"Since any new interpretation is labeled misinterpretation by the authorities, the situationists are going to establish the legitimacy of misinterpretation and denounce the imposture of the interpretation given and authorized by power. Since the dictionary is the guardian of existing meaning, we propose to destroy it systematically."
-Preface to a Situationist Dictionary

Suppose for a moment the ridiculous possibility that a mirror soundtrack was engineered into the film. First of all, it wouldn't be publicly acknowledged because such an act would probably involve violation of intellectual property laws. Another reason might be found beyond space, time, and causality, in the nature of the concept of synchronicity itself. That is, in the importance of the seemingly acausal nature of the phenomenon. It comes across as something of a supernatural phenomenon requiring the willing suspension of disbelief and the questioning of our preconceived notions of continuous space and sequential cause and effect. The seemingly supernatural and impossible story events encourage and reinforce this sort of speculation. How does the door to room 237 open? Are the Torrances crazy? Are they imagining the events or are they really happening? There is an ultimate ambiguity underlying the narrative. In the Ciment interview Kubrick reveals that he believes we are just short of conclusive proof of the existence of such paranormal phenomena. With the mirror soundtrack even the source of creation is left somewhat ambiguous and enigmatic. Maybe it wasn't the film-maker(s), or the studio, maybe it's the act of some more divine mysterious power. Or, maybe it's the product of the culture, demanding essentially the same product!#$? Or, most likely, maybe the observer is the creator. The shadow soundtrack enables the viewer to move from passive detached observer to active involved participant in the film experience. Is synchronicity a key to unlocking the collective unconscious? The seemingly deliberate illumination of archetypes by the mirror soundtrack would seem to suggest so. A "momentary loss of muscular coordination" could put you over the edge. "One extra little foot pound per-second, per-second." You're either a skeptic or a cynic. Do you have the will to believe?
Decide for yourself: grand illusion or grand design.

"Perhaps the whole of Zarathustra may be reckoned as music; certainly the rebirth of the art of hearing was among its preconditions."

"Without music, life would be a mistake" -Friedrich Nietzsche

Necessary connection or constant conjunction?. The way the the music works with the image, in the same order of events, for the same duration of time, revealing the underlying narrative structure and reinforcing motifs (leitmotifs), is quite remarkable. As was mentioned, making images fit music would have been nothin new for Kubrick. He was a pioneer of non-diegetic film sound. The music works just like a good musical soundtrack should. It provides bridges between scenes, continuity, and illuminates parallels which would otherwise have been missed. At times it is very ironic or comments on the action in the film. It also brings to light certain paleosymbols and archetypes which would have gone unnoticed otherwise. The intensity of effect is greater. The music completes the film. Sure!

As Kubrick is quoted to have said, the story becomes much more flexible when silent film conventions are employed. The music at times goes beyond being merely synchronous and non-diegetic but actually takes on a meta-diegetic function. The film becomes more abstract and the action appears even more pre-determined and theatrical.

"Myth is the mode of simultaneous awareness of a complex group of causes and effects."
-McLuhan, The Medium is the Massage

When the mirror soundtrack is added to the film the mythical and existential core, or underlying narrative structure, of the film is revealed. It becomes clear that there is an almost formulaic quality in the arrangement of sequences. We might see this structure recur from A Clockwork Orange to The Shining, beginning with an establishment of the story elements. It goes something like: sequence with two girls - foreshadowing, to premature conflict resolution, to curiosity and fall, to tranquilization and loss of control, to alienation and formal detachment from the world, including loss of self and meaning and conflict with family and such, to anticipation, to what might be called: being-unto-death, or something. (Heidegger) There is clearly a recurring two act structure as well. Also, we might see a recurring set of scenes: physical conflict with woman, followed by hero lying beaten on the ground, followed by anticipation. In A Clockwork Orange it happens in the first act, in The Shining it happens the same way in the final act. In a Full Metal Jacket it might be incorporated into the final unfolding sequence. Believe it if you're crazy enough. Remember the shot towards the end of FMJ where you thought that you saw that monolith. Kubrick maintains that it's there entirely by coincidence. The point at which that shot desolves just happens to be twenty three minutes and thirty one seconds from the end of the film, just like the "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" intertitle in 2001.

"What advantage could possibly come from doubling the words with an image of the actor who produces them...
This collusion resembles the symbiotic relationship...
whereby image and sound count on each other to erase each other's mode of production.
Only when mirrored in the other does each side seem complete." (9)
-Rick Altman

"The image has become the final form of commodity reification."
-Guy Debord

The Medium is the Message.

"The message itself is what's important, and not who delivers it" -Publius

The most remarkable effect of the mirror soundtrack is the way in which the medium also becomes the message in a sense. That is, we become aware of a complete self-referential and counter-cultural sub-text. One critic mentions that the room 237 scene incorporates elements of Clouzot's occupation films. In the The Shining there are several traits of occupation films. The setting of the film is one such element. The hotel is far removed from society in a snowy mountainous setting. The fairly large and elaborate set for a small cast is also a characteristic. They live cut off and isolated from the rest of the world. This is all typical of an occupation film. What could it mean, though? Could it be that The Shining is in part allegorical and expressive of the film-making process itself? Could it be a personal work like the novel? Is there some oppressor? Is there something concealed or buried underneath?

By examining some changes that Kubrick made to Kings' novel, we can see that this might be a possibility. To start with, refer to the interview scene in the beginning. Ullman is quite cordial with Jack and seems to be very set on having him in particular work as the caretaker. This is quite different from the novel. Ullman says that Jack is "highly recommended by his people" in the film. What? An abusive irresponsible alcoholic who had troubles with his previous job. This is what the relationship between a director and an agent, or someone, might be like. A deal making process is definitely in the works here. In the interview with Ciment, Kubrick says that the novel was sent to him by "John Calley, of Warner Bros." (6) That is, it wasn't his idea. After the more artistic Barry Lyndon it was time to make money with some popular mass appeal again. In reaction to the news of the previous killings at the hotel, Jack responds with "that's quite a story". WHAT!?* That's not quite a story, it's a terrible occurrence that supposedly really happened in the story. Would you respond like that if you were in a job interview and were given such news - "that's quite a story"? I would hope not, and chances are that you wouldn't get the job if you did, either. Then there is the tour of the hotel. It's "closing day" but people are bringing in tables and chairs, which are later seen to be props in the actual set. The hotel might as well have been a movie set in reality. Then Jack is given considerable autonomy and control. It seems like a great opportunity to be creative and pursue his passion. Throughout the film we see that being the caretaker of the hotel isn't quite as good as he had expected. Jack is forced to make deals and sacrifices and loses control. Jack struggles to resist the hegemonic force of the hotel but is forced or drawn into subordination and ultimately defeated. As a result the work that he is able to produce is mediocre and devoid of meaning. The content is essentially the same thing over and over again, banal and redundant. It seems as if it was determined by forces beyond his control. After losing control Jack forgets about his creative ambitions and is only concerned with his tremendous responsibility in keeping up the hotel. It's a bit confusing - what was his job again?

Jack is but one respected caretaker who will be eternalized in history by the Overlook hotel (the winter palace). The hotel will be there long after Jack is gone and the cycle will continue. The hotel was built in 1907 which happens to be the year in which "the movies moved Hollywood" - the birthyear of the true narrative film. Notice how the typewriter is refilled like a film reel throughout the movie. A bit of a stretch, maybe? This type of self-referential meaning was nothing out of the ordinary for the more artistically minded commercial directors during the time when The Shining was made. Scorsese's New York, New York might be an example. The Jazz versus pop motif is clearly used as a devise to deliver an art versus commercialism theme. It reflects the film-makers conflict in making films artistically in a commercial setting - the seeming impossibility and irony of it. Scorsese even admits it - there is nothing mysterious about it. Another example of this sort of thing might be the Roger Waters/Pink Floyd/Alan Parker movie The Wall. Kubrick, however, prefers to "let the film speak for itself" - pun intended possibly. In the case of The Shining it isn't as simple as art vs. commercialism, of course. It might be more like art vs. the technological, mechanical, and socio-cultural industrial apparatus- the capitalist world system. Not as if that would be some absolute message of the film either because there really isn't any.

On another level, consider the effect that the film has on the audience. The perceptual logic of the film breaks down progressively throughout as the events become more savage, entropic, decentered, and dissonant with 'the real world'. "Hello Lloyd" (How does Jack already know Lloyd?) When we first see Lloyd, we wonder whether he's really there or whether Jack is imagining him. At the same time we might as well ask why we believed that the events depicted in the film should be representative of events in the real world. Kubrick might be showing us the ability of the medium to lie and manipulate. We assume that it's a depiction of character subjectivity, though eventually we realize that it isn't. There's a certain dissonance involved which itself has a self-reflexive effect. We assume that what we see is representative of and parallel to what we think of as real world phenomena. But why? Remember, "this desire for the greatest possible naturalness" has been a driving force behind the development of the medium. We want to see the world as it 'really' is on the big screen, in fact we have no other alternative, no other possible frame of reference. On the other hand, what exactly is the relevance of "the real"? Is there a greater mediator of reality today than the news on TV?

The mirror soundtrack snaps us out of the dumb numb mode. The Shining is realistic in other ways. First of all, the lie that the sounds are actually emerging from the sources from which they appear to emerge in the film space is shattered. "Remember what Mr. Halloran said, it's just like pictures in a book Danny, it isn't real." That message was 'repeated' at least twice. Did it get through? Commercial, mechanical, popular, profane, whatever - it can still be autonomous art somehow, or can it? The mechanisms of film rhetoric become more immediate and legible. The experience ultimately announces itself. The factual realities of the experience are laid bare. We realize that the medium is also the message.

Through a process of simultaneous disintegration and integration the text is freed from the page - the content is freed from the medium. Rather than being fitted and shaped by the experience, the observer contains and constructs it. The role of the spectator is reversed, the tables are turned, the straight-jacket is thrown, if you will. The former subject-object relationship, is altogether erased. It's nothing short of an evolutionary trend, really - I'm completely serious over here. It's the only logical solution! Non-diegetic sound has no 'real' relation to the film space anyhow.

Throughout the complex synthetic experience our attention is diverted to the apparatus at work and the various media at work and present within the film space. The first example of this is happens in the opening credits with the appearance of the helicopter shadow. This can be seen as a device popularized in the 1920's, "baring the medium". We see the shadow of the helicopter and we feel distanced, reminded that it's only a movie. When Danny is riding around the hotel on his big-wheel we see a sign, "Camera Walk", obviously a self-reflexive pun. The dynamic camera work also draws attention to the cinematic apparatus itself. Consider the role of various media throughout the film. Whether it's the television, the radio, the typewriter, the telephone, the artwork, or the black and white photographs, the various media are a focus of our attention and integral to the story. Images abound, in more that one sense. Jack is clearly associated with print and Wendy, Danny, and Hall. are more closely associated with television. According to Ullman, the snow cat "operates like a car". Some people see the American flag as a sign, associated with Americanization, Hollywood, chewing gum, and such. "Winner has to keep America clean."!*? A desert and smiling faces. (No offense to anyone, of course) Consider the typewriter and "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".

Of course we see that Jack is completely out of his mind. (not much unlike myself here in that sense, eh?) Is there some other meaning here, derived not from reading the words from left to right and processing them, but in seeing the pages in their totality? What if our attention was diverted from the apparent mechanical content of Jacks work, to the high level of repetition, homogeneity, uniformity - to the neat shapes and forms that he has created, to the process and format, to the medium itself. Isn't the content of film the novel? What kind of novel is it in this case if not a neatly packaged one? Kubrick didn't believe in such a thing as the auteur, did he? Consider Jack's job of making sure that the elements don't get a foothold. Consider Jack's conversation with Grady and what we might associate the terminology with in terms of cultural origins and roots - in terms of imperialism and popular culture - or serial culture. (Sartre) Of course, "the elements" has the connotation of some psychological manifestation, though within this paradigm they take on an altogether different meaning. We might think of Danny as associated with a sub-culture and the like, the next generation, etc. Enter Dionysus. The elements do get a foothold eventually though, don't they? According to Marshall McLuhan, the advent of type created linear, or sequential, thought, separating thought from action. In the present, the proliferation of electric media mark the re-emergence of non-linear pre-alphabetic (primal) thought. Consider Jack's attitude towards television, first made apparent in the drive up to the hotel. Towards the end of the film Jack's only words include: "Wendy, I'm home" and "Heeeere's Johnny!" Consider the tremendous impact that television has had. Consider the role of television in the world today. The movie is full of such out of context quotations and references - a common pop motif. In the end, what does Jack see when he looks into the light if it isn't just a light, an electric light, can we say for sure? Sometimes a movie is just a movie as well, and The Shining is very much a film which draws attention to itself. Essentially the film comments on the state and direction of the cinema as well as the socio-cultural apparatus from which it is inseparable. Inherent in this commentary is a nostalgia for the past. Before the Steadicam, before technicolor, before television, before the phonograph and screen were merged, before the sound film, there was the magic of the silent film. Before the silent film, before theater, there was some remote origin - myth, ritual, the rite, the moment - the dismembering of the king, perhaps. Before the alphabet and the written word, there was another language of signs - images - hieroglyphics. Whatever.

"The Slack that can be spoken is not true Slack." -Bob

"At the moment physics is again terribly confused. In any case, it is too diificult for me, and I wish I had been a movie comedian or something of that sort and had never heard of physics."
-Wolfgang Pauli

At this point I'm tempted to pull this chaotic and crazy presentation together with a discussion of the role of mass media as myth in modern society; and the function that the respective technology has in shaping a modern day "collective unconscious" or consciousness for that matter. (but why the hell would I do that?) I'm tempted to compare the underlying mass culture critique in other horror films from the time, Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chain Saw Massacre, or some of Cronenberg's films - Scanners, Videodrome, etc. Certainly The Shining fits the "horror" genre, or the aforementioned cycle, well. Remember, it isn't real it's only pictures, and all that that implies. The goal here wasn't to attempt a comprehensive analysis, nor to reduce a great film to anything. No attempt to impose arbitrary virtues of intellectual superiority or inferiority into an examination of matters of fact was made. Aesthetics weren't mentioned, because we're beyond that now. A commentary on the tremendous debt that the film owes to the history of the medium, and perhaps history in general for that matter, was avoided; though that in itself is a very reflexive quality as well. For the sake of brevity the goal here was to scratch the surface, to suggest a possibilty, to point towards an essence (a flat surface), to add another dimension to an eclectic, complex, and multi-dimensional work of art; and of course, to mess around a bit. The joke's on you, Jack, and your high-brow liberal intellectual bad self. Can you deal with it?

"The crossings or hybridizations of the media release great new force and energy as by fission or fusion. There need be no blindness in these matters once we have been notified that there is something to observe."
-M. McLuhan