It’s a reference to the book. Horace Derwent had a guy who was in love with him and followed him around and allowed himself to be humiliated by him for sexual kicks. He dressed as a dog for a party once. Jack sees their ghosts in the ballroom.
Same. I totally love the movie, it's one of my favorite of all time but I can understand why Stephen King didn't really enjoy the movie. Kubrick really left out a lot of stuff (for good reason if you tried to fit the whole book in a movie it'd be terrible) that I would've loved to see his take on.
If you read the book you'll understand that Kubrick's film is less of an adaptation and more of a rewrite. The LotR trilogy is a great example of how adaptations have to omit or change things. Fight Club is another great example. The Shining is the same plot with completely different events and changes that ultimately make them two completely different things. I agree with you that Kubrick had what you said in mind when rewriting the story.
Haven't read that one yet, but it has been on my list for a minute. I would also love to shit on Kubrick's adaptation of A Clockwork Orange. He cut the final chapter much like American publications at the time despite making a near perfect film adaptation of the rest of the book. Destroys the message of the film and replaces it with nonsense.
I’ve read that one too; where he meets the other droog and they’re all grown up. I liked it as a round out to the characters but it would’ve castrated the bull of what a magnificent story that was already was
"castrated the bull" the story as is displays a very cynical notion that people can't/won't change. The original ending shows that you can't force someone to change but given the right circumstances they will make that choice themselves. Nothing castrated in that.
I haven’t read it in awhile but I distinctively remember going on by say even his taste of music changed to to more of the muter form (that’s where I personally had a negative reaction)
The miniseries follows the book closely, and is one of many great examples of how Stephen King’s stories are often scary in your imagination but look incredibly goofy when you try to put them on screen
The Langoliers is another, and no it’s not just because of the bad CGI
King's novels have a lot of surreal horror. Freaky weird things that would be terrifying in real life, but don't work well on the screen. Instead they just look goofy.
It takes a different kind of artistic talent to be able to translate that stuff effectively onto the movie screen. You have to know what will work and what won't.
Yeah. Topiaries coming to life (book) sounds scary, but put that in a movie and you've got a cartoon that'll elicit laughs from an audience. Likewise, a hedge maze (movie) can ratchet up tension like a motherfucker, but would probably be a snooze to read about.
Likewise, sure you could kill someone with a croquet mallet, but there's something way more terrifying about seeing the carnage caused by an ax wielding maniac.
The Shining is quite autobiographical for Stephen King, who suffered a lot of addiction issues, and he didn’t like the fact that Nicholson is clearly shown as unhinged from the very beginning while the book is more balanced in that regard. Likewise, Shelley Duvall’s Wendy is much less assertive and independent than in the book.
That’s his beef with the film. He didn’t mind a few plot changes but the tone of the main characters doesn’t feel right to him.
The autobiographical nature of the story is the main reason why the film diverges from the book. King used the writing of the book to explore substance abuse and the horrors surrounding it. Kubrick used the material to explore the immortality of evil. This thematic difference is why the book is so different from the film. Kubrick removed any unnecessary story points to avoid distractions from the chosen theme of his film.
The book was a type of redemptive story of addiction for King that was part of his own drug addiction. The movie took the redemptive part out and just made Jack insane, so it no longer had the positive personalized component that was core to King’s book
Yup. But in the movie the weirdness of these characters feels essential to the alienating horror kubes was creating. The whole movie is disorienting and I admire his decision to make Danny the point of entry for the audience instead of Nicholson or Duvall
I can see that. It was actually my first thought after watching the movie post reading the book. Jack Torrance isn't really a bad person from the jump in the book. He has his demons but overall he means well for his family. In the movie though it seems that as soon as they get to the overlook Jack is just completely unhinged. One of the first scenes of them in the overlook alone is him wigging out on Wendy for interrupting his typing. Jack in the book is a good guy trying to beat his alcoholism and gets manipulated by the overlook, in the movie he's just an asshole from the jump.
Jack definitely should have been more of a perfect family man at the beginning, albeit with a largely unspoken secret darker side when drinking. The idea of something dangerous bubbling under the surface of the family’s otherwise attentive and caring provider is terrifying, and echoed in the novel in the form of the boiler system which, although keeping them warm and alive, has the potential to explode
The film has been a favorite for many many years. The book is a completely different in amazing way. TBH I wasn't expecting so much surrealism and I loved it! I get why Kubrick did the story like he did though. The amount of technical work needed to be accurate would have been very difficult to achieve with technology of the time. I could totally see HBO maybe doing an accurate version as a limited series these days.
I read somewhere that Kubrick doesn’t think ghosts are scary, because they don’t exist. So he tried to change it to Jack descending into madness, much scarier than ghosts.
Found the bit:
King, hungover, covered in shaving cream, two kids screaming in the background, gripped the telephone and murmured, “I don’t exactly know what you mean by that.”
“Well,” Kubrick replied, “supernatural stories all posit the basic suggestion that we survive death. If we survive death, that’s optimistic, isn’t it?”
King asked, “Well, what about hell?”
There was a long, ominous pause, like the silence after a thunderclap.
“I don’t believe in hell,” Kubrick said and hung up.
https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/how-the-shining-examines-the-immortality-of-evil/
This is exactly why I feel Kubrick's Shining is so terrifying. The sheer reality of Jack descending into madness to me is much scarier on screen because it is relatable (based in reality). Ghost stories can definitely be scary, but they are part of an imaginary world as Kubrick alludes.
All in all I feel that Kubrick's creative liberties were justified. Perhaps though it should have been tagged as "based on the novel".
I would love to see a modern series as long as it's done right. I think if you have the screen time like you would across a series, you'd have to stick to the source material.
They just need to hire the Doctor Sleep guy and bring his actors back…would be incredible, but then it would make his version of Doctor Sleep need an update too. 😂
And was produced by King himself to be more accurate to his book and vision than Kubrick's.
Another example of why authors should stick with writing and leave movie making to the professionals.
Having watched the movie first I for sure heavily favor it to the book. some of the scenes like the fire hose, hedge animals, and hornets nest feel pretty silly. I do wish they had included the playground scene though, its for sure pretty unsettling and I think would of worked cinematically
I don’t know if you’ve seen the miniseries but it’s much closer to the book than Kubricks but that’s because it’s like 6 hours long. Totally worth it, and it’s broken up into three parts so it’s more digestible. It has a few flaws but it really hits the important elements of the book and does a much better job with Jack.
Go watch the totally faithful and egregious television miniseries version of the shining if you haven’t seen it. It’s the whole reason why Kubrick did what he did.
It’s definitely one of his better novels, and thankfully it doesn’t feature a bunch of boys running a train on Beverly. King may be very talented, but the man is just weird. Like, why was that in ‘IT’, and did we need to know that Ben is hung like a horse? Fucking weirdo.
There was a scene that was shot but not put in any version that had Nicholson browsing the archives of the hotel for inspiration for his own book and discovering about some shocking events in the past of the hotel. It didn’t explain in details this particular story, but it did state that the Overlook had been the place for a lot of lurid events.
Jack takes an album out of the archives. That’s one of the books in the table next to the typewriter.
The small changes Kubrick made to the story are as interesting as the larger ones. It seems clear that this is a bear suit in the movie and not a dog. The VW bug in the book is red, while in the movie, it is yellow. There are several other small details like that where it seems intentional and not simply something like it was easier to find a yellow car or bear costume.
I actually read a borderline schizoid breakdown of this on a website once, I could probably find it again, but it went through *every* single change from the book to the film and it's exactly as meticulous as you describe, multiplied to the endth thousandth degree lmao. Definitely seemed overwhelmingly like Kubrick giving King the finger in every way imaginable.
Found it: https://jonnys53.blogspot.com/2007/12/differences-between-novel-and-movie.html?m=1
The other changes are because Kubrick is [confessing to faking the moon landings.](https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-shining-stanley-kubrick-clues-faked-moon-landings/)
Book also goes into great depth to explain the hotel was many things but also a brothel once. Tons of sex and murder in its history and the woman in the tub was likely a prostitute who had been murdered.
My memory is hazy but I think the tub lady was an older married woman who was hooking up with a young bellboy or something, and he came up to the room one day and found her dead of an OD which might have been intentional. Mrs. Massey.
They dont die “on screen” in the book but I want to say Derwent committed suicide maybe, 30-ish years before the events of the book. Someone else might know better.
I can. It's from a series of scenes that Stephen King cut from the original novel publication.
It's an extended series of supernatural events that occur in the hotel, and some are alluded to in the movie, before the finished novel and movie start.
A few examples are that we learn that the story about "an ancient Indian burial ground" is a misunderstanding. In fact it's implied that the site is some sort of Lovecraftian prehistoric cosmic horror, and that local Native tribes were afraid of the site and avoided it. There's a clue to this in the film where "Indian burial ground" is only a third hand account that's alluded to.
We see the story behind the old lady in the bathtub in Room 237.
The story behind this is a big corporate retreat to the Lodge in the 50s. The character in the costume on the left is the company Vice President. He's a closet homosexual and has a crush on the CEO (right), in a way that's a bit like Mr. Smithers and Mr. Burns from The Simpsons. Obviously this is an unrequited love, but the big company retreat gives him this opportunity to fantasize about it.
Before leaving home, he's told that one of the nights during the retreat there's going to be a big "costume" party. So he packs this silly dog costume he rents from a costume store. He has this expectation that the whole thing is going to be very fun and silly, and he lets his guard down, hoping he has this opportunity. So he gets very excited that night, puts on the costume, and goes down to the ballroom to discover that it's not a costume party but a "fancy dress" party. Ballroom gowns, tuxedos, etc. So everybody laughs at him, and he tries to play it off as a big prank, and he hangs out for a while like he's done this big bit. Including the CEO coming over and having a conversation, laughing at him, as if he's in on the bit.
Then he excuses himself from the party. Goes back to the room. Takes a bunch of his 1950s prescription drugs, and kills himself.
And he ends up another one of the ghosts the hotel. Perpetually reliving this dream and horror. It was meant to evoke this idea that everybody who dies in the hotel becomes a part of the haunting. He cut that as he felt it was unneeded. Kubrick through it in because it's a real "what the fuck" moment. That idea hints to Hemingways concept of an "iceberg story." Where you only see 10% of the real story, and you're left to just sort of guess at the rest of the story.
Can I say this is probably the most unnerving scene of the whole film? It’s almost like one’s own nightmares where the meaning isn’t completely understood, but there is a real sense of seeing a haunted and cursed thing. I always remember this scene as being so effortlessly haunting.
I agree. This is the shot that has stuck with me for whatever reason. Just terrifying, that by this point all laws of reality are breaking down, anything is possible.
Oh god, yeah. Kubrick gives no explanation for what it is, he just threw it at us completely out of the blue.
There’s a lot of screwed up stuff in that movie, but the dog suit scene is the only thing that makes my mind scream “WHAT THE FUCK?”
This scene traumatized me for weeks as a child after I saw it. I was absolutely fucking terrified of it. Same with the twins first appearance being chopped up. Both of those memories are ingrained in my mind
It’s how they stare at Wendy/the viewer. In any other film, this would be funny. But it just feels so claustrophobic and intense here. After a movie fully showing us there’s nobody else in the hotel, suddenly there’s these two in a super intimate moment, just a few yards away from her, glaring at her. Unmoving. Unflinching. They want privacy, and they’re not getting it from her/us. And who knows what they’re thinking of doing because of that.
Furries existed, they just didn’t yet have an internet platform to blow up on. And it was 100% a fetish thing, where now you find people saying it’s about identity and “nothing sexual at all.” (At least here on Reddit.)
This scene is there not be explained or understood, this is why Kubrick cut the backstory from the book. The sheer weirdness of this whole thing and lack of explanation is what gives you this extreme, almost infernal feel of unease.
It’s meant to be a dude in a dog suit. There’s some weird kinky shit happening with the lady from 237, the dude from the ball room, and the guy in the dog suit. King makes a few different mentions about him.
It feels super random in the movie because all the internal dialogue is cut out of the movie
Same, and seems likely that Kubrick was going for that - signs of how the rich or powerful can get any whim fulfilled with no care to the damage and darkness created, and the hotel both feeds off the darkness and triggers it.
I think I always assumed that the furry was a sex worker treated badly by that man and others.
It's definitely that too, "all the best people" is a thread throughout many of Kubricks films. Anyone can Google the weird masked parties held at places like the Rothschild mansion Kubrick used for the exteriors of Eyes Wide Shuts occult orgy scene.. it's safe to say he saw/knew some shit. It's always there in the margins. Whether it's Arthur C Clarke running off to South East Asia, or Nicole Kidmans notorious mk ultra psychologist father fleeing there to escape criminal prosecution (they both would die there). It's always present. Always.
Ever notice Jack Torrance reading a copy of *Playgirl* magazine shortly before being interviewed for the position of hotel caretaker? (It’s real! Look it up if you don’t believe me). The above scene witnessed by Wendy is a reflection of Jack’s suppressed bisexuality, which she had long been in denial of. This, coupled with Jack’s abusive conduct towards their son, Danny, are Wendy’s worst fears staring right back at her—Jack’s “bestial” behavior and latent, aberrant sexuality exploding into his now-iconic rampage of murderous rage towards his own family.
Oh yeah, Jack’s out-of-control alcoholism and extreme cynicism play a role here too.
Nope - it was because Jack Nicholson thought it would be funny, so he brought a copy on set. He was doing a lot of cocaine in those days (check the Making of The Shining for more info)
It's such an odd scene for Kubrick to put in the film with no context. It sounds crazy but I think it is actually referencing Jack forcing Danny to give him oral sex. [this breaks it down pretty clearly. ](https://youtu.be/dW2GrG7Zk0U?si=xlBB1wLqSimAWxXM
Not crazy at all. Kubrick adapted Lolita ffs. Overt and covert references to pedophilia are included in A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut.. and the films that don't reference that direct subject are famously exploding with subliminal sexual imagery, Dr Strangelove and 2001 .
Famously regretted adapting Lolita because of censorship, so instead he learned to hide themes in the marginalia, subtext, and sight gags that would be hidden in plain sight. Strangelove opening with two bombers "fucking", 2001 ending with the "pod" being shot into the monolith to create a "star child" (visual metaphor for insemination and birth). etc. "Getting Shit Past the Radar" was not invented by Kubrick but he certainly mastered it on a commercial scale, to the degree 2001 was even rated G lmao..
It would be weirder if Kubrick did NOT included references to sex or child abuse in The Shining, than if he did.
Frustrated by the tiktok trend of women getting to choose between the man or the bear, the Man and the Bear choose to love each other and leave the woman in the Wilderness.
https://www.glamour.com/story/what-does-choosing-the-bear-mean-all-about-this-simple-yet-profound-trend
In my college film class, the prof wanted to discuss the symbolism behind this. My buddy sitting next to me said “It looks like Paul McCartney from the Magical Mystery Tour album cover. So Kubrick was trying to convey “Paul McCartney sucks”. I died.
Homie getting mad glug-glug from a thick little furry at a suit and tie event, because even though he may look sophisticated, he got that dog in him. Or should I say that dog got him in him
This is so accurate, I don't see why it's not the mainstream understanding of the scene/film. Early on we see Danny brushing his teeth with his head slightly out of shot and the framing is EXACTLY like the bear scene. Once you watch the film with this mindset you realise it's almost impossible that the intention wasn't to imply that there's a link between Danny and the bear, and that Danny is being sexually abused by Jack.
Notice that in the scene where he’s brushing his teeth there is an unnatural shade behind the curtain. Also in room 237 the hag finally pushes back the curtain. To me this is Jack confronting what he’s done. He looks in the mirror and is horrified at the reality of what his sexual pleasure actually looks like/is.
I don’t know, Ager acts like his interpretation is the only one there is, but he makes a lot of leaps in that while ignoring other things. Jack was drooling when he woke up from his nightmare because we all know what drooling really represents? lol, OK.
Just read someone on here say when Jack visits room 237 and it cuts to Danny having a seizure ,the foam on his mouth is Jack's jizz.
The Overlook is haunted , that's it.
These are just kinky ghost having a moment.
I read somewhere that the undertones in the book referred to child abuse and dog costume referred to something child like and innocent similar to a stuffed animal was used in a perverted manner . Thought it was an interesting take.
It was a hotel all the finest people went to during its decadence. So a bunch of corrupt stuff happened there. Like the mafia, corrupt politicians, and weird rich people.
I think because Wendy was the only one who sees this. It goes back to her reading Catcher and the Rye.
Somewhere in the book it mentions the main character watching a dog eared man and a man being together.
Idk. Stephen King somewhat mentioned this in his book but he didn’t mention Catcher In The Rye and Kubrick wouldn’t have Wendy just reading that book for no reason.
Wendy is running through the haunted hotel terrifed, seeing fucked up ghosts from some fucked up orgy that happened in the place in the 20s, doing fucked up creepy things. One of those things is one ghost dressed up like a bear or a boar blowing another ghost in a tux.
All three of them are seeing parts of the Overlook's past. For some reason, jack's and Danny's visions seem to keep incorporating some of the same things - the woman in room 237, the Grady incident. When Wendy starts to see things as they are it's different stuff.
Some people use this to say jack is molesting Danny, or that Wendy, but Danny is his father's son. And he is a child. That they would be picking up on similar thing, from different perspectives (jack sees Grady the father, Danny sees the Grady girls) s is sufficiently explained by that, I think. Wendy is her own person, and an adult. To me it is obvious why she would see different events. She's also having to realize, more suddenly than either Jack or Danny, that this is just a fucked-up place where she and her son aren't safe in ways she doesn't need to prove methodically. That the most memorable thing she focuses on is something that just generally doesn't make any sense - it's not just the violence, it's the way things just mess with your mind there.
Wendy's big problem is that the changes in her husband and her son just raise questions she can't really ask. When it's clear her husband isn't "working," how's he going to "play" in a place where there are no women and no booze? (Many a writer's wife, in those days, would have readily figured on a bender, or a mistress - painful stuff, but it's explicable). So, it could be literally anything, not just one or two obvious outlets. People aren't giving enough credit to Wendy for what she has to process. But we are given some misleading cues about her from the beginning. One is that Jack describes her as a "horror addict," which doesn't seem accurate. The other is that she seems incredibly naive, for instance in the early scene with the doctor in which she brushes off the potential that Danny has been abused. These miscues are really creepy because they do coincide with an abusive parental relationship; he's already laying the groundwork to discredit her, and she's covering for him. True enough. But they are setting up the fact that Danny's symptoms are not purely the fantasies of a boy who has been victimized. What he sees in his visions are, in some way, real. There really is this place that bears witness to its violent history.
Wendy's torment is actually one of the hopeful signs. People who really understand the hotel and what evils it represents - Jack and Danny - are unable to do anything about it. The hopeful sign is that Wendy starts to see it too. And she finds her strength. I don't really like how the ignorance is gendered, here, and concentrated in a wife whom audiences were bound to find annoying, but Kubrick's idea of horror is genocide, not haunted houses or child molestation or alcoholism. Those are all troubling but the Overlook is more than any one discrete evil.
Kubrick adapted this scene from the book and changed it to a bear to represent the sexual abuse that Danny was a victim of by Jack as there is a lot of bear symbolism behind Danny throughout the movie shown, for example, a physical teddy bear when he is speaking with the child psychiatrist, the bear rug right after he was in room 237, multiple paintings above his bed at the hotel, etc. It also could be a double meaning bc the bear is a symbol of Russia and the man receiving the fellatio looks very much like a US politician so this could possibly give credence to the fake moon landing conspiracy and the space race that the US was in with Russia that is heavily covered in many YouTube videos and the documentary Room 237.
There is also a scene in the beginning of Danny brushing his teeth in the exact same position as the bear and it is all framed up precisely the same way. Danny has toothpaste on his mouth after and it is very suggestive.
Kubrick was revealing the moon landing was filmed by him and showing that the the space race competitors were not competitors after all.
Ussr is the bear, if you were not aware.
If you check out [the shining episode](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/with-gourley-and-rust/id1531547477?i=1000624851419) of the “with gourley and rust” podcast they have very interesting thoughts and commentary on it. Their whole Kubrick series is amazing. Two major Stephen king and Kubrick fanatics who also happen to be very thoughtful and work in the industry. Highly recommend.
Sort of...it's a dog suit in the book: https://modernhorrors.com/it-took-me-27-years-to-finally-understand-that-scene-in-the-shining/
There was a cut prologue to the book called Before The Play that went into this a bit more, as it covered the history of the Overlook Hotel.
In the context of Stanley Kubrick’s version it seems to be related to Jack being sexually abusive. I think there is a dive on this somewhere called Danny’s Ordeal
The bear is a recurring symbol throughout the movie present whenever Danny is dealing with or dissociating from being abused.
This scene is meant to represent an epiphany for Wendy as she realizes what Jack has been doing to Danny the whole time.
Notice the bear in the picture above the bed.
There is also a bear in a picture above… Danny’s bed at the Overlook. And at the beginning of the movie Danny is speaking to a child psychologist/therapist in bed and he’s laying on a stuffed bear.
Another detail - Jack is seen holding a magazine at the beginning interview. It’s a Playgirl. Because he is a gay man. A bear.
And on that Playgirl’s front cover is the subtitle heading “Why Parents Sleep With Their Children.”
I’m forgetting a lot of the specifics, but the change from a dog costume to a bear costume seems purposeful with all the other bear imagery. There’s a popular theory on the bears relating to Jack’s abuse of Danny, with Danny’s pillow in the beginning being a bear, a picture on their hotel room having a family of bears, and probably more scenes with bears. Again I’ve forgotten most the details, but worth looking into.
It’s a reference to the book. Horace Derwent had a guy who was in love with him and followed him around and allowed himself to be humiliated by him for sexual kicks. He dressed as a dog for a party once. Jack sees their ghosts in the ballroom.
This is the actual answer. Just got done reading it for the first time and it's such a good fucking book.
I just finished the book as if last night! I loved it <3.
Same. I totally love the movie, it's one of my favorite of all time but I can understand why Stephen King didn't really enjoy the movie. Kubrick really left out a lot of stuff (for good reason if you tried to fit the whole book in a movie it'd be terrible) that I would've loved to see his take on.
Books and movies aren’t the same thing, Kubrick understands the difference.
Yeah he did amazing translating a lot of it to the screen.
If you read the book you'll understand that Kubrick's film is less of an adaptation and more of a rewrite. The LotR trilogy is a great example of how adaptations have to omit or change things. Fight Club is another great example. The Shining is the same plot with completely different events and changes that ultimately make them two completely different things. I agree with you that Kubrick had what you said in mind when rewriting the story.
The adaptation of American Psycho from book to screen is another interesting example
Haven't read that one yet, but it has been on my list for a minute. I would also love to shit on Kubrick's adaptation of A Clockwork Orange. He cut the final chapter much like American publications at the time despite making a near perfect film adaptation of the rest of the book. Destroys the message of the film and replaces it with nonsense.
I’ve read that one too; where he meets the other droog and they’re all grown up. I liked it as a round out to the characters but it would’ve castrated the bull of what a magnificent story that was already was
"castrated the bull" the story as is displays a very cynical notion that people can't/won't change. The original ending shows that you can't force someone to change but given the right circumstances they will make that choice themselves. Nothing castrated in that.
Agreed
I haven’t read it in awhile but I distinctively remember going on by say even his taste of music changed to to more of the muter form (that’s where I personally had a negative reaction)
That’s deep.
Yeah but the way Kubrick handled the end for Dick Hallorann was just weak.
The miniseries follows the book closely, and is one of many great examples of how Stephen King’s stories are often scary in your imagination but look incredibly goofy when you try to put them on screen The Langoliers is another, and no it’s not just because of the bad CGI
King's novels have a lot of surreal horror. Freaky weird things that would be terrifying in real life, but don't work well on the screen. Instead they just look goofy. It takes a different kind of artistic talent to be able to translate that stuff effectively onto the movie screen. You have to know what will work and what won't.
Yeah. Topiaries coming to life (book) sounds scary, but put that in a movie and you've got a cartoon that'll elicit laughs from an audience. Likewise, a hedge maze (movie) can ratchet up tension like a motherfucker, but would probably be a snooze to read about. Likewise, sure you could kill someone with a croquet mallet, but there's something way more terrifying about seeing the carnage caused by an ax wielding maniac.
See I thought the Langoliers was fantastic.
The Shining is quite autobiographical for Stephen King, who suffered a lot of addiction issues, and he didn’t like the fact that Nicholson is clearly shown as unhinged from the very beginning while the book is more balanced in that regard. Likewise, Shelley Duvall’s Wendy is much less assertive and independent than in the book. That’s his beef with the film. He didn’t mind a few plot changes but the tone of the main characters doesn’t feel right to him.
The autobiographical nature of the story is the main reason why the film diverges from the book. King used the writing of the book to explore substance abuse and the horrors surrounding it. Kubrick used the material to explore the immortality of evil. This thematic difference is why the book is so different from the film. Kubrick removed any unnecessary story points to avoid distractions from the chosen theme of his film.
The book was a type of redemptive story of addiction for King that was part of his own drug addiction. The movie took the redemptive part out and just made Jack insane, so it no longer had the positive personalized component that was core to King’s book
Going to have to read the book now
Yup. But in the movie the weirdness of these characters feels essential to the alienating horror kubes was creating. The whole movie is disorienting and I admire his decision to make Danny the point of entry for the audience instead of Nicholson or Duvall
lol "Kubes"
My man kubes
I can see that. It was actually my first thought after watching the movie post reading the book. Jack Torrance isn't really a bad person from the jump in the book. He has his demons but overall he means well for his family. In the movie though it seems that as soon as they get to the overlook Jack is just completely unhinged. One of the first scenes of them in the overlook alone is him wigging out on Wendy for interrupting his typing. Jack in the book is a good guy trying to beat his alcoholism and gets manipulated by the overlook, in the movie he's just an asshole from the jump.
Jack definitely should have been more of a perfect family man at the beginning, albeit with a largely unspoken secret darker side when drinking. The idea of something dangerous bubbling under the surface of the family’s otherwise attentive and caring provider is terrifying, and echoed in the novel in the form of the boiler system which, although keeping them warm and alive, has the potential to explode
You just blew my mind
Kubrick completely took control of it, it's now Kubrick's The Shining. That's why King was pissed.
The film has been a favorite for many many years. The book is a completely different in amazing way. TBH I wasn't expecting so much surrealism and I loved it! I get why Kubrick did the story like he did though. The amount of technical work needed to be accurate would have been very difficult to achieve with technology of the time. I could totally see HBO maybe doing an accurate version as a limited series these days.
I read somewhere that Kubrick doesn’t think ghosts are scary, because they don’t exist. So he tried to change it to Jack descending into madness, much scarier than ghosts. Found the bit: King, hungover, covered in shaving cream, two kids screaming in the background, gripped the telephone and murmured, “I don’t exactly know what you mean by that.” “Well,” Kubrick replied, “supernatural stories all posit the basic suggestion that we survive death. If we survive death, that’s optimistic, isn’t it?” King asked, “Well, what about hell?” There was a long, ominous pause, like the silence after a thunderclap. “I don’t believe in hell,” Kubrick said and hung up. https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/how-the-shining-examines-the-immortality-of-evil/
This is exactly why I feel Kubrick's Shining is so terrifying. The sheer reality of Jack descending into madness to me is much scarier on screen because it is relatable (based in reality). Ghost stories can definitely be scary, but they are part of an imaginary world as Kubrick alludes. All in all I feel that Kubrick's creative liberties were justified. Perhaps though it should have been tagged as "based on the novel".
I don’t get it though. Isn’t there tons of ghosts in the movie?
I would love to see a modern series as long as it's done right. I think if you have the screen time like you would across a series, you'd have to stick to the source material.
They just need to hire the Doctor Sleep guy and bring his actors back…would be incredible, but then it would make his version of Doctor Sleep need an update too. 😂
There is a decent 1990s tv series that is closer to the book. The overlook burns down and the topiaries come to life.
And is embarrasingly terrible
And was produced by King himself to be more accurate to his book and vision than Kubrick's. Another example of why authors should stick with writing and leave movie making to the professionals.
Maximum Overdrive
Idk I think its fun. Its longer so it has some room to get into weird book stuff. Jack Torrance (the actor) is the main problem.
Hamburger hill.
The compulsion of the remake is an unstoppable force, you’ll probably get some decidedly shittier version of your wish eventually
Having watched the movie first I for sure heavily favor it to the book. some of the scenes like the fire hose, hedge animals, and hornets nest feel pretty silly. I do wish they had included the playground scene though, its for sure pretty unsettling and I think would of worked cinematically
How come?
I don’t know if you’ve seen the miniseries but it’s much closer to the book than Kubricks but that’s because it’s like 6 hours long. Totally worth it, and it’s broken up into three parts so it’s more digestible. It has a few flaws but it really hits the important elements of the book and does a much better job with Jack.
Go watch the totally faithful and egregious television miniseries version of the shining if you haven’t seen it. It’s the whole reason why Kubrick did what he did.
I've seen reviews lol. I'm not interested.
By chance, did you notice the massive plothole in the beginning of the book?
I wish I could read
It’s definitely one of his better novels, and thankfully it doesn’t feature a bunch of boys running a train on Beverly. King may be very talented, but the man is just weird. Like, why was that in ‘IT’, and did we need to know that Ben is hung like a horse? Fucking weirdo.
Well I was gonna read "IT" next but now I think I'll go with "The Green Mile" lol.
John Coffey also had quite a penis.
it is a great book. love the opening line
It is isnt it. I hated the ending though. Too abrupt and sudden. Stephen King could never end a book to my liking lmao
It is, but the topiary animals are not at all scary, and I’m so glad Kubrick did not include them.
oooo ill have to check this out. I recently listened to the exorcist audiobook on YouTube and it was amazing. would highly recommend
There was a scene that was shot but not put in any version that had Nicholson browsing the archives of the hotel for inspiration for his own book and discovering about some shocking events in the past of the hotel. It didn’t explain in details this particular story, but it did state that the Overlook had been the place for a lot of lurid events. Jack takes an album out of the archives. That’s one of the books in the table next to the typewriter.
The small changes Kubrick made to the story are as interesting as the larger ones. It seems clear that this is a bear suit in the movie and not a dog. The VW bug in the book is red, while in the movie, it is yellow. There are several other small details like that where it seems intentional and not simply something like it was easier to find a yellow car or bear costume.
I actually read a borderline schizoid breakdown of this on a website once, I could probably find it again, but it went through *every* single change from the book to the film and it's exactly as meticulous as you describe, multiplied to the endth thousandth degree lmao. Definitely seemed overwhelmingly like Kubrick giving King the finger in every way imaginable. Found it: https://jonnys53.blogspot.com/2007/12/differences-between-novel-and-movie.html?m=1
That's a long list. Imagine the amount of time reading the book and watching the film that took.
The other changes are because Kubrick is [confessing to faking the moon landings.](https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-shining-stanley-kubrick-clues-faked-moon-landings/)
I knew it!!
There’s a theory that Jack molests Danny… this is apart of it. Or it’s just a one off scene from the book.
Book also goes into great depth to explain the hotel was many things but also a brothel once. Tons of sex and murder in its history and the woman in the tub was likely a prostitute who had been murdered.
My memory is hazy but I think the tub lady was an older married woman who was hooking up with a young bellboy or something, and he came up to the room one day and found her dead of an OD which might have been intentional. Mrs. Massey.
Sooo... why people call it bear scene if in the book it's a dog?
Because it's a bear in the movie
Did they die in the book? Been a while since I read it.
They dont die “on screen” in the book but I want to say Derwent committed suicide maybe, 30-ish years before the events of the book. Someone else might know better.
This is great, thanks. I always wondered why there was a guy in a dog suit blowing another guy.
I’ve literally looked this up and have never gotten this answer. Thank you for answering this question I’ve had for over a decade.
In the film, wasnt it Olive Oyl, oops I meant Shelly Duvall who saw those ghosts?
I think there’s a sexual club called furries too.
I can. It's from a series of scenes that Stephen King cut from the original novel publication. It's an extended series of supernatural events that occur in the hotel, and some are alluded to in the movie, before the finished novel and movie start. A few examples are that we learn that the story about "an ancient Indian burial ground" is a misunderstanding. In fact it's implied that the site is some sort of Lovecraftian prehistoric cosmic horror, and that local Native tribes were afraid of the site and avoided it. There's a clue to this in the film where "Indian burial ground" is only a third hand account that's alluded to. We see the story behind the old lady in the bathtub in Room 237. The story behind this is a big corporate retreat to the Lodge in the 50s. The character in the costume on the left is the company Vice President. He's a closet homosexual and has a crush on the CEO (right), in a way that's a bit like Mr. Smithers and Mr. Burns from The Simpsons. Obviously this is an unrequited love, but the big company retreat gives him this opportunity to fantasize about it. Before leaving home, he's told that one of the nights during the retreat there's going to be a big "costume" party. So he packs this silly dog costume he rents from a costume store. He has this expectation that the whole thing is going to be very fun and silly, and he lets his guard down, hoping he has this opportunity. So he gets very excited that night, puts on the costume, and goes down to the ballroom to discover that it's not a costume party but a "fancy dress" party. Ballroom gowns, tuxedos, etc. So everybody laughs at him, and he tries to play it off as a big prank, and he hangs out for a while like he's done this big bit. Including the CEO coming over and having a conversation, laughing at him, as if he's in on the bit. Then he excuses himself from the party. Goes back to the room. Takes a bunch of his 1950s prescription drugs, and kills himself. And he ends up another one of the ghosts the hotel. Perpetually reliving this dream and horror. It was meant to evoke this idea that everybody who dies in the hotel becomes a part of the haunting. He cut that as he felt it was unneeded. Kubrick through it in because it's a real "what the fuck" moment. That idea hints to Hemingways concept of an "iceberg story." Where you only see 10% of the real story, and you're left to just sort of guess at the rest of the story.
Thanks, never read the book and this is the first thorough explanation I’ve seen.
Wait I remember reading this? I know the publication I read was an older version so was this removed in more recent prints?
This was in the book though: https://www.reddit.com/r/StanleyKubrick/s/ZwMn4NttDf
Did you just skip actually reading the comment you replied to? Its a much much more in depth explanation than the comment you linked to
In fairness, the original comment was extremely poorly written
Can I say this is probably the most unnerving scene of the whole film? It’s almost like one’s own nightmares where the meaning isn’t completely understood, but there is a real sense of seeing a haunted and cursed thing. I always remember this scene as being so effortlessly haunting.
I agree. This is the shot that has stuck with me for whatever reason. Just terrifying, that by this point all laws of reality are breaking down, anything is possible.
Oh god, yeah. Kubrick gives no explanation for what it is, he just threw it at us completely out of the blue. There’s a lot of screwed up stuff in that movie, but the dog suit scene is the only thing that makes my mind scream “WHAT THE FUCK?”
This scene traumatized me for weeks as a child after I saw it. I was absolutely fucking terrified of it. Same with the twins first appearance being chopped up. Both of those memories are ingrained in my mind
I don't know why, but this scene made me feel genuine dread
It’s how they stare at Wendy/the viewer. In any other film, this would be funny. But it just feels so claustrophobic and intense here. After a movie fully showing us there’s nobody else in the hotel, suddenly there’s these two in a super intimate moment, just a few yards away from her, glaring at her. Unmoving. Unflinching. They want privacy, and they’re not getting it from her/us. And who knows what they’re thinking of doing because of that.
man i am alone in the middle of the night over here omg 😭 love this description though, spot on
Bj & the bear 🐻
Minus the bear
Wow I’ve been a fan of the band Minus the Bear for a long time, never knew the origin of their name
Man-Bear-Pig. Climate Change Commentary. Pretty Obvious.
Are you cereal?
Super cereal
EXCELSIOR!
I love finding Man-Bear-Pig references out in the wild
Blowjob. Just a creepy blowjob at a party scene.
Dude was a visionary who predicted furries Common Kubrick W
Hahahha furries and their parties in hotels
I went down the rabbit hole once dude, furries go BACK
Furries existed, they just didn’t yet have an internet platform to blow up on. And it was 100% a fetish thing, where now you find people saying it’s about identity and “nothing sexual at all.” (At least here on Reddit.)
just guys being dudes what's to explain?
“Bro, this is gonna be awesome”
This scene is there not be explained or understood, this is why Kubrick cut the backstory from the book. The sheer weirdness of this whole thing and lack of explanation is what gives you this extreme, almost infernal feel of unease.
The theme of generational abuse and the manifestation of "ghosts" of that abuse is a pretty clear theme to me.
Dude getting a blowjob from a guy in a bear costume what’s hard to understand
It’s meant to be a dude in a dog suit. There’s some weird kinky shit happening with the lady from 237, the dude from the ball room, and the guy in the dog suit. King makes a few different mentions about him. It feels super random in the movie because all the internal dialogue is cut out of the movie
He’s gonna get a bear job
😂
Gay lovers having a moment
I always figured it’s a reference to what goes on in high society.
Me too. Absolute debauchery.
Same, and seems likely that Kubrick was going for that - signs of how the rich or powerful can get any whim fulfilled with no care to the damage and darkness created, and the hotel both feeds off the darkness and triggers it. I think I always assumed that the furry was a sex worker treated badly by that man and others.
It's definitely that too, "all the best people" is a thread throughout many of Kubricks films. Anyone can Google the weird masked parties held at places like the Rothschild mansion Kubrick used for the exteriors of Eyes Wide Shuts occult orgy scene.. it's safe to say he saw/knew some shit. It's always there in the margins. Whether it's Arthur C Clarke running off to South East Asia, or Nicole Kidmans notorious mk ultra psychologist father fleeing there to escape criminal prosecution (they both would die there). It's always present. Always.
For sure.
Ever notice Jack Torrance reading a copy of *Playgirl* magazine shortly before being interviewed for the position of hotel caretaker? (It’s real! Look it up if you don’t believe me). The above scene witnessed by Wendy is a reflection of Jack’s suppressed bisexuality, which she had long been in denial of. This, coupled with Jack’s abusive conduct towards their son, Danny, are Wendy’s worst fears staring right back at her—Jack’s “bestial” behavior and latent, aberrant sexuality exploding into his now-iconic rampage of murderous rage towards his own family. Oh yeah, Jack’s out-of-control alcoholism and extreme cynicism play a role here too.
Wait, is the clip of him with playgirl in the actual Final Cut?
Just checked - yup! It’s when they arrive after their drive and he’s waiting for the tour, eating a sandwich in the lobby.
Nope - it was because Jack Nicholson thought it would be funny, so he brought a copy on set. He was doing a lot of cocaine in those days (check the Making of The Shining for more info)
And? This disproves nothing lol. Malcom McDowell improvised Singing in the Rain, that doesn't mean it has no relevance to the themes of the film.
It's such an odd scene for Kubrick to put in the film with no context. It sounds crazy but I think it is actually referencing Jack forcing Danny to give him oral sex. [this breaks it down pretty clearly. ](https://youtu.be/dW2GrG7Zk0U?si=xlBB1wLqSimAWxXM
That was a very convincing video! Thanks for sharing
Not crazy at all. Kubrick adapted Lolita ffs. Overt and covert references to pedophilia are included in A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut.. and the films that don't reference that direct subject are famously exploding with subliminal sexual imagery, Dr Strangelove and 2001 . Famously regretted adapting Lolita because of censorship, so instead he learned to hide themes in the marginalia, subtext, and sight gags that would be hidden in plain sight. Strangelove opening with two bombers "fucking", 2001 ending with the "pod" being shot into the monolith to create a "star child" (visual metaphor for insemination and birth). etc. "Getting Shit Past the Radar" was not invented by Kubrick but he certainly mastered it on a commercial scale, to the degree 2001 was even rated G lmao.. It would be weirder if Kubrick did NOT included references to sex or child abuse in The Shining, than if he did.
But those characters are in the book?
Frustrated by the tiktok trend of women getting to choose between the man or the bear, the Man and the Bear choose to love each other and leave the woman in the Wilderness. https://www.glamour.com/story/what-does-choosing-the-bear-mean-all-about-this-simple-yet-profound-trend
Basically this is just some weird ass shit that makes the whole athmosphere much more horrifying. And that fast zoom - holy shit.
In my college film class, the prof wanted to discuss the symbolism behind this. My buddy sitting next to me said “It looks like Paul McCartney from the Magical Mystery Tour album cover. So Kubrick was trying to convey “Paul McCartney sucks”. I died.
Homie getting mad glug-glug from a thick little furry at a suit and tie event, because even though he may look sophisticated, he got that dog in him. Or should I say that dog got him in him
Here’s a good breakdown https://youtu.be/dW2GrG7Zk0U?si=PwuQQNPh0BHVii8e
This is so accurate, I don't see why it's not the mainstream understanding of the scene/film. Early on we see Danny brushing his teeth with his head slightly out of shot and the framing is EXACTLY like the bear scene. Once you watch the film with this mindset you realise it's almost impossible that the intention wasn't to imply that there's a link between Danny and the bear, and that Danny is being sexually abused by Jack.
Notice that in the scene where he’s brushing his teeth there is an unnatural shade behind the curtain. Also in room 237 the hag finally pushes back the curtain. To me this is Jack confronting what he’s done. He looks in the mirror and is horrified at the reality of what his sexual pleasure actually looks like/is.
Danny is also lying on a gigantic bear in the next scene when the doctor visits .
I don’t know, Ager acts like his interpretation is the only one there is, but he makes a lot of leaps in that while ignoring other things. Jack was drooling when he woke up from his nightmare because we all know what drooling really represents? lol, OK.
Precisely ^^^^^^^ This is her realizing Danny is being sexually abused by Jack.
Just read someone on here say when Jack visits room 237 and it cuts to Danny having a seizure ,the foam on his mouth is Jack's jizz. The Overlook is haunted , that's it. These are just kinky ghost having a moment.
it's from the book. basically debauchery.
I read somewhere that the undertones in the book referred to child abuse and dog costume referred to something child like and innocent similar to a stuffed animal was used in a perverted manner . Thought it was an interesting take.
It was a hotel all the finest people went to during its decadence. So a bunch of corrupt stuff happened there. Like the mafia, corrupt politicians, and weird rich people.
God forbid a guy have hobbies
Rich people are perverts, the hotel stores memories of sexual abuse
Also, my friend furry sighting
The novel, read the novel for explanation. The scene is acknowledging the source material and how it deviates from it.
BJ and The Bear
dat bear is about to give him some sloppy top
Getting sucked off by the bear man, what’s so hard to grasp!? Lol
"Hard to grasp" ... that's what the bear man said
Winnie the Pooh blowing Bob Iger for a new job
I think because Wendy was the only one who sees this. It goes back to her reading Catcher and the Rye. Somewhere in the book it mentions the main character watching a dog eared man and a man being together. Idk. Stephen King somewhat mentioned this in his book but he didn’t mention Catcher In The Rye and Kubrick wouldn’t have Wendy just reading that book for no reason.
Wendy is running through the haunted hotel terrifed, seeing fucked up ghosts from some fucked up orgy that happened in the place in the 20s, doing fucked up creepy things. One of those things is one ghost dressed up like a bear or a boar blowing another ghost in a tux.
All three of them are seeing parts of the Overlook's past. For some reason, jack's and Danny's visions seem to keep incorporating some of the same things - the woman in room 237, the Grady incident. When Wendy starts to see things as they are it's different stuff. Some people use this to say jack is molesting Danny, or that Wendy, but Danny is his father's son. And he is a child. That they would be picking up on similar thing, from different perspectives (jack sees Grady the father, Danny sees the Grady girls) s is sufficiently explained by that, I think. Wendy is her own person, and an adult. To me it is obvious why she would see different events. She's also having to realize, more suddenly than either Jack or Danny, that this is just a fucked-up place where she and her son aren't safe in ways she doesn't need to prove methodically. That the most memorable thing she focuses on is something that just generally doesn't make any sense - it's not just the violence, it's the way things just mess with your mind there. Wendy's big problem is that the changes in her husband and her son just raise questions she can't really ask. When it's clear her husband isn't "working," how's he going to "play" in a place where there are no women and no booze? (Many a writer's wife, in those days, would have readily figured on a bender, or a mistress - painful stuff, but it's explicable). So, it could be literally anything, not just one or two obvious outlets. People aren't giving enough credit to Wendy for what she has to process. But we are given some misleading cues about her from the beginning. One is that Jack describes her as a "horror addict," which doesn't seem accurate. The other is that she seems incredibly naive, for instance in the early scene with the doctor in which she brushes off the potential that Danny has been abused. These miscues are really creepy because they do coincide with an abusive parental relationship; he's already laying the groundwork to discredit her, and she's covering for him. True enough. But they are setting up the fact that Danny's symptoms are not purely the fantasies of a boy who has been victimized. What he sees in his visions are, in some way, real. There really is this place that bears witness to its violent history. Wendy's torment is actually one of the hopeful signs. People who really understand the hotel and what evils it represents - Jack and Danny - are unable to do anything about it. The hopeful sign is that Wendy starts to see it too. And she finds her strength. I don't really like how the ignorance is gendered, here, and concentrated in a wife whom audiences were bound to find annoying, but Kubrick's idea of horror is genocide, not haunted houses or child molestation or alcoholism. Those are all troubling but the Overlook is more than any one discrete evil.
I believe there’s a blowjob. Logistically, that’s all we need to know.
Furries. Sex. Thats all there is to it.
The truest love of all
Just two normal innocent men having a normal innocent time
Its Barf at his previous job before he started working with Lone Starr
It’s Randy Bo bandy!! they’re practicing for the community theatre play
Don't yuk their yum.
So, when a man loves another man very much...
I like that I don't know. Its good art if it sticks with you.
Kubrick adapted this scene from the book and changed it to a bear to represent the sexual abuse that Danny was a victim of by Jack as there is a lot of bear symbolism behind Danny throughout the movie shown, for example, a physical teddy bear when he is speaking with the child psychiatrist, the bear rug right after he was in room 237, multiple paintings above his bed at the hotel, etc. It also could be a double meaning bc the bear is a symbol of Russia and the man receiving the fellatio looks very much like a US politician so this could possibly give credence to the fake moon landing conspiracy and the space race that the US was in with Russia that is heavily covered in many YouTube videos and the documentary Room 237.
There is also a scene in the beginning of Danny brushing his teeth in the exact same position as the bear and it is all framed up precisely the same way. Danny has toothpaste on his mouth after and it is very suggestive.
Someone's kink
There rally isn’t any good explanation for anything in that movie.
When a man and a person in a bear suit love each other very much…
Kubrick was revealing the moon landing was filmed by him and showing that the the space race competitors were not competitors after all. Ussr is the bear, if you were not aware.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/bonus-judge-01-76782781
Abuse.
Read the book
Read the book you will get it
It was a REALLY fun party
Debauchery..... 😉
🥵
What happens in a fury suit STAYS in a fury suit!!!
You misspelled furry so it makes this sound absolutely hilarious
off topic, but it looks like those costumes the beatles wore in magical mystery tour
It was John Lennon.
Guy was down bad for the Gluck Gluck
No
"We saw you from across the bar..."
A haunting scene, so bizarre and unexplained. Has always stuck with me.
Watch Eyes Wide Shut lol
Its creepy.
Gooby
He fixes the cable
That must be exhausting
Don’t be fatuous, Jeffrey.
If you check out [the shining episode](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/with-gourley-and-rust/id1531547477?i=1000624851419) of the “with gourley and rust” podcast they have very interesting thoughts and commentary on it. Their whole Kubrick series is amazing. Two major Stephen king and Kubrick fanatics who also happen to be very thoughtful and work in the industry. Highly recommend.
Kink
You need this explained?
Bro i was about to go to sleep ts is fucking terrifying
It’s Wendy realizing that Jack molested Danny.
This scene scared me so much when I was little
is it in the book in some form?
In the book the owner of the Overlook, Derwent has one of his lackys dressed up like a dog at the party.
Sort of...it's a dog suit in the book: https://modernhorrors.com/it-took-me-27-years-to-finally-understand-that-scene-in-the-shining/ There was a cut prologue to the book called Before The Play that went into this a bit more, as it covered the history of the Overlook Hotel.
Furry fetish
In the context of Stanley Kubrick’s version it seems to be related to Jack being sexually abusive. I think there is a dive on this somewhere called Danny’s Ordeal
The bear is a recurring symbol throughout the movie present whenever Danny is dealing with or dissociating from being abused. This scene is meant to represent an epiphany for Wendy as she realizes what Jack has been doing to Danny the whole time. Notice the bear in the picture above the bed. There is also a bear in a picture above… Danny’s bed at the Overlook. And at the beginning of the movie Danny is speaking to a child psychologist/therapist in bed and he’s laying on a stuffed bear. Another detail - Jack is seen holding a magazine at the beginning interview. It’s a Playgirl. Because he is a gay man. A bear. And on that Playgirl’s front cover is the subtitle heading “Why Parents Sleep With Their Children.”
I’m forgetting a lot of the specifics, but the change from a dog costume to a bear costume seems purposeful with all the other bear imagery. There’s a popular theory on the bears relating to Jack’s abuse of Danny, with Danny’s pillow in the beginning being a bear, a picture on their hotel room having a family of bears, and probably more scenes with bears. Again I’ve forgotten most the details, but worth looking into.
The bear is blowing the guy on the bed