WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
JACK
(to himself)
God, I'd give anything for a drink?

JACK sits down and puts his hands up to his face.

JACK
My goddam soul, just a glass of beer.

CUT TO:

M.S. JACK with his hands up to his face. He lowers his
hands and looks - he lowers hands to bar and smiles.

JACK
Hi Lloyd.

JACK looks cam.R then back at camera.

JACK
A little slow tonight, isn't it?

JACK laughs.

CUT TO:

M.S. LLOYD standing behind bar.

LLOYD
Yes, it is, Mr. Torrance.

LLOYD moves forward - CAMERA TRACKS BACK revealing JACK
seated at bar.

LLOYD
What'll it be?

Just saying.
 

version

Well-known member
 

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
@Linebaugh That Jack offers his soul for booze. When he passes that threshold, chaos ensues.

It’s a possession - that’s why (perhaps) he’s always been the caretaker, as per the photo of him from a previous era.
 

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
The book has a bit more on Jack’s drinking, but in the film that bar scene seems a transitional moment. The barman only appears after the offer of a soul.
 

Leo

Well-known member
maybe I missed it here, or it's just unsaid common knowledge to everyone but me, but I just learned that rian treanor is mark fell's son.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
with kubrick i get the impression that when he’s actually creating something, he’s not necessarily trying to go out of his way to be intellectual, he’s more focused on getting the visceral / psychological impact right. but he’s probably just one of those people who always seem to have weird, interesting theories about stuff in general (kind of like luka) that can’t help but come through in how he tells stories.
I think these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive though are they?
I mean, can't it be that, he's trying to get the visceral and psychological impact right - the feeling it engenders in people is really important to him and so he's working really hard on doing that and possibly he overthinks (and thus intellectualises) his attempt to do just that.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I mean maybe I'm wrong with that applying to Kubrick but I think it is something that could happen.... but what the distinction you meant?
 

mvuent

Void Dweller
guess i was originally thinking more about philosophical or political themes than the technical craft of filmmaking.

i get the sense that some creators will consciously and specifically formulate a “take” for their latest project. whereas others will focus their energy on getting the visceral impact right and whatever relevant views they have will simply bleed through into the results.

so, IF that applied to the shining, you could say that maybe kubrick didn’t explicitly set out to make a film about racism, sexism, colonialism, but rather that his more general views of how those forces affected the world informed his depiction of the overlook hotel’s inhabitants and history. those forces are looming in the background of the film, but maybe part of why people find the film mysterious is that they’re not fully foregrounded or elucidated.

it may not be THAT useful or interesting a distinction from the viewer’s perspective; was mostly thinking, “what mindset could be helpful to make a film like this?”
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I see what you mean. Definitely we're talking about two different overall ways of looking at the film - or just two different questions about the film I guess. For what it's worth, I reckon what you're saying is most likely right, I don't think he planned it all out with all those ideas mapped out like answers in a crossword - now a bit about racism, now some sexism stuff - I'm guessing (and I think that this is what you're saying), that he just made the film that he had in his mind and those things were kinda suggested at one time or another cos those were his preoccupations at the time and they couldn't help but appear.
To me that raises another question. I wonder if when someone makes a film in that way they think "I'll make this film and, just because of who I am and what I'm doing, there is no chance that my thoughts on colonialism (say) won't manifest themselves at some point" - in other words, it was still a conscious decision, or at least something he was aware of in advance and he just let happen. Or do you think he watches it back and goes "oh look, my concerns about colonialism came through there and I hadn't even planned it" - perhaps that's a pointless question really, most likely it's a spectrum across directors as a whole, and also across individual directors at different times. In other words (boring answer) sometimes it's more deliberate and sometimes it isn't. And some directors tend to do it more deliberately more often than others and some less. Meh.
Also, thinking back to what I said above about how directors use their technical skills to produce scenes that are supposed to visceral or based on feeling.... perhaps that's an almost entirely trivial point, of course directors use their technical skills to make films, and if they are going for a scene that is supposed to engender an entirely gut response in the viewer that's no exception. Although on the other hand, maybe it is possible for directors to overthink such scenes within the parameters that they necessarily have to work with.... perhaps I'm just rambling now....
 

luka

Well-known member
Gabor Lazar's become more

this photo gives you an analogue for what it is they are trying to do, or think they are doing, or aspire to. clean lines. formal composition. deliberate framing. contrast. the form itself is the content. the real world doesnt leak into it. it isnt really a picture of pallets stacked in a warehouse. its 'formal composition shadow and light' and obviously the tune likewise is not a tune its just a 'formal composition' and its for cunts.
 
Top