>There are people that don't recognise this scene as one of the greatest plot twists in cinema
>we'll never ever find out what the photo at the end of the film was actually of originally
Makes for better horror, but the compulsion to know is immense.
With visual techniques Kubrick depicts Jack's relationships with the ghosts up to this point in a way that we think we've figured out what's going on.
This scene betrays that completely. You have to give in to the film's ambiguity from then on.
>it is one part of the film on which Stanley Kubrick has been extremely clear about his intentions. As he told Michel Ciment, "The ballroom photograph at the end suggests the reincarnation of Jack"
>mass murder happens in hotel
>the murderer gets reincarnated
>him and his family stay in the same hotel
>his son has "the shining", or ESP
>the ghosts try to get him to murder again
Am I missing anything?
Best fan made trailer for this legendary film
in the original ending -- the one that was in theaters the first weekend of release before kubrick had it cut out of every print -- ullman tells wendy that jack's body can't be found. so at least at one point it was seemed to be ambiguous as to if it's a previous incarnation of jack in the photograph or if the jack we know was "absorbed" into the hotel and the photo reflects that
GHOSTS CAN UNLOCK DOORS
You fucking pleb
Well the thing is you as the viewer make the reasonable inference that Jack is just crazy, because none of the 'supernatural' stuff that's happened so far can't just be attributed to him. Even the drink, he coulda just walked behind the bar and got it himself. Except you see behind the bar when he walks into the Gold Room and there's no bottles or anything there. When he gets let out of the cooler is only time you can't explain a supernatural event by Jack doing it.
Up until this point the only thing you can tell for sure is he's going crazy and that it's probably genetic and the son is crazy too.
Once the door is unlocked though, the only explanation is supernatural elements which turn the whole thing around.
THERE ARENT ANY GHOSTS
sheesh, you people take kubricks work so literally. its so obvious jack is an alcoholic who is abusive towards his wife and son. it is implied jack SEXUALLY abused his son multiple times
the film isnt scary because "ooo ghost twins blood elevator scary!", but because its about the breakdown of the nuclear family.
what could be more frightening than to be a small child whos going to be isolated with his abusive father, but not only that but breaks sanity, and starts murdering everyone around you, and your mother who is pretty much helpless
Yeah this, I always figured it was the hotel wanting it to happen again. Like it was the place more than the people.
Which is why the last guy who worked there did the same even though he wasn't connected to Jack.
Nobody is arguing that it's not obvious. The point being made is that up until that point it was left intentionally ambiguous to the point where it COULD have just all been in their head. You can find a way to explain everything paranormal in the movie but once you get to that point there is literally no other explanation for how he got out than the ghost.
I forgot all about the powers shit, I thought it was just jack nichsolon going crazy in a hotel. Rewatched it recently and the autismal "speshul powers" crap ruins the movie. Any time they brought it up it was like, oh here's another reddit scene. The true horror is man itself. Not capeshit super skills.
That latter explanation was always the one I went with, even without knowing about that cut. I think the ambiguity is good, but if that reincarnation thing was Kubrick's original idea, then I disagree with his interpretation and that decision
Honestly the supernatural stuff had no place. It barely did anything for the film other than pointless SO SPOOPY moments. You could have achieved everything important in the movie by just showing Jack struggle with writers block which leads to him falling back off the wagon with booze which then turns to cabin fever and boom he's insane enough to murder his family.
While not that anon, I think there's consensus that Jack sexually abusing Danny is one possible interpretation. Not saying it's the be-all end-all, but it's regarded as one of the stronger readings of the movie. It also makes sense of the bear man blowjob scene.
It ties the movie together and actually gives substance to what Grady was saying. If that revelation doesn't affect how you see the movie on subsequent viewings, you're retarded.
>jack molesting his son is s theory
Wow you really should just stop posting altogether
The point of the supernatural shit is to highlight Jack's more natural mental breakdown. The point of the movie is that the human mind, and its ability to collapse in on itself, is scarier than any ghost story.
All the main characters and a few supporting chracters meet him in the beginning. While it's true that Danny could have imagined his conversation about the shining with him, he definitely comes back to the Overlook because Wendy watches Jack kill him.
>spooky ghost movie
>"it's ambiguous the characters might just be crazy"
The death of the author has been around for decades.
Also, you're telling me you know, 100%, the reasons why you do every single thing? Despite the fact more often than not you're unaware of your reasonings until after the fact
What do you guys think of the Danny-Bear-Blowjob thing?
It might not have been Kubrick's primary theme but he was definitely saying something with it. Especially considering it's Wendy that catches "them".
This. It's an interesting film, but really doesn't illuminate anything new on the Shining. It's fun to watch - especially for the insane moon landing conspiracy theorist who goes on about hwo he fears the government will silence him - but it's not really good.
Hey dummies, the point of the movie isn't to convince you that they're right, it's to show the lengths people will go in their fandom and devotion and how good art can drag you into endless speculation
The book it's like 20 years or fewer. Not long at all, maybe a decade, a few years?
In the book Jack Torrence has nothing to do with the hotel to start with, he's just weak and the hotel feeds off that and uses him for its own ends (acquiring Danny).
I'm not going to argue Halloran isn't real but why the fuck is he even in the movie? In the book he lives and helps Wendy and Danny but in the movie he literally serves no purpose. He has this deep connection to Danny and we get numerous scenes of him worrying abut Danny and reacting to things and we keep getting cuts back to him traveling to the hotel to check on them and then they just kill him. He didn't do a fucking thing.
Stay pressed, hater. Ager is alpha as fuck. Is one of the most important thinkers of our time along with Sam Harris perhaps.
It's just not a scary movie. I'm the biggest pussy in the world and can't watch horror movies without the light on. But the Shining isn't horror. It's a thrilller. And it's kinda hard to be scared when you know nothing will happen to Danny or Wendy. They don't kill kids in movies and Wendy is our only other character and the protagonist.
It's more fascinating than horrifying.
no because it's implied that the house is haunted from the beginning when the manager or w/e tells jack about the guy who killed his family and himself, meaning the audience knows jack is going into something dangerous and bizarre, silly theory
it should really affect how you see the movie on your first viewing.
that is assuming you are still capable of remembering a dialogue scene 70% of the way through a film by the time that film ends.
The hotel exists at a rift between the afterlife and the real world. It's like the woods in Twin Peaks. Jack passes over into the afterlife and therefore remains as a remnant of the hotel by the picture
All we're told is that a previous keeper of the hotel killed his family.
Jack isn't told the place is haunted.
Even Kubrick believes in the duality of the movie until the pantry scene.
>The Shining is one of the most horrifying films ever made.
What part exactly? Just being unfamiliar doesn't make something horror. The Shining is such a detached movie it feels like Kubrick didn't understand horror. He made some really striking scenes but just checking those boxes doesn't make it a horror film. It's set up like a horror movie and Kubrick wanted it to be a horror movie but it doesn't really end up a horror movie.
The overall feeling. The vibes. The atmosphere. It's just scary. It makes me cry and piss myself from fear. It's a world I cannot a understand and I feel vulnerable and helpless. I fear for my life and soul. It feels like a descent in hell. A nightmare.
Idk I've never understood that. Something like House on Haunted Hill sure but The Shining? The hotel barely plays a part at all. Most of the movie it's just the little girls over and over with a few scenes of Jack and the bartender. Then the completely irrelevant 237 scene and not much else until the end where they just start throwing pointless "weird" things at Wendy and at that point the supernatural doesn't even matter anymore because the story is clearly about Jack going insane. So throwing weird paranormal shit at Wendy serves no purpose. At least if they had gradually done it over the course of the movie it could have been what motivated Wendy to leave. But at this point we're already past the climax and Jack is the focus.
>House on Haunted Hill
It's an old photo that actually exists.
The photo was merely manipulated to include Jack
One google could tell you this
No, it's literally a documentary about people's crazy theories about The Shining. How would they make a documentary about everyone's crazy theories about every movie? How fucking stupid are you that you don't understand this?
kill yourself idiot. thats not the point at all. fucking christ i thought this board was about movies. how can you watch Room 237 and not understand that you're supposed to be entertained by the wackiness of these weirdo theories?? that's it. fucking hell
Ebert argued for this a lot. A movie is what happens on the screen. If the director or a book or the script or even a deleted scene offer an interpretation something, it's not to be taken at face value since it's not technically part of the movie.
If I may quote someone who knows his shit:
>By definition the weird story is based on an enigma that can never be dispelled if it be true to the weird experience—which may occur entirely in an author’s imagination—that serves as its only justifiable provenance. While this enigma will definitely exude an ambiance of the graveyard, it menaces as much by its unreal nature, its disorienting strangeness, as by its connections with the great world of death. Such a narrative scheme is usefully contrasted with that of the realistic “suspense” story, in which a character is threatened with a familiar, often purely physical doom. Whatever identifiable manifestations and phenomena are presented in a weird story—from traditional ghosts to the scientific nightmares of the modern age—there remains at the heart of the tale a kind of abyss from which the weird emerges and into which it cannot be pursued for purposes of analysis or resolution. Some enigmatic quality must be preserved if these terrible fatalities are to retain their allure.
Stephen King usually writes horror: there's always an explanation, a monster to defeat, something that makes sense out of everything that's happening. Kubrick took his novel and turned it into weird fiction (a term coined by Lovecraft, I think) which is about assaulting your sense of stability about what is real or can happen.
Well, take this bit from his Shining analysis for example:
The dialogue of the scene is full of innuendos about abuse.
Danny: "Tony is a little boy that lives in my mouth."
Doctor: "If you were to open your mouth could I see Tony?"
Doctor: "Why not?"
Danny: "Because he hides."
Doctor: "Where does he go?"
Danny: "To my stomach."
Doctor: "Does Tony ever ask you to do things?"
Danny: "I don’t wanna talk about Tony any more."
How in the world is that full of innuendos? it really only is if you WANT it to be. Just one example of Ager forcing his abuse theory on his audience.
You did ask me to cite a specific argument though. Anyway, you say 'context', but Ager is very much creating that context. When you look at some of he videos that he has cleverly edited you may feel his arguments totally make sense, but then you watch the film again and his theories really fall apart. Stay critical is all I'm saying, I mean, wouldn't independant conspiracy theorist Ager want you to ?
>You did ask me to cite a specific argument though.
Yes, but a whole argument. Ager has like over an hour's worth of video on that one theme alone. And I've never found an instance of his editing to not provide the full context as I've seen all these films dozens of times and know them like the back of my hand and have often re-watched them before and/or after reading his essays or watching his videos. If you can cite something specific in context I'd reexamine it though.
I call this Kubrick's 2001: A Spoops Odysse Y. It's obvious that the Stanley Hotel was like a 2001 monolith where past and present and parallel alternate universes intertwine whenever the shut that hotel down during the coldest time of the year. The Indians curse against whitey most likely created that warped break in space and time
I have read his full analysis and watched his videos and to be honest, at first I was really impressed with it, and actually thought it to be mostly correct. But later less and less so, especially after rewatching the movie again and again. I'm not at all saying Agers theories are impossible, I said I don't think people should so easily accept it as gospel.
I've watched nearly all his videos and bought a dozen of the buy only material, and hes only wrong on a few things, some he openly admits to not being sure of himself
hes pretty accurate on everything he says
>I've spent money on confirmation bias and don't want to feel like I've wasted it!
>sheesh, you people take kubricks work so literally. its so obvious jack is an alcoholic who is abusive towards his wife and son. it is implied jack SEXUALLY abused his son multiple times
>the film isnt scary because "ooo ghost twins blood elevator scary!", but because its about the breakdown of the nuclear family.
That was the intended message of the Stephen King book but also in the book they quite explicitly state there are real ghosts.
>Movie is about manifest destiny and the American Dream.
>(orders a drink) "White man's burden, my man. White man's burden." (Doesn't have money to pay for drink).
>Hotel built on indian burial ground.
>"I'm sorry to differ with you sir, but YOU are the caretaker. You've always been the caretaker."
>TALKING BOUT THE WHITE MAN since the west was won.
>"I should know sir, I've always been here."
>BRITISH DUDE. THEY STARTED THE PARTY.
>"Did you know, Mr. Torrence, that your son is trying to bring outside party into this situation?"
>"When my wife tried to prevent me from doing MY DUTY. I corrected her."
Literally: Jack is being haunted by the indian spirits in the hotel, who manipulate him by appealing to his racism, feelings of duty rooted in westward expansion, and the idea that as a white man he is burdened to correct things when they get out of liine.
Figuratively: He's always been there. He's a drunk, self-important, abusive sociopath, and The White Man. He is manifest destiny/expansion-era white man's burden America personified. Or at least a fucked up outcome of it. He was always the caretaker.