Tag Archives: stanleykubrick

The Cult Movie Club: The Shining and Shelley Duvall

Posted on by

It was fascinating watching the long American cut of ‘The Shining’ recently with a packed, young crowd at the BFI Southbank.

They clapped and cheered at the end, and many flinched and jumped out of their seats during Jack’s manic outbursts. It was also fascinating to re-evaluate Shelley Duvall’s performance after her sad recent death (and re-watching her superbly odd turn in Robert Altman’s ‘3 Women’ in the same venue recently).

But, despite the doc ‘Room 237’ and terrific work by Rob Ager (most of it on his Collative Learning YT channel), what surprised me was how many aspects of the film still mystified and enthralled after numerous viewings. Here are some of my jottings (with spoilers):

The Gold Room
It’s not in Stephen King’s book. Ager has investigated the possible motivations for Kubrick including it. But unless I’m very mistaken Ager doesn’t discuss the strange photos on the sign by the entrance. What are they? The look suspiciously like late-1970s singer-songwriters rather than crooners of a 1920s vintage…

The lighting
There’s weird lighting everywhere. Lamps, blazing sun through windows, fluorescent beams. Lucifer – bringer of light?

Madness, misogyny and suggestions of child sexual abuse
The idea that a father could have malicious thoughts about his wife and son is terrifying and probably hits home to most general viewers. Plus Jack’s pure rage aimed at his wife. But possibly the film goes very much further than that – Ager’s excellent video explores even more troubling aspects. As for the misogyny, the Sunday Times recently reported that Duvall was shown the baseball bat scene during a 2016 interview, and broke down in tears, saying: ‘I can only imagine how many women go through this kind of thing.’

The shape in the river of blood
What the hell is it? A body? An octopus?

The sound design
It’s NOT perfect. During Danny’s pedal-car rides on the rugs/floors, the sound still doesn’t seem correctly sync’d…

People walking backwards
Once you first notice it, it’s quite funny clocking how many characters walk backwards during the movie…

Danny and ‘Tony’
Did Kubrick watch the 1977 BBC documentary about the Enfield Poltergeist?

Shelley Duvall
Hers is a thankless role in a way and you can be sure it was cut to shreds in the edit. She told Roger Ebert that her experience on the film was ‘unbearable’ and claimed that she had to cry for 12 hours a day for nine months straight to get what Stanley was after. But it was worth it. Watch the scene where she brings Jack lunch at his typewriter and finally realises what she’s up against. Apparently a sweetheart too if this interview is anything to go by.

Influences of ‘The Amityville Horror’ and ‘The Exorcist’?
In ‘Amityville’, a family man goes mad with an axe. And it only came out a year before ‘The Shining’. As for ‘The Exorcist’, ‘Tony’ and Captain Howdy? Then there’s the fade to black and the ‘open your eyes’ in the long US version of ‘The Shining’ – there’s an almost identical cut in ‘The Exorcist’.

Mirrors
Jack only sees ‘ghosts’ when he’s opposite a mirror. Check it out. Even his ‘rant’ as he walks down the corridor towards the Gold Room seems to be ‘activated’ by mirrors.

Two Jacks and two Gradys?
Is Jack crazy from the start? Is he the ‘chosen’ man to get the ghosts going or is he driven crazy by the hotel? Also note that during his job interview, his boss Ullman says Jack has come ‘well recommended by our people in Denver’. Sounds dodgy and taps into the strange mythology that has grown up since around Denver… And why is Grady given two names – Charles and Delbert?

Hallorann
Seeing as he’s an absolute expert ‘shiner’, why would he work at such an evil place as The Overlook? You’d think he would avoid it like the plague. Is this a piece of social commentary by King/Kubrick?

Vivian Kubrick
Stanley’s daughter was reportedly an almost daily presence on the set, helming her making-of documentary and helping out in the production office. She also has an uncredited cameo in the film and it’s a doozy. She even ‘toasts’ the camera. She’s sitting on the sofa nearest Jack when Delbert Grady spills advocaat on him.

Jack Daniel’s
Kubrick was a genius. In the first Gold Room scene, Jack asks Lloyd for a bourbon – but he doesn’t get one. He gets a Jack Daniel’s: Jack and Daniel (Danny). Geddit? Also see the baseball bat Wendy brandishes, a Louisville Slugger. What’s the symbolism of that? You can bet Kubrick didn’t include it by chance.

Working with children
What an amazing performance by Danny Lloyd as young Danny (big credit to Leon Vitali – check out ‘Filmworker’). He doesn’t blink. The troubling themes are a lot to pin on the young boy but he seems to have turned out OK.

Jack Nicholson
He wasn’t nominated for an Oscar. Why the hell not? Someone (Stanley Donen? Nicholas Ray? Jean-Luc Godard?) once said a good movie only needs three or four great scenes on which to hang its hat – Jack’s in all of them.

Movie Review: Killers Of The Flower Moon (2023)

Posted on by

Based on David Grann’s non-fiction book about series of mysterious deaths among the Osage Native American tribe in 1920s Oklahoma, Martin Scorsese’s new three-and-a-half hour movie is currently in the middle of a brief cinema run before showing on Paramount + (who also co-financed alongside Apple TV).

A new Scorsese movie is always an event. Co-starring Leonard DiCaprio, Robert De Niro and Lily Gladstone, ‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ is another epic ‘creation of modern America’ movie, the flipside of ‘Goodfellas’, ‘Casino’, ‘The Irishman’, ‘Once Upon A Time In America’ and ‘The Godfather’, whilst also nodding to the oil boom of the 1920s and development of the FBI (‘Killers’ was reportedly reformatted during the Covid era to focus less on the FBI and more on the Osage).

The first thing to address is the giant running time. It’s quite extraordinary – and sometimes quite a challenge – watching a three-and-a-half-hour movie in 2023. And if, at times, it feels very much like an elongated TV show, its huge budget is all up there on the screen, with peerless attention to detail, meticulous mise en scene and truly hefty star performances.

You’re in the hands of a master, though Scorsese fans wanting elaborate camera movements and zippy set pieces will be disappointed – this is a sober, slow film, gaining its power from an accumulation of moods and images.

But ‘Killers’ is a true story of such simple, unremitting horror that you may also question why you are sitting so passively watching an exceptionally unpleasant, shameful episode in American history – all very apt in a long, non-fiction book or article, less so in a feature film of such extreme length.

One generally wants to look away from the casual, regular violence, unpleasantly forensic detail and focus on sometimes passive, unwell women. There’s exposure of intense anxiety and physical threat to child actors. There are also many longeurs, often undercut by Robbie Robertson’s pretty much wall-to-wall music (influenced by Kubrick’s ‘Barry Lyndon’ and ‘The Shining’?) with occasional Daniel Lanois-esque ‘funky’ breakdowns and slightly disconcerting inserts of blues and bluegrass.

But it’s the performances that linger longest in the mind after viewing. It’s thrilling watching intimate ‘behaviour’, as per Scorsese’s assessment of Marlon Brando in ‘On The Waterfront’, played out in the midst of such an epic, sprawling movie.

There are two key De Niro/DiCaprio stand-offs – it’s an absolute treat to see these two actors sparring on the big screen at such close quarters (and remember De Niro gave Leo his first big break in ‘This Boy’s Life’).

For his part, DiCaprio channels Brando, jutting out his bottom jaw, desperate to dial down the joie de vivre, excellently portraying a weak man who just wants to be left alone to enjoy money and gambling but is drawn into evil deeds. De Niro, in the meantime, seems to channel Trump. Gladstone burns very brightly during the first hour of the picture but fades fast, through no fault of her own, despite regrouping for a powerful final scene with DiCaprio.

There are shades of ‘Goodfellas’ and ‘The King Of Comedy’ in the film’s finale which summarises the hideous plot via a trite, ‘comic’ supper-theatre show, enjoyed by a middle-class audience and featuring a weird, uncharacteristically emotional cameo from the director.

So ‘Killers’ is not exactly Marty’s ‘Heaven’s Gate’ but a disappointment after ‘The Irishman’. Movingtheriver would put it alongside ‘Gangs Of New York’, ‘The Aviator’ and a few others in the ‘heroic failures’ camp. But is it worth seeing on the big screen? Of course. And Scorsese turns 81 on 17 November.

The Cult Movie Club: Being There (1979)

Posted on by

It’s hard to think of a movie that better captures an end-of-the-1970s/beginning-of-the-1980s vibe than ‘Being There’.

Directed by Hal Ashby (‘Shampoo’, ‘Harold & Maude’, ‘Coming Home’) and starring Peter Sellers, it was released on the same day as Steven Spielberg’s ‘1941’ just before Christmas 1979 and became one of the first critical and commercial successes of the ’80s.

Based on Jerzy Kosinski’s book (the Polish author became somewhat of a celebrity in the States before he committed suicide in 1991), ‘Being There’ is a political satire, the story of a simpleton who moves effortlessly to within spitting distance of the very highest echelons of American power.

Still, despite featuring one of the most famous final shots in cinema history, some classic catchphrases and Sellers’ penultimate screen performance as Chance the gardener (for which he was Oscar-nominated), ‘Being There’ inexplicably now seems somewhat forgotten.

Not round these parts. A recent re-watching was a revelation – it’s far better than I remembered it. It’s also surely another one for the relatively small ‘the film’s better than the book’ file. Here’s what I wrote in my notebook:

Shirley MacLaine
She barely gets a mention in all the literature I’ve read about ‘Being There’. A shame, because she delivers a fine comedy performance. Yes, the ‘I like to watch’ sequence is embarrassing and often subject to critical scrutiny, but it’s Sellers who is really the focus of that scene. You’ll certainly never think of Fred Rogers in the same way.

Stanley Kubrick
With its beautiful widescreen compositions, deep, rich colours, iconoclastic/irreverent humour and a brilliant central performance from Sellers, it’s surely a film of which Mr K would approve (and visitors to ‘Being There’ during Christmas 1979 would also have seen a teaser trailer for Kubrick’s ‘The Shining’). This guy’s interesting video finds a link between ‘Being There’ and ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’. Also, close viewing reveals that there’s a shot in ‘Being There’ of a TV – being watched by Chance – which doesn’t have a plugged-in cable, just like the similar shot in ‘The Shining’. Coincidence?

The Oscars
Sellers apparently channelled Stan Laurel for his blanked-out, mid-Atlantic accent, and worked diligently on line readings in the mirror. He was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar, but lost out to Dustin Hoffman for ‘Kramer vs. Kramer’. Sellers looks unwell, pale and drawn (he died just six months after the film’s release), but apparently surprises both himself and the actors around him with his wonderful comic creation.

Modern Culture
The film has a lot to say about where popular culture was headed. It’s no coincidence that Chance has been ‘brought up’ on television. When he appears on a chat show, Chance is told by the producer: ‘You’ll be seen by more people tonight than have been to the theatre in the last 40 years’. The movie relentlessly emphasises the more inane elements of TV throughout its duration.

Tom Cruise
Promoting the new ‘Mission Impossible’ film in a recent Sunday Times interview, Cruise recently said he would hitherto only make movies that audiences immediately understood – no puzzles, fables or anything demanding too much thought. No more ‘Eyes Wide Shut’s. Or ‘Being There’s. There’s not an iceberg’s chance in hell that this film would get made today.

Chance
How does Chance the gardener get so far up the totem pole so quickly? The film emphasises that you can get a very long way by ‘looking the part’ and having friends in high places. And of course there’s luck. But there are still one or two anomalies – why does he unquestioningly leave the house in which he has lived all his life just because the lawyers tell him he’s going to be evicted? Would he really have a clue what an eviction was? It seems more likely that he would stay put for as long as possible.

Washington DC
As Chance leaves his house, there’s a famous, striking montage of his sojourn through DC soundtracked by Deodato’s ‘Also Sprach Zarathustra’. We are initially shocked to realise that, despite his natty threads and luxurious pad, he’s been living in the poor part of town. We see a graffito which reads: ‘America ain’t shit cos the white man’s got a God complex’, later referenced by Public Enemy (the film in general has a lot to say about racial issues in America, superbly summarised by this video). Then there’s the famous shot of Chance walking down Pennsylvania Avenue, the moment we realise this is going to be rather a special movie.

Minor Characters
‘Being There’ is full of memorable secondary characters, each with a very specific role, from the lawyers to newspaper/magazine editors, TV producers, elevator orderlies and doctors. And fans of John Carpenter’s ‘The Thing’ will relish seeing Richard Dysart and David Clennon playing key roles.

The President
The President isn’t a sympathetic character – in fact he is a boorish, somewhat weak buffoon who doesn’t seem to have much power. But still, there’s plenty of evidence that he’s onto Chance from the beginning. The film ends with an internal cabal about to oust the president and move the government much further to the Right, possibly a portent of the upcoming Reagan years. The film also spends an inordinate amount of time on the more ‘fascistic’ elements of the US – the all-white, thrusting security detail and Secret Service operatives, the ridiculous vehicle cavalcades, the huge government properties in the countryside that look eerily like Nazi strongholds. Also watch out for the Eye of Providence on Ben Rand’s burial pyramid. A YouTube comment: ‘This movie tells us how the world really works’.

Vinnie Colaiuta
The drummer/composer released a great ‘tribute’ to Chance (or Chauncey, as he is mistakenly named by Eve Rand in the film) on his 1994 solo album, featuring Sting on bass.

The Cult Movie Club: Modern Romance (1981)

Posted on by

It might seem a bit churlish to say about a guy who’s co-written/directed seven movies and received a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination (for ‘Broadcast News’) that it never quite happened for Albert Brooks the way it did for some of his contemporaries.

But somehow he has always seemed too niche for widespread popularity. His always-intelligent, nervy schtick is like a West Coast Woody Allen, but his comic bedfellows are probably Garry Shandling and Larry David rather than Allen and Diane Keaton.

‘Modern Romance’ was Brooks’ superb second film as co-writer/director, and it’s kind of an extended, darker episode of ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’. I caught it completely by chance on Channel Four in the mid-’90s and am grateful I captured it on VHS because it seems almost impossible to find these days.

The studio apparently loathed it and barely gave it any marketing, but it has only gained in reputation over the years. And reportedly Stanley Kubrick rated it as one of his all-time favourite films, even ringing Brooks to congratulate/commiserate after its tepid box-office reception.

Watching it again, the movie it most reminded me of is ‘Groundhog Day’. Brooks plays Robert Cole, an amiable if somewhat self-serving film editor stuck in a kind of romantic ‘loop’, endlessly playing out his on/off relationship with talented, gorgeous but hard-to-know Mary, portrayed by the excellent Kathryn Harrold.

Kathryn Harrold and Albert Brooks in ‘Modern Romance’

So Robert dumps Mary (yet again) at the beginning of the movie and tries (yet again?) to embrace the new romantic ‘rules’ of the Me Decade, taking up jogging, health supplements and blind dates. But nothing works. He just can’t seem to get comfortable. Why? Is he really meant to be with Mary? Or is it that he just can’t assuage his loneliness and modern ennui? The movie explores the options with amusing, thought-provoking results.

‘Modern Romance’ is full of great secondary characters: Brooks’ brother Bob Einstein (best known as Marty Funkhouser in ‘Curb’) plays a pushy shop assistant, Bruno Kirby is his loyal co-editor, George Kennedy of ‘Naked Gun’ fame is a self-important B-movie actor and there’s a droll, jittery turn by James L Brooks as a suspiciously George Lucas-like director.

James L Brooks, Albert Brooks and Bruno Kirby

Modern Romance’ also makes for a pithy Hollywood pastiche. Robert’s day job consists of editing a cheapo ‘Star Wars’ rip-off, pitting him against bored techies, unpredictable directors and egotistical character actors. The irony, of course, is that we know Robert is capable of much more, but he seems to have some kind of tragic flaw. He’s an ’80s version of Bobby Dupea, Jack Nicholson’s character in ‘Five Easy Pieces’.

The other thing about ‘Modern Romance’ is that it’s very quiet. Compared to modern comedies, it’s positively moribund. Brooks spends a lot of time alone, talking to himself. He makes stoned phone calls, goes jogging, drives around deserted LA locations. There’s very little incidental music but there is a funny segue of heartbreak songs heard on a car radio.

It works as a quirky, neurotic, droll comedy, but ‘Modern Romance’ also lingers in the brain, revealing far more serious concepts. Why can’t Robert leave Mary alone and get on with his life? Or, as the trailer tagline so aptly puts it: if this is not love, what is it?