|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
- Ghosts
- Homicidal Spouses
- Horror Films
- Jack Nicholson Films
- Psychic Powers
- Psychopaths
- Shelley Duvall Films
- Stanley Kubrick Films
- Writers
Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “Stanley Kubrick adaptation of what may be Stephen King’s finest novel utilizes a big budget, stars Jack Nicholson, and has some amazing camera work, but comes off as being no better than a mannered version of The Amityville Horror,” in which “a father… goes insane/becomes possessed after moving into an evil residence and tries to kill his family, just as a previous tenant had done.” Peary posits that “the film doesn’t concentrate enough on [Lloyd’s] primal fears” that “Nicholson [will try] to harm him and his mother”, and that Kubrick insufficiently exploits “the fact that [Lloyd] has a special gift.” He continues comparing the movie to the novel, noting that “in King’s book, the boy’s power is why the hotel wants the boy to be sacrificed to it, so that he’d become part of it (just as the house in The Haunting desires Julie Harris, who has extrasensory powers).” In the novel, “the hotel is the embodiment of evil, a major character, the major force that affects the father and son” whereas in Kubrick’s film, “the hotel houses evil entities but is, strangely, pretty neutral.” Peary adds that “Kubrick seems so entranced by Nicholson’s creation of a psychotic that he neglects much that was essential to King’s book”, making the mistake of having “Nicholson act weirdly from the outset, so that he seems only a couple of writer’s-block and cabin-fever days away from insanity.”
Peary argues that “for us to fully grasp Danny’s primal fear that his father will turn on him and his mother, it’s important that the father begin the story as a sympathetic, loving father and husband” — though I’m not sure I agree with this assessment. Much to King’s stated chagrin, Kubrick most definitely made this story his own — but within the logic of Kubrick’s interpretation, it makes sense that Lloyd’s fear of his father (who abused him sufficiently to prompt him to stop attending school) would simply intensify upon moving to an isolated house away from the rest of humanity. Peary posits that “Nicholson’s crazed performance begins to wear on one’s nerves, no matter how remarkable it is at times” (I would agree), and that “by [the] picture’s end, one realizes that Duvall has outacted him” (well, she certainly gives a powerhouse performance — perhaps the best of her career!). Peary concedes that “there are scary things in the movie — the appearance of the dead twins:
… Duvall reading her husband’s lengthy manuscript and discovering that it’s proof positive he is insane:
… Nicholson chasing his son through the outdoor maze with an axe”:
— and he writes that “for a while it is both powerful and creepy”. But he believes that “the moment Nicolson talks with the ghost bartender, the picture loses its grip,” and “from then on everything comes across as absurd.”
Peary also hates the famous final shot, arguing that it’s “a terrible choice” and illustrates that “neither Kubrick nor his co-writer, Diane Johnson, was familiar enough with horror films to know what were the cliches of the genre.” In the film’s favor, Peary notes that “as do all Kubrick pictures, this one (in which he employed a Steadicam) looks great — better, in fact, than all other horror films”, and that Kubrick’s “familiar mannered, intentionally rapid dialogue (in which everyone uses the other person’s first name repeatedly) does create tension.”
Given what a tremendous fan base this film has — an entire documentary, Room 237 (2012), is devoted simply to various potential explanations of underlying themes — it’s impossible to deny its importance in cinematic history. Like Peary, I appreciate much of the craftsmanship on display in The Shining — and unlike Peary, I’m not upset about the numerous significant shifts from King’s novel (which I haven’t read); I believe viewers should watch this film as part of Stanley Kubrick’s oeuvre, rather than as a “King adaptation”. However, I’ll admit to not being a huge personal fan of the film, simply because the pacing seems off (it takes more than half an hour for the family to finally be left alone in the hotel), and Nicholson’s psychopathic character is so utterly unlikable and obnoxious from start to finish that he’s challenging to watch for so long. I do recommend that all film fanatics give Room 237 a look, simply to take a deeper dive into what might possibly be going on in Kubrick’s meticulously planned storyline (is the shift in typewriter color an accident of continuity, or intentional? what is the significance of Danny’s Apollo USA sweater?). Agree or disagree with the views espoused, you’ll surely begin to understand the depth to which many people obsess over this movie.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Fine central performances (albeit questionably directed in the case of Nicholson)
- Highly effective direction, cinematography, and sets
- Many genuine moments of terror
Must See?
Yes, as a cult classic by a master director.
Categories
- Cult Movie
- Important Director
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)
Links:
|
