The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Mitt Outsound
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:34 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#176 Post by Mitt Outsound » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:40 pm

A wonderful and informative assembly of links. Many thanks. The music of The Shining was my entry way into the music of 20th century classical composers and I never looked back.
Roger Ryan wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 8:35 am
Also, I now see (thanks to that simplified music chart linked to above) that a reel change did occur just before the dolly in to the photograph - that explains the "odd jump" I saw when seeing the film theatrically in 1980 (probably not an indication of last-minute projection booth editing, just the clumsy mechanics of film projection).
Since you saw The Shining in a commercial theater, most likely you saw projected a composite print. Which means (using Mr. Stainforth's music charts) the "odd jump" you saw was not caused by a reel changeover. The scene transition in question (from frozen Jack to dolly-in on photograph) would have been in the "middle" of the reel, not across a reel changeover. Bear with me.

In 1979/1980 almost all studio post-production used 35mm for both picture and sound. All picture & sound editing, sound mixing and negative cutting used reels of 1000-feet (1000') in length. When that work was completed those 1000' reels were combined to create larger reels of 2000-feet (2000') in length. So the negative cutter spliced together every two 1000' reels of cut negative to create what were called 2000' AB reels. Reel 1 and Reel 2 were spliced together to created Reel 1AB, Reel 3 and Reel 4 combined to make Reel 2AB, and so forth. The sound mix on 1000' reels of 35mm fullcoat were combined to create the printmaster reels of 2000' in length. After color-timing (grading) and shooting the optical track negative, the composite prints are made and sent to the theater. The composite print is comprised of 2000' AB reels.

Now if you look at the "Two of Mr. Stainforth´s music charts, in readable form" there are charts for Reel 14 and Reel 15. You can see on the charts series of numbers in the columns. They are the reel footages for the music cues (and scenes and specific visual cues). At the bottom of Reel 14 is EP (end of picture) 907 1/2, indicating a 1000' reel. And Reel 15, has an EP of 834, also indicating a 1000' reel.

The the first part of the scene transition in question (from frozen Jack to dolly-in on photograph) is listed at the end of Reel 15 as "J sits down J frozen". But since Reel 15 is an odd-numbered reel it will become the first half of a 2000' AB reel. Reel 15 will be spliced together with Reel 16 to create Reel 8AB, a 2000-foot reel. So the scene transition will occur in the "middle" of the reel, not across a reel changeover.

Possible reasons for the "odd jump" you saw:

If someone physically cut the composite print and removed the hospital scene, they then needed to rejoin the reel using splicing tape. Having worked as a feature film editor for decades, I can say with experience that the projectors in commercial theaters are notorious for tape splices jumping in the gate. The projector gate has no tolerance for how a splice in the print and the tape that joins it physically alters the thickness of the print and slightly mis-aligns the perforations

There is also the possibility that the change was done to the Internegative (used to strike the release prints) or the Interpositive. This means the IN or IP is cut, the scene removed, and the reel rejoined with a physical glue splice. It is possible that the splice was a bit imperfect, and when the IN or IP is run at the lab, the physical imperfection of the splice created a slight blur or slight shift in the frame following the splice (in essence creating a visual artifact in the print) making the cut bump. The average film goer would never notice. (And this could happen recutting the original camera negative.)

Now making a cut to a composite print with an optical track creates a whole other can of worms, as the optical track is printed "ahead" of the picture because the sound reader on the projector comes after the picture gate when threading the film through the projector.

Unfortunately we would need Mr. Stainsforths music chart for Reel 16 to unravel the problem with the music edit. It would show us if any music was used in the hospital scene or if there was a music transition to the photograph scene; any fades, cross-fades, overlaps or prelaps. I haven't watched the film in years, but now I'm curious to watch the end and listen for how the mix was "fixed". Did they make a straight cut in the printmaster or go back on the dubbing stage to re-mix in an insert fix.

From my experience you spend a lot of time and hard work to perfect each cut and the mix, and if you have to go back in and "fix" something it never quite works seamlessly.

Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#177 Post by Stefan Andersson » Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:58 pm

Some recollections of the hospital scene

Extensive notations, analysis and novel/film comparison. I scanned it and found it partly interesting, partly over-analysis

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

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#178 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:50 am

Mitt Outsound wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:40 pm
...So the negative cutter spliced together every two 1000' reels of cut negative to create what were called 2000' AB reels...
Yes, I'm familiar with the theatrical use of "AB reels", but simply didn't think about the implications long enough before posting my earlier comment. Thanks for reminding me; I guess I'm back to believing that the print I saw screened three times back in '80 was altered at some point.
Mitt Outsound wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:40 pm
...Now making a cut to a composite print with an optical track creates a whole other can of worms, as the optical track is printed "ahead" of the picture because the sound reader on the projector comes after the picture gate when threading the film through the projector...
As a child, I watched enough films shown on local television (that were edited by the TV station to fit a specific time block) to familiarize myself with this issue. I could usually tell when a scene had been removed due to the snippet of audio that appeared on the soundtrack before a hard cut would occur. I can't say with any certainty this happened with the print of The Shining I saw, but it seemed to me that the audio dropped out slightly in addition to the picture jump.
Interesting - again, there appears to be multiple viewers who claim the hospital sequence ended with Ullman's conversation with Wendy and not with him tossing the tennis ball to Danny. I have to think the sequence played differently depending on which cinema (city?) the film was seen in.

Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#179 Post by Stefan Andersson » Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:48 pm

4 script pages for the deleted scene of Jack finding the scrapbook

Quote:
"The scene was staged on a couch in the middle of the Colorado Lounge, and would have fallen somewhere between the scene of Wendy and Danny exploring the hedge maze (while Jack seemingly watches), and the subsequent scene where Danny first tries opening the door to Room 237."
Originally from TheOverlookHotel.com, the wonderful site on all things re: The Shining, now offline, at least ATM.

Kubrick´s treatment of The Shining, including another version of the scrapbook scene

User avatar
pianocrash
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Over & Out

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#180 Post by pianocrash » Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:37 pm

Just wanted to pipe in and say that I caught one of the remastered screenings last week ($5!), and would highly recommend it to anyone within reach when it pops up again tomorrow (Oct. 1) once again. After years of experiencing the film on all home formats imaginable, as well as sifting through all the cultural phenomena associated with it since, I was no way prepared for the near-psychedelia of watching each scene unfold one by one in that scope, like a puzzle, along with the incredible soundtrack that I'd, sadly, written off until the last few posts of this thread (thank you, thread). Of course, I barely made it into the theater on time, so I was spared the Doctor Sleep sneak preview bookends, but hopefully Maria Menounos will forgive me, someday.

User avatar
Fiery Angel
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#181 Post by Fiery Angel » Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:04 pm

Maria Menounos! She's worth $5 by herself.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#182 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:08 pm

Not sure if that's meant to be a compliment of Menounos! Might not want to try that "worth $5" thing out in person...

Anyway, thanks for the rundown pianocrash, I've seen The Shining in 35mm before but am curious to see the restoration on a large screen, so I'm going tomorrow after work, when I'll literally have the new UHD release sitting in my bag in the car. That's certainly an endorsement for seeing a film in the theater.

User avatar
Fiery Angel
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#183 Post by Fiery Angel » Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:13 pm

It is a compliment. Seeing "The Shining" is just a bonus.

I'll stop now.

User avatar
filmisnotpop
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:50 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#184 Post by filmisnotpop » Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:22 pm

I'll never understand the praise this movie gets. The relationship between Jack and Wendy Torrance is bad in a way that isn't nearly as interesting as it could have been. Despite the fact that Shelley's character is sympathetic from the get-go, I wish she was tougher, or at the very least responded to his bullshit with a dark sense of humor. And am I wrong to ask for a glimpse of what once was between them? I much prefer Eyes Wide Shut, which has a morbid sense of humor about a jealous man's attempt to cheat on a wife who admitted to thinking about cheating.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#185 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:34 pm

It sounds like you're looking for an entirely different film. But as Jack is the lead of this one, we see Wendy through his eyes to some degree, and that's not always going to be the most favorable POV. It's a horror picture about a dry drunk who is struggling with his urges and feelings of inadequacy so much that he is creating an culture and atmosphere of abuse around his family, partially because he hates them and partially because they're terrified of him. It's not about the dissolution of a relationship or a woman who takes up arms against her husband. Wendy only wants him to be able to figure out how to love she and Danny back, however tragic and misguided that desire is.

User avatar
filmisnotpop
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:50 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#186 Post by filmisnotpop » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:06 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:34 pm
It sounds like you're looking for an entirely different film. But as Jack is the lead of this one, we see Wendy through his eyes to some degree, and that's not always going to be the most favorable POV. It's a horror picture about a dry drunk who is struggling with his urges and feelings of inadequacy so much that he is creating an culture and atmosphere of abuse around his family, partially because he hates them and partially because they're terrified of him. It's not about the dissolution of a relationship or a woman who takes up arms against her husband. Wendy only wants him to be able to figure out how to love she and Danny back, however tragic and misguided that desire is.
Thanks for the response, mfunk, but this movie and I are as hopeless to connect as Wendy and Jack. Trust me, I've given this film many opportunities to win me over. You say it's really about Jack, but I'm neither fascinated by the character or the performance. The best I can say about it is that the Room 237 scene is classically creepy (in a way that I wish the rest of it was).

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#187 Post by Orlac » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:37 pm

MichaelB wrote:
Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:48 pm
I've just tried syncing up the John Lewis ad to Penderecki's 'The Awakening of Jacob', and it's much scarier.
I read the corresponding passage in the Bible and I'm not sure how he read that and thought up such disturbing music!

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#188 Post by Big Ben » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:41 pm

filmisnotpop wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:06 pm
mfunk9786 wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:34 pm
It sounds like you're looking for an entirely different film. But as Jack is the lead of this one, we see Wendy through his eyes to some degree, and that's not always going to be the most favorable POV. It's a horror picture about a dry drunk who is struggling with his urges and feelings of inadequacy so much that he is creating an culture and atmosphere of abuse around his family, partially because he hates them and partially because they're terrified of him. It's not about the dissolution of a relationship or a woman who takes up arms against her husband. Wendy only wants him to be able to figure out how to love she and Danny back, however tragic and misguided that desire is.
Thanks for the response, mfunk, but this movie and I are as hopeless to connect as Wendy and Jack. Trust me, I've given this film many opportunities to win me over. You say it's really about Jack, but I'm neither fascinated by the character or the performance. The best I can say about it is that the Room 237 scene is classically creepy (in a way that I wish the rest of it was).
Have you read King's novel? It's much more in depth with characters and goes into what's really hinted at in the film. This removal was part of the reason for King's famous dislike of the film version.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#189 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:47 pm

Which is unfortunate, because I remain surprised that King doesn't think a thoughtful viewer can put those thematic pieces together for themselves in what Kubrick adapted. It's much more effective than the book for what it omits, not less, in my view.

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

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#190 Post by aox » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:25 am

mfunk9786 wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:47 pm
Which is unfortunate, because I remain surprised that King doesn't think a thoughtful viewer can put those thematic pieces together for themselves in what Kubrick adapted. It's much more effective than the book for what it omits, not less, in my view.
100%

I don't think I will ever fully understand why King dislikes the film. It's been 25 years since I have gotten into film and almost as long since I studied this film. Is there an article summarizing King's criticisms of it that I have missed over the years?

Moreover, I agree with you that this is a portrait of a dry drunk and an examination of a co-dependent relationship. Their relationship is supposed to be cold and disconnected, and I think their performances (especially Duvall in the context of codependency) are a perfect embodiment of the themes this film sets out to portray. I mean, Nicholson ends up frozen at the end. :lol:

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#191 Post by Big Ben » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:58 am

I don't necessarily agree with the idea that things can always be interpreted from the film at least in the manner that you both describe because certain things have changed significantly in the process from book to screen. King's criticism's pertain mostly to how Kubrick cut out and changed how characters operated. Book Jack slowly becomes more and more manic as the story goes on due to the presence of the ghosts while Film Jack is sort of that way to begin with. Because of this change Jack lacks the character arc that the book has (King's words not mine.). Wendy is also changed rather significantly. She's far more independent in the novel and sticks up to for herself which Duvall's character really does not do that with the exception of one incident. Also of note is that a great many of the films iconic images are not present in the novel at all. From memory it includes everything from the phantasmal appearance of the twin girls, the maze, and of course infamous bloody elevator.

For the record I'm quite fond of the film myself and I think it's a very good Kubrick film but it's not a very good adaptation of the novel. Kubrick really made it into his own thing and created a cultural touchstone in the process something Stephen King has acknowledged despite his personal misgivings.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#192 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:04 am

Another instance of the adaptation doing a good job at its aims, because Jack needs to have problems headed into this situation for the conceit to work as well as it does. Having him go crazy because of the isolation and/or ghosts doesn't tell the story that Kubrick is trying to tell, because it lets him off the hook and excuses his flawed personality and lack of conviction. The ghosts are coming from inside of Jack in Kubrick's reading, and while real ghosts might work better as a page turner, and King is a fantastically talented and legendary author in his own right, Kubrick tries to have it all with his adaptation and he succeeds at that aim.

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

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#193 Post by Roger Ryan » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:15 am

There's a reason Kubrick screened Lynch's Eraserhead for his crew prior/during the shooting of The Shining: I feel both films are dealing with a male's insecurity about being an adequate provider for his family. The neurosis and dysfunction that derives from this insecurity drives the protagonists of each film insane in their own way.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#194 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:38 am

mfunk9786 wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:04 am
Another instance of the adaptation doing a good job at its aims, because Jack needs to have problems headed into this situation for the conceit to work as well as it does. Having him go crazy because of the isolation and/or ghosts doesn't tell the story that Kubrick is trying to tell, because it lets him off the hook and excuses his flawed personality and lack of conviction. The ghosts are coming from inside of Jack in Kubrick's reading, and while real ghosts might work better as a page turner, and King is a fantastically talented and legendary author in his own right, Kubrick tries to have it all with his adaptation and he succeeds at that aim.
I think in your reading, the hotel and Jack are analogies for each other: two entities in which there is a latent or dormant evil that goes overlooked (sorry) by most, but which is brought out and amplified when the two are brought into contact. So the family's reaction to the evil of the hotel mirrors their relationship to Jack's evil: Danny knows Jack's evil from the start, because he's been the most direct victim of it, but he's also compartmentalized that experience into a second personality. So his relation to the hotel is one of piercing, momentary visions of murder and horror that he hardly knows how to process and which he attributes to the whisperings of his imaginary friend, much as his relationship to his father is defined by a sharp, momentary outburst of violence into an otherwise normal life. Wendy is in denial regarding her husband, so she misses all the warning signs until the last possible moment. Hence she's oblivious to the evil ghosts surrounding her until Jack goes crazy, at which point all the horror and obscenity lying dormant behind the facade of the hotel comes to vivid life once she's no longer in denial. And Jack, well... Room 213 or whatever is both the room where the worst atrocities happened in the hotel and a window into Jack's subconscious, full of compulsion, lust, and internal rot.

I'm one of those who doesn't think this movie is a The Innocents situation. I think Jack is a crazy, violent alcoholic and the hotel is haunted by real ghosts who can have a causal relationship with the corporeal world. But in the way Kubrick organizes it, the hotel, while being literally haunted, becomes also a projection of Jack as a character; and the depiction of the hauntings and the various interactions between the characters and the hotel is a representation of Jack the character writ large, with everything made explicit and apparent, lending it an emotional intensity it wouldn't have if it'd remained only domestic. Horror as a genre does this well: rather than burrowing inward, it projects emotion outward into larger and more intense scenarios. Ari Aster is also good at this.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#195 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:03 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:38 am
I'm one of those who doesn't think this movie is a The Innocents situation. I think Jack is a crazy, violent alcoholic and the hotel is haunted by real ghosts who can have a causal relationship with the corporeal world.
Despite a contradiction with how firmly I made my prior point, I agree with you here. I just think that in King's novel, the ghosts are the main thrust of the turn that Jack takes, while his alcoholism and feelings of inadequacy and frustration are a complimentary subtext. In Kubrick's adaptation, he is far more concerned with the latter taking center stage.

It frustrates me that some people must try to trade on hidden messages and conspiracy when it comes to what Kubrick tries to communicate in his films, and it is so clear that the ghosts in the hotel are representative of men's psychological failings behind a smiling artifice of success and wealth, and the different forms that can take. Jack is at least a semi-successful author (enough to call himself one!), but behind the mask of his work he is someone who is deeply suffering, and sharing that suffering with those closest to him in an unhealthy way. Delbert Grady was someone who, perhaps in another story for another time though we get glimpses of the kind of person he was, gave himself over to murderous frustration with his family a decade or so prior. The girls have an obvious connection to Grady. The woman in the bathtub likely died in the hotel or committed suicide (the book gets more into this but I'm just speaking about the film here), but in her young form she represents the sort of anonymized sexuality that often comes with an encounter with a woman in a hotel when one has the wealth and/or power to arrange one, and how coldly disposable that can often be. The sexual act with the man in the bear costume is another thing explained in more detail in the book, but in the film it can represent any number of hidden depravities that take place behind closed doors in a setting like a hotel, sexual and otherwise. The front facing image of the Overlook is one of plenty, of success and of joy. But Kubrick more effectively communicates what is going on beneath the surface of that sort of outwardly facing success using Jack as an audience cipher (does Wendy get under your skin? Good - Kubrick did his job). Behind his nuclear family is a nuclear bomb about to go off, ghosts or no ghosts. And in my view, that more close to the bone personal story that many can relate to from one of the three main characters' perspective (or more) is what has endeared the film to the public for so long in a way that it would not were it "just" a ghost story.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#196 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:09 pm

Just received the UHD as I was writing this - disappointed that it's just a standard case and slipcover after the handsome edition for 2001!

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#197 Post by swo17 » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:30 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:03 pm
does Wendy get under your skin? Good - Kubrick did his job
Is this also the excuse for the bad child acting?

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#198 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:33 pm

I have a very difficult time determining what is or isn't bad child acting, but I wouldn't consider this performance to be a bad one at all

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#199 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:52 pm

No, I think you’re right, the ghosts in this story are concrete entities, but they’re only important in their relationship to human evil. I do get lightly frustrated with people who need the reality of the ghosts to be ambiguous or even outright the creation of Jack’s madness, and who dislike the scene where the ghosts unlock the freezer for refuting the idea, because it seems like they need it to be the case in order to feel the movie can be taken seriously as art. But I think the film is powerful precisely for making Jack’s demons so concrete. I think people miss the way horror tropes can be powerful in and of themselves, as projections of human experience, and rather than literally the projection of one diseased mind (tho’ that can be powerful, too).

And I agree with you about Jack and his ever present madness. So many criticisms of the performance seem unwilling to see beyond what they thought it should’ve been to see what it is: not madness growing and developing, but madness reawakening and unfurling. Kubrick sees Jack’s violence, greed, and selfishness in terms of historical oppression and metaphysical evil. Once you see emotion in those terms, you can’t treat it in a low key or an everyday banal fashion. You have to give it the intensity the associations demand, otherwise it’s dwarfed by those associations and comes to seem lesser than them. The last thing you need is for Jack to seem a victim if you intend for the evil hotel to be a projection of his own internal evil.

So, yeah, I don’t Kubrick uses ghosts to psychologize the character. Rather, they allow for more direct and intense representations of the character’s emotions and interactions without the need for character explanations. You feel the force and importance of the interactions without needing to be told where it all comes from and what it means.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#200 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:31 am

mfunk9786 wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:03 pm
I just think that in King's novel, the ghosts are the main thrust of the turn that Jack takes, while his alcoholism and feelings of inadequacy and frustration are a complimentary subtext. In Kubrick's adaptation, he is far more concerned with the latter taking center stage.

It frustrates me that some people must try to trade on hidden messages and conspiracy when it comes to what Kubrick tries to communicate in his films, and it is so clear that the ghosts in the hotel are representative of men's psychological failings behind a smiling artifice of success and wealth, and the different forms that can take. Jack is at least a semi-successful author (enough to call himself one!), but behind the mask of his work he is someone who is deeply suffering, and sharing that suffering with those closest to him in an unhealthy way.
I definitely see the film as you do, though I read the book completely differently, and thought it used the haunted aspects of the house to the same effect you (and I) feel that the film does. In the book, through a first-person perspective of Jack’s chaotic mind, there is a strong focus on Jack’s inability to overcome his past, and a very gradual psychological process on how regret and shame turn into resentment. He’s so vulnerable that the ghosts and haunted aspects of the hotel- which I think can be read in the book just as you see them in the film - propel him in this direction through external and internal stimuli breaking down one’s will power toward relapse and causing a revert back to defense mechanisms to compensate for his suffering. It’s a very realistic psychological presentation of the inner mind of an alcoholic, probably the best in any form of media I’ve consumed, and draws a perfect composite of the recovery research pertaining to finite will power, weakened and strengthened dependent on risk and protective factors in the form of external supports and internal stressors.

We know that King was still struggling with his own addiction at the time he wrote the book, and I’d imagine that any adaptation would be difficult for him to stomach since the story he seems interested in telling is rooted in the internal point of view that relays the intense psychological deterioration of both the ‘alcoholic’ and the ‘father.’ I also think that it was probably hard for King to part with one key family dynamic in the novel: how Wendy resents Jack for still having the stronger relationship with his son, while she feels excluded, and how this feeds the complicated relationship between him and his family as he is still more clearly linked to them despite his self-destructive intrusive thoughts.

However, I agree completely with your analysis of Kubrick’s Jack as a man deeply suffering, and think that King and many others have misinterpreted his character in the film, ironically by looking on the surface for what cannot be translated from page to screen in the way that the book does. The novel seeks complete subjective alignment with Jack, but Kubrick wisely doesn’t even try for this, whether it’s because he knows that the art form could not replicate this sense of subjectivity or because he has different interests in presentation, it doesn’t matter. Instead he uses the objectivity of the art form as a strength, channeling the same disturbing subjective experience in the viewer through visual imagery to provoke our own unbalance partially by accepting the distance between us and Jack to allow space for our own projections and align with him through this indirect avenue.

I think Kubrick is actually interested in exploring the same themes as the book, but from a completely different angle. I love the book and the film, and while I think Kubrick successfully delivers a more faithful adaptation to the aims of the novel than many think, I can understand why King would be upset since this adaptation requires a leap of faith to forfeit attachment to process in order to achieve a complimentary experience of spirit. Kubrick also forgoes a more specific focus on alcoholism to encompass broader concerns regarding family dynamics and perceived responsibility, and the conflicting feelings one has regarding a breakdown of will power across these areas, which while explored in the book, here are navigated unbound from any necessity of revolving around a status of being a byproduct of the alcoholism. In this way, one could argue that Kubrick’s film is more complex, flexible, free, and is able to breathe in ways that the book is not, and vice versa.

Post Reply