The Shining (1980)

[thebard]

I actually like the pacing of the US cut; I think it builds nicely. But I can't stand the skeleton scene.

The reason: I don't really view The Shining as a horror film, but as a psychological one. I prefer a cut that maintains the distance between the perceived supernatural elements and the "real" world.

[Show spoiler]If you notice, very rarely do the "ghosts" interact with our main characters on screen in a way that can not be ruled out as in their minds. We never actually see the key unlock the pantry door. We never actually see who rolls the ball to Danny.

If I recall correctly, Kubrick felt that the notion of an afterlife was "optimistic"*, but was always interested in ESP and the paranormal**. I think a cut of the film without the skeleton scene fits in neatly with this view, where the supernatural elements are "echos" or "imprints" of traumatic past events.

* http://hollowverse.com/stanley-kubrick/
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley...ing_.281980.29

[Kryptonic]

It was a breath of fresh air watching the international version for the first time. It's such a tighter and more intense film.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by CM Putnam

Because it's a better movie. Because the cuts were not the product of censorship, but were a creative decision made by the artist himself. Because it's a different version of the film. Because all the scenes cut add nothing to the film. Because the longer version drags on and on. I believe all fans of the film should watch the shorter version and vice versa and come to their own conclusions. I have both and actually found the film works much better in its shorter version.

Id be happy for The Shining to "drag on" even longer myself

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sure. But there's this little thing called pacing, which is shot to hell in the US cut. It goes on and on and on without much actually happening, and Kubrick realised this. He was nothing if not pragmatic, as proved by his last-minute edits to 2001 and indeed The Shining (to remove the original ending). No-one forced him to re-edit the movie then, just as no-one forced him to re-edit the Euro version.

He had that kind of clout at Warners, and he exercised it whenever need be (see also: withdrawing A Clockwork Orange from UK distribution). He genuinely felt that he could tighten up the movie, so he had another go and produced something which, arguably, holds a greater sense of psychological intensity because it's not stretched over too long of a running time. It's also the more enigmatic version of the two, as we 'Europeans' didn't need a spectacularly cheesy shot of a bunch of cobwebbed skellingtons in a ballroom to let us know that this was in fact A GHOST STORY, dun dun dunnnnnnnnn...

But, like I said before, I'm not gonna disparage anyone for liking the US version and I'm so glad that we can all choose which one we want. I'll definitely rewatch the US cut one of these days, I just hope I can get through it without falling asleep.

Each to their own. As "eurotrash" we can choose

If Im going to watch The Shining, I want to see the whole thing. In for a penny, in for a pound

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

For the record, there is no such thing as a 113 minute cut of the Shining. The cut is in fact 118 minutes long, but because this cut was only released in countries that use PAL, the video versions were always 113 minutes long until blu-ray came along.

Watch it in PAL and see the shorter version even quicker!

[rickah88]

The only time I, actually, care about pacing is during films that suck...as in I want them over...quickly.
The Shining is not one of those films. Not by a longshot. Make it 4 hours long, I say!

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Eny-

I read that he particularly didn't like the skeletons scene. I do prefer the longer US cut (who doesn't love more Kubrick?) but I don't like it either. It doesn't work and feels corny.

That scene was atrocious. You know that a scene is bad when it's criticized in the audio commentary.

I've noticed that there is one huge continuity difference between the longer and shorter cuts. After Jack

[Show spoiler]talks with Grady in the bathroom, in the shorter cut, the next time we see him is when he removes the relais from the radio, or maybe even when he says "How do you like it?" to Wendy (can't remember now). However, in the longer cut, there is a shot of him typing before he confronts Wendy:



In the shorter cut it's as if he tries to seek out Wendy right after he talks with Grady, so the shot of him typing kinda doesn't make sense to me because then it looks like Grady didn't convince him that much.

Here are all the differences in detail:

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=1215

My personal preferences of the parts I like from the longer cut:

05:03 (1 min, 40 sec)
20:46 (36 sec)
22:46 (42 sec)
23:56 (1 min, 39 sec)
34:19 (20 sec)
36:45 (49 sec)
37:53 (8 sec)
45:52 (16 sec)
66:04 (1 min, 15 sec)

What I dislike, some of which I absolutely HATE:

12:07 (5 min, 33 sec)
40:35 (38 sec)
51:18 (1 min, 24 sec)
78:55 (12 sec)
91:40 (2 min, 28 sec) - This scene is absolutely horrible.

[Show spoiler]He wanted us to know Wendy's intentions, but a soliloquy of Wendy talking to herself out loud was so uber-corny. If he really wanted us to know her intentions, a voice inside her head like when Halloran says "How'd you like some ice cream, doc?" would've worked much better.

94:56 (54 sec)
96:12 (2 min, 32 sec)
99:29 (1 min, 47 sec)
133:27 (19 sec) - The worst and corniest part of the movie. Even Wendy's scream is acted out so badly and seems forced.

So all in all I like half of the scenes that are in the longer cut and dislike the other half. I just find myself disliking the half that I dislike more than liking the parts that I like. Just my 2 cents.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

Watch it in PAL and see the shorter version even quicker!

If I only I could do that with the long version!

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If I only I could do that with the long version!

If you have a PS3 you can set it to play .05 quicker which is even faster than PAL speed-up!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by chip75

If you have a PS3 you can set it to play .05 quicker which is even faster than PAL speed-up!

[FaceInTheLeaves]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

I'm European. Try again...

Self-esteem issues?

[Pooch]

HI,

For what it's worth, both versions have their positives and their negatives. It's just odd, that after all of these years, no one at Warner Bros hasn't released a multi-disc set anywhere in the world, containing both versions of the film on two discs, plus some new extras.


Pooch

[MrHT]

My UK BD of "The Shining" is starting to rot and it looks a little like the one pictured here. I tested it and so far, the BD seems to still play it. Very odd.

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by MrHT

My UK BD of "The Shining" is starting to rot and it looks a little like the one pictured here. I tested it and so far, the BD seems to still play it. Very odd.

Looks like the glue between the layers is reacting.

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Right. He chose to finalize it the way the USA version is. That's his gut feeling. His passion.
It wasn't til after the first week here, and how it was FIRST received here, that he ran to edit out some parts for the Euro audience.

What's that tell you? That it was only business!

He might have full control of his release and what to do with it... etc but he is still in business. The business of MAKING MOVIES.

If he wants studios to shell out money to fund his next picture, The Shining has to do well. Otherwise the next film may be funded by his own wallet. Hitchcock went through that!

So to sum up, he only edited it to try to get a better commercially received vehicle.

Sorry, but that is blatantly untrue. THE SHINING was a commercial success for Warner in the US, and according to several books on Kubrick it performed better in the opening weekend than their previous blockbusters THE EXORCIST and SUPERMAN.

There's also nothing "finalized" about the version released in the US cinemas as it is well-known Kubrick cut the US edit further down after it had opened (as others have commented in this thread).

However, the US edit opened to horrible reviews, and *this* - not some commercial impetus - is probably why he cut it further for the European release. Well, that, and the simple fact that Kubrick apparently just liked to tinker on with his movies (2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is another much publicized example).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pooch

HI,

For what it's worth, both versions have their positives and their negatives. It's just odd, that after all of these years, no one at Warner Bros hasn't released a multi-disc set anywhere in the world, containing both versions of the film on two discs, plus some new extras.


Pooch

We're a couple of years away from the 35th anniversary, so Warners will do the necessary: release a digibook with the existing transfer and a couple of new extras.

But I think that a 'dual version' edition will be a hard sell for the exact reasons we've seen in this thread: people who like the long version simply won't want the shorter cut.

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

Looks like the glue between the layers is reacting.

What's ironic is that BDs don't use two layers glued together. That was just DVDs. BDs use one big thick layer with a protective coating placed on top. If anything, it looks like the coating is separating or something. So far, it still plays, but for how long... who knows?

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

However, the US edit opened to horrible reviews, and *this* - not some commercial impetus - is probably why he cut it further for the European release. Well, that, and the simple fact that Kubrick apparently just liked to tinker on with his movies.

Yes. That's what I meant when I wrote "how it was first received here in the us"

He's still a human being and wanted to please people from a business standpoint. He's still a brand. So he tinkered with it in hopes the reviews in europe would fare better.

But there's no way he spent years adaptining and making and editing this film in the meticulous way we all know, only to go "Oops, I made it too long. I better edit it for European theaters"

[Robert S]

There are good arguments in favour of both versions, but I find the international cut the more intense and disturbing film - the second half is reconfigured to bring the audience closer to Jack's darkly comic breakdown, trimming the scenes that focus on Wendy and Danny's plight, therefore dulling our empathy for them. I always wonder who I'm rooting for during those final scenes!

I also like the nervous rhythm of the shorter version, even if the overall effect is perhaps a little less hypnotic. The film's beyond brilliant either way.

[MrHT]

Just saw this at Best Buy for only $7.99. I'm thinking of picking it up as it would be a great opportunity for me to own the US cut. But I'm afraid I'm going to waste $8 on a BD that will rot like my UK BD did.