So Why The Hell Was Nicholson In The Hotel Picture In 1921? — Page 2

1+9+2+1=13

By the way, I've had two unrelated jobs now where my telephone extension was 237.

---

I remember vacillating on the movie a lot at the time. I didn't care about the changes, because I thought they all worked well on their own terms. But initially, I thought both Nicholson and Duvall were SO over-the-top that it almost (almost!) ruined it for me.

Remember how Nicholson was spoofed and imitated and basically raked across the coals back then? It actually helped cement it as an "epic" performance in the end.

I've seen the movie several times since then, and their performances (both of them!) continue to grow on me with every viewing. I think they're brilliant.

Just a little bit off, even in the "normal" scenes. It gives the whole film a nightmarish quality even before the "good stuff" happens.

---

Updated On: 8/17/12 at 10:53 AM

I loved the movie- and REALLY loved the book. One thing I REALLY love about watching it now is how s l o w l y the whole thing unwinds- which may be more because movies in general were slower then but works well for it.

And ghost stories don't need to "make sense." That's part of what makes a spooky story spooky- those unexplained situations. Either that or Jack is the devil himslef- "he's always been the caretaker."

I agree about Duvall. I don't think I really appreciated her performance until a couple of years ago. As weird as she is, you can't catch her acting at all. It's a completely persuasive performance (for me, at any rate).

I had a similar response when I caught "Popeye" on TV a couple of weeks ago. Her Olive is so odd, but I bought every second of her. The movie's still weird as hell, though.

There is that weird pause after every sentence, that tends to happen a lot in Kubrick films -- it kind of reaches its ultimate level in the bathroom scene. You could read WAR AND PEACE in some of those breaks. And they're clearly intended, and funny, and disturbing.

As for Ms. Duvall, well. She's just so weird. I know it was a difficult film for her to work on (just watch that Making Of film included on the DVD/Bluray). For a while there she was in the Guinness Book of Records, I think, for the most takes of a single scene -- Kubrick kept making her do that backwards retreat from Jack, around the room and up the stairs, over and over and over.

---

Frankly, I think it's because she's so googly-eyed. But as you say, Besty, she's completely truthful.

Ah, Scatman . . . a lovely, lovely performance.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "make sense." I did put it in quotes- trying to show it wasn't EXACTLY what I meant I guess.

When I've directed, I know exactly what each thing means- what each LINE means, why a prop is there, why the rug is a certain way, why that picture is on the wall. And I am sure Kubrick does too- that seems clear. But a viewer doesn't need to do all that work- I can see that picture, get a prickly feeling on my neck and move on. I can wonder what it means but I don't need to "solve" it. Especially in a ghost story- some mystery is a good thing. If Kubrick wanted to explain why he did it, that would be cool, too, but I don't need it.

Best, I have seen that link before (I didn't see it posted here) and heard certain things said in there before. But saying "in the novel this is yellow so it's red in the film because it's a mirror image" don't exactly make a lot of sense since when you look in a mirror, red things don't become yellow.

And let's say that Nicholson is posed as the Devil in that picture. I buy it. It's kind of like what Joe was saying, it doesn't "make sense" but for a horror story it makes enough sense where I won't question it beyond it being that. But MY question is still why 1921? And my question is such because Kubrick was SO DELIBERATE in everything he did. That date means something. He didn't pull it out of his ass.

If 1920 people died or went missing there, I think the FBI would have seized the property by that point. LOL

BUT I would have given that answer a free non new release rental because it's something I hadn't heard before. :)

Never mind.

---

Updated On: 8/17/12 at 11:42 AM

"It has to mean something, since the picture was not taken in July and was not taken at the hotel."

Hard to say. I agree that the photo probably doesn't depict an actual 4th Of July Party, but for the simple reason that there's no patriotic decorations anywhere in sight, not because they're all wearing tuxes as the guy with the website seems to find so significant.

And the point about the room in the photo clearly not being anything we're shown in the movies misses a fairly obvious rebuttal -- is it impossible that the Overlook was renovated at some point between 1921 and 1980, and the room simply didn't look like that anymore?

This is one of those things where someone is working WAY TOO HARD to drag importance onto something. It just looks like Kubrick decided to use an actual period photo, that he got out of a photo library, and have Nicholson superimposed on the guy in the center. It certainly looks more period than a 1980 staged photo would have been, and I'm sure it was a lot cheaper to set up.

I do like the parallel between Jack's pose in the photo and the Devil card in the Tarot pack. That's cool.

---

Updated On: 8/17/12 at 11:51 AM