Why the Wendy Theory can't be Debunked!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ส.ค. 2024
- This video is mainly our opinion on The Shining movie Wendy Theory. My wife and I also discuss our thoughts on why the Wendy Theory can’t be debunked and touch on a couple other popular theories.
I invite anyone to respectfully and politely join in on the discussion by posting comments below. Please let us know what you think. If you have questions, we’ll try to add more input. I’m hoping to do more videos on The Shining and related theories.
Videos/channels referenced:
Rob Navarro
The Wendy Theory
• The Wendy Theory - Thi...
Sandoz Man
Kubricks’ Shining, Wendy theory supported
• Kubricks’ Shining, Wen...
Rob Ager (does not support the Wendy Theory)
[Sorry, I'm not Rob Navarro.]
Music used (public domain):
Béla Bartók - Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, III
Additional web source information on The Catcher in the Rye:
The Catcher In The Rye’s Connection to Murder - True Crime
By Lisa Marie Fuqua
/ the-catcher-in-the-rye...
BOOKS: The Killer in the Rye?
By Maddox Brown
mcsmrampage.com/2020/12/books...
Happiness is a warm gun by Ann Althouse (blog with lots of comments)
althouse.blogspot.com/2018/03...
Underground Knowledge - A discussion group discussion (mostly group comments)
/ introducing-the-catche...
I’m looking for original source information of The Catcher in the Rye being in the possession of Lee Harvey Oswald at the time of his arrest. Something like a news article or broadcast from around the time of the incident that might have been referenced before The Shining was filmed. If you happen to know where this information comes from, please post it in the comments! - บันเทิง
![[ไฮไลต์] เจ้าฟ่าง ธีรพงศ์ ศิลาชัย "คว้าเหรียญเงิน" ยกน้ำหนักชาย รุ่น 61kg | โอลิมปิก 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/981lYv1AwKk/mqdefault.jpg)
You all forget, Kubrick actually told us what the shining is all about in an interview -and the wendy theory is wrong
You should check out my video Shining Inspirations or watch the movie called Images (1972)
I think when trying to decipher a film like the Shining, it’s wise to consider that it really is a bit like a maze. This suggests that there are ideas and references that may or may not lead one in the “right direction.” Also there is never just ONE thing that is like a master key unlocking the whole thing. I think the Wendy theory is in that category of a catchall master key that is a dead end in the maze of the Shining.
@@victoryak86 Right. When I first saw the movie, I thought Danny had been molested at school. I think Kubrick set it up so people who were reading about child abuse last century would think that. And SK probably set up many more dead ends.
@@rileyscottkramer LSD
Not only that but: Kubrick purposely cast Duvalle cause her face looks punchable; he wanted it to be believable that Shelly could be bullied, No point in going thru the trouble if it was made for her to be insane..
Kubrick deliberately turned the hotel into a surrealist layout with impossible hallways, windows in interior rooms, altering the hedge maze entrance's relation to the Overlook, and doors to staff apartments which would be the "Robot Arms Apartments" essentially.
Danny rocket sweater fits with this theory...
"... Oh, about the things you saw at the hotel. He told me they've really gone over the place with a fine tooth comb and they didn't find the slightest evidence of anything at all out of the ordinary. Mrs Torrance, I think I know how you must feel about this, and it's perfectly understandable for someone to imagine such things when they've been thru something like you have. You mustn't think about it any more." -Ullman, from Deleted Hospital Scene
If anything, this is confirmation of the supernatural element. Of course they didn't find anything.
@@bob7975 no. it means she was mental. nothing happened up there.
I was just thinking, if Wendy is mental and Ullman is a symbol of JFK, she might visit him in Malibu and shoot his head off.
I admit it's fun to think of Jack Torrance as a victim of circumstance.
I found the Wendy theory very intriguing. It does explain a lot in the movie
I enjoyed it too...
Check out this TH-cam channel, you will enjoy some of the deep dives...
th-cam.com/channels/TWE9JN6tPbmJKZGePNI3iQ.html
I've always wondered why Jack was really over acting, when his evil side came out. It is almost comedic and that to me reinforces the Wendy theory.
Thanks...
It's a good way to see it.
There is a deleted scene that was in the original where Ulman comes to the hospital and informs Wendy there is no evidence of what she was reporting at the hotel. He then stated they should come to la for him to take care of them until she gets back on her feet he seems worried about Danny.
Yeah I heard about the deleted scene. I also wonder if there was meaning behind the European deleted scenes. If you analyzed the Wendy Theory, beyond Rob Navarro you'll come up with a few additional thoughts. One if the Doctor in the Apartment. She's overlooking the issues, hearing stories of abuse, watching Wendy being nervous, it's as if the Doctor is not really there. And in the European Cut - the Doctor scene was removed.
I have a friend, Damon Lindelof, who before he did _Lost_ worked on _Crossing Jordan_ . A typical episode of _Crossing Jordan_ would culminate in Jordan and her father doing a recreation of a crime scene. But you knew before you saw that recreation that it was conjecture, that the presentation was an unreliable "narrator". Sometimes the act would lead to a contradiction, a proof that "this is not happening", and Jordan would have to start over and conjecture something else. Movie makers, especially those with experience in mystery writing, know how to insert those clues that say, "This is not happening, but you have to be sharp to catch on to that fact." What we have in The Wendy Theory is the discovery of those clues, plus clues to what *was* happening.
If you want more examples, see the movie of _Fight Club_ .
Thanks and funny story to tell. A few months back I was watching a TH-camr talking about why nobody has gotten Lolita right, then he talked about the book and how the book was told by an unreliable narrator.
I thought about, Stanley Kubrick Lolita was not on my radar to check out. But I know that the Shining was told by an unreliable narrator so I cannot see how Stanley would miss it with Lolita.
So I watched the first 10 minutes of Lolita and I saw the signs. By watching the movie I've came to the conclusion that HH murdered Charlotte and Dolores. Also it's gets crazy, I get a feeling of necrophilia was happening.
After watching the movie 3 times I read the book.
Here something from the book. Humbert Humbert argument was Dolores was soiled by a kid named Charles. Since Dolores was no longer innocent it was OK for him to do his thing. I think Charles was created by Humbert Humbert to make the reader think he's less of a monster. So I believe Humbert Humbert was Dolores first encounter.
Through the book Humbert Humbert is often referred as HH.
Ok, towards the end of the book we learn that Charles last name is Holmes.
H.H. Holmes was a Serial Killer in the 1800s.
H.H. Holmes is one of 3 crazy people I figured were inspirations to Humbert Humbert.
I'm currently posting stuff about Lolita, although I'm working on my next Shining video (I'm hoping to be done in a week or so)
Read the “It Was Her” chapter in Stephen King’s novel. The end of the chapter supports the Wendy theory.
I'm an INFP and a very emotional person but I've NEVER consciously allowed it to get in the way of reality or truth.
The Wendy theory is much more compelling than than the Kentucky fried chicken theory
What is the KFC theory?
I see. Is that why the movie focuses on jack at the end? Lamps and switches are meaningless. The switch didn't move. You're confusing freezers with storage room and fridges. The director isn't responsible for continuity. So you assume incorrectly that he made these mistakes. 237 has to be dismissed, as the official reason for the change is that the hotel feared guests would avoid taking the room if it remained 217.
Continuity Errors suggest Director oversight. But the "Continuity Errors" seemed to be purposely placed in the scenes, and I believe they suggest a Unreliable Narrator. If the Shine is the Unreliable Narrator then it comes to reason that our eyes is mislead into seeing events thats not happening.
Just a little reminder that, Stanley Kubrick made sure the whole cast watched Eraserhead. So its possible that Stanley Kubrick wanted to make a horror movie told by an unreliable narrator without clearly. And its going to be open to interpretation, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, I'm saying it's purposely made to be open to interpretation. So there is never going to be a wrong theory or a true solution.
I will offer the why not both theory.
The Shining is a story of a family slowly going mad together.
Both Jack and Wendy are projecting onto each other and also hallucinating.
These are common occurrences from cabin fever and they already have issues. They should be in counseling rather that locked together in a depressing winter.
What's scary about the Shining is how real it is.
It's a possibility. The ending in the Shining seemed to be open to viewers interpretation. Which is why the Wendy Theory can't be debunked, as well as any other theory.
The theory is unfalsifiable...and that's not a good thing.
Can you debunk whether third act of Sleeping Beauty (1959) is nothing more than a dream from Princess Aurora, doomed to forever remain in coma?
The problem with Sleeping Beauty argument vs The Shining is the movie's narrator. Sleeping Beauty is a straight up story, and the narrator is reliable and trustworthy. There is nothing in the 1959 movie that makes me question the movie. So why would I believe she is doomed in a coma?
The Shining is not a straight up story, there are easter eggs sprinkled thru the movie that suggest something else. As well as we have a narrator that's unreliable and untrustworthy. There is stuff that's happening in the movie that makes me question the movie. For example: Hallorann escorts Wendy and Danny to the Freezer. Hallorann opens the door at the right side of the hall, the three never enters the freezer and he closes the door at the left side of the hall. And on top of that, he escorts them back to the kitchen to the storage room.
Do you think the maze exists? I don't think it does. How I know? Start with the introduction of the Overlook Hotel, no maze. Jack in the interview wears a tie with a maze print. We learn about the maze when Ullman shows Jack and Wendy. But lets look at that scene. First Ullman shows Jack and Wendy the room they are staying. Then the scene cuts to Ullman, Jack and Wendy walking away from the maze and walking to the Overlook Hotel. And we see the front road. Then the scene cuts to walking to the Gold Room. So we go from inside the Overlook to the second/third floor, to the outside the Overlook and then we go back inside the Overlook and walking to the Gold Room. (This is a complete illogical travel). More evidence the maze don't exist? If the maze in front of the Overlook it's going down the mountain. If the maze is in back of the Overlook it's in the mountain. More evidence. The entrance to the maze also changes. towards the ending of the movie Danny runs thru the maze opening at the opposite end of the Overlook, while in other scenes the Maze entrance is on the far side.
Does the maze and the freezer make Wendy crazy? not really. But Its evidence that we are dealing with a Unreliable Narrator.
As for Wendy? If I could see [based on the clues] that the maze don't exist then why should I believe the Doctor visiting Danny was real? [If you want to know more I can add my thoughts, this will be long to explain.]
Thanks for the comment :)
Very intriguing ...
@@AxelGizmo agree...
You two have a very wholesome dynamic. This was enjoyable, thank you!
Thanks that was a very nice thing to say. I hope you enjoy my other stuff and if you have not seen anything by "The Object of Art" www.youtube.com/@theobjectofart you should check her out, her channel focuses on a deeper dive in the Shining and a few other movies, as well as art.
@@tankardoftales4645 I certainly will! Thank you!
I love that video. People who have tried to debunk it did a poor job…I buy it…
Thanks. Please check out my other stuff and if you want to know more about the Shining (and other films by Kubrick, Lynch and such) www.youtube.com/@theobjectofart
You won't be disappointed :)
If you're looking for some homework - check out Images (1972) and Persona (1966)...
Very frustrating watch, why is the dude on screen the whole time if the voice is coming from someone off screen for 95 percent of the time?
Easy to bitch for a free video that you dont have to watch....
The thing is, I doubt if there was ever a coherent meaning to The Shining. Madness is illogical, ancient evil more so. The only answer is _there is no answer._
That's true. It doesn't debunk the Theory but it doesn't debunk all other theories either. I believe some people like the Shining has some relations to the Novel and other like the Jack writing the book theory. And there is no answer.
@@tankardoftales4645 Indeed
@@ProjectFlashlight612 I wished some of these Wendy Theory haters, stopped being angry about the theory and if they don't like it - don't worry about it and move on.
I think part of the meaning of Catcher in the Rye in this movie is that Wendy is the cat - an animal that has two natures, pet and killer. For big cats, man-killer. (I also think that is the meaning of the stuffed tiger on Domino's bed in Eyes Wide Shut.) As someone else said in a video, when we first see Wendy she is reading the book and she lifts up her glass so we see a cartoon cat on the glass. I never saw it until it was pointed out. Jack is associated with the Big Bad Wolf and The Coyote from Road Runner cartoons. Dogs. Danny is associated with Mickey Mouse at one point, which sort of lends support to the Wendy Theory. He can't trust the cat. Danny might end up dead because of Wendy's bad decisions.
Wendy in doctor office wears red sweater and blue denim. And is exact toy of Goofy with exact attire. The same year 1980 Popeye (film) been released where "Wendy" played also goofy character Olive Oyl. In Popeye everyone is goofy. First propaganda movie for kids to eat healthy foods and oils :) Catcher in the Rye. Domino's Pizza - prostitution is fast food, masturbation is junk food to fill emptiness, girlfriend experience is expensive restaurant and marriage is cannibalisms or everyday cereal Tony tiger breakfast (rye) :)
It was a best-seller (still is), and required reading for Literature. Jack is a former school teacher. No further explanation is required. Occam's razor suggests you are overthinking this. Like, a lot.
@@bob7975 That's how I saw it before I watched Shining Insight's video.
Subbed based just on the intro alone haha.
Thanks... my wife would be pleased (she created on the intro) :)
I find another theory that covers the bases you present to be more feasible: That is the two Jacks theory. There is the real Jack (the author) and then there is Jack the character in the STORY the author is writing about. The movie switches back and forth between reality and the story the author is writing. That pretty much explains all the "continuity errors" as well. It also explains the inconsistent reactions and characteristics, and behaviors of all the people in the movie.
You might enjoy this:
th-cam.com/video/dQhc4pZhDdo/w-d-xo.html
It kind of adds to the Jack is the Writer Theory.
The continuity errors is a mixed bag. Those want to call them errors in film often site them as Kubrick way to insert uneasy feelings. So Kubrick accidentally inserting uneasy feelings to make the story scary...
The errors are not by accident, otherwise it's a silly argument to say the errors are there to make the film uneasy. What do they mean is open.
Hope you'll enjoy the link.
I've only heard about this in one video but it's kind of a foreshadowing that the tie jack wears to the interview has a maze like pattern. If you cant see it close enough on the movie you can check Google.
Yeah. The tie looks like the maze.
(Little spoiler) I don't think the maze exists because how the maze was introduced and there are several different continuity errors. The easy one is the introduction of the Overlook without the maze. The complex scene is Ullman taking Wendy and Jack to their room, from upstairs the party then walks from the maze to the hotel, then the party is suddenly in the hall walking to the gold room. We could assume Ullman is moving the party everywhere, but pay close attention to them talking about the maze for the first time, they are walking away from the maze and walking towards the hotel.
Other continuity errors about the maze is the front of the Overlook dont match with the first Overlook overview image. And there seemed to be one entrance point that moves.
Here is a bonus... Shelley Duvall was in a 1977 movie called 3 women (which seems to be about 3 multiple personalities of the same women) and in that movie they are drawing a maze.
th-cam.com/video/9K8nRZBZvqc/w-d-xo.html
@@tankardoftales4645 Vince Bentley points that out in one of his "Shining Lectures" - what are they doing walking past the maze towards the hotel when Ullman says, "this is our famous hedge maze", they must have gone past it earlier, and now they are walking back. Also, he thinks it is nutty to show people going up the elevator with luggage when the hotel is closing.
@@hermanhale9258 yeah the introduction of the maze is off. When I saw the movie in the 1980s 90s I thought the maze was in the back of the hotel. But its supposed to be in front.
I've posted this about 5 times in different videos, lmao, but the purpose of Catcher in the Rye is to foreshadow/explain the ending with the bear. The passage is: "Only one of the bears was out, the polar bear. The other one, the brown one, was in his goddam
cave and wouldn't come out. All you could see was his rear end." Wendy was cray cray.
It's a possibility.
This proves nothing. It certainly doesn't prove Wendy was crazy. More likely Salinger was crazy.
@@bob7975 why do you need proof? You can accept the Shining as you like it.
If you looking for proof - focus your attention at the apartment building (Wendy, Danny and the Doctor).
What about the continuity errors not covered?
Like the reason for the missing sticker. I believe implies the doctor is not there. When Wendy is talking to the doctor in the front room, there is a book thats a reference to the actress playing the doctor. (The Eye Scream video talks about the book and thats when I realized the doctor don't exist).
But we saw the sticker on the door and Danny had his Shining powers?
This is how Rob Navarro got it wrong.
We saw Danny talking with Tony in the bathroom. An implied prediction (but it could imply a guess). Scene cuts to Wendy answering the phone. Then scene cuts back to Danny (this is when we see the Shining power for the first time).
Others I noticed is the introduction of the Freezer. Which makes me wonder if shown in the first act will be used in the third act... That Wendy put Jack in the freezer and she thought he was in the storage room.
The freezer. Wendy, Danny and Hallorann are from the kitchen and enters the hall and opens the door at the right side of the hall. Then the party exits at the left side of the hall. This could imply a hallucination or a daydream.
I have more that I noticed beyond Rob Navarro video.
@@tankardoftales4645
Navaro doesn't address Jack reading a Playgirl magazine. Not a continuity error, but has no place in the Wendy Theory.
@@12HpyPaws Rob Navarro introduced the Wendy Theory. And after watching the video a bunch of times it looks like Rob Navarro left stuff out for discussion.
Stuff about the Playgirl magazine:
David Soul is an actor of Stephen King Salem's Lot. Watch the making of The Shining, James Mason is there and he also stars in Salem's Lot. Salem's Lot was a huge deal for Stephen King.
The article informs the reader how to SPOT BAD PEOPLE, the article says PARENTS (that mother or father).
Stephen King was known to sell short stories to porn mags (a nod to him).
In the book Jack sells a story to a magazine and gets drunk (nod to the book).
The Playgirl magazine has 5 articles that could work.
If you want to get into the controversy that playgirl is a gay magazine, then you must accept the controversy of 1960s to 1970s on Catcher in the Rye. Catcher was seen as a into to bad behavior (teachers got fired by making the book an assignment)
@@tankardoftales4645 Check out Joe Girard's EYE SCREAM, he's the only person even slightly close to the truth.
@@golddragon51296 I did, awesome stuff...
You should check out the TH-cam channel: Shining Insights
Plot Twist,the chick off screen,is Britney Spears lol...
I told my wife, she thought it was funny.
Don’t go down too many rabbit holes or you might end up in wonderland.
looks like you posted a few comments that are lost. I would love to reply on them but all I saw was a few lines. Please repost when you can.
As for the rabbit hole. It's a fun rabbit hole to fall in.
The existence of Doctor Sleep, both written and film versions, completely debunks this half-brained theory.
What amazes me is that this theory got popular AFTER a sequel confirming all events of the film/book happened, as well as Danny telling us about his mother, and how what THEY experienced, together, destroyed her as a person.
Not to mention the theory spits in the face of the author, and the inspiration behind it. A story about struggling with addiction, anger, depression, isolation, temptation, and domestic violence, exacerbated by supernatural elements. Nevermind that.
Instead, the recovering/relapsed alcoholic was never a problem person. The abuse victim apparently is so delusional he convinced everyone the wrong parent broke his arm. The protective mother isn't protective at all. She's a delusional schizophrenic, and is violently abusive to her family, especially her child. Oh, and she somehow murdered someone twice her weight with an axe, when she couldn't get the job done by hitting Jack in the head with a bat.
It's the same type of thing that gave rise to the Darth JarJar nonsense. A somewhat interesting idea, taken too far, by people who know surprisingly little about the source material, that is expanded upon until it actually becomes insulting to the actual original idea and it's creators and fans, because of the sheer lack of reasoning power and logical leaps it takes to reach conclusions that could be easily explained by just...watching the fucking movie, and realizing that usually, a story is presented as the creator/director showed it, most everything is easily explainable just watching it, and usually, something being off, or a continuity error, is a just simply a technical error made by the crew, and was either never discovered, it was discovered when it was dark too late/expensive to go back and fix it. Remember, digital wizardry wasn't a thing in film then, so if an error made it into the theatrical release, it was just there.
As for the "deleted scene", it neither lines up with the story presented in the film, nor proves this "theory" right. The hotel was shut down permanently after that, because it was unusable. The explosion and resulting fire would have destroyed most evidence, as well as supernatural elements not leaving behind actual physical traces of themselves, because...well...they're not physical beings. Not to mention the entity/entities that possessed the hotel would most likely be capable of affecting the minds of any investigators or curious minds that came around.
The scene was cut because it simply just didn't work. It didn't progress anything, and would have served no purpose but to add more runtime to a film that, despite it's near perfection, just needed to end when it did, and not be a second longer.
(Part 1))
Thanks for taking the time out and writing a nice comment. I’m happy to respond. I doubt we will meet in the middle. But I hope you can see why Stanley Kubrick Shining is NOT Stephen Kings novel, even if you omit the Wendy Theory - both movie and novel are not the same.
>The existence of Doctor Sleep, both written and film versions, completely debunks this half-brained theory.
I think the people behind Doctor Sleep were lazy. They should had remake Stephen King’s miniseries before making Doctor Sleep. The miniseries was based on the book. Just like what they done with IT.
Talk about a missed opportunity, and they dropped the ball because they were Lazy.
>What amazes me is that this theory got popular AFTER a sequel confirming all events of the film/book happened, as well as Danny telling us about his mother, and how what THEY experienced, together, destroyed her as a person.
You might of not have noticed (and why would you - I understand why you wouldn’t care) that Rob Navarro’s video The Wendy Theory was published ONE year and ONE day after the release of Doctor Sleep.
It’s possible that the Wendy Theory was created as a rebuttal to Doctor Sleep or it’s possible that the creator feared that the mysteries of the Shining would be forgotten because of Doctor Sleep or that the creator was pissed off because of Doctor Sleep.
I had several deep conversations with Rob Ager in his debunking video and figured out that he was gate keeping because the Wendy Theory exposed stuff that somebody knows something about the movie that went completely over his head. I didn’t think it was a problem because I don’t think anybody really saw the patterns of the continuity errors and the camera angles (Rob Navarro video does talk about the camera position - which is odd because most complaints are always focused on the continuity errors).
Keep in mind that the Wendy Theory was published a year and a day from Doctor Sleep, with very hard to find information and that after 2 years we still don’t know who Rob Navarro is. He/She is posting throw away videos and spending money on bots to push The Wendy Theory. So I’m not surprised by the popularity of the Wendy Theory - It’s created with intent.
Why?
>Not to mention the theory spits in the face of the author, and the inspiration behind it.
Here is my educated answer for WHY the Wendy Theory was made and being pushed. Doctor Sleep spits in the face of Stanley Kubrick.
See for years, since the creation of The Shining, Stephen King came out and PISS on Stanley Kubrick movie version and belittled Shelley Duvall role in the movie. To the point that Hollywood nominates Stanley Kubrick and Shelley Duvall for razzes.
Shelley Duvall calls out the critics in the Ebert 1980 interview and it’s half-ass chopped into a monstrous Stanley Kubrick abused Shelley topic that was created in the early 2000s! Danny Lloyd retires from acting because he couldn’t get a role. Why? Stephen King PISSING on the Shining.
You may or may not understand but I’m currently working on a Rob Navarro suspect list. I see motive for the creation of the video as an Anti-Doctor Sleep response video.
Stephen King did a good job killing the movie; it took almost a decade later for The Shining to become a cult classic. That’s because TV would play the Shining.
Unfortunately the TV formatting of the 1980’s is full screen. And the average size was 25”. Wide screen versions of the Shining would too small to enjoy. Most people would go with the full screen version which sometimes chops of a good portion of the movie. The reason why this is important to say; if you don’t have a complete Wide Screen version of the Shining you’re not seeing the whole movie.
I think it’s important to note that Stanley Kubrick assumed the Shining would make repeat viewing in the theaters. That’s because most of the details do require zooming, on the big screen the small images are noticeable. Especially if you want to read the books titles in the apartment or the newspaper on the coffee table (the one that’s about Psychology/Fake Illness).
The point is there are many, many little details in each scene.
>A story about struggling with addiction, anger, depression, isolation, temptation, and domestic violence, exacerbated by supernatural elements. Nevermind that. Instead, the recovering/relapsed alcoholic was never a problem person.
The book is not the same as the movie… What happens to Hallorann in the movie? and What happens to Hallorann in the book? See not the same!
Hedge Maze in the book… Nope!
Twins in the book… Nope!
Bloody Elevator in the Book… Nope!
Jack reading a Playgirl in the Book… Nope!
All work and no play… Nope!
>The abuse victim apparently is so delusional he convinced everyone the wrong parent broke his arm.
Doctor Sleep is a different story, it’s not Stanley Kubrick 1980 movie.
Look at Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) how much is this based on a real even? I say .01% Yet the story comes off and say based on a real event.
Please note that Stanley Kubrick has been researching his horror movie as early as 1973, after Exorcist and he’s doing a bulk of his research in 1975. Stephen King’s The Shining was published in 1977. Kubrick has 2 years of research already made on an unnamed movie.
There is a movie made in1972 that has many similarities to the Shining. Kind of similar to Equinox (1970) to The Evil Dead (1981), not blatant plagiarism but enough similarities that make you wonder if the early movie was an influence to the movie. I'm researching this movie before I call it out because I don't recall anybody comparing it to the Shining.
>The protective mother isn't protective at all.
We assume she’s protective.
But she’s reading Catcher in the Rye. A book about a youth on a quest for drinking, smoking and sex. Catcher in the Rye is also known as The Ultimate Unreliable Narrator and Holden Caulfield suffers from Schizophrenia. Wendy is also watching Summer of 42 - which is a movie about a younger boy romancing an older woman. Jack is reading a Playgirl - Article is about Spotting Incest.
>She's a delusional schizophrenic, and is violently abusive to her family, especially her child.
Yeah it’s possible when you look at the signs.
(Part 2) - this reply was long and had to posted it in 2 parts.
>Oh, and she somehow murdered someone twice her weight with an axe, when she couldn't get the job done by hitting Jack in the head with a bat.
Sure if you want to believe that… If you follow the story and understand it’s being told by an Unreliable Narrator then you’ll notice things do have meaning. I don’t see the Hedge Maze, I know it doesn’t exist. No Hedge Maze on the opening shot, Jack’s tie is a Hedge Maze, the introduction of the Hedge Maze is shown after they see their room and before they go to the Gold Room. That’s upstairs, outside to down the hall; illogical path to take.
So what did Wendy do with Jack?
She dragged his body to the kitchen and placed him in the freezer and her warped mind assumed his was put in the storage room.
How did I came up with that? If you look at the scene when Hollorann introduces Danny and Wendy the freezer you’ll noticed he opens the door from one side of the hall. The side that’s far away from the storage room. Then he closes the door that’s closest to the storage room. Why? Why would Stanley Kubrick do this? Unless he’s foreshadowing.
On the other hand you don’t have to believe it. The beauty of the Shining and unlike other movies based on Unreliable Narrators is the ending (we just don’t know).
>It's the same type of thing that gave rise to the Darth JarJar nonsense.
Originally I would agree with you.
I started digging into this Shining rabbit hole because Rob Navarro said “Wendy is reading Catching in the Rye and the book is associated with psychopaths” Here I’m digging because I found a few blogs saying. Oswald owned a copy of Catcher in the Rye and the book had dog-eared folds and it was an important find… Wendy is reading Catching in the Rye with a Dog-eared fold. Besides those blogs - there is no actually evidence I could find that Oswald owned a copy of Catching in the Rye. But the blogs about the dog-eared fold and Wendy showing the Dog-Ear fold for almost 10 seconds - I kept digging.
I found out that Catching in the Rye is known as an ultimate unreliable narrator and Holden is a schizoid.
I also learned that Stanley Kubrick sees himself as a “Reader”
Readers (especially from the early part of the century) their view on people who dog-ear fold books are “Monsters!”
>A somewhat interesting idea, taken too far, by people who know surprisingly little about the source material, that is expanded upon until it actually becomes insulting to the actual original idea and it's creators and fans, because of the sheer lack of reasoning power and logical leaps it takes to reach conclusions that could be easily explained by just...watching the fucking movie, and realizing that usually, a story is presented as the creator/director showed it, most everything is easily explainable just watching it, and usually, something being off, or a continuity error, is a just simply a technical error made by the crew, and was either never discovered, it was discovered when it was dark too late/expensive to go back and fix it. Remember, digital wizardry wasn't a thing in film then, so if an error made it into the theatrical release, it was just there.
And this is why the cast and crew had to do so many takes.
>As for the "deleted scene", it neither lines up with the story presented in the film, nor proves this "theory" right.
The deleted scene is interesting because it implies that Ullman is a pimp or a devil. Once again… not in the book.
>The hotel was shut down permanently after that, because it was unusable.
According to the ending of the Shining 1980 movie - we don’t know.
>The explosion and resulting fire would have destroyed most evidence, as well as supernatural elements not leaving behind actual physical traces of themselves, because...well...they're not physical beings.
In the book yeah… Not in the movie.
>Not to mention the entity/entities that possessed the hotel would most likely be capable of affecting the minds of any investigators or curious minds that came around.
Are you assuming this? Not a problem if you are assuming this…
>The scene was cut because it simply just didn't work. It didn't progress anything, and would have served no purpose but to add more runtime to a film that, despite it's near perfection, just needed to end when it did, and not be a second longer.
Maybe or maybe the scene was cut because Stanley didn’t want closure. Maybe the scene was to conceal the true nature of the movie from cast and/or crew. Maybe the scene was made to please the investors and then cut.
The whole reason why the Wendy Theory cannot be Debunked is because the ending of the movie is open for audience interpretation.
The Shining also references many psychological drama/horrors; such as The Snake Pit, Bunny Lake is Missing, Seconds, The Three Faces of Eve, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, I Never Promised You a Rose Garden, 3 Women and The Bell Jar; just to name a few.
Thanks for the comment. I really enjoyed this. I would love to see you reply back. I know it’s long and no rush. Happy Halloween!
We are discussing Kubrick's film here. I fail to see how Doctor Sleep has any relevance at all. Kubrick is making his own thing, loosely based on King's book. If we want to decode a message Kubrick might have left, we should look at his film and don't worry about sequels and stuff that Kubrick had nothing to do with.
The Catcher in the Rye’s significance precedes those assasination attempts (or actual murders, ie. Lennon). It was used in CIA Monarch mind control (Monarch is directly referenced i the film). The Jung “rabbit hole” is not that far fetched because it is known that Kubrick was very interested in the work of Carl Jung, regarding his theories of the subconscious, dreams etc. it isn’t “proof” that the red book was meant to be a Jung’s book but it is a very good theory backed by some actual substance. The Wendy theory just doesn’t have enough coherent logic to support it as far as I can tell. Rob Navarro is a bit overrated imo. He has absolutely done a lot of great research but he also gets easily offended and blocks people who question his conclusions which is a red flag. Anyone making a claim publicly that is open to different interpretations, should be willing to defend it without getting angry. His theory on Danny being abused by Jack is a good example. He says this is the true meaning of the film. Period. And yet it doesn’t fully stand up under scrutiny.
Lennon's murder (and thus the association of the Catcher in the Rye with murderers) didn't occur until after this movie was released.
@@aerophage that’s what I said
Easter egg
More like dinosaur egg
Moon rock
The Wendy Theory provides the best explanation for the myriad of continuity issues with the hotel background. It is also truly unconventional and flies in the face of how the characters are portrayed. Why should we take at face value that Jack is the bad guy and Wendy the voice of reason? This theory looks beyond the surface and what I like best is the alternate perspective it gives of Jack's expressions. It turns some of his expressions from ones of malice to ones of confusion. He has that WTF expression in a few interactions with her that make more sense now.
Nicely done
This is the kind of paranoid, anti-evidential, magical thinking that is ruining discourse. Just because a theory has no evidence and sounds radically implausible doesn’t mean it’s true
So, much of the set being burned down, being rebuilt, couldn’t have anything to do with it?
Sorry to tell ya, but Kubrick movies have continuity errors.
There’s a video out now that has multiple errors, from multiple Kubrick movies.
It’s also a simpler description, as the Hotel acting out, or the burning of the set, or just that Kubrick wasn’t as anal about continuity errors like those pointed out in the Navarro video.
🙄
Jack displays the traits of someone battling psycosis or potentially in the case possession, idk why everyone overlooks this. Mood swings are like the first noticable variable in someone struggling, he wouldnt be aware that he even said nasty things directly after seeing it and thats whats on display the entire movie... for people obsessed with diagnosing mental abuse and disorders youre completely overlooking the most base levels.
I think when trying to decipher a film like the Shining, it’s wise to consider that it really is a bit like a maze. This suggests that there are ideas and references that may or may not lead one in the “right direction.” Also there is never just ONE thing that is like a master key unlocking the whole thing. I think the Wendy theory is in that category of a catchall master key that is ultimately a dead end in the maze of the Shining. There really isn’t enough actual evidence for this theory to make it “the key.” It fails in the realm of the internal logic of the film.
The Rob Navarro version of the Wendy Theory is hard to pigeon held because the creator (mostly Vivian Kubrick) doesn't want to expose her father's secret.
She is a duck 🦆
She weighs the same as wood 🪵🪓
Jack is a quack
Navarro said there IS a part 2. There is no part 2 to be found, yet?
LOL... Depends on how far the Rob Navarro rabbit hole you are willing to go... I have a few theories on Who is Rob Navarro and why no Part 2.
@@tankardoftales4645 I have one theory on Rob Navarro but it is driven by wishful thinking.
I want Shelley Duvall to be Navarro....
@@CoreyW6292 I came to believe Rob Navarro didn't like Dr. Sleep or the thought that Dr. Sleep was referencing in Stanley's Kubrick Shining into the movie. If you check out the Wendy Theory release date it was one year and one day after the release of Dr. Sleep. I've also learned something from Rob Ager - while I was talking to him in the comments, there was stuff said in The Wendy Theory video that had insider knowledge. And Rob Navarro was trolling Rob Agers account - because I believe the person behind Rob Navarro thinks Rob Ager created the Stanley Kubrick mistreating Shelley Duvall rumor (which could be track because Ager copyrighted his blogs). I don't think he did, but he sure took the Vivian Kubrick video way out of context. Also according to Object of the Arts, she believes "Rob Navarro" is paying bots to push the video...
My suspects list:
David Lynch (I have no evidence but Lynch and Kubrick has to be communicating on phone at least after Dune failed at the box-office), Lynch is active on TH-cam.
Vivien Kubrick - She has the strongest motive - but I don't understand why she would think the Maze was real (Unless she didn't want to expose everything about the movie)
Shelley Duvall's friend Ryan Obermeyer (notice his name: R OB). This person has become good friends with Shelley since the Doctor Phil interview. I can see him behind the Wendy Theory, targeting Rob Ager and being upset with Stephen King - as well as not knowing about the maze. (Stephen King has been talking crap to Shelley Duvall since 1978 - while the Shining was in production)
Shelley Duvall with the help of Ryan Obermeyer - sure I can see that. I don't think Shelley Duvall could do this on her own.
@@tankardoftales4645 I found that out about the release of Doctor Sleep through your comment section. Greaty appreciated!
I think you have a very sound a valid suspect list.
I am excited!
My wife and I watched the Wendy theory and then watched The Shining strictly from the frame of reference of the Wendy theory and it was fun. I do think it is a incredibly possible arggument.
Keep it up!
@@CoreyW6292 When you guys watch Images (1972) please post me a review comment... I like to read your thoughts :)
The enslaving chain of male guilt: beast of burden
Occam’s razor. Continuity errors are just continuity errors.
But there is a pattern of Continuity Errors and there are stuff happening that's goes beyond Continuity Errors. Continuity Errors are mistakes made in filming. We could assume the Windows are a continuity errors because Stanley wanted more natural lighting, and he wanted big windows. These windows are not possible for the Overlook. We could assume that the plug for the TV was out of view (not really a continuity error). But it's very odd how the TV has a clear screen while it's snowing outside (I'm born in 1970, you never get good picture quality during a snowstorm). I feel the clear TV in a snowstorm could/should be consider a Continuity Error, but not a mistake.
You cannot assume a mistake was made when we see two different tricycles. That's means there was two different physical tricycles on the set.
You cannot assume mounted light switches or mounted light fixtures are Continuity Errors because they are physically constructed.
we could assume the mounted fixtures/switches appeared/ disappeared because the Overlook is alive. Just like we could assume the chair in the background vanishes and appears because of a ghost.
But what about the sticker in the apartment?
for me the all movie is a dream,and in a dream evrything is possible-when you know this ,it explain the helicopter shadow at the beginning,the huge amount of luggages,the chair vanish and then reappear , the impossible window in the hotel manager room etc.... by the way after this you can talk about the indian genocide,mind control(notice the butterfly-project monarch),alcoholism,pedophilia,the beatles(yes find four people in a row walking-remember abbey road)-the beettle car (abbey road)-the false nasa moon project and kubrick involvement going bad why kubrick tell a man that was killed(halloran sequence)-kubrick's wife discover the nasa-kubrick pact(wendy discover the pages of the same ines-remember the first three letters "all" aka appolo 11!!! all these infos i have collected from others(rob ager-jay dyer-jay weidner etc....) !!
0:49 what a welcome
It explains the “Playgirl”. I always wondered about that!
But I don’t think any 1 theory is THE theory. And I certainly don’t think he did anything by accident. He did what he did so we’ll do what we’re doing! Not as a trick to fool us, no way! But I think he put different layers of “clues” so we all could better understand the movie (how ever we understood it) and we’ll dig for these cool clues to “prove us right”! Regardless of what path we take! But they are all right if we need it to be! Am I explaining right? I’m not being metaphysical here. Bottom line, this is why Kubrick was a freakin genius! I’m guessing we can watch it 10 times more and get more clues still!
I also tried with Eyes Wide Shut but I can’t stand Tom Cruise & I haven’t seen it so it’s tough! 😂
Y’all let me know if you have anything else & I’ll do the same! Time to go down another rabbit 🐰 hole!
The playgirl could mean many things or nothing at all. I think it's interesting that one of the articles has a David Soul interview and that James Mason came to the set (Vivian Kubrick film), both of these actors were staring in Stephen King's Salem's Lot. If anything the Playgirl was a little nod towards Stephen King (good or bad) - because King started his writing career by writing short stories and sending them to porno mags.
Sure it could mean other stuff. There like 5 or 7 (I forgot) of articles that could find a connection the movie, or none at all.
And yes, the beauty of the Shining allows the view to put whatever interpretation they want. The clues are there or maybe most are red herrings, and the intent is make use viewers lost in a maze of questions.
I do think the size of the Overlook parking lot suggest the hotel is either much smaller or parking for staff only (like a prison or an insane asylum). And there are several indicators that suggest a hospital. Such as modern double doors, giant size kitchen and the playgirl mag (The magazine could be found in waiting rooms in the 70's early 80's.)
Agree about Eyes Wide Shut. I'm not much of a fan of Tom Cruise. But might adventure down that rabbit hole when I get tired of The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. And I'm not in the Full Metal Jacket Rabbit hole yet.
If Kubrick didn't make mistakes because of his eye for detail why didn't he use Flavor Aid instead of Kool Aid which is the brand the Jones town cult drank? These are the wrenches in the gears I always run into. Still enjoyed the video though.
Drink the Kool Aid is a pop culture reference that came from Jonestown. Not Flavor Aid...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
Although what I just learned as from now by reading Wiki:
While use of the phrase dates back to 1968 with the nonfiction book The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, it is strongly associated with the events in Jonestown...
The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electric_Kool-Aid_Acid_Test
Hmm...
Thanks for the comment.. The Object of Art (another TH-camr) pointed out to me that Jonestown massacre happened late in 1978 and the Shining was a few months in production. I dont think the filming was in sequence because of Danny...
But now learning the reference could be as old as 1968 and referring to LSD or Hallucination (caused by drinking the kool-aid)...
www.youtube.com/@theobjectofart5390
Most kitchens that cater to children stock powdered soft drinks. Including hotels.
Watch the Shining lectures on you9 tube too.
While the Navarro take on the Wendy Theory is generally compelling, I am surprised that (at least for those who have been "deep" into The Shining over the decades) some people are treating it as if it's not something that hasn't been discussed, at least in smaller groups, over many years. (I personally recall having the "Is it actually Wendy the whole time...?" discussion with others for the first time back in 1989, tangenting off a conversation about Nicholson as the Joker -- as the then-new Batman movie had just come out -- and The Shining coming up as part of the discussion.)
However, what genuinely surprised me the most was Rob Ager's counter-reaction/rebuke. All Navarro did (regardless of whether he's an individual or multiple people acting through that one account, whomever) was reanalyze a number of the various points that Ager had covered over the decades but following a different thread. Consequently, when you approach it in "x" way vs y, z, or abc, then it actually is again rather compelling -- especially when you consider that much of what is conjectured across multiple theories (where the supernatural is disregarded/ set aside) for hallucinated scenes is actually better strung together when The Wendy Theory is applied (Ex: Jack is never released from the basement storage because he's never there in the first place -- he's likely already dead at that point, with Wendy having dragged him outside vs across and down the longer route to get him to the storage, where if not already dead then he froze to death not long after; everything after Jack at the stairs is almost all Wendy hallucinating.)
Thanks.
The compelling thing about Rob Navarro's video is that he/she actually connected the pattern of missing/changed/or newly added items in the background to Wendy's perspective. Or our assumptions of Wendy's perspective.
Based on the discussion I had with Rob Ager, he never saw it or connected the dots, that there was a pattern to the "continuity error" which makes the story being told as a "Unreliable Narrator" and we cannot trust the movie as we see the movie.
And understanding that Rob Ager never saw it, I got the impression that most people never saw it because the format that we saw the Shining in the 1980's (Usually full screen TV) and we never got a Wide screen till the 1990's. And most TV's made the movie smaller. So this stuff is not easy to see. Today wide screen TV's are very cheap. Heck, you can buy a 400 dollar wide screen TV that would cost you 4000 dollars in the later 1990's.
My gut feeling is that somebody who worked on the Shining movie and not happy with Dr. Sleep created the Wendy Theory. The Wendy Theory was created one year and one day after the release of Dr. Sleep. Wendy Theory also explains that the Shining movie is not based on Stephen Kings book. And I don't think people were connecting a pattern to the continuity errors.
Today it's hard to unsee the pattern.
But there is a few things that I'm not sure if Rob Navarro didn't understand or is purposely misleading (a possibility if you don't want to give away the secrets).
Lets be honest, the maze don't exist. (And I'm not sure how Rob Navarro missed that - unless being purposely misleading) Also Wendy dragging her 200 pound husband in the snow, across the street and inside a maze is impossible, for her.
On the other hand, using the rule of "Foreshadowing" - something that may set future events - the freezer seemed to fit. It's very interesting how Hallorann introduced Wendy/Danny the freezer (on one side of the hall and closes the door on the other side - near to the storage room). And we never see the freezer again.
I think it's possible that Wendy dragged her 200lb husband to the freezer and her unstable mind assumed she put him in the storage room. Did you ever see the last MASH episode? [Spoiler the pig was a baby].
I'm not sure if you saw videos from Shining Insights. This person goes deeper then Rob Ager!
th-cam.com/channels/TWE9JN6tPbmJKZGePNI3iQ.html
I saw 3 Women, I never promised you a Rose Garden and The Bell Jar (because of the Shining Insights)... these movies do have a strange connection with the shining (as well as One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest). And it possible that the Overlook hotel is an insane asylum and the storage room a padded cell. Seems far fetch? Odd that the parking lot is much smaller for the number of traveling guest.
>YT just ate my initial reply and I am more than slightly annoyed... lol<
Don't feel like retyping everything, so will just pick two main bits:
In Re: Navarro being from The Shining and/or hating Dr. Sleep. I don't get that impression from their video in that regard. *Could* they be trolling? (Particularly as their other videos seem "off" and infrequent compared to the degree of effort put into The Wendy Theory?) Sure. Totally possible. But as I noted before, given that I have had similar (if not nearly as clearly lined out, by any means) discussions with others over the decades, I don't think the video is "trollish" in that context; that is, it's a very legitimate viewpoint and, in several key contexts, actually makes a ton of sense. (Ex: it's always been Wendy who was mentally unstable and projecting "x" onto others, almost certainly unconsciously, from the abuse of Danny -- hurting his arm prior, and his being harmed in 237, et al -- to her likely being part of the reason that Jack/family had to move, with certain points in the movie such as Jack noting to her how he's not going to let her f'things up this time, etc, suddenly taking on a new light/context.)
In Re: Ager's reaction to the video. I again just am a bit taken aback by him in this regard; that is to say slightly surprised. TWT is very cogent -- at least as cogent as anything can be relative to The Shining -- especially when on the meta-production-level you note how Kubrick treated Duvall across the filming: belittling her, being very rough on her, and generally (allegedly) essentially inflicting mental torment on her IRL. That is, making her be the more "crazy" one, in context, as Wendy could be the one who has onset mental illness (likely onset schizophrenia, given the nature of her hallucinations as well as perceiving others as threats and/or responsible for actions that she herself had taken... which makes the stair scene with Jack suddenly have a new undertone interpretation, where the "reality" of the scene is that Wendy is the one being threatening/unstable with the bat while Jack is trying to reason with her and get it from her so as not to harm herself or others... except of course we see the encounter from Wendy's hallucinating POV, wherein Jack is a devil/killer/et al). That's the sort of line of analysis I would have expected Ager to appreciate, even if ultimately disagreeing with, as it again just mirrors much of what he himself has postulated in various Shining theories he's shared over the years (It's all Jack, or it's all Danny; it's wholly supernatural; there's nothing supernatural; etc and et al).
@@tideoftime
Lol. I know the feeling. I wrote many long replies and lost them. I’m typing this comment on word because it’s going to be long.
>In Re: Navarro being from The Shining and/or hating Dr. Sleep. I don't get that impression from their video in that regard. Could they be trolling?
Originally, I was thinking that somebody came up with a different take in the Shining. Using Wendy as the bad guy. But while trying to talk about the Wendy Theory on Reddit horror, I was hit with Stephen King fanboys calling the theory shit and spammed with down votes. Based on what I got, those that like Stephen King and Dr. Sleep hates the Wendy Theory. Because Dr. Sleep was created to continual to the 1980 Shining movie, even though Stephen King publicly hated that version. What they should’ve done is remake the Shining (similar to IT) before inserting Dr. Sleep.
Yeah the maker of the Wendy Theory is trolling.
TH-camr: The Object of Art, find her here: th-cam.com/channels/12R2PIQk-wTQpK4GW1-MWA.html She believes that the maker of the Wendy Theory video is using bots.
The problem I see is why spend money on pushing this only video and not capitalizing on the popularity. The other videos posted are throw away videos. Why?
This goes back to Rob Ager. When he made the video his focus of the debunking is to tell us that he’s not Rob Navarro. I personally knew he’s NOT Rob Navarro and I assumed most people watching the Wendy Theory would also knew that Rob Navarro was using Rob Ager’s blog as a resource. My thoughts were, Rob Ager you’re being a narcissist. But I guess I was wrong because it looks like Rob Navarro is piggybacking on Rob Ager but not to gain success. It looks like Rob Navarro is piggybacking on Rob Ager to troll his account. This is why we have tons of throwaway videos.
Why troll Rob Ager?
I’ll cover this later.
>But as I noted before, given that I have had similar (if not nearly as clearly lined out, by any means) discussions with others over the decades…
I do agree that coming up with Wendy as the antagonist as early in the 1980’s is possible. We see Wendy cooking, watching Danny, working in the boiler room, calling on the radio, etc… and what’s Jack doing, he’s sleeping, writing, tossing a ball around. When you first watch the movie we assume that Jack is doing handyman stuff off screen and we are only see him from the end of the day (writing), but when you keep watching the movie all we see is Wendy working her ass off and Jack fooling around.
And it could be possible that Wendy read his shitty book and snaped!
We got these feeling by watching the movie multiple times that Wendy could be crazy but we never got a good context about those feelings. Rob Navarro video put the context into motion by showing us that the camera point of view and the objects in the background do point out a pattern, that we are seeing things from a skewed perspective. Wendy’s perspective.
>especially when on the meta-production-level you note how Kubrick treated Duvall across the filming: belittling her, being very rough on her, and generally (allegedly) essentially inflicting mental torment on her IRL. That is, making her be the more "crazy" one, in context, as Wendy could be the one who has onset mental illness (likely onset schizophrenia, given the nature of her hallucinations as well as perceiving others as threats and/or responsible for actions that she herself had taken...
Sorry I think I’m misreading this or maybe something is off.
I just made a 45 minute video on the Shelley Duvall Mistreatment Mystery and I talked how this was a internet hoax created by misquoting the Ebert 1980 interview and inserting Vivian Kubrick making video by putting the misquote into the context of the video.
I do believe that the misquoting of the interview could be accidental at first. The internet was young and wild and not everything on paper was transferred to the internet. Most likely the Ebert interview was not on the internet at the time.
I also believe the Dr. Phil show took the internet rumors and tried to have Shelley Duvall call out Stanley Kubrick. Which never happened in the interview. But there is many youtube videos suggesting that Shelley Duvall said that Stanley Kubrick mistreated her.
And this goes back to the trolling of Rob Ager.
I don’t believe Rob Ager started the rumor. This rumor seemed too started after Stanley Kubrick’s death. But the intent of the rumor was to make the Shining scarier. Shelley was not acting, Stanley drove her insane! Sort of like: Texas Chain Saw Massacre is based on a true story. (99% is made up and 1% was inspired from a true event)
But what Rob Ager has done, he copyrighted his blog “2008” there is a section in his blog that implies Stanley Kubrick was mistreating Shelley Duvall and he used the Vivian Kubrick video. To prove his case.
To be honest, there is no way anybody can come up with actually context of the events in the video because everybody is under a lot of stress and full context was never explained. (I spent 45 minutes on this)
If the Wendy Theory was an anti-Stephen King, anti-Dr. Sleep it would also stand to reason that Rob Navarro is anti-Rob Ager.
I’m hoping to get into more details about my list of suspects in a future video.
>That's the sort of line of analysis I would have expected Ager to appreciate, even if ultimately disagreeing with, as it again just mirrors much of what he himself has postulated in various Shining theories he's shared over the years
I agree with you. I was hoping Rob Ager would give his honest opinion. It’s possible that too many shining fans did believe Rob Ager made the Wendy Theory video and he was spam with loads of hate messages. It’s also possible the real “Rob Navarro” using different names sent Rob Ager hate messages and used The Wendy Theory as a shield.
@@tankardoftales4645 In Re: Duvall abuse/"abuse". I probably should have phrased this more clearly, and didn't probably because I was exasperated from having to retype "x"... lol ;) While Kubrick didn't "abuse" Duvall in perhaps the sense that many/most people might use (and why I used "allegedly" because a degree of internet and pre-internet whispers of course exaggerate things), it's no question that he was especially hard/demanding of her even beyond his normal "Kubrick-ness". Too many who were associated with the production have noted such similar to how he was especially demanding of her (though he was equally-if-differently-so with Nicholson, as well, and the 148 takes for the Hallorann/Danny (sans Danny) table talk, et al). I was more so citing that as a point-of-context relative to Kubrick's possible process-to-art impression on Duvall-as-Wendy, if that makes sense.
In Re: trolling. Again, possible -- and if bot-driven then that's again a highly eyebrow-raising thing because, as you paraphrasingly note, it's not like it's giving "Navarro" any proper gains, as such, as honestly only those who are at least knee-deep in The Shining analysis bog are actually going to care. Joe Q Public isn't really going to give a rat's ass either way, if you know what I mean. (So could it just be trolling-for-trolling's sake? Sure. But that doesn't invalidate the concept/idea of TWT in general, and the video does do a pretty good job of following a "Wendy thread through the maze", as it were. That's really what my whole underlying point was all about: I don't care whether Navarro is trolling or not as ultimately this Wendy Theory isn't a new idea to me/some others I've spoken with at least as far back as 1989.)
And yeah, to restate again: it's disappointing that Ager hasn't made a legit counter-analysis vis-a-vis TWT. His video he made debunking it really fell very short, IMO, of the kind of analysis that I've liked about Ager's stuff over the years: all he did was repeat his other theories' approaches/views (where appropriate to whatever scene in question), but provide no actual critique against what Navarro exampled in *their* analysis. I find Ager's (lack of proper) reaction to be more of an eyebrow-raiser than if Navarro *is* just trolling him. At least this trolling actually does have a solid leg to stand on, unlike most trolling. >shrugs
@@tideoftime
>it's no question that he was especially hard/demanding of her even beyond his normal "Kubrick-ness".
Not really. Shelley Duvall is a natural actress. She never seek out to be an actor and she major in college was nutrition and diet therapy. Based on the information I found, she seemed to picked up method acting, most likely from Robert Altman. And method acting does stress the body, especially when Kubrick is pushing many takes. I don't know if Stanley knew she was method acting.
To sum up method acting. Lets say you're playing a character that has not slept for 2 days. A Character actor would act tired. A method actor would stay up for 48 hours and try to act.
So when Shelley said she had to listen to sad music so she could feel sad, nobody was forcing her to listen to sad music but she did it so she can get into character. There are a few stories that Stanley and company thought Shelley Duvall needed sometime off in a hospital. (Which don't work with the stories that Stanley was being a hard ass on Shelley).
The Hallorann/Danny takes is something different. Child actors sometimes require more takes needed. But it also seemed that Scatman Crothers was slurring his words on purpose. Did you see "Eye Scream?" th-cam.com/video/EMxy5zPj1m0/w-d-xo.html He could be saying stuff like Eye Scream (Ice-cream) and Story Room (Storage Room).
Agree. I don't completely understand the trolling but trolling seems to be happening. It's odd. On the other hand, I could be reaching and Rob Navarro is not trolling Rob Ager.
I agree the Wendy Theory might not be a new idea. But like I said, Rob Navarro matched the continuity errors to Wendy, and it opened our eyes. Back in 1989, I was 19 years old. I saw the Shining several times on TV but I don't recall thinking of it as an awesome horror movie. I loved Dawn of the Dead, Evil Dead, The Thing, Halloween 3 and Re-Animator. And most of the time I would seek for these type of movies. At the time the Shining (to me) was a less impressive ghost story. It wasn't until the early 2000's when I grew a deep appreciation. I guess you can say "The Shining aged like a fine wine."
Great, great movie. Interesting commentary...cozy little space
Thanks...
So i did watch "The Shining Insights" and that was pretty freaking awesome. I watched all 9 pieces and I am glad that you recommended it in the comments. I do not know or understand where he got Kubrick's prop stationery for The Overlook but all in all it was a crazy experience. I did watch "Eye Scream", which you recommended in the comments, and boy that guy must have access to something special cause he could identify all the art and just so much. My problem with his trying to play it forwards and backwards to 3 perfectly played go thrus of Abbey Road is that the original showing of The Shining in NYC and LA is that the original showing had about 2-3 minutes worth of the hospital scene with Wendy, Danny, the RN and Ullman which implicates that Ullman was in on it. Nonetheless the additional 2-3 minutes that Kubrick originally went with that 1st night of limited showings destroys the Abbey Road deal and timing of all the numerology that that man did in Eye Scream, however everything else that guy did was eye opening and very impressive.
For me, I prefer the Wendy theory now that my mind has been blown. Then again, I would like to just go back to keeping to a haunted hotel with the crazy man as undertaker but I think Wendy was the crazy woman in room 237.
th-cam.com/video/3tMTo5EW9d4/w-d-xo.html
>So i did watch "The Shining Insights" and that was pretty freaking awesome. I watched all 9 pieces and I am glad that you recommended it in the comments. I do not know or understand where he got Kubrick's prop stationery for The Overlook but all in all it was a crazy experience.
Which episode was that from? I have them all downloaded.
I do think “The Shining Insights” is grossly underrated. And it sort of got me into noticing connections in other films. A video I posted “Shining Inspirations” I talk about “The Phantom Carriage” (1921) - Which has been talked about for over a decade. But then I segwayed to “Persona” (1966) and the director Ingmar Bergman’s favorite movie is “The Phantom Carriage”… The scene to notice is the TV scene that’s showing Summer of 42, in Persona there a TV that’s working and not plugged in… Then I segwayed to “Images” (1972) and the director Robert Altman was inspired to make “Images” because of “Persona”… There is several scenes I point out that seemed to be referenced in the Shining. Especially when Wendy drags Jack to the storage room and she grabs a knife (and the missing knife - happens to be the same spot where Cathryn took the knife). I highly recommend watching “Images” (1972)… [I’m not sure if you saw my video on this but you could watch it too - but I feel you need to watch Images first.
Another movie - which was huge in the early 1970’s and forgotten by the 1980’s, and seemed to be inspired (but I haven't made a video yet). “Shriek of the Mutilated” (1974)… Don’t watch this movie thinking about Big Foot, just watch the movie and notice the “Scooby Doo” rip-off references and references to Cannibalism. Also listen to the music and some of the sounds (they were reused in the Shining)… Also make sure the copy you are watching has Hot Butter - Popcorn (1972) song.
>I did watch "Eye Scream", which you recommended in the comments, and boy that guy must have access to something special cause he could identify all the art and just so much.
I like “Eye Scream” I do agree the overlapping seemed odd and you are correct the missing ending which could be 3 to 5 minutes long, and the location of the ending screws up the overlapping. The art was interesting…
My other video “What’s going on with Room 105” I talk about the doors, leading to Room 105. And this seems to connect a Rock-N-Roll reference that didn’t have a name in the 1970’s… The 27 Club. You might enjoy this video, I don’t want to spoil too much but it looks like I’m forced to make a follow-up video because a new discovery.
Also I suggest you to check out “The Object of Art” www.youtube.com/@theobjectofart (Sometimes I have issues posting links) The channel is “The Object of Art” and she has several videos on the Shining and making a series of videos that focus scene by scene.
Thanks :)
@@tankardoftales4645 that episode, I believe, was number nine in which he identified the location of the Overlook based on the prop stationery and so much more. It blew my mind.
I will watch these recommendations and I am truly appreciative for all the time and effort you have put in to your travels down the rabbit holes. I now I have the bug myself so I think we will be in contact after I can't find my way out of the rabbit holes.
God bless you and your family and take it easy and enjoy the day!
@@CoreyW6292 LOL... This is a fun rabbit hole to dig into. (I also believe The Shining is part of a trilogy - Full Metal Jack and Wide Eyes Shut - are all connected).
Thanks I'll look into that stationary.
Also if you have any questions please post them, if you have any new findings please post them took. Make sure you check out Object of the Arts stuff
@@tankardoftales4645 Man oh man, I watched The Object of Art, happened to be the alternate ending video, and holysmokes.....you are not kidding.......rabbit holes everywhere.
Now, the lady who does that series, she is phenomenal.
Nonetheless, going down one of the rabbit holes now.
God bless and have a nice day!
People who phone in their Plot-Synopsis Review usually get details wrong. One guy reviewed an obvious failed--TV-show-pilot, calling it a "movie" or "film" multiple times.
I never trusted the phone since Telefon 1977
Tang
I find the theory interesting but it holds not water for me. Maybe because I’m focused on the book still. And the fact that Doctor Sleep follows this, and Danny very much has his powers. They aren’t all in his dead mother’s imagination lol.
There are fun things happening in the movie…sure.
But I don’t think that means it’s all just a figment of Wendy’s psychosis.
That's ok too. My wife wants to believe the Hotel is haunted.
My argument for the Wendy Theory cannot be debunked is based on the ending of the movie. It's open for the viewers interpretation. This was the inspiration from Eraserhead (1977) - even today we still don't know what Eraserhead is about.
I wished they remade the Shining TV mini-series before making Doctor Sleep. There way too many differences between Kubrick movie and King's book.
@@tankardoftales4645 Stephen King also wants to believe the hotel was haunted. It's a ghost story. Why are you dragging David Lynch into this?
I believe in this wendy theory
Cool... Besides the Wendy Theory, do you notice anything else about the movie?
@@tankardoftales4645 with the Wendy theory from her perspectives we see the continuity changes..the typewriter scene she's having a hallucination the words don't really say (all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy) she's been having a hallucination/psychosis believing that Jack is trying to kill them based off of the material from earlier when Jack told Wendy about this hotel's horror story. The rewriter changes color, the lamps disappear in the hallucinations as well as the light switches disappear. Danny's vision was actually a memory from when Wendy broke his are. He is noticably afraid of his mother. When he asked her if he could play the game television wasn't even plugged in. she started hallucinating as soon as Danny Left her sight, Jack was hit upside the head and placed outside the night before in the Maze and she's having a hallucination psychosis about Jack trying to get out of the maze but he doesn't make it.
@@curtislamarh the working unplugged TV is from the movie Persona (1966). If you watch Images (1972) you get to see what Wendy sees, while Jack is clueless. Also in the Shining, as Wendy dragged Jack to the storage room, look at the knives on the column... there is a knife that's suddenly goes missing... that missing knife happen to be the knife that was used in Images.
Also, notices how Hallorann introduced the freezer. I believe Wendy dragged Jack to the freezer and she thought she dragged him to the storage room... why not the maze? The maze don't exists... the maze is not seen in the opening scene. Jack's tie has a maze print. The introduction of the maze goes, Jack/Wendy from Second floor room, to them walking away from the maze, to walking to the garage to walking down a hallway to the gold room (this is not a correct path). The opening of the maze and the sign changes locations. The maze (painting) is seen in 3 Women (1975).
The movies Persona, Images and 3 Women are movies about Hallucinations.
@@tankardoftales4645 wow I'm seriously smiling here. Thanks for taking the time to get back to me with such detail. Im newer to this Wendy theory and I continue to be amazed thanks again
@@curtislamarh there is a whole iceberg of possibilities... please check out some of my other videos or if you really want to know more, check out the TH-cam channel "Object of Art"
Poltergeist (1982 film) also related to 273. And Shining moving objects furniture, Rob Ager shown comparison stacked furniture in poltergeist versus 2 cm moved chair in twins shoot someone moving furniture around. Also is is Hollywood legend that Spielberg bend all regulations to make movie Poltergeist based on Shining exactly in1982 he had no time to wait. One theory suggest that in Britain masters sees servants as part of the furniture. Disappearing, carpets, light switches, lamps are poltergeist mannequins moving staff, hotel servants moving staff around in Hotel but we don't see them. Wes Anderson movie Grand Budapest hotel related with another Swiss author this time not Jung but Zweig, Hotel without army of lobby boys looks lapidated. Mannequins is very prominent Kubrick trope.
I do find it very odd that Spielberg would insert Shining reference in his movie when most people didn't think the Shining was NOT that good of a horror movie at that time. On the other hand, I think Spielberg must of learned something when he visits Kubrick in 1979/80. I also think somewhere in Raiders of the Lost Ark is a Shining or Kubrick reference. I need to watch the movie and look for that sign.
@@tankardoftales4645 Zweig is Austrian not Swiss so it have connection to EWS, Austrian novelist Schnitzler. Not to land of hotel doormen, in German language Schweizer - Dorman. In my language Swiss and Schweizer are very similar sounding words, Freudian slip :) Lost Ark is more Lucas ideas. He hired to direct Star Wars II and Indiana best directors. One connection to Indiana is Bill Hart{ford}, Harrison Ford suppose to play Tom Cruise role.
It doesn't explain the scenes where Wendy is not even in it
The ones she could be dreaming...
Gold Room for example... when Ullman talks about bringing your own Alcohol... Jack quickly says "we don't drink alcohol."
This scene could suggest Jack is lying (because he don't want to say he's a recovering alcoholic) or he's telling the truth they don't drink alcohol.
In the book Jack is struggling with alcoholism so it's easy to assume that's hes lying. But the Stanley Kubrick movie has done several things that goes against the book (example Hallorann dies).
So if we back track to Wendy in the Apartment, that's how we learn Jack was struggling with Alcoholism, or he has not touched the stuff for 5 months. Is Wendy telling the truth or is she lying?
If the Doctor is real... She's telling the truth... But if the Doctor is not real, she's lying...
Doctor is not real. How do we tell? If you watch the wide screen version you'll see a orb in Danny’s bedroom thats by the door. The orb is purposely placed to lead your eyes to Danny’s bedroom door and to the bathroom corner. There is a missing sticker and the rubber duck was moved. Sure the rubber duck could of been moved to Danny’s window - but we are lead to believe that Danny passed out and Wendy put him on the bed and she called the doctor. So there is no logical reason to move the duck (unless Wendy believes the duck is in Danny’s bedroom). Same applies for the sticker.. Also why is Danny pants removed? This implies something between Wendy and Danny. We know she has a fascinating for underage. Catcher in the Rye and Summer of 42... And Jack is seen reading a Playgirl... article is about spotting incest.
Other signs that the Doctor is not real.
The problem with the conversion Wendy has with the doctor is how dismissive she is with the offloading of information. Danny has an imaginary friend that came from his father drunken abuse while she is also showing signs of abuse. The doctor sees no issues.
There is a paper on the coffee table that references imaginary illnesses/fake doctors. And there is a book that links to the actress playing the doctor. I believe Eye Scream has all details.
Sure enough you could see the Doctor as a real character and she is halfass helping Wendy.
But I want to point out a few more details. The Doctor is not from the book. The scene was also cut in the European version. And Anne Jackson plays a doctor in the Bell Jar (1979). In the bell jar, the wallpaper in the bedroom of the Insane Asylum is the same wallpaper seen in the hallway that the Twins were murdered. This could imply that Wendy saw the actress playing the doctor from the Bell Jar Movie and injected her into the Hallucinations. Maybe or I'm reaching?
Later in the Gold Room, Jack talks about his issues with Alcoholism. He mentions 5 months on the wagon (referring he had not drink alcohol for 5 months). So the time lapses from interview, closing day, one month later... is zero months?
Careless writing or Unreliable Narrator?
Unreliable Narrator.
How do we know. The gold room marquee has two different tops. No reason for the difference.
There is many points to show the story is being told by an Unreliable Narrator.
The most important thing to point out, is the ending of The Shining. It was made with the intent for viewers own perspective. If you dont agree with the Wendy Theory then you don't have to follow it.
_The_ _Shining_ in movie form is obviously taken from the novel of the same name by Stephen King.
In the novel, the main character is Jack Torrance, a man who is slowly going mad. The source of his madness may be depression or schizophrenia (although he is a bit too old to be experiencing first onset symptoms of the latter), but it may also be a severe character deficit that stems from Jacks tendency to live in his own imagination. A set of mental habitations shared by the novel's author, and one he knows only too well. Ahem.
Jack's descent into madness is catalyzed by his tendency for self-pity and paranoia. "The world is out to get me," "I just can't get a break no matter how hard I try" is the little obsessive mental maze in which Jack's internal mental state goes round and round, endlessly.
In the Overlook Hotel there dwells a malevolent spirit that detects Jack's weakness, that plays on it, amplifies it, and makes use of it to turn Jack into a human manifestation of itself... a manifestation that loves murder, that thirsts for blood, particularly of innocent human beings. This dark spirit is part of the physical structure of the Overlook Hotel, which is why the word "Murder" keeps turning up written as if in a mirror image. The word is correctly formed from the point of view of being "inside the hotel," inside the very walls of the building.
The hotel plans to turn Jack into a family annihilator, like John List, or (more recently) Chris Watts. However, the hotel doesn't foresee the clairvoyant gift of Dick Halloran, nor does it expect him to be as persistent and heroic as he turns out to be. Mr. Halloran shares this gift (called "the shine" or "the shining") with five-year-old Danny. They work in tandem to thwart the Overlook's foul purposes; thereby both Danny and his mother Wendy are saved from a terrible death. Jack gets what he deserves, and in the novel he - and the entire hotel - is consumed by a gigantic fire fed by a gas main that runs underneath it.
I don't think Stephen King intended any such interpretation as "The Wendy Theory" in the novel. However, it would not be any sort of stretch to theorize that Stanley Kubrick meant to record an alternate interpretation of the story, as he did when he turned _Dr._ _Strangelove_ into a a comedy.
Stephen King is supposed to be rather critical of Kubrick's film.
i think if the wendy theory is true, it makes the shining the greatest film ever made- if it is not true, then the shining is a good but slightly disappointing horror film
Wendy Theory is a possibility... and a little more. It all depends on how you interpret the clues.
The Shining is never slightly disappointing.
The reason the wendy theory is wrong is no one is remembering the source material. It is a book first and foremost, and Kubrick himself describes the movie as "his ghost story movie". The wendy theory is predicated on the supernatural not existing so that actually does debunk it.
If you want to believe the Shining is a ghost story... that's cool... It still doesn't debunk the Wendy Theory. Based on what I found, the Shining is being told by an Unreliable Narrator. And besides "Continuity Errors" (which seemed to be put into the movie to invoke uneasiness - which means they are not errors by mistake), we also have references from Psychological horror/drama movies like: The Snake Pit, 3 Women and The Bell Jar... Did you know Persona 1966 the TV was not plugged in?
@@tankardoftales4645 I would not automatically believe anything the makers say about their movies. They aren't going to tell their secrets. They are all unreliable narrators. SK said some helpful things that probably are true. But he can't control how the audience reacts to the movie.
@@hermanhale9258 agree. I've came to the conclusion that the Shining will always be open for interpretation. Lolita on the other hand (which I've been focusing on) is not open for interpretation - Humbert is a monster and the "continuity differences" is to reflect Humbert lies about what's going on. I'm also reading the book - and I'm seeing this guy a Serial rapist/ killer before meeting the Haze's... and it lines up with Kubrick version (both stores told by an unreliable narrator).
@@tankardoftales4645 I always thought Humbert in the book was a monster, but he didn't come through as a monster in the movie. Maybe because James Mason was one of those actors everybody knew and liked and he ends up crying. I really don't remember the ending of the book, though, if it is the same as the movie, or not.
@@hermanhale9258 The movie is being told by Humbert's perspective. If you watch the scene when Dolores gives Humbert breakfast and the toast changes, so does she changes. So her giving Humbert the eggs is his imagination or lie (he wants us to believe she was pushing herself on to him). Also notice the band-aids on James Mason's fingers. They keep switching. I'm not sure if the band-aids are referring to "Plaster" which also means "Plastered" as drunk, or that the band-aids are referring to an outbreak in Syphilis (hands get some times of rash/blisters)... I'm still trying to figure out the band-aids.
Just remember that in the Lolita 1962 movie, we are seeing the film based on Humberts perspective and he's an unreliable narrator.
I left this comment elsewhere: "The Wendy Theory isn't convincing, but neither is the No Ghosts Theory. Both of them exist, I think, because close scrutiny of the film reveals that Kubrick is intentionally confusing the viewer as to what is real and what is imagined by the characters. Why doesn't Jack run in terror when a ghost appears behind the bar and starts talking to him? It's because, to Jack, there is no ghost. He's just imagining a bar tender while looking at himself in the reflection of the mirror behind the bar and talking to himself. Jack clearly doesn't believe it's a ghost, so why do we believe it's a ghost? It's immediately after this first scene where he talks to Lloyd that Wendy appears and tells him there's a crazy woman in the one of the rooms. When Jack goes to investigate, he sees a sexually attractive naked woman. Again, he doesn't run screaming from a ghost. It's reasonable to assume that Kubrick is at least floating the possibility that the woman he sees is just like the bar tender he saw. Both are just imagined by Jack and for the same reason. He'd love it if a bar tender had served him whiskey and he'd love it if there was a beautiful woman in one of the rooms because he's sick to death of his wife who he regards as a burden that frustrated his ambitions in life.
When the woman turns into a zombified hag and he stumbles away in terror, what are we supposed to think happened if the woman, like the bartender, was just a visual representation of his internal dialogue? It could be that he imagined a woman and then remembered that he's stuck in a marriage with a woman he resents. It's a visual representation of that. If we think it's literally happening and he's actually seeing a woman, then how do we explain his response to seeing her? I guess he's a nutter who is off his gourd and decides to get it on with a crazy woman because reasons, but it's less plausible when we put thise scene in context with the Lloyd scene immediately before it. When Jack returns to the apartment and Wendy asks him if he saw anyone, he says "no." Why does he lie about it? It could be that he tried to sleep with a crazy woman who turned into a zombified hag and probably didn't want to tell his wife this, but if you watch the scene in which she asks, he doesn't even seem fazed. This is because he's telling her the truth. He didn't see anyone in room 237, nor did he think he saw a ghostly bartender that served him non-existent whiskey.
So, what I think Kubrick is doing is suggesting that these are just visual representations of Jack's internal dialogue. There is further reason to think this because it's a parallel to his son's imaginary friend Tony. Lloyd serving up imaginary drinks, if you think about it, is actually Jack's imaginary friend. And the parallel is further solidified if we look at the presence of the mirror, both in the scene where Danny asks Tony to show him the hotel and then blacks out and Jack looking at himself in the mirror behind the bar. Mirrors and double images, like the twins, are a recurring theme in the Shining because the climax is one in which Wendy realizes that "redrum" is "murder" spelled backward when she sees it in the mirror.
It's because of this intentional ambiguity that you get things like the theory that everything supernatural that is happening is part of Jack's book that he's writing or that there are no ghosts in the Shining at all. But what I think is really going on is that the Overlook is legitimately haunted and that it's appearing in Jack's thoughts and influencing them unbeknownst to Jack himself. If you were the director and you wanted to film something like this, how would do it? To show the Overlook creeping into Jack's thoughts, you'd have to visually represent those thoughts and then float the possibility that somehow something in that visual representation is actually a manifestation of the hotel but isn't recognizable as such by Jack himself. Isn't that just what Kubrick did in those scenes? And he has every reason to do this, as the director, because it's a story about a guy who loses his mind and tries to kill his family. Wouldn't we want to take the viewer into Jack's mind as this is happening, especially if it's happening because of the influence of the Overlook which is ostensibly what's driving him insane?
It's the only thing which explains his reaction to supposedly seeing ghosts or lying to Wendy about it. If Jack actually saw a woman in the room, why wouldn't he be keen to tell Wendy this if it would mean that it would explain who hurt Danny and thereby absolve him of guilt? It's because Jack never saw a woman in the room and doesn't believe there is a crazy woman in the hotel, ghost or otherwise.
Incidentally, this also explains the fade between the boiler room and Wendy and the room 237 scene. It links Wendy to the woman in the room. The reason the crazy woman turns into the hag is because Jack remembered that he was in an unhappy marriage. If the fade means anything, I think this is the most likely interpretation.
Kubrick ends the ambiguity during the scene where Delbert Grady unlocks the freezer door and lets Jack out. People who have tried to save the No Ghosts theory resort to logical pretzels to make this scene fit, with one theory positing that it was actually Danny who let Jack out, which is absurd, imo, since we have no reason to think this other than somebody wanting to save the no ghosts theory. But what's more plausible is that Kubrick was using that particular scene to end the questions about what was real and what wasn't and to establish that it was in fact a haunted hotel."
Cool and thanks. Please give me a day or so to read and respond to this long post.
wow... I started to respond to your comments and I'm already 2,000 words in and halfway through the comments... That's because it seemed that you are willing to use visual representation with some parts but not willing to use visual representation with other parts...
I'll be honest, I'm going to use THAT chunky reply to explain more about the Wendy Theory. This comment I'm posting is not what I wrote.
My first video was really a reaction to Rob Agers debunking video and with the stuff I came across at the time. Since then (almost 2 years ago) I came across with more stuff that explains so much...
In a nutshell, the theory you created isn't bad and based on way Stanley Kubrick made the movie - it works because it's based on what you are willing to accept and want to believe... That that's the point of my video The Wendy Theory can't be Debunked.
My question for you... you seem to believe Wendy was in the room 237 but you don't believe Jack was actually Danny... Interesting.
Danny enters the room 237 calling for his mother, we see a fade in with Wendy in the boiler room. The Shining is notorious of showing us scenes out of order. So why not see the seen as Danny walking in on Wendy taking a bath, and she - [I'll let you fill in the blank] - and Danny rejects her and she feels like a old hag...
There is a lot of symbolism that suggest a incest relationship between Wendy and Danny. I know a lot of people think Jack and Danny because of the playgirl magazine, but back in the 1970's it was NOT publicly known as a gay magazine. The article is about telling the person how to spot incest. If Jack was doing anything bad with Danny why would he be reading how to spot such and such... Also from the interview to the closing scene - Jack was looking at other girls.
Great reply and I'm happy with the long comments. Ill see about making this video :)
@@tankardoftales4645 I don't believe Wendy was in 237. I don't believe anyone was -- except the Overlook's ghosts. I think Jack went in there and believed he was imagining a beautiful woman in the tub for the same reason he imagined Lloyd serving him non existent whiskey. It's Jack's imaginary friends, or at least it appears that way to Jack himself. In reality -- which the audience can know but Jack can't -- the Overlook is actually haunted and influencing Jack's internal dialogue to drive him crazy and get him to kill his family.
Jack thinks he's just having an internal dialogue with himself and talking to people he has chosen to imagine and talk to for the same reason Danny talks to his imaginary friend Tony, but in reality, it's the Overlook inserting itself into his internal dialogue. Or at least I think this is the suggestion Kubrick gives us.
As for the question as to what happened to Danny when he went into room 237 and who left the bruises, I think the most plausible theory is also suggested when Grady unlocks the door -- the Overlook and its ghosts hurt Danny. It's the ghost of the woman that left the bruises in a bid to get Wendy and Jack to fight and to finally convince Jack to kill his family. Jack himself believes the woman to be a figment of his imagination, but in reality, it's one of the Overlook's ghosts. The ghosts can physically harm Danny if they could also physically unlock the door and let Jack out.
I guess you could counter this theory and argue that, if the Overlook can leave bruises on Danny's neck and unlock a door, then why doesn't it just send one of its ghosts to pick up a real axe and chop all three of them up. I don't know. All I can say in response to that is that it wouldn't have made for nearly as interesting of a film.
@@glyndwr15 I kinda thought you are in the camp that the Overlook is haunted. I wasn't sure about the Wendy reference in 237 (based on what you wrote). I took it that you kinda think Wendy was in the room..
Anyway awesome thanks for explaining. I've just made a long video based on your comment and my thoughts. I dont expect you to watch the video, it's a long video too, but you are welcome to counter or add to it.
I do think you have some good ideas but I believe more explaining and context was needed on my part.
I do agree Danny didn't open the storage room door, there was no 2nd door, and I don't think there is ghosts in the story, and Jack did froze to death... my video will explain it.
I seriously thought you and your wife were kids like Ferris Bueller and his girlfriend, from your voices.
That's OK.
The Shining is my favourite film. Thanks for "The Wendy Theory". That never entered my head. I'll keep this in mind when I watch it again.
Thanks... If you're into watching some older movies you might enjoy 3 Women, it's from 1977 and there is an art of the Hedge Maze...
Oh, Danny, you really are sick...
I believe this theory is one of MANY stories Kubrick.put in his films, just as he is a chess player that can probably play many games at once, so to can he code many stories under the surface in his movies. The Wendy Theory and the Apollo theory are 2 stories that I believe were intended to be encoded since I think Kubrick deliberately put both of those within The Shining. Rob Ager set out to debunk both the Apollo Theory and Wendy theory, and I think neither of these theories can successfully be debunked!
Exactly. I think The Shining has several plots
How about the fact that they are ridiculous?
Jay Dyer does a good analysis
Do you have a link?
@@tankardoftales4645 it may be called Room 237?
Maybe it was Wendy's plan all along to go to that empty Hotel knowing she could finally had a plan to kill Jack for all
the miserable life she had to endure with him. It might as well be the real answer.
Could be... maybe she poisoned Jack and Danny.
Did you notice Jacks tie in the interview is same pattern of the hedge maze and Wendy is smoking a cigarette. Meanwhile, during Jacks interview there a cigarette in the ashtray while nobody is smoking...
Maybe the interview was in Wendy mind...
well as un solidified as the wendy theory is i can imagine a jack that only thinks of the relationship as missing cheap early things like partying and drinking and sex to be something he lacks out of the relationship with a women who loses her cool sometimes. he hurt danny, he keeps himself in check and he talks about it but he hurt danny. thats on his conscious as a father and he remembers that as a lesson to that day but also says it was three years ago. hes probably learned something about relationships and noticed how much harder things were gonna get if he was in company with another person claiming they want best and messing up say if she got away with it once, beating or hitting that is on tony. i mean, in focus, the relationship would be compromised if the father messes up hiding that his wife is severely mentally unstable at times OR if the women doesn't hide it her self. and then a era passes u by where u can't express that u aren't gonna get help. i mean i think the most haunting thing apart from this side point that wraps up around before that the only other time his mother talked about child abuse she was smiling to "stay polite"? i mean ingorance is bliss when things get complicated and that same scene she did look at goofy doll and she then stayed those colors for the rest of the movie only switching to nicer green colors when shes at her most natural. she had all green when she had the baseball bat and went to check on the writing i believe. and then i heard another theory that all the scenes where jack had on the mahagony like the cap that the hal had weren't real. and that it was stuck in the lore of the mansion like in wendys head making delbert grady and stuff. i mean it makes sense that if most the time the father has to make the money And keep track of his slipping in and out wife. i mean most the time the reactions of wendy freak me out who lax she is and disconcerning she is until something ties into her immediate which is her son getting hurt. but unless shes completely unhinged i doubt there would ever be a timeline where she consciously acknowledges that she hurt her own son. i bet thats some defense mechanism too. poor danny he will probably do the most suffering out of this i mean it really leaves me in more fear knowing that parts of the movie arent real. like how the entire section of her hallucinating that jack is coming to kill him. i mean after the boy got hurt he didnt say anything and maybe rightfully so but the kid also never sits with or even reacts to crazy jack torrance. idk. so i mean a failing mother with mental problems doesn't mean she cant get something out of trying. but i feel like jacks life he has been able to have what he wanted in life explained and wendy if depicted as this mentally derannged individual meaning her values are messed up if shes hurting danny, shed be the perfect person to simply sit and listen. it hurts me to think that jack really didnt care as much as wendy did but she was crazy. the sane one grew resentful thats why when he knew he couldnt explain his way to a pure danny again he let the break slip and he got lazy and got struck in the head. but this struggle is probably something wendy also was able to pick up on that he looks down on her even for the stupidest reason which is why in the torrance locked hallucination she makes herself sound capable in his hearing of the one mr grady. honestly my father passed away due to schizophrenia and im from portland oregon it was a family i was adopted into and it hurts me to this day but i cant help but look at jack torrance as my father he dressed just like him. wore plaid shirts. its crazy. thanks for the read. i feel like i can point to anything and tie in to the wendy theroy now which is interesting of a theory cause it really makes it out to be no ghosts but pure crazy hallucinations that probably did and didnt happen. cause its also interesting that danny never express how scared he is a lot of the times where i think he should be. and its not just because of the scenes 5 months alone? as a kid? kids these days complain a whole lot more than can i go get my fire truck. but its scary to think about what doesn't get shown. shone. all of dannys fear leading up to the ending tjust over the spand of time danny probably complained a lot more. For a mother to hallucinate so many instances of his son expressing fear. he had so many dreams id love to see how often that shit gets changed.
thanks again for the read. this theory really expands a lot. i was born in 98 and had a father like mr torrance tbh. but u know id really like to map every number or otherwise reference to the jfk stuff i havent really gotten the chance to look into it although now that im thinking about it danny having the apollo shirt probably connected best as a sort of foreshadowin. another brilliance of kubrick but the colors of red and white are pretty common hal had blue wendy had the red rooms torrance had a red room maybe that was them at their peak depth into themselves when the halls go red. although wendy doesnt say anything but scream coming out of it and seeing the blue hall full of skeletons. but also apollo 11 just messages american it really speaks for it and the only other time u see something american would probably be in the shots over the american dood who had the interview. now whats happening when we see the apollor shirt. hes getting into a space where he gets scared or the movie leads u to believe that someone other than his ma that he crys out for is there so its sorted danger but after the no dramatization to his neck wound or even the house that could of caused it he just shows up but we know hes not dying. but the sense that he averted death is there. well his apollos shirt made it feel or seem almost certain that danny was safe either way. although his mother may have at times made it seem like caring is on her mind, its a different story when she has to explain when shes done something wrong. but that apollo shirt made me sigh in relief cause that shirt made it seem like he was for sure safe. he wasnt and whoever did that to danny needs to be addressed either way but i believe in jack when i come at the movie from a perspective of sympathey. i know this is a lot but thanks anyway
Thanks and I'm pleased with this post, there is alot to think about.
The relationship between Wendy and Jack is puzzling. We assume they are a couple and the movie implies they are sexually active. The implementation is Danny has a separate room in their suite and they didn't frown the queen sized bed in their room. But throughout the movie, Jack presence with Wendy seemed annoyed and irritated. And we get few scenes with Wendy and Jack together, and each time it makes me think why is she putting up with this jerk. As a hallucination, it makes a little sense that she insert her own fear/feelings on Jacks response. Why - that's the question we could never answer because we don't know if Jack response is a hallucination or that he is annoyed by her.
Danny abuse is an intresting story. Im not sure if the abuse was real, or it was caused by Jack, or the abuse happened multiple of times and when.
Wendy tells the story to the Doctor that Jack hurts Danny 5 (or 6) months ago.
Jack tells the story that he hurt Danny 3 years ago. If Danny was 6, then he was 3 a possibility. But in the book, Danny was 5 years old, and that makes sense because first grade starts at 6 years old. The stay in the Overlook happens during school season and we could assume Wendy is home schooling Danny to prepare for 1st grade (but we don't see any evidence). And if Danny is 5 years old, Jack (in the movie version) yanks a 2 year old arm is extreme; then how does a 2 year old gets into Jacks papers (Wendy is not watching Danny while Jack was gone? Danny was playing in Jack papers...) I do know a 2 year old could get into a lot of stuff, but if your not watching them this is when they get into knives and chewing on electric cords happen.
But once you notice that the gold room is different to its first impression, then maybe this story of Jack abusing Danny was intended to be unrealistic because it's not real. And thats a possibility, because of I do question the existence of the Doctor that sees Danny.
If you watch the scene when Hallorann introduced Wendy and Danny the freezer closely, you'll notice that Hallorann opens the freezer door at the right side of the hall. The party don't enter the freezer. Then Hallorann closes the freezer at the left side. This convinces me that what seems real is not real.
So is the Doctor seeing Danny a real event?
In the European cut of the Shining, the Doctor scene was completely removed - why? (The Doctor scene seemed to consolidate a hundred pages from the book. So removing it from the European cut is interesting)
So maybe the Doctor never saw Danny...
I know the Rob Navarro video believe the Doctor existed, but I'm seeing clues that suggests otherwise which makes me wonder the range of Danny's abuse.
I have to more to add more later sorry... awesome post and I'll respond to your other stuff later too. Thanks.
Is there ghosts or no ghosts?
On the first viewing we like to believe there is ghosts in the story. Under repeat viewing the ghosts are somewhat removed. In the 1990s I was getting the feeling that the ghost was not really there and Danny powers allowed him to see the murdered twins. Then in the late 1995s people seemed hyper focused on the Playgirl Magazine, and picked scenes that suggest Jack molested Danny.
I have a few problems with the suggestion.
First the magazine says "Parents" and thats Father and MOTHER. Second the topic seemed to suggest an advisory message. Warning the READER such and such... in this case Jack is the READER.
The other problem with the molestation is the Shining powers and Hallorann. If the Shining powers exist then Hallorann would know about Danny molestation. I also believe Hallorann would know about the abuse too. (Over repeated viewing I see less evidence that the Shining Powers exist)
But if the Shining powers don’t exist why would Wendy or Jack imagine such powers.
Some people want to believe that Jack is writing his novel and the Shining powers is from his writing. (Im finding it a stretch because Jack has no interaction with Hallorann - for starters. And why Hallorann and not Ullman. Also, why Jack would create this power when Jack wasn't present. )
My gut feeling is Wendy created the Shining power to insert that her boy is more special than a normal boy.
I also think she found something interesting/attractive about Hallorann. Maybe...
Summer of 42 (movie about a older woman getting on with a younger boy) and Catcher in the Rye is a story about a young boy on a quest (alcohol and sex)... These kind of suggest that Wendy if seeking fantasy because Jack is lacking romance. (Is there romance? We don't see Wendy and Jack acting like a loving couple)
So its apparent something is happening with the introduction of the Freezer. Hallorann opens the door on the right side of the hall and closes the left side. The storage room is another set of strange happenings, kool-aid magically appears when Hallorann mentally communicate to Danny. As Hallorann talks to Danny at the table, the storage room light switch is gone.
Misdirected of uneasiness, maybe. (Although these scenes are not scary) Hallucination, possible. I think what's happening is a film technique called unreliable narrator.
Unlike most movies with unreliable narrators, the Shining has no clarity.
So it seems that Hallorann has the Shining ability but once we recognize that these scenes are from a unreliable narrator point of view, then we need to ask how, why and who's perspective. Since Wendy was walking with Hallorann and the freezer was an impossible walk through, it seems logical that Wendy could of daydreaming Hallorann showing them the freezer. So its possible the Wendy also daydream Hallorann having special powers that makes her son more special because he's part of a special (secret) community of people.
But Hallorann is not just a man with special powers, he's also superman.
I got this from when Danny calls Hallorann for help. And the deeper I look the more I see Wendy fantasy then Hallorann in reality.
We see Hallorann in bed with 2 girl pictures. This suggest Hallorann is a single and sexual active adult. Him living in Miami and jumping on a first plane to Denver makes him sound like a superman. Especially, when his only contect with Danny was in the kitchen.
If the Shining powers don't exist, then why would Ullman call Hallorann to cover Jack... Hallorann is a cook and I doubt Ullman called Hallorann and I doubt neither of them has the Shining abilities. Therefore, Hallorann never shows up or gets killed.
Wendy pictures Hallorann coming to the rescue, but he's not there.
So who shows up?
Well this comes to question if you want to learn about the maze.
The light switches (office and kitchen) are undeniable PROOF.
They were CLEARLY glued on, in both cases, and are undeniably there for a purpose.
You can argue missing lights, etc but not the light switches, there's just no getting around that.
Wendy theory sustained!!!!
Thanks... If you want to see something really crazy check out my Shining Inspirations video. I talk about some of the scenes in the Shining that was used in earlier movies.
There's also a light switch on the wall in an episode of my friend's TV serial _Lost_ that was anachronistic and obviously had to have been inserted as a clue that what's supposedly taking place in that scene either never happened or happened at a much later time. The light switch was in the center of the frame and the camera and cut perseverated on the shot so we wouldn't miss it if we were attuned to it. Like myriad other clues on _Lost_ that what was really going on was a scam.
Mistakes are mistakes. When the makers of a show had to go out of their way to produce the effect, that's no mistake!
I'm afraid the Wendy theory CAN be debunked. It is totally lacking in evidence, and therefore relies too much on filling in gaping holes in the plot and inventing missing kernels. You might as well say it was Halloran all along, and he killed them both and took Danny away with him.
The evidence is the Unreliable Narrator in the movie.
An example of something is not right with Wendy.
She watching Summer of 42. Outside is a snowstorm. The TV reception is crystal clear. The movie was made in 1978 to 1980. VHS was very new, so its unlikely she is watching a VHS tape. She could be watching cable TV, but I doubt they would have a cable line running to the hotel when they force to close it down during the off-season. So we must believe she is watching Summer of 42, with crystal clear reception in a snowstorm.
Yeah, and the TV is also not plugged in. And this is just one example of Unreliable Narrator.
The problem with Hallorann. He's a cook. We seemed to believe he has the Shining ability because the movie tells us, meanwhile the movie also inserts Kool-aid when it was not shown before, removes a light switch and closes a freezer door from the opposite side of the hallway (watch the scene when Hallorann introduced the freezer). These 3 examples are Unreliable Narrator, so who's telling the truth?
@@tankardoftales4645 Ishmael was also an unreliable narrator. Yet the ship was smashed and Ahab went down with the whale.
@@bob7975 Sorry you need to add more context in the Moby-Dick reference.
Dang you guys are forgetting here is that Jack is not reliable because the whole thing about his character is that he’s an alcoholic and alcoholics are not the most reliable people
11:30 -- a copy of CATCHER IN THE RYE was found among the possessions of Mark David Chapman the night he shot and killed John Lennon. Stephen King named THE SHINING after the line 'and we all shine on' from John Lennon's song "Instant Karma."
Sorry, see you mentioned that already...
15:20 -- has anyone figured out which page number the book is on? I'd be interested in seeing what's on that page.
Yeah, Shining Insights (another youtube channel talked about the page Catch in the Rye that Wendy was looking at. Sorry It's been years when I was on this subject and I don't have my notes on me. Just look up "Shining Insights" on youtube (I'll post the like but TH-cam gets screwy with links. I hightly recommend watching all the videos. You'll enjoy them.
That's ok.
The problem with the David Chapman shooting is it happen many months after the release of the Shining. There is supposed to be a Oswald/Catcher in the Rye connection but I cannot find evidence that there was a connect or that anybody tried to connect Oswald and Catcher in the Rye before the Chapman shooting.
I posted a video talking about the internet rumors on Oswald and Catcher in the Rye, but they seemed to reference each other. And I spent a good number of days looking at Texas Oswald archives, they have records of off the books Oswald owns - Catcher in the Rye was not on the list.
Thanks for watching the video and commenting.
Watch "Conspiracy" with Mel Gibson, that has many Catcher in the Rye cites
A lot about the Mel Gibson Catcher in the Rye conspiracy is about the mind control conspiracy which seems to be inspired from the John Lennon murder and the Reagan Assassination Attempt. This sorta predates the Shining. Sorta. I do remember a good portion of Mel Gibson movie also talks about JFK Assassination... and there are several blogs that say: Catcher in the Rye and Dog-eared Fold connection to the JFK Assassination. Saddly I'm not finding any evidence that Oswald owned the book, I'm not sure how the bloggers came up with Dog-eared Fold unless someone was trying to hook the Shining into the conspiracy theory... Thats because Wendy is reading Catcher in the Rye with dog-eared fold.
In a french interview, Kubrick says that he gives the answer when Grady opens the door to let Jack out. The hotel is haunted. Enough already, especially the fact that true fans would have come across this, so "film people" making these theory videos know. There is no way to do that much research and not come across that interview excerpt, I did just casually watching videos on "The Shining" a couple of years ago. You are being used for views.
I believe Kubrick would enjoy the theory
Who let Jake out of the store room?
I think there are 3 possibilities. (Sure somebody can argue others but these are what I think happened.)
The first one is the easy one. The ghosts opened the door. If you want to believe the Shining is somewhat based on Stephen King’s book. This would be the answer. The only answer!
Was there a second door? No. Any other theories suggest there a second door is wrong. If you’re not going to play ‘find it game’ (by looking for the clues of an Unreliable Narrator), then why assume there was a second door? We see Wendy dragging Jack into the storage room and we see the wall at the end of the room - no door. Sure there are two doors on the other side but we don’t see another door in the storage room so those doors don’t connect.
Did Danny or Wendy opened the door - No. If you don’t believe ghosts opened the door and that Jack raped Danny, why Danny would opened the door. Why Wendy would opened the door… If you believe Danny has the shining powers and the movie is somewhat connected to Stephen Kings book - then Ghost opened the door.
The second one is a little complex and we must do a deep dive on a few scenes. The Wendy Theory is dealing with a subject matter called Unreliable Narrator, and the continuity errors are the evidence that we are being told is a lie. How we know this? Wendy is reading Catcher in the Rye - the book is known as the Ultimate Unreliable Narrator. Why Rob Ager does not spot this - ask him.
Wendy doesn’t put Jack in the storage room. She puts Jack in the Freezer! I partly believe Rob Navarro didn’t want to tell us this because it spoils so much about the movie.
How?
You need to notice that the maze doesn’t exist.
1… The evidence of the non existing maze. The opening scene is no maze on the overhead shot. I know there are some arguments that the movie was made in the 1980’s and these images/optical illusions of mapping into the film is not possible. Really? We are talking about the Kubrick. He made 2001. There are movies from the 1900’s to 1980’s that were able to insert some optical illusion into the film to make the world different.
2… We see the hedge maze print on Jack’s tie during the interview. Not much to add. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.
3… The introduction of the maze is out of order. Ullman introduces Jack & Wendy the room (upstairs in the hotel), then we see the maze and they are walking away from the maze to the hotel, then they are walking from the hallway to the Gold Room.
Bonus the maze is not in Stephen Kings book and 3 Women (1977) there is an art of a hedge maze in that movie.
Maze don’t exist so why the Freezer?
When Hallorann introduce the freezer to Wendy and Danny. He opens the door from oneside of the hall. Then he closes the door from the other side of the hall. And then we see another door that lines up with the first door before they leave the hall. We don’t see the hallway after this scene. And oddly we don’t see the freezer again either. Typically this freezer scene would be considered foreshadowing. But we don’t see the freezer anymore.
The introduction of the storage room we do see a light switch by the door, then when Hallorann and Danny are talking - no light switch.
So it’s easy to believe that introduction of the Freezer and the Storage Room are connected, both doors are very similar looking and both scenes are being told by an Unreliable Narrator.
And it’s easy to believe that after Wendy knocks Jack out she drags him to the freezer and locks the door, in her mind Jack is in the storage room. Jack freeze to death in the freezer.
Third possibility. This is based on information I picked up from Eye Scream, a series of youtube videos from Shining Insights and The Object of Art.
Sources for you.
Eye Scream
th-cam.com/video/EMxy5zPj1m0/w-d-xo.html
Shining Insights
th-cam.com/channels/TWE9JN6tPbmJKZGePNI3iQ.html
The Object of Art
th-cam.com/channels/12R2PIQk-wTQpK4GW1-MWA.html
This third possibility could be my theory but I’ll give them credit for the inspiration of the theory.
Jack is in the Storage Room but it’s a padded cell.
I’ll start with Eye Scream first. This is a deep dive video that ends up showing evidence that Hallorann called the Storage Room (Story Room) and the boxes has serial numbers that links to fairytales. Also the Eye Scream video points out that the storage room/story room is the center of the hotel.
In Shining Insights there are several old movie references that connect the Shining to Psychological horror/dramas from the 1950’s to the Bell Jar which was in production while the Shining was being made. Sorry this may take pages to deep dive and it’s best for you to look at the videos there 9 videos and they are all good!
During Object of the Art analysis of the Overlook hotel. She seemed to notice how odd that the parking lot is so small in size. Then when you think of the size of the parking lot and compare it to the size of the Kitchen, it looks like people are checking in and not checking out as quickly. Then you start looking at the double doors, the florescent lighting and a few other things like a TV in one room… The Overlook Hotel is an Insane Asylum. Jack is suffering from mental illness and it’s possible that Wendy and Danny characters from his mind.
So… Jack is not looking at the playgirl mag - his Wendy personality is. The appearing, disappearing and reappearing cigarette in during the interview - maybe Jack was smoking a cigarette but he doesn’t smoke because Wendy is the smoker. Danny is Jack returning to his youth.
And sure enough the Unreliable Narrator fits into this theory. I kind of feel that Jack writing a novel theory is the Overlook Hotel being an Insane Asylum, I don’t think anybody besides myself have connected the dots.
The movie Identity 2003 is somewhat like the Overlook Hotel is an Insane Asylum Theory. And once again, no closure in the Shining which makes the movie more brilliant.
@@tankardoftales4645 Thanks for the explanations / possibilities. The Shinning one of my favorite movies, but also it's a movie i can't really make heads or tails out of.
but i guess that's what makes Kubrick so great
@@ilovecongress Thanks... Im enjoying this puzzle. And I'm always open for other theories.
Why is she talking from behind the camera? It’s not like she is holding it or it’s moving, so it’s kind of weird
Totally blew my mind. Actually wanted to know what he thought and felt and he he was going mad researching but she never let him talk! Like he said she should get in front of the camera.
If you actually do some simple homework on The Shining film, or the Director Stanley Kubrick, Wendy is meant to be a growing “strong female character” in an abusive patriarchal relationship throughout the film, literally read or listen to audio of Kubrick’s interviews and He always says something along the lines of “Jack’s soul was absorbed into purgatory by the Overlook Hotel”
Sorry I don't want to come off attacking you (since you're implying that I'm pulling this out of my ass)..
Maybe you should watch: th-cam.com/channels/TWE9JN6tPbmJKZGePNI3iQ.html and come back later.
Of the countless attempts of theorizing a Kubrick work, based on Kings work, the Wendy Theory was as good as any of them.
It's a good theory. I like the theory because it allows you to look at The Shining differently.
Stanley Kubrick is one of my top 3 favorite filmmakers of all time. I just came across The Wendy Theory last night. I like it too. I don't actively look for movie theories all the time and this one just popped up. I don't like to trash other people theories and I've come across channels who "debunk" opposing theories which seem like they do it for the sake of owning their theory as "correct". Look, The Shining is so open ended that I enjoy most theories that come out. It adds more entertainment to the movie when watching it. I don't believe one theory is Correct and another is Wrong. I think they all some merit -- some more so than others yes. This one for me is up there for sure.
@@patricklee7241 I do agree it's hard to say one theory is better then all the others. Especially, when Stanley Kubrick has been dead for over 20 years and the Wendy Theory is a new (or newish) theory in the Shining - seemed others suspected Wendy for years.
What I like about the Wendy Theory it highlights the Continuity Errors as placed on purpose with a logical pattern.
I do think Stanley Kubrick is one of the best filmmakers and the Shining will be viewed for 1000 years and people will wonder.
@@patricklee7241 I agree with what you say about some who debunk new theories. I can understand why some may react with derision, or even hostility, if they themselves may have spent years analyzing a film and developing their own theories, only for some new kid on the block to come along with a new take which makes some impact.
But that new theory may deserve merit.
God just get on with it geez lol
Yeah, it's like I'm watching the "behind the scenes" for the video I _thought_ I clicked on. I can't take any more of it
@@MarcillaSmith 🤣👍
I felt the exact same way. Like let the man talk or get in front of the camera and give your take like he said.
@@MrPWHITE1014 🤣🤦♂️
the idea that Kubrick let continuity errors in his films!!!!! he was the consummate master of film... if its in his film its 100% intentional. (he's famous for doing every take dozens of times!)
most people end up taking their own take on movies as opposed to what the director meant, which is usually different from what the writer intended, never mind the author if it was sourced from a book!
oh and the original script had a different finish. the scene cut out (link to the script here) th-cam.com/video/Eyonv6zzeb4/w-d-xo.html
I posted a comment from another person reply about the delete scene. I'll copy it for you:
The Poster said: The scene was cut because it simply just didn't work. It didn't progress anything and would have served no purpose but to add more runtime to a film that, despite it's near perfection, just needed to end when it did, and not be a second longer.
I said: Maybe or maybe the scene was cut because Stanley didn’t want closure. Maybe the scene was to conceal the true nature of the movie from cast and/or crew. Maybe the scene was made to please the investors and then cut.
As for the continuity errors - It's a method to show [SHINE] Unreliable Narrator. That's why Wendy is reading Catcher in the Rye, the book is known as the Ultimate Unreliable Narrator. The errors are done on purpose and the insane number of takes were necessary because Kubrick didn't have CGI technology to move items like light switches, lamps, rugs with a snap of a finger and line up the actors to make it harder to noticed.
Thanks for the reply!
I like this theory too. At the end of the day I just think Stanley Kubrick is playing chess and toying with us. I wish he was still around to make films. I think his is as "perfect" as any movie can be. He's probably still having the last laugh. That said, in 20 years we're all probably going to see why Eyes Wide Shut is also a brilliant movie and nobody caught it at first glance.
I'm at the belief that The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut is a trilogy. I have not watched Full and Eyes after learning about the Wendy and Stanley Kubrick influence with Eraserhead. I'll be jumping on those movies later this year or early next year. One rabbit hole at a time.
Has anyone noticed the enormous amount of luggage the Torrances brought with them to the hotel, at 20 min 20 sec into the (bluray) movie? Its a big pile of luggage, with a tricycle. Their car was small. And there doesn't seem to have been any luggage inside the passenger area. All that luggage could not have fit in the little trunk. And Ullman's assistant, Bill Watson, when he looks at the pile of luggage, gets a very distressed look on his face, and aggressively "sighs" and looks over at Ullman. Ulman tells him to get the luggage carried up to the apartment. Bill says "Fine", sounding a bit upset.
I dont recall their reaction but I'll have to watch that scene again.
I think its comical. Makes me wonder if they had a trailer attached to the car, the back seats were over loaded... or maybe the luggage never existed. There are tons of unreliable narrator happening...
Thanks I'll rewatch the scene.
@@tankardoftales4645 There are aerial shots of the car and there is no trailer attached to it.
@@donnamaree4920 yeah it's a huge mystery on how they packed the beetle. Although it could imply there was some black magic happen.
My concern is where did all the books go? We could assume the books were packed. But they owned a lot of books and it be more of a job to move all those books from the apartment to the hotel.
Or maybe they sold the books. I could picture Jack offloading unessary stuff, but I'm not sure Wendy would want to. I'm not sure why but she comes off as a hoarder.
Ps... my wife thinks they still have the apartment.
@@tankardoftales4645 Why would they need to bring all the books with them to the Overlook? They are only staying there for five months. What we are seeing in the movie are two narratives - the obvious, surface narrative and the one from the pages of Jack Torrance's book which he was inspired to write after being told the gruesome story of Charles Grady by Ullman. There are very definite tells as to which is fantasy and which is "real", you just have to know what to look for. Notice that when you see Jack typing, the scene that proceeds it (and often the one that precedes it also), what we are seeing is the fictitious version of Jack and his family. Jack first gets the idea of inserting the maze as a central plot into his novel when he is staring at the model in the Colorado Lounge - we first hear the fantasy style music that is played several times during the fictitious parts of the movie as he literally inserts Wendy and Danny into the centre of the maze - a feature that Stanley Kubrick shows us at least twice in the movies does NOT exist at the "real" Overlook hotel. Look for cartoon references, stark reds and blues, missing/moving furniture, and discussions taking place with mirrors present. There are many more clues, but it would take too long to include them all. The Jack in Jack Torrance's horror novel (remember, Wendy is a horror movie aficionado, which no doubt played a part in his choosing of the genre) is the dark side of Jack - the one who hates his wife and child so sympathises with Charles Grady (whom he changes to Delbert Grady, along with the age of his daughters for the sake of his fictitious novel). You will also notice that whilst Jack is in full psycho mode he is always wearing the burgundy jacket and blue jeans (the exact same outfit he spotted a staff member wearing whilst touring the Overlook on closing day), yet midway through his psychotic rampage, we see him typing and wearing completely different clothes, before going straight to the next scene where Jack is again in psycho mode and wearing the burgundy jacket/blue jeans combination! Are we expected to believe that Jack, after strangling Danny, dismantling the radio and Sno-Cat, stopped to change his clothes before sitting down to calmly type a few pages, then inexplicably changed back into his jacket and jeans before resuming his murderous rampage? The fictitious Jack that is a product of Jack's dark imagination who lives safely in the pages of his book attempts to do what the "real" Jack WANTS to do...murder his wife and child.
@@donnamaree4920
Sure if you want to believe that Jack is writing a novel.
The point: "Why the Wendy Theory cannot be Debunked" is the story is being told to us by a Unreliable Narrator. We cannot trust our eyes. And I believe that's the real intent of the movie, Stanley Kubrick put little Easter eggs in the movie so we can make our own conclusions.
And sure enough mental illness seemed like a growing theme. Jack, Wendy or Danny all seemed to show signs of some mental illness.
In a sense you should be agreeing with the Wendy Theory. Because Jack writing a novel and Wendy is a psycho are both theories that forces the viewers to look beyond the movie.
And speaking of looking beyond the film.
You should check out The Bell Jar (1979). Anne Jackson plays a Doctor in both films and the wall paper in the asylum bedroom is the same wall paper in the hallway of the murdered twins. :)
Why not have the Danny Theory? Or the O’Halloran Theory? As long as we’re just making shit up, let’s go hog wild
Always welcomed to add a theory and create a video. This video is about the Wendy Theory.
the wendy theory is so obviously nonsense. its just not remotely plausible. the film is very clearly about domestic violence, and thats it, but nothing. kubrick deals in the real life dark side of humans, thats always been his subject matter, with perhaps 2001 being the exception?
>kubrick deals in the real life dark side of humans...
I don't understand your argument that the "Wendy Theory is so Obviously Nonsense." You said Kubick deals in real life dark side of humans? Assuming that Wendy has schizophrenia, her mental illness and it's effects on her love ones would be a dark side of humans. The only way to verify something is wrong with Wendy and not the Overlook Hotel is watching Wendy in the apartment. You'll be surprised beside the missing sticker on the door. We have impossible windows, moving books, moving chairs and an upside-down oven that behind Wendy while she talking to a Doctor. When you really pay attention to the doctor, you might noticed that Wendy is sitting alone in the front room, smoking and talking to herself.
Sure enough this could mean nothing at all - but that's the beauty of the movie.
And as for 2001 - I think it's commentary of the US Government giving LSD (I'll be jumping on that train tracks after I'm finished with Lolita. And Lolita is a horror movie.)
@@tankardoftales4645 ok sure, well at any rate- i honestly, without wanting to be rude, find the wendy theory utterly absurd, i dont think it has any shred / any hint of merit on any level, its as silly and bogas as believing kubrick helped fake the moon landings. but can you explain how wendy is talking to herself with no doctor?
@@johnwatts8346
>ok sure, well at any rate- i honestly, without wanting to be rude, find the wendy theory utterly absurd, i dont think it has any shred / any hint of merit on any level, its as silly and bogas as believing kubrick helped fake the moon landings.
The moon landing conspiracy is a funny one. I don't think Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing. This would suggest that Russia was in on the hoax.
I do believe Kubrick inserted moon landing references in the movie. Possible a reference to his 2001 movie. Possible a reference from the 1960s early 1970's (there are several musical references seen in the movie). Possible because Star Wars made space very popular. Or maybe we want to see a moon landing reference because of Danny's sweater.
Danny sweater is most likely a sexual reference (I don't think I need to explain more about the sweater - but who is this referring to - the Mother - the Father - Both - The ghost... Or maybe the sweater means nothing at all. This is where it becomes open for interpretation.
Danny sweater is symbolic. What does the symbol mean is up to the view. But as long as you see Danny's sweater to represent [you can insert the word] it'll always mean [you can insert the word].
This is true with all the symbolism (not limited to the Shining or Kubrick movies).
In my opinion, the doctor is fake (hallucination) and that's because I see the signs in two scenes that question the doctor's existence.
Bedroom
1st sign - Why is Danny on the bed with his pants off and knees up. This is not a normal way for anybody to see the doctor.
2nd sign - Wendy back against the wall, arms folded and her wristwatch in on her shirt sleave.
3rd sign - The rubber duck was moved from the bathroom to Danny's bedroom window.
4th sign - Shower curtain was inside the bathtub when Danny was in the bathroom, it's outside the bathtub when we see Danny in Bed.
5th sign - Wendy is mirroring Goofy doll.
6th sign - Window in the Bathroom and Danny's Bedroom Window. Assuming the Front room is North (window in the north), Bathroom is East (window in the East), Danny's bedroom is south (window in the South) - how does that work in the building we were shown.
7th sign - the sicker on the door is removed
Frontroom
1st sign - books in the window are moving.
2nd sign - chairs by the table moves
3rd sign - Wendy pulls a pack of cigarettes from the air.
4th sign - the upside-down oven (that's behind Wendy)
5th sign - Wendy is lighting up her cigarette with a shaky hand (and the Doctor don't see any issue)
6th sign - Wendy talks about how Danny was hurt by his father and he has an imaginary friend - Doctor don't see any issue.
I'm not trying to prove my point to you, I'm only showing you what makes me think the Doctor is not real.
@@tankardoftales4645 The operative word in all this is "assume".
This is what happens in age when people have to much free time and can see a movie over and over again -and they can come up with theories that have nothing to do with the actual work- the story is not that complex mentally unstable man moves family into a cursed place which drives him mad like the previous caretaker- the evil place wants to feed on his son's power- other examples of this basic horror premise "Burnt Offerings"
Sure if you want to believe that... I dont understand the complaint... nobody is saying you have see the movie anything other then the synopsis...
Burnt Offerings is what Stephen King wanted to write but failed... but thats my opinion...
@@tankardoftales4645 I'm not complaining about anything if you believe this Wendy thing is the same as people who believe Kubrick staged the moon landing and he is telling us that in the film- anyway its only a movie so happy watching
@@JoshAragon you seemed to be bothered by the Wendy Theory. Why?
I dont believe the moonlanding hoax. That would mean Russia and China was in on the hoax... aka, the cold war... also, NASA landed several rockets on the moon before the moon landing...
@@JoshAragon maybe you should watch The Sleuth (1972)...
I think there is definitely an element that Wendy is making bad choices that could get her and her son killed. Mostly, staying with Jack. Making excuses for him to the doctor. And that's what that page Wendy folds down in The Catcher in the Rye book is about - a girl is asked by a man having a mental breakdown in she will go away with him to a cabin where they will live alone in the winter and she says no.
The author, J.D. Salinger happened to introduce Dorothy Kilgallen to JFK. Check out the book, the journalist that knew too much. Hemingway said she was the best female writer in the world. Kubrick would’ve been aware of her.
I wonder if there’s any references to her that I missed.
Thanks. I'll look into it. I'm not finding any real connection with JFK and Catcher in the Rye... I'm so disturbed by those bloggers for posting the connection Catcher in the Rye and Dog-Eared fold and JFK and the only reference I can find is Wendy in the Shining reading Catcher in the Rye and showing a dog-eared fold for almost 10 seconds.
It's simple. Jack is the bait, but Wendy is the hook. Wendy is the one who's crazy. She keeps imagining things, having scary dreams and coming unglued over basic issues that most families can deal with sober.
Funny... After watching the Shining several times and learning about Unreliable Narrator. I'm thinking the doctor that Wendy calls dont exist. Also in the European version that scene was cut from the movie.
Also it's interesting to learn that Shelley Duvall was in a movie called 3 women (which is about split personalities) and in that movie there a drawing of a hedge maze...
LoL. It's debunked.
Or is it... If you feel that way, why argue? Maybe you should watch Persona 1966 or 3 Women 1977...
The Wendy Theory makes a lot of sense. I’ve watched and listened to a several different versions. They mostly come to the same conclusions. That Wendy is schizophrenic and everything we saw in the original movie is in her head.
It seems like that... It's also possible that Wendy, Danny and Tony are part of Jacks personalities. The most interesting theory (beside the Wendy Theory) is Eye Scream. The theory kind of believe that the storage room is the Story Room and the entire house centers around the storage room. Eye Scream don't really screams Wendy Theory, but it does suggest that the storage room/Story Room is a very important piece of the puzzle...
And if you watch the Shining Insights videos th-cam.com/channels/TWE9JN6tPbmJKZGePNI3iQ.html There are many references to movies with Insane Asylums (The Snake Pit, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, 3 Women, I Never Promised You a Rose Garden, The Bell Jar).
If you look at both of these theories it's easy to understand why the Overlook hotel has a very small parking lot. It's an Insane Asylum and the Storage Room could be a padded cell.
I never thought about that. The Overlook not being a hotel, but a hospital. If true, that changes everything. More than Wendy being schizophrenic. She’s not there because of Jack’s work and his agreement to look after the hotel. Jack and Danny are not there at all.
@@candicemonique5927 I don't know if you noticed it, but the doors in the Overlook hotel looks like hospital doors and there are many fluorescent lighting fixtures on the ceiling that makes it look like a hospital.
I'm not sure if you saw The Bell Jar (1979) in the movie. The wallpaper in the hall where the Twins was murdered (The Shining) is the same wallpaper in the bedroom of an Insane Asylum (The Bell Jar). And Anne Jackson also plays a doctor in the Bell Jar. The Bell Jar was a huge book during the 1960's so it's easy to understand why Stanley Kubrick assumed the movie would be good and referenced a few things from the movie while it's in production... But the Bell Jar is a hard movie to watch. You can find it on TH-cam.
Who beat Jack over the head with a bat? Wendy. Who put Jack into the freezer and then let him out? Wendy. Who used Danny as bait to draw Jack into the maze? Wendy. Who left Jack to die? Wendy. Who ripped out the radio? Wendy. Who blamed Jack for her own abuse of Danny? Wendy. It was always Wendy who gaslit Jack into madness.
If you noticed the clues... :)
I liked the Rob Navarro Wendy theory too.
Thanks. I like it too. I must of watched the video about 5 times. I think Rob Navarro video seemed too professional with the editing makes me wonder if Rob Navarro is Stanley Kubrick Daughter or David Lynch. Sure no proof, but to connect the dots with contuity errors (I thinking unreliable narrator) to Wendy Hallucinates makes sense... and it seemes somebody got this information from Stanley Kubrick when he was alive.
@@tankardoftales4645 The theory itself is entertaining and I like it as well but I just cannot stand the ROBO voice thing. Also, were we not supposed it get a Part 2 from Rob??
@@patricklee7241 Agree the voice is bad, but it seemed to make sense because Rob Navarro is not just a person posting TH-cam videos. (I think there something about Rob Navarro - I'm working on a Rob Navarro suspect video).
Saddly I don't beleive we are going to see a part 2.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
I believed that too at first... but there are many movie references in the Shining movie, such as Snake Pit, Bunny Lake Is Missing, Seconds, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, 3 Women, I Never Promised you a Rose Garden and The Bell Jar... :)
oh really then watch eyebrow cinema
He don't get it... you should check out Object of Arts. www.youtube.com/@theobjectofart
So we’re gonna ignore the fact that Jack is a alcoholic and is the most unreliable between the two? Like Wendy has no history of addiction or violence yeah let’s just say it’s Wendy the victim
If you're looking at the Shining with Stephen Kings book in mind - then yes Jack is struggling with alcoholism.
But if you are looking at the movie (without thinking of the book). The the question is Who is lying?
Wendy talks to the doctor and tells her, Jack is abusive and hurts his son, he was an alcoholic and her manners also implied she also abused by Jack.
The first time Jack was asked about alcohol was in the Gold Room, in closing day. He said we dont drink. (Maybe he's lying)
Closer examination of the scene before Danny passed out. We see door with lots of stickers, a rubber duck on the tub and Danny is wearing pants.
The scene with the doctor. Danny on bed, knees up (no pants). Rubber duck on the window. And a sticker is missing. We also noticed that Wendy looking very similar to Goofy doll/puppet. Other things odd about the room, an orb (that draws your attention to the missing sticker), light switch seems unusually too high and windows are also too high. And this apartment has 3 direction of windows (impossible for the building they are in).
3 possiblies (nothing wrong).
1... The apartment sequence is a total dream. There is a moving cigarette in Ullman office during the interview (nobody is seen smoking and the only person who is smoking is Wendy).
2... The scene with the doctor is a dream/hallucination (doctor is not real)
3... you can overlook this information (assume it's just to make you feel uneasy) and Wendy was telling you the truth. (Jack is lying)
Cool?
@@tankardoftales4645 The movie also shows that Jack deals with alcoholism like they tell you this and also shows you this….The Wendy Theory is also debunked because apparently y’all didn’t read or see the movie Doctor Sleeps which again shows as that WENDY and Danny are/were victim of Jacks abuse
@@tankardoftales4645 The only thing that holds this theory together is the fact errors happen in movie(which is understandable because they only had a year to finish this)…though if you play attention (which you have a hard time doing) the hotel is haunted which means stuff aren’t going to be the same
@@tankardoftales4645 Another way Jack lies is saying Wendy is horror fan to get the job he wants but whenever they talk about horror she is uneasy…King was obviously telling a story about a mother and son surviving a abusive father but god forbidden we have that but let’s twist to make the abuser the hero
@@haruhikari2424 that could be true... Jack lies about Wendy likes horror - but that could mean Jack didn't want Ullman think the story of Grady would scare them.
On the other hand, Wendy seemed to the obsessed with under age pervasive (Catcher in the Rye and Summer of 42) and Jack was reading the Playgirl magazine tells the reader how to see the signs of interest.
And if the Doctor was Wendy imagination then why Danny pants was removed. If Danny passed out, again why Danny pants was removed.
Maybe the doctor removed the pants... but why would a doctor remove the pants.
Makes you wonder...
As for Doctor Sleep and Stephen King... has nothing to do with Stanley Kubrick.
It's nice that they tried to connect Doctor Sleep with the Shining. But it would of been a better service to Stephen King (especially for pissing on Stanley Kubrick movie for almost 40 years) that they remade the Shining like they remade IT.
Personally hate this theory because it kind of glamorizes domestic abuse by asserting that Wendy was the one who was doing the abuse instead of Jack. That, and the only "evidence" it has is that "oh, things are inconsistent like that chair was there now it's over here." The film went through several rewrites and the settings were destroyed in fires. Inconsistencies are to be expected.
I'm not sure how it glamorize domestic abuse if Wendy or Jack is the domestic abuser. If you watch the Shining for the first time (without thinking of any theories) you would believe Jack is a domestic abuser.
The "evidence" goes beyond the chair. Rob Navarro inserts his/her Evidence as the starting point of the theory.
If the Overlook hotel is haunted then there nothing supernatural in the apartment. Right? But there are several things in the apartment. Location of windows for example. We have windows from north, west and south. The window in Danny’s bedroom is basement level, the front room windows is floor level.. These don't suggest the apartment is haunted but it does suggest the apartment is not real. The door sticker is removed. The duck moved from bathroom to Danny’s bedroom. There an odd orb in Danny’s bedroom. The orb can only be seen on a wide screen format.
Inconsistencies are expected but not in a pattern. Rob Navarro does talk about the pattern of the inconsistencies.
Rob Navarro does miss many others easy inconsistencies such as Hallorann open the freezer from one side of the hall and closes the door on the other side. No hedge in the opening shot. Jack tie is a hedge maze pattern and we don't see the hedge maze, till closing day.
The real Intresting thing is finding a hedge maze drawing in a Shelley Duvall movie "3 Women (1977)", the Shining hallway wall paper is the bedroom of an insane asylum - The Bell Jar (1979). And there many other things that suggests the Overlook hotel in an insane asylum. Did you wonder about the size of the parking lot and the size of the kitchen?
Check out the TH-camr called Shining Insights. I'll post a link later... :)
This is mind numbingly nonsensical
I'm open to talk about the theory or if you want to talk about other theories... :)
@@tankardoftales4645 shining is an ability that is displayed through 10 works of King's, connected works.
If the happenings are Wendy's imaginings, then that would suggest that not only does she imagine events she was not a part of in this film, she would also have to have imagined every King-Kubrick collab's continuity error.
Danny's POV in the story describes his father as having a temper like a vicious animal on a frayed leash, and the kid often observes that his moods are leaning toward murderous. He has very few thoughts on his mother, coz ngl that woman is third wheeling her ass off.
Wendy is described as an extremely passive character and even when she realizes her husband wants them dead she thinks to escape, not fight back. Right up until the choice lay between her husband or her son.
Saying that Wendy is mentally ill dismisses Wendy's trauma, Danny's abilities and talents and the steady building of Jack's cruelty. All this just so it can say "Nothing that happens in this movie matters, and the things that do matter all happen completely off screen." going so far as to make up the thing about the radio to serve his own argument.
Theories should be based on evidence, like how Jack and Danny seem to be the most affected because of the shining gene, not on circular arguments like "I think Wendy is crazy because of continuity errors that happen because Wendy is crazy."
This theory is seriously not it.
@@AdumbDriver
Thanks for adding to my response and I’m always happy to respond. There is no reason to fight and this topic does warrant discussion. I doubt we will meet in the middle, but I hope you’ll understand that Stanley Kubrick version of the Shining is not Stephen Kings vision, and it shouldn’t be treated as if it was.
And Stephen King has said that his book is different to the movie, to the point that King PISS on the movie.
Although, I found it very odd that King would accept the changes of Kubrick and insert it into Doctor Sleep. This is a slap in the face to Stanley Kubrick, Shelley Duvall (both were nominated Razzies because of Stephen King’s bitching) and Danny Lloyd who couldn’t find an acting job and retired from acting at age 14 (again because Stephen King kept bitching about the Shining).
As strange as it may sound, there seemed some logic to Rob Navarro’s posting The Wendy Theory one year and one day after the release of Doctor Sleep. The Wendy Theory is an attack on Doctor Sleep and Stephen King.
>shining is an ability that is displayed through 10 works of King's, connected works...
The book is not the movie.
Think of Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) how much of the story IS based on a real event… less then .01%. Stanley Kubrick version of the Shining is the same story, change a few names are you have a different story. Seriously, what iconic seen in the movie is based on the book… zero! Hollorann is also killed in the movie!
Based on my research. Stanley Kubrick was researching his horror movie (not named) from 1973 and he steamed rolled his research from 1975… Please note that Stephen King’s the Shining was not published until 1977.
>Theories should be based on evidence…
Rob Navarro not only point out the pattern of continuity errors but he also points out the placement of the camera (oddly the only complaints are the continuity errors… no talk about the camera placement)
But I’ll offer you some more evidence, other then Rob Navarro provides.
Clues that suggest something could be off about Wendy.
1… We see her reading the book Catcher in the Rye with a dog-eared fold. I won’t get into the conspiracy theory of Catcher in the Rye (most happen after John Lennon’s death). But the book Catcher in the Rye is often known as the Ultimate Unreliable Narrator (this is a fact). It’s important to note that the continuity errors suggest an Unreliable Narrator is happening. And it’s consider that Holden Caulfield suffers from Schizophrenia. Stanley Kubrick is known as a reader, he reads many book. Reader sees people who Dog-eared fold the books as monsters. Today we don’t seemed to think that but people in Kubrick times were often told not to dog-eared the books because they destroy the pages.
Let’s talk about the context of Catcher in the Rye. It’s a story of a 16 year old boy looking for cigarettes, alcohol and sex. This is interesting to note because later in the story she’s watching a movie called Summer of 42’ (another story that centers around under age sex). And Jack is reading a Playgirl - the article informs the reader how to spot incest. Danny is wearing a rocket sweater while entering the room and looking for his mother - Some people refer the rocket looking like an erection.
2.. During the interview there is a cigarette in the ashtray it appears, disappears and reappars. Nobody in the interview is smoking. But Wendy is seen smoking a cigarette. It’s believed that this scene was referenced from the movie The Three Faces of Eve (1957).
3.. Wendy is dressed like Goofy. In Danny’s bedroom we could see Goofy and Wendy dressed very similar.
4.. During the drive to the Overlook. Danny complains he’s hungry then Wendy asks questions of the Donner Party…
Since the lady talks literally the WHOLE TIME... shouldn't she be on camera?
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
people in comments keep joining kubrick and king together that the story is identical in both heads and were portrayed identically.
kubrick played ya all. It's wendy.
Thanks. Most of the people commenting want to believe Kubrick was doing his best (budget and technology) to make the Shining movie as close to Stephen Kings book. But if that's true then why Hollerann dies?
Oddly the easiest clue that we are not dealing with a Stephen King book is often overlooked. The doctor in the Shining. The doctor is not a character in the book.
@@tankardoftales4645 Because Hallorann's death puts the King readers in the audience on the back foot. They now no longer know how it will end, just like the people who never read the book. The doctor allows us to explain a lot in a short time, which is important at 24 frames a second. Movies are not novels. It's a different medium altogether. Gee, that was easy.
@@bob7975 originally Kubrick wanted Hallorann to be a killer.
Stanley Kubrick has made plenty of continuity errors. The whole obsession over his infallibility is kinda ridiculous.
You do know there more than just continuity errors, right? There is also references to other psychological drama/thrillers...
@Tankard of Tales Most of the theory hinges on every continuity error being intentional. For a theory to be legitimate theory, it all has to work with consistency and every premise must be true. The theory commits a logical fallacy in saying that Kubrick could not have made a mistake, which is an assumption, not a hypothesis. A theory builds from a hypothesis, and a hypothesis is an educated guess, not an assumption. And the link between psychopathy and Catcher in the Rye is tenuous at best. Catcher in the Rye is about adolescence and a feeling of isolation. While someone struggling with psychopathy would naturally feel isolated, Wendy would have of course felt isolated in an abusive home too. There's nothing here that doesn't have an equal or greater explanation. And since it's also based on a work by Stephen King, his intent matters too. Dr. Sleep, a sequel to The Shining, confirms that Danny's account of what happened at the Overlook Hotel lines up with Wendy's. It wouldn't be a problematic theory if Shelly DuVall didn't suffer actual abuse in the making of the movie, but in a time where misogynists like Andrew Tate have started campaigns to make people believe that women are probably lying about abuse the majority of the time, a theory like this helps to popularize that message. The theory is just completely garbage, and the only reason people feel like it's smart is that popular media makes being contrarian shorthand for intelligence. Use the right words and trick people into thinking your assumption is a true observation or hypothesis, and it's easy to trick people into thinking you're the smartest person in the room. This isn't a criticism towards you, because you didn't start the theory. It's just a completely rubbish theory.
@@gabrielgray83
>Most of the theory hinges on every continuity error being intentional.
So Charles and Delbert Grady are by accident? There is only one Grady in the Stephen King book. Not two. Why?
The intent of the two Grady’s it to tell the audience that we are dealing with an Unreliable Narrator. We are being lied to.
>For a theory to be legitimate theory, it all has to work with consistency and every premise must be true. The theory commits a logical fallacy in saying that Kubrick could not have made a mistake, which is an assumption, not a hypothesis.
Why Charles and Delbert Grady and how does that work with Stephen Kings book?
>A theory builds from a hypothesis, and a hypothesis is an educated guess, not an assumption. And the link between psychopathy and Catcher in the Rye is tenuous at best. Catcher in the Rye is about adolescence and a feeling of isolation.
Catcher in the Rye is story being told by an Unreliable Narrator. (A fact about the book) Holden Caulfield suffers from Schizophrenia. (You can google search for this information).
Stanley Kubrick is known as a reader. Readers during Stanley time saw people who dog-ear fold books as Monsters, that’s because dog-eared folds damage the pages of the book (You can google search this too).
A deeper review of Catcher in the Rye, a story of a 16/17 year old on a quest for cigarettes, alcohol and sex… While the Holden Caulfield makes demands and in return calls them fake.. Phonies.
I assume you never read the book.
>While someone struggling with psychopathy would naturally feel isolated, Wendy would have of course felt isolated in an abusive home too.
Sure that could be true…
>There's nothing here that doesn't have an equal or greater explanation. And since it's also based on a work by Stephen King, his intent matters too.
Your mistake is you are assuming this is a Stephen King story.
2 Gradys, Hedge Maze, Twins, Hallorann is killed - not in the Stephen King book.
>Dr. Sleep, a sequel to The Shining, confirms…
Doctor Sleep confirms shit. The only mistake Stephen King done was allow them to rip parts from the 1980 movie, while King has a long history of PISSING on the movie. King must of pissed somebody off... The Wendy Theory was released 1 year and 1 day after the release of Doctor Sleep. Check it out.
>It wouldn't be a problematic theory if Shelly DuVall didn't suffer actual abuse in the making of the movie, but in a time where misogynists like Andrew Tate have started campaigns to make people believe that women are probably lying about abuse the majority of the time, a theory like this helps to popularize that message.
Do you have evidence this happen? I know the internet story is like a Creepy Pasta. I read the 1980 Roger Ebert interview and a few other interviews. She never said she was abused by Stanley Kubrick. I have a video that debunks this mistreatment mystery.
Please take the time out and research it. The abuse story is 110% bullshit.
>The theory is just completely garbage, and the only reason people feel like it's smart is that popular media makes being contrarian shorthand for intelligence. Use the right words and trick people into thinking your assumption is a true observation or hypothesis, and it's easy to trick people into thinking you're the smartest person in the room.
Meanwhile 2 Gradys and Hallorann is murdered in the movie…
> This isn't a criticism towards you, because you didn't start the theory.
Thanks…
> It's just a completely rubbish theory.
Not really… You should look into Catcher in the Rye.
@Tankard of Tales There was artistic license taken, partly because the movie necessitates some changes to make it more cinematic. This includes adding characters that weren't in the book and altering some scenarios, but overall the meat of the movie has to be the same. One thing that definitively ties The Shining movie and Dr. Sleep movie together is the death of Dick Halloran. Dick Hallorann's death ups the ante in the movie, but he didn't die in the book. Dr. Sleep acknowledges the death of Dick Hallorann and presents him as an apparition for Danny, placing Dr. Sleep in the same universe as The Shining. As for Catcher in the Rye, the book starts from the point of view of an unreliable narrator. The Shining starts with the limited third-person perspective, making him the closest person to the movie's narrator out of any of the characters. However, it later shifts to third person omniscient, and in that case, the camera's POV is the narrator. Kubrick did want the audience to feel a sense of unease and to doubt their own assumptions about what we were seeing unfold on screen. But one meaningful part of Catcher in the Rye was when Holden Caufield said that he wanted to be the Catcher in the Rye and keep children from going over the edge. The Catcher in the Rye is as much a symbol of wanting to protect the innocence of youth as it is losing it is about losing a grip on reality. That's why Danny is the perfect protagonist for the sequel because it was his innocence we wanted to protect, and the descent of his family into dysfunction, psychosis, and abuse was a loss of his innocence. The source material still matters even with the changes, and Stephen King almost always relates more to the authors he writes in his stories than anyone else. Jack was Stephen King's greatest parallel. While the tendency of writing himself into his stories is sometimes one of his few weaknesses, it does help to analyze the story overall.
@@gabrielgray83
>There was artistic license taken, partly because the movie necessitates some changes to make it more cinematic. This includes adding characters that weren't in the book and altering some scenarios, but overall the meat of the movie has to be the same.
Sure we can assume the doctor scene in the Shining was intended to cut 100 pages from the book… Maybe… Or maybe the doctor scene was created to show us that Wendy really crazy. It all depends on how you view the scene.
>One thing that definitively ties The Shining movie and Dr. Sleep movie together is the death of Dick Halloran. Dick Hallorann's death ups the ante in the movie, but he didn't die in the book. Dr. Sleep acknowledges the death of Dick Hallorann and presents him as an apparition for Danny, placing Dr. Sleep in the same universe as The Shining.
Sure it’s nice that they tried to bookend Doctor Sleep to the 1980 movie. But it only meaningful for those that want to see Doctor Sleep.
>As for Catcher in the Rye, the book starts from the point of view of an unreliable narrator.
LOL… The whole book is Unreliable Narrator. Everything told in the book is a lie. Even the idea that he wants to protect children, is a lie.
Also most people that READ the book see Holden Caulfield as an ungrateful narcissist. He is always making demands and mocking them afterwards.
>The Shining starts with the limited third-person perspective, making him the closest person to the movie's narrator out of any of the characters. However, it later shifts to third person omniscient, and in that case, the camera's POV is the narrator.
In a sense the camera POV is the narrator, but the camera don’t talk it shows us stuff, and showing us stuff missing or added is a way we can tell we are being lied to.
>Kubrick did want the audience to feel a sense of unease and to doubt their own assumptions about what we were seeing unfold on screen.
And this is why the Wendy Theory cannot be debunked.
>But one meaningful part of Catcher in the Rye was when Holden Caufield said that he wanted to be the Catcher in the Rye and keep children from going over the edge.
Do you understand Unreliable Narrator?
>The Catcher in the Rye is as much a symbol of wanting to protect the innocence of youth as it is losing it is about losing a grip on reality.
I’m starting to believe you don’t understand Unreliable Narrator and you never read the book. You cannot assume anything in the book is truthful when you are being told lies.
>That's why Danny is the perfect protagonist for the sequel because it was his innocence we wanted to protect, and the descent of his family into dysfunction, psychosis, and abuse was a loss of his innocence. The source material still matters even with the changes, and Stephen King almost always relates more to the authors he writes in his stories than anyone else.
Sorry I don’t see Danny becoming an alcoholic or becoming traumatized because he stood up against his father in the movie. One of the reasons why I don’t care about Doctor Sleep. In the book a different story, and that’s why it would have been nice for them to remake the Shining (two part movie like they did with the IT remake). Then you get Doctor Sleep based on the Stephen King book.
>Jack was Stephen King's greatest parallel. While the tendency of writing himself into his stories is sometimes one of his few weaknesses, it does help to analyze the story overall.
Diane Johnson thought the Shining was pretentious. She also worked on the Shining Script.
Dude Rob Ager has already debunked this... weeks ago.
Just heard you mention him at 17 minutes in...
@@MMTipsWithAdamantoise my video was in response why he CANNOT debunk it... :)
Great dialogue. This movie was just blah and completely overrated until I discovered the Wendy theory. The Wendy is the only conclusion that I could come to as THE interpretation, although I do understand that movies are subjective and multiple themes can hold true in art. Yet, I think things like the playboy magazine and etc are red herrings to mislead the audience. It’d be interesting if Jack Nickerson would bring his interpretation out, and if Kubrick consulted w him about Wendy being the antagonist.. if she even was.
I have a hard time to believe that Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall was unaware of what's happening during the filming. I do know that Danny Lloyd was told that he was in a drama.
Also you need to check out Shining Insights
th-cam.com/channels/TWE9JN6tPbmJKZGePNI3iQ.html
The fact that people actually believe the Wendy theory makes me worried for the future of humanity. It’s literally gaslight:the theory. You know those awful theories where it’s like “it’s all happening in this characters head!” Those shit theories? It’s as bad if not worse then those
The fact that worries me is how narrow minded SOME PEOPLE can be... Based on your comment, I guess you NEVER saw movies like: Persona (1966), Blow-Up (1966), and 3 Women (1977)...
You act like DADAISM never existed...
The Shining is a labyrinth and the Wendy Theory is at the center of the maze.
A nice way to think of it... :)
Well, it certainly can be. It depends on a lot of assumptions not supported by either the book or the film. I just think it's a lot of Nicholson fanbois run amok with a determination that Nicholson can do no wrong, and that all his characters in all of his films are heroes. The Wendy Theory is just silly. Sorry, but it is.
The Wendy Theory is an intresting because it does answer many questions based on continuity differences.
Although I'm currently way ahead of the Rob Navarro theory and presenting evidence that Stanley Kubrick Overlook Hotel is closer to an Asylum. And its not an empty.
The assumption is open ended. Sure we are taking the context of the background as part of an untold story. But the assumption is also on those that think the movie must support the book. Even though, we are told in the beginning that the movie is based on the book, we do know that 90% of the movie is not in the book. To be honest, Kubrick could change characters names, location names and title name and we would never think of comparing Kubrick movie to Kings book.
This video is delusional and cringe, is the bottom of the barrel of TH-cam.
Thanks for posting.
Has already been debunked. The Wendy theory is a ridiculously over-analytical fan theory that relies almost solely on continuity errors that may or may not be intentional.
The continuity errors were made with intention. There is no way Hallorann introduction to the freezer (not the storage room) was by accident.
I liked Rob Ager but his debunking video was purely gatekeeping.
You should check these Shining videos...
Shining Insights: th-cam.com/channels/TWE9JN6tPbmJKZGePNI3iQ.html
It most certainly was not debunked. Rob Ager childishly criticized Navarro, but did no debunking whatsoever. I was excited to hear what Ager had to say specifically point for point, but it never happened. If anyone wants this debunked, they are going to have to cross examine the individual evidence pieces in the video. At least some of them. That's how it works.
Actually it doesn't need debunking because it, like most theories about 'The Shining' on TH-cam that claim "This is the true story!!!" is nothing more ridiculously over-analytical twaddle.
Anyone with half a brain can watch and see what's going on. The hotel is possessed by an evil entity that wants Danny for his shining ability and it uses physical manifestations of past staff and guests and manipulates Danny's father through his already unstable mental condition to try and obtain him.
It doesn't need any "Deep thought' analysis or convoluted interpretations to understand that. As far as Kubric's continuity errors, he put those in to screw with the audience. The Shining was made at a time when people did not analyze every single second and every teeny, tiny minute detail of a film(OMG! there's a light switch missing in that two second scene!!! That means the scene isn't REAL!!!!) looking for super secret hidden messages. They were meant to add a feeling of unease and a sense that something is wrong in this hotel. Not to be picked apart and have all kinds of deep, secret meanings applied to them. He's probably looking down on all this right now and laughing his ass off.
@@tarzan8575 With that stance, why are you even here?
@@tarzan8575 Also using the expression "anyone with half a brain" is nothing more than a weak attempt to bail yourself out of having to discuss anything critically, by indicating that the majority is on your side and everyone else is stupid.
kubrick debunked it. i saved you 20 + minutes, you're welcome.
No he didn't. But why you feel the NEED to say that?
@@tankardoftales4645 Because if Stephen KIng and Stanley Kubrick together can't define this story, a bunch of clickbait artists sure aren't going to. I think what upsets people is the dogged insistence that the victim is somehow the perpetrator. Domestic violence is a serious enough problem that capitalizing on dismantling the whole idea goes beyond mere cringe.
It can be and it has. Bro chill
You need chill and watch 3 Women (1977) and look for the hedge maze... Rob Ager is not the Authority of the Shining...