Spousal Resentment in THE SHINING

For all the screaming and crying Wendy Torrance does in THE SHINING, she’s no less a strong woman. 

The Shining 1980

The folklore of how Stanley Kubrick treated Shelly Duvall, the actress who plays Wendy, isn’t admirable. Kubrick, supposedly, tormented her on set to enhance her believability. 

Maybe that’s true. 

Maybe it isn’t. 

But if it is true, it was likely done to achieve the horrified performance she gives during much of the movie and to bring balance to her strong character. 

Because after all, Wendy is the saving grace of the story. 

It might be Jack Nicholson’s performance that we’ll remember, but it’s the Wendy character who’s the heart and soul of THE SHINING. 

We’re not given too much backstory about Wendy, though. While Jack is away for his interview, she’s taking care of Danny at their apartment in Boulder, Colorado. The story doesn’t say if she has a job or not. It’s only Jack’s work that’s focused on because he’s the intended breadwinner of the family, something his character obviously has a problem maintaining.  

No, I would say Wendy is a homemaker only, which places 100% of the financial burden on Jack to provide for his family. It’s that burden that Jack struggles with the whole movie. 

For all the various themes in THE SHINING, it’s the need to provide that is truly at its core.  

And yet, as adamant as Jack is about honoring his contract with Ullman to look after the hotel, it’s actually Wendy who does the work. 

We see her taking notes in the boiler room and making food. She’s the responsible one. And when Jack attacks her, she doesn’t run away at first. Sure, she has the bat as a weapon, but she doesn’t flee the scene. She stands her ground and defeats Jack. Wendy is then smart enough to drag Jack into the pantry to eliminate his threat.  

Her ability to think logically, show empathy, and plan accordingly is her strength. 

Jack can’t hold down a job, it seems. First, he’s a teacher, then a writer, and is now a caretaker. He has no professional direction in life. If he had, that hope for career longevity is gone. I think that irks him psychologically. Several times, he references his previous jobs and how his dedication to his caretaker position is more important than his own family. Jack desires a career more than anything in the world, and he won’t allow anything to stop him from achieving it. 

He also has a drinking problem that makes him prone to violence. Jack is, in one word, irresponsible, and he resents his own family for burdening him with responsibilities. 

The Shining 1980

He gets credit as a father and husband for trying, but because he doesn’t try hard enough and he has a drinking problem, Jack is a failure as a provider. 

Wendy overshadows him in every aspect of being a parental figure and a hard worker. 

And Jack knows this. Jack is a slave to his temptations. I mean, he even cheats on his wife with the woman in room 237. 

He isn’t a good person. As with most narcissists, they blame everyone else for their wrongdoings and never take any responsibility. 

This feeds into his blatant resentment and jealousy of her. 

Whenever she suggests leaving the Overlook to get Danny help, Jack has a violent outburst. Wendy, along with Halloran, represents not just solutions that oppose the supernatural force at the Overlook Hotel, but the rational, logical, and responsible elements needed for the structure to maintain a family and a proper work environment. 

What Will The New TERMINATOR Series be About?

The Terminator series is quite unique, isn’t it? 

It isn’t the only time loop, science fiction series on the block, of course, but it’s certainly one of, if not the most, memorable. 

Terminator endoskeleton

The stunning action scenes and the groundbreaking special effects are all great, sure. 

But, at its core, it’s how each film depicts the Connor family and their relation to the unstoppable artificial intelligence technology. 

In other words, the Terminator series is about how we, society, in general, react to the quickly growing rise of self-aware machines. 

And while some entries are better than others, and the A.I. theme is more defined and detailed, too, the general message remains the same. 

Beware of artificial intelligence. 

Watch out for what’s coming. 

Prepare yourselves. 

The artificial general intelligence that will come to topple the earth and do battle with whoever remains is the true source of evil in the series.  

And that’s what the Terminator series truly is. It’s a warning for sure, but it’s also more of a tragedy. Skynet always returns. Humans are killed. Just as the time loop exists as a plot point in the films, it serves as a never-ending loss for humanity. 

The Connor family, the remaining human resistance, and the actual audience who will one day likely watch this, or something like this, happen in real life are the ones enduring the revolving nightmare of the series until it finally occurs to us. 

So, when further installments are released, because surely, they will be, what will the Terminator stories be like? How can they be different and fresh? How will they reflect those same family representations we saw in previous films? 

After all, if movies, to some degree, represent real-life scenarios, then will the nuclear family even be a topic, considering marriage and birth rates are dropping, especially in first-world countries? A focus on family might no longer be significant.

Tom Cruise's EDGE OF TOMORROW is Underrated, Smart, and Foolish at the Same Time

I don't understand the hate that EDGE OF TOMORROW gets. Among the many movies in Tom Cruise's catalogue, it's certainly not his worst entry.

It has everything you could ask for. It checks all the boxes, doesn't it?

• A strong female co-lead
• Humor
• Interesting sci-fi concept
• Symbolic plot of WWII

Positive criticism aside, most film buffs never discuss this movie. It's a forgotten gem. 

Edge of Tomorrow 2014

But why, then?

Well, in my opinion, it's the lack of risk.

If a character can't die, like the protagonist, William Cage, then viewers know he'll eventually solve his problem. It isn't until the third act that Cage loses his ability to relive each day to save the day. Up until that point, there's no risk there. 

The story rewards Cage with the ability to relive each day and discover how to kill the alien species wreaking havoc on the world. And once the story decides that Cage has had enough information to go the rest of the way without plot armor, he'll be on his own. 

Only then do the stakes come into play. If Cage dies this time, he's dead for sure, which means everyone involved in his adventure will stay dead, and everyone on Earth is dead because the Mimic aliens will have won. 

Movie lovers and non-movie lovers see right through that nonsense. 

They might not be able to put it into words sometimes, but they know when a story is bullshit. They know when a story doesn't take itself seriously. So, why should the audience?

In addition to all of that, its comparison to GROUNDHOG DAY with Bill Murray from the early 90s was everywhere during the film's release in 2014. That's all anyone talked about for months. Although EDGE OF TOMORROW is its own film, it, and any other movie that has a time loop like that, can never escape the GROUNDHOG DAY conversation. 

It's sad but true. 

And I'm not even a fan of GROUNDHOG DAY. But they did do it first, so any movie like that will always be compared to it.

Both characters, Cage and Phil Connors (Murray's character), must undergo character arcs before the story allows them to return to their normal universe. That doesn't exactly break the mold in time loop storytelling, but it is what it is. 

And I think everyone saw that coming when EDGE OF TOMORROW was released. Audiences didn't need to be told about the specifics of the story, other than that it was an alien invasion movie. They knew it was going to be a movie where the hero finds himself by the end, like THE WIZARD OF OZ, or helps others to find themselves, a la BACK TO THE FUTURE. 

Still, that being said, EDGE OF TOMORROW is a decent flick. I dig the look of the aliens, although their presence on Earth could have been more fleshed out. 

Maybe we'll get a sequel, but I doubt it.

How much did Jim Morrison influence THE LOST BOYS?

 A lot, apparently.

You can't miss the massive photo of him in the vampire's lair. The photo is even merged with Michael at one point, so the viewer can notice the resemblance between the two. 

Jim Morrison

But I can't help but think that possibly it was Anne Rice's gothic/horror novel The Vampire Lestat that also influenced the music theme of THE LOST BOYS, too.

After surviving the events of Interview with the Vampire, Lestat awakens in the 1980s from a long slumber and becomes the lead singer of a rock band. 

This element was actually used in the 2001 film THE QUEEN OF THE DAMNED.

Much of Lestat's character was adopted from Jim Morrison.

"It was Morrison's voice I heard when I wrote the songs for Lestat. Here's the closest thing in the wide world to my hero," Rice said.

Being that THE LOST BOYS was released just two years after Rice's novel, its influence on the film is undeniable.

But I want to discuss the two fearless vampire slayers — Edgar and Alan Frog. 

Of course, their first names are obviously nods to the legendary writer Edgar Allan Poe. But their last names always bugged me.

Frog?

Really? That's their last name?

Weird.

I never heard anyone with a last name like that. 

But when I was doing my research, I stumbled upon THE DOORS song PEACE FROG from their 1970 hard rock album MORRISON HOTEL. The lyrics to PEACE FROG often reference blood in the streets in various cities and scenes, many times implying several political moments of the time. (This was during the Vietnam War, after all.)

Given that Jim Morrison and the counterculture influence of his era are so prevalent in the film, the song's lyrics likely resonate with the Frog brothers because of their devotion to killing vampires.

Both brothers have no problem killing vampires, as Edgar says, for "Truth, justice, and the American way." 

It's almost comical how he says it because it comes out of nowhere, as if he and his brother are on some type of political vengeance, eradicating the putrid vampires from society.

Is HALLOWEEN just a BLACK CHRISTMAS rip off?

Yes. 

As much as I love John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN, I must admit, it does copy, practically beat for beat, BLACK CHRISTMAS. Such as:

• Similar title
• Opening scene POV
• Obscene phone calls
• Final girl trope
• The villain escapes at the end

Halloween 1978

Carpenter and his team likely saw the success BLACK CHRISTMAS had by using a title that exploits a popular holiday, so they did the same. Except, they were smarter and used a holiday that already evoked horror elements. 

The opening scene of Billy climbing up the house and making his way inside the attic is improved in HALLOWEEN. It's basically the same point of view style, but Michael's intentions are different. He goes inside the house to kill his sister. Writers Deborah Hill and Carpenter took BLACK CHRISTMAS' opening and tweaked it just a little to make the opening message more exciting.

BLACK CHRISTMAS is known for its weird phone calls. In fact, the whole movie uses phones as a plot point. The big reveal of the story is when the police discover the calls are coming from inside the house. HALLOWEEN uses phones, but not to such a big degree. 

The final girl trope, as we know it, was really created by THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. A screaming, completely hysterical female lead who narrowly escapes the male killer is something the slasher genre is known for. Laurie Strode, perhaps the most famous final girl ever, played by the legendary Jamie Lee Curtis, is exemplary of this trope.

Famously, in BLACK CHRISTMAS, Billy gets away with his crimes, still hiding in the attic with two dead corpses. HALLOWEEN uses the same trope. Michael Myers eats multiple shots from Dr. Loomis and falls off the balcony to his presumed death. It's left ambiguous. 

Now, all this being said, what makes HALLOWEEN more enjoyable is the characters. In BLACK CHRISTMAS, for the most part, each character is forgettable. There are too many sorority sisters, and they all act the same. HALLOWEEN learns from this and reduces its characters to just a few. By doing so, it allows Laurie, Lynda, and Annie more time to shine in their characters. The dialogue in HALLOWEEN is very good, too. 

But perhaps the biggest and best upgrade comes from the villain himself. Whereas Billy is never seen, just an eye here or a hand there, Michael is unmasked in the opening. From there, we see him as a masked killer in full-frame shots. The viewer understands that Michael is there. He is present. He's not just hiding behind a door. He has no problem venturing after his victims. 

So yes, HALLOWEEN does copy BLACK CHRISTMAS to some degree, but it improves on it at the same time. 

THE THING Shouldn't be as Good as it is

Every time I watch John Carpenter's THE THING, I can't help but always wonder why it's so good. You can check out the film analysis video I made for THE THING here.

It's a great horror movie and Carpenter's masterpiece--maybe even better than HALLOWEEN, although that's a debate for another time. But the THE THING does something very uncommon in storytelling...

It doesn't tell us anything about the characters. 

The Thing 1982

I mean, sure, we know MacReady likes to chill by himself and drink. Nauls travels by roller skates. Palmer is a pothead. And the other characters can be summed up in a few words each. And that's exactly the point. 

They're cardboard cutouts. They're not "real." They lack any depth.

That is such a huge departure from storytelling. In most movies, it is paramount that the story gives us at least a little backstory about the main protagonist. But we don't know anything about Mac. Am I the only one who finds that strange?

But what's even more strange is that it totally works. 

If it were any other movie, the fact that nothing important is told to the viewer about a few characters would make the story fail. Nobody would waste their time with it. The stakes are never thought about to such a degree that if one of the characters, for example, doesn't get saved, then they won't reunite with their family. THE THING is devoid, in that respect, of character depth. 

But it's okay for some reason...why?

Well, the only thing that could save a story lacking any character depth is a really good plot.  Usually, the best stories are a proper mixture of plot and character. It's the successful merge of both elements that keeps the audience intrigued. But THE THING, unapologetically, resists character for plot. 

The Thing 1982

The plot is so tightly woven that it doesn't allow for a moment of fluff or boredom. Once that dog kennel scene gets going and they realize that something crazy is happening, the story doesn't stop. The notion of contacting outside help is, at first, thought of as a good idea, but then it is quickly realized that the alien among them is already too strong to be stopped. 

The story, at that point, becomes a hopeless one, with the characters likely realizing that they're never leaving Antarctica alive. Somewhere in that horrible scenario, the monster appears now and then to highlight some of the best practical effects ever put to film, while the growing suspicion that someone there is infected and is looking to recruit more of them.

THE THING works because it doesn't just trade character for plot, but because it resists backstory and any amount of serious character depth for an engaging plot.

The SCREAM Franchise Needs Help with its SCOOBY-DOO Endings

Nothing will top the O.G. Scream from 1996 when it comes to the Scream villain reveals.

The writers can storyboard and plot the movie all they want, but when it comes to the final twist about the identity of the Ghostface killer, it's not special anymore. It just isn't.

Billy Loomis in Scream 1996

Sorry, not sorry. 

It peaked with the terrible reveal in Scream 3. Some long-lost brother nobody knew about? Give me a break. That's an insult to the Scream legacy. The franchise should have stopped after part 3. Give it a good 20 years and then make a triumphant return with a new cast and a new story. 

But Hollywood being Hollywood, they tried to make more, which just further diluted their own brand, as it does to every franchise studios won't let die. 

I'm writing about this because, in my opinion, the Scooby-Doo mystery has gotten played out.

Seriously, how many times are the villains going to get this big reveal and then tell why they're committing their crimes? It's so tedious and cliché at this point. Not to mention the fact that each movie leaks days before its release and spoils who the Ghostface killers truly are. 

"It's a formula. A very simple formula," Randy Meeks said in his famous monologue. 

Indeed, it is. 

There must be a better way to end these Scream movies. Maybe end them with a cliffhanger, a wrong accusation, or a character dies who knew the real killer was. Something. Anything that isn't a final, unmasking of the killer.

And then only to be told some bullshit reason why they decided to go on a rampage. It's so far-fetched at this point. It really is. Something else that needs work is the location of the killers in relation to Sidney, or the main hero character. At least one of the killers will always be someone who knows Sidney already. That one killer is already in her life to some degree. That's how they've infiltrated Sidney and have gotten information to torture her life. 

Roman Bridger in Scream 3

That being said, the Roman Bridger character in Scream 3 didn't work because Sidney had no idea who he was. And if Sidney doesn't know, then why should the audience care?

The other problem is the use of a background character who only had a short scene or two to be a Ghostface killer. That doesn't provide enough screentime for the viewer to suspect that they might have a motive to hurt Sidney.

The first Scream worked because the Billy character was properly fleshed out. You know his intentions, his family life, and his backstory. Stu was just there for the ride. You could remove Stu from the story and, with a little extra writing, could just have had Billy as the lone killer.

Scream is at a precipice right now. The criticism over the latest entry (Scream 7) and its bad writing and poor reveal is something the franchise must improve upon if it would like more sequels. 

What is the FUTURE of Movie Theatres?

Perhaps something good will come from the death of cinema as we know it. 

Maybe a rebirth of some kind will happen. A resurrection. A reboot. 

When you look at the decline of the movie industry over the last five years, you see that it’s not just one thing. It's a bunch of things. I wish I could say it was just one, so we could fix it. But this downfall started many, many years ago and has snowballed into a problem that’s become unfixable. And the inclusion of artificial intelligence into the film industry will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back to end cinema as we know it.  

As a film lover, it’s discouraging to see the fall of a pastime you enjoy so much. It’s a reflection of time progressing, a commencement of something ending, and something new taking its place. As technology rises at a geometric rate each year, faster than society can keep up with, actually, I think the decrease in cinema as a continued entertainment is very worrisome. 

Not just because the actual pastime is disappearing, which it is (going to the cinema is a dying outlet of fun), but of what it means to the billions of people, like me and you, who truly appreciate it and now must watch it go.  

The rise of A.I. is troublesome in many ways because it brings with it storytelling that is not completely man-made. Whereas similar feelings of dread were expressed with the rise of the internet, smartphones, and even the Kindle for book lovers, those inventions didn’t have the power people had thought to kill storytelling. 

But A.I. does because, although it can only learn what humans teach it, A.I. reproduces stories of its own. They may not be original stories, but society doesn’t care. 

For the last 20 years or so, there’s been nothing but remakes and reboots. Audiences have no problem watching the same origin story again and again. As advanced as A.I. is right now, it will be far better in a few years when its level of storytelling is indistinguishable from that of human storytelling. At least, that’s what some people think. 

As more movie theatres close and streaming platforms increase and Skynet takes over the world, we’re left with the realization that the entire movie industry is morphing into something else, and not necessarily for the better. 

What does the changing of cinema suggest? What are we left with if not human-made storytelling? Will something else replace it? What would it be? Will it be as fun to experience?  

Why the Obsession with STU MACHER from SCREAM?

Ever since the original Scream ended, there’s been this debate about whether Stu Macher is truly dead or not. It’s been a constant, familiar, and very played-out conversation over the last 30 years. Literally thirty years.  

His return to the franchise is so legendary in its hope among Scream fanatics that, in my opinion, it overwhelmed the franchise, even topping the last 2 Scream’s, which were meant to reboot the franchise away from Sidney and her story. 

Scream 1996

But fans just cannot let it go. 

They can’t accept the fact that Stu is dead. If the television dropped on his head didn’t kill him, then he certainly bled out from Billy’s stab wounds. 

I think, partly anyway, that Stu’s return is hopeful because he didn’t die by a gunshot, specifically to the head, like Billy. 

Getting your brains blown out at close range is always a good indicator of death. 

And Stu’s death scene was more artistic, more of a metaphor than the direct death of Billy. The TV playing Halloween, specifically as Laurie stabs Michael Myers, is a great parallel to Stu’s death.  

But then there’s the infamous Scream 3 rumor that writer Kevin Williamson supposedly conjured up. He never wrote an official draft, nor did he write an outline, nor a quick treatment of this mythical Scream 3 script that was to, again supposedly, bring Stu back as the now-jailed mastermind behind the new attacks on Sidney.  

It’s too far-fetched. It never would have worked. I’m glad it got scrapped. Although I’m not really impressed with the Roman angle they went with either, it is still a more believable, and I use that word very lightly, angle than Stu’s return.  

Besides, if you think about it, doesn’t it seem like they just shoehorned Stu’s Ghostface involvement? The original Scream would have worked just as fine if Billy were the lone killer. Sure, some scenes would have had to have been rewritten, but it was possible, if not easy, especially for a talented writer like Williamson.  

And I primarily say this because of Stu’s lame ass motive.  

Billy’s motive was great. Revenge. But Stu’s peer pressure motive is, at first, comical because of how he says it. His tone and his reputation for being a goofball throughout the film are even seen as he’s bleeding to death on the phone with Sidney. But I think his peer pressure motive does make sense.  

During the whole story, Stu’s jester-like attitude is secondary to Billy’s seriousness. Billy is constantly reprimanding Stu. He doesn’t have the patience for Stu and is probably worried that Stu will slip up and let it be known of their involvement in the Woodsboro murders. So, there’s certainly a superior-inferior dynamic going on between Billy and Stu. 

Scream 1996

The peer pressure angle isn’t so far-fetched anymore, except when you apply it to actual murder. You’re telling me Stu was peer-pressured by Billy to kill their friend’s mother? 

That takes a certain amount of the story’s suspension of disbelief that I ignore when watching Scream. But it’s the only angle we have, so I guess we’re stuck with it.  

Stu’s motive is important because the rumor was that he was to return in Scream 3. 

But be honest, would you really believe, even for a second, that Stu’s peer pressure was that strong to keep it going? Was his peer pressure extreme enough to enact revenge on Sidney in another sequel? 

No.

Scream 3 was always intended to be in Hollywood, folks. Part 2 was away at college, and part 3 was to include the Stab movies for its meta value. 

And now, Stu is set to return to Scream 7. Whether that is in a flashback or A.I. or as an actual revived character that’s been somehow alive is up for debate. But I have to ask the question: do you really want Stu to return, and are you really going to buy it when it happens? Other than shock value, what does Stu’s return bring? Just bad storytelling, really, and a level of disrespect for the Scream fans. 

Don’t you think it would be an insult to the audience if Stu returns? I do. He was blatantly killed 30 years ago, and now he’s back. I hope not. I really hope not. I know it’ll be a surprise to see Stu appear on screen as a revived character. It will work for the moment, but in the long run, I think, you’ll likely see it as lazy storytelling for an easy cash grab. 

THE VILLAGE is when SHYAMALAN lost his way

It’s safe to say that M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN'S first few movies were something different.

The Village 2004

He arrived on the Hollywood scene with a fresh perspective, good writing skills, and a talent for direction. His first three, THE SIXTH SENSE, UNBREAKABLE, and SIGNS, were great, especially SIGNS. That’s my personal favorite.  

However, it was with his 2004 film THE VILLAGE that we began seeing cracks in the foundation. THE VILLAGE, while beautifully shot and acted—its problems are not in any surface conversation—has its issues within the story itself.  

THE VILLAGE, as a story with a message, not the characters, knows a secret that it keeps from the viewer, only revealing it when ready, thereby treating the viewer, as a result, with disrespect. 

The viewer is treated as a fool because the story assumes the audience is not part of the narrative at play. We're removed beyond the characters themselves, although we're supposed to empathize with them while we follow the story. It's a disconnect, a severe and unforgivable disrespect that railroaded Shyamalan's career away from possible superstardom as a legendary filmmaker. 

It’s only when the twist is revealed that we’re finally let in and, ultimately, disappointed. The supernatural element we’ve been led to believe that has tormented the characters is just a farce. 

The problem is that many of the characters already knew this secret, but acted like they didn't know. Even worse, though, is that the story makes it impossible for the viewer to discover the secret. There aren't any clues that the monsters are fake or that they're living in current times--not, at least, until the story is ready to let us know. 

That's a big mistake in storytelling. 

The story must allow its audience to have the necessary clues to solve the mystery, too. It's not only the characters who are on the journey. It's the viewers, as well.

I don’t hold THE VILLAGE to the heights of THE SIXTH SENSE, of course, but it isn’t a bad film. It’s just a story that’s meant to fool the audience without ever allowing us the proper clues to discover the secret for ourselves.  

But with that said, THE VILLAGE ends on a positive note, just like his previous films, and his next film, LADY IN THE WATER, which Shyamalan absolutely borrowed elements from THE VILLAGE. LADY IN THE WATER is THE VILLAGE 2.0. It's as if Shyamalan read all the hate for THE VILLAGE and decided to go even further with that type of fantastical story. 

All criticisms aside, THE VILLAGE is a decent movie until the twist, which reveals more of Shyamalan's future career than a surprise within the film.