NOW READING

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Also, King has said that he thought Shelly Duvall's portrayal was too weak. The character was stronger in the book. Of course, the special effects at the time could not handle the topiary coming to life so instead we got a maze in the film.
 
It also depends what it is that you want and expect. This is further complicated by the fact that in this particular case the film and the book - while having the same characters and quite similar plot - are very different, yet both are masterpieces of their respective art form.

Kubrick's Shining is an amazing horror movie with an original touch, very convincing acting and many iconic scenes. King's Shining is a hauntingly accurate character study on alcoholism/compulsions (much better than that stupid clichéfest Requiem for a Dream [movie] could ever be) and disfunctional families as well as an interesting and untrivial reflection of America in the 20th century (it probably won't surprise you one of my favourite chapters was the one with the scrapbook - almost completely missing in the movie version, much like most of the hotel's history, apart from some orphaned hints otherwise completely incomprehensible to anyone having not read the book (eg the bloke in the dog suit)).

I love both, but the book is more resonant... according to Judas, that is. ;)
 
The character is almost unimportant compared to what happens in the film. But I can see the writer's point of view of course (and I didn't even read the book to be honest; I wasn't that busy with the character, because I was too f**ck'n busy (scared!) with the rest of the film; probably the scariest film I've ever seen).
 
jazz from hell said:
King fails to recognize Nicholson's iconic performance and Kubrick's psychological power.
Click to expand...
Actually, it has nothing to do with Nicholson's performance. The character in the film is not the same as the one in the book. For example, in the book the father goes crazy gradually and that process is very important both for him, and the whole family. It's an absolutely terrifying experience to feel your sanity slipping away and to realize you're losing the battle with yourself. At the same time, his son slowly realizes that the man he looks up to and relies on the most is turning into a monster and a deadly menace. This is an extremely powerful aspect of the book. Meanwhile, the film portraits the father as a psycho from the very beginning, which makes the character flat.

Forostar said:
The character is almost unimportant compared to what happens in the film.
Click to expand...
On the contrary. I would actually strongly recommend reading the book.
 
Ariana said:
Actually, it has nothing to do with Nicholson's performance. The character in the film is not the same as the one in the book. For example, in the book the father goes crazy gradually and that process is very important both for him, and the whole family. It's an absolutely terrifying experience to feel your sanity slipping away and to realize you're losing the battle with yourself. At the same time, his son slowly realizes that the man he looks up to and relies on the most is turning into a monster and a deadly menace. This is an extremely powerful aspect of the book. Meanwhile, the film portraits the father as a psycho from the very beginning, which makes the character flat.


On the contrary. I would actually strongly recommend reading the book.
Click to expand...

:wub:
 
Ariana said:
This is an extremely powerful aspect of the book. Meanwhile, the film portraits the father as a psycho from the very beginning, which makes the character flat.
Click to expand...
It didn't make the film flat for me, because it's such a striking, unique visual experience. But yeah, if I'd known the book in advance, it might have.
 
I never said the film wasn't a masterpiece for its genre. In fact, I approach most King's adaptations as separate entities from the respective books they are based on because I acknowledge the directors' right to artistic expression. But this holds true for me as a simple reader/viewer. But as the man who created Jack Torrance, King is more than entitled to his opinion, even if you don't like it.

Forostar said:
It didn't make the film flat for me, because it's such a striking, unique visual experience. But yeah, if I'd known the book in advance, it might have.
Click to expand...
I said the character was flat, not the film. :P
 
Last edited:
Ariana said:
I never said the film wasn't a masterpiece for its genre. In fact, I approach most King's adaptations as separate entities from the respective books they are based on because I acknowledge the directors' right to artistic expression. But this holds true for me as a simple reader/viewer. But as the man who created Jack Torrance, King is more than entitled to his opinion, even if you don't like it.


I said the character was flat, not the film. :p
Click to expand...
Yes, I know, but I am still relating to the film, as I thought that was the reason for King not liking the whole film.
 
Last edited:
Lampwick 43 said:
I haven't gotten around to reading The Green Mile. I love the movie though, for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

One of the few King-adaptations that are very close to the book.

Favourite King-book? The Dark Tower VII. King not only brought a satisfying conclusion to his most ambitious work, he ended it in a way that still resonates with me today, 10 years since I first read it. Along with that, I want to mention Duma Key and 11/22/63.

Forostar said:
It didn't make the film flat for me, because it's such a striking, unique visual experience. But yeah, if I'd known the book in advance, it might have.
Click to expand...

A flat character is simply a character who doesn't change as the story progresses. It isn't a criticism in itself - lots of characters fall in this category, it's just that in this particular story King's main point was showing that progression. It became about another thing entirely and that's why King is still upset about it years later. King would probably say The Shining is about a decent man being consumed by evil. Kubrick's film is about a family being trapped with an insane man in a scary hotel.
 
LooseCannon said:
Kubrick tries to make you think it's the hotel that drives him insane, but it doesn't really...work.
Click to expand...

In that case they should have picked someone else to play the role of the father than Jack Nicholson. Don't know if it's the way Nicholson acts/is but the father is peculiar from the get go...
 
It has been argued that Nicholson's character was highly abusive towards his family even before the events of the film, which makes the whole thing more their story than his.
 
If I understand it correctly, in the book the hotel is a rather bad place where many dreadful things have happened in the past (and their recollections haunt the place forever), but Jack's alcoholism/obsessive tendencies are symptoms of a bigger evil in Jack himself which the hotel helps to bring to the surface. But without Overlook, he might have been a drunk and an occasionaly violent person, but still within borders. I believe that after that incident with Danny's hand, he was more than willing to really do his best and become a better person. And that he might have even succeeded. Well, he did in the end, in a way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top