A review of a review of ‘The Shining’ from the ‘80s

In July 1980, Daily Lobo reporter Lester Slick published his review of Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining.” He did not like the movie very much, calling it “spotty” and “so-so.”

Now it’s my turn to write for the Lobo. I love “The Shining,” so here’s my critique of his critique.

“The Shining” is a psychological horror film about novelist and recovering alcoholic Jack Torrance, who takes a temporary job caring for the Overlook Hotel during its offseason. The hotel is haunted and plagued with a supernatural “shine,” though as Jack descends into madness, no ghost could be more terrifying than him.

Slick, who the Daily Lobo could not find to contact, did write some about what he liked about the film — briefly praising the performances of Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall. He wrote: “This movie ultimately relies upon the acting talents of Nicholson and Duvall,” noting that only Nicholson could “hold this tenuous flick together.”

While I agree with his thoughts on the performances — they’re incredible — I feel the review overall does a disservice to both “The Shining” as a film and the medium of film as a whole. One note Slick makes is that he wished a scene from the novel had made it into the film. This is a critique you’ll see leveled at a lot of page-to-screen adaptations that I’ve never found to be fair.

What a film can sometimes lack, in terms of plot points, it can make up for in atmosphere and sensory evocation. “The Shining” succeeds, where I admit some adaptations fail.

Kubrick’s “The Shining,” despite Slick’s analysis, went on to permanently alter the visual vocabulary of horror films and cinema as a whole. Is there a single other carpet pattern that matches those shimmering red, orange and black hexagons in terms of icon status? How many creepy twins now haunt the silver screen? How many homages to Jack busting the door down? Hell, where do you think we got the “Kubrick stare”?

I love “The Shining.” I knew its legacy before I knew it. Perhaps its reputation as a classic clouds my judgement, though I think I’d love it either way. It’s interesting to see first reactions to a film that achieved legendary status decades later.

That is what I love about an “outdated” film review. We’ll never know if the future will prove us right about art. I’ve written many critical reviews; I’ve laid into films that were far more harmless, far harder. I’ve called Oscar-winners garbage and raged for hundreds of words against films that broke box office records. I’m sure that if the mediums of film and print survive, the culture editor 50 years from now will have some choice words for me.

The point of art is to make us think; the point of a review is to make us talk. Though I disagree with Slick’s take on “The Shining,” it does thrill me that I can critique a critique 45 years later.

It speaks to the constant changes in the Zeitgeist, but also the constancy and permanence of art. As long as we keep creating, we’ll always have something to talk about.

Addison Fulton is the culture editor for the Daily Lobo. She can be reached at culture@dailylobo.com or on X @dailylobo