Subtler work would have made this character so much more terrifying. I love Nicholson and Kubrick and as brilliant people I'm sure they had their reasons for portraying Jack Torrance the way they did. I just felt their take on Torrance really robbed the movie of some crucial suspense and horror.
sharewould have been a forgettable movie had they done that... just like every other morose, self-loathing weak character leading movies today... he's meant to be going out of his mind...
they made the movie their own...
I have no idea as to why precisely, but there seemed to be overacting all over the place. I had no problem with Nicholson's acting, but Shelley Duvall... yikes! I have heard that that was done on purpose, to make the audience as annoyed with her character as Jack was. So if I had to guess, I'd say Nicholson was going over the top for the same reason as well. To appear so out of his mind to us, as his wife was seeing him.
shareI don't think Duvall was overacting at all. Kubrick had to browbeat her to get genuine terror. So much so that she complained
bitterly afterward.
I'm aware that The Shining was a horrendous experience for her. I felt like she was over the top. But that's just a matter of personal perception and taste, since I'm not a fan of hysterics (even if they are accurate to the situation).
share
<< Why was Nicholson allowed to go so far over the top? >>
I don't think anyone told Jack Nicholson what to do in the 70's and 80's. He was a revered icon...probably a bit TOO revered.
.
For the subtler approach I'm talking about go watch Philip Stone as Delbert Grady in his bathroom scene with Nicholson. That scene always gets under my skin. And it has nothing to do with Nicholson (who is, inexplicably, while Grady addresses him, doing something very distracting with his fingers - air guitar?). Who makes that scene is Philip Stone. How he says "you've always been the caretaker" still has a way of working itself into my mind on nights when I can't sleep and the sight of the half-opened closet door fills me with dread.
shareI think the subtlety works for the character precisely because it's do different from the open emotions the other adult characters display. It makes him seem out of the past, from another world, like an embodiment of the still, creepy hotel.
And IMHO the still needs and creepiness of the setting is precisely why the over-the-top performances give by Nicholson and Duvall work. If they'd been quiet and subtle then the film would have been 100%quiet and subtle. They provided some excitement, which I do think was needed. The story is largely seen from the child's POV, and little kids don't understand subtlety.
I do love Nicholson's performance in this, but I wouldn't disagree with someone calling it over the top. I think a lot of thrillers or horrors suffer from this though just because of the nature of the genre, but...it works here all the same.
Jack was always an asshole from the start, so maybe making him like that from the get go made it harder for the audience to discern where he ended and the hotel's influence began? Maybe they figured that was the only way to truly telegraph Jack's madness to an audience that wasn't as trained in these stories as we are now? It's a film that really relies on the actors performances as there isn't much else going on, explicitly, so in order to get the tone they wanted they had to demonstrate that the most through the family, namely, Jack since he was the most affected.
Ya know, I'm saying this isn't a film that has a lot of gags, jump scares, monsters, etc. The threat itself is subtle so the characters had not to be in order to give us a contrast that unnerved us. I suppose, that's the best way I could put it cause other than that I'm not sure what motivated them to have them play them this way. I'd be more than curious to hear Nicholson's thoughts on his approach to Jack, but I doubt we'd get that since he's a fairly private guy.
Kubrick would make Nicholson do take after take until he got bored or exhausted in to just letting rip. And that would usually be the take Kubrick used.
shareIf people find Nicholson frightening here than I see no reason why they shouldn't find Gargamel terrifying as well. Both Gargamel and Nicholson's Jack Torrance are the broadest, mustache-twirling kinds-of-villainy one could possibly envision. If that's what Kubrick wanted -- fine. It doesn't work for me in terms of eliciting fear but obviously countless others disagree. I will concede this though: Nicholson is an utter riot in this. I find myself laughing at him, and with him, more times than I ever have in a Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler vehicle. Nicholson's Torrance is one of the best crowd-pleasing nuts ever; he's also has very little depth and, for my money, could have been so much more.
shareGoddamn kids with their Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell movies! Get off my lawn!
shareYour point is valid IF you're solely looking at The Shining as a horror film, and whether or not Nicholson's over-the-top performance aids or detracts from the requirements of that genre.
However, once you realize--and accept--that The Shining is as much a COMEDY as it is a horror film, then Nicholson's antics suddenly become a lot more appropriate.
Probably because he had been nominated several times for the Oscar and had already won once as leading actor? Perhaps this was the type of performance Kubrick was looking for when they talked before deciding to work on this project together?
shareThen respectfully, let's define "over the top" when a guy is battling his own sanity, the spirits that control him and chasing his family with an ax.
share