Can some explain the ending of The Shining to me

All you need to understand about the Shining is that it is about the Federal Reserve, Manifest Destiny, the Illuminati, child molestation and autism.

Go to the website Collative Learning and watch every single one of the videos about The Shining.

This is the creepiest scene to me.

R1 Interesting theory about child molestation. Stanley Kubrick is a brilliant atmospheric director. There is something so tremendously frightening the way he sets up Wendy noticing how he knows the kid’s nickname. They are telepathically communicating and then he shows it in the freezer. It’s just so fucking haunting.

Was that before or after his character molested Danny?

R3-He’s so proud of the food inventory almost boastful. It suggests a certain loneliness about him.

R4 Halloran didn’t molest Danny you freaking dumbass, his father did

R5 that’s because Halloran is coded as autistic. Kubrick used shining as a metaphor for autism.

R7 But he doesn’t seem autistic.

Exhaustively listing the contents of the Overlook’s freezer is extremely autistic.

I found it fascinating.

Dragging autism into this is a thread ender.

Dragging autism into any thread is a thread ender

It does kind of seem autistic now that I rewatch it.

Oh god, here come the Molestation Trolls. Do you just sit in your mom's basement all day on the internets commiserating with other victims- real or imagined? Occasionally curling into a fetal position? You have too much time on your hands, thanks to that disability check for PTSD.

But is Danny yellow skinned? And does the Dad have chewable nips?

Everyone is autistic.

Never saw it -- and now that I've read this thread, I'm never going to.

R17 Good for you. Please trolls don’t come on this thread with that weird shit.

R17, I was planning on rewatching it at some point this October, but I may well skip it this year.

I didn't watch it last year either.

I think they were the movie’s credits.

I liked the book because it had a lot of fantastical stories about the previous eras and guests of the hotel. There was no maze; it was an animal topiary that seemed to move out of the corner of your eye. And Halloran did rescue them and bring them back to Florida.

SPOILER (on a 47-year old novel): R21, since you've given away that part of the ending, why not give away the rest: the boiler finally blows up and the hotel burns down with Jack in it.

R11 R12 You seriously wandered into a thread about The Shining and became annoyed because autism was mentioned?

Do you go into threads about Brokeback Mountain and snap at the people talking about homosexuality?

R14 the molestation theme is so overt that Jack Torrance is seen reading an issue of Playgirl Magazine which has an article “Why Parents Molest Their Kids” on the cover.

Why are you triggered so much by it? Are you a child molester or something?

And in the book, Wendy is blonde with big tits.

Exceptional tits.

[quote]R23: You seriously wandered into a thread about The Shining and became annoyed because autism was mentioned?

[quote]Do you go into threads about Brokeback Mountain and snap at the people talking about homosexuality?

False comparison.

'Brokeback Mountain' is topically about a homosexual relationship. 'The Shining' is not about autism; it's something that has to be imposed upon it.

But you're constantly pushing autism. Why?

Here's you on the 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐨𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐇𝐈𝐕 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟖𝟎𝐬! thread:

[quote]Stanley Kubrick, certainly autistic and widely admired as a genius filmmaker, was incredibly conspiratorial. One of the parallel narratives of The Shining is about the evil of the Federal Reserve!

[quote]I agree with this. Most high functioning autists are extremely forensic and analytical and would not just believe something because they heard it. I probably have fifteen Wikipedia tabs open on my iPad right now.

[quote]But like I said, this is what would happen if something goes wrong. My opinion that he has autism wasn’t based on any of the words he said. I watched most of the video on mute. It was based on observing how he was saying them. He is INFODUMPING. This is how it looks high functioning autistic people infodump. They talk extremely rapidly, often gesticulating wildly, while their eyes focus on nothing in particular. They just talk and talk and talk, even if what they’re saying no longer makes any sense to the listener. That is what he is doing.

Because r27, it annoys you, and that brings me joy.

I'll explain "The Shining" to you.

It is an overpraised bore.

R27 That being said, those who wish to discuss the Shining beyond the surface level reading of a haunted house story certainly would not discount the inclusion of a discussion of its autistic themes given how overt they are and how they can be used to explain the film’s many incongruities like why the famous carpet does not match the decor of the hotel.

The movie that killed Shelley Duvall.

I like to watch it around Christmas.

R7 thinks his alleged autism grants him superpowers.

You’re not a superhero, R7. You’re just sad.

Can we not bring autism into this please? I am pretty sure Stephen King wrote the Shining as a metaphor for his struggles with addiction and the toll it took on his family

If you see autism in the Shining it might be because Kubrick seemed to have autist traits

Are you talking about the ending with Jack Torrance in the old photograph at the overlook?

There's a documentary about the "hidden meanings" of the Shining. It was filled with the most bizarre conspiracy theories imaginable.

I just pre-ordered the 2-volume Shining book from Taschen. This standard edition of the book is coming in Dec.

Which one do you reckon this is, R33? The DoorDasher/busker, or Bootsie-Gumdrop?

R38 yes.

Well r22, that death seemed pointless so I preferred the book’s ending.

The book is great. The movie is terrible. Kubrick ruined the story.

R7 Spot on! Soooo obvious Nicholson is playing....

Although there are concerning elements about an adult communicating telepathically with a child, I don’t think Halloran is meant to be a threat to Danny. As the one adult in Danny’s live who understands what it’s like to live in a haunted hotel while having psychic abilities, Halloran generally plays a protective role. For instance, in the clip at R3, Danny’s Shining kicks into overdrive while Halloran stands in front of a canned good with a chief in a warbonnet on the label. There are signs throughout the movie that whatever is going on in the hotel is connected to the indigenous people who once lived on the land.

The Shining is about an abusive family, per Stephen King, and if we take psychic abilities out of the equation, Halloran’s character seems to represent someone who sees red flags suggesting something isn’t right, but (outside of showing kindness to the kid stuck in the situation), can’t intervene in any meaningful way.

It was just okay for me - no real affect. I think casting was the issue for me.

R46, Hallorann is obviously a benevolent figure who helps to rescue Danny and his mother. He's the one who confirms to Danny (and the audience) that Danny's abilities are real and that he should take them seriously. Grady, who should know, warns Jack about Danny's ability to contact Hallorann for help.

Fantastic movie. Loved it

I prefer the book but do enjoy the movie too.

I think Kubrick did an amazing job no matter what Stephen King says.

[quote]—Steven King

Stephen King

Where did he go?

Why does Jack end up in the old photo at the end? Or was he always there? Why are all the ghosts 1920s coded? I thought Grady was the caretaker from the previous winter, yet he seems like a 1920s butler.

The Overlook has consumed Jack, so he is now a part of it, as evidenced in the photo. It's also why he doesn't recognise Danny at first in Dr. Sleep.

R53 Danny looks like Robin Williams now.

[quote]R54: Why does Jack end up in the old photo at the end? Or was he always there? Why are all the ghosts 1920s coded? I thought Grady was the caretaker from the previous winter, yet he seems like a 1920s butler.

Because the 1920s were the heyday of the hotel. Anyone who dies in the hotel becomes part of its 1920s-themed spook milieu. For the ghosts, time is not linear. Delbert Grady became sort of an envoy on behalf of the hotel, grooming Jack to become one of them - a logical choice, since Jack remembered him. As he remarked to Jack, "I'm sorry to differ with you, sir. But 𝑦𝑜𝑢 are the caretaker. You've 𝑎𝑙𝑤𝑎𝑦𝑠 been the caretaker. I should know, sir - I've 𝑎𝑙𝑤𝑎𝑦𝑠 been here."

R44

[quote] The book is great. The movie is terrible. Kubrick ruined the story.

Yes. Exactly.

One addition, though, Kubrick and Nicholson ruined the story. Not a Nicholson fan, particularly when a director lets JN ruin the story.

Loved the book.

Supposedly Stephen King HATED this movie of his story.

I’ve never read that book but I don’t expect a filmmaker to create a literal translation of its source material. The Shining is the most haunting movie I have ever seen and I notice something new about every time I rewatch it.

[quote] Although there are concerning elements about an adult communicating telepathically with a child,

Telepathically??

I am CONCERNED!!

That final shot completely ruins the movie. It looks like Kubrick cut out a picture of Nicholson's head and pasted it on some guy's head in a photo from the twenties. So elementary school.

If you've seen the miniseries remake, you would realize why the book shouldn't be filmed verbatim. It was awful.

R14 = Molester

[quote]R61: That final shot completely ruins the movie. It looks like Kubrick cut out a picture of Nicholson's head and pasted it on some guy's head in a photo from the twenties. So elementary school.

There's nothing wrong with that photo, R61.

That's Joel Grey.^

Sorry I think Nicholson does not look like one of those people. In his attitude, lighting and placement. His head looks stuck on. Kubrick screwed it up and I'm a big fan. He was so meticulous he rarely made this kind of mistake.

R66 You sound overly critical. No one noticed that but you.

[quote]Although there are concerning elements about an adult communicating telepathically with a child,

Mary! Why?

The Kubrick version bastardizes the novel. The other version is very true to the source material, and, I believe, is the version that King prefers.

[quote] Sorry I think Nicholson does not look like one of those people. In his attitude, lighting and placement. His head looks stuck on. Kubrick screwed it up and I'm a big fan. He was so meticulous he rarely made this kind of mistake.

They didn't have that kind of Photoshop technology you would want back in the early 1980s.

I think it's an extraordinary effect given the technology of the day.

People with bad intentions toward children are often manipulative, R68, and being able to share thoughts with somebody would be dangerous in the hands of an ill-intentioned adult. While it’s a huge stretch to interpret Halloran and Danny’s connection that way, that’s probably where the “Halloran is a molestor” crowd is getting it.

It might not be an accident that Halloran reflects the “stranger danger” mindset regarding child abuse, which suggests an unrelated, single man (in this case, a black man) is a significant threat. Meanwhile, as is common in real life, the biggest threat to Danny Torrance is a parent.

Scatman deserved an Oscar for his performance.

King did prefer the mi series, which starred Steven Weber and Rebecca DeMornay and featured the shifting animal topiary.

*miniseries.

Novelists always prefer film/television adaptions which are faithful to their work no matter how boring or pedestrian they are.

Yes, r75. King loved the 2017 adaptation of IT and that was a much more faithful adaptation of the book than the 1990 miniseries.

It would be a special kind of torture to have to read one of King's 1,500 page, 5 lb. novels. I've only read "Carrie", which I believe was edited by his wife Tabitha.

So is the one King prefers as beautiful and creepy and unnerving as the Kubrick?

Also when the camera starting panning towards the picture I immediately knew we'd see Nicholson there. I thought oh shit Kubrick can't possibly be doing something so trite. Maybe it's in the book so he had to.

Trite? Kubrick did a maze instead of the topiary., how’s that for trite.

And r70, there were highly skilled photo retouchers well before Photoshop. It looks perfectly cohesive.

[quote]“Halloran is a molestor” crowd is getting it.

I can't see these idiots. Must already be blocked.

The idiot at R57 failed to catch that the washroom attendant was named Delbert Grady.

The caretaker who Ullman mentions in the interview is named Charles Grady.

R54

The year 1921 was chosen because it was the last year of the Woodrow Wilson administration.

The important thing about the photograph is where it is placed. The photographs surrounding the party photo are the politicians and celebrities that Ullman referred to as “All the best people”. The placard outside the doorframe announces this is the “Gold Room.”

There are two Gold Rooms. There is the Gold Room with the ziggarut-like ceiling (the Old gold room). That represents the Gold Standard, which is why it is filled with ghosts. Then there is the New gold room, which is the alcove with the photographs. That represents the Federal Reserve.

Stanley Kubrick originally had the Gold Room covered in hand-painted silver tiles. Then, during pre-production, he had all those silver tiles taken down and replaced with gold tiles. Why? Because he knew it would be written about eventually, and people would understand that the he was referencing the history of US monetary policy. The film is a critique about abandonment of the gold standard for the Federal Reserve. By turning Jack into a “ghost” and placing him in the photograph, he is saying that the Federal Reserve is illusory and easily manipulated by the wealthy and powerful.

I think R66 is completely correct.

R66 if Kubrick screwed up, he screwed up because he wanted it to be noticed on purpose.

“Oh look! The reflection on Dave Bowman’s face when he says ‘Do you read me HAL?’ kind of looks like the letters IBM! Kubrick must have just screwed up and made a mistake!’” 🤡

The 90’s miniseries was not scary or very good—even if it was King approved and more faithful to the novel. Kubrick’s version is a timeless masterpiece that is still terrifying more than 40 years later. I still watch it every year. Scatman, Duvall and Nicholson all deserved nominations or wins. Truly great performances.

The final image of Jack's face has earned impact because it is diabolically perfect. It is indeed sharper than the surrounding faces, and has its own type of Shining. The smile is knowing and devilish. It contrasts massively with his frozen death-mask shortly beforehand. Kubrick ending with such an image, justifiably highlighted, reminds us that evil never dies.

r1- Just this 20 minute analysis making the case as Jack as the child molester is fascinating, focusing on the cock sucking bear.

The "incredibly faithful to the book" TV version of THE SHINING not only stars one of the least appealing child actors I've ever seen but also tacks on an indescribably awful, gooey, sentimental ending.

2001 is perfect.

What is also amazing in 2001 is Dullea is actually in real life beginning to look something like an old man between the figure at the table and the man in bed. Even a timeless beauty grows old.

And did you know the guy who so brilliantly voiced HAL hated working with Kubrick , thought it ridiculous and laughable, and refused to ever see the film.

I shouldn't say 'the guy.' He was a highly respected actor who took great pride in his work. Just not HAL.

[quote]R82: The idiot at [R57] failed to catch that the washroom attendant was named Delbert Grady.

Since I specifically cited the name at R57, that can hardly be the case. You failed to read the post.

My, but you're malicious. I didn't name-call you at all when differing with you (R1, R6, R7, R9, R23, R24, R28, R30, R34, and R37). Several of these posts were FFed out of existence (not by me. I don't do that, and their disappearance made it a bit more difficult to list your post numbers; I had to infer them from the numbers that were now missing from the thread), so you shifted to a sock (R82, R84, R85) to promote the same stuff. You're a sock user. But that's neither here nor there.

I 𝑑𝑖𝑑 miss that Ullman had called the previous year's caretaker 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑒𝑠 Grady rather than Delbert Grady; there's any number of possibilities behind the two names. I'm linking an article that discusses some of them. (There's a couple of possibilities that it doesn't list, like the idea that at the interview, Ullman might not have given Jack the man's actual first name because he didn't want to further the issue. Or it may have been the case that the caretaker's full name may have been 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑦, and the ghost didn't use 'Charles' because he was trying to avoid Jack making the connection, something he did, anyway).

I'm not sure that I necessarily buy as a legitimate argument into the idea that Kubrick was such a stickler for detail that a mistake on his part would not have been possible. A) Kubrick was never diagnosed as an autist or as having Asperger's Syndrome; that has been strictly a posthumous supposition, an unprofessional armchair diagnosis that has gained an internet following. (Kubrick may simply have been an asshole.) And B) people with autism 𝑑𝑜 make mistakes, and when they do, the nature of the affliction often prevents them from seeing the mistake or acknowledging it. So, however unlikely, it's not impossible that Charles Grady/Delbert Grady might have been a scripting error.

Full disclosure: My brother was born autistic, though not the sort that makes one a savant, or brilliant in a narrow, focused way. As someone else upthread mentioned, it's not a superpower. It has made my brother mentally handicapped in a way that used to be unflatteringly referred to as 'retarded' His is the kind of autism that has made him unable to pattern or remember anyone's names or reliably remember what has transpired and when. It has given him extremely poor physical hygiene - lifelong (he's now 52 years old), he has pissed and shit his clothes nearly every day. He cannot look after himself, so that has permanently fallen to me. In 1995, schizophrenia was added to his situation. He is a handful. But I rarely ever bring him up, and I certainly do not bring up my own vicissitudes in caring for him as somehow making me an expert on autism. I just don't generally discuss autism at all, or even openly challenge persons who are obsessed with it, as you are. I simply said I didn't think it needed to be brought up in a discussion of 'The Shining.'

That is all.

I see the loons from Room 237 are also here on DL.

One thing I’ve noticed is that no character in the film ever experiences the ghosts with someone else present.

R94 Chile please.

[quote]R95: One thing I’ve noticed is that no character in the film ever experiences the ghosts with someone else present.

Why do you think that is, R95?

Typically speaking, does anyone claiming to see ghosts ever see them with someone else present?

Kubrick wanted a hit with The Shining after the massive flop of Barry Lyndon. He wanted Jon Voight , who turned it down, in the lead. Voight was a big deal at the time. Jack Nicholson was fun but awful in it. His star turn was camp-tastic. The ending is nothing - just mind games from Kubrick not understanding the horror genre. Kubrick's major problem was not being able to make the maze lions come to life. It's watchable but not remotely scary.

The photo of Nicholson also looks like a younger photo, possibly a still from Chinatown, although that would have been from the 30s, it doesn't look like a photo of the actor in 1978/9.

R97 I think that’s the only way the ghosts can function in the film. The person has to be uncertain of reality where the ghosts can feed off the paranoia and isolation.

R99 yas, that part too.

[quote]Kubrick wanted a hit with The Shining after the massive flop of Barry Lyndon.

I liked The Shining. I LOVED Barry Lyndon.

Interesting r98. I can’t quite picture Voight going mad. OTOH, Nicholson was unconvincing as a nice dad in the beginning. The threat was always there.

Side by side comparison of original and remake.

R102 I like Barry Lyndon too but it was a flop. Kubrick took it hard & Ryan O felt it hurt his career R103 Voight turned it down because he knew Kubrick would go over the scheduled shoot date & he wanted to get the most out of his Oscar win for Coming Home. I just read a bio on Kubrick so it's still fresh in my mind. Shelley Duvall & Scatman were emotionally abused on set. The boy was often "In the dark" about the work he was doing (example - he didn't see the chopped up girls while on the big wheel; was coached to react) Stephen King hated it until he finally saw it as a "Kubrick film" (but King did use his money to produce a mini-series of it)

R103 He wasn’t supposed to be a nice dad in the beginning. He is a 5 month sober alcoholic who’s trying to win back his wife’s trust. He is just a regular flyover dad albeit intellectual because he is a writer. I think he is phenomenal in the role.

R93 I am sorry for your brother’s problems.

Now let me tell you why are you are wrong.

[quote]I simply said I didn't think it needed to be brought up in a discussion of 'The Shining.'

Understanding the film’s use of autistic symbolism is necessary to contextualize the central horror of the horror movie. The Shining is a horror movie of unusual power in the same way Alien has managed to be a horror movie of unusual power, by tapping into universal psychosexual fears. The Shining is about child molestation. The subtext about molestation is apparent from the scene where the doctor questions Danny, who unusually lies on the bed with his pants off and his hands in front of his genitals. In the subsequent interrogation scene with Wendy, it is clear the doctor suspects Danny is being abused. Wendy does admit Jack’s physical abuse to Danny but frames it as an isolated incident.

If you had bothered to watch this video (I’m sure you haven’t, because you are pig headed and intellectually uncurious) you would understand the intentional use of the bear motif to symbolize Danny’s sexual abuse at the hands of Jack. The molestation narrative reframes the film’s crisis as the “fatherly affection” scene in which Danny wakes Jack up in his bedroom and Jack ominously cradles Danny in his arms before the scene goes to cut.

In order to understand what the visit the Room 237 actually is, it is necessary to understand why it is constructed the way it is. Jack’s visit to Room 237 is Danny’s mental manifestation and replaying of his own sexual abuse by Jack in the “fatherly affection” scene. Danny projects himself as Jack and the beautiful woman rising from the bed and turning into a decaying corpse represents Jack. Victims of childhood sexual abuse talk about the conflicting feelings they felt as children as they do not fully understand the horror of the trauma they are experiencing.

If Room 237 is in fact Danny’s mental replaying of his abuse in the fatherly affection scene, then the unusual set dressings of the room and hallways around 237 make sense, because they do not match the decor of the hotel in any of the other scenes in the hotel. Why do they look like way they look? Why is the visit to Room 237 crosscut with scenes of Danny quivering and “shining”?

Because Danny’s “shining” is [bold]autistic hyperfocus.[/bold] We have entered Danny’s headspace. That is why the defining characteristic of the furnishings around Room 237 are their use of [bold]patterns.[/bold] The connection between autism and seeing patterns is one of the core features of autistic thought processing. Kubrick further reiterated the connection by having Danny line up his toy cars on the patterned carpets around Room 237. [bold]Lining up toys is the most universally recognized earlier indicator of autism in children.[/bold] The film is littered with autistic tropes from Halloran’s freezer inventory (infodumping), to Danny’s riding his tricycle around in circles (vestibular stimming) to Danny’s “Redrum!” (echolalia). Danny also behaves like a withdrawn, autistic child.

You can choose to accept that you are merely watching a “spooky ghost story” if you like, it certainly won’t stop you. Although I would be curious to see what your interpretation is of why Kubrick made the changes from the King book that he did: changing the man in a dog costume to a man in a bear costume, or changing the corpse floating in the bathtub from the handsome prep school student Jack Torrance had suppressed homoerotic feelings toward (his physical attack on him being the cause of Jack’s dismissal from his job) to the old crone.

Of course, given your pattern (see what I did there? Gosh autism is fun sometimes) of incuriosity I’m going to venture that you haven’t bothered to read the book.

R107 wow, you have just convinced me. No snark.

Thanks r106, you are right. I saw it so long ago, I forgot.

Lloyd's performance is unforgettable.

I love this movie. Lots of interesting posts here - R46 and others

Anyone with a moderate level of education accepts interpretation is unique. So stop posting your BS, like it can’t be that, etc. it’s boring.

I want to hear a variety of interpretations. Loved this movie and Jack Nicholson

R107 I agree with much of what you wrote, but there are more layers and given the time it was made, nuances of autism were not nearly as well mapped as they are today, while its there, Im not sure how much was intentional as opposed to Kubrick telling us, subconsciously, what his possible diagnostics would be if he were to be diagnosed given the symptoms and behaviors that comprise the 'spectrum' we now have today. Another point you make is what I believe to be the intentional theme, being molestation. There's the molestation of the land, shown through the Native American motifs, references and imagery, as another poster mentioned as with the 'coding' of spaces, coding also fitting into the autistic theme you'd mentioned, also being a molestation of Native American land, culture, and its people (graveyard trope). There's also our 'molestation' of space, which has allusions made throughout from Dannys sweater, to the Tang and freeze dried coffee in the dry goods storage room with the other conspiratorial items with NA imagery.

Another poster also touched on Kubricks feelings regarding the move off the gold standard, as a great 'disturbance' or molestation of our currency.

There are matrices of themes woven together brilliantly, with stunning cinematography, amazing performances and IMO, perfect casting.

End note: loved the book, loved the film years before reading the book, as two pieces of art they each stand on their own, (I wish the wasps nest were used in the movie, and that Hallorann had lived, but that's me nitpicking). The miniseries was so bad it made Rose Red look like a masterpiece.

R112 again- please forgive my mess of a post, stoned and posting never ends well for me here...

Where is all this autism shit coming from? We have some seriously obsessed trolls here.

Are we sure the black and white photo wasn't just taken on set? There is a scene where Jack walks through a 1920s party in full swing in the Gold Room. It would have been easy to just stage the photo at that time with everyone costumed.

Highly recommend reading the book, it is terrifying in the sections that deal with past events at the hotel.

R115 No:

" In 1980, Kubrick was interviewed by French film critic Michel Ciment and was asked about the photo specifically. Asked if he assembled hundreds of extras for the shot, Kubrick replied "no, they were in a photograph taken in 1921 which we found in a picture library. I originally planned to use extras, but it proved impossible to make them look as good as the people in the photograph". The 1921 date is not for sure though..."

R112 the molestation of space is an intriguing interpretation although one I’m not certain was Kubrick’s intention (there are no victims in space). Kubrick detested the space race and viewed it as means of nefarious social control and manipulation by a corrupt entity; as such, a parallel may be drawn by the association with the US space program and therefore what the US represents.

The rocket is shaped like a giant phallus and it is pointed at Danny’s face. The rocket booster blasts suggest ejaculation. Danny wears the rocket shirt in the scenes with the patterned carpet, which I said should be interpreted as Danny’s autistic headspace, which is where he processes the trauma of his molestation.

The framed picture of the bears in the bedroom foreshadow the costumed fellatio scene. If the bear-man and the older gentleman receiving oral sex represent Wendy finally “seeing” the truth of Jack’s molestation of Danny, and the scene is framed to parallel the fatherly affection scene, then we can surmise the nature of Danny’s abuse: Jack forced Danny to perform oral sex on him. As bears are the symbol of Danny’s abuse, then we should look to the visual link Kubrick created between the eyes of the bear behind Danny in the doctor’s examination scene (which I said had sex abuse investigation overtones), and the dials above the elevator in the scene where the blood pours out which are intercut with reaction shots of Danny’s petrified face; the accepted interpretation is that the blood represents the blood of the slaughtered Indigenous Peoples. But it also represents the other bodily fluid, ejaculate. Thus, the intercutting with Danny’s traumatized face.

Therefore, Kubrick is more likely drawing parallels likening Jack Torrance and the United States as molesters and rapists. Jack Torrance rapes Danny, and the United States raped its Indigenous Peoples.

Speaking of visual parallels

The abused child in Barry Lyndon wears his hair similarly to Danny.

One can surmise that working these themes into his movies may have been Kubrick’s catharsis for dealing with his own abuse as a child.

I’m going to watch this movie tonight. This thread has made me miss it.

r118 Everyone had that haircut in the 70s. My mom was still giving us that haircut long after it was out of style.

If you think someone looks the way they do in a Stanley Kubrick film because “that’s how everyone looked”, then you do not understand Stanley Kubrick at all.

Stanley Kubrick frequently references his films in each other. Notably, the bear motif from The Shining was resuscitated in the haunting final scene of Eyes Wide Shut, with its inference that the young daughter was going to become a victim of the “grooming” - shortly after this scene she is led away by the two rabbi-like men.

[quote]Where is all this autism shit coming from?

People who watched the movie and didn’t forget about it five minutes afterwards.

The scene between Delbert Grady and Jack in the bathroom has been imprinted in my brain since 1980 when I first saw it. Whatever Kubrick was going for in that scene worked for me. Chills.

I don't agree when people said Jack Nicholson was over the top in The Shining. I enjoyed him in every scene he was in. That goes for a lot of other movies he did. Very fine actor with extreme screen presence.

R117 There may not be people, but there's garbage that's been left in space since the 60s. (Not even going near the topic/conspiracy theory of Kubrick helping in staging the moon landing), I think phallic imagery aside, the critique of the USA as the great defiler is one that's clearly present.

That's what makes Kubricks films so amazing. He ties together so much, so deliberately and it's not spoon fed or obvious as you can come away with something new even after 20+ screenings.

Would love to see the cut footage from Eyes Wide Shut, that's another one that has many layers, the Alice gap is a real sore thumb. Doubt it'll ever happen though.

There has never been a great Stephen King novel. More words and more details don't make bad writing good, nor an excellent film bad.

The ending involves credits.

He’s mentally ill, R114.

There's not set explanation for it. Kubrick purposely left it to the audience's interpretation. There are several theories, but nothing official.

If only Stanley would have been around to do his next project, AI. Spielberg did ok but it probably would have been wondrous with Kubrick.

[quote]There has never been a great Stephen King novel. More words and more details don't make bad writing good, nor an excellent film bad.

I have a love/hate relationship with him, r126. He's a genius and prolific hack. I don't respect him, but I read his work.religiously up until...The Green Mile, maybe?

I re-read The Stand every so often.

Ever notice that most of Stephen King's protagonists are authors, characters with whom he identifies? In King's story, Jack Torrence is ultimately an empathetic character, one which is redeemed at the end of the story. In Kubrick's version, Jack Torrence is irredeemable, and perishes in his evil. That is the reason King hates Kubrick's version - it's not about hedge mazes versus topiaries, the lack of a faulty boiler, or any of those other surface issues. It's about the way Kubrick handled the character of Jack Torrence.

Do MAME next.

[quote]R107: If you had bothered to watch this video (I’m sure you haven’t, because you are pig headed and intellectually uncurious)

I don't watch videos. I've made that perfectly clear before in previous discussions. If what you're trying to express is dependent upon a Youtube video (and especially an endless series of Youtube videos), then you're shit out of luck selling it to me.

[quote]Although I would be curious to see what your interpretation is of why Kubrick made the changes from the King book that he did: changing the man in a dog costume to a man in a bear costume...

The book says it's a dog costume. In watching the Kubrick film, I've never read that costume as a bear, but as a dog (it looks like a Hanna-Barbera cartoon dog, actually). It's a pity that so much of your interpretation is predicated upon the costume being a bear, and without that, it falls apart.

[quote]or changing the corpse floating in the bathtub from the handsome prep school student Jack Torrance had suppressed homoerotic feelings toward (his physical attack on him being the cause of Jack’s dismissal from his job) to the old crone.

In the novel, Danny encounters the crone. Jack goes to Room 217 (the room's number in the novel) and sees nothing; he chickens out and flees the room without drawing back the shower curtain. There's nothing in the novel about seeing George Hatfield in the tub, or about "homoerotic feelings" towards the student.

[quote]Of course, given your pattern (see what I did there? Gosh autism is fun sometimes) of incuriosity I’m going to venture that you haven’t bothered to read the book.

I have, more than once across the decades. What's clear is that 𝑦𝑜𝑢 haven't read the book, or if you ever did, you can no longer distinguish its particular details from the endless warren of rabbit holes online you've gone down on this subject.

[quote]The Shining is about child molestation.

I do not accept that as a fact, the same way I do not hold child molestation to be the object of the prohibitions of Leviticus 18:22/20:13.

[quote]Victims of childhood sexual abuse talk about the conflicting feelings they felt as children as they do not fully understand the horror of the trauma they are experiencing.

Are you talking about the characters in 'The Shining,' or about your own lived experience? There's a difference, you know.

[quote]In watching the Kubrick film, I've never read that costume as a bear, but as a dog (it looks like a Hanna-Barbera cartoon dog, actually).

R135 are you sure your brother is the retarded one?

Jack was a haunting. He got right up from that snow and went back into the hotel forever.

It doesn't look like a bear to me, R136. It never has.

Nor can it be performing fellatio on the other character, not with that mask on.

You simply 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑 for it to be a bear, desperately. It's the kind of issue you'd kill someone over.

[italic]"...He thought about George Hatfield. Tall and shaggily blond, George had been an almost insolently beautiful boy. In his tight faded jeans and Stovington sweatshirt with the sleeves carelessly pushed up to the elbows to disclose his tanned forearms, he reminded Jack of a young Robert Redford..."[/italic]

Jack is supervisor of the debate team and George wants to be on the debate team to please his lawyer father, but a stutter emerges up when George debates that prevents him from being successful debater.

Jack simultaneously fantasizes about George (he pictures George as the protagonist of one of his stories), but he also resents him. It gives him pleasure to be able to see George fail. When George is finally cut from the debate team - in part because Jack ran the timer off early - George lashes out as Jack and tells Jack he only hates George "because he knows.” While King does not articulate, the implication is that George suspects Jack knows that George is gay. And that George also suspects Jack is gay.

Shortly after, Jack catches George in the act of knifing his tires on his car and pummels him so violently he is dismissed from the teaching job.

George Hatfield later appears in the novel as a phantom whom Jack sees floating nude in room 217. This is the scene Kubrick used in which a beautiful female nude woman emerges from the bathtub.

Jack’s suppressed homosexual desires are part of the reason his happy family life has fallen apart.

Surely you have realized this.

Also times have changed, but stuttering was once considered an effeminate mannerism and heavily associated with homosexual men. Readers from that era would have gotten the reference. Anyone who has read “Brideshead Revisited” probably the seminal gay novel of the twentieth century, will remember the stuttering flamboyant friend of Sebastian’s.

The guy in the dog costume is in the book. He was the boyfriend of the hotel's original owner.

[quote]R103: I can’t quite picture Voight going mad.

Have you looked in on him recently?

Jack Torrance resents George Hatfield only in contrast with his own self-image, seeing himself as unattractive. He resents the breaks he feels George has gotten, which he has lacked.

[quote]R139: While King does not articulate, the implication is that George suspects Jack knows that George is gay. And that George also suspects Jack is gay.

Correct: King does not articulate that. It's internet speculation.

[quote]R139: George Hatfield later appears in the novel as a phantom whom Jack sees floating nude in room 217.

Citation? Quote, page number?

Girls, girls. You're both tin-hat-wearing nuts!

R144, what's your basis for saying that about me?

Be specific.

R145 your autism is showing.

It's not about child molestation. Good lord. The book makes it clear that Torrance is a violent drunk who broke Danny's arm and knocked the wife around while drunk.

Jack was a violent drunk tormented by his abusive childhood and failed writing career. He was ripe pickings for The Overlook.

How in the fucking world could anyone not think that was a photo of a party taken in the 1920s? How could even a genius like Kubrick take a photo like that? Absolutely impossible. Which is why Nicholson's face looks pasted on with Elmer's Glue by a six year old for a school project.

[quote]George Hatfield later appears in the novel as a phantom whom Jack sees floating nude in room 217.

Danny sees an old woman in the tub. I don't remember Jack seeing anyone at all, although he feels pursued by his imaginings of a creepy old woman.

Just pulled it out and the scene is in chapter thirty. Jack initially finds a dry tub and shuts the shower curtain, then smells the woman's perfumed soap as he hears the curtian rings as it's pulled back open. He is afraid to look back and see the old lady. There is nothing about George Hatfield in this chapter.

[quote]Every time you and I get into it and you're losing the argument, some sock puppet comes along and does that bothsides 'girls, girls' shit.

Not a sock puppet, just a regular DLer who was a bit interested in this thread until it descended into two queens hissing at each other, as so often happens.

They all died in the plane crash. The hotel was purgatory.

[quote] It's not about child molestation. Good lord. The book makes it clear that Torrance is a violent drunk who broke Danny's arm and knocked the wife around while drunk.

…the movie is not the book.

What are you failing to understand?

Poor Poisoned Dragon, convinced everyone is a sock puppet out to get him. I bet you’re flapping your hands in frustration now!

Who cares about autism....Can we talk the trans storyline?

[quote]in the book, Wendy is blonde with big tits.

Wendy is also more resourceful, sympathetic, and likable in the book.

Has anyone mentioned there was no such thing as autism in the public zeitgeist at this moment in time. People were just retarded. And child molestation a running theme in movies either - just maybe child abuse.

In the book, the hotel is a Holiday Inn.

You can probably tie most movies to Autism in some way—if you are hyperfocused on it. Most people are not.

[quote]Has anyone mentioned there was no such thing as autism in the public zeitgeist at this moment in time.

…Stanley Kubrick didn’t make films for the public zeitgeist. Stanley Kubrick made elaborate riddles and subversive commentary disguised as polished entertainments. 2001: A Space Odyssey, released in the year of the moon landing, disparaged the space race and warned of the danger of technology (artificial intelligence was not exactly in the zeitgeist in 1968 either). Eyes Wide Shut, viewed as a perverse folly in 1999, suddenly held a lot more resonance 20 years later with #MeToo. Kubrick inserted his films with multiple layers and meanings that only start to come together when viewed from a distance. Why are there so many Christmas trees in Eyes Wide Shut?

Maybe because the shape of a Christmas tree represents the top half of a diamond? And the colors of the Christmas tree are the colors of the rainbow?

Diamond halves!

Rainbows!

Look at the shape caused by the flattened perspective in the balloon scene! A pyramid with a glowing crown!

Look at the moon briefing scene in 2001! Look at his cufflinks!

Look at the leopards eyes!

Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum

Apparently there is more crazy here than I thought. You guys read way more into this than necessary. I don't see a lot of symbolism that one or two loons do.

[quote] He wanted Jon Voight , who turned it down, in the lead. Voight was a big deal at the time.

So glad Voight turned it down. He would have tainted the film.

[quote] I don't see a lot of symbolism that one or two loons do.

Are you excessively literal? Are you autistic, but not the smart kind?

[quote]Rainbows!

Sunshine! Lollipops! A Bus!