I have a theory called 'The Stephen Theory' that states that The Shining never really happened and it was actually the imagination of an author named Stephen King, who wrote it in the form of a novel.
It seems that people are forgetting that The Shining is a work of fiction and never really happened. For people to say "It never happened that way. It happened the way that I experienced it, without taking into account that, even though evidence has been provided, it could never be interpreted any other way than the way I interpreted it" is just low-level mentality.
Maybe all these changes are meant to make the viewer feel like they're crazy. Subtle changes like that can make a person feel paranoid, and increase the sense of horror throughout the movie.
Both, you experience her hallucinations from the changing sets that your subconscious picks up but not you at the time. Your hallucinating with her which makes you as guilty and as confused as her. Scary stuff when you always hear about subliminall messages and brainwashing.
The look Jack gives Wendy is the look of Homicidal Ideations about wanting to kill her. The movie does a great job at explaining Jack's slow slip into madness.
I love how movie nerds are still fighting over their interpretations of this movie when really it’s just a reflection of their own thinking. This isn’t a real situation. It is representing one and the viewer gets to make up their own mind about what it means. The fact that the creator of this video slips into victim blaming and misogyny speaks more about him than the meaning of the movie.
@@ciom9065 The story was still written by a Human Being with introspectives of himself. Misogyny is an afterthought when it comes to a Homicidal Maniac that decided to kill more than his Wife..
If you think that Kubrick was a genius in all his other works, but a complete idiot in this one, Idk what to tell you. Almost every time Wendy is involved, either there's stuff missing in the background, or the Tony talks through the kid. I'm not saying this is the only narrative of the movie. It wouldn't even work without the "official" one. There are also all these hints about native americans, Nazi Germany, the moon landing etc. That's what Kubrick does. So why should this theory be disregarded, despite all these points?
@@OneCash You obviously haven't seen any other Kubrik movies. Props go missing randomly in several movies, a woman grabs a plate with one hand than it's suddenly in the other without her switching them in the next shot, a man goes for a punch with his left hand but hits him with his right, etc. The Wendy Theory is inconsistent and kinda dumb.
I hate to be a killjoy, but aren’t all 3 of them seeing things because the hotel is mega-haunted? That explains how things appear and disappear, and is the main focus of the book. Like, the light switches appear and disappear because they are ghostly echos of what the hotel used to look like, and the same with the golden rooms, relaid carpets, lamps, chairs, etc., etc..
Yeah, but apparently this person doesn’t like supernatural reasons behind what’s going on. Which is stupid, because this is fictional. You can write as many mystical things as you want. I mean Stephen King wrote IT which is a supernatural entity.
I remember watching this when I was young and I always thought why doesn't he hug his mom when he's scared or hold on to her when running from something. He doesn't trust her. He doesn't smile at her, it seems like he walks on eggshells. This is something I noticed at like 12 years old.
Very true . I noticed this as well as a young kid watching, however it is unfortunately a common thing with kids that are abused to take most of their anger and feelings of mistrust and direct it towards the non-abusive parent because they are not protecting the child from the abuse and that parent , in many cases ,is being abused as well. When the child recognizes that the parent that could help or "save" them is also powerless it must just be a devastating realization for the child. How awfully tragic knowing that they cannot trust anyone and truly are alone. This sense of dread is captured quite brilliantly in this film.
I remember thinking what a stupid flaky idiot she was. I heard Stanley hated her and was ruthless torturing her on set. More insanity? Maybe this was a secret middle finger to her and Kings "ghost" story.
Folks....the Overlook is the antagonist. It's like a vampire. It consumes power. Danny was powerful so it wanted Danny. Jack was weak and Wendy was strong so it manipulated him to do its bidding. That's why things change in the Overlook because of the will of the hotel itself. It creates the reality it wants. It puts Jack in the picture it wants him in at the end. That's why the boiler wasn't a plot point in the original movie because the hotel wouldn't have an issue like that as IT is in control.
@@methanmohan966 Stephen King my ass. Overrated author who ripped off true genius writers. Kubrick took his below par material and gave it his own turn. The rest is history.
I love how Kubrick did all this crazy stuff, and then was like “imma just put this right here and walk away.” No explanations or clarifications. Leaving generations to discuss and dispute various theories. Hahahahaha
Fun Fact: Stanley Kubrick’s “perfectionism” is actually misunderstood. He makes continuity errors in tons of different movies, including Clockwork Orange and Doctor Strangelove. Yet neither of those involve ghosts, because they are just continuity errors. Kubrick was a perfectionist for shots and lighting, not little details like if a chair is there or not. Plus, there was a fire that burned down all the sets, which lead them to having to rebuild all the sets. That’s why things like Light-switches appear out of nowhere, because it isn’t the same set as before. These small little things weren’t intended, they were simply errors that occurred due to multiple shots being filmed at different times on different sets Another thing is the evidence that Jack had too much snow in him. The film never says how much time he’s out there, so we don’t know if he’s been out there for one night or thirty. It’s a baseless assumption that makes the theory look better
Yeah, i think You right, and people think that Kubrick Is some kind of "puppet master" and Make movies that regular people don't have a chance understanding, that Is bullshit, yeah, his movies are very Good but far From some kind of complete mistery!!!
The only reason why i think the hiccups are intentional is because of the light fixtures in certain shots. The rest can be explained as natural mistakes/ changes in the on set throughout the day. The switches rather had to be installed or physically removed during the production. Continuity mistakes are made easily not with effort, unless its intentional. I think the movie is showing the hotel is not what it appears to be and would personally side with the ghosts idea. With that said, any time a characters sanity is called into question and the thread left dangling, every other character is put under scrutiny.
@@notaraven the light switches were changed because all the sets burned down and had to be remade from scratch. Little details like a light switch were easily forgotten
@@Nerdtendo6366 the filming started around may of 1978 and the fire occured in February of 1979. Depending on the reports the filming could have finished some time in march. Kubrick was quoted after the fire that he just needed to shoot 3 close up wendy scenes to fully finish and Jack Nicholson had already gone home. It really depends on which scene was shot when but I don't think the fire can be blamed for the light fixtures.
@@notaraventhe thing is, Kubric made lots of similar mistakes in tons of movies. For example, in Dr. Strangelove has a scene where someone is hiding behind a chair and in the next shot it’s gone. Continuity errors are a very average and common part of film making. Plus, Kubric saying he only has a few shots left to do doesn’t mean he didn’t do retakes after because he didn’t like how the scenes turned out after filming. There is also a really great video that goes in depth in why this theory is bad by Eyebrow Cinema
The movie feels like 10 horror movies put together, I think every actor is playing a character with a facade too so every performance is like 2 or 3 performances, usually with the most surface level performance being cheesy acting that you could imagine the characters coming up with. The music takes you far into another world too and the expert camera work makes you more likely to sit in it and get hypnotized, so it can make even the average bozo have a transcendental experience if they focus a little.
I’d like to introduce everyone to ‘The Danny Theory’, which proves that the events of the shining after the opening car ride all took place inside Danny’s mind, because what actually happened was that the whole family died in a car wreck on the drive
My theory is the Ullman theory and that is the most plausible theory seeing as it involves no abuse nor supernatural. What happens is after Jack leaves, he just imagines the rest of the movie.
Are these jokes obs these shitty basic theories didn’t happen but perhaps that’s the joke, lol I don’t know but if that’s generally what you believe common that’s like saying it’s all in a dream like yeah you could say that to anything it’s just a worthless ending.
Maybe Jack doesn’t exist ! All is in Wendy's head. Jack only exists in 1921(final image). It's Wendy who has the job and takes care of the boiler, she wears the shirt that Jack had on the interview .... She's both sides of the mirror !
@@shggy1 have you ever seen fight club? Pretty sure you see split personalities living together in the same scenes multiple times throughout the movie.
Same. Usually when I see these fan theory videos they have more plot holes than a poorly thought out movie. But this one is actually really interesting and really well thought out.
I been reading and watching videos on this for years.. just mindblown. Kubrick is soooooo damn clever. It's just not fair we can't get him on a reddit ama. He literally knew millions of us for blinking decades would keep assuming wendy to be the victim. Even the mixed path of danny the tricycle that didn't mirror the hallway map.. it was just in her head!!!
Lol are you serious? Every single theory about this movie has at least a couple holes in it but this one is sooo full of holes it’s ridiculous. Have you seen any of the other theories about this movie? They’re all really interesting and I think this one definitely interesting but it’s far more full of holes than the others
... Oddly this is making more sense when you also place into the factor that Kubrick literally tormented Duval on set and made her cry repeatedly during filming and she had mental breakdowns.
The continuity errors were on purpose to make the hotel feel dreamlike. Also, seriously? You think that’s too much snow for one night? They’re in the mountains, do you not have snow where you live or something😭😭
This makes the Shining more frightening. The prospect that one can be a homicidal maniac and not know it, and the mind can manufacture justification for murderous behavior. Much more chilling than ghosts and haunting.
@@alangrosenheider9654 Foreshadowing of Jack's behavior, not Wendy's. Most women in abusive relationships behave like this. There's no discussion about Jack's behavior, there's just a "it's just one of those things" remarks, minimizing the severity of Danny's injuries. And cartoons on the wall? If you meant the motifs, bear in mind the source material has supernatural implications woven into the story. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for Danny to have psychic abilities, in the first place. I can't believe people keep forgetting about that. Jack didn't call Mr. Halloran, Danny called for help with his abilities.
@@alangrosenheider9654 Have you watched the Room 237 documentary? If so, this theory is as off the wall and stupid as they come. He's connecting dots out of random noise.
@@alangrosenheider9654 "The film is not faithful telling of the source material--intentionally so." It doesn't have to be. Both renditions of Pet Sematary aren't 100% faithful to the source material. Creative liberties can be taken and to act like the integrity of the storytelling is the be-all-end-all of how good the film adaptation will be is just ludicrous. "Yes, the cartoons on the wall appear and disappear in their apartment at the beginning of the movie. Her hallucinations are foreshadowed from the beginning of the film." I've seen the film numerous times and haven't seen any cartoons on any walls. I think you might be seeing things.
@@alangrosenheider9654 That's quite a stretch. And it wasn't on the wall, you idiot. It was on the door. And that could mean anything. Did you notice that it was there when Danny was talking with his imaginary friend? It could be a representation of his older self being present trying to warn him about the Overlook Hotel.
@@samsung4360 yea but hes the director so he's telling the story? So he can do whatever he wants with the narrative? There are no facts he can twist? Wtf??
@@Luitente . Fred , Kubrick literally butchered King( the original author) story and made one of him. Let's remember what Mr Robot voice pointed out said of all the easter eggs and delusions the setting made by Kubrick was so twisted it created too many interpretations. Man , idk . Everything works and everything fails with this movie. My advice : accept every theory without doubting anything , it will make a very interesting watch afterwards.
@@samsung4360 what?? Ofcourse stephen king is the author of the novel? And if someone wants to use that story or parts of it for his own movie, hes free to do so?? The director can do whatever he wants with the story, since its his movie
I thought this was an interesting idea at first and it made some sense but when i gets to room 237 and the following scene where she blames Jack is where I think you're on to something here. The key is in the door so we know someone opened it. Danny is there alone but he calls for his mother and walks to the room where he knows she is. Danny is assaulted by someone. Next scene we have Wendy talking to Jack and here comes Danny. Danny is going to where he knows his dad is. If his dad just attacked then why is he going to see his dad? Then Wendy never lets him speak and asks who did this to you. Danny just stares at his mother. He never looks at Jack nor does he embrace her. Even after she picks him up he never puts his arms around her. You would think that he would be comforted by her if she was protecting him from his dad but he doesn't look that way at all. He looks afraid of her.
Great point. It is the dislocated arm incident all over again. When Danny waves the knife around at Wendy's bedside (notice Wendy is wearing the blue robe Jack was supposedly wearing before) he is saying Red Rum, Red Rum! He writes it in her lipstick, not blood. It is a deliberatly sensual rather than a gory choice. He is calling her out. I think the "Murder" being called out is of Danny's innocence, his childhood. This is what "Tony" means when he says on Danny's behalf that Danny can't wake up.
* Read in Rob Ager voice. Throughout the film, Danny is depicted with a bowl haircut. This style of haircut was of course made iconic by Moe Howard of Three Stooges fame who was famously the leader of the classic trio. This connection is of course indicative of the fact that Danny is forced to "take charge" during the films climax in order to save himself and his mother. This parallels nicely with the fact that Danny is most frequently shown to wear sweaters (which as we know are made of wool.) These motifs were clearly put in place to subconsciously suggest that Danny is a "lamb" for the slaughter, which makes even more sense when you consider that Jack Torrence is nearly always shown to be wearing shoes during his time on screen, much like the serial killer Ted Bundy. Who was well known for wearing shoes on a near daily basis. Shoes of course are commonly made out of leather, which can also be made from slaughtered lambs. This ties nicely into the habits of Ed Gein (another serial killer) who famously made leather from the skin of his victims. These motifs are undeniable in light of the mounting evidence. Visit my website for more.
I think the director liked to add and remove things to keep a subliminal tension to the film. The subconscious mind notices these kinds of things and it creates an unnerving effect to the psyche and the viewer doesn't know why.
This interpretation is a lot more plausible to me than the notion that a director tasked with making a movie based on a book secretly made a completely different movie that only people doing detailed shot-by-shot comparisons looking for inconsistencies would ever be able to pick up on. Kubrick was a brilliant director, but he was notorious for doing dozens of retakes per scene, which is the primary source of continuity errors. Even with him editing the film personally, there’s no way he could have spliced together the best bits from multiple takes shot over multiple days and come up with a final version where they all match up perfectly. Discontinuities like Danny’s tricycle changing color could be intentional, but an actor’s hair going from neat to rumpled is far more likely the result of combining takes shot early vs. late in the day, or even on completely different days. TL;DR: It’s a fun theory for a rewatch, but to assume it was the real story Kubrick intended to tell, you have to ignore a lot of the realities of the filmmaking process.
@@bluevervain8317 Another thing as well is that even within the world of the movie, the overlook hotel is supposed to be a living thing. So having furniture move around and sets change between shots adds to that feeling, even if unintentional.
@@bluevervain8317 I agree - that being said, Kubrick made it very clear that he was hardly following the book. Also, some of those changes are expensive changes.
@@thaddeuskent8185 Oh definitely not disputing that he deviated from the source material quite a bit. I love the movie for its cinematography, but reading the book ruined it for me for a long time. It wasn’t until King made his miniseries adaptation that I was able to enjoy the movie for what it was again without being frustrated by what it wasn’t. (The miniseries has its flaws, but it also has _topiary monsters!_ lol) I think the discrepancies in the film likely fall into one of three categories: 1. Deliberate changes made to unnerve the audience on a subconscious level. (e.g. Danny’s tricycle) 2. Minor discrepancies caused by multiple takes shot over time being cut up and edited back together. (e.g. Jack’s hair and the paper in the typewriter) 3. Differences between scenes shot on set vs. on location (this is the only reason I can think of for the shifting light fixtures, which seem like an impractical thing to move around compared to furniture, etc.)
because Danny is a 'distracted' kid to say the least... I think she was being incredibly compassionate given his 'condition'... This video is total troll distraction... from the guy who originally cracked the code... Jay Weidner... in fact his interpretation was so bang on... it was going viral... that's when a flood of misinformation (what this reminds me of) in order to throw off new viewers that were coming online to check it out... This is the most unbelievable garbage logic one could possibly imagine... watch Weidner's documentaries... and compare side by side... (there is no comparison... in all honesty... this is pathetic...)
He's got his thumb in his mouth and he's staring off into space. He's clearly supposed to be catatonic after the trauma in room 237. He probably doesn't even realize she's there, or that she's picked him up.
The way Wendy is standing behind the social worker while Danny tells his story, and the way he looks away before saying what happened.. definitely makes it seem like she was there to intimidate him.
Or maybe Stephen King nor Stanley Kubrick never even thought about this angle. But we are sure there are many there to tell them this is what their story really meant. Though Im sure that's not Stanley's concern right now, nor Stephen's for that matter.
Or she was making sure he said as he had been rehearsed to. To explain away Jacks abuse possibly....idk it could be argued either way both are open for much debate
About halfway through I thought about that scene where Jack is frozen in the maze and I was SHOOK. That shot has always bothered me, how would he get that frozen so quickly? This is the perfect explanation. It also explains how Jack got out of the storage room - he was never there.
I have often wondered how he could be frozen and locked in a warm storage room. The odds of that happening even in a haunted house in a movie. I have not watched the entire movie. Just bits and pieces but enough to notice the strange scenery changes. The way he is locked in a storage room. Then he is out but the door is not damaged. If he had gotten out. It would have been an act of a caring father. Not the desperate rash thinking of a lunatic. Psychotic break downs are not the acts of sound judgment. The proof she is the one having the break down. Is her obvious hallucinations that she sees for herself. Blood flooding the hallway etc.
people in the comments be saying that it has nothing to do with the book, well, probably bc the theory is about the movie and not the book, which are two different things
@@jombiejuss I've never actually read the book but if the mini series endorsed by Stephen King was a more accurate retelling it probably isn't as great as the movie.
1810Jeff one thing people don’t want to think is that Stephen King is a bit more of a bumpkin type who doesn’t realize he didn’t write a haunted house book. Kubrick could probably more than tell that it was about a damaged family, losing their minds in a huge hotel in the snow. King was like “no no! Ghosts.” And of course the 1990’s miniseries was more like the book and totally laid an egg. King has a formula and sticks to eat to be more prolific but Devastating works like Pet Sematary, he didn’t like it. It’s the stuff of nightmares but breaks his formula at the end so it almost gets shelved. Not middle of the road enough, sadly.
one last thing, when Jack admits to hurting Danny the phrasing mirrors what Wendy said to the doctor. Even his exaggerated eye movements mirror her delivery.
Found an early script, and it's really interesting. Wendy fights off Jack, who eventually succumbs to mortal wounds. Halloran arrives, and becomes possessed by the hotel (described as, "an appalling figure of lunatic savagery"), hunting Danny. Wendy goes in search for Danny, and eventually confronts Halloran. This is where you have to wonder whether Kubrick didn't arrive to the Wendy theory through multiple iterations because it was already latent in this early draft: "Wendy, armed with the knife, her eyes blazing, her hair flying wildly, her lungs nearly bursting, runs through the rooms and corridors of the hotel calling out for Danny. In her frenzied search for the child, she herself will come to resemble some maddened, demoniacal figure." It concludes with the confrontation, Halloran having paused at Danny's psychic powers: "At this instant, Wendy will rush howling out of a doorway, stabbing in a frenzy, with her long boning knife, so that the old lady in 'Psycho' will look like a pushover in comparison. There will be no question about how she is able to kill a homicidal maniac." So two things are clear. One, early draft had Wendy going into a slow, steady descent into madness, almost reminiscent of Pyle in Full Metal Jacket. All of the violence and trauma and horror evokes in her a murderous rage. Two, Kubrick's tweaks weren't just minor. These are significant departures early on from the book, as well as significant deviation from the finished product. He was already experimenting with the Wendy character, and in ways, she was the fulcrum on which the movie turned in this draft. According to the Wendy theory, this never changed; it only became more nuanced.
The reality is this: Kubrik made films like this so that, we the audience, can interpret any way we see fit. I highly doubt he discussed, in details, the nuances/premise of the movie. Directors like him usually don't. Whether this theory is true or not, it's a very interesting and plausible perspective.
It is possible that you are correct, it wouldn't be the first time theory's surrounding odd movies gain their own momentum. The only thing is that Kubrick went to great lengths to make these set changes. Placement of objects large and small were deliberate, so it raises the question, why? It is well known that Stanly would edit his movies himself at home, he was meticulous.
I just have to ask: why is this theory better because it rejects the supernatural? The supernatural elements are integral to The Shining as a franchise. Rejecting anything supernatural seems like ignoring crucial details.
The director intentionally made it that way. He even said it outright. There's no clear right or wrong answer. The book is clear about it, but the movie is not the book.
@@ShinyPrimarina because the original comment is arguing the other way around, that it being supernatural in the book means it is true for the movie, when it's pretty clear it's made intentionally ambiguous
So ONLY accept Possible hallucinations and All Spiritual Chicanery, but IGNORE all Physical clues ? Now, how does That work better, exactly, please do elaborate.
I always thought it was odd in the scene were she blames Jack for hurting Danny's neck how Danny reacts to Wendy. He looks not only traumatized, but when she picks him up, he goes cold...doesn't reciprocate comfort by giving a hug back, his arms are dangling at his side. If Jack hurt him like Wendy states, naturally Danny would've welcomed security from his mother. Instead he has a trauma response of freeze. This Wendy Theory, I love!!! Poor Danny...
I've seen and read through a half-dozen well-reasoned and plausible alternative interpretations of this film, including everything Robert Ager has on the subject. I was resistant for the first 10 minutes of yours, but having completed the video, this alternative interpretation is my favorite so far. If we reject the surface story, then all the mysteries in the plot are covered neatly by this theory - unlike with other ones, where too much has to be inferred from the circumstances and/or it is difficult to suspend belief in the surface narrative. Your video was very well produced and entertaining; I'm looking forward to part 2 and anything else you may have planned for future content! My only constructive criticism is to ditch the text-to-voice if you're interested in gaining a respectable following or income. Even if every other element of your content is perfect, robo-speak will still drive away viewers unfairly. I've seen many other great channels stuck in the weeds for not abandoning text-to-speech.
TH-cam won't allow you to continue to use a robo voice on a regular channel. Penguin storytime had an awesome Robo voice and TH-cam made him stop using it. It turns out it was because he has a German accent. But what he didn't realize is that he has a very soothing pleasant voice. The person making this video May likewise have a strong accent or not speak English well. I also was resistant to the video but somehow it was compelling and kept me from switching away and in the end I think it's pretty solid. For me it was the light switches and the ceiling lights. I can understand normal movie continuity errors but those were clearly intentional.
@@macmcleod1188 I've never found German accents particularly soothing. Makes me kind of nervous. One more generation, maybe, and German accents won't have one dreaming of camps, but I have this visceral reaction, and I'm not even Jewish. I wonder if he did the robo voice because he had an accent, or specifically because he has a German accent and felt like people would reject him because of it.
Also explains after he sees that old lady on the bathtub and goes back to the room and tells wendy very calm that he saw no one. I assume it's all in her head. Crazy
@@DreadPirarateAndersen there was another movie (made as a miniseries) on tv that followed the book much more closely. Including after the bruises on Dannys neck were shown, Danny tells his dad that Wendy did it.
@@Andrea1542 yes, Stephen Kings F.U. to Kubric, as he wrote the series screenplay and script (also Kubric gave a F.U. to King, with the yellow VW Bug being crashed in the opening sceene, where you follow the red Bug instead, because it was yellow in the book and the series(ever Notice that))... so i have seen the series, with the moving hedges, etc. but it´s been a couple of years since I saw it and last read "The Shining", so I can´t remember that exact conversation between Danny and Jack, that you are refering to?!
Don't you get it?? Wendy had a bad memory experience, causing an axe to magically appear and fly into Jack's hands. Then, since ALL WOMEN ARE EVIL, Wendy secretly caused Jack to chase her all over the hotel. See?? This theory is the simplest (-minded), therefore it is definitely correct!! Thanks, Jordan Peterson!!!
Notice how Danny just stares straight at her when she asked who hurt his neck. Like he was so scared and petrified he didn't know what to say, she strangled him and now she's showing comfort and he doesn't know how to process that. Man this theory is insane. Look at Jack's facial expression when he realized what had happened. She hurt Danny and is trying to pin it all on him and he is in complete disbelief. He's in complete shock that his wife has been this far gone.
Kubrick seemed to put all these uncovered narratives in this movie, then to finally be discovered one by one. The Apollo sweater also speaks to the alleged fakes moon footage. Danny and Jack as Jay Weidner mapped out in Kubrick’s Odyssey, are 2 aspect of Kubrick himself. The ripped Apollo sweater also shows Kubrick was damaged over Apollo and had to keep his mouth shut. Think also when Jack says to Wendy, ‘I think he did it to himself.’... regarding the Apollo theory. There are sun references throughout the film too: the tennis ball, Going to the Sun Road the Torences traveled up to the hotel. Golden Ray products in the food storage pantry that Jack is locked in. There are so many coded things in this movie, it’s like a puzzle.
@@DavesArtRoom okay stop there. The only reason for the moon landing was to see who could build a rocket that can go the furthest. A rocket that can reach the moon has no problem reaching the other side of the planet. They were building ballistic rockets, the space program was invented to keep public trust "hey lets achieve great things by going to the moon," well that cost resources that America didn't have. They didn't fake the moon landing, they faked why it was important. It wasn't to discover life outside our solar system, it was all a byproduct, originally it was to see who could build the biggest nuke that can travel the fastest and furthest. It was all about building bombs and nothing more. Get your head out of your ass. That's why it was called the arms race.
@@rockabilly2912 yeah whatever you wanna call it, big rockets go boom on impact so it doesn't matter the reason. They lied so they could build bigger nukes and lied so they can get resources to build said nukes.
This is a brilliant and well thought out take. One of my older brothers has paranoid schizophrenia and he was fully convinced at one point that my parents, who fully adore him, were trying to kill him. He even made a police report where he claimed my parents were leaving little clues around the house that they were going to kill him. He ended up attacking my parents and it was quite scary. Long before he attacked my parents, he use to tell ppl how great his little sister (me) was and then when we were alone he would snap and attack me and I didn’t tell anyone in my family for a long time. Everyone thought I was so lucky to have him as an older brother. For a while, I was the only one who knew he was going crazy. When he started losing more control (schizophrenia progresses slowly over time) the rest of my family found out. I know this is all quite sad but thank goodness we’re all alive. So, personally, this theory really hits home. This is real life stuff - much scarier than monsters under your bed.
@@dennycote6339 I saw this movie when I was a kid, when my brother was my loving older brother who bought me toys. I wondered then why the little boy in the movie was so quiet. But after hearing this Wendy Theory, it made me reflect that I was also largely quiet about my brother slowly losing his mind and targeting me, the youngest of five in our household. Oddly, I don’t understand why I stayed quiet. I can guess as to why but I don’t actually know. Also, I think it’s crazy that Kubrick doesn’t show the scenes where the boy is attacked. So no one, not even the audience, bears witness to this child’s abuse. This boy is isolated by his abuser. I relate to that part, for sure. Also, if we look at it through the lens of this theory then I think this is a great example of how we really don’t understand mental illness because no one suspected Wendy might be the abuser; I didn’t either. So, it helps me better understand how no one suspected my charming older & loving brother was losing his mind and what he was really like with me during that period. A detective at our local police station, who was involved in my brother’s case (the one my brother originally filed against our parents), shared with my parents that he was shocked because he was classmates with my brother in high school and could not believe my brother had completely lost his marbles. My brother was a handsome champion athlete and good student in HS. We just don’t know how to judge who is the victim and who can fall victim to mental illness. It’s sad because my story is not unique. It’s all too common and hardly anyone gets the help they need when they need it. Gosh, it’s horrifying really.
Something else just occurred to me. I didn’t mention that we recently discovered my brother had been repeatedly sexually abused as a child by an older man close to our family. Like the boy in the movie, my brother also stayed silent about this abuse. My brother developed a stutter as a child that my other brothers teased him about. Perhaps the stutter came from the abuse My brother mostly got rid of his stutter as a teen and tried to live a normal life. I think his abuse as a child finally caught up to him as a young adult and triggered the development of paranoid schizophrenia. Schizophrenia usually develops later in adulthood and it develops insidiously throughout several years. So honestly, who knows for how long the boy in the movie had been abused esp since we see in the beginning that he seems to have developed a type of coping mechanism with his “odd” finger talking. Perhaps, the more Wendy lost her mind, the more she abused her son. It could have gone on for some time because children, it seems, can hide a lot; quite a lot.
So this movie was all a dream, and the only evidence to prove this is scenes that were never filmed, and don't exist in any form at all. And also Kubrick can apparently travel through time, which is the only way the Catcher in The Rye part can work. Gotcha.
There is a difference between a dream and a hallucination but I can see how one can be confused. Also Catcher in the Rye was published in the 50s and the shining in the 80s.
@@gullazero the murder over tcitr didn’t happen until after the movie came out, which is what this video is referencing- the murder, not the actual plot of the book.
@@gullazero Catcher in the Rye is about saving kids which is what she goes on to do with her son, the ties to crazy people murdering people wasn't until after the murder which happened months afterwards.
@@gullazero surely if you watched this video, you can understand why the Catcher in The Rye reference is irrelevant. It doesn't matter when the book was published, as the existence of the book isn't in question. And dream or hallucinations, that also doesn't matter here as you can use all the same evidence in support of either theory. Or just pretend there's a scene at the end where someone wakes up, that actually requires less mental gymnastics and stretching than the Wendy theory.
Id take it a step further on the maze thing. She DID put him in the storeroom, but him waking up and acting crazy was the hallucination. The maze isn't real, it isn't seen in aerial shot and it is constantly changing. She mentions something about the house feeling like a maze in the scene where she's being shown the storerooms. I think Jack just froze to death in the storeroom, following by this theory. The shot of him frozen to death is how Wendy is picturing his body.
@@GetMeThere1 Right, and fair enough. I guess my point is that I think there are more layers to uncover in this theory. The continuity errors marking the start of hallucinations is a profound observation and works all well and good. But I think this theory forgot about the spatial inconsistencies of the Overlook, and how they too could denote something with this mental illness idea. If the interview was taking place in a room that by all means should not exist, then perhaps the interview itself isn't reliable. But, then again, one of either the storage room or freezer room shouldn't logically exist either, given their placement. I just feel like there's something hiding in plain sight in regards to this particular rabbit hole. I'm trying to piece together exactly what.
@@AAllen-br8it The "anchor" is that all scenes of the hotel during the initial interview were of reality -- he uses that for the entire basis of determining reality vs psychotic dreams of Wendy.
Each time watching The Shinning I always felt Wendy’s character was totally off & very strange. This theory actually explains a lot about her character and the acting. Perhaps Kubrick wanted to leave it to the audience whether it was a supernatural event and Jack lost his mind by ill intended ghostly influences or a completely explainable non paranormal event of Wendy descending into her own mental breakdown. Considering the way Kubrick’s peers often mention his attention to detail being very deliberate about every nuance and his personality it would stand to reason the Wendy theory is indeed very much plausible & for me makes the film make a whole lot more sense.
Exactly! That is the one big thing that makes me think this theory might be right! Wendy's character is a kind of a nervous wreck right from the start, and at the hotel her decent into an absolute mess is very quick. Duvall's acting is quite over the top - as Kubrick wanted it to be. Maybe there is another reason for that than Kubrick just being a misogynist asshole.
@@Pippis78 well Shelly Duvall is a little off anyway. Hqve you seen her of late? Wow blew my mind how far crazy she has become. Look up her interview with Dr. Phil I think it was from last year, maybe even this year. She dont even look like her anymore. My thought is she was always a little "unright" probably why he wanted her for the role. Its actually kinda sad.
@@MaryP74 Don't know if she had any mental health issues when she was young. But yes, she always had that frail look to her. Kubrick's abuse - let's call it what it was - may well have contributed to her getting unstable and later seriously ill. It is very sad what has happened to her. But really - it can happen to any of us.
Some people don't get that this video is not about the book written by Stephen King. It is about how Kubrick rewrote the story. So Kubrick rewrote it as Wendy having schizophrenia and there was no paranormal activity yet to the audience it appears that this is King's original story plot with a few changes. And he completely went over the heads of the studio which would not have him to make such a drastic change. Brilliant. Remember Kubric directed Dr. Stangelove which was supposed to be a serious film of the 1958 book Red Alert about a general who sent bomb3ewrs to attack the Soviets. But the same studio realized they had Fail safe with a similar plot in production at the same time. So Kubrick rewrote it as a comedy. Kubrick was a brilliant director and an equally brilliant writer. As for a robo voice look before we leap. If I made a video it would have a robo voice as I am speech impaired.
This makes me think of the Fight Club book and Fincher's adaptation. Palahniuk's book was mostly a social satire, Fincher made it a psychological take. If you look at the incredibly well written theories from the jackdurden website, the movie takes the story to a whole new level. Even Palahniuk shared the theories on his social media because he was so impressed with this new insight.
The voice complaints are coming because the video has over 400k views. Unfair in the respect that, like you, I assume there are many valid reasons to not be able to speak on mic or even not be willing to (anxiety is a real impairment; I know of at least one TH-camr with millions of views that made a second account just to be clear that they wouldn't get on mic on that account). It's fair in the respect that having so many views on a 40-minute video with a cheap automated voice is pushing the limits of tolerability.
@@kruks Yes. Personally I am speech impaired so for me a robe voice would be needed. Since my disability occurred I have found a lot of intolerance for the disabled. Even the Social Security Administration does not comply with the ADA as some of their offices offer no contact by text, email or TDD for hearing and speech impaired people.
This bizarre interpretation hinges on many continuity errors. They are admittedly too many to be accidental. But my view is that Kubrick wanted them as a means of creating subconscious unease. We are simply unaware of them until someone points them out.
Apparently King was consciously aware of the direction Kubrick took with telling his story because he didn’t like it at all. That’s why King had it remade into a mini-series.
I agree. Jack is set up to have resentment toward Wendy. She and Danny are the reason he stopped drinking because he abused Danny during a drunken outburst. He also tells the barkeep that he swears Wendy still resents him for it, probably his own guilty conscience. Idk, I see the Torrence family as a family already hanging on by a thread, as you can tell when Wendy explains why Jack stopped drinking to the therapist making the home visit. Jack seems so tense with his family from the start as well.
It’s an interesting theory. But I honestly think the more likely explanation is that Kubrick intentionally put continuity errors in the movie to emphasize that reality within the hotel is fuzzy. What one person sees isn’t always what another person sees. It subliminally adds to the supernatural feeling of the place.
Yeah... This guy is absolutely NOT making any sense... I could go point out something wrong with EVERYTHING he is saying, but I do know, that ever since Jay Weidner cracked the code on this movie, there has been a huge influx of misinformation to mislead people away from Weidner's work... because it was literally going viral (it was that compelling...) I can't believe the lunkheads in the comments... some people actually bought into this crap? Weidner, on the the other hand, he didn't figure out every single detail... but the big picture... he clearly, clearly nailed it... check it out for yourself (search Kubrick Jay Weidner documentaries)
But then you wouldn't see the consistency pointed out in the video between the lady's hallucinations and reality. If Kubrick just wanted to say reality is fuzzy here, he wouldn't have exactly 2 sets of appearances. The hall carpet wouldn't switch between 2 shots, there might be 3 or 4 appearances of it. There wouldn't be just Kool-Aid or no Kool-Aid alongside the Tang, there'd be Wyler's and whoever else paid for a placement, and they'd be all switched around instead of just the Kool-Aid or empty space. There'd be a wall switch plate with 1 switch, 2 switches, oriented vertically or side by side, or different styles of switch, rather than just the presence or absence of a single type. BTW, one shot on "Lost" used a wall light switch that was anachronistic, in a scene supposedly taking place in the 1950s with a style of switch not available until decades later, with the camera perseverating an extra second on the shot and in the middle of the frame -- to clue the audience that the scene did not happen, or at least did not happen in the 1950s, i.e. that a certain character's background story was phony.
@@goodmaro ahhh... just like the shill who wrote this you start off with a non existent, but think by repeatedly referring to it makes it real... there is nothing to indicate in any way, shape or form that she is insane, unless you re-interpret everything you see in the movie as if it is the opposite or doesn't exist... and then pretend that somehow things which aren't even in the movie should be there... that is utterly ridiculous, just on the face of it... try simple logic and start with what is actually in the movie, instead of insisting "it's all hallucinatory"...
@@sigma_six Can you give a better (or even plausible) interpretation of why such things as light switches would be there in some shots and not others, and it not be a matter of two different observers? And since you can't, how else could you possibly explain those differences other than as hallucination? There's no reason light switches would be installed and uninstalled between the views, so it could only be hallucination. And if one observer is hallucinating, who could that observer be? Would it make sense for any story-telling purpose for that hallucinating (or lying) observer to be someone other than a character? In many cases it could *only* be a character, there being nobody else there. Is there any better candidate, anyone whose hallucinatory observation would make for a better story than that it be her?
@@goodmaro don't fall into the trap, that because you don't understand something... therefore it has to be "A"... when it could be B, C, D, E, F, etc ad infinitum... the human mind likes to fill a vacuum... but that isn't logical analysis, and I haven't heard any plausible reason why, other than this guy's "interpretation" of Jack's "facial expression" ???? Really??? And from that extrapolate an entirely non existent storyline? Unlike a lot of these comments, I am not going to "pretend to know what I don't know..."... keep it simple, stupid... as they say, Every time there is an intentional continuity error of something being there vs not being there = hallucination... is super weak (to pathetic imo) and then to place all this on Wendy being a schizo (even though it doesn't fit into the storyline, either the original or Kubrick's version is pathetic (again)) Especially when you have a crazed lunatic like Jack, unmistakable, unequivocal, right in your face, repeatedly building up, which fits PERFECTLY into the story that is being told (duhhh...) To follow this guy's retarded logic would be to infer that the previous custodian didn't really exist? Jack didn't really experience his hallucination? that he didn't really talk the other custodian (in hallucination) or go to the ball (in hallucination) or talk to the bartender (in hallucination) and he didn't really kill Hollarand? even though all this was portrayed in unmistakable detail?... because the real secret is that Wendy is a schizo? Wow... give your head a shake!... the story is right in front of you... Start with what the story is saying at face value... i.e. The place was haunted... and Jack was taking over the duties of the previous custodian... and eventually anyone who stayed there long enough would be affected... why the only legitimate "hallucination" Wendy experienced is near the end, AFTER she was emotionally traumatized and driven to the edge by Jack, etc... At least start with what is obvious... Like I said go back to Weidner's Documentary... it doesn't have to involve suspending common sense or disbelief... Lol.. it goes straight to the punch... explains the big picture, has repeated independent confirmation, too many coincidences, they all line up, they are consistent, and support exactly the artificial NASA imagery the public was shown. In fact you have to study the making of 2001 and it's perfect coinciding with the NASA program... and why would the Military be so willing to help Kubrick make a crazy "science fiction" movie? the most expensive, with the most special effects in history up to that time? NO ONE would have taken the risk of spending 4 years and spending that much money... and the Military involvement which was in the original credits, btw, has since been removed... as witnessed by a very few people who watched the ORIGINAL MOVIE IN THE THEATRE... There is a HUGE amount of back story and context (Why you have to go to Weidner's work which is much more detailed and explanatory...) The NASA moon landing footage, which has been repeatedly debunked by film makers and professional photographers. Like Weidner said, "This has nothing to do with whether the astronauts went to the moon or not..." We weren't shown the original footage... the special effects used in Kubrick's 2001, which was cutting edge at the time, is clearly seen repeatedly in the NASA moon landing footage (unmistakable, once you look for it...) In fact the problem with the NASA moon landing footage is that it is too movie production perfect!... And it doesn't show people in 1/6 gravity... (but that requires basic high school physics to understand... so I won't go there...) And all this comes from people who study film and photography for a living... Here's one simple example for you... why did they have too much luggage than could fit into the Volkswagen? And this is only ONE possible interpretation (but it MAKES SENSE...) Think about what you saw on the moon... how could that little mickey mouse lunar lander have unloaded all that tech?... up to and including a full size moon rover? Go to Weidner's work... it makes infinitely more sense... because it unlocks the truth...
Just goes to show how brilliant this film is, we’re still analysing the crap out of it. They are all so good in their roles, we can’t leave it alone. Brilliant.
Imagine saying that you finally explained The Shining and your explanation boils down to "The film isn't really about an abusive husband; the woman was the real abuser!" with a straight face.
In an early version of the script, it actually was Wendy. More specifically, the ghosts drive both Jack and Wendy crazy, but its Wendy who murders Jack and Hallibron.
Shelley Duvall had a nervous breakdown while filming this movie because the director had pushed her so hard....it makes sense why when looking at the Wendy theory...it actually really fits.
@@victoire614 that makes no sense because Jack was pushed just as hard, especially in the axe scene. The goal was to make them both feel like they are actually going crazy irl so they can authentically play their roles.
Regarding the sticker of Snow White’s dwarf, “Dopey” on Danny’s door, that is there one moment and gone the next; notice that Dopey is wearing red shoes/socks and a red hat and Wendy is wearing red socks, a red dress and throughout wears red clothes. Red is the “accent” color in the Shining and conveys different meanings. Kubrick was an expert in art history and understood classical painting and how artists used colors to convey specific meanings.
Also Dopey is usually pictured in a purple cap and socks with a green coat, if that sticker isn't there, maybe she just remembered his color scheme being different that it actually is.
And what’s Jack say to Wendy when he’s locked in the cooler? “It’ll be like this never happened” ...because it never did! Also now her body language in the psychologist scene makes sense, she leans against the wall crossing her arms, not to comfort herself and observe, but actually a threatening posture to make sure Danny doesn’t say anything he isn’t supposed to. Love the Wendy Theory, I’m on board
I'm not convinced - all of the inconsistencies with scenery could equally be suggestions that Jacks mental state is deteriorating, or that the hotel itself is bending both Jack and Wendy's perceptions of reality. With regards to Halloran returning to the hotel - Jack called the park rangers via the radio to request assistance due to medical needs. The park rangers call the off duty manager of the, currently closed, hotel who then.... calls the chef? In Florida? I feel like you've started out with the presupposition that Wendy is a mentally unwell murderer, and hammered the theory out from there, but it doesn't quite fit
Colative learning and the documentary Room 234 hit on a lot of themes this theory ignores. This theory is well thought out and could be true, but I think theres layers of other themes this theory doesnt link to that the theories from those other sources fit better with. Theres heavy allusion to Native Americans and US history tied into this movie that dont jive with this interpretation.
@@johngialousis3041 definitely heavy on themes. But I really enjoy this theory and think it's mostly correct. Multiple themes are all still there, no doubt, but what's happening in the story I think really is Wendy's psychotic break. It connects so many things that could not be explained otherwise.
You act as if continuity errors are Stanley Kubrik’s #1 focus. He’s a perfectionist, but there are continuity errors in all of his movies, not just this one. His perfectionism related to the stuff that actually mattered, like if performances, lighting, shot composition, etc. were good, not if the light switch that was there 12 scenes ago is still there now
Thank you! I mean it's fun making this stuff up - but people online take it so seriously without even arguing for anything related to Kubrick or King or artistic integrity in general. It's more like mocking aritstic analysis rather than practising it.
@@peka__ precisely. People get so into theorycrafting that they forget why they’re doing it. It just becomes so scientific and wild theory-based when it should be about analyzing why it improves the art
Things this theory takes care of: Why does Wendy begin to see ghosts when there's been no implication previously that she has the ability to shine? Why are there not just background inconsistencies, but numerous spatial impossibilities? (because she's imagining the hotel and imagining it wrong) Why would Jack have been reading a copy of Playgirl Magazine openly in the lobby before his Overlook job interview? Why do the ghost versions of the Grady sisters and their father not match what Jack is told about them at the interview? (they are twins in the vision, but not in the telling, and Dad Grady's name changes from Charles to Delbert)
I always wondered about that playboy. Had just taken it as an indicator that Jack was always “not quite right” before he ever even showed up at The Overlook
I was not sure about this theory, until the Kool Aid mention. I recommend others watch the documentary "Stanley Kubrick's Boxes", which shows how meticulous and obsessive a character he was. Making "mistakes" or continuity errors from a person who turned London into Vietnam, and took up to 3 years researching a subject , had thousands of photos taken, and boxes upon boxes of that material, before ever rolling camera ---- does not readily make mistakes. Everyone does to a degree, but Stanley Kubrick turned obsessive compulsion into an art form. I don't think he would leave chairs out of a scene that is obviously lit exactly the same as a scene shot with those chairs. He's a guy who figured out how to light a scene by candlelight (see Barry Lyndon) . He's a guy who reversed everything in Stephen King's book, intentionally. Maybe so far as to make Wendy the one with the powers mentioned. He switches dialogue, he switches colours, he switches hot to cold etc. He makes a reversal of the book with intention. Maybe he made Wendy the one with "The Shining." But here, the shining is mental illness.
In Eyes Wide Shut he also does this. That is he includes intentional, obvious continuity "errors". So either he is being intentional or we can't call him meticulous. But he was. He was a creative genius.
I'd like to introduce the one theory that explains this video completely... I call it the Navarro Theory. In actuality, Rob 'Navarro' is the scriptwriter for the last season of Game of Thrones, because no one else could come up with as unfounded and torturous an interpretation of the plot. Literally any other interpretation would be better, making this a real Season 8 issue, demonstrating beyond any doubt this *must* be a rationalization for the screw up in the series. There, now we know. Don't read this comment if you ever want to look at this video the same...
As a functioning schizophrenic, I used to have hallucinations of having conversations with people in my head. The details of objects missing is a real effective way of signaling what is a hallucination in the movie.
By putting the viewer somewhat in the shoes of a schizophrenic (as much as a movie like can) it helps us sympathize with what it feels like to struggle with mental illness.
@@soccom8341576 If you ever watch behind the scenes, it makes sense now why the director was intentionally making Shelly Duval have a psychotic break (her hair was even falling out at one point due to the high stress he put on her)...because her role was the crazy one.
It's a unique and interesting theory. Here's another one: Kubric intentionally made minor continuity errors so the viewer'a sub-concious would notice them and give them that "somethings out of place" feeling compounding the eeriness of the story.
Same here! And Jack being a writer/teacher seems just as likely that he would own the books. It's certainly equivalent evidence as showing Wendy reading a book once and therefore being responsible for all the books.
They're also laid out strangely in the room, though. I haven't personally met any avid readers or book collectors that have books piled randomly throughout a room like that
Simple theory: The movie is just Jack’s new book. When the guy at the beginning tells Jack the story of the caretaker, Jack says, “That’s quite a story”.
YES!! THANK YOU!! My favorite example of this theory is the maze. It's not in the opening shot. That thing was huge!! We would have scene it. He created it for the story.
Most of the scenes line up with this. 3:30 He didn't witness anything, he's writing and imagining. And he has a scrapbook of articles about the hotel next to him.
Not to echo the same arguments my guy, but beyond the Mr. Fantastic-levels of stretching to get your point, the language here eerily seems similar to the one used by abusers to justify their behavior and gaslight their victims. And given what occurred in real life, on set towards Shelley Duvall, it’s a touch problematic, no?
@L Cotton People can talk how they wish and also it’s pretty annoying to see someone rag on another person for they way they talk. Anyhow I wanted to say that you should check out “Eyebrow Cinema”. Eyebrow Cinema has a counter theory to this theory that explains it quite well
I'm not sure what the point of this video is exactly, but the reason King didn't like it was because the focus was more on Jack Nicholson's character instead of the hotel. If you read the book, the hotel is the main focus. Jack Nicholson is so extraordinary in his performance, he stole the show!!!!
@@ashrimpcalledhank There was another version made for TV that King liked better. Kubrick was strong willed and probably had his own ides, but come on. It's Jack Nicholson! No way to dial down that performance. King's movies never translate well to the screen, in my opinion, any way. His books have so much detail and essence that just can't be in any other form than as they are.
I liked the movie narrative much better it was creepier to me because it was somewhat more realistic. I mean in the book the hotel eats itself and disappears at the end
@@anonymousperson6119 In the book, the hotel boiler blows up because they forgot to check on it. The hotel burns to the ground. Your getting confused with the house in “Poltergeist”.
I think the "do you know that your son is trying to bring an outsider into this?" indicates the mother WAS harming the boy and the boy tried to tell on her. Look at the look Danny gives his mother when he comes in with his neck hurt as she's like " What happened to you?!" when he takes his thumb out of his mouth he glares at her accusingly. She guiltily looks away and then immediately accuses Jack, grabs Danny & runs out before he can say anything.
Yeah I agree with you on that -- that he gave her a look like "who the fuck do you think?" But it could also just be the kid's best attempt to follow directions to act like he's frightened into silence.
Not saying SK specifically wrote Dr. Sleep, to rebut this movie, but it’s a bit of a known quantity that Stephen King did not like this film adaptation of his book I mean fundamentally you have Stephen King writing in his medium, and Kubrick directing in his. Wouldn’t be the first time the two creative artists clashed on some thing even if involuntarily. Essentially Kubrick says, “no Wendy was just quite crazy“, and Stephen King says, “no it was all supernatural
@@darkzak47 Okay, then let's take into account the film that was made based on Dr. Sleep. The same line was spoken by Danny. In the film that was made to be a sequel to both the book and the Kubrick film. Aka, regardless of how you stack it, the Wendy Theory falls on its ass the moment you remember the story of Dr. Sleep exists in both written and visual media.
@@Metalalbumreviewers these both came after. That's like saying emperor palpatine never died because they ret-conned him back in in the most recent sequels.
This theory would explain Shelley Duvall‘s “bad acting as many called it back in the day” it wasn’t bad acting, she was playing a role of an unstable character from the beginning... it makes sense now
This was always my biggest problem with this film, I could buy everything else happening but her acting drove me insane. I was always going crazy, like, WHAT IS WRONG WITH HER? and omg that was it, that was the whole point, what WAS wrong with her?! Frickin brilliant. I see this movie so differently now.
@@jwaxmcgeeg9706 Kubrick basically made it hard on her to incite difficult acting. He was intentionally being an asshole to disorient her like a real victim of the circumstances would be.
You can extrapolate this theory to posit that Jack doesn’t really exist. Thus the photo at the end. Jack is Wendy’s imaginary scapegoat for her psychosis. She saw the photo and invented him. That explains the focus on Danny’s imaginary friend at the beginning. Wendy is actually the writer/caretaker. She is the one who goes nuts and hurts Danny and murders Hallorran but in her mind it’s Jack and not her.
@Steve Gracy or she been to the hotel before. And just made up that she was married. Probably because she had a one night stand and gave birth to Danny. Then to justified to the world she is not a slut and crazy person, she lured the doctor in and kill him.
I started the video a compete skeptic, but this actually makes a lot of sense! Especially with how meticulous Kubrick is, it doesn't make sense for him to move the set around so often with no reason behind it. I love the idea of her being an unreliable narrator of her own hallucinations.
I mean, the overlook hotel itself is literally supposed to be a living thing so I don't see how this wouldn't just be a reference or subliminal effect to that.
It's a fun theory but I don't buy it. It needs to be contrasted with other interpretations and the author must cover it's greatest weak spots; the true meaning of the differences, occam's razor, and the inherent problem with illusion theories like the Pokémon coma theory.
I like the premise... but if that was the case, then wouldn't the characters in the movie notice the changes? The changes are only visible to the viewer... so that indicates something else... and does work with the hallucination theory.
@@sunsetcaptiva8573 the hotel can still be sentient. its just that its targeting Wendy. The least stable of the three, and the only female since Grady's victims were female.
@@billbommarito Maybe... but she never states or mentions or notices the continuity issues...if it was targeting her, then she would let the viewers know wouldn't she? No one in the movie notices the continuity issues.... they are there for the viewer only, no one in the movie mentions these issues, to them the issues are not there...
It does make the movie creepier. And it does make sense of a lot of the scenes that didn't really make sense. But this was Kubricks idea of horror, almost a Hitchcock psychological horror.
It makes more sense if you suffer a traumatic brain injury before seeing The Shining. I don't know what Kubrick ever did to be so disrespected by youtubers 40 years later. If Kubrick went the "Wendy's the Psycho" route, it wouldn't have been so poorly done that no one understood his movie for 40 years and filled with more plot holes than the bible.
Something I just noticed about the final picture: Jack is trying to wave to the camera, but the man behind him has grabbed his arm. No one else is trying to wave to the camera.
Interesting. Maybe he is trying to escape from the photograph, and that other person is trying to stop him. Jack is trapped in hell. Another theory is that he is the representation of Baphomet ,an occult figure symbolic of evil. Jack seems to be the host of this evil 'Ball" his arms being in the exact positions that Baphomet has his arms.
When you gave the three options on Wendy’s behaviour in that first scene, I definitely think (if your theory is correct) she walked up to him, had the entire thing in her head (maybe she seemed like she stared at him for a moment) before just saying “okay” - when you isolate the “okay” it sounds like a question. The way she walked off before getting an answer - and after her initial hesitation (her hallucination) - might be why he gives her that look, but doesn’t seem overly concerned. She was “just” seeing if he was okay... but then didn’t wait for him to respond... One thing that should be obvious at least to viewers today, is the fake nature of the blood in the elevator. But you showed that part right after talking about the hallucinations about koolaid. And it looks like her choice is cherry koolaid. The colour and viscosity of the blood pouring out of the elevator is that of cherry koolaid. Blood doesn’t move like water, and the fluid definitely moves like water; it’s not paint either as paint would flow slower too. It’s water. And it’s cherry koolaid colour (cherry happened to be my favourite too and it’s darker than blood). I just thought that was interesting. When you got to the room and the “woman” strangling Danny, and Wendy panicking and all that, that’s when I kinda got a chill and was sold on the theory. The way she said it, hallucinating mom harming her kid is a lot more realistic than a poltergeist coming back from the dead to torture a kid. ... and what purpose would the ghosts have for targeting a child, when the ghosts are supposed to be victims too? When Danny has his neck hurt, he isn’t acting like a child facing their protective worried mother. He’s reacting to his abuser/the person that did it to him.
@@angelahulsey9172 I don't mean to be rude here, but how can you not know that the book and the film are completely different...you've obviously read the book and seen the movie. The book merely served as inspiration for arguably one of the best movies ever made. And it keeps on giving...this Wendy theory took almost 50 years to come about. Why do people always have to inject baseless comments on TH-cam and try to bring everyone down 😆
You've solved one of the greatest pop culture riddles, and you deliver this through a robot voice? Stop sabotaging your own success. Otherwise, incredible content.
@@VelvetRolo if you only knew the depths of Kubricks OCD about location scouting, storyboarding, lighting, sets, cinematography, editing, and how he twisted the original source material; you would not have made such an ignorant reply. Or perhaps you can explain what his reasoning was behind making so many errors that would have made him bloody INSANE if only accidental & discovered in post-production?! I always thought Wendy was weird as a kid... I wish I saw it more but even my more recent suspicions of her character have only grown knowing what illnesses she seemed to be exhibiting if I had to guess from an Abnormal Psychological point of view.... & Jack's sad,confused,concerned face nearly every time at some point before he freaks out (like he never actually did). Explain it buster! Your lack of any further explanation is what is truly "absurd".
@@VelvetRolo oh and btw Kubrick was obsessed with Psychoanalysis and Jung in particular. This makes so much sense... damn I wish I liked this movie more before because I guessed MR ROBOT was fight clubbing by episode 3 or 4. Everyone said I was crazy. No... The Eliot character played by the- ACTOR-WHO-MACULAY-CULKIN-TWEETED about -EATing-BABEIES-TO-JOIN-HOLLYWOOD- PD0FYLE-CULTS WAS IN FACT THE CRAZY ONE! 🤪hahaha
@@jason.larsenthedanishgreek1226 Dude, I was mostly joking about the synth voice in a casual way... And it is a reasonable and fun theory to consider, but it has flaws. Hallucinations don't work like that, in cases where Wendy is allegedly hallucinating huge scenes where she's not present. Hallucinations are non-existent audio or visual SENSES, that the person hallucinating is experiencing, like hearing voices in your head or seeing things that aren't there. NOT imagining a whole dialog that is occurring in a different room, where they're not even present. For example, when she is allegedly hallucinating the entire conversation Jack is having with Lloyd in the Gold Room. First off, she doesn't even know he's there (But DOES go and seek him out there, so he WAS there... it wasn't all a "hallucination"). And yet, she "hallucinates" this whole detailed conversation, without even being in that room. Hallucinations don't work like that. And there are constantly things where Navaroo is really stretching things to fit his theory. For example, why should the cross fade to Wendy in the boiler room indicate that she's there in room 237? That's silly reasoning to me. He characterises Jack's look as a puzzled look, as Wendy walks away after disturbing his typing... But I honestly do NOT see puzzlement. Not at all. It's totally neutral. Even simple things, like why Danny is squished up toward the front in the car, because maybe all their luggage is in his way... Um.. LOOK, there's nothing behind him. He's up close to his parents, because he's talking to them. That's all. So, that's a mistake on Kubrick's part, to have all that luggage sitting in the lobby, when it obviously wouldn't have fit in the VW bug. Another mistake: Why isn't the hedge maze shown in the over head shots of the hotel? It's missing. Is this another hallucination of Wendy's then? There's no reason for her to be hallucinating there. Honestly, what it shows to me, is nobody is perfect, including Kubrick, and that was simply a stupid mistake. No hedge maze shown. I could go on and on, but I'm sorry. I'm not convinced.
While Jack is trapped in the storage unit he is sleeping on bags of salt. Fun fact, the snow in the movie is actually salt. Another clue that Jack is actually outside and not in the storage unit
This is just flat out false. He even went as far as to say what attracted him in the original script was how the supernatural could be entirely explained by the psychological.
I like this theory because the only thing scarier than someone outwardly going crazy like Jack is someone subtly going crazy like Wendy in this theory. And Jack's insane facial expressions and behaviors make sense through Wendy's skewed perception and in the desperation he would feel in the situation that he was being blamed for what his wife did/ imagined.
The only thing scarier is if this was a parallel to the actual world we live in where men can get away with anything, even murder and abuse, and women are accused of hysteria. Wait...hold on a second...
…and there is the issue of certain areas of the globe at certain times fostering schizophrenic environments, for instance towns in Ireland …and urban immigrant areas in the states …and Kubrick was a Jewish director who was allegedly examining the cultural experience of Jewish parenting in some socio economic situations…ie dad working long white collar hours…weak-minded or alternately precious or college educated wives without parenting interests or experience going stir crazy (as some socio economic strata of Jewish women were some of the first to have college educations in the states without a lot of professional outlet opportunities because being a wife and mother was expected)
@@searchindex3438 Where did you learn about Kubrick allegedly researching parenting of Jewish couples etc etc? Was he doing so at the time he made this movie? Did he mean for the Torrances to be regarded as Jewish?
@@ronmackinnon9374 I appreciate that I do wish things would’ve been different for my mother because I know none of it was pleasant for her however it’s hard for me to regret as I learned a lot from the experience that I use every day and I think it’s helping a good person and empathetic
How can there even be THAT many continuity errors in a movie, they’re just screwing and unscrewing light switches on walls and switching out lampshades for different ones constantly? Way too many
You cracked the code. I did a re-watch last night and you hit every single uneasy feeling I have ever had about this movie. Everything shot is so perfectly shot consistently, the "continuity errors" become a trail of breadcrumbs. (Wendy in the kitchen)
It's a way of gaslighting, making the victim(in this case, the viewers) doubt their own mind. The use of an actual abuse technique to create a sense of insecurity makes the movie superb
It wouldn't have been that difficult. They would have had two sets, one being the real Stanley Hotel, which is the reality scenes, and a mock-up set with things missing for the hallucinations
Jack and Wendy are an odd couple... there is no intimacy seen in the movie, no hugs, no kisses, not even smiles between them... something's wrong with these two...
i would have liked it better if wendy was replaced with the blonde wendy in king's novel, i think there would be more spice and intimacy between jack (who to me is the perfect jack torrance) & a actress who would be blonde for wendy, hell id love the play the part of wendy, but i wouldnt be upsetting like shelly duvall @bryan aristigueta
When Wendy interrupts him, they kiss right after he yanks the paper out of the typewriter. On Closing Day, Jack calls her "Babe" in the presence of Ullman in the Gold Room. It ain't much, but there's a little bit there that you seem to have missed. And, Jack DOES refer to her as "the sperm bank upstairs" when he talks to Lloyd . . .
Not to be nit picky but he holds her close when they leave danny to eat his ice cream, it’s not much but he it was something. It was technically some public PDA even.
Lots of people trying to debunk this theory with the “Doctor Sleep argument”, but this is the Kubrick movie we are talking about. There are massive differences with the books. Besides, all the camera angles, changes in furniture, and props were director’s choices that had nothing to do with King’s story. This theory, with the schizophrenia component, makes everything scarier than just a haunted hotel. I love the books, but making the story of the Torrances attached to the reality of mental health issues, is actually more chilling and heart breaking. Great video.
The casting of this film was perfect - Duvall has a rather fragile appearance with Nicholson conveying the epitome of menace. What a brilliant interpretation by Kubrick to camoflauge the players with the subtleties of furniture.
I have a theory called 'The Stephen Theory' that states that The Shining never really happened and it was actually the imagination of an author named Stephen King, who wrote it in the form of a novel.
😐 👍 mmmyeah alright. That was ratarded
I think you're on to something
@@Jakey9351 and you misspelled retarded.
It seems that people are forgetting that The Shining is a work of fiction and never really happened. For people to say "It never happened that way. It happened the way that I experienced it, without taking into account that, even though evidence has been provided, it could never be interpreted any other way than the way I interpreted it" is just low-level mentality.
Cute
Maybe all these changes are meant to make the viewer feel like they're crazy. Subtle changes like that can make a person feel paranoid, and increase the sense of horror throughout the movie.
Both, you experience her hallucinations from the changing sets that your subconscious picks up but not you at the time. Your hallucinating with her which makes you as guilty and as confused as her. Scary stuff when you always hear about subliminall messages and brainwashing.
I think this is more likely true
I agree
Gaslighting in film!!!
@@eeveelynnashes what does that mean?
The look Jack gives Wendy is the look of Homicidal Ideations about wanting to kill her. The movie does a great job at explaining Jack's slow slip into madness.
I love how movie nerds are still fighting over their interpretations of this movie when really it’s just a reflection of their own thinking. This isn’t a real situation. It is representing one and the viewer gets to make up their own mind about what it means. The fact that the creator of this video slips into victim blaming and misogyny speaks more about him than the meaning of the movie.
@@ciom9065 The story was still written by a Human Being with introspectives of himself. Misogyny is an afterthought when it comes to a Homicidal Maniac that decided to kill more than his Wife..
If you think that Kubrick was a genius in all his other works, but a complete idiot in this one, Idk what to tell you. Almost every time Wendy is involved, either there's stuff missing in the background, or the Tony talks through the kid. I'm not saying this is the only narrative of the movie. It wouldn't even work without the "official" one. There are also all these hints about native americans, Nazi Germany, the moon landing etc. That's what Kubrick does. So why should this theory be disregarded, despite all these points?
@@OneCash You obviously haven't seen any other Kubrik movies. Props go missing randomly in several movies, a woman grabs a plate with one hand than it's suddenly in the other without her switching them in the next shot, a man goes for a punch with his left hand but hits him with his right, etc. The Wendy Theory is inconsistent and kinda dumb.
@@ciom9065 Don´t look now, but YOU are fighting over your interpretation of this movie. Nerd...
“too much snow for one night” my guy… that’s a normal amount of snow, arguably too *little* snow for one night.
How do we know, that the red liquid pouring out of the elevators, isn’t Kool-Aid???🤷♂️
🤣🤣🤣🤣
LoOOOoL best comment on here
Mind blown
Ohhhhh yeahhhh.
Omg you’re right
I hate to be a killjoy, but aren’t all 3 of them seeing things because the hotel is mega-haunted? That explains how things appear and disappear, and is the main focus of the book. Like, the light switches appear and disappear because they are ghostly echos of what the hotel used to look like, and the same with the golden rooms, relaid carpets, lamps, chairs, etc., etc..
yes, basically. this is the dumbest theory
Yeah, but apparently this person doesn’t like supernatural reasons behind what’s going on. Which is stupid, because this is fictional. You can write as many mystical things as you want. I mean Stephen King wrote IT which is a supernatural entity.
That's one theory. But like this one, its not actually established in the movie. But its fun to theorize.
Can't compare the book and Kubrick's movie unfortunately, which makes all this alot harder
Agreed but I still love watching stuff like this.
I remember watching this when I was young and I always thought why doesn't he hug his mom when he's scared or hold on to her when running from something. He doesn't trust her. He doesn't smile at her, it seems like he walks on eggshells. This is something I noticed at like 12 years old.
Good pick up!
Very interesting perspective! Thx for sharing
Very true . I noticed this as well as a young kid watching, however it is unfortunately a common thing with kids that are abused to take most of their anger and feelings of mistrust and direct it towards the non-abusive parent because they are not protecting the child from the abuse and that parent , in many cases ,is being abused as well. When the child recognizes that the parent that could help or "save" them is also powerless it must just be a devastating realization for the child. How awfully tragic knowing that they cannot trust anyone and truly are alone. This sense of dread is captured quite brilliantly in this film.
Shanna , now you mention it …
he did climb into his dad’s lap when he tiptoed into the bedroom to get his toy . He told his DAD , he loved him .
I remember thinking what a stupid flaky idiot she was. I heard Stanley hated her and was ruthless torturing her on set. More insanity? Maybe this was a secret middle finger to her and Kings "ghost" story.
Folks....the Overlook is the antagonist. It's like a vampire. It consumes power. Danny was powerful so it wanted Danny. Jack was weak and Wendy was strong so it manipulated him to do its bidding. That's why things change in the Overlook because of the will of the hotel itself. It creates the reality it wants. It puts Jack in the picture it wants him in at the end. That's why the boiler wasn't a plot point in the original movie because the hotel wouldn't have an issue like that as IT is in control.
The boiler was always a plot point
@@maapauu4282 when?
@@americansuperdad5769 In the original, the boiler is what killed Jack
@@maapauu4282 nope. Watch the movie again.
@@americansuperdad5769 Not the movie. By the original I'm referring to the novel.
People will be talking about this film for 50 more years. It's brilliant.
Dont forget the author...the true genius is stephen king
@@methanmohan966 as long as books and/or cocaine exist, people will talk about him
@@methanmohan966 The book is a booze and cocaine fueled mess. The movie is just the opposite. The brilliance in the movie is all Kubrick.
@@methanmohan966 Stephen King my ass. Overrated author who ripped off true genius writers. Kubrick took his below par material and gave it his own turn. The rest is history.
I love how Kubrick did all this crazy stuff, and then was like “imma just put this right here and walk away.” No explanations or clarifications. Leaving generations to discuss and dispute various theories. Hahahahaha
Fun Fact: Stanley Kubrick’s “perfectionism” is actually misunderstood. He makes continuity errors in tons of different movies, including Clockwork Orange and Doctor Strangelove. Yet neither of those involve ghosts, because they are just continuity errors. Kubrick was a perfectionist for shots and lighting, not little details like if a chair is there or not. Plus, there was a fire that burned down all the sets, which lead them to having to rebuild all the sets. That’s why things like Light-switches appear out of nowhere, because it isn’t the same set as before. These small little things weren’t intended, they were simply errors that occurred due to multiple shots being filmed at different times on different sets
Another thing is the evidence that Jack had too much snow in him. The film never says how much time he’s out there, so we don’t know if he’s been out there for one night or thirty. It’s a baseless assumption that makes the theory look better
Yeah, i think You right, and people think that Kubrick Is some kind of "puppet master" and Make movies that regular people don't have a chance understanding, that Is bullshit, yeah, his movies are very Good but far From some kind of complete mistery!!!
The only reason why i think the hiccups are intentional is because of the light fixtures in certain shots. The rest can be explained as natural mistakes/ changes in the on set throughout the day. The switches rather had to be installed or physically removed during the production. Continuity mistakes are made easily not with effort, unless its intentional.
I think the movie is showing the hotel is not what it appears to be and would personally side with the ghosts idea. With that said, any time a characters sanity is called into question and the thread left dangling, every other character is put under scrutiny.
@@notaraven the light switches were changed because all the sets burned down and had to be remade from scratch. Little details like a light switch were easily forgotten
@@Nerdtendo6366 the filming started around may of 1978 and the fire occured in February of 1979. Depending on the reports the filming could have finished some time in march. Kubrick was quoted after the fire that he just needed to shoot 3 close up wendy scenes to fully finish and Jack Nicholson had already gone home.
It really depends on which scene was shot when but I don't think the fire can be blamed for the light fixtures.
@@notaraventhe thing is, Kubric made lots of similar mistakes in tons of movies. For example, in Dr. Strangelove has a scene where someone is hiding behind a chair and in the next shot it’s gone. Continuity errors are a very average and common part of film making. Plus, Kubric saying he only has a few shots left to do doesn’t mean he didn’t do retakes after because he didn’t like how the scenes turned out after filming. There is also a really great video that goes in depth in why this theory is bad by Eyebrow Cinema
If you take all the theories and just believe them independently at different times you have several different great movies to watch.
That’s an amazing way to look at the movie.
The movie feels like 10 horror movies put together, I think every actor is playing a character with a facade too so every performance is like 2 or 3 performances, usually with the most surface level performance being cheesy acting that you could imagine the characters coming up with. The music takes you far into another world too and the expert camera work makes you more likely to sit in it and get hypnotized, so it can make even the average bozo have a transcendental experience if they focus a little.
Brilliant lmao
Having watched about a dozen of these shining analysis videos, I have yet to find one that doesn’t make “The Shining” more retarded.
@@fredrik8500 lmao
I’d like to introduce everyone to ‘The Danny Theory’, which proves that the events of the shining after the opening car ride all took place inside Danny’s mind, because what actually happened was that the whole family died in a car wreck on the drive
I mean it's obvious. Danny's iconic mode of transportation in the hotel also has wheels. How anyone can think anything else is insane.
My theory is the Ullman theory and that is the most plausible theory seeing as it involves no abuse nor supernatural.
What happens is after Jack leaves, he just imagines the rest of the movie.
Are these jokes obs these shitty basic theories didn’t happen but perhaps that’s the joke, lol I don’t know but if that’s generally what you believe common that’s like saying it’s all in a dream like yeah you could say that to anything it’s just a worthless ending.
@@yayfly7349 The Wendy Theory implies the exact same thing in that half of it was just made up by Wendy. Is fucking dumb.
this makes more sense thank you so much for your comment it was so well said ❤
Maybe Jack doesn’t exist ! All is in Wendy's head. Jack only exists in 1921(final image). It's Wendy who has the job and takes care of the boiler, she wears the shirt that Jack had on the interview .... She's both sides of the mirror !
LMFAO 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
Not impossible tho, could be it
Very good theory!
Very interesting
@@shggy1 have you ever seen fight club? Pretty sure you see split personalities living together in the same scenes multiple times throughout the movie.
Omg! Honestly that is interesting 😯🤣
Jesus Christ dude, I was not expecting to hear such a convincing fan theory when I clicked on this.
Same. Usually when I see these fan theory videos they have more plot holes than a poorly thought out movie. But this one is actually really interesting and really well thought out.
@@kaitlyne1870 there are some gaping plot holes with this theory.
I am going to actually watch this now , thanks lol
I been reading and watching videos on this for years.. just mindblown. Kubrick is soooooo damn clever. It's just not fair we can't get him on a reddit ama. He literally knew millions of us for blinking decades would keep assuming wendy to be the victim. Even the mixed path of danny the tricycle that didn't mirror the hallway map.. it was just in her head!!!
Lol are you serious? Every single theory about this movie has at least a couple holes in it but this one is sooo full of holes it’s ridiculous. Have you seen any of the other theories about this movie? They’re all really interesting and I think this one definitely interesting but it’s far more full of holes than the others
... Oddly this is making more sense when you also place into the factor that Kubrick literally tormented Duval on set and made her cry repeatedly during filming and she had mental breakdowns.
I was thinking the same thing, too.
Almost sounds like forced method acting.
She acted like a diva half the time, give me a break. 🙄
@@rhaenyralikesyoutube6289 "Are you out of your fucking mind"
She was acting like a diva and was not professional
The continuity errors were on purpose to make the hotel feel dreamlike. Also, seriously? You think that’s too much snow for one night? They’re in the mountains, do you not have snow where you live or something😭😭
The snow is the only semi-dumb point. The other stuff has substance and great theory
@@dominikz.1376i feel the worse thing is that all points are NOT FROM THE BOOK meaning it’s not canon all parts not in the books are fan fics
This makes the Shining more frightening. The prospect that one can be a homicidal maniac and not know it, and the mind can manufacture justification for murderous behavior. Much more chilling than ghosts and haunting.
Then why wasn't there any foreshadowing? You can't just use hallucinations as a crutch.
@@alangrosenheider9654 Foreshadowing of Jack's behavior, not Wendy's. Most women in abusive relationships behave like this. There's no discussion about Jack's behavior, there's just a "it's just one of those things" remarks, minimizing the severity of Danny's injuries. And cartoons on the wall? If you meant the motifs, bear in mind the source material has supernatural implications woven into the story. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for Danny to have psychic abilities, in the first place. I can't believe people keep forgetting about that. Jack didn't call Mr. Halloran, Danny called for help with his abilities.
@@alangrosenheider9654 Have you watched the Room 237 documentary? If so, this theory is as off the wall and stupid as they come. He's connecting dots out of random noise.
@@alangrosenheider9654 "The film is not faithful telling of the source material--intentionally so."
It doesn't have to be. Both renditions of Pet Sematary aren't 100% faithful to the source material. Creative liberties can be taken and to act like the integrity of the storytelling is the be-all-end-all of how good the film adaptation will be is just ludicrous.
"Yes, the cartoons on the wall appear and disappear in their apartment at the beginning of the movie. Her hallucinations are foreshadowed from the beginning of the film."
I've seen the film numerous times and haven't seen any cartoons on any walls. I think you might be seeing things.
@@alangrosenheider9654 That's quite a stretch. And it wasn't on the wall, you idiot. It was on the door. And that could mean anything. Did you notice that it was there when Danny was talking with his imaginary friend? It could be a representation of his older self being present trying to warn him about the Overlook Hotel.
OK. But when you think Colorado can’t dump two feet of snow in an hour you are the one hallucinating.
yeah seems like hes twisting the facts to fit his narrative....
@@Luitente Just like Kubrick.
@@samsung4360 yea but hes the director so he's telling the story? So he can do whatever he wants with the narrative? There are no facts he can twist? Wtf??
@@Luitente . Fred , Kubrick literally butchered King( the original author) story and made one of him. Let's remember what Mr Robot voice pointed out said of all the easter eggs and delusions the setting made by Kubrick was so twisted it created too many interpretations.
Man , idk . Everything works and everything fails with this movie. My advice : accept every theory without doubting anything , it will make a very interesting watch afterwards.
@@samsung4360 what?? Ofcourse stephen king is the author of the novel? And if someone wants to use that story or parts of it for his own movie, hes free to do so?? The director can do whatever he wants with the story, since its his movie
Wendy hallucinated me watching this.
Wendy hallucinated me hallucinating Wendy hallucinating you watching this.
I am Jack's hallucination of an hallucination in a skiing motel with a fight club in the 1920s
Yaaaaaass!!!
This comment scared me.
Lmao
Rest in peace Shelly. She was such an underrated actress.
I thought this was an interesting idea at first and it made some sense but when i gets to room 237 and the following scene where she blames Jack is where I think you're on to something here. The key is in the door so we know someone opened it. Danny is there alone but he calls for his mother and walks to the room where he knows she is. Danny is assaulted by someone.
Next scene we have Wendy talking to Jack and here comes Danny. Danny is going to where he knows his dad is. If his dad just attacked then why is he going to see his dad? Then Wendy never lets him speak and asks who did this to you. Danny just stares at his mother. He never looks at Jack nor does he embrace her. Even after she picks him up he never puts his arms around her. You would think that he would be comforted by her if she was protecting him from his dad but he doesn't look that way at all. He looks afraid of her.
Great point. It is the dislocated arm incident all over again. When Danny waves the knife around at Wendy's bedside (notice Wendy is wearing the blue robe Jack was supposedly wearing before) he is saying Red Rum, Red Rum! He writes it in her lipstick, not blood. It is a deliberatly sensual rather than a gory choice. He is calling her out. I think the "Murder" being called out is of Danny's innocence, his childhood. This is what "Tony" means when he says on Danny's behalf that Danny can't wake up.
Man, the whole thing is a hallucination of Stan Kubrick based on a hallucination of Stephen King.
* Read in Rob Ager voice.
Throughout the film, Danny is depicted with a bowl haircut. This style of haircut was of course made iconic by Moe Howard of Three Stooges fame who was famously the leader of the classic trio. This connection is of course indicative of the fact that Danny is forced to "take charge" during the films climax in order to save himself and his mother.
This parallels nicely with the fact that Danny is most frequently shown to wear sweaters
(which as we know are made of wool.) These motifs were clearly put in place to subconsciously suggest that Danny is a "lamb" for the slaughter, which makes even more sense when you consider that Jack Torrence is nearly always shown to be wearing shoes during his time on screen, much like the serial killer Ted Bundy. Who was well known for wearing shoes on a near daily basis.
Shoes of course are commonly made out of leather, which can also be made from slaughtered lambs. This ties nicely into the habits of Ed Gein (another serial killer) who famously made leather from the skin of his victims. These motifs are undeniable in light of the mounting evidence.
Visit my website for more.
@@kgpspyguy that actually made me laugh out loud 😛
Well is one extra layer too because of her hallucination, of S King's, of Kubrick's, and then on top of that your own interpretation.
I dreamt that you would say that.
@@VelvetRolo of course you did...
Hey TH-cam Algorithm - this video was uploaded on Nov 9, 2020. Why did we all get it in our recs today?
Possibly something to do with the number of videos produced each day?
One minute in and he’s saying Kubrick never allowed continuity errors. I bet this is going to be just GENIUS
Like they’ve never seen a Clockwork Orange!
The problem with this dismissal is the continuity errors are hints, not absolutes, and most here are clearly deliberate, as opposed to random.
I think the director liked to add and remove things to keep a subliminal tension to the film. The subconscious mind notices these kinds of things and it creates an unnerving effect to the psyche and the viewer doesn't know why.
This interpretation is a lot more plausible to me than the notion that a director tasked with making a movie based on a book secretly made a completely different movie that only people doing detailed shot-by-shot comparisons looking for inconsistencies would ever be able to pick up on.
Kubrick was a brilliant director, but he was notorious for doing dozens of retakes per scene, which is the primary source of continuity errors. Even with him editing the film personally, there’s no way he could have spliced together the best bits from multiple takes shot over multiple days and come up with a final version where they all match up perfectly. Discontinuities like Danny’s tricycle changing color could be intentional, but an actor’s hair going from neat to rumpled is far more likely the result of combining takes shot early vs. late in the day, or even on completely different days.
TL;DR: It’s a fun theory for a rewatch, but to assume it was the real story Kubrick intended to tell, you have to ignore a lot of the realities of the filmmaking process.
@@bluevervain8317 Another thing as well is that even within the world of the movie, the overlook hotel is supposed to be a living thing.
So having furniture move around and sets change between shots adds to that feeling, even if unintentional.
Yes. I thought of this too. It creates a sort of uncanny feeling.
@@bluevervain8317 I agree - that being said, Kubrick made it very clear that he was hardly following the book.
Also, some of those changes are expensive changes.
@@thaddeuskent8185 Oh definitely not disputing that he deviated from the source material quite a bit. I love the movie for its cinematography, but reading the book ruined it for me for a long time. It wasn’t until King made his miniseries adaptation that I was able to enjoy the movie for what it was again without being frustrated by what it wasn’t. (The miniseries has its flaws, but it also has _topiary monsters!_ lol)
I think the discrepancies in the film likely fall into one of three categories:
1. Deliberate changes made to unnerve the audience on a subconscious level. (e.g. Danny’s tricycle)
2. Minor discrepancies caused by multiple takes shot over time being cut up and edited back together. (e.g. Jack’s hair and the paper in the typewriter)
3. Differences between scenes shot on set vs. on location (this is the only reason I can think of for the shifting light fixtures, which seem like an impractical thing to move around compared to furniture, etc.)
Maybe this is why Kubrick drove Shelley Duvall to the verge of a nervous breakdown in the process of making this film.
This was my thought too
Shelly also suffered with real life mental illness. I wonder if Kubrick had knowledge of this and chose her for this reason.
That was my first thought!
I am sold.
He's always like that
When Wendy is comforting Danny he doesn’t hug her back. He just dangles there. Super creepy within this context.
because Danny is a 'distracted' kid to say the least... I think she was being incredibly compassionate given his 'condition'... This video is total troll distraction... from the guy who originally cracked the code... Jay Weidner... in fact his interpretation was so bang on... it was going viral... that's when a flood of misinformation (what this reminds me of) in order to throw off new viewers that were coming online to check it out... This is the most unbelievable garbage logic one could possibly imagine... watch Weidner's documentaries... and compare side by side... (there is no comparison... in all honesty... this is pathetic...)
its because they used a mannequin in that scene to not upset him about the true nature of the film
I saw this too. Danny's reaction to Jack is better than his reaction to Wendy.
IN the scene where his neck was bruised he is looking at Wendy as if to say, "WTF you psycho, YOU DID THIS!."
He's got his thumb in his mouth and he's staring off into space. He's clearly supposed to be catatonic after the trauma in room 237. He probably doesn't even realize she's there, or that she's picked him up.
Suspicious that there's no old comments in this video. Must have been tiring deleting all of them.
lmao
The way Wendy is standing behind the social worker while Danny tells his story, and the way he looks away before saying what happened.. definitely makes it seem like she was there to intimidate him.
Or maybe Stephen King nor Stanley Kubrick never even thought about this angle. But we are sure there are many there to tell them this is what their story really meant. Though Im sure that's not Stanley's concern right now, nor Stephen's for that matter.
Or she was making sure he said as he had been rehearsed to. To explain away Jacks abuse possibly....idk it could be argued either way both are open for much debate
That's odd, the blood usually gets off at the second floor.
This is indeed a disturbing universe
I can't remember where that is from.
@@frankphillips6001 the Simpsons. Both quotes are from the sane episode, but different sketches
Now THAT'S funny
One of my favorite Simpsons quotes!
About halfway through I thought about that scene where Jack is frozen in the maze and I was SHOOK. That shot has always bothered me, how would he get that frozen so quickly? This is the perfect explanation. It also explains how Jack got out of the storage room - he was never there.
I have often wondered how he could be frozen and locked in a warm storage room. The odds of that happening even in a haunted house in a movie. I have not watched the entire movie. Just bits and pieces but enough to notice the strange scenery changes. The way he is locked in a storage room. Then he is out but the door is not damaged.
If he had gotten out. It would have been an act of a caring father. Not the desperate rash thinking of a lunatic. Psychotic break downs are not the acts of sound judgment. The proof she is the one having the break down. Is her obvious hallucinations that she sees for herself. Blood flooding the hallway etc.
This video was written by Jack Torrens
people in the comments be saying that it has nothing to do with the book, well, probably bc the theory is about the movie and not the book, which are two different things
The movie is actually better than the book by a long shot.
@@jombiejuss I've never actually read the book but if the mini series endorsed by Stephen King was a more accurate retelling it probably isn't as great as the movie.
1810Jeff lol don’t me started
1810Jeff one thing people don’t want to think is that Stephen King is a bit more of a bumpkin type who doesn’t realize he didn’t write a haunted house book. Kubrick could probably more than tell that it was about a damaged family, losing their minds in a huge hotel in the snow. King was like “no no! Ghosts.” And of course the 1990’s miniseries was more like the book and totally laid an egg. King has a formula and sticks to eat to be more prolific but Devastating works like Pet Sematary, he didn’t like it. It’s the stuff of nightmares but breaks his formula at the end so it almost gets shelved. Not middle of the road enough, sadly.
@@jombiejuss The Shining is about the supernatural
one last thing, when Jack admits to hurting Danny the phrasing mirrors what Wendy said to the doctor. Even his exaggerated eye movements mirror her delivery.
Noticed that too. Was kind of wondering if Wendy didn't kill Halloran, projecting herself into a Jack persona. He'd never have expected it.
Found an early script, and it's really interesting.
Wendy fights off Jack, who eventually succumbs to mortal wounds. Halloran arrives, and becomes possessed by the hotel (described as, "an appalling figure of lunatic savagery"), hunting Danny. Wendy goes in search for Danny, and eventually confronts Halloran. This is where you have to wonder whether Kubrick didn't arrive to the Wendy theory through multiple iterations because it was already latent in this early draft:
"Wendy, armed with the knife, her eyes blazing, her hair flying wildly, her lungs nearly bursting, runs through the rooms and corridors of the hotel calling out for Danny. In her frenzied search for the child, she herself will come to resemble some maddened, demoniacal figure."
It concludes with the confrontation, Halloran having paused at Danny's psychic powers:
"At this instant, Wendy will rush howling out of a doorway, stabbing in a frenzy, with her long boning knife, so that the old lady in 'Psycho' will look like a pushover in comparison. There will be no question about how she is able to kill a homicidal maniac."
So two things are clear. One, early draft had Wendy going into a slow, steady descent into madness, almost reminiscent of Pyle in Full Metal Jacket. All of the violence and trauma and horror evokes in her a murderous rage.
Two, Kubrick's tweaks weren't just minor. These are significant departures early on from the book, as well as significant deviation from the finished product. He was already experimenting with the Wendy character, and in ways, she was the fulcrum on which the movie turned in this draft. According to the Wendy theory, this never changed; it only became more nuanced.
@@Derek-kj9mt any links?
@@diablojones Tried to link but either didn't post or was removed. You can find a copy at cinephiliabeyond. I'd Google that + Kubrick.
Oh, that is for certain - It didn’t even better mentioning. That’s exactly how she would imagine her hallucination of a storybook villain to act
The reality is this: Kubrik made films like this so that, we the audience, can interpret any way we see fit. I highly doubt he discussed, in details, the nuances/premise of the movie. Directors like him usually don't. Whether this theory is true or not, it's a very interesting and plausible perspective.
Very apt observation 👍🏾 I agree
"The fact they were left puzzled was exactly what Stanley Kubrick wanted." -Jan Harlan (screenwriter)
It is possible that you are correct, it wouldn't be the first time theory's surrounding odd movies gain their own momentum. The only thing is that Kubrick went to great lengths to make these set changes. Placement of objects large and small were deliberate, so it raises the question, why? It is well known that Stanly would edit his movies himself at home, he was meticulous.
I just have to ask: why is this theory better because it rejects the supernatural? The supernatural elements are integral to The Shining as a franchise. Rejecting anything supernatural seems like ignoring crucial details.
The director intentionally made it that way. He even said it outright. There's no clear right or wrong answer. The book is clear about it, but the movie is not the book.
@@bethanyh1637 what does that have to do with how people are insinuating supernatural = bad
@@ShinyPrimarina because the original comment is arguing the other way around, that it being supernatural in the book means it is true for the movie, when it's pretty clear it's made intentionally ambiguous
Wendy Theory rulz!
So ONLY accept Possible hallucinations and All Spiritual Chicanery, but IGNORE all Physical clues ?
Now, how does That work better, exactly, please do elaborate.
I always thought it was odd in the scene were she blames Jack for hurting Danny's neck how Danny reacts to Wendy. He looks not only traumatized, but when she picks him up, he goes cold...doesn't reciprocate comfort by giving a hug back, his arms are dangling at his side. If Jack hurt him like Wendy states, naturally Danny would've welcomed security from his mother. Instead he has a trauma response of freeze. This Wendy Theory, I love!!! Poor Danny...
I also thought the same.
Actually, Kubrick replaced Danny with a mannequin in the scene when Wendy picks him up.
@@jacobp2690 yes but she is talking about the scene when he(danny) was standing and wendy hugged him before picking up.
He looks mortified when she acts surprised and asks how he got his injury. It is a mixture of terror and "Are you SERIOUS?!!?".
That’s the biggest thing I noticed because when a child had an injury they want mom to comfort them. He obviously didn’t.
I've seen and read through a half-dozen well-reasoned and plausible alternative interpretations of this film, including everything Robert Ager has on the subject. I was resistant for the first 10 minutes of yours, but having completed the video, this alternative interpretation is my favorite so far. If we reject the surface story, then all the mysteries in the plot are covered neatly by this theory - unlike with other ones, where too much has to be inferred from the circumstances and/or it is difficult to suspend belief in the surface narrative. Your video was very well produced and entertaining; I'm looking forward to part 2 and anything else you may have planned for future content!
My only constructive criticism is to ditch the text-to-voice if you're interested in gaining a respectable following or income. Even if every other element of your content is perfect, robo-speak will still drive away viewers unfairly. I've seen many other great channels stuck in the weeds for not abandoning text-to-speech.
I feel like the voice gave it a scary ominous feel to the video
It wasn't the worst robo speech at least.that helped but ya
You are right about the voice. Doesn't really bother me, but yeah, I've seen a LOT of people really get nasty over it.
TH-cam won't allow you to continue to use a robo voice on a regular channel. Penguin storytime had an awesome Robo voice and TH-cam made him stop using it.
It turns out it was because he has a German accent. But what he didn't realize is that he has a very soothing pleasant voice.
The person making this video May likewise have a strong accent or not speak English well.
I also was resistant to the video but somehow it was compelling and kept me from switching away and in the end I think it's pretty solid. For me it was the light switches and the ceiling lights. I can understand normal movie continuity errors but those were clearly intentional.
@@macmcleod1188 I've never found German accents particularly soothing. Makes me kind of nervous. One more generation, maybe, and German accents won't have one dreaming of camps, but I have this visceral reaction, and I'm not even Jewish. I wonder if he did the robo voice because he had an accent, or specifically because he has a German accent and felt like people would reject him because of it.
This theory explains jacks faces. I always felt like his face doesn't match whats going on. Wendy is a totally different character in the book
Jack thinks he's the victim despite him being the aggressor. That's explains his facial expressions
Also explains after he sees that old lady on the bathtub and goes back to the room and tells wendy very calm that he saw no one. I assume it's all in her head. Crazy
In the book she is more self-confident and brave, imo
@@DreadPirarateAndersen there was another movie (made as a miniseries) on tv that followed the book much more closely. Including after the bruises on Dannys neck were shown, Danny tells his dad that Wendy did it.
@@Andrea1542 yes, Stephen Kings F.U. to Kubric, as he wrote the series screenplay and script (also Kubric gave a F.U. to King, with the yellow VW Bug being crashed in the opening sceene, where you follow the red Bug instead, because it was yellow in the book and the series(ever Notice that))... so i have seen the series, with the moving hedges, etc. but it´s been a couple of years since I saw it and last read "The Shining", so I can´t remember that exact conversation between Danny and Jack, that you are refering to?!
My memory is hazy but I'm pretty sure it's Jack that tries to kill his family with an axe for no reason not Wendy.
Don't you get it?? Wendy had a bad memory experience, causing an axe to magically appear and fly into Jack's hands. Then, since ALL WOMEN ARE EVIL, Wendy secretly caused Jack to chase her all over the hotel. See?? This theory is the simplest (-minded), therefore it is definitely correct!! Thanks, Jordan Peterson!!!
it' "here's johnny" not "here's Janie"
This is somehow even scarier than the way I used to see this movie lol
Notice how Danny just stares straight at her when she asked who hurt his neck. Like he was so scared and petrified he didn't know what to say, she strangled him and now she's showing comfort and he doesn't know how to process that. Man this theory is insane. Look at Jack's facial expression when he realized what had happened. She hurt Danny and is trying to pin it all on him and he is in complete disbelief. He's in complete shock that his wife has been this far gone.
exactly...i noticed that too. kubrick was very particular. he clearly asked Danny to act that way...
Kubrick seemed to put all these uncovered narratives in this movie, then to finally be discovered one by one. The Apollo sweater also speaks to the alleged fakes moon footage. Danny and Jack as Jay Weidner mapped out in Kubrick’s Odyssey, are 2 aspect of Kubrick himself. The ripped Apollo sweater also shows Kubrick was damaged over Apollo and had to keep his mouth shut. Think also when Jack says to Wendy, ‘I think he did it to himself.’... regarding the Apollo theory. There are sun references throughout the film too: the tennis ball, Going to the Sun Road the Torences traveled up to the hotel. Golden Ray products in the food storage pantry that Jack is locked in. There are so many coded things in this movie, it’s like a puzzle.
@@DavesArtRoom okay stop there. The only reason for the moon landing was to see who could build a rocket that can go the furthest. A rocket that can reach the moon has no problem reaching the other side of the planet. They were building ballistic rockets, the space program was invented to keep public trust "hey lets achieve great things by going to the moon," well that cost resources that America didn't have. They didn't fake the moon landing, they faked why it was important. It wasn't to discover life outside our solar system, it was all a byproduct, originally it was to see who could build the biggest nuke that can travel the fastest and furthest. It was all about building bombs and nothing more. Get your head out of your ass. That's why it was called the arms race.
@@Sioux-periorGaming 🤔 think it was the space race
@@rockabilly2912 yeah whatever you wanna call it, big rockets go boom on impact so it doesn't matter the reason. They lied so they could build bigger nukes and lied so they can get resources to build said nukes.
This is a brilliant and well thought out take. One of my older brothers has paranoid schizophrenia and he was fully convinced at one point that my parents, who fully adore him, were trying to kill him. He even made a police report where he claimed my parents were leaving little clues around the house that they were going to kill him. He ended up attacking my parents and it was quite scary. Long before he attacked my parents, he use to tell ppl how great his little sister (me) was and then when we were alone he would snap and attack me and I didn’t tell anyone in my family for a long time. Everyone thought I was so lucky to have him as an older brother. For a while, I was the only one who knew he was going crazy. When he started losing more control (schizophrenia progresses slowly over time) the rest of my family found out. I know this is all quite sad but thank goodness we’re all alive. So, personally, this theory really hits home. This is real life stuff - much scarier than monsters under your bed.
Thx for sharing this comment. How does this movie affect you ?
@@dennycote6339 I saw this movie when I was a kid, when my brother was my loving older brother who bought me toys. I wondered then why the little boy in the movie was so quiet. But after hearing this Wendy Theory, it made me reflect that I was also largely quiet about my brother slowly losing his mind and targeting me, the youngest of five in our household. Oddly, I don’t understand why I stayed quiet. I can guess as to why but I don’t actually know. Also, I think it’s crazy that Kubrick doesn’t show the scenes where the boy is attacked. So no one, not even the audience, bears witness to this child’s abuse. This boy is isolated by his abuser. I relate to that part, for sure. Also, if we look at it through the lens of this theory then I think this is a great example of how we really don’t understand mental illness because no one suspected Wendy might be the abuser; I didn’t either. So, it helps me better understand how no one suspected my charming older & loving brother was losing his mind and what he was really like with me during that period. A detective at our local police station, who was involved in my brother’s case (the one my brother originally filed against our parents), shared with my parents that he was shocked because he was classmates with my brother in high school and could not believe my brother had completely lost his marbles. My brother was a handsome champion athlete and good student in HS. We just don’t know how to judge who is the victim and who can fall victim to mental illness. It’s sad because my story is not unique. It’s all too common and hardly anyone gets the help they need when they need it. Gosh, it’s horrifying really.
Something else just occurred to me. I didn’t mention that we recently discovered my brother had been repeatedly sexually abused as a child by an older man close to our family. Like the boy in the movie, my brother also stayed silent about this abuse. My brother developed a stutter as a child that my other brothers teased him about. Perhaps the stutter came from the abuse My brother mostly got rid of his stutter as a teen and tried to live a normal life. I think his abuse as a child finally caught up to him as a young adult and triggered the development of paranoid schizophrenia. Schizophrenia usually develops later in adulthood and it develops insidiously throughout several years. So honestly, who knows for how long the boy in the movie had been abused esp since we see in the beginning that he seems to have developed a type of coping mechanism with his “odd” finger talking. Perhaps, the more Wendy lost her mind, the more she abused her son. It could have gone on for some time because children, it seems, can hide a lot; quite a lot.
Wow that had to have been so much to deal with as a child. I hope your brother is doing better now. 💕
Be careful, and stay strong.
So this movie was all a dream, and the only evidence to prove this is scenes that were never filmed, and don't exist in any form at all. And also Kubrick can apparently travel through time, which is the only way the Catcher in The Rye part can work.
Gotcha.
There is a difference between a dream and a hallucination but I can see how one can be confused.
Also Catcher in the Rye was published in the 50s and the shining in the 80s.
@@gullazero the murder over tcitr didn’t happen until after the movie came out, which is what this video is referencing- the murder, not the actual plot of the book.
@@gullazero Catcher in the Rye is about saving kids which is what she goes on to do with her son, the ties to crazy people murdering people wasn't until after the murder which happened months afterwards.
@@gullazero surely if you watched this video, you can understand why the Catcher in The Rye reference is irrelevant. It doesn't matter when the book was published, as the existence of the book isn't in question.
And dream or hallucinations, that also doesn't matter here as you can use all the same evidence in support of either theory. Or just pretend there's a scene at the end where someone wakes up, that actually requires less mental gymnastics and stretching than the Wendy theory.
@@davidpilger4136 Got it.
Id take it a step further on the maze thing. She DID put him in the storeroom, but him waking up and acting crazy was the hallucination. The maze isn't real, it isn't seen in aerial shot and it is constantly changing. She mentions something about the house feeling like a maze in the scene where she's being shown the storerooms. I think Jack just froze to death in the storeroom, following by this theory. The shot of him frozen to death is how Wendy is picturing his body.
They discuss the maze in the initial interview, so by the logic of the theory, the maze is real.
@@GetMeThere1 Right, and fair enough. I guess my point is that I think there are more layers to uncover in this theory. The continuity errors marking the start of hallucinations is a profound observation and works all well and good. But I think this theory forgot about the spatial inconsistencies of the Overlook, and how they too could denote something with this mental illness idea. If the interview was taking place in a room that by all means should not exist, then perhaps the interview itself isn't reliable. But, then again, one of either the storage room or freezer room shouldn't logically exist either, given their placement. I just feel like there's something hiding in plain sight in regards to this particular rabbit hole. I'm trying to piece together exactly what.
@@AAllen-br8it The "anchor" is that all scenes of the hotel during the initial interview were of reality -- he uses that for the entire basis of determining reality vs psychotic dreams of Wendy.
@@GetMeThere1 Yeah, I watched the video.
@@AAllen-br8it so it makes no difference whether he was left in the storage room or the maze, that is completely inconsequential
Each time watching The Shinning I always felt Wendy’s character was totally off & very strange. This theory actually explains a lot about her character and the acting. Perhaps Kubrick wanted to leave it to the audience whether it was a supernatural event and Jack lost his mind by ill intended ghostly influences or a completely explainable non paranormal event of Wendy descending into her own mental breakdown. Considering the way Kubrick’s peers often mention his attention to detail being very deliberate about every nuance and his personality it would stand to reason the Wendy theory is indeed very much plausible & for me makes the film make a whole lot more sense.
SAME!
Exactly! That is the one big thing that makes me think this theory might be right!
Wendy's character is a kind of a nervous wreck right from the start, and at the hotel her decent into an absolute mess is very quick. Duvall's acting is quite over the top - as Kubrick wanted it to be.
Maybe there is another reason for that than Kubrick just being a misogynist asshole.
@@Pippis78 well Shelly Duvall is a little off anyway. Hqve you seen her of late? Wow blew my mind how far crazy she has become. Look up her interview with Dr. Phil I think it was from last year, maybe even this year. She dont even look like her anymore. My thought is she was always a little "unright" probably why he wanted her for the role. Its actually kinda sad.
@@MaryP74 Don't know if she had any mental health issues when she was young. But yes, she always had that frail look to her.
Kubrick's abuse - let's call it what it was - may well have contributed to her getting unstable and later seriously ill.
It is very sad what has happened to her. But really - it can happen to any of us.
Yesssss!!!!!!
Some people don't get that this video is not about the book written by Stephen King. It is about how Kubrick rewrote the story.
So Kubrick rewrote it as Wendy having schizophrenia and there was no paranormal activity yet to the audience it appears that this is King's original story plot with a few changes. And he completely went over the heads of the studio which would not have him to make such a drastic change. Brilliant.
Remember Kubric directed Dr. Stangelove which was supposed to be a serious film of the 1958 book Red Alert about a general who sent bomb3ewrs to attack the Soviets. But the same studio realized they had Fail safe with a similar plot in production at the same time. So Kubrick rewrote it as a comedy.
Kubrick was a brilliant director and an equally brilliant writer.
As for a robo voice look before we leap. If I made a video it would have a robo voice as I am speech impaired.
This makes me think of the Fight Club book and Fincher's adaptation. Palahniuk's book was mostly a social satire, Fincher made it a psychological take. If you look at the incredibly well written theories from the jackdurden website, the movie takes the story to a whole new level. Even Palahniuk shared the theories on his social media because he was so impressed with this new insight.
The voice complaints are coming because the video has over 400k views. Unfair in the respect that, like you, I assume there are many valid reasons to not be able to speak on mic or even not be willing to (anxiety is a real impairment; I know of at least one TH-camr with millions of views that made a second account just to be clear that they wouldn't get on mic on that account).
It's fair in the respect that having so many views on a 40-minute video with a cheap automated voice is pushing the limits of tolerability.
@@kruks Yes. Personally I am speech impaired so for me a robe voice would be needed. Since my disability occurred I have found a lot of intolerance for the disabled. Even the Social Security Administration does not comply with the ADA as some of their offices offer no contact by text, email or TDD for hearing and speech impaired people.
Then fucking have a friend do it. This robot shit is insufferable.
@@eamonia put on the subtitles and turn off the volume and FO
I cant believe Wendy hallucinated Kubrick’s entire filmography…
I can’t believe the same joke is in the comment section of both videos
This bizarre interpretation hinges on many continuity errors. They are admittedly too many to be accidental. But my view is that Kubrick wanted them as a means of creating subconscious unease. We are simply unaware of them until someone points them out.
Exactly...
Apparently King was consciously aware of the direction Kubrick took with telling his story because he didn’t like it at all. That’s why King had it remade into a mini-series.
I agree. Jack is set up to have resentment toward Wendy. She and Danny are the reason he stopped drinking because he abused Danny during a drunken outburst. He also tells the barkeep that he swears Wendy still resents him for it, probably his own guilty conscience. Idk, I see the Torrence family as a family already hanging on by a thread, as you can tell when Wendy explains why Jack stopped drinking to the therapist making the home visit. Jack seems so tense with his family from the start as well.
Kubrick is telling of the Apollo fake moon landings too. The carpet looks like a launch pad. Many layers...
Agree. Scorsese does the same in many of his films - this robot voice is over reaching
It’s an interesting theory. But I honestly think the more likely explanation is that Kubrick intentionally put continuity errors in the movie to emphasize that reality within the hotel is fuzzy. What one person sees isn’t always what another person sees. It subliminally adds to the supernatural feeling of the place.
Yeah... This guy is absolutely NOT making any sense... I could go point out something wrong with EVERYTHING he is saying, but I do know, that ever since Jay Weidner cracked the code on this movie, there has been a huge influx of misinformation to mislead people away from Weidner's work... because it was literally going viral (it was that compelling...) I can't believe the lunkheads in the comments... some people actually bought into this crap? Weidner, on the the other hand, he didn't figure out every single detail... but the big picture... he clearly, clearly nailed it... check it out for yourself (search Kubrick Jay Weidner documentaries)
But then you wouldn't see the consistency pointed out in the video between the lady's hallucinations and reality. If Kubrick just wanted to say reality is fuzzy here, he wouldn't have exactly 2 sets of appearances. The hall carpet wouldn't switch between 2 shots, there might be 3 or 4 appearances of it. There wouldn't be just Kool-Aid or no Kool-Aid alongside the Tang, there'd be Wyler's and whoever else paid for a placement, and they'd be all switched around instead of just the Kool-Aid or empty space. There'd be a wall switch plate with 1 switch, 2 switches, oriented vertically or side by side, or different styles of switch, rather than just the presence or absence of a single type.
BTW, one shot on "Lost" used a wall light switch that was anachronistic, in a scene supposedly taking place in the 1950s with a style of switch not available until decades later, with the camera perseverating an extra second on the shot and in the middle of the frame -- to clue the audience that the scene did not happen, or at least did not happen in the 1950s, i.e. that a certain character's background story was phony.
@@goodmaro ahhh... just like the shill who wrote this you start off with a non existent, but think by repeatedly referring to it makes it real... there is nothing to indicate in any way, shape or form that she is insane, unless you re-interpret everything you see in the movie as if it is the opposite or doesn't exist... and then pretend that somehow things which aren't even in the movie should be there... that is utterly ridiculous, just on the face of it... try simple logic and start with what is actually in the movie, instead of insisting "it's all hallucinatory"...
@@sigma_six Can you give a better (or even plausible) interpretation of why such things as light switches would be there in some shots and not others, and it not be a matter of two different observers? And since you can't, how else could you possibly explain those differences other than as hallucination? There's no reason light switches would be installed and uninstalled between the views, so it could only be hallucination. And if one observer is hallucinating, who could that observer be? Would it make sense for any story-telling purpose for that hallucinating (or lying) observer to be someone other than a character? In many cases it could *only* be a character, there being nobody else there. Is there any better candidate, anyone whose hallucinatory observation would make for a better story than that it be her?
@@goodmaro don't fall into the trap, that because you don't understand something... therefore it has to be "A"... when it could be B, C, D, E, F, etc ad infinitum... the human mind likes to fill a vacuum... but that isn't logical analysis, and I haven't heard any plausible reason why, other than this guy's "interpretation" of Jack's "facial expression" ???? Really??? And from that extrapolate an entirely non existent storyline? Unlike a lot of these comments, I am not going to "pretend to know what I don't know..."... keep it simple, stupid... as they say, Every time there is an intentional continuity error of something being there vs not being there = hallucination... is super weak (to pathetic imo) and then to place all this on Wendy being a schizo (even though it doesn't fit into the storyline, either the original or Kubrick's version is pathetic (again)) Especially when you have a crazed lunatic like Jack, unmistakable, unequivocal, right in your face, repeatedly building up, which fits PERFECTLY into the story that is being told (duhhh...) To follow this guy's retarded logic would be to infer that the previous custodian didn't really exist? Jack didn't really experience his hallucination? that he didn't really talk the other custodian (in hallucination) or go to the ball (in hallucination) or talk to the bartender (in hallucination) and he didn't really kill Hollarand? even though all this was portrayed in unmistakable detail?... because the real secret is that Wendy is a schizo? Wow... give your head a shake!... the story is right in front of you... Start with what the story is saying at face value... i.e. The place was haunted... and Jack was taking over the duties of the previous custodian... and eventually anyone who stayed there long enough would be affected... why the only legitimate "hallucination" Wendy experienced is near the end, AFTER she was emotionally traumatized and driven to the edge by Jack, etc... At least start with what is obvious... Like I said go back to Weidner's Documentary... it doesn't have to involve suspending common sense or disbelief... Lol.. it goes straight to the punch... explains the big picture, has repeated independent confirmation, too many coincidences, they all line up, they are consistent, and support exactly the artificial NASA imagery the public was shown. In fact you have to study the making of 2001 and it's perfect coinciding with the NASA program... and why would the Military be so willing to help Kubrick make a crazy "science fiction" movie? the most expensive, with the most special effects in history up to that time? NO ONE would have taken the risk of spending 4 years and spending that much money... and the Military involvement which was in the original credits, btw, has since been removed... as witnessed by a very few people who watched the ORIGINAL MOVIE IN THE THEATRE... There is a HUGE amount of back story and context (Why you have to go to Weidner's work which is much more detailed and explanatory...) The NASA moon landing footage, which has been repeatedly debunked by film makers and professional photographers. Like Weidner said, "This has nothing to do with whether the astronauts went to the moon or not..." We weren't shown the original footage... the special effects used in Kubrick's 2001, which was cutting edge at the time, is clearly seen repeatedly in the NASA moon landing footage (unmistakable, once you look for it...) In fact the problem with the NASA moon landing footage is that it is too movie production perfect!... And it doesn't show people in 1/6 gravity... (but that requires basic high school physics to understand... so I won't go there...) And all this comes from people who study film and photography for a living... Here's one simple example for you... why did they have too much luggage than could fit into the Volkswagen? And this is only ONE possible interpretation (but it MAKES SENSE...) Think about what you saw on the moon... how could that little mickey mouse lunar lander have unloaded all that tech?... up to and including a full size moon rover? Go to Weidner's work... it makes infinitely more sense... because it unlocks the truth...
Just goes to show how brilliant this film is, we’re still analysing the crap out of it. They are all so good in their roles, we can’t leave it alone. Brilliant.
Imagine saying that you finally explained The Shining and your explanation boils down to "The film isn't really about an abusive husband; the woman was the real abuser!" with a straight face.
In an early version of the script, it actually was Wendy. More specifically, the ghosts drive both Jack and Wendy crazy, but its Wendy who murders Jack and Hallibron.
What's so weird about it? is just a theory about a film made by Kubrick
Maybe he wasn't indoctrinated the way you were 🙃
Its a damn computer voice.
@@bethanyh1637wrong!
Shelley Duvall had a nervous breakdown while filming this movie because the director had pushed her so hard....it makes sense why when looking at the Wendy theory...it actually really fits.
or he just wasn't happy with her acting. she's not the greatest actress.
@@victoire614 that makes no sense because Jack was pushed just as hard, especially in the axe scene. The goal was to make them both feel like they are actually going crazy irl so they can authentically play their roles.
@@victoire614 Jack Nicholson said Shelly was the best actress he's ever worked with. I think his opinion is a lot more credible than yours...🤷🏽♀️
Regarding the sticker of Snow White’s dwarf, “Dopey” on Danny’s door, that is there one moment and gone the next; notice that Dopey is wearing red shoes/socks and a red hat and Wendy is wearing red socks, a red dress and throughout wears red clothes. Red is the “accent” color in the Shining and conveys different meanings. Kubrick was an expert in art history and understood classical painting and how artists used colors to convey specific meanings.
Also Dopey is usually pictured in a purple cap and socks with a green coat, if that sticker isn't there, maybe she just remembered his color scheme being different that it actually is.
And what’s Jack say to Wendy when he’s locked in the cooler? “It’ll be like this never happened” ...because it never did!
Also now her body language in the psychologist scene makes sense, she leans against the wall crossing her arms, not to comfort herself and observe, but actually a threatening posture to make sure Danny doesn’t say anything he isn’t supposed to.
Love the Wendy Theory, I’m on board
I'm not convinced - all of the inconsistencies with scenery could equally be suggestions that Jacks mental state is deteriorating, or that the hotel itself is bending both Jack and Wendy's perceptions of reality.
With regards to Halloran returning to the hotel - Jack called the park rangers via the radio to request assistance due to medical needs. The park rangers call the off duty manager of the, currently closed, hotel who then.... calls the chef? In Florida?
I feel like you've started out with the presupposition that Wendy is a mentally unwell murderer, and hammered the theory out from there, but it doesn't quite fit
That would be ALOT of errors to go unnoticed by the guy who shot and edited the whole thing
Is almost like wendy read Stephen kings "The shining". Her being a horror fanatic. Pretty meta
I think it’s the spirits in the house doing what they want. Trying to go to the old decor.
Colative learning and the documentary Room 234 hit on a lot of themes this theory ignores. This theory is well thought out and could be true, but I think theres layers of other themes this theory doesnt link to that the theories from those other sources fit better with. Theres heavy allusion to Native Americans and US history tied into this movie that dont jive with this interpretation.
@@johngialousis3041 definitely heavy on themes. But I really enjoy this theory and think it's mostly correct. Multiple themes are all still there, no doubt, but what's happening in the story I think really is Wendy's psychotic break. It connects so many things that could not be explained otherwise.
If this was Kubrick's vision it explains even more why Stephen King hated his adaptation 😂
You act as if continuity errors are Stanley Kubrik’s #1 focus. He’s a perfectionist, but there are continuity errors in all of his movies, not just this one. His perfectionism related to the stuff that actually mattered, like if performances, lighting, shot composition, etc. were good, not if the light switch that was there 12 scenes ago is still there now
Thank you!
I mean it's fun making this stuff up - but people online take it so seriously without even arguing for anything related to Kubrick or King or artistic integrity in general.
It's more like mocking aritstic analysis rather than practising it.
@@peka__ precisely. People get so into theorycrafting that they forget why they’re doing it. It just becomes so scientific and wild theory-based when it should be about analyzing why it improves the art
This is what I suspected.
Things this theory takes care of:
Why does Wendy begin to see ghosts when there's been no implication previously that she has the ability to shine?
Why are there not just background inconsistencies, but numerous spatial impossibilities? (because she's imagining the hotel and imagining it wrong)
Why would Jack have been reading a copy of Playgirl Magazine openly in the lobby before his Overlook job interview?
Why do the ghost versions of the Grady sisters and their father not match what Jack is told about them at the interview? (they are twins in the vision, but not in the telling, and Dad Grady's name changes from Charles to Delbert)
She can see them because Danny is like a battery to the hotel his Shine is giving them the ability to show themselves to people who don’t shine
@@Ashley-ok8ub but that's a more complicated theory. The one this video gives is the most simple conclusion so it's probably the right one.
I always wondered about that playboy. Had just taken it as an indicator that Jack was always “not quite right” before he ever even showed up at The Overlook
playgirl? this a gay theory?
it was a different era. playboy is no big deal
I was not sure about this theory, until the Kool Aid mention. I recommend others watch the documentary "Stanley Kubrick's Boxes", which shows how meticulous and obsessive a character he was. Making "mistakes" or continuity errors from a person who turned London into Vietnam, and took up to 3 years researching a subject , had thousands of photos taken, and boxes upon boxes of that material, before ever rolling camera ---- does not readily make mistakes. Everyone does to a degree, but Stanley Kubrick turned obsessive compulsion into an art form. I don't think he would leave chairs out of a scene that is obviously lit exactly the same as a scene shot with those chairs. He's a guy who figured out how to light a scene by candlelight (see Barry Lyndon) . He's a guy who reversed everything in Stephen King's book, intentionally. Maybe so far as to make Wendy the one with the powers mentioned. He switches dialogue, he switches colours, he switches hot to cold etc. He makes a reversal of the book with intention. Maybe he made Wendy the one with "The Shining." But here, the shining is mental illness.
@M C Didnt he make an actress do a take over 127 times ? that kind of man rarely makes mistakes
@M C ahahah ok Love mistakes dont count, i was refering to work
In Eyes Wide Shut he also does this. That is he includes intentional, obvious continuity "errors". So either he is being intentional or we can't call him meticulous. But he was. He was a creative genius.
Oh, the Kool Aid got me too. I guess that means we are drinking the Kool Aid 🧠🎟
That would explain much of why King hated the movie upon release.
I had a similar theory but instead of Wendy, it was actually Stanley Kubrick who was imagining all of this.
Spot on!
This is the most correct theory in the internet
I'd like to introduce the one theory that explains this video completely... I call it the Navarro Theory. In actuality, Rob 'Navarro' is the scriptwriter for the last season of Game of Thrones, because no one else could come up with as unfounded and torturous an interpretation of the plot. Literally any other interpretation would be better, making this a real Season 8 issue, demonstrating beyond any doubt this *must* be a rationalization for the screw up in the series. There, now we know. Don't read this comment if you ever want to look at this video the same...
As a functioning schizophrenic, I used to have hallucinations of having conversations with people in my head. The details of objects missing is a real effective way of signaling what is a hallucination in the movie.
Man, that is interesting…..
Well said Alexander, also the high pitched ringing music could mean tinnitus, which is a common symptom of Schizophrenia.
By putting the viewer somewhat in the shoes of a schizophrenic (as much as a movie like can) it helps us sympathize with what it feels like to struggle with mental illness.
This is the first theory to really make sense. I’ll never watch the movie the same again.
and it makes the movie 10x more frightening.
@@soccom8341576 If you ever watch behind the scenes, it makes sense now why the director was intentionally making Shelly Duval have a psychotic break (her hair was even falling out at one point due to the high stress he put on her)...because her role was the crazy one.
It's a unique and interesting theory. Here's another one: Kubric intentionally made minor continuity errors so the viewer'a sub-concious would notice them and give them that "somethings out of place" feeling compounding the eeriness of the story.
That seems to be the obvious reason, surprised so many miss it.
Dude the robot voice makes this legitimately difficult to pay attention to, like I’d almost rather just read the script myself
40 minutes of robot voice? Hard pass.
Want your mind to really be blown? The robot narrating this video is in fact HAL.
Brilliant!!!
"Daisy, daaiisssyyyyyy..........."
I'm 25 seconds in. Am I really going to listen to a robot for 40 minutes?
@@DukeStarbuckle I''m afraid I can't do that, Duke.
@@DukeStarbuckle It only took two weeks.
If that’s an unusual number of books, I lost my marbles decades ago.
Same here!
And Jack being a writer/teacher seems just as likely that he would own the books. It's certainly equivalent evidence as showing Wendy reading a book once and therefore being responsible for all the books.
schizophrenia may be a necessary consequence of literacy
I love the books.
They're also laid out strangely in the room, though. I haven't personally met any avid readers or book collectors that have books piled randomly throughout a room like that
Simple theory:
The movie is just Jack’s new book. When the guy at the beginning tells Jack the story of the caretaker, Jack says, “That’s quite a story”.
Exactly. I'm glad at least a couple of us can clearly see that. This movie is about artistic perfection breaking the maker into exhaustion.
One of my favorite theories
YES!! THANK YOU!! My favorite example of this theory is the maze. It's not in the opening shot. That thing was huge!! We would have scene it. He created it for the story.
Most of the scenes line up with this. 3:30 He didn't witness anything, he's writing and imagining. And he has a scrapbook of articles about the hotel next to him.
Not to echo the same arguments my guy, but beyond the Mr. Fantastic-levels of stretching to get your point, the language here eerily seems similar to the one used by abusers to justify their behavior and gaslight their victims. And given what occurred in real life, on set towards Shelley Duvall, it’s a touch problematic, no?
"Mr. Fantastic-levels of stretching" LMAO great reference!
Lol you echo the same arguments and used the same stretches of logic as seen in the video.
Pseudo intellectual and pretending you’re virtuous gtfo
@L Cotton People can talk how they wish and also it’s pretty annoying to see someone rag on another person for they way they talk. Anyhow I wanted to say that you should check out “Eyebrow Cinema”. Eyebrow Cinema has a counter theory to this theory that explains it quite well
@L Cotton K, have fun watching that video. It completely tears into this theory
No wonder King was pissed, Kubrick changed his super natural horror into a psychological thriller.
I'm not sure what the point of this video is exactly, but the reason King didn't like it was because the focus was more on Jack Nicholson's character instead of the hotel. If you read the book, the hotel is the main focus. Jack Nicholson is so extraordinary in his performance, he stole the show!!!!
@@francesmalzahn9994 that's my point Kubrick basicly rewrote the story and called it his.
@@ashrimpcalledhank There was another version made for TV that King liked better. Kubrick was strong willed and probably had his own ides, but come on. It's Jack Nicholson! No way to dial down that performance. King's movies never translate well to the screen, in my opinion, any way. His books have so much detail and essence that just can't be in any other form than as they are.
@@francesmalzahn9994 yes I said that.
@@ashrimpcalledhank Of course. Just adding some more info for those who are unaware of the nuts and bolts, as it were.
Maybe this is why Steven King has always been critical about Kubrick's interpretation of the The Shining. 🤔
True, in the book she is actually a strong woman. I like his remake in the 90s, much better movie.
I liked the movie narrative much better it was creepier to me because it was somewhat more realistic. I mean in the book the hotel eats itself and disappears at the end
@@anonymousperson6119 In the book, the hotel boiler blows up because they forgot to check on it. The hotel burns to the ground. Your getting confused with the house in “Poltergeist”.
@@anonymousperson6119 little confused but you got the spirit 💫
@@cooperlisa69 the 90s interpretation is nowhere near the quality of this film. The 1980 film is a genuine magnum opus.
I think the "do you know that your son is trying to bring an outsider into this?" indicates the mother WAS harming the boy and the boy tried to tell on her. Look at the look Danny gives his mother when he comes in with his neck hurt as she's like " What happened to you?!" when he takes his thumb out of his mouth he glares at her accusingly. She guiltily looks away and then immediately accuses Jack, grabs Danny & runs out before he can say anything.
Yeah I agree with you on that -- that he gave her a look like "who the fuck do you think?" But it could also just be the kid's best attempt to follow directions to act like he's frightened into silence.
Ignoring that in Doctor sleep Danny openly talks about how much he loved Wendy and would never be like Jack
Not saying SK specifically wrote Dr. Sleep, to rebut this movie, but it’s a bit of a known quantity that Stephen King did not like this film adaptation of his book
I mean fundamentally you have Stephen King writing in his medium, and Kubrick directing in his. Wouldn’t be the first time the two creative artists clashed on some thing even if involuntarily.
Essentially Kubrick says, “no Wendy was just quite crazy“, and Stephen King says, “no it was all supernatural
@@darkzak47 Okay, then let's take into account the film that was made based on Dr. Sleep.
The same line was spoken by Danny. In the film that was made to be a sequel to both the book and the Kubrick film.
Aka, regardless of how you stack it, the Wendy Theory falls on its ass the moment you remember the story of Dr. Sleep exists in both written and visual media.
@@Metalalbumreviewers these both came after. That's like saying emperor palpatine never died because they ret-conned him back in in the most recent sequels.
@@queequeg00
Well the movie came after te novel so....
This theory would explain Shelley Duvall‘s “bad acting as many called it back in the day” it wasn’t bad acting, she was playing a role of an unstable character from the beginning... it makes sense now
This was always my biggest problem with this film, I could buy everything else happening but her acting drove me insane. I was always going crazy, like, WHAT IS WRONG WITH HER? and omg that was it, that was the whole point, what WAS wrong with her?! Frickin brilliant. I see this movie so differently now.
@@potatopirate5557 I always thought she had battered wife syndrome and was consistantly placed on eggshells
@@potatopirate5557 I ask myself that about real people all the time, though.
No... She was a horrible actress
@@jwaxmcgeeg9706 Kubrick basically made it hard on her to incite difficult acting. He was intentionally being an asshole to disorient her like a real victim of the circumstances would be.
You can extrapolate this theory to posit that Jack doesn’t really exist. Thus the photo at the end. Jack is Wendy’s imaginary scapegoat for her psychosis. She saw the photo and invented him. That explains the focus on Danny’s imaginary friend at the beginning. Wendy is actually the writer/caretaker. She is the one who goes nuts and hurts Danny and murders Hallorran but in her mind it’s Jack and not her.
Ok my brain just exploded. This could be a possibility for Wendy’s hallucinations in the movie.
Wow! Never thought of this before!
Nah, because then the subtle changes from "the interview"(which we assume is reality) to wendy hallucinating wouldn't add up
@Steve Gracy or she been to the hotel before. And just made up that she was married. Probably because she had a one night stand and gave birth to Danny. Then to justified to the world she is not a slut and crazy person, she lured the doctor in and kill him.
Continuity errors are just a part of movie making. Even Kubrick has many of them in his other movies.
That's not even mentioning half the shot burned down halfway through production!
I started the video a compete skeptic, but this actually makes a lot of sense! Especially with how meticulous Kubrick is, it doesn't make sense for him to move the set around so often with no reason behind it. I love the idea of her being an unreliable narrator of her own hallucinations.
I mean, the overlook hotel itself is literally supposed to be a living thing so I don't see how this wouldn't just be a reference or subliminal effect to that.
@@canaan8511 true, very true
It's a fun theory but I don't buy it. It needs to be contrasted with other interpretations and the author must cover it's greatest weak spots; the true meaning of the differences, occam's razor, and the inherent problem with illusion theories like the Pokémon coma theory.
I think the "continuity errors" are manifestations of the hotel itself being somewhat sentient ( as per the book )
And had he used the hedge animals that were present in the book that would have been more obvious
It does not mention furniture, I meant the book implied the hotel was sentient.
I like the premise... but if that was the case, then wouldn't the characters in the movie notice the changes? The changes are only visible to the viewer... so that indicates something else... and does work with the hallucination theory.
@@sunsetcaptiva8573 the hotel can still be sentient. its just that its targeting Wendy. The least stable of the three, and the only female since Grady's victims were female.
@@billbommarito Maybe... but she never states or mentions or notices the continuity issues...if it was targeting her, then she would let the viewers know wouldn't she? No one in the movie notices the continuity issues.... they are there for the viewer only, no one in the movie mentions these issues, to them the issues are not there...
I like this theory. Looking at this film through this lens makes the movie more disturbing and adds to the horror.
Facts
It makes everything make complete sense instead of just being a mindfuck for the sake of it
@@fatbroccoli8 Exactly, Couldn't have worded that any better
It does make the movie creepier. And it does make sense of a lot of the scenes that didn't really make sense. But this was Kubricks idea of horror, almost a Hitchcock psychological horror.
It really does.
The Wendy Theory makes even more sense if you view it as a PTSD flashback nightmare that she had after Jack blew up the Overlook.
It makes more sense if you suffer a traumatic brain injury before seeing The Shining. I don't know what Kubrick ever did to be so disrespected by youtubers 40 years later. If Kubrick went the "Wendy's the Psycho" route, it wouldn't have been so poorly done that no one understood his movie for 40 years and filled with more plot holes than the bible.
@@rationalwatcher7739 Oh look everyone, a Bible basher! You're so "hip" and "trendy" aren't you? Go take a shower and brush your teeth.
@@rationalwatcher7739Dude dont bring religion into this
@@philippostrinktspezi I brought a book into it. Religion is your baggage.
Something I just noticed about the final picture: Jack is trying to wave to the camera, but the man behind him has grabbed his arm. No one else is trying to wave to the camera.
Why is Jack even in that picture. More to this story.
Interesting. Maybe he is trying to escape from the photograph, and that other person is trying to stop him. Jack is trapped in hell. Another theory is that he is the representation of Baphomet ,an occult figure symbolic of evil. Jack seems to be the host of this evil 'Ball" his arms being in the exact positions that Baphomet has his arms.
Whether or not your idea is correct, this is an excellent interpretation.
When you gave the three options on Wendy’s behaviour in that first scene, I definitely think (if your theory is correct) she walked up to him, had the entire thing in her head (maybe she seemed like she stared at him for a moment) before just saying “okay” - when you isolate the “okay” it sounds like a question. The way she walked off before getting an answer - and after her initial hesitation (her hallucination) - might be why he gives her that look, but doesn’t seem overly concerned. She was “just” seeing if he was okay... but then didn’t wait for him to respond...
One thing that should be obvious at least to viewers today, is the fake nature of the blood in the elevator.
But you showed that part right after talking about the hallucinations about koolaid. And it looks like her choice is cherry koolaid. The colour and viscosity of the blood pouring out of the elevator is that of cherry koolaid. Blood doesn’t move like water, and the fluid definitely moves like water; it’s not paint either as paint would flow slower too. It’s water. And it’s cherry koolaid colour (cherry happened to be my favourite too and it’s darker than blood). I just thought that was interesting.
When you got to the room and the “woman” strangling Danny, and Wendy panicking and all that, that’s when I kinda got a chill and was sold on the theory. The way she said it, hallucinating mom harming her kid is a lot more realistic than a poltergeist coming back from the dead to torture a kid. ... and what purpose would the ghosts have for targeting a child, when the ghosts are supposed to be victims too?
When Danny has his neck hurt, he isn’t acting like a child facing their protective worried mother. He’s reacting to his abuser/the person that did it to him.
oh my god this makes so much sense
This is ridiculous. The Overlook shifts when it starts to take hold of the souls inside. Damn, read the book.
@@angelahulsey9172 I don't mean to be rude here, but how can you not know that the book and the film are completely different...you've obviously read the book and seen the movie. The book merely served as inspiration for arguably one of the best movies ever made. And it keeps on giving...this Wendy theory took almost 50 years to come about. Why do people always have to inject baseless comments on TH-cam and try to bring everyone down 😆
@@BengalCatChilli I was going to write this! You beat me to it!
@@BengalCatChilli Which is probably why Stephen King never cared for the film.
Is anyone here from eyebrow cinema video debunking this theory? Gotta love youtube algorithm
You've solved one of the greatest pop culture riddles, and you deliver this through a robot voice? Stop sabotaging your own success.
Otherwise, incredible content.
You sure he solved it? LOL. More likely, he used a robot voice to avoid laughing himself at his own absurdity.
Its an 11 year old girl.
@@VelvetRolo if you only knew the depths of Kubricks OCD about location scouting, storyboarding, lighting, sets, cinematography, editing, and how he twisted the original source material; you would not have made such an ignorant reply.
Or perhaps you can explain what his reasoning was behind making so many errors that would have made him bloody INSANE if only accidental & discovered in post-production?!
I always thought Wendy was weird as a kid... I wish I saw it more but even my more recent suspicions of her character have only grown knowing what illnesses she seemed to be exhibiting if I had to guess from an Abnormal Psychological point of view....
& Jack's sad,confused,concerned face nearly every time at some point before he freaks out (like he never actually did).
Explain it buster! Your lack of any further explanation is what is truly "absurd".
@@VelvetRolo oh and btw Kubrick was obsessed with Psychoanalysis and Jung in particular. This makes so much sense... damn I wish I liked this movie more before because I guessed MR ROBOT was fight clubbing by episode 3 or 4. Everyone said I was crazy. No... The Eliot character played by the- ACTOR-WHO-MACULAY-CULKIN-TWEETED about -EATing-BABEIES-TO-JOIN-HOLLYWOOD- PD0FYLE-CULTS WAS IN FACT THE CRAZY ONE! 🤪hahaha
@@jason.larsenthedanishgreek1226 Dude, I was mostly joking about the synth voice in a casual way... And it is a reasonable and fun theory to consider, but it has flaws. Hallucinations don't work like that, in cases where Wendy is allegedly hallucinating huge scenes where she's not present. Hallucinations are non-existent audio or visual SENSES, that the person hallucinating is experiencing, like hearing voices in your head or seeing things that aren't there. NOT imagining a whole dialog that is occurring in a different room, where they're not even present. For example, when she is allegedly hallucinating the entire conversation Jack is having with Lloyd in the Gold Room. First off, she doesn't even know he's there (But DOES go and seek him out there, so he WAS there... it wasn't all a "hallucination"). And yet, she "hallucinates" this whole detailed conversation, without even being in that room. Hallucinations don't work like that. And there are constantly things where Navaroo is really stretching things to fit his theory. For example, why should the cross fade to Wendy in the boiler room indicate that she's there in room 237? That's silly reasoning to me. He characterises Jack's look as a puzzled look, as Wendy walks away after disturbing his typing... But I honestly do NOT see puzzlement. Not at all. It's totally neutral. Even simple things, like why Danny is squished up toward the front in the car, because maybe all their luggage is in his way... Um.. LOOK, there's nothing behind him. He's up close to his parents, because he's talking to them. That's all. So, that's a mistake on Kubrick's part, to have all that luggage sitting in the lobby, when it obviously wouldn't have fit in the VW bug. Another mistake: Why isn't the hedge maze shown in the over head shots of the hotel? It's missing. Is this another hallucination of Wendy's then? There's no reason for her to be hallucinating there. Honestly, what it shows to me, is nobody is perfect, including Kubrick, and that was simply a stupid mistake. No hedge maze shown. I could go on and on, but I'm sorry. I'm not convinced.
While Jack is trapped in the storage unit he is sleeping on bags of salt. Fun fact, the snow in the movie is actually salt. Another clue that Jack is actually outside and not in the storage unit
apparently it was super hot when they were shooting and everyone was miserable in winter clothes inside the hotel with no AC.
In a wierd way this actually made the movie scarier to me ..way to go man ,this is the best theory I have seen.
right..I've seen this movie so many times and was fine, but now watching this theory and going through the scenes is creeping me out
Really? Worst one I've ever "seen".
@@jennypenny7748 it creeped me out badly
Absolutely makes the film better. I would say the theory was the "intended main narrative"...
The toxicity of the family itself makes for some real terror, snowed up in that hotel
Kubrick literally says the Overlook is SUPERNATURAL
This is just flat out false. He even went as far as to say what attracted him in the original script was how the supernatural could be entirely explained by the psychological.
I like this theory because the only thing scarier than someone outwardly going crazy like Jack is someone subtly going crazy like Wendy in this theory. And Jack's insane facial expressions and behaviors make sense through Wendy's skewed perception and in the desperation he would feel in the situation that he was being blamed for what his wife did/ imagined.
Yes!
The only thing scarier is if this was a parallel to the actual world we live in where men can get away with anything, even murder and abuse, and women are accused of hysteria. Wait...hold on a second...
@@amara560 have you been around women? Hysteria is not that uncommon...
@@nadavegan seems like you're the one who hasn't tbh
@@amara560 nailed it
I was raised by a schizophrenic mother. This is spot on. And exactly explains the shining. Brilliant.
exactly
…and there is the issue of certain areas of the globe at certain times fostering schizophrenic environments, for instance towns in Ireland …and urban immigrant areas in the states …and Kubrick was a Jewish director who was allegedly examining the cultural experience of Jewish parenting in some socio economic situations…ie dad working long white collar hours…weak-minded or alternately precious or college educated wives without parenting interests or experience going stir crazy (as some socio economic strata of Jewish women were some of the first to have college educations in the states without a lot of professional outlet opportunities because being a wife and mother was expected)
Sorry to hear that. That must have been difficult.
@@searchindex3438 Where did you learn about Kubrick allegedly researching parenting of Jewish couples etc etc? Was he doing so at the time he made this movie? Did he mean for the Torrances to be regarded as Jewish?
@@ronmackinnon9374 I appreciate that I do wish things would’ve been different for my mother because I know none of it was pleasant for her however it’s hard for me to regret as I learned a lot from the experience that I use every day and I think it’s helping a good person and empathetic
FINE! Ill go watch the Shining again! Are you happy now?
These robot voice narrations are the worst, I can’t sit through it
Agreed.
How can there even be THAT many continuity errors in a movie, they’re just screwing and unscrewing light switches on walls and switching out lampshades for different ones constantly? Way too many
That would be hard to keep up with, lots of details. But I think the continuity errors are odd especially with light switches and furniture changes.
They weren't errors, these were intentional.
You cracked the code. I did a re-watch last night and you hit every single uneasy feeling I have ever had about this movie. Everything shot is so perfectly shot consistently, the "continuity errors" become a trail of breadcrumbs. (Wendy in the kitchen)
It's a way of gaslighting, making the victim(in this case, the viewers) doubt their own mind. The use of an actual abuse technique to create a sense of insecurity makes the movie superb
It wouldn't have been that difficult. They would have had two sets, one being the real Stanley Hotel, which is the reality scenes, and a mock-up set with things missing for the hallucinations
Jack and Wendy are an odd couple... there is no intimacy seen in the movie, no hugs, no kisses, not even smiles between them... something's wrong with these two...
i would have liked it better if wendy was replaced with the blonde wendy in king's novel, i think there would be more spice and intimacy between jack (who to me is the perfect jack torrance) & a actress who would be blonde for wendy, hell id love the play the part of wendy, but i wouldnt be upsetting like shelly duvall @bryan aristigueta
So jack finally resorted to harassing his kid🤢
When Wendy interrupts him, they kiss right after he yanks the paper out of the typewriter. On Closing Day, Jack calls her "Babe" in the presence of Ullman in the Gold Room. It ain't much, but there's a little bit there that you seem to have missed. And, Jack DOES refer to her as "the sperm bank upstairs" when he talks to Lloyd . . .
Read the book. It's far better and explains a lot about the relationship.
Not to be nit picky but he holds her close when they leave danny to eat his ice cream, it’s not much but he it was something. It was technically some public PDA even.
Lots of people trying to debunk this theory with the “Doctor Sleep argument”, but this is the Kubrick movie we are talking about. There are massive differences with the books.
Besides, all the camera angles, changes in furniture, and props were director’s choices that had nothing to do with King’s story.
This theory, with the schizophrenia component, makes everything scarier than just a haunted hotel. I love the books, but making the story of the Torrances attached to the reality of mental health issues, is actually more chilling and heart breaking.
Great video.
The movie wouldn't be entitled "The Shining" if nobody had the ability.
Maybe the name comes from "Its shines by its absence" lol
Stephen King named the story. I lean toward the theory- not just this theory- that in Kubrick's interpretation there was no supernatural element.
Maybe the shining is just the husbands wifes kill along the way
The casting of this film was perfect - Duvall has a rather fragile appearance with Nicholson conveying the epitome of menace. What a brilliant interpretation by Kubrick to camoflauge the players with the subtleties of furniture.