The Shining (With Jack Nicholson) What was going on???

[Doubleclick]

Ok...we've all seen this so I am not ruining anything for any one.

Now I've seen this movie hundreds of time and (in the words of the ever wise BettleJuice) it keeps getting funnier, every single time I see it.

But one thing that has always left me somewhat confused is this:

That's the storry with Jack Torrance? Was he the original care taker in the sence that he was phisically there, did his 'deed' and forgot? Or is it the implied 'time travel'? Or reincarnation?

It's not a big deal I guess, as the photo at the end of the movie puts that errie twist to it, but what is the general understanding of what was going on?

Thanks!

All work and no play makes Doubleclick a dull Doper.
All work and no play makes Doubleclick a dull
Doper. All work and no play makes
Doubleclick a dull Doper. All
work and no play makes
Doubleclick a
dull Doper.


:D

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

One person's analysis of this movie:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0052.html

As to your questions, though, I can't help. I don't "get" Kubrick all the time, either.

[headshok]

That's the storry with Jack Torrance? Was he the original care taker in the sence that he was phisically there, did his 'deed' and forgot? Or is it the implied 'time travel'? Or reincarnation?


When I read The Shining, I was left with the impression that Jack Torrance was overcome by the dark spirit that permeated the hotel and caused the original caretaker to commit the murders in 1921, or whenever. The caretakers weren't evil, the hotel was. It's been a while since I read the book, but I think there is a scene near the end where Torrance recognizes what is happening to him, regrets it, but is ultimately unable to stop it. The hotel is destroyed at the end of the story in order to expunge the evil from the world.

The movie version hit upon that somewhat, but at the end of it I was left a little confused as to the point Kubrick was trying to make, other than that Torrance simply went insane and killed some people. The Native-American connection is interesting, though.

[Bricker]

The sense I got from the novel was that Jack was not a "reincarnation" of any of the hotel's previous occupants -- he was simply a man vulnerable to the hotel's psychic pressure.

The hotel, as I understood it, sort of had a life of its own, which was fed by the forces of all the people who had met untimely ends there, or who participated in weird or perverted acts there. The woman in room 342 (room 142 in the book) who killed herself in the bathtob, the murdered family of Delbert Grady, and Grady himself - the mob bossess and henchmen that were shot there... the "Red Death" costume party... the obscene ballet dancer figures on the clock... and many others, all created this sort of "uber-creature" centered in the hotel. The things Danny Torrence sees in flashes are impressions left by these events; Danny's abilities would have added immensely to the hotel's power, had he been killed there, and so the hotel, through its various creatures, sought to influence Jack to do just that.

Jack, in the novel, struggles with a terrible temper - he's lost a position teaching at a private school when he beats up a student, and he's an alcoholic as well. He struggles to keep his rage and shame in check when he has to eat crap from a family friend who helps him get the Outlook job, and from the manager during the interview. For these reasons, he's ideally suited to break under the hotel's assault.

At the end of the book, the boiler explodes, and the hotel follows suit, and all the "charged" places destruct -- the walls where Danny sees the brains of the shotgunned mobsters burst into flame, and the tub in room 132 cracks and noxious water runs out. I took this to mean that the uber-creature was destroyed.

In the Kubrick movie, we see Jack's picture on the wall from way back when. I took this to mean that he was "absorbed" into the hotel, and had become a part of it -- not so much that he was reincarnated or travelled back in time, but simply that the hotel had made him, retroactively, part of its history.

- Rick

[Doubleclick]

Originally posted by Bricker
In the Kubrick movie, we see Jack's picture on the wall from way back when. I took this to mean that he was "absorbed" into the hotel, and had become a part of it -- not so much that he was reincarnated or travelled back in time, but simply that the hotel had made him, retroactively, part of its history.

- Rick

Interesting...I never looked at it that way.

[Duck Duck Goose]

The book rocks.
The movie sucked.
'Nuff said.

[lissener]

Originally posted by Doubleclick
Originally posted by Bricker
In the Kubrick movie, we see Jack's picture on the wall from way back when. I took this to mean that he was "absorbed" into the hotel, and had become a part of it -- not so much that he was reincarnated or travelled back in time, but simply that the hotel had made him, retroactively, part of its history.

- Rick

Interesting...I never looked at it that way.

This has always been my interpretation as well.

[lissener]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
The book rocks.
The movie sucked.
'Nuff said.

Thanks so much for your insightful, invaluable contribution to the conversation, Duck.

[Needs2know]

Book was pretty good. Hated the movie. Nickelson was not Kubricks first choice for Jack Torrence. I believe I read somewhere that he originally wanted Michael Moriarity (of Law and Order) for the film but he was relatively unknown then and not "bankable" like Nickelson. Other than "Scatman" the casting in that film sucked. And Kubricks ponderous direction didn't advance the story line at all. Someone who hadn't read the book would be completely lost.

Needs2know

[Jodi]

This is little more than a WAG since I haven't seen the movie in a very long time and never read the book. (I don't like Stephen King; so sue me.)

I seem to remember reading or seeing an interview with King in which he said one of the inspirations for the book was a visit to an old hotel that was so spooky and atmospheric that it seemed to King to be almost malevolent. This gave him the germ of the idea for the book -- about a hotel that is actually, itself, evil.

From this, I have always assumed the story unfolds along the lines Bricker laid out. I don't have a cite for the interview because I barely even remember it, but I don't think I would have made it up since, as a person who doesn't like King and doesn't care much either way for The Shining, I probably would not have ever given the isuse much thought -- which is why I think I must have read it somewhere.

[bizerta]

Doubleclick: I believe Beetlejuice was referring to The Exorcist, not the Shining as a movie he had "seen 167 times and it keeps getting funnier".

[don Jaime]

Don't ask me, I'm still trying to figure out why a Colorado hotel closed for the skiing season....

[Missy2U]

don - could it have been because it was so remotely located, they and their guests would have been completely cut off from the rest of the world when the weather got bad?

I guess that's a really long way of saying "poor tourist access"...

[Doubleclick]

Originally posted by bizerta
Doubleclick: I believe Beetlejuice was referring to The Exorcist, not the Shining as a movie he had "seen 167 times and it keeps getting funnier".

:rolleyes:

I know that...notice I did a partial quote?

;)

[Freudian Slit]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
The book rocks.
The movie sucked.
'Nuff said.


The movie doesn't suck...well, okay. Lemme be diplomatic here. If you've read the book, then the movie looks kind of bad IN COMPARISION. If you just see the movie, it looks great. That was my take on it. The book rocks. i'm rereading it...oh yeah. Better finish it.

[don Jaime]

Originally posted by Missy2U
don - could it have been because it was so remotely located, they and their guests would have been completely cut off from the rest of the world when the weather got bad?

I guess that's a really long way of saying "poor tourist access"...

Sure, but poor tourist access to a giant resort hotel?

And barring that, Crothers got through by himself on one snowplow. The state of Colorado could easily keep this place going through to spring.

[Oblong]

As someone who never read the book I liked the movie. I understand about the Nicholson thing. He doesn't strike me as a 'father' and I had a hard time accepting that. I saw Steven King's adaptation a few years ago on TV and didn't care for it. Of course I was basing it on Kubrick's movie and not King's novel and I didn't read the novel.

One more question. What was the deal with the guys in the costumes near the end? I don't know if this was in all versions. Was this some reference from the book that because of poor editing of the film seems out of place? I imagine it was some kind of sex party and these 2 were going off together to enjoy themselves.

[Ukulele Ike]

Oblong...I posted a question some months ago about the same scene, which is probably on-screen for around a fifth of a second. Interesting how everyone who sees the movie remembers that flash of imagery, huh?

I think we all decided that the two men were guests at a costume party, and that the guy in the animal suit was about to administer oral sex to the man in the tux.

I don't remember it happening in the book.

[caircair]

Oblong, I also saw both versions as well as reading the book. I preferred the TV miniseries because:

1. It stayed closer to the book.
2. The casting was more in keeping with the way I imagined the characters.
3. It wasn't as "overdone" or "arty"
and 4. Because it was longer (over 2 nights, I believe) there was more detail which the original movie left out.

I vaguely remember Steven King saying in an interview he didn't like what Kubrick did to his story, but can't remember where I read or heard it.

[hazel-rah]

isn't that a pretty popular theme with stephen king stories? i haven't read a lot of them, but he seems to like the idea of some evil inanimate object (a car, a hotel, in the case of "IT," a whole town) corrupting people. since i never read the shining, only saw the movie, i didn't make the connection- i was young when i saw it, and i just assumed the main character went crazy, and the gory cut scenes were just random horror inserted into the movie to make it scary.

maybe king's typewriter has a sinister influence on his life? hehe

-fh

[Missy2U]

Okley dokley don, I suppose you COULD, MAYBE, have a point there. As I don't ski (I refuse to participate in sports that involve going down a large hill where an ambulance is waiting at the end of it) I couldn't tell ya! :D

Ok, how about this scenario - um, there were no ski slopes or anything and the hotel couldn't afford to build any (lifts, etc.)? Because they were financially forced to shut down the whole place basically for the winter? Or because ol' Steverino didn't think of that? :D

On a serious note, oblong, I have to agree about the casting with Jack as the father. When I read the book I had someone a little more wholesome pictured in my head - more of a David Soul type of person.

[mutters to self]Oh great, how much you wanna bet I'm the only one here to actually visualizes the characters when reading - and now they're going to label me the "board psycbo"...[/mts]

[Doubleclick]

Originally posted by Oblong
One more question. What was the deal with the guys in the costumes near the end? I don't know if this was in all versions. Was this some reference from the book that because of poor editing of the film seems out of place? I imagine it was some kind of sex party and these 2 were going off together to enjoy themselves.

It's funny that you both (Ukulele Ike) mention this.

This scene has ALWAYS stuck in my head...for no other reason that it freaked the hell out of me when I first saw it. (I was a kid at the time.)

It's still send shivers up my spine.

[Ukulele Ike]

Originally posted by Missy2U
now they're going to label me the "board psycho"

Not exactly true, Missy!

We labeled you the "board psycho," oh, about fourteen months ago.

{insert smiley here}

[Anake]

Originally posted by Jodi
I seem to remember reading or seeing an interview with King in which he said one of the inspirations for the book was a visit to an old hotel that was so spooky and atmospheric that it seemed to King to be almost malevolent. This gave him the germ of the idea for the book -- about a hotel that is actually, itself, evil.

Stephen King and his wife, Tabitha, stayed at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado one night right before it closed down for the winter. He stayed in room 217, and the story kind of wrote itself. He was going to write it where the haunted place was an amusement park. The Stanley Hotel can be seen in the mini-series of "The Shining." It's also in "Dumb and Dumber"; it's the hotel where Carrey and Daniel's characters stayed in after the spending spree of all the money in the briefcase.

From,

Anake

[Missy2U]

http://www.estes-park.com/stanleyhotel/index.html

The above is a great website about the hotel.

Anake - thanks - I didn't know that!

don Jaime, from what I read of the history of the hotel, when it was originally opened, it was only a summer resort - and didn't even have heat until much later. It is now, however, open during the winters. Apparently, El Steve-o just took a little artistic license.


[mutters to self]"Board Psycho" indeed! Where's that axe...[/mts]

[DAVEW0071]

Ukulele Ike said:
I think we all decided that the two men were guests at a costume party, and that the guy in the animal suit was about to administer oral sex to the man in the tux.

I don't remember it happening in the book.

It is in the book, and for a rather long passage. Toward the end, when the hotel is really exerting its power, various "ghosts" or malevolent images from the hotel's past appear to thwart Danny's intended escape from his father. One of these is this costumed pair of revelers. The man in the dog costume actually tells Danny he's going to "eat" him. It's made clear in the book that the man in the dog suit is the sex slave of the man in the tux, and the frightening sexual threat of him eating Danny forces the boy to retreat, making him vulnerable to Jack.

[astro]

I have read several opinions over the years regarding this issue that seem to think the central point that Kubrick is making in the movie is the destruction of the Native American Indian culture by the white man and believe that the "hit you over the head" giveway to all this (among other things) are the endless rows of Calument cans in the pantry.

Here is one of these reviews

http://crash.simplenet.com/shining/essays.html

http://pages.nyu.edu/~ael217/shining.html (sort of)

[Oblong]

It's funny that you both (Ukulele Ike) mention this.

This scene has ALWAYS stuck in my head...for no other reason that it freaked the hell out of me when I first saw it. (I was a kid at the time.)

It's still send shivers up my spine.

It still freaks me out. I don't know why but it does.

[Doubleclick]

Originally posted by Oblong
It still freaks me out. I don't know why but it does.

I think it may be one of those things that stuck out in the movie because it didn't seem to make much sence..

It leaves so many questions un answered...why where they there? What were they doing...why did they appear now?

I know that the book explains it...but leaving it as a quick shot in the movie with no explanation makes it extreamly freaky.

[Cartooniverse]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
The book rocks.
The movie sucked.
'Nuff said.

I agree with Bricker here, and sorry DuckDuck, but I disagree with you. ( And no, I'm not gunnin' for you here). The movie had a lot going for it. I haven't watched it 100 times. I do own the DVD, and have enjoyed the documentary on that DVD several times. I also am a Professional Steadicam Operator, trained in the craft by one Garrett Brown, it's inventor. It is Garrett who is featured in that documentary in some scenes,operating his Model II Steadicam (including the famed wheelchair shots of Danny on his Big Wheel (tm). Daresay, I've heard stories about the production that haven't made it to "Fangoria".

I love King. I also love Kubrick. It is as though they were treatments on the same story, with subtly different executions. I read the book when it first came out, and was clueless as to the subtext of adult impotence in the face of one's own shortcomings. I read it again 15 years later, and was stricken in new ways.

The film had Kubric's Goth touches everywhere, in a way that King didn't quite go. But then, one is presented with a hallway gushing with blood and takes away a certain impression that is radically different than that of a reader reading a description of said scene. I happen to think that Kubrick's film is flawed, because it left too much to the fan. If one hadn't pretty much memorized King's novel first, then one was deeply screwed upon first viewing.

I still love the film, but as I've made clear, I'm prejudiced. To me it is a manual on how to do it right.

Cartooniverse

[Cartooniverse]

Originally posted by Ukulele Ike
Oblong...I posted a question some months ago about the same scene, which is probably on-screen for around a fifth of a second. Interesting how everyone who sees the movie remembers that flash of imagery, huh?

I think we all decided that the two men were guests at a costume party, and that the guy in the animal suit was about to administer oral sex to the man in the tux.

I don't remember it happening in the book.

I always took it as a part of the "Unmasking" at Midnight.

Cartooniverse

[Guinastasia]

Personally, I liked all three versions-the book, and the two movies. I also have the excerpt from TV Guide of the original Prologue that King had written for the book.

In the book, Jack was abused by his own father, who was an alcoholic, but was, paradoxally, his father's favorite. He watched his mother being beaten by his father, and both loved and hated his father.

The part that always scares me is when the woman changes in the tub...it's just so spooky.

But I still adore the Kubrick movie. I LOVE the ballroom, with the 1920s theme going on..makes me want to go to a 20s ball myself!

[even sven]

Just wanted to say that I loved the movie so much that when I watched it for the first time, I ended up watching it three times over again in the same weekend (before I had to return the video).

That said, it is important to remember that the movie is very different and has very different purposes than the book. You can almost say they are two different stories. So comparisons are not really very valid.

I too am a convert to the "Native American Genocide" theory. It seems just like what Kubrick would do.

On a completely unrelated note, has anyone ever watched the Danish miniseries "Kingdom Hospital" and was it suspiciously Shining-esque to you, too?

[Steve Wright]

I've seen "Kingdom" - at least, I think it's the same one (the Lars von Trier thing?), might just have had a different (translation of the) title here in the UK.

I think there are similar thematic elements there - the "haunted house" (/hospital/hotel) and the "sensitive" who falls under its influence. But, then, these sort of elements are common to a lot of good ghost stories - "The Haunting of Hill House", for instance, or (maybe reaching a bit here) Bram Stoker's "Jewel of Seven Stars".

As for the film version of "Shining" - I actually liked the way Kubrick left some things kind-of unexplained. If there's a supernatural element in a story, I prefer it if it's non-rational and leaves me wondering just what the heck happened and why. Maybe that's just me, though.

(And, of course, I have my own explanation for "Shining" - I blame the carpets. All those eye-hurting colours and groovy 70s patterns? Enough to drive anyone to drink and axe-murdering, in my opinion...)

[Sauron]

Okay, here's something about the movie that's bothered me for years.

When the movie first came out, I was excited to see it. I had read the novel shortly before, and wanted to see it translated onto film.

I distinctly remember a scene during a commercial for the movie: It showed several skeletons, dressed in tuxes and evening gowns, sitting at a cobweb-infested, dust-encrusted dinner table. The general premise seemed to be that these people had sat down to eat, all died, and then the room was sealed up around them. It was about two seconds of the commercial for the movie.

I've seen "The Shining" several times, and for the life of me I don't recall seeing that scene in the movie. Maybe it's there and I just missed it, but I doubt that. So what gives? Why was the scene in the commercial for the movie, but not the movie itself? Remember, this was in the late 70s (I think). I would think marketing for a movie wouldn't begin until the movie was in the can.

Anybody else remember this?

[retsin2000]

Sauron,

That scene is there. It is a very short shot of the ballroom filled with skeletons and cobwebs. I *think* it in the same sequence that has the guy in the animal suit giving oral sex. Wendy is running around and sees some very strange stuff.

[Avumede]

To answer the question on the OP: I just took the final shot to mean that Jack had "always" been there - he was a natural part of the Overlook. This is confirmed by many other conversations, like Jack's deja vu, Grady's conversation, etc.

The theory that Jack was absorbed into the hotel is very intersting, but I don't think it fits as well.

The Indian motif also may be in the movie, but I think those web pages overstated the case a bit. There definately is some elements of that, though.

As far the book vs the movie. Let me put it this way: The book was totally engrossing, I read it but then totally forgot about it. The movie was on another level. It was beatiful and frightening in a way that has led me to watch it again and again. In my opinion, this is the best horror movie I've ever seen. It's scary, it's intelligent, and it's it's simply one of the most technically well-made movies ever.

Let me put it another way: Kubrick was undoubtedly one of the greatest filmmakers of our time. No one thinks that King is one of the greatest writers of our time.

[Jman]

To answer all questions and get a better sense of the story, read the book. I saw the movie first and quite liked it. After reading the book, I think the movie sucked. I've read lots of books where the book was better than the movie. But in a lot of those cases, the movie is still really good. But I can't help but feel that Kubrick left out so many important parts that were in the book. After reading the book, the movie just looks silly.

Jman

P.S. Moving topiaries scare me.

[Diceman]

As far the book vs the movie. Let me put it this way: The book was totally engrossing, I read it but then totally forgot about it. The movie was on another level. It was beatiful and frightening in a way that has led me to watch it again and again. In my opinion, this is the best horror movie I've ever seen. It's scary, it's intelligent, and it's it's simply one of the most technically well-made movies ever.

Oh, please :rolleyes:

Kubrick has made some great films, but his version of The Shining was not one of them. The two-part miniseries that came out a few years ago was far superior to Kubrick's movie version. Better casting, better scripting, longer so it could go into more detail; overall it was a better movie. But to really understand what's going on in that story you have to read the book.

[pldennison]

Avumede:Let me put it another way: Kubrick was undoubtedly one of the greatest filmmakers of our time. No one thinks that King is one of the greatest writers of our time.

I seriously doubt that anyone thought, contemporaneously, that Charles Dickens was one of the greatest writers of his time, either. But, like King, he was an enormous commercial crowd-pleaser. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see students 15 years from now reading selections from Night Shift in class as a regular part of anthologies.

Diceman:The two-part miniseries that came out a few years ago was far superior to Kubrick's movie version. Better casting, better scripting, longer so it could go into more detail; overall it was a better movie. But to really understand what's going on in that story you have to read the book.

I disagree, predicated on the idea that they were two very different things. Not only are they not two sides of the same coin, they aren't even, in my opinion, the same denomination. Kubrick's movie I take for what it is--a Kubrick movie, and an extremely affective one at that. Where he got the material from is irrelevant--does the fact that Dr. Strangelove was basically inspired by the same material as Fail-Safe make it any less effective?

The TV version, OTOH, I loathed. I hated every last little second of it. Director Mick Garris apparently forgot about everything that made The Stand work. I mean, Steven Weber? Hey, how about a dramatic actor, and not the snide brother from Wings. Within the context of the movie he was acting in, his craziness was even more over the top than Nicholson's. And that ending--gaaaaah!

The kid who played Danny was nowhere near as good as the kid from Kubrick's movie. I just didn't buy a single emotion from him, whereas in the movie it all seemed extremely genuine. Rebecca DeMornay was not bad, but I think she was a little too assertive; Wendy might not have been as cowed as she was portrayed by Shelly Duvall, but it's clear in the novel that she had to walk on eggshells around Jack.

I really, really enjoy the novel; I've read it three times. And I really like Kubrick's movie. I had high expectations for the TV Shining, with Garris and King working together again, but they really blew it. He should've brought back Tobe Hooper, who did Salem's Lot.

[jumblemind]

I have to say that the scene when Jack first walks into the ballroom and over to the bar is probably one of my favorite pieces of cinematography ever. I'll put Kubrick's version up on a pedestal for that shot alone.

[Cervaise]

Unnggh... Film geek must... resist posting to... film thread... unngghh...

:failure:

:sigh:

Okay, fine. Can't resist the pull.

This, I think, is key, for reasons I'll explain in a bit...
That said, it is important to remember that the movie is very different and has very different purposes than the book. You can almost say they are two different stories. So comparisons are not really very valid.
Kubrick went into The Shining because it gave him an opportunity to do something he hadn't done before, which is engage in atmospheric, psychological horror. His take on the film story is fundamentally different than King's novel.

To start with, he rejects King's basic notion that horror happens when an evil force, supernatural and non-human in origin, invades some idyllic community and puts the good-guy people in danger. Think back over King's canon; in virtually all cases, you have regular people who are confronted by an extranatural invasion of some kind. Sometimes it's obvious (Christine, Salem's Lot, It, Tommyknockers), and sometimes it's muddled (Rose Madder), but it's usually the case. He has a separate subgenre, stories like Misery and Gerald's Game, where he's really writing suspense thrillers instead of horror, so I don't really count those. And I'm sure people can propose specific counterexamples (it's interesting, for example, that his first book, Carrie, doesn't fit the mold); the overall point is still valid, that King tends to gravitate toward stories in which people are confronted by something terrible outside themselves.

Kubrick doesn't buy this. He thinks horror is far more effective when the dangerous elements come from within ourselves (a view he shares with Cronenberg), or where terrifying things are happening and you don't know WHY or WHERE they came from. That's what he was getting at with The Shining. If you look simply at the film, it's impossible to tell exactly what happened or why. It's possible to support an interpretation that when the Nicholson character gets to the Overlook, he's already somewhat unstable, and just goes stir-crazy; all the ghosts and stuff he runs into are his hallucinations. The monkey wrench, of course, is the creepiness that Danny runs into as well (the twin girls, etc.), but given Kubrick's filmmaking track record, that could be justified as some sort of weird metaphor. Of course, it's equally possible to suggest that, in the film, the Overlook is indeed haunted, and Jack is possessed and manipulated by supernatural power.

The point is, Kubrick deliberately leaves it ambiguous. In many ways, there's a corollary between The Shining and The Blair Witch Project (dozens of people just rolled their eyes, I know), because they both rely for their effects on implication, suggestion, and atmosphere, rather than a specific, definable threat. It's another generalization, and I'm sure somebody will follow on this thread to say, "Not me!" but I've found that people who were disturbed by The Shining also appreciate Blair Witch, while those who thought Kubrick's Shining was pretentious and dull also thought Blair Witch was loud, repetitive, and boring.

It's really about two different philosophies of storytelling. Kubrick rejected King's approach because he thought making the Overlook's malevolence the explicit villain of the film turns it, essentially, into a monster movie, and he doesn't think monster movies are horror -- they're monster movies. King, on the other hand, believes monster movies can be horror (read Danse Macabre), so he has no problem making the Overlook the bad guy. Kubrick thinks that sort of specificity dilutes the horror elements; he believes viewers can be more disturbed if they don't know specifically what's going on, and therefore leaves it ambiguous. This thread is a perfect example: "It was a ghost story!" - "Yes, but what about..." - "Oh, so it's about a crazy man!" - "Yes, but what about..." - "Well, hell." - Some people like this; some people don't.

As in all things, the reality of what makes something frightening is somewhat more complex than either King's or Kubrick's exclusive approach would suggest. Some people like stories that make them fill in the gaps, and don't provide all the answers; they are more receptive to ambiguous, psychological horror like what Kubrick was attempting. And other people don't like doing that work; they want to know (1) what's going on, (2) where's the threat, (3) who's good and who's bad and why, and then sit back and watch the story. These sorts of viewers prefer Alien and similar stories where it's never uncertain what's going on, and why.

Trust me on this one. I've been doing a lot of research into the psychology of horror film and fiction, preparatory to attempting to write a horror play, an actual live theatrical piece designed to disturb the live audience, something that's very, very hard to do. And in all of my reading, the dichotomy between "ambiguous horror" and "monster movie" is made very clear.

[Stric-9]

Sure, but poor tourist access to a giant resort hotel?

And barring that, Crothers got through by himself on one snowplow. The state of Colorado could easily keep this place going through to spring.

I don't remember it being a giant resort at all. I don't even remember a ski lift. Plus, I'm fairly sure that Crothers used a Snow Cat, not a snowplow......

Did anyone see the making of the newer version that Mr. King did? They filmed it in the actual hotel in CO that gave Stephen the inspiration for the book. It's not that big. Some of the film crew even said that creepy things really did happen during filming.

[Guinastasia]

About the movies and the commercials: sometimes, the trailers are made and run before the final cut of the movie is made.

I don't remember that scene, though...but someone said it WAS there? THAT would be neat!

[pldennison]

Cervaise, excellent post. I absolutely agree with your observation about viewers of The Shining and Blair Witch. I had seen tons and tons of pre-Blair hype, beginning with Harry Knowles' reports on AICN, and I still thought it was effective. (I told my wife that, to me, the genius was that the filmmakers understood that we live in a time where if these events truly had happened, people would be lining up around the block to satisfy their voyeuristic need to see that film. Look at what hot rentals the Mondo Cane and Faces of Death titles were in their heyday.)

I'd love to read your play once you've written it. I'm not a huge fan of the stage, but it would be nice to see real stage horror that isn't Grand Guignol or Sweeney Todd.