Inspired by Unauthorized Cinnamons Stephen King thread, I thought it would be fun To pop in the film version of The Shining. Ive seen it several times. Its a happy marriage between a brilliant actor and a brilliant director both at the peak of their powers. But…
I can understand how some people might think that Nicholson is hamming it up…taking the role way over the top. I agree that he is very visual and emotive in this role. His physical appearance is borderline homeless…this was filmed just 4 years after Chinatown and his look had changed drastically. His mannerisms are bold and he allows Jack Torrance to take over his soul/persona/personality. He shows vulnerability.
But he also adds tiny and hard to notice touches. For example…the scene in which he has fallen asleep at his writing table and is screaming…Wendy running to his side…waking him up and he falling out of his chair…spittle falls from his mouth. Havent we all had our drooling moments? But for an actor…
One of my favorite scenes of the film might be open to criticism: Danny had been hurt in room 237 and Wendy blames him…flashback from his violent alcoholic past. Jack retreats to where he feels most comfortable; the bar. But the alcohol has been taken away so all he can do is sit and brood. Voila!! A bartender appears and offers him a drink. Nicholson plays this as a brilliant stage actor: emoting for all his worth. Acting every single gesture and vocal mannerism for maximum effect. I love it. But is it true to the character that Steven King wrote: Jack Torrance, a man barely able to control his violent impulses, cold, hard, New England unemotional.
What are your thoughts on Nicholsons performance? On Kubricks changes to the story? I give Kubrick full credit for making a beautiful film and for bringing out great performances…Shelley Duvals included. Watch the bonus material if you hate her work in this film.
To my mind The Shining is as close to a perfect piece of cinematic art as can be found–performances, changes to King’s story, and all.
I’m not a big Nicholson fan, but I don’t think anyone could have done a better job as Jack Torrance. It was truly a virtuoso job of acting. The “over the top” quality was exactly right for the movie Kubrick was making; ‘naturalistic’ wouldn’t have worked.
Sherrerd, have you seen his 70’s films and arent a fan of those or just the films pretty much after the Shining where he became a caricature of himself?
When I say ‘not a fan’ I don’t mean that I find any faults with his acting (though as you say, at some point he did seem to become something of a caricature of himself). He’s very effective in early films like Five Easy Pieces, Carnal Knowledge, and Chinatown; he’s also quite good in some later films (*About Schmidt *comes to mind).
I just never really warmed up to him; I don’t have the *‘oh good, it’s got Nicholson’ *reaction that some have when contemplating watching a movie he happens to be in.
I loved everything about the film but Nicholson. I’ve seen it numerous times and with each new viewing, his performance seems worse. Over the top, cartoonish and way off the rails. YM[undoubtedly]V
I know Stephen King himself was not a big fan of the movie when it came out, although I have heard that he’s warmed up to it a little but in later years. I was a big fan of the book, but I think the film is a masterpiece, the cinematography, the music, I just love Stanley Kubrick’s approach to everything, there’s something really special about that film. I think the movie is actually better than the book which is pretty rare. Nicholson’s performance is great and maybe he is just playing himself but it’s great acting. I too love the whole scene with him at the bar talking to the ghost/himself. I think the boy also did a great job, especially for a kid. I’ve heard the kid didn’t know he was in a horror movie either till after the fact or towards the end of filming.
This. He was a terrible choice for the role. I like Nicholson, in general, but even in his most subdued roles, he seems a touch ‘off’, and that’s not what the role required.
In the book he was crazy from the get-go because of alcohol…remember why he lost his job at the prep school. Remember him seperating Dannys shoulder. IMO Nicholson plays him as unhinged from the getgo. But it would take alcohol or ghosts to actually set him off.
(Nicholson plays snarky at the beginning of the film like any good liberal arts prof ;).)
Brilliant. his inflections during his dialogue are great. Listen when he says to Lloyd, “You were the best bartender from Portland Maine. Or Portland, Oregon, for that matter.” To Grady: “You…wer.e…the caretaker here…” To Wendy: “Wendy! Darling! Light! of my life!”
Not to mention the interview with Ullman. Jack seems, not fake, but his responses seem forced and artificial–just like you’d expect if the interview were real. He’s trying to get across the right answers and look comfortable, but underneath, there’s the tension and phony friendliness we all feel in that situation.
A little off topic, but Philip Stone as Grady has to me, some of the best lines. Not so much memorable in content, but how he delivers them. When he’s telling Jack how he “corrected” his family, how his daughter “stole a pack of matches and tried to burn it down” – these are lines that just chill me when I hear them. As I said, the words themselves aren’t as important as the way Stone delivers them. (I’ve always been a fan of how an actor delivers his line as much as what he says. Otherwise innocuous lines have found their way into my life: When Robert Hays says, “What a pisser!” in Airplane! is one of 10,356 examples.)
• It’s Stephen King’s best book; it deserved to be done the way it was written
• Jack Torrance isn’t a very interesting character if he isn’t really trying to write his great novel. Sorry, but when they showed that he was just typing “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” over and over, it makes him 100% a character you can’t relate to, if you ever could before.
•Nicholson wasn’t the only miscast person in the film; Shelley Duval, who played Wendy, rendered her as a weak whiny character to whom bad things happen. Did not like.
I chose Brilliant because it was the closest option. There should have been a Really Good. Movie Jack Torrance was supposed to be the same guy as Book Jack Torrance, so I don’t think he should have strayed even as much as he did from the storyline. Not that this was anyone’s fault but Stanley Kubrick. For a movie that wasn’t all that much like the book, it was still an excellent movie.
IMO, Nicholson is good in the part, not exceptionally good like he was in “Five Easy Pieces” or “Easy Rider”, but decent. It’s the script that’s the real problem - Jack Torrence goes from being a low-key, bland everyman in the beginning of the film to a complete raving lunatic in an instant. No dissolution, or progression of his madness, just sane one scene, crazy the next. The character’s alcoholism - which was a very central aspect of the book - is barely even addressed. An actor, even for a monumentally brilliant one, can only work with what he’s given, and sometimes it’s not enough.
Also, Kubrick is a brilliant visual director, but he was legendary as being a nightmare to work with; he was particularly brutal to the cast on this film, which couldn’t have been conducive to giving great performances. I recall an interview with Angelica Huston (who was living with Nicholson at the time “the Shining” was made) saying Jack would literally stumble in the door from exhaustion late at night, collapse on the bed and be comatose until the very last moment before he had to leave for the set in the morning - for months. Not once or twice, or for a week.
I think that King writes fanciful novels, and the supernatural elements usually take me out of being scared. They happen in a world I don’t live in, so they aren’t effective as anything but something to pass the time.
Kubrick’s movie is far less fanciful. The supernatural elements are generally couched in hallucinations. The ESP remains, but the rest of it can be dismissed as coincidence. So, in the movie, this is a man going crazy and trying to kill his family - something people actually do. Versus the book, where a hotel is taking people over for its own ends, which buildings don’t really do.
So, I probably wouldn’t have even finished watching the actual King plot being made into a movie, but Kubrick’s movie scares the crap out of me to this day.
I loved Nicholson myself, but I’ll agree on Duvall. Though she isn’t untalented, she’s one of those actors I just don’t care for much and I think she was poorly cast here ( as opposed to Popeye, where bad movie or not she was Olive Oyl ).
If you watch the bonus material you might have a more sympathetic view of her. She was sick (or coked up) and Kubrick was brutal towards her. Also, given that Jack Torrance was a brutal alcoholic given to abuse what other type of wife could he find? Her doe eyed vulnerability worked for me.