by John Wilson One of the most controversial choices our voting members ever made happened our very first year, when our scrappy bad-film society was less than 50 people. At that time, we nominated ten contenders for five top categories, including Worst Director. Among the ten contenders as 1980's Worst Director was Stanley Kubrick for The Shining, a film that is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. Even though Kubrick wound up "losing" to Robert Greenwald for XANADU, we still get "called on the carpet" for that nomination by movie buffs and cineastes four decades later.
Kubrick wound up being nominated in part because a significant number of our voting members that year had actually read Stephen King's novel, and were looking forward to seeing the book translated to the screen. I personally still consider the novel a far superior tale of terror to what Kubrick did with the source material. There were as well several extremely memorable "visual moments" in the book that I (and many a King reader) looked forward to seeing realized on film – including a scene where the intertwined snakes pattern of the hotel carpet came to life, slithering under the characters' feet, and the climactic sequence in which Jack Nicholson's character, armed with an axe, pursued his son through a topiary maze and those inanimate creatures suddenly (and chillingly) gave chase. Difficult as it may have been to bring such moments to the screen in pre-CGI 1980, in many a reader's mind, they were integral to what made King's novel such a scary read. And our voters apparently concurred: If you weren't going to bother including those scenes, don't call your film The Shining... I should also point out that we are not alone in our less-than-favorable opinion of Kubrick's film – Stephen King himself, who says he was never contacted directly by Kubrick during the production of The Shining, later expressed his dissatisfaction by comparing the film version to "a shiny new Cadillac convertible...with no engine in it." In fact, King was so displeased with Kubrick's movie that he agreed to write and oversee a three-night miniseries adaptation of his novel in 1997. But if you want the genuine experience of Stephen King's The Shining, we recommend that you go back to the source material, and read the novel yourself. You'll have a far more intense, terrifying and goose-bump-inducing good time than any dramatized version can deliver. And you may finally understand why revered director Kubrick deserved to make our very first list of ten Worst Director nominees 40 years ago...
10 Comments
Nathan
5/30/2020 10:57:24 pm
You are... a dumb...
Reply
Moritz
7/22/2020 03:24:24 am
This comment is 100% accurate. The article is wrong.
Reply
oiram
7/13/2020 03:23:43 am
I don't know. On paper, those things might seem scary, but when put on film, some audiences might find them a tad bit... silly. Maybe you won't, but there are some people that would.
Reply
Actually Read The Shining
8/26/2020 05:44:01 pm
I, for one, think this article is ON POINT. Thanks, that's all.
Reply
Bobo
4/25/2021 10:08:08 pm
No, no, and no. This is one case where the movie is far better than the book. It trims all the fat, gets rid of the cheese i.e. the hedge maze coming to life, the roque mallet, the hotel blowing up at the end, and creates a masterpiece out of good, but not great source material. Who cares what King thinks? The version with his blessing is trash. Jack was a personification of himself when he was an alcoholic and he thought he was sympathetic (the character was not) and hated Nicholson's portrayal. Even if you did like the book better, you can't deny the movie is great. They can both be good. And to go as far as nominating it for a razzie in any category is ludicrous. There is not a single thing in the film that approaches razzie level. I'm guessing it was to get publicity, which is fair enough, but no one can seriously believe this.
Reply
ASim
10/9/2021 01:26:38 pm
Razzies got it right then and still do with this post. I say this despite being a great admirer of Kubrick, Tge Shining is a terrible film. The worst of a great filmmaker. The material was beneath him and the results show. Nicholson’s character goes off the wall far too fast and early for anyone to gain any sympathy for his plight. Duvall is shrill and annoying and yes, one note. Though I believe it has far more to do with Kubricks behind the scenes treatment of her than her actual performance. The film is also unnecessarily racist and the use of the Scatman Crothers character is ludicrous; it’s a throwaway.
Reply
Noah
10/11/2021 05:15:41 pm
Comically off the mark. Who does the award for worst awards?
Reply
Dan
10/15/2021 02:19:07 am
"There were as well several extremely memorable "visual moments" in the book that I... looked forward to seeing realized on film – including ... the climactic sequence in which Jack Nicholson's character, armed with an axe, pursued his son through a topiary maze and those inanimate creatures suddenly (and chillingly) gave chase."
Reply
William
12/4/2023 09:48:26 pm
Thank you for pointing that out. Also, the work of a director isn’t judged by how well the film adapts the book. That’s a separate thing all together. The film just be judged on itself alone, and the directing within it.
Reply
They Them
12/18/2022 01:09:18 am
Give every phone-staring woke-hole a Razzie. They don’t play the role of a human being well at all.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRazz Berrys: Archives
March 2024
Categories |
Contact: info@razzies.com
|
copyright © Razzies LLC 2024
|