a disjointed, "Kubrickized" adaptation

Rating: 3/10 (19 May 2003)

I first saw Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" several years ago, and my overall impression was that it was a decent, yet unspectacular horror film with a few creative touches. Following this, I read Stephen King's flawed yet commendable novel and had a chance to view the miniseries, which was a much better interpretation than Kubrick's version (the acting and production values were abnormally strong for a made-for-TV effort). This was back in 1997. After a five-year wait, the much-anticipated (by me, at least) official video release of the miniseries prompted me to put both versions up to scrutiny.
I popped in Kubrick's hailed and derided film, cleared my mind to be as impartial as possible, and wound up disappointed in how much the film had deteriorated in value. While "The Shining" had never been a masterpiece, I was shocked at how little was under its polished surface. Even if you disregard (or are just ignorant to) the merits of King's work, "The Shining" can barely stand on its own as an individualistic, one-of-a-kind horror film. Kubrick's narrative is filled with the cinematic equivalent of foam peanuts en lieu of emotional content and characterization, not to mention general coherence. King's book cleverly explored the parallels between the possessive effects of alcoholism with the possession of a man by ghosts--this film is about endless tracking shots of a kid on a bigwheel, blood cascading out of an elevator, and Jack Nicholson chewing the scenery as he limps around with an ax.
Point by point, here are my problems with this adaptation (my comparisons/contrasts were made after viewing):
1.) The cast. Nicholson (who is completely inappropriate for the role of Jack Torrance)'s pointy eyebrows and trademark grin paint him as a psycho from the get-go, yet I never found myself fully convinced of his possession, and his excessive tongue-waggling and eye-rolling made the performance all the more laughable (to see a charismatic actor leashed, with successful results, check out Robin Williams in "One Hour Photo"). Shelley Duvall's "aw-shucks" personality seems out of place, and she looks absolutely ridiculous running around with a knife (she and Nicholson are one of the most unconvincing couples to grace a movie screen). And, that shrill "redrum" chant aside, Danny Lloyd gives a robotic, lifeless performance. One of the reasons for "The Shining"'s failure is that this group of offbeat performers just doesn't gel, even as a faux family. Which leads me to...
2.) the screenplay, by Kubrick and Diane Johnson. Even if it hadn't been culled from a previously published story, it still would have fallen flat. But since it was, it seems necessary to bring up some contrasts with the novel that have a huge bearing on the events which conspire. I never criticize a film for not being a word-for-word adaptation (anyone who sets their expectations that high is just asking for a disappointment) as long as the fundamental points are covered. Story elements that would have been easy to incorporate, such as the boiler (a heavy-haned symbol, granted, but it works), Jack's escalating, obsessive commitment to the hotel (here, Nicholson spends most of his time in a hungover state while DUVALL tends to the hotel...sheesh), the 'shining' itself (limited to a few scenes, and are mostly throwaways, used to--in desperation--heighten dramatic intensity), and the sordid details of Jack's unemployment (beating up a student) are just a few details that are either truncated to insignificance or ignored completely. As a result, the characterization is frustratingly one-dimensional (so the blame can't be pinned solely on the cast), and the plot--as it's stretched out for 144 minutes--is appallingly shallow, with motivations and actions that seemingly come out of nowhere.
3.) The previous problems do nothing to help the lethargic pace of "The Shining." Kubrick, who is notorious for his overlong "epics," has made a film where little of interest happens (could that bathroom scene be just a LITTLE longer??), but that doesn't stop him from dragging that nothing out to damn near two-and-a-HALF self-indulgent hours. (Some actually seem to use this as a gauge to measure the quality of the film, though--the more minutes, the more brilliant "art," indeed!) I find it ironic that King's miniseries runs 2 hours longer than this, yet has a far better sense of pacing.
4.) And, a major annoyance I have with "The Shining" is the death of Hallorann, which doesn't get mentioned much (in positive reviews, at least). It's not that Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) is a memorable character here, but the fact that his death took the final straw in the overworked yet lazy script. It was as if Kubrick and Johnson, completely out of ideas, connected the dots to this inevitable conclusion where, in order to justify the "horror" tag, Hallorann travels a couple thousand miles, only to get an ax in the chest AND provide Duvall and Lloyd with a means of escape. Talk about shallow writing--the unsatisfactory conclusion that follows leaves much to be desired.
I did like a few (very few) things about this "Shining," though. I found the opening aerial shots to be absolutely breathtaking, and the occasionally creepy score was effective (even if it set a mood that was never fully realized); the scene in which Nicholson meets with the hotel manager for an interview is very well-handled--observe the self-conscious body language, the hospitable smile, and his use of "please" and "thank you". For a few minutes, Nicholson is an average-Joe applicant with a friendly tone, both authentic and convincing. It's a shame it's the only time in the film where anybody--in front of or behind the camera--exercises any restraint.
In the end, my favor lies with the 1997 miniseries. Kubrick's "Shining" plays out like a pretentious slasher film for those who deem slasher films beneath them.
3/10