This movie fails on a basic concept:
Stanley Kubrick didn't create "The Shining", Stephen King did.
Any symbolism and hidden meaning in the story should come from the original Stephen King book, NOT the Stanley Kubrick movie.
The movie actually differs from the book greatly. So greatly that King didn't think it was a good adaptation. He went on to produce his own adaptation in a mini-series in the 90s.
Yes, Kubrick was behind most (all) of the creative decisions in the movie. That's what his job as director entails and that's what creating an adaptation means.
------------------
I'll be in my bunk...
^^ This.
King was not a fan of the film and it's SO different from the book. I loved this film until I read the book and now all I feel is disappointment that Kubrick strayed so far from the original story (which is incredible and scary.)
At the same time, the King readaptation of his own book is not very good. There is a difference between a visual medium and a written one. Kubrick understood this better than King.
Look, you're really cute, but I can't understand what you're saying.
The OP of this thread is a complete moron.
Take a freaking film class, man.
Does the King book have a bunch of cryptic stuff about room 237 in it? Or is room 237 not even the main focus of this film?
No spoilers please though.. I'm going to read the book soon.
In King's book the room is 217, Kubrick changed it to 237 for the film.
On the request of the hotel because they HAD a room 217 and didn't want to turn guests away, so since the hotel rooms went up to 236, Kubrick went with 237.
---
Ignored Users: [98]
Web: www.jmberman.com
most of the symbolism and hidden meaning stuff are things added by Kubrick
_______________I GOT NOTHING_______________
There's a conceit though that I personally believe that seems to imply (like the thread starter) that virtually any book is brilliant, cover to cover, and that nothing can be improved upon - ever - by anyone.
I've read The Shining more than once - it's one of his better books (although not his best for sure) but I personally liked what Kubrick changed. The most obvious example being the (cliche?) hotel exploding at the end of the book.
I will admit that a great deal of the inner workings of Jack Torrance that was present in the book is eliminated from the movie & I certainly won't say that The Shining is flawless as a movie. Films often have a difficult time effectively sharing an introspective view of a character in two hours, particularly when there was just as interesting (maybe more?) character in Danny Torrance.
[deleted]
Honestly? Kubrick is a good director. King is a good writer. But Kubrick screwed up the shining a lot, which to me, ruined the whole story. I'm not saying movies should be the same ad the book down to the last detail but... C'mon. Also; no King movie is as good as the book (except maybe shawshank and green mile.)
share
OP (and some others here), should look up Auteur Theory and the works of Alfred Hitchcock and Francois Truffaut.
Erm... That is all. End of.
[deleted]
You should see Room 237 It is not about any actual symbolism in Kubricks film but rather how people remake the film in their own minds.
sharePersonally I've always just mentally separated the two and (despite the fact that the shining was intended to be based upon a book) look at the film as inspired by the book.
The 90s film was terribly boring. I think Kubrick did the shining amazingly, in its own adaptation. I think eventually, perhaps, another director may take a stab at it and actually make an excellent film for the book.
But all my opinion.