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

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:43am

I thought the tv movie was okay. It kind of lost me near the end. Weber and De Mornay (The strength she projects was an interesting contrast with Duvall) were solid. I didn't think the kid was that bad, though he was a bit too obviously weird.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:44am

1+9+2+1=13

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:48am

I read the book before I saw the Kubrick film in the theatre, and I remember how shocked I was when they killed off Dick Hallorann (and in such a gory way).

I knew right then that the entire ending to the story was going to be different than the novel. It had to be. And in a horror movie, that was a great, disturbing feeling. You think you know what's coming next, more or less, and then BAM! Guess again, pal.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:49am

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

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:49am

I knew the novel very well when the movie came out, I was a big Stephen King fan for a while. I never had any problem with the film -- it worked like gangbusters for me.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:53am

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

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:55am

Me, too, best. I now find myself appreciating things that I couldn't possibly have gotten back then -- like that glorious moment of Jack walking alone down the hallway having that infuriated imaginary conversation, like some demented homeless guy on the street, which I believe was where Nicholson got the idea for the moment.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:59am

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."

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:00am

Both Duvall and Nicholson have these strange, awkward pauses at times. Like they're dialing in from another movie or something, and then they sort of explode with an odd response or hyperactive reaction.

And I'm talking about simple stuff at the beginning when Jack is being interviewed for the job or Shelley is talking to the kid.

Weird, wonderful stuff.

I know some people have an "allergic reaction" to Duvall in the film, but I absolutely love her in the part.

Updated On: 8/17/12 at 11:00 AM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:10am

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:17am

I agree with you about Shelley's acting. It's always truthful, even if those really odd reactions are sometimes inappropriate (at least conventionally so). I do remember people giggling when I saw it in the theatre.

It never comes off as false though. Just really odd.

And for me, it gets better with additional viewings (as does Nicholson's performance).

The kid isn't bad. He isn't great, but he doesn't suck either. He has a couple of over-the-top reactions, too. Almost comical (just like Duvall and Nicholson). The best thing I can say about him is that he comes off as a genuine kid. There's nothing "actory" about him.

Those odd, rhythmic pauses are even prevalent in Scatman's performance.

I think some of that is achieved in the editing, but it also seems to be directed in this weird "fishbowl" environment.

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

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:19am

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.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:20am

Joe, I have to disagree with you. There's a difference between something being "unexplained" and something "not making sense". In a ghost story or a mystery story it's the "unexplained" that keeps things going - the guessing. But when something doesn't make a lick of sense, that takes the person out of the story and makes them go "HUH?!" and depending on where it happens in a film, you might never get those people back.

THE SHINING as a whole leaves a lot unexplained which is perfectly fine. As you said, it's a ghost story. But things like the photo which are so deliberate and thought about (Kubrick made the decision to end his film with this image and for that image to look a certain way and to have that specific date on it. And if you know about Kubrick, you know he didn't usually just say "Yeah just put whatever there") to me that photo HAS to mean SOMETHING.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:20am

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:25am

Jordan---did you read the link that Wynbish posted?

It offers some answers as to possible hidden meanings to do with that photo but also the film in general, the use of color, etc. Whether or not they are his intended meanings, they sure make for some compelling answers.

EDIT: Here's the link again, since it's now on the other page:

LINK

Updated On: 8/17/12 at 11:25 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:31am

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.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:34am

I feel the same way, Joe.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:34am

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.

[Wynbish]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:38am

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

Long shot, but maybe the hotel has claimed 1920 people, and he made 1921?

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:40am

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. :)

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:40am

Nicholson on Kubrick and the film

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:42am

Never mind.

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

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:49am

That was a really wonderful interview. I love seeing Nicholson talk seriously about his career.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:51am

"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

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:52am

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.

Well, the theory presented is saying that he's using the "opposite" color (aka "mirror image"), but the opposite of yellow is purple, not red, on the color spectrum. Although he did "flip" the colors. Red becomes yellow, and yellow becomes red. They are not "opposite" colors, however.

They also keep harping on the large palm tree clearly indicating that it couldn't possibly be the Overlook in that photo. Palm trees were very popular back then, and there's no reason to think the Overlook could have had one shipped there during the summer and kept indoors. And the fact that the decor is so different ... hotels do remodel, sometimes to the point of being unrecognizable from their previous looks. So I can't say the argument is "rock solid" here, either.

Still a compelling read.

One of the most interesting thoughts raised is the way Nicholson is posed in that photo exactly like the devil on the Tarot cards. With the right hand raised and bent at the elbow, and the left arm extended down.

Updated On: 8/17/12 at 11:52 AM