The Shining (1980)

[jlyon1515]

Originally Posted by dissention

The Dryden in Rochester had a print with the original ending about five years ago and was all set to screen it, but either Warners or the Kubrick estate put the brakes on it. I was mightily disappointed, but it is what it is.

Hey Dissention! I live in Rochester too, and go t the Dryden every so often. I actually did an intro to David Lynch's Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me a few years ago for them (because I was an organizer of the annual, weekend-long Twin Peaks Fest that takes place where most of the iconic exteriors were filmed in Washington state).

Sorry to go off topic.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

but when he says something like they burned all the outtakes in their possession I can't see why he'd make something like that up, and that really does strike me as something Kubrick would do because that's part of the enigma of the man. He's renowned as this uber-perfectionist and yet if an error was present in the take that he really liked, he used the take anyway.

The reason that Vitali would lie about it is so that everybody says "This is the best it will ever be" and buys it, and then five years later, WB pays him more money to supervise a new release with all of the "Oh wow we just discovered this" footage.

If you look back, all of the conversation about how he burned footage comes from the same time period, when he is promoting the new Blu-Ray releases. He says several incredibly contradictory things in the interviews (including about the aspect ratio), and makes one claim that is beyond unbelievable. So while I would stop short of saying he is out and out lying, I think he is deliberately exaggerating and obfuscating. He clearly implies that Kubrick printed every single take he made (which doesn't make any sense). He conflates outtakes and trim footage with actual early cuts of scenes which were removed from films. In some interviews, he includes "Dr. Strangelove", even though we know that the pie fight footage exists and came from the Kubrick collection. He is also entirely dismissive of the "2001" discovery, making the hyperbolic statement that Kubrick never wanted that footage released.

And, to get back to the "beyond unbelievable" one, he claims that Kubrick personally supervised the destruction of all of the footage from "Eyes Wide Shut" (saying that there are four scenes in the middle which were removed entirely, saying that everything else Kubrick shot is in the film -- so, he's willfully ignoring the Keitel/Leigh footage). Stop and think about that -- this is a guy who was known to continue cutting his films up until the moment they were released, and in two cases to go back and re-cut them post-release. This is a film that even if you want to say that he did complete it (which I think is debatable), he didn't complete it more than a week before he died. So Vitali's claim is essentially that Kubrick was certain enough that he was completely done with editing that he destroyed ALL of the "Eyes Wide Shut" footage which he didn't use, before even finding out if the film would get the contractually-obligated R-rating or not?

For me, that doesn't pass the sniff test at all. I grant you that you can always write off anything as "Well, Kubrick was a weird guy" but you could just as easily use that to justify why he would instruct his assistant to lie about it for years after his death. (Unfortunately, though, I can believe that he would have the Keitel / Leigh footage destroyed, because it would have no value to him in the edit room.)

[Sorry if that's TL;DR, I just have thought a lot about this and I don't believe Vitali is being entirely honest.]

[sjconstable]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

And, to get back to the "beyond unbelievable" one, he claims that Kubrick personally supervised the destruction of all of the footage from "Eyes Wide Shut" (saying that there are four scenes in the middle which were removed entirely, saying that everything else Kubrick shot is in the film -- so, he's willfully ignoring the Keitel/Leigh footage). Stop and think about that -- this is a guy who was known to continue cutting his films up until the moment they were released, and in two cases to go back and re-cut them post-release. This is a film that even if you want to say that he did complete it (which I think is debatable), he didn't complete it more than a week before he died. So Vitali's claim is essentially that Kubrick was certain enough that he was completely done with editing that he destroyed ALL of the "Eyes Wide Shut" footage which he didn't use, before even finding out if the film would get the contractually-obligated R-rating or not?

I always thought Eyes Wide Shut was edited after his death, can't remember where I read it though or if it was in the special features.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by sjconstable

I always thought Eyes Wide Shut was edited after his death, can't remember where I read it though or if it was in the special features.

WB and Vitali and Kubrick's family have always maintained that the only modifications made to "Eyes Wide Shut" after Kubrick handed it in were the digitally inserted people to block the thrusting to get the R-rating, the audio edit to remove the Muslim prayer from all video releases, and the digital removal of the focus puller (another oddity that Vitali hand-waves away in those interviews as if removing that but not the helicopter blades in The Shining is entirely consistent), maybe one or two other digital tweaks like that. There have also always been rumors that additional re-editing was done to what Kubrick handed in; personally, I have always doubted that, but I do think that Kubrick would've (as always) continued to re-edit the film until closer to the release date.

[surfdude12]

do we know how Danny

[Show spoiler]got the bruise on his neck? He walks up to Jack & Shelley while Jack is on the typewriter , while Jack is telling Shelley about his nightmare about killing her and Danny. Shelley says "you did this to him!" but do we really know? later in the film a ghost supposedly opens the meat locker to let Jack out so it could have been a ghost that gave Danny the bruise?

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

do we know how Danny

[Show spoiler]got the bruise on his neck? He walks up to Jack & Shelley while Jack is on the typewriter , while Jack is telling Shelley about his nightmare about killing her and Danny. Shelley says "you did this to him!" but do we really know? later in the film a ghost supposedly opens the meat locker to let Jack out so it could have been a ghost that gave Danny the bruise?

Danny was strangled by Jack in the fatherly love scene for having woken him up. The conversation in the fatherly love scene was a false reassurance, and Kubrick ended the scene just as Jack was about to turn nasty.

You can read about it here:

http://www.collativelearning.com/the...0chap%208.html

.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

WB and Vitali and Kubrick's family have always maintained that the only modifications made to "Eyes Wide Shut" after Kubrick handed it in were the digitally inserted people to block the thrusting to get the R-rating, the audio edit to remove the Muslim prayer from all video releases, and the digital removal of the focus puller (another oddity that Vitali hand-waves away in those interviews as if removing that but not the helicopter blades in The Shining is entirely consistent), maybe one or two other digital tweaks like that. There have also always been rumors that additional re-editing was done to what Kubrick handed in; personally, I have always doubted that, but I do think that Kubrick would've (as always) continued to re-edit the film until closer to the release date.

Someone who worked on the post-production has said that he actually had to go back a fix some preaty fugly cuts that Kubrick wanted to reinstate before his death (but apparently the cuts were made directly to the negative so they had to do some digital repair). Here's an interview to check out:

Kubrick Series Clip: Was Eyes Wide Shut Completed? - YouTube

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

WB and Vitali and Kubrick's family have always maintained that the only modifications made to "Eyes Wide Shut" after Kubrick handed it in were the digitally inserted people to block the thrusting to get the R-rating....etc .

So wait, on my USA Blu-ray, do I have the "digitally inserted people to block the thrusting" in the sex scene? I forgot.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

So wait, on my USA Blu-ray, do I have the "digitally inserted people to block the thrusting" in the sex scene? I forgot.

The Blu-ray definitely contains the unrated cut; IIRC, the R-rated theatrical cut is advertised but not present.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by ilovenola2

Hitchcock was also famous for "cutting in the camera." Wise directors do it.

The few directors who can successfully do that are certainly great directors, but it is not a prerequisite to greatness. Kubrick never ever cut in camera, he loved to just sit in the edit room and play with the footage. Editing was his favorite part.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

The Blu-ray definitely contains the unrated cut; IIRC, the R-rated theatrical cut is advertised but not present.

Haaaaa thanks.
I just stumbled upon it in my search to find out myself. You beat me to it.
Yeah. The Blu-ray is "unrated", hence, there's no digital people blocking the thrusting.

[thatguamguy]

Maybe Nicole Kidman's rep has changed since 1999, maybe in 2010 with no hindsight that might make sense, but there is no way that anybody saw her when this movie was casting and thought "Man, she is sexless, like a Barbie doll!"

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Maybe Nicole Kidman's rep has changed since 1999, maybe in 2010 with no hindsight that might make sense, but there is no way that anybody saw her when this movie was casting and thought "Man, she is sexless, like a Barbie doll!"

She was actually known at the time as a sexpot, most of her 80's and 90's films had her in sexy, femme fatale style roles with lots of sex appeal. I think the author there was more trying to make a tabloid style dig at Cruise and Kidman, who were widely rumored to be in a marriage based more on business and convenience than love, but it's all rumor.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

She was actually known at the time as a sexpot, most of her 80's and 90's films had her in sexy, femme fatale style roles with lots of sex appeal. I think the author there was more trying to make a tabloid style dig at Cruise and Kidman, who were widely rumored to be in a marriage based more on business and convenience than love, but it's all rumor.

Exactly.
And I would definitely bet the lack of chemistry between the two stars was on purpose, as Kubrick wanted. He's only the director known to do 100 takes of one scene to get exactly what he wants

[rip63]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Exactly.
And I would definitely bet the lack of chemistry between the two stars was on purpose, as Kubrick wanted. He's only the director known to do 100 takes of one scene to get exactly what he wants

About as perfect as casting gets when it comes to the marriage of actors to the characters.

[ajburke]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Exactly.
And I would definitely bet the lack of chemistry between the two stars was on purpose, as Kubrick wanted. He's only the director known to do 100 takes of one scene to get exactly what he wants

Not the only one. David Fincher has become known for exactly this as well.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

She was actually known at the time as a sexpot, most of her 80's and 90's films had her in sexy, femme fatale style roles with lots of sex appeal. I think the author there was more trying to make a tabloid style dig at Cruise and Kidman, who were widely rumored to be in a marriage based more on business and convenience than love, but it's all rumor.

She was sexy in Batman Forever. I'll say that.

[TylerDurden389]

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

She was sexy in Batman Forever. I'll say that.

That's probably one of the sexiest PG-13 performances I can think of. Drew Barrymore looked amazing in that movie too. Say what you will about Schumacher, he knows how to make the ladies look good.

[TylerDurden389]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

That's probably one of the sexiest PG-13 performances I can think of. Drew Barrymore looked amazing in that movie too. Say what you will about Schumacher, he knows how to make the ladies look good.

I'm so sorry.