The Shining (1980)

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by moviebuff75

I think it is scarier knowing Jack is a lunatic from the start. You fear for the others that they will be stuck in the hotel with him. And you fear the moment when he will truly snap, because you can see it coming.

I think it's a masterpiece and better than the book (which was kind of a drag to read tbh), but it really is very different from it and I get why King keeps nagging on it. His name is forever attached to it, but it's hardly his story anymore. The movie just uses some elements.

[FatherDude]

Originally Posted by moviebuff75

I think it is scarier knowing Jack is a lunatic from the start. You fear for the others that they will be stuck in the hotel with him. And you fear the moment when he will truly snap, because you can see it coming.

I never really got that Jack Nicholson was crazy from the start and more that he's bitter and clearly resents his own family. I think your point about the family being a ticking bomb in an isolated environment holds true, however.

I think the bottom line is Kubrick felt that a husband and father who already has contempt for his wife and son and barely needs much more than a push from a haunted hotel to try to murder them is a far more disturbing premise than "ghosts did it."

Fans of the book typically laud the its portrayal of Torrance as more sympathetic and therefore more complex (as if the two qualities are synonyms), but King ultimately lets Jack - and the reader - off the hook by making the character a victim controlled by evil spirits. The hotel may be preying on his very real flaws, but ultimately it's a possession story.

In my opinion, Kubrick tells a scarier story by giving Jack agency. And his choice to make things relentlessly ambiguous by casting the perceptions of all three members of the family in doubt proves to be far more effective at creating a sense of dread than King's overtly supernatural explanations -- at least in the cinematic realm.

[Arawn]

The film version is no less overtly supernatural. Jack didn't get out of the locked pantry by himself, and there's the picture, and the whole shining thing...

[FatherDude]

The film ultimately reveals that the ghosts are real when Jack is freed from the pantry, but the sanity of the characters is so thoroughly in question at that point that he leaves possibilities maddeningly open when it comes to when the psychological ends and the supernatural begins.

Jack is a bitter alcoholic who is losing his mind, so he's a subjective point of view. Danny is even less reliable, because he's a traumatized boy with incredibly potent psychic powers that he is unable to control. Because the hotel haunts via some form of ESP and Danny is sensitive to those energies, he receives constant input from the hotel that he may or may not even be meant to.

Complicating things further, we are given the suggestion that the visions the characters receive might be somehow personalized. Does Danny get the version of Room 237 where he is nearly strangled to death (evocative of his abuse at the hands of his father) because it's a projection of his own fears? And why does the movie crosscut Danny's psychic transmission to Halloran with Jack's erotic fantasy turned nightmare? Are we meant to think that Danny's transmission is inadvertently distorting the hotel's signal?

The pantry being unlocked by a ghost seems to be as objective as this movie gets, but beyond that, what can we really be sure about? When Kubrick reveals that the supernatural is in play, it doesn't really feel like an explanation that clears up the movie. If anything, it just seems to add to the permutations. It's as though Kubrick deliberately keeps multiple possibilities on the table to keep the viewer disoriented, or at least without confidence about what exactly is going on. It's what gives the movie its pervasive sense of dread, I think.

Kubrick once said of the movie that “It’s just the story of one man’s family quietly going insane together." Even with ghosts involved, that feels like an accurate summary.

[bo130]

Originally Posted by FatherDude

Fans of the book typically laud the its portrayal of Torrance as more sympathetic and therefore more complex (as if the two qualities are synonyms), but King ultimately lets Jack - and the reader - off the hook by making the character a victim controlled by evil spirits. The hotel may be preying on his very real flaws, but ultimately it's a possession story.

It is a possession situation with Jack, but he's established very clearly near the edge of violent behavior in the book, even before he gets to the hotel. This is not a story about a relatively stable man being broken down through isolation and supernatural possession.

King would rather have people believe that it was Jack Nicholson/Kubrick who somehow turned the character of Jack into an off-kilter character from the start - but it was King himself that did it.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

I think it is necessary to understand why he gripes a lot about the misrepresentation of his book.

Well, like I said, nothing is preventing him from having contracts that would address such things, as is nothing is preventing him from not allowing his books to be turned into movies.

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by pmil

Well, like I said, nothing is preventing him from having contracts that would address such things, as is nothing is preventing him from not allowing his books to be turned into movies.

When you are a writer and there's a movie being made from your book you expect it to be a faithful adaptation, or least as faithful as it can be. Kubrick on the other hand changed everything but the setting. And yet you still have a hard time understanding why King doesn't like Kubrick's take? Then I'm afraid you will never understand, because you obviously lack empathy.

[mikesncc1701]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

When you are a writer and there's a movie being made from your book you expect it to be a faithful adaptation, or least as faithful as it can be. Kubrick on the other hand changed everything but the setting. And yet you still have a hard time understanding why King doesn't like Kubrick's take? Then I'm afraid you will never understand, because you obviously lack empathy.

To a certain extent. Darabont changed the ending to THE MIST to great applause from King. I guess it was to a lesser extent than what Kubrick did with THE SHINING but still, he appreciated the change. Just goes to show he doesn't shun every change made from his adaptations, he just didn't like Kubricks take.

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by mikesncc1701

To a certain extent. Darabont changed the ending to THE MIST to great applause from King. I guess it was to a lesser extent than what Kubrick did with THE SHINING but still, he appreciated the change. Just goes to show he doesn't shun every change made from his adaptations, he just didn't like Kubricks take.

There are indeed plenty of movies which take certain liberties with the story and characters he's been happy with.

[FatherDude]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

When you are a writer and there's a movie being made from your book you expect it to be a faithful adaptation, or least as faithful as it can be. Kubrick on the other hand changed everything but the setting. And yet you still have a hard time understanding why King doesn't like Kubrick's take? Then I'm afraid you will never understand, because you obviously lack empathy.

King's criticisms of the movie have gone beyond lamentations that is is unfaithful, though. He lazily accused Kubrick's version of Wendy of being a "one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film," and has also made the baffling argument that the famous "All work and no play" scene would have been superior had Kubrick made a cheap jump scare out of it, going so far as to characterize it as an amateur mistake that he didn't.

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by FatherDude

King's criticisms of the movie have gone beyond lamentations that is is unfaithful, though. He lazily accused Kubrick's version of Wendy of being a "one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film," and has also made the baffling statement that the famous "All work and no play" scene would have been superior had Kubrick made a cheap jump scare out of it.

It still is HIS opinion. You don't have to agree with it, but as the writer of the book he can disagree with everything he thinks is wrong with it. I don't know if you've read the book, but his Wendy is everything that Kubrick's Wendy isn't.

[dallywhitty]

The bottom line is that The Shining is close to King's heart because it's a story about alcoholism, which is largely overshadowed in Kubrick's adaptation. The film favours suspense and atmosphere over characterisation. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just different.

I love King as a novelist, but I've never considered him a great film critic. He has a tendency to add cheap scares any time he adapts one of his works for the big screen, and his dialogue doesn't translate well. There's a reason why the 1997 mini-series isn't held in high regard.

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

The bottom line is that The Shining is close to King's heart because it's a story about alcoholism, which is largely overshadowed in Kubrick's adaptation. The film favours suspense and atmosphere over characterisation. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just different.

I love King as a novelist, but I've never considered him a great film critic. He has a tendency to add cheap scares any time he adapts one of his works for the big screen, and his dialogue doesn't translate well. There's a reason why the 1997 mini-series isn't held in high regard.

He's an awful screenwriter and should stick to writing books. But the discussion isn't about that, but about his criticism on Kubrick's adaptation. Some just don't seem to understand why he has a problem with it. It's like talking to a brick wall. It's a fact that the movie is not a faithful adaptation of his book. Everything that made the book important to King is left out. I love the movie, it's a masterpiece imo, but I do understand King's criticisms too.

[FatherDude]

Calling Wendy misogynistic is not merely a complaint about faithfulness. Neither is offering his (plainly inferior) version of how he would have directed a specific scene that wasn't even in the book. Ego is a factor here.

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by FatherDude

Calling Wendy misogynistic is not merely a complaint about faithfulness. Neither is offering his (plainly inferior) version of how he would have directed a specific scene that wasn't even in the book. Ego is a factor here.

Ego or not, it's still his opinion and he's entitled to have that opinion as he wrote the book the movie supposedly is based on.

[FatherDude]

It is defensive and irrational to imply that poking holes in King's criticisms of the adaptation is tantamount to claiming he's not entitled to an opinion.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

Ego or not, it's still his opinion and he's entitled to have that opinion as he wrote the book the movie supposedly is based on.

And other people are entitled to their opinions of his opinion.

[TheOneWithThePrize]

Originally Posted by koberulz

And other people are entitled to their opinions of his opinion.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - YouTube

Sorry, I just had to...

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by mikesncc1701

To a certain extent. Darabont changed the ending to THE MIST to great applause from King. I guess it was to a lesser extent than what Kubrick did with THE SHINING but still, he appreciated the change. Just goes to show he doesn't shun every change made from his adaptations, he just didn't like Kubricks take.

I had no idea the ending of Darabont’s The Mist was different from the novella. I always thought the ending in the film was pretty strange and pointless. I wonder why it was changed.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by FatherDude

Calling Wendy misogynistic is not merely a complaint about faithfulness. Neither is offering his (plainly inferior) version of how he would have directed a specific scene that wasn't even in the book. Ego is a factor here.

Yeah, I don’t know why King would call Kubrick’s Wendy one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film. Weird comment that doesn’t really make any sense. I understand his other criticisms but this one doesn’t seem to be backed up by anything.