Film psychology THE SHINING spatial awareness and set design 1of2

Film psychology THE SHINING spatial awareness and set design 1of2



UPDATE 2017 RE: ADDITIONAL CONTENT. I have almost ten hours worth of unlisted Youtube videos that can only be viewed via their links on my website (those videos don’t appear publicly on my channel or in Youtube searches, but are still to free to watch). I no longer sell DVD sets, instead I sell digital downloads on my site – quicker and cheaper (dozens of hours worth of extra content, the bulk of my work). I also have a Patreon account for folks who are interesting in crowd-funding future videos and accessing more exclusive content. If you follow me on Facebook and Twitter you can get updates about the latest special offers and frebies. All links below.
WEBSITE: http://www.collativelearning.com/
PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/RobAger
FACEBOOK: https://en-gb.facebook.com/RobAgerpublic/
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/RobAger?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

How Stanley Kubrick used Escher-styled spacial awareness & set design anomalies to disorientate viewers of his horror classic The Shining. This is a must for serious Kubrick fans and psychology students. Written, narrated and edited by Rob Ager

source

July 19, 2011 / 43 Comments / by / in
  • 4:51 ummmm the door leads to an enclosed fire stair. pretty typical actually.

  • Another thing I think should be addressed is that we say quite a lot of walking and tricycling around the various hallways while the camera follows throughout the movie. It feels like Kubrick is doing this intentionally to bring our attention to the set design and therefore it must be meaningful in regards to the story. That's visual storytelling for you.

  • 0:49 for me is inappropriate for games, if you know what I mean.

  • I worked in TV production for years – the set designer had to be very careful of continuity errors – just in a bland TV drama, let alone a Kubrick movie! No, the errors described in this video would never pass in a show I worked on. This had to be deliberately set up by Kubrick to keep his audience off-balance without really knowing why?

  • What's amazing about films like the shining, is that the average movie goer will say that it was a great movie. It's greatness is that it so well filmed that the subtext conveys the meaning without being obvious, but still leaving a subconscious, durable impression.

  • Bearing in mind that the hotel represents USA in Kubrick's own story, then it demonstrates that nothing is as it is seen to be. It's all an illusion.
    USA is indeed full of illusions. Peacekeepers kill millions of innocent people; the war on drugs perpetuates the drug problems & maximizes illegal profits; democracy is a fancy illusion, space travel is a hoax, just to name a few.

  • get a fucking life man

  • The doorways lead to janitor closets.

  • It's a spoof of continuity errors found in cheesy thrillers.

  • This looks more like a lazy execution, and they payed no attention to detail.

  • way over-analysed. sometimes, in movies, sets have to be rearranged from what they are in real life. it doesnt necessarily mean anything at all. also, there is such a thing as "false doors" in interior architecture.
    jesus, spend that brain of yours on something useful, like explaining why, in that Twilight Zone episode, Burgess Meredith didnt just go and find a new pair of glasses when he accidentally broke his at the end of the world?

    Sincerely,
    MTW

  • You should also do this with the movie "Annie Hall."

  • Some of the apparent inconsistencies could be explained as awkward-but-not-impossible building layouts, for example the two doors at 5:30 . But cumulatively the evidence that the inconsistencies (or most of them, at least) are meant to be felt as inconsistencies is pretty clear I think.

  • My God. Kubrick's overall script themes, story messages and undertones do NOT reflect the lack of continuity in the film sets. This was shot in a studio, which each scene was built for lighting purposes and aesthetic appeal. The set producer even knew this and said it made no sense. This was not done on purpose. It's nothing but continuity errors. Just because some guy writes to Kubrick about the actual meaning of A Space Odyssey and Kubrick applauds him doesn't mean that every single thing in his fucking films has some other parallel meaning…

  • You're all lost in Kubrick's labyrinth!  It's clearly his sly send up of set continuity errors and used to create confusion.  It worked!

  • you're koo koo if you think there is any deep meaning behind all this nonsense……..you would need a team of NASA scientists working for months on putting these hidden messages into this movie, for what purpose? so you could find them 40 years later and feel super smart?

  • Okay, I got it! There was no space for any rooms!

  • Spacial Awareness = the halls don't line up, because the whole time in the Overlook is a dream. They are not errors.

  • Could the Hotel Overlook be a T.A.R.D.I.S.?

  • L

    the whole movie is about the 666 and the all seeing eye

  • Compare the Sinning to the film A quiet place in the country

  • maybe it is because the hotel is not a hotel byt a set

  • i think the mirror motif continues..

  • maybe stanly was just sloppy and not a genious.

  • Kubrick and the set designers could very well have been trying to say or imply some unconscious message by creating a hotel that would be impossible to actually be constructed, but I still believe people are finding the messages and theories they want to find in not just this movie, but in all his movies. There are thousands of people that have enough information about hidden secrets and theories about this movie alone who could write an informational novel all comprised of different content. Stephen King released the book in 1977, so that means there's about 3 years that he may have taken to work out all the details that are in this movie, from co-writing, to directing, to editing the movie. The truth is he didn't consciously consider half of the theories that people have come up with when he made the film, he didn't have the time to map out all the concepts that people love to believe are behind this movie. The greatest directors make open-ended movies that can take on alot of meanings, ones that leave gaps for the viewer to fill themselves, and Kubrick was probably the best at doing that. He's one of the greatest filmmakers for making movies that are so open-ended that they can be perceived thousands of different ways, not for consciously putting thousands of different meaning and details into his films. It's actually the opposite, he manipulated the core elements of what he was doing so greatly that it can be analyzed the way that so many people analyze it, the more aspects a director tries to force into a movie the easier it is to see the point. He kept things simple enough when filming that it seems incredibly rich in its details because you're not being forced to see it a specific way, your seeing it the way you want to see it. That's what I believe though, i'm not Kubrick so I could be entirely wrong.

  • im sorry mate u seem an intelligent guy but if u continue to look at something hard enough it will fit your own narrative.thiers probably a fancy name for it.your talking about set designs they were making a film for fuck sake i bet u cud pick any film or book or painting and find flaws becayse human beings are flawed.

  • No wonder King hated this film!

  • dont think Kubrick thought we would anylise this film as much as this.

  • Given all the wacky shit you can do with sectors in Duke Nukem 3d, it's a damn shame they didn't make a film accurate version of overlook

  • Doesn't 3:37 answer your question about the impossible hallway?

  • "GOOD BYE, MR ULMAN!" AS ULMAN IS LEADING THE TORRENCES INTO THEIR APARTMENT, TWO GIRLS (GUESTS) WITH SUITCASES SAY "GOOD BYE MR ULMAN," BUT THEN THEY FAIL TO DESCEND THE STAIRCASE. THEY ARE INSTEAD HEADING TOWARD THE BACK "EXIT" SIGN (A FATAL CUE). THESE ARE THE TWINS WHO WERE MURDURED TEN YEARS EARLIER, WALKING OUT FROM THEIR MURDUR LOCATION ON THE WRAP-AROUND HALLWAY, FROM THE SPOT WHERE DANNY LATER CONFRONTS THEM ON HIS BIG WHEEL. AND SO THE GHOSTS HAVE AGED TEN YEARS SO THAT THE GIRLS APPEAR THE AGES THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN, HAD THEY LIVED. IT'S ALSO INTERESTING THAT TWO OTHER GIRLS SAY "GOOD BYE" MR ULMAN AS THEY ARE ENTERING (NOT LEAVING) THE HOTEL, IN THE EARLIER LOBBY SCENE WITH JACK.

  • Didn't you notice the windows are completely different
    at 1:59 are almost 18 ft high, 3 sections top designed, center clear, bottom w/ vertical lines.
    Compare that to 1:19 The windows are 10 ft high, vertically split in 2 roughly equal size sections, top half has 3 sections 1/4, 1/2, 1/4 of their width, and the bottom is split into 4 equal sections.

    At 3:06 you claim the "hallway is impossible", but that little hallway could be an elevator, or an entrance, or just a cubby hole. It is not impossible, It could even be a door to outside. Most hotels have multiple exits for fire safety.

  • Holy shit, you just made this movie even fucking scarier! Kudos

  • The hotel shinces, thats why you see people and places that seem or are impossible.

  • Waаatch Theееe Shining оооnline here => https://twitter.com/38e176bb2942dd304/status/850529338306961408

  • I watccсhеd Тhе Shining full mооoviе here https://twitter.com/b9673508732f7f9d2/status/861405116535947264

  • So many conspiracy theories about this movie, it's ridiculous

  • The architectural consistency is actually pretty solid when you place it in the context of an actual nightmare.

  • Just a thought, and I don't know if this has ever been used anywhere, but if you had a bank of hotel rooms on one side of a hall and a huge lounge on the other, it may be that the lounge side doors are fake to add design balance to the hallway. They even have room numbers on the doors, just never assigned!

  • Kubrick rules and King is king. Why all the nitpicking over the greatest movie ever made. Kubrick had his intentions, and he fooled you narrator. King may not have liked the movie at the time, but it brought two masters together for one great film. Please leave it alone, it's a classic.

  • Also, at the beginning when there's an overhead helicopter shot of the entire hotel, there is no hedge maze. Instead, it's a cliff falling off the mountain. I always used to thing this was simply a continuity error, but after watching this video I wonder if it was intentional, and the hedge maze isn't really there at all in a physical sense.

  • When you remember something scary, do you remember whether or not the dessert fork was in the right place?

  • I'm amazed at all this 'purpose' Kubrick put into the layout of The Overlook, and yet no one points out the incongruities of Dr. Strangelove and Gen. Rippers office. Based on the outside footage of the buildings, Ripper should be firing straight and down, or extreme right. But he shoots towards the left of his office. When Sgt. Guano marches Mandrake out of the office they go down a long corridor that would be to the left of Rippers window. So was Ripper firing into a wall outside his window? Or 2001 – how the heck did the head of Discovery house the centrifuge, the airlock bay, HAL's big brain room and all that? Look at the spatial design of that in the film, and it's 10 times worse than the Overlooks layout. Yet such fascination with Kubrick's set layouts for The Overlook and the impossibilities therein. Imagine how it would look with just an orange wall behind Ullman? Danny just riding up and down a big long straight corridor. Modern additions totally replaced the old original construction. Kubrick was definitely going for the aesthetic, and based on constrictive set area, he did a heck of a lot within an otherwise confined space – including a portion of the hedge maze in winter! Modern high class with hints of history throughout. Luxurious, yet rustic in areas, immense yet 'homey' throughout. Those were Stan's main objectives. Whether the window casting light technically shouldn't be there, or the corridors aren't dimension-ally accurate to the hotels base foot print, I really don't think Stan give too much thought over.

%d bloggers like this: