Replies

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.