I totally understand Stephen Kings problems with this movie.. - The Shining (1980) Discussion

[–] eweland 8 years ago

I completely disagree.
You are projecting because so many King fans have screamed "Jack's crazy from the beginning!" He's at a job interview, and EVERYONE puts on an act in that very same situation. You play a game to get the job.

King WROTE Jack as already being crazy when the novel starts. You don't previously attack one of your young pupils (George Hatfield) out of rage unless YOU ALREADY HAVE UNCHECKED TEMPER CONTROL ISSUES. That's why they're stuck at The Overlook Hotel, because Jack's rage and craziness blew his last job to smithereens.

This is not a nice person. Why so many Kingfans defend Jack's attempts to act good is rather baffling. They are sympathizing with a dangerous alcoholic who will ensure years of future counseling for everyone involved.

Nicholson/Kubrick toned Jack down until ONE MONTH LATER, and didn't show us the "normal" Jack in the film. And the most vital feature of Jack's character is he must be able to act totally psychotic, and scare the audience. Weber could not do this. Who cares about a gradual and delicate shift into insanity when the person portraying Jack Torrance cannot even act crazy ENOUGH?

One of the most ridiculous King-critiques about Kubrick's film is "Jack Nicholson wasn't right."
Or shall I say, Jack wasn't, according to his novel:

1) tragically misunderstood, although he recently beat the sh!t out of his own former pupil, and lovingly broke his son's arm because of his drinking.
2) a loving, caring Dad trying to save his marriage. Aw.
3) then a writer completely obsessed about the scrapbook.
4) then psychotically trying to roque-mallet his family to death. (sorry, I'll also choose an axe/tomahawk in a Kubrick film with so many Native American themes)

and finally, and quite preposterously, then:

5) finds the good part inside of himself with his son's intervention and becomes the only death in a horror novel (?) through his suicide, so his family/Hallorann can escape the exploding boiler. A Daddymartyr to make us all feel better and forget that Jack just tried to kill anyone in sight. Oh, goody.

Seriously, that's completely nuts when you break it down.

Stephen King is SO delusional about this masterpiece of film that now even I need a drink, come to think of it. And I don't drink.

And when you read about how Jon Voight, or someone "less crazy" should have been cast as Jack instead, you have to wonder: Does King even really know who the character of Jack Torrance really is? I don't think he does. Look at that list. Even Kubrick threw out King's screenplay and chose Diane Johnson as a writing partner. King did once invent the incredibly confusing character of Jack Torrance, but Kubrick and Jack Nicholson put the definitive stamp on how Jack should really be, and for all time - in my opinion.

Stanley turned Jack Torrance INTO the exploding boiler of rage that can even chase Danny into the labyrinth. A human boiler with legs. An explosive boiler/pawn that can escape from the hotel, but not from his predestined fate.

And the King TV miniseries that was going to "finally tell the real story" and blow the film out of the water totally sucked, and looked like Monty Python in some scenes.
Strike One.
Who shall we roll the ball to, next?
_

Kubrick's film - will always be the definitive version of The Shining.

reply

[–] betel-geuse 8 years ago

"You don't previously attack one of your young pupils (George Hatfield) out of rage unless YOU ALREADY HAVE UNCHECKED TEMPER CONTROL ISSUES. That's why they're stuck at The Overlook Hotel, because Jack's rage and craziness blew his last job to smithereens. "

Haven't read it in a while but didn't he attack the student because he was in the process of slashing jack's tires? And I believe he has a sponsor and was doing meetings for his alcohol abuse in the novel which isn't a crazy thing to do. In the film Jack is a dry drunk which means he is not trying to resolve any underlying problems which leads him to drink and he is still acting like a prick. The novel fleshes out a backstory for why Jack drinks and what his fears are as a character but the film didn't take that approach.

reply

[–] taran-rod 8 years ago

Indeed!

reply

[–] Irishdrummer007 8 years ago

"Stanley turned Jack Torrance INTO the exploding boiler of rage that can even chase Danny into the labyrinth. A human boiler with legs. An explosive boiler/pawn that can escape from the hotel, but not from his predestined fate"

Very well said.

reply

[–] eweland 8 years ago

Thank you, Irishdrummer007.

I always try to provide a different viewpoint with the posts that I make on THE SHINING IMDb message board. And how a film that used to confuse me, now just makes me smile in appreciation. There's a lot there.

We have all shared many great insights and discussions on this baffling, majestic film. It's nice to know that there are others who see more in THE SHINING than some pesky trolls do. I don't write about any other film as much as this one. It truly is a neverending labyrinth of genius filmmaking, and screenplay writing. No wonder Stanley and Diane were constantly revising the script pages on the set - they kept finding new little jewels to insert into an incredibly complex film.

It's almost guaranteed that even those who presently hate the film will come back to it at some later date, and then will appreciate it in a way that they never saw before. Kubrick must have embedded subliminal magnets in his movies - they keep drawing you back to them, repeatedly!
_

Kubrick's film - will always be the definitive version of The Shining.

reply

[–] taran-rod 8 years ago

Oh, okay, you are at THIS point?? No wonder you'll attack anyone who doesn't like the movie... And really? I'm a total moviegoer and watched The Shinning several times and even though that it's indeed masterful film-making, you might exagerate a little bit when you're praising it

reply

[–] taran-rod 8 years ago

You sure have a lot of arguments and you actually have a point. But... I still understand King's disapointement... And this even though that I'm a HUGE fan of the movie!

reply

[–] kmags84 8 years ago

I get what you're saying and I think it's understandable that King was upset with the way Kubrick took the story/narrative etc. But, King bashing this film wasn't fair either and I think it was just an Ego thing or maybe even more personal than that. King and Kubrick spoke often during Pre-production and I think King even penned a Screenplay that was tossed away immediately. That could easily bother anyone. Kubrick obviously had his own intentions and it seems as though when King saw the writing on the Wall, he turned his back on Kubrick. Like I said, I get it. King lost his story and felt a certain way about it but his "It's like a Fancy Car with no engine" comment is ridiculous. I think he could've eased up on it a bit. I actually love King too, especially his work from that era. However, his characters were stereotypes. The Jock, the Cheerleader, the Punk, the Token Black Guy etc, it's in alot of his work and Kubrick just wasn't having it. His novels and short stories that were turned into films with the Director having more control than King have turned out much better than the other way around. King doesn't understand the medium of Filmmaking IMO and it lead to this longstanding beef or whatever it'd be called lol. I just think egos got the best of them and it is what it is at this point. It also hit home for King and again, I wonder how much of that came from those long phone calls they had early on? I like the Lore of it all. Movie mythology and magic etc.

reply

[–] rascal67 7 years ago

King WROTE Jack as already being crazy when the novel starts.
_____________

I can't even be bothered reading your indulgent thesis; but regardless of what Torrance's behavior was, it could still have been portrayed in less over-the-top manner, with hints of madness behind the calmness and vice versa. It was pretty much one note for Nicholson here. The loving care and remorse for his actions, could have easily been played with more skillful layers, rather than in your face craziness that appeared to be a constant from the start.

Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪

reply

[–] CogburnSwale 7 years ago

To me, this is the truest and best thread on whole IMDB. Couldn't agree more. Kubrick understands Jack Torrance better than Stephen King does.

reply

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 8 years ago

From the VERY FIRST SCENE we see Jack he seems like a complete loon..

I've never understood why people say this. In the first scene he just seems like a guy on an interview. It's not until after they've settled into the hotel that he starts acting like a complete loon. Before that he comes across as a cranky assh*le sure, but not a loon.

reply

[–] Barbed_Wire_Strawberry 8 years ago

He's more...on edge. Look how his mood changes during the interview - when his family are mentioned, when his suitability (sanity) for the job are being questioned. The drive up to the hotel with his family, look at his grip on the wheel..choking it pretty much.

Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride

reply

[–] eweland 8 years ago

Haven't read it in a while but didn't he attack the student because he was in the process of slashing jack's tires? And I believe he has a sponsor and was doing meetings for his alcohol abuse in the novel which isn't a crazy thing to do. In the film Jack is a dry drunk which means he is not trying to resolve any underlying problems which leads him to drink and he is still acting like a prick. The novel fleshes out a backstory for why Jack drinks and what his fears are as a character but the film didn't take that approach.

If any instructor who is an adult professional in real life physically attacked one of his teenager pupils, do you think this would just be brushed off? It would be all over the news. Sure, George slashed Jack's tires. So have the school discipline him. Jack flew into a rage and started beating George up.

Jack is not a nice person, Dad, or husband.

Once again, WHY do people give King this wide berth when it comes to his characters? I never bought in to the idea that Jack was "a nice Dad" and it looked like Kubrick didn't, either. That's the real reason I think that King detests the film, it's too damned close to the real person. Is it just that King deludes his readers because he actually WAS suffering in ways like Jack? What is the magic pill you have all swallowed, and I didn't?
_

Kubrick's film - will always be the definitive version of The Shining.

reply

[–] Barbed_Wire_Strawberry 8 years ago

Jack in the film is different, and Kubrick knew this would be due to Nicholson. He is so likable that even the audience doesn't want to accept that he is vile. And we search for ways to understand and accept the situation ala Wendy, until we finally cannot deny it any longer. That Jack himself was probably a victim of abuse adds a tragic element to the character - he is not 'pure evil' but he ends up a pawn of 'pure evil' because he can't make the heroic act of stopping himself...not by blowing up a hotel, killing himself or simply taking an honest look in the mirror.

Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride

reply

[–] Alyse_MA 8 years ago

He is so likable that even the audience doesn't want to accept that he is vile. And we search for ways to understand and accept the situation ala Wendy, until we finally cannot deny it any longer.

Agreed!

In the scene where Wendy brings Jack his breakfast in bed, Jack is still nice. I like the way he says, "I love it here. I really do."

When Wendy suggests that he can come up with some good ideas for his writing by getting back into the habit of writing every day, Jack agrees with her in a sarcastic way ('Yeah, that's all it takes') but he's still nice.

This is Wendy's good life right here: She has a fun relationship with her little boy and her husband smiles when she pleases him by bringing him a nice breakfast in bed. You can see her smiling proudly as she sets it out for him. She's a good wife and mother. She's happy.

Then...

Wendy interrupts Jack's typing to announce that lunch is coming with her hopes that Jack will let her see some of his writing later. We don't know that he's typing "All work and no play..." over and over.

We see Jack the abusive husband/father here and he goes downhill after that.

It's a descent into hell, pretty much.

Kubrick did this well.

reply

[–] nigelpryor-11440 8 years ago

Cool explanations from everyone! Like I said in my first post this is one my favorite movies and I've seen it tons on times but never thought about some of these things Eweland and everyone else mentions. Guess I'm not really much of a deep thinker! haha

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eweland 8 years ago

Kubrick somewhat invented the subliminal imagery film. These aren't just coincidences - they ARE there. There's just so many obvious synchronicities in the film, like the arches in the center of the hedge maze, and the squared arches in the Room 237 bathroom. Plus the idea that Jack had to "escape" from Mrs. Massey's rotting revenant who was chasing him out of the room. And then Jack later is chasing Danny through the frozen hedge maze and becomes the pursuer, himself. Perhaps an early foreshadowing of Jack later becoming eternally trapped in The Overlook Hotel, as well?

What better way to bury your innovative directorial ideas than in a film with the concept of "overlook" prominently featured?

"Oh, that's not in there!"
Of course not - because you are overlooking the obvious, yourself.

Maybe The Overlook Hotel should serve the new Budweiser beer: America.
_

Kubrick's film - will always be the definitive version of The Shining.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] frankievalloneiii 7 years ago

He is so likable that even the audience doesn't want to accept that he is vile. And we search for ways to understand and accept the situation ala Wendy, until we finally cannot deny it any longer.

The first time I saw the movie, I already knew he was a loon. I didn't detect anything likeable in him at all, not even in the first interview. His leering and over-the-top enthusiasm was definitely not sincere.

That Jack himself was probably a victim of abuse adds a tragic element to the character - he is not 'pure evil' but he ends up a pawn of 'pure evil' because he can't make the heroic act of stopping himself...not by blowing up a hotel, killing himself or simply taking an honest look in the mirror.

Well, in the book, he witnessed his father beat his mother nearly to death when he was a child. Surely that traumatized him for life and he refused to cope properly with it. In the movie, he is given no backstory, so we are left to assume that he is an inherent loon.

reply

[–] taran-rod 8 years ago

Okay when it comes to the point when you bash the initial author and praise the guy who adapted as if he was a mighty god or something, it's time to say: Calm the *beep* down!

reply

[–] eweland 8 years ago

When I discuss my opinions on this message board, I "attack" someone else? That's ridiculous. Why don't I feel "attacked" when someone loves the novel? I will say I read the novel first, and after studying the film so closely don't think it's a great work of literature. And impossible to film word for word, hedge animal for hedge animal.

While others automatically defend the novel, because - surprise - It's Stephen King. If it was any other horror author, nobody would care. That's a huge part of the "conflict" as several have mentioned: King fans feel they deserved better.

And why is that?
Is there the possibility that the miniseries, which was ordained by The Master, proved that his vision of his original novel really wasn't all that horrific, or surreal, or disturbing, but in retrospect, somewhat...cheesy? If you know you can't make a production with the violence of an R-rated film - then why would you think a TV miniseries could EVER compete with it?

That was a complete mistake.

I totally understand Stephen King's problems with this movie. He tried to one-up Kubrick with his more accurate and faithful vision and failed for everyone to see.

Could someone remake THE SHINING as a new film that would be better appreciated than Kubrick's? I suppose it is possible - but whoever attempts it, should jettison Stephen King from anything to do with it, right from the start.
Just like Stanley did.
_

Kubrick's film - will always be the definitive version of The Shining.

reply

[–] Barbed_Wire_Strawberry 8 years ago

F!ck King! Kubrick was a mighty god!

Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride

reply

[–] kaskait 8 years ago

but whoever attempts it, should jettison Stephen King from anything to do with it, right from the start.
Just like Stanley did.

Well, to be fair, I think Kubrick had a notion of collaboration at some point. Hence all those late night phone calls to King.

However, the writer himself admitted he was such a bad drunk during that time...he has memory problems of the time period. So we can only guess what happened during those calls when King was under the influence and Kubrick was going full Freud on him.

reply

[–] Kimrubymoon 8 years ago

I don't think anyone could ever make The Shining again. Because Nicholson IS the Shining. And Shelley, etc...
To me it's like saying...gee, lets remake Gone With The Wind. Jesus! It would NEVER trump the original. Never. So really, what would be the point?

No one should mess with perfection. It happens so seldom!!!!

reply

[–] betel-geuse 8 years ago

He was reacting against a threat, someone's car is their means of supporting a family and if it is destroyed their family could possibly be destroyed.

" I never bought in to the idea that Jack was "a nice Dad" and it looked like Kubrick didn't, either."

King never wrote Jack as a nice Dad. He wrote about a character who was dealing with his own childhood and problems while trying to be a father. Kubrick's version of Jack is much more selfish and egotistical which is great for the film but it would make a terrible novel.

reply

[–] kaskait 8 years ago

Taking your whole family into the wilderness for 6 months with no human contact at all (not to mention probably a disclaimer had to be signed that absolves the hotel of medical emergencies) is egotistical selfishness on the highest scale.

Jack of the book and Jack of the film both did this without hesitation. So how is Kubrick's Jack any different from how King wrote the story?

reply

[–] frankievalloneiii 7 years ago

Jack of the book and Jack of the film both did this without hesitation. So how is Kubrick's Jack any different from how King wrote the story?

Kubrick's Jack was sinister from the get-go. King's Jack was bitter and cynical, yes, but not an inherent psycho waiting to fall over the edge. I could tell that King's Jack was fighting hard to cope with his childhood trauma without the benefit of therapy. Kubrick's Jack looked more like an escaped mental patient than anything.

reply

[–] frankievalloneiii 8 years ago

Once again, WHY do people give King this wide berth when it comes to his characters? I never bought in to the idea that Jack was "a nice Dad" and it looked like Kubrick didn't, either.

Because you're unable to see the humanity in King's characters. You're obsessed with psychopathy and would rather use that as a cop-out. Jack was indeed written as a good guy, albeit suffering from severe trauma. He wasn't written as a black-and-white psycho.

What is the magic pill you have all swallowed, and I didn't?

One word: empathy. King wrote Jack as a normal albeit traumatized man, someone that you or I could identify with. Unless you are implying that you identify better with psychos?

reply

[–] countdown-to-zero 8 years ago

"Because you're unable to see the humanity in King's characters. You're obsessed with psychopathy and would rather use that as a cop-out. Jack was indeed written as a good guy, albeit suffering from severe trauma. He wasn't written as a black-and-white psycho."

But King didn't write Jack as a 'good' guy; it is readers of the novel who are misreading the actual reality, fantasizing that someone can still be considered a 'good person', to 'feel good' about themselves irrespective of what they do, irrespective of them being murderously violent. He goes into quite considerable detail giving elaborate descriptions of Jack's past violence, from beating up school kids (the reason Jack was sacked from his teaching job and why he stopped drinking) to attacking his son and smashing his arm (King also details how Jack was himself assaulted by his own father when he was a child), and eventually seeking to engage in mass murder. Of course he wasn't a 'black and white' psycho, but that does not mean he wasn't a psycho; rather it mean he was a psycho masquerading as a 'good guy', while denying, covering over, and repressing his violence, such repression of the truth about himself guaranteeing that he will be violent again ("return of the repressed").

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the magic pill you have all swallowed, and I didn't?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"One word: empathy. King wrote Jack as a normal albeit traumatized man, someone that you or I could identify with. Unless you are implying that you identify better with psychos?"

But Jack is a psycho (in the guise of a 'good guy'), and humans identify with psychos (and sociopaths) all the time; they just are unable to admit it, unable to bring themselves to acknowledge that they are conditioned by their culture into identifying with psychos, because they manifest our dark underside, our crazed and repressed desires. Anyone can be described as "normal albeit traumatized", because everyone, all humans are 'normal albeit traumatized' - trauma is inherent to being human, which is why everyone is necessarily repressed, everyone repressed the real of a primordial trauma, an inherent repression of the Real that results from our entry in everyday reality, into our daily symbolic order (repression, the Law/Prohibition, rules, regulations, language, culture). Even the most evil people in history, the biggest mass murderers, genocidalists, etc can be described as 'normal albeit traumatized', even Hitler could be so described, could be said to be 'just an ordinary human being', and THAT is the real horror, that 'ordinary humans' can engage in such crazy behaviours and still 'feel good' about themselves, inventing excuses, pretexts, alibis for their murderous and violent behaviour (as Jack tries to do throughout the novel and film).

Both sympathy and empathy are not so clear-cut: they frequently mask obscene desires (Recall the infamous Clintonesque cliché "Let me feel your pain!", revealing the cynical falsety of such sympathy: let me ENJOY your pain, your suffering, because it's you who is suffering and not me! You can suffer instead of me, and let's keep it that way because I enjoy your pain! Vampiric ...).

reply

[–] eweland 8 years ago

History is doomed to repeat itself.
_

THE SHiNiNG

reply

[–] frankievalloneiii 7 years ago

But King didn't write Jack as a 'good' guy; it is readers of the novel who are misreading the actual reality, fantasizing that someone can still be considered a 'good person', to 'feel good' about themselves irrespective of what they do, irrespective of them being murderously violent. He goes into quite considerable detail giving elaborate descriptions of Jack's past violence, from beating up school kids (the reason Jack was sacked from his teaching job and why he stopped drinking) to attacking his son and smashing his arm (King also details how Jack was himself assaulted by his own father when he was a child), and eventually seeking to engage in mass murder. Of course he wasn't a 'black and white' psycho, but that does not mean he wasn't a psycho; rather it mean he was a psycho masquerading as a 'good guy', while denying, covering over, and repressing his violence, such repression of the truth about himself guaranteeing that he will be violent again ("return of the repressed").

He may not have been a "good guy," but he wasn't insane. He was trying to cope with childhood trauma and was angry, bitter, cynical. He coped by drinking, which made him violent. He did not want to kill anyone. The evil entity of the Overlook impelled him to kill Danny and Wendy.

But Jack is a psycho (in the guise of a 'good guy'), and humans identify with psychos (and sociopaths) all the time; they just are unable to admit it, unable to bring themselves to acknowledge that they are conditioned by their culture into identifying with psychos, because they manifest our dark underside, our crazed and repressed desires.

And that, I argue, is why people like you and Eweland are so unnerved whenever we express different opinions because you both need validation of your own problems.

Sounds like your understanding of trauma is very limited. Depending on the severity of such, trauma changes the actions of a good guy into that of a bad, but they are still a good person struggling with their changed lives.

Both sympathy and empathy are not so clear-cut: they frequently mask obscene desires

And those "obscene desires" are grown from seeds planted by trauma.

reply

[–] SlickySlixta 8 years ago

I've never understood why people say this. In the first scene he just seems like a guy on an interview. It's not until after they've settled into the hotel that he starts acting like a complete loon. Before that he comes across as a cranky assh*le sure, but not a loon.

I feel the same way, I never saw Jack as a loon from the get go, he just seemed like a charming person.

Don't put the devil in the picture, cause' the religious groups won't wanna see it.

reply

[–] frankievalloneiii 7 years ago

I feel the same way, I never saw Jack as a loon from the get go, he just seemed like a charming person.

That's the problem: he is too charming.

reply

[–] frankievalloneiii 7 years ago

In the first scene he just seems like a guy on an interview

You didn't detect a sinister undercurrent in his leering? He seemed way too eager to please.

reply

[–] OnlyRocknRoll 8 years ago

My problem with the film version(s) was the casting. No one that acted in these things remotely resembled what I had imagined. They were all BAD in their roles.

Sometimes the rush to produce something is just stupid. It takes time to craft and hone a book or a film.

_______________________________________
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!

Maximus Decimus Meridius

reply

[–] Kimrubymoon 8 years ago

Are you talking about the Kubrick version??? If you are...then I couldn't DISAGREE more.
If you're talking about the TV version...the I definitely AGREE.

Nicholson and Duvall were absolutely perfect. There could never be any believable substitutes. Having said that, I did not read the book until AFTER I had seen the movie so that's where I'm coming from.

I remember my Mother saying she read the book first and thought Nicholson and Duvall were very good choices for what she pictured while reading the book. That of a cranky, somewhat disgruntled teacher/writer and a demure (maybe even naive and wimpy) wife.

I did see an interview (or long bio) of King from maybe 10 or so years ago, however, where he was not angry or resentful towards Kubrick. In fact, he came off as cordial; not overly complimentary or full of praise, but not bitter at all. Time may have lessened some of his prior issues. Plus if he receives any royalties from the movie - that helps!

I'm going to go out on a limb with a thought I just had....id be willing to bet there are more sales today of Kubrick's DVD, than there are of the book. Not sure but just an idea.

reply

[–] OnlyRocknRoll 8 years ago

I'm talking about the film as originally released. Everyone in it SUCKED.

Everyone who did the casting, or approved it, should be bonked over the head.

_______________________________________
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!

Maximus Decimus Meridius

reply

[–] eweland 8 years ago

Big fvcking deal. So you didn't like anything about it. We get it.

You do not.

You can go to bed, now.
_

Kubrick's film - will always be the definitive version of The Shining.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] frankievalloneiii 7 years ago

More is not always more, except to an unbalanced random human, and in this case, he happened to work as a film director.

I'm glad you see Kubrick the same way I do. He seemed to want to make this movie for one reason: to take us into his sick mind. And he abused an innocent victim to do it: Shelley Duvall. She's now suffering from mental illness herself.

More is not always more, except to an unbalanced random human, and in this case, he happened to work as a film director.

reply

[–] drxcreatures 8 years ago

OnlyRocknRoll, it's a terrible thing you weren't around back then to tell Kubrick what he was doing wrong.

http://www.cgonzales.net & http://www.drxcreatures.com

reply

[–] TheCaretaker237 7 years ago

I read a criticism of the casting of Jack Nicholson in this movie by some famed movie critic. The suggestion was that because his last movie was "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" Nicholson's character was already perceived as being slightly crazy, and so the audience wouldn't/didn't fully appreciate his decent into madness in The Shining. I believe that was Kubrick's point, and intention.

Jack Torrance was always evil, he was always mad, he was always the caretaker. Something brought or guided him to the Overlook Hotel.

That was always a key difference between Kubrick and Kings version. The undertone and layers of Kubrick's version go way Beyond that of King's.

Stephen King's version is dull in comparison. His version is all about a guy going mad in haunted hotel. Yawn. Kubrick's version is far darker. Jack is already straight from Hell when Kubrick gets to work.

reply

[–] frankievalloneiii 7 years ago

Stephen King's version is dull in comparison. His version is all about a guy going mad in haunted hotel. Yawn. Kubrick's version is far darker. Jack is already straight from Hell when Kubrick gets to work.

And therein lies the rub: Kubrick watered down King's deeply layered, humanistic story into an arbitrary slasher movie.

reply

[–] rascal67 7 years ago

Nicholson mugged, more than he was acting. Kubrick is to blame as well, and I thought he had control of his actors. There was no real nuance and Nicholson proved he could do this with Cuckoo's Nest. Another strike against can-do-no-wrong Kubrick, who wasn't the best choice of director to adapt King's spooky supernatural tale. I guess because he couldn't control Nicholson, he took it out on Shelly Duvall, who would've been even better had she been allowed to be more herself.

Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪

reply

[–] kaskait 7 years ago

Nicholson mugged, more than he was acting.

He was told to mug by Kubrick. Nicholson time after time in interviews about the film stated that he told Kubrick that he thought some acting choices/directions were too out there. But Kubrick didn't think so. In fact many of the scenes we do see are of Nicholson acting out against Kubrick's intense acting directions (the same thing happened to George C. Scott on Dr. Strangelove).

Kubrick is to blame as well, and I thought he had control of his actors.

He had MORE control of his actors than any director before or since. Go read interviews of Duvall, Kubrick had mega control over everything. To the point that he specifically prevented Duvall and Nicholson from forming a friendship. It was a hard shoot and it would have been so easy for the two leads to commiserate. But Kubrick absolutely prevented that. He didn't want any warmth from behind the scenes coming out on screen.

What it comes down to is that Kubrick pulled a fast one. Everyone thinks that Nicholson was the star runner. He wasn't. This film belongs to Shelley Duvall. Kubrick already knew he wanted Duvall for the picture before casting got started. He spent most of his time working with her on her performance. He set about making her jealous of Nicholson to isolate her from him. He also didn't want her natural confidence to show up on screen.

If you watch the film in the theater, it really brings home the fact that the main character with the most development is Wendy.

I guess because he couldn't control Nicholson, he took it out on Shelly Duvall, who would've been even better had she been allowed to be more herself.

He was hard on both actors. But again, Shelley Duvall was his first choice from day one. Kubrick had a huge ego. YES, he definitely had a p*****g contest with Stephen King over this story. By many visual digs on the book (showing that red VW bug crushed under a huge tractor trailer).

YES, he intentionally stole Duvall away from Robert Altman. He even acted it out visually on his daughter's bio of the film. Altman would have put two and two together just like King. I wish I had a lovely pretty TAll, lovely little girl like that.

Another strike against can-do-no-wrong Kubrick, who wasn't the best choice of director to adapt King's spooky supernatural tale.

I don't think Kubrick can do no wrong. I for one hate 2001 and think it is over indulgent 90% of the time. But he was a good fit for this film. On the big screen, the sound and visuals work together to create a very sinister experience. You have to take into account, the BOOK wasn't filled with horror either. 95% of it was about Jack, Wendy and Danny seeing objects move and sounds that can't be explained. Kubrick didn't waste valuable film on the 30 days build up where Jack scares himself silly in the boiler room. He went straight to the chase.

reply

[–] eweland 7 years ago

Kubrick turned Jack into the explosive boiler, because it's much more fun to be chased around the hotel instead of constantly returning to the basement.

Kubrick turned a roque mallet into an axe because bloody daughters are scarier than merely tenderized ones.

Kubrick flushed most of the "loving Dad" crap down the loo, because no loving father actually forces his family to live in a snowy prison for months where they can't even communicate with him unless he chooses. Jack Torrance is most concerned about his ego and how people outside of his family view him. An outstanding sociopathic actor who can hide his craziness to the world, and often does. A talentless hack who doesn't deserve a wife, or a son. A dangerous alcoholic.

King made Jack into a martyr because King wanted sympathy for alcoholics like himself. You too would do everything to not appear attractive - to not have to be close to a monster. Wendy tried to appeal to Jack's good side that one evening. She should have left with Danny that very night.

Kubrick realized that making a hotel that is physically impossible was the key to this film. And exactly why the miniseries filmed at the "authentic" Stanley Hotel wasn't very scary at all. Being trapped in an environment of open spaces that become claustrophobic is the real terror. That's why if the miniseries DID somehow have the best makeup, actors, and effects and was shown on an unrated premium cable channel, it still could never compete with Kubrick's film because the hotel, the true star of the film, was completely wrong.
_

THE SHiNiNG

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rascal67 7 years ago

Whatever it was the Kubrick thought he "realized", he still didn't get it right, and in his massive egocentric mind, deludedly thought he had made a "masterpiece of modern horror", even going so far as to promote this self-endorsed critical label onto his own film even before it was released.

Perhaps no-one could make a decent film out of the novel and King is not always easy to adapt. I have seen by far, more superior, raw and visceral horror films than this over-hyped pretentious slog that Kubrick decided to give us and that includes other ghost stories prior to this. In fact, I would rather watch Peter Medak's THE CHANGELING-80' with George C. Scott from the same year. A more spontaneous, enjoyable, engrossing, chilling and atmospheric spookster, yet because Medak is not Kubrick, it won't get him "special" credit or endorsement.

Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪

reply

[–] rascal67 7 years ago

Kubrick already knew he wanted Duvall for the picture before casting got started. He spent most of his time working with her on her performance...He was hard on both actors.
_________________
I also question if Kubrick's control, manipulation and bullying of Duvall had put a black spot on her career throughout the rest of the 80's. I have a hunch that he scared her off, in spite of her comments which I feel are more projected at a pretense of being professional, rather than how she really might have felt:

[on working with Stanley Kubrick on The Shining (1980)] "For a person so charming and so likable - indeed lovable - he can do some pretty cruel things when you're filming. Because it seemed to me, at times, that the end justified the means. I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. Why? Because of Stanley, and it was a fascinating learning experience. But I wouldn't want to go through it again."

I feel we missed out on seeing more of this wonderful natural talent and all because of her experiences with Kubrick. If I do watch The Shining, it is because of Duvall's performance and getting to see her act in a lead part became a rare thing after the 80's.

I don't think Kubrick can do no wrong. I for one hate 2001 and think it is over indulgent 90% of the time. But he was a good fit for this film. On the big screen, the sound and visuals work together to create a very sinister experience.
_______________
I can understand how 2001 is not everyone's cup of tea; but considering when it was made, the film-making technological achievements and advancements it presented before us and the "absolute" intelligence that is evident from first frame to last is what makes it a keeper for me. I don't see what is indulgent about 2001, as opposed to the ones he directed that came after.

Kubrick didn't waste valuable film on the 30 days build up where Jack scares himself silly in the boiler room. He went straight to the chase.
_____________
What! Do you get the irony of your statement here? Kubrick wasted valuable money and time with take after take, by not getting "straight" to the chase and ending up with a mediocre product. He did over-indulge himself by controlling and manipulating everyone around him thinking he was going to make the best horror film ever. He failed for the most part.

Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪

reply

[–] frankievalloneiii 7 years ago

I also question if Kubrick's control, manipulation and bullying of Duvall had put a black spot on her career throughout the rest of the 80's. I have a hunch that he scared her off, in spite of her comments which I feel are more projected at a pretense of being professional, rather than how she really might have felt:

I feel we missed out on seeing more of this wonderful natural talent and all because of her experiences with Kubrick. If I do watch The Shining, it is because of Duvall's performance and getting to see her act in a lead part became a rare thing after the 80's.

She was in denial. Kubrick abused her to within an inch of her sanity. Now, look at her:

http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/shelley-duvall-is-unrecognizable-reveals-mental-illness-w450820

This is the long-term consequence of his abuse.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 7 years ago

"Kubrick abused her to withing an inch of her sanity".

Sounds intriguing. How exactly did he manage to do that? How did he go about it?

Don't forget to include all the sordid details.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] frankievalloneiii 7 years ago

Yes, facts are indeed stupid things. And being a Kubrick fanboy, I'm sure that you don't need me to spoonfeed you those facts.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 7 years ago

So you know nothing and you was just trolling. Caught me by surprise there.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sequentialist 7 years ago

Yeah I thought he was either miscast or miswritten.

He was more like the crazy guy in a comedy parody.

Not scary, a send up of what scary could be.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4053) 7 years ago

Considering how many of Kings novels and short stories have been turned into movies and how many of them were terrible I would think that he'd complain about a master making his story into his own.

reply