Stanley Kubrick - The Shining (1980)

[Thorkell A. Ottarsson]

Just saw The Shining again (with my 14 year old daughter). It is hard
look look away once you start watching The Shining. There is something
so hypnotic about the film, the simplicity of the camera work which is
not simple at all, just feels like it. I personally prefer the
European version of the film (the shortest one). It has more of an
enigma to it (so did Kubrick by the way). One thing that always
bothered me though in the film is the scene when Jack drives up to the
hotel with this family. The way his hands move on the wheel makes one
wonder if he did not know how to drive a car. Kubrick must have wanted
it like that since he used to film everything so often. But why? Why
make it so phony?

I think it is hard to write about a film like this one. So much has
been written. There is really nothing new to be said. It was quite
interesting to watch this with my daughter. I kind of got a chance to
see the film with fresh eyes again. She was so into the film, so in
awe of it and at the same time so lost in the whole plot that I kind
of relived the chaos of the whole thing. Is this a film that can be
explained? No, it is not. Nothing really fits. Is he possessed, is he
just going insane or is he a lost soul reliving the same thing again
and again? Or a combination of all of these? It really does not
matter. I think part of the greatness of the film is how it refuses
any simple explanation. It is the chaos, the part of two wolds feel of
the whole thing that makes it so fascinating.

With out a doubt on of Kubrick's best. And by the way, I love Shelley
Duvall in the film and don't agree with all of those who can't stand
her! :)

Thorkell

[Bobby Beksinski]

LOL, well i have to break it to you Thorkell, I hated Shelly Duvall in
this, She ruined the movie for me in most of her scenes especially the
notorious one where she was walking backwards up the stairs as Jack
was following her up and she was crying and begging, that scene which
took Kubrick 127 takes, a RECORD. and after 127 takes she still ruined
it, IMO it was one of the worst acting performances of all time, it
prevented me from getting sucked into the movie because she didnt seem
real to me, all she appeared to me was a very struggling actress.
Didnt she win the razzie for this too? so I'm not the oddball here,
sorry to say its you this time Thorkell, lol. But this is my least
favorite Kubrick film and that does make me a oddball, but im telling
you that Shelly Duval's acting was the main reason. Jack Nicholson was
amazing, the child actor was also not very good IMO. Comparing this
film to the TV Remake in the 90's or whenever it came out, Kubricks is
the better film overall but i liked some things better in the tv
remake, first of all I think the scare factor was better in the
remake, and of course some of the acting, lol, Kubrick's was
beautifully filmed even for a horror movie, and Jack nicholson is the
only man that can play that role. I rate it a 7/10 but thats as low as
it will get on my month of Kubrick, I feel he is one of if not the
best American director.

[Thorkell A. Ottarsson]

Well I know you are not alone. Quite many hated Shelley Duvall in the
film and yes she was nominated to a Razzie but so was Stanley Kubrick!
I was brought up with a violent step father and I can tell you Duvall
is very convincing in her role. But I know that I'm one of few who
actually like her in this film (or any other film), which is why I
wrote that. And I honestly love this film because it does not have
many scary scenes. The atmosphere is what is scary and that is what
makes a horror film good, IMO. One of my all time favorite horror
film, so we have to agree to disagree there Bobby :)

--
Með kærri kveðju,
Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson

_____________________________________________
Sokkaveien 1
Drammen 3018
Norway
Tel: 00-47-32835774 & 00-47-45859097

[Nick Faust]

Am sitting here trying to decide wether I should respond to this or stay mute as if none of this was ever said! 

Nick

> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:26:52 +0100
> Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick - The Shining (1980)
> From: thor...@gmail.com
> To: film...@googlegroups.com

[Thorkell A. Ottarsson]

Reply Nick, please!

[Bobby Beksinski]

Nick, I hope i didnt offend you, I dont think the Shining is bad at
all but i cant even see a remotely good actress in Shelly Duval, It is
just my opinion of course. I also Thorkell believe it or not, have
grew up with a abusive stepfather, The thing with Shelly Duval is her
emotions do not seem real, She looks like she is just acting or at
least trying too, Every sob,cry, scream whatever she did, was just not
convincing in my eyes, So that maybe how a person acts when around a
abusive person, im not disagreeing to that but she did not pull it off
well.

On Dec 3, 6:48 pm, "Thorkell A. Ottarsson" <thork...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reply Nick, please!
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Nick Faust <talkmovi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Am sitting here trying to decide wether I should respond to this or stay
> > mute as if none of this was ever said!
> > Nick
> >> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:26:52 +0100
> >> Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick - The Shining (1980)

> >> From: thork...@gmail.com

> >> To: film...@googlegroups.com
>
> >> Well I know you are not alone. Quite many hated Shelley Duvall in the
> >> film and yes she was nominated to a Razzie but so was Stanley Kubrick!
> >> I was brought up with a violent step father and I can tell you Duvall
> >> is very convincing in her role. But I know that I'm one of few who
> >> actually like her in this film (or any other film), which is why I
> >> wrote that. And I honestly love this film because it does not have
> >> many scary scenes. The atmosphere is what is scary and that is what
> >> makes a horror film good, IMO. One of my all time favorite horror
> >> film, so we have to agree to disagree there Bobby :)
>

> >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Bobby Beksinski <BBeksin...@hotmail.com>

> Tel: 00-47-32835774 & 00-47-45859097- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Bobby Beksinski]

sorry i see a HUGE typo, in my first sentence i meant to say The
Shining is NOT bad at all meaning i do not think it is a bad film

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Nick Faust]

Offended, no, that's not the right word.  Challenged, maybe better describes how I felt reading your thoughts on Shelley Duvall in THE SHINING. But since the IMO abbreviation pretty much ends the possibility of discussion, all my comments would do is challenge your taste and what would be the point of doing that? Ordinarily what you say arrives at an unexpected but interesting opinion. 

Now, if I also evoked the IMO disclaimer to say: Shelley Duvall's performance in THE SHINING is one of the ten great screen performances in cinema history - that would be that: End of discussion - right? 

I intend to write something about THE SHININ, which, Thorkell, I don't believe to be devoid of concrete circumstance or meaning. I think the film is built entirely upon a very solid, cause and effect reality. In fact, it's so simple that it appears complex. 

Nick

> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:59:21 -0800

> Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick - The Shining (1980)

> From: BBeks...@hotmail.com
> To: film...@googlegroups.com

[Thorkell A. Ottarsson]

I look forward to it Nick :)

[Bobby Beksinski]

Why is my opinion unexpected Nick? I only ask this because I know you
and Thorkell are big fans of this film and Shelly Duvall but you must
already know what the majority of people think of Shelly Duval in this
film so therefore i figured you would have braced yourself. But you
knows wait until others reply, i could be the only one in the film
club that has that opinion thus making me the minority and the
unexpected opinion. I also mention i do not like the child actor
either but Duvall is still worse than he is, lol, I think i added that
in there on purpose to add insult to injury, sorry. lol. O but relax
its all fun. I am rewatching the shining here soon since its avaible
streaming through Netflix so I might have a different take on it but
probably not anything different on Duvall lol, I am actually
rewatching alot of Kubrick this month, Its been along time since i saw
any of his films besides Eyes Wide Shut which i watched maybe last
month, and I still have to watch Barry Lyndon and Lolita for the first
time.

On Dec 4, 3:10 pm, Nick Faust <talkmovi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Offended, no, that's not the right word.  Challenged, maybe better describes how I felt reading your thoughts on Shelley Duvall in THE SHINING. But since the IMO abbreviation pretty much ends the possibility of discussion, all my comments would do is challenge your taste and what would be the point of doing that? Ordinarily what you say arrives at an unexpected but interesting opinion.
> Now, if I also evoked the IMO disclaimer to say: Shelley Duvall's performance in THE SHINING is one of the ten great screen performances in cinema history - that would be that: End of discussion - right?
> I intend to write something about THE SHININ, which, Thorkell, I don't believe to be devoid of concrete circumstance or meaning. I think the film is built entirely upon a very solid, cause and effect reality. In fact, it's so simple that it appears complex.
> Nick
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:59:21 -0800
> > Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick - The Shining (1980)

> > From: BBeksin...@hotmail.com

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[waj...@googlemail.com]

Bobby, you must watch Barry Lyndon and Lolita!
Anne

[Bobby Beksinski]

I will and I'm very excited about them too, you only get those first
viewings once.

On Dec 4, 6:26 pm, "waj...@googlemail.com" <waj...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Bobby, you must watchBarry LyndonandLolita!
> Anne
> On 04/12/2010 20:37, Bobby Beksinski wrote:Why is my opinion unexpected Nick? I only ask this because I know you and Thorkell are big fans of this film and Shelly Duvall but you must already know what the majority of people think of Shelly Duval in this film so therefore i figured you would have braced yourself. But you knows wait until others reply, i could be the only one in the film club that has that opinion thus making me the minority and the unexpected opinion. I also mention i do not like the child actor either but Duvall is still worse than he is, lol, I think i added that in there on purpose to add insult to injury, sorry. lol. O but relax its all fun. I am rewatching the shining here soon since its avaible streaming through Netflix so I might have a different take on it but probably not anything different on Duvall lol, I am actually rewatching alot of Kubrick this month, Its been along time since i saw any of his films besides Eyes Wide Shut which i watched maybe last month, and I still have to watch Barry Lyndon and Lolita for the first time. On Dec 4, 3:10 pm, Nick Faust<talkmovi...@hotmail.com>wrote:Offended, no, that's not the right word.  Challenged, maybe better describes how I felt reading your thoughts on Shelley Duvall in THE SHINING. But since the IMO abbreviation pretty much ends the possibility of discussion, all my comments would do is challenge your taste and what would be the point of doing that? Ordinarily what you say arrives at an unexpected but interesting opinion. Now, if I also evoked the IMO disclaimer to say: Shelley Duvall's performance in THE SHINING is one of the ten great screen performances in cinema history - that would be that: End of discussion - right? I intend to write something about THE SHININ, which, Thorkell, I don't believe to be devoid of concrete circumstance or meaning. I think the film is built entirely upon a very solid, cause and effect reality. In fact, it's so simple that it appears complex. NickDate: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:59:21 -0800 Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick - The Shining (1980) From:BBeksin...@hotmail.comTo:film...@googlegroups.comNick, I hope i didnt offend you, I dont think the Shining is bad at all but i cant even see a remotely good actress in Shelly Duval, It is just my opinion of course. I also Thorkell believe it or not, have grew up with a abusive stepfather, The thing with Shelly Duval is her emotions do not seem real, She looks like she is just acting or at least trying too, Every sob,cry, scream whatever she did, was just not convincing in my eyes, So that maybe how a person acts when around a abusive person, im not disagreeing to that but she did not pull it off well.On Dec 3, 6:48 pm, "Thorkell A. Ottarsson"<thork...@gmail.com>wrote:Reply Nick, please!On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Nick Faust<talkmovi...@hotmail.com>wrote:Am sitting here trying to decide wether I should respond to this or stay mute as if none of this was ever said! NickDate: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:26:52 +0100 Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick - The Shining (1980) From:thork...@gmail.comTo:film...@googlegroups.comWell I know you are not alone. Quite many hated Shelley Duvall in the film and yes she was nominated to a Razzie but so was Stanley Kubrick! I was brought up with a violent step father and I can tell you Duvall is very convincing in her role. But I know that I'm one of few who actually like her in this film (or any other film), which is why I wrote that. And I honestly love this film because it does not have many scary scenes. The atmosphere is what is scary and that is what makes a horror film good, IMO. One of my all time favorite horror film, so we have to agree to disagree there Bobby :)On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Bobby Beksinski<BBeksin...@hotmail.com>wrote:LOL, well i have to break it to you Thorkell, I hated Shelly Duvall in this, She ruined the movie for me in most of her scenes especially the notorious one where she was walking backwards up the stairs as Jack was following her up and she was crying and begging, that scene which took Kubrick 127 takes, a RECORD. and after 127 takes she still ruined it, IMO it was one of the worst acting performances of all time, it prevented me from getting sucked into the movie because she didnt seem real to me, all she appeared to me was a very struggling actress. Didnt she win the razzie for this too? so I'm not the oddball here, sorry to say its you this time Thorkell, lol. But this is my least favorite Kubrick film and that does make me a oddball, but im telling you that Shelly Duval's acting was the main reason. Jack Nicholson was amazing, the child actor was also not very good IMO. Comparing this film to the TV Remake in the 90's or whenever it came out, Kubricks is the better film overall but i liked some things better in the tv remake, first of all I think the scare factor was better in the remake, and of course some of the acting, lol, Kubrick's was beautifully filmed even for a horror movie, and Jack nicholson is the only man that can play that role. I rate it a 7/10 but thats as low as it will get on my month of Kubrick, I feel he is one of if not the best American director.On Dec 3, 9:41 am, "Thorkell A. Ottarsson"<thork...@gmail.com>wrote:Just saw The Shining again (with my 14 year old daughter). It is hard look look away once you start watching The Shining. There is something so hypnotic about the film, the simplicity of the camera work which is not simple at all, just feels like it. I personally prefer the European version of the film (the shortest one). It has more of an enigma to it (so did Kubrick by the way). One thing that always bothered me though in the film is the scene when Jack drives up to the hotel with this family. The way his hands move on the wheel makes one wonder if he did not know how to drive a car. Kubrick must have wanted it like that since he used to film everything so often. But why? Why make it so phony?I think it is hard to write about a film like this one. So much has been written. There is really nothing new to be said. It was quite interesting to watch this with my daughter. I kind of got a chance to see the film with fresh eyes again. She was so into the film, so in awe of it and at the same time so lost in the whole plot that I kind of relived the chaos of the whole thing. Is this a film that can be explained? No, it is not. Nothing really fits. Is he possessed, is he just going insane or is he...
>
> read more »

[Nick Faust]

Well, no, I don't know that a majority of people think Shelley Duvall is terrible in THE SHINING. And even if I did, what does that have to do with anything? We could create a checklist of movies that were universally trashed by critics and ignored by the public when they were released, only to be praised as classic works of art ten years later. A season specific point in fact: IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. But even so, consider this: Kubrick's THE SHINING must play on cable movie stations around the world every week; has been since there were cable movie stations. That's a lot of play for a film that was originally released thirty years ago and is still in the world's cultural conscienesness all these years later.  Not only that, I've been driving all over western Kentucky trying to find the new Blu-ray edition, mostly without a lot of luck. (Did find it, though.) I finally asked guys at a Best Buy, and at two Walmarts, why do you have all the other Kubrick Collection Blu-rays, but not THE SHINING. All three gave me the same answer: because THE SHINING sold out — right away. I guess that majority you're talking about doesn't live in western Kentucky. Now, where in the world would I find STEPHEN KING'S THE SHINING on the rack these days, or how often does it play on cable? The TV version is not badly made or particularly unappealing. I suspect it is left alone in the dust because it doesn't have the performances of Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, and Scatman Cruthers in it. But in all fairness, even that has nothing to do with this discussion. 

You say in your original statement that it took Duvall 127 takes to do the scene with the bat. You infer that it took Shelley a record number of takes to nail it. Though I don't doubt the sequence was shot over and over again, I do doubt the reason for it is what you say. If the number of takes done in a Kubrick movie indicated such, what are we to infer from the record number of days, weeks, actually, it took to shoot the Sydney Pollack, Tom Cruise scene at the end of EYES WIDE SHUT?  If I'm not mistaken, Pollack says they worked on that scene for a month; same thing, the first bedroom scene between Cruise and Nicole Kidman. We get similar reports about some of FULL METAL JACKET.  Did it take all these actors literally weeks to nail their parts?  

If you have the chance, watch the documentary, KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES. It's on the internet. Watching it will give you a greater insight into Kubrick's artistic method. You will learn that nailing a result was not part of the Kubrick process.  Taking all the time necessary to explore every twist, turn, and corner of a scene was. Kubrick was not looking for a result, he was looking for the simple, straight dramatic gesture, played in an unexpected way. His was a process of discovery - one that involved everyone, including himself. Somewhere in one of the documentaries, someone says that when Kubrick handed out scripts, everyone got a copy, including the janitorial staff. Everyone was involved in the process. If the guy sweeping the floor had an idea, Stanley would listen and maybe even try it if there was something interesting about it. There's the wonderful example in CLOCKWORK ORANGE when Kubrick and cast were making their way through the rape scene; he shot and shot and shot and shot that scene, without anything really sparking his imagination. One day he asked McDowell, can you dance? Yes, the actor replied, and as a matter of chance he vocalized "Singing in the Rain" as he illustrated his skill. It was the "eureka" moment for Kubrick, the thing that he'd been waiting days for: that song. As the story goes, Kubrick shot (quickly) the scene that is now in the film even before his producer had secured the rights to the song from MGM.  It took days and days to arrive at this solution, which would probably not have happened if he hadn't taken the time to explored the scene in just this way. The "Singing in the Rain" rape ended up being one of the most celebrated moments in the film. To this day, that song in that context just blows your mind. Kubrick then incorporated the song as a plot device (Alex sings it later in the bathtub and is found out), and, then, at the end, after we see Alex rolling around on the ground with the naked girl, surrounded by all those formal, Victorian dressed types on the sideline watching, the voice over says something like, "Alex is himself again," and wham, cut to credits with Gene Kelly singing the same song! That final bit - from image to song with credits - is one of those Kubrick-shiver-up-your-spine moments that leave you somehow changed forever! 

So back to the issue: I propose that the 127 takes was not born out of a director's frustration over an incompetent actress, it was like I discuss above, a process of discovery. Now here's where we get to my main point: with all the footage Kubrick had for that sequence, plus knowing that he will take all the time he needs (weeks, a month if necessary) to discover something extraordinary in a moment, are you suggesting that Kubrick merely settled on a take because he couldn't get anything better? 

I would say that such a thing flies in the face of all known facts surrounding the way Kubrick made movies. That take we now have in the movie is there because that's the take that Kubrick wanted; it fit with his overall vision for the film, his concept of the story, and the progressive mood he sets-up from the very first shot in the film. 

So with that in mind, would I be overstepping myself to suggest that those who find Shelley Duvall lacking are asking something of the film that's simply not there; they don't understand the movie that Stanley Kubrick made. 

What's brilliant about his casting Jack Nicholson with Shelley Duvall is the simplicity of the contrast. Look at Nicholson and Duvall, with Lloyd at their side, and what do you see? Or better yet, what's wrong with the picture? Easy: how in the world did these two end up married? Just looking at them it's easy to see that they are incredibly mismatched. Why are they together? The answer is: Danny. The boy is why; the boy, we can surmise, forced the marriage. Backstory: Jack and Wendy messed around, she ended up pregnant, and, voila, a drunken fuck turns into the life long commitment tying two completely mismatched people together at the hip. In terms of narrative, the simplicity of this is exquisite, breathtaking. The entire exposition laid out in a glance. That is, if one chooses to look. 

This approach to casting can be found throughout all the Kubrick movies. In STANGELOVE, casting Peter Sellers in multiple roles follows the tradition of Ealing Comedies (Sellers had acted in a number of them). So with that in mind, Kubrick reveals his intention right away. Same thing, Ryan O'Neil in BARRY LYNDON: the casting here has an ironic twist, but, still, at the time, O'Neil was a major romantic lead, staring in both drama (LOVE STORY) and comedy (WHAT'S UP, DOC?). Using O'Neil, Kubrick bridges the historical gap, as if to say, the main character of this story may be dressed and behave differently than we're used to seeing, but the essential ingredients of character remain the same no matter what century we're in. Later, in EYES WIDE SHUT, the casting of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman gives the film an almost eerie shimmer. Not only are these two of the biggest stars of the day, they are also a well known married couple; married to each other just as the characters in the film are married to each other. In fact, the unspoken anxieties that hover in and around a happily married man and wife ends up being the theme of the movie. Kubrick wanted to cast a real married couple in these roles for that very reason. Watching the film, we never forget that Tom and Nicole are the real deal. When Tom Cruise approaches his wife in front of the mirror, kisses  and caresses her breast, we know that they are doing something that they really do; the sex this bit signals is not, in life, make believe. Likewise, in the final scene when they discuss commitment in the department store, it is Nicole Kidman saying to her husband Tom Cruise that forever is a scary thing. What reverberates between the make believe story of the film and the real life husband and wife who play the parts becomes the electric conduit that communicates what the film is about. 

Shelley Duvall was never a traditional actress-performer. She was discovered by Robert Altman, and, as part of his stock company, she developed in role after role into an unusual movie star. When we first saw her in BREWSTER MCCLOUD, it was the strange way she looked that caught our attention. The more we saw her in other films, the more we got used to her. The role she played in THIEVES LIKE US brought critical attention. Then in THREE WOMEN, giving the smart, chillingly funny performance that Altman always said was mainly her own creation, Duvall was up front and center, winning the Best Actress award at Cannes that year. THE SHINING followed almost immediately. After THE SHINING, she once again astounded everyone by giving a sweet, funny, and totally human spin to the role of Olive Oyl in POPEYE, which I must add is a character role supreme that someone who cannot act would never in a million years be able to pull off. 

There's a touch of the THREE WOMEN character in Duvall's Wendy Torrance, like when she walks through the ball room and, giving a little hop step dance, says, "we can really have a party in here, can't we, hon?" or before, giving the line that always got a laugh, "red and gold are my favorite colors." Before the Overlook, though, she has the scene that sets a tone for the whole movie: she tells the doctor about Jack dislocating Danny's shoulder. In close-up, holding a Virginia Slim near her face, in an attempt to appear casual, Wendy explains the silver lining in this otherwise disturbing situation. "And he hasn't had a bit of alcohol in ... five months." But it doesn't sit well, does it"  We can see worry that tenses the lines around her mouth and the false smile that's meant to sweep what's obvious under the rug. I'm sorry, Bobby, but what I've just described is a marvelous, detailed bit of acting. We sense all the conflicting feelings in the woman and are in a position to feel uncomfortable about what she's just told us, as, I'm sure, the doctor is uncomfortable. Kubrick has crisscrossed about five different bits of exposition in this moment, and how does he do it? With a camera on Shelley Duvall's face! She has basically set up the entire movie in a single moment. 

I could go through the film and discuss moment after moment where Duvall's performance is perfectly alined to the film Kubrick has made. One of the most chilling is when she finds Jack crying and slobbering on the floor, then discovers that Danny has been battered. The way she makes the discovery of Danny's condition, then shifts her mothering instinct from husband to son (letting loose all her suppressed rage that stems from the shoulder incident) is what shifts the entire movie into its next terrifying level. Later, in the bat scene, what has been unspoken between these two probably from the very beginning of their relationship, comes out in a rush. Locked in that traveling shot that cuts back and forth between them as Jack backs Wendy up the stairs, we feel the horrifying recognition that for the first time Jack is telling Wendy the truth. I don't see how anyone who understands the movie can watch that scene and not be engrossed. 

So there, I've said my piece. 

My goal here - and I mean this sincerely - is not to disparage your opinion, but to offer my two cents as an alternative that may register when you watch the film again. 

Nick

> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 12:37:54 -0800

> Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick - The Shining (1980)

> From: BBeks...@hotmail.com
> To: film...@googlegroups.com

[Jake Fredel]

You think The Shining is as low as it gets for Kubrick? I know you haven't seen Barry Lyndon or Lolita - but have you seen all of his films? I think The Shining is amazing, and there are definitely a couple of Kubrick films that seem easily worse than it. 

For the record, I think Shelly Duvall's performance in The Shining is great. A lot of peoples' first reaction is that her performance is bad, but I agree with Nick: since she plays such an integral, vital part in the movie, then why do people love it so much? Clearly they are expecting something different from her, and I think she's an actress you kind of need to get used to to appreciate. Definitely very unique, different, and daring in the characters she's played. 

Also, this version of The Shining plays WAY more on cable than the TV movie. It's easily Kubrick's most popular and appreciated film. It's the only one I've ever known to play on TV on any kind of regular basis. 

Lastly, the fact that Stanley Kubrick was nominated for a Worst Director RAZZIE (!) makes me want to break down and cry.....

I'll have more on The Shining later.

-Jake

[Bobby Beksinski]

Well I just rewatched The Shining, and I am a little confused by Nick
and Jake's posts. I never doubted The Shining's popularity and fame, I
agree it is a good film, actually i have raised my initial rating of a
7/10 to a 8/10. Even if a person thinks Duvals acting is bad, they can
still find this film very enjoyable and everyone, i mean everyone,
consider it a classic among horror films so no wonder it airs on cable
so much, You are right about the mini series version, it is never on
tv but i never argued that it was more popular. And Nick, when i
mentioned the record breaking number of takes on the one scene in The
Shining, i did not mean that it was because of Shelly Duvall, I know
it was Kubrick himself for being such a perfectionist, I have not seen
that documentary you referred to but i had plannedon watching it
beforehand, it has been in my netflix queue for ages now. About those
127 takes or whatever number there were, i meant that even after
however many takes that she was still bad, I think those scenes where
she reads Jacks papers and discovers the scary truth about him are
some of her worst, but it could also be because she is performing
alongside Jack Nicholson in one of his most legendary roles and he
just makes her look worse. It's funny the scenes you mentioned she was
good in it, the beginning happy scenes annoyed me, She seemed so fake,
I was trying to figure out if it was the dialogue that didnt seem
natural or just her saying it, but i thought about it and i dont know
what else she could say in those minimal moments, it wasnt the
dialogue. Now I havent seen Duvall in any other film i can think of
except bits of Pop Eye and I do recall her being better in Pop Eye.

Jake I always knew Duvall was nominated for a Razzie but i did not
know Kubrick was as well, i dont understand that in the least bit,
because especially after watching it here again, i really noticed how
well crafted this film is, The camera work is some of the best seen in
Kubrick's films, i loved the far away shots that slowly zoomed in on
the characters or the shots that followed the characters as they
walked around this gigantic hotel especially the shot that followed
danny as he rode his bike around the hotel, it was genius IMO. And the
music is also something to be mentioned, I noticed how valuable it was
to the film during certain moments, it really built up the intensity
and went together with the actors actions in certain moments, I
remember when Jack violently rips the paper from the type writer and
the music (Im not good with musical instruments to tell you exactly)
played very high pitched like a ripping sound, it did that multiple
times. The way they did that reminded me alot of the oscar winning
musical score from Atonement, how the music played accordingly with
the characters actions. The one thing i mentioned from my original
post about the miniseries is that it was scarier or the scary moments
were better, Im not completely in agreement with that now, In
Kubrick's Shining i think the ghost scenes were not frightening to me
like they were to many people especially the Lady in the bathroom
scene, That is one thing IMO the miniseries did better, the lady in
the bathroom scene was alot scarier due to a couple reasons, Her
makeup was alot scarier, she was hidden behind the curtain at first
and was revealed to us the same time as the kid so it was a suspense
build up, and her voice was creepy along with her dialogue as she
chased the kid out of the room, i cant recall exactly what she said
even though i just watched the clip of it on Youtube, BUT on the other
hand while watching Kubrick's Shining, Jack nicholson became the main
scare factor and he succeeded well, The intensity he brings and after
his breakdown, every scene you thought he was going to pop and do
something terrible. He was the main reason I was on the edge of my
seat.

Jake, I knew alot of people love Shining and consider it one of
Kubricks best, after rewatching it, it was better than i remembered
but still my least favorite, Im just the oddball i guess.
The Kubrick films I have seen in order from best to worst i guess even
though its hard to rank them are

Paths Of Glory - 9/10
Full Metal Jacket - 9/10
Eyes Wide Shut - 9/10
A Clockwork Orange - 9/10
2001 A Space Odyssey - 9/10
Spartacus - 8/10
Dr. Strangelove - 8/10
The Killing - 8/10
The Shining - 8/10

The top 5 films of his i have seen are hard to put in order even
though i usually do lean towards the top 2, but i definantly think the
top 5 are better than the bottom 4. I did not give any Kubrick film a
10/10 but there is no reason for that except im stingy with 10 ratings
( I think out of the thousands of films i have rated, i have roughly
about 40 10/10 rated films) but besides like Nick says, the rating
system isnt the most important thing, Kubrick is still amazing IMO and
one of the best directors ever.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Nick Faust]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5ZdDJov8OY

The link above is to STANLEY KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES on youtube.  It's in 14 parts and has what seems like middle European subtitles, but is eminently watchable. 

Nick

> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 21:09:26 -0800

> Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick - The Shining (1980)
> From: BBeks...@hotmail.com
> To: film...@googlegroups.com
>

[Natalie Shmuel]

My 2 cents? I LOVE The Shining , definitely one of his top 3 or 5!

As to the discussion on Duvall, I wouldn't have liked her either but in this film she is sooo necessary. If you really really think about it, who on earth could replace her for this character? She has the perfect face and that gloom... I cant pinpoint it, but she has the perfect feel that fits into the whole puzzle.. she looks like a simple person nothing glamorous which is a plus too. It's just that face and that vulnerability she portrays, its totally relevant and perfect. If somebody else was chosen for this part, I dont think you would have gotten that same feel with the character that you are getting now.  She is very strange, and that's important in this film. The imperfect acting doesnt seem to bother me this time because it feels relevant as well for some reason.
All of this -- the imperfect acting, the strange wife and kid -- adds up to the "strange", the feeling that something is "off" (which is something Kubrick is definitely going for.. if you guys know what the term "doppelganger" means, it is very present in this film.. the canny... The twins for example, they arent the perfect copies of each other, SOMETHING is off). That's why these things dont bother me, they are there for a reason.. to indirectly make you feel these things (subconsciously, through these particular elements under discussion).  It contributes to the mood and feel you get from this film.. why else do we feel this film so strongly when we see it? It's all psychology, and that's why I give it a 10/10!

Nat

[Thorkell A. Ottarsson]

I agree with you Nat but I would not say that there is imperfect
acting in this film. I think Duvall is amazing in the film and very
convincing. But yes there is some strangeness in the acting (from
everyone). Everything else you said was like spoken from my heart.

Thorkell

--

[Nick Faust]

Nat, you put it so well here, saying that Duvall "is sooo necessary" defines Kubrick's approach perfectly.  But agreeing with Thorkell, I find nothing imperfect about her performance; if it was imperfect, the necessity you pinpoint would not be the case. That's what I was trying to say earlier to Bobby. Duvall does things in the film that I perceive as remarkable bits of sustained performance. What she does - what they all do, actually - goes beyond just good or bad. Those characters have become iconic. It's funny, when I watched the film again the other night I discovered over and over again that I could actually say the lines along with the characters. But - and this is the point - it's not the words I remember, it's the line readings,  the way they said them that has stuck in my mind!  I don't know of any other film that has this kind of hold on me. And even though I've seen it over and over and over again, every time through there's something new waiting for me to discover it! What the hell is this, a movie or a religious experience? 

Nick

> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 00:46:47 +0100

> Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick - The Shining (1980)

> From: thor...@gmail.com
> To: film...@googlegroups.com

[Natalie Shmuel]

I was mentioning imperfect because of what others feel about the acting in the film... i was merely just defending what they perceive as imperfect acting (i should have included quotation marks to make that clearer lol)

My take is that I dont see any problems with the acting, although there are a few instances that I can see why people would say that. I should also mention that the acting is slightly different then what we are used to, which is probably why people would say the acting is sort of "bothering" them in a way.  I agree with you Nick about them being iconic, and i think this is where it makes them so distinct.  The acting is different, I dont know how... but maybe imperfect isnt the word to describe it. Maybe I should have argued that instead? lol
Nat

[Bobby Beksinski]

This is a little off topic and i might be the only one who sees
similarities, But do you all think there is a certain feel, maybe the
strangeness Natalie refers to that is in this film also in Eyes Wide
Shut. I have also noticed that Kubrick used the same scene sort of
from this film in EWS, I say sort of because it isnt major but when
Jack after already losing his mind is walking down the hall talking to
himself and cussing under his breath, and basically flipping out
waving his hands and jerking his head, i think this is right before he
goes in the gold room for the first time and gets a drink. But Tom
Cruise acts in this same manner in EWS after discovering the truth
about his wife, The camera view and everything is the same of Tom
Cruise walking down the dark street cussing to himself and flipping
out at the disgusting truth he just learned. These are just minor
scenes but to me it really brings out the personality of each actor.
But i think the strangeness that it present in The Shining is also
present in Eyes Wide Shut, you can really sense it during the whole
orgy scene in the mansion. strannnnggggee. Its just a thought. lol

> > > From: thork...@gmail.com

>
> > > To: film...@googlegroups.com
>
> > > I agree with you Nat but I would not say that there is imperfect
> > > acting in this film. I think Duvall is amazing in the film and very
> > > convincing. But yes there is some strangeness in the acting (from
> > > everyone). Everything else you said was like spoken from my heart.
>
> > > Thorkell
>

> > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Natalie Shmuel <natalies...@gmail.com>

> > > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Nick Faust <talkmovi...@hotmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> > > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5ZdDJov8OY
> > > >> The link above is to STANLEY KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES on youtube.
> >  It's
> > > >> in 14 parts and has what seems like middle European subtitles, but is
> > > >> eminently watchable.
> > > >> Nick
>
> > > >> > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 21:09:26 -0800
> > > >> > Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick - The Shining (1980)

> > > >> > From: BBeksin...@hotmail.com

[Thorkell A. Ottarsson]

Good point Bobby.

--

[Natalie Shmuel]

I am pretty sure that is one of his reoccurring themes across his work!  I totally see it and agree with you as well!

Nat

[Stephen]

I am a fan of Duvall's performance. She has this utterly everyday
quality about her that accentuates the horror of the position she is
in. Nicholson, when he threatens her on the stairway, seems threatens
our faith in the stability of our everyday world. If something so
insane can happen to someone as ordinary and nice as Duvall, it could
happen to any one of us. Very scary.

Steve

On Dec 12, 12:47 am, Natalie Shmuel <natalies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am pretty sure that is one of his reoccurring themes across his work!  I
> totally see it and agree with you as well!
>
> Nat
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Thorkell A. Ottarsson

> <thork...@gmail.com>wrote:

[Zelia Trueb]

Well said!

Zelia

Steve

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5704 (20101215) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

[Stephen Fuegi]

Thanks, Zelia!