The Shining
discussion
Ending to the shining movie
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Rashad
(new)
Jun 26, 2014 11:07PM
I havent read the book but i have seen the movie. The last scene with the picture of him in 1921 confused me. Im not sure if the book ends like that but can someone clarrify what that meant. Hopefuly you readers have a better understanding of it. Was it just a metaphor for the spirit that possessed jack being there?
reply
|
flag
Jack never escaped the Hotel, that's why his picture is there.
The book doesn't end that way at all. I never saw the movie at least not all of it so not sure about the picture. Cathy - I know Jack never escapes the hotel but what is the relevance of the picture being in 1921.
That was the heyday of most of the characters Jack meets in the movie. I suppose because that era is known as an era of excess in all things.
Ok, that makes sense. The hotel was sort of at it's best in the 1920s. But, reading the end of Dr. Sleep - not sure if Jack ended up like the other Overlook un-dead.....
The year of the picture confused me. I wonder why they changed the movie ending from the book ending. Im gonna give the book a try. Thanks
The book is SO much better.
Kubrick used the King novel as a platform to troll people about his involvement with NASA, the U.S. ruling elite, and his direction of the "faked" Apollo moon landing. I love conspiracy stories, but "Room 237" falls along the same lines as "Turn me on, dead man" from the Beatle's White Album.
King hated Kubrik's version because it strayed so much from what his book was about. The book ending was incredible, scary, & touching. Kubrik's ending didn't make much sense & was silly. And yes, "Room 237" was a great movie & gives you a good idea on how bizarre Kubrik really was.
Stephen King's ending is very typical of his books. Hard to go into what I mean without giving it away though. I seems to be the type of ending he used a lot in his early books (Christine, Carrie, Needful Things, Salem's Lot, and others). Kubrick's ending is classic Kubrick. Since spoiling the movie doesn't matter - human influence is ultimately minimal, the larger forces at work (aliens, oppressive government, science, whatever they are) take over in the end, and you are left with cold hopelessness. 2001, Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut are all similar.
Kubrick put his stamp on King's plot. the hotel wins and takes over, ultimately Jack Torrance doesn't matter very much.
Side note - watch the movie A.I. sometime - Kubrick started it, Spielberg finished it. I always think Kubrick would have ended it in the hopeless place. Spielberg had to give it a feel good ending.
Unfortunately Stephen King isn't worth a damn as a movie director; he's a writer. Let each professional stick to what he knows. I'll back Kubrick on any question of what works in cinema. He's earned it.p.s. yes I believe the era of mammoth hotels built way out in the wilderness was 1920s; there was a big back-to-nature hunting fishing trend going on; formation of national parks; Teddy Roosevelt, John Muir, etc
Look at Jack's right hand in the Fourth of July picture. It looks like a band-aid across his palm. He's displaying his stigmata because the house crucified him, but it's been covered up and suppressed by the ghostly status quo. Note the man trying to hold his arm down.
Building mammoth hotels actually started in the 1860's on, most famously the Battle Creek Sanitarium of "The Road to Wellville" fame (which I love!), and of course from the European Spas. The wealthy wanted to leave the cities because of all the epidemics of summer...
However, and back to "The Shining," by the 1920's the veneer of civility was cracking and people weren't behaving with Victorian manners--to--be--sure.
Glad I'm not the only one who hated the movie and yea king isn't a movie director but he did wrote the story and well respecting a story is something that can be done too.I never never understood all this praises about the movie and also Nicholson's acting.I don't really think it is that hard to play madness.I usually prefer a little more subtility in acting.
Maybe the 1921 photo is two things: as has been said, it was absolutely the hotel's heyday, and secondly, the evil in the hotel and the world in which its spirits are caught does not exist in a linear timeframe. And yes, that's contradictory ;)
the book and the movie are two very different entities. For those that have not read the book, but saw the movie, I will not add any thing about the book except it was much better than the movie. I have been told that Kubrick's movie is a masterpiece, me, I don't see it this way. I thought it was OK and not particularly well made, which is a shame because I am a huge fan of his.As for the picture at the end of the movie, the house got Nicholson, just like all of the others. For most of the movie, you think Nicholson is losing his mind and the end shows you it was all real.
Hillary wrote: "Stephen King's ending is very typical of his books. Hard to go into what I mean without giving it away though. I seems to be the type of ending he used a lot in his early books (Christine, Carrie, ..."Right on Hillary. Even though I think Spielberg did a favor to moviegoers with the A.I. ending - which was still super sad btw.
As for Shining, I always thought Jack Torrance's look-alike had lived before - in the 20s and that's why the house targeted him to 'get him back', because he was the one who could see the bad stuff and lose his mind, unlike his son who merely was a witness and not a 'Dexter-when-grown-up'. So I always thought that Nicholson was targeted because he looked like a guy who really lost his sanity and killed his family - in the 20s - and that guy looked like Nicholson.
But all of you, cleared this one up for me!
I thought King wrote a really good potboiler. Kubrick made something that went beyond a "horror movie" with scary ghosts. Pretentious? Maybe. I still think Kubrick was after something more human than King's kind of fun cliches about Regular Decent Guy Goes Bad by emphasizing the alcoholism and decay of the family (far more believable and real than just a struggling writer with a gorgeous blonde writer's wife type). Kubrick also had a better sense of cinema than King. He tossed out the stuff that made the book perfect for a TV miniseries, with a time-lock climax and a big baboom! finish. Kubrick's movie had that feeling of strangeness that marks the very best supernatural movies and books. King always seems to yank back from something really disturbing and toss in blood and gore when something subtler and stranger might be about to happen. Pet Semetery is the perfect example for me--the book seems to be heading for something cosmic in the end, and it turns into a kid with a knife.
I preferred the book ending, but I definitely preferred the Kubrick movie over the TV movie version, largely due to Jack Nicholson's over the top and genuinely frightening performance. The TV version that King participated in was boring by comparison. The 'Wings' guy was about as scary as Hello Kitty and Rebecca de Mornay was the only bright spot.Why 1921? It's been a while since I saw the movie but it would make sense that that was the year the hotel was built. Although King actually used the Hotel Stanley, built in 1909, as his inspiration. Timberline Lodge, which is in Oregon, was used for exterior shots and was opened in 1937.
The book's Room 217 relates to an explosion in 1911 at the Stanley where a housekeeper was severely injured and reputedly still haunts that hotel. Timberline, which has a room 217, asked Kubrick to change the room number in the movie.
Maria wrote: "The book is SO much better."i thought the movie was ok, never one to rave about it like some of my mates but after reading the book i now praise the movie more highly.
one of the reasonably rare times where i prefer the movie over the book but more in particular the ending. I thought the book's ending was really poor.
John wrote: " Timberline, which has a room 217, asked Kubrick to change the room number in the movie. "Ohhh so that's why! I was disappointed when I first saw that in the movie. It makes sense though.
I know a lot of people who love the movie and I really envied them for that. I read the book before watching the movie, it's such a poor adaptation that it made me really dislike the movie. I'm way too attached to the book to see any brilliance in the movie. Some of the characters are badly portrayed (Wendy, Ullman), the movie centers too much on Jack (at least I thought so), it doesn't explore Jack's relationship with Danny and oh so much more.
the book was definitely better because the ending ties perfectly to Doctor sleep's ending.Its worth reading. TWICE
Sirin wrote: "the book was definitely better because the ending ties perfectly to Doctor sleep's ending.Its worth reading. TWICE"
if you're judging on that basis then what chance did kubrick have, unless psychic? lol
Pickle wrote: "if you're judging on that basis then what chance did kubrick have..."
He could've just followed the ending in the shining ;)
I think the ending kinda stinks in every version,,,but if I had to rank just the endings--Kubrick, book, tv movie in order of greatness. The Book is obviously best, Kubrick is just a different monster altogether, and a well made one at that.
The way I interpreted the movie ending was that The Overlook preyed on the minds of its caretakers (easy targets since they are alone and most likely taking the horrible job out of desperation) until they went completely mad and the hotel could "claim" them. Which is why Grady is present at the 1921 4th of July party. Assumedly when the next caretaker begins to have these visions, Jack will be a part of them. I assume the photo at the end is proof that Jack is lost to the hotel now. Like others have stated, the year is probably because that's when the hotel was in its heyday, aka when it was strongest.Alternatively, perhaps most of what we are led to believe is "reality" is still all part of the delusion. Grady at one point in the film says something along the lines of "you've always been the caretaker" to Jack. What if that's true and Jack is somehow this immortal, ghost-like entity who has been bringing his wife and child(ren) to the hotel as sacrifices for some 50 years? Like he is reincarnated in a continuous cycle to do the hotel's bidding. And the photo from the 1920's shows that he existed at the hotel then, proving there is something suspicious about him considering he has not aged a day since. Jack did say he felt like he'd been to the hotel before.
Or most likely the ambiguity of the ending is purposeful to trick people into thinking the ending is deep and genius. The book ending is very different, but I won't spoil that!
I haven't seen the movie in a long time so I don't remember a lot about it. Also I didn't read through all the comments because there are way to may so this might have already been stated. The year in the picture doesn't matter much because in the book it talks about how all the era's blend into one time. 1921 was the prevalent era during Jack's madness though.
Hillary wrote: "...Side note - watch the movie A.I. sometime - Kubrick started it, Spielberg finished it. I always think Kubrick would have ended it in the hopeless place. Spielberg had to give it a feel good ending."Actually, Kubrik's ending is the happy ending that Spielberg shot. Everybody but Spielberg didn't want to do that specific ending, they just wanted to leave it all dark and bleak.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnIEB...
You can watch all of it (if you like Nostalgia Critic, that is), or you can skip to 33:00 and watch from there.
Maria wrote: "The book is SO much better."Yes! The book is way easier to understand than the movie.
I think that the book and movie were more closely linked than people give them credit for and this is probably die to the two very different endings but in truth I don't believe that Kubrick totally disregarded the book. In the novel the decade of the 1920's plays a much more prominent role. It's the era when most of the ghosts exist and when the hotel was at it's most notorious. A time of bootleggers, gangsters and unethical business men all whom feature more heavily in the book. If the movie has won flaw it's that it doesn't focus on this backstory preferring instead to focus on the previous caretaker who murdered his family. This is why the photo causes so much conversation points because it seems to come out of nowhere. If someone hadn't read the book the may not have made the connection between the year and the ghosts who inhabit the hotel. The picture could have been taken in any year.Having said that I think the reason for the picture is to show that Jack has now joined the ranks of the hotels ghosts and is forever locked in the New Years party of 1921 - again something that was featured more heavily in the book - implying, IMO, that he would be the ghost who would appear to a future caretaker when the hotel decided that murder was needed. Essentially, he would be the new Grady corrupting another caretaker to murder his family implying that the evil would not cease and that the hotel had won in the battle for Jacks' soul; and won.
I don't doubt that Kubrick had read and study the book extensively before he started filming and that he wanted to make that connection between the ghosts of the past and they controlled Jack into doing their bidding into murdering Danny because he had the shinning. The fact that they made Jack one of them is more Kubricks take on that facet. That is why I think the book and the movie are not totally opposites. The movie was Kubricks vision and interpretation of these story arcs. Nothing in Kubricks movies were by luck or flaw, he always knew what he was doing behind a camera and though we may not always grasp his concepts - the ending of 2001 being a good example - I believe that he always kept them pertinent to the feel of the larger story being told and that it was he respect the intelligence of his audience.
Megan wrote: "The way I interpreted the movie ending was that The Overlook preyed on the minds of its caretakers (easy targets since they are alone and most likely taking the horrible job out of desperation) unt..."Yes, that picture is of their "Alumni" which Jack is now a part of. And he's the newest member, the guest of honor so to speak, and that's why he's centered.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
