I have a fairly long history with this book and its film adaptations. When I was a kid, for some reason we had two paperback copies of the thing in my house. They were (probably) the first paperback edition. They both had a silver cover with a blank face on it. That was it. Just title, author, silver and blank face. The only difference was that there was a little blurb on each of them about Stephen King, touting his other accomplishments. The books that it mentioned were different on each cover. I can't remember which books were mentioned, but I remember the difference.
For some reason, that always creeped me out a little. That both of those books had ended up side by side on my parents' shelf. Of course, when I first read The Shining in the mid 90s (one or the other of those two copies) I realized just how creepy it was to have them both.
This book is many things all summed up in the single word 'genius'. As far as I have read, it's my favorite King book. That may change as I go through the entire catalogue, but I doubt it. His sharp appraisal of the family unit in the early 80s, his characterization of a man on a dry drunk, the feeling of isolation that hangs over the entire story, and, of course, the supernatural world that King writes about as if he lives in it (which I assume, to some degree, he must) are utterly spot on in every way.
Then there was the movie. It's still one of my favorites. The skill in which Kubrick crafted this masterpiece of horror is kind of awe inspiring. I think that it is, hands down, the best King adaptation. There may be flicks that convey the source material in a better, more accurate way, but King always gets a little lost in the translation. The Shining, however, stands as a true collaboration. The greatest mind in horror came up with an utterly chilling story. Then the greatest actor of his generation brought the horror to life, aided by perhaps the greatest director of all time setting the tone. The result speaks for itself, much like The Overlook.
Now, for some reason, King hates this movie. I've read stuff where he claims that it strays too far from the source material. Hogwash! I reread the book a few years ago just to refresh my memory and the only significant changes are the ditching of the wasp nest and news articles in the basement story lines, the removal of the boiler problem (we're focusing on ghosts here, people!), the changing of the hedge animals to the maze (a fine choice, hedge animals on screen ain't scary and the maze furthers the feeling of isolation), and the putting of an ax in the killer's hand rather than a mallet. Other than that, Kubrick kills off Dick Hallorann to make the whole experience more tangible. There's only, like, 5 characters in the whole movie, and it's a horror movie, so you gotta kill someone, right? I think that all the little changes that Kubrick made to bring this bad boy to the screen were pretty spot on, because otherwise, the story is there and it's still scary.
Another of King's complaints is that the story is about a man going crazy and that Nicholson seems crazy from the get go. I can understand that, but I think he's kind of missing the point of the flick, maybe he's too close to the project to see its real value. We've only got a little over 2 hours for a guy to lose his mind, you just can't detail it with any effectiveness in that time like the book did. We've got to start off pretty crazy and end up completely fucking insane. Nicholson's Jack Torrence just needed the little push that the movie had time to give him.
Now, King 'fixed' all these problems in the made-for-tv version, including shooting at the Stanley Hotel that originally inspired his book and Kubrick didn't think was right for the part of the Overlook. I've been to The Stanley, and while it has a real world feeling of age and movement, I can also see why Kubrick opted not to use it. The Overlook of the book is downright scary. It's menacing and vast while it cuts you off from the reality that you thought you knew. The Stanley just doesn't have the ceilings for it. So, just like all the other elements that King made sure came back for the second film go-round of The Shining, it all just kind of flounders rather than having any real effect. Plus, there are scenes and shots in the mini-series that are right out of the original film. If we are discarding the Kubrick version as not getting the job done, why rip it off?
The only thing that I agree with King on about the Kubrick movie is that it doesn't really fit into the rules that Stephen King's universe abides by. All of King's work has certain aspects that are solid and unchanging. They are truths about life (and the afterlife) that he has worked very hard to represent accurately in his writing, and Kubrick's movie doesn't really play by these rules. For that reason I can understand why King has said he doesn't understand why this movie is scary. I think that there are a lot of things that are really terrifying in the book and that Kubrick picked a few of them and really amped them up while discarding the rest. The equation just didn't add up in King's head but, obviously, it resonated with moviegoers all over the world. I'm fine in thinking of the book and the movie as two totally different entities that are both amazing and both give me the heebie-jeebies.
Bottom line, there are, like, a dozen other King adaptations that are utter crap and you don't see him bitching about any of them. Kubrick made a great movie, it was just a little bit different in its greatness than the book (which is also great!).
