The Shining (1980): About THAT Danny Theory
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 кві 2023
- My analysis, commentary, pro and counter arguments about a particular, long-published theory how Jack mistreats Danny.
Citations and References:
• THE SHINING: Danny's o...
Ethereal Relaxation by Kevin MacLeod
#theshining
#stephenking
#stanleykubrick - Розваги
20:42 I think this is a much more important theme than people realise, Jack doesn't do the job he was hired for, Wendy is the person tending to repairs, fixing the boiler, checking on the phones and making meals etc. Although she seems like a damsel, with her screaming and horrified looks. She is able to knock out Jack and is clever enough to hide behind the door and get into a position to stab jacks hand etc and get both of her and Danny to safety.
True. Although Jack was the employee getting paid ... Wendy was shown the kitchen (without Jack), with the assumption that she had some responsibilities also ... The hotel had a chef, but it was assumed that Wendy would cook instead of Jack.
Jack treats the hotel as a hotel, just a place for him to stay, but Wendy knows that it is a job.
I think the time it was set and also certain communities even now would assume any cooking and cleaning between a couple would be done by the woman and maintenance by the man. However as the actual characters in the movie I think Wendy takes on more of the responsibilities so that Jack can devote himself to writing his book. You wouldn’t say that to the owner person hiring you though.
Jack works in the book. Are we discussing whats canon in a movie that isn't canon?
@@austinhill5550 I mean in the book she's even more of a strong female character, one of Kings major criticsms of the movie was that he thought Wendy had become less strong. So it works both ways, in the movie she may scream a lot but wins in the end and works hard to get there. In the book she doesn't scream every second, is more level headed, wins in the end and works hard to get there, although she does less jobs in the book than in the movie.
One thing no one ever mentions about the genius of this movie: the lack of darkness. All horror movies tend to rely on dark shots to scare us; Kubrick does this with well-lit hallways filling with blood; brightly lit rooms where anomalous characters converse; even the maze chase at the dead of night is flooded by strong lamps, and the ominous opening of the movie is in bright sunlight along mountain roads--he proves that horror isn't about tradition, or familiar method.
In so many "horror" movies, the characters rarely turn on lights. They walk through scary situations when lights are available, but they just dont turn on lights.
They're "metaphorically" in the dark. They're at an isolated place that's unfamiliar to them.
It didn't scare me at all but might have if even SOME significant parts had happened in the dark.
@@bufficliff8978 The dark doesn't scare me, but this movie did.
True, and it is one of the great flaws of Dr Sleep that it is so dark throughout... The hotel itself appears way too late, and is just run through a series of repeat stereotyped scenes. Another objection is that the evil cult is too decimated by a single event: A more elaborate encounter between the hotel and that group was badly needed. Also, it is not plausible that the hotel sits abandoned with all of its furniture. The original ending of the Shining (after the hospital visit by Ullman that was cut) had a text placard that said the hotel continued operating, (since only Jack froze to death, implying no dead Halloran, or evidence of damaged doors). The woman in Dr Sleep was a great villain, and really raised the first 2/3 of the sequel to a good level, but the establishing shots were always cut way too short, and this ruined any feeling of continuity with the original. The astral flight of the villainess is the one exception: It was truly a great sequence, with long takes, and it is precisely because of its scope that it actually reached the level of a Kubrick cinematic moment...
Speaking of Jack's Drinking: No one talks about this but have you noticed that the weird facial expression that Jack made right after he took his first drink is the exact same expression that he had at the end when he was frozen to death outside. There must be something connecting alcoholism to the overall theme of this film.
Great point I haven’t heard anywhere else and never noticed before.
Check a picture of Urizen online.
White man's burden
Stephen King was an alcoholic-- that was definitely a theme in the novel...
Women! Can’t live with ‘em, can’t live with out ‘em
The Overlook is a symbol of a “house” built on generational abuse/trauma/ cover-up/abuse….?
Makes sense. The body language in the actors is also telling. Danny is clearly reluctant to sit on his own dads lap, Wendy is also lying about that one “accident” And “overlooks” a lot. Which would make also much sense when confronted by the bear and man.
Couldn’t that also be reluctance because of the physical abuse
@@courtneythompson6179yes. Maybe Danny has suffered both.
@@jaynesager3049In the book, Jack broke Danny’s arm before the family moved to The Overlook and Wendy was about to leave him. The hotel experience is the final chance she is giving Jack.
@@Nocturnaluxbecause she is no longer in the condition of overlooking his abuse
It surprises me that more people don’t know that “Tony” is an older version of Danny himself. He isn’t a spirit etc. It’s a more mature part of his psyche that shows and explains to Danny what he needs to to keep him safe.
If so then it would be strange for him to call his mother "Mrs. Torrance"
@@Neelo5000 It’s in the book. I don’t see it’s anymore strange than talking to a future version of himself . Antony is Danny’s middle name.
I think that is because we didn't hear that Danny's middle name was Anthony in the movie and that only people who also read the book would understand that. I don't like it when changes are made that leaves out information that can help the audience understand it better,or when people think that there's a reason for the change like the man in the bear costume people think that there is a reason for it when it could have been that they couldn't get a dog one.
No question, that's the case in the book and more faithful miniseries. As for the Kubrick film, I'm not convinced that's the case. Tony seems more like a lens Danny experiences his "Shinning" through. I see him as a sort of compartmentalized aspect of Danny that operates as a middle man. Without Tony, Danny would be constantly "Shinning." I only make this comparison because I can't at the moment think of a better one, but Tony seems like he serves the same function as an additional personality created to deal with trauma by a person suffering from D.I.D. Kubrick just seems like he's more interested in exploring the psychological over the fantastical. That's just my opinion.
@@mountainmiscreant I prefer that . I didn’t really love the book part about Tony.
The finger didn't work because it wasn't a representation of the Shining, it's a coping mechanism used by many traumatized children to embody a personality within an object outside of themselves so they can be "other" when "self" becomes too much to handle. I've heard real reports of kids using their fingers when they didn't have any toys, and a wagging finger rather than a stationary toy makes a better creepy on-screen appearance.
There is an interview with the actor who played the little boy, Brian, in Barry Lyndon, and he said at his audition they asked him what his "party trick" was and he pretended his hand was a sock puppet. He said his parents thought he had just blown the audition, but he got the job. Might be connected to the creation of Danny and the talking finger. (I don't know if that is an odd question for an audition or not, but the movie does have a birthday party scene where Brian helps a magician on stage. No puppets, though.)
This might be true but was this known when the movie was written or is it something that is known now a days?
@@rustyxof I don't know. I saw an interview on yt, most likely, with the now adult actor. Kubrick and company would have known. I am not arguing about it. Just saying. I personally believe "redrum, redrum" was pinched from an old TV show with a parrot that had witnessed a murder and would croak "murder, murder".
Yep, that's also why people with DID have commonly experienced extreme CSA, the DID is a protective measure to become a completely different person to separate from the abuse and protect them. A lot of CSA victims have said they often had to become someone else to survive their abuser, and DID is the part where it becomes a full direct response to the trauma
Some kids also transfer their emotions, when they get too hard to handle, to objects and animals of all kinds.
I had a rather sad childhood- although nothing compared to what others went through- and I’d often project such emotions onto my pet turtle, of all things.
I wish Kubrick was alive so we could bug him with all this stuff,lol
I'm certain he was haha
I doubt he'd give any answers to the theories.
@@nxrth9463 no I think he would debunk most of them.
Why didn’t we ask him when he was undead?
@@ameliabedelia7018 because those questions didn't exist until after he was gone. All the thoeries people have about what everything in his movies means hadnt been formed yet. People back then didnt deep dive into movies like we do. today.
Danny’s lines about Tony telling him ‘not to talk about it’ could further suggest the abuse theme. I think the movie has many credible themes running parallel throughout. The two Jacks theory I think holds up pretty well also.
Tony is Danny from the future as far as the book is concerned. But, in the film, Tony is perhaps, simply, a spirit that looks after and guards Danny. Think of Tony as an angel. And no, Jack isn't sexually abusing Danny. Jack is possessed by, and his soul eternally contained within, the Overlook. He is Satan's caretaker. He's always been the caretaker. Danny and Wendy are intended sacrifices for the Overlook's well of evil. He's hired because he has a family. He's hired so he can feed the evil of the site. Ullman likely knows this. Everyone in the inner circle that runs the hotel likely knows this. Dick Halloran probably sensed it, fought against it, and was ultimately able to wittingly or unwittingly sacrifice himself to prevent it.
@@jasonuerkvitz3756 it’s not implausible that Kubrick used sexual abuse themes, as he seemed to enjoy adding extra layers to make the material his own. It’s been too long since I read the book to see if there are any. The frothing mouth scene as Danny shakes, always struck me as sexually suggestive also.
@@newworldastrology1102same like traumatized. ..and evil would do that shit .
Why would Danny's future self tell him not to talk about it? His future self should have told him to call 911.
@@hermanhale9258 I think in the film, it’s a potential echo of the abusive father warning him to keep quiet.
Thing is the true horror of this movie goes beyond the minutiae and much like childhood abuse it hides in the recesses of your psyche
Yeah...
Very well put!
I couldn’t agree more. Kubrick always flirted w the obscene in his films & I think the reason why The Shining is so horrifying is it takes it to a much more personal level. Illuminating the terror of dysfunctional family dynamics. Of children stuck in abusive situations. The thing is, a gratuitous scary movie or even an exploitative film on child abuse wouldn’t have the effect The Shining does. Raising the question but not totally delving in, leaving questions for the audience to ponder. It sticks w u. Haunts u. & for me the playboy magazine makes this underlying narrative v clear.
YES!!!!
@@HealingMedicynAgreed. The Playboy magazine is an overt hint.
The reason I believe in the sex abuse theory, is Kubric's attention to detail. And all the little clues he left behind. Before i understood it, these things made me feel uneasy. The Fatherly moment, was creepy, and at that point, Jack hadn't lost his mind. It felt creepy even when i was a kid.
And that was the only time Danny was ever alone with Jack on screen, except the axe chase.
Well it’s all in your heads. Ain’t in the book…..but Americans think everyone is a pedophile. I’d say that’s telling enough.
You didn’t give an actual reason. You said you believe in it because you think it happened 😂
The clue that really sold the theory for me is the fact that in the scene where they are first checking out the hotel Jack is reading a "Playgirl" magazine, Not a "Playboy", on the cover it's has a headline something like "why do parents abuse their children?"
@@ExpertContrarian^
I think part of Kubrick's technique is to mix the objective with the subjective, actual clues with dangling red herrings, so of course you will never be quite sure if you've figured something out or not. Here we are chasing our tales and Stanley was chuckling about it back then, knowing we would be. It is great fun😂
Exactly! I think Kubrick would have been disappointed if we just shrugged our shoulders and moved on to the next popcorn flick about spandex and capes.
@@CineG I'm having trouble determining exactly what your theory *is*. Is this it?
That the film is *deliberately* suggestive, obfuscatory, ambi-valent, ambiguous, and potentially self-contradicting about its various themes and their interpretations?
I think I can agree with that.
This is consistent with what Kubrick said about the uncanny. What is important is how these undeniable but undefinable themes contribute to the feeling of dread and doom. Understanding is not the goal here, as the more we try to pin them down, the faster they get away from us.
stephen king and kubrick copied from burnt offerings 1976 for their shining
@@CineG
I believe there could have been $exu@l @bu$e ; or at least a deep fear of it from Wendy’s perspective. 🤷🏻♀️
To me the Shining is about generational trauma and how it manifests. The Native American genocide, Danny’s physical abuse at the hands of his father (whether sexual or not) and the evil that lives in the Overlook Hotel all represent trauma that is carried across generations. Kubrick was such an intentional film maker it’s difficult to imagine a lot of the Easter eggs he left were accidental, but we will never know if they were meant to provide answers and resolution or simply to create more questions & possibilities
There was no genocide against Indians. That's antiwhitism.
@@Siegfried5846 Cool bait mate
@@prixe12 It's not.
@@Siegfried5846The racist historical revisionist calling others racist, now that is hilarious.
@@ripleyjlawman.3162 "racist" is an antiwhite slur. You're the historical revisionist. All credible historians agree: it was sickness that wiped out the Indians.
I think the signs point to Jack being abused. That Jack was abused and it is used as as a partial reason to explain why he has such anger/love and a complicated relationship with his son.
It would indeed also be quite the perfect explanation for his alcoholism, and his insomnia .
Makes sense.
I won't spoil it, but you would probably find the novel very interesting.
I feel that the shining is actually better left unsolved, it gives a sense of mystery to the whole story
straight facts
Danny's relatively dissociated demeanor, which is present from the start of the movie, would suggest a lot of ongoing trauma...
It seemed that the "accident" where Jack did something to Danny's shoulder (dislocated it?) Was a fairly recent event that he may not be over yet. And I'm willing to bet that Jack yells and throws things when he drinks which can be very scary for kids. Doesn't necessarily mean SA
In the book, Jack is a mean drunk, and takes a toll on Danny. Wendy turns a blind eye due to having to reconcile with her choice in him, and his complete family man affectation while sober. She chooses to see the good in him, until there is none left. Danny on the other hand sees the logical conclusion from the start and is powerless to change the course.
Whatever the theory about the content of the film we can all agree this was a powerhouse performance from Jack👍👍
I certainly would! But, apparently, some people didn't like his performance, or think it's highly flawed... to me, they're crazy!
Knowing how Shelly Duvall was treated during the filming makes me feel different about this movie..hard to watch.
Nah. Kubrick just gave Jack Nicholson a lotta coke and said, "go"!
He's been my favorite actor since I was a very little kid (I was fortunate to grow up with parents who didn't censor what I watched, and my mother and I loved to watch horror movies together).
@@jringo45acp he's my sister's favorite actor, and she goes from fan, to the complete word: FANATIC. Idiot has a picture of him in her locket. 🤣🤣🤣
As the video was drawing to its conclusion, I started thinking about the numerous videos that make a point of Jack being referenced in the film as always being the caretaker, I realized that the person who was actually doing the caretaking, so her husband could write, is Wendy. That thought blew my mind. Has anyone else had this thought and wondered about this? The answer may be staring me in the face. Let me know what you think? 😊
Funnily enough the care taker line from grady is quite litteral what grady said was true in the movie version of the shinning both the line and the photo are litteral the photo at the end isn't of a man absorbed in the hotel. It's a man who was always appart of it.
Sounds crazy but it's not like in an interview stanly exp- I'm not going to finish the joke you know where it's going
Stanly admited in an interview that the photo of jack is actually about how jack is in an endless reincarnation cycle of evil. He actually was always the caretaker
My take on it is this. To understand the movie you need to stop denying what is infront of you, jack was always the care taker, the hotel was built on ground where evil actions toom place. Excusing the supernatural is ignoring whats infront of you. The elevator symbolizes the blood that is hiding inside the hotel. The cycle will repeat again even if jack is dead.
Until Dr. Sleep 2019 was made. It wasn't good. Some people like it but I dont
jesus christ - it’s a job title. Some of y’all need to go outside
@@Elena-er7zpwhy don't you go watch a marvel movie and leave the adults to talk sweetie.
@@Elena-er7zpnot cool to say Jesus christ in vain
@@petehuckleberry5068yes it is.
I'm agnostic about the sexual abuse theory but I'm surprised you didn't mention something that to me lends it some credence: Tony is an imaginary friend who lives in his MOUTH. That Tony appeared at the same time the abuse began, and that he lives in Danny's MOUTH, is too much of a coincidence, don't you think?
Bingo
Oh snap
Wait what? Ohhhh i never thought of that.
He also says that Tony hides in his stomach, to a child anything that enters your mouth leads to your stomach.
Ummmm Tony is his OLDER SELF and he isn’t new. Read the book sometime….then you won’t have to make crap up.
Danny subconsciously shined the hotel to torment his father in retaliation for abuse.
I love this theory.
I know Kubrick wasn’t too strict about sticking to the book, but this theory works with the novel
My favorite idea.
That's a cool idea, we know almost all protagonists of King have some sort of power and he has his own in universe beings and gods taking a lot inspiration from lovecraft
Dick flat-out states that the people who Shine "wind up" the hotel, making it replay all its worst moments. Since Danny is a strong Shiner, the hotel wasn't just replaying its worst kills, it could make them physical, visible things to attack or terrify
Personally I think King's problem with the movie is the insinuation that Jack is a p*do
(Jack, of course, a personification of King himself).
Ik because Steven King would NEVER do something like that. Like when Jack wrote a child gangbang into his novel for no reason.
that actually makes a lot of sense
I think the fact that people are more ready to believe Nicholson's Jack as a habitual abuser over Webber's is not in spite of Webber's mistreatment of Danny being shown more and in more detail, but because of it.
Stephen King's version uses a flashback to show the incident, and it's unambiguous - it's not presented as someone's POV or memory, but as the actual event, playing out for the audience. We have every reason to believe that it's accurate, and by extension, we have every reason to believe that, if there were other incidents, we would be shown those... and because we're not, we have every reason to assume there were no others.
IIRC, Kubrick's version only tells us *about* the incident, from multiple perspectives, and while I don't think any of them differ much, they're also sparing with detail. We don't have authoritative certainty about what happened, which then means that we can be uncertain about what *else* might have happened.
I do think Jack Nicholson's performance contributes as well, but I think that, if he's been playing Jack in King's version, the audience would still have far less reason to think that he was some kind of serial abuser - because we'd have been shown one incident and no others.
Counterpoint: maybe they didn't show any other such scenes because one was enough to get the point across?
Weren't the dates different
If you are an adult that grew up in a home with an alcoholic, then the book hits differently. I have watched the movie several times, and while I find it eerie, disturbing, and visually unsettling- it is not as scary to me as the book. The novel shows a flawed parent dealing with his own prior physical and mental abuse by an alcoholic father. His rage issues, as well as his alcoholism are the cracks in his defenses against the evil of the overlook. The movie posits lots of different “reasons” or theories in an effort to make it scary on lots of levels. This works for many people- it finds what you are intrinsically afraid of and uses that. I just found the themes of the book scarier because of my own personal life experiences.
1. Cool username
2. Could you elaborate? Like, specific scenes that jump out?
@@wormwoodcocktail thanks on the username. Yours is much more fun. I can elaborate on scenes if you like. Do you mean from the movie or from the book? In the movie, you can be scared of the first layer- ghosts. You can interpret Danny as having been SA’d by his father. You can be afraid of Jack’s temper toward Wendy. You can be afraid of the crushing isolation of the environment. You can be freaked out by the maze like structure of the hotel and how it seemingly changes. In the book, the scariest parts are inside Jack’s own head. His experience with the wasp nest. The alcoholic mannerisms such as chewing aspirin return despite having no access to booze. It is frightening as both the child of an alcoholic, as well as to the addict himself. Jack is losing his tenuous hold on sobriety and his baser instincts are taking over. The flashback to Jack’s father beating his mother at the dining table. Horrifying when you have experienced such random and insane mood swings from the adults around you as a child. I could go on and on. Stephen King is a master in my eyes. A master of manipulating scenarios and the frailty of the human condition.
@@lucretiamaggio6154Speaking of the way the book gets into the warped mind of Jack’s, his running over the tricycle that just so happens to not have a child riding it, and the pet names he gives to his addiction, like talking about Martinis as “the Martians having landed”, all show how close he has come to the edge before- and how the addiction has even gotten to his inner dialogue.
It is also worth mentioning that Wendy had decided the Overlook was Jack’s final chance. If he failed, she was going to take Danny and leave him.
One thing I don't like about this theory is that it doesn't do much to respect the kind of trauma that the movie is actually showing. I grew up with a father who was often critical, unpleasant and unpredictable, and I was scared to be close to him. He never hit me, he never did anything close to "that", and it was still a really uncomfortable relationship. Any time when he wanted to be close, just to sit by me or hug, or talk, I felt like I wanted to get away. That's what a lot of the clips in this video made me think of
If you need to invoke "That" to explain how a kid could be traumatized by their parent, then you're overlooking just how easy it is to traumatize kids in so many other ways. Kids deserve to feel loved and supported, but above all they deserve to feel safe.
People tend to get hung up on that one particular kind of abuse, as if it's a million times worse than anything else that could possibly happen. But IMO the kind of abuse really doesn't matter. What matters is whether the kid grows up not feeling safe
this is all true in real life, but this is a movie. the details kubrick deliberately placed in the film do pretty strongly imply abuse behind the scenes. that doesn't invalidate your experience and your trauma. it's fiction, and is incredibly different from the experiences of actual traumatized children, which, as you said, could have experienced varying types of trauma. in fact, even for children who were sexually abused, the depiction of implied sexual abuse in the film is not at all comparable to the reality. this film is certainly not meant to accurately and realistically depict childhood trauma, and it does not invalidate your experiences and trauma.
@@z6ppa325 It's been forever since I watched the film, and a while since I even watched this video. Perhaps I've missed what the signs were
What I remember from this theory is mostly about Danny feeling unsafe around his Dad, and about Danny's Mum not being keen on leaving them alone together, and I agree that that implies abuse (or at the very least, pretty bad parenting)
But were there signs of it being _sexual_ abuse, specifically? (Beyond the fact that that's just the kind of abuse that most people are likely to think of)
When I saw The Shining in a movie theater (about 2015) I was blown away by two previously unnoticed themes : Native American genocide and child SA. Even though I couldn’t recall all the exact visual references/innuendoes of the latter, the “fatherly love” scene made it blatantly clear in my mind. After the movie, I immediately searched for validation of my theories and found several analyses online that led me to the conclusion that “overlooking” generational abuse -of all kinds- was a major theme of Kubrick’s vision.
That's an awful long reach, especially if you had read the novel. Jack is abusive to Danny in that he is a violent drunk who may have killed a pedestrian while driving and beat a student in a parking lot, costing him his tenure. He also broke Danny's arm when he was younger and then swore off the sauce because Wendy threatened to leave him. There's nothing in the book or film to even hint at Jack violating his son that way. Danny sees an animated clock with a man and woman doing the 69, which disgusts and confuses him and that's it. Wendy sees the man in the dog costume getting teased and then giving head to a rich man. It's not explicit really, given how descriptive King is. If he wanted you to think Jack was touching Danny, you'd know it. King wrote Delores Claiborne for heaven's sake! Ever read IT? King doesn't beat around the bush with child abuse in his books. I can't understand why some folks have to read something into a story that isn't there. It's better to ask if the Overlook was actually haunted, or if Jack was just teetering on the edge of being batshit crazy the whole time.
cuz people like to project their predespostitions to others work, look at how LOTR some people think or believe that orcs are an allegory for black people, or germans, or w/e allegory pops up in the head of someone saying it, only to forget that tolkien hated allegory and repeatedly stated before his death that LOTR is not an allegory, that even though there was an inspiration(as with most art duh) it wasnt a 1-1. just a story about the hero's journey basically. but no now a days people love to put words in his mouth talking about how its an allegory for ww2 when it never was. or equating orcs to negros, like fuck off with that, not every story needs to have a hidden meaning or allegory or a "message", sometimes a story is just a story
This is an analysis of the Kubrick film specifically as its own beast using the book's supplemental material. Given how much Kubrick has made this his own, I don't see why the theory is particularly invalid when he excels at the subliminal.
I'm a huge Stephen King fan, my writing is heavily influenced by him. But The Shining is one instance in which I loved the movie (Kubrick's) even more than I loved the book.
I’m a writer as well and couldn’t agree more! That’s precisely why King hated the movie so much. At the time, The Shining was probably his crowned jewel… then along comes Kubrick and makes it even better. A true masterpiece for the ages. That had to a be tough one pill to swallow. Someone else’s vision being the definitive piece people think of when the The Shining is brought up.
@@chapel8818 Absolutely.
@@chapel8818Only it's not better than the book.
@@kellydaunis it’s not only better… it’s better to the point hardly anyone associates The Shining to a book at all.
@@chapel8818 I s o m e h o w like S. King, though most novels are too long for me and his skill in writing, creating fictional realities and insnuating tropes (compare U. Eco for ex.) is rather low. "It" has some greatness. It entered public imagary. Think of yourself sitting alone at night in a lonely, otherwise public place and suddenly a red balloon floats down to you and pops.. and you get a reminder of the being you dread the most.
if you look up the actually teddy bear they used in film you can see that his eyes are indeed cropped to look like the elevator dials
There is no question that Danny is abused and the abuser is his father. Whether it's physical abuse or other kinds of abuse. When one reads the film in the same way one interprets a dream - the theory of the "bad" kind of abuse is validated. The associations are there. The bear scene is in Wendy's dream....the scene just before with Danny on Jack's lap has the feel of impending abuse. There is the Playgirl cover left on the chair when he goes in to the interview - the article about very bad family dynamics. I stand by my dream interpretation - Wendy's dream - because the kind of attention to which you refer in the bear scene is impossible given the positioning of the bear-teeth in the bear costume. I think of Tony as a coping mechanism. The abuse could just as well be physical. I believe Jack did hurt Danny and there is evidence that the lies he tells re room 237 points to blaming the victim a common trope among perps. Kubrick never allows us to validate theories he provokes. Given Kubrick, I think it's possible for both the Eger theory to be validated as much as yours. That would be Kubrick! G
...and the curved shape of the bedroom mirror and bathroom tile when Danny stands in the same position as the woman, just before an embrace.
The extreme passivity and lack of eye contact when in Jack's lap and when being examined by the doctor, both times on a bed (I'd always wondered, Why the house call???)
The bear/tuxedo scene played like a recreation of Wendy's walking in on Danny and Jack, unable to believe what she's seeing
How do you threaten a victim into silence? Break one arm and say you'll break the other. The messed up papers may be a cover story. There's always a cover story--preferably one that makes the victim look like the crazy one. Nope, no woman in 237: he hurt himself.
Kubrik's movies are a study in power. The movie may be more horrifying than one may care to think about.
"To me, films that deal with drug addiction, crime and war are the real horror films. In a world where slaughter and vicious crimes are daily occurrences, a good ghoulish movie is comic relief." ~Vincent Price
ua-cam.com/video/z0NgUhEs1R4/v-deo.html
Now I'm going to try to get some sleep, despite my eyes having been watering like crazy since the third line occurred me.
i like where you are going but i do recall that the dr asked when tony's appearance first was noticed, and a discussion was had about him being taken out of school with the injury, and thats about the time he started talking to tony. wendy says so
But they didn't have to mean ssexxuall abuse
I'm reading The Shining right now. I've seen the movie many times, never ceases to frightening me. Jack Nicholson is a terrifying genius. Thanks for the really great video.
I can't lie, I never thought anything beyond this being a haunted hotel and perhaps an allegory for alcoholism.
The thought of a family member losing their mind and becoming murderous; let alone inside a sentient and insiduous hotel, full of evil spirits, is frightening enough, for me. I have never felt the need to read any deeper.
Maybe it wasn't Danny that got sexually abused, maybe it was Jack and the movie is about what the abuse did to Jack and how Jack tried to control himself, but ultimately lost his mind. The scene where Danny is sucking his thumb, doent necessarily mean he got sexually abused, but he got the shit kicked out of him by his Father and it was the first real step's to Danny eventually getting sexually abused. IN Jacks twisted mind , what happened to him turned HIM into a monster and that it created a blurry lline between him and Danny and instead of turning Danny into a monster, he thought it best to 'take him out" and then he prbably would have offed himself, As a matter of fact, maybe Jack started getting sexually abused at Danny's age and when he looked at him it created a flood of mermories he was unable to cope with. AND maybe the Bear sucking the guy off in the room was Jack reliving the the memory and now the horrible thing that happened to him became his secret sexual preference. Jack my have been un aware when he was that age that he was doing anything wrong and as he got older, it created yet anoither gray area in his life
Awesome theory!
Very interesting
So you think the reason he is also abusive to Wendy is a subconscious act of expressing his feelings for men rather than women?
Or did I just infer that by accident
Very interesting! I like that theory!
I like Robs work and his point of view, however when he states that the teddy bears eye is cropped it actually looks like what happens to material that is button tucked, specifically a round shaped material. After a while a section of it will crumple and from that angle it will look like a piece is cut out.
Thank you, this has always been my thought. No matter how dishy Rob is.
That doesn't really work against his theory, things on set are set just so, after all.
@@xBINARYGODx yeah no arguments there as far as things chosen on purpose.
Both were playing with an “appendage” 😂😂😂 The deadpan delivery of that line killed me, great video
I think it is important to realize that King is an alcoholic writer. Kubrick is just directing a movie about an alcoholic writer.
Two things: the Playgirl magazine was Jack Nicholson's idea, I seem to recall seeing (it was on UA-cam so it may not be true, but the story was he thought it would be funny if that's what "Jack" was reading.
And secondly: I think as an alcoholic, King saw the progress of Jack's drinking as part of the horror, the loss of control and the things it lead to; Kubrick, as a non-alcoholic, didn't see that as important (imho); I know that when I have nightmares these days, I'm drinking. It's a real horror story many can relate to.
That is something I hadn't considered, but that fact alone can contribute to a lot of the changes between the book and the movie, the base understanding of the horror was different
One thing you’re not giving enough credence to is who we are really dealing with here, Kubrick. Coincidence? Foreshadowing? Telling a story without telling a story? The signs are evident from the get go that this is a fractured family dealing with far more than the eye can see. The themes of mania, guilt and abuse… self inflicted and otherwise, are heavily leaned on and pounded in throughout every aspect of the film. In my eyes the only real questions are what really happened, who knows or suspects, and when. Great video though. I personally think what really makes this an enduring horror classic is realizing this is far more than a “haunted house or ghost” story. This one is about the demons of reality.
Great comment. I see it similar. I think Kubrick wants us to understand the commen ground between a fictional story and reality using symbols of how the minds work when dealing with demons. It is too obvious that some sort of abuse or abusive thought are occurring is this family. It is simply left to us to decide in which direction the story could go. It,s like a picture that can be seen as a different picture as used in psycholigy. A work of genius.Best regards from Germany
I think people read too much into the Shining, and I think Kubrick would get a massive kick out of it if he were alive. The movie is very much a straight, simple horror movie. The Overlook is built on Native American burial grounds, thus it is cursed. The ghosts are real. The hotel causes people to commit violence and consumes their souls, making them a part of the hotel itself and using them to capture further souls. The "capturing" is reflected in Grady's name change as Jack being in the old photo at the end. Much of what is changed from the novel was changed to streamline the story and get to the third act sooner. (The novel has a very long second act because it takes a long time for the hotel to get Jack; making Jack a unhinged/abusive from the start allowed Kubrick to remove the slower content.)
I think Kubrick would enjoy the different interpretations and would never validate any of them.
I like that your interpretation is how you can read this film. Personally I like the theories but watch the movie as a far more simple narrative.
I know there’s lots more there but is there any definitive interpretation? Probably not.
One more clue: The man's hand gently placed on (caressing?) Jack's arm in the New Years celebration photo and the folded up note in Jack's hand, while the man's date's eyes are closed. The feather-topped heart-shaped emblem on her dress points directly toward the man's hand. Kubrick was once quoted as saying that every detail of every scene should be maticulously planned, that there should be no unplanned elements in the scene.
I like Rob’s videos, but disagree with him on this one. There’s just not enough evidence to make such drastic assumptions, but Rob acts as if his analysis has proven his theory. Like you were saying, the days don’t match up. The jump to Wednesday. The dog man is in the book, just because the backstory isn’t there doesn’t divorce it from that fact. I’m not even sure that it is supposed to be a bear in Kubrick’s film, could be a dog. Dogs and bears look pretty similar, particularly in costume form. Wouldn’t be surprised if the Playgirl magazine was Jack Nicholson’s idea as a joke, like the dildo in The Departed. That seems to align with his sense of humor. Kubrick does leave aspects of his films hidden and open to interpretation, but I don’t think he would leave something so major off the screen. Kubrick has often called this film his “ghost story,” think I’ll take his word for it.
Do you think Kubrick would purposely put the subtle implications as a way to subconsciously unnerve the viewer but not a cannon theme of the film?
Yes
I'm not sure whether we are supposed to take this semiotic inference as cannon or if it's just Kubrick trying to subliminally mess with our heads and make us feel uncomfortable without quite knowing why. He famously was reading a book on subliminal advertising as research after all.
Respect to Kubrick for trying to Derren Brown the audience into finding a bear blow job inexplicably terrifying.
That is a dog suit and totally mentioned the book. Not sure what you mean by not in the source material. The guy in the tux makes the guy in the dog suit pee on the floor in front of everyone. Read a book.
Thank you for mentioning this. Honestly the most uncomfortable scene in the whole novel. The way they speak to Danny alone is all I can think about when talking about the Shining.
Never realized the bathroom with Danny on the stand is the same shade of green as the 237 bathroom😮
Also the subtle way Kubrick shows us the supernatural and how its connected to us and how it works is very UN HOLLYWOOD and thats why it strikes am uncomfortable chord in viewers and hits a little to close to home.
What about Jack being in that old photograph on the wall at the end?
acho que a alma dele agora faz parte do hotel
Jack is Kubrick, holding a note that contains a secret (he helped fake the moon landing footage).
@@jfrey1 That moon landing faking theory is kinda nicely debunked already. I mean it was a good one but...nothing for sure.
I find it interesting that the first time Jack sees a ghost he says he’d give his soul for a glass of beer the as of the hotel knew what to feed him a full bar with a bartender
His soul he did give.
The whole Playgirl thing always seemed like a lot of nothing. I spent the majority of my kidhood in adult places due to the reality of my transient motel managing parents. Lots of waiting rooms, lots of lobbies, lots of hotel bars, lots of arduous day long ventures to places like the dmv and the like. I did attend grade schools sporadically but I spent way more time in the adult side of things. In the early 80's there was still a fair amount of runoff from the sex heavy/liberation-centric themes from the 70's, it wasn't uncommon in my experience to find crazy shit in said waiting rooms and lobbies. Remember the big shtick about playboy/girl was that it was purporting itself as a 'sophisticated publication' that highlighted interviews with academic litterati, political think pieces, etc. I'm not saying that it couldn't be significant, we all know that the nature of film necessitates that nothing on the screen is there by accident, and Kubrick specifically is a go-to for that. But I also think that it could be incidental. The Overlook is a place where successful adults go to spend a hefty price on adult leisure, its not a place that prioritizes a child focused environment, and besides it would be up to the parent in a place like that to make sure your kid isn't flipping through an adult publication. It makes sense to me that, given the time, a publication like playgirl could be in the lobby. Cringey and weird? Sure, but the grown up world of the early 80's was still soaked in the cringey weirdness of the 70's to an extent. Regardless, solid video my man.
I think that two major clues in the movie are apparent: There are no children at all in the hotel during the interview and the final tour of the grounds. The Playgirl magazine and (as a visual in the deleted scenes-Stuart Allman is wearing a bear/pimp jacket). THE OVERLOOK HOTEL IS A BROTHEL FOR THE ELITE. nuff said
“Selling of David Soul”- Jack is gonna sell his soul for the drink
“Why do parents sleep with their children?”- chapter 43 in the book, Wendy and a Danny have locked Jack in the pantry after he tried to choke Wendy to death. Wendy and Danny are sharing a bed communicating telepathically with each other. Which explains the quiz: “Do you communicate in bed?” Also, notice the lady who walks in behind Jack when he is sitting in the lobby with the magazine, she has the number 43 on her jersey that represent chapter 43
“Seven day wonder diet” TUESDAY THURSDAY SATURDAY MONDAY WEDNESDAY
“New identities to convicted criminals” - Jack takes on the personality of “Vito the Chopper” a mob boss who was murdered in the presidential suite on the third floor in the sixties. Vito was known for killing people with an ax. The parts of Ullman and Watson are played by the two guys who were guarding Vito’s door during the shooting. They were both wearing turtlenecks at the time of their deaths.
“How to avoid a dead end affair”- Wendy shows Danny where the dead ends are in the maze
Celebrity favorites- pink and gold are my favorite colors, what’s your favorite food?
The guy in the mirror, behind the woman on the cover of the magazine resembles the scene where Wendy is serving Jack breakfast in bed.
Also, in the book, when Danny is talking to Tony in the hotel bathroom, he’s staring in the mirror while he’s brushing his teeth, and he trances out. Danny tells his parents that he followed Tony through the mirror. And Wendy was like, you mean Tony was behind you?
The magazine is the Jan issue. It would have come out in December. The entire move takes place on December 2. Beginning with Chapter 42
Jam tomorrow. “Through the Looking Glass” reference. Danny’s eating jam on interview day. It’s all over his face, and the jar is in the background. Meaning this is not happening now.
shhhh don’t let reality mess with these people’s theories
I personally think it was nothing more than an easter egg that had nothing to do with the plot. I think someone thought it would be funny to sneak a naughty magazine in the scene, thinking that it would never actually be seen. Maybe even Kubrick himself.
I agree. However, I dont think that a straight man would sit there looking at Playgirl. A straight man would look at anything else, or nothing ... especially if he expects his bosses to come over to him at any moment. He might pick up the magazine, laugh, and put it down.
I think jack had the shining and that's why he drank. Or maybe someone in his family. His dad was a nurse and probably used his shining but after his accident he went crazy. Him, jack and danny are all violent men and they probably all drank and lashed out to dull their shine. I think abra got her shine from her grandpa just like danny did.
One issue in the drinking issue is that did Jack actually drink in the movie. We assumed he actually drank ghost liquor.
I always assumed he'd brought booze with him secretly and the hotel picked up on this and goaded him into thinking he was justified in indulging. The hotel didn't provide him with the liquor. Just the green light to drink it. Same with everything..
We can't bring enough liquor for a long winter in a beetle. 🎅@@davidsavage5630 We can't bring enough liqour ever. The liquor has always been the caretaker. ☃
He said he would trade his soul for the drink.
If Jack did bring alcohol with him, he still would have to carry the bottles to the bar, which he never did.@@davidsavage5630
Sounds like you're recovering very nicely! I hope you're feeling great.
I have a theory that TONY is actually TONY the TIGER -- the Character / Mascot from the 'Kelloggs Frosted Flakes' cereal that kids love as absorbed into the mind of Jack subconsciously -- the disembodied spirit of the cartoon character that has got into Jack's head. Youll note that Jack never once acknowledges TONY as he's unconscious to Jack (only apparent to Wendy). Because his kid Danny loves TONY he has this subconscious image / idol he subconsciously believes that he must become like TONY -- in order to be worthy of his kids love and attention. Danny loves cartoons / roadrunner / Dopey / Tom and Jerry etc and is always giving them his undivided attention. He has to be funny and have those mascot style 'one liner's from the TV commercials in order to compete. Thats why Jack talks like that all the time in a kind of 'cartoon character exaggerated style' throughout the story - he's trying to act like a cereal mascot from a 70's cereal commercial to impress his son. But in reality his attempts to become like a cartoon character are making him 'larger than life' -- and too much / too scary and imposing. Like when he looks down over the maze as a kind of godlike figure. Tony is a fictional character -- noone can live like a fictional character in the real world -- only in our imagination. -- but Jack is trying to subconsciously / unaware he's doing so -- because he believes he's not enough as he is. His kid needs something more 'impressive exciting and powerful' like tiger with great vitality and full of life -- and zinger 'one liners' to be worthy of his love and attention. Jack feels he has to be this way to earn his sons forgiveness -- for hurting him one time and he cant forgive himself for. He needed to be more like TONY -- a big harmless teddy bear / tiger who is able to control his animal urges and desires to lash out and attack -- he loves you and would never hurt children. hes fluffy and nice and powerful without being harmful. 'everyone loves TONY' and so why cant he be more like TONY. Not reminding himself that TONY is just a cardboard box mascot / a paper thin useless image that's there to sell sugary cereal to children. and his son Danny doesnt want a cardboard cutout for a father -- but a real one. who he can touch and hug and be real with. I dont buy the abuse backstory -- I agree with you and think you are spot on that all the talk about Jacks backstory is designed to make you make a 'leap of logic' into thinking he must be alcoholic and guilty of abuse when he's not -- there's no real evidence of it. I believe it was an innocent mistake and he meant no harm to Danny. The story is playing on our prejudices as a society against 'alcoholic fathers' / domestic abusers. If you think about it -- I think Halloran is the abuser, He's the one who gave ice-cream to the kid. 'I scream' -- hes also the one who tried to manipulate / cross personal boundaries being extremely creepy with a stranger he only just met. You also find that he speaks badly of the family when on the phone later on -- which is rude and showing his real character that he was two faced. Also he has pictures of naked women up in his room and he's an old man -- with no family. Maybe he's the abuser and his marriage broke down because he never grew out of his 'randy teenage boy' persona and grew up. We have more real evidence of his abusive behaviour than Jack.
Other evidence is that jack becomes a literal FROSTED FLAKE in the end. He becomes like TONY THE TIGER. a thing that has no real existence / a stiff lifeless character. He also a flake who gets out of work any chance he can get. So in the end he becomes like his idol -- he achieves his goal of becoming like TONY THE TIGER. but that didnt impress his kid -- in fact it terrified him to have a father who is 'much larger than life' and preying on him like a tiger. A predator trying to show him love / affection like the mascot. His idol was not good. and needed to be dismantled and exposed inside his mind.
In the book Danny's full name is Daniel Anthony Torrence. In the book "Tony " is an older version of Danny. The inoreasion I had was that Tony was Not an adult, but maybe an older kid, or a young teen. Danny retreats into a deep part of his mind and the " Tony" persona comes to the surface to shield Danny. At least that was my interpretation of what I read in the book.
@@deespaeth8180 That's interesting. Thanks for filling me in -- yes I can see that on a surface level that might discount my theory somewhat, but Tony is not just a figment of a kids imagination but each of the characters in the story are also aspects of the main characters psyche (according to story theory .. the antagonist an aspect of the main characters psyche for example). So Danny represents Jack's conscience and Wendy his fears, Dick Halloran his libido (named Dick for a reason). Tony is also an unconscious aspect of Jack's mind that he is yet to acknowledge -- and that subconscious part is interacting with his conscience (Danny). I'm trying to work out what that persona is -- where it might come from based on the evidence in the film. The book I haven't read, but I should obviously look there first.
Who do you think let Jack out of the storage room?
Feels like it's bad enough having Jack injure Danny's arm in a fit of rage. All the darker stuff just seems to be adding more than is really there. Maybe I just don't want to believe that as well.
Crazy seeing you here! Big fan
If the film is about repression, and the mental state of overlooking details, and that when you are staying in that repressed state the details you are suppressing will appear to you as ghosts, then it fits into the Jungean frame work that Kubrick had been interested in. And also would be why he put in many different examples of repression. Such as USA guilt over their native genocide.
“Overlooking details.” The Overlook Hotel. Interesting!
Great observation!
Well if someone says he’s been on the wagon we can assume he’s an alcoholic, it’s just part of the vernacular. People don’t say : « I haven’t been an alcoholic in 5 months ».
Granted, it was Kubrick's film that would lead me to eventually read Stephen King's book. However, Kubrick's movie left a lot out of the book that gives insight into Jack. The first of which is that Jack is an alcoholic because he "shined" as well, and booze was his way of squashing this ability. Although the book doesn't blatantly say this, it becomes obvious.Which leads to the fact that Jack was not hallucinating, nor dreaming, with his encounters with the ghosts of the Overlook--as his own clairvoyance (compounded by his denial of it) made him a target for the Overlook's malicious spirits. Next, was that Wendy wasn't dowdy and awkward, but literally a stunning beauty, that fed into Jack's jealousy and insecurity, that weakening him further. As far this theory presented, at no time during the book, nor the film, nor the mini-series, at no time, did I get the vibe that Jack was abusing (or had abused) Danny in that particular manner. Jack is a character driven insane by his psychic abilities, and his own frailties.
Perhaps the movie tells a different story than the book. It did say that Stephen King and Kubrick had various incorporations of representing the book best. Kubrick could have taken liberties that were not there. There are two movies for the Shining. I think Kubrick's representation is the better scenography-wise. At the same time, King's second attempt could have stayed more faithful to the book.
8:12 - that fade happened throughout the movie, and in the scenes where there was no clue for it to signify anything about to happen after fade to black.
Also overall seeing Danny's tense behaviour and apprehension when speaking with someone as a clue is also not definitive clue due to fact that Danny acted like that throughout every interaction in the movie with anyone who was not Tony. Might be just me but it feels more like Kubrick wanted to show Danny as a quiet and widthrawn boy, alienated due to his superpowers.
Regarding Jack's amnesia - it was pretty much him not wanting to leave the hotel as he have seen this job as a chance to stand on his own legs again.
I do buy that Kubrick was implying something beyond the obvious in the "fatherly love" scene. If it were just violence, I don't think he'd have the scene play quite so creepily. I don't know if I buy Agar's full theory about room 237.
The way Danny uses his finger to talk is a sign of dissociation. He doesn't feel comfortable voicing his opinions so he voices them through proxies (think little girls who put their dolls over their faces to "speak" through them). Also, King never implies that Jack sexually abused Danny in the book or even hints at it. What traumatized Danny is that he can read minds at the age of 5. He's aware of things he has no adult context for. Before meeting Dick, he thinks he's crazy and that his parents might commit him to an asylum if he confesses what he hears, so he compartmentalized, using the future version of himself to house his Shine.
Nah. Kubrick would have absolutely had the balls to tackle that subject directly.
Casting for the mini-series, and several other elements of the video production, made Stephen King’s movie comical. Aside from some of the elementary parts of the mini-series, with a very different cast and crew it could have been well done. But it was not. - Kubrick’s movie is absolutely freaky, scary, and it takes the viewer for one heck of a ride! The mini-series might as well have been a Yosemite Sam/Bugs Bunny cartoon.
Around 1980 I worked in a convenience store in a small town and we had Playgirl... although it was marketed to women I don't remember ever selling a copy to a woman. It was always men who bought it (occasionally saying it was for a wife or girlfriend in an unconvincing voice....).
😂
That's pretty funny!
Also, that magazine was very "mild" ... a gay man would probably rather read "Inches" or something more explicit.
@@zoey2868 ....read?
i think jack definitely abused danny, probably hurt him more than once or even just yelled at him a lot - but i agree with you, i don’t think it’s necessarily CSA. jack, as you point out, is emotionally volatile and that can scar a child as much as any physical act.
The mirror's cloud bubble design also has a bathtub shaped wall hanging that just happens to be a painting of water. Also, the phallic symbols in the pattern on the purple carpet in room 237 that all point to the bed I also believe is suggestive.
Um. The guy in the dog suit, it's not a bear, IS from the original source material. He features prominently in a few scenes in the book.
In the book he's a dog but in the movie he's obviously a bear.
237 and its threats are very real. Dick Halloran warns Danny of it and forbids him from going in there. Dick is aware of the evil there and has probably encountered it. Ager doesn't know what he's talking about.
As for Jack's drinking, he says, "I'd give my soul for just one beer!" before opening his eyes to Lloyd at the bar.
He's sacrificed himself at that point. He's given himself over to the eternal cycle of the Overlook, one of sacrifice and murder, specifically of one's family. The Overlook also seems a resort of hedonism and Satanism as seen in the last photograph shown that has Jack presiding. He's the eternal caretaker. He is Satan's caretaker. Whoever Jack is, or whatever he is, possesses all future and past caretakers forever. He is a high priest. Ullman, too, is a high priest, and he knows of what must go on in the winter to be celebrated in the summer.
The Overlook Hotel is most certainly a focal point of evil, a temple of Satanism. It is a very real manifestation of evil. It can't be argued against as the horror was clearly witnessed by Wendy. If everything else is just a metaphor for child abuse, then why is she seeing the nightmares she sees? It's a terrible argument that dismisses what is evident and obvious.
The posters in the boiler room are most likely those put there by the people who tend the boilers from May to November. Why in hell would Jack put posters in the boiler room? The significance of showing Wendy in the boiler room was that she was doing all of Jack's work while he was loafing taking naps at odd hours, pretending to write, and succumbing to the possession of the hotel.
The film still requires funding. Product placement is everywhere in the film. Jack reading Playgirl is certainly funny, but I don't think it is the slamdunk Ager wants it to be.
No, the whole child sxl abuse thing is bogus based from spurious logic. No bueno.
Thanks for noticing the days. Agar's theory never made sense to me, just because the kid is wearing different clothes in the two scenes. Unless we see the character fall asleep, have a dream, and wake up (as in Alice in Wonderland, normally), or some character in the movie explains that it was a dream to our satisfaction, I am not a fan of "it was a dream" explanations.
One thing that may or may not be relevant as to whether Jack only hurt Danny once:
Wendy says after Jack hurt Danny, Jack quit drinking. She then says he hasn't had a drink in 5 months.
In contrast, when Jack is talking to Lloyd, he says the incident happened years ago.
So that points to Jack still drinking long after he hurt Danny's arm. So does that mean when he quit drinking 5 months ago that he stopped after a separate incident where he hurt Danny?
A well-reasoned and balanced look at the theory. Thanks for that!
Just like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction or CS Lewis asking why is a raven like a writing desk, there is no answer. It’s the artist messing with you.
Lewis Carroll
Because Poe wrote on both.
Interesting in the analysis cottage industry that has grown up around Kubrick's The Shining is the seeming willingness for some details to be held up as important clues while other dismissed as unintentional, mistakes, red herrings or simply as benign and over-interpreted. Those same details treated in reverse by advocates of another theory or those wishing to "debunk" a theory they don't like.
" *These* details show Kubrick was an obsessed perfectionist creative genius but *those* details are completely inconsequential nothingburgers and/or mistakes."
People who make theories about this movie always point out how deliberate and meticulous Kubrick was. However, they simultaneously seem to forget that someone that deliberate and meticulous ould make sure the audience picked up on something if they wanted it to be picked up on. Jack’s alcoholism is a great example. As you pointed out it’s never explicitly stated. However, it is heavily implied, and nearly everyone who watches the movie picks up on it. If Kubrick wanted to get a specific point regarding abuse across, he would have done so I do believe there is a lot of evidence to support the theory. The magazine in particular is pretty hard to refute. However, I believe that if Kubrick himself was aware of the interpretation, he merely put it in to unsettle the audience on an almost unconscious level.
"As you pointed out it’s never explicitly stated"
For anyone who knows an alcoholic it's plenty explicit.
You don't say "he's been clean for x months" unless they had a serious drinking problem before that.
The ambiguity of Kubrick's version is what makes it superior to King's original story. After all , we wouldn't have video's like this all over the net analyzing and having all these theories on it.
Does anyone know where I can watch the miniseries? I can’t find it anywhere. Even on Amazon prime, except buying copies of the DVDS.
This is one of those films where a Director's commentary would definitely be beneficial.
My personal opinion is that Jack isn't an abuser, but he does have that darkness in him. I think he knows it, and I think he knows everyone else sees it. And when he accidentally hurts Danny it gets to him, not just from the guilt of hurting his son but the shame of proving everyone right. He's trying to be a good dad, wants to be one, but he has to keep fighting that dark self. And it's that dark self that the Overlook is feeding and exploiting.
But that's just my interpretation
Jack broke dannys arm in a rage. He is an abuser
@ConnorNotyerbidness I don't think he did it intentionally though. If it's a genuine accident that's bad, but not abuse.
I disagree. I think that Jack sexually abused Danny.
Your interpretation is correct. That is all that is ever implied in the story but sick idiots who like thinking about Danny getting se-lly abused keep this garbage argument going for their own sick amusement.
Jack wasn’t even an abuser. He hurts Danny ONE time when he’s drunk. The movie and book are about the spirits and n the house appealing to and drawing to that dark past of jack that’s still inside.
Nothing more.
I've only watched the movie all the way through twice, but this is also how I interpreted it both times. Just a note, having an alcoholic parent is very damaging and the behavior that is a result of the drinking is still abuse. Abuse doesn't have to be physical , it can be mental and emotional too.
2001 isn't the only Kubrick film that was made to have different meanings to different people.
Yes. Made to be interpreted differently by the individual viewer. Exactly why there are all these different perspectives or theories.
@@scott69e Yeah. Funny however how nobody's picked up on how Bill mixes up the 2 places the Party and the House in his last scene with Ziegler in Eyes Wide Shut.
Personally I've always thought the best thing was just talking about Danny's loss of innocence
I just read the book for the first time and got the impression that when Jack broke Danny's arm, it was something brand new and shocking. He'd not been exactly father of the year before, but the physical violence just overwhelmed him for what seemed to me to be the first time. In the end I felt like that was the first time the Overlook got to him in any meaningful way and it was downhill from there. I am no Stephen KIng expert or horror genre expert, though, so I very well might have read it wrong.
This theory falls apart when you realise that Jack doesn't exist. He never did.
Some thoughts on your own : your counter arguments to this theory seem to be based around the assumption that, IF the Ager theory is to be believed, that the film indicates this encounter happened once, in the caretaker apt On (whichever day..)
I would theorize that if you choose to indulge this theory (which does have more compelling evidence than most fan theorieS, IMO), this is something that has been
ONGOING, starting well before the family came to the overlook, before the start of the film, and continuing well after MONDAY-into-WEDNESDAe. I think that if the film is presenting this theme, it’s likely suggesting that as a PART of the abuse Jack is engaging upon Danny, and what we spot are not specific references to to one specific incident, but rather clues for us (and for Wendy, and Jack ultimately), as they each acknowledge, reconcile or dismiss the realization of this abuse. For me, it certainly could be argued either way, but there IS a
Thoughtful amount of subtle clues, all culminating in Wendy walking in on the Dog-man, which happens at the precise moment She seems to finally confront the truth about her husband, and for once,
She looks right at it, unable to push it away or make another excuse.
My favorite film. And it’s because of the incredible amount of layers and ambiguity. But the labyrinth theme is what makes me believe that Tony was also influencing Jack. When they went to the hotel, they entered JACK’s mind and saw all of HIS imaginary friends. They Labyrinth scene is when he realized he had this power
Well, I will say one thing about the shape of the vanity mirror matching the shape of the tiles on the bathroom floor in Room 237: do we really believe Kubrick said "I don't like the shape of the vanity mirror in this room. I want it to match the design on the bathroom floors."? Or, is it more likely that the theme of the Overlook Hotel decorations preexisted Kubrick's choice of that place as the set for his film?
I'm starting to think the doco Room 237 - a favorite of mine - needs a sequel. ButI think people are missing the bigger picture, and that is, simply, to start making the thematic and visual connections between Kubrick's various films.
I think one specific bit of evidence pretty much locks it down for me: the tennis ball. There is absolutely no way that Kubrick did that on accident. All the other things are creepy and set doubt, especially the lap scene. So creepy. But the tennis ball is basically the smoking gun. It's way too obvious.
i just don't like trying to theorize the ghosts away in a movie where people can communicate telepathically
Great content. Enjoy watching your analysis.
What’s the ‘done things terrible things’ quote from again?
A guy named Joe Girard made a SHINING video called 'EYE SCREAM', in which he notes that there are images in the film which recall the covers of Beatles albums. Danny screaming when Jack axe-murders Hallorann, in the dark of that cabinet lit from the side, resembles the cover of WITH THE BEATLES (i.e. MEET THE BEATLES in America) . . . the arrays of pictures on the hotel lobby's walls resemble THE BEATLES SECOND ALBUM . . . the image of Ullman + Wendy + Jack + Watson walking on the tour of the hotel resembles John + Ringo + Paul + George on the ABBEY ROAD cover . . . and the cover of MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR includes the Fab Four wearing weird animal costumes -- one of which is a Walrus (and, as the song "Glass Onion" from the White Album says, "the Walrus was Paul"). Doesn't the 'Bear-Man' in that upsetting scene in 'THE SHiNiNG' seem to be wearing a costume that stylistically fits in with those strange animal costumes the Beatles wore on that album cover?
The lyrics of the song "I Am The Walrus" contain some sexually suggestive content: "Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess / Boy, you've been a naughty girl, you let your knickers down" . . . "Umpa, umpa, stick it up your jumper / Everybody's got one (umpa, umpa) / Everybody's got one (stick it up your jumper)" . . . Even the baby-words "Goo goo g'joob, goo goo goo g'joob, goo" could be interpreted as references to the 'goo' ejaculated from a penis. And "Everybody's got one" . . . one what? An anus, perhaps? Isn't that what "Stick it up your jumper" seems to be 'aiming' at? Notice that the 'Bear-Man' Wendy sees in that hotel room through its open door has his ass-end 'trap-door' open, as if that end had already been used, or was in anticipation of being used, once the oral stage of the encounter had sufficed as foreplay.
I think that Kubrick had the Bear-Man costume designed to resemble the animal costumes on that MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR album cover. I think Joe Girard is onto something, with these uncanny resemblances of certain shots in the film to Beatles images. He remarks how the Beatles broke up about the same time as the Grady Tragedy occurred, the winter of 1970. Grady has a British accent, even though the hotel is in the Colorado Rockies; the novel suggested that Grady had been a poorly educated man, and certainly never even hints that he could have been from England. The crappy made-for-TV version had an American actor portray Grady.
Just some thoughts . . .
Yeah you're reaching with the Beatles theme. And so is the guy who done the video
Kubrick wasn't an idiot. And the beatles have nothing to do with the film
REACHING as usually. By so many who just can't except that Kubrick never confirmed anything..
Debunk the Wendy theory next.
There were a few scenes that made me see this. First was Jack casually reading Playgirl while waiting for the manager. I think Danny still protected his Dad/abuser and was the one who actually let him out of the store room. I think Kubrick knew that the film would eventually have the ability to be paused and rewound and viewers able to catch a lot of the more sinister undertones that would be missed if you were watching in a theater full of distractions from the crowd. And definitely the infamous Bear scene of course! You can actually watch this 5 x and come away with something different each time you see it. Great video! Cheers ✌
"I think Kubrick knew that the film would eventually have the ability to be paused and rewound" VHS had been around for years already when the shining was released, they could already do that in 1980
I don't know about the meticulous bit entirely. When Jack and Danny are in the flat together there's a bit where you can see Jack both sitting on the bed and in the mirror. In order to get the scene they moved the vanity into the archway then just slapped up a curtain to sort of make it look less weird. Around about 7:35. Might be that the wall is too narrow there, but still looks a bit slapdash.
Or maybe the curtain had to be there to connect Jack's room to the shower curtain in room 237
Very interesting. I enjoyed your video very much. One question, though; during one of your theories, you said Danny had no knowledge of room 237 at all and just pulled it from Hollerans head. Before Danny asked him about that room, didn't he ALREADY have experiences riding his three wheeler past the room?
Rob Ager's theories about the The Shining and the Exorcist being about child abuse say more about him than they do about either of those movies.
The story is a out King's struggle with alcohol. We should ask if any other theories and possibilities add anything to the story or make it better.
The dancing guy when you said you were dancing around words lmaooo
Jack finally gets to be alone, in exchange he loses all the warmth of those closest to him and he dies from the cold. A fitting horror story for a writer or anyone who pushes people away for similar reasons. I think Jacks abuse is mostly emotional, gaslighting, terrorizing and generally cruel etc. Grady himself tells Jack that he doesnt have the heart to do what must be done, and It seems he was right.
In my own opinion, its a tragic tale of a kid dealing with a physically abusive and addicted father who tried to clean himself up, but his habits and isolation drove him back to it, even bringing out his most violent inner demons.
The original story showed Jack was physically abused by his father under alcohol addiction, showing he is repeating trauma.
In doctor sleep, danny has fallen on substance abuse as well due to trauma.
To me the bear scene was just the ghost cheating on his wife with a party goer in a secret affair.
Maybe dannys powers are actually making the ghosts visible?
I think that Jack physically and mentally abused Danny while drunk, but I would hope that Jack wouldn't have done anything worse than that.
"I'm coming, Danny! I'm right behind you!" Then sings about San Fransisco..