The moon landing theory is stupid. The other theories have some credibility but even I, being a conspiracy theorist myself, think that people are reaching WAY too far with the moon landing one.
@@tomnorton4277 so much of the theory is “if you look at frame 27,290 of the moon landing footage, you see a brief flicker on the top right corner of the screen. Obviously, this means the footage is not real and that the entire moon landing operation is falsified to beat the soviets in the space race and to mind control the US population”
The reason why Dick Halloran survived in the Overlook for years is because it can't directly kill you. Tony even tells Danny "Remember what Mr. Halloran said, it's just like pictures in a book". The Shining is a double-edged sword in the hotel because it makes you more susceptible to all the paranormal bullshit, but also gives you ways to fight back IF you are in control of your abilities. Dick Halloran is 100% aware of his Shining and has been practicing his abilities since childhood, so he's fine. Danny is badly affected by the things he sees, but he has the support of Halloran and Tony and knows at least a little bit about what the Shining is. Jack 100% shines too but is completely unaware of it, which is the worst possible combination and the reason why he's most vulnerable to the hotel's shenanigans. He might even be an alcoholic because drinking might have been his coping mechanism. The native american/holocaust symbolism might be a reference how just like the Torrance/Grady families are trapped in a cycle of violence at the overlook, humanity as a whole is also stuck in a spiral of hatred, violence and genocide.
that makes sense because as someone who read mr sleep, i'm pretty sure part of the reason why danny is an alcoholic in there is to suppress his shining. i read it a couple years back though
20:50 Because Danny was always watching Road Runner outsmart Coyote every which way in the cartoons, some folks theorize that he purposely let Jack out of the pantry to lure him into the hedge maze. We don't see Danny "hiding" in the metal cart in the hallway, but bravely jumping out of it - right in front of Jack - and dashing around the corner to bait him into giving chase... right out into the cold to be trapped.
Hence, the "He saw it on the television" remark has a pay off. Also, I believe most likely Danny "did it to himself", that is, injured his own neck. However, the scenes where Danny is shaking and drooling look like he is being victimized, so I don't know.
It's one of the silliest theories that Danny would let Jack out. The ghosts could have still done it even if they wouldn't physically open the door. Besides, the ghosts do affect things physically. Grady spills food on Jack and cleans him up.
People seem to have trouble interpretting media sometimes. Just because there is a subtext that supports the theme doesn't mean the whole movie is secretly about that one thing. They forget to follow the metaphor through and to understand what it adds to the whole of the film. It's like a tapestry. One would be better served to ask "what does this story and the metaphor have in common?"
I think this film is so intensely picked apart because of its intentional ambiguity and Kubrick's style as a filmmaker generally. His films attempt to tap into something very subconscious in the viewer, and The Shining is VERY clearly meant to be open ended, full of mystery and up to interpretation. We fear most what we don't understand, and we tend to obsess over answers we know we'll never fully get. I'm positive Kubrick was very aware of this
That is exactly my thought on the Indian/Holocaust theory, as well as many others. The whole movie doesn't need to be the metaphor. Infact, it works a lot better if you consider the aspect of which attrocities "The eagle" (The US and Nazi Germany) commit, and how one is essentially a reincarnation of another attorcity. The perpetuating cycle of violence. Metaphors like this aren't meant to be "what the movie is about," but rather parallels to the movie. That's exactly what a metaphor or any other figure of speech does. If I say I am so hungry I could eat a horse, that doesn't mean I literally want to eat a horse, but rather conveys the idea of one situation onto another.
One of the differences between the story and the film is that Jack was never *not* a jerkwad in the film. He wore a flimsy mask of self-control with 'I'm a changed man!' sermon song and dance. He was this endless well of negative energy and would have eventually seriously harmed his family even without the Overlook's help. The forces of the Overlook did not corrupt him at all. He was already all the way there before he showed up. They just pulled his mask off is all.
And that was always my interpretation. That the real horror was that right now thousands of people just like Jack are out there. People waiting for something to come along where they don't have to pretend anymore. Because the whole 'Look at me I'm a normie!' act is exhausting.
@@invisi-bullexploration2374I agree with you. When Wendy sees that it’s an axe breaking down the bathroom door, her screaming/terror escalates, because it’s not the fear of an axe, it’s the terror that someone you believed loved you despite their flaws/abuse would actually “go there”. Her denial is palpable in the beginning of the film, and probably never thought he would actually *hurt* her, let alone try to murder her with an axe.
I think that the overlook was not waiting for somebody with the shining, I think it was waiting for somebody fundamentally broken and nasty enough to possess and Jack was it. As you say, he only needed his thin mask peeling off. I believe he had “always been there” not specifically him but the men who could be possessed and used by the overlook. It was just those with the shining that were aware of what was going on, giving them a chance of survival. Those without the shining would just be murdered.
@@1pcfred yes there is a lot of set on that. A lot! In her own interviews, she did not say that until much later. In years following the making of the film, she had nothing but good things to say. Shelley Duvall suffered from mental illness, very seriously towards the end of her life. She suffered a lot. Unfortunately, it also makes her an unreliable narrator. I guess we’ll never truly know.
I think the Native American burial grounds line was simply to establish that there was something about this specific location that "shines", hence the shaman chose it for their tribal burial grounds. None of the ghosts have any connection to Native Americans so if the Overlook was haunted because of the burial grounds it was built upon, wouldn't some of those buried there be among the ghosts?
I doubt anybody in the original audience took it that way. We all kind of groaned and said,, "Not the old Indian burial ground plot line." People feel that the soundtrack at the beginning has some tribal sounds on it. Ghosts of Indians.
I think realistically there should have been at least one Native American spirit present at the hotel, maybe more. Odds are, their remains still rested beneath the foundation of the hotel.
I disagree in the movie he uses the line “white mans burden” witch I think points to the idea that the natives are not the ghost you see but are intertwined with the house I mean natives making white men murder there families like how there families were
The Apollo 11 sweater may not be that much of a conscious choice as you think. If you think that kind of a specific sweater is weird, you probably didn't grow up in the 70s or 80s with a grandma that knits sweaters for her grandkids. I had one with a bear and one with a car on it and they looked exactly like Danny's sweater.
I mean, who wasn't a fan of NASA? Especially around that time. Not hard to see why kids would want to wear the apparel. Everyone wanted to be an astronaut.
@@IntotheDepths511 I find the theory interesting, and I wouldn't put it past the U.S government doing something like that, but I gotta admit, out of all the theories I've heard, this is embarrassingly my first time hearing the "Kubrick helped fake the moon landing" one 😂
There is no doubt it was a conscious decision. Kubrick was particular about every thing in the frame of every shot in all of his films, the mise-en-scene. The Apollo 11 sweater was specifically chosen for a reason, it was Kubrick's decision.
You’re all forgetting something very important about this scene…not only is he wearing a sweater, but he’s also playing with toy cars on the floor pattern which almost exactly resembles the launch pads and the roads used to carry the rocket to the pad. You may be able to call one a coincidence, but both together in a Kubrick film cannot be coincidence. Also, Danny is standing in the middle of the “launch pad” and stands up which you then see the Apollo rocket “lifting off”. After this, he flies to room 247 in which the tag says No Room which can be re arranged to create “moon room”. Current science at the time claimed the moon was 247,000 miles from the earth, hence the 247. I know everything I just said is in the documentary, but idk how you all can talk about this like it’s a coincidence so I thought I’d remind you…
I was there and The Shining had a reputation as an epic movie and we were all terrified. Also, it made $47 million, well over the $19 mil investment, hardly a box office failure.
Yeah. I wasn't old enough to see it I. The theaters but these theories were bouncing about in the 80's and everyone else I knew was scared when they watched , the "failure" was that King purists didn't like what Kubri k did to it. I don't know why people can't enjoy both.
@@GailDLWBecause people are lemmings and can't like what they're not approved to like I guess. And admitting that the Kubrick film was good means you're saying the book wasn't good enough. I like both for different reasons. Kubrick's film more-so, but I still love King's works.
My father was an acololic and addict. I remember when I saw this movie the first time, I was shocked at how similar he was to Jack's character. The facial expressions, the mannerisms, etc. I remember when the realization hit, like "oh my god, my dad was literally crazy." The Jack and Danny theory hits especially close to home too because my father sexualized me a lot as a kid and I believe he SA'd me at some moment too (I have a vague memory of something happening but I was too young to understand and it's very foggy). Anyways, this was a great video, thanks! There's no doubt this movie is powerful in the way it makes people feel so many different things and how it's attributed to such different theories.
It’s weird when you realise that your parent was literally crazy. From a child’s perspective, you’re always trying to placate them or avoid them, but you think you must be doing something wrong. There must be a reason. And it’s not just the alcohol. I have known alcoholics (i’m not excusing it) who are not at all vicious, not dangerous to anyone but themselves. No, there’s something sick and broken within certain people, almost like a possession, the drugs and alcohol can augment. I grew up in a similar environment to you. I’m glad we’re out.
My father wasn't an addict, and didn't SA me, but I was definitely hypersexualized, because he had a huge collection of porn books and magazines. I spent a lot of time alone as a kid because my parents worked a lot, and they knew damn well I would read anything I got my hands on. I blamed my bad behavior on myself for decades, when I never should have had such constant and prolonged exposure to such stuff, plus my father's frequent positive comments about my girlfriends' bodies and negative comments about mine.
Nice video man. Breaking the video up into segments really makes the video seem more thorough than your older breakdowns. Should definitely do more iceberg videos, i loved it.
I think the whole 'jack is gay' was a reference to Jack's creepy relationship with his own father. It's implied his father molested him and that despite feeling bad for his mother when his father started randomly beating her he lost respect for her because she never stood up to him or left him even when she had the chance. In the movie they made wendy more like his mother than the strong woman in the book and i think Kubrick wanted to make jack abuse danny because he didn't want to reference Jack's father
As I recall in the book, Jack's dad was a drunk who would habitually beat him. "Time to take your medicine, boy" the dad would shout or something like that. Jack, while an alcoholic, only rarely gives in to a violent impulse. In the backstory of the book, he accidentally dislocates Danny's shoulder spinning him around to spank his bottom, and beats up a student when he catches the student spray painting his car. In the movie, the dislocated shoulder becomes a broken arm and the student story disappears. Point is, none of it is gay.
@@mamawray Yeah he doesn't really have any violent impulses unless the hotel is controlling him (in the book also Hallorann also briefly gets possessed/influenced/whatever the mechanism is and gets an incredibly strong desire to kill Danny and Wendy despite saving them a few minutes ago).
As for the hotel feeding off people who Shine, based on Dick's explanation at the beginning, the hotel couldn't really do much unless you had the Shine. To normal people it's a normal hotel. Danny is just exceptionally strong, so the hotel becomes more powerful as he stays there. Dick had some Shine, so he saw some creepy stuff, but with just him and a bunch of normal people around, it never got too crazy. I do believe that Jack has some Shine, thus the hotel can affect him/show him things as time goes on. Wendy only sees anything supernatural at the very end when the hotel is at its strongest.
Maybe Dick and Danny shine too strong for the hotel to manipulate. It would explain why Dick knows 237 is bad for Danny, but also how he can stay in the hotel. Meanwhile it can prey on Jack, who doesn't know about or is too weak in his ability, to do its bidding. Dick manages to get to the hotel despite the blizzard emergency only for Jack to murder him, perhaps the hotel's only way to get rid of Dick.
There is another bear everyone misses...it's at 19:42 , as Danny is riding his Big Wheel, to his right as he goes down the hall, there is a bush in the planter that looks like a bear with its paws up. To the Indian theory: In "The Outlaw Josey Wales" soldiers wore red pants and were called 'red legs', Ullman is wearing red pants. Jack is also wearing a 'red coat'. The Danny opening the pantry door makes sense because not only is Danny seeing blood, he's writing Redrum, but the girls were also killed and they tell Danny he'll be with them forever. They may have put Danny in a trance to unlock the door. Jack may not be in his full killing rage yet with Danny running off after unlocking the door (another maze foreshadowing). The Kubrick doesn't make mistakes idea is in a sense is true, he did make mistakes (helicopter shadow in the opening scene) but to think directors do not intentionally dress sets or remove items is dismissed to fit your opinion and video. Kubrick intentionally made sets for his travel reasons but also for the control he liked to have which meant a greater control of his actors, crew, everyone. Nolan for example is VERY deliberate with his sets. Chairs disappearing, the giant maze not being seen in the helicopter shot in the beginning, bear rugs, cartoon stickers are very deliberate. Wendy herself is dressed like the Goofy toy in Danny's room, guess that's another coincidence? I think not. Why does the typewriter change colors in the movie if it wasn't intentional, the paper changing colors? What about the cigarette in the ashtray? Wendy smokes, we don't ever see Jack smoking. The Marlboro pack is on the left side of the typewriter and the cigarette is as if someone was where Wendy was when Jack reprimanded her and has a very long ash as Wendy had in the therapist scene (a famous meme was made about that extra long ash). The twins were actually visiting the set and sparked Kubrick's interest in that idea so once again, thoughts about set or around the set can in a masters hand...become iconic. The Playgirl and bear imagery go hand in hand with incest as do bears in the undertones of child molestation/abduction in "Eyes Wide Shut". The blood from the elevator scene was shot in miniature and is done so well that everyone believes it is scaled to actual size. What people see is the reflections from the lights and the sets reflections that make for a weird looking figure as the blood pours out.
I actually remember Alex Hirsch using that theory in gravity falls. Saying that Bill cipher wanted him to convince NASA to make a portal for him. But when that fail he gave him so many bad nightmares it actually helped his film career
I disagree so much that Barry Lyndon is “boring”. You said in the same breath how beautiful the film is. How can a movie be so beautiful visually and aurally and be called “boring”? It really makes no sense to me. It’s captivating in every moment. One of my favorite films.
Ever hear of a beautiful disaster? A visually stunning movie can absolutely be boring, narratively. Or sometimes outright BAD. Take Exorcist 2. It's one of the most beautiful, artistic, and visually stunning movies of all time..yet the movie fails not only as part of the Exorcist canon, but as a horror movie in general.
I have a couple ideas about that Playgirl. Jack is a writer, so it could be that he either has an article in there or was genuinely checking it out for some kind of research purpose. Could also be that they decided on the fly that they wanted him to be reading something, for whatever reason a Playgirl was the most convenient thing at hand, and they figured that it would be far away enough and out of focus enough that no one would notice.
The problem that I have with some of these ideas is that just because there are references to something means that the movie is "really about" that thing. I have no problem believing that Kubrick dropped a few references to the holocaust, but that doesn't mean that the film is "really about" the holocaust. Kubrick pulled ideas from everywhere and it doesn't seem all that far fetched that he'd bolster his HORROR movie with real historical horrors.
30:08 Tony is Danny, a slightly older version of himself. Possibly his adolescent self shining to his child self through time. For proof: Anthony is Danny's middle name, Tony is full of advice to guide Danny through the danger, as if he's already lived it, and in the book there is even a physical description of Tony looking like an older Danny.
I haven't read the book, and none of that is in the movie. It doesn't make any sense to me, because his future self would have said, "Tell the doctor your Dad molested you, so he will be arrested and you won't have to go to the Overlook. Your Dad is going to try to kill you both if you do go."
Just as we shouldn't take all continuity errors as significant and intended by Kubrick, we shouldn't reject them all. Some are intentional, if only because the characters themselves comment on them (see tom cruise, who says: not everything is black or white, at the very moment when a black telephone appears on his bedside table, which was white before...).
2:13 This is very subjective. Especially adding in that caveat, Canon to "Kubrick's" the shining, and especially when referring to what the story meant. Specifically referring to the artist who adapted a story into a VERY different story, one that he never elaborated on, you cannot say doctor sleep is definitively Canon to Kubrick vision, as Kubrick is dead, and nobody working on that movie could possibly know what Kubrick actually intended for the story. Doctor sleep isn't a Kubrick story or a king story. It's a Flanagan story, attempting to tie the universe of Kubricks the shining with kings original novel, follwing kings novel and sequel more tightly, which was never Kubrick's original intention. It would be one thing if we were talking about a larger franchise like the mcu, one that's a grand story with many artists and only a few long running story's without much mystery or meaning, but when discussing the meaning of a singular arthouse film from 1980, calling a sequel without any of the original work's creators on board with a completely different intent almost 40 years later "canon", and suggesting that it answers anything at all, is completely disingenuous
I don't think you can call it disingenuous at all, as creating a bridge between the movie and the book while also serving as a sequel to the movie is Doctor Sleep's intended purpose. Like, that's what it is. Maybe creating a sequel years after the original creator has passed away, without knowing their full intentions for their creation, could be considered bad taste, and I'm not arguing that it isn't. But if we're talking about The Shining, a property that Stephen King created, that Kubrick then morphed into his own vision without King's blessings/input, I would say it's fair game. I guess I'd put it like this: Terminators 3 through Genysis were Canon until James Cameron said they weren't. Kubrick isn't going to get that chance, so it's up to the viewer whether or not they think it counts. And I don't think there's anything disingenuous about that
@@Beeyo176 okay, but if I was talking about the meanings behind "James Cameron's" Terminator, I wouldn't be talking about movies made after James Cameron left. I also mentioned I wasn't talking about franchise films. There's a huge difference between continuing a blockbuster saga about robots and time travel with a world and story all well established, and making a sequel to a single movie 40 years later, long after the creators death, that has been discussed, dissected, theorized, and speculated about, then making a movie that claims to answer all of those questions,,, and then claiming that's "canon" just because the rights to the original movie are still with the same company that distributed it, and that company says its canon.
Agreed that it can't truly be "canon" to Kubrick's vision with the Shining, for reasons you stated. Yet saying that the movie Doctor Sleep doesn't answer any questions, is wrong. Not sure that's up to interpretation. It answers certain questions parallel to the way the book Doctor Sleep helped answer questions to The Shining (if you've read them). Both movies go off of the source material, both sequels answer questions. Does it answer all of Kubrick's creative mysteries? No. Does it answer questions from his movie? Yes. I just certainly wouldn't say it's disingenuous.
I might be off topic here, but after reading Dr. Sleep, and reading it was a sequel to the shining, i was very disappointed. If King didn't use Danny's name, it would have been an entirely didn't book with no connection to the Shining. In the shining, there was no mention of the group of the true knots or whatever they were called. Even in the book, the shining, Dr sleep had no real connection to that book except the "main character" being Danny. Big deal, he was an older guy, with a cat, who could predict and help people into their deaths... I was hoping for a real sequel. Who were the people in the hotel. Etc. Decent book, but not a sequel in my mind.
The storage door being the first physical manisfestion (potentially) of spirits is not technically true. The implication of Danny's ripped sweater is that he was assualted by the spirits. Mr. Halloran's emphatic warning to stay out of room 237 implies the potential for harm, my take has always been physical harm.
Well, if you were a boomer and you spent your life in the occult section of the library, you would know that there was a Research Society in England that studied ghosts and they found that ghosts did not cause physical harm to people. And Hallorann tells Danny that the ghosts are just like pictures in a book, which means the same thing, they can't hurt you. So, that, to me, leaves it open that maybe Danny did, in fact, do it to himself or maybe there is someone else in the hotel. And maybe Danny opened the door (as suggested in Room 237).
Barry Lyndon was not boring. I don’t think Kubrick was bored with it either. This guy has a tendency to impose his own ideas, for what they’re worth, upon other people and things. BL is widely considered a masterpiece along with his other films. Stick to what you know, whatever that is.
There were so many stupid things said in this video that it was hard to remember them all. The creator of this video is so quick to dismiss anything that he doesn't agree with or understand fully. There is a phrase "the suspension of disbelief", to allow a 50 ft ape to be a character in King Kong and allow a story to be told. Great movies like BL are a litmus test for having or not having a palette for great movies, this video creator lacks the cinema taste buds to be able to push the plate away. I however look forward to his video on the greatness of "Gigli"...
@@fgoindarkglol he dismisses a majority of the videos as them just being coincidences, he is covering the theories because they’re popular not bc he believes them
In an interview with Stanley Kubrick he said you’re not sure if it’s a supernatural movie until the ghost opens the door for Jack. So that is what happens. Not Danny.
Take another look at the Jack's Novel theory. It explains why Kubrick purposely put continuity errors - because sometimes we're watching real life Jack and sometimes we're watching his character in his book. The real Jack gets inspiration from the hotel and it's history for the character Jack and all the ghosts. It also explains the discrepancy in Grady's first name. Dismissing the theory in 30 seconds and treating it as more out there than Kubrick in the clouds is ridiculous. it's a great video in that it brings together some of the wildest theories, but as for the Jack's Novel theory, you're going to want to revise it.
The Jack's Novel theory also explains how Jack got out of the storeroom. It's not far-fetched as it is integral to the structure of the movie. Jack is there to write a novel and that's exactly what he does. Kubrick blended it well enough that Rob Ager didn't even mention the theory in his examination of how Jack escaped the storeroom. The answer is simple. The ghost let him out. The ghosts were real in his novel. The rest of the explanations he presented were grasping at straws from someone who completely whiffed on the real answer. We both know the quality of work that Rob Ager does, so you know you're in good company. But take another look and it will change your mind pretty quickly.
Y'all Kubrick fans are something else 😂😂😂 "intentional continuity errors" the man was a human who made mistakes. He wasn't some omnipotent god of filmmaking who can do no wrong
Now, I would believe that Kubrick had some intention with continuity error to simple unnerve the audience subconsciously. No really big reason just to confuse the audience and cause them to be uncomfortable
I can't imagine Jack Nicholson in 1980 allowing a director to film him reading Playgirl Magazine unless it were pertinent to the story. I think over time, since his films took forever to make, Kubrick just kept adding more and more details to maybe give people in the future something new to figure out or ponder. I mean back in the day could you even tell which magazine that was on the screen? Probably lots of little pranks and joke he was pulling on viewers. Some of this stuff is really odd though, like the room number and Ullmen looking like JFK with the eagle and flag etc. The abuse stuff and baphomet stuff is creepy. This is the man who made Eyes Wide Shut..so he was probably trying to kinda hint at the industry he was part of. Great video.
In 1980, The Shining cost $19 millon and initially made $47 million. Films didn't have to make three times their cost back then or a billion to be profitable.
a note on the Grady's wife theory. I am old enough to remember the trailers for The Shining. The entire trailer was just the elevator doors and the blood. I must have seen that in theaters on the big screen at least 15 times. At some point I noticed the "object" falling out of the elevator as the blood surges out, and then on the next viewing, I realized it was a big clear plastic bag which the blood had been in. If you look closely you can see the blood is actually coming out of it. In order to film the shot, the blood had to be in something until the doors opened, and that was it. So Grady's wife is actually just the container the blood was in.
The homosexual theory could explain why the summer caretaker is staring at Jack with such disdain. There really is no reason for Jack to be looking at a Playgirl magazine, even if for some reason it was just left in the lobby, it would have been uncommon at the time for someone to be openly homosexual. Partaking in light pornography in public is not socially acceptable, whether hetero or homo, and would be a very odd thing to do at a job interview. There probably is something to be read into with that choice of prop. 21:15 The spirits also physically interact with Danny when he gets bruised in room 237.
I think you have it all wrong regarding Hallorann. He has the shining but it's low power with him. He can see things in the hotel but that's it. How do we know this? For one, Danny reminds himself that Hallorann told him that things in the hotel are "not real, like pictures in a book". Also, Grady tells Jack that his son is attempting to bring an outside party into it. Danny used his power to summon Hallorann. Hallorann did not have the power to ask Danny if he's alright. Finally, when Hallorann arrives at the hotel his power doesn't help him at all. He's just not anywhere near as powerful as Danny. If you see the shining ability as a power source for the ghosts, then you will understand why the level of shining ability a person has makes all the difference. So not only would the hotel not want to absorb Hallorann in particular, it wouldn't have the power to do so since Hallorann's shining is so weak.
I really love all of the hidden details and metaphors in the shining but people need to realize that this movie was filmed at a point in time before we had CGI and they couldn't edit out continuity errors like they can nowadays. on top of that, it is well known that Kubrick would film the same scene an excessive amount of times so it is very possible that there will be many continuity errors.
On the most macro level this film is about a writer overcoming writer’s block. The movie transitions from reality to the story that eventually gets written. Jack conflates his and the hotel’s history to overcome his writer’s block. That is why inconsistencies occur in the hotel and character details (i.e. the sisters and Grady, disappearing chairs, decals) Change in typewriter and color of clothing are clues to which world we are experiencing. How he contemplates the maze and types… The audience is transitioned into the story Jack is writing.
I really think it is, especially for this age. Like all of Kubrick's films it has that certain something that makes you know there's much more beneath the surface
I think stuff like minor continuity errors actually should be considered, because Kubrick was a notorious perfectionist and has an insane attention to detail. You even brought that up in the video, with the impossible office window at the beginning of the movie. Not gonna say Kubrick *never* makes mistakes, but considering how attentive he is to details like that, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that all those little background elements and continuity errors were intentional for one reason or another.
I really like The Shinning film. For long stretches very little happens. It’s more of an ominous atmosphere and deep feelings of unease. I think that’s why so so many people have added their own backstory and theories. It’s almost just a frame that you can hang your own print inside of. Just my theory.
The Dopey one is better when you keep in mind that it's a sticker stuck on a door, not a chair. Unless someone accidentally scrapped it off, idk how it could be moved by accident.
One thing I have not seen anyone mention is the fact that Kubrick did not deem the 144min (one in video) Shining as the definitive version, rather the 119min one; which removes a handful of the scenes that back up these theories. Of course, most of these theories aren’t true at all, but knowing that this wasn’t really the “official” version just kinda backs that up.
Some comments about continuity. The person responsible for continuity of shots in scenes, as well as scenes reshot across different days, is the script supervisor. So it’s not the director’s job to make sure of continuity, it is the script supervisor. Now, in Kubrick films, the script supervisor must be extraordinarily thorough, because Kubrick has 20-60 takes for every shot. It’s grueling and tedious on the actors and filmmakers, and it draws out his shoots much longer than other directors. With all those shots to choose from, it is NOT POSSIBLE for Kubrick to choose shots with chairs appearing and disappearing unless he intended it. So while it is possible for really minor continuity errors, such as a small wrinkle or posture being different, when the set or props move or appear and disappear in a Kubrick film, you can bank on it being completely intended. (Especially since Doctor Strangelove and onward, when he started to introduce subliminal engineering to his films.)
Im glad you point out that Kubrick was a human and capable of error. We tend to mythologize our heros, and he is legendary. But he's still fully capable of screwing up.
Yes, any director is capable and they do make mistakes (the famous helicopter shadow for the beginning sequence), but to merely toss aside any change that subliminally creates oddity or builds on a character (even a hotel) as continuity error, makes the video creator seem petty and without imagination. And, directors will use takes with errors in them, if in the editing room, the best take that had the best performance, had an error(s) in it, so be it. For you to suggest that Kubrick is "still fully capable of screwing up" implies you know film and can list every mistake Kubrick has ever made or is this jealousy on your part as well?
Pretty sure that's what UA-cam was invented for... you know, for people to share videos on topics they're passionate about. Could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Thanks for making and posting. Bill Watson is one of my favourite characters but most of his lines have been cut out in the TV version. He says more during the interview in the cinema release version.
32:45 Honestly, i can see a face there. It's smaller than when you put his face there. I also won't say it's purpeseful and it's too vague to really look like any perso (Kubrick) in particular. This is probably just us humans natural inclination of seeing faces in things.
32:30 I couldn’t see Kubrick before you put that up there at 32:36, but I did think I could see Luke Skywalker for a second there in the earlier shot! 😂
When I first saw the movie many years ago, my first impression of Jack appearing in the photo at the end of the film was that Jack's soul got absorbed by the hotel.
That’s what I thought too. But Kubrick himself said that Jack is a reincarnation. Pretty interesting. The clues are definitely there for the reincarnation theory.
Withdrawal symptoms can be intense. Jack irrational behaviour can be contributed to that to a degree. It was shown Danny in sequel used alcohol to dull the shine. It could indicate that Jack alcoholism might be related to him having shine as well. Numbing the pain of trauma happens more than I think people are willing to admit. Trauma can be haunting until it’s properly coped with.
The theories that make the most sense to me are the Minotaur theory, the Native American theory, the reincarnation theory and the Jack + Danny theory. Also I kinda like Danny opening the door theory, bc I’ve always liked that the ghosts in the overlook don’t have any psychical power. To the point where you can question if they’re really there or if they’re a manifestation of jacks insanity.
The number 42 is unlikely an accident. Not counting the claim there are 42 cars in the parking lot, the weakest element of the theory, 42 still comes up multiple times: The Summer of 42, Danny's shirt, news anchors on TV talking about "$42 million," Room 237 (2 x 3 x 7 = 42). Why 42? A reasonable explanation I've seen is that Kubrick was an avid listener to BBC Radio 4, which debuted Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in 1978. According to the story, which aired in March 1978 on the episode titled "Fit the Fourth," the answer to the Ultimate question is 42. It's a cinematic non sequitur based on a literary one? It creates mystery and invites interpretations. But ultimately, it's a trick of movie magic.
I love the Kubrik and King versions of the Shining, as well as the original book. imo Kubrik's hedgemaze is a reference to the many references to Alice in Wonderland in the novel, and I think an argument could be made that the Playgirl is a reference to the white rabbit (could Jack be the White Rabbit, or the Mad Hatter? Cheshire grin?). The mallet in King's tv version and novel was a reference to the queen playing croquet in Wonderland, I think a really interesting theory could be made drawing parallels between Wonderland and the Overlook; of course the outfits on the twins are replications of Alice's classic white and blue dress, and the girls being twins rather than sisters of different ages (as in the novel) could be Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. So many references to time that I think could form an interesting theory. Also, in the deleted scenes from King's TV version, Grady's hand is shown to be the one who opened the door for Jake. I know Kubrik wasn't faithful to the novel and the TV version came later, but I think Grady is the most likely to have opened the door. Great video, thanks for sharing.
I think Kubrick's The Shining is much different than King's and i wouldn't consider any sequel done without his say so to be canon. That world was Kubrick's teams vision and it was crafted for that one film, and a later hollywood sequel only serves to tarnish it's mystique in my opinion My two cents anyway
Completely agree. People argue that it was a sequel but how so? It was made by different people who may or may not have had any more insight into Kubrick’s vision than anyone else. Nothing against it but it is not valid to say it was a genuine sequel to the first film.
Here is my theory, and it’s the correct one: The Shining is about a man who slowly becomes possessed by the evil of the hotel, and ends up trying to kill his wife and son. Major themes include isolation, entrapment, helplessness and cabin fever.
The ghosts may have been able to effect the material world. If we take the films word for it, and not search for anything deeper, then we know the woman in 237 was able to physically harm Danny. Thats cause and effect in the real, material world. So keeping that in mind, then it would be possible for Grady to open the pantry store room..or "story room". For some reason the maker of this video forgot this.
I hate media theories...as far they are about cartoons or straight forward/explicitly stablished stuff. So this is a breath of fresh air,given how ambiguous this movie can be
Yes, because explaining shit makes everything more interesting and spooky. So did Dr. Sleep explain how the shining is actually midichlorians in Danny's blood stream? Sounds like a great idea for a movie.
What an amazing video essay!!! Subscribed!! One theory that makes just as much sense, in my opinion, as the Indigenous genocide theory is the marriage theory. It goes something like this... This is a film about marriage, about men living through the aftermath of second-wave feminism and finding it homicidally hard to do. The ghosts of generations of men in the past call to Jack to take the power back, take it with force and very toxic masculinity if you have to, but get that power back from the feminists, from African Americans, from everyone who "should" in their eyes be beneath him. White man's burden and all. Under this theory, any reference to Indigenous genocide is there to surround Jack with a cultural memory of what "real" men do, they kill, they take what's theirs and so on. The Overlook represents the isolation and pressure of the suburbs, of marriage, of expectations on a male provider to be all work and no play anymore, no drinking, no affairs, but no sex from your wife either. You're in a world where you are reduced to menial work while women (like your wife the female physician who examines Danny) have the authority to tell you you're a bad father and need to stop drinking. If you accidentally get a girl pregnant (like Jack says he did with Wendy) that's it, your stuck in an cycle of isolation and pressure that never ends and it drives men insane. And the woman in the bathtub...that's the trick of marriage in a nutshell, she's all beautiful at first but she ages, grows hideous to you (literally or just psychologically), but your stuck anyway. It's almost like a rationalization for, or perhaps just an explanation of, toxic masculinity (excuse the anachronism). Just thought I'd put this here in the off chance you happen to see it. And OMG I LOVE YOUR WORK!!! By the way, I'm a woman. I subscribe to none of this ideology, but it IS indeed an interesting and coherent theory 🙂
I have the Divorce Theory. The film is a metaphor for Danny being terrified that his parents were going to divorce and leave him all alone. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, and it is traumatizing to a small only child.
The first time u watched The Shining, I knew nothing of any theories, and I was instantly enthralled. The fact it was initially, universally panned, is crazy to me. I guess the average movie, at that time, were very...different?
@@jamietingey7498 You're not smart. There were nine lunar missions with six landing sites--all confirmed by lunar orbital photography and nations such as India, China, Japan, Russia ... oh, and about 50 years of continuous published scientific study of the Apollo lunar samples return. Welcome to reality, n00b 2 the planet
@@jamietingey7498 There were nine lunar missions with six landing sites--all confirmed by lunar orbital photography and nations such as India, China, Japan, Russia ... oh, and about 50 years of continuous published scientific study of the Apollo lunar samples return. Welcome to reality, n00b 2 the planet
@@jamietingey7498 There were nine lunar missions with six landing sites--all confirmed by lunar orbital photography and nations such as India, China, Japan, Russia ... oh, and about 50 years of continuous published scientific study of the Apollo lunar samples return. Welcome to reality, n00b
The Apollo lunar landing sites have all been photographed in detail since the late 2000s. The Artemis program conducted a three-week uncrewed test mission to the Moon in 2023 and four astronauts will conduct a lunar orbital test mission in 2024-25.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver awesome! The core of my question is why not go build something on the moon and have a base camp there? There’s got to be some value in that.
It was the nutty Flat Earth Society which came up with the nonsense 'Kubrick filmed the moon landing', in 1973, so Kubrick used his film to taunt and make fun of them.
@@biglove1941 the movie isn't terrible but the book is where it's at. I feel the movie couldn't show how bad The Hat and her crew were but that's common with King villians
I think I can debunk the “Jack died in 1921“ theory. Why would Jack be reliving his last winter in late 70s/early 80s fashion driving a 1970s vehicle? Why would he be locked in a pantry with food that wasn’t invented until the 1960s? Why would he have a son that watched Warner Brothers cartoons on a colour television? You could probably convince me that it is always 1979 in hell, but I don’t think that’s the theme of the film
be more careful with your titles. or people will start working out that the shining is really about the titanics links to global warming. ive revealed too much
I see Kubrick's entire head. To the left of the first shot before you zoomed in. I couldn't see it when you superimposed the images. And I couldn't see it on the zoom in. But from The wider shot yes. To the bottom and to the left. BTW, I like the Wendy Theroy. Been way down the rabbit hole on that one over the last few years.
43:53 Above the volume icon in the clouds. The blue is darker here than before, the big blue patch makes a kind of pudding bowl haircut, face below. I think he doctored it.
I think the Playgirl connection is too on the nose. Definitely just a cheeky, rare gag and nod to the source material. Cooking with gas about him being sexually curious though. I believe it represents less forelorned homosexual desires on Jack’s part, but something more fluid; curiosity of what the other side could be like. Almost playful with the idea almost simply because he grows to despise his wife - a resentment he likely always carried to a certain extent rapidly exacerbated by instigating spirits. Maybe Kubrick is a prophet and predicted that men will become so misogynistic and red pilled that they’ll start finding women ugly and admiring men…but now I’m just yapping
Kubrick hired a mythology scholar who helped him to hash out the original script, so ideas such as the minotaur in the labryinth may have come from her.
the doc ROOM 237 is great, I had a great time watching it (wish I could've experienced the Forwards and Backwards _thing_ but alas) the thing is.. you just can't win with conspiracy nuts
The number '237' came to be because the hotel told Kubrick to change it from 217. Management thought people would never book the room after the movie got popular.
My favorite theory is that Kubrick agreed to help fake the moon landing, but he was such a perfectionist that he insisted NASA film on location. 😂
Very funny comment but no way Kubrick would travel that far. He didn't want to fly anywhere.
I'll never get sick of that. 😅
I wish he did. Would've made it look real.
The moon landing theory is stupid. The other theories have some credibility but even I, being a conspiracy theorist myself, think that people are reaching WAY too far with the moon landing one.
@@tomnorton4277 so much of the theory is “if you look at frame 27,290 of the moon landing footage, you see a brief flicker on the top right corner of the screen. Obviously, this means the footage is not real and that the entire moon landing operation is falsified to beat the soviets in the space race and to mind control the US population”
Can you imagine the US government asking Kubrick why it took 624 takes of Neil Armstrong taking his first step on the moon?
Using a TV camera mounted to the Lunar Module, yet, because only a Hasselblad stills camera was used on the lunar surface during Apollo 11.
😂
I prefer the theory that they hired Kubrick to stage the moon landing but he was such a stickler that he demanded they shoot on location.
Who does he think he is, Shakespeare?
@@fightswithbears5666 I love this
The reason why Dick Halloran survived in the Overlook for years is because it can't directly kill you. Tony even tells Danny "Remember what Mr. Halloran said, it's just like pictures in a book".
The Shining is a double-edged sword in the hotel because it makes you more susceptible to all the paranormal bullshit, but also gives you ways to fight back IF you are in control of your abilities. Dick Halloran is 100% aware of his Shining and has been practicing his abilities since childhood, so he's fine. Danny is badly affected by the things he sees, but he has the support of Halloran and Tony and knows at least a little bit about what the Shining is. Jack 100% shines too but is completely unaware of it, which is the worst possible combination and the reason why he's most vulnerable to the hotel's shenanigans. He might even be an alcoholic because drinking might have been his coping mechanism.
The native american/holocaust symbolism might be a reference how just like the Torrance/Grady families are trapped in a cycle of violence at the overlook, humanity as a whole is also stuck in a spiral of hatred, violence and genocide.
that makes sense because as someone who read mr sleep, i'm pretty sure part of the reason why danny is an alcoholic in there is to suppress his shining. i read it a couple years back though
20:50 Because Danny was always watching Road Runner outsmart Coyote every which way in the cartoons, some folks theorize that he purposely let Jack out of the pantry to lure him into the hedge maze. We don't see Danny "hiding" in the metal cart in the hallway, but bravely jumping out of it - right in front of Jack - and dashing around the corner to bait him into giving chase... right out into the cold to be trapped.
Yeah there’s a theory called the Looney Tunes theory that kinda says the same thing. There just wasn’t much to it so I didn’t add it here.
Hence, the "He saw it on the television" remark has a pay off. Also, I believe most likely Danny "did it to himself", that is, injured his own neck. However, the scenes where Danny is shaking and drooling look like he is being victimized, so I don't know.
@@IntotheDepths511it's a good theory when combined with the "Danny let Jack out" theory.
Cool! Great observation 🐺🐇
It's one of the silliest theories that Danny would let Jack out. The ghosts could have still done it even if they wouldn't physically open the door.
Besides, the ghosts do affect things physically. Grady spills food on Jack and cleans him up.
People seem to have trouble interpretting media sometimes. Just because there is a subtext that supports the theme doesn't mean the whole movie is secretly about that one thing. They forget to follow the metaphor through and to understand what it adds to the whole of the film. It's like a tapestry. One would be better served to ask "what does this story and the metaphor have in common?"
Media Literacy is a skill, one that isn't prevalent these days.
And when has it ever been proven correct?
I think this film is so intensely picked apart because of its intentional ambiguity and Kubrick's style as a filmmaker generally. His films attempt to tap into something very subconscious in the viewer, and The Shining is VERY clearly meant to be open ended, full of mystery and up to interpretation. We fear most what we don't understand, and we tend to obsess over answers we know we'll never fully get. I'm positive Kubrick was very aware of this
That is exactly my thought on the Indian/Holocaust theory, as well as many others. The whole movie doesn't need to be the metaphor. Infact, it works a lot better if you consider the aspect of which attrocities "The eagle" (The US and Nazi Germany) commit, and how one is essentially a reincarnation of another attorcity. The perpetuating cycle of violence. Metaphors like this aren't meant to be "what the movie is about," but rather parallels to the movie. That's exactly what a metaphor or any other figure of speech does. If I say I am so hungry I could eat a horse, that doesn't mean I literally want to eat a horse, but rather conveys the idea of one situation onto another.
@@sleep6837 Kubrick made a Kubrick film, about ghost stories.
One of the differences between the story and the film is that Jack was never *not* a jerkwad in the film. He wore a flimsy mask of self-control with 'I'm a changed man!' sermon song and dance. He was this endless well of negative energy and would have eventually seriously harmed his family even without the Overlook's help.
The forces of the Overlook did not corrupt him at all. He was already all the way there before he showed up. They just pulled his mask off is all.
And that was always my interpretation. That the real horror was that right now thousands of people just like Jack are out there. People waiting for something to come along where they don't have to pretend anymore. Because the whole 'Look at me I'm a normie!' act is exhausting.
I always assumed that was because Jack Nicholson was Jack Nicholson. I mean, that’s sort of who he is.
@@invisi-bullexploration2374I agree with you. When Wendy sees that it’s an axe breaking down the bathroom door, her screaming/terror escalates, because it’s not the fear of an axe, it’s the terror that someone you believed loved you despite their flaws/abuse would actually “go there”. Her denial is palpable in the beginning of the film, and probably never thought he would actually *hurt* her, let alone try to murder her with an axe.
@@catgrrr1 I think whether it’s someone you trusted or not, somebody hacking down a door with an ax to murder you, is pretty terrifying
I think that the overlook was not waiting for somebody with the shining, I think it was waiting for somebody fundamentally broken and nasty enough to possess and Jack was it. As you say, he only needed his thin mask peeling off. I believe he had “always been there” not specifically him but the men who could be possessed and used by the overlook. It was just those with the shining that were aware of what was going on, giving them a chance of survival. Those without the shining would just be murdered.
R.I.P. Shelley. 🖤
Supposedly Kubrick really messed with her mind making The Shining.
@@1pcfred yes there is a lot of set on that. A lot! In her own interviews, she did not say that until much later. In years following the making of the film, she had nothing but good things to say. Shelley Duvall suffered from mental illness, very seriously towards the end of her life. She suffered a lot. Unfortunately, it also makes her an unreliable narrator. I guess we’ll never truly know.
@@MFLimited yeah who knows. Even if we were there we still might not know. Certainty is often a difficult thing to truly possess.
R.I.P ❤
@@1pcfredShe started developing mental health issues decades after filming. She respected Kubrick and didn't regret her experience.
Dick Hallorran survived pennywise in IT. He had enough shine to be able to survive. Dick was a gunslinger.
I think the Native American burial grounds line was simply to establish that there was something about this specific location that "shines", hence the shaman chose it for their tribal burial grounds. None of the ghosts have any connection to Native Americans so if the Overlook was haunted because of the burial grounds it was built upon, wouldn't some of those buried there be among the ghosts?
I doubt anybody in the original audience took it that way. We all kind of groaned and said,, "Not the old Indian burial ground plot line." People feel that the soundtrack at the beginning has some tribal sounds on it. Ghosts of Indians.
I think realistically there should have been at least one Native American spirit present at the hotel, maybe more. Odds are, their remains still rested beneath the foundation of the hotel.
The blood coming out of the elevators is supposedly the blood of the native Americans that’s why there’s so much
I disagree in the movie he uses the line “white mans burden” witch I think points to the idea that the natives are not the ghost you see but are intertwined with the house I mean natives making white men murder there families like how there families were
We must consult Elizabeth Warren on this theory.
The Apollo 11 sweater may not be that much of a conscious choice as you think. If you think that kind of a specific sweater is weird, you probably didn't grow up in the 70s or 80s with a grandma that knits sweaters for her grandkids. I had one with a bear and one with a car on it and they looked exactly like Danny's sweater.
I mean, who wasn't a fan of NASA? Especially around that time. Not hard to see why kids would want to wear the apparel. Everyone wanted to be an astronaut.
True. It just seems so specific that it’s Apollo 11. Although given how important Apollo 11 was, I guess it does kinda make sense.
@@IntotheDepths511 I find the theory interesting, and I wouldn't put it past the U.S government doing something like that, but I gotta admit, out of all the theories I've heard, this is embarrassingly my first time hearing the "Kubrick helped fake the moon landing" one 😂
There is no doubt it was a conscious decision. Kubrick was particular about every thing in the frame of every shot in all of his films, the mise-en-scene. The Apollo 11 sweater was specifically chosen for a reason, it was Kubrick's decision.
You’re all forgetting something very important about this scene…not only is he wearing a sweater, but he’s also playing with toy cars on the floor pattern which almost exactly resembles the launch pads and the roads used to carry the rocket to the pad. You may be able to call one a coincidence, but both together in a Kubrick film cannot be coincidence. Also, Danny is standing in the middle of the “launch pad” and stands up which you then see the Apollo rocket “lifting off”. After this, he flies to room 247 in which the tag says No Room which can be re arranged to create “moon room”. Current science at the time claimed the moon was 247,000 miles from the earth, hence the 247.
I know everything I just said is in the documentary, but idk how you all can talk about this like it’s a coincidence so I thought I’d remind you…
I was there and The Shining had a reputation as an epic movie and we were all terrified. Also, it made $47 million, well over the $19 mil investment, hardly a box office failure.
Yeah. I wasn't old enough to see it I. The theaters but these theories were bouncing about in the 80's and everyone else I knew was scared when they watched , the "failure" was that King purists didn't like what Kubri k did to it.
I don't know why people can't enjoy both.
@@GailDLWBecause people are lemmings and can't like what they're not approved to like I guess. And admitting that the Kubrick film was good means you're saying the book wasn't good enough.
I like both for different reasons. Kubrick's film more-so, but I still love King's works.
I know, I have no idea what he’s talking about. He completely pulled that out of his butt.
it was absolutely a critical failure, but definitely not at all a box office failure. im guessing that's what he meant by that statement .
My father was an acololic and addict. I remember when I saw this movie the first time, I was shocked at how similar he was to Jack's character. The facial expressions, the mannerisms, etc. I remember when the realization hit, like "oh my god, my dad was literally crazy." The Jack and Danny theory hits especially close to home too because my father sexualized me a lot as a kid and I believe he SA'd me at some moment too (I have a vague memory of something happening but I was too young to understand and it's very foggy). Anyways, this was a great video, thanks! There's no doubt this movie is powerful in the way it makes people feel so many different things and how it's attributed to such different theories.
But don't you think it possible that an author could create such a character?
I'm so sorry that you had to grow up in that environment.
It’s weird when you realise that your parent was literally crazy. From a child’s perspective, you’re always trying to placate them or avoid them, but you think you must be doing something wrong. There must be a reason. And it’s not just the alcohol. I have known alcoholics (i’m not excusing it) who are not at all vicious, not dangerous to anyone but themselves. No, there’s something sick and broken within certain people, almost like a possession, the drugs and alcohol can augment.
I grew up in a similar environment to you. I’m glad we’re out.
My father wasn't an addict, and didn't SA me, but I was definitely hypersexualized, because he had a huge collection of porn books and magazines. I spent a lot of time alone as a kid because my parents worked a lot, and they knew damn well I would read anything I got my hands on. I blamed my bad behavior on myself for decades, when I never should have had such constant and prolonged exposure to such stuff, plus my father's frequent positive comments about my girlfriends' bodies and negative comments about mine.
Sending you love and well-wishes 🫶🏼
Nice video man. Breaking the video up into segments really makes the video seem more thorough than your older breakdowns. Should definitely do more iceberg videos, i loved it.
I think the whole 'jack is gay' was a reference to Jack's creepy relationship with his own father. It's implied his father molested him and that despite feeling bad for his mother when his father started randomly beating her he lost respect for her because she never stood up to him or left him even when she had the chance. In the movie they made wendy more like his mother than the strong woman in the book and i think Kubrick wanted to make jack abuse danny because he didn't want to reference Jack's father
Is this from the book?
As I recall in the book, Jack's dad was a drunk who would habitually beat him. "Time to take your medicine, boy" the dad would shout or something like that. Jack, while an alcoholic, only rarely gives in to a violent impulse. In the backstory of the book, he accidentally dislocates Danny's shoulder spinning him around to spank his bottom, and beats up a student when he catches the student spray painting his car. In the movie, the dislocated shoulder becomes a broken arm and the student story disappears.
Point is, none of it is gay.
@@mamawray Yeah he doesn't really have any violent impulses unless the hotel is controlling him (in the book also Hallorann also briefly gets possessed/influenced/whatever the mechanism is and gets an incredibly strong desire to kill Danny and Wendy despite saving them a few minutes ago).
As for the hotel feeding off people who Shine, based on Dick's explanation at the beginning, the hotel couldn't really do much unless you had the Shine. To normal people it's a normal hotel. Danny is just exceptionally strong, so the hotel becomes more powerful as he stays there. Dick had some Shine, so he saw some creepy stuff, but with just him and a bunch of normal people around, it never got too crazy. I do believe that Jack has some Shine, thus the hotel can affect him/show him things as time goes on. Wendy only sees anything supernatural at the very end when the hotel is at its strongest.
I feel this movie is kind of like Donnie Darko - don't try to explain the science of it, the movie works without it.
Wendy only starts seeing/hearing stuff when the cook is killed
Maybe Dick and Danny shine too strong for the hotel to manipulate. It would explain why Dick knows 237 is bad for Danny, but also how he can stay in the hotel. Meanwhile it can prey on Jack, who doesn't know about or is too weak in his ability, to do its bidding. Dick manages to get to the hotel despite the blizzard emergency only for Jack to murder him, perhaps the hotel's only way to get rid of Dick.
There is another bear everyone misses...it's at 19:42 , as Danny is riding his Big Wheel, to his right as he goes down the hall, there is a bush in the planter that looks like a bear with its paws up.
To the Indian theory: In "The Outlaw Josey Wales" soldiers wore red pants and were called 'red legs', Ullman is wearing red pants. Jack is also wearing a 'red coat'.
The Danny opening the pantry door makes sense because not only is Danny seeing blood, he's writing Redrum, but the girls were also killed and they tell Danny he'll be with them forever. They may have put Danny in a trance to unlock the door. Jack may not be in his full killing rage yet with Danny running off after unlocking the door (another maze foreshadowing).
The Kubrick doesn't make mistakes idea is in a sense is true, he did make mistakes (helicopter shadow in the opening scene) but to think directors do not intentionally dress sets or remove items is dismissed to fit your opinion and video. Kubrick intentionally made sets for his travel reasons but also for the control he liked to have which meant a greater control of his actors, crew, everyone. Nolan for example is VERY deliberate with his sets. Chairs disappearing, the giant maze not being seen in the helicopter shot in the beginning, bear rugs, cartoon stickers are very deliberate. Wendy herself is dressed like the Goofy toy in Danny's room, guess that's another coincidence? I think not. Why does the typewriter change colors in the movie if it wasn't intentional, the paper changing colors? What about the cigarette in the ashtray? Wendy smokes, we don't ever see Jack smoking. The Marlboro pack is on the left side of the typewriter and the cigarette is as if someone was where Wendy was when Jack reprimanded her and has a very long ash as Wendy had in the therapist scene (a famous meme was made about that extra long ash). The twins were actually visiting the set and sparked Kubrick's interest in that idea so once again, thoughts about set or around the set can in a masters hand...become iconic.
The Playgirl and bear imagery go hand in hand with incest as do bears in the undertones of child molestation/abduction in "Eyes Wide Shut".
The blood from the elevator scene was shot in miniature and is done so well that everyone believes it is scaled to actual size. What people see is the reflections from the lights and the sets reflections that make for a weird looking figure as the blood pours out.
Kubrick put bears in many movies. "Deliberately buried" in 2001.
@@fgoindarkg nice
I actually remember Alex Hirsch using that theory in gravity falls. Saying that Bill cipher wanted him to convince NASA to make a portal for him. But when that fail he gave him so many bad nightmares it actually helped his film career
I disagree so much that Barry Lyndon is “boring”. You said in the same breath how beautiful the film is. How can a movie be so beautiful visually and aurally and be called “boring”? It really makes no sense to me. It’s captivating in every moment. One of my favorite films.
Ever hear of a beautiful disaster? A visually stunning movie can absolutely be boring, narratively. Or sometimes outright BAD. Take Exorcist 2. It's one of the most beautiful, artistic, and visually stunning movies of all time..yet the movie fails not only as part of the Exorcist canon, but as a horror movie in general.
Steven king looks like the jim carrey grinch
lol! Brutal☠️
He has such a caveman/ ape like shaped skull
That's what Reddit said.
R/ihavereddit
Bro
I have a couple ideas about that Playgirl. Jack is a writer, so it could be that he either has an article in there or was genuinely checking it out for some kind of research purpose. Could also be that they decided on the fly that they wanted him to be reading something, for whatever reason a Playgirl was the most convenient thing at hand, and they figured that it would be far away enough and out of focus enough that no one would notice.
Stephen King had some stories published in either Playboy or Playgirl (or both).
Kubrick does with intent.
@@zackmnr19 💯
That’s possible, but quite a reach. How common is playgirl compared to say Newsweek or cosmo or whatever ?
Jack also does not react in shame and quickly shut the magazine when Ullman and Watson walk up. He is reading and not looking.
The problem that I have with some of these ideas is that just because there are references to something means that the movie is "really about" that thing. I have no problem believing that Kubrick dropped a few references to the holocaust, but that doesn't mean that the film is "really about" the holocaust. Kubrick pulled ideas from everywhere and it doesn't seem all that far fetched that he'd bolster his HORROR movie with real historical horrors.
30:08 Tony is Danny, a slightly older version of himself. Possibly his adolescent self shining to his child self through time.
For proof: Anthony is Danny's middle name, Tony is full of advice to guide Danny through the danger, as if he's already lived it, and in the book there is even a physical description of Tony looking like an older Danny.
Although I agree, you can't really use the book as proof, since kubrick didn't really care about the book lore.
@@stephanylvj8294yeah but kubrick still read it. not a stretch to think that Kubrick couldve ran with that.
I haven't read the book, and none of that is in the movie. It doesn't make any sense to me, because his future self would have said, "Tell the doctor your Dad molested you, so he will be arrested and you won't have to go to the Overlook. Your Dad is going to try to kill you both if you do go."
The Shining is my favorite horror movie. Phenomenal video dude!
Just as we shouldn't take all continuity errors as significant and intended by Kubrick, we shouldn't reject them all. Some are intentional, if only because the characters themselves comment on them (see tom cruise, who says: not everything is black or white, at the very moment when a black telephone appears on his bedside table, which was white before...).
2:13
This is very subjective. Especially adding in that caveat, Canon to "Kubrick's" the shining, and especially when referring to what the story meant. Specifically referring to the artist who adapted a story into a VERY different story, one that he never elaborated on, you cannot say doctor sleep is definitively Canon to Kubrick vision, as Kubrick is dead, and nobody working on that movie could possibly know what Kubrick actually intended for the story.
Doctor sleep isn't a Kubrick story or a king story. It's a Flanagan story, attempting to tie the universe of Kubricks the shining with kings original novel, follwing kings novel and sequel more tightly, which was never Kubrick's original intention.
It would be one thing if we were talking about a larger franchise like the mcu, one that's a grand story with many artists and only a few long running story's without much mystery or meaning, but when discussing the meaning of a singular arthouse film from 1980, calling a sequel without any of the original work's creators on board with a completely different intent almost 40 years later "canon", and suggesting that it answers anything at all, is completely disingenuous
I don't think you can call it disingenuous at all, as creating a bridge between the movie and the book while also serving as a sequel to the movie is Doctor Sleep's intended purpose. Like, that's what it is. Maybe creating a sequel years after the original creator has passed away, without knowing their full intentions for their creation, could be considered bad taste, and I'm not arguing that it isn't. But if we're talking about The Shining, a property that Stephen King created, that Kubrick then morphed into his own vision without King's blessings/input, I would say it's fair game.
I guess I'd put it like this: Terminators 3 through Genysis were Canon until James Cameron said they weren't. Kubrick isn't going to get that chance, so it's up to the viewer whether or not they think it counts. And I don't think there's anything disingenuous about that
@@Beeyo176 okay, but if I was talking about the meanings behind "James Cameron's" Terminator, I wouldn't be talking about movies made after James Cameron left.
I also mentioned I wasn't talking about franchise films. There's a huge difference between continuing a blockbuster saga about robots and time travel with a world and story all well established, and making a sequel to a single movie 40 years later, long after the creators death, that has been discussed, dissected, theorized, and speculated about, then making a movie that claims to answer all of those questions,,, and then claiming that's "canon" just because the rights to the original movie are still with the same company that distributed it, and that company says its canon.
I'm right there with ya. Kubrick's film stands alone as far as I'm concerned. It needs no more or no less.
Agreed that it can't truly be "canon" to Kubrick's vision with the Shining, for reasons you stated. Yet saying that the movie Doctor Sleep doesn't answer any questions, is wrong. Not sure that's up to interpretation. It answers certain questions parallel to the way the book Doctor Sleep helped answer questions to The Shining (if you've read them). Both movies go off of the source material, both sequels answer questions. Does it answer all of Kubrick's creative mysteries? No. Does it answer questions from his movie? Yes. I just certainly wouldn't say it's disingenuous.
I might be off topic here, but after reading Dr. Sleep, and reading it was a sequel to the shining, i was very disappointed. If King didn't use Danny's name, it would have been an entirely didn't book with no connection to the Shining. In the shining, there was no mention of the group of the true knots or whatever they were called. Even in the book, the shining, Dr sleep had no real connection to that book except the "main character" being Danny. Big deal, he was an older guy, with a cat, who could predict and help people into their deaths...
I was hoping for a real sequel. Who were the people in the hotel. Etc. Decent book, but not a sequel in my mind.
The storage door being the first physical manisfestion (potentially) of spirits is not technically true.
The implication of Danny's ripped sweater is that he was assualted by the spirits.
Mr. Halloran's emphatic warning to stay out of room 237 implies the potential for harm, my take has always been physical harm.
The first drink Jack drinks.....
@@drbongorama truth, well played
Well, if you were a boomer and you spent your life in the occult section of the library, you would know that there was a Research Society in England that studied ghosts and they found that ghosts did not cause physical harm to people. And Hallorann tells Danny that the ghosts are just like pictures in a book, which means the same thing, they can't hurt you. So, that, to me, leaves it open that maybe Danny did, in fact, do it to himself or maybe there is someone else in the hotel. And maybe Danny opened the door (as suggested in Room 237).
@hermanhale9258 look how long you're convoluted idea took to type? And the length of the bow needed
....
.
....... you know
@@drbongorama Ten inches.
Barry Lyndon was not boring. I don’t think Kubrick was bored with it either. This guy has a tendency to impose his own ideas, for what they’re worth, upon other people and things. BL is widely considered a masterpiece along with his other films. Stick to what you know, whatever that is.
In My opinion Barry Lyndon was the most Kubrickian Stanley Kubrick film. An absolute masterpiece
I think it's extremely underrated.
There were so many stupid things said in this video that it was hard to remember them all. The creator of this video is so quick to dismiss anything that he doesn't agree with or understand fully. There is a phrase "the suspension of disbelief", to allow a 50 ft ape to be a character in King Kong and allow a story to be told.
Great movies like BL are a litmus test for having or not having a palette for great movies, this video creator lacks the cinema taste buds to be able to push the plate away. I however look forward to his video on the greatness of "Gigli"...
He's another coincidence theorist. They think they're smart.
@@fgoindarkglol he dismisses a majority of the videos as them just being coincidences, he is covering the theories because they’re popular not bc he believes them
In an interview with Stanley Kubrick he said you’re not sure if it’s a supernatural movie until the ghost opens the door for Jack. So that is what happens. Not Danny.
Take another look at the Jack's Novel theory. It explains why Kubrick purposely put continuity errors - because sometimes we're watching real life Jack and sometimes we're watching his character in his book. The real Jack gets inspiration from the hotel and it's history for the character Jack and all the ghosts. It also explains the discrepancy in Grady's first name. Dismissing the theory in 30 seconds and treating it as more out there than Kubrick in the clouds is ridiculous. it's a great video in that it brings together some of the wildest theories, but as for the Jack's Novel theory, you're going to want to revise it.
The Jack's Novel theory also explains how Jack got out of the storeroom. It's not far-fetched as it is integral to the structure of the movie. Jack is there to write a novel and that's exactly what he does. Kubrick blended it well enough that Rob Ager didn't even mention the theory in his examination of how Jack escaped the storeroom. The answer is simple. The ghost let him out. The ghosts were real in his novel. The rest of the explanations he presented were grasping at straws from someone who completely whiffed on the real answer. We both know the quality of work that Rob Ager does, so you know you're in good company. But take another look and it will change your mind pretty quickly.
Yep. The host just ain't that bright.
Y'all Kubrick fans are something else 😂😂😂 "intentional continuity errors" the man was a human who made mistakes. He wasn't some omnipotent god of filmmaking who can do no wrong
41:03 Danny is being strangled. We just can't see the hands doing it.
Ok that's fresh.
Now, I would believe that Kubrick had some intention with continuity error to simple unnerve the audience subconsciously. No really big reason just to confuse the audience and cause them to be uncomfortable
I can't imagine Jack Nicholson in 1980 allowing a director to film him reading Playgirl Magazine unless it were pertinent to the story. I think over time, since his films took forever to make, Kubrick just kept adding more and more details to maybe give people in the future something new to figure out or ponder. I mean back in the day could you even tell which magazine that was on the screen? Probably lots of little pranks and joke he was pulling on viewers. Some of this stuff is really odd though, like the room number and Ullmen looking like JFK with the eagle and flag etc. The abuse stuff and baphomet stuff is creepy. This is the man who made Eyes Wide Shut..so he was probably trying to kinda hint at the industry he was part of. Great video.
I’m actually shitting myself over the gay theory and the way you talked about the Kubrick in the clouds theory 😂
Those clouds ruined my day lol
In 1980, The Shining cost $19 millon and initially made $47 million. Films didn't have to make three times their cost back then or a billion to be profitable.
Been waiting for this one
a note on the Grady's wife theory. I am old enough to remember the trailers for The Shining. The entire trailer was just the elevator doors and the blood. I must have seen that in theaters on the big screen at least 15 times. At some point I noticed the "object" falling out of the elevator as the blood surges out, and then on the next viewing, I realized it was a big clear plastic bag which the blood had been in. If you look closely you can see the blood is actually coming out of it. In order to film the shot, the blood had to be in something until the doors opened, and that was it. So Grady's wife is actually just the container the blood was in.
The homosexual theory could explain why the summer caretaker is staring at Jack with such disdain. There really is no reason for Jack to be looking at a Playgirl magazine, even if for some reason it was just left in the lobby, it would have been uncommon at the time for someone to be openly homosexual. Partaking in light pornography in public is not socially acceptable, whether hetero or homo, and would be a very odd thing to do at a job interview. There probably is something to be read into with that choice of prop.
21:15 The spirits also physically interact with Danny when he gets bruised in room 237.
I have spent hours looking at those clouds. Glad that it isn’t just me that can’t see it!
Yeah he can't see it, even when he zooms in on it.
I think you have it all wrong regarding Hallorann. He has the shining but it's low power with him. He can see things in the hotel but that's it. How do we know this? For one, Danny reminds himself that Hallorann told him that things in the hotel are "not real, like pictures in a book". Also, Grady tells Jack that his son is attempting to bring an outside party into it. Danny used his power to summon Hallorann. Hallorann did not have the power to ask Danny if he's alright. Finally, when Hallorann arrives at the hotel his power doesn't help him at all. He's just not anywhere near as powerful as Danny. If you see the shining ability as a power source for the ghosts, then you will understand why the level of shining ability a person has makes all the difference. So not only would the hotel not want to absorb Hallorann in particular, it wouldn't have the power to do so since Hallorann's shining is so weak.
And the Overlook is exclusive. Don't need no kitchen shine in the club.
I really love all of the hidden details and metaphors in the shining but people need to realize that this movie was filmed at a point in time before we had CGI and they couldn't edit out continuity errors like they can nowadays. on top of that, it is well known that Kubrick would film the same scene an excessive amount of times so it is very possible that there will be many continuity errors.
Need some more iceberg videos for sure 🔥
On the most macro level this film is about a writer overcoming writer’s block. The movie transitions from reality to the story that eventually gets written. Jack conflates his and the hotel’s history to overcome his writer’s block. That is why inconsistencies occur in the hotel and character details (i.e. the sisters and Grady, disappearing chairs, decals) Change in typewriter and color of clothing are clues to which world we are experiencing. How he contemplates the maze and types… The audience is transitioned into the story Jack is writing.
My all time favorite film. And I love the fact people are still making videos on it. Isn’t this one of the most studied films in history?
I really think it is, especially for this age. Like all of Kubrick's films it has that certain something that makes you know there's much more beneath the surface
One of them yes. Something like Citizen Kane has probably been studied more tho.
I think stuff like minor continuity errors actually should be considered, because Kubrick was a notorious perfectionist and has an insane attention to detail. You even brought that up in the video, with the impossible office window at the beginning of the movie.
Not gonna say Kubrick *never* makes mistakes, but considering how attentive he is to details like that, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that all those little background elements and continuity errors were intentional for one reason or another.
The Timberline hotel had a Hedgemaze at the time around to one side, that's where the inspiration came from.
32:53, lol, if ANYTHING it'd possibly be what looks arguably like Kubrick's EYES 3/4 the way down in the centre of the screen 😂
I really like The Shinning film.
For long stretches very little happens. It’s more of an ominous atmosphere and deep feelings of unease. I think that’s why so so many people have added their own backstory and theories. It’s almost just a frame that you can hang your own print inside of. Just my theory.
No, Kubrick knew what he was doing. He planted all the theories in the movie, but left it so none of them ever get confirmed.
The Dopey one is better when you keep in mind that it's a sticker stuck on a door, not a chair. Unless someone accidentally scrapped it off, idk how it could be moved by accident.
One thing I have not seen anyone mention is the fact that Kubrick did not deem the 144min (one in video) Shining as the definitive version, rather the 119min one; which removes a handful of the scenes that back up these theories. Of course, most of these theories aren’t true at all, but knowing that this wasn’t really the “official” version just kinda backs that up.
Excellent vid! I could watch hours of this stuff...😁😁👍👍
Some comments about continuity. The person responsible for continuity of shots in scenes, as well as scenes reshot across different days, is the script supervisor. So it’s not the director’s job to make sure of continuity, it is the script supervisor. Now, in Kubrick films, the script supervisor must be extraordinarily thorough, because Kubrick has 20-60 takes for every shot. It’s grueling and tedious on the actors and filmmakers, and it draws out his shoots much longer than other directors. With all those shots to choose from, it is NOT POSSIBLE for Kubrick to choose shots with chairs appearing and disappearing unless he intended it.
So while it is possible for really minor continuity errors, such as a small wrinkle or posture being different, when the set or props move or appear and disappear in a Kubrick film, you can bank on it being completely intended. (Especially since Doctor Strangelove and onward, when he started to introduce subliminal engineering to his films.)
Where do people came up with the notion that Stanley Kubrick is infallible and can't possibly make any continuity mistakes? He's human, isn't he?
Im glad you point out that Kubrick was a human and capable of error. We tend to mythologize our heros, and he is legendary. But he's still fully capable of screwing up.
Yup! Some people hella dickride Kubrick.
Yes, any director is capable and they do make mistakes (the famous helicopter shadow for the beginning sequence), but to merely toss aside any change that subliminally creates oddity or builds on a character (even a hotel) as continuity error, makes the video creator seem petty and without imagination. And, directors will use takes with errors in them, if in the editing room, the best take that had the best performance, had an error(s) in it, so be it. For you to suggest that Kubrick is "still fully capable of screwing up" implies you know film and can list every mistake Kubrick has ever made or is this jealousy on your part as well?
Oh great! Another Rob Ager video about the Shining.....oh
"Koobrick's 'The ShininG'"
What?
Pretty sure that's what UA-cam was invented for... you know, for people to share videos on topics they're passionate about. Could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Lol, I appreciate that one
Hahaha Rob is great.
Thanks for making and posting. Bill Watson is one of my favourite characters but most of his lines have been cut out in the TV version. He says more during the interview in the cinema release version.
Fine.
What?
32:45 Honestly, i can see a face there. It's smaller than when you put his face there. I also won't say it's purpeseful and it's too vague to really look like any perso (Kubrick) in particular. This is probably just us humans natural inclination of seeing faces in things.
32:30 I couldn’t see Kubrick before you put that up there at 32:36, but I did think I could see Luke Skywalker for a second there in the earlier shot! 😂
When I first saw the movie many years ago, my first impression of Jack appearing in the photo at the end of the film was that Jack's soul got absorbed by the hotel.
That’s what I thought too. But Kubrick himself said that Jack is a reincarnation. Pretty interesting. The clues are definitely there for the reincarnation theory.
Withdrawal symptoms can be intense. Jack irrational behaviour can be contributed to that to a degree. It was shown Danny in sequel used alcohol to dull the shine. It could indicate that Jack alcoholism might be related to him having shine as well.
Numbing the pain of trauma happens more than I think people are willing to admit. Trauma can be haunting until it’s properly coped with.
I dunno, it sure seems sus that 2001: A Space Odyssey WASN'T an exploration for "faking the moon landing" ...
The theories that make the most sense to me are the Minotaur theory, the Native American theory, the reincarnation theory and the Jack + Danny theory. Also I kinda like Danny opening the door theory, bc I’ve always liked that the ghosts in the overlook don’t have any psychical power. To the point where you can question if they’re really there or if they’re a manifestation of jacks insanity.
my favorite theory is the "boner theory" just because it's funny
The number 42 is unlikely an accident. Not counting the claim there are 42 cars in the parking lot, the weakest element of the theory, 42 still comes up multiple times: The Summer of 42, Danny's shirt, news anchors on TV talking about "$42 million," Room 237 (2 x 3 x 7 = 42). Why 42? A reasonable explanation I've seen is that Kubrick was an avid listener to BBC Radio 4, which debuted Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in 1978. According to the story, which aired in March 1978 on the episode titled "Fit the Fourth," the answer to the Ultimate question is 42. It's a cinematic non sequitur based on a literary one? It creates mystery and invites interpretations. But ultimately, it's a trick of movie magic.
The answer to life the universe and everything 42??? lol
It’s a reference to the year 1942
Dr Sleep is only cannon to the book. Pretty sure Spielberg and Kubrick agree the movie is not the book
I love The Shining. When I first saw it, I thought Grady's wife was in room 237...figured the hotel was haunted by the Grady family only.
I love the Kubrik and King versions of the Shining, as well as the original book. imo Kubrik's hedgemaze is a reference to the many references to Alice in Wonderland in the novel, and I think an argument could be made that the Playgirl is a reference to the white rabbit (could Jack be the White Rabbit, or the Mad Hatter? Cheshire grin?). The mallet in King's tv version and novel was a reference to the queen playing croquet in Wonderland, I think a really interesting theory could be made drawing parallels between Wonderland and the Overlook; of course the outfits on the twins are replications of Alice's classic white and blue dress, and the girls being twins rather than sisters of different ages (as in the novel) could be Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. So many references to time that I think could form an interesting theory.
Also, in the deleted scenes from King's TV version, Grady's hand is shown to be the one who opened the door for Jake. I know Kubrik wasn't faithful to the novel and the TV version came later, but I think Grady is the most likely to have opened the door. Great video, thanks for sharing.
I really like the MKUltra theory and hadn’t heard it before! I’m gonna try and apply it to my next rewatch.
I think Kubrick's The Shining is much different than King's and i wouldn't consider any sequel done without his say so to be canon. That world was Kubrick's teams vision and it was crafted for that one film, and a later hollywood sequel only serves to tarnish it's mystique in my opinion
My two cents anyway
Completely agree. People argue that it was a sequel but how so? It was made by different people who may or may not have had any more insight into Kubrick’s vision than anyone else. Nothing against it but it is not valid to say it was a genuine sequel to the first film.
Stephen King hated the Kubrick movie adaptation! I'm understand why. The book is much more nuanced and Jack Nickelson and Shelly Duvall were miscast.
@@notbill08 time for your sippy cup and Graham crackers.
34:06 Maybe kubrik meant Dopey to be Tony. Foreshadowing that Danny is about to get a vision.
Here is my theory, and it’s the correct one: The Shining is about a man who slowly becomes possessed by the evil of the hotel, and ends up trying to kill his wife and son. Major themes include isolation, entrapment, helplessness and cabin fever.
.....but he has always been the caretaker
I don’t know about anyone else, but I can see Kubricks face superimposed in the clouds.
The ghosts may have been able to effect the material world. If we take the films word for it, and not search for anything deeper, then we know the woman in 237 was able to physically harm Danny. Thats cause and effect in the real, material world. So keeping that in mind, then it would be possible for Grady to open the pantry store room..or "story room". For some reason the maker of this video forgot this.
Omg that ending Simpsons scene is what I had going round and round in my head this whole video!!!
Doctor Sleep is a great movie actually. Surprisingly good!
I love myself but apparently we’re in the minority.
I love the sequel too. I am sad and shocked about how surprisingly divisive it is.
great vid!
DR. Sleep is a stand alone 100%
And it sucks
Agree to disagree. I like Doctor Sleep a lot.
@@IntotheDepths511 I may challenge myself to give it another go one of these day though. Xo
Just starting this video and hoping for some fun in it.
So far my favorite Shining theory is The Wendy Theory.
I hate media theories...as far they are about cartoons or straight forward/explicitly stablished stuff.
So this is a breath of fresh air,given how ambiguous this movie can be
Danny's reaction to the assault in the room was to stay silent.
This was a very good video, also you should watch Meet The Feebles, very Dark and has some huge facts around the production
39:02 The Torrence’s car was red in the book, Kubrick way of differentiating between the movie and book
Yes, because explaining shit makes everything more interesting and spooky. So did Dr. Sleep explain how the shining is actually midichlorians in Danny's blood stream? Sounds like a great idea for a movie.
Dr. Sleep is a canonical sequel to Se7en.
Amazing video. Thank you. 😊
Glad you enjoyed it!
What an amazing video essay!!! Subscribed!! One theory that makes just as much sense, in my opinion, as the Indigenous genocide theory is the marriage theory. It goes something like this... This is a film about marriage, about men living through the aftermath of second-wave feminism and finding it homicidally hard to do. The ghosts of generations of men in the past call to Jack to take the power back, take it with force and very toxic masculinity if you have to, but get that power back from the feminists, from African Americans, from everyone who "should" in their eyes be beneath him. White man's burden and all. Under this theory, any reference to Indigenous genocide is there to surround Jack with a cultural memory of what "real" men do, they kill, they take what's theirs and so on. The Overlook represents the isolation and pressure of the suburbs, of marriage, of expectations on a male provider to be all work and no play anymore, no drinking, no affairs, but no sex from your wife either. You're in a world where you are reduced to menial work while women (like your wife the female physician who examines Danny) have the authority to tell you you're a bad father and need to stop drinking. If you accidentally get a girl pregnant (like Jack says he did with Wendy) that's it, your stuck in an cycle of isolation and pressure that never ends and it drives men insane. And the woman in the bathtub...that's the trick of marriage in a nutshell, she's all beautiful at first but she ages, grows hideous to you (literally or just psychologically), but your stuck anyway. It's almost like a rationalization for, or perhaps just an explanation of, toxic masculinity (excuse the anachronism). Just thought I'd put this here in the off chance you happen to see it. And OMG I LOVE YOUR WORK!!! By the way, I'm a woman. I subscribe to none of this ideology, but it IS indeed an interesting and coherent theory 🙂
Hahahahaha. Good one.
I have the Divorce Theory. The film is a metaphor for Danny being terrified that his parents were going to divorce and leave him all alone. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, and it is traumatizing to a small only child.
The first time u watched The Shining, I knew nothing of any theories, and I was instantly enthralled.
The fact it was initially, universally panned, is crazy to me. I guess the average movie, at that time, were very...different?
fun fact astronauts did not bring Tang to the Moon with them
More fun: Apollo lunar surface EVAs used TV cameras. Not movie film.
Probs because they never went.
@@jamietingey7498 You're not smart. There were nine lunar missions with six landing sites--all confirmed by lunar orbital photography and nations such as India, China, Japan, Russia ... oh, and about 50 years of continuous published scientific study of the Apollo lunar samples return. Welcome to reality, n00b 2 the planet
@@jamietingey7498 There were nine lunar missions with six landing sites--all confirmed by lunar orbital photography and nations such as India, China, Japan, Russia ... oh, and about 50 years of continuous published scientific study of the Apollo lunar samples return. Welcome to reality, n00b 2 the planet
@@jamietingey7498 There were nine lunar missions with six landing sites--all confirmed by lunar orbital photography and nations such as India, China, Japan, Russia ... oh, and about 50 years of continuous published scientific study of the Apollo lunar samples return. Welcome to reality, n00b
As my grandmother used to say “I don’t care what they teach you in school, Dr. Sleep was trash and not canon to Kubrick’s The Shining.”
Why don’t we just go back to the moon to put the conspiracy theories to rest?
Pretty sure it costs many many billions of dollars. Too expensive just to prove a moot point to you.
@@Trash2000s war is more important I guess. We have trillions for that.
The Apollo lunar landing sites have all been photographed in detail since the late 2000s. The Artemis program conducted a three-week uncrewed test mission to the Moon in 2023 and four astronauts will conduct a lunar orbital test mission in 2024-25.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver awesome! The core of my question is why not go build something on the moon and have a base camp there? There’s got to be some value in that.
@@BatmanBoss That's the plan, yes.
Another interesting thing to me at least is the fact that 'Jack' types A11 for ALL, using 1's instead of lower case L's.. Apollo11.
I completely missed that. But that’s interesting.
It was the nutty Flat Earth Society which came up with the nonsense 'Kubrick filmed the moon landing', in 1973, so Kubrick used his film to taunt and make fun of them.
The shining is definitely not a “cult classic”, it’s just a classic lol. It’s extremely well known
Honestly you should read Dr Sleep, the movie doesn't do the book any justice.
I'd say most fans would say Dr Sleep is an acceptable sequel..it could've been worse I guess lol
@@biglove1941 the movie isn't terrible but the book is where it's at. I feel the movie couldn't show how bad The Hat and her crew were but that's common with King villians
Haven’t gotten around to it yet. But I am making a way through all of Kings works
I think I can debunk the “Jack died in 1921“ theory. Why would Jack be reliving his last winter in late 70s/early 80s fashion driving a 1970s vehicle? Why would he be locked in a pantry with food that wasn’t invented until the 1960s? Why would he have a son that watched Warner Brothers cartoons on a colour television?
You could probably convince me that it is always 1979 in hell, but I don’t think that’s the theme of the film
be more careful with your titles. or people will start working out that the shining is really about the titanics links to global warming. ive revealed too much
I see Kubrick's entire head. To the left of the first shot before you zoomed in. I couldn't see it when you superimposed the images. And I couldn't see it on the zoom in. But from The wider shot yes. To the bottom and to the left. BTW, I like the Wendy Theroy. Been way down the rabbit hole on that one over the last few years.
43:53 Above the volume icon in the clouds. The blue is darker here than before, the big blue patch makes a kind of pudding bowl haircut, face below. I think he doctored it.
Oh, yeah, I went back to the first shot after Kubrick in the Clouds. It's there, too. In this video, anyway.
I think the Playgirl connection is too on the nose. Definitely just a cheeky, rare gag and nod to the source material.
Cooking with gas about him being sexually curious though. I believe it represents less forelorned homosexual desires on Jack’s part, but something more fluid; curiosity of what the other side could be like. Almost playful with the idea almost simply because he grows to despise his wife - a resentment he likely always carried to a certain extent rapidly exacerbated by instigating spirits.
Maybe Kubrick is a prophet and predicted that men will become so misogynistic and red pilled that they’ll start finding women ugly and admiring men…but now I’m just yapping
Excellent video btw subbed
43:56 did you put Kubrick in the cloud here I can see him
Yes, he put Stanley in the clouds. 31:46 There was already something there that kind of looked like Stanley, though.
Kubrick hired a mythology scholar who helped him to hash out the original script, so ideas such as the minotaur in the labryinth may have come from her.
I didn’t know that. That’s very interesting though.
The lore of how UA-camrs censers words is great
the doc ROOM 237 is great, I had a great time watching it (wish I could've experienced the Forwards and Backwards _thing_ but alas)
the thing is.. you just can't win with conspiracy nuts
The number '237' came to be because the hotel told Kubrick to change it from 217. Management thought people would never book the room after the movie got popular.
found the NPC
@@BGeeSkii eBay Sega?
This is the popular theory but there’s no solid proof that the Timberline Lodge ever asked Kubrick to change the room number.
@@IntotheDepths511 No, that's a fact.
I'm going to see The Shining in theaters tonight, and this somehow showed up on my recommended feed.