Hendrik

...erm...

(...all the interiors were shot on studio-built sets, with tons and tons of salt-as-snow visible where applicable...)

. . . . . .

Fok

If you guys like the film, I'd suggest reading the book, one of Kings best.

Michael Corvin

^^ And 10 times better than that wretch of a movie.

ShelleyLevene

Do cabin fever, supernatural or paranormal forces, or living with his ugly wife ultimately force Jack to become a psycho?


What were the two girls suppose to represent?

Were they a part of the Donner Party the family that turned to cannibalism?

When the kid started talking with the strange voice did he suffer from multiple personality disorder?

I thought I understood this movie when I first watched it but after seeing it again I am not so sure.

The Ferret

I've never really thought too hard about what anything means, I just let it scare the crap out of me. I'll give it a shot though:

I don't think the girls represent anything. They were killed by the bartender or something weren't they? I guess the kid, after seeing these horrible imagines, channeled them into an evil-side or something.

FinkPish

I think it is a bit of all three of those elements that led Jack to go a bit nuts.

The girls were the daughters of Delbert Grady, one of the previous caretakers, the man Jack met in the bathroom. He said he had to "correct" them, and that is what he did.

Danny had a sort of psychic link to something supernatural, and was able to interact with the "spirits" that were haunting the hotel. And Scatman Corothers had the same ability, which is how they were able to read each other's thoughts.

Groucho

In a nutshell, the hotel is evil and collect souls. Jack is the latest "victim." Those souls are then enlisted by the hotel to collect more souls. The two girls were the daughters of the previous caretaker, who like Jack was corrupted by the hotel. Danny has, among other things, the ability to communicate with the spirit world. The other voice is a benevolant spirit who tries to help out.

Hotel = Sauron
Danny's Finger = Gandalf
Jack = Middle Earth
Danny = Frodo

*or*

Hotem = Palpatine
Danny's Finger = Obi Wan
Jack = Anakin
Danny = Luke

majorjoe23

No, no no. The hotel is the briefcase and Jack represents Vincent Vega. Danny is Jules Winfield, who knows he must walk the rigteous path to stay alive. Danny's finger is the tyranny of evil men.

sundog

In another nutshell, the Overlook is an echo chamber for time, thought, and memory.

Jack succumbs to the hotel, lets it externalize his own faults, both as a father and as a man. He wasn't crazy at the beginning of the film, his life was just an utter disappointment. And after some subtle and not too subtle prodding the hotel cracked him and made him its tool in capturing Danny.

The Overlook obviously wants Danny, his power is attractive to the hotel, as it plays with him (the Grady girls, the ball leading to room 237) and forcibly tries to take him (his injuries from the woman in 237). These assaults on Danny force him to hide behind his 'filter', or protector, Tony.

As to the 2 girls, we are led to believe by the character of Stuart Ullman (at the interview) that these are the 2 dead Grady girls, murdered by their father years ago. But the 2 girls are obviously twins, and Ullman says they were 8 and 6 years old.

And as I said above, Tony was Danny's defense system. He comes to the forefront of Danny to protect him (and his mother).

Everything is obfuscated in Kubrick's film, from the timeline (seemingly random title cards indicating time passage) to the script (the dead caretaker, Grady, is referred to as both Charles and Delbert). Check out what he does with mirrors and such in scenes, deliberately doubling shots (like when Jack is recounting his dream to Wendy, the first half of the scene is shot in a mirror).

There's a whole thread of something being just 'not right' throughout the movie. It's not exact, not dependable, for certain details. A lot like our own memories, right?

sherm42

I can tell you that in the book, instead of talking with his finger, Danny goes into trances where an older boy tries to warn him about what is coming. That older boy is actually himself in the future trying to protect himself in the past.

Michael Corvin

[QUOTE=sundog
There's a whole thread of something being just 'not right' throughout the movie. It's not exact, not dependable, for certain details. A lot like our own memories, right?[/QUOTE]

Worst book to movie translation, EVER.

Danny Torrence is a Breaker.

inri222

Read this:

http://www.drummerman.net/shining/essays.html

FinkPish

I've read that essay before and it is the biggest stretch to even begin believing. It is a load of bullshit.

MasterCXtreme

It's an interesting way of looking at it that I had not thought of before. I thought it was a good read.

Rival11

I think things work if you keep it simple - Groucho started doing well until he turned into himself.

The hotel "claims people" hence the picture at the end of the movie, Jack was the newest soul therefore he's shown as the caretaker in the picture because like Grady said "you've always been the caretaker sir" - even ghosts show respect.

Everything that happens in between is the result of all the other caretaker doings (i.e. that nasty bitch in room 237, the axed up girls, the bloody elevators.......would be kind of cool to see some prequels to this flick huh?). I've always thought that all the other ghosts you see dressed up were the previous caretakers and yes............even that crazy bastard who was getting some service from that dude/chick in the bear suit.

Danny has the shining, the shining or whatever the hell it is knows that they are coming up to the hotel.

It's just the ultimate haunted house flick I've always loved how certain aspects of the film were left to interpretation.

Rival11

Uh, that's a little too far fetched.....don't you agree?

Numanoid

IMO, it's the best movie version of a shitty book, EVER.

Squirrel God

For something directed by Stanley Kubrick? No.

Rogue588

So how do ya'll feel about the TV version?

Squirrel God

It was far better than I expected it to be. I'll leave it at that.

Michael Corvin

Brilliant compared to that Kubrikian hack fest. If only they had done it for HBO/cable to include a little gore it would have been a 4 star miniseries.

story

It's a great essay - I've been a fan for some time. With Kubrick, it's possible parts (or all) is true, but regardless, I'm very interested in the writer's novel approach to interpretation.

jfoobar

I started reading this with an open mind. That lasted about 5 sentences.

jfoobar

I can therefore assume, based on the striking resemblance between the two, that Shelly Duvall's character represents the Mouth of Sauron?

sundog

Heh. Is that actually mentioned somewhere in one of King's books? Because his whole fascination with linking his past works together through current works (via the Dark Tower series, or what-have-you) seems desperate and a bit of a hack literary device, in my opinion.

In terms of the adaptation, Kubrick's production of The Shining illustrated, to me, the disparaties between the literary and film mediums. I saw the film first, loved it, watched it numerous times, and mulled over it. Then I read the book, and having read quite a bit of King before finally making it to The Shining, I must say the book really is just run-of-the-mill King: a well-written horror piece, with some excellent moments, but leading to the usual exhausted Stephen King conclusion.

I can't say I didn't enjoy the book, but all the ambiguities and complexities of the film were not present. And I realized it was because Kubrick used the elements of film, not the literary elements of the book, to make a completely different gothic horror story.

As for that posted link to a certain intepretation, Kubrick is never that overt. He wants to elicit an emotional response, not make a political statement. That's part of what keeps his films timeless.