Why did Kubrick cut down "The Shining" for international release?

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by C6H12O6, Oct 18, 2011.

  1. Richard--W

    Richard--W Forum Resident

    Oh, he's just writing it the way he sees it in the mind's eye. Kubrick saw the equation visually. A tradesman's shortcut. I see it done all the time. I see it written out as 1-85 a lot by directors and cameramen. The other 1 (height) is understood to be there. Cameraman do this all the time, and Kubrick was first and foremost a cameraman.

    The aspect ratio equation is technically correct written out as 1.85:1 .
    Generally Kubrick liked to compose with more height, as most of his films are shot in the spherical aspect ratios of 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 . Only a couple of his films were in the anamorphic ratios -- Spartacus, 2001.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
  2. Richard--W

    Richard--W Forum Resident

    Here's that storyboard frame again:

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Crimson jon

    Crimson jon Forum Resident

    Location:
    Houston
    Who could forget the classic line...
    All play and no work makes Jack rap like soldier boy. Classic.
     
  4. Kiko1974

    Kiko1974 Forum Resident

    I live in Spain and I've watched the international version since I was a kid. When the BD was released and I got to know the different timing between the US and international version I inmediately ordered the US BD.
    I've always liked The Shinning but always felt that something was off with the cut I always watched, that there were "holes" in the pacing of the film that's why I never owned it on DVD, since 2007 with the US cut on BD it's a movie I watch at least twice a year.
     
    Rhapsody In Red and Richard--W like this.
  5. enro99

    enro99 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Thanks for posting that storyboard.

    What book is that from?


    What book is that?
     
  6. Carl Swanson

    Carl Swanson Resident blabbermouth

    Because in many countries, the government decides what can be shown.
     
  7. Richard--W

    Richard--W Forum Resident

    I think it's from THE STANLEY KUBRICK ARCHIVES by Alison Castle, the big oversize horizontal edition not the abridged vertical reprint. I've ordered it.
     
    Derek Slazenger and enro99 like this.
  8. kt66brooklyn

    kt66brooklyn Forum Resident

    Location:
    brooklyn, ny
    Yes, it's true. The theater I saw the film in was lazy, they left the last scene in, so I didn't find out about the edit until years later when I saw the film again.
     
  9. masswriter

    masswriter Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Shining Item up for auction from Kubrick estate

    HORROR FILM
    Long cut of the original film The Shining containing the scene in which Wendy, played by Shelley Alexis Duvall, carries Danny, played by little Danny Lloyd. These cuts, given by Kubrick to D'Alessandro, are particularly rare because the director notoriously burned all the leftovers at the conclusion of the editing.
    Provenienza/Provenance

    Collezione Emilio e Janette D'Alessandro - The Collection of Emilio and Janette D'Alessandro
     
  10. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Forum Resident

    Location:
    US


    Unfortunately no hospital scene. It turned out to be nothing but an alternate take of a shot that was already in the movie of Wendy carrying Danny. I'm sure the hospital scene exists somewhere. For years, you heard Kubrick destroyed everything from his films and then it turns out he was a bit of a pack rat once the Stanley Kubrick Archives were open...

    Fortunately -- amid all the ******** about Kubrick's films, with fans over-analyzing them -- Jan Harlan (Kubricks long-time producer and who takes offense to some of the silly interpretations -- like fans concocting huge theories based on simple continuity errors) and his co-writer Diane Johnson set the record straight on what the "hospital scene" consisted of.

    'The Shining' Producer: Why the Ending Really Changed

    It turns out the folks at Warner Bros. talked Kubrick into cutting the scene because it was confusing people with Ulman giving Danny a tennis ball. That would have opened up so many nerds theorizing: "Oh, that means Ulman was really...." and other endless interpretations and confusion. And Kubrick saw Warner Bros. point and cut it at their behest -- no arguments, according to Harlan. I do agree with Kubrick completely changing King's ending, because what could be more "movie cliche" than the Overlook blowing up at the end? What is it? A goddamn James Bond movie?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018
  11. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    As a diehard long time fan of Stephen King's earlier work up to say Insomnia I always felt Kubrick's movie to be vastly superior.

    The mallet replaced with the axe, the crazy man instead of the focus on haunted motel, the cutting of the ending, the awesome Shelly co-dependant vs confident blonde wife (hated TV movie), the avalanche of bood, the signature flashes of bloody bodies, the maze for animal bushes, and one that I really appreciate... the homosexual bear costume that was cut from the book (where dude was a dog). That always confused me and scared me all at the sane time.

    Kubrick understood the work inside and out and improved on it (finger talking, "all work and no play"...and as others have pointed out THE TWINS!!!). He gave it extra flavor while cutting out stuff like wasp nest and the supernatural garbage that often plagues Stephen King taste for the goofy in wrapping up the end of solid horror.
     
  12. Encuentro

    Encuentro Forum Resident

    I completely agree. Though I read The Shining after seeing the film many times. I tend to lean toward the version of a story I experience first. I read Misery, then watched the movie. I felt that the novel was far superior to the movie. But Kubrick's The Shining is a masterpiece. He vastly improved upon King's story. When I finally got around to reading the novel, I was amazed that King thought the hedge animals that come to life was a good idea. Of course, it probably would have been difficult for Kubrick to pull off that effect in 1980, but even if he could, I doubt that he would have included those scenes. They didn't even work in novel form, in my humble opinion.
     
    Ghostworld, EVOLVIST and genesim like this.
  13. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    We agree.

    Misery is a better book...but the movie is not bad.

    Carrie (DePalma) destroys the book.
    Christine is a nice adapation.

    King has great books but great directors tend to do better.

    Shawshank, Stand By Me I also like better.

    Of course for every example like that you get the horrible The Stand.
     
    Encuentro likes this.
  14. Well they tackle madness in two different fashions. King’s novel is about a haunted hotel that infects a man with its madness. Kubrick’s film is about a man barely containing his madness and the hotel just provides him with the key to escape his cage. In King’s novel both Jack and the boy are tempted by the same sides of the evil coin. The father gives himself' to save his son. The Kubrick film Jack gives himself completely to the hotel and always has been a part of it. I don’t know that I prefer one over the other but they are very examples of similar themes. I d9nt know that they are even comparable.
     
    Richard--W likes this.
  15. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    Of course they are comparable. While I appreciate your thought out post and I do understand my criticisms can be seen from either side (and to King's credit the historical aspect and the creaky hotel itself still gives chills), one thing stands out like a sore thumb to me with the book.

    The supernatural wrap up paired with the goofy comfortable ending. Just doesn't work for me at all.

    I like Halloran dead with the WTF closeup picture Kubrick chill as only he does. It is hard not to think of the Shining when I watch Eyes Wide Shut. It has that same strange feel.
     
  16. Richard--W

    Richard--W Forum Resident

    Hmm. I would argue that Kubrick's film is about a man barely controlling his alcoholism -- a frailty that makes him vulnerable -- not madness. Soon as he takes the drink, he's lost to the haunted hotel. Since he's always been the caretaker -- if Grady and the photo are to be believed -- the battle was lost before he came back.
     
    Jack Lord likes this.
  17. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    Am I wrong for siding with him because of feeling the anoyance with his wife? Dude just had a job to do.

    When she talks to the guy on radio I really get annoyed. :D
     
  18. Richard--W

    Richard--W Forum Resident

    It would help your case if you removed the word "dude" from your vocabulary.

    Jack Torrance isn't annoyed with his wife and child.
    But the hotel is. To the hotel, they are intruders. The hotel's haunted past manifests through Jack Torrance.
     
  19. I agree the murder of Halloran works perfectly. I have to be honest, I haven't read the book since it came out (it is sitting on my shelf however) and did enjoy it at the time. I've never felt you can compare books to movies except at how effective they are at telling the story. They tell stories in completely different fashions using techniques that are unique to each. Now I can see y our point of view regarding the two but comparing books to movie is like comparison dancing to music--different mediums to tell a story.

    I do agree that Kubrick's film seems a bit more timeless than King's but King also wanted to offer some form of redemption to Jack. Really, King's book remains about a haunted hotel while Kubrick's film is about a haunted man. Very different approach to examine themes of madness. To each their own.
     
  20. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    I didn't know I was making one, I thought I was stating how I felt.:shh:

    Dude lighten up. No need to go all Wendy on me. You say it was the hotel I say it was her annoying interruptions to his writer's block which also translates to hos unhappiness.

    Pop quiz...did ya notice his obvious crazed look in the car on the way to the hotel...musta been those crazy powers from the first visit. Musta retroacted back to him breaking son's arm...musta retro acted back to his original annoyance with feeling short-shifted with messed up work papers which showed cracks that were not problems in the marriage to begin with?:confused:

    I like that quote...but I still do it. Though as much as I love King it is an unfair treatment. If we are talking books to Kubrick we better go Edgar Allan Poe to get something like that quality.
     
  21. Richard--W

    Richard--W Forum Resident

    Wayneklein, How is Kubrick's film NOT about a haunted hotel?
     
  22. I wouldn't disagree about the alcoholism--it is something that certainly tripped him off before but Lloyd was not really serving him anything. It was all imaginary as I recall there was no alcohol at all because it was all locked up. What he's drinking may not be real but, again, is his step into the barely contained insanity that takes hold. I can't think of folks that when they drink and become drunk will go around trying to murder their kids. The isolation certainly plays a role but, again, the alcoholism is the way that the hotel gets access to his "shine" and uses it for its own purposes. It's the weakness that allows him to be taken advantage of as well. The Hotel becomes annoyed with both Wendy and his Danny to be sure but Jack has, at least in the film, tolerated them but also finds them equally annoying.
     
    Hardy Melville likes this.
  23. ...and as Jack points out. He has ALWAYS been part of the hotel. His destiny always tied into it with the suggestion of either reincarnation with the photo at the conclusion or that Jack has become part of the essence of hotel.
     
  24. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    Who said it wasn't? I said that it is more about his annoyance. I actually say that the unhappy marriage was the catalyst to the reaction element which was the hotel.

    Dude think outside the box. We don't have to speak in absolutes.

    How is Jack NOT annoyed with his wife? Did he not go over this with the bartender and Grady?
     
  25. Not saying it isn't just with a slightly different role for the haunted hotel.

    --the focus is just different in how they examine Jack going off the deep end. A novel about a haunted hotel who takes advantage of the weakness (his drinking) while the film really focuses on someone who is at that juncture. In the novel Jack ( keep it mind it's been a number of years since I read it) remains a pretty good guy unless he drinks while Jack in the film is already unhinged to a degree when we meet him and the drinking just opens the gate more quickly. In both cases, though, the house is certainly haunted. Kubrick's film is funny because in King's opinion, a detached approach doesn't work in horror films and that is the essence of Kubrick's style. On the other hand, that detachment means that Nicholson's over-the-top performance kind of bridges the gap and makes it certainly more relatable.
     

Share This Page