|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 7:07 am
First there was the box-office hit, Stanley Kubrik's "The Shining". Then Steven King, in an effort to get his name back in his title, made the miniseries Steven King's "The Shining".
Here is my opinion on the matter:
With only three main characters, Kubrik’s shining still managed a very weak cast.The wife looked like something from area 51 wearing a black wig. She is a brittle, panicky, shrill little simperer, annoying nervous laughter incarnate, somebody so shaky and irritating that you can almost empathize with Jack's attempt to bash her brains in.
Let's talk about Jack shall we? In this film, the last name "Torrance" simply doesn't stick. We have an irredemably sarcastic, nasty, abusive b*****d, who gradually becomes a psychotic, sarcastic, nasty, abusive b*****d. The homicidal insanity barely produces any visible change in the character, and there is no attempt whatsoever to be endearing, or pleasant, or funny, or in any way appeal to the audience. Instead of the conflict and loss, when Jack turns up frozen to death we feel a vague "Ding dong the witch is dead" satisfaction. Jack Nichol-I mean, Torrance is gone, and good riddance.
When I heard about Kubrik's "Vision", a word that when used in a directorial context I spit with the same disgust as "bloody discharge", Kubrik saw the Shining as an allegory about human violence. He didn't believe in ghosts and, lacking the psychological depth to understand the concept of "fiction", decided that it was a story about a man who goes insane, tries to murder his family, and blames it on imagined ghosts, rather than a man who is driven insane by ghosts which try to force him to murder his family. Never mind that the intent and essentials of the work go against this utterly. Never mind that Jack persistantly and against all evidence denies the existance of the ghosts, which pretty much shoots down the blame theory. If this whole thing was a hallucination of Jack's, then how did he wind up patched in to the old party photograph?
Final Notes:
Why did kubrik change room 217 to room 248 or whatever it was? Why change somethign so identifying and non-plot-essential as the room number? What motivation could this have other than pure spite? Did this actually happen, this alteration, or is it a figment of my own troubled mind?
Roque/Croquet Mallet > Axe.
Shining, The Miniseries:
The 1997 miniseries version of "The Shining" was everything that the movie utterly failed to be. The actor playing Jack Torrance really WAS Jack Torrance, utterly believable, and perfectly realist and multi-dimensional. He was a good and loving father, somebody trying to support his family, driven mad by possessing specters. He had real tenderness, real grief, real dismay at his own slipping sanity, and he even did the fear reactions with an authenticity most horror actors lack. Wendy is beautiful, if not physically attractive by my standards, she has that "presence" of power, cares about her family, and san hold her own against her husband. Danny is played by a simply amazing child actor. He does all the emotions and the "trances" perfectly, eyes rolled back, psychically unresponsive, foaming at the mouth. The scenes of horror are well-executed, and everything is developed with a mounting suspense at that leisurly and expansive pace that miniseries allow.
What do you think?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:57 am
I've always thought of the Kubrick/Nicholson "The Shining" as a classic, and have watched it (and gotten others to watch it) many times over the years. The story itself - of a man driven insane by forces he refuses to admit exist, even as these same forces wreck havoc on his son, and a woman trying (however ineptly the attempt) to save her family - was something that wasn't seen too often back when this version came out. So it was something that got into your head and stayed with you. However, you're completely right about the characters. Wendy is beyond cloying and grates on the nerves something awful. I find Danny completely unbelievable. And Jack... well, this is tough because I adore Jack Nicholson and it feels somewhat sacrilegious to say this, but... I just want to shoot him and get it over with from the beginning. Still, I enjoy this movie greatly and insist all my friends see it. The characters, flawed as they are, aren't what does it for me. What does it for me is the imagery and the story itself. It draws you in and captivates the mind. At least to me.
I haven't read the book yet, nor have I seen the King version. Both have been on my To-Do list for awhile... I just haven't gotten around to them. But hearing your description of the King version, I see it being bumped to the top of my Movies to Watch list. After all, since King wrote the book, it only stands to reason he'd make the better movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:39 pm
The original movie (not SK's) had a better cast, though not ever reading the book, I'm not sure how the characters were supposed to act. The first movie had a much stronger cast, and the kid didn't look like a complete and total t**t. The wife was good because she got so scared, but I was told that she was supposed to be very protective. In that aspect - failed. Jack Nicholason was perfect. The guy that they got to play that character in the second movie - NO CONTEST! lol
The new movie (SK's version) wasn't like the book, from what I've HEARD. Again, not ever read the book because we don't have it and are poor 3nodding I couldn't tell if the kid was supposed to be a boy or girl, and though the graphics were better, the 'scare' was taken out of most of it.
I guess I can't really comment from a book's point of view until I've read it. I liked the first one better, but I'm sure SK knows his books more than the first guy lol xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
