Comments on: The Shining (1980)

By: Bartok

Bartok — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 05:29:42 +0000

I’ve never really been a large fan of Kael, anyway – certainly, a lot of her “truths about film” I can agree with (”A great movie is not a perfect one,” etc.), but her disdain for the counter-culture that pops up in her reviews of “A Clockwork Orange” and “El Topo” make for a great laugh, among a lot of other things that gives one pause.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:23:24 +0000

Umm sorry to carp, but Pauline Kael most decidedly did NOT support Kubrick. She said in her June 9, 1980 review:

“It took nerve, or maybe something more like hubris, for Kubrick to go against all convention and shoot most of this gothic in broad daylight….Who wants to see evil in daylight, through a wide-angle lens?

…The conversations between Jack and his demons are paced like the exposition in drawing-room melodramas of fifty years ago; you could drop stones into a river and watch the ripples between words. (In one of these scenes, with Jack and the waiter conversing in a men’s room, the movie comes to a dead halt, from which it never fully recovers.)

…What’s increasingly missing from Kubrick’s work is the spontaneity, the instinct, the lightness that would make us respond intuitively…He was locked up with this project for more than three years, and if ever there was a movie that expressed cabin fever, this is it.”

By: Wii

Wii — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:11:56 +0000

I watched this last night, but I really still don’t understand it! hehe.

By: AR

AR — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:36:15 +0000

Saw this on the big screen earlier in the year. It was probably my 2nd viewing.
I’ve never read the book, but when I was 13 or so I read quite a few of King’s novels. What Kubrick says in the quote is precisely right. He’s good at ideas, at shaping stories and characters, but he usually fails in some regard on the writing.
Anyway, I don’t understand how Kubrick didn’t get the genre. Personally, it works for me and it undeniably and memorably creepy at many points. For me it’s more about the atmosphere and the slow build to the payoff, which are aspects of the horror genre.
I seem to recall he also uses some Bartok in the score?

By: Joi

Joi — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:57:05 +0000

I agree with you – the movie is pure entertainment. I also thought Eyes Wide Shut was great. I’ll make a point to see the others.

By: Joe Valdez

Joe Valdez — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:58:16 +0000

Mrs. Thuro's Mom: Thanks for catching my error. What you point out about the mini-series is the reason I would probably want to teach The Shining in a class about adaptations. It is "interesting" but whereas the mini-series is entirely too long, has way too much talking and shows you too much, Kubrick's version is what movies are all about, elegant, visceral, mysterious. Also, Stephen King forfeited his contractual right to bitch and complain about Hollywood when he directed Maximum Overdrive. Jeremy: Coming from someone who writes three fantastic websites to my one, that's a high compliment. Thanks once again. The Shining is probably the only Stanley Kubrick film the average moviegoer will ever see, but hopefully, anyone who hasn't already will give A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon or Eyes Wide Shut a try. They're all as great.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:19:56 +0000

You do such great work here Joe. So much has been written about this film and yet your post still feels fresh. It’s still a stunner to me…

By: Mrs. Thuro's Mom

Mrs. Thuro's Mom — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 04:59:54 +0000

I have only seen this movie once and that was in the theater. I was actually at a slumber party and we left the house to go see this movie. (That shows how many years it has been!) I never watch horror movies, so it didn’t take a lot to scare me. This film scared most people. There are images in it that you simply never forget. BTW, the miniseries didn’t star Tim Daly, but starred his “Wings” co-star, Steven Weber. I watched the miniseries and actually liked it. It wasn’t as scary, but certainly gave more background story and was more interesting than it was entertaining.