Showing posts with label Stanley Kubrick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stanley Kubrick. Show all posts

Dr Phil Stalking the Shining


Many of us remember the rather disturbing interview Dr. Phil ran in 2016 of Shelly Duvall.  Turns out, the story wasn’t over. I found this article interesting account of Duvall’s ongoing frustrations with Dr. Phil.

The article notes that the 2016 appearance was “slammed by critics for being exploitative of her mental health struggles.”  Duvall noted that she later regretted having done the segment for Phil.

 One of those who expressed disappointment in the interview was none other than Stanley Kubrick’s daughter Vivian.  She tweeted, "You are putting Shelly Duvall ‘on show’ while she is suffering from a pitiable state of ill health.  Unquestionably, this is purely a form of lurid and exploitive entertainment – it’s appallingly cruel."

However, that’s not all.  Duvall claims that even after the show, “Phil McGraw tried repeatedly tried to get in touch with her mother even after the show.”  It quotes her, “He started calling my mother.  She told him, ‘Don’t call my daughter anymore.’ But he started calling my mother all the time trying to get her to let me talk to him again."


Just How Much Blood Do You Need To Fill An Elevator?



filmschool rejects asks an important question: Just how much blood would it take to fill an elevator at the overlook ?  See, I'm glad someone is thinking about the important things in life.   Kevin Carr explains his love for The Shining before explaining that he has been diving into the "thought provoking" Room 237.  Now, maybe that's just a kind nod, because when I watched Room 237 I came away thinking I've been in the room with the UFO believers a little too long.

Discussing the scene where the elevator doors open to a outpouring of blood. Of course, Kevin Carr asks what all of us asked when we saw that -- How much blood would it actually take to fill the elevator lobby?  Yeah, that's what I thought!  Carr writes, "The Answer: About 3,000 gallons… and possibly much more."  WAIT!  More?  So that's not the answer.

Carr explains how the scene was filmed:
The actual shooting of the blood elevator scene was, of course, an effects shot. Achieved decades before CGI blood would even be an option, the sequence was shot on a soundstage in miniature. Kubrick wanted to literally have 200 to 300 gallons of Kensington Gore fake blood available for the shot, and it reportedly took days to reset. 
Visual effects expert David Ridlen generated a computer model of the blood elevator sequence using RealFlow 4 and LightWave 9.6. What resulted was a strikingly accurate recreation of the original practical effect from The Shining. In the process, Ridlen’s work debunked the theory that there is a body or some other object hidden in the blood. (Ridlen tells me, “I am absolutely 200% sure there is no such thing.”) 
Ridlen used a 1/2-scale set because he felt Kubrick would have wanted his shoot to look as close to reality as possible, though there is evidence that the set itself might have been 1/3rd-scale. Regardless, in Ridlen’s recreation, he used 366 gallons of digital blood. Doubling the size of Ridlen’s elevator set would mean the volume of blood needed to fill it increases by a factor of eight. This results in 2,928 gallons of blood. So there’s your shopping list. 
However, while a set was used to shoot the scene in The Shining, within the film itself, the elevator hallway is opened to the rest of the hotel. Within the actual scene, you can see chairs floating and the blood pooling rather than draining away. So… 
One of the hallmarks of Kubrick’s film is that the Overlook Hotel is constructed with impossible geography. Maps are available online which attempt to lay out where the different rooms are. However, many of the rooms, hallways, and corridors seen in the film cannot fit together in normal space. 
Of course, the concept of impossible geography in film and television is nothing new, especially for anyone trying to figure out the layout of the house or apartment in The Golden Girls, Roseanne or any other popular sit-com. However, Kubrick deliberately used impossible geography in The Shining to disorient the viewer (and, at times, the cast and crew).
And then Carr asks the great big question I was actually wondering; Where did it all come from?

Check out the answers at: filmschool rejects

If King Had Written Poltergeist



10,000 Magazines, #9992
Forrest J. Aackerman's Monster Land, April 1985 

Monster Land is -- well, the best.  I love it!  Forrest J. Ackerman was an early fan and collector of old horror props.

Magazine's are like time capsules  Locked in the pages are reviews and all kinds of cultural references.  There was a completely new Godzilla, and an article on the popular scifi television series "V."  It was actually dreadfully bad, but when I was a kid I liked it.

Charles Grant's interview with King is a great peek in a young Stephen King.  they discuss Tabitha King's writing, King's book Danse Macabre and Creepshow.  The  discussion also turns to what is now well worn ground: The Kubrick version of The Shining.

Grant also asked King if he would like to adapt one of his own works, and specifically asks about The Stand.  King quickly responds with a hearty, "No."  Interesting, since King did write the script for the mini-series of The Stand. "I'd like to do another feature," King says.  "something long.  God help me, I'd even like to do a novel for television.  Everyone has their own sword planted int eh sand and they go by it twice a day and say, Sooner or later I must rush on that sword; disembowel myself.  I think that's mine."

King goes on to say that he's convinced that network tv is still viable.  And he's stuck to that conviction, sans Under The Dome.  But then things get interesting as King begins to imagine the Dukes of Hazard as a horror flick.  "If you give somebody enough time and get the audience involved in the characters, you can scare people," King said. "You could even scare people over programs like The Dukes of Hazard if you could kill off one of those creepy kids.  Can you imagine the reaction of all those nerdy 11 or 12 year-olds sitting in front of their tvs watching The Dukes of Hazard and some 10 wheeler comes and just rams those duke boys right down!

When asked if there is a particular director he'd like to work with, King names Spielberg.  'i think that would be fun," King said.  "I came very, very close to writing Poltergeist."  WOE!  i wish the interview had backed up at that point for some more info, because that movie was SCARY!  And, not to mention there was that nasty creepy awful clown in Poltergeist.  I wonder what the movie would have been like with a King script.  Personally, I think I'm glad King didn't write that script.

King also says he would have liked to have worked with Don Siegel, the guy who did the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  Which, by the way, is on Netflix this October.


Stephen King, 1985

Here  are some of my favorite bits of the interview:

Grant: would you like to direct?
King: I'd like to do it once.  I've always had the feeling i could probably do a horror picture and scare people.  But that is yet to be proven.  There comes a moment when you're writing, that you see something some other writer has done and been paid for and you say, "I know I an do better than that!"  i don't know that I could do better than anybody else but sometimes I'd like to try it.  I think it would be possible to really give people the tremors, send them out of the theater straight to an ambulance.

Grant: Which of your stories is your favorite?
King: Think my favorite novel is still Salem's Lot in terms of the way it makes me feel.  I don't think it's the best but it's my favorite.  As far as short stories are concerned, I like the grizzly ones best.  however,r the story Survivor Type goes a little bit too far even for me.  After 4 years of fruitless efforts to get the thing published, Charlie Grant bought the story.

Grant: Do you really think that story is funny?
King: I think it's hilarious!  A guy cuts himself up and eats himself, piece by piece.  It's the grossest thing you've read!
Grant: Why did I buy that?
King: You bought ti because of King's name!

Stephen King Goes To HOLLYWOOD



This article was originally published 8/6/2012 at Talk Stephen King.

I love books about Stephen King!  Of course, not all books about King are equal.  There are some stinkers in the mix, but most are a joy.  My favorite book about King's movie's is Jones' "Creepshows."

Some of my favorites are old stuff.  Among those, Stephen King goes to HOLLYWOOD is great!  With a copyright date of 1987, it covers King movies from Carrie to Stand by Me.  The book has a lot of photo’s, both color and black and white.  It is written with attention to detail a journalist would be proud of, while maintaining the energy of a fan.

Written by Jeff Conner, this is the kind of book that is just fun to thumb through.  There are articles on each movie (up to 1987), and sprinkled throughout are boxes with little facts and quotes.  For a small book, it’s actually pretty meaty.

Highlights From The Interview

image credit: HERE

Stephen King goes to Hollywood begins with an interview with Stephen King. The focus of their talk is primarily Maximum Overdrive, which King directed.  King, always humble and fun at the same time, begins by discussing his weaknesses as a director.

What’s neat about this is that it is not King reflecting on the film years later – he is discussing it right on the heels of its completion.  In the interview, King is still in love with his movie.  Kinda refreshing!  You can sense his hope and energy and passion for this film, even though he would later be good humored about it’s failings.

Asked what effect he was aiming for in Maximum Overdrive, King says, “I wanted it to move fast.  It’s a wonderful moron picture, in that sense.  It’s a really illiterate picture in a lot of ways.  There isn’t a lot of dialogue in it.  It’s fast.  A lot of things explode.”

When he was asked If he paid attention to character relations in the story, King said,
I’m interested in my people.  One of the few really sensible things that anybody said at the story conference that we had at MGM in L.A. – those people, what an alien mentality! – But somebody did say that if the characters don’t stand out and this is just a movie about machines, it’ll be a bad picture.  Their solution was to suggest that a lot of dialogue and scenes between the major characters be added fr character and texture.  I was always calling them the jumbo “John!  Oh Martha!” scenes, because they’re like soap operas.  We shot ‘em.  We just cut ‘em all out in the editing room, every single one.”
King indicates that he prefer’s Hitchcock, because the characters that are most interesting in his pictures are the ones in the supporting roles.

King also reveals what he thinks is the scariest moment in one of his films. . . he says it is when the hand comes from the grave in Carrie.  Asked if he had any idea it was going to happen, he says yes, but it still scared him.  He says his first screening of Carrie was in Boston, and that the theater was entirely full of black people.  King began to wonder how the audience was going to react to little Carrie withher “menstrual problems”!

And that’s the way it started, and then, little by little, they got on her side, you know, and when she started doing her shtick, I mean, they’re going, “Tear it up!”  “Go for it!” and all this other stuff.  These two guys were talking behind us, and we were listening to them, and at the end they’re putting on their coats and getting ready to leave.  Suddenly this hand comes up, and these two big guys screamed along with everyone else, and one of them goes, “That’s it!  That’s it!  She ain’t never gonna be right!”  And I new it was going to be a hit.

Captions



I don’t think I’ve ever noted picture captions. . . but the book is full of not only great pictures, but all out funny captions.

Here’s a few favorites:
  • Picture: Knife wielding Piper Laurie: “Shades of Norman Bates and Lizzie Borden: piper Laurie cuts a fine figure as Carrie’s mommie dearest.”
  • Picture of destruction at the prom: “Curfew time is no problem at the prom as Carrie uses her telekinetic powers to wish everyone a safe drive home.”
  • Picture: Barlow choking Mark, “Free dental floss or the kid gets it!  Reggie Naldr does his Nosferatu imitation as Barlow in Salem’s Lot.”
  • Picture: Cujo licking the bloody window of the car: “Cujo washes Wallace’s windows with his tongue, but she’s not appreciative in the least.”
  • Picture of Nielsen holding a pistol: “The time for marriage counseling has passed as Nielsen plots revenge on his unfaithful wife.”
  • Picture of corpses: “The corpses come home to roost when Dansen and Gaylen Ross return from a quick dip in the ocean.”
  • Picture of Neilsen talking to Ted Danson, who is buried in sand:  “Leslie Nielsen discusses his favorite band, The Talking Heads, with sandman Ted Danson.”
  • Picture of an axe cutting through the door as Wendy screams he brains out:  “Axe and ye shall receive: Wendy should have remembered to put out the ‘No Peddlers’ sign.”
  • Picture of fire raging in a bedroom: “Johnny accurately predicts that he should have worn flame-retardant pajamas to bed.”
  • Picture of teens destroying Christine: “Hell hath no Fury like Christine scorned.  Arnie’s pals will soon receive a nasty lesson in body work.”
  • Picture of corn stalks coming from car: “Not event he auto club can lend a hand when the Children of the Corn stalk their victims cars.”
  • Picture of Charlie setting fire to good: “Young Charlie shows her budget-minded parents how to avoid the expense of a new microwave.”
  • Picture of Drew Barrymore listening to George C. Scott: “Drew Barrymore listens attentively but still has trouble figuring out how Scott ever managed to win an Oscar.”

Boxes Of  Quotes!

The book is filled with little boxes that make it fun to dig through.  Here are some of my favorite box notes:

– Speaking of The Shining with Christopher Evans
“Somebody said, ‘What do you think Kubrick wants from THE SHINING?’  And I said, ‘I think he wants to hurt people.’”
–Speaking of The Shing with Bhob Stewart
“The idea for the hedge maze is Kubrick’sand not mine.  I had considered it, but then I realized it hadbeen done inthe movie THEMAZE (1953, directed in 3D by William Cameron Menzie the same year he did INVADERS FROM MARS] with Richard Carlson, and I rejected the maze idea for that reason.  I have no knowledge as to whether or not Kubrick has ever seen that movie or if it happens to be coincidence.”
 –Speaking of The Shining at Bellerica Library.
“When Stanley Kubrick was gonna do THE SHINING, we were living in a little town in western Maine, and I was up one morning shaving my face and my wife came in.  The phone had rung and she said, ‘It’s for ou.’  And I said, ‘Well, who is it?’ She said, ‘Stanley Kubrick from London.’  I had shaving cream over half my face and I just sort of picked up the phone and said, ‘Stanley, how are you!’  He wanted to talk about ghosts, and wasn’t the horror story or the story of ghosts always fundamentally optimistic because it suggested that we went on afterward?  And I said, ‘Well it is, Stanley, but what if a person died insande and came back?’  There was a long silence.  And I also said, ‘What about hell?  What if there really is hell?’ And Stanley said, ‘I don’t believe in that.’  So I said, ‘Well good, cool, do what you want.’”
– speaking of Stand By Me at Bellerica Library.
“One day at their summer camp, or whatever it was, a story circulated that a dog had been hit by a train and the dead body was on the tracks.  These guys are saying, ‘And you should see it man, it’s all swelled up and its guts are fallingo ut and it’s real dead.  I mean it’s just as dead as you ever dreamed o anyting being dead.’  Andyou could see it yourself, just walk down these tracks and take a look at it, which they did.   George said, ‘Someday I’d like to write a story about that,’ but he never did.  He’s running a restaurant now, a great restaurant.”
 –Speaking of Children of the Corn with Tim Hewitt
“And then, the second, very moral question is: do you have any right, just because you’re a big shot, to steal screen credit from somebody who’s an unknown.  What if it’s a great film?  So, I thought about that one very very hard for about three days, then Id ecided that essentially I couldn’t trust new World Pictures.  I sent a telegram to the screenwriters guild and said that I didn’t want to respond to Clayton’s petition to have sole screen credit on the picture, so he was granted sole screen credit.  I’m delight that he was on both counts.  Number one, the picture was a dog: it was a shuck-and-jive situation.  What they had sent me and represented as the final screenplay had nothing in common at all with what finally mad it to the screen.  It was basically, I think, and effort into accepting a screen credit that didn’t belong to me.”
–Speaking of Creepshow with Edwin Pouncey
“The comic, that was my idea.  They wanted a novelization, they wanted to farm it out, and I told them I’ve never allowed anything to be novelized and I said that if we’re going to do this then let’s do it in the spirit of the movie itself, which is of the EC comics, the horror pups, let’s go ahead and do a comic book. 
So we hired a guy called Berni Wrightson to do the panels and I just did the continuity.  It was kinda fun.”
About The Shining's Alternate Ending, discussed in Stephen king Goes To Hollywood, see my article HERE.

Listed under Coming Attractions:
The Running Man, Creepshow II, Pet Sematary, The Stand, The Talisman, Graveyard Shift, Return to Salem’s Lot, Apt Pupil, The Cat From Hell, IT, The Mist, Sorry, Right number.

You can buy Stephen King Goes To HOLLYWOOD at amazon.com

FOX Discusses THE SHINING'S Alternate Ending

In an article about movies that had different endings (10 Popular Movies That Nearly Had Completely Different Endings) Foxnews.com said this about The Shining:
One weekend after "The Shining" debuted in theaters, director Stanley Kubrick hacked off a few minutes from the end. In his original cut, right after viewers caught a glimpse of Jack Torrance's frozen corpse jutting from the snow, it was revealed that his wife Wendy and son Danny were admitted to a nearby hospital. The Overlook Hotel's returning manager comes to visit, and informs Wendy that investigators "didn’t find the slightest evidence of anything at all out of the ordinary," implying that Wendy was perhaps hallucinating. Then, on his way out, he gives Danny the mysterious yellow ball that appeared earlier in the film, which actress Shelley Duvall (Wendy) took to mean that the hotel manager was behind the Overlook's paranormal activities. (source: magazine.foxnews.com

Check out: talkstephenking: more-on-shining-alternate-endings

The Shining: Assessing Strengths And Weaknesses


picture credit: HERE
The novel The Shining was written by a young writer.  Doctor Sleep was written by a much more mature  author.  About six months ago I went back and read a bit of The Shining.  I was not  surprised to find that there were points that I found dry.  The novel itself is strong, but there are these patches of  difficulty for the reader.

Sean Chumley does a nice job identifying both the strengths and weaknesses of the novel in his short review at examiner.com.

I'll break this down into a simple list form.  These are quotes from Chumley's article.

What king nails:

  • The horror is often very effective
  • the characters are very well defined.
  • They're realistic people with believable problems.

Where King Wanders

  • Sometimes King gets a little too detailed with the hotel's upkeep when all we really want is ghosts. (YES!)
  • Everything has a purpose in the novel, but sometimes the payoff is delayed a bit too long to really excite.


This reminds me the Van  Hise review of THE SHINING in the Star Trek fanzine, Enterprise Incidents.  This was a special issue dedicated to Stephen King.  The effort expended for this project seems tremendous.  There is special artwork, reviews and articles.  The artwork is exceptional!

This is one of the earliest tributes to King I can think of.  Here’s what’s funny. . . reviewer James Van Hise doesn’t give positive reviews to a lot of King’s work (like The  Shining)– yet he seems to love Stephen King books.  Here’s what’s really fun –Van Hise isn’t afraid to have an opinion!  Oh, he has LOTS and LOTS!  But he shares them without apology.  He doesn’t spend a lot of time working around what he thinks, or building up to it – he just says it. That’s really refreshing!

VAN HISE REVIEW OF: THE SHINING



Mr. Van Hise likes The Shining, but complains that it has "too much characterization." While Salem’s Lot was a big novel with lots of characters, The Shining is a big novel with just a few characters.

In van Hise’s words:
"The complaint I’m making is that when writer has a finely conceived story, there is no reason to detour from it into subplots and extraneous discourses which have nothing to do with that plot. Characterization is fine, but let’s not overdo it, and this book certainly does overdo it, mostly with Jack Torrance. The book is about the Overlook Hotel and what it does to these people one winter. When the story stays here it’s great. What happened to Jack Torrance when he lsot his job is just a big rap which he wasn’t able to roll with. Drumming that fact into our heads time after time isn’t necessary. Certainly it was important to describe Jack Torrance ine nough back ground detail so that we can understand why his mental collapse is believable, but too much of this reached the point hwere it came across to me as just padding. I’m well aware that this is a terrible thing to say about a writer, and I’m not saying that this is what King did, but rather that this is the effect it achieved. Fortunately, the book’s strong points far overshadow its weak ones."
The reason Jack’s firing was so important to the book is that it was one of the catalyst for his drinking. Or return to drinking. I find all the background information does slow the story – but I can press on because I actually enjoy all these asides. If this was my first time reading The Shining, I think I too would be annoyed! "Where’s this going?" I would ask. But I already know where this is going, so I can take time to enjoy the greater depth King gives these characters.

Now, for an early commentary on the Kubrick film! Remember, please, Van Hise hasn’t had years of King and others griping about the film. It was met with generally good reviews, so it takes some perception. 
"The film is also an abortion from the standpoint of the fact that the movie ends before it even reaches the point in the book where the climax really gets rolling. Yes, the movie cuts out the climax of the book, which is the very facet of the story which insured its popularity, because unlike the film, the book is not anti-climactic. The book builds to such a wild, ever pritch that it remains a classic of the genre no matter how many other horror stories you’ve ever rad. Whereas Salem’s Lot is a better book on the whole, The Shining contains his finest climax from every standpoint, and especially for sheer power and imagination.   
Whatever else may be disappointing in the book, the climax is not! It delivers a one-two punch which carries the reader straight through to the conclusion with pile-driver intensity and in an extremely satisfying manner. This book cried out fo a powerful screen translation, rather than the commonplace treatment it received at the hands of Stanley Kubrick. Because of this, there are a lot of people out there who don’t understand why The Shining was a bestseller, or why it was even made into a film at all, and that’s criminal. Kubric has made King seem like an ordinary writer, and all because Kubric took excellent material and made an ordinary film. If there is anything The Shining is not, it’s ordinary."
I can hear the "experts" on Room 237 shouting, screaming, crying at this! "The Shining" a "ordinary" film? I love the way van Hise gives such credit to the book.

Stepping Into Room 237



Okay, my turn!  I've posted some reviews of the documentary Room 237.  Michele asked me in a discussion about her review if I had seen the movie.  I had not.  Well, lucky me, I found it on Netflix.  Hard to pass up for free.

The movie leaves me dizzy.  Too many opinions all jumbled together.  It doesn't help  that  the movie relies solely on voice recognition for you to try and keep up with which crazy person is talking at the time.  I found myself thinking, "Now is this the moon guy, or the Indian guy?"

Here are my notes:

  • Watching this documentary is more fun after reading The Girl Who Loves Horror review!  Yep, I laughed harder.  And indeed, cans of baking soda with American Indians on the label  do seem to be increasing.
  • Watching this, I can see why Mr. King would want to separate himself from the movie!  Indeed, the movie does not reflect his book.  
  • Conspiracies are fun.  It’s exciting to feel like you’re in-the-know; that you have deeper knowledge of something everyone else just took at a surface level. One guy says, “You have to be a fanatic to find all this.”  Yes.  Or just creative.  Because you’re not finding anything – you’re inventing it.
  • The guy who thinks The Shining is about the genocide of American Indians says, “I thought afterwords, how come I saw this and no one else did.”  I DUNNO!  If you're the only one who sees the pattern in the carpet, maybe it’s not intentionally there.
  • When paranoid people tell us they think the government will audit them because they think Stanley Kubrick created fake moon landing films – it makes them sound paranoid.  


So what do I think?  1. I think these people need to get a job and stop watching The Shining all day.  2. These people think Kubrick way over thought this film.

Here's a few lines from a guy who  thinks The Shining is really about the Holocaust -- Because the typewriter is a German brand.  “That struck me, why a German typewriter.”  And the number 42 is seen throughout the film, because in 1942 the Nazi’s decided to exterminate the Jews.  It is also significant that the typewriter changes color in the film."

I get the feeling each crazy was interviewed individually.  Imagine a convention of these people. what of the typewriter guy met the patterns in the carpet guy and they met the moon faker guy.

Do I like the film?  The short answer is no.  I think it’s funny, and in that sense it’s enjoyable.  But just listening to crazy people read nutso ideas into a film gets tiresome.  My brain is mush having watched this.

Room 237 moves from being funny to boring.  One crazy person is worth a good laugh.  A crazy guy in a story keeps the humor rolling.  Si on Duck Dynasty is fun.  But if everyone in a film is crazy, it leaves the viewer feeling overwhelmed.  I hope Obama Care covers psychiatric care, I know some people who need it.

My preparation: Seminary.
I’m well acquainted with crazy interpretations of seemingly straight forward accounts from taking religion classes at the University and simply hanging around enough seminary students.  Some people do to the Bible what these folk do to The Shining.  In fact, sometimes the History Channel studies the Bible exactly the same way Room 237 studies the Kubrick film!

Crazy stuff I hear. . . (that’s WRONG, do not think I’m endorsing this!) -- It was really aliens who lead the Hebrews through the wilderness; Lazarus was really the apostle Jesus loved, not John ; There is a secret number code embedded in the Bible; 666 is. . . you name it.  It's stuff seminary students or religion majors discuss in the basement of dorms or in the cafe over 30,000 cups of coffee.  Double predestination.  Pretribulation rapture.

Symbolism:
My experience with college and seminary students (not teachers) lead me to a simple decision: I would accept symbolism being read into Scripture so long as I believed the author intended to use symbolism.  But I refuse to read symbolism into everything.  When doing exposition, context matters.

This is why I get frustrated with readers who see symbolism in everything King; or in this case, Kubrick.  Of course, these people actually think Kubrick  intended to put all this crazy stuff in  his movie.

Symbolism is a powerful thing for us humans.  We use symbols in the marriage ceremony; in the elements at the Lord's Supper; as a nation in our flags.  But when everything is a symbol, then symbolism is emptied of its strength.  It loses it's bite.  Save symbolism and secret messages for the times when the artiest is actually sending us secret messages.  King does it all the time, but readers look goofy if that's all they see.  The story is lost in the search for deeper meaning.

The suggestion that the carpet had some kind of sexual energy in its swirl patterns is really just a slap at the viewers intelligence.  It's a cool pattern, but I wasn't thinking sex until someone started finding it in the carpet.  But hey, my eleven year old spots monsters in the carpet -- I guess she's right on track to play ball with these people.

Cartoon characters on the door -- the big one being dopey.  But when we see the door again, dopey is gone.  Could it be a symbol that Danny is no longer a dope?  NO!  It's a continuity error.  But I do think dopey is near by.

Too much symbolism can cause you to lose sight of the intended beauty. Does it matter that according to the floor plans there shouldn't be a window in the office?  No!  Because they're not doing a movie where you are supposed to keep up with the floor plan.  Kubrcik was making a movie about a haunted hotel -- and a window opens the scene up!  Frankly, it keeps the viewer from feeling like it's all happening on a set.  Have these people not seen Star Wars?  I'm pretty sure there were few windows in the original Cloud City floor plan, but Lucas added them later because they opened the scene up.  Kubrick has a window in the office for the same reason, because it opens the movie up.  It's good movie making, not symbolism.

So. . .
What is the secret message hidden in The Shining?  Is it about Indian burial grounds?  Is it about the Apollo moon landing?  Should we try and play the movie forward and backward at the same time?

The secret message is: Stanley Kubrick likes messing with crazy people.

Doctor Sleep Journal #3: SHE SHINES


I'm sure there  are spoilers here.  If you are whiny about spoilers, you probably shouldn't read blogs about books you haven't read yet.  Because, it is totally fair for a community of readers to discuss portions of the book as they progress, not just give vague overviews. 
Some short  notes:

1. This is the second book this year in which King tells  the story from a primarily male  perspective.  Both Doctor Sleep and Joyland are about young men finding their way in this world.  Neither is particularly tied down as the novels begin, and each begins to make their own tangled webs of relationships as the novels progress.  Just because each is a young man does not mean their perspective is the same.  Devan Jones sees the world through pretty innocent eyes -- even though the story is being retold by and older Jones.  Dan's point of view is much darker; haunted.  I like them both, but personally identify more deeply with Jones than Torrance.

2. She Shines!  The reader knows as soon as Abra is introduced that she Shines.  Her father describes the families ability to work around her shining as the adjustments the family of a blind child  might make -- but in reverse.  I liked that analogy.

King reveals a connection that the reader picks up  on quicker that the characters in the story.  The good doctor has links to both Dan and Abra.  Might he be the connecting point? The chalkboard scene is reminiscent of scenes from Bag of Bones in which refrigerator magnets moved about.

So what's up with Abra?  As her doctor discusses possibilities of what might be going on with the strange kid, I sense King replaying characters he's introduced us to in the past.  She's not like Carrie, though she can move objects -- she's more powerful than Carrie!  And she's not like John Smith, who knows things -- she's more powerful than John.  So what's up with  her?  The reader knows she Shines.  But she is doing stuff Danny never did.  In fact, things would have unfolded much more decisively in Danny's favor if he shined the way Abra does.

Here is the song referenced concerning Abra as a baby:



3. Realistic family tones: The friction blended with camaraderie for the sake of a beloved child between mother-in-law and son-in-law is both sweet and all so real.  King makes these  scenes work like a master, grasping bits of insight that ring true to the reader.  There is something tender in this love/hate relationship.

4. Back to New England.  The scenes in New Hampshire remind me of the early tone King used in Needful Things.  Of course, both are pretty deep in New England -- but I could swear that for a moment I was back in the beloved Castle Rock.

5. Okay, I've gotta say. . . THE CLOWN CREEPS ME OUT!

They Shine Abra...
They Shine
and when  you're down here with me, YOU SHINE
The clown at the birthday party will give any Stephen King constant reader pause.  Just the presence of a clown in a King book gives the reader a heads up that something is going to happen. 
Clowns, in John’s opinion, were highly overrated. They scared the ---- out of kids under six. Kids over that age merely found them boring.
Well, the doctor proves wrong more than once, and I think his take on clowns is dead wrong.  Kids over six find them plenty scary!  I think we have an almost communal fear of clowns.  After all, if Pennywise didn't put the fear of clowns into you, then Steven Spielberg must have in Poltergeist.  If Spielberg and King didn't do it, how about Joker or John Wayne Gacy.

6. Return Visits To The Overlook.  Memories of the Overlook are intense.  King takes us back to the haunted hotel via Danny's memory -- and that is much more powerful than simply reading The Shining again.  Because when Danny goes back to the overlook in his memory, he is doing it personally, experiencing it again with renewed fear he can't stifle.

Was the hose a hose, or a snake?  In Dan's mind it was a snake, no doubt about it.  But he also knows he was really just a hose.  Dan does not try to rationalize his experience at the overlook, telling himself some garbage about it all having been in his head.  He knows full well the place was very haunted and that the ghosts in the hotel drove his daddy crazy.
Is it a snake or a hose? 
Who can say, my dear Redrum, Redrum my dear? Who can say?
It buzzes at him, and terror jumps up his throat from his rapidly beating heart. Rattlesnakes buzz like that.

7. Haha Mr. Kubrick, the joke is on you!



  Kubrick digs abound!  King rightly insists that the true history of The Overlook comes from his novel The Shining, not the Kubrick movie.  In the current issue of Cemetery Dance (#70), Bev Vincent calls the 1980 Kubrick adaptation "pollution."
Yes, it was room 217,  not room 237.  Dick Hallorann is alive.  And yes, the Overlook is gone,  burned to the  ground after the boiler exploded.  . . . Int he Stephen King universe, Jack Torrance never wrote "all work and no play makes Jack a dull  boy."  There were no creepy twins in the hotel corridors, nor did gouts  of blood erupt from elevators.  Danny's father  never  said, "Here's Jonny."
There are other subtle jabs at Kubrick.  In particular, King insists several times in Doctor Sleep that ghosts are evidence of life after death.  Of course, Kubrick didn't necessarily believe in life after death, and certainly not hell.  Don't tell Dan Torrance that, because he has seen beyond the grave.

Excerpt From Doctor Sleep



AARP has printed an excerpt of Stephen King's upcoming novel, Doctor Sleep.

By introducing Dick Hallorann, King acts quickly to make it clear that this story is building from his novel, not Mr. Kubrick's version of The Shining.  The narration actually feels very much like the voice King gave us in The Shining.  Same author -- but after all these years you would think it hard to return.

In Prefatory Matters we learn that Wendy and Danny received a small settlement from the owners of the Overlook. We quickly get to revisit room 217 (another nod to the novel over the film.)  In this short scene, Danny is eight.

This is masterful:
Close your eyes, Dick Hallorann had told him once upon a time. If you see something bad, close your eyes and tell yourself it's not there and when you open them again, it will be gone. 
But it hadn't worked in Room 217 when he was five, and it wouldn't work now. He knew it. He could smell her. She was decaying. 
In Chapter 1, titled "Welcome to Teenytown," an adult Danny has turned to drinking, shadowing his own father's misery. He bops from job to job and town to town, reminding me of David Banner in The Hulk.

King quickly takes us back in time. Note the narrative voice here,
Sorry, Deenie, you lose, but nobody leaves empty-handed. What have we got for her, Johnny?
Well, Bob, Deenie didn't win any money, but she's leaving with our new home game, several grams of cocaine, and a great big wad of FOOD STAMPS!
Check out the excerpt at www.aarp.org 

First Page Of Kings THE SHINING Script

image from www.movies.com

THE SHINING -- There's the Kubrick version -- there's the Stephen King mini-series version -- there are  endless parodies, but did you know that King himself wrote an early script for a movie version of The Shining that Kubrick chose not to use.

Mike Bracken at www.movies.com posted:
What’s interesting is that King wrote his own draft of the script back in the '80s, and while we’ve never read the whole thing, we can share the first page with you. How different might The Shining have been if they used King’s script? Would it have been better? 
We’ll never know the answers definitively – however, we can say that we think Kubrick’s opening sequence featuring the drive up through the mountains to the Overlook is better than King’s opening here. We can also say that we think Kubrick’s film’s climax (which differs radically from the novel) is significantly better than the ending to King’s book.
Wait a minute . . . what did he say?  The Kubrick end is better than King's novel?  More climatic?  Did he miss the part where the thing BLOWS UP! ?  And Wendy is racing against time. . . and. . . and. . . oh well, maybe some people just need to read with more intensity.

ENTERPRISE INCIDENTS: THE SHINING

VAN HISE REVIEW OF: THE SHINING

(The Shining Journal, #3)



Mr. Van Hise likes The Shining, but complains that it has "too much characterization." While Salem’s Lot was a big novel with lots of characters, The Shining is a big novel with just a few characters.

In van Hise’s words:
"The complaint I’m making is that when writer has a finely conceived story, there is no reason to detour from it into subplots and extraneous discourses which have nothing to do with that plot. Characterization is fine, but let’s not overdo it, and this book certainly does overdo it, mostly with Jack Torrance. The book is about the Overlook Hotel and what it does to these people one winter. When the story stays here it’s great. What happened to Jack Torrance when he lsot his job is just a big rap which he wasn’t able to roll with. Drumming that fact into our heads time after time isn’t necessary. Certainly it was important to describe Jack Torrance ine nough back ground detail so that we can understand why his mental collapse is believable, but too much of this reached the point hwere it came across to me as just padding. I’m well aware that this is a terrible thing to say about a writer, and I’m not saying that this is what King did, but rather that this is the effect it achieved. Fortunately, the book’s strong points far overshadow its weak ones."
The reason Jack’s firing was so important to the book is that it was one of the catalyst for his drinking. Or return to drinking. I find all the background information does slow the story – but I can press on because I actually enjoy all these asides. If this was my first time reading The Shining, I think I too would be annoyed! "Where’s this going?" I would ask. But I already know where this is going, so I can take time to enjoy the greater depth King gives these characters.

Now, for an early commentary on the Kubrick film! Remember, please, Van Hise hasn’t had years of King and others griping about the film. It was met with generally good reviews, so it takes some perception. 
"The film is also an abortion from the standpoint of the fact that the movie ends before it even reaches the point in the book where the climax really gets rolling. Yes, the movie cuts out the climax of the book, which is the very facet of the story which insured its popularity, because unlike the film, the book is not anti-climactic. The book builds to such a wild, ever pritch that it remains a classic of the genre no matter how many other horror stories you’ve ever rad. Whereas Salem’s Lot is a better book on the whole, The Shining contains his finest climax from every standpoint, and especially for sheer power and imagination.   
Whatever else may be disappointing in the book, the climax is not! It delivers a one-two punch which carries the reader straight through to the conclusion with pile-driver intensity and in an extremely satisfying manner. This book cried out fo a powerful screen translation, rather than the commonplace treatment it received at the hands of Stanley Kubrick. Because of this, there are a lot of people out there who don’t understand why The Shining was a bestseller, or why it was even made into a film at all, and that’s criminal. Kubric has made King seem like an ordinary writer, and all because Kubric took excellent material and made an ordinary film. If there is anything The Shining is not, it’s ordinary."
I can hear the "experts" on Room 237 shouting, screaming, crying at this! "The Shining" a "ordinary" film? I love the way van Hise gives such credit to the book.

The introduction to this set of reviews is at talkstephenking.blogspot.com

The Shining Revealed


Here's more proof that a lot of people take Kubrick's The Shining really serious.  The Shining Revealed is a paperback book that discusses various views of what the movie really means.
The Shining Revealed examines the narrative behind Stanley Kubrick's 1980 masterpiece as well as the many themes weaved into the film. Furthermore, it includes a scene-by-scene analysis that provides answers to the questions the audience is left to ponder once they have seen the film. Who is the woman in room 237? Why is Jack in the Fourth of July photograph from 1921? Is the Overlook Hotel really haunted? These questions and more are explained using actions and events, which occur in the film, transforming the plot’s ambiguity into reason and meaning. Only then, the true narrative is revealed and one is able to watch the film again for the first time. (theshiningrevealed.com) 



theshiningrevealed.com says this about the King to Kubrick transition:
On May 23, 1980, The Shining premiered in theaters across North America. It was directed by acclaimed filmmaker Stanley Kubrick and presented to audiences as a movie based on Stephen King’s novel. But the similarity between novel and film has been a subject of debate amongst fans and critics ever since the release of the movie. Does Kubrick’s version of The Shining accurately depict the story of King’s novel about one man’s descent into madness while spending the winter with his family in a haunted hotel? Or, was Kubrick’s objective to reveal a different story altogether? Trying to decipher Kubrick’s version of The Shining is like putting together a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle wherein the picture on the box differs from the picture on the pieces. However, once the puzzle is complete, you know you are staring at the correct picture because the pieces do, in the end, fit together perfectly. 

You can but the book at amazon.com
5.99 Kindle
10.99 Paperback

This Week In Horror: MICK GARRIS

Hey, welcome to Mick Garris week!  I enjoyed this interview with Mick Garris.  It is on This Week In Horror #15.


It is interesting that they note that Garris has made more Stephen King adaptations than anyone else.  "You have to trust the story," Garris says, noting that you have to first find what makes the story work.  He says that reading is an "active" process while watching is a passive process.  (That's really good)

"The closer you stay to the King source material the better the movie," Garris says.

The Shining's Deleted Ending Script

image credit: www.dreadcentral.com

theoverlookhotel.com has posted the screenplay for the deleted original ending of The Shining. When the Shining was originally released, there was a hospital scene between the first shot of Jack frozen and the closing shot of the framed photo, bearing the  date July 4, 1921.

The website notes,
Kubrick decided to remove the scene very shortly after the U.S. opening, dispatching assistants to excise the scene from the dozens of prints showing in Los Angeles and New York City. All known copies of the scene were reportedly destroyed, although it is rumored that one surviving copy may exist.
The website also cites Kubrick’s co-screenwriter, Diane Johnson, saying that Kubrick felt it was important the audience know that Wendy and Danny were okay.  "He had a soft spot for Wendy and Danny and thought that, at the end of a horror film, the audience should be reassured that everything was back to normal."

Normal indeed.  Unfortunately, Stephen King also has a soft spot for Danny -- and it doesn't just end in a hospital!

Drawing Of The Three Journal #3: The Shining



In Wizard and Glass, Stephen King makes some pretty clear connections to his other  works.  It becomes crystal clear that the Dark Tower is a door that opens directly into King's other books.  But direct references to Stephen King and his work began to appear in other places much earlier in the series.

Twice Eddie Dan makes mention of The Shining.  These are cultural references.  Interestingly, both times he is referencing the Kubrick film.  Here are two quotes about The Shining from The Drawing Of The Three:

1. While looking through the doorway into Oedtta's world:

Now the view through the doorway made one of those turns the gunslinger found so dizzying— but Eddie found this same abrupt swoop oddly comforting. Roland had never seen a movie. Eddie had seen thousands, and what he was looking at was like one of those moving point-of-view shots they did in ones like Halloween and The Shining. He even knew what they called the gadget they did it with. Steadicam. That was it.  (P.198)
2. Again, looking through Odetta's eyes:
He was staring into the doorway, hypnotized, as an aisle of Macy’s rushed forward— he was reminded again of The Shining, where you saw what the little boy was seeing as he rode his trike through the hallways of that haunted hotel. He remembered the little boy had seen this creepy pair of dead twins in one of those hallways. (P.223)
Someone has pointed out that Room 217 can equal 19 (2 + 17).  Deep.  And -- "Another instance of 19 occurs during the climax of the novel, when Jack is attempting to kill his wife, and the book mentions that there are 19 stairs from the lobby to the first floor of the hotel."  

Authors Who Hated The Movie Versions Of Their Book



Stacy Conradt has a really cool article titled, "11 Authors Who Hated  The Movie Versions Of Their Book."  (www.mentalfloss.com)

Did you know there is a reason Catcher in the Rye is not a movie?  Actually -- I hadn't noticed until Conradt mentioned it!  But, sure enough, it's not on screen!  Turns out J.D. Salinger was big time ticked at the way his short story Uncle Wiggly in Connecticut was translated to film, and never again allowed his books to go to Hollywood!  The same is true of the sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.  (Kind of like Stephen King refusing to allow his stories to be recorded as abridgments after Thinner.)

I love this line Conradt quotes from Gump and Co, "“Don’t never let nobody make a movie of your life’s story,” and “Whether they get it right or wrong, it don’t matter.” Turns out Groom had  reason to resent Hollywood. . . they cheated him out of his royalties!

Of course, we all know Stephen King was not overly fond of The Shining -- and that puts him at #2 on Conradt's list. . . right after Mary Poppins.  What could be wrong with Mary Poppins?  That's like someone asking a King fan, "what's wrong with The Shining?"  (Nothing, if you ask most of us!)  But for King, the movie failed to tell his story.

About Mary Poppins, Conradt writes, "Despite having script approval, Travers’ edits were largely disregarded. Travers loathed the movie’s animated sequences and was perturbed that Mary Poppins’ strict side was downplayed. After some heated meetings, Travers reluctantly approved. She would have been shunned from the star-studded premiere had she not shamed a Disney exec into an invite. The 65-year-old Travers spent most of the movie crying and ultimately refused to let Disney touch the rest of the series."

And then about The Shining, Condrat says,
Stephen King probably made movie buffs cringe when he said he hated what Stanley Kubrick did to The Shining.“I’d admired Kubrick for a long time and had great expectations for the project, but I was deeply disappointed in the end result. … Kubrick just couldn’t grasp the sheer inhuman evil of The Overlook Hotel. So he looked, instead, for evil in the characters and made the film into a domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones. That was the basic flaw: because he couldn’t believe, he couldn’t make the film believable to others.” He was also unhappy with Jack Nicholson’s performance – King wanted it to be clear that Jack Torrance wasn’t crazy until he got to the hotel and felt that Nicholson made the character crazy from the start. With director Mick Garris, King ended up working on another version of The Shining that aired on ABC in 1997.
Here's the raw list, but check out the article:

1. Mary Poppins, P.L. Travers.
2. The Shining, Stephen King.
3. Interview with the Vampire, Anne Rice
4. Forrest Gump, Winston Groom
5. Sahara, Clive Cussler
6.Uncle Wiggly in Connecticut, J.D. Salinger
7. A Clockword Orange, Anthony Burgess
8. American Psycho, Bred Easton Ellis
9. Charlie and the Chocolate Facotry, Roald Dahl
10. One Flew Over  The Cuckoo's Nest, Ken Kesey.
11. I Am Legend, Richard Matheson

The full article is delightful.  Check it out here: mentalfloss.com

Kubrick's Copy Of THE SHINING

image credit: The Overlook Hotel


I spotted this first at my favorite Stephen King website, Lilja's Library.

A website titled The Overlook Hotel has posted pictures of Stanley Kubrick's working copy of The Shining.
Stanley Kubrick’s personal copy of Stephen King’s novel, The Shining. This well-worn book, now housed in the Stanley Kubrick Archive in London, is filled with Kubrick’s notes and comments. Many passages are highlighted, and Kubrick has filled the margins with hand-written notes that run the gamut from notating passages that inspire him, to crossing out sections he found silly.
This is exciting, since I just got my first edition of The Shining this week.  (Oooh, ebay, I love thee!)  First thing I did, check to make sure it was a clean copy!  Notice that Kubrick was writing in a first edition.  Usually these are devalued by writing in them. . . unless it's Stanley Kubrick doing the writing!

Hummm, no notes on the moon landing spotted here!

Okay, here's the photo's.  They are all from the Overlook Hotel.  Nice site, by the way.