(Classic) (Movie) A-maze-ing…a look at the Shining

For the final review of classic movie month, my sights have been set on one of the most iconic horror films ever made.

An adaptation of Stephen King’s novel, the Shining is one of those movies that humanity both treasures and fears.

Not only that, but its trivia is something worth reading about. Shelley Duvall, who played Wendy Torrance, ended up incredibly sick due to Director Stanley Kubrick’s need to retake a lot of shots. One scene in particular is the one in which her character hits Jack Torrance with a baseball bat. Allegedly the takes totaled 127 times. While I commend Kubrick’s thoroughness, it also seems excessive.

While King has also stated that he did not like the adaptation, I would like to review it not as an adaptation, but as a movie on its own.

Story/Dialogue: Story goes that Jack, Wendy and Danny Torrance are staying in the Outlook Hotel while Jack is trying to write a play.

The head chef notices a shared psychic ability in Danny which he calls, ‘The Shining.’

This ability allows Danny to see the past and future, see ghosts and talk to people telepathically.

The Outlook Hotel is known for being haunted, with its ghosts possessing the weak willed.

They proceed to possess Jack and try to convince him to murder his family.

A film of the horror genre, the Shining’s themes revolve around the darkness of the human heart.

In terms of story, it feels solid enough that you could watch it and be entertained. However I also feel as though it’s lacking in backstory, like a body without a soul. Most of the exposition is told through dialogue and it’s rather dry.

Cinematography: Pardon the pun, but this is where the movie truly shines. The camera work is impeccable. Watching the dolly shots move in such an organic fashion really gave it a fly on the wall feel. One of the key shots I focused on is when the Torrances are in the car and the camera shakes to indicate they’re driving. It’s these little details that one appreciates.

The framing was a little off which only added to the atmosphere. There’s a lot of symmetry, with characters occupying the centre of frame. It’s interesting to see this in a film, as most will tell you that keeping your characters centre of frame usually leaves it ‘boring’.

The colours were rich, yet subdued (See the bathroom and the carpet of the hotel,) which contrasted the dark nature of the characters that occupied it.

Audio: The other key part I found fascinating about this movie was the audio.  The high frequency noises in the background sets you on edge from the moment you first hear it. It contrasts well with the bright colours and enhances the intensity of the scenes.

Unlike most horror films, which use gore and jump scares to scare the audience, the Shining takes an atmospheric approach. Subtle heartbeats, high whining and the sharp, abrupt chords create this overwhelming sense of helplessness and unease.

Another thing to note is the clarity of the recording. Hearing Danny’s tricycle wheels roll over the floor and the carpet makes you feel more connected to the place, somehow.

Overall: King has stated that this film did not stay true to the book, which was a supernatural horror with psychological elements.

As this is a review of the film as a stand alone, it can be said that the movie on its own is excellent and well worth the watch.  Unlike the book, it’s a psychological horror with supernatural elements.

I feel that the reasons for this are twofold.

One is the fact the supernatural element wouldn’t have been cost effective. Each of the spirits involved in the film are shown through careful juxtaposition and special effects. To make them look anything more than human would destroy the suspension of disbelief. Furthermore, it would make the spirits comical instead of terrifying. I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I can assure you I wasn’t afraid of Ghostbusters in the slightest.

The second is the fact that books are introspective. Most of the feelings and internal interactions that may have been in the book could not be shown accurately through the medium of film. The telepathy, possession, etc. would be tricky to convey.

This movie really messed with my head. My advice to you is to watch this with someone and not watch it at some ungodly hour of the morning.

Stanley Kubrick really brought his keen eye and steady hand to the table. He creates an air of tension that slowly builds throughout the movie and though the dialogue is often dry, the audience is distracted by the symmetry and colour of the set. Nothing feels out of place and you feel this sense of dread throughout the entire film.

Not only does it make you feel something, but it also compels you to keep watching.

I give this film 5 stars.

(Classic) (Movie) Rise and Fall...a look at Citizen Kane

Considered to be one of the greatest films ever made, Citizen Kane was the grandest design of Orson Welles. His...magnum opus, if you will.

Unfortunately, like Van Gogh and many other artists before him, Welles' visionary attitude has been received better long after its initial release.

Did it stand the test of time, though?

Please, read on:

Story/Dialogue: I found myself fascinated by the unconventional storytelling style of Citizen Kane. The idea that it's told through flashbacks of other people about a man who was larger than life is an appealing, if unusual way of telling stories. The dialogue was witty, though I also enjoyed that the conversations often felt more natural than rehearsed. This was done through people talking over the top of one another, which also ties in with the theme of power. One of the key things I really enjoyed was the polarity of ice and fire at the beginning of the movie.

Cinematography: THIS section is the part where the movie truly shines. What first strikes people is how everything is in focus, regardless of perspective. It gave this movie a bizarre, otherworldly take on the world of Citizen Kane. Each frame was throughly thought out and the lighting was both extreme and exquisite. People who were evil were shrouded in darkness, focus was shown by lighting the eye area like in those moments between fighting samurai. All of the sets were grand in scale and you felt it as well as saw it.

Audio: One thing I loved about the audio is that when a character was speaking and they were far away, it felt as though they were far away. Especially in places like Xanadu. It was one of those key moments in cinema where the audio was more than simply music. Though, I have to wonder whether or not the lack of a shatter sound for the snowglobe at the beginning was intentional or not. If it was intentional, I'm curious as to why.

Overall: This movie had me sitting on the fence for a long time.
I didn't hate it, I didn't love it, but I struggled to work out why I liked it. Enjoyment is a big factor in reviewing these films.
It was later after a discussion with someone important that I realised I liked it for its rewatchability.
Like 'Chindatown' with Jack Nicholson, this movie can be watched and studied/enjoyed many times over. It's a different experience each time you watch it.
Furthermore, this movie is the pinnacle of cinema. It went out of its way to be different in all its aspects and in terms of innovation is the most ambitious film of all time.

5 stars.

(Classic) (Movie) A girl's best friend....a look at Breakfast at Tiffany's.

If Alice from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland grew up, I'd imagine she'd be something like Ms. Holly Golightly.

A hurricane of class and refinement, Holly breezes through life playing the field and trying to land herself a rich man to settle down with.

She's a mover and shaker and this, Breakfast at Tiffany's, is her story.

Story/Dialogue: One of the things I love about this story is the fact that the theming revolves around survival. Holly survives using her womanly wiles, while Paul uses his dashing good looks to get by. Her strong personality and free spirit make it hard for blokes to pin her down, in both sense of the word. Paul is an observer, who falls for her as she not only inspires him, but her firecracker personality is enthralling.
The dialogue is witty and outrageous. It is a mask with which people talk to each other. Which makes even more sense that Paul, being a writer, would wield words in such a way that reveals the truth of things when events come to a head.

Cinematography: The rich colours of this movie, combined with the soft lighting in certain scenes make it a delight to watch. The visuals are incredibly decadent and the framing, much like our heroine, can often be perceived as fickle. You can see this in that Holly is often framed just out of centre, in line with her way of thinking.

Audio: Be warned of the accursed buzzer in the first scene. It's beyond irritating. However, the music beyond that created an almost dreamy atmosphere. 'Moon River' sung by Audrey Hepburn, is a beautiful track that had me imagining sitting in a dingy half asleep in the sun.

Overall: 5 Stars. There's no way I could give this movie any less than that. It keeps you entertained with its charming characters and its story is subtly woven throughout the movie. The dialogue isn't heavy handed, the cinematography is wonderful and the audio (Aside from that dreadful buzzer,) is pleasant.

5 Stars. No wonder this movie is considered iconic.

(Re)Introductory video.

(Classic) (Movie) Twinkletoes and Switchblades...A look at West Side Story

I feel as though in watching this film, I've finally gone to a musical without leaving my house.

Dance adds grace to the struggle of power between two gangs in New York and the ill-fated love that blossoms from the conflict.

Thus begins the review of the 1961 retelling of Romeo and Juliet.


Story/Dialogue: For those of you who have yet to study Shakespeare in your schooling career or you have lived under a rock, Romeo and Juliet had us bear witness to a couple who fell in love amidst a feud between their two families. West Side Story takes this tale and thrusts it onto the streets of New York.
The dialogue is witty, the musical numbers odd (though entertaining,) and while the swords are smaller, the stakes are no greater than they were in the original story. When well done, a retelling of the story feels less like a reboot and more like a story all its own.

Cinematography: The lighting and the camera effects in this film were excellent. It's excellent to see that the lighting felt natural, even during the night. The framing and placement of the actors felt like a dance in and of itself.

Audio: Musicals. (I need a picture of that guy with the crazy hair from the History channel.) The musical score was tied into the dialogue and the action of the film which would have added to the emotion of the scene back in the day, but it takes the edge off to those of us who are desensitised to such things.  

Overall: This retelling came out in 1961 and was way ahead of its time. The women were strong willed, even as oppressed as they were, the dialogue made you laugh, but I often felt the tone jump or the dancing in the middle of fight scenes a bit out of place and it took me out of the world I was invested in.
With this said, I did love the film.

I give this classic movie 4 and a half stars.