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!
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?
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]
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.
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]
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.
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.
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 ™. 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.
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!
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?
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…)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
