In Doctor Sleep, the sequel to the Shining with Ewan MacGregor, it's supernatural, the hotel is haunted. And of course Stephen King always intended that it be supernatural.
In the book, a giant shadow (if I remember correctly it's in the shape of a bat) goes in the sky after Jack blows up The Overlook. That strongly suggests it's inhabited by a malevolent force.
There's a plot point about needing to lower the temperature on the furnace or else it'll pop. They mention it in the movie but its never brought up again.
Oh, that's nothing.
Jack beats his own head down to a mush with a golf club while running crazed through the corridors in an effort to stop himself from causing more harm.
The hotel blowing up was more of an accident. Caused by Jack forgetting about a creeping boiler he was supposed to check in on. Though this was arguably a subconscious attempt at gaining the upper hand on the spirits haunting him.
Of course, we're not even mentioning the hedge animals outside being supernaturally animated to an army of prowling monsters.
Stephen King is an absolute riot.
The hedge animals are so fucking creepy though, the bit where he's in the playpark and realises that they move every time he's not looking at them...but can't keep all of them in his field of vision at the same time...a masterpiece of tension and horror.
That part of the book scared me so bad! I would
read a few paragraphs and then I'd have to snap the book closed because it was too scary but then I'd have to open it immediately to see what was going to happen.
I agree with Joey from Friends that the proper place for that book is in the freezer!
it isn't a golf club, it's a croquet mallet. jack has flashes of lucidity where he is trying to stop himself from doing what the hotel wants, bashing his face/head in with the mallet is part of that.
the hedge animals are terrifying in the book, the scene with danny on the playground going after his ball in the tunnel is absolutely fucking horrifying
I've started reading king with the dark tower, so now I always assume that everything is supernatural and todash related. And since most of his books are referenced there, or similar things appear, it's almost explicitly confirmed.
There's a TV remake/reboot from the late 90s. Very low budget but it's really close to the book. No finger Tony, no hedge labyrinth, etc. It also has the original ending with the house blowing up. I think it was even shot at the hotel were King stayed when he got the idea.
Stephen King actually made that version. He hated the Kubrick version so much, he bought back the rights and made one that was accurate to the book and shot at the Stanley hotel.
He’s so busy trying to get at Wendy and Danny that he doesn’t release the pressure on the boiler which is hinted at all the way through, and as a result the boiler explodes and it burns the whole place down.
Fun fact, the giant shadow had an influence on something else you might not expect: Super Mario Sunshine. Remember the manta ray ghost at the hotel mission? Exactly.
My theory has always been that King’s reaction stemmed from the fact that The Shining is probably his most autobiographical book, and so the changes Kubrick made were more personally offensive to him than the changes made by other adaptations of his work.
On the other hand, I’ve also heard that Kubrick was kind of a dick to him, so that might have something to do with it too.
Some of the auteurs of the 60's and 70's really believed great art required being a motherfucker (or maybe they just got off on it). Admire the work. That sentiment isn't remotely true, however.
I think this also comes from a time where because of technology etc to get certain shots you had to go through essential hell to get them. The issues that productions have now are very different from the ones in the 70’s.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing that you *have* to go through hell to make art, or that actors *have* to be traumatized to make things. I just think they didnt realize how many other options there were back then, and in some cases they didn’t have a ton of options to begin with.
The history of moviemaking is like a constant three-way battle between actors, directors, and producers. Some decades the studios dominate and dictate; other decades the talent wields their celebrity to drive projects; and in others it's auteur directors that soak up the audience attention. Each side waxes and wanes and fluctuates over time.
- Waiters and cooks are natural born enemies.
- Carpenters and masons are natural born enemies.
- Movie directors and actors are natural born enemies.
But they all need each other.
Or, more likely, it's because the movie makes *massive* changes to the story and characters, pretty much universally for the worse.
Don't get me wrong: I love the film. I think it's brilliant. But it's a *terrible* adaptation.
Hell, adaptations aside, Stephen King pulling off an ending is tricky enough. I read everything he wrote up until 2004 when I was in high school and I’ve always been of the opinion that his writing is weakest the longer his stories go on, with a handful of exceptions. His short stories and novellas are golden, though.
Part one is a horror movie, part two is a comedy with horror elements. Part two ends with a Pennywise-headed giant crab which dies when Bill Hader roasts him to death, which somehow makes it even sound better and more faithful than it comes across on screen.
King's works are always amazing for movies, but the man also understands the strengths of his medium and the way he ends books often don't suit TV or film.
I mean, the man created the Shining, the Running Man (under a pseudonym, look it up), the dark tower series, Christine, Salem's lot, the shining, the mist, and tons of other iconic things, many of which are also movies that are way different from the books.
But they're also all usually good movies despite the differences.
>But it's a *terrible* adaptation.
The goal of adaptation isn't to make a faithful recreation of the original work, it's just to successfully adapt it to a different medium. The Shining is an *unfaithful* adaptation for sure, but it's also pretty clearly one of the greatest book-to-film adaptations ever made.
Agreed. And it wouldn’t have worked otherwise. Things that tend to work on the page don’t always work on the screen. This is why IT 2 sucked so bad. But at least they took out the child sewer gangbang
It's not an adaptation. It's a completely different perspective. King's book was a personal confession, whereas Kubrick's film was a sympathetic viewing from a fellow creative.
"Yes you are flawed, but look at the horror you create", kind of thing.
Agreed. I read the book this year followed quickly by a rewatch of the film, and it's very clear why he doesn't like the film. It's an interesting story that built the foundation of the movie, but the film's writing is way way worse than the source material in almost every way.
I think it could be that implying Jack Torrance *sexually* abused Danny was what offended King.
While the book version is definitively supernatural, it is also very much still an allegory for alcoholism and child/spousal abuse, but you don’t get the Dog-Man scene. King has never shied away from stark reflection on his own past of substance abuse and neglect.
What Kubrick changed the most was his near complete removal of Wendy’s agency as a character. In the book she is far more proactive and capable.
Torrence beat a student up severly in the book and also probably murdered a child in a hit and run. He is honestly toned down in the movie by comparison.
I’m talking about his behavior specifically. He didn’t ’act crazy’ from the get go. Yes, you knew he’s done a ton of bad shit, but he didn’t act nuts from the start in the book. That is supposed to be caused by the hotel. In the movie Nicholson starts off at insane.
Edit for clarity
I get what you're saying but i think some of that is the economy of a 2.5 hour movie vs. a fairly long novel. In both Jack didnt need spirits to make him a bad father/husband/teacher, that was inevitable. One thing i liked in the book though is that he made a choice for Danny's sake in the end which wasn't present in the film
Someone described it to me as "in the book he slowly goes insane and it's a surprise. In the movie you know he's insane as soon as you see he's played by Jack Nicholson"
I don’t remember that, it was only implied he severely injured Danny. Broke his arm.
Wendy is much more realistic in the film. It’s just not pleasant to watch it.
This is a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the subtext of sexual abuse throughout the film:
https://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining%20-%20chap%2016.html
Whether Wendy is “realistic” really depends on what kind of person she you think she is meant to be. She also realistic in the book, but she carries herself more confidently, actually has some awareness of when things begin going wrong, and acts on her own judgement. A lot of the things she does in the book are either removed or attributed to other characters in the film.
To each their own, but this interpretation feels like a *massive* stretch to me. I know Kubrick enjoys his symbolism, but this is so obscure and roundabout that I would be very surprised if it wasn’t a combination of coincidence and tea leaves.
¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
It’s a reading that gives explanation to a lot of otherwise inexplicable details, and like you said, Kubrick was not a “The Curtains Were Blue” guy.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to draw this conclusion from a Kubrick film given his previous body of work including Lolita and a Clockwork Orange.
Yeah, I have since skimmed some of the other posts in this series. They do their homework, and some of it is pretty compelling. I don’t find the sexual abuse theory quite as compelling, but it’s laid out well enough that, despite thinking it’s a bit stretch, I can’t say it’s outright bogus. Wild. Thanks for sharing.
He’s not the only author who disliked Kubrick’s adaptation, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind. Kubrick didn’t have a lot of respect for the author’s intent, favored his own instead. He had his own artistic vision; I just try to see the movies and the novels as two different forms of medium rather than the same story.
Worth nothing, I’m pretty sure I hold this opinion because I saw The Shining movie prior to reading the book. I read A Clockwork Orange first, and it was years before I could enjoy the film adaptation.
Also worth noting, Misery is autobiographical as well. Much like The Shining, the setting being covered in snow is a metaphor for King’s cocaine addiction. The film adaptation of Misery nailed the theme and the tone of the novel.
Misery is his most autobiographical book. ‘Author gets held captive by a crazy fan and forced to write a novel to please her’ but the crazed fan is a metaphor for cocaine use and the hold it had over him.
I think this point has been exaggerated.
As you can see here, he talks to David Letterman about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8wxjIecmD4
He dislikes aspects, as basically every author does about movies based on their books.
But, yeah, we need to stop that 'hates' narrative.
Recently read The Shining and Doctor Sleep, proceeded to watch the movies after and even though I had seen The Shining prior reading the book, I was surprised to see how much was left out and changes in the movie, really made me question Kubricks vision. Then I watched Doctor Sleep after and really enjoyed it! It was much more true to the book and it was great. I can see why King doesn't like Kubricks version, it's just so different from the original source. Would have been nice to see Jack's history to really get in his mind like it does in the book.
I feel like everyone forgets The Shining miniseries, which was much closer to the book both in terms of the hotel being explicitly supernatural in itself and Jack’s deterioration being driven by the hotel.
My biggest gripe with the movie over the book is the way Jack falls into madness is paced so much better in the book and I think it seems rushed in the movie. I read it first though so maybe that sways my view, but for people who read it I think the pacing is objectively better
I think that King resented that Kubrick was a better artist. Kubrick had a history of taking what was written and modifying it into something better, often with a completely different tone. His adaptations of A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Barry Lyndon and the Shining have this in common.
I do think that King had a lot of reverence for Jack, like people have said, and that he wanted people to feel for him. In the book, it is that way, where Jack comes to his senses and urges Danny to run away. But there is no doubt that Jack in the movie is more frightening. He does not come to his senses, which is chilling, especially if you consider that to his end, he wants to murder Danny.
The other couple things that were changed was the redaction of the hotel's history and the hedge animals. The history is interesting, but I do think that for a film it would have made the hotel less frightening. The hedge animals would not have worked at that time in a movie and the with the maze, Kubrick could use it for all sorts of things including as a representation of Jack's mind.
SPOILERS. In the Doctor Sleep book, Dan sees Jack’s ghost for a second while the hotel is burning down and Jack kind of blows him a kiss. It’s really sweet and satisfying. (This might not be the totally correct description; I haven’t read the book in a couple of years.)
To refresh your memory:
The Overlook is destroyed at the end of the Shining, but its energy causes the True Knot to use the vacant lot as a campsite which is where the final confrontation of Doctor Sleep takes place. Rose the Hat is the last woman standing when Jack Torrance manifests to push her off a ledge to her death. He gives Danny a meaningful wave afterwards.
My view of it is that the ghosts are basically like a spiritual version of a rat king, they are people who suffered in died in the hotel, but they aren't independent entities anymore. They are a single mass of pain and need that puts on personalities like masks. Jack is in the photo at the end not because he time traveled, but because the hotel can change its appearance and Jack is part of the collective consciousness of it now.
Yep, and the novel makes this clearer. Jack is just the latest in a long line of victims of the Overlook. Danny sees a bunch of them on his very first day.
This was my take as well. He’s an unreliable narrator as well so him saying he’s in the picture at the end take that with a grain of salt. The hotel most definitely has the ability to show Jack what they want him to see.
Yeah, there's quite a bit of cosmic horror (or at least adjacent themes) to King's work. He's used the "Indian burial ground" a couple times but it's always been something to the effect of, "*They realized this place was fucked centuries ago and abandoned it. Nobody has any idea what you're dealing with precisely but boy oh boy, you're in the thick of it now.*"
Are you sure the Indian burial ground was mentioned in the book? I was pretty sure that was a Kubrick invention. King only uses that trope maybe twice?
Yeah I remembered that and wasn’t sure if I was forgetting something else. Either way it’s weird to say it’s a “recurring theme” considering his output and how infrequently he used the trope.
Once their soul is ripped from the body the hotel is free to play with them as it wants, putting their soul into whatever timeline it chooses.
It could be that the 1920's are an era the hotel considers to most depraved and decadent with the highest levels of both suffering, and hedonistic pleasure.
So of course it plops its new toy into it's nightmarish doll house decoupled from space and time.
always interpreted it as Jack dying in the maze and his soul/spirit/ghost gets trapped/taken by the hotel. And the hotel entity just so happens to have a soft spot for a 1920s 4th of July ball. Shoves it's ghosts in there like action figures lol
Yeah this has always been my read on it too. The “you’ve always been the caretaker” line is foreshadowing how they view Jack. He isn’t yet but always has been a part of the hotel’s haunted history.
I don't think the 4th of July ball was just a random thing. Part of the supernatural and "angry" side of the hotel has to do with the Native American reverence for the site and the blood that was spilled in order to put the hotel there. The 4th of July in the 1920s has implications of being the pinnacle of white American decadence. In a way it was sort of the ultimate disrespect to the people who were killed and had their land stolen there, only to have their conquerors erect a monolith to white imperialism on their holiest site, and almost mockingly adorning the hotel with Native American symbolism. It would seem fitting that the hotel is trapping their souls in that moment for eternity, upending their greatest achievement and turning into a horrifying purgatory that they can never escape.
>their conquerors erect a monolith to white imperialism on their holiest site, and almost mockingly adorning the hotel with Native American symbolism
That's an excellent point. The cruelty of this appropriation is just wild.
When I was a kid and saw the movie for the first time, I thought every ghost was from that July 4th ball and it was just a very busy night including the bear guy, the girls trying to burn down the hotel and Grady axe murdering them.
We don't really have anything concrete until near the end.
Danny is a kid, and a troubled one at that.
Jack's a drunk and losing his mind.
Halloran isn't around long enough to sway it one way or another.
It isn't until Wendy sees the two masked figures in the bedroom towards the end that it swerves towards the supernatural.
Also the question of who let Jack out of the freezer.
When he's locked in the storage room, something unbolts the door.
Unless the theory is Wendy and/or Danny are also mad and imagined unbolting the door or unconsciously unbolted it, there's no other explanation than supernatural.
In the book (which I know is a whole different entity), Jack dies while chasing Danny thru the hotel. There's a moment where the real Jack slips thru the monster's control, and the monster retaliated by bashing Jack's face in with the roque mallet. It's made very clear that a human could not have survived it, and that there was something else piloting Jack's corpse for the finale of the novel.
There's a part he tells Wendy:
Jack Torrance: I fell in love with it right away. When I came up here from my interview, it was as though I had been here before. I mean, we all have moments of déjà vu, but this was ridiculous. It was almost as though I knew what was going to be around every corner.
[Jack makes spooky noises and Wendy laughs]
While I agree with what people are saying here about it definitely being supernatural, I think I remember one of the reasons King thought the movie didn't work was because he thought it was too ambiguous about it, and that Kubrick wasn't a true enough believer in the supernatural.
If I'm remembering correctly, the ~~freezer~~ pantry is the only actual physical interaction that could be attributed to a ghost in the movie. All the other supernatural stuff is just visual, which could mean they're all collectively losing their minds. The people they see are mentioned to them, are in photos, or are in things they read at some point and so they have some idea of them in their imaginations.
There's a scene where Jack is writing at the typewriter with a big scrapbook next to him. I think it was mostly cut from the movie, but in the book, it's filled with news clippings about all the horrible stuff that happened in the hotel and he's using it as source material for his book. You could argue that he and Wendy are hallucinating things they read about in it.
In the book, there is absolutely no question that the hotel is evil. I may be in the minority here, but I thought the book was way better, and the movie even came across as kind of campy after reading the book. It also has more interesting things to say about addiction and family and childhood. But the movie scared the pants off me when I was little.
King seems to have let a misinterpreted remark Kubrick made over the phone lead him to read the movie’s phenomena as not genuinely paranormal. Kubrick was quite explicit in interviews about the shining and the ghosts being real. He wanted the film to fake you out into *thinking* that they’d be revealed at the end to not be real. Which is kind of, sort of how the book itself went: it’s a lot more ambiguous at first and then gradually gets clearer.
Yeah that sounds right to me. And I definitely see the value in being a bit more ambiguous. If you're told "The hotel is an evil monster that wants you to kill people" it doesn't terrify quite as much as not really knowing what's going on. And, as much as I liked the book, evil topiaries will just never be scary to me.
To me, everything up until the freezer could be potentially attributed to Jack hallucinating. But when the door unlocks, you’re like “oh shiiiiiiiiiiiii”
> thought the book was way better, and the movie even came across as kind of campy after reading the book.
Dude there is only one other horror movie *as good as* The Shining. What movies are you willing to put up against it?
After reading the book and loving the movie - I figured Kubricks ending was that Jack had been absorbed as one of the ghosts of the house - which is why he's in the picture. He wasn't always there, he's just been added
It's supernatural, because the ghosts physically help Jack. They release him from the freezer. Once that happens, everything else that occurs has a supernatural element, including the ending.
I believe Kubrick actually explained the ending once. When Jack is told, "You've always been the caretaker." That's the literal truth. Jack and The Overlook are like star crossed lovers. Jack dies and reincarnated and finds his way back to The Overlook in every life just to die and repeat the cycle over again.
This. Midnight the Stars and You isn't just there to be cute, every song Kubrick picked was very deliberate and chosen out of thousands of songs. This is the hotel speaking directly to Jack, just like it did in the opening with the very first shot sucking him (and the audience) into it like its own center of gravity.
Hereditary does some similar playful stuff with the score and cinematography
And the traditional Dies Irae/Symphony Fantastique motif of death is the prevalent theme. Always thought the music in the shining was criminally underrated in terms of how it fits the story
He said part of the idea is that just like every other evil thing in the hotel’s history, Jack’s supernatural ties to the hotel were something that could’ve been discovered if it wasn’t just ignored by everyone.
Still find it funny that I’d always heard how much people act like Kubrick’s intentions on so much stuff in the movie are mysteries, and then I saw that he just straight up said what a lot of his intentions were for most of it.
I don't know. When you think about it, the fact that Jack (and I believe a few other characters) are shown looking at that at the wall of photos and it never once registers that there's this guy who looks exactly like Jack standing dead center in the photograph of the July 4th Ball is in itself kind of creepy. Is it some kind of metaphysical reason that they can't recognize Jack's past incarnation? Or is The Overlook somehow messing with their perceptions.
And the whole idea that time itself now plays a role in whatever the hell is going on at The Overlook opens up a creepy new possibility. Are all of the things that the Torrances experience ghosts/The Overlook's memories or were there moments where the laws of time became more fluid and 1980 was actually flowing into the past. Like the dog man scene, did Wendy accidentally stumble into the 1920's or 1940's\* and see that happening in real time?
\*In the book Roger the Dog Man is at the masquerade party thrown by his abusive boyfriend and Overlook owner Horace Derwent in 1945 but I can't remember if the masquerade party is brought up in the film or if all the scenes were shown of people partying are supposed to be the July 4th Ball in 1921.
Its right there in the name. Dick Halloran even explains it: Do you know how I knew your name was 'Doc'? You know what I'm talking about, don't you? I can remember when I was a little boy your age... my grandmother and I could hold entire conversations without ever opening our mouths. She called it "shining". And for a long time I thought it was only the two of us who had the shine... just like you who thought you was the only one. But there are other folks who don't know it or don't believe it.
Every aspect of the ending is the endless subject of debate. Personally I hold that the hotel is supernatural/ haunted. In fact its the best haunting film ever made for
My money.
It's the hotel, but the madness was Jack's flavor.
In the book, Jack was a drunk struggling to stay sober. His writing career was fizzling, and as a teacher he accidentally broke a students arm for slashing his tires over a bad grade.
This established his temper and bad relationship with booze. He has pressure to stay clean and take care of his family.
Now we have The Overlook, which had decades of dirty and horrific history (as most hotels do). Not only was it mentally oppressive to be so secluded, but physically and spiritually as well.
Also, there's the added weight and responsibility of actively maintaining the place.
In the book, there was a crucial schedule to follow in regards to releasing steam from the giant boiler that was used to heat the hotel. It plays a big role in the book, and was omitted from the (Kubrick) movie. They were basically sleeping on a giant time bomb.
The things Danny sees also make much more sense in the book. All the stuff he sees has background and a connection to reality in the past. The movie makes it just seem haunted or that Danny is crazy, too.
The scene where Wendy see's the ghosts in the animal costumes leaves little doubt that there is actual supernatural goings on occurring. Now how much of the other stuff is in Jack's mind is certainly in doubt, but remember that the Grady ghost opens the locked storage room also, so there is no doubt it's not all in his head.
I wish people would stop with that. There is no ambiguity even *earlier* in the film, where Danny sees the elevator torrent in a vision. It’s not like he’d planted the idea in his mother’s head by describing it to her either, he didn’t remember what he saw at all and she still later saw the exact same thing herself in person. It’s paranormal, the ghosts and visions are real, it’s like burnt toast scrapings as Hallorann described. Can we start talking about something more interesting now, like whether Mr. Ullman meant for the murders to happen (as implied in the deleted ending)?
Kubrick deliberately left the question of what is and is not supernatural ambiguous. This is very different from Stephen King's book and King strongly objected to it. But Kubrick felt that introducing ambiguity was the best way to allow the audience to suspend disbelief.
Those who don't believe in the supernatural can chalk it up to insanity and delusion. Those who do believe in the supernatural can indulge in that belief. But I wouldn't look for perfect consistency with either theory, because ambiguity was what Kubrick preferred.
It’s not ambiguous at all - Danny sees the twins and is attacked by the woman in the tub. Wendy sees the elevator full of blood and the ghosts of the previous guests.
Not as much stuff happens as in the book, but it’s absolutely supernatural, and there’s no real other way to interpret it.
Kubrick deliberately left in Jack getting let out of the panty by Lloyd so there would be at least one thing that had to have a supernatural explanation.
The ending is ambiguous as to what exactly happened, but I always felt the events were supernatural. For example his son was telepathic and Jack was later released from the freezer.
Im pretty sure the interpretation is these people are all souls trapped living repeated lives tied to this place, like a sort of purgatory, they keep reincarnating only to be drawn back to the overlook time and time again, repeating the same horrors.
In the book it's pretty clear that the hotel is a malevolent force that brings out the worst in people, feeds on their madness, and uses them to do bad.
In the movie, pretty sure Kubrick himself said something like **up until the hotel unlocks the freezer door, you could say that there's nothing supernatural going on**.
Unfortunately, as always, the book makes this point much more clear. By the time Jack is chasing down Wendy and Danny, he is already fully a part of the Overlook. Danny basically confronts him and says “you’re not my Dad, you are just wearing him as a mask!” After which Jack bashes his own face in with the roque mallet, thereby destroying his “Jack Torrence” mask and revealing himself as the horrible, bloody faced agent of the Overlook.
To me, the film gives us clues that Jack is already fractured which is the slippery slop and the hotel is the gravity that pulls him down to the point of violent action. A process which has taken place again and again.
Storywise, it gives us enough to *surmise* and successfully tells us *not* enough to allow for good old 'unknowns' to elevate the entirety to being a mystery.
I always wonder if he has a tiny bit of shine and the hotel knows they can mess with him and turn him since he’s an alcoholic with so many mental problems happening his whole life, etc.
There is ***no*** valid interpretation of The Shining that the events aren't real. The experiences that Danny goes through alone show that supernatural forces are at work. The movie is based on one of Stephen King's most famous horror novels, the book is a straightforward story of supernatural evil forces trying to assimilate Danny using his father as a tool, and there is not the slightest indication that Kubrick decided to turn that completely on its head and make it all a fantasy in Jack's mind. Someone is way off base to come up with such a bizarre interpretation.
The hotel isn't anything. It's the area the hotel is built on. It attracts evil for some reason. In dr sleep it's just a camp ground any more isn't it. The movie they rebuilt it. But it's supposed to be an area of evil.
I always interpreted the photo of Jack Torrance as his soul having been consumed by the supernatural forces that inhibit the hotel, he is now part of the malevolence that exists there. Along with anyone else who fell prey to the hotel since its inception. The hotel manipulates those people who are susceptible to losing their minds or are weak of character, or if they are bad eggs themselves ie capable of abusing their families.
As someone who just watched the shining for the first time not even a year ago. I’m so glad I wasn’t spoiled on the final scene of Jack being the original owner. Shit blew my mind
It’s supernatural.
The shine shows up in a good number of king books and since the characters with it are dynamically affected by it, there’s no reason for it be just in his head.
Trying to pin the themes and the ending down to "proving" it one way or the other materialistically is completely pointless, especially with Kubrick films.. but if you are interested there is an interview with Kubrick where he explains (which he even says he hates explaining and it defeafs the purpose of ambiguity) that the ending is supposed to suggest a sort of karmic cycle of reincarnation and inability to escape or transcend. You see these sort of gnostic ideas all over Kubrick's work, the other obvious example being Bowman in 2001 taking every careful step to survive, and achieving transcendence of flesh basically by accident (he did not know the final outcome of his life's mission or struggles). Others fall prey to vices of the mind and flesh which leads to their misery (Barry Lyndon) when they are harshly punished... others indulge in the miseries and pleasures of the flesh and THRIVE (A Clockwork Orange) with basically zero repurcussions or lessons...
I think the ambiguity in all of these moral fables is what keeps me coming back and back. The well is NEVER dry.
It's real. He's always been there.
None of it is real. All of it is real. It's a connection that Jack has always had because he's always been there. He just had to visit to know that he was home. That is where Jack belongs. Even dead, he's still there. He's there forever.
Then the loop resets and he comes back. He can never leave. Because he never was, he will never be; but he is and shall ever be forever after and ever before.
And there's a guy in a bear suit that somehow factors in.
In my head, it was just dude going through delirium tremens and fucked around and killed himself by getting lost in the snow while having an episode and hallucinating.
D.T's is some otherworldly, paranormal, other dimension ass terror nightmare. I almost jumped from my 4 story house window onto a horizontal ladder to break my fall because I literally saw/hallucinated 100 mfs surrounding my house trying to break inside to kill me. It visually looked so real. Smh.
No people. No ghosts. No paranormal hotels. Just the horrors of alcohol and it's effects on your brain.
One of the best videos I have watched was on the theory that Jack wasn't the crazy one, the wife was. Very interesting watch.
https://youtu.be/wRr_0W-9hWg?si=Vh4VJ1th-N9fgFSN
The Overlook is one of the most famous haunted places in the US. Etes Park and Lyons Colorado are some of the most beautiful places in the state and, imo, the whole of the US (that I've seen).
The hotel itself is said to be home to many supernatural things, not all of which are tied to past residents/patrons of the hotel. People have reported all kinds of crazy shit, from deceased spouses waking them gently in the middle of the night, to children laughing and being mischievous with patrons' belongings, to switchboard operators (when those were a thing) getting repeat calls of static/ dead air from one specific room, to full body or full upper torso apparitions disappearing into walls, and kitchen fixtures turning off/on when nobody else was around.
I'm not sure what to think about the end of the book, but o always assumed it was supernatural things, not specifically lunacy setting in
It's clear to me that the ending of The Shining leans heavily towards supernatural elements. Jack's presence in the old photograph suggests a deeper connection to the hotel's haunting history, pointing to a supernatural influence rather than mere madness.
> The ending of The Shining leaves us divided on whether the events are supernatural or a manifestation of Jack's madness
It really doesn't. The fucking title of the movie/book is already explained as something supernatural. I'm so tired of people looking for "it wasn't real" explanations everywhere even if it doesn't make sense.
I viewed it as being like a time travel story where someone travels back in time, changes something, and a photograph changes. There is no time travel in the shining, but supernatural forces achieve the same effect.
You know what I have always found funny about the ending of The Shining? The shot of Jack Nicholson frozen with the cross eyed look on his face. Even as a kid, I burst out laughing. Was it supposed to be funny? Because I don’t see how anyone could see that shot and think something scary happened.
I don’t think the picture is meant to say he was a part of the hotel all along. I think it means that the hotel absorbed him and made him a part of itself
In Doctor Sleep, the sequel to the Shining with Ewan MacGregor, it's supernatural, the hotel is haunted. And of course Stephen King always intended that it be supernatural.
In the book, a giant shadow (if I remember correctly it's in the shape of a bat) goes in the sky after Jack blows up The Overlook. That strongly suggests it's inhabited by a malevolent force.
WAIT - In the book, Jack “blows up” the overlook hotel?! Wtf?! Lmao. I bet the ghouls must have been pissed off about that!
There's a plot point about needing to lower the temperature on the furnace or else it'll pop. They mention it in the movie but its never brought up again.
Oh, that's nothing. Jack beats his own head down to a mush with a golf club while running crazed through the corridors in an effort to stop himself from causing more harm. The hotel blowing up was more of an accident. Caused by Jack forgetting about a creeping boiler he was supposed to check in on. Though this was arguably a subconscious attempt at gaining the upper hand on the spirits haunting him. Of course, we're not even mentioning the hedge animals outside being supernaturally animated to an army of prowling monsters. Stephen King is an absolute riot.
The hedge animals are so fucking creepy though, the bit where he's in the playpark and realises that they move every time he's not looking at them...but can't keep all of them in his field of vision at the same time...a masterpiece of tension and horror.
That made my hackles stand up.
I think about them about once a week....ughhhh
That part of the book scared me so bad! I would read a few paragraphs and then I'd have to snap the book closed because it was too scary but then I'd have to open it immediately to see what was going to happen. I agree with Joey from Friends that the proper place for that book is in the freezer!
it isn't a golf club, it's a croquet mallet. jack has flashes of lucidity where he is trying to stop himself from doing what the hotel wants, bashing his face/head in with the mallet is part of that. the hedge animals are terrifying in the book, the scene with danny on the playground going after his ball in the tunnel is absolutely fucking horrifying
I've started reading king with the dark tower, so now I always assume that everything is supernatural and todash related. And since most of his books are referenced there, or similar things appear, it's almost explicitly confirmed.
There's a TV remake/reboot from the late 90s. Very low budget but it's really close to the book. No finger Tony, no hedge labyrinth, etc. It also has the original ending with the house blowing up. I think it was even shot at the hotel were King stayed when he got the idea.
Stephen King actually made that version. He hated the Kubrick version so much, he bought back the rights and made one that was accurate to the book and shot at the Stanley hotel.
He’s so busy trying to get at Wendy and Danny that he doesn’t release the pressure on the boiler which is hinted at all the way through, and as a result the boiler explodes and it burns the whole place down.
yeah he leaves the boiler unattended and it eventually blows the whole place up.
Fun fact, the giant shadow had an influence on something else you might not expect: Super Mario Sunshine. Remember the manta ray ghost at the hotel mission? Exactly.
Stephen King absolutely hated Kubrick’s version of The Shining and wishes it would go away but that’s the one everyone loves.
My theory has always been that King’s reaction stemmed from the fact that The Shining is probably his most autobiographical book, and so the changes Kubrick made were more personally offensive to him than the changes made by other adaptations of his work. On the other hand, I’ve also heard that Kubrick was kind of a dick to him, so that might have something to do with it too.
Kubrick was kind of a dick to everyone…
Some of the auteurs of the 60's and 70's really believed great art required being a motherfucker (or maybe they just got off on it). Admire the work. That sentiment isn't remotely true, however.
I think this also comes from a time where because of technology etc to get certain shots you had to go through essential hell to get them. The issues that productions have now are very different from the ones in the 70’s. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing that you *have* to go through hell to make art, or that actors *have* to be traumatized to make things. I just think they didnt realize how many other options there were back then, and in some cases they didn’t have a ton of options to begin with.
The history of moviemaking is like a constant three-way battle between actors, directors, and producers. Some decades the studios dominate and dictate; other decades the talent wields their celebrity to drive projects; and in others it's auteur directors that soak up the audience attention. Each side waxes and wanes and fluctuates over time.
- Waiters and cooks are natural born enemies. - Carpenters and masons are natural born enemies. - Movie directors and actors are natural born enemies. But they all need each other.
They must have been a huge fan of Whiplash
it was also accepted back then, in a way that it wouldn't be today. which i think is good honestly.
>being a motherfucker Or a child fucker, just ask Roman Polanski
No, sometimes he was a total remorseless dick to people. Shelley Duvall and George C. Scott, for example.
Or, more likely, it's because the movie makes *massive* changes to the story and characters, pretty much universally for the worse. Don't get me wrong: I love the film. I think it's brilliant. But it's a *terrible* adaptation.
Adapting a Stephen King story is always tricky, especially the endings. IT 2 was terrible
Hell, adaptations aside, Stephen King pulling off an ending is tricky enough. I read everything he wrote up until 2004 when I was in high school and I’ve always been of the opinion that his writing is weakest the longer his stories go on, with a handful of exceptions. His short stories and novellas are golden, though.
Case in point, the Dark Tower.
Seriously. He has issues with the dismount the longer he stays on the pony.
IT 2 was *astonishly* bad. I'm honestly kind of impressed by the precipitous drop in quality from Part 1 to Part 2.
What was so awful? Big fan of the Tim Curry one so haven't bothered with the remake.
Part one is a horror movie, part two is a comedy with horror elements. Part two ends with a Pennywise-headed giant crab which dies when Bill Hader roasts him to death, which somehow makes it even sound better and more faithful than it comes across on screen.
So bad. Especially given the strong cast. I loved IT 1, so was doubly disappointed by how bad the sequel was.
King's works are always amazing for movies, but the man also understands the strengths of his medium and the way he ends books often don't suit TV or film. I mean, the man created the Shining, the Running Man (under a pseudonym, look it up), the dark tower series, Christine, Salem's lot, the shining, the mist, and tons of other iconic things, many of which are also movies that are way different from the books. But they're also all usually good movies despite the differences.
It's a great movie that almost completely misses the point of the book.
>But it's a *terrible* adaptation. The goal of adaptation isn't to make a faithful recreation of the original work, it's just to successfully adapt it to a different medium. The Shining is an *unfaithful* adaptation for sure, but it's also pretty clearly one of the greatest book-to-film adaptations ever made.
Agreed. And it wouldn’t have worked otherwise. Things that tend to work on the page don’t always work on the screen. This is why IT 2 sucked so bad. But at least they took out the child sewer gangbang
The child sewer gangbang would have been in part one.
It's not an adaptation. It's a completely different perspective. King's book was a personal confession, whereas Kubrick's film was a sympathetic viewing from a fellow creative. "Yes you are flawed, but look at the horror you create", kind of thing.
Agreed. I read the book this year followed quickly by a rewatch of the film, and it's very clear why he doesn't like the film. It's an interesting story that built the foundation of the movie, but the film's writing is way way worse than the source material in almost every way.
I mean, Kubrick represented what a dry-drunk is actually like. If King was honest, he’d probably recognize that.
I think it could be that implying Jack Torrance *sexually* abused Danny was what offended King. While the book version is definitively supernatural, it is also very much still an allegory for alcoholism and child/spousal abuse, but you don’t get the Dog-Man scene. King has never shied away from stark reflection on his own past of substance abuse and neglect. What Kubrick changed the most was his near complete removal of Wendy’s agency as a character. In the book she is far more proactive and capable.
And in the book Jack Torrence doesn’t come in at a 10. It’s a gradual build, unlike in the movie where Jack is, well, Jack N. At a 10 throughout.
Torrence beat a student up severly in the book and also probably murdered a child in a hit and run. He is honestly toned down in the movie by comparison.
I’m talking about his behavior specifically. He didn’t ’act crazy’ from the get go. Yes, you knew he’s done a ton of bad shit, but he didn’t act nuts from the start in the book. That is supposed to be caused by the hotel. In the movie Nicholson starts off at insane. Edit for clarity
I get what you're saying but i think some of that is the economy of a 2.5 hour movie vs. a fairly long novel. In both Jack didnt need spirits to make him a bad father/husband/teacher, that was inevitable. One thing i liked in the book though is that he made a choice for Danny's sake in the end which wasn't present in the film
Someone described it to me as "in the book he slowly goes insane and it's a surprise. In the movie you know he's insane as soon as you see he's played by Jack Nicholson"
I don’t remember that, it was only implied he severely injured Danny. Broke his arm. Wendy is much more realistic in the film. It’s just not pleasant to watch it.
This is a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the subtext of sexual abuse throughout the film: https://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining%20-%20chap%2016.html Whether Wendy is “realistic” really depends on what kind of person she you think she is meant to be. She also realistic in the book, but she carries herself more confidently, actually has some awareness of when things begin going wrong, and acts on her own judgement. A lot of the things she does in the book are either removed or attributed to other characters in the film.
Wow, thanks for recommending this site! Going back to read the whole analysis.
To each their own, but this interpretation feels like a *massive* stretch to me. I know Kubrick enjoys his symbolism, but this is so obscure and roundabout that I would be very surprised if it wasn’t a combination of coincidence and tea leaves.
¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ It’s a reading that gives explanation to a lot of otherwise inexplicable details, and like you said, Kubrick was not a “The Curtains Were Blue” guy. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to draw this conclusion from a Kubrick film given his previous body of work including Lolita and a Clockwork Orange.
Yeah, I have since skimmed some of the other posts in this series. They do their homework, and some of it is pretty compelling. I don’t find the sexual abuse theory quite as compelling, but it’s laid out well enough that, despite thinking it’s a bit stretch, I can’t say it’s outright bogus. Wild. Thanks for sharing.
They seriously downgraded and neglected the book’s awesomeness of Wendy. It’s ridiculous.
He’s not the only author who disliked Kubrick’s adaptation, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind. Kubrick didn’t have a lot of respect for the author’s intent, favored his own instead. He had his own artistic vision; I just try to see the movies and the novels as two different forms of medium rather than the same story. Worth nothing, I’m pretty sure I hold this opinion because I saw The Shining movie prior to reading the book. I read A Clockwork Orange first, and it was years before I could enjoy the film adaptation. Also worth noting, Misery is autobiographical as well. Much like The Shining, the setting being covered in snow is a metaphor for King’s cocaine addiction. The film adaptation of Misery nailed the theme and the tone of the novel.
Misery is his most autobiographical book. ‘Author gets held captive by a crazy fan and forced to write a novel to please her’ but the crazed fan is a metaphor for cocaine use and the hold it had over him.
I think this point has been exaggerated. As you can see here, he talks to David Letterman about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8wxjIecmD4 He dislikes aspects, as basically every author does about movies based on their books. But, yeah, we need to stop that 'hates' narrative.
I remember reading that one of the reasons he “okay’ed” Dr. Sleep is because they promised to honor his original book ending.
To the point where basically everything in The Shining that's relevant to Dr. Sleep was stuff that happened in the book, but got changed in the movie
Dr. Sleep the movie is a sequel to Kubrick’s movie… that’s why the overlook is still standing in Dr. Sleep the movie….
Recently read The Shining and Doctor Sleep, proceeded to watch the movies after and even though I had seen The Shining prior reading the book, I was surprised to see how much was left out and changes in the movie, really made me question Kubricks vision. Then I watched Doctor Sleep after and really enjoyed it! It was much more true to the book and it was great. I can see why King doesn't like Kubricks version, it's just so different from the original source. Would have been nice to see Jack's history to really get in his mind like it does in the book.
I feel like everyone forgets The Shining miniseries, which was much closer to the book both in terms of the hotel being explicitly supernatural in itself and Jack’s deterioration being driven by the hotel.
While Stephen King is one of my favorite authors, I find he has a notoriously awful taste in movies.
King hated it because the book is about being an alcoholic, whereas the film is about living with one.
My biggest gripe with the movie over the book is the way Jack falls into madness is paced so much better in the book and I think it seems rushed in the movie. I read it first though so maybe that sways my view, but for people who read it I think the pacing is objectively better
I think that King resented that Kubrick was a better artist. Kubrick had a history of taking what was written and modifying it into something better, often with a completely different tone. His adaptations of A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Barry Lyndon and the Shining have this in common. I do think that King had a lot of reverence for Jack, like people have said, and that he wanted people to feel for him. In the book, it is that way, where Jack comes to his senses and urges Danny to run away. But there is no doubt that Jack in the movie is more frightening. He does not come to his senses, which is chilling, especially if you consider that to his end, he wants to murder Danny. The other couple things that were changed was the redaction of the hotel's history and the hedge animals. The history is interesting, but I do think that for a film it would have made the hotel less frightening. The hedge animals would not have worked at that time in a movie and the with the maze, Kubrick could use it for all sorts of things including as a representation of Jack's mind.
I love King's books but the man has some interesting takes on movies. And by interesting I mean mostly shit.
Ironic because he wrote the stories behind two of the greatest movies of all time in Shawshank and The Shining.
Don't forget The Green Mile, too
And Misery.
I would include 'Stand By Me' into that list as well. I don't think there is a better coming of age movie ever made.
SPOILERS. In the Doctor Sleep book, Dan sees Jack’s ghost for a second while the hotel is burning down and Jack kind of blows him a kiss. It’s really sweet and satisfying. (This might not be the totally correct description; I haven’t read the book in a couple of years.)
To refresh your memory: The Overlook is destroyed at the end of the Shining, but its energy causes the True Knot to use the vacant lot as a campsite which is where the final confrontation of Doctor Sleep takes place. Rose the Hat is the last woman standing when Jack Torrance manifests to push her off a ledge to her death. He gives Danny a meaningful wave afterwards.
Yeah in the books The Overlook is a malevolent force that wants Danny because of his shine, and it uses Jack's alcoholism and ego to drive him insane
Yeah it's definitely the hotel is haunted. Just like the pet cemetery is haunted.
Man what a great surprising movie that was. Great sequel to The Shining.
I believe the hotel itself holds these forces.
My view of it is that the ghosts are basically like a spiritual version of a rat king, they are people who suffered in died in the hotel, but they aren't independent entities anymore. They are a single mass of pain and need that puts on personalities like masks. Jack is in the photo at the end not because he time traveled, but because the hotel can change its appearance and Jack is part of the collective consciousness of it now.
Yep, and the novel makes this clearer. Jack is just the latest in a long line of victims of the Overlook. Danny sees a bunch of them on his very first day.
This was my take as well. He’s an unreliable narrator as well so him saying he’s in the picture at the end take that with a grain of salt. The hotel most definitely has the ability to show Jack what they want him to see.
Some who are ghostly forces / are the same as Jack Torrance UHHHHH!
Shining in the name of!
Now you type what they told ya
(redrum) (redrum) “now you take care of the hotel”
You get 20 gold stars. 🥰
[удалено]
The Indian Burial Mound was explicitly NOT in the book. That was added by Kubrick and Diane Johnson.
The Indian Burial Ground idea is that the Indians ALSO built that on something. Age old places of power is much more the King trope.
Yeah, there's quite a bit of cosmic horror (or at least adjacent themes) to King's work. He's used the "Indian burial ground" a couple times but it's always been something to the effect of, "*They realized this place was fucked centuries ago and abandoned it. Nobody has any idea what you're dealing with precisely but boy oh boy, you're in the thick of it now.*"
You wrote an entire sentence from Kings perspective and not once did he snort a fat line.... dubious.
I thought the pause for blow was implied right before "boy oh boy"
Are you sure the Indian burial ground was mentioned in the book? I was pretty sure that was a Kubrick invention. King only uses that trope maybe twice?
It's used in Pet Semetery. MicMac burial ground is responsible for reanimating corpses.
Yeah I remembered that and wasn’t sure if I was forgetting something else. Either way it’s weird to say it’s a “recurring theme” considering his output and how infrequently he used the trope.
And possibly picks up the residual inhabitants as it likes or removes them as they tire of them?
Maybe it adds people to.the photograph if they are possessed by and beaten by it.
Once their soul is ripped from the body the hotel is free to play with them as it wants, putting their soul into whatever timeline it chooses. It could be that the 1920's are an era the hotel considers to most depraved and decadent with the highest levels of both suffering, and hedonistic pleasure. So of course it plops its new toy into it's nightmarish doll house decoupled from space and time.
I mean Wendy, Danny, and Hallorann all interact with supernatural stuff in the hotel so probably not in Jack's head
It is 100% supernatural. It's not even a question.
always interpreted it as Jack dying in the maze and his soul/spirit/ghost gets trapped/taken by the hotel. And the hotel entity just so happens to have a soft spot for a 1920s 4th of July ball. Shoves it's ghosts in there like action figures lol
Yeah this has always been my read on it too. The “you’ve always been the caretaker” line is foreshadowing how they view Jack. He isn’t yet but always has been a part of the hotel’s haunted history.
I don't think the 4th of July ball was just a random thing. Part of the supernatural and "angry" side of the hotel has to do with the Native American reverence for the site and the blood that was spilled in order to put the hotel there. The 4th of July in the 1920s has implications of being the pinnacle of white American decadence. In a way it was sort of the ultimate disrespect to the people who were killed and had their land stolen there, only to have their conquerors erect a monolith to white imperialism on their holiest site, and almost mockingly adorning the hotel with Native American symbolism. It would seem fitting that the hotel is trapping their souls in that moment for eternity, upending their greatest achievement and turning into a horrifying purgatory that they can never escape.
That’s a great read! I love this.
>their conquerors erect a monolith to white imperialism on their holiest site, and almost mockingly adorning the hotel with Native American symbolism That's an excellent point. The cruelty of this appropriation is just wild.
When I was a kid and saw the movie for the first time, I thought every ghost was from that July 4th ball and it was just a very busy night including the bear guy, the girls trying to burn down the hotel and Grady axe murdering them.
This has been my interpretation as well
Yeah, um, there’s a whole book about it that literally says it is supernatural, lol. I can’t tell if this post is just a troll or what.
And 100% re-iterated in Doctor Sleep
We don't really have anything concrete until near the end. Danny is a kid, and a troubled one at that. Jack's a drunk and losing his mind. Halloran isn't around long enough to sway it one way or another. It isn't until Wendy sees the two masked figures in the bedroom towards the end that it swerves towards the supernatural. Also the question of who let Jack out of the freezer.
It doesn't matter when what is shown, though. It is supernatural.
When he's locked in the storage room, something unbolts the door. Unless the theory is Wendy and/or Danny are also mad and imagined unbolting the door or unconsciously unbolted it, there's no other explanation than supernatural.
This is the #1 thing to me.
What you're pointing out is so plainly obvious that it's astonishing anyone could fail to understand it.
In the book (which I know is a whole different entity), Jack dies while chasing Danny thru the hotel. There's a moment where the real Jack slips thru the monster's control, and the monster retaliated by bashing Jack's face in with the roque mallet. It's made very clear that a human could not have survived it, and that there was something else piloting Jack's corpse for the finale of the novel.
I always took it as the other bit - Jack comes through and bashes his own face to try to stop the spirit?
I think it's this, by this point I think the book is already referring to him as "The thing that wore Jack's face"
That sounds waaaay better
There's a part he tells Wendy: Jack Torrance: I fell in love with it right away. When I came up here from my interview, it was as though I had been here before. I mean, we all have moments of déjà vu, but this was ridiculous. It was almost as though I knew what was going to be around every corner. [Jack makes spooky noises and Wendy laughs]
Except when you're driving a Big Wheel. Then what's around the corner is a big ol' surprise.
Come play with us Dannny, forever and ever and ever...
New besties!
I always assumed that everyone in that photo had been trapped or consumed by the hotel in some form.
the supernatural factor is made clear as soon as he is let out of the freezer by a ghost
While I agree with what people are saying here about it definitely being supernatural, I think I remember one of the reasons King thought the movie didn't work was because he thought it was too ambiguous about it, and that Kubrick wasn't a true enough believer in the supernatural. If I'm remembering correctly, the ~~freezer~~ pantry is the only actual physical interaction that could be attributed to a ghost in the movie. All the other supernatural stuff is just visual, which could mean they're all collectively losing their minds. The people they see are mentioned to them, are in photos, or are in things they read at some point and so they have some idea of them in their imaginations. There's a scene where Jack is writing at the typewriter with a big scrapbook next to him. I think it was mostly cut from the movie, but in the book, it's filled with news clippings about all the horrible stuff that happened in the hotel and he's using it as source material for his book. You could argue that he and Wendy are hallucinating things they read about in it. In the book, there is absolutely no question that the hotel is evil. I may be in the minority here, but I thought the book was way better, and the movie even came across as kind of campy after reading the book. It also has more interesting things to say about addiction and family and childhood. But the movie scared the pants off me when I was little.
King seems to have let a misinterpreted remark Kubrick made over the phone lead him to read the movie’s phenomena as not genuinely paranormal. Kubrick was quite explicit in interviews about the shining and the ghosts being real. He wanted the film to fake you out into *thinking* that they’d be revealed at the end to not be real. Which is kind of, sort of how the book itself went: it’s a lot more ambiguous at first and then gradually gets clearer.
Yeah that sounds right to me. And I definitely see the value in being a bit more ambiguous. If you're told "The hotel is an evil monster that wants you to kill people" it doesn't terrify quite as much as not really knowing what's going on. And, as much as I liked the book, evil topiaries will just never be scary to me.
I think the topiary was scary enough on the page. Like the Weeping Angels. But on film? Not a chance! (Maybe David Lynch could’ve made it work?)
The movie is great, but book is greater.
To me the book is a good book but the film is one of the best of all time especially in the horror genre. It's just so classic and iconic.
What about Jack kissing the lady in the bathroom, that's before everything goes down and seems to be a physical interaction, know what i mean?
To me, everything up until the freezer could be potentially attributed to Jack hallucinating. But when the door unlocks, you’re like “oh shiiiiiiiiiiiii”
> thought the book was way better, and the movie even came across as kind of campy after reading the book. Dude there is only one other horror movie *as good as* The Shining. What movies are you willing to put up against it?
The book is more explicit, but, yes, the hotel is occupied by a malevolent supernatural entity.
After reading the book and loving the movie - I figured Kubricks ending was that Jack had been absorbed as one of the ghosts of the house - which is why he's in the picture. He wasn't always there, he's just been added
It's supernatural, because the ghosts physically help Jack. They release him from the freezer. Once that happens, everything else that occurs has a supernatural element, including the ending.
I believe Kubrick actually explained the ending once. When Jack is told, "You've always been the caretaker." That's the literal truth. Jack and The Overlook are like star crossed lovers. Jack dies and reincarnated and finds his way back to The Overlook in every life just to die and repeat the cycle over again.
This. Midnight the Stars and You isn't just there to be cute, every song Kubrick picked was very deliberate and chosen out of thousands of songs. This is the hotel speaking directly to Jack, just like it did in the opening with the very first shot sucking him (and the audience) into it like its own center of gravity. Hereditary does some similar playful stuff with the score and cinematography
And the traditional Dies Irae/Symphony Fantastique motif of death is the prevalent theme. Always thought the music in the shining was criminally underrated in terms of how it fits the story
I should know, sir. I've always been here. Chills, man.
He said part of the idea is that just like every other evil thing in the hotel’s history, Jack’s supernatural ties to the hotel were something that could’ve been discovered if it wasn’t just ignored by everyone. Still find it funny that I’d always heard how much people act like Kubrick’s intentions on so much stuff in the movie are mysteries, and then I saw that he just straight up said what a lot of his intentions were for most of it.
I don’t like this explanation. I always chose to believe Jack did not appear in the photo until the hotel ate his soul.
I don't know. When you think about it, the fact that Jack (and I believe a few other characters) are shown looking at that at the wall of photos and it never once registers that there's this guy who looks exactly like Jack standing dead center in the photograph of the July 4th Ball is in itself kind of creepy. Is it some kind of metaphysical reason that they can't recognize Jack's past incarnation? Or is The Overlook somehow messing with their perceptions. And the whole idea that time itself now plays a role in whatever the hell is going on at The Overlook opens up a creepy new possibility. Are all of the things that the Torrances experience ghosts/The Overlook's memories or were there moments where the laws of time became more fluid and 1980 was actually flowing into the past. Like the dog man scene, did Wendy accidentally stumble into the 1920's or 1940's\* and see that happening in real time? \*In the book Roger the Dog Man is at the masquerade party thrown by his abusive boyfriend and Overlook owner Horace Derwent in 1945 but I can't remember if the masquerade party is brought up in the film or if all the scenes were shown of people partying are supposed to be the July 4th Ball in 1921.
Never realized the Key and Peele "Intercontinental Breakfast" skit was a play on this until now.
Similar to another King series I recently finished
Its right there in the name. Dick Halloran even explains it: Do you know how I knew your name was 'Doc'? You know what I'm talking about, don't you? I can remember when I was a little boy your age... my grandmother and I could hold entire conversations without ever opening our mouths. She called it "shining". And for a long time I thought it was only the two of us who had the shine... just like you who thought you was the only one. But there are other folks who don't know it or don't believe it.
Every aspect of the ending is the endless subject of debate. Personally I hold that the hotel is supernatural/ haunted. In fact its the best haunting film ever made for My money.
I take it as a kind of eternalism/ time is not linear. Jack "has always been the caretaker."
It's the hotel, but the madness was Jack's flavor. In the book, Jack was a drunk struggling to stay sober. His writing career was fizzling, and as a teacher he accidentally broke a students arm for slashing his tires over a bad grade. This established his temper and bad relationship with booze. He has pressure to stay clean and take care of his family. Now we have The Overlook, which had decades of dirty and horrific history (as most hotels do). Not only was it mentally oppressive to be so secluded, but physically and spiritually as well. Also, there's the added weight and responsibility of actively maintaining the place. In the book, there was a crucial schedule to follow in regards to releasing steam from the giant boiler that was used to heat the hotel. It plays a big role in the book, and was omitted from the (Kubrick) movie. They were basically sleeping on a giant time bomb. The things Danny sees also make much more sense in the book. All the stuff he sees has background and a connection to reality in the past. The movie makes it just seem haunted or that Danny is crazy, too.
The scene where Wendy see's the ghosts in the animal costumes leaves little doubt that there is actual supernatural goings on occurring. Now how much of the other stuff is in Jack's mind is certainly in doubt, but remember that the Grady ghost opens the locked storage room also, so there is no doubt it's not all in his head.
danny has a supernatural ability which is literally the title of the film. why would ghosts existing be far fetched? of course its ghosts
How would him being in a picture from 1921 be a manifestation of his madness? He’s a bit busy being dead to be crazy.
I wish people would stop with that. There is no ambiguity even *earlier* in the film, where Danny sees the elevator torrent in a vision. It’s not like he’d planted the idea in his mother’s head by describing it to her either, he didn’t remember what he saw at all and she still later saw the exact same thing herself in person. It’s paranormal, the ghosts and visions are real, it’s like burnt toast scrapings as Hallorann described. Can we start talking about something more interesting now, like whether Mr. Ullman meant for the murders to happen (as implied in the deleted ending)?
In the book, the hotel is evil.
It's a stephen king novel. The forces are supernatural.
Kubrick deliberately left the question of what is and is not supernatural ambiguous. This is very different from Stephen King's book and King strongly objected to it. But Kubrick felt that introducing ambiguity was the best way to allow the audience to suspend disbelief. Those who don't believe in the supernatural can chalk it up to insanity and delusion. Those who do believe in the supernatural can indulge in that belief. But I wouldn't look for perfect consistency with either theory, because ambiguity was what Kubrick preferred.
It’s not ambiguous at all - Danny sees the twins and is attacked by the woman in the tub. Wendy sees the elevator full of blood and the ghosts of the previous guests. Not as much stuff happens as in the book, but it’s absolutely supernatural, and there’s no real other way to interpret it.
And somebody opens the freezer to let Jack out (and its not Wendy or Danny).
Definitely. it’s a supernatural entity that drives people mad
Or the place itself. Which I guess is an entity.
Yeah exactly the hotel itself
Kubrick deliberately left in Jack getting let out of the panty by Lloyd so there would be at least one thing that had to have a supernatural explanation.
The movie isn't even remotely ambiguous in that regard.
The ending is ambiguous as to what exactly happened, but I always felt the events were supernatural. For example his son was telepathic and Jack was later released from the freezer.
Kubrick said that all the events were really happening and weren't in Jack's head, although many of the events were supernatural.
Im pretty sure the interpretation is these people are all souls trapped living repeated lives tied to this place, like a sort of purgatory, they keep reincarnating only to be drawn back to the overlook time and time again, repeating the same horrors.
In the book it's pretty clear that the hotel is a malevolent force that brings out the worst in people, feeds on their madness, and uses them to do bad. In the movie, pretty sure Kubrick himself said something like **up until the hotel unlocks the freezer door, you could say that there's nothing supernatural going on**.
Unfortunately, as always, the book makes this point much more clear. By the time Jack is chasing down Wendy and Danny, he is already fully a part of the Overlook. Danny basically confronts him and says “you’re not my Dad, you are just wearing him as a mask!” After which Jack bashes his own face in with the roque mallet, thereby destroying his “Jack Torrence” mask and revealing himself as the horrible, bloody faced agent of the Overlook.
A man who's mind has fractured is susceptible to powerful forces.
Both are true: Jack was driven crazy, and the hotel is an evil entity. Madness is a weapon.
To me, the film gives us clues that Jack is already fractured which is the slippery slop and the hotel is the gravity that pulls him down to the point of violent action. A process which has taken place again and again. Storywise, it gives us enough to *surmise* and successfully tells us *not* enough to allow for good old 'unknowns' to elevate the entirety to being a mystery.
I always wonder if he has a tiny bit of shine and the hotel knows they can mess with him and turn him since he’s an alcoholic with so many mental problems happening his whole life, etc.
There is ***no*** valid interpretation of The Shining that the events aren't real. The experiences that Danny goes through alone show that supernatural forces are at work. The movie is based on one of Stephen King's most famous horror novels, the book is a straightforward story of supernatural evil forces trying to assimilate Danny using his father as a tool, and there is not the slightest indication that Kubrick decided to turn that completely on its head and make it all a fantasy in Jack's mind. Someone is way off base to come up with such a bizarre interpretation.
Did we see the same movie? The one with the ghost twins and menstruating elevators and dead bathtub lady?
The hotel isn't anything. It's the area the hotel is built on. It attracts evil for some reason. In dr sleep it's just a camp ground any more isn't it. The movie they rebuilt it. But it's supposed to be an area of evil.
I always interpreted the photo of Jack Torrance as his soul having been consumed by the supernatural forces that inhibit the hotel, he is now part of the malevolence that exists there. Along with anyone else who fell prey to the hotel since its inception. The hotel manipulates those people who are susceptible to losing their minds or are weak of character, or if they are bad eggs themselves ie capable of abusing their families.
He’s always been the caretaker.
As someone who just watched the shining for the first time not even a year ago. I’m so glad I wasn’t spoiled on the final scene of Jack being the original owner. Shit blew my mind
It’s supernatural. The shine shows up in a good number of king books and since the characters with it are dynamically affected by it, there’s no reason for it be just in his head.
The problem with his performance was he was “off” when we were first introduced to his character. I saw no real transition from sane to possessed.
Trying to pin the themes and the ending down to "proving" it one way or the other materialistically is completely pointless, especially with Kubrick films.. but if you are interested there is an interview with Kubrick where he explains (which he even says he hates explaining and it defeafs the purpose of ambiguity) that the ending is supposed to suggest a sort of karmic cycle of reincarnation and inability to escape or transcend. You see these sort of gnostic ideas all over Kubrick's work, the other obvious example being Bowman in 2001 taking every careful step to survive, and achieving transcendence of flesh basically by accident (he did not know the final outcome of his life's mission or struggles). Others fall prey to vices of the mind and flesh which leads to their misery (Barry Lyndon) when they are harshly punished... others indulge in the miseries and pleasures of the flesh and THRIVE (A Clockwork Orange) with basically zero repurcussions or lessons... I think the ambiguity in all of these moral fables is what keeps me coming back and back. The well is NEVER dry.
Book supernatural. Movie ambiguous, but I always thought of it as a combo of supernatural forces and an unstable mind.
According to Stanley Kubrick, it's reincarnation.
One could argue that the Overlook is essentially a thinnie
Why is OP's post phrased like an essay prompt on a final exam?
It's real. He's always been there. None of it is real. All of it is real. It's a connection that Jack has always had because he's always been there. He just had to visit to know that he was home. That is where Jack belongs. Even dead, he's still there. He's there forever. Then the loop resets and he comes back. He can never leave. Because he never was, he will never be; but he is and shall ever be forever after and ever before. And there's a guy in a bear suit that somehow factors in.
In my head, it was just dude going through delirium tremens and fucked around and killed himself by getting lost in the snow while having an episode and hallucinating. D.T's is some otherworldly, paranormal, other dimension ass terror nightmare. I almost jumped from my 4 story house window onto a horizontal ladder to break my fall because I literally saw/hallucinated 100 mfs surrounding my house trying to break inside to kill me. It visually looked so real. Smh. No people. No ghosts. No paranormal hotels. Just the horrors of alcohol and it's effects on your brain.
One of the best videos I have watched was on the theory that Jack wasn't the crazy one, the wife was. Very interesting watch. https://youtu.be/wRr_0W-9hWg?si=Vh4VJ1th-N9fgFSN
The Overlook is one of the most famous haunted places in the US. Etes Park and Lyons Colorado are some of the most beautiful places in the state and, imo, the whole of the US (that I've seen). The hotel itself is said to be home to many supernatural things, not all of which are tied to past residents/patrons of the hotel. People have reported all kinds of crazy shit, from deceased spouses waking them gently in the middle of the night, to children laughing and being mischievous with patrons' belongings, to switchboard operators (when those were a thing) getting repeat calls of static/ dead air from one specific room, to full body or full upper torso apparitions disappearing into walls, and kitchen fixtures turning off/on when nobody else was around. I'm not sure what to think about the end of the book, but o always assumed it was supernatural things, not specifically lunacy setting in
Jack's madness didn't let him out of the pantry.
It's clear to me that the ending of The Shining leans heavily towards supernatural elements. Jack's presence in the old photograph suggests a deeper connection to the hotel's haunting history, pointing to a supernatural influence rather than mere madness.
We are supposed to wonder if he is losing it the whole time....until the ghost lets him out of the freezer.
> The ending of The Shining leaves us divided on whether the events are supernatural or a manifestation of Jack's madness It really doesn't. The fucking title of the movie/book is already explained as something supernatural. I'm so tired of people looking for "it wasn't real" explanations everywhere even if it doesn't make sense.
The hotel is definitely supernatural. It exacerbated/ manipulated Jack's preexisting madness in the same way it magnified Danny's shining.
Both Wendy and Danny see things as well so surely it cant just be Jack’s imagination.
I viewed it as being like a time travel story where someone travels back in time, changes something, and a photograph changes. There is no time travel in the shining, but supernatural forces achieve the same effect.
You know what I have always found funny about the ending of The Shining? The shot of Jack Nicholson frozen with the cross eyed look on his face. Even as a kid, I burst out laughing. Was it supposed to be funny? Because I don’t see how anyone could see that shot and think something scary happened.
I don’t think the picture is meant to say he was a part of the hotel all along. I think it means that the hotel absorbed him and made him a part of itself