skip to Main Content

‪Film-Psychology: THE SHINING Spatial Awareness

Via

Dieser Beitrag hat 154 Kommentare
  1. @robag88 , You are good , i cant wait to hear your take on Inception and Matrix Trilogies (Forgive me if yu have already done them) , as they flirt with multiple realities and the directors have better scope of placing subliminal themes considering the dream/reality continuum… i have done some similar analysis but dint put in them on vdo like yu do… Let us kno if yu do have the analysis of those films… Cheers

  2. I think some of this falls into what is realistic vs people’s expectations of what’s realistic. When people think of hotels they think of doors all over the place, if it was realistic and barren then people would find it unrealistic. Also most hotels have little cupboards full of cleaning supplies behind doors. Wouldn’t account for all but at least some.

    Freezer thing’s messed up though.

  3. If you had ever been there…there is a bathroom right by those windows and the stair and a fairly large bump out to accommodate them. In fact in the pan sequence following behind them you see the door for the other bathroom.
    Secondly if you have ever been on a movie set, not all the sets are in full continuity.
    Your shots are done so that you get your shots, not worrying about some Internet goobers who will pick apart continuity of the set.

  4. I mistakenly clicked this thinking it was going to be more interesting rather than an observation about incorrect architecture. If it was a real hotel/building used then yeah, but it was a set, so the argument holds no water, because its just a set.

    To be honest, I’d have thought they’d have used a proper hotel/building, it certainly looks like one. I wonder why they didn’t.

  5. Very interesting video, just curious though, that’s a scouse accent I’m hearing, right? I’m slowly starting to identify the various british accents.

  6. @Elvisinmybasement sounds like the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose, CA. stairs lead to ceilings. doors that open up to bricks. doors on the top floors that open up to the open outside with nothing below. windows inside that house. rooms that can be entered but you cant exit thru the same door. open shafts in the middle of the house. stairs that are 2 inches high each

  7. At first I thought the freezer door scene may have been flipped horizontally after filming. However, you can see that the coat Hallorann is wearing is not flipped, though the door is. In other words, the set was rotated, not the footage. Crazy.

  8. @Elvisinmybasement I actually saw quite a few places like that that, with, as you like them to call, „strange things“. It’s designers choices to make the room feel cozier, roomier, or give it a feel which would be impossible to achieve within the actual building. Great examples would be fake fireplaces, when properly done, they can look just as if there is actual „place“ in ‚em, but close examination reveal no space 🙂 Same with doors and stairways into the ceiling.. my friend actually has one.

  9. This film just keeps getting more interesting with each passing year. The idea of reflections and time loops and ever shifting locations keeps getting more and more complex. Thank you for this video. Very insightful.

  10. These are not spacial anomalies, they’re breaks in continuity.

    Each shot is chosen for visual impact with little regard for master a floor plan throughout the movie.

    In fact: At least two hotels were utilized for location shots (in Colorado and Alaska), along with sets in studios.

    There are problems with the analysis. Example: In the dolly shot (moving right to left) in the lobby, why assume the couple are in a hallway? It’s an entryway, with the door just out of sight to the right!

  11. @VideoVerity they’re set design errors that Kubrick was conscious of before they were even built. I’ve seen the blueprints and that hall disappearing behind the Colorado Lounge vanishes, half into thin air and half into the wall on the outside of the window. There is no walkway in the blueprint.

    The ahwahnee and timberline hotels weren’t used as location. They were inspiration for decor. I’ve got a vid posted showing those real locations and Kubrick altered the designs from the original hotels.

  12. @VideoVerity BTW have you watched the whole video? I suggest you do. In the second part the very blatant mismatching designs of the tabletop maze are covered. They’re so utterly blatant that there is no way the perfectionist Kubrick would have allowed them if he didn’t want them. And if that was deliberate then all of these other spatial anomolies can’t be written off so easily.

  13. The shinning is a great movie and this was very interesting to watch . It’s weird how I never noticed these errors but know that I think about it … on some level I think I did .

  14. hmm, well, you’re certainly a highly intelligent person, but have you ever considered the possibility that you MAY have a bit too much free time in your life right now? have you perhaps considered an exciting new hobby, such as actually going outside and, say, looking at birds, clouds, girls, or other interesting things in our world, WITHOUT trying to point out impossible angles and intersecting lines on the birds, the clouds, or the girls‘ bodies? hmmm?

  15. @robag88 Part of why I got it wrong is based on a tour of the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado. During tours, they’ve claimed The Shinning (novel) was written there and they claim part of the movie was shot there. It appears as though both are false information. Who knows how many people they’ve led astray…

  16. @Bassbait Ah i see…will check out his 1st matrix… Matrix trilogies is filled with hints of all religious psychologies… i wanted to hear it from someone like robag88 who is into films and subsequent analysis… However Thanks for letting me kno

  17. @neoparthan Well, there are tons of analysis of the entire trilogy. His Matrix 1 analysis has been made only available on his DVDs, so that’s a bummer if you were expecting to be able to see it. You’ll have to get his DVD with it to get the analysis.

    But I recommend looking up some articles on it. I actually feel the need to do a Matrix analysis myself, as I feel all three films can be explained philosophically and scientifically (in terms of the fictional realm it exists in) as a whole.

  18. @mkaen there are several reasons, the most important probably being, that some of the spacial errors would be more than apparent on the actual set (my guess is that, while you build the doors leading no where you are aware of the fact that they don’t lead anywhere)
    Kubric was also known for his eye for details: it is not whithout reason that most if not all of his movies are amongst the finest of theyr genres (which, by the way, couldn’t be more diverse)

  19. *watches this video which shows high attention to detail and thorough analysis*

    wow u must have too much time on ur hands

    *watches cat machine gun meme video with special effects and high post production time and costs*

    wow awesome this is so cool XD!!!

  20. I wonder if people pick up on that deliberate spacial confusion in the hotel subconsciously?

    I only mention this because I recently read that disorientating and confusing someone on that level is one of the quickest ways to get someone into a suggestable trance (according to hypnotists like Derren Brown anyway).

  21. In a non Kubrik movie this would be called ERRORS. In a Kubrik movie they are intentional set design anomalies to disorientate viewers.
    Yes, he adds windows and doors when the movie visually needs them and takes them out when they arent needed. But if for example, in another movie, we were talking about a glass of water that appears when someone needs to drink and disappears when the table needs to be empty its an error. Its not a surreal glass of water.

  22. 10:50 Actually, the map was there in the first shot, but it was where the bench is in the second shot. You can almost see the drawing on the map if you look close in that shot, but it’s definitely the same structure and paper.

  23. @bonchbonch The method behind the analysis from Ager is the acknowledgment that Kubrick may very well be the most perfectionist filmmaker of all time. Every film has goofs in technical aspects or continuity, but to design something with such blatant mistakes seems more intentional than simply saying „this looks good“.

  24. @Ikarimalice Director John August wrote an article on his website critical of this video and stating that the „blatant mistakes“ being pointed out here are intentionally done by every director making a film. All that matters is what the audience accepts in the moment that they see it; not whether or not it’s plausible in physical reality. Hence, a window could appear where it couldn’t have physically existed simply because a room needed light for the shot, and the audience is none the wiser.

  25. @bonchbonch very true 🙂 However Kubrick generally isn’t the kind of director who would do something for pure aesthetics or lighting. If the lighting is off for a shot, he’d just shoot it 300 times until it was right. But that’s what makes this stuff so fun to analyze.

  26. As usual, there’s people who’ve been happily going to pop corn movies for years , probably thinking ‚at least this is one place where I don’t have to use my brain‘, then Rob comes along & breaks up that cosy little arrangment you had with yourself.That’s fine, but if you don’t ‚get it‘, don’t worry. No need to feel threatened by intellectual content. That’s why we see so many ‚haters‘, they imagine they’re being laughed at. You not, but you will be when you leave mindless comments.

  27. Robag88 will do analysis of the film “ cowboys & aliens. That’s my prediction!!! that film has James Cameron subliminal film style written all over it “ i can feel it “ H.A.L,s voice 2001

  28. @mkaen Because Kubrick was a true perfectionist and would shoot some scenes over 100 times if he felt necessary because he wanted exactly what he wanted and he apparantley wouldn’t have it any other way. Because he had such an eye for detail and mise-en-scene which had subliminal connotations he would have realised that there were these obvious continuity errors but he left them the way they were because he wanted them that way, if he didn’t he would have had it changed.

  29. @bonchbonch Sorry, I’ll make it less literal for you. Kubrick was a perfectionist who had a vision. He may very well have thought „you know, a huge window here would look great“, but the fact that it’s a pretty blatant error in blueprint design contradicts the perfectionist nature that he always possessed.

  30. @shelbythomas What does Michael Bay have to do with any of this? A director who does 300 takes because he’s incapable of getting the lighting right for his shot would be a terrible director and not a genius at all.

  31. @Ikarimalice I suspect you didn’t read the blog entry I mentioned. The plausibility of the building’s blueprints don’t matter for the shot, they don’t matter to the audience, and they don’t matter to the story. For any director, adhering to physical plausibility would be a hindrance in visually presenting the story. It’s the reason movie sets are built, because walls can be moved around at will.

  32. @bonchbonch Agreed, however especially if the walls could be moved at will, then Kubrick made the conscious decision to film it in such a way that the fakeness of the set would be on display at every turn(literally and figuratively speaking). For a perfectionist like Kubrick, that notion is a bit perplexing. Similar to modern day Coen, you have to imagine Kubrick sitting down and making the choice to do things like put a window in a place obviously impossible, and then you question why.

  33. @bonchbonch Of course that doesn’t mean it *is* this way. But rather it just makes it interesting to discuss. Kubrick was not your average director who would go for pure aesthetics unless there was a reason.

  34. @Ikarimalice You had nothing to do with the production, either. As August wrote on his blog, directors disregard physical continuity all the time for the sake of visual aesthetic. Claiming that The Shining is doing something intentional when all films, including The Evil Dead, do the same thing is a subjective interpretation based on your love of Kubrick. You think he’s a genius, and therefore, everything must be intentional.

  35. @bonchbonch The difference is I’m not claiming this as fact, only possibility. The only one claiming one side is absolute is you. Kubrick was a genius and a perfectionist. Although directors shoot for aesthetics, the difference(again) is that where other films utilize alternate locations for the look of it, Kubrick designed a set and filmed in a style that would expose these locations which gives it the possibility of intent. Subjective interpretation? Uh, yeah, not all directors are equal.

  36. @bonchbonch It’s not based on my love of Kubrick. It’s based on what is very well known and documented about Kubrick. It’s a bit preposterous to suggest that all directors do the same thing as if it’s a lighting technique. While we’re at it let’s equate Kubrick to Uwe Boll and say nothing can be said otherwise or it’s personal bias that assuredly can’t be true.

  37. @robag88 I don’t think Yellow was insulting your video, rather, he was poking fun at simpletons who mock your analyses „to much time on ur hands, durr“, and praise dull and unoriginal, internet-trendy videos.

  38. @Ikarimalice You say you’re not claiming anything as fact, and then you immediately claim that Kubrick is too much of a „genius and a perfectionist“ for common film continuity errors to not be intentional disorientation, even though it apparently required a YouTube video to point them out, and they are directing choices that are common to every film in existence.

  39. @Ikarimalice It’s clearly based on your love of Kubrick. You called him a genius and therefore believe that everything in the movie must have been deliberate. Again, you don’t seem to understand that every director films spacial impossibility for the sake of visual presentation. Read John August’s article on this entitled „Burton, Kubrick and Impossible Windows“ (August was the director of Big Fish and other movies).

  40. @bonchbonch No that’s what you’re missing. I said this was intriguing and it’s interesting to note specifically more so because Kubrick was arguably the most perfectionist director that had lived, notorious for going over schedule and never saying „good enough even with the obvious errors“. Never did I say because of this it WAS the case, merely because of this it’s worth considering that perhaps the blatant errors from such a perfectionist director were intentional.

  41. @bonchbonch And a lot of these I had noticed long before the youtube videos. In particular the vast sprawling apartments that clearly went the direction where several other rooms supposedly existed. While it’s perfectly acceptable to believe simply in spatial design for the ease of aesthetics, it(in my opinion) is also possible to believe Kubrick intended this because it’d have been just as easy to designate the „apartments“ of the hotel into sections that did not include numerous other doors.

  42. Interesting stuff. Is it possible the freezer represents a knot? Dick, Wendy and Danny unwittingly tie themselves in the knot and thus tie themselves into the hotel by simply walking in and then out, I say unwittingly as Dick neither takes off or replaces a latch on the physical lock to the freezer to tie-off the knot. Much later Wendy unties the knot by dragging Jack backwards and taking off the latch on the lock.

  43. @Ikarimalice There are certainly intentional aspects of disorientation, but, as John August put it, obsessing over which way a freezer door swings is missing the bigger picture, and that’s my point. A window lights the office because the office needs light.

  44. those who critique this study for „trying to find meaning where there is none“ are incapable of understanding the value of close analysis in any work, of any genre. the wonder of this video is not that @robag88 is telling us kubrick’s exact thoughts & intentions. kubrick could watch this video, say „that was not my intention,“ & this would still be genius, because @robag88 has uncovered spacial proof behind the psychological experience of the film. stop hating & give props. this is brilliant.

  45. @bonchbonch Neither you nor August know that is my point. I fully respect and acknowledge the different opinion, but both you and August say „the window is there because the room needed light“. It’s too matter of fact for something no one knows but a man who’s dead. Arguing that it’s for convenience is a fair point, but the moment you rely on stating a fact that is not known as a fact your argument falters. Lots of shots occurred without natural light, and in much larger locations.

  46. @bonchbonch I am not a film director, but I am a photographer, and lighting a small room like that would most certainly not be difficult; especially to the extent of requiring a window be placed in. A director like Kubrick would have no issue lighting a small room with unnatural light, which brings us back to the initial theory that the window was only placed by choice and had nothing to do with the light.

  47. @bonchbonch I never studied film, you pillock! lol I love anyone who can embed deeper meaning in their creative work. If yo don’t have the mental capacity to do the same fine, there’s no shame in that. You are one of the hatters I mentioned above. When people around start broaching subjects out of your mental reach, yo think ‚they are taking the piss out of me‘. We are not taking the piss out you, don’t worry. If you can’t see the meaning, don’t worry, just don’t be a prick to those who do.

  48. Respond to this video… I should say that it’s not Rob that breaks up the ‚arrangement‘ I mentioned, but Stanley and others like him Jimmy Hendrix, Jeff Buckley. Guys like Rob just have the brains and the good sense to find that meaning and then share it with others. Why do I think of the Bill Hicks sketch ‚he didn’t ask me ‚what are yo reading‘, he asked me ‚what are you reading for?!?‘, when I read your post?

  49. @bonchbonch Again though that’s your opinion of it. A window actually contradicts the feelings of isolation by transforming what would otherwise be a tight enclosed room into something with a view. As far as no evidence goes, well this analysis is that evidence. Proof that the window is spatially impossible is evident that there’s a deeper meaning behind it. Like I said, no one knows one way or another for sure, but there’s reasons to believe either side.

  50. @Ikarimalice An opinion supported by an actual feature film director. „Proof that the window is spatially impossible is evident that there’s a deeper meaning behind it.“ No, it’s not. It just means the window is spatially impossible, which doesn’t matter in a medium like film.

  51. @BlowDeBloodyDoorsOff You’re seeing meaning where there is none because you need to convince yourself of how insightful you think you are. What the hell is a „hatter?“

  52. @bonchbonch The problem is you and August are speaking as if it is a technical requirement when it isn’t. There are various methods to light a location, and a very small room like that most definitely does not *need* a window to light it. You seem to bounce between it looking better with one and it needing to be there for lighting so you’re contradicting yourself a bit. I’m actually saying it could be anything. Visual, lighting, or deeper meaning. No one knows but Kubrick.

  53. While The Shining is a brilliant film, by a brilliant filmmaker, I think you’re giving Kubrick far too much credit. The cheats you’ve identified here are far less likely to be brilliantly planned mind games, and much more likely the clever design solutions of a set designer who had to fit a large collection of rooms and hallways in a single soundstage of limited size. Kubrick undoubtedly asked for „lots of twisting halls and doors,“ and the designers obliged.

  54. (Cont’d) Rather than deliberately trying to create a sense of unease with mathematically impossible doors, Kubrick and his designers were actually hoping you *wouldn’t* notice that they’d folded the hallways back and forth like that to save space, or that they’d put more doorways in the hall than would actually fit. When the Script Supervisor (undoubtedly) pointed it out, that’s when Kubrick or his designers would have laughed and said „well… it’s a haunted hotel, innit?“

  55. (Cont’d 2) This kind of space-folding is extremely common in film set design. It’s just that Kubrick uses so many long, continuous shots, so you have more opportunities to notice the glitches. Ever tried making a map of Hogwarts? Or MI6?

    Years ago, I visited the Stargate sets up in Vancouver. The main Stargate chamber is surrounded by a loop of general purpose „underground hallways“ of varying sizes, giving the producers many options to film scenes in the

  56. (Cont’d 3) …Cheyenne Mountain complex. They had a collection of „wall parts“ they could roll in and out of the hallway loop to create new sections, intersections, etc. It was just smart, practical space management.

    Designers cheat like this all the time. It’s only when they create a classic like „The Shining“ that fans notice these little shortcuts.

    (And by the way, it took over 30 years for you to discover these short cuts. That’s long enough to please even the pickiest set designer.)

  57. @ajbezark There’s too much evidence that conflicts with the accidental anomolies interpretation. The top down views of the table top maze are very clearly mismatched in a way that is deliberate – it’s such a blatant and unnecessary discontinuity and it completely ties in with what Kubrick called the „labyrinthine layout“ theme. Then there are the crew reports of Kubrick playing practical jokes in getting them lost in the maze and the secrecy of his behaviour on set.

  58. @robag88 … also the kinds of disconinuity here weren’t necessary. Ullman’s office could have been shifted so that it’s entrance faced the elevator and it’s window was in line with the reception windows. It would have worked in the same amount of space. Same goes for a lot of the other anomolies. They could easily have been resolved in the same space.

  59. @ajbezark I shot my half hour short film The Sex Game using two different houses to represent the same location and combined it with miniature sets for night time exterior shots … and it all logically matches up. That’s on an ultra low-budget. The Exorcist and Psycho don’t have these kinds of anomolies. In fact no one on here has yet mentioned a high budget film that has accidental set layout errors as blatant as this. Though some do it intentionally – Labyrinth, Poltergeist etc

  60. @mratomic7 Do you think the same when you watch Labyrinth, Dr Who, Hellraiser and Poltergeist. Those films all usally thematically deliberate spatial anomolies – the difference is they’re much more obvious than The Shining.

  61. @rhyanwood1 There wasn’t one in the blueprints. The hall way actually overlapped the exterior of the wall columns between the windows before disappearing.

  62. I think you’re overanalyzing to much! Is just lazy set design! Tons of films have exactly the same problems: doors who actually lead nowhere, windows that shouldn’t be there,etc.: that’s because hallways, rooms,etc. are recreated in a movie studio.

  63. Well spotted, I too like to catch details such as these (sad I know). However I must admit that when I saw this movie I did miss all of these but in my defence my focus was not on the thickness of the walls etc but more on not craping my pants. Those twins…

  64. I’ve a question: Can anyone just go & visit the Stanley Kubrick Archives in London? Or do you have to book beforehand? Or do you have to be a student of the College of Communications or something?

  65. It’s amazing to me how many people think that the spatial games couldn’t be deliberate. I mean, of all directors, Stanley is the one most likely to play this kind of elaborate mind game on his audience. Not only would he think the movie would be unsettling, he probably would think it was fun!

  66. @Bassbait Woah there, you don’t have to be all pissed off at me. When did I say that Kubrick „made a ton of mistakes“? I’m only suggesting that he MIGHT have let one little detail slip past him. It’s the kind of thing that you have to be really paying attention to the movie to notice (like the guy in this video). I have toal respect for him as a director and as a true genius, so back off.

  67. I prefer „Alien Geometry“ to explain the in-movie designs; you see if we think Spatial Disorientation (something you do learn in game design for horror games) the in-universe themes can explain the impossibles like the exterior hallway (which could just loop in a circle tho) and the windows could exist but would be ‚mystical‘ in some way or like Silent Hill’s Otherworld — normal physicals do not apply.

  68. Also the freezer scene, doorways to no where, and even the over-lapping errors are again explained by „Alien Geometry“ — the hotel has supernatural powers…much like most Stephen King worlds (From a Buick 8, The Dark Tower, and Rose Red) Space-Distortion is a …theme for him 😛 so in-universe no one out-right notices at first….until they see the supernatural or preternatural things going on and then this all becomes evident, the theme of the movie is the distortions.

  69. We’ll look K was a genius and I’d like to think too he did all this on purpose…but then again there are incongruence in all files…including masterpieces by the masters.

    I wish I could get my PhD in finding odd things in movies!

  70. @kittykatro Which films have the same set design problems? Exorcist and Psycho don’t, but in Labyrinth, Poltergeist, Hellraiser and the tardis of Dr Who there are deliberate spatial errors used as part of a fantasy / horror narrative. It’s not that unusual. The difference is that in The Shining it’s more subtle.

  71. @rsfeller There’s a point at which the consistency and blatantness of „errors“ defies the odds of the theme being accidental. Most films don’t feature spatial defects like these apart from fantasy / horror films like Hellraiser, Poltergeist and Labyrinth, which also use impossible space thematically.

  72. @robag88 tons of SF movies have this problem – Star Trek, Star Wars, Aliens,etc. – if you look careful you will see that they just slapped some corridors, doors and rooms there without thinking at the real architecture of a space ship. Maybe in the Alien movies it might have been deliberate but I doubt of the others.

  73. @kittykatro In those sci-fic films we get glimpses of sets without a full map of how they link up, but they don’t feature impossible doorways and windows from what I remember. Also remember that this is a horror film we’re talking about. Impossible space motifs, or at the very least, inentionally odd design, are frequently used in horror.

  74. I absolutely love your analysis, in particular Kubrick’s movies. I was wondering whether you have or would consider doing David Lynch’s movies aswell, just a personal favourite of mine which I think are worthy of analysis

  75. To the creator of this video, films have a tight budget, Things get re-written all the time at the last moment, as seen in the making of.
    I very much doubt Stanley Kubrick was deliberately thinking about where the rooms went and if it would be spatially correct. You could bring up his „perfectionist“ sense, but this mostly applies to him controlling the acting and camera angles.
    You think he had time to think this blueprint up so it would be logical? He just liked the effect of long hallways.

  76. Kubrick was big on challenging his audience intellectually, demanding that we refine our observation and research skills. Not everyone is interested in doing that and so I make these videos for the benefit of people who would otherwise miss out on these themes. Paranoia has nothing to do with it. It’s only an obsession if a person does nothing else with their life. I do plenty of other things including making my own fiction films so naturally I’m out to understand the masters work better.

  77. Ha! What a boring unoriginal comment.

    I’ve got a job, a partner, lots of friends, and I write, produce and direct my own fiction movies. BUT … I don’t watch TV, follow sports, hang out on Facebook, or waste my time with The Lottery, celebrity gossip „news“ papers (and I don’t troll on YT). … And I earn a decent portion of my living from DVD sales of these vids.

    Now, what do you do with YOUR life?

  78. „The set was very deliberately built to be offbeat and off the track so that the huge ballroom would never actually fit inside. The audience is deliberately made to not know where they’re going.“ – Jan Harlan (Kubrick’s brother-in-law and exec-producer on The Shining) interviewed for The Guardian newspaper 18th Oct 2012 (more than one year after this video was posted) … google it

  79. Far from it. I’m a film maker myself so am very familiar with how the camera lens can distort reality either by accident or intention. That’s why I noticed this stuff. See my response to DRAT311 below. It has recently been confirmed by the exec-producer of the film that the messy design was intentional.

  80. This kind of intricate creative film making seems impossible to most people, but …

    „The set was very deliberately built to be offbeat and off the track so that the huge ballroom would never actually fit inside. The audience is deliberately made to not know where they’re going.“ – Jan Harlan (Kubrick’s brother-in-law and exec-producer on The Shining) interviewed for The Guardian newspaper 18th Oct 2012 (more than one year after this video was posted) … google it

  81. I’m just going to make a general comment to anybody who thinks Kubrick might have done this on accident: Kubrick was fucking insane. He would have never ever accidentally allowed so many design flaws, even if it destroyed his budget and forced him to halt filming and piss everyone else off. Look up his directing style if you don’t believe me, he’s famous for being hard to work with and detail-oriented in the best way possible.

  82. Specifically the walk in freezer, where it changed sides on them. I don’t think that was intentional, they may have noticed it, but switching sides/hands is pretty big. Not subtle, and it makes sense that they wouldn’t have actually built a freezer in there, and it was too late to remake the door to be on the correct side.

  83. I’ll sum up for your „dumb ass“.

    You see children, there’s this area of study that academics call PSYCHOLOGY and within psychology there’s a basic concept of CONSCIOUS (fully aware) and SUBCONSCIOUS or UNCONSCIOUS (things that affect you or which you do, but you aren’t aware). Some horror film makers use this thing called SUBLIMINAL COMMUNICATION to affect you outside your awareness (the basis of any good horror film). It’s also commonly used in advertising.

    Get it now?

  84. Do you have evidence that’s what happened in the kitchen scene?

    It would be a plausible theory except it mismatches Kubrick’s obsession with technicalities and the overwhelming number of such „errors“ in the film, some of which could only have been done by design, not to mention the exec producer’s recent confirmation of intentionally mismatching sets.

  85. Aaah…The Tyranny of „Authority“ once again rears its ugly head…Assume the Debate Posture and Exert! Exert!
    robag88 does great work. The Man knows that film is poetry and poetry is ideas. Artists manifest meaning Everywhere and Kubrick was an Artist. Every frame of a Kubrick film could function as a still image and every intricacy of every frame carries meaning.
    Ignore the philistines and carry on, Rob.

  86. I’m loving these videos, very detailed, clear and informative and they bring back memories of my English Studies class from high school. I could honestly watch them all day. Keep up the good work!

  87. Imho, this movie did it best! It beats the * out of the modern-day blood-and-guts that we know are pasta and spaghetti sauce, ;-). Oh, yeah, and computerized special effects. Some can be done nicely, like the cat/human transition in Harry Potter, but most just look hokey. Kubrick used a build-up tension, suspense, rather than jumping in to the axe scenes and such, making the whole movie SUCH a classic, :-)!

  88. Yes I doubt that Kubrick did this on purpose. He probably just figured that no one would notice any inconsistencies and no one did except this dude.

  89. There is an extraordinary amount of evidence that Kubrick did this, and many other bizzare things, in The Shining as well as playing all sorts of visuals tricks on the viewer in all of his Post-The Killing films. To call Kubrick lazy is just an insult considering the fact that he would do upward of 50 takes of the most basic scenes in The Shining

Kommentare sind geschlossen.

Back To Top