One manís struggle to support a family on one income in an economy thatís moved beyond his worldview. ::: Click here to read the full text.
damn that was a GOOD piece.
People nowadays (i considering myself as one of them) find it hard to understand what's so scary on this film if it is only about ghosts. Some find it scary, of course (after all, there are many cheesy and simple films now that DO succeed in the box offices and in scarying people).
I can now understand how this film it's a Kubrick's film. Before i'd seen the american version, i thought it was just a not-so-special horror film that would still scary some folks nowadays (specially with that soundtrack).
But it's hard to see these kind of minutiae (such as clothes, jobs and family relations as representations of that decade's social-economical situation and how it acts on Jack. It loses a certain bridge with reality and a certain understanding of what's going on in screen). "Time, Image and the Spetacle kills all referentials and relations with the 'real'", says a friend of mine when we talked about this film.
ps: i live in Brazil, where we have the cut version (I think it's the same version they have in Europe) and a lot of these tiny details get lost. The film becomes "either ghosts or a psycho, or both"...
"i'm not scared of ghosts! i'm afraid of the low-paid psycho who believes in them!"
some details related american history
why Jack uses an axe to kill . A hotel built on "Red" skins old cemetary and decorated with indians motives. Indians ghosts are taking revenge in the Kubrick' eye.
American society is now lonely and scared in a large continent.ıt s not only about economics.
By far the most eloquent explanation of the film I've ever read. Nail on the head, kubrick couldn't of said it better.
ps. Stanley Kubrick could of said it better, but....he didn't.
Or, you know, it was ghosts.
Copyright © 2001–2004 CLEAVE
- The Counter Agency. All Rights
Reserved.Comments copyright to the posters who are solely responsible
for their opinions.