5 ms·

Overlooked: A detail in “The Shining” that you’ve never seen

29 points by NKosmatos 3y ago

NKosmatos 3y ago
Video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6PgWFs0Pw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6PgWFs0Pw
sublinear 3y ago
> I don’t think anyone has ever noticed it before, because I cannot find anything about it. No article, no video, nothing. So... if it's not mentioned on social media it didn't happen? What is happening to this world?
- nelox 3y ago
  The sound of one influencer crapping
  - justin66 3y ago
    If an influencer craps himself where no one can hear, did he really crap himself?
- CharlesW 3y ago
  Also, the author contradicts himself in tweet 17 of 50: "In this scene from the documentary Making the Shining, Kubrick explicitly asks Nicholson to find a way to look down, right where the camera is." Anyone sufficiently familiar with Kubrick knows it wasn't a mistake.
  - mcphage 3y ago
    > Anyone sufficiently familiar with Kubrick knows it wasn't a mistake. I don't think the author at any point claims it's a mistake, they make it clear how deliberate it is. They are asking what the effect is.
- bitshiftfaced 3y ago
  Probably a better way to criticize this comment would be to find a counterexample instead of overextending to a commentary of society at large.
- sidcool 3y ago
  Yep, high chance. People post almost everything and this is too interesting to have been missed posting on social media.
- paulrpotts 3y ago
  I think the writer's point is that Kubrick has been analyzed _to death_ on social media. It's true - there's a huge ecosystem of YouTube explainer videos, listicles, in-depth articles about his shooting style, camera tricks, editing, symbolism in his films, etc. So, I don't think he's actually wrong. In previous decades there was an ecosystem of books and magazines about films (for example I have books on the making of Dune, the making of Blade Runner, the making of Star Trek, books of essays on X-Files, Serenity, and Cinefex magazines that go into amazing detail on how the visual effects for Lord of the Rings were made). But most of this sort of thing seems to have shifted to online.
  - sublinear 3y ago
    My point was that these details can't possibly only be noticed by "the ecosystem". Movies are for everyone. Most just don't care enough to mention it. Just because a bunch of nerds didn't notice something doesn't mean nobody else has.
BrotherBisquick 3y ago
Look, this is interesting, but why can't this be a blog post? Why does it have to be chopped up into individual chunks and put up on twitter?
- maegul 3y ago
  It's main format, it seems, is a youtube video essay, which is the appropriate format, IMO, not a blog post, linked in this thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36151612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36151612
- cududa 3y ago
  Because the author likes Twitter threads and decided to make it a Twitter thread.
  - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
    Good but I can never finish them. Especially when they deliberately keep beating around the bush for 20 tweets, as if someone is paying them by the number of tweets I've glanced. It's insufferable.
haunter 3y ago
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1663917603662835714.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1663917603662835714.html
derbOac 3y ago
Some of those shots to me come across as if the character's glance just happens to be where the camera is. It increases the realism to me. Even if intentional on the part of the director or actor, there's a bias I think people have to assume something like "all glances at me are because of me". As in, if the events of The Shining were happening, without a camera, surely Torrance would look at the spot the camera happens to be. Or, alternatively, if he never looked in the location of the camera it might be interpretable as avoidance. I think there's more to it than that (subconsciously drawing you into the diagesis?) but that's how I've interpreted some scenes.
- paulrpotts 3y ago
  Nicholson's eyes don't just graze the camera or sweep past it - he's clearly been directed to pause (even for a tiny moment) looking directly at the lens. It's the opposite of what film actors are trained to do, which is avoid looking directly at the lens. In a typical dramatic film a shot where an actor looked directly at the lens would be a ruined take.
deafpolygon 3y ago
From the context of the book, it also makes sense. SK writes in a style that is almost like he's talking to you (the reader) but not exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if Kubrick wanted to convey that in a subtle way.

29 points by NKosmatos 3y ago

Video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6PgWFs0Pw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6PgWFs0Pw

> I don’t think anyone has ever noticed it before, because I cannot find anything about it. No article, no video, nothing. So... if it's not mentioned on social media it didn't happen? What is happening to this world?

nelox 3y ago
The sound of one influencer crapping
- justin66 3y ago
  If an influencer craps himself where no one can hear, did he really crap himself?
CharlesW 3y ago
Also, the author contradicts himself in tweet 17 of 50: "In this scene from the documentary Making the Shining, Kubrick explicitly asks Nicholson to find a way to look down, right where the camera is." Anyone sufficiently familiar with Kubrick knows it wasn't a mistake.
- mcphage 3y ago
  > Anyone sufficiently familiar with Kubrick knows it wasn't a mistake. I don't think the author at any point claims it's a mistake, they make it clear how deliberate it is. They are asking what the effect is.
bitshiftfaced 3y ago
Probably a better way to criticize this comment would be to find a counterexample instead of overextending to a commentary of society at large.
sidcool 3y ago
Yep, high chance. People post almost everything and this is too interesting to have been missed posting on social media.
paulrpotts 3y ago
I think the writer's point is that Kubrick has been analyzed _to death_ on social media. It's true - there's a huge ecosystem of YouTube explainer videos, listicles, in-depth articles about his shooting style, camera tricks, editing, symbolism in his films, etc. So, I don't think he's actually wrong. In previous decades there was an ecosystem of books and magazines about films (for example I have books on the making of Dune, the making of Blade Runner, the making of Star Trek, books of essays on X-Files, Serenity, and Cinefex magazines that go into amazing detail on how the visual effects for Lord of the Rings were made). But most of this sort of thing seems to have shifted to online.
- sublinear 3y ago
  My point was that these details can't possibly only be noticed by "the ecosystem". Movies are for everyone. Most just don't care enough to mention it. Just because a bunch of nerds didn't notice something doesn't mean nobody else has.

BrotherBisquick 3y ago

Look, this is interesting, but why can't this be a blog post? Why does it have to be chopped up into individual chunks and put up on twitter?

maegul 3y ago
It's main format, it seems, is a youtube video essay, which is the appropriate format, IMO, not a blog post, linked in this thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36151612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36151612
cududa 3y ago
Because the author likes Twitter threads and decided to make it a Twitter thread.
- BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
  Good but I can never finish them. Especially when they deliberately keep beating around the bush for 20 tweets, as if someone is paying them by the number of tweets I've glanced. It's insufferable.

haunter 3y ago

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1663917603662835714.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1663917603662835714.html

derbOac 3y ago

Some of those shots to me come across as if the character's glance just happens to be where the camera is. It increases the realism to me. Even if intentional on the part of the director or actor, there's a bias I think people have to assume something like "all glances at me are because of me". As in, if the events of The Shining were happening, without a camera, surely Torrance would look at the spot the camera happens to be. Or, alternatively, if he never looked in the location of the camera it might be interpretable as avoidance. I think there's more to it than that (subconsciously drawing you into the diagesis?) but that's how I've interpreted some scenes.

paulrpotts 3y ago
Nicholson's eyes don't just graze the camera or sweep past it - he's clearly been directed to pause (even for a tiny moment) looking directly at the lens. It's the opposite of what film actors are trained to do, which is avoid looking directly at the lens. In a typical dramatic film a shot where an actor looked directly at the lens would be a ruined take.

deafpolygon 3y ago

From the context of the book, it also makes sense. SK writes in a style that is almost like he's talking to you (the reader) but not exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if Kubrick wanted to convey that in a subtle way.