Kubrick vs. King
I have heard that Stephen King, author of The Shining, was not happy with the Stanley Kubrick adaptation of the book to film.
Among artists, there are those who cling to the idea of remaining faithful to the source material and those who have no problem doing away with it.
What does it mean to be faithful to the source material?
When a person reads a book, the particularities of the world in that book as well as the appearance of characters that appear in it is as much the creation of the reader as it is of the writer. Stephen King understands this. In the author’s note at the start of his book, The Stand, he mentions the changing appearances of characters in people’s heads as they read through a book. He expresses an acknowledgement and appreciation of this fact. If this is so, how come he is unhappy with Kubrick’s adaptation of his book?
This is because there is a contradiction in what King believes. He has no attachment to the character’s interpretation but perhaps is attached to the narrative in his work. He clings on to what he believes is his.
There is a problem here. As much as artists like Stephen King want to hold on to their narrative, it is an impossible task. Every person reading a piece of work comes into the experience with an impossible number of variables. Emotions, thoughts, beliefs, age, gender, geography, ethnicity and many more inform what they read and how they interpret it.
Furthermore, the same person reading a book ten years apart (or even less) will experience different books entirely. What they make of it, what they make of the characters will, in most cases, have transformed drastically. Why? Because it’s not the same person reading it at all.
Introspective artists understand this well. They understand that interpretations and ideas are constantly shifting and changing.
Stanley Kubrick was known to keep editing his script well into the shooting process. Jack Nicholson once joked about chatting with other actors on set, wondering if they had the latest edition.
I am the Walrus
When the Beatles hit, I Am the Walrus first came out, it was banned by the BBC for being lewd.
In an interview later in his career, frontman John Lennon commented,
“The words didn’t mean a lot. People draw so many conclusions, and it’s ridiculous. I’ve had tongue in cheek all along–all of them had tongue in cheek. Just because other people see depths of whatever in it…What does it really mean, ‘I am the Eggman?’ It could have been ‘The Pudding Basin’ for all I care. It’s not that serious.”
The truth is, it doesn’t matter what Lennon meant by it. Not any more than it matters what the people at the BBC thought it meant. Both interpretations are equally valid. Intention doesn’t determine interpretation. Although, the Judeo-Christian influence on our culture would have us believe it does.
Once something is put out, it is no longer yours. Again, introspective artists understand this. And I would argue, so do you.
Take this painting, for example. You would have no problem accepting that it is up to the viewer what to make of it.
Why?
Is it because by creating a piece of abstract art, the artist has given you permission to do so?
Or is it because you believe abstract art is meant to be interpreted differently?
Who told you all art isn’t supposed to?
I’m sure it’s the likes of Mister Stephen King.
