Hey, Guyyyyyyyyyy
Nov. 5th, 2007 01:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerSomething about today's date... hmmm... was I supposed to remember something today?
Remember... remember...
Oh well. I wonder what's on TV?
Just in time for the AV Club's article on "20 Good Books Made Into Not-So-Good Movies" comes CHUD.com's new round-table discussion of the snazzy new DVD edition of Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING. When it comes to Kubrick's film and Stephen King's original, most people I know vehemently love one and hate the other.
The book hits me on a visceral, deeply personal level, in that it's less effective to me as a horror story (although it's definitely creepy) as much as an allegory for living with an alcoholic. It's that factor that gives the story its essential human element.
But I ultimately agree with these reviewers when they say that King's flaw is that he explains too much, and thus leaves nothing to the imagination. As a writer, I daily struggle with how much revealed is too much, or will these little but crucial details just fly over people's heads? So I sympathize with King.
Nonetheless, as overhyped as Kubrick's film so often is, I think it's still one of the finest horror movies ever made, and is made all the scarier by how ambiguous the whole thing is. My main rule of horror: nothing is more terrifying than the unknown.
I love this film dearly, but at the same time, it lacks the book's heart and humanity. But then, perhaps heart and humanity has no place in Kubrick's world. As such, I freely and happily treat book and film as separate entities that, despite Kubrick and King's mutual tension, compliment and reflect upon each other wonderfully.
One more thing. I've been reading collections of PEANUTS strips from the 50's and 60's.
Like many people, I used to think of PEANUTS as a harmless, inoffensive, gentle, watery relic, not as taste-assaulting as, say, GARFIELD or FAMILY CIRCUS, but not really ever that funny either. A classic, only because it's widely considered a classic. I imagine some feel this way about CITIZEN KANE and CASABLANCA.
Then I started reading the classic PEANUTS stuff. And... oh... my god.
I had no idea how subversively brutal, how thoroughly rich in literary value PEANUTS was. Really, the best summation of its true power and timelessness was described below by Ivan Brunetti (whom I usually strongly dislike, and still sounds like an out-of-touch snob, perhaps purposefully so, but makes some compelling points):
Remember... remember...
Oh well. I wonder what's on TV?
Just in time for the AV Club's article on "20 Good Books Made Into Not-So-Good Movies" comes CHUD.com's new round-table discussion of the snazzy new DVD edition of Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING. When it comes to Kubrick's film and Stephen King's original, most people I know vehemently love one and hate the other.
The book hits me on a visceral, deeply personal level, in that it's less effective to me as a horror story (although it's definitely creepy) as much as an allegory for living with an alcoholic. It's that factor that gives the story its essential human element.
But I ultimately agree with these reviewers when they say that King's flaw is that he explains too much, and thus leaves nothing to the imagination. As a writer, I daily struggle with how much revealed is too much, or will these little but crucial details just fly over people's heads? So I sympathize with King.
Nonetheless, as overhyped as Kubrick's film so often is, I think it's still one of the finest horror movies ever made, and is made all the scarier by how ambiguous the whole thing is. My main rule of horror: nothing is more terrifying than the unknown.
I love this film dearly, but at the same time, it lacks the book's heart and humanity. But then, perhaps heart and humanity has no place in Kubrick's world. As such, I freely and happily treat book and film as separate entities that, despite Kubrick and King's mutual tension, compliment and reflect upon each other wonderfully.
One more thing. I've been reading collections of PEANUTS strips from the 50's and 60's.
Like many people, I used to think of PEANUTS as a harmless, inoffensive, gentle, watery relic, not as taste-assaulting as, say, GARFIELD or FAMILY CIRCUS, but not really ever that funny either. A classic, only because it's widely considered a classic. I imagine some feel this way about CITIZEN KANE and CASABLANCA.
Then I started reading the classic PEANUTS stuff. And... oh... my god.
I had no idea how subversively brutal, how thoroughly rich in literary value PEANUTS was. Really, the best summation of its true power and timelessness was described below by Ivan Brunetti (whom I usually strongly dislike, and still sounds like an out-of-touch snob, perhaps purposefully so, but makes some compelling points):
