The Shining review

 

 

The Shining, 28 Years Later…

 

Since being released in 1980, The Shining has gathered numerous praises from critic and fans, which which consider it a horror classic. Notably directed by Stanley Kubrick, his only venture into horror, can one assume this is a horror classic? Does it stand up with time? I personally have always been lukewarm on the film. I always felt it lacked terror, felt cold and distant, but was I wrong? I’m about to find out.

Too Cold

I found it interesting to see Kubrick‘s use of color again. His films, not all, but some, feature a restraint color palette consisting of whites and earth tones. Set against the backdrop of a winter storm, notable scenes such as the elevator spilling out blood and the climax in the maze use the red and blue colors respectively. I think the use of color rips you into the characters madness. Simply, red (as in the blood) represents anger, fear, and terror. The blue in the climax forces us to come to a chilling revelation of the destruction of the family. Most of the hotel uses earth tones, that fade into the backdrop, our eyes aren’t noticing them, but only when a surge of color rips into frame. I think The Shining is a prefect example on how to use color in a color film, especially a horror film.

Scary?

Years ago I always felt The Shining wasn’t scary. Compared to the horror films at the time, it wasn’t, but truth be told, it isn’t scary, at least not in graphic violence or jump out of the dark scary, like a Halloween or Friday the 13^th, both popular horror films at the time of 1980. It’s a mature scary, if that’s a proper term. Much like the Exorcist (outside of the more outrageous moments) The Shining is a slow burn of unreliable characters in which we follow in the narrative. Each is going mad and the hotel is just the vessel to do that. Danny talks with a low voice and his finger when Tommy appears. Jack is talking to ghosts and flipping out. Wendy is too slipping into madness from the isolation and the terror of her husband. There’s even a deleted scene that hints that she too is mad.

Outside of a few paranormal activities, there’s nothing one should consider terrifying here. There are no real ghosts; every time Jack is talking to one, there’s always a mirror, suggesting perhaps he’s talking to himself. Explaining when Wendy sees the owner carved up or the girl in a dog outfit performing oral on the owner is a bit harder. Perhaps by then she is losing her own grip on reality. She, by then, went through a lot. Her husband is insane and trying to kill her. Her son is a basket case. Some might consider the ghost owner, who tempts Jack and is seen laughing at Wendy, while featuring a huge gash on his forehead to be the Devil tempting them into temptation. Interesting idea, but in an interview with King, Kubrick once called him up asking him if King believed in God. King replied, “Yeah, I think so.” Kubrick bounced back, “No, I don’t think there is a God.” So there could be no way Kubrick would inject any possible religious subtext in there. Sure, 2001 features God, but that’s another film and its story needed God.

 Here’s Johnny!

 The central performance by Jack Nicholson is damn near perfect. It’s what people remember about the film, it overshadows almost everything else, except for Redrum. Stephen King disapproved of his casting, claiming his Oscar-winning performance in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest would tip off people into where his character would go. I can’t disagree with that, but seriously take away Nicholson’s performance; you have a shallow, un-involving film. He ad-libbed numerous times, he took his trademark smile, his trademark eyebrows and twisted them to make us unsure whether he was been a jokester, caring, or mad.

One thing I’m surprised hardly any review has ever mentioned, is the rather flat and stale performance of Shelley Duvall. Granted, maybe Kubrick needed her to be low-key to balance out next to Jack’s madness, but numerous times she amateurishly stutters her way through the film. Take the scene early on, when the nurse asks about why Danny once dislocated his shoulder. She chops her dialogue up, like she was unprepared and fumbles with a cigarette package and lights a smoke. Sometimes in acting school, giving an actor a prop will add to their scene, acting, or help them deliver a better performance. Kubrick is a known perfectionist and Duvall claimed it was torture filming The Shining. I wonder why? Duvall holds the Guinness Book of World Records for repeat a take 127 times! That answers that. She’s overly emotional and then is automatically under emotional in tense scenes. She never reaches a point where “this is Wendy”. It seems like she always guessing. Even Stephen King disliked her casting, saying she looked to weary already, when the character in the book is naive former high school cheerleader, and the trouble at the hotel is her first real confrontation with issues she must face alone. Nicholson stated that working with Kubrick was great for him, Kubrick changed when he directed Duvall. Hmmm. Duvall nearly unhinges the entire movie from working; thankfully everyone else pulls his or her weight.

So?

The Shining is a good film. My initial attitude has changed somewhat from a better appreciation to Kubrick’s directing skills and the film’s portrayal of madness. I still don’t think or should consider this a horror classic. It borderline’s being a horror film at all. It’s a suspense tale, in which all the characters go mad. It produced some pop culture references and Nicholson’s performance is one of his best, but no The Shining isn’t that good to stand next to the like of its peers of Halloween, Exorcist, and Dawn of the Dead.

Rating: