There's a scene in the book where Jack finds/is led to a scrapbook in a shed, containing the secret history of the hotel. It is, I think without hyperbole, literally the most important scene in the book, and it baffles me that it was cut, because: 1) Jack decides to make his book about it, 2) his obsession with it is what lures the hotel into tempting him into the darkness, 3) it's literally the explanation for the party, the corpse in the bathroom, the furry in the bedroom, the reason why the family distrusts the elevator, that final picture... I could go on. The Shining is about how the past reaches out to infect the present--it's a ghost story, that's the metaphorical purpose of ghosts--so cutting the scene where the main character uncovers the dark past... I can't fathom it. Jack's obsession with the scrapbook is... it's literally half of the plot of the story, the other half being Danny's psychic struggle with the house, which... I'd argue was also cut.
@@SoHungry666 Ah, cool! My point, though, is that the discovery of the scrapbook, and the exploration of its contents, is what drives Jack's half of the book. It's not just the existence of the scrapbook itself.
The book is a ghost story, and the film adaptation is, on one level [marketing] a ghost story. But it is also, on the Kubrick level, a Happy ever after fairy tale.
Pretty much anytime you look for a source for Shelly Duvall’s experience with the shining she is positive about it, I don’t know where this myth that she was being traumatised comes from, but it’s certainly not anyone who worked on the film. They’re actually disrespectful considering all the footage that exists of any personality clashes show Shelly jabbing at Kubrick and making fun of him
@@RaggedyCatProductionsyeah, 30+ takes for every scene, nerve damage in her hands and intense therapy after sounds like it was a walk in the park. Just because the victim never felt comfortable speaking out about the abuse she endured, that doesn't discount the witnesses that saw it firsthand. To quote Far Out, "While Duvall admitted that Kubrick was unnecessarily hard on her, cruel and abusive during the shooting schedule, she also defended him by talking about how he perpetrated the same amount of abuse that had been imposed on him in the past." She acknowledged that she lost hair from the stress and that she was made to film the scene with the baseball bat 127 times. She said (quoting the same Far Out article: “You just think about something very sad in your life or how much you miss your family or friends. But after a while, your body rebels. It says: ‘Stop doing this to me. I don’t want to cry every day.’ And sometimes just that thought alone would make me cry.” If that isn't torture, idk what is.
@@SavageMinnow Gene Kelly made dancers do the same routines dozens of times. Debbie Reynolds said she was in intense pain afterwards. Was Gene Kelly an abuser? William Wyler, the director of Ben Hur among other films, was nicknamed "Forty Take Willy" etc. Kubrick was overly concerned with framing of the characters, so the stairs scene had to be just right to get the actors in the center of the frame. Were the people carrying the equipment abused? Or Nicholson having a bat swung at him? Lee Unkrich wrote a massive book on The Shining and spent a lot of time with Shelley. She explicitly denied any mistreatment by Kubrick and talked about how kind he was to her. She gave interviews to Kubrick podcasts praising him. She should be the last word on this. She wasn't abused. This story just won't die. The stress came from the role itself. It was hard work. She had issues with stress and anxiety before working on The Shining. It was intense work and she wasn't used to that sort of environment.
@@Anton-i2o Are we seriously defending abusers now? Also, a person can be abusive AND kind. Abusers aren't one-dimensional people but have many different qualities to them, some good, some bad. I know, because I've been in an abusive relationship. It's extremely rare you meet an abuser who is outright evil because people aren't generally outright evil, as most abusers become abusers because they themselves are victims of abuse. Furthermore, a lot of victims also deny the abuse of their abuser. That makes the movie in retrospect much more chilling when you realize that a lot of the stress she's acting wasn't just acting but very much real.
For me, the appeal of the movie is its overall vibe and almost hypnotic quality. It's hard to put into exact words, but it just creates this environment that is unpleasant and unsettling. It's the reason why people analyze and theorize it to death. Because they're trying to put into words something that's just a feeling.
The protracted shots that are a major point of criticism in this video are definitely an intentional exercise in mood and atmosphere, like Wendy standing in shock for twenty seconds after finding the cut radiator, the music speaks for her internal monologue as we see her considering her options through expressions. It's a very Vibe based movie so I can totally see why some people would despise it if they didn't gel with its particular vibe.
@@HalloweenYearRound I think this comment gets to the crux of it. Vera's perspective is perfectly reasonable and appreciated but it still doesn't change my weird love for this movie about ghost alcoholism.
I want to make a comment as an ex-substance addict... There is one way in which everything (or most of it) falls into place in the movie, specially the Jack's issues. He lied. He lied about being sober during those 5 months. He was just taking the edge off (and Wendy believed him because of her being an abuse victim). And when they went to the Hotel, maybe he thought there will be alcohol. And there isn't none. So... Jack as being all that time in heavy detox. Detox messes with your perception, with your memories, with how you see people, and the fact that you'd do ANYTHING for another fix. Throw some super stressful frustration because you can't write, the isolation, etc... You might get violent. It happens. Specially if you abandon your habit cold turkey no medicine help. And the rest, yeah, the ghost were whispering on his ear. But the ghosts were just what drove him over the edge. Well. That is my take as an ex addict. It might not make sense either.
So... ok he's lying to Wendy about staying sober. Why would he lie to Lloyd? Because he says to Lloyd "here's to 5 miserable months on the wagon." Why would he lie about being sober to the man giving him a drink?
@@CouncilofGeeksbecause taking the edge off doesn't satisfy the addiction. Taking the edge off is drinking enough to not being sick, not drinking to being drunk or numbed. There is a difference in how it feels. One leaves you always craving, but functioning. I hope I'm explaining myself properly, english is not my first language.
@@AngieDeAguirre Going off your comment, as it's been years since I saw it, couldn't it also be the case that he lied to Lloyd because Jack believed it. After 5 months he could have convinced himself it was true, even though it wasn't. In the same way that many addicts convince themselves they only do it on occasion, they can stop when they want and it's not a problem.
@@Elwaves2925yesssss!!! This too! Absolutely! That was so me! 😂 My thing was not alcohol, so I know that both experiences might differ in some aspects, but addiction is addiction and in some things it's almost the same for everyone. Great take and it's so awesome that you caught that to add to the conversation 😊
@@AngieDeAguirre Thankfully i've never been addicted, unless you count cold milk (I kid you not 😁) but a friend was, so I dealt with it all through them. They'd say things like that, then you'd see them so out of it they had no idea who you were. I hope you are over your troubles, whatever form they took. As much as any addict can ever be over it. 🙂
Dick Halloran was done so dirty by the movie. In the book he comes and fully saves the day. Jack's hit only injures him and he and Wendy take Danny out and they all save each other and there is even a scene at the end where he says it's ok for Danny to still love Jack because he was his daddy and I'm not crying, you're crying. I get why they made it different as an adaptational surprise, but it does suck for the character. Also there is a tiny fact in the book that Jack is helping Danny learn to read (he's much younger in the book) and he makes out these little worksheets for him to go through and it's super sweet. That was just genuinely cute to read.
Jack was also done super dirty when compared to the book and even the later mini series. I actually prefer the mini series because it’s better at adapting the book.
@@fdragon010 The mini series was kind of clunky partly because of the need for advertising breaks, but also because of the repeated and very artificial-seeimg "spooky reminders" e.g. the cash register rings up a sale when there's nobody around. That said, though, Steven Weber does a much better version of showing "who Jack was", as Vera says, and Rebecca de Mornay's Wendy is much closer to book Wendy. I think the definitive version of the Shing has yet to be made, but probably never will be, sadly.
I do like The Shining, but I’ve always found it impossible to see it as anything other than a series of beautifully choreographed camera shots and great performances. The sound design is important, but the whole thing is a pretty hollow exercise in unnerving the audience and pre-signalling how they should feel. As you’ve rightly pointed out, there are great characterisation pieces, but just about everything happening around those just make no sense and only seem to be there because “oh, that looks amazing!”
I mean, you're basically describing the very purpose of film as a medium. The film is a bit of a mood piece. If you try to think of it as more of a visual tone poem, it makes more sense. It values creating a feeling of anxiety and uneasiness in the viewer first and foremost. I don't think every film has to necessarily have a plot that's really tightly structured and makes the most sense as a story, because that's only one aspect of the medium. We should judge art based on how well it achieves what it sets out to achieve. Saying that the book is better because it goes into cycles of alcoholism and the history of the hotel is kind of ignoring the fact that those were never things the film intended or wanted to address. They're entirely different pieces of art. I'd go so far as to say that the film is really more inspired by the book than it is adapting the story. It takes inspiration from the setting and elements of the story, but then sets out to tell its own entirely different story.
There are some classic shots, and the cinematography is gorgeous at times, but it's exactly as you said. It's like Stanley Kubrik just wanted to do cool shots at the expense of the story.
@@itsaUSBline but point of stories is telling you a story. If you ain’t got no goddamn story, make a music video or some shit. It’s offensive how lacking this film is in any semblance of actual plot or storytelling
"I always thought that the real difference between my take on it, and Stanley Kubrick's take on it, was this: In my novel, the hotel burns; in Kubrick's movie, the hotel freezes. It's the difference between warmth and cold." *-Stephen King*
I think that's a very salient point by King. I think King wanted to tell a story about a man overcoming his demons and Kubrick wanted to tell a story about a man being consumed by them, which is probably why the two butted heads over the direction of the story. King's big problem is that he had the opportunity to prove his version of the story could work visually with the 90s made-for-TV version and it was really, really, really bad. Which predisposes many people to think Kubrick had the right idea.
@@craigcharlesworth1538 I liked the TV movie. It almost certainly didn't have Kubrick's cinematography (it's been a long time since I've seen it), but the character progression feels a lot more organic. When the sequel, Doctor Sleep, was adapted for film, they made it a sequel to the movie rather than the book. King said that it made him appreciate Kubrik's version of the original story more. While I don't think it retroactively makes the first movie less stupid, the first movie does provide for a better setup. A haunted hotel is scarier than a haunted campground on the same site. And the callback to the blood-avater was funny in the best possible way.
@@susanwenger5025 I actively despise the film Doctor Sleep because it feels like it's trying to apologise for Kubrick's film and turn it back into something King would like. And that's a huge no-no, taking a dead artist's work and recontextualising it in ways that they almost certainly wouldn't agree with. That's no better than AI bringing back dead actors for me. As for the TV movie... I think it proved that Kubrick had at least some things right. King was apparently very angry that the 1980 film omitted the sentient topiary animals, but the TV movie shows that even with 16 years of advances in visual effects, it was really hard to pull off without looking silly. Also King insisted that Tony had to be visualised the same way he was in the book, as a guy floating in the air that only Danny could see. Again, this stuff works in a book but looks completely fucking stupid on screen. I think King had a valid criticism of Kubrick's film because it fundamentally changed Jack and made him a very different, and much less sympathetic, character. And King was close to Jack, because he was partly autobiographical, so I can see why he would be mad. But the TV movie also demonstrates that Kubrick has a filmmaker's eye for what will visually work onscreen and what won't, that King doesn't have.
@@craigcharlesworth1538 I don't think that Doctor Sleep is trying to apologize for Kubrik's Shining, though. It does things differently than Kubrick would have if Kubrik had made the sequel, but there are no Rise-of-Skywalker-style changes to the understanding of what came before. In fact, the movie seemed committed to Kubrik's version of events. What do you think I'm missing? Fair point on the topiary animals. I didn't think they looked that bad in the miniseries, but the labyrinth was scarier. You can definitely make a case for not having Tony float in the air, but floating Tony was way less ridiculous than Danny talking to his finger. He was also more clearly an ally rather than another creepy, scary thing. Unlike King, I don't object on general principle to Jack being changed. Movies don't have to be the same as the book. I just thought the execution of said change needed work.
I do respect someone who’s willing to have opinions like these even if it’s a movie is universally loved especially if they make a solid argument for why they feel that way
My problem with Scatman Crother’s character is that he can sense something is wrong from across the country but he can’t sense Jack standing around the corner with an axe.
As an old geezer, I remember when this film was released. The response was at best muted: critics initially saw that it adds up to less than the sum of its parts. That was the consensus view for years, then something changed, and I've always wondered what happened. To me it felt like The Shining was reassessed because the reputations of both Kubrick and King continued to escalate dramatically. So a bunch of people started feeling like it HAD to be a great movie, even if King didn't like it. But I didn't like it when I first saw it, and both times I've seen it since, in attempts to reassess it, my opinion hasn't changed much. I'm more aware of the good elements of the film, but I still don't think they add up to anything coherent. I also watched A Clockwork Orange again recently, and for the first time I can see why it's a truly great film - but it makes The Shining look even worse by comparison. The Shining feels like a mediocre TV movie adaptation made with Kubrick's obsession with details. It feels like Kubruck just does not respect the story he's telling, which couldn't be further from what he did with A Clockwork Orange.
My step dad loved the King book and was disappointed with the movie when it came out because it was almost nothing like the novel. The network mini series was alright and stuck closer to the book but given the limits of network it and King it has a few issues. In truth the book that is just difficult to adapted with all the flash backs and so forth.
Many of Kubrick's films got middling reviews from the start. 2001, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut. You can't fake generational enthusiasm. The fact is that they look better with the years.
@Anton-i2o You're right, that happens a lot, and not only with Kubrick. But that doesn't mean the new appreciation is always right. Which is exactly why we can debate The Shining.
@@colonelweird I've loved the Shining since I was a kid. What I find most telling about it's lasting quality, is how many people of different ages and walks of life, who love it, who don't even like King. It's influence on some of the best horror stories since it's release.
If I remember correctly from what Kubrick himself said (in other words, authorial intent of the director), the photograph at the end was meant to represent Jack joining the countless spirits who had been the Overlook's victims, and that the earlier comment by "Grady" (Who I forget in the book whether or not is the real Grady or the Overlook using his visage like a puppet to talk to Jack) that Jack had "always" been the caretaker of the Overlook is the Overlook basically trying to manipulate Jack's feelings by making him feel like he belongs with the evil and trapped spirits of the Hotel. It's the Overlook claiming his soul. Further, Kubrick is on record saying the supernatural elements were meant to be real all along, with the opening of the pantry being designed as a "AHA! SO IT WAS REAL!" moment. This, however, does not negate your critique at all that this idea is POORLY communicated by the movie. One idea that might have made the final scene have its *intended* impact would be to introduce that group photo earlier in the movie, with Jack not present among the crowd. Per Kubrick's style, we could even cut back to Jack looking at it more than once. Maybe first time it mirrors the final scene and it's a photo of a party, the second time he looks at it however mid-way its still the party but the spirits are looking at him expectantly as if subtly saying "Don't you have a job to do?"... i.e. killing his family, then finally at the end when he dies its the same as the first photo with the celebration but now Jack is included among the crowd. Idk, just spit balling hypothetical cuts that I know will never be made.
Having only ever seen the movie once over two decades ago and not having heard this from Kubrick, this has always been my assumption. Jack has been added to the hotel, not that he was a reincarnation or something of a past visitor. Jack is only at the front of that photo because he's the most recent victim. He'll fade to the back as it takes more.
Your approach to this movie is very functional and structural. A lot of the comments you make about The Shining are about the function of structural choices within a narrative. This is a completely valid way to approach a film. However, I would argue that some great movies do not match this approach and, consequently, seem worse when viewed this way. The Shining has a lot of stylistic choices that are similar to Italian horror films, where the function and structure of a choice are overridden by the feeling of that choice. For instance, the credits at the beginning of The Shining are flat and don’t match the beautiful aerial shots behind them, but that feeling of discordance might be the intention. Similar to how survival horror games like Resident Evil will intentionally use clunky controls (tank controls) to make the player feel more tense.
Ok… but I’ll note that survival horror moved away from tank controls after a few years because, regardless of intent, it was ultimately decided it hampered the experience more than it helped.
@@CouncilofGeeks videogames moved away from tank controls cause they were not industry standard and companies noticed that most people complained about them. They did not leave the tank controls or static cameras because of artistic vision. But for a desire for mass market appeal, read: more money. The swap from an artistic vision to industry standard was to please people who thought "ugh, this is too hard and impractical to get into". Similar as people complaining that the Shining drags out too many scenes who also don't understand style and intention.
Im not saying Kubrick could be abusive with his actors, but there is a famous story about how the next film Scatman Crother would go on to do was Clint Eastwood's Bronco Billy , and supposedly when Clint only had Scatman do 1 take for each scene, Scatman broke out into tears. Soo take that how you will for Kubrick's treatment of actors
Yeah, it seems like this film to you is what Dead Poet's Society is to me: a movie that seems near universally beloved that I thought was bad, and that slowly turned to hate after having it constantly shoved down my throat. And I was forced to watch it in high school by a teacher. Twice. Note: not a great film to be forced to watch if you're a teenager struggling with thoughts of suicide.
That's how I feel about Andor. Literally everyone I see talking about it seems to gush over how amazing that show is, but I find it remarkably boring. "Boring" is about all I can describe it as, other than maybe "gritty" and "realistic". I don't like realism in film. I don't want to see real life simulated on screen, I get my fill of the mundane in my own life. I watch movies and shows to be entertained by something BETTER than reality, to become absorbed in supernormal stimuli. And Andor just doesn't feel like Star Wars to me, either. Gone is the heady optimism and mysticism of the OT. The good guys aren't so good, the bad guys aren't so bad, everyone is just a self-interested individual. Some people probably prefer Star Wars that way as it adds nuance and depth that is more like conflicts in the real world, and that's fine, but it's not my cup of tea. Don't get me wrong, I love that sort of morally grey storytelling in an original setting, but to take the Star Wars universe and turn it into a dark, borderline nihilistic neo-noir show just feels wrong to me.
I actually think it helped me with suicidal ideation but to each their own. Just know, nothing is for certain when it comes to art. It's also a criticism of a time period, but it can be a bit cheesy I'll say that much
49:39 None of the music in the mentioned scenes was by Wendy Carlos or Rachel Elkind. ISTR that the bar/ballroom music came from old records, and the music for the bathroom scene was an early 70s piece by Krzysztof Penderecki: The Dream of Jacob I believe Carlos/Elkind wrote the atmospheric "synthy" music over the credits and filmed footage of the mountains. The bulk of the soundtrack comprised pre-existing music by Penderecki, György Ligeti and Béla Bartók. Just for info/clarity; no criticism intended.
@@jeremybiggs8413 Indeed. I suspect Carlos based her aptly doom-laden take on the Dies Irae on the version played by the brass in the "Witches' Sabbath" of Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique.
One of the things to that amuses me is the cottage industry of theory-crafting that has sprung up around The Shining. I took a deep dive into it back around 2020, and the lengths to which people would go to prove that Kubrick is some kind of once-in-a-lifetime genius are bananas. No, not even bananas, but banana shoes!! I am curious to see an edited down version of the movie where scenes don't drag nearly as long, perhaps with events reshuffled (as you tried to do with the Monday, Wednesday, etc scenes). I'm sure it would make people howl sacrilege, but it would be an interesting experiment.
Just a small detail. The bathtub lady isn't just old and sick, she is a corpse. In the book we get into her backstory, but I understood that she was in fact a rotten corpse before reading the book. It's not her age that we are supposed to react to.
If I remember right we are given her story in one of the early chapters before the whole family movies into the hotel. It is a sad sorted story told to Jack and it is powerful. Last time I read the book it made me cry.
To be fair, seeing her walk and laugh makes her more like an old lady than a corpse even if that was not the film's intention. It also makes her less scary ... the beautiful woman in the bathtub slowly pulling back the curtain always freaks me out, but the cackling old hag is just silly
34:13 My interpretation of the movie was, that jack are not supposed to go from stable to insane, and has a flat arc altogether. He has the same ability to kill his family with an axe in the beginning of the movie, as well as in the end. This would explain the creepy look in the window, lack of lead in between the scenes, moments of Jack‘s explosions so early on in the movie. The purpose of this scenes was to show just how miniscule was Overlook’s influence on the broader scale.What the hotel does is just mess up with Danny and Wendy(hurting neck,causing visions), which makes them act in non-conforming to Jack way, and then gives Jack an arbitrary reason to kill his family. All the haunting scenes, experienced by Jack, are just small push-ups towards this decision,rather than gradual poisoning of his soul. So the climax of the movie is just „mask off“ moment. In this context Wendy is the one, having arc, from forgiving Jack for hurting Danny to hitting Jack with the bat.
Bingo! This whole movie is a simmering slow burn as it reveals Jack is actually just a terrible person. His sanity is insanity, the other jack that starts the movie is the insane Jack if that makes any sense.
Yes! So much of the start of the film is setting up how much danger Danny and Wendy are going to be in _specifically because they'll be trapped in an isolated building with Jack._ He's very deliberately set up to already be capable of violence towards his family and dismissive of their concerns; all the hotel is really doing is giving him the perfect environment to abuse them without oversight. It's one of the reasons it's so important that Jack's interview is with two men while Wendy is talking with a female doctor; the men see Jack as a peer so they believe everything he's saying even though he's lying, while Wendy is trying her best to sugarcoat Jack's actions to the doctor but she's not buying any of it. Yes, the hotel as an entity is still an antagonist, but its main role is as an enabler for the evil that's already in Jack.
I personally felt like I was missing some context of a lot of things in the movie, like the characters felt underdelevoped and apparently the reason was that we are missing the emotional backstory of events that happened outside of the movies timeline. I did later listen to an audiobook of the book to get the whole story with the missing bits and knowing the backstory makes the movie easier to digest. I also hate how some discouse about the dad is how much of a terrible drunk he is, without exploring Jack's character in a sympathetic light. The book version is someone I can project my own problems with my own demons or my father and his own different kind of demons. Like jack's character is meant to look into an abusive person's heart, and then I hear people dismiss him as a terrible person and how stephen king was also a drunk etc, when thats the whole point.
King was drinking at the time but that is no reason why to dismiss his version of Jack. In fact his version feels more like a real person and same with Wendy. They have their own baggage that they struggle with while at the same time they are still relatively young married couple with a little kid.
As someone who does love this movie… I can respect your opinion. I also don’t actually think this movie is as deep as a lot of nerds think it is. If anything, it’s an allegory for substance and domestic abuse. I probably also prefer the novel, if just because of the fact that while the film scares me, the novel scares and depresses me. In the novel, we really get to see Jack as someone who’s trying his best and it really hurts when he falls into his own habits. For me, this film is pretty scary and I love the performances by the late great Shelley Duvall especially. Kubrick did give her and others a horrible time, and that is absolutely inexcusable but that she manages to pull off her character in spite of that is impressive. Some people consider her shrill but I actually think Wendy’s arc is very realised in the film. I also love the look and feel of this, especially the cinematography. Not just in how groundbreaking and impactful it was, but also on its own terms, my blu-ray of this film looks amazing, as do most of Kubrick’s other work. Not to mention the use of music, some composed by Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind. I also love the production design and the weird inconsistencies in this hotel. There are issues with it, but they’ve never really ruined my enjoyment. Though, I should note I’ve only seen the European 119 minute cut, which was apparently Kubrick’s preferred version.
I do think it's a film with a lot of subtext, but nowhere near the amount people put on it. Is it a film about abuse and addiction? Definitely. Is it a film about Native American genocide? Er... probably not but I can almost see why some people say that. Is it a film about Kubrick admitting to having faked the moon landing? Good Lord, no.
@@craigcharlesworth1538 yeah, I will agree to that. To be fair, the documentary Room 237 is quite interesting, if only to hear how far out people go to interpret what is ultimately just a ghost story. As Sigmund Freud said, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” The TH-cam channel Eyebrow Cinema actually has some very interesting videos on this film.
As someone who studied film production in university, film analysis insists that every single detail of a shot has meaning, the answer can never be 'that thing was just on set' or 'the actor did 10 takes doing similar but slightly different things and that was the one they chose' and when a film is actually designed to have subtext then this goes into complete overdrive
Jack DOES reveal something about himself in the interview. He tells Ullman that his wife won't mind living in a murder house because she is 'a confirmed horror movie buff'. Literally nothing in the film bears this out, in fact if anything Wendy has an extremely nervous disposition that would suggest the total opposite. That line suggests that Jack is lying, because he's more concerned about getting the job than he is about his family's wellbeing. I didn't even spot that until someone pointed it out but it does give something away about Jack's character, for sure.
Your defense actually feeds into my criticisms. Ok, I could buy that... but you wouldn't know that unless it was pointed out. I didn't think of that. I've literally never heard anybody else make that point. If (big if) it's intended then it doesn't do the job because nearly all the audience missed it. I've said for years that unless confusion is your intent (in which case I question why you feel the need to do that), if the vast majority of your audience missed something then that's not them failing as an audience, that's you failing as an artist. If a comedian tells a joke, and nobody laughs, and then they explain the joke and you kind of go "yeah that actually is clever," they still told the joke wrong because you should have laughed the first time.
@@CouncilofGeeks Okay. We're not going to agree, because I think it's one of the greatest horror films of all time* and an absolute masterclass in tension building, but I appreciate your point has some merit. Also, I'll forgive you just about anything for the scene where you break the days down on a blackboard using a riding crop instead of a pointer, that was beautiful. I will say, though, that you give the impression that your beef isn't really with the film but with the people who keep telling you it's good when you don't see it, which has made you actively mad AT THE FILM by way of response. Which I understand because I feel that way about Breaking Bad. *Note, I don't say THE best because, as any fool knows, that's The Wicker Man. The Nick Cage version (Joke!).
My connection to the shining is more a personal vibe than the usual merits or issues people talk about, and the issues kinda contribute to why I like it so much. Wendy's clearly already on edge from the start and lying to herself, Jack is obviously going to go insane from the word go, Danny is incredibly vague as a character, there's no real emotional change for anyone throughout and this would be an issue under other circumstances but on a meta level this works for me because by having taken basically a handful of characters and ideas from the book and set them wandering about on this canvas, that lends the entire thing this sense of powerlessness. These are people constructed for the singular purpose of playing out this story in which a dad tries to kill his family in a haunted hotel. Nothing Jack, Wendy or Danny can do will stop any of this happening, and that was what scared me and was why it clicked with me. When I was a kid I always felt like my life was beyond my control whenever bad things happened and like some external force was directing me into situations I wasn't prepared to deal with, and I felt like the shining really GOT me in that sense. Had the exact same experience with Eraserhead.
I think I share this view, although I was never really able to put my finger on why as a kid. I think The Shining contributed a lot to my love of self-contained tragedies, which Eraserhead also fits into, as well as Sweeney Todd. Just terrible things happening to a few isolated people.
@@LunarShimmer Course I didn't really understand this effect as a kid either, this is me reflecting on that connection years later. I guess it is kinda weird that the shining has ended up as this cultural institution because movies with passive characters don't tend to blow up for mainstream audiences, they get left on the outskirts and get attached to by outsiders and loners.
Good comment. I think all three, Jack, Wendy and Danny are lying when they are questioned at the beginning. Or holding information back. Danny has already been sexually assaulted. That is why he is repressed, not a normal kid. I think it was Jack who did it, and Danny is already thinking about killing Jack when he watches those cartoons. The hotel is a character and is already working its evil influence before they get there. Wendy is the one who is complicated. I like to hear crazy theories about Wendy.
This is it for me, too. I empathise most with Wendy, and I think of this film as an exploration of the limits of the fawn response. Her husband randomly escalates in aggression over the course of the film, and she increasingly finds herself in situations where her usual strategy of making herself small and useful does not work. He is apoplectically triggered by her speech, her footsteps, her breathing... the fact that his descent into this state is not explicitly shown to us (and is also non-linear and unpredicatable) further adds to my identification with her experience because when you are in intimate situations with volatile people you truly never know which version of the person you're going to be confronted with from day to day, hour to hour. Will he accept your comfort? Will he snap because you dared to enter the lobby where he's set up his workspace? Why did he choose a lobby to work in, instead of a quiet room to the side where he's less likely to be disturbed? Of course you can't ask, or suggest he move, because you're permanantly on thin ice as it is. You shrink yourself, you constantly find new ways to be quiet, to be supportive, to absorb the blows and to forgive. She plays fair. The issues brought up in this video with regard to the unpredictability of Jack's state, the ways he oscillates between overt madness and a sort of shadow of the man Wendy hopes he is deep down is a huge part of what I responate with the most. You never know what you're going to get with these people, and you never know why they're going to be a particular way. You roll with the punches, and it's exhausting, and she's depressingly used to it.
I don't agree with your over all consensus, but I can't really disagree with any one point you made either. I think it's just that the atmosphere manages to sell the dread of seeping into violent madness more than the bad pacing manages to take it away. I can understand your points logistically but not emotionally.
A worthwhile video on the shining is “the Wendy theory is bad” by eyebrow cinema. It’s not a defense of the shining, but a rebuttal against the reading that the movie is actually about Wendy being mentally ill, and decoding of movies in general.
I like Stephen King and I like Stephen King movies. The Shining doesn’t feel like either of those things. It’s an art film made by a good, but not as great as he’s portrayed, art director. It’s okay, like a lot of Kubrick’s work
Lord, I hate the Clockwork Orange's or whatever it's called, with so much passion. I had to watch it for my statistics class and I seriously rolled my eyes up to the sky every 5 minutes. Idc how much critics and cinema lovers make it seem like the best movie.
I remember hearing about the BTS stuff with the way Shelly Duvall was treated. It made scenes like when she was swinging a bat while Jack was slowly walking up the stairs much more uncomfortable. During that scene her fright felt way too real for it to be acting
17:24 I honestly took it as he was *always* that way. But being alone, isolated, and stressed the fuck out with no one to call or talk to made his *family* finally say enough is enough
I really appreciate your critique, and how you'll praise scenes when it's due. I disagree however about Halloran's return to the hotel. It's really meant to be a suspenseful feeling of "will he get there in time", especially for people who read the book, where Halloran gets to be a hero. His immediate axing is supposed to be a gut-punch, letting the audience know that Danny and Wendy have nobody but themselves to rely on.
The shining is the only movie that gets scarier with each watch. I started off, as a younger man non plussed by it, but on each successive rewatch I found more to sustain my interest. Last time I watched it, it genuinely freaked me out.
The Shining is one of my favorite films, and your complaints about it have a lot of merit. The fanboys and theory crafters take things to bit of an irritating place sometimes. And they miss that the whole film is really about a deeply male coded kind of aggression, because I think talking about that alienates conspiracy bros lol. Great video! And great plaid! You always look so stunning 🤩
Even as a huge Kubrick fan, The Shining has never been in my favourite of his. I’d much rather watch Clockwork Orange or Full Metal Jacket or Dr. Strangelove over this.
My eyesight isn’t what it used to be. I momentarily read the title as “Stop telling me ‘The Shining’ is a great movie… and ‘Kinda’ sucks actually” I thought, ‘Blimey. This is a bold, double-edged video - dissing both a horror masterpiece and a sacred Classic Doctor Who story in one fell swoop!’ 🤣
Omg I'm so excited for this video! I'm only 15 minutes into it and this has probably already been stated but I would like to point out that the interview scene is a perfect example of why King's work can be so hard to adapt. The reason that doesn't work as exposition is because, in the book, that scene is way more descriptive as it shares Jack's inner monologue. He's constantly sneering at the guy giving the interviewer and thinking all sorts of awful things, mostly born of envy of the man's position, shame that he's come to the point he has to beg this guy for a job, and just... absolute anger and hatred for the situation he is in overall. You really start seeing how poorly The Overlook effects Jack in this interview through that inner monologue. But you get nothing of that in the film. Instead you get Nicholson looking as unhinged as he does throughout the majority of the film and playing nice-y nice with the interviewer. It's bland, it tells us nothing, and so much is lost because of how poorly it was done. Ok, finished the video. VERY well done! And you highlighted a ton of other times where Kubrik left out things explained by the book that wouldn't have been that hard to integrate into the film such as: The night Danny looked freaky and Dick woke up in a sweat, Danny was reaching out to Dick via the Shining to ask him for help. The Overlook flashes were just Danny trying to show Dick what was going on because he didn't understand a better way to communicate it. Danny's Shining was incredibly strong compared to Dick's (it fades as you age) but Dick was in Florida while Danny was in Colorado so he had to concentrate pretty hard to reach him across that distance and did the only thing he, a child, could think to do. He showed the man images of what he'd seen. The Overlook integrated Jack into the portrait at the end as a way of showing he's been absorbed into the family of ghosts that haunt the Hotel. The reason it's the 4th of July in 1921 is that that party ended in tragedy, which caused one of the many closures of The Overlook in its history due to the scandal and horror of the event. Since then, it's been collecting the images of people who've fallen prey to The Overlook as a visual representation of the multitude and each involved. Jack is affected by the hotel because he also has The Shining but to a much lesser degree (it's been minimal since he was a child as well) and The Overlook essentially 'eats' people who Shine (See: Doctor Sleep). It absorbs their power into itself to strengthen the void within it. It draws Jack there and then, through Jack, senses Danny (who is, again, Shines incredibly strong even for a child). Once the family is there it does what it always does and twists the father into madness until he murders his family so that the house can absorb them. The twins are Grady's daughters, for example. It's not said whether they had The Shining as well but it's possible. The Overlook doesn't solely prey on people who Shine so it's not a requirement they did. I hope this clears up some of that stuff. Idk why Kubrik left out so many things he could've easily used to pad the run time AND beef up the story instead of relying on such lengthy shots of drawn out nothingness. Talk about a waste of good talent.
I don't think the Shining sucks. But it's definitely overrated....at least over the past 25 yrs or so. Its got some decent moments. But I think the reason this movie is so popular is all the goddamn theories attached to it. And the deifying of Kubrick as a perfect director who not only never made a mistake, but somehow made a movie with dozens of brilliant plot points. This is a movie made in 1980. Over a yr long shooting, multiple sets destroyed by a fire, incessant, daily rewrites. No wonder this movie is so mysterious. Continuity issues, egregious errors. Also this movie was made at a time that home video wasn't easily available. Technology to pause, rewind, go frame by frame was basically non existent . Yet people believe Kubrick set these clues in the movie. That no one could even see . Lol sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who feels this way about this film. Its beautifully photographed and has a handful of legitimate compelling scenes, but I really just don't like it.
The meticulous work and deep meaning behind the choices on display in the shelf behind vera speak to something something Kubrick and Dostoyevsky smooching in the garden at the beer party... Tldr loved this vid
You’re doing the Lord’s work, Vera. Also, don’t let anyone get on your case for not digging Stephen King’s books. They have a style that isn’t for everyone, and even by his own admission can be overlong. (And I say this as someone who’s loved reading King for 35 years now.)
Fallacy A: XYZ is a great movie, therefore you're wrong if you don't like it. Fallacy B: I don't like XYZ, therefore it is not a great movie and don't let The Man tell you different.
i do like the shining but GOD YEAH I HAAAAAAATED THE BLOOD ELEVATOR. like the entire movies it seemed like they were building to something to do with the blood elevator or that it would be important or that it would be meaningful, but no its just a random spooky thing that happens to be there that has no significance to the story
I will push back on the criticisms of the lengthy tricycle scenes and the Halloran journey. For the tricycle scenes, it really does seem to be more of lulling you into a false sense of security. They're long, so you begin to zone out on them, and nothing is happening. They feel more like you're just getting an idea of the fact that you need to know what the kid is doing. But then, the final one is cut short, just as you were likely zoning out, and the ghost girls are there. Really, it feels like an extended setup to a jump scare. Meanwhile, for Halloran traveling, there's a sense of hope but dread in that. You see him coming and feel that he will be what saves Wendy and Danny, but only if he gets there on time. You see Jack getting worse as we see how agonizingly long it takes for Halloran to make his way there, to make any difference. You are tense because you want him to show up on time but don't know if he can. But then the movie strikes in what could in another context be a comedy beat, but in a much darker and deadlier one--all that effort and he was killed immediately. Yes, he did leave the means for escape, but in that moment it also feels like futility, and also like any ray of hope has been snuffed out. Probably best if they would have had a thought not to kill off the only black character, though (especially since the source material didn't). This one goes into more of a theorizing aspect, but I also wanted to mention about the "You've always been the caretaker" aspect. I would say it's the ghosts saying that he was always destined to be the caretaker, an unalterable destiny. Ghosts don't necessarily live inside time as we know it, so they may see him as always there, just as all the previous and future ones are/will be. And that destiny may have been enforced by the hotel's own shine. It could have called out to Jack, a man it felt would fit the caretaker role perfectly, giving him visions of it when sleeping or the like, causing deja vu when he came there finally. He's influenced by the ghosts more than he knows, and this could also tie into why the ghosts attack Danny. They only actually physically interact with him the one time, and that seems to be to cause a scenario which would cause Wendy to blame Jack for abusing their child, causing him to regress because nothing he does matters and he may as well do everything he keeps himself from doing. Heck, that could be a reason why Wendy only starts seeing the ghosts after Jack is past the point of no return. They don't need to hide, don't need her to think it's just a big hotel with her, Danny, and Jack in it. May as well have fun when they think she's just going to die anyways. I mean, nothing the hotel does has any physical affect on her, and instead just makes her more frightened. Frightened people make more mistakes, and they want her to get herself killed. But even if they obviously can interact with the physical world, they want Jack to do it, to fulfill what they think is the caretaker's true duties. That last bit was a bit of rambling train-of-consciousness stuff going on there, but one thing I was also thinking: what if Grady is sort of the catalyst here? Maybe before him the ghosts weren't necessarily so violent or the like, but they were influenced by what they saw him do, rather than them influencing him. They thought that's what the job of a caretaker should be, and they did their best to make sure Jack continued those duties. I mean, I've strayed quite far away from the "always the caretaker" thing, but it's something I was thinking. Haven't seen the movie in over a decade, and only saw it once before (and some of that awful miniseries, but that's not relevant to the film--neither is Doctor Sleep, which I've never seen).
For the trike stuff... maybe it was better at the time it first came out. But I saw so many references/parodies of it (Family Guy) before I saw the movie so the every time he was riding around the halls I was just waiting for the girls to appear. And it felt sooo boring. This time? No. This time? No. This time? Finally. The whole time I just felt like I was waiting for stuff to happen, and then something would happen that just... didn't mean anything aside from being visually interesting. More like a Rorschach test where the writers were asking us "What do YOU think it means?" over and over again. If it had meaning from the book, then it was poorly translated, or even lost, in the film adaptation.
@karabearcomics Let's start by addressing the miniseries. That series was limited by scale and budget. Had King waited 10-15 years to commit to it, perhaps he would have made a better version of it. Honestly, it is kind of "Everything you wanted to know about The Shining" in too much detail. That said, it had better arcs for Wendy and Jack. You see, Wendy goes from weak but loving wife to full-on momma bear. And you see Jack go from troubled but loving father with a dark side to full-on monster. The miniseries explain who and what Tony is and why Tony is important. And it makes Halloran an important character by enhancing his dialog with Danny and allowing him to live. And now to talk about Doctor Sleep. This movie explores what happens to a kid who shines and has gone through trauma. It shows who Danny is at his lowest point and who he becomes after sobriety, something that Jack is denied. It shows what The Shining actually is, how powerful it can be, and what alcohol does to affect the Shine itself. Moreover, it explains why the ghosts wanted Danny and were willing to exploit Jack's weakness to alcohol to get him. I recommend watching the miniseries again and just looking for the pieces lost in translation from Kubrick's film. What he left out was because it didn't serve his narrative. Then, watch Doctor Sleep. For full context it is helpful to watch the extended cut, but not necessary. The main thing to understand is that Stephen King wrote Doctor Sleep 40 years into his sobriety, and he is trying to forgive the man he was when he wrote The Shining. In addition, King is Jack on the road not traveled. Just as he is the father in Pet Semetary under lighter circumstances. He's also Danny if Danny found sobriety just a bit earlier in life. You can find parallels to King's life in most of his work and he is his own harshest critic. Imagine writing a book about your personal struggles with sobriety and the film version makes your character an unlikable unrepentant and vicious asshole. That's why King was pissed off for so many years. And Doctor Sleep is his forgiveness and acceptance of Kubrick's film all in one fell swoop. Sorry for the novel. I had a lot to say 😅.
@@rdp16rulez I probably should watch the miniseries again. But my comment about Doctor Sleep is really that it's irrelevant when talking about merits or detriments of the movie version of The Shining, since the book didn't exist yet, and King hadn't even thought of it yet regardless. Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up, but I know many people excuse problems with a work by mentioning a later addition, which is usually just a retcon, and overall doesn't excuse the original problem.
@karabearcomics I am not suggesting that you watch Doctor Sleep to fix the problems with The Shining. You can turn a back porch into a back room by adding a few walls but if the floor has holes you still have an incomplete room. Kubrick's The Shining is like the Venus De Milo. It's a beautiful work of art. It's also missing vital pieces. I am suggesting that you watch it to have more context and to enjoy another film in the storyline by one of today's best filmmakers: Mike Flanagan.
@@rdp16rulez Ah, okay, I thought you were trying to correct a misconception that may have been assumed due to me being ambiguous in my post. As it is, I may watch Doctor Sleep at some point. But I also don't tend to seek out horror movies, so I also wonder what priority I'll put on it. Should, but probably won't, like exercising regularly--you just always find a distraction.
I feel some people want to justify the level of cruelty they heard about in the production so they try and justify and ignore faults in the movie. abusive work pratices do not help anyone make a better product.
i thought the level of cruelty was extra mild, he gave Shelly Duvall a hard time--but in the making of movie he isn't being cruel at all, there is just alittle tension over Shelly not being ready for a scene while she claims she wasn't properly notified they were shooting... Duvall claims she learned a lot about acting, and Scatman is in tears in the Making Of movie and clarifies they are tears of joy because of how much he enjoyed the experience-despite Kubrick making take endless takes... fax!!!
I will agree that it isn’t the best film of all time, but I do have to give it credit that when I first watched it and a number of other horror classics with my friends on Halloween the only thing that creeped me out as we walked in the dark to pick up dinner was not Jason or Michael Myers, but the uneasy dread of isolation and abuse. It sat with me for a while after watching.
I think a lot of The Shining's appeal, to us geezers anyway, is that it was radically different and new compared to other movies at the time. Lots of artistic stuff is this way. Your location in time affects your perception. Picasso's art doesn't seem exceptional to us now, but it was radically different and new at the time. Many young people are not impressed by Beatles music, but yes, it was radically different and new at the time. (and still pretty awesome).
Chiming in just to note the bits I actually disagree with. Things I wouldn't take issue with in this video: take on the shining itself, the font of the credits, the nickname "Doc" or the sometimes batshit fan theories that have been inspired by this film. I'd agree that the "job interview" scene is a bit flat, but that's at least in part because it's being viewed in contrast with the better Duvall scene. If one sees them as part of a whole, they make better sense. Maybe it's me doing a fanwank on the story, but Jack going from bouncing the ball to typing makes sense given that we later find out he's not been working at all, but typing the same phrase manically over and over again. Jack's "over-reaction" to Wendy also tracks in my mind not just because she "broke his concentration" (which was really something more like him beginning to commune with the hotel) but because he's not only interrupted, but worried that she's going to see what's on those pages. His over-reaction is a shift of gears, but it's meant to be one. Also, I don't think Danny's visions are meant to be of a future event, but revelatory about the hotel's nature itself. No actual river of blood. That's the hotel itself being shown as a murderous, malevolent creature. So, the audience should be acclimated to the idea of an influence on Jack and his reaction to being Interrupted by Wendy tracks. Given the nature of the hotel's seduction, you might even say she almost caught him "cheating" on her with the hotel. Hence, future naked lady/corpse scene. Personally, I'd argue that the evil "Jack look" scene belongs before the bar scene because the bar scene is a full on mental delusion brought on by the hotel. Jack's brain/soul/character/animus-whatever is still being taken over and that look is him in a kind of fugue state. While that shot has subsequently become a kind of meme, I don't think it would necessarily have seemed that way when the film was released, and it didn't strike me as the look of ultimate evil on a first or later viewing of the film. That is, it's part of the progression, not a later stage of it as is suggested here. (Some may disagree.) As others have noted here in the comments, the bathtub scene isn't just a sickly old lady (and certainly not one in her 50s) but a rotting corpse. It's not ageist to recoil from that scene. I guess it could still be deemed judgy of necrophilia.... But if viewing 40 seconds of a corpse is "stretched out" then I can only put this down to individual take/preference. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you, but in this case saying and emphasizing that the horror of the scene is her sudden aging rather than obvious putrefaction means the problems are likely more with the viewer than the scene. Also, the whole take on Jack supposedly "trying to do better" doesn't jibe. What indicates that he's trying to do better? He says so? Wendy says so? The guy who is going to slaughter his family says he's trying to do better, so we should accept him at his word and, therefore, that as a theme of the film? People who aren't trying to do better will also say they're trying to do better so they can continue on as they are. Furthermore, being irate at being accused of something one didn't do isn't a trait exclusive to those who are trying to do better. Everybody hates that. Arguably, otherwise guilty people all the more. The most indignant stories I've ever had the misfortune of hearing are those of lifelong criminals who are falsely accused or even convicted for things they didn't actually do--if you can believe them when they say they didn't do whatever got them caught, which I remain doubtful. As for the death of Hallorann... well, again, if that doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. My take on it was that the film needs two things: a body count and some actual irony. If Jack doesn't kill SOMEBODY then the movie isn't going to work. How has he done anything to "join" with the hotel after turning into a Popsicle? Why would the hotel put him in the front row of a photo? The hotel WANTS Danny and Wendy (mostly Danny in the book) but it'll take Hallorann as a surrogate sacrifice. But also the long build up, and shots of Hallorann traveling go with the opening credit shots-but bleaker-and reinforce just how isolated the hotel is, hence the need for a caretaker to begin with. Him dying so suddenly? Well, that's just funny, man. If it pisses you off, then all I can say is that at least it subverted your expectations.... Is the film about a guy slipping into his murderous psychosis or about a hotel with supernatural powers taking control of a weak man? Is he meant to have "always' been the caretaker or is that the hotel messing with him? Does the picture indicate that he's been there all along or that he's been taken over/absorbed by the hotel? The second thing for all those questions. In the scene where Jack is trapped in the pantry, there is a fan theory based on the layout of the room that there's a second unlocked door, and he just slips out after deluding his ghost conversation. There's a video here somewhere on TH-cam, but I'll not bother finding it because I don't think it bears much weight. It's based on a lot of other basically misguided fan theories about the layout of the hotel. The ghost lets him out. We hear it happening. Also, the ghosts are real in the context of the film, so the idea that ghosts can do things shouldn't be all that surprising, and the insistence that everything is in Jack's head ignores not just that one event, but a whole bunch of other shots of ghosts that Jack is not involved with, as is correctly noted in this video. Is The Shining the best film ever? No, of course not. It's over-rated, but it'd kind of have to be given the obsessions certain people have about the film. Still, I think a lot of the objections raised in this review are subjective, and some are outright misreadings of the actual content. Regarding long shots and the extended scenes... again, I think that's subjective. Personally, I find them more tension building than boring, but my take might be based on being a generation or so older. But it's hard to really take seriously criticism of the length of shots in The Shining given that the guy who made it also made 2001: A Space Odyssey. That's the brand. I prefer tacos to McDonald's but I won't complain about the secret sauce in my Big Mac. All THAT said, I used to think of Kubrick as the world's greatest film maker, but I've reassessed in recent years. His treatment of actors was accepted as the behavior of an auteur director, but in retrospect I have to recognize it as the behavior of someone who doesn't actually know how to cast, rehearse, or even communicate with actors, which makes "Director" an odd career choice. "Cast professionals and treat them professionally" shouldn't be antagonistic to one's work product as a film maker. If you don't trust your actors to show emotions that you want when you explain those emotions and the story to them, then you've screwed up well before principal photography. Also, Kubrick famously spent years planning his films, but the reliance on so many takes indicates a lack of forethought and actual planning rather than perfectionism. It doesn't speak very well of his process if after years of planning he consistently still needed dozens of takes to get what he wanted. What was all that planning for if not to cut down on that? Lastly, for all his strengths as a film maker (and his weaknesses) I think we have to conclude that Kubrick was not a great adapter of books into film. At least, not in the sense that his films are good versions of their source material. He famously hadn't read both editions of A Clockwork Orange and said he would have changed the ending of his film entirely if he had. (Seems like that's the kind of thing that would have been discovered during his famously thorough prep...) His version of Lolita is about as much like Nabokov as Disney adaptations of Snow White. (Adrian Lynne's version also fundamentally misses the point, but that's another topic entirely.) And with THAT said, I do have fundamental problems with the theme of The Shining (both the book and the film) but I think that'll have to go into some other form rather than a wildly over-long TH-cam comment. [Edited for typos, grammar gremlins, and to add the dynamic about Jack "cheating" on Wendy with the hotel.]
I kinda hate the term "overrated" because it implies people shouldn't like something as much as they do and should instead tone it down just to please people who don't feel the same
@@timrosswood4259 I think a lot of people do use the term in exactly the way you're suggesting. It's become a kind of meaningless attack term that bad faith or bad brain operators use to drum up attention. "Over-rated" is, in effect, an over-rated thing to say.... That said, I do think the term isn't devoid of legit use, but at this point the person using it is obliged to back up how what they're talking about is over-rated, or it just becomes of of those empty, emotive mouth noises. In a general sense, I think there are two ways for something to be over-rated: in popularity, academically, or critically. That is, something like the Harry Potter series can really only be over-rated. That's not to say it isn't good (opinions vary) but given the reach of the franchise it just can't live up. Nothing could. Something else is going on.... Advertising/marketing, some sort of cultural hype, faddish behavior, etc. Somehow it's bigger than it reasonably can/should be for something like a set of fantasy children's novels. Again, nothing wrong with fantasy children's novels, but it's not exactly a closed field. If one stands out as maniacally as HP did... well, it's kind of got to be over-rated simply because nothing of that ilk really can merit that kind of attention. Then there's an academic over-rated product. My example of that is David Foster Wallace. Again, not a bad author, but I read reviews comparing the guy to James Joyce back in the day and just no. Last, something can be over-rated by the supposed experts who review it. Sometimes I look at the difference between critics and audiences on a site like Rotten Tomatoes, and have to wonder who these critics are really writing for, because if their point is to try to catch some sort of sense of what audiences want then they just aren't great at that job. There are, of course, nuances to all those kinds of issues, but my point is that if someone uses the term and then backs it up with specifics details and facts then it remains viable.
The movie suffers from a Kubrick problem. He took the story and tore it apart and turned it into a mess. If he didn’t like the original material, he should have just left it alone. He changed an ending that made more sense and was full of tension. He changed Wendy’s demeanor. He should have just wrote his own haunted hotel movie.
Kubrick didn't like the novel at all. He liked the premise. In any case, his cinematic language is a lot more expressive and interesting than King's literary language.
@@Anton-i2o then he should have made his own haunted hotel movie. I will never understand why he made a movie of a book he couldn’t stand. It makes zero sense.
@@wednesdaydemchok825 Robert Altman made a terrific film of "The Long Goodbye" but had open contempt for the material...really the entire genre. He made a film that subverted it.
@@wednesdaydemchok825film adaptations aren't meant to be exact retellings They can be, but it's far more interesting to take the core concept and change it up
1:25 "Did you ever find that you didn't like a thing only to realise literally everybody else thinks it's the best thing ever and it just makes you go from dislike to hate out of confused spite?" For me that was always (Long before Rowling came out as a TERF) the Prisoner of Azkaban movie. Since it's release the film had always been a huge "meh" for me. Crap pacing, dull cinematography and a boring story. Then I found out about the unmitigated praise the film has because Alfonso Cuaron's name was slapped onto it. Please, I can't be the only one who felt this way? Can someone please agree with me on this?
Greetings, friend. My brother and I both consider this film to be a huge failure in the HP franchise. It's the one movie in the series that I didn't even want to add to my collection. And don't get me started on Cuaron's weird hippie take on Dumbledore and Professor Trelawney.
This is actually how I feel about 2001 A Space Odyssey; a lot of pretty shots, some ambiguous imagery, an collage of things that imply evolution beyond our imagination ... but my god it felt like the movie was 5 hours, it's practical machinery shots remind me of Thunderbirds without the stakes and pace, it feels entirely like a tech demo, it took so long to start I thought the DVD just wasn't working, it was BORING. Take away it's technical production and it's hours of nothing, the mechanics and composition are doing all the work, Hal trying to tell Dave to stop what he's doing is so repetitive, etc. It feels like a well choreographed well shot movie where every scene is dragged out the way the typewriter is. When it was all said and done and my brain edited/condensed it I was like "oh, monkeys, weird space object, monkeys gain tools and technology, weird space object again, giant space Baby, so ... the alien thing is escalating technology somehow. How? Who knows, who cares. Why? Who knows, who cares. Clearly the Obelisk is meant to be ambiguous in power and nature and intent, but the rest of the movie is ... monkeys sitting around, astronauts sitting around, then suddenly a visual explosion I can't look at because of Light sensitivity, and then a bunch of wacky time travel nonsense. And then giant space Baby, ooh what does it all mean? I dunno, on a basic level it's the different stages of evolution and there's nothing more to it without making wild guesses. And it was so slow and boring I don't care to watch it again to see what I missed.
I don't have strong opinions on The Shining as a film, but as an abuse survivor, I've learned to be wary of anyone who elevates it to The Greatest Film Ever Made or describes it as their personal favorite number-one movie that they watch to feel better/comforted/pleasantly stimulated. Because I know that in the next few minutes, I'm going to hear about the horrific tragedy of Jack Torrance and how the hotel drove a decent man mad. And when I point out that "decent" is not a word I'd use to describe an abusive alcoholic who dislocated a little boy's arm, I'll be told that I "just don't get it", occasionally because I'm not an addict or a "real artist" (wow), but usually because I'm a woman. As if I'm insulting them or betraying Art by not wanting to rewatch a terrible person try to murder his family. So, yeah. I'm fine with people liking or enjoying this movie, but if you put it on that kind of pedestal and expect me to do the same, I am backing away slowly.
As a someone, who has shining as a in a top 5:aren‘t these comments applied to the book only version? The movie is more from Danny/Wendy angle, and movie Jack is specifically stripped away from any sympathetic moment.
@@Jan-cc7wb I have not read the book, and I am creeped out by the movie in a similar way as this thread's OP. The movie reminds me all too much about the isolated house where I grew up and my abusive father. The description of abuse is *real* and it seems unclear to me if the audience is supposed to feel (some) sympathy for Jack despite in what mental place and with what history he started, before the hotel entered the picture.
@@ataridcor maybe it's just far less original opinion then you would like to think. It's not the first movie/book misinterpreted by many "fans" who don't really like to reflect or look deeper then their initial reaction, but still praise it for what they think is cool reason behind male's hero dangerous (to him and especially to everyone else) behavior. See more at: "fight club" (including author vocaly hating on everyone who says that Tyler is their favorite hero) or "breaking bad" as most well known examples.
I think that does a good job of summing up the vibe very nicely. Couple that with how Duvall was treated "for the art" and it's just an unappealing movie to me.
Honestly, a majority of your points are pretty valid. Jack's character just seems crazy from the get go, instead of a sympathetic former English teacher, turned recovering alcoholic, who genuinely WANTS to be a better father and husband (as he's described in the book). The shining ability does feel like an afterthought in the film, unlike the book. And trying to be ambiguous with the supernatural in the film makes no sense when Grady unlocks the pantry door FROM THE OUTSIDE. I love this film, but even I can acknowledge its flaws. When this movie first came out, it was almost universally panned by critics (especially from King himself). Stanley Kubrick was even nominated for "Worst Director" at the Razzies. Your analysis is very fair, and I've actually enjoyed it very much.
They sent him an apology years later... but I've always felt it ironic that a movie about ghosts felt so soulless. Like, the source is a ghost story, downplaying the supernatural parts seems counterintuitive. The character arcs are almost flat, the pacing is terrible, the only good part is actually the acting with what they were given
I don't care for this movie. I LOVE the book. It actually made me cry at the end. I love Dr. Sleep as well. I love King's books. It's okay that you don't like the books. If we all liked the same things, life could get petty boring. Edit: There's so much I can say about this in response, but that would take soo long going through all of your points. I really enjoy your criticisms. There's just so much to add to your criticisms to add why those things aren't working as well. Also, yeah, trans people have been around an extremely long time, throughout history there are plenty of examples of that. A lot of people don't know, or even look at history. Okay back to the topic: Hallloran's death pisses me off so much. He didn't die in book. He's such a great character, and Kubrick just doesn't care about him at all! Grrrr! Also, the problem I have with this movie is absolutely with Jack's characterization, and I also think this is why Stephan King was also pissed with the movie. Jack Torrance wasn't a bad person, just a man REALLY struggling with a terrible disease. And sober Jack is a completely different person in the books. It also hints that Jack himself also has the Shine, a factor in why he started drinking. In Dr. Sleep (the book, though I do think it's hinted in the movie as well, though I've only seen that movie once), this is expounded upon. But, I digress. In the book, and even in the made for TV series is shown rather well: Jack loves his son and his wife. Jack's descent is absolutely MUCH clearer to show the hotel's influence on Jack. What made me cry is Jack's last stand against the Hotel. I'm not going to spoil it here, but my god is it one of the most beautiful moments in the book, and this movie lost it. Doug Walker aka Nostalgia Critic (I know, I know we don't talk about him) makes this point in his critical review of the made for TV series that I felt the whole time. Jack Torrance in this film doesn't feel like he cares about his family. It's just a terrible person becoming a murderous person. He contended, which was a huge thing that I also thought and agreed with, was that Jack's character and arc is so much clearer and it makes you feel something for Jack and it's a much clearer telling of both the Hotel's influence on Jack and Jack's change. The made for TV series defintely had that over this movie. It was the one thing that I REALLY hated about the movie. Say what you will about the made for TV mini-series, it had a lot of flaws, but it at least had this. There's so much I can say about this film. Is there some masterful camera shots, yes. Some of the scenes are amazing and great work for both direction and acting. But how they fit into the movie doesn't work in the context of the story. I don't know what Kubrick's message is. It's an issue here. I think that's why there's so many theories, because the messenging is confused on which story he was trying to tell. Again, I'm not trying to say people who think this movie is a masterpiece are wrong. I can see some of the genius in both the cinematography, sound design, sets, acting, and film score. I'm a composer (that's what my degree is in for context), so the music language is definitely not lost on me. It's a brilliant score! These are just some of my thoughts on why I agreed with you in many (if not all) of your points. I would give The Shining book another chance, maybe try it on Audible or something. It's worth the read. Dr. Sleep, too, is great, if not better. Okay, done ranting.
Firstly, can I just say thank you for all your content over the years. It was very helpful for me through some difficult times and inspired me to create my own channel, particularly doing my own Doctor Who reviews. Secondly, I watched this movie last year when I did a reaction to it and I enjoyed it, I thought it was very suspenseful and had some lovely cinematography and I thought Jack Nicholson's portrayal was brilliant, but I was left very confused which I am not sure whether that was the original source materials fault or the movies fault. My comment section was a bit divisive on this movie too. Well done on this deep dive and thank you once again for all the inspiration and support you have given me over the years.
Thank you for the video, Vera! Considering all the "universal' praise over "The Shining" movie, I do appreciate somebody explaining why they sincerely do not like it (while also highlighting parts of it they actually like). Personally, I am very ambivalent about the movie. I do also praise how unsettling is the atmosphere of it. Something which I really hate about theory crafting is how it tries to give creator's intent where there is none or it does not matter. Usually, the simplest explanation is the most probable reason for most things. Patterns on a rug are just patterns on a rug. And, seriously, inverting the colors of a movie scene in order to try explain the title font for the opening credits (8:28-8:33) is just nonsense! My interpretation of the final scene of the movie: Jack dies and becomes one of the ball party ghosts stuck in the hotel. 37:13-40:10 I do really appreciate Vera's white board rant joke, especially the final shot behind of the board! LOL
I know you didn’t read the book but some of that stuff towards the end with the party people comes from a plot point in the novel where Jack is planning to write a book about the history of the Overlook hotel. At some point in its past, mobsters owned the hotel and several gangland killings took place there(those two guys in the room were mob flunkies). Kubrick just ignored many of the subplots and character development from the book because of his own ideas of what to do visually (a flaw in a lot of his movies, imo). Halloran does not die in the book but is injured and escapes with Danny and Wendy. He also plays mentor to Danny in Doctor Sleep where the shining powers are further expanded on. I know others have already mentioned the Doctor Sleep film but it is a damn good adaptation that makes up for some of the missteps in The Shining. You really hit the nail the head when it comes to Nicholson’s performance; King strongly objected to his casting because Nicholson came off as “crazy” right from the jump. He’s a great actor but not very nuanced in this role. I remember seeing Gothic years ago and caught your review the other day-that film is wild but in a much better way than The Shining. Ken Russell liked his visuals but also knew how to handle story there.
I hated the Shining, but I do want to somewhat defend one aspect. Re: his seemingly unprompted turn in attitude toward Wendy - I think the "unprompted" part could be the point. We know he is an abusive Alcoholic, and this is exactly what living with one can look like. The growing annoyance with Wendy doesn't need to be prompted by anything she does because she is not the source. It's an irrational rage, along the lines of "look at this bitch eating crackers"-type hatred. And what makes Alcoholic rage/violence so terrifying is that you never know when it is going to rear its proverbial head.
34:33 My theory why we don’t see Jack’s tipping over into madness (alas seeing him with signs of madness from the beginning): the hotel works like a mirror, psychoanalytic (in a broad sense) one. And mirrors are overtly present in the movie. Also things are obviously visible for us like his “mad face” mentioned here are obvious because we saw them thousand times (as you said even if we didn’t watch the movie). And nowadays we perceive lot of Jack’s behaviors as red flags, obvious signals of coming violence. Then they were seen by a mainstream as “he’s just a troubled man” or by some even as typical male/father behavior. Either way I agree with your general opinion. It’s not a good movie and would be much better with more consistent editing/pacing and paranormal elements left as innuendo
WOW, that wall of copyright time-stamps! I'm assuming that was a manual claim(s)? Unless the automatic system has changed? I've never had an automatic claim pop up for clips that are only 2-3 seconds long which some of the ones you showed were?? WHAT IS HAPPENING? 😭
I totally agree about the frozen jack scene. For whatever reason I had not watched this until a few years ago. I had read the book in my youth. I have seen memes and such using that frozen face and always assumed it was just a pause in the movie giving that silly look. And when I watched it I also laughed. With all the beautiful visuals, that was used?
My issues with this movie both have to do with Jack. My first issue is that he's already crazy when he's not supposed to be. Jack Nicholson came off as unhinged even before the hotel got to him, to the point where it never felt like a tragedy like in the book. It felt like Jack was always crazy, the hotel just brought it out. My second issue is how well Jack Nicholson plays the not-really-recovering alcoholic that hit way too close to home, the lines of "You know I wouldn't hurt you." and "You know I wouldn't hurt Mommy." hit right in my gut and just... I did NOT like that because Jack doesn't come across as a man who wouldn't hurt Danny or Wendy, he comes across as just finally having that reason to snap and kill them. Which is why I wish they could've casted someone like Michael Keaton who was also a Batman alumn, but he'd be able to bring across the tragedy of Jack Torrance much better as well as go full axe-murderer.
I remember enjoying it when I was younger, but as I got older, I felt it was, I don't know trying too hard. part of it was the fact that since seeing it the first time I did read the book but still I agree that at what point did we see Jack be a good husband or father and his struggles with his drinking. I think seeing that would have made the movie 1000 times better (I know they tried with mini series which wasn't bad but it was Network tv so didn't have the same power to scare)
I'm a giant lover of this film, and I'm only halfway through this right now but I'm LIVING for your thoughtful critiques. I agree with much of it and it only enhances the experience of the film for me to be able to see these issues. I'd love for you to see Doctor Sleep with Ewan McGregor as Danny Torrance. It's a completely different approach to the same story, it's divisive with fans of the OG, and it's FANTASTIC.
Personally I like how basic the credits are. I don’t know, it just adds to it for me. In fact, I kind of take that in most of your critiques. The kinds of things you seem to hate are pretty much what I love about it. I love how disjointed it feels. I love how drawn out several of the shots are. You say that it makes no sense, and I agree. That’s what I enjoy about it.
That's fair too I think!! I have plenty of movies that I love despite them having issues in writing/execution/etc. It's nice that you like the movie and don't have the same issues with it :)
Thank you, I needed to hear someone else say this! I watched the Shining and couldn't understand why it was so hyped up. I laughed at some parts, was mostly bored, but nothing about it seemed particularly special or groundbreaking. And normally I like slower paced, moody, atmospheric media. In addition to that, I didn't like the treatment of the sole Black character (who comes back to just immediately and anticlimactically die) and not to mention Kubrick's treatment of the actors esp Shelley Duvall behind the scenes. I'll forever loathe Kubrick for how he abused his actors.
I agree. Weirdly enough Duvall has said she thinks of Kubrick warmly and that he was a lovely person, but regardless it doesn't justify what he's done and it's more of a testament of Duvalls character in viewing this stuff.
I really like the film (and the book) but of course I am not an asshole for people not liking it. I do however think you actually put the nail on the head with the thoughts you have about the photograph in the ending, the questions are the answer if you understand what I mean. It's like when you watch moder art and it maybe doesn't give you a clear point of view, or story or pattern but it just raises questions and maybe frustrates people. For me at least, that is the point.
Gonna tell my kids The Shining is the prequel to One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. The scene where Danny is Big Wheeling around the hotel deliberately cuts in ways that make you feel subconsciously like "something's off"....what's happening is they edited it in such a way as to intentionally make walls, doorways and corridors inconsistent with what should be parallel versus what should be perpendicular. They do it in other scenes, too. You're supposed to subconsciously be disoriented in a way you can't quite put your finger on. ...and I figured this out in a detox/recovery facility watching The Shining sober and otherwise clear-headed. The sudden onset of clarity acted for me as a sort of "decoder ring" leading me to "Say to" Stanley Kubrick, "I see what you did there".
A number of years ago, I did a fairly negative video on THE SHINING. I'm not 100% sure what happened, I think a bunch of angry Kubrick fans got it flagged, because it was removed from TH-cam for "misleading information".
I personally LOVE the shining, legit my fav film, but I totally respect your opinion. I love how it’s a simple story of abuse in an isolated environment, which already seems interesting/tense to me, but there’s so much more to it. I LOVE that the overlook is portrayed more as a character than as a location. It truly feels intense and menacing, while still being subtle. I LOVE all the actors performances and how real their characters feel. Shelly Duvall portrays terror accurately and Jack nickelson’s performance in simply iconic. I LOVE the pacing and how utterly tense this film is, it only lets go of its intensity at the end. I love the ballroom scenes, such an interesting and unique way of depicting typical horror. I love the music!!! I love the cinematography!!! I love the production!!! There are so many iconic scenes and moments. I LOVE how many different themes and theories can/are explored here. I LOVE that even though Jack dies, the horrors of the overlook are never defeated. Simply put, I love the vibe.
In the book (yes I'm one of those) Jack has a...I would call it a coping mechanism, of chewing over the counter painkillers dry. He started it when he was still drinking because of the hangovers. In the Hotel, before he starts drinking again, he already resorted to chewing those painkillers because the Hotel gave him a headache. I am not sure why they didn't put something as simple as that in the movie to clearly show the hotel affecting Jack, and how bad it gets (going from one pill a day to several at once multiple times a day) it would have taken a couple of seconds each "day" to show that. Or maybe that's exactly why they didn't use it because this movie appears not to be able to do shots of just a few seconds.
Not a fan of slow cinema, eh? This is the first time I've heard anyone suggest this film should have quicker edits. That would destroy the hypnotic quality most people love about it. Plot is secondary to most Kubrick films. I'm sure you could deconstruct 2001 and go on and on about how it doesn't "make sense," but to what purpose? It's the aesthetics of the total experience that matters.
As someone who likes this cluster f*ck of a movie, I respect your opinions and can see why others have issues with it. It’s a movie I don’t think anyone should take seriously considering how uneven the pacing is, and that bear guy cracks me the hell up for how stupid and nonsensical it is. Like what is the meaning of that, Film Bros? 😂 Well, at least this video inspired me to check out Gothic, which I haven’t seen.
As someone who loves this movie, meaning of the bear guy? It’s just supposed to be weird and scary. The guy in the novel actually has a whole backstory and characterisation and Kubrick just got right of it.
In the book, he is desperately in love with a man who allows him to give him blowjobs but other than that mainly seems to want him around to humiliate him. They snuck off during a masquerade party, that's why he is dressed like that. And he is supposed to be a dog, not a bear.
@@samuelbarber6177 "It’s just supposed to be weird and scary" that describes the whole movie. how is that a masterpiece and not just "yeah, entertaining!"
I mean, I love the movie too, even though it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense at times. I also love The Country Bears despite how flawed that one is as well. 😅
@@Elwaves2925 I completely respect her opinion, and even enjoyed this video, despite that ‘The Shining’ is one of my all-time favorites. I’m a huge Kubrick fan as well as a huge Stephen King fan! That said, even Stephen King has stated his complaints over Kubrick’s adaptation.
@@ThisIsMyName-2 Same here regarding Vera and their opinion. I don't agree with it but of course, that's how opinion works. I also think the film is classic but it's not one of my all-time faves, although it's up there. I definitely like a good selection of Kubrick's work, 2001 and Full Metal Jacket being at the top but I am a King fan, especially his earlier works. Yeah, King has aired his views but it's also why I treat movies and books as completely separate entities.
The best part about the movie is the print on the carpet which gets boring after about 30 seconds of staring at it😂❤ People literally are obsessed with some thing that’s different… Even if it’s boring, rushed/Delayed in all the wrong places, incomplete in terms of storytelling and full of Common movie tropes in lieu of actual storytelling…(Takes breath) Different. Did I mention the under/over directed acting… Yeah… Kubrick was more concerned with mind games than the guy was with making a coherent film. All that being said… …I’m ready to watch/listen to, this essay. LFG
I agree with a lot of what you say. But when you look at Kubrick, he loves long shots, long scenes, and, I mean, 2001 makes even less sense. He was often more about the art, less about the story. His films are a Mona Lisa smile, if you will. Annoying for some, loved by others.
From my admittedly limited perspective (I only know both book and movie through reputation and haven't read or watched them start to finish) is that the "You've always been the Caretaker" shtick is that the Hotel, like many other haunted houses, continues repeating the dark events that happened there with new people in place of the original perpetrators. Thus "Caretaker/Murderer" is the role Grady played most recently and telling Jack he's always been that is the Hotel through him trying to talk him into accepting the role and playing out the part the same way Grady and presumably other Caretakers before have. Sort of like saying "this is the part you were born to play," so a little bit of both "Jack was/wasn't fated for this." His personality resonated with the archetype of the Caretaker/Murderer, and so the Hotel felt familiar to him despite it being his first time there, and the Hotel is playing on that familiarity and/or vulnerability to convince Jack to fully embody the role and repeat the cycle.
I love The Shining movie. In fact, it's the movie I credit with sparking my newfound love of horror movies! But at the time I first watched it, I hadn't read the book yet. I never thought the movie was perfect, but now that I'm reading the book, I'm noticing more and more flaws with it and I kinda get why Stephen King hated the movie so much. 😂 I really feel like the novel expands on every aspect of the story in more detail, and I can't help but think if Stanley Kubrick hadn't put so many long, drawn out shots in the movie, he would've had more time to flesh out the details. But all that being said, I still think the movie will have a special place in my heart for being one of the first horror movies I fell in love with, but I can agree that it's a bit overrated. Also, Doctor Sleep is way better in my opinion! I highly recommend giving that one a try!
OK, do you want to film theory about the shining? Here’s one Stanley Kubrick wears a mask. Behind the mask is a disjointed out of control roller coaster ride of emotions getting better one day and back sliding months, years even the next. Simply put the film is a display of all the ways that Kubrick’s shadow self slips through the cracks in the mask. What I don’t know, is if the film itself is pure slippage or an attempt to integrate? I don’t care enough about Kubrick’s legacy to look into it further😂
Maybe that would make it still more than anything if he uses Jack as odd seldf insert. The criticism remind me of menos, hands of fate, which is to be fair due a bet by a n amateur of limited budget and time. . Which isnt a great on Kubric as comparison.
I am very much a "I like the atmosphere of the movie too much to notice the negatives" person, so this video gave me something to think about and maybe try to mull over while rewatching a movie if I ever get to it Nice vid!
JUst reading the title for this made me smile as someone who finds the movie just fine. I saw it knowing it was considered a classic horror, watched it, want 'okay', then found out how high up on a pedestal it was held and was confused as hell. I get plenty of people having it as a favorite film cause we have our own taste, but so many people thinking it deserves praise even when its not their favorite is... weird. P.S. 1:23 the confused spite rant sent my brain straight to Twilight lol
I am so glad someone else is finally saying these things... I have personally never liked the Shining . There are 2 other movies everyone raves over that I can't stand . Those being 2001 A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange... THANK YOU so much... I agree these movies has some good scenes in them but over all they do not land right with me.
"Dr. Strangelove" and "Eyes Wide Shut" are the only Kubrick movies I like (or can even watch, really). So right here with you about "2001" and "A Clockwork Orange."
Hallorann is my favorite character in The Shining (book) because hes extremely important to the story and the movie misses the point of him completely. When we got to the scene in the movie where Hallorann talks to Danny I was really disappointed because it felt so cold and awkward. The point of Hallorann being there is that hes a kindred spirit to Danny. Hes a kind older man who understands what Danny's going through in a way that literally no one else can because they both have this gift that is the shining. At one point in the book(and i might be misremembering slightly its been about a year since i finished it), Hallorann has to grab gasoline or something for the snowcat in the shed and his eyes fall on the mallets on the wall (the same weapon jack uses in the book). The hotel tries to take influence on Halloran but it doesn't work. It shows how different Dick is from Jack. Dick has frustrations the hotel could exploit but he pulls away to help this kid he hardly knows where Jack, as much as i do believe he loves his son, was influenced. That scene is really important to me because it kinda shows how desprate the hotel is getting to kill them before they get away. How much the hotel has influenced Jack over time that hes practically a complete puppet at this point, willing to kill his own family, while a kind acquaintance has enough will to break away. The epilogue scene is also really sweet... I feel like Hallorann is a father figure to Danny, maybe more like an uncle. He understands Danny like no one else and just wants to protect this kid. Something Hallorann probably never got at his age considering while its not terribly unlikely to find others with the shining, its uncommon to find someone who shines that bright and its not something that can be explained by your parents or peers because... Its not really genetic and most people dont have it and the ones who do dont really understand it. sorry im defiantly in the camp of "don't like the movie because i read the book first" but i always felt like the movie felt kinda... empty. like its missing ALLLL of the important buildup and intrigue thats so good in the book.
I've only ever finished short stories by Stephen King. He just takes so long to get the story going, and my ADHD already struggles to stay interested long enough to keep going. I actually really like his son Joe Hill's books. Similar horror vibes, but the story starts right away and the pace keeps me reading. Highly recommend The Fireman, it's long but my absolute favorite.
Early King had habit of spending a bit more on charecters and backstory. It is the character work that made his work stick out but he can do it with less words when he does short stories. Some of his later work like The Cell and Under The Dome starts in chapter one. The Cell is so lot you could almost think it wasn't King. Also Joe Hill is amazing.
It’s interesting to see The Shining discussed as a “bad” movie, but I think many of the critiques miss what makes it a unique and powerful film. (note that doesn’t mean it’s for everyone) The Shining’s Importance: The Shining itself-Danny and Dick Hallorann’s psychic abilities-are crucial. Dick’s reaction when Danny brings up Room 237 clearly shows that Danny pulled the thought from Dick’s mind, which surprises and worries him. This supernatural connection provides solid evidence that the ghosts and the hotel’s influence are real, not just in Jack’s head. Without it the ambiguity of the film would take it a bridge to far in my opinion. Jack’s Character: The critique about Jack lacking personality is intentional. He’s stopped drinking but hasn’t done the work to find out who he is without alcohol. This is what’s often referred to as a "dry drunk," someone who has quit the substance but hasn’t developed healthy coping mechanisms or self-awareness. Living in this state leaves people vulnerable to relapse, new addictions, and poor coping habits. For Jack, it’s not alcohol that consumes him this time-it’s the evil of the hotel. His failure to address his deeper issues, whether due to ignorance or not knowing how to seek help, makes him susceptible to the hotel’s influence. Building Unease Through Shots: The long shots and uncomfortable pacing are purposeful. They build a subtle, lingering tension that something is "off." Kubrick uses these extended scenes, particularly the bike sequence, to showcase the hotel’s inconsistent, impossible layout, which adds to our discomfort. The hotel’s architecture doesn’t make sense, and that’s the point. Kubrick plays with our subconscious to create unease without relying on jump scares or gore. It’s important to remember that films can focus on story or mood. In some ways, The Shining forsakes story for emotion, but not to the extreme of arthouse cinema. Kubrick uses the film to evoke a mood, much like poetry compared to a traditional narrative. The goal isn’t just to tell a story but to make the audience feel deeply unsettled. Room 237 and Danny’s Curiosity: Danny entering Room 237 is simple: he’s a kid. Children are naturally drawn to forbidden things, especially when warned to stay away. But it’s more than just curiosity-his prophetic visions and Tony’s warnings try to protect him and his family from the hotel’s dangers. It’s his experience in this room that are too much for his mind and allow Tony to take over completely. It is then Tony who reaches out to Hallorann for help. “Danny’s not here Mrs. Torance” Jack’s Transformation: Jack’s seamless shift into obsessive writing is meant to be jarring. It’s the moment where his internal emptiness starts to lose its grip, allowing the hotel’s influence to creep in. He hasn’t fully fallen to the hotel yet, but this is where we see the first cracks. His mind begins to obsess over his next “drink,” except this time, the drink is his submission to the hotel. The shot of Jack glaring out the window as Wendy and Danny play in the snow foreshadows his descent. He’s already losing control, unknowingly becoming a pawn for the hotel. The look on his face during the scene foreshadows the consequences of this internal struggle-he’s on the brink of giving in to the hotel’s seduction, just as he once gave in to alcohol. Hallorann’s Death and Its Purpose: Dick Hallorann’s death is shocking because it’s so sudden after his long, suspenseful journey. This unexpected turn serves a narrative purpose, showing that even those with the Shining aren’t immune to the hotel’s power. His death adds to the film’s unpredictability and increases the sense that maybe no one gets out alive. Fate or Vulnerability? The film raises a compelling question: is Jack fated to repeat this cycle, as the final photo suggests, or is he simply a vulnerable man with deep flaws that make him prey to supernatural forces? This debate parallels the real-world conversation around addiction. Is an addict destined to fall, or are they predisposed but capable of being saved? In Jack’s case, I’d argue he’s predisposed but unwilling to address the core issues behind his addiction, leaving him open to the hotel’s influence and falling back into old patterns even without alcohol. Ultimately, Jack’s fate seems tied to his failure to ever truly find himself. The Final Photo: That final photo of Jack in the hotel’s history cements his total loss of self. He’s been fully consumed, integrated into the hotel’s evil, just as he was once consumed by alcohol. All of this being said, I want to first say some of the in-depth analysis of this film ignore the emotional point to explore their theories and I’d argue that also misses to point of the film. I also want to recognize that I can see where Kubric’s method of building tension could be off putting to someone who watches the movie focused on story over emotions. That doesn’t’ mean you are doing movies wrong it just means that work that sacrifices story for feeling might not be for you. I'd challenge you to give it one more watch, but this time turn off your analytical mind and see how you feel watching the movie. Finally, an admission. I’m both a Jack Nicolson and Stanly Kubrick fan boy. It could be my fandom that making me see things that aren’t there. Or, is my keyboard really haunted???
I think these supernatural events in the film don't really work for me if you know that in the original book it was really a cursed hotel, and these things occur of course, but the joke is the film, unfortunately it goes in the direction of a chamber game. Above all, because I think it's interesting and clear, I'm talking to someone who knows the book, but the thing with Jack in the book is that he has his dark sides but tries to suppress them until at some point he no longer has them works and completely crazy. In the story he tried to be the real good father but he's just not good until the shadows finally swallow him up. And something like that is just more shocking when two sides of a person really exist and not just one is fake.
I am a Stephen King fan, but i hadnt read The Shining until, like, a uear ago. Jack Nicholson in general just gives me the creeps for vague reasons i cant explain, but the final scene of his death in this movie in particular freaked me the hell out so i didnt appreciate any of this movie until later. Basically, i dont even go here but i like your videos and opinions so here i am. Thanks for the entertainment and thoughtfulness
I couldn't believe it when you recommended _Gothic_ as your _Shining_ alternative. I haven't seen that film since it came out and barely remember it (I just recalled some of the cast and that, at the time, I thought it was bizarre), but c'mon, nobody remembers that film! Heck, until you mentioned the synth score, I thought you would mention something more like _The Haunting_ (the 1963 version). Now I feel like I need a _Gorhic_ rewatch; how funny that you brought it up. I agree with nearly every thing you said about _The Shining_ as a film - I think it's baffling how many people love it and, while occasionally beautiful, I find it more frustrating than frightening. I do quite love the book, though; you might try an audio version in future if you ever decide to give it another go and don't think the print version will do it for you. Regardless, thanks for this vid!
Never having seen The Shining all the way through, I have neither praise nor condemnation for your opinion of it, except that its certainly a perspective on it I've never heard before, which made it interesting. My one gripe is this: at the beginning of the film, you offer the deal to the film and theory Bros and say you don't want to engage with them...and then you keep going back to take shots at them. And like, the first time, it felt like "haha, funny callback", but then by the third or fourth time you went back to that well, it kinda felt like you were picking a fight with them? Just felt a little unnecessary compared to the wider critique. Otherwise, loved the video! Edit: tell you what, now you got me wondering what youd think of the '97 tv miniseries lol
I didn’t think either of them were good. The mini series just felt to insecure of the original source material. I’ve just resigned myself to never getting an adaptation I like.
I disagree with enough of your points to explain why we come to a different overall good/bad film conclusion, but you sure as shit did your due diligence! And this was an excellent and entertaining essay (as usual)!
It’s a movie I enjoy, particularly because of Shelly Duvall’s performance. I honestly think I really connected with me as a kid because I had an abusive parent. But it certainly shouldn’t be above many deserved criticisms.
I think I remember taking Jack being in the picture at the end that his ghost is now part of the hotel's cast of ruined, murdered people. I found it quite chilling because it didn't offer any explanation.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
There's a scene in the book where Jack finds/is led to a scrapbook in a shed, containing the secret history of the hotel. It is, I think without hyperbole, literally the most important scene in the book, and it baffles me that it was cut, because:
1) Jack decides to make his book about it,
2) his obsession with it is what lures the hotel into tempting him into the darkness,
3) it's literally the explanation for the party, the corpse in the bathroom, the furry in the bedroom, the reason why the family distrusts the elevator, that final picture... I could go on.
The Shining is about how the past reaches out to infect the present--it's a ghost story, that's the metaphorical purpose of ghosts--so cutting the scene where the main character uncovers the dark past... I can't fathom it. Jack's obsession with the scrapbook is... it's literally half of the plot of the story, the other half being Danny's psychic struggle with the house, which... I'd argue was also cut.
That's the half the plot of the book story. The film is a different, imo, superior beast.
The scrapbook is in the movie. You can see it next to Jack's typewriter in a couple of scenes.
@@SoHungry666 Ah, cool! My point, though, is that the discovery of the scrapbook, and the exploration of its contents, is what drives Jack's half of the book. It's not just the existence of the scrapbook itself.
The book is a ghost story, and the film adaptation is, on one level [marketing] a ghost story. But it is also, on the Kubrick level, a Happy ever after fairy tale.
@@andrewphilos This is apparent in the film, but because it is a visual medium, it isn't spelled out in words.
R.I.P. Shelley Duvall 💔 She deserved so much better.
Pretty much anytime you look for a source for Shelly Duvall’s experience with the shining she is positive about it, I don’t know where this myth that she was being traumatised comes from, but it’s certainly not anyone who worked on the film. They’re actually disrespectful considering all the footage that exists of any personality clashes show Shelly jabbing at Kubrick and making fun of him
@@RaggedyCatProductionsyeah, 30+ takes for every scene, nerve damage in her hands and intense therapy after sounds like it was a walk in the park. Just because the victim never felt comfortable speaking out about the abuse she endured, that doesn't discount the witnesses that saw it firsthand. To quote Far Out, "While Duvall admitted that Kubrick was unnecessarily hard on her, cruel and abusive during the shooting schedule, she also defended him by talking about how he perpetrated the same amount of abuse that had been imposed on him in the past."
She acknowledged that she lost hair from the stress and that she was made to film the scene with the baseball bat 127 times.
She said (quoting the same Far Out article:
“You just think about something very sad in your life or how much you miss your family or friends. But after a while, your body rebels. It says: ‘Stop doing this to me. I don’t want to cry every day.’ And sometimes just that thought alone would make me cry.”
If that isn't torture, idk what is.
@@SavageMinnow Gene Kelly made dancers do the same routines dozens of times. Debbie Reynolds said she was in intense pain afterwards. Was Gene Kelly an abuser? William Wyler, the director of Ben Hur among other films, was nicknamed "Forty Take Willy" etc. Kubrick was overly concerned with framing of the characters, so the stairs scene had to be just right to get the actors in the center of the frame. Were the people carrying the equipment abused? Or Nicholson having a bat swung at him?
Lee Unkrich wrote a massive book on The Shining and spent a lot of time with Shelley. She explicitly denied any mistreatment by Kubrick and talked about how kind he was to her. She gave interviews to Kubrick podcasts praising him. She should be the last word on this. She wasn't abused. This story just won't die. The stress came from the role itself. It was hard work. She had issues with stress and anxiety before working on The Shining. It was intense work and she wasn't used to that sort of environment.
@@Anton-i2o Are we seriously defending abusers now? Also, a person can be abusive AND kind. Abusers aren't one-dimensional people but have many different qualities to them, some good, some bad. I know, because I've been in an abusive relationship. It's extremely rare you meet an abuser who is outright evil because people aren't generally outright evil, as most abusers become abusers because they themselves are victims of abuse.
Furthermore, a lot of victims also deny the abuse of their abuser. That makes the movie in retrospect much more chilling when you realize that a lot of the stress she's acting wasn't just acting but very much real.
@@RaggedyCatProductions Are you sealioning us, or have you just been huffing copium for 11½ months straight?
For me, the appeal of the movie is its overall vibe and almost hypnotic quality. It's hard to put into exact words, but it just creates this environment that is unpleasant and unsettling. It's the reason why people analyze and theorize it to death. Because they're trying to put into words something that's just a feeling.
The documentary Room 237 is very entertaining, and it shows how the fan theories about the movie range from interesting to completely bonkers
The protracted shots that are a major point of criticism in this video are definitely an intentional exercise in mood and atmosphere, like Wendy standing in shock for twenty seconds after finding the cut radiator, the music speaks for her internal monologue as we see her considering her options through expressions. It's a very Vibe based movie so I can totally see why some people would despise it if they didn't gel with its particular vibe.
Same. It is unsettling throughout, makes me feel put off but intrigued. Like David Lynch films (but I like those better)
@@HalloweenYearRound I think this comment gets to the crux of it. Vera's perspective is perfectly reasonable and appreciated but it still doesn't change my weird love for this movie about ghost alcoholism.
I think you are referring to "liminal spaces", and hotels are great places to find them.
I want to make a comment as an ex-substance addict... There is one way in which everything (or most of it) falls into place in the movie, specially the Jack's issues.
He lied.
He lied about being sober during those 5 months. He was just taking the edge off (and Wendy believed him because of her being an abuse victim).
And when they went to the Hotel, maybe he thought there will be alcohol. And there isn't none.
So... Jack as being all that time in heavy detox.
Detox messes with your perception, with your memories, with how you see people, and the fact that you'd do ANYTHING for another fix.
Throw some super stressful frustration because you can't write, the isolation, etc... You might get violent. It happens. Specially if you abandon your habit cold turkey no medicine help.
And the rest, yeah, the ghost were whispering on his ear. But the ghosts were just what drove him over the edge.
Well. That is my take as an ex addict.
It might not make sense either.
So... ok he's lying to Wendy about staying sober. Why would he lie to Lloyd? Because he says to Lloyd "here's to 5 miserable months on the wagon." Why would he lie about being sober to the man giving him a drink?
@@CouncilofGeeksbecause taking the edge off doesn't satisfy the addiction. Taking the edge off is drinking enough to not being sick, not drinking to being drunk or numbed. There is a difference in how it feels. One leaves you always craving, but functioning. I hope I'm explaining myself properly, english is not my first language.
@@AngieDeAguirre Going off your comment, as it's been years since I saw it, couldn't it also be the case that he lied to Lloyd because Jack believed it. After 5 months he could have convinced himself it was true, even though it wasn't. In the same way that many addicts convince themselves they only do it on occasion, they can stop when they want and it's not a problem.
@@Elwaves2925yesssss!!! This too! Absolutely!
That was so me! 😂
My thing was not alcohol, so I know that both experiences might differ in some aspects, but addiction is addiction and in some things it's almost the same for everyone.
Great take and it's so awesome that you caught that to add to the conversation 😊
@@AngieDeAguirre Thankfully i've never been addicted, unless you count cold milk (I kid you not 😁) but a friend was, so I dealt with it all through them. They'd say things like that, then you'd see them so out of it they had no idea who you were.
I hope you are over your troubles, whatever form they took. As much as any addict can ever be over it. 🙂
Dick Halloran was done so dirty by the movie. In the book he comes and fully saves the day. Jack's hit only injures him and he and Wendy take Danny out and they all save each other and there is even a scene at the end where he says it's ok for Danny to still love Jack because he was his daddy and I'm not crying, you're crying. I get why they made it different as an adaptational surprise, but it does suck for the character.
Also there is a tiny fact in the book that Jack is helping Danny learn to read (he's much younger in the book) and he makes out these little worksheets for him to go through and it's super sweet. That was just genuinely cute to read.
These are good points
Jack was also done super dirty when compared to the book and even the later mini series. I actually prefer the mini series because it’s better at adapting the book.
@@fdragon010 The mini series was kind of clunky partly because of the need for advertising breaks, but also because of the repeated and very artificial-seeimg "spooky reminders" e.g. the cash register rings up a sale when there's nobody around. That said, though, Steven Weber does a much better version of showing "who Jack was", as Vera says, and Rebecca de Mornay's Wendy is much closer to book Wendy. I think the definitive version of the Shing has yet to be made, but probably never will be, sadly.
I do like The Shining, but I’ve always found it impossible to see it as anything other than a series of beautifully choreographed camera shots and great performances. The sound design is important, but the whole thing is a pretty hollow exercise in unnerving the audience and pre-signalling how they should feel. As you’ve rightly pointed out, there are great characterisation pieces, but just about everything happening around those just make no sense and only seem to be there because “oh, that looks amazing!”
The book is much better structured and gets into cycle of alcoholism and violence.
I mean, you're basically describing the very purpose of film as a medium. The film is a bit of a mood piece. If you try to think of it as more of a visual tone poem, it makes more sense. It values creating a feeling of anxiety and uneasiness in the viewer first and foremost. I don't think every film has to necessarily have a plot that's really tightly structured and makes the most sense as a story, because that's only one aspect of the medium. We should judge art based on how well it achieves what it sets out to achieve. Saying that the book is better because it goes into cycles of alcoholism and the history of the hotel is kind of ignoring the fact that those were never things the film intended or wanted to address. They're entirely different pieces of art. I'd go so far as to say that the film is really more inspired by the book than it is adapting the story. It takes inspiration from the setting and elements of the story, but then sets out to tell its own entirely different story.
There are some classic shots, and the cinematography is gorgeous at times, but it's exactly as you said. It's like Stanley Kubrik just wanted to do cool shots at the expense of the story.
It’s a nothing burger like Skinamarink. It’s well crafted garbage.
@@itsaUSBline but point of stories is telling you a story. If you ain’t got no goddamn story, make a music video or some shit. It’s offensive how lacking this film is in any semblance of actual plot or storytelling
"I always thought that the real difference between my take on it, and Stanley Kubrick's take on it, was this: In my novel, the hotel burns; in Kubrick's movie, the hotel freezes. It's the difference between warmth and cold."
*-Stephen King*
I always thought that Stephen King had the better take on the movie, but then again, it's his story.
I think that's a very salient point by King. I think King wanted to tell a story about a man overcoming his demons and Kubrick wanted to tell a story about a man being consumed by them, which is probably why the two butted heads over the direction of the story.
King's big problem is that he had the opportunity to prove his version of the story could work visually with the 90s made-for-TV version and it was really, really, really bad. Which predisposes many people to think Kubrick had the right idea.
@@craigcharlesworth1538 I liked the TV movie. It almost certainly didn't have Kubrick's cinematography (it's been a long time since I've seen it), but the character progression feels a lot more organic.
When the sequel, Doctor Sleep, was adapted for film, they made it a sequel to the movie rather than the book. King said that it made him appreciate Kubrik's version of the original story more. While I don't think it retroactively makes the first movie less stupid, the first movie does provide for a better setup. A haunted hotel is scarier than a haunted campground on the same site. And the callback to the blood-avater was funny in the best possible way.
@@susanwenger5025 I actively despise the film Doctor Sleep because it feels like it's trying to apologise for Kubrick's film and turn it back into something King would like. And that's a huge no-no, taking a dead artist's work and recontextualising it in ways that they almost certainly wouldn't agree with. That's no better than AI bringing back dead actors for me.
As for the TV movie... I think it proved that Kubrick had at least some things right. King was apparently very angry that the 1980 film omitted the sentient topiary animals, but the TV movie shows that even with 16 years of advances in visual effects, it was really hard to pull off without looking silly. Also King insisted that Tony had to be visualised the same way he was in the book, as a guy floating in the air that only Danny could see. Again, this stuff works in a book but looks completely fucking stupid on screen. I think King had a valid criticism of Kubrick's film because it fundamentally changed Jack and made him a very different, and much less sympathetic, character. And King was close to Jack, because he was partly autobiographical, so I can see why he would be mad. But the TV movie also demonstrates that Kubrick has a filmmaker's eye for what will visually work onscreen and what won't, that King doesn't have.
@@craigcharlesworth1538 I don't think that Doctor Sleep is trying to apologize for Kubrik's Shining, though. It does things differently than Kubrick would have if Kubrik had made the sequel, but there are no Rise-of-Skywalker-style changes to the understanding of what came before. In fact, the movie seemed committed to Kubrik's version of events. What do you think I'm missing?
Fair point on the topiary animals. I didn't think they looked that bad in the miniseries, but the labyrinth was scarier. You can definitely make a case for not having Tony float in the air, but floating Tony was way less ridiculous than Danny talking to his finger. He was also more clearly an ally rather than another creepy, scary thing.
Unlike King, I don't object on general principle to Jack being changed. Movies don't have to be the same as the book. I just thought the execution of said change needed work.
I do respect someone who’s willing to have opinions like these even if it’s a movie is universally loved especially if they make a solid argument for why they feel that way
My problem with Scatman Crother’s character is that he can sense something is wrong from across the country but he can’t sense Jack standing around the corner with an axe.
Finn: "We have the Shining."
Han: "That's not how the Shining works!"
I think he was so focused on getting to Danny that he was closed off to Jack. That’s the only way I can come to terms with it.
he didnt sense something was wrong , it was danny call upon him with the shinning
Also, Scatman's character Dick survived and rescued Wendy and Danny in his snowcat in the book. 🤣😂😅😆
@@darlalathan6143he ended up marrying Wendy and became like a father to Danny
As an old geezer, I remember when this film was released. The response was at best muted: critics initially saw that it adds up to less than the sum of its parts. That was the consensus view for years, then something changed, and I've always wondered what happened. To me it felt like The Shining was reassessed because the reputations of both Kubrick and King continued to escalate dramatically. So a bunch of people started feeling like it HAD to be a great movie, even if King didn't like it. But I didn't like it when I first saw it, and both times I've seen it since, in attempts to reassess it, my opinion hasn't changed much. I'm more aware of the good elements of the film, but I still don't think they add up to anything coherent. I also watched A Clockwork Orange again recently, and for the first time I can see why it's a truly great film - but it makes The Shining look even worse by comparison. The Shining feels like a mediocre TV movie adaptation made with Kubrick's obsession with details. It feels like Kubruck just does not respect the story he's telling, which couldn't be further from what he did with A Clockwork Orange.
My step dad loved the King book and was disappointed with the movie when it came out because it was almost nothing like the novel. The network mini series was alright and stuck closer to the book but given the limits of network it and King it has a few issues. In truth the book that is just difficult to adapted with all the flash backs and so forth.
Many of Kubrick's films got middling reviews from the start. 2001, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut. You can't fake generational enthusiasm. The fact is that they look better with the years.
@Anton-i2o You're right, that happens a lot, and not only with Kubrick. But that doesn't mean the new appreciation is always right. Which is exactly why we can debate The Shining.
@@colonelweird I've loved the Shining since I was a kid. What I find most telling about it's lasting quality, is how many people of different ages and walks of life, who love it, who don't even like King. It's influence on some of the best horror stories since it's release.
I don't know. It was the first Kubrick film I had seen, and I had no idea who he was at the time, but I still loved it.
If I remember correctly from what Kubrick himself said (in other words, authorial intent of the director), the photograph at the end was meant to represent Jack joining the countless spirits who had been the Overlook's victims, and that the earlier comment by "Grady" (Who I forget in the book whether or not is the real Grady or the Overlook using his visage like a puppet to talk to Jack) that Jack had "always" been the caretaker of the Overlook is the Overlook basically trying to manipulate Jack's feelings by making him feel like he belongs with the evil and trapped spirits of the Hotel. It's the Overlook claiming his soul. Further, Kubrick is on record saying the supernatural elements were meant to be real all along, with the opening of the pantry being designed as a "AHA! SO IT WAS REAL!" moment. This, however, does not negate your critique at all that this idea is POORLY communicated by the movie.
One idea that might have made the final scene have its *intended* impact would be to introduce that group photo earlier in the movie, with Jack not present among the crowd. Per Kubrick's style, we could even cut back to Jack looking at it more than once. Maybe first time it mirrors the final scene and it's a photo of a party, the second time he looks at it however mid-way its still the party but the spirits are looking at him expectantly as if subtly saying "Don't you have a job to do?"... i.e. killing his family, then finally at the end when he dies its the same as the first photo with the celebration but now Jack is included among the crowd. Idk, just spit balling hypothetical cuts that I know will never be made.
Could maybe also throw in a scene where he looks at it from afar and his reflection in the glass places him right where he is in the final picture
Having only ever seen the movie once over two decades ago and not having heard this from Kubrick, this has always been my assumption. Jack has been added to the hotel, not that he was a reincarnation or something of a past visitor. Jack is only at the front of that photo because he's the most recent victim. He'll fade to the back as it takes more.
Your approach to this movie is very functional and structural. A lot of the comments you make about The Shining are about the function of structural choices within a narrative. This is a completely valid way to approach a film. However, I would argue that some great movies do not match this approach and, consequently, seem worse when viewed this way. The Shining has a lot of stylistic choices that are similar to Italian horror films, where the function and structure of a choice are overridden by the feeling of that choice. For instance, the credits at the beginning of The Shining are flat and don’t match the beautiful aerial shots behind them, but that feeling of discordance might be the intention. Similar to how survival horror games like Resident Evil will intentionally use clunky controls (tank controls) to make the player feel more tense.
Ok… but I’ll note that survival horror moved away from tank controls after a few years because, regardless of intent, it was ultimately decided it hampered the experience more than it helped.
@@CouncilofGeeks videogames moved away from tank controls cause they were not industry standard and companies noticed that most people complained about them.
They did not leave the tank controls or static cameras because of artistic vision. But for a desire for mass market appeal, read: more money.
The swap from an artistic vision to industry standard was to please people who thought "ugh, this is too hard and impractical to get into".
Similar as people complaining that the Shining drags out too many scenes who also don't understand style and intention.
@@ymck7246 "Similar as people complaining that the Shining drags out too many scenes who also don't understand style and intention." Bingo
Im not saying Kubrick could be abusive with his actors, but there is a famous story about how the next film Scatman Crother would go on to do was Clint Eastwood's Bronco Billy , and supposedly when Clint only had Scatman do 1 take for each scene, Scatman broke out into tears. Soo take that how you will for Kubrick's treatment of actors
Scatman loved working with Kubrick. Accodring to Lee Unkrich, Scatman couldn't remember his lines. He had a lot of stuff to say in that scene.
Yeah, it seems like this film to you is what Dead Poet's Society is to me: a movie that seems near universally beloved that I thought was bad, and that slowly turned to hate after having it constantly shoved down my throat. And I was forced to watch it in high school by a teacher. Twice. Note: not a great film to be forced to watch if you're a teenager struggling with thoughts of suicide.
DPS is a terrible film. The appeal escapes me.
That's how I feel about Andor. Literally everyone I see talking about it seems to gush over how amazing that show is, but I find it remarkably boring. "Boring" is about all I can describe it as, other than maybe "gritty" and "realistic". I don't like realism in film. I don't want to see real life simulated on screen, I get my fill of the mundane in my own life. I watch movies and shows to be entertained by something BETTER than reality, to become absorbed in supernormal stimuli. And Andor just doesn't feel like Star Wars to me, either. Gone is the heady optimism and mysticism of the OT. The good guys aren't so good, the bad guys aren't so bad, everyone is just a self-interested individual. Some people probably prefer Star Wars that way as it adds nuance and depth that is more like conflicts in the real world, and that's fine, but it's not my cup of tea. Don't get me wrong, I love that sort of morally grey storytelling in an original setting, but to take the Star Wars universe and turn it into a dark, borderline nihilistic neo-noir show just feels wrong to me.
I actually think it helped me with suicidal ideation but to each their own. Just know, nothing is for certain when it comes to art.
It's also a criticism of a time period, but it can be a bit cheesy I'll say that much
49:39 None of the music in the mentioned scenes was by Wendy Carlos or Rachel Elkind. ISTR that the bar/ballroom music came from old records, and the music for the bathroom scene was an early 70s piece by Krzysztof Penderecki: The Dream of Jacob
I believe Carlos/Elkind wrote the atmospheric "synthy" music over the credits and filmed footage of the mountains. The bulk of the soundtrack comprised pre-existing music by Penderecki, György Ligeti and Béla Bartók.
Just for info/clarity; no criticism intended.
The synth music at the beginning is Dies Irae, an ancient piece of music that goes back at least to the age of Gregorian Chant.
@@jeremybiggs8413 Indeed. I suspect Carlos based her aptly doom-laden take on the Dies Irae on the version played by the brass in the "Witches' Sabbath" of Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique.
One of the things to that amuses me is the cottage industry of theory-crafting that has sprung up around The Shining. I took a deep dive into it back around 2020, and the lengths to which people would go to prove that Kubrick is some kind of once-in-a-lifetime genius are bananas. No, not even bananas, but banana shoes!!
I am curious to see an edited down version of the movie where scenes don't drag nearly as long, perhaps with events reshuffled (as you tried to do with the Monday, Wednesday, etc scenes). I'm sure it would make people howl sacrilege, but it would be an interesting experiment.
She could remake The Shining her way with AI!
If you re-editted the movie to be quicker I think it would lose a lot of what makes it special honestly. It would just be a normal slasher.
Just a small detail. The bathtub lady isn't just old and sick, she is a corpse.
In the book we get into her backstory, but I understood that she was in fact a rotten corpse before reading the book.
It's not her age that we are supposed to react to.
If I remember right we are given her story in one of the early chapters before the whole family movies into the hotel. It is a sad sorted story told to Jack and it is powerful. Last time I read the book it made me cry.
That's on the production staff then for not making her zombie-like enough.
I made a very similar comment. It's not age, it's the fact that she is a partially decomposed corpse.
@@TheGerkuman Bro she was literally rotting. Her skin was brownish grey and massive areas of her skin were just missing.
To be fair, seeing her walk and laugh makes her more like an old lady than a corpse even if that was not the film's intention. It also makes her less scary ... the beautiful woman in the bathtub slowly pulling back the curtain always freaks me out, but the cackling old hag is just silly
34:13 My interpretation of the movie was, that jack are not supposed to go from stable to insane, and has a flat arc altogether. He has the same ability to kill his family with an axe in the beginning of the movie, as well as in the end. This would explain the creepy look in the window, lack of lead in between the scenes, moments of Jack‘s explosions so early on in the movie. The purpose of this scenes was to show just how miniscule was Overlook’s influence on the broader scale.What the hotel does is just mess up with Danny and Wendy(hurting neck,causing visions), which makes them act in non-conforming to Jack way, and then gives Jack an arbitrary reason to kill his family. All the haunting scenes, experienced by Jack, are just small push-ups towards this decision,rather than gradual poisoning of his soul.
So the climax of the movie is just „mask off“ moment. In this context Wendy is the one, having arc, from forgiving Jack for hurting Danny to hitting Jack with the bat.
though From what i heard Jack going from stable to unstable was the case in the book though Jack is still a asshole.
@@jadenbryant9283 It was in the book, but Kubrick just moved in the opposite direction, which is the main reason,why King was pissed at the movie.
Bingo! This whole movie is a simmering slow burn as it reveals Jack is actually just a terrible person. His sanity is insanity, the other jack that starts the movie is the insane Jack if that makes any sense.
Yes! So much of the start of the film is setting up how much danger Danny and Wendy are going to be in _specifically because they'll be trapped in an isolated building with Jack._
He's very deliberately set up to already be capable of violence towards his family and dismissive of their concerns; all the hotel is really doing is giving him the perfect environment to abuse them without oversight.
It's one of the reasons it's so important that Jack's interview is with two men while Wendy is talking with a female doctor; the men see Jack as a peer so they believe everything he's saying even though he's lying, while Wendy is trying her best to sugarcoat Jack's actions to the doctor but she's not buying any of it.
Yes, the hotel as an entity is still an antagonist, but its main role is as an enabler for the evil that's already in Jack.
I personally felt like I was missing some context of a lot of things in the movie, like the characters felt underdelevoped and apparently the reason was that we are missing the emotional backstory of events that happened outside of the movies timeline. I did later listen to an audiobook of the book to get the whole story with the missing bits and knowing the backstory makes the movie easier to digest. I also hate how some discouse about the dad is how much of a terrible drunk he is, without exploring Jack's character in a sympathetic light. The book version is someone I can project my own problems with my own demons or my father and his own different kind of demons. Like jack's character is meant to look into an abusive person's heart, and then I hear people dismiss him as a terrible person and how stephen king was also a drunk etc, when thats the whole point.
King was drinking at the time but that is no reason why to dismiss his version of Jack. In fact his version feels more like a real person and same with Wendy. They have their own baggage that they struggle with while at the same time they are still relatively young married couple with a little kid.
Absolutely. It feels like there's an hour's-worth of story missing from The Shining.
As someone who does love this movie… I can respect your opinion. I also don’t actually think this movie is as deep as a lot of nerds think it is. If anything, it’s an allegory for substance and domestic abuse. I probably also prefer the novel, if just because of the fact that while the film scares me, the novel scares and depresses me. In the novel, we really get to see Jack as someone who’s trying his best and it really hurts when he falls into his own habits.
For me, this film is pretty scary and I love the performances by the late great Shelley Duvall especially. Kubrick did give her and others a horrible time, and that is absolutely inexcusable but that she manages to pull off her character in spite of that is impressive. Some people consider her shrill but I actually think Wendy’s arc is very realised in the film. I also love the look and feel of this, especially the cinematography. Not just in how groundbreaking and impactful it was, but also on its own terms, my blu-ray of this film looks amazing, as do most of Kubrick’s other work. Not to mention the use of music, some composed by Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind. I also love the production design and the weird inconsistencies in this hotel.
There are issues with it, but they’ve never really ruined my enjoyment. Though, I should note I’ve only seen the European 119 minute cut, which was apparently Kubrick’s preferred version.
I do think it's a film with a lot of subtext, but nowhere near the amount people put on it. Is it a film about abuse and addiction? Definitely. Is it a film about Native American genocide? Er... probably not but I can almost see why some people say that. Is it a film about Kubrick admitting to having faked the moon landing? Good Lord, no.
@@craigcharlesworth1538 yeah, I will agree to that. To be fair, the documentary Room 237 is quite interesting, if only to hear how far out people go to interpret what is ultimately just a ghost story. As Sigmund Freud said, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” The TH-cam channel Eyebrow Cinema actually has some very interesting videos on this film.
As someone who studied film production in university, film analysis insists that every single detail of a shot has meaning, the answer can never be 'that thing was just on set' or 'the actor did 10 takes doing similar but slightly different things and that was the one they chose' and when a film is actually designed to have subtext then this goes into complete overdrive
@ I mean, yeah, but we can agree that the people who think this is Stanley Kubrick confessing to faking the moon landing are kind of nuts?
Jack DOES reveal something about himself in the interview. He tells Ullman that his wife won't mind living in a murder house because she is 'a confirmed horror movie buff'. Literally nothing in the film bears this out, in fact if anything Wendy has an extremely nervous disposition that would suggest the total opposite. That line suggests that Jack is lying, because he's more concerned about getting the job than he is about his family's wellbeing. I didn't even spot that until someone pointed it out but it does give something away about Jack's character, for sure.
Your defense actually feeds into my criticisms. Ok, I could buy that... but you wouldn't know that unless it was pointed out. I didn't think of that. I've literally never heard anybody else make that point. If (big if) it's intended then it doesn't do the job because nearly all the audience missed it. I've said for years that unless confusion is your intent (in which case I question why you feel the need to do that), if the vast majority of your audience missed something then that's not them failing as an audience, that's you failing as an artist. If a comedian tells a joke, and nobody laughs, and then they explain the joke and you kind of go "yeah that actually is clever," they still told the joke wrong because you should have laughed the first time.
@@CouncilofGeeks Okay. We're not going to agree, because I think it's one of the greatest horror films of all time* and an absolute masterclass in tension building, but I appreciate your point has some merit. Also, I'll forgive you just about anything for the scene where you break the days down on a blackboard using a riding crop instead of a pointer, that was beautiful.
I will say, though, that you give the impression that your beef isn't really with the film but with the people who keep telling you it's good when you don't see it, which has made you actively mad AT THE FILM by way of response. Which I understand because I feel that way about Breaking Bad.
*Note, I don't say THE best because, as any fool knows, that's The Wicker Man. The Nick Cage version (Joke!).
My connection to the shining is more a personal vibe than the usual merits or issues people talk about, and the issues kinda contribute to why I like it so much. Wendy's clearly already on edge from the start and lying to herself, Jack is obviously going to go insane from the word go, Danny is incredibly vague as a character, there's no real emotional change for anyone throughout and this would be an issue under other circumstances but on a meta level this works for me because by having taken basically a handful of characters and ideas from the book and set them wandering about on this canvas, that lends the entire thing this sense of powerlessness. These are people constructed for the singular purpose of playing out this story in which a dad tries to kill his family in a haunted hotel. Nothing Jack, Wendy or Danny can do will stop any of this happening, and that was what scared me and was why it clicked with me. When I was a kid I always felt like my life was beyond my control whenever bad things happened and like some external force was directing me into situations I wasn't prepared to deal with, and I felt like the shining really GOT me in that sense. Had the exact same experience with Eraserhead.
I think I share this view, although I was never really able to put my finger on why as a kid. I think The Shining contributed a lot to my love of self-contained tragedies, which Eraserhead also fits into, as well as Sweeney Todd. Just terrible things happening to a few isolated people.
@@LunarShimmer Course I didn't really understand this effect as a kid either, this is me reflecting on that connection years later. I guess it is kinda weird that the shining has ended up as this cultural institution because movies with passive characters don't tend to blow up for mainstream audiences, they get left on the outskirts and get attached to by outsiders and loners.
Good comment. I think all three, Jack, Wendy and Danny are lying when they are questioned at the beginning. Or holding information back. Danny has already been sexually assaulted. That is why he is repressed, not a normal kid. I think it was Jack who did it, and Danny is already thinking about killing Jack when he watches those cartoons. The hotel is a character and is already working its evil influence before they get there. Wendy is the one who is complicated. I like to hear crazy theories about Wendy.
This is it for me, too. I empathise most with Wendy, and I think of this film as an exploration of the limits of the fawn response. Her husband randomly escalates in aggression over the course of the film, and she increasingly finds herself in situations where her usual strategy of making herself small and useful does not work.
He is apoplectically triggered by her speech, her footsteps, her breathing... the fact that his descent into this state is not explicitly shown to us (and is also non-linear and unpredicatable) further adds to my identification with her experience because when you are in intimate situations with volatile people you truly never know which version of the person you're going to be confronted with from day to day, hour to hour.
Will he accept your comfort? Will he snap because you dared to enter the lobby where he's set up his workspace? Why did he choose a lobby to work in, instead of a quiet room to the side where he's less likely to be disturbed? Of course you can't ask, or suggest he move, because you're permanantly on thin ice as it is. You shrink yourself, you constantly find new ways to be quiet, to be supportive, to absorb the blows and to forgive. She plays fair.
The issues brought up in this video with regard to the unpredictability of Jack's state, the ways he oscillates between overt madness and a sort of shadow of the man Wendy hopes he is deep down is a huge part of what I responate with the most. You never know what you're going to get with these people, and you never know why they're going to be a particular way. You roll with the punches, and it's exhausting, and she's depressingly used to it.
I don't agree with your over all consensus, but I can't really disagree with any one point you made either. I think it's just that the atmosphere manages to sell the dread of seeping into violent madness more than the bad pacing manages to take it away. I can understand your points logistically but not emotionally.
But plenty of lesser-known movies have atmosphere, pacing, and a cohesive story. It's just a shame that this one settled for vibes.
@@gabrielgarbow3784and so?
A worthwhile video on the shining is “the Wendy theory is bad” by eyebrow cinema. It’s not a defense of the shining, but a rebuttal against the reading that the movie is actually about Wendy being mentally ill, and decoding of movies in general.
I like Stephen King and I like Stephen King movies. The Shining doesn’t feel like either of those things. It’s an art film made by a good, but not as great as he’s portrayed, art director. It’s okay, like a lot of Kubrick’s work
basically just like Clockwork Orange's case.
Lord, I hate the Clockwork Orange's or whatever it's called, with so much passion. I had to watch it for my statistics class and I seriously rolled my eyes up to the sky every 5 minutes. Idc how much critics and cinema lovers make it seem like the best movie.
I remember hearing about the BTS stuff with the way Shelly Duvall was treated. It made scenes like when she was swinging a bat while Jack was slowly walking up the stairs much more uncomfortable. During that scene her fright felt way too real for it to be acting
She was also snorting coke on set lol
17:24 I honestly took it as he was *always* that way. But being alone, isolated, and stressed the fuck out with no one to call or talk to made his *family* finally say enough is enough
Yes! Me too!
I really appreciate your critique, and how you'll praise scenes when it's due. I disagree however about Halloran's return to the hotel. It's really meant to be a suspenseful feeling of "will he get there in time", especially for people who read the book, where Halloran gets to be a hero. His immediate axing is supposed to be a gut-punch, letting the audience know that Danny and Wendy have nobody but themselves to rely on.
The shining is the only movie that gets scarier with each watch. I started off, as a younger man non plussed by it, but on each successive rewatch I found more to sustain my interest. Last time I watched it, it genuinely freaked me out.
The Shining is one of my favorite films, and your complaints about it have a lot of merit. The fanboys and theory crafters take things to bit of an irritating place sometimes. And they miss that the whole film is really about a deeply male coded kind of aggression, because I think talking about that alienates conspiracy bros lol. Great video! And great plaid! You always look so stunning 🤩
Lastly, the woman in the bathtub wasn't old. She was dead. Her skin had rotted off her back.
Thank you omg
Even as a huge Kubrick fan, The Shining has never been in my favourite of his. I’d much rather watch Clockwork Orange or Full Metal Jacket or Dr. Strangelove over this.
Fullmetal Jacket is so good and so anti-war. Andctye fact that it was filmed in England... Damn!
Omg same. Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket are so good.
My eyesight isn’t what it used to be.
I momentarily read the title as “Stop telling me ‘The Shining’ is a great movie… and ‘Kinda’ sucks actually”
I thought, ‘Blimey. This is a bold, double-edged video - dissing both a horror masterpiece and a sacred Classic Doctor Who story in one fell swoop!’ 🤣
Omg I'm so excited for this video!
I'm only 15 minutes into it and this has probably already been stated but I would like to point out that the interview scene is a perfect example of why King's work can be so hard to adapt. The reason that doesn't work as exposition is because, in the book, that scene is way more descriptive as it shares Jack's inner monologue. He's constantly sneering at the guy giving the interviewer and thinking all sorts of awful things, mostly born of envy of the man's position, shame that he's come to the point he has to beg this guy for a job, and just... absolute anger and hatred for the situation he is in overall. You really start seeing how poorly The Overlook effects Jack in this interview through that inner monologue. But you get nothing of that in the film. Instead you get Nicholson looking as unhinged as he does throughout the majority of the film and playing nice-y nice with the interviewer. It's bland, it tells us nothing, and so much is lost because of how poorly it was done.
Ok, finished the video. VERY well done! And you highlighted a ton of other times where Kubrik left out things explained by the book that wouldn't have been that hard to integrate into the film such as:
The night Danny looked freaky and Dick woke up in a sweat, Danny was reaching out to Dick via the Shining to ask him for help. The Overlook flashes were just Danny trying to show Dick what was going on because he didn't understand a better way to communicate it. Danny's Shining was incredibly strong compared to Dick's (it fades as you age) but Dick was in Florida while Danny was in Colorado so he had to concentrate pretty hard to reach him across that distance and did the only thing he, a child, could think to do. He showed the man images of what he'd seen.
The Overlook integrated Jack into the portrait at the end as a way of showing he's been absorbed into the family of ghosts that haunt the Hotel. The reason it's the 4th of July in 1921 is that that party ended in tragedy, which caused one of the many closures of The Overlook in its history due to the scandal and horror of the event. Since then, it's been collecting the images of people who've fallen prey to The Overlook as a visual representation of the multitude and each involved.
Jack is affected by the hotel because he also has The Shining but to a much lesser degree (it's been minimal since he was a child as well) and The Overlook essentially 'eats' people who Shine (See: Doctor Sleep). It absorbs their power into itself to strengthen the void within it. It draws Jack there and then, through Jack, senses Danny (who is, again, Shines incredibly strong even for a child). Once the family is there it does what it always does and twists the father into madness until he murders his family so that the house can absorb them. The twins are Grady's daughters, for example. It's not said whether they had The Shining as well but it's possible. The Overlook doesn't solely prey on people who Shine so it's not a requirement they did.
I hope this clears up some of that stuff. Idk why Kubrik left out so many things he could've easily used to pad the run time AND beef up the story instead of relying on such lengthy shots of drawn out nothingness. Talk about a waste of good talent.
I don't think the Shining sucks. But it's definitely overrated....at least over the past 25 yrs or so. Its got some decent moments. But I think the reason this movie is so popular is all the goddamn theories attached to it. And the deifying of Kubrick as a perfect director who not only never made a mistake, but somehow made a movie with dozens of brilliant plot points. This is a movie made in 1980. Over a yr long shooting, multiple sets destroyed by a fire, incessant, daily rewrites. No wonder this movie is so mysterious. Continuity issues, egregious errors. Also this movie was made at a time that home video wasn't easily available. Technology to pause, rewind, go frame by frame was basically non existent . Yet people believe Kubrick set these clues in the movie. That no one could even see . Lol sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who feels this way about this film. Its beautifully photographed and has a handful of legitimate compelling scenes, but I really just don't like it.
The meticulous work and deep meaning behind the choices on display in the shelf behind vera speak to something something Kubrick and Dostoyevsky smooching in the garden at the beer party... Tldr loved this vid
LOL I didn't realize that disliking the Shining was controversial. I enjoy the film but I can easily see why someone else wouldn't.
Yeah I love the movie but it's definitely overrated
You’re doing the Lord’s work, Vera.
Also, don’t let anyone get on your case for not digging Stephen King’s books. They have a style that isn’t for everyone, and even by his own admission can be overlong. (And I say this as someone who’s loved reading King for 35 years now.)
Fallacy A: XYZ is a great movie, therefore you're wrong if you don't like it.
Fallacy B: I don't like XYZ, therefore it is not a great movie and don't let The Man tell you different.
Yeah seems like there might be an in between here. Like that it's okay to dislike things other people like and vice versa
Fallacy C: Listening to someone say that XYZ has some flaws and labeling that as a fallacy.
i do like the shining but GOD YEAH I HAAAAAAATED THE BLOOD ELEVATOR. like the entire movies it seemed like they were building to something to do with the blood elevator or that it would be important or that it would be meaningful, but no its just a random spooky thing that happens to be there that has no significance to the story
I will push back on the criticisms of the lengthy tricycle scenes and the Halloran journey. For the tricycle scenes, it really does seem to be more of lulling you into a false sense of security. They're long, so you begin to zone out on them, and nothing is happening. They feel more like you're just getting an idea of the fact that you need to know what the kid is doing. But then, the final one is cut short, just as you were likely zoning out, and the ghost girls are there. Really, it feels like an extended setup to a jump scare.
Meanwhile, for Halloran traveling, there's a sense of hope but dread in that. You see him coming and feel that he will be what saves Wendy and Danny, but only if he gets there on time. You see Jack getting worse as we see how agonizingly long it takes for Halloran to make his way there, to make any difference. You are tense because you want him to show up on time but don't know if he can. But then the movie strikes in what could in another context be a comedy beat, but in a much darker and deadlier one--all that effort and he was killed immediately. Yes, he did leave the means for escape, but in that moment it also feels like futility, and also like any ray of hope has been snuffed out. Probably best if they would have had a thought not to kill off the only black character, though (especially since the source material didn't).
This one goes into more of a theorizing aspect, but I also wanted to mention about the "You've always been the caretaker" aspect. I would say it's the ghosts saying that he was always destined to be the caretaker, an unalterable destiny. Ghosts don't necessarily live inside time as we know it, so they may see him as always there, just as all the previous and future ones are/will be. And that destiny may have been enforced by the hotel's own shine. It could have called out to Jack, a man it felt would fit the caretaker role perfectly, giving him visions of it when sleeping or the like, causing deja vu when he came there finally. He's influenced by the ghosts more than he knows, and this could also tie into why the ghosts attack Danny. They only actually physically interact with him the one time, and that seems to be to cause a scenario which would cause Wendy to blame Jack for abusing their child, causing him to regress because nothing he does matters and he may as well do everything he keeps himself from doing. Heck, that could be a reason why Wendy only starts seeing the ghosts after Jack is past the point of no return. They don't need to hide, don't need her to think it's just a big hotel with her, Danny, and Jack in it. May as well have fun when they think she's just going to die anyways. I mean, nothing the hotel does has any physical affect on her, and instead just makes her more frightened. Frightened people make more mistakes, and they want her to get herself killed. But even if they obviously can interact with the physical world, they want Jack to do it, to fulfill what they think is the caretaker's true duties.
That last bit was a bit of rambling train-of-consciousness stuff going on there, but one thing I was also thinking: what if Grady is sort of the catalyst here? Maybe before him the ghosts weren't necessarily so violent or the like, but they were influenced by what they saw him do, rather than them influencing him. They thought that's what the job of a caretaker should be, and they did their best to make sure Jack continued those duties. I mean, I've strayed quite far away from the "always the caretaker" thing, but it's something I was thinking. Haven't seen the movie in over a decade, and only saw it once before (and some of that awful miniseries, but that's not relevant to the film--neither is Doctor Sleep, which I've never seen).
For the trike stuff... maybe it was better at the time it first came out. But I saw so many references/parodies of it (Family Guy) before I saw the movie so the every time he was riding around the halls I was just waiting for the girls to appear. And it felt sooo boring. This time? No. This time? No. This time? Finally. The whole time I just felt like I was waiting for stuff to happen, and then something would happen that just... didn't mean anything aside from being visually interesting. More like a Rorschach test where the writers were asking us "What do YOU think it means?" over and over again. If it had meaning from the book, then it was poorly translated, or even lost, in the film adaptation.
@karabearcomics Let's start by addressing the miniseries. That series was limited by scale and budget. Had King waited 10-15 years to commit to it, perhaps he would have made a better version of it. Honestly, it is kind of "Everything you wanted to know about The Shining" in too much detail.
That said, it had better arcs for Wendy and Jack. You see, Wendy goes from weak but loving wife to full-on momma bear. And you see Jack go from troubled but loving father with a dark side to full-on monster. The miniseries explain who and what Tony is and why Tony is important. And it makes Halloran an important character by enhancing his dialog with Danny and allowing him to live.
And now to talk about Doctor Sleep. This movie explores what happens to a kid who shines and has gone through trauma. It shows who Danny is at his lowest point and who he becomes after sobriety, something that Jack is denied. It shows what The Shining actually is, how powerful it can be, and what alcohol does to affect the Shine itself. Moreover, it explains why the ghosts wanted Danny and were willing to exploit Jack's weakness to alcohol to get him.
I recommend watching the miniseries again and just looking for the pieces lost in translation from Kubrick's film. What he left out was because it didn't serve his narrative. Then, watch Doctor Sleep. For full context it is helpful to watch the extended cut, but not necessary. The main thing to understand is that Stephen King wrote Doctor Sleep 40 years into his sobriety, and he is trying to forgive the man he was when he wrote The Shining.
In addition, King is Jack on the road not traveled. Just as he is the father in Pet Semetary under lighter circumstances. He's also Danny if Danny found sobriety just a bit earlier in life. You can find parallels to King's life in most of his work and he is his own harshest critic. Imagine writing a book about your personal struggles with sobriety and the film version makes your character an unlikable unrepentant and vicious asshole. That's why King was pissed off for so many years. And Doctor Sleep is his forgiveness and acceptance of Kubrick's film all in one fell swoop.
Sorry for the novel. I had a lot to say 😅.
@@rdp16rulez I probably should watch the miniseries again. But my comment about Doctor Sleep is really that it's irrelevant when talking about merits or detriments of the movie version of The Shining, since the book didn't exist yet, and King hadn't even thought of it yet regardless. Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up, but I know many people excuse problems with a work by mentioning a later addition, which is usually just a retcon, and overall doesn't excuse the original problem.
@karabearcomics I am not suggesting that you watch Doctor Sleep to fix the problems with The Shining. You can turn a back porch into a back room by adding a few walls but if the floor has holes you still have an incomplete room. Kubrick's The Shining is like the Venus De Milo. It's a beautiful work of art. It's also missing vital pieces. I am suggesting that you watch it to have more context and to enjoy another film in the storyline by one of today's best filmmakers: Mike Flanagan.
@@rdp16rulez Ah, okay, I thought you were trying to correct a misconception that may have been assumed due to me being ambiguous in my post. As it is, I may watch Doctor Sleep at some point. But I also don't tend to seek out horror movies, so I also wonder what priority I'll put on it. Should, but probably won't, like exercising regularly--you just always find a distraction.
I feel some people want to justify the level of cruelty they heard about in the production so they try and justify and ignore faults in the movie. abusive work pratices do not help anyone make a better product.
i thought the level of cruelty was extra mild, he gave Shelly Duvall a hard time--but in the making of movie he isn't being cruel at all, there is just alittle tension over Shelly not being ready for a scene while she claims she wasn't properly notified they were shooting... Duvall claims she learned a lot about acting, and Scatman is in tears in the Making Of movie and clarifies they are tears of joy because of how much he enjoyed the experience-despite Kubrick making take endless takes... fax!!!
I will agree that it isn’t the best film of all time, but I do have to give it credit that when I first watched it and a number of other horror classics with my friends on Halloween the only thing that creeped me out as we walked in the dark to pick up dinner was not Jason or Michael Myers, but the uneasy dread of isolation and abuse. It sat with me for a while after watching.
I think a lot of The Shining's appeal, to us geezers anyway, is that it was radically different and new compared to other movies at the time. Lots of artistic stuff is this way. Your location in time affects your perception. Picasso's art doesn't seem exceptional to us now, but it was radically different and new at the time. Many young people are not impressed by Beatles music, but yes, it was radically different and new at the time. (and still pretty awesome).
Chiming in just to note the bits I actually disagree with. Things I wouldn't take issue with in this video: take on the shining itself, the font of the credits, the nickname "Doc" or the sometimes batshit fan theories that have been inspired by this film.
I'd agree that the "job interview" scene is a bit flat, but that's at least in part because it's being viewed in contrast with the better Duvall scene. If one sees them as part of a whole, they make better sense.
Maybe it's me doing a fanwank on the story, but Jack going from bouncing the ball to typing makes sense given that we later find out he's not been working at all, but typing the same phrase manically over and over again. Jack's "over-reaction" to Wendy also tracks in my mind not just because she "broke his concentration" (which was really something more like him beginning to commune with the hotel) but because he's not only interrupted, but worried that she's going to see what's on those pages. His over-reaction is a shift of gears, but it's meant to be one.
Also, I don't think Danny's visions are meant to be of a future event, but revelatory about the hotel's nature itself. No actual river of blood. That's the hotel itself being shown as a murderous, malevolent creature. So, the audience should be acclimated to the idea of an influence on Jack and his reaction to being Interrupted by Wendy tracks. Given the nature of the hotel's seduction, you might even say she almost caught him "cheating" on her with the hotel. Hence, future naked lady/corpse scene.
Personally, I'd argue that the evil "Jack look" scene belongs before the bar scene because the bar scene is a full on mental delusion brought on by the hotel. Jack's brain/soul/character/animus-whatever is still being taken over and that look is him in a kind of fugue state. While that shot has subsequently become a kind of meme, I don't think it would necessarily have seemed that way when the film was released, and it didn't strike me as the look of ultimate evil on a first or later viewing of the film. That is, it's part of the progression, not a later stage of it as is suggested here. (Some may disagree.)
As others have noted here in the comments, the bathtub scene isn't just a sickly old lady (and certainly not one in her 50s) but a rotting corpse. It's not ageist to recoil from that scene. I guess it could still be deemed judgy of necrophilia.... But if viewing 40 seconds of a corpse is "stretched out" then I can only put this down to individual take/preference. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you, but in this case saying and emphasizing that the horror of the scene is her sudden aging rather than obvious putrefaction means the problems are likely more with the viewer than the scene.
Also, the whole take on Jack supposedly "trying to do better" doesn't jibe. What indicates that he's trying to do better? He says so? Wendy says so? The guy who is going to slaughter his family says he's trying to do better, so we should accept him at his word and, therefore, that as a theme of the film? People who aren't trying to do better will also say they're trying to do better so they can continue on as they are. Furthermore, being irate at being accused of something one didn't do isn't a trait exclusive to those who are trying to do better. Everybody hates that. Arguably, otherwise guilty people all the more. The most indignant stories I've ever had the misfortune of hearing are those of lifelong criminals who are falsely accused or even convicted for things they didn't actually do--if you can believe them when they say they didn't do whatever got them caught, which I remain doubtful.
As for the death of Hallorann... well, again, if that doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. My take on it was that the film needs two things: a body count and some actual irony. If Jack doesn't kill SOMEBODY then the movie isn't going to work. How has he done anything to "join" with the hotel after turning into a Popsicle? Why would the hotel put him in the front row of a photo? The hotel WANTS Danny and Wendy (mostly Danny in the book) but it'll take Hallorann as a surrogate sacrifice. But also the long build up, and shots of Hallorann traveling go with the opening credit shots-but bleaker-and reinforce just how isolated the hotel is, hence the need for a caretaker to begin with. Him dying so suddenly? Well, that's just funny, man. If it pisses you off, then all I can say is that at least it subverted your expectations....
Is the film about a guy slipping into his murderous psychosis or about a hotel with supernatural powers taking control of a weak man? Is he meant to have "always' been the caretaker or is that the hotel messing with him? Does the picture indicate that he's been there all along or that he's been taken over/absorbed by the hotel?
The second thing for all those questions.
In the scene where Jack is trapped in the pantry, there is a fan theory based on the layout of the room that there's a second unlocked door, and he just slips out after deluding his ghost conversation. There's a video here somewhere on TH-cam, but I'll not bother finding it because I don't think it bears much weight. It's based on a lot of other basically misguided fan theories about the layout of the hotel. The ghost lets him out. We hear it happening. Also, the ghosts are real in the context of the film, so the idea that ghosts can do things shouldn't be all that surprising, and the insistence that everything is in Jack's head ignores not just that one event, but a whole bunch of other shots of ghosts that Jack is not involved with, as is correctly noted in this video.
Is The Shining the best film ever? No, of course not. It's over-rated, but it'd kind of have to be given the obsessions certain people have about the film. Still, I think a lot of the objections raised in this review are subjective, and some are outright misreadings of the actual content.
Regarding long shots and the extended scenes... again, I think that's subjective. Personally, I find them more tension building than boring, but my take might be based on being a generation or so older. But it's hard to really take seriously criticism of the length of shots in The Shining given that the guy who made it also made 2001: A Space Odyssey. That's the brand. I prefer tacos to McDonald's but I won't complain about the secret sauce in my Big Mac.
All THAT said, I used to think of Kubrick as the world's greatest film maker, but I've reassessed in recent years. His treatment of actors was accepted as the behavior of an auteur director, but in retrospect I have to recognize it as the behavior of someone who doesn't actually know how to cast, rehearse, or even communicate with actors, which makes "Director" an odd career choice. "Cast professionals and treat them professionally" shouldn't be antagonistic to one's work product as a film maker. If you don't trust your actors to show emotions that you want when you explain those emotions and the story to them, then you've screwed up well before principal photography. Also, Kubrick famously spent years planning his films, but the reliance on so many takes indicates a lack of forethought and actual planning rather than perfectionism. It doesn't speak very well of his process if after years of planning he consistently still needed dozens of takes to get what he wanted. What was all that planning for if not to cut down on that? Lastly, for all his strengths as a film maker (and his weaknesses) I think we have to conclude that Kubrick was not a great adapter of books into film. At least, not in the sense that his films are good versions of their source material. He famously hadn't read both editions of A Clockwork Orange and said he would have changed the ending of his film entirely if he had. (Seems like that's the kind of thing that would have been discovered during his famously thorough prep...) His version of Lolita is about as much like Nabokov as Disney adaptations of Snow White. (Adrian Lynne's version also fundamentally misses the point, but that's another topic entirely.)
And with THAT said, I do have fundamental problems with the theme of The Shining (both the book and the film) but I think that'll have to go into some other form rather than a wildly over-long TH-cam comment.
[Edited for typos, grammar gremlins, and to add the dynamic about Jack "cheating" on Wendy with the hotel.]
100% agree, great assessment
I kinda hate the term "overrated" because it implies people shouldn't like something as much as they do and should instead tone it down just to please people who don't feel the same
@@timrosswood4259 I think a lot of people do use the term in exactly the way you're suggesting. It's become a kind of meaningless attack term that bad faith or bad brain operators use to drum up attention. "Over-rated" is, in effect, an over-rated thing to say.... That said, I do think the term isn't devoid of legit use, but at this point the person using it is obliged to back up how what they're talking about is over-rated, or it just becomes of of those empty, emotive mouth noises. In a general sense, I think there are two ways for something to be over-rated: in popularity, academically, or critically. That is, something like the Harry Potter series can really only be over-rated. That's not to say it isn't good (opinions vary) but given the reach of the franchise it just can't live up. Nothing could. Something else is going on.... Advertising/marketing, some sort of cultural hype, faddish behavior, etc. Somehow it's bigger than it reasonably can/should be for something like a set of fantasy children's novels. Again, nothing wrong with fantasy children's novels, but it's not exactly a closed field. If one stands out as maniacally as HP did... well, it's kind of got to be over-rated simply because nothing of that ilk really can merit that kind of attention. Then there's an academic over-rated product. My example of that is David Foster Wallace. Again, not a bad author, but I read reviews comparing the guy to James Joyce back in the day and just no. Last, something can be over-rated by the supposed experts who review it. Sometimes I look at the difference between critics and audiences on a site like Rotten Tomatoes, and have to wonder who these critics are really writing for, because if their point is to try to catch some sort of sense of what audiences want then they just aren't great at that job. There are, of course, nuances to all those kinds of issues, but my point is that if someone uses the term and then backs it up with specifics details and facts then it remains viable.
The movie suffers from a Kubrick problem. He took the story and tore it apart and turned it into a mess. If he didn’t like the original material, he should have just left it alone. He changed an ending that made more sense and was full of tension. He changed Wendy’s demeanor. He should have just wrote his own haunted hotel movie.
Kubrick didn't like the novel at all. He liked the premise. In any case, his cinematic language is a lot more expressive and interesting than King's literary language.
@@Anton-i2o then he should have made his own haunted hotel movie. I will never understand why he made a movie of a book he couldn’t stand. It makes zero sense.
@@wednesdaydemchok825 Robert Altman made a terrific film of "The Long Goodbye" but had open contempt for the material...really the entire genre. He made a film that subverted it.
@@Anton-i2o I’ve never seen that so I cant comment on it.
@@wednesdaydemchok825film adaptations aren't meant to be exact retellings
They can be, but it's far more interesting to take the core concept and change it up
1:25 "Did you ever find that you didn't like a thing only to realise literally everybody else thinks it's the best thing ever and it just makes you go from dislike to hate out of confused spite?"
For me that was always (Long before Rowling came out as a TERF) the Prisoner of Azkaban movie. Since it's release the film had always been a huge "meh" for me. Crap pacing, dull cinematography and a boring story. Then I found out about the unmitigated praise the film has because Alfonso Cuaron's name was slapped onto it. Please, I can't be the only one who felt this way? Can someone please agree with me on this?
Greetings, friend. My brother and I both consider this film to be a huge failure in the HP franchise. It's the one movie in the series that I didn't even want to add to my collection. And don't get me started on Cuaron's weird hippie take on Dumbledore and Professor Trelawney.
This is actually how I feel about 2001 A Space Odyssey; a lot of pretty shots, some ambiguous imagery, an collage of things that imply evolution beyond our imagination ... but my god it felt like the movie was 5 hours, it's practical machinery shots remind me of Thunderbirds without the stakes and pace, it feels entirely like a tech demo, it took so long to start I thought the DVD just wasn't working, it was BORING. Take away it's technical production and it's hours of nothing, the mechanics and composition are doing all the work, Hal trying to tell Dave to stop what he's doing is so repetitive, etc. It feels like a well choreographed well shot movie where every scene is dragged out the way the typewriter is. When it was all said and done and my brain edited/condensed it I was like "oh, monkeys, weird space object, monkeys gain tools and technology, weird space object again, giant space Baby, so ... the alien thing is escalating technology somehow. How? Who knows, who cares. Why? Who knows, who cares. Clearly the Obelisk is meant to be ambiguous in power and nature and intent, but the rest of the movie is ... monkeys sitting around, astronauts sitting around, then suddenly a visual explosion I can't look at because of Light sensitivity, and then a bunch of wacky time travel nonsense. And then giant space Baby, ooh what does it all mean? I dunno, on a basic level it's the different stages of evolution and there's nothing more to it without making wild guesses. And it was so slow and boring I don't care to watch it again to see what I missed.
I find it completely engrossing. It creates its own sense of time and space. Ever see Barry Lyndon?
I don't have strong opinions on The Shining as a film, but as an abuse survivor, I've learned to be wary of anyone who elevates it to The Greatest Film Ever Made or describes it as their personal favorite number-one movie that they watch to feel better/comforted/pleasantly stimulated. Because I know that in the next few minutes, I'm going to hear about the horrific tragedy of Jack Torrance and how the hotel drove a decent man mad. And when I point out that "decent" is not a word I'd use to describe an abusive alcoholic who dislocated a little boy's arm, I'll be told that I "just don't get it", occasionally because I'm not an addict or a "real artist" (wow), but usually because I'm a woman. As if I'm insulting them or betraying Art by not wanting to rewatch a terrible person try to murder his family.
So, yeah. I'm fine with people liking or enjoying this movie, but if you put it on that kind of pedestal and expect me to do the same, I am backing away slowly.
As a someone, who has shining as a in a top 5:aren‘t these comments applied to the book only version? The movie is more from Danny/Wendy angle, and movie Jack is specifically stripped away from any sympathetic moment.
@@Jan-cc7wb I have not read the book, and I am creeped out by the movie in a similar way as this thread's OP. The movie reminds me all too much about the isolated house where I grew up and my abusive father.
The description of abuse is *real* and it seems unclear to me if the audience is supposed to feel (some) sympathy for Jack despite in what mental place and with what history he started, before the hotel entered the picture.
you guys see one comment at some point in your life and act like it's a common opinion lmao
@@ataridcor maybe it's just far less original opinion then you would like to think. It's not the first movie/book misinterpreted by many "fans" who don't really like to reflect or look deeper then their initial reaction, but still praise it for what they think is cool reason behind male's hero dangerous (to him and especially to everyone else) behavior.
See more at: "fight club" (including author vocaly hating on everyone who says that Tyler is their favorite hero) or "breaking bad" as most well known examples.
I think that does a good job of summing up the vibe very nicely. Couple that with how Duvall was treated "for the art" and it's just an unappealing movie to me.
But The Simpsons' parody!
Chefs kiss, five stars, slay
Them's is fighting words. (It's one of my favourite movies)
Honestly, a majority of your points are pretty valid. Jack's character just seems crazy from the get go, instead of a sympathetic former English teacher, turned recovering alcoholic, who genuinely WANTS to be a better father and husband (as he's described in the book). The shining ability does feel like an afterthought in the film, unlike the book. And trying to be ambiguous with the supernatural in the film makes no sense when Grady unlocks the pantry door FROM THE OUTSIDE. I love this film, but even I can acknowledge its flaws.
When this movie first came out, it was almost universally panned by critics (especially from King himself). Stanley Kubrick was even nominated for "Worst Director" at the Razzies.
Your analysis is very fair, and I've actually enjoyed it very much.
What? The Razzies didn't exist when the movie came out. Are you thinking of Eyes Wide Shut?
@@itsaUSBline The first Razzies were held in 1981.
They sent him an apology years later... but I've always felt it ironic that a movie about ghosts felt so soulless. Like, the source is a ghost story, downplaying the supernatural parts seems counterintuitive. The character arcs are almost flat, the pacing is terrible, the only good part is actually the acting with what they were given
I don't care for this movie. I LOVE the book. It actually made me cry at the end. I love Dr. Sleep as well. I love King's books. It's okay that you don't like the books. If we all liked the same things, life could get petty boring.
Edit: There's so much I can say about this in response, but that would take soo long going through all of your points. I really enjoy your criticisms. There's just so much to add to your criticisms to add why those things aren't working as well.
Also, yeah, trans people have been around an extremely long time, throughout history there are plenty of examples of that. A lot of people don't know, or even look at history.
Okay back to the topic: Hallloran's death pisses me off so much. He didn't die in book. He's such a great character, and Kubrick just doesn't care about him at all! Grrrr!
Also, the problem I have with this movie is absolutely with Jack's characterization, and I also think this is why Stephan King was also pissed with the movie. Jack Torrance wasn't a bad person, just a man REALLY struggling with a terrible disease. And sober Jack is a completely different person in the books. It also hints that Jack himself also has the Shine, a factor in why he started drinking. In Dr. Sleep (the book, though I do think it's hinted in the movie as well, though I've only seen that movie once), this is expounded upon. But, I digress. In the book, and even in the made for TV series is shown rather well: Jack loves his son and his wife. Jack's descent is absolutely MUCH clearer to show the hotel's influence on Jack. What made me cry is Jack's last stand against the Hotel. I'm not going to spoil it here, but my god is it one of the most beautiful moments in the book, and this movie lost it. Doug Walker aka Nostalgia Critic (I know, I know we don't talk about him) makes this point in his critical review of the made for TV series that I felt the whole time. Jack Torrance in this film doesn't feel like he cares about his family. It's just a terrible person becoming a murderous person. He contended, which was a huge thing that I also thought and agreed with, was that Jack's character and arc is so much clearer and it makes you feel something for Jack and it's a much clearer telling of both the Hotel's influence on Jack and Jack's change. The made for TV series defintely had that over this movie. It was the one thing that I REALLY hated about the movie. Say what you will about the made for TV mini-series, it had a lot of flaws, but it at least had this.
There's so much I can say about this film. Is there some masterful camera shots, yes. Some of the scenes are amazing and great work for both direction and acting. But how they fit into the movie doesn't work in the context of the story. I don't know what Kubrick's message is. It's an issue here. I think that's why there's so many theories, because the messenging is confused on which story he was trying to tell.
Again, I'm not trying to say people who think this movie is a masterpiece are wrong. I can see some of the genius in both the cinematography, sound design, sets, acting, and film score. I'm a composer (that's what my degree is in for context), so the music language is definitely not lost on me. It's a brilliant score!
These are just some of my thoughts on why I agreed with you in many (if not all) of your points.
I would give The Shining book another chance, maybe try it on Audible or something. It's worth the read. Dr. Sleep, too, is great, if not better.
Okay, done ranting.
Firstly, can I just say thank you for all your content over the years. It was very helpful for me through some difficult times and inspired me to create my own channel, particularly doing my own Doctor Who reviews.
Secondly, I watched this movie last year when I did a reaction to it and I enjoyed it, I thought it was very suspenseful and had some lovely cinematography and I thought Jack Nicholson's portrayal was brilliant, but I was left very confused which I am not sure whether that was the original source materials fault or the movies fault. My comment section was a bit divisive on this movie too.
Well done on this deep dive and thank you once again for all the inspiration and support you have given me over the years.
Thank you for the video, Vera!
Considering all the "universal' praise over "The Shining" movie, I do appreciate somebody explaining why they sincerely do not like it (while also highlighting parts of it they actually like). Personally, I am very ambivalent about the movie. I do also praise how unsettling is the atmosphere of it.
Something which I really hate about theory crafting is how it tries to give creator's intent where there is none or it does not matter. Usually, the simplest explanation is the most probable reason for most things. Patterns on a rug are just patterns on a rug. And, seriously, inverting the colors of a movie scene in order to try explain the title font for the opening credits (8:28-8:33) is just nonsense!
My interpretation of the final scene of the movie: Jack dies and becomes one of the ball party ghosts stuck in the hotel.
37:13-40:10 I do really appreciate Vera's white board rant joke, especially the final shot behind of the board! LOL
I know you didn’t read the book but some of that stuff towards the end with the party people comes from a plot point in the novel where Jack is planning to write a book about the history of the Overlook hotel.
At some point in its past, mobsters owned the hotel and several gangland killings took place there(those two guys in the room were mob flunkies). Kubrick just ignored many of the subplots and character development from the book because of his own ideas of what to do visually (a flaw in a lot of his movies, imo).
Halloran does not die in the book but is injured and escapes with Danny and Wendy. He also plays mentor to Danny in Doctor Sleep where the shining powers are further expanded on. I know others have already mentioned the Doctor Sleep film but it is a damn good adaptation that makes up for some of the missteps in The Shining.
You really hit the nail the head when it comes to Nicholson’s performance; King strongly objected to his casting because Nicholson came off as “crazy” right from the jump. He’s a great actor but not very nuanced in this role.
I remember seeing Gothic years ago and caught your review the other day-that film is wild but in a much better way than The Shining. Ken Russell liked his visuals but also knew how to handle story there.
I hated the Shining, but I do want to somewhat defend one aspect. Re: his seemingly unprompted turn in attitude toward Wendy - I think the "unprompted" part could be the point. We know he is an abusive Alcoholic, and this is exactly what living with one can look like. The growing annoyance with Wendy doesn't need to be prompted by anything she does because she is not the source. It's an irrational rage, along the lines of "look at this bitch eating crackers"-type hatred. And what makes Alcoholic rage/violence so terrifying is that you never know when it is going to rear its proverbial head.
34:33 My theory why we don’t see Jack’s tipping over into madness (alas seeing him with signs of madness from the beginning): the hotel works like a mirror, psychoanalytic (in a broad sense) one. And mirrors are overtly present in the movie.
Also things are obviously visible for us like his “mad face” mentioned here are obvious because we saw them thousand times (as you said even if we didn’t watch the movie). And nowadays we perceive lot of Jack’s behaviors as red flags, obvious signals of coming violence. Then they were seen by a mainstream as “he’s just a troubled man” or by some even as typical male/father behavior.
Either way I agree with your general opinion. It’s not a good movie and would be much better with more consistent editing/pacing and paranormal elements left as innuendo
WOW, that wall of copyright time-stamps! I'm assuming that was a manual claim(s)? Unless the automatic system has changed? I've never had an automatic claim pop up for clips that are only 2-3 seconds long which some of the ones you showed were?? WHAT IS HAPPENING? 😭
I totally agree about the frozen jack scene. For whatever reason I had not watched this until a few years ago. I had read the book in my youth.
I have seen memes and such using that frozen face and always assumed it was just a pause in the movie giving that silly look. And when I watched it I also laughed. With all the beautiful visuals, that was used?
My issues with this movie both have to do with Jack. My first issue is that he's already crazy when he's not supposed to be. Jack Nicholson came off as unhinged even before the hotel got to him, to the point where it never felt like a tragedy like in the book. It felt like Jack was always crazy, the hotel just brought it out.
My second issue is how well Jack Nicholson plays the not-really-recovering alcoholic that hit way too close to home, the lines of "You know I wouldn't hurt you." and "You know I wouldn't hurt Mommy." hit right in my gut and just... I did NOT like that because Jack doesn't come across as a man who wouldn't hurt Danny or Wendy, he comes across as just finally having that reason to snap and kill them.
Which is why I wish they could've casted someone like Michael Keaton who was also a Batman alumn, but he'd be able to bring across the tragedy of Jack Torrance much better as well as go full axe-murderer.
I remember enjoying it when I was younger, but as I got older, I felt it was, I don't know trying too hard. part of it was the fact that since seeing it the first time I did read the book but still I agree that at what point did we see Jack be a good husband or father and his struggles with his drinking. I think seeing that would have made the movie 1000 times better (I know they tried with mini series which wasn't bad but it was Network tv so didn't have the same power to scare)
I'm a giant lover of this film, and I'm only halfway through this right now but I'm LIVING for your thoughtful critiques. I agree with much of it and it only enhances the experience of the film for me to be able to see these issues.
I'd love for you to see Doctor Sleep with Ewan McGregor as Danny Torrance. It's a completely different approach to the same story, it's divisive with fans of the OG, and it's FANTASTIC.
Personally I like how basic the credits are. I don’t know, it just adds to it for me.
In fact, I kind of take that in most of your critiques. The kinds of things you seem to hate are pretty much what I love about it. I love how disjointed it feels. I love how drawn out several of the shots are. You say that it makes no sense, and I agree. That’s what I enjoy about it.
Oh hey, someone here who actually gets it.
That's fair too I think!! I have plenty of movies that I love despite them having issues in writing/execution/etc. It's nice that you like the movie and don't have the same issues with it :)
Thank you, I needed to hear someone else say this! I watched the Shining and couldn't understand why it was so hyped up. I laughed at some parts, was mostly bored, but nothing about it seemed particularly special or groundbreaking. And normally I like slower paced, moody, atmospheric media. In addition to that, I didn't like the treatment of the sole Black character (who comes back to just immediately and anticlimactically die) and not to mention Kubrick's treatment of the actors esp Shelley Duvall behind the scenes. I'll forever loathe Kubrick for how he abused his actors.
I agree. Weirdly enough Duvall has said she thinks of Kubrick warmly and that he was a lovely person, but regardless it doesn't justify what he's done and it's more of a testament of Duvalls character in viewing this stuff.
I really like the film (and the book) but of course I am not an asshole for people not liking it. I do however think you actually put the nail on the head with the thoughts you have about the photograph in the ending, the questions are the answer if you understand what I mean. It's like when you watch moder art and it maybe doesn't give you a clear point of view, or story or pattern but it just raises questions and maybe frustrates people. For me at least, that is the point.
Indeed. For it’s just like 2001. You’re not supposed to be able to quantify it because the ambiguity IS the point.
Gonna tell my kids The Shining is the prequel to One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.
The scene where Danny is Big Wheeling around the hotel deliberately cuts in ways that make you feel subconsciously like "something's off"....what's happening is they edited it in such a way as to intentionally make walls, doorways and corridors inconsistent with what should be parallel versus what should be perpendicular.
They do it in other scenes, too. You're supposed to subconsciously be disoriented in a way you can't quite put your finger on.
...and I figured this out in a detox/recovery facility watching The Shining sober and otherwise clear-headed. The sudden onset of clarity acted for me as a sort of "decoder ring" leading me to "Say to" Stanley Kubrick, "I see what you did there".
A number of years ago, I did a fairly negative video on THE SHINING. I'm not 100% sure what happened, I think a bunch of angry Kubrick fans got it flagged, because it was removed from TH-cam for "misleading information".
I personally LOVE the shining, legit my fav film, but I totally respect your opinion. I love how it’s a simple story of abuse in an isolated environment, which already seems interesting/tense to me, but there’s so much more to it. I LOVE that the overlook is portrayed more as a character than as a location. It truly feels intense and menacing, while still being subtle. I LOVE all the actors performances and how real their characters feel. Shelly Duvall portrays terror accurately and Jack nickelson’s performance in simply iconic. I LOVE the pacing and how utterly tense this film is, it only lets go of its intensity at the end. I love the ballroom scenes, such an interesting and unique way of depicting typical horror. I love the music!!! I love the cinematography!!! I love the production!!! There are so many iconic scenes and moments. I LOVE how many different themes and theories can/are explored here. I LOVE that even though Jack dies, the horrors of the overlook are never defeated.
Simply put, I love the vibe.
In the book (yes I'm one of those) Jack has a...I would call it a coping mechanism, of chewing over the counter painkillers dry. He started it when he was still drinking because of the hangovers. In the Hotel, before he starts drinking again, he already resorted to chewing those painkillers because the Hotel gave him a headache. I am not sure why they didn't put something as simple as that in the movie to clearly show the hotel affecting Jack, and how bad it gets (going from one pill a day to several at once multiple times a day) it would have taken a couple of seconds each "day" to show that. Or maybe that's exactly why they didn't use it because this movie appears not to be able to do shots of just a few seconds.
Not a fan of slow cinema, eh? This is the first time I've heard anyone suggest this film should have quicker edits. That would destroy the hypnotic quality most people love about it.
Plot is secondary to most Kubrick films. I'm sure you could deconstruct 2001 and go on and on about how it doesn't "make sense," but to what purpose? It's the aesthetics of the total experience that matters.
As someone who likes this cluster f*ck of a movie, I respect your opinions and can see why others have issues with it. It’s a movie I don’t think anyone should take seriously considering how uneven the pacing is, and that bear guy cracks me the hell up for how stupid and nonsensical it is. Like what is the meaning of that, Film Bros? 😂 Well, at least this video inspired me to check out Gothic, which I haven’t seen.
As someone who loves this movie, meaning of the bear guy? It’s just supposed to be weird and scary. The guy in the novel actually has a whole backstory and characterisation and Kubrick just got right of it.
In the book, he is desperately in love with a man who allows him to give him blowjobs but other than that mainly seems to want him around to humiliate him.
They snuck off during a masquerade party, that's why he is dressed like that. And he is supposed to be a dog, not a bear.
@@samuelbarber6177 "It’s just supposed to be weird and scary" that describes the whole movie. how is that a masterpiece and not just "yeah, entertaining!"
@@magical571 well, for me, a movie can be a masterpiece while just being entertaining if it’s really well made like this one is.
I mean, I love the movie too, even though it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense at times. I also love The Country Bears despite how flawed that one is as well. 😅
Holy shit, somebody else on the planet feels the way I do about this piece of garbage. The Shining is in my "top 10" of worst movies I've ever seen.
Do you like any of Kubrick's films? Just curious.
@Anton-i2o I've actually only seen A Clockwork Orange, which i also didn't care for, despite loving Malcom McDowell
@@Anton-i2o 2001 a space odyssey is the only good film Kubrick ever made
@@Jake-nm3tb Ever see The Killing? Paths of Glory? Dr Strangelove?
Them’s some fighting words. I’m getting my pitchfork and torch ready!
Get ready to insert "you just don't understand it" style comments. That's the modern way of doing things, right? 😁
@@Elwaves2925 I don't know, but I'm rewatching 'The Shining' and 'Doctor Sleep' out of spite for this review. xD
@@ThisIsMyName-2 I've seen one comment like that in here but yeah, this video is also pushing me to rewatch the original.
@@Elwaves2925 I completely respect her opinion, and even enjoyed this video, despite that ‘The Shining’ is one of my all-time favorites.
I’m a huge Kubrick fan as well as a huge Stephen King fan! That said, even Stephen King has stated his complaints over Kubrick’s adaptation.
@@ThisIsMyName-2 Same here regarding Vera and their opinion. I don't agree with it but of course, that's how opinion works.
I also think the film is classic but it's not one of my all-time faves, although it's up there.
I definitely like a good selection of Kubrick's work, 2001 and Full Metal Jacket being at the top but I am a King fan, especially his earlier works. Yeah, King has aired his views but it's also why I treat movies and books as completely separate entities.
Omg, thank you for finally saying it 😭 I don’t know why people insist that this is such a masterpiece, I just don’t see the appeal of it :’)
The best part about the movie is the print on the carpet which gets boring after about 30 seconds of staring at it😂❤
People literally are obsessed with some thing that’s different…
Even if it’s boring, rushed/Delayed in all the wrong places, incomplete in terms of storytelling and full of Common movie tropes in lieu of actual storytelling…(Takes breath) Different.
Did I mention the under/over directed acting… Yeah… Kubrick was more concerned with mind games than the guy was with making a coherent film.
All that being said…
…I’m ready to watch/listen to, this essay. LFG
The most horror I've experienced from the Shining is when you said it's been nearly a decade since Dear Dominic Noble covered it
I agree with a lot of what you say. But when you look at Kubrick, he loves long shots, long scenes, and, I mean, 2001 makes even less sense. He was often more about the art, less about the story. His films are a Mona Lisa smile, if you will. Annoying for some, loved by others.
From my admittedly limited perspective
(I only know both book and movie through reputation and haven't read or watched them start to finish) is that the "You've always been the Caretaker" shtick is that the Hotel, like many other haunted houses, continues repeating the dark events that happened there with new people in place of the original perpetrators. Thus "Caretaker/Murderer" is the role Grady played most recently and telling Jack he's always been that is the Hotel through him trying to talk him into accepting the role and playing out the part the same way Grady and presumably other Caretakers before have. Sort of like saying "this is the part you were born to play," so a little bit of both "Jack was/wasn't fated for this." His personality resonated with the archetype of the Caretaker/Murderer, and so the Hotel felt familiar to him despite it being his first time there, and the Hotel is playing on that familiarity and/or vulnerability to convince Jack to fully embody the role and repeat the cycle.
I love The Shining movie. In fact, it's the movie I credit with sparking my newfound love of horror movies! But at the time I first watched it, I hadn't read the book yet. I never thought the movie was perfect, but now that I'm reading the book, I'm noticing more and more flaws with it and I kinda get why Stephen King hated the movie so much. 😂 I really feel like the novel expands on every aspect of the story in more detail, and I can't help but think if Stanley Kubrick hadn't put so many long, drawn out shots in the movie, he would've had more time to flesh out the details. But all that being said, I still think the movie will have a special place in my heart for being one of the first horror movies I fell in love with, but I can agree that it's a bit overrated. Also, Doctor Sleep is way better in my opinion! I highly recommend giving that one a try!
And yet despite all these flaws it is one of the best movies of all times :-)
Amen.
Sure.
OK, do you want to film theory about the shining?
Here’s one
Stanley Kubrick wears a mask. Behind the mask is a disjointed out of control roller coaster ride of emotions getting better one day and back sliding months, years even the next.
Simply put the film is a display of all the ways that Kubrick’s shadow self slips through the cracks in the mask.
What I don’t know, is if the film itself is pure slippage or an attempt to integrate?
I don’t care enough about Kubrick’s legacy to look into it further😂
Maybe that would make it still more than anything if he uses Jack as odd seldf insert. The criticism remind me of menos, hands of fate, which is to be fair due a bet by a n amateur of limited budget and time. .
Which isnt a great on Kubric as comparison.
I am very much a "I like the atmosphere of the movie too much to notice the negatives" person, so this video gave me something to think about and maybe try to mull over while rewatching a movie if I ever get to it
Nice vid!
JUst reading the title for this made me smile as someone who finds the movie just fine. I saw it knowing it was considered a classic horror, watched it, want 'okay', then found out how high up on a pedestal it was held and was confused as hell. I get plenty of people having it as a favorite film cause we have our own taste, but so many people thinking it deserves praise even when its not their favorite is... weird.
P.S. 1:23 the confused spite rant sent my brain straight to Twilight lol
I know I keep saying the intro in every other one of your videos is the best yet but you just keep raising the bar
I am so glad someone else is finally saying these things... I have personally never liked the Shining . There are 2 other movies everyone raves over that I can't stand . Those being 2001 A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange... THANK YOU so much... I agree these movies has some good scenes in them but over all they do not land right with me.
Clockwork Orange always looked cheep to me.
@@stephennootens916 TBH I feel it started out interesting but pretty soon it lost me
"Dr. Strangelove" and "Eyes Wide Shut" are the only Kubrick movies I like (or can even watch, really). So right here with you about "2001" and "A Clockwork Orange."
@@zarakjthompson I love Dr Strangerlove
@@zarakjthompson I was going to say I almost made it through Eyes Wide Shut
Hallorann is my favorite character in The Shining (book) because hes extremely important to the story and the movie misses the point of him completely. When we got to the scene in the movie where Hallorann talks to Danny I was really disappointed because it felt so cold and awkward. The point of Hallorann being there is that hes a kindred spirit to Danny. Hes a kind older man who understands what Danny's going through in a way that literally no one else can because they both have this gift that is the shining.
At one point in the book(and i might be misremembering slightly its been about a year since i finished it), Hallorann has to grab gasoline or something for the snowcat in the shed and his eyes fall on the mallets on the wall (the same weapon jack uses in the book). The hotel tries to take influence on Halloran but it doesn't work. It shows how different Dick is from Jack. Dick has frustrations the hotel could exploit but he pulls away to help this kid he hardly knows where Jack, as much as i do believe he loves his son, was influenced.
That scene is really important to me because it kinda shows how desprate the hotel is getting to kill them before they get away. How much the hotel has influenced Jack over time that hes practically a complete puppet at this point, willing to kill his own family, while a kind acquaintance has enough will to break away.
The epilogue scene is also really sweet... I feel like Hallorann is a father figure to Danny, maybe more like an uncle. He understands Danny like no one else and just wants to protect this kid. Something Hallorann probably never got at his age considering while its not terribly unlikely to find others with the shining, its uncommon to find someone who shines that bright and its not something that can be explained by your parents or peers because... Its not really genetic and most people dont have it and the ones who do dont really understand it.
sorry im defiantly in the camp of "don't like the movie because i read the book first" but i always felt like the movie felt kinda... empty. like its missing ALLLL of the important buildup and intrigue thats so good in the book.
I've only ever finished short stories by Stephen King. He just takes so long to get the story going, and my ADHD already struggles to stay interested long enough to keep going. I actually really like his son Joe Hill's books. Similar horror vibes, but the story starts right away and the pace keeps me reading. Highly recommend The Fireman, it's long but my absolute favorite.
Early King had habit of spending a bit more on charecters and backstory. It is the character work that made his work stick out but he can do it with less words when he does short stories. Some of his later work like The Cell and Under The Dome starts in chapter one. The Cell is so lot you could almost think it wasn't King.
Also Joe Hill is amazing.
It’s interesting to see The Shining discussed as a “bad” movie, but I think many of the critiques miss what makes it a unique and powerful film. (note that doesn’t mean it’s for everyone)
The Shining’s Importance:
The Shining itself-Danny and Dick Hallorann’s psychic abilities-are crucial. Dick’s reaction when Danny brings up Room 237 clearly shows that Danny pulled the thought from Dick’s mind, which surprises and worries him. This supernatural connection provides solid evidence that the ghosts and the hotel’s influence are real, not just in Jack’s head. Without it the ambiguity of the film would take it a bridge to far in my opinion.
Jack’s Character:
The critique about Jack lacking personality is intentional. He’s stopped drinking but hasn’t done the work to find out who he is without alcohol. This is what’s often referred to as a "dry drunk," someone who has quit the substance but hasn’t developed healthy coping mechanisms or self-awareness. Living in this state leaves people vulnerable to relapse, new addictions, and poor coping habits. For Jack, it’s not alcohol that consumes him this time-it’s the evil of the hotel. His failure to address his deeper issues, whether due to ignorance or not knowing how to seek help, makes him susceptible to the hotel’s influence.
Building Unease Through Shots:
The long shots and uncomfortable pacing are purposeful. They build a subtle, lingering tension that something is "off." Kubrick uses these extended scenes, particularly the bike sequence, to showcase the hotel’s inconsistent, impossible layout, which adds to our discomfort. The hotel’s architecture doesn’t make sense, and that’s the point. Kubrick plays with our subconscious to create unease without relying on jump scares or gore.
It’s important to remember that films can focus on story or mood. In some ways, The Shining forsakes story for emotion, but not to the extreme of arthouse cinema. Kubrick uses the film to evoke a mood, much like poetry compared to a traditional narrative. The goal isn’t just to tell a story but to make the audience feel deeply unsettled.
Room 237 and Danny’s Curiosity:
Danny entering Room 237 is simple: he’s a kid. Children are naturally drawn to forbidden things, especially when warned to stay away. But it’s more than just curiosity-his prophetic visions and Tony’s warnings try to protect him and his family from the hotel’s dangers. It’s his experience in this room that are too much for his mind and allow Tony to take over completely. It is then Tony who reaches out to Hallorann for help. “Danny’s not here Mrs. Torance”
Jack’s Transformation:
Jack’s seamless shift into obsessive writing is meant to be jarring. It’s the moment where his internal emptiness starts to lose its grip, allowing the hotel’s influence to creep in. He hasn’t fully fallen to the hotel yet, but this is where we see the first cracks. His mind begins to obsess over his next “drink,” except this time, the drink is his submission to the hotel.
The shot of Jack glaring out the window as Wendy and Danny play in the snow foreshadows his descent. He’s already losing control, unknowingly becoming a pawn for the hotel. The look on his face during the scene foreshadows the consequences of this internal struggle-he’s on the brink of giving in to the hotel’s seduction, just as he once gave in to alcohol.
Hallorann’s Death and Its Purpose:
Dick Hallorann’s death is shocking because it’s so sudden after his long, suspenseful journey. This unexpected turn serves a narrative purpose, showing that even those with the Shining aren’t immune to the hotel’s power. His death adds to the film’s unpredictability and increases the sense that maybe no one gets out alive.
Fate or Vulnerability?
The film raises a compelling question: is Jack fated to repeat this cycle, as the final photo suggests, or is he simply a vulnerable man with deep flaws that make him prey to supernatural forces? This debate parallels the real-world conversation around addiction. Is an addict destined to fall, or are they predisposed but capable of being saved? In Jack’s case, I’d argue he’s predisposed but unwilling to address the core issues behind his addiction, leaving him open to the hotel’s influence and falling back into old patterns even without alcohol. Ultimately, Jack’s fate seems tied to his failure to ever truly find himself.
The Final Photo:
That final photo of Jack in the hotel’s history cements his total loss of self. He’s been fully consumed, integrated into the hotel’s evil, just as he was once consumed by alcohol.
All of this being said, I want to first say some of the in-depth analysis of this film ignore the emotional point to explore their theories and I’d argue that also misses to point of the film. I also want to recognize that I can see where Kubric’s method of building tension could be off putting to someone who watches the movie focused on story over emotions. That doesn’t’ mean you are doing movies wrong it just means that work that sacrifices story for feeling might not be for you. I'd challenge you to give it one more watch, but this time turn off your analytical mind and see how you feel watching the movie.
Finally, an admission. I’m both a Jack Nicolson and Stanly Kubrick fan boy. It could be my fandom that making me see things that aren’t there. Or, is my keyboard really haunted???
I think these supernatural events in the film don't really work for me if you know that in the original book it was really a cursed hotel, and these things occur of course, but the joke is the film, unfortunately it goes in the direction of a chamber game.
Above all, because I think it's interesting and clear, I'm talking to someone who knows the book, but the thing with Jack in the book is that he has his dark sides but tries to suppress them until at some point he no longer has them works and completely crazy. In the story he tried to be the real good father but he's just not good until the shadows finally swallow him up.
And something like that is just more shocking when two sides of a person really exist and not just one is fake.
I am a Stephen King fan, but i hadnt read The Shining until, like, a uear ago. Jack Nicholson in general just gives me the creeps for vague reasons i cant explain, but the final scene of his death in this movie in particular freaked me the hell out so i didnt appreciate any of this movie until later.
Basically, i dont even go here but i like your videos and opinions so here i am. Thanks for the entertainment and thoughtfulness
I feel the same way about E.T.
I couldn't believe it when you recommended _Gothic_ as your _Shining_ alternative. I haven't seen that film since it came out and barely remember it (I just recalled some of the cast and that, at the time, I thought it was bizarre), but c'mon, nobody remembers that film! Heck, until you mentioned the synth score, I thought you would mention something more like _The Haunting_ (the 1963 version). Now I feel like I need a _Gorhic_ rewatch; how funny that you brought it up.
I agree with nearly every thing you said about _The Shining_ as a film - I think it's baffling how many people love it and, while occasionally beautiful, I find it more frustrating than frightening. I do quite love the book, though; you might try an audio version in future if you ever decide to give it another go and don't think the print version will do it for you.
Regardless, thanks for this vid!
Never having seen The Shining all the way through, I have neither praise nor condemnation for your opinion of it, except that its certainly a perspective on it I've never heard before, which made it interesting.
My one gripe is this: at the beginning of the film, you offer the deal to the film and theory Bros and say you don't want to engage with them...and then you keep going back to take shots at them.
And like, the first time, it felt like "haha, funny callback", but then by the third or fourth time you went back to that well, it kinda felt like you were picking a fight with them? Just felt a little unnecessary compared to the wider critique.
Otherwise, loved the video!
Edit: tell you what, now you got me wondering what youd think of the '97 tv miniseries lol
I didn’t think either of them were good. The mini series just felt to insecure of the original source material. I’ve just resigned myself to never getting an adaptation I like.
I disagree with enough of your points to explain why we come to a different overall good/bad film conclusion, but you sure as shit did your due diligence! And this was an excellent and entertaining essay (as usual)!
Movies don't start and end at your convenience. There is no need for conspiracy when the obvious is weird enough.
It’s a movie I enjoy, particularly because of Shelly Duvall’s performance. I honestly think I really connected with me as a kid because I had an abusive parent. But it certainly shouldn’t be above many deserved criticisms.
I think I remember taking Jack being in the picture at the end that his ghost is now part of the hotel's cast of ruined, murdered people. I found it quite chilling because it didn't offer any explanation.
Idk I just love it, it's the only 3 hour movie that feels like 1:30 to me the pacing is so satisfying