. You do him a disservice elevating him to perfection, because that's a lie - instead, appreciate him for the human he was.

If you look for such insignificant errors in movies you miss the forrest for all the trees.I for one am hugely impressed with Kubrick's work,but he certainly wasn't a deity.As for The shining,it has the best opening for any movie I've seen.It is positively sublime,and worth the BD for that alone.The movie itself is not my cup of tea,although can't fault it from a moviecraft point of view.Maybe that last sentence would have profited by some editing,but am norwegian

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

when renting the snow cat, Halloran tells his friend that it was Ullman who dispatched him to the Overlook, therefore it's the truth, even though the logical conclusion is that Halloran simply doesn't want to arouse suspicion.

ah yes, now I see what you mean. yeah, that would be silly (that Ullman actually dispatched him). can you imagine the snowcat worker's face if dick said, in response to the snowcat's question "why do you need a snowcat to go up to the overlook today?", if dick said "listen man, I can shine! and so can danny! and danny shined me that he's in trouble!!"

Sorry I don't have a direct link to the spot, but it's in there unless he's redacted it. He's been involved in some pretty feisty debates over at IMDb, in which he comes off rather stubborn, unwilling to acknowledge that the views of others might have merit. Whenever folks would point out the above about Halloran's return, he'd ask us to find one example of Halloran saying anything that's not true in the movie, because if we can't, that proves his point.

yes, i agree fully. there is no bulletproof theory here. just different theories that are fun to throw around

Also, because Halloran tells Danny that "it's just like pictures in a book," it follows that there is no supernatural threat at the Overlook Hotel. The logic seems a bit circular to me.

recently watched the film and there is a scene when Danny sees Grady's two daughters, covers up his eyes, and then Tony has dialogue with him (where Danny's finger is Tony), and reminds him of that quote above you said. "It's just like Mr. Halloran said Danny. Its just like pictures in a book. It isn't real." IN this case, Tony is arguably manipulating Danny so that he can get Danny to go places we wouldn't go because of his fear.

[Ernest Rister]

The *idea* that Kubrick was perfect is a non-truth, not the *person* exploring that possibility. It is problematic when we elevate an artist from man to deity, especially if one believes (as I do) that analysis is a search for truth. If one approaches Kubrick from the standpoint of modern myth - that he was supernaturally exacting in every single possible detail - then many avenues into analyzing Kubrick's films are suddenly blocked, and only few other paths for analysis are available (i.e., he meant to make the mistakes and it is impossible that he didn't). I don't accept that premise because a) I don't think it's accurate in the first place, and b) it is far too limiting and it obscures truth instead of revealing it.

p.s.

Besides, we all know only one perfect film has ever been made...

[Cortiz]

So, would someone like to share their opinion on what does the ending means? Why is Jack on that picture?

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The *idea* that Kubrick was perfect

It is problematic when we elevate an artist from man to deity

that he was supernaturally exacting in every single possible detail

nobody said he is a god, a deity, supernatural or perfect. that is your interpretation of what was said.

I don't accept that premise

a premise which was not made.

[Ray O. Blu]

Great discussion folks! I almost had something to add to the thread, but it would've disrupted the continuity .

I found this sentence to be quite remarkable indeed:

Originally Posted by oildude

Welcome to the problem with conducting discussion via email or in a forum like this one: unless carefully crafted, the tone implied in the written exchange is frequently a mirror of the reader's preconceptions and not the writer's intent. Thank god for emoticons. Peace, dude

This implies that the first part of my comment could be perceived as rude sarcasm when, in fact, I meant it to be honest and complimentary.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Cortiz

So, would someone like to share their opinion on what does the ending means? Why is Jack on that picture?

Personally, I like the theory that Jack

[Show spoiler]entered into some kind of "contract" with Delbert Grady and the other ghosts of the hotel:

(a) Jack "corrects" his wife and kid (kills them), and in exchange

(b) Grady and the other ghosts will let Jack enter the eternal ghostly essence of the Hotel (past, present and future)

kind of like hazing to get into a Ghost Fraternity.

Yes, Jack ultimately didn't succeed in (a) because his wife and kid got away, but since he gave a sincere effort, the ghosts let him in and his body was absorbed into the past, present and future of the hotel.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

nobody said he is a god, a deity, supernatural or perfect.

** earlier the previous evening **

perfectly stated! Michael Bay? possible accidental errors. Stanley Kubrick? not in a million years.

Not in a million years would Kubrick make an accidental continuity error.

That sounds more like things I heard in Sunday school than what I learned in film school. Never in a period of a million years could this man make an accidental error? .

[F-Man]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

unless these are rooted in concrete, demonstrable examples from the text or the filmmakers, then your analysis risks being swallowed by a tide of ephemeral intellectual bunny trails.

Kubrick was especially wary to not disclose the details and explanations behind his movies. He wanted them to be picked apart for generations to come.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Michael Bay? possible accidental errors. Stanley Kubrick? not in a million years.

The fact that it would be an accident makes it unplanned, so yeah, he could. And did. Just like every filmmaker.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Not in a million years would Kubrick make an accidental continuity error.

Sure, if you ignore the context of what I was responding to:

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

If he had this tiny detail spot on, Kubrick would've easily seen those other obvious errors and would've corrected them if he wanted them corrected.

I merely agreed that while obvious errors could be passed off as "possible" accidental errors by Bay, IMO they couldn't be passed off as such by Kubrick. Note the use of "possible" is in reference to whether the obvious errors could be viewed as "possible" accidental errors, not your out-of-context misinterpretation that Kubrick couldn't commit a "possible" accidental error.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by F-Man

Kubrick was especially wary to not disclose the details and explanations behind his movies. He wanted them to be picked apart for generations to come.

Same reason Spielberg doesn't do commentary tracks. Rather than tell people what a film is supposed to mean, Spielberg wants his work to speak for itself.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Same reason Spielberg doesn't do commentary tracks. Rather than tell people what a film is supposed to mean, Spielberg wants his work to speak for itself.

Can understand that.I don't ever listen to commentary track,only with the one exception to prove the rule>Army of darkness.Tried it a couple of times,but never found it to be of interest.If the movie itself doesn't give you a good experience,no amount of commentary will.On that exception:AoD commentary with Raimi,the producer or writer and Campbell is hillarious!

[Ernest Rister]

I merely agreed that while obvious errors could be passed off as "possible" accidental errors by Bay, IMO they couldn't be passed off as such by Kubrick.

But what you're agreeing to is a logical fallacy - just because a filmmaker is exacting in, say, having all the clocks in the movie operate in continuity, as in High Noon, for instance, to then therefore extrapolate that because a filmmaker paid attention to a small detail, he was therefore incapable of missing larger or more obvious errors -- that's simply not true. And then you add to it by saying "Never in a million years" would Kubrick make a glaring error on the order of Michael Bay.

Really?

FULL METAL JACKET - CONTINUITY ERRORS

"When Hartmann slaps Pyle during the drill & comp scene, the second marine in formation behind Pyle is played by two different actors between cuts of Hartmann slapping Pyle with his right hand and Hartmann slapping Pyle with his left hand."

"Animal's aimless shots blow away parts of the "My Toan" sign, but it is later seen intact."

"When Sgt Hartman asks Private Joker if he believes in the Virgin Mary, he is holding a billy club. A few seconds later, he strikes Private Joker with an open hand, the same hand that held the billy club a moment earlier. But he never dropped the club."

***

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

just because a filmmaker is exacting in, say, having all the clocks in the movie operate in continuity, as in High Noon, for instance, to then therefore extrapolate that because a filmmaker paid attention to a small detail, he was therefore incapable of missing larger or more obvious errors -- that's simply not true.

(1) I have repeated about three times in all my posts in this thread that I haven't subscribed to one particular theory (pure psychological/moving objects, pure ghost, etc). So no, I don't think Kubrick definitely intended the discontinuities. I'm just saying its possible.

(2) We have a difference of opinion! Just let it go, dude.