Stanley Kubrick has done a lot to elevate movies’ status to that of an art, which is partly due to him really being a photographer at heart. This association isn’t solely down to his films’ ability to push the boundaries in cinematography, editing and visual metaphor but also for their initially mild receptions before they are gradually recognised as classics.
The Shining is probably the best example of this; with the Academy Awards and BAFTA taking Kubrick off their list of nominees for the first time in 25 years, so the Golden Raspberries offered him a nomination as a condolence that at least he was one of the best of the bad. Audiences didn’t immediately avoid the film, it was a Stephen King novel directed by Stanley Kubrick so how could it be bad? Well Stephen King hated it for starters, the Kubrick faithful thought it was an uncharacteristically straightforward story, while horror fans weren’t doing their usual screaming at stuff catching them off guard. The Shining will not have you jumping out of your skin; in fact it will do the opposite by creeping under your skin to disturb you to the very core. This film is frightening and it will haunt you for some time.
The setting is the essence of the effect; the labyrinths of rooms, corridors and mirrors at the Overlook Hotel disorientates the audience’s grip on perspective, distant noise echo around the vast emptiness of its walls and the eerie music fills you with pure dread. Kubrick used every trick in his book to create a unique experience, that’ll certainly put one off mountain resorts for a while. There are also moments and characters that will amplify your anxiety, with Jack Nicholson managing to horrify not one but two seemingly innocent popular phrases forever. The feeling of watching The Shining at home or on an iphone or on whatever-gizmo will not be as intense as watching it in a cinema, where you intimately share the trepidation of the characters and feel overwhelmed by the sheer nothingness of the Overlook. I feel slightly cheated that I was unable to awe at some of my favourite films on the big screen due to not being born, which is why I’ll jump at any opportunity to see a Kubrick, Leone or Coppola when it is redistributed. These revivals are exceedingly rare and temporary, so it would be a shame not to take advantage of them.
I am trying to avoid SPOILERS but what’s the point? The film’s been out for 30 years and you’ve probably already seen it or at least seen it parodied in brilliant episodes of The Simpsons. Yet Stanley’s favourite TV show contained a feature that he directly inspired, to hide messages in his works. While The Simpsons usually does this to add another joke to a scene, Kubrick utilised it to reinforce obvious or suggest alternative themes. There is a clichéd assessment of Kubrick films which is that his reputations as a perfectionist means no mistake or continuity error was overlooked but was deliberate and is there for a reason. This has been overstated somewhat, for instance the shadow of the helicopter in the first shot is most likely a mistake, although to be fair Stanley didn’t shoot this due to his fear of flying, despite having a pilot licence. Peculiar fella, yet an intriguing one who knew how to make enduring films. Kubrick put a lot of detail into the visual because he wanted a lot to be left unsaid so the audience could reach their own conclusions. There is no one way to watch a Kubrick film.
People have obsessed over Kubrick films, in fact the interpretations of The Shining enthusiasts even warranted its own film Room 237, which was released this Autumn. These Kubrickites are academics, playwrights, conspiracy theorists and respected news correspondents, who have hypotheses ranging from plausible metaphors for the deliberately forgotten plight of the Native Americans to the more subtle Holocaust interpretations to the flat-out denied conspiracies that Kubrick was secretly apologising for faking the moon landing. I found another outlandish analysis on YouTube by Kubrick fanatic Rob Ager, who suggests the decline of the Gold Standard in the 1920s and 1930s is a central theme. While they may sound bonkers they do vindicate themselves with the film and they are doing as the director intended by developing their own thoughts rather than being spoon-fed somebody else’s. So be warned, this film can drive one a little mad, not with a murderous lust but with the multiple ways one can make sense of the film. Usually it takes a few views to clear your ideas but remember not to go too far into the maze of details or you’ll struggle to get out.
No comments:
Post a Comment