• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
(09-13-2017, 04:32 PM)
Shao Kahn on the Lawn's Avatar
Aside from the other complaints about the film(Which I largely agree with), it also steals Jack's last moment of redemption. In the book, Jack has Danny cornered after having incapacitated Wendy and Dick. As he moves in for the kill, he regains control of his possessed body for a moment and gives Danny an opportunity to escape before being consumed entirely by the Overlook.

It was an important moment for the character. The film's iteration of Jack seemed to require very little encouragement from the hotel to go on a rampage where the book's version, despite a protracted period of manipulation and intermittent possessions, is still fighting internally to stop himself from doing what the Overlook wanted him to do even at the height of its power.
xxracerxx
Don't worry, I'll vouch for them.
(09-13-2017, 04:35 PM)
xxracerxx's Avatar
A Playboy from around the time of filming was used, deep intentions!!!!
Naked Snake
(09-13-2017, 04:36 PM)
Naked Snake's Avatar
Isn't PLAYGIRL was a magazine with pictures of nude men?
BigAT
Banned
(09-13-2017, 04:39 PM)
BigAT's Avatar
Room 237 was such a dumb movie.
dan2026
Member
(09-13-2017, 04:40 PM)
dan2026's Avatar

Originally Posted by yepyepyep

Kubrick never did straight adaptations of books (maybe with the exception of his attempt at Lolita), he always used them as a springboard to make his own films.

I know. And I think most of the changes made for a weaker story than the book.

Originally Posted by Shao Kahn on the Lawn

Aside from the other complaints about the film(Which I largely agree with), it also steals Jack's last moment of redemption. In the book, Jack has Danny cornered after having incapacitated Wendy and Dick. As he moves in for the kill, he regains control of his possessed body for a moment and gives Danny an opportunity to escape before being consumed entirely by the Overlook.

It was an important moment for the character. The film's iteration of Jack seemed to require very little encouragement from the hotel to go on a rampage where the book's version, despite a protracted period of manipulation and intermittent possessions, is still fighting internally to stop himself from doing what the Overlook wanted him to do even at the height of its power.

Exactly.

If you put aside the possession angle, it's an alcoholic's moment of clarity and redemption. Where he can't bring himself to hurt his family. A weak man who finally summons up the strength to do what's right. Even if he pays for it with his life.
Messofanego
Banned
(09-13-2017, 04:41 PM)

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

I find Rob Ager's work very interesting, but the man is a milkshake duck to high heavens. I once got into a debate with him in the YouTube comments over affirmative action, and at the end he went on a tirade calling me an anti-white racist.

Shit, I'm even subscribed to him. Might have to reconsider this.
HStallion
Now what's the next step in your master plan?
(09-13-2017, 04:46 PM)
HStallion's Avatar

Originally Posted by Shao Kahn on the Lawn

Aside from the other complaints about the film(Which I largely agree with), it also steals Jack's last moment of redemption. In the book, Jack has Danny cornered after having incapacitated Wendy and Dick. As he moves in for the kill, he regains control of his possessed body for a moment and gives Danny an opportunity to escape before being consumed entirely by the Overlook.

It was an important moment for the character. The film's iteration of Jack seemed to require very little encouragement from the hotel to go on a rampage where the book's version, despite a protracted period of manipulation and intermittent possessions, is still fighting internally to stop himself from doing what the Overlook wanted him to do even at the height of its power.

That's because the ending of the book would have not worked at all and been a detriment to the movie. The way the story plays out and the characters are depicted in the movie is already vastly different than the book so that saccharine and rather rote ending wouldn't have worked nearly as well. Then again I'm not a huge fan of the book in general and consider it one King's middle of the road works.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
(09-13-2017, 04:47 PM)
Watch Da Birdie's Avatar
Oh man, thanks for this thread---having just watched the film, Room 237, and a bit of Ager's videos I gotta chime in.

I went into the film unaware of the nature of Jack's character beyond "he goes crazy!" at the end, which everyone knows due to pop culture osmosis. I recalled him being an alcoholic because I'd seen gifs and references of the bar scene, but I wasn't aware of the physical abuse (self-described as a "one-off incident", but you'll note there's a gap between when it happened and when Jack went sober) but, yeah, I think the film definitely wanted you to get a sexual abuse vibe as well even if it didn't actually happen. The fact Tony "lives in my mouth" for me at least felt very uncomfortable---on the surface level maybe it just references the fact it's a voice, but the way he described it made it feel like a physical object and, well, yeah I think you get the idea.

There's an Ager video where he talks about bear motifs---and though the costumed man in the original novel is a dog, he points out the film exorcises all the additional fluff about that character and thus it can be totally reinterpreted and, in fact, definitely resembles a bear to me. He then points out the framing of the oral sex scene is similar to that of the initial scene where Danny is partially obscured in the bathroom and I do think it's plausible that that's Wendy coming to the realization of the true abuse between the two, or perhaps what she expects. I wonder if the granny scene, also taking place in the bathroom, is also some sort of guilt ridden hallucination by Jack---or, if you subscribe to the idea that he's a victim of abuse as well which was in the original novel iirc and could still work in the film since the whole pattern of abuse, him reliving being taken advantage of by a much older individual.

On a slightly off-topic note, one element I haven't seen any of these essays cover is the choice of Looney Tunes, because I feel like those were purposeful choices---I believe at one point you see one of those Ralph and Sam shorts at the SnowCat shop on television, which seems like a (almost on the nose?) reference to Jack being a wolf (well, coyote, but similar concept) in sheep's clothing (which comes up again with the "three pigs line"), but also probably plays into the idea of Jack being stuck in a time loop. After all, Ralph and Sam are simply doing a job each and every day and clock-out at the end only to resume the next day. But I don't know if Kubrick was aware of that element of the cartoon or simply wanted a wolf-in-sheep's clothing metaphor, but I found it neat regardless.


A Playboy from around the time of filming was used, deep intentions!!!!

But in the context of the scene, as far as I know, there's a mismatch between where and who Jack is (a supposed "family man" in the lobby of an upscale hotel) and what he's reading. Maybe it was different during the time the movie was filmed, but I don't think magazines like that are usually in hotel lobbies.
yepyepyep
Member
(09-13-2017, 04:53 PM)
yepyepyep's Avatar

Originally Posted by dan2026

I know. And I think most of the changes made for a weaker story than the book.

Fair enough, I haven't read the book but I've always felt King to be a bit too pulpy anyway.

I find it weird that this Kubrick film gets all these weird conspiracy theories about hidden meanings. To be honest, it feels like the most genre of Kubrick's late period. I don't think he was necessarily trying to convey some deep messages in the film but just trying to see if he could create an effective horror film (which he succeeded in my opinion).

Some people say there is ambiguity in whether what is happening is psychological or supernatural, but I'm pretty sure there is an old interview that I read ages ago where he confirms that the "twist" of the film is that the film hints that there might be psychological basis for what is happening (Jack is always surrounded by mirrors when he is talking to ghosts), but then by the third act when he is let out by Mr. Grady and Wendy begins to see apparitions demonstrates that the supernatural is the main cause of all the horror.
HStallion
Now what's the next step in your master plan?
(09-13-2017, 04:57 PM)
HStallion's Avatar

Originally Posted by yepyepyep

Fair enough, I haven't read the book but I've always felt King to be a bit too pulpy anyway.

I find it weird that this Kubrick film gets all these weird conspiracy theories about hidden meanings. To be honest, it feels like the most genre of Kubrick's late period. I don't think he was necessarily trying to convey some deep messages in the film but just trying to see if he could create an effective horror film (which he succeeded in my opinion).

Some people say there is ambiguity in whether what is happening is psychological or supernatural, but I'm pretty sure there is an old interview that I read ages ago where he confirms that the "twist" of the film is that the film hints that there might be psychological basis for what is happening (Jack is always surrounded by mirrors when he is talking to ghosts), but then by the third act when he is let out by Mr. Grady and Wendy begins to see apparitions demonstrates that the supernatural is the main cause of all the horror.

The final shot of the film basically confirms that something beyond the ordinary has been happening in the hotel for a long time.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
(09-13-2017, 06:37 PM)
Watch Da Birdie's Avatar

Originally Posted by Herr Starr


Personally, my biggest peeve with the movie is how it takes one of the biggest heroes of the story and turns him into a Token Black Guy who gets killed minutes after his big entrance. To this day I struggle to understand the reasoning behind that.

With all the cartoon references thrown around in the film perhaps it's a reference to Crother's role as Hong Kong Phooey, set up to be the "hero" but ultimately a guy that's way in over his head (be it kung-fu, or the power of the Shining) and doesn't really contribute much to saving the day. Instead, it's his cat sidekick who ultimately ends up being the hero---be it Spike the Cat, or Halloran's Snowcat.
EGM1966
Member
(09-13-2017, 06:56 PM)
EGM1966's Avatar
It's really a bad dea to try and interpret the film on the basis of the book. I know that's sounds crazy but in this case it's simply the case that Kubrick (to King's acknowledged annoyance) took the novel as the barest concept and crafted something totally different outside of a few shared scenes and moment of dialogue.

The characters share almost nothing in common but their names and the core themes are disparate and each leads to a very different ending and ultimate denouncement.

Treat them as essentially separate entities and you can enjoy both. King's novel is the best novel of The Shining and marks a key moment in his career when, from his point of view, he aimed higher thematically and achieved more as a writer. Kubrick's The Shining is the best film version of Kubrick's The Shining. It's a Kubrick film through and through.

One's from the heart and messy but honest as a result. The other's intellectual and yet very emotionally aware while being lean and focused.

They represent two essentially opposite takes on the same concept.
Fancyarcher
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:53 PM)
Nah. Jack was a little uptight is all. The book & film are very different anyway.
TheDanger
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:41 PM)
TheDanger's Avatar

Originally Posted by dan2026

No they explicitly say in the book that he broke his arm (semi) accidentally while drunk.

In fact the whole book is about a decent into alcoholism and fighting against it literally destroying his family.

I always felt the movie completely missed the point of the book and was weaker for it.
The ending of the movie is just a mess in my opinion.

I am not talking about the book though, it's not an accurate adaption based on everything I have read about it so this could be different too I'd say, I haven't read it myself though and probably won't.

Originally Posted by xxracerxx

A Playboy from around the time of filming was used, deep intentions!!!!

Well I am thinking the only reason he used that Playgirl at all is because of the incest cover line.
TheDanger
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:46 PM)
TheDanger's Avatar

Originally Posted by EGM1966

It's really a bad dea to try and interpret the film on the basis of the book. I know that's sounds crazy but in this case it's simply the case that Kubrick (to King's acknowledged annoyance) took the novel as the barest concept and crafted something totally different outside of a few shared scenes and moment of dialogue.

The characters share almost nothing in common but their names and the core themes are disparate and each leads to a very different ending and ultimate denouncement.

Treat them as essentially separate entities and you can enjoy both. King's novel is the best novel of The Shining and marks a key moment in his career when, from his point of view, he aimed higher thematically and achieved more as a writer. Kubrick's The Shining is the best film version of Kubrick's The Shining. It's a Kubrick film through and through.

One's from the heart and messy but honest as a result. The other's intellectual and yet very emotionally aware while being lean and focused.

They represent two essentially opposite takes on the same concept.


I like this.

edit: fuck sorry for dp
HStallion
Now what's the next step in your master plan?
(09-13-2017, 11:47 PM)
HStallion's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheDanger

I am not talking about the book though, it's not an accurate adaption based on everything I have read about it so this could be different too 'd say, I haven't read it myself though and probably won't.



Well I am thinking the only reason he used a Playgirl at all is because of the incest cover line.

Maybe Kubrick was making a commentary about tax dollars help give criminals new identities.
Jigorath
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:53 PM)
Ager tends to go off the deep end with his analysis. I think at one point he said that Danny's bike was supposed to look like a woman's breasts?
TheDanger
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:54 PM)
TheDanger's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jigorath

Ager tends to go off the deep end with his analysis. I think at one point he said that Danny's bike was supposed to look like a woman's breasts?

I didn't read that lol I agree if that is the case that's completely ridiculous.
Fisty
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:55 PM)
Fisty's Avatar
How many men read Playgirl in 1979? If anything it makes me think Jack's a closeted homosexual, not a child molester

EDIT: ooo actually that would extend the "trapped" metaphor. Interesting, Kubrick.
Immortal_Daemon
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:03 AM)
Immortal_Daemon's Avatar
I don't know if it means Jack abused Danny, but there is no such thing as a coincidence in a Kubrick film. Every single inch of every single frame is deliberately designed to be there. Kubrick was notorious for his OCD-like approach to filming.


Also, some people are confusing Playboy with Playgirl. Playgirl suggests Jack was looking at naked men, not women.


It could have meant he was secretly gay, it could have meant he abused Danny, it could have meant lots of stuff. It certainly wasn't an accident, though. I've never really thought about it, but my gut-reaction tells me it's probably just another way to show how Jack didn't really know who he was, and he was keeping secrets from his family.
TheDanger
Banned
(09-14-2017, 12:11 AM)
TheDanger's Avatar

Originally Posted by Immortal_Daemon

I don't know if it means Jack abused Danny, but there is no such thing as a coincidence in a Kubrick film. Every single inch of every single frame is deliberately designed to be there. Kubrick was notorious for his OCD-like approach to filming.


Also, some people are confusing Playboy with Playgirl. Playgirl suggests Jack was looking at naked men, not women.


It could have meant he was secretly gay, it could have meant he abused Danny, it could have meant lots of stuff. It certainly wasn't an accident, though. I've never really thought about it, but my gut-reaction tells me it's probably just another way to show how Jack didn't really know who he was, and he was keeping secrets from his family.

exactly, playgirl + incest cover line = homosexual pedophile
Hazmat
(09-14-2017, 12:12 AM)
Hazmat's Avatar
If I remember right he's sort of leafing through the magazine at the beginning waiting for his meeting with the management, and when he's called in he puts down the magazine and leaves it, indicating that it wasn't his and that the Overlook is the kind of fucked up place that has Playgirl laying around. I've always taken it as another way that the Overlook has a deviant, corrupting effect on the people that it gets its hooks into.

I also think that Jack is being pretty honest when he's talking to the bartender and he only hurt Danny the once. It's disturbing enough that once he has a drink in his hand again he's dismissive about getting drunk and physically abusing his son.
Chained Prometheus
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:13 AM)
Chained Prometheus's Avatar
Honestly trying to bring in comparisons to King's original novel only muddies the waters here in this debate. It's imperative to understand that, much like Kubrick's other films based on literature, The Shining as a film is very much its own thing.

I spent years avoiding ever seeing the Kubrick film due to the stories of how much King hated it compared to his book (which I quite enjoyed). Once I finally caved in and saw it, I was surprised by how it blew me away. Personally I prefer the film to the book and it's my go-to example of why "the book isn't always better than the movie." And that's inherently because of how different it is from its source material.

Someone else said it before; the book is a great book and the movie is a great movie. They're two very different works from two gifted storytellers with incredibly different perspectives of the world and how that ultimately informs the way they tell their stories.

The Jack Torrance from the book is essentially a stand-in for King himself and the struggles he was having in the 70's, which is part of why he so vehemently dislikes the Kubrick film. The book Jack is an inherently good man with heavy character flaws. He wants to do the right thing and his fall into madness is one primarily of tragedy.

Kubrick's Jack isn't the book Jack. To understand Kubrick's film, you need to accept that this is a different sort of man than the one from the book. Kubrick's Jack is a monster.

People were already bringing up earlier in the thread about how the film "hints" at Jack previously abusing Danny (i.e. Wendy's story to the doctor at the start of the film, Jack talking to Lloyd at the bar in the middle), but I've noticed that no one ever picks up on a very subtle, but pivotal detail that's hidden in the two scenes.

The timeline doesn't add up.

Wendy says it's been five months since Jack hurt Danny and promised he'd quit drinking ("Anyway, something good did come out of it all because he said, 'Wendy, I'm never gonna touch another drop and if I do you can leave me,' and he didn't and he hasn't had any alcohol in five months."). In the bar scene, Jack does confirm that it's been five months since he last drank any alcohol ("Here's to five miserable months off the wagon and all the irreparable harm it's caused me"), but when Jack describes the incident of breaking Danny's arm from his POV he very noticeably says "IT WAS THREE GODDAMN YEARS AGO."

Jack, in the film, has physically abused Danny on multiple occasions. That much is made clear from the dialogue.

Do I buy into the theory that Jack may have also sexually abused Danny in the film version of The Shining though? At the end of the day, yes I do think that's a possibility.

I don't think Kubrick was out to try and subtly indicate that The Shining is really all about how he faked the moon landing or any of the other wacky conspiracy theories out there, but I can absolutely buy that there's subtle details in the film that imply Jack's abuse towards Danny were far more horrific than they are already presented as.

However, it's just that- a theory. An interpretation of the movie.
pigeon
Banned
(09-14-2017, 12:14 AM)

Originally Posted by EGM1966

It's really a bad dea to try and interpret the film on the basis of the book. I know that's sounds crazy but in this case it's simply the case that Kubrick (to King's acknowledged annoyance) took the novel as the barest concept and crafted something totally different outside of a few shared scenes and moment of dialogue.

The characters share almost nothing in common but their names and the core themes are disparate and each leads to a very different ending and ultimate denouncement.

Treat them as essentially separate entities and you can enjoy both. King's novel is the best novel of The Shining and marks a key moment in his career when, from his point of view, he aimed higher thematically and achieved more as a writer. Kubrick's The Shining is the best film version of Kubrick's The Shining. It's a Kubrick film through and through.

One's from the heart and messy but honest as a result. The other's intellectual and yet very emotionally aware while being lean and focused.

They represent two essentially opposite takes on the same concept.

Good post. This is important to understand -- they're really two totally different works. That's why King hates it -- he wrote a book about his personal demons and Kubrick made a movie about HIS personal demons.
Stranger Things
Banned
(09-14-2017, 12:15 AM)
eh read the books

there's really no hints that jack is pedo, he just has anger issues
Chained Prometheus
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:17 AM)
Chained Prometheus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stranger Things

eh read the books

there's really no hints that jack is pedo, he just has anger issues

The book is not the film.

Book Jack is a good guy with some serious flaws, Movie Jack isn't much of a good man at all.
TheDanger
Banned
(09-14-2017, 12:24 AM)
TheDanger's Avatar

Originally Posted by Hazmat

If I remember right he's sort of leafing through the magazine at the beginning waiting for his meeting with the management, and when he's called in he puts down the magazine and leaves it, indicating that it wasn't his and that the Overlook is the kind of fucked up place that has Playgirl laying around.

The playgirl scene is after he arrives with his family when waiting for the tour, I just checked the scene again, it does look like he is actively reading or looking at pictures to me, if he brought the magazine himself is unknown. Maybe the Hotel had it or maybe they sold magazines, that would make more sense to me than it just lying around in the lobby. Then again anything is possible at the Overlook.

Originally Posted by Stranger Things

eh read the books

there's really no hints that jack is pedo, he just has anger issues

again this thread is not about the book lol
Fisty
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:40 AM)
Fisty's Avatar
Ok reading up on it, it seems this Playgirl issue would have come out a few months before shooting started. I think it might have just been a readily available Playgirl during shooting, and not necessarily used to hint at incest. Honestly, who just has Playgirls sitting around in a lobby like that? I'd say it was Jack's, it was going to be a long winter, after all.
canoli2006
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:41 AM)
canoli2006's Avatar


"You know I would never do anything to hurt-cha?"
TheDanger
Banned
(09-14-2017, 12:43 AM)
TheDanger's Avatar

Originally Posted by canoli2006



"You know I would never do anything to hurt-cha?"

damn that gif is good
AmayaPapaya
Banned
(09-14-2017, 12:47 AM)
Yes, because that is the more interesting of the two answers.
Fisty
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:49 AM)
Fisty's Avatar
Hilariously, if you Google "The Shining" you get the wiki for the film above the novel.

Fuck off King lmao
Neith
Banned
(09-14-2017, 12:51 AM)
Indeed, I never noticed the magazine. This definitely could be something he intended.
onken
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:52 AM)
onken's Avatar

Bear suit bare bottom. Is this a pun? Is Kubrick using a sly visual metaphor to reveal certain characters in the film, such as Jack and Ullman, as bear-faced liars?

That site is hilarious, it's really a window into the mind of someone who's clearly not all there.

Originally Posted by Camwi

It's so, so much better than the movie.

Nah, not really.
NealMcCauley
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:57 AM)
NealMcCauley's Avatar
In terms of the Playgirl it was a different time. The university library I worked at collected Playboys until the mid-80s (now housed in the special collections department as rare books). Supposedly Hustler is in the storage department stacks but it was removed from the catalog.
seat
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:02 AM)
seat's Avatar

Originally Posted by JustSurvive

This seems like a theory that would fit in perfectly with that atrocious Room 237 documentary.

That would make sense because it's, y'know, literally in the film Room 237. Also, that movie's great fun and doesn't take the conspiracy theories too seriously. Don't know what you're on about calling it "atrocious". I don't think you've seen it.
brianmcdoogle
Member
(09-14-2017, 01:05 AM)
brianmcdoogle's Avatar
So, since no one is acknowledging my wonderful joke where I got to tie in both the NASA loons and 9/11 (and have it be factual too! That guy was really NASA Administrator), I'll give another, but more serious response.

I remember years ago (so I may be getting some facts wrong) watching a Coen Brothers Q&A about No Country For Old Men. I don't think anyone would discount them as serious and detailed filmmakers. Anyway, this guy in the audience proceeds to ask them about a porcelain pig or something in one of the final shots of the movie where Chigurh has caught up to Carla Jean Moss. He's describing how much he loved the pig and how much it meant to him and whatnot and wanted to know their meaning on why they chose that pig and why for that scene.

Turns out a set decorator just put it there and they had no idea what he was talking about.
Herr Starr
Member
(09-14-2017, 09:56 AM)
Herr Starr's Avatar

Originally Posted by brianmcdoogle

So, since no one is acknowledging my wonderful joke where I got to tie in both the NASA loons and 9/11 (and have it be factual too! That guy was really NASA Administrator), I'll give another, but more serious response.

I remember years ago (so I may be getting some facts wrong) watching a Coen Brothers Q&A about No Country For Old Men. I don't think anyone would discount them as serious and detailed filmmakers. Anyway, this guy in the audience proceeds to ask them about a porcelain pig or something in one of the final shots of the movie where Chigurh has caught up to Carla Jean Moss. He's describing how much he loved the pig and how much it meant to him and whatnot and wanted to know their meaning on why they chose that pig and why for that scene.

Turns out a set decorator just put it there and they had no idea what he was talking about.

This is an important point. I've been in the situation myself where people have tried to analyze something I made (musical compositions) on the Internet, and it was painful to read how armchair analysts put all kinds of meaning into things that had no meaning at all. Art analysis is one of the most ridiculous things I see.

I'm actually reading Stephen King's It right now, and one of the opening chapters mocks this very concept. A writer is in a class where they analyze novels, and he becomes increasingly frustrated with how everyone else in the group seems to be there simply to put their own world views into the stuff they read, no matter what it is. They are more concerned with finding hidden meaning in art than in actually enjoying the art for what it is.
TheDanger
Banned
(09-14-2017, 10:51 AM)
TheDanger's Avatar

Originally Posted by brianmcdoogle

So, since no one is acknowledging my wonderful joke where I got to tie in both the NASA loons and 9/11 (and have it be factual too! That guy was really NASA Administrator), I'll give another, but more serious response.

I remember years ago (so I may be getting some facts wrong) watching a Coen Brothers Q&A about No Country For Old Men. I don't think anyone would discount them as serious and detailed filmmakers. Anyway, this guy in the audience proceeds to ask them about a porcelain pig or something in one of the final shots of the movie where Chigurh has caught up to Carla Jean Moss. He's describing how much he loved the pig and how much it meant to him and whatnot and wanted to know their meaning on why they chose that pig and why for that scene.

Turns out a set decorator just put it there and they had no idea what he was talking about.

but Kubrick was known for being detail obsessed.
Always-honest
Banned
(09-14-2017, 11:09 AM)
Yeah with Kubrick we always have to guess the real movie... right?

Lots of interesting stuff in these movies.
But sometimes it's a lot of projecting imo.
eso76
(09-14-2017, 11:14 AM)
eso76's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Fish Aficionado

No, just physical harm. This is blatantly explained in the film.
He's afraid of his dad because he knows the monster within.
Also, the control of his wife is more physical and psychological rather than sexual. I don't think there is an intimate scene between them.

I should read the book. It's one of the major King novels, I am lacking on.

This.

Same in the book. Worst episode before the Overlook is Jack breaking Danny's arm (the movie mentions this, but it's a much bigger deal in the book) in a fit of rage.
Nothing sexual is ever hinted at; not in the movie, the book or the sequel Dr. Sleep.
Jack is actually quite a loving father who has a problem with alcohol and rage and the thing I think is very much autobiographic.

I thought the book went way too far with the supernatural stuff, the movie kept weaving in and out of it. Overall, one of the few cases where movie>>>book.

Thread Tools