Movie of the Week: The Shining

Alexa: For a movie buff, I have a few pretty glaring holes in my film-watching history. Until this viewing, one them was “The Shining.” Naturally I’ve seen some of its most famous sequences referenced in other things, but beyond the fact that there are creepy twins and “Here’s Johnny” and red rum is murder spelled backward, I knew relatively little about the story. There is a lot to unpack in this film and I’m still processing it. I already know a repeat viewing will be essential to fully appreciating it and understanding it, but I can say with certainty that “The Shining” is a stellar piece of filmmaking. Stanley Kubrick has a knack for creating a strong sense of place, and he uses every sensory element at his disposal to achieve that here. The set design for the Overlook Hotel makes the resort look cozy and mancing at once, both cavernous and claustrophobic. I was most struck by the effectiveness of the sound design. The music is certainly haunting, but every noise feels unsettling and foreboding - the tap of the typewriter, the crunch of the snow, the squeak of Danny’s pedal car. The narrative unfolds at a slow, deliberate pace, and for the most part, I think that works. The exposition drags on a little too long, but once the Torrance family moves into the hotel, the slow burn only adds to the film’s ominous tone. Jack Nicholson’s performance is crazed and over-the-top in a good way. I wasn’t sold on Danny in the first act but that kid has the terrified face down to a science and he’s great at playing creepy. The only element that really didn’t come together for me was Shelley Duvall’s performance. She’s fine when she has to scream and cry, but otherwise she falls completely flat. It’s a missed opportunity for what could have easily been a classic horror heroine in more capable hands. And while it’s somewhat frustrating to be left with so many unanswered questions, I don’t think the film could have ended any other way. “The Shining” demands its audience to accept uncertainty, and it’s a more expertly crafted thriller for it.

Joel: Stanley Kubrick’s over the top obsessiveness with every single detail is practically a parody of itself in pop culture these days. You hear about how someone had to type “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” pages for months so that they were really there, or how he would do over a hundred takes of certain shots just to make sure that he got exactly what he was looking for. Yes, Kubrick would focus on every minute aspect of his projects often bordering on the point of madness, with The Shining, is clear that the film is being helmed by a perfectionist. Every single shot, every sound effect, every movement on the screen has been deliberately thought out and is there for a reason.

It’s fairly well known that author Stephen King didn’t like Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining and has publicly criticised it on numerous occasions. (King actually had to agree to stop publicly criticizing the move as part of a deal to get the movie rights back for a later adaptation.) It’s easy to see why King might not have liked the movie as it tells the same story as the novel, but makes drastic changes to characteristics, motivations, mood, tone and pacing of the story. The two versions of the same story are so parallel to one another, that it’s hard not to get fixated on where the similarities and differences are. For example, it’s fascinating that Alexa felt like the narrative was slow, or the exposition dragged at all. I don’t necessarily disagree, and I see where the “slow burn” feel is coming from, but for me, this movie flew through its story at a breakneck pace, and even at a runtime that was approaching two and a half hours, it felt like we could have had another half an hour at least to really explore deeper into the horrors of The Overlook Hotel.

Still, Kubrick clearly knew what he wanted and wouldn’t settle for anything less. As a result, you have a movie that doesn’t evoke the same feel as the book, or really have the same things to say, but a movie that stands all on its own as a work of art in horror fiction. The movie keeps its characters as well as its viewers in a constant state of unease. Everything is done so purposeful that you could go through the movie, shot by shot breaking down why everything is set the way it is. “This close up is done to heighten the feeling of claustrophobia.” “The next shot is designed to put Jack in a position of dominance over Wendy despite the character sitting at the time.” “The coloring of the lights in the background of this shot, is done to blur the line between reality and insanity in this moment.” The list of examples could go on forever. It’s a movie that is crafted to keep you uncomfortable, yet invented for its entire runtime, something that it succeeds in doing in every moment of the movie. It’s a different kind of horror. The cheap thrill scared are few and far between, but the constant sense of dread runs through the entire movie and stays for a while after the movie is done as well.

Jason: As the self-titled horror movie officionato in our little group, it delights me to get to watch this film as a part of this project. The Shining is definitely one of the top 25 horror films ever made. Everything about it is outstanding. And it is such a different style from most of the scare schlock that was coming out in its day. (The original Friday the 13th came out literally one month before this one.) It still stands head-and-shoulders above most of the scary movies that are still being made. A huge part of what makes this movie so scary is the production. Kubrick’s borderline psychotic meticulousness is evident in every single frame. Nothing is out of place. Well, maybe that weird scene with the dog man and the dude on the bed right near the end, but we’ll get to that in a minute. The tension begins building from the very first moment as we follow Jack’s car down the winding mountain pass accompanied by the odd arrangement of Hector Berlioz’s “Dream of a Witches’ Sabbath” and doesn’t break until we see his smiling face peering out from a sixty-year-old photo. There are very few movies that play the slow burn card quite like this one. The other element that brings the terror is Stephen King’s original novel that inspired this movie. I say “inspired” and not “adapted from” because of just how different the two are. It is no secret that King was very disappointed by Kubrick’s finished product. If you read the book, you will understand why. Each character in the book has such depth and body that by comparison, their screen counterparts are totally one dimensional. The book starts with Jack as a loving, good-natured man tormented by alcoholism and past mistakes who ends up as a host for all kinds of spiritual evil. Jack in the film is bat-crap crazy right from the get go! And that is just one tiny example. There is back story and explanation for so much that is left out of the film. That dog man scene? Yep, they talk about it in the book. The insane spiritual activity in the hotel and Danny’s connection to it? More than just a throw away line about “Indian burial grounds”. And, on top of all of the ghostly, extrasensory, supernatural stuff, the horror is made so much more human and personal when you realize that Jack might only be a raging alcoholic after all.

Last week’s film left us with more questions than answers and it that made it creepy and unsettling. This week’s is a classic film that leaves loose threads that can be explored and that make it all the more horrific. Go read the book, folks. You won’t be disappointed.