The art of film-making, not Stephen King, were Kubrick's true inspiration..

Rating: 9/10 (14 May 2000)

I sympathize with film-reviewers and fans of Stephen King who object that Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" is unfaithful to the original story and confusing because of the omission of certain narrative elements. But I tend to see these as positive, rather than negative, aspects of the director's interpretation, and for two reasons.
First, whatever occurs on screen following Hallorann's conversation with Danny is sufficiently (though not completely) explained by what Hallorann says -- i.e. that the "shine" of a place is like the smoke that comes with burnt toast, which implies we are about to enter a world that is obscure, ambiguous, and (in the case of the film-genre called "Horror") nightmarish. Things aren't supposed to add up. Logic and reason don't necessarily apply. This is an uncertain ("smoky") place, where details are uncertain, images collide, and our horror is intensified.
Second, Kubrick was a director of enormous imagination and artistic passion, and his chief goal was not to simply recount in literal terms what some novelist had to say but to compete with and surpass it using devices unique to the visual medium. Color, light, space, and the movement of figures through space draw us into the experience by EVOKING (not just describing) the unreal and horrific: the tidal wave of blood surging through the doorway; the silvery reflections and velvety white light surrounding the ghostly figure of the bartender Lloyd; the deep, tunnel-like perspectives down hallways and labyrinth; Danny's turn of a corner and sudden encounter with murdered (should I say "redrumed"?) little girls. In other words, the art of film-making itself, not Stephen King, were Kubrick's true inspiration.
And this is what makes "The Shining" so darn scary. And even its harshest critics tend to agree that, if nothing else, it IS darn scary!