review by Steve Grzesiak Patron
The Shining 1980
Reviewed Aug 13, 2012
Steve Grzesiak’s review:
I think that The Shining is, outside of one of its major plot points, a pretty good name for this film. It's a shining example of why no filmmaker should feel obliged to as closely mirror a book as possible when doing an adaptation.
When Stanley Kubrick released The Shining, Stephen King famously decried it, saying that it hardly resembled his novel at all. Quite often since then people have suggested that King simply does not understand cinema, an opinion that is hardly helped by his one directorial foray (Maximum Overdrive, which I love despite its utter incompetence) and his endorsement of the ridiculous ending tacked on to the adaptation of The Mist.
But maybe, just maybe, he saw something with The Shining that not a great deal of people actually saw back in 1980. After all, this was a film that was not particularly well received critically back then and even troubled The Razzies. I just wonder to this day whether King saw the true genius of what Kubrick had created and could see one of his best novels to that point about to be overshadowed by what would go on to be regarded as quite possibly the greatest horror movie ever created.
It's possible. Unlikely, but possible. After all, much of King's criticism has never been about the quality of the film (even though any praise has always been grudging of what Kubrick had created) but more about the lack of resemblance to his original story. Maybe he was trying to cover some tracks and trying desperately to bring the focus back on to his creation? It can be the only excuse for the dreadful TV mini-series adaptation that he was the driving force behind in the mid-90s.
Arguments about adaptations of stories are a regular bugbear of mine. But those who share my opinion that filmmakers should do whatever they want with source material to try and make a great film will always win - because of The Shining.
ADDENDUM - I reviewed The Shining again a few months later and focused on the two different cuts as well as some general plot points in the film.
I don't care if movies are faithful to the source material. I only want a good movie. If I wanted the story from the book, I'd go read the book.
No Country For Old Men, I feel, was greatly hurt by keeping the ending from the book. If they had something more cinematic, something climactic and on-screen, it would have been such a better film.
Personally, I think that King's end worked well in the book, but it wouldn't have the same power in a film. Nevertheless, Kubrick also took off the chair those who knew the story, which was partly his intentions when he decided to make a suspense/horror movie. Also, I think that is nothing more than absurd to translate a good piece of literature entirely to a film. Better: it isn't possible. Whether you kill literature or kill the film. Great review, Steve. :)
film is such a different medium to literature i think directors/producers have to make the film as they see the book. as with most things people interpret it in different ways; not allways to others liking
I have to disagree! The reason people want to see these movies that were originally books is because the books were soo damn good! I would be highly upset if I read a book that i loved and then saw a movie version of that book that was totally different. I have never read "the shinning" but I honestly liked stephen king's mini series version alot better.
I have to disagree! The reason people want to see these movies that were originally books is because the books were soo damn good! I would be highly upset if I read a book that i loved and then saw a movie version of that book that was totally different. I have never read "the shinning" but I honestly liked stephen king's mini series version alot better.
For some reason I just spotted this review.
Well done Steve!
I am a avid reader of Stephen King's works. The Shining is one of my favorite horror films.
IMHO Jack Nicholson deserves as much, possibly more credit than Kubrick for the success of the movie. He was incredible in that role. I have to agree with Ricky (above) that the TV mini series was very good. I would even go as far as to say if Jack Nicholson had been in the Mini Series instead of the movie, the mini-series would have been better! JMHO
I like all the other comments in this thread.
Good review steve!
You deserve a capital "S" for your name Steve. :-)
Sorry, Ricky, but I disagree that the reason people go to see adaptations of books is because they enjoyed the book. I don't doubt many people do that but I personally don't. I think I'm far from being the only one, too.
A film is a film. A book is a book. I don't think either should have any reason or duty to be like the other. As soon as you try and be ultra faithful to source material then you are sacrificing levels of quality that the film version could be reaching.
As for The Shining, well, I'm sure Stephen King will be delighted that at least two people agree with him about that nasty Stanley Kubrick!
Sorry, Ricky, but I disagree that the reason people go to see adaptations of books is because they enjoyed the book. I don't doubt many people do that but I personally don't. I think I'm far from being the only one, too.
A film is a film. A book is a book. I don't think either should have any reason or duty to be like the other. As soon as you try and be ultra faithful to source material then you are sacrificing levels of quality that the film version could be reaching.
As for The Shining, well, I'm sure Stephen King will be delighted that at least two people agree with him about that nasty Stanley Kubrick!