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

I have no problem with her performance. If you read about how Kubrick tortured her on the set, I think you're seeing a very real performance. Kubrick basically drove her to exhaustion, treated her like an as**ole all day to keep on her edge. I like her performance. I think youre actually seeing a woman on the verge. If she was doing a "bad" job, Kubrick would have axed her in a heartbeat.

 

I saw the documentary, her acting was still bad verging on the comedic. Talk about overacting/reacting. IMO it's campy to the nth degree. Duvall is really a good actress but she was saddled with a director that didn't understand the genre and missed the heartbeat of King's story.The character in the book was so much stronger Duvall seemed like Olive Oyl from Hell in this film! Kubrick also tortured Scatman Crothers as well on the set.He sounds like a real actor's director!

 

Yet Scatman comes off cool as ice....as expected! I've always wanted that black velvet nude hanging over his bed!

 

I like Shelly's performance too. She is the only character with any real warmth or fragility. She is not strong like in the novel, but I think she is always watchable in the film.

 

My impression of Kubrick is that he makes the film he wants to make, not the film anyone else wants. His research and attention to detail as he sees it makes for a very interesting movie experience. I believe most, if not all, his films are identifed as 'A Film By Stanley Kubrick' or 'Stanley Kubrick's...', much like Hitchcock. Hitchcock was known for taking liberties with source material as well.

If that makes the experience negative for you, that's fine. I happen to like Kubrick's take on things a lot. I got over the troublesome difference between source material and film adaptations long ago. It just gets in the way of enjoyment for me. I love Stephen King (who has written some real doozies - I've used the word "doozie", oh dear) for his take on story-telling and the stories he wishes to tell.

So, it's all good for me.

 

I rather see the film first and then read the book.

 

Maybe so, but I knew a young mother at the same time the Shining came out who acted very similarly. I don't think it was as much of a stretch as some might think. She was playing someone very naive, no?

 

Yes and I like quite a few of his films, such as Scarface, Raising Cain, Blow Out, Untouchables,...

 

Naive and clearly having endured an alcoholic and abusive husband for a number of years. I always thought Kubrick got a great performance out of her - her character is damaged and shows it.

 

Anyone with even the slightest interest in the films of Stanley Kubrick should check the podcast by Movie Geeks United called The Kubrick series. http://www.moviegeeksunited.com/Kubrick It's one of the most exhaustive studies of a filmmaker I've heard.

 

I watched the so -called Blu Ray long version of the film the other night. I cannot conceive that 30 minutes ripped out of it in any 'international version'...could make it better. It needs the 145 minutes "to breathe properly" . To appreciate Kubrick's unique style with script dialogue and the hidden nuances he milks from that same dialogue. Duvall's character is not as campy as some people would want to believe.

One can only assume, that was the way Kubrick wanted it played...being the micro managing film director he was. And you can bet... if Kubrick had been frustrated with Duvall's performance work, he would have quickly taken actions to solve any casting problem, if he felt.... that was the problem. It is time that performance was fully respected. We get hints at the start of the film, she is hiding her own nervous doubts and feelings about areas of Nicolson's character...(for example) the spoken previous injury to the boy...her explanation of it to the woman doctor. I paid particular careful study to her character. Here is a woman, who is , into wishful thinking that a change in living circumstances, will male all the difference in her own present situation and that of her husband and child. Underneath she is also quietly psychologically close to cracking up herself , by the time the family arrives at the big hotel venue

One can muse ( thinking of the final framed 'photo punch line' ) ..how did the Nicholson character 'just happen' to be the successful character to get the job of winter caretaker. Was it pre ordained? Or was the hotel itself waiting, until another 'suitable candidate' came along to go about showing its history, once again?
Back when it was made: the "emotionally cowered / battered woman" syndrome in relationships, was not much on anyone's radar. Nor did people care to observe womens' reactions stemming from being in such situations.

I have criticized Kubrick in the past for a mechanical human coldness in his films. Here it works brilliantly. I would argue it is his best film. Seeing The Shining on a very large flat screen, only then can one truly thrill to those remarkable tracking shots with the small boy on his tricycle though the passageways.

 

This movie sports the first use of the steadi-cam, if I'm not mistaken.

This post is on the money. If you prefer a film that will faithfully Honor The Novel, find another director. Kubrick's films all move rather slow, allowing the viewer to soak in the atmosphere. It's an experience more than a retelling.

I never had a problem with Duvall's performance either; mildly surprised to read criticism here, actually. Maybe I can understand not gravitating to her because she's not a conventionally attractive leading lady, but here she seems well-cast as a plain-Jane wife/mom in a tough spot. Especially given the time frame. The modern "conventional" tough lead female (Sigourney Weaver, Demi Moore) hadn't been developed yet. Besides, in Kubrick's movie, the inevitable horror is out of Wendy's hands anyway; her only hope is escape.

I've always liked The Shining as is, but I would like to see the international cut out of curiosity. I'd really like a definitive call on how and why it happened, and which one Kubrick actually preferred.

 

The European cut is an interesting variation but, please, we didn't get the wrong film--nor did the U.S. misunderstand it.

The editing of the film doesn't alter the intent that Kubrick had and it's largely there in the longer version as well.

Much like Freidkin's "The Exorcist" Kubrick tries to create a vibe for his audience that they can relate to before things go wacky.

I sometimes wonder if Kubrick recut the film to make it more commerical and successful in Europe vs. releasing his finished vision of the film.

Second thoughts can be wrong after all. Look at Coppola's "Apocalpyse Now Redux" (although much more time had passed).

 

+100

 

I never had any idea there was a shorter European cut, I definitely wouldn't want to watch that as the US version has been a favorite of mine since I first saw it over 30 years ago.

The Shining is actually one of my favorite films, I've lost count of how many times I've seen it over the years. I don't compare films to novels, completely different artforms.

The blu-ray release from a few years ago looked absolutely stunning, almost like seeing it again for the first time.

 

Yes and I think this was the first time that a "horror" film featured very brightly lit rooms rather than dark, creepy atmospheres. It was a new cinematic experience and very scary.

 

Missing 24 minutes of The Shining are restored for British release, and it's due for release later this year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...are-restored-for-british-release-8076861.html

 

The Birds? The Wicker Man?

 

Hitchcock didn't "take liberties" -- he transformed his sources into art. I would hardly apply the word art to anything King has written.

 

Of course he took liberties. That's a legitimate sentence or statement. One only has to cite 'The Wrong Man'. It doesn't make Hitchcock's films any less 'art'. His success record is amazing like others who've been fortunate enough to maintain their levels of such quality.

To dismiss Stephen King isn't right to me, either. He has created art. He has written some excellent books along with some or many, depending upon your point of view, that fail in some way.

Your definition of 'art' appears to me to be narrow, where mine is wider. If I'm wrong, I apologize. There's a place in film art for everyone from Ed Wood to Fellini. It's all art to me in varying degrees of success. The same with literature, music, painting, etc. Some of its really bad and we may differ on what constitutes 'bad', but I like to think we can welcome the attempts on equal footing.

 

I'm not following you on the first point. And what has fortune to do with it? I thought it was skill.

Semantics. If you want to call your kid's crayon drawings art, then we're clearly talking about different things with the same name.
And I'm not dismissing King. He is what he is.

 

What don't you understand about the first point. Is it about 'The Wrong Man"? Have you seen it? Do you know what the source material was and how Hitchcock took liberties? It was perfectly acceptable for him to make the choices he did. I have no problem with that.

All I was saying that commercial film artists who consistently maintain a high quality of work do so with the cooperation of the studio system from the paying customers to the studio heads who 'greenlight' productions. Hitchcock was fortunate that, in most cases, everything fell into place for his skills to function. Also, making commercial films as he did, he ran into obstacles with studio heads, censors, etc. In some cases, he got what he wanted; in others, he didn't.

The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others". So, it's quite possible that some child's work might be worth considering or are all children unable to reach that level. To simply dumb down my comment dosn't really add anything.

 

Does anyone here have a copy of the International Blu-ray on hand?

I just got one in the mail from Amazon UK, and the disc label says "Duración 144' aprox". , while the box says "119 Mins" (it will be a while before I can get to a friend's house to play it).

I'm hoping somebody can confirm that it's just a typo on the disc.

 

How exactly is this not dismissing Stephen King?

 

Whether or not you appreciate King's work, he has been influential in changes in the horror genre. I'm not suggesting thst everything he's done is great art but to pass judgment on his entire body of work (have you read it all?) seems unnecessarily dismissive. Has King written crap? Sure but he's also written some works that are praise worthy. The Shining is one of them.

Regardless, I'm not going to claim that King's literary skills put in the same league as the best writers in history but he's a talented writer who often challenges himself and has managed to create worthwhile work. Heck, I'd be proud to have written some f his novels (others I'd use as fuel in the fireplace).

Regardless, Kubrick's The Shining like Hitchcock's adaptations recreated the project into his projects. The same with most directors who hae their own "voice".