The Shining (1980 - I mean, I probably don’t need to keep putting this bit)
Dir. Stanley Kubrick / Dur. 146 mins (premiere); 144 mins (US); 199 mins (Eur)
What’s It About? A writer goes to a hotel for a lovely winter with his family. Then gets possessed by the murderous spirit of the hotel and gets a bit axe-wieldy…
Why’s It Any Good? Notoriously, if you’re the author of the original book, Stephen King, it isn’t any good. He was famously upset with the number of liberties Kubrick took in his adaptation of the book, including Wendy’s characterisation, and is not a big fan (going so far as to pen the script for US TV mini series adaptation in 1997 which he felt was closer to his own vision). If you’re a cinema fan and, in particular, a horror cinema fan, chances are that this might be high on your list.
I’m in two minds with Stanley Kubrick - some of his films I really enjoy and some of his films just leave me unmoved. Two films which in theory should tick a lot of my boxes (sci fi, dystopian, etc.) are ones that I am just not fussed by 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange. The Shining, though, is my favourite of his and a film I could watch again and again. It’s a horror film where a lot of the horrific imagery and sensations play out in bright colours with bright lighting but are no less horrific for it (in some ways, the recent Midsommar hits a similar feeling). It doesn’t need low light and jump scares to get you - although it does use some effective sudden cuts / reveals (the appearance of the twins in the hallway, the reveal of the real condition of the “woman” in Room 237) to provoke terror.
It’s a slow build of creeping terror as Jack Nicholson’s Jack Torrance goes slowly more and more insane in the isolated hotel. It with good reason that a lot of the scenes and images (aside form the two already mentioned:- Jack chatting with ghosts in the ballroom; “All work and no play make Jack a dull boy”; the “Here’s Johnny” moment; Nicholson stalking his son through the snowy maze) have made their way into the general pop culture subconscious and will turn up as references everywhere.
There is more than one version of the film which confused me somewhat when I was younger. For some unknown reason, the American cut (which is around 25 minutes longer) was shown in TV when I was younger so it was this taped-off-the-telly version that I was familiar with. I then ended up doubting my memory when I bought what turned out to be the European cut only to discover that several scenes that I was convinced had always been in the film were no longer there. Is one better than the other? I’m more familiar with the American version so that’s the one in my head when I picture the film.
If you don’t like horror films, this probably won't convert you as it is, at its heart, a horror film. It is however a director at the top of his game with a strong story and an equally strong cast so it more than easily stands the test of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment