MovieChat Forums > The Shining (1997) Discussion > I Like the Kubrick Film, But...

I Like the Kubrick Film, But...


It really wasn't THE SHINING. He used the title and setting and pretty much chucked out everything to do his own thing. The characters have the same names, but they are not the same characters from the novel or miniseries. And the fate of two of the characters (Jack and Halloran) are different.

Any fan of the novel can enjoy the Kubrick version, but none with a straight face will call it superior to the miniseries. And I chuckle over everyone praising how great a job Jack Nicholson did in the film; he was so over the top, cold, distant and ready to go mad at the drop of a hat. Now, a lot of this can be blamed on Kubrick, who shot many takes (as he was infamous for doing) and he used the over the top takes Nicholson gave him instead of the more tempered ones. In contrast, Steven Webber was a loving father and his decent into madness takes quite a while in the miniseries.

Danny Lloyd was so bad in the film that there is no real comparison. I see people saying "he was creepier", but the kid character was not supposed to be creepy, so this is pretty much nonsensical. Rebecca De Mornay was a far better Wendy than Shelly Duvall, who was nothing like the character from the novel. Scatman Crothers was OK, but his role was limited and Van Peebles did a much better job, although he was given more to work with.

There is so little of the novel in Kubrick's version. Kubrick is a master filmmaker, but there is a coldness to his films that THE SHINING needs to make us care about the characters....otherwise, you are just waiting for Jack to go over the edge and pick up the axe.

And the Kubrick film isn't all that scary. The twin girls' ghosts was and remains the best image from the film. I did not find the lady in the tub to be as near as effective as in the miniseries, whose main flaw is that it was directed by Mick Garris. Garris is a mediocre director and, I feel, the miniseries would have been even better if someone with more visual flair had been brought in.

Regardless, I own a copy of both and watch both from time to time, but for all his technical brilliance, Kubrick simply did not make THE SHINING.

reply

Any fan of the novel can enjoy the Kubrick version, but none with a straight face will call it superior to the miniseries.


I'm a fan of the novel and I'll say it with a face straighter than Charlton Heston: the Kubrick version is superior. Has nothing to do with fidelity to the novel. It's simply a better piece of work.

In contrast, Steven Webber was a loving father and his decent into madness takes quite a while in the miniseries.


Sure Steven Webber goes through more of a process to become crazy Jack. That I can agree with. But his crazy Jack is about as frightening as Kermit the Frog.

Danny Lloyd was so bad in the film that there is no real comparison.


Well you're right about there being no comparison. Courtland Mead was insanely awful as Danny. Easily the worst part of the mini-series. I mean I know he was just a kid, but good Lord. It boggles my mind how anybody could prefer him, but different strokes I guess.

reply

I'm a fan of the novel and I'll say it with a face straighter than Charlton Heston: the Kubrick version is superior. Has nothing to do with fidelity to the novel. It's simply a better piece of work.


^ This.

The Kubrick film IS far superior, in every way.

reply

It's simply a better piece of work.
Perhaps - but it's also simply not the same story as the book. Kubrick didn't take "liberties" with King's novel, he trashed it.

reply

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not the same story. It's obviously way different, but if Kubrick changed the title and the character names and claimed it was his own story it seems to me there would still be plenty enough similarities to kick off a lawsuit from Stephen King.

My point though is that fidelity isn't the same thing as quality. Not in my book anyway. For me the higher quality movie is the superior adaptation, regardless of how faithful it is. Such is the case with The Shining.

reply

I disagree. Kubrick got the antagonist right because his antagonist, as in the book, isn't Jack. It's the Overlook. You can watch that movie with the sound and captions off (and all the classically scary bits cut out) and still know that it's the hotel that's responsible for Jack's decent into murderous insanity. It's a terrifying character in it's own right. No dialog needed.

reply

Honestly, I can't disagree with anything in these posts, especially the fact that Danny in the miniseries is absolutely God awful. Where the hell is Haley Joel Osment when ya need him? As a big fan of the book, the mini followed much more closely which was cool to see, although the rewatch value is terrible. Kubrick made a great movie in 1980, but it had very little to do with the book. Jack Nicholson is Jack Nicholson. So he had that going for him...

reply

I'll give the mini-series the edge for one aspect: it did not contain the teeth-gnashing obnoxiousness that was Shelley Duvall. In casting her, Kubrick took the three dimensional character that was Wendy Torrence in the book and replaced her with one of the most useless annoying cartoon characters in cinema history. In the movie, I was ROOTING for Jack to kill her.

While watching Jack chasing around Duvall's Wendy in the film, all I could think of is Bluto chasing Olive Oyl. I doubt that was the effect Kubrick was looking for.

"Strength and Muscle and Jungle Work "

reply

Or maybe that was EXACTLY what Kubrick was going for...a basic "on the obvious level" cartoon about an intentionally annoying character that the entire audience wants to see killed off.

"I cannot wait until Jack kills her. She's so obnoxious. I'd kill her, too. But then he'll kill Danny next..."

Kubrick wants the film to disturb you. And to continue disturbing you.

The movie plays with you; you're simply waiting for Jack to kill someone in his family. Not Dick Hallorann. And Kubrick realized that something was needed to limit Jack FROM simply chasing down, and killing Danny.

A maze.
Now there's even more dread brought to the story than King could have ever imagined: Will Jack actually catch up with his son in the hedge maze, and turn him into ketchup - with an axe? Like Grady did, to his daughters?

"I'm comin' Dannnny!"

-

The Kubrick film IS far superior, in every way.

reply

LOL...or...maybe he wasn't.

reply