Stanley Kubrick's The Shining has long been one of the most over-analyzed films in history, going to often ludicrous extremes...the question is, is it warranted? CPF delves into the film in an attempt to separate myth from reality.
If I were a conspiracy guy, this is the one I would endorse! Stanley would not leave something as consequential as landing on the moon to a novice! He would be up there with proper crew in tow with space suits!
This is a pleasant surprise. Thanks, CPF. I've never found the film confusing. Kubrick gave a one-sentence description that elegantly sums the narrative, if not the actual film itself: "Just a story about a family going quietly insane together" (Paraphrased)
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Right. But "theories" propagate like lice. Then people start "scratching that itch" and join the Torrance family in their madness. Your takes are always grounded and justified in and by the text. It's appreciated. Edit: it's also entertaining af. So entertaining! Thanks man.
He really said "quietly insane" and "together"? I realize he did not want to spoil his movie, but that is not a conventional description either. A conventional description would have been "A story about a family isolated from the world with insanity creeping in."
@@wrathofatlantis2316 I believe he worded it like that, but I can't find the interview or source to support my recollection. It stuck with me when I read it, for whatever that's worth.
Please don't stop making these videos. I've been following you for years and the quality and depth of your work is amazing. I never click faster on a video than when I see you have uploaded one! Thank you for your effort!
My favourite bit by Jay Weidner is where he says 'It was scary but I wouldn't describe The Shining as a wave of terror' then in the next sentence says 'As i watched the film a wave of terror came over me'
When it comes to the film, I think Dick Halloran's explanation is really the best summary of what is happening. A lot of bad things have happened at the hotel, and there are psychic echoes of all that, like the smell of burnt toast long after the toast is gone. Jack and Danny are both psychics ("shining"), so they sense those echoes, and interpret them in their own ways. Jack is mentally ill and guilt-ridden and can't really deal with all that, so the "echoes" end up driving him crazy. Danny, who is just a child, senses the echoes but isn't really influenced by them. In the end, there are no ghosts. The hotel is just a place that is saturated by psychic echoes, and two psychically sensitive individuals who don't understand their abilities end up getting exposed to them for a long time.
Just discovered you. Absolutely brilliant vid, both production and content! I especially liked the, “ Pardon me, coming through” bit! Thank you for dispelling the idea that Kubrick could make no mistakes. His subtlety and brilliance get used as a magic wand to cover over rough edges of these theories. The man was good but everybody goofs up now and then. New subscriber
Thanks for the production value placing yourself there. Very snappy work. I appreciated all of the effort. I came for the Twin Peaks, stayed for the Overlook.
There's something so presumptuous about saying "my theory explains the shining" rather than "here is my interpretation of the shining." If people said the latter, they couldn't argue that their interpretation was "more better er" than anyone else's. Nor could they pretend that, by occupying what they imagine to be the mindset of the director of a great piece of art, that they are as smart as that director who they idolize, maybe smarter.
Just do what the rich people in Barry Lyndon does, the opposite of the Law of Jante, so instead of living by "Don't think YOU'RE better than others", rather go by "I'M not gonna be worse than others."
The best thing about Kubrick is that EVERY theory is right. He thought about em all! "The truth of a thing is the feel of it, and not the think of it." - Stanley Kubrick
Well, this is why people bet on things, and go further than that. The point of any 2nd (or 3rd) theory is, presumably, to _make more and better sense than the 1st theory did._ People seem to forget this quite often, however.
@@runarvollanWhenever people roll out various Kubrick theories, I think about a particular scene from the 1986 movie,Back to School. (It has a great cast including Rodney Dangerfield, Sam Kinnison and Robert Downey Jr.) Dangerfield plays a wealthy businessman who enrolls as a freshman at the University his son attends in an attempt to improve the relationship. The scene in question is a phone call between Dangerfield’s character and Kurt Vonnegut. Rather than making an effort to complete an assigned paper on the author’s writings, he has paid Vonnegut to write the paper for him. He tells Vonnegut that he will be stopping payment on the check because according to the professor, Dangerfield doesn’t understand Kurt Vonnegut at all. There’s a ton of hidden messages in Kubrick’s movies that he put there intentionally, but I believe there are plenty of things that he was completely unaware of on a conscious level. One thing for certain, his films are so complex, that I’m always discovering something new.
Reading the title of this video i thought "what else is there to explain, i thought the movie was pretty clear". Then i clicked anyway because i like this channel. Glad i clicked, very entertaining and informative.
I've been balls deep in lengthy Shining video essays over the past few days, and this is a wonderful way to cap it all off. A thoroughly excellent video, with some incredible filmmaking thrown in as a bonus. Will deffo check out the rest of this series!
Fantastic video. Thank you for your time and effort. Inserting yourself in the movie is really neat. Growing up watching this on our bought VHS copy (still got it), I kinda had the impression that both parents had a bit of psychical powers or maybe just Jack along with Danny. Their union, after-all created Danny. Any psychic attenuation Jack might have, in conjunction with his own incurred stress and alcoholism, encourages him to come under the hotel's evil influence.. ? And then Danny's ability is intensified due to the stress, the intense terror experienced at the evil hotel. His Shining also becomes more pronounced after meeting Hallorann, before any of the shenanigans. It seems like up until the hotel, Danny didn't exhibit psychic powers otherwise there may have been a scene where his parents imply as much, but he did exhibit the effects of trauma and physical abuse at home, which is likely a type of catalyst. With the events at the hotel being a further catalyst building upon the previous abuse. All that said, the audience is meant to ponder the mystery. That in large part what makes it so compelling. All the bullshit theories on the film, one way of looking at it, is that it's a testament to its magnificence.
That's also what's implied by Doctor Sleep, essentially, especially with Danny's presence "waking up" the hotel, along with the fact that he and Abra were actually related in the novel, indicating it's passed through families.
My theory, is it's an extension of The Beatles story. I'll give you a couple of examples. When Ullman is showing them around at the begining, they are walking in a line that resembles the cover of Abby Road. In order, Ullman & Lennon (the respective leaders), next, Wendy & Ringo (the goofy ones), 3rd, Jack (soul trapped) & Paul ("Paul Is Dead") and lastly, Watson (barely says a word) & George (the quiet Beatle). The attractive woman in the tub transitions into the hag. This represents John going from Cynthia to Yoko.
Incredible video, as always. The knowledge, editing, and humor make these top tier content. I stumbled on your channel originally from Twin Peaks recommendations, but have loved everything I've seen on here. Keep it up, these are all fascinating and a great value to movie lovers.
I’ve watched all your twin peaks videos. For the past two nights I’ve had insomnia and been watching analysis videos of the shining, and then this pops up? Eerie!
A Friday treat. Another great video. So nice to hear your take on this. I have always taken this as an allegory for addiction and how it affects families and can be passed on.
Wow! Tour 'de force! Truly a masterful effort for a movie you clearly loved. I always though the oddities (everything well lit, lights going on and off between cuts, continuity errors) were a conscious choice by Kubrick to make watching the movie intentionally unsettling and creating dread in the viewer. Great work CPF!
Regarding fact vs fiction in The Shining, it seems more and more apparent that at some point all we are watching is the horror novel Jack is struggling to write in the hotel. The red jacket is a huge tell, so is the smoking cigarette on the ashtray beside the changing typewriters.
Very entertaining. Just discovered your channel right now. Loving your commentary on debunking all these silly theories. Instant subscribe. Love the editing and production of this video. Keep up the great work, mate.
Parts of this were really hard to watch, they were so nuts lol. Thanks for bringing a little sanity to the conversation. It's strange that these people don't think domestic violence is horrific enough by itself. I think theories like these partly stem from people being so obsessed with lore and easter eggs, they've forgotten how to watch a film.
The moment “Shine On You Crazy Diamond”started playing at the end, I couldn’t stop laughing. There couldn’t have been a more perfect song to end this video with lmao.
I had noticed the moving furniture at the hotel and I always liked to think it was The Overlook being creepy. Stuff dissappears and reappears and the family never notices, which is just a neat little bit of atmosphere that spooked me out. Granted, I didn't really care if it was deliberate or not (and I doubt it was) but it was a neat thing to notice.
Perfect antidote to the spiralling madness of fan theory. The good news is you'll never run out of material to remake the same points about other movies. Forever and ever and ever.
It's only been up a few months...by my general standards, it's doing incredibly well. It's basically everything else on this channel that has no views.
@@flynn6854 As I've discovered, RU-vid traffic is much like music sales in the 1980s...just because people loved the single doesn't mean they go out and buy the album. They just buy the single and then move to the next single by someone else. This platform wants people to just churn out content on the same topic over and over, and I'm just not doing that. My real job is boring enough without my hobby being boring, too. But glad you enjoyed it.
Oh man, this was so Genius. I've seen tons of mock-and-documentaries about this movie, but yours is among the best. I laughed my ass of the whole time, best scene was the twins singing for Mothra😂 Great sense of humor. Can't thank you enough for this❤ Absolute brillant
I feel the date discrepancy can be chalked up to a combination of Jack having had a drink more recently than he has told Wendy and an addict's propensity to lie.
I'd agree, but for the fact that the hotel manager specifically says there's no alcohol on site, so he wouldn't have had the chance in the intervening month.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks "Think more fourth dimensionally." Jack tells Wendy that he has stopped drinking ....June Jack takes a beer on July 4th from best bud, Enabler. Does not tell Wendy of the sobriety restart.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Let's suppose that Jack's encounter with Lloyd happens "ONE MONTH LATER" plus, say, another WEEK -- so, maybe 5 weeks after CLOSING DAY. That would be a total of 6 months pus one week since Jack had had a drink, when he told Wendy he'd never touch another drop. Wendy presumably believes that Jack hadn't had a drop to drink for 5 months at the time she told the Doctor about the injury Danny suffered. But if Jack actually HAD snuck a drink during that 5-month period -- say, about 5 weeks into it, i.e. about 3 months and 3 weeks before he got the job as the Caretaker -- then Wendy would've been LIED TO by Jack, who had actually snuck at least one drink after having vowed NOT to, and Jack would've been telling Lloyd the truth about it being 5 miserable months rather than around 6 months plus a week or so (as Wendy thought). Also, keep in mind that we don't know how much time passes between THE INTERVIEW (and Danny's 'episode' in Denver) and CLOSING DAY. We know that CLOSING DAY is on October 30th -- the hotel's "season" being from May 15th until then -- meaning that the first day the Torrance family is alone there is Halloween. THE INTERVIEW could have been conducted a month or two before CLOSING DAY, for all we know. I'd presume that they would've had to pack up all their belongings, storing them into some Storage facility before the end of October, since they didn't bring all their furniture & books & whatnot up to the Overlook. If Jack was hired by Ullman -- after "the Denver people" recommended him -- say, in mid-September, that would mean that they had some 6 weeks to get ready for their CLOSING DAY tour of the hotel (etc.), with, say, another 6 weeks until Jack's encounter with Lloyd after that CLOSING DAY tour. Counting back "5 miserable months" from then (say, mid-December) would mean Jack secretly drank booze in mid-July or thereabouts. Hell, maybe he secretly tied one on on the 4th of July (some 57 years after the 1921 July 4th Ball (the PLAYGIRL magazine dating from 1978), and he chatted with Lloyd roughly 1 week into December -- say, ONE MONTH LATER + one week, i.e. from 31 October until the 4th or 5th of December. Jack could easily have gotten drunk in July -- two to three months before THE INTERVIEW -- all while keeping Wendy ignorant of it. Jack lies to Wendy more than once in the film, so it's not as if it's out-of-character for him to have lied to her about his drinking after vowing not to drink. It would be nice if there was a shot during the "INTERVIEW" sequence showing a Calendar with a specific MONTH depicted -- with all the past days having an 'X' drawn through their boxes -- to clue us in as to how much time passes between THE INTERVIEW and CLOSING DAY (30 October), but barring some sharp-eyed person noticing such a detail -- either at the Overlook's LOBBY or Ullman's office, or at their Denver apartment -- we just can't know how much time elapsed between those scenes.
This is really good. I speak with some authority on the issue as I have made video essays about the same topic. No, I'm not dropping a plug. This day belongs to Matt Murray. I'm of the mind that the continuity errors are merely continuity errors, but the idea that the two Grady first names might be a mistake was something I had never considered. I was happy to say that the disappearing chair, the revolving carpet, these were clearly unintentional, but the idea that they could get the first name of a character wrong--I assumed that was beyond the pale. I actually had, what I thought, was a very plausible explanation for the two first names, but Murray has wielded Occam's Razor with greater determination and whittled down the mystery to barest essence. Huzzah!
You have done a FANTASTIC job!! Finally a Shining analysis that makes sense! By the way, I did enjoy the mini series because it was closer to the books which are my favorite telling of the story hands down (the Shining and Dr. Sleep). The books are tied into Kings other stories which is a detail that I absolutely love. Anyway, well done. 🙂
I very much enjoyed King's book and Kubrick's film, but that mini-series...my biggest beef with it is that the directing is terrible. It's utterly lacking in subtlety-Horace Derwent exploding into a shower of sand for no reason, CGI fire hoses with teeth, doors moving and lights flickering every single time the characters leave the room...honestly, Kubrick's directing feels more like the novel's approach to scares even when the actual events are different.
It's been so long! But thank you, Matt. Your analysis are always a joy to watch. And this is SO ON THE NOSE. A fantastically triumphant return! My own belief is that most of the subtle mistakes in continuity etc were just a way of making the whole movie feel...Off. Nothing seems to make sense. The structure of the building, objects moving around. Subliminally telling you something ISN'T QUITE RIGHT and all around them. A way of unsettling the audience without spiderwebs and flickering lights. Any way, great stuff. Sharing with my movie loving friends.
This presentation is highly accomplished, hilarious, and entertaining. Audaciously rational and level headed, it is in serious danger of being used as a permanent recalibration for future and endless discussion. Congratulations
Hey look everybody, a SANE person talking about "The Shining"! Thank you for this. There are other debunk videos and videos that just ignore the usual conspiraceh stuff, but I loved the really saucy and creative style you used here. Automatic sub. Quick note about the Duvall thing: she has said, MORE THAN ONCE, that Kubrick wasn't "abusive", but man, people have their favorite narratives, don't they? This applies to the issue of the ghosts too, of course.
I think why people do this with The Shining in particular is that it's a perfect storm of a movie. It's made by a meticulous filmmaker. It's made by someone who has done 'deep' movies before(2001). It's approachable because it's a horror movie. It stars Jack Nicholson in peak Jack Nicholson form. It's based on a story written by one of the most popular writers of all time. Last but not least, all this overheated analysis provides opportunity to create content at a time when there are lots of people creating content. No internet in existence means no 10000 theories on what The Shining is really about. My theory on that topic is that I think what Hallorann tells Danny is the truth. The shining is some kind of psychic power, the hotel IS haunted, but only people with the shining can see the ghosts. Everything in the movie is consistent with that and Kubrick devoted a lot of screen time to that conversation. I'm supposed to believe that conversation was a lie or just Wendy or Jack's delusion? No.
Excellent! Thank you so much for this. It should be no surprise that the long filming time, constant re-writes and the fire lead to continuity errors. Kubrick was fallible, like the rest of us. To try to deny and make out everything is there for a reason it is a form of lunacy in itself.
I included examples of other films both by Kubrick and others to illustrate this point, but it's conspicuous how dissenters don't bother to address those examples and just ask, with heaps of incredulity, if I really think this or that could be a mistake, yet seem perfectly okay with assuming the vanishing barrels in The Two Towers was a mistake, even though it's just as big an error. It's a weird form of worship, something I just don't relate to at all.
Found corn pone last year,, watching the twin peaks vids during long days at my pointless ass do-nothing job. Love the way you guys always put real thought into the sets and costumes and stuff. Good channel
The video got the like, but the way you say MSTRMND got the subscription. Thank you, it was a very nice snowball to the face after I went too far down the Shining rabbit hole.
Thank goodness someone speaking some sense about the Shining at last. I watched the other reviews and theories, including Room 237 and found them absolutely ridiculous. A man like Kubrick isn't going to have hidden meanings in cans of Calumet. Very accurate, entertaining and funny analysis.
The best thing about Kubrick is that EVERY theory is right. He thought about em all! "The truth of a thing is the feel of it, and not the think of it." - Stanley Kubrick
F***in THANK YOU. 3:40 The Tennis ball is YELLOW in Danny's play scene. Every recent version of the film I've seen has had a pink ball in that scene, and...it makes me wanna go all Jack Torrance on whoever made the decision to change the color in that scene.
I'm really enjoying this, great work with all the self-insertions into the film. At 6:26 though both the question and the answer about the supernatural are explicitly about the novel; Kubrick even takes care to repeat "the novel" in his answer.
Oh thank God for you! I'm sick to the back teeth of all these outre explanations for The Shining. Well done sir. Yours sincerely, a video essay maker for Eureka Masters Of Cinema.
I came to think of the movie as a story about a guy caretaking at a hotel who was writing a story about a guy caretaking at the hotel. That seems to explain the 2 Gradys (the one he was told about and the one we met), continuity and bizarre transitions, etc.
This is absolutely tremendous and necessary work to rectify and add some balance to the weird theories surrounding this film. On top of that, it was such a delight to watch the major work you put to make it so entertaining (light years better than just a talking head with clips from the film). A heartfelt thank you for this amazing contribution, and of course subscribed!
I can't lie...a huge part of my approach to this was as a test bed for special effects I hope to use for a future project, just to see if I could pull them off. The answer is, essentially, not quite yet, but getting there.
the content is top notch; the fx were the cream on top, and they had a certain charm as they are because they did not distract form the research and analysis you presented at all (which could have been the case had they been "Exquisite Gucci" quality).
People's insane reactions to The Shining is weirdly one of my favorite aspects of the movie. I think it's so interesting and often hilarious how deep some people are willing to go over Kubrick's filmmaking and a few continuity errors. One of the reasons Kubrick's my favorite director is in the way he tells relatively simple and straightforward stories in abstract ways. Which, in turn, unfortunately prompts some people to respond to direct simplicity with "No, that's too simple. There's gotta be more!" I wonder how the more extreme theorists take the European cut, which I frankly like a little more than the more common US version.
I'm so thankful that somebody finally put out an intelligent and logical analysis Of the fam. It was already an excellent film, even though it deviated greatly from the book. Obviously, what is in one medium can't always transfer neatly into another. Besides that, Kubrick used the book as a foundation to reconstruct certain scenes that would get an audience excited and want to talk about. If there was any additional mystery created around this film, it was during his many interviews, where he made, (whether accidental or on purpose), multiple contradictions about the meaning of it all. Which makes sense when one simply factors and how many times he actually rewrote the script. It is highly possible that he kept changing his mind about what he wanted to portray. If anything, he had an overall goal, and as he went through, the long process being over a year, he simply saw the shift in moviegoers tastes, and kept modifying to appease everyone. People seem to forget it's not just some piece of art a director wants to create, thought that is definitely true in this case, but sometimes, it's also about grabbing as much money as you can so you can foot the bill for something else you also want to do. By the way, you did an amazing editing job and I absolutely enjoyed every minute of it. True to form with biting wit, clever jibes, and creative dialog, it was as refreshing as it was validating. Your boldness in statements, daring to enrage those entrenched in the Conferring Education channel found kneeling over Kubrick's ghost, face buried in his crotch, like a man in a dog suit. Ps: thanks for all the Easter eggs, double entendres, and pop culture references! I don't think I have found them all, but it was fun enough for an eventual research with friends. Thank you for it all!
We need to stop worrying about "authorial intent." Once the film is cut and released, that it! Just because David Chase says Tony Soprano was shot after everything went black has NO BEARING on what we can take from the artwork.
The artist needs an audience. What the audience sees in the art is not up to debate, really. It's a reaction. I once read a newspaper column where people were asked what is their favorite song and why. Six out of ten named a song and said, "This song is about ME and my mother/brother/father (fill in the blank.)
@@rmj8905 Yes. In fact, all our pop culture needs to be examined for: who were these people who made these "entertainments" for us? Because when you look into it, it's not a slice of apple pie America making the films!
Thanks for your reasonable take on what some try to twist, Matt! 🍻 I love the movie and find some speculation entertaining. When all is said and done, my love is based on how it impacts me in the moment. I was 12 when it was in the cinema in 1980 and managed to see it with an adult neighbor (my parents were permissive). I read the novel for a school book report shortly afterward. I love DOCTOR SLEEP (2019), as well, but read that novelization before the movie was made. Loved it. I also enjoy watching young people react to either of them on RU-vid. I'm glad you mentioned ROOM 237 (2012) as a friend took me to see it in an advanced screening. We found it interesting, but clearly stretches happenstances. 🌒 I guess it's human nature?
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks sorry to hear it. But your work certainly paid off! Thanks for not giving merit to some of those insane theories about the symbolism in this movie! I love watching analyses of these classics, but some people just give merit to everything they hear
I only disagree that the continuity "errors" weren't there on purpose. They're just red herrings. They have nothing to do with anything, it's just the hotel being enigmatic and Kubrick just did it to mess with us. They filmed all of these scenes numerous times, so there is no way this stuff wasn't caught. Also the "partly-obscured Calumet can" theory is really silly and while I think the image of the Indian was intentionally highlighted and shown to the audience, I think the guy missed the forest for the trees when he focused on it in Room 237.
Gotta say your fx work is excellent - fun ideas, great execution. Rob at Collative Learning has done a few examinations of the Shining. One amusing point is, as you note as well, how bright everything is. As Rob puts it, as Jack first tours the hotel, everything Shines.
Me doing it might be, but your opinion is your opinion no matter where you post it. I basically quit watching his stuff after he made a video allegedly discussing his dislike for seeing girls beat up guys on film because it killed his suspension of disbelief, but then went on to cite as examples the prequel to The Thing, which is in no way about physically combating the monster, and Logan, where the girl has literal superpowers that keep her from dying and claws that cut through anything...by those criteria, she will eventually win every fight for the same reason Wolverine will. It felt very much like he just didn't like female protagonists in general and didn't want to admit it. The whole thing felt very dishonest and made me doubt the sincerity of his arguments as a whole.
holy heck, the editing on this is next level! even down to matching the audio quality and film grain of the movie. not to mention the meticulous cross-referencing of details. thank you for confirming an innate feeling i had while reading through some of the more outlandish theories. although, when you're REALLY obsessed with a movie, it's hard to not pick it to pieces and form false equivalents. it's kind of fun and keeps something you've watched over a hundred times fresh. though, just don't state it as fact to support a conspiracy theory that the moon landing didn't occur
Epic, just epic. As much as I’ve enjoyed seeing things like the Wendy is the abuser thesis, it always seemed like a stretch. You are Occam’s Razor, and a fine one at that. I remember an old RU-vid video called something like “Ancient Aliens Debunked” where an archaeologist went story by story of that awful show and showed with scientific proof why each idea was a crock of shit. This video joins that one in my pantheon of favorites.
I should look that video up, if it's still here. I've read lots of books and the old CSICOP journals about UFOs, and I'd probably find it entertaining. My personal favorite piece of nonsense about UFO footage, which goes on to this day, is the constant attribution of movement to the blurry object at the end of a long zoom rather than that of the camera taking the footage. Do these people look through telescopes and wonder why the moon is bouncing around in the sky, too?
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Exactly! My personal favorite of that Ancient Aliens debunked video is one of geographic simplicity. They highlighted a Stone Age society and mentioned this giant wall with perfectly carved boulders of such precision and size. Obviously this Stone Age settlement did not have the tools to make such precise cuts in the rocks…… cue the Aliens meme guy. The real answer was that although the settlement didn’t have the tools to make the wall, a Bronze Age settlement lie just over the hill a few kilometers away- and they sure did, and with the archaeological evidence of stones in both sites, it’s easy to put the pieces together. I’ll try to find a link for you. It’s a classic. Found it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-j9w-i5oZqaQ.htmlsi=AKpMGqUmx5Pvul8v
Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of Wendy being the villain/abuser and hallucinating the whole story. While she did stay with Jack keeping her son in a dangerous situation this made her an enabler of abuse not the main abuser. I do think the ghosts are real. That always seemed clear to me. Great video. LOVED the Gordon Cole scene.
Oh, THANK YOU. I am so blown away by people who have such selective research and retainment abilities. Im about 5 minutes in, but im pretty sure I am going to sub.
