Saturday, April 1, 2017

Ghost in the Shell (2017):


I’m a harsh critic when it comes to remakes, especially when I love the original work.
Unless the remake/reimagining has something that adds to it, making it exceptional, I’m a purist to the source material.


I’ve been a fan of Mamoru Oshii’s original Ghost in the Shell ever since I saw it on its release in 1995.


In 2008, he revamped and improved upon the movie with new CGI and released it again as Ghost in the Shell 2.0.
I recommend anyone who appreciates intelligent science fiction stories, especially those, like Blade Runner, that focus on the clash between humans and A.I., to watch Ghost in the Shell 2.0.


For me, the bar was set very high with Rupert Sanders’ live-action version of Ghost in the Shell.
I was pleasantly surprised: I love it!
The original story has been tweaked and characters have been expanded upon, but it’s a minor difference.
This is a faithful retelling, with improvements to character and plot development, an excellent soundtrack, and brilliant effects.
Many of the visuals were shot-for-shot for the original Manga version.


I’ll happily add this one to my movie collection.
I’ll be posting a more in-depth blog on both the anime and live-action versions of Ghost in the Shell at a later date.

Friday, March 31, 2017

The Shining Alternative Endings Revealed:




Tony Sokol
News
 March 31, 2017

Stanley Kubrick’s horror masterpiece The Shining had almost as many multiple endings as the Overlook Hotel had ghosts.

Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of Stephen King’s haunted hotel story The Shining is a classic horror movie in spite of the director’s intent. The author is on record as saying he was more than merely disappointed in the liberties the filmmaker made. One of those variants was perpetuated to avoid a cinematic cliché, the ending. Jan Harlan, who executive produced the film, and novelist Diane Johnson, who wrote the screenplay with Kubrick, gave up the ghost about some of the different original endings that Kubrick considered for The Shining.

King’s novel ends with Jack Torrance, played by Jack Nicholson in the film, trapped inside the Overlook Hotel as it was devoured by flames. His wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall in the film), his psychic son Danny (Danny Lloyd in the film), and the psychic Dick Hallorann (Scatman Crothers in the film) all survive the night. In the 1980 movie Jack whacks Dick with an axe and freezes to death in the Overlook Hotel’s wooded labyrinth. The hotel is left standing.

“The ending was changed almost entirely because Kubrick found it a cliché to just blow everything up,” Diane Johnson told Entertainment Weekly. “He thought there might be something else that would be metaphorically and visually more interesting.”
“Danny’s relationship with his father was the thing that most interested Kubrick,” Jan Harlan told EW. “He was emotionally involved with the point of view of a little boy who is afraid of his father. I remember Kubrick saying that visually he could imagine a small yellow chalk outline on the floor like that they put around the bodies of victims. And Kubrick liked that image. But he was too tender-hearted for that ending and thought it would be too terrible to do.”

Johnson explained that there were versions of the screenplay where Wendy killed Jack in self-defense, and where Jack killed Danny.

“In the book, nobody gets killed except Jack,” Johnson told EW. “And Kubrick really thought somebody should get killed — because it was a horror movie. So we weighed the dramatic possibilities of killing off various characters and did different treatments. We actually talked it over in detail the possibility of having different people getting killed.”

In spite of the slaughter of innocent victims, the director didn’t want to leave audiences on a cute and cuddly note.

“The maze chase grew out of the topiary animal hedges that move around in the book,” said Johnson. “Kubrick thought topiary animals might be too goofy and cute, but he always liked the idea of a maze. Kubrick didn’t want it to be too gory, he thought a lot of blood was vulgar. He wanted it to be mostly psychological. Of course, there’s the image of the blood coming out of the elevators, but that was more ornamental and metaphorical. So there was some discussion about trying to find a way of ending it without a lot of blood.”

Kubrick didn’t necessarily envision the movie as a genre picture.

“Stanley was fundamentally not interested in a horror film,” said Harlan. “He doesn’t believe in ghosts. When the book was offered to him by Warner Bros., he said, ‘Well, all right, it might be challenging to do this, but I must have the freedom to change whatever I like.’ Stephen King was perfectly happy with that [at the time], it’s obviously a prerequisite to making a film. And Stanley certainly changed it drastically.”

One of the treatments saw Hallorann get possessed by the Overlook Hotel as in a different twisted ending.

“We always had the powers of the hotel in mind,” Johnson said. “So the hotel would have been warping Hallorann’s mind for quite a long time. It was an attractive idea that Hallorran is good [throughout the film] then he gets there and is possessed by the hotel into a monster surrogate for Jack.”

Johnson and Harlan told EW about the deleted and destroyed hospital scene which spiked the ball and confused audiences at early screenings in New York and Los Angeles.

“The tennis ball is the same thing as the photograph — it’s unexplainable,” said Harlan. “It makes Ullman now another ghost element. Was he the ghost from the very beginning? The film is complex enough because nothing is explained. That non-explaining is what was bad for the film initially.”

“The fact they were left puzzled was exactly what Stanley Kubrick wanted. And when the film [screened for critics] and wasn’t well received, Warners quite rightly suggested, ‘It’s enough, just take [the hospital scene] out.’ So Stanley did it. He’s not stubborn, especially since this is a film mainly to entertain people. But Stanley was actually very sad that he misread the audience, that he trusted the audience to live with puzzles and no answers, and that they didn’t like it.”

As to the puzzling coda to the film, the photograph showing a smiling Jack standing at the forefront of a Fourth of July ball in the hotel’s Colorado Lounge in 1921.

“The photograph was always in the ending,” said Johnson.


The New Novel, by Winslow Homer (1877):


The Bookworm, by Carl Spitzweg (1850):


I know that feeling!


Monday, March 27, 2017

Forty years after its release, Stephen King's novel 'The Shining' still elicits frightening memories:





The Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colo., was the inspiration for Stephen King's "The Shining." King stayed in the hotel on the final day it was open before closing for the winter. King wandered the empty hallways and he and his wife were the only ones in the dining room at dinner. "By the time I went to bed that night, I had the whole book in my mind," King later said. (Trine Tsouderos/Chicago Tribune/MCT)
Photo by Trine Tsouderos

-----------------------------------------

by Shawn Ryan
in Life Entertainment
Times Free Press
January 27, 2017

When Chris Dortch was an adolescent, he snuck a copy of Stephen King's "The Shining" into the house.

"Stephen King was someone that my parents didn't really police for me," he says.

A bit more investigating might have been in order.

"I read it when I was about 12 years old and absolutely terrified myself," Dortch says happily.

He took that terror and turned it into a lifelong love of horror in all forms — books, movies, TV.

"That book meant a lot to me," says Dortch, director of the Chattanooga Film Festival and founder and programmer for the Mise En Scenesters film club. "I'm a sucker for a good ghost story, and it's one of the books that put those hooks in me. It sent me down a major rabbit hole."

On Saturday, "The Shining" (novel, not film) turns 40 years old. When it came out in 1977, King was in the process of building the name that would become internationally synonymous with horror. It was his third book after the telekinetic teen in "Carrie" and the vampires of "Salem's Lot."

"What stood out to me about 'The Shining' was that it was a work that had so many levels so much going on," says Robert R. McCammon, a compatriot of King's who has written 22 novels, including such critically acclaimed books as "Boy's Life," "Swan Song," "They Thirst" and "Speaks the Nightbird."

"I think that right off the bat after reading it I thought it was truly a great piece of literature," he says. "I know that King's work has been described by some critics as being 'pop' for the masses and, while I don't think there's anything wrong with writing a book that everyone might like to read, I certainly disagree with that assessment of 'The Shining,' which I believe is a deep book about the nature of evil that stands out as a 'shining' example of what true literature is a book that can be appreciated on many levels.

"There are so many 'small' moments in the book that add up to the larger picture of evil," McCammon says.

King, dealing with his own drinking problems when he was writing "The Shining," used his personal issues as elements in the plot, which focuses on a family of three — father, mother, young son — who are caretakers and the only people in a huge, isolated hotel in the middle of the Colorado winter. The hotel, however, has its own designs on the family, or is it all in the head of the alcoholic father?

"Sometimes you confess. You always hide what you're confessing to. That's one of the reasons why you make up the story," King said in "The Stephen King Companion." "When I wrote 'The Shining,' for instance, the protagonist of 'The Shining' is a man who has broken his son's arm, who has a history of child beating, who is beaten himself. And as a young father with two children, I was horrified by my occasional feelings of real antagonism toward my children. 'Won't you ever stop? Won't you ever go to bed?'"

Local attorney Tracy Culver doesn't remember being terrified when she read the novel as a young adult, "but there are things in it that have stayed with me throughout my life."

"I've never looked at a hotel corridor the same way or, for that matter, a hotel shower. It doesn't matter whether it's a low-end hotel or high-end hotel; when I first go into the bathroom, there's always that moment of ," says Culver, a collector of Stephen King first editions who figures she has about 30.

Jen Litton recalls reading "The Shining" when she was about 24 and found it "more intense than scary."

"It makes you look differently at hotels, but it didn't make me lose sleep at night," says Litton, director of operations and trading with the Patten Group.

Still, she recognizes its standing in the world of horror.

"I definitely think it kind of set the course for the horror genre in this kind of supernatural or internal struggle motif," she says. "It upset the balance between reality and fiction in what could really happen inside someone's mind,"

"It's so rich with imagery and internal conflict and different interactions, it goes beyond just beyond a scary book."

The book was turned into a film in 1980, helmed by world-famous director Stanley Kubrick. But it raised serious hackles in the King universe. Some said it was masterpiece of horror while others, many of whom had read the book, trashed it, complaining that it downplayed the supernatural elements of the book in favor of the psychological. Right after it was released, King said he hated it but later softened that stance.

Nathan Bounds of Cleveland says "the book did a much better job of getting inside the main character's head, which isn't surprising, since that's one of the central advantages a book has over a movie.

"It made you feel his hangovers, his addiction, his obsession, his slow loss of the ability to distinguish reality from illusion," says Bounds, a recent graduate of Chattanooga State Community College. "The scares were less blunt, less dependent on surprise, more creeping and subtle.

"It's definitely worth the read, and now I'm thinking I'm going to reread it myself."

Daniel Griffith has read "The Shining," but "it's been a long time."

A local documentary filmmaker, film preservationist and owner of Ballyhoo Pictures which focuses on, as its web page says, "Making Movies about the Making of Movies," Griffith agrees that fans of book tend to "kind of disregard the Stanley Kubrick film because it added an element to the story that explored something much more psychological than supernatural." For his part, though, he thinks that decision made the film more interesting.

But for Dortch, it all comes back to the novel's scares. Reading "The Shining" compelled him to read Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House" and Henry James' "The Turn of the Screw," among many others.

"I read everything I could get my hands on," he says, but King remains at the top of his personal list.

"There isn't a day when I don't reference him. I referenced 'Cujo' just this morning."