The Ending of The Shining?

[Warhammer]

What is everyone's interpretation of the ambiguous ending of The Shining? What really happened? Y'know, the last shot with Jack Torrence in the picture from 1921?

 

[Byrd Man]

The dude succumbed to the madness of the hotel. When he died, he became just another ghost, like the previous caretaker. I think that's why he's in the picture.

 

[Rocketman]

BUT...

He's told that he "was always the caretaker."

Which means that JACK NICHOLSON, the face, was there in 1921.

I don't get it either. Was it reincarnation? Was he destined to go back to the Overlook? It really makes not a damn bit of sense.

 

[Jay#1]

I say the whole movie is a dream.

 

[bullets]

I think the reincarnation theory makes sense. This has been debated for awhile so there might not be a definitive answer.

 

[obin_gam]

There's a great analysis of the whle movie somwhere on youtube I believe which starts of with Kubrik wanting to say somwting about native americans and stuff. It goes all through the film and it is really good. I cant find it now but I'm sure the analysis says something about thye ending... *runs to the internet and tries to find it*

 

[Tron Bonne]

There's a great analysis of the whle movie somwhere on youtube I believe which starts of with Kubrik wanting to say somwting about native americans and stuff. It goes all through the film and it is really good. I cant find it now but I'm sure the analysis says something about thye ending... *runs to the internet and tries to find it*

I don't know about videos, but are you talking about this by chance?

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0052.html

This scholar broke down how he felt the movie was apparently about the genocide of the Native Americans. Of the ending, he says this:

[FONT=helvetica, arial]Visual Puzzle

As with some of his other movies, Kubrick ends The Shining with a powerful visual puzzle that forces the audience to leave the theater asking, "What was that all about?" The Shining ends with an extremely long camera shot moving down a hallway in the Overlook, reaching eventually the central photo among 21 photos on the wall. The caption reads: "Overlook Hotel-July 4th Ball-1921." The answer to this puzzle, which is a master key to unlocking the whole movie, is that most Americans overlook the fact that July Fourth was no ball, nor any kind of Independence day, for native Americans; that the weak American villain of the film is the re-embodiment of the American men who massacred the Indians in earlier years; that Kubrick is examining and reflecting on a problem that cuts through the decades and centuries.

[/FONT]So, yeah, he does say stuff about the ending, but doesn't really address this fact. I tended to always look at it like Byrd Man said, that he had been kind of absorbed into the hotel like everyone at that point had. I know there's the line about him 'always being there', but I never took that in a literal fashion. I always thought it was meant as more symbolic, like he was always destined to be there or something.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I think the reincarnation theory makes sense. This has been debated for awhile so there might not be a definitive answer.

Agreed. It's always been one of those things people talk about.

 

[obin_gam]

I don't know about videos, but are you talking about this by chance?

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0052.html

This scholar broke down how he felt the movie was apparently about the genocide of the Native Americans. Of the ending, he says this:

sounds familiar, this http://www.collativelearning.com/the shining.html is tho the analysis I'm refering to but I think this one takes inspiration from the one you posted.

 

[Doctor Jones]

So, yeah, he does say stuff about the ending, but doesn't really address this fact. I tended to always look at it like Byrd Man said, that he had been kind of absorbed into the hotel like everyone at that point had. I know there's the line about him 'always being there', but I never took that in a literal fashion. I always thought it was meant as more symbolic, like he was always destined to be there or something.

This is what I always thought as well.

 

[chaseter]

1921 is the year I assume that all of the spirit activity kicked up. I am going to guess that was either when the hotel was built or when it first opened.

 

[dark_b]

Shining is a fantastic example how you adapt a book.

 

[redhawk23]

Oddly King himself dislikes it.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Thats because King has iffy tastes in films.

 

[:eek:]

In this case I agree with King. Jack Nicholson was so wrong for the movie. His over-the-top performance is more comedic than scary. The heart of the novel is nowhere to be seen in the movie.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I read the book and could kind of see where King was coming from. It did seem to warp a lot of the book into more of an inherent 'insanity will break you' from a cautionary tale about alcohol abuse along with the dissolution of the American family ideal that King was going for. But I think the movie never really did a disservice to the book or anything. It was kind of exploring things in a different way, but I felt like the core of the man going down a drain and trying to take his family with him was still present. I really don't agree at all with King that Kubrick didn't know how to make a horror film. It may have been a little less traditional horror, but The Shining was a pretty dammed terrifying movie in a lot of ways.

I think the fact that the book was a very personal book to King clouded his judgement a bit. That, and King always seems to have kind of an axe to grind with, shall we say, 'higher brow' entertainment, so I'm guessing a lot of the ambiguity and lack of clarity to certain events turned him off quite a lot.

sounds familiar, this http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining.html is tho the analysis I'm refering to but I think this one takes inspiration from the one you posted.

That's actually pretty interesting stuff. I think he's stretching a lot in some things, but he's doing a good job of backing it all up with examples from the film that work from one degree or another.

 

[Ghostvirus]

The Shining is a great film. Horrible adaptation. Thats how Kubrick roles though. He has pissed off a few writers taking liberties that the Authors did not like.

 

[danoyse]

It's one of my favorite horror films, but it's a lousy adaptation of the book. I can understand why King doesn't like it. I read in an interview once where he said that he didn't like how Kubrick/Nicholson portrayed Jack like he'd been crazy the whole time, when it was really the alcoholism that was the real demon that the ghosts preyed on to drive him mad.

 

[Tron Bonne]

The Shining is a great film. Horrible adaptation. Thats how Kubrick roles though. He has pissed off a few writers taking liberties that the Authors did not like.

Like whom? The only writer I know that Kubrick pissed off for that was King. I know Burgess had problems with him, but mostly for stuff that happened behind the scenes with the way Kubrick treated him, not the adaptation aspect.

 

[Carnotaur3]

King doesn't like it because the book was actually a very personal telling about himself as an alcoholic. Kubrick's film strips that away in favor of telling a tale about a family man going off the rails because he can't really stand being around them, which is the opposite of King's story. You get the sense that Jack Nicholson's version of Jack Torrence is stuck with a family from his perspective. The house and its ghost literally drive him to murder because he really does want to do it, deep down.

Whereas, King's story is a look into a man who's own demons are destroying him and his family. The alcohol is making him loose control and the ghosts turn him against his won loved ones.

 

[dark_b]

It's one of my favorite horror films, but it's a lousy adaptation of the book. I can understand why King doesn't like it. I read in an interview once where he said that he didn't like how Kubrick/Nicholson portrayed Jack like he'd been crazy the whole time, when it was really the alcoholism that was the real demon that the ghosts preyed on to drive him mad.

thats why its a good adaptation. the movie needs to show us something different. the story needs to work in the movie. when you are focring something that make the movie bad then you failed.

 

[Hound55]

I think a big part of King not liking it would come down to the fact tht Kubrick doesn't really give two tenths of a sh** about the thoughts of the author because Kubrick had his own plans for his movie.

Which will always irk a writer who's passionate about his work because he'll start thinking "Well why even call it [title of book] if he's just going to make his own damn film anyway..."

To me the last scene was the house claiming him and the "You've always been the caretaker" was little more than the spirits of the house attempting to manipulate him into position as was the case through much of the film. Alcohol plays very little part in the film compared to the book, a bigger theme was the space and isolation that the Overlook afforded (which Kubrick highlighted with the camerawork, making halls look gigantic and lengthy). The house played him and drew out his own deepest demons, played them against himself and further isolated him from his family. Shown well with the inner thought that he once hurt his son, then that his wife never forgave him for it... this then led to Torrence feeling the need to address that moment and give his child one of the creepiest (and out-of-the-blue from the son's perspective who can't see why his father would be behaving that way) scenes of a father trying to reassure his kid that he wouldn't intentionally hurt him. Of course, with such a f***ed up out of left field talk, the kid feels uneasy about it which further isolates the father against both the boy and his wife... Isolation and space to me were big themes in it.

 

[redhawk23]

thats why its a good adaptation. the movie needs to show us something different. the story needs to work in the movie. when you are focring something that make the movie bad then you failed.

Who said it had to be forced? The movie tells a different story with a different intent. Its a great film but that is not a good adaptation.

Also, btw, its Kubricks birthday you guys!

 

[obin_gam]

That's actually pretty interesting stuff. I think he's stretching a lot in some things, but he's doing a good job of backing it all up with examples from the film that work from one degree or another.

Not to go too offtopic here but his analys..analysi (?) of other films are really food too. I particulary love the The Excorcist-work. Really spooky.

 

[:eek:]

Peek inside Stanley Kubrick's annotated copy of the Shining novel

http://blastr.com/2012/03/peek-inside-stanley-kubri.php#3