Topic: Do You Believe Stanley Kubrick's "Mysterious Messages"?

[Retinend]

to be fair, you do have to have a pretty high iq to understand Room 237

[phantom_power]

It was pretty patronising what you said, like, Honks.
I think it was you who spoke to him like that first.
St Eddie was making as much sense as anyone else in this thread.
I hope that's not too rude to say that.

I remember quite enjoying that room 237. The conspiracy theories were entertaining for the running time but not something I'd think about in more detail than that.

Did anyone see doctor sleep? That was a bit of a guilty pleasure. I wish the studio had had the balls to just let it be it's own thing instead of tying it into the shining film. The last bit where he goes back to the house felt totally tacked on.
For all it's flaws, I kind of enjoyed it.

Really liked the astral projection scene where she floats round the world :D - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71HG4F0QXyc

Isn't it based on a book that is a sequel to The Shining? What is the "its own thing" that it isn't allowed to be, given that?

[ImmaculateClump]

Aw man, I wrote all about this elsewhere after I'd seen it, but that post is long gone.

I mean, this is all conjecture, it might have been the director himself who thought it a good idea, but I think the studio wanted to make bank off the association with Kubrick's film so instead of just letting the director make his interpretation of the second book, they had him reshoot scenes from Kubrick's film, have the character going back to the hotel (which was blown up at the end of the first book) at the end and shit like that.
You'll have to watch it, you'll know what I'm getting at.

The film has a lovely slow pace and it has a nice schlocky made for TV horror vibe. I like it for what it is, but all the bits where they're referencing Kubrick's film are the bits that feel like they're from another film and spoil the rest of it.

[greenman]

I can see were Kings dislike of the Kubrick film comes though beyond simply hating any changes, you could make a case Kubrick's film is almost a bit of a critique of the book  commenting on Kings willingness to stick the evil colonial legacy into some villainous supernatural force rather than being part of Jack all along, maybe also on the nature of horror as entertainment as well?

I wouldn't be supprised if some of the stuff around The Shining like say the Gold Standard stuff has some deliberate element to it but with the intension to like that kind of high finance robber baron era too colonial violence rather than some empassioned message about the importance of the gold standard.

[Goldentony]

I put King's dislike of it down to a decade of coke abuse in the 80s as a result of the success of his 70s work and that when he saw it he was coked off his bin and was imagining stuff from his own book that never happened

[bgmnts]

Stephen "Itschmyfirschtpictureassssadirctur-hic" King.

[PlanktonSideburns]

king didnt like it as it wasnt specifcally enough a story about an alchoholic writer/failed proffessor who duffs up his kids while twisted in the tits on gin and lithium

[mothman]

I must have missed that subplot in Maximum Overdrive.

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

King objected to the characterization of Jack and Wendy. He wanted somebody who didn't have an history of playing mad men for Jack and found Wendy too passive in the adaptation.

Also, Kubrick first tried to work with King on the script. He would phone him in the middle of the night (in the early morning in England) just to ask him if he believed in God. After a while, King wasn't that enthusiastic over a collaboration.

[PlanktonSideburns]

I must have missed that subplot in Maximum Overdrive.

Was so smashed he forgot to put it in

[Noodle Lizard]

King seems to be completely bipolar regarding his opinion on Kubrick's film. It's either one of the scariest films he's ever seen, or among the worst and he can't understand what the fuss is all about.

Apparently this is his most recent stance:

Of course there was Stanley Kubrick's movie which many seem to remember – for reasons I have never quite understood – as one of the scariest films they have ever seen. If you have seen the movie but not read the novel, you should note that Doctor Sleep follows the latter which is, in my opinion, the True History of the Torrance Family.

Granted, I haven't read Doctor Sleep, but the film (which King said "redeemed" Kubrick's version of The Shining) was wet pants.

[ImmaculateClump]

Aw, change it back. I liked "abominable pants" much better :D
I can't explain why I enjoyed it and have such a soft spot for it. I know how naff it is, but the naffness is part of it's charm.

[Retinend]

Doctor Sleep is NOT naff. It’s as good as the original.

[Noodle Lizard]

Doctor Sleep is NOT naff. It’s as good as the original.

The film version(s)? Agree to (really quite strongly) disagree.

[amputeeporn]

Granted, I haven't read Doctor Sleep, but the film (which King said "redeemed" Kubrick's version of The Shining) was wet pants.

Yes! Unfortunately for Doctor Sleep, I'd watched The Shining a few days before and as a result couldn't get more than half-way through. I thought it was turgid and absurd - and I find it fascinating that King loves it because it's more faithful. Kubrick had a sixth sense for what to zone in on, what to explore, what questions to raise and which of them to leave utterly unanswered.

The Shining is far from perfect, but all the more interesting for it.

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

Doctor Sleep does a few interesting things in the last half-hour by revisiting some iconic scenes from The Shining through a different perspective. But before that (and even during this last act), we have to suffer some speeches that spell out all the symbolism and define the supernatural events at work, with zero ambiguity, for this story but also for The Shining, killing all mystery and scope.
Maybe these speeches worked better in the book, if they were part of the narration or of some inner monologue, but in the adaptation, they look like a deliberate effort by Mike Flanagan to placate King by making sure his interpretation is the definitive one.

[Goldentony]

dont watch doctor sleep, utter dogshit, I honestly would have the cunts reponsible put in prison for it

[Retinend]

The film version(s)? Agree to (really quite strongly) disagree.

dont watch doctor sleep, utter dogshit, I honestly would have the cunts reponsible put in prison for it

You're crazy. It's a five-bagger. No I'm not joking. Loads of people think it's great. It has amazing performances and it is absolutely gripping - a gang of ghostly child murderers hunting for their lifeforce in the bodies of Shining-sensitive children unwittingly comes up against Danny, the "catcher in the rye" who, in fighting back, decides to redeem himself (and confront his father's spirit) after a decade of alcoholism. Similar to Kubrick's original, it's a very visual film, featuring some incredible cinematography.

I do think the return to the hotel is a little silly, but I was so invested in the final showdown with one of the best villains in film history that I didn't care, and I was able to enjoy the way in which we were returning to the source of the Danny's trauma.

On that point, at a deeper level, the story deals with the menace of abuse and the struggle of survivors to be good people and to protect others, rather than turning into abusers. 

edit: I do actually presume that this symbology is "obvious", as it was to Ant Farm Keyboard, to anyone who watches the film, and I'm not pretending to be some "master of codes"[1] but I think that this is a question of style. Stephen King deals in human themes that lie just below the surface of his stories[2] (here, alcoholism and the intergenerational cycle of abuse, as well as evil - child rape and murder - per se), but embellishes the metaphors with fantastic[3] details in order to convert them into something that makes for a story. He's a totally mainstream author. If I might speculate about people's reasons for hating it, I would say that Kubrick fans prefer the less obvious kind of symbolism - a tendency captured by the documentary Room 237 previously mentioned.

1.	another quick OC ref
2.	one doesn't need to be a professor of contemporary literature to know what "Carrie" or "It" are about
3.	in the sense of "fantasy"

[Bad Ambassador]

Let's just say Doctor Sleep was very divisive. I, for example, thought it was shit.

[ImmaculateClump]

Haha, great post, Retinend!
I thought Border (Gräns) had similar themes as well, the way the characters were so different and could literally sniff each other out, but nobody seemed to mention it so I just kept it to myself.
I mean, I don't think the whole child abuse subplot near the end was just some randomly tacked on bit of sensationalism.

I remember the action scene in the woods being particularly good. Most directors would have had the camera shaking about and cutting 3 times a second and it was so calm and laid back.
The whole confident pace of the film I found really relaxing.

I kind of fancy watching it again now :D

[Noodle Lizard]

edit: I do actually presume that this symbology is "obvious", as it was to Ant Farm Keyboard, to anyone who watches the film, and I'm not pretending to be some "master of codes"[1] but I think that this is a question of style. Stephen King deals in human themes that lie just below the surface of his stories[2] (here, alcoholism and the intergenerational cycle of abuse, as well as evil - child rape and murder - per se), but embellishes the metaphors with fantastic[3] details in order to convert them into something that makes for a story. He's a totally mainstream author. If I might speculate about people's reasons for hating it, I would say that Kubrick fans prefer the less obvious kind of symbolism - a tendency captured by the documentary Room 237 previously mentioned.

1.	another quick OC ref
2.	one doesn't need to be a professor of contemporary literature to know what "Carrie" or "It" are about
3.	in the sense of "fantasy"

I think that’s probably true, but then the problem lies in attaching it very blatantly to Kubrick’s adaptation, which isn’t canon in the universe of King’s work and is tonally and subtextually very different. I think people can appreciate both things on their own merits (or in different ways), but inextricably linking them like that is bound to be a mistake. I understand why they did it, but more for business/marketing reasons than any sincere artistic vision.

It doesn’t help that I also just plain didn’t like the rest of it. The villains really did remind me of something you’d find in American Horror Story or Twilight, and we saw far too much of them.

[Goldentony]

yeah my issue was the villains, very TV show, all that crap clobber and CARRRVED WOODEN LEG props, reminded me a lot of IT Chapter 2 and i'm incredibly kind on that because im just glad it finally fucking happened

[Sebastian Cobb]

I needed something to doze off to the other night and ended up settling on the Chapo Trap House review/dismantling of Eyes Wide Shut and it really is bloody ridiculous when you're not sat down and prepared to let it wash over you isn't it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZTy6iUCNOk

I never even noticed that Cruise seems to repeat every line someone says to him.