The final shot of The Shining, it’s ambiguity forever helping Stanley Kubrick’s most popular film carry on it’s enduring legacy for nearly thirty years. But what does the final image from the film actually tell us about the story we have just witnessed?
Released in 1980, The Shining is in my opinion, Kubrick’s best and most satisfying work but even though I’ve seen it a dozen times, I still don’t think I’ve figured out what he was trying to tell us before the credits rolled.
The final shot is a photograph of our lead protagonist Jack Torrence (Jack Nicholson), impossibly photographed as a resident of the Overlook Hotel at the July 4th ball in 1921, some sixty years before The Shining is set where Jack is now the caretaker of the hotel during a winter break. I say impossible because he hasn’t aged a day, the photograph shows that barring time travel, he must have existed six decades before looking physically exactly the same as he did in the early 80′s. What does this final image of the film mean, why did Stanley Kubrick choose to use it as his final shot and what do you guys make of it?
Here is the final image in all it’s glory;
Is Jack simply reincarnated by the hotel to undergoe it’s bidding, taking the form of a previous hotel guest who stayed there in 1921 and butchered his family, the hotel re-creating the same events that happened in previous years for generation after generation?
That’s probably the theory that I have stuck closely to over the years during the many times I’ve seen the film, supported quite logically I always thought on the ever so creepy bathroom scene, possibly the best dialogue scene Kubrick ever shot, where we find out that Jack has “always been the caretaker” and that the butler Delbert Grady has “always been the butler”.
Hence, the hotel keeps bringing them back to life as new people.
Interesting also to note that the butler is named Delbert Grady, but when Jack first turns up at the hotel for the interview about the caretaker position at the beginning of the film, the story told to him about a murderous caretaker is that of a Charles Grady, the one who got cabin fever and butchered his family with an axe before turning the gun on himself. Kubrick was too much of a cerebral mastermind to let a simple contiunity name change pass him by, so I’m convinced this is intentional but whether it has any further deeper meaning than just to make the jigsaw ever more difficult to put together, I couldn’t say.
Were they related, are they the same person?
Gerald Dahlquist of The Kubrick FAQ, comes up with the theory that Delbert Grady, the butler we meet in the bathroom was the butler back in the 1920′s, whereas Charles Grady, the caretaker who butchered his family existed in the 70′s, a kind of reincarnation of Delbert.
He supports a theory that Charles in the 70′s was a man in a “perilous situation”, who was part reincarnation of Delbert Grady with murderous intentions and part himself, who tries to get over them. In the end, the hotel tragically won and he killed his family. As he puts it, this would make Jack the new resident with the “perilous situation”…
“The duality of Delbert/Charles Grady deliberately mirrors Jack Torrance being both the husband of Wendy/father of Danny and the mysterious man in the July 4th photo. It is to say he is two people: the man with choice in a perilous situation and the man who has ‘always’ been at the Overlook. It’s a mistake to see the final photo as evidence that the events of the film are predetermined: Jack has any number of moments where he can act other than the way he does, and that his (poor) choices are fueled by weakness and fear perhaps merely speaks all the more to the questions about the personal and the political that The Shiningbrings up. In the same way Charles had a chance – once more, perhaps – to not take on Delbert’s legacy, so Jack may have had a chance to escape his role as ‘caretaker’ to the interests of the powerful. It’s the tragic course of this story that he chooses not to“
But a film blogger friend of mine recently gave me another impression to the final shot. He claimed that in good old fashion Twilight Zone esque endplay, Jack is kind of aborsed and taken away from the hotel and his current life when he dies after being driven mad by the hotel, who never wants residents to check out and is then locked into the photograph at the end, trapped in a forever single moment of time at the overlook ball.
I’m liking this theory a lot and it sticks with the “you have always been the caretaker” line, because in a sense that photograph will last forever, and he will forever be seen there. The grin of Nicholson proving to be a chilling smile, if there ever was one for a particularly downer ending as Jack becomes part of the furniture of the hotel for the rest of time.
Are there more interpretations to the final shot of The Shining? I would love to hear them and add them to this entry, the more the better, no matter how outlandish they may seem. What have you always made out the end of the film to mean?
Meanwhile you can watch the finale to The Shining HERE.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
66 Comments
I agree mostly with the second idea. I always thought it meant, “So, now he has become one of the hotel’s many permanent residents.” All of the other people in the photograph, perhaps, are living out that single moment of the ball forever, after the hotel claimed their minds and then their lives. I wonder if the woman from the bathtub can be spotted somewhere in the photo. And I wonder how long before Jack shows up again to encourage another man to “correct” his family.
For me, this has two possible meanings for him appearing in the photo.
1/ The photo is where the hotel keeps all the people it kills forever. Adding new people each time someone gives in to the hotel’s insanity and dies.
2/ Jack is a descendent of the person in the picture, just as Charles was a decendent of Delbert. And the reason for the dead doing this is to replace their own soul with that of their descendent enabling the original to leave the hotel and ‘move on’ thus the image of the original person in the photo is replaced.
The second one doesn’t make sense, as I think they are meant to mirror each other rather than be descendants of one another. This is because both Charles and Delbert Grady have 2 daughters… so even if you were to argue he is the child of the daughters, in the traditional sense his last name wouldn’t be Grady. I think the more appropriate interpretation is the first.
It was because he was now apart of the hotel’s history. It would be his home now in spirit form. just like the rest of the ghost he encountered the whole time being there. Basically joining the club of ghost. The man he talked to in the rest room was kind of explaining it to him. He said he was the caretaker as i recall or something along those lines. memory is a little fuzzy lol. been a while. pretty sure that was the reason though i believe.
I’ve never actually given it much thought but my initial interpretation of it was that Jack had actually gone back in time in the Ballroom scenes. The picture was there to show Jack wasn’t imagining those scenes.
The fact that Jack is in the picture just sort of asserts the power of the house that much more.
Jack was always a mean-spirited character. Mean from the start, mean at the end. It seemed to me that the hotel was rewarding him with a permanent slot in the hotel’s history. Welcome home, Jack. Nice job with the family.
if you really want to know what is happening in the photo read until the very ending
http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/802
That website will drive you insane and make you kill your family if you read all that horse manure until the very end.
I’ve never given it that much thought either. But I’ve always believed that he relived everything the previous killer did, rather than him being the original killer or being “reinkarnated” as him. Even if that doesn’t explain the picture, that’s the way I always looked at it.
@Niklas: Straight forward and obvious but this is what I always thought. Also how did the bloke from Sparks get in there? (Top photo bottom left of centre.)
The second idea is similar to what i’ve always taken from the photo scene. It always seemed to me that this is a showing of the hotel “capturing” Jack Torrence and winning by sealing his fate. He’s now fated to forever be one of the captured souls of the hotel.
I like this theory. Seems as plausable as any other. I just wish Kubrick would have left a FEW breadcrumbs for us.
I agree that the hotel literally consumes Jack and his soul. The bathroom scene where Grady tells Jack what he must do is the point of no return. The red walls and porcelin fixtures on either side represent the hotel literaly chewing and swallowing Jack. Note too that he goes there to clean off spilled egg cocktails, a mirror of the bacon and egg yolks Jack eats in bed. And the theme of cannibalism is introduced very early during the drive up to the hotel.
i agree coz remember at the bar he says he would sell his soul for a beer soo thats why he was absorded by the hotel
To me the July 4th ball picture, always represented the dark or evil force that exists within the Overlook Hotel. The fact that the man in the photo looks like Jack Torrance lets the viewer connect to this concept visually. The entity within the Overlook Hotel inhabits Jack Torrance and every other caretaker, to the point of installing memories of years past. Or possibly memories of former murderous caretakers. The bathroom scene with Delbert Grady is telling, because Jack Torrance seems to know him but doesn’t quite make the connection until he describes killing his family. This again is the manipulation of Jack Torrance by evil forces that inhabit the Hotel. There is a familiarity of the Hotel and it’s past needed to manipulate each of the caretakers. So the man in the July 4th Ball picture, that looks like Jack Torrence represents the evil forces that have “always been here” as Delbert Grady put it. And would always be there.
Also the man in the picture who looks like the murderous Jack Torrance is posing among people having a good time, and who are unaware of the dangerous force so close to them. Just like The Overlook Hotel. A beautiful sanctuary out in the mountains. Seeming so harmless and inviting. At first glance you wouldn’t know it to be dangerous.
I love reading people’s interpretations on what has to be my favorite picture ever. I’m 15, and just this Hallowe’en my uncle and brother showed me this movie. I fell in love with this movie. Just last night, I saw a trailer for a new movie and I had to rewind my DVR a couple times… eventually, I yelled, “Here’s Johnny!” I was shocked to see Jack Nicholson. But I am totally into your theory, it makes total sense. I’m currently reading the book, while watching the movie every other day. Thanks so much for your interpretation, it makes more sense to me now! :)
All re-watching and reading The Shining makes Holly a dull girl!
hey love you too
I believe that what Kubrick wants to “tell” us through the last scene of “The Shining” is that history is repeated throughout time.
My explanation to the scene is that Jack had always been the caretaker of the hotel and that he has made this “game” as he has imagined this whole story(his family,the killers and the whole film storyline in fact)..He had always been the caretaker and was there both in 1921 abd in 1980.The fact that he looks the same age I believe depicts the fact that time stood still in this hotel because of boredom.And that’s why he plays this game in his mind.I give this explanation bearing in mind that Kubrick is a director who is really inerested in the psychology and idiosyncrasy of his characters.So, Jack Torrance was and is the caretaker of “overlook hotel” and has made this whole story in order to escape boredom and killing himself, so that he carries out the job that has been trusted to him.
This is my point of view.I have heard others that are really complex like the one with the native americans and Jack being the white(in terms of skin color) kind,which is really interesting and I think that the whole film has millions of interpretations and everybody can have his own.And I believe that this is what Stanley really wanted to do.
I feel that the scene in the bathroom is the hotel trying, and succeeding, in tricking Jack to do its bidding. By saying he has always been the caretaker it gives Jack a sense of supreme responsibility he must play out. As for the picture, I have to agree with the thought that he is now a permanent resident of the hotel.
The first sentence of this is not a sentence. Also “it’s” = “it is.” Now I look forward to reading the rest.
hey how are you from mark k and from john h
In the original screenplay there was a scene that did not make the final cut of the film that in my opinion explains the image in the hotel. An investigator visits Danny in the hospital and explains to the family that Jack’s body was never found. Considering it was frozen in the corn maze it should have been very easy to find and very well preserved. I think that this suggests that Jack, in body and soul, has been observed into the hotel’s history. I think that the Grady figure is simply a creation of Jack’s paranoid and stressed imagination. Note that in the clip above the wall is lined with mirrors, so perhaps Jack is talking to himself.
First off, personally I dont believe the hotel is re-incarnating people to continue its bidding. I accept that as a potential view, but considering when the film was made, the very idea that something evil had sway over the creation of life was, I believe, too radical for the time. I do however believe that there was possession and corruption of spirit as the central core of the Shining, as possession was HUGE back in the 70s/80s (Amityville, Exorcist, the Thing).
As far as the dialogue between Jack and Grady, I always felt that the spirit tricked him when Jack tried to talk to it. The whole thing about the Shining was that the job was boring and de-moralizing. By saying, “you’ve always been the caretaker”, that feeds into the feeling of despair, and I felt it brought Jack low enough for him to delve into his madness and become the killer, through a combination of possession and his own madness.
As far as the picture, from the first time I watched the film I never felt any ambiguity about his inclusion. I may be wrong, but it always felt like he had been consumed by the hotel, that he was a part of it as a ghost. I always ran the belief that the other people in the photo had been workers and their souls were taken by the hotel also, some of them possibly also having worked at the hotel later than the 20s.
Overall this was a good film for its time. It did what a lot of films did back then, exploring the human psyche and the darker elements that might lead someone to acts of atrocities. I think the spiritual “devil made me do it” explanation of psychotic killing sprees was very popular back then, and the idea that a job can crush your spirit and make you go mad has relevance to this day
There are some good observations and theories above. My feeling has always been that the Overlook Hotel is sort of a symbol or stand-in for Jack’s mind. The endless hallways…the strange rooms with people in them…are all part of the madness that is over-taking him. The son is in touch with this because he can “shine.” The conversations in the bathroom and bar are not actually happening–Jack only thinks they are. The whole idea of Jack existing previously at the hotel or going back in time are just part of his insanity. I don’t think Kubrick is literally saying that he is reincarnated or two people or that the hotel is possessed. The final shot serves to bring us into his insanity as it were. We view a picture that cannot actually exist. It causes us to question ourselves…are we insane? If I see that image on the wall and acknowledge that Jack is in it…am I now part of it too? It’s a Kubrickian way to end the movie. Jack has now been killed in a labyrinth and we are left with an impossible image.
Part of the confusion or lack of clarity goes back to the source material. I think Stephen King would play this more as a possessed hotel kind of story. Kubrick, of course, would never go that route. All of his movies have an internal, psychological aspect that is inescapable. So some of the interpretations are trying to reconcile the writer’s POV with the director’s POV. Perhaps that has something to do with why Kubrick didn’t love “The Shining” among his own work. Maybe it’s a flaw. We all know how much Stephen King hates it!
Hmmm.. Earlier this year a documentary was released named ‘Kubrick’s Odyssey: The Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick’. I approached it with pessimism but by the end I was blown away completely, The documentary is Part 1 of a forthcoming series and Part 1 focuses on analyzing the Shining. It gives a completely unexpected explanation for all the things mentioned above and more, especially at the end, explaining the portrait scene, it shows something I can guarantee no-one here has ever seen before even if you’ve seen the film many times
Here’s the amazon link, but I’m sure it will be available somewhere online: http://www.amazon.com/Kubricks-Odyssey-Secrets-Hidden-Films/dp/B004PF0FJM
Totally recommend this documentary and subscribe word by word Mert’s impressions. This is a completely new insight that is worth a view.
The image above it’s not really “in all it’s glory”, it is actually just *half* of the picture!! (Nicholson and the image title are at the vertical centre in the original picture), so you are missing here some of the more striking details in it. Details that, in fact, have not even been mentioned here, like… Just watch the documentary ;)
i always had the impression that he was a descendant of someone who once worked at the hotel and is thus doomed to the same fate. but the “part of the hotel’s permanent residents” is quite interesting. like it adds a picture of the next victim each time…
The ending photograph is the opposite of what Stephen King wrote in The Shining. At the end of his book, King thinks back to a photo of black and white people who represent good. In Kubrick’s duality moment, he puts Jack in the black and white picture standing like a baphomet (look at how he’s holding his arms) representing evil. He’s not reincarnated at all.
Also….the picture is not that of the Overlook. :D This photo does not appear on the wall when Jack is alive. It only appears after he dies. The date on the photo is a summer date, but the photo depicts a New Year’s Eve celebration (check out the guy to the left of Jack blowing into a party favor horn). He’s basically in hell….and not at the Overlook (another play on words! Lots of stuff being overlooked in this movie). Kubrick used duality (and mirror images!) throughout this movie which causes a lot of confusion. King didn’t care too much for Kubrick’s interpretation of it.
Agreed and as the hotel gains power over Jack he takes to wearing a red jacket much like the bellhops and other waitstaff. Jack only thinks he’s gaining power but actually becoming slave.
i got the ideia that charles is the real former caretaker and delbert doesn’t exist. it’s on jack’s mind.he got the name wrong cause he started drinking. like he got the time since he hurt danny from 6 mounths for 3 years ago. he’s starting to loosing it. all the carethers have the shining and they can move objects but jack is the powerfull one just doesn’t know it. he camuflages it with delbert or the old lady in the bathroom: he’s the one that trows the ball and opens the door danny: cause he can moove objects. so when he’s locked in the storeroom and if delbert doen’s exist he’s the one that opens the door to him self. that’s the shining, like see in the future or in the past or send images to others who shine like he sends to danny all the time, to halloran and hulman to kill them and at the end to wendy to desorient her. he’s the powerfull one that the ‘hotel’ (devil) wants.
I haven’t read all the replies, so sorry if this theory has already been stated.
I was always certain it had something to do with the “locked in” theory. That Jack had literally been absorbed into the hotel and it’s nightmarish cast of ghouls. But then after looking at it again, i noticed that Grady is not in the photo. So what makes Jack so special that he is the only one of three nut-jobs who get a place in the picture? Then i thought, he is the only one who failed to kill his family. Now dead and out of his crazy state, he is grateful his family are safe. So maybe the picture is his Heaven. These might be all the happy souls, at a time when the hotel was a place of joy. Maybe the hotel is not a prison but a paradise for lost souls. The hallways are haunted by the ghosts of the past, but the actual ballroom is where the joyous spirit of the 20s still exists.
Or maybe Kubrick just put out the image to add tone to the ending rather than substance.
I think I agree with the reincarnation idea. I had thought at first that it was like he was trapped in some underworld in the photo–cursed by the influence of the hotel. But I leaned toward the reincarnation idea when I saw it several times after. Looking back at the scenes with the frantic Winnie running through the hotel alone, she encounters several scenes of the past–residual hauntings–of the New Year’s ball, 1920s, people in creepy costumes, then a large room with cobwebs and skeletons. Given that it’s the 1920s she’s witnessing, made me believe that the bad events that happened at that time are haunting that hotel and calling back it’s inhabitants to relive the horrors again and again. So, Jack’s character must have been a previous guest in another life. All the spirits of the previous guests recognize him and know exactly why he is there. He has come back to relive this curse again. The hotel was built on a burial site. Perhaps the misfortune has something to do with this desecration.
i had the idea that jack is the forever caretaker that keeps coming back to the overlook hotel to kill but, like his some makes up a name to cope with his phycic abilities, maybe grady’s are just a figment of jacks imagionation to help him deal with what he keeps being driven to do? and the picture is to show that he’s the constant care taker and bla bla bla. but im also confused so if anyone else has theories on why my theory doesn’t work i’d be interested.
A lot of speculation but barely a mention of the original source material, the book by Stephen King? Wow.
I totally agree Mike.
When I came to the forum I was looking for answers (specifically concerning that final picture) given by people who were making concrete analogies between book and film but I can’t say I’ve read much more than unfounded speculation. I used to love reading king’s books back in the day and although I haven’t read this one, I can’t say I agree with the derivations some people are making.
I’d suggest reading King’s books in order to find answers instead of making outlandish theories that do not make sense because the fact that the story is reflected through a visual medium makes it more susceptible for misinterpretation. By the way it may well be an intention of both writer and director to keep everyone guessing, if only from a marketing perspective.
I understand that Kubrick would willingly insert subliminal imagery in the film to keep people interested and intrigued but at the end King wrote the story and for those who have read his books they will know he is a master at reflecting a specific ambiance in writing which you cannot capture in a single image if even possible to capture.
That’s why, with all due respect, most movie interpretations of his books are crap although this version is certainly one of the better ones. Totally aside, the green mile remains the best movie version in my opinion.
So if anyone read the book and watched the film please give us a decisive answer, at least that would spare me the time of having to read the book in order to get the picture :)
But the ending from the book and movie are different….People are speculating what the picture in the end of the movie meant. At the end of the book there is no picture, that is why no one is talking about the book. I couldnt find anything where kubrick really got too deep into the meaning of the picture but he did say this…”The ballroom photograph at the very end suggests the reincarnation of Jack”
You worked hats on this so fix the “it’s” for “its” mistakes you made a few times. Distracts from it.
Hi. Here’s my take on the last scene:
http://thelastsceneintheshining.wordpress.com/
Enjoy!
Brilliant! It just has to be so!
After all he did tell his wife at a scene that he loves this place and he feels that he has been there b4 like really really been there b4.
My take on it is that Jack was always there – and in the flesh too. Since he was intrinsically evil, he never died because Satan’s minions live forever in various evil places. So that is how he ended up in the Overlook Hotel and that was how he ended up in that picture. He was the caretaker there from the day it was built and opened for business. He was pure evil. I still get crept out by this movie- it’s a classic and a keeper!!
I think they are all cursed by the natives that they expelled
to build the hotel.
they reincarnate and eventually go to the hotel to sacrifice the most precious things they own, their families.
It´s a cycle that will never end to them, perhaps we can call it “hell”.
This was almost as baffling as the end of Pulp Fiction for me…When Honey Bunny’s boyfriend opened Marcellus Wallace’s briefcase & it glowed! Some say it was Marcellus’ soul…Kind of like here, in The Shining…I felt the picture was Jack, & the people in the photo, were the skeleton’s when Wendy ran into that room & screamed! The guy in the bathroom helping him clean up, Jack recognized the man & said, “you killed your family”, & he replied, “Jack…You are the caretaker…You ARE the caretaker” had a lot to do with the photo at the end…Jack was the caretaker then in 1921, so he was reincarnated!
Stanley Kubrick himself said in an interview that jack was the caretaker reincarnated.
What’s interesting in this movie is that Kubrick said it was his most personal one, (i don’t know at which time he said that though) & Eyes Wide Shut being his best one (according to himself the day before he died – though it seems the sound mixing wasn’t really finished at that time).
That fake apollo landing theory is fascinating too.
Just one thing i haven’t seen here that goes along with the “hell picture theory” is that as it includes the massacre of native indians, they used to think about the camera & pictures that it would steal @ capture their souls.
I didn’t notice the Baphomet position Kay stated, congrats !
@bryant : your blog is private :(
As is often used in story telling we have two main opposites at work:
1. Good vs. Evil
2. Choice vs. Destiny.
In the SHINING the house has a spirit. Jack was reincarnated with this house (through his choices) again and again, hence the ending scene with photos from a bygone era. If the house has an evil spirit then it could clearly tempt Danny (who has a kind spirit) to join. This was depicted in the ball rolling to Danny and the two girls that wanted to play. Danny had too pure of spirit (choice) and was not drawn in. On the other hand we see VICE is the main theme throughout. Jack’s problem with the vice of alcohol. He had choice but gave in (blame the house). His problem to womanize (the young beautiful woman who ages) and gave in. His problem with violence against Danny (and gave in). In all these vices the “house” is personified as evil for Jack’s choice. We see him go insane with the writing “all work and no play…” and this is the tipping point that arises in theme 2: Fate Vs Destiny.
He has choice but each time he falters the evil destiny of the house takes stronger hold. This is life for everyone. The first drink is just a drink. The first cheat is just a cheat. The first lie is just a white lie. Jack falters and because he weak destiny overtakes him we see him go insane. This brings ambiguity to the picture at the end. It is portrayed in that format because the question of choice is always in the balance. He did not have to be reborn again and again and again to commit the same vice crimes. It was a matter of choice that was overtaken by his destiny. Man must overcome his destiny through choice. Jack struggles throughout the film with all of his vices, which is what makes the film a horror. We all struggle with vices every day. Some we overcome and some we do not. Most that we cannot defeat we hide or we ignore or rationalize. But it’s a matter of choice. It’s also true that one vice leads to another. He goes from drinking, to anger, to violence and even more suggested vices (we see an animal suggesting beastiality in one scene). As humans we don’t see ourselves clearly so we personify Evil in form. Yet it is within us to overcome or to be defeated by. Wendy and Danny represent goodness and kindness and forgiveness- all things Jack desperately seeks and needs. He really tries to overcome and again, this is the horror of the film, his weak nature is personified by the character convincing him (his insane mind convinces himself) that it is “destiny” he has always been the caretaker. The sane mind knows that is not possible because the sane mind knows all these vices are problems of choice. The photograph in the end is really the vision from the insane mind of Jack. It is his point of view, in the Hell of eternal insanity.
danny and wendy represent the good trying to cure jack. in the end the house prevails and he is defeated. then we see this has happened again and again, like a hell, that repeats. all humans are faced with good and evil. in the end we are confronted with the same challenges to either overcome evil or succomb to it.
this film has so much to offer as introspective but in another way the house represents our world and society.
we don’t realize how crazy and evil our society is. we never see the horrors that happen on farms, or in war, or prisons, violence… most never realize that many people have committed suicide while working at Foxconn plant in China to build cheaper iPhones. google the topic for proof, if you like… think of the participation we have by buying an iphone where workers are forced to make them under communist rule and some die in misery. do we ever consider a concept of willingly buying something that we know costs other lives??? sure, we eat MacDonalds and realize those cows are mistreated. we don’t like it but we have to compartmentalize it or become vegetarian. but think about eating something that causes human suffering to suicide?? or using that object… we only think of that being war. but in every day sunny america we use technology that others died in misery making.
so the world we live in many ways is the “house” in the SHINING. how can anyone not be insane or struggling with insanity by living in an insane world? it’s rhetorical question, you can’t swim in water where people piss and not be affected by piss, to some degree. It’s just a matter of degrees. Jack was too affected.
sadly, a LinkedIN article was written to a similar, yet softer, approach about iPhones. nearly all the comments were apathetic saying we need technology. there is a new concept. people openly raising their hands in defeat of their desire to concede humans die for their profit.
My theory on the unexplained scene opening the pantry door is that Wendy came back down to open it in forgiveness and kindness. Jack’s now insane mind could not heal to identify that and so his insane mind continued to create justification for his choices. Wendy never had the heart to kill Jack and so she returned to unlock the door. Nor did Danny have the heart to kill anyone and so he relied upon Jack’s own insanity to cause the demise. Danny knew Jack wasn’t evil, he was able to escape through trickery because he knew his father had gone insane. At the same time Jack knew this: he warns Wendy, “get the f.ck out of her” to warn her to leave. Inside he knew he lost his mind but still had enough to warn her.
I would like to firstly thank everyone who has posted here. All of the theories were incredibly interesting and I’m not sure if my mind is more clear or more confused.
I personally agree most with the idea of the house possessing Jack, drawing the family in and then turning him evil (although he too makes his own choices, giving in to his vices as stated in a past post). I’m also intrigued by the idea of him being forever trapped in the image, although before reading these comments I had always assumed it was a visual representation of his reincarnation/possession. I would like to discuss Tom and Mike’s opinion that these discussions should be based on linking the books to the film.
I am a film major so I have written a bit on film and drawn on many sources to form my interpretations including criticisms and director interviews, so I cannot deny that the books may add detail to the story, however I feel they are completely different texts.
Many have commented that Stephen King doesn’t like the film, this just shows that they are different and can therefore have completely different meanings. So while the book can be used in an interpretation of the story, it cannot provide hard and fast answers as to the meaning of the film.
Firstly I’d like to say thanks to everyone who has posted, I read all of the comments and found them all very interesting. I’m not sure if the film makes more or less sense to me now.
The theory I tend to agree with is the hotel possessing Jack, drawing the family in and having him do its bidding (although he is by no means innocent, as John states, giving in to his vices) I also find the idea of him being trapped in the hotel through the photograph an interesting one, although I always felt it was either representing that he had been reincarnated from the 1920′s or representing his state of mind, as Jack saw himself as the evil caretaker, now so does the audience.
I would like to comment on Tom and Mike’s opinion that the film’s meaning can only be found in the book.
I’m a film major and for my work I have drawn from lots of varying sources from academic sources, to interviews with directors, to reviews, so I cannot deny that the book could shed light on the story portrayed in the film.
However it is necessary to see them as different texts on the same story. Many people have commented that Stephen King does not like the film, this highlights that the two texts are completely different, and therefore the film may convey a different interpretation of the story to the book. This does not make it incorrect, just different. Therefore to assume that King’s book holds the answers to the meaning of Kubrick’s film isn’t necessarily correct, or fair to either creator.
The first time I saw the movie I didn’t really get the pic at the end but chalked it up to missing the begining and little scenes here and there. Even so, the scecond idea is the one that popped into my head. Watching it on tv now, again missing the beginning, made me look this up. Now I’m kinda leaning towards the 1st one since literally as I was reading this, the scene where they talk about how nice the place came up and he mentions how strongly he had deja vu the first time he went there and how he flet like he knew what was around every corner.
The guy in the end photograph I believe is tony to boy who lives in docs mouth. He’s telling him about all the monkey business that’s happened, possibly trying to worn him of the danger
Just as intriguing as the last shot is the splendid music that accompanies it. FYI it’s “Midnight, The Stars And You”, exquisitely sung by Al Bowlly, accompanied by Ray Noble’s Orchestra. It was recorded in London on February 16, 1934. It’s the second take, issued on HMV (His Master’s Voice) 10″ 78rpm #B-6461. It was also issued in the USA on Victor #24700. From a historically precise musical perspective for 1980 or 2013, the performance and orchestration are much more sophisticated than what was being recorded in popular dance band recordings 12 years before. And the audio quality is much better than what could be recorded and reproduced circa 1922. But the dreamy and nostalgic rendition is an ironic counterpoint to the horrors that occurred in the film. I’ve long thought about more specific symbolism of the lyrics, but I don’t get it (if there’s something to get). BTW
John Batchelor uses this great recording at sign-off every night on his radio show that’s carried Mondays – Fridays on WABC-AM here in NYC. I presume that it’s carried on other stations in other markets.
I was instantly smitten by the song and the performance when I first heard it in 1980. By that time I was familiar with some of Noble’s work, but hadn’t yet had my epiphany about Bowlly. I can recommend many of his recordings. One that’s on par with “Midnight” is Noel Coward’s very cynical “Twentieth Century Blues”, (from “Cavalcade”) recorded in London on Nov. 14, 1931. Ray Noble conducted the New Mayfair Orchestra in this tour-de-force performance. It was issued on HMV B-4001 and USA Victor on 24090.
If anyone knows of a CD re-release that lacks the often perpetrated added echo and obnoxious digital artifacts that plague so many 78 reissues, then please let me know.
I believe the ending shot is just the reincarnation of the caretaker as jack… Pretty straightforward. But I think that’s the simple narrative that satisfies the general viewer. But I suspect The film is really about the hidden narrative I think which is that everything that happens at the overlook is essentially a manifestation do Danny’s mind via tony. If you watch closely you will see that most of the scenes feature things that a child would use, view,think about or interact with. Examples are all the scenes with children’s food in the background, picnic condiments, children’s drawings on walls, cartoons on tv, cartoons on the gas station tv, weird clothing accessories like crochet ties and cowboy/Indian clothing.
I think the symmetry and mirroring represents, in part, the aspects of Danny’s mind …what is real? What is fake? There are tons of nonsensical aspects that contribute to the fake or random dreamlike aspect of the movie, like the captions at intervals ” Tuesday,” ‘ 3 months later” 10 am,,,, as if its important to know the exact time the scene is starting….
But I suppose that is the gift of Kubrick,,,maybe there are 12 meanings to the movie.
One more thing about the nonsensical aspect that first got me thinking everything at overlook was imaginary was the scene where Danny and his mom are watching cartoons and you see the camera pull back from the tv to reveal Danny sitting on the floor, mom on couch, and the tv playing but there is no power cord coming out of the tv.
I just saw The Shining from beginning to end for the first time last night. I didn’t care what the photo at the end meant. What amazed me, was all the obvious mistakes in continuity. Why would Stanley Kubrick, so known for his attention to detail, allow all those mistakes in the film.
More importantly, as I was watching the movie, I felt sorry for Shelley DuValle, the actor, not Wendy, her character. I had the same feelings for Scatman Carruthers. I’m an empath, and after doing a little research on the making of the movie, my uneasy feelings were substantiated. Both actors were verbally abused on the set, especially Shelley Duvalle.
People may think that Stanley Kubrick was a great director, but I just think he was a narcissistic sociopath.
I think i will go with the same theory. My mother is really good at things like this so i asked her to watch the movie and what she thinks. She said she believes in the second theory. I think when he died, the hotel absorbed him and joined the rest of the dead people in the photograph. I dont think its so much the reincarnation one is as solid because if hes been always in the photograph, i would think Mr. Ulman would of recognize him durin the interview. But then again it could be something else all i know is that till this day, im still not satisfied 100% with any theory. I feel like im missing something.
Interesting read.
The second theory is interesting, but it begs the question ‘wouldn’t the butler be in the photo too?’
just a short editing note;
“Twilight Zone esque endplay, Jack is kind of aborsed and taken away from the hotel and his current life”
it took me out of the overall argument there to figure out what aborsed was supposed to be. i’m going absorbed…
Aborted?
Good article! Enjoyed reading this a lot
I love The Shining, and I love reading different theories and finding new perspectives on the film.
However, I rented “Room 237″, a documentary about the film, hoping to gain some new insight on one of my favourite movies. Just in case, I urge anyone whos thinking of buying or renting this documentary to reconsider.
It is just a bunch of fanatics who have wasted their time reading far too much into The Shining. A couple of the theories about what the film are about are semi-interesting, but most of them are just laughable.
The people on the documentary are just so desperate to find a meaning and a message to make themselves feel better, I think its called apophenia.
I think the person in the picture could be jacks father and he might have been there as a child or even could be his grampa, and that’s why he was drawn to be the caretaker.
I think that there really is no explanation to be honest. I think that Kubrick and King both are very psychological entertainers and they love the ideas of their fans. I personally believe that they throw those things in there to trip us up. To make us think. And I think that that is one reason why the movie has remained a phenomenon for this long; they never have us a distinct ending. We were left wondering what exactly happened and that helps make this movie still popular decades later. You can watch it 1 time or 67 and you will still never really know what exactly is going on.
Granted, I have my theory as well. I have always believed that te hotel itself if the evil entity not the deceased who inhabit it. I have also always had that theory that the people who the hotel claimed go into the picture. When I brought this up to my boyfriend, he of course countered it. “What about the children?” He asked. And since we were not given a picture of kids, I had no answer to truly support my theory. So I just eventually decided that there must be another picture. That wall was full of pictures. So that is my theory.