I'm not sure which made me laugh more -- the idea that that's too much snow for one night in the Colorado Rockies, or the idea that there can't possibly be any supernatural events in a Stephen King novel.
i like your comment, cause its the only one which doesn't immediately bash the narrator on a personal level, and is also the only comment which isn't unironically partaking in misandry. :) You made my night.
Checked for this comment immediately, lmao, I've had to clear off multiple times more snow off my car after a half shift, much more from an entire night!
in a very harmful case . . .this is toxic as fuck, blaming women for their abuse is commen as hell and this is plain scary for we see hem hunt her and still, she gets blamed
Stanley Kubrick said himself that he purposely kept changing the look of the hotel to make it feel more vivid and dream-like. He purposely make any structure maze like that’s why he made the hedge maze larger in the movie than described in the book.
i always found it curious that the model replica of the maze in the hotel is larger and more intricate than the 'actual' one depicted outside. not sure if this was also supposed to impart an unreality into everything, or just emphasize an extreme intricacy, like the maze of the mind, but i always appreciate that touch
@@ursidae97I’m pretty sure the comment is explaining that the inconsistency is not proof of Wendy being abusive but instead is to create an unnerving atmosphere
@@orangegradient4309 yeah she is being extremely delusional, must be the stress from her insomnia, cause everyone but her knows it **didn't** happen...
If I had a nickel for every time someone came up with a theory that boils down to “It was all in their head!” Or “It was all just a dream!” I’d have enough money to fund a film production.
But the Protagonist Has Amnesia, or Protagonist Is Imagining It, or Dreams Of A Dying Man tropes are well worn for a reason. It's not a twist any more so whatever but it's a core idea of mystery.
The reason I really dislike these kinds of theories is because they’re not only lazy, but add nothing. “Ash from Pokémon is in a coma and that’s why he doesn’t age!”, “Harry potter hallucinated hogwarts as a way to cope!” okay, what does this add to the plot? Does this do anything other than edgiefy a narrative or add chock value where it’s not needed? It’s the same with this theory. It adds nothing other than a quick “Actually, they were evil and hallucinating!”. Cool, does this change anything? Does it add to the themes? Is there anything to it? It kinda sucks that these types of theories are so popular because they never add anything or speculate over something that makes sense or could add interesting thoughts that align with the media in question
That's what I was thinking, I've seen 2 feet of snow appear overnight and I've been on an walk for just an hour in heavy snowfall and come back looking like that... (Definitely exactly like that lol.)
if anything, it's suspicious we can even see him given the circumstances. the fact he died in a way that prevented him from being completely buried by snow is miraculous.
@@Pihsrosnec Yeah I was thinking there are stories I've heard of people disappearing in snow storms their bodies only turning up after it's all thawed... And even live sheep needing to be dug out of snow. Not still dead ones, actual living, relatively warm sheep can get trapped in a downpour of snow and disappear under it! In Scotland anyway.
I lived in Colorado and I can attest that when it snows out there, it is like NOWHERE else I have ever been. After a day of skiing at "Winter Park," I was at my car in the lot. The snowflakes coming down each were the size of four (4) cornflakes stuck together. I opened the hatch of my Mazda RX7 and before I could place my equipment inside, the entire deck of my hatch was covered in snow. So, if "Jack" was sitting out in a Colorado mountain snow for any length of time at all, I would expect him to be buried! 😮
Kubrick talking about Jack's murderous intent: "Jack comes to the hotel psychologically prepared to do its murderous bidding. He doesn't have very much further to go for his anger and frustration to become completely uncontrollable. He is bitter about his failure as a writer. He is married to a woman for whom he has only contempt. He hates his son. In the hotel, at the mercy of its powerful evil, he is quickly ready to fulfill his dark role." But no guys, Kubrick really secretly thought Wendy was the abusive parent.
Right. Or like Wendy is crazy because an aspiring author has a bunch of books in their home? Not to mention that Jack doesn’t say he’d give his soul for a drink, then a bartender in a red suit appears and drinks are “on the house.” 😂
Also this theory ignores its based on a book which clearly doesn’t have similar continuous edit clues. Now the book and movie have differences and movies can be wildly different from soured material. But if there was such a huge change from the book like Wendy us hallucinating everything, the director would have communicated through the movie clearly that this is very different. And not just made clues be furniture moving that isn’t really even noticed by people watching in theaters like people die back then more.
@@irgendsoeineziege1058 the intention of the artist is important to the interpretation. Their intention doesn’t fully encompass how you should interpret their work, but to completely disregard it because otherwise your theory wouldn’t make any sense. That just means your interpretation is bad quality.
@@kittycatcuties But the artist might not always be able to express his intentions. Sometimes because it's not allowed, and sometimes because he doesn't want to give too much away and prefers to be vague or stick to what it appears to be like on the surface. Also, there are many levels and aspects of a story and you can't possibly cover all of it in a single statement.
The part talking about how jack's body is found with "more snow than could have fallen in one night" {a light dusting, in the mountains} is so beyond ridiculous
considering where the Stanley Hotel (where they shot a bit of it) Is, that was a light amount of snow for the winter in the colorado mountains. Especially in Estes.
@@huckthatdish it's funny how she's reading catcher n the rye, when this movie came out John was still alive. Also Regan's assassin & Lennon's assassin both had this book in their possession when arrested after this movie was released. How could Kubrick foreshadow this?
To me it's especially weird that she is presumed to be some sort of point of view character, even in scenes she's not in. How is Wendy the point-of-view character when Jack is alone in the bar? I never assumed her to be the main character let alone the point of view character.
That would be my question too. Jack has PoV, most frequently, especially with ghosts. Even if you want to go with a theory where there is no supernatural, just hallucinations, Jack would be more likely to be hallucinating or having a breakdown since that is actually shown in the film, where nothing from the Wendy theory is shown. The Wendy theory seems more like someone trying to come up with the most out there theory possible, and then finding a couple things that could support the idea if you squint hard enough and ignore everything else on the movie. It's like people on tiktok who say deliberately dumb or provocative things to get attention.
@@kira5505I have not watched Navarro's original video, but I think the explanation for those situations is that Wendy made them up to account for killing Jack. Yes, the premise of the theory is that everything we see on screen is either a) a hallucination from Wendy, b) a very detailed depiction of a lie Wendy told someone off screen. People who believe that surely don't suffer from cramps, with all that reaching they do.
ikr? dont you have to be present to hallucinate something? is she just standing in a room staring at a wall imaging this halfway across the hotel?? and if she is hallucinating these things happening, how does she never react to those things? if shes imagining that jack is planning to kill her with an axe, how does she.. not anticipate... jack coming ot kill her with an axe? why doesnt she try and escape before hand? im so confused
@@kira5505 I know the conclusion is warped, but the approach is valid. Why would Wendy not be just as vulnerable to the loneliness and isolation, as Jack is? Mind you, she has Danny for company. In fact, for the first half hour of the filmwe see them as a perfectly happy family. It is only when Jack leaves that circle, in order to focus on his responsibilities, that he starts to crack. And, in reality, Jack should never have done that. He admitted himself that he had no good ideas to write.
@happinesstan Oh, I totally agree that she would be vulnerable to loneliness and isolation- but the film itself just doesn't give evidence of her being violent or being the primary focus or PoV character in the film both of which would be needed to support the theory. Jack experiences the main activity of the hotel (or the majority of hallucinations) without her being there. You could make that film, but it isn't the film that was made.
She was actually 3 meerkat stood on eachothers shoulders wearing a dress and pretending to be people the whole time. She tried to kill her family because they got too close to her shameful secret.
The Shining was actually about a family of penguins. Any evidence to the contrary is actually a hallucination, as demonstrated by the lack of penguins in the film.
the whole thing was Beast from Beauty and the Beast hallucinating in his isolation from the world. as evidenced by the fact that Wendy reads books and Beast has a library.
Also the Wendy Theory being “the most plausible thing bc there’s no supernatural events” is a wild take for a “more likely meaning” for a film adaptation of a supernatural horror novel
Some people seem to be so against the existence of the supernatural, that it can’t even exist in media form. They try to “logically” explain things away in the most incoherent way possible. “It’s more logical than ghosts!” No. It’s not. As my roommate and I like to say, “sometimes, it’s just a fucking ghost. 🤷🏻♀️”
This theory is indicative of why I hate a lot of theories about media. Most of the time they are going for shocking revelations that are completely counter to the story. Characters are just imagined by the protagonist, all of the characters are in purgatory, or some other random nonsense… they are all so dumb
The 2 types that you listed are often the go-to for people trying to convince others that they're smarter than they actually are and I too am annoyed to no end by it. Like, even the films that are openly and canonically like that go about selling it way better than the people trying to force those "theories" onto whatever movie they're talking about. But also add to that list "something something seven deadly sins because vague less-than-flawless personality traits".
Like it’s so obvious none of these people are writers because how can they think a writer would make it so that the story has a massive plot-changing twist that they never reveal. Like imagine if fight club was written as though Tyler Durden was actually real? How stupid would that be? Why would anyone do that?
My film theory is that Eyebrow Cinema is actually Rob Navarro and they put out a terrible theory just so they could debunk it, that's why Navarro really uses TTS. It's the most plausible explanation because it doesn't involve supernatural occurrences like someone watching the shining and thinking "ah yeah, Wendy is the problem here"
Tbh, I'm shocked a TTS video could get that many views, when I hear TTS, I automatically think of those auto-generated reddit reading channels or something which I associate with lazy content
@@JordanPlayz158 I can sort of understand it. Not everyone has a good, or even passable, narrating voice. So it can be the least bad option. That said, when coupled with the content of the vessay, it becomes really hard to ignore.
That is possible. People are so desperate for click-bait, views, and monetization they might generate a "controversy" to debunk. I can't imagine anyone's real voice being any worse than the TTS voice. So, that might explain why he uses it so he can use his real voice in the debunking video.
it’s so funny to me to hear that “breaks in continuity are Wendy hallucinations” when from the film itself it’s pretty obvious breaks in continuity exist to place the audience in a subliminal state of unease.
"But Kubrik was a insanelly perfectionist guy" Yeah, that's why his works have so much continuity errors. When you're so perfectionist with the main parts (light, lines, etc.) you tend to dont care that a fucking chair was moved between two perfect cuts. SPECIALLY SO in a movie where you can blame a poltergheist for moving the chair
@@albertonishiyama1980I don’t think his movies had any more or less continuity errors than any other film of similar scope. You’ll find plenty of entries in the Goofs section of IMDB for tons of films. I think it’s just unavoidable.
What I don't understand the most about the Wendy theory is why they'd focus on it "not being supernatural at all, actually" when Stephen King is most well known for supernatural horror and is like...pretty much all of what he writes 😭
Because these kinds of theories are.made by people who think being "realistic" is the height of intellectual thought and that pointing put this fictional story has fiction is it makes them super special and smart.
yeah the film WAS very different than the book, so I can see why King didn't love the adaptation. But he didn't hate the adaptation because of the supernatural elements. In fact, there was MORE supernatural elements in his story than in the film.
@@Jacoboy27 I think he's later said that after the massive failure of book-accurate made for TV mini series that he appreciates the movie and kinda likes it now.
It's to the cast & crew's credit that this atmospheric, disturbing film is a lightning rod for interpretation, analysis & conspiracy theorists seeking evidence after all these years.
As a schizophrenic one thing that annoys me about this theory is the 'it's more plausible than a supernatural explanation' part, because the way this theory portrays schizophrenia is in my experience simply not how the illness works lol The version of schizophrenia that exists in most (non schizophrenic) people's minds is as fictional as our favourite supernatural hotel
Not to mention that, ironically, Shelly Duvall actually has a mental illness (I think schizophrenia?) and hopefully has been doing well. I wonder if that gives any inspiration to the theory. What bugs me about it is it feeds into stereotypes. All of these serial killers and big cases of violence/murder you hear about are NOT schizophrenic or even deemed to have any mental illness, yet this stereotype persists that schizophrenics are dangerous. I’m sure symptoms/presentations are different with everyone but these explanations of Wendy’s schizophrenic symptoms are a STRETCH at times
Not to mention that this "argument" fails to adress the fact that the shinning is a piece of FICTION and therefor there is no reason to assume a supernatural explanation isn't plausible ("it can't happen in real life" is irelevant when it's not real life)
@@dr.anderson1847 That's a pretty good theory. I have one of my own. I believe that the moving representation you were referring to was actually a movie directed by this guy called Stanley Kubrick. Still, it's only a theory. We may never learn the truth- except that Wendy was definitely not the abusive one in either version. That would be stupid and illogical.
One other thing about Wendy reading The Catcher in the Rye and its supposed significance to the validity of the Wendy Theory is that interpreting her reading this book as a sign that she's mentally unstable because other unstable people in real life were obsessed with it not only doesn't line up with the history of the book's interpretation, it also overlooks a much simpler interpretation that fits with the presented narrative of the film. Holden Caulfield, the main character of The Catcher in the Rye, has a fixation on protecting children from harm or corruption. The book's title itself, is a reference to a scene in the book where Holden describes a sort of idealized fantasy of himself as a sort of guardian, who catches children running through a field of rye so they don't fall off a cliff on the other side. So we have Wendy reading a book whose main character sees himself as a protective figure for children...Which is the role Wendy ends up taking on over the course of the film's narrative. She tries to shield Danny from Jack's abuse and increasingly unhinged behavior and ultimately has to rescue him from her murderous husband at the film's climax. What we have here is the movie presenting us with a very obvious bit of subtext reinforcing the themes of the film, and Rob at the Movies looked at that and said "Ah, I get it, this means the exact opposite thing".
Not to mention all of the most well known crimes associated with the book (Mark David Chapman, Hinkley, etc) were committed after The Shining was released kind of puts the nail in that theory. Sure the book had a reputation from the word go, but it didn't have this cemented association in popular culture until John Lennon was killed by Chapman like 8 months after the film came out. Kubrick was a visionary but I don't think he was psychic.
“idealized fantasy of himself”…It kinda sounds like he’s created a fantasy where he’s protecting them from a danger that really isn’t there. Very interesting.
But tgen again, who's even read the Catcher in the Rye? Or had to read it in high school but completely forgot about it. Most people associate it immediately with "the book that killers read" instead of the whole thing about the protagonist in a book that nobody really knows anymore. So there's that...
@@SilviaVanThreepwood Yeah but as someone already said this movie came out before the book got associated with high profile assassinations. That association with violence can't be considered written intent.
Bro Kubrick had more reason than any other director to have continuity errors because of the ungodly amount of takes he made all his actors do for any one scene.
THAT was the form that Kubrick's famous "perfectionism" took - in putting the cast through dozens of takes to get their performances "just right", far more so than getting continuity and background details just "perfect"! Because, in the end, THAT was what was really important to Kubrick: getting the "perfect" performances from the human element, not getting the carpet patterns just "perfect" for the reassurance of obsessive fans to follow like an objective reality! These "conspiracy theories" take on an especially bizarre aspect when one really notices that fact: it's kind of insane and funny to imagine Kubrick raving "yeah, I don't care about things like characterization, symbolism, atmosphere, mood, theme, foreshadowing and other storytelling techniques, because damn it, I'm making a naturalistic, realistic documentary about that chair in the background, and that chair has gotta be JUST RIGHT or nobody will understand that the moon landing is a feminist lie!"
you think a manic skitzo episode is less likely than a HAUNTING of a HOTEL that ENTERS YOUR MIND AND BODY? lmaoo. MSBP is a real thing...Haunted Hotels arent.
@@angrybidoof847 Jack didnt "go insane" the hotel is HAUNTED...what movie did you watch? the hotel brings out the evil in people. Thats the BASE plot. The entire Torrance family are victims of the hotel. Rob is saying A LOT MORE than "jack going insane". No you didnt say "hotel" but you said "insane" which defeats the whole purpose on theorizing what this movie is really about. Jack Dull Boy is not the baseline.
@@TheRealDarrylStrawberry The context Rob said that Wendy going insane is more plausible than jack going insane. That is, if you wanted to ignore the ghost plot, viewing the film though Jack's eyes, the character we've all ready been shown to not be the most mentally stable, as him having some kind of breakdown is less likely than Wendy having a break down. The whole things moot anyway as we do know that in universe ghosts do in fact exist, and the reason they latched on to Jack so quickly was because his mental health wasn't in the best place to begin with. Steven King explicitly stated it was ghost and explored it in greater detail in the sequel, Doctor sleep.
men are sane and rational 100% the time and never ever do anything to hurt their families ever. Women be crazy. /sarcastic But honestly, with the history of women being labeled 'hysterical' or 'crazy' for asinine things, it's kind of baked into our society that women are more likely to be insane than men because they're 'more emotional' or whatever. Add to that the rhetoric that victims are lying for attention or they just imagined the abuse and you've got some victorian era, diagnosis of hysteria, misogyny on your hands.
My 2 friends and I sat down and watched the Shining twice in a row in a single day. My one friend, Danny, had never seen it before, and my second friend, JJ, is a huge film nut. Danny noticed several of these mistakes when watching and pointed them out. JJ did acknowledge them as just normal mistakes that were left in for reasons of time and money. When Danny retorted "I thought Kubrick was a perfectionist", JJ responded "Yea, but he's one guy in a sea of people all trying to cram this movie together." We all got into a much deeper discussion that led to us all argreeing that by leaving the mistakes in, Kubrick achieved something absolutely terrifying. That the Overlook Hotel was a living evil entity, and those 'mistakes' are when it warped reality. To me it's the perfect in-story explanation. It's the monster hiding under your bed that you haven't seen, but you swear you can hear it breathing. You'll make it far scarier than any writer could.
@Chandller Burse In Kabbalah, the Hebrew letter Shin (שׁ) holds significant symbolism and meaning. It is one of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, each representing a divine force or spiritual principle. The letter Shin is associated with several concepts and interpretations in Kabbalistic teachings: Divine Fire: Shin is often associated with the element of fire, representing the divine flame that connects to the spiritual realm. It symbolizes the transformative and purifying power of fire, which can consume and refine. Divine Name: In Kabbalah, Shin is connected to the divine name "Shaddai," which signifies the Almighty or the All-Sufficient. It represents God's expansive and limitless nature, encompassing all aspects of creation. Three Pillars: The shape of the letter Shin resembles three flames or branches converging at the top. These three branches represent the three pillars of the Tree of Life: the Pillar of Mercy (right), the Pillar of Severity (left), and the Pillar of Balance (center). It signifies the harmonious integration of these pillars in the divine and human realms. Shema: The Shema is a central prayer in Judaism, and the letter Shin holds a prominent place in it. The Shema begins with the words "Shema Yisrael," and the letter Shin is enlarged and emphasized in the first word. This represents the unity of God and serves as a reminder of our connection to the divine. Spiritual Transformation: Shin is associated with spiritual growth and transformation. It represents the journey of the soul from a state of limitation and separation to one of unity and enlightenment. It signifies the path of elevating consciousness and transcending the mundane aspects of existence. The letter Shin, with its multifaceted symbolism, carries deep spiritual significance in Kabbalistic thought. It represents the divine presence, transformative power, and the potential for spiritual growth and connection with the divine. THE SHIN INING =)
I've seen others in the comments say that was actually the intention, everything moving and not being in the same place was supposed to unsettle the viewer, as you say it's supposed to represent the monster hiding under the bed you haven't seen but can hear breathing. I honestly watched the shinning for the first time a week before this vid came up on my fyp and i did not pick up on any of the inconsistencies but i did feel things were a little off and realising why is really cool adding to the atmosphere and horror
I honestly didn’t care for the movie and thought it was underwhelming my first full watch. I’m glad to see why ppl like it so much I might give it another chance. That’s a cool interpretation even if it was purely just mistakes. I think that things like this are what add charm to a movie
Aside from the whole "twisting the story to make an abusive husband look like the real victim" issue, my biggest problem with the Wendy theory is that it very clearly starts with a conclusion and works backwards. Navarro obviously didn't look at the evidence and use it to conclude that Wendy is crazy, he decided that Wendy was crazy and then went looking for things that could be used as supporting evidence. And I don't need to explain why that's fallacious on its face. If you go into any piece of media looking for evidence that supports your beliefs, you're going to find it, even if it's not actually there.
You are obviously projecting artificial intentions and then condemning someone for it. I could very well state the equivalent: you want the Wendy Theory to be wrong so you went looking for a video on youtube that accuses him. In the end, no one cares, only people that were satisfied with The Shining being Kubrick's easiest film are triggered that an extra layer can be reasonably sketched, one that was quite above their heads all this time. And I absolutely love the fact that this "debunking" video does not consider for a second that Kubrick, the same dude that abused Shelley onset over and over again, could have a subplot where she would be crazy.
I'm not in any way supporting the Wendy Theory, but honestly? It's totally possible to hallucinate things happening in other places It doesn't really matter that you couldn't have possibly seen them. You "just know" that they happened. When people do have delusions, they often don't notice the logical inconsistencies (At least, that's my understanding. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about it)
@@Canadamus_PrimeI don't think so either. But I don't think it makes the Wendy Theory inconsistent I think the Wendy Theory is "wrong" because it's just not the story that the movie is telling us, rather than because it's internally inconsistent
@@douglaswolfen7820 I think what you're describing, with her "just knowing" stuff is happening that isn't, is a different psychological phenomenon than a hallucination. If I'm not mistaken, a hallucination is explicitly something that they witness, not imagine. I'm not describing that very well.
@@anisaafsar4528 key phrase "based on"....... every single movie ever made that was based on a book takes liberties with the story itself, character traits/backrounds, certain themes, vibes, etc.
@@jbo4547 I understand that and although the film is it's own version the original story was from Stephen King and I don't think the movie has as much backround story or theory compared to his writing. I believe he's actually said himself he wasn't happy with the end product of the shining because of how the movie portrayed the main character. The book gave him a lot more detail in terms of his character arc and the bonds between good and evil
@@anisaafsar4528 Not to counter act your point, because it's a good point and i like it, but im pretty sure he's come around to it now. Just thought i'd say that, but anyways, yes i agree, the book is more canon. Just cause we dont see harry potter mention he wanted to be an auror when McGonagle asks him what he wants for a job in the movies, that doesnt stop McGonagle from commenting about it in the movies. She just mentions how his behavior/lack of studying is questionable since he said he wanted to be an auror, but we never see him say that. its only in the books
If you watch a movie where a father abuses his son and wife and every scene serves to portray his descent into madness, and your first response is to say "nuh uh it's the woman who is wrong", there's something going on... edit: I don't know how many comments I've gotten calling me an abuse apologist. Let me get things straight "do you think women can be abusers?" - yea "do you hate men?" - sometimes "you must think that in this other case where a female abuser abused someone the man was in the wrong" - no I don't "do you think think this theory is mysoginist" - yes "do you think I am a mysoginist" - no probably not yes, women can be abusers. But not in the shining, a movie about a male abuser. Blaming the victim as a conspiratorial mastermind is a textbook abuse tactic, please leave me alone. If I could mute this comment I would.
I watched this for the first time like a week ago with my sisters and i had no idea where it was going but like 10 mins in I was like "gang ... i think we're watching the story of abuse but with ghosts" anyway if anyone tries to tell me Wendy was the victim, i'm going to be very scared for them
@@erika-paigehutch3930 scared for them? Thats odd. If you listen to/watch watch the thoery without the nerd in this video getting butthurt about it, its very interesting. What's wrong with speculation or what if's based on inaccuracies and things in the film?. Nothing
@@jbo4547 idk maybe jts a personal thing, minus the actively trying to kill his family part I related to having a father like the one in this movie and it worries me people would think of Wendy as someone other than the victim because I have seen stuff like that happen first hand and also I very much hate when people try to rewrite stuff like this film to say the victim was the villain, you can believe what you want but I don't thibk anything is going to make me believe Wendy is the villain
@@jbo4547because the text doesn't support it. The premise is essentially "what if the story we saw was different?" and then reinterpreting scenes to fit whichever way you want the story to actually be. If your choice theory about a movie requires you to deny the things presented on screen as real, while conjecturing other evidence must have happened off screen because that would make your theory make sense, you are no longer theorizing interpretations of a given text, you're writing fanfiction.
A good thought about “continuity errors” can easily be explained by “holy shit the director was absolutely mad and did so many takes as to make the actors nearly insane there are bound to be things out of place if he wanted ‘take 24/200’ then you used that take regardless of what chair was out of place”
None of the violence and supernatural stuff in the film is real. It's a story written during Jack's descent into alcoholic psychosis -- he found where they locked up the liquor. There are clues that we are in the story as Jack is writing it: while talking to Grady in the bathroom, he keeps making typing motions with his hands. Also, this explains why he gets Grady's first name wrong -- he either misremembered it, or changed it for his book. This also explains continuity errors and how they are mostly intentional. As Jack is writing, he's changing little details here and there: he walks into an empty bar... suddenly there is someone there. During psychosis, he is having evil, paranoid thoughts about everyone in his family and fantasizing about things he'd like to do to "correct" them. This is why King hates it -- he knows Kubrick saw right through him and made the movie personally about him and his thoughts. Being exposed in this way disturbs him.
You see how many books they own together? Wendy must like to fantasize! They’re Jack’s books too and HE’S LITERALLY A WRITER 😵💫 These are such silly arguments😂
I feel like the concept of the theory also undermines the interesting part of jack’s character and his own experience with recovering from his abuse and alcoholism
A point you never brought up that I think is nonetheless important to debunking the Wendy Theory is that this isn't just a movie: it's an adaptation of a Steven King novel. You know, Steven King? The guy whose entire wheelhouse is SUPERNATURAL HORROR STORIES?
Kinda makes me wonder what he has to say about this theory. I don't care about Kubrick's opinion, he can eat a bag of dicks for what he did to Shelly Duvall. He didn't even write the original book, anyways.
Exactly! Yes a bunch of stuff is changed from book to film but it at its core still a Stephen King story. Look/read at IT. Salem's Lot. Silver Bullet. Eyes of the Dragon. What do they all have in common besides SK writing them? Supernatural and spooky thing are real and have actual effects on the world!
I think an even better way to debunk the theory is the fact that this story has a sequel. Both book and movie and the movie one still carries on the events and themes of the past movie. Among which, is the fact that Wendy was a caring mother while Jack was an abusive father
King already hates this movie for trying to remove the supernatural element and changing Wendy, I'm pretty sure that this theory would further piss him off to no end.
Something that always struck me was how, when wendy interrupted jack’s writing to check on him, he SCREAMED at her, blaming her for not being able to work. And later in the film, wendy finds that jack hasn’t been working this whole time, just typing nonsense on his typewriter. Jack hates himself SO MUCH and he scapegoats all that onto his wife and child, unable to bear the weight that the problems in his life may be his fault. As a woman, I’ve BEEN on wendy’s end in that screaming scene. As a little girl, I’ve SEEN my own father scream at my mother that way. The scene was so real to me that I didn’t know it could be interpreted any other way. So to think that was the scene that “inspired” the wendy theory…
I'm sorry to hear that, but I also believe you must hate the fragile position in which Stephen King forced Wendy into. As an exercise of abuse, then the movie for me is just unbearable. She is just a cardboard target for Jack's rude and over-the-top hate/sarcasm. It's clownish even. I much rather see a movie where the female character, even if flawed, at least is a driving force in its own destiny. Scarring the victimization cycle into a caricature has solved nothing. And to think that Kubrick *actually* abused Shelley Duvall onset to "draw" her panic and emotional pain, then, jesus, how can anyone still try to protect a sort of virtuous plot perspective on this director. Read what Tarantino said about him: an hypocrite that pretended to be against violence while actually glamourizing it to its full extent in perfect cinematic exercises as displays of power (Shining, Clockwork, Lolita).
@@vitoryugojsmThis is the only Kubrick movie I’ve ever seen. I don’t really know much about him. But also, movies are a huge collaborative effort. Lots of people work on them, so there are other things to appreciate than just the direction. I never said the movie was empowering or valuable in solving the abuse cycle. I just said that the scene with the typewriter really scared me because it was so real to me. Which to me holds some value, both as effective horror and also as a means of self reflection (ie being able to experience traumatic emotions in a safe environment where I can simply turn the tv off). Movies aren’t necessarily made to be tools to solve society’s problems. Sometimes a scary movie is made to be scary. I think you’re right to discuss it (and to be outraged at what was done to Shelley Duvall), but please understand that my experience with the movie and your experience aren’t going to be the same because we might be seeking different things. I didn’t go into the movie expecting to be given a lecture on how to break society’s cycle of abuse; I just wanted to experience how the movie felt.
@@NutyRiver I respect your view, and specifically understand the point where a movie can replicate some suffering in an encapsulated environment, serving as a catharsis to the audience. I believe it is even the original idea behind the foundation of the Greek dramatic arts. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Kubrick wasn't carrying these topics throughout his filmography as mere cleansing exercises. I agree with what Tarantino says about him, there was hypocrisy there.
@@vitoryugojsm fair enough. Again, I don’t really know anything about Kubrick, so I can’t claim to know what he thought. But in a world where abuse like this has spotted my life, I want to make my own choice to live without fear of my own shadow. As Shelley was abused, and Kubrick supposedly an abuser, it makes her performance meaningful to me. And that’s something I want to appreciate. Kubrick nailed directing an abuser, and Shelley nailed acting as an abused. Thanks for considering my view, btw. No need to agree, but I appreciate that you took the time to read and consider.
Duvall does an amazing job of portraying this stress, and she carries it for the whole movie. To see her as anything less than a captive of a madman is to truly "overlook" what is going on.
Wendy reading Catcher In The Rye = indicative of psychopathic behavior and unstable grasp on reality Jack chasing his family with an axe = symbolic of Wendy's psychopathic behavior and unstable grasp on reality
"A perfectionist like Kubrick would never allow so many mistakes" Kubrick probably spent more of his perfectionist energy on berating Shelley Duvall and the other actors, and missed that joey in props forgot to put back the light switch, or end table, or chair.
And then the editors were using the best takes and didn’t notice the takes they picked were the ones missing some distant background details. bc who the fuck would notice that or even care
@@Digglesisdead They would notice, but not necessarily care if the performance/visual integrity/ etc. is superior. Also, on set the Script Supervisor's job is to constantly check continuity in the moment to make the editing process easier, so I think it's a small fallacy to put it all on the editor's shoulders.
@@bob7975 it's entirely possible that when the set burned down and got rebuilt they forgot to add the light switches or it was overlooked (ha) in some way
I know the movie is very loosely related to the actual book but the book itself was written because King feared of himself becoming somebody like Jack since he felt at the time that maybe he was spending too much time writing in what he was passionate rather than being a good parental figure. That's probably the reason why so many people love this story: the horror is finding that you yourself may be the true monster that is ruining those around you rather than an unexplained force that we need to use loose theories in order to explain
The "Wendy Theory" is necessarily based on a conclusion that Kubrick either didn't know that this is where King was coming from, or didn't care and deliberately undermined it because... unexplained Genius Reasons? ...and also that Kubrick's "perfectionist and therefore non-supernatural movie about a totally innocent man abused by little Wendy" supposedly meticulously supports this re-interpretation of King's characterization and themes, citing the disagreement between King and Kubrick as supposed evidence that Kubrick diverges from King's fears of becoming his own drunk, abusive father. It's hard to watch 'The Shining' and not conclude that Kubrick was with King at least as far as the movie, like the novel, being about Jack falling into the trap of following in his father's violent, alcoholic footsteps... conversations between Jack and his "ghosts" pretty much spell this out as explicitly as Kubrick could possibly get: Jack was haunted by his past, and doomed to become his own father, in a vicious generational cycle of abuse! The "Wendy Theory" just pretty much chooses to ignore this in its pursuit of trying to blame all of Jack's obvious problems on Wendy, in spite of the fact that Wendy was pretty obviously being depicted as having her own fair share of problems in the dysfunctional family dynamic, by meekly and passively living in denial of her husband's problems, and excusing and even enabling them until she finds herself and her son trapped with her husband's escalating depression, violence and break with reality in a position where they are beyond outside help or escape from disaster, while Jack... I guess has no problems at all in this theory, and is just an innocent victim of that evil shrew, or something?
The "more snow than would have fallen in one night" point of the theory is fucking hilarious. The author of the fan theory must not be from anywhere cold.
A better argument might be that he seems too frozen compared to what would be expected, even in Colorado. But the snow is hilarious nonsense. And frankly, I'll bet a fiver that he just looks that frozen because it looks creepy as shit.
More snow that could fall in one night, a perfectionist would never allow end-tables to move, etc. Just a guy wholly convinced any nonsense that pops into his head makes sense just because.
i also think it’s funny how everyone puts so much emphasis on how the continuity errors are important to the story when, even putting aside them being legitimate errors, they might just be placed there to make the movie scarier. even if we don’t actively notice them, they could have been placed there to cause cognitive dissonance as our brains subconsciously realize something is off. that’s MY personal interpretation of all the continuity errors. for me, they genuinely create dissonance and almost a fear when watching the movie. they’re unexplained and therefore, spooky.
ah but that would mean having ghosts in the story about the spooky hotel horror movie, and we can't have that, that's too unrealistic. it has to be hallucinations because of course GHOSTS are far too silly.
I thought the same thing. You could argue the continuity errors add to the horror and are disconcerting and/or that they make you question yourself and what you're seeing or even the timing of events.
What debunks the idea Kubrick was too meticulous to make errors, is that it's not the directors job to check continuity that is the script supervisor. His theory is based on limited understanding of how movies are made.
I like how the Wendy theory tries to say Wendy is hallucinating all these scenes, even when she isn't in them! She is never made to be the narrator or storyteller, so how would her mental state effect the story's narrative?
The explanation in the Wendy theory is that those scenes are what she believes Jack was doing when he wasn't around her. If you go into this movie following the Wendy theory it really just makes it into a new movie with a different story. Its an interesting way of having two different experiences with the same movie. I say watch the full video explaining the Wendy theory and watch the shining right afterwards you will be watching a different movie then before you watched the Wendy theory
Another thing to note, mental illness is not indicative of a bad person. Dealing with things like psychosis and schizophrenia does not make you an abuser. People suffering with mental illness are more likely to experience abuse than to cause it.
It's funny how neurotypical people spend so much time demonizing mentally ill people when mentally ill people experience more violence from them than the reverse. Extremely telling that they demonize mentally ill people as ENTERTAINMENT by manufacturing stereotypes, but somehow this is not a form of paranoia. Sheesh.
God thank you. I'm so sick of mental illness being used as an excuse for abuse rather than the person just being a bad person. I have schizoaffective disorder which is a combination of schizophrenia and a mood disorder, bipolar in my case, along with chronic depression, and you know how much abuse I've done? None. Know how much I've been abused? A lot more than none
I mean you say that but it isn't the mentally healthy pushing people in front of subways or stabbing old asian people in NYC or anything, it's all unmedicated schizos who should have been put in an asylum years ago
Good video. I'm glad you mentioned the unsavoriness of taking a movie that is ostensibly about a woman suffering at the hands of her husband and acting clever for saying that it was all in her head. I was thinking the same thing. "Abused woman is actually crazy" is hardly a groundbreaking concept in either film or film analysis.
Who cares if its groundbreaking? And only weak people are offended by the IDEA that she was crazy and abusive. Its a fucking movie. Its A LOT different if this was a true story and people just said she was a nutjob.
The fact the video this is responding to used text-to-speech is generally a good sign unto itself that the video won't be very high-quality; if they can't even bother recording some audio or even just using text, chances are pretty good they're not gonna be thorough enough to think their theory all the way through.
Did the original video actually use that audio? I thought this video was using text to speech to avoid copyright / avoid using someone else's voice without consent
"More snow than would have fallen in a single night" I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this Rob guy has never been to a place that gets real snowfall.
I vividly remember when I was very little, the snow would sometimes go up to almost the doorknob. It was taller than me, and I remember it as if at was at the height of an average hallway because of it
Yeah, as someone who grew up in CO, it is laughable to me that that would be an unreasonable amount of snowfall in general, but especially in the mountains.
I always thought the frozen Jack shot is weeks/months later when people are able to go up to the hotel. This is how they find him. And also, even in a few hours it could snow so much that he would be completely covered, just a big, shapeless pile of snow
They would’ve filmed the scene of Wendy reading Catcher In The Rye in 78/79. Lennon was murdered in 1980. There was no connection between the book and murder at the time Kubrick chose what Wendy was reading.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the continuity errors throughout the Shining were completely purposeful. Like how Kubrick shot the scenes with Danny riding on his bike which create an impossible layout of the hotel, it is done to subliminally disturb the viewer and induct them into the madness Jack is facing the longer he is at the hotel.
This was what I've heard, as well. Either way, the continuity errors can be quite easily explained in a way that doesn't accuse Wendy of being the real villain.
Thats what I thought too. I thought this was confirmed, but maybe I'm wrong on that part. I'm sure there are actual continuity errors, as it happens, but I thought certain things like the disappearing, reappearing chair were done on purpose.
@@TheDungeonDive Oh come on, you guys would accuse a perfectionist to have shot so many obvious continuity errors, most of them requiring actual work like removing objects between two shots taken at the same places, or making a freaking wireless TV in that time and age, to be just random errors ? Like if those things happened once or twice in the movie I'd say it's probably a random error, and heck, some of those really might be random, but it's not just little objects, it's switchs, tv cables, whole rooms, not things you simply randomly move around between two shots without a reason. To do that many you need to either not care or do it on purpose. You guys would rather assume that one of the most pathologically perfectionist movie director just did dozens of obvious errors in a movie that was clearly important for him rather than just admit maybe it was a good way to make the viewer feel like something is off without being too in your face right away. Stanning geniuses and not admitting when they fuck up sure is dumb. But acting like everything you don't understand right away has to be a mistake or pretencious is either incredibly arrogant or anti-intelectualist. Personally I don't see it as a complex morse code. But could it be an indicator that just like in the book the Hotel itself is alive and moving around slightly to confuse and manipulate it's residents ? it'd say probably.
@@TheDungeonDive Mistakes? Don't get me wrong, I agree with your general point but how do you explain several light switches disappearing as "mistakes"? Or a whole ass chair vanishing in two takes that were probably shot close together?
i LOVE well explained schizo theories... yknow, for fun! that being said, the claim that it "explains everything" is grandiose and that's a bit harsh. if it was presented as "hey, here's a thought" i think it'd be better accepted. i still like wendy theory tbh, but don't believe it "explains everything", much less was the intended interpretarion by either king or kubrick lol
@@LithiumPsychosis very reasonable. I don’t very much like it. It’s fun to play around with thoughts and create alternate narratives but it just doesn’t do it for me, however that doesn’t discount other’s theories they find fun, wether they believe the theory or just enjoy it.
In the original novel, Jack is being driven crazy by the malevolent ghosts of the Overlook. IT’s explained in the sequel novel, Dr Sleep, that Jack had a little bit of the shine, not enough to for him to be really aware & it got weakened as he grew up and what he had was suppressed by his alcoholism. Jack having a bit of the shine, along with alcohol induced anger issues, made him more susceptible to the malevolent ghosts
I think in the OG they mention that Jack has a bit of it too, I remember it being one of the buttons the Overlook presses that his son is so much more special than he is.
The Wendy theory was definitely made up by someone who didn’t read the book. Jack wasn’t just violent towards Danny the one night he was drunk, he also attacked and beat a student that slashed his tires which led to him getting suspended. Thus beginning his search for a job.
@@DeeDeedoestuff and the movie is just like the book? No. Just like Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, A Series of Unfortunate Events, even other King stuff like Misery, the written books were guidelines and inspirations. The filmed movies are different and not the same. Just because a character has a certain motivation in the book does NOT mean its the same for the movie. And thats goes for anything else
@@jbo4547 get off reddit kid. this is real media analysis. there are multiple approaches. what you're describing is death of the author, which some people take as a 100% guarantee. but no, death of the author is only one way of looking at a piece. it's opposite would be word of God, taking everything from the author as 100% true and canon. true media analysis and critique lies somewhere in the middle, taking into account the authors intentions but not letting that tell you how the piece makes you feel.
The kool-aid being in 2 completely different spots but Navaro saying they’re the same and even using arrows to point it out has me absolutely DYING with laughter
SMH The point is that the Kool-Aid and the TANG have been switched, smooth brain!! Eyebrow Enema is trying to point out something completely irrelevant to Rob's point. "The Wendy Theory" is correct. You and Eyebrow Enema are just angry cause Kubrick trolled you and your peabrains can't grasp it. 😆
@@mattgilbert7347 Have you, Eyebrow Enema and the other dumbsheep not watched Rob's vid?? LOL!! Rob's point is, the Kool-Aid and TANG have been switched out between scenes JUST LIKE Kubrick intended. SMH, good ol' Eyebrow Enema tryin' to discredit something that Rob wasn't even talking about. What a shameless loser Eyebrow Enema is!! 🤣
And the fact that this happens well after he's already made it clear how heavily the theory relies on the "continuity errors Kubrick would never let slide" evidence just makes it even more ridiculous. So despite Kubrick never being a perfectionist in terms of set continuity, it's clear evidence for the theory because Kubrick would never allow those kind of continuity errors due to being a perfectionist. Yet in regards to one of the things he was well known for being a perfectionist about like shot composition, it's evidence for the theory despite the fact that he would never tolerate an intentionally symbolic scene like that having such inconsistent shot composition due to being a perfectionist. Funny how Kubrick's perfectionist tendencies seem to wax and wane depending on whether or not they supports the particular point the theory happens to be making at any given moment, isn't it?
@@VenathTehN3RD Funny how you fed yourself so many text and still came out with nothing. Kubrick was a perfectionist, period. Continuity errors don't happen at this scale in any respectable movie, period. This movie had a continuity director, period. Shot composition is not the subject at hand, unless you mistook the original reference in the theory and just ran wild with it because you had something to prove.
I'm sorry I know Navarro probably doesn't mean to come across this way, but it will always rub me wrong when someone takes a story about a abusive man, and makes it out for him to be the victim.
There's a value to pointing out "Hey, abusive people tend to have been victims of abuse". However, and this is the thing that many of those "theorists" don't get, the biggest thing to remember is that while terrible people are often times "a" victim in a story, but they very rarely, if ever, are THE victim of the story.
I love how Navarro's entire theory boils down to this assertion that one of the greatest filmmakers of all time made a whole ass movie about how "women do be crazy sometimes". Like that is somehow more plausible than Kubrick including supernatural elements in a ghost story or including an abusive husband in a movie about abuse.
I do find it funny that the original video seems to think the theory is more plausible because it removes any supernatural explanation, like that somehow makes it more mature and serious when there aren't ghosts. I find a lot of theories try and go that route, like having supernatural elements in a serious story is some kind of mistake or misdirection, rather than the creator just wanting to make a supernatural story Great video! I'm glad youtube threw this in my recommended
Yeah I agree. This the basis of every "it was all a dream" "theory" and every "[x] is actually mentally ill and imagined everything that happened" creepypasta. Those can be fun, but they're baby's first steps into critical thinking - not a proper run. More of a juvenile view on things and not the mature interpretation many people seem to think it is.
Yeah, i think a perfect example of this is that “the blair witch project” theory, according to which there is no witch, it was all a scheme conjured by the 2 dudes... Despite being rooted in plenty of cherrypicking it’s very succesfull, cause for some reason the whole thing not being supernatural makes the movie... smarter to people ?And people feel good when they like a smart movie? I don’t know what it is
They also before that sentence mention Jack not needing to be the abuser, as if him being the abuser is particularly far fetched, its clear this person has a problem with women.
The irony that this movie is all about how Wendy is abused and gaslit, when the actress who played Wendy was abused and gaslit on set so her ‘acting terrified’ would be more genuine.
@Chandller Burse In Kabbalah, the Hebrew letter Shin (שׁ) holds significant symbolism and meaning. It is one of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, each representing a divine force or spiritual principle. The letter Shin is associated with several concepts and interpretations in Kabbalistic teachings: Divine Fire: Shin is often associated with the element of fire, representing the divine flame that connects to the spiritual realm. It symbolizes the transformative and purifying power of fire, which can consume and refine. Divine Name: In Kabbalah, Shin is connected to the divine name "Shaddai," which signifies the Almighty or the All-Sufficient. It represents God's expansive and limitless nature, encompassing all aspects of creation. Three Pillars: The shape of the letter Shin resembles three flames or branches converging at the top. These three branches represent the three pillars of the Tree of Life: the Pillar of Mercy (right), the Pillar of Severity (left), and the Pillar of Balance (center). It signifies the harmonious integration of these pillars in the divine and human realms. Shema: The Shema is a central prayer in Judaism, and the letter Shin holds a prominent place in it. The Shema begins with the words "Shema Yisrael," and the letter Shin is enlarged and emphasized in the first word. This represents the unity of God and serves as a reminder of our connection to the divine. Spiritual Transformation: Shin is associated with spiritual growth and transformation. It represents the journey of the soul from a state of limitation and separation to one of unity and enlightenment. It signifies the path of elevating consciousness and transcending the mundane aspects of existence. The letter Shin, with its multifaceted symbolism, carries deep spiritual significance in Kabbalistic thought. It represents the divine presence, transformative power, and the potential for spiritual growth and connection with the divine. THE SHIN INING =)
And the irony is that people are still blindly defending Kubrick's original plot as political correct. There's no way he would create a subplot where Wendy would be crazy. Kubrick wouldn't do it. Those are just continuity errors. You are all misogynistic. Lmao.
I always imagined the continuity errors to be a result of the supernatural mind-warping effects the hotel had on ALL of the characters (even if that's probably not what was intended). Maybe Wendy hallucinated some parts, jack and Danny definitely hallucinated. It's all just about the story you interpret it as.
They didn’t hallucinate they have the “shining” Dany at least his father maybe had some too. In Doctor Sleep novel it’s explained. But no, definitely no on hallucinated there.
I agree, the concept of things suddenly disappearing shouldn't be shrugged off as continuity errors. Like, take the appearing and disappearing light switches in front of Ullman's office. How does someone accidentally remove a light switch from the wall and accidentally pave it back up?
I took that more as a directing trick. The inconsistencies (mostly) were put there on purpose to make the audience subconsciously uneasy. Like, you watch a scene and it feels wrong somehow, because it is. Sort of like how in the Hill House show there’s a bunch of hidden ghosts in the backgrounds of shots, and while you may not consciously notice them, it adds to a sense of fright.
@@silverdropstudios7323 its possible that multiple sets were filmed in the same area, or that they reused the same lightswitch prop for different sets. maybe even that it got broken and forgotten about by the time they filmed there next. but i also agree that its possible that its a part of the story.
I think it's also worth noting that Steven King writes supernatural horror and, to the best of my knowledge has never used the "it was all a hallucination" trope. Steven King's narrators are almost always reliable.
Absolutely true. Sure, there are unreliable moments from narrators sometimes, but it's revealed directly in the story after it happens and it's never for an entire story, it's for a scene or chapter at the most. Usually, it's because something outside them is affecting their mind/perceptions.
@@xBINARYGODx Hm. There are some theories that Alex from A Clockwork Orange is lying to the audience. While I find the "Ludovico Lie" theory to be incredibly nonsensical, I don't think it's coincidental that Alex serves as the literal narrator of the film and also wears a mask with a long Pinocchio-esque nose.
to me the Wendytheory really sounds like a classic case of "working backwards from the answer you want" the idea is kinda interesting in its own way, so every possible clue must be forced to fit a Wendy sized hole at all costs
@@jackgardner2514 so what, if I make a theory that Danny was actually the murderer in the overlook hotel, that means I'm someone who really wants to blame children for the events of the movie?
Wendy reading the Catcher in the Rye I always thought was meant to show her desire to rescue her son from his abusive father, just like the "catcher in the rye" in the novel.
@@matthewkirkhart2401 To be fair, I only read that book once a long time ago and I didn’t really like it much so I didn’t pay that close of attention to it.
@@bluecannibaleyes it’s about a delinquent finding a place and purpose in society, ultimately desiring to be a figure who can protect childrens innocence as he realizes he lost his too early from his delinquent desires.
Oh, wow, that's an interesting take! I read it as being about how the "adults" in her life have failed her, and she's remained like an adolescent. Which may not seem like a great take on abuse survivors, but... Well, it's true that girls who experience familial abuse as children have a higher incidence of abuse in spousal relationships, partly because abuse is normal to them, and... When you're treated like that, sometimes you end up feeling like you don't deserve better. Wendy has learned to be passive to protect herself, so... I actually think it's both! I mean, I think she's related to Holden Caulfield on both levels.
It kind of reminds me of the twisted cartoon theories people make where it turns out "everyone is dead" or "its all the delusions of a mentally ill person" and its just sounds like people are making dark theories to sound smart but it feels like something that only sounds logical if you smash your face into a wall and squint your eyes real hard
I hate when people say that other people are committing crimes because of consuming violent media (books games films ect.). Sometimes violent people are drawn to violent media but that doesn't make the media itself a catalyst for said violence. Edit: I'm saying this in reference to the claim that her reading "The Catcher in the Rye" indicates her violent tendencies.
I agree. It’s the same thing with how they say that video games make kids violent or how in the 80s metal music or dungeons and dragons was making kids into satanists. It’s absurd and appalling the lengths people will go to, to justify their own personal distaste of a particular thing.
But mate - her reading the book doesn't mean it made her violent. Just like you said - violent people can sometimes gravitate to it. The main character of Catcher in the Rye is retelling the story (presumably to a therapist,) of how he landed in a mental hospital for violence/hallucinations. If she's simply relating to the character - doesn't mean the book caused it. She's either: 1) Relating to the dark side of the main character. 2) Relating to the good side of the character - that wants to save children. Wendy goes on to finally get the balls to save her child. So - interpret what you want. #2 is why I think Kubrick included the book as a tantalizing prop!
Tiny, right. Going the extra length of reversing a gigantic carpet between takes, installing extra light switches, removing the chair, putting the paper back into the typewriter, removing lamps, changing the size of the bed. It should have got an Oscar for Most Effort Devoted to Creating Tiny Continuity Errors.
I think both guys are wrong, but this guy is wrong thinking Kubrick just accidentally made all these continuity errors. He did it to create a sense of disorientation in this film. Maybe some are just mistakes, but most aren’t.
It's supposed to make you feel uneasy. That's why it's constant but subtle. There's no way in hell all of those dozens upon dozens of "continuity errors" were oversights or mistakes, and its not designed with the idea of someone autistically going frame by frame and writing them all down, it's designed to be subtle but so the viewer subconsciously picks up on it and it gives you the sense that there's something... just... off... about the environment. It's designed to unsettle you. If Kubrick was trying to make a movie about a woman going crazy the way the Wendy Theory suggests he'd have been more obvious about it.
@@stevepalpatine2828 How on earth do you argue all that and then describe a director like Kubrick as "obvious"? If anything, it all points towards a subtext of ambiguous insanity between Jack and Wendy, leaving to the viewer to challenge its own stereotypes.
Another reason King hated the movie. The book has Jack trying his hardest to resist the temptations. Sure he failed in both book and movie BUT he put up a much better fight against the temptations in the book.
To add onto the "A perfectionist wouldn't make these kinds of mistakes" thing, is that yes, they would and often have to. The reality is that you don't have infinite time or budget to work on anything, especially not something with as many people involved as a movie. There's going to be a certain point, no matter how much of a perfectionist, that one has to say "It's as good as it's going to get." Also, being a perfectionist doesn't suddenly make you an omniscient being who can actually spot every mistake, let alone in time to actually do anything about it.
Right on. People tend to make too much of Kubricks perfectionism. He was a perfectionist. That doesn't mean that his movies don't have mistakes in them. You can see the shadow of the filming helicopter in the opening scene. It doesn't have any deeper meaning though.
@@dcorz237 you think he didnt go back and do reshoots of those scenes if he couldnt get it done in one day? im a kubric stan to my core. my favourite movie is a clockwork orange, i've seen every one of his movies, but he wasnt perfect. he made mistakes and was human, a very flawed human. love the mans work, but dont fall for his mythos.
@@dcorz237 Kubrick may not have, but how many people are there on set of any given film? It's possible that one of them may have moved something either accidentally or intentional, to accommodate filming from different angles for example, over the days and days of re-shoots.
In the book "The Shining" after Danny is attacked by the ghost and Wendy initially thinks Jack did it, she figures out that's not the case and when Danny says "it was her!" Talking about the ghost Jack says "Wendy what did you do to him?" He does this out of a moment of spite but mentally says he knows Wendy would "sooner douse herself in gasoline and strike a match" before she would hurt Danny.
Precisely. Wendy was the opposite of Jack in the book, and movie. She was the perfect parent. A mother who would rather die than let harm come to her child. Jack, who true did love his family in the book at least. Was weak willed, and at times would sacrifice his family for his own needs. Anyone who wishes to try and turn Wendy into the villain either hates all women, or are an abuser themself and try to put the blame on the actual victims.
@@theoneeyedartist3253 If Wendy had been a perfect parent, she would have run the heck out of the hotel with her son at any point where she instead *asked* Jack if they could go away. I swear this happened like ten times in the book. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that's what happens, the story wouldn't be very interesting otherwise, and I also understand that Wendy is terrified of her husband. Still, she objectively isn't a perfect parent because of that. I also think it's ridiculous to assume that sexism is the motivation of every single person liking the Wendy theory. Maybe it's just that the idea of having a secret villain is interesting to some.
@@legrandliseurtri7495 True, you are right. She was not perfect. But she was far more loving towards Danny. However one thing allot of people seem to forget. In the book, Jack did love Danny. He came too long enough to fight off the spirits and blow himself and the boiler up to save Danny and Wendy. And yeah, the Wendy Theory may not all be sexism. I never thought it was a sexist thing. I just find it odd to defend the obvious abuser and turn the victim into the villain.
I had never heard of this theory before starting this video, but everything about the summary of it left me feeling a bone deep wrongness. I've been in a household like Wendy and Jack, I've seen the ways my mom coped with psychological abuse. Implying she's crazy and doing it for attention genuinely made me disgusted, and the careful deconstruction of the theory in this video made that feeling much more justified. I appreciate it, sincerely. I also want to add to this conversation a fact Mr. King has talked about himself: Jack is a reflection of his own alcoholism when he was younger. Jack was written to be abusive because Stephen King was exploring the horror of what a father can do to his family. Narratively, this was always meant to be a story of abuse told with elements of the paranormal. To think the Wendy theory can even be pulled from that is almost funny to think about, in a messed up sort of way
I had thought that many of the supposed "continuity errors" like the disappearing and reappearing chair were done on purpose to unsettle the audience, even if we didn't realize why the shots made us feel that way. I thought this was confirmed.
I think the overall set design being subliminally disorienting was confirmed by Kubrick's notes and interviews with the crew, but I'm not sure it extends to minor prop discontinuity.
There is a disappearing and reappearing chair in Eyes Wide Shut during the pot smoking scene when Bill is sitting on the bed talking to Alice, who is standing up. Also, the phone is not on the bedside table when Alice gets off the bed, but it appears on the table while they are arguing
Yeah, look into Rob ager if you want a thorough analysis of this. Kubrick changed the set constantly and created impossible doors, rooms that have outside windows that are shown to be interior rooms with no exterior walls, the hedge maze depiction changes, even the outside of the hotel changes throughout the movie, along with many other things designed to make the audience subconsciously uncomfortable. You can say it's all a mistake, but it's a lot of obvious issues from a really detail-oriented person, plus it's a very effective and novel idea.
The film also shows us a few instances of Jack gaslighting and manipulating both Wendy and Danny. When Danny asks Jack, "You would never hurt Mommy or me, would you?" his response isn't, "No, of course not," but "Why would you ask that? Did your mother say something like that to you?" Wendy takes Danny at his word that there was a woman in 237 who tried to strangle him. Jack says he didn't see anything, and that Danny's bruises must have been self-inflicted. Never mind we just saw him making out with Miss 237. When Wendy locks Jack in the storage room, he tries to play on her kindness and sympathy by asking her to get him a doctor, saying she hurt his head real bad. Maybe Jack's tactics worked on the guy behind the Wendy theory, too.
Wendy theory addresses these issues. The "continuity errors" that are so clearly not emblematic of Wendy's psychosis according to the author of this video actually serve as subconscious markers to inform the audience that these scenes are part of Wendy's grand hallucination. The author of this video comes across as pompous and dismissive on this point alone. The missing light switches and furniture are obviously not production whoopsies.
@@dennyshimkoski2728 I'm not sure where I mentioned the continuity errors. Like the video author said, there are continuity errors throughout Kubrick's filmography and the Wendy theory, in his opinion, reads way too much intentionality into the errors in The Shining. Especially considering the stuff that is going to maybe not line up because the hotel set burned down at one point. What I'm commenting on is the issues surrounding emotional abuse, and how abuse is treated in The Shining, and how it is turned on its head in The Wendy Theory. I agree with the video author that flipping Wendy from victim to abuser does nothing for the movie and the story it's trying to tell. If you wanna read the movie that way, fine, it's none of my business. But understand there are legitimate criticisms, in spite of what you may think about this take's tone.
@@annaolson4828 I'd give him the furniture placement, maybe, but even that is very unlikely since the shots in question would've likely been sourced from same day footage, so the set burning down is irrelevant. The light switches appearing and disappearing are used in numerous places, so the argument for them being a story telling device is much more compelling. However, admitting the switches only lends further credence to the idea that the furniture placement was used intentionally as well. Subverting the assumptions and expectations of the audience is its own reward. Why tell only one story when you can tell two or more at the same time? No need to pigeonhole the narrative.
@@dennyshimkoski2728 The entire movie contains deliberate continuity errors. They actually do not serve to inform the audience that what we see is a hallucination of Wendy’s.
I personally believe that the "continuity errors" aren't errors at all. They were specially put in to give viewers the subconscious feeling that something isn't quite right. Like seeing your room in a dream. Something is different.
That's a cheap trick and not even one that's necessarily going to pay off. Cinematography, set design, performances, etc, are for the viewer's enjoyment but things changing in the film's universe like a chair or lightswitch disappearing just to "unnerve" the viewer is as I said, cheap, and as I also said, not necessarily going to pay off, because I don't find continuity errors even the least bit frightening because they're in every movie.
@@ImperialCaleb first, you can say it's a "cheap trick" but that is just your opinion. Filmmaking is a very complex field. You use everything that you need to achieve the desired result. Is overexposing the film for effect a "cheap trick"? How about stop motion, or computer effects? As for it working, I'm sure that you watched the film with a cold, calculating eye and noticed all of these things straightaway and pointed them out with an air of triumph. Most of us didn't. We sat and enjoyed the otherworldly sort of vibe of the film.
@@jonathannelson103 Stop motion and computer effects are happening in the movie's universe. A chair disappearing and this not being acknowledged by a character practically staring right at it is not happening in the universe and is a cheap trick (assuming it's not just a continuity error)
Do you also believe that Kubrick did that in every movie movie he ever made, so that they would all feel like a dream, because they all have continuity errors? Is that his auteur signature? Continuity errors?
Honestly, I’m just confused why they choose Wendy as the nuts one. Like, maybe construct a theory that Jack is hallucinating everything, at least that falls in line with his character. Or maybe Danny is hallucinating from his trauma. Idk, I just think Wendy was a bad pick. I definitely have speculation on whether the hotel is haunted or not, but I’ve never gone so far to believe that Wendy is the nuts one 😂
Actually a good point which doesn't fall back on a logical fallacy of blaming the narrator of the theory. Thank you, and Schizophrenia does not make you 'nuts' fyi. Its actually quite manageable, and has direct correlation with heightened brain function. EDIT: I like that a lot of the people in this comment section are unironically misandrists. lol
@@AllTheOthersmisandry is when you point out that calling an abusive husband the victim and his abused wife the abuser when there's no evidence of it, using the same sexist logic as people that excuse abusers in real life to do so is probably sexism
I don't. There's a whole generation of people who grew up watching stupid film theory videos and Mario 64 theory videos we have no understanding of game development or even hardware resources of the time. People who genuinely think that Nintendo could have made every copy of Mario 64 a personalized and unique experience. It's hard enough to just implement branching story paths and 3 dialogue options. But that's not the point. It's a whole group of people completely ungrounded in reality
you dont understand she walked on her knees, dressed as a child and poked holes in his tires where she purposely made him witness! Then when he ran over she quickly switched out with the child!! Oh my god she thought of everything!!
@@Strawberry_Cubes if you look closely at the scene where Jack is in the interview in the Kubrick version you can see a black and white photograph of Wendy cutting the red tape when the hotel was opened! Coincidence? I think not
@@Strawberry_Cubes if you squint your eyes real hard and listen to midnight the stars and you slowed and reversed you will find out that the whole state that the movie was filmed in was Wendy.
@@mathiaswilhelm1902 if you let your train of thought pause and feel the unfiltered experience of being for a moment, you'll remember that you're Wendy, i'm Wendy, we're all Wendy and nothing was ever really our choice
I like to think that the continuity errors are supposed to make the supernatural presence of the hotel known to the audience. It could all be mistakes on Kubrick’s part, but I’m willing to view it as part of the story.
Kubrick was infamous for his dedication to perfection. A lot of the continuity errors aren't just simple cups missing from tables they're entirely rearranged cabinets, whole floor plans that loop in on themselves, entire bedsets rearranged. These are not easy mistakes to make and when you take into account his attention to detail in every other facet of the movie I think we're forced to admit they're intentional. You have people making theories based off of ski resort posters and staplers for the shining just because of how attentive Kubrick was. So attentive that people think literally every single frame was highly orchestrated which I think is going too far in the other direction.
@@Jombi-d3g I never said that please reread my post. A missing cup on set is an error. An entire layout for a hotel floor plan being physically impossible to exist requires an intentional decision on the directors part to shoot it that way. You cannot make that "mistake" that's like saying I "accidentally" modified my car to have airplane wings. Were talking about a guy that made the lead female in the shining reshoot a particular scene dozens of times JUST to physically exhaust her so her performance was more authentic. He quite literally traumatized her while shooting the movie with how much he cared about perfecting this movie. But you're saying this same man can't design a hotel correctly or make sure an cabinet is arranged correctly? It doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying the man didn't make mistakes but there's a lot of *very obvious* "mistakes" that were made that are not present in any of his other movies. To me it seems kinda ignorant to think he wasn't doing this intentionally.
Aye. As somebody who's shot a couple of shorts with a skeleton crew, those kind of continuity mistakes would actually be incredibly difficult to do by mistake. How do you lose a light switch from a wall, by accident? You'd have to remove it somewhat intentionally@@morezombies9685
Watches a movie where a wife and son scream and flee in terror as their madman husband chases them around with an axe: "Yeah that wife kinda evil ngl".
I know that the film and book are totally different and that they're often seen as separate for that reason. If we follow either the film or book though, both Danny and Jack have these "hallucinations" too, as in, they both witness strange paranormal happenings. Quite often it's when Wendy isn't there. In my eyes that's enough to totally discount the theory.
Or, they're all experiencing things due to the isolation. Why would Wendy not be as vulnerable as Jack? Maybe because she has Danny for company, which Jack does also, until he returns to his paternal responsibilities
@@happinesstan Jack is more susceptible to the hallucinations because he’s drinking. Danny is more susceptible because he’s a child. Wendy is having more of an emotionally traumatizing experience while theirs is paranormal. I just believe that’s pretty straight forward
@happinesstan Wendy is unable to see or interact with the paranormal aspects of the hotel until the final act because she is living in delusion initially. Like when she tells the lady that Jack dislocating Danny's shoulder was accidental and he's quit drinking. It's not until Jack fully plunges in with his darker impulses that his "demons are made manifest" so to speak, and they begin to interact with the physical world (the cabinet door), and become plainly visible even to Wendy. When she finally accepts Jack as her own antagonist (represented clearly with her now coming with a bat and knife when she has to deal with him), she is able to see blowjob bear & the ghostly butler, etc. Initially only Jack and Danny see them because it's their cycle of abuse, again, until Wendy accepts and then decides to confront it directly.
That and the fact that Stephen King has stated that Jack being an abusive alcoholic is based on King himself. He said that he sometimes feels the urge to legitimately hurt his children when they really upset him, and that as a parent the idea of hurting the family you are sworn to protect is a special kind of horror. None of that suggests that Wendy is abusive.
The theory is even worse if you take into account the book. In the book, there are chapters where jack remembers his past before he got fired. In these chapters, we get a lot more insight on how Danny got hurt in the first place. It also helps us understand why Jack decided to quit drinking in more detail.
If only Kubrick wrote the book and thought like the author that did. However, he did not and does not. This is the only reason why people argue over a simple discussion. The fact of the matter is that monkeys are simply not capable of having any kind of real discussion. It's all about who can throw the most shit at the other.
this is my very first thought after beginning the video-- if the "Wendy Theory" guy had read the book it would have immediately debunked his theory lmao
I remember reading Walter Murch’s book in my editing class, and he listed emotion as the #1 priority while editing a scene. I feel like that can describe a lot of continuity errors in films. Let’s say the editor has a take where the actor is working at 110%, really giving an emotionally powerful performance. Is the editor supposed to throw that take away just because the coffee mug is in a different spot from where it is in the surrounding shots?
i think kubrick did put continuity errors in on purpose in his movies but they represent symbolism about things besides wendy imagining things. Like why her? Maybe Jack or Danny hallucinated.
@@DailyNihilism or maybe it was just in service to people getting a bad feeling about the hotel - like the doors that exist where they shouldn't on the second floor - its a "you didn't notice it but your brain did" so Kubrick put more errors in to support that "something is off" feeling. No one notices this stuff one a first view, or even on many views. That said, this video has a non exhausted list of Kubrick errors - so maybe they are just errors.
I found this out reading through Manga In Theory And Practice. Does your favorite manga set something up only to abandon it? It's because the idea was stupid or otherwise uninteresting
I'm glad you brought up the domestic abuse apologism angle, it's something I was immediately thinking of when I found out what the theory was Also 'reading Catcher in the Rye makes you evil/mentally ill/violence etc.' is just plain daft
Hasn't pretty much everyone been forced to read that book in school? I'm not even American and I had to read it. If you're a murderer, chances are you've read that book!
If Wendy was this person who was physically abusive, why was she so hesitant to hit Jack she could barely hold the bat or knife she was that torn up about the thought she might have to strike her husband.
Finally. I'm so tired of theories that focus on 'solving' a plot without understanding or caring about the work's themes or what it's actually trying to say.
Conspiracy theories in general are appreciated by the kind of people who can't grasp subtlety and the complexities of life, and need something that boils life down into simple (and simple-minded) explanations.
Or even studying the original work the film is based on. It's VERY clear in the novel who the abusive parent is, although the wife is not nearly as helpless as she is in the film.
You're projecting the need to have a general social/political narrative suspending over a film, instead of a "plot theory" that actually goes deeper and connects the dots. Films don't have grand "themes" by default. The work's themes you so want it to have are just as valid as any other theory out there. Might I add that the Wendy Theory would also make the Shining probably be one of the first serious representations of schizophrenia in film, decades before movies like Shutter Island, Sixth Sense, A Beautiful Mind or Fight Club.
@@vitoryugojsm No, most stories do have intended themes... The people who make them have intended themes they're trying to convey. Sure you can interpret them any way you want, but it should be obvious why some theories are less rooted in the actual work than others. For example, I could say that The Shining is about three very fast lizards dreaming of being human. I could do that, I could even come up with 'evidence' for it, but it's clearly a ridiculous and unintended take. The idea that it's all in her head goes directly against the intended meaning of this work. I'm also not sure why you would want this to be a representation of schizophrenia. It would be yet another inaccurate and extremely cruel representation that would further demonize mental health problems. It's also incredibly silly to try to push a certain theory just because that would make this "the first" to do it. That's like saying that The Shining is the first serious depiction of a transgender child, because you have a completely unsupported theory that the twin ghost girls are transgender. Completely pointless. Making up random connections that point to a clearly ridiculous theory doesn't make you smart, it just shows that you have no interest in actually understanding the work.
I know this is unintentional, but this is pretty much “gaslight: the theory” Wendy: My husband is insane and hurt me and my son Theory: No, that never happened - you’re wrong. It’s all in your head.
That is exactly what I thought when I watched the guy's Wendy theory video. This man was tripping all over himself to make Wendy the villain because 1) she's a woman and 2) I like Jack, he's a great guy, not an abusive husband or father, so it can't be him.
I had noticed the use of language in the Wendy Theory video that matches the tone of victim blaming with domestic violence cases. Thank you for addressing that.
the catcher in the rye also has themes of protecting innocence and self isolation to do so. much easier to interpret wendy reading that book as a reflection of her role in trying to protect danny and herself from jack.
@Chandller Burse In Kabbalah, the Hebrew letter Shin (שׁ) holds significant symbolism and meaning. It is one of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, each representing a divine force or spiritual principle. The letter Shin is associated with several concepts and interpretations in Kabbalistic teachings: Divine Fire: Shin is often associated with the element of fire, representing the divine flame that connects to the spiritual realm. It symbolizes the transformative and purifying power of fire, which can consume and refine. Divine Name: In Kabbalah, Shin is connected to the divine name "Shaddai," which signifies the Almighty or the All-Sufficient. It represents God's expansive and limitless nature, encompassing all aspects of creation. Three Pillars: The shape of the letter Shin resembles three flames or branches converging at the top. These three branches represent the three pillars of the Tree of Life: the Pillar of Mercy (right), the Pillar of Severity (left), and the Pillar of Balance (center). It signifies the harmonious integration of these pillars in the divine and human realms. Shema: The Shema is a central prayer in Judaism, and the letter Shin holds a prominent place in it. The Shema begins with the words "Shema Yisrael," and the letter Shin is enlarged and emphasized in the first word. This represents the unity of God and serves as a reminder of our connection to the divine. Spiritual Transformation: Shin is associated with spiritual growth and transformation. It represents the journey of the soul from a state of limitation and separation to one of unity and enlightenment. It signifies the path of elevating consciousness and transcending the mundane aspects of existence. The letter Shin, with its multifaceted symbolism, carries deep spiritual significance in Kabbalistic thought. It represents the divine presence, transformative power, and the potential for spiritual growth and connection with the divine. THE SHIN INING =)
What bugs me the most about these movies is that Kubrick wasn’t some kind of super subtle guy where you have to watch the movie twice in order to figure out what’s even going on. There are guys like that, but if Kubrick wanted to make a spooky ghost story about abuse he did that. If he wanted to make a movie about war bad he did that. If he had wanted to make a movie about a psychotic woman terrorizing her family and playing the victim, he would have done that. But he just didn’t.
@@ProgShell I’ve seen it once and I feel like it’s driving me crazy just thinking about it, but then again I have also seen 1408 recently (good movie, recommended)
Agreed. Also worth noting that while Kubrick's films are loaded with subtext and complex themes, he was also a populist Hollywood filmmaker for the majority of his career. And for all his uncompromising standards, he also cared a lot about an audience's reaction to his work. The notion his films are this 5D chess that you need a 150 IQ to appreciate is deeply silly.
The Shining essentially gets used as an ink-blot. People know it's supposed to be deep before seeing it, so any reading seems reasonable, because the explanation for a theory with suuuper tenuous textual evidence [like the Wendy theory] can seem reasonable because "It's just that The Shining is THAT deep, dude." That can cause a cascade effect where the more someone likes The Shining, the more complicated and subtle they're willing to assume The Shining is, and the lower their standard of evidence for readings of The Shining gets. It leads to some people literally just projecting their thoughts onto it without noticing.
Indeed, this is the most sexiest theory I ever heard in my life. Honestly wouldn’t be shock if this guy yells to women “get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!”
Shelley Duvall's performance as a survivor was so authentic and immersive in The Shining partially because she was being emotionally abused on set by Kubrick, which accelerated the deterioration of her mental health and eventually ended her career. It's such a slap in the face to go back and wildly reinterpret the movie to make her character the villain on top of that.
@Collins Avenue dude, no. even if people are annoying, that nowhere near justifies abusing them. its not about being "pc" or "woke", it's about not being an asshole. saying you can't just abuse people because they're annoying to you is not being triggered or some shit, it is literally just being a normal human. nothing justifies abusing another person.
@Collins Avenue "Haha guys, I wasn't saying I would abuse someone, it was just a le joke" What a weird thing to joke about in a video that talks about a movie that has themes of abuse
A few thoughts on the Wendy Theory: 1. The dissolve showing her working on the boiler while Danny is in room 237 simply draws out the time as indicated in this video, but also shows her proximity to Danny as very far away. We are shown she is NOT the person in the room, and that she is down several levels below the guest floors, too far to hear any screams Danny may have made, too far to reach him quickly when if she knew he was in trouble. 2. Shelly Duvall was relentlessly abused by Kubrik on purpose, to drive her into a state of an abused woman. This makes no sense if the goal is to show her as the abuser… 3. The movie, while it detours from the book especially in the third act, overall has similar themes, and similar plot. The characters of the book are the same people, Jack just uses an axe instead of a mallet, and there’s a maze, not animal topiaries, and the boiler doesn’t explode in the Kubrik film. Otherwise, the story is the same: a desperate man loses his teaching job due to alcoholism and his temper, and has to take this last ditch gig to support his codependent wife and his abused traumatized son. Jack hopes to kill two birds with one stone, get paid as well as room and board for several months, and have no distractions to keep him from writing, and hopefully he could become published and earn his living that way. But, the taint of the place plus the corruption in Jack based on his own childhood abuse compound, and Danny’s burgeoning psychic ability energizes the Overlook in a way disastrous for his family. 4. The Wendy Theory does not fit with the book, nor the aspects of the book retained for the film. 5. Dr. Sleep, likewise, does not support this in either the novel or film.
Well I was going to type out a well thought out comment with examples, references, numbered bullet points, and a grasp of the story, but, you beat me to it! Very well said, respect!
#4 - nothing about the movie fits with the book, so there's no extra juice to say the WT doesn't fit with the book. 2 different things. This is obvious.
She deserves a medal of valor for putting up with an abusive director who tried to break her mind for certain. I'm sure it felt like being in a war zone for her during the shoot.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm not sure which made me laugh more -- the idea that that's too much snow for one night in the Colorado Rockies, or the idea that there can't possibly be any supernatural events in a Stephen King novel.
i like your comment, cause its the only one which doesn't immediately bash the narrator on a personal level, and is also the only comment which isn't unironically partaking in misandry. :) You made my night.
It’s literally called The Shinning 😆 The book is named after the supernatural power.
@@AllTheOthersgod yeah its so fucking weird seeing so many comments here about bashing the narrator himself. like, why are you here? lol
There was a supernatural influence in Cujo, for crying out loud. You wouldn't think this was needed, but there it is, in the original text.
Checked for this comment immediately, lmao, I've had to clear off multiple times more snow off my car after a half shift, much more from an entire night!
this is just the "it was all in their head" theory type and the "bad guy good good guy bad" theory type combined into one
Aka often the worse theories
With a touch of misogyny and victim blaming too
"It was all in le head 😨"
in a very harmful case . . .this is toxic as fuck, blaming women for their abuse is commen as hell and this is plain scary for we see hem hunt her and still, she gets blamed
@@cellinemartins thats more then a touch
Stanley Kubrick said himself that he purposely kept changing the look of the hotel to make it feel more vivid and dream-like. He purposely make any structure maze like that’s why he made the hedge maze larger in the movie than described in the book.
There is no hedge maze in the book. The book has hedges trimmed in the shape of animals.
i always found it curious that the model replica of the maze in the hotel is larger and more intricate than the 'actual' one depicted outside. not sure if this was also supposed to impart an unreality into everything, or just emphasize an extreme intricacy, like the maze of the mind, but i always appreciate that touch
Sure. I accept this. But Wendy is still innocent
@@ursidae97I’m pretty sure the comment is explaining that the inconsistency is not proof of Wendy being abusive but instead is to create an unnerving atmosphere
@@clumsydad7158 Is that not just the film telling us that's how big the maze is, without the need to actually create a maze that size?
The Wendy Theory reminds me of when you get into an argument and the only comeback they have is that you’re “being crazy”
That's called "gaslighting", named after a movie, Gaslight. Really good one if you're into psychological thrillers or just films about con artists.
Actually that never happened, you are just crazy
That never happens, you're being crazy
@@orangegradient4309 yeah she is being extremely delusional, must be the stress from her insomnia, cause everyone but her knows it **didn't** happen...
@@KasumiRINA btw its gaslamping, not gaslighting, judging by the name, being a foreigner its an understandable mistake.
If I had a nickel for every time someone came up with a theory that boils down to “It was all in their head!” Or “It was all just a dream!” I’d have enough money to fund a film production.
Of a movie where it was all in their head hopefully
@@Ln6Ec lol
I hate those "theories". They're so vapid and lazy and can apply to literally anything. They're not falsifiable.
But the Protagonist Has Amnesia, or Protagonist Is Imagining It, or Dreams Of A Dying Man tropes are well worn for a reason. It's not a twist any more so whatever but it's a core idea of mystery.
The reason I really dislike these kinds of theories is because they’re not only lazy, but add nothing. “Ash from Pokémon is in a coma and that’s why he doesn’t age!”, “Harry potter hallucinated hogwarts as a way to cope!” okay, what does this add to the plot? Does this do anything other than edgiefy a narrative or add chock value where it’s not needed? It’s the same with this theory. It adds nothing other than a quick “Actually, they were evil and hallucinating!”. Cool, does this change anything? Does it add to the themes? Is there anything to it?
It kinda sucks that these types of theories are so popular because they never add anything or speculate over something that makes sense or could add interesting thoughts that align with the media in question
The idea that Jack is covered in too much snow for a single night is HILARIOUS. This is a guy who never had to dig his car out in the winter.
That's what I was thinking, I've seen 2 feet of snow appear overnight and I've been on an walk for just an hour in heavy snowfall and come back looking like that... (Definitely exactly like that lol.)
Exactly, and the story supposedly takes place in the Colorado mountains. You can get two feet of snow overnight easy.
if anything, it's suspicious we can even see him given the circumstances. the fact he died in a way that prevented him from being completely buried by snow is miraculous.
@@Pihsrosnec Yeah I was thinking there are stories I've heard of people disappearing in snow storms their bodies only turning up after it's all thawed... And even live sheep needing to be dug out of snow. Not still dead ones, actual living, relatively warm sheep can get trapped in a downpour of snow and disappear under it! In Scotland anyway.
I lived in Colorado and I can attest that when it snows out there, it is like NOWHERE else I have ever been.
After a day of skiing at "Winter Park," I was at my car in the lot. The snowflakes coming down each were the size of four (4) cornflakes stuck together. I opened the hatch of my Mazda RX7 and before I could place my equipment inside, the entire deck of my hatch was covered in snow. So, if "Jack" was sitting out in a Colorado mountain snow for any length of time at all, I would expect him to be buried! 😮
Kubrick talking about Jack's murderous intent:
"Jack comes to the hotel psychologically prepared to do its murderous bidding. He doesn't have very much further to go for his anger and frustration to become completely uncontrollable. He is bitter about his failure as a writer. He is married to a woman for whom he has only contempt. He hates his son. In the hotel, at the mercy of its powerful evil, he is quickly ready to fulfill his dark role."
But no guys, Kubrick really secretly thought Wendy was the abusive parent.
Right. Or like Wendy is crazy because an aspiring author has a bunch of books in their home? Not to mention that Jack doesn’t say he’d give his soul for a drink, then a bartender in a red suit appears and drinks are “on the house.” 😂
Interpreting art is not about the intention of the artist.
Also this theory ignores its based on a book which clearly doesn’t have similar continuous edit clues. Now the book and movie have differences and movies can be wildly different from soured material. But if there was such a huge change from the book like Wendy us hallucinating everything, the director would have communicated through the movie clearly that this is very different. And not just made clues be furniture moving that isn’t really even noticed by people watching in theaters like people die back then more.
@@irgendsoeineziege1058 the intention of the artist is important to the interpretation. Their intention doesn’t fully encompass how you should interpret their work, but to completely disregard it because otherwise your theory wouldn’t make any sense. That just means your interpretation is bad quality.
@@kittycatcuties But the artist might not always be able to express his intentions. Sometimes because it's not allowed, and sometimes because he doesn't want to give too much away and prefers to be vague or stick to what it appears to be like on the surface. Also, there are many levels and aspects of a story and you can't possibly cover all of it in a single statement.
The part talking about how jack's body is found with "more snow than could have fallen in one night" {a light dusting, in the mountains} is so beyond ridiculous
yeah the person behind this nutty theory seems to have never been outside of his parents basement.
Looks like a hour of light snow fall lmao
in a piece of media no less, where a big point is that they're SNOWED IN XD
Yeah that's a tiny amount of snow
Honestly shocked he froze with how short it would take fo that much to fall
considering where the Stanley Hotel (where they shot a bit of it) Is, that was a light amount of snow for the winter in the colorado mountains. Especially in Estes.
Damn I can't believe Wendy hallucinated Kubrick's entire filmography
I can’t believe Kubrick orchestrated John Lennon’s murder to retroactively plant a clue to interpret his movie differently
@@huckthatdish it's funny how she's reading catcher n the rye, when this movie came out John was still alive. Also Regan's assassin & Lennon's assassin both had this book in their possession when arrested after this movie was released. How could Kubrick foreshadow this?
Actually, it's all part of the Tommyverse.
We all exist in Wendy’s mind. Ain’t it grand.
they all take place in a snowglobe
To me it's especially weird that she is presumed to be some sort of point of view character, even in scenes she's not in. How is Wendy the point-of-view character when Jack is alone in the bar? I never assumed her to be the main character let alone the point of view character.
That would be my question too. Jack has PoV, most frequently, especially with ghosts. Even if you want to go with a theory where there is no supernatural, just hallucinations, Jack would be more likely to be hallucinating or having a breakdown since that is actually shown in the film, where nothing from the Wendy theory is shown.
The Wendy theory seems more like someone trying to come up with the most out there theory possible, and then finding a couple things that could support the idea if you squint hard enough and ignore everything else on the movie. It's like people on tiktok who say deliberately dumb or provocative things to get attention.
@@kira5505I have not watched Navarro's original video, but I think the explanation for those situations is that Wendy made them up to account for killing Jack.
Yes, the premise of the theory is that everything we see on screen is either a) a hallucination from Wendy, b) a very detailed depiction of a lie Wendy told someone off screen.
People who believe that surely don't suffer from cramps, with all that reaching they do.
ikr? dont you have to be present to hallucinate something? is she just standing in a room staring at a wall imaging this halfway across the hotel?? and if she is hallucinating these things happening, how does she never react to those things? if shes imagining that jack is planning to kill her with an axe, how does she.. not anticipate... jack coming ot kill her with an axe? why doesnt she try and escape before hand? im so confused
@@kira5505 I know the conclusion is warped, but the approach is valid. Why would Wendy not be just as vulnerable to the loneliness and isolation, as Jack is? Mind you, she has Danny for company. In fact, for the first half hour of the filmwe see them as a perfectly happy family. It is only when Jack leaves that circle, in order to focus on his responsibilities, that he starts to crack.
And, in reality, Jack should never have done that. He admitted himself that he had no good ideas to write.
@happinesstan Oh, I totally agree that she would be vulnerable to loneliness and isolation- but the film itself just doesn't give evidence of her being violent or being the primary focus or PoV character in the film both of which would be needed to support the theory. Jack experiences the main activity of the hotel (or the majority of hallucinations) without her being there.
You could make that film, but it isn't the film that was made.
She was actually 3 meerkat stood on eachothers shoulders wearing a dress and pretending to be people the whole time. She tried to kill her family because they got too close to her shameful secret.
The Shining was actually about a family of penguins. Any evidence to the contrary is actually a hallucination, as demonstrated by the lack of penguins in the film.
The real truth leftists don't want you to know
the whole thing was Beast from Beauty and the Beast hallucinating in his isolation from the world. as evidenced by the fact that Wendy reads books and Beast has a library.
This is the worst attempt at humour that I've ever seen.
@@whenwasthat big chungus
Also the Wendy Theory being “the most plausible thing bc there’s no supernatural events” is a wild take for a “more likely meaning” for a film adaptation of a supernatural horror novel
especially when you take into consideration that the shining was written by Stephen King ... an author famous for supernatural horror
Some people seem to be so against the existence of the supernatural, that it can’t even exist in media form. They try to “logically” explain things away in the most incoherent way possible. “It’s more logical than ghosts!” No. It’s not. As my roommate and I like to say, “sometimes, it’s just a fucking ghost. 🤷🏻♀️”
This guy has never read the book
@@Raine-97 this is the logical explanation (they are crazy)
@@ashtremble correction: this guy has never read A book.
This theory is indicative of why I hate a lot of theories about media. Most of the time they are going for shocking revelations that are completely counter to the story. Characters are just imagined by the protagonist, all of the characters are in purgatory, or some other random nonsense… they are all so dumb
I wonder if they're mostly written by AI anymore...Ai figuring out what clickbait is...the old-school notion that "shocking title sells newspapers."
The 2 types that you listed are often the go-to for people trying to convince others that they're smarter than they actually are and I too am annoyed to no end by it. Like, even the films that are openly and canonically like that go about selling it way better than the people trying to force those "theories" onto whatever movie they're talking about.
But also add to that list "something something seven deadly sins because vague less-than-flawless personality traits".
Like it’s so obvious none of these people are writers because how can they think a writer would make it so that the story has a massive plot-changing twist that they never reveal. Like imagine if fight club was written as though Tyler Durden was actually real? How stupid would that be? Why would anyone do that?
Also since this film is a story of abuse! They watched a story of a woman being terrorized by an abusive husband and went “nuh uh”
@@eldritchcupcakes3195… why did you comment this?😂 it has absolutely nothing to do with the comment you’re replying to.
My film theory is that Eyebrow Cinema is actually Rob Navarro and they put out a terrible theory just so they could debunk it, that's why Navarro really uses TTS. It's the most plausible explanation because it doesn't involve supernatural occurrences like someone watching the shining and thinking "ah yeah, Wendy is the problem here"
Tbh, I'm shocked a TTS video could get that many views, when I hear TTS, I automatically think of those auto-generated reddit reading channels or something which I associate with lazy content
@@JordanPlayz158 I can sort of understand it. Not everyone has a good, or even passable, narrating voice. So it can be the least bad option. That said, when coupled with the content of the vessay, it becomes really hard to ignore.
That is possible. People are so desperate for click-bait, views, and monetization they might generate a "controversy" to debunk. I can't imagine anyone's real voice being any worse than the TTS voice. So, that might explain why he uses it so he can use his real voice in the debunking video.
My film theory is that Rob Navarro is actually Jack Torrance, who made the video to paint himself as the victim and Wendy as the villain.
And I think that it was Mr. Navarro on the grassy knoll. 😮
it’s so funny to me to hear that “breaks in continuity are Wendy hallucinations” when from the film itself it’s pretty obvious breaks in continuity exist to place the audience in a subliminal state of unease.
"But Kubrik was a insanelly perfectionist guy"
Yeah, that's why his works have so much continuity errors. When you're so perfectionist with the main parts (light, lines, etc.) you tend to dont care that a fucking chair was moved between two perfect cuts.
SPECIALLY SO in a movie where you can blame a poltergheist for moving the chair
@@albertonishiyama1980I don’t think his movies had any more or less continuity errors than any other film of similar scope. You’ll find plenty of entries in the Goofs section of IMDB for tons of films. I think it’s just unavoidable.
@@albertonishiyama1980 Umineko mentioned
What I don't understand the most about the Wendy theory is why they'd focus on it "not being supernatural at all, actually" when Stephen King is most well known for supernatural horror and is like...pretty much all of what he writes 😭
Because these kinds of theories are.made by people who think being "realistic" is the height of intellectual thought and that pointing put this fictional story has fiction is it makes them super special and smart.
To be fair Stephen king said he doesn't like the movie and that it was very different from his vision
yeah the film WAS very different than the book, so I can see why King didn't love the adaptation. But he didn't hate the adaptation because of the supernatural elements. In fact, there was MORE supernatural elements in his story than in the film.
@@Jacoboy27 I think he's later said that after the massive failure of book-accurate made for TV mini series that he appreciates the movie and kinda likes it now.
It's to the cast & crew's credit that this atmospheric, disturbing film is a lightning rod for interpretation, analysis & conspiracy theorists seeking evidence after all these years.
As a schizophrenic one thing that annoys me about this theory is the 'it's more plausible than a supernatural explanation' part, because the way this theory portrays schizophrenia is in my experience simply not how the illness works lol
The version of schizophrenia that exists in most (non schizophrenic) people's minds is as fictional as our favourite supernatural hotel
Not to mention that, ironically, Shelly Duvall actually has a mental illness (I think schizophrenia?) and hopefully has been doing well. I wonder if that gives any inspiration to the theory.
What bugs me about it is it feeds into stereotypes. All of these serial killers and big cases of violence/murder you hear about are NOT schizophrenic or even deemed to have any mental illness, yet this stereotype persists that schizophrenics are dangerous.
I’m sure symptoms/presentations are different with everyone but these explanations of Wendy’s schizophrenic symptoms are a STRETCH at times
Not to mention that this "argument" fails to adress the fact that the shinning is a piece of FICTION and therefor there is no reason to assume a supernatural explanation isn't plausible ("it can't happen in real life" is irelevant when it's not real life)
@@xavierbontoux7836 This goes triple for a movie based on a book that definitely has ghosts and psychic powers in it.
@@xavierbontoux7836 That's a good point!
"Our favorite supernatural hotel" sounds funny. Like we've been to multiple, and decided one was clearly better than the rest.
Time for my wild theory to shine: The Wendy Theory was created by Jack.
My theory is that The shinning is all in the head of a writer called Steven King and we're watching a cinematic representation of it
@@dr.anderson1847 The shinning is actually from the heads of 'The Simpsons' writers.
@@dr.anderson1847 That's a pretty good theory. I have one of my own. I believe that the moving representation you were referring to was actually a movie directed by this guy called Stanley Kubrick.
Still, it's only a theory. We may never learn the truth- except that Wendy was definitely not the abusive one in either version.
That would be stupid and illogical.
Ooooooo! Point for you.
@@dr.anderson1847 Shhh do you want to get sued!?!?
One other thing about Wendy reading The Catcher in the Rye and its supposed significance to the validity of the Wendy Theory is that interpreting her reading this book as a sign that she's mentally unstable because other unstable people in real life were obsessed with it not only doesn't line up with the history of the book's interpretation, it also overlooks a much simpler interpretation that fits with the presented narrative of the film.
Holden Caulfield, the main character of The Catcher in the Rye, has a fixation on protecting children from harm or corruption. The book's title itself, is a reference to a scene in the book where Holden describes a sort of idealized fantasy of himself as a sort of guardian, who catches children running through a field of rye so they don't fall off a cliff on the other side.
So we have Wendy reading a book whose main character sees himself as a protective figure for children...Which is the role Wendy ends up taking on over the course of the film's narrative. She tries to shield Danny from Jack's abuse and increasingly unhinged behavior and ultimately has to rescue him from her murderous husband at the film's climax. What we have here is the movie presenting us with a very obvious bit of subtext reinforcing the themes of the film, and Rob at the Movies looked at that and said "Ah, I get it, this means the exact opposite thing".
Not to mention all of the most well known crimes associated with the book (Mark David Chapman, Hinkley, etc) were committed after The Shining was released kind of puts the nail in that theory. Sure the book had a reputation from the word go, but it didn't have this cemented association in popular culture until John Lennon was killed by Chapman like 8 months after the film came out. Kubrick was a visionary but I don't think he was psychic.
“idealized fantasy of himself”…It kinda sounds like he’s created a fantasy where he’s protecting them from a danger that really isn’t there. Very interesting.
Comments like this is why I still have hope for RUclips comment sections, informative, well put, and hilarious.
But tgen again, who's even read the Catcher in the Rye? Or had to read it in high school but completely forgot about it. Most people associate it immediately with "the book that killers read" instead of the whole thing about the protagonist in a book that nobody really knows anymore. So there's that...
@@SilviaVanThreepwood Yeah but as someone already said this movie came out before the book got associated with high profile assassinations. That association with violence can't be considered written intent.
Bro Kubrick had more reason than any other director to have continuity errors because of the ungodly amount of takes he made all his actors do for any one scene.
THAT was the form that Kubrick's famous "perfectionism" took - in putting the cast through dozens of takes to get their performances "just right", far more so than getting continuity and background details just "perfect"!
Because, in the end, THAT was what was really important to Kubrick: getting the "perfect" performances from the human element, not getting the carpet patterns just "perfect" for the reassurance of obsessive fans to follow like an objective reality!
These "conspiracy theories" take on an especially bizarre aspect when one really notices that fact: it's kind of insane and funny to imagine Kubrick raving "yeah, I don't care about things like characterization, symbolism, atmosphere, mood, theme, foreshadowing and other storytelling techniques, because damn it, I'm making a naturalistic, realistic documentary about that chair in the background, and that chair has gotta be JUST RIGHT or nobody will understand that the moon landing is a feminist lie!"
Wait, so according to Rob, Wendy going insane is more plausible than Jack going insane?
you think a manic skitzo episode is less likely than a HAUNTING of a HOTEL that ENTERS YOUR MIND AND BODY? lmaoo. MSBP is a real thing...Haunted Hotels arent.
@@TheRealDarrylStrawberry did I mention a haunted hotel
@@angrybidoof847 Jack didnt "go insane" the hotel is HAUNTED...what movie did you watch? the hotel brings out the evil in people. Thats the BASE plot. The entire Torrance family are victims of the hotel. Rob is saying A LOT MORE than "jack going insane". No you didnt say "hotel" but you said "insane" which defeats the whole purpose on theorizing what this movie is really about. Jack Dull Boy is not the baseline.
@@TheRealDarrylStrawberry
The context
Rob said that Wendy going insane is more plausible than jack going insane.
That is, if you wanted to ignore the ghost plot, viewing the film though Jack's eyes, the character we've all ready been shown to not be the most mentally stable, as him having some kind of breakdown is less likely than Wendy having a break down.
The whole things moot anyway as we do know that in universe ghosts do in fact exist, and the reason they latched on to Jack so quickly was because his mental health wasn't in the best place to begin with.
Steven King explicitly stated it was ghost and explored it in greater detail in the sequel, Doctor sleep.
men are sane and rational 100% the time and never ever do anything to hurt their families ever. Women be crazy. /sarcastic
But honestly, with the history of women being labeled 'hysterical' or 'crazy' for asinine things, it's kind of baked into our society that women are more likely to be insane than men because they're 'more emotional' or whatever. Add to that the rhetoric that victims are lying for attention or they just imagined the abuse and you've got some victorian era, diagnosis of hysteria, misogyny on your hands.
My 2 friends and I sat down and watched the Shining twice in a row in a single day.
My one friend, Danny, had never seen it before, and my second friend, JJ, is a huge film nut.
Danny noticed several of these mistakes when watching and pointed them out. JJ did acknowledge them as just normal mistakes that were left in for reasons of time and money. When Danny retorted
"I thought Kubrick was a perfectionist", JJ responded
"Yea, but he's one guy in a sea of people all trying to cram this movie together."
We all got into a much deeper discussion that led to us all argreeing that by leaving the mistakes in, Kubrick achieved something absolutely terrifying. That the Overlook Hotel was a living evil entity, and those 'mistakes' are when it warped reality. To me it's the perfect in-story explanation. It's the monster hiding under your bed that you haven't seen, but you swear you can hear it breathing. You'll make it far scarier than any writer could.
@Chandller Burse In Kabbalah, the Hebrew letter Shin (שׁ) holds significant symbolism and meaning. It is one of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, each representing a divine force or spiritual principle. The letter Shin is associated with several concepts and interpretations in Kabbalistic teachings:
Divine Fire: Shin is often associated with the element of fire, representing the divine flame that connects to the spiritual realm. It symbolizes the transformative and purifying power of fire, which can consume and refine.
Divine Name: In Kabbalah, Shin is connected to the divine name "Shaddai," which signifies the Almighty or the All-Sufficient. It represents God's expansive and limitless nature, encompassing all aspects of creation.
Three Pillars: The shape of the letter Shin resembles three flames or branches converging at the top. These three branches represent the three pillars of the Tree of Life: the Pillar of Mercy (right), the Pillar of Severity (left), and the Pillar of Balance (center). It signifies the harmonious integration of these pillars in the divine and human realms.
Shema: The Shema is a central prayer in Judaism, and the letter Shin holds a prominent place in it. The Shema begins with the words "Shema Yisrael," and the letter Shin is enlarged and emphasized in the first word. This represents the unity of God and serves as a reminder of our connection to the divine.
Spiritual Transformation: Shin is associated with spiritual growth and transformation. It represents the journey of the soul from a state of limitation and separation to one of unity and enlightenment. It signifies the path of elevating consciousness and transcending the mundane aspects of existence.
The letter Shin, with its multifaceted symbolism, carries deep spiritual significance in Kabbalistic thought. It represents the divine presence, transformative power, and the potential for spiritual growth and connection with the divine. THE SHIN INING =)
Or, the things that the hotel does are... Overlooked.
I've seen others in the comments say that was actually the intention, everything moving and not being in the same place was supposed to unsettle the viewer, as you say it's supposed to represent the monster hiding under the bed you haven't seen but can hear breathing. I honestly watched the shinning for the first time a week before this vid came up on my fyp and i did not pick up on any of the inconsistencies but i did feel things were a little off and realising why is really cool adding to the atmosphere and horror
I honestly didn’t care for the movie and thought it was underwhelming my first full watch. I’m glad to see why ppl like it so much I might give it another chance. That’s a cool interpretation even if it was purely just mistakes. I think that things like this are what add charm to a movie
@@Chris-rj4btThe movie is definitely something you gotta watch a few times to start appreciating the story it tells In it’s subtle ways
Aside from the whole "twisting the story to make an abusive husband look like the real victim" issue, my biggest problem with the Wendy theory is that it very clearly starts with a conclusion and works backwards. Navarro obviously didn't look at the evidence and use it to conclude that Wendy is crazy, he decided that Wendy was crazy and then went looking for things that could be used as supporting evidence.
And I don't need to explain why that's fallacious on its face. If you go into any piece of media looking for evidence that supports your beliefs, you're going to find it, even if it's not actually there.
You are obviously projecting artificial intentions and then condemning someone for it. I could very well state the equivalent: you want the Wendy Theory to be wrong so you went looking for a video on youtube that accuses him. In the end, no one cares, only people that were satisfied with The Shining being Kubrick's easiest film are triggered that an extra layer can be reasonably sketched, one that was quite above their heads all this time. And I absolutely love the fact that this "debunking" video does not consider for a second that Kubrick, the same dude that abused Shelley onset over and over again, could have a subplot where she would be crazy.
There’s no issue with their theory. No need to cry. I don’t think the theory holds any weight by the way.
Yes, confirmation bias has ruined do much of the theorist community
"muh problematic theory" you realise these aren't real people? that you're trying to accuse him of being malicious towards a fictional character?
@@shum8104TIL ideas cannot be problematic. Only actions taken against real people can be problematic
..... For some reason
I just have one question for The Wendy Theory, how'd she hallucinate the parts she wasn't there for?
She has headcanons about her husband?
@@Mikescool444 noooo, I don't think so.
I'm not in any way supporting the Wendy Theory, but honestly? It's totally possible to hallucinate things happening in other places
It doesn't really matter that you couldn't have possibly seen them. You "just know" that they happened. When people do have delusions, they often don't notice the logical inconsistencies
(At least, that's my understanding. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about it)
@@Canadamus_PrimeI don't think so either. But I don't think it makes the Wendy Theory inconsistent
I think the Wendy Theory is "wrong" because it's just not the story that the movie is telling us, rather than because it's internally inconsistent
@@douglaswolfen7820 I think what you're describing, with her "just knowing" stuff is happening that isn't, is a different psychological phenomenon than a hallucination. If I'm not mistaken, a hallucination is explicitly something that they witness, not imagine. I'm not describing that very well.
The theory that Wendy abused Danny is bunk. The reason Jack was unemployed is that he also abused a student and got fired, in lieu of being arrested
False. That was the book.
@@jbo4547and? A film is based on a book isn't it
@@anisaafsar4528 key phrase "based on"....... every single movie ever made that was based on a book takes liberties with the story itself, character traits/backrounds, certain themes, vibes, etc.
@@jbo4547 I understand that and although the film is it's own version the original story was from Stephen King and I don't think the movie has as much backround story or theory compared to his writing. I believe he's actually said himself he wasn't happy with the end product of the shining because of how the movie portrayed the main character. The book gave him a lot more detail in terms of his character arc and the bonds between good and evil
@@anisaafsar4528 Not to counter act your point, because it's a good point and i like it, but im pretty sure he's come around to it now. Just thought i'd say that, but anyways, yes i agree, the book is more canon. Just cause we dont see harry potter mention he wanted to be an auror when McGonagle asks him what he wants for a job in the movies, that doesnt stop McGonagle from commenting about it in the movies. She just mentions how his behavior/lack of studying is questionable since he said he wanted to be an auror, but we never see him say that. its only in the books
If you watch a movie where a father abuses his son and wife and every scene serves to portray his descent into madness, and your first response is to say "nuh uh it's the woman who is wrong", there's something going on...
edit: I don't know how many comments I've gotten calling me an abuse apologist. Let me get things straight
"do you think women can be abusers?" - yea
"do you hate men?" - sometimes
"you must think that in this other case where a female abuser abused someone the man was in the wrong" - no I don't
"do you think think this theory is mysoginist" - yes
"do you think I am a mysoginist" - no probably not
yes, women can be abusers. But not in the shining, a movie about a male abuser. Blaming the victim as a conspiratorial mastermind is a textbook abuse tactic, please leave me alone. If I could mute this comment I would.
False.
I watched this for the first time like a week ago with my sisters and i had no idea where it was going but like 10 mins in I was like "gang ... i think we're watching the story of abuse but with ghosts" anyway if anyone tries to tell me Wendy was the victim, i'm going to be very scared for them
@@erika-paigehutch3930 scared for them? Thats odd. If you listen to/watch watch the thoery without the nerd in this video getting butthurt about it, its very interesting. What's wrong with speculation or what if's based on inaccuracies and things in the film?. Nothing
@@jbo4547 idk maybe jts a personal thing, minus the actively trying to kill his family part I related to having a father like the one in this movie and it worries me people would think of Wendy as someone other than the victim because I have seen stuff like that happen first hand and also I very much hate when people try to rewrite stuff like this film to say the victim was the villain, you can believe what you want but I don't thibk anything is going to make me believe Wendy is the villain
@@jbo4547because the text doesn't support it. The premise is essentially "what if the story we saw was different?" and then reinterpreting scenes to fit whichever way you want the story to actually be. If your choice theory about a movie requires you to deny the things presented on screen as real, while conjecturing other evidence must have happened off screen because that would make your theory make sense, you are no longer theorizing interpretations of a given text, you're writing fanfiction.
A good thought about “continuity errors” can easily be explained by “holy shit the director was absolutely mad and did so many takes as to make the actors nearly insane there are bound to be things out of place if he wanted ‘take 24/200’ then you used that take regardless of what chair was out of place”
Plus a set fire which means sets to be remade and will never be 100% identical to the originals. Lol
Lol, after the 100th take somebody needed to sit down and took the chair.
@@johnmckay1961 also it's a hotel, chairs could have just gone moved around. Especially a single chair up against the wall.
@@johnmckay1961 lmao totally
None of the violence and supernatural stuff in the film is real. It's a story written during Jack's descent into alcoholic psychosis -- he found where they locked up the liquor.
There are clues that we are in the story as Jack is writing it: while talking to Grady in the bathroom, he keeps making typing motions with his hands. Also, this explains why he gets Grady's first name wrong -- he either misremembered it, or changed it for his book. This also explains continuity errors and how they are mostly intentional. As Jack is writing, he's changing little details here and there: he walks into an empty bar... suddenly there is someone there.
During psychosis, he is having evil, paranoid thoughts about everyone in his family and fantasizing about things he'd like to do to "correct" them.
This is why King hates it -- he knows Kubrick saw right through him and made the movie personally about him and his thoughts. Being exposed in this way disturbs him.
You see how many books they own together? Wendy must like to fantasize!
They’re Jack’s books too and HE’S LITERALLY A WRITER 😵💫
These are such silly arguments😂
I feel like the concept of the theory also undermines the interesting part of jack’s character and his own experience with recovering from his abuse and alcoholism
A point you never brought up that I think is nonetheless important to debunking the Wendy Theory is that this isn't just a movie: it's an adaptation of a Steven King novel. You know, Steven King? The guy whose entire wheelhouse is SUPERNATURAL HORROR STORIES?
Kinda makes me wonder what he has to say about this theory.
I don't care about Kubrick's opinion, he can eat a bag of dicks for what he did to Shelly Duvall. He didn't even write the original book, anyways.
Exactly! Yes a bunch of stuff is changed from book to film but it at its core still a Stephen King story. Look/read at IT. Salem's Lot. Silver Bullet. Eyes of the Dragon. What do they all have in common besides SK writing them? Supernatural and spooky thing are real and have actual effects on the world!
I think an even better way to debunk the theory is the fact that this story has a sequel. Both book and movie and the movie one still carries on the events and themes of the past movie. Among which, is the fact that Wendy was a caring mother while Jack was an abusive father
King already hates this movie for trying to remove the supernatural element and changing Wendy, I'm pretty sure that this theory would further piss him off to no end.
A wheelhouse that was just a dream
Something that always struck me was how, when wendy interrupted jack’s writing to check on him, he SCREAMED at her, blaming her for not being able to work. And later in the film, wendy finds that jack hasn’t been working this whole time, just typing nonsense on his typewriter. Jack hates himself SO MUCH and he scapegoats all that onto his wife and child, unable to bear the weight that the problems in his life may be his fault.
As a woman, I’ve BEEN on wendy’s end in that screaming scene. As a little girl, I’ve SEEN my own father scream at my mother that way. The scene was so real to me that I didn’t know it could be interpreted any other way. So to think that was the scene that “inspired” the wendy theory…
I'm sorry to hear that, but I also believe you must hate the fragile position in which Stephen King forced Wendy into. As an exercise of abuse, then the movie for me is just unbearable. She is just a cardboard target for Jack's rude and over-the-top hate/sarcasm. It's clownish even. I much rather see a movie where the female character, even if flawed, at least is a driving force in its own destiny. Scarring the victimization cycle into a caricature has solved nothing. And to think that Kubrick *actually* abused Shelley Duvall onset to "draw" her panic and emotional pain, then, jesus, how can anyone still try to protect a sort of virtuous plot perspective on this director. Read what Tarantino said about him: an hypocrite that pretended to be against violence while actually glamourizing it to its full extent in perfect cinematic exercises as displays of power (Shining, Clockwork, Lolita).
@@vitoryugojsmThis is the only Kubrick movie I’ve ever seen. I don’t really know much about him. But also, movies are a huge collaborative effort. Lots of people work on them, so there are other things to appreciate than just the direction.
I never said the movie was empowering or valuable in solving the abuse cycle. I just said that the scene with the typewriter really scared me because it was so real to me. Which to me holds some value, both as effective horror and also as a means of self reflection (ie being able to experience traumatic emotions in a safe environment where I can simply turn the tv off).
Movies aren’t necessarily made to be tools to solve society’s problems. Sometimes a scary movie is made to be scary. I think you’re right to discuss it (and to be outraged at what was done to Shelley Duvall), but please understand that my experience with the movie and your experience aren’t going to be the same because we might be seeking different things. I didn’t go into the movie expecting to be given a lecture on how to break society’s cycle of abuse; I just wanted to experience how the movie felt.
@@NutyRiver I respect your view, and specifically understand the point where a movie can replicate some suffering in an encapsulated environment, serving as a catharsis to the audience. I believe it is even the original idea behind the foundation of the Greek dramatic arts. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Kubrick wasn't carrying these topics throughout his filmography as mere cleansing exercises. I agree with what Tarantino says about him, there was hypocrisy there.
@@vitoryugojsm fair enough. Again, I don’t really know anything about Kubrick, so I can’t claim to know what he thought. But in a world where abuse like this has spotted my life, I want to make my own choice to live without fear of my own shadow. As Shelley was abused, and Kubrick supposedly an abuser, it makes her performance meaningful to me. And that’s something I want to appreciate. Kubrick nailed directing an abuser, and Shelley nailed acting as an abused.
Thanks for considering my view, btw. No need to agree, but I appreciate that you took the time to read and consider.
Duvall does an amazing job of portraying this stress, and she carries it for the whole movie. To see her as anything less than a captive of a madman is to truly "overlook" what is going on.
People wanna blame woman so much they even try to blame her for the cause of The Shining lmaooo
Wendy reading Catcher In The Rye = indicative of psychopathic behavior and unstable grasp on reality
Jack chasing his family with an axe = symbolic of Wendy's psychopathic behavior and unstable grasp on reality
I think it just means Wendy has a bad taste in books
reading catcher in the rye makes her unstable? good lord. silly theory@@averagemordhauplayer4821
@@averagemordhauplayer4821 or that she's just reading placeholder "school curriculum stuff from the nearest shelf".
OMG WENDY IS GONNA KILL JOHN LENNON
Does me reading American Psycho indicate anything malicious or nefarious about my character or am I simply just reading a book?
"A perfectionist like Kubrick would never allow so many mistakes" Kubrick probably spent more of his perfectionist energy on berating Shelley Duvall and the other actors, and missed that joey in props forgot to put back the light switch, or end table, or chair.
And then the editors were using the best takes and didn’t notice the takes they picked were the ones missing some distant background details. bc who the fuck would notice that or even care
@@ElvenSonic Editors would notice and care. It is literally their job to check continuity.
@@Digglesisdead They would notice, but not necessarily care if the performance/visual integrity/ etc. is superior.
Also, on set the Script Supervisor's job is to constantly check continuity in the moment to make the editing process easier, so I think it's a small fallacy to put it all on the editor's shoulders.
Light switches are not like chairs. They are part of the wall, and it is definitely odd that they appear and disappear.
@@bob7975 it's entirely possible that when the set burned down and got rebuilt they forgot to add the light switches or it was overlooked (ha) in some way
King: [makes a story about a man who goes insane because of a haunted hotel]
Some guy on the internet: nah it’s clearly Wendy who’s insane
I know the movie is very loosely related to the actual book but the book itself was written because King feared of himself becoming somebody like Jack since he felt at the time that maybe he was spending too much time writing in what he was passionate rather than being a good parental figure. That's probably the reason why so many people love this story: the horror is finding that you yourself may be the true monster that is ruining those around you rather than an unexplained force that we need to use loose theories in order to explain
If you want to know which character represents a side of the author...
_It's all of them._
The "Wendy Theory" is necessarily based on a conclusion that Kubrick either didn't know that this is where King was coming from, or didn't care and deliberately undermined it because... unexplained Genius Reasons? ...and also that Kubrick's "perfectionist and therefore non-supernatural movie about a totally innocent man abused by little Wendy" supposedly meticulously supports this re-interpretation of King's characterization and themes, citing the disagreement between King and Kubrick as supposed evidence that Kubrick diverges from King's fears of becoming his own drunk, abusive father.
It's hard to watch 'The Shining' and not conclude that Kubrick was with King at least as far as the movie, like the novel, being about Jack falling into the trap of following in his father's violent, alcoholic footsteps... conversations between Jack and his "ghosts" pretty much spell this out as explicitly as Kubrick could possibly get: Jack was haunted by his past, and doomed to become his own father, in a vicious generational cycle of abuse!
The "Wendy Theory" just pretty much chooses to ignore this in its pursuit of trying to blame all of Jack's obvious problems on Wendy, in spite of the fact that Wendy was pretty obviously being depicted as having her own fair share of problems in the dysfunctional family dynamic, by meekly and passively living in denial of her husband's problems, and excusing and even enabling them until she finds herself and her son trapped with her husband's escalating depression, violence and break with reality in a position where they are beyond outside help or escape from disaster, while Jack... I guess has no problems at all in this theory, and is just an innocent victim of that evil shrew, or something?
The "more snow than would have fallen in one night" point of the theory is fucking hilarious. The author of the fan theory must not be from anywhere cold.
Lol, right? As a Canadian I did have a bit of a chuckle at that point.
Yeah I thought the same thing. I live in Pa, we can get a foot of snow in 6 hours lol
Yes. This.
It's not like a foot of snow can fall overnight or something.
A better argument might be that he seems too frozen compared to what would be expected, even in Colorado.
But the snow is hilarious nonsense. And frankly, I'll bet a fiver that he just looks that frozen because it looks creepy as shit.
More snow that could fall in one night, a perfectionist would never allow end-tables to move, etc. Just a guy wholly convinced any nonsense that pops into his head makes sense just because.
i also think it’s funny how everyone puts so much emphasis on how the continuity errors are important to the story when, even putting aside them being legitimate errors, they might just be placed there to make the movie scarier.
even if we don’t actively notice them, they could have been placed there to cause cognitive dissonance as our brains subconsciously realize something is off. that’s MY personal interpretation of all the continuity errors. for me, they genuinely create dissonance and almost a fear when watching the movie. they’re unexplained and therefore, spooky.
ah but that would mean having ghosts in the story about the spooky hotel horror movie, and we can't have that, that's too unrealistic. it has to be hallucinations because of course GHOSTS are far too silly.
This is one of the more interesting interpretations I've seen about this and it actually makes a lot of sense to me.
You are right. You should watch 2 videos on the channel Collative Learning called The Shining - Strange Illuminations part 1 and 2
I personally believe the continuity errors are the cause of Danny's shine interfering with the outlook's
I thought the same thing. You could argue the continuity errors add to the horror and are disconcerting and/or that they make you question yourself and what you're seeing or even the timing of events.
What debunks the idea Kubrick was too meticulous to make errors, is that it's not the directors job to check continuity that is the script supervisor. His theory is based on limited understanding of how movies are made.
I like how the Wendy theory tries to say Wendy is hallucinating all these scenes, even when she isn't in them! She is never made to be the narrator or storyteller, so how would her mental state effect the story's narrative?
Not only is she not in them and not the storyteller. But she has no way of knowing about many of them on top of that.
Dang, maybe Wendy had a Shining power and is omnipotent and omnipresence. /j
The explanation in the Wendy theory is that those scenes are what she believes Jack was doing when he wasn't around her. If you go into this movie following the Wendy theory it really just makes it into a new movie with a different story. Its an interesting way of having two different experiences with the same movie. I say watch the full video explaining the Wendy theory and watch the shining right afterwards you will be watching a different movie then before you watched the Wendy theory
@@Daful85 or constantly pointing out how the Wendy theory doesn't really apply...
It just seems the Wendy theory is a theory gaslighting her..... ironically when in movie Jack's constantly gaslighting her.
Now thats Metta.
Another thing to note, mental illness is not indicative of a bad person. Dealing with things like psychosis and schizophrenia does not make you an abuser. People suffering with mental illness are more likely to experience abuse than to cause it.
It's funny how neurotypical people spend so much time demonizing mentally ill people when mentally ill people experience more violence from them than the reverse. Extremely telling that they demonize mentally ill people as ENTERTAINMENT by manufacturing stereotypes, but somehow this is not a form of paranoia. Sheesh.
God thank you. I'm so sick of mental illness being used as an excuse for abuse rather than the person just being a bad person. I have schizoaffective disorder which is a combination of schizophrenia and a mood disorder, bipolar in my case, along with chronic depression, and you know how much abuse I've done? None. Know how much I've been abused? A lot more than none
I mean you say that but it isn't the mentally healthy pushing people in front of subways or stabbing old asian people in NYC or anything, it's all unmedicated schizos who should have been put in an asylum years ago
@@crunchbuttsteak8741 Source?
yes! this theory seems both ableist in that sense and also misogynistic. it annoys me to no end.
Good video. I'm glad you mentioned the unsavoriness of taking a movie that is ostensibly about a woman suffering at the hands of her husband and acting clever for saying that it was all in her head. I was thinking the same thing. "Abused woman is actually crazy" is hardly a groundbreaking concept in either film or film analysis.
Who cares if its groundbreaking? And only weak people are offended by the IDEA that she was crazy and abusive. Its a fucking movie. Its A LOT different if this was a true story and people just said she was a nutjob.
that bs is everywhere and it is so so harmful!!!
The fact the video this is responding to used text-to-speech is generally a good sign unto itself that the video won't be very high-quality; if they can't even bother recording some audio or even just using text, chances are pretty good they're not gonna be thorough enough to think their theory all the way through.
Did the original video actually use that audio?
I thought this video was using text to speech to avoid copyright / avoid using someone else's voice without consent
The original was text-to-speech.
I mean, there are some channels that use TTS for personal reasons but still make good stuff. This isn't that but still
"More snow than would have fallen in a single night" I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this Rob guy has never been to a place that gets real snowfall.
That’s exactly what I came here to say.
Definitely never been to my home state of Michigan!
[laughs in waking up to ankle deep snow in the middle of may]
I vividly remember when I was very little, the snow would sometimes go up to almost the doorknob. It was taller than me, and I remember it as if at was at the height of an average hallway because of it
Yeah, as someone who grew up in CO, it is laughable to me that that would be an unreasonable amount of snowfall in general, but especially in the mountains.
I always thought the frozen Jack shot is weeks/months later when people are able to go up to the hotel. This is how they find him. And also, even in a few hours it could snow so much that he would be completely covered, just a big, shapeless pile of snow
Especially in the Colorado Rocky Mountains.
That actually makes sense! Maybe the reason he isn’t in a massive pile of snow is because it’s melting
Mostly I’m just shocked you managed to get through an entire text-to-speech video essay. Bravo
Yeah.
Yeah, I listened to one of their videos and couldn’t do any more.
I can’t stand AI voices
@@Patchouliprince They can't stand us either, which is why they're so bloody annoying. That's my guess, anyway.
Lol yeah I heard the TTS and instantly bailed.
They would’ve filmed the scene of Wendy reading Catcher In The Rye in 78/79. Lennon was murdered in 1980. There was no connection between the book and murder at the time Kubrick chose what Wendy was reading.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the continuity errors throughout the Shining were completely purposeful. Like how Kubrick shot the scenes with Danny riding on his bike which create an impossible layout of the hotel, it is done to subliminally disturb the viewer and induct them into the madness Jack is facing the longer he is at the hotel.
This was what I've heard, as well. Either way, the continuity errors can be quite easily explained in a way that doesn't accuse Wendy of being the real villain.
Thats what I thought too. I thought this was confirmed, but maybe I'm wrong on that part. I'm sure there are actual continuity errors, as it happens, but I thought certain things like the disappearing, reappearing chair were done on purpose.
That's the funny thing about Kubrick. His fans stan so hard, that even his mistakes are strokes of genius done on purpose.
@@TheDungeonDive Oh come on, you guys would accuse a perfectionist to have shot so many obvious continuity errors, most of them requiring actual work like removing objects between two shots taken at the same places, or making a freaking wireless TV in that time and age, to be just random errors ?
Like if those things happened once or twice in the movie I'd say it's probably a random error, and heck, some of those really might be random, but it's not just little objects, it's switchs, tv cables, whole rooms, not things you simply randomly move around between two shots without a reason.
To do that many you need to either not care or do it on purpose.
You guys would rather assume that one of the most pathologically perfectionist movie director just did dozens of obvious errors in a movie that was clearly important for him rather than just admit maybe it was a good way to make the viewer feel like something is off without being too in your face right away.
Stanning geniuses and not admitting when they fuck up sure is dumb.
But acting like everything you don't understand right away has to be a mistake or pretencious is either incredibly arrogant or anti-intelectualist.
Personally I don't see it as a complex morse code.
But could it be an indicator that just like in the book the Hotel itself is alive and moving around slightly to confuse and manipulate it's residents ? it'd say probably.
@@TheDungeonDive Mistakes? Don't get me wrong, I agree with your general point but how do you explain several light switches disappearing as "mistakes"? Or a whole ass chair vanishing in two takes that were probably shot close together?
The Wendy Theory is really giving game theory "Mario is schizophrenic" lmao. Great dissection, thanks for covering it.
Omg I rember that theory
To be fair, the Mario sociopath theory has a lot more plausibility and direct evidence than Wendy theory XD
i LOVE well explained schizo theories... yknow, for fun! that being said, the claim that it "explains everything" is grandiose and that's a bit harsh. if it was presented as "hey, here's a thought" i think it'd be better accepted. i still like wendy theory tbh, but don't believe it "explains everything", much less was the intended interpretarion by either king or kubrick lol
@@LithiumPsychosis very reasonable. I don’t very much like it. It’s fun to play around with thoughts and create alternate narratives but it just doesn’t do it for me, however that doesn’t discount other’s theories they find fun, wether they believe the theory or just enjoy it.
In the original novel, Jack is being driven crazy by the malevolent ghosts of the Overlook. IT’s explained in the sequel novel, Dr Sleep, that Jack had a little bit of the shine, not enough to for him to be really aware & it got weakened as he grew up and what he had was suppressed by his alcoholism. Jack having a bit of the shine, along with alcohol induced anger issues, made him more susceptible to the malevolent ghosts
I think in the OG they mention that Jack has a bit of it too, I remember it being one of the buttons the Overlook presses that his son is so much more special than he is.
I think all those examples of continuity errors in Kubrick's other films clearly indicate that he was establishing the Wendy Cinematic Universe.
HELLO! I'M SHELLEY DUVALL!
A thousand voices screamed in unison.
Bwahahahahaaaaaa
The Wendy theory was definitely made up by someone who didn’t read the book. Jack wasn’t just violent towards Danny the one night he was drunk, he also attacked and beat a student that slashed his tires which led to him getting suspended. Thus beginning his search for a job.
The book is irrelevant
@@jbo4547 my guy, it's the source material for the movie.
@@DeeDeedoestuff and the movie is just like the book? No. Just like Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, A Series of Unfortunate Events, even other King stuff like Misery, the written books were guidelines and inspirations. The filmed movies are different and not the same. Just because a character has a certain motivation in the book does NOT mean its the same for the movie. And thats goes for anything else
@@jbo4547 myeh myeh myeh
@@jbo4547 get off reddit kid. this is real media analysis. there are multiple approaches. what you're describing is death of the author, which some people take as a 100% guarantee. but no, death of the author is only one way of looking at a piece. it's opposite would be word of God, taking everything from the author as 100% true and canon.
true media analysis and critique lies somewhere in the middle, taking into account the authors intentions but not letting that tell you how the piece makes you feel.
The kool-aid being in 2 completely different spots but Navaro saying they’re the same and even using arrows to point it out has me absolutely DYING with laughter
SMH The point is that the Kool-Aid and the TANG have been switched, smooth brain!! Eyebrow Enema is trying to point out something completely irrelevant to Rob's point. "The Wendy Theory" is correct. You and Eyebrow Enema are just angry cause Kubrick trolled you and your peabrains can't grasp it. 😆
Same. Those arrows! God that's funny
@@mattgilbert7347 Have you, Eyebrow Enema and the other dumbsheep not watched Rob's vid?? LOL!! Rob's point is, the Kool-Aid and TANG have been switched out between scenes JUST LIKE Kubrick intended. SMH, good ol' Eyebrow Enema tryin' to discredit something that Rob wasn't even talking about. What a shameless loser Eyebrow Enema is!! 🤣
And the fact that this happens well after he's already made it clear how heavily the theory relies on the "continuity errors Kubrick would never let slide" evidence just makes it even more ridiculous. So despite Kubrick never being a perfectionist in terms of set continuity, it's clear evidence for the theory because Kubrick would never allow those kind of continuity errors due to being a perfectionist. Yet in regards to one of the things he was well known for being a perfectionist about like shot composition, it's evidence for the theory despite the fact that he would never tolerate an intentionally symbolic scene like that having such inconsistent shot composition due to being a perfectionist.
Funny how Kubrick's perfectionist tendencies seem to wax and wane depending on whether or not they supports the particular point the theory happens to be making at any given moment, isn't it?
@@VenathTehN3RD Funny how you fed yourself so many text and still came out with nothing. Kubrick was a perfectionist, period. Continuity errors don't happen at this scale in any respectable movie, period. This movie had a continuity director, period. Shot composition is not the subject at hand, unless you mistook the original reference in the theory and just ran wild with it because you had something to prove.
I'm sorry I know Navarro probably doesn't mean to come across this way, but it will always rub me wrong when someone takes a story about a abusive man, and makes it out for him to be the victim.
is the sam levinson effect
There's a value to pointing out "Hey, abusive people tend to have been victims of abuse". However, and this is the thing that many of those "theorists" don't get, the biggest thing to remember is that while terrible people are often times "a" victim in a story, but they very rarely, if ever, are THE victim of the story.
Women are never abusers?
@@williamslater-vf5ymyes they can. I believe that’s why they described Jack as an Abusive man in his comment. As opposed to an abusive woman.
@williamslater-vf5ym where did they say that lmfao 💀
“She has mental illness so she’s inherently abusive.” Yea I immediately am tossing that one out.
Seriously what is he even saying
I love how Navarro's entire theory boils down to this assertion that one of the greatest filmmakers of all time made a whole ass movie about how "women do be crazy sometimes". Like that is somehow more plausible than Kubrick including supernatural elements in a ghost story or including an abusive husband in a movie about abuse.
I do find it funny that the original video seems to think the theory is more plausible because it removes any supernatural explanation, like that somehow makes it more mature and serious when there aren't ghosts.
I find a lot of theories try and go that route, like having supernatural elements in a serious story is some kind of mistake or misdirection, rather than the creator just wanting to make a supernatural story
Great video! I'm glad youtube threw this in my recommended
Yeah I agree. This the basis of every "it was all a dream" "theory" and every "[x] is actually mentally ill and imagined everything that happened" creepypasta.
Those can be fun, but they're baby's first steps into critical thinking - not a proper run.
More of a juvenile view on things and not the mature interpretation many people seem to think it is.
They literally ignore the fact that Kubrick explicitly stated the ghosts were real
Yeah, i think a perfect example of this is that “the blair witch project” theory, according to which there is no witch, it was all a scheme conjured by the 2 dudes...
Despite being rooted in plenty of cherrypicking it’s very succesfull, cause for some reason the whole thing not being supernatural makes the movie... smarter to people ?And people feel good when they like a smart movie? I don’t know what it is
Yeah. Godzilla would be SO much more believable if he were only 10 feet tall and breathed lukewarm limeade.
They also before that sentence mention Jack not needing to be the abuser, as if him being the abuser is particularly far fetched, its clear this person has a problem with women.
The irony that this movie is all about how Wendy is abused and gaslit, when the actress who played Wendy was abused and gaslit on set so her ‘acting terrified’ would be more genuine.
@Chandller Burse In Kabbalah, the Hebrew letter Shin (שׁ) holds significant symbolism and meaning. It is one of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, each representing a divine force or spiritual principle. The letter Shin is associated with several concepts and interpretations in Kabbalistic teachings:
Divine Fire: Shin is often associated with the element of fire, representing the divine flame that connects to the spiritual realm. It symbolizes the transformative and purifying power of fire, which can consume and refine.
Divine Name: In Kabbalah, Shin is connected to the divine name "Shaddai," which signifies the Almighty or the All-Sufficient. It represents God's expansive and limitless nature, encompassing all aspects of creation.
Three Pillars: The shape of the letter Shin resembles three flames or branches converging at the top. These three branches represent the three pillars of the Tree of Life: the Pillar of Mercy (right), the Pillar of Severity (left), and the Pillar of Balance (center). It signifies the harmonious integration of these pillars in the divine and human realms.
Shema: The Shema is a central prayer in Judaism, and the letter Shin holds a prominent place in it. The Shema begins with the words "Shema Yisrael," and the letter Shin is enlarged and emphasized in the first word. This represents the unity of God and serves as a reminder of our connection to the divine.
Spiritual Transformation: Shin is associated with spiritual growth and transformation. It represents the journey of the soul from a state of limitation and separation to one of unity and enlightenment. It signifies the path of elevating consciousness and transcending the mundane aspects of existence.
The letter Shin, with its multifaceted symbolism, carries deep spiritual significance in Kabbalistic thought. It represents the divine presence, transformative power, and the potential for spiritual growth and connection with the divine. THE SHIN INING =)
@@MrJohnDocHollidaythis has completely changed how I now Shin-Gojira. Well... Slightly
@@ursidae97 im glad you now understand the true wisdom of SHIN
And the irony is that people are still blindly defending Kubrick's original plot as political correct. There's no way he would create a subplot where Wendy would be crazy. Kubrick wouldn't do it. Those are just continuity errors. You are all misogynistic. Lmao.
@@vitoryugojsm citation? Also this movie wasn't made the be politically correct. This isn't Grace and Frankie it's the shining
I find this narrative disturbing. „The guy is innocent, the woman is just crazy and hysterical, you know how they are.”
I always imagined the continuity errors to be a result of the supernatural mind-warping effects the hotel had on ALL of the characters (even if that's probably not what was intended). Maybe Wendy hallucinated some parts, jack and Danny definitely hallucinated. It's all just about the story you interpret it as.
Jack and Danny hahaha... ahh.
They didn’t hallucinate they have the “shining” Dany at least his father maybe had some too. In Doctor Sleep novel it’s explained. But no, definitely no on hallucinated there.
I agree, the concept of things suddenly disappearing shouldn't be shrugged off as continuity errors. Like, take the appearing and disappearing light switches in front of Ullman's office. How does someone accidentally remove a light switch from the wall and accidentally pave it back up?
I took that more as a directing trick. The inconsistencies (mostly) were put there on purpose to make the audience subconsciously uneasy. Like, you watch a scene and it feels wrong somehow, because it is. Sort of like how in the Hill House show there’s a bunch of hidden ghosts in the backgrounds of shots, and while you may not consciously notice them, it adds to a sense of fright.
@@silverdropstudios7323 its possible that multiple sets were filmed in the same area, or that they reused the same lightswitch prop for different sets. maybe even that it got broken and forgotten about by the time they filmed there next. but i also agree that its possible that its a part of the story.
I think it's also worth noting that Steven King writes supernatural horror and, to the best of my knowledge has never used the "it was all a hallucination" trope. Steven King's narrators are almost always reliable.
King is too good an author to use that tired, lame trope, anyway.
The only Kubrick film with an unreliable narrator is Lolita.
Absolutely true. Sure, there are unreliable moments from narrators sometimes, but it's revealed directly in the story after it happens and it's never for an entire story, it's for a scene or chapter at the most. Usually, it's because something outside them is affecting their mind/perceptions.
@@xBINARYGODx Hm. There are some theories that Alex from A Clockwork Orange is lying to the audience. While I find the "Ludovico Lie" theory to be incredibly nonsensical, I don't think it's coincidental that Alex serves as the literal narrator of the film and also wears a mask with a long Pinocchio-esque nose.
I remember Secret Window relying on a hallucination angle, but it didn't undo the story. Instead, it drove it forward.
to me the Wendytheory really sounds like a classic case of "working backwards from the answer you want"
the idea is kinda interesting in its own way, so every possible clue must be forced to fit a Wendy sized hole at all costs
It's called confirmation bias. You look for and accept only the evidence that supports your existing assumptions.
To me it seems like someone who really wanted to blame a woman for the events of the mvie
@@jackgardner2514 so what, if I make a theory that Danny was actually the murderer in the overlook hotel, that means I'm someone who really wants to blame children for the events of the movie?
"the idea is kinda interesting in its own way, so every possible clue must be forced to fit a Wendy sized hole at all costs"
So, a Mattpatt theory?
@@-tera-3345 🤣🤣🤣
the wendy theory is pretty much "what if the victim was... the crazy one all along!! that'd be pretty cool huh"
Wendy reading the Catcher in the Rye I always thought was meant to show her desire to rescue her son from his abusive father, just like the "catcher in the rye" in the novel.
Wait, that’s what the Catcher in the Rye was about? I just remember it being about a kid who skipped school and chain-smoked cigarettes. LOL
@@bluecannibaleyes Well …it’s about that stuff as well. Lol
@@matthewkirkhart2401 To be fair, I only read that book once a long time ago and I didn’t really like it much so I didn’t pay that close of attention to it.
@@bluecannibaleyes it’s about a delinquent finding a place and purpose in society, ultimately desiring to be a figure who can protect childrens innocence as he realizes he lost his too early from his delinquent desires.
Oh, wow, that's an interesting take! I read it as being about how the "adults" in her life have failed her, and she's remained like an adolescent. Which may not seem like a great take on abuse survivors, but... Well, it's true that girls who experience familial abuse as children have a higher incidence of abuse in spousal relationships, partly because abuse is normal to them, and... When you're treated like that, sometimes you end up feeling like you don't deserve better. Wendy has learned to be passive to protect herself, so... I actually think it's both! I mean, I think she's related to Holden Caulfield on both levels.
It kind of reminds me of the twisted cartoon theories people make where it turns out "everyone is dead" or "its all the delusions of a mentally ill person" and its just sounds like people are making dark theories to sound smart but it feels like something that only sounds logical if you smash your face into a wall and squint your eyes real hard
I hate when people say that other people are committing crimes because of consuming violent media (books games films ect.). Sometimes violent people are drawn to violent media but that doesn't make the media itself a catalyst for said violence.
Edit: I'm saying this in reference to the claim that her reading "The Catcher in the Rye" indicates her violent tendencies.
I agree. It’s the same thing with how they say that video games make kids violent or how in the 80s metal music or dungeons and dragons was making kids into satanists. It’s absurd and appalling the lengths people will go to, to justify their own personal distaste of a particular thing.
@foreverkent2225 Holy shit, Lil' Timmy will Rip the spine out of Slippin' Jimmy because he Timmy played that gosh darn Mortal Kombat game
But mate - her reading the book doesn't mean it made her violent. Just like you said - violent people can sometimes gravitate to it. The main character of Catcher in the Rye is retelling the story (presumably to a therapist,) of how he landed in a mental hospital for violence/hallucinations. If she's simply relating to the character - doesn't mean the book caused it.
She's either:
1) Relating to the dark side of the main character.
2) Relating to the good side of the character - that wants to save children.
Wendy goes on to finally get the balls to save her child. So - interpret what you want. #2 is why I think Kubrick included the book as a tantalizing prop!
That Wendy theory "overlooks" way too much.
Dear Lord
the phrase "not seeing the forest for the trees" comes to mind with the intense focus on tiny continuity errors
Tiny, right. Going the extra length of reversing a gigantic carpet between takes, installing extra light switches, removing the chair, putting the paper back into the typewriter, removing lamps, changing the size of the bed. It should have got an Oscar for Most Effort Devoted to Creating Tiny Continuity Errors.
Kubrick didn't make continuity errors full stop.
I think both guys are wrong, but this guy is wrong thinking Kubrick just accidentally made all these continuity errors. He did it to create a sense of disorientation in this film. Maybe some are just mistakes, but most aren’t.
It's supposed to make you feel uneasy.
That's why it's constant but subtle.
There's no way in hell all of those dozens upon dozens of "continuity errors" were oversights or mistakes, and its not designed with the idea of someone autistically going frame by frame and writing them all down, it's designed to be subtle but so the viewer subconsciously picks up on it and it gives you the sense that there's something... just... off... about the environment.
It's designed to unsettle you.
If Kubrick was trying to make a movie about a woman going crazy the way the Wendy Theory suggests he'd have been more obvious about it.
@@stevepalpatine2828 How on earth do you argue all that and then describe a director like Kubrick as "obvious"? If anything, it all points towards a subtext of ambiguous insanity between Jack and Wendy, leaving to the viewer to challenge its own stereotypes.
I thought the point of the movie is that the Hotel didn't "corrupt" Jack, it just amplified what was already there.
Another reason King hated the movie. The book has Jack trying his hardest to resist the temptations. Sure he failed in both book and movie BUT he put up a much better fight against the temptations in the book.
To add onto the "A perfectionist wouldn't make these kinds of mistakes" thing, is that yes, they would and often have to. The reality is that you don't have infinite time or budget to work on anything, especially not something with as many people involved as a movie. There's going to be a certain point, no matter how much of a perfectionist, that one has to say "It's as good as it's going to get." Also, being a perfectionist doesn't suddenly make you an omniscient being who can actually spot every mistake, let alone in time to actually do anything about it.
Right on. People tend to make too much of Kubricks perfectionism. He was a perfectionist. That doesn't mean that his movies don't have mistakes in them. You can see the shadow of the filming helicopter in the opening scene. It doesn't have any deeper meaning though.
Kubrick made the actors in this movie do certain scenes hundreds of times. You think hes changing the background on accident in the middle of that?
@@dcorz237 lol you are dumb
@@dcorz237 you think he didnt go back and do reshoots of those scenes if he couldnt get it done in one day? im a kubric stan to my core. my favourite movie is a clockwork orange, i've seen every one of his movies, but he wasnt perfect. he made mistakes and was human, a very flawed human. love the mans work, but dont fall for his mythos.
@@dcorz237 Kubrick may not have, but how many people are there on set of any given film? It's possible that one of them may have moved something either accidentally or intentional, to accommodate filming from different angles for example, over the days and days of re-shoots.
In the book "The Shining" after Danny is attacked by the ghost and Wendy initially thinks Jack did it, she figures out that's not the case and when Danny says "it was her!" Talking about the ghost Jack says "Wendy what did you do to him?" He does this out of a moment of spite but mentally says he knows Wendy would "sooner douse herself in gasoline and strike a match" before she would hurt Danny.
Precisely. Wendy was the opposite of Jack in the book, and movie. She was the perfect parent. A mother who would rather die than let harm come to her child. Jack, who true did love his family in the book at least. Was weak willed, and at times would sacrifice his family for his own needs. Anyone who wishes to try and turn Wendy into the villain either hates all women, or are an abuser themself and try to put the blame on the actual victims.
@@theoneeyedartist3253 Wendy did expose her child to an abusive alcoholic murderous parent--not a "perfect parent" to my mind
@@theoneeyedartist3253 If Wendy had been a perfect parent, she would have run the heck out of the hotel with her son at any point where she instead *asked* Jack if they could go away. I swear this happened like ten times in the book. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that's what happens, the story wouldn't be very interesting otherwise, and I also understand that Wendy is terrified of her husband. Still, she objectively isn't a perfect parent because of that.
I also think it's ridiculous to assume that sexism is the motivation of every single person liking the Wendy theory. Maybe it's just that the idea of having a secret villain is interesting to some.
@@legrandliseurtri7495 True, you are right. She was not perfect. But she was far more loving towards Danny. However one thing allot of people seem to forget. In the book, Jack did love Danny. He came too long enough to fight off the spirits and blow himself and the boiler up to save Danny and Wendy. And yeah, the Wendy Theory may not all be sexism. I never thought it was a sexist thing. I just find it odd to defend the obvious abuser and turn the victim into the villain.
@@js2010ish abuse victims are more likely to go missing after they leave
I had never heard of this theory before starting this video, but everything about the summary of it left me feeling a bone deep wrongness. I've been in a household like Wendy and Jack, I've seen the ways my mom coped with psychological abuse. Implying she's crazy and doing it for attention genuinely made me disgusted, and the careful deconstruction of the theory in this video made that feeling much more justified. I appreciate it, sincerely. I also want to add to this conversation a fact Mr. King has talked about himself: Jack is a reflection of his own alcoholism when he was younger. Jack was written to be abusive because Stephen King was exploring the horror of what a father can do to his family. Narratively, this was always meant to be a story of abuse told with elements of the paranormal. To think the Wendy theory can even be pulled from that is almost funny to think about, in a messed up sort of way
This theory really personifies the phrase "when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail"
I had thought that many of the supposed "continuity errors" like the disappearing and reappearing chair were done on purpose to unsettle the audience, even if we didn't realize why the shots made us feel that way. I thought this was confirmed.
Seriously. Time and space warping at the edges as just an inadvertent byproduct of the spooky stuff going on is one of my favorite horror tropes
I think the overall set design being subliminally disorienting was confirmed by Kubrick's notes and interviews with the crew, but I'm not sure it extends to minor prop discontinuity.
There is a disappearing and reappearing chair in Eyes Wide Shut during the pot smoking scene when Bill is sitting on the bed talking to Alice, who is standing up. Also, the phone is not on the bedside table when Alice gets off the bed, but it appears on the table while they are arguing
@@watermelonlalala Okay?
Yeah, look into Rob ager if you want a thorough analysis of this. Kubrick changed the set constantly and created impossible doors, rooms that have outside windows that are shown to be interior rooms with no exterior walls, the hedge maze depiction changes, even the outside of the hotel changes throughout the movie, along with many other things designed to make the audience subconsciously uncomfortable. You can say it's all a mistake, but it's a lot of obvious issues from a really detail-oriented person, plus it's a very effective and novel idea.
The film also shows us a few instances of Jack gaslighting and manipulating both Wendy and Danny.
When Danny asks Jack, "You would never hurt Mommy or me, would you?" his response isn't, "No, of course not," but "Why would you ask that? Did your mother say something like that to you?"
Wendy takes Danny at his word that there was a woman in 237 who tried to strangle him. Jack says he didn't see anything, and that Danny's bruises must have been self-inflicted. Never mind we just saw him making out with Miss 237.
When Wendy locks Jack in the storage room, he tries to play on her kindness and sympathy by asking her to get him a doctor, saying she hurt his head real bad.
Maybe Jack's tactics worked on the guy behind the Wendy theory, too.
Wendy theory addresses these issues. The "continuity errors" that are so clearly not emblematic of Wendy's psychosis according to the author of this video actually serve as subconscious markers to inform the audience that these scenes are part of Wendy's grand hallucination. The author of this video comes across as pompous and dismissive on this point alone. The missing light switches and furniture are obviously not production whoopsies.
@@dennyshimkoski2728 I'm not sure where I mentioned the continuity errors. Like the video author said, there are continuity errors throughout Kubrick's filmography and the Wendy theory, in his opinion, reads way too much intentionality into the errors in The Shining. Especially considering the stuff that is going to maybe not line up because the hotel set burned down at one point.
What I'm commenting on is the issues surrounding emotional abuse, and how abuse is treated in The Shining, and how it is turned on its head in The Wendy Theory. I agree with the video author that flipping Wendy from victim to abuser does nothing for the movie and the story it's trying to tell. If you wanna read the movie that way, fine, it's none of my business. But understand there are legitimate criticisms, in spite of what you may think about this take's tone.
@@annaolson4828 I'd give him the furniture placement, maybe, but even that is very unlikely since the shots in question would've likely been sourced from same day footage, so the set burning down is irrelevant. The light switches appearing and disappearing are used in numerous places, so the argument for them being a story telling device is much more compelling. However, admitting the switches only lends further credence to the idea that the furniture placement was used intentionally as well. Subverting the assumptions and expectations of the audience is its own reward. Why tell only one story when you can tell two or more at the same time? No need to pigeonhole the narrative.
@@dennyshimkoski2728
The entire movie contains deliberate continuity errors. They actually do not serve to inform the audience that what we see is a hallucination of Wendy’s.
@@FirstnameLastname-bn4gv Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Refreshing to see a critic who doesn't blow his load over every tiny discontinuity in Kubrick's film.
Yep
I personally believe that the "continuity errors" aren't errors at all. They were specially put in to give viewers the subconscious feeling that something isn't quite right. Like seeing your room in a dream. Something is different.
Absolutely. I think that there probably are some genuine (minor, tiny) goofs, but the big ones are there to disorient the viewer.
That's a cheap trick and not even one that's necessarily going to pay off. Cinematography, set design, performances, etc, are for the viewer's enjoyment but things changing in the film's universe like a chair or lightswitch disappearing just to "unnerve" the viewer is as I said, cheap, and as I also said, not necessarily going to pay off, because I don't find continuity errors even the least bit frightening because they're in every movie.
@@ImperialCaleb first, you can say it's a "cheap trick" but that is just your opinion. Filmmaking is a very complex field. You use everything that you need to achieve the desired result. Is overexposing the film for effect a "cheap trick"? How about stop motion, or computer effects?
As for it working, I'm sure that you watched the film with a cold, calculating eye and noticed all of these things straightaway and pointed them out with an air of triumph. Most of us didn't. We sat and enjoyed the otherworldly sort of vibe of the film.
@@jonathannelson103 Stop motion and computer effects are happening in the movie's universe. A chair disappearing and this not being acknowledged by a character practically staring right at it is not happening in the universe and is a cheap trick (assuming it's not just a continuity error)
Do you also believe that Kubrick did that in every movie movie he ever made, so that they would all feel like a dream, because they all have continuity errors? Is that his auteur signature? Continuity errors?
Honestly, I’m just confused why they choose Wendy as the nuts one. Like, maybe construct a theory that Jack is hallucinating everything, at least that falls in line with his character. Or maybe Danny is hallucinating from his trauma. Idk, I just think Wendy was a bad pick. I definitely have speculation on whether the hotel is haunted or not, but I’ve never gone so far to believe that Wendy is the nuts one 😂
The secret ingredient is misogyny
(it's misogyny)
it's sexism
Actually a good point which doesn't fall back on a logical fallacy of blaming the narrator of the theory. Thank you, and Schizophrenia does not make you 'nuts' fyi. Its actually quite manageable, and has direct correlation with heightened brain function.
EDIT: I like that a lot of the people in this comment section are unironically misandrists. lol
@@AllTheOthersmisandry is when you point out that calling an abusive husband the victim and his abused wife the abuser when there's no evidence of it, using the same sexist logic as people that excuse abusers in real life to do so is probably sexism
I kind of admire the mental gymnastics it takes to notice a continuity error and decide that it's a secret code
Did your wife's boyfriend fact check this before you posted it?
@@PeachBoi_Real lol
@@PeachBoi_Real Did your wife's three boyfriends fact check this post for you
@@PeachBoi_Real The fuck are you talking about?
I don't. There's a whole generation of people who grew up watching stupid film theory videos and Mario 64 theory videos we have no understanding of game development or even hardware resources of the time. People who genuinely think that Nintendo could have made every copy of Mario 64 a personalized and unique experience.
It's hard enough to just implement branching story paths and 3 dialogue options. But that's not the point. It's a whole group of people completely ungrounded in reality
Clearly it was Wendy that pulling the strings all along.
Clearly She was the reason Jack beats a student for poking holes in his tyres
you dont understand she walked on her knees, dressed as a child and poked holes in his tires where she purposely made him witness! Then when he ran over she quickly switched out with the child!! Oh my god she thought of everything!!
@@Strawberry_Cubes if you look closely at the scene where Jack is in the interview in the Kubrick version you can see a black and white photograph of Wendy cutting the red tape when the hotel was opened! Coincidence? I think not
@@mathiaswilhelm1902 if you look at pictures of the overlook zoomed out you come to the real shocking truth, the overlook IS Wendy
@@Strawberry_Cubes if you squint your eyes real hard and listen to midnight the stars and you slowed and reversed you will find out that the whole state that the movie was filmed in was Wendy.
@@mathiaswilhelm1902 if you let your train of thought pause and feel the unfiltered experience of being for a moment, you'll remember that you're Wendy, i'm Wendy, we're all Wendy and nothing was ever really our choice
I like to think that the continuity errors are supposed to make the supernatural presence of the hotel known to the audience. It could all be mistakes on Kubrick’s part, but I’m willing to view it as part of the story.
Kubrick was infamous for his dedication to perfection. A lot of the continuity errors aren't just simple cups missing from tables they're entirely rearranged cabinets, whole floor plans that loop in on themselves, entire bedsets rearranged. These are not easy mistakes to make and when you take into account his attention to detail in every other facet of the movie I think we're forced to admit they're intentional. You have people making theories based off of ski resort posters and staplers for the shining just because of how attentive Kubrick was. So attentive that people think literally every single frame was highly orchestrated which I think is going too far in the other direction.
@@morezombies9685kubrick being perfectionist isn't evidence he was a programmed robot that could never possibly make mistake
@@Jombi-d3g I never said that please reread my post. A missing cup on set is an error. An entire layout for a hotel floor plan being physically impossible to exist requires an intentional decision on the directors part to shoot it that way. You cannot make that "mistake" that's like saying I "accidentally" modified my car to have airplane wings. Were talking about a guy that made the lead female in the shining reshoot a particular scene dozens of times JUST to physically exhaust her so her performance was more authentic. He quite literally traumatized her while shooting the movie with how much he cared about perfecting this movie. But you're saying this same man can't design a hotel correctly or make sure an cabinet is arranged correctly? It doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying the man didn't make mistakes but there's a lot of *very obvious* "mistakes" that were made that are not present in any of his other movies. To me it seems kinda ignorant to think he wasn't doing this intentionally.
@@morezombies9685 Honestly, it adds to the idea that the hotel is a living, evil entity in itself.
Aye. As somebody who's shot a couple of shorts with a skeleton crew, those kind of continuity mistakes would actually be incredibly difficult to do by mistake. How do you lose a light switch from a wall, by accident? You'd have to remove it somewhat intentionally@@morezombies9685
Watches a movie where a wife and son scream and flee in terror as their madman husband chases them around with an axe: "Yeah that wife kinda evil ngl".
I know that the film and book are totally different and that they're often seen as separate for that reason. If we follow either the film or book though, both Danny and Jack have these "hallucinations" too, as in, they both witness strange paranormal happenings. Quite often it's when Wendy isn't there. In my eyes that's enough to totally discount the theory.
Or, they're all experiencing things due to the isolation. Why would Wendy not be as vulnerable as Jack? Maybe because she has Danny for company, which Jack does also, until he returns to his paternal responsibilities
@@happinesstan Jack is more susceptible to the hallucinations because he’s drinking. Danny is more susceptible because he’s a child. Wendy is having more of an emotionally traumatizing experience while theirs is paranormal. I just believe that’s pretty straight forward
@@Coffeebaby99 The only drink jack drinks, is served by a ghost.
@happinesstan Wendy is unable to see or interact with the paranormal aspects of the hotel until the final act because she is living in delusion initially. Like when she tells the lady that Jack dislocating Danny's shoulder was accidental and he's quit drinking. It's not until Jack fully plunges in with his darker impulses that his "demons are made manifest" so to speak, and they begin to interact with the physical world (the cabinet door), and become plainly visible even to Wendy.
When she finally accepts Jack as her own antagonist (represented clearly with her now coming with a bat and knife when she has to deal with him), she is able to see blowjob bear & the ghostly butler, etc. Initially only Jack and Danny see them because it's their cycle of abuse, again, until Wendy accepts and then decides to confront it directly.
That and the fact that Stephen King has stated that Jack being an abusive alcoholic is based on King himself. He said that he sometimes feels the urge to legitimately hurt his children when they really upset him, and that as a parent the idea of hurting the family you are sworn to protect is a special kind of horror. None of that suggests that Wendy is abusive.
RIP Shelley Duvall
Shelley...strange spelling right?
The theory is even worse if you take into account the book. In the book, there are chapters where jack remembers his past before he got fired. In these chapters, we get a lot more insight on how Danny got hurt in the first place. It also helps us understand why Jack decided to quit drinking in more detail.
If only Kubrick wrote the book and thought like the author that did. However, he did not and does not. This is the only reason why people argue over a simple discussion. The fact of the matter is that monkeys are simply not capable of having any kind of real discussion. It's all about who can throw the most shit at the other.
To the point Wendy was going to leave Jack. The Overlook job is a last ditch effort to rescue a marriage that is on the rocks.
this is my very first thought after beginning the video-- if the "Wendy Theory" guy had read the book it would have immediately debunked his theory lmao
@@-Araina- yeah!
@@Nocturnalux Unintentional pun there lol.
I remember reading Walter Murch’s book in my editing class, and he listed emotion as the #1 priority while editing a scene. I feel like that can describe a lot of continuity errors in films. Let’s say the editor has a take where the actor is working at 110%, really giving an emotionally powerful performance. Is the editor supposed to throw that take away just because the coffee mug is in a different spot from where it is in the surrounding shots?
You're spot on.
Yeah, that's what I learned in film school as well.
i think kubrick did put continuity errors in on purpose in his movies but they represent symbolism about things besides wendy imagining things. Like why her? Maybe Jack or Danny hallucinated.
@@DailyNihilism or maybe it was just in service to people getting a bad feeling about the hotel - like the doors that exist where they shouldn't on the second floor - its a "you didn't notice it but your brain did" so Kubrick put more errors in to support that "something is off" feeling.
No one notices this stuff one a first view, or even on many views.
That said, this video has a non exhausted list of Kubrick errors - so maybe they are just errors.
I found this out reading through Manga In Theory And Practice. Does your favorite manga set something up only to abandon it? It's because the idea was stupid or otherwise uninteresting
I'm glad you brought up the domestic abuse apologism angle, it's something I was immediately thinking of when I found out what the theory was
Also 'reading Catcher in the Rye makes you evil/mentally ill/violence etc.' is just plain daft
Don't our schools regularly assign this novel to 9th graders?
@@auldthymer Yeah I (unfortunately) was made to read it at school in English lit
I read Catcher in the Rye and all it made me was bored
Hasn't pretty much everyone been forced to read that book in school? I'm not even American and I had to read it. If you're a murderer, chances are you've read that book!
@@vanyadolly Yes, millions upon millions had to.
If Wendy was this person who was physically abusive, why was she so hesitant to hit Jack she could barely hold the bat or knife she was that torn up about the thought she might have to strike her husband.
This is a great point holy shit
Finally. I'm so tired of theories that focus on 'solving' a plot without understanding or caring about the work's themes or what it's actually trying to say.
Conspiracy theories in general are appreciated by the kind of people who can't grasp subtlety and the complexities of life, and need something that boils life down into simple (and simple-minded) explanations.
Or even studying the original work the film is based on. It's VERY clear in the novel who the abusive parent is, although the wife is not nearly as helpless as she is in the film.
You are way behind if you think the novel has anything to do with the movie outside of a general format and idea.
You're projecting the need to have a general social/political narrative suspending over a film, instead of a "plot theory" that actually goes deeper and connects the dots. Films don't have grand "themes" by default. The work's themes you so want it to have are just as valid as any other theory out there. Might I add that the Wendy Theory would also make the Shining probably be one of the first serious representations of schizophrenia in film, decades before movies like Shutter Island, Sixth Sense, A Beautiful Mind or Fight Club.
@@vitoryugojsm No, most stories do have intended themes... The people who make them have intended themes they're trying to convey. Sure you can interpret them any way you want, but it should be obvious why some theories are less rooted in the actual work than others. For example, I could say that The Shining is about three very fast lizards dreaming of being human. I could do that, I could even come up with 'evidence' for it, but it's clearly a ridiculous and unintended take. The idea that it's all in her head goes directly against the intended meaning of this work.
I'm also not sure why you would want this to be a representation of schizophrenia. It would be yet another inaccurate and extremely cruel representation that would further demonize mental health problems. It's also incredibly silly to try to push a certain theory just because that would make this "the first" to do it. That's like saying that The Shining is the first serious depiction of a transgender child, because you have a completely unsupported theory that the twin ghost girls are transgender. Completely pointless.
Making up random connections that point to a clearly ridiculous theory doesn't make you smart, it just shows that you have no interest in actually understanding the work.
I know this is unintentional, but this is pretty much “gaslight: the theory”
Wendy: My husband is insane and hurt me and my son
Theory: No, that never happened - you’re wrong. It’s all in your head.
An extremely thinned vail of sexism is in the theory too.
@@roberkraft1982 EXACTLY! “WOman nEvER riGHT!! Poor mAn whOd deAls witTh cRazy WomaN….. SNIFF SNIFF”
That is exactly what I thought when I watched the guy's Wendy theory video. This man was tripping all over himself to make Wendy the villain because 1) she's a woman and 2) I like Jack, he's a great guy, not an abusive husband or father, so it can't be him.
pretty sure its intentional
Sounds like the plot to Alice: Madness Returns.
I had noticed the use of language in the Wendy Theory video that matches the tone of victim blaming with domestic violence cases. Thank you for addressing that.
The Wendy theory, also neglects the fact that there's a sequel too.
the catcher in the rye also has themes of protecting innocence and self isolation to do so. much easier to interpret wendy reading that book as a reflection of her role in trying to protect danny and herself from jack.
@Chandller Burse In Kabbalah, the Hebrew letter Shin (שׁ) holds significant symbolism and meaning. It is one of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, each representing a divine force or spiritual principle. The letter Shin is associated with several concepts and interpretations in Kabbalistic teachings:
Divine Fire: Shin is often associated with the element of fire, representing the divine flame that connects to the spiritual realm. It symbolizes the transformative and purifying power of fire, which can consume and refine.
Divine Name: In Kabbalah, Shin is connected to the divine name "Shaddai," which signifies the Almighty or the All-Sufficient. It represents God's expansive and limitless nature, encompassing all aspects of creation.
Three Pillars: The shape of the letter Shin resembles three flames or branches converging at the top. These three branches represent the three pillars of the Tree of Life: the Pillar of Mercy (right), the Pillar of Severity (left), and the Pillar of Balance (center). It signifies the harmonious integration of these pillars in the divine and human realms.
Shema: The Shema is a central prayer in Judaism, and the letter Shin holds a prominent place in it. The Shema begins with the words "Shema Yisrael," and the letter Shin is enlarged and emphasized in the first word. This represents the unity of God and serves as a reminder of our connection to the divine.
Spiritual Transformation: Shin is associated with spiritual growth and transformation. It represents the journey of the soul from a state of limitation and separation to one of unity and enlightenment. It signifies the path of elevating consciousness and transcending the mundane aspects of existence.
The letter Shin, with its multifaceted symbolism, carries deep spiritual significance in Kabbalistic thought. It represents the divine presence, transformative power, and the potential for spiritual growth and connection with the divine. THE SHIN INING =)
Or she is obsessed with the inability to protect her own childhood, which is common for those who were abused as children.
"Stacks of books indicate Wendy's vivid imagination"
Is... Is the video maker not aware that Jack is a writer?
What bugs me the most about these movies is that Kubrick wasn’t some kind of super subtle guy where you have to watch the movie twice in order to figure out what’s even going on. There are guys like that, but if Kubrick wanted to make a spooky ghost story about abuse he did that. If he wanted to make a movie about war bad he did that.
If he had wanted to make a movie about a psychotic woman terrorizing her family and playing the victim, he would have done that. But he just didn’t.
I’m starting to think an effect of watching this film too much is going crazy yourself.
@@samuelbarber6177 in college I watched The Shining 18 times in a month (kept running into people who hadn’t seen it). Can confirm.
@@ProgShell I’ve seen it once and I feel like it’s driving me crazy just thinking about it, but then again I have also seen 1408 recently (good movie, recommended)
Agreed. Also worth noting that while Kubrick's films are loaded with subtext and complex themes, he was also a populist Hollywood filmmaker for the majority of his career. And for all his uncompromising standards, he also cared a lot about an audience's reaction to his work. The notion his films are this 5D chess that you need a 150 IQ to appreciate is deeply silly.
The Shining essentially gets used as an ink-blot. People know it's supposed to be deep before seeing it, so any reading seems reasonable, because the explanation for a theory with suuuper tenuous textual evidence [like the Wendy theory] can seem reasonable because "It's just that The Shining is THAT deep, dude."
That can cause a cascade effect where the more someone likes The Shining, the more complicated and subtle they're willing to assume The Shining is, and the lower their standard of evidence for readings of The Shining gets. It leads to some people literally just projecting their thoughts onto it without noticing.
The red flags I get so early from this idea are just insane. The mere idea of this theory is misogynistic.
Indeed, this is the most sexiest theory I ever heard in my life.
Honestly wouldn’t be shock if this guy yells to women “get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!”
Shelley Duvall's performance as a survivor was so authentic and immersive in The Shining partially because she was being emotionally abused on set by Kubrick, which accelerated the deterioration of her mental health and eventually ended her career. It's such a slap in the face to go back and wildly reinterpret the movie to make her character the villain on top of that.
@Collins Avenue what the fuck????
@Collins Avenue dude, no. even if people are annoying, that nowhere near justifies abusing them. its not about being "pc" or "woke", it's about not being an asshole. saying you can't just abuse people because they're annoying to you is not being triggered or some shit, it is literally just being a normal human. nothing justifies abusing another person.
@Collins Avenue You are absolute trash.
@Collins Avenue "Haha guys, I wasn't saying I would abuse someone, it was just a le joke"
What a weird thing to joke about in a video that talks about a movie that has themes of abuse
@Collins Avenue shut the fuck up if there’s anyone I’d abuse it’s you
A few thoughts on the Wendy Theory:
1. The dissolve showing her working on the boiler while Danny is in room 237 simply draws out the time as indicated in this video, but also shows her proximity to Danny as very far away. We are shown she is NOT the person in the room, and that she is down several levels below the guest floors, too far to hear any screams Danny may have made, too far to reach him quickly when if she knew he was in trouble.
2. Shelly Duvall was relentlessly abused by Kubrik on purpose, to drive her into a state of an abused woman. This makes no sense if the goal is to show her as the abuser…
3. The movie, while it detours from the book especially in the third act, overall has similar themes, and similar plot. The characters of the book are the same people, Jack just uses an axe instead of a mallet, and there’s a maze, not animal topiaries, and the boiler doesn’t explode in the Kubrik film. Otherwise, the story is the same: a desperate man loses his teaching job due to alcoholism and his temper, and has to take this last ditch gig to support his codependent wife and his abused traumatized son. Jack hopes to kill two birds with one stone, get paid as well as room and board for several months, and have no distractions to keep him from writing, and hopefully he could become published and earn his living that way. But, the taint of the place plus the corruption in Jack based on his own childhood abuse compound, and Danny’s burgeoning psychic ability energizes the Overlook in a way disastrous for his family.
4. The Wendy Theory does not fit with the book, nor the aspects of the book retained for the film.
5. Dr. Sleep, likewise, does not support this in either the novel or film.
Very well argued.
Well I was going to type out a well thought out comment with examples, references, numbered bullet points, and a grasp of the story, but, you beat me to it! Very well said, respect!
#4 - nothing about the movie fits with the book, so there's no extra juice to say the WT doesn't fit with the book. 2 different things. This is obvious.
Where does Danny's Jedi Master story arc fit into all this?
@@Johnbender BS is BS regardless. And this theory is BS.
Shelley Duvall deserves a fruit basket every day for the rest of her life for all this.
That’s too much fruit
She deserves a medal of valor for putting up with an abusive director who tried to break her mind for certain. I'm sure it felt like being in a war zone for her during the shoot.
Kubrick broke Shelly Duvall for this film.
she's certainly not doing well at present, sadly. Have to think her abuse by Kubrick during this film didn't help her current state
I felt bad for Shelley when I heard King say, "Jack did a great job". Ouch!
So the big smoking gun is an intermittent light switch and some shifting furniture? Desperation anyone?