This is seriously one of the coolest ideas I’ve heard in years.
Yeah, it is. It’s also a good way for the studio to combat piracy.
Here’s the problem, though - it would be really hard to do. Normally, it’s only the best take that gets the full post-processing treatment, right? Color correction, editing, digital retouching, whatever. You’d have to do it for each of ten takes. And also, when there are multiple takes it’s usually not because the performers are doing things differently, but because of accidents, forgotten lines, noises on the set, props that break, etc. None of that would be usable. So if it you need on average 3 takes to get a good scene, then to get ten good scenes you’d have to do 30 takes.
But still… Way cool idea, and for cult films I’d buy the blu-ray.
i thought this would be my reaction to the film, which i saw for the first time in my mid-twenties. it’s been parodied so many times in pop culture that i thought it wouldn’t bother me, especially the twins in the hallway scene.
it still worked. i don’t know if i’d say it scared the crap out of me, but that scene, and the whole rest of the movie, was very unsettling to say the least.
Not to mention that the dialog you hear in a movie scene is almost always dubbed into the film later, so you’d need to do that step multiple times as well.
That’s not true, not unless somebody did something very stupid during filming (Bruce Campbell talks about one jerk actor who mumbled all his lines because he wanted to do them again in post-production). They may sound-correct them much like the color-correction and all, but they normally do the sound on there, and if something doesn’t come out well enough, then they consider re-recording.
Agreed - one of the most frightening movies I’ve ever seen, and I say this as a big horror buff.
It’s nice to see that someone agrees about the performances. Scatman Crothers is often overlooked, and contrary to popular opinion I think Shelley Duvall is great here - I saw a review somewhere which argued that the histrionic quality of her acting perfectly suits this character, as she’s desperately trying to hold together her family in the midst of a situation pretty much beyond her comprehension.
I’ve always liked that “MAZES, MIRRORS, DECEPTION AND DENIAL” article. There are things about it which come off as over-reaching, but I’d rather see an audacious interpretation than one just saying “it’s just entertainment, nothing deeper to see here.”
Any thoughts on this?
I’ll admit that “almost always” was hyperbole, but I understand that the dialog heard in a movie is often re-recorded, certainly if it was shot on location. If there were multiple takes then that process would need to happen multiple times. I’ll amend my statement to “the dialog you hear in a movie scene is often dubbed into the film later.” Happy?
Wiki: “In conventional film production, a production sound mixer records dialogue during filming. Unless the shoot takes place on a sound stage, accompanying noise from the set, traffic, wind, and the overall ambience of the surrounding environment can be overbearing. This often results in unusable production sound, and during the post-production process a supervising sound editor or ADR Supervisor reviews all of the dialogue in the film and decides which lines will have to be replaced”
I’ve read the book many times, and there’s never any undercurrent of sexual abuse. In fact, Jack’s love of Danny is what keeps the hotel from taking him over later rather than sooner.
Maybe it’s the viewer who changed. There’s lots of movies I didn’t “get” when I was younger that are very profound to me as I got older.
You could change around the soundtrack too, maybe some Elvis Costello . . .
I re-read the book just a couple of weeks ago, to see if it would freak me out like it did when I was a teenager (it came close). I didn’t catch any undercurrent of sexual tension between Jack and Danny. In fact, I kind of sensed Jack becoming somewhat asexual as the alcohol and the power of the Overlook took control of him. But his love for Danny seemed quite genuine. Now, of course, there’s no question (at least to me) that Jack was sexually abused by his Dad, and maybe that’s where the columnist gets his idea; IOW, kids who are sexually abused grow up to be sexual abusers, therefore if Jack was sexually abused by his father, he must be molesting his son.
I don’t buy it, though.
OK, thanks. That’s about what I thought too.
Bumping this thread to note that I just learned about a new documentary about The Shining and its possible hidden meanings about “genocide, government conspiracy, and the nightmare that we call history.”
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_237
Rotten Tomatoes: Room 237 - Rotten Tomatoes
Official site: http://room237movie.com/
Trailer: Redirecting...
How can a movie be scary without cats jumping out of closets?
I’ve seen Room 237 and it is both absolutely hilarious and mind boggling in the depth that the film is scrutinized. Most of the theories and interpretations start as provocative theses but then quickly snowball into genuinely Crazy Readings.
But it does provide amazing insight into a film that, through its enormous visual richness and complexity, practically invites (along with Kubrick’s cold tone and meticulous craftsmanship) these kinds of responses.
The film is a lot of fun and a terrific primer on the rigors (and pitfalls) of analysis and claims of “authorship”, but I guarantee that you will never look at The Shining the same way again.
I am reading that, seeing him ascribe a level of intentional brilliance and order to the Shining, and it reminds me of an old Benny Hill skit. Benny Hill was a director being interviewed and the interviewer kept telling him how brilliant he is, but Benny Hill was saying he did XYZ due to laziness or lack of money.
interviewer: I loved how the start of the movie was in color, then it switched to black and white. It really showed depth
Benny Hill: yes, we ran out of film and only had black and white to work with.
They make up for it with lots and lots of little girls reciting nursery rhymes.
I prefer to keep discussion of the book and the movie separate, as I don’t think referring back to the book is very helpful for this particular film - while Kubrick used King’s book as a framework, the movie is most definitely Kubrick’s story. He didn’t feel it necessary to remain overly faithful to the original, and could easily have been expounding upon themes that aren’t present in the original work. That being said, from what I remember of the book, I don’t believe King’s Jack was sexually abusive.
As for the movie, I don’t think there is any doubt that, when off the wagon, Jack was a physically abusive alcoholic. As for whether anything in the movie supports the idea Jack was sexually abusing Danny, I think the answer has to be ‘It’s possible.’ IMO there are a couple of areas in the film that might hint sub-textually in that direction, but there is nowhere near enough evidence to draw that conclusion with any certainty. If Kubrick intended the viewer to contemplate the possibility of sexual abuse, I feel this was probably intentional - when viewed this way, dawning suspicion coupled with lack of certainty lends an additional layer of unease to the overall oppressive atmosphere.
If it wasn’t intended, then it’s just one more crackpot Kubrick theory among a sea of similar crackpot Kubrick theories.
Really? I never got the impression that Jack was sexually abused. Physically, sure. His dad was a mean drunk. But not sexual. I’m curious where you got that impression. “What you see is what you’ll be.”