When you look at lists of the best horror films of all time, there are certain usual suspects that show up pretty much everywhere: The Exorcist, Psycho, Alien, Halloween and others. But perhaps the most acclaimed horror film, especially in contrast to its negative reception when it was released, is The Shining. Stanley Kubrick’s tale of a man going insane in a haunted hotel in the mountains has found widespread appreciation in the modern era for its atmosphere, direction and performances. Not as much discussion, however, is dedicated to the Stephen King novel of the same name it was adapted from. The question is, how do the two stack up against each other, and which told the story in the superior manner?
Both the novel and the film share the same basic premise: Jack Torrance, his wife Wendy, and his son Danny, go to the Overlook Hotel, an isolated and empty hotel in the Colorado mountains when Jack gets a job as the caretaker there. However, something’s not quite right. Danny starts to gain the ability to ‘shine’, meaning he can read other peoples’ thoughts. As the autumn progresses into winter, Jack progresses further and further into insanity.
While the barebones structure and premise of the two stories are the same, the way they go about telling the story couldn’t be more different. Now, I’ll be up front with my (perhaps unpopular) opinion and say that I think the King’s masterpiece portrayed the story far better. To start, though, I’ll talk about some things that both works do masterfully. For example, the characters of Wendy and Danny are portrayed wonderfully. I’ll get into Jack later, but Wendy’s fear and horror and Danny’s childish perspective and behavior are both very realistic and engaging to watch in both stories. The base premise, which is excellent, is not wasted, and is taken full advantage of in the stories. Both of them also have very genuinely scary moments and concepts. For the film, it was the Room 237 scene and of course the iconic “Here’s Johnny!” scene, and for the book, it was the inner psychological torment of Jack and the moving topiary animals.
There are certainly some merits to the film that can make me see why it is so highly regarded. Firstly, the fact that the direction is great is a given, since it’s a Kubrick film. His use of tracking shots, zooms and wide shots capture the characters and setting beautifully. The acting is also incredible all around, from Nicholson’s psychopathy, to Duvall’s incredible realism in her fear, to Crothers’ warmth and worry. Even Danny Lloyd’s child performance as Danny is believable. And I will admit, the ending of the films is leagues better than that of the film. The incredible music, the slow zoom into the painting, the slow realization of what it shows, the incredible ambiguity and provocative nature of its imagery, all combine to create one of the greatest scenes in horror history.
Despite all of this, as I mentioned before, I don’t love the film nearly as much as others seem to, especially in comparison to the novel. “Well, why is that?”, you might be wondering. “How can you think one of the greatest horror movies of all time is overrated?” Well, to start, the central character of the film, Jack, just doesn’t have the emotional depth that he does in the novel. In King’s story, he is given so much more backstory and emotional nuance with his struggle with alcoholism and violence. Despite trying to become a better man, the corrupting and haunting forces of the Overlook unfortunately take over, making the supernatural entity of the Overlook even scarier, turning Jack into an unrecognizable monster. In the film, however, the character never shows any signs of humanity even at the beginning, making his descent into madness unengaging and uninteresting. It even feels a bit rushed in areas. In addition, the scores in Kubrick films are usually excellent, particularly in Barry Lyndon and A Clockwork Orange, but with The Shining, its usage felt excessive, with foreboding cello music being placed over scenes of practically nothing happening. I can understand that it’s to build the atmosphere, but it just felt almost ridiculous at points. This is also a bit of a nitpick, but while a lot of the imagery presented in the film is genuinely quite effective, the “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” scene came off as similarly cartoonish rather than scary. Even if this and the score did somehow work for me, the central crux and soul of the story still wouldn’t.
In conclusion, while it is abundantly clear that the book and movie have vastly different aims despite telling the same story, I can’t help but feel Stephen King’s masterpiece is just more effective, emotionally powerful, and even scary. While I certainly don’t despise the film the way King does, I can certainly see where he’s coming from. The behind-the-scenes drama and the way Duvall was treated doesn’t help either. But maybe that’s what is so great and interesting about art. I clearly didn’t get much from the film, but clearly thousands of others have, which is great. Art wouldn’t be very interesting if everyone agreed about every piece of art, would it?