I'd rather they fix the Barry Lyndon aspect ratio. I can live with the pink tennis ball.

Are you referencing Bjork's disdain for von Trier or was there some other incident I haven't heard about? I feel like the majority of the actors and actresses he's worked with have found him a pleasure to work with, even coming back for more (Gainsbourg, Skarsgard, & Barr for example). Maybe they're masochists... Someone like David O. Russell seems like a better (or worse, in this case) example, having had multiple films, actors, and crews that he screwed with.

I remember most actors suffering on Dogville and even actors who work with him say he is difficult

Difficult and treating casts "like shit" isn't quite the same. Take this Nicole Kidman indiewire interview where she compares working with Kubrick and von Trier.





I feel that there are some people who are (more) willing to go certain places and take risks with their performances. It doesn't come as easy to others and sometimes they need that little push. Understandably, things can get emotional. And often that is the director's goal. It's a fine line, but I try not to condemn the Kubricks, Hitchcocks, von Triers, & Finchers who - whether through multiple takes or even creating uncomfortable psychological environments for the camera - seek to throttle that emotional balance for the perfect scene. Nor would I dismiss the Duvalls, Hedrens, Björks, & Downey Jrs. who feel used or abused by the end of a production. But I think that there is a place for that. The directors and producers who bully because they have the power, throwing tantrums behind the scenes because they think that is how to rule a set - that's what I have a problem with.

Sure but I guess you could say that the end justify the means, which is why Cameron can alienate his cast and crew and still get access to million of dollars for each new film

I don't think someone like Russell has any excuse for being a moron, it's not like he can even say "but look at the great movie this environment created".

Three Kings unseen I would say only the Fighter is any good. But enough with Russell, let's get back to talking about my favorite director and the greatest horror film. I think Kubrick is one of the few directors where a whole documentary filled with paranoid and obsessive fans dissecting every little detail and the film still stand perfectly and people continue to be amazed by it (except King) shows how brilliant he was

So I'm here to ask something I'm sure everyone is going to groan at:

I wanted to watch The Shining tonight and it just brought to my attention the entire long argument over Kubrick's intended framing style and AR presentation with most of his films. Anyways to bypass a big chunk of that argument can anyone tell me what is the most accepted home video AR in which to watch The Shining?

Whether it's only available in DVD form or on blu I don't care which format. I'm tired of going through pages of thread on various sites where people keep switching from saying 1.66 to 1.85

There was a short run down about the constant debate about Kubrick and aspect ratios in the Criterion Barry Lyndon thread. It's near the bottom and the top of the second page.

Not specifically what you asked but it brought me some comfort. It appears that it's contentious for a reason.

The theatrical aspect ratio of The Shining is 1.85:1, as per explicit written instructions on Kubrick's storyboards - but the framing was protected for 1.33:1 screenings, as this was the first Kubrick film to be shot in the video era.

^ Which means: If you're going to watch the film on an old tube 4:3 television, Kubrick would want you to watch the full-frame 1.33:1 VHS or DVD; if you're going to watch it on a now-standard 16:9 flat-screen, Kubrick would want you to watch it at 1.85:1 on Blu-ray.

Yup, that's pretty much set in stone. I forget when that annotated storyboard was first revealed to the unwashed masses, but for me it completely settled matters after years of quibbling and speculation.

If Nolan can protect for 12 different aspect ratios, surely Kubrick could do so for 2 or 3. I grew up with this film in 1.33:1 and loved the look of it, but I've also come to appreciate the widescreen in recent years. It's not as if it's a sacred cow even in terms of edits of the picture that have been seen by the public, so surely there's no need for it to be seen as a film with one acceptable ratio set in stone. The ideal solution for an eventual Criterion would be to include both, but since 16x9 is the television standard, surely Kubrick would've preferred to just leave it there for home video releases in this era.

Also, it's amusing to read through the first couple of pages of this thread and realize that there was a time that Bret Easton Ellis was taken as a somewhat serious intellectual voice, until years of irrelevance and putting his foot in his mouth on myriad topics settled that forever.

Carmilla, if you're looking to own one definitive version of the film, the way more contentious question is: American or European cut? This is discussed at length on the first page of this thread. I don't think at the moment you can just own one definitive version of it, my half-arsed solution has been to own a 4:3 American release, and a widescreen European release.

The American cut is far superior - once you've seen it I don't know why you'd ever want to see a chopped up one devoid of some of the film's greatest pleasures.

Apparently Kubrick preferred the shorter version though?

What's the opposite of a broken clock? Wait, that doesn't work either

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Even if he actually cut the film following poor reviews and disappointing box office in the US.

I suspect that if SK preferred the shorter version, he would have assured that it be the version released to US home media.

I've never seen the European (UK?) version; I suppose I might like to at some point as a curiosity, but it sure sounds inferior.

I'm in the camp who preferres the shorter version. I don't actually think I'd like the film as much as I do if there only were the US cut. The pacing drags thanks to seemingly endless shots of Wendy and Danny watching TV and that shot with the cobwebbed skeletons belongs in a Disneyland ride, not a Kubrick film. There are longer alternative versions of films I like which I think are superior or at least add something of interest, but this longer cut doesn't do that for me.

I would endorse the long version if only for that magnificent cut to Anne Jackson's incredulous expression as Wendy rationalizes Jack's abusive behavior.

That scene is the only one which adds something of interest. Still not enough for me to sit through all the unneccesary padding which slows down later sections of the film.

The shorter cut is the superior version. Tighter, better flow.

To me, it's the pace of the film and the feeling of being trapped in the hotel and in Kubrick's masterfully building dread that is the attraction, not something I want to get away from.

Can you even get the shorter version anywhere?



From an architectural standpoint the Overlook makes little sense. The way Kubrick constructs it in the film is inconsistent and disorienting. It's a rare case of consistent continuity failure being a good thing. Kubrick constructed it like one of those Carnival houses you go to have your senses messed with.