Connect with us

Editorials

Why ‘The Shining’ Deserves Another Adaptation

Published

on

Stephen King has famously denounced Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 film The Shining, citing it as a poor adaptation that completely misses the point of his source material. Now, while I think Kubrick’s version is a damn fine horror film (one of the best of its era, actually), I have to agree with King. Look, before things get all hot and bothered in the comments section, hear me out: you can enjoy the same story in different mediums for different reasons.

Real quick, here’s the gist of the story…

The Shining (in all its iterations) tells the story of Jack Torrance, a struggling writer and recovering alcoholic, who wisely decides to bring his family to live in a haunted hotel in Colorado for the winter while he watches over the place and deals with increasingly aggressive ghosts.

Now let’s talk about the source material…

Stephen King’s 1977 novel is a masterclass piece of horror fiction and is the second scariest haunted house novel I’ve ever read – next to Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House.  There is a slow, methodical burn to King’s story. We see a family, trying their best to keep things together, slowly being torn apart by evil forces who want to manipulate and/or consume each of them for different reasons. And while that alone should be enough to populate a novel with enough pants-shitting moments of sheer terror to satisfy any horror fan, where the book really shines (pun totally intended) is how it tackles the theme of addiction.

Not to get too personal, but the way King handles the quiet denial and hidden demons of alcoholism shook me to the bone, and while these things are presented through the somewhat heavy-handed analogy of literal ghosts, they feel way too true to life. The way in which Jack’s wife, Wendy and their young son, Danny deal with their father’s diminishing insanity and inevitable relapse is as heartbreaking as it is terrifying. As a reader, you want Jack to overcome these figurative (and literal) demons. He’s a likable protagonist who, deep down, loves his family and doesn’t really want to kill his wife with a Roque mallet or let the malevolent spirits of the hotel consume his son for his psychic abilities.

But then again, actions speak louder than words, don’t they Jack?

In Stanley Kubrick’s version…

The emotional core of the story is ripped out and replaced with cold and calculated horror in The Shining 1980. There is no buildup of tension and no time to get to know the characters or their quirks: just unrelenting unease from the first frame to the last. The moment we meet Jack Torrance, the audience is already unsettled. This is mostly due to Jack Nicholson’s iconic portrayal of the character. Unfortunately, we don’t really care about Jack. There’s no emotional investment. Sure, he’s fascinating, but not in the way his literary counterpart is. This Jack is callous and wicked and seems like he’s just waiting for an excuse to get all choppy with an axe. And sadly, Wendy and Danny also suffer from being stripped of a lot of their complexities.  

These things don’t make a bad film. Quite the contrary. Kubrick’s film is simply astounding. It constantly fills the viewer with dread and never lets up. In fact, it’s the minimalist approach to the source material and the plot choices designed to subvert the audience’s expectations (poor, poor old Dick Hallorann) that make it a masterpiece of horror cinema. But as an adaptation, it just doesn’t work. Being a huge King fan, it took me years to appreciate the film for what it was and separate it from the book that scared the hell out of me when I was way too young to read it. Kubrick’s movie is less an adaptation and more of an interpretation.

Personally, I’d like to see something that captures the heart of the book while maintaining the horror that Kubrick committed to celluloid. The film is like a serial killer that has been turned into a Romero-style zombie. Sure they’re scary lumbering around, but man, when they were alive, that’s a different story altogether.

Hey, what about that Steven Weber thing?

I’m glad you asked. In 1997, horror director and Stephen King aficionado Mick Garris took another stab at the property by adapting the novel into a three-part TV miniseries on ABC. And with King writing the teleplay things should have gone… well, way better. While I will say that Steven Weber’s everyman portrayal of Jack Torrance was not only good, but pretty damn accurate to the book, and the family dynamic felt real (albeit wooden), the miniseries just doesn’t have the emotional heft of the book or the sheer terror of Kubrick’s film. It’s languid somewhere between.

Also, those CGI hedge animals were… well, a product of their time.

So… what next?

I feel like striking a balance would be perfect. As much as I love the novel, I’ll be the first to admit it’s not perfect (again, 2nd best haunted house novel). Like most of King’s work, it sometimes meanders like a herd of cats. Perhaps applying Kubrick’s minimalist approach (no need for a six-hour series), while keeping the emotional impact, would make for the perfect blend of horror and drama. I say allow the characters to become fully realized before putting them through the wringer. And with such a small cast, there’s no reason this can’t be done effectively.

In the hands of a savvy director who excels at working with small groups of people and family strife (Mike Flanagan, anyone?), and populated with likable actors, we might just have a perfect adaptation on our hands. The Shining doesn’t need so much a remake as it does a refocus.

Editorials

‘Amityville Karen’ Is a Weak Update on ‘Serial Mom’ [Amityville IP]

Published

on

Amityville Karen horror

Twice a month Joe Lipsett will dissect a new Amityville Horror film to explore how the “franchise” has evolved in increasingly ludicrous directions. This is “The Amityville IP.”

A bizarre recurring issue with the Amityville “franchise” is that the films tend to be needlessly complicated. Back in the day, the first sequels moved away from the original film’s religious-themed haunted house storyline in favor of streamlined, easily digestible concepts such as “haunted lamp” or “haunted mirror.”

As the budgets plummeted and indie filmmakers capitalized on the brand’s notoriety, it seems the wrong lessons were learned. Runtimes have ballooned past the 90-minute mark and the narratives are often saggy and unfocused.

Both issues are clearly on display in Amityville Karen (2022), a film that starts off rough, but promising, and ends with a confused whimper.

The promise is embodied by the tinge of self-awareness in Julie Anne Prescott (The Amityville Harvest)’s screenplay, namely the nods to John Waters’ classic 1994 satire, Serial Mom. In that film, Beverly Sutphin (an iconic Kathleen Turner) is a bored, white suburban woman who punished individuals who didn’t adhere to her rigid definition of social norms. What is “Karen” but a contemporary equivalent?

In director/actor Shawn C. Phillips’ film, Karen (Lauren Francesca) is perpetually outraged. In her introductory scenes, she makes derogatory comments about immigrants, calls a female neighbor a whore, and nearly runs over a family blocking her driveway. She’s a broad, albeit familiar persona; in many ways, she’s less of a character than a caricature (the living embodiment of the name/meme).

These early scenes also establish a fairly straightforward plot. Karen is a code enforcement officer with plans to shut down a local winery she has deemed disgusting. They’re preparing for a big wine tasting event, which Karen plans to ruin, but when she steals a bottle of cursed Amityville wine, it activates her murderous rage and goes on a killing spree.

Simple enough, right?

Unfortunately, Amityville Karen spins out of control almost immediately. At nearly every opportunity, Prescott’s screenplay eschews narrative cohesion and simplicity in favour of overly complicated developments and extraneous characters.

Take, for example, the wine tasting event. The film spends an entire day at the winery: first during the day as a band plays, then at a beer tasting (???) that night. Neither of these events are the much touted wine-tasting, however; that is actually a private party happening later at server Troy (James Duval)’s house.

Weirdly though, following Troy’s death, the party’s location is inexplicably moved to Karen’s house for the climax of the film, but the whole event plays like an afterthought and features a litany of characters we have never met before.

This is a recurring issue throughout Amityville Karen, which frequently introduces random characters for a scene or two. Karen is typically absent from these scenes, which makes them feel superfluous and unimportant. When the actress is on screen, the film has an anchor and a narrative drive. The scenes without her, on the other hand, feel bloated and directionless (blame editor Will Collazo Jr., who allows these moments to play out interminably).

Compounding the issue is that the majority of the actors are non-professionals and these scenes play like poorly performed improv. The result is long, dull stretches that features bad actors talking over each other, repeating the same dialogue, and generally doing nothing to advance the narrative or develop the characters.

While Karen is one-note and histrionic throughout the film, at least there’s a game willingness to Francesca’s performance. It feels appropriately campy, though as the film progresses, it becomes less and less clear if Amityville Karen is actually in on the joke.

Like Amityville Cop before it, there are legit moments of self-awareness (the Serial Mom references), but it’s never certain how much of this is intentional. Take, for example, Karen’s glaringly obvious wig: it unconvincingly fails to conceal Francesca’s dark hair in the back, but is that on purpose or is it a technical error?

Ultimately there’s very little to recommend about Amityville Karen. Despite the game performance by its lead and the gentle homages to Serial Mom’s prank call and white shoes after Labor Day jokes, the never-ending improv scenes by non-professional actors, the bloated screenplay, and the jittery direction by Phillips doom the production.

Clocking in at an insufferable 100 minutes, Amityville Karen ranks among the worst of the “franchise,” coming in just above Phillips’ other entry, Amityville Hex.

Amityville Karen

The Amityville IP Awards go to…

  • Favorite Subplot: In the afternoon event, there’s a self-proclaimed “hot boy summer” band consisting of burly, bare-chested men who play instruments that don’t make sound (for real, there’s no audio of their music). There’s also a scheming manager who is skimming money off the top, but that’s not as funny.
  • Least Favorite Subplot: For reasons that don’t make any sense, the winery is also hosting a beer tasting which means there are multiple scenes of bartender Alex (Phillips) hoping to bring in women, mistakenly conflating a pint of beer with a “flight,” and goading never before seen characters to chug. One of them describes the beer as such: “It looks like a vampire menstruating in a cup” (it’s a gold-colored IPA for the record, so…no).
  • Amityville Connection: The rationale for Karen’s killing spree is attributed to Amityville wine, whose crop was planted on cursed land. This is explained by vino groupie Annie (Jennifer Nangle) to band groupie Bianca (Lilith Stabs). It’s a lot of nonsense, but it is kind of fun when Annie claims to “taste the damnation in every sip.”
  • Neverending Story: The film ends with an exhaustive FIVE MINUTE montage of Phillips’ friends posing as reporters in front of terrible green screen discussing the “killer Karen” story. My kingdom for Amityville’s regular reporter Peter Sommers (John R. Walker) to return!
  • Best Line 1: Winery owner Dallas (Derek K. Long), describing Karen: “She’s like a walking constipation with a hemorrhoid”
  • Best Line 2: Karen, when a half-naked, bleeding woman emerges from her closet: “Is this a dream? This dream is offensive! Stop being naked!”
  • Best Line 3: Troy, upset that Karen may cancel the wine tasting at his house: “I sanded that deck for days. You don’t just sand a deck for days and then let someone shit on it!”
  • Worst Death: Karen kills a Pool Boy (Dustin Clingan) after pushing his head under water for literally 1 second, then screeches “This is for putting leaves on my plants!”
  • Least Clear Death(s): The bodies of a phone salesman and a barista are seen in Karen’s closet and bathroom, though how she killed them are completely unclear
  • Best Death: Troy is stabbed in the back of the neck with a bottle opener, which Karen proceeds to crank
  • Wannabe Lynch: After drinking the wine, Karen is confronted in her home by Barnaby (Carl Solomon) who makes her sign a crude, hand drawn blood contract and informs her that her belly is “pregnant from the juices of his grapes.” Phillips films Barnaby like a cross between the unhoused man in Mulholland Drive and the Mystery Man in Lost Highway. It’s interesting, even if the character makes absolutely no sense.
  • Single Image Summary: At one point, a random man emerges from the shower in a towel and excitedly poops himself. This sequence perfectly encapsulates the experience of watching Amityville Karen.
  • Pray for Joe: Many of these folks will be back in Amityville Shark House and Amityville Webcam, so we’re not out of the woods yet…

Next time: let’s hope Christmas comes early with 2022’s Amityville Christmas Vacation. It was the winner of Fangoria’s Best Amityville award, after all!

Amityville Karen movie

Continue Reading