The Golden Age

"The TALKIE opens its doors to theater, which occupies the place and surrounds it with barbed wire." -Robert Bresson

The 1920's were a sort of golden age for film. In Europe the avant-garde cinema had uncovered the artistic potential of the medium. Many people still believe that the development of sound technology was a last ditch effort by Warner Brothers, to fend off financial ruin. Anyway, the development of the sound film, or the "talkie", was by no means the result of demands from the directors and film artists themselves. It was the result of studios pursuing greater profit and filmgoers who wanted to see people talk on the big screen. To quote Arnheim: "The introduction of sound film smashed many of the forms that the film artists were using in favor of the inartistic demand for the greatest possible 'naturalness'." (2) The talkie didn't help film in becoming an autonomous art form. To the contrary it tied it to its predecessor, the theatre. With the coming of sound, the director lost considerable autonomy to the big studios. Some of the directors from the avant-garde cinema began making commercial films for the studios which had become more hegemonic with the advent of sound film. With sound technology Hollywood became an international economic power. The Hollywood studios expanded in Europe and became the dominant power in film production.

The transition from silent to sound films didn't happen overnight. The terms silent and sound are somewhat misleading. Of course silent films weren't in fact without sound. Films were designed to be presented with musical accompaniment long before the soundtrack and image track were married. The responsibility of providing the sound was given to the presenters. Today we're used to a ready product when we watch a movie. During the silent era things were quite different. It was the actual source of the sound and the prevalence of dialogue which changed with sound film. With the talkie the illusion of the sound emerging from the image was complete.

With The Shining, Kubrick apparently brought back to life some conventions of this golden age of film making. The camera movement may be thought of as one such convention, made possible by the Steadicam. It wasn't until the advent of the Steadicam that camera movement comparable to that of the silent era was possible. In The Shining the dynamism of the camera movement is quite extraordinary. Another obvious silent film technique is the abandonment of dialogue in certain scenes in favor of only music or sound effects. An example would be the sequence in which Jack goes into room 237. Dialogue is off beginning with the puzzling cut to the television in Hallorans hotel room. Slow motion, wide angle shots, and bright colors take over as the dialogue sound is abandoned.

Another convention of the silent era might be the exagerated expressiveness of the acting. Before the talkie, actors had to communicate through facial expressions and exaggerated movements. Throughout most of The Shining the acting is so expressive that the dialogue becomes redundant. This is true in nearly every scene.

To state the obvious, the lack of many long dialogue scenes is another similarity to silent films. Even in the few long dialogue scenes, the acting is so expressive that the dialogue becomes unnecessary. Again, it suffers from that slow deliberate pacing and idleness. We always see the characters as they speak. It puzzles more than it reveals. To say the least, the film is not very dialogue centered.

The use of intertitles is another obvious and explicit silent film convention employed by Kubrick in The Shining. Intertitles such "One month later" were very common in silent films. Even the way in which the narrative is presented is remarkably silent film like.

The apparent inconsistencies in the direction of movement of the characters might also be seen as something which the silent film viewer would have experienced. For example, the first time that Danny rides by room 237 it's on the left side of hallway, from the perspective of the viewer. Later when he actually goes into the room, it's seen on the right side if assuming the same perspective. It seems as though the room is on the opposite side of the hall to where it was earlier. This seems to have a disorienting effect. The apparent intended confusion is like the experience that the early silent film viewer would have experienced before this type of apparent error in technique was ended. There are several other scenes where this sort of error is employed with a confusing effect as well.

Rather than going on and siting the use of more conventions, and apparent borrowing of shots and sequences from silent films, I'll refer to a quote that very adequately illustrates some of Kubricks' intentions in making The Shining:

"I think that the scope and flexibility of movie stories would be greatly enhanced by borrowing something from the structure of silent movies where points that didn't require dialogue could be presented by a shot and a title card...This economy of statement gives silent movies a much greater narrative scope and flexibility than we have today. In my view, there are very few sound films, including those regarded as masterpieces, which could not be presented almost as effectively on the stage, assuming a good set, the same cast and quality of performances. You couldn't do that with a great silent movie...By the way, I should include the best TV commercials along with silent films, as another example of how you might better tell a film story." (6)

If Kubrick thought that there was something to learn from silent films then why is the film so theatrical with the dialogue? The Shining was a technological marvel when it was released in 1980. Could it be that Kubrick has applied technology to the extent of essentially maing two films in one, thereby returning to the beginnings of the cinema? Could it be that there is another convention of silent film which has been overlooked (pun intended)? Why are there two versions of the film? Could it be that the North American NTSC video version of The Shining was edited with the intention that there be a soundtrack independent of the image track as well? Could it be that The Shining is a modern day silent film also? A sound film and a silent film. A complete film. A completely insane idea?

I suppose you might also argue that the film incorporates elements of the musical in certain ways. You could argue that it's revisionist musical. You could also say that it incorporates elements of the Western, or any genre, or a myriad of other movies, or the opera, or the morality play as one critic argues. When viewed under the microscope, The Shining is a truly incoherent and ecclectic film. Comparing The Shining to another film is like comparing a Picasso to a picture of something. Whorled without end.