Really? Great little actress, but I always thought she was kinda homely. Perfect for the role of "Windy" Her name is Winnifer, but people mistakenly call her Wendy. She was the linchpin for how things went down in the middle of the second act.
THANK YOU for giving Shelley the props she deserves - ! People are so hard on her performance, which to me is blasphemous. In a film which demands her to be at the HEIGHT of the most extreme human emotions for half of her screen-time - I find her performance to Be NUANCED, complex, controlled and entirely committed! Where Jack Nicholson is mugging (and - whether you’re on the side of “I love the mugging” or “I hate the mugging” - he IS mugging )- Shelley is grounded in whatever moment Wendy is in. Her Wendy has faced endless criticism for being “weak” , “a misogynist portrayal of a hapless woman” and (IDK why anyone thinks this word even classifies as worthy of being included as critique- but it OFTEN is -) “ugly”. (Err I guess all that is faulted to her and/OR sometimes Kubrick); I could not disagree more. Her Wendy is sharp, intuitive- she bravely fights for herself and her son, as reality slips away from the very few people around her. Duvall was small, she had a high-voice and a very trad-fem demeanor-- those traits do not make her performance WEAK. I think she finds just the amount of fragility you’d expect to see in someone surviving within this (if not ALWAYS abusive-) wildly UNSTEADY marital home. ((ESPECIALLY as a woman, 70s-into the 80’s ; like THE WHOLE COUNTRY WAS MISOGYNIST)). In the wrong hands, the film (particularly the violence) could strike far too close to the UNCANNY-GOOFBALL side -dark CAMP -material - but Shelly is so sincerely FEELING, so sincerely desperate for the man she loves to appear from within that monster and prove she is safe!! (which of course we all see she is not) - She keeps those scenes against Jack N, which could be garish and laugh-able-- ABSOLUTELY TRAGIC. Her performance reminds viewers what so many horror flicks tend to forget entirely : that violence has consequences. There’s terror, yes, but also real grief and extreme trauma - the devastating loss of the family unit - ; as Shelley’s Wendy pulls herself thru the film, we watch her slowly realize she’s witnessing the end of life as she knew it ; she watches the death of her own fairy-tale. As Wendy fights to save herself and her son, she slowly accepts and then mourns the life she thought she had; the vision of her sure-future, frozen for all time in that maze. For, certainly (live or die), the world will never be the same - Any mask of safety and trust has been shattered, and (if she gets out) it will take years to fully unpack what the fuq she went through in that hotel - she’ll have to question what it implies abt her entire life/marriage before the Overlook. THAT devastating tragedy , THAT is all in Shelley Duvall’s performance. It’s heartbreak. And I think her contribution is what reallllyyyy lifts the shining up to be just as powerfully-disturbing as it is; YES It’s spooky-ooky-creepy, but HER devastating-realizations elevate the story to Fully-Upsetting. I think she’s the absolute heart of the film (Scatman brings warmth, but is absent for most of it); without her the film could feel soulless. - ALSO, i think she’s goddamned LOVELY.
Can't help but agree... For the most part. First off, her nickname is "Windy" not Wendy. The annunciation varies slightly throughout the film, but she is undoubtedly introduced as "Winnifer". Her character is undeniable, that of a typical lower middle class housewife, going through the trials and tribulations of the average woman during that time period. How you brought misogyny into the spotlight is beyond me. People in general are mean, angry, violent little sociopaths with each and every one possessing some kind of "main character syndrome", men and women alike. To put the blame completely on men just reaks of BS to me. Yes, Jack was an abusive asshole. Name one person who has been absolutely perfect their entire life. Windy could have diffused the situation had she been more "perfect", but this is how things played out. It's pretty well known that Kubrick abused the hell out of Ms. Duvall in order to get the performance he wanted from her. Do the ends justify the means? That's a matter for debate. I thought the acting from Nicholson, Duvall, Lloyd, Crothers were spectacular and I think Kubrick had a lot to do with that. What matters most is what people who like to read perceive from the final product. You seem to take away a feminist perspective. I take away a cultural icon. To each their own.
@@stevielove4778 --- If you're a fan, you'll know that there's a vast amount of differences between the book and Kubrick's vision (and yes, I have read the book)... It doesn't really matter, I just pay attention to detail. What does any of this have to with the underlying current of a cultural icon?
Fantastic overview and analysis. I absolutely agree that Shelley is the one carrying the entire film on her shoulders. I cannot imagine any other actress being as perfect for that role.
@@loriescanlon4334I don't know why but I always thought Shelly was so hot lol. I say I don't know why cause she's not my type (my black wife in my thumbnail) but yet she's oddly attractive.
Correct. I think it’s funny, those who sy “there are no ghosts!” As if it’s not a story of fiction. It doesn’t have to reflect real life necessarily, though Kubrick was exploring many ideas, some of them supernatural nd some psychological.
I hate when people try and choose the most "realistic" interpretation and then decide to make half of the horror just a dream. Also tbh complaining abt dick dying feels stupid since having a horror movie with no deaths kinda makes jack feel less dangerous. Also a character not doing the smartest most optimal thing isn't immediately bad writing. We dont know how much dick knew abt the situation going in. Anyway tldr stop trying to make every movie more realistic and complaining about plotholes it's obnoxious and makes doing analysis way less fascinating
One can clearly see that this guy is not a fan of Stephen King. His scientific, skeptical view of "there are no ghosts in The Shining" has it's merits, but downplays all the intricacies and delicate nature of the Overlook Hotel. I don't agree with the viewpoint that this is all purely mental illness and nothing else. I do agree that the making of this movie affected the actors on a fundamental level, which was Kubrick's intent from the start. Weird how the actual hotel's name was "The Stanley"... The film was an absolute conundrum, from within, from without. I'd like to produce my own take on it, but it would take money that I don't have.
Joe Turkel and Philip Stone were brilliant in this movie. Their understated yet terrifying performances were a stark contrast to Jack Nicholson's manic energy. They were never leading men but both left an indelible impact on cinema.
Well put. Philip Stone turned up in an episode of Yes Minister the other day. It was quite odd as although I instantly knew his face, it took me a few seconds to realise who he was. I bet acting alongside Paul Eddington was a piece of cake compared to Jack!
@@T11639 Scatman played a character called Turkle, in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Another Nicholson film in which a turned off TV provides entertainment.
What makes The Shining “A Masterpiece” - is the fact that The Viewer will always come back to it…time after time after time. It’s almost like The Viewer is also caught up in the web of the Overlook…like we’re just another one of the “spirits” doomed to re-live its horrors. How else can you explain that we all can watch this movie endlessly and never get enough?
"We" represent the spirits that haunt Jack. His biggest fear. We are the ones who point the finger and shout "GUILTY!", because we have witnessed the film's conclusion. But if you want to be on Jack's Jury, then you need to consider him 'Innocent until proven guilty', from the outset. If you watch the film with this in mind, i think you'll find it difficult to convict him.
At 30:09 - Regarding Charles and Delbert Grady, it is possible that they are two different people (assuming that they were ever there). Charles was the caretaker in the 1970s who killed his eight and ten year old daughters and wife. Delbert was a butler in the 1920s, perhaps an uncle of Charles, who had and killed his twin daughters and wife.
I always find it funny when ppl argue (not saying y'all or the RUclipsr r just saying ppl) about the hotel not being haunted but ignore the fact that ppl r telepathic and can talk through their minds lol. If the shinning is there then the ghost r real.
Although the twenties Grady is implied to have killed his wife and daughters! Also it’s implied that Jack recognized his face as being the same man he saw in the papers. So no.
@@TheCollapse410exactly correct. Also, it’s silly that they argue this as though it were a documentary about real life rather than a story of fiction! So laughable. 😊
You know... Family members look alike. It's one of those things. So... the 1920s Grady could easily have looked JUST LIKE the 1970s Grady. These things happen,@@victoryak86
My take on Hallorann is that he sacrificed himself. The hotel was going to claim the boy as the price for Jack selling his soul. The devil takes the role of god here, where Jack is Abraham and Danny is Issac. That makes Hallorann the lamb (the scapegoat). Halorrann's shining would surely have enabled him to know what was in store for him. He is the hero of the film.
Not sure if that was Kubrick's intent or not, but an interesting theory. In Doctor Sleep, the remains of the Overlook took on the qualities of what King called a "thinny", possessing the attributes of multiple separate realities, rolled into one quantification. If you've ever read "Wizard and Glass" you'll know what I'm talking about. It's really strange how things were set up for The Dark Tower before The Dark Tower was even began. Kubrick's version was more of a nasty take on the Stanley Hotel. Stephen said it was made to "hurt people" which I don't think is very true. This one director liked to take inspiration and twist it into the nightmares of reality. Absolute gold.
@@ilovebutterstuff I think King meant himself when he said "people". And, I think King was correct. Not a fan of King, so I don't care, but I think Kubrick was mean to a lot of people.
That's funny because I think Kubrick killed him off because of karmic justice: Scatman's character is a victim of abuse as a child and because it's common for abused to become abusers (the tip-off is the paintings of naked women in his home/hotel room) Scatman is more likely than not a pedo.
4. Jack went to the hotel to write a book, not yet knowing what the book would be, but the hotel's history, coupled with his deepest fears that surfaced in the isolation he required to write his book, inspired him to write the most discussed horror story, of all time. And the Torrances lived happily ever after.
the detail that shows that all of this is not just in jack's head is when he was left out of the food pantry... how did he get out if it was all in their mind?
I’ve always been a bit amused by people who want to discount all supernatural elements from the film. They say, well it’s all just in their heads etc. The thing is, it doesn’t explain many aspects of the film such as the conversation between Dick and Danny about the shining gift or even Grady opening the door for Jack (and actually many many others). The reason this is so silly is that this film is a STORY OF FICTION! It’s not a flippin documentary. It’s Kubrick making an admittedly ambiguous film,in which he explores many ideas including psychology AND the supernatural! He himself stated he was even exploring ideas like reincarnation, to look at why Jack was in the picture. Instead of bringing one’s own preconceived notions about these things, just take the narrative on its own, ALL of it.
Kubrick invited this, though. Many movies bring out a doctor or a detective at the end to explain everything, or have someone confessing to the police. Kubrick could have had Danny explain that he hurt himself so his mother would get him out of the hotel before his Dad killed him, and he let his Dad out of the store room and then led him into the maze with intent to trap Jack. Kubrick set it up so that we see Wendy has a secret, and Danny has some kind of problem, before they get to the hotel. I think the photo at the end nails down that it is the hotel, it is supernatural, it is not just a family going crazy together, or one character hallucinating everything. But, that is my interpretation of the last scene.
@@watermelonlalala well said, completely agree. I’ve seen a few videos dedicated to the idea it is all psychological and that there are “no ghosts.” I’m like, ok but Kubrick himself stated otherwise but wanted there to be ambiguity. But it’s amusing when people have an entire thesis about the meaning and are so sure of it, even if it’s at odds with what the actual filmmaker said about it.
@@victoryak86 Thanks! The people with the theories have pointed out lots of stuff that I missed, though. And I always am suspicious of what film makers say. I think they tend to blow off questions.
True, but the film implies the possibility that it is all in their heads itself because it plays with what we know about people who get crazy - really on a basic level: Reality ist distorted for them. But I agree that there are Ghosts in the Overlook Hotel. 😉
Jack Torrance also has the 'shining'. This film is so much deeper and far more complex than can be unpacked in a mere 3 viewings. Watch it a few more times...and then a few more.
I appreciate the analysis taken deeply from face value and combed over everything. Seems like there’s too many vids trying to impose theory over the script and not appreciating the movie for a thorough horror. Good stuff
18 minutes in, felt like 5 minutes. Watched every second, this is an amazing/ underrated full analysis of the shinning. Just the video I’ve been looking for to help with my strange obsession with this film. 👍🏻
Whoever came up with this theory has a woefully inadequate understanding of how much a dedicated alcoholic can consume. Edit nor would a deducated alcoholic forget about a bottle stashed away. One bottle would not result in the events of the film... btw its definitely the latter, Duvall being abused by the director...
It's a story of a vulnerable narcissist alcoholic who blames his family for his not being a somebody. When he tries to write a book he realizes he has nothing to say and again blames his family. Coupled with withdrawals, Jack decides to do what the other caretaker did and Correct them. Danny realized what was happening and did his best to worn his mother. It's a man who was abusing both of his family members and finally attempted to go to far in his abuse. No ghosts, no supernatural.
The easiest way to interpret the differences in the film, is to acknowledge that a lot of it occurs within the story Jack is writing, inspired by his own experiences, but altered for dramatic effect.
@@valb553 he dismissed the strongest depiction of what the sexual abuse was all about. There is more videos that go in depth. It's just not a topic one wants to look into for obvious reasons.
Great job with this video, dude! I'm pretty obsessed with The Shining myself and I've watched every theory film and video out there, but this one is the best because it draws from all of the others and still lets you make your own conclusion. What it all boils down to is whether the movie is a real horror movie or a bunch of people having a psychological break...Kubrick said he chose the book because it blurred the line between psychology and real horror so well. Stephen King believes in spirits, Kubrick was a staunch atheist so he wants the audience to be confused in that regard also. I believe that the ONLY way to make sense of The Shining is to see it as a real haunted hotel movie because there are too many supernatural elements to explain away if it's only inside their own heads. If you watch it believing that the hotel is truly haunted by spirits, it leaves way less loose ends to tie up, plus King wrote it THAT way so why not go with his original idea? If you watch it this way, and remember that we have an unreliable narration going on in the film, it makes perfect sense. Love your version though, brother! Have a good one and thanks from the U.K.
Thank you for your work and time in putting this video analysis together. You discussed the necessity of Dick Halloran as a character and about the necessity of having him die. If you watch the analysis by Malmrose Project, the analyst gives an excellent explanation and rationale about the significance of Dick Halloran as a character. I would be curious to know your thoughts on this matter. Keep in mind that Kubrick used King's story as a jumping off point to explore themes of abuse and trauma, whereas King's story is a haunted house story and an exploration about alcoholism. When Kubrick adapted novels, such as Lolita and A Clockwork Orange, he made changes to explore themes that he wanted to highlight. Most Sincerely, Chris Howley, Wollaston, Massachusetts
The intro is filled with usual Horror tropes, but the first major dialogue, upon Jack's arrival, is deliberate to describe how long the ride is. 3.5 hours is "making good time". The scene in the car, is when they're almost there, so everybody will be exhausted, particularly Jack, who did all the driving. And probably took less risks with the family present. I'd guess 5 hours. You ever been on a five hour drive? Through the wilderness? I bet you weren't all singing Kum Ba Ya at the end.
It clearly has supernatural in it the ghosts are real they are after Danny but they know Jack is the easiest to corrupt because ha already has that contempt for his family. When Hallerin dies that when Wendy starts seeing more because the hotel has taken his shine a feeding off that energy
One interesting thing I noticed about this film is at 9:37 that's the first shot in the film where it's just Jack and Wendy. And I mean JUST Jack and Wendy. All previous scenes with them, there's another person onscreen with them. Heck, even when they're talking on the phone at the beginning of the film, they're not onscreen together. But here in the bathroom of their apartment at The Overlook is where it's finally just the two of them. What's so significant about that, you might ask? Because the bathroom is THE LAST TIME THEY'RE EVER TOGETHER. This is the room where Jack tries to kill Wendy, before he leaves to go deal with Halloran. After that, Jack and Wendy never see each other again. Not only that, but for the conspiracy theorists out there, notice that Jack is on the left while Wendy is on the right... which is exactly how Jack and the 237 woman are positioned on-camera. Also, when Jack went into the bathroom with Wendy, he looked into the tub... while Wendy stands next to the sink where her knife would end up. Also, you can see that Jack is standing in front of the bathroom window, as if he's blocking the escape.
Good comment. The only thing I ever thought about that scene is that they are both pretending to like the apartment, when they don't. They are in "the servant's quarters".
@@hermanhale9258 Thank you! And ooh, good point about "the servant's quarters." You're right, their apartment is like a "servant equivalent" of the fancy shmancy Room 237 (the only other apartment in the whole building we ever see).
Are you talking about the scen early on in the bedroom when she brings him breakfast? What about the scene in the large room when he’s typing and he yells at her?
@@victoryak86 No. I'm talking about when the Torrences are being given a tour of the hotel when they first arrive, and when they're first shown their own hotel.
35:07 Shelley seems to make it clear that she caught her hair on the windowsilI, why ignore that? Also, I'm not convinced that Kubrick was dismissive of her input.
28:49 Maybe Jack attacked Danny earlier, chocking him to unconsciousness. Then Jack wonders downstairs in a daze. He dozes off, having a nightmare about what just happened. Meanwhile, Danny's oxygen deprived brain hallucinates being attacked by the ghost.
Shelley is the only actor to have a character arc. Yet critics attacked her acting in 1980. I think straight men are more likely to identify with Jake and agree with his character mocking Wendy . women are mixed in identifying with or hating Wendy. Wendy defends Jack's dislocation of their son's arm to the Doctor. Danny refuses to tell about abuse. If you watch reactors on RUclips the Shining works as a ghost story or an abusive family story. My take is Jack is molesting Danny and Tony is the way Danny deals with it. Seeing visions of horror while defending and living Jack. Wendy sees the horror visions after accusing her husband of hurting Danny. The theory that the bear man having sex with the old man is a representative of Danny and jack
The infamous "stair" scene, has the record for the most 'retakes', it was reshot on camera 127 times & the axe scene, Jack Nickolson had to destroy more than 70 times. Scatman Crothers, rumours also mentioned his kitchen scenes with Danny was shot more than a hundred times. But I am sure, ANY other director, that was satisfied with 3-5 retakes, would have made a movie, which wouldnt still, in 2024, be discussed & analyzed as insanely many times as Kubrick's masterpiece. His small hidden messages & his very strange death, just before the premiere on "Eyes wide shut" + his filming of the fake moonlanding + the 25min of footage, missing when they mixed his last movie. With appearance of members of the Illuminati... But thats a research worth, if it sounds to far out or to much of a conspiracy.....
Perhaps Jack Torrance's novel is The Shining. My initial reaction was that the film meant one does not want to married to Stephen King. If Dick Halloran doesn't die, Jack is just a looney who might deserve sympathy. Deliberate Black man dies to demonstrate threat trope. Where in the world does Jack's sudden explosion about The White Man's Burden come from? His anger is directed at his wife and family. In both The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, characters have dreams simultaneously to similar actions elsewhere.
This is just one possible layer of many. One month in, Jack stays in to write, Wendy and Danny go to the maze. Jack walks by a couch, looks at the bat, then stands over the miniature maze. At that point, we may be looking at the "writer" Jack giving birth to a book. He came there to write, with no good ideas. From that point on, we are watching his book's story play out. A writer and family stay as care takers to a large hotel. He goes mad and tries to kill his family.
The ghost of the former undertaker speaks to Jack as if Jack is "the owner of the manor" instead of the current undertaker. He appears before Jack dressed as a butler and tell's Jack that he needs to "deal with his family."
…why do you say the woman in 237 is Grady’s wife?? (I know we can’t take the book as gospel for the film, for sure,) but in the novel the woman in 237 is entirely fleshed-out (pun intended) - she has nothing to do w Grady. Either way, I don’t think there’s any implication of her being his wife in the film at all - wondering why you said that.
Dick Howerlan (sic)is where Kubrick and king separate where King believed that hell was real and Kubrick brought more of a Budest or Hindu approach..IE reincarnation ect. It's obvious that Kings story kinda went of the rails and couldn't stick the landing and Kubrick rewrote it for the movie. I Dont think King ever forgot it. I personally like Kings approach but I think he could have done a better job focusing on a more Hotel California esk story. I think the Pic of Jack from the 20s was pretty much why people liked the movie and I feel Kubrick could have had more clarity in the Charles/Delbert Grady story line and his use of mirrors.
I've always viewed the booze as metaphorical and indeed ghostly. He mentions a beer for his soul and gets "Jack Daniels" instead. (Lets call it "Jack Danny" for short.) I'm of the mind that the ghosts are real enough and Jack bumping into Dalbert Grady is quite the bridge between psychology and the (malevolent) supernatural.
You’re missing the point about Jack’s drink. He is drinking from a glass that isn’t there, and he’s getting drunk off of nothing. This is the effect of the hotel on him. When Wendy comes to tell him about the woman, she doesn’t notice the drink, because it isn’t there. If she had walked in earlier, she would have witnessed him turning an empty fist up to his mouth. Also, the moment Grady opens the pantry door to let Jack out, we lose the possibility that this is purely a psychological film.
Over the decades, Duvall has said more than once, including in Vivian Kubrick's Making Of, that she and Stanley Kubrick had a productive working relationship and that he did not "abuse" her. He got a bit snippy, and certainly mocked her claim that her hair was falling out in clumps (it wasn't). The subject comes again in the $1500 publication from Taschen, by writer Lee Unkrich, who evidently interviewed her in recent years and she reiterated the claim. This story of the tortured Shelley Duvall is almost as much of an urban legend as Marilyn Monroe's love affair with JFK, based on a jokey "sexy" Happy Birthday rendition at a campaign fundraiser. Also, the movie has ghosts. Source: Stanley Kubrick and Diane Johnson, the screenwriters. Secondary source: Stephen King, who wrote the book upon which the movie was based. It's about ghosts and the boy who has the psychic power to see them manifesting from the past into the present. Of course, if you think there are no ghosts, then Danny's shining (and "The Shining") is complete gibberish. Part of understanding film is understanding the material from which a film might be adapted. It also leads to new insights: what did the director change? What did he keep? Anyway, good luck in the future, and try not to believe everything you hear without researching it more thoroughly.
In those clips of Kubrick w Shelley even you take it a bit out of context. Not many directors would have a conversation with their actors to discuss whether a line should be in there. I saw nothing that could be considered “terrible” towards Shelley. He got angry a few times. SO WHAT? Most directors do. Even when he says “don’t sympathize w Shelley”. Just after he continued “because it doesn’t help you.” Sounds a lot worse without the second part but with it it comes off as almost fatherly chiding. Maybe he was too hard on her at times but even she herself says how much it helped her and how positive an experience it was. So maybe people should stop trying to speak for her.
Whoa, I think I finally understand why Jack is seen in the photo at the end of the film: It's symbolic of the cycle of abuse! I think I can add the reason the sexual abuse of Danny is not overt or explicit is because they never would've let him make that movie. I'd add, crucially, Scatman is also a victim of abuse and the Shining itself is not supernatural but rather a child who's been exposed (I guess pun intended) to adult knowledge, most particularly in the context of sexual abuse. Thus, the child is beyond his/her years. In addition, said child of abuse is obviously (rightly or wrongly) going to be more observant or perceptive, dare I say clairvoyant.
When alleged supernatural occurrences happen in real life, sceptics look for a rational explanation. How one interprets such events depends largely on what one believes. In that sense, the film is similar to a real life occurrence. Some people would take Wendy's account at face value, while others, such as the police, would rule out supernatural causes before determining what happened.
There's very disturbing image @ 5:50 If look on left of "Danny " i believe it confirms that Jack was sexually abusing Danny because there's a image of Danny or ,(could be a different boy ). However, has the profile of danny giving "HEAD" looks like a "glory-Hole " or is could it be jack"?? "Unbelievably FKN " disturbing!!!! Ive watced this movie like 100 times and I just now noticed that disturbing image WOW!!!!
People seriously need to stop with this Shelley was abused nonsense,Stanley was a demanding Director who didn't take any shit from method actors who overly complicated everything on set,there are other stories of him doing this on other sets with other actors,this claim of abuse is a modern snowflake wah-man are always victims mindset and it needs to stop being blindly propagated in every Shining review,he didn't hit her,shove her or cuss at her,he just was pushing her to give the best performance,that used to be called good directing,it's no abuse,end of the story.
I personally see the shining as a psychological horror about various forms of abuse and how we’re doomed to repeat the sins of our past. I think that most of the “ghosts” we see in the film are caused by the psyche of the characters as they go insane because of the isolation.
Why do nearly all the "ghosts" in this film appear with mirrors or in doorways framed like mirrors? The only time they arguably don't is the twins in the hallway. But notice how reflective the walls are when we see the girls. In fact, notice how much of the Overlook has reflective surfaces on the walls and floors. Everything's very shiny. It shines. Again, why mirrors/refections? What do we see in mirrors?
I like that you tied ADSR to story structure. And jump scares compared to that. Nicholson doing scary is a natural; if you think about it, his least successful films are of him being a lover or tender. Shining video after video and no one mentions Jack set aside 5 months in isolation for a story outline. Also, Ullman refers to Grady as his predecessor, not a former caretaker.
That too, but she did claim to be a survivor. I think her story was that she was in one tower, her fiance worked in the other tower, they were about to get married, but the truth was that she was actually in Barcelona or would have been in Barcelona when all of that happened. But she was part of the survivors' network, had interviews with politicians and the media, was in the spotlight for a while, all of that kind of stuff which was what made the 2007 New York Times expose so damning and crazy.
both the Shining an Silent Hill are stories I will enjoy always I'm interested in horror myateries . I believe that Hichcocks work lives on in certain movies as if his legacy continues makes me think of the horror game Doom Eternal without the classic todays version wouldn't exist . 👍👍
It’s a simple re birth sequence movie. Just like EVERY single “horror” film ever made. Dick is important character; he was the “christ” sacrifice. This is a basic movie by no means a “zenith” of esoteric writings brought to film. If you can’t get this movie, you can’t get any other movie. But yes, it was filmed and produced at a high level for its time, I will give it kudos for that. And a few very esoteric manifestations that I appreciated.
I agree w that. I’m unsure of Carothers ethnicity beyond African American but he did have features that might partly derive from an Indigenous people such as American Indian. I haven’t seen this discussed much but I think it’s implied that he is representing the Indigenous Americans who were slaughtered. It’s not hard to see that this is partly what Kubrick was looking at.
A poorly aged cliff hanger. I planned to make a follow up about 2-4 weeks after this video came out on another film but some stuff happened, it got put on the back-burner, and I lost interest in that video project and instead wanted to do a different one. That will be the next video. I'll probably get around to finishing that other video on the film teased at the end eventually but it'll be well after I complete the project I'm currently working on.
A movie is not just story and characters. These two ingredients are nothing without being intertwined with cinematography, sound, music. While listening to "analyzes" (explanations) of Shining and Eyes Wide Shut I have come to believe that Americans are overwhelmingly fixated with the individual and the core family. Therefore themes, currents that hints (or screams) about something wider like mythology, fairy tales, politics, racism, economy and social power get lost as veils, red herrings that hides, symbolizes or only doubles the central family dramas that already are presented explicitly. But where does that leave the fluid, stalking camera movements in the beginning and inside the Overlook and the maze. Just documenting characters as they move around? The dissonant music with choirs performing something ritual-like? Are these just red herrings? And where does that leave the Gold Room with Loyd, Grady and the elite party, the world of the powerful Jack desperately will become a part of? Where does that leave the fundamental, cold "alien-ness" of the different ghosts? And all the mythological associations with wolves, minotaur, Theseus, werewolves, native American spirits, ghosts, shapeshifters, witches, hags, adventurers? Take all this in and the Shining will be an even richer film.
Yeah that is an angle that I should have focused more on (most I touched on with cinematography was with the "all work and no play" scene). That's the thing that always makes this film in particular fascinating to look at over and over again because so much is delivered to the table to be looked at and is deserving of being looked at. On a related note, having to go through the film many times in Premiere to assemble the video wouldn't necessarily be me watching the film in its entirety multiple times, but it still had me rewatching fragments of it that on occasion made me realize something about the film or notice something for the first time. In my opinion you could make a video that is even an hour longer than the runtime of The Shining and something was still left out that could have been looked at. The book and the film I treat as independent things because the film has to stand on its own without the book; however, a thing I have thought about would be to do a full comparison of King's original text and Kubrick's vision. That could easily justify a full hour I imagine. But, in a way I think it could be an interesting analysis because one possible way of looking at things then would be to see how Stanley Kubrick took the source material and "edited" (in the literary sense) it to fit on the silver screen. The most apparent example that I mention in the video being how Dick Hallorann is portrayed in the film. One thing I'll say though (and pardon me because it's been a while since I wrote and edited this video) but I'm guessing I did say something in this video about a film being nothing without its story and characters or something to that effect. To me, when it comes to narrative filmmaking, that mostly hold true because there is something that is supposed to be said by the narrative. Now, how that is then told is where cinematography, sound, music, performances, set design, etc comes into play. Full Metal Jacket, which directly followed this film, is perhaps just as striking if not more so than The Shining in how it handles its themes for these very reasons that come down to the production choices. If I were to make a video on FMJ, I would absolutely have to focus on the performances of the actors. For some scenes (you know which one in particular), lighting and music would be the focus of what I'd talk about because given what Pyle does in that scene, it was those things that stuck in my mind equally as much. And once the film gets to Vietnam there is so much more to talk about just in cinematography alone.
My huge problem with this analysis is your willful ignorance to certain things for your own preferences. Like how can you say the shining is all bullshit and that you think its just gut feelings? Halloran literally telepathically spoke into dannys mind just before they had their concersation over ice cream. I think its extremely intentional that you chose not to include or even speak about that moment bc it doesn't fit into your biased analysis. Great movie, it is 100% supernatural in the book and in the film, and youre doing it a huge disservice by misrepresenting it as you are
I’m doing an analysis on some of my videos because of how long it has been since I made these (looking at shortfalls of the original analysis in particular). So my original intention with this video wasn’t to be willfully ignorant to the “shining” element. I think how I presented this certainly didn’t do a good job looking at the supernatural elements of the film. I am still firmly in the psychological horror camp, but I see that when I edited down the script of this video, the first segment focusing on the supernatural elements got a lot of cuts to it (4min compared to 8min for the second section, I distinctly remember talking more about the “shining” than this video actually had in it). I do agree that I should have answered for the telepathic conversation and really spent much more time on Hallorann and Danny’s conversation. As for the book, I did think about doing a follow up to this video where I discuss King’s book (also see how different Kubrick’s version actually is in the process). Why I didn’t talk about the novel in this video is because I view films and books, even if one is adapted from another, as separate because they must be able to stand on their own. Someone shouldn’t have to watch a film to get a book and someone shouldn’t have to read a book to get a film. The film maker (in this case) should have done a good enough job telling the story, even if it is different to the original author’s vision, to end up with a satisfactory narrative. But I still discussed the death of Hallorann and it not being in the original novel because I inherently had a problem with his death in the film anyway.
Kubrick was a known perfectionist. Every single scene and shot was intentional...including the 'incontinuities' throughout the film. If you're questioning the necessity of a certain scene or shot, know that it is necessary and ask yourself not 'if?' but 'why?'
I want to thank you now for deciding to NOT include the racial filth. Also, when you mentioned that Jack knew it would have been Halloran instead of Ullman, you are probably right but also Ullman didn't give a rip, and in the novel Ullman is made out to be a real A-hole
often I think Kubrick tries to be too...Arty and abstract, using the cop out, - it means what ever you want it to mean he's not often factual explaining much like some modern Art painter.
Say what? You describe Scatman as Danny's friend? WTF? I think you're afraid to rewatch the movie, or scenes with Scatman, and recontextualize what he says with him being a victim of abuse as a child by his grandmama, or answer why is he sitting in his oversexualized home? (hotel room?) thinking of a little boy he met once over a month ago and then travels across country because he's a good guy? Seriously, even if you do, do you think that's what Kubrick intended. I think you're confusing the seemingly nicest guy (Scatman Caruthers) on Earth and his pedo/pervert character in the Shining???
For those into the Beatles/Abbey Road speculation, I think Danny looks like Julian Lennon when he is with his father and Yoko at the Rock and Roll Circus. He sits and stares and doesn't look like he is having fun.
I don't know...the REDRUM on the door may have worked in the novel but was groan-inducing in the film. At the end, I couldn't get out of the theater fast enough.
If you’re talking about the one where she is hallucinating everything, I don’t quite buy it. The film doesn’t stick to simply one character (ie if we were only concerned with Wendy’s POV and supposed faulty narrative, then why do we see Mr. Hallorann’s POV several times?) which doing so would better demonstrate the film looking at just one person’s mental breakdown. I think it ends up putting more blame than necessary on Wendy when it is clear Danny has his own trauma as well and Jack has his own issues also. To me it is more interesting to look at the film as if no one is crazy, but the house turns them mad (haunted house); Jack planned to lure his family into a false sense of security to get rid of them (premeditated murder); or, they all slowly cracked under intense isolation and Jack’s own past abuses returned in part because of his ambitions (full family psychological breakdown). I suppose the Wendy theory is a restructured version of the third explanation I gave in the video, but again, I do not think it is fair to put all the blame onto the mother, make her out to be the bad one, when it is clearly shown she cares more for her child than the father does.
I think Wendy is a very normal human being, married to an aggressive, struggling alcoholic, and has a son who shines. That’s a lot to deal with! She has a total right to go off the rails while living in a haunted hotel !!!
@@absoluteproblemwell stated. The Wendy thing drives me nuts because of its faulty logic. Just too inconsistent and a perfect example of “a priori” argumentation, bringing a preconceived notion and forcing upon a narrative. It falls flat easily.
What does this mean? She was doing the work Jack was supposed to be doing, the reason he was hired. But it’s true she wasn’t with Danny at that point but also dint yet know what a sh*t show she had coming.
Jack may have suspected Danny was not actually his son. After all, he did, when confessing his troubles to Lloyd the bartender, call Wendy "the ole sp*rm bank."
Shelly? I haven't seen her enough to judge her acting but based on limited exposure and the dvd extras, i feel like she's playing a version of herself Maybe it's just me, but i don't see her as a great actor, and certainly not one the outdid Nicholson
Whoa, whoa. Stairway to heaven then you deliberately show and TITLE the Song remains the same(no audio)? WTF? Why? Cred from that point forward... sigh
Playing Stairway (the audio track itself) probably would’ve gotten the video claimed (surprised only so much of this video was claimed for The Shining) so I replaced it with a pretty generic Am arpeggio to simulate the opening. The clip of the Stairway To Heaven live performance comes from the concert film, The Song Remains The Same (though I just realized 1973 should be 1976 since it would be based on the year of release for the film).
Jack didn't abuse Danny, I thought that, until I realised it was not the same day that Jack was in the bedroom holding his neck (hallucinated by Wendy as she watched an unplugged TV). Wendy was in 237, and that is why jack didn't find anyone when he went to look. The crazy woman Danny saw in 237 was Wendy. Jack probably didn't even hurt Danny's arm either, that's what Wendy said happened.
Except Jack literally admits to hurting Danny in the bar scene. Sorry, that whole Wendy was the antagonist BS just doesn't make sense and makes me wonder how many people latch on to that idea because they, uh, relate a little too much to Jack.
Ok Dr. Wendy Theory. The problem with this narrative is that it’s taking one’s own preconceived notions and stretching, twisting and bending the actual film to make it fit said preconceived (poorly) notions. But it doesn’t fit when looking at the whole film. Not even close. It is silly.
Shelley Duval had such a unique beauty.
Cool quirky beauty❣️
she wasn't the most attractive lady in all aspects but I agree and she had a perfect profile
Really? Great little actress, but I always thought she was kinda homely. Perfect for the role of "Windy" Her name is Winnifer, but people mistakenly call her Wendy. She was the linchpin for how things went down in the middle of the second act.
Life is all about looks blondie. 😂
🤮
THANK YOU for giving Shelley the props she deserves - ! People are so hard on her performance, which to me is blasphemous. In a film which demands her to be at the HEIGHT of the most extreme human emotions for half of her screen-time - I find her performance to Be NUANCED, complex, controlled and entirely committed! Where Jack Nicholson is mugging (and - whether you’re on the side of “I love the mugging” or “I hate the mugging” - he IS mugging )- Shelley is grounded in whatever moment Wendy is in. Her Wendy has faced endless criticism for being “weak” , “a misogynist portrayal of a hapless woman” and (IDK why anyone thinks this word even classifies as worthy of being included as critique- but it OFTEN is -) “ugly”. (Err I guess all that is faulted to her and/OR sometimes Kubrick); I could not disagree more. Her Wendy is sharp, intuitive- she bravely fights for herself and her son, as reality slips away from the very few people around her. Duvall was small, she had a high-voice and a very trad-fem demeanor-- those traits do not make her performance WEAK. I think she finds just the amount of fragility you’d expect to see in someone surviving within this (if not ALWAYS abusive-) wildly UNSTEADY marital home. ((ESPECIALLY as a woman, 70s-into the 80’s ; like THE WHOLE COUNTRY WAS MISOGYNIST)). In the wrong hands, the film (particularly the violence) could strike far too close to the UNCANNY-GOOFBALL side -dark CAMP -material
- but Shelly is so sincerely FEELING, so sincerely desperate for the man she loves to appear from within that monster and prove she is safe!! (which of course we all see she is not) - She keeps those scenes against Jack N, which could be garish and laugh-able-- ABSOLUTELY TRAGIC. Her performance reminds viewers what so many horror flicks tend to forget entirely : that violence has consequences. There’s terror, yes, but also real grief and extreme trauma - the devastating loss of the family unit - ; as Shelley’s Wendy pulls herself thru the film, we watch her slowly realize she’s witnessing the end of life as she knew it ; she watches the death of her own fairy-tale. As Wendy fights to save herself and her son, she slowly accepts and then mourns the life she thought she had; the vision of her sure-future, frozen for all time in that maze. For, certainly (live or die), the world will never be the same - Any mask of safety and trust has been shattered, and (if she gets out) it will take years to fully unpack what the fuq she went through in that hotel - she’ll have to question what it implies abt her entire life/marriage before the Overlook. THAT devastating tragedy , THAT is all in Shelley Duvall’s performance. It’s heartbreak. And I think her contribution is what reallllyyyy lifts the shining up to be just as powerfully-disturbing as it is; YES It’s spooky-ooky-creepy, but HER devastating-realizations elevate the story to Fully-Upsetting.
I think she’s the absolute heart of the film
(Scatman brings warmth, but is absent for most of it); without her the film could feel soulless. - ALSO,
i think she’s goddamned LOVELY.
Can't help but agree... For the most part. First off, her nickname is "Windy" not Wendy. The annunciation varies slightly throughout the film, but she is undoubtedly introduced as "Winnifer". Her character is undeniable, that of a typical lower middle class housewife, going through the trials and tribulations of the average woman during that time period. How you brought misogyny into the spotlight is beyond me. People in general are mean, angry, violent little sociopaths with each and every one possessing some kind of "main character syndrome", men and women alike. To put the blame completely on men just reaks of BS to me. Yes, Jack was an abusive asshole. Name one person who has been absolutely perfect their entire life. Windy could have diffused the situation had she been more "perfect", but this is how things played out. It's pretty well known that Kubrick abused the hell out of Ms. Duvall in order to get the performance he wanted from her. Do the ends justify the means? That's a matter for debate. I thought the acting from Nicholson, Duvall, Lloyd, Crothers were spectacular and I think Kubrick had a lot to do with that. What matters most is what people who like to read perceive from the final product. You seem to take away a feminist perspective. I take away a cultural icon. To each their own.
@@ilovebutterstuff …lolllllllll no her name is Wendy dude. Read the credits, (or the book?)
@@stevielove4778 --- If you're a fan, you'll know that there's a vast amount of differences between the book and Kubrick's vision (and yes, I have read the book)... It doesn't really matter, I just pay attention to detail. What does any of this have to with the underlying current of a cultural icon?
I think it's obvious Kubrick thought Wendy the hero of the film.
Fantastic overview and analysis. I absolutely agree that Shelley is the one carrying the entire film on her shoulders. I cannot imagine any other actress being as perfect for that role.
Love her! She’s perfect here.
Yes! Meek but powerful!
@@loriescanlon4334I don't know why but I always thought Shelly was so hot lol. I say I don't know why cause she's not my type (my black wife in my thumbnail) but yet she's oddly attractive.
You must be out of your mind. Typical of a woman to say that! Sure, she's also carrying the entire resort hotel on her shoulder.
They’re both greatest here.
How can you “write off” the importance of the Shine when the title clearly tells us that that is what this entire story is about!?
Correct. I think it’s funny, those who sy “there are no ghosts!” As if it’s not a story of fiction. It doesn’t have to reflect real life necessarily, though Kubrick was exploring many ideas, some of them supernatural nd some psychological.
I hate when people try and choose the most "realistic" interpretation and then decide to make half of the horror just a dream. Also tbh complaining abt dick dying feels stupid since having a horror movie with no deaths kinda makes jack feel less dangerous. Also a character not doing the smartest most optimal thing isn't immediately bad writing. We dont know how much dick knew abt the situation going in. Anyway tldr stop trying to make every movie more realistic and complaining about plotholes it's obnoxious and makes doing analysis way less fascinating
One can clearly see that this guy is not a fan of Stephen King. His scientific, skeptical view of "there are no ghosts in The Shining" has it's merits, but downplays all the intricacies and delicate nature of the Overlook Hotel. I don't agree with the viewpoint that this is all purely mental illness and nothing else. I do agree that the making of this movie affected the actors on a fundamental level, which was Kubrick's intent from the start. Weird how the actual hotel's name was "The Stanley"... The film was an absolute conundrum, from within, from without. I'd like to produce my own take on it, but it would take money that I don't have.
Just got to that line and hit stop on the video. Useless interpretation. Thumbs down
Who know what other interpretations he might settle on if he watches the movie a fourth time?
Joe Turkel and Philip Stone were brilliant in this movie. Their understated yet terrifying performances were a stark contrast to Jack Nicholson's manic energy. They were never leading men but both left an indelible impact on cinema.
To me, the two were the shortest Oscar worthy performances in film. Scatman had a longer role but just as worthy. He was beautiful.
Well put. Philip Stone turned up in an episode of Yes Minister the other day. It was quite odd as although I instantly knew his face, it took me a few seconds to realise who he was. I bet acting alongside Paul Eddington was a piece of cake compared to Jack!
@@T11639 Scatman played a character called Turkle, in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Another Nicholson film in which a turned off TV provides entertainment.
What makes The Shining “A Masterpiece” - is the fact that The Viewer will always come back to it…time after time after time. It’s almost like The Viewer is also caught up in the web of the Overlook…like we’re just another one of the “spirits” doomed to re-live its horrors. How else can you explain that we all can watch this movie endlessly and never get enough?
"We" represent the spirits that haunt Jack. His biggest fear. We are the ones who point the finger and shout "GUILTY!", because we have witnessed the film's conclusion. But if you want to be on Jack's Jury, then you need to consider him 'Innocent until proven guilty', from the outset.
If you watch the film with this in mind, i think you'll find it difficult to convict him.
At 30:09 - Regarding Charles and Delbert Grady, it is possible that they are two different people (assuming that they were ever there). Charles was the caretaker in the 1970s who killed his eight and ten year old daughters and wife. Delbert was a butler in the 1920s, perhaps an uncle of Charles, who had and killed his twin daughters and wife.
That's actually a perfect explanation of the inconsistencies between the two characters, thanks so much for clearing that up for me!
I always find it funny when ppl argue (not saying y'all or the RUclipsr r just saying ppl) about the hotel not being haunted but ignore the fact that ppl r telepathic and can talk through their minds lol. If the shinning is there then the ghost r real.
Although the twenties Grady is implied to have killed his wife and daughters! Also it’s implied that Jack recognized his face as being the same man he saw in the papers. So no.
@@TheCollapse410exactly correct. Also, it’s silly that they argue this as though it were a documentary about real life rather than a story of fiction! So laughable. 😊
You know... Family members look alike. It's one of those things. So... the 1920s Grady could easily have looked JUST LIKE the 1970s Grady. These things happen,@@victoryak86
My take on Hallorann is that he sacrificed himself. The hotel was going to claim the boy as the price for Jack selling his soul. The devil takes the role of god here, where Jack is Abraham and Danny is Issac. That makes Hallorann the lamb (the scapegoat). Halorrann's shining would surely have enabled him to know what was in store for him. He is the hero of the film.
If Lloyd is the Devil, giving Jack liquor, then Grady would be the Old Testament God, telling Jack he has to correct his willful son.
@watermelonlalala Nice. The realisation of a satanic inversion of a resonant myth is terrifying.
Not sure if that was Kubrick's intent or not, but an interesting theory. In Doctor Sleep, the remains of the Overlook took on the qualities of what King called a "thinny", possessing the attributes of multiple separate realities, rolled into one quantification. If you've ever read "Wizard and Glass" you'll know what I'm talking about. It's really strange how things were set up for The Dark Tower before The Dark Tower was even began.
Kubrick's version was more of a nasty take on the Stanley Hotel. Stephen said it was made to "hurt people" which I don't think is very true. This one director liked to take inspiration and twist it into the nightmares of reality. Absolute gold.
@@ilovebutterstuff I think King meant himself when he said "people". And, I think King was correct. Not a fan of King, so I don't care, but I think Kubrick was mean to a lot of people.
That's funny because I think Kubrick killed him off because of karmic justice: Scatman's character is a victim of abuse as a child and because it's common for abused to become abusers (the tip-off is the paintings of naked women in his home/hotel room) Scatman is
more likely than not a pedo.
4. Jack went to the hotel to write a book, not yet knowing what the book would be, but the hotel's history, coupled with his deepest fears that surfaced in the isolation he required to write his book, inspired him to write the most discussed horror story, of all time. And the Torrances lived happily ever after.
the detail that shows that all of this is not just in jack's head is when he was left out of the food pantry... how did he get out if it was all in their mind?
I’ve always been a bit amused by people who want to discount all supernatural elements from the film. They say, well it’s all just in their heads etc. The thing is, it doesn’t explain many aspects of the film such as the conversation between Dick and Danny about the shining gift or even Grady opening the door for Jack (and actually many many others). The reason this is so silly is that this film is a STORY OF FICTION! It’s not a flippin documentary. It’s Kubrick making an admittedly ambiguous film,in which he explores many ideas including psychology AND the supernatural! He himself stated he was even exploring ideas like reincarnation, to look at why Jack was in the picture. Instead of bringing one’s own preconceived notions about these things, just take the narrative on its own, ALL of it.
100% agree with this
Kubrick invited this, though. Many movies bring out a doctor or a detective at the end to explain everything, or have someone confessing to the police. Kubrick could have had Danny explain that he hurt himself so his mother would get him out of the hotel before his Dad killed him, and he let his Dad out of the store room and then led him into the maze with intent to trap Jack. Kubrick set it up so that we see Wendy has a secret, and Danny has some kind of problem, before they get to the hotel. I think the photo at the end nails down that it is the hotel, it is supernatural, it is not just a family going crazy together, or one character hallucinating everything. But, that is my interpretation of the last scene.
@@watermelonlalala well said, completely agree. I’ve seen a few videos dedicated to the idea it is all psychological and that there are “no ghosts.” I’m like, ok but Kubrick himself stated otherwise but wanted there to be ambiguity. But it’s amusing when people have an entire thesis about the meaning and are so sure of it, even if it’s at odds with what the actual filmmaker said about it.
@@victoryak86 Thanks! The people with the theories have pointed out lots of stuff that I missed, though. And I always am suspicious of what film makers say. I think they tend to blow off questions.
True, but the film implies the possibility that it is all in their heads itself because it plays with what we know about people who get crazy - really on a basic level: Reality ist distorted for them.
But I agree that there are Ghosts in the Overlook Hotel. 😉
Gesub ek se.
8:38
I think they are all feeling a bit groggy from the higher altitude. Wendy is sleepy. Jack has a slight headache.
Danny is hungry.
The hotel is hungry and he is talking through Danny.
Jack Torrance also has the 'shining'. This film is so much deeper and far more complex than can be unpacked in a mere 3 viewings. Watch it a few more times...and then a few more.
I appreciate the analysis taken deeply from face value and combed over everything. Seems like there’s too many vids trying to impose theory over the script and not appreciating the movie for a thorough horror. Good stuff
18 minutes in, felt like 5 minutes. Watched every second, this is an amazing/ underrated full analysis of the shinning. Just the video I’ve been looking for to help with my strange obsession with this film. 👍🏻
Stephen King would disagree with you, he made it very clear that Jack deteriorated over time because of the hotel and it’s evil.
And he abused Danny.
The movie was filmed in England the first short were filmed in USA
Whoever came up with this theory has a woefully inadequate understanding of how much a dedicated alcoholic can consume. Edit nor would a deducated alcoholic forget about a bottle stashed away. One bottle would not result in the events of the film... btw its definitely the latter, Duvall being abused by the director...
29:15 an alcoholic never forgets where he put the bottle
He’s just fighting the urge
It's a story of a vulnerable narcissist alcoholic who blames his family for his not being a somebody.
When he tries to write a book he realizes he has nothing to say and again blames his family.
Coupled with withdrawals, Jack decides to do what the other caretaker did and Correct them.
Danny realized what was happening and did his best to worn his mother.
It's a man who was abusing both of his family members and finally attempted to go to far in his abuse.
No ghosts, no supernatural.
The easiest way to interpret the differences in the film, is to acknowledge that a lot of it occurs within the story Jack is writing, inspired by his own experiences, but altered for dramatic effect.
Shining = Open 3rd eye through trauma, survival overload. Very Overlook-ed.
Why are there so little views for such a well made video?
Cause he did not understand th movie
@@valb553 he dismissed the strongest depiction of what the sexual abuse was all about. There is more videos that go in depth. It's just not a topic one wants to look into for obvious reasons.
@@nopeproblem2245no. Wrong.
"Man takes a drink. Drink takes a drink. Then, the drink takes a man."
Great job with this video, dude! I'm pretty obsessed with The Shining myself and I've watched every theory film and video out there, but this one is the best because it draws from all of the others and still lets you make your own conclusion. What it all boils down to is whether the movie is a real horror movie or a bunch of people having a psychological break...Kubrick said he chose the book because it blurred the line between psychology and real horror so well. Stephen King believes in spirits, Kubrick was a staunch atheist so he wants the audience to be confused in that regard also. I believe that the ONLY way to make sense of The Shining is to see it as a real haunted hotel movie because there are too many supernatural elements to explain away if it's only inside their own heads. If you watch it believing that the hotel is truly haunted by spirits, it leaves way less loose ends to tie up, plus King wrote it THAT way so why not go with his original idea? If you watch it this way, and remember that we have an unreliable narration going on in the film, it makes perfect sense. Love your version though, brother! Have a good one and thanks from the U.K.
Thank you for your work and time in putting this video analysis together. You discussed the necessity of Dick Halloran as a character and about the necessity of having him die. If you watch the analysis by Malmrose Project, the analyst gives an excellent explanation and rationale about the significance of Dick Halloran as a character. I would be curious to know your thoughts on this matter. Keep in mind that Kubrick used King's story as a jumping off point to explore themes of abuse and trauma, whereas King's story is a haunted house story and an exploration about alcoholism. When Kubrick adapted novels, such as Lolita and A Clockwork Orange, he made changes to explore themes that he wanted to highlight. Most Sincerely, Chris Howley, Wollaston, Massachusetts
how do you only have 740 subscribers? This is an amazing video essay
Shelly and Jack exclent acting hats off..
The intro is filled with usual Horror tropes, but the first major dialogue, upon Jack's arrival, is deliberate to describe how long the ride is. 3.5 hours is "making good time". The scene in the car, is when they're almost there, so everybody will be exhausted, particularly Jack, who did all the driving. And probably took less risks with the family present. I'd guess 5 hours. You ever been on a five hour drive? Through the wilderness? I bet you weren't all singing Kum Ba Ya at the end.
The You're Distracting Me scene was based on an actual event in Nicholson's life whien he was married to Sandra Knight.
It can be about multiple things, overtones, undertones, themes, literal plot.
It clearly has supernatural in it the ghosts are real they are after Danny but they know Jack is the easiest to corrupt because ha already has that contempt for his family. When Hallerin dies that when Wendy starts seeing more because the hotel has taken his shine a feeding off that energy
One interesting thing I noticed about this film is at 9:37 that's the first shot in the film where it's just Jack and Wendy. And I mean JUST Jack and Wendy. All previous scenes with them, there's another person onscreen with them. Heck, even when they're talking on the phone at the beginning of the film, they're not onscreen together. But here in the bathroom of their apartment at The Overlook is where it's finally just the two of them.
What's so significant about that, you might ask? Because the bathroom is THE LAST TIME THEY'RE EVER TOGETHER. This is the room where Jack tries to kill Wendy, before he leaves to go deal with Halloran. After that, Jack and Wendy never see each other again.
Not only that, but for the conspiracy theorists out there, notice that Jack is on the left while Wendy is on the right... which is exactly how Jack and the 237 woman are positioned on-camera. Also, when Jack went into the bathroom with Wendy, he looked into the tub... while Wendy stands next to the sink where her knife would end up. Also, you can see that Jack is standing in front of the bathroom window, as if he's blocking the escape.
Good comment. The only thing I ever thought about that scene is that they are both pretending to like the apartment, when they don't. They are in "the servant's quarters".
@@hermanhale9258 Thank you! And ooh, good point about "the servant's quarters." You're right, their apartment is like a "servant equivalent" of the fancy shmancy Room 237 (the only other apartment in the whole building we ever see).
Are you talking about the scen early on in the bedroom when she brings him breakfast? What about the scene in the large room when he’s typing and he yells at her?
@@victoryak86 No. I'm talking about when the Torrences are being given a tour of the hotel when they first arrive, and when they're first shown their own hotel.
35:07 Shelley seems to make it clear that she caught her hair on the windowsilI, why ignore that? Also, I'm not convinced that Kubrick was dismissive of her input.
Charles Delbert Grady!
Oh no!! Another 'The Shining' interpretation!!!
Please put a bit of pause between sentences. It is too many rushed words.
This was great!
28:49 Maybe Jack attacked Danny earlier, chocking him to unconsciousness. Then Jack wonders downstairs in a daze. He dozes off, having a nightmare about what just happened. Meanwhile, Danny's oxygen deprived brain hallucinates being attacked by the ghost.
Shelley is the only actor to have a character arc. Yet critics attacked her acting in 1980. I think straight men are more likely to identify with Jake and agree with his character mocking Wendy . women are mixed in identifying with or hating Wendy. Wendy defends Jack's dislocation of their son's arm to the Doctor. Danny refuses to tell about abuse. If you watch reactors on RUclips the Shining works as a ghost story or an abusive family story. My take is Jack is molesting Danny and Tony is the way Danny deals with it. Seeing visions of horror while defending and living Jack. Wendy sees the horror visions after accusing her husband of hurting Danny. The theory that the bear man having sex with the old man is a representative of Danny and jack
The infamous "stair" scene, has the record for the most 'retakes', it was reshot on camera 127 times & the axe scene, Jack Nickolson had to destroy more than 70 times. Scatman Crothers, rumours also mentioned his kitchen scenes with Danny was shot more than a hundred times.
But I am sure, ANY other director, that was satisfied with 3-5 retakes, would have made a movie, which wouldnt still, in 2024, be discussed & analyzed as insanely many times as Kubrick's masterpiece.
His small hidden messages & his very strange death, just before the premiere on "Eyes wide shut" + his filming of the fake moonlanding + the 25min of footage, missing when they mixed his last movie. With appearance of members of the Illuminati... But thats a research worth, if it sounds to far out or to much of a conspiracy.....
Perhaps Jack Torrance's novel is The Shining. My initial reaction was that the film meant one does not want to married to Stephen King.
If Dick Halloran doesn't die, Jack is just a looney who might deserve sympathy. Deliberate Black man dies to demonstrate threat trope.
Where in the world does Jack's sudden explosion about The White Man's Burden come from? His anger is directed at his wife and family.
In both The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, characters have dreams simultaneously to similar actions elsewhere.
This is just one possible layer of many.
One month in, Jack stays in to write, Wendy and Danny go to the maze. Jack walks by a couch, looks at the bat, then stands over the miniature maze. At that point, we may be looking at the "writer" Jack giving birth to a book. He came there to write, with no good ideas.
From that point on, we are watching his book's story play out. A writer and family stay as care takers to a large hotel. He goes mad and tries to kill his family.
@@marzcapone9939 Can't see the script inside the movie, so the cover image reads "All work... etc.
Excellent analysis!
The ghost of the former undertaker speaks to Jack as if Jack is "the owner of the manor" instead of the current undertaker. He appears before Jack dressed as a butler and tell's Jack that he needs to "deal with his family."
…why do you say the woman in 237 is Grady’s wife?? (I know we can’t take the book as gospel for the film, for sure,) but in the novel the woman in 237 is entirely fleshed-out (pun intended) - she has nothing to do w Grady. Either way, I don’t think there’s any implication of her being his wife in the film at all - wondering why you said that.
This is why all this Shining over analysis is such garbage...because all these dorks completely ignore the novel.
Dick Howerlan (sic)is where Kubrick and king separate where King believed that hell was real and Kubrick brought more of a Budest or Hindu approach..IE reincarnation ect. It's obvious that Kings story kinda went of the rails and couldn't stick the landing and Kubrick rewrote it for the movie. I Dont think King ever forgot it. I personally like Kings approach but I think he could have done a better job focusing on a more Hotel California esk story. I think the Pic of Jack from the 20s was pretty much why people liked the movie and I feel Kubrick could have had more clarity in the Charles/Delbert Grady story line and his use of mirrors.
great video, interesting insights and speculations. Like the opening theme from the Sopranos says "you have to burn to shine" food 4 thought.
I've always viewed the booze as metaphorical and indeed ghostly. He mentions a beer for his soul and gets "Jack Daniels" instead. (Lets call it "Jack Danny" for short.) I'm of the mind that the ghosts are real enough and Jack bumping into Dalbert Grady is quite the bridge between psychology and the (malevolent) supernatural.
there are different theories as to how
Jack Torrance got out of that walk in and I enjoy knowing about them .
You’re missing the point about Jack’s drink. He is drinking from a glass that isn’t there, and he’s getting drunk off of nothing. This is the effect of the hotel on him. When Wendy comes to tell him about the woman, she doesn’t notice the drink, because it isn’t there. If she had walked in earlier, she would have witnessed him turning an empty fist up to his mouth.
Also, the moment Grady opens the pantry door to let Jack out, we lose the possibility that this is purely a psychological film.
Over the decades, Duvall has said more than once, including in Vivian Kubrick's Making Of, that she and Stanley Kubrick had a productive working relationship and that he did not "abuse" her. He got a bit snippy, and certainly mocked her claim that her hair was falling out in clumps (it wasn't). The subject comes again in the $1500 publication from Taschen, by writer Lee Unkrich, who evidently interviewed her in recent years and she reiterated the claim. This story of the tortured Shelley Duvall is almost as much of an urban legend as Marilyn Monroe's love affair with JFK, based on a jokey "sexy" Happy Birthday rendition at a campaign fundraiser. Also, the movie has ghosts. Source: Stanley Kubrick and Diane Johnson, the screenwriters. Secondary source: Stephen King, who wrote the book upon which the movie was based. It's about ghosts and the boy who has the psychic power to see them manifesting from the past into the present. Of course, if you think there are no ghosts, then Danny's shining (and "The Shining") is complete gibberish. Part of understanding film is understanding the material from which a film might be adapted. It also leads to new insights: what did the director change? What did he keep? Anyway, good luck in the future, and try not to believe everything you hear without researching it more thoroughly.
In those clips of Kubrick w Shelley even you take it a bit out of context. Not many directors would have a conversation with their actors to discuss whether a line should be in there. I saw nothing that could be considered “terrible” towards Shelley. He got angry a few times. SO WHAT? Most directors do. Even when he says “don’t sympathize w Shelley”. Just after he continued “because it doesn’t help you.” Sounds a lot worse without the second part but with it it comes off as almost fatherly chiding. Maybe he was too hard on her at times but even she herself says how much it helped her and how positive an experience it was. So maybe people should stop trying to speak for her.
👍👍
Whoa, I think I finally understand why Jack is seen in the photo at the end of the film: It's symbolic of the cycle of abuse!
I think I can add the reason the sexual abuse of Danny is not overt or explicit is because they never would've let him make that movie.
I'd add, crucially, Scatman is also a victim of abuse and the Shining itself is not supernatural but rather a child who's been exposed (I guess pun intended) to adult knowledge, most particularly in the context of sexual abuse. Thus, the child is beyond his/her years. In addition, said child of abuse is obviously (rightly or wrongly) going to be more observant or perceptive, dare I say clairvoyant.
The only intentional continuity error is when the Gold Room sign says “Cold Room.”
When alleged supernatural occurrences happen in real life, sceptics look for a rational explanation. How one interprets such events depends largely on what one believes. In that sense, the film is similar to a real life occurrence. Some people would take Wendy's account at face value, while others, such as the police, would rule out supernatural causes before determining what happened.
There's very disturbing image @ 5:50 If look on left of "Danny " i believe it confirms that Jack was sexually abusing Danny because there's a image of Danny or ,(could be a different boy ). However, has the profile of danny giving "HEAD" looks like a "glory-Hole " or is could it be jack"?? "Unbelievably FKN " disturbing!!!! Ive watced this movie like 100 times and I just now noticed that disturbing image WOW!!!!
People seriously need to stop with this Shelley was abused nonsense,Stanley was a demanding Director who didn't take any shit from method actors who overly complicated everything on set,there are other stories of him doing this on other sets with other actors,this claim of abuse is a modern snowflake wah-man are always victims mindset and it needs to stop being blindly propagated in every Shining review,he didn't hit her,shove her or cuss at her,he just was pushing her to give the best performance,that used to be called good directing,it's no abuse,end of the story.
Adsr is key. But ... From scratch plucks are my jam boy
I personally see the shining as a psychological horror about various forms of abuse and how we’re doomed to repeat the sins of our past. I think that most of the “ghosts” we see in the film are caused by the psyche of the characters as they go insane because of the isolation.
Why do nearly all the "ghosts" in this film appear with mirrors or in doorways framed like mirrors? The only time they arguably don't is the twins in the hallway. But notice how reflective the walls are when we see the girls. In fact, notice how much of the Overlook has reflective surfaces on the walls and floors. Everything's very shiny. It shines. Again, why mirrors/refections? What do we see in mirrors?
I like that you tied ADSR to story structure. And jump scares compared to that. Nicholson doing scary is a natural; if you think about it, his least successful films are of him being a lover or tender. Shining video after video and no one mentions Jack set aside 5 months in isolation for a story outline. Also, Ullman refers to Grady as his predecessor, not a former caretaker.
Just a sidenote, what you said about the woman who “survived” 911, she actually claimed that her fiancé died in 911.
That too, but she did claim to be a survivor. I think her story was that she was in one tower, her fiance worked in the other tower, they were about to get married, but the truth was that she was actually in Barcelona or would have been in Barcelona when all of that happened. But she was part of the survivors' network, had interviews with politicians and the media, was in the spotlight for a while, all of that kind of stuff which was what made the 2007 New York Times expose so damning and crazy.
both the Shining an Silent Hill are stories I will enjoy always I'm interested in horror myateries . I believe that Hichcocks work lives on in certain movies as if his legacy continues makes me think of the horror game Doom Eternal without the classic todays version wouldn't exist .
👍👍
The Thing is a great horror film.
It’s a simple re birth sequence movie. Just like EVERY single “horror” film ever made. Dick is important character; he was the “christ” sacrifice. This is a basic movie by no means a “zenith” of esoteric writings brought to film. If you can’t get this movie, you can’t get any other movie. But yes, it was filmed and produced at a high level for its time, I will give it kudos for that. And a few very esoteric manifestations that I appreciated.
Bro makes the most fire thumbnails and gets like 100 views 😢
Well, this is a fine analysis, but, how could he miss even the slightest mention of Hallorann being, in part, a stand-in for Native Indians?
I agree w that. I’m unsure of Carothers ethnicity beyond African American but he did have features that might partly derive from an Indigenous people such as American Indian. I haven’t seen this discussed much but I think it’s implied that he is representing the Indigenous Americans who were slaughtered. It’s not hard to see that this is partly what Kubrick was looking at.
oh! forgot... great video!
Shelley Duvall should’ve won an Oscar.
Jack it turns out was Kubrick abusing Shelly..over and over again.
What is their favorite film since 5/23/2020?
A poorly aged cliff hanger. I planned to make a follow up about 2-4 weeks after this video came out on another film but some stuff happened, it got put on the back-burner, and I lost interest in that video project and instead wanted to do a different one. That will be the next video. I'll probably get around to finishing that other video on the film teased at the end eventually but it'll be well after I complete the project I'm currently working on.
3X? Woah Woah Woah Slow Down Speed Racer. Kid I have seen it 50 times
25:05 “Does she have pants to fall back on?”
Lol, the original Halloween, an honorable mention.
A movie is not just story and characters. These two ingredients are nothing without being intertwined with cinematography, sound, music.
While listening to "analyzes" (explanations) of Shining and Eyes Wide Shut I have come to believe that Americans are overwhelmingly fixated with the individual and the core family. Therefore themes, currents that hints (or screams) about something wider like mythology, fairy tales, politics, racism, economy and social power get lost as veils, red herrings that hides, symbolizes or only doubles the central family dramas that already are presented explicitly.
But where does that leave the fluid, stalking camera movements in the beginning and inside the Overlook and the maze. Just documenting characters as they move around? The dissonant music with choirs performing something ritual-like? Are these just red herrings? And where does that leave the Gold Room with Loyd, Grady and the elite party, the world of the powerful Jack desperately will become a part of? Where does that leave the fundamental, cold "alien-ness" of the different ghosts?
And all the mythological associations with wolves, minotaur, Theseus, werewolves, native American spirits, ghosts, shapeshifters, witches, hags, adventurers?
Take all this in and the Shining will be an even richer film.
Yeah that is an angle that I should have focused more on (most I touched on with cinematography was with the "all work and no play" scene). That's the thing that always makes this film in particular fascinating to look at over and over again because so much is delivered to the table to be looked at and is deserving of being looked at. On a related note, having to go through the film many times in Premiere to assemble the video wouldn't necessarily be me watching the film in its entirety multiple times, but it still had me rewatching fragments of it that on occasion made me realize something about the film or notice something for the first time. In my opinion you could make a video that is even an hour longer than the runtime of The Shining and something was still left out that could have been looked at.
The book and the film I treat as independent things because the film has to stand on its own without the book; however, a thing I have thought about would be to do a full comparison of King's original text and Kubrick's vision. That could easily justify a full hour I imagine. But, in a way I think it could be an interesting analysis because one possible way of looking at things then would be to see how Stanley Kubrick took the source material and "edited" (in the literary sense) it to fit on the silver screen. The most apparent example that I mention in the video being how Dick Hallorann is portrayed in the film.
One thing I'll say though (and pardon me because it's been a while since I wrote and edited this video) but I'm guessing I did say something in this video about a film being nothing without its story and characters or something to that effect. To me, when it comes to narrative filmmaking, that mostly hold true because there is something that is supposed to be said by the narrative. Now, how that is then told is where cinematography, sound, music, performances, set design, etc comes into play. Full Metal Jacket, which directly followed this film, is perhaps just as striking if not more so than The Shining in how it handles its themes for these very reasons that come down to the production choices. If I were to make a video on FMJ, I would absolutely have to focus on the performances of the actors. For some scenes (you know which one in particular), lighting and music would be the focus of what I'd talk about because given what Pyle does in that scene, it was those things that stuck in my mind equally as much. And once the film gets to Vietnam there is so much more to talk about just in cinematography alone.
Okay, new sub...
My huge problem with this analysis is your willful ignorance to certain things for your own preferences. Like how can you say the shining is all bullshit and that you think its just gut feelings? Halloran literally telepathically spoke into dannys mind just before they had their concersation over ice cream. I think its extremely intentional that you chose not to include or even speak about that moment bc it doesn't fit into your biased analysis. Great movie, it is 100% supernatural in the book and in the film, and youre doing it a huge disservice by misrepresenting it as you are
I’m doing an analysis on some of my videos because of how long it has been since I made these (looking at shortfalls of the original analysis in particular). So my original intention with this video wasn’t to be willfully ignorant to the “shining” element. I think how I presented this certainly didn’t do a good job looking at the supernatural elements of the film. I am still firmly in the psychological horror camp, but I see that when I edited down the script of this video, the first segment focusing on the supernatural elements got a lot of cuts to it (4min compared to 8min for the second section, I distinctly remember talking more about the “shining” than this video actually had in it).
I do agree that I should have answered for the telepathic conversation and really spent much more time on Hallorann and Danny’s conversation. As for the book, I did think about doing a follow up to this video where I discuss King’s book (also see how different Kubrick’s version actually is in the process). Why I didn’t talk about the novel in this video is because I view films and books, even if one is adapted from another, as separate because they must be able to stand on their own. Someone shouldn’t have to watch a film to get a book and someone shouldn’t have to read a book to get a film. The film maker (in this case) should have done a good enough job telling the story, even if it is different to the original author’s vision, to end up with a satisfactory narrative. But I still discussed the death of Hallorann and it not being in the original novel because I inherently had a problem with his death in the film anyway.
Why do you feel the need to take an all or nothing approach?
Kubrick was a known perfectionist. Every single scene and shot was intentional...including the 'incontinuities' throughout the film. If you're questioning the necessity of a certain scene or shot, know that it is necessary and ask yourself not 'if?' but 'why?'
I want to thank you now for deciding to NOT include the racial filth. Also, when you mentioned that Jack knew it would have been Halloran instead of Ullman, you are probably right but also Ullman didn't give a rip, and in the novel Ullman is made out to be a real A-hole
What's wrong with your accent/voice???
often I think Kubrick tries to be too...Arty and abstract, using the cop out, - it means what ever you want it to mean
he's not often factual explaining much like some modern Art painter.
Say what? You describe Scatman as Danny's friend? WTF? I think you're afraid to rewatch the movie, or scenes with Scatman, and recontextualize what he says with him being a victim of abuse as a child by his grandmama, or answer why is he sitting in his oversexualized home? (hotel room?) thinking of a little boy he met once over a month ago and then travels across country because he's a good guy? Seriously, even if you do, do you think that's what Kubrick intended. I think you're confusing the seemingly nicest guy (Scatman Caruthers) on Earth and his pedo/pervert character in the Shining???
Oleman looks like JFK, Jack Kennedy. Danny looks like JFK Jr. as a child.
For those into the Beatles/Abbey Road speculation, I think Danny looks like Julian Lennon when he is with his father and Yoko at the Rock and Roll Circus. He sits and stares and doesn't look like he is having fun.
25:48 didn't Mr Grady have a british accent or was that another character?
The actor was English
Less than 7 minutes in I have to stop watching video because OP takes himself way too seriously.
I don't know...the REDRUM on the door may have worked in the novel but was groan-inducing in the film. At the end, I couldn't get out of the theater fast enough.
You don’t understand the shining at all
What do you think of the Wendy Theory?
If you’re talking about the one where she is hallucinating everything, I don’t quite buy it. The film doesn’t stick to simply one character (ie if we were only concerned with Wendy’s POV and supposed faulty narrative, then why do we see Mr. Hallorann’s POV several times?) which doing so would better demonstrate the film looking at just one person’s mental breakdown. I think it ends up putting more blame than necessary on Wendy when it is clear Danny has his own trauma as well and Jack has his own issues also.
To me it is more interesting to look at the film as if no one is crazy, but the house turns them mad (haunted house); Jack planned to lure his family into a false sense of security to get rid of them (premeditated murder); or, they all slowly cracked under intense isolation and Jack’s own past abuses returned in part because of his ambitions (full family psychological breakdown). I suppose the Wendy theory is a restructured version of the third explanation I gave in the video, but again, I do not think it is fair to put all the blame onto the mother, make her out to be the bad one, when it is clearly shown she cares more for her child than the father does.
I think I am the only person in the world who thinks The Shining is about No Fault Divorce and how it ruined families in the 70s.
I think Wendy is a very normal human being, married to an aggressive, struggling alcoholic, and has a son who shines. That’s a lot to deal with! She has a total right to go off the rails while living in a haunted hotel !!!
@@absoluteproblemwell stated. The Wendy thing drives me nuts because of its faulty logic. Just too inconsistent and a perfect example of “a priori” argumentation, bringing a preconceived notion and forcing upon a narrative. It falls flat easily.
Aphex Twin...Deepcut... Ha!
Why is wendy in the boiler room after danny goes into room 237?
Is she in charge?
Not likely…
What does this mean? She was doing the work Jack was supposed to be doing, the reason he was hired. But it’s true she wasn’t with Danny at that point but also dint yet know what a sh*t show she had coming.
@@victoryak86
She did it
Or was it a ghost 🙃
@@lonelycake4114 ghost
mERCI MR MON HOBBY FAVORI C DE REVOIR SHINING AVEC QQN QUI N L A PAS ENCORE VU
Jack may have suspected Danny was not actually his son. After all, he did, when confessing his troubles to Lloyd the bartender, call Wendy "the ole sp*rm bank."
No
Wow, you have zero understanding of this film.
Shelly?
I haven't seen her enough to judge her acting but based on limited exposure and the dvd extras, i feel like she's playing a version of herself
Maybe it's just me, but i don't see her as a great actor, and certainly not one the outdid Nicholson
NO- it's 🚫🙄😒 📺 BTR!
Whoa, whoa. Stairway to heaven then you deliberately show and TITLE the Song remains the same(no audio)? WTF? Why? Cred from that point forward... sigh
Playing Stairway (the audio track itself) probably would’ve gotten the video claimed (surprised only so much of this video was claimed for The Shining) so I replaced it with a pretty generic Am arpeggio to simulate the opening.
The clip of the Stairway To Heaven live performance comes from the concert film, The Song Remains The Same (though I just realized 1973 should be 1976 since it would be based on the year of release for the film).
@@absoluteproblem okay got it. keep up the good work. Subbed
Zzzzzzzzzzz….
Jack didn't abuse Danny, I thought that, until I realised it was not the same day that Jack was in the bedroom holding his neck (hallucinated by Wendy as she watched an unplugged TV). Wendy was in 237, and that is why jack didn't find anyone when he went to look. The crazy woman Danny saw in 237 was Wendy. Jack probably didn't even hurt Danny's arm either, that's what Wendy said happened.
Except Jack literally admits to hurting Danny in the bar scene. Sorry, that whole Wendy was the antagonist BS just doesn't make sense and makes me wonder how many people latch on to that idea because they, uh, relate a little too much to Jack.
Ok Dr. Wendy Theory. The problem with this narrative is that it’s taking one’s own preconceived notions and stretching, twisting and bending the actual film to make it fit said preconceived (poorly) notions. But it doesn’t fit when looking at the whole film. Not even close. It is silly.
This may be the dumbest analysis out of all the dumb analyses I've seen. Congratulations.