The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

Discuss films and filmmakers of the 20th century (and even a little of the 19th century). Threads may contain spoilers.
Message
Author
User avatar
John Edmond
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:35 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#26 Post by John Edmond » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:13 pm

Would we argue Denis' Beau Travail is misogynist because it's male-focused, and the only women depicted are passive? And it's not like her other films have sequences that could be considered problematic. Cough, Trouble Every Day, Cough.
Last edited by John Edmond on Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Posts: 5844
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#27 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:13 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:He went on further just now
Lolita (duh), Dr. Strangelove (whores), 2001 (women: a little girl and stewardess), A Clockwork Orange (bitchy yoga woman) female places Alex in prison, Barry Lyndon (Lady Lyndon still writing checks at end), Full Metal Jacket (sniper).
I usually don't agree with any of his Tweets, but I thought this was interesting.
Alex goes to prison because his droogs turn on him, not because of the yoga woman, who he kills and who isn't given any scenes in which to act bitchy. Of all the examples to choose in that movie, this is the one he picks?

I think the end of Full Metal Jacket (not a movie I'm fond of) is meant to serve as a counterpoint to the hyper-masculinity and borderline misogyny of the training sequences, in which feminine traits are used as insults on anyone who fails to perform up to standard, making the fulfillment of military training also a fulfillment of masculinity. In the second half, this very hyper-masculinity prevents the men from cohering into the well-oiled unit their training assumed they would become, until they are taken apart finally by some little girl with more combat skill and more conviction--indeed, being rather a more ideal soldier than any of them had managed to be--than the men could muster. This upends the military ideology of the first half, and the film ends with a scene of everyone returning to their childhood selves by singing the Disney song. Again, there are better examples to use for this argument (the prostitute scene).

Lolita is a strange one since the worst person in the movie is Humbert (he is, after all, Quilty's double). Dr. Strangelove isn't trying to portray anyone well. It's a satire, everyone gets skewered. I don't get his point about Barry Lyndon.
matrixschmatrix wrote:It's fair enough to say that his movies are almost always male-focused, which is to some degree a product of misogyny
So then you would be equally willing to claim that a female director's work that was almost always female-focussed would be to some degree a product of misandry?

User avatar
Feego
Posts: 1511
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#28 Post by Feego » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:15 pm

His tweets are pretty shallow and one-sided. Especially his "duh" concerning Lolita. How exactly are Humbert Humbert and Clare Quilty positive depictions of masculinity? Again, I'm not saying Kubrick is expressing high-fevered girl power. He's certainly not a feminist director. But he seems to take a pretty negative view of ALL of his characters, not just the women. And I certainly wouldn't call Jack's fate at the end a triumph. He (along with humanity, it would seem) has made a regression so violent that he is forever lost in the past, presumably doomed to repeat it again and again.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Posts: 8613
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#29 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:18 pm

They all are, for the most part. He made a pretty snide remark way back about how if a man directed The Hurt Locker it wouldn't have gotten as much attention or acclaim.

User avatar
knives
Posts: 13965
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#30 Post by knives » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:21 pm

Maybe Ellis isn't being serious?

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Posts: 5931
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#31 Post by matrixschmatrix » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:23 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:So then you would be equally willing to claim that a female director's work that was almost always female-focussed would be to some degree a product of misandry?
I should have put a 'could be' qualifier in there, sorry. Though I don't think the situations are perfectly analogous, any more than Affirmative Action is inherently racist.

User avatar
John Edmond
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:35 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#32 Post by John Edmond » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:24 pm

knives wrote:Maybe Ellis isn't being serious?
Quite possibly, I don't particularly care. Maybe it's just because I watched the Sterling Haden interview on The Killing, but I'm bored of the media (and Ellis is more media than author nowadays) arguing that everybody that doesn't submit to them is a crazy loon.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Posts: 1879
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#33 Post by Roger Ryan » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:45 am

The strength of the German singer in PATHS OF GLORY reduces the French soldiers to tears. Lolita, despite her shortcomings, absolutely outsmarts and controls the men in her life. The female Russian politico in 2001 is smart enough not to be convinced that Dr. Floyd is being entirely truthful. Lady Lyndon determines her own future yet displays sympathy to a failed man whom she once loved. Anne Jackson's doctor in THE SHINING is clearly the most intelligent and insightful character in the film; Wendy, despite being co-dependent and naive, saves her child and escapes. The female sniper in FULL METAL JACKET is the exact opposite of the psychopathic ex-marine snipers that the drill sergeant glorifies and this completely confounds the male soldiers who thought they were, at last, in an honest fight. Nicole Kidman's character in EYES WIDE SHUT completely undermines her husband's vain nature by not having an actual affair but by questioning his assumptions.

I'm not seeing the misogyny.

User avatar
Drucker
Posts: 4082
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#34 Post by Drucker » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:36 am

Roger Ryan wrote:I'm not seeing the misogyny.
Just to play devil's advocate...and I haven't read the original post about the misogyny, but couldn't one make the argument that these are examples of misogyny? That these powerful/strong women aided in the bringing down of a man?

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Posts: 1879
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#35 Post by Roger Ryan » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:44 am

Drucker wrote:Just to play devil's advocate...and I haven't read the original post about the misogyny, but couldn't one make the argument that these are examples of misogyny? That these powerful/strong women aided in the bringing down of a man?
Only the character of Lolita could possibly be viewed in this light and, yet, as a child she exposes the adult men in her life as deluded fools. The French generals are the dangerous egotists in PATHS OF GLORY, the astronauts and scientists are undone by their trust in artificial intelligence in 2001, Barry Lyndon curses himself by not ingratiating himself with Lady Lyndon's family, Jack Torrence allows his own insecurity to destroy him, the FULL METAL JACKET soldiers are victims of a culture attempting to fight a morally confused war with a black-and-white John Wayne mentality and Tom Cruise's Dr. Harford is completely to blame for his sexually frustrating and potentially deadly adventure in EYES WIDE SHUT.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Posts: 5931
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#36 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:11 am

It's telling that Eyes Wide Shut wasn't on that list, as I think Alice is one of Kubrick's strongest and most interesting female characters- she's both more powerful and more admirable than her husband, certainly.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Posts: 8613
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#37 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:12 am

He used it as an example in a later post.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Posts: 5931
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#38 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:25 am

Jesus, that's a terrible, half-assed analysis, even for one broadcast via Twitter. I mean, his case is that Kubrick's women are "passive, whores, nonexistent, murderers..."- none of those apply to Wendy, who is surely not passive. None of them apply to Alice. None apply to the sniper in FMJ (if she's a murderer, so are all of our male heroes.) I'm not really sure he can make his case stick for any Kubrick movie, outside of maybe Strangelove- and it would be damned out of place if any character, male or female, were allowed to be heroic in that movie.

He later suggests that 2001 would have been improved if HAL had been voiced by a woman, but honestly- is there the slightest chance he wouldn't have included that as yet another murderous depiction of females?

User avatar
Brian C
Posts: 3053
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#39 Post by Brian C » Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:35 am

I don't really have an opinion on Kubrick's treatment of women aside from the general observation that it doesn't seem possible that he devalued women more than he devalued men. Virtually all of his movies are devoted to the project of critiquing male vanity and a few (Strangelove and Eyes Wide Shut stand out, and at least the first half of Full Metal Jacket, maybe Lolita though it's been a decade since I've seen it) are absolutely merciless in their skewering of its male characters.

Criticizing him for misogyny may or may not have some degree of merit but it definitely seems like missing the forest for the trees. Guys, he's making fun of YOU.
Last edited by Brian C on Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aspect
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:36 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#40 Post by Aspect » Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:14 am

The Shining was written by Stephen King (and what Ellis is criticizing was also present in the original novel). Lolita (novel and screenplay) was written by Vladimir Nabokov. I could go on, but Kubrick was mainly an adapter. There's no question the final films are his, but he was often working closely with someone else's original material (Cobb, Southern, Clarke, Burgess, Thackeray, Hasford, Schnitzler, etc.). One could argue that he was attracted to stories with misogynist tendencies, but I completely disagree with that statement anyway. Has Ellis even seen Paths of Glory? Or any of these films? Kubrick was attracted to the follies of men, and women were often the level-headed victims of man's insecurities and vanities.

This reminds me of that lame argument that purveys Kubrick as some sort of robot who hated humanity. The man made movies...for people. He loved them and was fascinated by them. Just because his style was rigid and structured doesn't mean he was some sort nihilist. But that's beside the point. Ellis is reading these movies all wrong, or he's just starving for attention.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Posts: 5844
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#41 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:41 am

Drucker wrote:
Roger Ryan wrote:I'm not seeing the misogyny.
Just to play devil's advocate...and I haven't read the original post about the misogyny, but couldn't one make the argument that these are examples of misogyny? That these powerful/strong women aided in the bringing down of a man?
You can make an argument that pretty much anything is misogynist. It's the easiest argument in the world to confect. Try it next time you're with friends: everyone is assigned a random movie and has to argue that it is misogynist. Not only will everyone be able to do it, but the arguments can be very convincing, even with movies that clearly are not misogynist.

For whatever reason, it's a very easy argument to make if you're lazy (that's why so many undergrads opt for it in their papers). Even more unfortunate is that this has taken away from the seriousness of what is a very serious charge because it gets made so often and with such dubious evidence that you become inured to it.
aspect wrote:Lolita (novel and screenplay) was written by Vladimir Nabokov.
Kubrick's final screenplay doesn't much resemble Nabokov's original one. In fact, Nabokov said many times that he didn't know why Kubrick chose not to use the script he wrote.

User avatar
Brian C
Posts: 3053
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#42 Post by Brian C » Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:48 am

Mr Sausage wrote:For whatever reason, it's a very easy argument to make if you're lazy (that's why so many undergrads opt for it in their papers). Even more unfortunate is that this has taken away from the seriousness of what is a very serious charge because it gets made so often and with such dubious evidence that you become inured to it.
This comment is misogynist, because women now make up a larger percentage of college students than ever - about 57% according to this data. Maybe next time you shouldn't single out a group that is disproportionately female as "lazy".

User avatar
knives
Posts: 13965
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#43 Post by knives » Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:25 pm

I see what you did there.

User avatar
R0lf
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#44 Post by R0lf » Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:18 am

Feego wrote:I must say I very much agree with Roger Ryan above. I too have never seen the shorter cut, but I have a hard time imagining the film without some of these scenes. In particular, the doctor scene to me is integral to the film's set-up and our introduction to the characters. By revealing the history of Jack's alcoholism and his physical abuse of Danny early on, Kubrick gives the film a sense of unease from the very beginning because we know that this family is already on the brink of self-destruction. In the very next scene, for example, in which the family is driving to the hotel, there is an edge to the family dynamic as Jack seems visibly annoyed with Wendy's talking. Later, when Jack has a nightmare of killing Wendy and Danny, and Wendy finds Danny with the bruises on his neck, there is a greater emotional connection by knowing their history. We totally understand Wendy's devastation at the thought that Jack has hurt their son, because all hope that he will change has been dashed for her.

On a more personal note, I love the doctor scene because I think it is one of Shelley Duvall's best moments in the film. Duvall gets a lot of mixed reviews, but I think she's brilliant. Her vulnerability and the sense that she is delusional enough to believe that Jack will turn around completely are heartbreaking. I love the way she tells the doctor about the incident with Danny's shoulder. In her most childlike way, you get the feeling she is trying harder to convince herself that it was just an innocent accident than the doctor. And like Roger Ryan said, that cut to Anne Jackson's reaction is a great payoff.
I have only seen the shorter version. I think it opens the movie up more because you read it as being about the misery of marriage rather than about being intrenched in an abusive marriage. It also lends a lot more humour to the script by making all the scenes between Jack and Wendy passive aggressive rather than just out and out aggressive.

I've said to a lot of people over the years that they will enjoy The Shining a lot more if they have been in a long term relationship. I hope they saw the shorter version!

On a different topic. Did anybody else think a number of scenes in this were similar to Burnt Offerings? The explanation of always being there and the photos at the end seemed almost directly taken from that movie and I believe these were some of the biggest changes made from the novel?

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Posts: 1879
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#45 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:42 am

R0lf wrote:I've said to a lot of people over the years that they will enjoy The Shining a lot more if they have been in a long term relationship. I hope they saw the shorter version!
This became especially apparent to me after I became a father. The anxiety I felt in adapting my independent nature to providing for a family allowed me to see the film in a new light!

I've always said that EYES WIDE SHUT is perfect for couples who've been together for ten years or longer.
R0lf wrote:On a different topic. Did anybody else think a number of scenes in this were similar to Burnt Offerings? The explanation of always being there and the photos at the end seemed almost directly taken from that movie and I believe these were some of the biggest changes made from the novel?
Even the novel seems to have been inspired by BURNT OFFERINGS (although the film appeared in the U.S. only three months prior to the publication of King's book) in that the evil is attributed to a structure instead of its former inhabitants. I wonder if King was aware of the Dan Curtis production while he was writing THE SHINING? I had already seen BURNT OFFERINGS on TV before Kubrick's film was released, so I immediately picked up on the use of the photograph at the end as being similar. Of course, OFFERINGS is pretty ham-fisted whereas THE SHINING is so elegant that even in reusing this idea Kubrick makes it feel original.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Posts: 7321
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#46 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:50 pm

> the evil is attributed to a structure instead of its former inhabitants.

This probably comes (ultimately) from Shirley Jackson's 1959 novel The Haunting of Hill House -- and remained the focus in Robert Wise's 1963 film adaptation, The Haunting.

User avatar
Feego
Posts: 1511
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#47 Post by Feego » Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:05 pm

I wouldn't be surprised if King was influenced by Jackson's novel and the 1963 film, as he has cited both as personal favorites.

User avatar
aox
Posts: 2394
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#48 Post by aox » Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:04 pm

Image

blush you die

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#49 Post by blush you die » Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:55 am

What are people's views of the first "vision" of Winnie's that features a person in a bear suit blowing a "well dressed man"? I understand that it is meant to show the depravity that has occurred in the hotel but, why something so obtuse?

JMULL222
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:58 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#50 Post by JMULL222 » Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:21 pm

That backstory is covered in the book; you get the whole story about those two particular guests. Kubrick just kept that one image.

Post Reply