Very low supernatural energy from the film
-
bitchsurn — 5 months ago(October 05, 2025 02:51 AM)
Being a fan of the book, I felt that this film version was a ruination. I frequently like Nicholson in his movies, but I didn't think he represented King's original character. Shelly Duvall was beyond bad–she was horrific.
But as to your analysis, I found it interesting. I first read the paperback either late in '77 or early in '78, and then my mom started reading it when I finished, and she literally did not put it down. My mom was a very intelligent and rational woman, and for her to enjoy something, she had to find a basis in reality. She saw it a bit like you did. As she saw it, it was a story about a struggling author who was a recovering alcoholic who was overcome by the isolation of being stranded at The Overlook for a Colorado winter and consequently (for lack of a better term at the moment) went 'stir crazy,' and all the events that most readers would probably attribute to being paranormal or supernatural, in my mom's reasoned out explanation, were perceptions incurred by the conditions the characters were experiencing. And, of course, once the recovering alcoholic stopped bothering to keep recovering, it was all over but the crying. I don't remember how she rationalized the telepathic connections that the kid (Danny?) made in the course of the story.
Personally, I don't think my mom's interpretation was what King intended, but it worked for her, and she did appreciate King's writing on that one. She hated that first film version and she didn't care for Nicholson at all (in anything he did), but I think she might have enjoyed the second (was it two parts?) film version that was done in the late '90s. I have read that King was unhappy with the first film version, and from then on, he wanted to have more control over the film versions of his stuff. -
Orangechickennn — 5 months ago(October 05, 2025 03:13 AM)
At least in the film version (I've never read the book) you can see signs of battered woman's syndrome from the wife. Duvall's performance is not liked but she promotes the essence in certain subtle behaviors of a woman being abused/has been abused in a marriage. The lack of assertiveness, the weakness, over agreeableness.. you'll see what I mean if you remember her performance. She was already "cracked" long ago way before they got to the hotel. And Jacks anger/violence was sitting under the surface. You can see it in the interview seen, though it's subtle. Alcohol just drew it out more…
And their son seems like an abused child. The visions seem more like PTSD and the alternate personality he goes into seems like disassociation.
This director's version to me honestly feels like a movie about domestic violence. Perhaps very very different from what Stephen King intended. -
bitchsurn — 5 months ago(October 05, 2025 03:27 AM)
Okay, as far as Shelly Duvall, I never thought of it that way.
Maybe that works. My mom might have been able to use that aspect. I kind of doubt it, because she was a purist and liked nothing about the movie, and I don't think she would have been open to that either. However, I can maybe see that.
I might have enjoyed the movie more if I hadn't have read the book first.
After reading the book, I cannot reconcile Nicholson in the role that he took on; however, if I was completely divorced from the book, he might work for me.
If you get a chance, watch the version that was made in the late '90s.
And their son seems like an abused child. The visions seem more like PTSD and the alternate personality he goes into seems like disassociation.
As I typed previously, it's been a long time since I read the book or watched the movie.
In the book I believe he was born with a caul, and King portrayed him as a special type of person. In both the book and movie, as I remember, he was maintaining some telepathic type of communication with the character portrayed by Scatman Crothers.
I didn't spend a lot of time debating my mom about her interpretation, but what I got out of the book was that the Overlook was either possessed by an evil type of spirit, or it was itself an evil enmity. -
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.