Over the years, Stephen King has made his dissatisfaction with Stanley Kubrick‘s adaptation of his novel “The Shining” quite clear. He has said Wendy is “one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film” and has described the director’s film as being “very cold.” Time appears to not have changed his opinion, if the feelings he shares in a new chat with Deadline (conducted a few years ago, but only published now) are any indication.
“I think ‘The Shining’ is a beautiful film and it looks terrific and as I’ve said before, it’s like a big, beautiful Cadillac with no engine inside it. In that sense, when it opened, a lot of the reviews weren’t very favorable and I was one of those reviewers. I kept my mouth shut at the time, but I didn’t care for it much,” King said.
READ MORE: The Essentials: 5 Great Films Based On Stephen King Novels
“I feel the same because the character of Jack Torrance has no arc in that movie. Absolutely no arc at all,” he continued. “When we first see Jack Nicholson, he’s in the office of Mr. Ullman, the manager of the hotel, and you know, then, he’s crazy as a shit house rat. All he does is get crazier. In the book, he’s a guy who’s struggling with his sanity and finally loses it. To me, that’s a tragedy. In the movie, there’s no tragedy because there’s no real change. The other real difference is at the end of my book the hotel blows up, and at the end of Kubrick’s movie the hotel freezes. That’s a difference. But I met Kubrick and there’s no question he’s a terrifically smart guy. He’s made some of the movies that mean a lot to me, ‘Dr. Strangelove,’ for one and ‘Paths of Glory,’ for another. I think he did some terrific things but, boy, he was a really insular man. In the sense that when you met him, and when you talked to him, he was able to interact in a perfectly normal way but you never felt like he was all the way there. He was inside himself.”
Okay, so King will never soften on “The Shining,” and that’s fine. But certainly the experience must’ve changed his approach because these days, when doing deals for his books, the author says, “I want a dollar, and I want approvals over the screenwriter, the director and the principal cast.” And frankly, he’s one of the few writers who can demand it and get it. However, he also cites “Graveyard Shift” and the “Children Of The Corn” sequels as other King based movies that didn’t work for him.
Beyond that, the conversation with the author is pretty interesting. He says he’d love Lars von Trier to adapt one of this books (“I think he’s the most talented, amazing director in the world”) and Ben Affleck too (he was once attached to “The Stand“). He also says “The Shawshank Redemption” and “Stand By Me” are a couple of his favorite adaptations.
Thoughts? Let us know below and check out that full convo — it’s a good read for King fans.
Dave–
You\’ve stated "As great directors often do, Kubrick took a work of popular fiction and adapted it into a film that will continue to be admired long after the book\’s popularity has ran its course"
I\’d disagree and offer you this comparison.
In 1940 Alfred Hitchcock directed Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine in "Rebecca"–based on the novel by Daphne du Maurier.
Du Maurier\’s work was, and would probably still be considered "low culture" while Hitchcock is revered as a "great director".
Funny thing is–Rebecca has never been out of print yet Hitchcock\’s Rebecca didn\’t even make the cut for AMC\’s "Oscars greatest films" collection they do every year.
Hitchcock and Olivier–but the film is forgotten.
So sorry–I think the book, which is absolutely terrifying and FAR, FAR deeper than the movie, will be around for a good long time.
Isn\’t the thriller of a God\’s viewpoint of domestic abuse by the paterfamilia? He\’s damned as a ticking time bomb. No arc cos Kubrick has no sympathy. It\’s all about the child\’s survival (impossible). Dad is trapped and nobody can live with dad.
Kevin, I will never tell you what I think about all this. Never.
The Shinning is the only film I know that is actually scarier each time you watch it.
Regardless of fidelity to the book, Kubrick\’s "The Shining" (which Stephen King doesn\’t like) is vastly superior to the TV miniseries "The Shining" (made with King\’s active involvement).
It\’s odd cause the film is undoubtedly full of mystery and symbolism yet close collaborators are quick to damn the many readings fans read into it, which does rather leave a hollow shell. Many of the themes bought up in the savaged Room 237 gave the film a depth I felt it needed and surely no one could argue The Shining doesn\’t actively encourage that sense of puzzle solving itself. By strongly speaking out against the interpretations, Kubrick\’s collaborators effectively damaged what\’s most interesting about The Shining. While I don\’t know about faking the moon landing even that raised some questions about a film directed by a film maker famous for meticulousness.
this is news? he\’s been saying that since the movie came out
As great directors often do, Kubrick took a work of popular fiction and adapted it into a film that will continue to be admired long after the book\’s popularity has ran its course. Kubrick took a pop artifact of low culture and enshrined it in high culture. King should be nothing but grateful that a superior artist took interest in his work.
I don\’t think any of what King said is in dispute. He\’s spot in about The Shining. It\’s still a terrific thriller.