|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 24, 2020 20:27:18 GMT
Not sure if I’m reinventing the wheel here, but I found this site, which includes Kubrick’s early (not sure if original) treatment for The Shining. Most of it is nigh-identical to the final product, except that there’s less ambiguity and it’s more book-faithful, but then it takes a wild diversion at the end. Among other things, Wendy kills Jack, and a possessed Dick Hallorann’s the villain! There’s also an intriguing interview with Kubrick on the movie. Would love to know what everyone thinks… |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jan 24, 2020 21:00:09 GMT
I am skeptical such a radical idea (the possession thing)
was seriously entertained by Kubrick.
Also, how is it that we suddenly get all these chatty detailed interviews with him when for years and years it seemed like he never did interviews or spoke much about it?
There's a transcript reported to be a story meeting for Raiders of the Lost Ark--it discusses things about designing the character yet makes zero reference to Secret of the Incas--which according to the costume designer was such a significant influence on the film they watched it regularly during production.
I wonder if some of these interviews are fabricated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 25, 2020 14:47:06 GMT
Good point, Prime etc. . To be honest, I hadn’t even considered the idea that it might be something other than what the site claims... I’d be interested in knowing where the site got it from, which they don’t explain. If it’s not Kubrick’s draft, though, what is it? And I do think the interviews are genuine: they were published in newspapers when Kubrick was alive, and he had a definitely genuine (and chatty) interview with Rolling Stone in ’87. As for Raiders, they were definitely inspired by Secret of the Incas, but I’m not sure they would have mentioned that in every story conference. And the possession thing comes from King’s book. Yes, it’s Jack who’s possessed, not Hallorann, but as we know from the finished movie Kubrick wanted to do something different and unexpected with Hallorann, instead of using him as a deus ex machina, as King did. |
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 25, 2020 16:35:41 GMT
Good point, Prime etc.. To be honest, I hadn’t even considered the idea that it might be something other than what the site claims... I’d be interested in knowing where the site got it from, which they don’t explain. If it’s not Kubrick’s draft, though, what is it? And I do think the interviews are genuine: they were published in newspapers when Kubrick was alive, and he had a definitely genuine (and chatty) interview with Rolling Stone in ’87. As for Raiders, they were definitely inspired by Secret of the Incas, but I’m not sure they would have mentioned that in every story conference. And the possession thing comes from King’s book. Yes, it’s Jack who’s possessed, not Halloran, but as we know from the finished movie Kubrick wanted to do something different and unexpected with Halloran, instead of using him as a deus ex machina, as King did. Haven't checked out your link, but I'm looking forward to scoping it out. But a lot of the interviews are not as new as new as people make them out to be. Like the interview where he discusses the ending of 2001 that popped up on YouTube like a year or so ago, for instance, was not hidden or anything. I had a book that was called The Kubrick Interviews or something like that, that was just made up of printed transcripts and print interviews and that was one that I'd read years ago. He wasn't as unwilling to speak as people make it out. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jan 25, 2020 18:44:26 GMT
As for Raiders, they were definitely inspired by Secret of the Incas, but I’m not sure they would have mentioned that in every story conference. It was supposedly the main conference since Philip Kaufman was present (oddly turned into Lawrence Kasdan in some versions)--the one where they discussed everything including the costume creation. For the movie not to come up seemed weird--but then the discussion itself is really weird and sounds phony to me.
There's no ums or uhs or repetitions or references to studio executives or employers or yesterday's lunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 30, 2020 17:35:38 GMT
Haven't checked out your link, but I'm looking forward to scoping it out. But a lot of the interviews are not as new as new as people make them out to be. Like the interview where he discusses the ending of 2001 that popped up on YouTube like a year or so ago, for instance, was not hidden or anything. I had a book that was called The Kubrick Interviews or something like that, that was just made up of printed transcripts and print interviews and that was one that I'd read years ago. He wasn't as unwilling to speak as people make it out. Great! Looking forward to seeing what you think. Yeah, and Kubrick let his daughter film that “documentary” on the making of The Shining, so he wasn’t as standoffish about these things as he seemed. In the Rolling Stone article he tries to debunk myths people have of him. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 30, 2020 17:36:49 GMT
As for Raiders, they were definitely inspired by Secret of the Incas, but I’m not sure they would have mentioned that in every story conference. It was supposedly the main conference since Philip Kaufman was present (oddly turned into Lawrence Kasdan in some versions)--the one where they discussed everything including the costume creation. For the movie not to come up seemed weird--but then the discussion itself is really weird and sounds phony to me.
There's no ums or uhs or repetitions or references to studio executives or employers or yesterday's lunch.
Ah, didn’t know that. Will have to check it out, whether it’s phony or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 28, 2020 3:08:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 27, 2020 19:11:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 23, 2020 18:19:00 GMT
The Shining was on TV yesterday, and I rewatched. And I had some thoughts (typical: if any movie compels you to think through it while appearing a normal genre exercise, it’s this) on which I’d be interested in anyone and everyone’s take. The critics who blast Nicholson for being obviously nutso from the beginning, including Stephen King, are missing the point, I think. In King’s book, Jack Torrance is a good guy (breaking Danny’s arm actually was an accident) who is corrupted and eventually possessed by the evil supernatural hotel and its ghosts. That’s a perfectly valid ghost story, and perhaps deserves a faithful adaptation that’s actually good (i.e., not the 1997 miniseries). This watch has convinced me that Nicholson and Kubrick’s Jack Torrance is not even intended to descend into madness, as every plot-summary claims (no doubt because of King’s book). But it’s not just that he’s mad from the beginning: it’s that he’s the hotel’s from the beginning. Viewers have long debated whether movie-Jack is a reincarnation of a 1920s partygoer (the photograph at the end, “it was though I’d been here before,” “always the caretaker”) or a modern person sucked into the hotel’s never-ending ghostly party (the, er, photograph at the end, the book’s storyline). I’m throwing my hat firmly into the reincarnation approach, and I think that is the movie- Shining’s real story: Jack is a reincarnation who is being pressured to go back to where he really belongs, the Overlook. In other words, he’s out of his place and time and, thus, out of his mind. The hotel is trying to call him back. Even more than his déjà vu remarks, I think this little-mentioned dialogue confirms this interpretation:Obviously, this can be read as Jack’s saying that he’s back after the Rm. 237 stuff “interrupted” him. But he hasn’t been away that long between the first bar scene and the second. I think it’s an even better indication that he’s been away from the hotel, from this world, from this life, and now he’s back. He’s back where he’s meant to be, in the Overlook on an eternal July 4, 1921, and it’s good to be back. Something else that struck out to me—and maybe here I’m more in the weeds—was Jack’s tie in the Ullman scene. Here:  And then look at this:  Maybe someone’s already mentioned that the tie looks like the maze. (If so, I haven’t seen read it.) Maybe I’m reading too much into this. As anyone who’s seen the Room 237 documentary knows, this movie does that to you. Either way, that change from possession to reincarnation is the biggest plot-difference from the book, in my opinion. Book-Jack is unconnected to the Overlook in the beginning but gradually becomes part of it. Movie-Jack is already part of the Overlook but doesn’t know it until he arrives. As ever, the thing that gets under people’s skin with The Shining is that it can have a million different interpretations, some more convincing (the slaughter of the Indians), some less so (the Moon Landing!  ). I’m not sure what Kubrick meant by the film, if anything. But I do think that Jack’s meant as a reincarnation and that that’s a major change from the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 23, 2020 21:02:03 GMT
The Shining was on TV yesterday, and I rewatched. And I had some thoughts (typical: if any movie compels you to think through it while appearing a normal genre exercise, it’s this) on which I’d be interested in anyone and everyone’s take. The critics who blast Nicholson for being obviously nutso from the beginning, including Stephen King, are missing the point, I think. In King’s book, Jack Torrance is a good guy (breaking Danny’s arm actually was an accident) who is corrupted and eventually possessed by the evil supernatural hotel and its ghosts. That’s a perfectly valid ghost story, and perhaps deserves a faithful adaptation that’s actually good (i.e., not the 1997 miniseries). This watch has convinced me that Nicholson and Kubrick’s Jack Torrance is not even intended to descend into madness, as every plot-summary claims (no doubt because of King’s book). But it’s not just that he’s mad from the beginning: it’s that he’s the hotel’s from the beginning. Viewers have long debated whether movie-Jack is a reincarnation of a 1920s partygoer (the photograph at the end, “it was though I’d been here before,” “always the caretaker”) or a modern person sucked into the hotel’s never-ending ghostly party (the, er, photograph at the end, the book’s storyline). I’m throwing my hat firmly into the reincarnation approach, and I think that is the movie- Shining’s real story: Jack is a reincarnation who is being pressured to go back to where he really belongs, the Overlook. In other words, he’s out of his place and time and, thus, out of his mind. The hotel is trying to call him back. Even more than his déjà vu remarks, I think this little-mentioned dialogue confirms this interpretation:Obviously, this can be read as Jack’s saying that he’s back after the Rm. 237 stuff “interrupted” him. But he hasn’t been away that long between the first bar scene and the second. I think it’s an even better indication that he’s been away from the hotel, from this world, from this life, and now he’s back. He’s back where he’s meant to be, in the Overlook on an eternal July 4, 1921, and it’s good to be back. Something else that struck out to me—and maybe here I’m more in the weeds—was Jack’s tie in the Ullman scene. Here: And then look at this: Maybe someone’s already mentioned that the tie looks like the maze. (If so, I haven’t seen read it.) Maybe I’m reading too much into this. As anyone who’s seen the Room 237 documentary knows, this movie does that to you. Either way, that change from possession to reincarnation is the biggest plot-difference from the book, in my opinion. Book-Jack is unconnected to the Overlook in the beginning but gradually becomes part of it. Movie-Jack is already part of the Overlook but doesn’t know it until he arrives. As ever, the thing that gets under people’s skin with The Shining is that it can have a million different interpretations, some more convincing (the slaughter of the Indians), some less so (the Moon Landing! ). I’m not sure what Kubrick meant by the film, if anything. But I do think that Jack’s meant as a reincarnation and that that’s a major change from the book. Not only does your interpretation make sense, but Kubrick has said directly that that's what happened. I personally prefer it being a bit more abstract and having that interpretation be possible while also being able to argue that it's not that cut and dry and that the idea of 'You've always been the caretaker' having more of a doomed fate connotation than a literal reincarnation, but you seem to be correct in the eyes of the man himself. Anyway, I'm with you all the way on everything else with the different Room 237 interpretations, but particularly the idea that Jack was crazy from the beginning and everything was doomed since then. The book is a about a mostly well intentioned if not entirely good man who is corrupted by forces internal and external to a horrible degree, and the movie is about a family hanging by a fucking thread and putting on a facade that they can function as normal people, but it's clear from the beginning that just under the surface and that very false veneer is anger and violence and darkness. Stephen King never seemed to understand that as his critiques seem to always say Kubrick missed the point of the book, while he was simply making a different point than the book was. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 23, 2020 21:23:18 GMT
Anyway, I'm with you all the way on everything else with the different Room 237 interpretations, but particularly the idea that Jack was crazy from the beginning and everything was doomed since then. The book is a about a mostly well intentioned if not entirely good man who is corrupted by forces internal and external to a horrible degree, and the movie is about a family hanging by a fucking thread and putting on a facade that they can function as normal people, but it's clear from the beginning that just under the surface and that very false veneer is anger and violence and darkness. Stephen King never seemed to understand that as his critiques seem to always say Kubrick missed the point of the book, while he was simply making a different point than the book was. Thanks, and—exactly! If you’re referring to the interview I’m thinking of, yes, though Kubrick kind of hedges his bets: “The ballroom photograph at the very end suggests the reincarnation of Jack.” He never says outright that’s what he thinks, and suggests could mean “suggests to most viewers.” He also says suggests in this clip. Well, I think that interpretation isn’t clear, though—which may be why, despite Kubrick’s remarks, many critics don’t agree with that take. The movie continually undercuts the interpretations we give it: what about the cut coda in which Jack’s body disappears? Is Ullman in on—something, as that unseen scene seems to suggest? What’s the role of Bill Watson? Why Room 237? Etc., etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 23, 2020 21:45:32 GMT
By the way, masterofallgoons, what did you think of the maze-looking green tie? Is there something to that, or am I going to end up like the people in Room 237?  |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 23, 2020 23:57:33 GMT
Not sure if I’m reinventing the wheel here, but I found this site, which includes Kubrick’s early (not sure if original) treatment for The Shining. Most of it is nigh-identical to the final product, except that there’s less ambiguity and it’s more book-faithful, but then it takes a wild diversion at the end. Among other things, Wendy kills Jack, and a possessed Dick Hallorann’s the villain! There’s also an intriguing interview with Kubrick on the movie. Would love to know what everyone thinks… not big on that whole idea as it also takes away from some of the wider aspects to the respective story arcs.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 24, 2020 12:52:44 GMT
By the way, masterofallgoons, what did you think of the maze-looking green tie? Is there something to that, or am I going to end up like the people in Room 237? Toeing the line maybe? It never occurred to me, but I did always notice that tie. I really don't know if this is the case, but I kind of thought that it was out of style for that time. I never thought of the knit tie as being of that time, and even if it was wrong, I thought it was a little informal. So it always seemed like a deliberate choice. My assumption was that it was meant to tell us that Jack Torrance didn't have much money and wore this old thing he found in the closet. But there could have been a little more to the color and texture choice. As far as Room 237 theories go this isn't as outlandish as the fake moon landing confessional theory. I'd say it's at least somewhat plausible. You're right that the quote, if we were litigating this, would technically not be a direct confirmation that the reincarnation theory is textual fact, but that is about as clear as he was ever capable of being about such things, so I feel like I have to sort of have to accept that as confirmation, even though I prefer the more abstract and elusive feeling I get from the film itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 24, 2020 15:40:00 GMT
Not sure if I’m reinventing the wheel here, but I found this site, which includes Kubrick’s early (not sure if original) treatment for The Shining. Most of it is nigh-identical to the final product, except that there’s less ambiguity and it’s more book-faithful, but then it takes a wild diversion at the end. Among other things, Wendy kills Jack, and a possessed Dick Hallorann’s the villain! There’s also an intriguing interview with Kubrick on the movie. Would love to know what everyone thinks… not big on that whole idea as it also takes away from some of the wider aspects to the respective story arcs. The idea of Hallorann as villain? Yeah, I don’t like that either, but it does go to show that even at that early stage Kubrick wanted to do something different with him than just make him Wendy and Danny’s savior, as King did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 24, 2020 15:50:05 GMT
By the way, masterofallgoons , what did you think of the maze-looking green tie? Is there something to that, or am I going to end up like the people in Room 237? Toeing the line maybe? It never occurred to me, but I did always notice that tie. I really don't know if this is the case, but I kind of thought that it was out of style for that time. I never thought of the knit tie as being of that time, and even if it was wrong, I thought it was a little informal. So it always seemed like a deliberate choice. My assumption was that it was meant to tell us that Jack Torrance didn't have much money and wore this old thing he found in the closet. But there could have been a little more to the color and texture choice. As far as Room 237 theories go this isn't as outlandish as the fake moon landing confessional theory. I'd say it's at least somewhat plausible. Oh god, I hope it’s not anywhere near as outlandish as the fake-moon-landing-confession theory! By the way, I found out that I was reinventing the wheel and that other people have picked up on the tie-maze similarity. Someone created a handy juxtaposition here:  It is a weird and jarring tie, isn’t it? I’m looking up knit ties (oh, what this movie does to you!), and they don’t look like that one. I think it’s just a small thing meant to show that Jack already belongs to the hotel, as in my theory above.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 24, 2020 17:23:15 GMT
not big on that whole idea as it also takes away from some of the wider aspects to the respective story arcs. The idea of Hallorann as villain? Yeah, I don’t like that either, but it does go to show that even at that early stage Kubrick wanted to do something different with him than just make him Wendy and Danny’s savior, as King did. I see Halloran problematically as a total catalyst for Dannys story arc, he doesn't have his own agency in some ways and acts as a plot device to help Danny. I like him as a surrogate grandpa figure who shines(pun intended?) a light on Dannys powers while also helping to protect Danny but adversely I also wish that dynamic was developed more, How did Halloran grow up with his ability for example?.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicktatler76 on Nov 25, 2020 10:56:24 GMT
I've got a question re: the scene in Room 237. When Jack realises who/what he's been kissing, it cuts to a shot of the old woman getting up in the bath (who looks different to the one who starts laughing). Does anyone have any theories on any meaning behind this?
Is it Halloran seeing what Danny saw when he went in?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 25, 2020 16:52:45 GMT
I've got a question re: the scene in Room 237. When Jack realises who/what he's been kissing, it cuts to a shot of the old woman getting up in the bath (who looks different to the one who starts laughing). Does anyone have any theories on any meaning behind this? Is it Halloran seeing what Danny saw when he went in? Oh, are they different? I always took both of them to be the rotting corpse of the woman who died in the bathtub (drug-overdose suicide in the book). It is one of those callbacks to the book that Kubrick never explains in the film. (Another is the dog/bear-man.) As for what it means… I don’t know. I do find it weird that Jack goes back to Wendy and says he found nothing in the room. That whole sequence, like much of the movie, seems like it’s suggesting something beneath the surface, but I don’t know what.
|
|
). I’m not sure what Kubrick meant by the film, if anything. But I do think that Jack’s meant as a reincarnation and that that’s a major change from the book.
