The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#226 Post by Stefan Andersson » Mon Aug 03, 2020 2:49 pm

Senses of Cinema Shining dossier:
http://sensesofcinema.com/issues/issue-95/

moreorless
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:34 am

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#227 Post by moreorless » Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:43 am

david hare wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:02 pm
As a viewing experience the UHD is simply incomparable to anything that came before, until the Cannes première in May.

Like many here i had the Euro cut on the old Blu and the long cut on an offair VHS. I was always happier then with the long cut as the accumulation of horrors through those cliched elements like the ghosts and skeketons was so Expressively effective, as Sausage points out. As for the mono audio, hearing the score again in its pristine multi track to stereo from the DGG masters takes on the ultimate possible Refinement in the new lossless audio.

This is not just an incomparable demo disc for UHD, it is an unbeatably flawless presentation of the film. Look at it this way, you’ve got a complete masterpiece brought back to life in the best possible everything for a seamless 35mm to 4K transition with an insane audio track, in literally lossless form for 25 bucks. As for long vs. short versions. K’s favorite director, Max Ophuls had the heebie jeebies after the prem audience of La Ronde had a bad reaction In 1950 and he took it back the lab that night and trimmed 15 minutes to cut it down to 97 minutes. That short version has Since been admired as a masterpiece. But the long supressed long cut was let out of the vaults in the late 80sand proved to be a revelation to The small handful of us who have seen it. I have a dream that K, whose favorite director was Ophuls, was still alive and came across the original footage.which he then curated back, against the objections of now very old Marcel who has fought every attempt to get this back into circulation.

If only K were still alive to lap this up.
Yep certainly one of the best UHD disks I'v watched and I would say as well the film does clearly benefit from the extra detail, the close-ups become that much more unsettling and the colours in scenes like the bathroom with Grady stand out a lot more. Quite supprising that The Shining actually looks better than 2OO1 given that the latter was shot in 70mm although some of the FX work on the latter does look amazing.

I always wondered whether the shift in cut was to play up the idea of the colonial legacy more rather than Jack as an abuse parent or TV violence, you could argue the US can shows the latter two as a product of the former but perhaps makes it a bit less clear?

User avatar
Oedipax
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta

The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#228 Post by Oedipax » Wed Sep 30, 2020 2:06 pm

Stumbled across this today - the twins from The Shining are now available for Cameo videos.

Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#229 Post by Stefan Andersson » Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:18 pm

Shining review, mentioning the paper that Torrance holds in the photo, the ending as a consequence of the burnt-down set, and briefly discussing ´the possible meaning of the Looney Tunes excerpts:
https://deepfocusreview.com/definitives/the-shining/

Relevant quotes:
"In the photo, Jack holds a piece of paper that the man behind him restrains him from showing. What does it say? “Help me” or “Let me out” perhaps? Any speculation may be pointless, as the ending was necessitated by a massive fire that brought the Colorado Lounge set to the ground and cost the production $2.5 million. Would Kubrick have made an ending closer to the one in King’s book—where the pressure in the neglected boilers causes the Overlook to explode—had his set not burned down? We can only speculate, as the conclusion proves as open-ended as almost every aspect of the film."

"could Danny’s ability to elude Jack be hinted in his love for Road Runner cartoons, which Danny watches more than once on television in the film? By extension, in the realm of Looney Tunes symbolism, Danny’s nickname, Doc, is a reference to Bugs Bunny’s saying, “What’s up, doc?” Of course, Bugs Bunny was an expert at evading everyone from Elmer Fudd to Daffy Duck. Just as the Road Runner avoided becoming lunch for Wile E. Coyote, Danny avoids his Minotaur-father in the maze in the finale."

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#230 Post by Roger Ryan » Fri Nov 12, 2021 4:04 pm

Stefan Andersson wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:18 pm
Shining review, mentioning the paper that Torrance holds in the photo, the ending as a consequence of the burnt-down set, and briefly discussing ´the possible meaning of the Looney Tunes excerpts:
https://deepfocusreview.com/definitives/the-shining/

Relevant quotes:
"In the photo, Jack holds a piece of paper that the man behind him restrains him from showing. What does it say? “Help me” or “Let me out” perhaps? Any speculation may be pointless, as the ending was necessitated by a massive fire that brought the Colorado Lounge set to the ground and cost the production $2.5 million. Would Kubrick have made an ending closer to the one in King’s book—where the pressure in the neglected boilers causes the Overlook to explode—had his set not burned down? We can only speculate, as the conclusion proves as open-ended as almost every aspect of the film."

"could Danny’s ability to elude Jack be hinted in his love for Road Runner cartoons, which Danny watches more than once on television in the film? By extension, in the realm of Looney Tunes symbolism, Danny’s nickname, Doc, is a reference to Bugs Bunny’s saying, “What’s up, doc?” Of course, Bugs Bunny was an expert at evading everyone from Elmer Fudd to Daffy Duck. Just as the Road Runner avoided becoming lunch for Wile E. Coyote, Danny avoids his Minotaur-father in the maze in the finale."
Interesting analysis, and I think the bit about how the Looney Tunes characters play into the story is quite astute. But the speculation about the ending being necessitated by the fire that destroyed the set is not well-founded. In fact, I believe the set was actually rebuilt so Kubrick could continue shooting (delaying the shooting of a sequence for Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark since that film's "Well of Souls" set was to be built on the same soundstage). Kubrick famously derided the ending of King's book, stating he had no interest in showing the "big, bad hotel" burning down in the end.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#231 Post by therewillbeblus » Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:45 am

mfunk9786 wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:10 am
I came in the thread at this hour, though, to point out that this UHD disc is the best looking physical media I've ever come in contact with. It is staggering how good this restoration looks.
Umm, you weren't kidding.. what an introduction to the UHD format this was. I've never seen a decent-looking presentation of this film before, but even accounting for that whiplash, it's remarkable how much this felt like watching a theatre print -only from my couch. Just surreal

The more I watch this film (following my read of the book in my mid-20s, though I had seen the movie many, many times before that), the more I see a stronger deviation between this text and the source. I already got into this a couple pages back, but the novel presents an entirely subjective and empathetic linkage with Jack battling with his resentments and self-loathing, as well as perceived responsibilities, societal demands of the masculine role in a family system, etc. that drain him of the minute will power working to stabilize his psyche. While King was more focused on the former raw, acute feelings of self-worth as related to the immediate family members' intimate relationships, Kubrick seems almost entirely interested in the latter, drawing a careful exhibition of banality stemming from broad familial relations from the get-go that allows the audience to feel Jack's sense of oppression in place of your standard empathy.

The tone doesn't stop there, but extends to all family members. Instead of the novel's Wendy as a strong-willed woman defined by her complex relationship to Jack, resenting and adoring him in a relentless psychological swirl that translates to love, Duvall is equally segregated from Jack as he is to her or Danny, or we are to any of them. She tiptoes around him with ignorant anxiety, as if trying to breach the energy ubiquitously working to pull them apart without acknowledging it's there at all. The hotel acts as a device of repelling people apart and reinforcing isolation, which in turn depletes us of will power (and leads people to relapse on alcohol or react violently to people close to them, in real life). However, the inner torment felt in the novel is communicated entirely in elisions here, and it's that sweeping surrogate experience of separateness that Kubrick so masterfully constructs, deliberately paced to draw us away from our strategies for balance in narrative-engagement.

Has there ever been a film that expresses the sensation of fatalistic antisocial seclusion so strongly without establishing typical alignment with its principals? After all, there's been unresolved tension in the air since before anyone arrived- in the car ride up between Jack and Danny, and even in Wendy's meek, insecure apologizing for Jack to the doctor. Even when Wendy awakens Jack from his horrible dream, we don't jump to empathize with his pain, but instead feel our own pain via the hair-raising stimulation that is keeping Jack from finding salvation in his wife, and the powerlessness of Wendy unable to bridge a connection to help Jack. Their discord couldn't be more pronounced- two people desperately wanting to be comforted and to comfort, but hopelessly resigned to be alone even when they're literally holding one another. This isn't transmitted with the lucid explanations King offers in internal monologues of cognitive flooding, or symbiotic developments of characterization in emotional observation. It's entirely physical- an examination of behavioral/environmental blending in a vacuum that usurps any potential for spiritual binding outside of the self and onto another soul.

This is not only between members of the family unit, with Hallorann's slow walk through the hotel before his demise a case in point of how the mise en scene evokes (anti)social horror. Kubrick's methodology insulates him in a sterile space of perpetual doom. Whether or not you find the film 'scary' is secondary to the vibe of fear pulsating the frames of this and all scenes of characters alone in their environment, even when they're not 'physically' alone. Every shot conveys absolute helplessness of achieving social harmony; each family member obstructed from actualizing their husbandly or wifely ‘duties’, and thus prevented from the consolation of collective identity- leaving unrealised and unfulfilled individualized identities in the wake of this void. This ‘loss’ was never afforded a focal point of amity to measure against, leaving the pervasive mood all the more unsettling from its temporally-infinite impotence. It's as if these characters are trapped in a literal concrete claustrophobic structure mirroring Antonioni's abstract worlds of alienation, only without the baseline willingness or skills his characters have to soberly acknowledge that something is wrong to begin with- resigning Jack and Wendy to even more devastating and feeble states. This is perhaps the most beautiful movie ever made about incessantly depressing loneliness.

hanshotfirst1138
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#232 Post by hanshotfirst1138 » Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:54 am

Roger Ryan wrote:
Stefan Andersson wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:18 pm
Shining review, mentioning the paper that Torrance holds in the photo, the ending as a consequence of the burnt-down set, and briefly discussing ´the possible meaning of the Looney Tunes excerpts:
https://deepfocusreview.com/definitives/the-shining/

Relevant quotes:
"In the photo, Jack holds a piece of paper that the man behind him restrains him from showing. What does it say? “Help me” or “Let me out” perhaps? Any speculation may be pointless, as the ending was necessitated by a massive fire that brought the Colorado Lounge set to the ground and cost the production $2.5 million. Would Kubrick have made an ending closer to the one in King’s book—where the pressure in the neglected boilers causes the Overlook to explode—had his set not burned down? We can only speculate, as the conclusion proves as open-ended as almost every aspect of the film."

"could Danny’s ability to elude Jack be hinted in his love for Road Runner cartoons, which Danny watches more than once on television in the film? By extension, in the realm of Looney Tunes symbolism, Danny’s nickname, Doc, is a reference to Bugs Bunny’s saying, “What’s up, doc?” Of course, Bugs Bunny was an expert at evading everyone from Elmer Fudd to Daffy Duck. Just as the Road Runner avoided becoming lunch for Wile E. Coyote, Danny avoids his Minotaur-father in the maze in the finale."
Interesting analysis, and I think the bit about how the Looney Tunes characters play into the story is quite astute. But the speculation about the ending being necessitated by the fire that destroyed the set is not well-founded. In fact, I believe the set was actually rebuilt so Kubrick could continue shooting (delaying the shooting of a sequence for Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark since that film's "Well of Souls" set was to be built on the same soundstage). Kubrick famously derided the ending of King's book, stating he had no interest in showing the "big, bad hotel" burning down in the end.
King’s ending does kind of tie it’s cut with the Gothic Romance tradition of ending with a conflagration. I’m fairly certain that the reason that they didn’t use the “hedge animals” stuff is that the effects just woudn’t have been up to it at the time.
Last edited by hanshotfirst1138 on Thu Mar 24, 2022 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#233 Post by MichaelB » Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:15 am

hanshotfirst1138 wrote:
Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:54 am
I’m fairly certain that the reason that they didn’t use the “hedge animals” stuff is that the effects just souls t have been up to it at the time.
I seem to recall Kubrick saying as much, and he was undoubtedly right.

To be brutally blunt, the effects weren't really up to it even by 1997, when the more King-faithful TV movie version was made - I remember some pretty painfully obvious CGI.

User avatar
dekadetia
was Born Innocent
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:57 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#234 Post by dekadetia » Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:29 pm

Sam Harpoon... Ahem, Ben Stiller in talks to play Jack Torrance in a new West End stage adaptation.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#235 Post by hearthesilence » Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:36 pm

There's kind of a logic there if they're taking any inspiration from Kubrick's film. I feel like Nicholson and Stiller are two actors who are at their most hilarious when they're acting enraged.

On the other hand, that quality plays out in different ways. Nicholson has his weird and highly inventive shtick while Stiller is, well, like this.

Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#236 Post by Stefan Andersson » Tue Mar 21, 2023 4:57 pm

Reports re: Taschen´s Shining book, featuring Werner Herzog, rare photographs, comments on the Kubrick-Duvall collaboration and more:
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/stan ... 235556874/
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... ho-you-are

beamish14
Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 3:07 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#237 Post by beamish14 » Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:48 pm

I look forward to the general public version of this book. Unkrich seems to have accomplished a pretty remarkable feat of research

User avatar
Graham
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:50 pm
Location: London

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#238 Post by Graham » Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:46 pm

beamish14 wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:48 pm
I look forward to the general public version of this book. Unkrich seems to have accomplished a pretty remarkable feat of research
Is that guaranteed to happen?

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#239 Post by MichaelB » Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:50 pm

Based on precedent, probably.

Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#240 Post by Stefan Andersson » Mon Apr 24, 2023 4:21 pm

Lee Unkrich talks to Todd Garbarini about the Taschen book (posted Monday, April 24, 2023):
https://cinemaretro.com/index.php

Post Reply