Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

David Cronenberg Says Stanley Kubrick Didn't Understand Horror And That 'The Shining' Is Not "A Great Film"

For whatever reason, Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" has been a bit more scrutinized than usual in 2013. The documentary "Room 237" dredged up all sorts of fanciful, conspiratorial theories about the director's supposedly "true" intentions behind the film, while Stephen King—promoting "Doctor Sleep," the sequel to his horror classic —took another swipe at the 1980 adaptation, calling it "misogynistic" among other things. And now, David Cronenberg has weighed in with his thoughts on Kubrick's chiller, and you might be surprised to learn he's not a fan.

Speaking with The Toronto Star about the TIFF exhibit "Cronenberg: Evolutions," the director posited that not only are his films more personal than Kubrick, the filmmaker didn't really understand the horror genre at all. “I think I’m a more intimate and personal filmmaker than Kubrick ever was,” Cronenberg shared. “That’s why I find 'The Shining' not to be a great film. I don’t think he understood the (horror) genre. I don’t think he understood what he was doing. There were some striking images in the book and he got that, but I don’t think he really felt it."

The criticism of Kubrick's films being emotionally cold or distant isn't new, but we'd have to say, this might be the first time we've heard someone argue that he was an intentionally populist filmmaker. “In a weird way, although he’s revered as a high-level cinematic artist, I think he was much more commercial-minded and was looking for stuff that would click and that he could get financed," Cronenberg opined. "I think he was very obsessed with that, to an extent that I’m not. Or that Bergman or Fellini were.”

We'd like to live in a world where Kubrick's films are seen as big commercial prospects, but we'll let you all debate that below. As for Cronenberg, his next very non-commercial, satirical movie about Hollywood starring John Cusack, Julianne Moore, Mia Wasikowska, Robert Pattinson, Olivia Williams, and Sarah Gadon is in post and according to the paper it "may" premiere at the Cannes Film Festival next year.

by Anonymousreply 10211/09/2013

thank you david! i came out of that movie HATING it and King. spent the next week complaining of my wasting 2 hours of my life.

by Anonymousreply 111/05/2013

That's strange because I never really thought of The Shining as a horror film. To me, it always more like a physiological thriller.

by Anonymousreply 211/05/2013

I think it is a great film. I do not think it is a horror film. I'd place it as a dark drama/Oedipus film.

by Anonymousreply 311/05/2013

I love The Shining. I have never enjoyed a Cronenberg film.

His last film, Cosmopolis - I think I lasted about 10 minutes. Listening to Rpatz talk in a monotone voice for 2 hours is not my idea of fun.

by Anonymousreply 411/05/2013

S.H.A.D.Y.

by Anonymousreply 511/05/2013

"Room 237" is totally ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 611/05/2013

Yeah, he admitted he had to cast Robert Pattinson for commercial reasons. So I don't know what the fuck he's talking about that he "doesn't worry about commercial aspects". After 2001, Kubrick had carte blance from Warner Brothers and never had to worry about financing ever again.

Somebody is jealous.

I think the longevity of "The Shining" and how it has worked its way into the popular consciousness is a testament to its greatness.

by Anonymousreply 711/05/2013

I remember not really liking The Shining when it came out, though it had a couple of good scenes. However, I can't think of a single Cronenberg movie that I like.

by Anonymousreply 811/05/2013

Is this a surprise? Stanley Kubrick always criticized his films. But, I thought 2001 was his best film.

by Anonymousreply 911/05/2013

[quote]i came out of that movie HATING it and King.

Why would you hate King? It was quite different than his novel.

by Anonymousreply 1011/05/2013

King got to make his own Shining as a miniseries and it wasn't very good.

by Anonymousreply 1111/05/2013

I'm not the biggest Kubrick fan, but I greatly prefer The Shining to anything by Cronenberg.

by Anonymousreply 1211/05/2013

Scatman Crothers was the only good thing in "The Shining."

by Anonymousreply 1311/05/2013

What does it mean to "understand" a "genre"? It means to manipulate the emotions and pacing in a conventional way. What Kubrick understood was that to be remembered, you have to do something unique which is unconventional. His movies do not fit the genres very well, and he has been rewarded - perhaps too much - for this originality. I don't know if anything Kubrick did was great art which will be watched in a hundred years. What I do know, though, is that by breaking genre boundaries he helped expand the role of cinema in life and the possibilites of filmmakers. I like some Cronenberg movies, but will "A History of Violence" and "Eastern Promises" really be watched twenty years from now, let alone a hundred? Will any of C's "horror movies" even be watched ten years from now? There is no reason to genuflect before the "geniuses" of the past like Kubrick, and we can thank him for not doing so. We can't, however, endorse a critical vision that hasn't produced something more substantial on its own.

by Anonymousreply 1411/05/2013

I thought The Shining was an overblown mess. Blood coming out elevators?---Haha!

Old lady coming out of bath for no reason at all? HaHa!

The bar scene? WTF?

by Anonymousreply 1511/05/2013

I think Tarantino also criticized Kubrick's "The Shining" a few years ago.

by Anonymousreply 1611/05/2013

[quote]I don't know if anything Kubrick did was great art which will be watched in a hundred years.

I think at the very least 2001 will be seen as a major work of 20th century art. You could make a case for Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange, but its a weaker case. Barry Lyndon is also growing in stature year by year.

by Anonymousreply 1711/05/2013

I've watched a few of Kubrick's films and I'm still not a fan but he's become such a sacred cow nobody can criticize him at all.

by Anonymousreply 1811/05/2013

Kubrick understood horror well enough to make a film with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman.

by Anonymousreply 1911/05/2013

Tarantino's a complete hack. He has no business criticizing anyone.

by Anonymousreply 2011/05/2013

Who? I've never even heard of this asshole.

by Anonymousreply 2111/05/2013

Kubrick's version of THE SHINING is certainly a horror film, but he clearly approaches the material as being about a family going mad together in the context of the malignant spirits of the hotel.

There are some very effective sequences in the film, but Kubrick was never a "genre" filmmaker like Cronenberg was when he made early films like THE BROOD (which is nastily effective and disturbing), and lesser stuff like THEY CAME FROM WITHIN and RABID. So while I get what Cronenberg is saying, his point is of little consequence given that Kubrick approaches things differently.

My biggest issue with Kubrick is general is that he tends to get overly exaggerated performances from some of his actors, including Nicholson in THE SHINING.

I would agree with the statement that Kubrick is a misogynist based on his films in general.

by Anonymousreply 2211/05/2013

[quote]I've watched a few of Kubrick's films and I'm still not a fan but he's become such a sacred cow nobody can criticize him at all.

That's not true at all. Kubrick has ALWAYS been criticized. Maybe not as much as he's been praised, but he's always gotten critical reviews, up to an including for Eyes Wide Shut.

[quote]Tarantino's a complete hack. He has no business criticizing anyone.

You're an idiot.

[quote]Who? I've never even heard of this asshole.

You're an even bigger idiot.

by Anonymousreply 2411/05/2013

It's more of a violent thriller in tone, but the supernatural aspects clearly make it a horror film.

by Anonymousreply 2511/05/2013

Rob looked HOT in "Cosmopolis."

by Anonymousreply 2611/05/2013

It's funny because I'm not a fan of Kubrick's, but I thought The Shining is the least tawdry, hack-ish film of a Stephen King story I've ever seen. All other films I've seen based on King stories are crappy, TV-of-the-week-level films except for the original Carrie, which I saw as a fun campfest.

Stephen King doesn't interest me and I usually see his films with friends who are fans. I just pretend I liked the film because I don't want to spoil something they like, but in my estimation, he's a crapmeister.

by Anonymousreply 2711/05/2013

I loved The Shining.

I also loved The Dead Zone.

I guess I'm torn as to which one directs better movies based on Stephen King novels.

by Anonymousreply 2811/05/2013

R25, I don't think "supernatural = horror". In Kubrick's version, there isn't concrete evidence that the supernatural events are actually happening in objective reality. Everything we see could be in the character's minds due to madness. The only objectively odd, unexplainable thing that happens in the film is the door to the dry goods pantry opening despite Wendy having locked it.

by Anonymousreply 2911/05/2013

The titular ESP link between Danny and Scatman Crothers seemed pretty real within the film, R29.

But I hear you. It defies easy categorization.

by Anonymousreply 3011/05/2013

Twihard invasion at R26.

by Anonymousreply 3111/05/2013

You have to admit Rob is hot, r31. That is just objective reality.

by Anonymousreply 3211/05/2013

Yes Rob is hot if you find cro-magnon foreheads and yellow teeth sexy.

by Anonymousreply 3311/05/2013

Cronenberg is an established master of horror cinema so he has a right to pass judgment on Kubrick's "Shining" if anybody does.

Kubrick made "great" films. That was his thing. He made heavyweight prestige art films, and this might be part of what Cronenberg's saying--he threw away too much King to make room for Kubrick. Kubrick's "Shining" is an impressive film but when I saw it I couldn't believe that Kubrick had thrown out what was to me the most effective set piece in the novel (the hedge animals coming to life) and I was outraged that he killed off Hallorann. Having Jack freeze to death in the maze was a lousy climax in my opinion.

by Anonymousreply 3411/05/2013

The most egregious thing about The Shining is that there's supposed to be so much snow on the ground that only snowmobiles can be used for travel and snow banks are high enough to reach the hotel's bathroom window, but when the kid and Jack are running around in the maze, there's only a dusting of snow on the ground.

by Anonymousreply 3511/05/2013

[quote] snow banks are high enough to reach the hotel's bathroom window

It was a snow drift, not a snow bank. A snow bank is created by a snow plow. A snow drift is created when snow over a large open space is pushed by wind up against a structure or object. And there was more of a dusting on the ground, it was deep enough to create footprints.

by Anonymousreply 3611/05/2013

Cronenberg and Tarantino dissing Kubrick are ants attacking a giant.

They're both talented but nowhere near Kubrick's league. I don't recall them having the balls to say this shit when Stanley Kubrick was alive.

by Anonymousreply 3711/05/2013

"he clearly approaches the material as being about a family going mad together in the context of the malignant spirits of the hotel"

An isolated family going mad together is scarier than any of King's supernatural crap, or anything I've seen from Cronenberg.

by Anonymousreply 3811/05/2013

[quote]An isolated family going mad together is scarier than any of King's supernatural crap,

Word! Thats why I think of it as being more like a psychological thriller than a horror film. I also see parallels to it and 2001. The isolation, the helplessness. The idea that the terror is coming from something that is not of flesh and blood.

by Anonymousreply 3911/05/2013

There should have been at least a foot of snow on the ground. The characters' shoes aren't even covered by the snow. The toes of their shoes aren't even covered.

by Anonymousreply 4011/05/2013

You could always count on Kubrick to play a rape scene for maximum laughs.

by Anonymousreply 4111/05/2013

[quote]I couldn't believe that Kubrick had thrown out what was to me the most effective set piece in the novel (the hedge animals coming to life)

Kubrick correctly felt that the hedge animals were a silly contrivance. His goal was to focus on the disintegration of the family, which is why he hired Diane Johnson to co-write the script. Also, the hedge animals coming to life eliminates any ambiguity as to whether there are really ghosts in the hotel or if the family is going mad.

by Anonymousreply 4211/05/2013

R41, the fact that you think the rape scene in A Clockwork Orange is played for laughs says more about you than Kubrick.

by Anonymousreply 4311/05/2013

R43, I could buy that if it was just Nicholson's character seeing things, but the little boy sees them too well before the worst of the action starts.

by Anonymousreply 4411/05/2013

More false lessons in diction from R36. Snowbanks can have any source. Stop making shit up.

by Anonymousreply 4511/05/2013

R45 Webster tends to disagree.

snowbank noun A pile of snow especially along the side of a road.

R44, thats an interesting point. Its been a while since I saw the film, but from what I recall, we see very little of what Danny is supposedly seeing compared to what his father is seeing. He sees the creepy twins, but his father is seeing and talking to "people" who are in turn pushing him to kill. We know from the start that there is something not right with Danny, but what exactly it is we cant tell. It's kind of a tough call, is the madness causing the visions or are the visions causing the madness? And of course, everything is thrown in another direction with that final shot of Nicholson in the vintage photograph. I feel that's what makes the film so remarkable: a dozen people can watch it and every one come away with a different take on what is actually happening.

by Anonymousreply 4611/05/2013

[quote]We know from the start that there is something not right with Danny, but what exactly it is we cant tell.

He's gots the shining.

by Anonymousreply 4711/05/2013

I'm one of those people who always read the book before seeing the film. Kubrick's Shining was nothing like the book and annoyed me from start to finish.

King's works are generally only well represented by ABC miniseries. THAT version of the shining was brilliant.

Though I will give props to Delores Claiborne and Misery for not being as bad as other big screen King adaptations.

by Anonymousreply 4811/05/2013

[quote]King's works are generally only well represented by ABC miniseries. THAT version of the shining was brilliant.

You have awful taste.

by Anonymousreply 4911/05/2013

ITA R37. I get chills from start to finish watching this movie.

I've seen it at least a dozen times, and I still can't watch Jack's frozen face at the end which I find as creepy as anything in The Exorcist.

Someone on a French website described it as the Citizen Kane of the horror genre, and I would tend to agree.

by Anonymousreply 5011/06/2013

bump

by Anonymousreply 5111/06/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 5211/06/2013

[quote]You're an even bigger idiot.

How dare youuuuuuuuu!

by Anonymousreply 5311/06/2013

Why wasn't this said when Kubrick was alive?

by Anonymousreply 5411/06/2013

THE SHINING is a rotten film. Everyone was disappointed when it came out.

by Anonymousreply 5511/06/2013

The Shining has a 92% critics' rating and 91% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so there.

by Anonymousreply 5611/06/2013

[quote]THE SHINING is a rotten film. Everyone was disappointed when it came out.

Such anger.

by Anonymousreply 5711/06/2013

Open the Pod bay doors, HAL!

by Anonymousreply 5811/06/2013

Kubrick had his off days too, and Cronenberg has made some fantastically scary movies.

I agree with him on this.

by Anonymousreply 5911/06/2013

The Shining is an amazing horror film. It's probably so well remembered because it was something new. Since then there have been a lot of horror films very much like Shining. The Sixth Sense is obviously directly influenced. The Others! My favorite kind of horror, actually.

The Fly is a fun flick too, I will say.

by Anonymousreply 6011/06/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 6111/06/2013

It's psychological horror.

by Anonymousreply 6211/06/2013

R61, are you the same troll that bitches about American Horror Story every week? Define horror for us, please?

by Anonymousreply 6311/06/2013

In other news, Newt Gingrich says Abraham Lincoln didn't understand politics and that 'The Gettysburg Address' is not a "great speech."

by Anonymousreply 6411/06/2013

Thanks to Scatman, The Shining showed a realistic, grounded portrayal of telepathy. I liked that when I first saw it as a kid. It was the real world-ness of the movie - no hedges coming to life, etc. - that made it provocative.

by Anonymousreply 6511/06/2013

Just like Halloween, The Shining still freaks me out a bit when I see it, the atmosphere is so isolated, eerie and ominous and the score is really creepy.

by Anonymousreply 6611/06/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 6811/06/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 6911/06/2013

R69 *roll eyes* ? Is that how one says, "O shit. Someone used facts to prove my claim was wrong"?

by Anonymousreply 7011/06/2013

Stanley Kubrick was an odd choice of director for "The Shining." It's true he didn't know much about horror movies, but it didn't matter. "The Shining" ended up being not a horror movie, but a Stanley Kubrick movie. It was his vision, his ideas; it was all him. I didn't think that was necessarily a bad thing, but purists can argue that his film of TS was nothing much like Stephen King's novel.

I thought his version was interesting. But I didn't like the death of Dick Halloran, which did nothing for the film. And the character of Wendy was completely overhauled to the extent that she was unrecognizable from the attractive, but somewhat bitchy young woman in the novel. As played by Shelley Duvall she's a rather repugnant-looking, screeching weirdo. And of course the character of Jack, who started out troubled but normal-seeming in the book, was turned into a strange, sinister guy right from the beginning. In the movie Jack is not Stephen King's Jack, he's a creation of Jack Nicholson.

by Anonymousreply 7111/06/2013

[quote]Being genuinely scared. Being grossed out is not horror.

Oh, so you have never actually seen Shining? Rest assured that people were scared by it. Genuinely.

If something is gross enough to shock you* that's also horror, but that has little to do with Shining.

*And when I say "you" here, I don't mean YOU. Your personal emotional reaction doesn't define the world for everyone.

by Anonymousreply 7211/06/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 7311/06/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 7411/06/2013

For those who enjoy Stanley's movie, the making of The Shining, interspersed with clips.

Love Jack, and that kid is one of the best child actors ever.

by Anonymousreply 7511/06/2013

I like the movie, but I don't think Jack Nicholson is very good in it. This film seems to be the beginning of his self-pleased hamminess.

by Anonymousreply 7611/06/2013

" In the movie Jack is not Stephen King's Jack, he's a creation of Jack Nicholson"

Normally, I'm one of those geeks who gets all huffy when someone changes a book I like for the movie adaptation.

But in the case of Stephen King, feel free! A good filmmaker like Kubrick can definitely improve on the original.

by Anonymousreply 7711/06/2013

Absolutely "The Shining" is a horror film. I first saw it on HBO when I was 9 years old. It was so disturbing (especially Danny on his Big Wheel encountering the little girls and Scat's death) . I wish I had been older before seeing it.

by Anonymousreply 7811/06/2013

I'm never quite sure what I think of Kubrick. I think he was overrated, but without the negative implications that term includes.

Cronenberg's version of horror is different from those of many. I've seen horror movies where they were scary, but they were movies. Cronenberg's version of horror includes making something being so disturbing that you wish you had just not seen it.

When it comes down to it, I think Kubrick had a better handle on horror.

by Anonymousreply 7911/06/2013

A little off topic, but does anyone know why the Overlook's carpet shows up in Suede's Animal Nitrate video? I first noticed it a long time ago and have searched to find what connection the song has to the film, but so far have found nothing. Things like this are not a coincidence.

The song itself is pretty gruesome. From the best I can tell, I think its about a young man who is turned on by the abuse he suffered as a child.

by Anonymousreply 8011/06/2013

For me, creeped out beats grossed out in the horror category. I can be horrified by bloody torture porn or oozing secretions, but not particularly scared by it.

Was "Jaws" a horror film? The category is fluid.

by Anonymousreply 8111/06/2013

R81 It is fluid. I think maybe one way to look at it is this way: Horror movies are scary but not all scary movies are horror movies. I think one of the scariest films I have ever seen was Deliverance because that shit really happens. On the other hand, stuff like Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street are more like a comedy for me. They are so ridiculous and over the top, I cant help but laugh.

by Anonymousreply 8211/06/2013

Horror was watching Keira Knightly unhinge her jaw in A Dangerous Method. Or Robert Pattinson trying to act.

I don't understand where Cronenberg is coming from. And after hiring these hacks to star in his boring movies who is he to judge the merits of anything?

by Anonymousreply 8311/06/2013

Rob looked GREAT and totally HOT in that movie, r83. You clearly have no taste.

by Anonymousreply 8411/06/2013

50 year old frau Twihard at R50.

by Anonymousreply 8511/06/2013

or R84 as the case may be.

Either way, no Sparkly fans here.

by Anonymousreply 8611/06/2013

Kubrick's worst is better than Cronenberg's best.

by Anonymousreply 8711/06/2013

r79, I always think of Kubrick as a satirist.

A Clockwork Orange and especially Strangelove are satires.

He is a cold, big picture obsessive. The intimacy of The Shining is not something he could pull off.

I never thought of it as a horror, more of an extreme psychological thriller.

by Anonymousreply 8811/06/2013

I get scared just watching those scenes of Jack Halloran driving through the snow to get to the Overlook with all those creepy tall trees around him. And the scenes with Jack chasing Danny in the maze are so scary and tense.

R67, that was awesome.

by Anonymousreply 8911/07/2013

[quote]Kubrick's worst is better than Cronenberg's best.

Bingo.

Rob Zombie's best is David Cronenberg's worst.

by Anonymousreply 9011/07/2013

[quote]i came out of that movie HATING it and King. spent the next week complaining of my wasting 2 hours of my life.

Well King hated the Kubrick film as well, which is why he wrote the TV adaptation himself. And the movie was 2½ hours not 2 BTW, so you must've napped during parts of it.

Me, I like the Kubrick's film, but it can't hold a candle to the likes of The Fly, Dead Ringers and especially Videodrome.

by Anonymousreply 9111/07/2013

[quote]Me, I like the Kubrick's film, but it can't hold a candle to the likes of The Fly, Dead Ringers and especially Videodrome.

Are you kidding?

by Anonymousreply 9211/07/2013

^^ NO ! ^^

by Anonymousreply 9311/07/2013

[quote]^^ NO ! ^^

You're a comedian, right? You're into satire?

by Anonymousreply 9411/07/2013

The tv version of The Shining wasn't scary at all. Kubrick's version still holds up and is scary as hell. A simple scene like Danny playing in the hallway and that ball rolls out of nowhere to him is really well done and creepy.

by Anonymousreply 9511/07/2013

None of those bitches understood TRUE horror!

by Anonymousreply 9611/08/2013

How on earth could this man even compare himself to Stanley Kubrick? I'm fascinated that he waited until he was dead. He's looking for press.

by Anonymousreply 9711/08/2013

R98--you have a point!

by Anonymousreply 9811/08/2013

"The Shining" is an awful film, plodding and unsatisfying. It's all atmosphere and no story structure. Blech!

by Anonymousreply 9911/08/2013

I dare R101 to try to sit through "Barry Lyndon."

by Anonymousreply 10011/09/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.