The Shining (1980)

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Oh Just threw that "love for Disney" in for a joke.

There's no denying, and you all agree, that Kubrick dressed Wendy like Goofy on purpose.

I don't agree.

[Rory]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

There's no denying, and you all agree, that Kubrick dressed Wendy like Goofy on purpose.

You're being goofy, not to leave out looney tunes, too!

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Rory

You're being goofy, not leave out looney tunes, too!

Yeah the Looney Tunes reference was a mistake on my part.

Not the fact there's a Goofy in the room dressed the same as Wendy.

From Rob Ager:

The multitude of cartoon and fairy tale references in The Shining tend to be missed or glossed over.

In Danny and Wendy’s introductory scene – we can hear the soundtrack of a Roadrunner cartoon playing on a tv set.

When Danny is brushing his teeth, just before his first psychic vision, a collection of cartoon stickers can be seen left screen on his bedroom door. These include Snoopy from the Charlie Brown cartoon, one of the seven dwarves, Minnie Mouse, and Mickey Mouse wearing a magical hat.

In an undoubtedly deliberate reference, Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse and Snoopy were also visually featured in the journalist’s meetings of Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick’s follow up film to The Shining.

When the psychiatrist talks to Danny in his bedroom there is a toy/figure of the Disney character Goofy.

When walking through the kitchen Wendy makes a reference to the Hansel and Gretel fairy tale,*“This place is such an enormous maze, I feel like I’ll have to leave a trail of bread crumbs every time I come in”.

Danny is addressed several times with the nickname Doc, as used by Bugs Bunny in the Looney Tunes cartoons. Wendy:*“We call him Doc sometimes, you know, like in the Bugs Bunny cartoons.”*Halloran:*“Well anyway, he looks like a doc doesn’t he? (doing an impression of Bugs Bunny) What’s up Doc?”*Jack:*“How’s it going Doc?”

When Danny enters the Torrance apartment and finds Jack sat on the bed, he’s wearing a sweater with a picture of Mickey Mouse kicking a football. Once again this is referenced in the film Full Metal Jacket – in the picture of Snoopy in the journalist scene, the cartoon character is kicking a football in an identical stance.

In the scene where Wendy picks up the baseball bat, just before her first violent confrontation with Jack, a Roadrunner cartoon can be heard on a tv – again off screen.

At Durkin’s garage, a tv set behind Halloran’s friend Larry, is playing a cartoon.

And then there are the very obvious cartoon references in Jack’s dialogue before he chops his way through the bathroom door.*“Little pigs, little pigs, let me come in. Not by the hair on your chinny, chin, chin. Then I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house in!"

Shelley Duvall has big eyes and buck teeth, much like Goofy, and her sobbing in later scenes has a snorting quality similar to Goofy’s chuckle in the Disney cartoons. It’s possible that Kubrick merely noticed these aesthetic similarities to Shelley and played a prank on her in retaliation for their conflicts on the set, as witnessed in the behind-the-scenes documentary. Yet it’s also possible that he chose Shelley for the role with these Goofy-like similarities in mind. He may have even directed her to sob in a similar way to Goofy’s chuckling.

My guess is that Kubrick knew in advance he would be encoding this character crossover and took this into account when casting. My primary reason for this assumption is because the Jack Torrance character not only spoke*“Big bad wolf”*dialogue in the film, but he is also unshaven with long hair … a visual manifestation of the*“Big bad wolf”.

[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.

[eiknarf]

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.

I agree. True.
That's probably why Ager added a few possible reasons why Kubrick might have portrayed the similarities between Wendy and Goofy. More things to stick.

I'm not saying Ager is right or wrong, but even before there was an Internet, I noticed Wendy and that lil Goofy doll were dressed the same. Director's do idiosyncratic lil things for whatever reason. My friend puts a lil fake lobster in every scene when he shoots. No reason. Sometimes it's easy to spot. Sometimes not so easy.

What I can say with confidence is, Kubrick didn't NOT notice that his main actress was dressed similar to a doll that he put in frame.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Goofy = Disney not Looney Tunes

I also doubt it was intentional. People have all kinds of crazy theories for this movie.

People definitely put waaaaay too much thought into analyzing this flick. I think the commentary on the genocide of Native Americans theory makes some sense, but most everything else seems forced to me, like all those college lit classes where people came up with off-the-wall shit to impress professors.

It's a movie about a drunk and borderline abusive father going insane in a haunted hotel. Fin.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by fontcow

I've always thought the face on The Shining movie poster looks like Kubrick in his younger days before the beard and mustache.

Maybe it's just Danny:

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Cherokee Jack

Perhaps 'boredom' was too strong a word but yes, I believe the American cut of The Shining is poorly paced. Always have. I still love watching any cut of the film as there's just so much to take from it (I've probably watched it more than any other Kubrick film even if I don't think it's his strongest and most of those viewings were of the American version). But it was only once I saw the shorter Euro cut that I found myself feeling that the narrative wasn't getting in the way of all the other compelling aspects of the film: acting, camera work by Kubrick, iconic imagery, symbolism, etc.

Really though, the above reactions are quite silly.

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

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

People definitely put waaaaay too much thought into analyzing this flick. I think the commentary on the genocide of Native Americans theory makes some sense, but most everything else seems forced to me, like all those college lit classes where people came up with off-the-wall shit to impress professors.

It's a movie about a drunk and borderline abusive father going insane in a haunted hotel. Fin.

It is interesting that Kubrick films always seem to get analyzed.

Ya know why it's fun to have discovered that there's pages dedicated to analyzing The Shining (or any of Kubrick's stuff for that matter)? Because it makes Kubrick come off as... a genius... some lost artist who lived in our time.

It's kinda fun to think that there was a filmmaker out there who might have put layers upon layers of hidden narratives into a two hour movie. Of course it could all be bullsh.. but where did all these theories come from, and why Kubrick? Who started the whole "Kubrick hides stuff in his films" conspiracy? It's entertaining.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

People definitely put waaaaay too much thought into analyzing this flick. I think the commentary on the genocide of Native Americans theory makes some sense, but most everything else seems forced to me, like all those college lit classes where people came up with off-the-wall shit to impress professors.

It's a movie about a drunk and borderline abusive father going insane in a haunted hotel. Fin.

True there's been a LOT of analysis (or over-analysis) of this particular movie but that's due in large part to the fact that Kubrick IS one of those sorts of filmmakers who puts layers of subtext into his works. He was a photographer before he became a movie director so he had an artist's eye and he wasn't just the kind of guy who took a script that someone else wrote and filmed it straight (like Clint Eastwood does). He took a long time and great care to make sure everything was spot-on perfect.

I will agree that a lot of people are probably taking a lot out of this that wasn't intended to be there, but isn't that part of the fun of art? Being able to read something into it, make connections that add more interest to the work? A lot of great artists say that they often feel like something takes over them when they create, so it's entirely possible that there are subconscious ideas put into their works that they themselves are unaware of.

Another thing that helps is drugs. Take some drugs before watching a movie like this and your mind just might be blown by all of the hidden stuff you find.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

True there's been a LOT of analysis (or over-analysis) of this particular movie but that's due in large part to the fact that Kubrick IS one of those sorts of filmmakers who puts layers of subtext into his works. He was a photographer before he became a movie director so he had an artist's eye and he wasn't just the kind of guy who took a script that someone else wrote and filmed it straight (like Clint Eastwood does). He took a long time and great care to make sure everything was spot-on perfect.

I will agree that a lot of people are probably taking a lot out of this that wasn't intended to be there, but isn't that part of the fun of art? Being able to read something into it, make connections that add more interest to the work? A lot of great artists say that they often feel like something takes over them when they create, so it's entirely possible that there are subconscious ideas put into their works that they themselves are unaware of.

Another thing that helps is drugs. Take some drugs before watching a movie like this and your mind just might be blown by all of the hidden stuff you find.

This. Not everything an artist, especially one of the calibre of Kubrick, might end up putting in a film (or whatever artform) is necessarily going to be intentional. Note, I'm not saying it's some sort of "happy accident" or the like. But no matter how careful a filmmaker, how precise he is, someone like Stanley Kubrick or Alain Resnais or Jean-Luc Godard will have certain intellectual and artistic pecularities that will work themselves into the final product, intended or not.

I'm not saying that happened here. But I believe it does happen, even with the most precise artists. I think it's part of the nature of creativity.

[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.

[MifuneFan]

lol

[Martoto]

It never occurred to me that Jack wasn't a recovering alcoholic or hadn't hurt Danny, due to how he's drawn to the bar and imagines a barman giving him free drinks which make him loose and has him admitting that he hurt Danny.

That's all in the UK version. I've never seen the US cut.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Martoto

It never occurred to me that Jack wasn't a recovering alcoholic or hadn't hurt Danny, due to how he's drawn to the bar and imagines a barman giving him free drinks which make him loose and has him admitting that he hurt Danny.

That's all in the UK version. I've never seen the US cut.

Exactly. Many have said the US cut is a bit dumbed-down or overly spelled out in comparison.

[Baron Blood]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

The shorter UK cut completely guts... the haunted history (spirits) in the hotel, the UK version becomes a very bland horror tale.

"Bland"? lol
King's book and Kubrick's film are different.
Kubrick made a complex film out of a simple story.
I don't see any major critic listing King's TV version as one of the greatest Horror films ever made.

For me, King's writing is a joke.
His writing is simple and full of cliches.
Kubrick took it and made it far more complex.
Mystery is the greatest tool for any Horror film.
This is something King doesn't seem to get.
Although I heard he's coming around to liking Kubrick's movie.

I think King's stories are the missing link between Scooby-Doo and real Horror.

His ideas also seem to be ripped off from other films such as Cat People, Ghost Galleon and Zeder.
My suspicion is once we had access to the internet he could no longer do it so he just remade Von Trier's Kingdom.

You prefer his books...fine.
I'm just putting my 2 cents in that I don't (and why)

When King's version aired I tried watching but as I said earlier I laughed when we were given the ending with the boiler warning some 15 minutes in.

I found the following posts of what King wanted for the film and I, personally find them laughable.
Anyone who doesn't...fine.

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]



BTW~ I agree with most here that many read too much into this film and have no argument that Artists have "happy accidents" that they keep.
But imo it's obvious Kubrick dressed Wendy in an outfit you'd see on Kids morning shows.
The chances that Wendy was dressed in the same colors of goofy on the wall without intent is beyond astronomical.
That is harder for me to accept.
https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=isc...&bih=767&dpr=1

Perhaps, in real life, some of you guys see full grown adults in bright colored overalls but I don't.
If he dressed her in Black it would have changed are perception of her even if only slightly.

I'm done.

[MifuneFan]

Denim overalls like what she wore were much more common in the 70's and 80's..

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Martoto

It never occurred to me that Jack wasn't a recovering alcoholic or hadn't hurt Danny, due to how he's drawn to the bar and imagines a barman giving him free drinks which make him loose and has him admitting that he hurt Danny.

That's all in the UK version. I've never seen the US cut.

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

[chip75]

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Baron Blood

You prefer his books...fine.

Never said anything about his book.