Just discovered you. Absolutely brilliant vid, both production and content! I especially liked the, “ Pardon me, coming through” bit! Thank you for dispelling the idea that Kubrick could make no mistakes. His subtlety and brilliance get used as a magic wand to cover over rough edges of these theories. The man was good but everybody goofs up now and then. New subscriber
This is a pleasant surprise. Thanks, CPF. I've never found the film confusing. Kubrick gave a one-sentence description that elegantly sums the narrative, if not the actual film itself: "Just a story about a family going quietly insane together" (Paraphrased)
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Right. But "theories" propagate like lice. Then people start "scratching that itch" and join the Torrance family in their madness. Your takes are always grounded and justified in and by the text. It's appreciated. Edit: it's also entertaining af. So entertaining! Thanks man.
He really said "quietly insane" and "together"? I realize he did not want to spoil his movie, but that is not a conventional description either. A conventional description would have been "A story about a family isolated from the world with insanity creeping in."
@@wrathofatlantis2316 I believe he worded it like that, but I can't find the interview or source to support my recollection. It stuck with me when I read it, for whatever that's worth.
The best thing about Kubrick is that EVERY theory is right. He thought about em all! "The truth of a thing is the feel of it, and not the think of it." - Stanley Kubrick
My favourite bit by Jay Weidner is where he says 'It was scary but I wouldn't describe The Shining as a wave of terror' then in the next sentence says 'As i watched the film a wave of terror came over me'
When it comes to the film, I think Dick Halloran's explanation is really the best summary of what is happening. A lot of bad things have happened at the hotel, and there are psychic echoes of all that, like the smell of burnt toast long after the toast is gone. Jack and Danny are both psychics ("shining"), so they sense those echoes, and interpret them in their own ways. Jack is mentally ill and guilt-ridden and can't really deal with all that, so the "echoes" end up driving him crazy. Danny, who is just a child, senses the echoes but isn't really influenced by them. In the end, there are no ghosts. The hotel is just a place that is saturated by psychic echoes, and two psychically sensitive individuals who don't understand their abilities end up getting exposed to them for a long time.
I interpret that Danny being child, felt the influences of the hotel but rejected them and was able survive for that reason. The temptations of lust, glory, luxury did not tempt the young boy same way as they did his father who wanted to be a successful writer, felt he was owed a certain dream life of status and he would prefer to erase his mistakes versus own up to them. Jack as a man and representation of a history of manking who doubles down on a victim mentality, birthrights and oppression Edit: forgot to mention danny's imaginary friend tony is a coping mechanism or power that helps him see the past/future, this helped him too obvi
Yep. Halloran was a key exposition where the magician (director) tells us what's really happening. All the "ghosts" are actually projections from Danny to Jack and vice versa. Remember, all the characters we see are those that only Jack knows (from the interview). The only way they could exist is if they were real ghosts, or Jack was terrorizing Danny in the psychic world like he was ab-using him in the real world. Jack's terrors are projections from Danny. Jack's conspiratorial "ghosts" are projections from himself -- his madness. Notice how he's not surprised at all when the bartender shows up. He has seen/done this image trick many times. And the hag in 237? Danny was spacing out -- projecting a psychic attack on Jack. That's why she was a surprise to him. He's used to seeing his own projections, not someone else's. Wendy is shocked to see the images she sees. We know that she sees characters that Jack sees -- therefore, she's being terrorized by Jack and she's not used to seeing "ghosts". The whole movie is Jack terrorizing Danny and ab-using him while Danny fights back psychically. Danny's final run through the maze at the end is a part of his final real-world battle. Jack knows the maze -- we know he knows because he looks down on the map. We also know he knows how to get inside the minds of others. Why was he not able to find Danny at the end? Because Danny was able to rewrite the maze psychically overriding Jacks Shine powers. I don't think all the continuity errors are accidental. Some were so blatant that jobs would've been lost over them. Entire pieces of furniture disappearing and reappearing in the same sequence? On a sound-stage set on a major picture? Nope. There's an unprofessional level of them in the Shining. Some could've been accidental -- small items that actors might interact with -- a glass or small items on a table. When large pieces vanish and reappear in the background in the same scene from the same angle, that's too blatant to have been accidental. Script supervisors take photos of the sets so they know exactly what was in the BG of every shot. The same with the impossible architecture. The architecture and various cuts that play with it are well known by everyone who has to build those sets and shoot on them. Architecture in a movie is only haphazard for small productions because on large ones, accidents with set continutity are firing offenses. There are no accidents with set architecture. Entire departments exist to prevent that. When you see very huge discrepancies (walls that could never have windows), someone would've had a precise architectural drawing of the set floorplan and would've told the director long before the set was built. Kubrick was the most detail oriented and longer-term planner than any director I've ever heard of. He also began as a photographer. Everything we seen in a frame of that film was intended to be there by the man himself. As for our "analist" in this video, he seems to think Kubrick made movies like everyone else and applies the same standards of the typical Hollywood assembly-line process to a Kubrick film. This is either intellectual dishonesty or incompetence. As for all those legendary takes of Kubrick, that was always one of the things that caused me not to think of him as a genius. Only a director who's ignorant of his own film would do such a thing. Or a director that always chose the wrong actors. Either of those indicates the opposite of genius. To hear that the dozens of takes story was a tale makes me suddenly find my respect for Kubrick again on that front. Criticisms on critics can be good but they make for bad film analysis. It's basically a glorified troll. For my viewing pleasure, I don't care how many other people are wrong, I just want to hear some angle that nobody else can give me. I can judge if some other critic has gone too far -- and there are plenty. Even when some critics are 100% on base with Kubrick, their attempts to analyze other directors in the same fashion is off base. The best analyst on the Shining uses the same logic on some other films where it's not applicable. Those films didn't have the time, money, or directorial involvement for such subtlety. The current creator spends all his time besmirching the criticisms of others and none on the film itself. Sure, he can do VFX -- and it's well done for what it is -- but would I listen to more than a few minutes if there were no visuals? Nope.
If I were a conspiracy guy, this is the one I would endorse! Stanley would not leave something as consequential as landing on the moon to a novice! He would be up there with proper crew in tow with space suits!
Please don't stop making these videos. I've been following you for years and the quality and depth of your work is amazing. I never click faster on a video than when I see you have uploaded one! Thank you for your effort!
There's something so presumptuous about saying "my theory explains the shining" rather than "here is my interpretation of the shining." If people said the latter, they couldn't argue that their interpretation was "more better er" than anyone else's. Nor could they pretend that, by occupying what they imagine to be the mindset of the director of a great piece of art, that they are as smart as that director who they idolize, maybe smarter.
Just do what the rich people in Barry Lyndon does, the opposite of the Law of Jante, so instead of living by "Don't think YOU'RE better than others", rather go by "I'M not gonna be worse than others."
The best thing about Kubrick is that EVERY theory is right. He thought about em all! "The truth of a thing is the feel of it, and not the think of it." - Stanley Kubrick
Well, this is why people bet on things, and go further than that. The point of any 2nd (or 3rd) theory is, presumably, to _make more and better sense than the 1st theory did._ People seem to forget this quite often, however.
@@runarvollanWhenever people roll out various Kubrick theories, I think about a particular scene from the 1986 movie,Back to School. (It has a great cast including Rodney Dangerfield, Sam Kinnison and Robert Downey Jr.) Dangerfield plays a wealthy businessman who enrolls as a freshman at the University his son attends in an attempt to improve the relationship. The scene in question is a phone call between Dangerfield’s character and Kurt Vonnegut. Rather than making an effort to complete an assigned paper on the author’s writings, he has paid Vonnegut to write the paper for him. He tells Vonnegut that he will be stopping payment on the check because according to the professor, Dangerfield doesn’t understand Kurt Vonnegut at all. There’s a ton of hidden messages in Kubrick’s movies that he put there intentionally, but I believe there are plenty of things that he was completely unaware of on a conscious level. One thing for certain, his films are so complex, that I’m always discovering something new.
Reading the title of this video i thought "what else is there to explain, i thought the movie was pretty clear". Then i clicked anyway because i like this channel. Glad i clicked, very entertaining and informative.
Thanks for the production value placing yourself there. Very snappy work. I appreciated all of the effort. I came for the Twin Peaks, stayed for the Overlook.
I've been balls deep in lengthy Shining video essays over the past few days, and this is a wonderful way to cap it all off. A thoroughly excellent video, with some incredible filmmaking thrown in as a bonus. Will deffo check out the rest of this series!
Oh thank God for you! I'm sick to the back teeth of all these outre explanations for The Shining. Well done sir. Yours sincerely, a video essay maker for Eureka Masters Of Cinema.
Really well made video. But, I do disagree woth you on most things. I think you underestimate the kind of director Kubrick was. His films are always made to be dissected. He's always been a master of details, so i believe the details in his films are supposed to be looked into, because he's always telling us a story without telling us a story. He was a literal perfectionist with his directing, so i dont think everything is as clear cut and easily explained as you believe it is. But still, I enjoyed your video, and we can agree to disagree 😊
My theory, is it's an extension of The Beatles story. I'll give you a couple of examples. When Ullman is showing them around at the begining, they are walking in a line that resembles the cover of Abby Road. In order, Ullman & Lennon (the respective leaders), next, Wendy & Ringo (the goofy ones), 3rd, Jack (soul trapped) & Paul ("Paul Is Dead") and lastly, Watson (barely says a word) & George (the quiet Beatle). The attractive woman in the tub transitions into the hag. This represents John going from Cynthia to Yoko.
It's only been up a few months...by my general standards, it's doing incredibly well. It's basically everything else on this channel that has no views.
@@flynn6854 As I've discovered, RUclips traffic is much like music sales in the 1980s...just because people loved the single doesn't mean they go out and buy the album. They just buy the single and then move to the next single by someone else. This platform wants people to just churn out content on the same topic over and over, and I'm just not doing that. My real job is boring enough without my hobby being boring, too. But glad you enjoyed it.
Regarding fact vs fiction in The Shining, it seems more and more apparent that at some point all we are watching is the horror novel Jack is struggling to write in the hotel. The red jacket is a huge tell, so is the smoking cigarette on the ashtray beside the changing typewriters.
I’ve watched all your twin peaks videos. For the past two nights I’ve had insomnia and been watching analysis videos of the shining, and then this pops up? Eerie!
Parts of this were really hard to watch, they were so nuts lol. Thanks for bringing a little sanity to the conversation. It's strange that these people don't think domestic violence is horrific enough by itself. I think theories like these partly stem from people being so obsessed with lore and easter eggs, they've forgotten how to watch a film.
Fantastic video. Thank you for your time and effort. Inserting yourself in the movie is really neat. Growing up watching this on our bought VHS copy (still got it), I kinda had the impression that both parents had a bit of psychical powers or maybe just Jack along with Danny. Their union, after-all created Danny. Any psychic attenuation Jack might have, in conjunction with his own incurred stress and alcoholism, encourages him to come under the hotel's evil influence.. ? And then Danny's ability is intensified due to the stress, the intense terror experienced at the evil hotel. His Shining also becomes more pronounced after meeting Hallorann, before any of the shenanigans. It seems like up until the hotel, Danny didn't exhibit psychic powers otherwise there may have been a scene where his parents imply as much, but he did exhibit the effects of trauma and physical abuse at home, which is likely a type of catalyst. With the events at the hotel being a further catalyst building upon the previous abuse. All that said, the audience is meant to ponder the mystery. That in large part what makes it so compelling. All the bullshit theories on the film, one way of looking at it, is that it's a testament to its magnificence.
That's also what's implied by Doctor Sleep, essentially, especially with Danny's presence "waking up" the hotel, along with the fact that he and Abra were actually related in the novel, indicating it's passed through families.
Hey look everybody, a SANE person talking about "The Shining"! Thank you for this. There are other debunk videos and videos that just ignore the usual conspiraceh stuff, but I loved the really saucy and creative style you used here. Automatic sub. Quick note about the Duvall thing: she has said, MORE THAN ONCE, that Kubrick wasn't "abusive", but man, people have their favorite narratives, don't they? This applies to the issue of the ghosts too, of course.
Incredible video, as always. The knowledge, editing, and humor make these top tier content. I stumbled on your channel originally from Twin Peaks recommendations, but have loved everything I've seen on here. Keep it up, these are all fascinating and a great value to movie lovers.
Wow! Tour 'de force! Truly a masterful effort for a movie you clearly loved. I always though the oddities (everything well lit, lights going on and off between cuts, continuity errors) were a conscious choice by Kubrick to make watching the movie intentionally unsettling and creating dread in the viewer. Great work CPF!
This is one of the greatest youtube videos of the last year. You deserve many, many more subscribers. They don't know what they're missing. The clever transitions (like Lloyd filling the glass you grabbed) are technically impressive touches. This video is full of those nuances. I love it.
Oh man, this was so Genius. I've seen tons of mock-and-documentaries about this movie, but yours is among the best. I laughed my ass of the whole time, best scene was the twins singing for Mothra😂 Great sense of humor. Can't thank you enough for this❤ Absolute brillant
I had noticed the moving furniture at the hotel and I always liked to think it was The Overlook being creepy. Stuff dissappears and reappears and the family never notices, which is just a neat little bit of atmosphere that spooked me out. Granted, I didn't really care if it was deliberate or not (and I doubt it was) but it was a neat thing to notice.
Very entertaining. Just discovered your channel right now. Loving your commentary on debunking all these silly theories. Instant subscribe. Love the editing and production of this video. Keep up the great work, mate.
A Friday treat. Another great video. So nice to hear your take on this. I have always taken this as an allegory for addiction and how it affects families and can be passed on.
Wow the work that went into this video is amazing. Love the video. The script and visuals you add are very well done. The editing is spot on and very well done. Just subbed
Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of Wendy being the villain/abuser and hallucinating the whole story. While she did stay with Jack keeping her son in a dangerous situation this made her an enabler of abuse not the main abuser. I do think the ghosts are real. That always seemed clear to me. Great video. LOVED the Gordon Cole scene.
This presentation is highly accomplished, hilarious, and entertaining. Audaciously rational and level headed, it is in serious danger of being used as a permanent recalibration for future and endless discussion. Congratulations
The video got the like, but the way you say MSTRMND got the subscription. Thank you, it was a very nice snowball to the face after I went too far down the Shining rabbit hole.
This is really good. I speak with some authority on the issue as I have made video essays about the same topic. No, I'm not dropping a plug. This day belongs to Matt Murray. I'm of the mind that the continuity errors are merely continuity errors, but the idea that the two Grady first names might be a mistake was something I had never considered. I was happy to say that the disappearing chair, the revolving carpet, these were clearly unintentional, but the idea that they could get the first name of a character wrong--I assumed that was beyond the pale. I actually had, what I thought, was a very plausible explanation for the two first names, but Murray has wielded Occam's Razor with greater determination and whittled down the mystery to barest essence. Huzzah!
I'm really enjoying this, great work with all the self-insertions into the film. At 6:26 though both the question and the answer about the supernatural are explicitly about the novel; Kubrick even takes care to repeat "the novel" in his answer.
I do think there's stuff under the surface narrative. Kubrick said as much, IIRC. Probably not as much as some people have theorized, but definitely some. The Native American stuff is for sure there, and I think the theory that Jack sexually abused Danny in room 237 (and that the scene with Jack in the room is a symbolic version of that) holds water. I also think that one can make references to things without the movie necessarily being "about" that thing. (I.e., yeah, maybe there's a reference to the Holocaust here or there, but that's just there for thematic resonance.) It is certainly true that Kubrick meant his films to have meaning beyond the surface story. I do think the spatial impossibility of the hotel is deliberate. I think it's mean to keep the viewer disoriented. Likewise I take many of the continuity errors to be along the same lines. One could also interpret it as the hotel itself moving things around. The reincarnation stuff I think I understand. All of the "ghosts" (Grady, Lloyd, etc) are not people, per se, but faces the hotel uses to interact with Jack. The picture at the end shows that Jack is now one of those faces.
I feel the date discrepancy can be chalked up to a combination of Jack having had a drink more recently than he has told Wendy and an addict's propensity to lie.
I'd agree, but for the fact that the hotel manager specifically says there's no alcohol on site, so he wouldn't have had the chance in the intervening month.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks "Think more fourth dimensionally." Jack tells Wendy that he has stopped drinking ....June Jack takes a beer on July 4th from best bud, Enabler. Does not tell Wendy of the sobriety restart.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Let's suppose that Jack's encounter with Lloyd happens "ONE MONTH LATER" plus, say, another WEEK -- so, maybe 5 weeks after CLOSING DAY. That would be a total of 6 months pus one week since Jack had had a drink, when he told Wendy he'd never touch another drop. Wendy presumably believes that Jack hadn't had a drop to drink for 5 months at the time she told the Doctor about the injury Danny suffered. But if Jack actually HAD snuck a drink during that 5-month period -- say, about 5 weeks into it, i.e. about 3 months and 3 weeks before he got the job as the Caretaker -- then Wendy would've been LIED TO by Jack, who had actually snuck at least one drink after having vowed NOT to, and Jack would've been telling Lloyd the truth about it being 5 miserable months rather than around 6 months plus a week or so (as Wendy thought). Also, keep in mind that we don't know how much time passes between THE INTERVIEW (and Danny's 'episode' in Denver) and CLOSING DAY. We know that CLOSING DAY is on October 30th -- the hotel's "season" being from May 15th until then -- meaning that the first day the Torrance family is alone there is Halloween. THE INTERVIEW could have been conducted a month or two before CLOSING DAY, for all we know. I'd presume that they would've had to pack up all their belongings, storing them into some Storage facility before the end of October, since they didn't bring all their furniture & books & whatnot up to the Overlook. If Jack was hired by Ullman -- after "the Denver people" recommended him -- say, in mid-September, that would mean that they had some 6 weeks to get ready for their CLOSING DAY tour of the hotel (etc.), with, say, another 6 weeks until Jack's encounter with Lloyd after that CLOSING DAY tour. Counting back "5 miserable months" from then (say, mid-December) would mean Jack secretly drank booze in mid-July or thereabouts. Hell, maybe he secretly tied one on on the 4th of July (some 57 years after the 1921 July 4th Ball (the PLAYGIRL magazine dating from 1978), and he chatted with Lloyd roughly 1 week into December -- say, ONE MONTH LATER + one week, i.e. from 31 October until the 4th or 5th of December. Jack could easily have gotten drunk in July -- two to three months before THE INTERVIEW -- all while keeping Wendy ignorant of it. Jack lies to Wendy more than once in the film, so it's not as if it's out-of-character for him to have lied to her about his drinking after vowing not to drink. It would be nice if there was a shot during the "INTERVIEW" sequence showing a Calendar with a specific MONTH depicted -- with all the past days having an 'X' drawn through their boxes -- to clue us in as to how much time passes between THE INTERVIEW and CLOSING DAY (30 October), but barring some sharp-eyed person noticing such a detail -- either at the Overlook's LOBBY or Ullman's office, or at their Denver apartment -- we just can't know how much time elapsed between those scenes.
The moment “Shine On You Crazy Diamond”started playing at the end, I couldn’t stop laughing. There couldn’t have been a more perfect song to end this video with lmao.
Thanks for debunking all that nonsense out there about this movie. I’ve watched them and thought they were really reaching, but when you pointed out that they attached to theory to subjects they were themselves interested in. Good job.
F***in THANK YOU. 3:40 The Tennis ball is YELLOW in Danny's play scene. Every recent version of the film I've seen has had a pink ball in that scene, and...it makes me wanna go all Jack Torrance on whoever made the decision to change the color in that scene.
Hey brother, I really enjoyed your video on The Shining, it's my favorite film of all time..I've literally watched everything on this movie that's out there my friend, and I have to correct you on one thing sir..when that set burned down, Stanley had already finished filming ALL of the scenes in The Colorado Lounge (which is the only part of the set that burned down) and that's why you have that picture of him laughing..they NEVER rebuilt that set unfortunately brother..I am also not sure about the continuity thing either..you are correct, many directors change things around and such, but this was Stanley Kubrick my friend, can any of us actually know how a man with a 200 IQ thinks?..I mean Einstein's IQ was 165 - 170 and we're still trying to figure him out completely..either way, I really enjoyed your take, and it was cool how you put yourself in the many famous places at the Overlook..nice job buddy, any chance of a part 2?..thanks and be well brother..Peace ✌️🪓
As someone who has watched every shitty Shining analysis video on RUclipss, I want to thank you for making this one which is not shitty. I've loved a lot of your Lynch vids but this is an absolute tour de force my friend
This is absolutely tremendous and necessary work to rectify and add some balance to the weird theories surrounding this film. On top of that, it was such a delight to watch the major work you put to make it so entertaining (light years better than just a talking head with clips from the film). A heartfelt thank you for this amazing contribution, and of course subscribed!
I can't lie...a huge part of my approach to this was as a test bed for special effects I hope to use for a future project, just to see if I could pull them off. The answer is, essentially, not quite yet, but getting there.
the content is top notch; the fx were the cream on top, and they had a certain charm as they are because they did not distract form the research and analysis you presented at all (which could have been the case had they been "Exquisite Gucci" quality).
I only disagree that the continuity "errors" weren't there on purpose. They're just red herrings. They have nothing to do with anything, it's just the hotel being enigmatic and Kubrick just did it to mess with us. They filmed all of these scenes numerous times, so there is no way this stuff wasn't caught. Also the "partly-obscured Calumet can" theory is really silly and while I think the image of the Indian was intentionally highlighted and shown to the audience, I think the guy missed the forest for the trees when he focused on it in Room 237.
You have done a FANTASTIC job!! Finally a Shining analysis that makes sense! By the way, I did enjoy the mini series because it was closer to the books which are my favorite telling of the story hands down (the Shining and Dr. Sleep). The books are tied into Kings other stories which is a detail that I absolutely love. Anyway, well done. 🙂
I very much enjoyed King's book and Kubrick's film, but that mini-series...my biggest beef with it is that the directing is terrible. It's utterly lacking in subtlety-Horace Derwent exploding into a shower of sand for no reason, CGI fire hoses with teeth, doors moving and lights flickering every single time the characters leave the room...honestly, Kubrick's directing feels more like the novel's approach to scares even when the actual events are different.
As always, well said and great job. Thank you for your common sense. You take into account the book as well as the sequel, Dr. Sleep, and explain this movie isn’t as cryptic as many think.. This movie has been dissected so much the film has been desecrated by the egos of many by piggybacking to make a name for themselves. Also, great job showing and explaining film continuity and how the movie is, simply put, just what it is. There are not hidden clues in every frame. Also, your production is superb, entertaining, and hilarious at times with the slick cuts to other movie lines.
First off, fantastic video. The Shining is sacred to me and I really appreciate the effort you must have put into it. Seriously, probably my favorite Shining video overall and I've seen them all (at least it feels that way, ugh). Usually at his point is where I change gears and talk about my opinions on your commentary. Or ask "did you ever think about this theory"? However, there isn't really anything I have to argue, or feel the need to banter about. Your thesis won me over from the start and going down that path feels, for lack of a better term, icky. As you said, it's just an excellent movie made by an excellent director. The only thing I have a question about is regarding Rob Ager. I am going to assume you consumed at least some of his content as a page or two of his articles briefly appeared in your video. I am a big fan of his. Not because I think he's some kind of Shining prophet. He has a few theories that are pretty thin or in my opinion outright rubbish. Why I'm such a big fan of his is because he very rarely pushes his theories as gospel. Sure, his long-form content can be viewed as his "gospel" and it is not free. I can't blame someone for trying to make money from their passion projects though. He's very well researched when it comes to Kubrick's work and not out to just make a quick buck (cough, Room 237 documentary, cough). The vast majority of the time when he is unsure of a theory he will either purposely poke holes in it or outright admit his theory is far fetched and more of a thought experiment than anything else. I respect that. Once in awhile he stands firm on a theory that I personally find flawed, or gives Kubrick too much credit, but hey. We all have things we simply believe because we want to believe them so I'll give him a pass on those. So yeah, big fan but not so much that I don't listen to his critics. Nobody is perfect. So, I was hoping you could address for me, or just give some insight into, why Rob Ager was not mentioned in your video? I could make guesses until the cows come home but I don't want to make wild assumptions. Even if you're not a fan, Ager is one of the most prominent Shining theorist and the only references you make to him are a couple quick static images of his articles and references to theories he subscribes to (most of which are widely adopted, not just his). I'm perplexed as to how in a video I loved so much about the Shining didn't mention my favorite Kubrick fan boy. I was expecting either a lampoon or even just an off-hand mention of Ager. The lack of any concrete reference to Ager has me intrigued. Again, I really enjoyed your video and thank you for making such high quality Shining content. I plan on watching it at least a couple more times and sharing it with friends [insert chef's kiss emoji here].
Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous these "conspiracy theories" and "easter eggs" can be. Funny enough, I watched the video you referenced before yours.
I think people's own personal theories that they believe explains a movie, somehow on a deeper level-as in subconsciously or in some other meta or esoteric way. They're really telling more about themselves and what the film and their own theory says about themselves and their own history of their life. And this isn't some new idea or revelation. That's just what personal interpretation does and says. The Shining is a great film because of how well it was written, filmed (directed and produced), framed, edited, and promoted/distributed. It being a Kubrick film and due to Kubrick's reputation-rumored and made legendary by fans own personal theories and interests. That is what has made films like, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut his two biggest theorized films for so many years. I really appreciate and thank you for your honest and explicit breakdown of what Kubrick and the source material has really said this movie is about. It's "hidden in plane sight" because so many people are looking for something more than what already is a really good film and story that is in itself a clear warning of the dangers that humans are susceptible to.
I think why people do this with The Shining in particular is that it's a perfect storm of a movie. It's made by a meticulous filmmaker. It's made by someone who has done 'deep' movies before(2001). It's approachable because it's a horror movie. It stars Jack Nicholson in peak Jack Nicholson form. It's based on a story written by one of the most popular writers of all time. Last but not least, all this overheated analysis provides opportunity to create content at a time when there are lots of people creating content. No internet in existence means no 10000 theories on what The Shining is really about. My theory on that topic is that I think what Hallorann tells Danny is the truth. The shining is some kind of psychic power, the hotel IS haunted, but only people with the shining can see the ghosts. Everything in the movie is consistent with that and Kubrick devoted a lot of screen time to that conversation. I'm supposed to believe that conversation was a lie or just Wendy or Jack's delusion? No.
@@merrillolen9555 If you notice, she only sees them AFTER the family has been there for awhile. I think this is because the hotel needs to feed off Danny's shining in order to start manifesting ghosts in a way that anyone can see. That also explains why Jack didn't see anything when he went for his interview. He didn't have Danny with him.
This is my favorite RUclips video. So many have tried to analyze the film, but this is the bestl. I love watching, and re-watching again and again (for ever, and ever, and ever...). It's a fun film on its own. 🎵 Everyone knows - it's Wendy! 🎶 RIP Shelley. :{
Enjoyed this thoroughly. How many hours did it take to do this? Insane amount of work I imagine. Perhaps the movie drives people mad, just like the hotel?
I hate how so many people approach art as a puzzle to be solved rather than something to experience. Sure analysis can often give us a deeper insight into how they present their themes and what it might say (intentionally or not) about the culture it came from, but that's very different. Like I think the Native designs and art throughout the hotel is reminding us of the building's origin and the idea that it might be cursed, but that doesn't mean the movie is *about* native genocide. Having said that I actually really enjoyed Room 237, not cos I believed the theories or thought they were good insights, but cos I think it's an interesting look into the ways that people essentially read what they want to into media
It's been so long! But thank you, Matt. Your analysis are always a joy to watch. And this is SO ON THE NOSE. A fantastically triumphant return! My own belief is that most of the subtle mistakes in continuity etc were just a way of making the whole movie feel...Off. Nothing seems to make sense. The structure of the building, objects moving around. Subliminally telling you something ISN'T QUITE RIGHT and all around them. A way of unsettling the audience without spiderwebs and flickering lights. Any way, great stuff. Sharing with my movie loving friends.
Epic, just epic. As much as I’ve enjoyed seeing things like the Wendy is the abuser thesis, it always seemed like a stretch. You are Occam’s Razor, and a fine one at that. I remember an old RUclips video called something like “Ancient Aliens Debunked” where an archaeologist went story by story of that awful show and showed with scientific proof why each idea was a crock of shit. This video joins that one in my pantheon of favorites.
I should look that video up, if it's still here. I've read lots of books and the old CSICOP journals about UFOs, and I'd probably find it entertaining. My personal favorite piece of nonsense about UFO footage, which goes on to this day, is the constant attribution of movement to the blurry object at the end of a long zoom rather than that of the camera taking the footage. Do these people look through telescopes and wonder why the moon is bouncing around in the sky, too?
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Exactly! My personal favorite of that Ancient Aliens debunked video is one of geographic simplicity. They highlighted a Stone Age society and mentioned this giant wall with perfectly carved boulders of such precision and size. Obviously this Stone Age settlement did not have the tools to make such precise cuts in the rocks…… cue the Aliens meme guy. The real answer was that although the settlement didn’t have the tools to make the wall, a Bronze Age settlement lie just over the hill a few kilometers away- and they sure did, and with the archaeological evidence of stones in both sites, it’s easy to put the pieces together. I’ll try to find a link for you. It’s a classic. Found it: ruclips.net/video/j9w-i5oZqaQ/видео.htmlsi=AKpMGqUmx5Pvul8v
We need to stop worrying about "authorial intent." Once the film is cut and released, that it! Just because David Chase says Tony Soprano was shot after everything went black has NO BEARING on what we can take from the artwork.
The artist needs an audience. What the audience sees in the art is not up to debate, really. It's a reaction. I once read a newspaper column where people were asked what is their favorite song and why. Six out of ten named a song and said, "This song is about ME and my mother/brother/father (fill in the blank.)
@@rmj8905 Yes. In fact, all our pop culture needs to be examined for: who were these people who made these "entertainments" for us? Because when you look into it, it's not a slice of apple pie America making the films!
I always thought the Apollo 11 moon landing theory was pretty compelling. Weren't they also watching the movie Summer of 42 on the TV that wasn't plugged in?
How come this video doesn’t have more views. The work of putting the reviewer in the film is absolutely fucking fantastic and worth watching this alone.
What about the theory that what's going on in the film is spliced with the story that Jack writes? I thought that was simple enough, yet can allow for a number of discrepancies.
Haha, this whole video is glorious, eloquent and clearly made by somebody who has a deep understanding and working knowledge of film-making. Every note hits correctly and I just have to congratulate you for how impressive this truly was! I've also seen The Shining way too many times than is healthy for normal people (and all the crank videos) but I enjoy the film because of its technical mastery of shots/editing/sound design/camera movement/performance/psychology etc. Kubrick was a genius, especially at subtext, but he wasn't a deity, as you rightly say. Although I still don't understand why Jack lied to Wendy about Room 237 when he was honest with her about the dream where he butchered her??? If he is trying to hide his growing psychosis, why not lie about the dream too??? In fact, when is Jack NOT honest? (He even tells Wendy honestly how he is going to bash her head in after he goes full nutbag!). Remember how angry Jack gets when Wendy calls him dishonest and a liar about hurting Danny when it was actually a ghost who did it? Okay, my brain hurts. Thank you again.
Very funny and well-made, great job. Thanks for decimating the "Wendy Theory", I still can't fathom how so many people have found that at all credible.
Sorry if this is a dumb question but how did you film your scenes? Is it like a green screen or blender? Only one that really made me not sure was the bathtub scene.
Just discovered you. Absolutely brilliant vid, both production and content! I especially liked the, “ Pardon me, coming through” bit! Thank you for dispelling the idea that Kubrick could make no mistakes. His subtlety and brilliance get used as a magic wand to cover over rough edges of these theories. The man was good but everybody goofs up now and then. New subscriber
I could watch videos about The Shining forever, and ever, and ever...
My overall point is that you probably shouldn't....
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Yeah I got that right off the bat, but I'm still always curious what people come up with. Doesn't mean it all sways me.
Come and play with us, Andy...
(or not, maybe not?)
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks This is not good. There are a few really good documentaries covering Kubrick.. this is not one of them.
I second that emotion.
This is a pleasant surprise. Thanks, CPF.
I've never found the film confusing. Kubrick gave a one-sentence description that elegantly sums the narrative, if not the actual film itself:
"Just a story about a family going quietly insane together"
(Paraphrased)
Totally agreed. That's my entire point.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Right. But "theories" propagate like lice. Then people start "scratching that itch" and join the Torrance family in their madness.
Your takes are always grounded and justified in and by the text. It's appreciated.
Edit: it's also entertaining af. So entertaining! Thanks man.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Hello! Is it possible to DM you?
He really said "quietly insane" and "together"? I realize he did not want to spoil his movie, but that is not a conventional description either. A conventional description would have been "A story about a family isolated from the world with insanity creeping in."
@@wrathofatlantis2316
I believe he worded it like that, but I can't find the interview or source to support my recollection. It stuck with me when I read it, for whatever that's worth.
The best thing about Kubrick is that EVERY theory is right. He thought about em all!
"The truth of a thing is the feel of it, and not the think of it."
- Stanley Kubrick
My favourite bit by Jay Weidner is where he says 'It was scary but I wouldn't describe The Shining as a wave of terror' then in the next sentence says 'As i watched the film a wave of terror came over me'
When it comes to the film, I think Dick Halloran's explanation is really the best summary of what is happening. A lot of bad things have happened at the hotel, and there are psychic echoes of all that, like the smell of burnt toast long after the toast is gone. Jack and Danny are both psychics ("shining"), so they sense those echoes, and interpret them in their own ways. Jack is mentally ill and guilt-ridden and can't really deal with all that, so the "echoes" end up driving him crazy. Danny, who is just a child, senses the echoes but isn't really influenced by them. In the end, there are no ghosts. The hotel is just a place that is saturated by psychic echoes, and two psychically sensitive individuals who don't understand their abilities end up getting exposed to them for a long time.
I interpret that Danny being child, felt the influences of the hotel but rejected them and was able survive for that reason. The temptations of lust, glory, luxury did not tempt the young boy same way as they did his father who wanted to be a successful writer, felt he was owed a certain dream life of status and he would prefer to erase his mistakes versus own up to them. Jack as a man and representation of a history of manking who doubles down on a victim mentality, birthrights and oppression
Edit: forgot to mention danny's imaginary friend tony is a coping mechanism or power that helps him see the past/future, this helped him too obvi
So...how did Wendy see the wounded man since she doesn't have the Shining?
Who unlocked the walk in storage door???
Yep. Halloran was a key exposition where the magician (director) tells us what's really happening. All the "ghosts" are actually projections from Danny to Jack and vice versa. Remember, all the characters we see are those that only Jack knows (from the interview). The only way they could exist is if they were real ghosts, or Jack was terrorizing Danny in the psychic world like he was ab-using him in the real world.
Jack's terrors are projections from Danny. Jack's conspiratorial "ghosts" are projections from himself -- his madness. Notice how he's not surprised at all when the bartender shows up. He has seen/done this image trick many times.
And the hag in 237? Danny was spacing out -- projecting a psychic attack on Jack. That's why she was a surprise to him. He's used to seeing his own projections, not someone else's.
Wendy is shocked to see the images she sees. We know that she sees characters that Jack sees -- therefore, she's being terrorized by Jack and she's not used to seeing "ghosts".
The whole movie is Jack terrorizing Danny and ab-using him while Danny fights back psychically. Danny's final run through the maze at the end is a part of his final real-world battle. Jack knows the maze -- we know he knows because he looks down on the map. We also know he knows how to get inside the minds of others. Why was he not able to find Danny at the end? Because Danny was able to rewrite the maze psychically overriding Jacks Shine powers.
I don't think all the continuity errors are accidental. Some were so blatant that jobs would've been lost over them. Entire pieces of furniture disappearing and reappearing in the same sequence? On a sound-stage set on a major picture? Nope. There's an unprofessional level of them in the Shining. Some could've been accidental -- small items that actors might interact with -- a glass or small items on a table. When large pieces vanish and reappear in the background in the same scene from the same angle, that's too blatant to have been accidental. Script supervisors take photos of the sets so they know exactly what was in the BG of every shot.
The same with the impossible architecture. The architecture and various cuts that play with it are well known by everyone who has to build those sets and shoot on them. Architecture in a movie is only haphazard for small productions because on large ones, accidents with set continutity are firing offenses. There are no accidents with set architecture. Entire departments exist to prevent that. When you see very huge discrepancies (walls that could never have windows), someone would've had a precise architectural drawing of the set floorplan and would've told the director long before the set was built.
Kubrick was the most detail oriented and longer-term planner than any director I've ever heard of. He also began as a photographer. Everything we seen in a frame of that film was intended to be there by the man himself.
As for our "analist" in this video, he seems to think Kubrick made movies like everyone else and applies the same standards of the typical Hollywood assembly-line process to a Kubrick film. This is either intellectual dishonesty or incompetence.
As for all those legendary takes of Kubrick, that was always one of the things that caused me not to think of him as a genius. Only a director who's ignorant of his own film would do such a thing. Or a director that always chose the wrong actors. Either of those indicates the opposite of genius. To hear that the dozens of takes story was a tale makes me suddenly find my respect for Kubrick again on that front.
Criticisms on critics can be good but they make for bad film analysis. It's basically a glorified troll. For my viewing pleasure, I don't care how many other people are wrong, I just want to hear some angle that nobody else can give me. I can judge if some other critic has gone too far -- and there are plenty. Even when some critics are 100% on base with Kubrick, their attempts to analyze other directors in the same fashion is off base. The best analyst on the Shining uses the same logic on some other films where it's not applicable. Those films didn't have the time, money, or directorial involvement for such subtlety.
The current creator spends all his time besmirching the criticisms of others and none on the film itself. Sure, he can do VFX -- and it's well done for what it is -- but would I listen to more than a few minutes if there were no visuals? Nope.
Kubrick did film the moon landing. But he's so particular that he demanded they actually go to the moon.
sigh
If I were a conspiracy guy, this is the one I would endorse! Stanley would not leave something as consequential as landing on the moon to a novice! He would be up there with proper crew in tow with space suits!
AWESOME
Best coment ever 🎉
If only he did. It would've looked real.
Please don't stop making these videos. I've been following you for years and the quality and depth of your work is amazing. I never click faster on a video than when I see you have uploaded one! Thank you for your effort!
There's something so presumptuous about saying "my theory explains the shining" rather than "here is my interpretation of the shining." If people said the latter, they couldn't argue that their interpretation was "more better er" than anyone else's. Nor could they pretend that, by occupying what they imagine to be the mindset of the director of a great piece of art, that they are as smart as that director who they idolize, maybe smarter.
Just do what the rich people in Barry Lyndon does, the opposite of the Law of Jante, so instead of living by "Don't think YOU'RE better than others", rather go by "I'M not gonna be worse than others."
The best thing about Kubrick is that EVERY theory is right. He thought about em all!
"The truth of a thing is the feel of it, and not the think of it."
- Stanley Kubrick
Many straw men died to make this video.
Well, this is why people bet on things, and go further than that.
The point of any 2nd (or 3rd) theory is, presumably, to _make more and better sense than the 1st theory did._ People seem to forget this quite often, however.
@@runarvollanWhenever people roll out various Kubrick theories, I think about a particular scene from the 1986 movie,Back to School. (It has a great cast including Rodney Dangerfield, Sam Kinnison and Robert Downey Jr.) Dangerfield plays a wealthy businessman who enrolls as a freshman at the University his son attends in an attempt to improve the relationship. The scene in question is a phone call between Dangerfield’s character and Kurt Vonnegut. Rather than making an effort to complete an assigned paper on the author’s writings, he has paid Vonnegut to write the paper for him. He tells Vonnegut that he will be stopping payment on the check because according to the professor, Dangerfield doesn’t understand Kurt Vonnegut at all.
There’s a ton of hidden messages in Kubrick’s movies that he put there intentionally, but I believe there are plenty of things that he was completely unaware of on a conscious level. One thing for certain, his films are so complex, that I’m always discovering something new.
Reading the title of this video i thought "what else is there to explain, i thought the movie was pretty clear". Then i clicked anyway because i like this channel.
Glad i clicked, very entertaining and informative.
Thanks for the production value placing yourself there. Very snappy work. I appreciated all of the effort. I came for the Twin Peaks, stayed for the Overlook.
I've been balls deep in lengthy Shining video essays over the past few days, and this is a wonderful way to cap it all off.
A thoroughly excellent video, with some incredible filmmaking thrown in as a bonus.
Will deffo check out the rest of this series!
Oh thank God for you! I'm sick to the back teeth of all these outre explanations for The Shining. Well done sir. Yours sincerely, a video essay maker for Eureka Masters Of Cinema.
Yes! Analysis is BACK on the menu boys!
I'm blown away by how good this video is. Such a great take and so well produced. Absolutely brilliant, I love it.
As much as I enjoy The Shining, this proves it could be improved with a cat in every scene.
This was much needed. I adore Kubrick’s movies and a good theory of the meaning behind them, but people always go full crackpot. Love your channel. ✌️
Nice touch at 12:06 when you say "excuse me coming through" then later see it was the twin children you were speaking to. Love it 😅
Really well made video. But, I do disagree woth you on most things. I think you underestimate the kind of director Kubrick was. His films are always made to be dissected. He's always been a master of details, so i believe the details in his films are supposed to be looked into, because he's always telling us a story without telling us a story. He was a literal perfectionist with his directing, so i dont think everything is as clear cut and easily explained as you believe it is. But still, I enjoyed your video, and we can agree to disagree 😊
Great "Fawlty Towers" reference, that great, mean spirited, but hilarious sitcom.
That bit where you asked the girls to stand aside made me spit out my coffee. I like your style, i'm subscribing and a new fan.
My theory, is it's an extension of The Beatles story. I'll give you a couple of examples. When Ullman is showing them around at the begining, they are walking in a line that resembles the cover of Abby Road. In order, Ullman & Lennon (the respective leaders), next, Wendy & Ringo (the goofy ones), 3rd, Jack (soul trapped) & Paul ("Paul Is Dead") and lastly, Watson (barely says a word) & George (the quiet Beatle). The attractive woman in the tub transitions into the hag. This represents John going from Cynthia to Yoko.
Joe GIRARD
Ahahaha.
@@owennelson7081EYE SCREAM
Then by the time Dick Hallorann (Billy Preston) shows up right at the end it's more or less already all over?
That's interesting since Shelley Duvall actually dated Ringo Starr during the filming of this movie
How the hell does this not have over a million views? Absolutely excellent video!
It's only been up a few months...by my general standards, it's doing incredibly well. It's basically everything else on this channel that has no views.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks I don’t think that’ll be the case much longer. Keep up the good work dude!
@@flynn6854 As I've discovered, RUclips traffic is much like music sales in the 1980s...just because people loved the single doesn't mean they go out and buy the album. They just buy the single and then move to the next single by someone else. This platform wants people to just churn out content on the same topic over and over, and I'm just not doing that. My real job is boring enough without my hobby being boring, too. But glad you enjoyed it.
Because they don't want the truth! They can't handle the truth.
(See? I just did a comedy too!)
Regarding fact vs fiction in The Shining, it seems more and more apparent that at some point all we are watching is the horror novel Jack is struggling to write in the hotel. The red jacket is a huge tell, so is the smoking cigarette on the ashtray beside the changing typewriters.
ahahaha. How do you know Wendy didn't write the book, after she escaped?
I’ve watched all your twin peaks videos. For the past two nights I’ve had insomnia and been watching analysis videos of the shining, and then this pops up? Eerie!
Parts of this were really hard to watch, they were so nuts lol. Thanks for bringing a little sanity to the conversation. It's strange that these people don't think domestic violence is horrific enough by itself. I think theories like these partly stem from people being so obsessed with lore and easter eggs, they've forgotten how to watch a film.
Fantastic video. Thank you for your time and effort. Inserting yourself in the movie is really neat. Growing up watching this on our bought VHS copy (still got it), I kinda had the impression that both parents had a bit of psychical powers or maybe just Jack along with Danny. Their union, after-all created Danny. Any psychic attenuation Jack might have, in conjunction with his own incurred stress and alcoholism, encourages him to come under the hotel's evil influence.. ? And then Danny's ability is intensified due to the stress, the intense terror experienced at the evil hotel. His Shining also becomes more pronounced after meeting Hallorann, before any of the shenanigans. It seems like up until the hotel, Danny didn't exhibit psychic powers otherwise there may have been a scene where his parents imply as much, but he did exhibit the effects of trauma and physical abuse at home, which is likely a type of catalyst. With the events at the hotel being a further catalyst building upon the previous abuse. All that said, the audience is meant to ponder the mystery. That in large part what makes it so compelling. All the bullshit theories on the film, one way of looking at it, is that it's a testament to its magnificence.
That's also what's implied by Doctor Sleep, essentially, especially with Danny's presence "waking up" the hotel, along with the fact that he and Abra were actually related in the novel, indicating it's passed through families.
I’m always skeptical when someone puts out a Kubrick movie analysis, but this was awesome. Great job.
Hey look everybody, a SANE person talking about "The Shining"! Thank you for this. There are other debunk videos and videos that just ignore the usual conspiraceh stuff, but I loved the really saucy and creative style you used here. Automatic sub. Quick note about the Duvall thing: she has said, MORE THAN ONCE, that Kubrick wasn't "abusive", but man, people have their favorite narratives, don't they? This applies to the issue of the ghosts too, of course.
Incredible video, as always. The knowledge, editing, and humor make these top tier content. I stumbled on your channel originally from Twin Peaks recommendations, but have loved everything I've seen on here. Keep it up, these are all fascinating and a great value to movie lovers.
Wow! Tour 'de force! Truly a masterful effort for a movie you clearly loved.
I always though the oddities (everything well lit, lights going on and off between cuts, continuity errors) were a conscious choice by Kubrick to make watching the movie intentionally unsettling and creating dread in the viewer. Great work CPF!
Great job with the intro and setting!!
This is the first video I've watched by you and I'm very impressed. Also you kind of remind me of Brad Dourif (it's a complement I promise)
It's not the first time I've heard that.
This is one of the greatest youtube videos of the last year. You deserve many, many more subscribers. They don't know what they're missing. The clever transitions (like Lloyd filling the glass you grabbed) are technically impressive touches. This video is full of those nuances. I love it.
Thanks, though I goofed on that shot. If you look, the reflection of the glass is still there after I pick it up. I'll know better next time.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks That's REALLY subtle. It was good enough to fool me and leave me impressed! I never noticed it before you mentioned it.
Oh man, this was so Genius.
I've seen tons of mock-and-documentaries about this movie, but yours is among the best. I laughed my ass of the whole time, best scene was the twins singing for Mothra😂
Great sense of humor.
Can't thank you enough for this❤ Absolute brillant
These videos are criminally underrated given the above and beyond effort put into them. Great work.
Nonsense...I don't have a single video rated below 94% last I looked. Those are very good ratings.
I had noticed the moving furniture at the hotel and I always liked to think it was The Overlook being creepy. Stuff dissappears and reappears and the family never notices, which is just a neat little bit of atmosphere that spooked me out.
Granted, I didn't really care if it was deliberate or not (and I doubt it was) but it was a neat thing to notice.
Very entertaining. Just discovered your channel right now. Loving your commentary on debunking all these silly theories. Instant subscribe. Love the editing and production of this video. Keep up the great work, mate.
You give off Brad Dourif vibes and I think that’s awesome.
A Friday treat. Another great video. So nice to hear your take on this. I have always taken this as an allegory for addiction and how it affects families and can be passed on.
Definitely, and Doctor Sleep only made that more obvious.
Jack T. and Mandy C. in EWS have a similar problem.
The best “The Shining analysis” video intro ever!
Amazing video, dude. I don't even have much to say. Just wow. RUclips needs more of this extreme effort.
Always love a new video drop from this channel. Love the production, your approach to analysis and the humour. Please keep doing your thing.
Great Take! Your editing and comedic style is second to none in The Shining videos! Well done!
Great to see you back, excited to watch this. I already know I’ll love it!
Wow the work that went into this video is amazing. Love the video. The script and visuals you add are very well done. The editing is spot on and very well done. Just subbed
The axe moving in front of you at 8:56 looks perfect
And the display showing "Room 237" and "Dumb and Dumber" at 31:26 was such a great detail
Every single analysis video on this channel is best in class. Thank you for making so many of my favorite videos.
Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of Wendy being the villain/abuser and hallucinating the whole story. While she did stay with Jack keeping her son in a dangerous situation this made her an enabler of abuse not the main abuser. I do think the ghosts are real. That always seemed clear to me. Great video. LOVED the Gordon Cole scene.
This presentation is highly accomplished, hilarious, and entertaining. Audaciously rational and level headed, it is in serious danger of being used as a permanent recalibration for future and endless discussion. Congratulations
This is, quite simply, the most logically thought out and well edited essay on the film I’ve ever seen. Finally, now I can let go.
This is the type of video I wish I could push the Like button more than once! Great image to the “All work and no play” scene. Thank you!
Beat me to this exact sentiment.
THANK YOU! An intelligent (and funny) debunking of the BS that has grown up around Kubrick's truly great movie!
The video got the like, but the way you say MSTRMND got the subscription. Thank you, it was a very nice snowball to the face after I went too far down the Shining rabbit hole.
Thanks...my wife laughed at that bit, too.
Obviously a lady of taste. I look forward to watching you guys' back catalogue!
This is really good. I speak with some authority on the issue as I have made video essays about the same topic. No, I'm not dropping a plug. This day belongs to Matt Murray.
I'm of the mind that the continuity errors are merely continuity errors, but the idea that the two Grady first names might be a mistake was something I had never considered. I was happy to say that the disappearing chair, the revolving carpet, these were clearly unintentional, but the idea that they could get the first name of a character wrong--I assumed that was beyond the pale. I actually had, what I thought, was a very plausible explanation for the two first names, but Murray has wielded Occam's Razor with greater determination and whittled down the mystery to barest essence.
Huzzah!
Really love when you have a new video. I saw that crazy doc on netflix a few years back and had lots of laughs and very similar thoughts to you.
I'm really enjoying this, great work with all the self-insertions into the film. At 6:26 though both the question and the answer about the supernatural are explicitly about the novel; Kubrick even takes care to repeat "the novel" in his answer.
I do think there's stuff under the surface narrative. Kubrick said as much, IIRC. Probably not as much as some people have theorized, but definitely some. The Native American stuff is for sure there, and I think the theory that Jack sexually abused Danny in room 237 (and that the scene with Jack in the room is a symbolic version of that) holds water. I also think that one can make references to things without the movie necessarily being "about" that thing. (I.e., yeah, maybe there's a reference to the Holocaust here or there, but that's just there for thematic resonance.) It is certainly true that Kubrick meant his films to have meaning beyond the surface story.
I do think the spatial impossibility of the hotel is deliberate. I think it's mean to keep the viewer disoriented. Likewise I take many of the continuity errors to be along the same lines. One could also interpret it as the hotel itself moving things around.
The reincarnation stuff I think I understand. All of the "ghosts" (Grady, Lloyd, etc) are not people, per se, but faces the hotel uses to interact with Jack. The picture at the end shows that Jack is now one of those faces.
I feel the date discrepancy can be chalked up to a combination of Jack having had a drink more recently than he has told Wendy and an addict's propensity to lie.
I'd agree, but for the fact that the hotel manager specifically says there's no alcohol on site, so he wouldn't have had the chance in the intervening month.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks "Think more fourth dimensionally."
Jack tells Wendy that he has stopped drinking ....June
Jack takes a beer on July 4th from best bud, Enabler. Does not tell Wendy of the sobriety restart.
Maybe, but I'm never willing to invent events not seen or described to explain discrepancies. Something tangible has to suggest it.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Let's suppose that Jack's encounter with Lloyd happens "ONE MONTH LATER" plus, say, another WEEK -- so, maybe 5 weeks after CLOSING DAY. That would be a total of 6 months pus one week since Jack had had a drink, when he told Wendy he'd never touch another drop.
Wendy presumably believes that Jack hadn't had a drop to drink for 5 months at the time she told the Doctor about the injury Danny suffered. But if Jack actually HAD snuck a drink during that 5-month period -- say, about 5 weeks into it, i.e. about 3 months and 3 weeks before he got the job as the Caretaker -- then Wendy would've been LIED TO by Jack, who had actually snuck at least one drink after having vowed NOT to, and Jack would've been telling Lloyd the truth about it being 5 miserable months rather than around 6 months plus a week or so (as Wendy thought).
Also, keep in mind that we don't know how much time passes between THE INTERVIEW (and Danny's 'episode' in Denver) and CLOSING DAY. We know that CLOSING DAY is on October 30th -- the hotel's "season" being from May 15th until then -- meaning that the first day the Torrance family is alone there is Halloween. THE INTERVIEW could have been conducted a month or two before CLOSING DAY, for all we know. I'd presume that they would've had to pack up all their belongings, storing them into some Storage facility before the end of October, since they didn't bring all their furniture & books & whatnot up to the Overlook.
If Jack was hired by Ullman -- after "the Denver people" recommended him -- say, in mid-September, that would mean that they had some 6 weeks to get ready for their CLOSING DAY tour of the hotel (etc.), with, say, another 6 weeks until Jack's encounter with Lloyd after that CLOSING DAY tour. Counting back "5 miserable months" from then (say, mid-December) would mean Jack secretly drank booze in mid-July or thereabouts. Hell, maybe he secretly tied one on on the 4th of July (some 57 years after the 1921 July 4th Ball (the PLAYGIRL magazine dating from 1978), and he chatted with Lloyd roughly 1 week into December -- say, ONE MONTH LATER + one week, i.e. from 31 October until the 4th or 5th of December.
Jack could easily have gotten drunk in July -- two to three months before THE INTERVIEW -- all while keeping Wendy ignorant of it. Jack lies to Wendy more than once in the film, so it's not as if it's out-of-character for him to have lied to her about his drinking after vowing not to drink.
It would be nice if there was a shot during the "INTERVIEW" sequence showing a Calendar with a specific MONTH depicted -- with all the past days having an 'X' drawn through their boxes -- to clue us in as to how much time passes between THE INTERVIEW and CLOSING DAY (30 October), but barring some sharp-eyed person noticing such a detail -- either at the Overlook's LOBBY or Ullman's office, or at their Denver apartment -- we just can't know how much time elapsed between those scenes.
@@patricktilton5377JESUS my brain hurts now.
The moment “Shine On You Crazy Diamond”started playing at the end, I couldn’t stop laughing. There couldn’t have been a more perfect song to end this video with lmao.
This was really fun and well done. Thanks for the laughs and the great content. 😊
Which “supernatural/paranormal” phenomena is Kubrick referencing in the interviews? Ghosts or ESP?
He doesn't say. It's not as if one is more logical than the other, though.
If only the Torrances had brought a cute lil cat with them; maybe that could have countered the insanity factor.
I really enjoyed that this video went down the bizarre "Shining Rabbit Hole" so I did not have to, and I'm grateful to your efforts. ❤
Nice, what about the shone report?
Thanks for debunking all that nonsense out there about this movie. I’ve watched them and thought they were really reaching, but when you pointed out that they attached to theory to subjects they were themselves interested in. Good job.
F***in THANK YOU.
3:40 The Tennis ball is YELLOW in Danny's play scene.
Every recent version of the film I've seen has had a pink ball in that scene, and...it makes me wanna go all Jack Torrance on whoever made the decision to change the color in that scene.
Little details in movies might mean...something.
Hey brother, I really enjoyed your video on The Shining, it's my favorite film of all time..I've literally watched everything on this movie that's out there my friend, and I have to correct you on one thing sir..when that set burned down, Stanley had already finished filming ALL of the scenes in The Colorado Lounge (which is the only part of the set that burned down) and that's why you have that picture of him laughing..they NEVER rebuilt that set unfortunately brother..I am also not sure about the continuity thing either..you are correct, many directors change things around and such, but this was Stanley Kubrick my friend, can any of us actually know how a man with a 200 IQ thinks?..I mean Einstein's IQ was 165 - 170 and we're still trying to figure him out completely..either way, I really enjoyed your take, and it was cool how you put yourself in the many famous places at the Overlook..nice job buddy, any chance of a part 2?..thanks and be well brother..Peace ✌️🪓
As someone who has watched every shitty Shining analysis video on RUclipss, I want to thank you for making this one which is not shitty. I've loved a lot of your Lynch vids but this is an absolute tour de force my friend
This is absolutely tremendous and necessary work to rectify and add some balance to the weird theories surrounding this film. On top of that, it was such a delight to watch the major work you put to make it so entertaining (light years better than just a talking head with clips from the film). A heartfelt thank you for this amazing contribution, and of course subscribed!
I can't lie...a huge part of my approach to this was as a test bed for special effects I hope to use for a future project, just to see if I could pull them off. The answer is, essentially, not quite yet, but getting there.
the content is top notch; the fx were the cream on top, and they had a certain charm as they are because they did not distract form the research and analysis you presented at all (which could have been the case had they been "Exquisite Gucci" quality).
"Exquisite Gucci?"
@@Corn_Pone_Flickslol😂😂 .... side note, ive always HATED room 237.... Good job 👍👍
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Did I mention that I was a professional visual effects artist for TV and movies for twenty-five years? I'd be happy to help.
I only disagree that the continuity "errors" weren't there on purpose. They're just red herrings. They have nothing to do with anything, it's just the hotel being enigmatic and Kubrick just did it to mess with us. They filmed all of these scenes numerous times, so there is no way this stuff wasn't caught.
Also the "partly-obscured Calumet can" theory is really silly and while I think the image of the Indian was intentionally highlighted and shown to the audience, I think the guy missed the forest for the trees when he focused on it in Room 237.
Great video. You should do Kubricks's Eyes Wide Shut next.
People keep saying that, but it's not happening, at least not now. I've already got a dozen other ideas in the queue.
You have done a FANTASTIC job!! Finally a Shining analysis that makes sense! By the way, I did enjoy the mini series because it was closer to the books which are my favorite telling of the story hands down (the Shining and Dr. Sleep). The books are tied into Kings other stories which is a detail that I absolutely love. Anyway, well done. 🙂
I very much enjoyed King's book and Kubrick's film, but that mini-series...my biggest beef with it is that the directing is terrible. It's utterly lacking in subtlety-Horace Derwent exploding into a shower of sand for no reason, CGI fire hoses with teeth, doors moving and lights flickering every single time the characters leave the room...honestly, Kubrick's directing feels more like the novel's approach to scares even when the actual events are different.
As always, well said and great job. Thank you for your common sense. You take into account the book as well as the sequel, Dr. Sleep, and explain this movie isn’t as cryptic as many think..
This movie has been dissected so much the film has been desecrated by the egos of many by piggybacking to make a name for themselves.
Also, great job showing and explaining film continuity and how the movie is, simply put, just what it is. There are not hidden clues in every frame.
Also, your production is superb, entertaining, and hilarious at times with the slick cuts to other movie lines.
First off, fantastic video. The Shining is sacred to me and I really appreciate the effort you must have put into it. Seriously, probably my favorite Shining video overall and I've seen them all (at least it feels that way, ugh). Usually at his point is where I change gears and talk about my opinions on your commentary. Or ask "did you ever think about this theory"? However, there isn't really anything I have to argue, or feel the need to banter about. Your thesis won me over from the start and going down that path feels, for lack of a better term, icky. As you said, it's just an excellent movie made by an excellent director.
The only thing I have a question about is regarding Rob Ager. I am going to assume you consumed at least some of his content as a page or two of his articles briefly appeared in your video. I am a big fan of his. Not because I think he's some kind of Shining prophet. He has a few theories that are pretty thin or in my opinion outright rubbish. Why I'm such a big fan of his is because he very rarely pushes his theories as gospel. Sure, his long-form content can be viewed as his "gospel" and it is not free. I can't blame someone for trying to make money from their passion projects though. He's very well researched when it comes to Kubrick's work and not out to just make a quick buck (cough, Room 237 documentary, cough). The vast majority of the time when he is unsure of a theory he will either purposely poke holes in it or outright admit his theory is far fetched and more of a thought experiment than anything else. I respect that. Once in awhile he stands firm on a theory that I personally find flawed, or gives Kubrick too much credit, but hey. We all have things we simply believe because we want to believe them so I'll give him a pass on those. So yeah, big fan but not so much that I don't listen to his critics. Nobody is perfect.
So, I was hoping you could address for me, or just give some insight into, why Rob Ager was not mentioned in your video? I could make guesses until the cows come home but I don't want to make wild assumptions. Even if you're not a fan, Ager is one of the most prominent Shining theorist and the only references you make to him are a couple quick static images of his articles and references to theories he subscribes to (most of which are widely adopted, not just his). I'm perplexed as to how in a video I loved so much about the Shining didn't mention my favorite Kubrick fan boy. I was expecting either a lampoon or even just an off-hand mention of Ager. The lack of any concrete reference to Ager has me intrigued.
Again, I really enjoyed your video and thank you for making such high quality Shining content. I plan on watching it at least a couple more times and sharing it with friends [insert chef's kiss emoji here].
Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous these "conspiracy theories" and "easter eggs" can be. Funny enough, I watched the video you referenced before yours.
Which one? There's so many.
I think people's own personal theories that they believe explains a movie, somehow on a deeper level-as in subconsciously or in some other meta or esoteric way. They're really telling more about themselves and what the film and their own theory says about themselves and their own history of their life. And this isn't some new idea or revelation. That's just what personal interpretation does and says.
The Shining is a great film because of how well it was written, filmed (directed and produced), framed, edited, and promoted/distributed. It being a Kubrick film and due to Kubrick's reputation-rumored and made legendary by fans own personal theories and interests. That is what has made films like, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut his two biggest theorized films for so many years.
I really appreciate and thank you for your honest and explicit breakdown of what Kubrick and the source material has really said this movie is about. It's "hidden in plane sight" because so many people are looking for something more than what already is a really good film and story that is in itself a clear warning of the dangers that humans are susceptible to.
Alright, you got me. This is so incredibly creative & hilarious, I subscribed for more.
Subscribed. Fantastically produced video. Very funny and entertaining. Great job.
I think why people do this with The Shining in particular is that it's a perfect storm of a movie. It's made by a meticulous filmmaker. It's made by someone who has done 'deep' movies before(2001). It's approachable because it's a horror movie. It stars Jack Nicholson in peak Jack Nicholson form. It's based on a story written by one of the most popular writers of all time. Last but not least, all this overheated analysis provides opportunity to create content at a time when there are lots of people creating content. No internet in existence means no 10000 theories on what The Shining is really about. My theory on that topic is that I think what Hallorann tells Danny is the truth. The shining is some kind of psychic power, the hotel IS haunted, but only people with the shining can see the ghosts. Everything in the movie is consistent with that and Kubrick devoted a lot of screen time to that conversation. I'm supposed to believe that conversation was a lie or just Wendy or Jack's delusion? No.
So Wendy has the shining too? Because she saw ghosts at the end
@@merrillolen9555 If you notice, she only sees them AFTER the family has been there for awhile. I think this is because the hotel needs to feed off Danny's shining in order to start manifesting ghosts in a way that anyone can see. That also explains why Jack didn't see anything when he went for his interview. He didn't have Danny with him.
This is my favorite RUclips video. So many have tried to analyze the film, but this is the bestl. I love watching, and re-watching again and again (for ever, and ever, and ever...). It's a fun film on its own. 🎵 Everyone knows - it's Wendy! 🎶 RIP Shelley. :{
Enjoyed this thoroughly. How many hours did it take to do this? Insane amount of work I imagine. Perhaps the movie drives people mad, just like the hotel?
"Perhaps the movie drives people mad, just like the hotel?"
I couldn't have said it better.
I hate how so many people approach art as a puzzle to be solved rather than something to experience. Sure analysis can often give us a deeper insight into how they present their themes and what it might say (intentionally or not) about the culture it came from, but that's very different. Like I think the Native designs and art throughout the hotel is reminding us of the building's origin and the idea that it might be cursed, but that doesn't mean the movie is *about* native genocide.
Having said that I actually really enjoyed Room 237, not cos I believed the theories or thought they were good insights, but cos I think it's an interesting look into the ways that people essentially read what they want to into media
Always a good day when you release a video
It's been so long! But thank you, Matt. Your analysis are always a joy to watch. And this is SO ON THE NOSE.
A fantastically triumphant return!
My own belief is that most of the subtle mistakes in continuity etc were just a way of making the whole movie feel...Off. Nothing seems to make sense. The structure of the building, objects moving around. Subliminally telling you something ISN'T QUITE RIGHT and all around them. A way of unsettling the audience without spiderwebs and flickering lights.
Any way, great stuff. Sharing with my movie loving friends.
Epic, just epic. As much as I’ve enjoyed seeing things like the Wendy is the abuser thesis, it always seemed like a stretch. You are Occam’s Razor, and a fine one at that.
I remember an old RUclips video called something like “Ancient Aliens Debunked” where an archaeologist went story by story of that awful show and showed with scientific proof why each idea was a crock of shit. This video joins that one in my pantheon of favorites.
I should look that video up, if it's still here. I've read lots of books and the old CSICOP journals about UFOs, and I'd probably find it entertaining.
My personal favorite piece of nonsense about UFO footage, which goes on to this day, is the constant attribution of movement to the blurry object at the end of a long zoom rather than that of the camera taking the footage. Do these people look through telescopes and wonder why the moon is bouncing around in the sky, too?
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Exactly! My personal favorite of that Ancient Aliens debunked video is one of geographic simplicity. They highlighted a Stone Age society and mentioned this giant wall with perfectly carved boulders of such precision and size. Obviously this Stone Age settlement did not have the tools to make such precise cuts in the rocks……
cue the Aliens meme guy.
The real answer was that although the settlement didn’t have the tools to make the wall, a Bronze Age settlement lie just over the hill a few kilometers away- and they sure did, and with the archaeological evidence of stones in both sites, it’s easy to put the pieces together. I’ll try to find a link for you. It’s a classic.
Found it:
ruclips.net/video/j9w-i5oZqaQ/видео.htmlsi=AKpMGqUmx5Pvul8v
We need to stop worrying about "authorial intent." Once the film is cut and released, that it! Just because David Chase says Tony Soprano was shot after everything went black has NO BEARING on what we can take from the artwork.
The artist needs an audience. What the audience sees in the art is not up to debate, really. It's a reaction. I once read a newspaper column where people were asked what is their favorite song and why. Six out of ten named a song and said, "This song is about ME and my mother/brother/father (fill in the blank.)
Depends if whether or not authors are honest about their intent or not.
@@rmj8905 Yes. In fact, all our pop culture needs to be examined for: who were these people who made these "entertainments" for us? Because when you look into it, it's not a slice of apple pie America making the films!
I always thought the Apollo 11 moon landing theory was pretty compelling.
Weren't they also watching the movie Summer of 42 on the TV that wasn't plugged in?
How come this video doesn’t have more views. The work of putting the reviewer in the film is absolutely fucking fantastic and worth watching this alone.
It has quite a lot of views by my reckoning. This question is more suited to my most recent video.
I came here by accident. Thanks for your analysis of The Shining! I really like your approach! And I like your humor! Great video!
Finally someone who gets it. Thank you!
A criticism about the editing: the background audio is overwhelming.
Any movie analysis laced with Garden State references is an ACE in my book. Haha, great video!
Just discovered your channel today, and I'm really appreciating and enjoying your work--fun, insightful, and often funny. And this was excellent.
Thanks...I can never tell what will take off. The views on these videos are incredibly variable.
I think the photograph at the end just represents how abuse and violence are cycular.
What about the theory that what's going on in the film is spliced with the story that Jack writes? I thought that was simple enough, yet can allow for a number of discrepancies.
Like all the others, I simply see no evidence presented in the film to suggest this. It's trying to complicate things unnecessarily.
Haha, this whole video is glorious, eloquent and clearly made by somebody who has a deep understanding and working knowledge of film-making. Every note hits correctly and I just have to congratulate you for how impressive this truly was! I've also seen The Shining way too many times than is healthy for normal people (and all the crank videos) but I enjoy the film because of its technical mastery of shots/editing/sound design/camera movement/performance/psychology etc. Kubrick was a genius, especially at subtext, but he wasn't a deity, as you rightly say. Although I still don't understand why Jack lied to Wendy about Room 237 when he was honest with her about the dream where he butchered her??? If he is trying to hide his growing psychosis, why not lie about the dream too??? In fact, when is Jack NOT honest? (He even tells Wendy honestly how he is going to bash her head in after he goes full nutbag!). Remember how angry Jack gets when Wendy calls him dishonest and a liar about hurting Danny when it was actually a ghost who did it? Okay, my brain hurts. Thank you again.
This is seriously such a great cover of The Shining. THANK YOU!!!
Very funny and well-made, great job. Thanks for decimating the "Wendy Theory", I still can't fathom how so many people have found that at all credible.
Sorry if this is a dumb question but how did you film your scenes? Is it like a green screen or blender? Only one that really made me not sure was the bathtub scene.
It's all done with green screen. The hotel interiors are either shots from the film itself, or are made in Blender.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks ah okay cool!! Amazing job. Such a high quality witty video! 😊 thanks for responding!!
Holy shit the opening of this was perfect hahahah