The Shining Extended Cut (BFI)

[raigraphixs]

If anyone wants to see this on the big screen, The Shining 'US extended cut' will be screening at BFI this halloween, with additional 24mins extra.

The film originally ran 146 minutes. Three weeks into its U.S. release, Kubrick cut a two-minute epilogue from the end of the film, reducing its length to 144 minutes. After poor reviews and sporadic box office, Kubrick decided to further edit the film for its release outside the U.S. He cut approximately 31 minutes of footage, reducing the length to 113 minutes.

 

[PoochJD]

Hi,

The original US version turns-up on TCM quite regularly, which is where I've seen it - and yes, it's better than the truncated UK version.

Such a shame that, on Sky, TCM still don't air stuff in proper 16:9, but 4:3 letterbox!


Pooch

 

[Todd Tomorrow]

It's only better if you think endless shots of Wendy and Danny watching television somehow makes the film more exciting.


...as for those cobwebbed skeletons right out of a Blackpool ghost train, it may just be the worst single shot in any Kubrick film ever.

 

[bosque]

The theatrical cut of a movie is almost always the best cut. Apocalypse Now Redux never seems to have been shown on UK terrestrial channels and probably for good reason. The only movie I can think of where the theatrical cut was hugely improved by extra footage was Alien 3.

 

[Rambo John J]

^ I would add Kingdom Of Heaven to that rather short list. The difference is phenomenal, it's a far superior film in it's longer form

 

[TheyCallMeTJ]

+1 for Kingdom of Heaven. Extended cuts do generally kill the pacing of a film, making it a bit more tedious. However, I do enjoy Cameron's extended cuts of Terminator 2, Aliens and Avatar and I also loved the extended versions of Fellowship of the Rings and The Two Towers (but not Return of the King).

 

[Todd Tomorrow]

...and The Wicker Man, Blade Runner, A Star is Born, Robocop, Picnic at Hanging Rock, Margaret, Almost Famous, New York New York, Once Upon a Time in America, Once Upon a Time in the West, Das Boot, Cinema Paradiso, Star Trek The Motion Picture, Superman II and Mimic.

The Shining I find close to unwatchably tedious in its longer cut and perfect in the theatrical version. It's among the most redundant of extended cuts.

 

[Robothamster]

I'd like to add the extended The Abyss to that list of improved films

 

[Geoff_D]

Yup, the long version of The Shining is flat-out boring, and the reveal of the ghosts is laughable. The shorter version is a much, much better film.

 

[MarkusThatch]

Yup, the long version of The Shining is flat-out boring, and the reveal of the ghosts is laughable. The shorter version is a much, much better film.

First saw the extended cut in laserdisc and the bit with the bear costume summed it up for me.

Suppose I'm glad I've seen it out of curiosity but wouldn't bother again, European version is far superior.

 

[Todd Tomorrow]

First saw the extended cut in laserdisc and the bit with the bear costume summed it up for me.

Suppose I'm glad I've seen it out of curiosity but wouldn't bother again, European version is far superior.

The shot with the bear costume is in both versions though.

There is a documentary about The Shining which has been doing the film festival rounds to great acclaim this year. It's called 'Room 237'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/m...ary-with-theories-about-the-shining.html?_r=1

 

[PoochJD]

Hi,

Can I just clarify something, please? There is no such thing as the "Extended Cut" of THE SHINING. The 146-minute version was Kubrick's original and intended cut, as far as I am aware. That was how it was shown in the USA, and the version most US fans of the film know of it. It was only pared-down to the current 113-minute version for Europe, when (from my understanding) Test Audiences didn't rate it very well over here.

So, technically the US version is not an "Extended" or "Director's Cut", as we would normally use those terms. It's just the Original US Theatrical Version.

I still think that the US version is better than the UK/European Cut, but that's just my opinion, and I know a lot of people who hate the US version, and there are many more who hate the film, period.

For what it's worth, the Extended Cut of Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR isn't that good, compared with the standard Theatrical Edition, in my view. But in general, there are more great alternate/longer versions of films, than there are ones that are bad/awful.


Pooch

 

[TheyCallMeTJ]

Hi,

Can I just clarify something, please? There is no such thing as the "Extended Cut" of THE SHINING. The 146-minute version was Kubrick's original and intended cut, as far as I am aware. That was how it was shown in the USA, and the version most US fans of the film know of it. It was only pared-down to the current 113-minute version for Europe, when (from my understanding) Test Audiences didn't rate it very well over here.

So, technically the US version is not an "Extended" or "Director's Cut", as we would normally use those terms. It's just the Original US Theatrical Version.

I still think that the US version is better than the UK/European Cut, but that's just my opinion, and I know a lot of people who hate the US version, and there are many more who hate the film, period.

For what it's worth, the Extended Cut of Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR isn't that good, compared with the standard Theatrical Edition, in my view. But in general, there are more great alternate/longer versions of films, than there are ones that are bad/awful.


Pooch

I only watched The Shining twice, both times only when it was shown on TV in the late 80s. So what version would I have seen?

 

[Todd Tomorrow]

Hi,

Can I just clarify something, please? There is no such thing as the "Extended Cut" of THE SHINING. The 146-minute version was Kubrick's original and intended cut, as far as I am aware. That was how it was shown in the USA, and the version most US fans of the film know of it. It was only pared-down to the current 113-minute version for Europe, when (from my understanding) Test Audiences didn't rate it very well over here.

So, technically the US version is not an "Extended" or "Director's Cut", as we would normally use those terms. It's just the Original US Theatrical Version.

I still think that the US version is better than the UK/European Cut, but that's just my opinion, and I know a lot of people who hate the US version, and there are many more who hate the film, period.


Pooch

If we are clarifying here then we may just as well do it properly: The film didn't get cut down after previews in Europe and there weren't any "test audiences". Kubrick was under no pressure to edit the film for Europe from anybody but himself. He was famous for not being able to let go of films during post production, in this case editing The Shining several times after release. The first change was an epilogue that had to be cut out of all release prints in the US version a week into release. His next step was to tighten the film for the European version.

BTW. why exactly do you think the longer US cut is superior ? The only vaguely interesting scene is the one with the doctor at the beginning, the rest is filler that doesn't move the plot along and just slows down an already deliberately paced film. The shot of the cobweb skeletons is inadvertently funny, looks tacky and would be more at home in a William Castle film

 

[MarkusThatch]

The shot with the bear costume is in both versions though.

There is a documentary about The Shining which has been doing the film festival rounds to great acclaim this year. It's called 'Room 237'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/m...ary-with-theories-about-the-shining.html?_r=1

Honestly don't remember seeing it in the European edit!

What hope I do remember was the extra stuff with Danny which pointed towards outside agencies being involved with him. I remember it being dull - at least I hope I remember! Edit: actually it was the Doctor scene that went on and on and really felt unnecessary, pretty much sign posting "oh look, we got a special one here" when it really wasn't needed.

 

[bosque]

One good thing about both longer and shorter versions of The Shining is it's now being released in the proper widescreen aspect ratio - and not the boxy 4:3 of the first couple of DVD releases which we were misleadingly assured by Leon Vitali was Kubrick's favoured aspect ratio for his movies.

 

[Todd Tomorrow]

Honestly don't remember seeing it in the European edit!

I vividly remember the bear suit from the first time I saw the film, which was at its release in Germany (and was the shorter cut), because something naughty was going on there. A teenager remembers things like that.

 

[quarry2006]

Always found the bear suit scene a little unsettling, to be honest...but that's what I want from horror films (even though I don't particularly care for The Shining as a film - love the book, though).

The extended version has a couple of extra shots of the twins' butched corpses, not mentioned above.

 

[captainarchive]

I vividly remember the bear suit from the first time I saw the film, which was at its release in Germany (and was the shorter cut), because something naughty was going on there. A teenager remembers things like that.

Also, in any panel discussion about the film, it's guaranteed to get a mention by at least one member of the panel. It made me smile when two people in two separate discussions mentioned it on The Review Show and Front Row.

 

[PoochJD]

Hi,

Firstly, thank you for the clarifications. I had been lead to believe that what I had posted was accurate. I apologise that it wasn't.

BTW. why exactly do you think the longer US cut is superior?

It just feels a bit more complete. Put it down to personal preference. I haven't seen it for a few years now, but I remember watching both versions about a week apart, and I just felt that the 146-minute version felt that little bit more whole and fulfilling.

Am I right in saying that THE SHINING was never meant to be shown in 1.85:1, except in cinemas, where the 4:3 frame has simply been hard-matted, cropping-off the top and bottom of the image, and that the 4:3 versions are the original, intended manner of viewing the film?


Pooch

 

[bosque]

Am I right in saying that THE SHINING was never meant to be shown in 1.85:1, except in cinemas, where the 4:3 frame has simply been hard-matted, cropping-off the top and bottom of the image, and that the 4:3 versions are the original, intended manner of viewing the film?


Pooch

That seems to be a common error added to by people such as Kubrick's assistant Leon Vitali giving it an airing. Take a look at post 21 on this link to see how Kubrick wanted the movie to be shown:

Any reviews of The Shining?

By the way, cinemas were where the "original, intended manner of viewing the film" as you put, was originally intended to take place.

 

[Robert S]

I generally prefer the 144 minute of the film, mostly for the extra character detail and more methodical pacing. For me, this is a film about depression and abuse, and reducing Duvall's character to merely a nervous yet competent protector lessens the interest substantially. In the extended iteration, Wendy is clearly a negligent mother - an apologist for domestic violence - and her arc is significantly more pronounced by not absolving her of so much responsibility.

Equally important, I think, is the early reveal of Jack's alcoholism and violent behaviour; it enhances the subsequent scenes by contextualising both his frustration and Danny's nervousness around his father. There's a terrific scene where Danny and Wendy are watching tv (one of the most beautifully moody shots in the entire film) and he asks to collect a toy from his room, and is warned by Wendy not to disturb his father, who has only just managed to sleep (this is lunch time). With this small moment of extra detail, Kubrick amplifies the tension, resulting in a more alarming sense of dread during the following scene. Again, it also alludes to Wendy's negligence: a mother forever hyponotised by a television set, with little real understanding of the crisis looming.

Plus the longer version has the amusing moment where the Roadrunner theme tune seems to inform Danny of his father's murderous intentions. Very witty!

I find these details as intriguing and vital as the famous shocks. With that said, the climatic shot with the skeletons isn't tremendous, but it's easily lived with.

 

[quarry2006]

I seem to remember the Roadrunner theme from the shorter version. But having watched two iterations of the film over the years, my memory might be blurring a bit as to which scenes are in which version.

I like to think of the film as a separate entity to the book (one of King's finest moments) because I'm not sure Kubrick's intention was to make a sincere adaptation of the novel; he seemed to be after something else.

 

[Robert S]

I suppose King's original is largely an examination of how alcohol can ruin a good person. Kubrick, on the other hand, paints Jack as a natural monster whose alcoholism is merely symptomatic of a narcissistic frustration with his family.

 

[Todd Tomorrow]

I have to admit that the first time I saw the film I was a little disappointed about all the stuff that had been left out, as I'd read the novel just before. There are changes which in terms of plot are nonsensical. By the second time I watched the film I appreciated it on its own terms. King also didn't do himself any favours when he failed to translate what was so scary about the book with his mini-series after dismissing the genuinely creepy Kubrick film.

The stakes and the sense of terror in the novel are much higher than in either film version which is also much more violent, especially in a horrific attack on Wendy. One of the most fascinating things about the novel is the history of the ghosts, who are fully developed characters in themselves.

Kubrick wisely substituted the topiary animals with the maze though. That sequence was truly scary in the book but just didn't translate in the remake as it's all about something that can't be seen.