Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by zombie dai, Jun 12, 2022.
But the Danny in the movie was ok by you?
I have no problem with the actor who played Danny in the movie. I'm not completely satisfied with how Tony is handled in the film, but that's not related the boy who played Danny.
I read the book before I saw the film.
The book, imo, is not one of Steven King’s best.
I like the film. I don’t find it scary, but can understand why many do.
Jack Nicholson’s performance is much-discussed. King felt he was miscast because it’s clear from the outset that he’s an unhinged personality and Nicholson carries the weight of his previous oddball roles (not his fault there, of course). However, I think his performance has moments of brilliance that only a great screen actor is capable of (especially the scene where he reassures his son that nothing bad is going to happen, while conveying to the audience a completely opposite message). He also manages to make Jack Torrance likeable and even borderline sympathetic at times.
Shelley Duvall’s role seems thankless sometimes - all she’s required to do is react to Nicholson, while trying to preserve a sunny demeanour. But that’s a difficult thing to pull off with conviction and she manages it here (apparently, Kubrick bullied her horribly into giving the kind of performance he wanted).
I love the scene with Delbert Grady in the Men’s Room: the direction and photography in that scene is masterful, the sense of creeping menace superbly managed.
I think Cuckoo’s Nest created the ‘Jack Nicholson’ we think of when we think of Jack Nicholson, and he was called upon to portray variations on that role in several films that followed (The Shining and Witches Of Eastwick being the two most obvious examples).
He now looks very odd playing romantic leads in those Roger Corman films he made in the sixties.
I never compare films and books. As long as they say "based on the novel" it could be the bare minimum
For those who saw The Shining around the time of its release I've always been curious how it was perceived in some aspects. I was born several years after the films release and didnt see it until the mid 00's. By then I found some of the more overt horror based aspects a little dated and borderline cheesey. Like when Wendy begins to see the apparitions and the skeletons the effects were almost humourous to me, but in 1980 would that have been like cutting edge terrifying? Like in the theaters would people have been screaming at that? Ive always wondered if that part was something that has just lost something over the decades sort of like how nobody would be terrified by L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat today, but at one point it may have been a truly horrifying experience?
What did immediately impress me about the film was how unsettling it was. From literally the opening shots Kubrick establishes something unnerving that keeps you alert and on edge. I mean that opening sequence of the car driving through Glacier National Park as filmed from a helicopter are gorgeous shots that could be used in a Travel Montana commercial, but the use of that creepy music transforms it into something far more ominous. The way music is used in this film is incredibly effective. That kind of dance hall music from a bygone era is akin to being a ghost from the past itself it amplifies the uneasy feel that the visuals and story convey.
The Shining also feels like one of those films that demands to be seen in theaters. Something seems to get lost a bit in translation to the small screen. The Hotel to me is one of the main characters of the movie. Some of the larger expansive sets must have seemed almost surreal on the big screen, at times dreadedly claustrophobic and at others inescapably massive and daunting. Certain scenes visually would be incredibly overwhelming to the senses on a big screen, like the bathroom scene with Grady, the way that is lit with that red bathroom filling your entire field of vision I think would enhance the sinister aspects of it greatly as opposed to seeing it in your familiar living room with smiling photos of your grandkids on the wall behind the television.
This approach to horror is so interesting to me. It seems most horror these days is either monsters, ghosts or jump scares. This movie employs those tactics to a very minimal degree and yet its the one that sticks with me most, like that slow burning intensity and anticipation seeped into my nerves themselves. It has a subconscious level to it that adds a great deal to the overall feeling of unease. If youve ever been somewhere and suddenly got a feeling something wasnt right and you needed to leave out of nowhere despite everything around you seeming normal then you'll understand the kind of subconscious horror I mean. By the end of the film I usually feel exhausted which seems to me to by a byproduct of that sort of fight of flight response my body has been in for the couple hours of watching the movie. I'm not sure why more horror movies dont take this approach, it certainly is effective and long lasting. After watching the film and feeling its effect I always feel that maybe I also cant escape the Overlook Hotel.
Yeah, he's no manic character in films like Chinatown, Five Easy Pieces, King Of Marvin Gardens or indeed those Corman films. He's versatile enough and there was no reason at that point to assume that he was automatically gonna do the "here's Johnny" performance in The Shining.
for years, he didn't know he had made a horror film, so the problem may be how do you get a kid to act the part in a horror film when he doesn't know that's what he is making. i thought that he was ok. the 'man in his mouth' and finger thing i found weird and annoying, respectively
I read the book decades ago. I've never liked the film.
I actually prefer Salems lot. That's an excellent book. The David soul film is good but not as good as the book.
can you think of any king horror novels that were good films? the tower (?) was decent. shawshank and green mile, although not 'horror' were good too
Yes, Kubrick was a true master and broke the 180 degree rule to create disorientation for the viewer.
Let Kubrick and Aronofsky Tell You When (and How) to Break the 180° Rule
Another reason why it's miles above the TV version which had none of the artistry that Kubrick's version did.
I watched it originally because I generally like Stephen King made-for-TV movies. It was OK.
I watched it a second time about 15 years ago to see how much of the Stanley Hotel, which alleged inspired the novel and was used in the TV production, was in it. I had recently stayed there. I had the room on the third floor directly above the entrance. The decor was pretty scary, at least.
I enjoyed it but I agree with others who say it is not Kubrick's best.
King strikes me as very bitter and, sadly, he got the awful "Doctor Sleep" off the ground, presumably in part to try and trash the Kubrick legacy.
that camera album does make it seem imposing!
My band played a gig in Bangor, Maine back in 1985 and there were only 2 people in the audience. One was Stephen King. One of the weirder gigs in my life. King seemed quite normal and gave us all autographed books. Mine was Cujo. He did mention that the only film adaptation of his work that he liked was the Shining.
The Shining is not a movie. It’s a documentary about family
That's my take on it too. There are some really good, scary scenes, but......
The Dead zone was decent although it did tip it's hand early on.
I actually liked Misery, as a movie, better than those. It was more cohesive. But they're all a bit annoying to watch. Just like I find all Kubrick movies annoying. King and Kubrick were actually a good writer/director tandem in that regard. Too bad they were at odds.
only movie based on a King novel that I like is John Carpenter's "Christine."
Separate names with a comma.