it's revealed in the movie, and the book I believe, that Jack never actually wrote anything at all in his "book". This reveal happens after he's started going crazy. So he couldn't have written up this alternate Jack to go around cuasing all this havoc. Which breaks this theory before it even gets started since it's all based on his writing.
I think something else that people often miss is the idea that, despite Jack's constant complaining ("All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", talking about how he's so tired but can't sleep because there's so much work to do, etc.) we never actually SEE him performing his caretaker duties. In fact, it's always WENDY who is cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the hotel. We even see her dumping the boiler at one point, which Jack should be doing himself. Jack is usually screwing around, napping, bouncing a ball off the walls or whatever. It just adds to the creeping realization that Jack is completely cracked.
EastNewYorkStyle Records More like Kubrick showed a real picture of a dysfunctional family, living with an alcoholic and an enabler wasn't easy...yknow
EastNewYorkStyle Records I mean to state that, Kubrick understood the undertones of the book(or not)...King wrote it as a somewhat autobiographical account, he was an alcoholic and had abused his children, but King subconsciously lives through Jack, so of course he doesn't make Jack seem like a bad person(you broke your sons arm, what?) He does it subconsciously as though he is telling himself, "It is not your fault, you are trying to change" but that is the usual way an alcoholic denies himself(avoidance)...however Kubrick being the dark humoured evil sadist he could be at times, saw through the situation, he ascertained "No you are not this Jack, you are this" he showed a realistic picture of an alcoholic and his dyfuctional family, his enabler wife, his inept child, understandably King hated this potrayal of himself and his family, he even said "Kubrick directed this film to hurt people" he was salty, you see. And called Wendy's character "misogynistic" when it was not true. So...even when Kubrick did take liberties with the script, he vouched to make it about what HE felt the story was all about, to him it was a story about a man's failure to defeat his demons(real and imagined) and not a just haunted hotel, so I think when the end shot shows Jack in the party holding a glass, it signifies his defeat against alcohol, he lost to his desires and is thus bereft of all free will.
I don't think he's saying that it makes zero sense to him, I think he's one of like half of the people who's seen this video and hated it for being poorly made especially compared to better quality videos of the same subject matter haha
You're trying too hard. The line "You've always been the caretaker." is tied to the line "I'd sell my soul for a drink." It had been established that there was no alcohol on the premises, yet when Jack says those words, a bartender appears and the bar is fully stocked. When Jack sips the drink, the contract is completed and the Caretaker moves in.
One of the things I love the most about The Shining is that, for such an elementary story, nearly everyone takes away something different from it. I never get tired of listening to people talk about their own interpretations of little details, it's a great mental exercise to go through the movie again with a completely new context and 'test' theories.
"You have always been the caretaker" for me it refers to the cursed spirit reincarnating every time to live again and again the same situation. Jack in fact speaks about deja vu'.
Agree that mansion is haunted by demon (angry Indian spirit due to building on sacred ground?) But main King-Kubrick twist is, "YOU'VE always been the caretaker". Has demon always manifested itself ONLY in Jacks body, which is reincarnated indefinitely? This appears to be suggested due to dated ballroom photo, all historical staff know him, including bartender. I suggest that the bizarre, graphic room scenes (naked bath woman who gyrates sexually, snuggling up to Jack , animal-fetish sex, twin girls in formal dresses suggesting pedophilia and murder), are intended to expose the excesses that happened in hotel, as demon wields power over EVERYONE, EXCEPT for those who SHINE. Even Wendy seems to be subject to demons twisted influence, as she repeatedly failed to protect her son, or to acknowledge the ample evidence that he was being abused (broken arm, bruise, depressed demeanor). She tries to explain Danny's injuries as, "it was an accident", and Jack's Bipolar behavior, as "he's busy, just under stress". Every time I watch it I discover new things, and have a different theory.
@@quasimobius does it really matter? I mean, the film itself is more of an interpretation of the book, not adaptation. If Kubrick says that the photo suggests reincarnation, then the photo suggests reincarnation. The book is obsolete when speaking about Kubrick's film, because they're not the same thing at all.
Well done. I think you’ve got it right. Your theory would further be supported by the difference in the color of the typewriters. But - whenever Jack is talking to a fantasy character (the bartender, Grady, the naked Old Woman) - he’s actually talking to himself in the mirror. Even in the bathroom with Grady - he’s not looking at Grady, he’s looking at his own reflection. So, I think you’re in to something - but still there are huge holes.
I've always thought that this movie kind of allows YOU to decide and interpret with Jack being the caretaker over and over again. Whatever the case , this movie is a legend through the decades.
I would agree that overall, this is the most logical takeaway. Kubrick excels in ambiguity and interpretation. You know every detail is thought out to take on an an individuals interpretation of a scene or the entire movie.
Actually the story has many interpretations, and that's why it's one of the great movies of all time. There is one part that people can't accept and it seems so simple. Jack and his son are constantly seeing ghosts, and at one point Jack meets the people who were there in the previous time. Jack has the option of staying in the past with the people he wishes to be with or return a tormented writer. When all is said and done he chooses the past. All other parts are up for interpretation.
A lot of that is because King alluded to a lot of happenings over the course of the book, and the movie itself cuts that back even further, which allows for the viewer to project their own thoughts and feelings onto the work. Which shouldn't be much of a surprise, King is known for specifically leaving a lot of details out for things where it's not particularly important. It's part of why the books age relatively well, as things like the fashion of clothes usually aren't mentioned unless it's important.
Something I haven't heard is the possibility that Jack (and even Wendy) could have The Shining too, because the cook told Danny that his grandma and him had The Shining, so maybe one of his parents could also have had that gift and that allowed them to see the "traces of the past" of this place that also "shines"; it's more likely that if this was true that Jack was the one with The Shining, but since Wendy could see disturbing things at some point it could mean that see had the gift or just that ghosts can choose when to show up to normal people.
There's no other interpretation... only people incorrectly interpreting it because they didnt see the subtle clues that Kubrrick left such as what this video points out correctly. Another great clue that Jack was never the Murderous Caretaker is during his interview with the owner at the beginning, he was told that the murderous previous caretaker was named CHARLES Grady... but when Jack meets Mr. Grady in the bathroom during the ballroom scene, he calls him DELBERT Grady... which clearly points out that this is Jack making the whole story up.
If you take the film literally, and expect every clue to lead to a truth, it will never exert its full hold over you. That's the horror. There is no answer. You will never reach the heart of darkness because darkness has no heart. It's a labyrinth: it leads nowhere but death.
Thank you. If there is one thing I cant stand it is people who overthink things. The Shining was a treat to be enjoyed and savored for what it is. I for one really don't care if Stephen King did not like the film adaptation I think it was pure genius.
Steven King has effectively used the trope of the haunted house with a mind of its own in several of his works. Besides the Overlook, there's the Marsten House in 'Salem's Lot, and Rose Red in the miniseries of the same name.
@rorykelly45 He's the guy who has covered just about all there is to cover when it comes to hidden stuff in The Shining. Which Mc Gregor? If it is Ewan, you don't sound so tough! If it's Conor, it's a dreadful attempt at a Crumlin accent! And who in Crumlin calls people 'guy'?!?
THANK YOU. I've watched your series of 4 videos on details of The Shining, and I then saw the movie again just yesterday with them in mind. I have to say, I am convinced now that the movie is about Jack writing his novel, and that none of the spooky stuff is actually happening.Something I noticed is that a complete transition happens at the moment Jack discovers the model of the hedge maze. This moment had always stood out to me, but I never put together what the real significance was. When you consider that Jack just a couple of scenes earlier had woken up saying he had a few ideas but no good ones, and then proceeded to throw a tennis ball around as he tried to put these ideas together, then the moment of him staring at the maze becomes the moment when his novel all comes together. From then on, you are watching his book.This is why his typewriter is different afterwards, why Charles becomes Delbert, and why the location of the maze is different as well, along with other details. As you mentioned, the few "paranormal" scenes that happen earlier in the film, all happen after Jack has gotten an idea, such as just after he hears the story of Charles which inspires him. The scene of Halloran going into the freezer is also a prime example of where we jump into Jack brainstorming an idea. He didn't know which side of the fridge Halloran opened, just that he was showing them where it was.Now it could be argued that a lot of the events after the maze were also based on real occurrences. So perhaps Jack did get in a fight with Wendy over her interrupting him. But the version we see in the film is Jack's elaborated novel version and it's safe to say the real event didn't occur to near that degree. It's also possible that she really interrupted him at the bar because she was scared about somebody being in the hotel, and that's why the bartender suddenly isn't there. But all other scenes are Jack's imagination running wild and fitting in the sources of inspiration like Danny's imaginary friend, into his narrative.
I have never liked the theory that the horror and violence is from Jack's book, but when I watched it today it occurred to me that as he is walking to the maze model and the bat and the trike and teddy bear are scattered around, that IS showing how Jack finds the items to build his story. Pieces of a puzzle he will have to fit together to work out the plot. I just wish there was a scene at the end where we confirm, oh, this was all the novel he wrote.
Exactly ! And what i have also realised after watching this film countless times in order to figure out it’s main point is the foreshadowing of scenes through props. Like Jack throwing ball on the Native American paintings as axe swinging and the stuff toy lying in the lobby where hallorann was murdered as upcoming events in the novel ideas being imagined.
Hmm. Nah. Not convinced. I think it was supposed to be some kind of reincarnation story. In the final scene we see the photo from the 1920s with Jack. He had lived and died at the hotel in the 1920s, and came back in a later life to repeat the cycle.
I like to think that Jack is actually an amalgamation of the Hotel’s evil energy that gets reincarnated every so often. His purpose is to lure potential victims so that this process can begin all over again. This would make sense with the end of the movie where Jack is frozen to “death”. He was frozen, but he can be thawed out and return someday.
@@Odinsday There was a movie that had reincarnation as a genetic blueprint being reused, which I can see and you seem to imply, instead of a same consciousness in a new body thing. I thought Hinduism and Buddhism was about becoming one with everything, so why do any of those ones become an individual, again, according to believers in reincarnation? Do they just get rejected or reject it by attachments they won't let go (the latter being pretty much how anyone goes to Hell, though not without His trying to wake us, because we have free will)?
the man dressed like Jack in the beginning is actually a pretty good observation that gave me chills, but it doesn't support you theory. However it can be said that it's a visual cue to emply that Jack has been seduced/possessed by the hotel later on when we see him using those clothes. That also implies that even in those early scenes it's like the hotel is alive and looking carefully at the family, blended with the confusion and background. It's also a neat detail that Jack is the only one who looks at the man
First of all, watch the movie in HD and enhance brightness, the guy in the background is wearing a checkered shirt, no connection to Jack and his jacket whatsoever
""Very often crew members asked him (Kubrick), 'Can you explain that to me?' And he said, 'I never explain anything, I don’t understand it myself. It’s a ghost film!'”
You're absolutely right. Many other clues in the movie. Like the color of the typewriter changes when Jack ic whearing the maroon jacket {writing his novel} . Also many problems with continuity in the movie when Jack is wearing the jacket, {chairs in the background and then removed}. Kubrick was way too much of a perfectionist to let these imperfections in his finished movie. Great assessment.
It's a good theory, but I always took it as Grady had possessed Jack, and was saying I'm in you, You're the caretaker. Or that Jack was Grady in a past life, and since Grady's spirit is trapped in the Hotel, it had to wait for Jack to return.
Lycan_Jedi Gameplay it's tough for me to separate novel from film sometimes. I understand for time there are things that must be inferred. Because in the novel it's the hotel that is trying to to kill the family and it possesses Jack to get the boy (the hotels true desire being the boys power) I always assumed that either jack was the reincarnation of the original caretaker or (and perhaps more plausible) he hotel just lied to him to gain his allegiance or soul if you prefer.
I think that the suggestion is that there is "something" in the hotel period (possibly a spirit tied to the native american tribes in the area). It's malicious, and seeks to inhabit people who stay there and cause them to do malicious things. Similar to "Amityville Horror". I think that Grady et al were just manifestations (of the trapped souls who had died there) in his mind, put there by the spirit who was attempting to gain control over his mind (and hence his actions). I think it's implied that this same "spirit" (or demon, or whatever have you) also had done the same to the previous caretaker. I think we're being mislead by the phrasing of "you have always been the caretaker". This was just said to him to confuse him and cause him to slip further into insanity, because of the malicious nature of the spirit/being/demon/whatever. At the end, when he died, his soul became trapped as well, and he "joined the others" as Grady had been attempting to get him to do. He was then inserted into the photo as a representation of that concept. - I should add, I do not believe in souls. We're talking strictly from the perspective of the "story universe".
A former incarnation of Jack from a past life was the caretaker of the haunted Overlook Hotel in Colorado (based on the Stanley Hotel), as seen in the photograph from 1921. That's what the Charles Grady ghost (in the role of Overlook Hotel waiter Delbert Grady from 1921) meant by "You've always been the caretaker." Jack said to Wendy, "It was as though I had been here before! It was almost as though I knew what was going to be around every corner! Ooohhhhh..." Etc. It was intentionally left mysterious in the film with all those hints and clues. The director Stanley Kubrick explained this: "The ballroom photograph at the very end suggests the reincarnation of Jack."
When Grady tells Jack he's always been the Caretaker, he doesn't mean Jack, he means the Vessel in which the Overlook uses to commit the mass murders. Remember Jack says Grady killed his family, same as Jack tried to do. And notices Jack only appears in the photo after he dies, which signifies the Overlook has taken Jack's soul(in my opinion). Remember the hotel is evil so it can change anything it wants to. And I believe that's why Jack also becomes the bartender
I always thought that Jack was grady and Grady was reincarnated as jack that's why jack went back to the hotel and was going to commit the same crime again as before and that's why Grady says to him you've always been the caretaker I thought the hotel has brought jack back to it because he was actually Grady reincarnated
I always thought that was his memory getting fuzzy as the borders between him and the hotel go blurrier and blurrier as he was brought further and further into the hotel's control. In that case, he would always be the caretaker as the hotel takes care of itself generally. It wasn't until Danny and Wendy came along and distracted him from performing his duties that the hotel ultimately blew up from the boiler. That's a large part of why I didn't care for Kubrick shoehorning the movie into his series on the weakness of men. That ending never really worked as the hotel ultimately won out in the end. Probably the only worse ending would have been the one that King originally intended before writing the book of having them all die and become ghosts.
Your explanation of The Shining is the most clarifying one I've ever seen to date, and to me all the confusing issues about the film have been settled once and for all. It just debunks all the other famous explanations, which are now laid bare in their sheer incompleteness and contradictions. I'm very impressed and I think your take on The Shining should have been much more widespread and hailed as THE definitive explanation of Kubrick's intentions behind this film. It now makes sense to me that nothing in fact happened; we feel relieved that the horrific tale was nothing more than Jack's novel in the end. However, Kubrick encrypted his message in such a way that audiences could never ever realize what was really happening. The clues suddenly become very clear now. It becomes clear also that Kubrick's story has nothing to do with King's, who told another story altogether. No surprise that Kubrick did not want to be caught in his attempt to strongly modify the storyline as well as the whole message contained in the book. Bravo really for your explanation which closed up the issue for me. It took me decades trying to figure out what this film was all about, and then I stumbled upon your videos which easily provide a definite answer to all Kubrick fans. It's all there for those who want to see it. My sheer congratulations!
My take on it is that the evil force that possesses the hotel absorbs Jack as the latest in a long line of "caretakers". And the line, "You have always been the caretaker," means that Jack is there not by accident or coincidence, but because he was fated to be.
Interesting idea, Marten, but there's a fair amount that happens during the movie that doesn't support it. For example, the movie ends with a close-up of the photo in the hallway showing Jack Torrance smiling in front of a party dated July 4, 1921. The implication is that Jack (or presumably the spirit that possessed Jack) has "always been there," echoing the words of Grady in the bathroom scene. You could argue that Jack the writer also concocted that as part of his novel's plot (I suppose along with everything else that happens from the scene you cited forward), but by the time we see the hallway photo, the latest incarnation of Jack Torrance is frozen solid in the maze -- which is to say, not exactly embodying a creative disposition. Not to mention the apparitions Wendy and Danny see/experience, the premonitions Danny receives, and perhaps a dozen other elements that argue in favor of Jack's possession being the latest in a cycle of murderous possessions at a haunted hotel. Having said all of that, I recognize that your theory captures potentially any conflicting details in the same way that a "he was really just dreaming all of it" explanation would, but it's hard to imagine that was really what Kubrick had in mind when he reconstructed King's novel.
I think it means every caretaker becomes possessed what means you’ve always been here since it always possesses different caretakers what makes them end up like grady I wish there was a movie about grady
In the novel, he didn't freeze to death. He blew up with the hotel. Good catch, seeing the other Jack, though. I think the burgundy sweater Jack is still him, though. There's a time overlap there in the hotel. All times overlap, like a Limbo world. That's how finite people came to be there infinitely. Because they got absorbed into the everywhen.
Bob Carp No, this is a common Stephen King trope. Most of the main characters in his books are writers. He’s not inserting himself in, so much as taking inspiration.
Yes - This video get's it right. I've thought about this too - maybe King was a child abuser?>?? I think King hated this movie because Kubrick went places King didn't want to go.
@@BabyBoomerChannel he hated it because Kubrick changed alot of things he didn't want changed. That's why he made his own miniseries of THE SHINING. But i respect your opinion, you can have ur own i can have mine. But just saying I think you're wrong.
The fact that there was a guy in the beginning who looked exactly like the latter Jack is amazing, I never saw that guy in the background. Also really interesting theory - if this theory is true I would be very interested in seeing what happened to the real Jack and his family (in the real dimension).
It's unlikely to be an accident or something that Kubrick didn't notice. He had been a photographer before turning to directing and he had a very well-developed eye for things like that. It's certainly possible that it just slipped by or is just a case of something not considered important enough to note when deciding what to do with the wardrobe.
No, what really happened was this guy named Steve made up this whole story. Then a guy named Stan made a movie based on the story Steve made up, only a little different. Then after years some people watched the movie over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and your and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.. Then the internet came.
What IF...the caretaker in the red jacket WAS real and made up the Torrance family in his head? Then went crazy and froze to death looking for a child that did not exist.
Except that in the King novel, Jack doesn't freeze to death. He forgets to stoke the old boiler until it's too late. The boiler then explodes and kills Jack, taking out half the hotel with him.
From reading the book decades ago, before watching the movie, i usually thought that the Hotel was like Christine the car; choosing to possess a person that was there to it's liking, and thus finding a way to alienate that person from everyone else, to the point of destruction. The book is much different
In deleted footage, Jack, after the scene wherein he bounces the tennis ball around the lobby, finds a trail of his writing materials that leads him to the big table in the Colorado Lounge that would become his desk. On the table is only the scrapbook that’s later seen in the final cut. The framing of Jack finding the scrapbook is done so as to include that cabinet the “duplicate Jack” is cleaning in the scene above, wherein the Torrences are being shown the Colorado Lounge for the first time. I tried to see if the “duplicate Jack” is putting a book into or taking one out of that cabinet. But, it doesn’t seem so. Still, it could be another one of Kubrick’s surreptitious, subconscious hints that got broken when the scrapbook discovery scenes were cut out. Additionally, it’s been noted that, whenever Jack interacts with ghosts, there’s a reflective surface-the Gold Ballroom bar-back, the bathroom mirrors, the stainless steel door of the pantry, etc-evoking a theme of duplication. The glass doors of that cabinet the “duplicate Jack” is cleaning are quite obviously reflective and, at a point, the left door catches the reflection of Jack’s back as he walks away, just before he looks behind him.
It seems as if he is seeing his doppelgänger, his double of his future self. That would tie in with the scrapbook, because, according to one theory, Jack sees the pictures, history of the hotel in the scrapbook and shines the visions to Danny, Ullman and Halloran. Thus the finding of the scrapbook is the bridge between the present and future (insane) Jack...the scrapbook being a portal of some kind?...mirror images and duplicates also exist in 2001...I don’t know.
Great content! Your explanation is my favorite one and I believe it’s the most accurate and fascinating out of all explanations. A few things I noticed that lend to your theory. When Jack, Danny, and Wendy are shown driving up to the Overlook it appears that they are driving up the mountain in a counter clockwise motion, with Jack closest to the mountain and Wendy closest to the lakeside. However, when Jack is first shown driving to the Overlook alone for the interview in the opening scene he is shown starting the ascent going in a clockwise motion, with the driver side closest to the lake, and the passenger side closest to the mountain. During the opening scene it appears that it shows the whole ride up the mountain, in segments, and at no point is the driver side closest to the mountain (continuity error). Logically speaking, the whole ride doesn’t need to be shown, and we can assume that the entire ride would be a continuous clockwise ascent until the top is reached. This seems to suggest that the ride to the Overlook with all three of them in the car is part of Jack’s novel/brainstorming. That’s why Jack is so nasty in this scene. The abusive, ugly Jack is the Jack of his novel. The normal, loving Jack is the real world Jack. Next, during the interview, right before Stuart tells Jack about the murders, there are continuity errors as well (which we all know Kubrick would never do on accident). Right before Stuart reveals what happened, the cigarette in the ash tray disappears, the pen in the holder to Stuart’s right moves, the light gray pen on the desk in front of Stuart moves, and something that looks like an intercom to Stuart’s left moves. Once he’s done explaining the grisly occurrence, the cigarette reappears, and the pens and the intercom device go back to their original positions. To me this suggests that not only is the scene where Stuart tells Jack about the murder/suicide part of Jack’s book (not the whole interview, just the explanation of the murders) but the murders may have not even occurred, and this was completely invented by real world Jack for his novel. It does seem that Stuart told Jack about something unsettling that did occur, but it probably wasn’t about a murder/suicide. Perhaps it was something to do with a ghost sighting (common for old buildings and hotels for one reason or another). Which could be why Wendy mentions something about a “ghost ship” during the tour and the murders aren’t brought up at all, which you’d think would be. Lastly, when Hallorann takes Danny for ice cream, Jack and Wendy share a walking embrace that looks very intimate and loving. This is clearly the real Jack, the Jack who loves and would never harm his family. Thanks for your interesting explanation, as I love the movie even more now. Cheers!
I'm not buying it. I think your taking the line you've always been the caretaker a bit serious. I think Gradey was trying to suck Jack in and manipulate him into killing his family, because he is the caretaker and they are a threat to the hotel.
Its all about the 2 typewriters. One typewriter is shown when the real Jack is writing his novel; the other typewriter is shown when a fictionalised writer is going crazy in a hotel, which is what the real Jack is writing about.
There is one scene you missed. It's Jack Torrance looking at an old picture of himself as caretaker. As a reader, you can argue Jack Torrance was created on a wood shelf but, I disagree. Jack was always the caretaker.
Thanks Lady Jenny. I agree. The reader has that creative power interpreting a novel and similarly with a film, but less because the visuals can't always be interpreted like words.
I should have written that guy's clothing was the inspiration for Jack's costume change lol. Anyhow, in that room all the men who were moving furniture wore a uniform. Only that guy wasn't. The fact that Jack slowed down as he passed him was a visual cue by Kubrick, no way it was coincidental. And if you listen to the audio as he Jack slowed down, there are 2 sound effects timed with his steps. A creek and then a tap. So this visual and audio cue was meant to indirectly point out that man (caretaker).
I don't get it. I love art, but I'm not any good at interpreting it. You have to explain it to me way clearer than this. I don't even know what is the point the video is trying to make. If someone with patience could please explain it to me I would appreciate it.
***** Oh, I see. So all the horror stuff is supposed to be part of Jack's novel? That doesn't make much sense, since the hotel layout is impossible and supernatural right from the start. Something must be going on outside Jack's novel, because the overlook spatial impossibilities are clearly shown before Jack starts writing anything.
Kauan Raphael Mayworm Klein from what I can tell the real jack ends while he's asleep at his desk screaming in his sleep. I maybe be wrong. the poster may be just reading stuff into the story that isnt there. which I think is more likely
Mike Are.... in the film Jack is drinking...hence the term"red rum".... drinking brings out the spirits if you will.. the worst in Jack... the hotel was known as party Central...drinking.. cavorting etc...Jack embodies the elements of evil that live in that place....and some drinks turn downright evil when they drink...that is the moral of the story...
rromanos I'm not one to drink (actually only drank one Red Bull once in my life. Never again). But I'm fairly sure rum isn't red. it's transparent as far as I know.
This is excellent. Thank you for posting these. Just stumbled onto them this morning - mostly to ridicule them, because every other Shining theory I have ever seen is well, ridiculous - and Wow! We've been excitedly chattering about them all day. Watching the movie again in a couple hours, for about the sixtieth time, and also the first! Thanks again for sharing your work.
I just noticed that the guy cleaning everything is the same guy! He moves a chair, suddenly he's polishing the piano, suddenly he's wiping the desk! Wildness
+Player One - No - the Great Room. Otherwise known as the lobby. The one person this poster's theory revolves around is just one of several workers prepping for winter - and most of them look so much like one another they could have all been one guy - which would have been a cool and easy-to-miss detail had Kubrick elected to film it that way...
Player One - You must be young. Great Room is an old-school term used to describe large enclosed spaces intended to be occupied by many, in public buildings like government bureaus, hotels or palaces, and in mansions. The term has come back into fashion among status-seekers and the pretentious as a name for the overly-large living rooms in residential McMansions...
Player One - Since this is the internet, I suppose you really are as dumb as you seem. Or maybe you've just never been in a building bigger than a double-wide trailer. Sigh...
Maybe I am nuts, but Jakes limp was caused as injury from falling down the stairs after Wendy whacked him with the bat.....he is not imitating anything. When he wakes in the dry food storage room after she dragged him in there he attmepts to stand and he shows his ankle is injured. This theory does not seem sound to me.
For some reason I always thought the word caretaker resonated with jack and made him angry because he's supposed to be a caretaker to his family but his drinkin and Danny's injury will never allow him to gain that title no matter how hard he tries .
“ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JACK A DULL BOY” HAS MANY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS. The iconic sentence actually changes meaning for foreign translations of the film, at Kubrick’s request. In German versions, the phrase translates to: “Don’t put off till tomorrow what you can do today.” The Spanish translation is: “Although one will rise early, it won’t dawn sooner.” In Italian: “He who wakes up early meets a golden day.”
I think I remember seeing the french version and noticing it was written in french, don't remember what though...but maybe it was only in my mind? The plot thickens...
JACK HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CARETAKER. HE IS SHOWN AT THE END OF THE FILM IN THE 1921 PICTURE. I AGREE THAT THE PEOPLE CLEANING THE COLORADO LOUNGE IN THE SCENE YOU SHOW DO HAVE SOME UNSEEN SIGNIFICANCE. BUT THAT JANITOR IS NOT THE CARETAKER.
THANKS, I APPRECIATE YOUR NEW PERSPECTIV, AND I WILL WATCH THE FOLLOW UP. A REALLY COOL DOCUMENTARY ON THE FILM WITH FOUR DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES IS "ROOM 237" (NOW FREE ON YOU TUBE). AGAIN, I DON'T NECESSARY TORALLY BELIEVE ANY ONE PERSPECTIVE. THE FILM IS LIKE A THICK ONION, THERE ARE MANY MANY LAYERS!
Yes. I've seen it. Very interesting indeed. I love that there's so many interpretations. It goes to show what a genius Stanley was to affect and evoke so many different perspectives by his audio and visual style.
Yeah, even the background noises in the opening scenes when they are touring the hotel are spooky. Weird moaning and yelling and the word SHONE! yelled sixteen different times (past tense of the verb to shine). A U Tube documentary called The Shone Report examines this.... But they can't really come up with a concrete answer on why and when he inserted them...
Glad to see someone else thinks about it the same way i did. it was always my explanation also and everyone tries to argue deeper points lol. No other reason it would show him in a picture at the same place since 1921. He was a ghost the whole time. Sort of a 6th sense long before the 6th sense haha
What I like to think is that the Jack that wakes up from the nightmare isn't the same Jack that entered the hotel. When he wakes up, Jack is gone. The one we see from there on is merely a copy(it sounds stupid, but hey, it's a theory) I also like to imagine that his screaming is the spirit manifesting(which is why he sees himself killing Danny and Wendy. The spirit is taking over)
Think of it more like this, what is happening at the moment of Jack's nightmare is Danny going into Room 237 i.e. he opens the gateway to the darker realms that engulfed the entire area. So in his nightmare Jack is attacked by he dark spirits, and after he is accused of hurting Danny by Wendy he then is given an offer by the dark spirits of the Hotel, a Drink for his spirit i.e. he sells himself away for alcohol to be a slave and servant of the dark beings. The alcohol wasn't the cause, it was the wish he asked for
I must admit, when i was watching it again earlier, it did look like the mad version of Jack. Also the more normal Jack does look at him for some reason.
A better theory is that Kubrick was an excellent director who was adept at crawling into people's heads and poking at their brains. This film was way more disturbing than King's book, a fact that to this day has pissed the latter off. So no, I don't agree with the premise of this video.
sonofcy I agree. I think King would have taken a chainsaw to his right arm for the elevator idea alone...although it DOES creep me out to look close at that scene. It DOES look like something's in the elevator of blood.
This and The Wizard of Oz are better than the books they stemmed from. I generally despise when directors depart from the original text but not in these two cases. I completely agree that the Kubrick film is far more unsettling than the King book. And I am a King fan. The miniseries from the 90s that King wrote was terrible!
Ever notice how in every "ghost" encounter Jack has in the film, there are mirrors present? In the Gold Room. In the Gold Room restroom. In the bathroom in room 237. And when Jack is talking to Grady through the door in the dry food storage room, that door (unique to all the other similar doors we see at different times in the film) has a smooth, metallic reflective surface. Mirrors are used in other parts of the film, including when Danny has his psychic connection in the bathroom early in the movie. And of course, who could forget "redrum"? What role could mirrors be playing here? Or was it just a coincidence? An accident of set design, an abstract theme?
How about when Jack is locked in the dry food store room where there is no possible way to escape.....but he hears the voice of Dilbert Grady who releases him on the condition that he sacrifice his wife and son
@@Kazilikaya I'm not convinced it's Grady who unlocks the larder door. If the ghosts can physically interact with the Hotel, why would they do so just this single time? Jack couldn't even properly get through the bathroom door with an ax in the following scene. Why didn't the spirits, supposedly wanting him to kill his family, open this door for him as well? Personally, I'm partial to the theory that Danny unlocks the door. From this perspective, it's a story about child abuse and revenge but still includes psychic powers. Again, Jack's interactions with ghosts occur only when mirrors are present (this is including the reflective surface on the inside of the larder door where he hears Grady's voice on the other side). At least in part, Kubrick is communicating that any evil present in the Overlook, rather than being of a spiritual form, actually is a reflection of, presides within, Jack (and/or Danny). Jack has abused Danny in the past, by his own admission, though his version differs from what Wendy tells the doctor inspecting Danny. This points to his dishonesty about it and the likelihood he's abused Danny more times than once. After the larder door is unlocked, the next scene is Wendy sleeping. Therefore Danny could have easily gone down to free his dad without his mom knowing. Danny, under a psychic trance as Tony (who was probably also in control when he freed Jack), write "redrum" on the mirror, waking his mom just before Jack comes with his ax. This theory is far from perfect, can get convoluted, and, in order to make the most sense, would require Danny to be evil as well, not only psychically taking revenge on his father but killing Halloran as well. Another version of this would include there actually being ghosts in the Overlook. But these ghosts can't actually unlock doors but rather rely on manipulating the psychic experiences of others. Anyway, great movie.
As a person who grew up with chiller theater and other things such as the Twilight Zone and outer limits this was just another case of the old theme of people going into a house and getting trapped remember that famous line "I can't leave I stayed here too long and now I can't leave "there were many Twilight Zone Outer Limits Chiller theater episodes that played on the same theme ;people being trapped in a house from which they could no longer Escape because they had stayed too long. in this case I see The Shining as nothing more than an extension of that same theme. remember Stephen King grew up with those same shows so I think he's tapping that Source in this movie Jack Nicholson becomes the new caretaker and is consumed by the hotel and like the other shows Twilight Zone Chiller Theatre Etc could not bring himself to leave and is eventually consumed by the hotel
I absolutely agree this is the reason why some props appear and disappear in the movie because we are seeing mostly Jack's novel not the actual movie and this is why he changed the name Charles to Dilbert to protect the identity of Charles in his novel. But the ending leaves a big question based on the deleted last scene Wendy is now a single mother so in real life Jack either killed himself or they separated but nothing strange happened at the hotel besides Wendy and Danny going crazy from hallucinating seeing ghosts according to that deleted scene. But the question is is that deleted scene part of Jack's novel or the movie itself
As conjectured since the movie came out, the term "caretaker" doesn't simply mean the munade job/position in the mundane aspect of the hotel; rather, it broadly refers to Jack's spiritual attachment to the location and the spirits/memories it harbors. He was, in all likelihood, relative to the narrative of the movie, the reincarnation of who he had been in 1921 (and who he was, at that specific time, is largely neither here-nor-there : he's simply a spirit reborn again and returned to the sinkhole of evil that the hotel is supposed to be, both literally and as an abstract concept regardless of location). In the broad, *all* of the theories and concepts ascribed to the movie are true but simply in greater and lesser degrees/portions. Just like how life is much more complicated/involved than many think, so too is the symbolism for all the various layers/dimensions that Kubrick's vision of The Shining. *All* of the pieces form the larger puzzle, and it's only a case of one being more "true" than the other when/if one focuses on a given aspect over the others. Otherwise, all of it forms one giant, complex stew....
I suggest that u buy the blu-ray version of the movie, and you'll notice that the background guy actually wears a red jacket with big black squares motifs, but Jack wears a plain red jacket, so there is no reason for that theory to exist
Notice that all the caretakers are wearing uniforms except for that man in 'jeans' with the red black jacket... now listen to Jack telling Delbert Grady before going to the washroom to clean his jacket, that it's alright, he's got plenty of jackets... to further this point, look at the Channel 4 The Shining tribute where Jack with jeans has on another jacket: /watch?v=liea8tfXpvk
You are talking about a tribute, wich is done by fans, fake set, fake actors, this isnt facts about the movie. Also, caretaker by DEFINITION means the ONE person that take care of the building, mostly when the owner is absent, nothing to deal with the cleaning and moving guys in grey in the living room, i'm just saying that despite the video argument being interesting in a way, this theory just dont hold to anything concret.
The point of this theory is that there are two Jacks we see in the movie. One who is a writer and would-be caretaker of the hotel when it closes for the winter, and the other is the fictional Jack which we follow him descend into madness. The reason for all the anomalies and inconsistencies peppered throughout the movie is, in my analysis, Stanley telling the audience which scenes are real and which are happening in Jack's novel. Since they're blended together seamlessly, lies the confusion I believe. For ex. When Jack meets Mr.Ullman for the interview, notice outside of the room there is a light switch. The switch is symbolic of the real world and because it's where Jack, the writer learns of the grisly murders of Charles Grady. Now, look at the scene when Wendy goes to Ullman's office to radio the ranger. No light switch. Real world. Now, the scene where fictional Jack goes to Ullman's office to take apart the radio. Light switch. Fictional world. The Channel 4 Ad was a big budgeted production to make it as accurate as possible. The details are amazing. I highly doubt they would make the mistake of having Jack wear a beige jacket when everything else was immaculately recreated.
you dont need to tell me again the theory, i saw the video, in order to make a theory plausible u need concrete proofs of your saying, visual proofs like when u talk about the switch, but i doubt a prop apprearin and desapearing can create some parallel lecture of the movie, its so little and unsignificant. Yet the switch is the ONLY concrete thing brought up, nothing else is suppose to make you think about a parallel story like such. Channel 4 AD is made by fan, they cant speak for Kubrick and that's it, you were not on the set, i was not either and noone will know if the guy holding a axe was suppose to be jack or not, the color of his jacket doesnt matter, because there is no theory related to any jacket of anyone. going back to my first post, the creator of the vid was maintaining his argument over a red jacket of a background guy that turned out to actually not be red at all. there is nothing more to it
Why do you keep citing the blu ray? I also have a copy but didn't you know there was a lot of cleanup work to fix color bleeding and noise reduction etc? No doubt in mind, the black and red jacket was meant to appear burgundy as seen in the vhs and dvd copies (you can still see the black and red pattern if you look very closely) because that's the way Stanley wanted it. To believe otherwise is silly because knowing how meticulous he was at the tiniest of details, he wouldn't have approved the color bleeding. I"m sure you know the blu ray was invented after he died so don't tell me the toucher-uppers knew exactly what they were doing when fixing color bleeding... dust and scratches I understand. Again, when I made this video and pointed out this detail of the burgundy jacket, it was an entry point to my theory that there were two Jacks. There will be more videos to expand on it. Reading all the comments that have come wasn't what I expected, but nonetheless, when the evidence is provided it will guarantee to change minds. The Channel 4 Tribute you keep dismissing was recreated with most of the equipment actually used in the film. Just research what The Channel 4 creative team did in getting access to Stanley's archives of sketches, photos, etc. to reproduce props. They weren't just mere fans. They had some inside help and knowledge to pull off that amazing tribute. Wouldn't you say?
Something About The Movies ...is English your second language? PS He did not see a reflection, as a worker blocked the reflective glass in the cabinet. perhaps the question from the wife triggered him, as she spoke in a naive tone? think about the way jack spoke to her in a condescending manner. ...PS.PS The caretaker could be a reference to cremation of Care...at the mid-summer bohemian grove festival, as the overlook would be the seasonal opposite of that time ie. mid-winter.
@ Runar Hellstrom: That actually makes sense... and the same technique was used in the French film Café de Flore (2011) where two children that have reincarnated are shown together in the background of an old b/w photo right at the end of the film.
Are you suggesting that the 2nd half of the movie is us experiencing his book and not real life? Is that to suggest Jack and family are still happy and unharmed at the time of Jack's writing?
I always thought the same thing. Jack Torrence wrote a novel while he was there at the hotel. There were "supernatural" things that happened. But in reality, there is no supernatural. So if you believe in the supernatural, Jack sold his soul & the hotel ghost let him out of the freezer. If not, it was all Jack's novel.
The Hotel is what possesses Jack just as it did Delbert Grady before him. It takes those weak enough to destroy and their spirits become one with the Hotel forever.
If he can "shine" and see past and future events, then he is not bound by time; and in that sense, he is "always" there. In fact, his whole family can shine. Wendy sees ghosts of the past near the end ("Lovely party, wasn't it"), and Danny, of course, shines throughout. The movie has the subtext of a psychologically troubled family looking for means to escape.
Visual and audio cue (device) used by Kubrick to indirectly point out that man. Listen to Jack's steps (one creak and a tap) then Jack looks back. Watch my follow up video for evidence on the Torrance novel theory.
But he twisted his ankle in the pantry, remember? So he would be limping. Makes sense too because a limp would slow him up and Danny and Wendy need to stay a step ahead of him to keep their lives! Normally he could probably outrun them both.
They don't mention reincarnation in the movie at all. I can't really buy it. I have thought of the person in the picture as the spirit that took over Jack's body and eventually turned him into a madman. We see the spirit, (from the photo) the ghosts see the spirit, ("you've always been the caretaker") but the family sees the real Jack. This explains the opening shot, the spirit chasing the car, finally catching it and us seeing Jack for the first time. If they were to make a version of the film with the real Jack Torrance on screen we would need another actor than Nicholson to play the role, because Nicholson is the spirit that has invaded him, not Jack Torrance himself.
And then New Jack went on to kill Danny and Wendy, and dive off a balcony at Cyberslam '97 onto the Dudley Boyz.Joking aside, I do like that interpretation though.
I took the line "You've always been the caretaker" to be a riddle that is answered by the old framed photograph in the bar towards the end of the movie. The murderous husband is shown there in the past and so, by a kind of 'loop' device, the idea of "Always" is explained. It's one of the scariest things about The Shining movie, the idea that the past can 'absorb' people.
I didnt read the book of king , and what i heard of kings comment . That Stanley didnt follow the book . Maded king angry . And i agree with a comment below . Hè signed a contract When hè began to drink , which made Jack the caretacker . But the movie is Epic . This is pure art from kubrick .
the hypothesising that goes on about the shining assumes the film makers / writer worked things out to a level beyond adequately telling the story and getting the job done. things can look meaningful not because someone did it on purpose, but it was a mistake, and they thought, fuckit, thats good enough. be wary of reading too much into things.
my theory of this movie is that jack is not real. he is Shelly duvalls split personality.. she is a psychotic single mother and uses jack to lash out in anger at her son. all the times you see jack doing something it's her doing it and she's just imagining it's him. that's why the dudes in the picture at the end because she made him up. she saw the picture and used him as a reference to pretend she had a husband but it's her crazy self.. that's why her son is crazy because he gets it from her.
that's also how he got out of the locked pantry. he wasn't in it.. the black guy says something about Daniel having the shining. there's a clue in there. he says the shining is a gift of telepathy and having visions. so Daniel could be telepathically inserting visions in his mother's head of jack. he could be causing everything. he has visions of the future, sees things that aren't there, can transmit those things telepathically and is pulling a mind job on his mother.
Exactly, as the other comment stated, it’s purely etiquette. Just like when someone was called “Master”, they weren’t actually the Master of anything, it was another way of saying “Mister”.
@@theoneandonlygree1203 this kind of reminds me of how in Star Wars the Clone Wars all of the Clones call their superiors "sir" even if they aren't a male superior
Grady became the servant of the Spirit, Jack makes a contract to Take Care of the Spirit's dark needs of Fear and Murder. Grady is there to assist him.
3:17 "feezed to death trying to kill his wife and son to end a fantastic novel". We all know in the novel Jack dies when the hotel explodes. In the movie is where he freezes to death. Overall, this is a theory based on a lack of knowlege and research of the source material.
Wait, What? There's a strong bud now? Is that like regular strength for other beers? Drinking bud is an experience like making love in a boat ..... it's fcuking near water.
Interesting. But I think you're over reaching. The Shining is a movie you can get lost in. It's a rabbit hole. It doesn't make sense and Kubrick purposely left it ambiguous. He wanted the audience to be left uncomfortable, ill-at-ease.
rdecredico it misses the point of the book that King wrote but the film. if you are looking for King book in film formate King remade the shinng in the early 2000s.
That thing you describe as a limp seems like a stretch. He’s limping later because it’s after Wendy hit him with the bat and he fell down the stairs. You can tell it’s from that because initially when he stands in the food room he falls over because it’s a new injury he’s not aware of yet. If Grady says he’s always been the caretaker it makes more sense to me that he’s telling the truth to Jack, plus the picture at the end and everything.
I think I get it, the main caretaker is wearing what Jack wears when he goes crazy with an axe, when Jack sees him in the lounge he gets inspiration for the character in his book whose basically the character we see go crazy later on, the fictional caretaker wrote up by Jack Torrance who yeah is looking after the hotel for the winter but the crazy bits are his imagination/novel, so Torrance isn't the caretaker who goes nuts, his character is.
A Detail You Probably Didn't See: THE SHINING 4 -- Hallorann Didn't Shine
ruclips.net/video/Wlu09iZNEj4/видео.html
sad face
Marten GO YOU are an idiot, Don't ever make a video again....
Marten GO read the book it explains descent into madness and other caretakers
it's revealed in the movie, and the book I believe, that Jack never actually wrote anything at all in his "book". This reveal happens after he's started going crazy. So he couldn't have written up this alternate Jack to go around cuasing all this havoc. Which breaks this theory before it even gets started since it's all based on his writing.
Let's backtrack a little: either you're a troll or you're bat-shit insane.
And you're lucky Kubrick can't flat-out deny your silly theories.
I think something else that people often miss is the idea that, despite Jack's constant complaining ("All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", talking about how he's so tired but can't sleep because there's so much work to do, etc.) we never actually SEE him performing his caretaker duties. In fact, it's always WENDY who is cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the hotel. We even see her dumping the boiler at one point, which Jack should be doing himself. Jack is usually screwing around, napping, bouncing a ball off the walls or whatever. It just adds to the creeping realization that Jack is completely cracked.
Of course. That's how alcoholic assholes operate.
jgwest1 agreed
And their enablers.
EastNewYorkStyle Records More like Kubrick showed a real picture of a dysfunctional family, living with an alcoholic and an enabler wasn't easy...yknow
EastNewYorkStyle Records I mean to state that, Kubrick understood the undertones of the book(or not)...King wrote it as a somewhat autobiographical account, he was an alcoholic and had abused his children, but King subconsciously lives through Jack, so of course he doesn't make Jack seem like a bad person(you broke your sons arm, what?) He does it subconsciously as though he is telling himself, "It is not your fault, you are trying to change" but that is the usual way an alcoholic denies himself(avoidance)...however Kubrick being the dark humoured evil sadist he could be at times, saw through the situation, he ascertained "No you are not this Jack, you are this" he showed a realistic picture of an alcoholic and his dyfuctional family, his enabler wife, his inept child, understandably King hated this potrayal of himself and his family, he even said "Kubrick directed this film to hurt people" he was salty, you see. And called Wendy's character "misogynistic" when it was not true.
So...even when Kubrick did take liberties with the script, he vouched to make it about what HE felt the story was all about, to him it was a story about a man's failure to defeat his demons(real and imagined) and not a just haunted hotel, so I think when the end shot shows Jack in the party holding a glass, it signifies his defeat against alcohol, he lost to his desires and is thus bereft of all free will.
Let's back track once more, to the beginning, so I can decide not to watch this video. 🙄
then youre an idiot because it makes perfect sense
Right!?
Lol
Ha ha and if you go back a bit further you ll be happy you did just that🤣🤣🤣
I don't think he's saying that it makes zero sense to him, I think he's one of like half of the people who's seen this video and hated it for being poorly made especially compared to better quality videos of the same subject matter haha
You're trying too hard. The line "You've always been the caretaker." is tied to the line "I'd sell my soul for a drink." It had been established that there was no alcohol on the premises, yet when Jack says those words, a bartender appears and the bar is fully stocked. When Jack sips the drink, the contract is completed and the Caretaker moves in.
Chris Watson
Watch my follow up video for more answers. Didn't have to try hard when everything is laid out in plain sight.
Chris Watson Much more convincing than the premise of this video.
That's how I'd always read that scene...
Yea that's the impression I got too. I felt like he sold his soul to the evil demon or ghost that haunted that place.
One of the things I love the most about The Shining is that, for such an elementary story, nearly everyone takes away something different from it. I never get tired of listening to people talk about their own interpretations of little details, it's a great mental exercise to go through the movie again with a completely new context and 'test' theories.
perfectly put. I must have watched a dozen or so really compelling theory videos, all very creative and logical.
I could listen to people talk about this movie for hours
“This place is fantastic, isn’t it, hon?”
NO.
It sure isn't
"You have always been the caretaker" for me it refers to the cursed spirit reincarnating every time to live again and again the same situation. Jack in fact speaks about deja vu'.
Agreed.
Agree that mansion is haunted by demon (angry Indian spirit due to building on sacred ground?) But main King-Kubrick twist is, "YOU'VE always been the caretaker". Has demon always manifested itself ONLY in Jacks body, which is reincarnated indefinitely? This appears to be suggested due to dated ballroom photo, all historical staff know him, including bartender. I suggest that the bizarre, graphic room scenes (naked bath woman who gyrates sexually, snuggling up to Jack , animal-fetish sex, twin girls in formal dresses suggesting pedophilia and murder), are intended to expose the excesses that happened in hotel, as demon wields power over EVERYONE, EXCEPT for those who SHINE. Even Wendy seems to be subject to demons twisted influence, as she repeatedly failed to protect her son, or to acknowledge the ample evidence that he was being abused (broken arm, bruise, depressed demeanor). She tries to explain Danny's injuries as, "it was an accident", and Jack's Bipolar behavior, as "he's busy, just under stress". Every time I watch it I discover new things, and have a different theory.
@@lynb2039 you and i are on the same page here
@@lynb2039 some people shine and some dont
This is the real situation right here👍🏼
I respectfully request that you give me those 3 minutes of my life back.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If you may be so bold sir
It was of your own free will and accord to watch this movie.
Or perhaps you wish to forsake it and let others decide for you?
I also ask that you give me a minute back on top of that for making read, respond and liking your comment.
Too right, I did not get any of that.
From the director HIMSELF, "Stanley Kubrick said, “The ballroom photograph at the very end suggests the reincarnation of Jack.”
lol, I doubt Kubrick read the whole book.
quasimobius he probaly listen to an abridged audio book
@@quasimobius does it really matter? I mean, the film itself is more of an interpretation of the book, not adaptation. If Kubrick says that the photo suggests reincarnation, then the photo suggests reincarnation. The book is obsolete when speaking about Kubrick's film, because they're not the same thing at all.
He also made a whole lot of conflicting statements regarding the movie in general, so who really knows.
@@neilgoldberg547 Kubrick was very clear about certain parts of the film.
Well done. I think you’ve got it right. Your theory would further be supported by the difference in the color of the typewriters. But - whenever Jack is talking to a fantasy character (the bartender, Grady, the naked Old Woman) - he’s actually talking to himself in the mirror. Even in the bathroom with Grady - he’s not looking at Grady, he’s looking at his own reflection. So, I think you’re in to something - but still there are huge holes.
Am I the only one who can't see what he's talking about??
Which theory do you believe?
Marten GO which theory do you live in?
Marten GO
Lol
Marten GO about what?
Sounds great. Except makes zero sense.
Give it your best shot to prove me wrong.
I can't, dude. The person typing this isn't me. I'm the person being created by the person typing about the person typing it.
The burden of proof is on you if you come up with a wild theory, not on others to disprove it.
Well the boy hearing Hallorran didn't make sense that's the whole point of Stephen King's work.
rodster6 Truth. And anybody who doesn't realize that lacks basic common sense and is not to be taken seriously.
I've always thought that this movie kind of allows YOU to decide and interpret with Jack being the caretaker over and over again. Whatever the case , this movie is a legend through the decades.
I would agree that overall, this is the most logical takeaway. Kubrick excels in ambiguity and interpretation. You know every detail is thought out to take on an an individuals interpretation of a scene or the entire movie.
I think you're onto something. You are definitely correct about Jack getting inspired by the guy cleaning the bookshelf.
Actually the story has many interpretations, and that's why it's one of the great movies of all time. There is one part that people can't accept and it seems so simple. Jack and his son are constantly seeing ghosts, and at one point Jack meets the people who were there in the previous time. Jack has the option of staying in the past with the people he wishes to be with or return a tormented writer. When all is said and done he chooses the past. All other parts are up for interpretation.
A lot of that is because King alluded to a lot of happenings over the course of the book, and the movie itself cuts that back even further, which allows for the viewer to project their own thoughts and feelings onto the work. Which shouldn't be much of a surprise, King is known for specifically leaving a lot of details out for things where it's not particularly important. It's part of why the books age relatively well, as things like the fashion of clothes usually aren't mentioned unless it's important.
Something I haven't heard is the possibility that Jack (and even Wendy) could have The Shining too, because the cook told Danny that his grandma and him had The Shining, so maybe one of his parents could also have had that gift and that allowed them to see the "traces of the past" of this place that also "shines"; it's more likely that if this was true that Jack was the one with The Shining, but since Wendy could see disturbing things at some point it could mean that see had the gift or just that ghosts can choose when to show up to normal people.
There's no other interpretation... only people incorrectly interpreting it because they didnt see the subtle clues that Kubrrick left such as what this video points out correctly. Another great clue that Jack was never the Murderous Caretaker is during his interview with the owner at the beginning, he was told that the murderous previous caretaker was named CHARLES Grady... but when Jack meets Mr. Grady in the bathroom during the ballroom scene, he calls him DELBERT Grady... which clearly points out that this is Jack making the whole story up.
If you take the film literally, and expect every clue to lead to a truth, it will never exert its full hold over you. That's the horror. There is no answer. You will never reach the heart of darkness because darkness has no heart. It's a labyrinth: it leads nowhere but death.
Brilliant post
Finally ;)
Deep
Thank you. If there is one thing I cant stand it is people who overthink things. The Shining was a treat to be enjoyed and savored for what it is. I for one really don't care if Stephen King did not like the film adaptation I think it was pure genius.
(actor looks offscreen)
"Look - he saw the CARETAKER!!!"
Me: Ummmm... what?
HeroJournalism he thought he did that’s the twist lol 😂
By the book shelf
😂idk why this made me laugh so much
Evil has always been the caretaker. It can take any form.
Steven King has effectively used the trope of the haunted house with a mind of its own in several of his works. Besides the Overlook, there's the Marsten House in 'Salem's Lot, and Rose Red in the miniseries of the same name.
Indeed. Salem's Lot is a great underrated film.
The part where the kid is floating outside the boy's window is one of the creepiest scenes ever.
No, the creepiest scene ever.
The bedroom scene from Howard the Duck
Really, zoophilia in a kids movie.
That's just wrong.
i.imgur.com/e2wzBPI.gifv
It seems like you made this up in an effort to compete with Rob Ager.
This dipshit will never hold a candle to Rob Ager.
Rob breaks it down to a fucking T. Grade A stuff 👍
There is, in fairness, very little you can cover regarding this movie that Rob has not already written about.
@rorykelly45 He's the guy who has covered just about all there is to cover when it comes to hidden stuff in The Shining. Which Mc Gregor? If it is Ewan, you don't sound so tough! If it's Conor, it's a dreadful attempt at a Crumlin accent! And who in Crumlin calls people 'guy'?!?
Love this movie i Can se it again and again
THANK YOU. I've watched your series of 4 videos on details of The Shining, and I then saw the movie again just yesterday with them in mind. I have to say, I am convinced now that the movie is about Jack writing his novel, and that none of the spooky stuff is actually happening.Something I noticed is that a complete transition happens at the moment Jack discovers the model of the hedge maze. This moment had always stood out to me, but I never put together what the real significance was. When you consider that Jack just a couple of scenes earlier had woken up saying he had a few ideas but no good ones, and then proceeded to throw a tennis ball around as he tried to put these ideas together, then the moment of him staring at the maze becomes the moment when his novel all comes together. From then on, you are watching his book.This is why his typewriter is different afterwards, why Charles becomes Delbert, and why the location of the maze is different as well, along with other details. As you mentioned, the few "paranormal" scenes that happen earlier in the film, all happen after Jack has gotten an idea, such as just after he hears the story of Charles which inspires him. The scene of Halloran going into the freezer is also a prime example of where we jump into Jack brainstorming an idea. He didn't know which side of the fridge Halloran opened, just that he was showing them where it was.Now it could be argued that a lot of the events after the maze were also based on real occurrences. So perhaps Jack did get in a fight with Wendy over her interrupting him. But the version we see in the film is Jack's elaborated novel version and it's safe to say the real event didn't occur to near that degree. It's also possible that she really interrupted him at the bar because she was scared about somebody being in the hotel, and that's why the bartender suddenly isn't there. But all other scenes are Jack's imagination running wild and fitting in the sources of inspiration like Danny's imaginary friend, into his narrative.
But where did real Jack go?
@@kamuelalee it’s all a story he’s writing..... it’s all in his head... it’s his story.
Sounds good to me. REDRUM
I have never liked the theory that the horror and violence is from Jack's book, but when I watched it today it occurred to me that as he is walking to the maze model and the bat and the trike and teddy bear are scattered around, that IS showing how Jack finds the items to build his story. Pieces of a puzzle he will have to fit together to work out the plot. I just wish there was a scene at the end where we confirm, oh, this was all the novel he wrote.
Exactly ! And what i have also realised after watching this film countless times in order to figure out it’s main point is the foreshadowing of scenes through props. Like Jack throwing ball on the Native American paintings as axe swinging and the stuff toy lying in the lobby where hallorann was murdered as upcoming events in the novel ideas being imagined.
the more you look into the movie, the weirder it gets
Yes and it becomes more brilliant to me as the years pass.
Like the wendy theory
@@lizumlepcha9090 what’s the Wendy theory ?
...and the more convoluted it becomes....The movie is about isolation and abuse-simple as that....
Hmm. Nah. Not convinced.
I think it was supposed to be some kind of reincarnation story. In the final scene we see the photo from the 1920s with Jack. He had lived and died at the hotel in the 1920s, and came back in a later life to repeat the cycle.
That picture didn't exist until after he dies.
I thought reincarnation was not supposed to involve having the same body.
@@IAteFire are you saying the hotel consumed his soul, along with the other souls in the picture?
I like to think that Jack is actually an amalgamation of the Hotel’s evil energy that gets reincarnated every so often. His purpose is to lure potential victims so that this process can begin all over again. This would make sense with the end of the movie where Jack is frozen to “death”. He was frozen, but he can be thawed out and return someday.
@@Odinsday There was a movie that had reincarnation as a genetic blueprint being reused, which I can see and you seem to imply, instead of a same consciousness in a new body thing. I thought Hinduism and Buddhism was about becoming one with everything, so why do any of those ones become an individual, again, according to believers in reincarnation? Do they just get rejected or reject it by attachments they won't let go (the latter being pretty much how anyone goes to Hell, though not without His trying to wake us, because we have free will)?
the man dressed like Jack in the beginning is actually a pretty good observation that gave me chills, but it doesn't support you theory. However it can be said that it's a visual cue to emply that Jack has been seduced/possessed by the hotel later on when we see him using those clothes. That also implies that even in those early scenes it's like the hotel is alive and looking carefully at the family, blended with the confusion and background. It's also a neat detail that Jack is the only one who looks at the man
Knurdyob Imply mate, no such word as " emply ".
First of all, watch the movie in HD and enhance brightness, the guy in the background is wearing a checkered shirt, no connection to Jack and his jacket whatsoever
I love all the takes on this - my FAVORITE horror movie of all time! It's cool to see people are still into it and theorizing!
""Very often crew members asked him (Kubrick), 'Can you explain that to me?' And he said, 'I never explain anything, I don’t understand it myself. It’s a ghost film!'”
You're absolutely right. Many other clues in the movie. Like the color of the typewriter changes when Jack ic whearing the maroon jacket {writing his novel} . Also many problems with continuity in the movie when Jack is wearing the jacket, {chairs in the background and then removed}. Kubrick was way too much of a perfectionist to let these imperfections in his finished movie. Great assessment.
It's a good theory, but I always took it as Grady had possessed Jack, and was saying I'm in you, You're the caretaker. Or that Jack was Grady in a past life, and since Grady's spirit is trapped in the Hotel, it had to wait for Jack to return.
That at least sounds plausible.
Lycan_Jedi Gameplay it's tough for me to separate novel from film sometimes. I understand for time there are things that must be inferred. Because in the novel it's the hotel that is trying to to kill the family and it possesses Jack to get the boy (the hotels true desire being the boys power) I always assumed that either jack was the reincarnation of the original caretaker or (and perhaps more plausible) he hotel just lied to him to gain his allegiance or soul if you prefer.
I think that the suggestion is that there is "something" in the hotel period (possibly a spirit tied to the native american tribes in the area). It's malicious, and seeks to inhabit people who stay there and cause them to do malicious things. Similar to "Amityville Horror". I think that Grady et al were just manifestations (of the trapped souls who had died there) in his mind, put there by the spirit who was attempting to gain control over his mind (and hence his actions). I think it's implied that this same "spirit" (or demon, or whatever have you) also had done the same to the previous caretaker. I think we're being mislead by the phrasing of "you have always been the caretaker". This was just said to him to confuse him and cause him to slip further into insanity, because of the malicious nature of the spirit/being/demon/whatever. At the end, when he died, his soul became trapped as well, and he "joined the others" as Grady had been attempting to get him to do. He was then inserted into the photo as a representation of that concept.
- I should add, I do not believe in souls. We're talking strictly from the perspective of the "story universe".
Sounds right
I took it that Grady and Jack ended up being possessed by the same Demon.
A former incarnation of Jack from a past life was the caretaker of the haunted Overlook Hotel in Colorado (based on the Stanley Hotel), as seen in the photograph from 1921. That's what the Charles Grady ghost (in the role of Overlook Hotel waiter Delbert Grady from 1921) meant by "You've always been the caretaker." Jack said to Wendy, "It was as though I had been here before! It was almost as though I knew what was going to be around every corner! Ooohhhhh..." Etc. It was intentionally left mysterious in the film with all those hints and clues. The director Stanley Kubrick explained this: "The ballroom photograph at the very end suggests the reincarnation of Jack."
When Grady tells Jack he's always been the Caretaker, he doesn't mean Jack, he means the Vessel in which the Overlook uses to commit the mass murders. Remember Jack says Grady killed his family, same as Jack tried to do. And notices Jack only appears in the photo after he dies, which signifies the Overlook has taken Jack's soul(in my opinion). Remember the hotel is evil so it can change anything it wants to. And I believe that's why Jack also becomes the bartender
That means grady used to be in the photo.
That makes more sense. To me, anyway.
I always thought that Jack was grady and Grady was reincarnated as jack that's why jack went back to the hotel and was going to commit the same crime again as before and that's why Grady says to him you've always been the caretaker I thought the hotel has brought jack back to it because he was actually Grady reincarnated
I always thought that was his memory getting fuzzy as the borders between him and the hotel go blurrier and blurrier as he was brought further and further into the hotel's control. In that case, he would always be the caretaker as the hotel takes care of itself generally. It wasn't until Danny and Wendy came along and distracted him from performing his duties that the hotel ultimately blew up from the boiler.
That's a large part of why I didn't care for Kubrick shoehorning the movie into his series on the weakness of men. That ending never really worked as the hotel ultimately won out in the end. Probably the only worse ending would have been the one that King originally intended before writing the book of having them all die and become ghosts.
Your explanation of The Shining is the most clarifying one I've ever seen to date, and to me all the confusing issues about the film have been settled once and for all. It just debunks all the other famous explanations, which are now laid bare in their sheer incompleteness and contradictions. I'm very impressed and I think your take on The Shining should have been much more widespread and hailed as THE definitive explanation of Kubrick's intentions behind this film. It now makes sense to me that nothing in fact happened; we feel relieved that the horrific tale was nothing more than Jack's novel in the end. However, Kubrick encrypted his message in such a way that audiences could never ever realize what was really happening. The clues suddenly become very clear now. It becomes clear also that Kubrick's story has nothing to do with King's, who told another story altogether. No surprise that Kubrick did not want to be caught in his attempt to strongly modify the storyline as well as the whole message contained in the book. Bravo really for your explanation which closed up the issue for me. It took me decades trying to figure out what this film was all about, and then I stumbled upon your videos which easily provide a definite answer to all Kubrick fans. It's all there for those who want to see it. My sheer congratulations!
A comment on a video being better than the video is not common, but does happen. Thanks
My take on it is that the evil force that possesses the hotel absorbs Jack as the latest in a long line of "caretakers". And the line, "You have always been the caretaker," means that Jack is there not by accident or coincidence, but because he was fated to be.
That’s what I felt it meant too. It’s the hotels way of telling him it’s time to take on his new role and all the responsibilities that come with it.
One of the stupidest things I've ever heard claimed about this movie. And I've seen Room 237.
Watch my follow up video and you can lump it along with Room 237 all you want, but you won't.
Interesting idea, Marten, but there's a fair amount that happens during the movie that doesn't support it. For example, the movie ends with a close-up of the photo in the hallway showing Jack Torrance smiling in front of a party dated July 4, 1921. The implication is that Jack (or presumably the spirit that possessed Jack) has "always been there," echoing the words of Grady in the bathroom scene. You could argue that Jack the writer also concocted that as part of his novel's plot (I suppose along with everything else that happens from the scene you cited forward), but by the time we see the hallway photo, the latest incarnation of Jack Torrance is frozen solid in the maze -- which is to say, not exactly embodying a creative disposition. Not to mention the apparitions Wendy and Danny see/experience, the premonitions Danny receives, and perhaps a dozen other elements that argue in favor of Jack's possession being the latest in a cycle of murderous possessions at a haunted hotel.
Having said all of that, I recognize that your theory captures potentially any conflicting details in the same way that a "he was really just dreaming all of it" explanation would, but it's hard to imagine that was really what Kubrick had in mind when he reconstructed King's novel.
I think it means every caretaker becomes possessed what means you’ve always been here since it always possesses different caretakers what makes them end up like grady
I wish there was a movie about grady
In the novel, he didn't freeze to death. He blew up with the hotel. Good catch, seeing the other Jack, though. I think the burgundy sweater Jack is still him, though. There's a time overlap there in the hotel. All times overlap, like a Limbo world. That's how finite people came to be there infinitely. Because they got absorbed into the everywhen.
how did he blow up?
So Jack is actual writing the novel "The Shining" in the movie? So Jack is Stephen King, or maybe Kubrick saw Jack as King.
Bob Carp No, this is a common Stephen King trope. Most of the main characters in his books are writers. He’s not inserting himself in, so much as taking inspiration.
Yes - This video get's it right. I've thought about this too - maybe King was a child abuser?>?? I think King hated this movie because Kubrick went places King didn't want to go.
@@BabyBoomerChannel he hated it because Kubrick changed alot of things he didn't want changed. That's why he made his own miniseries of THE SHINING. But i respect your opinion, you can have ur own i can have mine. But just saying I think you're wrong.
The fact that there was a guy in the beginning who looked exactly like the latter Jack is amazing, I never saw that guy in the background. Also really interesting theory - if this theory is true I would be very interested in seeing what happened to the real Jack and his family (in the real dimension).
It's unlikely to be an accident or something that Kubrick didn't notice. He had been a photographer before turning to directing and he had a very well-developed eye for things like that. It's certainly possible that it just slipped by or is just a case of something not considered important enough to note when deciding what to do with the wardrobe.
Unless the guy that he saw dusting the bookshelf with the ghost.
Because towards the end he was seeing ghosts left and right
The 'Caretaker' is Snoke
Arnold is the caretaker.
Jason Mazur oh.... SHIT!!
The 'caretaker' is ROSEBUD, Orson.
ok, but is Plagueis really dead?
Best comment
No, what really happened was this guy named Steve made up this whole story. Then a guy named Stan made a movie based on the story Steve made up, only a little different. Then after years some people watched the movie over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and your and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.. Then the internet came.
brillient!!
Rob's Vlog, you have way too much time on your hands, darlin'....
All work and no play makes Rob a dull boy all work and no play makes...
Bingo!
You made me laugh to tears! Yes people, it's ONLY a movie!
What IF...the caretaker in the red jacket WAS real and made up the Torrance family in his head? Then went crazy and froze to death looking for a child that did not exist.
I like your theory even better
pati_romano Thanks :)
Except that in the King novel, Jack doesn't freeze to death. He forgets to stoke the old boiler until it's too late. The boiler then explodes and kills Jack, taking out half the hotel with him.
Well it's pretty clear that the King novel and Kubrick's film are essentially two separate entities with similarities.
It's possibly great for a spin off, but The Shining revolves around Jack and the Torrance family.
From reading the book decades ago, before watching the movie, i usually thought that the Hotel was like Christine the car; choosing to possess a person that was there to it's liking, and thus finding a way to alienate that person from everyone else, to the point of destruction. The book is much different
In deleted footage, Jack, after the scene wherein he bounces the tennis ball around the lobby, finds a trail of his writing materials that leads him to the big table in the Colorado Lounge that would become his desk. On the table is only the scrapbook that’s later seen in the final cut. The framing of Jack finding the scrapbook is done so as to include that cabinet the “duplicate Jack” is cleaning in the scene above, wherein the Torrences are being shown the Colorado Lounge for the first time.
I tried to see if the “duplicate Jack” is putting a book into or taking one out of that cabinet. But, it doesn’t seem so. Still, it could be another one of Kubrick’s surreptitious, subconscious hints that got broken when the scrapbook discovery scenes were cut out.
Additionally, it’s been noted that, whenever Jack interacts with ghosts, there’s a reflective surface-the Gold Ballroom bar-back, the bathroom mirrors, the stainless steel door of the pantry, etc-evoking a theme of duplication. The glass doors of that cabinet the “duplicate Jack” is cleaning are quite obviously reflective and, at a point, the left door catches the reflection of Jack’s back as he walks away, just before he looks behind him.
It seems as if he is seeing his doppelgänger, his double of his future self. That would tie in with the scrapbook, because, according to one theory, Jack sees the pictures, history of the hotel in the scrapbook and shines the visions to Danny, Ullman and Halloran. Thus the finding of the scrapbook is the bridge between the present and future (insane) Jack...the scrapbook being a portal of some kind?...mirror images and duplicates also exist in 2001...I don’t know.
Great content! Your explanation is my favorite one and I believe it’s the most accurate and fascinating out of all explanations. A few things I noticed that lend to your theory. When Jack, Danny, and Wendy are shown driving up to the Overlook it appears that they are driving up the mountain in a counter clockwise motion, with Jack closest to the mountain and Wendy closest to the lakeside. However, when Jack is first shown driving to the Overlook alone for the interview in the opening scene he is shown starting the ascent going in a clockwise motion, with the driver side closest to the lake, and the passenger side closest to the mountain. During the opening scene it appears that it shows the whole ride up the mountain, in segments, and at no point is the driver side closest to the mountain (continuity error). Logically speaking, the whole ride doesn’t need to be shown, and we can assume that the entire ride would be a continuous clockwise ascent until the top is reached. This seems to suggest that the ride to the Overlook with all three of them in the car is part of Jack’s novel/brainstorming. That’s why Jack is so nasty in this scene. The abusive, ugly Jack is the Jack of his novel. The normal, loving Jack is the real world Jack. Next, during the interview, right before Stuart tells Jack about the murders, there are continuity errors as well (which we all know Kubrick would never do on accident). Right before Stuart reveals what happened, the cigarette in the ash tray disappears, the pen in the holder to Stuart’s right moves, the light gray pen on the desk in front of Stuart moves, and something that looks like an intercom to Stuart’s left moves. Once he’s done explaining the grisly occurrence, the cigarette reappears, and the pens and the intercom device go back to their original positions. To me this suggests that not only is the scene where Stuart tells Jack about the murder/suicide part of Jack’s book (not the whole interview, just the explanation of the murders) but the murders may have not even occurred, and this was completely invented by real world Jack for his novel. It does seem that Stuart told Jack about something unsettling that did occur, but it probably wasn’t about a murder/suicide. Perhaps it was something to do with a ghost sighting (common for old buildings and hotels for one reason or another). Which could be why Wendy mentions something about a “ghost ship” during the tour and the murders aren’t brought up at all, which you’d think would be. Lastly, when Hallorann takes Danny for ice cream, Jack and Wendy share a walking embrace that looks very intimate and loving. This is clearly the real Jack, the Jack who loves and would never harm his family. Thanks for your interesting explanation, as I love the movie even more now. Cheers!
Mountain roads switchback all the time. Your theory makes no sense.
New theory:
The ghost from room 237 is the caretaker because she limps, done.
I'm not buying it. I think your taking the line you've always been the caretaker a bit serious. I think Gradey was trying to suck Jack in and manipulate him into killing his family, because he is the caretaker and they are a threat to the hotel.
Yep. There's a reason they call Satan the father of lies.
This has got to be the deepest movie ever produced, so much going on, you could probably watch it 100 times and still find something new
Its all about the 2 typewriters. One typewriter is shown when the real Jack is writing his novel; the other typewriter is shown when a fictionalised writer is going crazy in a hotel, which is what the real Jack is writing about.
And that’s why the chair disappears too
This is one degree away from "it was all a dream"
There is one scene you missed. It's Jack Torrance looking at an old picture of himself as caretaker.
As a reader, you can argue Jack Torrance was created on a wood shelf but, I disagree. Jack was always the caretaker.
I will do a video on the ending, but in the meantime, check out my follow up video :)
Marten GO Thanks! I think it's cool you like doing this. Always remember that the reader also gets creative control on how they interpret the novel.
Thanks Lady Jenny. I agree. The reader has that creative power interpreting a novel and similarly with a film, but less because the visuals can't always be interpreted like words.
Marten GO I'm curious why you think that guy in the film is the caretaker?
I should have written that guy's clothing was the inspiration for Jack's costume change lol. Anyhow, in that room all the men who were moving furniture wore a uniform. Only that guy wasn't. The fact that Jack slowed down as he passed him was a visual cue by Kubrick, no way it was coincidental. And if you listen to the audio as he Jack slowed down, there are 2 sound effects timed with his steps. A creek and then a tap. So this visual and audio cue was meant to indirectly point out that man (caretaker).
I don't get it. I love art, but I'm not any good at interpreting it. You have to explain it to me way clearer than this. I don't even know what is the point the video is trying to make. If someone with patience could please explain it to me I would appreciate it.
*****
Oh, I see. So all the horror stuff is supposed to be part of Jack's novel? That doesn't make much sense, since the hotel layout is impossible and supernatural right from the start. Something must be going on outside Jack's novel, because the overlook spatial impossibilities are clearly shown before Jack starts writing anything.
Kauan Raphael Mayworm Klein from what I can tell the real jack ends while he's asleep at his desk screaming in his sleep. I maybe be wrong. the poster may be just reading stuff into the story that isnt there. which I think is more likely
Mike Are.... in the film Jack is drinking...hence the term"red rum".... drinking brings out the spirits if you will.. the worst in Jack... the hotel was known as party Central...drinking.. cavorting etc...Jack embodies the elements of evil that live in that place....and some drinks turn downright evil when they drink...that is the moral of the story...
Md Way, He drinks Jack Daniels, a Tennessee whiskey and not rum.
rromanos
I'm not one to drink (actually only drank one Red Bull once in my life. Never again). But I'm fairly sure rum isn't red. it's transparent as far as I know.
This is excellent. Thank you for posting these. Just stumbled onto them this morning - mostly to ridicule them, because every other Shining theory I have ever seen is well, ridiculous - and Wow! We've been excitedly chattering about them all day. Watching the movie again in a couple hours, for about the sixtieth time, and also the first! Thanks again for sharing your work.
I just noticed that the guy cleaning everything is the same guy! He moves a chair, suddenly he's polishing the piano, suddenly he's wiping the desk! Wildness
he doesn't look like the same guy to me , their hair is differnt, just same uniform because they are a cleaning crew.
ugh.... I wasted data on this!😒
It could just as easily be said that ALL of the men preparing for the winter in the Great Room are "the caretaker"...
+Player One - No - the Great Room. Otherwise known as the lobby. The one person this poster's theory revolves around is just one of several workers prepping for winter - and most of them look so much like one another they could have all been one guy - which would have been a cool and easy-to-miss detail had Kubrick elected to film it that way...
Player One - You must be young. Great Room is an old-school term used to describe large enclosed spaces intended to be occupied by many, in public buildings like government bureaus, hotels or palaces, and in mansions. The term has come back into fashion among status-seekers and the pretentious as a name for the overly-large living rooms in residential McMansions...
Player One - Since this is the internet, I suppose you really are as dumb as you seem. Or maybe you've just never been in a building bigger than a double-wide trailer. Sigh...
Tablature Butler . "It is only used by stupid black America rappers"
*The Goldblum
Maybe I am nuts, but Jakes limp was caused as injury from falling down the stairs after Wendy whacked him with the bat.....he is not imitating anything. When he wakes in the dry food storage room after she dragged him in there he attmepts to stand and he shows his ankle is injured. This theory does not seem sound to me.
And you're spot on. Most over-analyzed movie ever, but sometimes a banana is just a banana..
I suppose. I find it to be a neat idea though.
For some reason I always thought the word caretaker resonated with jack and made him angry because he's supposed to be a caretaker to his family but his drinkin and Danny's injury will never allow him to gain that title no matter how hard he tries .
Absolute nonsense!!!
I think people go crazy when they watch it several times!
kiran shukla lol
“ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JACK A DULL BOY” HAS MANY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS.
The iconic sentence actually changes meaning for foreign translations of the film, at Kubrick’s request. In German versions, the phrase translates to: “Don’t put off till tomorrow what you can do today.” The Spanish translation is: “Although one will rise early, it won’t dawn sooner.” In Italian: “He who wakes up early meets a golden day.”
lol Really? Those are all completely different maxim's too. Do you remember where you read that?
:) No i honestly forgot if i find it i'll send it to you but i read it just recently
I think I remember seeing the french version and noticing it was written in french, don't remember what though...but maybe it was only in my mind?
The plot thickens...
JACK HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CARETAKER. HE IS SHOWN AT THE END OF THE FILM IN THE 1921 PICTURE. I AGREE THAT THE PEOPLE CLEANING THE COLORADO LOUNGE IN THE SCENE YOU SHOW DO HAVE SOME UNSEEN SIGNIFICANCE. BUT THAT JANITOR IS NOT THE CARETAKER.
Jack has always been a writer. See my follow up video.
THANKS, I APPRECIATE YOUR NEW PERSPECTIV, AND I WILL WATCH THE FOLLOW UP. A REALLY COOL DOCUMENTARY ON THE FILM WITH FOUR DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES IS "ROOM 237" (NOW FREE ON YOU TUBE). AGAIN, I DON'T NECESSARY TORALLY BELIEVE ANY ONE PERSPECTIVE. THE FILM IS LIKE A THICK ONION, THERE ARE MANY MANY LAYERS!
Yes. I've seen it. Very interesting indeed. I love that there's so many interpretations. It goes to show what a genius Stanley was to affect and evoke so many different perspectives by his audio and visual style.
Yeah, even the background noises in the opening scenes when they are touring the hotel are spooky. Weird moaning and yelling
and the word SHONE! yelled sixteen different times (past tense of the verb to shine). A U Tube documentary called The Shone Report examines this.... But they can't really come up with a concrete answer on why and when he inserted them...
Glad to see someone else thinks about it the same way i did. it was always my explanation also and everyone tries to argue deeper points lol. No other reason it would show him in a picture at the same place since 1921. He was a ghost the whole time. Sort of a 6th sense long before the 6th sense haha
What I like to think is that the Jack that wakes up from the nightmare isn't the same Jack that entered the hotel. When he wakes up, Jack is gone. The one we see from there on is merely a copy(it sounds stupid, but hey, it's a theory) I also like to imagine that his screaming is the spirit manifesting(which is why he sees himself killing Danny and Wendy. The spirit is taking over)
Think of it more like this, what is happening at the moment of Jack's nightmare is Danny going into Room 237 i.e. he opens the gateway to the darker realms that engulfed the entire area. So in his nightmare Jack is attacked by he dark spirits, and after he is accused of hurting Danny by Wendy he then is given an offer by the dark spirits of the Hotel, a Drink for his spirit i.e. he sells himself away for alcohol to be a slave and servant of the dark beings. The alcohol wasn't the cause, it was the wish he asked for
yours is the best explanation of the shining. you deserve more credit and visibility
I might buy this theory if The Shining was directed by David Lynch
My fucking head is spinning!
I must admit, when i was watching it again earlier, it did look like the mad version of Jack. Also the more normal Jack does look at him for some reason.
A better theory is that Kubrick was an excellent director who was adept at crawling into people's heads and poking at their brains. This film was way more disturbing than King's book, a fact that to this day has pissed the latter off. So no, I don't agree with the premise of this video.
sonofcy I agree. I think King would have taken a chainsaw to his right arm for the elevator idea alone...although it DOES creep me out to look close at that scene. It DOES look like something's in the elevator of blood.
This and The Wizard of Oz are better than the books they stemmed from. I generally despise when directors depart from the original text but not in these two cases. I completely agree that the Kubrick film is far more unsettling than the King book. And I am a King fan. The miniseries from the 90s that King wrote was terrible!
Ever notice how in every "ghost" encounter Jack has in the film, there are mirrors present? In the Gold Room. In the Gold Room restroom. In the bathroom in room 237. And when Jack is talking to Grady through the door in the dry food storage room, that door (unique to all the other similar doors we see at different times in the film) has a smooth, metallic reflective surface.
Mirrors are used in other parts of the film, including when Danny has his psychic connection in the bathroom early in the movie. And of course, who could forget "redrum"?
What role could mirrors be playing here? Or was it just a coincidence? An accident of set design, an abstract theme?
How about when Jack is locked in the dry food store room where there is no possible way to escape.....but he hears the voice of Dilbert Grady who releases him on the condition that he sacrifice his wife and son
@@Kazilikaya I'm not convinced it's Grady who unlocks the larder door. If the ghosts can physically interact with the Hotel, why would they do so just this single time? Jack couldn't even properly get through the bathroom door with an ax in the following scene. Why didn't the spirits, supposedly wanting him to kill his family, open this door for him as well?
Personally, I'm partial to the theory that Danny unlocks the door. From this perspective, it's a story about child abuse and revenge but still includes psychic powers. Again, Jack's interactions with ghosts occur only when mirrors are present (this is including the reflective surface on the inside of the larder door where he hears Grady's voice on the other side). At least in part, Kubrick is communicating that any evil present in the Overlook, rather than being of a spiritual form, actually is a reflection of, presides within, Jack (and/or Danny).
Jack has abused Danny in the past, by his own admission, though his version differs from what Wendy tells the doctor inspecting Danny. This points to his dishonesty about it and the likelihood he's abused Danny more times than once.
After the larder door is unlocked, the next scene is Wendy sleeping. Therefore Danny could have easily gone down to free his dad without his mom knowing. Danny, under a psychic trance as Tony (who was probably also in control when he freed Jack), write "redrum" on the mirror, waking his mom just before Jack comes with his ax.
This theory is far from perfect, can get convoluted, and, in order to make the most sense, would require Danny to be evil as well, not only psychically taking revenge on his father but killing Halloran as well.
Another version of this would include there actually being ghosts in the Overlook. But these ghosts can't actually unlock doors but rather rely on manipulating the psychic experiences of others. Anyway, great movie.
If you noticed, the manager of the hotel said the former caretaker's name was Charles Grady, but in Jack's mind he becomes "Delbert Grady."
I think the "limp" was just an artifact of Jack slowing down to take a look around the room.
agreed, how do you "mock"someone's limp when they are not limping? the guy is just standing there.
@@grumpchong LOL true.
"he was conceived by the bookshelf" how can a bookshelf conceive anything?
read "NEAR the bookshelf."
As a person who grew up with chiller theater and other things such as the Twilight Zone and outer limits this was just another case of the old theme of people going into a house and getting trapped remember that famous line "I can't leave I stayed here too long and now I can't leave "there were many Twilight Zone Outer Limits Chiller theater episodes that played on the same theme ;people being trapped in a house from which they could no longer Escape because they had stayed too long. in this case I see The Shining as nothing more than an extension of that same theme. remember Stephen King grew up with those same shows so I think he's tapping that Source in this movie Jack Nicholson becomes the new caretaker and is consumed by the hotel and like the other shows Twilight Zone Chiller Theatre Etc could not bring himself to leave and is eventually consumed by the hotel
"Book itself"
Because the book is the caretaker
Broken Wave Lol I just noticed that. The comment section on this video is gold
so what happened to the real Jack?
jesus christ larry! youre everywhere!
Perhaps all that we know for sure is that he wrote a novel, since the whole narrative seems not to be at all reliable...
It's kind of like that album that is supposed to simulate dementia this movie is a simulation of paranoid schizophrenia
He finished a novel
Perhaps it was the jack we made along the way.
I absolutely agree this is the reason why some props appear and disappear in the movie because we are seeing mostly Jack's novel not the actual movie and this is why he changed the name Charles to Dilbert to protect the identity of Charles in his novel. But the ending leaves a big question based on the deleted last scene Wendy is now a single mother so in real life Jack either killed himself or they separated but nothing strange happened at the hotel besides Wendy and Danny going crazy from hallucinating seeing ghosts according to that deleted scene. But the question is is that deleted scene part of Jack's novel or the movie itself
As conjectured since the movie came out, the term "caretaker" doesn't simply mean the munade job/position in the mundane aspect of the hotel; rather, it broadly refers to Jack's spiritual attachment to the location and the spirits/memories it harbors. He was, in all likelihood, relative to the narrative of the movie, the reincarnation of who he had been in 1921 (and who he was, at that specific time, is largely neither here-nor-there : he's simply a spirit reborn again and returned to the sinkhole of evil that the hotel is supposed to be, both literally and as an abstract concept regardless of location). In the broad, *all* of the theories and concepts ascribed to the movie are true but simply in greater and lesser degrees/portions. Just like how life is much more complicated/involved than many think, so too is the symbolism for all the various layers/dimensions that Kubrick's vision of The Shining. *All* of the pieces form the larger puzzle, and it's only a case of one being more "true" than the other when/if one focuses on a given aspect over the others. Otherwise, all of it forms one giant, complex stew....
I suggest that u buy the blu-ray version of the movie, and you'll notice that the background guy actually wears a red jacket with big black squares motifs, but Jack wears a plain red jacket, so there is no reason for that theory to exist
Notice that all the caretakers are wearing uniforms except for that man in 'jeans' with the red black jacket... now listen to Jack telling Delbert Grady before going to the washroom to clean his jacket, that it's alright, he's got plenty of jackets... to further this point, look at the Channel 4 The Shining tribute where Jack with jeans has on another jacket: /watch?v=liea8tfXpvk
You are talking about a tribute, wich is done by fans, fake set, fake actors, this isnt facts about the movie. Also, caretaker by DEFINITION means the ONE person that take care of the building, mostly when the owner is absent, nothing to deal with the cleaning and moving guys in grey in the living room, i'm just saying that despite the video argument being interesting in a way, this theory just dont hold to anything concret.
The point of this theory is that there are two Jacks we see in the movie. One who is a writer and would-be caretaker of the hotel when it closes for the winter, and the other is the fictional Jack which we follow him descend into madness. The reason for all the anomalies and inconsistencies peppered throughout the movie is, in my analysis, Stanley telling the audience which scenes are real and which are happening in Jack's novel. Since they're blended together seamlessly, lies the confusion I believe.
For ex. When Jack meets Mr.Ullman for the interview, notice outside of the room there is a light switch. The switch is symbolic of the real world and because it's where Jack, the writer learns of the grisly murders of Charles Grady.
Now, look at the scene when Wendy goes to Ullman's office to radio the ranger. No light switch. Real world.
Now, the scene where fictional Jack goes to Ullman's office to take apart the radio. Light switch. Fictional world.
The Channel 4 Ad was a big budgeted production to make it as accurate as possible. The details are amazing. I highly doubt they would make the mistake of having Jack wear a beige jacket when everything else was immaculately recreated.
you dont need to tell me again the theory, i saw the video, in order to make a theory plausible u need concrete proofs of your saying, visual proofs like when u talk about the switch, but i doubt a prop apprearin and desapearing can create some parallel lecture of the movie, its so little and unsignificant. Yet the switch is the ONLY concrete thing brought up, nothing else is suppose to make you think about a parallel story like such. Channel 4 AD is made by fan, they cant speak for Kubrick and that's it, you were not on the set, i was not either and noone will know if the guy holding a axe was suppose to be jack or not, the color of his jacket doesnt matter, because there is no theory related to any jacket of anyone. going back to my first post, the creator of the vid was maintaining his argument over a red jacket of a background guy that turned out to actually not be red at all. there is nothing more to it
Why do you keep citing the blu ray? I also have a copy but didn't you know there was a lot of cleanup work to fix color bleeding and noise reduction etc? No doubt in mind, the black and red jacket was meant to appear burgundy as seen in the vhs and dvd copies (you can still see the black and red pattern if you look very closely) because that's the way Stanley wanted it. To believe otherwise is silly because knowing how meticulous he was at the tiniest of details, he wouldn't have approved the color bleeding.
I"m sure you know the blu ray was invented after he died so don't tell me the toucher-uppers knew exactly what they were doing when fixing color bleeding... dust and scratches I understand.
Again, when I made this video and pointed out this detail of the burgundy jacket, it was an entry point to my theory that there were two Jacks. There will be more videos to expand on it. Reading all the comments that have come wasn't what I expected, but nonetheless, when the evidence is provided it will guarantee to change minds.
The Channel 4 Tribute you keep dismissing was recreated with most of the equipment actually used in the film. Just research what The Channel 4 creative team did in getting access to Stanley's archives of sketches, photos, etc. to reproduce props. They weren't just mere fans. They had some inside help and knowledge to pull off that amazing tribute. Wouldn't you say?
Chilling observation. The whole theory around it is interesting, but still vague.
+Something About The Movies Thanks. I plan to make a series to elaborate on this theory.
+Marten GO I'd love to see that. Nice to know.
Something About The Movies ...is English your second language? PS He did not see a reflection, as a worker blocked the reflective glass in the cabinet. perhaps the question from the wife triggered him, as she spoke in a naive tone? think about the way jack spoke to her in a condescending manner. ...PS.PS The caretaker could be a reference to cremation of Care...at the mid-summer bohemian grove festival, as the overlook would be the seasonal opposite of that time ie. mid-winter.
sorry something. ..I thought you made the video. ..
This could explain the distinction between Charles Grady from the beginning of the film and Delbert Grady from the scene in the bathroom.
Exactly. I will make the 3rd video expanding on this theory and touch on the double Grady anomaly.
Marten GO It would also explain why Jack sees Wendy and Danny in the mini model of the maze. He might be imagining an idea for his novel.
@ Runar Hellstrom: That actually makes sense... and the same technique was used in the French film Café de Flore (2011) where two children that have reincarnated are shown together in the background of an old b/w photo right at the end of the film.
Charles and Delbert were brothers as I understand. Though I can’t recall where I got that info.
Café de Flore isn't a French film, it's a Canadian film by Jean-Marc Vallée.
Are you suggesting that the 2nd half of the movie is us experiencing his book and not real life? Is that to suggest Jack and family are still happy and unharmed at the time of Jack's writing?
I always thought the same thing. Jack Torrence wrote a novel while he was there at the hotel. There were "supernatural" things that happened. But in reality, there is no supernatural. So if you believe in the supernatural, Jack sold his soul & the hotel ghost let him out of the freezer. If not, it was all Jack's novel.
I love how Kubrick trolled Stephen King with the movieending especially: In the novel the house burns down, in the movie it freezes.
Priceless!
The best bit is how he replaced the red Beetle with a yellow one then crushed the red one under a truck at the end!
You have no idea what trolling is moron.
The Hotel is what possesses Jack just as it did Delbert Grady before him. It takes those weak enough to destroy and their spirits become one with the Hotel forever.
What exactly drives the hotel to want to ruin innocent lives though? What makes the hotel "alive?"
It's never revealed as to why but the cook Halloran alludes to it "some places are like people, some shine and some don't"
But why said the manager of the hotel his name was "Charles Grady"? The WAITER later said that he is actually called "Delbert Grady"?
Patrick Dunham . Exactly.
TH3GPS The old sacred Indian ground story.
1:37 "this place is fantastic isn't it hun?" Subtles: NO
LMAO 😅
I love how he was so respectful. "I'm sorry to differ with you sir..."
If he can "shine" and see past and future events, then he is not bound by time; and in that sense, he is "always" there. In fact, his whole family can shine. Wendy sees ghosts of the past near the end ("Lovely party, wasn't it"), and Danny, of course, shines throughout. The movie has the subtext of a psychologically troubled family looking for means to escape.
It's probably just some foreshadowing by Stanley. This theory has some left out parts that needs it to make more sense
It's not a limp. He just stays on his right foot for longer than usual.
Visual and audio cue (device) used by Kubrick to indirectly point out that man. Listen to Jack's steps (one creak and a tap) then Jack looks back. Watch my follow up video for evidence on the Torrance novel theory.
Marten GO :-)
But he twisted his ankle in the pantry, remember? So he would be limping. Makes sense too because a limp would slow him up and Danny and Wendy need to stay a step ahead of him to keep their lives! Normally he could probably outrun them both.
Old Jack took over his reincarnated self, New Jack, end of story. Why overcomplicate things?
+Patrick kelley, Finally, a theory that isn't completly cockamamie.
Sam Cottrell Thanks. That's the way I've always interpreted Jack in the 1921 picture at the end.
They don't mention reincarnation in the movie at all. I can't really buy it. I have thought of the person in the picture as the spirit that took over Jack's body and eventually turned him into a madman. We see the spirit, (from the photo) the ghosts see the spirit, ("you've always been the caretaker") but the family sees the real Jack. This explains the opening shot, the spirit chasing the car, finally catching it and us seeing Jack for the first time.
If they were to make a version of the film with the real Jack Torrance on screen we would need another actor than Nicholson to play the role, because Nicholson is the spirit that has invaded him, not Jack Torrance himself.
Joseph Rash I admit that's a compelling theory.
And then New Jack went on to kill Danny and Wendy, and dive off a balcony at Cyberslam '97 onto the Dudley Boyz.Joking aside, I do like that interpretation though.
Don't know why people struggle so badly with this. Totally checks out. Has Kubrick written all over it and explains so much. Good job!
I took the line "You've always been the caretaker" to be a riddle that is answered by the old framed photograph in the bar towards the end of the movie. The murderous husband is shown there in the past and so, by a kind of 'loop' device, the idea of "Always" is explained. It's one of the scariest things about The Shining movie, the idea that the past can 'absorb' people.
Jack never wrote a novel though, he just typed "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" thousands of times.
I didnt read the book of king , and what i heard of kings comment . That Stanley didnt follow the book . Maded king angry . And i agree with a comment below . Hè signed a contract When hè began to drink , which made Jack the caretacker . But the movie is Epic . This is pure art from kubrick .
My GOODNESS...that was extremely insightful. All the times that I watched this movie I never caught that.
the hypothesising that goes on about the shining assumes the film makers / writer worked things out to a level beyond adequately telling the story and getting the job done. things can look meaningful not because someone did it on purpose, but it was a mistake, and they thought, fuckit, thats good enough. be wary of reading too much into things.
he was hired to be the caretaker.. thats why they were there..
my theory of this movie is that jack is not real. he is Shelly duvalls split personality.. she is a psychotic single mother and uses jack to lash out in anger at her son. all the times you see jack doing something it's her doing it and she's just imagining it's him. that's why the dudes in the picture at the end because she made him up. she saw the picture and used him as a reference to pretend she had a husband but it's her crazy self.. that's why her son is crazy because he gets it from her.
that's also how he got out of the locked pantry. he wasn't in it.. the black guy says something about Daniel having the shining. there's a clue in there. he says the shining is a gift of telepathy and having visions. so Daniel could be telepathically inserting visions in his mother's head of jack. he could be causing everything. he has visions of the future, sees things that aren't there, can transmit those things telepathically and is pulling a mind job on his mother.
That's a very interesting theory.
Maathiu Ra Yin If he was white you would have said the one guy said. We always have to call out the race of non whites in the most simple things
Maathiu Ra Yin No not speaking on racism. Even tv show info does it
I never understood why Grady refers to Jack as “sir” even though he’s only the caretaker.
The British etiquette of a serving man.
Exactly, as the other comment stated, it’s purely etiquette. Just like when someone was called “Master”, they weren’t actually the Master of anything, it was another way of saying “Mister”.
@@theoneandonlygree1203 this kind of reminds me of how in Star Wars the Clone Wars all of the Clones call their superiors "sir" even if they aren't a male superior
@@basedostrich ah I see I’ve encountered a man of culture
Grady became the servant of the Spirit, Jack makes a contract to Take Care of the Spirit's dark needs of Fear and Murder. Grady is there to assist him.
So you're theory is basically "it was all a dream"? please...
your, not "you're"
Used to read word up magazines
@@linesidehunter373 salt n Peppa and heavy D up in the limousine
@Nik Kingman that should be *you're* gay.
3:17 "feezed to death trying to kill his wife and son to end a fantastic novel". We all know in the novel Jack dies when the hotel explodes. In the movie is where he freezes to death. Overall, this is a theory based on a lack of knowlege and research of the source material.
"But why did I have the bowl, Bart? Why. Did. I. Have. The. Bowl-?!"
hash? edible? strong bud?
lol
Wait, What? There's a strong bud now? Is that like regular strength for other beers?
Drinking bud is an experience like making love in a boat ..... it's fcuking near water.
nah I'm cool
right - has to be ; the only type of mind-frame to put those kind of frames in mind - Thought game strong.
Okay
Thanks
Interesting. But I think you're over reaching. The Shining is a movie you can get lost in. It's a rabbit hole. It doesn't make sense and Kubrick purposely left it ambiguous. He wanted the audience to be left uncomfortable, ill-at-ease.
Pure idiocy that misses the point of the film.
rdecredico which is what?
rdecredico it misses the point of the book that King wrote but the film. if you are looking for King book in film formate King remade the shinng in the early 2000s.
American Patriot But bearing in mind that this video is about Kubricks adaptation of the book. Everyone knows they're not exactly the same
King is a hack.
Kubrick created timeless art.
rdecredico nice pipe smoking videos and you call king a hack lol
That thing you describe as a limp seems like a stretch. He’s limping later because it’s after Wendy hit him with the bat and he fell down the stairs. You can tell it’s from that because initially when he stands in the food room he falls over because it’s a new injury he’s not aware of yet. If Grady says he’s always been the caretaker it makes more sense to me that he’s telling the truth to Jack, plus the picture at the end and everything.
I think I get it, the main caretaker is wearing what Jack wears when he goes crazy with an axe, when Jack sees him in the lounge he gets inspiration for the character in his book whose basically the character we see go crazy later on, the fictional caretaker wrote up by Jack Torrance who yeah is looking after the hotel for the winter but the crazy bits are his imagination/novel, so Torrance isn't the caretaker who goes nuts, his character is.