The Shining Movie/Book Comparison

     The Shining as directed by Stanley Kubrick is one of the most recognizable horror movies of all time. Its inspiration, the novel of the same title by Stephen King, is also an instantly recognizable title. However, for being based on the same material, the book and the movie have many important differences.

     While it's true that Kubrick's movie follows the same general plot as King's novel, he decided to delete a lot of the elements of the book and add in his own scenes. Personally, I believe this is one of the rare occasions where the movie is actually better than the book. Many of the changes that Kubrick made were what made the movie iconic. He took out some of the sillier elements which are common in King's writing, and produced a more crisp and realistic depiction of the story.

     The additions Kubrick made are actually some of the most memorable scenes of the movie. Remember this?

     Not in the book. Jack never says his famous line at any point during the book. However, I can't give Kubrick the credit for "Here's Johnny." It was an ad lib by Nicholson, which turned out to be one of the most famous lines in cinema history. That wasn't the only scene Kubrick added. "All work and no play..."

     Also not in the book. Among adding those two scenes, Kubrick also changed a few other things. One of these was Jack's weapon. In the movie he carries an axe. It's pretty terrifying. In the book, he runs around with a roque mallet (an oversized croquet mallet). Needless to say, Jack would have been slightly less intimidating had Kubrick not made the change.

     Another major aspect of the movie was the hedge maze. In the novel, instead of a hedge maze, the Overlook had hedge animals that came to life and chased the characters. Also, the ending was changed. Danny overcomes his father in the movie by getting him lost in the maze, while in the book, he defeats him with love or something. Needless to say, Kubrick's way was much less cheesy. Finally, the famous shot at the end zooming in to a picture that shows Jack featured prominently in a photo taken at the Overlook hotel in 1921, many years before the character would have been born. The ending gives no explanations, and leaves the viewer thinking (something Kubrick often did, IE the floating baby at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey). In the ending of the book, the hotel explodes with Jack inside, thus lifting whatever curse was over the place. I think Kubrick's ambiguous ending was much more interesting.

     Even with all these preferences I have to the movie, I'm not saying I didn't like King's novel. I thought it was a very good novel, and it did have some strengths which the movie lacks. First and foremost, is back story. In the book, King gives back stories to all the main characters, particularly Jack, which gets us more invested in him as a character. In the movie, we have less sympathy for Jack, because we don't understand in as much depth, what he's gone through. When translated to film, we also lost much of the love shared between Jack and Danny. In the book, they have a much closer bond, which makes it more heartbreaking when Jack ends up trying to kill Danny. Another preference I have to the book is that Hallorann survives. In the movie, he comes to the Overlook to selflessly help the Torrances, and is rewarded with an axe to the chest. It seems cheap and doesn't serve much of a purpose in my opinion. I think Hallorann deserves more credit. In the book, he saves Wendy and Danny, who most certainly wouldn't have survived without his help.

     In conclusion, neither version of the story is perfect. However, I think Kubrick translated the story to work on film as well as was possible, and created a very effective movie. King also deserves credit however, for writing one of the premiere horror novels of all time.