I get why King disliked the film: the book was very personal to him, as he put a lot of his own struggle with alcoholism in it. I also understand why he was upset that Jack has no character arc, as he did in the book. But King is a novelist, and Kubrick was a film maker -- one of the best of all time to boot -- and I think King simply has far less understanding of what really works in a film than Kubrick did. In a 2hr movie, there's a lot less time to make a character arc work. The Star Wars OT needed 3 movies to do it properly for Han and Luke both.
Kubrick also had vastly superior understanding of how to build a sense of dread, isolation, and creepiness. Take just 1 example: the Overlook ballroom. In the film, there's a scene with just Jack and Lloyd, in an empty ballroom, and later, a scene with a ghostly ball in progress. Even there, the only characters seen in closeup, or with spoken dialogue, are Jack, Lloyd, and Grady. Every other person is just background. It works far better to create the spectral atmosphere that they're ghosts who aren't really there. The reverb added to the music gives it a ghostly quality.
In the miniseries, there's more dialogue, Jack engages with more characters, there are closeups of different ghosts (including King as a bandleader), the music is far less haunting, etc.
Kubrick really knew how to create an atmosphere, how to compose scenes, how to pace movies, etc. His movie is just better as film entertainment. If you're really a fan of the novel, I can see why you might be disappointed with it. If you can appreciate on its own, it's easy to see why a more faithful adaptation from the book can't compete with it as film entertainment.
reply
share