Comments on: Don't open the elevator

Don't open the elevator

philip-random — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:27:22 -0800

Is the Trailer for 'The Shining' the Actual Film?

The original theatrical trailer for Stanley Kubrick's The Shining consists of a single shot that is not included in the film (in its entirety). The Awl's Jane Hu wonders if it might stand up on its own, arguably more relevant than the actual film. Someone I know first experienced Kubrick's gushing elevator in the previews for a screening of Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back. He was ten and, since then, no preview has come close in impact. Kubrick's high concept conceit evokes something and tells nothing. Not to be confused with this.

By: (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates

(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:35:29 -0800

Is the Trailer for 'The Shining' the Actual Film? No, but it is excellent on its own. Magnificent use of the brown note.

By: The World Famous

The World Famous — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:37:50 -0800

Is the Trailer for 'The Shining' the Actual Film? No. But it's a really good trailer, in spite of the fact that it says Stanley Kubrick's name like 1500 times, probably just for the purpose of getting as much Futura as possible on the screen. (Seriously, it's like The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim of name repetition. We get it - there is a lot of "the," a lot of "angels" and lot of "Stanley Kubrick." By the end of the trailer, I start to wonder if maybe Stanley Kubrick actually had nothing to do with the movie and they're overcompensating by dropping his name as much as possible.)

By: hal_c_on

hal_c_on — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:38:11 -0800

My genius parents let me watch this when I was 6. I remember that scene. Actually...I remember the elevator doors opening and the blood coming out. Maybe its a false memory...but that was the last time I slept in my parents bed. It was also the last time I willingly watched that movie.

By: matt_od

matt_od — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:39:16 -0800

Since trailers these days attack you with fast edits, sketch out the entire movie—except rearranged, of course—and present footage that won't ever appear in said film, then who's to say the 142 minute-long Shining isn't just a long, drawn-out, and very, very artful trailer? What? This makes no sense. If a movie trailer is an advertisement for a film, what film is the feature length Shining advertising? The trailer? Again, I say, what? Hypothesizing absurdities doesn't make you an insightful art critic.

By: dabitch

dabitch — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:41:52 -0800

I saw the trailer a week or so before I saw the film. I was 15 when I saw the film and was scared the entire time, hiding under the covers as I recall. I got over the initial fright over the film eventually, and have seen it a few more times since without hiding under the covers. The trailer however, has haunted my dreams for years.

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:42:43 -0800

Which leads to at least one question: why don't people very often make artful trailers anymore? Because of these guys. One of the good things about going to see foreign films, art films and indie flicks at the cinema is you get to see all the trailers for foreign films, art films and indie flicks, which are sometimes actually pretty fun and interesting in a way the chop-shop Hollywood ones tend not to be.

By: mannequito

mannequito — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:43:09 -0800

It really annoys me the way modern trailers pretty much tell the whole plot, usually in a linear fashion. On the other hand, most movies nowadays suck. My friend and I have a tradition now - whenever we see one of these trailers for (what appears to be) a really bad movie, we'll look at one another and say 'Well, at least we got the condensed version and saved some brain cells.'

By: Crane Shot

Crane Shot — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:43:15 -0800

That trailer scared the crap out of 12-year-old me at the theatre. It's a great example of a trailer that makes you curious about the film, rather than just giving you the Cliff Notes version of the whole damn thing.

By: solipsophistocracy

solipsophistocracy — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:43:45 -0800

The Shining rules, as does its trailer, but that article is a steaming pile of ill thought-out drek.

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:46:41 -0800

But is it as good as the Clockwork Orange trailer? Stanley made some good trailers.

By: ovvl

ovvl — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:47:54 -0800

Ephron version.

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:48:32 -0800

That trailer scared the crap out of 12-year-old me at the theatre. It's a great example of a trailer that makes you curious about the film, rather than just giving you the Cliff Notes version of the whole damn thing. Release the Kraken!

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:49:15 -0800

gah, wriong quote there. Meant to be: On the other hand, most movies nowadays suck. My friend and I have a tradition now - whenever we see one of these trailers for (what appears to be) a really bad movie, we'll look at one another and say 'Well, at least we got the condensed version and saved some brain cells.' Release the Kraken

By: Combustible Edison Lighthouse

Combustible Edison Lighthouse — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:52:12 -0800

Seriously, it's like The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim of name repetition. Heh. Reminds me of Bambi Meets Godzilla, written by Marv Newland, screenplay by Marv Newland, choreography by Marv Newland.

By: filthy light thief

filthy light thief — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:55:01 -0800

That striking poster of The Shining? Kubrick had Saul Bass draw over 300 versions of it. 300 versions? To be honest, the chosen image doesn't do much for me, and I love the Saul Bass style. Version 2 is more cinematic, but is it by Bass? This one might be but, but that's only 2 or 3 possibilities, and I want more.

By: helmutdog

helmutdog — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:55:25 -0800

It's a great trailer - and it works partly because its a Kubrick trailer - meaning that the audience is bringing in their own expectations of Kubrick as a directer and auteur. For example - I think that if there was new Star Wars film - the hum of a light saber and black screen would incite freaked-out pants jizzing in most audiences. This is going to sound stupid zen - but a movie needs an audience to bring it to life. No one knew this dynamic better than Kubrick.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:55:41 -0800

It still doesn't look like blood.

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:55:51 -0800

Ephron version. Fantastic!

By: philip-random

philip-random — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:56:19 -0800

My friend and I have a tradition now - whenever we see one of these trailers for (what appears to be) a really bad movie, we'll look at one another and say 'Well, at least we got the condensed version and saved some brain cells.' That's long been my practice. If you can make sense of a 90-120 minute film in 3 minutes, why exactly would I want to waste my money (and my life) on the full length version? but that article is a steaming pile of ill thought-out drek. Yeah, I sort of agree. Writer trying to make a point but stumbling all over herself to get there. Makes me wonder if she was under deadline. But it did reconnect me with that trailer which I saw in a theater way back when, and the palpable effect it had on the audience at the time, so I figured it was worth an FPP.

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:57:10 -0800

I don't think it's a real trailer, there's not a record-scratch sound anywhere in it.

By: philip-random

philip-random — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:58:53 -0800

written by Marv Newland, screenplay by Marv Newland, choreography by Marv Newland. ... leading eventually to "Marv Newland was produced and directed by his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Newland", as I recall.

By: Omon Ra

Omon Ra — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:01:39 -0800

why don't people very often make artful trailers anymore? I think that people en masse generally don't like to try new things, that's why Hollywood keeps recycling plots, remaking movies, doing sequels, etc. A trailer that tells you everything takes out all the potential shock moments.

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:07:46 -0800

Mrs. Beese was fortunate enough to actually see the famous now-discarded hospital room ending. But she foolishly disdains the film - so it's kind of wasted on her.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:08:49 -0800

My favorite Kubrick trailer is the one for Eyes Wide Shut, which made the film look like a moody, porny romp, and is, I expect, the only reason it had an opening audience, who had not yet heard the entire film is Tom Cruise trying to get laid and failing. Mind you, I love the film, and I think it is one of Kubrick's bleakest, darkest, and most fascinating. But it will be despised forever, and few will agree with my taste in it, and I think Kubrick was fine with that. He was perfectly happy to play this sort of prank on his audience, and so thoroughly defeat their expectations.

By: ricochet biscuit

ricochet biscuit — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:09:58 -0800

Which leads to at least one question: why don't people very often make artful trailers anymore? Because people don't make trailers: marketing departments make trailers. I don't think people are involved in any fashion. Roger Ebert once observed that the here's-the-whole-story-in-two-minutes trailers bear the same relationship to the move that those little samples of cheese on toothpicks given out in supermarkets do to the cheese blocks themselves: once you have tasted the cheese, you know everything there is to know except what it would be like to eat a whole block of it.

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:14:02 -0800

He was perfectly happy to play this sort of prank on his audience, and so thoroughly defeat their expectations. Oh, yeah, this is definitely intentional. The very beginning of the film is Kidman dropping her dress to the floor, and then a cut to black, and then a shot of their apartment building where they're getting ready for a Christmas party. The first shot has no context in the film. It's basically 'Alright pervs, here's what you came for, now it's over, now here's a movie.'

By: lore

lore — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:17:18 -0800

I always knew Kool-Aid Man would come to a tragic end.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:19:28 -0800

Because people don't make trailers: marketing departments make trailers. I don't think people are involved in any fashion. This is why Kubrick's trailers are worth a second look. He made them himself. The original trailer for Dr. Strangelove is a perfect little comic gem, The Rules Of Attraction totally lifted it for its trailer.

By: felix betachat

felix betachat — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:21:03 -0800

Oh holy shit. Seeing that trailer just brought back the memory of being at a movie theater with my parents and having that trailer play. When the blood started splashing up on the walls, my mother put her hand over my eyes and I could only listen to that music, wondering what was happening onscreen. Thanks MetaFilter. Now I know how it ends.

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:31:13 -0800

Speaking of trailers from the same era made up of non-film footage that traumatized the crap out of us wee lads and lasses, there be this.

By: fuq

fuq — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:36:02 -0800

why don't people very often make artful trailers anymore? IN A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE DON'T OFTEN MAKE ARTFUL TRAILERS ANYMORE, ONE MAN DARES TO MAKE... THE CUT! Directed by McG, starring Will Smith and Bruce Willis.

By: Solon and Thanks

Solon and Thanks — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:36:05 -0800

Am I the only one who thought, panicked, "VUVUZELAS?!" when the video begun?

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:37:30 -0800

Now I'm imagining the reverse shot, which would be the blood patiently sitting in the elevator, listening to Elevator music, until there's a *ping* and the doors open and it rushes out.

By: cobra libre

cobra libre — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:37:55 -0800

Since trailers these days attack you with fast edits, sketch out the entire movie—except rearranged, of course—and present footage that won't ever appear in said film, then who's to say the 142 minute-long Shining isn't just a long, drawn-out, and very, very artful trailer? You know, a better writer could have taken an absurd premise like that and blown my mind, at least for a little while. But as for The Awl's Jane Hu, Jorge Luis Borges she ain't.

By: felix betachat

felix betachat — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:40:18 -0800

Jorge Luis Borges she ain't To be fair, if Borges had blogged, it would have been all eponymous sock-puppetry and interlinked HTTP 404 pages.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:41:24 -0800

the 404 page, the tiny tombstone of the 21st Century.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:41:34 -0800

can I write for the Awl now?

By: infinitewindow

infinitewindow — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:42:00 -0800

The Buffalo '66 trailer is a rare beast: it shows the entire movie and yet is an incredible trailer.

By: felix betachat

felix betachat — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:43:00 -0800

Sorry The Whelk. Choire Sicha you ain't.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:50:46 -0800

Yeesh. This cockamamie, tortured logical relationship between "the trailer" and "the film" needs a lot more historical context to cohere. AZ, I'm with you about EWS. Further, since, in my opinion, EWS is a psychoanalytic horror of man's confrontation of independent female desire. There's a whole feminist Lacanian goldmine in there, and the poster and trailer both support this idea. The poster shows A looking at herself, as B looks at her as well. Ahem. A and B. In the film, it's A's revelation of (tepid, really) desire which catalyzes a series of disturbing feminine sexual desire scenarios upon B. For the trailer to attract a typical "male gaze" audience is just the kind of deviousness that is both commercially sanctioned and Kubrickian.

By: dng

dng — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:52:20 -0800

The Buffalo '66 trailer is a rare beast: it shows the entire movie and yet is an incredible trailer. The Brown Bunny also had a good trailer. Maybe that's Vincent Gallo's superpower.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:53:43 -0800

I met him once does that count?

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:54:39 -0800

I like the trailer for She's Gotta Have It quite a lot. Spike knew - or maybe John Pierson knew - that the way to sell this movie was to sell Spike.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:57:11 -0800

Now I'm imagining the reverse shot, which would be the blood patiently sitting in the elevator, listening to Elevator music, until there's a *ping* and the doors open and it rushes out. The doors don't open!!!!

By: GilloD

GilloD — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:58:34 -0800

Maybe that's Vincent Gallo's superpower. Well it sure ain't making movies. For awhile here in Korea, a big clothing chain had Vincent Gallo t-shirts and for weeks my 9-13 year old students came in with Vincent Gallo tees on and I would just cringe and think IF ONLY YOU KNEW WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT MOVIE.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:59:35 -0800

Yo the awl I'm a let you finish but This is Spinal Tap had the greatest trailer of all time.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:06:03 -0800

The MOST TERRIFYING version of the Shining Trailer.

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:11:24 -0800

The doors don't open!!!! Why are you fucking with my movie?

By: Kiablokirk

Kiablokirk — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:20:02 -0800

Huh. And I was just thinking about that elevator of blood.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:50:42 -0800

Well, okay, yeah, this is a lame article -- underdeveloped, thin, with a dopey central idea -- but it is fair to say that the trailer for The Shining, while not the film, is a film, as opposed to the highlights reel we normally get. You could get a hell of an effective teaser trailer just out of random shock moments from the feature, but Kubrick's better idea is to make a full-on commercial for the movie instead. This is smarter and more honest, in a way, because so much of what makes the movie work is a building sense of dread and irrationality; this trailer doesn't give you any plot, but it gives you the whole mood in microcosm, and mood is really what The Shining is about. That Kubrick just barely cared about the actual plot of the novel is evident, and as much as I appreciate King's best work -- including this novel -- I think it's only ego that blinds him to how much Kubrick's approach improves upon the source material (or maybe Stanley Kubrick was just a dick to him, I dunno); keeping the bare bones of King's story, but jettisoning more and more of the logic behind it as he goes along, Kubrick takes a gothic and transforms it, by the end, into something close to Lovecraft. The horror is existential and cosmic, as these people are bounced around like ping-pong balls by forces so far beyond them as to be incomprehensible, forces that seem less like gods or ghosts than just cruel nature at work, but the crack of an axe into a human chest is very, very tangible. It's almost a relief, because at least it makes sense, and seems so small when it happens. It's just humans being humans. If they're humans in the grip of something...okay, sure, it's a metaphor for alcoholism, drug addiction, and a powerful one, but that diminishes it. It's getting closer to say that it's a metaphor (barely a metaphor) for domestic violence, but even that is a reduction. It's this guy who's a writer who's doing what writers do which is to try and impose a sense of order on the world, but he's just a toy, and his wife is crazy and his kid can see into the next world because he's half-dead with terror just from the experience of living with these fucking lunatics, and they're all pretty much ants in a storm. The storm takes about two hours to really start coming down. So: How to capture that in ninety seconds of clips? You don't. You make a commercial instead. Meanwhile, the Saw guy is making some movie about how scary it is that November 11, 2011 is a thing. I guess because one, the loneliest number, is scary. Don't get me wrong, I'm as excited to see Piranha 3-D as anyone. But still. But still.

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:55:57 -0800

Wasn't Pirahna II: The Spawning in 3D already? Or am I misremembering my shorty movies?

By: Sebmojo

Sebmojo — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:57:23 -0800

My friend and I have a tradition now - whenever we see one of these trailers for (what appears to be) a really bad movie, we'll look at one another and say 'Well, at least we got the condensed version and saved some brain cells.' posted by mannequito at 3:43 PM on August 19 [+] [!] I picture you doing this in slow, metronomic unison, waving your heads smoothly back and forth like the clowns at a fairground stall.

By: KingEdRa

KingEdRa — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:57:23 -0800

I always knew Kool-Aid Man would come to a tragic end. Could someone please make a shot for shot remake of Kubrick's The Shining with The Kool Aid Man as Jack Torrance? Like, right frikkin' now?

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:59:50 -0800

Wasn't Pirahna II: The Spawning in 3D already? Or am I misremembering my shorty movies? If it wasn't, it certainly should have been, since it was James Cameron and all.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:16:40 -0800

Oh, and in all that verbiage I forgot to mention that the Saul Bass poster (which doubled as the cover of the edition of the novel I first read) doesn't do a lot for me, either. I much prefer the cover art of US Signet version (top row, fifth from the left) you'll find here, along with every other Shining cover, of which there have evidently been approximately thirty trillion.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:20:15 -0800

One more thing: If anyone can find (from the above-linked page) a full-sized version of what I can only imagine must be the cover of the Russian version of Carrie, which looks like Carrie White was painted by Esteban Maroto for an issue of Vampirella, I would be ever so very happy.

By: clvrmnky

clvrmnky — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:22:22 -0800

I'm the only guy in the world that thinks that The Shining just isn't a vey good interpretation of the book. I mean, he missed the whole point of "the shine" and just made the American Gothic movie that is in nearly every King novel. Welp, I'm no a huge Kubrick fan anyway. 2001? WTF? I did like Barry Lyndon, though. Probably just beause it was shot with a single f/1 lens.

By: Devils Rancher

Devils Rancher — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:31:49 -0800

Ephron version. That's just a masterstroke when Salisbury Hill kicks in. Beautiful.

By: Sassyfras

Sassyfras — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:34:00 -0800

And I'm just too afraid to click on any of those links. Except the happy trailer . . . which I suspected was the happy trailer and was rewarded thus. Whew.

By: nola

nola — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:36:11 -0800

kittens for breakfast, has just said everything I never could about the shining in one comment.

By: m0nm0n

m0nm0n — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:39:28 -0800

Man that trailer stresses me out. Center the text on the elevators! CENTER THE GODDAMNED TEXT ON THE ELEVATORS!

By: The World Famous

The World Famous — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:51:06 -0800

I'm the only guy in the world that thinks that The Shining just isn't a vey good interpretation of the book. Or you're the only guy in the world that thinks that the movie is intended in any way to be an interpretation of the book.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:59:59 -0800

The Shining has long been maybe my favorite Kubrick film, edging out 2001, A Clockwork Orange, and Dr. Strangelove. (Critiquing Kubrick's classics is, of course, inviting a geek firing squad, so let me say that I adore all of these, but Strangelove's jokes are just slightly too telegraphed for me, some of 2001 goes on just slightly too long for me, and while A Clockwork Orange is almost perfect, The Shining just hits me on more of a gut level.) It was also the first Kubrick movie I ever saw, at a Halloween party in my freshman year of high school, where I was regularly pulled out of the room for one or two minutes at a time. Watching it with a group of friends at a later date, I was forced to describe it as such: "It's a long movie, and most of the time nothing happens, but if you miss even a minute or two of that nothingness, none of it makes any sense." In a way, of course, this could refer to many of Kubrick's films. Barry Lyndon, certainly. 2001 for sure. Eyes Wide Shut perhaps. Kubrick, indeed, made films based more on tone than story. And because his directorial style was so meticulous, and geared towards long, long shots and scenes, that uncomfortable feeling and sense of tone were naturally going to best be suited for a horror movie. My perhaps favorite moment in the movie is near the beginning - the cigarette ash. If you've seen the movie you already know what I'm talking about, but in case you haven't, Shelley Duvall has a long conversation with a doctor about Danny. She's smoking a cigarette. The ash grows longer and longer but never falls. This is never highlighted, and has nothing to do with the plot, but it keeps you arrested in the scene nontheless, while kind of creeping you out but not for any good reason. Is it a metaphor for the character's fragility and uncanny way of holding on for as long as she does? Perhaps. Kubrick put a wire in the cigarette to hold up the ash, so it was definitely intentional. But I think it's just about tone, dealt with subtly, to every tiny detail.

By: never used baby shoes

never used baby shoes — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:08:55 -0800

I'm the only guy in the world that thinks that The Shining just isn't a vey good interpretation of the book. No, you're not. And, sure, Kubrick isn't trying to be a faithful interpreter...but he missed what was for me the central issue in the book - the family, their delicate relationship, and the incidents in the past that continue to haunt them. There's little to no emotional resonance with the Torrances for me in the film (part of it is casting - I mean, Jack Nicholson is great, but Shelly Duvall is an actor I've never cared for). And without that, the film becomes meh from my perspective.

By: philip-random

philip-random — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:09:19 -0800

Or you're the only guy in the world that thinks that the movie is intended in any way to be an interpretation of the book. I hadn't read the book when I first saw The Shining but I remember very well the feeling of gut level horror that ripped through the theater when Scatman Crothers took an axe in the chest. Only when I did read the book a year or so later did I really get it. Because in the book, the Cook character didn't travel all the way across America in a brutal snow storm just to get murdered by Mad Jack Torrence. No, he was actually a big part of saving the day. So when he got chopped to death in the movie, everyone who had read the book and was working through the movie's tension etc by reminding themselves "it's okay, Cook shows up and saves the day" -- well, let's just they lost their tethers. That is, if cook was dead, then anything was possible, including badly mangled little boy. Ah, the horror. So delicious and assured.

By: contessa

contessa — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:13:23 -0800

One guy says The Shining was made as an allegory about the genocide of the American Indian. This other guy says Kubrick made The Shining out of remorse for helping to fake the moon landings.

By: Admiral Haddock

Admiral Haddock — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:13:40 -0800

Probably just beause it was shot with a single f/1 lens. That's not quite right. One of the lenses used was a f0.7 lens. Other lenses were used on the film, of course. The f0.7 lens allowed Kubrick to shoot scenes solely by candlelight. The story of the mechanical work to fit the f0.7 lens (it was a still photography lens) to the motion picture camera is described here. In any event, you should like Barry Lyndon because it is a fantastic film, not just for a misremembered piece of technical trivia.

By: w0mbat

w0mbat — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:21:10 -0800

No.

By: rmd1023

rmd1023 — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:56:37 -0800

God, I'd forgotten how utterly awesome and creepy that trailer is.

By: indubitable

indubitable — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:03:03 -0800

Whoa, I had not seen that before. I've sometimes wondered where the music of Throbbing Gristle would not seem out of place, and now I know.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:08:36 -0800

One guy says The Shining was made as an allegory about the genocide of the American Indian. That's not an uncommon reading of the movie.

By: contessa

contessa — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:18:34 -0800

> One guy says The Shining was made as an allegory about the genocide of the American Indian. That's not an uncommon reading of the movie. It's the one I tend to agree with, actually. I remember reading a piece in the Washington Post (god, could it really have been 23 years ago?) putting forth this analysis, and for me, the pieces really fell into place. And I don't even necessarily always need for movies I like to "mean" anything, or faithfully follow the novels they may be based upon, but I think it's right on.

By: blucevalo

blucevalo — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:20:31 -0800

Amazing trailer -- makes me almost wish I'd seen it in a theater (didn't first see "The Shining" till years after it had first come out).

By: Devils Rancher

Devils Rancher — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:30:04 -0800

One guy says The Shining was made as an allegory about the genocide of the American Indian. This other guy says Kubrick made The Shining out of remorse for helping to fake the moon landings. Well, dammit, which one is it‽

By: zzazazz

zzazazz — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:40:20 -0800

I started hating trailers (which I used to love) when the trailer for Shrek spoiled the funniest line in the movie: the line where the princess says that her rescuer is her true love and Shrek and Donkey crack up.

By: Mid

Mid — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:44:08 -0800

Could someone sketch the Native American theory? It's not leaping out at me.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:52:51 -0800

Rough version, The Big White Man storms in with big ideas surrounded by Native American artifacts and on a burial ground. he becomes haunted by his history of violence and eventually gives into it.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:57:31 -0800

Or, Jack's history of violence starts to invade his life at the Overlook Hotel, which as a burial site and scene for debauches, is a big locus point of Evil ..particularly the kind of evil that is now forgotten, mirroring his implied alcoholic black outs and quest for re-invention. Jack can;t escape his past, and the Overlook can;t escape it's past. He's a killer and the Overlook has always been a place for tragedy.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:59:48 -0800

Now I'm watching it again, and I'm amazed at how much the sense of simply being uncomfortable watching this movie is, while it still never ceases to be fascinating enough to let you turn away. Just the opening shots of the drive - I grew up vacationing in Colorado every summer, winter, and spring break, usualy in Crested Butte, but also in Estes Park, King's inspiration for the book and I know that scenery well - well, those shots invoke an odd danger. For one, the helicopter is doing what appears to be insanely dangerous moves; buzzing trees and coming down to car-level with Jack's Volkswagon at one point. It's also almost always flying at an odd angle, and keeping the viewer from having any real sense of perspective on the surroundings. Just fantastic.

By: MaritaCov

MaritaCov — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:01:55 -0800

And there goes any chance of me sleeping tonight. This movie makes a wimp out of me, I can barely watch it through my fingers. That trailer just made things worse.

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:04:43 -0800

I stay at that hotel every six months or so, you know. Well, the real life hotel that provides the exterior. The movie interior would never fit inside of it.

By: Solon and Thanks

Solon and Thanks — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:12:09 -0800

Could someone sketch the Native American theory? It's not leaping out at me. Here's one rundown. It makes sense to me as a motif. It's very appropriate for a horror movie.

By: bottlebrushtree

bottlebrushtree — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:35:22 -0800

We had cable (12 channels plus showtime) for a time when I was in 6th grade and this was on Showtime. My younger sister was terrified but was too scared to go away. My mom came home just as the guy gets an axe to his stomach and my sister is screaming. Cable box went back the next day. No cable till college. :-(

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:41:21 -0800

That theory was built on an Indian buiral ground, and they only moved the headstones.

By: Pants McCracky

Pants McCracky — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:57:19 -0800

The thing that's really funny to me is that Kubrick's The Shining gets all this adulation for being an adaptation that leaves out everything from Stephen King's novel (complex, vividly drawn characters and a genuinely moving portrait of a family fractured by alcoholism and, well, America) that detractors of King's novels claim they don't have.

By: Trochanter

Trochanter — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:01:15 -0800

There's a lot to that Kubrick fellow. Here's a portrait of a sort by Michael Herr. I don't know if it's been posted here before. It was fun to read Kirk Spartacus's Kubrick war stories in "The Ragman's Son." I love how Kubrick always goes for the weird take, the weird, half artificial performance. They jar you. That's why they stick with you.

By: Goofyy

Goofyy — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:58:09 -0800

I have never been able to sit through this film. It bores the crap out of me. It has nothing to do with genre or any particular dislike of which I am aware. I find it puzzling that a film of such reputation should be so blah to me. It is most definitely not a dislike for Stanley Kubrick!

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 23:49:24 -0800

Goofyy, there are probably many directors that will be uninteresting to you. Tarkovsky and Mizoguchi, certainly. It's not odd in my opinion, but seeing one of these films in a proper theatrical setting may prove surprising if you haven't tried it. I'll cry over Kubrick's fast and loose adaptation of King when someone ELSE ADAPTS NABOKOV.

By: Ljubljana

Ljubljana — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:01:54 -0800

This guy does an incredible imitation of Jack Nicholson in the famous bathroom scene. The facial expressions are just perfect.

By: dabitch

dabitch — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 04:31:20 -0800

I have never been able to sit through this film. It bores the crap out of me. I wasn't keen on Eyes Wide Shut (Bored the crap out of me is an apt description), but the Shining on the other hand... When Danny rolls his cycle around the hallways, sometimes carpet, sometimes hard floors, all my hairs were standing on end long before any appearances of ghostly twin sisters. (In fact, I think I missed them the first time because I was hiding deep under the covers by then). Something about the sound of that bike just gets me.

By: The 10th Regiment of Foot

The 10th Regiment of Foot — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 05:06:23 -0800

It still doesn't look like blood. It's red rum.

By: biscotti

biscotti — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 05:14:23 -0800

I love this film, and I think the trailer is one of the best ever made. I also love the book (but I am unashamed of liking good King). Other than the setting and skeleton of the story and character names, the two have little to do with each other. But I have a sekrit theory that Shelley Duvall was cast precisely because she is so freakin' irritating (and Kubrick disliked her as well), this creates far more sympathy for Jack Torrance than might have been generated otherwise. Which makes the film even better and more unsettling to the viewer, because it makes you root for the possessed, homicidal maniac, if only so he can make her STOP FREAKING SHRIEKING! "Jack! Jack!" "Shut the FUCK UP WENDY!" Yeah Wendy, shut the fuck up. To me, this is part of the genius of the film, if a more sympathetic female lead had been cast, the whole feel would be different, but as it is, you can see where Jack is coming from. Even on the drive up there, when the menace is palpably building, you're thinking that Jack should probably get started... Also, the Big Wheel gives me the screaming jibblies, even before the little girls show up. There are very few films which freak me out in broad daylight, this is one of them. The little touches of total normalcy, like Looney Tunes on the TV, the beautiful hotel, and ice cream. In this area Kubrick really did capture the essence of what makes good King so good: the ability to put you into a situation so completely, and then when then Bad Things come, it's so much more terrifying.

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 05:30:29 -0800

An interesting design point on the Shining trailer...The image of the hallways and elevator doors is shot slightly off-center, while the credits are both set centered and roll centered in the frame. Most people would have taken pains to make sure both the image and titles were perfectly centered on each other, in order to achieve some sort of graphic "purity". The effect of the Kubrick's positioning of the elements in the trailer, though, serves to actually bring the left edge of the elevator doors (the side where the blood first flows out) more into line with the viewer's focal point (the scrolling credits). It's an interesting construction.

By: googly

googly — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 05:47:42 -0800

Best old-school trailer featuring significant amount of footage not used in the film that scares the crap out of you? Alien.

By: bitteroldman

bitteroldman — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:03:22 -0800

obligatory Simpsons link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_1DBC4KHx8 "All work and no play make Homer something something"

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:15:54 -0800

But I have a sekrit theory that Shelley Duvall was cast precisely because she is so freakin' irritating (and Kubrick disliked her as well) Yeah, this. I think the same is true of his casting of Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut, TBH.

By: (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates

(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:18:18 -0800

But I have a sekrit theory that Shelley Duvall was cast precisely because she is so freakin' irritating (and Kubrick disliked her as well), this creates far more sympathy for Jack Torrance than might have been generated otherwise. This is a good theory and it fits well into my theory that Shelley Duvall was cast this way in every film in which she appears. Look at her filmography and the roles she plays. The Shining, Annie Hall, 3 Women - in each film she's nearly unbearable and the other characters react to her quite negatively. Then there's Popeye, which I've never seen, but come on. It's not a stretch to say that she was cast because she looks exactly like Olive Oyl, and it doesn't hurt that Olive Oyl is supposed to be sort of annoying anyway. Interestingly, I just went to find a clip of her performing in Popeye and immediately found this, which leads me to believe that Harry Nilsson did the soundtrack? Really? Is this a film I should see? That clip is strange and interesting and I'm a fan of the Altman films that I have seen.

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:24:07 -0800

Most people would have taken pains to make sure both the image and titles were perfectly centered on each other, in order to achieve some sort of graphic "purity". I think this actually speaks to broader themes in the film. So much of The Shining is things that should line up-- in fact you assume they do, but they really don't when you actually look at them. The two 'twin girls' don't look much alike, the man Jack meets in the bathroom is Delbert Grady, whom Jack (and the audience) remembers was the previous caretaker-- but in the interview scene, the caretaker is named Charles Grady, and those events were much more recent than the man (ghost?) Jack meets seems to imply. There are precisely one billion more examples. All of this creates an uneasy feeling-- in fact, an uncanny feeling, culminating in the final shot, that slow push/dissolve into the photo showing Jack in the hotel in 1921, which is done in such a way that it seems to explain every mystery in the film, except that it actually makes no sense.

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:25:11 -0800

(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates, Popeye is amazing and even more strange than that clip implies.

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:25:30 -0800

I love how little happens in The Shining and how scary that makes it. It forces you to keep waiting and waiting for some release as the all the little creepy things add up and by the end you're cheering for an axe murderer because you just want something to end it. Not too many filmmakers trust their audiences that much to make them wait so long for the payoff. On the flipside, not too many filmmakers seem to love to force their audiences to side with sociopaths.

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:49:05 -0800

I gonna make a prediction now that this well be several times better than the whole of Devil.

By: Devils Rancher

Devils Rancher — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:53:00 -0800

Is this a film I should see? I don't recall it being exactly critically well-received, but it really does what it says on the tin. I was on a Robin Williams kick back when it came out (what happened to that guy? The Fisher King, anyone?) and I thought that he and Duvall were cast perfectly, and really pulled the thing off.

By: mippy

mippy — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:30:53 -0800

I prefer the end-credit song. Number 1 for most of 1976.

By: KingEdRa

KingEdRa — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:47:18 -0800

Yeah, but that's the trick, inninit, Octothorpe? Kubrick forces us to side with a sociopath so that we can see the sociopath in ourselves. The horror of The Shining is not what happens to Jack Torrance and his family, but that it could happen to you. One day, something (work, etc) makes the last restraining bolt on your sanity go "ping!" and finally you have had it up to GODDAMN HERE WITH THIS FUCKING KID AND HIS FUCKING BIG WHEEL AND MY FUCKING WIFE AND HER FUCKING WHINING BECAUSE I AM TRYING TO GODDAMN WORK AND IF YOU FUCKING INGRATES JUST TOOK ONE MINUTE TO APPRECIATE WHAT I'M TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH! GODDAMMIT IF I HAD AN AXE . . . !!!! The tension that Kubrick builds into the film is the same tension Jack feels. Every shot of that movie is designed to make you identify with Jack Torrance, whether you want to or not. You know else is in that picture with Jack at the end of the movie? You and me-- he's looking right at us, because we're taking the picture. Happy July Fourth, indeed.

By: slogger

slogger — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:55:38 -0800

The Shining is my all-all-all time favorite movie. Funny thing is that I'm such a non-movie person, I once mentioned to a friend my favorite movies were The Shining, Dr. Strangelove and 2001, and he commented how it was surprising that I was such a Kubrick fan. Up until that point, I never realized the same person directed my three favorite films.

By: Devils Rancher

Devils Rancher — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:02:54 -0800

Exactly, KingEdRa. That's the thing that makes it so scary to me -- not that it's full of gore or satanic demons, because those things are so unbeleivable. It scary precisely because people sometimes just go fucking insane, and you can identify. I've always found it very powerful in that respect. I don't know if it's just because I'm a survivor of some very dark times involving alcohol & drugs in the 1980's & 90's, but movies that do this thing are always the ones that impact me the most. They sort of make me face myself, which is good. That causes growth. Art should do that thing.

By: umberto

umberto — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:20:51 -0800

I think the greatest scene in the Shining is when Grady is talking to Jack in the bathroom: high point of the film for me. How Jack starts off being in charge of the situation but Grady (and the Overlook) soon 'correct' that. And I keep thinking that Grady lived (and died) through a horror story even worse, cause there was no escape or happy ending, and so we weren't even seeing the Overlook at its worst We were seeing it lose. I wonder about the story of Grady and his daughters and what kind of a movie that would have been.....when the hotel wins. Kubrick was great at showing slightly scary things and conjuring up far worse ones.

By: jnrussell

jnrussell — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:58:00 -0800

Funny thing is that I'm such a non-movie person I think this makes a lot of sense, actually. Kubrick is so good precisely because he's such a "non-movie" moviemaker. The Shining is a perfect example. In many ways it's not the "definitive" horror film, and yet the same reasons that make it not definitive horror also make it one of the best horror films ever made. Kubrick took the tropes we came to expect of genre films (in this case horror) and turned them on our heads.

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:16:01 -0800

I read something about that somewhere sometime. (Good job!) Where most horror films rely on shock, and therefore have diminishing power over rewatchings, The Shining eschews shock and telegraphs everything before it happens. Imagine Jack chopping down the bathroom door in another film-- We'd be with Shelly Duvall in the bathroom, not suspecting anything, and suddenly an axe would come through the door. In Kubrick's film, though, we're with Jack out in the hallway, see the axe in his hands, watch him wind up and swing, and then we cut to Duvall in the bathroom for the reaction shot. Kubrick places us with Jack as the protagonist, so not only is the shock gone, it's replaced with dread, because he's the protagonist-- incidental characters, like Duvall, can be killed off.

By: jnrussell

jnrussell — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:20:28 -0800

Yeah, that's a well-known critique of the film, and it makes a lot of sense. I've also heard the idea bandied about that this isn't really a horror movie, but rather a terror movie.

By: dabitch

dabitch — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:03:38 -0800

Terror movie is a perfect description. If I wasn't home alone, I'd be watching it tonight.

By: obiwanwasabi

obiwanwasabi — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:33:20 -0800

What? This makes no sense. If a movie trailer is an advertisement for a film, what film is the feature length Shining advertising? The trailer? Yes, the trailer. I'll give you a clue - they give away the answer you're looking for in the title of the article. - we think the film is the work, and that the trailer is something to whet our appetites for, provide fleeting glimpses of, or otherwise create a mental frame for said work - might it be possible, given that Kubrick was something of a cinematic eccentric, that it's really the other way around? Even if it seems absurd, does this idea help us to think about either work, and the relationships between these kinds of work, in a new or interesting light? How hard was that? Because if your analysis is 'but...but one's longer than the other! It's feature length! It has to be the feature!', then maybe you need to think about it some more.

By: Mid

Mid — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:36:30 -0800

Umberto - here is the bathroom scene, which I watched because of your comment. It's just incredible.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:36:42 -0800

I should point out I'm in an isolated house in the woods right now with the idea to write. Let's hope the beer and Internet hold out or ...something something.

By: Trochanter

Trochanter — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:08:09 -0800

Whelk, chew some anacin.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:34:43 -0800

Just watched the Bathroom Scene - Kubrick does two kind of awesome things there that won't generally be noticed. First, he breaks the 180-degree rule throughout, without being jarring, which is damn near impossible enough on its own, but it still adds to the feeling of wrongness. Secondly, while we can see Jack's performance quite clearly, we never get a real look at Grady's face until he gets serious about halfway through. Grady is, himself, evading a lot of what Jack is asking him about until that moment, and from there on, Grady has control of the conversation. Masterful stuff.

By: contessa

contessa — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:36:49 -0800

It only just occurred to me how many of the pivotal moments in that film take place in bathrooms.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:25:28 -0800

Kubrick has a habit of placing pivotal scenes in bathrooms.

By: stinkycheese

stinkycheese — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 08:27:18 -0800

I still say that final shot of Jack frozen in the snow ruins the film. I liked the book but found the last fifth or so of it - wherein the hotel very, very slowly explodes - painfully slow going.

By: philip-random

philip-random — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 08:56:23 -0800

I still say that final shot of Jack frozen in the snow ruins the film. How so?

By: crush-onastick

crush-onastick — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:28:09 -0800

You know, I think that's a dumb article, but I love to read metafilter disussing The Shining (which I also love). I understand the argument that Shelley Duval is cast as Wendy because he didn't like her and he wants the audiences not to like her and wants the audience to feel a sick sense of relief when Jack set off to destroy her interfering with his special pleasant Jack headspace. However, I think she's sympathetic and not annoying. Brittle as all hell and frightening--as well as threatening--in her fragility and (as Navelgazer says) uncanny ability to hold together.

By: stinkycheese

stinkycheese — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:27:58 -0800

How so? I just think it's comical. It breaks the mood. The first few times I saw the film, that shot would always make me laugh. Now it just makes me wince.

By: es_de_bah

es_de_bah — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:21:05 -0800

the original trailer for the Pirates of the Caribbean movies? Barbosa, the evil pirate, telling a ghost story across a table and then turning into a skeleton. Not high art, but an excellent one-shot preview of an arguably great family romp (let's not talk about the sequels). That was a pretty well planned and executed trailer along the same the same less-is-more line.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:35:35 -0800

I understand the argument that Shelley Duval is cast as Wendy because he didn't like her and he wants the audiences not to like her and wants the audience to feel a sick sense of relief when Jack set off to destroy her interfering with his special pleasant Jack headspace. However, I think she's sympathetic and not annoying. Brittle as all hell and frightening--as well as threatening--in her fragility and (as Navelgazer says) uncanny ability to hold together. I've heard this before as well, but I've never thought Duvall was cast for this reason, either. As much as Kubrick's films tend to date well, something I think could be lost on modern viewers is how much Nicholson and Duvall look like normal, blue-collar people of their time; in a way that Kubrick couldn't have pulled off had the Torrances been, say, Robert Redford and Jenny Agutter, these look like real people. That Nicholson and Duvall could be read as grotesques did, I think, influence the casting of the better-than-its-rep-but-still-very-flawed '90s miniseries...but so much is lost when you have soap opera perfect actors like Steven Weber and Rebecca De Mornay (!) playing these parts. Though Nicholson was very much a celebrity in 1980 (and, obviously, an icon now), it's still easy to believe him as Jack Torrance (as opposed to Jack Nicholson playing Torrance), and Duvall is utterly convincing, as is the child playing Danny, and so is Scatman Crothers, and all of that is vital to making this a film where you can believe in the reality of unreal things. Like I said, I think King is sometimes a great storyteller, and I think his novel is great...but the stark differences between the movie and the miniseries show me that where King's instincts disagreed with Kubrick's, Kubrick's were usually the right ones. Weber and De Mornay are good actors, to my mind...but in ways they mostly cannot help, they're very pretty human beings who will just never be convincing in parts like this, De Mornay (who looks out of place whenever she isn't wearing a cocktail dress and smoking seductively) especially. To a degree, just their presence onscreen signals that this will be a pulp film. An over-the-top kind of gothic. I'm actually not opposed to that approach, and am all for some shrieking melodrama when it's fitting. But Kubrick wanted to take the film to a different place.

By: crush-onastick

crush-onastick — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:02:52 -0800

thanks, kittens, I've never been able to articulate that, but you're right. They both read as ordinary people. The end of the bathroom scene clip linked above has a few seconds of Duvall, pacing and making an escape plan and she just looks like a normal person, albeit unkempt and under a lot of pressure.

By: harriet vane

harriet vane — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:39:51 -0800

The Shining stayed with me for weeks. The blood, the stairway scene, the photo at the end. So many things about this movie are deliberatly unsettling, designed to be wrong without attracting attention. It makes me feel slightly better about being so damn scared by a movie where hardly anything 'scary' happens. I love Kubrick films without knowing anything much about film theories and critiques. I think it's partly because he aimed for a gut reaction rather than a talky explanation or demonstration of his point. His stories get to me in a way that nothing else does - it's like 'show, don't tell' taken to an extreme. I still maintain that the point of the movie is oppression. Domestic violence, insanity, genocide... I don't think they're metaphors as such, I think Kubrick figured that if people wanted to be horrified, he'd show them what real horror is. King has said that The Shining is drawn from his experiences with substance abuse, and he's also said that Kubrick didn't really get the story. I reckon Kubrick understood more about it than King realised, and extrapolated from there.

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:54:38 -0800

I don't think that Kubrick cared if the original author liked his adaptions of their works or not. Heck, he turned the serious thriller, Red Alert, into Dr. Strangelove, a crazy over-the-top comedy. And King's not the only author who expressed dissatisfaction with Kubrick; Nabokov, Burgess and Hasford all had pretty testy relationships with him. I think that King's TV adaptation of The Shining proved Kubrick's instincts correct. A movie isn't a novel fidelity to the printed page shouldn't be the filmmaker's primary goal. Around the same time as Strangelove, Sidney Lumet filmed a serious adaption of the novel Fail Safe which has a very similar plot. Which movie do you remember?

By: Omon Ra

Omon Ra — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:06:03 -0800

Actually, Nabokov did like Lolita quite a bit: My most ambitious venture in the domain of drama is a huge screenplay based on Lolita. I wrote it for Kubrick who used only bits and shadows of it for his otherwise excellent film.

By: nola

nola — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:41:03 -0800

I just think it's comical. It breaks the mood. I agree, but I think that's the point. Kubrick's movies are peppered with a perverse sense of humor, I think this is another example of that. I'm of the opinion that 2001 has an underlying sense of humor, in fact there are part of the film that make me laugh out loud at the same time that tears are pooling up around the corners of my eyes. I'm well aware that I'm probably doing "it" wrong, but I still like my take on his films, and enjoy most of them very much. It's kind of the way that I feel about the end of Chaplin's City Lights, it always makes me smile and at the same time a little sad.

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:03:48 -0800

Huh, I swear that I read an article that said that Nobokov was unhappy with the movie. I guess that I remembered wrong.

By: Omon Ra

Omon Ra — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:40:37 -0800

octothorpe I actually remembered it, because it was so rare for Nabokov to praise living artists.

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 21:50:23 -0800

Heck, he turned the serious thriller, Red Alert, into Dr. Strangelove, a crazy over-the-top comedy. FWIW, the story goes that Kubrick and Terry Southern were attempting to create a straightforward, serious adaptation of Red Alert, and whenever they got together for screenwriting discussions they would crack morbid, pitch-black jokes about the scenes they were writing, and eventually decided to just go ahead and make the film a comedy.

By: feelinglistless

feelinglistless — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:09:28 -0800

Trainspotting also had a specially shot trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pAzkTlckiU&feature=search "Some practical joke, eh?"

By: crush-onastick

crush-onastick — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:44:00 -0800

OMG, that Trainspotting trailer just reminded me: I had a first date to that movie. I LOVED that movie and should have realized after the date that the relationship had nowhere good to go from there.

By: WalterMitty

WalterMitty — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:21:48 -0800

On a not entirely related note: The Shining, Recut. Coming this fall, Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall star in a heartwarming story about a family's journey of self-discovery.

By: MCMikeNamara

MCMikeNamara — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:35:12 -0800

Having done a search for Kubrick (due to another article that I was finally reading on Instapaper that I thought had come from here) I've come to this thread late. And I just wanted to point out two things: 1) I like The Shining just fine, but I don't love it (except when I do... I have a complicated relationship with it for a movie I don't really care about). But I, too, LOVE Metafilter talking about The Shining. It's like the opposite of the "what Metafilter does wrong" threads. 2) Also, thank you to contessa for and a hearty, heart recommendation to the article about how The Shining is Kubrick's apology for faking the moon landing. Just... wow. New favorite thing ever = this: Seven Apollo missions went to the moon, but only six landed. Six crates of 7-up.