Blake Butler

Spatial Anomalies in Kubrick’s The Shining

15 Comments

1. August 11th, 2011 / 5:28 pm M. Kitchell—

   god, i will never get tired of reading crazy shit/watching crazy-ass-videos about the shining, i can’t even watch it as a movie any more, it exists exclusively as a brilliant case study

2. August 11th, 2011 / 5:34 pm postitbreakup—

   First saw this in the comments section at DC’s, can’t remember who posted it, and watched 30 seconds and knew it’d be awesome so I bookmarked it and then forgot about it.  Really glad it’s posted again, cuz now that I’m watching it I know it’s just as awesome as my first impression suggested.

   I find The Shining so compelling for the first hour and whatever, it’s less interesting to me once Jack actually starts tearing shit up, but the mood and the ominous day-of-the-week captions, the whole build-up, is just phenomenal.

3. August 11th, 2011 / 5:45 pm Mark—

   Awesome video–I love the breakdown. I was just about to add that spatial incongruities are present in almost every film (for practical / aesthetic reasons, etc.), but I see that debate has already raged:

   http://johnaugust.com/2011/cinematic-geography-and-problem-of-genius
   http://www.collativelearning.com/john%20august%20response.html

   So instead, I would like to post a video of Hitchock looking at babies and bikinis while explaining film theory. The man should have started a YouTube channel.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCAE0t6KwJY

4. August 11th, 2011 / 5:48 pm M. Kitchell—

   for further reading, or whatever

   http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/802

   http://www.film-philosophy.com/index.php/f-p/article/view/743/655

   http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_apollomissions10.htm

   (+ what’s linked above of course)

   (also, really feels like some of the shit talked about in theodore rozsak’s flicker [which i’ve read twice even though i fucking hate the last 200 pages and think they ruin what would otherwise be totally fucking awesome] is like, “oh hey check this out” here in the shining, especially as highlighted by the mstrmnd article [which is also long as fuck])

5. August 11th, 2011 / 6:19 pm lorian long—

   holy shit that physical cosmologies thing is sweet. yeah, i could pretty much say the shining is a perfect film and feel okay about that.

   here’s another thing on #s, slightly less ‘academic’ but still fun in the EVERYTHING COUNTS kind of way: http://jonnys53.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-you-may-or-may-not-have-seen.html

6. August 11th, 2011 / 7:14 pm Anonymous—

   even better is the mstrmnd star wars, batman, eyes wide shut, full metal jacket entries, kind of like spoilers on acid (there are others but they take a fucking time to find)

   http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/1241
   http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/71
   http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/2130
   http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/1378

7. August 11th, 2011 / 9:05 pm Dortmunder—

   None of this was intentional.  Many of the scenes are shot for reasons other than pseudo-myth-psychology effect.  Mostly the need for light and setting the scene to shoot, etc. 

   You can’t expect a movie set to be fundamentally in agreement with laws and properties of nature, etc… that’s an unrealistic expectation, after all, it’s a MOVIE. 

8. August 11th, 2011 / 9:08 pm M. Kitchell—

   FAKE

9. August 11th, 2011 / 9:35 pm Anonymous—

   Dort, you don’t get it. Kubrick plays with light, mirrors, continuity the entire film. Some windows are impossible, even the maze entrance has alternates (there are two different ones). It’s not psychology (though it’s a creepy effect), it’s called language. If I can make you think something is real while showing you it’s fake, I get to play with meanings and agreement.

10. August 11th, 2011 / 9:35 pm Anonymous—

    Dort, you don’t get it. Kubrick plays with light, mirrors, continuity the entire film. Some windows are impossible, even the maze entrance has alternates (there are two different ones). It’s not psychology (though it’s a creepy effect), it’s called language. If I can make you think something is real while showing you it’s fake, I get to play with meanings and agreement.

11. August 11th, 2011 / 10:06 pm Leapsloth14—

    I love wonks, of any kind.

12. August 12th, 2011 / 12:00 am deadgod—

    All movie and no movie makes Stanley a shiny boy.

13. August 12th, 2011 / 10:17 am CarlVins—

    http://kubrickfilms.tripod.com/id4.html  HEre’s a good one about The Shining. Mind blowing.

14. August 16th, 2011 / 4:17 pm Greggerke—

    For more Kubrickians: http://bigother.com/2011/08/14/on-newfound-footage-from-stanely-kubricks-the-shining/

15. August 18th, 2011 / 4:42 pm alientropes—

    whoa that physical cosmologies piece is a brain-wreckker!!!! kudos kitchell.