The Shining (1980)

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

King had the same complaint. He said Jack was a normal man that basically gets possessed by the demons of the hotel, but Nicholson was just "crazy right from the start."

I just reject that theory outright. If he was "crazy right from the start", then this implies that

[Show spoiler]swining an axe, chasing your son in a maze to kill him, typing the same lines over and over and saying "I'm going to bash your head in" to your wife

is even REMOTELY similar to

[Show spoiler]discussing cannabilism on a car trip, saying your wife is a horror film addict and hitting your son

To believe he is a "crazy guy" who just went "crazy" implies that he just continued his current behavior patterns, and that there wasn't a HUGE change in them. Can't buy that for a second.

[surfdude12]

what do you guys think the

[Show spoiler]final photo

means? SPOILERS!

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I just reject that theory outright. If he was "crazy right from the start", then this implies that

[Show spoiler]swining an axe, chasing your son in a maze to kill him, typing the same lines over and over and saying "I'm going to bash your head in" to your wife

is even REMOTELY similar to

[Show spoiler]discussing cannabilism on a car trip, saying your wife is a horror film addict and hitting your son

To believe he is a "crazy guy" who just went "crazy" implies that he just continued his current behavior patterns, and that there wasn't a HUGE change in them. Can't buy that for a second.

Cabin Fever. Didn't you see The Thing? First thing they discussed as an explanation for the Norwegians behavior.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I just reject that theory outright. If he was "crazy right from the start", then this implies that

[Show spoiler]swining an axe, chasing your son in a maze to kill him, typing the same lines over and over and saying "I'm going to bash your head in" to your wife

is even REMOTELY similar to

[Show spoiler]discussing cannabilism on a car trip, saying your wife is a horror film addict and hitting your son

To believe he is a "crazy guy" who just went "crazy" implies that he just continued his current behavior patterns, and that there wasn't a HUGE change in them. Can't buy that for a second.

It's funny that he wasn't that way in the book from the start, though. And the book had a much more defined character arc, since he wasn't already off the deep end in the beginning. The fact that

[Show spoiler]the spirits in the hotel possessed him

makes it perfectly plausible for a "normal" guy to do a slow burn and gradually go nuts, but the movie didn't show that in an effective way at all.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

what do you guys think the

[Show spoiler]final photo

means? SPOILERS!

That it was a rip off of an old Twilight Zone episode and also not original.

[csdot]

Originally Posted by retablo

Hmm, I guess there's a difference in reading what I wrote and actually understanding it.

You said BW didn't invent the found footage movie. I agreed, but said (and this is true) that it's the reason for the genre being popular today. So in that regard, it's way more influential than The Shining, which was an adaptation of a book and didn't invent or popularize anything.

In regards to, what, the Steadicam? Films like Rocky and Marathon Man used it very effectively years before Kubrick did.

It doesn't help that neither film is that great. The Shining is easily Kubrick's worst film, and BW was a movie with no acting or plot. It's kind of like arguing which animal's feces smells worse. Although The Shining made $44 million of a $22 mil budget, whereas BW made $248 mil off a budget of under $1 mil. BW is the clear winner.

which is exactly what i said.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I just reject that theory outright. If he was "crazy right from the start", then this implies that

[Show spoiler]swining an axe, chasing your son in a maze to kill him, typing the same lines over and over and saying "I'm going to bash your head in" to your wife

is even REMOTELY similar to

[Show spoiler]discussing cannabilism on a car trip, saying your wife is a horror film addict and hitting your son

He was referencing the overall performance, citing that to him, Nicholson felt nuts right from the beginning and as a result didn't belong in the lead role. King had a lot of complaints about The Shining though, and I happen to disagree with most of what he dislikes about the movie. I think Kubrick improved on the premise--it's one of the few movies that I think is actually better than the book.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Cabin Fever. Didn't you see The Thing? First thing they discussed as an explanation for the Norwegians behavior.

Yeah, only once a year or two ago. Bought it and need to watch it again. Great film!

My point exactly though: he didn't just walk into the hotel

[Show spoiler]in crazy murderer mode

. he did walk in there with a few screws loose, no doubt, but like you said, the factors of

[Show spoiler]living at the hotel, the spirits, etc all converted him from a "weird guy" (no different than many people you might walk past on the street) to a homicidal maniac!

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

what do you guys think the

[Show spoiler]final photo

means? SPOILERS!

I always assumed that

[Show spoiler]he just became a part of the evil of the hotel. He would now be one of the ghosts screwing with people's minds.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

He was referencing the overall performance, citing that to him, Nicholson felt nuts right from the beginning and as a result didn't belong in the lead role. King had a lot of complaints about The Shining though, and I happen to disagree with most of what he dislikes about the movie. I think Kubrick improved on the premise--it's one of the few movies that I think is actually better then the book.

yeah, I guess this another example of where not reading the book is an asset of the movie viewing experience. starting from a CLEAN slate!

its a matter of scale for me. for the overall performance, he

[Show spoiler]went from "nuts level 1" to "nuts level 10"

, so the range was sufficient that I could see the change.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

To believe he is a "crazy guy" who just went "crazy" implies that he just continued his current behavior patterns, and that there wasn't a HUGE change in them. Can't buy that for a second.

No, not at all.

It's the difference between a strong, sane, basically decent guy who gets overwhelmed and subverted by evil spirits and a guy who already has his crazy bubbling just beneath the surface and essentially asks the evil spirts 'wtf took you so long'.

It's obviously not that black-and-white but it's a fair criticism.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

(1) as we've discussed before, Kubrick addressed this with Spielberg, who had the same complaint, but now rates the Shining as one of this all time favorites. its all about taste in acting style

Spielberg said his complaint was that Nicholson was over the top. He did not say that he faulted Nicholson because he looked like a possible homicidal maniac from the get go. Unless he's added to his remarks.

(2) your logic is actually 100% correct: if you were a spirit looking for a human candidate to turn crazy, you'd pick a person pre-disposed to being crazy, to minimize your efforts. why pick a Buddha type dude who still won't be nuts even after the snow has broke? its like picking a piece of wood to cut: start with a piece that requires minimal cutting!

And minimal character development.

I grant you that Kubrick may not have been concerned with character development in this piece, and instead was interested in environment, isolation, spaces, atmosphere, fate, etc. If casting Nicholson was a shortcut, it was a shortcut that bypassed character arcs, not to mention tragedy. Then again, maybe Kubrick wasn't concderned with all that, and tried to avoid standard convention. *shrug* Dunno. Mongo only pawn in game of life.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

I always assumed that

[Show spoiler]he just became a part of the evil of the hotel. He would now be one of the ghosts screwing with people's minds.

I believe Kubrick published (or was quoted) saying that it

[Show spoiler]was in reference to "Jack's resurrection". Not sure if that means:

(a) a 1921 Jack lived and died as the caretaker. Then was re-born as 1980 Jack who became new caretaker and was either overtaken by his old 1921 spirit and/or other spirits (Grady) to kill his wife/kids. The 1921 photo was always on that wall.

(b) 1980 Jack lived as caretaker, was overtaken by evil spirits (Grady) to try to kill wife/kid. It was like a ghost fraternity: in exchange for Jack "correcting them" (killing wife/kids), the spirits would let Jack into the timeless spiritual dimension of the hotel. they deemed his efforts worthy, so let him in, and IT WAS ONLY THEN (in 1980) that the 1921 photo was modified to show Jack had entered the past of the Hotel.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I believe Kubrick published (or was quoted) saying that it

[Show spoiler]was in reference to "Jack's resurrection". Not sure if that means:

(a) a 1921 Jack lived and died as the caretaker. Then was re-born as 1980 Jack who became new caretaker and was either overtaken by his old 1921 spirit and/or other spirits (Grady) to kill his wife/kids. The 1921 photo was always on that wall.

(b) 1980 Jack lived as caretaker, was overtaken by evil spirits (Grady) to try to kill wife/kid. It was like a ghost fraternity: in exchange for Jack "correcting them" (killing wife/kids), the spirits would let Jack into the timeless spiritual dimension of the hotel. they deemed his efforts worthy, so let him in, and IT WAS ONLY THEN (in 1980) that the 1921 photo was modified to show Jack had entered the past of the Hotel.

Well, that might be Kubrick's take, but it doesn't work for me. I prefer the simpler view I have on it. I do however happen to like slightly ambiguous endings like that though. I like when I can let my imagination go beyond the end of the film, and the endless conversations that ensure over such things.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by octagon

It's the difference between a strong, sane, basically decent guy who gets overwhelmed and subverted by evil spirits and a guy who already has his crazy bubbling just beneath the surface and essentially asks the evil spirts 'wtf took you so long'.

now I agree with that! much different than the wording i was responding to.

no doubt, it would have been a much different film with the former "normal" type guy. but its anyone's guess if the film would be any better, and its hard to imagine it getting any more acclaim.

[easyrider]

[QUOTE=surfdude12;5363954]I believe Kubrick published (or was quoted) saying that it [spoiler]was in reference to "Jack's resurrection". Not sure if that means:

I've always gone with option b -

[Show spoiler]b) 1980 Jack lived as caretaker, was overtaken by evil spirits (Grady) to try to kill wife/kid. It was like a ghost fraternity: in exchange for Jack "correcting them" (killing wife/kids), the spirits would let Jack into the timeless spiritual dimension of the hotel. they deemed his efforts worthy, so let him in, and IT WAS ONLY THEN (in 1980) that the 1921 photo was modified to show Jack had entered the past of the Hotel. /SPOILER](b) 1980 Jack lived as caretaker, was overtaken by evil spirits (Grady) to try to kill wife/kid. It was like a ghost fraternity: in exchange for Jack "correcting them" (killing wife/kids), the spirits would let Jack into the timeless spiritual dimension of the hotel. they deemed his efforts worthy, so let him in, and IT WAS ONLY THEN (in 1980) that the 1921 photo was modified to show Jack had entered the past of the Hotel.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

You have to remember too that Jack was an alcoholic on the wagon. In the book, he initially copes with it a lot better than he does in the film. In the movie, I always had the impression that he was off-kilter from the start because of the annoyance/frustration of his booze demons constantly calling to him. Anyone that's ever tried to quit any kind of addiction (drugs, food, cigarettes) can understand this--it tends to bring out the crazy in us.

[oildude]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

You have to remember too that Jack was an alcoholic on the wagon. In the book, he initially copes with it a lot better than he does in the film. In the movie, I always had the impression that he was off-kilter from the start because of the annoyance/frustration of his booze demons constantly calling to him. Anyone that's ever tried to quit any kind of addiction (drugs, food, cigarettes) can understand this--it tends to bring out the crazy in us.

This is exactly how I felt about the character. Recall how

[Show spoiler]Shelly Duval tells the doctor about Jack's drinking. He has not been clean very long when they go to the hotel.

This makes him more vulnerable to possession.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

You have to remember too that Jack was an alcoholic on the wagon. In the book, he initially copes with it a lot better than he does in the film. In the movie, I always had the impression that he was off-kilter from the start because of the annoyance/frustration of his booze demons constantly calling to him. Anyone that's ever tried to quit any kind of addiction (drugs, food, cigarettes) can understand this--it tends to bring out the crazy in us.

yes - great point! withdrawal = not pleasant!

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by oildude

This is exactly how I felt about the character. Recall how

[Show spoiler]Shelly Duval tells the doctor about Jack's drinking. He has not been clean very long when they go to the hotel.

This makes him more vulnerable to possession.

yeah like 5 months or something. plus remember when they're getting teh initial tour and Jack looks behind the bar and the guy goes "sorry, we take all our liquor out for the winter, to save on insurance.

Jack's face -->

[rebelmswar]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Well, that might be Kubrick's take, but it doesn't work for me. I prefer the simpler view I have on it. I do however happen to like slightly ambiguous endings like that though. I like when I can let my imagination go beyond the end of the film, and the endless conversations that ensure over such things.

There were two scenes also shot, but never used, that makes the ending more, or slightly less, ambiguous, depending on your opinion on what actually went on.

[Show spoiler]One scene was police walking back and forth in front of the frozen Jack yet not seeing him. The other was Ullman visiting Danny and Wendy at the hospital and giving Danny the tennis ball whilst trying to convince Wendy that nothing supernatural happened.