Kubrickologists, "The Shining" fans, I have had a question since the day that film opened.

[Mike 03]

Has the mystery of the helicopter shadow ever been solved or adequately addressed?

Stanley Kubrick was beyond a perfectionist. I wouldn't be surprised if he was OCD. There's no way in the world he would have included that shot in the film if he was aware of that shadow. There's not a doubt in my mind he would try to "sneak it through."

Why didn't he reshoot the opening shots of the film in which the helicopter shadow appears?

Did he mistakenly think that due to aspect ratio it would not be visible?

Or do you think he was hoping people wouldn't notice? (I can't believe he would think this.)

And don't tell me that it didn't appear in the original projection of the film when it opened, because I noticed it the very first time I saw the film, in a theater, on opening day, and I saw it three more times in that theater, and every single time that shadow appeared, and it was not subtle, it was obvious.

This is a trivial issue, I know, but it has puzzled me forever. I would love to know what the story is about that shadow.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

1. Here's a write-up by someone who worked on the editing of the film

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/

"I want to try and put at rest the interminable debate re. an apparent mistake in The Shining. I cut the title sequence, so I speak with some authority. I've said quite a lot about this before, so I hope this really is the last time!

While I did the first cut, it is just possible that Ray Lovejoy made some alterations to the picture when he was finalising the front titles and credits - I have a distinct recollection of him asking me for the trims - but I think not. But I do have a recollection that at one stage in the movie some of those cuts were going to be dissolves. It is just possible that when we changed that mix to a straight cut we went back slightly beyond the centre point of the dissolve to get the absolute maximum length out of the shot. Musically and emotionally I remember we needed absolutely every usable frame of that first long shot with the titles. "

There's more at the link.

[Mike 03]

6. OMG, excellent. This makes sense, because of the use of dissolves in the film.

Thank you!

[Orrex]

2. From the Kubrick FAQ

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/

AMK is lucky to have as an occasional contributor Gordon Stainforth. Gordon was an assistant editor on The Shining (he took over from Ray Lovejoy when he became ill) he actually cut the title sequence. Here's what he has to say.

"I want to try and put at rest the interminable debate re. an apparent mistake in The Shining. I cut the title sequence, so I speak with some authority. I've said quite a lot about this before, so I hope this really is the last time!

While I did the first cut, it is just possible that Ray Lovejoy made some alterations to the picture when he was finalising the front titles and credits - I have a distinct recollection of him asking me for the trims - but I think not. But I do have a recollection that at one stage in the movie some of those cuts were going to be dissolves. It is just possible that when we changed that mix to a straight cut we went back slightly beyond the centre point of the dissolve to get the absolute maximum length out of the shot. Musically and emotionally I remember we needed absolutely every usable frame of that first long shot with the titles.

OK, some key facts:

Although The Shining was shot with the full academy aperture, it was designed and composed entirely for the 1.85:1 ratio, and that is the only way it should be projected in the theatre.

All the Steenbecks in the cutting rooms accordingly had their screens marked, or even masked off, with the 1.85:1 ratio. The 6-plate Steenbeck in Stanley and Ray's main cutting room was masked off with black masking tape, because you cannot cut a movie properly unless you can see the frame exactly as it will appear in the cinema.

However the helicopter shadow IS almost certainly visible for about 4 or 5 frames at the edge of the 1.85:1 masking. But it was NOT visible on any of the correctly marked-up Steenbecks, or in the main viewing theatre at Elstree, at least, not as the first version of the film left Elstree in 1980. I think now that this mistake may have crept in very late during the editing of the movie when the first caption-title 'The Interview' was shortened by 8 frames on 23 April 1980 and the Main Title/credit sequence was lengthened accordingly by 8 frames, since the music could not be shortened. (This information is based on my original cutting room notes)

Every one of the show prints of the first 6 interpositives for the American release of The Shining was personally checked in the viewing theatre at Elstree by Stanley himself. IF the helicopter shadow was fleetingly visible, either Stanley did not notice it, or it was so trivial that it did not bother him.

Unfortunately the masking and racking in many theatres is incredibly inaccurate. <...> I therefore suspect that people who have seen this "awful" shadow for any length of time on the cinema screen must have seen it projected at completely the wrong ratio (probably 1.66/1!), or incredibly badly racked, or both. Or of course they've seen it on the video, where it's visible for just over a second!

Incidentally (or not so incidentally!), Stanley was NOT at all bothered by the vague shadow of the rotors at the top of the frame in the last shot of the main titles."

[Caution]

4. I can attest to the poor masking in theaters

I worked as a projectionist in college and no one in the theater even knew what i was talking about when I would adjust the screens, including any of the managers or other projectionists.

It's incredibly irritating to me to this day when I see it done incorrectly when I see a movie.

[Mike 03]

7. I was thinking, after I posted this, whether or not it could have been the fault

of the projectionists.

I think there was a boom that appeared in the famous Frank Lloyd Wright bathroom scene with Grady and Jack.

Maybe this is the real problem, and Kubrick was just trusting that theaters would project the film in its proper aspect ratio.

[flying rabbit]

3. Love that movie - dont know if you have

seen the analysis on his motivations.
enjoy!http://www.drummerman.net/shining/essays.html
There was a post on DU about it, that had an evening killing site about it, but I didnt save it as a bookmark.

[edbermac]

5. Here's a nice site for deconstructing Kubrick films.

I don't think it explains the helicopter shadow, but it points out a lot of info about the Shining as well as FMJ and EWS.

www.collativelearning.com

[Mike 03]

8. One question and one point.

It's too late to edit my OP, so I have to add these, parenthetically.

1. Was the "Gold Room" a set, if anyone knows, or is that, like the Frank lloyd Wright toilet, a place that actually exists.

2. The opening sequence, to my knowledge, was shot by a second unit crew, so I don't mean to imply or suggest that Kubrick directly oversaw those shots. They are stupdendously amazing shots, particularly that opening shot.

[darkstar]

9. I think the gold room is a set.

I recall some talk about the difficulties they had bundling up with some super hot lights on those big windows tried to emulate sunlight/snow bounce.

[edbermac]

10. The whole Shining set was practically built as a functioning hotel.

Kubrick was very impressed with the invention of the Steadicam, so he built it like a real hotel so he could have the cameraman walk all over the set in one fluid shot.
If you have the DVD, there is a short documentary by his daughter which shows her filming inside this huge set.



A lot of the interiors were based on the Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite.