The Shining: Film vs. Movie

Even though the film was made almost thirty years ago, the debate about whether King's novel, The Shining, is superior to the Kubrick film or vice versa.  I know that, ultimately, my opinion is going to be just that, an opinion.  Mine is no more valid, than anybody else's who had seen the movie and read the book.  With that said, it is my firm belief that the book is better.

It isn't the fact that Kubrick deviated from the source material so much.  As a purist, I find it mildly vexing, but if Kubrick had done something interesting I would have no problem getting behind it.  Kubrick did not.  It was different, but really, really slow and monotonous.  Nicholson carries the movie.  If you took out his trademark Jack performance, you'd have nothing.  This isn't the first time Kubrick's done this either.  2001: A Space Odyssey took a really long time to go...well, not that far.

Kubrick is a master of padding.  Remember in Star Trek: The Motion Picture where the film takes 20 minutes just to show the Enterprise pulling out of space dock?  Kubrick's film style is similar to that.  Both The Shining and 2001 are fairly short books and yet the films go on forever.  He's not adding depth or anything of value, just fluff.

In the film, the first hour and a half is spent showing Jack trying work while his son rides around the hallways on a tricycle and his wife mills about.  Seriously, that's all there is for an hour and a half.  I know it's supposed to convey the long amount of time that has passed and show Jack's slow and gradual descent into madness.  The thing is, in the book, we had that as well as actually seeing things happen. 

Throughout the book, you get the sense that something is just plain wrong with the hotel.  You could argue that Kubrick was going for a more ambiguous take, but things occur in the film that can only be explained by a ghostly presence.  The rest of the bizarre elements don't go anywhere.  The twin girls, and the elevator filled with blood are visual cues that show up repeatedly, but offer nothing in regards to the story.

King fleshes the characters out to a greater degree as well.  He gives them layers and nuances that Kubrick ignores.

The movie does have its high points.  Again, Nicholson is just fun to watch as he plays a role he was pretty much born to play, that of a crazy person.  The latter third of the movie is much improved over the first two.  If the film had been that good throughout, I might be willing to look at it more favorably, but as it stands, the book remains superior.

Kubrick really lucked out making his movies when he did.  Were he a present filmmaker trying to adapt a property like Lord of the Rings or Watchmen,  I am certain that he would not fare as well.