MovieChat Forums > The Shining (1980) Discussion > Jack Nicholson: Yes or No?

Jack Nicholson: Yes or No?

posted 5 years ago by Otter (24464)
28 replies | jump to latest

Here and elsewhere, I've heard people say that Nicholson was miscast, that he's so creepy that there's no surprise when he turns murderous. They say that the movie would be scarier if a nice guy were corrupted by the Forces Of Evil. But *I* say that if Jack isnt creepy and it isn't obviously a terrible idea for this dysfunctional to be snowbound and isolated for months, then the first act is totally boring!

Seriously, the reason the film is scary is that everyone has an Inner Child inside, whose greatest fear is the parent turning against the child. A father who is creepy to begin with and who is easily corrupted is much scarier than a father who resists the evil ones.

[–] Interlepos (1783) 4 years ago

>>Here and elsewhere, I've heard people say that Nicholson was miscast

If anybody seriously thinks that Jack Nicholson was miscast in The Shining they are lacking something on the top floor. Somebody messed with their fusebox. It's as simple as that.

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

How times have changed. When the movie first came out critics and audiences weren't very positive about the movie and Nicholson's performance.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6911) 4 years ago

For the intention by the film maker, which I believe was to disturb the viewer, I think Nicholson was cast well. However, I can't say I enjoyed his performance. I didn't find it very layered and so there wasn't much to enjoy except the one-note of Nicholson being crazy. It didn't even really seem like a descent into madness, imo.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I love this movie and I love the novel but it's fair to say that Nicholson and Kubrick are not true to the character that King wrote in any way. I agree completely that the character isn't layered at all. The book portrays a complex alcoholic who you actually root for whereas Nicholson never seems to quite be all there.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6911) 4 years ago

Thing is, I'm not a purist. I'm fine with a film's divergence from a book; often, it's necessary. I'm just not invested in the path this particular film chose to take, especially with the supposed descent of the main character into madness and all the responses to that descent. It just doesn't work for me.