The Shining (1980)

[thatguamguy]

I more or less agree with you, but at the same time, I think that cut gets the film closer to King's intent, even though it is cutting something out of King's novel.

King has always said that a big problem he has with the movie is that Nicholson should start off more normal and only be gradually revealed to be a monster. This has always struck me as strange, because the character in the book broke his son's arm while drunk, *and* that wasn't a wake-up call for him to stop drinking. I think if you want Jack Torrance to be a normal relatable guy who is driven crazy by the hotel, starting him as an alcoholic rather than a violent alcoholic makes sense.

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

The European cut butchers the story. They skip the whole scene with the doctor where they talk about how Jack "hurt" Danny's arm. So that never gets mentioned in the movie and the part where he talks about it with Lloyd at the bar is cut out completely. That in itself discredits this cut for me completely.

Actually, that part with Lloyd is not cut. In fact, removing the (unnecessary) doctor scene fixes a little mistake (Wendy tells the doctor it happened five months ago and Jack tells Grady it was three years, if I'm not mistaken). Anyway, the shorter cut is far better.

[Bronson13]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I more or less agree with you, but at the same time, I think that cut gets the film closer to King's intent, even though it is cutting something out of King's novel.

King has always said that a big problem he has with the movie is that Nicholson should start off more normal and only be gradually revealed to be a monster. This has always struck me as strange, because the character in the book broke his son's arm while drunk, *and* that wasn't a wake-up call for him to stop drinking. I think if you want Jack Torrance to be a normal relatable guy who is driven crazy by the hotel, starting him as an alcoholic rather than a violent alcoholic makes sense.

If you want him to be a normal guy from the start don't cast Jack Nicholson

Also, I think Kubrick could care less about getting the film closer to Stephen Kings book. I've read the book 2 times and seen that god awful miniseries. Kubrick's vision is so far superior to the original source material it's not even funny. Just some of the crap that King put in the book is just ridiculous. The hotel blowing up for one thing is just idiotic and is such a "Stephen King" thing to do. King has great ideas but doesn't always execute them correctly. That's why I will always appreciate the book for inspiring Kubrick to make the film but thats all I can say for it.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I more or less agree with you, but at the same time, I think that cut gets the film closer to King's intent, even though it is cutting something out of King's novel.

King has always said that a big problem he has with the movie is that Nicholson should start off more normal and only be gradually revealed to be a monster. This has always struck me as strange, because the character in the book broke his son's arm while drunk, *and* that wasn't a wake-up call for him to stop drinking. I think if you want Jack Torrance to be a normal relatable guy who is driven crazy by the hotel, starting him as an alcoholic rather than a violent alcoholic makes sense.

That's because, technically, we shouldn't be saying, "Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining' is based off of Stephen King's book 'The Shining'"

We kind of have to stop saying that.

Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is loosely inspired by Stephen King's book. And that would basically settle things.

[Bronson13]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

That's because, technically, we shouldn't be saying, "Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining' is based off of Stephen King's book 'The Shining'"

We kind of have to stop saying that.

Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is loosely inspired by Stephen King's book. And that would basically settle things.

Absolutely.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Actually, that part with Lloyd is not cut. In fact, removing the (unnecessary) doctor scene fixes a little mistake (Wendy tells the doctor it happened five months ago and Jack tells Grady it was three years, if I'm not mistaken). Anyway, the shorter cut is far better.

It depends on how you want to interpret that; in the book, the incident was about three years ago, but Jack only stopped drinking about five or six months ago (my chronology is a bit rough, I don't remember the exact numbers), after he got fired for assaulting a student while drunk. The way the line is written could be interpreted as a goof, but it could also be Wendy deliberately eliding the truth from the doctor without actually lying, because she is overly defensive, as many abused women are. In the later scene, Jack says it was three years ago *and* that he has been on the wagon for five months.


EDIT: I found the bar scene in the book, in that scene Jack says that he has been sober for 20 months (it has already been established at this point that he did not quit drinking when he broke his son's arm, though I don't see a specific time for that yet).

[Splatterpunk]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Actually, that part with Lloyd is not cut. In fact, removing the (unnecessary) doctor scene fixes a little mistake (Wendy tells the doctor it happened five months ago and Jack tells Grady it was three years, if I'm not mistaken).

I always took that to be deliberate in that it shows Jack not fully accepting responsibility for what he did by exaggerating the timeline and by subtly illustrating his frustrations at not being able to drink.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is loosely inspired by Stephen King's book. And that would basically settle things.

The problem is, that really doesn't feel accurate to me. Almost every scene is from the book, and half the dialogue or more is straight out of the book word for word. It isn't like "Red Alert" getting adapted into "Dr. Strangelove", and he changes the ending here a lot less than "Barry Lyndon" or "Paths of Glory". The big thing Kubrick did was flip it from "It's so horrible to be Jack Torrance" to "It's so horrible to be with Jack Torrance", which didn't require that much modification to what King had provided. King's problem with it is that he can't see the story objectively because he relates too much to Jack Torrance, so he *wants* Jack to be a good guy in spite of all of his monstrous flaws.

[Bronson13]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Actually, that part with Lloyd is not cut. In fact, removing the (unnecessary) doctor scene fixes a little mistake (Wendy tells the doctor it happened five months ago and Jack tells Grady it was three years, if I'm not mistaken). Anyway, the shorter cut is far better.

Oh it's is? My apologies. I've only seen the European cut once so my memory is a bit foggy. I should rewatch it. I guess it's just because I love The Shining so much I don't want to see anything Kubrick filmed get cut out even if it was by him.

If they ever release this on Criterion it should come with the European cut.

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

It depends on how you want to interpret that; in the book, the incident was about three years ago, but Jack only stopped drinking about five or six months ago (my chronology is a bit rough, I don't remember the exact numbers), after he got fired for assaulting a student while drunk. The way the line is written could be interpreted as a goof, but it could also be Wendy deliberately eliding the truth from the doctor without actually lying, because she is overly defensive, as many abused women are. In the later scene, Jack says it was three years ago *and* that he has been on the wagon for five months.

But Wendy says he stopped drinking five months ago because he hurt Danny's arm.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

The problem is, that really doesn't feel accurate to me. Almost every scene is from the book, and half the dialogue or more is straight out of the book word for word. It isn't like "Red Alert" getting adapted into "Dr. Strangelove", and he changes the ending here a lot less than "Barry Lyndon" or "Paths of Glory". The big thing Kubrick did was flip it from "It's so horrible to be Jack Torrance" to "It's so horrible to be with Jack Torrance", which didn't require that much modification to what King had provided. King's problem with it is that he can't see the story objectively because he relates too much to Jack Torrance, so he *wants* Jack to be a good guy in spite of all of his monstrous flaws.

Definitely.
I mean, the book and characters are King's "baby", so to speak, so of course he's going to be ultra sensitive about how it's translated for the screen.

But the way it happened was, Stanley Kubrick read King's book and was probably more or less like, "I know what I could do with this!"

[Bronson13]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

The problem is, that really doesn't feel accurate to me. Almost every scene is from the book, and half the dialogue or more is straight out of the book word for word. It isn't like "Red Alert" getting adapted into "Dr. Strangelove", and he changes the ending here a lot less than "Barry Lyndon" or "Paths of Glory". The big thing Kubrick did was flip it from "It's so horrible to be Jack Torrance" to "It's so horrible to be with Jack Torrance", which didn't require that much modification to what King had provided. King's problem with it is that he can't see the story objectively because he relates too much to Jack Torrance, so he *wants* Jack to be a good guy in spite of all of his monstrous flaws.

I think to say half the dialogue from the book is in Kubrick's movie is a bit of a stretch.

Also, all the iconic stuff isn't in the book. The Grady twins. The tricycle. All work and no play. Here's Johnny. The axe. The maze. The tennis ball. Talking to Grady in the bathroom. I could go on for a while.

The point is this is definitely not a Stephen King adaptation. For me it's a Kubrick movie inspired by a Stephen King book.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

Oh it's is? My apologies. I've only seen the European cut once so my memory is a bit foggy. I should rewatch it. I guess it's just because I love The Shining so much I don't want to see anything Kubrick filmed get cut out even if it was by him.

If they ever release this on Criterion it should come with the European cut.

That's how I feel. I love the movie so much I don't want it to end. I want more movie, not less!! Haaa.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

But Wendy says he stopped drinking five months ago because he hurt Danny's arm.

What she says is that when he hurt Danny's arm, he said he would stop drinking, and he hasn't had a drink in five months. As I say, you can interpret that as her being honest and Kubrick making a mistake, or you can interpret that as her being elusive on purpose because she is used to covering for her husband. But later, Nicholson says both that it was three years ago and that he has been sober for five months, so that would have to be two goofs.

[Bronson13]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

That's how I feel. I love the movie so much I don't want it to end. I want more movie, not less!! Haaa.

The Shining is one of those rare movies where you can give me a 4 hour cut. I just want to see more!!! I still am begging for Warner Bros. to release the deleted ending one day. I said this in the Criterion section of the forums but if they were to release a Shining Criterion what better way to entice people to buy it then to add that. As if they weren't gonna buy it already

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

I think to say half the dialogue from the book is in Kubrick's movie is a bit of a stretch.

Also, all the iconic stuff isn't in the book. The Grady twins. The tricycle. All work and no play. Here's Johnny. The axe. The maze. The tennis ball. Talking to Grady in the bathroom. I could go on for a while.

That's fair, but after all the years of people talking about how much Kubrick changed here, when I went back and re-read the book I was really surprised how much of the dialogue that always sounded so Kubricky to my ear was all there in black and white. I've read most of the books Kubrick has adapted, and the only ones I remember being closer were "Clockwork Orange" and "Eyes Wide Shut" (funny pairing, in the former case he omitted the ending and in the latter he added one).

[Bronson13]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

That's fair, but after all the years of people talking about how much Kubrick changed here, when I went back and re-read the book I was really surprised how much of the dialogue that always sounded so Kubricky to my ear was all there in black and white. I've read most of the books Kubrick has adapted, and the only ones I remember being closer were "Clockwork Orange" and "Eyes Wide Shut" (funny pairing, in the former case he omitted the ending and in the latter he added one).

I'm gonna have to re-read the book. Again.

Have you seen the miniseries?

[thatguamguy]

I think I made it through at the time, but honestly I'm not sure. If I did, it was because I wanted to see what they did with the hedge monsters. As I recall, some of it is occasionally not entirely without merit, it's not as bad as The Tommyknockers or god fordbid the Langoliers.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

King's problem with it is that he can't see the story objectively because he relates too much to Jack Torrance, so he *wants* Jack to be a good guy in spite of all of his monstrous flaws.

This. Right. Here. So. Much!

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

I still am begging for Warner Bros. to release the deleted ending one day. I said this in the Criterion section of the forums but if they were to release a Shining Criterion what better way to entice people to buy it then to add that.

Speaking of, I've heard he also cut a scene with Hallorann picking up the snowcat at Durkin's Garage.