Opinions? Charles/Delbert Grady puzzle

[Jonathan Hoyle]

>> Hello--
>> What are people's thoughts on the meaning behind the two Grady's in "The
>> Shining"? Ullmann says the crazy caretaker's name was Charles Grady.
>> Later, Jack meets "Delbert" Grady in the 1921 men's room and it eventually
>> comes out that he was the caretaker. Surely it's not a continuity error. The
>> discrepancy was done on purpose. Why?
>> --RB

Why do you say "Surely it's not a continuity error"? Almost certainly
that's what it is.

In the original Stephen King novel, Stuart Ullman correctly calls him
"Delbert Grady" during Jack Torrance's interview. There is absolutely
no reference to any Charles Grady. In fact, there is no reference to
any such person in Kubrick's film version either, other than the
single time Ullman says it.

There does not appear any reason to believe that Kubrick's screenplay
intended there to be two Grady's. In the men's room when Delbert says
who he is, Torrance doesn't say, "Don't you mean Charles Grady?" No,
instead he instantly recognizes the name as the caretaker who murdered
his family. (This is just as in the novel as well.) The fact that
Delbert Grady refers to "correcting" his wife and children prove he is
the same Grady.

Looking for some deeper meaning in a mistake in the screenplay by an
overworked director is silly. These fictional characters have no
lives outside the confines of the movie (or pages of the novel), so
all we have is what was originally intended. And there is no evidence
I can see to suggest that Kubrick intentionally substituted the name
"Charles" for "Delbert" is some conspiratorial secret meaning.

It's not a "puzzle"; it was a simple clerical mistake. It wasn't
Kubrick's first. Nor was it his last.

Jonathan Hoyle
http://www.jonhoyle.com

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 24, 1:28 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> >> Hello--
> >> What are people's thoughts on the meaning behind the two Grady's in "The
> >> Shining"?  Ullmann says the crazy caretaker's name was Charles Grady.
> >> Later, Jack meets "Delbert" Grady in the 1921 men's room and it eventually
> >> comes out that he was the caretaker.  Surely it's not a continuity error.  The
> >> discrepancy was done on purpose.  Why?
> >> --RB
>
> Why do you say "Surely it's not a continuity error"?  Almost certainly
> that's what it is.
>
> In the original Stephen King novel, Stuart Ullman correctly calls him
> "Delbert Grady" during Jack Torrance's interview.  There is absolutely
> no reference to any Charles Grady.  In fact, there is no reference to
> any such person in Kubrick's film version either, other than the
> single time Ullman says it.
>
> There does not appear any reason to believe that Kubrick's screenplay
> intended there to be two Grady's.  In the men's room when Delbert says
> who he is, Torrance doesn't say, "Don't you mean Charles Grady?"  No,
> instead he instantly recognizes the name as the caretaker who murdered
> his family.  (This is just as in the novel as well.)  The fact that
> Delbert Grady refers to "correcting" his wife and children prove he is
> the same Grady.
>
> Looking for some deeper meaning in a mistake in the screenplay by an
> overworked director is silly.  These fictional characters have no
> lives outside the confines of the movie (or pages of the novel), so
> all we have is what was originally intended.  And there is no evidence
> I can see to suggest that Kubrick intentionally substituted the name
> "Charles" for "Delbert" is some conspiratorial secret meaning.
>
> It's not a "puzzle"; it was a simple clerical mistake.  It wasn't
> Kubrick's first.  Nor was it his last.
>
> Jonathan Hoylehttp://www.jonhoyle.com

Curious. Never followed through with thoughts about it. Maybe it's
Charles Delbert Grady and he goes by Delbert?

But doesn't he tell Jack, that HE (Jack) was the caretaker? Brothers
from a past life?

dc

[MP]

> > Why do you say "Surely it's not a continuity error"?  Almost certainly
> > that's what it is.
>
> > In the original Stephen King novel, Stuart Ullman correctly calls him
> > "Delbert Grady" during Jack Torrance's interview.  There is absolutely
> > no reference to any Charles Grady.  In fact, there is no reference to
> > any such person in Kubrick's film version either, other than the
> > single time Ullman says it.
>
> > There does not appear any reason to believe that Kubrick's screenplay
> > intended there to be two Grady's.  In the men's room when Delbert says
> > who he is, Torrance doesn't say, "Don't you mean Charles Grady?"  No,
> > instead he instantly recognizes the name as the caretaker who murdered
> > his family.  (This is just as in the novel as well.)  The fact that
> > Delbert Grady refers to "correcting" his wife and children prove he is
> > the same Grady.
>
> > Looking for some deeper meaning in a mistake in the screenplay by an
> > overworked director is silly.  These fictional characters have no
> > lives outside the confines of the movie (or pages of the novel), so
> > all we have is what was originally intended.  And there is no evidence
> > I can see to suggest that Kubrick intentionally substituted the name
> > "Charles" for "Delbert" is some conspiratorial secret meaning.
>
> > It's not a "puzzle"; it was a simple clerical mistake.  It wasn't
> > Kubrick's first.  Nor was it his last.
>
> > Jonathan Hoylehttp://www.jonhoyle.com

No, it's not an error.

Throughout the film, Kubrick shows us the horrors of at least three
generations of history. The three caretakers, Delbert, Charles and
Jack, are all interchangeable. They’ve each attempted to murder their
families and all represent “man” at three specific points in time.

During her conversation with the psychiatrist, Wendy says that Jack
hurt Danny’s shoulder “5 months ago, and hasn’t had a drink since”.
Later on, Jack will tell Lloyd that the incident occurred “3 years
ago.” Which one is it? It doesn’t matter. Throughout the film, time
will be blurred. Violence is timeless. Ullman speaks of Charles
Grady’s 1970 family murder, yet the audience always sees the dead
daughters of 1920’s Delbert Grady. Delbert himself denies ever being
the caretaker.

Jack (while looking at himself in the mirror): You were the caretaker
here. l recognize you.
Grady: That's strange sir. I don't have any recollection of that at
all.

Charles killed his wife and family in 1970. Delbert, however, exists
in the 1920s. Charles is the mirror image of Delbert, and Jack is a
mirror image of Charles. The bathroom sequence is thus a sort of three
way conversation. Why doesn’t Jack encounter Charles outside of the
mirror? Because Delbert represents the start of this cycle of murder.
He has a British accent, embodying the British colonists who succeeded
the American founding fathers.

Note Al Bowlly's "It's All Forgotten Now", playing on the soundtrack.
The song's place in the film (it plays in the background as a
bewildered Jack speaks to Grady in the bathroom about the fact that
Grady has killed himself after brutally murdering his children)
indicates that what is forgotten may also be preserved through the
mechanism of repression. And that's what the infinite string of
caretakers represent...preserved violence through repression.

[Bill Reid]

MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe251e55-a907-4ed7-9476-***@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> > Why do you say "Surely it's not a continuity error"? Almost certainly
> > that's what it is.

> No, it's not an error.

So, what's the significance of Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" saying
his full name is "Alexander DeLarge" when checking into prison, but
a newspaper story about him that you can read in the movie says his
name is "Cat-Woman Killer Alex Burgess"?

Frankly, I think it was an early case of identity theft, my own self...

---
William Ernest "Dilbert" Reid

[MP]

On Sep 25, 1:07 am, "Bill Reid" <***@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
> MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fe251e55-a907-4ed7-9476-***@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Why do you say "Surely it's not a continuity error"? Almost certainly
> > > that's what it is.
> > No, it's not an error.
>
> So, what's the significance of Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" saying
> his full name is "Alexander DeLarge" when checking into prison, but
> a newspaper story about him that you can read in the movie says his
> name is "Cat-Woman Killer Alex Burgess"?
>
> Frankly, I think it was an early case of identity theft, my own self...
>
> ---
> William Ernest "Dilbert" Reid

And what's the significance of the blurred identities between Mandy
and the Mysterious Woman?

Regarding Alex's name, it's funny that such a grand and self important
name (Alexander De Large), get's replaced with something so lowly and
ordinary (655321).

[Luke Marsden]

My opinion is that the discrepancy in The Shining is deliberate, if
for no better reason than emphasis with which Philip Stone enunciates
the 'Delbert', though there are also thematic and plot elements that
also lead to that conclusion. It is at any rate not 'silly' to treat
it as more than a continuity error, given the dialogue in that
particular scene and the circular nature of time in the Overlook Hotel
established in the final shot. In the cut we have in Australia, we
don't get Jack's line about 'knowing what's around the next corner',
but the temporal confusion is more than established in the bathroom
scene.

Obviously one can read far too much into decision made in the midst of
on-set chaos, but in this case I think it is far from obvious that the
name change is a mistake. Perhaps if the second name were more
commonplace -- but how does one accidentally change Charles to Delbert
and not notice the mistake throughout months of editing?

You'd do better making a case for a clerical mistake between DeLarge
and Burgess, which could even have been a joke at the expense of the
novelist.

[Jonathan Hoyle]

On Sep 24, 6:50 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, it's not an error.
>
> Throughout the film, Kubrick shows us the horrors of at least three
> generations of history. The three caretakers, Delbert, Charles and
> Jack, are all interchangeable. They’ve each attempted to murder their
> families and all represent “man” at three specific points in time.

Your claim is that there were two Gradys, each of whom had a wife and
two daughters, and each of whom killed their respective families at
the hotel? Furthermore, this was an intentional change from the novel
by Kubrick, despite no further reference to this new Grady.

And this is a more believable explanation than the name "Charles"
being a mistake?

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 25, 8:18 am, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 6:50 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > No, it's not an error.
>
> > Throughout the film, Kubrick shows us the horrors of at least three
> > generations of history. The three caretakers, Delbert, Charles and
> > Jack, are all interchangeable. They’ve each attempted to murder their
> > families and all represent “man” at three specific points in time.
>
> Your claim is that there were two Gradys, each of whom had a wife and
> two daughters, and each of whom killed their respective families at
> the hotel?  Furthermore, this was an intentional change from the novel
> by Kubrick, despite no further reference to this new Grady.
>
> And this is a more believable explanation than the name "Charles"
> being a mistake?

I think you are missing a the point here. No matter how it is
interpreted, The Shining, does contain Ghosts and a supernatural and
reincarnational possession that is inscrutable and impossible to sort
out and is not just all inside Jack, Wendy and Danny's minds. The
photo at the punchline ending clealy shows Jack in the past--
apparently as the Caretaker. The photo is not from any character's
POV. It is from the POV of the house and all it's spirits. It is also
possible that that photos actually changes each time a caretaker is
assigned who kills his family. Perhaps not until Jack has died and
the Hotel's task is done, does he become immortalized into the
photo. Perhaps Charles Grady had been in the photo previously in the
center position. Perhaps Delbert and Charles were twin brothers?

Delbert tells Jack he has always been the caretaker and apparently
does not remember being the caretaker himself. Jack doesn't remember
being the caretaker previously either. You can't really base any of
this on the King novel, this is Kubrick, not King. Looking for reason
here is silly. Even if it had been a continuity error at one point,
Kubrick would have considered it and decided to leave it as is because
it is just another bizarre mystery to ponder.

Kubrick is a jokester of the highest level. He is not using this to
say he believes any of this literally. He is playing with the ideas
and playing with the viewer. Kubrick is far too exacting to make such
a continuity error, with such a central thing. Delbert who is a
ghost, remember's Jack as Charles Grady. Don't expect it to really
make literal, concrete sense.

Up until the end, it could all be viewed as the family's delusions,
but the photo at the end seals the deal. Even then there are many
unexplained things left dangling.

Ullman tells Jack, Charles Grady killed his family. Apparently a
Charles Grady did kill people, because Jack saw the newspaper and
recognizes Delbert as the killer, but remember, Jack is in some kind
of fugue state, seeing ghosts anyway---why look for concrete
continuity in such bizarre happenings?

When Jack makes his second appearance to the bar, now full of ghosts
from the past, he asks Lloyd who is buying the drinks for him and
Lloyd tells him, "Not a matter that concerns you--at least not at this
point."

Jack spills his drink on himself, and the butler, comes to assist him,
Jack calls him "Jeevcy" Delbert tells him, "you are the important one
here" then asks him what his name is and he is told Delbert Grady.
Delbert can't remember ever being the caretaker.

Jack recognizes, Delbert from the picture in the newspaper about the
killings.

Mr, Grady, you WERE the caretaker here.
I'm sorry to differ with you sir, but you are the caretaker, you've
always been the caretaker I should know sir, I've always been here.


At any rate Kubrick's occasions of "Accidental Art" that comes out in
the editing process is nothing new, but not something left to chance.

I will always be convinced that the split second bathroom Ziegler/
Mandy scene in EWS in the original theatrical release, later
posthumously edited out and edited from the DVD, showing the
reflection of the sound man holding a Boom mike like a giant phallus
joke, was left in on purpose. I always hold out hope it will be
restored in some later DVD release.


The Overlook photo

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2205/overlookyv7.jpg




dc

[Jonathan Hoyle]

On Sep 25, 12:49 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you are missing a the point here.   No matter how it is
> interpreted, The Shining, does contain Ghosts and a supernatural and
> reincarnational possession that is inscrutable and impossible to sort
> out and is not just all inside  Jack, Wendy and Danny's  minds.  The
> photo at the punchline ending clealy shows Jack in the past--
> apparently as the Caretaker.
<snip>

The photo was an interesting device at the end. I interpreted it to
simply mean that Jack Torrance is now integrated into the hotel with
all the other ghosts, all enjoying the Fourth of July party from 1921
(just as Grady and the other ghosts were).

Admittedly, I am not sure if this interpretation makes any more sense
than anyone else's. It hadn't occurred to me to think of Jack
Torrance being the reincarnation of a previous hotel attendee. I'm
not even sure if Kubrick had a definite thought with that or if he
were being intentionally vague, leaving the watcher an eerie feeling.
(Either way it worked.) Certainly the original book is no help here,
as Kubrick's end is completely different than King's.

In any case, that photo does not appear (at least to me) to have
anything to do with the error of calling Delbert Charles at the
interview.

> Delbert tells Jack he has always been the caretaker and apparently
> does not remember being the caretaker himself.  Jack doesn't remember
> being the caretaker previously either.  You can't really base any of
> this on the King novel, this is Kubrick, not King.

True, however the entire dialog here is lifted faithfully right out of
the book (in which there was only one Grady). It's very difficult to
argue that this conversation "proves" that there were two Grady's,
when the same conversation in the novel takes place with only the one.

> Looking for reason here is silly.   Even if it had been a continuity error at
> one point, Kubrick would have considered it and decided to leave it as is
> because it is just another bizarre mystery to ponder.

I think you are assuming too much here. If you watch the Special
Edition DVD's section on the making of the film (as recorded by his
daughter), you will hear that there was nearly daily script changes
going on throughout filming. (To the point where Nicholson himself
stopped bothering to memorize the script and simply read the pages he
was newly handed each day.) With all there was to be done, dozens of
takes per each shot, deciding what to keep and what to pitch,
constantly rewriting, etc. etc., I doubt very much he even noticed.

> Kubrick is a jokester of the highest level.  He is not using this to
> say he believes any of this literally.  He is playing with the ideas
> and playing with the viewer.

This is true. It is one of the reasons why King said he knew nothing
about horror, and why others (including myself) felt he was able to
create one of the best horror films of all time.

> Kubrick is far too exacting to make such a continuity error, with such a
> central thing.

But it's NOT a central thing. Almost nobody (except us fanboys) even
*noticed* the mistaken naming. Hell, even *I* didn't notice the first
dozen times I watched it!

I would be inclined to agree with you that something was intentionally
done if there were an obvious disjunction in the plot. But this is
below the radar of even a director's interest is passing off something
sneaky. It was a simple mistake, nothing more.

I'd say it was hardly worth arguing about...except here I am doing
it. :-/

> Jack recognizes, Delbert from the picture in the newspaper about the
> killings.
>
> Mr, Grady, you WERE  the caretaker here.
> I'm sorry to differ with you sir, but you are the caretaker, you've
> always been the caretaker I should know sir, I've always been here.

Again, this is taken faithfully from the original King novel, in which
only one Grady exists. Kubrick & Johnson didn't create these lines to
explain a second Grady. They merely copied this along from the
original book to tell the story. A story involving a single Grady who
killed his family and now lives as a ghost at the hotel.

I know, I know, you don't want to hear anything about the novel. But
likely it or not, this was the original source material Kubrick &
Johnson used to write the screenplay. And if Kubrick wished to
introduce a second Grady, he could easily have done so. But a single
naming slip-up hardly qualifies.

> At any rate Kubrick's occasions of "Accidental Art" that comes out in
> the editing process is nothing new, but not something left to chance.

Well, okay. You're welcome to see it the way you wish, of course.
But let me ask you this: how many people do you know who have seen the
film, even several times over, are left with the impression that there
were two Gradys? Did *you* honestly think this after you saw it the
first time?

Jonathan Hoyle
http://www.jonhoyle.com

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 25, 11:37 am, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 12:49 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:> I think you are missing a the point here.   No matter how it is
> > interpreted, The Shining, does contain Ghosts and a supernatural and
> > reincarnational possession that is inscrutable and impossible to sort
> > out and is not just all inside  Jack, Wendy and Danny's  minds.  The
> > photo at the punchline ending clealy shows Jack in the past--
> > apparently as the Caretaker.
>
> <snip>
>
> The photo was an interesting device at the end.  I interpreted it to
> simply mean that Jack Torrance is now integrated into the hotel with
> all the other ghosts, all enjoying the Fourth of July party from 1921
> (just as Grady and the other ghosts were).
>
> Admittedly, I am not sure if this interpretation makes any more sense
> than anyone else's.  It hadn't occurred to me to think of Jack
> Torrance being the reincarnation of a previous hotel attendee.  I'm
> not even sure if Kubrick had a definite thought with that or if he
> were being intentionally vague, leaving the watcher an eerie feeling.
> (Either way it worked.)  Certainly the original book is no help here,
> as Kubrick's end is completely different than King's.


Kubrick always leave things up to multiple interpretations. He always
rewrites as he goes and shoots incredible amounts of takes and footage
and then spends long periods of time editing and even reshooting with
no shame whatsoever.



>
> In any case, that photo does not appear (at least to me) to have
> anything to do with the error of calling Delbert Charles at the
> interview.


Calling this an error is an error. The photo lets us know that what
we are seeing is not merely mental machinations---so therefore
whatecver laws or reason one miught think, orders this reality must be
thrown out the window. As Harry said above the whole thing is then
one giant continuity error.

Were there some reason to make sure no one thought there could be more
then one Grady, then sure it would have been an error there is no
reason to make sure no one thinks there could be more then one.



>
> > Delbert tells Jack he has always been the caretaker and apparently
> > does not remember being the caretaker himself.  Jack doesn't remember
> > being the caretaker previously either.  You can't really base any of
> > this on the King novel, this is Kubrick, not King.
>
> True, however the entire dialog here is lifted faithfully right out of
> the book (in which there was only one Grady).  It's very difficult to
> argue that this conversation "proves" that there were two Grady's,
> when the same conversation in the novel takes place with only the one.

Instead Kubrick leaves us with a further little mystery in a cosmos of
anomalies. There is no way this would have gotten by his editing.
This is Kubrick you are talking about, who spent ages making and
editing his films.

> > Looking for reason here is silly.   Even if it had been a continuity error at
> > one point, Kubrick would have considered it and decided to leave it as is
> > because it is just another bizarre mystery to ponder.
>
> I think you are assuming too much here.  If you watch the Special
> Edition DVD's section on the making of the film (as recorded by his
> daughter), you will hear that there was nearly daily script changes
> going on throughout filming.  (To the point where Nicholson himself
> stopped bothering to memorize the script and simply read the pages he
> was newly handed each day.)  With all there was to be done, dozens of
> takes per each shot, deciding what to keep and what to pitch,
> constantly rewriting, etc. etc., I doubt very much he even noticed.

But this is normal for Kubrick. That is how he worked. Then to the
editing room.



> > Kubrick is a jokester of the highest level.  He is not using this to
> > say he believes any of this literally.  He is playing with the ideas
> > and playing with the viewer.
>
> This is true.  It is one of the reasons why King said he knew nothing
> about horror, and why others (including myself) felt he was able to
> create one of the best horror films of all time.


I admire King's ability to maintain a really sick, prolific mind for
so many years and crank out what is usually high quality and enjoyable
twisted pulp---at least up till his "accident," but he can sit on it
and twirl when it comes to his ridiculous hatred of what will always
be the first thing most people will think about when his name is
mentioned---"The Shining" by Stanley Kubrick.:) Too bad Stephen. HA
HA, You will be haunted by SK.


>
> > Kubrick is far too exacting to make such a continuity error, with such a
> > central thing.
>
> But it's NOT a central thing.  Almost nobody (except us fanboys) even
> *noticed* the mistaken naming.  Hell, even *I* didn't notice the first
> dozen times I watched it!

In Kubrick scale, yes it is a central thing. i noticed it but didn't
have a second thought about it because I knew it was Kubrick beiing
Kubrick and i reacted badly the first viewing of The Shining. I had
waited in such anticipation thinking Kubrick was going to do wonderful
things to hedge animals and that was a deal breaker the first night I
saw it. i reacted violently agaisnt the film---of course I returned
to the theater every night for 4 days, till I got past that and of
course my opinion was totally revised by the end of the week.



>
> I would be inclined to agree with you that something was intentionally
> done if there were an obvious disjunction in the plot.  But this is
> below the radar of even a director's interest is passing off something
> sneaky.  It was a simple mistake, nothing more.


HOW could such a glaring "error" go by not caught? That is far less
likely, then the idea that he knew perfectly well it was there.


>
> I'd say it was hardly worth arguing about...except here I am doing
> it.  :-/


Well watch it more and there will be a zillion more glaring
inconsistencies, you will gradually accept.


>
> > Jack recognizes, Delbert from the picture in the newspaper about the
> > killings.
>
> > Mr, Grady, you WERE  the caretaker here.
> > I'm sorry to differ with you sir, but you are the caretaker, you've
> > always been the caretaker I should know sir, I've always been here.
>
> Again, this is taken faithfully from the original King novel, in which
> only one Grady exists.  Kubrick & Johnson didn't create these lines to
> explain a second Grady.  They merely copied this along from the
> original book to tell the story.  A story involving a single Grady who
> killed his family and now lives as a ghost at the hotel.


But it's like dream logic---in a dream, names, faces and people can
get all transposed and mixed up, can't they?
I had a dream a few nights ago and as i woke up I realized that the
house I was in, which I excepted as some the house of a couple and
their family whom I knew well and had been to their house many
times, turned out to be no one I knew's house and these friends I
didn't even know! There were barely a composit of people I knew.
But even as I woke up it was totally familiar for a minute or two,
till I realized they did not correspond to anyone I knew. It was a
dream. maybe a continuity error of something I ate the night before.


> I know, I know, you don't want to hear anything about the novel.  But
> likely it or not, this was the original source material Kubrick &
> Johnson used to write the screenplay.  And if Kubrick wished to
> introduce a second Grady, he could easily have done so.  But a single
> naming slip-up hardly qualifies.

From Delbert to Charles?? How could that not be noticed?


> > At any rate Kubrick's occasions of "Accidental Art" that comes out in
> > the editing process is nothing new, but not something left to chance.


> Well, okay.  You're welcome to see it the way you wish, of course.
> But let me ask you this: how many people do you know who have seen the
> film, even several times over, are left with the impression that there
> were two Gradys?  Did *you* honestly think this after you saw it the
> first time?

I didn't think there were two I just thought it was dream logic likwe
so many other things in the film. and didn't question it past that,
other then to just table it as one of an endless stream iof mysteries.

Certainly you don't think you are the only person who noticed it? You
think SK didn't know?


dc






>
> Jonathan Hoylehttp://www.jonhoyle.com

[Jonathan Hoyle]

Well, it's fair to say that we disagree on this point. I'm just glad
that I can disagree with at least one person on this newsgroup without
it devolving into a petty screaming match. For that, I thank you.

However, you touched on a couple of other points I want to address
(admittedly not relevant to the Grady title this post is under)...

> i noticed it but didn't have a second thought about it because I knew
> it was Kubrick beiing Kubrick and i reacted badly the first viewing of
> The Shining.  I had waited in such anticipation thinking Kubrick was
> going to do wonderful things to hedge animals and that was a deal
> breaker the first night I saw it.  i reacted violently agaisnt the film---of
> course I returned to the theater every night for 4 days, till I got past
> that and of course my opinion was totally revised by the end of the
> week.

This seems to be a common reaction by those who read the book first.
Others I know who read the book first (with obvious premeditated
expectations) hated the film, thinking the movie "destroyed" the
book. Perhaps I am fortunate to have watched the movie first, then
the novel, so I can love them both. There were (in my opinion) flaws
in each that the other did better, but in general Kubrick's film
version was much better as a film than a novel, and King's version was
much better a novel than a film.

As for the topiary animals, I did not buy that for a second.
Throughout the King novel, I thought it was very silly. I certainly
think Kubrick was wise to drop them in favor of the maze. I also like
Kubrick's more psychologically horrifying approach, as opposed to
Kings direct ghostly approach.

Where I have the deepest criticism for Kubrick (and no, not the Grady
error) is how he handled Dick Hallorann. Hallorann was a true hero in
the book, and I admired that. But in Kubrick's film, he dies a
senseless death. Here's this guy who can shine, travels all the way
from Florida back to the Overlook, and then (shinelessly) just calls
out "Hello? Anyone here? Hello? Anyone here?" before getting
killed. What the hell was the point of that??

It seems to me that Kubrick wanted the ending to be less complicated
and have just Wendy & Danny leaving the hotel. Kubrick apparently
couldn't think of anything to do with him, so dispatches Hallorann as
quickly as possible. Hallorann's job was to just get the snow vehicle
there and then die. Very disappointing.

Ironically, his was the only murder in the film (with no murder at all
in the book). Kudos to both King & Kubrick for horror involving very
little death (relative for what passes for horror these days).

Although I personally like the person of Jack Torrance in the King
novel better (as he showed signs of his true humanity toward the end),
Kubrick's Jack was truly horror. You can't give him a hint of
humanity for the film to work as well as it did.

In the end, I like Kubrick's version much better (even with the
unfortunate Hallorann death).

Have you ever seen the 1997 miniseries which is supposed to be more
faithful to the King novel? Although I am told it wasn't very good, I
am going to try to find it a copy to watch. I am curious as to how
lovers of the novel compare the miniseries with the movie.

Regards,

Jonathan Hoyle
http://www.jonhoyle.com

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> Well, it's fair to say that we disagree on this point.  I'm just glad
> that I can disagree with at least one person on this newsgroup without
> it devolving into a petty screaming match.  For that, I thank you.
>
> However, you touched on a couple of other points I want to address
> (admittedly not relevant to the Grady title this post is under)...
>
> > i noticed it but didn't have a second thought about it because I knew
> > it was Kubrick beiing Kubrick and i reacted badly the first viewing of
> > The Shining.  I had waited in such anticipation thinking Kubrick was
> > going to do wonderful things to hedge animals and that was a deal
> > breaker the first night I saw it.  i reacted violently agaisnt the film---of
> > course I returned to the theater every night for 4 days, till I got past
> > that and of course my opinion was totally revised by the end of the
> > week.
>
> This seems to be a common reaction by those who read the book first.
> Others I know who read the book first (with obvious premeditated
> expectations) hated the film, thinking the movie "destroyed" the
> book.  Perhaps I am fortunate to have watched the movie first, then
> the novel, so I can love them both.  There were (in my opinion) flaws
> in each that the other did better, but in general Kubrick's film
> version was much better as a film than a novel, and King's version was
> much better a novel than a film.
>

Carrie the book was fairly pulpy and i picked it up due to the
Exorcist possession fad. The movie was far better then the book--not
at the level of the Shining but very excellent, funnty and scary.
Salems Lot seemd to much of a retread. The Shining was a huge step in
quality-- a tour de force. When I heard that Kubrick was going to do
it, I was ecstatic and I just could barely wait for it. I How would
Kubrick handle a horror film?--I should have known he would tip it on
it's end.


I read and enjoyed most every King and Bachman horror Novel/Novelette
when they were first published, beginning in 1974 with Carrie, till
around 1989 when they started to bore me. In every case I read the
book before the film. I read Rose Madder in 1995 and none since.many
King film adaptations have been pretty bad The original Dead Zone was
a good film, Firestarter was fair. .Dolores Clairbourne was a good
film, Misery was decent but most of the others range from Tv movie low
budget level to just terrible and corny. Pet Sematary was the
scariest book ever --a classic horror bookgg--and the movie turned it
into a joke. Although better quakity films then most King films, I am
annoyed by The Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption--waterd down
bleck. Some have just been entertaining schlock like the mist.

King seems to know nothing about movies:) The more he is involved
with a adaptation the worse it is. Thats my feeling about it.

His TV film, "The Shining" was terrible, It was slow and dull and low
budget cheasy. What he does with the hedge animals is a pathetic
attempt at special effects, where the camera lurches at the
topiary....pretty laughable. I would like to see it again though
just to see if it's a bad as I remember.

Kubrick's The Shining was not a serious horror movie or ghost story in
any traditional sense.


> As for the topiary animals, I did not buy that for a second.
> Throughout the King novel, I thought it was very silly.  I certainly
> think Kubrick was wise to drop them in favor of the maze.  I also like
> Kubrick's more psychologically horrifying approach, as opposed to
> Kings direct ghostly approach.
>
> Where I have the deepest criticism for Kubrick (and no, not the Grady
> error) is how he handled Dick Hallorann.  Hallorann was a true hero in
> the book, and I admired that.  But in Kubrick's film, he dies a
> senseless death.  Here's this guy who can shine, travels all the way
> from Florida back to the Overlook, and then (shinelessly) just calls
> out "Hello?  Anyone here?  Hello?  Anyone here?" before getting
> killed.  What the hell was the point of that??
>
> It seems to me that Kubrick wanted the ending to be less complicated
> and have just Wendy & Danny leaving the hotel.  Kubrick apparently
> couldn't think of anything to do with him, so dispatches Hallorann as
> quickly as possible.  Hallorann's job was to just get the snow vehicle
> there and then die.  Very disappointing.
>
> Ironically, his was the only murder in the film (with no murder at all
> in the book).  Kudos to both King & Kubrick for horror involving very
> little death (relative for what passes for horror these days).

I felt this way when I first saw the film and have never figured out
any reason for the wasting of Halloran so anti-climatically. I don't
care he died but at least have him play more of a role. I barely
notice it now. I kinda like him out of the way...:) Kubrick
just did it as a surprise, to wipe out any chance of hope. The film
is amazing in every way. The few disappointments I has originally, I
don't notice anymore. Like most Kubrick films they become the basis
of urban legend and part of the culture, in a way unlike any other
filmmaker's films. They are like each one is a new meme for human
kind.

Now whether Kubrick could have made a serious Horror/ghost movie or
not, like Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist or the Omen...etc or
Dracula......I think the answer is, would he ever ask us to suspend
our disbelief? I donlt think he ever does.

> Although I personally like the person of Jack Torrance in the King
> novel better (as he showed signs of his true humanity toward the end),
> Kubrick's Jack was truly horror.  You can't give him a hint of
> humanity for the film to work as well as it did.
>
> In the end, I like Kubrick's version much better (even with the
> unfortunate Hallorann death).
>


Yeah, it's just a totally different thing from the book and also
contains Jack Nicholson doing a nothing short of legendary acting job
that beats all strangeness.


> Have you ever seen the 1997 miniseries which is supposed to be more
> faithful to the King novel?  Although I am told it wasn't very good, I
> am going to try to find it a copy to watch.  I am curious as to how
> lovers of the novel compare the miniseries with the movie.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jonathan Hoylehttp://www.jonhoyle.com

I wonder if they have a complete DVD of the whole thing. It's true to
the book in content but nowhere as good as the book. My memory is that
it's pretty lifeless--but I was so biased I was too busy cringing when
I saw it. Can't say I really gave it a chance. It's like low budget
TV movie.

dc

[Math1723]

On Sep 25, 11:27 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Where I have the deepest criticism for Kubrick (and no, not the Grady
> error) is how he handled Dick Hallorann.  Hallorann was a true hero in
> the book, and I admired that.  But in Kubrick's film, he dies a
> senseless death.  Here's this guy who can shine, travels all the way
> from Florida back to the Overlook, and then (shinelessly) just calls
> out "Hello?  Anyone here?  Hello?  Anyone here?" before getting
> killed.  What the hell was the point of that??

That did seem strange to me too. Dick was supposed to shine, yet
walked into the hotel like a lamb to the slaughter. There was no
honor in his death at all.

And it's not like Kubrick was making room for Wendy & Danny to be the
heroes. Neither were anything but lucky survivors in the film. Even
Danny was at best clever, but never heroic. (In the book, all four:
Dick, Wendy, Danny & even Jack, showed signs of heroism at some point
along the way.) Despite his pointless murder, I guess Dick Hallorann
remained the closest thing to a hero in this film.

And now I must get changed before the fish and goose soiree.

[MP]

> That did seem strange to me too.  Dick was supposed to shine, yet
> walked into the hotel like a lamb to the slaughter.  There was no
> honor in his death at all.
>
> And it's not like Kubrick was making room for Wendy & Danny to be the
> heroes.  Neither were anything but lucky survivors in the film.  Even
> Danny was at best clever, but never heroic.  (In the book, all four:
> Dick, Wendy, Danny & even Jack, showed signs of heroism at some point
> along the way.)  Despite his pointless murder, I guess Dick Hallorann
> remained the closest thing to a hero in this film.
>
> And now I must get changed before the fish and goose soiree.

Look at where Halloran dies. Here we have a black man killed with an
axe on the very native indian symbol that Jack violently bounced his
tennis ball earlier. The very tennis ball used to lure Danny to room
237. The very tennis ball thrown against the tapestry with the picture
of two blue twins. Two blue twins who were killed decades ago with an
axe by their father...

Halloran's death is part of the cycle of violence. Had Danny not
retraced his steps, then both other minorities (woman and child),
would have been corrected as well. To the few audience members who
shine, Halloran's death now serves as a picture in the book. A warning
which we must look upon and learn from.

In the film, both Danny and Jack are warned twice. Their first warning
comes from the present, their second warning come from the past (the
shining). Halloran warns Danny not to go into 237, Ullman warns Jack
about the previous caretaker's fate. Both Ullman and Halloran, the
only other two significant male characters in the film, possess past
knowledge. Had the Torrances heeded their warnings, things would not
have gone amok.

Warning from the Present:

1. Hallorann warns Danny.
2. Ullman warns Jack.

Warning from the Past:

1. The Shining warns Danny of Jack.
2. The Shining (Jack's nightmare) warns Jack of Jack.

Both father and son fail to heed the warnings of the present, but
unlike his father, Danny will later use his shining visions to prevent
his doom. In contrast, Jack succumbs and literally becomes his
murderous vision of himself.

1. Danny ignores first warning.
2. Danny pays attention to second warning and overcomes the past.

1. Jack ignores first warning.
2. Jack ignores second warning and becomes the past.

The act of "shining" can be seen as "looking through the pictures in a
history book". In a sense, it allows one to view the violence of the
past and make corrections to the future. Halloran's dead body then
becomes something we can either choose to overlook, or learn from by
linking to the similarly chopped corpses of the Grady girls.

At least that's my 2 am interpretation......

SLEEP TIME.
G'NIGHT.

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 27, 3:33 am, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > That did seem strange to me too.  Dick was supposed to shine, yet
> > walked into the hotel like a lamb to the slaughter.  There was no
> > honor in his death at all.
>
> > And it's not like Kubrick was making room for Wendy & Danny to be the
> > heroes.  Neither were anything but lucky survivors in the film.  Even
> > Danny was at best clever, but never heroic.  (In the book, all four:
> > Dick, Wendy, Danny & even Jack, showed signs of heroism at some point
> > along the way.)  Despite his pointless murder, I guess Dick Hallorann
> > remained the closest thing to a hero in this film.
>
> > And now I must get changed before the fish and goose soiree.
>
> Look at where Halloran dies. Here we have a black man killed with an
> axe on the very native indian symbol that Jack violently bounced his
> tennis ball earlier. The very tennis ball used to lure Danny to room
> 237. The very tennis ball thrown against the tapestry with the picture
> of two blue twins. Two blue twins who were killed decades ago with an
> axe by their father...
>
> Halloran's death is part of the cycle of violence. Had Danny not
> retraced his steps, then both other minorities (woman and child),
> would have been corrected as well. To the few audience members who
> shine, Halloran's death now serves as a picture in the book. A warning
> which we must look upon and learn from.
>
> In the film, both Danny and Jack are warned twice. Their first warning
> comes from the present, their second warning come from the past (the
> shining). Halloran warns Danny not to go into 237, Ullman warns Jack
> about the previous caretaker's fate. Both Ullman and Halloran, the
> only other two significant male characters in the film, possess past
> knowledge. Had the Torrances heeded their warnings, things would not
> have gone amok.
>
> Warning from the Present:
>
> 1. Hallorann warns Danny.
> 2. Ullman warns Jack.
>
> Warning from the Past:
>
> 1. The Shining warns Danny of Jack.
>  2. The Shining (Jack's nightmare) warns Jack of Jack.
>
> Both father and son fail to heed the warnings of the present, but
> unlike his father, Danny will later use his shining visions to prevent
> his doom. In contrast, Jack succumbs and literally becomes his
> murderous vision of himself.
>
> 1. Danny ignores first warning.
> 2. Danny pays attention to second warning and overcomes the past.
>
> 1. Jack ignores first warning.
> 2. Jack ignores second warning and becomes the past.
>
> The act of "shining" can be seen as "looking through the pictures in a
> history book". In a sense, it allows one to view the violence of the
> past and make corrections to the future. Halloran's dead body then
> becomes something we can either choose to overlook, or learn from by
> linking to the similarly chopped corpses of the Grady girls.

Choose to overlook ("Come stay at The Overlook, where you can overlook
all American history, and even the present too!"), by calling it a
'mistake'. No doubt, the fact that the film version, in contrast to
King's escapist fiction, mentions, via Ullman, that the hotel was
built on an Indian burial ground ("We actually had to repel some
attacks during construction") is also a 'mistake' (cf Blakemore's
essay). And that tennis ball, that too is a mistake, because Kubrick,
you see, is an incompetent fool not worth the time of day, sub Ed Wood
territory, but if our ubermensch towering writing genius Stephen King
had directed the film (well, of course, he did make a version, but we
can 'overlook', haha, that, because as we've already proved beyond any
doubt whatsoever, the world is what we imagine and fancy it to be and
everything else is a mistake) there would have been no mistakes and
all this history nonsense would have been Corrected ...

[MP]

>
> > No, it's not an error.
>
> > Throughout the film, Kubrick shows us the horrors of at least three
> > generations of history. The three caretakers, Delbert, Charles and
> > Jack, are all interchangeable. They’ve each attempted to murder their
> > families and all represent “man” at three specific points in time.
>
> Your claim is that there were two Gradys, each of whom had a wife and
> two daughters, and each of whom killed their respective families at
> the hotel?  Furthermore, this was an intentional change from the novel
> by Kubrick, despite no further reference to this new Grady.
>
> And this is a more believable explanation than the name "Charles"
> being a mistake?

Yeah, I think it's more believable.

Delbert is the ghost of Charles who is the ghost of Jack who is the
"ghost" of Danny. Each of this caretakers has committed a horror
within the family. Danny, however, retraces his steps and takes a
different path, thereby breaking the cycle of horror. Kubrick then
takes this domestic horror (microcosm) and relates it to historical
horrors on a larger scale (a macrocosmic cycle of genocide, racism,
elevators of blood etc).

Check the "Shining" section on this site:

http://kubrickfilms.tripod.com/

[Bryce Utting]

Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> Your claim is that there were two Gradys, each of whom had a wife and
> two daughters, and each of whom killed their respective families at
> the hotel? Furthermore, this was an intentional change from the novel
> by Kubrick, despite no further reference to this new Grady.
>
> And this is a more believable explanation than the name "Charles"
> being a mistake?

you've never wondered what happened to the family of 1927 Jack?


butting

--
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting
I reread the documentation to no avail, then scanned the whole
manual in, OCRed it, spell-checked the file and uploaded it to BIX
with a question mark appended.
-- Gerry Pourwelle

[Jonathan Hoyle]

On Sep 27, 6:47 pm, Bryce Utting <***@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> > Your claim is that there were two Gradys, each of whom had a wife and
> > two daughters, and each of whom killed their respective families at
> > the hotel?  Furthermore, this was an intentional change from the novel
> > by Kubrick, despite no further reference to this new Grady.
>
> > And this is a more believable explanation than the name "Charles"
> > being a mistake?
>
> you've never wondered what happened to the family of 1927 Jack?
>
> butting

Hi butting,

The date I believe was actually 1921, but I interpreted that
photograph differently than you did. I saw it as meaning that Jack
Torrance was incorporated into the Overlook Hotel along with all the
other ghosts, all celebrating the 4th of July party from 1921 (along
with Grady and the others). I am not saying that my interpretation is
right, just that this was my first thought as to what it meant.

It may come in part due to the novel. In there, we see that the hotel
ghosts were existing across all times celebrating the party. In
King's story, Delbert Grady killed his family and himself in 1970, but
became part of the hotel afterwards, being a hotel employee servicing
this party (in the novel, this party was in August of 1945, not July
of 1921, but that is not terribly important).

In any case, I never considered that photo as to having anything to do
with the misnaming of Delbert as Charles in that one scene.

Hope that helps,

Jonathan Hoyle
http://www.jonhoyle.com

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 24, 9:28 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> >> Hello--
> >> What are people's thoughts on the meaning behind the two Grady's in "The
> >> Shining"?  Ullmann says the crazy caretaker's name was Charles Grady.
> >> Later, Jack meets "Delbert" Grady in the 1921 men's room and it eventually
> >> comes out that he was the caretaker.  Surely it's not a continuity error.  The
> >> discrepancy was done on purpose.  Why?

Because Charles Grady was the name of one of the previous caretakers
at The Overlook, whereas Delbert Grady is the GHOST or spectre of
Charles Grady. Kubrick is distinguishing between the ontological
status of a (past) human being and a spectre: if Charles and Delbert
were 'the same person', then there would be NO DIFFERENCE between a
human being and a ghost (or, for instance, no difference between
listening to a live concert and a recording of that concert; attending
a play and watching a filmed recording of that play; reading a
historical account and witnessing the later recorded event; between a
painting and what it supposedly depicts, etc). A spectre like Delbert
Grady or Lloyd occupies the 'space' between being and nothingness,
between the metaphysics of presence and the metaphysics of absence,
that of the UNDEAD, neither physically alive on the one hand nor
totally departed or dead on the other. A recording ... a return of the
repressed ... a spectral presence. Just like the photograph of Jack
Torrance at the end of The Shining. A 'recording' , a fleeting
snapshot, a spectre of a moment from/in the past. This is what haunts
us ...


> >> --RB
>
> Why do you say "Surely it's not a continuity error"?  Almost certainly
> that's what it is.

The problem with this approach to film 'interpretation' is that it
reduces the complexity of the film, attributing all its paradoxes,
contradictions, affects, uneasy couplings and identifications - in
short, what makes it a singular work of art - to 'error', to being a
mistake ("Let's butcher the work into order to 'correct' it", like
Grady's attempt to 'correct' his family and reassert a reactionary
unified patriarchy). Effectively, it is to respond to a complex work
with, "I don't understand this and I feel uneasy about that. Therefore
it is all wrong and must be 'corrected' so that all my unexamined
presuppositions about the world and the film can be restored.


>
> In the original Stephen King novel, Stuart Ullman correctly calls him
> "Delbert Grady" during Jack Torrance's interview.  There is absolutely
> no reference to any Charles Grady.  

There are numerous differences between novel and film. Does this make
all those differences in the film a 'mistake'? The hedge maze is a
'mistake'?

>In fact, there is no reference to
> any such person in Kubrick's film version either, other than the
> single time Ullman says it.

This is like arguing that Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa does not
really exist, other than the one that exists in the Louvre!

There is a reference to Charles Grady in the film. Is there a quota of
references that a film must instantiate in order to qualify as valid
and legitimate, as opposed to being in 'error'?

>
> There does not appear any reason to believe that Kubrick's screenplay
> intended there to be two Grady's

Have you here some special privileged access to Kubrick's supposed
'intentions'? Like Danny Torrance, you are magically blessed with 'the
shining', you can clairvoyantly 'read' Kubrick's thoughts on the
matter and conclude that Kubrick's film 'mistakenly' had two Grady's
because the fairy godmother came to me and told me that Kubrick had
only wanted one Grady ("THEY made me put two Grady's in the film, the
ghosts of the Overlook, the bastards! And because I'm a really stupid
person, unlike that genius novelist Stephen King!").


>.  In the men's room when Delbert says
> who he is, Torrance doesn't say, "Don't you mean Charles Grady?"  No,
> instead he instantly recognizes the name as the caretaker who murdered
> his family.  (This is just as in the novel as well.)  The fact that
> Delbert Grady refers to "correcting" his wife and children prove he is
> the same Grady.

How could we believe anything Delbert Grady says when he also tells
us that he has 'no recollection' of having slaughtered his entire
family and then himself? I mean, is this the sort of 'trivial' event
one is likely to have 'no recollection of''? Why does he at first lie
about this horrendous event, and then soon after - in what is perhaps
the most startling and unnerving scene in the whole film - explains to
Jack Torrance his reasons for having carried out such ('forgotten')
actions? Actions so traumatic that they can only be 'remembered' by a
ghost?

[Sure there are many continuity 'errors' in the film: they're listed
at The Kubrick Site and there have been numerous threads here
exploring them over the years - but isn't the rationale behind such a
fetish to spot them a desire to SIMPLIFY what is otherwise a complex
and disturbing film, to reduce the film down to a conventional,
linear, simple-minded Hollywood mainstream narrative, where everything
has a pre-defined and pre-ordained and obvious 'self-evident' meaning,
where everything miserably conforms to the reactionary and reassuring
ideology of 'common sense', where, in effect, a film is always already
dead? Most mainstream films have numerous continuity errors, mistakes
much more glaring than any in The Shining, yet they are ignored. Why
is this? ("Oh, but wasn't Kubrick supposed to have been a
perfectionist?". Yes, but not that kind. Even Barry Lyndon's
perfectionist NASA-lensed candle-lit scenes contain continuity errors.
But they are IRRELEVANT to the film itself.]

>
> Looking for some deeper meaning in a mistake in the screenplay by an
> overworked director is silly.  

What an extraordinary thing to say about one of the world's leading
directors. He doesn't measure up to your exacting requirements, then?
And what might they be? The incompetent, lazy dreck being churned out
by EVERY Hollywood director (and almost every 'indie' director)
today? Where do you get off here?

There was no 'mistake' in the screenplay, and Kubrick always
'overworked' himself on a film project, a consequence of his intensity
and commitment to the project at hand, which is partly what makes so
many of his films so singular. Alas, it does not appear you've put
much work into your 'analysis' of this film.

Afraid too much work and no play will make you a dull boy :-)?????


>These fictional characters have no
> lives outside the confines of the movie (or pages of the novel), so
> all we have is what was originally intended.  

What? Are you serious here? All we have is not what we see up there on
the screen but only our bizarre FANTASIES about what the film-maker
supposedly might have 'intended'????

With all due respect, but it is clearly the other way around. We have
the film, not someone's wishful fantasizing about a film-maker's
'intentions.'


>And there is no evidence

Huh? No evidence in the film for a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?
Despite the obvious fact that it is precisely the film which provides
us with evidence of a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?

But let's just ignore the evidence of the film, because by doing so we
can then 'demonstrate' and prove that there is no evidence. Shure why
not go the whole way here, take your strange form of 'reasoning' to
its conclusion and say that the film itself does not exist. Therefore,
there is no evidence for it!!

> I can see to suggest that Kubrick intentionally substituted the name
> "Charles" for "Delbert" is some conspiratorial secret meaning.

Oh, so now it's no longer a mistake, a forgetful misjudgment resulting
from Kubrickian exhaustion and directorial oversight, but a clever,
calculated CONSPIRACY! Let's, like Delbert Grady, repress what we
have just claimed, pretend we haven't said what we have just said
(that the duality of Charles and Delbert [in a film replete with
numerous dualities] is a clumsey, incompetent directorial 'mistake').

Kubrick has instantly transformed from being a mistake-prone director
sloppily confusing his charactersand filling his films with dumb
continuity errors to being a Machiavellian master schemer, carefully
inserting elaborate 'secret' codes in his films that are otherwise
interpreted by wise ones as 'mistakes'.

>
> It's not a "puzzle"; it was a simple clerical mistake.  It wasn't
> Kubrick's first.  Nor was it his last.

No, it's not a puzzle. And nor is it a ('clerical'??? WTF??)
'mistake'.

This is not your first mistake (in film criticism). Nor will it be
your last, alas ...

[MP]

> Because Charles Grady was the name of one of the previous caretakers
> at The Overlook, whereas Delbert Grady is the GHOST or spectre of
> Charles Grady. Kubrick is distinguishing between the ontological
> status of a (past) human being and a spectre: if Charles and Delbert
> were 'the same person', then there would be NO DIFFERENCE between a
> human being and a ghost (or, for instance, no difference between
> listening to a live concert and a recording of that concert; attending
> a play and watching a filmed recording of that play; reading a
> historical account and witnessing the later recorded event; between a
> painting and what it supposedly depicts, etc). A spectre like Delbert
> Grady or Lloyd occupies the 'space' between being and nothingness,
> between the metaphysics of presence and the metaphysics of absence,
> that of the UNDEAD, neither physically alive on the one hand nor
> totally departed or dead on the other. A recording ... a return of the
> repressed ... a spectral presence. Just like the photograph of Jack
> Torrance at the end of The Shining. A 'recording' , a fleeting
> snapshot, a spectre of a moment from/in the past. This is what haunts
> us ...

Oh, I like that. I'm putting that on the Kubrick Corner site now.

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 25, 12:22 am, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 9:28 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Hello--
> > >> What are people's thoughts on the meaning behind the two Grady's in "The
> > >> Shining"?  Ullmann says the crazy caretaker's name was Charles Grady.
> > >> Later, Jack meets "Delbert" Grady in the 1921 men's room and it eventually
> > >> comes out that he was the caretaker.  Surely it's not a continuity error.  The
> > >> discrepancy was done on purpose.  Why?
>
> Because Charles Grady was the name of one of the previous caretakers
> at The Overlook, whereas Delbert Grady is the GHOST or spectre of
> Charles Grady. Kubrick is distinguishing between the ontological
> status of a (past) human being and a spectre: if Charles and Delbert
> were 'the same person', then there would be NO DIFFERENCE between a
> human being and a ghost (or, for instance, no difference between
> listening to a live concert and a recording of that concert; attending
> a play and watching a filmed recording of that play; reading a
> historical account and witnessing the later recorded event; between a
> painting and what it supposedly depicts, etc). A spectre like Delbert
> Grady or Lloyd occupies the 'space' between being and nothingness,
> between the metaphysics of presence and the metaphysics of absence,
> that of the UNDEAD, neither physically alive on the one hand nor
> totally departed or dead on the other. A recording ... a return of the
> repressed ... a spectral presence. Just like the photograph of Jack
> Torrance at the end of The Shining. A 'recording' , a fleeting
> snapshot, a spectre of a moment from/in the past. This is what haunts
> us ...
>

The spectres in The Shining, in their absent presences, 'interrupt'
time: "time is out of joint" (PK Dick) in the film, it is dischronic
(and this is what unscrambles the film's otherwise 'linear' narrative
structure, turning it into a maze-like polymorphously perverse
labyrinth, just like the Overlook (and the hedge maze) itself). The
hotel's revenants are anomalies from both the hotel's and Torrances'
history that destabilize accepted reality and rupture any unified
sense of Being, like an anamorphic stain, opening up gaps in the
seamless surfaces of 'reality', generating an unease, an unsettling of
normality and the quotidian state of things. "Let's try this
hypothesis: what haunts is that which cannot be committed to memory
("I have no recollection of that"), that which memories both allude to
and cover over. Hauntology concerns that which does not exist but that
which insists, that which repeats without ever being present in the
first place (that is, at any point of origin.)". This is also known as
Death Drive, that which persists in spite of everything, including
death, that which defies death, similar to the famous expression "the
return of the repressed". Excessive presence leaves no traces.
Hauntology's absent present, meanwhile, is nothing but traces....

Hardly at all surprising, then, that a film whose very narrative
structure is deliberately rendered 'out of joint', where space and
time (the vertiginous spaces of the Overlook and the events of its
fractured time) are disrupted, should be seen to have numerous
'continuity errors' .... It is as if there is an unconscious desire on
our part to retrospectively 'reconstruct' the film, to remove all
anomalies and restore or re-suture it into the familiar, linear,
'wholesome' and seamless chronological narrative where all gaps are
filled in, all doubts are resolved, and the illusion of a unified
unambiguous completely 'sensible' and 'self-evident' order is
restored, where everything is in its place and there is a pre-assigned
place for everything. Something similar was the response to David
Lynch's Mulholland Drive, another example of the fractured
hauntological narrative.


Some very interesting quotes on the subject of the nature of the
revenant, ghosts, and hauntings:

'The ghost as a cipher of iteration is particularly suggestive. At the
beginning of "Specters of Marx", Derrida talks about the way in which
the anticipated return of the ghost may be mobilized on behalf of a
deconstruction of all historicisms that are grounded in a rigid sense
of chronology. 'Haunting is historical, to be sure', he writes, 'but
it is not dated, it is never docilely given a date in the chain of
presents, day after day, according to the instituted order of the
calendar .' The question of the revenant neatly encapsulates
deconstructive concerns about the impossibility of conceptually
solidifying the past. Ghosts arrive from the past and appear in the
present. However, the ghost cannot be properly said to belong to the
past, even if the apparition represents someone who has been dead for
many centuries, for the simple reason that a ghost is clearly not the
same thing as the person who shares its proper name. Does then the
'historical' person who is identified with the ghost properly belong
to the present? Surely not, as the idea of a return from death
fractures all traditional conceptions of temporality. The temporality
to which the ghost is subject is therefore paradoxical, as at once
they 'return' and make their apparitional debut. Derrida has been
pleased to term this dual movement of return and inauguration a
'hauntology', a coinage that suggests a spectrally deferred non-
origin within grounding metaphysical terms such as history and
identity."
From :- Buse, P., & Scott, A., (ed's), Ghosts: Deconstruction,
Psychoanalysis, History, London : Macmillan, 1999.

And another great analysis and definition of this 'haunting' or
hauntology and its application to music, making it even more relevant
to The Shining (particularly Kubrick's use of Al Bowlly's hauntingly
dischronic 1920s "It's All Forgotten Now" in the red bathroom scene):

"The phrase 'Hauntology' was coined by Jacques Derrida (not Deleuze)
in his Specters of Marx during which he reflects on the persistance of
the concept of (utopian) revolution despite its apparent eradication
from the scene of politics and history (the book is a 'work of
mourning' published in the early 90s after the fall of the Berlin Wall
and the inaugeration of the 'end of history'). As such the concept of
social and political revolution takes on a ghostly aspect - present
and not present, eluding the catagorical definintion of western
metaphysics, apparently erased yet still palpable in traces and echoes
and uncanny visitations. Obviously, transplanting such a shadowy
concept to the scene of (pop) music is no straightforward operation
but as far as I can work out the concept is deployed towards a music
that employs certain strategies of disinternment - a disinternment of
styles, sounds, even techniques and modes of production now abandoned,
forgotten or erased by history. The classic example, I think, is the
music that is released on the Ghost Box label, which evokes a strain
of electronic musical 'futurism' that was most notable in the 70s (but
was also around before then) - the BBC Radiophonic Workshop sound [eg
the original theme music for the BBC Dr Who SF TV series] of spooky
analogue synthesizers etc. Listening to that music (and I must admit I
haven't heard much) is like encountering a revenant - a return in
figurative form of a glimpse of a future that never was, a visionary
dream that was envisioned once but which slipped out of collective
memory. The concept of hauntology however tends to be more loosely
deployed, and in particular to music that employs samples and
especially dub reggae techniques that reanimate styles and sounds that
hover, suggestively, around the edges of the day to day. Such
techniques foreground the 're' in recorded music and evoke the Janus-
like status of music as recorded artifact, facing both backwards and
forwards simultaneously, an inscripted trace that is neither presence
nor absence but a spectral apparation that both references and eludes
such binary oppositional catagories..."

And in film? Apart from The Shining and some of Lynch's work (Gondry's
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind also explores this topic via its
analysis of memory engineering), another brilliant example of such
hauntology might be Chris Marker's La Jetee (and much of his other
work, from Sans Soleil to The Cat Without A Grin). Needless to say,
what's interesting about the 'ghosts' or spectres in The Shining, as
in these other examples, is precisely the fact that they are not
supernatural (they are not some magical being or entity hovering in
some other 'dimension', not the stuff of traditional ghost stories and
Hollywood 'horror' movies), and are therefore all the more real.

[Jonathan Hoyle]

On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Because Charles Grady was the name of one of the previous caretakers
> at The Overlook, whereas Delbert Grady is the GHOST or spectre of
> Charles Grady.

And exactly how did Jack Torrence know this? His reaction (just as in
the novel) was as if Delbert Grady was the name of the caretaker.

> Kubrick is distinguishing between the ontological
> status of a (past) human being and a spectre: if Charles and Delbert
> were 'the same person', then there would be NO DIFFERENCE between a
> human being and a ghost (or, for instance, no difference between
> listening to a live concert and a recording of that concert; attending
> a play and watching a filmed recording of that play; reading a
> historical account and witnessing the later recorded event; between a
> painting and what it supposedly depicts, etc). A spectre like Delbert
> Grady or Lloyd occupies the 'space' between being and nothingness,
> between the metaphysics of presence and the metaphysics of absence,
> that of the UNDEAD, neither physically alive on the one hand nor
> totally departed or dead on the other. A recording ... a return of the
> repressed ... a spectral presence. Just like the photograph of Jack
> Torrance at the end of The Shining. A 'recording' , a fleeting
> snapshot, a spectre of a moment from/in the past. This is what haunts
> us ...

And you know this because...? What, maybe a Kubrick interview where
he says "I intentionally changed the Grady character's name in one
instance"? Certainly not one I've ever heard of. (Sounds more like
fanboy retroactive continuity to me.)

Is it really too hard to believe that it's a simple naming mistake?

> > Why do you say "Surely it's not a continuity error"?  Almost certainly
> > that's what it is.
>
> The problem with this approach to film 'interpretation' is that it
> reduces the complexity of the film, attributing all its paradoxes,
> contradictions, affects, uneasy couplings and identifications - in
> short, what makes it a singular work of art - to 'error', to being a
> mistake ("Let's butcher the work into order to 'correct' it", like
> Grady's attempt to 'correct' his family and reassert a reactionary
> unified patriarchy). Effectively, it is to respond to a complex work
> with, "I don't understand this and I feel uneasy about that. Therefore
> it is all wrong and must be 'corrected' so that all my unexamined
> presuppositions about the world and the film can be restored.

Or it's an admission that continuity mistakes occur in films because
people aren't perfect.

Look, I'm not arguing (as some do) that Kubrick destroyed King's novel
and everything he did was bad. I think that the Shining is one of the
best examples of modern horror on film. But are you saying there
can't be *ANY* continuity errors? How about at the bar when Lloyd
gives him his drink, his glass of whiskey alternates back and forth
between 3/4 full to 1/4 full? Do we say that the ghosts are
constantly draining and filling his glass between cuts? Or how about
the lack of frosted breath when Jack is chasing Danny in the maze,
when it is supposed to be freezing out. What secret meaning can we
ascribe to this?

And with the script being constantly in flux (Kubrick rewriting it
throughout filming), there are bound to be errors. For example, how
long has Jack been on the wagon before he drinks with Lloyd? Is it
five months (as he tells Lloyd), or three years (the time since he
hurt Danny's arm, which Wendy says he hasn't touched a drop since)?

> There are numerous differences between novel and film. Does this make
> all those differences in the film a 'mistake'? The hedge maze is a
> 'mistake'?

Not at all. But you're suggesting that Kubrick inserted an
intentional difference, for which nothing later in the film ties in.
Let me get this right: Kubrick purposefully inserted a second Grady, a
Charles Grady, made HIM be the killer, but later in the film introduce
a Delbert Grady and then leave it all unexplained (except by newgroup
posters that is). Is that it?

> There is a reference to Charles Grady in the film. Is there a quota of
> references that a film must instantiate in order to qualify as valid
> and legitimate, as opposed to being in 'error'?

How about a single instance in the film to coroborate that it was
intentional and not a continuity error. You are assuming an elaborate
unsubstantiated conspiracy as an explanation when a simple clerical
error will suffice.

> Have you here some special privileged access to Kubrick's supposed
> 'intentions'? Like Danny Torrance, you are magically blessed with 'the
> shining', you can clairvoyantly 'read' Kubrick's thoughts on the
> matter and conclude that Kubrick's film 'mistakenly' had two Grady's
> because the fairy godmother came to me and told me that Kubrick had
> only wanted one Grady ("THEY made me put two Grady's in the film, the
> ghosts of the Overlook, the bastards! And because I'm a really stupid
> person, unlike that genius novelist Stephen King!").

Oh this is rich. You come up with this elaborate explanation for what
Kubrick was thinking, and now *I'm* the one who needs to have "special
privileged access" to Kubrick's mind when I say it was a goof.
Please.
> > Looking for some deeper meaning in a mistake in the screenplay by an
> > overworked director is silly.  
>
> What an extraordinary thing to say about one of the world's leading
> directors. He doesn't measure up to your exacting requirements, then?
> And what might they be? The incompetent, lazy dreck being churned out
> by EVERY Hollywood director  (and almost every 'indie'  director)
> today? Where do you get off here?

I should ask you the same question, considering I never said or
intimated any of the words you put in my mouth. No wonder you are so
bad at analyzing this film. You can't even read my post without
substituting your own bias for what I must mean by them.

What "negative" thing have I said about Kubrick? That he's human?
That he was overworked in his 200 day shooting schedule on the film?
From this we get that he "doesn't measure up to [my] exacting
requirements"? My God, your jumps to conclusions are as bad with my
posts are they are with Kubrick's film.

> > I can see to suggest that Kubrick intentionally substituted the name
> > "Charles" for "Delbert" is some conspiratorial secret meaning.
>
> Oh, so now it's no longer a mistake, a forgetful misjudgment resulting
> from Kubrickian exhaustion and directorial oversight, but a clever,
> calculated CONSPIRACY!  Let's, like Delbert Grady, repress what we
> have just claimed, pretend we haven't said what we have just said
> (that the duality of Charles and Delbert [in a film replete with
> numerous dualities] is a clumsey, incompetent directorial 'mistake').
>
> Kubrick has instantly transformed from being a mistake-prone director
> sloppily confusing his charactersand filling his films with dumb
> continuity errors to being a Machiavellian master schemer, carefully
> inserting elaborate 'secret' codes in his films that are otherwise
> interpreted by wise ones as 'mistakes'.

Well, it looks like you are doing with me EXACTLY what you did with
Kubrick. When I wrote "I can see...", I meant to write "I can't
see...". Simply clerical error, totally my fault. I meant to write
that it makes no sense for him to do that. Yet instead of seeing it
as an obvious error, you instead build a brand new conspiracy.

My God man, take a breath. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you.
I am merely pointing out that this "Grady puzzle" can be simply and
easily answered as a mistake. It appears obvious to me, although
apparently not to you. With Kubrick not around anymore to ask, we
will have to agree to disagree.

We can disagree without this devolving into a flame war, can't we?

Jonathan Hoyle
http://www.jonhoyle.com

[MP]

> Is it really too hard to believe that it's a simple naming mistake?

But to call it a mistake is to ignore the rest of the film. There's a
difference between a continuity error and 2 Gradys, their identities
purposefully blurred. In a film filled with doubles, mirrors and
paired off characters, it's illogical to assume that Charles Grady,
the previous caretaker, and Delbert Grady, a butler from the 20s, are
one and the same.


>  But are you saying there can't be *ANY* continuity errors?  

Of course the Shining has continuity errors. But you don't see people
rationalising helicopter shadows, Danny's sandwich or broken door
panels. There's a difference between goofs and semiotics.

> And with the script being constantly in flux (Kubrick rewriting it
> throughout filming), there are bound to be errors.  For example, how
> long has Jack been on the wagon before he drinks with Lloyd?  Is it
> five months (as he tells Lloyd), or three years (the time since he
> hurt Danny's arm, which Wendy says he hasn't touched a drop since)?

And? Ullman tells Jack of Charles' identity, and yet Jack claims that
he learnt of Charles' identity from the newspapers. Delbert says he
did not murder his family, and yet moments later he contradicts
himself and claims the he "corrected" them. Later, Jack sees
apparitions in room 237 and promptly denies it in the very next
scene.

Wendy's forgetting how long he's been on the wagon is consistent with
the theme of the film. I don't see how you can cite this as an error
or oversight when the very language of the film is filled with such
things.

Had Jack believed Delbert to be the man Ullman spoke of, then he would
not have mentioned newspapers and "pictures" at all. Jack learns of
Charles from Ullman. Jack learns of Delbert from pictures in a book.

[Jonathan Hoyle]

On Sep 25, 12:45 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Is it really too hard to believe that it's a simple naming mistake?
>
> But to call it a mistake is to ignore the rest of the film. There's a
> difference between a continuity error and 2 Gradys, their identities
> purposefully blurred. In a film filled with doubles, mirrors and
> paired off characters, it's illogical to assume that Charles Grady,
> the previous caretaker, and Delbert Grady, a butler from the 20s, are
> one and the same.

Not illogical to me. Nor is it illogical to anyone who has read the
original King novel in which this is what precisely happened. (The
novel I remind you which inspired Kubrick to adapt it in the first
place.)

The novel goes even further, by pointing out the strange
transformation of Delbert Grady being a average speaking American who
killed himself and his family in 1970, to a well-spoken sophisticated
butler fitting into the time-blurred hotel.

You want to interpret this as "proof" that Kubrick was intentionally
introducing two Grady's, when in fact it is nothing more than faithful
adherence to the original novel's dialog with only one Grady.

> > And with the script being constantly in flux (Kubrick rewriting it
> > throughout filming), there are bound to be errors.  For example, how
> > long has Jack been on the wagon before he drinks with Lloyd?  Is it
> > five months (as he tells Lloyd), or three years (the time since he
> > hurt Danny's arm, which Wendy says he hasn't touched a drop since)?
>
> And? Ullman tells Jack of Charles' identity, and yet Jack claims that
> he learnt of Charles' identity from the newspapers.
<snip>

Yes, although I do not view this as an error, as Jack could have
looked it up after the fact. In the novel, this is what happens, as
he sees Delbert Grady's picture in a hotel scrapbook in a 1970
newspaper article detailing the grisly murder. Hardly a detail one
would expect to be detailed in the film, but not exactly a
contradiction just because it is omitted in the film.

Jonathan Hoyle
http://www.jonhoyle.com

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 25, 3:57 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Because Charles Grady was the name of one of the previous caretakers
> > at The Overlook, whereas Delbert Grady is the GHOST or spectre of
> > Charles Grady.
>
> And exactly how did Jack Torrence know this?  His reaction (just as in
> the novel) was as if Delbert Grady was the name of the caretaker.
>

I'm intrigued that you seem more concerned with resolving seemingly
trivial factual anomalies (Delbert versus Charles) than with the much
greater anomaly, the reality shattering 'discontinuity' of Jack
standing there in the red bathroom talking to a GHOST!! Why, in other
words, are you so keen to label all 'factual' anomalies in the film as
'mistakes' , as continuity errors, though you have no difficulty with
the much more glaring perceptual anomalies in the film: for instance,
the fact that this Delbert Grady is a spectre apparently from the
1920s. How could Jack possibly be TALKING to someone long dead from
the 1920s? How could Jack now be 'in the 1920s' drinking alcohol
looking forward to the 'duck and goose soiree' later in the evening?
How could this Delbert Grady as a butler/waiter in the 1920s be the
'same' as the caretaker Charles Grady in the 1970s? How could this
Delber Grady be a waiter serving guests at a party in the 1920s
Overlook if he is supposed to be the caretaker of a deserted hotel
during the Winter months? Are all these anomalies, and many more, all
'mistakes' too? All 'continuity errors', and much more significant and
fundamental than a pedantic fixation with Grady's supposed first name?

Or can we conclude that Jack's reaction, like our's, to this spectral
Delbert Grady in the bathroom, is one of extraordinary confusion, is
one of ontological doubt, of dischronic ambiguity, of perceptual
rupture?

> > Kubrick is distinguishing between the ontological
> > status of a (past) human being and a spectre: if Charles and Delbert
> > were 'the same person', then there would be NO DIFFERENCE between a
> > human being and a ghost (or, for instance, no difference between
> > listening to a live concert and a recording of that concert; attending
> > a play and watching a filmed recording of that play; reading a
> > historical account and witnessing the later recorded event; between a
> > painting and what it supposedly depicts, etc). A spectre like Delbert
> > Grady or Lloyd occupies the 'space' between being and nothingness,
> > between the metaphysics of presence and the metaphysics of absence,
> > that of the UNDEAD, neither physically alive on the one hand nor
> > totally departed or dead on the other. A recording ... a return of the
> > repressed ... a spectral presence. Just like the photograph of Jack
> > Torrance at the end of The Shining. A 'recording' , a fleeting
> > snapshot, a spectre of a moment from/in the past. This is what haunts
> > us ...
>
> And you know this because...?  

Because it is what we witness in the film, what we see and hear on
and from the screen. You are claiming that what we see and witness on
the screen should not be on the screen, should in effect be
eliminated, should be 'corrected', that the film should be returned to
the editors and re-cut/censored etc to 'fit' with your expectations of
what it should be, to DEMAND that the film accord with your own
preconceptions about what it ought to be about, that the film is
'wrong' and should be 'rectified' to correspond with what you believe
it should be. This is why Kubrick got to hell as far away from
Hollywood, and interference by others in his work, as he could ...


>What, maybe a Kubrick interview where
> he says "I intentionally changed the Grady character's name in one
> instance"?  

Kubrick's supposed or imagined 'intentions' have no bearing on this
matter. Why are you so obsessed with constructing these 'intentions',
conjuring them up, in order to justify your rejection of what we
clearly see and hear in the film? You are effectively calling for the
dismissal of films as independent affective artefacts, for their
complete rejection and replacement by the (imagined or posited)
'intentions', the subjectified imaginings, of the film-maker instead:
don't bother watching the film, it's all a compendium of 'mistakes'
and 'errors', let's just concentrate and listen to an author's
'intentions' instead (and in a film that questions the whole notion of
'authorship' and intentionality and agency!).

>Certainly not one I've ever heard of.  (Sounds more like
> fanboy retroactive continuity to me.)

Now you're seeking refuge in imaginary counterfactuals: because
Kubrick never expressed his 'intention', therefore it - the Charles/
Delbert discrepancy - is a mistake! But if he had expressed his
intentions, he would have 'admitted' that it's a mistake!! Your
'Kubrick' is a strawman construction invoked to give imaginary
authority to your questionable claims.

[And Kubrick, BTW, was notorious for NOT 'explaining' his films, or
elaborating his intentions. Doing so reduces a film, rendering it as
just some subjectivist fantasy construction. Works of art never
coincide with the author's 'intentions'. They are not Gods.]

>
> Is it really too hard to believe that it's a simple naming mistake?

What is much more pertinent is your insistence, your obsessional need
to believe that it is a 'mistake.' Why your fixation on this fairly
trivial anomaly in a film teeming, seething with anomalies? They're
all mistakes too, right? The film is one Whopper Of A MISTAKE!! And
you're here to 'correct' it!!???

>
> > > Why do you say "Surely it's not a continuity error"?  Almost certainly
> > > that's what it is.
>
> > The problem with this approach to film 'interpretation' is that it
> > reduces the complexity of the film, attributing all its paradoxes,
> > contradictions, affects, uneasy couplings and identifications - in
> > short, what makes it a singular work of art - to 'error', to being a
> > mistake ("Let's butcher the work into order to 'correct' it", like
> > Grady's attempt to 'correct' his family and reassert a reactionary
> > unified patriarchy). Effectively, it is to respond to a complex work
> > with, "I don't understand this and I feel uneasy about that. Therefore
> > it is all wrong and must be 'corrected' so that all my unexamined
> > presuppositions about the world and the film can be restored.
>
> Or it's an admission that continuity mistakes occur in films because
> people aren't perfect.

Again, why your selective fixation on spotting continuity errors in
THIS film? Why not pick on, say, a Spielberg movie. I'm sure you'll
find plenty there too. Or in the films of any other director. I've
already referred to the fact that there's already a long list of such
'errors' itemized at The Kubrick Site and at numerous other sites and
that the phenomenon has already been discussed to death on this
newsgroup in the past [a simple google groops search of the archive
will confirm this]. The interesting part is that, as already argued in
a previous post, it is the very dischronic and discontinuous narrative
structure of the film itself which defensively provokes us into a kind-
of 'continuity error' treasure hunt, in our efforts to 'make sense' of
the film. It isn't particularly productive or insightful - beyond the
realization that if you take a microscope to anything, it will reveal
more discrepancies, as with quantum mechanics - such a 'literal-
minded' approach to the film eventually just destroys it, until it all
becomes a 'mistake.' Ironically, it is an attempt to find a 'hidden
meaning' that produces this effect: the film resists such attempts,
collapsing into incoherent 'continuity errors' and even more
anomalies.

> > There are numerous differences between novel and film. Does this make
> > all those differences in the film a 'mistake'? The hedge maze is a
> > 'mistake'?
>
> Not at all.  But you're suggesting that Kubrick inserted an
> intentional difference,

It would help considerable if you put aside for even a moment your
fixation on 'intentionality', as if there must be a rigid, linear,
causal relation between the posited intentions of an author/film-maker
etc and the completed work. There isn't. I've already argued why I
believe there is a Delbert/Charles discrepancy. 'Intentionality' has
nothing to do with it.

>for which nothing later in the film ties in.
> Let me get this right: Kubrick purposefully inserted a second Grady, a
> Charles Grady, made HIM be the killer,

Ullman in the film informs Jack that a Charles Grady was a previous
caretaker who murdered his family.


>but later in the film introduce
> a Delbert Grady and then leave it all unexplained (except by newgroup
> posters that is).  Is that it?

You want all films to be 'explained' to you, or to be 'self-
explanatory'? To be all straightforward black and white like a
Spielberg movie? Is that the source of your objection to The Shining
and eagerness to find 'mistakes' in it?

Delbert Grady is a spectre, he - or 'it' - is not Charles Grady.
Surely THAT is, um, obvious, or at least a reasonable accounting for
the difference? You want Delbert Grady to be ontologically identical
to Charles Grady, but clearly, this is a ridiculous demand. How could
he be Charles Grady, a previous actual caretaker who died in the
1970s? Delbert Grady apparently resides in a no-time, both in the
1920s and in Jack's contemporary time, and he's not even human ...

>
> > There is a reference to Charles Grady in the film. Is there a quota of
> > references that a film must instantiate in order to qualify as valid
> > and legitimate, as opposed to being in 'error'?
>
> How about a single instance in the film to coroborate that it was
> intentional and not a continuity error.  

Again, Ullman refers to a previous caretaker as a Charles Grady.


>You are assuming

I'm not assuming anything. You are doing so: assuming that what Ullman
says is a 'mistake.'


>an elaborate
> unsubstantiated conspiracy as an explanation when a simple clerical
> error will suffice.

On the contrary, you are assuming precisely such a 'conspiracy', an
elaborate attempt by persons unknown to fill the film with deliberate
'continuity errors.'

[BTW, there is a conspiracy in the film: the hotel, via its spectres,
conspires to entrap Jack]

>
> > Have you here some special privileged access to Kubrick's supposed
> > 'intentions'? Like Danny Torrance, you are magically blessed with 'the
> > shining', you can clairvoyantly 'read' Kubrick's thoughts on the
> > matter and conclude that Kubrick's film 'mistakenly' had two Grady's
> > because the fairy godmother came to me and told me that Kubrick had
> > only wanted one Grady ("THEY made me put two Grady's in the film, the
> > ghosts of the Overlook, the bastards! And because I'm a really stupid
> > person, unlike that genius novelist Stephen King!").
>
> Oh this is rich.  You come up with this elaborate explanation for what
> Kubrick was thinking, and now *I'm* the one who needs to have "special
> privileged access" to Kubrick's mind when I say it was a goof.
> Please.

But that is what you are claiming here: that Kubrick did not 'intend'
to have the previous caretaker called Charles Grady. Where is YOUR
evidence for such a claim? And you have made no attempt to explain why
you believe it to be a 'goof' beyond recourse to Kubrick's supposed
intentions. So it is reasonable to conclude that you imagine yourself
to have privileged access to such intentions.

>
> > > Looking for some deeper meaning in a mistake in the screenplay by an
> > > overworked director is silly.  
>
> > What an extraordinary thing to say about one of the world's leading
> > directors. He doesn't measure up to your exacting requirements, then?
> > And what might they be? The incompetent, lazy dreck being churned out
> > by EVERY Hollywood director  (and almost every 'indie'  director)
> > today? Where do you get off here?
>
> I should ask you the same question, considering I never said or
> intimated any of the words you put in my mouth.  No wonder you are so
> bad at analyzing this film.

Well, you haven't actually analysed it AT ALL. You have done nothing
more than dismiss as a 'mistake' something that doesn't make any sense
to you, and justified it by appealing to an imaginary strawman.  


>You can't even read my post without
> substituting your own bias for what I must mean by them.

Call it what you like, but you have not provided any credible
explanation nor elaborated what exactly you 'mean' by your claims.
>
> What "negative" thing have I said about Kubrick?  

Dismissing two different characters' names as a 'mistake' is hardly an
example of positivistic flattery.

> > > I can see to suggest that Kubrick intentionally substituted the name
> > > "Charles" for "Delbert" is some conspiratorial secret meaning.
>
> > Oh, so now it's no longer a mistake, a forgetful misjudgment resulting
> > from Kubrickian exhaustion and directorial oversight, but a clever,
> > calculated CONSPIRACY!  Let's, like Delbert Grady, repress what we
> > have just claimed, pretend we haven't said what we have just said
> > (that the duality of Charles and Delbert [in a film replete with
> > numerous dualities] is a clumsey, incompetent directorial 'mistake').
>
> > Kubrick has instantly transformed from being a mistake-prone director
> > sloppily confusing his charactersand filling his films with dumb
> > continuity errors to being a Machiavellian master schemer, carefully
> > inserting elaborate 'secret' codes in his films that are otherwise
> > interpreted by wise ones as 'mistakes'.
>
> Well, it looks like you are doing with me EXACTLY what you did with
> Kubrick.  When I wrote "I can see...", I meant to write "I can't
> see...".

Really? When you write "I see" we are all supposed to interpret this
expression as the contrary, as "I can't see"??

Thank you for that clarification.

And what 'exactly' did I do with Kubrick? It is you who is claiming
that the film contains this mistake, that Charles should be Delbert,
etc, without providing any argument or analysis or evidence. 


>Simply clerical error, totally my fault.  I meant to write
> that it makes no sense for him to do that.  Yet instead of seeing it
> as an obvious error, you instead build a brand new conspiracy.

???? This makes no sense whatsoever. Your original sentence claimed
that the supposed 'mistakes' in the film were part of some conspiracy
on Kubrick's part. Maybe he was conspiring with Lloyd and Delbert and
the Martians.

>
> My God man, take a breath.  I'm not trying to pick a fight with you.
> I am merely pointing out that this "Grady puzzle" can be simply and
> easily answered as a mistake.  

But you're not 'merely' pointing out, as though the claim was entirely
modest and trivial and without any impact on one's responses to or
interpretations of the film. You seem desperate in your insistence
that it is a 'mistake', as though your entire understanding of the
film depended on this claim.

[Jonathan Hoyle]

Harry,

icorwhip suggested that perhaps you and I got off on the wrong foot,
and your flaming responses were not characteristic of you. In that
spirit, I will resume responding to your posts in the hopes that we
can elevate this discussion back to its proper level.

> Kubrick's supposed or imagined 'intentions' have no bearing on this
> matter. Why are you so obsessed with constructing these 'intentions',
> conjuring them up, in order to justify your rejection of what we
> clearly see and hear in the film? You are effectively calling for the
> dismissal of films as independent affective artefacts, for their
> complete rejection and replacement by the (imagined or posited)
> 'intentions', the subjectified imaginings, of the film-maker instead:
> don't bother watching the film, it's all a compendium of 'mistakes'
> and 'errors', let's just concentrate and listen to an author's
> 'intentions' instead (and in a film that questions the whole notion of
> 'authorship' and intentionality and agency!).

That's certainly not my perspective, and you seem quite keen to create
a straw man of me pointing out mistakes that I have never pointed
out. I don't know what "compendium of mistakes" you think I have, but
I do not recall posting anything other than the calling Grady
"Charles" at that one point.

As for my concentration on "intentions", is this not the central
issue? After all, it is a fictional story. Outside of Kubrick's
intentions, what else is there? For sake of argument, if he did
intentionally rename the murderer "Charles", then my claim that this
was an unintentional continuity error is false. If on the other hand
Kubrick had no intention of renaming the character, then any
"explanation" for retroactive continuity is simply more fiction. (And
it's not even Kubrick's fiction, it's now your's.) Finally, there is
the possibility that it was an intentional continuity error, with no
"real" meaning behind it but just to spur up discussion.

With Kubrick dead, it's not like we can ask him directly. Nothing you
have used as support for the "Two Grady's" theory is at all compelling
for me. Some of the dialog you cite for support is the same dialog
from the original King novel, which contains only one Grady. If the
same dialog can be consistently used with the one, it's hardly
persuasive to say that it must mean that we have two Grady's. As for
your points on duality, and the unusual position that a spectre can't
have the same name as the person, these seem rather forced and
strained to me. I remain unpersuaded. I would find the argument far
more compelling if there was something else in the film that also
reinforced a second Grady. After all, an intentional change like that
would invite a reason to do so. But further Grady appearances match
pretty much what the book did. I suppose the name change could be
there to inspire thought (and if so, it worked). But the simplest
explanation (to me) is a continuity error.


> [And Kubrick, BTW, was notorious for NOT 'explaining' his films, or
> elaborating his intentions. Doing so reduces a film, rendering it as
> just some subjectivist fantasy construction. Works of art never
> coincide with the author's 'intentions'. They are not Gods.]

This much I understand as well. The photograph at the end is a good
example. Is the picture indicating that Jack Torrance is now obsorbed
into the hotel with all the other ghosts, or was Torrance a
reincarnation to begin with? I tend to believe the former (and this
more closely approximates what the book would have led you to think),
but there are adherents on both sides.


> > Is it really too hard to believe that it's a simple naming mistake?
>
> What is much more pertinent is your insistence, your obsessional need
> to believe that it is a 'mistake.' Why your fixation on this fairly
> trivial anomaly in a film teeming, seething with anomalies? They're
> all mistakes too, right? The film is one Whopper Of A MISTAKE!! And
> you're here to 'correct' it!!???

You are reflecting your own degree of vehemence onto me. You may be
surprised to hear that I think it is a relatively minor error. I
think this is evidenced by the fact that most people who watched the
film (at least that I know) did not come away from the movie think
there were two Grady's, each with a wife and two daughters, each of
whom killed his family and committed suicide in the hotel. No, I
think most people would have walked away thinking there was only one
Grady. Furthermore, I don't think many people even caught the fact
that he was at one point called Charles.


> > Or it's an admission that continuity mistakes occur in films because
> > people aren't perfect.
>
> Again, why your selective fixation on spotting continuity errors in
> THIS film? Why not pick on, say, a Spielberg movie. I'm sure you'll
> find plenty there too. Or in the films of any other director. I've
> already referred to the fact that there's already a long list of such
> 'errors' itemized at The Kubrick Site and at numerous other sites and
> that the phenomenon has already been discussed to death on this
> newsgroup in the past [a simple google groops search of the archive
> will confirm this].
<snip>

Again, no fixation at all. And yes, one certainly can (and many in
fact do) pick on very mistakes in other films. There are of course
many famous and beloved movies with obvious errors. The Americans
never marched into Berlin in 1918 as Captain Renault suggested in
Casablanca. Young Clark Kent couldn't have been a teenager in the
1950's and be aged 30 in 1978 as suggested in Superman The Movie. One
of my favorites is how the Millennium Falcon "ran the Kessel Run in
less than 12 parsecs." A parsec is a unit of distance not a unit of
time. Many of my fellow sci-fi geeks have tried justifying this with
black holes and such to somehow have this make sense, arguing that
George Lucas intended to say this and he was smarter than we all
thought! In fact, he simply slipped up. In the Star Wars
novelization, he corrected it by replacing "parsecs" with "standard
time units". Hey, these things happen.


> > What "negative" thing have I said about Kubrick?  
>
> Dismissing two different characters' names as a 'mistake' is hardly an
> example of positivistic flattery.

Are those my only choices? I cannot think positively about a director
without assuming infallibility?


Well, I suppose that pretty much sums up my perspective on this. I am
not sure what else I can say that would make my point of view any
clearer. If you wish to continue the discussion by pointing out some
thing you think I haven't considered, I invite you to do so. If you
have wearied of this discussion, I shall understand that as well.

Regards,

Jonathan Hoyle
http://www.jonhoyle.com

[Math1723]

On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Huh? No evidence in the film for a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?
> Despite the obvious fact that it is precisely the film which provides
> us with evidence of a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?

Couldn't he have been named Charles Delbert Grady? Then there's only
one Grady to worry about: called Charles by the newspapers (since that
was his first name), but he called himself Delbert.

Of course there's still the problem as to how Jack Torrance recognized
the wrong name as the murderer, but we'll that as an exercise. :-)

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 25, 8:18 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Huh? No evidence in the film for a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?
> > Despite the obvious fact that it is precisely the film which provides
> > us with evidence of a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?
>
> Couldn't he have been named Charles Delbert Grady?  

I'm sure if we wanted to we could imagine all manner and kind of
fanciful name, and continue to dismiss what we actually see in the
film.

<
<Then there's only
> one Grady to worry about: called Charles by the newspapers (since that
> was his first name), but he called himself Delbert.

Again, this misses the crucial point: even if the spectre, 'Delbert',
had introduced 'himself' as Charles, he would still not be the
caretaker Charles Grady. Charles Grady is dead: he killed himself in
the 1970s prior to Jack's arrival as the new caretaker. The Grady in
the bathroom is a spectre (Mr Hoyle is trying to quite bizarrely claim
that there is no difference between a human being and an apparition, a
ghost, that when Grady died, he didn't really die at all, but
continued residing at the Overlook as if nothing has happened), not of
any particular dead being, but of previous Overlook caretakers/butlers/
waiters (and there may indeed have been a butler in the 1920s Overlook
called 'Delbert', but with some other surname), and Jack is now being
set up by the Hotel's revenants to 'do his duty': after he does his
duty, after he dies, there will be a new addition to a continuing
murderous and spectral legacy. Jack as spectre 'will always have been
there' too. Perhaps a future caretaker will encounter a Jack Grady or
a Delbert Torrance in the red bathroom, and the pattern of spectral
caretaker patriarchal inheritance will be repeated, with similar
results ...

[Math1723]

On Sep 25, 3:45 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 8:18 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Huh? No evidence in the film for a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?
> > > Despite the obvious fact that it is precisely the film which provides
> > > us with evidence of a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?
>
> > Couldn't he have been named Charles Delbert Grady?  
>
> I'm sure if we wanted to we could imagine all manner and kind of
> fanciful name, and continue to dismiss what we actually see in the
> film.

Oh, did you see a birth certificate or something in the film that
definitively indicates that his name is not Charles Delbert Grady?

> <Then there's only
> > one Grady to worry about: called Charles by the newspapers (since that
> > was his first name), but he called himself Delbert.
>
> Again, this misses the crucial point: even if the spectre, 'Delbert',
> had introduced 'himself' as Charles, he would still not be the
> caretaker Charles Grady. Charles Grady is dead: he killed himself in
> the 1970s prior to Jack's arrival as the new caretaker. The Grady in
> the bathroom is a spectre

Why does becoming a spectre require a name change?

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 25, 10:27 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 3:45 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 25, 8:18 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Huh? No evidence in the film for a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?
> > > > Despite the obvious fact that it is precisely the film which provides
> > > > us with evidence of a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?
>
> > > Couldn't he have been named Charles Delbert Grady?  
>
> > I'm sure if we wanted to we could imagine all manner and kind of
> > fanciful name, and continue to dismiss what we actually see in the
> > film.
>
> Oh, did you see a birth certificate or something in the film that
> definitively indicates that his name is not Charles Delbert Grady?

For someone using the avatar "math1723" it is indeed odd that you seem
unaware of a fundamental logical axiom, that it is impossible to prove
a negative. And there is a reason for this: the onus of proof falls on
those making such nonsensical claims and ludicrous demands as your's
above. Your imaginings are now taking you into the realm of the
infantile and delusional. Would you care to 'prove' that Grady is not
a Martian? That George Bush is not a Goblin? That John McCain is not a
Leprechaun?

>
> > <Then there's only
> > > one Grady to worry about: called Charles by the newspapers (since that
> > > was his first name), but he called himself Delbert.
>
> > Again, this misses the crucial point: even if the spectre, 'Delbert',
> > had introduced 'himself' as Charles, he would still not be the
> > caretaker Charles Grady. Charles Grady is dead: he killed himself in
> > the 1970s prior to Jack's arrival as the new caretaker. The Grady in
> > the bathroom is a spectre
>
> Why does becoming a spectre require a name change?

Charles Grady has not 'become' a spectre. Charles Grady is dead.
Nothing 'becomes' a spectre. Spectres are that which have always
been ... "I should know, I've always been one."

[Math1723]

On Sep 25, 6:08 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 10:27 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 3:45 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 8:18 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Huh? No evidence in the film for a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?
> > > > > Despite the obvious fact that it is precisely the film which provides
> > > > > us with evidence of a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?
>
> > > > Couldn't he have been named Charles Delbert Grady?  
>
> > > I'm sure if we wanted to we could imagine all manner and kind of
> > > fanciful name, and continue to dismiss what we actually see in the
> > > film.
>
> > Oh, did you see a birth certificate or something in the film that
> > definitively indicates that his name is not Charles Delbert Grady?
>
> For someone using the avatar "math1723" it is indeed odd that you seem
> unaware of a fundamental logical axiom, that it is impossible to prove
> a negative.

Actually, that's not quite true. As a mathematician, I can tell you
that negatives can and are proven all the time. For example, Fermat's
Last Theorem is a proof of a negative: that there exists no natural
number solutions to the equation x^n + y^n = z^n for n > 2. But this
is of course a tangential digression.

I was merely replying to your inference that we must rely on only
"what we actually see in the film", yet you quickly dismiss this
possibility in favor of your own unprovable hypotheses.

> > Why does becoming a spectre require a name change?
>
> Charles Grady has not 'become' a spectre. Charles Grady is dead.
> Nothing 'becomes' a spectre. Spectres are that which have always
> been ... "I should know, I've always been one."

That's certainly not how it was in the book. Granted the movie is not
the book, but you're the one making rather sweeping statements here,
not me. For example, where do you get that Grady was a "spectre"
rather than a "ghost"? And where in the movie do you find a
distinction between these concepts? I see none.

Charles Delbert Grady seems to solve you and Hoyle's problem rather
handily. So it seems to me anyway.

[ichorwhip]

On Sep 25, 6:52 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 6:08 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 10:27 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 3:45 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 25, 8:18 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Huh? No evidence in the film for a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?
> > > > > > Despite the obvious fact that it is precisely the film which provides
> > > > > > us with evidence of a Charles Grady and a Delbert Grady?
>
> > > > > Couldn't he have been named Charles Delbert Grady?  
>
> > > > I'm sure if we wanted to we could imagine all manner and kind of
> > > > fanciful name, and continue to dismiss what we actually see in the
> > > > film.
>
> > > Oh, did you see a birth certificate or something in the film that
> > > definitively indicates that his name is not Charles Delbert Grady?
>
> > For someone using the avatar "math1723" it is indeed odd that you seem
> > unaware of a fundamental logical axiom, that it is impossible to prove
> > a negative.
>
> Actually, that's not quite true.  As a mathematician, I can tell you
> that negatives can and are proven all the time.  For example, Fermat's
> Last Theorem is a proof of a negative: that there exists no natural
> number solutions to the equation x^n + y^n = z^n for n > 2.  But this
> is of course a tangential digression.
>
> I was merely replying to your inference that we must rely on only
> "what we actually see in the film", yet you quickly dismiss this
> possibility in favor of your own unprovable hypotheses.
>
> > > Why does becoming a spectre require a name change?
>
> > Charles Grady has not 'become' a spectre. Charles Grady is dead.
> > Nothing 'becomes' a spectre. Spectres are that which have always
> > been ... "I should know, I've always been one."
>
> That's certainly not how it was in the book.  Granted the movie is not
> the book, but you're the one making rather sweeping statements here,
> not me.  For example, where do you get that Grady was a "spectre"
> rather than a "ghost"?  And where in the movie do you find a
> distinction between these concepts?  I see none.
>
> Charles Delbert Grady seems to solve you and Hoyle's problem rather
> handily.  So it seems to me anyway.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There's barely anything left to say, but I thought I'd throw this into
the mix fwiw. "Charles", the invented name of Kubrick and Johnson
(wonder what she'd say about all of this anyway?) is a name of
Germanic origin that roughly translates to "free man" as in "karl."
It's also a very common name to this day. "Delbert" is a name of Old
English origin that literally translates to "noble" ("All the best
people" or more specifically "day-bright" or "sunny day" if you will
("We'll meet again"???). It's also a name that has fallen off in
popularity since it's peek around the 20's and 30's, Delbert McClinton
notwithstanding. Anyway, you can see some irony beginning to emerge
perhaps, and as for me I doubt it was a mistake throwing that
"Charles" out there and leaving him although Kubrick was not
infallible, but he wasn't oblivious to the obvious either, and
referential names were nothing new to him as well, and the adopted
Delbert worked out really nice in this respect.

It's no wonder to me that the sinister ghost who fancies "himself" a
20's butler would style himself "Delbert." (Good call King! for
once...) And there is some irony to be detected if this transformed
and possessive spirit has taken on Charles, no longer free! Jack is
no longer free at this point himself having previously made his deal
with the "devil" Lloyd. ( Backing up a bit, there's definitely weirdly
macabre atmospheric pressure released when Jack takes that first
drink, and Jack even seems dimly aware of it as you notice his
reaction.) So Jack's faculties and perceptions are distorted to put
it lightly, and he can't even recognize the "error" in Delbert Grady's
name, as he is soon to be a Delbert himself, possessed and combined
into this ghastly eternal caretaker of The Overlook.

The whole luring in of Jack into The House has got to be reckoned with
in my view. Delbert, within a roomful of ghosts, catches Jack at his
most vulnerable and "accidentally" douses him with advocaat, which
"tends to stain" so he can get Jack "alone" in the nazi-colored
bathroom to "get some water to it."(clear things up). He's very
apologetic, and very much the butler, until Jack starts questioning
him and prodding him and making some rather supernatural connections
to a Grady of the 70's. Grady's demeanour slowly begins to turn and
you begin to see the evil in his eyes as the conversation makes its
way to Danny and his attempts to bring an "outside party into this
situation." He's baiting Jack, and then he begins ultimately to
subtly incite violence: "Perhaps they need a good talking to, if you
don't mind my saying so. Perhaps a bit more." He then acknowledges
that he corrected his girls, Charles' girls, but this is no longer
Charles obviously. The House will agree with anything Jack thinks or
says as long as it gets to possess him in the end with blood on his
hands preferably. Now that's horror!

"My girls, sir, they didn't care for the Overlook at first. One of
them actually stole a packet of matches and tried to burn it down.
But I corrected them, sir. And when my wife tried to prevent me from
doing my duty I corrected her."
i
"piop"

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 26, 12:52 am, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 6:08 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I was merely replying to your inference that we must rely on only
> "what we actually see in the film", yet you quickly dismiss this
> possibility in favor of your own unprovable hypotheses.

Firstly, I made no such 'inference': on the contrary, Mr Hoyle and you
were summarily dismissing what is clearly on the screen, and doing so
by appealing to a film-maker's imaginary intentions, or what was the
case in King's novel.
The real issue is why he - and you as his self-appointed lapdog - has
a need to see things that are not, in fact, there.

"Unprovable hypotheses" Are you completely nuts?

>
> > > Why does becoming a spectre require a name change?
>
> > Charles Grady has not 'become' a spectre. Charles Grady is dead.
> > Nothing 'becomes' a spectre. Spectres are that which have always
> > been ... "I should know, I've always been one."
>
> That's certainly not how it was in the book.  Granted the movie is not
> the book, but you're the one making rather sweeping statements here,
> not me.  For example, where do you get that Grady was a "spectre"
> rather than a "ghost"?  And where in the movie do you find a
> distinction between these concepts?  I see none.
>
> Charles Delbert Grady seems to solve you and Hoyle's problem rather
> handily.  So it seems to me anyway.

Solve what? Hoyle and you are the ones with the problem: previous
posts have amply demonstrated the issues here, yet you persist with
this childish nonsense. Which suggests you're just King fanboys come
to troll AMK.

[Math1723]

On Sep 26, 11:27 am, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Solve what? Hoyle and you are the ones with the problem: previous
> posts have amply demonstrated the issues here, yet you persist with
> this childish nonsense. Which suggests you're just King fanboys come
> to troll AMK.

"King fanboy"? You've got to be kidding me! Where the heck did you
you pull that from??? (Waitaminit...I don't think I want to know the
answer to that.)

If it's any consolation (which I'm sure it's not, since you are
bizarrely volatile about this issue), I am not a King "fan" at all. I
didn't think too much of the Shining novel, but the Kubrick film
version is one of my favorites.

Harry, you seem to like to paint with rather broad brush strokes. You
know, it's possible for people to disagree of these points, even
disagree on their importance, while still love the film and appreciate
Kubrick. And you needn't pull out your flame-thrower everytime
someone disagrees with your interpretation of the film. It's okay to
have differing opinions. No really, it is okay.

Welcome to the internet, man. You'll run into lots of different
opinions here.

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 26, 7:27 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 11:27 am, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Solve what? Hoyle and you are the ones with the problem: previous
> > posts have amply demonstrated the issues here, yet you persist with
> > this childish nonsense. Which suggests you're just King fanboys come
> > to troll AMK.
>
<predictable non-sequitur trivia snipped>

Your adolescent 'everything is just an opinion" idiocy doesn't let you
off the hook here. You and Hoyle have made a claim (that Charles Grady
in the film is a 'mistake' ,an 'error') without ANY argument, any
evidence, any reason, much less any attempt to credibly analyse or
critique the film. You've just made a simple-minded, zombie
assertion, (with a bullying appeal to an imaginary, non-existant
authority) while ridiculing those who have already comprehensively
demonstrated that such a fantasmatic claim is sheer, irrational
juvenile babbling. Now we witness Hoyle, not merely again dismissing
like a tantrum-throwing infant such analyses, but escalating his
demented "the film is all a mistake" agenda with a further post now
dissing the Halloran murder scene as YET ANOTHER MISTAKE, cuz, like,
it's not in the pulp, airport-lounge King novel, and that is not
permitted. Wut did Koooblick go and do dat fur, spoilin my infant
expectations, wut poipuss did dat serve? hello?

>
> Welcome to the internet, man.  You'll run into lots of different
> opinions here.

I'm not interested in 'opinions', especially from those who don't even
know what rational discourse is, what an argument is, much less how to
construct one . "Opinions" are the meat of trolls and Fox news
viewers.

[Math1723]

On Sep 26, 4:07 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Your adolescent 'everything is just an opinion" idiocy doesn't let you
> off the hook here. You and Hoyle have made a claim (that Charles Grady
> in the film is a 'mistake' ,an 'error') without ANY argument, any
> evidence, any reason, much less any attempt to credibly analyse or
> critique the film.

I most certainly did NOT say that. You apparently have me confused
with somebody else. I said that his name could have been "Charles
Delbert Grady", and therefore no error committed.

Do you even bother to read my posts before responding to them?

Again, please do me the decency of flaming me for something I actually
said, not for something you imagine I said. You claim to require
"evidence" for a position on the Shining? How about applying that
same principle to my posts, huh? I request that you please quote
anything I have said that upsets you so, and we can talk about it.
And stop putting words in my mouth.

(It doesn't speak well of your ability to analyze the film if you
can't even keep straight what each person is saying.)

[Harry Bailey]

[Note, this post is about getting serious with ugly trolls and time-
wasters]

On Sep 26, 10:28 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 4:07 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Your adolescent 'everything is just an opinion" idiocy doesn't let you
> > off the hook here. You and Hoyle have made a claim (that Charles Grady
> > in the film is a 'mistake' ,an 'error') without ANY argument, any
> > evidence, any reason, much less any attempt to credibly analyse or
> > critique the film.
>
> I most certainly did NOT say that.

It is an IMPLICATION from your meek efforts to back up Hoyle's (at
this point screechingly obvious) trolling inanities with ridiculous
fantasmatic constructions ("Charles Delbert Grady"). 


>You apparently have me confused
> with somebody else.  I said that his name could have been "Charles
> Delbert Grady", and therefore no error committed.

And he could have been named the fairy fucking godmother too, anything
to willfully avoid acknowledging what he was actually named in the
film.

>
> Do you even bother to read my posts before responding to them?

Like Hoyle, you watch a film and then respond to it as if you hadn't
actually watched it at all.

>
> Again, please do me the decency of flaming me

NO: please DO US THE DECENCY OF NOT TROLLING THIS NEWSGROUP WITH YOUR
DERANGED RAVINGS. Otherwise FUCK OFF, you smug, twisted wanker and go
get a fucking life. You are not welcome here on these terms, you have
nothing of substance to offer here, you are intent on delirially
rubbishing this film in order to boost your own fucked-up ego.

You and dumbo Hoyle have just started posting here, on a newsgroup
that has existed for 13 years, with a FAQ, with certain 'ground
rules', with a well-understood history of trolling, of fuckwits, etc,
and your VERY FIRST POSTS on a newsgroup dealing with the films of
Stanley Kubrick, openly attempt to emotively and irrationally insult,
rubbish, and belittle his work (and regular posters here) with blind
accusations that The Shining is 'mistaken' etc(providing no actual
analysis of the film on which to base such water-cooler knee-jerk
rumblings).

Show some fucking modicum of respect or you will continue to be
treated with the utter contempt you deserve ie otherwise you will be
repeatedly told to "FUCK OFF, asshole".

Like last month's troll hereabouts, you'll soon tire of your own
reckless, narcissistic stupidity and stop posting your unhinged
gibberish here - and then disappear.

>for something I actually
> said, not for something you imagine I said.  You claim to require
> "evidence" for a position on the Shining?  How about applying that
> same principle to my posts, huh?  I request that you please quote
> anything I have said that upsets you so, and we can talk about it.
> And stop putting words in my mouth.
>
> (It doesn't speak well of your ability to analyze the film

Listen asswipe, I've already done that quite comprehensively over the
years. I don't need to prove anything, YOU DO! As a (trolling) newbie
here you and Hoyle-fuck have contributed nothing other than to provoke
trouble and shit on the newsgroup - and frankly, if you and Hoyle are
not VERY careful from now on, you might find your OTHER "precious" (as
your identities are now known) activities compromised like a certain
Lord Bullingdon troll was hereabouts in the past. You imagine you can
invade and troll a newsgroup without consequences, without any fallout
on your other activities ("Let's go shit on these people, hahahah,
because nobody we actually know will ever find out what obnoxious
fuckers we really are, hahahah!").

So where the fuck is YOUR ANALYSIS? Sounds to me like you need some
serious Analysis yourself. Contribute something constructive, or fuck
off ... [alas, from the evidence of your schoolboy posts so far, it is
likely you'll be doing the latter].


"So what's it going to be then, eh?"

[Rant over, but not forgotten].

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 26, 4:28 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [Note, this post is about getting serious with ugly trolls and time-
> wasters]


Harry before you resort to calling them Fascists and Hitler, why
don't I just add that you behave like human scum.

In fact you are Human Scum. Nasty, dirty, human scum.

Neither of them are trolls. YOU are the troll. You can't discuss
anything without your becoming vicious and acrimonius in your endless
posts from hell. You are simply a mentaly ill person with now life
and even though you some times write some excellent posts---that is
few and far between.

Honestly, it is remotely possible it was a continuity error. I don't
believe it personally, but it is possible and they have a fine right
to discuss it without having to listen to your scumy, nasty vicious,
diatribes.


Sorry people, Harry is just an ass, ignore him. He escalates on any
topic and ends up calling you Hitler and a Fascist.

Feel free to post interesting stuff about Kubrick films here, some
people actually like to talk about Kubrick conversationally.


dc

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 27, 3:23 am, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 4:28 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [Note, this post is about getting serious with ugly trolls and time-
> > wasters]
>
> Harry before you resort to calling them Fascists and  Hitler, why
> don't I just add that you behave like human scum.
>
>

A reminder that Kelps has been trolling this newsgroup with his
maddening new-ageist tripe trying to convert contributors here to his
far-right cult (including linking to neo-Nazi/fascist anti-semitic
websites to 'support' his ravings about psychoanalysis being a 'Jewish
conspiracy'. Even the looney Scientologists won't have anything to do
with him), when he is not fantasizing that Kubrick was an acid-
dropping member of some obscure pseudo-Buddhist sect. No doubt, his
latest 'plan' is to convert his new-found, equally demented idol,
Sarah Palin to his "I know everything" cult. He's simply a troll, and
like most trolls, actively encourages other trolls ... as well as
suffering from an acute dose of short-term memory loss:

"Kelps, you are the most deranged, unhinged fucking lunatic I've ever
had the odious displeasure to encounter (Reid comes a close joint
second with a number of other eejuts posting here in the past) . Why
don't you live up to your own recommendations (as per those you
recently gave to Stalepie) and disappear into your computer game
('the
real world' as you hilariously call it, so that the status quo IRC
becomes even more rigidly 'naturalised') and your Buffy videos,
because you know and understand absolutely nothing about the world,
or
about the original objects of this newsgroup, which you have been
terrorizing with your frenzied gibberish since you began trolling
here.


Take your new-ageist ravings, your far-right politics (masquerading
as
'common sense'), your misogyny, your racism, your medievalist
patriarchal ego-mania, and your support for political thugs, mass
murderers, and fundamentalist psychos elsewhere, as there are no
shortage of forums wallowing in such sociopathic dreck throughout the
internet.


This forum is for serious and rational discussion, analysis and
argument, not for pre-Enlightenment, anti-intellectual, apolitical,
solipsistic, anti-progressive, fascist droolings by basket-case
psychopaths like YOU.


Take your meds, get proper counselling and FUCK OFF. "

[ichorwhip]

On Sep 27, 12:40 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This forum is for serious and rational discussion, analysis and
> argument, not for pre-Enlightenment, anti-intellectual, apolitical,
> solipsistic, anti-progressive, fascist droolings by basket-case
> psychopaths like YOU.
>
> Take your meds, get proper counselling and FUCK OFF. "

"Does this mean that Ann-Magret isn't coming?" ;-)
i
"piop"

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 28, 12:24 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 12:40 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This forum is for serious and rational discussion, analysis and
> > argument, not for pre-Enlightenment, anti-intellectual, apolitical,
> > solipsistic, anti-progressive, fascist droolings by basket-case
> > psychopaths like YOU.
>
> > Take your meds, get proper counselling and FUCK OFF. "
>
> "Does this mean that Ann-Magret isn't coming?"  ;-)
> i
> "piop"

It means "All work and no play makes for a dull day, but all work and
no FUN shuts down even the sun" (or, in the US: all work and no fun
makes everyone reach for their gun).

"Shock and Awe, Lloyd. Shock and Awe!"

"Yes, Mr Torrance. And have you taken care of the matter Delbert Grady
discussed with you?
Have you c o r r e c t e d the trolls?"

"Shock and Awe, Lloyd. Shock and Awe!"

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 27, 10:40 am, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
wallowing in such sociopathic dreck throughout the
> internet.
>
> This forum is for serious and rational discussion, analysis and
> argument, not for pre-Enlightenment, anti-intellectual, apolitical,
> solipsistic, anti-progressive, fascist droolings by basket-case
> psychopaths like YOU.
>
> Take your meds, get proper counselling and FUCK OFF. "


I saw your picture in the newspapaer and you killed your family then
yourself.

You WERE the caretaker.

Now you are, trapped in a hellhouse of your own making.

Here comes the new caretaker bringing you some powdered eggs and
blighted potatoes.

dc

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 27, 10:40 am, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>here to his
> far-right cult (including linking to neo-Nazi/fascist anti-semitic
> websites to 'support' his ravings about psychoanalysis being a 'Jewish
> conspiracy'.

<snip> Take your meds, get proper counselling and FUCK OFF.
"<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


In what universe do you live?

Now it's me that is anti-semitic?

You've been posting marxist, anti-american, anti-Isreali, anti-
religion crap here endlessly.

You call anyone who contradicts you a troll, a fascist and Hitler.

You make sure there is no conversational, Kubrick discussion here that
doesn't kow tow to your elitest, wordy and pretentious, nasty
diatribes.

This thread is a perfect example. It went along for a couple pages
and then you come up with this crap:

> Again, please do me the decency of flaming me

Harry escalates again:

"NO: please DO US THE DECENCY OF NOT TROLLING THIS NEWSGROUP WITH
YOUR
DERANGED RAVINGS. Otherwise FUCK OFF, you smug, twisted wanker and go
get a fucking life. You are not welcome here on these terms, you have
nothing of substance to offer here, you are intent on delirially
rubbishing this film in order to boost your own fucked-up ego.

You and dumbo Hoyle have just started posting here, on a newsgroup
that has existed for 13 years, with a FAQ, with certain 'ground
rules', with a well-understood history of trolling, of fuckwits, etc,
and your VERY FIRST POSTS on a newsgroup dealing with the films of
Stanley Kubrick, openly attempt to emotively and irrationally insult,
rubbish, and belittle his work (and regular posters here) with blind
accusations that The Shining is 'mistaken' etc(providing no actual
analysis of the film on which to base such water-cooler knee-jerk
rumblings


Show some fucking modicum of respect or you will continue to be
treated with the utter contempt you deserve ie otherwise you will be
repeatedly told to "FUCK OFF, asshole". "



No Harry you are a wacko who can't hold a normal conversation. You
are a total extremist and a nut.

You write paragraphs like word-salad and think it is brilliant prose.

You always escalate to ridiculous extremes. You are also extremely
cyclical.

Reading your tediously long posts is way to often like watching
someone become unglued at his core.

Even when you are making perfect sense you can't help but turn it into
a trainwreck. Clearly you are a very miserable person in your real
life.

You rave on and on about totalitarianism in the US, which is simple
minded, conspiratorial idiocy, wrapped in word salad....and have no
clue about your obvious need to be the dictator of AMK over movie
trivia, for crissake.--your own private hell.

Like all commies, you attempt to co-opt other people's thoughts and
abstract them into fanatic, political fantasy. You cannot co-exist
with other's opinions without exploding and spewing hate.


SK would think you were a madman.


http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3453/compau0.gif
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Harry gets messy

[Math1723]

Note, this post is about to get very funny and embarrassing to a
particular hairy Pad-rag, with just desserts...

So, in our last episode, Harry had pretty low opinions of those who
thought that Shining murderer from 1970 might have been named Charles
Delbert Grady. After making the suggestion myself, Harry flew off the
handle, calling it my "deranged ravings", calling me "a twisted
wanker", "asshole", ... well, you get the picture.

However, unbeknownst to Harry (unless of course he knew and was simply
suppressing the evidence), some who have actually worked on "The
Shining" itself thought the same thing!!

From http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/html/shining/shining2.html:

"GS [Gordon Stainforth, who worked as an editor on "The Shining"]
adds: I don't think we'll ever quite unravel this [the double naming
of Grady]. Was his full name Charles Delbert Grady? Perhaps Charles
was a sort of nickname? Perhaps Ullman got the name wrong? But I also
think that Stanley did NOT want the whole story to fit together too
neatly, so you are absolutely correct I think to say that 'the sum of
what we learn refuses to add up neatly'."

Well, well, well... I wonder what Pad-rag thinks now?!? Were the very
editors of the Shining "fucking assholes" too? Maybe he thinks
Kubrick himself was an idiot, since after all, he allowed it to be
vague enough that his own collaborators didn't get it? Hmmm?

<snicker, snicker>

Now in fairness, Stainforth doesn't say this must be the case, or that
he believes this himself. However, he does suggest it's a legitimate
possibility. More legitimate than that troll Harry would allow.
Sigh, I guess that Kubrick's people didn't get Harry's memo.

If Harry is brave enough to respond, I'm sure he'll be using colorful
language and all-caps shouting at me (as is his usual M.O.) However,
I'll happily sift through the profanity and trolling, just to see how
he'll answer this.

[Math1723]

Note, this post is about to get very funny and embarrassing to a
particular hairy Pad-rag, with just desserts...

So, in our last episode, Harry had pretty low opinions of those who
thought that Shining murderer from 1970 might have been named Charles
Delbert Grady. After making the suggestion myself, Harry flew off
the
handle, calling it my "deranged ravings", calling me "a twisted
wanker", "asshole", ... well, you get the picture.

However, unbeknownst to Harry (unless of course he knew and was
simply
suppressing the evidence), some who have actually worked on "The
Shining" itself thought of "Charles Delbert Grady" as the name as
well!!

From http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/html/shining/shining2.html:

"GS [Gordon Stainforth, who worked as an editor on "The Shining"]
adds: I don't think we'll ever quite unravel this [the double naming
of Grady]. Was his full name Charles Delbert Grady? Perhaps Charles
was a sort of nickname? Perhaps Ullman got the name wrong? But I also
think that Stanley did NOT want the whole story to fit together too
neatly, so you are absolutely correct I think to say that 'the sum of
what we learn refuses to add up neatly'."

Well, well, well... I wonder what Pad-rag thinks now?!? Were the
very
editors of the Shining "fucking assholes" too? Maybe he thinks
Kubrick himself was an idiot, since after all, he allowed it to be
vague enough that his own collaborators didn't get it? Hmmm?

<snicker, snicker>

Now in fairness, Stainforth doesn't say this must be the case, or
that
he believes this himself. However, he does suggest it's a legitimate
possibility. More legitimate than that troll Harry would allow.
Sigh, I guess that Kubrick's people didn't get Harry's memo.

If Harry is brave enough to respond, I'm sure he'll be using colorful
language and all-caps shouting at me (as is his usual M.O.) However,
I'll happily sift through the profanity and trolling, just to see how
he'll answer this.

[ichorwhip]

On Oct 1, 6:18 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
> Note, this post is about to get very funny and embarrassing to a
> particular hairy Pad-rag, with just desserts...

Not at all I should think, as the tables can easily be turned, and
you've already led the way in your failure to keep your resolve.
You've also revealed your motives for continuing this whole debacle,
how surprising!

> So, in our last episode, Harry had pretty low opinions of those who
> thought that Shining murderer from 1970 might have been named Charles
> Delbert Grady. After making the suggestion myself, Harry flew off the
> handle, calling it my "deranged ravings", calling me "a twisted
> wanker", "asshole", ... well, you get the picture.

And you were offended by that? ;-)

> However, unbeknownst to Harry (unless of course he knew and was simply
> suppressing the evidence), some who have actually worked on "The
> Shining" itself thought the same thing!!

No they didn't! Not in the way you offered it up. And I do believe
Mr. Bailey was prolly aware of this entry as he directed us to the
Kubrick Site quite early in the thread. BTW, The Kubrick Site is not
the sacred gospel stylings of the prophets and apostles, although it's
usually very very good. You ought to check it out in detail sometime
when you're not just trying to get revenge.

> Fromhttp://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/html/shining/shining2.html:

You link didn't work exactly, just take off everything after faq/ and
navigate from there although I'm reprinting the whole thing after I'm
through with you.

> "GS [Gordon Stainforth, who worked as an editor on "The Shining"]

An assistant editor up until the time Lovejoy got sick, and then he
cut the last 30 minutes of the film, not to diminish him in any way
but to set the record straight.

> adds: I don't think we'll ever quite unravel this [the double naming
> of Grady]. Was his full name Charles Delbert Grady? Perhaps Charles
> was a sort of nickname? Perhaps Ullman got the name wrong? But I also
> think that Stanley did NOT want the whole story to fit together too
> neatly, so you are absolutely correct I think to say that 'the sum of
> what we learn refuses to add up neatly'."

So Stainforth didn't know, but he suggested your pet theory and
another one and suddenly he is your champion and savior! If anything,
this confirms that Kubrick did in fact know that "Charles" was left in
there. Any dodo could work that out anyway. The other thing that you
seem to be missing is the utter secrecy Kubrick excercised in
producing his films and even with his highest collaborators and
employees. If you didn't need to know, you never found out, and
that's the way Stanley worked, and that's why his films remain so
enigmatic and provocative. "You work it out!" That's Kubrick
"whispering" to ya....

> Well, well, well... I wonder what Pad-rag thinks now?!?

I'm sure you don't want to know.

> Were the very
> editors of the Shining "fucking assholes" too?

So now it's "editors"??? Lovejoy said this too? Your "little trick"
is falling apart already.

> Maybe he thinks
> Kubrick himself was an idiot, since after all, he allowed it to be
> vague enough that his own collaborators didn't get it? Hmmm?

That's what makes Kubrick not an idiot! You don't have any idea who
you're talking about, do you? It's obvious you have vengeance on your
mind with this bullshit.

> <snicker, snicker>

<mounds and almond joy>

> Now in fairness,

So now we're being fair eh?

> Stainforth doesn't say this must be the case, or that
> he believes this himself.

<Cue Nancy Grace's worst snark voice> "Of Course!"

> However, he does suggest it's a legitimate
> possibility.

Just because he suggests it and something else, a nickname? puh-leez!,
doesn't make it very legitimate, although I'm prepared to cut slack
for Stainforth even though he clearly doesn't know!!!!

> More legitimate than that troll Harry would allow.

This all started with Hoyle's insistence that Charles/Delbert
represented a continuity error. You do read don't you? And not just
what you write? BTW, Hoyle only acknowledged this unnecessary combo
theory of yours as "legitimate", as if that word has the value it
ought to have any more around here, and then he went on to say he
didn't agree with it! Feh!!!

> Sigh, I guess that Kubrick's people didn't get Harry's memo.

Sigh, I guess you just didn't get what he was talking about at all.

> If Harry is brave enough to respond,

GWAHAHAHAHA!!! Come on Harry, come get yer Red Barge of Courage!

> I'm sure he'll be using colorful
> language and all-caps shouting at me (as is his usual M.O.)

Actually that's Reidiot's® M.O.

> However,
> I'll happily sift through the profanity and trolling, just to see how
> he'll answer this.

If he bothers. In the meantime I want to examine in detail the rest
of the FAQ entry you referenced:

"20/ Why are there two Grady's?
In Jack's interview, Ullman refers to a crazy caretaker who chopped up
his family as Charles Grady. Later Jack meets a butler called
"Delbert" Grady and Jack infers that he was the same caretaker."

More like incredulously questions than infers, but okay....

" The deliberacy of the names and their prominence in each of these is
crashingly obvious - and would have been also the more so in the case
of a film like The Shining, where the shooting and editing processes
were particularly painstaking. So, surely it's not a continuity error,
and the discrepancy was done on purpose. Why?"

Let's repeat that last line and read it S-L-O-W-L-Y: "So, surely it's
not a continuity error, and the discrepancy was done on purpose. Why?"

"The answer to this question is a litmus test of how much thought you
want to credit Kubrick and Johnson for having put into the film."

Litmus reads: A lot!

"To me, the "inconsistency" is in fact one of those moments (like the
more celebrated moment when Grady releases Jack from the storeroom, or
to look at another Kubrick film, where in the final "hotel room" we
see Dave Bowman and an older "future self" seeing each other in the
same shot) where, instead of being inconsistent or "wrong" the scene
is instead an explicit sign about what is really happening in the
story."

Why did you have to bring up that boring piece of crap 2001? Nobody
gets it, and nobody cares! Who cares what Kubrick did in his other
films? Do we care that Spielberg made "1941" before he made
"Schindler's List?" (Insert red flashing "satire" light here for the
vacuous)

"Many people have written in amk and elsewhere about the importance
"maze" imagery has in The Shining. Indeed, the labyrinth is the
primary metaphor of the entire film, influencing both the literal
story and its thematic structure. One of the more disturbing
developments of this film's labyrinth is that the farther we (and the
Torrances) think we have penetrated into The Overlook, the more
complicated and confusing our discoveries become. The sum of what we
learn refuses to add up neatly - instead, incongruities pile up with
the film's insistent mirrorings, duplicity and a general lack of
acknowledgement. More specifically, the more we try to make sense of
what's happening in the present, the more we're faced with what
happened - to the same people perhaps - in the past. This lends
credence to the supposition that there is another element of time at
work here and another sense of reality in action (again, both
literally in terms of the references to reincarnation and repetition
in the ghost story, and thematically in terms of many references
connecting the family dynamics of the Torrances [or the Gradys] to
American history), to a timezone where our notions of "history" and
"the present" are somehow (willfully) intermingled."

Did Harry write this? No, my bad, it was Gordon D, and it's not even
bulletproof really, but still pretty good.

"It's this sense that lends general support to the kind of
interpretation - if perhaps not the literal interpretation - found in
Bill Blakemore's essay. The Shining does equate choices made by the
Torrances - and the impulses those choices serve - with the values of
the people who built The Overlook ... "all the best people"."

"The duality of Delbert/Charles Grady deliberately mirrors Jack
Torrance being both the husband of Wendy/father of Danny and the
mysterious man in the July 4th photo. It is to say he is two people:
the man with choice in a perilous situation and the man who has
"always" been at the Overlook."

That's crazy talk! (satire)

"It's a mistake to see the final photo as evidence that the events of
the film are predetermined: Jack has any number of moments where he
can act other than the way he does, and that his (poor) choices are
fuelled by weakness and fear perhaps merely speaks all the more to the
questions about the personal and the political that The Shining brings
up. in the same way Charles had a chance - once more, perhaps - to not
take on "Delbert's" legacy, so Jack may have had a chance to escape
his role as "caretaker" to the interests of the powerful. It's the
tragic course of this story that he chooses not to."

GD

And then comes the quote from Stainforth, which sound pretty off-the-
cuff to me. I think Dahlquist makes a much better case, but not as
advanced as what we've turned it into here in this thread. So the
thread's a success despite all ugliness, retaliation, disingenuousness
and obtuseness! Yay!

Well aren't we all embarassed now? Pfffft!!!

"It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing."
i
"piop"

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 26, 12:52 am, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 6:08 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > For someone using the avatar "math1723" it is indeed odd that you seem
> > unaware of a fundamental logical axiom, that it is impossible to prove
> > a negative.
>
> Actually, that's not quite true.  As a mathematician, I can tell you
> that negatives can and are proven all the time.  For example, Fermat's
> Last Theorem is a proof of a negative: that there exists no natural
> number solutions to the equation x^n + y^n = z^n for n > 2.  But this
> is of course a tangential digression.

Though this is strictly off-topic, your invocation of Fermat's famous
'proof of an impossibility' has no real bearing on the axiom; rather,
it further CONFIRMS the 'impossible to prove a negative' axiom: the
theorem is not absolute 'proof of a negative' (except merely as a
figure of speech) but a proof of the finite DETERMINACY of the
solution to the equation above. It proves that there is no solution
ABOVE integer 2, not that there is NO solution - 2 is a solution to
the equation ie. it is an entirely different problem, a re-statement
of the problem in conditional non-negative terms. For instance, to
demonstrate with one of the previous comic examples: the statement
that "George Bush is not a Goblin" cannot be proven. The equivalent
'equation' in Fermat's Last Theorem's terms would be to prove that:

"George Bush is not a Goblin - EXCEPT on Sundays (or for days other
than Sunday)"

and then we would proceed (no doubt laboriously) to prove that he is
not a Goblin on other weekdays, but a two-legged frog.

Clearly, this is not a 'proof' that George Bush is not a Goblin
(because he is a Goblin on Sundays) - because such absolute negative
proofs are impossible (even if one subscribes to the notion of the
universe as 'non-all', as finitely infinite).

The real formulation here should be:

"Goblins exist" followed by an (endless) attempt - hilariously
deranged (trying to find empirical evidence for imaginary constructs)
- to prove so.

versus "Goblins do not exist", followed by superfluous, always
impossible efforts to 'prove' they don't exist.

[unknown]

On 2008-09-25 17:27:50 -0400, Math1723 <***@aol.com> said:

> Why does becoming a spectre require a name change?

Don't you know it's in the rule book of the International Alliance of
Spectres Union Local 237? IAS Local 237 covers all spectres operating
from the Mississipi River west to the Pacific Ocean coast (excluding
Chicago and Los Angeles each of which have their own IAS locals) and is
quoted as follows: "...during initiation, the candidate spectre shall
choose a new and quaint first name in order to confuse mortals. Failure
to maintain consistent use of such new first name shall result in
expulsion from the union and will result in loss of union death
benefits."

Really, all it takes is a little common sense; the name change from
Charles to Delbert was an error (along with helicopter blade shadows
and also a two-shot cutting across the 180 degree line, and a few other
things) obvious to me on first viewing of the film on the day it
opened. It is one of a number of continuity errors in several of
Kubrick's films. They have never detracted from my appreciation of his
work. These kinds of errors exist in all sorts of films from the
beginning of motion pictures. A motion picture is not a documentary
record of real life occurences, it is an artifice, a kind of fakery
used to tell a story to an audience which hopefully will suspend their
disbelief once the story gets started and will hold their attention
until the end of the story leaving them satisfied.

I can could think of at least 10 different scenarios about how the
character's name switched from Charles to Delbert during the pressures
over several years of writing this film and getting it onto film, but I
wasn't there so I won't waste any time.

G

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 26, 6:23 am, gh wrote:
> On 2008-09-25 17:27:50 -0400, Math1723 <***@aol.com> said:
>
> > Why does becoming a spectre require a name change?
>
> Don't you know it's in the rule book of the International Alliance of
> Spectres Union Local 237?  IAS Local 237 covers all spectres operating
> from the Mississipi River west to the Pacific Ocean coast (excluding
> Chicago and Los Angeles each of which have their own IAS locals)

"Best goddam union from portland maine to portland oregon. Say, Lloyd,
it seems I'm temporarily light. How's my credit in this joint
anyway?"
"Your credit is fine, Mr Torrance, you have no need for money or union
rights here. Orders from the House."
"I'm the kind of man likes to know the ghost who's buying the drinks,
Lloyd.
"A union matter, Mr Torrance. It doesn't concern you - at least not at
this point."

> Really, all it takes is a little common sense; the name change from
> Charles to Delbert was an error

An appeal to "Common sense" again (in a film which completely ruptures
such a quaint metaphysic). That is not an argument, G. Like Hoyle you
are just making an assertion, you are once again making a claim
without providing ANY substantive justification.

Why have you such a need to dismiss the two different names as an
'error'. Why, in other words, do you call this an 'error' at all? Why,
in your 'everything is self-evident' world, isn't 'Lloyd' also called
Charles? Is that an 'error' too?

[Math1723]

On Sep 26, 12:05 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 6:23 am, gh wrote:
>
> > On 2008-09-25 17:27:50 -0400, Math1723 <***@aol.com> said:
>
> > > Why does becoming a spectre require a name change?
>
> > Don't you know it's in the rule book of the International Alliance of
> > Spectres Union Local 237?  IAS Local 237 covers all spectres operating
> > from the Mississipi River west to the Pacific Ocean coast (excluding
> > Chicago and Los Angeles each of which have their own IAS locals)
>
> "Best goddam union from portland maine to portland oregon. Say, Lloyd,
> it seems I'm temporarily light. How's my credit in this joint
> anyway?"
> "Your credit is fine, Mr Torrance, you have no need for money or union
> rights here. Orders from the House."
> "I'm the kind of man likes to know the ghost who's buying the drinks,
> Lloyd.
> "A union matter, Mr Torrance. It doesn't concern you - at least not at
> this point."

LOL, very good, Harry, very good!

> > Really, all it takes is a little common sense; the name change from
> > Charles to Delbert was an error
>
> An appeal to "Common sense" again (in a film which completely ruptures
> such a quaint metaphysic). That is not an argument, G. Like Hoyle you
> are just making an assertion, you are once again making a claim
> without providing ANY substantive justification.

"Hello, Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle..."

> Why have you such a need to dismiss the two different names as an
> 'error'. Why, in other words, do you call this an 'error' at all? Why,
> in your 'everything is self-evident' world, isn't 'Lloyd' also called
> Charles? Is that an 'error' too?

Lloyd was called Charles? I must have missed that one. (My Shining
geekness is apparently not up to snuff in this crowd.) I would guess
that might be an error, but I don't know if you're pulling my leg here
or not.

In any case, if you recall I did not claim that "Charles" was an
error. I claimed that MAYBE his name was Charles Delbert Grady. (I
know that this is still heretical from your perspective, but if you
wish to flame me, please do me the courtesy of flaming me for the
correct heresy.)

[Jonathan Hoyle]

On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Couldn't he have been named Charles Delbert Grady?  Then there's only
> one Grady to worry about: called Charles by the newspapers (since that
> was his first name), but he called himself Delbert.

I suppose we can fabricate anything from a fictional story to make it
consistent. If that's what you want to tell yourself to resolve this
as a non-error, fine. It's certainly a lot simpler than the overly
complex conspiratorial backstory artificially imposed by Harry.

> Of course there's still the problem as to how Jack Torrance recognized
> the wrong name as the murderer, but we'll that as an exercise.  :-)

Well, that's probably no big effort really. If we assume that Jack
later reads the newspaper account (as he did in the novel), one can
suppose the article gives his full name of "Charles Delbert Grady"
with his picture, making the bathroom scene once again fully
consistent.

If we must accept fanboy retroactive continuity to resolve this
"puzzle", then your's is certainly the simplest one proposed so far.
Using Occam's razor as measurement, you're in the lead.

Jonathan Hoyle
http://www.jonhoyle.com

[ichorwhip]

On Sep 25, 10:38 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Couldn't he have been named Charles Delbert Grady?  Then there's only
> > one Grady to worry about: called Charles by the newspapers (since that
> > was his first name), but he called himself Delbert.
>
> I suppose we can fabricate anything from a fictional story to make it
> consistent.  If that's what you want to tell yourself to resolve this
> as a non-error, fine.  It's certainly a lot simpler than the overly
> complex conspiratorial backstory artificially imposed by Harry.

I don't think you understood much of it judging from your obtuse
reaction. You want this to be an error so bad that you've seemed to
have forgotten that you came here looking for opinions, or so the
subject header indicates.

> > Of course there's still the problem as to how Jack Torrance recognized
> > the wrong name as the murderer, but we'll that as an exercise.  :-)
>
> Well, that's probably no big effort really.  If we assume that Jack
> later reads the newspaper account (as he did in the novel), one can
> suppose the article gives his full name of "Charles Delbert Grady"
> with his picture, making the bathroom scene once again fully
> consistent.

You don't even have to do this. You seem resentful that everybody
hasn't just jumped on your error bandwagon. Discussion, analysis, and
overanalysis of Kubrick's films is pretty much what we try to do in
this group when we're not just arguing about politics or flamebaiting
each other. If you didn't want opinions, you came to the wrong place.

> If we must accept fanboy

Insulting people around here with kneejerked diminutive terms like
this is bound to get you roughed up. In fact Harry has pretty much
called you a "fanboy" in so many words for clinging to this error
theory like it ought to really matter, in case you didn't notice.

> retroactive continuity to resolve this
> "puzzle", then your's is certainly the simplest one proposed so far.
> Using Occam's razor as measurement, you're in the lead.

Or we could just call it an error and leave it at that, close up shop,
go home, and never come back... What were you expecting anyway?

As for my approach, I try to assume nothing and refer to the film
itself for answers. I don't know for a fact if "Charles" is an error,
but it just doesn't seem like it knowing what I know about this film
and others of Kubrick's. Does that make me a fanboy?

"Ah ha, it's coming off now, sir."
i
"piop"

[Jonathan Hoyle]

On Sep 26, 12:34 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think you understood much of it judging from your obtuse
> reaction.  You want this to be an error so bad that you've seemed to
> have forgotten that you came here looking for opinions, or so the
> subject header indicates.

You're right, I was starting to get out of line. Harry's belligerent
and abusive responses made me short with other responders. Since I do
not wish to lower myself to that level, let me apologize if I appeared
to snippy in my last post. Perhaps if I apologize here, it might
spurs others who have posted with a bit too much anger to also do the
same and raise this discussion back to a more pleasant tone.

Let me also start with my olive branch by saying that yes, calling him
"Charles Delbert Grady" would indeed remove the continuity error I
charged existed. Although I personally do not find this argument
compelling, I certainly respect the right of others who choose to
embrace it.

And thank you icorwhip for finding a way to "correct" me, without
going to the level of "Grady-correcting" (which some appear attempted
to do). :-)

Regards,

Jonathan Hoyle
http://www.jonhoyle.com

PS: If it is any consolation, I do not use the term "fanboy"
pejoratively, although I can certainly see why someone reading my
previous posts would think that I did.

[MP]

Notice too, the jump cuts during the Grady sequence. Kubrick
deliberately breaks the 180 degree rule and crosses the line at two
very specific moments. The "180 degree rule" states that there is an
imaginary line between two or more actors and that the camera should
stay on one side of the action so that cuts between angles keep the
viewer's perspective consistent. If the camera crosses the line, the
viewer become confused due to the actors switching places.

But switching places is exactly what the scene is about. Grady tells
Jack his name is Delbert Grady (not the Charles Grady that Ullman told
about in the 'Interview' sequence) and Kubrick crosses the line in a
jump-cut which makes Jack and Grady appear to be in each other's
place. Grady tells Jack that he has 'always been' the caretaker of the
Overlook and Kubrick crosses the line in a jump-cut which again makes
Jack and Grady switch places.

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 28, 7:57 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Notice too, the jump cuts during the Grady sequence. Kubrick
> deliberately breaks the 180 degree rule and crosses the line at two
> very specific moments. The "180 degree rule" states that there is an
> imaginary line between two or more actors and that the camera should
> stay on one side of the action so that cuts between angles keep the
> viewer's perspective consistent. If the camera crosses the line, the
> viewer become confused due to the actors switching places.
>
> But switching places is exactly what the scene is about. Grady tells
> Jack his name is Delbert Grady (not the Charles Grady that Ullman told
> about in the 'Interview' sequence) and Kubrick crosses the line in a
> jump-cut which makes Jack and Grady appear to be in each other's
> place. Grady tells Jack that he has 'always been' the caretaker of the
> Overlook and Kubrick crosses the line in a jump-cut which again makes
> Jack and Grady switch places.

Yes, it's a brilliant instance of the unnerving sublime, and indeed,
of Kubrick's cool, dispassionate refusal of 'character
identification', of interrupting normal subjectivist narrative logic
and viewing characters from the outside, as radically other. The 180
degree crossover is one such 'distanciation' technique employed by
Kubrick.

The connection between Kubrick's cold rationalism and Spinoza's
metaphysics has already been explored (especially by ex-AMK poster
Mark de Rozario/Fisher [K-punk]), but there is also the
Brecht (he too was considered "cold" and "clinical") connection,
however, as it was Brecht who first experimented dramaturgically with
such notions of
distanciation, with arresting any subjective emotional identification
between characters and audience (much of what Spectator Theory now
deals with), and this is especially a fundamental feature of Kubrick's
films from 2001 onwards.

The use of the steadicam in the film also reinforces this dis-
embodying affect and approach. Kubrick's dispassionate aesthetic
frequently manifested itself via the
meticulousness of shot composition and the omniscience of his camera
movements (from anxious steadicam to slow, grand zoom-outs, to the 180
degree crossover), which
served to draw our attention to the very form of the film itself.
For
instance, the steadicam shots in The Shining appear to create an
un-seen character in the film. Such shots, somewhat like the numerous
slow zoom-outs in his other films (BL and FMJ particularly), are - in
the post-Lacanian sense - "unsutured" point of view shots. The camera
moves much as we would expect a typical POV shot to move, only we
never obtain the suturing reverse shot, revealing through whose eyes
we are "meant" to be observing. In TS, Kubrick denies us such a point
of identification. Though nothing much happens during those shots
following Danny on his tricycle around the labyrinth that is the
Overlook hotel, they are still deeply disturbing, because we >know<
that somebody is observing - film grammar tells us so, but we are
left
in the cold, the expected observer is never revealed to us.
Consequently, it is Kubrick's camera and we the spectators who haunt
the Overlook, dispassionately omniscient, but seemingly anxious and
confused: we don't know who we are [nor the external unconscious
forces influencing out actions] ...

[Jonathan Hoyle]

On Sep 28, 2:57 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Notice too, the jump cuts during the Grady sequence. Kubrick
> deliberately breaks the 180 degree rule and crosses the line at two
> very specific moments. The "180 degree rule" states that there is an
> imaginary line between two or more actors and that the camera should
> stay on one side of the action so that cuts between angles keep the
> viewer's perspective consistent. If the camera crosses the line, the
> viewer become confused due to the actors switching places.
>
> But switching places is exactly what the scene is about. Grady tells
> Jack his name is Delbert Grady (not the Charles Grady that Ullman told
> about in the 'Interview' sequence) and Kubrick crosses the line in a
> jump-cut which makes Jack and Grady appear to be in each other's
> place. Grady tells Jack that he has 'always been' the caretaker of the
> Overlook and Kubrick crosses the line in a jump-cut which again makes
> Jack and Grady switch places.

I hadn't noticed that, and the switching of places can certainly be
figurative of Jack changing places with Grady. But how does this
imply there are two Grady's? Having "always been there" is not very
convincing, as it was said in the novel with only one Grady.

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 30, 8:16 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2:57 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Notice too, the jump cuts during the Grady sequence. Kubrick
> > deliberately breaks the 180 degree rule and crosses the line at two
> > very specific moments. The "180 degree rule" states that there is an
> > imaginary line between two or more actors and that the camera should
> > stay on one side of the action so that cuts between angles keep the
> > viewer's perspective consistent. If the camera crosses the line, the
> > viewer become confused due to the actors switching places.
>
> > But switching places is exactly what the scene is about. Grady tells
> > Jack his name is Delbert Grady (not the Charles Grady that Ullman told
> > about in the 'Interview' sequence) and Kubrick crosses the line in a
> > jump-cut which makes Jack and Grady appear to be in each other's
> > place. Grady tells Jack that he has 'always been' the caretaker of the
> > Overlook and Kubrick crosses the line in a jump-cut which again makes
> > Jack and Grady switch places.
>
> I hadn't noticed that, and the switching of places can certainly be
> figurative of Jack changing places with Grady.  But how does this
> imply there are two Grady's?  Having "always been there" is not very
> convincing, as it was said in the novel with only one Grady.

Fuck off, troll.

[ichorwhip]

On Sep 28, 1:09 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 12:34 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think you understood much of it judging from your obtuse
> > reaction.  You want this to be an error so bad that you've seemed to
> > have forgotten that you came here looking for opinions, or so the
> > subject header indicates.
>
> You're right, I was starting to get out of line.  Harry's belligerent
> and abusive responses made me short with other responders.

I think it was only his special way of expressing frustration with you
and your lack of acknowledgment of what he was saying about the
Charles/Delbert situation. I happen to know that Harry is as gentle
as a lamb normally. ;-)

>  Since I do
> not wish to lower myself to that level, let me apologize if I appeared
> too snippy in my last post.  Perhaps if I apologize here, it might
> spurs others who have posted with a bit too much anger to also do the
> same and raise this discussion back to a more pleasant tone.

I take back the "fucking" then, fair enough?

> Let me also start with my olive branch by saying that yes, calling him
> "Charles Delbert Grady" would indeed remove the continuity error I
> charged existed.

This is why Harry got so mad at you. Your insistence that Charles
Grady the 70's caretaker and "Delbert Grady" the 20's waiter (for all
appearences) and ghost are one and the same. I don't buy this myself
because it doesn't work as well as the alternative. I'd like you to
look again very closely at the scene in the bathroom where you can see
some remnants of Jack's rapidly declining sanity within his dubious
response to Grady.

For quick reference sake then : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VXa4Ar3MWk

At about 1:25 in this clip you see Jack's first surprised reaction to
his query about who this waiter is. "Grady?" "Yes sir." "Delbert
Grady?" "That's right sir." Jack's high inflection and facial
expression is entirely and unmistakeably questioning and skeptical.
He may yet know that "Charles" is the correct name to go with this
face, but his cognition is fleeting in his semi-possessed state. He
never refers to him as anything other than Mr. Grady from here on out,
not once. Mr. Grady opens the supernatural door when he declares that
Jack is the caretaker and has always been so, and that he should know
having always been there himself. Right there, in that sentence is
the obvious fact that "Delbert Grady" is an entirely separate entity
from that of the 70's caretaker Charles. The evil Delbert could take
any name or form as he is comprised of many, but the form of Charles
Grady works as it is someone for Jack to recognize and yet bewilder
him quite keeping him off-guard. I think now that King screwed up in
his book and Kubrick actually fixed his illogical fumbling and
separated the 70's caretaker from the ghost. So are we clear at all
on this?

>  Although I personally do not find this argument
> compelling, I certainly respect the right of others who choose to
> embrace it.

I find that argument unnecessary and wrong as the 70's caretaker and
the ghost are not the same "person."

> And thank you ichorwhip for finding a way to "correct" me, without
> going to the level of "Grady-correcting" (which some appear attempted
> to do).  :-)

Think nothing of it, but please try and understand where I'm coming
from with this. Harry has to speak for himself, which he does quite
well, but I think he agrees with me mainly.

> Regards,
>
> Jonathan Hoylehttp://www.jonhoyle.com
>
> PS: If it is any consolation, I do not use the term "fanboy"
> pejoratively, although I can certainly see why someone reading my
> previous posts would think that I did.

It's not generally a term of endearment, and it's akin to "dork"
really. Your apparent lack of respect or limited knowledge of the
genius and perfectionist Kubrick and how he obsessively controlled
every aspect of his films is showing as well. Have you seen any of
the others? What do you know about Kubrick really? I think that was
the other half of Harry's problem with you, and I don't like it
either. In this group it's usually wise to lurk before you leap. So
much could have been done to head off this argument if you had done
some preliminary work. The archive is vast, and only about one-tenth
of it is fart and dick jokes...

"Mr. Torrance, I see you can hardly have taken care of the business we
discussed."
i
"piop"

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 28, 5:26 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 1:09 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 26, 12:34 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think you understood much of it judging from your obtuse
> > > reaction.  You want this to be an error so bad that you've seemed to
> > > have forgotten that you came here looking for opinions, or so the
> > > subject header indicates.
>
> > You're right, I was starting to get out of line.  Harry's belligerent
> > and abusive responses made me short with other responders.
>
> I think it was only his special way of expressing frustration with you
> and your lack of acknowledgment of what he was saying about the
> Charles/Delbert situation.  I happen to know that Harry is as gentle
> as a lamb normally.  ;-)

yes ... "he wouldn't even.... hurt a fly."


http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/5654/psycho02qe7.jpg



"Normally..?"


dc

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 28, 5:26 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Let me also start with my olive branch by saying that yes, calling him
> > "Charles Delbert Grady" would indeed remove the continuity error I
> > charged existed.


> This is why Harry got so mad at you.  

"Mad" over film discussion?

"mad" is an understatement. Harry blows gaskets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLBACofOFz4&feature=related



dc

[Jonathan Hoyle]

On Sep 28, 8:26 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it was only his special way of expressing frustration with you
> and your lack of acknowledgment of what he was saying about the
> Charles/Delbert situation.  I happen to know that Harry is as gentle
> as a lamb normally.  ;-)

Okay, I guess I'll take your word for it. Since at least two other
people besides myself were given profanity-laden diatribes, I
certainly would not guessed this. But I suppose anyone can have an
off-day.


> I take back the "fucking" then, fair enough?

Fair enough.


> > Let me also start with my olive branch by saying that yes, calling him
> > "Charles Delbert Grady" would indeed remove the continuity error I
> > charged existed.
>
> This is why Harry got so mad at you.

First of all, I don't see how expressing an opinion warrants "being so
mad" at me or anyone else. Certainly not to the degree and language
given.


> Your insistence that Charles Grady the 70's caretaker and "Delbert Grady"
> the 20's waiter (for all appearences) and ghost are one and the same.

I assumed he was mad at me for suggesting that that there existed a
continuity error. I merely acknowledged that the "Charles Delbert
Grady" solution (which I remind you that I do not believe in) does
bypass this as a continuity error. So...is he mad at me for this mere
acknowledgment? I certainly was not arguing in its favor. Am I not
allowed to admit that a proposal (which I don't even believe in) would
prevent a continuity error??

As for saying that they are the same Grady, that is the case in the
original King novel. Surely that admission is one even you must
accept, right? Suggesting the same is true in the movie may not be a
position that you like, but it's hardly out of line for a forum such
as this.

So again, I apologize if my tone got out of line, which it did.
However, I do not apologize for expressing an opinion about a movie in
a newsgroup about that movie. Nor do I anticipate anyone here
(whether they agree with me or not) to expect me to do so. Just as I
do not expect you or Harry to change your minds. What I do expect
though is civil behavior.


> At about 1:25 in this clip you see Jack's first surprised reaction to
> his query about who this waiter is.  "Grady?" "Yes sir."  "Delbert
> Grady?"  "That's right sir."  Jack's high inflection and facial
> expression is entirely and unmistakeably questioning and skeptical.
> He may yet know that "Charles" is the correct name to go with this
> face, but his cognition is fleeting in his semi-possessed state.  He
> never refers to him as anything other than Mr. Grady from here on out,
> not once.  Mr. Grady opens the supernatural door when he declares that
> Jack is the caretaker and has always been so, and that he should know
> having always been there himself.  Right there, in that sentence is
> the obvious fact that "Delbert Grady" is an entirely separate entity
> from that of the 70's caretaker Charles.  The evil Delbert could take
> any name or form as he is comprised of many, but the form of Charles
> Grady works as it is someone for Jack to recognize and yet bewilder
> him quite keeping him off-guard.  I think now that King screwed up in
> his book and Kubrick actually fixed his illogical fumbling and
> separated the 70's caretaker from the ghost.  So are we clear at all
> on this?

Not at all compelling for me. Grady says the same thing about Jack
"always being the caretaker" in the novel where there was one Grady.
So your argument then is that it is *King* who committed the
continuity error, not Kubrick?

Let me ask you this question: How many people do you know who have
seen the movie, were left with the impression that there were two
Gradys, each with a wife and two daughters, and each of whom killed
their respective families? Was this honestly your first impression
after watching the movie the first time?


> I find that argument unnecessary and wrong as the 70's caretaker and
> the ghost are not the same "person."

Why not? They certainly were in the book. And there was nothing in
the film (aside from the one instance of his being called "Charles")
to support that. This is why I think that calling this instance a
continuity error is a far simpler explanation.


> > And thank you ichorwhip for finding a way to "correct" me, without
> > going to the level of "Grady-correcting" (which some appear attempted
> > to do).  :-)
>
> Think nothing of it, but please try and understand where I'm coming
> from with this.  Harry has to speak for himself, which he does quite
> well, but I think he agrees with me mainly.

Which is fine and you both are welcome to your opinions, as I hope you
respect my right to do the same. In the end, it is our common love of
this movie which has brought us together to even have such a
discussion. It is in that spirit I hope we can disagree without
creating any further divisiveness. :-)


> > PS: If it is any consolation, I do not use the term "fanboy"
> > pejoratively, although I can certainly see why someone reading my
> > previous posts would think that I did.
>
> It's not generally a term of endearment, and it's akin to "dork"
> really.

True, but as a comic book, scifi, computer, etc. geek, I have
generally embraced the terms "geek" and "dork", not thinking of them
as anything more than light-hearted poking fun at ourselves. "Fanboy"
is particularly used in the comic book world, where continuity
janitors run amok, each of us finding ways to keep all the stories in
line. Outside that arena though, I understand that people may take
offense at the phrase, seeing it less light-hearted as intended.
Again I apologize for my insensitivity in it use in this forum.


> Your apparent lack of respect or limited knowledge of the
> genius and perfectionist Kubrick and how he obsessively controlled
> every aspect of his films is showing as well.  Have you seen any of
> the others?  What do you know about Kubrick really?

Not nearly as much as you do. "The Shining" is my favorite of his
works, but I have also seen and enjoyed "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes
Wide Shut". "Dr. Strangelove" was okay, and I really didn't care for
the overly violent "Clockwork Orange". I left my decoder ring at home
when I saw "2001: Space Odyssey", so I didn't really care for that. I
haven't seen any of his others. So in the end, I am more of a Shining
fan than I am a Kubrick fan.

It is usually at this point at which I am called a King fan, with the
word "fucking" sprinkled in here and there. For the record, the only
King book I have ever read was "The Shining", and that only because I
liked the movie, and friends of mine told me the book was better. (In
the end, I preferred the film version.)


> I think that was the other half of Harry's problem with you, and I don't
> like it either.

Sadly, I did not see any prerequisites listed before being allowed to
post. I realize that I may not pass your Kubrick litmus tests, but in
a society of free choice that is what you get. Harry's problem with
that, and you're not liking it, I respectfully submit are your issues
and not my own. :-)


> In this group it's usually wise to lurk before you leap.  So
> much could have been done to head off this argument if you had done
> some preliminary work.  The archive is vast, and only about one-tenth
> of it is fart and dick jokes...

I have looked at some of the links already provided, and none of these
have been least bit persuasive to me. If there are particular links
you have in mind, I would be happy to look at them.

Regards,

Jonathan Hoyle
http://www.jonhoyle.com

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 29, 8:21 am, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 8:26 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think it was only his special way of expressing frustration with you
> > and your lack of acknowledgment of what he was saying about the
> > Charles/Delbert situation.  I happen to know that Harry is as gentle
> > as a lamb normally.  ;-)
>
> Okay, I guess I'll take your word for it.  Since at least two other
> people besides myself were given profanity-laden diatribes, I
> certainly would not guessed this.  But I suppose anyone can have an
> off-day.
>
> > I take back the "fucking" then, fair enough?
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > > Let me also start with my olive branch by saying that yes, calling him
> > > "Charles Delbert Grady" would indeed remove the continuity error I
> > > charged existed.
>
> > This is why Harry got so mad at you.
>
> First of all, I don't see how expressing an opinion warrants "being so
> mad" at me or anyone else.  Certainly not to the degree and language
> given.
>
> > Your insistence that Charles Grady the 70's caretaker and "Delbert Grady"
> > the 20's waiter (for all appearences) and ghost are one and the same.
>
> I assumed he was mad at me for suggesting that that there existed a
> continuity error.  I merely acknowledged that the "Charles Delbert
> Grady" solution (which I remind you that I do not believe in) does
> bypass this as a continuity error.  So...is he mad at me for this mere
> acknowledgment?  I certainly was not arguing in its favor.  Am I not
> allowed to admit that a proposal (which I don't even believe in) would
> prevent a continuity error??
>
> As for saying that they are the same Grady, that is the case in the
> original King novel.  Surely that admission is one even you must
> accept, right?  Suggesting the same is true in the movie may not be a
> position that you like, but it's hardly out of line for a forum such
> as this.
>
> So again, I apologize if my tone got out of line, which it did.
> However, I do not apologize for expressing an opinion about a movie in
> a newsgroup about that movie.  Nor do I anticipate anyone here
> (whether they agree with me or not) to expect me to do so.  Just as I
> do not expect you or Harry to change your minds.  What I do expect
> though is civil behavior.
>
>
>
>
>
> > At about 1:25 in this clip you see Jack's first surprised reaction to
> > his query about who this waiter is.  "Grady?" "Yes sir."  "Delbert
> > Grady?"  "That's right sir."  Jack's high inflection and facial
> > expression is entirely and unmistakeably questioning and skeptical.
> > He may yet know that "Charles" is the correct name to go with this
> > face, but his cognition is fleeting in his semi-possessed state.  He
> > never refers to him as anything other than Mr. Grady from here on out,
> > not once.  Mr. Grady opens the supernatural door when he declares that
> > Jack is the caretaker and has always been so, and that he should know
> > having always been there himself.  Right there, in that sentence is
> > the obvious fact that "Delbert Grady" is an entirely separate entity
> > from that of the 70's caretaker Charles.  The evil Delbert could take
> > any name or form as he is comprised of many, but the form of Charles
> > Grady works as it is someone for Jack to recognize and yet bewilder
> > him quite keeping him off-guard.  I think now that King screwed up in
> > his book and Kubrick actually fixed his illogical fumbling and
> > separated the 70's caretaker from the ghost.  So are we clear at all
> > on this?
>
> Not at all compelling for me.  Grady says the same thing about Jack
> "always being the caretaker" in the novel where there was one Grady.
> So your argument then is that it is *King* who committed the
> continuity error, not Kubrick?
>
> Let me ask you this question: How many people do you know who have
> seen the movie, were left with the impression that there were two
> Gradys, each with a wife and two daughters, and each of whom killed
> their respective families?  Was this honestly your first impression
> after watching the movie the first time?
>
> > I find that argument unnecessary and wrong as the 70's caretaker and
> > the ghost are not the same "person."
>
> Why not?  They certainly were in the book.  And there was nothing in
> the film (aside from the one instance of his being called "Charles")
> to support that.  This is why I think that calling this instance a
> continuity error is a far simpler explanation.
>
> > > And thank you ichorwhip for finding a way to "correct" me, without
> > > going to the level of "Grady-correcting" (which some appear attempted
> > > to do).  :-)
>
> > Think nothing of it, but please try and understand where I'm coming
> > from with this.  Harry has to speak for himself, which he does quite
> > well, but I think he agrees with me mainly.
>
> Which is fine and you both are welcome to your opinions, as I hope you
> respect my right to do the same.  In the end, it is our common love of
> this movie which has brought us together to even have such a
> discussion.  It is in that spirit I hope we can disagree without
> creating any further divisiveness.  :-)
>
> > > PS: If it is any consolation, I do not use the term "fanboy"
> > > pejoratively, although I can certainly see why someone reading my
> > > previous posts would think that I did.
>
> > It's not generally a term of endearment, and it's akin to "dork"
> > really.
>
> True, but as a comic book, scifi, computer, etc. geek, I have
> generally embraced the terms "geek" and "dork", not thinking of them
> as anything more than light-hearted poking fun at ourselves.  "Fanboy"
> is particularly used in the comic book world, where continuity
> janitors run amok, each of us finding ways to keep all the stories in
> line.  Outside that arena though, I understand that people may take
> offense at the phrase, seeing it less light-hearted as intended.
> Again I apologize for my insensitivity in it use in this forum.
>
> > Your apparent lack of respect or limited knowledge of the
> > genius and perfectionist Kubrick and how he obsessively controlled
> > every aspect of his films is showing as well.  Have you seen any of
> > the others?  What do you know about Kubrick really?
>
> Not nearly as much as you do.  "The Shining" is my favorite of his
> works, but I have also seen and enjoyed "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes
> Wide Shut".  "Dr. Strangelove" was okay, and I really didn't care for
> the overly violent "Clockwork Orange".  I left my decoder ring at home
> when I saw "2001: Space Odyssey", so I didn't really care for that.  I
> haven't seen any of his others.  So in the end, I am more of a Shining
> fan than I am a Kubrick fan.
>
> It is usually at this point at which I am called a King fan, with the
> word "fucking" sprinkled in here and there.  For the record, the only
> King book I have ever read was "The Shining", and that only because I
> liked the movie, and friends of mine told me the book was better.  (In
> the end, I preferred the film version.)
>
> > I think that was the other half of Harry's problem with you, and I don't
> > like it either.
>
> Sadly, I did not see any prerequisites listed before being allowed to
> post.  I realize that I may not pass your Kubrick litmus tests, but in
> a society of free choice that is what you get.  Harry's problem with
> that, and you're not liking it, I respectfully submit are your issues
> and not my own.  :-)
>
> > In this group it's usually wise to lurk before you leap.  So
> > much could have been done to head off this argument if you had done
> > some preliminary work.  The archive is vast, and only about one-tenth
> > of it is fart and dick jokes...
>
> I have looked at some of the links already provided, and none of these
> have been least bit persuasive to me.  If there are particular links
> you have in mind, I would be happy to look at them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jonathan Hoylehttp://www.jonhoyle.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You don't need to apologize. You have a perfect right to post on this
group. It's a usenet group and like all usenet groups there is
always acrimonious posts by deranged people typing in caps and
screaming. Disagreement is normal, but extremist crazyness is just
that.

The archive is there though, just search this group for Delbert
Charles Grady on the top of the google page and you should be able
find lots of other threads/posts talking about the Grady issue going
way back in time, where people were able to give opinions in a more
normal atmosphere. But it's all speculation and that is part of the
fun of Kubrick films.

In the meantime I encourage you to explore the rest of Kubrick. His
films are amazing and can hold up to many viewing, each time there is
more to see. I think that the more you know about Kubrick the more
you will see how meticulous he was and what his sense of humor was
like that would have him do things like leave in incongrutities and
leave things up to people's imagination. In interviews people always
asked him about this and he always started the opinion that he doesn't
like to explain things but wants people to see what they see on their
own.

In regards to 2001 which you mentioned, over the years I have
noticed how people react to it. I have noticed that negative or blah
reaction come more from people trying to watch it on the small screen
and who never saw it as it was meant to be viewed. For me, it is
very hard to watch again on a small screen...but when it premiered in
Cinerama it was really amazing and later in various 70mm re-releases
it was also great viewing. Recently it was shown for one day, in
Cinerama at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. The small screen thing
also seems to effect later viewers of Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon
and Spatacus, also meant to be seen on the big screen.


dc

[Jonathan Hoyle]

On Sep 29, 2:53 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You don't need to apologize.  You have a perfect right to post on this
> group.  It's a usenet group and like all usenet groups there is
> always  acrimonious posts by deranged people typing in caps and
> screaming.  Disagreement is normal, but extremist crazyness is just
> that.

Yes, I have been in some crazy, flame-ridden discourses on the net
that involve a wide range of things that one might not expect to find,
including mathematics. I guess a film as good as this one is going to
inspire a great deal of emotional responses, especially if there is
the perception of an insult to its creators. In the end, we are all
human.

> The archive is there though,  just search this group for Delbert
> Charles Grady on the top of the google page and you should be able
> find lots of other threads/posts talking about the Grady issue going
> way back in time, where people were able to give opinions in a more
> normal atmosphere.  But it's all speculation and that is part of the
> fun of Kubrick films.
>
> In the meantime I encourage you to explore the rest of Kubrick.  His
> films are amazing and can hold up to many viewing, each time there is
> more to see.  I think that the more you know about Kubrick the more
> you will see how meticulous he was and what his sense of humor was
> like that would have him do things like leave in incongrutities and
> leave things up to people's imagination.  In interviews people always
> asked him about this and he always started the opinion that he doesn't
> like to explain things but wants people to see what they see on their
> own.
>
> In regards to 2001 which you mentioned, over the years I  have
> noticed  how people react to it.  I have noticed that negative or blah
> reaction come more from people trying to watch it on the small screen
> and who never saw it as it was meant to be viewed.   For me,  it is
> very hard to watch again on a small screen...but when it premiered in
> Cinerama it was really amazing and later in various 70mm re-releases
> it was  also great viewing.  Recently it was shown for one day, in
> Cinerama at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood.  The small screen thing
> also seems to effect later viewers of Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon
> and Spatacus,  also meant to be seen on the big screen.

I find this too. Some movies that appear quite grand up on the big
screen, fail to deliver the same impact on television. "The Shining"
is one of those that does not lose as much, mostly because it is so
story-driven. Perhaps I'd have a greater appreciation of 2001 had I
read the book?

I am curious, which Kubrick film do you like best? What particularly
do you like about his films that make them "Kubrickian"?

Jonathan Hoyle
http://www.jonhoyle.com

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 29, 12:19 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am curious, which Kubrick film do you like best?

Strangely the Kubrick Film I like the most is the one he hated the
most...but then it's not a strictly Kubrick film--Spartacus.

My favorite Kubrick film has always been the one that came out last
and as a little kid I saw "The Killing" on TV in about 1957 or 1958
and that was my favorite crime movie--something about it was so
different from other crime movies. Then Spartacus became my favorite
film ever at age 13 and Lolita, when I was 15 and Dr. Strangelove when
I was 17 etc;.

I had other favorite films by Wyler, Hitchcock and Lean especially.
But Kubrick was just different. Even Hitchcock wasn't as unusual as
Kubrick. 2001 and Clockwork Orange in the 60's and 70's were
incredible masterpieces--they both transcended usualy filmmaking
styles.. Barry Lyndon was technically amazing and I loved it, but it
wasn't as unusual as his previous films. The Shining was amazing
although I had issues the first time I saw it and then Full Metal
Jacket--great but didn't surpass Apocalypse Now as a Vietnam film.
Eyes Wide Shut in many ways is my favorite Kubrick film--but in
retrospect I think 2001 is his greatest film overall in terms of film
history.

I was probably most short term blown away by Dr. Strangelove and
Clockwork Orange at the time they came out for their sheer audacity
and hilarity.

The Kubrick films I've rewatched the most in the past 10 years is
EWS, The Shining, Lolita.and Spartacus. I can watch Eyes Wide Shut
every few months and every time i see it i laugh and am blown away.



>What particularly do you like about his films that make them "Kubrickian"?
>


There is no one way to see Kubrick films. opinions are subjective.

I love the details, both technical and imaginative. They have many
layers of meaning and the nuances, so they demand many viewings like
one appreciates a great work of art or music for a lifetime. I love
the humor, both dark or subtle--even slapstick. I love the way he
does music soundtracks. I love his dedication to his films, his
amazing consistency and how each film is so different and unexpected.
i like the way he frames shots and how he tracks shots. The objective
feeling of his films. Some people complain his films are "cold," but
I think that feeling of objectivity that may seem cold to people, is
his best feature. It flys in the face of the usual intimacy that most
other great films by other great directors strive for.

Although my favorite top ten films of all time may only have 3 Kubrick
films in my top ten, and most of my top ten have more "human"
stories, he is easily my favorite director with my favorite overall
body of work. David Lean, Hitchcock, Wyler, Coppola and Kurosawa,
would be number 2, 3. 4, 5 and 6. I think my favorite films of all
time are Spartacus, Ben Hur, Apocalypse Now, Dr. Zhivago, Lawrence of
Arabia, 2001, ClockWork Orange, The Bridge over the River Kwai, North
by Northwest and The Birds. They arent the only films I think are
timeless masterpieces, by any means, but they are my favorites.

Oddly though my VERY favorite thing in film----hard to place on that
list is the endless hours of Buffy The Vampire Slayer...:)


dc

[ichorwhip]

On Sep 29, 1:53 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 8:21 am, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:

> > > This is why Harry got so mad at you.On Sep 29, 1:53 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 8:21 am, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:

> > > This is why Harry got so mad at you.
>
> > First of all, I don't see how expressing an opinion warrants "being so
> > mad" at me or anyone else. Certainly not to the degree and language
> > given.

Eh... he's a little blustery at times especially when you turn a blind
eye to his reasoning.

> > > Your insistence that Charles Grady the 70's caretaker and "Delbert Grady"
> > > the 20's waiter (for all appearences) and ghost are one and the same.
>
> > I assumed he was mad at me for suggesting that that there existed a
> > continuity error.

"Suggesting" ??? My bad, I thought you were asserting that this in
fact was the case.

> I merely acknowledged that the "Charles Delbert
> > Grady" solution (which I remind you that I do not believe in)

I do not believe in it either as it's pretty ridiculous in light of
other facts. Occam musta got razor in his apple...

> > does
> > bypass this as a continuity error. So...is he mad at me for this mere
> > acknowledgment? I certainly was not arguing in its favor.

But you acknowledge this name-combo, and it makes no sense.

> > Am I not
> > allowed to admit that a proposal (which I don't even believe in) would
> > prevent a continuity error??

You're allowed anything you want of course, but when you ignore sound
logic and evidence, circumstantial or not, in favor of unnecessary
fabrications that you really don't believe in then expect to be
criticized. Are we not allowed to criticize you and perhaps berate
you if you don't bother to pay attention?

> > As for saying that they are the same Grady, that is the case in the
> > original King novel.

Yeah, and now I'm thinking King screwed up by making it that way,
thanks for making me think about it.

> > Surely that admission is one even you must
> > accept, right?

I accept that King wrote it that way, of course, I always accept the
truth of anything. What I think is this was some shoddy plotting in
his character development. He is stinko anyways... The only book of
his that I ever thought was any good was "It!"

> > Suggesting the same is true in the movie may not be a
> > position that you like, but it's hardly out of line for a forum such
> > as this.

Of course not, look at the progress we're making!

> > So again, I apologize if my tone got out of line, which it did.
> > However, I do not apologize for expressing an opinion about a movie in
> > a newsgroup about that movie.

I do not accept you not apologizing for your apology.... ;-) Please
guy, you're killing me.
Say whatever ya want, I don't care, but be prepared to take the heat
if it's illogical trollspeak.

>> Nor do I anticipate anyone here
> > (whether they agree with me or not) to expect me to do so.

Than why say it? You should edit more... BTW I'm not angry at all
with you, just aggravated.

> > Just as I
> > do not expect you or Harry to change your minds. What I do expect
> > though is civil behavior.

I'm civil on the sliding slippery slopes.... I'm not speaking for
Harry.

> > > At about 1:25 in this clip you see Jack's first surprised reaction to
> > > his query about who this waiter is. "Grady?" "Yes sir." "Delbert
> > > Grady?" "That's right sir." Jack's high inflection and facial
> > > expression is entirely and unmistakeably questioning and skeptical.
> > > He may yet know that "Charles" is the correct name to go with this
> > > face, but his cognition is fleeting in his semi-possessed state. He
> > > never refers to him as anything other than Mr. Grady from here on out,
> > > not once. Mr. Grady opens the supernatural door when he declares that
> > > Jack is the caretaker and has always been so, and that he should know
> > > having always been there himself. Right there, in that sentence is
> > > the obvious fact that "Delbert Grady" is an entirely separate entity
> > > from that of the 70's caretaker Charles. The evil Delbert could take
> > > any name or form as he is comprised of many, but the form of Charles
> > > Grady works as it is someone for Jack to recognize and yet bewilder
> > > him quite keeping him off-guard. I think now that King screwed up in
> > > his book and Kubrick actually fixed his illogical fumbling and
> > > separated the 70's caretaker from the ghost. So are we clear at all
> > > on this?
>
> > Not at all compelling for me. Grady says the same thing about Jack
> > "always being the caretaker" in the novel where there was one Grady.
> > So your argument then is that it is *King* who committed the
> > continuity error, not Kubrick?

That's right, and it's not a continuity error on King's part, it's a
lack of character realization. This in fact may be why Kubrick added
Charles. And I guarantee you with my soul that Kubrick knew that
"Charles" was there and left it for a reason.

> > Let me ask you this question: How many people do you know who have
> > seen the movie, were left with the impression that there were two
> > Gradys, each with a wife and two daughters, and each of whom killed
> > their respective families? Was this honestly your first impression
> > after watching the movie the first time?

This is some argumentative bull-oni that I don't want to respond to
because you can't seem to distinguish between a 70's caretaker and a
lying evil spirit armed with advocaat.

> > > I find that argument unnecessary and wrong as the 70's caretaker and
> > > the ghost are not the same "person."
>
> > Why not? They certainly were in the book.

Yeah good thing Kubrick read it or he couldn't have fixed it.

> > And there was nothing in
> > the film (aside from the one instance of his being called "Charles")
> > to support that. This is why I think that calling this instance a
> > continuity error is a far simpler explanation.

And this gets right back to how you ignore the shit out of how
exacting an artist Kubrick was. I hate that disrespect man, it hurts,
because Stanley was, you see, oh so SUPER! It's like you telling me
that Lawrence of Arabia is a gay albino, which one trollylox had to
say around here once upon a time.

> > > > And thank you ichorwhip for finding a way to "correct" me, without
> > > > going to the level of "Grady-correcting" (which some appear attempted
> > > > to do). :-)
>
> > > Think nothing of it, but please try and understand where I'm coming
> > > from with this. Harry has to speak for himself, which he does quite
> > > well, but I think he agrees with me mainly.
>
> > Which is fine and you both are welcome to your opinions,

Why thanks! I like being patronized.........

> > as I hope you
> > respect my right to do the same.

You have that right but nothing says I have to respect things I
disagree with and with perfectly valid reasons.

> > In the end, it is our common love of
> > this movie which has brought us together to even have such a
> > discussion. It is in that spirit I hope we can disagree without
> > creating any further divisiveness. :-)

You kill me...

> > > > PS: If it is any consolation, I do not use the term "fanboy"
> > > > pejoratively, although I can certainly see why someone reading my
> > > > previous posts would think that I did.
>
> > > It's not generally a term of endearment, and it's akin to "dork"
> > > really.
>
> > True, but as a comic book, scifi, computer, etc. geek, I have
> > generally embraced the terms "geek" and "dork",

I hate the term "geek" too! It used to mean a guy in a cage in a
diaper who bites the heads off of chickens, real sideshow shit...

> >not thinking of them
> > as anything more than light-hearted poking fun at ourselves. "Fanboy"
> > is particularly used in the comic book world, where continuity
> > janitors run amok, each of us finding ways to keep all the stories in
> > line. Outside that arena though, I understand that people may take
> > offense at the phrase, seeing it less light-hearted as intended.
> > Again I apologize for my insensitivity in it use in this forum.

Did your lawyer put you up to this?

> > > Your apparent lack of respect or limited knowledge of the
> > > genius and perfectionist Kubrick and how he obsessively controlled
> > > every aspect of his films is showing as well. Have you seen any of
> > > the others? What do you know about Kubrick really?
>
> > Not nearly as much as you do. "The Shining" is my favorite of his
> > works, but I have also seen and enjoyed "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes
> > Wide Shut". "Dr. Strangelove" was okay,

You see, we have to begin to part with our tastes here...

> > and I really didn't care for
> > the overly violent "Clockwork Orange".

Many fanboys like this flick for all the wrong reasons. I think it's
monumental.

> > I left my decoder ring at home
> > when I saw "2001: Space Odyssey",

Nice snide remark, that didn't offend my sensibility of what's the
greatest motion picture yet at all...

> > so I didn't really care for that.

The three main films of Kubrick you don't like or only mildly. Why
would we ever disagree on anything?


> >I haven't seen any of his others. So in the end, I am more of a Shining
> > fan than I am a Kubrick fan.

Okay. Sheesh!

> > It is usually at this point at which I am called a King fan, with the
> > word "fucking" sprinkled in here and there.

A sprinkle of "fuckings" coming right up... what?! No "fuckings"?!
"Hold the fuckings..."

> > For the record, the only
> > King book I have ever read was "The Shining", and that only because I
> > liked the movie, and friends of mine told me the book was better. (In
> > the end, I preferred the film version.)

You chose wisely. The book is pretty drecky and makes no sense in
parts with it's murky character development and what not. Kubrick
really polished a turd, and King was lucky he did the ungrateful
botch....

> > > I think that was the other half of Harry's problem with you, and I don't
> > > like it either.
>
> > Sadly, I did not see any prerequisites listed before being allowed to
> > post.

There isn't of course, and any troll can post, I actually like it when
they do sometimes. It's like a menagerie.

> > I realize that I may not pass your Kubrick litmus tests, but in
> > a society of free choice that is what you get.

This is why we must socialize Kubrick asap!! Gwa!

> > Harry's problem with
> > that, and you're not liking it, I respectfully submit are your issues
> > and not my own. :-)

I never said it was your problem, but you seem surprised at your
treatment here. Harry wasn't all THAT AWFUL. In fact he only got
really ugly when he was deriding Trailmix your new "Kubrick" friend
and fighting Buddhist. I was laughing btw... pretty funny crap.

> > > In this group it's usually wise to lurk before you leap. So
> > > much could have been done to head off this argument if you had done
> > > some preliminary work. The archive is vast, and only about one-tenth
> > > of it is fart and dick jokes...
>
> > I have looked at some of the links already provided, and none of these
> > have been least bit persuasive to me. If there are particular links
> > you have in mind, I would be happy to look at them.

I have gone on ahead and made my case on the Charles thing. What was
suggested is a better familiarity of Kubrick for yourself as you
barely know him it seems. You'll never find anything to back up your
contention, I'm confident of that.

> > Regards,
>
> > Jonathan Hoylehttp://www.jonhoyle.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You don't need to apologize. You have a perfect right to post on this
> group. It's a usenet group and like all usenet groups there is
> always acrimonious posts by deranged people typing in caps and
> screaming. Disagreement is normal, but extremist crazyness is just
> that.

Lard Gawd shaddup! Buddhrick! Trailmix Buddrick...

> The archive is there though, just search this group for Delbert
> Charles Grady on the top of the google page and you should be able
> find lots of other threads/posts talking about the Grady issue going
> way back in time,

This just in from the technical journal "DUH!"

> where people were able to give opinions in a more
> normal atmosphere.

Ha! It used to be even worse. More people meant more bullshit
still. Still I do miss certain posters like ol' Tobs who I know looks
in on us, and of course there was the godhead of all-things-Kubrick
Geoff Alexander. A dozen more were assholes. Who cares much anyway?
The resource is at hand always for novice posters.

> But it's all speculation and that is part of the
> fun of Kubrick films.

It's not just fun for some, it's an enlightenment. I can only say
that I've always been fascinated by Kubrick and the ultra-fine films
he made. His attention to every detail is part of the folklore...
He's like the John Henry of mooovies. ;-(

"I mean... he'll see everything. He'll see the big board!"
i
"piop"

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 29, 1:26 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 1:09 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 26, 12:34 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think you understood much of it judging from your obtuse
> > > reaction.  You want this to be an error so bad that you've seemed to
> > > have forgotten that you came here looking for opinions, or so the
> > > subject header indicates.
>
> > You're right, I was starting to get out of line.  Harry's belligerent
> > and abusive responses made me short with other responders.
>
> I think it was only his special way of expressing frustration with you
> and your lack of acknowledgment of what he was saying about the
> Charles/Delbert situation.  I happen to know that Harry is as gentle
> as a lamb normally.  ;-)
>
> >  Since I do
> > not wish to lower myself to that level, let me apologize if I appeared
> > too snippy in my last post.  Perhaps if I apologize here, it might
> > spurs others who have posted with a bit too much anger to also do the
> > same and raise this discussion back to a more pleasant tone.
>
> I take back the "fucking" then, fair enough?
>
> > Let me also start with my olive branch by saying that yes, calling him
> > "Charles Delbert Grady" would indeed remove the continuity error I
> > charged existed.
>
> This is why Harry got so mad at you.  Your insistence that Charles
> Grady the 70's caretaker and "Delbert Grady" the 20's waiter (for all
> appearences) and ghost are one and the same.  I don't buy this myself
> because it doesn't work as well as the alternative.  I'd like you to
> look again very closely at the scene in the bathroom where you can see
> some remnants of Jack's rapidly declining sanity within his dubious
> response to Grady.
>
> For quick reference sake then :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VXa4Ar3MWk
>
> At about 1:25 in this clip you see Jack's first surprised reaction to
> his query about who this waiter is.  "Grady?" "Yes sir."  "Delbert
> Grady?"  "That's right sir."  Jack's high inflection and facial
> expression is entirely and unmistakeably questioning and skeptical.
> He may yet know that "Charles" is the correct name to go with this
> face, but his cognition is fleeting in his semi-possessed state.  He
> never refers to him as anything other than Mr. Grady from here on out,
> not once.  Mr. Grady opens the supernatural door when he declares that
> Jack is the caretaker and has always been so, and that he should know
> having always been there himself.  Right there, in that sentence is
> the obvious fact that "Delbert Grady" is an entirely separate entity
> from that of the 70's caretaker Charles.  The evil Delbert could take
> any name or form as he is comprised of many, but the form of Charles
> Grady works as it is someone for Jack to recognize and yet bewilder
> him quite keeping him off-guard.  I think now that King screwed up in
> his book and Kubrick actually fixed his illogical fumbling and
> separated the 70's caretaker from the ghost.  So are we clear at all
> on this?
>
> >  Although I personally do not find this argument
> > compelling, I certainly respect the right of others who choose to
> > embrace it.
>
> I find that argument unnecessary and wrong as the 70's caretaker and
> the ghost are not the same "person."
>
> > And thank you ichorwhip for finding a way to "correct" me, without
> > going to the level of "Grady-correcting" (which some appear attempted
> > to do).  :-)
>
> Think nothing of it, but please try and understand where I'm coming
> from with this.  Harry has to speak for himself, which he does quite
> well, but I think he agrees with me mainly.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Jonathan Hoylehttp://www.jonhoyle.com
>
> > PS: If it is any consolation, I do not use the term "fanboy"
> > pejoratively, although I can certainly see why someone reading my
> > previous posts would think that I did.
>
> It's not generally a term of endearment, and it's akin to "dork"
> really.  Your apparent lack of respect or limited knowledge of the
> genius and perfectionist Kubrick and how he obsessively controlled
> every aspect of his films is showing as well.  Have you seen any of
> the others?  What do you know about Kubrick really?  I think that was
> the other half of Harry's problem with you, and I don't like it
> either.  In this group it's usually wise to lurk before you leap.  So
> much could have been done to head off this argument if you had done
> some preliminary work.  The archive is vast, and only about one-tenth
> of it is fart and dick jokes...
>
> "Mr. Torrance, I see you can hardly have taken care of the business we
> discussed."
> i
> "piop"

They'll have to re-edit that dialogue scene on the lunar shuttle in
2001, where Dr Floyd refers to the monolith at Clavius, from
"deliberately buried" to "mistakenly buried." After all, what's an
overworked and absent-minded cast and crew to do?

Barry Nelson/Stuart Ullman: Mr Kubrick, I hope you don't mind my
asking, but we've now just completed 54 takes of the interview scene
where I inform Mr Torrance about the previous caretaker, Charles
Grady. My wife, a confirmed horror story addict, tells me that the
caretaker in King's novel is called Delbert Grady. Why have you
changed the name?

Stanley Kubrick: Barry, I realise you're tired, we're all tired. But
let's just go again for one more take.

Jack Nicholson/Jack Torrance: Stan, my man, now that we've finished
the red bathroom scene after 69 takes, I'm just wondering why Philip
here is called Delbert Grady when the previous caretaker was called
Charles Grady?

Philip Stone/Delbert Grady: Yes, I've been wondering about that too,
Mr Kubrick.

Stanley Kubrick: One last take, fellas, just one more. Let's go again.
We can do it!

Ray Lovejoy/Editor: Stanley, I've matched up all 87 takes of the
interview scene where Ullman talks about Charles Grady, and I've also
matched up all 92 takes of the red bathroom scene where Delbert Grady
introduces himself to Torrance. I notice that in all of these takes
Ullman calls the previous caretaker Charles Grady while the ghostly
butler calls himself Delbert Grady. Why were there two different names
in all those takes?

Stanley Kubrick: That's strange, Ray, I don't have any recollection of
that at all.

[kelpzoidzl]

Philip Stone's ghost can be contacted and asked for clarification
he's in room 236, right next to 237

Some quotes from him about his Kubrick roles here (scroll down on
linked page)

http://www.geocities.com/malcolmtribute/aco/stone.html


dc

[ichorwhip]

On Sep 29, 2:02 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 1:26 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 1:09 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 12:34 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't think you understood much of it judging from your obtuse
> > > > reaction.  You want this to be an error so bad that you've seemed to
> > > > have forgotten that you came here looking for opinions, or so the
> > > > subject header indicates.
>
> > > You're right, I was starting to get out of line.  Harry's belligerent
> > > and abusive responses made me short with other responders.
>
> > I think it was only his special way of expressing frustration with you
> > and your lack of acknowledgment of what he was saying about the
> > Charles/Delbert situation.  I happen to know that Harry is as gentle
> > as a lamb normally.  ;-)
>
> > >  Since I do
> > > not wish to lower myself to that level, let me apologize if I appeared
> > > too snippy in my last post.  Perhaps if I apologize here, it might
> > > spurs others who have posted with a bit too much anger to also do the
> > > same and raise this discussion back to a more pleasant tone.
>
> > I take back the "fucking" then, fair enough?
>
> > > Let me also start with my olive branch by saying that yes, calling him
> > > "Charles Delbert Grady" would indeed remove the continuity error I
> > > charged existed.
>
> > This is why Harry got so mad at you.  Your insistence that Charles
> > Grady the 70's caretaker and "Delbert Grady" the 20's waiter (for all
> > appearences) and ghost are one and the same.  I don't buy this myself
> > because it doesn't work as well as the alternative.  I'd like you to
> > look again very closely at the scene in the bathroom where you can see
> > some remnants of Jack's rapidly declining sanity within his dubious
> > response to Grady.
>
> > For quick reference sake then :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VXa4Ar3MWk
>
> > At about 1:25 in this clip you see Jack's first surprised reaction to
> > his query about who this waiter is.  "Grady?" "Yes sir."  "Delbert
> > Grady?"  "That's right sir."  Jack's high inflection and facial
> > expression is entirely and unmistakeably questioning and skeptical.
> > He may yet know that "Charles" is the correct name to go with this
> > face, but his cognition is fleeting in his semi-possessed state.  He
> > never refers to him as anything other than Mr. Grady from here on out,
> > not once.  Mr. Grady opens the supernatural door when he declares that
> > Jack is the caretaker and has always been so, and that he should know
> > having always been there himself.  Right there, in that sentence is
> > the obvious fact that "Delbert Grady" is an entirely separate entity
> > from that of the 70's caretaker Charles.  The evil Delbert could take
> > any name or form as he is comprised of many, but the form of Charles
> > Grady works as it is someone for Jack to recognize and yet bewilder
> > him quite keeping him off-guard.  I think now that King screwed up in
> > his book and Kubrick actually fixed his illogical fumbling and
> > separated the 70's caretaker from the ghost.  So are we clear at all
> > on this?
>
> > >  Although I personally do not find this argument
> > > compelling, I certainly respect the right of others who choose to
> > > embrace it.
>
> > I find that argument unnecessary and wrong as the 70's caretaker and
> > the ghost are not the same "person."
>
> > > And thank you ichorwhip for finding a way to "correct" me, without
> > > going to the level of "Grady-correcting" (which some appear attempted
> > > to do).  :-)
>
> > Think nothing of it, but please try and understand where I'm coming
> > from with this.  Harry has to speak for himself, which he does quite
> > well, but I think he agrees with me mainly.
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Jonathan Hoylehttp://www.jonhoyle.com
>
> > > PS: If it is any consolation, I do not use the term "fanboy"
> > > pejoratively, although I can certainly see why someone reading my
> > > previous posts would think that I did.
>
> > It's not generally a term of endearment, and it's akin to "dork"
> > really.  Your apparent lack of respect or limited knowledge of the
> > genius and perfectionist Kubrick and how he obsessively controlled
> > every aspect of his films is showing as well.  Have you seen any of
> > the others?  What do you know about Kubrick really?  I think that was
> > the other half of Harry's problem with you, and I don't like it
> > either.  In this group it's usually wise to lurk before you leap.  So
> > much could have been done to head off this argument if you had done
> > some preliminary work.  The archive is vast, and only about one-tenth
> > of it is fart and dick jokes...
>
> > "Mr. Torrance, I see you can hardly have taken care of the business we
> > discussed."
> > i
> > "piop"
>
> They'll have to re-edit that dialogue scene on the lunar shuttle in
> 2001, where Dr Floyd refers to the monolith at Clavius, from
> "deliberately buried" to "mistakenly buried." After all, what's an
> overworked and absent-minded cast and crew to do?
>
> Barry Nelson/Stuart Ullman: Mr Kubrick, I hope you don't mind my
> asking, but we've now just completed 54 takes of the interview scene
> where I inform Mr Torrance about the previous caretaker, Charles
> Grady. My wife, a confirmed horror story addict, tells me that the
> caretaker in King's novel is called Delbert Grady. Why have you
> changed the name?
>
> Stanley Kubrick: Barry, I realise you're tired, we're all tired. But
> let's just go again for one more take.
>
> Jack Nicholson/Jack Torrance: Stan, my man, now that we've finished
> the red bathroom scene after 69 takes, I'm just wondering why Philip
> here is called Delbert Grady when the previous caretaker was called
> Charles Grady?
>
> Philip Stone/Delbert Grady: Yes, I've been wondering about that too,
> Mr Kubrick.
>
> Stanley Kubrick: One last take, fellas, just one more. Let's go again.
> We can do it!
>
> Ray Lovejoy/Editor: Stanley, I've matched up all 87 takes of the
> interview scene where Ullman talks about Charles Grady, and I've also
> matched up all 92 takes of the red bathroom scene where Delbert Grady
> introduces himself to Torrance. I notice that in all of these takes
> Ullman calls the previous caretaker Charles Grady while the ghostly
> butler calls himself Delbert Grady. Why were there two different names
> in all those takes?
>
> Stanley Kubrick: That's strange, Ray, I don't have any recollection of
> that at all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That was wonderful. I'm gonna "steal your ideas and sell 'em to
Hollywood!" ;-)

"A rather naughty boy, if I may be so bold, sir."
i
"piop"

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 29, 1:26 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 1:09 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 26, 12:34 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think you understood much of it judging from your obtuse
> > > reaction. You want this to be an error so bad that you've seemed to
> > > have forgotten that you came here looking for opinions, or so the
> > > subject header indicates.
>
> > You're right, I was starting to get out of line. Harry's belligerent
> > and abusive responses made me short with other responders.
>
> I think it was only his special way of expressing frustration with you
> and your lack of acknowledgment of what he was saying about the
> Charles/Delbert situation. I happen to know that Harry is as gentle
> as a lamb normally. ;-)
>

There was a time here when a flaming troll like Hoyle would not have
been tolerated for a moment by any of the regular posters, but with
such madcap loony trolls like Kelps and Reid and Wordturd, etc,
dominating the board (as is the case elsewhere, with so many trolls
dictating the agenda of numerous other newsgroups), when mindless,
deflationary babbling becomes increasingly the norm, when even an
elementary sense of judgment is hopelessly lost, this newsgroup is now
basically dead, over-run by destructive zombies completely unaware of
their own behaviour and their own unreason.

What is even more disturbing is that Hoyle isn't even (consciously)
aware that his post was a flame. Hoyle, who has never actually posted
at this newsgroup before (Christ, the very fact that I'm reduced to
defending the integrity of the newsgroup in this way, having to point
out the blatently obvious, speaks volumes in itself), deliberately
incited a 'flame' here. He posted a message here that masqueraded as a
'response' to a previous post, one in which someone asked whether the
Charles/Delbert duality was a 'continuity error.' But there was no
such 'previous' post (search the archive; it doesn't exist). Rather,
Hoyle - someone who is clearly totally ignorant of Kubrick and his
work, confirmed further by each of his subsequent posts -
intentionally set about rubbishing a consistent feature of the film,
not via argument or reason, but simply because it didn't 'conform'
with King's novel (he later escalated this approach in further posts
claiming that other scenes were ridiculous because they didn't
slavishly follow King's simple-minded drivel). When a number of
regular posters pointed out to him that his claim was without
foundation, he ignored them and persisted by blankly asserting his
increasingly bigoted and unreasonable claim, arrogantly accompanied
with insults. This is the very DEFINITION of flaming (of course, the
likes of Kelps and others are congenitally incapable of seeing this
because they began posting at AMK as trolls/flamers themselves).

So utterly oblivious is Hoyle to basic newsgroup protocol, that -
having started a flame on a newsgroup he has never posted to before
and has no real interest in (ie for him, discussing Kubrick's films is
no different than discussing brands of beans), and having been
informed of this and been warned about it - he not only is continuing
to flame, insult and encourage the other trolls like Kelps, but seems
intent on escalating his inanities further. He's like a flat-earther
invading an astronomy newsgroup and persistently claiming that their
'theories' about a heliocentric universe are 'obviously' mistaken, and
then - having been properly told to fuck off by the group - claims
Victimization, of being 'bullied' and 'abused.' Or worse, he's like a
rapist flaming a rape-victims' forum, puzzled why such victims are so
upset and whining all the time, while claiming that rape is perfectly
normal and reasonable and just 'human nature', that rapists are good
people and their victims are stupid and deserving of it, to stop
responding to his posts in an angry or belligerent way cuz "I know my
rights, I've a right to free speech, so why can't all you unreasonable
people be more civilised!".

And still, just now in another post, he continues (like an
anachronistic 1950s IBM computer still chugging away at the same
idiotic program) with the same claim, though now deeming it as
'trivial', so trivial that it was deemed necessary to go to the
trouble of flaming a newsgroup he'd never posted to before, repeatedly
and smugly making the same superfluous claim despite all evidence to
the contrary, still continuing.

Or perhaps, as with so many insular 'computer geeks' (as
fundamentalist as any Bible-quoting bigot) and newsgroup flamers and
sociopaths, he suffers from acute autism (his posts on other
newsgroups give a clue) and just needs some appropriate care and
counselling. He'll not be getting that here, though, while he
continues with his offensive madness.

[Jonathan Hoyle]

Well, so much for the kindler, gentler Harry. At least I tried.

I have no desire to respond to most of the offensive drivel which
Harry put forth, as I think any third party reading this thread can
accurately decide for themselves who the crank is. I do feel the need
to address one point which he accuses of me, and that being:

> He posted a message here that masqueraded as a 'response' to
> a previous post, one in which someone asked whether the
> Charles/Delbert duality was a 'continuity error.' But there was no
> such 'previous' post (search the archive; it doesn't exist).

Sadly, Harry's internet skills are apparently no better than his
debate skills. It's certainly easily found with a Google search. And
had he simply challenged me to give him the link to it, I could have
saved him the trouble. Unfortunately, he appears to lack even the
courage to make this allegation in direct response to me, but rather
in response to someone else. In any case, the original thread which I
was responding to is named identically to this one: "Opinions? Charles/
Delbert Grady puzzle" in this very newsgroup alt.movies.kubrick, back
in 1999:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/browse_frm/thread/2e64022c58f4bf3b/ae5ea7dada8adf77?hl=en

What I hadn't realized at first was that this thread was so old that
new responses were not posted to it any longer, so a new thread was
created.

As it happens, it was this original thread which came up in my own
"Shining" Google search, and how I found out about the existence of
alt.movies.kubrick. Ironically, had Harry been right and this post
never existed, I would not have found this newsgroup, and poor Harry
could have saved a little money on his blood pressure medication.

In the future Harry, you really ought to verify these things before
you make such allegations. (Lest someone mistake you for a complete
jerk.) It's called Google. Good luck with that.

And with that parting shot, Harry, I will leave you to you own
devices, wishing you good luck in your endeavors, and hoping that you
seriously lighten up.

Regards,

Jonathan Hoyle
http://www.jonhoyle.com

[kelpzoidzl]

It occurs to me that there is "Harry Bailey"---a "Harry" who is a
ghost, who posts here on AMK in the present and a "Padraig Henry"--who
posted here on AMK in the past, who we (long time readers of AMK) all
know that they are one and the same person which should be brought out
for any new readers of the archives of AMK. Padraig, bloodily
murdered the old AMK and his ghost reappeared after an absense to
repeat the same behavior again.

In the archive we have Ichorwhip, trying to make peace with Padraig
offering an "Olive Branch" to Padraig:

>>>>>>>>Love thy neighbour., or hate thy asshole?

I tried to love you Padraig. You are the one who turned your back on
me. And then I was like, "No Padraig! I meant like Platonic Love
fella." Yeah I know I must make you laugh. Your chief nemesis is
really MJ anyway. I only ever wanted to be your friend and now look
what's happened.


I'd offer you another olive branch, but I'm fresh out. Let me know
how that compilation of my wicked deeds from the AMK archive is
coming
along. I feel much more at ease now knowing that I have an editor
working for me. ">>>>>>>>>>>>


And Ichorwhips further attempt to make Padraig see the error of his
ways:


<<<<<<<<<<<<"Let's get things nice and sparkling clear."
The reason, Father Padraig, you are attacked constantly is not
because
you are so much right or wrong. It's because you are so much of a
fucking asshole.


Nobody likes to be talked at the way you carry on. How dare you
feign
surprise in getting so many hostile responses? You talk to people
like they are shit under your heel and provoke every nasty word you
receive in return.

"And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make."

Forgive me Lord P, I don't have a problem with you being your
faithful
disciple now and so forth, but I felt obliged to point out the
obvious. Are you really a man of Peace? or just a man of Piss?
Everyone thinks you're a fucking asshole, even Jesus.


ichorwhip ">>>>>>>>>>>>>



And how well does Ichorwhip do in this offering of the Olive Branch?:

here is the reply



>"Let's get things nice and sparkling clear."


Another inane response from AMK's resident [again, resident _since_
Kubrick's death. Is nostalgic necrophilia now that common in the US,
now a national past-time?] sociopath, who's near-every post here
since
he began polluting this newsgroup with his hate-filled filth confirms
his pathology, thuggishly inciting violence and racial hatred ("Kill
All Terrorists" "Nuke The Japs" etc), while often claiming to mask it
all as "humor". Go look in the mirror, you supporter of US terrorism.
But thread carefully, as your reflection might just kill you.


>The reason, Father Padraig, you are attacked constantly is not because
>you are so much right or wrong.



It is because twisted Americans like you instantly choose a
convenient, distant scapegoat on which to project all your hatred and
guilt. You've been doing it uninterrupted for decades ("Its Them,
those Others; They're Responsible for all the violence we righteously
unleash upon the world!" The demented reasoning of Rapists everywhere
...).


>It's because you are so much of a
>fucking asshole.


Ninty Eight percent of the population of the world believes it is you
and your ilk who properly qualify for that insult. America's past
ideals are now in the gutter, and the evident response of creeps like
you here is to dig in even deeper: you'd rather destroy the whole
world than simply admit defeat, than humbly confess your
wrongdoings,
than humanely admit that the game is up. You have too much to learn
from those "nuked" Japs, and those "nasty" Germans.


>Nobody likes to be talked at the way you carry on.



Unapologetic sociopaths like you don't like being nakedly exposed.


>How dare you feign
>surprise in getting so many hostile responses?


There is no surprise; that your country - with the support of such as
you - can indifferently bully, murder, slaughter, and pillage
throughout the world [in countries too numerous to mention here] and
continue to not only get away with such crimes against humanity [via
yet more bullying, murder, ...] and using the monsters you create
[Pinochet, Saddam, Suharto, etc] as your moral compass, but openly
boast about such crimes, it is therefore hardly surprising to witness
here hostile responses from racist US jerks like you. Why are you
even
posting here? Just because Kubrick was American? The guy is puking up
the contents of his grave witnessing the sentiments everyday
expressed
here by insular cultural preverts such as you.


>You talk to people
>like they are shit under your heel and provoke every nasty word you
>receive in return.


Oh? Calling you a nasty right-wing racist is hardly provocative. It
is
a documented fact, repeatedly broadcast by numerous posts of your's
here. Its all in the AMK archive, if anyone can be even bothered to
look.


>"And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make."


>Forgive me Lord P, I don't have a problem with you being your faithful
>disciple now and so forth, but I felt obliged to point out the
>obvious. Are you really a man of Peace? or just a man of Piss?
>Everyone thinks you're a fucking asshole, even Jesus.



Everyone, including yourself, _knows_ what you are ...
=============================================
A continuing education at Abu Ghraib University

Shocking images are teaching hubristic Americans an overdue lesson:
the difference between guilt and shame
By George Fletcher

Wednesday, May 26, 2004,
<snip long repost of some dumb anti american article>


Then Ichorwhip takes him to task:
Ho! Ho! What's the matter St.Padraig? You certainly are a man of
Piss. Thought so! And _very clearly_ the resident fucking asshole of
AMK with this long trail of vomit you spewed. I guess you got your
feelings hurt, huh? I'm sorry. Does Someone hates being mocked and
made fun of? ~~&^*_now then_*^&~~

> > >"Let's get things nice and sparkling clear."


> > Another inane response from AMK's resident [again, resident _since_
> > Kubrick's death. Is nostalgic necrophilia now that common in the US,
> > now a national past-time?]



I don't know what you think you're getting at, but I've been a
devoted
admirer of Kubrick and his films for close to thirty years. I guess
since the timing of my arrival on AMK roughly coincides with
Kubrick's
death it makes me something less than an uber-Kubrick-man in your
typical cock-eyed perspective. Oh let me bow down to the great
fellowship of Kubrickmen who first started posting on this newsgroup
way back eons ago when the Internet was just beginning to grow up,
geez that must have been almost fifteen or so years ago or something,
SO long ago right after the earth cooled and dinosaurs became
extinct.
I guess I shouldn't bother to post here since every worthy thing
that
could ever be said has already been said by that huge braintrust of
geniuses Padraig included. I'm gwine to sit in a warm bathtub and
slit my wrists now as my whole posting history on AMK has been
nothing
more than a footnote. Good bye cruel newsgroup!

> sociopath,



Sociopath? Well at least I'm not a viscious, one-dimensional,
narcissistic, intolerant megalomaniac like you, my Lord of Lies.

> who's near-every post here since
> > he began polluting this newsgroup with his hate-filled filth confirms
> > his pathology, thuggishly inciting violence and racial hatred ("Kill
> > All Terrorists" "Nuke The Japs" etc), while often claiming to mask it
> > all as "humor".



This is yet another inaccurate assessment of myself by you. Don't
worry, I forgive you. Also, when it's funny, it's funny. Yeah I
horse
around a lot and go into some dark and filthy subjects often. I
guess
you never do that (since your sense of humor is a hemmerhoid.)
Kubrick certainly did. In fact he is the artist who inspires me most.
Satire and humor and verse are what I do best. What do you do best?
Nevermind, I don't care any more as you have hurt my feelings very
badly.


> Go look in the mirror, you supporter of US terrorism.
> > But thread carefully, as your reflection might just kill you.



Thread carefully? What kind of clever talk is this? BTW, looked in
a
mirror and I'm still here to tell about it. I'll bet that makes you
mad.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> > >The reason, Father Padraig, you are attacked constantly is not because
> > >you are so much right or wrong.


> > It is because twisted Americans like you instantly choose a
> > convenient, distant scapegoat on which to project all your hatred and
> > guilt. You've been doing it uninterrupted for decades ("Its Them,
> > those Others; They're Responsible for all the violence we righteously
> > unleash upon the world!" The demented reasoning of Rapists everywhere
> > ...).


> > >It's because you are so much of a
> > >fucking asshole.


> > Ninty Eight percent of the population of the world believes it is you
> > and your ilk who properly qualify for that insult.



Are you trying to tell me that only 2% of the world thinks you are a
fucking asshole? I demand a recount!

America's past



> > ideals are now in the gutter, and the evident response of creeps like
> > you here is to dig in even deeper: you'd rather destroy the whole
> > world than simply admit defeat,


Creep or not, no I fucking wouldn't! What kind of 'defeat' are you
talking about? You ARE a goddam terrorist AREN'T you? Well at least
you lick terror-ass. Your whole posture is a paradox. I don't want
to waste any time proving it anymore because I already have. You
will
simply deny the truth every time. What an immense douche-bag your
fucking asshole brain is.

than humbly confess your wrongdoings,


Oh yeah like you would ever forgive anyone of anything... You are
without a doubt one of the most lying, meanest, vindictive,
unforgiving, obstinate fucking assholes I have ever encountered.



> > than humanely admit that the game is up. You have too much to learn
> > from those "nuked" Japs, and those "nasty" Germans.


No you do evidentally. BTW I never routinely refer to the Japanese
as
"Japs". Are you some kind of fucking racist yourself? And if the
Axis
powers had won World War 2, I guess you'd be whooping it up right?
Wrong! You'd be attacking them much in the same way that you attack
the US and it's allies. You like attacking winners and defending
losers and terrorists. What kind of fucking asshole are you?
Nevermind, we all know.


> > >Nobody likes to be talked at the way you carry on.


> > Unapologetic sociopaths like you don't like being nakedly exposed.



Unapologetic? Like my apologies could change the world! Oh good!
I'M
SORRY!!!!!!!!! Shit...doesn't seem to have worked.


> > >How dare you feign
> > >surprise in getting so many hostile responses?


> > There is no surprise; that your country - with the support of such as
> > you - can indifferently bully, murder, slaughter, and pillage
> > throughout the world [in countries too numerous to mention here]



I didn't think anything was "too numerous" for you to mention here.
Again you try to paint me as one of the right-wing war-mongerers I so
despise. I guess the mere act of my breathing is 'evidence' enough
for you of my "support" for my country and its actions. Good thing
I'm not a Jewish-American. I don't think I could handle the
double-whammy of hate you'd lay on me then Padraggled fiend.

and



> > continue to not only get away with such crimes against humanity [via
> > yet more bullying, murder, ...] and using the monsters you create
> > [Pinochet, Saddam, Suharto, etc] as your moral compass, but openly
> > boast about such crimes, it is therefore hardly surprising to witness
> > here hostile responses from racist US jerks like you.


I may be a jerk. I certainly am an American, but I am not a racist.
I
only hate fucking assholes like you.

Why are you even



> > posting here?


Why are you? Rarely do you have anything to say that doesn't start
another flame-war. It doesn't bother me mind you. I like arguing
with fucking assholes.

Just because Kubrick was American?


Duh! Of course! What a lame-brain...


The guy is puking up



> > the contents of his grave witnessing the sentiments everyday expressed
> > here by insular cultural preverts such as you.


I doubt that quite seriously. I think if he could puke at all, he'd
do it right in your fucking asshole face.


> > >You talk to people
> > >like they are shit under your heel and provoke every nasty word you
> > >receive in return.


> > Oh? Calling you a nasty right-wing racist is hardly provocative.



Oh hardly, just another of your ongoing lies.

It is



> > a documented fact, repeatedly broadcast by numerous posts of your's
> > here. Its all in the AMK archive, if anyone can be even bothered to
> > look.


Oh please bother! I implore you. I'm sure you'd find something I've
said and take it out of context enough to make me uncomfortable, in
fact you already have repeatedly. At the same time you'd find many
instances where I posted original essays and observations on
Kubrick's
films that I am quite proud of. Of course you'd deny me any laurels
whatsoever since you so openly despise me because I am an American.
Ergo, fuck you entirely Padraig. You are a fucking asshole and will
never be anything else. Go on and do your worst to me! Do you think
I'm frightened by the likes of you? You are a little man with a big
fat fucking asshole mouth is all.


> > >"And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make."


> > >Forgive me Lord P, I don't have a problem with you being your faithful
> > >disciple now and so forth, but I felt obliged to point out the
> > >obvious. Are you really a man of Peace? or just a man of Piss?
> > >Everyone thinks you're a fucking asshole, even Jesus.


> > Everyone, including yourself, _knows_ what you are ...



_mmmhmmm_ Know me do you? I don't think I have nearly as many
enemies as you've made for yourself since you appointed yourself _The
See_

You tramp around AMK like some faerie Lord of the Dense >look at me!
look at me! tappity tappity tap tap tap!< trampling everyone who
comes
within your tunnel-vision with your stinking hob-nailed boots.
Attacking and goring even those who would agree with you. All points
to one thing. You are a fucking asshole. Admit it and live with
it.

i
"piop"">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

perhaps for sopme backgroup one can search further into the annals of
the Overlook


"I don't remember that bathroom scene at all."


dc

[ichorwhip]

On Sep 30, 12:32 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> It occurs to me that there is "Harry Bailey"---a "Harry" who is a
> ghost, who posts here on AMK in the present and a "Padraig Henry"--who
> posted here on AMK in the past, who we (long time  readers of AMK) all
> know that they are one and the same person which should be brought out
> for any new readers of the archives of  AMK.  Padraig, bloodily
> murdered the old AMK and his ghost reappeared after an absense to
> repeat the same behavior again.
>
> In the archive we have Ichorwhip, trying to make peace with Padraig
> offering an "Olive Branch" to Padraig:
>
> >>>>>>>>Love thy neighbour., or hate thy asshole?
>
> I tried to love you Padraig.  You are the one who turned your back on
> me.  And then I was like, "No Padraig! I meant like Platonic Love
> fella."   Yeah I know I must make you laugh.  Your chief nemesis is
> really MJ anyway.  I only ever wanted to be your friend and now look
> what's happened.

This is classic! I think this is where I began to win his heart and
mind! ;-)

Anyway, this calling up old war trophies from the archives is more the
MO of your deranged twin with whom you share a digestive tract... what
up?

> I'd offer you another olive branch, but I'm fresh out.  Let me know
> how that compilation of my wicked deeds from the AMK archive is
> coming
> along.  I feel much more at ease now knowing that I have an editor
> working for me. "

GWAHAHAHA!!! I've been infected!

>
> And Ichorwhips further attempt to make Padraig see the error of his
> ways:
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<"Let's get things nice and sparkling clear."
> The reason, Father Padraig, you are attacked constantly is not
> because
> you are so much right or wrong. It's because you are so much of a
> fucking asshole.

GWAHAHA!!! I can't even remember what we were arguing about. Prolly
politics.

> Nobody likes to be talked at the way you carry on.  How dare you
> feign
> surprise in getting so many hostile responses?  You talk to people
> like they are shit under your heel and provoke every nasty word you
> receive in return.
>
> "And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>
> Forgive me Lord P, I don't have a problem with you being your
> faithful
> disciple now and so forth, but I felt obliged to point out the
> obvious. Are you really a man of Peace?  or just a man of Piss?
> Everyone thinks you're a fucking asshole, even Jesus.
>
> ichorwhip ">>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wonderful vitriole dontcha think?

>
> And how well does Ichorwhip do in this offering of the Olive Branch?:
>
> here is the reply
>
> >"Let's get things nice and sparkling clear."
>
> Another inane response from AMK's resident [again, resident _since_
> Kubrick's death. Is nostalgic necrophilia now that common in the US,
> now a national past-time?] sociopath, who's near-every post here
> since
> he began polluting this newsgroup with his hate-filled filth confirms
> his pathology, thuggishly inciting violence and racial hatred ("Kill
> All Terrorists" "Nuke The Japs" etc), while often claiming to mask it
> all as "humor". Go look in the mirror, you supporter of US terrorism.
> But thread carefully, as your reflection might just kill you.

What a touche eh? Yeah, we weren't understanding each other worth a
shit back then. There's no denying it.

> >The reason, Father Padraig, you are attacked constantly is not because
> >you are so much right or wrong.
>
> It is because twisted Americans like you instantly choose a
> convenient, distant scapegoat on which to project all your hatred and
> guilt.

I cried and cried... oh the memories... pfffffft~@!

> You've been doing it uninterrupted for decades ("Its Them,
> those Others; They're Responsible for all the violence we righteously
> unleash upon the world!" The demented reasoning of Rapists everywhere
> ...).
>
> >It's because you are so much of a
> >fucking asshole.
>
> Ninty Eight percent of the population of the world believes it is you
> and your ilk who properly qualify for that insult. America's past
> ideals are now in the gutter, and the evident response of creeps like
> you  here is to dig in even deeper: you'd rather destroy the whole
> world than simply  admit defeat, than humbly confess your
> wrongdoings,
> than humanely admit that the game is up. You have too much to learn
> from those "nuked" Japs, and those "nasty" Germans.
>
> >Nobody likes to be talked at the way you carry on.
>
> Unapologetic sociopaths like you don't like being nakedly exposed.
>
> >How dare you feign
> >surprise in getting so many hostile responses?
>
> There is no surprise; that your country - with the support of such as
> you - can indifferently bully, murder, slaughter, and pillage
> throughout the world [in countries too numerous to mention here] and
> continue to not only get away with such crimes against humanity [via
> yet more bullying, murder, ...] and using the monsters you create
> [Pinochet, Saddam, Suharto, etc] as your moral compass, but openly
> boast about such crimes, it is therefore hardly surprising to witness
> here hostile responses from racist US jerks like you. Why are you
> even
> posting here? Just because Kubrick was American? The guy is puking up
> the contents of his grave witnessing the sentiments everyday
> expressed
> here by insular cultural preverts such as you.
>
> >You talk to people
> >like they are shit under your heel and provoke every nasty word you
> >receive in return.
>
> Oh? Calling you a nasty right-wing racist is hardly provocative. It
> is
> a documented fact, repeatedly broadcast by numerous posts of your's
> here. Its all in the AMK archive, if anyone can be even bothered to
> look.

I'm still disputing this to this day! So misunderstood... booooo!

> >"And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >Forgive me Lord P, I don't have a problem with you being your faithful
> >disciple now and so forth, but I felt obliged to point out the
> >obvious. Are you really a man of Peace?  or just a man of Piss?
> >Everyone thinks you're a fucking asshole, even Jesus.
>
> Everyone, including yourself, _knows_ what you are ...
> =============================================
> A continuing education at Abu Ghraib University
>
> Shocking images are teaching hubristic Americans an overdue lesson:
> the difference between guilt and shame
> By George Fletcher
>
> Wednesday, May 26, 2004,
> <snip long repost of some dumb anti american article>
>
> Then Ichorwhip takes him to task:
> Ho! Ho!  What's the matter St.Padraig? You certainly are a man of
> Piss. Thought so!  And _very clearly_ the resident fucking asshole of
> AMK with this long trail of vomit you spewed.  I guess you got your
> feelings hurt, huh? I'm sorry.  Does Someone hates being mocked and
> made fun of? ~~&^*_now then_*^&~~
>
> > > >"Let's get things nice and sparkling clear."
> > > Another inane response from AMK's resident [again, resident _since_
> > > Kubrick's death. Is nostalgic necrophilia now that common in the US,
> > > now a national past-time?]
>
> I don't know what you think you're getting at, but I've been a
> devoted
> admirer of Kubrick and his films for close to thirty years.  I guess
> since the timing of my arrival on AMK roughly coincides with
> Kubrick's
> death it makes me something less than an uber-Kubrick-man in your
> typical cock-eyed perspective.   Oh let me bow down to the great
> fellowship of Kubrickmen who first started posting on this newsgroup
> way back eons ago when the Internet was just beginning to grow up,
> geez that must have been almost fifteen or so years ago or something,
> SO long ago right after the earth cooled and dinosaurs became
> extinct.
>  I guess I shouldn't bother to post here since every worthy thing
> that
> could ever be said has already been said by that huge braintrust of
> geniuses Padraig included.  I'm gwine to sit in a warm bathtub and
> slit my wrists now as my whole posting history on AMK has been
> nothing
> more than a footnote. Good bye cruel newsgroup!
>
> > sociopath,
>
> Sociopath?  Well at least I'm not a viscious, one-dimensional,
> narcissistic, intolerant megalomaniac like you, my Lord of Lies.
>
> > who's near-every post here since
> > > he began polluting this newsgroup with his hate-filled filth confirms
> > > his pathology, thuggishly inciting violence and racial hatred ("Kill
> > > All Terrorists" "Nuke The Japs" etc), while often claiming to mask it
> > > all as "humor".
>
> This is yet another inaccurate assessment of myself by you.  Don't
> worry, I forgive you. Also, when it's funny, it's funny.  Yeah I
> horse
> around a lot and go into some dark and filthy subjects often.  I
> guess
> you never do that (since your sense of humor is a hemmerhoid.)
> Kubrick certainly did. In fact he is the artist who inspires me most.
> Satire and humor and verse are what I do best.  What do you do best?
> Nevermind, I don't care any more as you have hurt my feelings very
> badly.
>
> > Go look in the mirror, you supporter of US terrorism.
> > > But thread carefully, as your reflection might just kill you.
>
> Thread carefully?  What kind of clever talk is this?  BTW, looked in
> a
> mirror and I'm still here to tell about it. I'll bet that makes you
> mad.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >The reason, Father Padraig, you are attacked constantly is not because
> > > >you are so much right or wrong.
> > > It is because twisted Americans like you instantly choose a
> > > convenient, distant scapegoat on which to project all your hatred and
> > > guilt. You've been doing it uninterrupted for decades ("Its Them,
> > > those Others; They're Responsible for all the violence we righteously
> > > unleash upon the world!" The demented reasoning of Rapists everywhere
> > > ...).
> > > >It's because you are so much of a
> > > >fucking asshole.
> > > Ninty Eight percent of the population of the world believes it is you
> > > and your ilk who properly qualify for that insult.
>
> Are you trying to tell me that only 2% of the world thinks you are a
> fucking asshole?  I demand a recount!
>
>  America's past
>
> > > ideals are now in the gutter, and the evident response of creeps like
> > > you  here is to dig in even deeper: you'd rather destroy the whole
> > > world than simply  admit defeat,
>
> Creep or not, no I fucking wouldn't!  What kind of 'defeat' are you
> talking about?  You ARE a goddam terrorist AREN'T you?  Well at least
> you lick terror-ass.  Your whole posture is a paradox.  I don't want
> to waste any time proving it anymore because I already have.  You
> will
> simply deny the truth every time.  What an immense douche-bag your
> fucking asshole brain is.

GWAHAHAHAHA!!! Am I ever bad or what?

>  than humbly confess your wrongdoings,
>
> Oh yeah like you would ever forgive anyone of anything... You are
> without a doubt one of the most lying, meanest, vindictive,
> unforgiving, obstinate fucking assholes I have ever encountered.
>
> > > than humanely admit that the game is up. You have too much to learn
> > > from those "nuked" Japs, and those "nasty" Germans.
>
> No you do evidentally.  BTW I never routinely refer to the Japanese
> as
> "Japs".  Are you some kind of fucking racist yourself? And if the
> Axis
> powers had won World War 2, I guess you'd be whooping it up right?
> Wrong!  You'd be attacking them much in the same way that you attack
> the US and it's allies.  You like attacking winners and defending
> losers and terrorists.  What kind of fucking asshole are you?
> Nevermind, we all know.
>
> > > >Nobody likes to be talked at the way you carry on.
> > > Unapologetic sociopaths like you don't like being nakedly exposed.
>
> Unapologetic?  Like my apologies could change the world! Oh good!
> I'M
> SORRY!!!!!!!!!  Shit...doesn't seem to have worked.
>
> > > >How dare you feign
> > > >surprise in getting so many hostile responses?
> > > There is no surprise; that your country - with the support of such as
> > > you - can indifferently bully, murder, slaughter, and pillage
> > > throughout the world [in countries too numerous to mention here]
>
> I didn't think anything was "too numerous" for you to mention here.
> Again you try to paint me as one of the right-wing war-mongerers I so
> despise.  I guess the mere act of my breathing is 'evidence' enough
> for you of my "support" for my country and its actions.  Good thing
> I'm not a Jewish-American.  I don't think I could handle the
> double-whammy of hate you'd lay on me then Padraggled fiend.
>
>  and
>
> > > continue to not only get away with such crimes against humanity [via
> > > yet more bullying, murder, ...] and using the monsters you create
> > > [Pinochet, Saddam, Suharto, etc] as your moral compass, but openly
> > > boast about such crimes, it is therefore hardly surprising to witness
> > > here hostile responses from racist US jerks like you.
>
> I may be a jerk.  I certainly am an American, but I am not a racist.
> I
> only hate fucking assholes like you.
>
>  Why are you even
>
> > > posting here?
>
> Why are you?  Rarely do you have anything to say that doesn't start
> another flame-war.  It doesn't bother me mind you.  I like arguing
> with fucking assholes.
>
>  Just because Kubrick was American?
>
> Duh!  Of course!  What a lame-brain...
>
>  The guy is puking up
>
> > > the contents of his grave witnessing the sentiments everyday expressed
> > > here by insular cultural preverts such as you.
>
> I doubt that quite seriously.  I think if he could puke at all, he'd
> do it right in your fucking asshole face.
>
> > > >You talk to people
> > > >like they are shit under your heel and provoke every nasty word you
> > > >receive in return.
> > > Oh? Calling you a nasty right-wing racist is hardly provocative.
>
> Oh hardly, just another of your ongoing lies.
>
>  It is
>
> > > a documented fact, repeatedly broadcast by numerous posts of your's
> > > here. Its all in the AMK archive, if anyone can be even bothered to
> > > look.
>
> Oh please bother!  I implore you.  I'm sure you'd find something I've
> said and take it out of context enough to make me uncomfortable, in
> fact you already have repeatedly.  At the same time you'd find many
> instances where I posted original essays and observations on
> Kubrick's
> films that I am quite proud of.  Of course you'd deny me any laurels
> whatsoever since you so openly despise me because I am an American.
> Ergo, fuck you entirely Padraig.  You are a fucking asshole and will
> never be anything else.  Go on and do your worst to me!  Do you think
> I'm frightened by the likes of you?  You are a little man with a big
> fat fucking asshole mouth is all.
>
> > > >"And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> > > >Forgive me Lord P, I don't have a problem with you being your faithful
> > > >disciple now and so forth, but I felt obliged to point out the
> > > >obvious. Are you really a man of Peace?  or just a man of Piss?
> > > >Everyone thinks you're a fucking asshole, even Jesus.
> > > Everyone, including yourself, _knows_ what you are ...
>
> _mmmhmmm_  Know me do you?  I don't think I have nearly as many
> enemies as you've made for yourself since you appointed yourself _The
> See_
>
> You tramp around AMK like some faerie Lord of the Dense >look at me!
> look at me! tappity tappity tap tap tap!< trampling everyone who
> comes
> within your tunnel-vision with your stinking hob-nailed boots.
> Attacking and goring even those who would agree with you.  All points
> to one thing.   You are a fucking asshole.  Admit it and live with
> it.
>
> i
> "piop"">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> perhaps for sopme backgroup one can search further into the annals of
> the Overlook
>
> "I don't remember that bathroom scene at all."
>
> dc

That was a ballast from the passed dizzy. Brought a tear to muh
eye... I think you found the quintessential example of Padraig and I
tearing each other new assholes. I harbor no grudges toward him. The
main thing we share in common is better than average knowledge of what
the subject matter is supposed to be here at AMK, and a low tolerance
level for specious to spaced-out bullshit about Kubrick or his films.
Since you are a prime offender, you can't understand! Now why don't
you go read the potleaves in the bottom of your sooty bong and find
out what they tell ya?

"It looks like it's pretty hairy."
i
"piop"

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 30, 4:37 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> That was a ballast from the passed dizzy.  Brought a tear to muh
> eye...  I think you found the quintessential example of Padraig and I
> tearing each other new assholes.  I harbor no grudges toward him.  The
> main thing we share in common is better than average knowledge of what
> the subject matter is supposed to be here at AMK, and a low tolerance
> level for specious to spaced-out bullshit about Kubrick or his films.
> Since you are a prime offender, you can't understand!  Now why don't
> you go read the potleaves in the bottom of your sooty bong and find
> out what they tell ya?
>
> "It looks like it's pretty hairy."
> i
> "piop"



I know you like being a doormat Ichor but don't take it out on me.
There is no evolution in your relation with Padriag--only devolution,
certainly no evolution from him.

Unlike you I do my own thinking and don't need to be an apologist to
sickos, nor do I need to hide behind an academic style and endless
word salad. I don't have anything to prove whatsoever, I know my
standing in REAL academia, REAL science and REAL educational and
prfessionaly level. There is nothing scientific about movie talk and
no need for such a nutty pretense to fill some aching voidness for
"respect," as your Lover number two, requires.

At any rate the archives speak for themnselves.

dc

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 30, 5:41 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 4:37 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That was a ballast from the passed dizzy.  Brought a tear to muh
> > eye...  I think you found the quintessential example of Padraig and I
> > tearing each other new assholes.  I harbor no grudges toward him.  The
> > main thing we share in common is better than average knowledge of what
> > the subject matter is supposed to be here at AMK, and a low tolerance
> > level for specious to spaced-out bullshit about Kubrick or his films.
> > Since you are a prime offender, you can't understand!  Now why don't
> > you go read the potleaves in the bottom of your sooty bong and find
> > out what they tell ya?
>
> > "It looks like it's pretty hairy."
> > i
> > "piop"
>
> I know you like being a doormat Ichor but don't take it out on me.
> There is  no evolution in your relation with Padriag--only devolution,
> certainly no evolution from him.
>
> Unlike you I do my own thinking and don't need to be an apologist to
> sickos, nor do I need to  hide behind an academic style and endless
> word salad. I don't have anything to prove whatsoever, I know my
> standing in REAL academia, REAL science  and REAL educational and
> prfessionaly  level.  There is nothing scientific about movie talk and
> no need  for such a nutty pretense to fill some aching voidness for
> "respect," as your Lover number two, requires.
>
> At any rate the archives speak for themnselves.
>
> dc



"We both know .........

what Padraig is like."


dc


".....any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the
nature of man is probably doomed to failure."

[ichorwhip]

On Sep 30, 7:41 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 4:37 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That was a ballast from the passed dizzy.  Brought a tear to muh
> > eye...  I think you found the quintessential example of Padraig and I
> > tearing each other new assholes.  I harbor no grudges toward him.  The
> > main thing we share in common is better than average knowledge of what
> > the subject matter is supposed to be here at AMK, and a low tolerance
> > level for specious to spaced-out bullshit about Kubrick or his films.
> > Since you are a prime offender, you can't understand!  Now why don't
> > you go read the potleaves in the bottom of your sooty bong and find
> > out what they tell ya?
>
> > "It looks like it's pretty hairy."
> > i
> > "piop"
>
> I know you like being a doormat Ichor but don't take it out on me.

So insulting! I guess you didn't read what what's on my doormat:
FUCK OFF!

> There is  no evolution in your relation with Padriag--only devolution,
> certainly no evolution from him.

Don't know what the fuck you're talking about as usual... Why not
stick a peyote button up your ass and try to find out?

> Unlike you I do my own thinking

Whaaa?!!!!!! Are you ever an idiot...

> and don't need to be an apologist to
> sickos, nor do I need to  hide behind an academic style and endless
> word salad.

I bet you'd like my word salad if I sprinkled weed and acid on it...

> I don't have anything to prove whatsoever,

Only because you can't prove your ludicrous claims do you say this.
Get this straight buddy, you are far more detrimental to this group
and Kubrick's memory and legacy than any Jonathan Hoyle-type-guy. You
see, one that might not know much about Kubrick might take your claims
of Kubrick's closet Buddhism and acid-eating serious if they didn't
know any better. So read my doormat again, take a flying leap, and
kiss a buzzard's ass, you fallacious, ghastly menace!


> I know my
> standing in REAL academia,

Phd in Scrubbing Bubbles... and a miner of bedpans...

> REAL science  and REAL educational and
> prfessionaly  level.

Okay, this proves how erudite and astute you are..... made no sense!
GWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

> There is nothing scientific about movie talk and
> no need  for such a nutty pretense to fill some aching voidness for
> "respect," as your Lover number two, requires.

If you think your nuttybar shittin' ass is going to keep spreading
your craziness about Kubrick around here unhindered while you
cultivate new DUH-sciples, you've got another thing coming corndog
lover. My main aim here is to keep Stanley Kubrick's record straight,
and YOU, you're fucking it up, so there!

> At any rate the archives speak for themnselves.

Yeah they sure do, and they more than adequately prove what a drug-
addled, half-witted, academic mongrel you are. Hoyle et al! If you
are reading this, don't cross over to the dumb side! Okay I'm through
with ya...

"Let me see your war face!"
i
"piop"

[kelpzoidzl]

On Oct 1, 3:32 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 7:41 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 4:37 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That was a ballast from the passed dizzy.  Brought a tear to muh
> > > eye...  I think you found the quintessential example of Padraig and I
> > > tearing each other new assholes.  I harbor no grudges toward him.  The
> > > main thing we share in common is better than average knowledge of what
> > > the subject matter is supposed to be here at AMK, and a low tolerance
> > > level for specious to spaced-out bullshit about Kubrick or his films.
> > > Since you are a prime offender, you can't understand!  Now why don't
> > > you go read the potleaves in the bottom of your sooty bong and find
> > > out what they tell ya?
>
> > > "It looks like it's pretty hairy."
> > > i
> > > "piop"
>
> > I know you like being a doormat Ichor but don't take it out on me.
>
> So insulting!  I guess you didn't read what what's on my doormat:
> FUCK OFF!
>
> > There is  no evolution in your relation with Padriag--only devolution,
> > certainly no evolution from him.
>
> Don't know what the fuck you're talking about as usual...  Why not
> stick a peyote button up your ass and try to find out?
>
> > Unlike you I do my own thinking
>
> Whaaa?!!!!!!   Are you ever an idiot...
>
> > and don't need to be an apologist to
> > sickos, nor do I need to  hide behind an academic style and endless
> > word salad.
>
> I bet you'd like my word salad if I sprinkled weed and acid on it...
>
> > I don't have anything to prove whatsoever,
>
> Only because you can't prove your ludicrous claims do you say this.
> Get this straight buddy, you are far more detrimental to this group
> and Kubrick's memory and legacy than any Jonathan Hoyle-type-guy.  You
> see, one that might not know much about Kubrick might take your claims
> of Kubrick's closet Buddhism and acid-eating serious if they didn't
> know any better.  So read my doormat again, take a flying leap, and
> kiss a buzzard's ass, you fallacious, ghastly menace!
>
> > I know my
> > standing in REAL academia,
>
> Phd in Scrubbing Bubbles... and a miner of bedpans...
>
> > REAL science  and REAL educational and
> > prfessionaly  level.
>
> Okay, this proves how erudite and astute you are.....  made no sense!
> GWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
>
> > There is nothing scientific about movie talk and
> > no need  for such a nutty pretense to fill some aching voidness for
> > "respect," as your Lover number two, requires.
>
> If you think your nuttybar shittin' ass is going to keep spreading
> your craziness about Kubrick around here unhindered while you
> cultivate new DUH-sciples, you've got another thing coming corndog
> lover.  My main aim here is to keep Stanley Kubrick's record straight,
> and YOU, you're fucking it up, so there!
>
> > At any rate the archives speak for themnselves.
>
> Yeah they sure do, and they more than adequately prove what a drug-
> addled, half-witted, academic mongrel you are.  Hoyle et al!  If you
> are reading this, don't cross over to the dumb side!  Okay I'm through
> with ya...
>
> "Let me see your war face!"
> i
> "piop"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


yeah it's so brilliant to make sure no new normal people post on the
NG.


just keep feedin' the beast. Don't take the anti american commie
troll bigot fanatic to task.



dc

[ichorwhip]

On Oct 1, 10:00 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 3:32 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 7:41 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 30, 4:37 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > That was a ballast from the passed dizzy.  Brought a tear to muh
> > > > eye...  I think you found the quintessential example of Padraig and I
> > > > tearing each other new assholes.  I harbor no grudges toward him.  The
> > > > main thing we share in common is better than average knowledge of what
> > > > the subject matter is supposed to be here at AMK, and a low tolerance
> > > > level for specious to spaced-out bullshit about Kubrick or his films.
> > > > Since you are a prime offender, you can't understand!  Now why don't
> > > > you go read the potleaves in the bottom of your sooty bong and find
> > > > out what they tell ya?
>
> > > > "It looks like it's pretty hairy."
> > > > i
> > > > "piop"
>
> > > I know you like being a doormat Ichor but don't take it out on me.
>
> > So insulting!  I guess you didn't read what what's on my doormat:
> > FUCK OFF!
>
> > > There is  no evolution in your relation with Padriag--only devolution,
> > > certainly no evolution from him.
>
> > Don't know what the fuck you're talking about as usual...  Why not
> > stick a peyote button up your ass and try to find out?
>
> > > Unlike you I do my own thinking
>
> > Whaaa?!!!!!!   Are you ever an idiot...
>
> > > and don't need to be an apologist to
> > > sickos, nor do I need to  hide behind an academic style and endless
> > > word salad.
>
> > I bet you'd like my word salad if I sprinkled weed and acid on it...
>
> > > I don't have anything to prove whatsoever,
>
> > Only because you can't prove your ludicrous claims do you say this.
> > Get this straight buddy, you are far more detrimental to this group
> > and Kubrick's memory and legacy than any Jonathan Hoyle-type-guy.  You
> > see, one that might not know much about Kubrick might take your claims
> > of Kubrick's closet Buddhism and acid-eating serious if they didn't
> > know any better.  So read my doormat again, take a flying leap, and
> > kiss a buzzard's ass, you fallacious, ghastly menace!
>
> > > I know my
> > > standing in REAL academia,
>
> > Phd in Scrubbing Bubbles... and a miner of bedpans...
>
> > > REAL science  and REAL educational and
> > > prfessionaly  level.
>
> > Okay, this proves how erudite and astute you are.....  made no sense!
> > GWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
>
> > > There is nothing scientific about movie talk and
> > > no need  for such a nutty pretense to fill some aching voidness for
> > > "respect," as your Lover number two, requires.
>
> > If you think your nuttybar shittin' ass is going to keep spreading
> > your craziness about Kubrick around here unhindered while you
> > cultivate new DUH-sciples, you've got another thing coming corndog
> > lover.  My main aim here is to keep Stanley Kubrick's record straight,
> > and YOU, you're fucking it up, so there!
>
> > > At any rate the archives speak for themnselves.
>
> > Yeah they sure do, and they more than adequately prove what a drug-
> > addled, half-witted, academic mongrel you are.  Hoyle et al!  If you
> > are reading this, don't cross over to the dumb side!  Okay I'm through
> > with ya...
>
> > "Let me see your war face!"
> > i
> > "piop"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> yeah it's so brilliant to make sure no new normal people post on the
> NG.
>
> just keep feedin'  the beast. Don't take the anti american commie
> troll  bigot fanatic to task.
>
> dc

Oh bullshit dizzy. I'd welcome anybody new that's serious about
Kubrick. In fact any of these new guys are better than you serious or
not. You're just miffed because no one wants to take you on as their
Kubrick Guru...

"You climb obstacles like old people fuck!"
i
"piop"

[kelpzoidzl]

On Oct 1, 8:18 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 10:00 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 3:32 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 30, 7:41 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 30, 4:37 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > That was a ballast from the passed dizzy.  Brought a tear to muh
> > > > > eye...  I think you found the quintessential example of Padraig and I
> > > > > tearing each other new assholes.  I harbor no grudges toward him.  The
> > > > > main thing we share in common is better than average knowledge of what
> > > > > the subject matter is supposed to be here at AMK, and a low tolerance
> > > > > level for specious to spaced-out bullshit about Kubrick or his films.
> > > > > Since you are a prime offender, you can't understand!  Now why don't
> > > > > you go read the potleaves in the bottom of your sooty bong and find
> > > > > out what they tell ya?
>
> > > > > "It looks like it's pretty hairy."
> > > > > i
> > > > > "piop"
>
> > > > I know you like being a doormat Ichor but don't take it out on me.
>
> > > So insulting!  I guess you didn't read what what's on my doormat:
> > > FUCK OFF!
>
> > > > There is  no evolution in your relation with Padriag--only devolution,
> > > > certainly no evolution from him.
>
> > > Don't know what the fuck you're talking about as usual...  Why not
> > > stick a peyote button up your ass and try to find out?
>
> > > > Unlike you I do my own thinking
>
> > > Whaaa?!!!!!!   Are you ever an idiot...
>
> > > > and don't need to be an apologist to
> > > > sickos, nor do I need to  hide behind an academic style and endless
> > > > word salad.
>
> > > I bet you'd like my word salad if I sprinkled weed and acid on it...
>
> > > > I don't have anything to prove whatsoever,
>
> > > Only because you can't prove your ludicrous claims do you say this.
> > > Get this straight buddy, you are far more detrimental to this group
> > > and Kubrick's memory and legacy than any Jonathan Hoyle-type-guy.  You
> > > see, one that might not know much about Kubrick might take your claims
> > > of Kubrick's closet Buddhism and acid-eating serious if they didn't
> > > know any better.  So read my doormat again, take a flying leap, and
> > > kiss a buzzard's ass, you fallacious, ghastly menace!
>
> > > > I know my
> > > > standing in REAL academia,
>
> > > Phd in Scrubbing Bubbles... and a miner of bedpans...
>
> > > > REAL science  and REAL educational and
> > > > prfessionaly  level.
>
> > > Okay, this proves how erudite and astute you are.....  made no sense!
> > > GWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
>
> > > > There is nothing scientific about movie talk and
> > > > no need  for such a nutty pretense to fill some aching voidness for
> > > > "respect," as your Lover number two, requires.
>
> > > If you think your nuttybar shittin' ass is going to keep spreading
> > > your craziness about Kubrick around here unhindered while you
> > > cultivate new DUH-sciples, you've got another thing coming corndog
> > > lover.  My main aim here is to keep Stanley Kubrick's record straight,
> > > and YOU, you're fucking it up, so there!
>
> > > > At any rate the archives speak for themnselves.
>
> > > Yeah they sure do, and they more than adequately prove what a drug-
> > > addled, half-witted, academic mongrel you are.  Hoyle et al!  If you
> > > are reading this, don't cross over to the dumb side!  Okay I'm through
> > > with ya...
>
> > > "Let me see your war face!"
> > > i
> > > "piop"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > yeah it's so brilliant to make sure no new normal people post on the
> > NG.
>
> > just keep feedin'  the beast. Don't take the anti american commie
> > troll  bigot fanatic to task.
>
> > dc
>
> Oh bullshit dizzy.  I'd welcome anybody new that's serious about
> Kubrick.  In fact any of these new guys are better than you serious or
> not.  You're just miffed because no one wants to take you on as their
> Kubrick Guru...
>
> "You climb obstacles like old people fuck!"
> i
> "piop"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The only thing that I am "miffed" about is people can't just discuss
Kubrick and share their opinions and experiences, without the
constant albatross of acrimonius posts from mentally ill wack jobs or
their apologists hanging over the group like a black plague.

Even the war room in DS is saner. Even Lord Bullington was saner then
Harry---and vastly more entertaining for camp humor.

I know perfectly well you aren't as wacko as Harry---why the fuck do
you encourage his crap? He's sick. He has no life and your gang turf
nonsense as usual, is totally dumb.

The deranged "Kubrick Truth Squad" is pathetic. get a life. please.

"serious" my ass.



dc

[ichorwhip]

On Oct 1, 10:42 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 8:18 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 10:00 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 1, 3:32 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 30, 7:41 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 30, 4:37 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > That was a ballast from the passed dizzy.  Brought a tear to muh
> > > > > > eye...  I think you found the quintessential example of Padraig and I
> > > > > > tearing each other new assholes.  I harbor no grudges toward him.  The
> > > > > > main thing we share in common is better than average knowledge of what
> > > > > > the subject matter is supposed to be here at AMK, and a low tolerance
> > > > > > level for specious to spaced-out bullshit about Kubrick or his films.
> > > > > > Since you are a prime offender, you can't understand!  Now why don't
> > > > > > you go read the potleaves in the bottom of your sooty bong and find
> > > > > > out what they tell ya?
>
> > > > > > "It looks like it's pretty hairy."
> > > > > > i
> > > > > > "piop"
>
> > > > > I know you like being a doormat Ichor but don't take it out on me.
>
> > > > So insulting!  I guess you didn't read what what's on my doormat:
> > > > FUCK OFF!
>
> > > > > There is  no evolution in your relation with Padriag--only devolution,
> > > > > certainly no evolution from him.
>
> > > > Don't know what the fuck you're talking about as usual...  Why not
> > > > stick a peyote button up your ass and try to find out?
>
> > > > > Unlike you I do my own thinking
>
> > > > Whaaa?!!!!!!   Are you ever an idiot...
>
> > > > > and don't need to be an apologist to
> > > > > sickos, nor do I need to  hide behind an academic style and endless
> > > > > word salad.
>
> > > > I bet you'd like my word salad if I sprinkled weed and acid on it...
>
> > > > > I don't have anything to prove whatsoever,
>
> > > > Only because you can't prove your ludicrous claims do you say this.
> > > > Get this straight buddy, you are far more detrimental to this group
> > > > and Kubrick's memory and legacy than any Jonathan Hoyle-type-guy.  You
> > > > see, one that might not know much about Kubrick might take your claims
> > > > of Kubrick's closet Buddhism and acid-eating serious if they didn't
> > > > know any better.  So read my doormat again, take a flying leap, and
> > > > kiss a buzzard's ass, you fallacious, ghastly menace!
>
> > > > > I know my
> > > > > standing in REAL academia,
>
> > > > Phd in Scrubbing Bubbles... and a miner of bedpans...
>
> > > > > REAL science  and REAL educational and
> > > > > prfessionaly  level.
>
> > > > Okay, this proves how erudite and astute you are.....  made no sense!
> > > > GWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
>
> > > > > There is nothing scientific about movie talk and
> > > > > no need  for such a nutty pretense to fill some aching voidness for
> > > > > "respect," as your Lover number two, requires.
>
> > > > If you think your nuttybar shittin' ass is going to keep spreading
> > > > your craziness about Kubrick around here unhindered while you
> > > > cultivate new DUH-sciples, you've got another thing coming corndog
> > > > lover.  My main aim here is to keep Stanley Kubrick's record straight,
> > > > and YOU, you're fucking it up, so there!
>
> > > > > At any rate the archives speak for themnselves.
>
> > > > Yeah they sure do, and they more than adequately prove what a drug-
> > > > addled, half-witted, academic mongrel you are.  Hoyle et al!  If you
> > > > are reading this, don't cross over to the dumb side!  Okay I'm through
> > > > with ya...
>
> > > > "Let me see your war face!"
> > > > i
> > > > "piop"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > yeah it's so brilliant to make sure no new normal people post on the
> > > NG.
>
> > > just keep feedin'  the beast. Don't take the anti american commie
> > > troll  bigot fanatic to task.
>
> > > dc
>
> > Oh bullshit dizzy.  I'd welcome anybody new that's serious about
> > Kubrick.  In fact any of these new guys are better than you serious or
> > not.  You're just miffed because no one wants to take you on as their
> > Kubrick Guru...
>
> > "You climb obstacles like old people fuck!"
> > i
> > "piop"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The only thing that I am "miffed" about is people can't just discuss
> Kubrick and share  their opinions and experiences,  without the
> constant albatross of acrimonius posts from mentally ill wack jobs or
> their apologists hanging over the group like a black plague.
>
> Even the war room in DS is saner.  Even Lord Bullington was saner then
> Harry---and vastly more entertaining for camp humor.
>
> I know perfectly well you aren't as wacko as Harry---why the fuck do
> you encourage his crap?  He's sick.  He has no life and your gang turf
> nonsense as usual, is totally dumb.
>
> The deranged "Kubrick Truth Squad" is pathetic.  get a life. please.
>
> "serious" my ass.
>
> dc-

You? The one who consistently pecks out well over one hundred
gibberishy posts on this forum per month and bog knows how many on
other forums with your multiple fake names and e-mail addresses is
going to tell me to get a life? How can you be serious? And you want
to sneer at me simply because I won't accept any homegrown, half-
baked, vision-quest that anybody (mainly you) wants to make about
Kubrick or his fucking films?!!! If having a life, you're favorite
weakling refrain, means being anything like you, please bog make me
unborn!

"Are you referring to the background score?"
i
"piop"

[Luke Marsden]

Mr Whip is correct -- in between the ugliness and tangential kidney-
jabs, a few interesting thoughts about the Continuity Error have been
raised. I even learned that Jack bounces his ball right where he
bounces his axe of Halloran's sternum! How brilliant. I have no idea
how many times I've watched the film thus far, and no idea how many
more times it would have taken for that masterstroke to catch my
attention, so on the whole, eavesdropping on this thread has worked
out great for me.

Also, perhaps OT and perhaps not, I'm writing an essay, so if anybody
would care to indulge my academic sluggishness and let me know how
Lacan might interpret The Shining (Jack's psychology in particular) I
would be more than happy to steal your thoughts. It's all for the
greater good of Kubrick's legacy, you know. It might even provide an
opportunity for further discussion of the film.

[MP]

On Oct 2, 3:00 pm, Luke Marsden <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mr Whip is correct -- in between the ugliness and tangential kidney-
> jabs, a few interesting thoughts about the Continuity Error have been
> raised. I even learned that Jack bounces his ball right where he
> bounces his axe of Halloran's sternum! How brilliant. I have no idea
> how many times I've watched the film thus far, and no idea how many
> more times it would have taken for that masterstroke to catch my
> attention, so on the whole, eavesdropping on this thread has worked
> out great for me.
>
> Also, perhaps OT and perhaps not, I'm writing an essay, so if anybody
> would care to indulge my academic sluggishness and let me know how
> Lacan might interpret The Shining (Jack's psychology in particular) I
> would be more than happy to steal your thoughts. It's all for the
> greater good of Kubrick's legacy, you know. It might even provide an
> opportunity for further discussion of the film.

Only think I've been able to find on the net thus far:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/browse_thread/thread/2b438e45f144fe3f/af224122026a750d?lnk=gst&q=the+shining+lacan#af224122026a750d

[MP]

> Also, perhaps OT and perhaps not, I'm writing an essay, so if anybody
> would care to indulge my academic sluggishness and let me know how
> Lacan might interpret The Shining (Jack's psychology in particular) I
> would be more than happy to steal your thoughts. It's all for the
> greater good of Kubrick's legacy, you know. It might even provide an
> opportunity for further discussion of the film.

Only link I've been able to find on the net thus far:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/browse_thread/threa...

Most Lacanian Kubrick readings seem to focus on "Eyes Wide Shut".

[kelpzoidzl]

On Oct 2, 7:00 am, Luke Marsden <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mr Whip is correct -- in between the ugliness and tangential kidney-
> jabs, a few interesting thoughts about the Continuity Error have been
> raised. I even learned that Jack bounces his ball right where he
> bounces his axe of Halloran's sternum! How brilliant. I have no idea
> how many times I've watched the film thus far, and no idea how many
> more times it would have taken for that masterstroke to catch my
> attention, so on the whole, eavesdropping on this thread has worked
> out great for me.
>
> Also, perhaps OT and perhaps not, I'm writing an essay, so if anybody
> would care to indulge my academic sluggishness and let me know how
> Lacan might interpret The Shining (Jack's psychology in particular) I
> would be more than happy to steal your thoughts. It's all for the
> greater good of Kubrick's legacy, you know. It might even provide an
> opportunity for further discussion of the film.

I personally have no doubt that Kubrick knew the two Gradies were
there, whether it began as an error or not. It is also an
interesting topic, and there is no disagreement from me about
anything said here. Padraig/Harry going ballistic and attacking
people is however nasty insane and entirely predictable, regardless
that I agree with his opinion on the subject. Ichor defending it and
then unleashing his own crap because of gang turf loyalty is absurd.

dc

[kelpzoidzl]

On Oct 1, 9:07 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 10:42 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 8:18 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 1, 10:00 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 1, 3:32 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 30, 7:41 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 30, 4:37 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > That was a ballast from the passed dizzy.  Brought a tear to muh
> > > > > > > eye...  I think you found the quintessential example of Padraig and I
> > > > > > > tearing each other new assholes.  I harbor no grudges toward him.  The
> > > > > > > main thing we share in common is better than average knowledge of what
> > > > > > > the subject matter is supposed to be here at AMK, and a low tolerance
> > > > > > > level for specious to spaced-out bullshit about Kubrick or his films.
> > > > > > > Since you are a prime offender, you can't understand!  Now why don't
> > > > > > > you go read the potleaves in the bottom of your sooty bong and find
> > > > > > > out what they tell ya?
>
> > > > > > > "It looks like it's pretty hairy."
> > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > "piop"
>
> > > > > > I know you like being a doormat Ichor but don't take it out on me.
>
> > > > > So insulting!  I guess you didn't read what what's on my doormat:
> > > > > FUCK OFF!
>
> > > > > > There is  no evolution in your relation with Padriag--only devolution,
> > > > > > certainly no evolution from him.
>
> > > > > Don't know what the fuck you're talking about as usual...  Why not
> > > > > stick a peyote button up your ass and try to find out?
>
> > > > > > Unlike you I do my own thinking
>
> > > > > Whaaa?!!!!!!   Are you ever an idiot...
>
> > > > > > and don't need to be an apologist to
> > > > > > sickos, nor do I need to  hide behind an academic style and endless
> > > > > > word salad.
>
> > > > > I bet you'd like my word salad if I sprinkled weed and acid on it...
>
> > > > > > I don't have anything to prove whatsoever,
>
> > > > > Only because you can't prove your ludicrous claims do you say this.
> > > > > Get this straight buddy, you are far more detrimental to this group
> > > > > and Kubrick's memory and legacy than any Jonathan Hoyle-type-guy.  You
> > > > > see, one that might not know much about Kubrick might take your claims
> > > > > of Kubrick's closet Buddhism and acid-eating serious if they didn't
> > > > > know any better.  So read my doormat again, take a flying leap, and
> > > > > kiss a buzzard's ass, you fallacious, ghastly menace!
>
> > > > > > I know my
> > > > > > standing in REAL academia,
>
> > > > > Phd in Scrubbing Bubbles... and a miner of bedpans...
>
> > > > > > REAL science  and REAL educational and
> > > > > > prfessionaly  level.
>
> > > > > Okay, this proves how erudite and astute you are.....  made no sense!
> > > > > GWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
>
> > > > > > There is nothing scientific about movie talk and
> > > > > > no need  for such a nutty pretense to fill some aching voidness for
> > > > > > "respect," as your Lover number two, requires.
>
> > > > > If you think your nuttybar shittin' ass is going to keep spreading
> > > > > your craziness about Kubrick around here unhindered while you
> > > > > cultivate new DUH-sciples, you've got another thing coming corndog
> > > > > lover.  My main aim here is to keep Stanley Kubrick's record straight,
> > > > > and YOU, you're fucking it up, so there!
>
> > > > > > At any rate the archives speak for themnselves.
>
> > > > > Yeah they sure do, and they more than adequately prove what a drug-
> > > > > addled, half-witted, academic mongrel you are.  Hoyle et al!  If you
> > > > > are reading this, don't cross over to the dumb side!  Okay I'm through
> > > > > with ya...
>
> > > > > "Let me see your war face!"
> > > > > i
> > > > > "piop"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > yeah it's so brilliant to make sure no new normal people post on the
> > > > NG.
>
> > > > just keep feedin'  the beast. Don't take the anti american commie
> > > > troll  bigot fanatic to task.
>
> > > > dc
>
> > > Oh bullshit dizzy.  I'd welcome anybody new that's serious about
> > > Kubrick.  In fact any of these new guys are better than you serious or
> > > not.  You're just miffed because no one wants to take you on as their
> > > Kubrick Guru...
>
> > > "You climb obstacles like old people fuck!"
> > > i
> > > "piop"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The only thing that I am "miffed" about is people can't just discuss
> > Kubrick and share  their opinions and experiences,  without the
> > constant albatross of acrimonius posts from mentally ill wack jobs or
> > their apologists hanging over the group like a black plague.
>
> > Even the war room in DS is saner.  Even Lord Bullington was saner then
> > Harry---and vastly more entertaining for camp humor.
>
> > I know perfectly well you aren't as wacko as Harry---why the fuck do
> > you encourage his crap?  He's sick.  He has no life and your gang turf
> > nonsense as usual, is totally dumb.
>
> > The deranged "Kubrick Truth Squad" is pathetic.  get a life. please.
>
> > "serious" my ass.
>
> > dc-
>
> You? The one who consistently pecks out well over one hundred
> gibberishy posts on this forum per month and bog knows how many on
> other forums with your multiple fake names and e-mail addresses is
> going to tell me to get a life?  How can you be serious?  And you want
> to sneer at me simply because I won't accept any homegrown, half-
> baked, vision-quest that anybody (mainly you) wants to make about
> Kubrick or his fucking films?!!!  If having a life, you're favorite
> weakling refrain, means being anything like you, please bog make me
> unborn!
>
> "Are you referring to the background score?"
> i
> "piop"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I dont post on other forums at all. Not for years.

I don't care if you believe what I have said about Kubrick's one time
connection with the same Buddhist sect I have been apart of for 40
years or not--- something I know from my real life-----which I posted
on this group originally in 1996,-----but I would expect you to have
an open minded considering the evidence that exists such as the quote
referring to the Monolith and the Buddhist mandala, and the "crypto
buddhism" of Arthur Clarke. Because you haven't read any of this
in any of the orthodox Kubrick books you have joined the chorus of the
3 other people on this once decent group who have gone ballistic over
it, like complete twerps.

The other point I have raised was about the obvious influence of LSD
use on the trip sequence of 2001. I have reported that this was well
known in the 60's. I know that somehow it was essentially all put on
Doug Trumbull, by Kubrick, but srsly---when had Kubrick given over
full control to anyone --since Kirk Douglas. (Oh and by the way, how
dare I love the movie Spartacus?) Furthermore Arthur Clarke admitted
his own experiementation in an interview although obfuscates it as
did Kubrick---as did MANY in the public eye in the 60's. That Anya
Kubrick had denied her father had ever tried LSD is not surprising.,
She would have been about 7 years old at the time. It is totally
understandable he would not broadcast this to others or family. But
considering how many world-class, philosophers, medical and psychology
professionals, filmmakers, etc had experimented in those years, and
knowing Kubrick's propensity to study, discovery and privacy, along
with other's spilling the beans about his involvement at least once,
and 2001 itself, it is entirely believable that he had
experimented. Frankly the explanation that is was all Trumball
idea, is hard to believe.

Yet any reasonable person who is knowledgable in that area and who has
studied what Kubrick had said about it knows perfectly well that his
comments about it could only be made by someone who had at least some
personal experience; The admission by well known people in the
sixties that Kubrick was one of the experiementers is also very real
and since I lived through that period myself and was very much in tune
with what was happening in that scene of experimenters at the time and
given the other evidence, I have to believe that Kubrick had been
involved at least to the extent of experimentation presided over by a
medical professional at least once, when it was a legal thing to do
so.

Clearly the 2001 ending--"The Ultimate Trip"-- has been connected to
the psychedelic experience, since the day the film premiered.

Instead of being able to just discuss these things when they have been
brought up. The acrimony I received by mentioning these things, was
insane nonsense, Sorry dude but if you want to find "gibberish" go
look at your posts, a product of your quirky posting style, itself
which is forgiveable and doesn't bother me, but don't pretend you
don't talk gibberish 2/3rds of the time and that goes back as far
as you have been on this group. And as far as Padraig/Harry goes, his
years of anti-american, antio-semitic, communist, propaganda
intertwinned with Kubrick trivia, as though Kubrick was a communist,
drenched in word sald and coined words---give it up dude. The
archives are full of it and as I pointed out even you yourse;f had
joined the anti Padriag chorus of people rejecting his spamming
politics. You little twinkle toes, the leftovers of the once decent
group, ban together as the "Kubrick Truth Squad" in the most pathetic
way, As you know perfecty well I am not the only person who has
posted on this group about the obvious LSD connection with 2001. But
by the time I posted about it this group had been whittled down to a
handful of participants who guard it as though it it their sacred gang
turf.

In the meantime, that you don't take Padraig/Harry to task about his
endless, crazy anti american, marxism and nasty flip-outs, calling
everyione Hitler and Fascists, etc, that make Bill Reid's posts look
gracious and magnanimous, and his blithered word salad and ego based
demand for "respect," from new posters---give me a gadammm break!

I have said many times Padraig/Harry has lots of good posts and has
some great stuff to say about Kubrick, much of it I agree with all the
time, as with this Grady thread, but I connot excuse his dogmatic,
belligerent, and mentally ill, nastiness and hairtriggered and
hairbrained, excalataing, presentation that ends with vicious
nastiness.

And lastly, how dare you losers criticize me for saying Buffy Th VS is
my favorite 188 hour movie. In the buffy world there are even more
hairbrained geeks, intellectually scratching their chin over obscure
nuances as there are in the Kubrick realm. To me its just cosmic
humor, but acrimonius posts about that or Kubrick, is just troll
nonsense. For crissake these are movies!

The classic line from DS, "You can't fight in here, this is the war
room," has apparenty had little influence on any of the tiny handfull
of people being nasty, stupid and smug on this group. The irony is
getting old and very stinky.

I give other posters the curtesy of reading their posts that have
content or personal associations with Kubrick films. I give a wide
berth to what is "Off topic," considering Kubrick is no narrow
subject, inclduing discussion of any -isms or politics etc. but
spamming nasty commie crap and constant, manic, anti american
political fantasy word salad., is overboard and crazy and you being an
apologist for it is sick and makes you just as guilty.



.



.

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 30, 2:54 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
>
> And with that parting shot, Harry, I will leave you to you own
> devices, wishing you good luck in your endeavors, and hoping that you
> seriously lighten up.
>

Bye bye, and take Kelps with you.

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 30, 12:08 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2:54 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:

> Bye bye, and take Kelps with you.



No you.

I was here first.
Isn't there some anti-american, anti-isreali, commie Kubrick group
somewhere you can go pontificate on?

dc

[Harry Bailey]

Ex-AMKer Gordon Dahlquist also wrote on the subject of the Delbert/
Grady duality some years ago:

In Jack's interview, Ullman refers to a crazy caretaker who chopped up
his family as Charles Grady. Later Jack meets a butler called
"Delbert" Grady and Jack infers that he was the same caretaker. The
deliberacy of the names and their prominence in each of these is
crashingly obvious - and would have been also the more so in the case
of a film like The Shining, where the shooting and editing processes
were particularly painstaking. So, surely it's not a continuity error,
and the discrepancy was done on purpose. Why?

The answer to this question is a litmus test of how much thought you
want to credit Kubrick and Johnson for having put into the film. To
me, the "inconsistency" is in fact one of those moments (like the more
celebrated moment when Grady releases jack from the storeroom, or to
look at another Kubrick film, where in the final "hotel room" we see
Dave Bowman and an older "future self" seeing each other in the same
shot) where, instead of being inconsistent or "wrong" the scene is
instead an explicit sign about what is really happening in the story.

Many people have written in amk and elsewhere about the importance
"maze" imagery has in The Shining. Indeed, the labyrinth is the
primary metaphor of the entire film, influencing both the literal
story and its thematic structure. One of the more disturbing
developments of this film's labyrinth is that the farther we (and the
Torrances) think we have penetrated into The Overlook, the more
complicated and confusing our discoveries become. The sum of what we
learn refuses to add up neatly - instead, incongruities pile up with
the film's insistent mirrorings, duplicity and a general lack of
acknowledgement. More specifically, the more we try to make sense of
what's happening in the present, the more we're faced with what
happened - to the same people perhaps - in the past. This lends
credence to the supposition that there is another element of time at
work here and another sense of reality in action (again, both
literally in terms of the references to reincarnation and repetition
in the ghost story, and thematically in terms of many references
connecting the family dynamics of the Torrances [or the Gradys] to
American history), to a timezone where our notions of "history" and
"the present" are somehow (willfully) intermingled.

It's this sense that lends general support to the kind of
interpretation - if perhaps not the literal interpretation - found in
Bill Blakemore's essay. The Shining does equate choices made by the
Torrances - and the impulses those choices serve - with the values of
the people who built The Overlook ... "all the best people".

The duality of Delbert/Charles Grady deliberately mirrors Jack
Torrance being both the husband of Wendy/father of Danny and the
mysterious man in the July 4th photo. It is to say he is two people:
the man with choice in a perilous situation and the man who has
"always" been at the Overlook. It's a mistake to see the final photo
as evidence that the events of the film are predetermined: jack has
any number of moments where he can act other than the way he does, and
that his (poor) choices are fuelled by weakness and fear perhaps
merely speaks all the more to the questions about the personal and the
political that The Shining brings up. in the same way Charles had a
chance - once more, perhaps - to not take on "Delbert's" legacy, so
Jack may have had a chance to escape his role as "caretaker" to the
interests of the powerful. It's the tragic course of this story that
he chooses not to.

[Math1723]

On Sep 28, 7:18 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ex-AMKer Gordon Dahlquist also wrote on the subject of the Delbert/
> Grady duality some years ago:
<snip>

At http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/html/shining/shining2.html
(where the text you cite is posted), there was a subsequent paragraph:

"GS [Gordon Strainforth, an editor who worked on 'The Shining'] adds:
I don't think we'll ever quite unravel this. Was his full name Charles
Delbert Grady? Perhaps Charles was a sort of nickname? Perhaps Ullman
got the name wrong? But I also think that Stanley did NOT want the
whole story to fit together too neatly, so you are absolutely correct
I think to say that 'the sum of what we learn refuses to add up
neatly'."

So you still may not like or agree with the "Charles Delbert Grady"
theory. But if an actual Shining editor thought this, then it's not
completely without some merit, now is it?

[Math1723]

On Sep 25, 11:38 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Couldn't he have been named Charles Delbert Grady?  Then there's only
> > one Grady to worry about: called Charles by the newspapers (since that
> > was his first name), but he called himself Delbert.
>
> I suppose we can fabricate anything from a fictional story to make it
> consistent.  If that's what you want to tell yourself to resolve this
> as a non-error, fine.  It's certainly a lot simpler than the overly
> complex conspiratorial backstory artificially imposed by Harry.

Well I was seeking a simple resolution to the issue. Besides, is it
*really* that important a point??? He gets called Charles in one
place, Delbert in another. I didn't even notice it until this thread
came up. Whether it was an error or something intentional that
Kubrick never followed through on, it doesn't change the quality (or
my appreciation) of the film.

> > Of course there's still the problem as to how Jack Torrance recognized
> > the wrong name as the murderer, but we'll that as an exercise.  :-)
>
> Well, that's probably no big effort really.  If we assume that Jack
> later reads the newspaper account (as he did in the novel), one can
> suppose the article gives his full name of "Charles Delbert Grady"
> with his picture, making the bathroom scene once again fully
> consistent.
>
> If we must accept fanboy retroactive continuity to resolve this
> "puzzle", then your's is certainly the simplest one proposed so far.
> Using Occam's razor as measurement, you're in the lead.

If that's your closest approximation to a complement, I'll take it.

(Am I the only one in this thread who thinks that some of the
participants here need to lighten up a bit?)

[unknown]

On 2008-09-25 23:38:40 -0400, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> said:

> On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Couldn't he have been named Charles Delbert Grady?  Then there's only
>> one Grady to worry about: called Charles by the newspapers (since that
>> was his first name), but he called himself Delbert.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Of course there's still the problem as to how Jack Torrance recognized
>> the wrong name as the murderer, but we'll that as an exercise.  :-)
>
> Well, that's probably no big effort really. If we assume that Jack
> later reads the newspaper account (as he did in the novel), one can
> suppose the article gives his full name of "Charles Delbert Grady"
> with his picture, making the bathroom scene once again fully
> consistent.

There may have originally been a scene showing Jack perusing the
scrapbook of newspaper clippings of the hotel's history which was cut
from the script , or else shot but then cut from the film.

This scrapbook is described vividly in the novel and is noticeable,
laying open on the table, where Jack does his "writing" in the film.
Why go through the trouble of creating a prop clipping scrapbook and
having it so prominent on Jack's desk unless at one point it figured
into the film somehow?

It is plausible that, during a scene with Jack reading the scrapbook,
there would have been close-ups of newspaper clippings dealing with the
Grady killings. In this hypothetical prop scrapbook scene, Charles
Grady may have been identified as "Charles Delbert Grady" in the
newspaper articles. Identifying a killer's middle name seems to be a
journalistic convention in news reporting. Kubrick and Diane Johnson
would have had to come up with a middle name for this character for the
prop news articles and "Delbert" is a good pick for a character who is
shown as a Jeeves type British butler. If this was the case, then Jack
(and also the film's audience) would have no trouble connecting
"Charles Grady" and "Delbert Grady" as the same character.

Cutting this hypothetical scrapbook scene (whether actually shot, or
perhaps existed in a draft script or an early treatment, but not used
in the final released film) creates a continuity error in the released
film.

Just one argument for continuity error,
G

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 26, 11:38 pm, gh wrote:
> On 2008-09-25 23:38:40 -0400, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Couldn't he have been named Charles Delbert Grady?  Then there's only
> >> one Grady to worry about: called Charles by the newspapers (since that
> >> was his first name), but he called himself Delbert.
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> Of course there's still the problem as to how Jack Torrance recognized
> >> the wrong name as the murderer, but we'll that as an exercise.  :-)
>
> > Well, that's probably no big effort really.  If we assume that Jack
> > later reads the newspaper account (as he did in the novel), one can
> > suppose the article gives his full name of "Charles Delbert Grady"
> > with his picture, making the bathroom scene once again fully
> > consistent.
>
> There may have originally been a scene showing Jack perusing the
> scrapbook of newspaper clippings of the hotel's history which was cut
> from the script , or else shot but then cut from the film.
>
> This scrapbook is described vividly in the novel and is noticeable,
> laying open on the table, where Jack does his "writing" in the film.  
> Why go through the trouble of creating a prop clipping scrapbook and
> having it so prominent on Jack's desk unless at one point it figured
> into the film somehow?
>
> It is plausible that, during a scene with Jack reading the scrapbook,
> there would have been close-ups of newspaper clippings dealing with the
> Grady killings.  In this hypothetical prop scrapbook scene, Charles
> Grady may have been identified as "Charles Delbert Grady" in the
> newspaper articles. Identifying a killer's middle name seems to be a
> journalistic convention in news reporting. Kubrick and Diane Johnson
> would have had to come up with a middle name for this character for the
> prop news articles and "Delbert" is a good pick for a character who is
> shown as a Jeeves type British butler. If this was the case, then Jack
> (and also the film's audience) would have no trouble connecting
> "Charles Grady" and "Delbert Grady" as the same character.
>
> Cutting this hypothetical scrapbook scene (whether actually shot, or
> perhaps existed in a draft script or an early treatment, but not used
> in the final released film) creates a continuity error in the released
> film.
>
> Just one argument for continuity error,
> G- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's plausible. Delbert has a Middle name sound to it. Of course
this in no way means it was Overlooked in the edit.:)


dc

[unknown]

On 2008-09-27 04:21:25 -0400, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> said:

>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It's plausible. Delbert has a Middle name sound to it. Of course
> this in no way means it was Overlooked in the edit.:)
>
>
> dc

Not overlooked, but let it stand because it didn't really matter that
much. Not like it would cause a huge controversy with anyone. Lots of
films have small inconsistencies, but it doesn't matter because a film
is entertainment, it is not meant to be analyzed to death with a
microscope.

G

[Harry Bailey]

G, why do you continue to speculate (and with obvious trolls) on such
matters when there has already been extensive research and analysis on
these very topics, archived on sites throughout the internet, in books
and journal articles, and in the AMK archive here? Indeed, those who
actually WORKED ON THE FILM have posted on this very topic here in the
past, including assistant editor Gordon Stainford (who laid and
synched all the music soundtracks), who at length explained the source
of the so-called 'continuity errors', from the helicopter shadow to
the missing bathroom door panel during the axe scene to the glimpsed
scrapbook on Jack's desk. A huge amount of scenes shot for the film
ended up on the cutting-room floor: for instance, the scene featuring
Jack axing the bathroom door - footage of Jack axing the second door
panel was shot, but excluded from the final cut during post-
production. The helicopter shadow resulted from the different aspect
ratios and mattes used for different theatrical and video release
formats. Kubrick not only excised extensive footage (as well as
cutting a further 20+ minutes from the international version, down
from around 142 minutes to 119 minutes) but from his numerous takes of
each shot he selected the one that made the most dramatic (rather than
pedantic-technical purity) sense (the most "interesting"). They are
not, therefore, absent-minded 'continuity errors', much less
'mistakes': Kubrick was fully aware of what he was doing, and those
who worked on the film confirm this.

If you want to witness dramatic stupidity and irrational idiocy, read
King's simplistic novel, a favourite of trolls everywhere.

As for this nonsensical "Delbert/Charles" mistake fetish by the
newsgroup's latest transient trolls, 'Delbert' was a 1920s butler at
the Overlook, Grady a 1970s caretaker, while Delbert Grady is a ghost
(the Hotel's spectral agent sucking in Jack, like Delbert and Charles
before him, to continue its murderous legacy).

Work it out ...


On Sep 27, 7:38 am, gh wrote:
> On 2008-09-25 23:38:40 -0400, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>th
> > On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Couldn't he have been named Charles Delbert Grady?  Then there's only
> >> one Grady to worry about: called Charles by the newspapers (since that
> >> was his first name), but he called himself Delbert.
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> Of course there's still the problem as to how Jack Torrance recognized
> >> the wrong name as the murderer, but we'll that as an exercise.  :-)
>
> > Well, that's probably no big effort really.  If we assume that Jack
> > later reads the newspaper account (as he did in the novel), one can
> > suppose the article gives his full name of "Charles Delbert Grady"
> > with his picture, making the bathroom scene once again fully
> > consistent.
>
> There may have originally been a scene showing Jack perusing the
> scrapbook of newspaper clippings of the hotel's history which was cut
> from the script , or else shot but then cut from the film.
>
> This scrapbook is described vividly in the novel and is noticeable,
> laying open on the table, where Jack does his "writing" in the film.  
> Why go through the trouble of creating a prop clipping scrapbook and
> having it so prominent on Jack's desk unless at one point it figured
> into the film somehow?
>
> It is plausible that, during a scene with Jack reading the scrapbook,
> there would have been close-ups of newspaper clippings dealing with the
> Grady killings.  In this hypothetical prop scrapbook scene, Charles
> Grady may have been identified as "Charles Delbert Grady" in the
> newspaper articles. Identifying a killer's middle name seems to be a
> journalistic convention in news reporting. Kubrick and Diane Johnson
> would have had to come up with a middle name for this character for the
> prop news articles and "Delbert" is a good pick for a character who is
> shown as a Jeeves type British butler. If this was the case, then Jack
> (and also the film's audience) would have no trouble connecting
> "Charles Grady" and "Delbert Grady" as the same character.
>
> Cutting this hypothetical scrapbook scene (whether actually shot, or
> perhaps existed in a draft script or an early treatment, but not used
> in the final released film) creates a continuity error in the released
> film.
>
> Just one argument for continuity error,
> G-

[ichorwhip]

On Sep 27, 2:53 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> G, why do you continue to speculate (and with obvious trolls) on such
> matters when there has already been extensive research and analysis on
> these very topics, archived on sites throughout the internet, in books
> and journal articles, and in the AMK archive here? Indeed, those who
> actually WORKED ON THE FILM have posted on this very topic here in the
> past, including assistant editor Gordon Stainford (who laid and
> synched all the music soundtracks), who at length explained the source
> of the so-called 'continuity errors', from the helicopter shadow to
> the missing bathroom door panel during the axe scene to the glimpsed
> scrapbook on Jack's desk. A huge amount of scenes shot for the film
> ended up on the cutting-room floor: for instance, the scene featuring
> Jack axing the bathroom door - footage of Jack axing the second door
> panel was shot, but excluded from the final cut during post-
> production. The helicopter shadow resulted from the different aspect
> ratios and mattes used for different theatrical and video release
> formats. Kubrick not only excised extensive footage (as well as
> cutting a further 20+ minutes from the international version, down
> from around 142 minutes to 119 minutes) but from his numerous takes of
> each shot he selected the one that made the most dramatic (rather than
> pedantic-technical purity) sense (the most "interesting"). They are
> not, therefore, absent-minded 'continuity errors', much less
> 'mistakes': Kubrick was fully aware of what he was doing, and those
> who worked on the film confirm this.
>
> If you want to witness dramatic stupidity and irrational idiocy, read
> King's simplistic novel, a favourite of trolls everywhere.
>
> As for this nonsensical "Delbert/Charles" mistake fetish by the
> newsgroup's latest transient trolls, 'Delbert' was a 1920s butler at
> the Overlook, Grady a 1970s caretaker, while Delbert Grady is a ghost
> (the Hotel's spectral agent sucking in Jack, like Delbert and Charles
> before him, to continue its murderous legacy).
>
> Work it out ...

You're right! Charles fucking works... In fact it improves on some
of the illogic in King's novel, as if anyone wants to get into THAT!
I mean did Ullman's predecessor REALLY hire a natty 20's waiter in a
tux name-o-Delbert to caretake The Overlook? What was he thinking?
No wonder he's a "predecessor."

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go trim my topiary animals with a
chopper shadow...

"And he had a good employment record, good references and from what
I've been told, I mean, he seemed like a completely normal
individual."
i
"piop"

[unknown]

On 2008-09-27 15:53:01 -0400, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> said:

> G, why do you continue to speculate (and with obvious trolls)

Because it amuses me sometimes.

> Indeed, those who
> actually WORKED ON THE FILM have posted on this very topic here in the
> past, including assistant editor Gordon Stainford (who laid and
> synched all the music soundtracks),

The name of that gentleman is Gordon Stainforth, not Stainford, Mr.
Balley. Gordon Stainforth had many interesting things to say about his
experience working on The Shining during the time he participated in
this group, but i don't recall that he answered the question posed in
this thread, if anyone who "actually WORKED ON THE FILM" ever
addressed it in book, interview or online somewhere, please quote them.

> who at length explained the source
> of the so-called 'continuity errors', from the helicopter shadow to
> the missing bathroom door panel during the axe scene to the glimpsed
> scrapbook on Jack's desk. A huge amount of scenes shot for the film
> ended up on the cutting-room floor: for instance, the scene featuring
> Jack axing the bathroom door - footage of Jack axing the second door
> panel was shot, but excluded from the final cut during post-
> production. The helicopter shadow resulted from the different aspect
> ratios and mattes used for different theatrical and video release
> formats. Kubrick not only excised extensive footage (as well as
> cutting a further 20+ minutes from the international version, down
> from around 142 minutes to 119 minutes) but from his numerous takes of
> each shot he selected the one that made the most dramatic (rather than
> pedantic-technical purity) sense (the most "interesting"). They are
> not, therefore, absent-minded 'continuity errors', much less
> 'mistakes': Kubrick was fully aware of what he was doing, and those
> who worked on the film confirm this.

Although I always noticed what you are describing from the first time
I've seen The Shining, none of these things ever detracted from my
experience of watching the film. The Shining is one of the most well
made films ever produced. I just never subscribed to the belief that
these few incongruities had any symbolism to the story being told. Most
of the good filmmakers will go for the take that works best, rather
than the most technically perfect one. One of the film editor's jobs is
to help make that work, and it does throughout this film.

However, as someone once said, "Just because the man is a
perfectionist, that doesn't mean he is perfect."

> If you want to witness dramatic stupidity and irrational idiocy, read
> King's simplistic novel, a favourite of trolls everywhere.

Never been a fan of Stephen King's work. The Shining is the only novel
of his I've ever read, which I read before the film was released in an
effort at the time to try to objectively see how Kubrick takes a piece
of source material which works as a novel and what changes he would
make make in order for it to work in an entirely different medium, as a
film. King is an assembly line pulp thriller writer. King sells books,
he keeps most readers turning the page until the end of his story and
leaves them wanting to read the next one he produces, that is his job.
That's not idiotic, it is just a man making money by selling
entertainment. Nothing wrong with it, the books he produces are just
not to your taste or mine.

G

[Harry Bailey]

On Sep 28, 1:05 am, gh wrote:
> On 2008-09-27 15:53:01 -0400, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > G, why do you continue to speculate (and with obvious trolls)
>
> Because it amuses me sometimes.

Well that's interesting to know. Trolls are amusing! Can't get enough
of them.

>
> > Indeed, those who
> > actually WORKED ON THE FILM have posted on this very topic here in the
> > past, including assistant editor Gordon Stainford (who laid and
> > synched all the music soundtracks),
>
> The name of that gentleman is Gordon Stainforth, not Stainford, Mr.
> Balley.

Forgive the misspelling. Yes, I know who he is: I've corresponded with
him over the years.

>Gordon Stainforth had many interesting things to say about his
> experience working on The Shining during the time he participated in
> this group, but i don't recall that he answered the question posed in
> this thread,

Eh, I think you might need to read my post again: he, among others,
were discussing the so-called 'continuity errors', pointing out that
they were not errors.

Why would he want to 'answer' such an absurd question (the one you're
referring to) when it was never posed? There is nothing to 'answer'
beyond drawing attention to the agenda of stupid people/trolls, to
which you have now ridiculously aligned yourself.

Look, for the last fucking time: these dumb, ignorant, insistent
bigots have made an irrational claim without backing up their
droolings with ANY argument, any reasoning, any evidence, much less
any meaningful analysis of the film. Furthermore, EVEN if the two
names had 'accidentally' coincided the result would be a reductio ad
absurdum. I've said enough on this by now: clearly, one cannot reason
with demented trolls.


>if anyone who "actually WORKED ON THE FILM"  ever
> addressed it in book, interview or online somewhere, please quote them.

Why would they want to do such a thing? Because some idiot cannot
distinguish between a human and a ghost? Unlike King, Kubrick didn't
patronise his audience ("Now children, this here is a human being, and
this here is a ghost; unlike Mr King, I am not going to confuse the
two in my work, but if you're still troubled by the discrepancy, too
intellectually challenged, I suggest you stick to watching Spielberg
movies").

G, your feeding the trolls here, doing their bidding.

> > who at length explained the source
> > of the so-called 'continuity errors', from the helicopter shadow to
> > the missing bathroom door panel during the axe scene to the glimpsed
> > scrapbook on Jack's desk. A huge amount of scenes shot for the film
> > ended up on the cutting-room floor: for instance, the scene featuring
> > Jack axing the bathroom door - footage of Jack axing the second door
> > panel was shot, but excluded from the final cut during post-
> > production. The helicopter shadow resulted from the different aspect
> > ratios and mattes used for different theatrical and video release
> > formats. Kubrick not only excised extensive footage (as well as
> > cutting a further 20+ minutes from the international version, down
> > from around 142 minutes to 119 minutes) but from his numerous takes of
> > each shot he selected the one that made the most dramatic (rather than
> > pedantic-technical purity) sense (the most "interesting"). They are
> > not, therefore, absent-minded 'continuity errors', much less
> > 'mistakes': Kubrick was fully aware of what he was doing, and those
> > who worked on the film confirm this.
>
> Although I always noticed what you are describing from the first time
> I've seen The Shining, none of these things ever detracted from my
> experience of watching the film. The Shining is one of the most well
> made films ever produced. I just never subscribed to the belief that
> these few incongruities had any symbolism to the story being told.

What things? Could you be more specific? So why are you now defending
the 'mistake' ravers?

"Symbolism"??? There is no 'symbolism' in the film; there is metonymy
and displacement.

> > If you want to witness dramatic stupidity and irrational idiocy, read
> > King's simplistic novel, a favourite of trolls everywhere.
>
> King is an assembly line pulp thriller writer. King sells books,
> he keeps most readers turning the page until the end of his story and
> leaves them wanting to read the next one he produces, that is his job.

Oh yes, doing 'his duty', as prescribed by the Overlook's spooks. His
responsibilities to his employers, a signed written contract ...

[unknown]

On 2008-09-27 20:56:09 -0400, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> said:

> "Symbolism"??? There is no 'symbolism' in the film; there is metonymy
> and displacement.

You left out synecdoche.

G

[Jonathan Hoyle]

On Sep 24, 4:28 pm, Jonathan Hoyle <***@mac.com> wrote:
> I can see to suggest that Kubrick intentionally substituted the name
> "Charles" for "Delbert" is some conspiratorial secret meaning.

I meant to say I CAN'T see.

"Never assume a conspiracy when simple incompetence will explain it."

[kelpzoidzl]

On Sep 29, 12:02 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Stanley Kubrick: That's strange, Ray, I don't have any recollection of
> that at all.


Okay thats funny.

dc

[MP]

On Oct 2, 12:18 am, Math1723 <***@aol.com> wrote:
> Note, this post is about to get very funny and embarrassing to a
> particular hairy Pad-rag, with just desserts...
>
> So, in our last episode, Harry had pretty low opinions of those who
> thought that Shining murderer from 1970 might have been named Charles
> Delbert Grady.  After making the suggestion myself, Harry flew off the
> handle, calling it my "deranged ravings", calling me "a twisted
> wanker", "asshole", ... well, you get the picture.
>
> However, unbeknownst to Harry (unless of course he knew and was simply
> suppressing the evidence), some who have actually worked on "The
> Shining" itself thought the same thing!!
>
> Fromhttp://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/html/shining/shining2.html:
>
> "GS [Gordon Stainforth, who worked as an editor on "The Shining"]
> adds: I don't think we'll ever quite unravel this [the double naming
> of Grady]. Was his full name Charles Delbert Grady? Perhaps Charles
> was a sort of nickname? Perhaps Ullman got the name wrong? But I also
> think that Stanley did NOT want the whole story to fit together too
> neatly, so you are absolutely correct I think to say that 'the sum of
> what we learn refuses to add up neatly'."
>
> Well, well, well... I wonder what Pad-rag thinks now?!?  Were the very
> editors of the Shining "fucking assholes" too?  Maybe he thinks
> Kubrick himself was an idiot, since after all, he allowed it to be
> vague enough that his own collaborators didn't get it?  Hmmm?
>
> <snicker, snicker>
>
> Now in fairness, Stainforth doesn't say this must be the case, or that
> he believes this himself.  However, he does suggest it's a legitimate
> possibility.  More legitimate than that troll Harry would allow.
> Sigh, I guess that Kubrick's people didn't get Harry's memo.
>
> If Harry is brave enough to respond, I'm sure he'll be using colorful
> language and all-caps shouting at me (as is his usual M.O.)  However,
> I'll happily sift through the profanity and trolling, just to see how
> he'll answer this.

I don't know what you think you've "discovered" or "proved". Every
hardcore Kubrick fan has read Stainforth's comments and pretty much
devoured every Kubrick article on that website. What's your point?
Historically, Kubrick's collaborators and associates, have been just
as clueless and in the dark as most of his audience.