Movie: The Shining (1997)

After 1979's Salem's Lot, Stephen King on television went on hiatus until 1990. Although production standards and television's prominence relative to the movie theater had grown considerably over the intervening decade, there was still considerable room for improvement. The 1990's television adaptations are primarily network TV miniseries, and the novels tackled are typically the big (and not necessarily best!) ones: The Stand, IT, and The Tommyknockers, typically shown during sweeps-time. Did this inflate their sense of importance? No idea, but ABC kept coming back for more, almost annually from 1990, and finally, by 1997 Stephen King was ready to put forth the "authoritative" version of The Shining. This version would take full advantage of the miniseries format, presenting the saga of the Torrance family at the Overlook in six hours, including commercial breaks. It would use the real Stanley Hotel, and restore the dynamics among the characters that were stripped from the Kubrick version.

That was the idea, anyway. Unfortunately, this undoubtedly more faithful version would end up being painfully dull, and, ultimately, it too would end up breaking ranks with the source material. Plot-wise, this version is around 75% faithful. Even at six hours, some things would need to be removed. For instance, Hallorann has little difficulty getting back to the Overlook, and the flashbacks to the Torrances in Vermont are short and few. Other things were probably scrapped for budget reasons, so you don't get the huge hedge animal battle at the end, just some minimal shots to establish there are "living" hedge animals that don't do much more than move a little bit. Another twist from the book is the frequent and prominent references to Alcoholics Anonymous. While mid-1970's Stephen King never gave AA much thought, mid-1990's King was all about his sobriety and made a big point of building this into the screenplay. Finally, the big plot change sweeps in right at the end. In the novel, Danny and Wendy are staying at Hallorann's new gig in Maine, still recuperating from their ordeal. In this version, it jumps ahead ten years to Danny's graduation from Stovington Prep in Vermont (Jack's old gig), where it is revealed (GASP) that Tony was actually future Danny, turning a slight a-ha! moment in the book into a heavy-handed faux-shock scene. Also, did Danny graduate at age 15???

Let's talk setting. Last year, my wife and I visited the Stanley and quickly learned that although it inspired the novel, it appears nowhere in the 1980 movie. Well, the 1997 movie works fast to remedy that little problem, using the "real" hotel as much as possible. We probably should have figured that out, given the 1997 version was the only movie they were selling there, except for Dumb & Dumber, which also used the Stanley for some scenes. For what's it's worth, the trip there was worthwhile, but don't expect anything from the Kubrick edition except for the hedge maze, which was recently planted because they were tired of people asking where it was. As for being a great shooting location for the movie, that is debatable, as the Stanley is way smaller than the Overlook as depicted in the Kubrick film. It seemed like they were moving around a very confined space, compared to the vastness of the 1980 Overlook.

Finally comes the inevitable comparison of the casts. Watching this only reaffirmed how powerful the cast of the original movie was. Okay, so they didn't play it by the book, which upset Stephen King, but if you accept the movie for what it was, you really got into the heads of Jack, Wendy, and Danny. Steven Weber play a reasonable Jack, much more by the book as a loving father consumed by the demonic hotel, and even pulls off both sides fairly well. All the AA stuff added to the movie generally supported a Jack that was committed to getting better before the Overlook made him its pawn. Wendy is much stronger character in this one, but Rebecca De Mornay also didn't have to compete with Jack Nicholson at the height of his powers. And then we get Danny. Courtland Mead was no novice to acting when he stepped into the role. He was ten when the miniseries aired, but perhaps due to some measure of development hell he looks a bit younger, but probably older than Danny Lloyd in 1980. Since this version tries to stick close to the book, Danny talks a lot more, and it comes off pretty wooden. And maybe I'm just a bad person, but his mouth seemed to be hanging open all the time like he was in awe of everything around him. As for the rest of the cast, it's about even with the competition, although we really don't see as much of the extra-pimpin' Melvin Van Peebles Hallorann as I thought we would. The decision, however, to "visualize" Tony was regrettable. He just looked silly and showed up at the weirdest times. They probably should have just stuck to having Danny do voices.

All in all, this was a pretty weak miniseries, and definitely should make one question how important King's involvement or approval actually is to the reputation of a production. For comparative value, however, it wasn't an entire waste of time. I'll save my vitriol for some of the upcoming movies, which have a notoriety so great even someone as oblivious as me is leery of them.

Movie: The Shining (1980)

The conventional wisdom has been that the book is always better than the movie. This makes sense, as Stephen King had 450 pages (or 659 if you read my copy) to tell his story, and Stanley Kubrick had a little over two hours to tell his. However, alongside Gone With the Wind, The Shining in its 1980 adaptation may enjoy the rare honor of standing above the book it was based upon. It is a well-known fact that King despised this film. His criticisms are not entirely without merit, and if your number-one criterion in rating an adaptation is faithfulness to the source material, you will probably agree with them. I'm not sure how much of the "blame" lies with the screenwriters and how much falls on Kubrick himself, but for simplicity, I will frame it as a King vs. Kubrick issue when making comparisons.

Obviously, given the constraints inherent in a feature film, plot elements were going to have to change or be thrown out altogether. Probably the most shocking plot change came at the expense of Dick Halloran. Scatman Crothers nailed the portrayal, but when he took an ax to the gut it was a truly jarring moment. Halloran wasn't supposed to die! This was just one of a number of needed plot changes to make the movie fit within the allotted time and make sense. For example, it isn't much of an ordeal for Halloran to get to the Overlook. Also, from the time the last of the summer staff leaves the hotel, it is pretty much full-on-trapped-in-the-snow wintertime for the Torrance family. And let us not forget the hedge animals are gone. Even if the lack of CGI as of 1980 wasn't a stumbling block, these critters just don't translate well to the screen, so enter the famous hedge maze, used to great effect by Kubrick. In fact, the movie adds a few iconic elements missing from the book, such as "all work and no play", "Here's Johnny!", and those creepy twin girls. And even the ending, in which Jack is physically absorbed into the Overlook's history, is completely different from the book, where the hotel explodes in a massive boiler blow-up (making it the third consecutive fire/explosion ending for King).

Characterizations also suffered in King's eyes. Jack a la Jack Nicholson is pretty much crazy from the get-go and is tepid toward Danny at best. He is not the doting father, or a regular guy who slips into insanity. This necessarily makes Jack, rather than Danny, the central character. Wendy meanwhile, not King's strongest female character to begin with, is even further reduced in this movie to a largely helpless role. Danny, however, is an interesting case. Danny Lloyd, the actor, was seven years old when this was released, which means allowing time for post-production and so forth, he was pretty darn close in age to the book Danny, who is five. As seen especially in the 'Salem's Lot adaptations, King is guilty of making child characters behave as little adults (usually under the pretense of being exceptionally bright), particularly those playing a central role to the plot. While it is probably doable to have an older actor play a younger character, it's not nearly as easy to get a younger actor to play either at their age or older, especially if the age in question is five. So it's quite the directorial feat for Kubrick to get an almost-five-year-old to play at that level and not come off completely fake or marginalized, and even more impressive that this was Lloyd's feature film debut.

Probably the most direct aspect of conflict King would have with Kubrick was over setting. Although the book never admits it, it's a well-known fact that the Overlook is based on the Stanley Hotel, located on the edge of Estes Park. Kubrick effectively nixed the Stanley from the moment he laid eyes on it. What few outside shots there are come from a hotel in Oregon and all the interiors are soundstages, albeit masterfully designed ones. Having been to the Stanley, I can sympathize with why Kubrick would jettison it from consideration. First off, Estes Park is really close by. It doesn't radiate the kind of remoteness the Overlook demanded, especially in a visual depiction. Second, the Stanley is kind of small. I think the giant ballroom in the movie equals around half the size of the entire actual Stanley building, and the kitchen would consume all of the rest. Finally (and most devastating), it was clear that Kubrick wanted to do things to the property that would have violated the Stanley's historical landmark status. In our visit to the Stanley, we learned Kubrick considered it as a location for less than five minutes.

The 1980 feature film adaptation of The Shining is probably the greatest piece of film based on a Stephen King novel. The other "great" adaptations benefit from coming from more concise source material (Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption). It also meant open season on moving much of King's writings to the big screen, so much so that every single novel under his own name alone until 1987's Eyes of the Dragon would get some kind of movie treatment, and that doesn't even take into account the Bachman books or short stories.