In 1977 Stephen King would publish a book that would become a fast selling hardback novel as well as cement his name as one of the best names in writing in the horror genre. Which is pretty impressive for an author’s third book in his bibliography. Then in 1980 Stanley Kubrick would make a film that would cement his name as being a genius film maker and release a film that would be considered by many (including myself) as the greatest horror film ever made. Both Kubrick and King share one thing in common with this trivia. They told the exact same story, in 2 completely different ways.
So soon after the success of Carrie and Salem’s lot, Stephen King was a household name. An author who was meeting the ranks of literature’s best. But he was a man with his own personal horrific demons. That mainly alcoholism. King was an alcoholic. While writing in his office, he was writing the first drafts of his third book, his wife was emptying out his work space that was filled with mounds upon mounds of empty crushed beer cans. His wife had told him that he had been in there for a whole day drinking and writing. To seek help through other therapeutic sources, King started to channel his own personal struggle into his next book. Low and behold he gave us The Shining. A book dripping with personal torment over past decisions made by unconscious thoughts that take over our actions and result in horrific consequences. With the added supernatural elements to make things extra spooky along the way.
The book was met with massive success on Kings part. He was able to clean himself up and reap the rewards of everything he worked so hard for. By being claimed a master storyteller and the king of the literature horror genre. At a similar time Stanley Kubrick was working on what his next project. Similar year of 1977, Kubrick turned down an offer to direct a sequel to The Exorcist. Which at the time though he professed that he wanted to make the scariest motion picture in the history of cinema, he knew he wasn’t going to get it from someone else’s property . However he was lucky, he managed to secure and licence the rights to the shining novel by King and get to work on his adaptation.
Kubrick worked tirelessly with Jack Nicholson as its lead and central protag/antagonist. Shelly Duvall as Wendy, wife and mother who ultimately goes through hell and back in the film and behind the scenes (we’ll get to that) and character actor Scatman Crothers, who got hired as Nicholson’s recommendation to Kubrick, having worked with Scatman previous on the film One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.
In 1980 the film was released to a mixed reception. Though it was hit over time, critics either felt the film wasn’t done right or done properly. Others claimed it was a cinematic genius part of Kubrick’s front. However one opinion shawn above all others as being the most truthful and cutting to the bone. When Stephen King, Author of the shining watched the film and announced that he HATED the film. This would be the first in a list of adaptations to follow that he would not enjoy.
It’s no secret to the general public that if an Author of a novel gets adapted for the big screen, there are going to be some repercussions from the interpretation. The film maker will more than likely make changes to the source material to fit a more cinematic point of view. That could work either in the films favour or in its disadvantage however you want to look at it.
In examples of authors who hate their adaptations, Roal Dahl famously hated every single adaptation of his work. He would send angry worded letters to the director of the project claiming that they had no idea what they were getting involved with and shouldn’t have bothered even trying to adapt his work. Alan Moore would argue with producers that his work was made to be impossible to reproduce in terms of cinema so just leave them as the book they are intended to be. That didn’t stop Hollywood adapting 4 of his works and only one of them really hitting a mark. And Bret Easton Ellis did not enjoy the interpretation of American Psycho in his own insane and non logical way, but that’s another video for another time.
It’s very rare that the inverse of a novel turned into a film will often be preferred the author. In the most rare and famous cases, Chuck Paluniuck admitted that he preferred the film Fight Club over his own book. Sighting that Fincher actually got the ending alot better than he had intended and the tone more straightlined. Very similar words were said by King in the 2007 adaptation of the mist. Frank Derabaunt has a history of making King adaptations work in his favour to the point that he even turned one of King’s stories into the greatest film ever made.
But with Kubrick, he has never had the best of luck with authors when it came to adapting their work. Anthony Burgess called out Kubrick by saying that The film was made easy for readers of the book to misunderstand what it was about and Howard Fast can be heard on the audio commentary of Sparticus ripping into the film and Kubrick himself over the choices that were made for the epic.
So its at truth that whenever Kubrick took a novel and made into cinema, it would work for his audience’s but not for the fans of the novel and the authors themselves. But because Kubrick was such a respected name in cinema it would have been almost impossible for an author to turn down an offer of an adaptation from Kubrick to see what he saw in your story and what he wanted to show everyone else from what he got from your book. So why wouldn’t you want Kubrick to adapt your film? King found out why…
Now going further into this essay I should point out that this isn’t going to be a standard: “What’s the difference?” sort of post, where I just look at the subtle changes if there was anything subtle that Kubrick changed from the book. This is going to be more of what Kubrick felt like he had to change to make his version of the story of the shining better. That was ultimately a Kubrick adaptation. But not everyone in the cinematic world thought the same way as Kubrick did when it came to the subgenre of horror we call “The King Film”
As King’s rise to power in the horror world grew in literature, in 1976 Brian Depalma would adapt his first novel in to the classic horror film Carrie. Being the first film adaptation of Kings work as well as a first film for a lot of actors who would later have promising careers in film. Then in 1979 Detective Hutch himself David Soul would tackle his 2nd novel directed by Tobe Hooper of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and give us a 2 part Tv Horror film Salem’s lot. Proving that no matter where King goes in the world of entertainment it was a sure fire hit. The visions for both that Hooper and Depalma brought to the stories mirrors the same King qualities that you would come to expect from King’s work. Slight re interpretation to the work that has to be made to fit the structure. But Kubrick never worked in conventional
structure, and taking a novel as personal and well layered as the shining, what did he see in the novel that he wanted to bring to the screen? Which brings us to our first conundrum
- Kubrick ain’t superstitious.
In a phone call that King received from Kubrick, King admitted that Kubrick had felt that stories about the supernatural are more optimistic than they are scary. King confronted him about the idea of hell and Kubrick didn’t respond lightly. This atheistic and skeptical approach to the supernatural and the afterlife was the first in the decisions that Kubrick made for his film. King in his book was all about the supernatural
It played more than just a pivotal part in his story but it was the main catalyst of what caused the horror of our main characters to go through in the whole of the novel once they enter the overlook hotel. Our main character Jack becomes fascinated with the history of the hotel to the point that it becomes obsessive. The mystery in his romantic idea of what that idea of the past would have been like all while he’s looking after the hotel. He gets entranced by it and the hotel uses it to his advantage. Aswell as playing on his own past demons and becomes seduced by the idea of being part of this overlook hotel.
Kubrick was more fascinated on the other side of the coin with this seduction. But rather than getting seduced by the hotel’s supernatural seduction of its past or what comes with it, Kubrick looked more into the madness that slowly consumes someone. The isolation of being away from the outside world. The Simpsons parody gives way to this in the “all work and no play make’s jack a dull boy” to Homer’s “No TV and no beer makes homer go crazy”. That is the catalyst Kubrick was more interested in.
The human evil of being lost in your own madness and the unnatural explanation of how it got there rather than the manipulation of the soul through supernatural forces was more of a way of being scary to him.
Which shows why he didn’t want to do The Exorcist for its own supernatural theme throughout the film.
But can you leave out the supernatural elements in a film where the main threat of what the characters are going through are supernatural? In Kings book, no. But to Kubrick in his world, not only could it be done, it was the most logical thing to do.
It becomes less of this house is evil and trying to corrupt the minds of this poor family. To this house has turned this tragic husband and father character into a maniac. Hell bent on killing us for no reason other than he’s completely crazy. All of the inside references from the book I.E the man in the dog costume, the midnight ball that takes place in the ballroom, to even the appearance of Lloyd at the bar when Jack starts to feel he needs a drink, you couldn’t put down to supernatural hauntings. But then how do you explain the lady in the bathtub? In the book it plays a role for Jack to begin to act on his violent tendencies that he fears so much. But in this film, was it only in there because Kubrick wanted to shock audiences with a decaying old lady? And worse yet, how can you explain that it isn’t supernatural if both Jack and Danny (though he was offscreen when this happened) saw her and have been affected by her? Is that saying Danny is going insane too? Which brings me to my point which is more in the books favour because this actually had sense put into it.
- Danny. Don’t be a hero
Danny is the main and central focus on why the house goes evil in the first place. But the film doesn’t care for that because it’s not real. In one of the nicer stories about the making of the shining, The actor who played Danny had no idea he was making a horror film. Kubrick would have him not be in the room whenever he had to shoot a scene that was in anyway scary. Now that all sounds good to Kubrick….BUT. Danny is the central plot point for anything at all to happen for both Wendy and Jack. They learn what his abilities are, he’s able to read their minds and see their dreams also witness what there up to that day.
And because that plays a large part for both his parents he naturally has to go through the King arc of horrific character building so that he becomes fully fledged in the story. Kubrick…You guessed it, didn’t do this.
Part of what King established in Danny is that he will grow in to something powerful, something that the evil that lingers in the Overlook hotel wants. It’s more than just being able to communicate with people from far away or read people’s thoughts. He can interact and witness what the dead are planning and are manipulating to their advantage. And he has to see some really horrific stuff and be involved in some horrific activity for that to happen.
Danny’s performance is one of the strongest performances in the film. What Kubrick had got him to act out was what he wanted for his Danny to go through. Which in his idea was enough to him a not really the cause of all that happens but more like an extension to what worse things could happen next in the film.
Even though the scene where he learns that he has the shining and the most criminally underrated scene in the whole of Kubrick’s shining in which Danny has switched places with Tony and is talking to Wendy and is telling him that Danny isn’t home is an amazingly chilling and terrifying scene. Danny might not have been as story focused in the film that he was in the book but Kubrick gave Danny enough of a growth and development in his worlds as much as Jack. To the point that he turned out to be the real protagonist of the story, and turning into the bravest character in the story and standing up to the evil that has possessed Jack and caused him to try to kill him and Wendy and Hallorann.
In the film, especially near the finally for Danny, it becomes a more standard cat and mouse chase finale with him trapping Jack in the hedge maze. The hedge maze being a more believable threat in Kubrick’s rather than large hedge lions and other animals coming to life and attacking Jack and his family. Danny ultimately has to learn a lot about evil and death at such a young age and his trauma of what he goes through in the book, that when it ends the sense of relief we feel for him once its all over is overwhelmingly optimistic. As for the ending in the film for Danny we’ll get to that later on.
- Jack Vs Jack: Tragedy over Psychotic
Jack Torrence is our pro/antagonist in the shining, and the majority of all the horrors that happen at the overlook hotel center around him and his vulnerability. A vulnerability which was brought on through an abusive family house hold when he was younger, being fired as a teacher from beating up a school student, an alcoholic which nearly destroyed his own family to ultimately being corrupted by the evils of the house and possessing him into becoming a murderer. Hell bent on killing his wife and son and Hallorann. All because he has been made to believe that the house will give him everything in success he has ever wanted.
To read about him struggling with these issues while being manipulated like a marionette puppet by the evils of the overlook hotel makes us sympathise with the character more than anything else. Mainly because at the heart of Jack Torrance he’s just a guy, he loves his family, he’s got ambitions like his play that he works and he is more than anything else a loyal husband and a loving father, these qualities make us not only terrified of him once the overlook hotel possess him but it’s more tragic because we know he’s not evil in anyway. All he has is a burgining rage from his past that causes him to want to drink and hide from everything. Beating up a student was one thing but breaking his son’s arm in a drunken rage and in sober regret makes him quit alcohol entirely.
So we can feel for him while being horrified by him. Kubrick on the other hand just wanted us to fear him and feel nothing for him. In the process of creating one of cinema’s greatest villains and Jack Nicholson’s most terrifying performance. It’s not the Jack Torrance from the book, but what it is, is something more sinister and more evil that Kubrick thought was more suited for his vision. Coming into Kubrick’s shining we know nothing about Jack’s backstory other than he’s applying for a job at the overlook hotel. It’s never mentioned that he was an ex teacher who was fired for violent conduct and it’s only touched up about his alcohol abuse to Danny. In a scene in which he conforms in Lloyd at the bar (which is actually a powerful and brilliant scene) and confesses to when he did break Danny’s arm.
The way Jack is carried in the film more than anything else starts off as just normal Jack Nicholson towards Danny and Wendy. But there is an undercutting of something sinister burgeoning underneath.Even before he even arrives at the overlook hotel with his family. Then as soon as he arrives and has settled into the overlook, he just begins to be mean, obnoxious and comes across as a jerk. Then in other scenes we see him stare off into a void and begins to lose more of his mind before he just becomes insane. Then the finale of the film is his evil has taken over…
And i have to emphasize what I mean when I say that his evil takes over. Kubrick had Jack Torrence just lose his mind and become the psychopath of the film without any manipulation from the evil of the overlook hotel but rather the overlook hotel being isolated and completely stripped of any outside life that through cabin fever he becomes a madman.
He’s suddenly terrifying for being insane with no exposition or explanation that causes him to go over the brink. We dont assume that the house is haunted, we accept it that he’s lost his mind. Imagining the romantic history of the hotel as well as the alcohol he gets served at the bar. But it isn’t just a quick scale of madness. It’s a slow burning madness that you have to endure and question what it is that is making him lose his mind in the first place? Which is often the case when you read about about a serial killer or sociopath.
Kubrick and Nicholson worked for months before the filming of the shining to have the character come across as absolutely insane and homicidal. The attention to Jacks unhinged madness is what mirrors the possessed Jack in the book. But only just. Nicholson sold the role perfectly and when anyone even mentions Kubrick’s film they immediately think of him. Because despite Kubrick’s direction or King’s writing, on Nicholson could have sold the perfect madness of Jack in a single improvised line…. “Here’s Johnny!”
- Duvall’s breakdown on camera
Most people who have worked with Kubrick never got it off easy. Unless you were either in his good books or a power over seeing the project forbid him to be Kubrick towards the performer. In Dr.Strangelove it was in the contract of Peter Sellers that he was allowed to improvise and create the characters how he would portray them without the overbearing influence of Kubrick.
Much to his dismay, the film turned out great. David Prowse whilst filming “A Clockwork Orange” had to carry Malcolm Mcdowell from the entrance to the house all the way to a living room. Though at the time prowse was an athletic and well built man, he asked Kubrick if he could just carry Malcolm through in one take. Due to the fact that it would strain on his back and cause a lot of injury to himself doing it multiple times. Kubrick understood this and granted his wish.
But unfortunately someone had to take the brunt of the majority of Kubrick’s strict and dominant director role and that someone was Shelly Duvall. Duvall was bullied by Kubrick when making the shining. She was made fun of for having her hair fall out on set, whenever she done anything wrong Kubrick ruined her for it and never praised her for the work she did on camera. The result is a performance that feels unfairly hollow for a character written with such love and respect as the other characters in King’s story.
King was so appalled by the portrayal of Wendy in Kubrick’s film that while on record admitting his hatred for the film he also announced that Kubrick turned Wendy into one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film. In all honesty she’s not to blame for the performance and the portrayal she gave.
With limited time devoted to her character by a director who just hated anything that she happened to do that day and belittle her for it, it’s a tragic shame that she couldn’t bring the real Wendy to be portrayed. Because of this Shelly Duval suffered a complete mental breakdown and hasn’t fully recovered. The true horror of what that film done to her still lingers with her to this day. Despite the fact that she was great in the film. But her defences weren’t with her against the force of Kubrick
- Hot and Cold endings
So now to quote king again about his problems with the film. He often talks about how cold the film is and this is a point that is perfectly shown in the ending.
As the book draws to an end with Jack possessed by the hotel, Wendy and Danny narrowly escape. Just as the hotel’s boiler over works itself and blows up taking every bit of square inch of the building down to a fiery grave.
As the film ends Wendy confronts a possible ghost or whatever she may be hallucinating including the elevator full of blood which tidal waves down onto the floor. Danny escapes Jack in the hedge maze in the snow and both Wendy and Danny escape in the snow cat that was driven by Hallorann before he was murdered by Jack. Jack freezes to death and joins those who have parted along with the overlook hotel.
At this point it’s easy to see where king is coming from with his description of Kubrick’s film being cold. Not just with the overlook hotel freezing to death but with the over all coldness that the film portrays. Given no exposition and no background to any of the characters and what made them go to the overlook. It appears Kubrick just wanted to make a horror film about the break down of the human psyche and it works. Its just weird that he had to borrow a Stephen King book to get the film that he wanted.
However the Kubrick achieved something with his horror film that most horror film makers and people who delve into horror films could never master.
- The Art Of Disassociation
At the end of the book you are settled and comforted that the horror is over. And you don’t have to worry about the shining or horrors of what it brings ever again (Until you read Doctor Sleep, which i’m doing whilst writing this essay). Though there are some mental scars that will affect both Danny and Wendy, it’s safe to say that there are never gonna have a repeat incident that has happened to them at the overlook hotel. However Kubrick in his ending and film in general did something amazing. He was able to make the audience not know what was going to happen next because the human situation was so vague that it actually worked in its favour.
Sure it’s not the book and does nothing supernatural whatsoever and is barely even faithful to the novel, but he managed to bring a new level of horror to the shining that most people would rather keep the book as it is for the sake of the novel. Which the adaptation which was made for TV did. It’s not bad…But then it’s not the shining. It does everything it’s supposed to do but it doesn’t work. You either adapt too much of it and you lose audience members because they cant go with the story they are watching, or you adapt not enough and piss of the loyal fans that it generates as well as the author themselves.
Did Kubrick manage to achieve the impossible to adapt a story and make it more of his own than the original novel? Well the DVD cover says it best. Also King when he calls the film “Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining”
So who gave the story more justice? Did Kubrick’s visuals match the horrors and imagery of a lunatic? Or did King’s supernatural elements in overcoming your own personal demons rise up a level in horror that had never been felt before? Honestly… There both as good as each other.
There is a desire for filmmakers to adapt a text and turn it into a new medium. This is how we create not only art but also culture. Even though the film might not have been what king had wanted, he admitted that the imagery is striking and made a lasting impact on the audience when they left. Kubrick in his own way would have felt the film was a success and it was. Critics loved it and it gradually found being a mainstream hit at the same time. Though fans of the novel may despise this film for all that it doesn’t have, fans of the film (including myself) can only sing its praises. Now having read the book and seen the film (though i saw the film first years ago) I was wondering where the main elements were. And why it felt like it was skimming through the story. But then I remembered Kubrick wanted to make a horror film that would be considered the scariest motion picture in the history of cinema. He achieved it. The film is immortalised along with Kubrick’s other work.
As for King, his novel still gets the respect it deserves from anyone who reads the book. But in the late 80’s after the shining came out, King started being more over protective over his adaptations. Unless you were Rob Reiner, who is good friends with King. He was able to adapt a majority of King’s work without so much presence of King. But in other cases, King would take the screenplay writing duties for the film so no one would do what Kubrick had done. Hence why Silver Bullet, Creepshow and even Pet Semetary were all written for screen by King himself. These days his adaptations are treated more carefully than before. He’s built more respect as the years went on with both his books and his film and TV stuff.
So whether you prefer the book or the film…At Least one thing is clear with both these stories and both these artists. They thought they were the only people who had a shine…And they must have felt a lot better knowing that they weren’t the only ones.