Stanley Kubrick never said there were ghosts in The Shining

Stanley Kubrick did not actually say what he is claimed to have said regarding the larder door (in his interview with Michel Ciment). It is a quote that is often taken grossly out of context to justify the existence of ghosts in Kubrick's cinematic masterpiece. But Stanley Kubrick never said there were ghosts in The Shining.
*SPOILERS*
There are spoilers from The Shining - a film by Stanley Kubrick.
This episode was written by Christian Twiste and Geoffrey Ciani
This episode was narrated and produced by Geoffrey Ciani (aka - Rummy)
To read more by Christian Twiste please visit his blog:
confessionsofaconservative.com/
Stanley Kubrick never said there were ghosts in The Shining
#TheShining #StanleyKubrick

[@JoelKotarski]

I don't believe in true quotes on the Internet anymore. People can take just pieces, misattribute words to the wrong person, or just randomly attach a famous name to their own thoughts. --Abraham Lincoln

[@TheStockwell]

Lincoln stole that quote from Nicola Tesla. 😉

[@jamieharr4459]

Lincoln stole that quote from Plato guy

[@completesentences2125]

My favorite presidential quote of all time!

[@somedorkydude6483]

Interesting

[@Three_Sevens]

Ha! Love it.

[@secondcomingofbast9908]

Kubrick was recorded at some event talking about The Shining and said straight out the picture of Jack at the end (which was not in the King novel) showed the reincarnated Jack in his former life at the hotel. So whether or not there were ghosts, reincarnation absolutely played a pivotal role. Bear in mind this happened after Jack and Halloran were both dead and after Wendy and Danny had left the hotel. So there was no one around to "imagine" seeing it.

[@juzujuzu4555]

I doubt there's anything on this film that can be taken absolutely on it's face value. Reincarnation is suggested, but it could be interpreted much more broadly, not that Jack is actual reincarnation of someone from the past. For example, when we are zooming in the photo, it changes, Jack's left shoulder moves. Also the photo is not taken in the hotel. It's not the gold room.

[@secondcomingofbast9908]

@@juzujuzu4555 Kubrick didn't "suggest" it in that recorded interview, he stated it outright. Plus, again, there was no one left alive in the hotel when that scene played. Wendy and Danny had left.the hotel by then. Jack and Halloran were both dead. There wss no one left to "imagine" or see Jack's 1921 picture in the hotel as a result of "insanity." Unless it was, well, an insane ghost

[@juzujuzu4555]

@@secondcomingofbast9908 I know that interview, the point is that there are no words that can express multilevel story. As I said, the photo is not from Overlook, and the photo after the zoom is not the same photo as Jack's shoulder has moved. Thus like the whole story, it's not 100% literal. There are dozen different stories on the maze of The Shining, though they lead to dead ends. You kind of have to look them all above the maze like Jack does in the lobby. The reincarnation is there to show that Jack is kind of stereotype, that history repeats itself unless you learn from it, follow back your steps and change the patterns. Of course this is simplified, but the point is that the reincarnation is true on some level, but Kubrick didn't mean it literally.

[@secondcomingofbast9908]

@@juzujuzu4555 I'll take Kubrick's word about his intentions over those of mere viewers, some of whom I suspect have axes to grind.about spiritual matters. As far as I'm concerned, that final scene, the picture of Jack that appeared after every living person had either died or left the hotel, proves there was more at work than only insanity (though that was certainly a pivotal factor as well).

[@juzujuzu4555]

@@secondcomingofbast9908 I have absolutely nothing against spiritual matters, and I think Kubrick is much more spiritual than most give him credit. His spirituality is just more complex than what most realize. Kubrick pretty much never intended to reveal anything on his films. On that particular interview he leads people to the idea of reincarnation but what he really is trying to say is more broader thing. Yes, the last photo is certainly not about any insane person looking at it. It's pivotal clue for all the themes of the film. I'm certainly not saying that the story is just "Jack is insane" because that's just the facade that hides the true horror of the Shining, all the truths of our actual reality the film is revealing. But I also agree with this video, as The Shining has many layers, for different audiences etc, and the most common normie layer is that there are no ghosts and that it's all in Jack's head so to speak. Though I don't think that's much more "right" way to look at this film than just literal interpretation that there are ghosts, though it's one step up on the ladder. The problem with analyzing/doing video about this film is that you have to take certain viewpoint and try to argue that, as many of the layers require the same evidence to be looked at different light, and thus trying to formalize a thorough video of the Shining would be hundred hour series. It's insanely hard film to have conversation because of these facts. It's so easy to start arguing with someone who you actually agreed with =)

[@IIVIIRRIIVII]

The strongest counter-argument to 'no ghosts' is Wendy, which you unfortunately didn't touch on. You can say Jack has had a mental break and is imagining Grady; or that the stress of the situation has caused Danny to imagine the twins- but to say Wendy is also imagining the full ghost sequence (bloody elevators and all) is too far of a stretch. As the straight man of the film Wendy's experiences are really what solidifies that ghosts are at least one aspect of the film and exist in the films universe. Fine opinion piece as always Geoff.

[@wendaltvedt4673]

Or what about Danny and Wendy having the exact same ghostly images in the river of blood?

[@juzujuzu4555]

Even if we take what we see as literal, it's still only evidence of hallucinations. The film is made so that you are free to think there are actual ghosts. Or that it's all metaphorical visions of what's going on, psychological horror. But Kubrick himself was not making ghost story, he uses ghosts (which can be interpreted as ghosts or not) to tell deeper stories, things that people who can shine can see so to speak. Literal interpretation of the film is impossible, as the film is full of impossible locations, impossible architecture, impossible windows, changing things, teleporting characters, which all serve purpose on multiple way on many of the layers.

[@raakareiska9804]

@@juzujuzu4555 what is the context of Danny's and Hallorann's conversation about shine in the beginning if there is no supernatural in movie? Who hallucinated that conversation?

[@juzujuzu4555]

@@raakareiska9804 I don't really consider telepathy etc as supernatural. Though the context is knowledge and wisdom. Shining is to see truth, from the past present and future. Things that happened long ago, things that have yet to happen. The Shining is full of knowledge from the past, present time (during the late 70s) and future. Kubrick is shining to us, trying to expose and warn us. Make us see beyond the surface of the illusions of society and media. I'm shining right now that you are probably from the Nordic countries, close to Russia.

[@raakareiska9804]

@@juzujuzu4555 well he telepathicly heard Hallorann asking about ice scream and contacted him from thousands of miles away. I would not call that wisdom or knowledge. Thats supernatural

[@matijatatomirovic3351]

I am pretty sure no artist has ever made anything meant to be analyzed to death and dissected in tiniest of pieces. The art is meant to be experienced, felt, and interpreted however one might choose. Anyone who claims otherwise has no idea what art is about.

[@leonardsl6667]

And yet, people who analyze art are so much more interesting to talk to! 😄

[@somedorkydude6483]

Artists kind of do. Direction leads to discussion which leads to notoriety then memorability Although I think even artists are surprised at what people read into

[@avonboy007]

There isn't a Torrance family in the movie. I mean, there are three people sharing the last name Torrance, and the fact that they all stay together may lead you to believe that they are in fact, a husband, wife, and child. This trips up a lot of the more casual viewers of The Shining, and who can blame them? This could not be farther from the truth. Where is the certificate of marriage for Wendy and Jack if we are to believe they are married? At least a photo of the ceremony would be decent proof, and don't start me on Danny. He could just be some random kid, we don't exactly have a scene of Wendy giving birth to him, so its fair to assume he could have been anyone else's child that just ended up with her and Jack at the Overlook. Sure, maybe in the script, or in the production of the movie, there was an implication of them being related, but as we know, just because the creation of this work had these three characters as a family in the making of the movie, doesn't mean that in the movie itself we are to still make this assumption. I'm glad that there are people out there that understand this, and are not limited by reading a movie for what it seems to suggest, but by whatever contrarian take that they may feel like bringing up, and then declaring that it is the only reasonable way to view the movie, because it is in fact the only reasonable way to view the movie.

[@wendaltvedt4673]

LOL

[@RealBallsofSteel]

Kubrick's original plan was to have Jack Nicholson impregnate Shelley Duvall so they could have a kid that looked convincingly like them.

[@rosenfield10]

Sometimes I'm interested in the artist's interpretation, but ultimately it's MY interpretation that defines the meaning. Stephen King was inspired by a both haunted AND isolated hotel, and that combo created a beautifully terrifying story. It doesn't matter what either Kubrick or King say in the end IF I've found a meaning for myself that satisfies and stimulates me. My belief? It's both.

[@wendaltvedt4673]

Your belief is some of the ghosts are real and some of them are only in the minds of Jack, Wendy and Danny?

[@rosenfield10]

@@wendaltvedt4673 I like the ambiguity of it. Seeing the film as a kid, I thought it was a haunted hotel and Jack was possessed. As I got older, I realized how well it works as a psychological horror film and that Jack could just be crazy. Even Wendy and Doc could be traumatized into delusion. Both explanations work. I'm not sure what's what honestly. But I think when the dead girls are asking Doc to come and play with them, it seems interactive as if the girls were there, therefore ghosts.

[@karenweston2714]

Yes, it's true. When I first saw this, I heard how scary it was, and when I watched it, I realized my life was the horror story! I felt exactly what was happening in the film! It help me recognize my situation and get out! And Shelly Duvall was gorgeous in 3 Women! Here, her character is a woman stripped of her confidence. Which is exactly how I felt in that position! I feel like she should get more credit as an actress.

[@juzujuzu4555]

Every actor, their actual real life, and previous roles, are big reason why they are cast by Kubrick. Wendy, Winnifred, Freddie, 3 women. One example. Her previous relationship, just like Jack's real life friend ( Polanski) and his previous roles, are important for extracting all that this film contains. This film has pretty much the most perfect casting. Shelley Duvall was perfect for the role, though while she deserves a lot of praises for this role, a lot of that is due Stanley's direction.

[@earthwatcher2012]

If you intently watch the red bathroom scene with Grady and Jack, you can see Nicholson is not looking at Grady, but rather, he’s looking at the mirror behind him -only seeing Grady’s reflection in it. Also, every ghost Jack sees is in front or or near a mirror. it’s possible that there really were no ghosts at all in The Overlook, only Jack envisioning them in mirrors ? Fun movie to watch and analyze and i’ve thoroughly enjoyed your take on it

[@zackf3688]

What about the scene when Grady bumps into him?

[@earthwatcher2012]

@@zackf3688great point…hard to refute that. Grady def had a real body

[@TheStockwell]

If Kubrick had spent as much time working on "The Shining" as the "theorists" have, he'd still be working on it today, over four decades later. 😸

[@vitoryugojsm]

That's literally the definition of a work of art. As something which is open to interpretation, triggering new layers of meaning as it absorbs more viewers. Instead, if it was closed to all hermeneutics it would either be a bad film or a closed product of some king, ending on its utility. Why do people want to stop all theoretical interpretations on past cinema? Does it hurt them to feel passed over on their limited interpretation of what was there? It really should not affect them and yet, here we are, so it really must reduce them in some way. 😁

[@Marcus007]

You know I’m a super fan Rummy, but as usual I have a different take. Those are some great clips re Dangerfield and Kurt Vonnegut! But from my view you seem to misunderstand that clip. I think it’s beyond ambiguity that the meaning of the clip was not that some egghead professor understands Kurt Vonnegut’s work better than Vonnegut does himself, but rather to poke fun at what arrogant pompous fools such professorial, know it all, eggheads can be. Obviously, the professor unknowingly asserting that the writer of Mellon’s essay, the actual Kurt Vonnegut, “doesn’t know a damn thing about Kurt Vonnegut” was not to assert she is correct, but a fool. Accordingly, I reject the quip “trust the art not the artist.” As a writer I think it’s preposterous to suggest that critics or egghead professors have better insights as to the meaning of a piece of art than the actual artist. Such reeks suspiciously of a sentiment our LoViNg establishment controlled media would like the masses to embrace - one that would allow them to spin not just current events but even history and past art to suit the narratives they want to dominate society to facilitate elite interests and cultural engineering goals. But let me digress from that rabbit hole… Of course, art can imperfectly express the artist’s intent - or even better express a parallel or even opposite view better than the artist’s intended view. In some art forms, such as abstract painting or sculpture, the artist may not even have the insights into their own subconscious to know what their own art means - like interpreting dreams. Nonetheless, subconscious or conscious - the art’s meaning is always, and only, dictated by its creator - the artist. All others have only the providence of its interpretation, obviously upsetting eggheads and authoritarians alike, past and present. Nonetheless, those opaque scenarios are antithetical to the artist in question, Kubrick, who, to your point, was famously detailed, methodical and thoughtful in crafting his story. It’s a mistake to conflate artistic subtilty with plot ambiguity when examining work of such a master artist as Kubrick. For example: in the Ciement interview you cite, they discuss that critics and eggheads alike claimed A Clockwork Orange meant to endorse violence - but Kubrick expressly debunked this assertion in the same Ciment interview. So are we to disregard the artist there too? It seems dubious that at 8.18 you cite Stainforth, Kubrick's assistant, as authority that it was Kubrick’s intent to to expressly show Grady opened the door, but then edited out the evidentiary scene, - but then at 9.54 you assert the "no ghost stance" is the “only reasonable interpretation.” This is clearly contrary to Stainforth’s opinion that the supernatural element of the movie was in the end “totally ambiguous” and “can be read easily either way.” So is Stainforth an authority to be trusted justifying your citation to his opinion - or unreasonable and therefore presumably unreliable? You can’t credibly cite to authority when covenant, only later to contradict the same authority when they expressly debunk your thesis accepting only the no ghost view. Further, it seems much more likely that the scene was deleted simply to add subtilty and extend the audience’s sense of mystery rather than to radically change the plot of the movie. In the Ciment interview Kubrick explains the only virtue of the book's story was how the plot mislead the audience only to surprise them - specifically how it led people to believe psychological explanations could explain the events until the pantry door opening left no other conclusion than the supernatural. It seems a far stretch that Kubrick would mercurially change the cornerstone of the plot of his movie when a simpler explanation is that he edited out the express scene so to extend the audience's suspense. Moreover, to say the original plot of the book is “completely irrelevant” to the interpretation of the movie is an extreme overstatement given (1) Kubrick’s intent until editing was to expressly include the shot establishing the supernatural theme; and (2) that in the same interview Kubrick expressly emphasized his intent to preserve the original plot which was intrinsically supernatural. IMO this clearly shows the omission of the scene was for subtilty - not to radically alter the plot from pivoting on a supernatural theme into pivoting on a child abuse theme. Disagree as we may, I enjoy and respect your views and look forward to your future content!

[@GatlinsFuckinCornfield]

As someone who's seen a door like the inside of where Jack was locked, the handle is out that far so you can untwist it to get yourself out. Jack opened the door but he doesn't think he did.

[@thispartysover_]

Will we get a HOUSE OF THE DRAGON season 1 review?

[@woahblackbettybamalam]

Critics have called it everything from shit to fuckin shit.

[@WowLynchWow]

Yes! I confess, I've had a hectic schedule and haven't caught up on it yet, but I will definitely do that at some point before S2.

[@juzujuzu4555]

There are no ghosts affecting the physical realm, so on that level I agree. Though on the deeper meaning it's not psychological story about alcoholic writer either. The whole film is like the maze, the deeper in it you get, the deeper layers you'll find. It's incredible in it's ability to be amazing film to so many different audiences, and the story to be complete no matter on what layer you look at it.

[@theroadhomefromwrestling1788]

I always interpreted the “teapot” as one of the machines the Fireman uses in the White Lodge scenes.

[@WowLynchWow]

Same. Not that I thought they were exactly the same, but I definitely saw a relation between them.

[@theroadhomefromwrestling1788]

@@WowLynchWow Right. It’s never as easy as “this is that” when it comes to talking about The Return.

[@frankb821]

The "no ghosts" theory is my favorite theory, and holds up. It's much more interesting without ghosts, and also makes the title mean something. It's not just a haunted house movie that happens to have a kid with the Shining in it. This, and "what is anti-logic's" similar theory, are well argued enough to embrace. Also, I always assumed Jack unlocked the door himself through telekenesis during a "shine." Could that be a possibility too? Thanks!

[@wendaltvedt4673]

The no ghosts theory doesn't hold up at all, there are more holes in this argument than cottage cheese. It just doesn't make sense.

[@gerry2096]

I've been hoping you would make another video essay about the Shining one day. The day has come!

[@mlsaulnier]

Yes and also hoping for some more House of the Dragon ones too

[@mlsaulnier]

Good to see you back making videos- hope your move went well.

[@WowLynchWow]

Thank you very much. The move went well, although I'm still settling in.

[@Lue_Jonin]

Another outstanding video and analysis of Kubrick's adaptation to "The Shining" I wish you would create a video explaining that in no way is "Doctor Sleep" a sequel to Kubrick's "The Shining" . Viewers see "Doctor Sleep" and think "OHHH so this film proves there must have been ghosts in "The Shining" ... It's a never ending battle, UP HILL, trying to get people to comprehend the factual truth of reality in that.... The two films are by two directors with completely different views and objectives for their films..... Just as King's novel has NOTHING to do with influencing Kubrick's film adaptation , neither does "Doctor Sleep" have ANY answers to Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining" I also want to point out, in the "How did Jack get out of the pantry"? .... in the scene where Jack is pleading with Wendy to let him out..... Jack's right hand is on a protruding object from the door.... that is a "release" mechanism to the door. I feel Jack had his mental imaginary conversation with "Delbert" Grady while stuck in the pantry and since the door was a reflective surface, was talking to "himself".... then finally got "HIMSELF" out. Danny , even with his personality disorder of "Tony" .... didn't let his father out of that pantry..... kid was basically a vegetable at that broken point just watching his cartoons of The Roadrunner out smarting The Coyote ... which is exactly the same as he did to Jack when Danny(Tony) ran into the maze. ❤ 😱 🎥

[@wendaltvedt4673]

That's all fine and good but the scene in the movie didn't show Jack letting himself out it showed Jack standing there then we hear the door unlock by someone on the outside. So you can't assume Jack did one thing but the scene itself showed something completely different.

[@Lue_Jonin]

@@wendaltvedt4673 The scene didn't "show" anything or anybody letting Jack out..... Stick with factual truth of reality when deciphering a situation.... Running off immediately accepting something imaginary and impossible is not any way to go through life..... Ghosts don't exist.... Kubrick knew this factual truth as an atheist..... So it's been decided , Jack got himself out.... So that's "LOCKED IN". You've a delusional disorder or autistic if you think otherwise. 😆 LOL

[@bill-xm7dz]

Having read both the Shining and Dr. Sleep novels by Stephen King the analysis of there being no ghosts and no psychic powers do not hold up with the existence of the True Knot and Abra Stone another psychic.

[@magnuslundin5784]

You're cherrypicking. In the very same interview, Ciment asked Kubrick why Kubrick emphasized the supernatural aspect of the movie when the movie implies that there are rational explanations to Jack's behaviour. Kubrick explained how the story "The Blue Hotel" misdirects and said: "I think The Shining uses a similar kind of psychological misdirection to forestall the realization that the supernatural events are actually happening." And as a follow-up to a reply where Kubrick makes it clear that it's the "powerful evil" of the hotel that influences Jack: "So you don't regard the apparitions as merely a projection of his mental state? For the purposes of telling the story, my view is that the paranormal is genuine. Jack's mental state serves only to prepare him for the murder, and to temporarily mislead the audience." So, as far as Kubrick was concerned, he was misleading the audience into thinking it was psychological. One doesn't have to take that at face value but should make clear that it's their own interpretation.

[@knightsonofjack]

So in other words the title of this video is objectively wrong.

[@magnuslundin5784]

@@knightsonofjack Indeed.

[@iamamaniaint]

Thank you. It seems like a fools errand to try and look for secret meanings in this film, because in that process, you miss the forest for the trees. It's right in front of us. It's allegorical. It's about the many forms of evil throughout history, and how weak men are seduced by them, with the promise of being part of the club. To be part of "all the best people."

[@Svankmajer]

Hmm. I feel you take it too far in the opposite direction as I think the word "ambigious" is the keyword. The genius about the movie in my opinion is that you can view the movie pretty much entirely without the need for real ghosts, but I also think you can conclude there is something going on at the hotel that might be beyond Jack too. It seems like there is, but again, I'm not sure anyone has the right to just conclude one way or the other. Especially if the artists intention is to be diminished.

[@wendaltvedt4673]

I agree. And how could Danny and Wendy both see the same paranormal images in the river of blood if the hotel wasn't haunted? That said, I still see it open for interpretation as well.

[@seanwright3940]

I tend to think the question is less WHETHER the ghosts are real, & more HOW real the ghosts are. Are the ghosts capable of opening up locked hotel rooms, assaulting little boys, & letting prisoners out of locked pantries? Or are they only apparitions like Dick Hallarann said?

[@worstthereeverwillbe1223]

Dang! Who knew Rummy’s corner had another channel with analysis of Stanley Kubrick!

[@ItsAlwaysRainingInWa]

Shout out to corne pone flicks! You and him both make the best content

[@WowLynchWow]

His videos are outstanding! Love his Twin Peaks content, and especially his take on Audrey-Diane I believe from his very first TP video.

[@robby7499]

Don't agree with a lot of these counter-arguments especially Danny opening the door, but I accept this over the Wendy theory.

[@robby7499]

Mostly because Doctor Sleep more or less debunks the theory since it is a direct sequel to Kubrick's film.

[@dildojizzbaggins6969]

@@robby7499No. Kubrick is dead, so it can't be.

[@wendaltvedt4673]

Agreed. Danny opening the door just doesn't make any sense. First of all Danny was in his room and had been in a state of catatonic shock. Is it possible he left his room and started roaming around the hotel all by himself in that state? Sure I guess. Plausible? Not really. Also, Jack is clearly talking to Grady just before the latch is unlocked. So what are the odds Danny would unlock the latch just seconds after Jack asks Grady to open the door. Again, just not plausible.

[@robby7499]

@@dildojizzbaggins6969 Who cares at that point? He made a film, did not adapt the novel for Doctor Sleep, it is a direct sequel...the ghosts are indeed real. So the theory is debunked.

[@leonardsl6667]

I've always thought the movie we see is the first draft of the novel Jack Torrance wrote while wintering there - thus the various inconsistencies in continuity, movement of artworks, differing foods in the storeroom, different colored typewriters, the maze whose entrance moves around, the "twins" who are 8 and 10 years old, and so on. (You notice that neither Wendy or Danny ever say "Wow! Who changed the layout of this maze?" Nor did they mind that the tv worked fine even though it wasn't plugged in.) First drafts always have this problem, and for suspense Kubrick turned it into the old trick of the unreliable narrator. In the Torrance family's time there, lots of feelings got hurt, but nobody died. No ghosts, nothing supernatural at all except in Jack's imagination.

[@patricktilton5377]

The Grady daughters were not twins. They were PLAYED by twins, though. It's important to make this distinction, I feel. Too many people refer to the Grady twins, when Ullman explicitly states that they were 8 and 10. Kubrick chose to cast a pair of twins in the roles, perhaps because he was also establishing a 'twin'-like association between Charles Grady (whose picture Jack had seen in a newspaper) and the 'Delbert' Grady whom Hack encounters and converses with in the Gold Room's bathroom, the former being the reincarnation of the latter, I think. Similarly, Jack Torrance is a 'twin' -- the reincarnated form -- of the "Mister Torrance" whose picture was taken in 1921. One must wonder if Kubrick felt that the very concept of Twins might be odd and even unsettling, that two people can be so uncannily identical as to be able to telepathically sense what the other is experiencing, even when separated by hundreds or thousands of miles. Danny Torrance, too, has a 'twin' of sorts -- the little boy who lives in his mouth, named 'Tony'.Even the names 'Danny' and 'Tony' are similar, the 'D' and 'T' sounds being labiodentals.

[@LiamPorterFilms]

Always love your analyses - my wife, too

[@WowLynchWow]

Thank you very much. Glad you like them!

[@nodescriptionavailable3842]

Just watched this for the first time. I definitely got a black lodge feel in the bar

[@RichEdwards]

A real Triple Lindy of a review..... also I'd love to get your HOTD season one take.

[@WowLynchWow]

You made my day with the Triple Lindy reference! :) And yes, I plan to do a S1 HOTD review at some point, but I confess I still need to play catch up.

[@paulbuschman8318]

Another excellent analysis. Only thing I would add is that in the book, Danny and halloran indeed had strong and explicit esp communications. This, however, does not in any way diminish your hypothesis, which I agree with, that there are no ghosts in the movie regardless of what Kubrick may or may not have said.

[@burke9497]

Your videos are awesome. And you have the perfect voice and accent for them. I don’t comment much, but I watched all of your Twin Peaks: The Return videos as they came out. Appreciate you.

[@dildojizzbaggins6969]

What accent? He sounds like a native speaker from New York or Jersey. That would be a dialect. "Accent" is only from one language to another.

[@burke9497]

@@dildojizzbaggins6969 Definition of accent (Entry 1 of 2) a distinctive manner of expression: such as a : a way of speaking typical of a particular group of people and especially of the natives or residents of a region spoke with a Russian accent b : an individual's distinctive or characteristic inflection, tone, or choice of words -usually used in plural

[@dildojizzbaggins6969]

@@burke9497That definition is illogical. It's pretty straight forward: Dialect=inside the same language; accent=from one language to another. That's the German definition, and it makes waaaaay more sense. Which is astounding, since usually not much that's German makes any sense :P

[@WowLynchWow]

Thank you very much Jeffrey Jackson! I appreciate your kind and generous support, and I likewise appreciate your very kind words as a long time viewer as well. Many thanks! Here's to hoping we get something new from Lynch in a filmmaking capacity sooner than later. Cheers! :)

[@gusmach]

A deeper interpretation is that the “crazier” each of the characters get (from the isolation of society), the more they see “ghosts”…losing their minds, like Wendy finally does at the end. But from the start Jack and Danny are already damaged from the previous abuse.

[@WowLynchWow]

Excellent point.

[@shaymayo6]

well i've just finished the film for the first time, after seeing this video. i see a clear connection in inspiration between this and Lynch's twin peaks. "redrum" - as the inspiration to the black lodge. (red room) when this word was first shown, i believe it was after jack became the killer when he met grady in the all-red toilet and actually became him. the second time it's shown, when danny says it repeatadly and writes it - he speaks in a voice that reminds me of the black lodge talk. and more than that - we see it in the mirror and when spells backwards it's "murder". backwards - just like the technique lynch used to make the black lodge talk. and right after that scene, wendy sees the river of blood that comes out of hallway where the red elevetor doors are - that reminded me of the red curtains in the lodge. redrum - red room? the black lodge is actually the red room too... and it's the source of evil and murder. and both are happening in remote places in the woods... just saying

[@cmiller451]

A fantastic video as usual! I always look forward to hearing your take on things. I've also just watched a video by ArchivioKubrick who noticed multiple times Jack looks straight at the camera. I love the no ghosts idea but if there are any then maybe its us the viewers.

[@UncensoredScion]

Again, like last time I'm largely going to agree with you but I'm going to disagree on the directional analysis of the problems stemming solely from Jack. Take the scene of abuse, how could Jack have abused Danny, left him alone, gone and sat at the typewriter and fallen asleep all the while Danny is talking with his mother about a strange woman attacking him? Makes no sense when you consider the timeline of events. It does make sense when you consider that there's three things going on all at the same time in the film. 1. Jack is suffering from anger induced by them being isolated on a mountain. 2. Wendy is suffering from paranoia induced by the isolation increasing her own morbid sense of doom for others and herself. 3. Danny is suffering from delusions due to the fact both his parents are going insane while he is isolated with them on a mountain in winter. The anger starts with Jack wanting to hurt Wendy, Wendy has been doing things constantly throughout the film that are both needling and disturbing Jack because she's paranoid he's going to kill himself or them. And she's the one who ultimately hurts Danny because she has to believe she's correct and see evidence of this abuse, it's why she's blaming Jack so quickly despite there being no sign of him ever touching Danny.

[@wendaltvedt4673]

How could Wendy and Danny have the exact same ghostly delusions in the river of blood if the hotel wasn't haunted?

[@UncensoredScion]

@@wendaltvedt4673 they feed on each others delusions by telling each other them

[@wendaltvedt4673]

@@UncensoredScion That's assuming a lot. You would also have to assume Danny, Wendy, Jack and even Halloran are all seeing ghosts and all 4 of them are delusional. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's quite a stretch. And you think it was Danny who opened the locked pantry door?

[@UncensoredScion]

@@wendaltvedt4673 The fun thing about Kubrick's the Shining is that it plays with ideas a lot. Re-watch it, Halloran never actually talks about ghosts, never sees ghosts and the only thing that could be supernatural is the supposed psychic ability the both have. I think if you re-watch the movie you'll see this repeated. Why does only Wendy see a sex scene between a bear suit and a man? Why not the dead woman? Why does Jack see a ballroom full of people, why not a room full of skeletons? The easy answer is the ghosts are screwing with them each in their own way and its easy because that's the simplest answer. Kubrick didn't do that sort of thing and we both know it. If I were to be forced to give reasons why each of the three isolated people see things only they see it'd be their mindsets (and I'll explain one fuller) 1. Jack sees a ballroom because he's a recovering alcoholic who is going insane from isolation and remembers how comforting a drink is. 2. Wendy sees a room full of skeletons with cobwebs on them because she's got an obsession with death and visualises it. (in the book its specifically pointed out she has this obsession with death and mutilation with focus on herself and her family dying in horrible ways, I feel it is a holdover from that aspect) 3. Danny is either a greatly disturbed child or a potential psychic seeing the delusions of his parents in his own mind. I go for the disturbed child angle as it makes more sense, why would a psychic child who is aware of evil things going on (seeing the twins, etc) enter a room that is evil?

[@wendaltvedt4673]

@@UncensoredScion Halloran alluded to Danny he's seen ghosts. He more or less said it. "people who shine can see." And he also warned Danny to stay out of room 347. Obviously he felt there was a malevolent presence in that room and low and behold it was the room Danny entered just before getting strangled. Also, Danny claimed he was strangled by a crazy woman in room 347 (according to Wendy) and low and behold Jack enters that room and see's a grotesque old lady ghost. As far as Danny opening the latch to the pantry - Jack was clearly talking to Grady just before the latch unlocked. Around this time Danny had been in a state of catatonic shock. Is it possible he left his room in that state and started roaming around the hotel all by himself? Yeah sure I guess. But it's hardly plausible. You would also have to believe Danny opened the door seconds after Jack had asked Grady for one more chance. Like what are the odds? It's just not very plausible. You do raise some very good points about the kinds of apparitions that align with the individuals, granted. All with the exception of Jack and the grotesque old woman. I'm not saying it's completely impossible there were no ghosts, it's just very far fetched on many points. My personal opinion is Kubrick made a paranormal horror and decided to make it ambiguous or open for interpretation. There's no right or wrong answer it's up to the viewer.

[@johnmichinock752]

There clearly is a supernatural aspect. How else do you explain Danny and Dick communicating?

[@filmmakerdanielclements]

Jack getting let out of the storage room isn’t the only supernatural event. The last shot of the film also confirms physical, paranormal activity. It’s a literal, objective point of view that isn’t going on in anyone’s head. There are no witnesses. It’s not a dream. The hotel is empty. It’s from no characters perspective (unlike all other events). Yet, there is no practical way that Jack could be in a photograph from 1921 without it being paranormal. You’re right that a lot of the film is going on in the heads of the characters; but as influenced by the hotel. It preys on the minds of its guests and their particular foibles. Just like it did to Grady. Both can be true; the story is about a family falling apart, going crazy, etc., AND they are in a haunted hotel that gives them that little push over the edge. You seem to have made a rule that paranormal events have to manifest as a floating librarian or something concrete (like the unlocking storage room or photograph). What if the paranormal event is just the hotel screwing with the thoughts of the people, terrifying them and driving them to do insane things? Does it have to be ghostbusters to be paranormal?

[@burtonthegrape9217]

Never knew you made a part 2. My opinion is the same though, I think on a base level you are right but I think deeper and deeper there is an aspect of the supernatural there that's making certain things happen, not in a direct way but it knows how to get them there with a slight nudge. I can believe the main story is a man and his family going insane but there are certain aspects that heavily imply supernatural intervention just not on a massive scale, like the more they lose themselves the more apparent the spirits become. To me the end where Jack is in the picture has a lot of possible explanations like the Jack we see isn't the real Jack or he was reincarnated or he was added to the souls that wonder the hotel. What we see in the film is meant to be broad and have multiple meanings and interpretations, the thing is if we go to deep we replace what is there with what we want, my interpretation and yours are valid, there's no right answer but your interpretation was incredible.

[@winfieldwinfield5450]

To add to the no ghost perspective, one might argue that visions like the blood in the elevator are really touches of surrealist cinema. Kubrick was inspired by Eraserhead while making The Shining. Eraserhead has it to where emotions convey the scenes, so that could've been the case with the visions. These sequences could be representations of emotional states, so Danny and Wendy seeing the same things like the blood in the elevator could be a similar pique in their fear of the present danger.

[@mikenayers5981]

The Shining came out in 1980, was a modest hit, but had middling to outright negative reviews. The movie even earned some Razzie nominations. Decades later, it was somehow decided that Kubrick could do no wrong, and this blemish on his legacy couldn’t stand. So now the movie gets overanalyzed, and people look for things that aren’t there, because there just has to be a movie underneath the movie. In the meantime, for the “no ghosts” crowd to make their theory work, they can’t get around things like Jack being let out of the pantry, how Halloran knew to go back to the Overlook, and how Jack knew he was coming. And they do this without realizing the chances of Kubrick having the same exact ideas as their theories is so slim.

[@somedorkydude6483]

Here's the thing Kubrick said jack was a reincarnation. His there is no ghosts video. Has problems My problem is not about if there is or isn't ghosts its what it represents. It implies that there's no super natural. To many just say the hotel is Alive or there are ghosts.but the no ghosts theory hinges on this idea it's in all 3 of our charaters heads. But the reason it was left ambiguous was to have the audience question reality and what happens. When wendy starts seeing things it's to pull the rug from the audience perception of real and not real. Kubrick said jack reincarnated he actually was in the photo. Look it up it's Been explained bluntly. Theories like this lead you on but when you smack your face into a question you get an awnser with a more complicated question that leads to another question to another and eventually it makes sense but there will always be holes and impossible to awnser questions or left gaps that were left into the audiences knowledge on events. And at one point its a Jenga tower that will go up against a lego tower where one has its prices fit nicely and the other not so nicely

[@mikenayers5981]

@@somedorkydude6483I wasn’t say there weren’t ghosts, and I accept Jack reincarnated as that was said by Kubrick. People saying there aren’t ghosts/Shining, but then look for whatever else it could be, all have holes in their theories. Also if Jack reincarnated, then so did Grady more likely.

[@somedorkydude6483]

@@mikenayers5981 essentially Kubrick has said its like a reincarnation evil cycle so it actually might be possible Grady is jack food for thought However I think the hotel is just alive itself since the Grady manifestation was very much unanimated.

[@somedorkydude6483]

Also the Grady ghost when it tried to get jack to kill his family he was. Way to sure it would work and he Essentially said. Your son did somthing cringe plus he brought a [I refuse to type it] go correct them. Not kill correct them.

[@mikenayers5981]

@@somedorkydude6483 If Jack was reincarnated, Grady probably was too. This would explain Charles/Delbert, OR once the hotel absorbs you, you get a role like in a play. Doctor Sleep suggested as much by making Jack the new Lloyd.

[@patrickhamos2987]

whoever was playing Kurt Vonnegut in that rodney dangerfield movie clearly doesnt know much about Kurt Vonnegut

[@DavesArtRoom]

Yes, you are correct. Kubrick is all about being vague. He quoted Lovecraft in that vein.

[@poiewhfopiewhf]

I found this video entertaining, but the majority of the supporting points fail to actually uphold the central argument (that there are no ghosts). Because there isn't mutual exclusivity among there being ghosts in the film, Kubrick leaving the film ambiguous, and Kubrick speaking unambiguously about there being ghosts in the novel. To put it another way, him saying that there are ghosts in the novel does not indicate that there aren't ghosts in the film. And this is supported by Kubrick not explaining his films, so why would he speak about the novel as a way to indicate 'what he wouldn't say' about the film, as this is giving a large clue to the film via the negative. I always was at odds with literal understandings of Kubrick's films especially the Shining. I enjoy how within the film medium there can be inexplicable occurrences, and would rather analyze how those techniques effect the journey of the viewer, rather than seeking logic within the film as if it is meant to have logical explanations. The door feels very supernatural in how it opens, and I would argue that that feeling is very intentional. The ambiguity is the felt outcome. This to me is the deepest truth of the scene rather than 'who opened it'. I believe that the hotel itself is a character and opened its door.

[@WowLynchWow]

You make some solid observations. But the point in this follow up video was, as stated, that many of the objections to the no ghost theory are Kubrick himself said there were ghosts in the movie. But Kubrick never actually said that.

[@poiewhfopiewhf]

@@WowLynchWow I see. I never saw the first video, so in that context it makes much more sense. Overall it was a great video even on its own

[@darkembernovels]

I feel you nailed it. There's the famous quote from his daughter's documentary where he sarcastically jokes that the film was hopeful for even suggesting there's an afterlife. Kubrick was clearly leaning atheist given what he experienced in an entire lifetime of being a "member of the club." Barry Lyndon is the only film where he literally gives an epitaph declaring his return to a preoccupation with humanism. That being said you can see him in his final 3 films pointing more and more distinctly towards a concern over the brutal manner in which children lose their innocence in this world. The "fellatio gay ghosts" are the closest Kubrick could suggest in 1980 and perhaps still today that the physical child abuse Danny endured may also have been a sexual obsession. In Eyes Wide Shut he all but says it in the parallels between Mandy, the street prostitute, Sobieski's character and the daughter. In fact we don't know what his final cut really was before he suddenly inauspiciously died. To this day, Western society aggressively defends itself against resurfacing complaints that it has an elitist community that preys on our children and dismiss it as "minor attraction." Kubrick developed a heart in his middle age and flew too close to the sun with these final films and yes, he was murdered for it. This is why he found it increasingly difficult to make films despite running away from Hollywood, and completely gave up on his Napoleon epic to focus on this theme, which he felt was a clear and present danger to the future of the West. And look at us now. Genius he was, but it's rare to see genius develop a soul and remain committed to fighting an evil much worse and real than ghosts.

[@batgurrl]

I agree with you. Obviously there were ghosts in the film. Thanks for clearing that misquote up. The details on who or what let him out aren’t that relevant

[@thomasdematteo2281]

At this point of the movie Danny no longer sees his father as a safe. He hides from him. Why would he allow his father the advantage if he now perceives him as a threat?

[@Whalers860]

Great video. I’ve wanted to make my own with theories I have about the film.

[@benquinneyiii7941]

Matilda Panzer III

[@voodoochild1975az]

How much would we pay to be flies on the wall for a long dinner between Kubrick and Lynch... preferably with weed or booze involved as well... I think those two could elevate the artform that is cinema, by merely discussing the medium among themselves. To me, these are the two favorite masters. Something about their films and my tastes, that I sink my teeth into their films and chew on them over time.... that they beg for repeat viewing and reward the viewers that go deep into the work. They are similar in this regard and clearly had some kind of mutual admiration society going. And for me, they are my two 'can do no wrong' filmmakers. I love everything they did.... even it takes me a few viewing to realize I like it, or why I like it. Kubrick is gone, but Lynch is still kicking, and thus, the only filmmaker I flat refuse to miss a release from. Anything Lynch wants to do, no matter how 'out there' he'd like to go... I'm in. I'll buy the ticket right now. The twin pillars of cinema as art... the Twin Peaks if you will... Kubrick and Lynch. So I'd wager real money, that a 4 hour dinner with those two would be a fascinating conversation. In fact, those two might be the only ones that could easily understand each other's work. Anyway, both created films that exist to be analyzed like this. I love pondering these works on ever deeper levels. I'm excited for rumors of Twin Peaks season 4... but honestly? I don't care, so long as Lynch is doing SOMETHING. Whatever it is, I'm gonna love it. I actually would NEVER read a critical review of a new Lynch project. Pointless. I know I'm going to like it, and in my arrogance, I'd fear the reviewer wouldn't enjoy it, or even understand it as I would. Someone else's opinion of a Lynch film ala Thumbs up thumbs down siskel and ebert style... is worthless to me. Discussions and analysis like this are far more interesting. These opinions matter, yes, but a traditional 'new movie review'? Utterly pointless for a Lynch film. Either you love Lynch or you don't, and if you do, you won't be able to explain one of his films after a single viewing anyway. Nah, I prefer to go in cold. I know who this is, I know what kind of ticket I bought, and most importantly, I know I'm going to love it. So yeah, if Lynch puts something out, I actively avoid all reviews and casual write ups. What could a reviewer have told me about Twin Peaks The Return that I needed to know or didn't already know? Marketing a Lynch release to me can be boiled down to black and white text ala 'New Lynch flick' and a date. That is actually all I'd need to know. This is why, to me, Kubrick and Lynch are just in a totally different class of film maker. I mean, Spielberg is great, one of the best ever... but this is a different level of art imo. Now that was a long rant, but I think I made my point... dinner between these two would be one of the coolest conversations in this history of cinema.

[@jonnylaser85]

I swear this is the same dude who does Rummys Corner for boxing

[@danielveloz5414]

Why did you stop reviewing The House of Dragons?

[@WowLynchWow]

Apologies. I had to move between episodes 3 & 4, and unfortunately I've still yet to catch up as I've been settling in. I still eventually plan to give me thoughts on the 1st season.

[@colelevel2654]

Dick is not a crazy person. We infer based on his dialogue that he is talking about psychic powers. But you can't forget about the unreliable narrative. He never once says "I'm a magic psychic who talks to ghosts." He actually only says things that plenty of people really can do. Having conversations without opening your mouths is a common metaphor for being able to read someone, having a connection with them and understanding what they're thinking. He says when something bad happens, it leaves a trace, and those who can shine can see it. Yet he never says anything about literally talking to spirits and seeing the past. He says bad things linger, and this is very clearly true. Haven't you ever stepped into a room and you could just tell something was off? It doesn't mean you're magic. It means you're perseptive. The human brain notices so many things subconsiously that we don't even realize. All he's actuay suggesting is that he and Danny are perseptive people who can read others. He's right. Danny's trauma has allowed him to understand things at his age that lot's of adults don't even understand, and it can give him a deeper connection to others. This is super common in real life. When someone's been hurt, they can be much better at telling what others are feeling and telling when something bad has happened.

[@onelmstreet8839]

I saw the movie so many Times, but yeah sounds logic with me that Jack was unlocked by danny. Now ya gave me another reason for watching the great Shining again. I would like ya take on "dont look now" 1973

[@WowLynchWow]

Thank you, and appreciate the suggestion. Been many years since I saw that.

[@tommartin7728]

I tell ya, the ghosts in The Shining can't get no respect.

[@codycardin]

Danny performs a telepathic mind meld with an elderly black man. There is no ambiguity in that. They communicate through telepathy, Scatman Crothers reads his mind to learn Danny's nickname. There is an undeniable supernatural element. The film neither includes, precludes or excludes the possible of ghosties. And it's clever because not knowing upsets people and they need to know to make things stable again. It's the most defining thing about the film, well, that and a man in a dog costume "tending" to another man The last shot is of a picture of a guy who just happened to look like Jack in 1921(at what might have been the Fish and Goose Soiree)? Regardless, of whether the ghosties are real or not, i think everyone can agree that Dr Sleep(the Shining 2: Tommy's Revenge) was terrible. I didn't know the revenge would be on me!

[@zackf3688]

As for me I kinda lean towards unadressed or "overlooked" evil in the human psyche as the malevolent ghosts. However, given that this is also a work of fiction its fair to take the supernatural elements at face value. The bones of the movie are a Steven King novel, afterall.

[@knightsonofjack]

In the previous video you made you said there was nothing supernatural happening. How did Danny know what the overlook elevators looked like? How did he know about the girls and how they died? Why put so much emphasis on Halloran talking about the shining if there is no shining at all? If you're subscribing to death of the author why title your video this way?

[@knightsonofjack]

"Interviewer: It is strange that you emphasize the supernatural aspect since one could say that in the film you give a lot of weight to an apparently rational explanation of Jack's behaviour: altitude, claustrophobia, solitude, lack of booze. Kubrick: Stephen Crane wrote a story called "The Blue Hotel." In it you quickly learn that the central character is a paranoid. He gets involved in a poker game, decides someone is cheating him, makes an accusation, starts a fight and gets killed. You think the point of the story is that his death was inevitable because a paranoid poker player would ultimately get involved in a fatal gunfight. But, in the end, you find out that the man he accused was actually cheating him. I think The Shining uses a similar kind of psychological misdirection to forestall the realization that the supernatural events are actually happening."

[@chrisnicholls445]

very interesting

[@petrkvapil1684]

Kubrick himself has said the photo at the end of the film actually suggests Jack being a reincarnation of an earlier official at the hotel. This means there is something supernatural going on, but yeah, everyone can have their own interpretation.

[@DavesArtRoom]

Also, check out “The Wendy Theory.” This is another narrative that Kubrick put in the film.

[@robertbusek30]

It’s been a while since I read the novel, but there are plenty of supernatural occurrences in the Overlook prior to Jack getting locked in the pantry (most notably the moving hedge animals and Wendy’s discovery of party paraphernalia in the elevator). So I guess I’m confused by what Kubrick is referring to here…

[@knightsonofjack]

All the evidence points to it being ambiguous at best so to say there definitely are no ghosts doesn't really ring true. The movie clearly wants us to believe that telepathy is actually happening with Halloran and Danny. Could all the ghosts be purely psychological? Maybe, but to me it would make the movie less interesting.

[@phantom213]

Kubrick and Lynch are the two favourite directors of mine as well. Love your channel!

[@genburke2656]

You prayed for this can of worms. Check him in the ribs, Tabitha.

[@jekw23]

Kubrick left this so open to interpretation I bet if you tried you could make an argument that this movie is really about the fact that Pepsi is better than Coke.

[@DOEGrindz]

KZbinr, Whatisantilogic, came up with the "no ghost" theory years ago. He nvr gets credit, but he did it 1st.

[@moodyharvest]

Some, often Americans, have difficulties with Italian horror movies. They complain that they are not logical. They search for sharp and clear explanations. But this kind of movies aren't meant to be realistic. Non-ambiguous explanations are the death of analysis, or rather not analysis at all. Ask and explain: "What do I see? What do i hear? What do i feel?"

[@seanwright3940]

I don’t think the “no ghost stance” is the only interpretation that makes sense. I really don’t think the ghostly aspect of the story can, or needs to, be resolved. The real significance of the ghosts is their metaphorical meaning. We refer to psychological issues stemming from past trauma as a persons “demons.” Whether the ghosts were “real” or not, their most important function was as Jack’s demons.

[@my3rs307]

But does Danny really have "The Shining" ? And he can see those things?

[@jag-vs5em]

Have you watched Stephen King's Doctor sleep? And is it probably to do a video on that thank you love your work it's amazing

[@DavesArtRoom]

There is also the Wendy Theory theme that Kubrick intentionally put in there. Yet another narrative Kubrick placed in this film.

[@cedricdallaire3324]

Great video! I don't get how people still arguing about this in the comments XD repeating stuff that was explained in your video as if they didn't even watch it or as if they didn't even get what you were saying. xD

[@Vergil402]

Now examine 2001: A Space Odyssey

[@WowLynchWow]

I actually have plans to do something on that early next year, hopefully no later than early spring time.

[@goodtimefolkrock]

who let Jack out of the freezer?

[@Efrenlm10]

If you asked kubrick whether or not there were ghosts in the hotel of the shining, hed say I DONT KNOW, AND WHO CARES. What matters is that he didn't show or give an answer. Otherwise youre telling people instead leaving questions, and that's where he was quite different. He took that philosophy to heart because he knew the effect. Thats why videos like this exist, because he never said whether there were ghosts or not. Only people who claim to know are wrong.

[@DavesArtRoom]

Although Kubrick eveoled. His Apollo themes and Wendy theory themes are just 2 themes Kubrick placed in this film.

[@Rick_Riff]

Like monotheism, the only reasonable and most honest position is agnosticism in regards to whether there are ghosts in the shining. No one can prove or disprove so we simply don't know. I'll be rational while people argue about things they don't actually know.

[@WickedScott]

Haha! Brilliant! If you don't believe you can separate the artist from the art, you have to accept Jar-Jar Binks is a work of genius. There were so many accidents and other artist involved with creative freedom yet budgetary limits in the first two Star Wars, then, we see Star Wars when no one could say no to George anymore. Anyway, that occurred to me when you talked about Kubrick not being the best expert on Kubrick.

[@shaymayo6]

bravo sir

[@DavesArtRoom]

Yes! And check out ‘“The Wendy Theory.”

[@moodyharvest]

Another "one explanation" video. I can't hear any ambivalence and ambiguity here. A horror movie, a horror novel, a fairy tale, a myth, isn't a documentary about the existence of ghosts. It's fiction. The movie is richer if we can, beside the family drama, analyze the mythical, gothical aspects of it. There is the whole written history to draw inspiration from. There's much to talk about those subjects, which few KZbin "explanations" do. And then we have the filmic aspects: composition, lighting, colors, movement, sounds, music, that most "explanations" hurry over or ignore in their hunt after "the true story".

[@thomasdematteo2281]

Why do you sound so angry ?

[@woahblackbettybamalam]

Kubrick never said he filmed the Apollo space mission in a movie studio but we all know he did 😂

[@k.aliazad4388]

😉👌🏻

[@TheStockwell]

Kubrick never said he was involved in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. To me, that proves he did! 🤔

[@stevewynnearts]

Its all ghosts

[@FreemanPennington-je5tn]

Nope there never were any ghosts Kubrick himself pointed out that The shining was about a family quietly going insane together it's about mental illness alcoholism and abusiveness it's about the evil of man's hearts

[@Huxley521]

Why is there so much aversion to having ghosts or anything supernatural in this movie?

[@benquinneyiii7941]

Know thyself

[@dwissba68]

Your interpretation of this movie is just one among many. Lighten up. With all due respect.

[@FreemanPennington-je5tn]

There are no ghosts it's about madness

[@gregg3423]

thank you kubrick for making this video lol

[@genburke2656]

STEPHEN KING, ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION? ANSWER!

[@genburke2656]

DEMONATRATE YOUR WORTHINESS OF THE REVELATION YOU WERE ENTRUSTED WITH!

[@BonzoDrummer]

Utter nonsense.

[@ralphburnette]

This video popped back up on my feed and I’m reminded of how factually incorrect and nonsensical it is. Oof.

[@joeyjeffrey5892]

Nah Grady opened the pantry to let Jack out