Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: InvisibleChurch

I am a fan of Kubrick. I find the imagery that he utilized in all of his films to be staggering and truly brilliant on an intellectual level that escapes most. The hotel layout always baffled me, as well. I find two or three plausible intentions.

1.) It carried the importance of the maze inside - a confusing inner battle.

2.) It was a visual image of the nonsensical battle in Jack’s mind.

3.) It visualized the battle between Danny’s willingness to confront and Jack’s inability to come to terms with what was taking place.

I have always wondered why Kubrick chose to kill Jack using ice rather than the fire that King chose in the novel. Why? It seemed to me that King’s inferno from the boiler explosion was a permanent end. Was Kubrick’s freezing scene merely to represent a potential ‘preservation’, like freezing a roast? I could spend hours talking about Kubrick and the Shining and Eyes Wide Shut in particular.

I’ve read ‘The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick’ and enjoyed doing so. My favorite read on Kubrick, to date has been ‘On Kubrick’ by James Naremore - it focused more on discussing his films rather than the man.


39 posted on 08/09/2013 8:02:06 PM PDT by RobertClark (My shrink just killed himself - he blamed me in his note!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RobertClark

Ok. Sounds good. I’ll look into On Kubrick. Thanks.


41 posted on 08/09/2013 8:10:32 PM PDT by InvisibleChurch (http://thegatwickview.tumblr.com/ http://thepurginglutheran.tumblr.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: RobertClark
I have always wondered why Kubrick chose to kill Jack using ice rather than the fire that King chose in the novel. Why? It seemed to me that King’s inferno from the boiler explosion was a permanent end. Was Kubrick’s freezing scene merely to represent a potential ‘preservation’, like freezing a roast? I could spend hours talking about Kubrick and the Shining and Eyes Wide Shut in particular.

I read the book and saw the movie, and liked them both. ( I'm not even sure which I did first! ) I can appreciate the changes that Kubrick made. I thought the boiler explosion, and the ending in general of the book, were kind of hokey. The strength of the book was the "unreliable narrator". That is, he was rotten to the core, but didn't think this of himself. This was shown in the wasp nest incident. The movie came closeset to this idea when his son asks him if he would ever hurt him or his mother. He says, "Why would you think that?" but never denies that he would.

I liked Kubrick's treatment of the "ghosts" as more or less hallucinations. Particularly the bar scenes, which grow in scope. Also, the key scene where he "joins up" and is let out of the food locker. That was perfect. A transition from the ethereal to the concrete with just a sound.

I thought Kubrick inserted a "bridge" to the book in the climactic scene where Shelley Duvall is running around the hotel and encountering the various apparitions. One of them was a guy in a mouse suit kneeling before a man sitting on a bed, and they both turn and look at her.

I thought this was an allusion to the description in the book of the gay guy at the party in a dog suit who was getting more and more forward as he became intoxicated.

77 posted on 08/10/2013 4:56:14 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson