The source material does matter and Stephen King proves it

by Robert Scocchi
| Published 13 seconds ago

Whenever a novel is adapted to film, there is always some complaint that the book was better. While this complaint is occasionally valid when considering a movie’s source material, it usually feels like a flack from people who just want everyone to know they’re actually reading.

That’s fine, but let’s talk about it The bright one For a second. Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 adaptation of Stephen King’s novel has proven its staying power as one of the best psychological horror films of all time, and for good reason. Although King has softened his stance over the years, he was notorious in Kubrick’s film for deviating from the source material.

The source material is just that, a source

If you read The bright one Then watch Kubrick’s adaptation, and it’s painfully clear that he used the source material as a starting point for his own ideas. Creative liberties were taken to craft something that only resembled King’s work while still capturing his key themes. Film making also had limitations in 1979, forcing Kubrick and his team to innovate with visual images.

That iconic hedge maze sequence? Not in the book, which had walking topiary sculptures. Ax and “There’s Johnny!”? Also not in the book. You know what it was? Rock hammer.

King’s novel involved the Torrance family, Jack’s drive into madness, and the Overlook Hotel as a conduit and catalyst for his unraveling. It’s a great novel, but not the best source for a faithful film adaptation.

Stephen King wrote his own screenplay and it’s terrible

Do you remember the 1997 TV adaptation for TV? The bright one Written by Stephen King himself? Maybe not. But if you’re curious what happens when a movie is 100 percent faithful to the source material, you can stream the 273-minute disaster on Tubi later this month and see for yourself.

Not only Stephen King is the bright one Faithful to the source material, the screenplay was written by Its author. This is not good. That’s four and a half hours of soap opera production value. Critics called it boring and unfocused, most preferring Kubrick’s cinematography to the auteur’s original.

Here, we finally get the walking hedge animals, Roque’s passages, and the personal touch King Kubrick thought was lost when adapting the source material. At the height of his alcoholism at the time he penned the novel, King felt a deep connection to his story, as it mirrored the struggles of Jack Torrance Torrance. It was precious to him.

The problem is, the king is not a director. He’s an author. And when a story means so much to him, he’s unbelievable. You can’t fault him for feeling that Kubrick missed the point, but Kubrick was a filmmaker who took his craft seriously and knew how to translate ideas visually.

Once a book is published, it is open to interpretation. I’m sure JD Salinger didn’t want John Lennon to bump into him Catcher in the ryeBut it happened, and it’s not his fault. Oddly enough, there is even a conspiracy theory website devoted to proving that Stephen King killed John Lennon, but that is a topic for another day.

The 1980 film is the best adaptation

Regardless of the source material, Kubrick earned his reputation as an innovative, light-years-old director by approaching his work with a monastic obsession, often at the expense of the sanity of his actors. It’s well documented how brutal it is The bright one The production was great, especially given Shelley Duvall’s treatment of trying.

Production director Roy Walker once described Kubrick’s meticulous approach to achieving The bright one Signature look. Kubrick had a replica of the entire Overlook Hotel in his production office. He hovered over it for hours with miniature lamps and a camera, taking pictures, sending them to be developed, studying the results, and doing it again. This process took days, even weeks. Crew members often wondered if they would start filming.

Even Kubrick developed a system of coded numbers to match his miniatures to the real set. Legend has it, when the crew compared it, the lighting matched up perfectly.

Kubrick took the source material written by Stephen King and elevated it, turning it into something his own. His obsessive attention to detail is what made the film special, and it’s a skill Stephen King probably wouldn’t have. Sorry, but it’s true.

You can enjoy both, it’s okay

Here’s the rub: Deviations from the source material are often consuming, but there’s no reason to insist the book was better. The bright one by Stephen King is a literary classic. Reconsider it if you have the time. She is a master of psychological suspense and horror. The bright one by Stanley Kubrick It is a cinematic masterpiece, and its versatility is undeniable whether you’re a movie buff or a casual viewer. Both stand on their own, but the latter cannot exist without the source material.

If the source material is great, and the movie adaptation takes creative liberties but still delivers something equally great, it’s a double win. You can enjoy the same story on two different levels. As for King’s 1997 adaptation staying true to the source material, you can see for yourself. It’s terrible.

---