3 ms·

I have read King's novel, and I have watched Kubrick's movie (many, many times). I am not usually a friend of novel adaptations, but the movie simply is in anot

by lqet 2y ago

I have read King's novel, and I have watched Kubrick's movie (many, many times). I am not usually a friend of novel adaptations, but the movie simply is in another league than the book. It is much, much better. King's novel is a relatively straightforward horror story / thriller, with some elements that go a little bit over the top. Kubrick's movie is a postmodern masterpiece, with layers upon layers upon layers of meaning. After 20 years of re-watching both of them I have come to the conclusion that Shining cuts even deeper than 2001. And it also works as an entertaining (and frightening) horror movie. In my opinion, it is Kubrick's singular masterpiece. And, above all, it is still quite faithful to the original novel. Many dialogues from the book appear virtually unchanged in the screenplay. That being said, I understand why King the author doesn't like it. Kubrick carved something out of this novel which really wasn't there in the first place, he only needed the story as a vehicle of meaning. To King, this may have appeared as an arrogant (or even condescending) abuse of his story.

klelatti 2y ago
> he only needed the story as a vehicle of meaning Agreed and I wonder if the same could be said of 2001?
- Hard_Space 2y ago
  Well, Kubrick and Clarke developed 2001 together, based pretty loosely on the Clarke short story The Sentinel, so I don't think it is applicable.
  - KineticLensman 2y ago
    > based pretty loosely on the Clarke short story The Sentinel The Sentinel provided the idea for the monolith on the moon being an alien 'intelligent life detector' (i.e. to detect when humans had achieved spaceflight). But it has no man-apes, no Jupiter mission, no HAL, no star-gate sequence. The bulk of the plot came from the Clarke-Kubrick collaboration, which had numerous other inputs [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey#Writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey#Writing
    - Hard_Space 2y ago
      Hence 'loosely'. From your link: > Clarke offered Kubrick six of his short stories, and by May 1964, Kubrick had chosen "The Sentinel" as the source material for the film
iknownthing 2y ago
> with layers upon layers upon layers of meaning What were the layers of meaning? To me, the shining is kubricks most straight-forward movie.
maxwell 2y ago
I'm reading Carrie, good book so far, reminds me of high school (in Maine) but more the stories recounted by teachers. It reads basically as historical fiction in the little details (jocks and seamstresses and such), while also seeming sadly in line with some recent events. In the early '70s it seems like it was cool to conform, as King explicitly asserts in the book. In the early '00s it was cool to be different. Now it seems like conformity is (was?) cool again, pretty disturbing. I'd consider making the book required reading if I were a high school English teacher. I saw the movie in high school in the '00s, very faithful to the novel and the casting was even more amazing reading the book (which is 90% of directing, according to Scorsese (who was introduced to De Niro by De Palma)), and to me surpasses the source material. Hits harder as a linear narrative.
derbOac 2y ago
I've never been able to get into The Shining — or much of King's writing — so in that sense I agree with you, and feel like maybe we're in the minority. You might ultimately be right about why King was unhappy with Kubrick's film, but my understanding is that at least ostensibly King's fundamental concern is that the the film wasn't as sympathetic to Jack as he intended it to be. King meant for Jack to be a diseased but sympathetic victim of the hotel, and feels that the film portrayed Jack as a villain who is an interwoven part of the hotel's menace. I always assumed he felt attached to this issue because of his own struggles with substance use earlier in his life, with The Shining being part of his recovery and rehabilitation, and Jack being a sort of projection of how he felt. That's just my general impressions though. I'm not either a King or Kubrick devotee, although I respect both a lot as artists. I do feel that the film in particular is a masterpiece, and have always felt a certain discrepancy between how I feel about the novel and the film, so I've probably read more about it than most film adaptations of books. I could easily be missing something important, or misunderstanding something.
542354234235 2y ago
> King's novel is a relatively straightforward horror story / thriller, with some elements that go a little bit over the top. Interesting how we could see it so differently. I think the book does an amazing job of showing the struggle of alcoholism, and more generally, how good people can do evil things. How we can be a good person that cares for and love others, and how circumstance, inner demons, and our choices can lead us to hurt the ones we love. Jack in the book clearly loves his family, but struggles with anger issues, impulse control, and alcoholism, mostly stemming from the abuse he endured at the hands of his violent, alcoholic father. The ability to be inside Jack’s head, and King’s great writing, show Jack to be a man desperately trying overcome his trauma for his family that he deeply loves. His struggles to build trust that are undone in a moment of uncontrolled anger, while extreme, are very relatable and feel real. The Overlook is a supernatural externalization of inner demons. The ghosts poisoning his mind against his family represents paranoid thinking and trust issues that come from childhood trauma. He loved his father and all his father did was hurt him, and so eventually Wendy and Danny would hurt him too. The movie did not explore any of this. Movie Jack barely tolerates his family from the beginning, and it isn’t much of a struggle to make him hate them. The movie takes the same basic story and uses it to explore very different things. I think the book and the movie are excellent and I don’t even really try to compare them, since they aren’t even trying to do the same thing.

by lqet 2y ago

klelatti 2y ago

> he only needed the story as a vehicle of meaning Agreed and I wonder if the same could be said of 2001?

Hard_Space 2y ago
Well, Kubrick and Clarke developed 2001 together, based pretty loosely on the Clarke short story The Sentinel, so I don't think it is applicable.
- KineticLensman 2y ago
  > based pretty loosely on the Clarke short story The Sentinel The Sentinel provided the idea for the monolith on the moon being an alien 'intelligent life detector' (i.e. to detect when humans had achieved spaceflight). But it has no man-apes, no Jupiter mission, no HAL, no star-gate sequence. The bulk of the plot came from the Clarke-Kubrick collaboration, which had numerous other inputs [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey#Writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey#Writing
  - Hard_Space 2y ago
    Hence 'loosely'. From your link: > Clarke offered Kubrick six of his short stories, and by May 1964, Kubrick had chosen "The Sentinel" as the source material for the film

iknownthing 2y ago

> with layers upon layers upon layers of meaning What were the layers of meaning? To me, the shining is kubricks most straight-forward movie.

maxwell 2y ago

I'm reading Carrie, good book so far, reminds me of high school (in Maine) but more the stories recounted by teachers. It reads basically as historical fiction in the little details (jocks and seamstresses and such), while also seeming sadly in line with some recent events. In the early '70s it seems like it was cool to conform, as King explicitly asserts in the book. In the early '00s it was cool to be different. Now it seems like conformity is (was?) cool again, pretty disturbing. I'd consider making the book required reading if I were a high school English teacher. I saw the movie in high school in the '00s, very faithful to the novel and the casting was even more amazing reading the book (which is 90% of directing, according to Scorsese (who was introduced to De Niro by De Palma)), and to me surpasses the source material. Hits harder as a linear narrative.

derbOac 2y ago

I've never been able to get into The Shining — or much of King's writing — so in that sense I agree with you, and feel like maybe we're in the minority. You might ultimately be right about why King was unhappy with Kubrick's film, but my understanding is that at least ostensibly King's fundamental concern is that the the film wasn't as sympathetic to Jack as he intended it to be. King meant for Jack to be a diseased but sympathetic victim of the hotel, and feels that the film portrayed Jack as a villain who is an interwoven part of the hotel's menace. I always assumed he felt attached to this issue because of his own struggles with substance use earlier in his life, with The Shining being part of his recovery and rehabilitation, and Jack being a sort of projection of how he felt. That's just my general impressions though. I'm not either a King or Kubrick devotee, although I respect both a lot as artists. I do feel that the film in particular is a masterpiece, and have always felt a certain discrepancy between how I feel about the novel and the film, so I've probably read more about it than most film adaptations of books. I could easily be missing something important, or misunderstanding something.

542354234235 2y ago

> King's novel is a relatively straightforward horror story / thriller, with some elements that go a little bit over the top. Interesting how we could see it so differently. I think the book does an amazing job of showing the struggle of alcoholism, and more generally, how good people can do evil things. How we can be a good person that cares for and love others, and how circumstance, inner demons, and our choices can lead us to hurt the ones we love. Jack in the book clearly loves his family, but struggles with anger issues, impulse control, and alcoholism, mostly stemming from the abuse he endured at the hands of his violent, alcoholic father. The ability to be inside Jack’s head, and King’s great writing, show Jack to be a man desperately trying overcome his trauma for his family that he deeply loves. His struggles to build trust that are undone in a moment of uncontrolled anger, while extreme, are very relatable and feel real. The Overlook is a supernatural externalization of inner demons. The ghosts poisoning his mind against his family represents paranoid thinking and trust issues that come from childhood trauma. He loved his father and all his father did was hurt him, and so eventually Wendy and Danny would hurt him too. The movie did not explore any of this. Movie Jack barely tolerates his family from the beginning, and it isn’t much of a struggle to make him hate them. The movie takes the same basic story and uses it to explore very different things. I think the book and the movie are excellent and I don’t even really try to compare them, since they aren’t even trying to do the same thing.