The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

[Stefan Andersson]

Senses of Cinema Shining dossier:
http://sensesofcinema.com/issues/issue-95/

[moreorless]

As a viewing experience the UHD is simply incomparable to anything that came before, until the Cannes première in May.

Like many here i had the Euro cut on the old Blu and the long cut on an offair VHS. I was always happier then with the long cut as the accumulation of horrors through those cliched elements like the ghosts and skeketons was so Expressively effective, as Sausage points out. As for the mono audio, hearing the score again in its pristine multi track to stereo from the DGG masters takes on the ultimate possible Refinement in the new lossless audio.

This is not just an incomparable demo disc for UHD, it is an unbeatably flawless presentation of the film. Look at it this way, you’ve got a complete masterpiece brought back to life in the best possible everything for a seamless 35mm to 4K transition with an insane audio track, in literally lossless form for 25 bucks. As for long vs. short versions. K’s favorite director, Max Ophuls had the heebie jeebies after the prem audience of La Ronde had a bad reaction In 1950 and he took it back the lab that night and trimmed 15 minutes to cut it down to 97 minutes. That short version has Since been admired as a masterpiece. But the long supressed long cut was let out of the vaults in the late 80sand proved to be a revelation to The small handful of us who have seen it. I have a dream that K, whose favorite director was Ophuls, was still alive and came across the original footage.which he then curated back, against the objections of now very old Marcel who has fought every attempt to get this back into circulation.

If only K were still alive to lap this up.

Yep certainly one of the best UHD disks I'v watched and I would say as well the film does clearly benefit from the extra detail, the close-ups become that much more unsettling and the colours in scenes like the bathroom with Grady stand out a lot more. Quite supprising that The Shining actually looks better than 2OO1 given that the latter was shot in 70mm although some of the FX work on the latter does look amazing.

I always wondered whether the shift in cut was to play up the idea of the colonial legacy more rather than Jack as an abuse parent or TV violence, you could argue the US can shows the latter two as a product of the former but perhaps makes it a bit less clear?

[Oedipax]

Stumbled across this today - the twins from The Shining are now available for Cameo videos.

[Stefan Andersson]

Shining review, mentioning the paper that Torrance holds in the photo, the ending as a consequence of the burnt-down set, and briefly discussing ´the possible meaning of the Looney Tunes excerpts:
https://deepfocusreview.com/definitives/the-shining/

Relevant quotes:
"In the photo, Jack holds a piece of paper that the man behind him restrains him from showing. What does it say? “Help me” or “Let me out” perhaps? Any speculation may be pointless, as the ending was necessitated by a massive fire that brought the Colorado Lounge set to the ground and cost the production $2.5 million. Would Kubrick have made an ending closer to the one in King’s book—where the pressure in the neglected boilers causes the Overlook to explode—had his set not burned down? We can only speculate, as the conclusion proves as open-ended as almost every aspect of the film."

"could Danny’s ability to elude Jack be hinted in his love for Road Runner cartoons, which Danny watches more than once on television in the film? By extension, in the realm of Looney Tunes symbolism, Danny’s nickname, Doc, is a reference to Bugs Bunny’s saying, “What’s up, doc?” Of course, Bugs Bunny was an expert at evading everyone from Elmer Fudd to Daffy Duck. Just as the Road Runner avoided becoming lunch for Wile E. Coyote, Danny avoids his Minotaur-father in the maze in the finale."

[Roger Ryan]

Shining review, mentioning the paper that Torrance holds in the photo, the ending as a consequence of the burnt-down set, and briefly discussing ´the possible meaning of the Looney Tunes excerpts:
https://deepfocusreview.com/definitives/the-shining/

Relevant quotes:
"In the photo, Jack holds a piece of paper that the man behind him restrains him from showing. What does it say? “Help me” or “Let me out” perhaps? Any speculation may be pointless, as the ending was necessitated by a massive fire that brought the Colorado Lounge set to the ground and cost the production $2.5 million. Would Kubrick have made an ending closer to the one in King’s book—where the pressure in the neglected boilers causes the Overlook to explode—had his set not burned down? We can only speculate, as the conclusion proves as open-ended as almost every aspect of the film."

"could Danny’s ability to elude Jack be hinted in his love for Road Runner cartoons, which Danny watches more than once on television in the film? By extension, in the realm of Looney Tunes symbolism, Danny’s nickname, Doc, is a reference to Bugs Bunny’s saying, “What’s up, doc?” Of course, Bugs Bunny was an expert at evading everyone from Elmer Fudd to Daffy Duck. Just as the Road Runner avoided becoming lunch for Wile E. Coyote, Danny avoids his Minotaur-father in the maze in the finale."

Interesting analysis, and I think the bit about how the Looney Tunes characters play into the story is quite astute. But the speculation about the ending being necessitated by the fire that destroyed the set is not well-founded. In fact, I believe the set was actually rebuilt so Kubrick could continue shooting (delaying the shooting of a sequence for Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark since that film's "Well of Souls" set was to be built on the same soundstage). Kubrick famously derided the ending of King's book, stating he had no interest in showing the "big, bad hotel" burning down in the end.

[therewillbeblus]

I came in the thread at this hour, though, to point out that this UHD disc is the best looking physical media I've ever come in contact with. It is staggering how good this restoration looks.

Umm, you weren't kidding.. what an introduction to the UHD format this was. I've never seen a decent-looking presentation of this film before, but even accounting for that whiplash, it's remarkable how much this felt like watching a theatre print -only from my couch. Just surreal

The more I watch this film (following my read of the book in my mid-20s, though I had seen the movie many, many times before that), the more I see a stronger deviation between this text and the source. I already got into this a couple pages back, but the novel presents an entirely subjective and empathetic linkage with Jack battling with his resentments and self-loathing, as well as perceived responsibilities, societal demands of the masculine role in a family system, etc. that drain him of the minute will power working to stabilize his psyche. While King was more focused on the former raw, acute feelings of self-worth as related to the immediate family members' intimate relationships, Kubrick seems almost entirely interested in the latter, drawing a careful exhibition of banality stemming from broad familial relations from the get-go that allows the audience to feel Jack's sense of oppression in place of your standard empathy.

The tone doesn't stop there, but extends to all family members. Instead of the novel's Wendy as a strong-willed woman defined by her complex relationship to Jack, resenting and adoring him in a relentless psychological swirl that translates to love, Duvall is equally segregated from Jack as he is to her or Danny, or we are to any of them. She tiptoes around him with ignorant anxiety, as if trying to breach the energy ubiquitously working to pull them apart without acknowledging it's there at all. The hotel acts as a device of repelling people apart and reinforcing isolation, which in turn depletes us of will power (and leads people to relapse on alcohol or react violently to people close to them, in real life). However, the inner torment felt in the novel is communicated entirely in elisions here, and it's that sweeping surrogate experience of separateness that Kubrick so masterfully constructs, deliberately paced to draw us away from our strategies for balance in narrative-engagement.

Has there ever been a film that expresses the sensation of fatalistic antisocial seclusion so strongly without establishing typical alignment with its principals? After all, there's been unresolved tension in the air since before anyone arrived- in the car ride up between Jack and Danny, and even in Wendy's meek, insecure apologizing for Jack to the doctor. Even when Wendy awakens Jack from his horrible dream, we don't jump to empathize with his pain, but instead feel our own pain via the hair-raising stimulation that is keeping Jack from finding salvation in his wife, and the powerlessness of Wendy unable to bridge a connection to help Jack. Their discord couldn't be more pronounced- two people desperately wanting to be comforted and to comfort, but hopelessly resigned to be alone even when they're literally holding one another. This isn't transmitted with the lucid explanations King offers in internal monologues of cognitive flooding, or symbiotic developments of characterization in emotional observation. It's entirely physical- an examination of behavioral/environmental blending in a vacuum that usurps any potential for spiritual binding outside of the self and onto another soul.

This is not only between members of the family unit, with Hallorann's slow walk through the hotel before his demise a case in point of how the mise en scene evokes (anti)social horror. Kubrick's methodology insulates him in a sterile space of perpetual doom. Whether or not you find the film 'scary' is secondary to the vibe of fear pulsating the frames of this and all scenes of characters alone in their environment, even when they're not 'physically' alone. Every shot conveys absolute helplessness of achieving social harmony; each family member obstructed from actualizing their husbandly or wifely ‘duties’, and thus prevented from the consolation of collective identity- leaving unrealised and unfulfilled individualized identities in the wake of this void. This ‘loss’ was never afforded a focal point of amity to measure against, leaving the pervasive mood all the more unsettling from its temporally-infinite impotence. It's as if these characters are trapped in a literal concrete claustrophobic structure mirroring Antonioni's abstract worlds of alienation, only without the baseline willingness or skills his characters have to soberly acknowledge that something is wrong to begin with- resigning Jack and Wendy to even more devastating and feeble states. This is perhaps the most beautiful movie ever made about incessantly depressing loneliness.

[hanshotfirst1138]

Shining review, mentioning the paper that Torrance holds in the photo, the ending as a consequence of the burnt-down set, and briefly discussing ´the possible meaning of the Looney Tunes excerpts:
https://deepfocusreview.com/definitives/the-shining/

Relevant quotes:
"In the photo, Jack holds a piece of paper that the man behind him restrains him from showing. What does it say? “Help me” or “Let me out” perhaps? Any speculation may be pointless, as the ending was necessitated by a massive fire that brought the Colorado Lounge set to the ground and cost the production $2.5 million. Would Kubrick have made an ending closer to the one in King’s book—where the pressure in the neglected boilers causes the Overlook to explode—had his set not burned down? We can only speculate, as the conclusion proves as open-ended as almost every aspect of the film."

"could Danny’s ability to elude Jack be hinted in his love for Road Runner cartoons, which Danny watches more than once on television in the film? By extension, in the realm of Looney Tunes symbolism, Danny’s nickname, Doc, is a reference to Bugs Bunny’s saying, “What’s up, doc?” Of course, Bugs Bunny was an expert at evading everyone from Elmer Fudd to Daffy Duck. Just as the Road Runner avoided becoming lunch for Wile E. Coyote, Danny avoids his Minotaur-father in the maze in the finale."

Interesting analysis, and I think the bit about how the Looney Tunes characters play into the story is quite astute. But the speculation about the ending being necessitated by the fire that destroyed the set is not well-founded. In fact, I believe the set was actually rebuilt so Kubrick could continue shooting (delaying the shooting of a sequence for Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark since that film's "Well of Souls" set was to be built on the same soundstage). Kubrick famously derided the ending of King's book, stating he had no interest in showing the "big, bad hotel" burning down in the end.

King’s ending does kind of tie it’s cut with the Gothic Romance tradition of ending with a conflagration. I’m fairly certain that the reason that they didn’t use the “hedge animals” stuff is that the effects just woudn’t have been up to it at the time.

[MichaelB]

I’m fairly certain that the reason that they didn’t use the “hedge animals” stuff is that the effects just souls t have been up to it at the time.

I seem to recall Kubrick saying as much, and he was undoubtedly right.

To be brutally blunt, the effects weren't really up to it even by 1997, when the more King-faithful TV movie version was made - I remember some pretty painfully obvious CGI.

[dekadetia]

Sam Harpoon... Ahem, Ben Stiller in talks to play Jack Torrance in a new West End stage adaptation.

[hearthesilence]

There's kind of a logic there if they're taking any inspiration from Kubrick's film. I feel like Nicholson and Stiller are two actors who are at their most hilarious when they're acting enraged.

On the other hand, that quality plays out in different ways. Nicholson has his weird and highly inventive shtick while Stiller is, well, like this.

[Stefan Andersson]

Reports re: Taschen´s Shining book, featuring Werner Herzog, rare photographs, comments on the Kubrick-Duvall collaboration and more:
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/stan ... 235556874/
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... ho-you-are

[beamish14]

I look forward to the general public version of this book. Unkrich seems to have accomplished a pretty remarkable feat of research

[Graham]

I look forward to the general public version of this book. Unkrich seems to have accomplished a pretty remarkable feat of research

Is that guaranteed to happen?

[MichaelB]

Based on precedent, probably.

[Stefan Andersson]

Lee Unkrich talks to Todd Garbarini about the Taschen book (posted Monday, April 24, 2023):
https://cinemaretro.com/index.php

[Stefan Andersson]

New info re: OAR:

"an interview with Chris Wood in the latest issue of the UK magazine Infinity (issue No. 80). Working for National Screen Services, Chris Wood made numerous film trailers and did the original trailer for The Shining. He recalls how he spent ages on the phone with Kubrick who kept wanting assurances that Wood was making the trailer in the 1.85:1 format."

Source: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/commun ... 939/page-6

[hearthesilence]

It's pretty ridiculous how some fans still insist it's supposed to be open-matte (Academy ratio).

[MichaelB]

That rumour should have been scotched the day that that marked-up storyboard first went public several years ago. And it was always absurd - Kubrick of all people will have known that framing at anything narrower than 1.85:1 in mainstream American cinemas by 1980 simply wasn't a realistic option. It was hard enough getting the 1.66:1 Barry Lyndon framed correctly in the US.

But some people cling to this nonsense as if it was holy writ even after the filmmaker explicitly contradicts them. For instance, people have been insisting well into the last few years that Koyaanisqatsi should be watched in 1.37:1 because that's how it was framed on laserdisc - but that version is compositionally terrible, and Godfrey Reggio later confirmed that he only sanctioned an open-matte release because for him it was more important that (then much smaller) TV screens be completely filled so that it could approximate the visually overwhelming experience that he intended. But when 16:9 formats and high definition became the norm, the original 1.85:1 theatrical framing came back into play because the rationale for the open-matte version had evaporated.

[Orlac]

Horror expert Tom Weaver is one for dismissing releases he worked on, such as the Shout! Blu-ray of THE DEADLY MANTIS, as it doesn't have the 4:3 version from the DVD...but not only is the 1.85:1 version on the blu-ray the correct way to watch the movie, but the 4:3 transfer is very heavily zoomed in.

Heck, even PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE is supposed to be seen in widescreen!

[Mr Sausage]

That rumour should have been scotched the day that that marked-up storyboard first went public several years ago. And it was always absurd - Kubrick of all people will have known that framing at anything narrower than 1.85:1 in mainstream American cinemas by 1980 simply wasn't a realistic option. It was hard enough getting the 1.66:1 Barry Lyndon framed correctly in the US.

Not only that, but you'd have to be willing to believe the notoriously perfectionist Kubrick would be ok with glaring mistakes like rotor blades and helicopter shadows being visible on screen.

[MichaelB]

Not only that, but you'd have to be willing to believe the notoriously perfectionist Kubrick would be ok with glaring mistakes like rotor blades and helicopter shadows being visible on screen.

Well, there is a mistake in the shorter international cut, which is that two actors are included in the opening scroll (Anne Jackson and Tony Burton) who no longer appear in that version of the film! But I daresay there were contractual issues at play there, plus of course the logistical faff of having to completely redo the entire opening scroll.

But I totally agree with you about the helicopter shadow; he'd never have sanctioned that. And nor would he have had to, as Greg McGillivray shot a vast amount of helicopter footage for him - so much so that it was entirely feasible to repurpose previously unseen footage for the ending of the initial 1982 release of Blade Runner without it being obvious where it came from.

[Maladroit Aggregator]

Agreed that you'd have to willfully ignore evidence and common sense to say that Kubrick preferred the open matte version, but it can certainly be argued that the taller image is in many ways a different, often better experience, compositionally and aesthetically. Open matte versions of his last three flicks are easily available, and all are interesting, but this film is the only one that really "works" and works in a different way than the others because of the tall framing. The wider image is more claustrophobic and threatening, while the open matte is more spacious and suggestively haunting. The figures in the open matte image seem more untethered to the real world, and there are so many vaguely threatening scenic objects and set designs just above their heads that feature more prominently in the open version.

I find it silly when films like On The Waterfront are given multi-ratio releases, when the difference is purely cosmetic, and that's an actor's and writer's film anyway, like all of Kazan's stuff.

[hearthesilence]

The one guy I personally know who obnoxiously clings on to those rumors is also a vocal libertarian and given all the morally disgusting nonsense he's completely bought into, I suppose an incorrect aspect ratio is the least of his sins.