Skip to main content

I wish we could stay here forever... and ever... and ever.


The Shining
(1980)

It has been suggested that Kubrick’s adaption of The Shining was in part a reaction to the mediocre box office takings of Barry Lyndon; the director needed to prove he was commercially viable, so he set out with the star of his aborted Napoleon film down an overtly populist road. At the same time, there’s a view that it was borne out of need to be deemed relevant, much as A Clockwork Orange fired him up almost a decade before. The ‘70s was a decade where big commercial horrors had broken out (for which Rosemary’s Baby paved the way), although I suspect Kubrick was more impressed by The Exorcist than The Omen.


Whatever the truth of the matter, the finished film most emphatically did not meet with Stephen King’s approval. The author went as far as voicing the opinion that Kubrick did not understand the horror genre. Though how scary a fearsome topiary would have been on celluloid is up for debate. I think it’s probably true to say that Kubrick wasn’t only interested in making a scary film, other impulses are bound to amass and filter in; the film I’d compare it to most in his back catalogue is 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not that I think The Shining is on that heightened plane, but it has a similar willingness to push the viewer in a direction where answers will never be forthcoming. We are left with, foremost, resonance. And then inconclusive debate over what means what. The filmmaker’s tools too, are not so different when tackling this genre. The approach to sound in both films is very similar (2001 must be the eeriest U certificate film ever) and long, slow takes without dialogue encourage the viewer’s imagination to push in multiple directions to fill the gaps that most filmmakers are frightened to leave unplugged. (in my review of A Clockwork Orange I said the film in his oeuvre that was most comparable was The Shining, and in terms of presentation of the central character I’d maintain that, but on this viewing it was 2001 that most consistently came to mind.)


The Shining feels in some ways like Kubrick’s least “artful” film, in the way it embraces the bold and in-your-face (the director repeatedly opted to use Nicholson’s most extreme takes); at times in the last half you might be watching a live action Warner Bros cartoon. So heightened is the action that you’re not sure if you’re supposed to laugh or scream (Sam Raimi would later tip this over into the former with Evil Dead II). As in A Clockwork Orange, this willingness to cross the line into queasy, unsettling humour seems to be a reference point for a director who wants to provoke his audience. It’s debatable whether The Shining has any commentary underneath the filmmaking prowess, certainly not the one King intended (he opined that his themes of the disintegration of the family and alcoholism were cast aside). Indeed, Kubrick stripped away the book replacing the unquestionable presence of the supernatural with (mostly – ultimately this is less subjective than say Jack Clayton’s The Innocents) less definable impulses. 



The result is a focus on human conflict rather than ghostly chills. I’m not sure how successful that is; for me, the film is at its best during the first half, before Danny’s experience in Room 237. During this section, the character of the hotel envelops us with ever-increasing unease, afflicting us with disturbing images and sounds. The long steadicam shots are punctuated with short sharp shocks (the twins, the elevator) as Danny sees more and more of what the Overlook wants to show him. In contrast, the lunatic Nicholson and frantic Duvall of the second half seem like much safer territory (admittedly I’m talking with the hindsight of repeated viewings).


I’m not generally a huge fan of the horror genre, but entries I rate tend to put chills and atmosphere before hacks and slashes. The Shining has only one element of the latter here, the film’s Psycho moment, as Kubrick kills a character who survives in the book. You can almost see the glee with which he axes the most sympathetic person in the film, and potential savior of Danny and Wendy. That kind of decision may link in to another criticism King made, that Kubrick “thinks too much and feels to little” (something that would certainly explain why he willfully gave Shelley Duvall such a hard time in order to elicit the desired performance). 



Whether you think Kubrick elevated the source material or shat on it will likely depend on how much of a fan of King you are. I think Kubrick’s choice to reduce the supernatural elements of the film was a smart one; by keeping them on a constant periphery he imbues the piece with a constant dread far more affecting than matter-of-fact revelation. That said, it appears that this approach was, to some extent, a consequence of Kubrick’s own skepticism about such areas as ghosts and life-after-death. For King, Jack Torrance was afflicted by supernatural forces, while Kubrick was more interested in his inner demons breaking forth. It also means that the couple of instances where a subjective explanation doesn’t wash stand out to the viewer and provoke more examination than a more literal approach would. Kubrick was unequivocal in interviews that it was his intention for there to have an underlying supernatural element, but the line between that being for narrative purposes (to pull the rug from under an audience that may be swayed towards an “all in his mind” explanation) and a result of the predisposition of the auteur himself is up for debate.


Most obvious of these is Jack’s escape from the locked larder. It’s the point at which the viewer has no option but to accept a non-corporeal answer as no one but the (unseen) Grady could be responsible (unless we are to assume that Jack has telekinetic powers, and this is never intimated). Kubrick stressed this as a turning point, although co-writer of the screenplay Diane Johnson commented that she and Kubrick realized in the course of writing the film that they wouldn’t be able to give every instance in the film multiple readings. My feeling is that, by accident or design, it is a narrative element the helps to explain the lingering power of the film; our attempts to grasp clearly what is happening are just out of reach. Not willfully elusive as in a David Lynch film, but with just enough sense of design that we feel sure it makes sense somehow.


I’m not convinced there is a “correct” reading. It seems to me that even Kubrick didn’t end up with something definitive (the script went through constant daily revisions during its year-long shoot). He said of the final reveal, another pointer to a conclusively supernatural element;

The ballroom photograph at the end suggests the reincarnation of Jack.

Meaning that Torrance had previously lived in the hotel in the 1920s. Proponents of this interpretation have pointed to the reference Grady (Philip Stone plays the murderer of his family, and was also Alex’s dad in A Clockwork Orange) makes to Jack having always been living at the hotel, and that Grady too may represent a reincarnated soul destined to return forever to the Overlook. Grady is referred to as both Charles (the caretaker who axed his family and shot himself about 10 years earlier) and Delbert (the butler in the 1920s sequences).


I prefer the interpretation that the photograph represents Jack having been “absorbed” by the hotel, becoming part of its history and future (so he would not have been in that photo prior to his death). That feels like a better fit with the representation of the edifice as a character and entity in its own right during the first half of the film. The reincarnation idea may suggest that we are to believe that Jack is predestined to experience this, but it seems somewhat disconnected to the character we see; as an explanation we don’t react with, “Of course” but, “Er, okay….”


Adding to the suggestion that there is no clear explanation for the photo is the original coda that Kubrick removed a week after opening the film. Here we learn that Jack’s body was not found. Roger Ebert was of the view that excising the scene prevented the film from being too ungraspable for the viewer.

If Jack did indeed freeze to death in the labyrinth, of course his body was found—and sooner rather than later, since Dick Hallorann alerted the forest rangers to serious trouble at the hotel. If Jack's body was not found, what happened to it? Was it never there? Was it absorbed into the past and does that explain Jack's presence in that final photograph of a group of hotel party-goers in 1921? Did Jack's violent pursuit of his wife and child exist entirely in Wendy's imagination, or Danny's, or theirs?... Kubrick was wise to remove that epilogue. It pulled one rug too many out from under the story. At some level, it is necessary for us to believe the three members of the Torrance family are actually residents in the hotel during that winter, whatever happens or whatever they think happens.

I’m not so sure; I think the photograph has that effect anyway. A missing body only cements it. It would rather diminish Kubrick’s favoured reincarnation angle, though. I could see the director’s reasoning that it was one definably supernatural element too many; the doubt is already in the mind of the viewer and any further reinforcing of it is unnecessary. 


The other supernatural element is Danny’s strangulation. At the time we are willing to conceive, as Wendy does, that it was Jack who laid hands upon him (as this takes place before the larder lock-in). But Danny emphatically does not accuse his father, and unless we buy into Jack’s explanation that Danny inflicted this upon himself and then lied we are left with only the ghostly. It also makes sense in terms of the hotel having designs on Jack (attacking Danny to lure Jack to the room), a change from the novel where Danny is the object of the hotel’s intentions.


Roger Ebert also suggested that the film resists allowing us a reliable observer (like 2001 it does not guide us through narration, and unlike Lolita, A Clockwork Orange or Barry Lyndon), making it a film about madness rather than ghosts. There’s no doubt that Jack is identified as unreliable, and by the time of the climax Wendy (previously unsusceptible) is freaking out, running into apparitions hither and thither. And while Danny is aligned with Scatman Crothers’ Dick Hallorann, who we do trust as reliable - and therefore when he sees visions of what has happened in the hotel we are inclined to believe he is seeing what is there - the events in Room 237 are oblique enough for us to doubt him. His ensuing near-catatonia and tranced intonation of “Redrum” pushes us toward the hysterical Wendy for a while (we are back with Danny by the time of the maze finale, though).


It’s probably worth mentioning the US cut. This ran to 144 minutes (with the coda it was 146 minutes) while the European cut was 119 minutes. Most of the “additions” (the European cut came later) are frontloaded in the first third of the film, spelling out elements that the European audience is encouraged to work out for themselves. Jack’s explanation for his abuse of Danny in the European cut has resonance because we only hear the abuser speak about what happened, and attempt to justify himself (a knock-on of this is perhaps that it looks a bit like Danny “triggers” Jack when he asks his father if he would ever hurt him or his mother). Identification of Jack’s alcoholism is at best oblique in the European cut, and we are left to guess why there is no alcohol at the Overlook. Also reinforced in the US cut is Jack’s connection to the Overlook, his sense of déjà vu and having been at the hotel before. As to which was Kubrick’s preferred version, the shorter version was the one he worked on last, and approved for initial home video release in the US, so that may be the answer. Most people seem to agree that the inclusion of Wendy happening upon the skeletons sat around a dining table was not the most effective of moments.


The director’s intentions are much debated too in respect of the numerous continuity “errors” in the film. You can read about some of them on the imdb FAQs page for the film. There is a school of thought that Kubrick was so meticulous about every stage of his film that any apparent error must, in fact, be intentional on his part. If that is the case, the question becomes how overtly one wishes to read meaning into any individual instance. Something like the typewriter changing colour must have a specific intent (relating this to the genocide of the Native Americans is a surprising one, though). And I can quite believe that the changing positions of drapes and paintings are relevant in the way that Gordon Stainforth (great name) comments of the geography of the Overlook. Which was purposefully unreal, so it makes sense that this would extend to the furnishings (much has been written, and youtubed, on the spatial confusion of the Overlook (this is evident right from the opening sequence, where there is no maze in the grounds of the hotel).

Gordon Stainforth assistant editor:

I don't doubt that some of Stanley's 'continuity errors' may [...] have been deliberate. Almost as jests to get the pedants excited e.g. the typewriter changing color [...] Also to create the dream/nightmare ambience of the film (despite its deliberately 'realistic' and well-lit, superficial appearance). Another key point, similar to the continuity one: people have tried to work out the geography/layout of the Overlook Hotel, without success, and without realizing that they have missed the point completely. This is not a real 3D place, but a place which exists in the viewer's imagination. Each person who sees The Shining builds up their own personal image of the hotel from the disparate fragments they are provided with.

I’m not especially convinced by most attempts to analyse the film toward a unified interpretation. Readings have been made that it is about the Holocaust. Then there’s the massacre of family as metaphor for the massacre of the Native American. Yes, there’s the Indian burial ground site signposting and there are minor references dotted through the film but it seems like a lot of work is needed to sell that, particularly given the wildly veering tone that Kubrick opts for (we aren’t being informed of anything earnestly, that’s for certain). At the same time, given how meticulous Kubrick was, I don’t doubt that it was an element that he considered. But on themes of racial hatred and violence, it can’t be a coincidence that we hear Grady disgustedly refer to Hallorann as “nigger” to Jack and Torrance later gleefully axes the poor man in the chest.


One intriguing idea suggests that the image on The Shining poster of the face in the lettering is intended to represent an evil version of 2001’s Star Child, proponents pointing to Bowman arriving at what looks like a richly furnished hotel room at the end of the film. There are also the conspiratorial mutterings that link it (and most of the director’s filmography) to exposing the Illuminati (which culminates with Eyes Wide Shut, for which the director was murdered… )


The most famous aspect of the film is Jack Nicholson’s huge performance as Jack Torrance, of course. It would be wrong to call it an albatross around his neck, but there’s a very clear line drawn in his career with hindsight; post-Shining willingness to mug away or coast on charisma for big bucks and pre-Shining serious actor. I don’t think that’s quite fair (particularly as the broadness is all down to Kubrick), but you do wonder quite how Kubrick intended for his finished film to be seen. I like Nicholson’s performance; it’s unsettling and hilarious and heightened. In that sense, it’s a natural progression from McDowell in A Clockwork Orange. But there’s little doubt that it punctures the atmosphere that has been carefully built up in the opening sections. Kubrick’s approach is said to be one of not attempting realism but finding truth. I’m not so clear what the truth of the Wylie Coyote-Road Runner interactions between Jack and Wendy is, however. 


King thought Nicholson was all-wrong because he was clearly on the verge of going nuts in the first scene. Which is a fair call if you want a straight translation of the book. King had in mind Jon Voight or Michael Moriarty. Apparently Kubrick considered De Niro (not psychotic enough) and Robin Williams (too psychotic) and even Harrison Ford (King might have been okay with that choice).


Then there’s Shelly Duvall as Wendy Torrance. The tales of her persecution by Kubrick are legend, and Kubrick’s choice to make her a submissive character compared to the novel is questionable. It’s unclear if she became so trampled before or after Duvall was cast, although Johnson notes that much of her dialogue was cut by Kubrick. Apparently Jack Nicholson suggested Jessica Lange (more in keeping with King’s blonde cheerleader type from the novel). I used to find Duvall’s performance incredibly irritating, but now it seems to be a curious mirror to Nicholson’s, as OTT in an opposite direction. Her pathetic waving of the knife at Jack on the stairs is as funny as Jack snatching at it, and her hyperventilating hysteria is extreme as Jack’s leering rage.


The other lead is Danny Lloyd (now a science teacher) whose performance kicked off a run of outstanding child lead performances in the early ‘80s (see also Time Bandits, E.T.). There’s never a moment where you’re distracted by inexperience or preciousness, and he’s all the more impressive when you consider that it was Scatman, not Lloyd, who reached wits’ end over the endless takes demanded by his actors in the “shining” discussion kitchen scene.


The Shining received a resoundingly underwhelmed response at the time. It was snubbed by proper critics and labeled disrespectful by those who held the novel in esteem. It was also nominated for a couple of Razzies in the inaugural year of the awards. But it did well at the box office, so Kubrick succeeded in one of his goals. And like a number of early ‘80s horrors (The Thing) its reputation has only grown since. Spielberg recounted how he admitted to Kubrick that he didn’t love it on first viewing and thought that Nicholson’s performance was too big (Kubrick countered that Jimmy Cagney was one of his favourite actors). Even the endless pop culture referencing of the film has done nothing to diminish it.


Perhaps The Shining has endured precisely because of the tonal range it contains. The theatricality of Nicholson and the eerie, agoraphobic ambience of the Overlook. The depiction of mental disintegration and the ghostly visions. Like 2001, it creates a hypnotic atmosphere that makes it hard to look away even when Danny turns a corner on his trike to be face by terrifying twins. And also like 2001 it doesn’t patronize its audience with pat answers, even distancing us from easy character identification. It succeeds in a different way to A Clockwork Orange, although both are shamelessly provoking their audience. Orange leaves us debating our emotional response to it, our identification (on whatever level) with the violent impulses of its protagonist. The Shining is more elusive, as it seems designed to trouble us in a less tangible way. I mentioned Lynch earlier (whom Kubrick was a big fan of) and there’s a sense with this film, as with Lynch’s work, that analysis will come to naught (even though we try anyway). It’s the resonance of the film that is most important, which is resistant to interrogation. . As Kubrick observes:

A story of the supernatural cannot be taken apart and analysed too closely. The ultimate test of its rationale is whether it is good enough to raise the hairs on the back of your neck. If you submit it to a completely logical and detailed analysis it will eventually appear absurd. In his essay on the uncanny, Das Unheimliche, Freud said that the uncanny is the only feeling which is more powerfully experienced in art than in life. If the genre required any justification, I should think this alone would serve as its credentials.


****1/2



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke (the answer is: Mad Max: Fury Road )? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

It’ll be like living in the top drawer of a glass box.

Someone’s Watching Me! (1978) (SPOILERS) The first of a pair of TV movies John Carpenter directed in the 1970s, but Someone’s Watching Me! is more affiliated, in genre terms, to his breakout hit ( Halloween ) and reasonably successful writing job ( The Eyes of Laura Mars ) of the same year than the also-small-screen Elvis . Carpenter wrote a slew of gun-for-hire scripts during this period – some of which went on to see the twilight of day during the 1990s – so directing Someone’s Watching Me! was not a given. It’s well-enough made and has its moments of suspense, but you sorely miss a signature Carpenter theme – it was by Harry Sukman, his penultimate work, the final being Salem’s Lot – and it really does feel very TV movie-ish.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

By whom will this be rectified? Your ridiculously ineffectual assassins?

The X-Files 3.2: Paperclip Paperclip recovers ground after The Blessing Way stumbled slightly in its detour, and does so with some of the series’ most compelling dramatics so far. As well as more of Albert performing prayer rituals for the sick (perhaps we could spend some time with the poor guy over breakfast, or going to the movies? No, all he’s allowed is stock Native American mysticism).

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

That’s what it’s all about. Interrupting someone’s life.

Following (1998) (SPOILERS) The Nolanverse begins here. And for someone now delivering the highest-powered movie juggernauts globally – that are not superhero or James Cameron movies – and ones intrinsically linked with the “art” of predictive programming, it’s interesting to note familiar themes of identity and limited perception of reality in this low-key, low-budget and low-running time (we won’t see much of the latter again) debut. And, naturally, non-linear storytelling. Oh, and that cool, impersonal – some might say clinical – approach to character, subject and story is also present and correct.

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008) (SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanley was well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley , our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“ too syrupy ”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog.  Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has c