The Shining - Let's Discuss! *SPOILERS*

[Odetta]

One of my favortie reads was The Shining! I was less of a fan of the movie versions... they were fine in their own rights, but didn't match up to the book.


Comments?

[CyberGhostface]

The Shining's up there in my Top Ten favorite Stephen King books. Jack Torrance is also one my favorite SK characters.

I dislike both adaptations, though. Kubrick's pissed me off and King's just embarrassed me.

[TerribleT]

The Shining was the first Steven King book I ever read. My highschool girlfriend got me into it. The rest is kinda history.

[CPU]

The Shining is the only Stephen King novel that I've actually found frightening. It's just do damn creepy (imo).

I like the Kubrick movie version mainly because I thought it captured the isolation of the Overlook Hotel as well Torrance's growing madness.

[Daghain]

The Shining was my first King book as well. I read it when I was thirteen and it scared the crap out of me. :lol:

I liked the Kubrik version, but King's didn't do a thing for me. It was fun to watch for the scenery - I live about 45 minutes from the Stanley and was cracking up at how they did some of the camera angles to hide what was really there - if you only knew that a giant parking lot was behind those actors on some of those mountain view shots. :lol:

[TerribleT]

It was fun to watch for the scenery - I live about 45 minutes from the Stanley and was cracking up at how they did some of the camera angles to hide what was really there - if you only knew that a giant parking lot was behind those actors on some of those mountain view shots. :lol:

No shit, huh?

[Randall Flagg]

The Shining was my first King novel also. I read it circa 1978.

Here is some information I've gathered:

The Shining

The Shining was published in 1977 by Doubleday with an issue price of $8.95.” First Edition” stated on the Copyright page, on page 447 is the gutter code R49
Current price for a F/F 1st edition (IMHO): $400-$500.
To date the book has sold over 4 million copies.


The following is loosely plagiarized from Stephen King: The Art of Darkness.

After completing the manuscript for ‘Salem’s Lot, King wrote the novella “The Body” (later published in Different Seasons). He and his family moved to Colorado in the late summer of 1974 for an extended vacation. He began to write a novel loosely based on the Patricia Hearst kidnapping., tentatively titled The House on Value Street, and destined ultimately to become The Stand. The book was not progressing well and one night in the early fall the setting for The Shining presented itself:



QUOTE
In late September of 1974 Tabby and I spent a night at a grand old Hotel in Estes Park, The Stanley. We were the only guests as the following day the place closed for the winter. Wandering through its corridors, I thought that it seemed to be the perfect-maybe the archetypical –setting for a ghost story.



From wikipedia The Shining novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_(novel)):
•Originally there was a prologue titled "Before the Play" that chronicled earlier events in the Overlook's nightmarish history and a disturbing interlude in which a young Jack Torrance is abused and has his arm broken by his alcoholic father, while a voice tells him that "what you see is what you'll be". It was removed from the finished manuscript, although it was later published in the magazines Whisper and TV Guide (the latter to promote King's new miniseries adaptation of the novel).

[Mattrick]

Shining was great. Loved aspects of the Kubrick version more (axe instead of mallet, maze ending) but both were great. The book explained more of the history and the hotel as a living entity and a gateway than just an evil place.

[Odetta]

I kind of found the book to be more of a mystery... learning the history of the hotel. That was missing in the movies.

[Daghain]

If I can EVER find my Stanley Hotel pics...I'll scan and post here. You'll love them!

[Odetta]

CAN'T WAIT!

[jayson]

Shining was great. Loved aspects of the Kubrick version more (axe instead of mallet, maze ending) but both were great.

In college I took a class on adapting existing works for the screen, and the professor used Kubrick's Shining as an example of how to take the crucial elements of a pre-existing work and still make it your own. I love both versions.

[Mattrick]

Those are the best kind of remakes. I've heard 'The Thing' and 'The Fly' vary greatly from the original but I've yet to see them. All the remakes nowadays (if I've seen the original) are close to shot for shot remakes. I'd love to see a remake of Nightmare on Elm Street, done right...unlike Halloween.

[Childe 007]

The Shining is also one of my fave King books... but you bring up the movies and I have not seen the King written TNT one...

I went to see the original with Nicholson way back when it first came out and I had read the book before I went. That was my lesson in why you don't do that. I went to that movie expecting to see what I had in my mind while reading the book on screen - and that - to say the least didn't happen. So for many many years I would not go see a movie based on a book I had read.

I can watch the original now and appreciate it (somewhat) - though Shelly Duval ruined it for me - then and now; Kubrick missed the essence of the story by not revisiting the hotel's past- that was one the best parts of the book to me - and the hedge animals - I remeber sitting in that movie theater - waiting to see those hedge animals go after Jack, Danny, Halloran - yep that was my biggest disappointment - I really wanted to see those hedge animals come to life on the Silver Screen.

[Daghain]

Well, I went into the way-back machine, and I don't have as many Stanley pics as I thought I did. But I did find these two. I'm guessing these are circa 1995 because I'm pretty sure that dashboard you see is from our old pickup truck. :lol:

I guess I'll have to drive my lazy ass up there and take a few in the snow. :D

http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/542/medium/Stanley01.jpg

http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/542/medium/Stanley02.jpg

[Odetta]

The Shining is also one of my fave King books... but you bring up the movies and I have not seen the King written TNT one...

I went to see the original with Nicholson way back when it first came out and I had read the book before I went. That was my lesson in why you don't do that. I went to that movie expecting to see what I had in my mind while reading the book on screen - and that - to say the least didn't happen. So for many many years I would not go see a movie based on a book I had read.

I can watch the original now and appreciate it (somewhat) - though Shelly Duval ruined it for me - then and now; Kubrick missed the essence of the story by not revisiting the hotel's past- that was one the best parts of the book to me - and the hedge animals - I remeber sitting in that movie theater - waiting to see those hedge animals go after Jack, Danny, Halloran - yep that was my biggest disappointment - I really wanted to see those hedge animals come to life on the Silver Screen.

you should watch the other version then.... it has the animals in it. I personally, don't know if the animals worked for me, but they're there!

[CPU]

Well, I went into the way-back machine, and I don't have as many Stanley pics as I thought I did. But I did find these two. I'm guessing these are circa 1995 because I'm pretty sure that dashboard you see is from our old pickup truck. :lol:

I guess I'll have to drive my lazy ass up there and take a few in the snow. :D

http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/542/medium/Stanley01.jpg

http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/542/medium/Stanley02.jpg

That's really cool, thanks for posting those!

[Daghain]

You're welcome. Somewhere I had pics of the staircase on the inside, but I can't find them. Hmmm.

[Mattrick]

I can watch the original now and appreciate it (somewhat) - though Shelly Duval ruined it for me - then and now; Kubrick missed the essence of the story by not revisiting the hotel's past- that was one the best parts of the book to me - and the hedge animals - I remeber sitting in that movie theater - waiting to see those hedge animals go after Jack, Danny, Halloran - yep that was my biggest disappointment - I really wanted to see those hedge animals come to life on the Silver Screen.

I felt that Kubrick captured the essence of the story perfectly. The essence of The Shining was never the history of the hotel but the cabin fever and the denial of who you live with fading away. I never feld any of King's work was about anything except it's character(s). Each member of the family has to hide who they really are to co-exists and all it took as one of them to let a mask slide before everything went to hell.

[sarah]

I justed finished this book last night for the first time. The parts that freaked me out the most were the hedge animals slowly moving and changing their positions. *shiver*


I saw the movie version of the shining when I was a kid and it totally freaked me out. I'd seen the movie several times and so I didn't have a real hurry to read the book. I do not like seeing a movie before the book. It ruins it for me. Anyhoo, the shining the movie and the shining the book are very very different. I really loved the book :)

[Odetta]

I just finished watching the SK miniseries version.
One thing I did like about that version is the Jack Torrence character... in the miniseries, you have more sympathy for him. Also, I like how the hotel WANTS Danny and Jack wants the hotel to WANT him instead... a point very true to the book but not in the Kubrick version.

(don't get me wrong, Nicholson as Jack was creepy and scary... but his version of Jack is not really the same as the book's explanation of the character)

[Wuducynn]

The miniseries kicks the Kubrick's version's ass from here to next Wednesday. Kubrick's version hinges entirely on Jack Nicholson's personality and not on the story.

[Daghain]

Well, if you lived in Colorado you'd be spending too much time LMAO at the shots than paying attention to the movie.

Just sayin'. :D

And, I did not care for the miniseries. At all. I agree it was closer to the book, but I liked Kubrik's take better.

Just my 2 cents. :D

[MonteGss]

I think the miniseries was better overall but I do like Kubrik's version because I thought it was scarier.

[Wuducynn]

Just my 2 cents. :D

Fuck your 2 cents and fuck you too. Just my quarter dollar.

[Daghain]

Bite me, old man. :D

[jayson]

And, I did not care for the miniseries. At all. I agree it was closer to the book, but I liked Kubrik's take better.


Agreed. Kurbick was looking beyond a strict interpretation of the book and made something part his own and part King out of it. The miniseries just visualized King's work [which is not bad but not as interesting in this case]. Some of his stories demand more by-the-book screen versions, some seem to provide basis for improvisation. Shining works better as the latter I think.

[Heather19]

I agree. I love the Kubrick version. That movie still freaks me out, even though I've seen it a million times.

[cozener]

I thought Kubrick's movie was scarier than the book itself. But there was one part of the book that really did get my heart beating...the part were Danny was playing outside and his parents were asleep inside...where he was almost snagged in the playground. Freaked me right the fuck out. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Go straight to Freakville.

[sarah]

oh both the parts where jack and later danny were "chased" by the animal cut outs freaked me the fricky frick out!

[Odetta]

The music in The movie is riveting

[Jean]

I thought Kubrick's movie was scarier than the book itself. But there was one part of the book that really did get my heart beating...the part were Danny was playing outside and his parents were asleep inside...where he was almost snagged in the playground. Freaked me right the fuck out. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Go straight to Freakville.
that was the scariest for me, too (the beckoning white hand)

[John_and_Yoko]

I saw the Kubrick film before I read the book--in fact, that's why I did read the book at all. My first encounter with Stephen King was Thinner, and I didn't understand or appreciate it (book OR movie), so that kind of turned me off to the King for awhile, sorry to say (part of it may have been that I was too young at the time, not old enough to have the patience for a whole horror novel, especially one with an adult perspective).

Anyway, so unfortunately I was thinking of the actors in the film when I read the book and noted some of the differences right away.

But I did find some genuine scare factors in the book--like with the hose and the topiary animals. Those really brought me back to my own childhood with its concurrent fears. I used to visualize giant ferocious black dogs coming from either side of the hallway in my room when I had to go down it, which scared me....

Anyway, that's why I dislike the fact that they became over-the-top, corny CGI effects in the miniseries, when I saw that. The closest thing to a genuine scare factor that I saw in the miniseries (and this was only a shocker, which has been done to death) was when Danny leaves room 217 and thinks he's safe--and then the lady in the bathtub grabs him.

I think true horror, horror that stays with you, that is lasting, doesn't come from shocks like that. It comes from something more disquieting about the atmosphere and characters, or something psychological, within the characters--like Jack's slow descent into madness. I often wonder how things like that even happen, much less be portrayed in fiction, and I've tried to make some use of that kind of thing myself (don't know to what degree I succeed).

But that's why, for my money, Stanley Kubrick's film is a better adaptation, even if it's less faithful to the novel (and even though it lacks the aforementioned scenes). Heck, there are some things unique to the miniseries, that still aren't in the novel, which makes it harder to accept it as a legitimate "faithful adaptation," the title "Stephen King's The Shining" notwithstanding.

That doesn't mean I like the Kubrick film better than the original Stephen King novel, mind. I don't like to make those kinds of comparisons. The book and the movie are two separate media, and each has its own merits. In the book I liked the fact that you get more of the history of everything--Jack Torrance's history, and the history of the Overlook Hotel--which helps explain things better, especially in terms of motivation. But I kind of liked Kubrick's ending better, even if it didn't explain much (and what's wrong with making audiences THINK, I would like to know???)--it was a stroke of genius, I think, to kill off Dick Halloran rather than have him save Wendy and Danny as in the book (who WASN'T expecting him to do that, even if they HADN'T read the book? I mean, REALLY?), and plus the whole deal with "remembering what was forgotten" didn't quite sit right with me either.

I forgive Stephen King, though--it was only his third novel, and anyway, he said himself he was raising the bar with it, vis-a-vis his first two, so that's certainly a good thing. And at any rate, I forget if he said it himself, but I read that Jack Torrance was based on himself at that time. So there's something very personal there, which of course is not in the Kubrick adaptation. In fact, Kubrick doesn't show much of what's written in the book at all--like Jack's nightmare, or what Danny encounters in the Room, etc.

Yes, it's kind of obvious in the film that Jack Nicholson is going to go crazy, but if you're familiar with Kubrick's other films (and he really made it a Kubrick film rather than a King adaptation as such), it makes sense. You start out with characters that appear more or less civilized, but this belies a brutal savagery that is slowly revealed as the layers are peeled away during the course of the film. But clues exist right from the start, so that it's consistent, and makes sense. That's Kubrick's point with his films. So I can forgive him for "overlooking" that more personal element to Jack Torrance that Stephen King wrote for him--Kubrick's films aren't really about character, or even plot as such, they're more about theme.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but basically that's my assessment on The Shining--great book, great movie, poor miniseries. Feel free to disagree.

[Odetta]

I think the one thing about Jack Torrence in miniseries vs. Kubrick's version is that in Kubrick's version, you have no sympathy for the character. Kubrick/Jack Nicholson makes him evil essentially from the beginning. In the miniseries, you have sympathy for Jack, which is true to the book... I did like that better.

[CyberGhostface]

I didn't like either of them. I suppose Kubrick's film is better, but its not exactly hard to beat out "Kissin', kissin' that's what I've been missing." The mini was just too Disneyfied for me.

I really disliked Kubrick's film though, particularly with how they bastardized the characters of Jack and Wendy. Halloran was decent, and I don't remember much of Danny besides the annoying "Tony" voice.

They should have Frank Darabont redirect The Shining. He'd probably do it justice.

[John_and_Yoko]

They should have Frank Darabont redirect The Shining. He'd probably do it justice.

Possibly, but I doubt he ever will. Even if he did, he'd have to work double time to put Kubrick's rendition out of people's minds, faithful or not.

[Randall Flagg]

Just for giggles:
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7750/heresjohhnyhy6.gif

[Jean]

sorry for being obtuse, but we bears are entitled to

can someone please explain it to me:

[Dr.Edmonds] "...And of course you two must understand why Danny's invisible friend is named Tony instead of Mike or Hal or Dutch."
"Yes," Wendy said.
"Have you ever pointed it out to him?"
"No," Jack said. "Should we?"
"Why bother? Let him realize it in his own time, by his own logic".

well, I still have no idea why Danny's invisible friend is named Tony instead of Mike or Hal or Dutch...

[Woofer]

I think the one thing about Jack Torrence in miniseries vs. Kubrick's version is that in Kubrick's version, you have no sympathy for the character. Kubrick/Jack Nicholson makes him evil essentially from the beginning. In the miniseries, you have sympathy for Jack, which is true to the book... I did like that better.

Agreed 100%. That bugged the crap out of me in Kubrick's movie. It's a great movie, but it is not Stephen King's The Shining.


sorry for being obtuse, but we bears are entitled to

can someone please explain it to me:

[Dr.Edmonds] "...And of course you two must understand why Danny's invisible friend is named Tony instead of Mike or Hal or Dutch."
"Yes," Wendy said.
"Have you ever pointed it out to him?"
"No," Jack said. "Should we?"
"Why bother? Let him realize it in his own time, by his own logic".

well, I still have no idea why Danny's invisible friend is named Tony instead of Mike or Hal or Dutch...

Tony (or Anhony) is Danny's middle name.

[Jean]

and that's it?!

[Woofer]

Yeah, only the doctor didn't realize the significance: that it was the shine in Danny manifesting through another aspect or personality of himself.

[Woofer]

It's definitely worth watching. I think Steven Webber did a better job than Nicholson at portraying King's character. Nicholson was batshit crazy from the get-go, which was not the case with Jack Torrance in the book. We see the progression more in Webber's interpretation.

[Girlystevedave]

I'm reading The Shining for the first time...about 180 pages into and I'm loving it so far. I can feel that Jack is starting to slowly unravel right now and I'm interested to see the progression. (I've seen the movie before, but have heard that the book is 100 times better, so I'm trying to forget all that I knew before.)
I'm also really enjoying getting all the little details behind Danny's 'shining' ability and all.

[The Lady of Shadows]

love this book. really love it. and it absolutely terrified me in a way that few books ever have. the entire descent into madness that jack takes is so compellingly real. even though you see, through his encounters with others while he is drinking, that he has the potential for madness in him you still wonder if he can escape. if he can defeat the demon of his own mind. because it is his own mind playing on him, not just the hotel.

those topiary animals were over the top for me. i had real, horrible nightmares about them. still do sometimes. they get all tangled up in my own stuff and it's not pretty.

and those twins in the movie. oh man - come play with us danny. wow.

[Odetta]

I'm reading The Shining for the first time...about 180 pages into and I'm loving it so far. I can feel that Jack is starting to slowly unravel right now and I'm interested to see the progression. (I've seen the movie before, but have heard that the book is 100 times better, so I'm trying to forget all that I knew before.)
I'm also really enjoying getting all the little details behind Danny's 'shining' ability and all.

keep posting as you go, let us know what you think!

[Girlystevedave]

Well, Jack has sabotaged their chances of using the snowmobile to get off the mountain. :arg:
I just read the part a minute ago where the 'animal hedges' were moving toward Danny when he was playing outside. It takes a lot to really creep me out with a book, but I have to say: this one is getting to me. (Which I find really surprising since I've seen the movie :orely:)
So far, I think the scariest thing is the slow unraveling of Jack's mind. Seeing the progression is so bizarre and real. It's crazy how you almost sympathize with him at first...In the sense that he's just trying to keep this job for his family. But then, when he knows that something is in room 217 and flat out lies about it! It's like: "Oh shit." Here it comes. Oh, and the part with him dreaming about beaing the guy with the mallet, and then waking up standing over Danny. **shudders

[Odetta]

I find that the book is more sympathetic of Jack's situation than the Kubrick version was.
One thing I really liked about the book was the history of the Hotel was explained in a fair amount of detail... kind of unravelled like a mystery.

[Girlystevedave]

You're right...I'm enjoying that part of it too.

[Jean]

when I recently re-read it I was surprized at what a stupid bitch Jack's wife was. No wonder he drank.

[Brice]

:lol: Damn, Jean!

Anyhow, for more history of The Overlook find a short story called Before The Play. It was published in TV guide when the miniseries remake was released and was previously released in a somewhat longer version in Whispers Magazine. There also was once an ending section titled After The Play, but it vanished somewhere. :(

[Girlystevedave]

Okay..I finished The Shining last night. Very very good. I have to say, I think the creepiest parts of that book were when the hotel would 'speak' to people. Like when Danny was trying to figure out what jack was up to, then all of a sudden: "GET OUT OF HIS HEAD!"
F*cking creepy! :scared:
It was kind of sad at the end though. When Danny stood there and looked jack in the face and said "You're not my daddy anymore" and Jack finally came around for a split second. It's like I really hoped he had come to his senses, but it was too late by then. I almost teared up when Jack sad: "Run Danny. And remember how much I love you."
That poor kid. :(
I said it already, but I'll say it again...considering how many times I have seen that movie in my life, I am totally surprised that I enjoyed the book as much as I did, and that it scared me as much as it did (that's not an easy thing to do)
:)

[Brice]

Okay..I finished The Stand last night. Very very good. I have to say, I think the creepiest parts of that book were when the hotel would 'speak' to people. Like when Danny was trying to figure out what jack was up to, then all of a sudden: "GET OUT OF HIS HEAD!"
F*cking creepy! :scared:
It was kind of sad at the end though. When Danny stood there and looked jack in the face and said "You're not my daddy anymore" and Jack finally came around for a split second. It's like I really hoped he had come to his senses, but it was too late by then. I almost teared up when Jack sad: "Run Danny. And remember how much I love you."
That poor kid. :(
I said it already, but I'll say it again...considering how many times I have seen that movie in my life, I am totally surprised that I enjoyed the book as much as I did, and that it scared me as much as it did (that's not an easy thing to do)
:)

If you finished The Stand last night why is your whole post in reference to The Shining? :P

[Girlystevedave]

haha...Man I'm an idiot. :lol:

[Brice]

Nah, I just started reading it and was wondering why you were talking about a hotel in The Stand. :lol:

[The Lady of Shadows]

when I recently re-read it I was surprized at what a stupid bitch Jack's wife was. No wonder he drank.


jean. dayum. :lol:

tell us how you really felt about her man. :)

[Elle216]

I first saw the movie and just last week finished reading the book and the book is a million times better (surprise, surprise), the movie shows a very cold Jack and so it is almost expected that he would uh go nuts, the book on the other hand showed a guy trying to do his best, the only problem is that his best is just never good enough.

[Odetta]

I agree Elle! The book gives so much more dimension to the character.
Are you referring to the Kubrick version or the miniseries version? Because I think the miniseries version made Jack's character a little more like the book.

[sarah]

Like you Elle, I saw the movie many times before I read the book. It took me a long time to finally read The Shining but the book was waaaaaay better than the movie, imo. Jack's character in the movie is not nearly as scary as the book. *shiver* the lawn animals were the worst.

[Elle216]

Kubrick, I never saw the miniseries, when was it made?

[sarah]

I haven't seen the mini series one either but I'm pretty sure it is only a few years old. They showed it on TNT I think...Hold up and I'll check.


...and by a couple of years I mean 11. :lol: Here's the wiki link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_%28TV_miniseries%29)

[Elle216]

Maerlyn,

The whole talking to dead people was the worse for me *shudders*

[Heather19]

Maybe it's just because I had seen the movie numerous times before I read the book, but I still love the Kubrick film. It's one of my all-time favorite horror films. I also really enjoyed the book, but in a different way. I did like how it added more depth to Jack's character, and we got a lot more history on the hotel.
I've only seen the miniseries once when it first came out, but I just remember not really caring for it much. Maybe I should go back and watch it again.

[John_and_Yoko]

I love both the novel and the movie--in fact (this is just me), but I'm glad I enjoy both, as it means I can compare and contrast the two with each other. I consider The Shining to be a prime example of how a great movie can be made based on a great book without worrying about being faithful to the book.

What I'd really like to see (and I fear I may have to write it myself if I ever got the time and had the patience for it) is a detailed, lengthy review of both the book on its own terms and the movie on its own terms, and then comparing and contrasting the two not only in facts but in terms of relative merits vs. flaws. Such an essay could even bring in other works by both artists for purposes of comparison.

Seriously, the closest I usually find to this is reviews of the movie that simply compare/contrast it with the book, but the book doesn't get equal time. I really think such a review would be worth my while to read.

[John_and_Yoko]

I. Introduction--The Shining vs. The Shining

II. Similarities between King's and Kubrick's versions of The Shining

III. Differences between King's and Kubrick's versions of The Shining

IV. Origins of King's and Kubrick's versions of The Shining

V. Stephen King vs. Stanley Kubrick

VI. Other works by King and Kubrick

VII. Merits and flaws in King's and Kubrick's versions of The Shining

(VIII. Stephen King's The Shining compared with both book and film?)

IX.? Conclusion



HELP!!!

[Odetta]

Similarities... um... well, there's a hotel in both. :nana:

[John_and_Yoko]

Seriously, though, does that deserve its own thread? And if so, where might I post it?

[Odetta]

I think right here would be fine!

[John_and_Yoko]

I. Introduction--The Shining vs. The Shining

II. Similarities between King's and Kubrick's versions of The Shining--the general plotline that services both the novel and the film, and possible reasons for its use

III. Differences between King's and Kubrick's versions of The Shining--not a scene-by-scene account, but a focus on the most important differences and what they imply for each version; particularly focusing on "evil from without" vs. "evil from within"

IV. Origins of King's and Kubrick's versions of The Shining--respective reasons for writing the novel and making the film, where the ideas came from, general background for both

V. Stephen King vs. Stanley Kubrick--differences in lives, careers, and general outlooks of the two artists, which are reflected in their respective versions of The Shining

VI. Other works by King and Kubrick--for comparison purposes

VII. Merits and flaws in King's and Kubrick's versions of The Shining--not an attempt to determine which is "better," but a look at which version espouses which merits or flaws, and whether a change was an improvement or not

(VIII. Stephen King's The Shining compared with both book and film?)

IX.? Conclusion

[Heather19]

Are you writing a paper on this?

I think the biggest thing that was lacking from Kubrick's film was Jack's gradual descent into madness. In the film he appears to be somewhat crazy from the get go. Also you don't get as much of a sense of how evil the hotel really is, and what it's really after. It want's Danny because of his ability, however in order to get that it goes thru Jack because he is an easier target. To me this wasn't really clear in the film. Also we don't hear as much about the history of the hotel so we're not aware of all that it's capable of.

On the other hand the film definately knows how to scare you, and I think that is what it primarily focuses on. It wants to terrify the viewer. There's loads of tension in the film, plus added scenes (such as blood pouring from the elevator), which were put there specifically for that reason. Another example would be with the use of the steadicam for filming, in particular the final scenes, or the scenes with Danny riding down the halls, it definately brings the viewer in and puts them right in amongst the action.

That's what I can think of off the top of my head.

[John_and_Yoko]

I think the answer to your question would be "yes and no"....

I WANT to write an essay about it, but I don't really have the time (and won't until sometime after Thanksgiving)....

But the ideas just won't leave me alone....



As for what you say, that is the kind of thing I'd put into my essay if I were to write it--only I would try to refrain from editorials until I got to the part about debating relative merits vs. flaws, and I would try not to be biased towards either the novel or the film in that regard, as I enjoy both. More like asking the question of "why" certain choices were made, rather than giving my opinion on them.

Thing is, I would like to READ such an essay, but I haven't found what I'm looking for anywhere online, which is part of the reason I want to write it myself....

[Heather19]

Well I would love to read it if you do write it. I thoroughly enjoyed both the book and film but for different reasons.

[John_and_Yoko]

Well I would love to read it if you do write it. I thoroughly enjoyed both the book and film but for different reasons.

Me too. And if and when I do write it, I'll be happy to post it on these forums. :)

[John_and_Yoko]

The Shining essay update:

Not yet complete, but nearing the end of my first draft! :D

If I don't finish and post it tonight, I should definitely be able to do so by tomorrow!

Be warned, this is LONG (already almost 20 pages, and not done yet!), and it isn't a "proper essay" with notes and references and all--but I don't try to claim other people's statements as my own, and if it needs help, perhaps my readers will offer some advice?

At any rate, I'm VERY proud of it, and of the insights I've come to, even while writing it--these are conclusions that haven't even occurred to me before, and I can't wait to share them! :D

[Odetta]

we are looking forward to your conclusions :)

[John_and_Yoko]

we are looking forward to your conclusions :)

Me too! :)

Haven't gotten back to it yet, but I will shortly, and then once I've got it the way I want it, I'll post it for all to see!

[turtlex]

The Shining essay update:

Not yet complete, but nearing the end of my first draft! :D

If I don't finish and post it tonight, I should definitely be able to do so by tomorrow!

Be warned, this is LONG (already almost 20 pages, and not done yet!), and it isn't a "proper essay" with notes and references and all--but I don't try to claim other people's statements as my own, and if it needs help, perhaps my readers will offer some advice?

At any rate, I'm VERY proud of it, and of the insights I've come to, even while writing it--these are conclusions that haven't even occurred to me before, and I can't wait to share them! :D

: tapping turtle foot : waiting patiently and looking forward to your work

[John_and_Yoko]

Here it is at last! My apologies for its length and crudeness, but I hope at least the insights are worth putting up here....



The Shining vs. The Shining

Mention The Shining and any number of images come to mind: Jack Nicholson looking through a broken door yelling “Here’s Johnny!”, chopping away with an ax, pages and pages of “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy,” a black and white photograph from 1921 showing a young Jack Nicholson, etc. These images primarily come from the 1980 Stanley Kubrick film and are unique to this version of the story, although many people are aware that the film was based on a 1977 novel by the popular author of horror fiction, Stephen King. While the film has in the minds of the masses (meaning those not immediately familiar with either) largely eclipsed the novel, and much of this acclaim is well-deserved, much of what makes the story great can be found in the original book. I personally consider it a disservice that most reviews of The Shining either focus primarily on the film or, when they do give more or less equal time to the novel, don’t go as in-depth as I’d prefer. I will therefore attempt to remedy this with my own review of both, as I am a fan of both.

Most people have some idea of the basic storyline of The Shining, which is common to both novel and film. An aspiring writer, Jack Torrance (a man with a history of violence and alcoholism), takes a job as winter caretaker for the Overlook hotel (which also has a history of violence and murder), intending to work on his writing during the months spent alone in the hotel with his wife Wendy and son Danny, the latter of whom has the unique gift of extrasensory perception (the “shining” of the title). But then Jack (possibly influenced by the ghosts of the hotel) goes mad and attempts to murder his family. The boy uses his shining to summon the cook of the hotel, Dick Hallorann, to come and rescue himself and his mother, but ultimately it is Danny himself who saves the day, defeating Jack and allowing himself and Wendy to escape the hotel and its evils, while Jack is not so lucky, meeting a tragic end in the Overlook.

This summary, while clichéd and uninteresting by itself, is the best summary of the common story found in the novel and film. However, both Stephen King’s novel and Stanley Kubrick’s film are more than the sum of their respective parts, hence their staying power. And yet few reviews I have read acknowledge the similarities between the two that exist beyond the plot itself. Certainly no one who is familiar with both can be unaware of the many differences between the two, but most reviews I’ve read exaggerate these. Most notable to me upon re-reading the novel is a lack of a proper redemption for Jack Torrance at the end (something which was only present in the 1997 TV miniseries Stephen King's The Shining and yet is commonly attributed to the novel): while the human Jack who loves his son does temporarily return and warn Danny, having been redeemed by his child, he disappears forever soon after this (illustrated visually by hitting himself in the face until the bloody mess that remains is more a conglomerate of all the “false faces” of the hotel, and therefore more accurately the personification of the hotel itself). The Jack Torrance who dies in the explosion of the boiler at the end of the novel is as wicked as the Jack Torrance who freezes to death in the hedge maze at the end of the film. Beyond the obvious difference in the type of demise for the story’s protagonist, the only difference here (as will be discussed later) is that the latter Jack Torrance is not even temporarily redeemed (although he does elicit one’s sympathy, as will be revealed).

But there are more similarities between the two than this. The horror element shared by both is the ambiguity found throughout. Specifically, the fact that neither is a straight ghost story, which by itself would only haunt those who actually believe in ghosts and would be no more than campy good fun for those who do not. Instead, the supernatural elements of both the novel and film take a backseat to the far more realistic (and therefore far more horrifying) stories to be found within. While the exact human stories being told do not concern us at this point, the fact remains that the ghosts do not show up as legitimate threats until relatively late in the story, and for most of this period they can be thought of as metaphors—in particular, they are only seen by Danny (who has the shining and can therefore see things no one else can) or Jack (who is losing his mind and may simply be hallucinating). The certainty that would come with knowing there are real and dangerous ghosts would be less terrifying than the discomfort of not knowing at all—at any rate, added to this is the (very real) danger that Jack will indeed lose control and attempt to hurt his son and/or his wife, which is a horror regardless of any other factors.

Another similarity common to both incarnations of The Shining is the parallel between the histories of violence found within both the Torrance family and the Overlook Hotel, and the danger inherent in the two coming together. In both novel and film, it proves a dangerous and ultimately horrifying thing for a man with a history of having injured his son (as well as been violent with others), and who would like to put this behind him (but cannot) to serve as caretaker of a hotel where guests have engaged in murder, suicide, illicit sex, and other such crimes—something which the owners of the hotel would prefer to keep under wraps. But of course this parallel continues as both secrets come out and prove impossible to ignore. What’s more, the ambiguity only adds to our tension and discomfort, as we don’t know if there is a malevolent force influencing Jack or if it is coming entirely from Jack himself.

This leads to another parallel—that between Danny Torrance and Dick Hallorann, the two “shining” personas in the tale. This superhuman ability is not the only similarity between the two—even more crucial is their places in, respectively, the Torrance family and the Overlook Hotel. Since both shine, both are aware of the violence and evil inherent within their respective units—and yet both are in positions of little power to do anything about it. Danny, being a child, cannot save his father from his weaknesses by himself, and cannot simply tell Jack not to take the job at the Overlook Hotel, even though he knows better. Likewise, Dick Hallroann, the cook at the Overlook, depends on the place for his job despite knowing the evil entity within (to some degree), and despite the fact that this entity clearly hates him (as evidenced by the fact that Delbert Grady refers to him as a “nigger”). It is only by their connection, their bond, that either is able to have a greater influence over things.

While the similarities between the two versions of The Shining go beyond the linear plot, far more obvious are the vast differences between the two. If Stephen King’s novel can be compared to the legend of Faust, Stanley Kubrick’s film can be compared to Lord of the Flies. The difference is effectively one of “evil from without” vs. “evil from within.” In the novel, Jack Torrance starts out as a flawed, often weak-willed, but inherently good man. However, his weakness makes him a tragic hero—he is an addict, which makes him vulnerable to exploitation by the malevolent presence at the Overlook hotel, the “Mephistopheles” of the story. But Jack’s addiction goes beyond simple alcoholism and into other areas of his life, particularly because he has been off the bottle for months: he becomes obsessed with his writing (an obsession for literacy that he has instilled in his son Danny, who struggles to learn to read on his own), and (even more importantly) he becomes obsessed with the Overlook Hotel itself.

As previously mentioned, the novel is effectively telling two stories—one supernatural, the other realistic, and the two mirror each other. What makes the supernatural elements so disturbing is the fact that they mirror a very realistic (and frightening) story that we see in the novel before the supernatural elements gain a foothold. Having no alcohol to drink, and frustrated in his writing (and more to the point, having lost his prep school teaching job and desperately needing income), Jack places all his eggs into a single basket—the Overlook Hotel and his caretaking job therein. If this fails, Jack the writer is doomed to become Jack the menial worker, which he considers beneath him. The hotel becomes his new addiction (especially after he discovers the scrapbook and the hotel’s dark secrets within)—and addiction it is indeed, as Jack grasps at increasingly pathetic straws in his attempt to justify staying, long after the hotel has clearly proven itself dangerous for the entire Torrance family. This leads to tension within the family, as Jack takes attacks on the hotel as attacks on himself (not to mention his resentment at having to support a family in the first place) and therefore outright violence breaks in the end. Such an outcome is far more frightening than a ghostly presence taking possession of an otherwise good man. But while this alone would make the book a thriller capable of reaching its readers’ primal fears, the fact that the ghosts effectively become a metaphor for this—and therefore make the disturbing atmosphere ambiguous—is the most frightening thing of all, and it is this element of the novel that makes The Shining work.

Stanley Kubrick’s film version of The Shining has ambiguity as well, but here it is used to a different end. In the film the evil comes not from the hotel or any other supernatural explanation, but from Jack Torrance himself. The primary significance of the Overlook Hotel in the film is that it is isolated from the civilized world—and therefore akin to the island in Lord of the Flies. In this sense, then, the “ghosts” become the “Beast” that turns out to be only human, and therefore the most frightening “beast” of all. The mirrors that recur throughout the film are a testament to the fact that the ghosts are but reflections of the real danger of the hotel—Jack—as well as reminders that he is himself but a reflection of past evildoers who have stayed at the hotel where they have committed their atrocities. Thus it is difficult to tell if Jack is being influenced by the ghosts of the past, or if these ghosts simply serve him as outside entities that allow him to deal with his own negative feelings towards his family.

In the film, Jack Torrance (as portrayed by Jack Nicholson) already shows clear signs of being resentful, even contemptuous, towards Wendy and Danny, but it is only after spending over a month in the hotel that he deliberately attacks them. In Kubrick’s world, civilization is itself only a mask (and not a very good one) for the “ignoble savage” (his words) that is man. While Jack shows clear discomfort being in close quarters with Wendy and Danny (seen as early as in the Volkswagen Beetle drive to the hotel), the civilization in which he grew up frowns upon violence and murder, so Jack is unable to act upon his impulses, instead suppressing them. Kubrick’s Jack tries to fight the growing madness just as much as King’s Jack does, but in this case it seems to stem not so much from guilt as a desire to protect his image—hence his attempts to block out his reflection as he heads to the Gold Ballroom where he first meets Lloyd. And just as Grady later refuses to acknowledge the murder of his wife and daughters, preferring to say that he “corrected” them, so too does Jack intend to preserve his image as caretaker of the Overlook hotel—in spite of the fact that in the film, he does nothing in the way of actual caretaking and instead only engages in destruction of the hotel. A thin mask he wears, indeed.

In fact, the ghosts appear to be (in the film) a way for Jack to cope with the conflict, as they represent his baser nature with which he initially tries to avoid identifying (witness his horrified expression when the seductive woman in Room 237 becomes a hideous walking corpse). This is why Jack only sees the ghosts when he is looking in the mirror--it is significant that, once he has made the decision to "correct" Wendy and Danny, Jack no longer sees any ghosts. The only other encounter he has is in the storage room, and there he only hears Grady's voice (which might well be in his own head). After this the ghosts are only seen by Wendy, which (as will be discussed later) indicates that she is seeing Jack's true nature, which horrifies her.

More to the point, however, is the fact that Jack’s inhibitions are lowered because he has no outlet for them. As large as the Overlook hotel is, being cut off from the world it effectively imprisons him both in body and in mind, only providing the illusion of freedom of movement (which basically means free will), and he cannot even come up with any good ideas for his writing project which would allow him to vent his frustrations legitimately. This being the case, he takes it out on the only two persons available to take the blame—his wife and son. Little by little his inhibitions are lowered until, like Jack Merridew and his hunters, he attempts to murder Wendy and Danny. And unlike in Stephen King’s novel, this beast’s face remains human—that of Jack Torrance.

But the most obvious difference of all lies with the endings of the two versions of the story, and both can be understood metaphorically. In the Stephen King novel, Jack Torrance is destroyed when he smashes his face with his roque mallet, thereby revealing a face that is a mesh of all the malevolent specters of the Overlook Hotel—these are then all destroyed when the boiler explodes, leading to a death by the flame. Like Faust, Jack Torrance’s soul is claimed by the devil and burns in hell (although the “devil” plaguing the hotel also appears to be destroyed). In the Stanley Kubrick film, however, after killing Dick Hallorann (which represents the id killing off the superego), Jack wanders into the hedge maze and is unable to find his way out—he freezes to death there, as lifeless as a statue. However, the film doesn’t end there—the photograph of Jack from 1921 indicates that the real beast (the human race in general) is eternal, and therefore cannot truly be killed, any more than can the Lord of the Flies himself. Rather than having ended, the film simply stops—it comes full circle and waits for the cycle to start again.

And yet there is even a more fundamental difference to be found—as stated earlier, Jack Torrance is as wicked at his death in the novel as in the film, and yet we feel sympathy for both Jack Torrances as they die. While this, as explained earlier, is a similarity, the reasons for our sympathy are inherently different, and therein lies the most crucial distinction between novel and film. In the novel we feel sympathy for the man that the “beast” once was, the loving family man that has degenerated into this horrible monster, and could not overcome that monster except temporarily, having sold away his soul. In the film there is none of this, as there is no “man the beast once was,” only a beast that looked like a man—that, indeed, was a man. There is also no redemption for the film’s Jack, not even a temporary one. There is no reason why audiences should feel sympathy toward Jack at the end of the film, not after what he tried to do to his son, yet we do. We feel that Wendy and Danny are not so much escaping as abandoning Jack to his fate. Kubrick has tricked his audience by making them identify with the monster, and there is the most horrifying mirror of all—the film is about us. We are the beast, and from such a threat there is literally no escape.

In his introduction to the 2001 edition of the novel, author Stephen King states that The Shining was his “crossroads novel,” by which he meant that he had the opportunity to set the bar higher than what he’d done with his first two novels, Carrie and ’Salem’s Lot. He chose to do just that, and the end result of his choice was that Jack’s father Mark Torrance, who was an abusive husband and father himself, was nevertheless a well-rounded individual, a human being (if a terribly flawed one), someone who loved his son and considered the young Jack his favorite. This therefore changes Jack’s past relationship with his father, as he both loved and hated the man, and in turn reflects on his current relationship with his own son, Danny.

Jack both wants and doesn’t want to be like his father, to be the sort of father that Mark would have been proud of (and that Mark was). And indeed, Jack both is and is not his father—being Mark’s son he has the same genes, and is subject to the same weaknesses, but at the same time he is a separate individual, and has the ability to choose to be different. But this is indeed difficult, as Danny is the same way—loving his father in spite of that father’s having harmed him in the past. In fact, Wendy (having had a poor sort of relationship with her mother, making her therefore a clingy sort) is jealous of this relationship, which she doesn’t quite share with Danny to the same degree, despite having never harmed Danny before. Perhaps the loving part of the relationship between fathers and sons is not so much in spite of the violence, but at least in some way because of it. In their own warped ways, the sons see their fathers’ brutality against them as caring, as “taking their medicine,” and that they should “take it like a man.” Indeed, Danny clearly does not appreciate Wendy’s help when he is trying to read his books, wanting to do it on his own. This idea, that violence is not always perceived as an evil, is truly chilling indeed, and goes a long way toward explaining why Jack is tempted to harm his own family in the novel.

Stephen King goes on in his introduction to say that his decision “took me a long way down the road to my current beliefs concerning…‘the horror novel.’” Clearly, then, The Shining is the novel wherein King truly began to find his way as an author of the horror genre, whereby he would go on to make his supernatural monsters stand in for actual human fears, thereby allowing them to be meaningful rather than mere campfire tales told for fun. The supernatural elements not only make the tales ambiguous (and therefore more frightening), but also serve to make the tales more palatable, since few people today believe in ghosts, vampires, etc. anymore. And King clearly believes that to ignore this fact of life is to do a great disservice, which is why he is so prolific in the horror genre.

Indeed, with The Shining, Stephen King was exercising catharsis, making Jack Torrance stand in for himself, and allowing himself to be rid of his frustrations and negative feelings toward his own wife and children in a way that would not harm them, or himself. Like Jack, the young Stephen King was an alcoholic, a smoker, and a dabbler in many other kinds of drugs (and would remain so for another decade), and he admitted to having “occasional feelings of real antagonism toward my children.” Jack Torrance, for Stephen King, appears to have been an example of “there but for the grace of God go I,” as Jack, unlike King, was unable to vent his frustrations in his writing, and was therefore left with no outlet for his frustrations other than to lash out at his family, something the ghosts of the hotel only encouraged.

This writer’s block and the frustrations that come with it appear to be the primary theme of the novel that appealed to Stanley Kubrick, when he had to decide on his next film. Up until that point in time, the five years between The Shining and his previous film, Barry Lyndon, was the longest the director had gone without making a film. Indeed, the novel was still in the early stages of being written when Barry Lyndon was released in theaters in 1975, and would not be published for a further two years.

Although Barry Lyndon found an audience in Europe, it failed at the box office in the United States. Being set in 18th-century Europe, it was likely difficult to find an audience for it in 1970’s America. This was particularly hard on Kubrick, as his reason for making the period piece was to make use of the exhaustive research he had done on the time period, originally meant to serve a biopic of Napoleon he intended to film, but was forced to abort.
After the successes of Dr. Strangelove and 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick intended to set his sights even higher with his Napoleon epic, going so far as to make and keep a card catalog that would allow him to know exactly where Napoleon was, what he was doing, and who was with him, at any point during his life. The original screenplay he wrote for this biopic (his first since Killer’s Kiss in 1955) is now available online, but was never filmed. Due to the box office failure of the similarly-themed Waterloo (directed by Sergei Bondarchuk and produced by Dino De Laurentiis) in 1970, among other factors, funding for Kubrick’s film was pulled, and the director was forced to give up his dream in the face of reality.

While this was frustrating enough, insult was added to injury when Kubrick’s own film Barry Lyndon, the closest thing to the Napoleon project he ever successfully filmed, also failed at the box office. Despite his earlier successes with Strangelove, 2001, and even A Clockwork Orange (controversial and low-budget though the latter proved to be), Kubrick the maverick director was forced to realize, more than ever, that he needed to learn to compromise. Though he refused to give up the intellectual, artsy brand of filmmaking which had come to characterize his career, he now knew that he needed a guaranteed moneymaker for his next project, meaning that he would have to go with something that was already popular, that already had an audience. This in and of itself was difficult for Kubrick, as it would mean controversy with the author and his fanbase if his film didn’t prove faithful to its source material.

This element of writer’s block and frustration became the cornerstone of the film adaptation of The Shining, in which Jack Torrance, the aspiring writer, intending to work on a great writing project, has “lots of ideas—no good ones.” Indeed, much of the film shows Jack not writing, and when he is he is clearly not enjoying it—refusing not only to let Wendy read what he’s written (and who can blame him when we realize why?), but to even let her in the Colorado Lounge when he’s working in there at all.

But the important part of this theme lies with the revelation of what Jack has been writing all this time—pages and pages of the same sentence, written over and over: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” However, the crucial element here, to me, is not that the same sentence is written over and over, but that it isn’t: if you look closely, the sentence changes subtly with each go, sometimes having improperly used spaces or punctuation, or misspelling words (such as “bot” for “boy”). To me, this is Kubrick looking down his nose upon hack writers (and other artists), saying “This is what they do—they create the same thing over and over again, only changing it slightly so that it looks different. They do it because it’s profitable and because they have no imagination. I don’t want to be that.” And indeed he was not that, as the film, while not ordinarily considered one of his best works, is ranked along with Psycho and The Exorcist among horror films and appears to have largely overshadowed even the novel that inspired it.

In a 1989 interview about his saga The Dark Tower, Stephen King said “Above all else, I'm interested in good and evil, whether or not there are powers of good and powers of evil that exist outside ourselves.” He went on to say that “it's easier for all of us to grasp evil, because it's a simpler concept, and good is layered and many-faceted. I've always tried to contrast that bright, white light of real goodness or Godliness against evil.” The implications of this are that, in King’s view of the world, people have inherent goodness, which is why we tend to notice the bad aspects of life and of human nature more often: we tend to take the good parts for granted because they’re more commonplace.

This worldview is fairly evident in most of Stephen King’s works, in which very often characters must face up to very dangerous enemies, both real and supernatural—and these aren’t always sentient (witness the superflu plague which decimates America in The Stand). A common thread throughout Stephen King’s works, regardless of genre, is that his characters are realistic, well-rounded, flawed individuals, not archetypal paragons of virtue—indeed, often in his works the main characters are children, the powerless—and therefore they are always unlikely heroes (and in many cases, as with The Shining, potential villains). This is King’s way of telling his readers “this could happen to you.” Ordinary people are put into extraordinary situations, and must make do with what they have in order to survive. But also running throughout his works is the existence of supernatural forces for good (as witness Tony in The Shining), and the fact that good characters are able to find each other and unite against evil (as with Danny and Dick Hallorann, as well as in the epic novels The Stand and It).

King writes about the horrific not only in the world beyond this one, but in this very world we inhabit, not merely to remind us that such horrors exist (which we know), but rather to remind us that such horrors can be defeated (which we don’t always know), and thereby showcase the goodness that humanity has to offer, the goodness that prevented the human race from, as he put it, blowing ourselves “to hell ten years after World War II was over.” It is for the same reason that fairy tales (such as his favorite, “Hansel and Gretel”) have stayed with us that Stephen King’s writing stays with us—they show human strength in the face of adversity. And he reminds us that we are not alone in our struggle—like Moses when he returned to Egypt to demand that Pharaoh let his people go, so too do Stephen King’s characters have the backings of higher powers, whether God or something else.

This clearly colors King’s approach to The Shining, as it is a tale of “evil from without.” For all Jack Torrance’s flaws—his perhaps misguided love for his abusive father, his own violent tendencies, his alcoholism and other addictions, his negative feelings toward others—he is at heart a good, sympathetic protagonist, one we can identify with, and if we come down on him for succumbing to the forces of evil at work in the Overlook, perhaps it is because we fear the same might happen to us if we were in his situation. Although Jack isn’t able to overcome the evil forces that have taken his soul entirely, he is able (however briefly), to say a heartfelt goodbye to his son before going off to die: “‘Doc,’ Jack Torrance said. ‘Run away. Quick. And remember how much I love you.’” Thus is Jack Torrance a modern tragic hero in every sense of the word—he is the character we most identify with, but his flaw (his addictive nature) proves his undoing, and there but for the grace of God go we.

And yet this is not an unhappy ending—aside from the fact that Jack is able to take control again, however briefly, the demonic entity that has taken him is ultimately defeated, and defeated by none other than Jack’s five-year-old son Danny. This to me is the heart and soul of the novel—Danny, a little boy just learning how to read, becomes the redeemer, the true heroic figure of the piece. Even Dick Hallorann is laid low by Jack’s roque mallet (along with Danny’s mother Wendy), leaving Danny alone to face his possessed father. For it is Danny and his abilities the Overlook wants—child or no, he is the one with the power, only needing the knowledge and opportunity to use it. And in so doing he redeems his father, even if only for a little while. I think this is why Tony, Danny’s invisible friend, is effectively Danny himself ten years or so in the future—he is Danny, but he is a Danny who is not a powerless child. He is a supernatural force for good to combat the force of evil in the Overlook, and that force for good comes from Danny. The fact that Wendy and Jack are unable to see Tony suggests nothing more or less than that they cannot see Danny’s inner strength, his humanity, because he is so young and apparently helpless.

And that seems to me to be the fundamental truth that Stephen King is giving his readers: that even children are human, with power and influence, and that they can (read “should”) redeem their parents—becoming a parent should bring out the best in a person, for that child’s benefit, and for one’s own benefit. Indeed, Jack’s animosity toward Danny in the novel stems from this very responsibility, and the resentment resulting from it—it is because he is married with a young child that Jack needs this last opportunity to prove himself, to be the best kind of father he can be, and he doubts himself. Which makes it tug at the heartstrings all the more when he says his goodbye to Danny—not just because he is being consumed by a demonic entity that threatens his son, but because he is sorry for his resentment of his little boy who he loves and doesn’t want to hurt.

The Shining is a microcosmic tale with few characters, which means that the author has time to flesh out the characters so that we can understand their motivations and predict what they might do or say in a given situation—we feel like we know them, and we can relate to them, therefore we care what happens to them and want them to be all right, fictional though we know they are. In this way Stephen King proves himself a master at suspension of disbelief, which is crucial to appreciating a supernatural tale, especially one geared at adults who have a difficult time accepting the fantastic elements. Hence King reaches the “child within,” awakening our sense of wonder and making us appreciate his work on a deeper level.

In later years King would go on to write other tales in which he would cover the same kinds of themes, only looking at them from different perspectives or fleshing them out in greater detail. The Talisman, which he co-authored with Peter Straub, features a child hero named Jack Sawyer (underestimated and abused by the adults around him) who enters a world of the fantastic in which he makes friends with an older creature not found in our world, and in which he must do battle with an enemy that transcends the two worlds, one who hits close to home because he is the father of Jack’s best friend. The epic novel It has as its heroes seven children who met by fate to defeat a demonic terror, and who grow up and must get back in touch with their inner child in order to once again face and defeat It once and for all, and the main character Bill Denbrough must ultimately become reconciled with his family—in this case his wife Audra. And From a Buick 8 reminds its audience that not everything can be known, something which tends to frighten us but which is nevertheless a fact of life, one we would do better to come to terms with—although The Shining ultimately loses its ambiguity and has a clear-cut ending, while it exists the ambiguity is what frightens us as readers more than anything else, and yet it is simply telling us a fundamental truth about life: we do not, and cannot, know everything.

Stanley Kubrick has been quoted less often about his worldviews than has Stephen King, having kept to himself more (and having died in 1999), but from what we know about him, Kubrick and his views of the world were very different from those of Stephen King. And yet, as with King, Kubrick’s views show in his version of The Shining and in his other works.

In an interview with the New York Times about his 1971 film A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick said that “Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved—that about sums it up. I'm interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure.” Kubrick demonstrates the darker, more evil side of the human race, as Stephen King does, but for a profoundly different reason—not as a means to an end, but as an end in and of itself. For Kubrick, the darker side of humanity is something we wish to sweep under the rug because we’re too afraid to acknowledge it, honest though it is, and with his films he meant to expose man for the “ignoble savage” that he truly is, lest we forget this fact and in so doing, commit more of our atrocities in future.

Consequently, Kubrick’s characters tend to be patently unsympathetic—often flat, cardboard cutouts with no emotional anchor for us (David Bowman and Frank Poole in 2001 come to mind, almost robotic in their actions and expressions). And on the rare occasions when a character in a Kubrick film is sympathetic, said character is usually of the most deplorable character imaginable (witness Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange). For Kubrick and his cinematic medium, character is not really important—indeed, many of his characters are arguably interchangeable—and neither is plot so much. What is important for Kubrick is themes, namely the theme of man’s inhumanity to man.

And yet, if there is morality to be found in Kubrick’s dystopian universe, it is found in freedom of expression (clearly something Kubrick felt strongly about, as he demanded creative freedom on all his films and felt stifled and angry when he could not have it, as when Kirk Douglas hired him to direct Spartacus). In an interview with Gene Siskel, Kubrick said that however undesirable individual evil is, it is still better than collective evil, as of a repressive government, religion, or other society (hence the sympathetic treatment of the heartless Alex DeLarge when his government brainwashes him into the “clockwork orange” of the title, a man incapable of choosing between good and evil at all).

Here again we see such themes enter into Kubrick’s film version of The Shining—however, in Kubrick’s case these themes were well-developed already, as the film came near the end of his career (he would only go on to make two more films after it, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut), while Stephen King’s novel came toward the beginning of his (being only his third published novel).

Unlike the Torrance family of the novel, Kubrick’s Torrance family is not, as might be expected when we first meet them, your friendly all-American neighbors. Although Wendy and later Jack do mention the fact that Jack once hurt Danny (dislocating his shoulder in this case, a better metaphor for the disorientation of the film than the broken arm of the novel), it is very difficult to imagine the characters and the hotel as having a past before the film that shaped the way they are now. Likewise it is difficult to imagine a future for them after the cameras cease to roll that will be shaped by the events of the film.

Danny (the one with the titular “shining”) is the character that touches us the least, as dull and uninteresting as Bowman and Poole are in 2001. Wendy is not dull, but she is a far cry from Stephen King’s Wendy—in the novel, Wendy was a stronger personality, and the main reason why she didn’t divorce Jack after he injured their son (she considered it but never acted upon it) is because of her messed-up relationship with her own mother. She doesn’t want to turn into her mother, driving her husband away as her mother did with her father, and she doesn’t want to admit weakness by crawling back to her mother (who has no faith in her daughter’s ability to do anything right), and so she sticks it out, trying to make it work. In the film, however, we get the sense that the reason Wendy doesn’t leave Jack is simply because she is a weak-willed person, afraid of being independent, of being a strong woman who doesn’t need a man. Indeed, she breaks down and sobs at the thought that Jack might not come with her and Danny when they leave the hotel. Even her relationship with Danny indicates this, as she is unable to get her son to obey her (as evidenced by her failed attempt to discourage him from going to the apartment to get his fire engine while Jack is supposedly sleeping)—Danny knows this and therefore sees no reason to listen to her. Perhaps he is picking up on his father’s disrespect for her?

As did Stephen King, Stanley Kubrick makes use of the “this is about you” idea that makes The Shining a truly horrifying tale, but he does so in a different, more subtle (and yet more profound) way. As mentioned earlier, mirrors are a common theme throughout the film—Jack only sees the ghosts when he is looking into a mirror, and even the first shot of the film is a mirror of sorts (a lake, perfectly reflecting the landscape above it). Kubrick is holding up a mirror to his audience, telling them that this story is about them—we are Jack Torrance, and so cannot take refuge in the fact that the movie screen separates us from him. Jack’s chopping away with an ax is a testament to this—there is no barrier, and we will never be safe.

Of all the Kubrick films preceding it, the one I can best think of to compare (or rather, contrast) with The Shining is A Clockwork Orange. In the previous film, Alex starts out free to commit the unspeakable acts of ultraviolence and rape that he loves so much, but is then captured by the government that commits the same acts of violence and sex that they see as delinquency in the teenaged hoodlum, and which they try to purge from him. They therefore render him incapable of being evil, but also incapable of moral choice and even of self-defense—in other words, he ceases to be human, instead becoming “a clockwork orange.” Therefore his declaration at the end, “I was cured all right,” is the closest thing to a happy ending Kubrick can give.

With Jack Torrance in The Shining you have just the opposite, basically: Jack starts out as “a clockwork orange,” unable to act upon his resentment and contempt of his family because society has brainwashed him into considering such feelings to be evil (as witness his past injury of Danny, which Jack would rather forget). But after being cut off from civilization for months in the hotel, this brainwashing subsides, until ultimately Jack is himself “cured” like Alex, although he is prevented from acting upon it (with the single exception of murdering Dick Hallorann). Thus being unable to further satisfy his cravings, Jack becomes little more than a beast with a weapon (like the apes with bone clubs in 2001), wandering aimlessly until he dies, and we are sorry for him. Thus The Shining is sort of a sequel to A Clockwork Orange, but with a tragic ending (unless we remember the photograph from 1921, which reminds us that evil exists as long as humanity exists, which may not be such a happy ending after all).

Both versions of The Shining are truly horrifying, and both are forever ingrained in the minds of those who experience them. But which is more effective, if either? We have already looked at the differences between the respective stories and their creators, now let us look at the differences in media and their relative merits and flaws.

The novel and film alike share a common theme of ambiguity, whereby we don’t see much in the way of the ghosts being a legitimate threat until far into both versions of the story, and when we do see them they can theoretically be understood as metaphors for Jack going insane, although we don’t know for certain. Indeed, this element of the novel appealed to Kubrick in terms of its horrifying nature. However, this ambiguity leads to different effects in novel and film.

In the novel, such inanimate objects as the fire hose and the topiary animals appear to come to life, but only move when one is not looking, making for more unsettling foes. This is more effective for the hose, as we never actually see it move out of the position it was in when it fell off its place on the wall, whereas the hedge animals have clearly moved when Jack (and later Danny) look again, they simply don’t move when they are being watched. Later in the novel, the living hedge animals largely lose their effect entirely, becoming almost a burlesque of the idea. This flaw, in my estimation, is due to the fact that the ambiguity is lost so early on in the novel—as early as when Danny has entered Room 217 and comes out of it with bruises on his neck, we know (if we didn’t suspect already) that the ghosts are able to harm Danny and his family, despite the persistent belief that they can only act through Jack. Rather than keep up the unsettling ambiguity, however, this only makes them look foolish and desperate in the face of danger.

In the film, however, the ambiguity goes on for far longer. Readers of the novel will assume that, as in King, the woman in Room 237 is responsible for Danny’s bruises. Indeed, Jack (the only real entity who could have done it, and the one Wendy blames) is in the Colorado Lounge having a nightmare, and is therefore nowhere near Room 237 where Danny was—or is he? The truly unsettling thing about Kubrick’s film is that things do not remain static and predictable, as they do in the novel, or in real life. If you’re paying attention, they actually change (perhaps most obviously in Grady’s change of name, from “Charles” in the interview to “Delbert” when Jack finally meets his ghost). And let’s not forget about the ghosts being mirror reflections of Jack’s beastly soul. Not having seen what actually happened to Danny, and forgetting the novel and its biases, there does appear to be evidence that it was Jack who inflicted the injuries upon his son—the tennis ball Jack threw against the walls earlier in the film rolls toward Danny, presumably from the room, whose door is open and has a key in its lock. In the novel, Danny was induced to take the key and go into the room, but not here. Who else has access to the keys? Even the fact that Jack is in a different place doesn’t make it clear-cut, as he is having a nightmare in which he is inflicting violence upon Danny (and Wendy). We cannot be sure….

If there is an end to the ambiguity in the film (doubtful in my mind), it is much later, with the sound of the storage room opening to let Jack out—but even this is ambiguous, as we don’t actually see anyone opening it, or how Jack gets out. And even the appearance of the ghosts to Wendy as she tries to escape the hotel can more be understood as a parallel with Danny trying to escape Jack in the maze—in other words, Wendy (who is never harmed but only frightened by the ghosts) is simply seeing Jack’s true bestial nature, and being horrified by it.

Even the ending is ambiguous, raising more questions than it answers—is Jack a reincarnation of a previous caretaker, explaining his déjà vu about the hotel? Does the hotel “absorb” him into the past? Is it meant to be understood only metaphorically?—and can only be compared, in my mind, to the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is more poetic and surreal than realistic, and yet this is more effective than straight realism, especially in the hands of a master.

However, while in the earlier film the ambiguity is simply meant to drive home the point that we can’t understand what is beyond us, in The Shining it emphasizes the unsettling nature of the entire film. We are given no breath of fresh air, no time to relax and tell ourselves, “it was just a movie—it wasn’t real.” Thus I think Kubrick does a better job with this element of the horror tale than does King—although to be fair, seeing the ghosts personally in a visual medium like a film makes it harder to think of them as false (thereby requiring Kubrick to show as little of them as possible for as long as possible in order to create a disturbing atmosphere). This is more easily accomplished in a novel which requires readers to use their imaginations, and is the one case where King has Kubrick beat in this regard.

Having discussed the horror element both tales share in common, let us now look at the respective artists’ differing approaches to horrifying us. In the novel, Stephen King’s approach is to make his characters as realistic as possible, so that we can see ourselves (or people we know) in the characters. He is able to do this because there are relatively few primary characters (unlike in, say, his next novel, the epic-length The Stand). This being the case, it is easier for us to imagine what we might do in such a situation (meaning what we would actually do, rather than what we might think we would). Jack, Wendy, and Danny all have histories that define who they are, and therefore determine how they react differently in a given situation. When added to real-world horrors like alcoholism, murder, suicide, etc., readers become very concerned for the characters (especially as we come to guess the likely outcome), and we want them to pull through this all right—we want them to live, we want them to prosper, and we want them to continue to love each other. The horrifying element is the idea that this will not happen—that their future will go down the drain, that the family bond will be broken, and (of course) that ultimately Jack will lose his sanity entirely and kill his family (and likely himself, as did Delbert Grady before him). This horrifies us because it happens all the time in the real world, and could theoretically happen to us.

Kubrick meets the same end by taking the opposite approach. As with his other films, Kubrick’s characters are archetypes, almost stereotypes, and unsympathetic (unless they are the perpetrators of evil). The film’s approach to horrifying us has to do with the reason for the mirrors and doubling prevalent throughout. Kubrick focuses on the horrifying event itself—a man trying to kill his wife and son—and tricks us into identifying with, and feeling sympathy for, the killer. We see his point of view a lot more often in the later parts of the film than would be expected in a traditional slasher film—for example, when he is chopping away at the doors with his ax, the camera doesn’t focus solely on his intended victims, but rather goes back and forth with Jack and his chopping. The camera even mimics the violence of each chop as Jack goes. Not to mention the fact that the film focuses on Jack until the end, even after Wendy and Danny have fled, and our sympathy lies with him and not them (similar to how our sympathy lies with HAL 9000 as Dave is disconnecting him in 2001, despite the fact that the computer has killed the other astronauts and tried to kill Dave). And the ending only serves to remind us that evil is born anew with each birth, so that it can never truly die at all.

In particular, I see the triad of male characters (Jack, Danny, and Dick Hallorann) as representing, respectively, the id, ego, and superego that fight for control of the human psyche. Jack, the ax-wielding killer, is clearly the id, while Dick Hallorann (who warns Danny to stay out of Room 237 and is ultimately killed by Jack) is the superego. Danny, the boy caught in the tug of war between his two father figures, represents the ego, the one who is aware of the situation (hence the shining) and able to determine what course of action is most practical. Thus it is fitting that, after Dick is killed, Jack then goes after Danny--with the superego gone, all that is left to keep the id in check is the ego, which Danny does as he abandons Jack in the maze. But Jack's death and our concurrent sympathy for him suggests that to cage the id is cruel and untrue to the human self.

In this case again, I think Kubrick did a better job. While Kubrick could be said to “trick” audiences into identifying with the amoral killer, so too could Stephen King (and most artists, for that matter) be said to “trick” us into sympathizing with characters by making them realistic and sympathetic. In other words, we are told who to sympathize with and who not to. Although Kubrick arguably does the same thing, he takes a different approach, making it more subtle, and the end result is that it is indeed a trick we notice. Possibly uninterested in the clichéd idea inherent in the novel, Kubrick makes no secret about what’s to happen in the film—during the interview at the beginning, he even sets it up to look almost like a satire of the horror film genre (similar to how Dr. Strangelove was a satire of Cold War thrillers), as Jack says of Wendy that she is “a confirmed ghost story and horror film addict.” Here, I think, Wendy serves as a stand-in for the audience, as she is initially excited at the prospect of staying at the Overlook, despite knowing of past horrors that went on there, but then comes to realize she is in a horror story and that the veil between past and present horrors is as false as the movie screen we think protects us. Kubrick has tricked us by giving us an element lacking in most of the horror genre, especially horror films: actual horror. He leads us into a maze of a film, as Danny leads Jack into the hedge maze, but he never lets us out.

In addition, since both versions of The Shining appear to make no secret of what's to happen, I feel that Kubrick's approach was better. Not only was it more subtle (no actual references to Jack chasing after Danny with intent to kill him, as there are in the novel), but Kubrick's choice to have the characters be archetypes makes such an option make more sense in that context. In the King novel it feels too much like a young author trying to dictate what's going to happen, and there are few real surprises, therefore the horrifying element is somewhat muted. My guess is that it's things like this that embarrassed King about The Shining in later years--it doesn't negate the horror element entirely, and thank goodness, but it could have been done better.

Let us turn now to the respective media used by the two artists. The literary medium and the cinematic medium are both very different, and what works for the one does not always work for the other. In particular, a novel requires multiple sittings in order to read in its entirety, due to its length. During this time, readers usually must take breaks and come back to it later. Thus it is crucial for its effect (especially if the effect is shock or disturbance, as in a horror novel), that a written work be memorable and interesting, so that readers will be able to get back into the flow of the story easily and, more importantly, will want to continue reading, to see how it plays out. Nevertheless, it must also have pauses, breathers, so that readers can feel free to take breaks when they need them. On the other hand, a film is meant to be watched all in one go, without breaks (this was even more the case when the film was in theaters in 1980, as nowadays one can pause it or—if watching it on television—wait for a commercial). Thus there can be no breathers at all, and the suspense must be accumulated over the course of a horror film right from the start. There is less free will with a film, therefore it is more gripping and, in the case of the horror genre, more potent if handled correctly.

On the other hand, movies freeze events in our minds, making us think of actors, sets, and camera angles when we reflect on it, rather than allowing us to use our imaginations as in a book. The closest way a film can substitute this is by not showing the horror (when possible) and letting viewers imagine it. The human imagination is always more powerful than anything viewable on screen anyway, and in the hands of a lesser filmmaker The Shining would not have this impact—indeed, the existence of the TV miniseries Stephen King’s The Shining proves this. Under Mick Garris’s direction and with the inferior special effects available to television, all the horrors of the novel become slapstick and silly, eliciting groans from audiences rather than chills—indeed, we would be laughing if we weren’t expecting to be scared. In this sense, then, Kubrick was a prime choice of director for adapting the novel to the screen. Both media have their merits and flaws, and both must be taken into account when discussing the merits and flaws of both works.

Also important to note is the fact that The Shining came near the beginning of Stephen King’s career, but near the end of Stanley Kubrick’s. Thus it is to be expected that King was not quite as seasoned an artist when he wrote the novel as Kubrick was when he directed the film, and that their respective versions would show evidence of this. Indeed, in the introduction to the 2001 edition of the novel, King would admit that “there is a cocky quality to some of The Shining’s prose that has come to grate on me in later years….” This can in fact be seen throughout the novel, as in Chapter 37 where the narration compares the windup key that activates the clock to Danny “activating” the ghosts and the eternal masque going on in the hotel. A more seasoned author might leave it to the readers to make such a connection ourselves. And this is not the only time King does this in his prose, nor even the first time. Having grown up on horror films (which Kubrick disdains), and it being early in his career (only his third novel), such mistakes are often to be expected and can perhaps be forgiven King—young writers are often mistaken in what they think of as good writing.

On the other hand, Kubrick’s film has a much more professional quality, coming as it did on the heels of Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, and Barry Lyndon, and being directed by a much older and more confident man. Indeed, he was confident enough not to feel restricted by the specific story that Stephen King told, but rather allowed himself to give his own take on the story, largely dispensing with everything that wasn’t backbone plot and remaking it in his own image. The Shining is the film adaptation of a novel that is least like the original novel (while still being comparable in greatness) of any I’ve seen. It is because of Stanley Kubrick’s immense talent and focus in his chosen medium (as well as the fact that people today tend to have more patience for his medium than King’s) that most people think of the film when they think of The Shining at all. As a case in point, an episode of “Friends” has Joey giving Rachel the book to read, but many of his “spoilers” came not from the book at all, but from the movie (such as the Grady girls and “All work and no play….”). To the credit of the writers of the series, some of the spoilers did indeed come from the novel (such as the boiler exploding at the end), but it seems that in this day and age, the movie (especially when directed by Stanley Kubrick) is able to make a greater impact, and this is not undeserved.

However, this is not to discredit the original source material—as stated before, I consider the novel itself to have greatness, and it likely wouldn’t have impressed Kubrick in the first place (not enough to make a film of it) if it were some sort of “hack job.” Indeed, in the introduction to the 2001 edition of Pet Sematary (the novel of his that frightened him the most), Stephen King said that “based on the mail…the one that does that [scares readers the most] is probably The Shining….” Coming a generation after the novel was originally published, this statement holds a lot of weight, and is a testament to the novel’s greatness. And in fact, I myself considered it the most frightening of his works that I read even after reading several others--the aforementioned hose and hedge animal scenes in particular impressed me, and upon re-reading I was even more frightened by the fact that I identified with Jack in terms of my relationship with my own family.

Indeed, as early as 1984, at the International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts, he said that The Shining was the novel of his that was most likely to be taught in literature courses at the university level. And for my part, while I don’t deny the existence of evil in the world (including evil within), nor do I deny that Kubrick’s stated beliefs have truth to them, my own views about the world are closer to those of Stephen King—I don’t believe in the power of goodness over evil because I’m clinging to a fairy tale that lets me ignore the horrible truth, but rather because I see evidence of it myself (even when it is easy to take it for granted). I also prefer King's fleshed-out characters to Kubrick's archetypes, especially in the novel form--Kubrick was talented enough to get away with non-characters, but this is usually a no-no, and rightly so.

To sum up, both Stephen King’s novel and Stanley Kubrick’s film are great works of the horror genre, and just in general as works of art. They both take different routes in horrifying us, and they come to different conclusions about the human species (not to mention making use of different media to do so), and each has its merits and flaws, but each has its own particular greatness and I consider myself privileged to have experienced both. Both are cathartic exercises for their respective artists, showcasing their frustrations (which are common in the human experience and resonate with us all), and both reflect their creators’ respective worldviews, which is precisely what great art should be. And while neither is its creator’s best work, necessarily, both have staying power with those who experience them. They tell us truths that we can relate to, they tell us about ourselves, and that only enhances their greatness, as it ensures that the stories will stay with us forever.

[Heather19]

Thanks for posting. I'll read thru it later when I get a chance.

[Darkthoughts]

Blimey!! :lol:

Whenever I try to post anything that long, I hit reply by which time I've been logged out and my post is lost in the voids of cyber space :pullhair: :lol:

[John_and_Yoko]

Heh....

Does anyone have anything constructive to say about my essay? I'm really curious to know what everyone thinks.... :)

[Mordred Deschain]

Love the shinning

[ladysai]

Heh....

Does anyone have anything constructive to say about my essay? I'm really curious to know what everyone thinks.... :)

I think it was well written and thoroughly thought out.
I enjoyed it.
But, I disagree about the main difference between the film and the book.
To me, the book was focused on Danny, and his trials and tribulations more than on those of his father. (of course, all the trials of Jack bore significantly on Danny's life)
The focus on Jack in the film lost so much of Danny and his perspective, and (more importantly, in my mind) on his gift of 'the shine'.
My two cents only...taking nothing away from your fine essay.
:)

[John_and_Yoko]

I think it was well written and thoroughly thought out.
I enjoyed it.
But, I disagree about the main difference between the film and the book.
To me, the book was focused on Danny, and his trials and tribulations more than on those of his father. (of course, all the trials of Jack bore significantly on Danny's life)
The focus on Jack in the film lost so much of Danny and his perspective, and (more importantly, in my mind) on his gift of 'the shine'.
My two cents only...taking nothing away from your fine essay.
:)

Thank you for your comments! :)

And no, it doesn't take anything away--the book definitely gets into Danny and his gifts a LOT more than the film does--but I still disagree that the novel was entirely focused on Danny, or more so than Jack. Having re-read the novel before writing the essay, the primary focus appears to be on Jack, and he and Danny sort of "mirror" each other (as with their obsession with the written word--Jack with his writing, Danny with his reading, as I mentioned in the essay).

But hey, the point of discussion is to look at different points of view, right? :)

[ladysai]

But hey, the point of discussion is to look at different points of view, right? :)

Exactly right.
:D

[John_and_Yoko]

So, any other comments to make, by you or anyone else...?

[ksmithcats]

The Shining was the first King book I ever read and is still my favorite. I've read it so many times I almost know it by heart yet each time I re-read it, it speaks to me in a different way.

One thing that I don't think anyone has touched on yet is Jack's alcoholism. King's writing in regard to the effects of alcoholism on Jack's inner struggle and overt action is just so true to life. As is the wife and child's life...having to deal with the alcoholic, fearing a relapse, trying to trust. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to this having lived with a really emotionally abusive/manipulative alcoholic who has been sober for 2 years. Anyway....I ramble....

I enjoyed both the movie and miniseries and don't think either can hold a teeny candle to the book. There's just so much going on that can't be "shown" to an audience via film.

The most exquisitely terrifying moment to me was when Danny was playing in the tunnel and became temporarily trapped with God knows what. I'm just claustrophobic enough for that to make me nuts.

Guess which room Mike and I stayed in at Washington DC's Hilton Garden Inn.....
http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp157/ksmithcats/100_5902.jpg?t=1224824298
I was so excited.

[John_and_Yoko]

One thing that I don't think anyone has touched on yet is Jack's alcoholism. King's writing in regard to the effects of alcoholism on Jack's inner struggle and overt action is just so true to life. As is the wife and child's life...having to deal with the alcoholic, fearing a relapse, trying to trust. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to this having lived with a really emotionally abusive/manipulative alcoholic who has been sober for 2 years. Anyway....I ramble....

Did you read my above essay?

I touched upon his addiction and how it colors his behavior in the book. Granted, I neither am nor have been an alcoholic (nor have had one in the family) but I could see that when I re-read it recently. (And I am prone to addictions, which is why I've never done drugs of any kind....)

[ksmithcats]

*blushes*....no, I didn't read the whole thing. I'll go back and give it my proper attention.

[John_and_Yoko]

*blushes*....no, I didn't read the whole thing. I'll go back and give it my proper attention.

It's all right--I know it can be intimidating, being that long.... :)

But yeah, I did see evidence of that, and consider it important to the particular story that Stephen King was trying to tell (won't go into further detail since it's already in the essay).

But please let me know what you think when you do read it. :)

[Mordred Deschain]

I love this book

[John_and_Yoko]

I love this book

Um.... Spam much? :P

[Darkthoughts]

And you're accusing Mord of spam? :P

[Mordred Deschain]

are you accusing me of spamming or eatin spam?!? I consider both a supreme insult!! Well, not so much eating spam, er...but you know what I mean:nope:

I LOVE THIS BOOK!! heheheheh...:excited:

[turtlex]

JandY ( cripes, I almost started that JandL again! ) -

First off, wow. That's quite a document. You make some outstanding points and bring up things I'd not considered.

I will say that I am more familiar with the film than I am the novel, so I do come at this essay with that mindset.

Comparing the Kubrick film to the Lord of the Flies - I assume you're comparing the film to the book ( LoTF ) here. That's an interesting angle regarding the "evil from within" and the "evil from without" themes. I'd not made any connection between them. Though I am not a big fan of the Lord of the Flies book ( to me, it is far too obvious and rather hits you over the head with it's themes ), I didn't find that to be the case with the movie.

I do disagree largely on one point, and it could be that I am not reading your thought correctly - but comparing Kubrick's Shining and saying that he made only two more movies is rather misleading. He passed away pre-maturely. It was by no means a reflection on his abilities or opportunities, etc. It's not as if he had a lifetime in front of him, and only managed two more films. He was taken from us early, where-as Sai King was relatively young. I'm not sure I'm clear on my point here, and I'll edit it if I can word it better.

You call Jack Torrance, amongst other things, "flawed" but "inherenetly a good man". I'm not sure I agree with this either. I do not see him as heroic at all. I do not feel sympathy for him. I can understand he is going mad, but his behavior ( past and present ) mean that from where I am coming from, he's a threat to his family and always has been. I'm not sympathetic to that. Basically, it is that "you know he's going to crack" essence that brings on and builds the suspense.

These are some amazing conclusion and really inspire me to go and watch the film again and give the book another read. I've not spent much time with either in many, many years.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights. This is impressive.

[John_and_Yoko]

Thank you very much for your reply! :D

Yeah, I know it's long, which is a deterrent, but I can't help it--that's how I do things. Would you believe I actually left out a LOT with that essay? But yeah, a lot of those conclusions were insights that didn't even occur to ME until I actually wrote it (meaning I thought of some before the fact, but not all of them).

Yeah, Lord of the Flies as such is a little obvious with its themes (kind of Orwellian, even though Orwell didn't write it). But even in terms of its lack of characterization, I think the film of The Shining can be compared to it. Actually I never finished the book, only watched the film (and I'm actually glad they didn't make the Lord of the Flies talk in that).

I don't know exactly what you think I was saying when I mentioned that Kubrick only made two more films, but that alone indicates misinterpretation. My point was that he was much further along in his career when he made his version of The Shining than Stephen King was when he wrote the book, and that therefore Kubrick had had a lot more time to develop his own artistic voice and themes than King had, and that part of the reason for a greater level of professionalism in the film than the novel is due to that.

Certainly I never meant to suggest that Kubrick was getting old and feeble, having "jumped the shark" as far as his career was concerned, or anything like that. All I really meant to say in that arena is that it was in the period of his career BEFORE The Shining that he had his biggest successes and was able to make the kinds of films he wanted to make, without interference. But starting with The Shining, he was learning he needed to be aware of what other films were being made and what was popular, in order to determine what kinds of films he could make, which he couldn't have enjoyed.

And I know he died early (only four days after turning in Eyes Wide Shut), but it's also true that he had two "failed attempts" at making a film after Full Metal Jacket, before he found his keeper in Eyes Wide Shut. First he was going to make a Holocaust film in the early 1990's called Aryan Papers, which he scrapped after Schindler's List came out, and then he was going to do A. I.: Artificial Intelligence, but then turned that over to Steven Spielberg to direct, and the project was stalled. That's why there were twelve years between his last two films.

I don't know about "heroic" (I mostly meant "hero" in the conventional sense of a protagonist), but he does seem to genuinely love Danny, and in some cases he even seems to love Wendy as well, though there's more negativity there, I think. The problem is that love is tainted by resentment and frustration. My point is that all those elements, the good and the bad alike, go into Jack Torrance, and he can't really be separated from any of them (just like in real life).

Also, in this case at least, you said you were more familiar with the film, and while what you say is the case in the film, it seems less so in the novel. I don't know if you were thinking of the novel there or not, but I call it as I see it.

Anyway, hope I've clarified my points, and thank you very much again for reading and replying! :D I'm glad if I inspired someone to read the novel and/or see the film again! And now you've really made my day!

(And I think I've just proven anew my tendency to ramble, with this very post....)

[turtlex]

JandY - Thank you for the essay. It is an impressive document. For sure. I meant no disrespect regarding it's length, just that it was hefty in proposed themes, etc. An impressive report.

Thanks for the clarification regarding Kubrick and his career and early death. We are going to have to agree to disagree about Eyes Wide Shut though, and it being his "keeper". Barry Lyndon - I did not like. It was bloated and over done, I'm not surprised that it didn't catch on, as it were. I did enjoy Full Metal Jacket and found it engaging and entirely watchable, even though the topic isn't a comfortable one. Kubrick had so much more to offer, he is missed for sure. I, for one, am saddended that EWS is his swan-song.

My thoughts regarding Jack genuinely loving Danny... he terrorizes the kid, intentional or not. He physically harms him. I just can't work up sympathy for a guy that abuses his family, due to alcohol or madness. His acts speak louder, I feel to the reader and the viewer. Wanting to be a good father and husband, and then abusing your family ... that sort of negates the "wanting to be" part for me.

For sure I will take another look at both the film and the novel, and come at both with fresh eyes.

Thanks for posting, and no, you're not rambling, you're sharing your insights.

[theBeamisHome]

JandY.... i only read the first half of the essay regarding the comparison of the novel to the Kubrick film. i just watched the film this week and i was trying to get the similarities and differences between the two together in my mind.. your essay helped a lot with that. and i must say one thing i completely agree with is the sympathy that we feel for Jack in the film... even though he was completely monstrous. i noticed as i was watching the film how uncomfortable he was around his family... what i found interesting was how he tried to justify himself to the ghosts when Wendy believed he had choked Danny, saying that he loved "the little motherfucker" and "would do anything for him"... that sort of made me go... hmmm... so does he mean that? or is he saying that because, as you said, he blames his family for his predicament? i personally believe it's the latter.

i haven't reread the novel in a while... i don't have it with me.. it's with my little library in NJ :arg:.. but i thought that the hotel wanted Danny and was using Jack.. or is that from the miniseries?? soo confused, but since you just read it i'm sure you can help.

[John_and_Yoko]

I'm glad to hear my essay helped you in your assessment! :)

And yeah--even in the car drive to the hotel, he shows that. His reaction to Danny saying he's hungry is patently unsympathetic: "Well, you should've eaten your breakfast."

Actually he said "I love the little son of a bitch," but yeah--the fact that he felt a need to CALL Danny that suggests that he doesn't (not to mention the weird way he was acting when he and Danny were on the bed together).

And yeah, it was in the novel that the hotel was using Jack to get at Danny and his power, because Danny "shone" more than anyone Dick Hallorann had ever met. And it lied to Jack, claiming HE, the caretaker, was the one the hotel wanted.

Anyway, hope that helps! :)

[theBeamisHome]

yes it does. that is exactly what i thought. very good essay!

[John_and_Yoko]

I'm glad. :D And you're welcome!


My thoughts regarding Jack genuinely loving Danny... he terrorizes the kid, intentional or not. He physically harms him. I just can't work up sympathy for a guy that abuses his family, due to alcohol or madness. His acts speak louder, I feel to the reader and the viewer. Wanting to be a good father and husband, and then abusing your family ... that sort of negates the "wanting to be" part for me.

I've actually now added a paragraph addressing that. Basically it says that the inevitability of what happens (in both versions) works better in the film since the characters are archetypes, whereas in the novel they just seem trapped by fate and unable to do anything about it.

[turtlex]

JandY - I'm impressed. Thanks.

[John_and_Yoko]

JandY - I'm impressed. Thanks.

Sorry this is so late getting to you but you're welcome! :D

Anyway, since I notice no one's posted in so long and the last comments were about my essay I've decided to bump it, to mention that I'm going to be rereading the novel again and also to mention something I'm not adding directly into the essay at this moment but which I would have put in had I been aware at the time:

Having seen both screen adaptations of Carrie now, it seems to me that a lot of the time what works on the page really doesn't translate well to the screen as far as Stephen King's work is concerned (for whatever reason), in which case it was probably a good idea not to be too faithful to the novel for an adaptation of The Shining (although Stanley Kubrick's film, again, isn't ideal as an adaptation though being great for what it is).

As far as Carrie's concerned, her mother's death worked well in the novel but NOT in the TV movie. De Palma's film version for Carrie's mother's demise was far more appropriate and effective.

[SynysterSaint]

I just finished The Shining half an hour ago and I can't find any words to describe my feelings. I had seen both movie versions previously, and neither of them compare to the sheer force of the book.

I can't say that it scared me too deeply (no King book has done so yet), but it was horribly terrifying in the sense that only King books can be; there was a tick of horror sitting behind my temples with every page. I was afraid for the characters' mentalities more so than their well-being. The implications of the story and of the evil of the Overlook that manifests itself in Jack isn't scary, it's horrifying. I can't say I was scared, but I was horribly afraid, if that distinction makes any sense.

My favorite character would have to be Hallorann, followed second by Jack. I love Danny, and I'm so happy he made it out okay, but Hallorann's selflessness and Jack's despair made them "real" to me. Just like with most King books, I hated Wendy (if you haven't noticed, I'm not usually a fan of King's women characters :lol:).

My favorite villains of the Overlook would include the hedge animals because of the mental connection I'd made between them and the weeping angels from Doctor Who. During the first scene with them, when they only move in between gazes from Jack, I was reminded of the weeping angels and their horrible, slow stalking of their prey when they weren't being watched.

[Jack Torrance]

As you can tell from my name I love "The Shining"!
Jack Nicholson is my favorite actor as well.
I would agree the book is 500 times better than the movie. I love the depth of the book. To me it seemed to tell a different story than the movie did.

I love the fact that Jack came back for a brief second too. Just to tell Danny to run. It adds to the character a lot. Like I said this is my opinion.

[SynysterSaint]

As you can tell from my name I love "The Shining"!
Jack Nicholson is my favorite actor as well.
I would agree the book is 500 times better than the movie. I love the depth of the book. To me it seemed to tell a different story than the movie did.

I love the fact that Jack came back for a brief second too. Just to tell Danny to run. It adds to the character a lot. Like I said this is my opinion.

I absolutely hated the movie. If Kubrick's name is on it, I usually end up despising it. I hate the liberties he takes and the way it impacts the story. To me, it's so much more terrifying for Jack to have a roque mallet (something that takes multiple, blunt force hits to kill) than an axe (something that can kill in one simple stroke). The "chase" scene with Wendy and the beating of Hallorann were so much more troubling in the book because of the relative non-lethality of the roque mallet.

I was really surprised to find that the tricycle scene never happened in the book (where Danny is riding down the hallway on a trike and sees the twin daughters of Grady). I figured it would be since Stephen Colbert and Stephen King did a joke about that bit on The Colbert Report!

I agree with you, JT, that the brief moment of reprieve from his suffering added a lot to Jack's character. There's something I'm a bit unsure of, however: when Jack commits suicide with the roque mallet . . . was that actually suicide? The way I understood the scene was that Jack beat himself in the face to death with the mallet in an attempt to stop the Overlook from winning, but his body ended up being just another tool without his conscious mind embodying it.

[SynysterSaint]

Something the Dark Tower Junkies will be interested in:

Before and during the "chase" scene between Wendy and Jack, Wendy consciously notes that there are exactly 19 steps between the lobby floor and the first floor of the hotel. This happens while she goes down to see if Jack is still in the pantry and while she's trying to run back to their room to protect Danny.

[Jack Torrance]

As you can tell from my name I love "The Shining"!
Jack Nicholson is my favorite actor as well.
I would agree the book is 500 times better than the movie. I love the depth of the book. To me it seemed to tell a different story than the movie did.

I love the fact that Jack came back for a brief second too. Just to tell Danny to run. It adds to the character a lot. Like I said this is my opinion.

I absolutely hated the movie. If Kubrick's name is on it, I usually end up despising it. I hate the liberties he takes and the way it impacts the story. To me, it's so much more terrifying for Jack to have a roque mallet (something that takes multiple, blunt force hits to kill) than an axe (something that can kill in one simple stroke). The "chase" scene with Wendy and the beating of Hallorann were so much more troubling in the book because of the relative non-lethality of the roque mallet.

I was really surprised to find that the tricycle scene never happened in the book (where Danny is riding down the hallway on a trike and sees the twin daughters of Grady). I figured it would be since Stephen Colbert and Stephen King did a joke about that bit on The Colbert Report!

I agree with you, JT, that the brief moment of reprieve from his suffering added a lot to Jack's character. There's something I'm a bit unsure of, however: when Jack commits suicide with the roque mallet . . . was that actually suicide? The way I understood the scene was that Jack beat himself in the face to death with the mallet in an attempt to stop the Overlook from winning, but his body ended up being just another tool without his conscious mind embodying it.


I believe if I am not mistaken that the house had taken him over again and smashed his face. Kind of like telling Danny okay kid you know I am not your father. Almost like a scare tactic. That is at least what I got out of it.

[Randall Flagg]

I just re-watched the ABC miniseries, and the Kubrik version, both in 1080P Blu-Ray High Definition. I am re-reading the novel and am about 1/3 through with it.
I liked the ABC (King produced) version, but could not "Love It!". I Think the Kubrik version is a good re-imagining of the story. Technically (and this has been mentioned by many professional reviewers), it is a marvelous film. Some of the scene decoration and clothing date it, but Kubrik shot a masterpiece-It just isn't King's masterpiece. The book read is good, but several of King's notorious research errors stick out. I'll pop back in when finished with the novel.

[Merlin1958]

I'm glad. :D And you're welcome!


My thoughts regarding Jack genuinely loving Danny... he terrorizes the kid, intentional or not. He physically harms him. I just can't work up sympathy for a guy that abuses his family, due to alcohol or madness. His acts speak louder, I feel to the reader and the viewer. Wanting to be a good father and husband, and then abusing your family ... that sort of negates the "wanting to be" part for me.

I've actually now added a paragraph addressing that. Basically it says that the inevitability of what happens (in both versions) works better in the film since the characters are archetypes, whereas in the novel they just seem trapped by fate and unable to do anything about it.

Well, to split hairs a bit. Having just finished a re-read. Jack one unfortunate brush with abuse of Danny when he accidently broke his arm. Now that was and is, almost unforgivable. However, Wendy, somewhat forgave him that incident though never fully.

Once at the Hotel, Jack does not abuse Danny. He does however, hit Wendy when he is Jack/Hotel, but by the time he gets to terrorizing Danny, it's ALL Hotel utilizing jack's body. In fact, at the end, the last remaining vestige's of "Jack" rise up to allow Danny the opportunity to escape before once again succumbing to the Hotel entity.

Least, that was my take and its still fairly fresh in my mind.

[costanza]

Danny in the TV version reminds me of something Rodney Dangerfield says in Caddyshack. Last time I saw a mouth like that it had a hook in it!

[Randall Flagg]

That's funny.

[mtdman]

This book is very hard for me to read. It doesn't so much scare me as it bothers me on a psychological level. As a father who wants to do best for his kids and see his family happy, Jack's psychological degradation at the hands of the hotel is very disturbing to me. IMO, Jack wants to do the best he can for his family, but his alcoholism and his own family history are big hurdles. And it's possible he could have overcome those hurdles had they stayed away from the hotel. But the hotel plays on his addictions, and the concupiscence of humanity. Jack is attracted to the hotel and how it plays on his addiction, and he wants to stick with it. At the same time he wants to protect his family, and his attraction to the hotel wins out. And that's what happens with alcoholics. They may mean well and want to do right for their families, but in the end the addiction wins out and they chose alcohol over their families. Jack chooses the hotel over his family. And this whole thing is disturbing to me because I am constantly putting myself in Jacks place as I read the book, and I try to tell myself that I wouldn't make those choices. But it's still scary, and uncomfortable as hell. And it's a testament to King that he can evoke those feelings in me.

Here is something that I am not sure about, something that I wonder about. IMO, Jack is NOT an evil man. He just makes some bad choices and is tempted by and falls prey to the evil of the hotel. But Danny keeps seeing the evil figure behind Jack, the man in the white clothes. Which I take for Jack's dad, Danny's grandpa. Who was a pretty bad dude according to Jack's memories. Is Jack's dad evil? IMO when Jack falls prey to the hotel. he becomes the evil figure that his dad was. He uses his dad's terminology, and when Jack is angry, he 'becomes' his father. Is Jack's dad some kind of evil force? Is there some kind of hidden evil force in Jack's dad and Jack, that's related to their alcoholism? I think there's more to it than Jack just taking on his dad's mannerisms, almost like an evil force that runs from father to son.

[Forge of the King]

I just finished the book an hour or so ago. I like how in the novel, Dick Hallorann survives. It was sad that he died in the movie, and he wasn't given anything but a swift death and "That's all".

I also like the ending of the novel because, unlike the movie, there was more of a feeling of a happy ending, with all the surviving characters together and out of misery. In the movie, there was no "happily ever after" scene, and that made it much darker.

Overall I liked the book a lot, though I have found that I am not as scared by horror novels as I am by [good] horror movies. Movies play a lot more on the senses than the imagination (because of sounds and music), and I find that my senses scare me more than my imagination. I found The Shining to be a "creepy" book, but not scary, whereas the movie was "scary".

[Merlin1958]

I just finished the book an hour or so ago. I like how in the novel, Dick Hallorann survives. It was sad that he died in the movie, and he wasn't given anything but a swift death and "That's all".

I also like the ending of the novel because, unlike the movie, there was more of a feeling of a happy ending, with all the surviving characters together and out of misery. In the movie, there was no "happily ever after" scene, and that made it much darker.

Overall I liked the book a lot, though I have found that I am not as scared by horror novels as I am by [good] horror movies. Movies play a lot more on the senses than the imagination (because of sounds and music), and I find that my senses scare me more than my imagination. I found The Shining to be a "creepy" book, but not scary, whereas the movie was "scary".

Sign of the times I suppose. People get so saturated with media now a days they forget how to "imagine". I know when I first read it back in the day that book scared the shit outta me!!! Then again, "Halloween" was what kept me up for days and now my kids think its "quaint nostalgia"!!! LOL In some things, the old days are the better days, I guess.

[jhanic]

When I read a (good) book, it's as if there's a movie going on in my head. That's one of the biggest reasons that I'm disappointed in the vast majority of movies based on King's books--they just don't measure up to what's in my head.

John

[Dan]

I'm about 120 pages into The Shining and all I can say is Holy Crap! I don't remember the movie being anything like this. Another reason I don't like to watch a movie after a book. I have not read through this thread because I don't want spoilers, so I'm sure this is discussed to death.

[Brice]

I love the movie and the made for tv one, but the book is definitely King at his best.

[Heather19]

Agreed. I love the movie, one of my all-time favorites, but the book is vastly different. I do adore the book though and would rank it as one of my favorites as well.

[Dan]

I remember loving the movie also. I guess i just realize they would be so different.

[Brice]

Oh, yes...they are quite different. It makes you wonder if Kubrick read the same story the rest of us did.

[WeDealInLead]

I didn't even bother with Kubrick's film. He tends to take a great book and piss all over it. Wait, I mean 'interpret' it how he sees it and then push it on an unsuspecting audience. He did the same with 2001 Space Odyssey.

[jhanic]

I've always considered Kubrick's The Shining and King's The Shining to be two distinct productions, with no real relation to each other. It makes it easier that way.

John

[Dan]

I've always considered Kubrick's The Shining and King's The Shining to be two distinct productions, with no real relation to each other. It makes it easier that way.

John

Yes, this works for me.

[Heather19]

I didn't even bother with Kubrick's film. He tends to take a great book and piss all over it. Wait, I mean 'interpret' it how he sees it and then push it on an unsuspecting audience. He did the same with 2001 Space Odyssey.

You're missing out! It's such a great film. Yes, it's different, but it's amazing in it's own right.

[mtdman]

http://www.redbubble.com/people/jimiyo/works/7735095-jack-torrances-redrum

Purchased this today. There's a couple of really cool dark tower shirts on that site too.

[Dan]

http://www.redbubble.com/people/jimiyo/works/7735095-jack-torrances-redrum

Purchased this today. There's a couple of really cool dark tower shirts on that site too.

These were on teefury a couple days ago for $10. Several here purchased them.

[Brice]

That site has a lot of the old teefury stuff. :)

[mtdman]

http://www.redbubble.com/people/jimiyo/works/7735095-jack-torrances-redrum

Purchased this today. There's a couple of really cool dark tower shirts on that site too.

These were on teefury a couple days ago for $10. Several here purchased them.

I know, I missed it. I'm glad I found that site to still get the shirt. Planning on grabbing the Midworld Lanes shirt too. They've got a lot of cool shirts on there.

[Dan]

My new shirt

http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q542/DanielLRoth/006b9c6a.jpg

[mtdman]

Mine came on Weds. I dig it.

[Merlin1958]

I got one too.

[RichardX]

Maybe it's just because I had seen the movie numerous times before I read the book, but I still love the Kubrick film. It's one of my all-time favorite horror films. I also really enjoyed the book, but in a different way. I did like how it added more depth to Jack's character, and we got a lot more history on the hotel.
I've only seen the miniseries once when it first came out, but I just remember not really caring for it much. Maybe I should go back and watch it again.

I loved the film and the book. It's the most complete of King's novels in my opinion. It works on a lot of levels - ghost story, alcoholism, crushing responsibility of families and career and general bad mojo of life. The trip to room 217 was the scariest thing King has written.

[Random321321]

I think it's best to pretend the Kubrick movie and the book have nothing to do with each other. They each have their own merits, though I think the movie is better in its medium.

[jhanic]

I think it's best to pretend the Kubrick movie and the book have nothing to do with each other. They each have their own merits, though I think the movie is better in its medium.

That's just what I do.

John

[Merlin1958]

I think it's best to pretend the Kubrick movie and the book have nothing to do with each other. They each have their own merits, though I think the movie is better in its medium.

I would have to respectfully agree with your first statement and disagree with your second. When I finished reading "The Shining" when it first came out, I thought it to be King's greatest work!!! A totally enthralling read that needed to be counted with the "Classics". Even divesting myself of the book, Kubrick's film was "haunting", but to me not the "scariest" movie of all time ("The Haunting of Hill House", in it's day was scarier. Same could be said for "The Exorcist".) !!! Of course, that's just MHO!!!

[Garrell]

I love the movie but also really love the tv series. I own both and would pick the tv series over the movie even though I am a huge Jack N. fan.

[Merlin1958]

I love the movie but also really love the tv series. I own both and would pick the tv series over the movie even though I am a huge Jack N. fan.

Gotta agree with you there. I also have it on DVD. Nice production for a TV miniseries, well cast and much closer to the book!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Brice]

I enjoy the book, movie, and tv series. :)

[Heather19]

Not a fan of the tv film. It followed the book more closely but I thought the casting was atrocious. I don't know what they were thinking :lol:
Kubrick's film however will forever remain a favorite of mine. Quite possibly my favorite horror film.

[Merlin1958]

Not a fan of the tv film. It followed the book more closely but I thought the casting was atrocious. I don't know what they were thinking :lol:
Kubrick's film however will forever remain a favorite of mine. Quite possibly my favorite horror film.

Oh, and Shelly Duval was "Genius"? LOL LOL LOL

[Heather19]

:lol: Far from it. But for whatever reason she never really bothered me in the film.

[Merlin1958]

:lol: Far from it. But for whatever reason she never really bothered me in the film.

That's about all she did for me. Bother me from start to finish!!! LOL My head kept screaming "Why oh Why"? LOL

[Heather19]

:lol: Yeah I can understand that. Well it's a shame she ruined the movie for you. As far as horror films go it's easily one of the scariest for me.

[Brice]

If Shelley Duvall could act as well as she handled the scene where Jack bust through the door with the axe throughout the whole film she'd have been great. Sadly this is THE single high point of her acting career. LOL

[mattgreenbean]

Shelly has almost black hair and Rebecca has blonde hair, which is correct for Wendy Torrance?

[stkmw02]

I haven't checked the book to be sure, but I remember thinking Rebecca looked more like the Wendy I read about... not sure if there were specific details in the text that caused me to make that decision or not. lol

[Brice]

Wendy Torrance had blonde hair in the book.

[Merlin1958]

I haven't checked the book to be sure, but I remember thinking Rebecca looked more like the Wendy I read about... not sure if there were specific details in the text that caused me to make that decision or not. lol

She did!! The SK TV version was cast much better than the Kubrick version (IMHO) with the exception of Nicholson. Thinking of the movies here of course!

[CyberGhostface]

Question: How much did you like Jack Torrance?

I lent the book to a friend (who walked it into blind and had no idea about Jack Nicholson's take on the character) and she didn't like Jack very much even before he went crazy at the end.

[jhanic]

I have to say I never liked the self-centered SOB too much from the first time I "met" him. He reminded me very much of my alcoholic uncle.

John

[barlow]

I reread The Shining again in February. My current reading copy of this book is an early book club edition that has the same page layout as the first edition, my previous readings were all from paperbacks. This time around I noticed the chapter titled Inside 217, where Danny encounters the woman in the tub, ends on page 217. I don't know if this is a coincidence, I think it would have to be. has anyone else ever picked up on this?

[Odetta]

Hmmm... Never noticed! That's kind of cool, tho!

[CyberGhostface]

I reread The Shining again in February. My current reading copy of this book is an early book club edition that has the same page layout as the first edition, my previous readings were all from paperbacks. This time around I noticed the chapter titled Inside 217, where Danny encounters the woman in the tub, ends on page 217. I don't know if this is a coincidence, I think it would have to be. has anyone else ever picked up on this?

Yeah also the signet paperbacks I own the page where he sees the woman in the tub is on 217 there as well.

[Jean]

Mine too is a signet, and yes, it happens on page 217 (couldn't help re-checking)!

[Stebbins]

Question: How much did you like Jack Torrance?

I lent the book to a friend (who walked it into blind and had no idea about Jack Nicholson's take on the character) and she didn't like Jack very much even before he went crazy at the end.

I don't think I liked him that much either. As John touched on, I think he was completely self-absorbed. If anything I pitied him. Alcoholism is a disease after all (though it can be arrested), and runs rampant-- to varying degrees-- in both sides of my family.

[mattgreenbean]

What is the name of the play that Jack is writing?

[Merlin1958]

What is the name of the play that Jack is writing?

"all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"? LOL

[biomieg]

'The Little School', if I recall correctly.

[TwistedNadine]

Just finished re-reading The Shining. In my minds eye here is Jack and Wendy (I never saw the TV version).
Interesting trivia Jack mentions his favorite story called "The Monkey Is Here, Paul DeLong" had been sold to a "small southern Maine magazine called Contraband..."

http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/500/brad-pitt-as-jeffrey-goines-in-twelve-monkeys.jpg http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/500/medium/Elizabeth-Banks.jpeg

[mattgreenbean]

'The Little School', if I recall correctly.

Thanks!!

[mtdman]

Question: How much did you like Jack Torrance?

I lent the book to a friend (who walked it into blind and had no idea about Jack Nicholson's take on the character) and she didn't like Jack very much even before he went crazy at the end.

As I was writing in the Doctor Sleep thread, I really liked the Jack Torrence character. I thought that The Shining was mostly about Jack. I really empathized with Jack and was pulling for him to not fall prey to the Hotel, and even after he did I kinda rooted for him. I didn't like Wendy much so rooting for him vs Wendy came easy.

[Jean]

same here

[Odetta]

I agree as well. The book makes you do that!

[Merlin1958]

Question: How much did you like Jack Torrance?

I lent the book to a friend (who walked it into blind and had no idea about Jack Nicholson's take on the character) and she didn't like Jack very much even before he went crazy at the end.

As I was writing in the Doctor Sleep thread, I really liked the Jack Torrence character. I thought that The Shining was mostly about Jack. I really empathized with Jack and was pulling for him to not fall prey to the Hotel, and even after he did I kinda rooted for him. I didn't like Wendy much so rooting for him vs Wendy came easy.


same here


I agree as well. The book makes you do that!

I can certainly see where you guys are coming from and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but while I too, rooted for Jack vs The Hotel, I just could not bring myself to root against, Wendy at all. A mother protecting her child? Uh -huh. I do agree with you folks that the story was more about "Jack vs The Hotel" and unfortunately in the end the Hotel and Jack's demons got the best of him until the very last moment. That was extremely tragic and really made the book resonate to me.

I suppose the only point at which I "rooted" against, Wendy was when the hotel was dividing them in the beginning (i.e. the wasps, etc). However, once the proverbial "shit hit the fan" it was a different story. Which, IMHO is kinda one of the great elelments of the overall story. Just how invested, King made you feel. I like to think that, Jack redeemed himself in the end to a large degree, which is why...



Dr. Sleep Spoiler

When reading "Dr. Sleep" I was somewhat off put with, older Danny's feelings regarding his father. That however proved to be premature and in the end, got a tear in my eye for Ol' Jackie-boy!!

Just my two cents.

[Jean]

I can explain why I abhorred Wendy. To me, she seemed one of those females for whom a man is only a means to have a child. She was exactly a type of wife that is a doom of a troubled man. Her main attitude, throughout the book, was "he is bad, he is against us, and we, the two of us, are defending against him as we can."

And one more thing... while I agree with the AA (now I am using the Doctor Sleep material) that for an alcoholic himself it must be beneficial to think that nobody is to blame for his drinking except himself, it is only what the alcoholic himself must think, and how s/he must feel - not everyone else around him. Otherwise, it's all only relieving ourselves of all responsibility and refusing him any support: very modern thinking, in terms of "nobody is responsible for anybody", but something I personally will never buy. It's only if the two sides fully accept the responsibility (a drunk, a suicide, a depressee, a neurotic, whatever) that something can really be achieved.

Now I learned from Doctor Sleep that Dan grew up to be another alcoholic... And I am not in the least surprised. I remember posting somewhere, years ago, that the tragedy of The Shining was only beginning when we learned that from now on he was to live alone with his mother. The way she was described in The Shining, she could get anyone to drink. I wasn't surprised when Dan wondered why she hadn't directed his father to AA, and then he concluded that she probably had never heard of them. Of course. She wouldn't have bothered to find out anything that might really have helped him, because for her he was only an enemy to protect herself and her child against - not a partner who needed help.

[Merlin1958]

I respect your opinion, but I feel you are being a trifle unfair in characterizing, Wendy. Don't get me wrong, it's not like I am a huge fan, but for the most part I saw her as a "Mother", first and foremost. Given that, all her actions were consistent with that mentality. Her base instinct was to protect, Danny. Nothing else mattered. IMHO

[Jean]

yes, but that's exactly what I am complaining of... something else should have mattered; like, for example, her husband? I mean, not only for his sake, but for her own as a human being, and her son's as well.

[Merlin1958]

yes, but that's exactly what I am complaining of... something else should have mattered; like, for example, her husband? I mean, not only for his sake, but for her own as a human being, and her son's as well.

Well, yeah I suppose, but then you have to factor in the relentless doubt and suspicion surrounding the drinking and the past abusive instance and I think she earns a pass, no? Look, nobody rooted for, Jack more than myself, but I could surely understand, Wendy's POV even though she was somewhat of a bitch.

[Jean]

why, of course. I was just explaining why I loved Jack and felt sorry for him (and insane hope that everything will somehow work out every time I re-read the book), and strongly dislike Wendy.

[Merlin1958]

No need to explain, brother bear!! It's a discussion not a debate. No one wins!! LOL FWIW I hate Wendy as well, I just don't have a valid excuse!! LOL

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_wink-1.gif (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/mishemplushem/media/Facilitation/bear_wink-1.gif.html)

[mtdman]

I can explain why I abhorred Wendy. To me, she seemed one of those females for whom a man is only a means to have a child. She was exactly a type of wife that is a doom of a troubled man. Her main attitude, throughout the book, was "he is bad, he is against us, and we, the two of us, are defending against him as we can."

And one more thing... while I agree with the AA (now I am using the Doctor Sleep material) that for an alcoholic himself it must be beneficial to think that nobody is to blame for his drinking except himself, it is only what the alcoholic himself must think, and how s/he must feel - not everyone else around him. Otherwise, it's all only relieving ourselves of all responsibility and refusing him any support: very modern thinking, in terms of "nobody is responsible for anybody", but something I personally will never buy. It's only if the two sides fully accept the responsibility (a drunk, a suicide, a depressee, a neurotic, whatever) that something can really be achieved.

Now I learned from Doctor Sleep that Dan grew up to be another alcoholic... And I am not in the least surprised. I remember posting somewhere, years ago, that the tragedy of The Shining was only beginning when we learned that from now on he was to live alone with his mother. The way she was described in The Shining, she could get anyone to drink. I wasn't surprised when Dan wondered why she hadn't directed his father to AA, and then he concluded that she probably had never heard of them. Of course. She wouldn't have bothered to find out anything that might really have helped him, because for her he was only an enemy to protect herself and her child against - not a partner who needed help.

To add to this, this was exactly the way Wendy's mother was and how she treated her husband. The book talks about how her mother nagged her father and drove him away, and that's exactly what Wendy did to Jack. She blamed him for everything, and nagged him, was suspect of him, and didn't trust him. That added to the problems Jack had.

I did not like Wendy because she was whiney and indecisive and enabled Jack to make these dumb decisions and do dumb things that put them all in trouble. She knows they shouldn't be there but goes along because she's not strong enough to stand up for her and her family.

[mae]

Here's the link to The Losers Club podcast discussion of the book:

https://consequenceofsound.net/podcast-episode/episode-3-the-shining/

[Andaluska]

It was a while back since the last person commented on this thread, but Im going to give it a go!

I have to say that I didnt like the book nor the movie with Jack Nicholson. I dont think I have watched the other version.

The book started good, but it got more and more boring for me. Since I am a person that doesnt like to leave a book without finishin it, as bad is it is, I kept reading... but I decided that I would skip a page here and there... and I realised I didnt miss anything about the story! But hey, I finished it hehe

The bad thing about the movie is that I watched it with Spanish dubbing (is that how you say it? I looked that word up in the dictionary, but I hadnt seen this word before in my life) and it was reeeally bad, like very funny voices, so that didnt do any good to the movie. Maybe I'll watch the original version now that I can understand it hehe

Read you soon!

[nessuno2001]

Dear all,
I have written an article about King's enduring dissatisfaction with Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining. I have quoted from dozens of King's interviews and many of his writings (one retrieved thanks to a few members of this great community), to compose what I think is hopefully a definitive account of King's thoughs and feelings on Kubrick's take on his beloved story. You can read it here:

http://sensesofcinema.com/2020/the-shining-at-40/king-vs-kubrick-the-origins-of-evil/

The article is part of a special issue about "The Shining at 40" with lots of other new analyses of the film and its place in the cinema.

Hope you like it and would love to hear a feedback, given that I am far less of an expert on King than I am on Kubrick. Thanks!