The Shining (1980)

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by amarster

i really like seeing so much passion on this message board for this film. It is probably the best horror film of all time...and yes this includes the previous ground rattler The Exorcist. All of the arguments about alcoholism are also expected with two different cuts of the movie focusing on this aspect differently. I think this is an ultimate haunted house film because all hauntings would probably prey on the weakest aspect of the occupants personality..which in this case is Jack's dependency on alcohol. The spirits direct him throughout the film to pursue this path and ultimately convince him to attempt to kill his family. I really wish Kubrick would have commented on this directly but this is the beauty of film and it is ultimately up to the the viewer and their interpretation to what they are seeing and what it means to them.

Good insights. In the novel, I think Stephen King did a brilliant job showing us Jack's interior struggles and how haunted he was by his abusive father and his feelings of inadequacy as a father, husband and writer. In fact, those are probably the most powerful sections of the book... and King did a great job showing how the evil in the hotel subtly played on Jack's emotional shortcomings and his alcoholism. You really felt great sympathy for Jack.

In some ways, Kubrick was in a no-win situation with this material because it's really hard (if not impossible) to dramatize all these interior struggles. (King tried to do it a bit in the mini-series but it felt clumsy.)

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by English Patient

In some ways, Kubrick was in a no-win situation with this material because it's really hard (if not impossible) to dramatize all these interior struggles. (King tried to do it a bit in the mini-series but it felt clumsy.)

One of my favorite Kubrick quotes is "If it can be thought, it can be filmed." He didn't remove that material because of difficulties, he removed it as part of a general overall choice to make Jack the villain rather than the hero.

[Rzzzz]

I can't believe this movie is still being talked about after all these years. I will never forget when I saw this with my sister and 2 cousins at the movie theater the Friday or Saturday it came out. All we knew about it is that it was a scary movie with Jack Nicholson in it. We all left the theater blown away and knew we just watched something very unique. This is one of those movies I have seen so many times I have lost count. I know a lot of the theories are far fetched (but still fun) but the one I have always wondered about is the missing chairs in the middle of scenes and things like that. If I recall correctly, Kubrick's assistant says they were honest mistakes where others claim it was to cause the viewer to be disoriented. With all the takes Kubrick did, I find it hard to believe he wouldn't notice a missing chair behind Jack Nicholson in a scene. What do you guys think?

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

One of my favorite Kubrick quotes is "If it can be thought, it can be filmed." He didn't remove that material because of difficulties, he removed it as part of a general overall choice to make Jack the villain rather than the hero.

I've just been reading the Stanley Kubrick Archives book, and in one of the Kubrick interviews he comments on all that material about Jack's past and says "there's the case of putting in too many psychological clues of trying to explain why Jack is the way he is, which is not really important." So I'm wrong - Kubrick eliminated that stuff because he just didn't seem all that interested in that kind of backstory. Which is a shame - to me, it's the heart and soul of the book. Evidently Kubrick had a different interpretation of what's important in the story.

He also goes on to say that the handful of subtle clues in the movie accomplish what "King works so hard to put in." In my opinion, though, he isn't successful and the character seems thinly constructed.

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by Cherokee Jack

Might as well admit it: 2001 has always been a struggle for me to get through. Spectacularly shot film and very profound (and once again brilliant music selections) but I go back to it less often than any other Kubrick film from Paths of Glory onward with the possible exception of Lolita. I'm not gonna claim it would benefit from any trimming though as the material obviously requires a glacial pace if you don't want to cheapen it.

Can't understand someone being bored in any way by Blade Runner though. It's got something for everyone: sci-fi, film noir, philosophizing, spectacular imagery and music. The new one is a bit more one-note and does indeed feel longer but I had no problem with its pacing either.

Right. I can get through The Shining without the use of any drugs.

Movies, and music for that matter, that require drug usage to appreciate and enjoy it, are too eclectic for me.

("Drugs" here would also include tobacco and alcohol...)

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by English Patient

Evidently Kubrick had a different interpretation of what's important in the story.

I've probably said this somewhere already in this thread, but I think the basic tactic Kubrick took in adapting this book is that he took a story about how awful it is to live as a violent alcoholic monster and instead made the movie about how awful it is to live with a violent alcoholic monster. King did a great job of fleshing out Jack as a sympathetic guy because King sympathized with him, since he was also an alcoholic writer who hated teaching (and I believe even broke his son's arm while drunk). But Kubrick sympathized with Wendy and Danny instead. They're already trapped, before the hotel enters into the picture.

[Retroj23]

Everyone! Everyone! Obviously this film is Kubricks admission on him faking the moon landing . Duh!!

Just kidding!!

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by English Patient

I've just been reading the Stanley Kubrick Archives book, and in one of the Kubrick interviews he comments on all that material about Jack's past and says "there's the case of putting in too many psychological clues of trying to explain why Jack is the way he is, which is not really important." So I'm wrong - Kubrick eliminated that stuff because he just didn't seem all that interested in that kind of backstory. Which is a shame - to me, it's the heart and soul of the book. Evidently Kubrick had a different interpretation of what's important in the story.

He also goes on to say that the handful of subtle clues in the movie accomplish what "King works so hard to put in." In my opinion, though, he isn't successful and the character seems thinly constructed.

I would agree with this and the assessment applies to both cuts. It's one reason I think I prefer the Euro cut: that one abandons all pretense of diving deep into Jack's history and focuses instead on his actions in the present. That's where I feel the film's strengths lie. I also don't think Nicholson is the ideal actor for portraying a struggling writer who supposedly reads the NY Review of Books but he does play crazy and abusive incredibly well so it helps for the film to focus more on the latter aspects of his character. The viewer can fill in his backstory as they see fit.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Again, you just made my argument - Kubrick intended to divert the audience that Jack would go mad from alcoholism when in fact he ends up going mad from the supernatural. And its much more effective to accomplish that diversion if you tell the audience he's an alcoholic upfront.

The point of the film (called the Shining, from a book about a haunted hotel) was for the audience to be distracted for the first hour with the suspense of a non-horror threat of alcoholism and child abuse?

I believe it's just a common assumption that the audience that is told outright is better informed than that audience that's allowed to intuit a character's sympathies/attitudes/flaws/strengths etc from juxtaposition, irony etc.

[andyk69]

Originally Posted by amarster

i really like seeing so much passion on this message board for this film. It is probably the best horror film of all time...and yes this includes the previous ground rattler The Exorcist. All of the arguments about alcoholism are also expected with two different cuts of the movie focusing on this aspect differently. I think this is an ultimate haunted house film because all hauntings would probably prey on the weakest aspect of the occupants personality..which in this case is Jack's dependency on alcohol. The spirits direct him throughout the film to pursue this path and ultimately convince him to attempt to kill his family. I really wish Kubrick would have commented on this directly but this is the beauty of film and it is ultimately up to the the viewer and their interpretation to what they are seeing and what it means to them.

Perfect! that's exactly how I feel,
and we should remember, at least in Kubricks vision, Jack was a recurrent soul in the hotel hunted history.

Brilliant film! Kubrick was really an exceptional film maker.

I just get really creeped out the first minutes of the film with the sense of thread in those aerial shots and the soundtrack.

[bobbyh64]

This is how I interpret the ending:
Jack failed to corrrrrect his family, so the hotel colllllected him.

[drush9999]

I've always assumed Jack has the Shining too, but doesn't realise or ignores it in his adulthood. Which makes him more attuned to the hotel.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by Boggle

Ohhh, so Jack was the one who strangled Danny... riiiiight yes... Must've been that "toxic masculinity" I've heard so much about.

Scoff if you like, but it's not exactly pushing the bounds of allegory to say that a film about a man stuck in a hotel for months at a time who ends up trying to murder his wife and son has "something to say" about "things." Sure, it's a cracking good horror film; it can be more than that.

I haven't seen an Ager video in years, so if I'm mangling his central premise I apologize, but my favourite insights are some of the most basic ones. (Apologies if others have mentioned these; I haven't been very thorough in following this thread.)

Jack resents his responsibilities to his family because they're getting in the way of his "work." His work involves "taking care of" stuff and writing "his story" (history). When the burden of responsibility becomes too great, he tries to "take care" of Danny and Wendy. He loses sight of what makes man a man -- he's bewitched by the lavish surroundings that have been left in his care, and holding on to these things (a job, status, property, freedom) become more important to him than the protection of his family.

There's also the suggestion that we're dealing with the legacy of abuse in this film as much as a ghostly presence, and the idea that Jack's father (and father's father -- shades of the final photograph) is an important player here. I will say this: after hearing Ager discuss the symmetry between the bathroom seduction scene and uncomfortable father-son dialogue on the bed, the latter scene becomes a great deal more icky, and one can't completely discount that Jack's abuse isn't just violent, but also sexual.

If you don't care for "toxic masculinity", that's fine, but I think it's selling Kubrick short to suggest that he was completely ignorant to these symbolic underpinnings.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Cherokee Jack

I would agree with this and the assessment applies to both cuts. It's one reason I think I prefer the Euro cut: that one abandons all pretense of diving deep into Jack's history and focuses instead on his actions in the present. That's where I feel the film's strengths lie. I also don't think Nicholson is the ideal actor for portraying a struggling writer who supposedly reads the NY Review of Books but he does play crazy and abusive incredibly well so it helps for the film to focus more on the latter aspects of his character. The viewer can fill in his backstory as they see fit.

That's a good point - the film's strength lies in showing what's happening in the present. It's probably true of any film, too. In a novel, it's relatively easy to have characters thinking back on things in the past, either through elaborate flashbacks or moments of interior monologue, and if the writer is good enough it won't feel clumsy or forced. In a film, though, flashbacks can be pretty clumsy and intrusive, and it's also harder to get inside the head of the character and communicate his thoughts and feelings.

I think Kubrick really tried to communicate & dramatize the Torrance family's dynamics and history through fairly subtle means - the occasional bit of dialogue, the looks the characters give one another at certain times (like the nervous, wary looks Wendy gives Jack), etc. I know Kubrick had little patience for characters talking about themselves at length, so he tried to condense and distill that info into a look or a well-placed line of dialogue. Stephen King would spend 2 or 3 chapters showing Wendy's conflicting feelings about Jack (she's afraid of his temper but still wants to be a good, loyal wife), but Kubrick (and every filmmaker, really) doesn't have the time to do that; a few quick bits of interaction between the characters is enough for him.

[thatguamguy]

I was thinking, in response to your points about the novel, that one thing which the movie doesn't really have that I do miss, I never get a sense of why Jack and Wendy got together and fell in love. They don't seem to like each other, they don't seem to have much in common, and I think seeing something of them early on might've made their performances feel more rounded.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by drush9999

I've always assumed Jack has the Shining too, but doesn't realise or ignores it in his adulthood. Which makes him more attuned to the hotel.

I think the book at least alludes to the possibility that Jack and Wendy both have weak-shines, and that's why Danny shines so strong.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Again, you just made my argument - Kubrick intended to divert the audience that Jack would go mad from alcoholism when in fact he ends up going mad from the supernatural. And its much more effective to accomplish that diversion if you tell the audience he's an alcoholic upfront.

The misdirection isn't just alcoholism, but other factors hinted at too like "cabin fever". The interview scene where Ullman talks about Grady, and how the isolation got to him was a misdirected bit of foreshadowing.

[Todd Tomorrow]

In the novel the characters definitely made much more sense than in the film. In the beginning we get that the Torrence‘s are a troubled family, but Jack is more relatable and likable despite a history of drinking and abuse. By the end he turns into far more of a monster than he does in the film and he inflicts horrific violence on Wendy.

I love the film on its own Stanley Kubrick terms. It’s incredibly atmospheric and it looks and sounds incredible. However just in terms of character and plot the novel is superior and makes more sense. You still just about get the idea though in the film that due to his troubles, Jack is more susceptible to they Overlook and it’s ghosts.

I’m also not much of a fan of the supposedly more faithful mini series which isn’t actually as faithful to the novel as it claims, much of which have to do with the limitations of it being made for network television. Jack and Wendy are more like they are in the novel but it’s a toothless adaptation. There is a brief dream sequence in which Jack turns into the monster he becomes in the novel and it gives you an idea of the potential a more faithful adaptation but for some reason they never really go there for real.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I think the book at least alludes to the possibility that Jack and Wendy both have weak-shines, and that's why Danny shines so strong.

I dunno about Wendy, but I do recall the novel suggesting that Jack had the shine to some degree (but that Danny's was much stronger and the hotel was after him specifically).

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I love the film on its own Stanley Kubrick terms. It’s incredibly atmospheric and it looks and sound incredible. However just in terms of character and plot the novel is superior and makes more sense. However you still get the idea that due to his troubles, Jack is more susceptible to they Overlook and it’s ghosts.

Yup. I think it's a lot like Suspiria, actually, in the sense that the plot/characterisation is paper-thin, but it succeeds regardless on the strength of its visuals and sound design.

Another thing I liked about the novel is the idea that both Jack and Wendy were repeating the mistakes of their parents. I still haven't seen the mini-series, so I don't know if this was covered in it.

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I was thinking, in response to your points about the novel, that one thing which the movie doesn't really have that I do miss, I never get a sense of why Jack and Wendy got together and fell in love. They don't seem to like each other, they don't seem to have much in common, and I think seeing something of them early on might've made their performances feel more rounded.

Kubrick has actually commented on how he changed Wendy's character into a rather dim doormat so it would be more realistic that she'd end up and stay with an a**hole like Jack. I buy the relationship in the movie more than I buy Jack being some kind of intellectual personally.

One film/TV relationship that did always perplex me was Walter and Skyler White. There was absolutely no connection between those two. I remember liking the flashback they had of them buying a house and wishing that we'd get to see some more of that kind of history. Minus any context, Skyler just comes off as a joyless nag who gets in the way of Walt's far more compelling story.