The Shining (1980)

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

http://faqtheshining.blogspot.com/20...nny-as-he.html

i think you'll find this read good. right on-point of your post and offers great argument to support a 100% psychological interpretation and opening of the door

I'm always open to new interpretations of The Shining, but I've never been able to get behind Jonny53's stuff. If he's the only one to offer a completely non-supernatural explanation, then I'll stop looking. (I can't see an ax doing the job either.)

When he goes off on his "Dick Halloran never lies by definition and therefore he was sent back to the Overlook by Ullman to check up on the 'unreliable ###holes', not because Danny/Jack shined and he's worried abou them" I just want to sign the commitment papers.

Now this one I've read several times, and it's terrific, but I can't recall off hand what he has to say about Jack's escape:

http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining.html

[Crimson King]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

The Shining (1980 - Making of The Shining - Part 1 of 3) - HD - YouTube

check out 4:50-5:00 here

OMG this is SOO FUNNY. @4:50 Jack is warming up for the axe scene. The cameras are OFF. He starts to jog around the room and says out loud "die die!!! axe murderer kill!!!!"

what's the deal w/ Scatman Crothers crying on the "making of" video?

[spiritfox]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I like him better in Batman personally, but you're right he's great in this one too.

The Sining and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for me--pure and classic Jack!

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

When he goes off on his "Dick Halloran never lies by definition and therefore he was sent back to the Overlook by Ullman to check up on the 'unreliable ###holes', not because Danny/Jack shined and he's worried abou them" I just want to sign the commitment papers.

I didn't read that - I read him arguing that Jack did send Halloran back:

[Show spoiler]"Grady: Did you know, Mr. Torrance, that your son... is attempting to bring an outside party into this situation? Did you know that?
Another lie as it’s Jack with his ability to “Shine” who alerts Dick Hallorann that something is wrong at The Overlook. If you find this hard to believe remember that Dick Hallorann knows something is wrong only when Jack walks into room 237 and not when Danny is strangled, which happened earlier. This is very important; as Jack meets the old woman he is “Shining” that image of room 237 into Dick Hallorann’s head. Danny never telepathically calls Dick Hallorann when he's attacked, in fact there is no place in the dialogue or on the screen that proves that he ever calls on him at all."

like you, I dont dig everything he says. but his points about telepathic moving of objects and "pictures don't lie" is undeniable. I watched the film last night and he's correct! objects are moving in between frames without any human touching them!

[Show spoiler] jack removing paper from the typewriter, and then magically another paper appears in the typewriter without him putting it in. 3 stickers on danny's bedroom door in scene 1, then 2 stickers on his door in scene 2. no red cans on the shelf in storage closet in scene 1, then 7 red cans on shelf in storage closet in scene 2 (i don't recall a delivery truck arriving!) either kubrick is incompetent (no chance) or he's at something here. do those who shine have jedi powers?

thanks, i'll check out that other site.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by BillyJack

what's the deal w/ Scatman Crothers crying on the "making of" video?

I thought that was awesome - if only everyone enjoyed their job that much!

[oildude]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

like you, I dont dig everything he says. but his points about telepathic moving of objects and "pictures don't lie" is undeniable. I watched the film last night and he's correct! objects are moving in between frames without any human touching them!

[Show spoiler] jack removing paper from the typewriter, and then magically another paper appears in the typewriter without him putting it in. 3 stickers on danny's bedroom door in scene 1, then 2 stickers on his door in scene 2. no red cans on the shelf in storage closet in scene 1, then 7 red cans on shelf in storage closet in scene 2 (i don't recall a delivery truck arriving!) either kubrick is incompetent (no chance) or he's at something here. do those who shine have jedi powers?

thanks, i'll check out that other site.

These could also be continuity errors between takes, which happens in movies, even a Stanley Kubrick film. Just sayin'.

[Ernest Rister]

This might be the first time I've ever heard of continuity errors in The Shining explained as intentional.

What are the helicopter blades accidentally seen in an establishing shot of the Overlook? A Ghost Activation Alarm?

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

This might be the first time I've ever heard of continuity errors in The Shining explained as intentional.

What are the helicopter blades accidentally seen in an establishing shot of the Overlook? A Ghost Activation Alarm?

Hardly visible in the intended 1.85:1 version, most likely.

And Kubrick also created continuity errors in A Clockwork Orange to make a certain scene look off, so it's not like he hasn't done it before.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

What are the helicopter blades accidentally seen in an establishing shot of the Overlook? A Ghost Activation Alarm?

the helicopter blades aren't in the 16:9 frame.

do you think Kubrick also accidentally put a window in the interview office, when a solid wall is on the other side of the window??? see 4:00-4:20 in video

THE SHINING in-depth analysis by Rob Ager pt 1 of 3 - YouTube

see 4:00-4:20

[Shanester]

Love this movie! The way Kubrick slowly builds the tension throughout is brilliant and Jack has never been better

[jj5206]

This is one of my favorite movies. I'm going to try and watch it for Halloween...

[Lacit170]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

http://faqtheshining.blogspot.com/20...nny-as-he.html

i think you'll find this read good. right on-point of your post and offers great argument to support a 100% psychological interpretation and opening of the door

that whole blog seems like utter nonsense to me....

[I KEEL YOU]

I've read that article and although it mentions some pretty wild stuff, like the assumption that the movie is a metaphor for the Mayan Armageddon (which according to the writer isn't in 2012, but 2011), I do find it interesting that the pose Jack has in the picture has an uncanny resemblance to Baphomet and the Devil:







Jack even has a band aid on his hand to cover the scar the Devil has:



Creepy stuff. It may be the most cryptic movie ever made. And the blog pointed out how those obvious continuity errors were put there on purpose. Because in this scene, even Wendy's wristwatch matches the clock on the wall:





If he had this tiny detail spot on, Kubrick would've easily seen those other obvious errors and would've corrected them if he wanted them corrected.

[F-Man]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

This might be the first time I've ever heard of continuity errors in The Shining explained as intentional.

What are the helicopter blades accidentally seen in an establishing shot of the Overlook? A Ghost Activation Alarm?

I hear about it all the time. I don't think I know any other movie with objects moving so much from one shot to another. Not just small things either, but rugs, tables, decoration and all. It has to be intentional.

And isn't the helicopter blades just an effect of the open matte version?

[F-Man]

Originally Posted by Lacit170

that whole blog seems like utter nonsense to me....

I've read through it before and I gotta agree. The analysis by Rob Ager (with one of his videos posted a bit earlier in the tread) is pretty spot-on though. I really recommend people read it, and you can even start deducing things on your own afterward.

[Show spoiler]Like how the hallways that Danny rides his tricycle into only when it's night and he should be sleeping is like his brain, with each doors being memories. He can't open one of the doors and runs away in panic because it's the repressed memories of the horrible things his father has done to him.

[Lacit170]

Originally Posted by F-Man

I've read through it before and I gotta agree. The analysis by Rob Ager (with one of his videos posted a bit earlier in the tread) is pretty spot-on though. I really recommend people read it, and you can even start deducing things on your own afterward.

[Show spoiler]Like how the hallways that Danny rides his tricycle into only when it's night and he should be sleeping is like his brain, with each doors being memories. He can't open one of the doors and runs away in panic because it's the repressed memories of the horrible things his father has done to him.

can you attach the article by Rob Ager

[F-Man]

Originally Posted by Lacit170

can you attach the article by Rob Ager

http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining.html

It's funny, I was just checking his site and it looks like he's recently had an argument with someone on this "continuity errors" stuff:

http://www.collativelearning.com/joh...0response.html

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by F-Man

I've read through it before and I gotta agree. The analysis by Rob Ager (with one of his videos posted a bit earlier in the tread) is pretty spot-on though. I really recommend people read it, and you can even start deducing things on your own afterward.

[Show spoiler]Like how the hallways that Danny rides his tricycle into only when it's night and he should be sleeping is like his brain, with each doors being memories. He can't open one of the doors and runs away in panic because it's the repressed memories of the horrible things his father has done to him.

I've only read 2-3 pages of the blog (discussing telepathic objects), so can't say what I think of it overall. Yes, some things were nonsense, but some things were interesting (like the devil imagery, the moving objects) which I don't remember Agler discussing.

I read it all "buffet style" - take what you like, leave the rest.

At any rate, we're doing what Kubrick intended - engaging in discussion about the meaning of the film.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

If he had this tiny detail spot on, Kubrick would've easily seen those other obvious errors and would've corrected them if he wanted them corrected.

People are paid to watch out for these exact same types of details in many large productions. You can take classes and get certified on continuity. So Kubrick had great continuity in some shots, not so great in others. From that you guys have extrapolated an awful lot. I think Shelley Duvall's cigarette changes shot to shot in one scene - but smoking is always a continuity hell-hole, and we can let that slide.

Other than that, you always have to be wary of the dazzling mirror of ourselves when crafting a proper film analysis. Meaning, make sure you're paying attention to and actually analyzing the movie, and not the distracting figure in the mirror of one's own intellectual self reflection.

For my part, I'm dubious to some of the claims -- but I have a mind open enough to listen. So far, not convinced. Jack's holding a piece of paper in his hand that came from God knows where (it could be a cigarette butt), and from that we extrapolate all kinds of mysticism and religious parables...unless these are rooted in concrete, demonstrable examples from the text or the filmmakers, then your analysis risks being swallowed by a tide of ephemeral intellectual bunny trails. It's a form of analysis I'm not partial to, as it dares disagreement by flaunting its own relativism, and clouds truth more than reveals it.

For instance, I can claim 101 Dalmatians strikes me as a pro-life movie, but I can't claim 101 Dalmatians *is* a pro-life movie, as that term had never been used (in our understanding of it) when the film was written or produced. By introducing that aspect into discussion of 101 Dalmatians, what happens is a form of theft, as we've taken the film away from the creators and, using selective evidence, try to claim a movie is saying something when the filmmakers wouldn't know what you were talking about even if you explained it to them five times (or used autocad to build a virtual Overlook).

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I've read that article and although it mentions some pretty wild stuff, like the assumption that the movie is a metaphor for the Mayan Armageddon (which according to the writer isn't in 2012, but 2011), I do find it interesting that the pose Jack has in the picture has an uncanny resemblance to Baphomet and the Devil:

I didn't read about the Mayan stuff, but agree that that sounds cuckoo. LIke I said, I read it all "buffet style" (take what sounds good, leave the rest). The devil analysis is fascinating! Its just one more possible interpretation to consider. Each time I watch the film, I may end up using a different interpretation (whatever comes natural at the time), which is what I love about Kubrick films - its like watching a different film each time.

I also loved how that blog discussed the last photo and referenced the photo in the novel, and the "big fake" quote. Another fascinating analysis, though the consequence of this would be what? that the photo is just a trick/gag (along with Grady's bathroom story), and there is no reincarnation plotline?

Jack even has a band aid on his hand to cover the scar the Devil has:

the blog pointed out how those obvious continuity errors were put there on purpose. Because in this scene, even Wendy's wristwatch matches the clock on the wall:

If he had this tiny detail spot on, Kubrick would've easily seen those other obvious errors and would've corrected them if he wanted them corrected.

perfectly stated!
Michael Bay? possible accidental errors. Stanley Kubrick? not in a million years.