i read somewhere kubrick shot the shining in a roughly chronological sequence in relation to the narrative of the film/novel so i'm not sure about this reference.
Marten GO. The writer's book idea sequence that features Halloran talking with Danny. Halloran really pressures Danny to "think" about what he has shined regarding the Overlook hotel; he asks Danny twice - but why pressure Danny to that extent ? Does he think Danny might potentially have "shined" his own and his mother's murder; that Danny's "shining" skills are more powerful than his own ? Or does Halloran have a premonition of his own murder at Jack's hands ?
It was NOT Kool Aid at Jonestown.. it was Flavor Aid which would be very easy to use in the movie, if there was any intent to reference that. But we see Kool Aid, a different product.
If you watch the first bit slower you will notice that the first door he opens is c4 , ,,when he opens the door and says " this is our walk in freezer" on exiting this door says c3 above so its not the same door , the hole corridor is visible for a few seconds , c3 , c4 are opposite each other , cuts were made because the original movie was to long ( warner brothers demand wiki ) . so it confused me till i saw the corridor in full veiw ..
Your theory aside, I always wondered why Hallorann didn't foresee his own death? My thought was that he did, and offered himself up to the Overlook in order to save Danny and Wendy.
I've got to be honest...I've probably watched The Shining over 100 times, and I've never noticed most of your theories. However, they're the most plausible and make the most sense to me! Thank you for giving me a reason to go back and watch 100 more times!
movie is about which és´... knöt kehrteigäerce xD pRööF? sämsüngh ^ ^ anöthörr prööF ? himmläir ^^. kubricks producer harlans uncle wörked För the naziehce ^ ^ kubrick cöppieD pölünsky ^^ ´´Löök at yörszellph ??xD
I was just re-watching these parts of the Blu-ray and I noticed an interesting detail. At 27:18 in the film, when they're entering the storeroom, Halloran says “now, this is the *story* room.” Not the _storeroom,_ but the _story_ room. I played it back at least ten times trying to convince myself I'd just misheard it or that it was a pronunciation idiosyncrasy. I just can't hear it as _storeroom,_ as there's a distinct extra syllable. If somebody told me this, I'd think it sounded like BS; go listen for yourself before you tell me I'm wrong.
Yes, that is what I always hear, story room. It's actually common in old movie to have words used like that, usually there is a rude sexual, political or religious meaning to it.
***Actor Scatman Crothers did a GREAT job as Dick Halloran.*** He was interviewed on the making of the film and was moved to tears expressing how he was deeply moved to act with such great people. He said, "Ill never forget it." I believe he shined! :)
Kubrick and King had very different ideas. The Shining was written by King, then shaped and delivered by Kubrick on film. It became Kubricks interpretation of Kings story... Kubrick gave it a life of its own. King wrote Dr. Sleep surrounding his own ideas based around what he intended. Remember King and Kubrick did not see eye to eye and King didn’t like what he had done to his book. So Dr. sleep was just King continuing where he had left off based on his story line. Kubrick’s story line ended in the Shining and kings continued on.
Your four videos should make it painfully obvious to anyone that The Shining is not a horror movie, but in fact a magic trick of a psychological play on the mind of the viewer. Anyone who refuses to accept the truth of this production is under Kubrick’s spell so deeply, that you may as well say it worked.
Why does no one ever talk about that Halloran lives in Miami - and it would have been impossible for him to get back as fast as he did - because w his return was in Jack’s mind!!! Halloran’s appt has posters of two naked black woman on the ends of his bed - that again is in Jack’s mind.
The box of Frosted Flakes out on the kitchen table does make it appear that Kubrick enjoyed moving these boxes around for some reason. As to the doors and light switches, I wish someone from the movie set would fill us in.
@@biteof8797 I used to have a paperback copy of Alan Watts' The Two Hands of God - and I think I remember in the first couple of pages he said furniture that moved around would be an example of evil. Which seemed bizarre thinking, but it is common in movies for things to appear and disappear as part of the plot. The old device where someone keeps throwing some cursed object away and it keeps reappearing in their house.
The reason I'm buying the light switch theory is because it's too odd of a continuity error. Who says "You know what this scene needs? A light switch!" and once it's placed there why would anyone need to touch it until done filming.
I think a lot of people don't get it because we've become so used to very simple hollwood films always with the stereotypical happy ending. I like your theories and I think you're right. And I've seen other videos that describe the film in another way...also with supporting evidence and I think a lot of them are right too. And there we see the genius of Kubrick. He was making multiple films with their own storylines and evidence for them layered one upon another. The Shining isn't just one film but a few films...invisible to a casual viewing but if you're willing to look for it, you can find a new layer....and if you continue viewing it...other layers will reveal themselves. Kubrick didn't make simple films....and simple people will never see the layering.
“The Shining” aka “The Enlightening”. It should be mentioned that the true horror is all the Freudian slips in Jack’s story that give away his past sins. I am so grateful for this series of video. I have dealt with people calling me crazy for YEARS because I insisted something more was happening. Thank you.
The freezer door shot may not be intentionally deceptive OR a continuity error. It may just be part of a collage sequence that condenses Hallorann's kitchen tour with cuts that compliment each other.
I have been watching Shining film analyses for days, and this is my favorite and the most plausible theory! It explains name changes and scenery changes that mean nothing in other theories. A+
Search for "The Wendy Theory" by Rob Navarro here on yt. He has noticed many of the same and a few other of these "errors", but comes to a very different, but evenly intriguing theory. ;-)
@@foolishwatcher After dating a bonafide lunatic for a year, I like "The Wendy Theory" most! I never really thought someone could clinically be two different people until I dated this chick! An experience I wish on no one.. What's also kind of crazy is Shelly Duval's real life mental deterioration which kind of solidifies Rob Navarro's theory in some sad but ironic way.
Really interesting theory, you have a good eye for detail. I watched all 5 videos and I think you are onto something here. Kubrik was a cinematic genius, I wouldn't put it past him to envelope this movie with multiple layers. Good job!
I will say, there is a slight mix up here. The first light switch you go on about, that one does still exist later in writing sequences (it is visible in your own video, if you look when Jack is staggering by the open pantry, there's a shot of the door down the hall next to the chef's office, with the light switch @11:49. But you're spot on about the lack of light switch next to the foreground pantry door... which still supports your main theory just fine, it is just which light switch disappears is the issue), the thing that's actually crazy about the first door, and why the background is not the open kitchen when they exit (it's insane that more people haven't caught and delved into) is that they come out a door on the other side of the same hallway from the first door which was next to the chef's office with the windows. So, the real significance of going into the first door is that they come out the wrong place (and is why the door latch and the sides they stand on are mixed up) (there's always the chance this was a jump to a later part of the tour, but I don't think Kubrick would make such a simple mistake or a cheap jump cut). They immediately pass right by the first door (which they should have gone into/come out of) and the chef's office windows and the light switch is there @2:45. Actually, most of the non-disappearing light switches have plates fairly flush with the walls, like they are supposed to be there, the one that is actually a disappearing switch by the pantry is an electrical box that sticks out significantly from the wall, like it was an afterthought addition rather than original construction, the switches next to it also stick out, but not as far, though it has wires on the wall leading down to it, explaining why it is not flush with the wall, the one that disappears does not have this electrical trace and isn't obviously original to the wall, so I could see it being intended to stick out to us as a visual clue (in both existence and nonexistence). Overall, I'm very impressed with most all of these observations, I'm still definitely looking at this movie in a new light. And the picture in Hallorann's house? That makes so much sense now. I always thought Kubrick meant something significant by including such a dramatic and visually loud example of a very ethnic and wild lifestyle background for Hallorann that someone, especially like Jack, whom didn't know him or even share his ethnic background, wouldn't be able to easily assume, so when we see how he really lives it has details beyond what one would guess. Which is why the outlandish real life decor differs from that of the novel version of Hallorann, because there's no way Jack could guess that some nice-seeming old-man-type like Hallorann would have a ridiculously large and outstanding sex symbol in such prominent display in his bedroom... One question, @11:34, what is that red item to the left of "no smoking"? Any chance it is Kool-aid? I can't tell at this resolution, and I'm not home where I could get at the Blu-ray to check right now.
Kool-Aid may come and go here as creepy stuff comes and goes with the story version of Jack. He's getting dragged into the pantry because he was acting all possessed and crazy, Kool-Aid, the character wakes up as himself realizing he's getting locked into a pantry by his wife, no Kool-Aid. The wife starts talking about leaving and Jack is prompted to talk creepily--again--about how she can't leave, Kool-Aid comes into frame. Light switch is gone the whole time, though, because it is always the novel world around this point, creepy stuff actively happening or not.
Don't forget the scene where Wendy answers the phone to Jack's call from the Overlook. We first see the Kool-Aid there in the kitchen (3 cans). I highlighted the significance of it to challenge Danny had ever shined at all while talking to Tony in front of the bathroom mirror (seeing the bloody elevator and twins) for the first time. It was all Jack's brainstorming at the time (having just heard the fantastic story from Ullman).
Yes, that can is another can of Kool-Aid. You're the second person to spot it so far in these comments :) I agree with your thoughts on Hallorann and the large sexualized paintings in his bedroom. It reminds me of a talk on telepathy by the great Jacque Fresco about an Indian man telepathic who swore he could read anyone's mind at anytime. Jacque, a skeptic, thinking outside of the box to what no average person would likely think of at a moment like that, thought of a little mouse at the zoo eating an entire elephant without changing its size and appearance. The first thing he said was, I see a death of a friend or loved one... Jacques being over 70 explained that naturally, a person of his age and the circle of old friends I have there would likely be a death... the telepathic was phishing for reactions. Leaning in with intrigue, eyes widening, etc. that's how these conmen do it he went on to say. The first light switch is meant to be there (Torrance's real world and Jack's brainstorming / novel). Once the freezer door opened it left the real world because how else could it be explained that they entered one door on one side of the hall and reappeared from another door on the other side. So it had to be completely fiction (that whole dialog about knowing Danny's nickname is Doc). I also addressed this point to another person's comment on this issue, but honestly, it didn't click in to me until I examined it while addressing that comment. If I had known, I would have included it into the video. If that's not the smoking gun it was fiction then I guess portals just weren't impressive enough to wow Wendy, let alone Danny haha! So when they come around the bend to the 2 light switches (some asked why would both be there if it's still Jack's brainstorming they're in) the transition back to the real world is signified by the key symbol light switch (without electrical wiring). It has to be there because the real Jack comes to the kitchen with Ullman and Bill to pick up Wendy to go the basement. And it's there when they all come--thus, when it disappears it should come to no surprise that it's no longer their real world.
So, to be clear, when they leave the freezer they're still in what you'd consider a brainstorming/novel world, but by the time they round the corner and get to the light switch they're done talking about shining-related (Doc) stuff and are in the real world? In regards to your previous reply about Kool-Aid, I wasn't forgetting Wendy's phone call, I meant to narrow my analysis to just the pantry (and Dopey was more of an indication about most of what you bring up, the Kool-Aid would serve to keep up the suggestion it is all still a fictional take on events through the end of the phone call). Where I was struggling with the pantry is why would the Kool-Aid pop in and out of existence while we're in a part of the movie that is (entirely?) rooted in the novel? The light switch remains gone throughout, but Kool-Aid comes and goes. Would you say that any of it was real experience leaking in, or that Kool-Aid is used to indicate when the fictional world gets even less realistic?
Yes, to your first paragraph. Right when they enter the pantry it is back to their real world. When we see the kool-aid appear above Hallorann's head, it slips out of real world. The reappearance of the kool-aid when Jack is getting dragged into the pantry in Jack's novel even with the missing light switch, is to reinforce that it's not occurring in real world. Just as the dopey sticker with the first appearance of the 3 kool-aid cans. Same goes with the scene where Grady unlocked the pantry door. The reappearance is just another reminder that something as fantastical as a ghost unlocking a heavy metal door should not be trusted / believed. Indicating when the fictional world getting even less realistic is a good way to put it too. Is it coincidental that the kool-aid appears in some of the major scenes all involving the shining ability? Not to me.
There's definitely some thing going on with any of these scenes where doors are flipped and light switches are present and not present. Kubrick was an obsessive stickler for details and it is not conceivable he could have blundered numerous times especially in the editing process. I'm going to watch it again fully as I haven't in a while to see if I can see these transitions from real world to dream to Jack's novel's visions.
Later in the movie he's mostly wearing a maroon jacket, except one scene where he's shown sitting at his typewriter typing away in like a green sweater or something like that. Next scene he's back in the maroon jacket
Not to troll, but this idea was covered i Rob Agers first analysis on thie Shining all the way back in '07! I would call this video an expansion, rather than an examination of a new idea. Good work though and I take my hat off to anyone who pisses off the 'You are reading too much into it ' brigade!
“It's just the STORY of one man's family quietly going insane together.”-Stanley Kubrick. He said it himself.... we just though he meant his story. But it was the story Jack Torrence was putting together.
@Marten GO. I watched all your videos and most of it sounds plausible....BUT.... there are 2 crucial issues I miss in your theory: 1. The whole layout of the hotel is insane as doors, spaces, windows and walls apear on places that are impossible during the WHOLE movie. This happens both during the "novel/mind of Jack" as during the "real scenes". How do you explain that? E.g. you correctly show that Wendy, Danny and Hallorann enter the freezer differently, but you didn't show they exit the freezer from a door at the opposite from the door they entered. This not only happens during the "novel scenes", but also during the "real scenes". In the office of Ullman there is an impossible window, the doors next to room 237 leave no space for rooms, the windows in the appartment of the Torrences are impossible, stairways appear were rooms should be, etc. etc. These are no mistakes as the executive producer of The Shining, Jan Harlan, has stated that this was INTENTIONAL. “The interiors don’t make sense," he said in 2012. "Those huge corridors and ballrooms couldn’t fit inside. In fact, NOTHING MAKES SENSE.” Rember this regards the hotel ALL the time, even when the "real" Jack tours around. If so and done inentionally, this supports much more the theory that the hotel was really possessed/evil. This would explain why spaces do not make logic and why things change or (dis)appear. The hotel simply rearrenges its interior like the piece of wood, the loons painting, the cans of kool-aid and the pictures. This also means that The Shining is much more than just a psychologic or writing story, but is actually about the paranormal. The strongest proof for this are the words of Kubrick HIMSELF as he explained in an interview that he wanted people to fall into the trap of believing it is all a psychological happening, but turns out to be a real paranormal event later on in the movie. 2. Jack never changed into a bad guy only in "his novel", he already was a jerk since the very beginning! The talk between Wendy and the doctor reveals that Jack had been abusive to Danny way before. Also Jack has a very significant look when Ullman asks how his family would think about the job. He simply does not care. Again Kubrick HIMSELF pointed this little detail out. More little details give this away, like Jack reading a Playgirl in the lounge (usually not laying around in the lounge of a Hotel), peeking at the girls behind the back of his wife during the appartment tour and his cold and hoarse behaviour towards Wendy. If the hotel is haunted as Kubrick suggested, than everything makes perfect sense. The weird spatial impossibilities, the changing interior and most of all the behaviour of the caracters. Due to his evil and unstable personality Jack is open to be possed by the spirit of the caretaker (that is why he is adressed as the caretaker later on). Also the haunted hotel projects your mind, its desires, fairs, etc. Remember Jacks party in the Golden room (his anxiety for loneliness) and his encounter in room 237 (his desire and guilty conscience for women others than Wendy). Wendy's fair of her son being abused by her husband is projected by the hotel in the sexual scene with the bear and older hotelguest later in the movie. Only Danny and Hallorann can't be touched by the hotel, that is ofcourse because they have the shining.
To the Count of Udny-u bring up the truly supernatural aspects of the Shining well .Its a possessed building,-tge mantra that 'it's not rea"ly haunted"is just silly. It is a lot of things in one.Love all these interpretations-thanks!Forgive spelling errors.
It's a nice theory and I like how you have laid out your evidence. i know I have ( and this is for part 3) tried to look for that picture many times myself to see if it was there the whole time.
another part of the movie that supports this theory is that right after we see halloran on the plane after jack has his conversation with grady and has only been in the red coat since his nightmare at the typewriter, we see the real world one more time with jack at his typewriter in the same green button up he is wearing when he berates wendy for interrupting his writing. that scene ends with a superimposed scene of hallorans plane taking off and bringing us back into the novel that jack is writing
You are on the money. Another YT identifies the book on Halloran's desk, in his office - as "The Red Book" - which is a book by Carl Jung, where he explores his dreams. You're the only person who's identified that The Shining is a movie about Jack writing his novel - I also believe there are child abuse themes in there as well. Kubrick was a huge fan of Jung. Full Metal Jacket also explored Jung, as did 2001, and maybe Clockwork Orange. There's Carl Jung theories all over The Shining - and you've uncovered that the horror story in the Shining is actually ALL from Jack's mind/dreams - maybe about his own past child abuses....maybe the novel helped him elevate those internal feelings to the surface - I contend the last scene is Jack's "Independence Day", because the ball in the photo happened on July 4. I think Kubrick may be pointing to things about S. King in this novel, but maybe not. I suspect King understood what Kubrick was suggesting - and that's why he hated/hates this movie. You've come the closest to figuring out this movie - so many things in it conflict with other substantive scenes - Jack is talking-to himself in mirrors to work out the dialog of his characters for his novel. Etc. Well done
Hello Marten GO. Really appreciate you taking the time in making these The Shining theories, they definitely add more layers and new perspectives to what we initially know.. Was wondering if I could make a request? In this particular video theory you have a piece of ambient music in the background that gives a great atmosphere to your presentation - would it be at all possible if you could link the ambient track in to your description please? Would be greatly appreciated..
I think these videos are great! They've given me an additional perspective on the story and a greater appreciation for future screenings. There isn't enough deep focus analysis on RUclips in contrast to all the overview / general review channels, in my opinion. Please make more videos like this, either about The Shining or other movies. And I dig the format too- no distractions caused by voices with maybe a little too much "personality" going on. However, I would suggest that you or a friend look over your scripts for grammar and spelling errors. Such mistakes can be a turn off for some viewers and looks unprofessional. Don't undermine your great ideas with an awkward execution. As for the content of this particular video- although you've proven to my satisfaction that the placement of the food items is intentionally significant (very much in keeping with Kubrick's style) and that different realities are implied by prop changes, I do find it highly unlikely that "don't drink the Kool-Aid" was on his mind. That phrase would mean nothing to audiences of the time. I think it much more likely, if anything, that he was referencing the popular Tom Wolfe book from 1968, "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test"; which was a journalistic account of experimenting with psychedelic drugs and their attendant altered states. That may make for a stronger connection than the one you've suggested. And here's another detail your videos inspired me to notice- the Frosted Flakes. A children's cereal whose mascot has always been who? That's right- "TONY" the Tiger. I've little doubt this was to a similar purpose as those you've outlined. Finally, I would advise that you pay little mind to your detractors. To behave as some of them have, there must be something upsetting them that's got nothing to do with you or your videos. Best to distance yourself from such drags. If they had just put forth their opposing arguments in a civil manner and left it at that, their points may have been worth exploring. As it is, they seem to be laboring under the misconception that these videos are making you wealthy; which is so off-base as to render their other contentions spurious by association.
I think I just had the rug lifted right under me. Just when I thought I understood the movie. I agree the video maker's content has given me a new perspective. I understand where he is coming from and perhaps explains the maze part. I thought surely Stanley could have not made such a huge error as to forget the maze in aerial shots of the hotel and put it down to logistics. The maze now from second thought must be a dream sequence.
I don’t know because when you said there were no light switches when Wendy drags Jack into the storing room I see the switch right to the right side of the door?!? I’m confused
When he opens the door the hinges are on the LEFT, as they walk through they have changed to the RIGHT and when he closes the door the hinges are still on the RIGHT...different door? and yes the light switches have moved too.
Interesting ideas. I think you make a few very big leaps, like the Halloran/Ullman ice cream theory, and the Halloran shadows at home theory, but I see that you have put a lot of thought into your work. Keep it up!
@@ronnieconroy2677 Jacks novel. There is a major continuity error. The bedside table between the bed and bathroom door is missing, and the bed is pushed closer to the doorway.
Great theory. It makes sense. I've watched the blu-ray and confirmed everything. Disappearing light switch, chairs and ornaments. Suddenly we slip into Jack's novel. The carpet changing direction when Danny's playing with his cars. Jack set his horror story 10 years ago, i.e. 1969, based on what Ullman told him about Charles Grady. Hence the Apollo 11 jumper. He just based the characters on his own family.
I love your work on the Shining. Great stuff. Wonderful analysis and attention to the details. I have one objection: You say the "don't drink the kool aid" thing didn't start until later in teh early 80's, and that Stanley was ahead of his time. I disagree. Back then we were ALL (my circle at least) making sick "don't drink teh kool aid" jokes, but then we were young and we though we were funny. And cool. And this started with us right away. Oh, we might have waited as much as a week for the shock to wear off, but that was it.
While I can't say I completely agree with your theory, it goes to show how much one can read into this movie and interpret as they please, which may have been Kubrick's intention all along. Remember folks, Kubrick never explained or talked about what his movies meant, rather, he always left it up to the viewer to decide for themselves. At the very least, your analysis does show what I've always believed; we'll be talking and debating about this and Kubrick's other films till the end of time.
He did talk about what his movies meant. For example you can hear him explain in interview the enigmatic ending to 2001 and exactly what it meant and what he was trying to do and why. He just said that it sounds silly when you put it into words.
Enjoying your theory and analysis. Gives me lots to ponder during my next viewing. Kubrick is known for using background details to set up sequences and indicate story details, so your analysis has plausibility. One question on your videos. What is the music you have used in each of these Shining videos? I love ambient music and am not familiar with your selections here. If you could, I'd love to know artist and title. Excellent stuff!
This very exciting and highly plausible, that's why I think it's good work. I just think that all the meaning of this movie is way simpler than we think
This is a very interesting theory. I never considered that some scenes could actually take place within Jack's novel. You raise a few pieces of evidence that definitely agree with your theory, such as Halloran knowing Danny's nickname and Jack being told that Halloran has a routine of eating ice cream with the kids that visit, however a lot of other points you make don't add up and seem to be reaching quite a bit. My advice to you, if I may, would be to look for more evidence and - most importantly - try not to ignore any opposing evidence that might lead you to a slightly different theory. Even if your original theory turns out to be incorrect, you are still brilliant at picking up visual clues and thinking outside the box, I look forward to more of your Shining analysis! Well done!
Bruce Wayne Thank you. I appreciate your advice. I believe my theory is independent yet works with all other theories out there. However, highlighting Hallorann not able to shine which means Danny couldn't too will certainly raise eyebrows. I'm aware of that and waiting for debunking videos. All in all it's good fun when there's discussion on classics 😉
It's not the same door. He's giving them a tour of the place, and they've gone through several doors. The first door shown -- with the spacious kitchen in the background -- is NOT the freezer.
Rip Greamer That's right. So coming out of a different door from the opposite wall they went in is possible right? Had to be from Jack's mind (creative writing process) we were seeing.
Joel Schama When you're a RUclips partner you can make any videos you want and earn money IF they're good. I emplore you to. RUclips has all the tools, even free music to use in the background to give your videos that slick professional quality, not to mention the effects filters. You're a fool not to when they make it that easy for you.
Rip Greamer3, just before opening the door (with the spacious kitchen in the background), Hallorann says, "now here is our walk-in freezer". And if you still think it's not the freezer, then what is it?
ThemeParkMite1 and James G, if that's the same door and the door is on the left when camera is facing the kitchen, then it would have been on the right when the camera is facing away from the kitchen.
Does this theory also apply to the axe scene when Jack is chopping through one section of door paneling then the camera cuts to Dick approaching in snowcat, and then back to Jack again with both panels chopped through?
2:49 you can see the door they entered from the kitchen on the right hand side, The cold store is on the left of the corridor, your Theory might be right but I think maybe the contraints of Location shooting might have forced this cut, rather than adding a short sequence were they cross the corridor and open the cold store door.
Only a fool would believe that nonsense about Kubrick originating the "Don't drink the Kool-Aid" phrase, possibly the silliest element of your argument, but take it away and you're left with nothing. If the scenes with Halloran, Wendy, and Danny in the cooler and the storage locker were taking place in Jack's mind, were the three of them ever even in the cooler and the storage locker, and as Jack had yet to see that part of the hotel, how did he even know those places existed for him to be imagining as a setting for his novel? Are you aware that a fire destroyed all of the interior Overlook Hotel sets during production and they had to be completely re-built? This accounts for the films many errors in continuity, they are not signals that we are now entering Jacks mind. In all of these videos, whenever something in the film contradicts your pet theory, you concoct some bogus explanation to write it off, such as "He (Ullman) likely told Jack on the way to pick up Wendy that Halloran always offers ice cream to the kids while adults go down to the basement to go over running the boiler, etc."... seriously, is that supposed to be a joke? Do you even believe that explanation yourself? So Jack was creating that entire conversation at the table between Halloran and Danny in his head, all that expository dialogue and foreshadowing of future events (room 237), while at the same time learning from Ullman how to operate the boiler? Real knack for multi-tasking, Jack has. When you see the picture on the wall in Halloran's room, it's the real world. When you don't see the picture, you're in Jack's novel. How do we know this? Because you say so. How about we don't see the picture anymore because, at that point, the camera has slowly zoomed in to a close up of Halloran for dramatic effect, emphasizing his emotional response to his vision of events at the hotel? This is standard film grammar. Reading the comments from people who have watched your videos, it's amazing to me that so many are ready to unquestioningly accept this theory of yours, which, if any of them were capable of reasoning, they would see is riddled with flaws and inconsistencies. I realize you put a lot of time and effort into making these, but I'm sorry, this idea of yours just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Devin Devon I'm eagerly waiting for your debunking video to address my erroneous fallacies. Put it out there and let the viewers be the judge. Get to work.
RUclips is full of videos made by people to explaining why they believe the earth is flat, or hollow, or both flat and hollow simultaneously. That you took the time to make these videos doesn't make them any more true than the countless other goofy theories surrounding the film. There is no need for me to make another video in order to question your assertions and point out the obvious flaws in your theory, I can easily do that using the keyboard on my laptop. How about I make a video on Alain Resnais' "L'Année dernière à Marienbad" instead? I find it a much more mysterious and interesting film. It's also set in a hotel, you should check it out, I'm certain that Kubrick did.
Haha classic. Lumping my theory with flat and hollow earth to discredit it. Doesn't work that way. I can sit here and engage this game of yours being a keyboard warrior but I choose work and quality. The notion you won't put some effort into a good debunking video where others can watch, perhaps learn and discuss shows your nature as an antagonist to this video.
What if I hide all your comments? Who would know you debunked my theories. I'm urging you to make a decent debunking video so the YT public can see it and in turn you can make some pocket change. Will you get to work already?
the door halloran opened with his left hand is on the right side of the frame at 02:50. the open kitchen area is on the viewer's side of the frame. they cut out the first freezer. still, it might be intentional. when you watch the documentary on the making of the shining you get to see kubrick's pedantic side. it is highly unlikely he would just throw out a scene without it having any significance. anyway, what's the title of the music you used in this video? I love it and want to have it.
Man, I'm blown away by how upset people are getting over this video. It's a very interesting take on the movie. There's no way to know for sure if this is what Kubrick was intending, and by that same token, no way to know that this was not what he was intending. Why are folks getting so worked up?? This is my all time favorite movie, and I think it's really interesting to see different takes on what it could actually mean. Lighten the fuck up! The great part about this movie, is it will ultimately always leave us guessing.
I will admit, I personally find it hard to believe the bit about the kool-aid, but who knows? I sort of love the idea that most of the movie is really Jack's novel. He makes some good points.
As I understand it, "shining" represents the effects of sexual abuse - Everyone who can shine has been sexually abused. It represents horrible flashbacks, fears and the ability to see in other people that they have suffered what you have. Many people appear to think that the hidden theme is sexual abuse, but I think it's deeper than that. I think the hidden sexual abuse is actually allegorical. There is the theme of the cycle of abuse passing through generations - the picture at the end showing Jack having lived there before and having "killed" his family before, Jack being dead but "frozen" like he could unfreeze and do it again, Danny possibly being the next incarnation of Jack got the next generation, etc. I think that the sexual abuse actually represents Kubrick's belief in the abuse that people have suffered over time - The blood filled hotel is built on an Indian burial ground, a woman, a black man and a young boy are all abused by a "middle age, middle class white guy" (a target and narrative of the modern left-wing extremists, as it happens), portraying victims f the abuse. The black guy tried to be a hero, the woman manages to be a hero, the boy manages to be both innocent and show his own dark side, as he develops into a potential murderer/abuser. The "current" generation - of the time - of Americans that had just reportedly landed on the moon are Jack (interesting note - Ullman looks like President Kennedy, I'd say that that is intentional - JFK, the president, hiring a wreck of a man who would go on to commit these atrocities - is Kubric trying to convey a message there?) - the future generation of Americans, irreparably damaged by Jack, are Danny, Tony is the damage from the sexual abuse taking control of Danny, the butler and the alcohol are the same things from Jack's past affecting Jack. The butler and Lloyd are the communicative part of it, convincing him that he needs to do things that no normal, sane human being would do and the alcohol is the removal of his inhibitions, to prepare him to do it. Jack in many ways is actually Danny - and Danny is Jack. They represent two generations of the same person/thing. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy - is written millions of times repetitively through the pages if Jack's "work", his "novel", but he writes around three times, all on one page: "All work and no play make Jack adult boy" Jack is an angry abusive man-child, abusing a child. Danny is Jack - The next generation of Americans are the American people, but they are also different people, they can inherit the good and bad traits of the previous generation and they have the potential to change - this can be seen in Danny as he takes on his Tony persona as part of dealing with abuse, and we see him being a sweet, innocent boy in other scenes, and we never actually see him commit an act of evil. Additionally, this scene with the repeated line highlights that Jack is unable to create, so Jack has to destroy. This hearkens back to the Apollo 11 scene - while I don't follow the theory that Kubrik is trying to claim that he faked the moon landing, it could be that he doesn't believe that it happened and doesn't see it as an achievement, but as a lie told to the world, and therefore also uses it as a subliminal image for sexual abuse of Danny (lies passed on orally to the next generation) - he doesn't see Jack, the American people of his generation, as being able to create, only to destroy, never genuinely achieving anything, and so, when Jack's wife sees that he has been writing this crazy repetitive line, she realise that he is a force for destruction and that's when he reveals his true colours. The maze in the film seems to represent, in my opinion at least, how lost people are in their own thoughts, minds and selfish desires, on one level, how lost people can become lost in the cycle of sexual and violent abuse (which Danny seems to escape from at the end of the film) and how lost the American people are in the view of Kubric, and again, it's interesting how Danny, as the figure representing the next generation, escapes this. Danny, in this case, also then, represents how the next generation needs "mothering" in order to be protected from the current generation, whether from the state, or maybe a political ideology, or some external and benign force represented by his mother, who struggles to protect him. Throughout the film, we see a lot of what appear to be ghosts through the "shining" ability. The ghosts/visions are just the memories haunting the victims - Jack sees people that serve him alcohol and advise him to kill, Danny sees horrific images that seem to both relate to playing and pain. The mum only sees the visions once she knows what is going on, because now she is damaged to. She sees images that relate to the sexual abuse of her son. The ghost visions never affect the physical world, Jack strangled Danny, and Danny let Jack out of the food-storage because the evil has affected him - he had previously almost done his father's bidding ad killed his mum for him, reciting a reference to alcohol, which generally could be seen as innocent, but the mirror reflects it back as murder. This is also reflected with Jack, he goes to the room where he had previously attacked his son, or the room that represents the attack on his son, and experiences immoral sexual pleasure that appears to be enjoyable, until he sees himself in the mirror and sees how rotten the act is, manifesting in the rotten flesh of the once-attractive woman he thinks he is with. The last point that I've noticed that ties in with this interpretation, is that, at the most intense point of the film, the axe-and-bathroom scene, the use of the phrase "Here's Johnny!" highlight's Kubric's left leaning view and hate for all that comes from the capitalist world of corporate entertainment. At the time that Jack is at his most dangerous, psychotic and harmful, he utilises a line from a TV host to comedic effect, terrifying the woman, who, to Kubric, appears to be symbol of oppressed purity, in some form or other. It appears that Kubric views mindless entertainment and comedy to be a destructive part of the corporate machine that holds up the western world and America, which he seems to detest, although ironically, by making movies for Hollywood, even if they contain esoteric messages against the system, he is still feeding the monster that he hates. Perhaps he sees himself in Jack's wife as she offers to bring Jack sandwiches, which prompts Jack to get aggressive with her? There's a very real possibility, and therefore, I would presume that the benign and loving force that he has written the wife to represent, would be people like himself, people that feed the monster and help its prey escape, the mother protecting the child from the abusive father, the movie maker attempting to save the next generation from the perceived evils of the previous and current ones.
I agree with a lot of what you said, especially shining representing the ability to detect fellow abuse victims. I think this film isn't just one theme or message- there are several plausible theories on what is going on and I don't think we need to choose one over another. I believe many of them harmonize. So it's possible to view this as a reasonably faithful & straightforward adaptation of King's novel AND an allegory of sexual abuse AND critiques of the United States historical atrocities AND part-reality/ part-Jack's novel inspired by the Overlook etc etc. To me Kubrick was such a genius that he could keep all the narratives running with a few tweaks here and there. By the way; my opinion on the Kubrick/Moon landing hoax thing? I've studied it for years now & come to the conclusion that after 2001 A Space Odyssey Kubrick WAS approached in secret to mock up some moon photos and footage in case it looked like the Soviets might beat them to it, or in case there was a problem with recording etc. In the end, some of his stuff was used to enhance the real moon landing (which actually did occur). The grainy black and white footage & photos are real...The super crisp & clear stuff is fake. And he dropped some subtle hints about it in the movie. I also have a theory about Dr Strangelove- that General Ripper (portrayed in the film as an insane conspiracy theorist) is actually the only sane person in the film. The talk of fluoride & the threat of Communist/Nazi infiltrators was real. But I'll leave that for another time. Kubrick was very big on things he knew about- secret societies, conspiracies, hidden in plain sight etc. Scary genius.
actually, i think is posible that anyone that has experienced any tipe of abuse can have the shinning. jack broke dannys arm while drunk, and as a trauma copying mechanism, he developed the shinning.
it's interesting what you said. What if he uses the "sexual abuse" as a symbolism of abuse in general?? How the inocence of the ppl has been literally fcked. I didn't notice that Danny and his father have the same haircut. both are kind of long in almost the same shape. they're the same in some way as you said. Ullman=Kennedy could also mean all the atrocitys they made after Kennedy... Vietnam war (Kennedy was against) dictatorships they put in south America, lots of death ppl in all this... So Jack is Nixon in some way... plus the moonlanding lie (which I wouldn't doubt) and many other lies. the indian cementery could also respresent the guilt that is buried, but it's there. and what do you do what that heavy guilt?? you have to "kill it" and bury it deeper... or how do you make it disappear?? maybe Jack is trying to "kill" his own guilt and Jack respresents the american ppl in some way (not specifically men) I don't know... the creator is also a destructor; both are parts of the same coin. there're no creator without destructor. and he couldn't destroy his son and his wife or whatever they represented, but he could destroy himself after not knowing where to go in the laberynth... mmm... why?? I don't know... and btw the last picture is from 1921, 100 years ago. I wonder why he choose that year
There is a light switch next to the doors in every scene you just can’t see them because when they pan from different sides you can in some and can’t in others but they are there
In the book, Halloran is clearly able to Shine, as he has a conversation with Danny about it in his car. He tells Danny to project a thought into Halloran to which Danny’s shine is so strong, it incapacitates Halloran for a moment.
I think this might have occurred in editing. There are two freezer doors. I think they show him opening the one on the opposite side of the hallway facing the other way. But then show them entering and leaving the other one. Facing the other direction. So again you shown opening the first door. But showing leaving the second one. Both doors appear at 2:45
If you watch the first bit slower you will notice that the first door he opens is c4 , ,,when he opens the door and says " this is our walk in freezer" on exiting this door says c3 above so its not the same door , the hole corridor is visible for a few seconds , c3 , c4 are opposite each other , cuts were made because the original movie was to long ( warner brothers demand wiki ) . so it confused me till i saw the corridor in full veiw ..
Quite impressive to have noticed those details. I have still troubles to understand how is it useful the story but can’t deny what you showed us is really there. Thx
Hey man, another great video. I love your eye for detail. I asked before that if Halloran could shine, why didn't he see Jack waiting with the axe?!?! Shouldn't he have known to be better prepared or more cautious if he could shine?
Thanks man. Yes exactly. Hallorann should have known there was danger stepping back into The Overlook... he could have communicated with Danny telepathically, that would've been interesting... or Danny warning him about Jack with an axe... I'm sure there are people that believe Jack was able to shine too and perhaps stronger than Hallorann... but no matter which way it's dissected, Hallorann absolutely did not shine.
Well, didn't you say that Halloran could shine in Jack's "novel-world"? The axe-murder scene is probably from this novel-world if we are to agree with your thoughts, therefore Halloran would be able to shine and see it coming right? ;)
Martin Åhlin yeah, I thought about that too. Good point. The answer doesn't really matter. I love the movie and these videos and others I've seen on RUclips have allowed me to enjoy and watch it again with different eyes. I'm not saying any of the theories are right. I find it interesting and fun to think about and there's nothing wrong with that. The one fact I do know is that Kubrick didn't make mistakes or waste one second of film. So, why don't the walk-in freezer scenes line up? Can u explain it?
Yes, Hallorann could only shine in Jack's novel. So why couldn't he shine and see it coming? Or why didn't Danny shine and communicate the danger to Hallorann? I'd imagine the evil forces in the likes of Grady were psychically stronger than Hallorann helping Jack to counter Hallorann's attempt to shine and locate Danny. I mean it's Jack's novel... he wanted Hallorann to die, so be it. He dies.
Joel Schama Hey, Joel. What's up man? You and I commented before on a different video. I still don't see anything wrong with what this guy is doing. It's another point of view. A different idea from yours. My friend, there is nothing wrong with that! He's not hurting anyone or ripping anyone off by making his videos. Don't watch them if you don't like them. I hate to get political on you, but he has a right to his opinion. It's called Freedom of Speech. What you are doing reminds me of the kids at Berkeley violently protesting a speaker they don't like. It's not right!!! Someday you may have an idea you feel strongly about and want to share. How would you feel if someone told you that you aren't allowed to have that idea? That your idea is stupid? Is that the world you want to live in? I remember you being a smart guy from our conversation before. Don't go down that road, man. Be better than that. Let someone else have a different opinion than yours. Don't let it bother you, Joel. This is where in real life, I'd buy you a beer and we'd laugh the whole thing off. Please think about what I said.
Ahh, okay.. I see it now. It's kind of interesting, as the "real" light switch has a white copper pipe containing the wiring leading down from the ceiling (as you're probably dealing with walls made from concrete cinder blocks), but the fake light switch directly beside the freezer door latch seems to be literally stuck onto the wall.
I think the answer is use of mirrors, to suggest parallel times, because the light-switch is there to the left of the freezer door (C3) and the inversion of them being on the left/right of Halloran is explained by mirrors.
It's an inversion, they actually go in the door on the right hand side of the hallway and somehow we are led to believe come out on the left side of the hallway--that would be how the open kitchen is behind them when they go in and not when they come out. How they cross the hall is anybody's guess, but the time clock is behind the door when they come out
Years ago, I read a lot about the making of this film through Kubricks eyes. There was much said about him putting clues in certain scenes. Also that he used the movie to give his take on the holocust. I wish I could find that video! If the movie is a combination of Jacks reality & his book that gives a new take on the entire movie. So interesting.
I still think Mr. Hallowrin Scatman Crothers knew something about what they called The Shine in the movie because it is based on something that is Truth, The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad and His Top Student The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan taught us about it, and They called it " Radio in The Head " and The members of Nation Of Islam Call it " Radio in The Head " this Truth, and ok maybe in the movie it came from Jack's creative writing and I'm not disputing with that but it's still something based on Truth and Believe Mr. Hallowrin Scatman Crothers really knew something about it in real life, God Willing I would like to talk with Scatman Crothers in real life one-day because I think he really knew something about this Truth the We call "Radio in The Head" in The Nation.
this theory is amazing! are you able to somehow take all the fantasy/jacks creative writing idea scenes into a linear story (seperated from the 'real world' scenes) and vice versa??
Talita Dudley that would be interesting, but I think it would just be two halves of a story. The 'real world' scenes all in the first half and 'novel' scenes in the second. Someone should compile them though might yield something fascinating.
I don't find the KoolAid theory persistent but all the others are nothing but awesome. I need to watch this movie again because of your videos. Thank you. Also, do you have any explanation about the bear costume guy?
Congratulations! This part of the code is now cracked! Hats off to you sir. A couple of minor quibbles but this is excellent work in my opinion. Please see my recent vids for some more new info on The Shining.
The most interesting part about these kinds of videos is how little the people who make them actually know about making a film. You can conjure up hidden message theories about every film if you hang on to every "continuity error".
I honestly feel like you're making mountains out of mole hills. sometimes they have to reshoot scenes and can't get every detail exact, or don't even care about continuity errors.
Can you agree that the things that were important to the story were the things Kubrick made sure to get right? Like - the changing color of the typewriter, or the two girls who died were identified as 8 and 10, but the girls shown are twins. I think there is some stuff that doesn't have a direct meaning - but I do agree with this poster that much of the movie is stuff Jack was dreaming/imagining for his novel. The "mistakes" help guide us to which reality was being seen: The real world, or Jack's imagination.
@@BabyBoomerChannel The most obvious part is the corridor outside of the fridge. When they come out, it is a different place totally. And that was not a mistake. Cubrick didn't made "mistakes", especially such blatant ones. I think this video is accurate on many aspects.
Thanks, will check it out. Also, you say that there are two realms in The Shining. The Real World and Jack's Novel. So, how would you describe the realm of Jack's Novel? You say as "pure fiction". But how would these two realms blur then? How do they exist next to each other? The blurring of the two realms kind of implies that Jack's Novel cannot be entirely fiction.
Something About The Movies Jack's novel is Jack's mind. He creates the fiction and Stanley was showing how that realm and the Torrance's real world blended with one another using key symbols.
So if "Stanley was showing" then we "just" are watching a movie. We're distanced from the "blending magic". Distancing has more in common with reading a book than with watching a movie. I mean, aren't we so thrilled by The Shining (the movie) exactly because it involves us in some way, other than a book does?
The brilliance of Kubrick is that he can involve audiences and evoke many emotions on multiple planes and levels. That's why there's so many different interpretations, right? My observations are mine and hopefully by expressing them in the simplest form others can appreciate the film on a different level / plane / angle / emotion :)
Really love this little series....just pointing out some issues though 1. Thats a leg of lamb and most certainly not a "human foot" 2. If you watch the whole kitchen tour scene you will notice that the door that they enter the freezer is right next to some sort of office window......if you watch carefully they will pass the office window on their left as they are walking towards the camera....REASON FOR DIFFERENT DOOR sadly as someone who studies film...its just camera maneuverability...if they had them walk all the way to the freezer door...the camera man would be standing in the double door frame (not good technique) 2b. perhaps it was Kubricks way of saying, "are ya watching closely?" 3. other than those two things.....the light switch for the dry goods pantry is a very good point!!
I like your interpretation and find it extremely convincing, especially given the anomalies between the real Grady story and what we then see of it. I've read the Kubrick interview, posted here by your long-time tormentor Devin Devon. In it, Kubrick says he was genuinely interested in ESP and thought it might be real, and that what he liked about King's plot was that you could believe it was all Torrence's crazed imagining up to the point where the ghostly Delbert Grady lets him out of confinement. None of this, as far as I can tell, contradicts your interpretation. Kubrick's also on record saying he doesn't like to make things too clear for an audience. If his intention was as you say - the clever plot is Jack Torrence's - it seems most likely Kubrick would not have wanted to signpost it directly, let alone give the game away in interviews. It would have made the film far less enjoyable to watch for one thing. It has to feel real. Perhaps that's why you're getting pushback from some fans. it destroys a reality that mattered to them, horrific as it was. In which case, why might Kubrick have done it like this? Perhaps precisely as a kind of paean to the power of fiction. Perhaps, in another sense, it is real: in potential. Perhaps Jack Torrence was writing the book as a sort of warning to himself: _this is what I could become, at my worst_ - though I'd have to watch again to check whether there's any indication outside the frame of what you say is his own fiction that he was ever an alcoholic. But even if not, the potential for darkly destructive behaviour is part of the human condition, as indicated in the film by the references to the American settlers' genocide of Native Americans and possible to the Nazis. All of this, this celebration of the power of fiction - or, previously, myth, to which Kubrick also refers in that interview - seems in line with certain interpretations of 2001, in which the monolith is a sort of spur to human progress that operates by forcing people to reflect on themselves - a kind of black mirror, if you will, but without the TV series' dark import (funny how the monolith looks so much, before the fact, like a smart phone). And it's also in line with Kubrick's ongoing fascination with the human capacity for evil. Torrence, according to your view, would be depicting himself as the one who dooms himself by refusing to look deeper at life - refusing his capacity to shine - when actually, as the novelist depicting all this, he's the one truly facing his own darkness in order to master it. Dear me, I really didn't mean this post to be so long.
But yeah, perhaps that's the real 'shining': shining a light on one's own dark potential for evil. Perhaps, especially if we accept Rob... Agar (?)'s idea that the 2001 monolith is an upturned cinema screen, 'shining' for Kubrick is also, specifically, about how cinema literally operates by shining a light. But that's admittedly a stretch.
A lot of people are bashing these videos saying that this is all wrong. That is fine everyone is entitled to an opinion. Let us not forget though how much of a genius Stanley Kubrick was though. Every single fame, painting had to be exactly what he wanted so everything that Marten Go has pointed out will be correct at least to some extent. Personally I thoroughly enjoyed this Theory and I hope to see more if there are any more videos to do on this subject.
I'm with you. I mean, all things considered, Kubrick was so meticulous on movie making so it just makes sense that he subtly expands on the original Stephen King material. Some things might be a bit of a stretch but the real and fictional points of view are an awesome point of view.
I agree with you, Kubrick was extremely meticulous about his sets, props, wardrobes, and filming. He would have never allowed so many continuity errors unless they were intentionally put there.
If we assume this viewpoint, that Hallorann did not shine then we are left to reason why Jack would create the conversation about the shine between Hallorann and Danny. On this premise I would think it was to establish paranoia in Jack. Hallorann presented a leak in the controlled reality Jack was trying to preserve. The light switch would represent the portal between sanity and insanity. As long as the light switch exists, there is an ability to hide the madness, when the light switch is gone, it is as though a literal door to the mind has vanished and Jack’s insanity hasn’t the ability to turn back off anymore.
First one to notice that one of the sentences says: "or see things TAHT happened a long time ago?" instead of "or see things THAT happened a long time ago?"
the film is deliberately not the book; not about the shinning. that pissed king off big time. what do you think of the jay weidner (spelling?) documentary the moon landings etc?
i enjoyed your whole miniseries and think you are spot on. kubrick had an IQ some say as high as 200. so, no, standley did not just allow changes to occur; rather, he knew everything he was doing. funny thing is, he basically showed stephen king what truly intelligent, well written horror is. king could never be this in-depth, this intelligent in writing a horror novel.
Wait. The scene where they entered the freezer was shot at one angle (light switch on the right, opening with left arm) and then they leave the opposite way. The kitchen did not disappear. They walk into it. The camera is following them from the other angle. Actually, this who sequence is really disturbing because either Kubrick was trying to do a smooth scene and it failed, or someone rearranged things on Kubrick and no one ever told him. This series of scenes does not look like Kubrick trying to put double meaning into the movie, it looks like someone screwed up in editing and continuity.
It's not easy to see where they are in storage room. A divider difference from 4:52 to 4:22 where camera (or Danny standing) location suggests further down that food aisle.
Just finished all 4 of these they are great!! Would love if you did one on the significance of the shower curtain (in the apartment in Boulder) being Jacks reference point for the curtain in 237 (Jack’s fiction)
Doc holloran was in "It". He has the ability to shine and saved many people in the Black spot according to his writer stephen king who wrote the universe the characters are in. Your theory mught hold up in stanley kubricks universe though as this film was based very loosely on what the book was meant and interwritten to be.
Two things (1) as per Halloran and “it”, and his Shining ability, the movie is drastically different than the book “the shining” to the point Stephan King said that Kubrick ruined it. So maybe no continuity between the movie and “It”; (2) I never noticed Wendy’s and Jack’s interaction when Danny goes for Ice Cream. They are holding each other lovingly, which belies Jacks later rant about her when they “are in Jack’s book”
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
See the kool-aid at the Jonestown compound - definitive proof: ruclips.net/video/wALA2gOXj8U/видео.html
i read somewhere kubrick shot the shining in a roughly chronological sequence in relation to the narrative of the film/novel so i'm not sure about this reference.
Marten GO. The writer's book idea sequence that features Halloran talking with Danny. Halloran really pressures Danny to "think" about what he has shined regarding the Overlook hotel; he asks Danny twice - but why pressure Danny to that extent ? Does he think Danny might potentially have "shined" his own and his mother's murder; that Danny's "shining" skills are more powerful than his own ? Or does Halloran have a premonition of his own murder at Jack's hands ?
Kubrick wrote his own interpretation of the novel into this movie. To "shine " I believe means to be awake.
It was NOT Kool Aid at Jonestown.. it was Flavor Aid which would be very easy to use in the movie, if there was any intent to reference that. But we see Kool Aid, a different product.
If you watch the first bit slower you will notice that the first door he opens is c4 , ,,when he opens the door and says " this is our walk in freezer" on exiting this door says c3 above so its not the same door , the hole corridor is visible for a few seconds , c3 , c4 are opposite each other , cuts were made because the original movie was to long ( warner brothers demand wiki ) . so it confused me till i saw the corridor in full veiw ..
Your theory aside, I always wondered why Hallorann didn't foresee his own death? My thought was that he did, and offered himself up to the Overlook in order to save Danny and Wendy.
People who shine were somewhat like an oracle. Even oracles couldn't see or predict their own death.
In the book, he had shines about him possibly dying by going to Overlook to help Danny. But he went anyway.
It could be like the Wizard's Glasses in The Dark Tower. They show you something way over there to keep you from looking right in front of you.
Hallorhans ability to shine was nowhere near that of Danny's. It's Danny's shine that brings the hotel to "life" in a sense.
@catalyst_99 Completely false. Dick says in his scene with Danny "some people can see things that haven't happened yet..."
I've got to be honest...I've probably watched The Shining over 100 times, and I've never noticed most of your theories. However, they're the most plausible and make the most sense to me! Thank you for giving me a reason to go back and watch 100 more times!
movie is about which és´... knöt kehrteigäerce xD
pRööF? sämsüngh ^ ^
anöthörr prööF ? himmläir ^^. kubricks producer harlans uncle wörked För the naziehce ^ ^
kubrick cöppieD pölünsky ^^ ´´Löök at yörszellph ??xD
I was just re-watching these parts of the Blu-ray and I noticed an interesting detail. At 27:18 in the film, when they're entering the storeroom, Halloran says “now, this is the *story* room.” Not the _storeroom,_ but the _story_ room. I played it back at least ten times trying to convince myself I'd just misheard it or that it was a pronunciation idiosyncrasy. I just can't hear it as _storeroom,_ as there's a distinct extra syllable.
If somebody told me this, I'd think it sounded like BS; go listen for yourself before you tell me I'm wrong.
Yes, that is what I always hear, story room. It's actually common in old movie to have words used like that, usually there is a rude sexual, political or religious meaning to it.
That’s interesting.🤔👍
would conFirm my javvce theory. knot the thing outsight but the three men waging war in their storeece is the movies toppick v v
***Actor Scatman Crothers did a GREAT job as Dick Halloran.*** He was interviewed on the making of the film and was moved to tears expressing how he was deeply moved to act with such great people. He said, "Ill never forget it." I believe he shined! :)
But Dick Halloran appears in another King novel (It) and he DOES have the shinning ability in that one.
The books are not canon in this world.
Kubrick and King had very different ideas. The Shining was written by King, then shaped and delivered by Kubrick on film. It became Kubricks interpretation of Kings story... Kubrick gave it a life of its own. King wrote Dr. Sleep surrounding his own ideas based around what he intended. Remember King and Kubrick did not see eye to eye and King didn’t like what he had done to his book. So Dr. sleep was just King continuing where he had left off based on his story line. Kubrick’s story line ended in the Shining and kings continued on.
Your four videos should make it painfully obvious to anyone that The Shining is not a horror movie, but in fact a magic trick of a psychological play on the mind of the viewer.
Anyone who refuses to accept the truth of this production is under Kubrick’s spell so deeply, that you may as well say it worked.
Why does no one ever talk about that Halloran lives in Miami - and it would have been impossible for him to get back as fast as he did - because w his return was in Jack’s mind!!! Halloran’s appt has posters of two naked black woman on the ends of his bed - that again is in Jack’s mind.
There is NO WAY Kubrick would make these obvious continuity errors....
The box of Frosted Flakes out on the kitchen table does make it appear that Kubrick enjoyed moving these boxes around for some reason. As to the doors and light switches, I wish someone from the movie set would fill us in.
@@watermelonlalala i agree. i guess set design and others could do this stuff unknowingly? who knows though....
Also it was said Stanley Kubrick moved things randomly to give the eerie feeling that something wasn’t right
@@biteof8797 I used to have a paperback copy of Alan Watts' The Two Hands of God - and I think I remember in the first couple of pages he said furniture that moved around would be an example of evil. Which seemed bizarre thinking, but it is common in movies for things to appear and disappear as part of the plot. The old device where someone keeps throwing some cursed object away and it keeps reappearing in their house.
I like your theories, it is 2021, ever considering doubling down on them?
at first I called bullshit, but by the end of it I'm sufficiently spooked and convinced
The reason I'm buying the light switch theory is because it's too odd of a continuity error. Who says "You know what this scene needs? A light switch!" and once it's placed there why would anyone need to touch it until done filming.
Still convinced that yours is the best theory. Maybe it's not even a theory. Maybe you solved the puzzle. Hope you do it to other movies
I think a lot of people don't get it because we've become so used to very simple hollwood films always with the stereotypical happy ending.
I like your theories and I think you're right.
And I've seen other videos that describe the film in another way...also with supporting evidence and I think a lot of them are right too.
And there we see the genius of Kubrick. He was making multiple films with their own storylines and evidence for them layered one upon another.
The Shining isn't just one film but a few films...invisible to a casual viewing but if you're willing to look for it, you can find a new layer....and if you continue viewing it...other layers will reveal themselves. Kubrick didn't make simple films....and simple people will never see the layering.
Brilliantly astute observations throughout this channel series. Great work! I'm impressed :-)
“The Shining” aka “The Enlightening”. It should be mentioned that the true horror is all the Freudian slips in Jack’s story that give away his past sins. I am so grateful for this series of video. I have dealt with people calling me crazy for YEARS because I insisted something more was happening. Thank you.
The freezer door shot may not be intentionally deceptive OR a continuity error. It may just be part of a collage sequence that condenses Hallorann's kitchen tour with cuts that compliment each other.
I have been watching Shining film analyses for days, and this is my favorite and the most plausible theory! It explains name changes and scenery changes that mean nothing in other theories. A+
Search for "The Wendy Theory" by Rob Navarro here on yt. He has noticed many of the same and a few other of these "errors", but comes to a very different, but evenly intriguing theory. ;-)
@@foolishwatcher After dating a bonafide lunatic for a year, I like "The Wendy Theory" most! I never really thought someone could clinically be two different people until I dated this chick! An experience I wish on no one.. What's also kind of crazy is Shelly Duval's real life mental deterioration which kind of solidifies Rob Navarro's theory in some sad but ironic way.
Really interesting theory, you have a good eye for detail. I watched all 5 videos and I think you are onto something here. Kubrik was a cinematic genius, I wouldn't put it past him to envelope this movie with multiple layers. Good job!
I will say, there is a slight mix up here. The first light switch you go on about, that one does still exist later in writing sequences (it is visible in your own video, if you look when Jack is staggering by the open pantry, there's a shot of the door down the hall next to the chef's office, with the light switch @11:49. But you're spot on about the lack of light switch next to the foreground pantry door... which still supports your main theory just fine, it is just which light switch disappears is the issue), the thing that's actually crazy about the first door, and why the background is not the open kitchen when they exit (it's insane that more people haven't caught and delved into) is that they come out a door on the other side of the same hallway from the first door which was next to the chef's office with the windows. So, the real significance of going into the first door is that they come out the wrong place (and is why the door latch and the sides they stand on are mixed up) (there's always the chance this was a jump to a later part of the tour, but I don't think Kubrick would make such a simple mistake or a cheap jump cut). They immediately pass right by the first door (which they should have gone into/come out of) and the chef's office windows and the light switch is there @2:45. Actually, most of the non-disappearing light switches have plates fairly flush with the walls, like they are supposed to be there, the one that is actually a disappearing switch by the pantry is an electrical box that sticks out significantly from the wall, like it was an afterthought addition rather than original construction, the switches next to it also stick out, but not as far, though it has wires on the wall leading down to it, explaining why it is not flush with the wall, the one that disappears does not have this electrical trace and isn't obviously original to the wall, so I could see it being intended to stick out to us as a visual clue (in both existence and nonexistence).
Overall, I'm very impressed with most all of these observations, I'm still definitely looking at this movie in a new light. And the picture in Hallorann's house? That makes so much sense now. I always thought Kubrick meant something significant by including such a dramatic and visually loud example of a very ethnic and wild lifestyle background for Hallorann that someone, especially like Jack, whom didn't know him or even share his ethnic background, wouldn't be able to easily assume, so when we see how he really lives it has details beyond what one would guess. Which is why the outlandish real life decor differs from that of the novel version of Hallorann, because there's no way Jack could guess that some nice-seeming old-man-type like Hallorann would have a ridiculously large and outstanding sex symbol in such prominent display in his bedroom...
One question, @11:34, what is that red item to the left of "no smoking"? Any chance it is Kool-aid? I can't tell at this resolution, and I'm not home where I could get at the Blu-ray to check right now.
Kool-Aid may come and go here as creepy stuff comes and goes with the story version of Jack. He's getting dragged into the pantry because he was acting all possessed and crazy, Kool-Aid, the character wakes up as himself realizing he's getting locked into a pantry by his wife, no Kool-Aid. The wife starts talking about leaving and Jack is prompted to talk creepily--again--about how she can't leave, Kool-Aid comes into frame. Light switch is gone the whole time, though, because it is always the novel world around this point, creepy stuff actively happening or not.
Don't forget the scene where Wendy answers the phone to Jack's call from the Overlook. We first see the Kool-Aid there in the kitchen (3 cans). I highlighted the significance of it to challenge Danny had ever shined at all while talking to Tony in front of the bathroom mirror (seeing the bloody elevator and twins) for the first time. It was all Jack's brainstorming at the time (having just heard the fantastic story from Ullman).
Yes, that can is another can of Kool-Aid. You're the second person to spot it so far in these comments :)
I agree with your thoughts on Hallorann and the large sexualized paintings in his bedroom. It reminds me of a talk on telepathy by the great Jacque Fresco about an Indian man telepathic who swore he could read anyone's mind at anytime. Jacque, a skeptic, thinking outside of the box to what no average person would likely think of at a moment like that, thought of a little mouse at the zoo eating an entire elephant without changing its size and appearance. The first thing he said was, I see a death of a friend or loved one... Jacques being over 70 explained that naturally, a person of his age and the circle of old friends I have there would likely be a death... the telepathic was phishing for reactions. Leaning in with intrigue, eyes widening, etc. that's how these conmen do it he went on to say.
The first light switch is meant to be there (Torrance's real world and Jack's brainstorming / novel). Once the freezer door opened it left the real world because how else could it be explained that they entered one door on one side of the hall and reappeared from another door on the other side. So it had to be completely fiction (that whole dialog about knowing Danny's nickname is Doc). I also addressed this point to another person's comment on this issue, but honestly, it didn't click in to me until I examined it while addressing that comment. If I had known, I would have included it into the video. If that's not the smoking gun it was fiction then I guess portals just weren't impressive enough to wow Wendy, let alone Danny haha!
So when they come around the bend to the 2 light switches (some asked why would both be there if it's still Jack's brainstorming they're in) the transition back to the real world is signified by the key symbol light switch (without electrical wiring). It has to be there because the real Jack comes to the kitchen with Ullman and Bill to pick up Wendy to go the basement. And it's there when they all come--thus, when it disappears it should come to no surprise that it's no longer their real world.
So, to be clear, when they leave the freezer they're still in what you'd consider a brainstorming/novel world, but by the time they round the corner and get to the light switch they're done talking about shining-related (Doc) stuff and are in the real world?
In regards to your previous reply about Kool-Aid, I wasn't forgetting Wendy's phone call, I meant to narrow my analysis to just the pantry (and Dopey was more of an indication about most of what you bring up, the Kool-Aid would serve to keep up the suggestion it is all still a fictional take on events through the end of the phone call). Where I was struggling with the pantry is why would the Kool-Aid pop in and out of existence while we're in a part of the movie that is (entirely?) rooted in the novel? The light switch remains gone throughout, but Kool-Aid comes and goes. Would you say that any of it was real experience leaking in, or that Kool-Aid is used to indicate when the fictional world gets even less realistic?
Yes, to your first paragraph. Right when they enter the pantry it is back to their real world. When we see the kool-aid appear above Hallorann's head, it slips out of real world. The reappearance of the kool-aid when Jack is getting dragged into the pantry in Jack's novel even with the missing light switch, is to reinforce that it's not occurring in real world. Just as the dopey sticker with the first appearance of the 3 kool-aid cans.
Same goes with the scene where Grady unlocked the pantry door. The reappearance is just another reminder that something as fantastical as a ghost unlocking a heavy metal door should not be trusted / believed.
Indicating when the fictional world getting even less realistic is a good way to put it too. Is it coincidental that the kool-aid appears in some of the major scenes all involving the shining ability? Not to me.
Damn, you are really good at spoting details.
There's definitely some thing going on with any of these scenes where doors are flipped and light switches are present and not present. Kubrick was an obsessive stickler for details and it is not conceivable he could have blundered numerous times especially in the editing process. I'm going to watch it again fully as I haven't in a while to see if I can see these transitions from real world to dream to Jack's novel's visions.
Later in the movie he's mostly wearing a maroon jacket, except one scene where he's shown sitting at his typewriter typing away in like a green sweater or something like that.
Next scene he's back in the maroon jacket
Not to troll, but this idea was covered i Rob Agers first analysis on thie Shining all the way back in '07! I would call this video an expansion, rather than an examination of a new idea. Good work though and I take my hat off to anyone who pisses off the 'You are reading too much into it ' brigade!
“It's just the STORY of one man's family quietly going insane together.”-Stanley Kubrick. He said it himself.... we just though he meant his story. But it was the story Jack Torrence was putting together.
i like your take on this movie, i don't see it the same way, but appreciate it
Stepping back and looking at Kubrick's entire works only confirms his attention to detail and that nothing is a continuity error.
"mistakes on purpose"
the jury's out on that.
@Marten GO. I watched all your videos and most of it sounds plausible....BUT.... there are 2 crucial issues I miss in your theory:
1. The whole layout of the hotel is insane as doors, spaces, windows and walls apear on places that are impossible during the WHOLE movie. This happens both during the "novel/mind of Jack" as during the "real scenes". How do you explain that? E.g. you correctly show that Wendy, Danny and Hallorann enter the freezer differently, but you didn't show they exit the freezer from a door at the opposite from the door they entered. This not only happens during the "novel scenes", but also during the "real scenes". In the office of Ullman there is an impossible window, the doors next to room 237 leave no space for rooms, the windows in the appartment of the Torrences are impossible, stairways appear were rooms should be, etc. etc. These are no mistakes as the executive producer of The Shining, Jan Harlan, has stated that this was INTENTIONAL. “The interiors don’t make sense," he said in 2012. "Those huge corridors and ballrooms couldn’t fit inside. In fact, NOTHING MAKES SENSE.” Rember this regards the hotel ALL the time, even when the "real" Jack tours around. If so and done inentionally, this supports much more the theory that the hotel was really possessed/evil. This would explain why spaces do not make logic and why things change or (dis)appear. The hotel simply rearrenges its interior like the piece of wood, the loons painting, the cans of kool-aid and the pictures. This also means that The Shining is much more than just a psychologic or writing story, but is actually about the paranormal. The strongest proof for this are the words of Kubrick HIMSELF as he explained in an interview that he wanted people to fall into the trap of believing it is all a psychological happening, but turns out to be a real paranormal event later on in the movie.
2. Jack never changed into a bad guy only in "his novel", he already was a jerk since the very beginning! The talk between Wendy and the doctor reveals that Jack had been abusive to Danny way before. Also Jack has a very significant look when Ullman asks how his family would think about the job. He simply does not care. Again Kubrick HIMSELF pointed this little detail out. More little details give this away, like Jack reading a Playgirl in the lounge (usually not laying around in the lounge of a Hotel), peeking at the girls behind the back of his wife during the appartment tour and his cold and hoarse behaviour towards Wendy.
If the hotel is haunted as Kubrick suggested, than everything makes perfect sense. The weird spatial impossibilities, the changing interior and most of all the behaviour of the caracters. Due to his evil and unstable personality Jack is open to be possed by the spirit of the caretaker (that is why he is adressed as the caretaker later on). Also the haunted hotel projects your mind, its desires, fairs, etc. Remember Jacks party in the Golden room (his anxiety for loneliness) and his encounter in room 237 (his desire and guilty conscience for women others than Wendy). Wendy's fair of her son being abused by her husband is projected by the hotel in the sexual scene with the bear and older hotelguest later in the movie. Only Danny and Hallorann can't be touched by the hotel, that is ofcourse because they have the shining.
To the Count of Udny-u bring up the truly supernatural aspects of the Shining well .Its a possessed building,-tge mantra that 'it's not rea"ly haunted"is just silly. It is a lot of things in one.Love all these interpretations-thanks!Forgive spelling errors.
I totally buy this
It's a nice theory and I like how you have laid out your evidence. i know I have ( and this is for part 3) tried to look for that picture many times myself to see if it was there the whole time.
another part of the movie that supports this theory is that right after we see halloran on the plane after jack has his conversation with grady and has only been in the red coat since his nightmare at the typewriter, we see the real world one more time with jack at his typewriter in the same green button up he is wearing when he berates wendy for interrupting his writing. that scene ends with a superimposed scene of hallorans plane taking off and bringing us back into the novel that jack is writing
Obviously, the movie collapsed in 1980 without this present necessary interpretation.
You are on the money. Another YT identifies the book on Halloran's desk, in his office - as "The Red Book" - which is a book by Carl Jung, where he explores his dreams. You're the only person who's identified that The Shining is a movie about Jack writing his novel - I also believe there are child abuse themes in there as well. Kubrick was a huge fan of Jung. Full Metal Jacket also explored Jung, as did 2001, and maybe Clockwork Orange. There's Carl Jung theories all over The Shining - and you've uncovered that the horror story in the Shining is actually ALL from Jack's mind/dreams - maybe about his own past child abuses....maybe the novel helped him elevate those internal feelings to the surface - I contend the last scene is Jack's "Independence Day", because the ball in the photo happened on July 4. I think Kubrick may be pointing to things about S. King in this novel, but maybe not. I suspect King understood what Kubrick was suggesting - and that's why he hated/hates this movie. You've come the closest to figuring out this movie - so many things in it conflict with other substantive scenes - Jack is talking-to himself in mirrors to work out the dialog of his characters for his novel. Etc. Well done
Hello Marten GO.
Really appreciate you taking the time in making these The Shining theories, they definitely add more layers and new perspectives to what we initially know..
Was wondering if I could make a request? In this particular video theory you have a piece of ambient music in the background that gives a great atmosphere to your presentation - would it be at all possible if you could link the ambient track in to your description please? Would be greatly appreciated..
My mind is now totally fucked. Love the videos
I think these videos are great! They've given me an additional perspective on the story and a greater appreciation for future screenings. There isn't enough deep focus analysis on RUclips in contrast to all the overview / general review channels, in my opinion. Please make more videos like this, either about The Shining or other movies. And I dig the format too- no distractions caused by voices with maybe a little too much "personality" going on. However, I would suggest that you or a friend look over your scripts for grammar and spelling errors. Such mistakes can be a turn off for some viewers and looks unprofessional. Don't undermine your great ideas with an awkward execution.
As for the content of this particular video- although you've proven to my satisfaction that the placement of the food items is intentionally significant (very much in keeping with Kubrick's style) and that different realities are implied by prop changes, I do find it highly unlikely that "don't drink the Kool-Aid" was on his mind. That phrase would mean nothing to audiences of the time. I think it much more likely, if anything, that he was referencing the popular Tom Wolfe book from 1968, "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test"; which was a journalistic account of experimenting with psychedelic drugs and their attendant altered states. That may make for a stronger connection than the one you've suggested. And here's another detail your videos inspired me to notice- the Frosted Flakes. A children's cereal whose mascot has always been who? That's right- "TONY" the Tiger. I've little doubt this was to a similar purpose as those you've outlined.
Finally, I would advise that you pay little mind to your detractors. To behave as some of them have, there must be something upsetting them that's got nothing to do with you or your videos. Best to distance yourself from such drags. If they had just put forth their opposing arguments in a civil manner and left it at that, their points may have been worth exploring. As it is, they seem to be laboring under the misconception that these videos are making you wealthy; which is so off-base as to render their other contentions spurious by association.
I think I just had the rug lifted right under me. Just when I thought I understood the movie. I agree the video maker's content has given me a new perspective. I understand where he is coming from and perhaps explains the maze part. I thought surely Stanley could have not made such a huge error as to forget the maze in aerial shots of the hotel and put it down to logistics. The maze now from second thought must be a dream sequence.
I don’t know because when you said there were no light switches when Wendy drags Jack into the storing room I see the switch right to the right side of the door?!? I’m confused
When he opens the door the hinges are on the LEFT, as they walk through they have changed to the RIGHT and when he closes the door the hinges are still on the RIGHT...different door? and yes the light switches have moved too.
Interesting ideas. I think you make a few very big leaps, like the Halloran/Ullman ice cream theory, and the Halloran shadows at home theory, but I see that you have put a lot of thought into your work. Keep it up!
Your theories are really well thought out. I like them a lot!
Nerdy Bird Appreciate it 👌
Marten GO And I have a question. What about the scene when Jack talks to Danny in his bedroom? Is that real or in Jack's novel?
How is this question even a question? what does it change to anything? in both cases its a story told lol.
@@PreservedDragons Your theories are horseshit, there, now the statement is more accurate.
@@ronnieconroy2677 Jacks novel. There is a major continuity error. The bedside table between the bed and bathroom door is missing, and the bed is pushed closer to the doorway.
Great theory. It makes sense. I've watched the blu-ray and confirmed everything. Disappearing light switch, chairs and ornaments. Suddenly we slip into Jack's novel. The carpet changing direction when Danny's playing with his cars. Jack set his horror story 10 years ago, i.e. 1969, based on what Ullman told him about Charles Grady. Hence the Apollo 11 jumper. He just based the characters on his own family.
I love your work on the Shining. Great stuff. Wonderful analysis and attention to the details. I have one objection: You say the "don't drink the kool aid" thing didn't start until later in teh early 80's, and that Stanley was ahead of his time. I disagree. Back then we were ALL (my circle at least) making sick "don't drink teh kool aid" jokes, but then we were young and we though we were funny. And cool. And this started with us right away. Oh, we might have waited as much as a week for the shock to wear off, but that was it.
While I can't say I completely agree with your theory, it goes to show how much one can read into this movie and interpret as they please, which may have been Kubrick's intention all along. Remember folks, Kubrick never explained or talked about what his movies meant, rather, he always left it up to the viewer to decide for themselves. At the very least, your analysis does show what I've always believed; we'll be talking and debating about this and Kubrick's other films till the end of time.
He did talk about what his movies meant. For example you can hear him explain in interview the enigmatic ending to 2001 and exactly what it meant and what he was trying to do and why. He just said that it sounds silly when you put it into words.
If you ever read the book "IT", Dick Halloran makes a brief appearance in it in a flashback when he was in his 20s, and he had the shine back then.
*SPOILER* That is awesome! I loved Halloran in Shining and so glad they didn't kill him off like the movie. After Doctor Sleep I will move on to IT.
I read "IT" as a freshman in college in 1989, so, sadly, I don't remember that much detail. How does Halloran make his appearance?
He saves Mike's dad in the Black Spot fire.
I read the book and yes he does make an appearance in there
James T Kirk Cameron I’m so late considering when this comment was posted buuuut Doctor Sleep was awesome!
I'm very much enjoying your game of three dimensional chess with Stanley but I fear the shining will never fully yield its mysteries
mrtnpope I agree and it's fun to speculate and piss off the trolls 👍
Killing Moon Just take it at face value, then.
@@PreservedDragons You're living in a fantasy land if you think you're pissing off anyone, you're being laughed at is more like it.
Enjoying your theory and analysis. Gives me lots to ponder during my next viewing. Kubrick is known for using background details to set up sequences and indicate story details, so your analysis has plausibility.
One question on your videos. What is the music you have used in each of these Shining videos? I love ambient music and am not familiar with your selections here. If you could, I'd love to know artist and title. Excellent stuff!
What is the background music used in this video, please?
Brilliant analysis.I've learned things here that weren't pointed out in other documentaries on the subject.
This very exciting and highly plausible, that's why I think it's good work.
I just think that all the meaning of this movie is way simpler than we think
This is a very interesting theory. I never considered that some scenes could actually take place within Jack's novel. You raise a few pieces of evidence that definitely agree with your theory, such as Halloran knowing Danny's nickname and Jack being told that Halloran has a routine of eating ice cream with the kids that visit, however a lot of other points you make don't add up and seem to be reaching quite a bit.
My advice to you, if I may, would be to look for more evidence and - most importantly - try not to ignore any opposing evidence that might lead you to a slightly different theory.
Even if your original theory turns out to be incorrect, you are still brilliant at picking up visual clues and thinking outside the box, I look forward to more of your Shining analysis! Well done!
Bruce Wayne Thank you. I appreciate your advice. I believe my theory is independent yet works with all other theories out there. However, highlighting Hallorann not able to shine which means Danny couldn't too will certainly raise eyebrows. I'm aware of that and waiting for debunking videos. All in all it's good fun when there's discussion on classics 😉
i love these videos so much!
Cod4Snipes Thank you.
that's sad
It's not the same door. He's giving them a tour of the place, and they've gone through several doors. The first door shown -- with the spacious kitchen in the background -- is NOT the freezer.
Rip Greamer That's right. So coming out of a different door from the opposite wall they went in is possible right? Had to be from Jack's mind (creative writing process) we were seeing.
No, it’s called ellipsis, and it’s a common technique in film editing.
elementsofcinema.com/editing/ellipsis.html
Joel Schama When you're a RUclips partner you can make any videos you want and earn money IF they're good. I emplore you to. RUclips has all the tools, even free music to use in the background to give your videos that slick professional quality, not to mention the effects filters. You're a fool not to when they make it that easy for you.
Rip Greamer3, just before opening the door (with the spacious kitchen in the background), Hallorann says, "now here is our walk-in freezer". And if you still think it's not the freezer, then what is it?
ThemeParkMite1 and James G, if that's the same door and the door is on the left when camera is facing the kitchen, then it would have been on the right when the camera is facing away from the kitchen.
Does this theory also apply to the axe scene when Jack is chopping through one section of door paneling then the camera cuts to Dick approaching in snowcat, and then back to Jack again with both panels chopped through?
You have no concept of movie time do you numbnuts?
2:49 you can see the door they entered from the kitchen on the right hand side, The cold store is on the left of the corridor, your Theory might be right but I think maybe the contraints of Location shooting might have forced this cut, rather than adding a short sequence were they cross the corridor and open the cold store door.
Only a fool would believe that nonsense about Kubrick originating the "Don't drink the Kool-Aid" phrase, possibly the silliest element of your argument, but take it away and you're left with nothing.
If the scenes with Halloran, Wendy, and Danny in the cooler and the storage locker were taking place in Jack's mind, were the three of them ever even in the cooler and the storage locker, and as Jack had yet to see that part of the hotel, how did he even know those places existed for him to be imagining as a setting for his novel?
Are you aware that a fire destroyed all of the interior Overlook Hotel sets during production and they had to be completely re-built? This accounts for the films many errors in continuity, they are not signals that we are now entering Jacks mind.
In all of these videos, whenever something in the film contradicts your pet theory, you concoct some bogus explanation to write it off, such as "He (Ullman) likely told Jack on the way to pick up Wendy that Halloran always offers ice cream to the kids while adults go down to the basement to go over running the boiler, etc."... seriously, is that supposed to be a joke? Do you even believe that explanation yourself?
So Jack was creating that entire conversation at the table between Halloran and Danny in his head, all that expository dialogue and foreshadowing of future events (room 237), while at the same time learning from Ullman how to operate the boiler? Real knack for multi-tasking, Jack has.
When you see the picture on the wall in Halloran's room, it's the real world. When you don't see the picture, you're in Jack's novel. How do we know this? Because you say so. How about we don't see the picture anymore because, at that point, the camera has slowly zoomed in to a close up of Halloran for dramatic effect, emphasizing his emotional response to his vision of events at the hotel? This is standard film grammar.
Reading the comments from people who have watched your videos, it's amazing to me that so many are ready to unquestioningly accept this theory of yours, which, if any of them were capable of reasoning, they would see is riddled with flaws and inconsistencies. I realize you put a lot of time and effort into making these, but I'm sorry, this idea of yours just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Devin Devon I'm eagerly waiting for your debunking video to address my erroneous fallacies. Put it out there and let the viewers be the judge. Get to work.
Joel Schama Have you started on your video yet?
RUclips is full of videos made by people to explaining why they believe the earth is flat, or hollow, or both flat and hollow simultaneously. That you took the time to make these videos doesn't make them any more true than the countless other goofy theories surrounding the film. There is no need for me to make another video in order to question your assertions and point out the obvious flaws in your theory, I can easily do that using the keyboard on my laptop.
How about I make a video on Alain Resnais' "L'Année dernière à Marienbad" instead? I find it a much more mysterious and interesting film. It's also set in a hotel, you should check it out, I'm certain that Kubrick did.
Haha classic. Lumping my theory with flat and hollow earth to discredit it. Doesn't work that way. I can sit here and engage this game of yours being a keyboard warrior but I choose work and quality. The notion you won't put some effort into a good debunking video where others can watch, perhaps learn and discuss shows your nature as an antagonist to this video.
What if I hide all your comments? Who would know you debunked my theories. I'm urging you to make a decent debunking video so the YT public can see it and in turn you can make some pocket change. Will you get to work already?
the door halloran opened with his left hand is on the right side of the frame at 02:50. the open kitchen area is on the viewer's side of the frame. they cut out the first freezer. still, it might be intentional. when you watch the documentary on the making of the shining you get to see kubrick's pedantic side. it is highly unlikely he would just throw out a scene without it having any significance. anyway, what's the title of the music you used in this video? I love it and want to have it.
Man, I'm blown away by how upset people are getting over this video. It's a very interesting take on the movie. There's no way to know for sure if this is what Kubrick was intending, and by that same token, no way to know that this was not what he was intending. Why are folks getting so worked up?? This is my all time favorite movie, and I think it's really interesting to see different takes on what it could actually mean. Lighten the fuck up! The great part about this movie, is it will ultimately always leave us guessing.
I will admit, I personally find it hard to believe the bit about the kool-aid, but who knows? I sort of love the idea that most of the movie is really Jack's novel. He makes some good points.
As I understand it, "shining" represents the effects of sexual abuse - Everyone who can shine has been sexually abused. It represents horrible flashbacks, fears and the ability to see in other people that they have suffered what you have.
Many people appear to think that the hidden theme is sexual abuse, but I think it's deeper than that. I think the hidden sexual abuse is actually allegorical.
There is the theme of the cycle of abuse passing through generations - the picture at the end showing Jack having lived there before and having "killed" his family before, Jack being dead but "frozen" like he could unfreeze and do it again, Danny possibly being the next incarnation of Jack got the next generation, etc.
I think that the sexual abuse actually represents Kubrick's belief in the abuse that people have suffered over time - The blood filled hotel is built on an Indian burial ground, a woman, a black man and a young boy are all abused by a "middle age, middle class white guy" (a target and narrative of the modern left-wing extremists, as it happens), portraying victims f the abuse. The black guy tried to be a hero, the woman manages to be a hero, the boy manages to be both innocent and show his own dark side, as he develops into a potential murderer/abuser.
The "current" generation - of the time - of Americans that had just reportedly landed on the moon are Jack (interesting note - Ullman looks like President Kennedy, I'd say that that is intentional - JFK, the president, hiring a wreck of a man who would go on to commit these atrocities - is Kubric trying to convey a message there?) - the future generation of Americans, irreparably damaged by Jack, are Danny, Tony is the damage from the sexual abuse taking control of Danny, the butler and the alcohol are the same things from Jack's past affecting Jack. The butler and Lloyd are the communicative part of it, convincing him that he needs to do things that no normal, sane human being would do and the alcohol is the removal of his inhibitions, to prepare him to do it.
Jack in many ways is actually Danny - and Danny is Jack. They represent two generations of the same person/thing.
All work and no play make Jack a dull boy - is written millions of times repetitively through the pages if Jack's "work", his "novel", but he writes around three times, all on one page:
"All work and no play make Jack adult boy"
Jack is an angry abusive man-child, abusing a child.
Danny is Jack - The next generation of Americans are the American people, but they are also different people, they can inherit the good and bad traits of the previous generation and they have the potential to change - this can be seen in Danny as he takes on his Tony persona as part of dealing with abuse, and we see him being a sweet, innocent boy in other scenes, and we never actually see him commit an act of evil.
Additionally, this scene with the repeated line highlights that Jack is unable to create, so Jack has to destroy. This hearkens back to the Apollo 11 scene - while I don't follow the theory that Kubrik is trying to claim that he faked the moon landing, it could be that he doesn't believe that it happened and doesn't see it as an achievement, but as a lie told to the world, and therefore also uses it as a subliminal image for sexual abuse of Danny (lies passed on orally to the next generation) - he doesn't see Jack, the American people of his generation, as being able to create, only to destroy, never genuinely achieving anything, and so, when Jack's wife sees that he has been writing this crazy repetitive line, she realise that he is a force for destruction and that's when he reveals his true colours.
The maze in the film seems to represent, in my opinion at least, how lost people are in their own thoughts, minds and selfish desires, on one level, how lost people can become lost in the cycle of sexual and violent abuse (which Danny seems to escape from at the end of the film) and how lost the American people are in the view of Kubric, and again, it's interesting how Danny, as the figure representing the next generation, escapes this.
Danny, in this case, also then, represents how the next generation needs "mothering" in order to be protected from the current generation, whether from the state, or maybe a political ideology, or some external and benign force represented by his mother, who struggles to protect him.
Throughout the film, we see a lot of what appear to be ghosts through the "shining" ability. The ghosts/visions are just the memories haunting the victims - Jack sees people that serve him alcohol and advise him to kill, Danny sees horrific images that seem to both relate to playing and pain. The mum only sees the visions once she knows what is going on, because now she is damaged to. She sees images that relate to the sexual abuse of her son.
The ghost visions never affect the physical world, Jack strangled Danny, and Danny let Jack out of the food-storage because the evil has affected him - he had previously almost done his father's bidding ad killed his mum for him, reciting a reference to alcohol, which generally could be seen as innocent, but the mirror reflects it back as murder.
This is also reflected with Jack, he goes to the room where he had previously attacked his son, or the room that represents the attack on his son, and experiences immoral sexual pleasure that appears to be enjoyable, until he sees himself in the mirror and sees how rotten the act is, manifesting in the rotten flesh of the once-attractive woman he thinks he is with.
The last point that I've noticed that ties in with this interpretation, is that, at the most intense point of the film, the axe-and-bathroom scene, the use of the phrase "Here's Johnny!" highlight's Kubric's left leaning view and hate for all that comes from the capitalist world of corporate entertainment.
At the time that Jack is at his most dangerous, psychotic and harmful, he utilises a line from a TV host to comedic effect, terrifying the woman, who, to Kubric, appears to be symbol of oppressed purity, in some form or other. It appears that Kubric views mindless entertainment and comedy to be a destructive part of the corporate machine that holds up the western world and America, which he seems to detest, although ironically, by making movies for Hollywood, even if they contain esoteric messages against the system, he is still feeding the monster that he hates.
Perhaps he sees himself in Jack's wife as she offers to bring Jack sandwiches, which prompts Jack to get aggressive with her? There's a very real possibility, and therefore, I would presume that the benign and loving force that he has written the wife to represent, would be people like himself, people that feed the monster and help its prey escape, the mother protecting the child from the abusive father, the movie maker attempting to save the next generation from the perceived evils of the previous and current ones.
I agree with a lot of what you said, especially shining representing the ability to detect fellow abuse victims. I think this film isn't just one theme or message- there are several plausible theories on what is going on and I don't think we need to choose one over another. I believe many of them harmonize. So it's possible to view this as a reasonably faithful & straightforward adaptation of King's novel AND an allegory of sexual abuse AND critiques of the United States historical atrocities AND part-reality/ part-Jack's novel inspired by the Overlook etc etc. To me Kubrick was such a genius that he could keep all the narratives running with a few tweaks here and there.
By the way; my opinion on the Kubrick/Moon landing hoax thing? I've studied it for years now & come to the conclusion that after 2001 A Space Odyssey Kubrick WAS approached in secret to mock up some moon photos and footage in case it looked like the Soviets might beat them to it, or in case there was a problem with recording etc. In the end, some of his stuff was used to enhance the real moon landing (which actually did occur). The grainy black and white footage & photos are real...The super crisp & clear stuff is fake. And he dropped some subtle hints about it in the movie.
I also have a theory about Dr Strangelove- that General Ripper (portrayed in the film as an insane conspiracy theorist) is actually the only sane person in the film. The talk of fluoride & the threat of Communist/Nazi infiltrators was real. But I'll leave that for another time. Kubrick was very big on things he knew about- secret societies, conspiracies, hidden in plain sight etc. Scary genius.
actually, i think is posible that anyone that has experienced any tipe of abuse can have the shinning. jack broke dannys arm while drunk, and as a trauma copying mechanism, he developed the shinning.
@@floral2743 Don't you mean "shining"?
@@mjt1517 "its the shinning if you don't want to get sued "
it's interesting what you said.
What if he uses the "sexual abuse" as a symbolism of abuse in general?? How the inocence of the ppl has been literally fcked.
I didn't notice that Danny and his father have the same haircut.
both are kind of long in almost the same shape. they're the same in some way as you said.
Ullman=Kennedy could also mean all the atrocitys they made after Kennedy... Vietnam war (Kennedy was against) dictatorships they put in south America, lots of death ppl in all this... So Jack is Nixon in some way... plus the moonlanding lie (which I wouldn't doubt) and many other lies.
the indian cementery could also respresent the guilt that is buried, but it's there. and what do you do what that heavy guilt?? you have to "kill it" and bury it deeper... or how do you make it disappear?? maybe Jack is trying to "kill" his own guilt and Jack respresents the american ppl in some way (not specifically men) I don't know...
the creator is also a destructor; both are parts of the same coin. there're no creator without destructor.
and he couldn't destroy his son and his wife or whatever they represented, but he could destroy himself after not knowing where to go in the laberynth... mmm... why??
I don't know... and btw the last picture is from 1921, 100 years ago.
I wonder why he choose that year
There is a light switch next to the doors in every scene you just can’t see them because when they pan from different sides you can in some and can’t in others but they are there
"how would you like some I SCREAM boss?"
AND HE CHOOSES CHOCOLATE *mind blown*
@@MayaState yeah...Halloran's skin color made him crave chocolate.
Ann Onymous - Halloran called him Doc....have you forgotten that already?
@@naturesfinest4871 CHALK. Oh. LATE.
@@QuizmasterLaw i like it too
In the book, Halloran is clearly able to Shine, as he has a conversation with Danny about it in his car. He tells Danny to project a thought into Halloran to which Danny’s shine is so strong, it incapacitates Halloran for a moment.
I think this might have occurred in editing. There are two freezer doors. I think they show him opening the one on the opposite side of the hallway facing the other way. But then show them entering and leaving the other one. Facing the other direction. So again you shown opening the first door. But showing leaving the second one. Both doors appear at 2:45
If you watch the first bit slower you will notice that the first door he opens is c4 , ,,when he opens the door and says " this is our walk in freezer" on exiting this door says c3 above so its not the same door , the hole corridor is visible for a few seconds , c3 , c4 are opposite each other , cuts were made because the original movie was to long ( warner brothers demand wiki ) . so it confused me till i saw the corridor in full veiw ..
Please, what is the music?
Quite impressive to have noticed those details. I have still troubles to understand how is it useful the story but can’t deny what you showed us is really there. Thx
Who composed the ambient music? It's nice.
Hey man, another great video. I love your eye for detail. I asked before that if Halloran could shine, why didn't he see Jack waiting with the axe?!?! Shouldn't he have known to be better prepared or more cautious if he could shine?
Thanks man. Yes exactly. Hallorann should have known there was danger stepping back into The Overlook... he could have communicated with Danny telepathically, that would've been interesting... or Danny warning him about Jack with an axe... I'm sure there are people that believe Jack was able to shine too and perhaps stronger than Hallorann... but no matter which way it's dissected, Hallorann absolutely did not shine.
Well, didn't you say that Halloran could shine in Jack's "novel-world"? The axe-murder scene is probably from this novel-world if we are to agree with your thoughts, therefore Halloran would be able to shine and see it coming right? ;)
Martin Åhlin yeah, I thought about that too. Good point. The answer doesn't really matter. I love the movie and these videos and others I've seen on RUclips have allowed me to enjoy and watch it again with different eyes. I'm not saying any of the theories are right. I find it interesting and fun to think about and there's nothing wrong with that. The one fact I do know is that Kubrick didn't make mistakes or waste one second of film. So, why don't the walk-in freezer scenes line up? Can u explain it?
Yes, Hallorann could only shine in Jack's novel. So why couldn't he shine and see it coming? Or why didn't Danny shine and communicate the danger to Hallorann? I'd imagine the evil forces in the likes of Grady were psychically stronger than Hallorann helping Jack to counter Hallorann's attempt to shine and locate Danny. I mean it's Jack's novel... he wanted Hallorann to die, so be it. He dies.
Where is the light switch at 1:06
Light switches are still present. Even when you say they arent. Either blocked by person, etc.. I dnt understand this theory at all
11:24 um. what is the switch directly to Wendy's left then? You know, the one that is to the right of the door, otherwise known as the "light switch"?
You beat me to the punch 8 minutes ago, I thought the same exact thing... ;)
Monroville go back to 3:34. there's 2 switches. the one next to the door is missing. that's the pivotal key symbol.
Joel Schama Good if that's how you think it works ☺
Joel Schama Hey, Joel. What's up man? You and I commented before on a different video. I still don't see anything wrong with what this guy is doing. It's another point of view. A different idea from yours. My friend, there is nothing wrong with that! He's not hurting anyone or ripping anyone off by making his videos. Don't watch them if you don't like them.
I hate to get political on you, but he has a right to his opinion. It's called Freedom of Speech. What you are doing reminds me of the kids at Berkeley violently protesting a speaker they don't like. It's not right!!! Someday you may have an idea you feel strongly about and want to share. How would you feel if someone told you that you aren't allowed to have that idea? That your idea is stupid? Is that the world you want to live in?
I remember you being a smart guy from our conversation before. Don't go down that road, man. Be better than that. Let someone else have a different opinion than yours. Don't let it bother you, Joel.
This is where in real life, I'd buy you a beer and we'd laugh the whole thing off. Please think about what I said.
Ahh, okay.. I see it now. It's kind of interesting, as the "real" light switch has a white copper pipe containing the wiring leading down from the ceiling (as you're probably dealing with walls made from concrete cinder blocks), but the fake light switch directly beside the freezer door latch seems to be literally stuck onto the wall.
I think the answer is use of mirrors, to suggest parallel times, because the light-switch is there to the left of the freezer door (C3) and the inversion of them being on the left/right of Halloran is explained by mirrors.
It's an inversion, they actually go in the door on the right hand side of the hallway and somehow we are led to believe come out on the left side of the hallway--that would be how the open kitchen is behind them when they go in and not when they come out. How they cross the hall is anybody's guess, but the time clock is behind the door when they come out
Years ago, I read a lot about the making of this film through Kubricks eyes. There was much said about him putting clues in certain scenes. Also that he used the movie to give his take on the holocust. I wish I could find that video!
If the movie is a combination of Jacks reality & his book that gives a new take on the entire movie. So interesting.
I just realized jack was trapped in the"storey room,....and with food! He was eating from a can..?.
I never noticed it before but what is with the pink make up or spots under Danny's eyes?
Keep up the good work man
`love this music... what is it?
I still think Mr. Hallowrin Scatman Crothers knew something about what they called The Shine in the movie because it is based on something that is Truth, The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad and His Top Student The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan taught us about it, and They called it " Radio in The Head " and The members of Nation Of Islam Call it " Radio in The Head " this Truth, and ok maybe in the movie it came from Jack's creative writing and I'm not disputing with that but it's still something based on Truth and Believe Mr. Hallowrin Scatman Crothers really knew something about it in real life, God Willing I would like to talk with Scatman Crothers in real life one-day because I think he really knew something about this Truth the We call "Radio in The Head" in The Nation.
Yes Mr. Hallowrin Did have "The Shine" to him, I think it's an insult to say he didn't.
this theory is amazing! are you able to somehow take all the fantasy/jacks creative writing idea scenes into a linear story (seperated from the 'real world' scenes) and vice versa??
Talita Dudley that would be interesting, but I think it would just be two halves of a story. The 'real world' scenes all in the first half and 'novel' scenes in the second. Someone should compile them though might yield something fascinating.
This travel was amazing, awesome work!
I don't find the KoolAid theory persistent but all the others are nothing but awesome. I need to watch this movie again because of your videos. Thank you. Also, do you have any explanation about the bear costume guy?
Congratulations! This part of the code is now cracked! Hats off to you sir. A couple of minor quibbles but this is excellent work in my opinion. Please see my recent vids for some more new info on The Shining.
The most interesting part about these kinds of videos is how little the people who make them actually know about making a film. You can conjure up hidden message theories about every film if you hang on to every "continuity error".
What is the background track you used on this video? I'm liking it.
I honestly feel like you're making mountains out of mole hills. sometimes they have to reshoot scenes and can't get every detail exact, or don't even care about continuity errors.
NOT Stanley Kubrick. He had a genius level IQ and OBSESSED over EVERY background detail in EVERY shot of EVERY movie he ever made.
Can you agree that the things that were important to the story were the things Kubrick made sure to get right? Like - the changing color of the typewriter, or the two girls who died were identified as 8 and 10, but the girls shown are twins. I think there is some stuff that doesn't have a direct meaning - but I do agree with this poster that much of the movie is stuff Jack was dreaming/imagining for his novel. The "mistakes" help guide us to which reality was being seen: The real world, or Jack's imagination.
@@BabyBoomerChannel The most obvious part is the corridor outside of the fridge. When they come out, it is a different place totally. And that was not a mistake. Cubrick didn't made "mistakes", especially such blatant ones. I think this video is accurate on many aspects.
Nonsense. Kubrick was greater than that. Stop underestimation artists! lol
Exciting observations and theory, sir! So, if you could compare The Shining with "our world", what would be "our world's" equivalent of Jack's Novel?
Something About The Movies the closest I can think of is the 1976 underrated horror classic, Burnt Offerings.
Thanks, will check it out. Also, you say that there are two realms in The Shining. The Real World and Jack's Novel. So, how would you describe the realm of Jack's Novel? You say as "pure fiction". But how would these two realms blur then? How do they exist next to each other? The blurring of the two realms kind of implies that Jack's Novel cannot be entirely fiction.
Something About The Movies Jack's novel is Jack's mind. He creates the fiction and Stanley was showing how that realm and the Torrance's real world blended with one another using key symbols.
So if "Stanley was showing" then we "just" are watching a movie. We're distanced from the "blending magic". Distancing has more in common with reading a book than with watching a movie. I mean, aren't we so thrilled by The Shining (the movie) exactly because it involves us in some way, other than a book does?
The brilliance of Kubrick is that he can involve audiences and evoke many emotions on multiple planes and levels. That's why there's so many different interpretations, right? My observations are mine and hopefully by expressing them in the simplest form others can appreciate the film on a different level / plane / angle / emotion :)
I just like this film. I can shut the sound off and watch this film just for the increrdible backlighting and every scene is a picture.
Really love this little series....just pointing out some issues though
1. Thats a leg of lamb and most certainly not a "human foot"
2. If you watch the whole kitchen tour scene you will notice that the door that they enter the freezer is right next to some sort of office window......if you watch carefully they will pass the office window on their left as they are walking towards the camera....REASON FOR DIFFERENT DOOR sadly as someone who studies film...its just camera maneuverability...if they had them walk all the way to the freezer door...the camera man would be standing in the double door frame (not good technique)
2b. perhaps it was Kubricks way of saying, "are ya watching closely?"
3. other than those two things.....the light switch for the dry goods pantry is a very good point!!
I like your interpretation and find it extremely convincing, especially given the anomalies between the real Grady story and what we then see of it.
I've read the Kubrick interview, posted here by your long-time tormentor Devin Devon. In it, Kubrick says he was genuinely interested in ESP and thought it might be real, and that what he liked about King's plot was that you could believe it was all Torrence's crazed imagining up to the point where the ghostly Delbert Grady lets him out of confinement.
None of this, as far as I can tell, contradicts your interpretation. Kubrick's also on record saying he doesn't like to make things too clear for an audience. If his intention was as you say - the clever plot is Jack Torrence's - it seems most likely Kubrick would not have wanted to signpost it directly, let alone give the game away in interviews. It would have made the film far less enjoyable to watch for one thing. It has to feel real. Perhaps that's why you're getting pushback from some fans. it destroys a reality that mattered to them, horrific as it was. In which case, why might Kubrick have done it like this?
Perhaps precisely as a kind of paean to the power of fiction. Perhaps, in another sense, it is real: in potential. Perhaps Jack Torrence was writing the book as a sort of warning to himself: _this is what I could become, at my worst_ - though I'd have to watch again to check whether there's any indication outside the frame of what you say is his own fiction that he was ever an alcoholic. But even if not, the potential for darkly destructive behaviour is part of the human condition, as indicated in the film by the references to the American settlers' genocide of Native Americans and possible to the Nazis.
All of this, this celebration of the power of fiction - or, previously, myth, to which Kubrick also refers in that interview - seems in line with certain interpretations of 2001, in which the monolith is a sort of spur to human progress that operates by forcing people to reflect on themselves - a kind of black mirror, if you will, but without the TV series' dark import (funny how the monolith looks so much, before the fact, like a smart phone). And it's also in line with Kubrick's ongoing fascination with the human capacity for evil. Torrence, according to your view, would be depicting himself as the one who dooms himself by refusing to look deeper at life - refusing his capacity to shine - when actually, as the novelist depicting all this, he's the one truly facing his own darkness in order to master it.
Dear me, I really didn't mean this post to be so long.
But yeah, perhaps that's the real 'shining': shining a light on one's own dark potential for evil.
Perhaps, especially if we accept Rob... Agar (?)'s idea that the 2001 monolith is an upturned cinema screen, 'shining' for Kubrick is also, specifically, about how cinema literally operates by shining a light. But that's admittedly a stretch.
What I just realized is Wendy didn't start seeing ghost until after she discovered holranns dead body,it's like he past his gift unto her.
A lot of people are bashing these videos saying that this is all wrong. That is fine everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Let us not forget though how much of a genius Stanley Kubrick was though. Every single fame, painting had to be exactly what he wanted so everything that Marten Go has pointed out will be correct at least to some extent. Personally I thoroughly enjoyed this Theory and I hope to see more if there are any more videos to do on this subject.
I'm with you. I mean, all things considered, Kubrick was so meticulous on movie making so it just makes sense that he subtly expands on the original Stephen King material. Some things might be a bit of a stretch but the real and fictional points of view are an awesome point of view.
I agree with you, Kubrick was extremely meticulous about his sets, props, wardrobes, and filming. He would have never allowed so many continuity errors unless they were intentionally put there.
The Golden Rey box at 5:39 is an odd symbol too.
If we assume this viewpoint, that Hallorann did not shine then we are left to reason why Jack would create the conversation about the shine between Hallorann and Danny. On this premise I would think it was to establish paranoia in Jack. Hallorann presented a leak in the controlled reality Jack was trying to preserve. The light switch would represent the portal between sanity and insanity. As long as the light switch exists, there is an ability to hide the madness, when the light switch is gone, it is as though a literal door to the mind has vanished and Jack’s insanity hasn’t the ability to turn back off anymore.
Kubrick uses the same trick with changing the view to show us that we are in someones head right now in Eyes Wide Shut with Bill at the rainbow shop
First one to notice that one of the sentences says: "or see things TAHT happened a long time ago?" instead of "or see things THAT happened a long time ago?"
l i f e Good catch!
No problemo. Been watching a lot of "The Shining" videos since I am currently reading the book.
**P e a c e
l i f e Many King loyalists will bash Kubrick's version without understanding why he did what he did. Glad you're open minded about it.
Gotta be. I also like reading a book and then watching the movie, or vice-versa. :)
Joel Schama here's a cookie 😊
the film is deliberately not the book; not about the shinning. that pissed king off big time.
what do you think of the jay weidner (spelling?) documentary the moon landings etc?
yeah man yur shining theory is plausible and im fucking loving it ...plz keep it up great vids
Thanks man. Glad you like it!
i enjoyed your whole miniseries and think you are spot on. kubrick had an IQ some say as high as 200. so, no, standley did not just allow changes to occur; rather, he knew everything he was doing. funny thing is, he basically showed stephen king what truly intelligent, well written horror is. king could never be this in-depth, this intelligent in writing a horror novel.
If Danny doesn't shine either does that mean it was pure luck that he got out that maze?
Wait. The scene where they entered the freezer was shot at one angle (light switch on the right, opening with left arm) and then they leave the opposite way. The kitchen did not disappear. They walk into it. The camera is following them from the other angle. Actually, this who sequence is really disturbing because either Kubrick was trying to do a smooth scene and it failed, or someone rearranged things on Kubrick and no one ever told him. This series of scenes does not look like Kubrick trying to put double meaning into the movie, it looks like someone screwed up in editing and continuity.
The Kool aid by the tang does not disappear from above hallaron’s head in the real world scene with Wendy. It is just hard to see.
It's not easy to see where they are in storage room. A divider difference from 4:52 to 4:22 where camera (or Danny standing) location suggests further down that food aisle.
The Kool Aid theory is moot. The Jonestown massacre used Flavoraid....not Kool Aid
Just finished all 4 of these they are great!! Would love if you did one on the significance of the shower curtain (in the apartment in Boulder) being Jacks reference point for the curtain in 237 (Jack’s fiction)
Doc holloran was in "It". He has the ability to shine and saved many people in the Black spot according to his writer stephen king who wrote the universe the characters are in. Your theory mught hold up in stanley kubricks universe though as this film was based very loosely on what the book was meant and interwritten to be.
Two things (1) as per Halloran and “it”, and his Shining ability, the movie is drastically different than the book “the shining” to the point Stephan King said that Kubrick ruined it. So maybe no continuity between the movie and “It”; (2) I never noticed Wendy’s and Jack’s interaction when Danny goes for Ice Cream. They are holding each other lovingly, which belies Jacks later rant about her when they “are in Jack’s book”