DeputyDave

I may get flamed for this (I DO like the movie and am watching it again now) but I think Kubrick started with a straight forward plot (provided by SK) and made changes as he filmed because he thought they worked visually, but ignored how those changes affected the story. If you read anything more into it you've been listening to Dark Side of the Moon while watching the Wizard of Oz too much.

If you keep the basic plot in mind that this movie is about "The Shining", you'll understand it better DESPITE those changes Kubrick made. The Shining is the name of the power that some people possess in greater or lesser quantities. The cook has it and to a lesser extent so do Jack and even Wendy a tiny bit (it runs in families). One of the things it allows is precognition (or hunches or intuition).

For whatever reason (maybe because both his parents have it) Danny was born with nuclear strength shining. The voice, Tony, is little Danny's way of dealing with knowing what is going to happen all of the time. His subconscious has created an imaginary friend as a way of giving voice to his precognition. At first Tony was friendly, telling him where mommy lost her ring, or when they were going to a carnival. But the closer they got to the hotel, and “the bad thing”, Tony became scary because the only future he could “see” was bad.

As Halloran (the cook) explains, strong emotions sometimes leave a residue in the places they happen. A lot of bad things had happened in this hotel over the years (it was a Mafia hot spot for a while), leaving a lot of residue. When a person with the shining comes along he can sometimes charge that residue like a battery and see what happened like pictures in a book (or better yet, like a TV). They really can’t hurt you physically because they haven’t been “powered” enough for that. If you were exposed to them for a long time (like Grady) they might drive you crazy. This explains why most caretakers over the years never went nuts, only Grady must have had the shining.

Now here comes Danny. Instead of a 9 volt battery, he lights the pace up like a nuclear reactor. The residue comes to actual “life” and forms a sentience. This is “The Management” Grady tells Jack about. This may explain the statement “you’ve always been the caretaker”, as far as the management is concerned, Jack has been the caretaker its entire life.

For me this is the real tragedy of the movie. The boy is the only thing that is important. The hotel wants the boy to stay “forever and ever and ever”. It wants to continue to “live”. Perhaps if Danny dies in the hotel his spirit or residue will contain the shining and continue to provide power. The hotel lies to Jack, makes him think he’s important, makes him think he can remain forever happy if only he takes care of that one little thing. Kill the boy. Jack is disposable, Danny is all important.

As far as the reincarnation theory, I think that’s way off base. Jack “recognizes” Grady from the photos in newspaper articles after hearing the name. He says so himself. If you notice in one of the first scenes where Jack is writing there is an open scrapbook of newspaper articles on the table. In the original book Jack finds the scrapbooks in the basement and intends to write a book about the Overlook’s sordid history. Considering the scrapbook’s inclusion on the writing table I’m sure there’s a deleted scene reflecting that.

As far as Grady’s first name changing from one scene to the next, I’m afraid I’d have to put that down to sloppy film making.

The photo at the end is I think a way of showing that now that Jack is dead he is forever a part of the hotel.

chanster

I always thought the hotel itself was an entity - there was no "person" that unlocked the door, it was the hotel itself. The hotel, through all the bad things that happened there, had become an entity itself and could shine, just like Danny. So it was shining when it created all those "ghosts" - its not so much that Jack went back in time, it was just that he had succumbed to the power of the hotel and he was now a part of it, just like the rest of the ghosts.

benh911

DeputyDave, you have some very interesting thoughts, and I think one of the neat things about this movie is how it's open to people's interpretations, but I just cannot believe that the different names of Grady was a film making error. Of all the things that you could possibly screw up in the film making process, the name of an integral character is not one of them.

DeputyDave

I have to disagree. The manager told Jack that "Charles" Grady was the caretaker who went crazy, chopped up his wife and kids and shot himself with a shotgun.
Jack confronted "Delbert" Grady and told him he was the caretaker who chopped up his wife and kids and shot himself with a shotgun. He recognized the name and picture from the newspapers. They are obviously the exact same person with 2 first names.

There are only three possible conclusions. One is that the ghost himself changes his first name for some reason. Two is that Delbert is his preferred middle name. Both are as silly as the reincarnation theory because they are pointless unexplained conclusions.

More likely Kubrick (or Diane Johnson) had considered changing the name from SK's original Delbert to Charles. The name was changed in part of or one version of the script filmed and not the other. It could have easily been overlooked; film makers have missed much more obvious mistakes. I, myself, had seen the movie at least a half a dozen times and never noticed it until I was told to look for it.

The scene in the bathroom is pretty much word for word from the book, when Diane Johnson was "adapting" it she may have forgotten she had decided to change the silly name of Delbert to the more normal sounding Charles.

There are other scenes that seem to be lifted directly from the book without any explanation. When Wendy sees the man in the dog costume giving head to the man in a tuxedo it seems like some surreal non sequitur type of moment. That scene is straight from the book and believe it or not makes complete sense in that context.

I don’t want to keep harping and make people think the movie sucks and the book rules. I like both and have problems with both. I think Kubrick was right when he changed the hedge animals into a hedge maze and the silly croquette hammer to an axe. I just think reading too much into the movie without understanding the source material is wrong.

das Monkey

Well played.

das

DeputyDave

Damn, well he looked like a William.

Shazam

Not to threadjack, but there are lots of web pages that explain 2001 to the smallest detail. It's a pretty straightforward film, really.

benh911

I always believed that Jack recognized the "Grady" name, but didn't realize the first name was different. And the different theories is what makes this movie so unique. Not all movies have cut and dry conclusions, and they leave them up to the viewer to form an opinion. I don't think the reincarnation theory is silly at all.

Here is a quote from Kubrick about the ending:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/h.../shining2.html

Johnny Zhivago

Sorry, but no way am I going to believe that Kubrick didn't notice the name change... Kubrick was the very definition of the word meticulous.

Duh Vuh Duh

Just finished this movie again and I like some of the theories. I think I'm more leaning towards the reincarnation theory, but haven't read the book either.

Also, I agree with the hotel owning his soul because I payed more attention this time and Jack says in the Gold Room "I would give anything, I would give my soul just for a beer". Then he sees the bartender, which I beleive is the first time he sees any ghosts of the hotel.

jpdude

exactly...he can check out anytime he likes, but he can never leave.

oh wait....wrong hotel

OutRun2

I have a question....

When Wendy is backing away from Jack, while holding the bat(one of my favorite scenes btw), Jack asks her to stop swinging the bat and calm down. What do think would have happened if she would have just stopped backing away and dropped the bat? Do you think he would have harmed her still? Do you think he really would have bashed her brains in? Don't you think she made the situation worse by actually hitting him and knocking him unconcious?

By the time he woke up and talked to her from inside the ice box, he seemed even more pissed, and especially after talking to Grady, would have for sure fucked her up if she'd have let him out of the ice box.

I think she should have just stopped where she was at the typewriter, dropped the bat and approached him in a calm fashion. Even though he was kinda pissed, I don't think he would have harmed her, and he certainly wasn't as demented as he was by the time he got out of the ice box. Getting hit in the head with a bat and then being coerced by Grady turned him into the "Here's Johnny" Jack that we saw at the end of the film IMHO.

Rival11

My two cents:

Yes Kubrick makes films that make you think - I'm sure we all agree.

But.....personally, with as many times as I've seen this flick, the hotel is simply haunted. Nothing mor nothing less.

The shining is our extra bonus to a normal ghost story but it's not there to confuse the shit out of you. The shining both aids and harms the characters (unintentially).

I will always stand by the fact that the hotel simply "claimed" Jack at the end. the picture illustrates this with him right in front holding the sign as if the hotel is now saying "welcome to our newest member".

Everything that comes before is all haunting - when Grady says "you've always been the caretaker" he's simply implying that "you are now one of us and at one time we were all the caretaker's" - I think this is made obviously clear with how Grady is talking to him - straight forward, to the point.....just kill them all - that's what you're here for.

I really think it's that simple. I used to get caught up in all the extra detail but when you watch this film as a simple told ghost story, it all just makes sense that this is how it went down.

As far as the two different Grady names go.....I don't think it's integral at all does it have a purpose? Maybe but I don't think it matters much.

I buy into Kubricks reincarnation statement but doubt very much he means it in the normal defintion of the word.

iconoclasm

that was my impression when i first watched the film, but now i am reading all of this other little nuances that other folks saw that I missed.

I thought grady was trying to trick him into thinking he was the caretaker and into killing his family. And so that by killing his family, his soul would then be further bound to the hotel by some sort of blood contract.

i like some of deputy dave's justifications, but then i step back and think he may be over analyzing.

Oh, i thought it's just some sort of spin, like if grady did kill his family, then the family members souls would be in the picture too, so one of the grady's was a father(charles), one was the son(delbert) and that is why they have different names.

So if jack killed his family then his family would be in the photo, and grady's family is in the photo too.

eh, here is the closest thing to an explanation to the shining and how it works that i can find in the actual film. I like the part about burnt toast.

The part about "shine" is deliberately ambiguous, so its open to lots of interpretation

I never thought that jack or the wife could shine, but the hotel could, and it eventually swallowed jack up, so it looked like he could shine but it was really just the hotel acting through jack's possessed body.

On another note, the actor that played dick halloran(Scatman Crothers) was 70 years old in that film. He looked old, but not that old to me.

story

I've always found this article interesting.

nateman

I know this was a long time ago, but I got the Kubrick collection DVD set for Christmas and re-watched "2001: A Space Odyssey" this year and for some reason I enjoyed it. It could be the fact that I've only watched it on TV and never made it through the whole thing before, but I was pulled into the story for some reason. I guess as I grow older I start to appreciate great films.

I also loved "A Clockwork Orange", but "Full Metal Jacket" didn't do it for me. I have a lot of the same opinions as Ebert on FMJ.

james2025a

I don't think there has ever been a film where everyone seems to have such different opinions. As for my two cents, well i think its a given that the hotel is alive with spirits and evil. I think that when people enter Room 237 they are tested by the hotel. Danny is inherently good (or innocent) and thus is forcibly ejected. Maybe the power of the Shining is something that evil recoils from, its a power held by the pure of heart. Jack on the other hand takes the bait evil gives him in the form of the naked lady...and once he has taken the kiss offered its a good as signing away his soul. Hence her changing into an old hag....the hotel and spirits are laughing at him already for being weak willed and easily manipulated. Jack from this point on is damned, and is forced to spend eternity in purgatory....reliving past events time and time again. The same as Grady. The picture i think is not so much re-incarnation so much as a man unable to escape his destiny. He feels he knows whats around every corner because he is part of the hotel and its legacy. We see the photo of him at the end from 1921 and i personally feel this is just saying that he is in a continual cycle or events. He cannot escape the hotel.

I like some of the points made by other people, but i don't agree with the fact that people are dismissing the reincarnation theory. I would not exaclty call it reincarnation, but there are too many things in the movie that suggest that Jack in some shape or form has been in the hotel before in another time or another life. Who knows, maybe the hotel is populated by the spirits of the dead native americans and Jack is a spirit that has escaped and managed to become mortal again. Each time a spirit has escaped it is born into the body of Jack and it can never escape the pull of the hotel drawing it back. They are reclaiming their own.

JMcCraw

I think Kubrick would have been very pleased to read this thread. I don't have anything to contribute but I do want to watch The Shining now.

jtorrance25

One of my theories is exactly like this. The reason I came up to the same theory is because Jack is able to see the people from 1921, but Wendy later on sees everyone in the Gold Room in what would be their current state---as dead skeletal remains. Even though it's a ghostly vision she sees only that one instance (compared to other times where the room appears normal to her), the remains tell me that she exists only in the present whereas Jack exists in the present and past. She isn't a part of the 1921 world as Jack had become mainly due to his psychological weaknesses. It really doesn't start until he says he'd sell his soul for a drink. From that moment on, I think he allows the evil from the hotel to gain a foothold in his mind. That scene where Danny wanted to get his firetruck and Jack is awake and hugs him is a point where Jack seems to have been influenced by the spirits of the hotel but hadn't yet given in to them. It looked like he was confused. He had a sense that he belonged at the mansion at the interview, but at that point where he hugged Danny, it still seemed possible to turn things around. But that sense of belonging is what really messed him up and prevented him from getting the hell out.

There are many theories out there that I read that are very good. Even though I personally don't believe in reincarnation, for the film's purposes I think that everyone in that 1921 photo was reincarnated and the hotel had a claim on every one of their souls in their next life. I think this is why Grady's name as given by Ullman didn't match the name that Grady gave Jack (because Jack met the 1921 Grady who had no recollection of killing his family while Ullman was talking about the 1970's Grady). Both Grady's had 2 daughters and a wife and one "corrected" them by killing them whereas we don't know what the other did. Perhaps he did the same. He didn't tell Jack about "correcting" them until after Jack was convinced that he himself had always been the caretaker.

There are too many possible explanations, so I wanted to add my 2 cents.

Troy Stiffler

I always like Kubrick's explaination. It went something like, 'I don't know, I did it to be moody and creepy and to fuck with you'.

Brent L

I don't have much to add, but I saw this on the big screen for the first time in Nashville this past Saturday and just wanted to say that if you've never seen it on the big screen, then you haven't fully experienced the flick. At least in my opinion.

I've never totally realized just how terrifying this movie is until this past Saturday, hearing that incredible score filling up an entire theater, seeing the print on the big screen complete with grain and scratches. I had an awesome time watching this one in Nashville, and it gave me a brand new appreciation of the picture as a whole.

ReduxGuy

Yeah, that'd be THIS hotel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohpknmKr7s

BradWinter

I have only watched The Shining once, I will be doing again very soon, and Ive yet to read the book, which I will also do, but Ive got to say I do agree with this, Jack, for me, just turned insane far too quick, and I couldnt quite believe he had gone that insane, in that short a time. Also, the ghosts towards the end of the movie, how could Wendy see them? was she also insane at this point? or would anyone of been able to see them?

The film left me a bit dissapointed, more than a bit confused, I kind of enjoyed parts, the blood rushing out of the elevator, a beautiful sight (also, why could Wendy she that? again, was she insane also by this point or was it really there???), but i was left feeling a bit like certain scenes and/or images(probably a better word for what I mean) were thrown in to scare, rather than because they needed to be there.

As I said earlier, Ive only watched the film once, I have yet to read the book, and im having some trouble understanding the movie, and I look forward to discussing it further.

bunkaroo

I think he was already on the way to mental problems before he got there. From what I remember it's implied he's a drinker and not the most balanced person. I always look it at like the Overlook brings out the worst in him.

I also think the movie could be clearer an how much time has elapsed. I have to say though, if I was stuck with Shelly Duvall in those conditions, I'd be nuts in 2 weeks give or take.

mdgreen31

As someone probably mentioned, Kubrick used the book as an outline for the movie. Kubrick really didn't believe that much in the supernatural, and King has stated that in phone conversations with him that the Ghost aspect of the book really didn't scare him much.. so he made the movie more about Jack going crazy. Those who haven't read the book really should, it is very good; but a different beast than the movie. I personally like both of them, but for different reasons. In the book, the hotel slowly drives Jack crazy (he was the son of an abusive father who was also an alcholic). The hotel is really only interested in Danny (it uses him as a power source) and uses tries to use Jack to get him. It is implied that Jack had some the "shine" so this is why the hotel is able to communicate with him. I can elaborate more later, if any one is interested