The Shining (1980)

clockworkcanary · May 28, 2008, 07:18:24 AM

Just rewatched Kubrick's version of The Shining last night (it had been some years since I had watched it in full). This came out about 5 years after Barry Lyndon and about 7 years before Full Metal Jacket. It's pretty heavy for a horror film compared to all the other dreck that came out about the same time (well, I am also a fan of that dreck, I admit, but none of it has the staying power IMO).

About any scene with Jack in it was supurb. I enjoyed watching the reverse-evolution of Jack becoming the apeman. He even grunted and groaned like the primates in 2001. You could tell he enjoyed the roll. My favorite scene is, of course, the classic bathroom scene near the end.

Like all his other work, there are a lot of repeating themes and heavy symbolism. Kubrick loves his masks, mazes, and mirrors. The underlying Native American motif was interesting as well. We even get a fixed evil grin that we also saw in A Clockwork Orange and we'll see again later in Full Metal Jacket.

A few things I wasn't wild about: Danny -the boy needed a haircut :) The racist element I didn't care for, but I'm not sure whether it's part of a message about the reflection of our society or Kubrick's own personal problem. Wendy was pretty annoying as well, but then, women aren't typically portrayed in positive light in Kubrick films ...again, not sure if that's supposed to be a reflection of society or if that's Kubrick's own personal problem. Both the sexist and racist element seems to crop up in almost every Kubrick flick.

Overall, it was a good horror film though -great scenery, great atmosphere, and some good camera shots, as always. Loved the opening music, which I have been told dates back to the year 1000 or thereabouts -very brooding and a good way to open the movie with this music to the isolated shots of the Rocky Mountains.

I have yet to read the book this movie was based on nor have I seen King's mini-series version so I'm not sure how close it follows the book. Anyone familiar with those care to elaborate?

And what was your opinion of this film?

trekgeezer · May 28, 2008, 07:24:11 AM

Never liked this movie and neither did Stephen King. Kubrick completely missed the themes in the book.

clockworkcanary · May 28, 2008, 08:02:44 AM

What were the themes in the book? Or more precisely, what did ya think about them? I haven't read it yet but probably will, even though I'm not a big King fan. It's hard to imagine Kubrick "missing" themes; from synopsis I've read, it seems he chose to ignore them and present his own message similar to how he's adapted most of his other work from novels <shrugs>. Like I said, I'll have to read the book to have any real opinion on that. I'm curious on the differences though.

trekgeezer · May 28, 2008, 01:37:03 PM

The main theme was Jack Torrance's descent from being a guy trying to fix his life into madness. In the movie Nicholson's Jack is wacked out well before they even get to the hotel.

Kubrick replaced the oversized croquet mallet with an axe. The hedge maze replaced the hedge animals from the book , which come to life (at least for Jack).

There was a TV mini-series starring Steven Weber as Jack Torrance and written by King himself which adheres to the book much more than Kubrick's version.

I heard King say one time that Kubrick's movie was like a very sleek car with no engine.

Allhallowsday · May 28, 2008, 05:40:31 PM

Quote from: trekgeezer on May 28, 2008, 01:37:03 PM
...I heard King say one time that Kubrick's movie was like a very sleek car with no engine.

And who cares what STEPHEN KING thinks about a movie...?

Though there are some departures from KING's book (I don't think Dick Halloran dies in the book...) I think it is a fine film. Of all the KING film adaptations, I found THE SHINING to be the most successful.

I agree Clockworkcanary that KUBRICK would not so likely "miss" themes as ignore them...!

Love that scene in the bathroom, too...

Killer Bees · May 28, 2008, 08:04:39 PM

Quote from: trekgeezer on May 28, 2008, 01:37:03 PM
I heard King say one time that Kubrick's movie was like a very sleek car with no engine.

Wow! Burrrrrnnnn!!! *lol*

I haven't read the book myself but I've seen bits of the film. I think I"ll give the book a once over and then watch the film and see how it differs. I've never had an opinion about Kubrick one way or the other having not seen many of his movies.

And no author is going to be happy about the portrayal of his books in movie form unless he writes the script himself.

That Tim Weber series sounds interesting. I'll see if I can find it.

Allhallowsday · May 28, 2008, 10:49:26 PM

Quote from: Killer Bees on May 28, 2008, 08:04:39 PM
I haven't read the book myself but I've seen bits of the film. I think I"ll give the book a once over and then watch the film and see how it differs. I've never had an opinion about Kubrick one way or the other having not seen many of his movies.

And no author is going to be happy about the portrayal of his books in movie form unless he writes the script himself.

That Tim Weber series sounds interesting. I'll see if I can find it.

It's STEVEN WEBER in the TV miniseries. Do indeed read the book. For his first 10 or 12 novels I was a big fan of KING; I've since fallen out of the habit of reading novels, particularly popular ones. The Shining is one of KING's best novels (I think The Dead Zone is his very best, but must point out The Stand was a wonderful long read.)

The Burgomaster · May 29, 2008, 05:56:20 AM

I'm not a big fan of judging movies based on how similar they are to the books they are based on. Moovies are movies and books are books . . . they are different methods of storytelling and therefore they MUST be different. HOWEVER, this is one of the rare cases in which the book was SO superior to the movie (and the movie left out SO MANY of the best scenes) that I think Kubrick blew it. The TV remake was a lot closer to the book (yes, Jack used a croquet mallet in the book . . . NOT an axe . . . and it was scary!) . . . but the TV remake wasn't very good either. Read the book.

Neville · May 29, 2008, 06:18:28 AM

In this case I've always seen movie and novel as different works. They both have their strenghts and weaknesses, but I'd say none is better than the other one. Look, I can understand King feeling hurt and all that, but it's not like he's not OKeyed or ignored far worse adaptations. Not to mention how he dealt with his own work in Maximum overdrive.

Anyway, I saw the American cut of the movie a few months ago, and enojoyed it inmensely. Previously I had only seen the international copies, which cut several key scenes towards the end, thus making the whole thing look like it's all been Jack losing his mind.

As I said, I had a ball with it. My only gripe is the one I have with all Kubrick's final films, that everything looks too calculated, almost to the extreme of neurotical perfectionism. It all ooks great, don't take me wrong, but there's not an ounce of naturality to be found elsewhere, and it almost feels suffocating.

clockworkcanary · May 29, 2008, 09:32:26 AM

Quote from: Allhallowsday on May 28, 2008, 05:40:31 PM
Love that scene in the bathroom, too...

Hahaha that's awesome!

InspectorDC · May 29, 2008, 05:14:30 PM

Stephen King knows very little about film, anyone who has seen the tv version of the Shining would know that. It's absolutely dire, and it may very well be more true to the book than the Kubrick film, however I suspect that the Kubrick version goes far beyond the book. I hate most King adaptations, The Shining and Dead Zone are the only horror ones that I can stand.

Proof of his film illiteracy:
_e4tU348BCM

Neville · May 29, 2008, 05:22:40 PM

A few days ago I read a King interview, looks he's promoting "The Mist". He mentioned "Mximum Overdrive", said he was on coke the whole shooting.

trekgeezer · May 29, 2008, 06:30:52 PM

Quote from: Allhallowsday on May 28, 2008, 10:49:26 PM
]It's STEVEN WEBER in the TV miniseries. Do indeed read the book. For his first 10 or 12 novels I was a big fan of KING; I've since fallen out of the habit of reading novels, particularly popular ones. The Shining is one of KING's best novels (I think The Dead Zone is his very best, but must point out The Stand was a wonderful long read.)

Thanks for pointing out my brain fart on the Steven Weber's name. The Dead Zone is one of his best books and the film with Christopher Walken is best film adaptation of one of King's books.

I haven't actually read one of his books since Pet Cemetery. All I know is the book is way better than Kubrick's film, which really disappointed me a lot when it was finally released (I think there was a fire or something that delayed the production). They were advertising it on book covers for two years before it was released.

The problem I have with this film is mainly that it broke the rule that a film adaptation should embody the spirit of the book even if some of the details are different.

Allhallowsday · May 29, 2008, 09:39:07 PM

Quote from: trekgeezer on May 29, 2008, 06:30:52 PM

Quote from: Allhallowsday on May 28, 2008, 10:49:26 PM
]It's STEVEN WEBER in the TV miniseries. Do indeed read the book. For his first 10 or 12 novels I was a big fan of KING; I've since fallen out of the habit of reading novels, particularly popular ones. The Shining is one of KING's best novels (I think The Dead Zone is his very best, but must point out The Stand was a wonderful long read.)
Thanks for pointing out my brain fart on the Steven Weber's name. The Dead Zone is one of his best books and the film with Christopher Walken is best film adaptation of one of King's books.

I haven't actually read one of his books since Pet Cemetery. All I know is the book is way better than Kubrick's film, which really disappointed me a lot when it was finally released (I think there was a fire or something that delayed the production). They were advertising it on book covers for two years before it was released.

The problem I have with this film is mainly that it broke the rule that a film adaptation should embody the spirit of the book even if some of the details are different.

KING lost me with Pet Sematary (he switched publishers from Viking to Doubleday for that book; maybe he had switched back?) I did not like that book and it's hurriedly written tone, but it's been a very long time since I read it (I was working for Doubleday that year).

KING mentioned horrors about fear for his own sons, but I think obligations played a part. I thought the very first chapter of IT was brilliant, and from there a downward spiral into what KING himself might have called (in Danse Macabre) "elephantiasis..."

Misery may be his very best; a shorter read, one must pause a little past halfway thru because it is so horrifying, and then hurry back to devour the denoument. Brilliant.

Killer Bees · May 30, 2008, 12:50:38 AM

Quote from: Allhallowsday on May 28, 2008, 10:49:26 PM
Quote from: Killer Bees on May 28, 2008, 08:04:39 PM
I haven't read the book myself but I've seen bits of the film. I think I"ll give the book a once over and then watch the film and see how it differs. I've never had an opinion about Kubrick one way or the other having not seen many of his movies.

And no author is going to be happy about the portrayal of his books in movie form unless he writes the script himself.

That Tim Weber series sounds interesting. I'll see if I can find it.
It's STEVEN WEBER in the TV miniseries. Do indeed read the book. For his first 10 or 12 novels I was a big fan of KING; I've since fallen out of the habit of reading novels, particularly popular ones. The Shining is one of KING's best novels (I think The Dead Zone is his very best, but must point out The Stand was a wonderful long read.)

Oops! Sorry, I meant Steven Weber.

I was a huge Stephen King fan back in the 80s and 90s and I read heaps of his stuff. Then I lost interest. The Stand, Pet Sematary, It and 'Salem's Lot really creeped me out and I enjoyed the depressing fatalism of The Long Walk.