The Shining: Scariest Hallowe'en Book -- and Movie! -- Ever

I read The Shining before I ever saw the movie, when I was maybe 12. It's an incredible book, one which taught me to fear hotel room bathtubs, what a topiary was, why you can't forget about the boiler, and the phrase "officious little prick" (I've met plenty of them since then). It's also one of the scariest movies I have ever seen — despite the fact that I knew the book backwards and forward and knew exactly what was coming. Yeah, right — Stanley Kubrick had me right where he wanted me.

But back to the book, in honor of my younger self reading it breathlessly at 2 a.m. with a flashlight. It was scary — oy, so scary! — but that was just part of it. The book was about so much: The uneasy relationship between Jack and Wendy Torrance; their fragile ESP-burdened child Danny; his secret communications with the kindly hotel cook, Dick Halloran, the sad Grady family, how families recover from alcoholism and abuse (though that part sorta went over my young head at the time); how parents are supposed to deal with "special" children with imaginary friends, and the right — and wrong! — ways to deal with writer's block.

One of the most central characters in the book, though, was that of the Overlook Hotel. Based on the real-life allegedly-haunted Stanley Hotel in Colorado, The Shining weaves the Overlook's history into the story, including all the sad backstories of the various ill-fated guests. As a kid I lapped all those details right up. (I really loved this book.) As lore (and Stephen King) has it, King and his wife checked into the Stanley for a getaway the night before it closed for the off-season, and were the only guests in the hotel, sleeping in the haunted Rm. 217 (which became the haunted Rm. 237 of the film, and which was the scariest part of the book for me, as I recall). King wandered the deserted corridors of the Stanley, had the bartender — named Grady! — serve him drinks, and woke from a nightmare about his child running in terror down the hallways of the hotel. Guess what all that inspired?

I hate horror movies in general but I make a huge exception for this one, not only because of my early affinity for Stephen King (see here) but because this story — and this movie — are so damn good. Starring Jack Nicholson in what might be his most iconic role, and Shelly Duvall as maybe the scaredest-looking wife in movie history, it's a classic movie filled with classic clips. The elevator doors, suddenly splashing forward with blood. Redrum redrum redrum. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. "Heeeere's Johnny!" Could there be a better horror movie for Hallowe'en, including any movie with "Hallowe'en" in the title?

My take: No. So because I am a nerd, and because during my formative years I did a LOT of flashlight-reading of Stephen King novels, I spent some time today pulling together some of the very best of The Shining as well as some of the more amusing derivative material ("Heeere's Homer!"). For that and all the redrum in between, please see the links below; otherwise, Happy Hallowe'en and remember, all work and no play makes Jack — and you — a dull boy, so go out and have fun.

Best of The Shining: Clips, Parodies and Recut Trailers [Mediaite]

My Bloody Elevator
Redrum Redrum Redrum
Heeeeere's Johnny!
The Hallway Scene
The Hallway Scene - Family Guy
"Wendy, Give Me The Bat."
All Work and No Play...
Room 237
The Simpsons Takes On The Shining
Heeeere's Homer!
The Shining Trailer...Recut
Fun With Furries
Sometimes When We Touch (And Hack Each Other With An Ax)
Lego Shining
The Shining: Final Scene
R.I.P. Jack Torrance

 

Follow Rachel Sklar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rachelsklar

Comments

[seawolf77]

I thought it was too long and too sparse.

[GayIthacan]

Funny....

I found not one single scare in the entire movie. And Nicholson's performance was his usual over-the-top borderline psycho that he trots out every other year.

In fact, the movie evokes more giggles than genuine shocks.

I might give the book a read sometime. King usually does better with the written word than the visual image.

[middleoftheroad]

Totally agree Rachel...Behind the scenes of the shining that Vivian Kubrick shot...amazing to watch for fans....other parts are next to it on "related videos". Jack is NUTS at min 4:30!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182eGQPLrYc&feature=related

[webweaver]

I too read the book when it first came out... at 12 or 13. And saw the movie then too.

I screamed at Kubrick that he killed Dick Halloran.

The change from the topiary to the maze, I understood.... for filmmaking reasons.

But too much was changed at the end for no reason to give Kubrick a pass.

[Stranded]

I haven't yet read the above-mentioned link about The Shining, but it seems pretty clear that Kubrick's film is a very polarizing experience to many. I love the book, and I love both movies. Each has their merits, and I think one needs to accept them on their own terms. Did the creators accomplish what they intended? I say yes to all three. But it's Kubrick's film that really moves me.

It just never stops giving me some kind of morbid fascination. It continues to open new insights for me. Among other things, it's a harrowing look at chauvinism and domination. Like most of Kubrick's work since Dr. Strangelove, it renders its viewers as accomplices in the act of violence. That cinematic thrill most of us felt instinctively in 2001 when the apeman bashes in the brain of his victim, is in full force in The Shining. Why isn't it worth asking ourselves why? Shelley Duvall's amazing performance is what makes that question work for me. I've heard so many times now how annoying she is, that anyone would want to bash her, and right there is the heart of Kubrick's art. Why on earth would you even consider that? What history brought you to the point that it would feel so good?

[LMPE]

The reason that it's so scary is because it could actually happen.

I read the book a few years after watching the movie (the movie is like "Sesame Street" compared to the book). Part of the idea is that while Jack has definitely gone insane, it's not clear if Wendy and Danny have. There is clearly some evil presence in the hotel, but the characters might be having a group hallucination.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

A close reading of the book (and I've read it 8 or 9 times) leaves no doubt that the hotel is sentient and evil, so no, it's not a story that "could happen." However, King has drawn the characters so realistically, in the process exploring some VERY dark corners of his own soul. It was conceived and written before his success, and when he was drinking heavily. One of the reasons he dedicated it to his son, now also a horror novelist, "Joe Hill," is out of guilt for the dark impulses his son, as a squalling baby, raised in his drinking daddy, struggling to keep his family afloat. So the emotional underpinnings were very real indeed, and gives a faux-verisimilitude to what is still a fantastic tale.

But unless people had been having that same mass hallucination ever since the hotel was first built, we have to take the tale as fantasy, even more so when you stir in the psychic characters.

[JDM73]

It's a very good film (and yes, I can understand why Stephen King didn't like it, but Kubrick didn't even come close to botching "The Shining" the way that John Irvin botched Peter Straub's "Ghost Story" the following year), but I think Jack Nicholson laid it on a bit too thick. Unlike the nuanced Jack Torrance of the novel, Nicholson's Torrance was almost completely bonkers from the beginning. That doesn't prevent the film from being wonderfully scary, though. I love Philip Stone as Grady.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

Well I certainly completely agree that the movie of Straub's great novel GHOST STORY is overwhelmingly abysmal, far, far worse than Kubrick's terrible THE SHINING. I just don't see how that's a defense of THE SHINING. Dying is worse than having the flu too, but it doesn't make having the flu good.

Phillip Stone, as always, is good in THE SHINING, except for the small problem of: what is this clearly British man, with his unmistakable British accent, doing working (forever --- ooooh, scary, boys and girls) at a Colorado Hotel?

[rzan1]

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Shelley Duvall. She was in a movie called 3 women, and she was fascinating in the role. That is a movie I would like to see again, as strange as it was. Duvall won best actress at the Canne Film Festival I think for 3 Women. (Robert Altman directed)..

[lilyflower8604]

I think to understand the movie version of "The Shining", you might want to read this essay. I've never read the book, but after reading this analysis, the film jumped to my favorites list.

http://www.drummerman.net/shining/essays.html

[Fudgefase]

Very, very interesting essay. Thanks for the link. Lots of food for thought.

[Harvee Wallbanger]

LOL - I think this guy is reading too much into it. It was just a horror movie - albeit one of my faves.

[Stranded]

I don't believe Kubrick saw it that way, and I don't think he expects his audience to either. Having just read the essay I completely agree that these ideas of colonization and chauvinism were among his intentions. Every detail is there to reveal something unseen.

[rzan1]

The scariest thing in the movie was Shelley Duvall, the cringing, simpering wife. She was simply awful.

[offred]

Stanley Kubrick was responsible for the Wendy portrayed by Duvall. Even Nicholson, who liked Kubrick's direction, said later that Kubrick was a totally different person when he was dealing with Duvall; Kubrick was abusive toward Duvall, humiliating her rather than directing her and forcing her to do 127 takes of the baseball bat scene. and humiliating her instead of directing her.

Kubrick was a misogynist with a low opinion of women. Name one film he did with a woman in a prominent role (Kidman's role in Eyes Wide Shut--she was a cipher. Kubrick took King's Wendy, a strong woman who would fight like hell to protect her child, and changed her into an annoying, whiney, sniveling weakling. After enduring Kubrick's Wendy through the course of the movie, I wanted to smack her around too.

I read an interview with someone who said that, when Nichole Kidman was scheduled to film the nude scene for Eyes Wide Shut on a closed set, Kubrick invited a male friend to watch the filming. IIIICCCKKKKK! And disrespectful. And unprofessional.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

I happened to meet Shelley Duvall just after she returned to America after filming THE SHINING, well before its release, and talked with her at some length about the film, as I was then, hopefully anticipating it. She had nothing but praise and awe to express about Kubrick, and was, in fact, wildly enthusiastic about the work they had done together. She in no way suggested a woman who had been "humiliated," and expressed her gratitude for the stimulation of working with a man she felt was a genius. She would have clearly, at least at that time, have leapt at the chance to work with him again.

That said, I have no argument with the dislike for her performance expressed here, and certainly, with the famous 50 takes (which was common on all of his films), the performance he got from her was the one he wanted.

Kubrick's widow and daughter find the charges of misogyny directed against him laughable.

As for the Kidman nude scene anecdote: your "I read an interview with someone who said that..." source is vague to the point of being ridiculous for such a nasty charge. I find it impossible to believe anyone was on Kubrick's famously-secretive closed set at that time without Ms Kidman's explicit consent. If you are going to make a charge like that, be prepared to back it up more substantially. As it stands now, it's merely baseless hearsay (or "readsay") libel.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

"I knew the book backwards and forward and knew exactly what was coming."

Excuse me? The terrible Kubrick movie differs VASTLY from the book. Kubrick missed tthe whole point of the book, and omitted the heart if the story, when Jack and Danny finally confront each, and Jack's love for his son would break through the hotel's control of his mind, so he could allow Danny to escape and the hotel be destroyed? Kubrick desecrated the book so severely? How could you, or anyone who "loved" the book, like it? Why do you thingk King remade it? Because he knew the Kurick film was a botch.

I too, LOVE the book, which I read the week it was published. I was an adult, and none of it went over my head. I was so excited to Kubrick's film when it came out that I was at the first showing at Grauman's Chinese, and for me to show up for a 10AM screening, I HAVE to be excited to see a movie.

I came out of the movie wanting to find Kubrick and, well, not compliment him.

King himself said that Jack was supposed to be an ordinary man, and that the last thing Jack Nicholson ever could be was an ordinary man. Shelley Duvall was atrocious, NOTHING like the book's Wendy.

The movie is beautifully photographed, and -- ah -- ah --- ah - beautifully photographed.

The TV minsieries is VASTLY better.

[NHBill]

It's Kings masterpiece. I read it in Skowhegan Maine during the Blizzard of '78. Unforgettable. I've read most of what he has written since and still find The Shining his best effort.

But the movie is also a a classic. One of Kubrick's best. Yes he totally re-wrote the story. You could say the book inspired the film. The film has scene after scene of pure genius and demands repeat viewing.

Sadly King's remake although faithful to his book is TV movie drivel. Comparing the two movies shows why Kubrick made the changes he did! Some of King's ideas were not cinematic. It's one of the reasons why his later books made great films. He now understands what works in movies and writes accordingly. "Shawshank" is nearly verbatim from the novella. The most terrifying moment from The Shining is the father in the corridor with the croquet mallet. It's not in either film.

See the movie then read the book. They will both live forever.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

I've read the book many times (I have a signed first edition), and seen the movie several times. The book is great. The movie sucks, and misses the point and the heart of the story. The TV movie is not drivel. It is better than Kubrick's expensive, stylish trash.

I would rate THE STAND as King's greatest book, with THE SHINING coming in a close second.

[galaxian]

Most of Kubrick's films are adaptations of novels/short stories, and he always finds a way to make the material his own. He wasn't about to go the route of Harry Potter's filmmakers, pleasing readers not viewers. I think he elevates The Shining to art while the novel is a fun little horror story.

[RepugsOut08]

Surely you jest. Kubrick's a brilliant film maker, but "The Shining" is a real turkey.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

Like Pauline Kael, you grossly underestimate King's book.

Kubrick, as an adaptor, varied greatly. 2001 after all, started out as a short story which basically became the second part of the film, DR STRANGELOVE, (my favorite Kubrick film) is a whole different genre than the novel on which it was based, which was hardly a comedy.

But A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, one of his very best films, is a VERY close adaptation of the novel.

In any event, THE SHINING was a better piece of source material than his usual, with the exception of LOLITA, which is a great work of literature, which he had no choice but to radically alter.

If his film had been an improvement over King's book, it would be forgivable, but it is very much inferior to that wonderful book.

[RepugsOut08]

I'm sorry I missed this post when it was first put up, as I don't get many chances to say how awful Kubrick's version of "The Shining" is.
It was the first King book I ever read, and it scared me silly. I actually imagined Nicholson in the role of Jack Torrence as I was reading the book, so when I heard both Kubrick (who was possibly my favorite director at the time) and Nicholson were making the film, I, like you, was estatic!
This movie is the biggest dissappointment I've ever had in all my years of watching films. Just awful. I do agree that it's beautifully filmed, and all the elements were there if the director had only showed up with King's script and a proper topiary.
And when Scatman Crothers (a perfect casting choice) gets axed after the long buildup to him coming to the rescue, I wanted to burn the theater down!
How anyone who read the book can like this film is just a mystery to me, and I can't really see how it works on it's own either. I don't know if you remember Stephen King's funny response to questions at the time about how he liked the film. He said, "I handed Kubrick a live grenade, and he heroically threw himself on it." Lol!
And you're right, the TV miniseries, though not perfect, is a VASTLY better film.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

Clearly you are a person of taste and perception.

[Rogan]

Gee, I guess you don't know much about novels, or movies, or how movies are made from novels, do you...? (Stephen King recently wrote an entire book, about how he doesn't know much about novels, movies, or how to adapt movies from novels... but as I'd seen that awful television show made from his novel The Shining, that you're, oddly, to say the least, praising, I knew better than to read it...)

I really hate to leave a comment, that seems to substantially amount to nothing other nor more than an insult. But I just can't imagine thinking that Stephen King's excellent second string novel, which is, indeed, excellent, for a dated "potboiling" bestseller, ever existed for any better or higher purpose, than to serve as grist for the creative mill of a genius filmmaker... even such a filmmaker on a bad day, as Kubrick arguably was, on THE SHINING, is doing better and more important work, than such a novel ever could. And even bad taste, and serious misunderstanding of several media and how they function, can't explain how someone could sit through that terrible tv movie remake. It's worse than bad - honestly, you're way out of touch, with any and all question of style and form and content, if you had any other reaction.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, I know nothing about novels, having only written an published one, with the second at the publishers now, and know nothing about films, and having only appeared in films, TV, and stage all my life, and having made a living as an actor and writer for all my life.

That you didn't care for the TV miniseries of THE SHINING is your right. But your devaluation of Stephen King shows your grasp of the importance of popular fantastic literature is scant, and your ability to tell gold from straw is about as well-developed as your manners.

King's book is a work of art, not "grist" for a film maker's ego. (I'm not saying all of King's work is art, but his best, like THE SHINING and THE STAND are, though he'd be the first to deny the term.) As for its "purpose" in existing, its first purpose was to rescue King's family from living as the Torrences did, as it was written while the King's were still very poor, on a manual typewriter in a laundry room. It met its purpose well.

The recent book you avoided was called ON WRITING, and it was one of the finest books about the craft of writing I have ever read.

You've shared just enough of your opinions for me to know to ignore them in future.

[magneato]

I was in Estes Park in 96 and decided to drop by The Stanley for a picture or two.
Walking up to the front entrance I noticed what appeared to be writing on many of the windows.
I got closer and realized it was 'redrum' scribbled everywhere.
The front desk clerk had a pretty good chuckle and then told me about the tv remake being filmed there.
I knew there had to be some sensible explanation,
but for a minute there...

[NHBill]

pretty cool!

[RepugsOut08]

What a great experience! I've been there as well, but the only experience I have is of how beautiful the area is. Seeing 'redrum' on the hotel's windows would have been such a hoot, and a great added memory of that gorgeous place!

[yellowdoggie]

I remember being absolutely creeped out by the book's music box. Does anyone remember that evil music box? AAAAAARRRR­RGGGGGHHH! Now I won't be able to sleep tonight.

[TheWordslinger]

Thanks for the great article. Although if you are a fan of The Shining (both the book and Kubrick's film), I'm surprised you didn't mention the 1997 miniseries filmed at The Stanley Hotel. For much more info on all versions, visit this page at TheWordslinger. Thanks.

http://www.thewordslinger.com/posts.php?id=37

[NHBill]

The less said about the mini-series the better.
The two glowing ghosts at the boiler during the climax were beyond cheese.

[RepugsOut08]

I think Kubrick's elevator full of blood is possibly the goofiest thing I've ever seen in any film, let alone a "horror" film.

[Jason Pinter - Huffpost Blogger]

Interestingly Stephen King was never that fond of the Kubrick version of The Shining (which deviated from the book in a lot of ways--most of them good ones). Eventually they did a somewhat underrated miniseries starring Steven Weber, though as far as actors playing Jack Torrance Nicholson to Steven Weber might be the biggest downgrade in entertainment history.

[NHBill]

Little harsh on 'ole Weber there JP.
Not really fair to compare the two films.
One is a TV movie.
The other is a Stanley Kubrick film.
He made 2001 with TV actors!

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

Kubrick made 2001 with actors. The idea of TV actors and movie actors as a seperate species is ridiculous. There are just actors. Keir Dullea's career had scant TV credits, same for William Sylvester and Margaret Tyzack.

But your TV vs movie snobbism shows why you preferred Kubrick's wretched botch to the clearly superior TV miniseries.

Kubrick was a great filmmaker, but he made a number of mind-numbingly bad films after his golden period. BARRY LYDON is an unwatchable bore. EYES WIDE SHUT is execrable. And THE SHINING is a botch.

[offred]

Jack Nicholson hijacked the film. Sheer muggery and carpet-chewing from the first time he appeared on screen. He was dialed to 11 immediately, never showed much in the way of levels and growth.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

True, very true, but we can also be certain that he was giving exactly the performance Stanley wanted. As with Duvall's performance, the blame has to go to Kubrick.

[LLisaLL]

I had a summer internship with my Congressman and was staying in the dorms at GW University. I didn't know a soul in DC and had brought several books to read, including The Shining. I'd read a few pages until something horrifically scary happened, and I'd have to leave my room and walk around just to be around people and gather my nerves. Then, back to my room to read some more until I'd get scared all over again. Eventually I just opened the door so I didn't feel alone. That was many years ago and I can remember how I felt like it was yesterday. Great book, great movie too. I'm glad Kubrick didn't mess it up.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

"I'm glad Kubrick didn't mess it up."

What are you talking about? Kubrick DID "mess it up." The movie is a desecration of that great book.

[LLisaLL]

You're right it is different, things were changed, but think how bad so many films are that are adapted from books. Stinkers and abominations. The Shining did capture the feeling and ambience of the book - creepy and scary.