The Shining

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!).

Salem's Lot, 'Salem's Lot and Jerusalem's Lot

So I've finished the novel 'Salem's Lot. It's kind of weird having read a bunch of later King without ever getting through some of the early novels. He has a pattern of doing a whole bunch of character development and 'setting up' before he ever gets to anything of real interest plot wise. But that's the awesome thing about his work, it's all about those early pages. Getting to know the characters and their situations is the juice of most of his stories. This is where he does his best work as the storyteller, he reveals things about human nature that can only be reached with this level of probing into the lives of his characters.

Now, in the later works, after all of that character development and 'probing', he just hits us with a cool ending and wraps it up. But in the early, truly horror novels he is building towards the scary parts at the end. The reason that we are so scared for the characters is that they've spent two thirds of the novel doing totally mundane things that we have done. Then, all of a sudden, the town is overrun by vampires. That's awesome, and scary.

I've also started to read King's first collection of short stories, Night Shift, the first of which is "Jerusalem's Lot". I don't really see it being a prequel to the novel. None of the events in this story, which takes place in the 1800s and deals loosely with the same fictional town and a house that is inherently evil, are mentioned much in the novel. I think this was just a jumping off point to the bigger ideas that he made it to with the full book. It also pays huge homage to Bram Stoker's vampire story by being written in the form of letters and journal entries. That's cool.

I'v also started to watch the original miniseries based on 'Salem's Lot. It's all 70s and small town. It's directed by Tobe Hooper, the director of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and made for TV. This combo I think actually works to the film's advantage. With the longer runtime and the limitations of television in the 70s/early 80s, they have the time and inclination to make sure to get into the characters. This is a common factor in all the good King adaptations. I just watched the first half, but since that's my favorite part of the book, it'll probably be the best part of the movie. We haven't even seen the vampire, Barlow, yet. In this version Hooper and his team have paid homage to another great vampire tale (also based on Dracula), Nosferatu, by making the villain look like the old school design of that movie.

'Salem's Lot, mid way through and Under the Dome on TV

I've got about 200 pages left in 'Salem's Lot. It's hard to imagine readers back in the 70s who didn't know anything about Stephen King discovering the one/two punch of Carrie and this vampire tale. I can see how he became the sensation that he did. These books are really spectacular. They are not high literature, but they have an art to them that really captivates. There are several passages in The Lot that have knocked my sox off. There is one bit, when King is introducing us to Matt, the high school English teacher who is the first to encounter the vampires, where Kin gets into describing high school and community theater. It is so spot on that I had to stop for a minute and reread the page. It was hilarious.

Another great section is when King takes a break from his story about midway through to reflect and describe the elements that make up the small town. It really is beautiful, and if I wasn't already on board with the people of Salem's Lot, I would have been after that passage.

Finally, there is a bit that I hit yesterday in the section of the book where King focuses on Mark, the heroic kid who fights off Straker. King's knowledge of and ability to translate the experiences of children in terrible situations is probably the most astounding piece in his large bag of tricks. When we are placed in the shoes of a child, the terror becomes that much more real, because it is something that everyone in the world can identify with. King's kids are always my favorite part of his writing. Naturally, I can't wait to get to IT.

I've also recently been watching Under the Dome, the television series based on King's book. For more about it, check out my 60 (90!) Days of Horror Blog. But I will say that I enjoy the show enough to keep watching, even though this second season hasn't kept me as into it as the first one did. Dwight Yoakam's cameo is about the high point of this season, which at this point has completely departed from anything contained in the novel.

Stand by Me

So I watched 'Stand by Me last night as part of my first day of this years (extended) 60 Days of Horror Movies. This year it will be 90 Days of Horror Movies, or A Quarter Year of Terror. Or Scott Wastes Even More Time.

In my mind, this was the movie, along with the accompanying book (Different Seasons) that kind of broke King away from people thinking that he was just Mr. Horror. The novella isn't quite as well known as the iconic film, but the movie is still viewed as a King project. It told the world, "Hey, this guy writes a lot of different stuff and there isn't a kid with telekinetic powers in this one."

For a little more on my thoughts on the actual flick, visit the 60 Days Blog.

SB

The Collection

Here's a pic of the books I've gotten so far. I'm buying mostly used (sorry) to keep the cost down, I even dumpster dove once for a few of these. Man, that's a whole lotta reading.

Carrie Finished, Carrie Watched, a Few Words on the Nature of Horror and Then on to The Lot

I finished up the novel Carrie at the end of last week, officially reaching the first goal of 'Scott Reads Stephen King' which was, appropriately: read the first book. SPOILERS: I really loved the ending, the way Carrie almost mercifily did away with her mother by slowing her heart (a moment that was not represented in either of the film versions) and also Sue's mental connection to Carrie as Carrie slipped away (something that probably couldn't have been put in the films). These moments really made the whole book worth the read, being as there were no surprises coming plot-wise. So, one down, over fifty to go.

After I finished the book, I watched the new film version of Carrie. It was about what I expected. There was definitely a few things from the book that were included in this version that I appreciated (Carrie's birth, the raining of stones), but overall I found it to be like a lot of 'horror' that has come out of the Hollywood chute in the last few years. (And I know there's a lot of different kinds of horror going on at the moment, I'm just going to address the category that this new Carrie flick falls into.)

Some recent 'Horror' has become almost an escapist fantasy that bears no resemblance to the messy horror that actually scares people. The Twilight-espue re-imagining of vampires and the subsequent change in style of horror seems to have redefined the genre in a way that I (personally) am not super into. It is evident in the Carrie remake as much as it shows it's dirty face in schlock like Vampire Diaries or even True Blood.

These productions are slick looking junk with pretty people all wandering around in a high school girl's wet dream, making each other hot. I'm not afraid of a world where the digital photography is so pretty. It looks more like The Secret Garden than Texas Chainsaw. I'm not afraid for my characters living in this world because I know that it's just a movie and I can't ever escape that fact.

Likewise, the actors playing these characters, with their chiseled abs and bleach white smiles conjure absolutely no sympathy or worry as they strut through their scenes. Even that girl from Kick Ass seems too sure of herself in the role of Carrie White. I don't really care about the characters these actors are creating because they aren't realistic people, so I'm damn sure not afraid for them. Nobody actually looks like that.

I guess that the audience for modern horror has fundamentally changed. Maybe you can't make kids jump in their seats anymore, but it just doesn't seem like people are even trying. The things that made old school horror scary all had to do with avoiding predictability. The horror movies that get remembered create an environment where anything might happen. That's why messy movies like Texas Chainsaw get remembered. It's because that world is ugly. The people in it are real and confused and vulnerable to the terror that awaits them. And when the horror comes, the anticipation that has built in the audience's mind is suddenly and brutally realized. Leatherface smacks you with a hammer. Boom! We expected something bad, were afraid that it was coming, and it's still horrible. And it's horrible because it's happening to a person that very easily could have been us.

Likewise, this holds true with a little cleaner flick like Nightmare on Elm St. It's scary because we care about the people in the film (except maybe Tina) and we realize that there is no escaping Freddy. Everyone has to sleep. That could be US! We know that something bad is coming, that's really why we're here, and when Tina gets cut open and starts to swing around in mid air, we have been ushered by the filmmakers into being afraid for our new friends in the movie and for ourselves.

These new films and tv show have moved away from all of that. The environment created here is very nearly one that make the viewer say, "Man, I wish I WAS Carrie/Bella/Whatever-Other-Bull-Crap-Character-Is-'In-Danger'." And it's because these characters, for whatever supernatural force might be after them, still live in Kardashian-land. It's a world filled with non-stop pilates instructors, hunky dudes, swimming pools and mountain hikes with sparkly vampires during the day. It's not scary. I would totally take a windshield to the face to live in that world. And then, when the scares come, it's all just CG bull crap that doesn't seem real anyway. So, unless ILM is lurking after me in the middle of the day, I ain't scared of the events that go down and dust the characters that I have no bond with.

The reason that King's early works are so (actually) scary has to do with the same principals: attachment and anticipation. I've just started 'Salem's Lot and he's already gone to work on just those two things. The prologue reveals that The Lot has been obliterated. Something bad has happened there. Anticipation. Then, we go right into character development. I'm already behind the poor, flawed Ben and his rapidly growing group of fellow townspeople. I'm worrying about them because Mr. King is good at causing me to do so. Just like I worried about the Coreys in Lost Boys or John Harker in Dracula. Because I identify with them, I care about them, and I know that something bad is on the horizon for them and I'm not totally sure they'll make it through.

'Burning' through Carrie (pun intended)

So, I'm starting from the beginning, and I have to say that I'm super glad that I have. Carrie is a great read. I've seen the classic film a couple of times, but never dove into the book that made King a household name. I'm super into it. I've burned through it in two days. I've got about 30 pages left, but I'll probably finish that up tonight and be on to 'Salem's Lot tomorrow.

I've read a lot of King's later works, from his post master-of-horror days, and it's interesting to now go back to the beginning. There is definitely more effort behind Carrie. I can tell that King wasn't as sure of his talents, he was looking to prove his storytelling ability. There's more style and flash here than in his later works. It's not necessarily a good or bad thing, it just is. I can tell he was hungry when he wrote this bad boy, and it makes it exciting to read. Even though I already know the outcome it doesn't matter because, as with most King stories, the joy is in the journey.

And it's obvious that King himself was aware of this when he chose the way in which to tell his story. The narrative jumps back and forth between a third person omnipotent narrator, that King uses frequently, and eyewitness accounts and excerpts from text about the events in the story. We find out fairly early on in the novel that lots of people are dead and that there was a great catastrophe. Even the means by which all these events are set into motion are revealed before they actually take place in the narrative. It's like the opposite of a surprise ending, yet somehow, this storytelling choice actually helps to build the tension before the blood hits the stage rather than take the air out of it.

The best thing about the book is the character of Carrie herself. She's just the kind of honest yet amped up version of a character that I love to see out of Mr. King. Every teenager that ever lived can identify with Carrie White, who is a far cry from the Hollywood beauty of Sissy Spacek. She is dumpy and awkward, painfully self-conscious, and ruled by the barriers that she creates for herself. Carrie's tale is really no different from any other coming-of-age story ever told, except, of course, for all the TK business.

The other curious thing that I observed in reading this book during it's 40th year on the planet (that's right, count 'em, Carrie has been scaring high school bullies for 40 years) is that King actually set the book five years in the future. Was it because he thought it might take that long to get it published? Or did he think events like this were inevitable? Now we think of this story as being a nostalgically dated work, a treasure from the late 70s that captured the period with stunning insight, but at the time of its publication, it was talking about events that had yet to come to pass. Weird.

Anyway, I'll probably rent the new film version and give it a day in court after I finish the book, if for nothing else than because I want to see Julianne Moore play Carrie's mom.

SB
7-23-14