Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by C6H12O6, Oct 18, 2011.
That way each theater could show a different cut as his thinking evolved.
Cute, but wildly exaggerated. The film wasn't released in Europe until 6 months after the US release, I see no issue with Kubrick deciding to tweak it. Not the first time either, he lopped 20 minutes from 2001 after the initial screening. I don't see that as indecision, he was a perfectionist (and a genius).
I also call it "The Shinning" just in honor of the Simpsons send-up...
Appreciate your calling me cute on Valentine's Weekend, but we clearly disagree as I see him as neither a genius nor perfectionist, as that would require the release to be final.
I have come to the conclusion that Kubrick's The Shining is foremost a Kubrick film rather than a Stephen King novel made into a motion picture.
Stanley took the source material and molded it to his own personal obsessions and stylization rather than be faithful to King's work.
I appreciate it as a Kubrick masterpiece, but I don't consider it a good adaption of the novel, which is one of King's best.
You are correct in a way. But at the same time you need to know that Kubrick is a kind of director that made sure he made everything right and covered all the basis and sometimes he would ask his actors to shoot the scenes differently and they never knew which take he was going to use. There's a great story about this in Dr. Strangelove where George C. Scott actually refused to do the take they are using in the film(the one where he trips and rises up again as it never happened, probably one of the funniest scenes in the film) as George didn't think it was apropriate to makes it as a slapstick, but Stanley asked him to do it for kicks, telling him that the cameras will not be filming(but, off course they did). This is actually the trick Kubrick used most of the time, not only to cover all sides for the story, but also to make sure actors or the other crew members couldn't leak any stuff to the press prior to the film release, which is a common practise in Hollywood. So, in other words, Shelley Duvall, or the other actors for that matter, didn't really know that much and were usually just given the pages of the film they were to shoot on the given day, and if they were to get the complete script, the certain scenes would keep changing from take to take, sometimes being totaly different then the day before.
Well, there's a tradition of that going back to Hitchcock. Hitch would take the actor, position them for a closeup, then say, "OK, stare off in that direction and completely empty your mind. Think of a blank piece of paper, absolutely nothing." And they'd roll the camera. Later on, that expression could look like it was filled with emotion and meaning depending on how it was edited into the rest of the film.
I didn't find out until I was in film school that Hitchcock had borrowed this idea from the Russians: "The Kuleshov Effect"...
But it's true that many directors want to keep the actors in the dark about what's actually going on, worried that they'll actually become less natural and more contrived in their performance if they have time to plan on what's happening. In this case, I think Kubrick was just screwing around. He commented later on that he thought that The Shining was a "terrible book" and that he was kind of talked into making it by Warner Bros. (after the disastrous reception to Barry Lyndon).
That's not the story I heard. I read that Kubrick selected the book himself after pouring over hundreds of potential ideas for films (his assistant would bring stacks of novels every week for him to skim through). He didn't like the novel, but he loved the setting and thought the framework could be made into a much better film. So he took the setting, the character names and some other details and then threw the rest of it out.
It's by far my favorite King novel. I've reread it a dozen times and it never fails to creep me out. I begged my parents to take me to see the movie when it came out and was both disappointed that crucial scenes from the book were missing, and excited because other, better ones were added. The blood coming out of the elevator doors isn't in the novel at all, yet it is one of the most memorable horror images of the last century.
I actually didn't mind the miniseries. It's almost a perfect adaption of the novel, but what really hurts it is that it is lacking the grand scale that Kubrick added.
That's also what I heard. She would hear "THUMP" "THUMP" as he'd skim books and toss aside the ones he didn't like and one day the thumping stopped and that was "The Shining" in his hands. I forgot where I read that. But one account doesn't mean Vidiot is wrong. He probably has the real inside track. What amazing to me is "Barry Lyndon" was such a disaster. And even more amazing a budget of $11 million! Can you imagine what that film would cost today!
Shining by Kubrick is not a horror movie. It's a documentary on family.
Gad and zooks!!! ...And I thought I read too much into films at times.......!
Wow, that's amazing. I wish I had that much energy, but sometimes a movie is just a movie!
In an interview from Michael Ciment's book Kubrick in 1980, Stanley says "The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely well worked out, and for a film that is often all that matters." He gets into it a bit more if you're interested.
Somebody give that guy his meds. Ludacrist to think Kubrick would waste his time intentionally putting all that in. And most ridiculous of all, CUT THE LENGTH of the film so it numerologically has the same numbers in it. Please. Numerologist are just so absurd about this stuff. I was looking forward to a good dissection of the film, but all that is just craziness. As the author states "my ADD causes me" to watch other parts of the movie than the director intended. I call that blog Ritalin Overdose. Wait. "Over" as in " Overlook"...
The novel is about a man driven mad by the spirits in the Hotel.
The film is about a man who is already mad and letting his dark side show.
Back from the dead....
I watched the international cut on a flight yesterday (I have always seen the longer version). It leaves out the discussion with the doctor that establishes early on Jack's violent tendencies after drinking, which is too important to leave out IMHO.
Really? That's interesting. So then they had to trim the dialogue with Lloyd at the bar when Jack is talking about how he broke Danny's arm? "I never meant to hurt him. I love the little sonofubich..." I guess I know that movie pretty well!
No, the bar conversation was left intact as far as I could tell, it just seemed that the disclosure at this point of the film was late and really not necessary after Danny's encounter with the woman in room 237. It was already clear that Jack was starting to lose it by then.
If going by King's criticism of the movie, the international version is basically even more different from the book. King didn't like that Jack's alcoholism was touched upon so little in the film, hence it has been completely removed in the European cut. I guess if you are one of those who side with Kubrick on the issue, this version is maybe a bit more natural to prefer. If you think King is right, then probably not.
I agree, I read The Shinning many years after watching the film several times and I thoght it was a mediocre book to say the least, and Kubrick pulled out a good movie ('though a bit weak by his standards) out of it.
I dont think the movie was supposed to be like the book,im not sure though...
Ya the copy I have on VHS is 143 Mins.. (The scene where he goes to the garage to pull the wires out of the snow cap isnt there (But thats not really needed anyway))
I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!!!! -- Very complex and not easy to understand!!!!!!! (What does the pic @ the end mean of Jack in 1921?)
ITS A VERY GOOD MOVIE!!!!!
But the 143 minute version is the long version.
Separate names with a comma.