• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Jason Frost
(09-13-2017, 12:35 PM)
Jason Frost's Avatar

Originally Posted by brianmcdoogle

Jack is an alternative name for John, as in John F Kennedy. Daniel Goldin was NASA Administrator during 9/11. Think about it.

What.
TheDanger
Member
(09-13-2017, 12:41 PM)
TheDanger's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kuraudo

What I think is that most films aren't narrative puzzles, especially Kubrick's films. The Shining like most art is not designed to drop little clues for the audience to turn into Sherlock Holmes and try to decipher what really happened. It's meant to unsettle in its depiction of supernatural horror and the resonance of that horror with real world abuse.

Kubrick may have included the magazine intentionally because of that article or it may indeed be a coincidence. But he definitely didn't choose it as a clue to some larger narrative about Jack beyond the film's borders.

It's not just the magazine though, even though I will say that his other arguments are weaker than the magazine:

"In the psychiatrist scene Danny lays on the bed with his jeans removed and his hands curiously covering his groin area, just as Jack did in the fatherly love scene."

"Humbert Humbert, a man who has a sexual relationship with his underage stepdaughter. Sound familiar? Let’s compare the two characters in more detail.

Both Jack and Humbert are writers. Both of them keep their personal writings hidden from their wives. Both of them secretly despise their wives. And both of them have sexual relations with a minor within their own family unit."

"Elsewhere in the documentary there is an emphasis on sexual behavior from Jack. He tells Kubrick’s daughter Vivian, “You look cute in your red shirt”, a soft porn calendar is seen on his bathroom door, he is seen unzipping his pants to pull out a tape recorder and he provocatively unbuttons his shirt to pull out the connecting wires. Kubrick didn’t just show us random footage from the set. He chose each clip for thematic reasons."

"In the HD version, several book and newspaper titles are visible in the psychiatrist scene. One newspaper article is called “Illness as metaphor” and was written by Susan Sontag."

"This was a controversial essay claiming that the medical professions have a tendency to mistakenly label physical health conditions as manifestations of psychological problems. It’s more than likely that Kubrick placed this article title in the scene to communicate that the psychiatrist’s dismissal of Danny’s health problem is mistaken. She has either overlooked or deliberately ignored the abuse that has cause Danny’s problems."

"One final detail hinting at Jack's guilt as an abuser of his family is his rotten glance to Danny's bedroom (and the camera) after argueing with Wendy about Danny's injuries."
Last edited by TheDanger; 09-13-2017 at 12:47 PM.
hotcyder
Member
(09-13-2017, 12:44 PM)
hotcyder's Avatar

Originally Posted by brianmcdoogle

Jack is an alternative name for John, as in John F Kennedy. Daniel Goldin was NASA Administrator during 9/11. Think about it.

The carpet of the overlook hotel has a hexagonal pattern - a 6 sided shape.

The film came out in 1980. 1980 + 6 = 1986

Now, tell me when the chernobyl disaster happen. You can't tell me that's coincidence.
Fancy Clown
Member
(09-13-2017, 12:50 PM)
Fancy Clown's Avatar

Originally Posted by Camwi

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

It's really not. Kubrick's film is so much more artful and unsettling than the novel, which is just a solid pulp horror story. The ending of the film in particular is a massive improvement over the original story.
TheDanger
Member
(09-13-2017, 12:51 PM)
TheDanger's Avatar

Originally Posted by Snoopycat

No. There's nothing like that in the book and I imagine Stephen King would have had a total shit fit if Kubrick implied there was. He hates the film, that would have sent him over the edge.

but isn't the book quite different in general though?

Originally Posted by daviyoung

What would this add to the story?

to the story not that much I guess, but it would make the movie more creepy and unsettling, especially that jack danny bedroom scene.
Wamb0wneD
Member
(09-13-2017, 12:54 PM)
Wamb0wneD's Avatar

Originally Posted by pswii60

Nope.

It's incredible just how iconic a movie set can be, after so many years. Even the carpet of the hotel alone is instantly recognisable. Well, every part of the hotel is. Such an incredible movie with so much attention to detail, I still don't get why King never cared for it.

Because it turned out better than his book.
Sapiens
Member
(09-13-2017, 12:55 PM)
Sapiens's Avatar
No - it is just implied that he struck him while drunk.
Herr Starr
Member
(09-13-2017, 12:56 PM)
Herr Starr's Avatar

Originally Posted by pswii60

Nope.

It's incredible just how iconic a movie set can be, after so many years. Even the carpet of the hotel alone is instantly recognisable. Well, every part of the hotel is. Such an incredible movie with so much attention to detail, I still don't get why King never cared for it.

I don't specifically know why Stephen King dislikes the movie, but after reading the original novel myself, I lost quite a bit of interest in the movie. I know I'm an outlier, but I find the novel to be much, much better than the film.

It kind of feels like Kubrick was inspired by the novel but wanted to make something else that appealed more to him. The result is a movie that stands well enough on its own but feels incredibly detached from the source material. There are events in the movie that are lifted from the novel while leaving out the parts that gave them purpose (the whole Shine thing, for example. It's kind of random and without purpose in the movie, barely acknowledged, while in the novel it is one of the most central aspects of the plot). The characters in the movie are much flatter than the novel's versions, though the actors do a very fine job with them. Jack Nicholson's character isn't sympathetic at all, while he's closer to being the protagonist of the novel, culminating in a "heroic" sacrifice, aided by his son, to save his family (contrast that with the film) from the supernatural power of the hotel.

As for King, I believe he has a very personal connection to this particular novel, it being about a writer struggling with alcoholism. The movie pretty much ignores all that, spiraling off into its own take on things almost immediately. I can imagine King feels insulted by that.

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.
chicko1983
Member
(09-13-2017, 12:56 PM)
chicko1983's Avatar
I have heard and read of too many stories of Kubrick's eye for detail for this theory to be completely dismissed.

When I watched it the first time I was scared.

However, upon watching it after been told that Jack abuses Danny, it blew my mind.

I was told it was physical abuse, but reading that link in the OP, I am also now leaning to sexual abuse.

Hence, Danny's visions stem from being abused sexually by Jack.

And Jack going crazy, stems from his realisation of what he has done to Danny.
TheDanger
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:05 PM)
TheDanger's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sapiens

No - it is just implied that he struck him while drunk.

that's not just implied though.
Camwi
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:07 PM)
Camwi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fancy Clown

It's really not. Kubrick's film is so much more artful and unsettling than the novel, which is just a solid pulp horror story. The ending of the film in particular is a massive improvement over the original story.

Agree to disagree. I think the movie is mostly trash, Jack being a great example of that. His character is so much more fleshed-out in the book, compared to crazy-pants Nicholson in the movie.

I will say that I agree about the ending, though, considering the book had about as "Hollywood" an ending as you can get.
Inferno313
Tell me about Bane!
(09-13-2017, 01:19 PM)
Inferno313's Avatar

Originally Posted by Camwi

Agree to disagree. I think the movie is mostly trash, Jack being a great example of that. His character is so much more fleshed-out in the book, compared to crazy-pants Nicholson in the movie.

I will say that I agree about the ending, though, considering the book had about as "Hollywood" an ending as you can get.



Like, if you wanna prefer the novel. That's one thing, I guess. But to outright call what is widely considered to be one of the greatest horror films of all-time trash? That's an opinion that betrays a serious ignorance and lack of understanding of cinema. What the hell?
Ether_Snake
安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
(09-13-2017, 01:22 PM)
Ether_Snake's Avatar
It's a myth that Kubrick was dropping hidden messages all over his movies. Most plots are from novels, a lot of what happened was also resulting from input from people on set, etc.

I like the movie only if I see it as Jack getting immediately inspired to write a novel as soon as he arrives, and the rest of the movie being us living out the story of his new novel. Otherwise it's just a well filmed horror movie with the usual Stephen King randomness. But that's simply personal interpretation, like Kubrick said it should be.
Last edited by Ether_Snake; 09-13-2017 at 01:27 PM.
JustSurvive
Junior Member
(09-13-2017, 01:25 PM)
JustSurvive's Avatar
This seems like a theory that would fit in perfectly with that atrocious Room 237 documentary.
Keym
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:31 PM)
Keym's Avatar

Originally Posted by pswii60

It's incredible just how iconic a movie set can be, after so many years. Even the carpet of the hotel alone is instantly recognisable. Well, every part of the hotel is. Such an incredible movie with so much attention to detail, I still don't get why King never cared for it.

I'd feel the same if someone grabbed my work and turned it into something completely different than what I wrote. Oh and then when someone mentions "The Shining," they'll always think of the movie and not the events in the book. I'd be pissed.
Camwi
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:45 PM)
Camwi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Inferno313



Like, if you wanna prefer the novel. That's one thing, I guess. But to outright call what is widely considered to be one of the greatest horror films of all-time trash? That's an opinion that betrays a serious ignorance and lack of understanding of cinema. What the hell?

Chill dude, I know it's sacrilegious, but I don't care for Kubrick in general. You can understand how a film is technically impressive (this movie, or Birdman is another example) and still think it's boring as sin. I've heard the same about Inside Llewyn Davis, but I actually look forward to watching that movie one day, as I'm a big Coen Brothers fan.

I'll just leave it at that though, as I'd prefer to not derail this thread.
Last edited by Camwi; 09-13-2017 at 01:48 PM.
HStallion
Now what's the next step in your master plan?
(09-13-2017, 01:47 PM)
HStallion's Avatar

Originally Posted by Keym

I'd feel the same if someone grabbed my work and turned it into something completely different than what I wrote. Oh and then when someone mentions "The Shining," they'll always think of the movie and not the events in the book. I'd be pissed.

This happens all the time to creators of media of all kind, you just kind of have to deal with it.

Originally Posted by Camwi

Chill dude, I know it's sacrilegious, but I don't care for Kubrick in general. You can understand how a film is technically impressive (this movie, or Birdman is another example) and still think it's boring as sin.

I'll just leave it at that though, as I'd prefer to not derail this thread.

Just pointing out that calling something boring does your point of view no real justice as its the easiest and ironically,"most boring" criticism someone can make.
DireStr8s
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:48 PM)
They were filming around that date. It could have been the current issue.
Simon Belmont
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:49 PM)
Simon Belmont's Avatar

Originally Posted by HStallion

This happens all the time to creators of media of all kind, you just kind of have to deal with it.



Just pointing out that calling something boring does your point of view no real justice as its the easiest and ironically,"most boring" criticism someone can make.

That's not irony. There's no reason to expect criticism to be not boring.
Camwi
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:51 PM)
Camwi's Avatar

Originally Posted by HStallion

Just pointing out that calling something boring does your point of view no real justice as its the easiest and ironically,"most boring" criticism someone can make.

I guess I'll never be the next Siskel and Ebert, and I'm ok with that. ;)
Inferno313
Tell me about Bane!
(09-13-2017, 01:51 PM)
Inferno313's Avatar

Originally Posted by Simon Belmont

That's not irony. There's no reason to expect criticism to be not boring.

Huh?
Simon Belmont
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:53 PM)
Simon Belmont's Avatar

Originally Posted by Inferno313

Huh?

It is not "ironically the most boring criticism" because it's not ironic.

Irony is the difference between what you expected to occur and what actually occurred.
Inferno313
Tell me about Bane!
(09-13-2017, 01:55 PM)
Inferno313's Avatar

Originally Posted by Simon Belmont

It is not "ironically the most boring criticism" because it's not ironic.

Irony is the difference between what you expected to occur and what actually occurred.

I know what fucking Irony is, thanks.

I was referring to your idea that criticism is inherently boring.
FTF
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:55 PM)
FTF's Avatar
No, no I don't.

Originally Posted by Doctoglethorpe

Jack should have read the article on avoiding dead-ends instead

lol
Simon Belmont
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:57 PM)
Simon Belmont's Avatar

Originally Posted by Inferno313

I know what fucking Irony is, thanks.

I was referring to your idea that criticism is inherently boring.

The word expect is important there. Criticism is a thing which could be exciting or boring, but doesn't have an inherent state you'd expect it to be in (unlike say, a fire or explosion). Don't get so defensive.
Sub Boss
Banned
(09-13-2017, 01:57 PM)
I should rewatch the Shining
sersteven
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:58 PM)
sersteven's Avatar
People have to stop referencing the books in these theories because Jack's character is quite different. In the books he very much loves and adores Danny, and fights the evil as long as he can until basically the end. Its a great characterization and really adds life to the character but also intensity to the horror since he's fighting a losing battle.

In the movie Jack is just an alcoholic, and the hotel brings out his inner demons in full force. While I could totally see a molestation angle, I don't think the proof is substantial enough.

If they ever do a Doctor Sleep movie, I highly doubt it'll be a sequel to Kubricks Shining as that book I don't think could happen with how Kubrick ended his film.
TheFuzz
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:01 PM)
TheFuzz's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fancy Clown

It's really not. Kubrick's film is so much more artful and unsettling than the novel, which is just a solid pulp horror story. The ending of the film in particular is a massive improvement over the original story.

100% agreed. King has some great stuff, including The Shining, but Kubricks movie is a masterpiece. One of my all-time favorites and the way it ties everything up is so much better than the book.
Inferno313
Tell me about Bane!
(09-13-2017, 02:02 PM)
Inferno313's Avatar

Originally Posted by Simon Belmont

The word expect is important there. Criticism is a thing which could be exciting or boring, but doesn't have an inherent state you'd expect it to be in (unlike say, a fire or explosion). Don't get so defensive.

It's condescending as shit to explain something as basic as irony is to someone. You'd do well to keep that in mind in the future.
HStallion
Now what's the next step in your master plan?
(09-13-2017, 02:04 PM)
HStallion's Avatar

Originally Posted by Simon Belmont

That's not irony. There's no reason to expect criticism to be not boring.

Maybe ironic wasn't the best term to describe but it was amusing to see someone use a boring criticism to call something boring though I think it still works fine. As to the point that all criticisms being boring I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:05 PM)
Snowman Prophet of Doom's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheDanger

I think mainly because Jack gives off a fairly evil and psychotic vibe from pretty much the beginning of the movie, which wasn't the case at all in the book apparently iirc, I never read it. He also thought Wendy was way whinier and dumber than book wendy or something I think.

Which is more realistic because King wrote her as a bit of a sexpot.

Originally Posted by Camwi

Agree to disagree. I think the movie is mostly trash, Jack being a great example of that. His character is so much more fleshed-out in the book, compared to crazy-pants Nicholson in the movie.

I will say that I agree about the ending, though, considering the book had about as "Hollywood" an ending as you can get.

The movie is one of the greatest horror movies ever, while the book is typical King bullshit - few good ideas, poor execution.
Last edited by Snowman Prophet of Doom; 09-13-2017 at 02:11 PM.
Simon Belmont
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:14 PM)
Simon Belmont's Avatar

Originally Posted by Inferno313

It's condescending as shit to explain something as basic as irony is to someone. You'd do well to keep that in mind in the future.

Yeah yeah, people don't like being wrong.

Originally Posted by HStallion

Maybe ironic wasn't the best term to describe but it was amusing to see someone use a boring criticism to call something boring though I think it still works fine. As to the point that all criticisms being boring I'm not sure what you're talking about.

You can say it's funny, or rich. Sorry, I wasn't really trying to distract from your point. Irony is like 'begging the question' where it gets used wrong so often the word/phrase is losing its meaning.

The point I was making about critisism wasn't that it can't be good or exciting, more that it runs the gamut from Siskel to Maltin to RLM to Double Toasted. I love film criticism, I wasn't throwing shade at criticism.

'Boring' as a criticism towards films I think is fine, because all criticism is essentially subjective. I mean the best film criticism isn't an objective list of what's good or bad in a film, it's a dialogue with somebody you know and respect.
Last edited by Simon Belmont; 09-13-2017 at 02:26 PM.
Fevaweva
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:26 PM)
Fevaweva's Avatar

Originally Posted by Camwi

Agree to disagree. I think the movie is mostly trash, Jack being a great example of that. His character is so much more fleshed-out in the book, compared to crazy-pants Nicholson in the movie.

I will say that I agree about the ending, though, considering the book had about as "Hollywood" an ending as you can get.

I'm glad I am not the only one to have this opinion.

I wouldn't say it was boring, just cold and distant like all of Kubrick's films. Although since I read the book before watching the film, my opinion is coloured.
clevbrowns94
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:29 PM)
I don't think so, but he was still a creep even before the hotel. Also, I think the Playgirl thing is a really far leap. Even if he were a homosexual or bisexual based on the magazine, that means that he is also a pedophile, and one who would molest his own child?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:30 PM)
Snowman Prophet of Doom's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fevaweva

I'm glad I am not the only one to have this opinion.

I wouldn't say it was boring, just cold and distant like all of Kubrick's films. Although since I read the book before watching the film, my opinion is coloured.

Kubrick wasn't cold and distant. This is like the biggest misconception about him, he was actually very tender and sensitive, but he required the audience to do some work and meet him at his level.
Inferno313
Tell me about Bane!
(09-13-2017, 02:32 PM)
Inferno313's Avatar

Originally Posted by Simon Belmont

'Boring' as a criticism towards films I think is fine, because all criticism is essentially subjective. I mean the best film criticism isn't an objective list of what's good or bad in a film, it's a dialogue with somebody you know and respect.

Criticism is subjective, absolutely, but 'boring' is SO subjective that it says more about the reviewer than the film itself. I think Fast and The Furious movies are boring and find Malick movies absolutely riveting. Obviously, a LOT of people find the opposite to be true, and that's fine, but if you're going to try to make a serious argument about a film and argue that it sucks because it's "boring", that's not an argument, it tells me absolutely nothing about the film.
WinFonda
(09-13-2017, 02:33 PM)
WinFonda's Avatar
wouldn't be surprised if the magazine was something Jack Nicholson personally picked out because he thought it would be funny

seems like something he would do
Camwi
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:35 PM)
Camwi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fevaweva

I'm glad I am not the only one to have this opinion.

I wouldn't say it was boring, just cold and distant like all of Kubrick's films. Although since I read the book before watching the film, my opinion is coloured.

Nah, I watched the movie first and then read the book, and I still felt that way.

Kept waiting for the groundskeeper dude to get whacked in the book, and when he survived I was thinking "what the hell, why did they kill him in the movie?" Though now I know that there's a deep, complex reason that he was killed, and I'm just too ignorant to understand it. :P
TheFuzz
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:37 PM)
TheFuzz's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fevaweva

I'm glad I am not the only one to have this opinion.

I wouldn't say it was boring, just cold and distant like all of Kubrick's films. Although since I read the book before watching the film, my opinion is coloured.

I think if you watch the movie and WANT Jack to be the same character as the book, it can be a letdown. If you accept he's different, it's a far better story.
Simon Belmont
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:40 PM)
Simon Belmont's Avatar

Originally Posted by Inferno313

Criticism is subjective, absolutely, but 'boring' is SO subjective that it says more about the reviewer than the film itself. I think Fast and The Furious movies are boring and find Malick movies absolutely riveting. Obviously, a LOT of people find the opposite to be true, and that's fine, but if you're going to try to make a serious argument about a film and argue that it sucks because it's "boring", that's not an argument, it tells me absolutely nothing about the film.

I definitely agree that on it's own it's not the most helpful opinion, it should be followed by examples of what you thought were boring, etc. It's an opener.


edit: I was just thinking about the Playgirl - wasn't Playboy financing a bunch of movies in the 70s? Did the Heff give them money?
Screaming Meat
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:44 PM)
Screaming Meat's Avatar
Just a few points:

Originally Posted by TheDanger

"Humbert Humbert, a man who has a sexual relationship with his underage stepdaughter. Sound familiar? Let’s compare the two characters in more detail.

Both Jack and Humbert are writers. Both of them keep their personal writings hidden from their wives. Both of them secretly despise their wives. And both of them have sexual relations with a minor within their own family unit."

Could the reason that Mason was let on set be that Kubrick knows him from when they filmed Lolita together?

Originally Posted by TheDanger

"Elsewhere in the documentary there is an emphasis on sexual behavior from Jack. He tells Kubrick’s daughter Vivian, “You look cute in your red shirt”, a soft porn calendar is seen on his bathroom door, he is seen unzipping his pants to pull out a tape recorder and he provocatively unbuttons his shirt to pull out the connecting wires. Kubrick didn’t just show us random footage from the set. He chose each clip for thematic reasons."

This is outside of the scope of the film itself though, so hardly reliable as a thematic companion piece as suggested here. After all, it wasn't directed or edited by Stanley, but his daughter, Vivian.

Originally Posted by TheDanger

"In the HD version, several book and newspaper titles are visible in the psychiatrist scene. One newspaper article is called “Illness as metaphor” and was written by Susan Sontag."

"This was a controversial essay claiming that the medical professions have a tendency to mistakenly label physical health conditions as manifestations of psychological problems. It’s more than likely that Kubrick placed this article title in the scene to communicate that the psychiatrist’s dismissal of Danny’s health problem is mistaken. She has either overlooked or deliberately ignored the abuse that has cause Danny’s problems."

True, but it could equally relate to physical abuse.
richiek
steals Justin Bieber DVDs
(09-13-2017, 02:45 PM)
richiek's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sapiens

No - it is just implied that he struck him while drunk.

Jack says that he pulled his arm too hard and broke it.
Fevaweva
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:46 PM)
Fevaweva's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheFuzz

I think if you watch the movie and WANT Jack to be the same character as the book, it can be a letdown. If you accept he's different, it's a far better story.

Maybe, but one of the best aspects of the book - Jack's descent into madness - is entirely non-existant in the film. I guess if I try to think of it as a film that just shares the same name as the book, maybe I'll enjoy it more.

Originally Posted by Camwi

Nah, I watched the movie first and then read the book, and I still felt that way.

Kept waiting for the groundskeeper dude to get whacked in the book, and when he survived I was thinking "what the hell, why did they kill him in the movie?" Though now I know that there's a deep, complex reason that he was killed, and I'm just too ignorant to understand it. :P

Kubrick gonna Kubrick when it comes to adaptations. I haven't seen Lolita, but the book is my favourite novel and I dread to see how he 'adapted' it.

Originally Posted by Snowman Prophet of Doom

Kubrick wasn't cold and distant. This is like the biggest misconception about him, he was actually very tender and sensitive, but he required the audience to do some work and meet him at his level.

I dunno man, I like to think of myself as a pretty discerning film goer and I think his films are, much like Nolan's and Fincher's to a lesser degree, amazing to watch but little emotion in the directing.
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
(09-13-2017, 02:47 PM)
DeathoftheEndless's Avatar

Originally Posted by pswii60

Such an incredible movie with so much attention to detail, I still don't get why King never cared for it.

Because the book is a very personal story about King's alcoholism and it was turned into a straight-up horror movie.
TheFuzz
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:59 PM)
TheFuzz's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fevaweva

Maybe, but one of the best aspects of the book - Jack's descent into madness - is entirely non-existant in the film.

I can see that. It can be interpreted that Kubrick wanted to write Jack as someone who was already unhinged and crazy and the hotel just had that effect on him. I've also seen a lot of theories that Jack had been there before, etc. it's been awhile since I've read the book, but I don't remember it being that open to interpretation.

But Kubrick gonna Kubrick.
HStallion
Now what's the next step in your master plan?
(09-13-2017, 03:13 PM)
HStallion's Avatar

Originally Posted by Simon Belmont

Yeah yeah, people don't like being wrong.



You can say it's funny, or rich. Sorry, I wasn't really trying to distract from your point. Irony is like 'begging the question' where it gets used wrong so often the word/phrase is losing its meaning.

That's because the term irony has grown from its most literal literary version.
dan2026
Member
(09-13-2017, 03:17 PM)
dan2026's Avatar
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.
Last edited by dan2026; 09-13-2017 at 03:20 PM.
yepyepyep
Member
(09-13-2017, 03:21 PM)
yepyepyep's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fevaweva

I dunno man, I like to think of myself as a pretty discerning film goer and I think his films are, much like Nolan's and Fincher's to a lesser degree, amazing to watch but little emotion in the directing.

Have you seen Barry Lyndon? I think he shows quite a bit of sympathy for what the characters experience in the movie.

The thing is, I think Kubrick can be cold in the sense that some films he doesn't aim to endear the audience to characters in the film because the character is not even the main emphasis. In 2001 the themes are grandiose ideas about human evolution and the future of mans progress, he doesn't spend time fleshing out characters because the ideas of the film are beyond individuals.

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.

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.
Last edited by yepyepyep; 09-13-2017 at 03:24 PM.
poppos2097
Junior Member
(09-13-2017, 03:28 PM)
I don't think we were given enough information to say that Jack's abuse of Danny was also sexual, but we also don't have enough to say that it wasn't. :s

I liked Ager's metatextual thing about the monolith in 2001 being the movie itself as it has the same dimensions as the cinema screen.
ProtomanNeo
Member
(09-13-2017, 03:30 PM)
ProtomanNeo's Avatar
While not explicit the hints are there, and I'm sure the production staff knew and wanted those hints to be there.

Thread Tools