The Shining (1980)

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

maybe, since he made some pretty obvious errors before, he thought the scene should be about what the characters need to convey, instead of only about continuity.

if true, that would be quite misleading, as he tuned the background score to continuity.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

if true, that would be quite misleading, as he tuned the background score to continuity.

The beginning, yes. But the error appears at the end of the scene, and there's no music placed over that piece.

[ssjmichael]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Watched this scene last night and noticed something which make this an unlikely accidental error:

Kubrick has the background score climax to a symbol crash right when Jack tears the sheet from the typewriter. Clearly, when the score of the film is tuned to the removal of the paper, its not a trivial set piece removal, and thus replacing it by accidental error is a literal impossibility.

While I do agree that it was an error, it could also be that the cymbal crash is intentionally highlighting the sheet being torn to get us to pay attention to the typewriter which we wouldn't really take much notice of if it weren't, and thus when we see it again with paper back in it, it becomes a chilling realization that the Outlook is in fact alive and putting paper in the typewriter.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

The beginning, yes. But the error appears at the end of the scene, and there's no music placed over that piece.

of course there isn't a second symbol crash upon him replacing the paper - there coulnd't be a second symbol crash because he never replaced the paper - it magically shows up!

i'm not following you

if you just believe that Kubrick edited out him putting it in the typewriter, I can appreciate that argument, if I I disagree with it

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by ssjmichael

While I do agree that it was an error, it could also be that the cymbal crash is intentionally highlighting the sheet being torn to get us to pay attention to the typewriter which we wouldn't really take much notice of if it weren't, and thus when we see it again with paper back in it, it becomes a chilling realization that the Outlook is in fact alive and putting paper in the typewriter.

no, I don't think it was an accidental error either. Michael Bay wouldn't screw up that obvious of an error, where the set piece removal is highlighted with a background score symbol crash, and the set piece replacement isn't shown in a continuous sequence. IF Bay wouldn't miss it, KUbrick definietly wouldn't unless it was intentional.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

indeed...completely different...with the unfortunate exception that they both involve...paper in the typewriter.

One does not necessitate the inclusion of the other. Just because paper is ripped out (and a music cue added way after editing is completed) doesn't mean it wasn't a continuity error when it appears back in there.

The theory might be better proven if there is actually NO shots ever of the typewriter without paper in it. But I believe there are.

[ssjmichael]

It could just be that the loading back of the paper and getting it ready for typing took too long and ruined the pacing of the scene and was thus skipped. In that way, Kubrick is aware of the continuity error but overlooks it for the overall pacing of the scene.

I'm not saying I think that's what happened, just throwing out another theory.

Here's the scene btw:

The Shining- Typewriter Tantrum! - YouTube

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

of course there isn't a second symbol crash upon him replacing the paper - there coulnd't be a second symbol crash because he never replaced the paper - it magically shows up!

i'm not following you

if you just believe that Kubrick edited out him putting it in the typewriter, I can appreciate that argument, if I I disagree with it

I said that he could have replaced the paper during the scene, and perhaps those pieces were trimmed out. Then you start about the cymbal crashing, which starts at the beginning of the scene. The replaced piece of paper is at the end of the scene. This should be pretty straightforward, but you're the one that keeps being confusing here .

[Presence]

I think It's very obvious that it was intentional. The emphasis of the scene is Jack and his work and he uses the typewriter to slam home his point twice. He leans forward after having not moved from his relaxed position and the camera shows paper in the typewriter. He non-nonchalantly without thinking starts typing again like this scenario has occurred enough times for him not to take notice. He also has a weird, almost emotionless content face like he's internally happy he's writing again.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by ssjmichael

It could just be that the loading back of the paper and getting it ready for typing took too long and ruined the pacing of the scene and was thus skipped. In that way, Kubrick is aware of the continuity error but overlooks it for the overall pacing of the scene.

I'm not saying I think that's what happened, just throwing out another theory.

Here's the scene btw:

The Shining- Typewriter Tantrum! - YouTube

yeah, it just looks like something was cut out. If an actual physical people of paper was in the typewriter, it would've had to fly up off the table. The Kubrick FAQ agrees with me:

The thrust of this argument is a distrust of reading too much into the film. Any number of accidental happenings could account for the continuity errors.

(1) The high number of takes Kubrick demanded in the film would make continuity errors more likely (cigarettes burning down too quickly, furniture moving etc.) leading to what Garret Brown referred to as the forces of entropy taking over. GS: A point which I have made several times on amk and The Shining forum is a simple one which is often overlooked. That is, that in the process of editing a long scene, when the action gets greatly compressed, so-called 'continuity errors' are almost bound to occur. A good examples of this is the piece of paper in Jack's typewriter in the early 'why don't you get the **** out of here' scene. In the full version of the scene I am certain that Jack reloaded the typewriter just before continuing his typing.

[Presence]

It's also possible that during editing Kubrick took that bit out.

All the theories are legitimate.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

This should be pretty straightforward, but you're the one that keeps being confusing here .

dude, I said I appreciate your arguments, and asked what you meant by him having no music at the end. its all good.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

dude, I said I appreciate your arguments, and asked what you meant by him having no music at the end. its all good.

I hope so. I'm not arguing, by the way. Maybe Kubrick did intend it, I don't know .

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

I hope so. I'm not arguing, by the way. Maybe Kubrick did intend it, I don't know .

are both cuts the same for this scene I wonder? Do you have both cuts?

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by retablo

One does not necessitate the inclusion of the other. Just because paper is ripped out (and a music cue added way after editing is completed) doesn't mean it wasn't a continuity error when it appears back in there.

The theory might be better proven if there is actually NO shots ever of the typewriter without paper in it. But I believe there are.

Oh, I'm not saying it definietly wasn't an unintentional error. I'm just saying its more likely that it was intentional error than unintentional error, but I'm very uncertain: 51% intentional, 49% unintentional

you and kubrickfan and everyone else could very well be right - I completely admit that I'm shooting completely in teh dark here!
I know I said "impossible" earlier in the previous posts (about it being unintentional error), but I've softened a bit from that after reading some other theories on the scene.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by rainier4000

I stumbled upon the following Kubrick website. It has a very in depth analysis of The Shining that I found fascinating.

http://kubrickfilms.tripod.com/id4.html

OMG. Okay so I watched the film the other night with this website. It has a "scene by scene" discussion. Here is what I did

(1) Read about scenes 1, 2, 3
(2) Watch scenes 1, 2, 3
(3) Read about scenes 4, 5, 6
(4) Watch scenes 4, 5, 6
.
.
etc

WOW!! Try it out, what an experience!
Now keep in mind that in 2 hours, I only got through about 50 mins of the film because I was reading and stopping/rewinindg quite often, but it was a great experience

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

are both cuts the same for this scene I wonder? Do you have both cuts?

I have both cuts, and I believe that the scene is the same in both versions. I've only seen the American Cut once (though I really need to check it out again) though, so don't pin me on that. In any case, the International Cut is always just shorter, no alternate stuff, so if the error is there in the American Cut, then it's in all versions (apart from, hypothetically, the assembly version).
Though wouldn't it be hilarious if it was just an error? Stanley Kubrick must have been laughing his ass off when he found out there were several discussions about what could possibly be just continuity errors .

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

I have both cuts, and I believe that the scene is the same in both versions. I've only seen the American Cut once (though I really need to check it out again) though, so don't pin me on that. In any case, the International Cut is always just shorter, no alternate stuff, so if the error is there in the American Cut, then it's in all versions (apart from, hypothetically, the assembly version).

interesting. yeah so it seems its the same in both. do you prefer the international cut? I've never seen it I can't imagine liking a shorter cut of the film as I just can't get enough of it. But perhaps its better? I remember someone saying that it cut out the scene of ghosts/skeletons in that one room?

Though wouldn't it be hilarious if it was just an error? Stanley Kubrick must have been laughing his ass off when he found out there were several discussions about what could possibly be just continuity errors .

I'm not too familiar with the terminology. There seems to be 3 possibilities right?

1. Intentional discontinuity of no plot/theme significance: Kubrick decided it would be too much time to show Jack putting paper in teh typewriter and/or he removed it (as you pointed out)?

2. Intentional discontinuity of plot/theme significance: the overlook fed it paper

3. Unintentional continuity error: is this what you guys refer to as "continuity error"? When you guys say that you mean unintentional right?

[ssjmichael]

Do we all agree that the typewriter changing colors was intentional at least?

[Robert S]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

are both cuts the same for this scene I wonder? Do you have both cuts?

No - in the international version, Kubrick caught the error and trimmed the footage of Jack returning to his work.