|
|
Post by kingstownted on Mar 13, 2013 16:42:05 GMT -5
Welcome to the Overlook Hotel, we hope you enjoy your stay. This week we take an in-depth look at all things The Shining from the original novel to Kubrick's classic (and confounding) adaptation to the 1997 television miniseries to Room 237 and the plethora of theories and analysis that have been applied to the 1980 film. What began as a look back at a particular film that we have been remiss in addressing evolved into one of the best discussions we have had in quite some time (including our own opinions of the fake moon landing film footage conspiracy). Focusing on Stanley Kubrick and the seminal horror masterpiece The Shining, we considered the themes of the story and what Kubrick's intentions may have been in the divergences taken in his translation. At its core, the story examines the central theme of the breakdown of a family but the question remains of the extent to which supernatural forces play a hand. One of the most obsessive directors cinema has known, its fair to assume that every element on screen is specific with artistic intent - the question remains as to what those meanings and messages really are. We hope you enjoy taking a ride with us through the twisting (albeit symmetrical) hallways of isolated nightmare. We offer up some thoughts on a couple of big screen CGI mega-movies, Raimi's Oz and Singer's Jack the Giant Slayer. As well, we discuss a very intimate documentary Collapse (2009) which carries on the theme of conspiracy theories, discussing peak oil and the cataclysm that lies ahead. We invite you all to share your own creative endeavours with us as we wish to share the projects that have come from the collective efforts of the Horroretc community. As always we welcome your comments: horroretc@gmail.com Voicemail (206) 337-5324 |
|
Stylus
Cellar Dweller
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.
Posts: 24
|
Post by Stylus on Mar 13, 2013 17:33:03 GMT -5
The "Family Film" Trailer!
|
|
|
|
Post by hayden88 on Mar 14, 2013 4:13:42 GMT -5
Excellent episode! I easily count the Shining as one of my top three movies of all time. Much prefer the movie to the Tv adaptation. I've read the book but compared to the movie, some moments just seem so hokey- the fire hose? The topiary? But I guess the movie needed the base story to exist and no doubt the novel skyrocketed after Kubricks movie! P.S No shame in liking Shelley Duvall! I think Kubrick shot in her in a way that was none too flattering in this movie, funny angles, funny wardrobe and so on to help reflect jacks growing annoyance with her. Check her out in some of her earlier movies though shes very attractive! I think a lot of her appeal is that in todays Hollywood, you will NEVER, find an actress looking quite like her, and she had a lot of raw talent. She played the role of Wendy perfectly! As for the behind-the-scenes diva stuff- come on, she was up against Jack Nicholson! And Kubrick!
Thanks for show Tony and Ted, great stuff!
|
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Mar 14, 2013 7:12:44 GMT -5
Fantastic ep guys. I think that the movie and the miniseries offer two different takes on adaptation. Stephen King, while not the best author in the world, has a goal to use horror to tell a non-horror story about the effects of alcohol on the family. Kubrick's take was, essentially, a frightfest. Its primary goal was to terrify the audience and throw them off their stride, ignoring the narrative.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolecushing on Mar 15, 2013 0:00:53 GMT -5
I enjoyed this episode immensely...probably one of my faves (the other faves being the series of Hellraiser shows). A couple of thoughts... 1. The music...ay, ay, ay....One thing I love about Kubrick is that he's not afraid to use classical music in the soundtrack of his movies. Much of the music used in The Shining was composed by Bela Bartok. Here's a link to one example that was written by Bartok and used (decades later) in The Shining: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khao59UYqdo2. Common themes between 2001: A Space Odyssey & The Shining ... I think in both of these movies Kubrick is exploring the theme of people having an encounter with something beyond human comprehension. In 2001, it's alien intelligence. The final "star gate" sequence, is -- I think -- supposed to symbolize the astronaut's encounter with something truly alien (as alien to us as using the first tool was to the crude human ancestors at the beginning of the film). The end of 2001 is about the next evolutionary leap that mankind's taking...and we simply can't understand that because we're not at that level. We're humanity "before the leap", we can't understand humanity "after the evolutionary leap", anymore than a crude human ancestor could understand us. Likewise, in The Shining Kubrick is exploring something beyond human comprehension...death...the afterlife...ghosts...And, again, it seems to me a big part of the point is that it's totally incomprehensible. That's what makes it so creepy -- you feel as though you should be able to understand it -- and then there's something totally effing crazy thrown into the mix (like the guy in the dog costume) and blammo! There goes your sanity! 3. I love the Kubrick version and think the TV miniseries version suffers from poor performances and, yes, lackluster effects. I know King likes to say that Jack Nicholson seemed crazy from the start...but I've never experienced the film quite that way. I think the alcoholism allegory works just as well with this version as it does in the '90s TV version -- actually, better because the '90s version is (I think) kind of heavy-handed. 4. If you want to know about one of the most famous WTF moments in the film (the "Dogman" caught in a compromising position), check out this blog from Chad Helder. ----> unspeakablehorror.com/journal/2006/10/28/the-shinings-dogman.html |
|
|
|
Post by mathias42 on Mar 16, 2013 23:26:37 GMT -5
One of the real problems with discussing the Shining is that the Kubrick movie transcends the source material, becoming it's own thing. The problem is, even though the Kubrick film has become it's own entity, there still exist a book by the same name and with a similar story, source material that now exists as a separate work of art. Any comparison of the film with the book (or the mini-series for that matter) is a bit unfair.
It's interesting that Tony mentions the new OZ movie, because I think it suffers a similar fate. The Wizard of OZ is another example of a film that transcends the source material, becoming it's own thing. Very few people know that there were FOUR movies made from the Oz books BEFORE the Judy Garland film. You might know there were more books than jsut the wizard of OZ, but you might not know that there were fourteen written by the author Frank L Baum, and more after his death (depending who you ask, the canon is about forty books). I loved OZ the Great and Powerful, it's exactly the OZ movie I've wanted to see most of my life- especially since I discovered the books. It suffers though, from an unfair comparison to the Garland film (Which ironically isn't the best representative of the books).
Finally, I wanted to chime in about the Hedge animals. I think these could be extremely scary. They are in the book, but they were handled poorly in the TV series. We never should see these things move. They should be created practically out of something lightweight and hollow, then covered with foliage with faces that could be changed (swappable faces or swappable features - like a mr. potato head). They should only move when unseen - this can be perfectly effective -the Weeping Angels from Doctor Who were mentioned....and let's remember that was totally practical. That was just guys in suits and interchangeable masks. I suppose you might need a second or two of them moving - but a second or two of primitive CG mixed in with ten minuets of practical effects, that's a big difference from what we saw. For the most part though, I stand by the statement that they shouldn't move. They get closer every time someone moves away. Create the feeling of movement with zooms and dolly zooms (vertigo effect) and atmosphere with lighting and facial expressions on the animals.....all of which is really hard to do on a TV budget, I know. But all of it could have been accomplished in the Kubrick film if he'd gone with it insted of the Labyrinth.
One more thing, the dogman is possibly the most terrifying thing to me in the book, the way he blocks that hall and hounds Danny. It's not quite as effective in the mini-series, but it comes close. I realy do miss that element in the Kubrick film, but I get why it was excised. Again, it's a diffrent animal.
I wonder. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Kubrick movie had been seen by more people than have read the book. Does anyone have any idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolecushing on Mar 17, 2013 15:36:02 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Kubrick movie had been seen by more people than have read the book. Does anyone have any idea? This seems to be the general pattern. Movies are far more popular than books. |
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Mar 17, 2013 15:42:06 GMT -5
If a book sells a million copies, that's a smash hit; if a movie sells a million tickets, that's about $10-15 million in box office receipts; fine for an arthouse film, but lousy for a mainstream movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by delbertgrady on Mar 26, 2013 20:59:22 GMT -5
Guess it should come to no surprise from my username that The Shining is my favorite horror movie, luckily the first time I saw it I was about 13 so was young enough for it to completely scare the shit out me. Thought it was kind of funny Ted/Tony discussed the scene between Jack & Danny as "tender" when Danny is sitting on Jack's lap immediately after Jack has woken up because I find it one of the creepiest moments of the film mainly because of Nicholson's great acting with his dead eyes and monotone delivery with the great, freaky music in the background. What makes this film great and re-watchable is how so many different interpretations can be made to what exactly is going on, I know I still go back and forth on many of them. For instance, one plot point not discussed on the podcast was who hurt Danny? Was it the old woman as Danny says, or was it Jack? When Jack has his encounter with the young/old woman is he actually hurting Danny and the Overlook's power is making them both see the woman instead what is really happening, hell if I know but it's fun to theorize about! As far as Jack being crazy before he even starts the job, I think it's fine to consider Jack is already a broken man and the Overlook just pushes him over the edge. He's already broken his child's arm in the past. I really like the kid's understated performance,
it could have really hurt the movie if he wasn't game. Which leads me to the biggest sin of the mini-series which is the kid is just awful, he is so annoying and whiny I think I wanted the Overlook Hotel to swallow his soul.
|
|
|
|
Post by hayden88 on Mar 29, 2013 15:52:49 GMT -5
As far as meanings go, the way I like to read the film is that the story that Jack is working on begins to reflect his descent into insanity. He goes from being in an already fragile state of mind to being completely engrossed in his work, maybe like Kubrick himself would often do? The turning point, I believe, is Jacks first visit to the bar. He slumps over, wakes up, and immediately knows the name of Lloyd (because he is in Jacks story). Jack also changes the name of Charles to Delbert Grady, and the typewriter changing colour mid-way through the film reflects the change from reality over to Jacks story. Ullmans story about the Grady murders and the hotel scrapbook are all that Jack needs for inspiration.
Maybe I'm entirely wrong, who knows? Still cannot believe this movie was nominated for two razzies! Easily a horror masterpiece the likes of which you will never see today.
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on Apr 7, 2013 19:15:28 GMT -5
Great episode. And, well, damn, you got me interested in revisiting the film. I saw it when it first came out, and was not impressed by anything other than the technical aspects of the film. But I was also big into reading Stephen King, so the changes in the basic story bothered me quite a bit. Still, I plan to revisit the film, and will post my opinions then.
But I plan to read the novel again first, then watch the film version, then revisit the television version (which I feel gets the story right in some aspects). Will be a bit of an undertaking and hope to share thoughts with you and the rest of the community along the way.
|
|
