chowley-62164
When I was in high school, and was supposed to be sleeping, getting ready for school the next day, many nights I was awake all night reading the early Stephen King novels. I have not read him for quite awhile now. I don't know if his writing style would have the same impact on me as it did back then, but at that time I did like the way he wrote about the thoughts of the characters. I know that there are those who find him to be too expository. I have just finished reading every User Review on IMDb for Stanley Kubrick's, "The Shining". Prior to that, I read as many professional reviews as I could find. In addition, I read Bill Blakemore's analysis, Rob Ager's excellent analysis, and Juli Kearns' wonderful shot by shot analysis of this incredibly deep film. While I do not claim to know all about the film because it may not be possible, due to Kubrick's famous adoption of H.P. Lovecraft's view, "in all things mysterious, never explain", I have come to believe certain things about the film. After watching the film many times, in more and more detail each time, I am persuaded by Juli Kearns' view that many of the scenes are actually Jack Torrance's mental images of the novel he is writing. Only a few of the scenes are real life experiences of the characters.As I read comments from negative reviews of the film, what Kearns argues makes more and more sense. Many negative reviewers wrote that the acting seemed wooden, and not credible. Keep in mind that Torrance is suffering from writer's block. If he is having trouble writing, what he is imagining for his writing project may not be quality, believable dialogue. This would explain why, for example, when Halloran starts making calls to find out what is happening at The Overlook, and then plans to travel there, many reviewers found his dialogue to not be credible. This would also explain the criticism of Shelley Duvall's performance. Many found her annoying, and at least one review opined that a person in this situation would not respond in the way that she did. If we apply Kearns' argument that many of Wendy's actions are actually Jack imagining her in his writing project, we can then understand why she acts the way she does.For me, this film is a horror masterpiece, and one of the best films ever made. It also employs, as Kearns and others point out, Kubrick's habit of inserting narratives underneath the surface narrative. Many people see many things under the surface of this film. The intriguing one to me is the metaphor of The Overlook as America, and the death of Halloran, and the blood pouring from the elevator representing the genocide of both the Native Americans, and African Americans. Any conclusions, or mistakes made in drawing conclusions is mine alone, and should not be attributed to Blakemore, Ager, Kearns, or anyone else.I do not believe in ad hominem attacks because I respect people too much to do so, but I would like to invite those who found negatives in the film to read the analysis of Blakemore, Kearns, Ager, and anyone else who has written thoughtfully about Kubrick's, "The Shining", and then to view the film again. You may see a lot more in this film than in previous viewing(s).I will not disparage the novel, while praising the film. Without the novel, Kubrick and Diane Johnson would not have had a story to build on. Also, as many others have pointed out, those who dislike the film, (many it seems, very intensely) do so because it did not follow the novel 100%. For those viewers, keep this in mind. There are two different ways to bring a novel to the screen. A translation is when the film producer follows the novel word for word. An adaptation is when the film producer uses certain aspects of the novel, discards other aspects, and then adds elements all the producer's own. Many of you who do not like the film, dislike it solely because it is not a translation, which, apparently you were expecting. If you are able to see it as an adaptation, and not a translation, you may see the film differently. Then again, perhaps not.
Another aspect of this issue is that, in American films, probably more than elsewhere, the pressure for film makers to produce profits for their investors causes the films to spoon feed everything to audiences. Kubrick challenged audiences to think and draw their own conclusions. His films strongly encourage repeated viewings. It is an interactive process. Kubrick credits the intelligence of his audience. If all you see or are looking for is a horror film, I believe you are missing a tremendous amount of the richness of narratives Kubrick hid in this gem of a film.I will close by expressing tremendous respect for Stephen King, Stanley Kubrick, Diane Johnson, the performances of Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, Scatman Crothers, Barry Nelson, Joe Turkel, Philip Stone (the scene in the men's room with Nicholson was one of the greatest in film history), Anne Jackson, Billie Gibson, Lia Beldam, Lisa and Louise Burns, John Alcott (cinematographer), Garrett Brown (inventor of the Steadicam, allowing all of the amazing tracking shots), Ray Lovejoy (amazing editor), long time Kubrick assistant Leon Vitali (who, with his wife conducted the search for, and found Danny Lloyd), and all others involved with the making of this one of a kind film.
