Un-Tankard Episode - Playgirl & The Shining

Рет қаралды 5,084

Күн бұрын

In this topic I'll be talking about the Playgirl Magazine - grab your popcorn - I'm going downhill from here.
A Pen!s on Every Page: The Rise and Fall of Playgirl
www.esquire.co...
READING PLAYBOY FOR THE ARTICLES :: 13 ESSENTIAL JOURNALISM & LITERATURE PIECES FROM PLAYBOY MAGAZINE
thehundreds.co...
13 Things You Didn't Know About Stephen King
whatculture.co...
Playgirl January 1978 Magazine
wonderclub.com...
The Selling of (Starsky & Hutch's) David Soul by Fred Robbin
starskyhutchre...
Playgirl from 1977 to 1979
wonderclub.com...
wonderclub.com...
wonderclub.com...

Пікірлер: 44

@richlinlaw Жыл бұрын

I was born 10 years earlier than Tankard. My recollection is that they had Playboy at the barber shop but not at doctor's offices. Playgirl and Cosmo were women's magazines and then years later it became pretty clear that Playgirl was actually read mostly by gay men. I concur that as an audience member, watching the film in its initial release, the fleeting glimpse of a playgirl sort of hinted that Jack may be of questionable orientation. I don't think there was any way to consciously perceive the subheadings on the magazine but knowing Kubrick they are there for a reason. From the interview with the doctor and Wendy's demeanor, we definitely suspect either munchausen's or a wife that is in a cognitive dissonance as to her husband being an abuser, still making excuses for him. In light of Jack's abuse and her denial, the magazine cover suggests that there could be sexual misconduct. The mere existence of Tony suggests that because Danny appears to have a split personality caused by some extreme trauma in order for him to manifest that imaginary friend that way. The scene where Danny is in shock there is drool on his face or is that another bodily fluid? The scene with the fellatio and the bear costume. The plot theme of Summer of 42 which movie is showing on the not plugged in TV which is about inter generational attraction. Take these all together and they connect with the themes of the magazine. I'm going to search for a free PDF I believe

@TroyPacelli Жыл бұрын

Back in the early 80s, when you were working on a research paper for school, you didn't have access an internet where you could find everything ever. You went to the library and looked in a resource called Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature (apparently it still exists), and you would look up a topic and find references for magazine articles. Playboy was one magazine regularly cited by Readers' Guide, and I remember the Playboy Jimmy Carter interview would have been my best source for the paper I was writing. However, there was no way my school library kept Playboy in their periodical section. In theory, I could have gotten a municipal library to copy and fax the article to me, but probably not int the amount of time I had. Point is, Playboy really did have good articles.

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

Thanks. I knew about the "good" articles years ago but I never knew that Playboy paid the writers 3x more than other magazines. And because of they paid so much money, the magazine would have many really good articles. I'm hoping my little video would shed some light on this dark view of Jack reading the Playgirl magazine.

@TroyPacelli Жыл бұрын

@@tankardoftales4645 I do like that the complexities of the film make for constant analysis even all these years later, but I do think that some people go down some goofy rabbit holes.

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

@@TroyPacelli the rabbit hole can be fun to explore but I do agree it can get Goofy at times.

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

>At 22:56 - I notice that you are aware of some of the "dated" issues, such as people born in the 1990s who comment on the "Playgirl" issue as a hint of Jack's perversion and not understanding that Playboy and Playgirl were lifestyle magazines. Thanks! >But here is a thing YOU are failing to understand. Divorce, initiated by abused wives is always difficult, at the "best" of times. Sorry I think otherwise. I get your point and I could talk about my mother (she was Divorced 2 times [1973 and 1980] - one very similar to Jack Torrance - my stepfather). But my REAL criticism was based on Stephen King’s argument. Stephen King is the one standing on top of that hill and he’s screaming that Shelley Duvall’s Wendy is the most misogynist dishrag ever put on film. (you shouldn’t have any problem to find his quotes) The problem is how Stephen King addressed the differences between HIS Wendy and Stanley Kubrick’s Wendy. Then I’m forced to really look at HIS Wendy and see if HIS Windy is much stronger. Then I’m forced to put on MY writers cap and think how a strong Wendy (according to Stephen King) would be in this book. Sorry but when I do that - Wendy (in the book) leaves Jack or sets his bed on fire…

@theobjectofart Жыл бұрын

This looks like its gonna be an awesome video. It’s excited! 🤗

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

Thanks... I think you'll enjoy the fact that you don't have to research this bad boy... Boy was this a bad boy to google search :)

@victoryak86 Жыл бұрын

The video is excited?

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

@@victoryak86 😆

@theobjectofart Жыл бұрын

Okay, just got done watching. Really good work. I think it might be a combo regarding the Playgirl magazine. Maybe Stanley wanted to highlight David Soul and the fact that ⛄ started out writing almost exclusively for skin mags?

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

I think so too.

@need-to-know- 8 ай бұрын

The Selling of (David’s) soul?

@tvbroken26 7 ай бұрын

A dead affair? I think its a foreshadow to the woman in the tub. Literally a dead affair.

@tankardoftales4645 7 ай бұрын

Wow that's a good one. 👍

@annodomini1991 Жыл бұрын

Nice one.

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

Thanks. The video was a little difficult, but I hope it starts a conversation.

@davebrewer9279 Жыл бұрын

I guess this is a part 2 after watching the entire video. 😂 There is one very clear Stephen King Easter egg in the movie. When Halloran is headed up the mountain, he passes a wreck on the freeway (a red Volkswagen Beetle is being extricated from underneath a semitrailer rig.) As with many other images in the film it serves to make the audience uncomfortable and might possibly be a jab at automakers willingness to sell “unsafe” vehicles for profit, but it is definitely a poke at King. In the book, Jack drives a red Beetle so given Stanley Kubrick’s penchant for tiny details any coincidence is just not plausible. It may be that the Playgirl is a King reference but if it were, I would think Kubrick would use a title King published through. Incidentally, Esquire magazine is much more comparable to GQ than Playboy. I mentioned in another comment that I didn’t think people in a movie theater in 1980 would be able to read anything other than the magazine title. Home VCR’s became commercially available in 1978 so it’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility that Kubrick would leave an Easter egg like that ……but it is, right? 😏I have a 70” 4K tv and I can’t read the names of the articles. You would have to do an internet search and match the cover. If Kubrick anticipated that I would be fairly impressed. Regardless of the quality of articles I still think the magazine, like many other props in the movie, is intended to ring a tiny bell in the viewer’s mind that something isn’t quite right. That can trigger a range of questions anywhere from “who reads Playgirl in a hotel lobby on the first day of the new job” to “I wonder if this married man is in the closet?”

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

lol... Both videos are not connected. In that video I was responding to a long comment I got and I was getting into my theory why The Wendy theory exist, my theory that Rob Navarro could be Vivien Kubrick, David Lynch or Ryan Obermeyer (Shelley Duvall friend), and a theory on Kubrick's motive in making the Shining the way he did. As for the technology. I strongly believe Kubrick was hoping for multiple viewing on the big screen. People didn't see Exorcist, Star Wars, the Deer Hunter, Godfather, and Jaws once... people were seeing these movies x3 or more times. On the other hand, Stanley Kubrick was also aware of technology. And in the 1970's the most analyzed film was Psycho (1960) - the shower scene was dissected multiple times. It's not hard to believe that Stanley Kubrick would believe people 40 years later would dissent the Shining. Also remember, he was still being asked about 2001 and Clockwork Orange - and I think he enjoyed people talking about the messages in his movies.

@melodie-allynbenezra8956 Жыл бұрын

At 22:56 - I notice that you are aware of some of the "dated" issues, such as people born in the 1990s who comment on the "Playgirl" issue as a hint of Jack's perversion and not understanding that Playboy and Playgirl were lifestyle magazines. But here is a thing YOU are failing to understand. Divorce, initiated by abused wives is always difficult, at the "best" of times. When conventional wisdom is that divorce places a stigma on women (which was still BIG through the 1980s, and "The Shining" takes place at the cusp of the 1970s and 1980s), Wendy being reluctant to address divorce wasn't a sign of weakness. It was a legitimate sign of fear, and not knowing how to proceed. We don't know that she had family to fall back on. We don't know about her friends. We DO know that, whether she wanted to or not, she was isolated with her abusive husband and their young son for months. It's easy to say she was weak. But honestly... where was she going to go? Who was going to help her? Divorce, even today, when the stigma is significantly less (but still there in religious or conservative circles), is one of the most expensive legal situations a couple can find themselves in. And you can't tell me that a housewife is immediately going to know where to get the funds for said divorce lawyers would come from. I'm not convinced that Steven King's Wendy is weak. I don't think Stanley Kubrick's Wendy is weak, either. They are facing different kinds of abuse, and getting out of a toxic marriage is difficult. Don't assume that staying in the marriage, even though she was thinking about the divorce for months, makes Wendy weak.

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

@melodie-allynbenezra8956 Жыл бұрын

@@tankardoftales4645 First of all... I'm sorry that your mother had so much difficulty with her divorces. I hope you, your mother, and your family have been able to heal from the hurt. I have seen videos with Stephen King declaiming Kubrick's Wendy, as you described. I understand your point. But as far as divorce goes... As a divorced woman, I say that it is hard. And I'm glad that I had a very good support system, between my parents, my friends, my religious community. But every case is different. My ex was emotionally abusive, but I had pre-wedding counseling and a teacher who forced all of us in his class to be present for his classes on abuse, how to recognize it, and what to do about it. So... It took me a bit to realize that he was as bad as he was, but I was strong, I was prepared, and I had an amazing support situation. He was a jerk, but not a predator. Different abuse situations are a case-by-case problem. There is no "one size fits all" solution, even though it seems like there should be. Why do women stick around in abusive situations? There are a multitude of reasons, and "they are weak" isn't usually one of them. "Not strong enough to make the tough decisions" is a great perspective to have if you aren't the one in the situation. I'm getting WAY too far afield. We are specifically having a conversation about a fictional story, in a presentation that makes us think. I am glad your mother had the inner strength to get out of not one, but TWO bad situations. But as someone who has been divorced and knows others in bad situations, I have a different perspective. I don't think that either woman, either King's Wendy, or Kubrick's Wendy, was a weak woman, despite what Stephen King said. I sympathize with both Wendys, and I don't believe that either had an easy time. I don't think that either was weak for not getting out of their bad situations before they did. This might be a "let's agree to disagree" moment. But I felt the need to share this.

@johnwatts8346 Жыл бұрын

there is NO hotel, its a metaphor for a family home, because thats where domestic violence (the real theme of the film, obviously) including pd file in cest happens, vastly more often than in hotels- jack even says it when ullman first shows them their rooms 'its very homey', and there is NO room 237- the layout of room 237 is exactly the same as jacks room, where he was fondling danny in the previous scene, jack r's danny in his own house, there is no hotel and no ghosts- just the real life horror of domestic violence in real homes, up to and including incest r and murder = redrum.

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

Possible, Wendy and Danny do show signs of domestic abuse, and the way how Jack snaps at Wendy only could only assume he's very fast with a backhanded slap. But is it true?

@johnwatts8346 Жыл бұрын

@@tankardoftales4645 ya just have to ask- why is danny traumatised? and wendy is a submissive personality type, that an abuser such as jack can take advantage of / have power over, and shes also in denial of jacks behaviour,

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

@@johnwatts8346 why do you think the doctor is real? We see the doctor. We see Wendy talking to the doctor. We see Wendy talking about her husband hurting her child in such a way that he has an imaginary friend. But the doctor is not alarmed. The doctor seem toned out. The background in the scene changes, books and chairs move between cuts the oven looks upside down... Why do you think the doctor is real?

@johnwatts8346 Жыл бұрын

@@tankardoftales4645 because its demonstrably obvious the doctor is real. doctors dont show emotion. the scene with the doctor also shows danny has been sexually abused- he isnt wearing any trousers. it is not yet established in this scene that the reason danny has an imaginary friend is due to abuse. its exposition setting up the film. kubrick (as i assume you already know) very deliberately moved scenery around to subconsciously mess with people creating a sense of uneasiness. but the doctor is the only other character who is real.

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

@@johnwatts8346 The less emotions the doctor has the not real the doctor seems to be. In the first scene, when we see the doctor for the very first time. Lets look at the odd surroundings. Notice the location of Danny's window, notice that their a window in the bathroom then remember this while Wendy and the Doctor walks to the livingroom/kitchen area of the apartment. The window behind the couch the Doctor sits. Talk about impossible windows here. Back in Danny's bedroom, Wendy is bookend with a Goofy toy (both seemed to be dressed similar). Upon closer inspection, before the Doctor shows up, while Danny is in the bathroom there is a rubber duck. When Danny is supposed to be passed out and rushed to his bed so the doctor can see him, that rubber duck is moved from the bathroom to Danny's bedroom window. We have the question about Danny's pants - why is it removed? Is it protocol to remove a kid's pants if they pass out (no really)... This is where we insert our imaginations. My opinion - I don't think the doctor is real. But if you think the doctor is real then maybe those images mean something else?

@bst6791 10 ай бұрын

Where was all that luggage in that VW Bug?

@tankardoftales4645 10 ай бұрын

Many questions and Many answers. My belief is the luggage don't exist, I believe the Overlook is an Asylum and Jack (the person we see) is based on the 1921 image. When I get a chance I'll explain my thoughts with visuals we see in the movie.

@melodie-allynbenezra8956 Жыл бұрын

At 24:17 - ...If she was strong, she would have left when he dropped the baby. There was no reason for [staying]. Again, you are using 2023 standards to judge a situation in 1979. The idea of "There was no reason for it" is ignorant.

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

Intresting point...

@mattirealm 8 ай бұрын

I agree, lifestyle magazine! I wonder if this was placed in the movie as more commentary on Jack's life and how he wishes he was something........more? I think Rob Ager (for as smart as he seems) completely overdoes it in his extensive videos on this movie. He brings up some salient points, but he really should never have said that crap about the moon landing (potentially saying it was a hoax, which is just.........very ignorant). Thanks for the video.

@tankardoftales4645 8 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching. You could be right, maybe Jack wishes he was something in that magazine or possible he just sat down (after unloading the car) and grabbed the first thing to read and its a Playgirl magazine. Rob Ager has one point of view, an assumption, he doesn't know what Stanley Kubrick was doing. I wish he would stick to exploring the suggestions in the movie, but he seemed to believe his ideas are correct and he's willing to gatekeep them. Maybe because thay made him some money 10 years ago.

@davebrewer9279 Жыл бұрын

A couple of thoughts keep coming back to me when I consider Jack and the Playgirl. First, was this intentional messaging by Kubrick? If so, why Playgirl? Second, what would actually be visible to an audience sitting in a theater, not, what would be visible to someone sitting at a computer watching frame by frame in 4K? So…I do believe this was intentional but I am undecided as to why. Kubrick did things intentionally to make the audience uncomfortable In very subtle ways which is why the Shining is such a great horror film. (Furniture, lamps, the cordless tv etc.) If he wanted to sell Jack as a sexual abuser in addition to the physical abuse, I don’t think he was very successful. I have great respect for Rob Ager but I think the magazine probably hints at something else. In Stu’s office Jack says the trip took 3.5 hours. After the interview he tells Wendy on the phone that he will be late because he has more to do. If it was pertaining to the hotel, why would that orientation be completely redone on Oct. 30th when the family arrived? I just think it’s important to the story that Jack is going to be late, otherwise it’s unnecessary dialogue. That gets us to the Playgirl. It’s very possible that like the tv, the magazine is just supposed to be subliminally uncomfortable given public opinion of homosexuality in the late 70’s It’s also possible that the audience was meant to see the magazine and speculate as to Jack’s sexuality and faithfulness to Wendy. As to Danny being uncomfortable with the doctor, what I interpret is a six year old actor in his underwear on a movie set with a bunch of people he doesn’t know. Additionally, when sitting on Jack’s lap, Danny’s question is about physical violence toward Danny and Wandy. I’m not saying unequivocally that there is no evidence to support the sexual abuse theory, I just believe that at its core, The Shining is about marginalized people being taken advantage of by “All the best people.” All the theories about the movie (maybe not the fake Moon landing 😂) abuse, the Jewish Holocaust and Native American genocide fit into that framework and I think Kubrick references were definitely intentional as a way to unsettle his audience and make them consider the world they live in. He wanted to reference many things and the ambiguity in the film was intentional which is why we will still be guessing about this crap forty years from now. 😂

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

I agree. I'm not completely on board with the idea that the magazine is evidence for sexual abuse but I do see it could be used as evidence for those looking for sexual abuse. I think the magazine is mostly a nod to Stephen King, I think the cover was the most discreet compared to most porno magazines. It can serve as a WFT when people identify the magazine. If Danny is being molested the molester is Wendy (she seemed to show a bigger interest with younger boys and if you believe the Doctor don't exist).

@davebrewer9279 Жыл бұрын

@@tankardoftales4645 , I just discovered your channel and I really enjoy hearing your insights. Thank you for the effort you put into these videos, I look forward to seeing more. I’m curious how people interpret the Charles vs. Delbert Grady question, I have ideas about that. You may have already discussed it but like I said, I just got here and I’m catching up.

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

@@davebrewer9279 thanks. I'm assuming you have not seen Object of Arts channel. youtube.com/@theobjectofart You should check her out.

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

@@davebrewer9279 the two Gradys... My opinion is proof that the story is being told by an unreliable narrator.

@victoryak86 Жыл бұрын

I’m curious why every article in the magazine would need to have been referenced in the film. Being that it was an actual issue of the magazine wouldn’t it be a stretch to make every article an actual intended reference, and sort of forced? There are enough actual “Easter eggs” and various references in the film (across many genres) throughout Kubrick’s films. By forcing things that aren’t there, the real ones get lost in the shuffle imho. This is part of my problem with “Eyescream’s” research as well. He has a lot of very good research but a lot of it just is a real stretch.

@tankardoftales4645 Жыл бұрын

lol... I don't think every article in the magazine is referenced in the film, I do find it funny that a good number of articles could be referenced. I'm not 100% sure about this Incest reference. I do find that David Soul (the real actors name) is the lead star in 1979's Salams Lot. As for Eyescream, I do agree, but I do think some of the findings are interesting... especially the story room. I don't think the front to back actually works because we are missing 3 to 5 minutes (the famous deleted scene)... I'm not sure how much of Abby Road is in the Shining. I found that Pink Floyd's "In the Flesh?" the first song in the 1979's Wall works for the opening scene in the Shining. I couldn't post the video on youtube but I have the video posted on rumble (I'll send you a link if you want to see it... I think if I post the link on my message KZbin won't alert you the message).