The one thing I really hated about the adaptation of The Shining was that they changed the topiary animals to a hedge maze. It's a small point, I guess, but I remember reading the book and thinking, man, there's nothing scarier than topiary animals that move when you're not looking at them. What's a hedge maze compared to that?

Oh, I agree about The Shining. I also felt that the the decision to leave out Jack's forgetfulness about the boiler was a big mistake. The reader knew Jack had forgotten about the boiler but Jack didn't and the tension of whether he would remember in time, with all the other stuff happening really worked and I felt would have been easily translatable to a movie. Another moment they left out that I didn't like was when Jack was right about to ax his son and he briefly regained control of himself. He hugs his son and says "Run now and remember, I'll always love you." It was such a touching moment that really underscored the tragedy of what was happening here. Because Jack was not a murdering bastard. He was not evil. He was a loving father who had been taken over and was being forced to do horrific things to people he loved. That omission took the soul away from the character.

It's 4AM and Kubrick is controlling my mind.

The Jack character is certainly much more fleshed out and sympathetic in the book. No doubt. Kubrick stripped away a lot of that engaging characterization for his version.

But the topiary vs. hedge maze thing was partly about the state of special effects technology, I think. In 1980 there was much more of a chance for that stuff to come out looking unintentionally cheesey. Though I guess Mr. 2001 could have had a go at it if he really wanted to. The maze thing works out fine, no? Just today I called out to a coworker named Danny as I headed after him down a corridor, using the drunk delerious voice he has come to recognize and shake his head at. The kid in the movie is great; in the behind the scenes stuff someone off camera plays the kid's favorite scary music, to inspire him while shooting.

A great thing about the Shining DVD is the featurette shot by Kubrick's daughter. Naturally she had ultimate access to the set during filming. What's cool about it is how unguarded the actors appear, in a time before Entertainment Access Extra Hollywood Tonight on E! Television. Shelly Duvall in particular is pretty open about her various hang-ups and inner disturbances during the shoot, which cause some impatience among director and crew.

Yeah, The Shining isn't an exact adaptation, but it's a great, iconic, film. It's the reason I think twins are terrifying to this day.

Due to time constraints, a film is always going to strip away much of the plot and subtext, particularly with someone like King, who writes so densely. I think the best film adaptations are the ones that manage to keep the essential spirit of the book; why I think Clueless is better than the Paltrow version of Emma.

Another great example is another Nicholson film - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. An exact interpretation of the book would be unfilmable, and would likely be a bizarre '60s curio, but the film depicts what is true and everlasting about that story.

More exact adaptations are better suited to the television than the movies really. Then you have the time to fit in the details.

Statues that move when you're not looking at them are pretty scary, too.

I had forgotten that The Shining was a Kubrick film. A Kubrick film I really disliked. The book had kept me awake and afraid to move beyond my couch at one point. I took my own ciggie intermission during the movie. It had really been hyped and didn't live up to my expectations. I think Kubrick even "invented" a gyro-camera type conveyance that was supposed to do...something. It seemed that Kubrick stripped away a lot more than the sympathetic Jack charcterization.

Joe Don Faker Posted on Today, 4:35 am