Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Jack in the picture at the close of the film would count as another one, no?[/quote]
Unless...

[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]

[Image: c-1.jpg]
Reply
#56

Only now do I realize Annie's brother is in that photo.

Reply
#57
A[quote name="Codename" url="/community/t/69785/the-shining-ghosts-or-dementia/50_50#post_3826704"]Only now do I realize Annie's brother is in that photo.
[/quote]
He's also a member of the show's production staff...

http://m.imdb.com/name/nm6187096/filmoty..._=m_nmfm_1
Reply
#58
Quote:

Originally Posted by Werbal_Kint View Post

Are there actual ghosts in the hotel or are all of the evil doings a product of the stress and dementia of Jack, Danny, and Wendy?


Both.  Think of the ghosts as there to exploit their weaknesses.  Considering the final photograph, Jack likely had a past life in the hotel.  Him looking the same is just a way to communicate an abstract idea.

Reply
#59

Personally I always viewed the photograph as a way to show that the Overlook had "claimed" Jack's soul.  He's front and centre in the photo because he's the latest person to be consumed by the evil of the hotel.  And like Grady before him, he's now merely a slave of that malice.



Having seen The Babadook now I can definitely attest to it sharing a lot of DNA with The Shining.  And without getting into spoiler territory, I love how both films present equally valid evidence for either reading of the supernatural.  I don't believe that taking one reading from either film invalidates the other.  In fact, I think both films are stronger for giving such a wide range of possible answers.  By doing so it invites you to engage with the film, to think on what your seeing and to interpret it through your own beliefs and perception.  And that right there is one of the chief reasons I love cinema.

Reply
#60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

Personally I always viewed the photograph as a way to show that the Overlook had "claimed" Jack's soul.  He's front and centre in the photo because he's the latest person to be consumed by the evil of the hotel.  And like Grady before him, he's now merely a slave of that malice.




I've had the idea that Grady was front and centre in the picture before Jack. I feel like the photo is a living part of the hotel, almost in the way the painting in Dahl's Witches changes when the cursed girl is trapped in the image. Jack winds up in the picture because he has become part of The Overlook.

Reply
#61

As far as the reincarnation idea goes, it's interesting that Grady is given two first names in the film - he's called Charles Grady by Stuart Ullman, but introduces himself as Delbert Grady at the 1920s ball where he is the butler.



Everyone is familiar with the cut epilogue, but did you guys know that Kubrick shot a scene of Jack finding the scrapbook detailing the hotel's lurid history?  If he hadn't cut it out, it probably would have been the biggest bone thrown to the novel in the whole film.  Diane Johnson wishes he had kept it in.  I believe its placement in the film would have been soon before that scene where Wendy wakes Jack up howling from a nightmare - the book can be seen on the desk.



Lee Unkrich is a diehard fan of the movie, and his site has some stills and screenplay excerpts for the deleted material, I believe.



Stephen King initially adapted the book into a screenplay himself, but Kubrick rejected it.  King's version below is that he chose not to be involved because he heard bad stories about working with Kubrick:



Reply
The Shining- Ghosts or Dementia?
#36
I hate this thread - full of you meddling kids.
Reply
#37
Gotta watch this thread real close, now. . . She CREEPS.
Reply
#38
I know this is hardly new, but I love it.

Fat kid renenacts The Shining.
Reply
#39
Even scarier: he does a decent Shelley Duvall impression.

In both novel and movie the Overlook is a Bad Place, somehow sentient and able to put on "masks" to manipulate people.

Danny's Shining powers the hotel (in the book Danny finds an elaborate Cuckoo Clock, winds it up, and sees a toy man bash a toy woman to death with a mallet. Then he has visions where he turns into a key. Subtle)

At the end of the novel the Overlook is burning: As Wendy, Danny and Halloran are running away, Halloran looks back and sees something "like a swarm of wasps" flying out of the hotel and dissipating.

Kubrick is not so optimistic and not willing to tip his hand. Kubrick also does not spell out the relation of Danny or Jack to the hotel. The fact that all this nightmarish stuff is taking place in (mostly) broad daylight or very well lit nighttime, adds to the unsettling nature of the film in my opinion.

Also Danny is totally Shining at Halloran in Florida; the later gets all wide eyed because he's being blasted by the visions Danny projects at him
Reply
#40
They're fake teeth. He's using them to mock Shelly Duvall.
Reply
#41
This guy's analysis is worth watching...he does an excellent job of dissecting the film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEulbcXkgjo
Reply
#42
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd
View Post
They're fake teeth. He's using them to mock Shelly Duvall.

You hope
Reply
#43
Quote:

Originally Posted by Me

Sigh, what are you on about? There is no demon infesting the Overlook Hotel. One of the concepts that King returns to time and time again is that of the "bad place", i.e. places that--through past violent actions or their own natural history--are repositories of evil. Think of the Marsten (sp?) house in "Salem's Lot". Essentially, King describes these places as evil batteries, retaining the psychic power of all the bad things that happen there. In "The Shining", Danny's power provides the Overlook Hotel with the dry charge it needs to start functioning again. To borrow other imagery, he's inadvertently winding the Hotel's mainspring up. Everything that follows is simply a manifestation or projection of the Overlook Hotel, from Grady to the woman in Room 217 to (in the novel) the sentient topiary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby
View Post
In both novel and movie the Overlook is a Bad Place, somehow sentient and able to put on "masks" to manipulate people.

Danny's Shining powers the hotel (in the book Danny finds an elaborate Cuckoo Clock, winds it up, and sees a toy man bash a toy woman to death with a mallet. Then he has visions where he turns into a key. Subtle)

You guys can see my posts, right? Just makin' sure.
Reply
#44

So I'm bumping this thread because a) it's The Effing Shining and b) I found myself reading a recent interview with Stephen King where he renews his displeasure for Kubrick's film.



THE SHINING has always been one of the most interesting exhibits to bring forward when having the debate about what makes a good adaptation.  In theory - and this is certainly my position - a good adaptation of a novel is a good film that is based on the novel.  Period.  But THE SHINING is unique, and therefore controversial, in mothballing the key themes of its source material and therefore telling a completely different story with a dramatically different agenda.  Is it really an "adaptation" anymore once that happens?



So, okay, that's a well-worn path.  But for as much as people will point out that Kubrick discarded much of King's intent, I don't hear enough speculation about his motivation for doing so.  At least, motivations more nuanced than "He was a robot with no interest in humans beyond a clinical one."  (Frank Darabont, who's long been a personal friend of King's, nearly goes that far in his own appraisal.)  I think some of the rare quotes from Kubrick already pasted above really get at the heart of it, but I want to add this statement from him from the same interview:



Quote:
Stephen Crane wrote a story called "The Blue Hotel." In it you quickly learn that the central character is a paranoid. He gets involved in a poker game, decides someone is cheating him, makes an accusation, starts a fight and gets killed. You think the point of the story is that his death was inevitable because a paranoid poker player would ultimately get involved in a fatal gunfight. But, in the end, you find out that the man he accused was actually cheating him. I think The Shining uses a similar kind of psychological misdirection to forestall the realization that the supernatural events are actually happening.


It is clear to me that this is the aspect of King's book that Kubrick seized upon and wanted to make a movie about.  What's interesting is that while it is a cool aspect, it's not one that I see commonly brought up in the analysis of King's book, nor is it something I feel King really intended, at least not in a way that was meant to compete with his thematic stuff in terms of significance or attraction.



While seemingly ignoring the "point" of the book, Kubrick found something valuable in it that others overlooked.   Here's another quote from the same interview where Kubrick gives The Master of Horror a backhanded compliment:



Quote:
The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely well worked out, and for a film that is often all that really matters.


I can understand the appeal from Kubrick's perspective.  The idea of ghosts turning out to be figments of the imagination is a nice but clichéd conceit.  The idea of introducing enough distrust with your characters that the ghosts must be figments, only to eventually remove every explanation but the supernatural, is a much more intriguing idea that King does include and is worth making a movie about.  If Kubrick really was that drawn to the misdirection element, it certainly goes a long way toward explaining why he disposes King's tale of paternal guilt to make Unreliable Narrator: A Ghost Story.



And what makes Kubrick's film so brilliant, and the reason it continues to be analyzed, is because that revelation toward the end that the ghosts are real doesn't actually solve or clarify anything.  If anything, it ups the ante on the ambiguity because it just introduces one more interpretation.  Supernatural aside, you're still left with three people of questionable sanity trapped in a claustrophobic setting.  You still have a kid with psychic powers he can't control whose visions and fears may or may not be biased, affecting what his parents receive, and on top of everything perhaps being skewed by the energies of the hotel.



The common theory about Jack talking to himself in the mirrors still applies.  Maybe he is just talking to himself.  Or maybe reflections are the method of contact best available to the hotel's spirits as they're gaining power.  The psychological explanation, the supernatural explanation, and everything in between is fair game when it comes to a lot of the film's ghastly imagery.  Kubrick never quite lets you have a reliable grasp on what's going on, which is the real secret to the film's relentless unease and enduring quality.



Anyway, woke up this morning with a hankering to talk about THE SHINING.  We've all been there, I trust.

Reply
#45

I have actually had The Shining on my mind quite a bit today since watching The Babadook multiple times in the last 24 hours.



Structurally the films are oddly similar and contain elements and themes that seem connected. As for the core explanation of either, I honestly have no way to summarize what happens in a neat and concise explanation. That fact to me makes both of them that much more rewarding, thought provoking and worthy of study.



Oddly enough I find that what someone takes away from watching The Shining says a lot about their personal beliefs.

Reply
#46

I have heard good things about THE BABADOOK and was delighted to see that it will be coming to a theater near me later this month.  Usually when a movie gets a roadshow style release like this it's all but a guarantee I won't get to see it, so I'm pretty jazzed.

Reply
#47

I recommend staying as far away from spoilers as possible for that one. Even The Shining comparison is almost saying too much.

Reply
#48
AToday marks the first snow fall of the season where I'm located. That's as good a reason as any to give The Shining another viewing. Thanks for bumping the thread and giving me the idea!
Reply
#49



Oh, and I don't know if any of you have seen this UK TV spot, but it contains an extremely rare glimpse of alternate takes, specifically Jack's rise after killing Halloran, and some extra leering at Shelley Duvall during the "Here's Johnny" sequence.





I become more and more in the tank for Nicholson's hammy performance with every viewing of this movie.  It's clearly Kubrick's direction, and it's similar to the depiction of Private Pyle's descent into madness as well.  Kubrick's clearly got silent movies and James Cagney on his mind when he's portraying loonies.  Kubrick always stood by Jack's performance as brilliant, and I count myself a believer.

Reply
#50

That's gold right there. Cheers!

Reply
#51

Same.  This movie, and every element within it, is perfect, imo.  Thanks for the link.

Reply
#52

It's my all time favourite horror film.  Haven't watched The Babadook yet but I'm dying to after all the positive WOM.



But one of the things I love most about this film is how vague it presents everything supernatural that happens (hence the original question I guess). Nothing is ever really explained in detail other than Danny's ability to "Shine" which I always feel is the best way to do horror.  Once you explain the details of a monster or ghost story it loses a lot of it's effectiveness.  Shining a light into darkness and all.  But when something supernatural is presented in a more opaque manner, it kind of makes you ask questions you don't want to ask.  It allows your imagination to fill in a lot of blanks and often the results are much more effective.

Reply
#53
AHaving the hotel's scares be transmitted through psychic energies was the perfect way to keep everything on this side of certain. Once you establish that Danny can't control his powers and then introduce the possibility that he's causing interference with his parents' input as well, everybody's perception of reality is in question. Nobody is entirely trustworthy.

The movie ultimately embraces the supernatural, but only in the sense that some malevolent force occupies the hotel and uses something akin to ESP to communicate with its prey. In a sense, it's more science fiction than ghost story, and no more speculative in its science than INTERSTELLAR. Wendy running through the funhouse of horror cliches toward the end feels like Kubrick's concession to the genre he's ultimately claiming to be working in.
Reply
#54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

But one of the things I love most about this film is how vague it presents everything supernatural that happens (hence the original question I guess). Nothing is ever really explained in detail other than Danny's ability to "Shine" which I always feel is the best way to do horror.  Once you explain the details of a monster or ghost story it loses a lot of it's effectiveness.  Shining a light into darkness and all.  But when something supernatural is presented in a more opaque manner, it kind of makes you ask questions you don't want to ask.  It allows your imagination to fill in a lot of blanks and often the results are much more effective.



Agreed. I like King, but he has a literal minded need to explain everything, which is probably why I've never found his writing all that scary or haunting. And it doesn't just affect his horror stuff, The Dark Tower was far more compelling when its world was left as this mysterious place where you were left trying to figure out its anachronisms on your own.



The other problem I have is that his prose style is so chatty and affable, it just never creates much of an atmosphere for me.



The Shining movie solves both these problems because Kubrick's style has an innate eerie chilliness to it, and he's more than happy to use a kind of hazy dream logic to tease you with unsolvable mysteries.

Reply
#55
A[quote name="bendrix" url="/community/t/69785/the-shining-ghosts-or-dementia/0_50#post_2711045"]
Quote:

[TABLE]
[TR]
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
It's kind of odd that, in the entire film, there is only that one instance that suggests what's going on isn't entirely in the heads of the characters.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)