Related Articles

11 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

In concurrence with your final point, I quote from an essay I recently wrote on “2001: A Space Odyssey”:

As noted by latter-day scientist and author, Siddartha Mukherjee, ‘[H]uman beings are pattern-recognising apes. It’s the secret of our success; we recognise patterns’; while Clarke’s novel portrays this in “The Dawn of Man” chapters, it is only Kubrick’s film of Clarke’s novel that fully takes advantage of it and uses it to enhance the reader’s experience.

ReplyReply
mygif

I just want to stay at that (real) hotel someday. Whoever scouted out that site was a genius!

ReplyReply
mygif

There’s also the fact that a symptom of this kind of obsession is projecting the subject of your obsession onto everything around you. Or, in other words, some people are just crazy.

ReplyReply
mygif

@Maria It’s available year round in Estes Park, Colorado. The do ghost tours there. (It’s an hour away from me..I should really do the tour sometime).

@John “It says a lot that even after “notorious recluse” Kubrick came out and blatantly explained the ending to everyone, people still don’t believe it.”
I’m unfamiliar with what he’s said…can you illuminate or link?

ReplyReply
mygif

@Maria Sadly, there is no “real” hotel from the movie. The interior was a soundstage and the exterior is Timberline Lodge in Oregon, but the interior of Timberline lodge looks nothing like the hotel interior from the movie – the interior of Timberline looks like the exterior: a big log cabin. (which is cool, but probably not what you’re looking for). Timberline also doesn’t have a hedge maze.

The Stanley Hotel in Colorado that I think Scavenger is referring to was the inspiration for the book, but doesn’t appear in the movie.

ReplyReply
mygif

@Scavenger: He said, and forgive me because I don’t have a link so I’m paraphrasing, that the photo indicates that Jack lived at the Overlook in a “past life”. The reason he was uniquely susceptible to the Overlook’s dubious charms was that he’d been there before, and it was drawing him back in a sense. The photo is meant to be the proof of that, a shot of the same man there in 1921.

Needless to say, it’s an immensely unsatisfying explanation to many, if for no other reason than the family has the run of the hotel for months on end without anything much to do and apparently never notices a picture of Daddy on the wall. :) But it’s the explanation Kubrick gave, for what it’s worth.

ReplyReply
mygif

@Variaga Yeah, I was referring to the Stanley.

Really, the movie wasn’t filmed there? Color me shocked..I always thought it was! (Though I’m not sure I’ve seen the movie since I moved to Colorado, so I could never compare). I seem to recall they wanted to film the remake here back in the 90′s, but a short lived CO law against gay people scratched that (or it might have been for the Stand TV movie).

@John yeah..that’s unsatisfying…I always took it as a more straightforward, his ghost being trapped there thing.

ReplyReply
mygif

Aside: the hedge animals, I suspect, would always work better in the book than in any movie. The 1997 mini-series was capable (barely) of doing them, and frankly they were somehow more weird-cute that scary, like Tim Burton c. Beetlejuice.

ReplyReply
mygif

Further compounding the issue is that the layout of the hotel makes no sense whatsoever. Stuart Ullman’s office has a nice big window in the middle of the building, the Colorado Room has multiple floor to ceiling windows with a mystery hallway behind them. The hotel interiors are designed at nice right angles in building that doesn’t.
http://collativelearning.com/the%20shining%20-%20chap%204.html

(Found via TVtropes)

ReplyReply
mygif

I think part of the problem with people misunderstanding the whole perfectionist thing is that he did go crazy over props at times, but it was for the reason you were talking about.

The green felt tabletop in Dr. Strangelove and the props in 2001 that would actually work on the moon were done to make the atmosphere perfect, not to show the audience anything (since neither of them could be noticed by them).

People latch onto the “went crazy over props” part and don’t think about why.

ReplyReply
mygif
Frodo Baggins said on March 11th, 2012 at 6:00 pm

I dunno, the Native American thing seems to hold water, in my estimation. I don’t think it’s “the point” of the film, but I do suspect it’s meant to resonate with the primary theme of past violence haunting the present. As for Donnie Darko, that movie leaves some ambiguity about what exactly happened in the film (until you read the extensive explanation in the special features disk), but isn’t very ambiguous about subtext. Donnie pontificates at length about the misdeeds of the film’s various pseudo-antagonists. Also, the film hasn’t had as much time to percolate in the minds of audiences, and since Richard Kelly’s subsequent films have been garbage, people are less given to the “subtle genius” theory.

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments