The Shining (1980)

[goldie1970]

IMO one of the worst "man that movie is great" movies of all time. Terrible adaption of the book, overrated in almost every way

I'm a King fanatic, usually like Jack, usually like Kubrick....this was tripe!

I'd LOVE to see "The Shining" as envisioned by Fincher

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

WhaaaaaaaaAAAAAAaaaaaaaat!!??
Haahaaa that's fine. I never thought I'd read that. Not here. But to each their own.
That's cool.

Don't worry. You are correct. The US version is the superior cut.

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by MrHT

Don't worry. You are correct. The US version is the superior cut.

There is no "right" in subjective analysis.

Even Kubrick preferred the shorter cut.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

There is no "right" in subjective analysis.

Even Kubrick preferred the shorter cut.

That's a bingo.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by goldie1970

IMO one of the worst "man that movie is great" movies of all time. Terrible adaption of the book, overrated in almost every way

I'm a King fanatic, usually like Jack, usually like Kubrick....this was tripe!

I'd LOVE to see "The Shining" as envisioned by Fincher

It's not supposed to be an adaption of King's book. It's inspired by.... loosely based on....etc

To Kubrick's credit, he likes to use advanced psychology to communicate hidden narratives in his films. Things Kings novel did not have. So Kubrick essentially takes a theme and runs with it HIS way.

No disrespect to King, but, it seems most of his plots revolve around something being cursed; whether its a car, graveyard, gypsy, hotel, or spider under the house... etc


--

[goldie1970]

I'm cool with that.

[Kryptonic]

Kubrick's movie is better than King's novel. Really...killer shrubbery? Ugh. And as evidenced by that awful TV movie, it doesn't translate well to the screen without serious modification.

[The Great Owl]

I'm the biggest Stephen King fan that I know of, and I adore both the novel and the Kubrick adaptation. They are two separate entities that make the most of a great concept.

I love how Kubrick's adaptation creates horror out of brightly-lit settings. Who else does that in horror movies? Seriously. It's brilliant.


On second thought, I probably should have said that I'm the most enthusiastic Stephen King fan that I know of. There are several fans out there who are a lot bigger than I am when it comes to actual body weight.

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Kubrick's movie is better than King's novel. Really...killer shrubbery? Ugh. And as evidenced by that awful TV movie, it doesn't translate well to the screen without serious modification.

Kubrick was going to use the "killer shrubbery" and tried to make it happen, but the sfx just weren't good enough. So even he liked the idea.

[ultlife2013]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

It's not supposed to be an adaption of King's book. It's inspired by.... loosely based on....etc

To Kubrick's credit, he likes to use advanced psychology to communicate hidden narratives in his films. Things Kings novel did not have. So Kubrick essentially takes a theme and runs with it HIS way.

No disrespect to King, but, it seems most of his plots revolve around something being cursed; whether its a car, graveyard, gypsy, hotel, or spider under the house... etc


--

That is a great point about King's novels. It reminds me of the scene from family guy.
"You're not even trying anymore are you?"

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

No disrespect to King, but, it seems most of his plots revolve around something being cursed; whether its a car, graveyard, gypsy, hotel, or spider under the house... etc
--

Stephen King branded Americanized horror that focuses on consumerism. Haunted cars, cell phone maladies, computer word processors, gadgets, and such. Not all of his stories are blatantly about products, but his horror stories usually have a distinct "hamburger and fries" everyman feel to them.

The Shining has an underlying theme about alcoholism, parental responsibility, and job security. Kubrick's adaptation focused well on these big highlights, but even still managed to include a few Stephen King nods to everyday America.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ultlife2013

That is a great point about King's novels. It reminds me of the scene from family guy.
"You're not even trying anymore are you?"

Don't forget the punchline: "When can I have it?". As long as people keep buying it, he'll keep churning it out. I do like his writing though, always have. You can't go wrong with a cursed ________.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Kubrick's movie is better than King's novel. Really...killer shrubbery? Ugh. And as evidenced by that awful TV movie, it doesn't translate well to the screen without serious modification.

That showed King's insecurity; he was mad when Kubrick's movie came out because it wasn't exactly like the book. He rejected it! What made it worse was that, normally, the film version of any novel is never as good as its novel, but The Shining movie was that rare film that, yup, was better than the book. AND IT ONLY TAKES TWO HOURS TO WATCH! "How dare this movie be better than my book. That's it! I'll make a TV mini series movie the way it's supposed to be!" And THAT was worse!!!

[The Great Owl]

Be nice, everyone.

The Shining is one of Stephen King's most personal novels, and, being his third published novel, was written shortly after King himself had been dealing with real-life struggles similar to what Jack Torrence goes through in the story. While making ends meet as a high school teacher when he was sending short stories to publishers and trying to get his first novel published, Stephen King had to overcome alcoholism issues and juggle his obligations as a parent and husband under some tough circumstances. Whenever an artist creates a work of a highly personal nature like King did with The Shining, the artist will naturally be overprotective of that work.

Stanley Kubrick's adaptation did touch on these issues, and, in fact, addressed some of the issues quite well. The movie, however, has a strange off-center vibe that Stephen King's novel lacked. In the novel, Jack Torrance undergoes the transition of a normal adult struggling with alcoholism and unfortunate job experiences to a man under the thrall of the influence of the hotel, because his life experiences and condition left him especially susceptible to these influences. In the movie, however, one senses that Jack Nicholson's Torrance is crazy from the beginning, and that he left his mental groceries at the market long before the events depicted in the film. The concept is effective both ways, but, once again, this was a touchy issue for King, since there were so many autobiographical elements to the character of Jack Torrance.

I am not taking sides, necessarily, because, as I've previously posted, I loved the Stephen King book and the Stanley Kubrick adaptation equally, but in different ways.

The Shining is such a fascinating story idea that carries over so well. I like how Stanley Kubrick presents The Shining as a story with no reliable narrators. Jack Torrance is struggling with alcoholism. Wendy Torrance is torn from dealing with her husband's alcoholism and brushes with abusiveness. Danny Torrance is traumatized from an incident where his father abused him while under the influence of alcohol. At the beginning of the movie, the Torrance family is a family in crisis and a family that, by today's standards, would benefit from counseling and from the presence of a helpful community, as all people in such situations would. The idea of these three people living together in close quarters in an isolated remote mountain hotel away from community resources over the winter is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. The fact that the hotel has a grisly past is the final straw that ignites the explosive situation, but it is secondary to the human element of the story. Kubrick recognizes this quite well, and, as such, his portrayal of supernatural events is somewhat less overt than the portrayal of events in Stephen King's novel.

I apologize for going nerd on all of you just now, but I wanted to explain my thoughts on why King and Kubrick both deserve a fair shake with respect to the history of this fine novel and this fine movie.

[ultlife2013]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Be nice, everyone.

The Shining is one of Stephen King's most personal novels, and, being his third published novel, was written shortly after King himself had been dealing with real-life struggles similar to what Jack Torrence goes through in the story. While making ends meet as a high school teacher when he was sending short stories to publishers and trying to get his first novel published, Stephen King had to overcome alcoholism issues and juggle his obligations as a parent and husband under some tough circumstances. Whenever an artist creates a work of a highly personal nature like King did with The Shining, the artist will naturally be overprotective of that work.

Stanley Kubrick's adaptation did touch on these issues, and, in fact, addressed some of the issues quite well. The movie, however, has a strange off-center vibe that Stephen King's novel lacked. In the novel, Jack Torrance undergoes the transition of a normal adult struggling with alcoholism and unfortunate job experiences to a man under the thrall of the influence of the hotel, because his life experiences and condition left him especially susceptible to these influences. In the movie, however, one senses that Jack Nicholson's Torrance is crazy from the beginning, and that he left his mental groceries at the market long before the events depicted in the film. The concept is effective both ways, but, once again, this was a touchy issue for King, since there were so many autobiographical elements to the character of Jack Torrance.

I am not taking sides, necessarily, because, as I've previously posted, I loved the Stephen King book and the Stanley Kubrick adaptation equally, but in different ways.

The Shining is such a fascinating story idea that carries over so well. I like how Stanley Kubrick presents The Shining as a story with no reliable narrators. Jack Torrance is struggling with alcoholism. Wendy Torrance is torn from dealing with her husband's alcoholism and brushes with abusiveness. Danny Torrance is traumatized from an incident where his father abused him while under the influence of alcohol. At the beginning of the movie, the Torrance family is a family in crisis and a family that, by today's standards, would benefit from counseling and from the presence of a helpful community, as all people in such situations would. The idea of these three people living together in close quarters in an isolated remote mountain hotel away from community resources over the winter is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. The fact that the hotel has a grisly past is the final straw that ignites the explosive situation, but it is secondary to the human element of the story. Kubrick recognizes this quite well, and, as such, his portrayal of supernatural events is somewhat less overt than the portrayal of events in Stephen King's novel.

I apologize for going nerd on all of you just now, but I wanted to explain my thoughts on why King and Kubrick both deserve a fair shake with respect to the history of this fine novel and this fine movie.

I think the shining is a great movie, I need to re watch it again.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

That showed King's insecurity; he was mad when Kubrick's movie came out because it wasn't exactly like the book. He rejected it! What made it worse was that, normally, the film version of any novel is never as good as its novel, but The Shining movie was that rare film that, yup, was better than the book. AND IT ONLY TAKES TWO HOURS TO WATCH! "How dare this movie be better than my book. That's it! I'll make a TV mini series movie the way it's supposed to be!" And THAT was worse!!!

Have you read any interviews with the man? Or any of his many collected opinions on the films based on his source material? He's anything but insecure. The interview he gave Entertainment Weekly about the upcoming movie prequel to The Shining is hilarious proof of that.

He wasn't furious that it wasn't exactly like the book, he was disappointed that Jack's alcoholism and the disintegration of the Torrance family, the two most important aspects of the novel, were largely ignored. King praised Kubrick's visuals and described it as an effectively unsettling film, but hated that his most personal novel until that time was stripped of what made it such a tense read. You can see this just by watching the two adaptations; the (awful) miniseries goes to great lengths to underscore those familial aspects.

Personally, I consider The Shining to be Kubrick's best film, but I can't fault King for his objections. They're not exactly invalid.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by dissention

Personally, I consider The Shining to be Kubrick's best film, but I can't fault King for his objections. They're not exactly invalid.

Bingo. The Shining is also my personal favorite Kubrick film, but I agree with some of Stephen King's issues with the movie.

[I KEEL YOU]

Since when is it absolutely VITAL for an adaptation to be faithful to the book to a point where you can say that the movie isn't good enough because it isn't close enough to the book?

And themes such as alcoholism are definitely present in The Shining but hidden. The first time Jack's lips touch the glass with acohol is exactly 66 minutes and 6 seconds into the movie. This is from the U.S. version, which is why I think that Kubrick didn't entirely retract it to keep the hidden messages from the original U.S. cut while simultaneously regarding the shorter version as superior.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Since when is it absolutely VITAL for an adaptation to be faithful to the book to a point where you can say that the movie isn't good enough because it isn't close enough to the book?

And themes such as alcoholism are definitely present in The Shining but hidden. The first time Jack's lips touch the glass with acohol is exactly 66 minutes and 6 seconds into the movie. This is from the U.S. version, which is why I think that Kubrick didn't entirely retract it to keep the hidden messages from the original U.S. cut while simultaneously regarding the shorter version as superior.

The themes of alcoholism and the disintegration of the Torrance family are front and center in the novel & are what gives dramatic weight to the events that unfold. They were not obscure aspects. In the film, they were, and they weren't explored with any sort of depth. I'm fine with it, but that's what King faulted it for. While I think it's almost a perfect film, the only thing holding me back from giving it a perfect score is the miscasting of Nicholson. He was crazy to start with and only got worse; he's already positively disconcerting in the car ride to The Overlook. It's difficult to explore how the Torrance family falls apart and how the hotel subsequently takes advantage of Jack when there's no way to travel from A to B with the character when he's already living crazily at B.

No one ever said it was "VITAL" for an adaptation to follow the book completely, but when the biggest aspects of the novel are obscured to the point of irrelevancy, I can understand the misgivings the author might have.

[Kryptonic]

Nicholson's performance is one of the best ever. His slow slide into madness is riveting.