The Kubrick Thread

[MontiLee]

Specifically, The Shining.

I am not, nor have I ever been a fan of Stanley Kubrick (a hushed silence falls over the stunned audience, killing 8), and my biggest beef with the man has always been The Shining.

Most people hail that movie as the usher of modern horror, it's put near or at the top of Best Horror EVAH lists, and when you bring it up at horror cons, the fan bois start frothing at the mouth.

Why?

Even for it's time, it's poorly acted, barely directed and oh yes, we'll eventually discuss how he managed to not "interpret" the novel. It's rascist, misogynist and about half-way through it feels like he just gives up and lets Nicholson chew on the scenery until the credits roll. Even King hated it, and King manages to like most adaptations of his work. Yes, even The Mangler.

However, don't let my admin privileges or sharp shiny knives keep you from expressing your honest opinion.

I'd like to hear what other people think of the movie The Shining, pros and cons.

[thekarmasuitzya]

All right, I'll bite...and I KNOW you love it..
I loved Kubricks "Shining" As far as interpreting Kings novel, they could not have been further off the track. I decided to take the movie as a work that was slightly influenced by Kings wonderfully scary piece, which I still consider to be the pinnacle work of his career. As a movie, on it's own, it was scary. I still cover my eyes when the twins show up in the hallway. Yes, Shelley Duvall had all the appeal of a wet dish rag, and by the end I was rooting for Jack to stuff his tennis ball down her freakin throat, but one of the things I love about horror is it's ability to be incredibly awful, and horribly entertaining at the same time..that's how I made it through such classics as "Hell Gate" and "Castle Freak". For good horror, watch "Suspiria" or "Let the Right One In"...for a good laugh at yourself when you accidentally spill some of the popcorn you've been nom-ing on because they used the "cat jumps off the top of the fridge" trick and you fell for it again...well, come sit next to me..

[peggychristie]

I'm going to admit something here and I'll probably be stripped of my Horror Whore official badge. But I've never read The Shining. I own it but I just haven't read it yet. So I can't compare Kubrick's vision to the book or the remake that was on TV a few years ago (which I didn't watch, by the way, despite my love of Steven Webber).

So without the book and just judging the movie on its own, parts were frightening to me. The little girls, of course, the decrepid woman in the tub, Shelly Duvall's acting. I thought the child actor playing Danny was kinda creepy, and a bit annoying. I have to agree with ML, though, that halfway through it feels like Kubrick was just phoning it in. I was so confused with all the imagery I didn't know what was supposed to be real or stress-induced hallucinations. And it didn't seem like that far of a trip from Jack to go from 'normal' to crazy since he already looks half bat-sh*t anyway.

I enjoyed The Shining but don't know if I can consider it an all time best or favorite.

[awgifford]

I can't believe that Peggy C has never read The Shinning. It's like I don't even know you.

Anyway, I didn't like Kubrick's version of The Shinning. In fact, the only movie of his I did like, and I must admit I like it a lot, is Full Metal Jacket, though it does seem to fall apart once R. Lee Ermey dies.

Anyway, back to The Shinning. Kubrick's version strays too far from the book for my liking. I perfer the Mini-series version a whole lot better even with it's bad special effects and deformed kid (what's up with the kids mouth). I though the mini-series follows the book much better and didn't have an actor that looked already half crazy.

[MontiLee]

A word of warning to those who have never read it but have seen it: when you sit down to finally read it, pretend the movie never happened. There are so many deviations from the novel it's best to treat them as coincidences in the universe.

Kubrick basically took King's idea of a recovering alcoholic driven mad by the formerly dead cell of the Overlook (an idea he borrowed from the Shirley Jackson's Legend of Hell House or is it House on Haunted Hill? *too lazy to Google*) and turned it into a overlong movie about some free-range nutjob wandering a carnival of conveniently placed horrors.

Kubrick's Jack is never sympathetic. Not once do you believe Jack was ever a caring man and Wendy holds a cigarette like she's never seen one actually used. The Torrence family presents itself as a study in abuse, neglect and potential homicide.

The books has a very deep subplot featuring Dick Hallorann (he makes an appearance in IT, doncha know) in near constant contact with Wendy and Danny, and the efforts he takes to save their lives. Whether Kubrick had a problem with a Black man saving the day, or had a bigger problem with the possibility of Wendy and Dick, or a huge problem with Wendy's balls finally dropping, the whole character is played with sleezy yet disconnected glee. The only time he's shown at home, it's in some wood-paneled den decorated in Early 80's Blaxploitation Smut - granted, Crothers did his share of those films in the late 70's, but there are nods to previous work and then there are sneers. He also becomes the only character actually murdered in the film (that wasn’t dead when the movie started).

There are other changes too – like the reason Jack is there in the first place (“you must remember what your father forgot”, says Tony to Danny and it’s pivotal – critical to the story, but not to Kubrick). It's not a maze, it's a topiary garden and the reason it exists makes a hell of a lot more sense than a chase scene in a soundstage.

Modern analysis of the film always bring up some “reason” for Kubrick’s heavy sprinkling of racism and misogyny. The most popular theory is he was trying to portray America as Imperialist (which is funny coming from a Brit), cutting down the colored minorities, something something. Examples of this are the blood in the elevator scene (no simply a scene of scares but a commentary of the silent scream of the Native Americans upon whose burial land the Overlook now stands (I wish I were kidding), and the placement of Calumut baking powder in profile matching the pose Hallorann strikes as he shows Wendy the kitchen. There are people that spend lots of time making these connections and I feel sorry for them. What the hell that has to do with the novel and (if it’s true) why the hell Kubrick felt the needs to piss all over someone else’s work is beyond me.

The most telling anecdote I've ever heard comes from King himself. As the movie was in pre-production and Kubrick was writing the script, he made many calls to King, clarifying some points, arguing others. In one late night phone call, Kubrick asked King, “Do you believe in God?” King of course is a devout Methodist and he answered in the affirmative. Kubrick then said, “I don’t” and he hung up.

When I watch the movie, I feel as if it is indeed Stephen King’s novel “The Shining” being retold by someone who can’t grasp that there is an afterlife, whether positive or negative. Kubrick couldn’t suspend his own disbelief which was broadcast loud and clear of 142 of the longest minutes of my life.

No wait – I did see “Eyes Wide Shut”…

[micah]

Wow, seriously? Wherever did you read those analyses MontiLee? It sounds like someone has access to a bunch of theses written my film students in the MA program. Eesh.

There are some creepy moments, yes. The film does leave out a lot of important contextual information. I think the two major problems have already been discussed: the watering down of Hallorran and Wendy to almost nothing as far as characters are concerned and the fact that if you want to portray the subtle slide into insanity, you probably shouldn't cast someone who looks like he left the zip code for Sanseville three bus stops ago.

HOWEVER, without Kubrick's version of The Shinning we wouldn't have had Treehouse of Horror V -- the best Simpsons Halloween special EVAH!

"No TV and No Beer make Homer something, something."

"Go crazy?"

"Don't mind if I do!"

They even address many of the topics MontiLee brought up in her second set of comments. "Don't be reading my mind between three and four. That's Willie's time!" implying that there's a reason Hallorran's shack looks like a porn set.

And, of course, Groundskeeper Willie gets axed in the back THREE TIMES in that special. The first time Marge says "Gee, I hope that rug is Scotchguarded" (a joke which I just got last year despite having seen the episode about a jillion times). The second time we have Maggie (voiced by James Earl Jones) "This is indeed a disturbing universe." The third time seems a direct response to Kubrick.

"Don't worry kids, I'm coming to rescue the lot of you!"

Axe to the spine.

"Ach, I'm bad at this."

Plop.

Ahem. Sorry. I digress.

So, in summation. Movie version--meh. Book, amazing, read it if you haven't.

Oh, side note: The Shinning is to The Haunting of Hill House (Shirley Jackon) as Firestarter is to The Fury by John Farris. At least Steve's borrowing from the best.

The Haunting is an adaptation of Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House.

The Legend of Hell House is an adaptation of Richard Matheson's Hell House.

The House on Haunted Hill has elements from both.

My OCD has been appeased.

[tomsawyer1016]

I'm sorry but I have to strongly agree with both Montilee and Adam. I think Kubrick's movie, while there are a few gems (such as the part where All work and no play make Jack a dull boy and the two girls who justlook creepy) the rest is basically crap. I think the movie out and out sucks. Now I enjoyed Kubrick's other works such as Paths of Glory, Spartacus, etc. This is a dismal failure. First off about a third of the way through he deviates from the story. Instead of seeing Tony, he has the kid talking to his finger. Just imagine what would be said if he used his middle one. He took one of the best haunted house/ ghost stories ever written and changed it. My biggest beef is this came after Nicholson was in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. He already seemed nuts before he was supposed to eventually go mad. How can you kill off the guy that helps save them, when he is important to the story?Kubrick left out so much of the story. To me it is the movie equivalent of having a name and putting out crap and because you have a name and a reputation it is considered genius regardless and without analysis.

The mini-series stays closer to the book. The dad was much more sympathetic and the family unit was much better You also had the shrubs and the miniature model of the Overlook add to the creepy atmosphere. The wife was more believeable and both parents looked more like the age of the parents in the book. Sorry, but Mad Jack and Olive Oyl looked too old to have a kid that age. Hell even Scatman seemed out of place for the part. I prefer Van Peebles in the role.

No matter how you slice it Kubrick did a major diservice to one of King's best books. I think because so many people view Kubrick as a genius he gets a pass on this and all his work is viewed at great because of it. Even geniuses fail now and then. And he did miserably on this.

You want to see a cinematic version of the book, get the mini-series. Youwon't be sorry.