Fun fact: Jack Nicholson was trained as a firefighter volunteer so he’s cutting through real doors with a real axe. They didn’t use props doors because he was going through them too fast
Personally, I think casting Shelley Duvall was good thinking on Kubrick's part because it showed how this very scared and seemingly weak woman "rose to the occassion" when both her son and her own lives were in jeopardy. Remember what Grady said to Jack? "Your wife seems to be a lot stronger than we imagined...somewhat more resourcesful" Perhaps if Shelley had been stronger at the begining than maybe it wouldn't have had that let's cheer for the hero who overcame her fear effect on the audience. I don't know....just a thought. Take it as you will.
+Davey74Boy Agreed I really like Shelley DuVall, she seems like a perfect casting choice. I wouldn't really see the role fitting for a woman who was a modelesque blonde, with this she really conveyed the soft-spoken every-woman. Plus watching her looking fragile and terrified and the fact that Jack was so unhinged it really works with empathizing with her.
+Davey74Boy Also it played into the native american genocide theme. Kubrick always hid clues for his other narratives in the major differences from the novels.
+Davey74Boy watch the behind the scenes. he fucking hated her acting and was really pissed at her and was yelling at her. he made a bad choice in casting or was forced into taking her into the movie.
That was Kubrick's technique with Shelley Duvall. Her character was supposed to be a weak, exhausted, almost-dead-on-the-inside lady, so Kubrick turned her into that by making her do so many takes - resulting in a great performance
I wonder how many death threats KUBRICK's gotten over the years!!? for being a notorious task-master and general nut bar apropos that when his actors/victims were asked what he would've been if he had an alternate career path they all said A GENERAL!!
Jim Neville -- that might be so, but having seen Shelly Duvall in other things, I believe this role was simply beyond her ability. Popeye's Olive Oyl was about her limit.
they need to leave Shelly Duval alone. Apparently Stanley Kubrick tormented her to the point where she started to tear her hair out. he was so demanding
Never realized there was such a universal dismissal of Shelley Duvall. The fact that Kubrick chose a more plain-looking actress over a hot blonde-bombshell added to the realism and unglamorous feel of the film. Everyone was common looking actually. And Shelley's humble demeanor sold her as a fragile insecure woman stuck in a loveless marriage. She pulled of the jittery abused housewife in denial perfectly.
I agree she didn't need to be some "hottie" by any means. Reading the book I didn't get any "mental picture" of her as such, anyways. Just a rather ordinary, but not unattractive housewife type. I think the condemnation heaped on Shelley Duvall is more based on her performance than her looks. She seems incredibly stilted, wooden, and colorless. She sounds like some of her lines are being read of cue-cards! I really believe that Popeye's Olive Oyl was the limit of her acting skills. But getting back to the way Kubrick obviously wanted her to appear -- sure, no blonde bombshell was required, but why such a frumpy, dumpy look? Stringy hair always hanging in her face? And some tan "jumpsuit" like thing that previewed Pennywise's outfit in 1990's "It"? Wonder if Kubrick simply wanted to make her so utterly unattractive (and act like a complete wimp, as well) so that Jack Nicholson's bravura performance would stand out that much more?
Check out her little known 1970 debut flick Brewster McCloud, .. . she actually looks pretty hot in THAT flick believe it or not. One reason she looked so horrible in THIS flick I think was the FACIAL EXPRESSIONS she was making half the time.
I think thats all in your head. She was obviously made to look ugly and everyday for the film. Probably making fun of Stephen King for making her a trophy wife in the book. He makes fun of Stephen King A LOT through his adaptation. Its funny making fun of ridiculous cocaine fueled fantasies. Like the 11 year old gang bang in a sewer in "It."
Diego Rapozo The reason why most men and women in movies, TV shows, comics, animated shows and movies and other stuff is good looking is because most of us prefer to look at attractive people.
In regards to the black and white picture that he is in at the end of the movie I always thought it meant that he has now become apart of the hotels bloody history and that all the other people were either the victims or perpetrators of the hotels violent past.
***** Well, he wasn't one of the ghosts (ghosts don't have babys, I suppose), and he didn't become part of the history of the hotel because one doesn't die and suddenly become part of a different era... It's most likely an explanation to why he felt so at home and so familiar with the place, a sort of reincarnation of the keeper. Also: Grady couldn't be the ghost, since I seem to remember his story being placed in the 70's in the movie, so he was just a projection of Jacks insanity. Jack saw Grady as himself. Jack and Grady are actually the same person, but Jack doesn't know why or how or at all, neither do we until the end where Jack replaces Grady as the butler in the 1920's in the photo. It's a smart little trick and it bugged me for a while watching the movie, but I might be remembering the 70's thing wrong... Let me try to explain this better: Jack says he saw Gradys picture in the newspaper in the bathroom scene when the party was going on, which probably means that Grady couldn't be the butler in the 1920's cause Jack would have had to be really really young to even remember that. I'm assuming the movie takes place around the 80/90s, so that would make Jack at least 70 or around that... doesn't seem like that's the case. This presuming the incident that killed him was in the 1920/30s, at the most... why else re-live that party? Because he saw the picture in the newspaper, either Jack fantasied Grady in his place to convince himself or Grady used that as a means to better persuade Jack, by using his previous incarnation to jolt his homicidal instincts. That's why Grady says he always remembers Jack as being the caretaker... and why Jack remembers him and isn't at all freaked out with the 20's party. It's also why he's so familiar with the bartender. They've met, they were friends, coworkers, in the 20's. Re-incarnation seems to solve all those problems, including the picture, and Grady is simply the last dead one to fill those shoes, you know what I mean? This is really doing a number on me... it's hard to explain (for me) and there are various theories running around in my head... and they all rest on Gradys story being set in the 70s... Again, could be my bad memory/confusion. I hope not, cause that would mean that Jack was the reincarnation of the butler who's daughters burned down the hotel (remember the bathroom scene, where Grady tells Jack his daughters tried to burn down the hotel? What if they didn't just try and that what triggered all of this?) and then took over Grady in the 70's to get some sort of revenge/relive his story with a different ending. Jack is simply the reincarnation, so he doesn't have to relive the story completely, he just needs to stay in the hotel, and, for that he needs to kill his wife and child cause they are trying to stop him from doing so. He loves his child but his mother is trying to take him away, and he is siding with his mother. A sick mind can see that in a very negative way. But that's just my analyses after just watching the movie right now... and boy... am I a mess with this one. Somehow... it makes sense to me.
Alecia Fluffy Presents All theories are possible, one of the things Kubrick loved doing was leaving the audience on a confusing note having them walk out with far more questions then answers. Ultimately we will never know the true meaning behind the photo I could be right, you could be right, neither of us could be right, or it might be a combination of everything. In the end I don't think I would really want an answer, thats why this movie is regarded asa classic and will continue to be for many years to come because there is no answer just questions.
+dannytheman1313 I always thought it was like he was taken by the hotel, like the hotel was an entity and influenced him so when he died he was added to the party along with, who knows how many others.
I get really tired of critics and some spectators, throwing Shelley Duvall under the bus for her looks. She's a beautiful woman, she did a lot of beautiful work in the movies as well as production.
I wouldn't disagree with you Marcelo, because you actually phrase it much more learned than the yahoos narrating this piece, “…Looks like she was put in a washing machine and then left there after too many cycles…*that’s not insensitive*…” To me they're singling Shelley Duvall out for her looks; even if they have a different idea, as we all do, of what looks and talent are...I don't think anyone should try so hard as to come up with ways to criticize another. I've never heard anyone go to the trouble of criticizing Charlize Theron for the way she looked in "Monster" or even Meryl Streep for the way she looed in "Ironweed". And if they did, shame on them, because it seems to be commentary on women more than it is the men in show business.
I know, she's not supposed to look like a drop dead goregous and generic 22 year old mother brought to you by Hollywood. She's portraying a mother scared for her family and herself, and she doesn't need to look perfect. My family found her our favorite actress and character of the movie because she did her part perfectly and wasn't fanservice.
+Nick Staley And people give her so much shit about her acting in this role. She was evidently written as a passive and dainty woman in the screenplay and that's not her fault. In fact, she did a great job portraying a woman to weak to defend herself against her husband; although this makes it easy to see the misconception that she acted bad.
It's good to mention that attractiveness does not always correlate with "model-like" beauty, even though it often does. That said, what is ugly and what is beautiful ranks amongst the most difficult subjects to think or argue about. There certainly are standards (for example beauty contests, models, magazines), but I for one find myself disagreeing with so much of what people say is beautiful or what people say is ugly. In my opinion it's best to divorce your personal standards from the mainstream understanding of beauty or related matters as much as possible because the mainstream is not individualistic by its very nature. You will not find what is special or fitting for you by living by mainstream standards. I can understand when people say being a woman must be difficult, because a lot of people judge you harshly by your looks. And sadly too many people don't care about being constructive (rather than being blunt and destructive) in their criticism. I think it's something you are taught by example, so it's always worth it to put in the extra effort of maximizing the "constructiveness" of anything you say (if without changing the truth of the content of what you are saying you can improve the way it resonates with people, I would call that an example of maximizing the constructiveness)
You missed the colour of the Volkswagen Beatle that they drive. In Kings version it's Red and in Kubricks version it's Yellow. And when Hallorann drives back to the Overlook, he passes a crashed red Beatle - indicated that Kubrick destroyed most of Kings elements in the novel.
I only read the book recently and while I normally hate it when a movie butchers the book, in this case I really appreciated the differences. Reading the book was a new experience rather than just reading the movie verbatim (like Rosemary's Baby for example). Both the movie and the book are just excellent and I wouldn't change either one bit.
Also, Danny may not be the eloquent child that he is in the source material, but he is subtly intelligent. He was able to outsmart his own father in that maze by creating fake footprints. The boy is actually smarter than BOTH his parents! And "Summer of '42" is already pretty mature content for a 7-year-old. To rank it with Road Runner cartoons and imply it as infantile is an understatement.
I don't think Jack Lemmon would've offered the same oomph to The role unless he ended up doing it in drag [get the reference!?] and somehow Walter Mathau haunts him Oh FUCK that'll drive anybody crazy!!
You missed the fact the after he snapped out of it(in the book), he then bashed his face with the "hammer" and looked pretty terrifying and unrecognizable
+Cuteyhoney94 Yep That part of the book was total nightmare fuel. Also, the part where Danny crawls into the playground tunnel, then hears something coming sneakily toward him...Brrr
Maximum -- Very true. I have to believe even Stephen King must have thought filming that passage in his novel would be a bit too gruesome and gory, and turn off audiences. But what happened before Jack smashed his own face was the truly profound moment of the entire story -- that enough of the real him came back to recognize his son, and his love for Danny shone thru, to want to save him. That was the final confrontation which the entire novel was building to, and at least King gave us a "version" of it in his miniseries. Stanley Kubrick, on the other hand, so changed the ending that not only is there no confrontation between father and son, no final reckoning, but Jack never even catches up to Danny in the hedge maze! While well filmed and exciting, Kubricks chase through the maze ultimately is pointless. Danny gets away, finds his mother, and they drive off in the Snowcat. By that point, does it even matter if Jack makes it out, or freezes to death in the maze? Not to the storyline; only in Kubrick's fabricated final scene of Jack as a guest at the Overlook decades before, in an old photo. (I won't even get into THAT scene and how out-of-place it was in King's storyline!).
List of other differences after finishing the book today: 1. Party hats/masks/confetti in the elevator and the random coming and going of it. 2. the clock striking 12 in the ballroom and the obscene characters preforming oral sex/acting out jacks attack on the track of the clock. 3. The overlapping of ghosts at the party through the years and Jack dancing with a woman in a barely there gown. 4. Jack drinks at the bar at the party and is flanked by the woman in 217 and one of the other guests who committed suicide there (need to double check the second part). 5. The infamous “great party” line takes place later when Wendy is fleeing Jack through the halls and a random party goer opens the door with a ghoul mask on. 5. Jack’s mallet to the face and the whole “unmasking” sequence. 6. Wendy is seriously hurt by Jack and has to wear a back brace at the end to heal from being struck in the back by the mallet. Also Dick is alive, wtf Kubrick... 7. Instead of the dead Grady girls/the bloody hallway from the movie, Danny sees blood and brain matter on the wall in the presidential suite from when two mobsters were killed there.
Stanley Kubrick said, “The ballroom photograph at the very end suggests the reincarnation of Jack.” That means that Jack Torrance is the reincarnation of a guest or someone on staff at the Overlook in 1921. This corroborates many theories involving Charles Grady, the man who went stir crazy and killed his family in the Overlook (which Jack is informed about during his interview for the position) was the reincarnation of Delbert Grady, the ghost butler Jack meets in the hotel bathroom. The Overlook seems to have the power to recall reincarnated versions of its past guests and employees. Delbert Grady tells Jack that he’s “always been the caretaker,” implying the hotel continues to revisit its past inhabitants. It keeps calling back Gradys and Torrances to offer them a good vs. evil scenario, and they choose evil.
Docktor Jim -- that's probably the best explanation I've ever read for the puzzling final scene. Probably a good move by Kubrick. Still, as we're analyzing a video that analyzed a book and a movie, I've got to put in my own "two cents worth". While clever, it's NOT King's horror masterpiece "The Shining". I don't like film-makers monkeying with classics. Can you imagine, in 1948, Laurence Olivier changing the basic story and tone of Shakespeare's "Hamlet" (which he directed and starred in)? Instead of the Best Picture and Best Actor Oscars, Olivier would have gotten a "Golden Turkey of the Year Award"!
Key word buddy. "SUGGESTS" That means it's open ended. personally reincarnation is fucking stupid. the idea that because he died there, he became part of the hotel and it's history is much better
I have a better explanation: Time has been broken. The spirits reside in a fragment of the past, where time has stopped, and it is always 1921. Even if a spirit leaves and comes back, the golden room is forever stuck in the year 1921, and that is because they are merely imprints from another time. Because Time has become warped and distorted through imprints, spirits become stuck and re-enact the events that caused them to be stuck in the first place. The spirit’s memory become warped as well and only recall the events that became imprinted, thus they do not understand time or how long they have been there, only that they only remember always being present at the hotel, leading them to insist that they and others have always resided there. Just my two cents, but that is way I can understand a contradictory sense of time.
You know, I used to believe the absorption theory as oppose to the reincarnation one, the one that basically said Jack was "absorbed" into the hotel after he died frozen and then would take Grady's place but as time passed, the reincarnation theory started to made a lot of sense and grew on me. Things like the Charles/Delbert Grady change (even if in the book he was always Delbert), the fact the ballroom photograph was never shown before the ending, Grady's line about Jack always being the caretaker there, Jack himself feeling like he's been there before and finally nothing more than Kubrick's statement.
7:50: Dick doesn't see spirits leaving the Hotel when he arrives to save Danny and Wendy. WTF are you guys on about? - In the book, Dick approaches the Hotel and is savagely attacked and bloodied by the Hedge Animals that come to life and try and stop him from entering. He fights them off by dowsing them with the Ski-doo's gasoline and sets them ablaze! Are you guys using the Coles Notes? The book is amazing and so is the movie!
Smellier Moans I purchased it today! Now Im reading 11.22.63. So far It reminds me of the old Twilight Zone episode abt the guy who time traveled back to his childhood lol. Stephen King has one hell of an imagination !
I know she gets a lot of "ugly" remarks, and I CAN admittedly see where they're coming from, but there's ONE thing that I've always found sort of pretty about Shelley Duvall, .. . she did have very lovely high cheekbones.
Nobody ever talks about the consequences of Hallorann dying in the hotel, i.e. considering his extra mental ability what would be in store for the next caretaker...
Annabelle-Rose Smyth That's a different topic, the hotel would always want to claim danny because of his ability, but Hallorann had the same ability and I was always fascinated at how the hotel would make use of it during the next episode... appearing randomly in the storeroom with a massive hole in his chest etc etc...
Annabelle-Rose Smyth As you will know, the hotel is blown up in the book but not in the film, so for the next winter, this whole thing would happen again to another family taking care of the hotel. I'm opening the door to a sequel.
@@journey95far49 I mean yeah she's not very attractive but she gave a great performance so they should've just left it at saying she wasn't that attractive
Casting a hot blonde in that role would have ruined it for me. I hate scary or suspensful films with a "hot" female lead. It becomes distracting and very cliche at this point.
Agreed. But the literary Wendy wasn't anything like "a hot blonde". According to the passages King supplies us, she was nice, pleasant looking, but in a rather plain way. Pretty much "ordinary". But she was sensible and not a total "doormat" like the film Wendy. Also not so dumpy and frumpy. Shelley Duvall KILLED the movie. DOA with her miserable performance. (BTW, while Jack Nicholson's performance was admittedly "bravura" -- he sure wasn't anything like in the book. King's literary Jack was so much more an "everyman" -- decent, basically good, with some problems at "anger management" and definitely alcoholism. Jack Nicholson was a latent psycho ready to burst forth all over the screen! LOL
In the book, Jack drives the family to the hotel in a red vw bug, but in the movie the Torrance's car is yellow. However, we do see a red vw bug on screen when Hollaran is coming back to the hotel. It is smashed on the side of the road. Through symbolism, Kubrick tells us he has intentionally "destroyed" King's story for the sake of the one we are now witnessing
One of the few novels that genuinely creeped me out when I first read it at like 14 or 15. I'm a huge King fan, and it's a great novel, but the film is an absolute classic made by a genius.
I loved the scene where Wendy sees the paper saying, "All work and no play makes jack a dull boy." I got so sad when I never found it in the book. But the rest of the book made up for it
Here's a little fun fact for you guys in case you guys do a "Things You (Probably) Didn't Know" about "The Shining" (of if you already have and decide to do another). Robin Williams actually auditioned for the part of Jack Torrance, but Stanley Kubrick said no to hiring Williams. Kubrick said the reason was because, after watching an episode of "Mork & Mindy", he thought Williams was "too psychotic." WHAT.
The Shinning is easily one of my favorite horror movies. I feel it's one of the best, especially in terms of psychological horror. It is incredibly unnerving and Kubrick's direction is great. The slow pacing and stillness of the camera can be quite unsettling to me. I feel King's novel had some extremely terrifying parts in it that could of made the movie that much scarier. I can't complain though, The Shinning is still one of the greatest horror movies in my opinion. It really does show you a movie can be scary without using any jump scares.
Oh man, I love how the camera stays on Jack as they swing the axe..then stays on the axe when it hits the door. That little touch right there makes a world of difference in feeling the terror.
Comparing The Shining book to film is a lot like comparing apples to oranges. They're both good, but in different ways and it really comes down to personal preferences, whether one enjoys a compelling story and sympathetic characters with a couple of scares in between or a psychologically gripping premise with such unpredictability.
you don't have to say such mean things about Shelley duvall's appearance. you could have more nicely put your comments or simply haven't have said them. ik this is your opinion but it's still upsetting to hear things like that said, especially In a society that puts so much pressure on how we look.
you can say that in a way that doesn't come of in a condemning way. Like how you said it. Ik these guys are trying to be funny men but it sucks to pull on sexism to do it, I expected better from this channel.
"I know it's your opinion, but I'm going to comment on how upsetting it is anyways!" From a purely subjective point, she's very much unattractive to me. That doesn't discredit her acting, it's blatantly clear that she's the exact opposite of the woman in the book. They bring notice to the actresses physical unnatractiveness because it's a huge separation from the book which is noteworthy.
She never struck me as either ugly or especially gorgeous in Shining (I don't know her other works), but I assume that is the intention of the movie. Ugly would have been unwashed hair, missing teeth or whatever, she is just rather regular looking (beautiful compared to most people, but not drop dead gorgeous in this role). It's a diffcult thing to talk about, one it's subjective, two it can be hurtful, three ultimately you do sort of shape reality (or culture) with your words. "While described as gorgeous in the books, she is rather regular looking in the movie" would have sufficed in my opinion. But I am not one to try and dictate how others should talk, I just think there are constructive ways and unnecessarily destructive ways of saying something. If you choose the latter, you also have to deal with people criticizing you for it, when you could have brought the meaning across without such negativity or controversy. Sometimes you do have to be controversial and there is no way around it, but as people say you should pick and choose your battles. When support is needed, you want people who know you to give you the benefit of the doubt because they trust that you chose wisely to engage in any given conflict.
No he is right, she isn't very attractive. Not sure why people want to deny facts. People bash men's looks all the time so stop being a hypocritical bitch
Having watched the movie and listened to the Novel on audiobook, I have to say (although I liked the movie a lot) I preferred the book. Jack Torrance in Stephen King's novel despite his flaws is a likable character who genuinely cares about his family. That's why it's legitimately tragic when Jack is driven insane and is eventually possessed by the overlook hotel. Jack in Stanley Kubrick movie never seemed to have any genuine love for his family. Movie Jack acted like a psychopath since the beginning of the film and is a lot more like Jack's father personality wise. Although the movie is greet and Jack Nicholson does a fantastic performance, it doesn't hold a candle to Stephen King's classic novel in my opinion.
Okay I can see your point but the film does so many things I prefer then the book. For example personally I like their torrance's performance more than the dad in the book now the reason for this is that he's better at acting insang. Let me explain in the book he's just an average Joe who is slowly being possessed and manipulated by these ghost and spirits. Where in the the film it's about Jacks descent into madness and also he is not being possessed in the movie but the spirits and ghosts are able to convince them to do these things in his mental state. I also prefer the ending work Hats to the scene with the Moonlight and you tonight music on the background and and John in the middle of the picture while the camera goes down and shows that he has been there since 1920 this makes you question everything and makes for a much more cryptic story the book also seems stretched it didn't have to be one thousand Pages it could have been 500 pages.
Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus jack being a good guy from the beginning and then becoming bad from being possessed would feel way too cliche, it’s been done so many times
Chris Wheeler doctor sleep will act as a sequel to both the movie, and the novel. I really don’t know how they’re going to do this, with all the differences
But that was one of the coolest kills I have ever seen. It’s all quiet and all of a sudden he comes from behind a pillar(no one would have guessed that he was behind) screaming his lungs out and hits him with the axe. So awesome.
CineFix I think I have a suggestion for "What's the Difference?" since you covered The Shining, how about you do an episode on IT? Lots of changes were made for the movie adaptation, I think it'd make for an entertaining episode :D
It's a bit like comparing Mary Shelly's novel Frankenstein to the 1930 Boris Karlof movie. Both are great but the differences between the two make the book/movie versions of The Shining appear as identical as the Grady twins.
The picture at the end was to shows that he had been there before. Even at the start of the film, Jack mentions how he had a feeling of Déjà Vu and he feels he has been at the hotel previously. I don't understand why people don't "get" the photo at the end when the film covers it.
+NinjaInConverse That's what I thought. He's giving the as above so below hand gesture in the picture set in 1921, which ties back to the trans Baphomet figure. He was given a chance to get out, but he fucks up again.
That's right! Kubrick has made this clear in an interview also. It's amazing how people refuse to accept the explanation provided by the director himself!
+NinjainConverse Honestly, I know people say that Jack had been there before, but there's no evidence to prove that (Delbert Grady was telling him "you've always been the caretaker" because he was trying to make him think that. Because Jack tried to murder his family, he is now living in infamy through the hotel picture.
I always thought the ending shot meant that jack had become a part of the overlook hotel because he went crazy in it like everyone else, but according to the internet that's not what happened :/
I always suspected it had something to do with that moment Jack says he felt like he'd been to the hotel before. The ballroom scenes may have been memories of a past life and the haunted hotel is trying to get him to remember them.
+nath909 "Take your medicine," but it works far better in context in the novel than stated in this video. The phrase isn't just a one-off pop-culture riff on a late night show quote, but "medicine" itself is a theme throughout the book in a general sense (like the Excedrin he's constantly chewing), as well as a codeword for punishment handed down by Jack's own alcoholic, abusive father, showing that he was becoming something he, personally, dreaded becoming for his own son (and I believe he may have used at times like before he broke Danny's arm). For Danny, as a five year old, hearing that phrase, it was absolutely loaded with danger and fear. And if I remember, he doesn't just say it once in the book, but over and over again while hunting down the fam making far it more broken and insane.
+NekoMouser "Here's Johnny," is really dated when you get down to it. Since we as the audience know the character's name is Jack "so who the hell is Johnny?" is what we think after that line.
+Baron Samedi In the novel, Jacks real name is John Daniel Edward "Jack" Torrance. So it makes sense, but they dont really tell you any of that in the movie
The picture at the end of Kubricks film gave me a couple ideas/theories: 1) Jack was a reincarnation of a past employee, who was brought back to the hotel over and over 2) He's a grandson who looks like the one in the picture, and that's why he goes to the hotel because it's connected to him somehow through "the shinning." His grandfather may have had some kind of connection to the place through the shinning, and possibly did something bad and had some kind of curse set onto his family
You realize grandchildren aren't exact clones of their grandparents right? Its pretty damn obvious it wasn't intended to be a picture of Jack's grandpa.
Eyerish .B A perfect Shining would be a mix between King's novel and Kubrick's film. The heart and characters of the novel and the fear, cinematography, and subtly of the movie. Pretty much like IT 2017.
That's because "Here's Johnny!" was improvised by Jack Nicholson. He actually improvised a fair amount of dialogue and details, since he also did write himself. He actually said that the early scenes where he's writing on the typewriter . . . well he actually helped write them. He had experienced "writer's block" a few times and did take it out on his wife. Not abusive, just that he got frustrated and freaked out for 5-10 minutes. That said, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" must have been torture because every page was written by Kubrick's secretary, who he then also made type in several other languages. So let's celebrate the true chad (chadette?) of the film. The secretary.
I have unfortunately never read the novel but after watching this comparison it looks like Kubrick allows the audience to fill in the blanks of what exactly happens/happened to the Torrence family in the Overlook. Is what happened the result of the Overlook itself or the Madness of Jack or did anything take place there at all. Its all very ambiguous and I like it that way personally.
In the movie he was already crazy and unhinged without drinking. In the book he was kind yet had past issues with alcohol that made him two entirely different people in a lot of ways. The hotel used him to try to get Danny because they wanted his powers of Shining. In the book Wendy was a strong woman and not the weak one from the film. Whats his name, the cook, did not get killed and was the hero saving Wendy and Danny in the end. Lots of big differences. The only thing I think the movie did better is I think the hotel picked for the movie is a LOT scarier than the actual Stanley Hotel where the book is based on in Estes Park, Colorado. Also the twins were not twins in the book but older and younger sisters but the twins make it creepier and I like that change
To Allan Lol. The hotel made him do it. You must be susceptible to such delusional thinking. The Hotel was completly empty apart from the Torrances. It was Jack and his crazed psycotic mind that resulted in him doing it. He had bashed his son before duing an earlier drunken episode.
I'm glad I found this. I've only ever read the novel, but my sister has seen the movie without reading the novel. I mentioned my reading it and she asked about the 'Here's Johnny!' line and I had no idea what she was talking about. Then we compared endings and I was so confused.
***** Sorry but "The Babadook" scared me and that barely relayed on anything visual, it freaked me out because I released what was going on and how real what is going on can be (won't spoil it for people). "The Shining" just wasn't scary for me, I really enjoyed it and would definitely recommend but it was far from scary to me, might be to others though... some people are scare of the TV series "American Horror Story" and I still have no clue why.
math Babadook kept me up the entire time and I started watching it around 1am. I have nothing bad to say about either film though, both are fantastic pieces of work.
In the book, it is revealed that John "Jack" Torrance also has the Shining. Just delayed. That's how he initially sees the bathtub is bone dry, but when he gets to the door to leave the room, he turns back and sees her shape behind the shower curtain. There were other examples too, but that was the main one that was in the book.
The picture at the end shows that the first caretaker who killed his family (gredy or whoever) was reincarnated into Jack that's why he had deja vu at the beginning of the film
The Grady girls play a much lesser part in the book than in the movie. It kinda annoyed me that they had such a big importance in the movie in comparison to the book?? I don't know if that's just me tho
The movie completely omits Jack's encounter with the hornet's nest, which symbolizes Jack's attempt to take control of his own life and subsequently getting bitch slapped by fate. The movie also omits Wendy's fears that Danny is closer to Jack than her, and how this may mirror Wendy's own relationship with her father.
I love the novel, but this is one of the rare cases (in my opinion) that the film far surpasses the material. It's one of the best movies of all time made by an absolute genius. Kubrick is nuts, but he knows how to make films.
You guys should do a series about the preparation a method actor/actress went through to get ready for a major role. I.e; Heath Ledger preparing for his role in The Dark Knight as The Joker.
I absolutely love the book, so the Shining movie came as a real disappointment after all the hype. Interesting fact about Dick Halloran: in Stephen King's "It", he's mentioned as an old friend of Mike Hanlon's father. Also, part of the reason King didn't want Jack Nicholson to play Jack Torrence was because Nicholson had been typecast as psychologically damaged characters a lot, and he felt it would be too obvious that Jack becomes unhinged, which is supposed to be a big surprise in the book.
This is my all time favorite movie because it’s a Maze itself, so many interpretations are possible and that uchronic / phantomatic vibe... But Kubrick created his own mythology for The Shining, that’s why it is so appealing.
I watched the movie first Then i started reading the book expecting 1-Heres Johnny 2-All work and no play makes jack a dull boy 3-...i ve corrected her I find myself disappointed
I love the mothers actress. I just feel she portrays the part of a traumatized mother. I just love how she swings the bat recklessly in that one scene with her and jack before he goes crazy. You can really see the distress in the way she moves
A lot of the movie's reputation comes from it being so iconic, and from the cinematography being legitimately incredible, but in terms of the actual story, the book is FAR superior. The characters are superbly written (they're all pretty two-dimensional in the movie) and the story wraps up to a much more satisfying climax. It's certainly true that the miniseries - which was a whole lot more faithful to the book - sucked ass, but it's one of those sad cases where the book simply doesn't translate very well onto a screen, in spite of being literary genius in its own right. That was the cool thing about the movie; Kubrick changed it in a way that made it work, at least for the most part. Although while it's certainly interesting that Kubrick decided to interpret Jack's descent into evil as genuine insanity and cabin fever (in the book it's outright stated to be a slow possession by the Overlook Hotel itself), it meant that the actual "shining" aspect was completely redundant, which is pretty dumb when it's literally the title of the movie. In the book it's actually the crux of the story, instead of just a plot device used to foreshadow the ending.
Scrummy64 The Shining bit in the movie is important because there’s no use in trying to pretend like Jack isn’t going to go insane, so they outright make it obvious that he will. This makes the audience well aware of what’s going to happen, when there are characters in the story who are still in the dark about it, in a way giving the audience an ability similar to that of the Shining.
+VanillaHetalianOwl it's from the book. Jack was drinking in bar, there were that ghost costume ball from past and one woman was telling Jack about dirtiest secrets of its participants. There were rich man and his subordinate, I guess, who actually was gay. The minion was in dogs costume and his boss was "playing" with him.
+VanillaHetalianOwl The rich guy was eluded to owning the hotel (if I remember that part right). He was also pan sexual. He got off on the conquest more than the actual act of sex. The guy in the dog costume was a former lover of the rich guy. He was trying to get him back, but it was explained, everyone but the guy in the dog costume knew it. I also remember some scene where the rich guy is humiliating the guy in the dog costume at a party. And this made me realize I remember way too much of a book that I actually only read once.
Movie is great, so long as the viewer doesn't try to compare it to the book. The movie is great as a horror film. It does its job at scaring its viewers. But as an adaptation of the book, it is bad. So if you liked the movie then read the book and liked that too, just don't try comparing the two when reading or watching The Shining.
i read the book and watched the movie. the movie is good, but not perfect. and im not saying that because its unfaithful to the original story. in fact, some plot-wise decisions made more sense in the movie. but there are still things that prevented the movie from being perfect.
In the movie Jack freezes but in the book the hotel burns down, it’s a deliberate opposite because in the movie he’s already pretty bad but in the book he’s still an alcoholic but never wants to hurt him again
I'm sure it's already been said but, one very big difference is that the history of the hotel is much more fleshed out in the novel than the film, explaining the infamous "Dog man" as the sexual submissive of Horace Derwent, the hotels eccentric owner. Also the movie leaves out Jack's background of child abuse at the hands of his own alcoholic father.
I thought Jack's character was reincarnated? Jack's character was the one who killed the wife with the two girls & then was reincarnated to come back to the same hotel to kill his new family, i.e. wife & son. This is what someone told me years ago, who read the book because she asked me if i understood why Jack's character was in the picture.
i personally love this movie. I remember back in february when i watched it i couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I was just so enthralled & it was so entertaining! It's one of those movies that when i first watched it i was always asking myself what's gonna happen next. I don't think there's anything that i hated about this movie. Now everytime i watch it i always try & wrap my brain around what it actually means. I give The shining a 10/10 & no. 2 on my top 10 favourite movies of all time!
I really wish the Playground had been included in the film. It was an amazingly horrifying scene in the book and it couldn't have added more than 10 minutes or so to the movie's runtime. I also hated that they never explained WHY he saw it as "redrum" in the movie. (Everyone just assumes Tony's a demon who speaks backwards I guess? I don't know.) In the book, it's clearly explained that Danny is just learning to read. He doesn't know how to put the word together, so his mind simply provides the word spelled backwards. (I think because he knows the letters that should be in the word murder, but red and rum are both much more familiar words to Danny, and easier to read for a 5 year old because they contain 3 letters each. But that's just my theory.) Another good scene that I'm not exactly MAD that they cut out was the scene where Jack gives his son a supposedly empty wasp's nest, which felt very symbolic of their relationship. (Danny's father not MEANING harm, but doing harm because he is thoughtless. Here shown in him not checking that the wasps are actually dead.) This is one of my favorite books of all time and there are so many scenes in the book that would have been so much better in film adaptation than the bathtub scene. Even having mobster brains on the wall would have been easy to put in, but they decided to waste budget on Satan's blood elevator. I actually watched the film first and thought it was ok, but not worthy of the high praise in horror that it got. Yes, I'm a young person who grew up in the 90's watching all kinds of blood and gore, but even as "desensitized" as the older generation THINKS I am, the book sent chills up my spine. The good kind of horror chills. The kind that slowly sneak into the room, and you feel them but you pay them no mind. Just a draft. Then as you're hung on the edge of a scene they slowly creep up your body and grip you, but you keep going. You keep feeling the cold rise and ebb, though never leaving once it's there. It grips you tight and shakes you as the hotel blows to kingdom come. The movie...Didn't do that. It did try, I'll give it that. There's just a disturbing and eerie feeling in the book. You know from the moment Danny steps into the hotel that messed up stuff happens. You know even before they're snowed in. You know as Wendy's in town buying supplies for her son (because they do have time before they're snowed in) that she shouldn't go back up the mountain. You know and it's not a secret, but it feels like you're walking through a crime scene and keep finding more and more horrors and you can't go back. (I really like this book.)
3:40.... That's not right. One of the very first things Hallorann says to Danny is that he and his grandmother used to have entire conversations without ever opening their mouths. Now I'm wondering how many other things you guys got wrong.
