Monday, April 29, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
For instance, in a scene between Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall, a chair behind Nicholson disappears. The narrators read a lot into this. Knowing what I know about Kubrick, the real reason is that the scene is composed of two shots filmed a fucking year apart! A simple continuity error. If Kubrick wanted to give us a sense of unease, he'd already gone further by making the geography of the hotel completely nonsensical (elevator shafts that weren't there before, windows placed in impossible locations), I don't think he'd simply remove a chair, something that might be perceived as a mistake.
Some theories ring true, like the genocide of Native Americans, something even a casual viewer of the film would pick up. In the opening scenes, the manager states the hotel is built on an Indian burial ground and that many Indians had to be "fought off" during its construction (this gives heft to the stunning image of blood gushing from the elevator doors...don't take that elevator to the basement, lots of Indian blood down there!). Also, the Jack Torrence character as a minotaur (the monster of the hotel and hedge maze, plus Kubrick's first production company was called "Minotaur").
Through most of the film, Danny's gift aside, the set-up is that this was all in Jack's mind (whenever he sees a ghost, he's looking in a mirror, therefore he's talking to himself). Then near the end, Kubrick has that chilling scene when you hear the latch of the storage room door being opened from the other side by Grady. This completely shifts the implications that the sinister hotel and its ghostly inhabitants are at work. The one thing the narrators cannot explain (or agree on) is Jack Torrence's presence in the photograph in the final shot, dated "July 4, 1921" (who, or what, was he?).
Directors like Kubrick, or even David Lynch, who leave things vague or open to interpretation never own up to these theories, why would they? The thing I took away from this is the folly of overanalyzing films. It's enough to make you as crazy as Jack Torrence.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Monday, April 8, 2013
Monday, April 1, 2013
The egos of creative types is a subject matter that can grow rather tiresome. All the infighting and history of the group comes off as nothing more than a classical music version of Fleetwood Mac. Oddly low-key and overdramatic at the same time, this has good performances from the four (however, none of them even bother to look like they're actually playing their instruments) and a scene here and there that works.