Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by _pi_, Nov 6, 2007.
Not really. I must say I didn't know that or forgot. It has been awhile since I've watched the film. The film still remains confusing to me. I think it's one of those films that you either really like, or you don't. I love how the film started. I knew nothing about it going into the film but by the end, I was glad it was over...chalked it up as having seen it, and wasn't too impressed. I do, however, plan to revisit the film now that you and a few others seem to really like it. I want to watch it again with a new perspective and see if I warm up to it with another viewing.
I saw Don't Look Now for the first time last year and definitely enjoyed it. The whole movie is like a weird fever dream and there are a lot of images (both disturbing and not disturbing) that stick with you. Although I could see why people say it's overrated. I was expecting top notch film making and I got something quite a bit different... and I'm OK with that.
Also, check out this podcast on don't look now that came out last fall:
Bit of a humorous conversation on a dark movie.
Replace Don't Look Now with Dead Ringers, Irreversible, Funny Games, The Vanishing, Dressed to Kill, The Fury, The Tenant, Possession (1981), Herzog's Nosferatu, or any David Lynch film and we've got a deal.
Actually, I don't see how someone couldn't take most of what you're saying here and transfer it to The Shining. No one ever complains about Jack Torrance essentially time-traveling in that film.
I think you've got Don't Look Now figured wrong. The characters never actually cross over into the future or backward into the past. They see simple, short-form psychic visions. And then, I believe it's just Donald Sutherland and Hillary Mason who have the ability. The movie, like The Shining, is about how some people who have no idea that they have psychic powers are tripping from the fact that they've tapped into them and are dealing with sudden kickback from them. If you watch the film again, you'll see that the whole section of the film you thought was time-shifted actually took place entirely in the present. It's just that Sutherland saw one glimpse into the future and became entirely confused about what was going on in the present. And it's what he saw from the future that is the scariest moment in the film. He saw a preview of his own funeral but couldn't realize it because he was so worried about the sisters influencing Laura to think that Christine was still alive. But the only thing he saw from the future was the boat/ferry. So, he remained entirely in the present at all times.
The way he responded to seeing the boat was that it confirmed his suspicions about the sisters. In his mind; even though he was completely wrong and he misinterpreted everything about the vision incorrectly. Which is why the ending is so horrifying and tragic. He could have completely avoided it. But he was so paranoid and mistrustful. Without any reason to be. Everything he does after seeing the boat from the future is about him not understanding just how wrong he was about Laura still being it Italy when she of course caught the plane to England.
Is that what you took away from the final photograph? Reincarnation never occurred to you? Weird.
I always just chalked that up to Kubrick being Kubrick.
What I took from the photograph from Shining:
Jack Napier (Nicholson's character from Batman) offered Doctor Emmet Brown some cocaine so he could use his time machine. He traveled to 1921 and took the photo. Why? Fuck if I know.
The only way Jack can get a drink in a hotel with no booze in it is through time-travel.
Reincarnation sounds nice. But, A) how often does it literally result in a perfect lookalike with a different family name, etc? I would have thought Descendant, certainly probable. But direct reincarnation would leave some serious questions. And, B) wouldn't that conflict with Stuart Ullman's and Bill Watson's reality in which Delbert Grady was the former caretaker?
Also, C) the other ghosts. If you're right, Delbert Grady only exists to "correct" Jack's misinformation that there were any other caretakers in the hotel. And everything he says, every opinion he has, his racism (etc) is Jack's. The booze wouldn't be real, the time travel wouldn't be real, and the only ghosts who exist would have to be extensions of him. But, lo and behold, there are at least 3 other ghosts. One of which is in no way echoing Jack's own thoughts (Lloyd).
But, funny... how can the party be happening when Jack is caretaking during the off-season? For the other ghosts to exist, the booze has to be real and be offered to Jack during the on-season. Therefore... time-travel also has to exist. It wouldn't just be last-minute reincarnation as an explanation for why Jack "has always been the caretaker." (Implying, again, it's the off-season.)
Unless, you're suggesting that he formerly been a guest and that's whom he was reincarnated from... But, then, I do wonder: if this is how he acquired "The Shining," what about Danny and Dick Halloran being able to use it?
All the information I get from the film seems to rule out or invalidate reincarnation as a possibility. The film is about 2 things, really: the malevolence of the hotel (given that it was built over ancient Native American burial grounds) and the psychic ability we are told is called "The Shining." I believed Jack was able to use his psychic ability to channel dark things that existed in the hotel. He had no other identity for his story to be about reincarnation. I admit he had the one line, "seems like I've been here forever" (I'm blanking on the verbatim text here). After that, everything he sees has no actual connection to who he was in a past life.
In fact- people rumor that this film's true subtext is domestic violence and alcoholism. Which would have existed entirely in the Torrance's life together and had nothing to do with the hotel itself. Unless, say, that's what attracted The Grady's to the hotel as well. Where is there room in the story for an alternate reality where Delbert Grady was never the caretaker Stuart Ullman's predecessor appointed? Or where is it suggested that Grady worked at the hotel before Halloran? Halloran suggests he knows everything about Room 213. And he certainly never recognized Jack Torrance as the previous caretaker. (I'm guessing the Classic Photograph Wall has been around for awhile.)
I chalked it up to Ghostly Adoption. He was an old soul to them. They took a liking to him and dragged him into their past where the party never ended. The photograph scene at the end was a retroactive imprinting, changing history. The same way Jack was able to dip into their past to in fact dance to music that wasn't playing and drink booze that wasn't stocked.
We only see the photograph of Jack in the past... once he has died in the present. Therefore, what reincarnation?
They didn't like the sniff they got from Wendy and Danny, so they floated a suggestion to Jack to kill them. Which is why I'm convinced the Grady's existed previously. That would be informing us that this has happened at the hotel before.
Not sure exactly what we're talking about here but if it's The Shining's final shot...
Ghosts and hauntings. The hotel is built on a Native American burial ground, is a symbol of white man extravagance, and it offends the Native American spirits. So, the hotel turns evil because of all that brewing hate beneath it, infecting the souls of those who work/stay there and commit mild-to-major bad deeds--and damning them forever. The hotel is like Jason Vorhees--it exacts its own form of judgment on those who transgress against its subjective moral code. Sexually active? You haunt the hotel forever. Greedy land developer with mobster ties? You haunt the hotel forever. Alcoholic with a temper? You're fucked forever in here.
Jack Torrence is in the photograph because he's always been the caretaker. Sure, the caretaker has had different names and faces on the outside, but it's always "Jack Torrence"--the end soul is the same. Think of it as a forever-haunting, popping up time and time again (or, "reincarnating," as maybrick said). The body is an avatar for the damned spirit that is "Jack Torrence."
By using the same visage in that photograph, Kubrick is driving this literal and metaphorical point home for the viewer: you cannot escape your transgressions. They will haunt you forever.
Bush > Nirvana
San Dimas High School football RULES!!!
No, no, no, no, no. I know we're talking opinions here, but Nirvana completely changed music with Nevermind. Bush has had a solid career, but they wouldn't even be able to co-headline with Dave Grohl. To me Come as you Are and Lithium are better songs than anything Bush has ever released, though I am quite fond of The Sound of Winter.
And I say Machinehead rocks harder than anything Nirvana ever made.
Bush = bad band = bad beer = bad president.
Just say no to Bush.
Hmm, well I say this is better than either.
I often find it very hard to say no to bush
An over the hill nostalgia act fronted by an over rated modern musician? Sorry, but I'm not hearing the energy.
Bush hasn't really been a thing for a few decades.