I love the novel, and I love the movie. None of the changes Kubrick made bother me at all. I can sometimes get annoyed by changes mad during the course of an adaptation, but as long as they aren't done willy-nilly, I'm okay with them.
I'll give you an example of what I mean: in the television version of "Bag of Bones" -- which I did not like at all -- the writer changed the little girl's age, and made her several years older. However, in King's novel there are some very important plot points that center on her doing things because she is not old enough to know not to do them. So in the movie, by aging her up, they made it necessary to change those plot points, as well, because all of a sudden they would not work. Except they didn't change them at all; they kept them the same, and all of a sudden the character seemed to be dumber than hell.
For my money, Kubrick avoided that trap. He changed plenty; but it changed it enough so that the end result was a movie that was true to itself. I can live with that.
And I can especially live with it when the result is that great a movie.
Now, on the subject of Danny...I really like that kid in the movie! I see what you're saying about his flat line readings, but the way I've always seen it, Danny is -- in this version of the story -- just not a very talkative child. Some of that is likely because his father is a bit of a tyrant, and some of it is probably just because he has trouble relating with the world as a result of his abilities. So while they might be flat line readings, I think they work for the character; they help make him an incredibly reserved and reluctant child.
I agree, if the changes work within the film, that doesn't automatically negate them. And I can see what you mean about how this Danny is different and therefore acts different. I think it's mostly just that I really would like to see a novel Danny brought to film at some point.
I love the novel, and I love the movie. None of the changes Kubrick made bother me at all. I can sometimes get annoyed by changes mad during the course of an adaptation, but as long as they aren't done willy-nilly, I'm okay with them.
ReplyDeleteI'll give you an example of what I mean: in the television version of "Bag of Bones" -- which I did not like at all -- the writer changed the little girl's age, and made her several years older. However, in King's novel there are some very important plot points that center on her doing things because she is not old enough to know not to do them. So in the movie, by aging her up, they made it necessary to change those plot points, as well, because all of a sudden they would not work. Except they didn't change them at all; they kept them the same, and all of a sudden the character seemed to be dumber than hell.
For my money, Kubrick avoided that trap. He changed plenty; but it changed it enough so that the end result was a movie that was true to itself. I can live with that.
And I can especially live with it when the result is that great a movie.
Now, on the subject of Danny...I really like that kid in the movie! I see what you're saying about his flat line readings, but the way I've always seen it, Danny is -- in this version of the story -- just not a very talkative child. Some of that is likely because his father is a bit of a tyrant, and some of it is probably just because he has trouble relating with the world as a result of his abilities. So while they might be flat line readings, I think they work for the character; they help make him an incredibly reserved and reluctant child.
That's my take on it, at least.
I agree, if the changes work within the film, that doesn't automatically negate them. And I can see what you mean about how this Danny is different and therefore acts different. I think it's mostly just that I really would like to see a novel Danny brought to film at some point.
Delete