| RE: .4 -< I like the original better >-
To each their own, but I vastly preferred Stephen Kings version to Stanley
Kubricks version. For one thing, the character development was better.
You got the idea with Weber that here was a relatively normal man, who
had a few problems, being driven insane by outside forces. With Nicholson,
you got the idea that here was a complete wacko who couldn't wait to kill
his wife and child and eagerly grabbed the excuse that "the hotel made
me do it". With Rebecca DeMornay you got a strong woman who defended
her son against anything and who would not let little things like injury
or pain even slow her down, while with Shelly Duval you got a complete
wimp whose notion of defense was running and screaming.
For another thing, they included not only the hedge animals but also
the mallet scene at the end, which was totally gross but completely
necessary to tell both Danny and the viewer that his father was dead.
I appreciate that King had 5.5 hours to tell his story while Kubrick had
only 2 hours, but I really wonder whether Kubrick or Nicholson ever read
the original book, instead of just hearing a few highlights delivered by
someone who only skimmed it.
Compare the scene with the father in the ballroom (one of the few scenes
from the book that Kubrick deigned to include in his movie) to see the
differences between the two movies. Weber is just starting to lose it,
while Nicholson is already completely gone. The whole approach is
totally different here between the two movies, and I think King did a
better job than Kubrick did.
One final point: I heard somewhere that part of the contract between
King and Kubrick which allowed King to re-do the movie was that King would
not trash Kubricks movie. You may notice that the only thing that King
will say about Kubricks movie is "no comment".
-- Ken Moreau
who was glad that someone finally made a movie out of this book, instead
of making a movie whose only correlation to the book was the title
|