The Shining (1980)

[jackinbox]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

I noticed that some of Kubrick's films that were originally released in mono have been released with 5.1 tracks. Did Kubrick ever make any stipulations that his sound mixes couldn't be altered? I find it strange that his estate would allow the mixes to be altered but are vehemently against showing alternate footage.

He did allow Dolby to remix part of Barry Lyndon in stereo for a demonstration and seemed to be fine with it.

Here's an article written by the Senior VP of Dolby at the time recalling his conversations with Kubrick regarding Dolby Stereo.

Three Decades Of Conversation With Stanley Kubrick Part 2

[hockeyshark91]

Just watched this for the first time in ages and the first time on blu. A few quick thoughts-
The PQ blew me away.

As good as Jack Nicholson was in this, Shelley Duvall owned all the scenes she
was in. I can't see anyone else in this role now.

I also didn't remember how the entire movie is filled with such dread and tension. One of the darker horror movies in existence.

[tomricci]

I so wish they have the extended ending in the hospital. I saw it on opening night in Manhattan quite by accident my friend and I went into the city to see The Empire Strikes Back but was sold out so we went across the street and saw The Shining with no expectations. Well the rest is history but I clearly remember the ending but then never saw it again. My understanding is Kubrick ordered the ending removed and all showings after that were cut. I wish I was old enough to see 2001 when it opened and see the original premiere version.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by hockeyshark91

Just watched this for the first time in ages and the first time on blu. A few quick thoughts-
The PQ blew me away.

As good as Jack Nicholson was in this, Shelley Duvall owned all the scenes she
was in. I can't see anyone else in this role now.

I also didn't remember how the entire movie is filled with such dread and tension. One of the darker horror movies in existence.

I thought she was a good choice. Jack Nicholson, not so much.

[hockeyshark91]

Originally Posted by pmil

I thought she was a good choice. Jack Nicholson, not so much.

I understand where King was coming from when he wanted an every-man to play the part. Start out mild mannered and then change Nicholson had a psychotic look from scene one.

[Chaotic]

Originally Posted by hockeyshark91

I understand where King was coming from when he wanted an every-man to play the part. Start out mild mannered and then change Nicholson had a psychotic look from scene one.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by hockeyshark91

I understand where King was coming from when he wanted an every-man to play the part. Start out mild mannered and then change Nicholson had a psychotic look from scene one.

Exactly. Nicholson already looked like a lunatic in the beginning. That's his look and style.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

See, like I said; he already looked like a lunatic in the beginning.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by tomricci

I so wish they have the extended ending in the hospital. I saw it on opening night in Manhattan quite by accident my friend and I went into the city to see The Empire Strikes Back but was sold out so we went across the street and saw The Shining with no expectations. Well the rest is history but I clearly remember the ending but then never saw it again. My understanding is Kubrick ordered the ending removed and all showings after that were cut. I wish I was old enough to see 2001 when it opened and see the original premiere version.

I hate when directors can't make up their minds or wish to redo things after the movie is released. That's why I am not a fan of directors cuts and extended versions of movies. In fact I hate them. Sometimes you can't even get the theatrical versions of movies. An example of that is the currently available version of The Patriot, available only as an extended version.

In another case where I wanted the theatrical version, in that case The Exorcist, I had to buy an expensive 2 disc combo book version just to get access to the theatrical version. I then sold the book it came with along with the directors cut/extended version disc, to try and make it an economical purchase.

[Bronson13]

This film is not NEARLY as amazing and iconic without Nicholson. Just a straight fact.

Yeah he looks like a mad man from the beginning but it just works. It's almost comical as to why Ullman would trust him to take care of this hotel after what had happened there in the past. Kubrick did a bunch of things in this movie that were a big F-you to King and this was one of them.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

This film is not NEARLY as amazing and iconic without Nicholson. Just a straight fact.

Yeah he looks like a mad man from the beginning but it just works. It's almost comical as to why Ullman would trust him to take care of this hotel after what had happened there in the past. Kubrick did a bunch of things in this movie that were a big F-you to King and this was one of them.

Not nearly? We don't know if it would be or not since no such version with another actor was made.

Personally, I think it would have been much more effective if he was just an ordinary appearing person. As I said, Nicholson already looked like an unhinged lunatic. He always does. So the buildup to him losing it wasn't remarkable.

[bobbyh64]

I like Nicholson in the role. That first scene with Ullman is so awkward and funny. I think the humorous aspects of The Shining work really well, whether they were intentional or not.

[eiknarf]

I'll finally get to see this in the theater! The Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn next month for a surprise party!!

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

I like Nicholson in the role. That first scene with Ullman is so awkward and funny. I think the humorous aspects of The Shining work really well, whether they were intentional or not.

My initial disappointment with the film was that for the first 45 minutes it promises to become the scariest horror film ever made and then it becomes more of a dark comedy. Once Nicholson goes into full Big Bad Wolf mode, I never found the movie scary again.

It didn’t help that I read the book before, which I still think is King’s scariest novel and which just gets scarier as it goes on. Thematically it is more interesting and tragic to have a flawed but basically decent man lose the battle against evil due to his demons, rather than a man who never even puts up a fight.

I also thought this was the film where Nicholson went from great actor to glazed ham. After that he increasingly gave broad performances featuring the same bag of tricks, rather than the subtle work he did in films like Five Easy Pieces and Chinatown. Lots of acting rather than great acting.

I do love the movie on its own terms. As a Kubrick film it’s stunning, as an adaptation of one of the greatest horror novels ever written, not so much.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

My initial disappointment with the film was that for the first 45 minutes it promises to become the scariest horror film ever made and then it becomes more of a dark comedy. Once Nicholson goes into full Big Bad Wolf mode, I never found the movie scary again.

It didn’t help that I read the book before, which I still think is King’s scariest novel and which just gets scarier as it goes on. Thematically it is more interesting and tragic to have a flawed but basically decent man lose the battle against evil due to his demons, rather than a man who never even puts up a fight.

I also thought this was the film where Nicholson went from great actor to glazed ham. After that he increasingly gave broad performances featuring the same bag of tricks, rather than the subtle work he did in films like Five Easy Pieces and Chinatown. Lots of acting rather than great acting.

I do love the movie on its own terms. As a Kubrick film it’s stunning, as an adaptation of one of the greatest horror novels ever written, not so much.

My feelings as well. In some of Kubrick's interviews, he basically dismisses all the stuff in the book about Jack's past and his struggles with alcohol and abuse - all the stuff that King probably felt was the heart of the story, since he devoted so much time to it. I think Kubrick was less interested in Jack Torrance as a tragic character and more interested in the overall situation of a woman and her son trapped in a place with a madman; he didn't seem all that interested in what made the guy go insane.

And you're right, this movie seemed to be the turning point for Nicholson where he became more of an over-the-top performer than a subtle actor (although he still gave good performances from time to time, like The Pledge and About Schmidt). The same can be said for Al Pacino. Maybe it's a case of directors/producers consciously shaping the films so they rely heavily on the actor's over-the-top qualities because they think that's what the audience wants.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

This film is not NEARLY as amazing and iconic without Nicholson. Just a straight fact.

Yeah he looks like a mad man from the beginning but it just works. It's almost comical as to why Ullman would trust him to take care of this hotel after what had happened there in the past. Kubrick did a bunch of things in this movie that were a big F-you to King and this was one of them.

I agree with you 100%. Nicholson IS the Shining. He owns it. We got Kings version (1997). It SUCKED. King writes books. Kubrick made movies. I for one am EXTREMELY grateful that Kubrick went with his instincts (the man was an absolute genius, I miss him dearly) and didn't listen to that arrogant, obnoxious big mouth. If he didn't want the movie made that way he should have never taken the money. Greedy bastard takes the money and then trashed Kubrick when he should have embraced his adaptation and been thankful for it. It is very difficult to make a movie from a book. I have a seen a movie, then read the book and realized the movie sucked (Midnight Express) or just wasn't nearly as good (Papillon, although Steve Mc Queens performance is worth the price of admission alone). The Shining holds its own because of the liberties that Nicholson and Kubrick took, in my opinion....

Edit: Oh yeah, some people think Shelly Duvall nearly ruined the movie. I thought she was amazing. I wish she would have been given or taken on more heavy roles. She could have been one of the greats....

[Bronson13]

Originally Posted by pmil

Not nearly? We don't know if it would be or not since no such version with another actor was made.

Personally, I think it would have been much more effective if he was just an ordinary appearing person. As I said, Nicholson already looked like an unhinged lunatic. He always does. So the buildup to him losing it wasn't remarkable.

Well you could say that about every movie. I just couldn’t see anyone in this role besides Nicholson. It was rumored Harrison Ford and Robert DeNiro were almost offered the role too. You probably would have gotten a more accurate Jack Torrence if they got casted. I personally thought I book sucked. Kings only good book is IT in my opinion.

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

I agree with you 100%. Nicholson IS the Shining. He owns it. We got Kings version (1997). It SUCKED. King writes books. Kubrick made movies. I for one am EXTREMELY grateful that Kubrick went with his instincts (the man was an absolute genius, I miss him dearly) and didn't listen to that arrogant, obnoxious big mouth. If he didn't want the movie made that way he should have never taken the money. Greedy bastard takes the money and then trashed Kubrick when he should have embraced his adaptation and been thankful for it. It is very difficult to make a movie from a book. I have a seen a movie, then read the book and realized the movie sucked (Midnight Express) or just wasn't nearly as good (Papillon, although Steve Mc Queens performance is worth the price of admission alone). The Shining holds its own because of the liberties that Nicholson and Kubrick took, in my opinion....

Edit: Oh yeah, some people think Shelly Duvall nearly ruined the movie. I thought she was amazing. I wish she would have been given or taken on more heavy roles. She could have been one of the greats....

I love Nicholson’s performance. When I saw The Shining as a teenager in 1980, I had not yet seen that much of his work. I was very aware of who he was, but he didn’t have any baggage – particularly from Cuckoo’s Nest – to prevent me from viewing him as a sane person. I think some of the criticism is fair, but to me, he comes off as quite sane during the early stages of the film. More importantly, I don’t think anyone else could have captured the level of insanity that Nicholson does. I believe that was what Kubrick wanted from him the most and I think it would have been a far more forgettable film without that performance.

A film was never going to capture the same descent into madness that the book did. I enjoyed the book as well, but I never cared a bit about the film’s departures from it. Hedge animals? C’mon. King can complain all he wants, but the film would have been a train wreck had it gone the paint by numbers route. They’re both hugely successful on their own levels.

And yes, Shelly Duvall was brilliant, which is something I’ve learned to appreciate. If you want to see her at her best, watch 3 Women.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by English Patient

My feelings as well. In some of Kubrick's interviews, he basically dismisses all the stuff in the book about Jack's past and his struggles with alcohol and abuse - all the stuff that King probably felt was the heart of the story, since he devoted so much time to it. I think Kubrick was less interested in Jack Torrance as a tragic character and more interested in the overall situation of a woman and her son trapped in a place with a madman; he didn't seem all that interested in what made the guy go insane.

And you're right, this movie seemed to be the turning point for Nicholson where he became more of an over-the-top performer than a subtle actor (although he still gave good performances from time to time, like The Pledge and About Schmidt). The same can be said for Al Pacino. Maybe it's a case of directors/producers consciously shaping the films so they rely heavily on the actor's over-the-top qualities because they think that's what the audience wants.

I think it didn't help that Kubrick saw Jack's struggle with the bottle as basically Stephen King putting his own troubles into print, Kubrick wasn't interested in having his movie be a platform for King's sermons on sobriety. (They probably weren't "sermons", before someone dedicates a post to correcting me, but "sermons on sobriety" sounded like a cool way to finish the post. Carry on.)

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think it didn't help that Kubrick saw Jack's struggle with the bottle as basically Stephen King putting his own troubles into print, Kubrick wasn't interested in having his movie be a platform for King's sermons on sobriety. (They probably weren't "sermons", before someone dedicates a post to correcting me, but "sermons on sobriety" sounded like a cool way to finish the post. Carry on.)

I think it's really strange what Kubrick deemed unimportant in the story - it seems like all the things that were important to King were pretty much dismissed by Kubrick. But I guess it's not that unusual anymore in moviemaking - Blade Runner took only a handful of things from its source novel, as did There Will Be Blood.

I also think a lot of the most harrowing material in the book - Jack's reminiscences about his alcoholism and his abusive childhood - probably couldn't be effectively portrayed in the movie anyway, at least not without cumbersome or awkward flashbacks or other means that slow down the movie. In a book, it's easy and effortless to get inside the head of a character for a page or two.