This is one of the best analyses of the movie I've ever seen, and strangely enough (or perhaps, not so strangely) how I saw it while I was working with Kubrick on it during the editing. NOT that we ever discussed it! Such was his nature. So much done by suggestion. At the end of the day, the movie can best be described as totally ambiguous: it can be read equally easily either way - Kubrick still leaves in just enough apparently 'supernatural' visions to satisfy the gullible who like to believe in ghosts. This total ambiguity is what makes the film so clever ... and I was working with him the night he cut out a shot of Grady actually opening the larder door (I was the one who actually had to cut it out). So all we were left with then was the sound of the door being unlocked. I remember going home very late that night thinking, that is brilliant. The last element of non-ambiguity gone.
Thank you very much for sharing your experience here. Your comment made my day. You also confirmed something I'd long suspected regarding the decision not to show Grady unlocking the door.
@@warpaintdubz i was about to mention this. The wendy theory. Its really spot on! After seeing the wendy theory all the other theories crumble to nothing
Cool! I think, though I could be wrong, that you did a bit here or there in a Kubrick documentary? Could swear I've seen you somewhere. Though I guess you could have shown up in any number of places, being in the industry. I get a kick out of those parts where they show folks doing their thing in the editing process. Especially if they get some older footage where everything is razors, negatives, and very steady fingers. That's the only kind of editing I understand. 8mm back in junior high. Very bad jump cuts and very novice stop motion....ended up with a grand total of ~6 seconds of claymation...and knew I was no threat to hollywood...
The only thing that offends me here is that you think Jack is a subpar writer. Have you ever read "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"? Sure some critics say it is repetitive but it's gold, gold I tell ya!
@@robfalgiano allow me to pontificate. I think Jack was pointing to what Josef Pieper was digging into in Leisure: The Basis of Culture. Except Jack was selfish and only thought about himself, willing to murder all forces that got in the way.
Joel Kotarski I regret that I am unfamiliar with the work you’ve referenced. We know what Jack is thinking about because she showed up in room 237. But then it all went to hell, literally. Poor guy can’t even lasciviate without damnation. Lasciviate is not a word (yet).
All Kubrick movies are worthy of endless discussion. Barry Lyndon is one of my faves. It basically tells you everything you need to know about how the world has worked and always works. Power and money. Shysters and conmen running the show. Yet what it costs them is too high.
The problem with Danny seeing the sisters as being his imagination is off, because the sisters are mentioned in the interview, but Danny is never told of their existence--it seems a really long coincidence that he would happen to imagine exactly that.
I'm more partial to the ghosts theory but I think there's *sort of* a reply to your objection. Ullman mentions Charles Grady's daughters being 'eight and ten'. However the girls actually seen by Danny seem to be perceived by most people as being twins (I'm not arguing whether they are or aren't). The point is, I think it fair to say, that they don't appear to exhibit that age gap. It's one instance of several doublets in the film that don't neatly line up. Other examples of this would be the woman in the tub: when she becomes the hag and starts walking toward Jack, we have another, seemingly simultaneous, shot of a *similar* but not identical woman lying in the tub. Another example of this would be the Charles-Delbert pairing. To return to your point: the coincidence remains but, being fair, what Danny sees doesn't entirely align with the account provided by Ullman.
the shot of blood itself. danny is shown a vision of blood coming from elevators. how did he correctly imagine the elevators from a hotel he has never been to?
@@divyanshusoni1907, In the new (2023) documentary, Kubrick by Kubrick, he was being interviewed and he made the comment that the genius of the book was that there was a possibility that everything was a product of Jack’s mind and that made the reader more likely to accept the “ghosts” in the novel. He then was asked by the interviewer, “You can interpret the evil influences of the Overlook as the product of Jack’s mind……” Stanley cut in, “I interpret the story as being real. For the purposes of the story, I accept that everything in the story is true.” My interpretation of that exchange was that Kubrick very much wanted that ambiguity to come through, but that he came down on the side of the evil existing independent of Jack Torrance.
We do not know what Danny and Wendy were or were not told off-camera. Simply because we are not spoon fed every detail does not mean we cannot draw inferences. That's what this whole video explanation is about: analytical thought and deductive reasoning. Several different inferences are addressed in the video presenting the Wendy Theory.
There were two Gradys = '20s Delbert and 1970 Charles There were two Caretakers = Jack Torrance and his '20s double in the photo ^^ *THIS* ^^ is the key to the Overlook Hotel's power. Without a recognition of these two parallels, the story won't be adequately understood.
If you read the book which is a great book not a mediocre one, this IS the ultimate ghost story and the Kubrick adaptation which is a great movie, it's absolutely clear THERE ARE ghosts in the movie. Who opens the door to Nicholson when he is in the kitchen pantry? Of course this hotel is full of ghosts that's the beauty of it
After he escapes, there was a second shot following Jack's walk through the kitchen with the axe and it showed the freezer pantry again. The theorized "second door" that was behind the shelves of food was untouched. Your theory is suggesting jack would have escaped the second door, re-entered through the main door, and replaced everything exactly how it had been on the second door for whatever reason. Just doesn't seem as probable as Grady or Danny opening the door for him.@@Sweeney-Kubach
Kubrick himself explained that the photo actually suggests that Jack was a reincarnation of an earlier official at the hotel, which makes sense when going back to his conversation with Grady in the bathroom, where the butler tells Jack that he has “always been the caretaker”.
It would also explain why Jack told Wendy that, when he first arrived, it felt as if he'd been there before--that it was almost as if he knew what would be around every corner.
It's also works if you view that character as representing something - or having an attachment to something great. Its not that he was literally there before, either directly or through rebirth, but "he" was always there. Sort of like a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" setup, for example.
@@RANDO4743 I was responding to the original post, and agreeing that the ambiguity in Stanley Kubrick's movie, which has fuelled multiple different theories about it since it's 1980 release, means it isn't limited to one single interpretation.
The fact that Jack eats that bacon strip while looking at Wendy the way he does, it gives me the shivers. It really is a peek into things to come. "Little PIGS let me come in..."
@@WowLynchWow Right?!? I never caught that, either... but it did always feel like a million things are happening under the surface in that scene; same as Jack's interaction with Danny in the same room, when he goes to retrieve his toy. Btw - you helped me through _Twin Peaks: The Return_ once I finally saw it. Great channel!
Jack didn't like it when Wendy said, "it's just a matter of settling back into the habit of writing every day". It's just basically telling Jack that he hadn't done shit and lazy. He manifested his expression through sarcastic smile while eating the bacon strip.
Or the fact that after what she says he’s basically saying you have no idea what you’re talking about.. like how to write a novel.. check out “Wendy’s theory” and get back at me...
I think it's scarier with both ideas. Imagine losing your mind while simultaneously being haunted by ghosts. It would almost be comforting to know you're exclusively going insane. But to think you're going insane, only to find out it's actually ghosts. I dunno. In that situation I'd wish to go back to the comfort of being a fruitloop.
The two Grady's and the two Jacks would possibly explain the ending of the credits where you hear the audience clap and walk out (see 36:01 of this video ). A wild guess would be that the Grady's , Jack's and the audiences are reincarnations and/or parallels. We who are in the audience are reincarnations and/or parallels of the movie audience at the end of the credits. Could the number 42 for 1942 be the Final Solution. An euphemism for the Holocaust . Hence the Holocaust genocide could be a reincarnation and/or parallel of the Native American genocide. If there is any Fredrich Nietzsche experts please help out. I thought the Nietzsche believed that the universe ALWAYS existed ( hence in the movie, "you were always the undertaker " ! ) . Also time was in a continues loop, but history didn't repeat itself exactly, ( I tried to find this concept but cant find it ). Each time the loop would be slightly different ( which explains the different names...etc ). My guess is that Kubrick centered this movie on the ideas of Nietzsche. Also where you see Jack in the picture holding his hands like the Baphomet from the Tarot Cards. The Baphomet according to some sources represents a balance. Baphomet is a symbol of balance in various occult and mystical traditions, the origin of which some occultists have attempted to link with the Gnostics and Templars,[4] although occasionally purported to be a deity or a demon.[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet . Again I am no Nietzsche expert, but I noticed some possible connects to Nietzsche in the movie. Is the " balance " of the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy. Could his thoughts on Perspectivism explain the continuity errors in the movie ?? Nietzsche claimed the death of God would eventually lead to the realization that there can never be a universal perspective on things and that the traditional idea of objective truth is incoherent.[137][138][139] Nietzsche rejected the idea of OBJECTIVE REALITY, arguing that knowledge is contingent and conditional, relative to various fluid perspectives or interests.[140] This leads to constant reassessment of rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[141] This view has acquired the name perspectivism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche Again I am no expert so please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore I think that there are ghosts in the movie that exist due to space / time overlapping. They are ghosts but not in the traditional sense. They are not spiritual beings but SOME KIND meta physical being. You got physics and then you got QUAUNTUM PHYSICS !!!
SOLID. And Haloren probably intuited (unconsciously) that this family would not endure the isolation, especially when the storm had them feeling truly locked in. Often people reporting special psychic abilities are actually just good at reading others but it's actually easier for them to believe the stories passed down from their grandmothers.
Kubrik's comment is very often cited and equally taken out of broader context. This is Kubrick's "ghost story" in the sense of it being sourced from such; however, in typical Kubrick fashion, there's much more going on with the film than meets the eye (as Rob Agyr is famous for analyzing in multiple ways in his film analysis videos). The movie can legitimately be perceived as having several equally valid layers of in-narrative reality, including ones where there isn't any supernatural influences at all (Ex: The Jack Is Insane and Imagines "X" Scenes; Danny Is Troubled and Imagines Much of This; and The Wendy Theory, all of which operate on the premise that nothing supernatural is occurring and what we, the audience, perceive as supernatural is just the hallucinations/imaginings of one or more of the characters.) However, WLW's overview/analysis is dismissive of the other analyses which work just as well relative to the surface layer wherein the supernatural, as-presented, is the obvious facet of the story. (WLW is confusing/conflating certain layers of directorial finessing of the narrative perspectives as being absolutely definitive, which is far from the case.)
Always. I saw an interview with Stanley Kubrick where he said you’re not sure if it’s supernatural until you hear the door unlock when Jack is trapped. Then that’s when you know it’s supernatural.
Some people twist themselves into pretzels trying to “”prove”” theres no ghosts or anything supernatural in this movie. Like most Kubrick movies, its fairly open-ended. Trying to demand with absolute conviction that people recognize your interpretation as factual is pretty misguided imo.
I appreciate the effort, and agree that Lloyd and Grady may be figments of Jack’s imagination but I’m not sure that means there’s nothing supernatural at work, and it seems like you’re cherry-picking certain scenes but ignoring others. For example how did Danny know about room 237. There hadn’t been a single reference to it before his conversation with O’Halloran. Sure, there might have been instructions that they shouldn’t enter any of the rooms, but why does O’Halloran seem so afraid of that room when Danny asks about it. And of course the final shot of the 1921 New Year’s gala indicates there’s something supernatural... I disagree that Kubrick would go through the entire movie to say there’s no ghosts just to contradict himself in the final shot... David Lynch might, but not Kubrick.
I agree ScoTT, Danny seeing the twins when didn't know about them, or Jack seeing the caretaker, barman or old lady who died in the bath, with no previous knowledge of them, shows they 'are' either ghosts or demons. I think this is a very blinkered analysis missing a lot of facts, cherry picking indeed.
Yup....but some even better questions, if there is no Grady, no ghosts then who let's Jack out of the pantry? Who spills the avocado crap on his jacket? And Danny also has a vision early on of him hiding in the cupboard screaming the moment the cook is murdered. That's enough proof that this is all real. Kubrick uses the same exact shot in Danny's vision
@@andrewrau7516 If I recall he suggests Wendy opened it in some kind of fugue state. *(psst -- the drink Grady spills on Jack is called Advocaat, it's a dutch liqueur made with egg, and gets its name from its alleged use by lawyers, or "advocates" to smooth the throat after doing a lot of talking).
It seems like you started this analysis with the assumption that a story cannot be both a ghost story and a story that is deeply meaningful. Because of that assumption, you never addressed the main question I had throughout the entire video: What difference does it make if there are ghosts or not? How does that change the message of the narrative? How does that change the impact that the film makes on the audience? The dismissive way that you talk about ghost stories tells me that it makes a difference to you, personally, because you wouldn't take a ghost story seriously. But you never explained why someone who doesn't share that bias should care about whether the ghosts are real or psychological/metaphorical phenomena. There are several points in the video in which you say that certain elements of the movie don't make sense--and it's true that they don't make LOGICAL sense, but they make perfect NARRATIVE sense. They make sense as a decision that a director would make in order to achieve a particular effect on an audience. Many details in the movie don't make sense that have nothing to do with ghosts (impossible windows, moving furniture, Danny and his toys teleporting around on the iconic carpet), but they do make narrative sense in that they create a sense of disorientation and unease in the audience. Also, it seems like you've misunderstood the powers that Halloran describes. When Halloran talks about the shining, the main thing that he describes is having a conversation without opening your mouth. Somehow you made the unsupported leap in logic that that should make him omniscient. When you have a conversation with someone, it's a two-way street. You don't know what a person has to say unless they choose to say it. As Danny does repeatedly throughout the movie, he chooses not to speak, either verbally or through shining, and so there's no way that Halloran would know the things that you criticize him for not knowing. The other way that Halloran describes the shining is that it allows you to sometimes see things at different points in time, but there's nothing in the movie to indicate that Halloran believes that someone who shines would be omniscient. He says that people can see some things, but there's no indication that one would have direct control over what they're able to see. Your insistence that Halloran should know everything has no support in the movie. In dismissing Halloran, you've also dismissed his actions in the movie as worthless, when the truth is that he saved the lives of Wendy and Danny. His arrival distracted Jack when he was about to kill Wendy, and he provided the escape vehicle for them to get off the mountain. Even if you assume that the ghosts aren't real and that the two of them would be safe waiting there for spring after Jack died, you yourself talk about the devastating psychological effect that the movie's events would have had on the characters, so I would consider the escape vehicle a necessity for survival regardless of the ghost question. It strikes me as bizarre that you have so much disgust for a man that saved the lives of a woman and child for no benefit to himself.
Thank you, I was looking for this comment. The theory itself isn't the worst thing in the world. Personally, I find it scarier without ghosts, but the way it was presented in this video is very condescening and dismissive of contrary evidence, ESPECIALLY when it comes to Halloran.
Jack only starts seeing ghosts long after his arrival at the Overlook. He doesn't see them right away, proving he only sees them because of his problems : isolation, solitude, can't write his book, Wendy accusing him of hurting Danny. There's no bottle of alcohol at all when Wendy comes back, and the ghost isn't there anymore proving the alcohol and ghost aren't exist. It was in his mind. Jack felt lonely and wanted to drink, and then hallucinated an imaginary friend and alcohol . Lloyd can't be a ghost of the Overlook. The reason why is because Jack doesn't know the people of the Overlook. Why would he say he's always liked Lloyd? Because he's imaging him or a memory of a person of his past. Unless you think he's a reincarnation. Even then, he wouldn't remember his past life. He doesn't remember Delbert Grady who was supposedly always there too. But Delbert Grady is just created by Jack based off Charles Grady. He saw Charles in the 1970 newspapers, Delbert is seen in the 20s ball when Jack has become insane. Delbert is lying when he says he'd always been there, and that Jack's always been the caretaker. Unless you think Charles is a reincarnation of Delbert. That's just Jack thinking that and creating that nonsense because of madness . Jack hadn't always been the caretaker, he's a writer. Delbert is not a reincarnation, it's not even Grady’s real name. Charles Grady killed his family in the 70s, not 20s. Grady wasn't always there. Jack is starting to go mad, he created Delbert to show him the way. Charles, the real caretaker gave him inspiration. Charles got crazy in 1970 because of claustrophobia, cabine fever, not because of ghosts. The ghosts aren't manipulating him to kill his family. It's just Jack's descent into madness. He's injured Danny many times before, he's starting to hate Wandy. He thinks Danny wants to protect his mother. He becomes so crazy that he thinks Danny should get killed too. But, I don't think he wanted to kill at first, only wanted to kill Wendy. The Shining is the story of a man that's going into madness because of his problems. The story of a mad man, an abused disturbed kid and a ghost story and horror film addict wife. There's no other explanation it's there. The picture at the end is just an hallucinating image of what went down inside Jack's mind after Grady told him he'd always been the caretaker. When Jack was in the gold room, hallucinating the party, the same song played. That wouldn't be the first time we see how Jack thinks. When Jack looks at the maze, he sees people moving in his mind. I think that's a better idea of what the film should be about. The idea of showing how crazy people can get, the power of the mind. Instead of a hunted hotel like the Ametyville horror.
@@womensfacesarethedefinitio2806 Jack not seeing ghosts right away doesn’t “prove” there aren’t ghosts. It suggests a possible alternative interpretation, but in and of itself doesn’t prove anything.
One is free to interpret the movie in any way they like, but I'm starting to become a bit annoyed by people trying to pass of their own ideas and interpretations as being those of Kubrick's. Kubrick himself answered to a direct question in an interview with film critic Michel Climent who remarked that it was "funny" that Kubrick in the interview put heavy emphasis on the supernatural as Jack's behavior (to Climent) seemed to be because of solitude, lack of booze etc. Kubrick replied that the psychological aspect of the movie was misdirection and that the "supernatural events are actually happening". Kubrick also stated that neither Danny nor Halloran had "perfect" ESP as there in that case would be no story and that failure of communication is a common theme in his movies. Parts of the movie is certainly open to interpretation, but the basic premise of the story isn't. The creator of the video for example tries to explain away the ESP capabilities which, as I pointed out above, was perfectly explained by Stanley Kubrick. The hoops and the attempts to inject things that aren't in the movie falls flat on its face. Again, everyone can interpret the movie in any which way they want. Kubrick himself explained the premise of the story, that the psychological aspect was misdirection and that the supernatural events are actually happening; Danny has ESP as does Halloran but their capabilities arent't perfect and the hotel is haunted. That's the corners of the story.
Very well said. I like hearing different theories. But this guy seems like he’s trying too hard to deny ghosts. Besides, the absurd thing is denying Danny has the power to shine is to ignore the title of the movie itself. It’d be like going through great lengths to explain how elves don’t really exist in the movie Elf.
The brilliance of Kubrick is that all the theories are accurate; the Wendy theory, this one, the metaphor for the federal reserve and capitalism corrupting the common man, the ghost story,, the theory that the hotel is sentient and wants Danny’s power, etc. this film is Shakespearean in its depth and which narrative you subscribe to depends on you’re perspective. Bloody brilliant.
I love people's different perspectives of this film. It's everything you want it to be while not being anything you thought. The ultimate enigma. A true masterpiece that only gets better within the depths of our minds.
Can you prove that Danny wasn't hearing Hallaren's voice inside of his head when he asked Danny if he'd want some ice cream? I don't think Hallaren was only trying to prove that he knew Danny likes ice cream. The point is the conversation itself without either having to say anything out loud.
I think the communication between Halloran in Miami and Danny, and Delbert warning Jack about it, pokes the biggest hole in this theory. I think it’s believable that there isn’t any ghosts - I don’t think there is myself. But the shining kinda has to exist in the narrative for anything to make sense. To explain away all the shines in the movie takes a lot of extrapolation that gets harder and harder to believe. And as for the visions they all see in the hotel, I think it’s most probable that, like Halloran said, it’s the building itself shining these visions to them Also the picture at the end is meant to imply that Jack wasn’t just reincarnated but that he was absorbed into the history of the hotel.
Yeah he says it's not far-fetched that Halloran would simply know that a kid would like ice cream, but that's not all that happens. He doesn't just offer Danny ice cream, there's a really weird unsettling moment where he seemingly communicates the idea telepathically to Danny, and Danny definitely acts like he was able to receive the "message". Why does the film emphasize Danny's reaction in that moment, if nothing's really happening? And when they have their conversation later, it doesn't come off like Halloran is just a crazy person and Danny is just nodding along, Danny seems to understand what he's talking about.
Well, I imagine that one of the scariest experiences in life must be the inability to tell the difference between what's real and what's going on in one's head, so leaving things deliberately ambiguous is much more unsettling than coming down on either the side of 'ghosts are real' or 'it was all in his/her head'.
Interesting interpretation. I enjoy hearing how other people interpret films. My interpretation of the Shining is that the hotel itself is the "ghost." That it feeds on people giving in to their evil desires and it tries to make that happen with who it can. So all of the conversations Jack has is the hotel trying to push him into a murderous rage and after he is killed, the hotel claims his soul and adds him to its list of victims/residents forever, which is why we see him in the photo at the end.
Kubrick said himself that you're supposed to think the ghosts might be in Jack's mind until Grady unlocks the pantry door. But you're free to believe anything you want since the truth is it's just a movie.
Good call. And if Grady doesn't exist then who spills the avocado crap on his jacket? I've never been looking for this so I haven't ever noticed but I'm definitely going back and paying very close attention to his jacket after Grady's little accident, because if there is any sign of even the lightest stain on his jacket then this guy's theory is wrong.
The video says it's Danny who could have let Jack out of the pantry, that Jack is actually talking to Danny on the other side, not Grady, manipulating him to give him another chance. Danny does, runs back upstairs to mom while Jack is probably looking for the ax to take back upstairs. That or the whole sequence of events takes place in Wendy's head, but I find the Wendy theory is kind of dumb and would cheapen the whole story. "It was all just someone imaging it" is a really lazy twist.
hallorann's trip wasn't for nothing, though. he dies right away, yeah, but if he hadn't arrived, wendy and danny would not have had a way down the mountain (his vehicle).
I guess that matters for their peace of mind, but Jack freezes before finding his way out of the maze so theoretically they would have been just as safe just going back into the hotel
@@zanderrose Hallorann's distraction gave them the time they needed to get to the maze. Then they needed to get away as they wouldn't want to stay at the hotel with them clearly spiraling out of control mentally. This is all assuming there's no spirits, their in a bad place psychologically and need out asap. If there is spirits they'd be utterly screwed. They need out either way. I believe there is spirits, as Kubrick, in his own words says Delbert Grady let Jack out, therefore there is a supernatural presence that can't be denied.
@@loiswells3062 structurally, for the audience that would work, but the story was about the supernatural, and needed supernatural to intervene against supernatural
I'm willing to believe there are no ghosts in the Shining, but no Shining in the Shining? I suppose its just a coincidence that Danny and Holorand both seem to "Shine" at the same time, AND that is the exact moment Holorand just happens to realize Wendy and Danny are in danger, and he needs to go save them, which happens to be the exact moment Jack snapped. And Danny having a vision of the twins that Jack just learned about, that was a coincidence too. As well as Wendy and Danny BOTH having visions of the elevator full of blood. I could go on and on, but this theory is b.s.
I agree. He presents his theory well but you can see how brittle it is under scrutiny. And he basically hand-waved away Jack being in the picture on the wall, which was clear proof of some kind of paranormal activity.
@@greekthejimmy4107 I got the impression the guy who made this video was/is a lawyer, or maybe a used car salesman. He tries very hard to sell you the theory, even when he knows deep down it makes no sense for you to buy it.
A lot of mental gymnastics involved with this theory but still an interesting one. Labeling any plots that don’t support this theory as “red herrings” was convenient. What if the plots that support a “no ghosts” theory are the actual red herrings? It’s all subjective. The person involved with co-writing the screenplay with Kubrick said they intentionally wrote it to be impossible to determine if paranormal is actually involved. We’re chasing an enigma that is impossible to solve.
"I mean, sure.. he randomly guessed his nick name was doc, and that was based on no prior knowledge. But I am going to brush that off because he verbally spoke with him after that instead of continuing to shine."
Shining doesn't mean you're completely psychic. It doesn't mean you know every detail about a person. He knew to be wary of 237 because Halloran was and Danny asks him why he's afraid of it. In Jack's interview the guy said Grady killed his family in one of the rooms. It's implied the murders happened there though it's not necessarily the case. Halloran also says the hotel shines, as it's a character itself. Very interesting detail about Jack's hand on Danny's shoulder and that same one being torn! I also never noticed the 5 months vs 3 years ago line regarding Jack's possible abuse. That's a huge detail! And yeah if you ignore the book and how the Overlook is a character itself, there is no other explanation. Good video!
@@michaelbrownlee9497 it's interesting imo if you go with the theory that Jack is the one who injured Danny. He squeezes Danny's shoulder when he's on his lap then it's the same shoulder with the injury and ripped collar. I think it's mentioned that that's the same one he injured the first time
@@LightingInvoker wendy mentioned the injury too a doctor as she was concerned about danny. The doctor was questioning dannys history if he incured any trauma and some....well just watch that scene, paying attention to kubricks attention to detail regarding props. My question was why did you think that image was important, jack with his hand on dannys shoulder.
That you think Stephen King's The Shining is a "simple ghost story," reveals that you didn't study the book a fraction as carefully as you studied the film. The book is about demons not ghosts, and they manifest themselves in the forms of alcoholism and abuse. In this way, Stephen King also wrote a story about allegories and paranoia, just not in the same way that Stanley Kubrick directed it. The Shining is a very rare case of author and director shaping the same story in their own brilliant ways. However, primary kudos will always go to Stephen King for creating the seed and not just cultivating it.
@@lcthepianta what? All he said was that the book was different than what this video says it is. He never even denied the main idea of the video, all he said is that there is more to King's book than ghosts.
Having read the vast majority of King's stories including the book about his writing process 'On Writing' I can tell you now, without reservation that King just isn't capable of the depth and planning that Kubrick brought to his work. King just makes his books up as he goes and it shows in the disappointing endings to the majority of his stories (The Dark Tower in particular is insultingly bad) which never deliver on the promise of his beginnings. King may have written a ghost story about an alcoholic but to say that it's filled with "allegories and paranoia" gives it too much credit. It's a good story but Kubrick took it, ran with it and gave it a depth and subtlety it never had in print. Rummy didn't analyze the book as carefully as the film because there isn't much to analyze. It's a ghost story about a hotel. That's all. The sequel 'Doctor Sleep' proves that it was only ever a story about ghosts and magic powers, which is fine but much less interesting.
Wait... the Shining doesn't have shining in it? Or ghosts? I don't believe your interpretation is as air tight as you seem to think it is. I still enjoyed the analysis nonetheless though.
Fair enough. I'm not necessarily looking to change anyone's mind. The viewing experience and interpretation thereof is a personal matter. I do, however, hope to shed some light on the main point here, that I believe any perceived supernatural occurrences have zero impact on anything that happens in the story, and that each instance of such can be explained in a rational manner. Thanks for watching, and thank you for the feedback.
@@WowLynchWow Kubrick and Lynch’s work lend themselves to so much different kinds of interpretations and I love hearing different ones from other hardcore fans even if I don’t necessarily agree. Been following you since you started and I look forward to more content.
@@WowLynchWow maybe I just haven't made it that far into this video, but if there is no Grady, no ghost, then who unlocks the pantry door and lets Jack out?? Wendy?? It's pretty safe to say that after what just happened between Jack and her she's not letting him out, and who spills that nasty stuff on his jacket?
All the odd stuff in this movie should be attributed to Kubrick's artistic style of filmmaking. All his films, especially the later ones were sprinkled with some strange stuff and odd imagery, that doesn't mean all of his work has secret underlying meanings, it's just the Kubrick style, nothing more. Kubrick, as most of his fans know, was eccentric and had a taste for weirdness. Full Metal Jacket is full of odd stuff. The best example of this is his final film Eyes Wide Shut, that one is jam packed with weird stuff and odd imagery, so much so that it gives that film an extremely spooky feeling, but once again, that was just his style. Eyes Wide Shut is even more weird and unsettling than The Shining.
Something I forgot when I argued the shine is real. If the shine is not real then how did the cook know to come all the way back from Florida, risking getting snowed out? cause he recieved a powerful image from the boy who can communicate telephathically over great distances. If Kubrik said there was nothing supernatural, then he contradicted himself in his own script. If there are no ghosts, then each family member is hallucinating on their own. I think Kubrik just said that to mess with people's heads.
Regarding Halloran’s ESP ability: When he asked Danny if he wanted ice cream, he did that in a soundless mind-to-mind communication and. He did it simultaneously to having an external oral conversation about the pantry with the Torrances. Go back and watch the scene. His mouth does not sync with the words at all. Also, you assume that a characters psychic abilities run constantly and if they are aware of everything that is going on and everyone else’s minds. Not sure that’s how it works. Also remember that his mind of mind conversations were with his grandmother who also had the gift. They were speaking deliberately into one of his minds. That’s not quite the same as reading other peoples minds, but having your mind spoken into someone with the gift. And as far as not knowing danny’s like for lamb or not, do you think he wants to reveal his abilities right in front of Danny’s ungifted parents? You brush off power and figuring out that Denny’s nickname was Doc without acknowledging the sheer and probability of being able to do so. Likewise, you have Halloran jumping on a plane and flying to Colorado and all the expense and effort of getting up to the overlook hotel is acting on a hunch. Really? A hunch that occurred at the exact same time that the crisis was about to occur at the overlook?
In the case of Dick Hallorann not being able to foresee Jack trying to kill him; it’s actually explained earlier in the film when he talks to Danny. He explains to Danny that his “Shine” isn’t as strong as others, meaning he doesn’t have strong capabilities as others. Danny’s shine was much stronger than Hallorann’s. The only thing that’s odd about Hallorann is that he went to the Hotel alone without any weapon at all. He didn’t even alert the police of what might be happening. This is pretty odd considering everyone’s knowledge of the history of the Overlook tragedy.
I always took it from the book and from the movie that two things were happening at the same time, but neither causes the other. There is something “weird” about the hotel and Jack already having had some issues has a complete mental breakdown the turns violent. It’s more about Wendy and Danny having to contend with both of these things at the same time.
I like the theory that everyone "shines" to a certain extent - children moreso than adults since they haven't learned boundaries and become jaded realists. I get the feeling Hallorann is more experienced and understands looking into people's thoughts is a personal thing so he doesn't just use it constantly. He can tell Danny shines hard, and tries it out with the ice-cream line. He picks up the nickname "Doc" as a stray thought from Wendy. When Danny asks him about 237, that's something Hallorann didn't intend to reveal but Danny reached into his head for it. He is just preparing Danny to understand that there's all kinds of leftover energy he will experience over months in an isolated location where so many bad things happened, symbolized as a psychic metaphorical image of the blood-pouring elevators. But as long as a person knows not to "buy in" that these leftover images shining in their head are real, they are merely "pictures in a book". Most people ignore and put aside the shining ability which is heightened empathy and sensitivity to traumatic past events and a certain amount of clairvoyance which includes the "burnt toast" effect that people who shine are sensitive to - there are no ghosts and this energy "shines" in different people's heads in different ways based on their own knowledge, experience, expectation, and trauma. Danny sees spooky playmates; Jack sees a sexy woman who betrays him. King's other stories indicate shining can also manifest a potential bonus power (Carrie had telekinesis, Charlie in Firestarter has pyrokinesis.) Jack shines, but is a weak-willed individual was self-medicating and dampening it with alcohol. Being sober and in a location with _so much_ burnt toast and social isolation from reality as the Overlook causes him to hallucinate Lloyd and Grady and the party, and he buys in and is seduced because he's so ready to fall off the wagon that he goes right along. Jack also has latent telekinesis, but has never used it. It only manifests when he's humiliated by Grady and _Jack_ unlocks the pantry door with his newly-heightened awareness to solve a problem, similar to the trauma that brings it about for Carrie White. Wendy also shines, but has suppressed it as most adults do normally until the very end of the movie when reduced to hysterics by her husband trying to murder her, and in _her_ mind, ghosts are scary haunted skeletons, her fear that Danny is being molested, and most recently people chopped up with an axe, so that's how she sees the "burnt toast". When she sees the blood elevator that Danny is also seeing, that's the metaphor where she completely understands, as her son does, what's actually happening and what the Overlook is all about.
Unpopular opinion: Kubrick deliberately created a piece with loose and purposefully ambiguous continuity to fuck with his audience and send them on a wild goose chase to find the answer, but maybe there actually isn't one. This film is a fantastic piece of art, so maybe worth seeing it as a piece of art rather than something that needs solving like a mathematical equation. The strength of human intrigue to find answers is incredibly strong, and Kubrick played with that as if it were a cat playing with a mouse, and there lies his genius.
I don't think it is ambiguous at all. I think he made a Kubrick film, with a Horror within. His intention to demonstrate that the supernatural that we imagine can always be explained.
Next video: There are no machines in The Terminator! You’ll notice that Kreese never even mentions the T-800, but instead used the term “cyborg” and “machine” which be just as easily used as a nickname for a man with superior strength. Poor confused Sarah Connor, who later ends up in a mental hospital, goes along for the ride.
While the attempt to demystify the parts of The Shining that can be demystified is laudable, it does seem that you're unduly simplifying the inherent---and intentional---ambiguity of Kubrick's vision. Just as importantly, you've set up a strict "either-or" dichotomy between mental illness and the supernatural that Kubrick doesn't establish at all. It is entirely plausible---not to mention in line with the subtlety of a filmmaker like Kubrick---that the ghosts of the Overlook are drawn to the Torrances *precisely because* they are such damaged and dysfunctional people. Their emotional distress not only draws malignant entities toward them, but makes them particularly susceptible to their attacks or their influence. If a normal, well-adjusted family had been the caretakers, the evil spirits of the Overlook may never have had the opportunity to do what they did with the Torrances. I find this reading not only to be entirely plausible within the framework of the film, but also a richer and more satisfying explanation. In any case, I very much enjoyed your elaboration and close analyses of Jack's abusive behavior and the family dynamics of all three of the Torrances!
well said - and here's my new insight - traditionally with haunted houses,,,, the spirits and ghosts, etc are more overtly aggressive because they feel threatened by the subjects' presence, but here Jack IS an evil spirit - remember he said he knew what would be around each corner - and he wasn't a Shiner like Danny. Also, any apparitions were just there - no one was a target - fear was a by-product
That’s all fair and well but it’s well known that Stanley Kubrick was a man of logic and did not believe in ghosts or spirits so why would he incorporate such themes into his version of events? It seems more logical that this is more of a story of schizophrenia and delusion rather than your basic run of the mill haunted hotel ghost story
Great analysis! I'm from Italy, so the version of Shining I've always watched was the International cut, and I think it fits more with the "no ghosts" theory than the US cut; for example, there isn't no doctor scene, no skeletons, we see Jack drinking only ONE glass, not two, no Wendy and Danny talking scenes etc... I say this because I always saw Shining as a story about a troubled and failed marriage and family, with an abusive father, an abused child and a woman who can't do that much because of the fear she lived while staying with his husband; the visions they had were always in their mind. When I first saw the Skeleton scene, I was disappointed, because, at least for me, it ruined some of ghostly/non-ghostly ambiguous atmosphere of the film, and somehow lead me to believe that there was actually something more goin on. Then I watched the US cut, and it seemed to me like an extended cut of the international version, with definitely more clues than I would ever thought, suggesting that not only these people are going crazy, but also that there could be also something else, while in the international version I always saw this as the failure of a marriage, with people imagining things because of what they've been passing through, not because of some possessed hotel. If you haven't yet, go check out the international version, it's really a different experience. Also, there were a few different shots, like the "no play" scene, which was translated in some countries: ua-cam.com/video/aJZ_PlJSGnI/v-deo.html ). Thank you for reading, and have a great day!
Well. Real and imaginary are not mutually exclusive. (Think number i) I took a course on caretaking and it included residents with delusions. The course said that the delusions are actually real in that they are truly perceived by the patients and actually affect their actions. Yet they are imaginary. But that takes us down a rabbit hole about human consciousness and its ability to replicate reality. I also think that the characters in the film experience a form of retroactive information fallacy. New information is processed by the characters so that they "remember" knowing things beforehand. That's why they get "psychic" information that does not affect the events of the story. Much of this information is conveyed by real, imaginary ghosts.
This is what I love most about this movie, it’s NOT what it seems at all. If you’ve ever known or lived with an alcoholic, and experienced the real life horror they can cause, you know there’s more going on here with Jack and his poor family. As I’ve said often, the alcoholic isn’t there, but we are. Mirrors are just one clue, seeing how he treats Wendy is another. You don’t need to see the best Horror flick ever made to understand that madness and addiction are a lethal combination, but it’s better than living through it yourself, that’s for fuck’s sure!
I found an error. You suggest that Jack abuses Danny again after they sit together on the bed. Danny is wearing different clothes when he sits with Jack on the bed and when his mother finds him after Jacks nightmare.
That's patently ridiculous since Kubrick himself said that he wanted the moment where Grady unlocks the pantry as evidence of ghosts. For all the changes Kubrick made from the book, he still held to the premise of the book. That the spirits there feed on those who shine. The longer Danny remained, the stronger they'd get.
I think basically...Kubrick wanted us to never know the absolute meaning of the movie. it's one of those every reading is true kinda movies! At least, that's how I saw it. I enjoy the movie for not knowing, haha.
There is definitely something supernatural here at play. I think you grossly overlook the fact that the movie is called “The Shining” and this just happens to be the supernatural phenomenon that Danny displays that ends up saving his life. I agree that the idea of ghosts is very shallow, but the movie alludes to a dark demonic energy present in the Overlook Hotel that consumes and exploits the fears and rage of all its caretakers. Also, there is nothing ambiguous about the scene where Danny is being schooled about his ability by Mr. Hallorann and you actually hear his voice telepathically through Danny’s perspective. Lastly, the closing scene that shows Jack’s face in the photo indicates that Jack is somehow deeply connected to the hotel and perhaps has spiritual roots that go deeper than what we actually see in the movie. Maybe Jack is the Yang to Danny’s Shining and all the supernatural phenomena are just the manifestations of his derangement and spiritual connection to the Overlook hotel. The hotel in essence is the physical representation of Jack’s disturbed mind with all its demons, dark corridors and forbidden rooms. This is how Jack is able to escape the room because Jack and the hotel are one and the same and he is able to wield it as easily as he is able to wield his anger and frustrations towards his family.
I think it’s both; The overlook is a haunted place, that also plays with the heads of its guests, sometimes to the point of psychotic breaks for those more susceptible to it if they stay there long enough. Dick Holleran warns Danny about 237, but he isn’t having a psychotic break. So, he knows there’s something goin on there with or without the Torrance’s. There are two distinct moments that suggest actual paranormal activity outside of the heads of the characters; (1) Who opens the walk in storage for jack? (arguably Danny, but the film suggests it’s paranormal), and (2) Jack is in the photo of the 1921 ball at the end. That shot is objective. It’s not the POV of the characters, (like Lloyd the bartender is). Jack and Dick are dead and Danny and Wendy have left. It’s impossible for Jack to be physically in the photo if there isn’t something paranormal goin on, imo.
The two Grady's and the two Jacks would possibly explain the ending of the credits where you hear the audience clap and walk out (see 36:01 of this video ). A wild guess would be that the Grady's , Jack's and the audiences are reincarnations and/or parallels. We who are in the audience are reincarnations and/or parallels of the movie audience at the end of the credits. Could the number 42 for 1942 be the Final Solution. An euphemism for the Holocaust . Hence the Holocaust genocide could be a reincarnation and/or parallel of the Native American genocide. If there is any Fredrich Nietzsche experts please help out. I thought the Nietzsche believed that the universe ALWAYS existed ( hence in the movie, "you were always the undertaker " ! ) . Also time was in a continues loop, but history didn't repeat itself exactly, ( I tried to find this concept but cant find it ). Each time the loop would be slightly different ( which explains the different names...etc ). My guess is that Kubrick centered this movie on the ideas of Nietzsche. Also where you see Jack in the picture holding his hands like the Baphomet from the Tarot Cards. The Baphomet according to some sources represents a balance. Baphomet is a symbol of balance in various occult and mystical traditions, the origin of which some occultists have attempted to link with the Gnostics and Templars,[4] although occasionally purported to be a deity or a demon.[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet . Again I am no Nietzsche expert, but I noticed some possible connects to Nietzsche in the movie. Is the " balance " of the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy. Could his thoughts on Perspectivism explain the continuity errors in the movie ?? Nietzsche claimed the death of God would eventually lead to the realization that there can never be a universal perspective on things and that the traditional idea of objective truth is incoherent.[137][138][139] Nietzsche rejected the idea of OBJECTIVE REALITY, arguing that knowledge is contingent and conditional, relative to various fluid perspectives or interests.[140] This leads to constant reassessment of rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[141] This view has acquired the name perspectivism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche Again I am no expert so please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore I think that there are ghosts in the movie that exist due to space / time overlapping. They are ghosts but not in the traditional sense. They are not spiritual beings but SOME KIND meta physical being. You got physics and then you got QUAUNTUM PHYSICS !!!
How would he manifest seeing the twins if he didnt know the twins were murdered or even existed and why does his mom see the exact elevator blood scene as he did? I think the Wendy theory is the most plausible seeing as literally every paranormal scene that happens can be explained as her psychotic break by see missing furniture and items in all of them. Kubrick is to methodical to accidentally leave out props from scene to scene. But even on top of that i believe its much deeper. Its the Wendy theory and demonic persuasion mixed together. The occultic symbolism cant be explained by mere halucinations from a crazy woman. i recommend checking out the Wendy theory.
@Ian Helgerson I like your comment quite a lot. This was a terrible "analysis" (if repeating "There ARE NO GHOSTS" at least 5 times is analyzing). This person lacks, as I've said a couple of times above, the vital ability to suspend disbelief---sans that, I don't believe one has the capability to enjoy, never mind judge, a novel, a film.
What I understand is that it's a maze (small replica in lobby), in a maze (hotel), in a maze (movie). While trying to make sense of it is really interesting not to say fascinating, it's also completely pointless. As viewers we can't find our way out of the maze and that's what was intended. Brilliant filmmaking!
The scene where he's talking to Grady, you see him making typing motions with his hands. That's where you know he's actually imagining the scene as he writes it.
Sorry dude, but in order to sustain your thesis you have to add things that are nowhere to be found in the film (like Danny opening the door) and ignore things that are definitely there. You didn´t even attempt to account for the last frame where we can see Jack in the photo. Who was hallucinating that? That was clearly put there for the audience´s benefit. The film is pretty ambiguous until the point where Jack is let out by the ghost, that was Kubrick letting us know that is not all in the protagonists´ heads. And just because the movie has ghosts in it doesn´t mean is just a ghost story. Who says you can´t use ghosts to convey a larger message? Have you read Hamlet?
Jack is not a protagonist. Jack appearing in the picture, the ghosts, are all representative of the cycle of abuse and violence. They're meant for your interpretation, but even if there are ghosts in this movie they are in no way relative to the plot. Jack was going to do what he did as soon as he agreed to go out there.
The ghosts are an expression of stephan king's vision. In the book, the hotel was incredibly dynamic to the point of the shrubs cut into animals shapes actual begin to move and attempt to block Danny's escape. Stephan king's vision was that of the super supernatural.
Yeah the Overlook is a character itself. I agree there are no ghosts per-say, but they're a reflection of the hotel affecting their minds (along with the isolation)
@@valentinogal781 different films. Besides thinking the book was "sloppy," Kubric wanted to distill the story down. To simplify it into the elements he thought would make the best movie. For him, that was a man becoming insane...not the backstories and an anticlimactic ending. .
You really think it's that simple? I guess it's all about your perception. But the movie can be way deeper than that, and the director purposely made it this way.
Notice when Tony is talking Doc's finger goes up. When Danny is talking gruffly I believe he's being Jack. When a child is messed with by their parent they can split personalities and this might be what's happening. I think Danny used his mental abilities to help push Jack over the edge. Danny saw what was coming and knew his mom was ill equipped. Look st their apartment, completely uncased by books. She's not a good housekeeper or attentive mother. She hides in all the stories in her books and then in isolation, she finally starts seeing the story that's actually unfolding in her own family. Watch how Jack slides Danny down his front when sitting in their hotel bedroom... The picture of two bears above Danny's bed and the two people in room 237...
I believe that Kubrick wanted us to be unsure. That is how I prefer it, so I neither believe or disbelieve. I only know that I enjoy this film whenever I watch it.
i am shocked about the wendy version. stanley kubrick intentionally had furniture moved and put back, i never noticed things on the shelf like koolaid. these are the things other people saw but not me. or maybe it was supposed to be subliminal. back in 1980 we could not freeze a movie and watch it in slow motion. kubrick's intention had to have been subliminal. i think a very small percent of people would notice the changes in furniture during scenes.
@@lapacesiaconvoi Kubrick was eccentric and quite odd, he did things like move the furniture around and take out parts of the set for one shot and then put them back for the next shot strictly to toy with people, to mess with their heads and nothing more. Kubrick was very strange, but he wasn't doing all of it because of some underlying meaning to the movie, he did this stuff just for the heck of it. And not all of these weird things like moving the furniture around were deliberate, there are definitely continuity mistakes in the movie
he successfully messed with my sorry pate in other films too. i worked the box office when 'the shining' was in theaters. this meant i watched certain scenes more than once, depending on my break . so i thought i was capable of unraveling the meaning of the words on jack's shirt backward in the mirror. anyway now i agree with your theory. he was just getting kicks messing with us.
I like this interpretation but for Jack being freed from the locked freezer. In my opinion, that is actually the _only_ instance of supernatural forces at work. Each of the family members were going mad in their own unique way, and that amplified the horror they "witnessed" in the hotel. But the slight 'pop' of a lock? Just a little nudge to keep them descending further into madness and death? That seems way more like a sinister, compulsive force than anything else that happens in the story.
there's two doors leading to the room Jacks locked in. one round the corner (you can see it when the characters are being shown about the hotel - they exit the freezer, again weirdly through a different door to the one they originally entered in, move up the hallway passing a second door to the right of them - which goes into the storeroom, they turn right around the corner and the main door to the storeroom is visible) this second door is also partially visible behind the shelves as jack is talking to Grady. you'll see the start of a dark vertical shadow and strong colour change in the wall. This door didn't have the dual locks shown on the main door, but all the store rooms had that emergency release mechanism that you see jack rattling. Kubric deliberately chose a fairly obscure release mechanism when overseeing the set designs. there's some entertaining breakdowns of the stylistic choices Kubric made, by Rob Ager on here. covers a lot of stuff, like the nonsensical impossible layout of the hotel, hidden political statements about the US dollar gold standard and corrupt elites...and the specific kind of abuse Danny was experiencing...rhymes with "best".
I concur. To suggest that the door was opened by Danny, for the most part, makes no sense at all. And, we certainly can conclude that Wendy would have zero interest in unlocking the door, given the violent circumstances of a husband gone maniacal. It had to be a supernatural force that physically unlocked the freezer pantry door.
I'm of the opinion that there are no ghosts in the movie at all. The big bad of the movie is the hotel itself, both figuratively and literally. Halloran said that the hotel shines just like him and Danny, which is what allows them to vaguely read minds, but also as a way of tapping into clairvoyance and seeing metaphorical images of the future. I think in this regard, it makes sense as to why Danny sees images that both reflect his personal trauma, and of the horrors to come. But, anyway, if the hotel itself shines, than this makes some of the more outlandish events in the movie make more sense. The Overlook itself is some otherworldly manifestation no one can comprehend, not even the people who built it. It has the greatest shining ability of all, as it not only creates images for those who shine, but perfect physical expressions of people that are virtually indistinguishable from reality. I like to think that the Overlook didn't harm anyone in the movie, like Danny in Room 237. Rather, the hotel made Jack lose his temper in a drunken stupor and abused Danny again. In fact, the only time in the entire movie where it can be seen that the hotel had a physical presence was when Jack was in the food locker. At that point, the Overlook got what it wanted out of Jack. A stupid, angry, lonely man who was too weak to fight against its' influence, and unlocked the cellar door for him. Grady's voice was heard, but I don't think it was actually him. Just another of the hotel's various creations at work.
@@JennifuhhGilardi I think it amplifies the horror in a way. It's both. It's both supernatural stuff and the family going mad. But whereas you can reasonably attribute the ghostly apparitions to stress-induced hallucination (remember: no two family members ever "saw" the same thing), the opening of the door is the only outlier. It's the one thing that is demonstrable evidence of the paranormal. And it's so...idk...specific and situational. I think it seems scarier than the kind of "jump out and boo!" skeletons and stuff near the end 😅
Only 10 minutes in, and I’m totally disagreeing. First off, Danny was speaking to Tony before his dad hurt him. Secondly, the visions of Danny screaming and the elevator blood…it’s not just a manifestations of his feelings. His mother is the one to ‘see’ the blood…and his screaming was due to a death of a man he did not yet know.
you're wrong. And people without critical thinking is the reason the world is in a mess. From religions and all similar scams the world is full of them.
@@sand-attack she says that is the first time she noticed him talking to Tony. It’s not the first time he’s seen/communicated with him, though. He was born with ‘the shining’ ability. He didn’t suddenly acquire the gift from being jerked by his arm.
@@CMinorOp67 I think the implication is that Jack did more than hurt Danny's arm starting around that time, and Danny created Tony as a coping mechanism. I'll have to re-watch the movie to jog my memory, luckily halloween is around the corner so I have a good excuse.
Kubrick would disagree with you - as he himself stated in interviews. He even said that within the hotel is an endless cycle of evil reincarnation. Sounds pretty supernatural to me.
First Last second fave. It was close. His third fave is Hubie Halloween. Even though it came out after he died. That’s what makes it so spooky. God bless you Stanley. Your movies are brilliant.
Actually he made the entire crew watch Eraserhead in preparation for this movie as he wanted to capture a lot of the tone. Its hard to see the similarities but the most obvious one is the old timey music which is reminiscent of the girl in the radiator.
But how does Danny know about Room #237, when he's eating ice-cream in the kitchen with the Cook he asks about it? Danny was not informed of that room by anyone. The only way someone knows a secret is by seeing it or being told it. If nobody told Danny about room#237 and Danny never saw what happened in room #237 how does he know about it? If Danny found out about room #237 by reading the cooks mind, then the Shining powers have to be real. If the "Shinig" narrative is real then the Ghosts have to be real as well.
Another good point made. And if the ghosts aren't real then who let's Jack out of the pantry?? And who spills the avocado stuff on him that stains his jacket
The point the video is trying to make is that there's nothing unusual or remarkable about room 237 in reality. Danny could have just made up some fixation with the room and then went and found the key to snoop it. No one else in the movie tells us that anything unusual happened in 237.
It's implied that, Grady killed his family in one of the rooms, and Halloran is scared of 237, the murder happened in 237. Whether or not that's the case, it's implied. Anyway, Danny knows about it because he shined the info from Halloran.
Probably a good thing this was a Warner Brothers film cause they own the rights to Bugs. Wonder if they added that line into the film just to put Bugs in there as some self-promotion or was that in the original book?
Super insightful perspective on the film! I’m amazed that Kubrick telegraphed the entire story in the first two scenes. Apparently Kubrick was determined to break the entire horror genre in the one horror film he made. What a fearless artist. Thank you for this excellent analysis.
Time stamp 11:10 Its stated its not shown Holloran can communicate with Danny with shining. Except yes they did show it when he asked Danny if he wants ice cream. Just because YOU don't think thats the case doesn't make it so. Its clearly shown in between their conversations. And Grady tells Jack in the Bathroom that Danny is attempting to bring in outside help at that moment. This is a lot of framing and gaslighting to try and make this point.
the shining is about domestic violence and in cest, an abusive alcoholic, thats the film. everything else is just sub plot red herrings and subterfuge.
The "ghost" Dilbert that Jack interacts with in the movie is not the caretaker that killed his family. It is hinted that the "ghosts" he sees are from the 1920s, and that the first murder spree happened then. The other caretakers prior to Jack who committed violence were all hinted to be descendants of the people who were involved in the initial murders in the 1920s. That's why in between there are care takers that had no incidents for stretches of time. Only the descendants are "called back" by the hotel and are provoked to commit violent acts. The picture at the end hints that Jack is another decedent of someone who stayed at the hotel in the 1920s when the initial murders happened. This being said, I agree that the film makes it clear that the ghosts may all be in the characters heads, and that Jack needed no provoking from spirits, just an excuse as he already had resentment towards his family and was already established as being prone to violence. The mere suggestion of ghosts and past murders is just an extra push is an environment that gives him the freedom to delve into his madness. I think the film intentional makes these distinctions vague. I think the films intention is so that the audience never really knows which is the real story. Its the hotel haunted and luring back decedents to commit further atrocities? Or do those decedents have an inherited inclination to violence and the hotel provides them with an excuse? This is the question that arises in real life "haunted houses" like the Amityville house, which I think had a big inspiration for this story. Kubrick likes to explore ideas in his films and this film is basically just a big unanswered question. Are ghost and haunting real or are their manifestations of a suggestion? In order for this to work, the story has to work and make since as both. It is frustrating that the narrator dose not seem to understand the details of the "ghost story" that takes place in the film, and some of the attempt to debunk it, like that different Grady's and time periods, are misinformed. I do agree that with each supernatural occurrence, there is a hint that it could have been imagined, but the story makes since in both reals. The Hotel being haunted and Ghost scenario do work and makes since. So dose the story of the characters all having separate delusions due to the isolation and stress from their real family dynamic. Both stories work. That was the intention of the film.
Also in line with this theory Wendy and another theory that Jack sexually abused Danny could be that the bear suit scene is her realizing that that happened and that she had been ind denial about it up until that point. In fact that who scene of her going through the hotel and seeing ghosts could represent her finally seeing Jack’s inner demons for the first time clearly, woah that makes too much sense
I like art that’s open to interpretation. Especially like this, where there’s almost as many interpretations as there are viewers. I do like the madness interpretation better than the supernatural one. I think, ultimately, it’s scarier… because it can happen. And, while it’s astoundingly unpopular, I like the Wendy theory. I think it’s just as plausible for Wendy to lose her mind being isolated with a husband she fears could harm her and their son.
An explanation why props are missing or placed is because the movie IS us THE AUDIENCE viewing the novel jack is writting based on the story Ullman told him. His movie begans where he gets the idea (staring at the maze). There are points when the novel and reality take turns on screen. Another variation of this theory is that danny and wendy legit go crazy there because of isolation of wendy and danny shinning. Jack is aware of shinning powers from reading on the subject so he adds it to dannys character inspired by danny having toni imaginary friend. Jack changed carles to Grady in his novel to protect the privacy of the guy.
No evidence of Danny shining with Halloran? You mean, the scene where Scatman literally speaks to Danny telepathically? Kubrick doesnt "lead us to believe" there was telepathic communication, he outright shows us there is. I don't see how you can deny this.
I also love the theory that the movie is taking place in the novel Jack is writing. That there is a super secret and quick transition scene that takes us from reality to Jack's book about the haunted hotel.
I've only read the title of this video as I write this. So what I'm about to write may end up not being relevant. BUT...I did just finish watching a recorded interview with Kubrick in which he said: He personally didn't believe in anything supernatural. However, in his film of the Shining there are ghosts, people have visions, people have various Powers. In particular, the hotel is rotten with ghosts, which every member of the family sees, and he made sure that audiences who were a bit slow on the uptake, ie dim as cracked bulb, would understand this by having one of them let Jack out of the locked pantry. Maybe this video's title was being ironic. I hope so. But there are many people out there who insist there are no ghosts, and that they know better than Kubrick, or they have a special "personal' understanding of Kubrick that allows them to know that when he says, "there's a great big fecking bunch of ghosties running about all over the fecking hotel" what he REALLY means is "there are no ghosts". Now I've watched this video: It is such a big pile of cack.
Bro Stanley, in an interview said it’s supernatural.. He says you’re not sure if it’s supernatural until the door gets unlocked where Jack is trapped. That’s when you know it’s supernatural because it unlocks for no reason.
stephen king's work could NEVER be described as 'mediocre'. King's The Shining is an incredibly empathetic descent into madness that takes the reader along for a ride into Jack's slide into insanity. That's where the magic rests...in being dragged along for the ride. Kubrick's work on this film is pure genius, but he WAS improving on perfection. Thanks for making me a lifelong reader (and an English teacher) Stephen King. Reading Salem's Lot 1983 was where it all started for me. Thanks for the informative upload. :)
I’m reading the book right now (I’m not even halfway) but I’m enjoying it, although I’m nervous when it gets closer to the end (I’ve heard the movie is nothing like the book and I specifically got the book because I loved the movie.)
The other big miss in this analysis is when Danny passed out he is next to a giant bear quilt which connects him to the bear performing fellatio. Strong suggestion that Jack has been sexually abusing Danny through visual motifs, there's also a picture of bears in Danny's room. Your leap of logic that the wife would call Halloran of all the hotel guests is insane and not supported by any dialogue or visuals and is merely a hypothesis that fits your incorrect theory that there is no telepathic shining. We literally hear Danny mentally listening to Halloran through telepathy, they're physically in the scene together unlike the ghost scenes where you could argue the person is alone and having a subjective experience.
A possibly important thing to consider is that The Shining is basically an homage to Poe. The original novel starts off with a quote from Masque of the Red Death, that same story inspired the ballroom stuff in the Overlook, and on a very basic level, the plot is similar to Fall of the House of Usher. In House of Usher, the building is presented as if it could be alive somehow, it's unclear if it's haunted or if the characters are just going insane, and at the end, it collapses in on itself. Seeing how King's fascinated with supernatural fiction, it makes sense that he likes the perspective of the place being haunted. So, it's also possible that Kubrick picked up on the inspiration from Poe and the ambiguity in House of Usher, thus making the film itself open to interpretation. I'm sure he at least noticed the book's connection to Poe, knowing how detail-obsessed he was. But hey, just a thought.
there is no room 237- the hotel is a family home, and the lay out of room 237 is the same as jacks room, where jack was fondling danny on the bed previously, the tennis ball rolling up on danny is jack, who is about to r danny, lloyd is simply jack talking to himself in denial trying to justify his awful behaviour, he does a deal with the devil to get the free drinks, he literally says so directly prior to lloyd showing up.
Jack was reading a play girl magazine before the interview and there was an article about parents sleeping with their children! I wonder why Stanley put that in the beginning of the movie?
Jack himself is seen throwing the ball that rolls toward Danny on the carpet earlier in the film. Another giveaway that it is actually Jack who abuses him in Room 237
Simply put, the shining is a story about abuse, both in the micro and in the macro. One might even lean towards the analysis that it includes references to the broad destruction of aboriginal peoples. It has been suggested that even King is playing out his own childhood abuse thematically in nearly all his works. Great breakdown, much appreciated POV. - edited to add, may I suggest that the meaning behind the photo of Jack at the party at the end of the film references the 'reincarnation' of abuse throughout generations. It is passed on generation to generation and as the photo is in the past, it references the macrocosm of abuse - which does not end.
This is absolutely and utterly the best video I've seen on the factual truth of reality concerning "The Shining" (Kubrick's version) I've been trying to help movie reactors on UA-cam understand that in Kubrick's adaptation .... The aren't any ghosts, therefore it is a psychological thriller, NOT a horror film. I also explain, Kubrick is an atheist ... Therefore. , he wouldn't have anything in his film alluding to spirituality or an afterlife... Hence... NO GHOSTS. But viewers aren't always willing to show comprehension of anything not plainly spelled out for them...so, they continue to "believe" there are ghosts...on film and in the "real" natural world.. They also have cultish obedience to false mythologies (religion) so the factual truth of reality within the forces of Nature....escapes them...and anybody telling them their mistaken ideals of imaginary beings are indeed false....they see the actual calm minded focused truth speakers as trouble makers or crazy people. It's a broken world and society we do are best to survive in. ❤ ✌ 🎥
I love these "there are no ghosts in the Shining Theory" because it adds to the re-watchability of the film. There are just as many clues that Jack suffers from substance abuse (addiction) and depression that foreshadow his mental instability and breakdown. Danny most likely has PTSD (from abuse) and anxiety (fear of his father)...and may have inherited schizophrenia from his father. Only on the surface level (or face value) that we see ghosts. Perhaps certain/extreme cases of mental illness and seeing apparitions/ghosts are one in the same. Great video...Now I'm gonna go watch the movie for the 20th time.
Whenever one uses declarative, unequivocal statements of FACT about a work that trades almost exclusively in ambiguity, one not only sets about be-clowning oneself, but also missing the depth and richness of the work. While it’s true that Kubrick made a lot out of the presence of mirrors during the encounters with ghosts to conflate the idea that they are as much manifestations of the psychological states of the characters as they are of residual spirits, there’s quite a lot here that’s simply reductionist. For one thing, “the shining” isn’t mind reading, it’s telepathic communication. Halloran doesn’t know Danny’s favorite flavor is chocolate because Danny never TOLD him it was. The same applies to every other so called “fail” on Halloran’s part. You’ve really missed the boat on that one. Kubrick himself is on record as having believed in the possibility of ESP (which may indicate he didn’t think it was technically supernatural, but that’s beside the point). Additionally you’re not accounting for the scrapbook subplot, which was shot but cut for time. All the ghosts referenced in the film were historical figures from The Overlook’s past, especially the woman in room 237, which flies in the face of the idea that Danny or Wendy could have imagined them without also having read the scrapbook. Cutting this material out left the ghosts more enigmatic and unexplained, but the film was conceived and shot with this in mind, so it’s overly convenient to use its absence as a FACT supporting your thesis. I could go on. There’s a lot you’ve missed. But one final point is that Kubrick said the ending “suggests reincarnation.” So whether you like that or not, it’s something that was at least in his mind. The Shining is ultimately too rich, strange and interesting to be reduced like this.
Well said buddy. I want to add something to that. Like you said, they are using telepathy to communicate with each other and they aren't mind readers. But Danny does not possess just telepathy, he is able to see things before they happen, so he does possess psychic abilities. It stands to reason that Halloran should possess these abilities as well, with that being said how in heck can he not sense the extreme danger he's in beforehand and not have ANY inkling of what's going to happen to him. They both possess psychic abilities so he should have sensed this. This is something I've scratched my head about for at least the last 35 years. I'd say his powers are pretty lousy lol
@@andrewrau7516 Danny's power was so outsized that he was able to send a shrieking cry for help all the way from Colorado to Halloran in Florida. That's what's in the book, and it's also in the movie. To whatever extent that it's fair to consider parts of the book that aren't overtly in the movie, it was the greatness of Danny's power that the Overlook was so bent on possessing and absorbing -- and notably not Halloran's. But even though the film (rightly, if you asked me) skips past that idea, I think it remains a fair assumption that Halloran's abilities were significantly dimmer than Danny's.
There’s an audio interview of Kubrick on here from 1980 & he talks about the supernatural in the movie, specifically the bolt being release when he’s locked in the pantry.
This one? "It's what I found so particularly clever about the way the novel was written. As the supernatural events occurred you searched for an explanation, and the most likely one seemed to be that the strange things that were happening would finally be explained as the products of Jack's imagination. It's not until Grady, the ghost of the former caretaker who axed to death his family, slides open the bolt of the larder door, allowing Jack to escape, that you are left with no other explanation but the supernatural. The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely well worked out, and for a film that is often all that really matters."
Settling in here 2 minutes in, munching popcorn... The Shining is the most beguiling horror-story turned symbolic parable I've ever seen, that's for sure.
Aww was kinda bummed that you blew right over the freeze-frame @29:41. It is quite the definitive eye-of-the-duck scene in The Shining: [ .... _no play makes Jack aduLT boy_ ]
About 6-12 months ago I remember seeing an excellent symbolic analysis video (much more thorough than the CL/Ager material) about how Kubrick had precisely codified into the film a connection between Jack's abusive persona and the Power Elite of the 1910s-1930s (the 'ghosts'). Unfortunately, I can't find a link to the video anywhere; it seems to have been removed or shadow-banned, perhaps. Also, you may wish to change the title to something that wasn't already in existence over two years ago(!): ua-cam.com/video/S4NTVKU6Prs/v-deo.html
This is a perfect example of having a conclusion and twisting all evidence to that conclusion instead of following the actual evidence presented. The amount of assumptions that are needed for this theory to be true stretch credulity more than a supernatural explanation.
I love both the book and movie. This interpretation is pretty plausible (although thinking that Halloran could have just guessed Doc was a nickname and that Jack would think any help would be from Halloran are stretches) but I just don’t like the idea, interpretation that (even movie) Jack was repeatedly (and knowingly and unregretfully) abusing Danny rather than that he may have been thinking of it but he didn’t like the idea or thought until the end. Regardless of if there really are ghosts, the ghosts definitely relate to the characters’ specific pasts and minds. The movie skipping over the first month at the hotel is in some ways frustrating, in others very interesting. If you like me like both versions you can pretty easily imagine that pretty similar events to what happened in the book also happened then.
and just in time for Spooky Season. holy shit. EDIT: i have a spotify and UA-cam playlist solely for Halloween and I was JUST listening to it now. The Shining theme is part of said playlist. so the timing is simply marvelous.
1:16 I'd like to say no offense as well although I'm a little more harsh towards the book than most. Stephen King put too much of himself into the book. That was the point. But as a result he was too quick to absolve Jack of his wrongdoings. It wasn't his fault. The hotel was just wearing him as a mask. And then the damn thing burns down and that's it. No more ambiguity. No more mystery. No more reason to think about it. The polar opposite of Stanley Kubrick's film.
King’s stance towards Kubrick’s version seems to have softened over time, right? The book and movie are so fundamentally different but the movie could not exist without the excellent basis for the story king established.
@@robfalgiano I'm not sure I'd say his stance has softened. During the marketing for Doctor Sleep he did say that the movie would redeem Stanley Kubrick's film as though that was even necessary. That gives me in the impression that he still in the mindset of when the movie was first released. Stanley Kubrick's The Shining was actually received very poorly upon release and didn't get the recognition it deserves until later. So either Stephen King is unaware of the fact that it has become a cultural icon and one of the most important horror movies of all time or he just doesn't want to acknowledge that because it goes against the grain of his story. To be clear I hold no ill will toward Stephen King. I just disagree with his sentiments on the film. And while I do understand why he doesn't like the movie I still disagree none the less.
Brandon Powell interesting. Yeah I’m not clear why king would think kubrick’s shining would need validation by Dr. Sleep, but that’s okay. Times have also changed. When kubrick changed king’s story that was the exception not the norm. Movie adaptations used to try to be more faithful to source. Now it seems film directors and tv creatives have more room to deviate from source material such that they are two versions coming from one idea. I generally favor this since it gives the directors more room for creativity and thus a more interesting end artwork when in the right hands.
I see where you're coming from. Compelling argument. I never liked the idea of seeing this as a ghost story. This is what made me view the movie as average the first time I watched it. But I'm diving down the rabbit hole of human madness/primal instinct and the film gets much more terrifying to me. As a fan of psychology, I see this as a mind f*ck.
This is one of the best analyses of the movie I've ever seen, and strangely enough (or perhaps, not so strangely) how I saw it while I was working with Kubrick on it during the editing. NOT that we ever discussed it! Such was his nature. So much done by suggestion. At the end of the day, the movie can best be described as totally ambiguous: it can be read equally easily either way - Kubrick still leaves in just enough apparently 'supernatural' visions to satisfy the gullible who like to believe in ghosts. This total ambiguity is what makes the film so clever ... and I was working with him the night he cut out a shot of Grady actually opening the larder door (I was the one who actually had to cut it out). So all we were left with then was the sound of the door being unlocked. I remember going home very late that night thinking, that is brilliant. The last element of non-ambiguity gone.
Thank you very much for sharing your experience here. Your comment made my day. You also confirmed something I'd long suspected regarding the decision not to show Grady unlocking the door.
Rob Navarro youtube page with a theory that seems like a great plot.
@@warpaintdubz i was about to mention this. The wendy theory. Its really spot on! After seeing the wendy theory all the other theories crumble to nothing
@@samonsito
I agree
Cool! I think, though I could be wrong, that you did a bit here or there in a Kubrick documentary? Could swear I've seen you somewhere. Though I guess you could have shown up in any number of places, being in the industry. I get a kick out of those parts where they show folks doing their thing in the editing process. Especially if they get some older footage where everything is razors, negatives, and very steady fingers. That's the only kind of editing I understand. 8mm back in junior high. Very bad jump cuts and very novice stop motion....ended up with a grand total of ~6 seconds of claymation...and knew I was no threat to hollywood...
The only thing that offends me here is that you think Jack is a subpar writer. Have you ever read "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"? Sure some critics say it is repetitive but it's gold, gold I tell ya!
Exactly! It’s like a Warhol painting. The repetition of soup cans is a statement on... consumerism!
@@robfalgiano allow me to pontificate. I think Jack was pointing to what Josef Pieper was digging into in Leisure: The Basis of Culture. Except Jack was selfish and only thought about himself, willing to murder all forces that got in the way.
Joel Kotarski I regret that I am unfamiliar with the work you’ve referenced. We know what Jack is thinking about because she showed up in room 237. But then it all went to hell, literally. Poor guy can’t even lasciviate without damnation. Lasciviate is not a word (yet).
That was GOLD Joel. Thank you very much for sharing and bringing a smile to my face.
😂😂😂
I wish I wasn't such a sucker for every analysis of the Shining that comes along.
JACK WAS A MINOTOR AND THE BOSS GUY ULLMAN WAS JFK! THE GOLD ROOM WAS KUBERICKS STSTEMENT ON US GOLF TO FIAT CURRENCY CONVERSSSSSIIIIIOOOOOOON!
All Kubrick movies are worthy of endless discussion. Barry Lyndon is one of my faves. It basically tells you everything you need to know about how the world has worked and always works. Power and money. Shysters and conmen running the show. Yet what it costs them is too high.
@@robfalgiano barry lindon? More like barry boring am I right?!
Funknutz420024 I’m afraid i can’t agree “funknutz.” I’m a Lyndon fan. I love almost all kubrick. He goes balls ⚽️. deep 😁
@@robfalgiano was Danny abused as per theory?🤔
The problem with Danny seeing the sisters as being his imagination is off, because the sisters are mentioned in the interview, but Danny is never told of their existence--it seems a really long coincidence that he would happen to imagine exactly that.
I'm more partial to the ghosts theory but I think there's *sort of* a reply to your objection. Ullman mentions Charles Grady's daughters being 'eight and ten'. However the girls actually seen by Danny seem to be perceived by most people as being twins (I'm not arguing whether they are or aren't). The point is, I think it fair to say, that they don't appear to exhibit that age gap.
It's one instance of several doublets in the film that don't neatly line up. Other examples of this would be the woman in the tub: when she becomes the hag and starts walking toward Jack, we have another, seemingly simultaneous, shot of a *similar* but not identical woman lying in the tub. Another example of this would be the Charles-Delbert pairing.
To return to your point: the coincidence remains but, being fair, what Danny sees doesn't entirely align with the account provided by Ullman.
the shot of blood itself. danny is shown a vision of blood coming from elevators. how did he correctly imagine the elevators from a hotel he has never been to?
@@divyanshusoni1907, In the new (2023) documentary, Kubrick by Kubrick, he was being interviewed and he made the comment that the genius of the book was that there was a possibility that everything was a product of Jack’s mind and that made the reader more likely to accept the “ghosts” in the novel. He then was asked by the interviewer, “You can interpret the evil influences of the Overlook as the product of Jack’s mind……” Stanley cut in, “I interpret the story as being real. For the purposes of the story, I accept that everything in the story is true.”
My interpretation of that exchange was that Kubrick very much wanted that ambiguity to come through, but that he came down on the side of the evil existing independent of Jack Torrance.
We do not know what Danny and Wendy were or were not told off-camera. Simply because we are not spoon fed every detail does not mean we cannot draw inferences. That's what this whole video explanation is about: analytical thought and deductive reasoning. Several different inferences are addressed in the video presenting the Wendy Theory.
The sisters were years apart. 8 and 10. Not twins
After hearing this theory cleary articulated in such great detail, I'm actually more convinced that there ARE supernatural forces at work.
Yes dear; WE are the ghosts. See: "overlooked the Shining..."
Archiviokubrick
Agreed. This theory is dismissing what base the story is built upon,the actual Shining.
There were two Gradys = '20s Delbert and 1970 Charles
There were two Caretakers = Jack Torrance and his '20s double in the photo
^^ *THIS* ^^ is the key to the Overlook Hotel's power. Without a recognition of these two parallels, the story won't be adequately understood.
There are supernatural forces but those ghosts are hallucinations
If you read the book which is a great book not a mediocre one, this IS the ultimate ghost story and the Kubrick adaptation which is a great movie, it's absolutely clear THERE ARE ghosts in the movie. Who opens the door to Nicholson when he is in the kitchen pantry? Of course this hotel is full of ghosts that's the beauty of it
There was a second door
@@Sweeney-Kubach he never opens that other fuckin door
@@MetalMatrix92 how do you know that tough guy?
After he escapes, there was a second shot following Jack's walk through the kitchen with the axe and it showed the freezer pantry again. The theorized "second door" that was behind the shelves of food was untouched. Your theory is suggesting jack would have escaped the second door, re-entered through the main door, and replaced everything exactly how it had been on the second door for whatever reason. Just doesn't seem as probable as Grady or Danny opening the door for him.@@Sweeney-Kubach
Danny opens the door
Kubrick himself explained that the photo actually suggests that Jack was a reincarnation of an earlier official at the hotel, which makes sense when going back to his conversation with Grady in the bathroom, where the butler tells Jack that he has “always been the caretaker”.
It would also explain why Jack told Wendy that, when he first arrived, it felt as if he'd been there before--that it was almost as if he knew what would be around every corner.
It's also works if you view that character as representing something - or having an attachment to something great. Its not that he was literally there before, either directly or through rebirth, but "he" was always there.
Sort of like a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" setup, for example.
This gives Ullman’s character a lot more weight.
Holy shit bro.
I believe he was actually talking to an earlier incarnation of himself. This film was always about duality. Hence all the mirrors and the reflections.
There will never be a Unified Shining Theory. The movie can be interpreted in inumerable ways thanks to the mad genius of Stanley Kubrick.
Where is Einstein when we need him
Exactly - and that's true of all the best ghost stories. Their ambiguity is what gives them their power.
@@glamdolly30 what ambiguity? The little boy is literally psychic...
@@RANDO4743 I was responding to the original post, and agreeing that the ambiguity in Stanley Kubrick's movie, which has fuelled multiple different theories about it since it's 1980 release, means it isn't limited to one single interpretation.
In reality Kubrick wanted to make 12 different films based on the book. And he succeeded.
The fact that Jack eats that bacon strip while looking at Wendy the way he does, it gives me the shivers. It really is a peek into things to come. "Little PIGS let me come in..."
You saying they ate each other up? Because they *had to*? 😂
Simone - I wish I had tied those two elements together exactly as you depicted them. Stellar observation!
@@WowLynchWow Right?!? I never caught that, either... but it did always feel like a million things are happening under the surface in that scene; same as Jack's interaction with Danny in the same room, when he goes to retrieve his toy.
Btw - you helped me through _Twin Peaks: The Return_ once I finally saw it. Great channel!
Jack didn't like it when Wendy said, "it's just a matter of settling back into the habit of writing every day". It's just basically telling Jack that he hadn't done shit and lazy. He manifested his expression through sarcastic smile while eating the bacon strip.
Or the fact that after what she says he’s basically saying you have no idea what you’re talking about.. like how to write a novel.. check out “Wendy’s theory” and get back at me...
I think it's scarier with both ideas. Imagine losing your mind while simultaneously being haunted by ghosts. It would almost be comforting to know you're exclusively going insane. But to think you're going insane, only to find out it's actually ghosts. I dunno. In that situation I'd wish to go back to the comfort of being a fruitloop.
‘When it’s finished, you’ll find this where I told you..’
‘What’s it open..?’
okay but it is both?
The two Grady's and the two Jacks would possibly explain the ending of the credits where you hear the audience clap and walk out (see 36:01 of this video ). A wild guess would be that the Grady's , Jack's and the audiences are reincarnations and/or parallels. We who are in the audience are reincarnations and/or parallels of the movie audience at the end of the credits. Could the number 42 for 1942 be the Final Solution. An euphemism for the Holocaust . Hence the Holocaust genocide could be a reincarnation and/or parallel of the Native American genocide. If there is any Fredrich Nietzsche experts please help out. I thought the Nietzsche believed that the universe ALWAYS existed ( hence in the movie, "you were always the undertaker " ! ) . Also time was in a continues loop, but history didn't repeat itself exactly, ( I tried to find this concept but cant find it ). Each time the loop would be slightly different ( which explains the different names...etc ). My guess is that Kubrick centered this movie on the ideas of Nietzsche. Also where you see Jack in the picture holding his hands like the Baphomet from the Tarot Cards. The Baphomet according to some sources represents a balance. Baphomet is a symbol of balance in various occult and mystical traditions, the origin of which some occultists have attempted to link with the Gnostics and Templars,[4] although occasionally purported to be a deity or a demon.[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet . Again I am no Nietzsche expert, but I noticed some possible connects to Nietzsche in the movie. Is the " balance " of the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy. Could his thoughts on Perspectivism explain the continuity errors in the movie ?? Nietzsche claimed the death of God would eventually lead to the realization that there can never be a universal perspective on things and that the traditional idea of objective truth is incoherent.[137][138][139] Nietzsche rejected the idea of OBJECTIVE REALITY, arguing that knowledge is contingent and conditional, relative to various fluid perspectives or interests.[140] This leads to constant reassessment of rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[141] This view has acquired the name perspectivism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche Again I am no expert so please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore I think that there are ghosts in the movie that exist due to space / time overlapping. They are ghosts but not in the traditional sense. They are not spiritual beings but SOME KIND meta physical being. You got physics and then you got QUAUNTUM PHYSICS !!!
SOLID. And Haloren probably intuited (unconsciously) that this family would not endure the isolation, especially when the storm had them feeling truly locked in. Often people reporting special psychic abilities are actually just good at reading others but it's actually easier for them to believe the stories passed down from their grandmothers.
Kubrick: "The Shining was my ghost story."
Every YT analysis on The Shining: "There were no ghosts in The Shining!"
This one takes the cake though. Lol absurd
The ghosts are our ancestors who live on within us. It’s a metaphorical ghost story.
Kubrik's comment is very often cited and equally taken out of broader context. This is Kubrick's "ghost story" in the sense of it being sourced from such; however, in typical Kubrick fashion, there's much more going on with the film than meets the eye (as Rob Agyr is famous for analyzing in multiple ways in his film analysis videos). The movie can legitimately be perceived as having several equally valid layers of in-narrative reality, including ones where there isn't any supernatural influences at all (Ex: The Jack Is Insane and Imagines "X" Scenes; Danny Is Troubled and Imagines Much of This; and The Wendy Theory, all of which operate on the premise that nothing supernatural is occurring and what we, the audience, perceive as supernatural is just the hallucinations/imaginings of one or more of the characters.)
However, WLW's overview/analysis is dismissive of the other analyses which work just as well relative to the surface layer wherein the supernatural, as-presented, is the obvious facet of the story. (WLW is confusing/conflating certain layers of directorial finessing of the narrative perspectives as being absolutely definitive, which is far from the case.)
Always. I saw an interview with Stanley Kubrick where he said you’re not sure if it’s supernatural until you hear the door unlock when Jack is trapped. Then that’s when you know it’s supernatural.
Some people twist themselves into pretzels trying to “”prove”” theres no ghosts or anything supernatural in this movie. Like most Kubrick movies, its fairly open-ended. Trying to demand with absolute conviction that people recognize your interpretation as factual is pretty misguided imo.
I appreciate the effort, and agree that Lloyd and Grady may be figments of Jack’s imagination but I’m not sure that means there’s nothing supernatural at work, and it seems like you’re cherry-picking certain scenes but ignoring others.
For example how did Danny know about room 237. There hadn’t been a single reference to it before his conversation with O’Halloran. Sure, there might have been instructions that they shouldn’t enter any of the rooms, but why does O’Halloran seem so afraid of that room when Danny asks about it.
And of course the final shot of the 1921 New Year’s gala indicates there’s something supernatural... I disagree that Kubrick would go through the entire movie to say there’s no ghosts just to contradict himself in the final shot... David Lynch might, but not Kubrick.
Thank you!
The final shot actually works to contradict this video’s premise.
I agree ScoTT, Danny seeing the twins when didn't know about them, or Jack seeing the caretaker, barman or old lady who died in the bath, with no previous knowledge of them, shows they 'are' either ghosts or demons. I think this is a very blinkered analysis missing a lot of facts, cherry picking indeed.
Yup....but some even better questions, if there is no Grady, no ghosts then who let's Jack out of the pantry? Who spills the avocado crap on his jacket? And Danny also has a vision early on of him hiding in the cupboard screaming the moment the cook is murdered. That's enough proof that this is all real. Kubrick uses the same exact shot in Danny's vision
@@andrewrau7516 If I recall he suggests Wendy opened it in some kind of fugue state. *(psst -- the drink Grady spills on Jack is called Advocaat, it's a dutch liqueur made with egg, and gets its name from its alleged use by lawyers, or "advocates" to smooth the throat after doing a lot of talking).
It seems like you started this analysis with the assumption that a story cannot be both a ghost story and a story that is deeply meaningful. Because of that assumption, you never addressed the main question I had throughout the entire video: What difference does it make if there are ghosts or not? How does that change the message of the narrative? How does that change the impact that the film makes on the audience?
The dismissive way that you talk about ghost stories tells me that it makes a difference to you, personally, because you wouldn't take a ghost story seriously. But you never explained why someone who doesn't share that bias should care about whether the ghosts are real or psychological/metaphorical phenomena.
There are several points in the video in which you say that certain elements of the movie don't make sense--and it's true that they don't make LOGICAL sense, but they make perfect NARRATIVE sense. They make sense as a decision that a director would make in order to achieve a particular effect on an audience. Many details in the movie don't make sense that have nothing to do with ghosts (impossible windows, moving furniture, Danny and his toys teleporting around on the iconic carpet), but they do make narrative sense in that they create a sense of disorientation and unease in the audience.
Also, it seems like you've misunderstood the powers that Halloran describes. When Halloran talks about the shining, the main thing that he describes is having a conversation without opening your mouth. Somehow you made the unsupported leap in logic that that should make him omniscient. When you have a conversation with someone, it's a two-way street. You don't know what a person has to say unless they choose to say it. As Danny does repeatedly throughout the movie, he chooses not to speak, either verbally or through shining, and so there's no way that Halloran would know the things that you criticize him for not knowing.
The other way that Halloran describes the shining is that it allows you to sometimes see things at different points in time, but there's nothing in the movie to indicate that Halloran believes that someone who shines would be omniscient. He says that people can see some things, but there's no indication that one would have direct control over what they're able to see. Your insistence that Halloran should know everything has no support in the movie.
In dismissing Halloran, you've also dismissed his actions in the movie as worthless, when the truth is that he saved the lives of Wendy and Danny. His arrival distracted Jack when he was about to kill Wendy, and he provided the escape vehicle for them to get off the mountain. Even if you assume that the ghosts aren't real and that the two of them would be safe waiting there for spring after Jack died, you yourself talk about the devastating psychological effect that the movie's events would have had on the characters, so I would consider the escape vehicle a necessity for survival regardless of the ghost question. It strikes me as bizarre that you have so much disgust for a man that saved the lives of a woman and child for no benefit to himself.
Thank you, I was looking for this comment. The theory itself isn't the worst thing in the world. Personally, I find it scarier without ghosts, but the way it was presented in this video is very condescening and dismissive of contrary evidence, ESPECIALLY when it comes to Halloran.
Jack only starts seeing ghosts long after his arrival at the Overlook. He doesn't see them right away, proving he only sees them because of his problems : isolation, solitude, can't write his book, Wendy accusing him of hurting Danny.
There's no bottle of alcohol at all when Wendy comes back, and the ghost isn't there anymore proving the alcohol and ghost aren't exist. It was in his mind. Jack felt lonely and wanted to drink, and then hallucinated an imaginary friend and alcohol . Lloyd can't be a ghost of the Overlook. The reason why is because Jack doesn't know the people of the Overlook. Why would he say he's always liked Lloyd? Because he's imaging him or a memory of a person of his past. Unless you think he's a reincarnation. Even then, he wouldn't remember his past life.
He doesn't remember Delbert Grady who was supposedly always there too. But Delbert Grady is just created by Jack based off Charles Grady. He saw Charles in the 1970 newspapers, Delbert is seen in the 20s ball when Jack has become insane. Delbert is lying when he says he'd always been there, and that Jack's always been the caretaker. Unless you think Charles is a reincarnation of Delbert. That's just Jack thinking that and creating that nonsense because of madness . Jack hadn't always been the caretaker, he's a writer. Delbert is not a reincarnation, it's not even Grady’s real name. Charles Grady killed his family in the 70s, not 20s. Grady wasn't always there.
Jack is starting to go mad, he created Delbert to show him the way. Charles, the real caretaker gave him inspiration. Charles got crazy in 1970 because of claustrophobia, cabine fever, not because of ghosts. The ghosts aren't manipulating him to kill his family. It's just Jack's descent into madness. He's injured Danny many times before, he's starting to hate Wandy. He thinks Danny wants to protect his mother. He becomes so crazy that he thinks Danny should get killed too. But, I don't think he wanted to kill at first, only wanted to kill Wendy.
The Shining is the story of a man that's going into madness because of his problems. The story of a mad man, an abused disturbed kid and a ghost story and horror film addict wife. There's no other explanation it's there.
The picture at the end is just an hallucinating image of what went down inside Jack's mind after Grady told him he'd always been the caretaker. When Jack was in the gold room, hallucinating the party, the same song played. That wouldn't be the first time we see how Jack thinks. When Jack looks at the maze, he sees people moving in his mind.
I think that's a better idea of what the film should be about. The idea of showing how crazy people can get, the power of the mind. Instead of a hunted hotel like the Ametyville horror.
@@womensfacesarethedefinitio2806 Jack not seeing ghosts right away doesn’t “prove” there aren’t ghosts. It suggests a possible alternative interpretation, but in and of itself doesn’t prove anything.
One is free to interpret the movie in any way they like, but I'm starting to become a bit annoyed by people trying to pass of their own ideas and interpretations as being those of Kubrick's. Kubrick himself answered to a direct question in an interview with film critic Michel Climent who remarked that it was "funny" that Kubrick in the interview put heavy emphasis on the supernatural as Jack's behavior (to Climent) seemed to be because of solitude, lack of booze etc. Kubrick replied that the psychological aspect of the movie was misdirection and that the "supernatural events are actually happening". Kubrick also stated that neither Danny nor Halloran had "perfect" ESP as there in that case would be no story and that failure of communication is a common theme in his movies.
Parts of the movie is certainly open to interpretation, but the basic premise of the story isn't. The creator of the video for example tries to explain away the ESP capabilities which, as I pointed out above, was perfectly explained by Stanley Kubrick. The hoops and the attempts to inject things that aren't in the movie falls flat on its face.
Again, everyone can interpret the movie in any which way they want. Kubrick himself explained the premise of the story, that the psychological aspect was misdirection and that the supernatural events are actually happening; Danny has ESP as does Halloran but their capabilities arent't perfect and the hotel is haunted. That's the corners of the story.
Very well said. I like hearing different theories. But this guy seems like he’s trying too hard to deny ghosts. Besides, the absurd thing is denying Danny has the power to shine is to ignore the title of the movie itself. It’d be like going through great lengths to explain how elves don’t really exist in the movie Elf.
The brilliance of Kubrick is that all the theories are accurate; the Wendy theory, this one, the metaphor for the federal reserve and capitalism corrupting the common man, the ghost story,, the theory that the hotel is sentient and wants Danny’s power, etc. this film is Shakespearean in its depth and which narrative you subscribe to depends on you’re perspective. Bloody brilliant.
Shakespeare was a shit writer don’t taint kubriks movies with that fucks writing.
I love people's different perspectives of this film. It's everything you want it to be while not being anything you thought. The ultimate enigma. A true masterpiece that only gets better within the depths of our minds.
Can you prove that Danny wasn't hearing Hallaren's voice inside of his head when he asked Danny if he'd want some ice cream? I don't think Hallaren was only trying to prove that he knew Danny likes ice cream. The point is the conversation itself without either having to say anything out loud.
I think the communication between Halloran in Miami and Danny, and Delbert warning Jack about it, pokes the biggest hole in this theory. I think it’s believable that there isn’t any ghosts - I don’t think there is myself. But the shining kinda has to exist in the narrative for anything to make sense. To explain away all the shines in the movie takes a lot of extrapolation that gets harder and harder to believe. And as for the visions they all see in the hotel, I think it’s most probable that, like Halloran said, it’s the building itself shining these visions to them
Also the picture at the end is meant to imply that Jack wasn’t just reincarnated but that he was absorbed into the history of the hotel.
The Shining is the biggest sticky wicket - and it's right there in the title
Or room 237. The theory can't account for 237.
Yeah he says it's not far-fetched that Halloran would simply know that a kid would like ice cream, but that's not all that happens. He doesn't just offer Danny ice cream, there's a really weird unsettling moment where he seemingly communicates the idea telepathically to Danny, and Danny definitely acts like he was able to receive the "message". Why does the film emphasize Danny's reaction in that moment, if nothing's really happening? And when they have their conversation later, it doesn't come off like Halloran is just a crazy person and Danny is just nodding along, Danny seems to understand what he's talking about.
Well, I imagine that one of the scariest experiences in life must be the inability to tell the difference between what's real and what's going on in one's head, so leaving things deliberately ambiguous is much more unsettling than coming down on either the side of 'ghosts are real' or 'it was all in his/her head'.
What happened in room 237 possibly for me is,
Jack attacked Danny and then saw himself as Danny being attacked in that room.
Interesting interpretation. I enjoy hearing how other people interpret films.
My interpretation of the Shining is that the hotel itself is the "ghost." That it feeds on people giving in to their evil desires and it tries to make that happen with who it can. So all of the conversations Jack has is the hotel trying to push him into a murderous rage and after he is killed, the hotel claims his soul and adds him to its list of victims/residents forever, which is why we see him in the photo at the end.
Exactly what I take from the movie aswell.
Kubrick said himself that you're supposed to think the ghosts might be in Jack's mind until Grady unlocks the pantry door. But you're free to believe anything you want since the truth is it's just a movie.
Good call. And if Grady doesn't exist then who spills the avocado crap on his jacket? I've never been looking for this so I haven't ever noticed but I'm definitely going back and paying very close attention to his jacket after Grady's little accident, because if there is any sign of even the lightest stain on his jacket then this guy's theory is wrong.
This called a beat.
A theory interesting is that wendy isthe one suffering of paranoia and hallucinations whoch is why scenes dont seem not consistent
The video says it's Danny who could have let Jack out of the pantry, that Jack is actually talking to Danny on the other side, not Grady, manipulating him to give him another chance. Danny does, runs back upstairs to mom while Jack is probably looking for the ax to take back upstairs. That or the whole sequence of events takes place in Wendy's head, but I find the Wendy theory is kind of dumb and would cheapen the whole story. "It was all just someone imaging it" is a really lazy twist.
Pay attention to the logic of camera point of view and how the props coincide and change with the characters point of veiw.
hallorann's trip wasn't for nothing, though. he dies right away, yeah, but if he hadn't arrived, wendy and danny would not have had a way down the mountain (his vehicle).
I guess that matters for their peace of mind, but Jack freezes before finding his way out of the maze so theoretically they would have been just as safe just going back into the hotel
@@zanderrose Hallorann's distraction gave them the time they needed to get to the maze. Then they needed to get away as they wouldn't want to stay at the hotel with them clearly spiraling out of control mentally.
This is all assuming there's no spirits, their in a bad place psychologically and need out asap. If there is spirits they'd be utterly screwed. They need out either way.
I believe there is spirits, as Kubrick, in his own words says Delbert Grady let Jack out, therefore there is a supernatural presence that can't be denied.
@@loiswells3062 structurally, for the audience that would work, but the story was about the supernatural, and needed supernatural to intervene against supernatural
I'm willing to believe there are no ghosts in the Shining, but no Shining in the Shining? I suppose its just a coincidence that Danny and Holorand both seem to "Shine" at the same time, AND that is the exact moment Holorand just happens to realize Wendy and Danny are in danger, and he needs to go save them, which happens to be the exact moment Jack snapped. And Danny having a vision of the twins that Jack just learned about, that was a coincidence too. As well as Wendy and Danny BOTH having visions of the elevator full of blood. I could go on and on, but this theory is b.s.
I agree.
Danny has a vision of the hotel before seeing it.
I agree. He presents his theory well but you can see how brittle it is under scrutiny. And he basically hand-waved away Jack being in the picture on the wall, which was clear proof of some kind of paranormal activity.
@@greekthejimmy4107 I got the impression the guy who made this video was/is a lawyer, or maybe a used car salesman. He tries very hard to sell you the theory, even when he knows deep down it makes no sense for you to buy it.
Agreed
A lot of mental gymnastics involved with this theory but still an interesting one. Labeling any plots that don’t support this theory as “red herrings” was convenient. What if the plots that support a “no ghosts” theory are the actual red herrings? It’s all subjective. The person involved with co-writing the screenplay with Kubrick said they intentionally wrote it to be impossible to determine if paranormal is actually involved. We’re chasing an enigma that is impossible to solve.
"I mean, sure.. he randomly guessed his nick name was doc, and that was based on no prior knowledge. But I am going to brush that off because he verbally spoke with him after that instead of continuing to shine."
Shining doesn't mean you're completely psychic. It doesn't mean you know every detail about a person.
He knew to be wary of 237 because Halloran was and Danny asks him why he's afraid of it. In Jack's interview the guy said Grady killed his family in one of the rooms. It's implied the murders happened there though it's not necessarily the case. Halloran also says the hotel shines, as it's a character itself.
Very interesting detail about Jack's hand on Danny's shoulder and that same one being torn! I also never noticed the 5 months vs 3 years ago line regarding Jack's possible abuse. That's a huge detail!
And yeah if you ignore the book and how the Overlook is a character itself, there is no other explanation. Good video!
Why do you think that is an interesting detail? Jacks hand on Danny's shoulder.
@@michaelbrownlee9497 it's interesting imo if you go with the theory that Jack is the one who injured Danny. He squeezes Danny's shoulder when he's on his lap then it's the same shoulder with the injury and ripped collar. I think it's mentioned that that's the same one he injured the first time
@@LightingInvoker wendy mentioned the injury too a doctor as she was concerned about danny. The doctor was questioning dannys history if he incured any trauma and some....well just watch that scene, paying attention to kubricks attention to detail regarding props.
My question was why did you think that image was important, jack with his hand on dannys shoulder.
@@michaelbrownlee9497 I don't necessarily think it's important, it's just an interesting detail *if* you subscribe to this theory, which I do not.
@@LightingInvoker yeah that is an interesting detail.
That you think Stephen King's The Shining is a "simple ghost story," reveals that you didn't study the book a fraction as carefully as you studied the film. The book is about demons not ghosts, and they manifest themselves in the forms of alcoholism and abuse. In this way, Stephen King also wrote a story about allegories and paranoia, just not in the same way that Stanley Kubrick directed it.
The Shining is a very rare case of author and director shaping the same story in their own brilliant ways. However, primary kudos will always go to Stephen King for creating the seed and not just cultivating it.
I agree 100%. That was a low blow to the original artist of this intriguing story.
Also King faught with his alchohol problem and drug addiction.
@@lcthepianta what? All he said was that the book was different than what this video says it is. He never even denied the main idea of the video, all he said is that there is more to King's book than ghosts.
Having read the vast majority of King's stories including the book about his writing process 'On Writing' I can tell you now, without reservation that King just isn't capable of the depth and planning that Kubrick brought to his work.
King just makes his books up as he goes and it shows in the disappointing endings to the majority of his stories (The Dark Tower in particular is insultingly bad) which never deliver on the promise of his beginnings.
King may have written a ghost story about an alcoholic but to say that it's filled with "allegories and paranoia" gives it too much credit. It's a good story but Kubrick took it, ran with it and gave it a depth and subtlety it never had in print. Rummy didn't analyze the book as carefully as the film because there isn't much to analyze. It's a ghost story about a hotel. That's all. The sequel 'Doctor Sleep' proves that it was only ever a story about ghosts and magic powers, which is fine but much less interesting.
@@lewisoliver939 damn doctor sleep sucks so much
Wait... the Shining doesn't have shining in it? Or ghosts? I don't believe your interpretation is as air tight as you seem to think it is. I still enjoyed the analysis nonetheless though.
Fair enough. I'm not necessarily looking to change anyone's mind. The viewing experience and interpretation thereof is a personal matter. I do, however, hope to shed some light on the main point here, that I believe any perceived supernatural occurrences have zero impact on anything that happens in the story, and that each instance of such can be explained in a rational manner.
Thanks for watching, and thank you for the feedback.
@@WowLynchWow Kubrick and Lynch’s work lend themselves to so much different kinds of interpretations and I love hearing different ones from other hardcore fans even if I don’t necessarily agree. Been following you since you started and I look forward to more content.
@@WowLynchWow maybe I just haven't made it that far into this video, but if there is no Grady, no ghost, then who unlocks the pantry door and lets Jack out?? Wendy?? It's pretty safe to say that after what just happened between Jack and her she's not letting him out, and who spills that nasty stuff on his jacket?
All the odd stuff in this movie should be attributed to Kubrick's artistic style of filmmaking. All his films, especially the later ones were sprinkled with some strange stuff and odd imagery, that doesn't mean all of his work has secret underlying meanings, it's just the Kubrick style, nothing more. Kubrick, as most of his fans know, was eccentric and had a taste for weirdness. Full Metal Jacket is full of odd stuff. The best example of this is his final film Eyes Wide Shut, that one is jam packed with weird stuff and odd imagery, so much so that it gives that film an extremely spooky feeling, but once again, that was just his style. Eyes Wide Shut is even more weird and unsettling than The Shining.
Something I forgot when I argued the shine is real. If the shine is not real then how did the cook know to come all the way back from Florida, risking getting snowed out? cause he recieved a powerful image from the boy who can communicate telephathically over great distances. If Kubrik said there was nothing supernatural, then he contradicted himself in his own script.
If there are no ghosts, then each family member is hallucinating on their own. I think Kubrik just said that to mess with people's heads.
Regarding Halloran’s ESP ability: When he asked Danny if he wanted ice cream, he did that in a soundless mind-to-mind communication and. He did it simultaneously to having an external oral conversation about the pantry with the Torrances. Go back and watch the scene. His mouth does not sync with the words at all.
Also, you assume that a characters psychic abilities run constantly and if they are aware of everything that is going on and everyone else’s minds. Not sure that’s how it works. Also remember that his mind of mind conversations were with his grandmother who also had the gift. They were speaking deliberately into one of his minds. That’s not quite the same as reading other peoples minds, but having your mind spoken into someone with the gift. And as far as not knowing danny’s like for lamb or not, do you think he wants to reveal his abilities right in front of Danny’s ungifted parents?
You brush off power and figuring out that Denny’s nickname was Doc without acknowledging the sheer and probability of being able to do so. Likewise, you have Halloran jumping on a plane and flying to Colorado and all the expense and effort of getting up to the overlook hotel is acting on a hunch. Really? A hunch that occurred at the exact same time that the crisis was about to occur at the overlook?
In the case of Dick Hallorann not being able to foresee Jack trying to kill him; it’s actually explained earlier in the film when he talks to Danny. He explains to Danny that his “Shine” isn’t as strong as others, meaning he doesn’t have strong capabilities as others. Danny’s shine was much stronger than Hallorann’s.
The only thing that’s odd about Hallorann is that he went to the Hotel alone without any weapon at all. He didn’t even alert the police of what might be happening. This is pretty odd considering everyone’s knowledge of the history of the Overlook tragedy.
I always took it from the book and from the movie that two things were happening at the same time, but neither causes the other. There is something “weird” about the hotel and Jack already having had some issues has a complete mental breakdown the turns violent. It’s more about Wendy and Danny having to contend with both of these things at the same time.
I like the theory that everyone "shines" to a certain extent - children moreso than adults since they haven't learned boundaries and become jaded realists. I get the feeling Hallorann is more experienced and understands looking into people's thoughts is a personal thing so he doesn't just use it constantly. He can tell Danny shines hard, and tries it out with the ice-cream line. He picks up the nickname "Doc" as a stray thought from Wendy. When Danny asks him about 237, that's something Hallorann didn't intend to reveal but Danny reached into his head for it. He is just preparing Danny to understand that there's all kinds of leftover energy he will experience over months in an isolated location where so many bad things happened, symbolized as a psychic metaphorical image of the blood-pouring elevators. But as long as a person knows not to "buy in" that these leftover images shining in their head are real, they are merely "pictures in a book".
Most people ignore and put aside the shining ability which is heightened empathy and sensitivity to traumatic past events and a certain amount of clairvoyance which includes the "burnt toast" effect that people who shine are sensitive to - there are no ghosts and this energy "shines" in different people's heads in different ways based on their own knowledge, experience, expectation, and trauma. Danny sees spooky playmates; Jack sees a sexy woman who betrays him. King's other stories indicate shining can also manifest a potential bonus power (Carrie had telekinesis, Charlie in Firestarter has pyrokinesis.)
Jack shines, but is a weak-willed individual was self-medicating and dampening it with alcohol. Being sober and in a location with _so much_ burnt toast and social isolation from reality as the Overlook causes him to hallucinate Lloyd and Grady and the party, and he buys in and is seduced because he's so ready to fall off the wagon that he goes right along. Jack also has latent telekinesis, but has never used it. It only manifests when he's humiliated by Grady and _Jack_ unlocks the pantry door with his newly-heightened awareness to solve a problem, similar to the trauma that brings it about for Carrie White.
Wendy also shines, but has suppressed it as most adults do normally until the very end of the movie when reduced to hysterics by her husband trying to murder her, and in _her_ mind, ghosts are scary haunted skeletons, her fear that Danny is being molested, and most recently people chopped up with an axe, so that's how she sees the "burnt toast". When she sees the blood elevator that Danny is also seeing, that's the metaphor where she completely understands, as her son does, what's actually happening and what the Overlook is all about.
Every new analysis I see of The Shining leaves me more in awe of Kubrick.
I personally love Kubrick's adaptation of the Shining. I find far more disturbing than the ghost aspect. It's the horror of human nature!!
Unpopular opinion: Kubrick deliberately created a piece with loose and purposefully ambiguous continuity to fuck with his audience and send them on a wild goose chase to find the answer, but maybe there actually isn't one. This film is a fantastic piece of art, so maybe worth seeing it as a piece of art rather than something that needs solving like a mathematical equation. The strength of human intrigue to find answers is incredibly strong, and Kubrick played with that as if it were a cat playing with a mouse, and there lies his genius.
I don't think it is ambiguous at all. I think he made a Kubrick film, with a Horror within. His intention to demonstrate that the supernatural that we imagine can always be explained.
Next video: There are no machines in The Terminator! You’ll notice that Kreese never even mentions the T-800, but instead used the term “cyborg” and “machine” which be just as easily used as a nickname for a man with superior strength. Poor confused Sarah Connor, who later ends up in a mental hospital, goes along for the ride.
While the attempt to demystify the parts of The Shining that can be demystified is laudable, it does seem that you're unduly simplifying the inherent---and intentional---ambiguity of Kubrick's vision. Just as importantly, you've set up a strict "either-or" dichotomy between mental illness and the supernatural that Kubrick doesn't establish at all. It is entirely plausible---not to mention in line with the subtlety of a filmmaker like Kubrick---that the ghosts of the Overlook are drawn to the Torrances *precisely because* they are such damaged and dysfunctional people. Their emotional distress not only draws malignant entities toward them, but makes them particularly susceptible to their attacks or their influence. If a normal, well-adjusted family had been the caretakers, the evil spirits of the Overlook may never have had the opportunity to do what they did with the Torrances. I find this reading not only to be entirely plausible within the framework of the film, but also a richer and more satisfying explanation. In any case, I very much enjoyed your elaboration and close analyses of Jack's abusive behavior and the family dynamics of all three of the Torrances!
Agreed. Jack Torrance isn't the only character seeing the Overlook ghosts either.
well said - and here's my new insight - traditionally with haunted houses,,,, the spirits and ghosts, etc are more overtly aggressive because they feel threatened by the subjects' presence, but here Jack IS an evil spirit - remember he said he knew what would be around each corner - and he wasn't a Shiner like Danny. Also, any apparitions were just there - no one was a target - fear was a by-product
Shut the fuck up nerd
I just want to point out that in the book(s) it turns out Jack WAS a shiner.
That’s all fair and well but it’s well known that Stanley Kubrick was a man of logic and did not believe in ghosts or spirits so why would he incorporate such themes into his version of events? It seems more logical that this is more of a story of schizophrenia and delusion rather than your basic run of the mill haunted hotel ghost story
Kubrick left it ambiguous for a reason. I hate all you people who think "I've got it" lol Kubrick was a genius just enjoy it
Great analysis! I'm from Italy, so the version of Shining I've always watched was the International cut, and I think it fits more with the "no ghosts" theory than the US cut; for example, there isn't no doctor scene, no skeletons, we see Jack drinking only ONE glass, not two, no Wendy and Danny talking scenes etc...
I say this because I always saw Shining as a story about a troubled and failed marriage and family, with an abusive father, an abused child and a woman who can't do that much because of the fear she lived while staying with his husband; the visions they had were always in their mind.
When I first saw the Skeleton scene, I was disappointed, because, at least for me, it ruined some of ghostly/non-ghostly ambiguous atmosphere of the film, and somehow lead me to believe that there was actually something more goin on. Then I watched the US cut, and it seemed to me like an extended cut of the international version, with definitely more clues than I would ever thought, suggesting that not only these people are going crazy, but also that there could be also something else, while in the international version I always saw this as the failure of a marriage, with people imagining things because of what they've been passing through, not because of some possessed hotel.
If you haven't yet, go check out the international version, it's really a different experience. Also, there were a few different shots, like the "no play" scene, which was translated in some countries: ua-cam.com/video/aJZ_PlJSGnI/v-deo.html ).
Thank you for reading, and have a great day!
Kubrick himself categorically stated that the ghosts of the Overlook were definitely real.
Those ghosts are you and me. muahahahaha
😈😂
Well. Real and imaginary are not mutually exclusive. (Think number i) I took a course on caretaking and it included residents with delusions. The course said that the delusions are actually real in that they are truly perceived by the patients and actually affect their actions. Yet they are imaginary. But that takes us down a rabbit hole about human consciousness and its ability to replicate reality.
I also think that the characters in the film experience a form of retroactive information fallacy. New information is processed by the characters so that they "remember" knowing things beforehand. That's why they get "psychic" information that does not affect the events of the story. Much of this information is conveyed by real, imaginary ghosts.
@@westontilby2726nah
That pantry door didn't open itself.
This is what I love most about this movie, it’s NOT what it seems at all. If you’ve ever known or lived with an alcoholic, and experienced the real life horror they can cause, you know there’s more going on here with Jack and his poor family.
As I’ve said often, the alcoholic isn’t there, but we are.
Mirrors are just one clue, seeing how he treats Wendy is another. You don’t need to see the best Horror flick ever made to understand that madness and addiction are a lethal combination, but it’s better than living through it yourself, that’s for fuck’s sure!
I found an error. You suggest that Jack abuses Danny again after they sit together on the bed. Danny is wearing different clothes when he sits with Jack on the bed and when his mother finds him after Jacks nightmare.
That's patently ridiculous since Kubrick himself said that he wanted the moment where Grady unlocks the pantry as evidence of ghosts. For all the changes Kubrick made from the book, he still held to the premise of the book. That the spirits there feed on those who shine. The longer Danny remained, the stronger they'd get.
kubrick said to king that he doesn’t believe in ghosts. he said if u use ghosts in a story it’ll be a flat and bland story
I think basically...Kubrick wanted us to never know the absolute meaning of the movie. it's one of those every reading is true kinda movies! At least, that's how I saw it. I enjoy the movie for not knowing, haha.
When Danny sees the open door of 237, he first says "Mom?"
Nope. Dad.
And Dad lost his temper.
There is definitely something supernatural here at play. I think you grossly overlook the fact that the movie is called “The Shining” and this just happens to be the supernatural phenomenon that Danny displays that ends up saving his life. I agree that the idea of ghosts is very shallow, but the movie alludes to a dark demonic energy present in the Overlook Hotel that consumes and exploits the fears and rage of all its caretakers. Also, there is nothing ambiguous about the scene where Danny is being schooled about his ability by Mr. Hallorann and you actually hear his voice telepathically through Danny’s perspective. Lastly, the closing scene that shows Jack’s face in the photo indicates that Jack is somehow deeply connected to the hotel and perhaps has spiritual roots that go deeper than what we actually see in the movie. Maybe Jack is the Yang to Danny’s Shining and all the supernatural phenomena are just the manifestations of his derangement and spiritual connection to the Overlook hotel. The hotel in essence is the physical representation of Jack’s disturbed mind with all its demons, dark corridors and forbidden rooms. This is how Jack is able to escape the room because Jack and the hotel are one and the same and he is able to wield it as easily as he is able to wield his anger and frustrations towards his family.
I would just delete the video after reading this😂😂bravo.
I think it’s both; The overlook is a haunted place, that also plays with the heads of its guests, sometimes to the point of psychotic breaks for those more susceptible to it if they stay there long enough. Dick Holleran warns Danny about 237, but he isn’t having a psychotic break. So, he knows there’s something goin on there with or without the Torrance’s. There are two distinct moments that suggest actual paranormal activity outside of the heads of the characters; (1) Who opens the walk in storage for jack? (arguably Danny, but the film suggests it’s paranormal), and (2) Jack is in the photo of the 1921 ball at the end. That shot is objective. It’s not the POV of the characters, (like Lloyd the bartender is). Jack and Dick are dead and Danny and Wendy have left. It’s impossible for Jack to be physically in the photo if there isn’t something paranormal goin on, imo.
The two Grady's and the two Jacks would possibly explain the ending of the credits where you hear the audience clap and walk out (see 36:01 of this video ). A wild guess would be that the Grady's , Jack's and the audiences are reincarnations and/or parallels. We who are in the audience are reincarnations and/or parallels of the movie audience at the end of the credits. Could the number 42 for 1942 be the Final Solution. An euphemism for the Holocaust . Hence the Holocaust genocide could be a reincarnation and/or parallel of the Native American genocide. If there is any Fredrich Nietzsche experts please help out. I thought the Nietzsche believed that the universe ALWAYS existed ( hence in the movie, "you were always the undertaker " ! ) . Also time was in a continues loop, but history didn't repeat itself exactly, ( I tried to find this concept but cant find it ). Each time the loop would be slightly different ( which explains the different names...etc ). My guess is that Kubrick centered this movie on the ideas of Nietzsche. Also where you see Jack in the picture holding his hands like the Baphomet from the Tarot Cards. The Baphomet according to some sources represents a balance. Baphomet is a symbol of balance in various occult and mystical traditions, the origin of which some occultists have attempted to link with the Gnostics and Templars,[4] although occasionally purported to be a deity or a demon.[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet . Again I am no Nietzsche expert, but I noticed some possible connects to Nietzsche in the movie. Is the " balance " of the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy. Could his thoughts on Perspectivism explain the continuity errors in the movie ?? Nietzsche claimed the death of God would eventually lead to the realization that there can never be a universal perspective on things and that the traditional idea of objective truth is incoherent.[137][138][139] Nietzsche rejected the idea of OBJECTIVE REALITY, arguing that knowledge is contingent and conditional, relative to various fluid perspectives or interests.[140] This leads to constant reassessment of rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[141] This view has acquired the name perspectivism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche Again I am no expert so please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore I think that there are ghosts in the movie that exist due to space / time overlapping. They are ghosts but not in the traditional sense. They are not spiritual beings but SOME KIND meta physical being. You got physics and then you got QUAUNTUM PHYSICS !!!
How would he manifest seeing the twins if he didnt know the twins were murdered or even existed and why does his mom see the exact elevator blood scene as he did? I think the Wendy theory is the most plausible seeing as literally every paranormal scene that happens can be explained as her psychotic break by see missing furniture and items in all of them. Kubrick is to methodical to accidentally leave out props from scene to scene. But even on top of that i believe its much deeper. Its the Wendy theory and demonic persuasion mixed together. The occultic symbolism cant be explained by mere halucinations from a crazy woman. i recommend checking out the Wendy theory.
I just literally watched The windy theory today it was fucking awesome
Why can't it be both of them losing it not just Wendy or Jack but both
ua-cam.com/video/wRr_0W-9hWg/v-deo.html
@@rayjay369time watch that. It’s awesome
@Ian Helgerson I like your comment quite a lot. This was a terrible "analysis" (if repeating "There ARE NO GHOSTS" at least 5 times is analyzing). This person lacks, as I've said a couple of times above, the vital ability to suspend disbelief---sans that, I don't believe one has the capability to enjoy, never mind judge, a novel, a film.
What I understand is that it's a maze (small replica in lobby), in a maze (hotel), in a maze (movie). While trying to make sense of it is really interesting not to say fascinating, it's also completely pointless. As viewers we can't find our way out of the maze and that's what was intended. Brilliant filmmaking!
The scene where he's talking to Grady, you see him making typing motions with his hands. That's where you know he's actually imagining the scene as he writes it.
Boring interpretation
@@lymnn8269 Who cares what you think, antivaxxer.
Sorry dude, but in order to sustain your thesis you have to add things that are nowhere to be found in the film (like Danny opening the door) and ignore things that are definitely there. You didn´t even attempt to account for the last frame where we can see Jack in the photo. Who was hallucinating that? That was clearly put there for the audience´s benefit. The film is pretty ambiguous until the point where Jack is let out by the ghost, that was Kubrick letting us know that is not all in the protagonists´ heads. And just because the movie has ghosts in it doesn´t mean is just a ghost story. Who says you can´t use ghosts to convey a larger message? Have you read Hamlet?
Jack is not a protagonist.
Jack appearing in the picture, the ghosts, are all representative of the cycle of abuse and violence.
They're meant for your interpretation, but even if there are ghosts in this movie they are in no way relative to the plot. Jack was going to do what he did as soon as he agreed to go out there.
The ghosts are an expression of stephan king's vision. In the book, the hotel was incredibly dynamic to the point of the shrubs cut into animals shapes actual begin to move and attempt to block Danny's escape. Stephan king's vision was that of the super supernatural.
Yeah the Overlook is a character itself. I agree there are no ghosts per-say, but they're a reflection of the hotel affecting their minds (along with the isolation)
Okay I am open to the idea of there not being ghosts in The Shining but then why is there ghosts in Dr. Sleep?
@@valentinogal781 Dr Sleep is based on the book. In the Shining, Kubrick did things his way.
Pinche stephan
@@valentinogal781 different films. Besides thinking the book was "sloppy," Kubric wanted to distill the story down. To simplify it into the elements he thought would make the best movie. For him, that was a man becoming insane...not the backstories and an anticlimactic ending. .
Kubrick did not "expand on the source material", he IGNORED it almost completely.
I just watched Stephen king saying it wasn’t what he envisioned whatsoever but he did say it had some good visuals
You mean he...Overlooked it?
There is so much from the book in the movie.
You are soo right
There is so much that kubrick made up. Has nothing to do with the movie.
A terrifying film about an abusive, resentful alcoholic having a mental breakdown and attacking his own family. Scary as all hell.
You really think it's that simple? I guess it's all about your perception. But the movie can be way deeper than that, and the director purposely made it this way.
It's that but clearly not just that.
Notice when Tony is talking Doc's finger goes up.
When Danny is talking gruffly I believe he's being Jack.
When a child is messed with by their parent they can split personalities and this might be what's happening.
I think Danny used his mental abilities to help push Jack over the edge. Danny saw what was coming and knew his mom was ill equipped.
Look st their apartment, completely uncased by books. She's not a good housekeeper or attentive mother.
She hides in all the stories in her books and then in isolation, she finally starts seeing the story that's actually unfolding in her own family.
Watch how Jack slides Danny down his front when sitting in their hotel bedroom... The picture of two bears above Danny's bed and the two people in room 237...
So you claim that there is no evidence of the ability to Shine, yet the movie is literally called The Shining...
I believe that Kubrick wanted us to be unsure. That is how I prefer it, so I neither believe or disbelieve. I only know that I enjoy this film whenever I watch it.
⬆️ This! 💯
i am shocked about the wendy version. stanley kubrick intentionally had furniture moved and put back, i never noticed things on the shelf like koolaid. these are the things other people saw but not me. or maybe it was supposed to be subliminal. back in 1980 we could not freeze a movie and watch it in slow motion. kubrick's intention had to have been subliminal. i think a very small percent of people would notice the changes in furniture during scenes.
@@lapacesiaconvoi Kubrick was eccentric and quite odd, he did things like move the furniture around and take out parts of the set for one shot and then put them back for the next shot strictly to toy with people, to mess with their heads and nothing more. Kubrick was very strange, but he wasn't doing all of it because of some underlying meaning to the movie, he did this stuff just for the heck of it. And not all of these weird things like moving the furniture around were deliberate, there are definitely continuity mistakes in the movie
he successfully messed with my sorry pate in other films too. i worked the box office when 'the shining' was in theaters. this meant i watched certain scenes more than once, depending on my break . so i thought i was capable of unraveling the meaning of the words on jack's shirt backward in the mirror. anyway now i agree with your theory. he was just getting kicks messing with us.
I like this interpretation but for Jack being freed from the locked freezer. In my opinion, that is actually the _only_ instance of supernatural forces at work. Each of the family members were going mad in their own unique way, and that amplified the horror they "witnessed" in the hotel. But the slight 'pop' of a lock? Just a little nudge to keep them descending further into madness and death? That seems way more like a sinister, compulsive force than anything else that happens in the story.
there's two doors leading to the room Jacks locked in. one round the corner (you can see it when the characters are being shown about the hotel - they exit the freezer, again weirdly through a different door to the one they originally entered in, move up the hallway passing a second door to the right of them - which goes into the storeroom, they turn right around the corner and the main door to the storeroom is visible) this second door is also partially visible behind the shelves as jack is talking to Grady. you'll see the start of a dark vertical shadow and strong colour change in the wall. This door didn't have the dual locks shown on the main door, but all the store rooms had that emergency release mechanism that you see jack rattling. Kubric deliberately chose a fairly obscure release mechanism when overseeing the set designs. there's some entertaining breakdowns of the stylistic choices Kubric made, by Rob Ager on here. covers a lot of stuff, like the nonsensical impossible layout of the hotel, hidden political statements about the US dollar gold standard and corrupt elites...and the specific kind of abuse Danny was experiencing...rhymes with "best".
I concur. To suggest that the door was opened by Danny, for the most part, makes no sense at all. And, we certainly can conclude that Wendy would have zero interest in unlocking the door, given the violent circumstances of a husband gone maniacal. It had to be a supernatural force that physically unlocked the freezer pantry door.
I'm of the opinion that there are no ghosts in the movie at all. The big bad of the movie is the hotel itself, both figuratively and literally. Halloran said that the hotel shines just like him and Danny, which is what allows them to vaguely read minds, but also as a way of tapping into clairvoyance and seeing metaphorical images of the future. I think in this regard, it makes sense as to why Danny sees images that both reflect his personal trauma, and of the horrors to come. But, anyway, if the hotel itself shines, than this makes some of the more outlandish events in the movie make more sense. The Overlook itself is some otherworldly manifestation no one can comprehend, not even the people who built it. It has the greatest shining ability of all, as it not only creates images for those who shine, but perfect physical expressions of people that are virtually indistinguishable from reality.
I like to think that the Overlook didn't harm anyone in the movie, like Danny in Room 237. Rather, the hotel made Jack lose his temper in a drunken stupor and abused Danny again. In fact, the only time in the entire movie where it can be seen that the hotel had a physical presence was when Jack was in the food locker. At that point, the Overlook got what it wanted out of Jack. A stupid, angry, lonely man who was too weak to fight against its' influence, and unlocked the cellar door for him. Grady's voice was heard, but I don't think it was actually him. Just another of the hotel's various creations at work.
But if you’re willing to admit there was any paranormal activity why would you limit it to just that one thing lol
@@JennifuhhGilardi I think it amplifies the horror in a way. It's both. It's both supernatural stuff and the family going mad. But whereas you can reasonably attribute the ghostly apparitions to stress-induced hallucination (remember: no two family members ever "saw" the same thing), the opening of the door is the only outlier.
It's the one thing that is demonstrable evidence of the paranormal. And it's so...idk...specific and situational. I think it seems scarier than the kind of "jump out and boo!" skeletons and stuff near the end 😅
Only 10 minutes in, and I’m totally disagreeing.
First off, Danny was speaking to Tony before his dad hurt him.
Secondly, the visions of Danny screaming and the elevator blood…it’s not just a manifestations of his feelings. His mother is the one to ‘see’ the blood…and his screaming was due to a death of a man he did not yet know.
Go to 3:10 of the video, Wendy says that Danny started talking to Tony after his injury. As in after Jack hurt him.
you're wrong. And people without critical thinking is the reason the world is in a mess. From religions and all similar scams the world is full of them.
@@sand-attack she says that is the first time she noticed him talking to Tony. It’s not the first time he’s seen/communicated with him, though. He was born with ‘the shining’ ability. He didn’t suddenly acquire the gift from being jerked by his arm.
@@CMinorOp67 I think the implication is that Jack did more than hurt Danny's arm starting around that time, and Danny created Tony as a coping mechanism. I'll have to re-watch the movie to jog my memory, luckily halloween is around the corner so I have a good excuse.
Kubrick would disagree with you - as he himself stated in interviews. He even said that within the hotel is an endless cycle of evil reincarnation. Sounds pretty supernatural to me.
I actually touched on that quote in a follow-up video. His wording was carefully chosen there. Cheers!
ua-cam.com/video/_uX6vlDBiFs/v-deo.html
Its really interesting that you can perceive this movie either way separately or together. Thats some real genius
Fun fact: Eraserhead was his favorite film.
I have read that before, and the idea of that always makes me smile.
@@WowLynchWow I think he said before he died that his favorate movie was White Men Can't Jump.
White Men Can't Jump.
First Last second fave. It was close. His third fave is Hubie Halloween. Even though it came out after he died. That’s what makes it so spooky. God bless you Stanley. Your movies are brilliant.
Actually he made the entire crew watch Eraserhead in preparation for this movie as he wanted to capture a lot of the tone. Its hard to see the similarities but the most obvious one is the old timey music which is reminiscent of the girl in the radiator.
But how does Danny know about Room #237, when he's eating ice-cream in the kitchen with the Cook he asks about it? Danny was not informed of that room by anyone. The only way someone knows a secret is by seeing it or being told it. If nobody told Danny about room#237 and Danny never saw what happened in room #237 how does he know about it? If Danny found out about room #237 by reading the cooks mind, then the Shining powers have to be real. If the "Shinig" narrative is real then the Ghosts have to be real as well.
Another good point made. And if the ghosts aren't real then who let's Jack out of the pantry?? And who spills the avocado stuff on him that stains his jacket
The point the video is trying to make is that there's nothing unusual or remarkable about room 237 in reality. Danny could have just made up some fixation with the room and then went and found the key to snoop it. No one else in the movie tells us that anything unusual happened in 237.
It's implied that, Grady killed his family in one of the rooms, and Halloran is scared of 237, the murder happened in 237. Whether or not that's the case, it's implied. Anyway, Danny knows about it because he shined the info from Halloran.
@@andrewrau7516 p
"Doc" is seen wearing Bugs Bunny pajamas early on. "What's up doc?"
Probably a good thing this was a Warner Brothers film cause they own the rights to Bugs. Wonder if they added that line into the film just to put Bugs in there as some self-promotion or was that in the original book?
Super insightful perspective on the film! I’m amazed that Kubrick telegraphed the entire story in the first two scenes. Apparently Kubrick was determined to break the entire horror genre in the one horror film he made. What a fearless artist. Thank you for this excellent analysis.
Thank you very much, and I am glad you enjoyed it! Cheers!
Time stamp 11:10 Its stated its not shown Holloran can communicate with Danny with shining. Except yes they did show it when he asked Danny if he wants ice cream. Just because YOU don't think thats the case doesn't make it so. Its clearly shown in between their conversations. And Grady tells Jack in the Bathroom that Danny is attempting to bring in outside help at that moment. This is a lot of framing and gaslighting to try and make this point.
Next up: No Ghosts In Ghostbusters
Followed by: No Nazis In Raiders Of The Lost Ark
Ha ha ha!
Or ghosts from the ark
There was no shark in Jaws.
I've said it before: Both The Shining and Mommie Dearest are completely different movies depending on whether or not you grew up in an abusive home.
the shining is about domestic violence and in cest, an abusive alcoholic, thats the film. everything else is just sub plot red herrings and subterfuge.
@@johnwatts8346it’s about that and more
The "ghost" Dilbert that Jack interacts with in the movie is not the caretaker that killed his family. It is hinted that the "ghosts" he sees are from the 1920s, and that the first murder spree happened then. The other caretakers prior to Jack who committed violence were all hinted to be descendants of the people who were involved in the initial murders in the 1920s. That's why in between there are care takers that had no incidents for stretches of time. Only the descendants are "called back" by the hotel and are provoked to commit violent acts. The picture at the end hints that Jack is another decedent of someone who stayed at the hotel in the 1920s when the initial murders happened. This being said, I agree that the film makes it clear that the ghosts may all be in the characters heads, and that Jack needed no provoking from spirits, just an excuse as he already had resentment towards his family and was already established as being prone to violence. The mere suggestion of ghosts and past murders is just an extra push is an environment that gives him the freedom to delve into his madness. I think the film intentional makes these distinctions vague. I think the films intention is so that the audience never really knows which is the real story. Its the hotel haunted and luring back decedents to commit further atrocities? Or do those decedents have an inherited inclination to violence and the hotel provides them with an excuse? This is the question that arises in real life "haunted houses" like the Amityville house, which I think had a big inspiration for this story. Kubrick likes to explore ideas in his films and this film is basically just a big unanswered question. Are ghost and haunting real or are their manifestations of a suggestion? In order for this to work, the story has to work and make since as both. It is frustrating that the narrator dose not seem to understand the details of the "ghost story" that takes place in the film, and some of the attempt to debunk it, like that different Grady's and time periods, are misinformed. I do agree that with each supernatural occurrence, there is a hint that it could have been imagined, but the story makes since in both reals. The Hotel being haunted and Ghost scenario do work and makes since. So dose the story of the characters all having separate delusions due to the isolation and stress from their real family dynamic. Both stories work. That was the intention of the film.
Also in line with this theory Wendy and another theory that Jack sexually abused Danny could be that the bear suit scene is her realizing that that happened and that she had been ind denial about it up until that point. In fact that who scene of her going through the hotel and seeing ghosts could represent her finally seeing Jack’s inner demons for the first time clearly, woah that makes too much sense
I like art that’s open to interpretation. Especially like this, where there’s almost as many interpretations as there are viewers. I do like the madness interpretation better than the supernatural one. I think, ultimately, it’s scarier… because it can happen.
And, while it’s astoundingly unpopular, I like the Wendy theory. I think it’s just as plausible for Wendy to lose her mind being isolated with a husband she fears could harm her and their son.
An explanation why props are missing or placed is because the movie IS us THE AUDIENCE viewing the novel jack is writting based on the story Ullman told him. His movie begans where he gets the idea (staring at the maze). There are points when the novel and reality take turns on screen. Another variation of this theory is that danny and wendy legit go crazy there because of isolation of wendy and danny shinning. Jack is aware of shinning powers from reading on the subject so he adds it to dannys character inspired by danny having toni imaginary friend. Jack changed carles to Grady in his novel to protect the privacy of the guy.
The typewriter also changes color
No evidence of Danny shining with Halloran? You mean, the scene where Scatman literally speaks to Danny telepathically? Kubrick doesnt "lead us to believe" there was telepathic communication, he outright shows us there is. I don't see how you can deny this.
I also love the theory that the movie is taking place in the novel Jack is writing. That there is a super secret and quick transition scene that takes us from reality to Jack's book about the haunted hotel.
I've only read the title of this video as I write this.
So what I'm about to write may end up not being relevant.
BUT...I did just finish watching a recorded interview with Kubrick in which he said:
He personally didn't believe in anything supernatural.
However, in his film of the Shining there are ghosts, people have visions, people have various Powers. In particular, the hotel is rotten with ghosts, which every member of the family sees, and he made sure that audiences who were a bit slow on the uptake, ie dim as cracked bulb, would understand this by having one of them let Jack out of the locked pantry.
Maybe this video's title was being ironic. I hope so.
But there are many people out there who insist there are no ghosts, and that they know better than Kubrick, or they have a special "personal' understanding of Kubrick that allows them to know that when he says, "there's a great big fecking bunch of ghosties running about all over the fecking hotel" what he REALLY means is "there are no ghosts".
Now I've watched this video: It is such a big pile of cack.
Bro Stanley, in an interview said it’s supernatural.. He says you’re not sure if it’s supernatural until the door gets unlocked where Jack is trapped. That’s when you know it’s supernatural because it unlocks for no reason.
stephen king's work could NEVER be described as 'mediocre'. King's The Shining is an incredibly empathetic descent into madness that takes the reader along for a ride into Jack's slide into insanity. That's where the magic rests...in being dragged along for the ride. Kubrick's work on this film is pure genius, but he WAS improving on perfection. Thanks for making me a lifelong reader (and an English teacher) Stephen King. Reading Salem's Lot 1983 was where it all started for me. Thanks for the informative upload. :)
Salems lot is the bomb
Absolutely. I can't believe that's how the video started. King's _The Shining_ is brilliant.
Totally agree 💯!!!
He's a woke idiot, The Shining is a mediocre book. He has wayyyyyy better books anyway.
That was quite a stretch when you quoted "well he looks like a "Doc."
“The Shining” is NOT a mediocre Stephen King story.
I agree, it's worse
@@LordOfTheReefer its dismal
Kubrick made it fascinating
I’m reading the book right now (I’m not even halfway) but I’m enjoying it, although I’m nervous when it gets closer to the end (I’ve heard the movie is nothing like the book and I specifically got the book because I loved the movie.)
@@LordOfTheReefer I agree. I tried to read it, but had to put it away. Kubrick turned a trivial piece of literature into a brilliant movie.
The other big miss in this analysis is when Danny passed out he is next to a giant bear quilt which connects him to the bear performing fellatio. Strong suggestion that Jack has been sexually abusing Danny through visual motifs, there's also a picture of bears in Danny's room. Your leap of logic that the wife would call Halloran of all the hotel guests is insane and not supported by any dialogue or visuals and is merely a hypothesis that fits your incorrect theory that there is no telepathic shining. We literally hear Danny mentally listening to Halloran through telepathy, they're physically in the scene together unlike the ghost scenes where you could argue the person is alone and having a subjective experience.
A possibly important thing to consider is that The Shining is basically an homage to Poe. The original novel starts off with a quote from Masque of the Red Death, that same story inspired the ballroom stuff in the Overlook, and on a very basic level, the plot is similar to Fall of the House of Usher. In House of Usher, the building is presented as if it could be alive somehow, it's unclear if it's haunted or if the characters are just going insane, and at the end, it collapses in on itself.
Seeing how King's fascinated with supernatural fiction, it makes sense that he likes the perspective of the place being haunted. So, it's also possible that Kubrick picked up on the inspiration from Poe and the ambiguity in House of Usher, thus making the film itself open to interpretation. I'm sure he at least noticed the book's connection to Poe, knowing how detail-obsessed he was.
But hey, just a thought.
1 minute in and I absolutely love this guys narration style and take on the movie.
My favorite part of this theory is that Jack has bad credit
🤣
You sound like a banker
lol
The best part was when jack said “maybe the real shining was the friends we made along the way”
there is no room 237- the hotel is a family home, and the lay out of room 237 is the same as jacks room, where jack was fondling danny on the bed previously, the tennis ball rolling up on danny is jack, who is about to r danny, lloyd is simply jack talking to himself in denial trying to justify his awful behaviour, he does a deal with the devil to get the free drinks, he literally says so directly prior to lloyd showing up.
Jack was reading a play girl magazine before the interview and there was an article about parents sleeping with their children! I wonder why Stanley put that in the beginning of the movie?
Jack himself is seen throwing the ball that rolls toward Danny on the carpet earlier in the film. Another giveaway that it is actually Jack who abuses him in Room 237
Simply put, the shining is a story about abuse, both in the micro and in the macro. One might even lean towards the analysis that it includes references to the broad destruction of aboriginal peoples. It has been suggested that even King is playing out his own childhood abuse thematically in nearly all his works. Great breakdown, much appreciated POV. - edited to add, may I suggest that the meaning behind the photo of Jack at the party at the end of the film references the 'reincarnation' of abuse throughout generations. It is passed on generation to generation and as the photo is in the past, it references the macrocosm of abuse - which does not end.
This is absolutely and utterly the best video I've seen on the factual truth of reality concerning "The Shining" (Kubrick's version)
I've been trying to help movie reactors on UA-cam understand that in Kubrick's adaptation .... The aren't any ghosts, therefore it is a psychological thriller, NOT a horror film.
I also explain, Kubrick is an atheist ... Therefore. , he wouldn't have anything in his film alluding to spirituality or an afterlife... Hence... NO GHOSTS.
But viewers aren't always willing to show comprehension of anything not plainly spelled out for them...so, they continue to "believe" there are ghosts...on film and in the "real" natural world.. They also have cultish obedience to false mythologies (religion) so the factual truth of reality within the forces of Nature....escapes them...and anybody telling them their mistaken ideals of imaginary beings are indeed false....they see the actual calm minded focused truth speakers as trouble makers or crazy people.
It's a broken world and society we do are best to survive in. ❤ ✌ 🎥
Way too much overthinking here. Danny has psychic abilities like Halloran. The hotel is possessed by entities or ghosts. Simple as that.
I love these "there are no ghosts in the Shining Theory" because it adds to the re-watchability of the film. There are just as many clues that Jack suffers from substance abuse (addiction) and depression that foreshadow his mental instability and breakdown. Danny most likely has PTSD (from abuse) and anxiety (fear of his father)...and may have inherited schizophrenia from his father. Only on the surface level (or face value) that we see ghosts. Perhaps certain/extreme cases of mental illness and seeing apparitions/ghosts are one in the same. Great video...Now I'm gonna go watch the movie for the 20th time.
Whenever one uses declarative, unequivocal statements of FACT about a work that trades almost exclusively in ambiguity, one not only sets about be-clowning oneself, but also missing the depth and richness of the work.
While it’s true that Kubrick made a lot out of the presence of mirrors during the encounters with ghosts to conflate the idea that they are as much manifestations of the psychological states of the characters as they are of residual spirits, there’s quite a lot here that’s simply reductionist. For one thing, “the shining” isn’t mind reading, it’s telepathic communication. Halloran doesn’t know Danny’s favorite flavor is chocolate because Danny never TOLD him it was. The same applies to every other so called “fail” on Halloran’s part. You’ve really missed the boat on that one. Kubrick himself is on record as having believed in the possibility of ESP (which may indicate he didn’t think it was technically supernatural, but that’s beside the point).
Additionally you’re not accounting for the scrapbook subplot, which was shot but cut for time. All the ghosts referenced in the film were historical figures from The Overlook’s past, especially the woman in room 237, which flies in the face of the idea that Danny or Wendy could have imagined them without also having read the scrapbook. Cutting this material out left the ghosts more enigmatic and unexplained, but the film was conceived and shot with this in mind, so it’s overly convenient to use its absence as a FACT supporting your thesis.
I could go on. There’s a lot you’ve missed. But one final point is that Kubrick said the ending “suggests reincarnation.” So whether you like that or not, it’s something that was at least in his mind.
The Shining is ultimately too rich, strange and interesting to be reduced like this.
Be-clowning ones self, that’s an interesting turn of phrase!
Well said buddy. I want to add something to that. Like you said, they are using telepathy to communicate with each other and they aren't mind readers. But Danny does not possess just telepathy, he is able to see things before they happen, so he does possess psychic abilities. It stands to reason that Halloran should possess these abilities as well, with that being said how in heck can he not sense the extreme danger he's in beforehand and not have ANY inkling of what's going to happen to him. They both possess psychic abilities so he should have sensed this. This is something I've scratched my head about for at least the last 35 years. I'd say his powers are pretty lousy lol
@@andrewrau7516 Danny's power was so outsized that he was able to send a shrieking cry for help all the way from Colorado to Halloran in Florida. That's what's in the book, and it's also in the movie. To whatever extent that it's fair to consider parts of the book that aren't overtly in the movie, it was the greatness of Danny's power that the Overlook was so bent on possessing and absorbing -- and notably not Halloran's. But even though the film (rightly, if you asked me) skips past that idea, I think it remains a fair assumption that Halloran's abilities were significantly dimmer than Danny's.
It's just a you tube video
@@nosuchthing8 it’s just a comment on a UA-cam video
There’s an audio interview of Kubrick on here from 1980 & he talks about the supernatural in the movie, specifically the bolt being release when he’s locked in the pantry.
This one?
"It's what I found so particularly clever about the way the novel was written. As the supernatural events occurred you searched for an explanation, and the most likely one seemed to be that the strange things that were happening would finally be explained as the products of Jack's imagination. It's not until Grady, the ghost of the former caretaker who axed to death his family, slides open the bolt of the larder door, allowing Jack to escape, that you are left with no other explanation but the supernatural. The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely well worked out, and for a film that is often all that really matters."
Settling in here 2 minutes in, munching popcorn...
The Shining is the most beguiling horror-story turned symbolic parable I've ever seen, that's for sure.
Aww was kinda bummed that you blew right over the freeze-frame @29:41. It is quite the definitive eye-of-the-duck scene in The Shining:
[ .... _no play makes Jack aduLT boy_ ]
About 6-12 months ago I remember seeing an excellent symbolic analysis video (much more thorough than the CL/Ager material) about how Kubrick had precisely codified into the film a connection between Jack's abusive persona and the Power Elite of the 1910s-1930s (the 'ghosts'). Unfortunately, I can't find a link to the video anywhere; it seems to have been removed or shadow-banned, perhaps.
Also, you may wish to change the title to something that wasn't already in existence over two years ago(!): ua-cam.com/video/S4NTVKU6Prs/v-deo.html
This is a perfect example of having a conclusion and twisting all evidence to that conclusion instead of following the actual evidence presented. The amount of assumptions that are needed for this theory to be true stretch credulity more than a supernatural explanation.
I love both the book and movie.
This interpretation is pretty plausible (although thinking that Halloran could have just guessed Doc was a nickname and that Jack would think any help would be from Halloran are stretches) but I just don’t like the idea, interpretation that (even movie) Jack was repeatedly (and knowingly and unregretfully) abusing Danny rather than that he may have been thinking of it but he didn’t like the idea or thought until the end. Regardless of if there really are ghosts, the ghosts definitely relate to the characters’ specific pasts and minds.
The movie skipping over the first month at the hotel is in some ways frustrating, in others very interesting. If you like me like both versions you can pretty easily imagine that pretty similar events to what happened in the book also happened then.
After watching Dr Sleep, this video doesnt really hold up anymore.
and just in time for Spooky Season. holy shit.
EDIT: i have a spotify and UA-cam playlist solely for Halloween and I was JUST listening to it now. The Shining theme is part of said playlist. so the timing is simply marvelous.
'Tis the Season. Hope you enjoyed!
1:16 I'd like to say no offense as well although I'm a little more harsh towards the book than most. Stephen King put too much of himself into the book. That was the point. But as a result he was too quick to absolve Jack of his wrongdoings. It wasn't his fault. The hotel was just wearing him as a mask. And then the damn thing burns down and that's it. No more ambiguity. No more mystery. No more reason to think about it. The polar opposite of Stanley Kubrick's film.
King’s stance towards Kubrick’s version seems to have softened over time, right? The book and movie are so fundamentally different but the movie could not exist without the excellent basis for the story king established.
Brandon, I strongly agree with everything you're getting at here.
@@robfalgiano I'm not sure I'd say his stance has softened. During the marketing for Doctor Sleep he did say that the movie would redeem Stanley Kubrick's film as though that was even necessary.
That gives me in the impression that he still in the mindset of when the movie was first released. Stanley Kubrick's The Shining was actually received very poorly upon release and didn't get the recognition it deserves until later.
So either Stephen King is unaware of the fact that it has become a cultural icon and one of the most important horror movies of all time or he just doesn't want to acknowledge that because it goes against the grain of his story.
To be clear I hold no ill will toward Stephen King. I just disagree with his sentiments on the film. And while I do understand why he doesn't like the movie I still disagree none the less.
@@WowLynchWow Glad to hear it.
Brandon Powell interesting. Yeah I’m not clear why king would think kubrick’s shining would need validation by Dr. Sleep, but that’s okay. Times have also changed. When kubrick changed king’s story that was the exception not the norm. Movie adaptations used to try to be more faithful to source. Now it seems film directors and tv creatives have more room to deviate from source material such that they are two versions coming from one idea. I generally favor this since it gives the directors more room for creativity and thus a more interesting end artwork when in the right hands.
I see where you're coming from. Compelling argument. I never liked the idea of seeing this as a ghost story. This is what made me view the movie as average the first time I watched it. But I'm diving down the rabbit hole of human madness/primal instinct and the film gets much more terrifying to me. As a fan of psychology, I see this as a mind f*ck.