I didn't even notice those impossible windows until you mentioned them just now :laughing:. Anyway, can you elaborate more on the presence of these themes, because I don't really remember them coming up in the movie, so I think I might have missed a few details:

I highly recommend watching the film Room 237, it discusses several theories involving The Shining.

Jack was sexually abusing Danny. This is hinted at in a number of ways. Did ya notice what magazine Jack was reading right before he was summoned for his interview?

http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/05/...l-19236153.jpg

Note the innuendo in these lines:

Danny: "Tony is a little boy that lives in my mouth."
Doctor: "If you were to open your mouth could I see Tony?"
Danny: "No."
Doctor: "Why not?"
Danny: "Because he hides."
Doctor: "Where does he go?"
Danny: "To my stomach."
Doctor: "Does Tony ever ask you to do things?"
Danny: "I don’t wanna talk about Tony any more."

Eh, I don't know... I can see where you're coming from, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. I think the last thumbnail title on the magazine is pretty clever, though: "How To Avoid A Dead-End Affair" :laughing:.

Kubrick put those in there on purpose. There's not a single aspect of any of his movies that he didn't meticulously plan out.

Note the number on Danny's shirt early in the movie. 42. Wendy swings the bat at Jack exactly 42 times. The movie that Danny and Wendy are watching (on a TV that has no plug or wire BTW) is the summer of 42.

1942 was the year of the Nazi "Final Solution".

Yeah, there's obviously a connection to the year, but is there anything in the movie that actively provides a commentary of the events that happened during it? I guess what i'm asking is, what do you think Kubrick was trying to say by including the year in multiple places?

He's just f*cking with people. The 42 connection wasn't made until many years after the film was released. The same with the Playgirl magazine.

Here's a doozy. You know the two hacked up dead girls lying in the hallway? They weren't dead. The were not only breathing but breathing very heavily. If Kubrick had wanted them dead he would have asked them to hold their breath for those few seconds. Instead he had them breath real heavy.

He also knew that this wouldn't be discovered for decades later until the advent of digital technology that allowed for viewing the frames one at a time.

Download these 4 pics and then view them quickly as a slideshow to see the girls breathing.

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...e%20up%201.png

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...e%20up%202.png

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...e%20up%203.png

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...e%20up%204.png

I didn't notice that. It's pretty freaky.

Anyway, do you think that the movie is partly a commentary on perspective? I mean, every character sees things that couldn't possibly have happened (like the unplugged television playing a show, the impossible windows, etc.), and yet you also get the feeling that none of the characters are outright lying (or meaning to, anyway), kind of like the movie Rashomon.

So, maybe the reason Kubrick keeps alluding to real life tragedies (like the holocaust) is that he's trying to explain why humans end up doing such things? I mean, nobody wakes up and thinks "I'm the bad guy. Today, i'm going to kill people", and yet groups (divided by fear, different perspectives, and the social/tribal nature of humanity) keep committing atrocities to other groups as history goes on. You also said that there are references to the moon landing, and that fits in with this theme as well, because it was the culmination of a race between two nations both that thought the other was evil. Also, it goes back to the theme of perspective in another way; though everyone saw the same footage of the moon landing, there were (and still are) people who believed it to be fake (kind of like how all the characters in the movie technically lived through the same events, but they all saw different things happening).

Nah.

Another thing he did all throughout the shoot was move things around and/or remove/add them to scenes. In some scenes of the Colorado room there's a huge bearskin rug on the floor. In others it's gone. When Jack is being interviewed, Unger has a cigarette in his ashtray. Cut to Jack and then back to Under and the cigarette is gone. When Danny sees the two girls in the rec room holding hands there's a couple of tables with chairs in the frame. Cut to Danny then back to the girls and the chairs have all been moved very slightly.

In an early scene there's a glass display case on one side of a hallway. In a later scene it's been moved to the opposite wall. In another Wendy is talking to Jack while he sits at his typewriter and there's a chair in the background against the wall. Cut to Wendy then back to Jack and the chair is gone.

There's dozens and dozens of instances like this all throughout the movie. Kubrick knew that no-one was going to catch all of this when they first watched the flick. They'd be too busy paying attention to the foreground and dialogue. But he put it all in anyway knowing that eventually people would analyze the movie knowing that Kubrick simply wasn't going to tell a straight ahead ghost story and that there had to be more there.

The Shining was Kubrick's magnus opus of using the cinematic experience to totally mess with people's heads.

Check this one out.

Danny is playing with his trucks and a tennis balls rolls up out of nowhere.

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...to%20danny.jpg

Camera angle changes to Danny looking down the hall where the ball came from. Do you see what Kubrick did here?

http://www.idyllopuspress.com/meanwh...9/07/sh_w4.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4104/...ded900eaf8.jpg

Anyway, the ball came from one direction, but the next shot showed him (and the direction) reversed (which you can tell by looking at the carpet; the orange ring in the pattern is only broken on one side, not both, so he should have had a black line in front of him and not a closed off orange ring).

So Kubrick sets up the overhead shot, films it, yells cut, and has the crew move everything 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Why? I can guarantee that pretty much no-one noticed this during their first viewing of the movie. So why do it?

During the scene where Wendy is going through the hotel with the knife looking for Danny they have the camera filming her straight on a number of times inter-cut with showing us what she's seeing. Each time they show Wendy the background color is either predominantly red or blue.

When it's red the knife is in one of her hands and when it's blue it's in the other. Again, why do this?

Stanley being Stanley.

And it was Danny who let Jack out of the food storage room......... :p:

I think that with The Shining you could make a case that those are subtle cues hinting at Jack's deteriorating mental state.

Again, I don't think it's that crazy that he was making a commentary about perspective, casting doubts on what supposedly "good" characters like Wendy and Danny encountered. After all, isn't that one of the main themes of the movie anyway?

Red is the color of blood, and for that reason our bodies are able to notice that color more than others, since it's basically the color of danger and pain. Jack truly makes up his mind about "correcting" his family in a room that is painted completely red, Wendy is holding a knife when the color red appears, etc., all makes sense as a commentary on fear.

What drove Jack to try to kill his family (or, alternatively, what caused Wendy to believe he was attacking her)? Is the fear that warped their perceptions the same as the fear that drove the Americans into massacring the Native Americans? Is it the same hysteria that caused Germany to follow the Nazi party? Is it the same paranoia that makes it easier for people to believe that the government staged various historical events than to go by what has been verified by people they don't trust? After all, they're giving into timeless survival instincts and the tribal mentality that has existed throughout humanity's history, and it's just like Grady says (and again, i'm paraphrasing): "I've always been here, and so have you".

Was it the ghosts that gave it away? :laughing: When you first watch the movie, he's the one who is pegged as the obvious villain. But like Chula said earlier, there are different narratives going on, and different ways to look at the movie. Jack isn't the only one who sees things that don't make sense, and that may just be Kubrick screwing with the audience, it still makes you wonder if maybe the whole family wasn't afflicted by cabin fever and latent fears/grudges coming to surface.

Edit: Hey Chula, I have a question. Throughout the movie, you hear Jack typing his "story". Has anyone ever listened to when he hits the letter and space keys, to see if he's actually typing "All work and No Play... etc."? It'd be freaky if he was actually typing something else the whole time.

The Apollo narrative is pretty complex. After 2001 came out NASA contacted Kubrick and arranged a meeting with him. The official story is that NASA wanted some consulting on how to best do the video and still photograph work for the upcoming moon shot.

The theory is that Stanley was actually hired and paid lots of money and given some very high tech equipment (In order to shoot the movie Barry Lyndon Kubrick somehow got a hold of 3 of the lenses that were developed specifically for NASA for the moon landing) in return for helping NASA stage some of the visuals of the moon landing.

He was sworn to secrecy but the theory is that he dropped hints about his involvement throughout The Shining. He also delayed the opening of his final film Eyes Wide Shut to July 16, 1999 - the 30th anniversary to the day of the Apollo 11 launch.

- The hotel they filmed the Shining in didn't have a room 237. Stanley specifically chose that number for the room. The average distance between the earth and the moon is 237,000 miles.

- If you look closely at the pages Jack typed the word All is actually typed as A11 a lot of the time. A11 - Apollo 11.

And then there's this.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2j5z48x.png

There's a bunch more subtle stuff too.

I don't know, if Kubrick really filmed a fake landing, I think he would have snuck something into the footage itself (like, things being randomly reversed). :laughing:

Edit: That'd be the ultimate Kubrick mind-f**k!

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...20pics%201.png

Pictures over the couch have been removed and the glass case is against the opposite wall.

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...20pics%202.png

The missing chair.

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...0chair%201.png

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...0chair%202.png

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...chairs%205.png

Extra red chairs have been added in the right foreground.

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...chairs%206.png

Jack's typewriter.

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...carpet%201.png

Couch, end and coffee tables, and rug have all been removed.

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...carpet%203.png

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...0chair%201.png

Chair behind Wendy has been moved.

http://www.collativelearning.com/PIC...0chair%202.png

There's tons more like this.

Alright, I think we've played out most of what there is to discuss about The Shining (without getting too in depth with it). Unless anyone else wants to add/say anything, i'm down if you want to talk about a new movie (Kubrick-directed or otherwise).

Edit: Or, if you want to keep talking about it, I guess i'm cool with that too. I've still got a question or two (What makes you think that Danny opened the pantry door? Why did Wendy see those ghosts at the end? And speaking of which, what was up with this: )

http://hewholaughs.files.wordpress.c...ng_costume.jpg

One last thing, the river of blood pouring out of the elevators and down the hall was said to have represented this event, where the river ran red from the slaughtered native Americans.

Marias Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An interesting parallel. Apparently, it's a massacre that began because the man in command was drunk, and because the first shot was fired by a man who secretly wanted the massacre to happen as a diversion (to protect the group that the army was actually looking for, which his wife was apart of). And the movie The Shining features a man who gets drunk on ghost alchohol and wants to divert attention (and blame) from his past abuses of his son, culminating in a potential massacre.

But if we're going to continue discussing this movie, then there are more pressing matters that need explaining, namely...

http://s3.amazonaws.com/quietus_prod...op_550x344.jpg

Seriously, what was up with that? Was it just Kubrick trying to get a rise out of the audience?

THE SHINING (1979) analysis by Rob Ager

Re: Danny

We know that the ghosts were visions/hallucinations. Every time Jack spoke with a ghost there was a mirror in front of him behind the "ghost" or the polished metal door in the pantry when he
spoke with Grady. Safe to assume a ghost could not unlock that door.

Danny knew that as long as Jack was alive there was a chance his mom would (once again) forgive him and let him out. She had a habit of always forgiving Jack even when he was abusing Danny.

So Danny unlocks the door and then goes and hides. He then lures Jack directly into the maze which he and his mom had learned by heart since they would always be checking it out. He also knew
his dad didn't know the maze at all since we never see Jack in it with them.

So he leads Jack to the center of the maze and then backtracks and covers his tracks knowing Jack will get lost giving Danny and his mom time to escape.

GOD DAMMIT.

I have been moving the past three days. I have missed this entire discussion of my favorite director of all time save for a f*cking post earlier about Fight Club

I suck.

I think the piece itself is made to serve as a beacon celebrating ideas, that one might find worth celebrating. Surely there are certainly a lot of less constructive ideas floating about. There must be meat. One cannot eat bread alone. Or such would be unpleasant without equal.

i saw this movie when i was like 5 or 6 and i thought it was pretty great. i didn't have any deep interpretations of it or anything i just took the story at face value cause i was a kid. then years later i heard that the overlook hotel was symbolism for hell. i guess that is made more clear in the book or something cause i didn't really get that from the movie. or maybe i just don't interpret movies that well. i watched it again when you started talking about it out of curiosity and i can sort of see that idea in retrospect but i still wouldn't pick up on it without someone telling me before hand. but either way i thought the movie was really good just because of how suspenseful and creepy it was at all times. i dunno wtf was wrong with chula and his date in the 80's they were prolly low on coke or some****. i do remember stephen king said he hated the movie cause they ruined his strong female protagonist and turned her into a weak perpetually screaming bitch. and before you get mad at me direct your anger to stephen king instead cause that's what he said in so many words in a an interview i heard on the radio.

Nah, pretty much everyone hated it when it first came out in theaters. The hype leading up to it was immense and the movie just didn't deliver when first seen on the big screen. Like I said, even the critics hated it.

Funny note about Kubrick and King. In the book Jack's VW Bug was red. In the movie Stanley chose yellow as just one small way to show that he wasn't going to be held captive by King's narrative.

And as for King's red bug? Remember the accident that Dick Halloran drives past? :laughing:

http://thelineup.openroadintegrat.ne...red-vw-bug.jpg

'even the critics hated it'

alright. maybe the critics are full of ****, i thought the movie was pretty creepy and suspenseful.

the symbolic battle between the two authors is interesting though, don't get me wrong. i am just surprised that you guys thought the movie was **** back then.

It wasn't just us though. Most people were really disappointed with it. But this was back in the summer of 1980. Friday the 13th was released the same summer and that movie scared the sh*t out of people. The Shining was way too cerebral by comparison.

i guess you had to be there

Ya. People had gotten use to movies that scared the bloody crap out of you.

The Exorcist - 1973
Jaws - 1975
The Omen - 1976
Halloween - 1978
Alien - 1979
Friday the 13th - 1980

The Shining comes along with tons of hype and there's only one stinking death in the whole movie and all these weird visuals and long stretches of pretty tedious stuff. But Kubrick knew what he was doing and that his film would end up being viewed as a total masterpiece. He just didn't want to cater to the masses right out of the gate.

lol its funny cause my mom wouldn't let me watch the exorcist till i was like 13 she said it was too scary, then when i watched it i was really let down by how fake it seemed. but she had no problem with me watching the shining which to me is way scarier than the exorcist.

I've never seen The Exorcist, although I've read the book. Hey Chula, i'm guessing you've probably seen it before?

Yup. That movie hasn't aged well at all. The effects are laughable by today's standards. And the whole religious blasphemy aspect of the movie just doesn't resonate these days.

But consider that it came out 42 years ago. Those were VERY different times. To say that movie created a stir upon its release is a huge understatement.

And as controversial and polarizing as it was it ended up the highest grossing movie of the year and was nominated for 10 Academy awards, as well as being the first horror movie ever to be nominated for best picture.

42 years ago that movie f*cked a LOT of people up.

The parts of the film before the effects start are still pretty creepy, even by todays standards. The effects after that are indeed somwhat silly, but the movie still keeps one's attention.

The priests dream sequence is still one of the scariest scenes in horror imo.

Back to 2001 for a minute. For those who've seen the movie but not read the book:

Highlights of the novel compared to the movie:

- You get to go inside all of the characters heads including Moonwatcher (who's thought process is very rudimentary and fleeting but still extremely insightful), all of the human characters, HAL, the Moonchild, and even the extraterrestrials.

- The interaction between the apes and the monolith is much more played out and detailed. You get a full understanding of how the monolith aided the apes in evolving.

- More detail is provided about the apes evolution and how they came to utilize a number of tools. Not just the bone.

- The human interaction is nowhere near as stiff as the movie. People have normal conversations that provide insight into what is happening leading up to the Discovery mission.

- The reasons for (and the workings of) the monolith on the moon are revealed.

- The details of day to day life on Discovery are explained in much more detail and it gives you a real sense of being on board.

- HAL's breakdown is really sudden and terrifying. The book almost turns into a quasi-horror story during that section.

- There's a brief chapter where you get inside HAL's head and he explains his reason for going rogue. This was one of the more enlightening parts.

- Bowman’s weeks on the Discovery after HAL’s breakdown are fully fleshed out.

- The whole star gate journey and Bowman’s final hours are described from his point of view.

- The Moonchild had a definite reason for returning to earth which is briefly explained.

Two years later, I still think its not that great. :finger:

i like it but it's nowhere near his best and it's totally overrated.

Anyone who thinks that a movie that isn't The Shining is Kubrick's best should probably go watch The Shining.

what about cockwork doorhinge

It's great but not on The Shining's level.