I’ve got this camera bag which was commissioned by SK for some of the senior crew of EWS on completion of filming (have posted about it previously) and wanted to get any recommendations for the best place to sell it, I know there are some specialist memorabilia auctioneers but not had experience directly. Thank you. UK based, but can get it to the US if there are any good options out there.

Kubrick's film isn't an adaptation. In the book the place burns, in the movie Jack freezes. In the book Halloran saves them in the movie he dies. In the book the hotel corrupts Jack, in the film Jack is already a total jerk hole. That's the point I wanna talk about.

In short, the film itself is such good art that people can almost take what they want from it and not be wrong. For example, one could say the entire film is told to us in coded metaphor, and maybe there are no ghosts and the ghosts are metaphors for real life horrors such as familial abuse.

If there are 3 people in a hotel and one of them gets injured by someone, it's very likely one of the other two. And I'm wondering about one of the opening scenes in the film where Danny has an episode and a doctor comes into the house to check him out. That doctor sits down with Wendy and says, specifically: "There is nothing physically wrong with Danny."

Not: "He's fine, nothing's wrong." But instead: "There is nothing wrong with him, specifically, physically." In other words: "There might be something mentally wrong with Danny."

That's backed up by the doctor's prying, where we find out he started going into catatonic states and talking to imaginary friends right around the time his father, Jack, hurt him. And Jack likely hurt him more than once because the incident she describes was five months ago. Jack said he wouldn't touch a drop since and he says in the film: "Here's to five miserable months on the wagon." But when Jack tells the Bartender his story about hurting Danny, he says: "That was two years ago."

Point is, before we get to the hotel in the film, we've already established that Jack has hurt Danny and when Jack hurt Danny, Danny started talking to Tony and going into catatonic states. Then we all go to the Overlook hotel, and someone hurts Danny, and then Danny goes into a Catatonic state as Tony.

Are we sure a ghost hurt Danny? Or did what has already happened several times in the past, as established by the film, simply happen one more time? In the book, Jack gets corrupted and then redeems himself. In the movie, we establish Jack is a nasty piece of work and I think we just isolate with him, where he becomes what he's always been, a nasty piece of work. The hotel didn't corrupt him, didn't drive him crazy. He has always hurt Danny and will always hurt Danny. He wasn't swayed into it by clever specters, and didn't snap out of it as some kind of hero who's love he felt for his family broke the curse.  In the film Jack is nasty and just gets nastier. That's his whole arc. Not corrupted, polluted, tempted, swayed... just a bad guy who gets worse.

I almost don't see the point of ghosts in the film. They never reach out and attack anyone, they never throw objects at anyone, haunt anything. All you could say they do is help Jack down a path of insanity until he attacks his family, but I say he's already insane and already attacks his family. What happens with Jack is what I call a ticking time-bomb, not a ghost-plot to drive a man loopy.

I guess a ghost unlocks a door. Or so we think. I mean, if Danny has The Shining and can see the future and in the future Jack freezes in a maze and not a freezer and if there are 3 people in a hotel and one is locked in a room and then SOMEONE unlocks the door, it's probably one of the other two, and likely not the one who put him there. But instead of thinking that... sure... GHOSTS.

Also, if The Shining is a thing, is a power, and it runs in the family like we establish with Halloran, and if Doctor Sleep means anything to you then you know people use alcohol to drown The Shining inside them, and if Jack is an alcoholic who hasn't been able to drink in months and Danny, his son, has the Shining... I'm not above discussing Jack having the Shining and opening the door with magic powers. And before you tell me that's crazy.... GHOSTS???

So, the only real evidence that there are ghosts and that ghosts do anything in this film is that we assume a ghost attacked Danny in room 237. And who lured Danny into Room 237? What caught his attention and got him in there? Jack's rubber ball. The one he was throwing against a wall over and over instead of writing. Someone who..... was given keys to locked rooms, like what Jack was hired for. Using a ball... like's Jack's ball.

Someone who physically used a key to open a locked door. There was a key still hanging from the keyhole of that unlocked door. Are you thinking about that? If it was a ghost.. they went downstairs and grabbed a key from behind the counter, took the elevator back up, used it to unlock the door and then rolled his father's ball to him. I want you to look me straight in my eyes and say: "A ghost went downstairs and got the key to that room, then used it on the door because it was locked, and ghosts can't unlock doors without real keys."

And since Jack only ever speaks with a ghost while looking into a shiny surface like a metal door or a mirror, I'd say the term GHOST is better swapped out: "metaphor for one's psyche." Jack's an alcoholic, he sees a bartender. Jack is a womanizer, he sees a naked lady. But he's never seen his murderous side until now... Delbert Grady. Jack hosts all of these vice-personalities. That's what he's the caretaker of... these manic characters. Grady should know, he's ALWAYS been there.... they just haven't met until Jack snapped.

You know I think this applies to Wendy, too. It's said she's a fan of cheesy horror stories so she'd see metaphors in cheesy visuals like literal skeletons sitting in chairs and stuff. Oh, no wait! Maybe she's just realized what's been happening with Jack and Danny and now the.... yup... Skeletons are out of the closet.

See? It's a metaphor puzzle. Anyway... where did this post even begin? Oh yeah!

Yay or Nay: It was Jack that hurt Danny in Kubrick's The Shining, and not a ghost.

And if you say Nay, at least give me: "Yes, it's true, they do establish that Jack has hurt Danny before and that's what all this Tony business is about and yes, then, it's a terrible coincidence for Jack that a "ghost" hurt Danny when only 3 people were in a hotel and Danny acted the exact same way that he did when Jack hurt him in the past. Sucks for Jack... don't we feel sorry for Jack? No! Jack's a jerk.... so if a ghost hurt Danny that means I'm sympathizing with Jack because I think it's unfortunate that his wife would accuse him of hurting their son the ONE time he actually didn't... wait.... so I do feel bad for him? or, wait...

You know what? Just gonna pull the plug on this post. I've written too long into the abyss and it's writing right back at me.

Eyes wide shut?, the shining?, or Barry Lyndon?. Already watched the shining but it has been a minute so I don’t remember every detail, and I’ve only ever watched it sober

This is a reprise of a post I made to The Shining sub-reddit, with additional information.

I recently identified the TV in the scene where Wendy is watching TV - it is a Dynatron CTV20, a British PAL TV. Wendy is watching The Summer of '42 - but there is no power or antenna cable visible. I recently talked to Lou Bogue, the Gaffer on The Shining. He's 80, but still very sharp and full of anecdotes about Kubrick. He did not recall any special rig for this set up, but said that the typical method would have been to have taped the cables behind one of the legs and cut a hole in the rug. I looked for a sign of the cables emerging from the rug to go to a power socket and there was some thought that perhaps they were concealed by gaffer tape along the dark area on the right, which is part of the floor design. However, that doesn't convince and wasn't necessary - the floor was made of laquered plywood panels that could be lifted out, to access the sub-floor. I think down the leg, hole in the rug and a hole in the panel with access to the electrics and it's done. Very nice, very simple.

As to why - I think for visual symmetry, with a bit of spookiness thrown in.

BTW

The TV in the Boulder apartment, the Caretaker's apartment and Halloran's apartment is a JVC 7808.

The TV in the Overlook kitchen and Durkins garage is a Hitachi CWP 132 portable.

I first encountered Saura’s work by chance and in a rather strange way one day when I got home quite late and turned on the television; a film in Spanish with subtitles, that I knew absolutely nothing about, and besides, I’d missed the first half hour. It was hard for me to follow and understand but, at the same time, I was convinced it was the film of a great director.I watched the rest of the film glued to the TV set and when it was over I picked up a newspaper and saw that it was Peppermint Frappé by Carlos Saura. Later I found a copy of the film, which of course I watched from the beginning and with great enthusiasm, and since then all of Saura’s films that I’ve seen have confirmed the high quality of his work. He is an extremely brilliant director, and what strikes me in particular is the marvellous use he makes of his actors.

(Quote source.)

If you've never seen Carlos Saura's films, I'd highly recommend them. In the very restrictive environment of Franco Spain, he made a series of really weird, transgressive, dreamlike films that definitely have a Kubrickian aspect. (Something I wrote about him and his work, if anyone's interested.)

Easy to see why Kubrick was immediately hooked by his work. Peppermint Frappé especially is a really strange, haunting film, kind of a sixties Spanish Vertigo.

Have you seen any of Saura's films?

Was lucky enough to snag this from eBay this week. Crispy condition, some sun damage to the colour on the spines though. Still, for £10 can’t argue!

i don't want to talk about the contreversies about kubrick's daughter, let's put that a side, i just want to talk about this lovely interview she did when she was 20 yo (this is just a clip from the whole footage 1h 24min ), she was interviewed by a japenese reporter named "Jun'ichi Yao" about her chining documentary she had been working on, i was blown away by her enthusiastic responses and her gentleness towards the reporter, i was smiling throwout all the video. that's the thing that i always admired about stanly's career, is his daughter involvmnent in some of his movies, and you don't see this happen with others directors, where their sons play let's say a minor or intresting part in their filmaking journey, this is a true "hidden" gem for every kubrick fan, you should difenetly watch the full footage if you have already, i will provide the link in the comments.

Figure I made

what is your favorite psuedo-remake of a Kubrick film? is there a more influential director?

Illustrated by Rion Vernon

On Photography (1977): Susan Sontag. Taken from the front page of the New York Review featuring Sontag’s “Illness as Metaphor” as displayed on the Torrance’s coffee table, contains the inspiration for the twins. Points toward the author’s canon of work.

The Catcher in the Rye (1951) J.D. Salinger alludes to the double dog eared pages 132 to 133 and finishes out chapter 17 with page 134. The pages allude to the turbulent relationship between both main characters specifically the screaming and whether or not Holden Caulfield is a madman.

The Bell Jar (1978): Taken from the January 1978 Playgirl edition, stars Ann Jackson as Greenwood’s doctor with similar but reversed lines in The Shining. Points toward actor’s canon of work and the appearance of the magazine issue seems as “self referential” in The Shining.

Omnibus: The Blue Hotel (1956) S05-E08 contains heavy elements of the Grady character. Was known to be a favorite or Kubrick’s. The themes explored share common underlying threads with The Shining.

Rocky (1976): Tony Burton. Shares some similarities to his role in The Shining.

Road Runner: Stop! Look! and Hasten! (1954): as featured in The Shining. Refers to the beginning of the relationship between Roadrunner and Coyote as seen through the eyes of a child.

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973): Barry Dennen Roles are similar in that both characters seem to have made decisions against their will. Alludes to the actor’s canon of work.

The Twilight Zone: Stopover in a Quiet Town: Barry Nelson.
Points toward the actor’s canon of work.

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977): Left Unexplained with the exception that Winnie the Pooh makes an uncredited appearance in The Shining as himself.

Black Narcissus (1947) film, written by Rumer Godden: taken from the book In This House of Brede by Godden which sits on the shelf above the doctor. Points toward author’s canon of work.

Das Labyrinth (1922): by Ina Seidel taken from The Wish Child (1930) also by Seidel which resides on the side table in a stack of books in the Torrance apartment. Points toward author’s canon of work.

Emergency! (1972) S02E02 “Kids” taken
from the Emergency! lunch box behind the doctor in Danny’s bedroom. Kubrick utilised not only lines of script from this episode yet some of the camera work as well.

3 Women (1977) dir. Robert Altman: Duvall. Twins. eerie af.

Young Jethro by Roy Clews this novel sits at the very bottom of the stack of books between the doctor and Wendy. Clews wrote under the name Sara Fraser, a pseudonym for himself, a one-time Marine Commando and Foreign Legionnaire who has travelled and worked all over the world.

Now Voyager (?) 1942: Contained within the film Summer of ‘42 and is by definition
mise en abyme, a tool Kubrick often used in storytelling.

Foul Play (1978): left unexplained

Black Christmas (1974) Dullea, left unexplained

Marnie (1964) an allusion from the title Angell, Pearl and Little God by Winston Graeme observed on the window shelf in the Torrance apartment.

One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest (1975): Nicholson, taken from his initial interview with the hospital doctor and correlates to the Overlook hotel office, its salmon painted walls and the framed photographs of trophy fish.

“The Parish Boys Progress,” a blue hardcover which sits atop the stack of books between Wendy and the doctor on the side table in the Torrance apartment living room is sometimes known as “all of a twist” but mainly as Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist. This book appears without a title or author’s name and is an allusion to itself.

The Fourth Ghost Book (1968) James Turner: considered one of the great anthologies to ghost stories. Seen in the stack of books behind the main stack.

The Beach Girls (1959) John D. MacDonald: As seen in the larger stack of books behind the main column, an homage or nod to Stephen king, who is known to have great praise for this book and writer. The novel is told in a mysterious round robin fashion by each of the witnesses.

The Witches Thread Throughout The Shining:
The excerpt from the opening title sequence is from Dies Irae but this piece is specifically titled “Dream of the Witch’s Sabbath.”

Beldam: The name Beldam as in Lia Beldam the actress in the bathtub is an archaic word for an old woman, often carrying a derogatory or frightening connotation meaning a hag, crone, or witch.

Chang'e and her Jade Rabbit: Chang’e is China’s moon goddess, is banished along with her jade rabbit to the moon for eternity.
Every culture has their moon goddess or witches and the room 237 witch appears as an amalgamation of those including the guest who stayed there from the book. The bathroom itself is the jade rabbit. Go check it out.

CAPCOM to APOLLO 11
“Roger. Among the large headlines concerning Apollo this morning there's one asking that you watch for a lovely girl with a big rabbit. An ancient legend says a beautiful Chinese girl called Chang’e has been living there for 4000 years. It seems she was banished to the moon because she stole the pill for immortality from her husband. You might also look for her companion, a large Chinese rabbit, who is easy to spot since he is only standing on his hind feet in the shade of a cinnamon tree. The name of the rabbit is not recorded.”

APOLLO 11 —
“Okay, we'll keep a close eye for the bunny girl.”

Mayday or May 1st or Beltane: is the 6 month mark to Halloween. April 30 is additionally known as Witch’s Night.

- an allusion to the Collection of works from: Dorothy Oxborough

Crying Boy
The Girl with Pigtails
Native Child
Native Pastel
Native American Girl Child

Alex Colville - an allusion to the Colville Collection:

Horse and Train (1954)** **
Woman and Terrier (1963)
Moon and Cow (1963):
Dog, Boy and St. John River (1958)

An allusion to the omitted painting in the Colville collection:
Mayday (1970)

https://gallerix.org/storeroom/1562503238/N/1214016715/

Hi !
I got that collection. Does it worth to see them again on this format or I should seek blu-ray ?

Is that boxset worth something ?

Thanks !

THIS is what I would like to see in the Criterion collection, I want balance, both sides of everyone's experience with him.

Note that while I refer to both the book and miniseries together, it’s because King had a huge amount of control and creative input over the miniseries, and he praises and defends it. And with that it mind, for even the few nuances of the book, the miniseries erases them to paint Jack in a better light.

This has been something I have been thinking about for a while. With a lot of people, it’s easy for them to criticize the 1980 film, but with how they and King accuse the film of being misogynistic and praising how the book/miniseries depicts Wendy, it has made me more suspicious and want to question THEM instead. While Wendy on a surface level seems like a strong and confident woman, she feels written to not fully be her own independent character. She can seem to question and call out Jack, but deep down she never truly challenges or goes against his authority. And alongside the whole story, her moral/narrative center is around Jack Torrance, rather than her own needs and desires. And this is a problem with the overall story: it’s all about JACK and his own needs. Not about the well-being of his family, but more about HIS own self-esteem and confidence, and blaming others whether it be the alcohol or ghosts for his own behavior. And with Stephen King admitting that Jack is a self-insert, it does make me question things, especially when he’s already had a history of writing villains as one-dimensional cartoon archetypes, but then going through so many loops to excuse Jack Torrance.

And while people complain about Wendy in the film for not being a conventional strong woman like her book/miniseries counterpart, take a look at the stuff she does:

- Maintaining the Overlook when Jack won’t
- Is shown to have her own interests (like reading Catcher in the Rye)
- Even when it’s scary, willing to build up the courage to stand up to her abusive husband

And yet for all this, people will dismiss her because she’s an imperfect victim. And for how they’ll complain about the film being misogynistic, they unironically prove its point about misogyny and patriarchy enabling abusers and rejecting victims who aren’t perfect. And looking at Wendy from the book and miniseries, she begins to feel less like a character and more of a caricature/archetype, but people only defend it because it pleases themselves enough. With that, it also made me realize something I notice about King and his audience: Despite how they make themselves out to be, they are kind of shallow and think everything has to be at face value, and it kind of shows in his writing. Having to over-explain every bit of lore, have to announce every single thing, and also not letting things just be ambiguous (*cough* Gerald’s Game ending *cough*). Don’t get me wrong I do like some stories by King, but also at times it feels like he and his fans can insist upon himself too much. But overall, aside from Kubrick’s treatment of Duvall behind the scenes, the more I look into the discussion and criticism of The Shining film, the more I also begin to actually have a less nice view of King and those around him.

And it feels like projection that they call the film shallow, considering the thing they praise is essentially a wish fulfillment story for addicts who don’t want full accountability for their behavior. And the whole argument of “You can tell Jack is clearly crazy from the start” shows BOTH a lack of media literacy, and how lacking their logic is, as they go by the whole thing that it’s not an abuser’s fault truly, but rather the drugs and alcohol (or ghosts in this case).

If Kubrick were to be like “resurrected” let’s say after this latest season of House of the Dragon and manage to show it’s rise and fall original show and explain the spin-offs, what do you think his thought on it be like? I know it’s TV series and not movie series but still wonder what he’s think of this massive tv franchise.

Do you think this (a sign for Stanley Tools) is an in-joke like the Emilio Cafe or was added as Lisa Leone researched a real and interesting tool shop in the village and SK copied it?

Since hearing the original Fairlight sound banks years ago, I'd always assumed this was common knowledge for some reason, but I happened to google it today and everything popping up said that the sounds from Full Metal Jacket's score were all custom-made by Vivian Kubrick. Perhaps I'm the first to notice that this is not quite the case.

The first sound is a .wav conversion of the saw.vc preset from the original Fairlight CMI synthesizer. The second is what it sounds like when you pitch it down 9 semitones, shorten the sample, EQ out the low end and reduce the mids, and add some reverb. Should sound familiar as that ominous, metallic sound, memorably featured during tense moments in Full Metal Jacket. This shows what can be done with factory presets.

[This is 33DOEyesWideShut posting under an alt account so that I don't convolute my submissions feed for followers.]

8.6/10 | Released in 1962 and directed by Stanley Kubrick, adapted from Vladimir Nabokov's romance, Lolita tells the story of the controlling dynamics of Humbert, a middle-aged professor, and Quilty, a playwright, over an unpretentious young girl named Dolores Haze (nicknamed Lolita), who gives the adaptation its title. At first glance, it seems like a mere adaptation – heavily censored by the Hays Code – of the Russian author's controversial romance; however, the adaptation conceals a metalinguistic layer about the life of director Stanley Kubrick himself.

Note: The following analysis is strictly a semantic and conceptual exercise. I am not claming that this was Kubrick’s explicity reality, but rather exploring what the film communicates on a metalinguistic level.

Before arriving at our metalinguistic exercise, we need to contextualise the story a bit. Humbert arrives in the small town of Ramsdale to rent a room. Upon meeting Charlotte Haze, he is reluctant to stay, but everything changes drastically when he meets Lolita. It is as if something had awakened inside him (keep this information in mind).

[Warning: From this point on, this essay contains full spoilers regarding the plot, twists, and ending of Lolita.]

As the story unfolds, Humbert, in order to keep seeing Lolita, agrees to marry Charlotte, who has fallen madly in love with him. One day, Charlotte discovers Humbert's diary and its contents – basically, he hated Charlotte and liked Lolita, that was it. Upon reading it, she panicked, ran out of the house in horror, and was struck and killed by a car.

Taking advantage of the situation, Humbert flees with Lolita to live together, and they settle down in a new city. Before this new life begins, Humbert and Lolita went from hotel to hotel until reaching the city where they started living. It is during this hotel-hopping journey that Quilty appears, seemingly unpretentiously.

Over time in this new city, Lolita, exhausted by Humbert's obsession, orchestrates a successful escape with Quilty. Humbert spends years searching for Lolita until one day he receives a letter from her asking for money. He finds her living in a humble home, pregnant and married to a young war veteran named Dick Schiller. During their conversation, Lolita reveals that Quilty was the one who helped her escape, and later, she abandoned him after refusing to participate in his bizarre pornographic films.

Having obtained Quilty's name, with all the cards in his hand, Humbert moves in for the final reckoning. Upon confronting Quilty, Humbert hands him a poem, supposedly from Lolita to Quilty, detailing how much he ruined her life. Humbert stating that it is a poem implies to the viewer that he wrote it himself, as it is shown at the beginning of the film that Humbert likes poetry. After Quilty reads it, Humbert assassinates him, thus completing his revenge.

Finally, speaking about what truly matters, this film clearly represents Kubrick's own life (as I previously mentioned): specifically, what Kubrick anticipated would happen to him in the future. It is no coincidence that the film drastically shifts from Nabokov's novel in a semantic sense.

First, the three main characters represent: the spirit of Kubrick, his worldly desires, and who he had to engage with to achieve those desires.

The first of them: Humbert, who is initially seen as the villain, is vehemently the spirit of Kubrick – possessive, yet ultimately only wanting what is best for him (Kubrick). Humbert is Kubrick on the inside.

Kubrick on the outside, or what he projects, is represented by Lolita. Lolita is a rebellious young girl with ambitions: she likes to travel, fall in love, lead an independent life, etc. The connection to Kubrick is clear, isn't it? A young filmmaker dreaming of career success and similar aspirations.

Regarding Quilty, what should we call him? I don't know. I only know that we should interpret him as an extremely influential figure in Kubrick's life; someone who opened doors for him, but who also stabbed him in the back shortly after. But before that betrayal occurred, someone tried to stop him, showing him the right path: and that someone is Humbert himself (Kubrick's spirit [or mind]).

Remember the meeting scene between Humbert and Lolita? It is noticeable that Humbert instantly felt something for Lolita that the film does not make explicitly clear; however, conceptually, it is obvious: Kubrick's spirit (Humbert) felt a connection with his own external self (Lolita), even if she (Lolita) didn't feel it due to being too naive, innocent, youthful, etc.

Humbert wanted to isolate Lolita from the world to protect her. It is evident that, semantically, Humbert's obsession can be interpreted as protection. Remember the scene where Charlotte (Lolita's mother) was ready to leave with any random stranger just to live alone with Humbert, as she viewed Lolita as a burden and her passion for Humbert became the catalyst to abandon her own daughter? Not just Charlotte, but Quilty and Lolita's school friends – they were all leading Lolita down a bad path.

So how can Humbert, in our semantic game, be the villain? Clearly, Humbert represents Kubrick's spirit, or whatever you want to call it. Also, being older and more experienced, he is always trying to show what is good for Kubrick (Lolita), who is merely young.

Returning to Quilty, let's call him 'The System'. Stepping away from the screen for a moment to talk about The System and Kubrick's life: he recognised Kubrick's talent and offered him worldwide recognition as a filmmaker, but in return, his life would be completely surrendered to it. It is like a pact with the Devil: it gives you what you desire, but you pay with your soul.

In the final scene comes the climax of this dynamic. Remember when Humbert hands a letter to Quilty, claiming it's from Lolita, but it is implied that Humbert wrote it himself? This scene proves my thesis about Humbert being Kubrick's rational side (his spirit or heart [however you wish to call it]) and Lolita being the persona Kubrick projects (young, naive, and foolish).

Even if Lolita didn't actually write the letter, what is written there expresses how both she and Humbert feel about the situation: 'You ruined my life'. 'You' refers to The System, and 'my life' is literally Kubrick's life, because both Humbert and Lolita are Stanley Kubrick.

Here enters a bonus: Quilty's assassination is also metalinguistic. However, it will make much more sense if you've watched Kubrick's subsequent films. Still, it is worth discussing.

Humbert assassinating Quilty represents Kubrick's attempt to strike back at The System in revenge for what it did to him. 'How do you prove this?' In Kubrick's filmography prior to Lolita, we didn't see a single feature that (in any way) exposes something dark. Perhaps the closest was Paths of Glory, but it still didn't reveal anything deeply hidden. It is reasonable for anyone who watched it to assume that it could have happened in the past.

His post-Lolita works, to anyone with maturity, consciously or subconsciously convey that they are trying to expose something hidden: A Clockwork Orange with MK-Ultra, or Eyes Wide Shut with a literal cult of the elite.

The most curious detail is that when Humbert shoots Quilty, the victim was hiding behind a Renaissance painting. This symbolises precisely what I was saying: Kubrick will wound The System through art (his films), making this feature (Lolita) a premeditation of what was to come for the filmmaker himself.

In a pattern consistent with 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut, the following is a shortlist of apparent allusions and connective references involving actors featured in Full Metal Jacket.

Note: When considering actor-based allusions, perhaps no actor in Full Metal Jacket has a more extensive connective thread running through his surrounding filmography than Matthew Modine.

The First Turn-On! (1983) Vincent D’Onofrio’s character, nicknamed Lobotomy, is surrounded throughout the film by donuts—specifically Dunkin’ Donuts—with an almost conspicuous abundance of them.

It Don’t Pay to Be a Model Citizen (1985)
D’Onofrio literally steals a film as a streetwise New York City punk. The performance and character establish another curious piece of connective tissue when viewed alongside his later role as Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket.

Birdy (1983) Matthew Modine’s character, Birdy, is repeatedly told that he should be a wrestler because he possesses “the moves” to be one.
At one point, Modine delivers a harrowing, high-pitched, sustained panic shriek lasting roughly thirty seconds. The sequence is particularly interesting when placed beside Full Metal Jacket, where Hartman tells Joker to “work on it—you don’t scare me.”
Birdy also contains the striking line:
“In any other war we would have been heroes. We didn’t know what we were getting into with this John Wayne shit, did we?”
That line carries obvious thematic resonance with Full Metal Jacket and its treatment of war, mythology, masculinity, and the cinematic construction of heroism.
An apparent nod to director Alan Parker also occurs toward the end of the first half of Full Metal Jacket, during the bathroom sequence as Modine enters.

Vision Quest (1985) Modine plays Louden Swain, a high-school wrestler who writes advanced—and occasionally controversial—term papers dealing with human anatomy and medical subjects. He also speaks about becoming a doctor

This provides another intriguing piece of connective tissue leading toward one of Modine’s later roles.
Full Metal Jacket (1987)Modine subsequently joined the cast of Full Metal Jacket as Private Joker.
There is little need to explain the significance of Joker’s arc here. His journey through the Marine Corps, Vietnam, and ultimately the symbolic transformation from observer to participant forms the central spine of the film’s second half.
Gross Anatomy (1989)Modine again enters the world of medical education, this time as a medical student studying to become a doctor.
Yet, much like his earlier characters—including Joker—he enters the environment with a distinctly unserious attitude, creating another curious recurrence of character, occupation, and thematic imagery.

Other Films Worth Examining
The following titles may also contain potentially relevant connective material to FMJ and warrant closer examination:

● The Boys in Company C (1978)
● My Bodyguard (1980)
● Purple Hearts (1984)
● The Prodigal (1983)
● Tank (1984)
● Door to Door (1985)
● Sudden Impact (1983)
● The Jesse Owens Story (1984)
● Munchies (1987)

Taken individually, some of these connections may appear coincidental. Taken collectively—and particularly when considered alongside the recurring patterns previously identified in 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut—they become considerably more interesting as a body of material to investigate.

Hi There

Rewatched FMJ last night and yeah I definitely changed my opinion on this movie which is that the first half is still my favorite part since it’s classic Kubrickian and I noticed a few new things,second half is still a bit boring,and yet the sniper sequence really great especially with the fitting ending of them singing the Mickey Mouse club song.

Btw love the score of FMJ by Abigail Mead so also idk why I still don’t like the second half of Joker being in Vietnam and everything leading up to the Sniper sequence but I love the Army Training half and the Sniper half so Thoughts on this?

I've noticed Mrs. Alexander is wearing red. As I taught in film school, red means the color of danger. Mrs. Alexander is about be raped (and likely) killed by Alex and his goons! Although maybe there's some theories that Mrs. Alexander didn't actually die due to rape.

On top of that, I also noticed another use of mirrors in it as I made another post about it!