Retro Cinema: The Shining
Filed under: Horror, Warner Brothers, Retro Cinema

The Shining (1980) marks an interesting spot in Stanley Kubrick's filmography, one that hardly anyone ever mentions. Most Kubrick films are not appreciated in their own time, but while Barry Lyndon (1975) and Full Metal Jacket (1987) are beginning to enjoy a newfound critical reputation, The Shining -- stuck right between them -- is generally left out of the discussion. Despite mixed reviews (recommendations from Andrew Sarris and the New York Times, but pans from Pauline Kael, Stanley Kaufmann, Dave Kehr and Variety), it was a hit film, grossing $44 million on a $19 million budget (according to boxofficemojo.com). It was based on a young, successful horror writer's third novel, and thus it hardly warranted serious consideration. Only David Thomson, in his "Biographical Dictionary of Film," gives the film a once-over; in an otherwise negative essay about Kubrick, he calls The Shining Kubrick's "one great film," but he also calls it "very funny."
At the same time, horror fanatics find the film extraordinary; and by all counts, they're right. Here was a horror entry from a first-class filmmaker who had succeeded in escaping the "horror" classification. Our other masters -- Bava, Romero, Carpenter, Hooper, Craven, etc. -- started in horror and got stuck there, unable to express their artistry in any other medium, and unable to earn the acclaim of someone like Kubrick. He visited, left unscathed and left behind something truly exceptional. But where do these two sides meet? What did Kubrick bring to horror and what did horror bring to Kubrick?
Before 1980, Kubrick worked in various genres, making crime films, war films, a quasi-erotic film, comedies, costume epics and even science fiction. The great mystery of his career is that he handled these so-called "body" genres with a supreme intellect; he could affect viewers on a physical level while remaining brilliantly analytical. Since horror and erotica are considered the lowest of the body genres, it's probably no coincidence that not even Kubrick's skill could bring respect to The Shining (or Lolita or Eyes Wide Shut, perhaps his three most underrated films). But on the other hand, when it came time for him to explore the horror genre, he was better suited for it than anyone could have guessed.
Based, of course, on a 1977 novel by Stephen King, The Shining concerns a writer, Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson), who gets a job as watchman for the Overlook Hotel during the long winter months. He takes along his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd), but despite the hotel chef (Scatman Crothers) remaining nearby, the enormous hotel is dauntingly empty for three little people. Jack wants to work on his book, but slowly goes bananas. Of course, things didn't look so good to begin with since Danny had been having conversations with a sinister-sounding imaginary friend, Tony, a "little boy who lives in my mouth." Some, like Roger Ebert, have suggested that perhaps all three family members are slowly losing their marbles, and that each imagines terrible things happening to themselves and one another. (This better explains the ghostly photograph that closes the film.)
Kubrick embraces the hotel's giant, brightly lit hallways, rather than the genre's usual gloomy corridors, as a potential source of horror. After all, the scariest things on earth exist only in our imagination and our nightmares, so who's to say what's around that next corner, brightly lit or not? For the movie, Kubrick employed a relatively new invention, the Steadicam, which mounts onto an operator's body and is secured with an elaborate series of balances and counterbalances, so that the operator can walk freely down the hallways without the camera registering the up and down movement of his gait. Though Kubrick occasionally cuts to shots following Jack and the other characters down the hallways, he also provides first-person POV shots, which plunk the viewer right into the horror.
The smooth, gliding movement also provide a sensation of inevitability, like being on a carnival haunted house ride; we're going into that room or around that corner, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It also suggests the sensation of keeping one's eyes open, and not blinking, rather than lots of cutting, which relates to averting or closing ones eyes. This gliding slowness even applies to the dialogue, which oozes creepy tension in all the silences between words. (Bay Area novelist Diane Johnson, whose best-known work is probably Le Divorce, co-wrote the screenplay with Kubrick; it was an odd fit and her only screenplay to date, but it worked.) Some critics blasted the film for its departure from these quiet moments, like the elevator full of blood, but I maintain that these images work simply because -- in the logic of the film -- they're ghostly illusions rather than reality.
Today, the film is probably better known for its behind-the-scenes legends, such as the fact that Jack's typewritten pages were each individually typewritten (no photocopies), or that Kubrick forced Nicholson to re-do the line "That'll be just fine" something like 80 times. The actors later reported that they went through hell, but their performances were worth the trouble. To me, these tales only add to the film's strange power, and the fact that it was one of the most flat-out terrifying films I ever saw. At one point, Jack refers to Wendy as "a confirmed ghost story and horror film addict." I admit to being the same, as well as a fan of Kubrick, and so for me The Shining is a film to be admired, explored, pondered and treasured.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-03-2007 @ 8:59PM
tikirob said...
This is still one of my favorite horror films. I think Kubrick brought some artistry to this genera of films. I know King was not too happy with the film but I do not think it captured his vision of it but I am very happy with the Kubrick vision.
Rob
http://www.movie-cat.com
Reply
11-28-2007 @ 9:58PM
stevensem said...
I haven't seen all of this but it looks cool.
10-03-2007 @ 9:22PM
Ryan said...
Admired, explored, pondered, and treasured? Are you kidding me! This movie is horrible, its nothing like the book, You have no sense of time passing feels more like days instead of months, Kubrick replaces the topiary animals with a maze, he ends the movie in ice Kings book ends in fire. Even King hated this movie with a passion and when Kubrick sold the rights back to King so the mini-series on ABC could be made (which blows the movie away) one of the stipulations was King shut-up about how bad the movie was, the only good thing about the shining was Nicholsons performance showing (no matther how bad the movie) he can carry a movie all by himself.
Reply
10-03-2007 @ 10:07PM
MR. R said...
This movie is based on the King novel, based. I cannot understand why people insist in that. Kubrick always made the stories he used, his. He even got some of the authors involved but always made sure you were watching HIS movie. The Shinning is no different, it's way more about the main character and his mind, time is truly relative from the moment we zoom in and see the vast distance, Jack is not only driving away from his family and to the hotel, he is going away from his sanity too.
I think Kurbick is a genius beyond words, who's work has no parallel. The Shinning is a top ten movie any day.
Reply
10-03-2007 @ 11:31PM
soundoftheground said...
why do people insist on beating the "it's nothing like the book" dead horse over this movie? it's called artistic license for a reason. many films based on written works stray from the source material. we all know it happens and it happens all the time.
now that i got that out of the way i have to say that the shining is without a doubt one of my favorite kubrick films as well as one of my favorite horror films of all time, if not my favorite of all time. i am far from a horror fan in general but this movie is far from most typical horror films. the shining absolutely deserves what praise it does get and much more.
Reply
10-04-2007 @ 8:00AM
Willy said...
I love this movie. I got chills just reading your recap.
Reply
10-04-2007 @ 8:45AM
Ethan Stanislawski said...
I still struggle to determine what to make of this movie, moreso than for most films. It plays to a lot of nightmare sensibilities, and that's clearly Kubrick's touch, but I go back and forth on whether things like Bunny Sex or the bath lady are impressive digs into the recesses of the mind or yet another mindless Kubrick indulgence (the William Tell Overture scene in A Clockwork Orange is probably my least favorite scene in all of cinema).
It's interesting to note that King, for one, hated the film, and produced one of my favorite quotes in the process: "I wrote the book to scare people. Kubrick made the movie to hurt people."
Reply
10-04-2007 @ 8:50AM
StanleyQBrick said...
Thanks everyone!!!
The truth is nothing is scarier than the mind.
And as a director one must pick subjects that are timeless. If you watch Halloween or any other horror teen movie, you'll notice how outdated they are, not so for the Shining.
Jack was great and truly made the movie. Duvall had terrible time filming and cried between takes, driving everyone nuts.The kid was wonderful. But my fav was the bartender, you might remember him playing Dr. Tyrell on Bladerunner.
Overall, Shinning was not 2001 but better than Eyes Wide Shut. -Stanley
Reply
10-04-2007 @ 9:10AM
Eric said...
This movie is terrible, and not because it isn't like the book. The kids acting is one of the worst. Jake Lloyd watches this film to feel better about Episode I. Not to mention the over all film is more uncomfortable than actually scary, like when a couple begins to argue in front of you its just hard to watch. Most of the film is boring lead up to an unsatisfying end. Oh he's just crazy, oh ok... Or is he... I don't know this film just sucks. It's pretty bad when a Motion Picture is trumped by a Made for TV movie.
Reply
10-04-2007 @ 10:33AM
Bill W said...
I saw the film on opening night with my high-school buddies; we were all disappointed (and I hadn't even liked the King book very much). It's hardly a horrible film, but it's Kubrick's worst (at least after "Fear and Desire"). I'm generally with Pauline Kael: "the first pompous haunted-house movie."
The best scene is Shelley discovering Jack's manuscript.
Reply
10-04-2007 @ 11:32AM
sam said...
I loved the book and I always liked the movie (truly terrifying), but I try not to compare the two too much because the movie does deviate a bit too much from the book.
King always said that he didn't like the movie (as an adaption of one of his stories) because the entire book is about a normal man who descends into madness, but the casting of "crazy-face" Nicholson destroys that entire premise. Nicholson's a great actor, but even when he's playing it "straight", he's crazy as all get-out.
Reply
10-04-2007 @ 2:02PM
Steve said...
"..but despite the hotel chef (Scatman Crothers) remaining nearby..."
Nearby? He was spending his winter in Florida -- that's hardly "nearby"...
Reply
10-04-2007 @ 5:51PM
cubitfox said...
the book and movie are two different pieces of art, just like all Kubrick films. The book uses claustrophobia and the fear of getting trapped (took place in just a few rooms, hedge animals trapping them); the movie uses the fear of getting lost (big corridors, hedge maze they can't navigate). Don't judge one off the other, thats ridiculous
Reply
10-18-2007 @ 4:49AM
Niles said...
REDRUM...need we say more?
Reply
10-31-2007 @ 4:31PM
Russ Margo said...
I love movies thast keep you guessing whether or not the action is actually happening or is taking place in the mind of the character. THE SHINING fits that bill very well, making it one of my favorite horror movies....much better than run of the mill slasher flicks
Reply