The Shining (1980)

[Beta Man]

PLAY NICE YOU TWO


Here's some food for thought........

Monthly Film Bulletin - Nov 1980 - Vol. 47 No. 562

Shine On...and Out

(The Shining has been dwindling fast since it was released in the U.S. earlier this year. A two-minute sequence was deleted from the end of the film in the first weeks of its run. After playing to generally bad reviews and erratic box-office in America, the film was preview-tested before its opening in London and a further twenty-five minutes were cut.

The two version of The Shining are the US cut with has a running time of 144 minutes and the international version which is 20 minutes shorter. Both versions have the status of "director's cuts" as Kubrick made the cuts himself.

[Beaner666]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

I consider myself quite the Kubrick enthusiast but let's not pump ourselves up with self-aggrandizing labels; rather, let's stick to the issue: if Kubrick never said it, how is his preference common knowledge rather than uncommon supposition? All I'm asking is back up your claims with evidence. Again, back up your claims with evidence. Until you are willing and able to do that, the most you can meaningfully offer this discussion is your opinion of which edit is better (which you've done repeatedly, without much supporting evidence there, I might add, but I digress); all insults aside, you simply have no ground to act like you used to be in "Kubrick's pocket".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/alternateversions

"When released theatrically in the United States, the film ran approx. 146 minutes. However, as explained above, three weeks into its release, Kubrick cut the 2 minute coda from the end of the film, reducing its length to 144 minutes. After meeting with poor reviews and erratic box office, Kubrick decided to further edit the film for its theatrical release outside the US. He cut approximately 31 minutes of footage, reducing the length to 113 minutes. The 144 minute 'US version' is often erroneously called the Director's Cut when in fact director Kubrick regarded the 113 minute version as the superior cut of the film. When the film was released on home video in the US, Kubrick endorsed the shorter version of the film as the 'official' version. Nevertheless, the longer version is the version now most commonly available."

I realize the IMDb is not the "be all, end all," but maybe this is where retablo is getting his info from.

[#Darren]

Yeah but anybody can write on imdb....

Originally Posted by Beaner666

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/alternateversions

"When released theatrically in the United States, the film ran approx. 146 minutes. However, as explained above, three weeks into its release, Kubrick cut the 2 minute coda from the end of the film, reducing its length to 144 minutes. After meeting with poor reviews and erratic box office, Kubrick decided to further edit the film for its theatrical release outside the US. He cut approximately 31 minutes of footage, reducing the length to 113 minutes. The 144 minute 'US version' is often erroneously called the Director's Cut when in fact director Kubrick regarded the 113 minute version as the superior cut of the film. When the film was released on home video in the US, Kubrick endorsed the shorter version of the film as the 'official' version. Nevertheless, the longer version is the version now most commonly available."

I realize the IMDb is not the "be all, end all," but maybe this is where retablo is getting his info from.

[Beaner666]

Originally Posted by iDarren

Yeah but anybody can write on imdb....

Which is exactly why I said "I realize the IMDb is not the 'be all, end all' "

[#Darren]

There is a big difference between not being the "be all, end all"" and possibly completely made up. The imdb info could be completely false. That is all I was trying to make clear.

Originally Posted by Beaner666

Which is exactly why I said "I realize the IMDb is not the 'be all, end all' "

[kubrick]

Originally Posted by JediFonger

obviously a bit biased right kubrick?

eerrm.... yeah, did my name give it away!!

[jdc115]

Why are people completely caught up in which version maybe Kubrick's "director cut" as if it means anything to their preference? It seems he was happy with both versions and everybody should just enjoy the version they prefer. 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.

I have seen both versions and it really didn't loose too much for me to watch the shorter version. There were a few times I kept thinking that there is a scene missing and I didn't know why. Now I know why after reading this thread.

[neo_reloaded]

I have both versions, but the one I usually go for is the longer US cut. Both were cut by Kubrick, so I don't consider either "compromised" or some kind of hack cut. If he ended up preferring the shorter version, that's fine by me - I'm allowed to have my own preference. Hell, Lucas prefers the special edition versions of Star Wars and we all know how many people prefer the original theatrical ones instead. Same for FFC and Apocalypse Now / AN Redux. I don't begrudge them making changes after the initial release, but I also don't feel obligated to necessarily agree with those changes.

[dougotte]

Originally Posted by Beaner666

It contains two English 5.1 tracks, one lossless and one lossy: Uncompressed PCM & Dolby Digital. It does not contain the original mono track. The movie was originally mono, so I'm assuming that the 5.1 stereo mix is processed from original mono track, but I don't know that as a fact.

Given the age of the movie and the fact that it was originally mono I thought the 5.1 mix sounded fine. Yes it was a little “front heavy” but that is to be expected on any film that was originally mono.

Indeed. The PCM track sounds very nice.
Doug

[Frere Fitch]

I think it remains at least likely that the shorter cut of The Shining was Kubrick's preferred version, simply because it remains, to this day, the standard international iteration (I'm sure Kubrick, who resided in the UK, did not consider a massive international audience to be less deserving of a superior cut).

And he certainly had influence outside of the States: up until his death, he withheld A Clockwork Orange from general release in the UK. I suspect Kubrick felt that the US release of The Shining was essentially out of his hands by the time he decided on further trims (it had been widely seen and reviewed at this stage).

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'm sure an audience familiar with the long cut would find the transition to the shorter cut somewhat jarring (perhaps another reason why Kubrick kept the long in circulation?), but from what I can gather, many of those who criticise the international, Kubrick endorsed cut do so without actually watching it, which of course is bizarre and contradictory. I do agree that the long cut is excellent, btw. At least we have the choice.

[KubrickFan]

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 have to agree with you here. Many of these scenes are more or less redundant to me. It helps too that most of Shelley Duvall's more annoying scenes (the Anne Jackson scene is one of those) are removed.
I prefer the shorter cut, but I'm glad to own both of them, as any fan of Kubrick should.

[F-Man]

I find that scene to be one of the most important of the entire film, because it shows that Wendy is in denial over her husband's practices. It plays importance to the scene near the end when she finally "wakes up".

Anyway, haven't bought the shorter cut yet, but I'll be sure to do it some time down the line.

[Lacit170]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

I have to agree with you here. Many of these scenes are more or less redundant to me. It helps too that most of Shelley Duvall's more annoying scenes (the Anne Jackson scene is one of those) are removed.
I prefer the shorter cut, but I'm glad to own both of them, as any fan of Kubrick should.

What is the Anne Jackson scene>?

[#Darren]

It is a scene at the start of the longer US cut. She plays the family doctor.

Originally Posted by Lacit170

What is the Anne Jackson scene>?

[6AM]

I find it hard to believe any director, Kubrick especially, would prefer a significantly shorter edit of the film. I don't think I've ever seen a "directors cut" that was shorter than the original theatrical release.

[Frere Fitch]

Originally Posted by F-Man

I find that scene to be one of the most important of the entire film, because it shows that Wendy is in denial over her husband's practices. It plays importance to the scene near the end when she finally "wakes up".

With the scene removed, Wendy's state of denial must be inferred. However, the extant film's subtext does allude to this conclusion, even if makes for a slightly less immediate impression of the family dynamic.

[Atreyu]

I have only seen the extended version so I cannot say whether the shorter version is better.
I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion, like me, as I would tend to agree with those who think the shorter version would not be that good.
But shouldn't all of us just wait until we have a chance to see both before we judge?
P.S. Is the shorter version available on a blu that will play in my Region 1 player?

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by 6AM

I find it hard to believe any director, Kubrick especially, would prefer a significantly shorter edit of the film. I don't think I've ever seen a "directors cut" that was shorter than the original theatrical release.

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.

[martymc80s]

It's one of my favourite films - and I am a huge fan of the Blu-ray. The picture quality is fantastic - and I'm happy it looks as good as it can.

I'm answering the question by the OP by the way, got no idea what on earth the arguments were about. But yes - there is a UK version (available on Blu-ray) and a US version. I have both - identical PQ & AQ except for the cuts that Kubrick made.

Peace.

[AKORIS]

sorry to appear ignorant-- I have the U.S. blu-ray. It's the same version I've seen my whole life from cable to vhs to dvd, etc. It has the Anne Jackson scene in the beginning--

do I have the long version or the short version?