The Shining - The Meaning of the Photograph Explained

Summary

El guion del video analiza la película 'El resplandor' de Stanley Kubrick, cuestionando la interpretación de los espectros y la reencarnación como elementos sobrenaturales. Sugiere que, en realidad, la película es una historia de abuso y fracaso de un alcohólico en recuperación, aislado con sus fallas. La visión de los fantasmas es una distracción, mientras que la verdadera historia se centra en la psicología del protagonista y el ciclo de violencia y abuso que se repite a lo largo de las generaciones.

Takeaways

• 🎥 La fotografía al final de 'El resplandor' sugiere un ciclo de reencarnación del mal, pero no se explica completamente.
• 👻 Kubrick nunca afirmó que existieran fantasmas en su película; se centra en la psicosis y la manipulación del espectador.
• 📜 La cita de Kubrick sobre la 'reencarnación del ciclo del mal' a menudo se interpreta mal y se toma fuera de contexto.
• 🤔 La película plantea la posibilidad de que las visiones de Danny, Wendy y Jack sean producto de su mente y no de apariciones sobrenaturales.
• 🧐 Kubrick utiliza la técnica cinematográfica para representar la locura y no el sobrenatural, sugiriendo que los 'fantasmas' son creaciones de los personajes.
• 👨‍👩‍👦 La historia subyacente de 'El resplandor' está en la historia de abuso y fracaso de Jack, un alcoholico en recuperación y aislado.
• 🍷 Jack no ve ningún fantasma hasta después de haber abusado de su hijo, lo que refuerza la idea de que sus visiones son producto de su mente perturbada.
• 📚 La película es una crítica a la idea de que los fantasmas son la causa de los problemas, en lugar de las acciones y emociones humanas.
• 🔄 La 'reencarnación del ciclo del mal' puede interpretarse como la repetición intergeneracional de abuso, tanto de sustancia como de personas.
• 👪 La dinámica familiar en 'El resplandor' muestra la negación y el abuso, con Wendy defendiendo a Jack y Jack proyectando su fracaso en su familia.
• 🎬 'El resplandor' es una obra maestra del horror que se centra en la psicología del personaje y la representación de la violencia doméstica.

Q & A

¿Qué implica la fotografía al final de 'El resplandor'?

La fotografía al final sugiere un ciclo de reencarnación del mal donde Jack ha sido parte de la historia del hotel.

¿Cuál es la interpretación de Stanley Kubrick sobre la fotografía de 1920 mencionada en la película?

Kubrick sugiere que la fotografía implica un ciclo de reencarnación del mal, donde Jack ha sido parte de la historia del hotel en una vida anterior.

¿Por qué algunos espectadores creen que 'El resplandor' es simplemente una historia de fantasmas?

Algunos espectadores usan la cita de Kubrick sobre el ciclo de reencarnación del mal como evidencia de que la película es una historia de fantasmas, aunque Kubrick nunca afirmó que hubiera fantasmas en la película.

¿Cómo se relaciona la escena del baño con la idea de reencarnación?

La escena del baño, donde Jack habla con Delbert Grady, se usa para sugerir un ciclo de reencarnación del mal, aunque no hay una conexión directa entre la existencia de fantasmas y la reencarnación.

¿Por qué algunos creen que las visiones de Danny, Wendy y Jack son reales?

Algunos espectadores insisten en que las visiones son fantasmas reales basándose en la novela de Stephen King y la cita de Kubrick sobre el ciclo de reencarnación del mal.

¿Cuál es la teoría de que no hay fantasmas en la película de Kubrick?

La teoría de que no hay fantasmas en la película se basa en que ninguna de las visiones de los personajes se basa en un personaje real o histórico, y que son más bien fantasías creadas por sus propios temores e insanias.

¿Cómo se relaciona la historia de Jack Torrance con el tema de la abusividad?

Jack Torrance es un padre abusivo y un alcohólico en recuperación, cuya soledad y aislamiento en el hotel provocan que su insania y resentimiento se manifiesten, llevándolo a fantasear sobre el asesinato de su familia.

¿Por qué la interpretación de que no hay fantasmas hace que 'El resplandor' sea aún más aterrador?

La comprensión de que no hay fantasmas hace que la película sea más aterrador porque muestra la naturaleza cíclica y perpetua de la violencia y el abuso, lo que es un reflejo de la realidad más que de lo sobrenatural.

¿Qué es el 'Narrador Inconfiable' y cómo se relaciona con la película?

El 'Narrador Inconfiable' es una técnica utilizada por Kubrick para hacernos entender que no siempre podemos confiar en lo que vemos en la película, sugiriendo que los fantasmas pueden ser ilusiones o fantasías de los personajes.

¿Cómo se relaciona la cita de Kubrick sobre la reencarnación del mal con la teoría de la abusividad?

La cita de Kubrick sobre la reencarnación del mal puede interpretarse no solo como la existencia de fantasmas, sino también como la repetición cíclica de la violencia y el abuso, que se perpetúa a través de las generaciones.

¿Por qué algunos espectadores pueden encontrar la película más fácil de entender si asumen que no hay fantasmas?

Al aceptar que no hay fantasmas, los espectadores pueden centrarse en las complejidades del comportamiento humano y la psicología de los personajes, lo que ofrece una comprensión más profunda de la historia y sus temas.

Outlines

00:00

😶 'El Shining': La Foto y el Ciclo de Reencarnación del Mal

El video analiza la misteriosa fotografía al final de 'El Shining', que muestra al protagonista en una época anterior. Kubrick sugiere un ciclo de reencarnación malvado, pero también deja entrever que es mejor no explicarlo todo, sugiriendo que las visiones podrían ser alucinaciones o un estado mental alterado más que fantasmas reales. Se argumenta que la película no muestra fantasmas en el mundo real y que las visiones son parte de la psique de los personajes, en lugar de entidades sobrenaturales.

05:01

🤔 La Teoría de la Reencarnación y sus Malentendidos

Se discute cómo algunos espectadores malinterpretan la idea de reencarnación en la película, creyendo que implica la existencia de fantasmas reales. Se argumenta que la apariencia de Jack en una fotografía de la década de 1920 no sugiere que los fantasmas sean reales, sino que podría ser una metáfora de que Jack ha vivido vidas pasadas en el hotel. Además, se señala que no hay conexión lógica entre la reencarnación y la existencia de fantasmas, y que la historia podría ser una representación de la locura y el abuso, no del sobrenatural.

10:05

👤 La Realidad del Abusador: Jack Torrance y su Ciclo de Violencia

Este párrafo explora la teoría de que 'El Shining' es una historia de abuso y fracaso, en lugar de una de fantasmas. Se sugiere que Jack, un alcohólico con un historial de abuso, se vuelve loco debido a la soledad y aislamiento, proyectando sus deseos y resentimientos en visiones que parecen fantasmas. Se argumenta que la película no presenta un patrón de abuso basado en personajes reales, sino que los 'fantasmas' son creaciones de la mente de los personajes, influenciados por relatos del hotel y sus propios temores.

15:10

🔄 El Ciclo de Violencia y la Reincarnación Metafórica

Se analiza la cita de Kubrick sobre el 'ciclo de reencarnación del mal', sugiriendo que puede referirse a la repetición intergeneracional de abuso y locura, más que a fantasmas reales. Se argumenta que la película muestra cómo la soledad y el aislamiento pueden empeorar los problemas de un abusador, y cómo la historia de Jack se vuelve un ciclo de violencia que se repite, simbolizando la reincarnación del mal en forma de conductas abusivas.

20:12

🎬 'El Shining': La Maestría de Kubrick en la Narrativa de Horror

El video concluye argumentando que 'El Shining' es una obra maestra del horror porque, al no tener fantasmas reales, se centra en la psicología del abuso y la locura, lo que hace que la película sea aún más aterradora. Se sugiere que la película es una representación del ciclo de violencia que se perpetúa a través de las generaciones, y se agradece a los espectadores por seguir el análisis.

Keywords

💡El mal

El mal es un concepto central en la película 'El resplandor' y se refiere a fuerzas negativas o acciones que causan daño o sufrimiento. En el video, se sugiere que hay un 'ciclo de reincarnación del mal', lo que implica que el mal puede manifestarse de forma cíclica o perpetua. Este concepto se relaciona con la idea de que los personajes pueden estar atrapados en un patrón de comportamiento tóxico que se repite a lo largo del tiempo.

💡Reencarnación

La reencarnación es la creencia de que una persona puede nacer de nuevo en un nuevo cuerpo después de la muerte. En el contexto del video, se menciona que Jack, el protagonista, podría ser parte de un 'ciclo de reincarnación del mal', lo que sugiere que su presencia en el hotel podría ser parte de un destino preestablecido o un patrón que se repite en su vida.

💡Escepticismo

El escepticismo se refiere a la actitud de cuestionar o no aceptar algo sin pruebas convincentes. En el video, se expresa escepticismo respecto a la existencia de fantasmas en la película, sugiriendo que lo que parecen ser fantasmas podrían ser alucinaciones o manifestaciones del estado mental de los personajes.

💡Abuso

El abuso es el trato cruel o dañino hacia otra persona, y en el video, se sugiere que el verdadero tema de la película es el abuso, no la existencia de fantasmas. Se argumenta que la historia de Jack, el protagonista, como un padre abusivo y un alcohólico en recuperación, es el núcleo central de la narrativa y la fuente de sus visiones y comportamientos en el hotel.

💡Aislamiento

El aislamiento se refiere a la falta de contacto social y la soledad. En el video, se discute cómo el aislamiento en el hotel puede haber exacerbado los problemas de Jack, llevándolo a perder la noción de la realidad y a caer en un estado de locura, lo que refleja una de las tensiones en la película.

💡Locura

La locura es un estado de desconexión de la realidad y puede ser causado por una variedad de factores, incluido el estrés extremo y el aislamiento. En el video, se sugiere que la locura de Jack es la verdadera fuente de los eventos sobrenaturales que se perciben en la película, en lugar de la existencia de fantasmas reales.

💡Ciclo

Un ciclo es una serie de eventos que se repiten en un orden fijo. El video habla sobre un 'ciclo de reincarnación del mal' y cómo este puede representar no solo la reencarnación física, sino también ciclos de comportamiento tóxico, como el abuso, que se repiten a través del tiempo.

💡Narrador poco fiable

Un narrador poco fiable es alguien cuya versión de los eventos no puede ser completamente confiada. En el video, se sugiere que el director Kubrick utiliza la técnica del narrador poco fiable para hacer dudar de la realidad de los eventos que se presentan en la película, especialmente en cuanto a la existencia de fantasmas.

💡Interpretación

La interpretación hace referencia a la forma en que se entiende o se da sentido a algo. En el video, se discuten diferentes interpretaciones de la película, incluida la idea de que los fantasmas pueden ser alucinaciones y que la historia real se centra en el abuso y la locura, en lugar de la existencia de entidades sobrenaturales.

💡Fantasmas

Los fantasmas son seres sobrenaturales que se cree que son el espíritu de las personas fallecidas. Aunque el video cuestiona su existencia en la película, los fantasmas son un elemento central en la discusión sobre la narrativa y la atmósfera de 'El resplandor'.

💡Cineasta

Un cineasta es alguien que dirige o produce películas. En el video, Stanley Kubrick, el director de 'El resplandor', es mencionado por su habilidad para manipular la percepción del espectador y su enfoque en la narrativa que sugiere que los eventos sobrenaturales pueden ser producto de la mente de los personajes, más que de la existencia de fantasmas reales.

Highlights

The ending photograph of The Shining suggests an evil reincarnation cycle.

Kubrick's quote about the 1920s photograph implies the film is a ghost story.

Critics argue that the movie's ghosts are hallucinations, not supernatural beings.

Kubrick's full quote on reincarnation is often taken out of context.

The Shining can be interpreted as a story about the cycle of abuse and madness.

Jack Torrance's character is an abusive, recovering alcoholic with a history of failure.

Isolation at the Overlook Hotel exacerbates Jack's abusive tendencies.

Kubrick uses filmmaking techniques to depict psychological breakdown, not the supernatural.

The film's ghosts may be manifestations of Jack's guilt and resentment.

Kubrick's hedge maze sequence hints at the unreliable narrator technique.

The Shining explores the idea of an endless cycle of evil, possibly tied to generational abuse.

Understanding the absence of real ghosts deepens the horror and impact of the film.

Kubrick's commentary on the novel vs. the film adds ambiguity to the reincarnation theme.

The Shining can be seen as a masterful depiction of the cycle of violence and abuse.

Critics believe The Shining is a horror masterpiece that becomes scarier when recognizing the absence of ghosts.

Kubrick's intentional ambiguity allows for multiple interpretations of the film's themes.

The movie's horror stems from the psychological torment of the characters, not supernatural elements.

Transcripts

That photo at the end of The  Shining? Whatever happened there?  

I'm sorry to defer with you, sir.

But y ou are the caretaker; you’ve always been the  caretaker.  

That photograph at the end of The Shining  is a bit of a head scratcher. It is  

almost like the ending of 2001: A Space  Odyssey, where on the surface at least,  

it appears to make little logical sense, leaving  the closing of both films largely unexplained.  

When specifically asked about the 1920s  photograph, Kubrick stated "Well, it was  

supposed to suggest a kind of evil reincarnation  cycle where he is part of the hotel’s history.”  

Since then, a lot of people use this  quote from Kubrick’s phone call with  

Jun'ichi Yaoi as evidence that the movie was  simply a ghost story. Stanley made mention of  

an “evil reincarnation cycle”. Kubrick recalled  the bathroom scene referenced in the beginning  

of this video, and then Kubrick continued: "One is merely suggesting some kind of endless  

cycle of evil reincarnation,  and also — well, that's it.”  

Interestingly Kubrick cut himself  off before elaborating. And then  

he revealed this key that is often omitted  when discussing the quote in question.  

“It's the sort of thing that I think is  better left unexplained, but since you  

asked me, I'm trying to explain." From these cryptic phrases and other  

interviews where Kubrick discussed the  subject matter of the novel specifically,  

many have insisted that Kubrick’s movie was a  ghost story and that the visions Danny, Wendy,  

and Jack see in the hotel must be real ghosts,  rather than visualizations of their mental state,  

hallucinations, or some other non-supernatural  explanation. Note, for our purposes here, we are  

excluding King’s books and also the so-called  sequel movie Dr Sleep. These have nothing to do  

with Kubrick’s telling of the story. Regardless  of the source material, there are simply no  

ghosts on screen in the real world of the film  as we have said before and will say again.  

We believe the quote is being taken out of  context, much like Kubrick’s words from another  

interview that are often taken out of context  in support of the belief that there are indeed  

ghosts in the film. The truth, as we see it,  is that there are no ghosts in Kubrick’s movie,  

and Kubrick never said that there were. In the  interview in question, Kubrick is explicitly  

referring to his thoughts on the novel, not the  film as we have covered before. The full quote is  

far more ambiguous and does not directly address  how to analyze his work. The quote was not a quote  

about Kubrick’s cinematic masterpiece, the quote  was in reference to Stephen King’s novel.  

The quote about reincarnation is a little  different, but the end result is much the  

same. Between the scene of Jack in the bathroom  with DELBERT Grady, and Kubrick’s mention about  

an “evil reincarnation cycle” - many observers  mistakenly form a connection when there is none  

to be found, somehow reasoning that reincarnation  must mean the ghosts are real because both are  

supernatural, I guess, and therefore this is a  simple story about evil ghosts being reincarnated.  

But is it really that simple? To begin with,  there is no connection between the existence  

of ghosts and the belief in reincarnation. The  one does not imply or say anything at all about  

the other. Jack appears in the photograph at the  end as a real person at a real party. There is  

nothing to suggest that he is a ghost at that  point, or that there are ghosts at that point.  

The only suggestion one can glean if you take the  photograph at face value is that Jack visited the  

hotel in the 1920s and was somehow reborn after,  only to return to the Overlook in his next life,  

perhaps being pulled there by fate or destiny, or  whatever. If you believe this is the case – and  

to be clear, we do not take it at face  value, believing it’s another example  

of Kubrick playing with the audience – it says  absolutely nothing at all about the existence,  

presence, and nature of any ghosts that might  or might not haunt the hotel, or the Shining  

phenomenon in general. You cannot logically  assert that because Jack was reincarnated  

all the ghosts we believe we see are real. Those who believe the ghosts are real still have  

to contend with other logical and sequential  problems in the movie, all of which indicate  

Kubrick is intentionally manipulating the viewer.  He is really using his filmmaking craft to depict  

madness, not the supernatural. The Delbert Grady  that Jack believes he sees was supposed to be rom  

some earlier era based on the clothing and overall  setting. Jack appears to have made this up in his  

own mind because the other Grady mentioned in  the film, during the opening sequence, was from  

a much more recent time period and had a different  name. The man in the interview was CHARLES Grady,  

who was said to have gone mad and murdered his  8 and 10 year old daughters back in the 1970s,  

some 50 years later. We might even stretch  so far as to believe that Charles is the  

reincarnation as Delbert somehow, but even  that is not really a valid explanation because  

Jack has “always been the caretaker.” Charles  would have been the caretaker in the 1970s.  

Is Charles supposed to be Jack? Further,  Danny does not see an 8 and a 10 year old,  

he appears to see twin girls. In order to believe  there are ghosts, one must believe that Jack sees  

the ghost of someone never mentioned in the film  before who happens to have the same last name  

and Danny sees the ghosts of two other completely  random people, who just happen to be young girls.  

How many murders were there in the hotel over the  years that Kubrick simply forgot to mention?  

Generally speaking, ghost stories unfold  by learning who the ghost was in real life,  

believing some aspect of their lives or death,  influences their behavior as a ghost. Essentially,  

it's a mystery after death. Kubrick, however,  intentionally chooses to introduce a potential  

ghost in Charles Grady that is never mentioned  again, then spins off at least five different  

possible ghosts that are completely unrelated and  created entirely in the characters heads’ – Lloyd,  

Delbert, the Twin Girls, and the woman in  the bathtub. There are more if you count  

Wendy’s visions towards the end, but the point is  unchanged: None of these so-called ghosts is based  

on any character that we know was alive at some  point or did anything at some point during the  

film. They are more obviously the fantasies of  the characters in the film, picked up from bits  

and pieces that they’ve heard about the hotel and  assembled from their own fears and insanities. The  

alternative is to believe that either Kubrick  made a lot of mistakes or didn’t know how to  

tell a ghost story in the first place. This is why knowing there are no real,  

literal ghosts is the key to understanding  and fully appreciating The Shining. That is  

what makes the film truly horrifying.  It also proves key to understanding  

Kubrick’s cryptic remark about reincarnation. Throughout the movie we are given various clues  

that Jack Torrance is an alcoholic and a loose  cannon. We know that he had a drinking problem,  

and we know that he once injured his young son  Danny when he was drunk. Danny started talking  

to his imaginary friend Tony around this time, and  the doctor informed Wendy that episodes like the  

one Danny had are often brought on by emotional  factors. We learn that Jack is an aspiring writer,  

and he believed some peace and quiet acting as  the caretaker of The Overlook would afford him a  

chance to complete his writing project. All of the  evidence going in, when taken together logically,  

strongly suggest an abusive alcoholic father who  previously failed as a writer. That is the movie,  

right there, and what ultimately  transpired was all spelled out  

directly in the opening interview. For some people solitude and isolation  

can of itself become a problem. And that is exactly what happened. You had  

an abusive recovering alcoholic with no access  to booze, locked away without human contact,  

where Jack Torrance the failed writer reemerged on  full display. He had no outlet, no human contact,  

he resented his wife and his son believing they  held him back, an obvious psychological defense  

mechanism for his own failures. He starts losing  grasp of his own reality, with fantasies of having  

a drink, having a nice conversation where he could  vent about his family, and he even fantasized  

about a beautiful attractive woman representative  of the wife he wished he had. Before long,  

his resentment of his family reached the point  that he fantasized about murdering the two people  

who held him back, preventing him from realizing  his full potential - his wife and child.  

It was the perfect storm scenario, all spelled out  in the opening interview combined with everything  

we knew about Jack Torrance - an abusive  recovering alcoholic who lacked the talent  

and skill to make it as a real writer. Wendy was  in denial, defending Jack when explaining how  

Jack had mistakenly injured Danny after having too  much to drink, and she insinuates Jack has roughly  

handled Danny that way many times previously.  But while in isolation, Wendy herself became  

distanced from Jack, providing both with added  isolation. Jack seemed irritable around Wendy,  

and she was looking for a human outlet on  the radio once the phones had gone out.  

Note that Jack never saw a ghost prior to him  again abusing his son Danny. This was foreshadowed  

two days before it happened, the creepy scene  where Jack seemed on the verge of again hurting  

Danny. Danny asks his father if he would ever  harm him or his mother. Jack becomes resentful,  

and asks if his mother told him that. By the  end of this discussion, Jack looks as if he’s  

losing his temper as he tightly grabs Danny’s left  shoulder. This is the last time we actually see  

Danny with anyone before the incident. Wendy hears Jack yelling in agony,  

he reveals that he had the worst nightmare,  a terrible dream where he killed Wendy and  

Danny and chopped them up into little pieces.  Wendy tries comforting Jack, and that is when  

Danny first reemerges with his injury. It’s his  left shoulder and the left side of his neck that  

are injured - the exact area where Jack had his  hands when we last saw them together, which was  

foreshadowed in the creepy scene 2 days prior. Wendy immediately blames Jack for hurting Danny,  

and Jack looks completely dumbfounded. He never  denies it, however. Jack instead still looks as  

if he’s woken up from a horrible dream, and he  has! Because he’s just come to the realization  

that he once again abused and injured his son  after losing his temper. Wendy was correct to  

blame Jack. Note that prior to this point in  the movie, Jack never saw any so-called ghost.  

It was not until after that breaking point  that he ventured into the Gold Room.  

In Jack’s first encounter with Lloyd, he  fantasizes that the drink he wants would  

be his first drink in five months.  In that very same conversation,  

with regards to an instance where Wendy was mad  after Jack had injured Danny, he says THIS:  

That was three God damned years ago! That little  fucker had thrown all my papers all over the  

floor. All I was tried to do was pull him up! This also strongly implies that there was more  

than one incident of past abuse, establishing a  pattern of abuse when taken with Wendy’s earlier  

comment. This acts as further confirmation that  Jack was the one who injured Danny, not some  

mysterious crazy ghost woman in Room #237. Jack’s resentment toward Wendy is on full display  

throughout. Jack looks aggravated when Wendy tries  offering him some loving encouragement after his  

initial writing struggles. Jack is angered when  she intrudes his workspace and interrupts him.  

Jack was mighty perturbed at Wendy when Danny  asked him if he’d ever harm either of them.  

And then there is this doozy. I can really write my own ticket  

if I went back to Boulder now! Couldn’t I?  Shoveling out driveways. Work at a car wash.  

The language here reveals EVERYTHING he  always believed about Wendy! All of his  

resentful attitude explodes out here in this quick  exchange revealing his TRUE feelings about Wendy,  

and how she ruined his life. O have let you fuck up my life so far,  

but I am NOT gonna let you fuck this up. Jack blames Wendy for him not having a better  

life, refusing to accept his own failure and  passing on the blame. It strongly implies that  

not only was Jack abusive toward Danny, but  that he may have likewise had a long history  

of abusing his wife - where past mistakes were  blamed on his overindulgence of alcohol, but in  

reality it was an inherent part of his character  brought on by his own shortcomings, where the  

alcohol was merely another coping mechanism for  his many failures in life, and his inability to  

live the life he believes he deserves. Kubrick provided us with the key to this  

early in the movie, with the key sequence we  like to refer to as the “unreliable narrator”.  

We see a model of the hedge maze, we see Jack  looking down on it, and we’re led to believe  

the next shot is a point of view shot of Jack  looking down at the model. But in fact, this is  

actually an overhead view of the maze itself,  with Danny and Wendy exploring it, after Wendy  

was previously warned that navigating the maze  was quite the daunting task. Kubrick is telling  

the audience that you cannot always trust what  you’re seeing, and this is a key to understanding  

that there are no ghosts in Kubrick’s movie. How does this relate to the two competing themes,  

ghosts and/or reincarnation vs abuse? The  foundation of information that the entire  

reality of the film was based on all happened  prior to the family arriving at The Overlook.  

Trust the information Kubrick is providing you  here. The ghosts are the distraction, and we know  

this because Jack does not see a single ghost  until after he abused Danny and injured his  

shoulder at The Overlook. The ghosts do not exist.  No ghost in the movie, real or imagined, has any  

impact whatsoever on the story. The reality of the  film is that Jack was a recovering alcoholic with  

a track record of failure and being abusive. Every  single discussion Jack has with an imaginary ghost  

ties directly back into that, and the isolation  and solitude itself becoming a problem was laid  

out right in the opening Interview. So what is Kubrick REALLY saying here:  

"One is merely suggesting some kind of  endless cycle of evil reincarnation,  

and also — well, that's it.” And then before deciding NOT to  

finish his thought, Kubrick concluded: “Again, it's the sort of thing that I think  

is better left unexplained, but since  you asked me, I'm trying to explain."  

First it is interesting that he stops himself,  stating it is better left unexplained.  

Translation, he has not fully elaborated, he is  letting us know there is far more to it than what  

he already said. And also note that he qualifies  the statement with the word “SUGGESTING”,  

which corresponds with the key to the mint, the  unreliable narrative. Knowing that there are no  

ghosts in the movie, and knowing that it’s really  a movie about a history of abuse and failure from  

a recovering alcoholic who finds himself in  total isolation with his own shortcomings  

flailing before him - the endless cycle of evil  reincarnation, if taken literally, it could mean  

a ghost. But figuratively it could just as easily  be madness, which in the context of this movie,  

is directly tied into the cycle of abuse, both  substance abuse and child abuse, and also likely  

spousal abuse. If there is some kind of endless  cycle of evil reincarnation, that is it. Kubrick  

masterfully depicts the cycle of violence, which  is in a sense something that is reincarnated over  

and over again, with the individual and often  through the generations. The abuser never goes  

away, and the cycle is capable of repeating down  the line, forever and ever and ever. He or she  

might hide or suppress their abuse for a time, as  Jack has done here. The first phase of the cycle  

appears before the movie begins. Repression  of rage, however, can only last so long,  

and so the cycle repeats itself. The repetition is  what Kubrick presents on screen, as the very same  

feelings of failure, resentment, and anger recur  again, only more magnified this time in isolation  

with no booze. Jack has always been the caretaker  because he has always been an abuser, and it will  

only be a matter of time before the cycle repeats  itself. It is also often a generational thing,  

where the endless cycle of evil reincarnation  perhaps indicates that Jack himself had an  

abusive father, and a mother in denial. We believe that The Shining is the greatest  

horror film of all time, and once you realize  there are no ghosts in the movie, it truly becomes  

a far more horrifying cinematic masterpiece. Thank you very much for watching everyone, I hope  

you enjoyed, and have a wonderful night. Well that just happens to be exactly what I’m  

looking for. I’m outlining a new writing project,  and five months of peace is just what I want.  

Purely an accident. My husband had been drinking  and he came home about three hours late.  

For some people solitude and isolation can  of itself become a problem. Not for me.  

On this particular occasion my husband just used  too much strength and he injured Danny’s arm.  

I know all about cannibalism. I saw it on TV.  See! It’s okay, he saw it on the television.  

Well something will come. It’s just a  matter of settling back into the habit of  

writing everyday. Yep! That’s all it is. Whenever you come in here and interrupt me  

you’re breaking my concentration. You’re  distracting me! And it will then take me  

time to get back to where I was! Understand? Did your mother ever say that to you? That I  

would hurt you? No Dad. Are you sure? Yes Dad. I killed you and Danny. But I didn’t just kill  

you, I cut you up into little pieces. You son of a bitch! You did this to him!  

Didn’t you? How could you! How could you? I did hurt him once, okay? It was an accident,  

completely unintentional. It  could have happened to anyone.  

It’s his mother. She interferes. It was three God damn years ago! The  

little fucker had thrown my papers all over the  floor! All I tried to do was pull him up!  

There’s a crazy woman in one of the rooms. She  tried to strangle Danny. Are you out of your  

fucking mind? (CLATTER)  

I could really write my own ticket if  I went back to Boulder now, couldn’t  

I? Shoveling out driveways! Working a carwash! Have you ever thought for a single solitary moment  

about my responsibilities to my employers? Has it  ever occurred to you that I have agreed to look  

after the Overlook Hotel until May the 1st? Wendy! I have let you fuck up my life so far,  

but I am not going to let you fuck this up! Stay away from me! Wendy. Stay away. Give me the  

bat. Stay away. Give me the bat. OWW! God damn! Wendy, listen! Let me out of here and I’ll forget  

the whole Goddamn thing! It will  be like nothing ever happened!  

Just give me one more chance to prove it  Mr Grady. That’s all I ask. Yes Dad.  

That’s why I’ve always tried to avoid  interviews and explanations about the  

films. I think the film should, you know,  be able to speak for itself.