3.5.11
The Shinnin’
This blog was never supposed to be a typical blog where I record all my feelings and thoughts and garbage. But this is movie related, so I think it’s relevant enough.
So The Shining has been one of my favorite movies for a long time. It’s one of the semi-rare occasions that a movie is made from one of Stephen King’s stories that he isn’t involved in. And when Stephen King isn’t involved, it’s usually not good. I wrote a bit about this in my review of Thinner. Except The Shining was a HUGE contradiction to that norm. Of course it was, because after all, Stanley Kubrick was a film genius. A Clockwork Orange, Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining… the list goes on.
So anyway, back to the point of this post. For the past few days, I’ve been reading The Shining. I’m about 200 pages in (well, as far as my Nook goes, I’m 200 “pages” in) and I am just LOVING it. I can’t put it down. There are glaring differences between the book and the movie. Even a few differences that didn’t necessarily need to be. In the case of Misery, those needless discrepancies made me downright furious. I mean, did you just not feel like picking up a copy and checking your facts? You’re re-working a Stephen King for the screen. Stephen King, the Master of Horror. DO IT RIGHT OR DON’T DO IT.
But in this case, for some very strange reason, I’m not all that bothered:
Dick Hallorann, in the book, has an afro…
…and his conversation with Danny Torrance takes place in his car outside.
Wendy Torrance is blonde.
The carpets in the specific part of the hotel mentioned are blue with a jungle pattern…
…and the room is 217.
Stuart Ullman is described as an “officious prick”.
The Overlook has a roque court and animal topiaries as its outdoor focus. This…
…doesn’t exist in the book.
These are just the things I thought of off the top of my head, and the things I could find photographic evidence of. With the possible exception of the maze, which adds a great visual to the film, I don’t think any of these differences were necessary, and they should have royally pissed me off. But they don’t. Maybe that’s because The Shining has been super high on my list of greats for years upon years. So much so that I’m ACTUALLY considering not finishing the book. Most of the time, movies are ruined if you read the book first, and if you watch the movie before reading the book, you’ll most likely end up appreciating them both. My issue at the moment is how much I love the movie, and how much I’m loving the book. I’m wondering which one is going to ruin the other for me, if at all. Is reading the book worth tarnishing my opinion of the movie? Will the movie prevent me to have my own visualizations while reading the book? Or will I appreciate them both for what they are, remembering that Stevie is the Master of Horror Stories, and Stanley Kubrick was a Master of Film? There is no way to capture a Stephen King book on film accurately in any way that makes sense, and so the books are always superior to the movies, despite how good the movie is. But what happens when the movie and the book are neck-and-neck? How does one distinctly separate the two, despite the movie lifting various quotes directly from the book?
This is life inside my brain. It’s not unlike a Stephen King, I’m realizing. Yikes.