So that's where all our precious bodily fluids went!

Thanks for the links!

After viewing the film more than a dozen times over the past thirty years, I never realized how illogical the hotel layout is. I think that the design of each given segment of the hotel is so realistic that you don't immediately question that the layout is impossible. At the same time, I'm not certain there was any genuine intent behind the lack of continuity between the hotel exterior and the interior design - the Timberline Lodge in Oregon made for a perfect location for establishing shots, but was completely unsuited as a model for what Kubrick wanted the inside of the hotel to be. That's a situation that occurs in many films. I also suspect that the mismatch of Hallorann opening the freezer door might be due more to the trimming of footage than a deliberate choice of creating discontinuity; a similar discontinuity occurs in the last scene of 2001 when Dave Bowman reverses his direction in the "alien hotel room" mid-scene (this was caused when footage showing Bowman examining a nightshirt and slippers left on the bed was removed after previews).

Still, there were too many inconsistencies in the hotel layout for it not to have been planned that way. Also, since it appears that Kubrick deliberately went out of his way to "reveal" the Colorado lounge window flaw by having extras appear from an impossible hallway during the tracking shot strongly suggests that his intention was to make use of the artificiality of the hotel layout for effect.

I've never payed attention to the layout of the hotel, possibly because the plot doesn't even make sense to me. I've always thought this film was more about expressing a feeling that with being logical. Subsequently, it is the only film that has really scared me.

There's a bizarre logic to the film if you see the hotel's isolation during the winter as a force of nature so strong that no man can resist it. Certainly more profound and chilling than the story it was adapted from. See also: BOB in Twin Peaks

I can definitely see that, but I could never say this film goes from point a-b-c and means this... I categorize this as a "just accept" film.

I don't think the plot has no logic; it does, it's just not available to you. You can sense that there's some kind of order being played out, even if you're not privy to it. The movie's refusal to make things explicit is one of its best assets. You don't know exactly what's wrong with room 237, for instance, but you know that it has to be hideous and perverted whatever it is. The movie invokes that childlike sense of bad things being beyond your comprehension, and all the more terrifying for not squaring away with the little you know. Plus, if you're me, there's a subtle sense that you don't much want to meet whatever thing these events do make sense to.

This is why I'll never read the book or watch the miniseries. I suspect the explanations will just diminish Kubrick's movie.

They will. "A picture is worth a thousand words." isn't just a quaint expression.

I agree with you, there has to be an implied internal logic or else a story won't work. I don't want to know what everything means, but a little part of me wants to know what most of it means. And I think that is what this makes a great film.

A bit like Last Year at Marienbad, I can't for sure say what I just say but I liked it and want to experience it again.

It's been years, maybe decades, since I read the book but what I remember is a distinct feeling that the Overlook was a place of absolute and insatiable anger. I guess that's not really all that unique in terms of how evil is conceived of and depicted, and it's a common thread in King's work, but I think the movie actually carries over this feeling fairly faithfully.

And in that way, I don't really think it is about "the hotel's isolation during the winter as a force of nature so strong that no man can resist it". After all, unless you mean "man" in terms of gender, I'm not even sure it's true. I think it's likely that, if you left Wendy to her own devices, she'd be just fine. And even if you do mean it in gender terms, I still don't think it's true. Dick Hallorann obviously knows the ropes but he seems to get along OK. Presumably there's a caretaker every year but as far as we know there's only been the one incident with the caretaker's family in the past.

But Jack is an angry man. He was a mean drunk and he's resentful of his sobriety. He's simultaneously angry at himself for hurting Danny and angry at Wendy for holding it against him. He's angry at his failure as a writer. The Overlook doesn't turn him into something that he wasn't already - it seizes on his anger and renders him defenseless against it.

The human mind is a convolution from which there is no escape (at least for Jack). The labyrinthine hotel and the (literal, duh) hedge maze make this pretty clear.

Fantastic post/analysis.

Wendy eventually does see the "evil" though. So, following the hatred logic, would that be her hatred for her husband finally coming to surface?

But she likely would not have succumbed to the evil of the hotel. Same with Dick Hallorann. He knows what goes on, and he has likely seen some of the ghosts himself, as does Danny. But only Jack is lured in by its power. On page 2 of this thread, Michael Kerpan brought up Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House" and the 1963 film version, both of which Stephen King has acknowledged as personal favorites and inspirations on his work in general. In that story as well, several people witness the strange goings-on in a house that has a history of evil, but only one of them falls under its spell. That character, like Jack, is ultimately absorbed by the structure.

Not hatred necessarily, but anger. And I think that's an appropriate reading - she's been trying to rationalize Jack's behavior for years (or however long) but clearly she's reached the point where that's no longer possible, and she has to face him and the monster he is.

Danny, too - Wendy says in the scene with the doctor that Danny started talking to Tony just after Jack hurt his arm in a drunken tantrum, and Danny's episodes at the hotel escalate as Jack starts really losing his shit. But being a child, he's so overwhelmed by his emotions that he mentally shuts down altogether, unlike Jack who channels them into his latent hostility and sadism.

By the way ... I might be remembering this completely wrong, since like I said it's been forever since I read the book. But my memory of the novel is that the Overlook was much more concerned with Danny, and Jack was more or less a tool it used to get to the child. King put much more emphasis on the boy's abilities and how threatening/offensive/whatever they were to the spirits of the hotel. Kubrick's film, however, makes Jack's breakdown the central focus and makes Danny little more than a witness to it.

Yes, in the novel the hotel wants Danny for his psychic abilities. His powers will apparently strengthen the hotel's.

I don't know if I agree with "in the novel" for a Kubrick film. I've read 2001 and for those who don't know it's not really based on a book because they both wrote it at the same time and whatever Kubrick didn't agree with he changed and the book does explain more but it is like the "For Dummies.." edition. I've also read A Clockwork Orange and found the book horrible. To me it seemed like Kubrick found it an interesting premise but at the same time made a film that was making fun of the book. Thankfully he left out the end, for those who don't know the book ends with the main character coming of age and realizing that he was being a destructive idiot throughout the entire book.

A vintage TLS review from 1980.

A pity the reviewer felt the need to reveal all of the surprises and plot twists in his review. As to whether Kubrick was taking the material "seriously" or not, THE SHINING, like most of Kubrick's work, is very satirical in nature. This element doesn't diminish the dramatic impact of his films, but enhances them in my opinion.

Concering the international and the american cut of 'Shining' I personally prefer the shorter international cut. This may be just out of the fact that I lived up and still live in Europe - so this version is the one I always knew. In my area a lot of people aren't even aware that there exists a longer cut of it in America.

I have watched it once a few years ago - out of interest I bought the american DVD. I remember that I didn't oppose to most of the scenes included there but I was quite put off by the shot of the skeletons near the end of the movie. I just didn't like it and that shot is not included in the international version.

But maybe it's just a question of what (I am) you're used to.

A Nicholson story from an electrician who worked on the set:

"One time Jack said he had done his back in and needed a few days off. That’s a lot of time when you’re shooting a big film, but Stanley said OK. The next day we were in the sparks room watching Wimbledon when Stanley walks in. He asks what we’re up to and as he turns to look at the telly, there he is: Jack Nicholson sat in the crowd with a girl on either side. Stanley went mad."

An argument that the 35 minute 'making of' documentary was all staged by Kubrick.
http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20 ... %2010.html

Apart from his treatment of Shelley Duvall (and even that wasn't too awful) I think Kubrick behaves pretty reasonably in this documentary. In fact rather better than David Lynch does in Lynch 1 and Lynch 2, which were real eye-openers for those of us who had heard actors raving about Lynch's sweetness and inability to swear on set!

Did they ever fix the color of the tennis ball Danny meets in the hallway? For all those years it was yellow, then it turned a rather strange pink.

I think from all the info I read that Kubrick was never really awful, except maybe to Duvall. The only thing he demanded was repeated takes and was a perfectionist. He never treated his casts like shit (a la Von Trier, Cameron) but was just a private and demanding director