The Shining: Chipmunk blow-job
Michael Royal
Sorry to be crude, but I have seen the movie several times and cannot
figure out why the hell that big chipmumk is blowing that guy in the
room....pretty wierd, though....is this in the book, and does the book
make any more sense than the film?
thanks!
mike ;)=
Lnewolf
as...@millenium.texas.net (Michael Royal) wrote:
>thanks!
>mike ;)=
I believe it is an attempt at suggesting a connection to possible
Satanic ritiuals. Animals are ofter used in these ritiuals. In some
religions animals are given the status of God. Places of Satanic
activity are often said to possess an evilness of its own after a
time. I guess from all the demons that were brought forth by some
ametuer who then lost control of it. Does this help?
Wendy Hourigan
as...@millenium.texas.net (Michael Royal) wrote:
>Sorry to be crude, but I have seen the movie several times and cannot
>figure out why the hell that big chipmumk is blowing that guy in the
>room....pretty wierd, though....is this in the book, and does the book
>make any more sense than the film?
>thanks!
>mike ;)=
I read the book before I saw the movie and it still took me two or
three viewings to make sense of the movie. As for the chipmunk and his
blowjob....... God only knows what pit that crawled out of !!
Shayne. ;)
Lyle Petersen
> as...@millenium.texas.net (Michael Royal) wrote:
>
>
> >Sorry to be crude, but I have seen the movie several times and cannot
> >figure out why the hell that big chipmumk is blowing that guy in the
> >room....pretty wierd, though....is this in the book, and does the book
> >make any more sense than the film?
>
> >thanks!
>
> >mike ;)=
>
> I believe it is an attempt at suggesting a connection to possible
> Satanic ritiuals. Animals are ofter used in these ritiuals. In some
> religions animals are given the status of God. Places of Satanic
> activity are often said to possess an evilness of its own after a
> time. I guess from all the demons that were brought forth by some
> ametuer who then lost control of it. Does this help?
I always thought is was the after-effect of a costume party at the
Overlook gone horribly awry! :)
CAM
Lnewolf wrote:
>
> as...@millenium.texas.net (Michael Royal) wrote:
>
> >Sorry to be crude, but I have seen the movie several times and cannot
> >figure out why the hell that big chipmumk is blowing that guy in the
> >room....pretty wierd, though....is this in the book, and does the book
> >make any more sense than the film?
>
> >thanks!
>
> >mike ;)=
>
I saw the movie once when it first came out and haven't watched it since, so
there isn't much I remember about it, other than being disappointed. However,
in the book there is a man in costume as a dog who had a thing for one
of the main baddies. I believe he performed this service on him. Was the
costume changed in the movie or am I just out to lunch on the whole
thing? :D
Janice Markey
Dave Howlett
In article <50vfh0$d...@news2.texas.net>, as...@millenium.texas.net
(Michael Royal) wrote:
> Sorry to be crude, but I have seen the movie several times and cannot
> figure out why the hell that big chipmumk is blowing that guy in the
> room....pretty wierd, though....is this in the book, and does the book
> make any more sense than the film?
>
> thanks!
>
> mike ;)=
Actually, it's a guy in a dog suit, not a chipmunk suit. There was a
character in the book who was the sex toy of Horace Derwent (The
mysterious Howard Hughes-ish owner of the Overlook). One character
referred to Derwent as being "AC/DC now". The apparition of the guy in the
dog suit chased Danny around at one point, and mentioned that he would
"...huff and puff until Harry Derwent's all blown down!" Derwent must have
had some kinda strange, canine/oral sex fetish. Takes all kinds, I guess.
The brief inclusion of these characters in the film must have been
some kind of hurried attempt by Kubrick to include more stuff from the
novel. Maybe there were more scenes featuring them that didn't make the
final cut, but I really don't know.
-Dave
C. Pate
On 8 Sep 1996, Michael Royal wrote:
> Sorry to be crude, but I have seen the movie several times and cannot
> figure out why the hell that big chipmumk is blowing that guy in the
> room
actually supposed to be a guy in a dog suit. There's a bit in the book
when Jack is "flashing back" to the 20s about some guy who made another
guy who had the hots for him wear a dog suit to a party, and later in the
book I think Danny sees these guys(or their ghosts or whatever)in the
book's version of the scene you're talking about. There's a lot more to
the scene in the book, and why they left it in if they weren't going to
explain it any better than they did is a damn good question...
> is this in the book, and does the book make any more sense than the
> film?
It's in the book as above, and IMHO the book makes more sense.
Besides that, if you read the book and _then_ watch the movie, the movie
makes more sense, because stuff like this is actually explained in the
book. There are also some significant changes in the movie's story as
opposed to the book, so the movie hasn't ruined the book as much as you
might expect. Read the book, it's great!
Curtis
David Riggs
Michael Royal wrote:
>
> Sorry to be crude, but I have seen the movie several times and cannot
> figure out why the hell that big chipmumk is blowing that guy in the
> make any more sense than the film?
>
>
> mike ;)=
The scene is suppose to represent the decadence of the hotel, from the
parties from the past I would imagine. A costume party. I don`t believe
this scene is in the book, and the book is ten times better than the
movie. I let my son watch this movie when he was 12 or so and he asked
me; "why is that animal eating that guys stomach." Well, he is 17 now
and we were watching it again, a month or two ago, as he is a big King
fan and this time he got it. Boy, I wish they didn`t grow up. : )
Dave
Brandon Wheeler
In article <323497...@home.ifx.net>, mar...@home.ifx.net says...
>
>Lnewolf wrote:
>>
>> as...@millenium.texas.net (Michael Royal) wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry to be crude, but I have seen the movie several times and cannot
>> >figure out why the hell that big chipmumk is blowing that guy in the
>> >room....pretty wierd, though....is this in the book, and does the book
>> >make any more sense than the film?
>>
>> >thanks!
>>
>> >mike ;)=
>>
>
>there isn't much I remember about it, other than being disappointed.
However,
>in the book there is a man in costume as a dog who had a thing for one
>of the main baddies. I believe he performed this service on him. Was the
>costume changed in the movie or am I just out to lunch on the whole
>thing? :D
>
>Janice Markey
It has been awhile since I last reread The Shining, but I believe that I have
this right. The man receiving the blow-job was once the owner of The
Overlook. The man in the dog suit was a gay man who had a big-time crush
on the owner.
In the book the owner repeatedly humiliated this man, including the time at
the costume ball, when the gay man came dressed in the dog suit. The owner
made him perform tricks (roll over, speak, play dead), and even wet himself.
When I first saw this movie, I was probably 7-8 YO. When I saw this scene, I
had no idea what was going on. When I asked my mom what the deal was,
she acted embarrassed and readily changed the subject. I had forgotten all
about this scene until I again saw the movie about 5 yrs later. Needless to
say I was ROFL. :)
Brandon (first time post!)
--
| /\ FORNIT |
| /( )\ SOME |
| /___\ FORNUS
http://www.itlnet.net/users/bwheeler/homepage.htm|
Georgos Akrivas
Dave Howlett wrote:
>
> In article <50vfh0$d...@news2.texas.net>, as...@millenium.texas.net
> (Michael Royal) wrote:
>
> > Sorry to be crude, but I have seen the movie several times and cannot
> > figure out why the hell that big chipmumk is blowing that guy in the
> > room....pretty wierd, though....is this in the book, and does the book
> > make any more sense than the film?
> >
> > thanks!
> >
> > mike ;)=
>
> character in the book who was the sex toy of Horace Derwent (The
> mysterious Howard Hughes-ish owner of the Overlook). One character
> referred to Derwent as being "AC/DC now". The apparition of the guy in the
> dog suit chased Danny around at one point, and mentioned that he would
> "...huff and puff until Harry Derwent's all blown down!" Derwent must have
> had some kinda strange, canine/oral sex fetish. Takes all kinds, I guess.
> The brief inclusion of these characters in the film must have been
> some kind of hurried attempt by Kubrick to include more stuff from the
> novel. Maybe there were more scenes featuring them that didn't make the
> final cut, but I really don't know.
Anyway I think it's stupid that they throw a scene from the book wihtout
explaining it. As stupid as featuring that black cook -forgetting his name-
only to kill him in the end of the move, something that DOESN'T happen
in the book.
--
Georgos Akrivas
mailto:geo...@hol.gr
"If you don't know it in numbers, you don't know it at all"
"Purpose of computations is understanding, not numbers"
Engineers' slogans
CAM
David Riggs wrote:
>
> The scene is suppose to represent the decadence of the hotel, from the
> parties from the past I would imagine. A costume party. I don`t believe
> this scene is in the book, and the book is ten times better than the
> movie.
> Dave
The scene was in the book, except the man was in costume as a dog, not
a chipmunk.
CAM
Matthew David New
Despite all these arguments, I think that Kubrick threw the scene in
there just screw with the viewer's mind.
The book and movie differ so greatly, that even someone who read the book
would say, "What the hell is going on here?"
Personally, I think that was Kubrick's intention. Like the waterfall of
blood, the haunting double images of the twins and Jack's tee shot into
Dick Halloran's stomach, Kubrick uses these images to mentally disturb
and molest his viewer.
For myself, I look at the movie and book as two separate works. I liked
the book more, b/c I liked the characters more. However I liked the
psychology of the movie more, b/c Kubrick presentation really affected me.
Granted, you have to give the movie a fair chance to work on you, but if
you allow Kubrick his little pleasures, you'll find that the movie scares
you in an entirely different way than the books does.
Anyway...
- M
Scribbler
Matthew David New wrote:
>
>
> The book and movie differ so greatly, that even someone who read the book
> would say, "What the hell is going on here?"
> Personally, I think that was Kubrick's intention. Like the waterfall of
> blood, the haunting double images of the twins and Jack's tee shot into
> Dick Halloran's stomach, Kubrick uses these images to mentally disturb
> and molest his viewer.
>
> For myself, I look at the movie and book as two separate works. I liked
> the book more, b/c I liked the characters more. However I liked the
> psychology of the movie more, b/c Kubrick presentation really affected me.
> Granted, you have to give the movie a fair chance to work on you, but if
> you allow Kubrick his little pleasures, you'll find that the movie scares
> you in an entirely different way than the books does.
>
> Anyway...
> - M
YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAWWWW!! I'm not alone, I'm not alone--it is GREAT to
meetcha.
Scribbler
Valérie
hol...@fl.net.au (Wendy Hourigan) wrote:
>I read the book before I saw the movie and it still took me two or
>three viewings to make sense of the movie. As for the chipmunk and his
>blowjob....... God only knows what pit that crawled out of !!
Geez, I have *no* recollection of anything like that. I guess
selective memory can sometimes be a blessing, eh? ;-)
Valérie
---
Harry Browne for President
For more info, please go to:
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
