Very low supernatural energy from the film
-
bitchsurn — 5 months ago(October 06, 2025 05:24 PM)
In order to do that, I will have to rewatch about an hour or so of The Shining since it has been so long since I have seen it. But as I remember the impression she left on me: her acting was amateurish (and bad amateurish at that) and was hard to watch. The character she portrayed came off as completely unreal in that version of The Shining. I do not remember her as a character in the movie that I cared anything abouty, and that was part of the problem with that version of The Shining.
-
ToastedCheese — 5 months ago(October 08, 2025 10:03 AM)
Personally, I think Duvall was terrific with what she was working with. She was a natural, spontaneous and in the moment actress. She was used to working with Altman, who was by many accounts easy going and didn't mind improv within the scene. He trusted his actors. Kubrick reined in and controlled Duvall's performance. Her own little unique quirks do sneak in.
Kubrick was a megalomaniac, cerebral director and likely on the disorder spectrum. His ego was bigger than the Overlook. He would not have cast Duvall if he didn't think she was capable as an actress. Nicholson has also sung her praises.
When I watch
The Shining
, it is largely for Duvall. If you haven't seen Altman's unusual and even ambiguous
3 Women - '77
, I can highly recommend it for Duvall alone. The film is very layered and full of so many wonderful character moments and personality traits, that it is a pleasure to watch for new reveals on repeat viewings. Duvall shared Cannes best actress award for her role here.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
ToastedCheese — 5 months ago(October 08, 2025 10:14 AM)
. . . it seemed as if all of her acting in that movie was way overly exaggerated.
Then one can blame Kubrick for that. See my other response. Duvall could have played terrified without having to be abused with over take after take after take.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
-
Keelai — 5 months ago(October 05, 2025 07:13 PM)
I think it's both abuse and supernatural.
I remember the boy traumatized by his abusive father in the book. And a ghost released Jack from the locked room. The TV movie was supposed to be faithful to the book, but I found it boring and performances lackluster.
Nicholson's movie is over-the-top, but it’s effectively creepy, memorable and interesting to watch. It's a classic and King's best movie adaption. -
bitchsurn — 5 months ago(October 05, 2025 10:18 PM)
Here is what King has theoretically said about Kubrick's film version:
https://screenrant.com/stephen-king-shining-movie-stanley-kubrick-opinion/
I had read somewhere that after Kubrick's version, he would not relinquish control over how his fiction was adapted to screen.
King was the producer of the 1997 3 part made for TV version of The Shining. -
Keelai — 5 months ago(October 05, 2025 11:42 PM)
King is entitled to his opinion, but most people prefer Kubrick's version. I was very disappointed and bored with the TV version.
Perhaps King wanted Jack to be a more sympathetic character. I found Wendy and Danny were the sympathetic ones and Jack was more of a villain.