The Shining Discussion -- questions, theories, spoilers, etc.
12-13-10, 02:56 AM
#226
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
re: The Shining Discussion -- questions, theories, spoilers, etc.
One of the great things about Kubrick films is how they are open to so many different interpretations. I liked Groucho's suggestion that the hotel collects souls - which would somewhat explain the meaning behind the photograph at the end. But I always felt the shot of the photo was meant to confirm why Jack had the feeling he had been to the Overlook before.
12-13-10, 04:05 AM
#227
DVD Talk Legend
re: The Shining Discussion -- questions, theories, spoilers, etc.
Kubrick himself said in an interview that opening the door shows it's not all in his head.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/d...erview.ts.html
Then again, some Blade Runner fans refused to accept Deckard definitely being a replicant despite Ridley Scott saying such.
Michel Ciment: In several of your previous films you seem to have had a prior interest in the facts and problems which surround the story -- the nuclear threat, space travel, the relationship between violence and the state -- which led you to Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange. In the case of The Shining, were you attracted first by the subject of ESP, or just by Stephen King's novel?
Stanley Kubrick: I've always been interested in ESP and the paranormal. In addition to the scientific experiments which have been conducted suggesting that we are just short of conclusive proof of its existence, I'm sure we've all had the experience of opening a book at the exact page we're looking for, or thinking of a friend a moment before they ring on the telephone. But The Shining didn't originate from any particular desire to do a film about this. The manuscript of the novel was sent to me by John Calley, of Warner Bros. I thought it was one of the most ingenious and exciting stories of the genre I had read. It seemed to strike an extraordinary balance between the psychological and the supernatural in such a way as to lead you to think that the supernatural would eventually be explained by the psychological: "Jack must be imagining these things because he's crazy". This allowed you to suspend your doubt of the supernatural until you were so thoroughly into the story that you could accept it almost without noticing.
Do you think this was an important factor in the success of the novel?
Yes, I do. It's what I found so particularly clever about the way the novel was written. As the supernatural events occurred you searched for an explanation, and the most likely one seemed to be that the strange things that were happening would finally be explained as the products of Jack's imagination. It's not until Grady, the ghost of the former caretaker who axed to death his family, slides open the bolt of the larder door, allowing Jack to escape, that you are left with no other explanation but the supernatural. The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely well worked out, and for a film that is often all that really matters.
Stanley Kubrick: I've always been interested in ESP and the paranormal. In addition to the scientific experiments which have been conducted suggesting that we are just short of conclusive proof of its existence, I'm sure we've all had the experience of opening a book at the exact page we're looking for, or thinking of a friend a moment before they ring on the telephone. But The Shining didn't originate from any particular desire to do a film about this. The manuscript of the novel was sent to me by John Calley, of Warner Bros. I thought it was one of the most ingenious and exciting stories of the genre I had read. It seemed to strike an extraordinary balance between the psychological and the supernatural in such a way as to lead you to think that the supernatural would eventually be explained by the psychological: "Jack must be imagining these things because he's crazy". This allowed you to suspend your doubt of the supernatural until you were so thoroughly into the story that you could accept it almost without noticing.
Do you think this was an important factor in the success of the novel?
Yes, I do. It's what I found so particularly clever about the way the novel was written. As the supernatural events occurred you searched for an explanation, and the most likely one seemed to be that the strange things that were happening would finally be explained as the products of Jack's imagination. It's not until Grady, the ghost of the former caretaker who axed to death his family, slides open the bolt of the larder door, allowing Jack to escape, that you are left with no other explanation but the supernatural. The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely well worked out, and for a film that is often all that really matters.
Then again, some Blade Runner fans refused to accept Deckard definitely being a replicant despite Ridley Scott saying such.
12-13-10, 05:06 AM
#228
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
re: The Shining Discussion -- questions, theories, spoilers, etc.
Kubrick himself said in an interview that opening the door shows it's not all in his head.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/d...erview.ts.html
Then again, some Blade Runner fans refused to accept Deckard definitely being a replicant despite Ridley Scott saying such.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/d...erview.ts.html
Then again, some Blade Runner fans refused to accept Deckard definitely being a replicant despite Ridley Scott saying such.
A story of the supernatural cannot be taken apart and analysed too closely. The ultimate test of its rationale is whether it is good enough to raise the hairs on the back of your neck. If you submit it to a completely logical and detailed analysis it will eventually appear absurd
In other words, The events in The Shining made no sense. Dont try to figure it out. Be scared and accept it.
Last edited by JZ1276; 12-13-10 at 05:11 AM.
12-13-10, 07:37 AM
#229
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,284
Received 369 Likes
on
263 Posts
re: The Shining Discussion -- questions, theories, spoilers, etc.
Lemmy, stop hijacking other people's accounts, we get that you're a badass!
03-16-11, 10:34 AM
#230
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: hell
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Can Someone Explain The Ending of The Shining to Me?
u guys have some interesting ideas.
heres what went through my head:
Jack and danny both have "the shining". danny knows that he has this to some extent. he can explain it, as he did to mr. halloran and that nurse in the beginning, but he obviously doesnt know what it means. but my point is he is aware of it. (especially after halloran explains it to him). now jack has the shining as well, only he has absolutely no idea that he has it or that his experiences are caused by it. he doesnt know anything, its like, "guy A takes an lsd tablet and is aware he took the drug, and he is slightly aware of what is happening and why it is happening" thats like danny. "guy B takes an lsd tablet without knowing he took it. so he has absolutely no explanation for why he is experiencing this weird shit." thats like Jack.
now remember, this hotel was built on top of a native-american BURIAL GROUND. and the "ghosts" are "traces of the past" that only people with "the shining" can see. but i think that every time he is talking to grady or the lloyd, he is just thinking in his head and having revelations. the sudden realization that he was the caretaker in the 70's and now he is a ghost but he doesnt know it, and his family and everything thats happening isn't real because its his dream as a dead man.
but idk i think the reincarnation theory makes the most sense.
but its like danny is a complete wackjob with a huge bunch of mental disorders and is a schizophrenic and the mom is just a completely simple dumb women who cannot understand and has no idea how deep his problems really are. and jack is fucked up by the alcoholism and alcohol withdraw, which affects his mental state greatly and turns him into a schizophrenic as well. so the mom is dealing with two insane schizophrenics and she has no idea.
but again, the reincarnation theory is probably the most sense making. even though it is kinda dull. but honestly, the story is supposed to be more based around the "dangers of alcoholism" so i think that should have a bigger role.
i dont fucking know. i always have great explanations when im watching it but i can never remember them when i wanna tell someone goddammit!!!
heres what went through my head:
Jack and danny both have "the shining". danny knows that he has this to some extent. he can explain it, as he did to mr. halloran and that nurse in the beginning, but he obviously doesnt know what it means. but my point is he is aware of it. (especially after halloran explains it to him). now jack has the shining as well, only he has absolutely no idea that he has it or that his experiences are caused by it. he doesnt know anything, its like, "guy A takes an lsd tablet and is aware he took the drug, and he is slightly aware of what is happening and why it is happening" thats like danny. "guy B takes an lsd tablet without knowing he took it. so he has absolutely no explanation for why he is experiencing this weird shit." thats like Jack.
now remember, this hotel was built on top of a native-american BURIAL GROUND. and the "ghosts" are "traces of the past" that only people with "the shining" can see. but i think that every time he is talking to grady or the lloyd, he is just thinking in his head and having revelations. the sudden realization that he was the caretaker in the 70's and now he is a ghost but he doesnt know it, and his family and everything thats happening isn't real because its his dream as a dead man.
but idk i think the reincarnation theory makes the most sense.
but its like danny is a complete wackjob with a huge bunch of mental disorders and is a schizophrenic and the mom is just a completely simple dumb women who cannot understand and has no idea how deep his problems really are. and jack is fucked up by the alcoholism and alcohol withdraw, which affects his mental state greatly and turns him into a schizophrenic as well. so the mom is dealing with two insane schizophrenics and she has no idea.
but again, the reincarnation theory is probably the most sense making. even though it is kinda dull. but honestly, the story is supposed to be more based around the "dangers of alcoholism" so i think that should have a bigger role.
i dont fucking know. i always have great explanations when im watching it but i can never remember them when i wanna tell someone goddammit!!!
03-16-11, 10:42 AM
#231
DVD Talk Godfather
Re: Can Someone Explain The Ending of The Shining to Me?
I love that this thread is just a magnet for new members. 5 people on this page alone registered just to post in this thread and were never to be heard from again. Maybe they are Overlook residents coming to haunt this thread.
03-16-11, 10:51 AM
#232
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: hell
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Can Someone Explain The Ending of The Shining to Me?
This film is so oddly fascinating and part of that comes from the open interpretations of how all the pieces fall together correctly. In order to fully understand the film, in the way that I have, at least, I did a lot of thinking about it. Honestly, it drove me nuts to the point where I couldn't STOP thinking about it. I went to sleep that night and I dreamed about how it all fit together. No doubt that scared me beyond belief, but it fully opened my eyes.
So here goes:
First off, to anyone thinking that the two Grady names is a mistake (I'm talking to you, deputydave, haha), I assure you, it is NOT a mistake. They're two different men. Re-incarnations of the same spirit in two different men, however. Honestly. One was a butler in 1921 at the time of the July 4th Ball; and one was Caretaker in 1970. Surely if they were the same man, he'd be between 70 and 100 years of age (given he were not a pile of bones) by 1970. And in that regard, the little girls that Danny continuously sees (and that were hacked to bits in 1970) would not be little in 1970, and surely not as young as the ones that we see.
Jack Torrance (poor soul ... bad pun, sorry) is a re-incarnation as well. He is a re-incarnation of a man who may or may not have also been named Jack Torrance, or at least Jack; who was the Caretaker of the Overlook in 1921, and likely had been the Caretaker since the Overlook opened in 1909 (hence Delbert Grady telling him he'd always been the caretaker). However ... is he bound to the fate of murder and insanity looming over him? NO. He had a choice. A choice to turn his life around or succumb to the madness threatening to take him over.
Sadly, he makes the wrong choice. He literally "gives his soul" to the hotel. He did say he'd give his soul for a beer, which is then offered to him and he drinks it. By taking it, he seemingly effectively gives himself to the hotel and therefore "gains access" to the Hotel's haunted past. Notice he hadn't had anything out of the ordinary happen to him until this moment. However, the hotel gave him a second chance. The woman in the bathroom was a second chance. It's as though the hotel is asking him, 'do you really want this?'. By kissing the woman, he effectively seals his fate as part of the hotel. Honestly, he was given a second chance. Just like Grady later gives him a second chance to 'correct' his family, by letting him out of the pantry.
In that sense, Jack talking to the ghosts and seeing them has endless possibilities. This may simply be part of him joining the hotel. It could be him talking to himself and seeing the ghosts in his mind. Notice anytime he talks with the paranormal, there is a mirror present. Also, we only see him in the deep conversations and never the paranormal.
But obviously, the most interesting theory is that Jack SHINES.
Of course he does, for everything to fall together right. Think about it for a second. The title of the novel in the first place came from the central theme of shining. And in the novel, Danny is a more central force and the hotel seeks to claim him before going after Jack. In the film, with Jack being a re-incarnation, Jack HAS to shine as well for the central theme to remain around the shining ability. In that sense, Wendy also shines. It's passed on through generations. Simply put, Jack and Wendy shine to a lesser extent to that of Danny. Henceforth, Danny can see spirits right away, but Jack and Wendy have to 'commit' to the hotel before they can interact with it. Which leaves the inevitable ... the hotel. Halloran himself says that the Overlook has 'something like' the shining. He hit the nail on the head. The hotel shines its past to anyone who has the shining ability.
Back to Jack being able to shine. It's been pointed out but I'll re-emphasize. It's evident when he looks down at the model of the maze and can see Danny and Wendy, and can tell exactly where they are in the maze. Wendy can obviously shine, which is noted in the novel. It's also very obvious when she can see all the apparitions at the end. But neither of them KNOW they can shine, nor are their abilities to the extent of Danny's. However, Jack seems to have a good control on his ability since he's able to hold extended conversations. There isn't just one thing the shining is limited to. Like Halloran said, it's a lot of things. Communication, vision, the whole package.
As far as Jack talking to the spirits, he's committed to the hotel when Wendy interrupts his conversation. She hasn't, so she can't see the spirits and therefore had she been around for the conversation, it would have appeared to her that Jack was talking to himself through the mirror. Later, when Wendy and Danny have a chance to get out after locking Jack in the pantry, (even without the snowcat), she instead goes and lays down in the bed and sleeps. The hotel could easily take this as a commitment, and hence, she is now able to see the spirits. However, she never got to the second commitment like Jack did, and the one room appears to her as they would in their present form.
At least, that's what I get out of it, and it makes sense to me, so I'm not changing my tune. Hope someone finds this all useful, it sure is a fascinating film and I now enjoy thinking about the endless possibilities and even what more could be added to my already present opinion.
Until next time, cheers.
So here goes:
First off, to anyone thinking that the two Grady names is a mistake (I'm talking to you, deputydave, haha), I assure you, it is NOT a mistake. They're two different men. Re-incarnations of the same spirit in two different men, however. Honestly. One was a butler in 1921 at the time of the July 4th Ball; and one was Caretaker in 1970. Surely if they were the same man, he'd be between 70 and 100 years of age (given he were not a pile of bones) by 1970. And in that regard, the little girls that Danny continuously sees (and that were hacked to bits in 1970) would not be little in 1970, and surely not as young as the ones that we see.
Jack Torrance (poor soul ... bad pun, sorry) is a re-incarnation as well. He is a re-incarnation of a man who may or may not have also been named Jack Torrance, or at least Jack; who was the Caretaker of the Overlook in 1921, and likely had been the Caretaker since the Overlook opened in 1909 (hence Delbert Grady telling him he'd always been the caretaker). However ... is he bound to the fate of murder and insanity looming over him? NO. He had a choice. A choice to turn his life around or succumb to the madness threatening to take him over.
Sadly, he makes the wrong choice. He literally "gives his soul" to the hotel. He did say he'd give his soul for a beer, which is then offered to him and he drinks it. By taking it, he seemingly effectively gives himself to the hotel and therefore "gains access" to the Hotel's haunted past. Notice he hadn't had anything out of the ordinary happen to him until this moment. However, the hotel gave him a second chance. The woman in the bathroom was a second chance. It's as though the hotel is asking him, 'do you really want this?'. By kissing the woman, he effectively seals his fate as part of the hotel. Honestly, he was given a second chance. Just like Grady later gives him a second chance to 'correct' his family, by letting him out of the pantry.
In that sense, Jack talking to the ghosts and seeing them has endless possibilities. This may simply be part of him joining the hotel. It could be him talking to himself and seeing the ghosts in his mind. Notice anytime he talks with the paranormal, there is a mirror present. Also, we only see him in the deep conversations and never the paranormal.
But obviously, the most interesting theory is that Jack SHINES.
Of course he does, for everything to fall together right. Think about it for a second. The title of the novel in the first place came from the central theme of shining. And in the novel, Danny is a more central force and the hotel seeks to claim him before going after Jack. In the film, with Jack being a re-incarnation, Jack HAS to shine as well for the central theme to remain around the shining ability. In that sense, Wendy also shines. It's passed on through generations. Simply put, Jack and Wendy shine to a lesser extent to that of Danny. Henceforth, Danny can see spirits right away, but Jack and Wendy have to 'commit' to the hotel before they can interact with it. Which leaves the inevitable ... the hotel. Halloran himself says that the Overlook has 'something like' the shining. He hit the nail on the head. The hotel shines its past to anyone who has the shining ability.
Back to Jack being able to shine. It's been pointed out but I'll re-emphasize. It's evident when he looks down at the model of the maze and can see Danny and Wendy, and can tell exactly where they are in the maze. Wendy can obviously shine, which is noted in the novel. It's also very obvious when she can see all the apparitions at the end. But neither of them KNOW they can shine, nor are their abilities to the extent of Danny's. However, Jack seems to have a good control on his ability since he's able to hold extended conversations. There isn't just one thing the shining is limited to. Like Halloran said, it's a lot of things. Communication, vision, the whole package.
As far as Jack talking to the spirits, he's committed to the hotel when Wendy interrupts his conversation. She hasn't, so she can't see the spirits and therefore had she been around for the conversation, it would have appeared to her that Jack was talking to himself through the mirror. Later, when Wendy and Danny have a chance to get out after locking Jack in the pantry, (even without the snowcat), she instead goes and lays down in the bed and sleeps. The hotel could easily take this as a commitment, and hence, she is now able to see the spirits. However, she never got to the second commitment like Jack did, and the one room appears to her as they would in their present form.
At least, that's what I get out of it, and it makes sense to me, so I'm not changing my tune. Hope someone finds this all useful, it sure is a fascinating film and I now enjoy thinking about the endless possibilities and even what more could be added to my already present opinion.
Until next time, cheers.
im not trying to discredit your ideas, because they are really sense making, but im just adding to it.
03-16-11, 10:51 AM
#233
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Can Someone Explain The Ending of The Shining to Me?
Damn that is kind of creepy but I have to admit....even as a kid when I first seen this I was definitely begging to know what the hell was going on with that ending shot.
03-16-11, 10:54 AM
#234
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: Can Someone Explain The Ending of The Shining to Me?
I think people are looking way too much into this like The Machinist. And Inception.
also mrcrowley....heavymetal hasn't posted in a while...hell....I didn't even know he existed.
also mrcrowley....heavymetal hasn't posted in a while...hell....I didn't even know he existed.
03-16-11, 10:55 AM
#235
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: hell
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Can Someone Explain The Ending of The Shining to Me?
I don't have much to add, but I saw this on the big screen for the first time in Nashville this past Saturday and just wanted to say that if you've never seen it on the big screen, then you haven't fully experienced the flick. At least in my opinion.
I've never totally realized just how terrifying this movie is until this past Saturday, hearing that incredible score filling up an entire theater, seeing the print on the big screen complete with grain and scratches. I had an awesome time watching this one in Nashville, and it gave me a brand new appreciation of the picture as a whole.
I've never totally realized just how terrifying this movie is until this past Saturday, hearing that incredible score filling up an entire theater, seeing the print on the big screen complete with grain and scratches. I had an awesome time watching this one in Nashville, and it gave me a brand new appreciation of the picture as a whole.
03-16-11, 11:49 AM
#236
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Can Someone Explain The Ending of The Shining to Me?
03-16-11, 02:00 PM
#237
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: Can Someone Explain The Ending of The Shining to Me?
That was sarcasm. Notice my inclusion of The Machinist (a film that had a thread that was recently revived on here) and....Inception...a topic that became very heated on here. I almost wish to never talk about Inception again. Just on how ridiculous it got on here...ridiculous..but soooo entertaining.
03-16-11, 02:52 PM
#240
Re: Can Someone Explain The Ending of The Shining to Me?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/trivia
The former caretaker of the Overlook Hotel has two different names (Charles Grady and Delbert Grady) because he's supposed to be two different people. Charles is the caretaker who murdered his wife and daughters in the winter of 1970, and Delbert is the butler of the Overlook Hotel at the 4th of July party in 1921(which Jack was also at). This is a reference to the original book (the former caretaker's name didn't change like it did in the movie, but he was at the hotel in two different time periods- once at a masquerade ball in 1945 and again as the caretaker in 1970.). The use of two different names in the movie is simply to show that Grady has been at the Overlook Hotel twice, just like Jack.
The former caretaker of the Overlook Hotel has two different names (Charles Grady and Delbert Grady) because he's supposed to be two different people. Charles is the caretaker who murdered his wife and daughters in the winter of 1970, and Delbert is the butler of the Overlook Hotel at the 4th of July party in 1921(which Jack was also at). This is a reference to the original book (the former caretaker's name didn't change like it did in the movie, but he was at the hotel in two different time periods- once at a masquerade ball in 1945 and again as the caretaker in 1970.). The use of two different names in the movie is simply to show that Grady has been at the Overlook Hotel twice, just like Jack.
03-16-11, 02:59 PM
#241
DVD Talk Limited Edition
03-16-11, 07:46 PM
#242
DVD Talk Hero - 2023 TOTY Award Winner
Re: Can Someone Explain The Ending of The Shining to Me?
Jack Torrance was a replicant.
11-01-11, 11:57 AM
#243
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: The Shining Discussion -- questions, theories, spoilers, etc.
Looked into this a little it and Ive seen a lot of crazy theories. The Indian genocide explanation is interesting and there are pieces which I think support the theory. My problem is that no theory holds true throughout the entire movie. There are clues which support each theory and clues which break each theory down.
Most of which, is this little number I ran into:
johnnys53.blogspot (I cant post a link so just search it)
Obviously that guy is plain nuts but that opened up two roads which I think may be worth exploring for me:
1)That the movie is an analogy for mans irrational desire to stay on earth eternally, and a warning that such focuses will lead to eternal servitude. (i.e. Jack's rejection of the spirtual world, or "the shine", means that he succombs to the Outlook, while Dannys ability to recognize "the shine" allows him to save him and his mother from eternal servitude)
1)Are the numbers in the shining outlining a secondary message. I skimmed through the script and here are the numbers I found:
July 1980 (7/1980) Movie begins there
July 4 1921 (7/4/1921) Closing shot
1907 (outlook construction begins)
1909 (outlook construction is finished)
1968 (shooting described on news program being watched by wife)
1970 (tragedy at outlook occurs)
May 15th (5/15) Seasonal opening of Outlook
October 30th (10/30) Seasonal Closing
8:00 am (still shot)
4:00 pm (still shot)
42 (number on dannys shirt)
11(number on apollo sweater)
Room 237 (Though something tells me kubrik is telling us not to focus on this number when halleron says "there is nothing in room 237")
8:20 (time hallerans flight is set to land)
KDK12 to KDK1
Channel 10 in Miami
24 year old susan robertson missing 10 days
Radio 63
D.C. flight 10
*phew*
Final comments: There are 2 scenes which I think people don't pay enough attention to. They standout as being seemingly out of place/pointless to plot, and nothing comes from them, so you wonder why Kubrick took the time to show them explicitly.
a)The boadcast being mentioned while the wife is watching tv. It mentions a 1968 shooting and a 24 year old Susan Robertson who has been missing in an area near the Outlook for 10 days. I expected that plotline to converge with the Outlook plotline, but it never did. Are one of the ghosts this woman?
b)Halleran asks the stewardess what time the flight is going to land and she says "8:20". What is the point of this scene? It seems too pointless to me. Does the number 820 have any significance.
Most of which, is this little number I ran into:
johnnys53.blogspot (I cant post a link so just search it)
Obviously that guy is plain nuts but that opened up two roads which I think may be worth exploring for me:
1)That the movie is an analogy for mans irrational desire to stay on earth eternally, and a warning that such focuses will lead to eternal servitude. (i.e. Jack's rejection of the spirtual world, or "the shine", means that he succombs to the Outlook, while Dannys ability to recognize "the shine" allows him to save him and his mother from eternal servitude)
1)Are the numbers in the shining outlining a secondary message. I skimmed through the script and here are the numbers I found:
July 1980 (7/1980) Movie begins there
July 4 1921 (7/4/1921) Closing shot
1907 (outlook construction begins)
1909 (outlook construction is finished)
1968 (shooting described on news program being watched by wife)
1970 (tragedy at outlook occurs)
May 15th (5/15) Seasonal opening of Outlook
October 30th (10/30) Seasonal Closing
8:00 am (still shot)
4:00 pm (still shot)
42 (number on dannys shirt)
11(number on apollo sweater)
Room 237 (Though something tells me kubrik is telling us not to focus on this number when halleron says "there is nothing in room 237")
8:20 (time hallerans flight is set to land)
KDK12 to KDK1
Channel 10 in Miami
24 year old susan robertson missing 10 days
Radio 63
D.C. flight 10
*phew*
Final comments: There are 2 scenes which I think people don't pay enough attention to. They standout as being seemingly out of place/pointless to plot, and nothing comes from them, so you wonder why Kubrick took the time to show them explicitly.
a)The boadcast being mentioned while the wife is watching tv. It mentions a 1968 shooting and a 24 year old Susan Robertson who has been missing in an area near the Outlook for 10 days. I expected that plotline to converge with the Outlook plotline, but it never did. Are one of the ghosts this woman?
b)Halleran asks the stewardess what time the flight is going to land and she says "8:20". What is the point of this scene? It seems too pointless to me. Does the number 820 have any significance.
11-01-11, 12:39 PM
#244
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 20,052
Received 168 Likes
on
126 Posts
re: The Shining Discussion -- questions, theories, spoilers, etc.
I heard somewhere (the blu ray I think) that Kubrick was as much influenced by a novel called The Blue Hotel by Stephen Crane as he was by King's novel. I did some research and found a couple summaries of The Blue Hotel that are very interesting:
What's missing from that summary is the "twist ending" that is summarized here:
That last bit is the most important. I've heard it described that what Kubrick wanted to imitate in the Shining was this twist. The Swede character is convinced everyone is cheating him in the card game, we the reader are convinced that the Swede is paranoid. When he loses in cards he feels cheated, fights a duel, wins, but is later killed by another gambler. The reader remains convinced the Swede is unstable and paranoid, a victim of his own unsound mind, and he/she concludes this is a cautionary tale, not to be paranoid, not to jump to conclusions. But after he is dead we discover that indeed the Swede was cheated and his paranoia, while very real, was justified.
What Kubrick was trying to do in The Shining evidently was the same twist. We see Jack, he seems unhinged from the very first scene, but everyone around him seems to trust him enough with his responsibilities. As things unfold, we are convinced that the supernatural things we are seeing are a product of his mentally disturbed mind. That is until that moment when the refrigerator door is unlocked. At that moment the hotel's ghosts must be real. Jack may be crazy, but the ghosts aren't in his head. They're real.
It remains debatable if Kurbrick really pulled this off successfully. When that door gets unlocked I think he wanted audeinces to say, "oh shit, the ghosts are real, now the Torrance's are in for some real shit" they instead have been debating the locked refrigerator for 30 years.
Also, see above the Michel Ciment interview:
Among one of his works include The Blue Hotel. The novel the “Blue Hotel” is a novel themed with death. The moment that the Swede arrives at the “Blue Hotel” it is somehow, in The Swedes mind, transformed into a wild west hotel, by the many dime novels he has read, which made him even more uneasy about staying at the hotel. In one of the initial scenes this fear is evident “The Swede answered him swiftly and eagerly: ‘These men are going to kill me.’…. ‘I know I won’t get out of here alive’”(771). The Swede’s fear of dying had made him want to leave the hotel, but Pat Scull, the owner of the Blue Hotel, attempted to get him to stay by showing around the hotel and showing him pictures of his family. Scully shows the Swede some pictures of his children “That’s the pitcher of my of my little girl that died. Her name was Carrie. She had the purtiest hair you ever saw! I was that fond of her, she-”(773). Crane’s use of color in the episode helps to point out the pattern of death. Scully and the Swede first walk into a dark room and while Scully speaks of his deceased daughter the Swede is focusing on the shadows in the darker part of the room. The Swede fears everything in the hotel, so Scully offers him some whiskey, which of course the Swede believes is poisoned. After proving to the Swede the whiskey is fine the Swede take it. The whiskey he gives The Swede does loosen him up. The Swede begins to drink more and more. Soon there after he joins a card game and where he proclaims that Johnie, Scully’s son, has been cheating. The Swede feels that the only way to right the wrongs of Johnnie’s cheating is to fight. Ironically the street is covered in a fine white virgin snow as the spectators chanted “kill him Johnnie kill him”(780). In this scene the Swede thought that the gang of spectators would kill him, however, Scully made it so that only he and Johnnie would fight. As with most of the novel the Swede was fearful of fighting Johnnie, he feared Johnnie would beat him and he feared that the crowed would kill him. The Swede wins allowing Crane to set up what starts the Swedes “death march”. Having beaten the hotel owner’s son the Swede decides to leave. However the Swede, still under the influence of the whiskey, stops at a local saloon where he wants to celebrate with his victory. When he finds that no one will celebrate with him he “Grasped the gambler frenziedly at the throat, and was dragging him from his chair…. then was seen a long blade in the hand of gambler. It shot forward, and a human body…. was pierced as easily as if it had been a melon” (786). The Swedes limp body fell to floor beneath the bar where he had been drinking. The theme of death in “The Blue Hotel” is present throughout the novel. Crane’s use of color, character flaws, and plot help strengthen this theme. Crane uses the Swedes fear of death to be his death. Had the Swede not been drinking he more than likely would not have become so aggressive and in turn he would not have started the fight with the gambler that led to his death.
To summarize, "The Blue Hotel" by Stephen Crane takes place at the Palace Hotel which is near a train station in rural Nebraska. The proprietor of the hotel, which is painted blue and is something of an attraction/eyesore in town, is named Scully. He meets a man at the train station whom we only know simply as “The Swede” throughout the entire story and persuades him to stay at his establishment. Scully also gets “The Easterner” and a cowboy to stay the night as well. When the three arrive at the hotel, they notice that The Swede is acting strangely. He seems convinced that everyone is trying to kill him, including the Scully’s son, Johnny.
The narrator in this short story by Stephen Crane describes how the other two residents of the hotel, the Easterner and the Cowboy are baffled and begin to get angry at The Swede’s behavior while Scully, trying to keep his guest happy, attempts to console him. This attempt starts to fail and the Swede goes upstairs to pack his bags and leave, despite the snowstorm, but Scully finally manages to talk him into staying. It seems that Swede has certain perceptions about the “wild West” and although this is just a small town in Nebraska (hardly the mythologized “old West” read about in dime-store Westerns) he is convinced he is in for rough treatment. The Swede finally comes back downstairs and his demeanor has changed entirely. One of the themes in "The Blue Hotel" revolves around male bravado and it should be noted how he is increasingly boastful as he gets drunk—a complete change from the cowardice he displayed before. He suddenly accuses Johnny of cheating at cards and the two go outside into the snowstorm to fight it out. The Swede whips Johnny and leaves the hotel, proud and swaggering. He makes it down to the local saloon where he meets a gambler whom he antagonizes. Much to the reader’s surprise, the gambler stabs the Swede, killing him. After this event, the Easterner, Johnny, and the Cowboy talk. The Easterner says that Johnny was, in fact, cheating and that they all had played a part in the Swede’s death.
The narrator in this short story by Stephen Crane describes how the other two residents of the hotel, the Easterner and the Cowboy are baffled and begin to get angry at The Swede’s behavior while Scully, trying to keep his guest happy, attempts to console him. This attempt starts to fail and the Swede goes upstairs to pack his bags and leave, despite the snowstorm, but Scully finally manages to talk him into staying. It seems that Swede has certain perceptions about the “wild West” and although this is just a small town in Nebraska (hardly the mythologized “old West” read about in dime-store Westerns) he is convinced he is in for rough treatment. The Swede finally comes back downstairs and his demeanor has changed entirely. One of the themes in "The Blue Hotel" revolves around male bravado and it should be noted how he is increasingly boastful as he gets drunk—a complete change from the cowardice he displayed before. He suddenly accuses Johnny of cheating at cards and the two go outside into the snowstorm to fight it out. The Swede whips Johnny and leaves the hotel, proud and swaggering. He makes it down to the local saloon where he meets a gambler whom he antagonizes. Much to the reader’s surprise, the gambler stabs the Swede, killing him. After this event, the Easterner, Johnny, and the Cowboy talk. The Easterner says that Johnny was, in fact, cheating and that they all had played a part in the Swede’s death.
What Kubrick was trying to do in The Shining evidently was the same twist. We see Jack, he seems unhinged from the very first scene, but everyone around him seems to trust him enough with his responsibilities. As things unfold, we are convinced that the supernatural things we are seeing are a product of his mentally disturbed mind. That is until that moment when the refrigerator door is unlocked. At that moment the hotel's ghosts must be real. Jack may be crazy, but the ghosts aren't in his head. They're real.
It remains debatable if Kurbrick really pulled this off successfully. When that door gets unlocked I think he wanted audeinces to say, "oh shit, the ghosts are real, now the Torrance's are in for some real shit" they instead have been debating the locked refrigerator for 30 years.
Also, see above the Michel Ciment interview:
Kubrick: As the supernatural events occurred you searched for an explanation, and the most likely one seemed to be that the strange things that were happening would finally be explained as the products of Jack's imagination. It's not until Grady, the ghost of the former caretaker who axed to death his family, slides open the bolt of the larder door, allowing Jack to escape, that you are left with no other explanation but the supernatural.
Last edited by Mabuse; 11-01-11 at 02:22 PM.
11-01-11, 01:43 PM
#245
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,284
Received 369 Likes
on
263 Posts
re: The Shining Discussion -- questions, theories, spoilers, etc.
Rewatching this movie over the weekend, the same scene stuck out to me. I don't think it meant anything, but Halleran's whole journey back seemed kind of unneeded.
11-01-11, 04:15 PM
#246
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The lonely depths of my mind
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
re: The Shining Discussion -- questions, theories, spoilers, etc.
The movie is a classic. I don't care what Stephen King thinks. The miniseries that he made that he thought was much better.....I don't think so. It was one of the worst movies that I've ever seen. It was horrible. I like the actors that were in it in most of the other stuff they've made, but they just didn't work here. The movie was horribly miscast. Now, the Carrie tv movie is another story. The original Carrie, again, is a classic horror/scary movie. The tv movie, for the most part, is alright. There are a few parts that are extremely unneeded. Mainly the parts in the police interrogation room. The Carrie character isn't as naive-seeming as Sissy Spacek was, but it was a good interpretation of the character. Over all, the Carrie tv movie was a much better job of retelling the story than the Shining one.
11-01-11, 05:21 PM
#247
DVD Talk Legend
re: The Shining Discussion -- questions, theories, spoilers, etc.
I see a lot of people theorizing about Kubrick's "meanings" behind several odd, misleading, unexplained, and inconsistent things in the movie.
I hate to say this and risk the flame but most, if not all, can be explained by Kubrick's sloppy handling of the script and the various script changes and rewrites. For example, Grady's first name changing half way through the movie. The name King used and that appeared in the original script was Delbert, in the second draft it was changed to Charles, yet the original remains in key places. The script (and book) originally called for Jack to see the hotel as it was during a New Years Eve masquerade party in the 20’s when he "drank", although he couldn't interact with any of the partiers he watched them. One of the people Jacks sees at the party is the then owner of the hotel leading a man around in a dog costume on a leash. This was mostly cut in re-writes but explains Wendy seeing the man in the dog costume giving a blow job, and (sorta) explains the photo at the end.
There are several other examples I don't remember right now.
I hate to say this and risk the flame but most, if not all, can be explained by Kubrick's sloppy handling of the script and the various script changes and rewrites. For example, Grady's first name changing half way through the movie. The name King used and that appeared in the original script was Delbert, in the second draft it was changed to Charles, yet the original remains in key places. The script (and book) originally called for Jack to see the hotel as it was during a New Years Eve masquerade party in the 20’s when he "drank", although he couldn't interact with any of the partiers he watched them. One of the people Jacks sees at the party is the then owner of the hotel leading a man around in a dog costume on a leash. This was mostly cut in re-writes but explains Wendy seeing the man in the dog costume giving a blow job, and (sorta) explains the photo at the end.
There are several other examples I don't remember right now.
Last edited by DeputyDave; 11-01-11 at 06:10 PM.
11-01-11, 05:32 PM
#248
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: The Shining Discussion -- questions, theories, spoilers, etc.
If only they had done it for HBO/cable to include a little gore it would have been a 4 star miniseries.