Why is the Shining so overanalysed?
Is it a case of people assuming because it’s a Kubrick movie it must have some secret hidden layers and depths even though it’s a pretty straight forward ghost story focused on an abusive husband and father?
I find the “Danny was sexually abused by Jack” theories especially moronic. All the “evidence” is nonsensical
>Is it a case of people assuming because it’s a Kubrick movie it must have some secret hidden layers and depths even though it’s a pretty straight forward ghost story focused on an abusive husband and father?
yes, that's pretty much it. midwits have some obsession with needing to find "the hidden meaning" behind something (not to say the movie doesn't have subtext and themes, but it's not some moronic I Spy game of hidden messages) and are incapable of taking something at face value as just a masterfully made work of genre-fiction.
>no fun allowed otherwise you’re a midwit
Disapointing, Cinemaphile
Feel free to make a thread about your moronic theory lol
>midwits have some obsession with needing to find "the hidden meaning" behind something
This is the best way to identify a pseud. You see it all the time on Reddit, gays analysing the most moronic banal shit in a movie and pulling whole theories out of their ass about what it means and how le deep it is because they think doing that makes them smart. It is especially comical when marvelgays do it to completely mundane things in their capeshit movies.
>pulling whole theories out of their ass about what it means and how le deep it is because they think doing that makes them smart.
Do you think any movies have a subtext?
You can have a subtext without needing everything to be a subtext. Or for an obscure historical event to be some overwhelming subtext based on background props or soup cans or whatever.
Since you genuinely believe this. Could you do a thought experiment with me?
What if, just imagine, what if you were wrong about this. And all these signs you see that you believe indicate things… it really was just a coincidence and the prop master fricking things up or Kubrick liking the way one prop looked better than another.
Would this make you enjoy the film less?
My enjoyment of a film isn't contingent on other people's opinion. This is a board for discussion. I don't have to convince anyone of my interpretation and vice versa. I will give my opinion and discuss if there is a contrary opinion to mine. I will continue to have my same opinions because no one has convinced me otherwise
The fact you can’t entertain a hypothetical for five seconds proves you have brain rot. At this point you don’t enjoy films.
? That response was me entertaining your "thought experiment". I'll lay it out more simply for you since it was too much: I don't give a frick
People who don’t give a frick don’t post this much. It’s ok to care. It’s not healthy to live in denial though. Hope you can reconcile your internal conflicts my dude
>"I don't care"
>ah ha! that means you do care! I am so smart
Nothing I say would convince you otherwise. Your fake care posting about me is unoriginal you zoomer
>my dude
No need to get so angry because you misunderstood a movie pal. Don’t worry. I’m sure a video essay will cheer you up.
What's your fav marvel movie btw
Blade
>You can have a subtext without needing everything to be a subtext.
It really comes down to this. People learning about things like subtext and symbolism through poorly made youtube essays has been a disaster because they now think that the mere existence of concepts like subtext and symbolism means everything must be loaded with subtext and symbolism, that subtext has to mean something equivalent to a secret message instead of just being things like human characterization or overarching themes being conveyed in subtle and wordless ways, and that any insane rambling theory can be justified by saying "it's subtext."
>What if, just imagine, what if you were wrong about this. And all these signs you see that you believe indicate things… it really was just a coincidence and the prop master fricking things up or Kubrick liking the way one prop looked better than another.
You've never met a filmmaker, even an amateur one, if you think this is possible.
You don’t know how films are made if you think all film makers are autistic perfectionists who put the real movies subtext about a historical event unrelated to the of the movie plot entirely in background props. Kubrick himself didn’t even do this, so to then generalise it as if this is standard practice is beyond laughable, more worrying.
Get over yourself. Is your ego so fragile that maintaining some kind of elitist film nerd persona, the one who knows the real true-true about the magic moving pictures, the only thing stopping you from stepping in front of a train?
The fact you can imagine these wild fantasies with no evidence so easily but crumble to pieces if asked to speculate even for a moment that they may not be true, is not a sign of a healthy mind.
I’d love for there to be these intricate deep hidden messages and subtexts. But there aren’t. If there are you’re done a piss poor job of displaying and proving them beyond smelling your own farts and declaring you know Kubricks mind better than him
Kubrick was so obsessive about getting the details right that it make you wonder what those details were exactly
>it make you wonder what those details were exactly
Those details are the things that make an extremely well crafted film, it doesn't mean there is a secret message. Kubrick isn't the only director to be detail obsessed either, far from it, plenty of directors were back when people gave a shit about making movies as a form of artistic craft. For some reason people latch onto Kubrick and raise him to some mythological state where every single piece of the set must have some "real" meaning, rather than understanding that the point of putting so much care into all the little details is so that you get a great overall picture at the end.
It’s especially funny when even blatant mistakes get raised up as being examples or hidden meanings
>you can see the shadow of the helicopter filming the opening of the shining
>CLEARLY THIS WAS INTENTIONAL. KUBRICK WOULD NEVER LET SOMETHING LIKE THIS SLIDE HE WAS A PERFECTIONIST. EVEEY FRAME IS INTENTIONAL
The small details in the movie actually worth paying attention to are always clear to see on screen. Like the bloody handprint on the woman’s dress. The scrapbook next to jacks type writer that shows what he meant when he said he read about Grady in the paper etc
I do find it interesting the script has a scene of Jack finding the scrap book full of all the bad stuff that happened in the hotel. And they filmed the scene of him reading it, focusing on various ones including Grady. But Kubrick ended up cutting it.
But in the final film you still can see he actually does have the scrapbook open next to his typewriter. So he has been reading through it. Just off screen. Same way Wendy and Danny’s encounter with ghost lady was off screen
Pretty much every pic of Jack sat with his type writer shows the scrap book open with it clearly being full of news clippings
I wonder what the intention for the various different POV’s being shifted around to deny us a full picture was. Perhaps because Danny is the real main character. He can’t really understand what’s happening with his parents or the hotel even with his powers
The chair behind him disappears between shots, too obvious of a continuity error for autistic kubrick which is why people like to pull apart everything in this movie. Kubrick seems to have intentionally hidden stuff and wants people to search through it all.
>The chair behind him disappears between shots, too obvious of a continuity error for autistic kubrick
Again, this is already reaching and applying some sort of mythological level of genius to Kubrick. Errors like this happen, it's a fact of film making. More so when you bear in mind that back then the idea was that you would be watching a film in a theater, in one go, no stopping and rewinding, etc, youtube clips didn't exist, dvd and vhs didn't exist. It's possible that they didn't catch the error at the time and only saw it in editing, some of the shots could have been re-shots done later and they didn't have the prop, and so on, in all these cases they simply would have said "99.999%" of people will not notice this while watching the movie, it doesn't matter in the big picture of the film, so leave it.
I’m sorry you’re dumb and kubrick is smart? I don’t know what you want to hear but that’s the truth of it, Kubrick would do hundreds of takes to get exactly what he wanted he had thousands of notes and research to make everything exactly to his liking, he would have hundreds of props and costumes brought to him and he’d meticulously pick out the perfect ones. No the man who does that sort of thing does not think that no one will notice the chair in the background disappears, one of the only props in the shot, because no one will watch the movie more than once in the theater. You’re unable to accept this movie was made by someone far smarter than you who did care about the details, whether the analysis of those details and the theories they bring up are right or wrong aside you’re arguing the details weren’t even intentional and that is idiotic.
>No the man who does that sort of thing does not think that no one will notice the chair in the background disappears
Yes, he does, precisely because he is smart enough to understand how audiences watch films. Anyone who makes stuff knows that there are errors that you notice as the person making the thing that the vast majority of the people looking at the work will not notice, and that certain minor errors are not going to diminish the overall quality of the work. The error that barely anyone would notice and would have no effect on the overall film was acceptable compared to whatever other value he saw in that particular take, or it could have been any number of other real, practical reasons for why the error was left in (the cost of reshooting that scene was deemed to not be worth it, the error was found too late, it was never seen at all, etc.)
You also realize that Kubrick had his hands full with all sorts of other duties, and that despite being extremely talented he is also human, and that continuity errors like that can escape his notice. Continuity also isn't the sole responsibility of the director so it could have been the fault of the guy who was in charge of continuity (by the way if Kubrick is a god-like super genius who never makes mistakes, why did he need a continuity supervisor on the film in the first place?).
At no point did I say that Kubrick is not smarter than me, obviously he is since he made a bunch of great films while I'm here wasting my time arguing with morons. I feel compelled to defend his work because he is a smart guy who made good movies, and I don't like seeing people jerking off about a bunch of made up moron theories about his movies.
No one is reading your essay about why people should write essays about the shining. You are a troll or an actual real life moron.
Yeah I'm not surprised most of these goofball theories come from actual illiterates who can only process information in the form of youtube analysis videos.
well said anon
You’re falling for the “muh genius Kubrick could never make such a mistake” trap. Every single film in history has continuity errors. Just because it’s a Kubrick film that doesn’t make them intentional. Especially something as basic as a fricking chair being moved.
Maybe this was just the best take he thought they had for Jacks performance and he knew nobody would notice a fricking chair moving. Or maybe he didn’t notice it himself until it was too late to reshoot.
You can appreciate Kubrick movies without going full moron dude
>Maybe this was just the best take he thought they had for Jacks performance and he knew nobody would notice a fricking chair moving.
Dude there are tons of "mistakes" that clearly point to alternate spaces/times. It's not just one shot.
Yes, it's an extremely complex film with a lot of sets and props, multiple mistakes are to be expected. Kubrick did intend for the areas in the movie to give an unsettling feeling to the audience, but that doesn't then mean that every error in film making was part of that master plan.
I don’t get how these people think everything was intentional when you can just watch the behind the scenes documentary and see how much stuff was made up on the fly lol. Kubrick filming Jack from the upwards angle in the pantry door was something he came up with on the spot.
Meanwhile the current script the actors had was being rewritten every single day, multiple times a day sometimes. So of course there were going to be continuity errors.
Fricking hell I hate Kubrick autists. I can’t think of another director who has such tinfoil fanboys
>I don’t get how these people think everything was intentional
It's just too many things. Even the teddy bear behind Danny when being interviewed by the psychologist; the yes of the bear were cut to be the same shape as the hands above the elevator in the hotel. Just an accident?
>the yes of the bear
*eyes
Yeah these tards obviously aren’t aware of shit like the bears eyes. The original bear doesn’t have eyes like that, the prop was changed. It’s a fricking teddy bear behind Danny there’s no need to do that but it looks exactly like the elevator floor counter thing. It’s a minor background detail but later we have a man in a bear suit giving a blow job to some guy which I guess is just “weird as frick bro frfr gay shit lmao” to these people who take the movie at face value.
>I guess is just “weird as frick bro frfr gay shit lmao” to these people who take the movie at face value.
Yeah it's very obvious these were things put in by Kubrick in the background as a subtext. It's dumb to just assume they are all mistakes.
The gay bear guy was in the book though. Kubrick kept the ghosts he just removed the context for knowing who they were. And as seen above he almost did keep the context vis the scrap book
Not the anon you're arguing with but Kubrick exclusively would shoot on built sets instead of locations for this exact reason. It would give him complete control of props, positioning, layout etc.
While the kubrick conspiracy nuts are obviously going overboard with shit like kubricks face being in the clouds etc they do have a point regarding kubricks autistic attention to detail.
Kubrick also took set layout photos to ensure continuity between shots.
The truth is that we will never know if the chairs moving was intentional or not. It isnt beyond kubrick to do something like that to create a creepy uneasy feeling in a ghost/horror film but it could as you say just be a mistake. Whether it was intentional or not doesnt take away from the feeling that the props moving between shots creates anyway.
>The chair behind him disappears between shots, too obvious of a continuity error for autistic kubrick
It's also quite an obvious purposeful error. Nobody on crew would remove that chair BETWEEN shots for any reason.
Also the light switches, clothes, etc.
Could simply have been a pacing decision in editing, and a desire to not have any more exposition scenes than necessary.
Yeah but it would certainly explain why Jack says he read about Grady in the paper. When from the film the first time he ever hears about Grady is from the interview with Ullman. And he can’t be talking about some random newspaper because the murder suicide happened 10 years earlier.
Also not sure if there’s a satisfactory explanation for why Charles Grady’s name became Delbert Grady after he died.
>When from the film the first time he ever hears about Grady is from the interview with Ullman.
Yeah isn't that weird for Ullman to tell Jack that? Hey it's probably nothing, but the former caretaker MURDERED HIS FAMILY.
Kind of weird for Ullman to mention that don't you think?
>Also not sure if there’s a satisfactory explanation for why Charles Grady’s name became Delbert Grady after he died.
There isn't one. It's just Jack mis-remembering in his hallucination.
>I do find it interesting the script has a scene of Jack finding the scrap book full of all the bad stuff that happened in the hotel. And they filmed the scene of him reading it, focusing on various ones including Grady. But Kubrick ended up cutting it.
WHY did he cut it though?
>I do find it interesting the script has a scene of Jack finding the scrap book full of all the bad stuff that happened in the hotel. And they filmed the scene of him reading it, focusing on various ones including Grady. But Kubrick ended up cutting it
Yeah WHY did Kubrick cut this scene?
>Yeah WHY did Kubrick cut this scene?
It just seems really on the nose to me and frankly I think the movie is entirely different and better without it. I didn't even know this scene was filmed until right now and I first saw the movie, what, maybe 20 years ago or so.
>It just seems really on the nose to me and frankly I think the movie is entirely different and better without it.
He cut this scene and the one with Ullman at the end. With those scenes in the movie it becomes much more obvious what Kubrick is getting at. I mean, it was released in 1980.
It’s verbatim a scene from the novel. I think it was cut because it doesn’t really add anything except clarity on who the ghosts are. And with clarity there’s less fear. Besides, only Jack would’ve known who these people were since only he read the scrap book.
Much creepier seeing the various ghosts like bath tub lady or bleeding head man without the context of who they were and how they died.
Holy shit you're a fricking moron. It's only visible in the open matte version, you're not supposed to watch the movie in 4:3.
Ok? How does that contradict what I said about people claiming stuff is intentional and means something when it clearly doesn’t?
Learn to read before calling someone else a moron. You donkey
cope you dumb Black person
Dude you agree with him. You're making fun of the same people.
Lmao. You couldn’t read and now you’re chimping out
you actually are supposed to watch it in 4:3 lol.
Kubricks films were released in 4:3 but have been cropped to 16:9 for modern tvs/releases
Shining was framed for both.
its widely debated which one was Kubrick's orginal vision. There is evidence he framed for exclusively 4:3 and then other evidence that he framed exclusively for 16:9.
My instinct goes to 4:3 because that is what all of his other films were framed in and that is what gives the most complete image with the most information. The 16:9 image is just the 4:3 image cropped. The home release was 4:3.
Its a shame the 4:3 version of the shining is only available on dvd (i think). Every hd version of it ive seen was 16:9
So why was that guy so mad about the dude pointing out the helicopter error?
>being this fricking wrong
It was framed for 1.85:1 (not 16:9) but shot in 4:3 so that the VHS release wouldn't be butchered by Pan & Scan which was common at the time. So having the VHS in 4:3 was the lesser evil, at least no information is lost. However it is very clear that no useful information is added and it introduces some errors like the visible helicopter and helicopter blades. This is incredibly obvious and I have never seen anyone claim that the visible helicopter is some intentional hidden message.
>This is incredibly obvious and I have never seen anyone claim that the visible helicopter is some intentional hidden message.
Honestly, learn to google. Here’s another Kubrick autists whole essay on why the helicopter shot was intentional because of the 1974 movie Himiko and whatever
>The disruption of the realism of the story, as Nashime looked up to see the helicopter passing over him, was such that it occurred to me, "That is where Kubrick got his helicopter shot." I checked the cinematographer and it turned out to be Tatsuo Suzuki, who filmed Funeral Parade of Roses, which I've already noted above has been said to have influenced Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. Then I realized, of course, another tie-in to The Shining is the sun. Himiko opens the film with the elevated view of the sun shining on the shamaness-empress. Before the helicopter shot at the end we are shown a shot of a blood red sun filling the screen. Then we have Nashime looking up to see the helicopter crossing between himself and the sun, like an eclipse. Where we view the helicopter's shadow in The Shining is on the Going-To-The-Sun road.
https://idyllopuspress.com/idyllopus/film/sh_himiko.htm
Surely you don’t doubt this interpretation? Right?lmao.
This is the same kind of mindset you gays have. You all sound like schizo morons
>more lmao posting
Go back to your blog gay. Every time you say nobody claims these stupid theories it takes two seconds to show you schizoids do. If you’re ashamed to be part of that pack that’s on you
Seethe
Unrelated to this dumb discussion but I love the movie Himiko
F: Well, to take The Shining as an example again, many are distracted in the opening sequence by the infamous "helicopter blades." Because the video is not matted, you can see the helicopter blades at the top of the shot. Some have taken this to be "evidence" that Kubrick's preferred compositions were not be transferred properly to home video. To be honest, I, too have often wondered about this and am distracted by those helicopter blades! (laughs)
LV: That's just how he wanted it. And the helicopter blades, for him, well...for him, they were totally inconsequential. If I can just say to you, that for Stanley each shot, each scene, stood for itself as a composition. And if he liked something in that shot, he would use it regardless of aspect ratio. I could probably catalogue for you plenty of things like the "helicopter blades syndrome" which are in his films. But if he liked the acting, or let's say there was a particular sound that he liked, if there was some kind of extraneous noise and it was just there and there wasn't anything you could do about it but he liked the actual take, he would use that anyway. And that is how he approached his work.
With A Clockwork Orange, now in multiplexes - and I think it is terrible - you can only really project it in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. If you project A Clockwork Orange in 1.85:1, it kills it, it really does. It was composed for 1.66:1 and that is how it should look.
DF: I think some confusion is due to the fact that films like The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut were shown theatrically in 1.85:1...but not on video.
LV: That is because at the time (of The Shining) 1.85:1 was becoming an industry norm in the United States, so what he did was, he shot his original negative, then he made the interpositive, then for theatrical release he would mask the interpositive, which meant he still had the original negative in full frame. (Editor: This is sometimes referred to as "soft matting," where you only mask prints or matte a full frame film via the projector, instead of "hard matting" the original negative.) This was also very important to Stanley. He was very conscious of the fact that you lose I think 27% of your picture when it is matted to 1.85:1. He hated it, he didn't find it satisfactory. He liked height. (laughs)
What? It was made to be watched in 4:3
Name 5 other than kubrick
Michael Cimino
David Lynch
Ridley Scott
Charley Chaplin
Vincent Gallo
>Cimino
I've only watched The Deer Hunter and while it's a great movie it clearly isn't on Kubricks level
>Lynch
haha, Lynch is the opposite of Kubrick, sure he is "mysterious" but that's because he craps out shit and sells it as art (I enjoy his movies but their "depth" isn't about meticiously preplanning and numerous reshots, instead about puzzling together the results into a incoherent mess)
>Scott
Scott is on Kubricks level when it comes to photography, the visuals, and the technical stuff. He's nowhere near him when it comes to the subliminal. Blade Runner and Alien derives their depth from their artists (Giger and Dick).
>Chaplin
??? Ok, when it comes to the genre of comedy I can give you that. But I feel Chaplin was more into emotion than philosophical reflection, the mysteriosity is lacking. They didn't really have the same ambition.
>Gallo
hahahaha, good troll, now blow me
Agreed on all. Especially Lynch. You see the behind the scenes footage for The Return and he's lamenting actually being given schedules and being forced to move along to shoot the next scene. Because for something which had supposedly been percolating for 2 decades he was still just making shit up as he went along.
I give you lynch. Dont know who those others are
Well, maybe if you broadened your horizons and watched a few more good films you'd realize that while Kubrick is a very talented director he is not some demi-god like one of a kind genius who never made mistakes.
He was just a perfectionist autist, he wasn't obsessed with hiding clues and secret messages in his movies.
Yeah, I don’t understand why people can’t understand being a perfectionist with set design doesn’t actually mean every prop or set is meant to mean something beyond how it serves as a location for the story and characters to function and is pleasing to the eye.
Kubrick was an autist for set design because he was an incredibly visual film maker. He liked to make things look how they looked in his head. And look memorable.
People just feel the need to overcomplicate things I guess.
>holy shit the bathroom is red, just like the blood of the natives spilled by the white man!
Or maybe he thought it looked cool
The truth is that movies are emotional experiences first and foremost. Stuff like deliberately odd set design has an impact on how you FEEL when watching a scene. There IS a depth to the bathroom being all red but it is the emotional depth of it making the scene feel more intense because red is an intense and alarming color especially when it is everywhere in a place it normally wouldn't be. It doesn't need to be symbolic or something to end up being meaningful.
Yeah I feel like people get lost in the sauce directly trying to assign meaning to each symbol, when in reality you really can be sitting in an american mountain lodge and they’ll have a mural on the wall of natives who were literally killed there, and your kid can be wearing his Apollo 11 shirt because that’s what he likes, and if it’s dreary enough you’ll think ‘man isn’t it a little haunting how we as Americans are playing spaceships on land we cursed we murder’, and hey that’s actually a real haunting people feel, that’s the type of haunting adults are actually worried about and feel. It’s really that simple. Diving too deep into Apollo is nearly missing the point, these aren’t cryptic hard-to-access thoughts, and you don’t need to connect any dots really.
It’s a combination of troll, subtext and nuances. Kubrick knew the film would be combed top to bottom. Personally i feel the Apollo 11 aspect is a troll, a man very aware of the conspiracy.
Tang in the pantry is one of hell of tactic by Kubrick and saying its not worth discussing just is baffling
Tang is a well-known NASA product, it’s not really cryptology it’s just another then-contemporary symbol of American culture and the cultivated American project. We are playing astronauts and making powered scientific orange juice on burial grounds of those we slaughtered. That’s very real and eerie in itself
>real and eerie
On my secondary watches, the Native American chanting, patterns etc. It really is true talent how it’s delivered. The just carrying on after atrocities. I think i understood the type of horro Kubrick was trying to deliver
No movies are MK ultra tier experiments first and foremost. The emotional experiences are fake and not real. However your brain can not differentiate this. The information available on the detrimental effects of film should have every soul on earth stop watching them
Yeah that’s what he said, that movies produce feelings by manipulating symbols
Whoops. Didn’t go back and read the other parts.
Does anyone have a read on the events in room 237? I like the theory it’s out of order, bc jack really did beat Danny in the room. And we see a spiritual vantage point of both jack and Danny.
And Kubrick dabbles into the entities that desire us sexually, which id like to dive into more. The sirens etc
actually Kubrick didn't care about the details in this one so much that King doesn't consider it a faithful adaptation.
Plebbit take, he didnt care about KINGS details. Have you read or scene behind the scenes? Kubrick is meticulously setting scenery
bro you're just reaching.
Inverting the carpet when Danny reaches 237 is reaching?
its just midwits looking for meaning in otherwise purposeless lives
Midwits can't accept that sometimes a cigar is a cigar. They need to bring up very far-fetched explanations for things to prove us how deep and clever they are.
>Midwits can't accept that sometimes a cigar is a cigar.
You don't understand psychoanalysis.
And sometimes a play girl magazine with an incest article is a play girl magazine with an incest article. Sorry Rob Agers cracked the code and you’re pissed off some movies you enjoy are deeper than you realize and you aren’t smart enough to enjoy them on their deeper level.
You don’t sound like you’re enjoying them on a deeper level. You just sound like you’re mad that people disagree with the tinfoil theories
You have to be able to be a complete fanatic like I am in order to find all this, but, you know, um, I’ll give you my favorite. I’m only gonna give you one, but I’ll give you my favorite. When Jack meets Stuart Ullman [the hotel manager, played by Barry Nelson] in the office at the very beginning of the movie? And he reaches over to shake Jack Nicholson’s hand? And so step through that scene frame by frame, and the minute, the moment, the frame that he and Jack Nicholson touch hands . . . you can see that the, uh, there’s a paper tray on the desk, and as soon as they touch hands the paper tray turns into a very large straight-on HARD-ON coming out of Barry Nelson
The hour is none, Steve. Go back to bed.
find kubricks face please
fuggg, I wish there was a pornoparody of the shining which toys around with stuff like this, and a specific set. imagine them actresses screwing around while the walls encroaches upon you causing hallucinated state organized by geometric disperception. Penises getting bigger because of the angles, cuts and edits making it tough to tell which hole gets penetrated, images of children superimposed over the faces of the actresses, weird sounds of animals screwing around replacing the normal "hue hue", people dressed in bearcostumes fapping around in rooms with bigtitted ebonyqueens. I'd probably pay some dough to watch, honestly.
>pretty straight forward ghost story focused on an abusive husband and father
Okay OP, tell me then what's the meaning of the film.
the meaning of the film is that it's a pretty straight forward ghost story focused on an abusive husband and father
So what exactly is the film trying to tell us?
the film is trying to tell us a pretty straight forward ghost story focused on an abusive husband and father
How is it straightforward?
It's straightforward in the sense that it has a very clear plot progression and dramatic structure going from the beginning to a conclusive ending, with character's motivations and mental states being communicated on screen several times throughout the movie. A somewhat self-absorbed husband who is feeling unfulfilled with his lack of success as a writer, who has a history of alcohol abuse and a sometimes violent temper, takes a job at an isolated location, and proceeds to go insane from the combination of his own fragile mental state being further strained by isolation and the influences of the ghostly evil forces that inhabit the location. That's it.
>That's it.
How do you know that's it? Why would anyone make a movie if it's not about sending some kind of message?
>Why would anyone make a movie if it's not about sending some kind of message?
To entertain people?
Why merely entertain them if can use this enormous platform as a mainstream filmmaker to also push messages?
Why do you want to push a message though? I don't know how many people are sick of having some message shoved down their throats in every single piece of media that's out there. Sometimes people just want to be entertained without any bullshit.
If I were in Kubrick's position why would I care what people want? I can just push the message covertly
But why do you want to push a message? What you just thought of an entertaining ghost story and made that movie?
Your post is spreading a message, ironically enough
You're not the one to decide that, you're not the one making Hollywood blockbusters
But why do you want a message in everything? It sounds extremely pretentious to me. Variety is better.
I don't "want" it
Why are we talking about it then? You seem to be pushing towards then and when I say "why do you want a message?" then you say something like "uuuh haha gotcha' YOU'RE pushing a message now haha". It's pointless and childish.
It's not about whether I want other people to push messages to me, but they'll do it regardless
>you're not the one making Hollywood blockbusters
neither was Kubrick
He was
no he didn't. the shining was a commercial hit but was nowhere near blockbuster status
I don't care about semantic bullshit, it's a popular film, full stop
thanks for proving you're a moron
Thanks for being a petty moron
Frick you
You suck
Black person
Du bist ein Gay!!!
>Why do you want to push a message though?
The purpose of human communication is to spread messages, to push memetic content. Art is a venue of communication
But not in every single thing you watch or listen to. Sometimes you want a nice high end cuisine meal, but sometimes you just want a sloppy burger. You don't need to have some high art with a "message" every single time.
Why do you not accept his answer? What do you think the film is trying to say?
It's simply fans of the film trying to find new and creatively/intellectually stimulating ways to appreciate something they love. The only reason to have a problem with it is purely anti-intellectualism, and that is never motivated by anything other than midwittery. You're mad that there are people that exist who think for fun i.e. ponder things recreationally because you find it difficult, frustrating, or even painful.
Not OP but I find pondering on things that are in the film infinitely more satisfying than pondering on weird theories someone else made up. Take Jack getting out of the pantry, pseuds will say it's not satisfying to just say a ghost did it, but that is literally the text of the movie, not subtext. I'm more interested in the story, cinematography, and filmmaking rather than
>how did the supernatural forces who want Jack to kill his family help Jack kill his family?
>Take Jack getting out of the pantry, pseuds will say it's not satisfying to just say a ghost did it, but that is literally the text of the movie, not subtext.
Except a ghost didn't let him out. The text is irrelevant, Kubrick had King's novel as a baseline not canon.
Meant text of the film, not the book. Yes, we don't literally see a ghost let him out but it is the only solution.
Same with Tarantino. 100% autistic.
>Yes, we don't literally see a ghost let him out but it is the only solution.
Nope. There could have been others in the hotel
If you’re reaching to that level of speculation. Why not just say aliens let Jack out.There’s the same amount of evidence after all.
Why do pseudo intellectuals fear the ghost story?
Without the supernatural element what’s the explanation for Jack being in the picture at the end?
>Without the supernatural element what’s the explanation for Jack being in the picture at the end?
It's not reality, it's a hallucination
From who? Nobody is there
>From who? Nobody is there
Yes there are
It's a metaphor for how generational abuse is cyclical. It's a callback to Jack being told, "You were always here"
Kubrick says that his films have 2 meanings, the over laying story and the subtext inbetween
>It's a metaphor for how generational abuse is cyclical. It's a callback to Jack being told, "You were always here"
Definitely calling to that in many ways; from inter-generational abuse (Jack/Danny), Nazis, and Native genocide.
>Kubrick says that his films have 2 meanings, the over laying story and the subtext inbetween
Definitely.
This Black person gets it. The film alludes specifically ot the native american genocide a lot.
No it doesn’t lol. It’s just a common trope in King stories to have Indian burial grounds.
>No it doesn’t lol. It’s just a common trope in King stories to have Indian burial grounds.
Kubrick thought King was a hack (and said so publicly), and took the bones of his story and that's it.
yeah bro all of those native decorations littered around the hotel constantly are meaningless!
In the shining novel the hotel isnt even on an indian burial ground.
Kubrick added that specifically in the film. Get rekd brainlet.
>Kubrick added that specifically in the film. Get rekd brainlet.
Yeah what an odd thing for Ullman to reveal while interviewing the winter caretaker.
Jack hitting the giant mural of Native Americans with his tennis ball is a metaphor for Manifest Destiny, the constant generational abuse against them. If you can't discern a literal ball slamming against it periodically Idk what else to say
Ager points out that the scene of jack hitting the tennis ball against the mural mirrors the scene with the axe against the door. Kino.
How does a metaphor negate the supernatural in the story?
It doesn't have to negate it. There isn't 1 single answer. Art is subjective and up to the viewer. You can argue that it is supernatural and Jack being in the photo is a representation of "were always here". The caretaker that goes crazy. It wouldn't be strange to assume that the following caretaker would replace Jack in the image when he inevitably kills.
Refer to my previous post. I didn't negate any supernatural aspect. I even gave a suggestion for what could happen. It's up to your personal interpretation. The paranormal is a medium to deliver the message. Doesn't mean yours or my interpretation is wrong
Like I said previously here
>lmao posting
You’re ignoring the ton of posts claiming there is no supernatural element in the movie. Why?
You might be moronic if you can't understand that someone can create a fictional work about stuff that they don't think would be possible in reality.
>You might be moronic if you can't understand that someone can create a fictional work about stuff that they don't think would be possible in reality.
Of course anyone can create fiction of anything. But Kubrick didn't believe in ghosts and that was reflected in The Shining. Because there are no ghosts in The Shining, and nothing supernatural actually happens.
>Of course anyone can create fiction of anything. But Kubrick didn't believe in ghosts and that was reflected in The Shining. Because there are no ghosts in The Shining, and nothing supernatural actually happens.
It's quite literally a story about a haunted hotel and a psychic child.
>It's quite literally a story about a haunted hotel and a psychic child.
In King's story, not Kubrick's.
It isn’t intellectually stimulating when the speculation reaches nonsense levels of logic about secret messages hidden in the film. Like people saying Danny’s Apollo shirt is to show Kubrick faked the moon landing. Or the overall “message” is about the genocide of the natives
It’s not intellectually stimulating unless you think listening to the drunk rambling under a bridge covered in piss is intellectually stimulating. They share the same level of coherence
This post destroys subtext deniers. They’re either baiting and trolling or legitimately these people are morons who hate when people smarter than them enjoy intellectual activities like discussing themes and meaning behind works of art. The type of kid in highschool who would scoff at the English teacher explaining symbolism. Trolls or morons either having fun getting a rise out of people or legitimately dumb and lashing out at the revelation the world around them is enjoyed and crafted by much smarter men.
Subtext about cycles of violence and the struggle to escape generational trauma? Makes sense
“Subtext” about sexual molestation because there’s a toy bear at some point? No. That’s moronic.
Ok? Agree with some takes/theories disagree with others, that’s fine, the argument here is “Bro it’s just a movie stop trying to read into it” which is a moronic take for a Kubrick film that has ample instances of subtext being told through the details.
Meanwhile in this thread. It’s the Kubrick morons desperately searching for “subtext” that keep trying to shut down anyone who interprets it as a ghost story or any hint of the supernatural.
So which is it. It’s good to speculate, or it’s bad because we need to read into it so far that the basic story should be ignored?
Who is saying ignore the ghost story? It’s a ghost story that has symbolism and subtext about generational abuse whether that be historical Native American genocide or familia father son abuse. The point is “ghosts” can be literal ghosts or the sins of the past repeating themselves.
>Who is saying ignore the ghost story
Read the fricking thread dude. The main Kubrick autist is claiming there is no supernatural element and Jack was let out by some random person we never see lol. Apparently that’s the level of speculation that’s good for intellectual stimulation. Random people did everything with no evidence they were ever there. But no ghosts
Here’s the examples since you found it too difficult to read
>Random people did everything with no evidence they were ever there.
Ullman is not a random person
We're not really talking about subtext here, though. There is subtext in The Shining, mostly in regards to the psychology of the main characters, or the idea that a place can be evil. But it's a far cry from that to making insanely convoluted analyses with little basis in the facts of the film itself to support some kind of theory about a hidden message. This is the problem with when midwits learn about words like "symbolism," they think that then applying symbolism to as much stuff in a movie as possible for the sake of it makes the movie more profound and meaningful and makes themselves seem smarter. "The red rose has a symbolic meaning, therefore the box of cereal and the chair in the background must also have some symbolic meaning!" Some things have symbolic meaning, other things don't, and just by virtue of something having symbolism it doesn't make that thing any more profound or deep or well made than something that doesn't have symbolism. You can have intellectual discussions about the film without it devolving into making stuff up.
What you don’t seem aware of is that Kubrick was the type who would gather 100 cereal boxes and pick the perfect one for the background of his shots.
>a pretty straight forward ghost story focused on an abusive husband and father?
Except it's not straightforward. There are definite recurring elements in the film, and there are definite little items in the film that clearly means something other than a "straightforward ghost story".
For one, Kubrick didn't believe in ghosts.
>For one, Kubrick didn't believe in ghosts
He didn't, but he thought his cat Polly had telepathic powers
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.ts.html
>In addition to the great variety of unexplainable psychic experiences we can all probably recount, I think I can see behaviour in animals which strongly suggests something like ESP. I have a long-haired cat, named Polly, who regularly gets knots in her coat which I have to comb or scissor out. She hates this, and on dozens of occasions while I have been stroking her and thinking that the knots have got bad enough to do something about them, she has suddenly dived under the bed before I have made the slightest move to get a comb or scissors. I have obviously considered the possibility that she can tell when I plan to use the comb because of some special way I feel the knots when I have decided to comb them, but I'm quite sure that isn't how she does it. She almost always has knots, and I stroke her innumerable times every day, but it's only when I have actually decided to do something about them that she ever runs away and hides. Ever since I have become aware of this possibility, I am particularly careful not to feel the knots any differently whether or not I think they need combing. But most of the time she still seems to know the difference.
>>For one, Kubrick didn't believe in ghosts
>He didn't, but he thought his cat Polly had telepathic powers
Saw that and thought it was funny.
But if Kubrick didn't believe in ghosts, that means in his movies he wouldn't think the ghosts are real.
>But if Kubrick didn't believe in ghosts, that means in his movies he wouldn't think the ghosts are real.
Why do you think people are incapable of writing fiction? Or writing characters who experience or think different things than they personally do?
I don’t think you’re a very smart person.
>Or writing characters who experience or think different things than they personally do?
Of course. But that's not what Kubrick did here.
I really hope you’re a troll because you’re starting to sound mentally ill
lol cats are smart like that
Mine can always tell when I'm about to give it the monthly medicine
Kubrick may or may not have believed in ghosts. Seems irrelevant because he wasn’t making a documentary. He was making a movie.
people are sheep, they're incapable of conducting even the most basic research about the production of the film and the fact the set was destroyed in fire and had to be rebuilt, hence all the continuity errors
Low IQ ''people'' always try to find hidden clues. It's why boomers follow shit like Qanon, it's why kids watch Matpat videos overanalysing Five Nights at Freddy's. It's why you can become a millionaire by simply making videos analyzing Skibidi Toilet for any hidden clues and come up with theories.
Dumb people need these little tips, little secrets and cheat codes to make themselves feel smart. You know something other people don't know so you're smart, it doesn't matter that the thing you know is complete bullshit someone made up.
?si=Pa3pk35KpH7s81mj
Kubrick gaslighted people into believing he was some kind of 300 IQ genius, in reality he was just an autistic weirdo
Kubrick was big during the time when this autistic idiot savant trope was popular, and then when he died he was rediscovered by more people when even more people thought autists were geniuses.
Kubrick was the most popular when every other movie featured a pants shitting autist who can do supercomputer math in his head and discovers the secrets of the universe by drawing on toilet paper with shit.
As is typically true for a debate like this, both sides are kind of right, but they're also both kind of wrong.
Kubrick loved mysteries. He felt that the mystery was the point. Not the answer, which is boring. He did years of extensive research into subliminal messaging for The Shining, including looking into the techniques that ad agencies use to manipulate you subconsciously in order to sell you things. That's objective fact. The mistake people make is in understanding his intent. He didn't do all that work so that he could weave a secret narrative into the film that viewers are supposed to decode. That's silly. He did it in order to create a sense of things being "off". You watch the movie and it feels like something is wrong even when nothing is happening, because he inserted tons of subliminal imagery into the film, much of it deliberately contradictory. He wanted the film to be a puzzle that no one had any hope of solving, because that unresolved feeling is inherently disquieting.
So when you see people pouring over every frame of the film to figure out what the hidden meaning is, they are doing exactly as Kubrick intended. It's once they think they've figured it out and they have definitive proof that they're fooling themselves. And yes, Kubrick knew that by doing this, people would read meaning into even his mistakes. That was also intentional. The unavoidable continuity errors and incongruities that are part and parcel of making a movie take on a new meaning because the viewers are totally unable to discern the difference between the engineered mistakes and the genuine ones. And that's brilliant.
One of the hallmarks of genius to me is setting up a context in which everything you do, even your mistakes, still contributes to the intended effect you're striving for. The brilliance of the film in part is the unease it gives you which is informed by the lack of closure that no amount of re-watches or interpretations or painstaking analysis will give you.
I agree with the subliminal stuff intentionally there to make the viewer feel something is off
For example, Ullman’s office layout not making logical sense if you watch how Jack walks through it. Or the multiple times Jack looks directly at the camera and breaks the fourth wall for a second.
But he didn’t intend for this to be something you obsessively rewatched over and over searching for answers. This was before home video was widely available. He just wanted to make an effectively disconcerting horror movie.
Also the plot really is simple to figure out as it stands. If anything the original ending he decided to cut is more mysterious. It ends with Wendy in hosptiral recovering. Ullman visits and gives Danny the same ball that was rolled to him earlier, which implies Ullman is somehow connected to the whole thing, and Ullman states Jacks body was never found.
>Ullman visits and gives Danny the same ball that was rolled to him earlier, which implies Ullman is somehow connected to the whole thing
Does it? It could simply be that he found the ball in the hotel after the fact and figured it belonged to the kid. But I assume the ambiguity would have been the point of that ending.
https://cinephiliabeyond.org/screenplay-deleted-original-ending-shining/
Not really. Be pretty convenient for him to pick the only toy a ghost rolled to Danny.
In the ending Ullman also says the police didn’t find ANYTHING wrong in the hotel. So not even Dick Hallora’s body let alone Jacks.
The ending words then say the hotel is still in operation.
So the supernatural is even more overt unless you think Dick telepathically communicating with Danny, which led to him travelling to the hotel and dying never happened. But that’s how they managed to leave. Using his snowcat
>In the ending Ullman also says the police didn’t find ANYTHING wrong in the hotel. So not even Dick Hallora’s body let alone Jacks.
Yeah that's weird right? I mean what, did the hotel "absorb" Halloran's body as well?
How about I told you...nope
Uh, yeah. Why wouldn’t the hotel absorb the body? It’s attempting to get more souls into it.
Plus. If the original ending is now what you care about. The implication is that Ullman is involved and would thus have some motivation to cover it up so the hotel could keep getting fed
I don’t understand how in one post you claim “others in the hotel” letting Jack out is reasonable. Based on nothing. Meanwhile major plot points require supernatural intervention like Dick communicating with Danny via the shining. Yet you claim there’s no supernatural element in the movie
Don’t reply because you either have major issues. Or are trolling
>Uh, yeah. Why wouldn’t the hotel absorb the body? It’s attempting to get more souls into it.
That's dumb and Kubrick would find that ridiculous. I mean, what's the "evidence" the hotel is evil? From Ullman, talking about Indian burial grounds, previous murders.
Is that really how the hotel manager would try to recruit someone? No it is not.
I find it funny you talk about Kubrick like he’s your friend. Black person, you don’t know anything about him lol
>Ullman visits and gives Danny the same ball that was rolled to him earlier, which implies Ullman is somehow connected to the whole thing, and Ullman states Jacks body was never found.
Yeah exactly, WHY did Kubrick cut this scene? It's because it became OBVIOUS what the actual subtext was with this scene in the movie, mysterious with this scene removed.
Is there public footage of the original ending? I heard the film was distributed to multiple theaters and even screenings before they were told to manually re-cut the film by Kubrick
>Is there public footage of the original ending?
Not that I have seen, Kubrick destroyed all copies.
I don’t understand the “ghosts were all in their heads” theorists.
How did they hallucinate the exact same stuff? Danny didn’t tell Wendy about the hotel elevators flooding with blood yet she saw it, Jack is released from the pantry by a ghost, who are we supposed to think did it other than the ghost? Why wouldn’t Jack just kill them the second he got out if it was Wendy or Danny?
>A Black person
What did Kubrick mean by this?
He meant that Grady represents the founding stock of the US, a embodiment of WASP power, wealth and privilege who hates marginalized groups and wants "caretaker" Jack to dispose of them to maintain the hotel (America), whose foundations are built on blood and oppression
Cause kubrick purposefully removes any and all exposition from his films. It makes them seem a lot deeper and makes people talk about it more for longer
You mean other than the entire start of the movie, where in less than 15 minutes we get exposition explaining
>what happened to the last caretaker and making it obvious it will happen to Jack too
>showing Danny’s powers are real via predicting the interview outcome and that he was about to call Wendy
>explaining Jack was an alcoholic and hurt Danny before
Yeah
They just can't watch and enjoy a movie. Have to dissect it and based their whole identity on it. Many such cases
Movies are more enjoyable when you dissect them
People like Ager walk on the line between analysis and overanalysis. A lot of what he says looks as though it was at least an intentional detail which he may be deriving more meaning out of than is present. But he himself even mentions a lot that certain things may have not been intentional or may be him looking for meaning where there is none.
Its strange because even modern artsy directors dont structure their movies the way people claim that kubrick did. Like for example, i watched decision to leave and drive my car over the past few weeks and both have very obvious, very intentional themes/meanings to them which anyone can pick up on after 1-2 watches. I cant even think of another director who obscures their work as much as kubrick supposedly does with minute tiny details interlinking to create a new hidden theme. Perhaps Tarkovsky, but his shit isnt even structured like this. Why is there no modern equivilent to kubrick who does have the same supposed level of detail kubrick implemented. Ari aster seems to attempt it, but if you watch ager's analysis vids and take them at face value, the details aster puts in dont even seem to be on the same level as kubrick in terms of how subtly they're implemented.
I also think there are some things in kubrick's films that are actually undeniable evidence that he did this. The mickey mouse statues in full metal jacket, the drill instructor shouting 'mickey mouse bullshit' linking to the ending song. I think these are completely intentional and it kind of fricks with my brain when it comes to the overanalysis stuff.
>Why is there no modern equivilent to kubrick who does have the same supposed level of detail kubrick implemented
they're all midwits compared to him
Kubrick was genuinely intelligent. Ari Aster just thinks he is. Kubrick used to support himself in the 50s before his career got started by hustling chess games for twelve hours a day in NYC
Why do people think ghosts didn’t unlock the pantry door when the ghosts already
>opened the door to room 237 and even transported and used a key to do so
>either choked Danny or made him choke himself
But opening a pantry door is too unbelievable?
>But opening a pantry door is too unbelievable?
Yeah there weren't any ghosts in the hotel.
>opened the door to room 237 and even transported and used a key to do so
>either choked Danny or made him choke himself
jack could have done both of these. Jack was in the last scene with danny before Danny came in with the marks on his neck.
There is an issue of Playgirl that Jack is reading. This specific issue has an editorial piece about incest. You can discern that Jack has somewhat sexually abused Danny. When Jack goes into room 237 he sees the naked woman who he embraces. The woman then decays and rots. The film hard cuts to Dannys shocked face and Jack looks at the woman in horror and disgust. The rotting woman is a metaphor for Jacks sexuality and being disgusted in himself.
There is also the references to the teddy bear and Wendy seeing the bear blowing the older man. I think you can argue that is her seeing abuse before her
>I think you can argue that is her seeing abuse before her
Agreed. She is "seeing" the sexual abuse for the first time (though she probably knew for some time).
Som people in here are mad Rob Agers has a higher IQ than them, but yes Jack abusing Danny was clearly the hidden subtext of the film once the pieces of the puzzle are laid out. People can be mad mad the ghost story movie they watched went over their head but that’s the truth.
Mentioned here for reference
Am I the only one thinking Jacks abuse of Danny was acceptable?
I mean, Danny did not respect Jacks authority, nor did he follow the rules. He also dressed extremely provocative, and what was all that business with him trying to act like Wendy?
Imo, the reverse oidipus-theory is probably one of those theories that is 100% originally correct
Kubrick attracts the schizos like no other filmmaker.
The movie doesn't clearly explain a number of things, like what drove Jack crazy, why Jack was told about a Charles Grady but then met a Delbert Grady or why there was a woman in Room 217 that it invites you to try to find answers to those things yourself. It's deliberately mysterious, and while I don't think there was ever a clear cut, singular answer to its mysteries, it's not odd that people would feel compelled by the mysteries it presents.
That’s great, except none of those mysteries are ones the shining autists actually care about. They prefer
>danny was sexually abused because this magazine and a teddy bear is in the movie
>Native American genocide because Jack bounces a ball
>there are no ghosts because Kubrick didn’t believe in them according to their cousins brothers uncle
If they speculated on the actual plot and why things happened or how then I’d be fine with it. But taking a microscope to every background prop to then claim I it proves the movie is about the Holocaust or something is just asinine
>If they speculated on the actual plot and why things happened or how then I’d be fine with it.
>danny was sexually abused because this magazine and a teddy bear is in the movie
>Native American genocide because Jack bounces a ball
Obviously you are not okay with it because you are disagreeing with someone's interpretation. Your argument of just "nuh uh" is anti intellectual. Just say the movie went over your head because it obviously did. Kubrick says there are 2 meanings in his movie, the overlaying story: ghost story, and the subtext: Jack sexually abusing his son.
All I did was ask for some evidence somebody else was in the hotel and got shut down.
Meanwhile me saying the plot of the movie happened was denied
Not sure you’re reading this thread properly lmao
Did you watch the movie? Nobody else is in the hotel. It is Jack, wendy, and Danny you numskull.
Are you really so braindead that you think coming up with any ridiculous baseless theory about something is in-itself intellectual and that any criticism of said theories is anti-intellectual? You don't really seem to understand what the word intellectual even means, since if you did you'd know that debating back and forth and criticism of theories brought up by others is an intellectual process itself. Taking any overly-convoluted analysis of something and saying this must be smart and true because it's convoluted and uses words like 'symbolism' a lot is definitely not intellectual though, it's just moronic.
>ridiculous baseless theories
Nothing I said is baseless. In fact, everything I discerned from the movie is because of subtext and clues put in the film you doofus. Stick to marvel
No, you're applying meaning to things in the movie yourself because you want the movie to have a secret message that you can feel smarter for having understood. There are no "clues" in the movie pointing to some elaborate hidden meaning, Kubrick wasn't making a fricking I Spy book for kids. The movie has subtext, as I've already said, but the stuff you are talking about goes far beyond subtext into goofy levels of make believe.
Things can have inherent meaning. What is so hard to understand about that?
>you want the movie to have a secret message that you can feel smarter for having understood.
This board is for discussing and analyzing film. Wtf do you really expect from this board?
>Kubrick wasn't making a fricking I Spy book for kids
Yes he is. If you think Kubrick put things in haphazardly and without reason then you really don't understand film. I'm not even a Kubrick fanboy. Directors typically are concerned about what they film and what they want their audience to see
>The movie has subtext, as I've already said, but the stuff you are talking about goes far beyond subtext into goofy levels of make believe
There is nothing that far fetched about any of my posts
>If they speculated on the actual plot and why things happened or how then I’d be fine with it. But taking a microscope to every background prop to then claim I it proves the movie is about the Holocaust or something is just asinine
Who said the film was about the holocaust? What is wrong with taking a look at the background? It was obviously put in there for a reason
This. If Kubrick didn’t want us to note every item in the room and assign historical meaning to the, then it would be an empty blank space.
>Who said the film was about the holocaust?
Took one second to find an example lmao. Kubrick autists can and will find non existent meaning in this movie because they cannot see it in themselves
>uses outside reference
Proves my point. No one in this thread mentioned the holocaust until you did, and you are lashing out as if I personally said it. You can "lmao" your way through the post but you look moronic to everyone
But the Kubrick autists already used outside references multiple times you dumb frick. Stay consistent. Oh wait, that would require you to know what you’re talking about
If anything, the way Kubrick autists are so dismissive of the story presented and the human element within what actually happens is supremely disappointing. It’s not enough for a wife and mother to live in fear, be verbally abused and physically threatened or for their son to have a special gift he uses to help save him and his mother. Only to lose the only other person he knows with this same gift. It’s not enough for the contradiction between a father loving his son but feeling contempt towards him, feeling threatened by him to the point of attempted murder. It’s not enough for ghosts to exist in a ghost story. Or for evil spirits to want to do bad things.
No. It must have more. And more beyond that. And more beyond that. Humanity just isn’t good enough I guess. Nineteen layers of subtext representing various things from sexual abuse to genocide all based on background props is the REAL story. The dialogue and characters? Nah that’s irrelevant. The teddy bear in the background is clearly the actual movie. Good God. Find a real hobby.
What's your favorite Marvel movie
You can tell it’s zoomer central in here and they’ve been raised on marvel.
>What's your favorite Marvel movie
Lots of Marvel movies have subtext as well
>Lots of Marvel movies have subtext as well
(cont)
For example, in Thor: Ragnarok, Taika Waititi is clearly trying to give the subtext of (Muslim) refugees and how they should be accepted into Europe. Movies are a product of their time, and a good deal of movies have a subtext the director wants to say but can't say out loud.
Captain America: Winter Soldier has a subtext.
Shang Chi / 10 Rings has a subtext.
The movies from what 1980? The first few times I watched it it was a simple straight forward ghost story with an air of mystery. Eventually on the 4th 5th 6th 7th etc… viewing you can’t help but notice things and start to make connections and question what the movie might be trying to say. Unless you’re a moron like you, enjoy being cattle.
>needs to rewatch a movie dozens of times to attempt to understand it
>calls someone else cattle
Marvel movies specifically lack humanity. So not sure what you’re getting at.
I blame youtuber robag88, aka Collative Learning. He was one of the early video essayists on youtube and he made some amazingly convincing stuff about Kubrick's work.
>amazingly convincing
I find him 90% desperately reaching, 10% actually interesting observations. On some videos he’s unbearable though
The videos he made on the Blair witch project is especially moronic since they didn’t plan any of the shit or props for that production. yet he acts like they meticulously put them all there as details. Same with the dialogue. It’s just improvised and meant to follow a generalised path but instead he acts like specific lines hide deep meanings. It’s bizarre because he even acknowledges in the video that he know the production wasn’t like a standard movie so I don’t know how he bends over so far to come up with the ridiculous theories without breaking his spine
cringe. Ager is based and his takes are interesting. There is tonnes of shit he mentions in his blair witch video that you arent including and just because the sets/dialogue was brainstormed doesnt mean it didnt have any meaning/direction.
You just have a hate boner for ager because he actually has the courage to speculate about these things instead of write everything off at face value like an utter simpleton in fears of being called pretentious by other crabs in a bucket level simpletons.
You do realize you can analyze a film and find reasons why it worked whether intentional or not right? The Blaire Witch Project likely doesn’t have a lot of planning but the film maker could still decide to shoot a scene with something witch related in the background in the moment because it will enhance the shot. Or if entirely unintentional it can still be a reason why the film ended up working and worth pointing out how these unintended coincidences actually added a layer to the film that ultimately helped it.
Take your meds rob
>I find him 90% desperately reaching
In some videos, yes. I personally didn't like his analysis of The Prodigy's music video. But his Full Metal Jacket video was really great. I especially like that he translated a giant sign in the background and it had some cryptic new world order message.
They don't do that to movies anymore. Too many now and streaming. The same happened to art.
lots of correct posts about this movie but ill add my /x/ two cents about why this movie is analyzed even tho its just about a ghost hotel. It creeps people out when you present elements of the REAL paranormal. Thats why the movie is called the shining and it emphasizes the relationship between the black cleaner man and the kid, the relationship to the natives who were slaughtered, it is hinting at the inner being, maybe the "soul", being connected through an inner "light" that "shines" and the broader implications of this are unsettling because it is an unspoken thing that sometimes people irl feel and he masterfully captured it here and people want to understand this feeling of "shining" and as you can see it drives Jack insane because it seemingly makes no sense but through the eyes of an innocent child it is easier to understand hauntings, ghosts, etc etc but Jack was maybe traumatized as a child so the energies are feeding off that too. Why do I have this conclusion? Because imo Kubrics filmography is a progression of ideas from the mundane like murder and war (eqroy films), to pedophilia, to nuclear war, the inner workings of society (clockwork orange), the paranormal, and then with 2001 you see the culmination of these ideas by zoomimg out to how they affect humanity at large and then with his final film Kubric goes down to the macro level of how these ideas come into play in the daily life of a well off couple. If this all sounds like schizo nonsense maybe it is but maybe this also makes sense to some people out there. Also consider his next film, AI, would have continued this progression of ideas by seeing the final evolution of the "soul" into man made life forms.
Well. OP’s point is proven. A whole thread full of people
>claiming there was no supernatural element at all or even ghosts
>claiming native genocide was the real message for some reason
>claiming Danny was sexually abused
What even would the reason be for the secret hidden messages and subtext at this point?
Surely if these were issues he cared greatly about then he would’ve just made them more obvious? Or were the Illuminati forcing him to hide his true meaning in background props?
>What even would the reason be for the secret hidden messages and subtext at this point?
They aren't that secret, it's just nuanced. Keep in mind the movie was released in 1980 and many in the audience would have known what Kubrick was getting at.
If they aren’t that secret it wouldn’t require hours long video essays and real world essays decades later to “explain” it. Believe it or not people do pick up on subtext when it’s intended to be picked up on
So either he didn’t mean to create this subtext and you’ve imagined it. Or he did and made it incredibly obscure to the point it took many years before anyone figured it out.
Actually it’s called subtlety. I guess the lack of spelling ability is subtext for your lack of brain power
>If they aren’t that secret it wouldn’t require hours long video essays and real world essays decades later to “explain” it. Believe it or not people do pick up on subtext when it’s intended to be picked up on
The general subtext would have been picked up by someone intelligent on 1st viewing. In fact he had to cut scenes because it was so obvious.
The other small details of the film are really only intended on further analysis of his film; but he did that with ALL his films.
Look at all the small details he put in 2001, or Full Metal Jacket. He absolutely intended people to get these Easter eggs, but not without multiple re-watchings.
>ah ha! You spelled something wrong! Got you now! That means everything you said before is wrong
Yes. Good on you for admitting you were wrong. Very brave of you.
>What even would the reason be for the secret hidden messages and subtext at this point? Surely if these were issues he cared greatly about then he would’ve just made them more obvious?
It's called subtly and nuance.
Its pretty simple if you know Kings work
The hotel is housing Pennywise who is injured after the events of IT, as a defense he is fricking with the torrence family so he can feed off of dannys fear.
Haloran was originally from derry and he and jack both have the same abilites the losers have in IT
Is the hotel in Maine? Where is it located in movie and book?
The hotel takes place in Colorado. Specifically Estes. But the one filmed I believe is in Washington
IT ends about 40 years after the events of the shining though. And it ends with the spider and all the eggs being destroyed.
There are lots of characters that appear in or have links to other books in King's work but this isn't one of them.
did you know, that Jack Nicholson looks at the camera a lot in the movie because tony learns from his mistakes
>did you know, that Jack Nicholson looks at the camera a lot in the movie because tony learns from his mistakes
That's not why he looks at the camera
At this point. You have to ignore Stanley Kubrick’s own words to come up with the nonsense some of you guys have “interpreted” lmao
>For a more definitive meaning of the film’s conclusion, however, look no further than Stanley Kubrick’s own explanation of the film in a rare interview with filmmaker Jun’ichi Yao. Making a behind-the-scenes look at the paranormal experiences that occurred on the set of The Shining, Yao got the chance to speak to the iconic director and enquired about the true meaning behind the film’s conclusion.
>As Stanley Kubrick explains, “It’s supposed to suggest a kind of evil reincarnation cycle, where he [Jack] is part of the hotel’s history, just as in the men’s room, he’s talking to the former caretaker [Grady], the ghost of the former caretaker, who says to him, ‘you are the caretaker; you’ve always been the caretaker, I should know I’ve always been here’”. Continuing, the filmmaker adds, “One is merely suggesting some kind of endless cycle of this evil reincarnation”.
But just because Stanley Kubrick said it’s an evil hotel and there’s ghosts… that’s just a subtle hint that it’s not really about ghosts you see. Kubrick just doesn’t REALLY understand Kubrick the way you fellas do.
>At this point. You have to ignore Stanley Kubrick’s own words to come up with the nonsense some of you guys have “interpreted” lmao
Yeah he's not going to say what the real meaning is over the phone / in an interview to a midwit. I mean it's very clear what the face value meaning of the movie is, of course every midwit can point that out.
What’s the meaning of the film big guy? How is ‘a kind of evil reincarnation’ not sufficient? What deep secrecy and government-solving code would you need hidden in the text for this to be better?
The blew the mind of every boomer and made them scream and shit
Notice the backwards R makes it look like it says RED BUM
another sign that Jack raped Danny. Bravo Kubrick
haha, I actually find this scene the scariest in the whole movie. Wendy's realization of the traumatic event unfolding is the climax to me. And I rarely hear anyone else mention it as a scary scene, but the last two times I've seen The Shining it was this scene that made me jump the most.
>the kid walking towards his sleeping parent with a knife
>that voice saying redrum
>wendys reaction
>murder
it just hits me so hard
I've seen a lot of horror films but I do not like to think about them
For me horror is about cool stuff happening
I’ve read this whole thread and I still don’t understand how I’m supposed to take native genocide and Danny being sexually abused all while there were no ghosts as the takeaways for this movie.
I want to know more about this Native American genocide. Where and how were all these Indians killed. Where are the mass graves? Why are there so many of them around today if we genocided them all?
>I find the “Danny was sexually abused by Jack”
It's literally the book.
No it isn't. I've read the novel, but you clearly haven't.
>aright so it’s a spooky mansion, and it’s kind of eerie, right, because it’s haunted
>and American cursed land is generally going to be related to native Americans, right, people have real guilt about that
>and with haunted houses, your soul gets trapped, that’s basically what it means to be the monster in a haunted house
>and the house is maze like, obviously.
I don’t see what the big deal is or why people need to treat this as some crazy cryptography or even that in-depth of an idea. Is it really ‘genius’ level to have a haunted hotel in some American woods, and bring up native burial grounds? Is this really an obscure connection for people, or aren’t most of the ideas in this movie simple connections almost anyone would have just from spending a foggy night at a lodge hotel
There were no ghosts in the movie. The hotel wasn’t haunted. They hallucinated the ghosts after trauma from physical and sexual abuse, while Jack was going mad from isolation
That’s the same fricking thing you idiot. ‘You know what’s really creepy about this haunted house? The real human abuse here, ghosts are really just our feelings of guilt towards the abused dead’. Come on, put two and two together. Land gets cursed when bad things happen to real people there, people come to believe ghosts are haunting a place because they know someone who died there suffered a lot of pain, ghosts, culturally and literally, are our visualizations of the feelings of unresolved pain at the site of death. DUH
Ghosts are spirits, you know, from actual dead people. Not a person's hallucination. A manifestation is not the same as a spirit
Both conceptions of a ghost apply to what I said. They are either the living’s memory of a dead person’s pain, or the living dead stuck to a location via painful memory
In reality they are both. Why do people try to overliteralize this? It’s conceptual. It’s the connection between ghost haunting and trauma central to this fiction
Fair enough. I think it's just hard to define a single meaning to ghost because there are so many differences culturally you know? The meaning changes all the time
‘There is evil haunting this place because of the dead’s suffering, and it will haunt you until you cause suffering too’
It’s not that complicated
What are you quoting? Is this from the shining? Because I can't find a quote when I google it
Quotation to indicate a declaration
Do Shining analysts have trouble with pointer reference vs the thing itself? Is that why they’re always so confused?
Yes, who are you quoting you fricking moron. Cite your sorce
Good god you guys are autistic
>valid criticism
>responds with ad hominem
I expect nothing more bravo
It’s crazy watching you pretend to understand conversation
All you did was quote an unnamed source and said "there thats my response "
Not the slam dunk response you think it is you moron
Apparently it is complicated for you. Ghosts vary vastly by culture and by time period. You can't just irresponsibly use your christian interpretation and say that is the correct one moron
We’re talking about The Shining, it’s not an encyclopedia of the world’s ghosts, dumbass
Not everything in quotes is a citation, I’m just blocking out a phrase I am saying myself to explain the movie
Perfect so you are just making shit up. Ghosts don't exist you moron. There are no ghosts or anything paranormal in the shining. A hallucination is not a ghost. A manifestation is not a ghost. A ghost is a spirit of a dead person
That’s literally what I’ve said this entire time, you idiot, I just characterized (accurately) ghosts as living human’s feelings of guilt about the dead who have suffered. That feeling can haunt you, and it can make you irritable and crazy
You know you can be haunted by a memory, right? Things besides ghosts haunt. You can even be haunted by the ghost of your father without Casper-ass ghosts being real
i agree.just like back to the future was martin hallucinating which is why he has the day off school. that is why he keeps seeing the same people all over playing different characters.
I didn't think you could get any more moronic but you keep out doing yourself. An unrelated movie reference wow bravo
Yeah because I thought you were quoting directly from the shining novel or film. If you were, then your interpretation of ghosts could be correct as that opens the story up to the possibility of it being paranormal. You can't just generalize your own interpretation of ghosts and say thats the correct one because everyone has different interpretations. The fact I have to explain that to you tells me you are uncultured and underage at the least
Ugh, what a moron
I am discussing the movie itself, The Shining, and the ghosts, literal or otherwise, that are in it. It’s a little difficult because I am saying ghosts are ‘real’ but simply as a human ‘vibe’ or material psychological response to awareness of the suffering dead, which accords to the movie. If you’re actually saying me having an idea of ghosts, even just according to this movie, and saying so, is some type of spiritual imperialism or wiping out of other understandings of ghosts, then you have trouble with basic conversation and how people can say what they mean without meaning other people have to think it. When someone says ‘this house is nice’, they’re not saying everyone who doesn’t think so is wrong. When I say ‘ghosts are people’s memories of the dead who have suffered’, I’m not banning Shintoism or some shit. Get a grip.
As can be seen from the thread, the issue stems from the fact that certain types of idiots can't understand why someone would make a great film that is at its core a pretty simple story told well, and because like many great movies that rely on visual storytelling it has a degree of ambiguity to it, ambiguity which people then use as a sandbox that they can shit up with their inane theories of hidden message that they desperately want to exist in the movie so they can feel better about liking a movie that is basically just a ghost story.
>People believe the paranormal and ghosts is more believable than a man going mad from isolation
Wew lads this was a wild ride
Maybe, just maybe, it's both? Fricking moron.
Go to bed Zak Bagans. Ghosts aren't real
Yes, they are. But that's irrelevant when we are talking about a fictional story.
You're calling me a moron when you believe ghosts are real?
Yes.
>madness opened the freezer door
I’m confused why The Shining of all of Kubricks movies seems to be the one that has all the moronic theories and claims of deep inner subtext
Eyes Wide Shut, A Clockwork Orange and 2001 all have actual subtext to dive into. Readily apparent for even the average viewer. But we are to believe he made an exception for the shining and felt the true meaning must be interpreted only though background props.
I guess it’s because the Shining really is that straight forward and simple. It leaves a vacuum for anybody to insert their pet theory that requires no evidence into it.
The “Kubrick is a perfectionist God” crowd really cannot accept the Shining is what it says on the tin.
It might also be the fact that there aren't that many examples of horror movies made by "great" famous directors, and the supernatural and ambiguous qualities of the horror and the psychological themes give a lot of ammo to people wanting to come up with inane theories.
Disagreed, the baphomet ending is direct communication to go back and watch again. As above, so below.
Kubrick is a horror film, exposed Native American horrors simply forgot, how western elite use trauma based pedophilia towards their own children to program them. The film is heavy and intentional
Yes but you’re being overliteral. Completely accurate yet somehow stupid and gay of you (not of Kubrick)
The western elite controlling family through trauma and pedophilia is not an overt literal read. The literal read is a midlife crisis father blaming his family for not reaching greatness. The esoteric read is there is a witch and werewolf and abused child
all kubricks movies are about mk ultra
The father is the shining was a ghost the entire time how he started a family and lured them to the hotel is the unexplained part
There are not writers nor creative people of any kind. For them, writing is almost an incomprehensible and foreign thing. If you wrote anything, literally anything, you will realize how some things (subplots, characters, events) are made to move the plot forward, some things are included because the author likes the subject (a religious allegory, maybe references to some science field, quotes, etc) and some other things are added because you want to cause an impact on the reader (I'm gonna kill the protagonist lover, family, friend, pet, etc). This doesn't mean there are not hidden messages or meaning, purposefully open to interpretation things, sequel-hooks and so. But some people are obsessive about everything having a "deeper meaning" and pretend they are the chosen ones knowing the real (real) (real) meaning. All of this is very obvious is you watch behind the scenes or read authors interviews.
>There are not writers nor creative people of any kind. For them, writing is almost an incomprehensible and foreign thing.
This is definitely a big part of it. A complete lack of understanding of the realities of the creative process, and the fact that it is a combination of rote work, creative choices which are sometimes made for purely aesthetic reasons or reasons of personal taste, and pragmatic/practical choices.
But do they not even know how to feel out a room? Is this really the first time any of these people have sat in a slightly eerie lodge and said ‘ooh this place is creepy as shit, feels haunted cause of the people who died in this area’. You go to places like this in real life and they literally have pictures of dead Indians and even a little toy spaceship just incidentally lying around somewhere. These are not crazy deep literary connections, any place that feels haunted whatsoever, it’s because of the history and the symbols of that which are actually there. Of course Kubrick is great for seeing these connections and knowing to put them in a movie, but are analyzing audiences really that confounded with the basic idea of, like, a picture of your dead grandma stressing you out in a way that makes you shitty with your family like she was? This is not that advanced of poetry here
I forget who it was, but there was some video game influencer/reviewer. He did like a 20 minute analysis of the film and he was trying to explore all the hidden meanings in the movie. He couldn't muster anything other than the film was cool. It was such a hilariously bad review/analysis that the review was funny to me. But, people were so impressed that this moronic gamer guy was able to sit down and enjoy the movie that they thought he was smart. Im sorry, but Ive forgotten the guy's name it was many years ago, but the review was quite popular.
There wasnt shit else to do, so film theory and austists combing a director who specifically uses subtext for thought is warranted. I am partial to the Gov theory
It’s an MK ultra monarch experiment, where they had planted the notion of murder in the interview. Hullman is the front man and the other man is CIA. “Correction” is the trigger word used in the blood red bathroom. Lot of occult subtext with as above so below, i knew it was occult when Danny wins by going backwards and then Jack was reverted to ape status.
It’s one of those movies where you know something just happened but you can’t put your finger on it. The Native American subtext, western elite opulence, its all the drill home the horrors of the past while simultaneously pointing out the horror of wanting to join the elite. And that there is no joining.
Why can’t both sides be true? Why can’t it be a ghost story but also other theories, like Jack sexually abusing Danny not also be true? Maybe the ghost was in a bear costume to make Wendy relieve and face the truth that jack was sexually abusing their son and she knew it, to cause even more terror in her to feed off of for example. Why does it have to be one way or the other and it’s either a hallucination or just random ghosts doing random meaningless things?
Le middle ground pussy tactics don’t work when one idea contradicts the other. You can’t have it be both a ghost story and also a story where there is nothing supernatural as so many ITT swear is the truth
The ghosts aren’t doing random things. They were just doing what they did in life and in death. Might as well say Danny was doing random things because he rode his tricycle or Wendy did random things because she went into the hedge maze for fun
They don’t have to contract each other though. The supernatural shit is still there, but the people saying the bear blowjob is an allegory for sexual abuse are right, it was just the ghosts doing it to frick with Wendy and feed off her fear rather than a hallucination. Because I agree it’s not a hallucination and it’s definitely supernatural, but there’s so much on the other side it’s hard to believe it’s all a coincidence.
Except we know the context of the bear blowkob dude. He’s from the book. And they even filmed context as shown above in the scrap book for the audience to know it
There’s no reason to believe it’s indicative of sexual abuse of Danny because amongst his huge pile of toys he also owns a toy bear. As if it isn’t one of the most common toys ever.
Might as well say Jack is the reincarnation of gay bear man because there is a bear skin rug in the typing room.
If you think like this. I genuinely don’t know what Kubrick could have put on set that wouldn’t have made countless moronic theories. Because all of these are based on nothing
The context of the bear blowjob in the novel is completely unrelated to the film at that point. Kubrick called King a hack and used aspects of his story to make his own thing. The movie is its own entity.
Let me ask you, why did it hard cut to Danny when jack was embracing the woman in room 237 who then started to rot? I'm not trying to be a dick or do a "gotcha" moment, I genuinely want to know what you're thinking
Yes it’s from the book, but we also both know that king and Kubrick disliked each others work, king didn’t like the movie and Kubrick thought king was a hack. He used the bones of the book to tell his own story, his story was different. And while the bear blowjob was in the book, it’s important to remember in the book he was in a dog costume. Now why would Kubrick change it from a dog to a bear? Because in Kubrick adaption he was clearly going for sexual abuse undertones and subtext, and changing it from a dog to a bear was just another hint Kubrick left. It doesn’t mean there’s no ghosts and anyone saying there’s nothing Supernatural is stupid, but your bringing up the point that it was in the books is just even more evidence the subtext is there. You really think it’s just another coincidence that he changes it to a different animal in the movie and out of all the animals he could have chosen he chooses a bear which just so happens to align with all the other clues hinting at sexual abuse?
My favorite thing an autist picked up is the car crash. In the books the car is red, but Kubricks is yellow. When Dick is on his way up, there is the crashed red car from the book. Almost a frick you of sorts
Thank you. I honestly don't see how people can't see it as an allegory for sexual abuse, instead arguing for absurdism. >le ghosts happen and what they do is random with no meaning!
Because either side will vehemently defend their side because both are filled with autists
A lot of Kubrick's movies were cutting edge from sound design to composition to lens focal lengths not normally used for moving images.
Now a lot of what was advanced about the movie seems standard.
It really bugged me how in the sequel with Ewan Mcgregor they copied original hotel shots with different focal lengths and the place went from being chilling and mysterious to boring and generic.
The only opinion left to gather is let Jack out? I’ve heard Danny is more actively trying to kill his father than led to believe. It is a controlled experiment, someone let him out? Or its the supernatural entering the real world, only once? Whats the read
If it was a ghost they would have called the ghostbusters
funny how no one ever mentions the weird scene with the person in a bear suit sucking the dick of that old guy. felt really weird and out of place. it is probably linked to the sexual abuse backstory, like johnny did to danny and the butler did to his daughters.
teddy bear represents childhood
My take is Jack gave oral to Danny. But thats probably one of the most discussed scenes in the film, not sure the “no one ever mentions” is correct.
Interesting. Back to the future is a kaballahistic, Freemason story about the paradox of time. It’s no coincidence he is sitting on a pine cone discussing the strike on “12” with the all seeing eye behind the fundraiser
The book isn't good and neither is the movie. Kubricks best work was Dr strange love. Even then, his candle doesn't burn as bright as Orson Welles.
Who really cares if some fictional character Jack molested his kid in his fake offscreen life, the only important thing is that sexual perversion is included in the haunting corruption that makes monsters of men