The Shining -- Hidden Meanings
 

I read that Kubrick always tries to say something about mankind in his movies and that The Shining isn’t really about the murders at the Overlook Hotel as much as it is about the genocide that took place against Native Americans… I know that in the film, we are told the hotel was built on Indian Burial Grounds and that numerous Indians lost their lives trying to stop the building and all throughout the movie there is Native American artwork… on the walls, floors, and even a couple of cans of Calumet baking powder… but from what I understand, there are other clues scattered through the movie -- the scene with the blood rushing out of the elevators is supposed to represent the blood America was built upon… and the picture of the ballroom scene was dated the 4th of July, a date that holds a very different meaning to Native Americans then it does to the average American… and in the maze when Danny is trying to escape his father, he resorts to an old Indian trick of backtracking to escape… I know a lot of you on here study film and know a lot more about this then I do so I would really like to hear your thoughts on this…

That's very interesting to think about. I would be impressed if it were true.

You told me about this one time before and I had never heard anything about it before you told me.

Have you heard or read this from Kubrick's mouth, so to speak? I think it sounds believable and interesteing too. I don't think you have to be majoring in film studies to discuss this on a "deeper" level. I will try and rewatch it soon and look for those details that you mentioned. I also think this theory fits into the role that I think that the black man has in the story. Perhaps he has a connection to the native american spirits inhabiting the hotel because of that he as a slave ancestor also is part of the bloody history that America is built upon.

Cait, is this where you read it?
http://www.drummerman.net/shining/essays.html

The first time I read anything about this was in a few of the reviews but I found that site today when I was reading messages on the IMDb... so now I am really curious to know if there is anything to it...

I’ve checked out several web sites about Kubrick (including a few Fox sent me -- Thanks again Fox :) )… but apparently Kubrick neither admitted nor denied it…

That is the same as January 26th here in Australia (Australia Day) but my Aboriginal friends call it invasion day. :furious:

I found the referance to Native Americans in the film fascinating, I just bought the DVD and when i watch it, it will make it more interesting. :D

You have Aboriginal friends that call Australia Day 'Invasion Day'?
Most of my Aboriginal friends, one in particular, has just moved on with life.

She's much more interested in the future.

And the reason to why you celebrate Australia Day is?

Don't think that my friends are bitter or twisted, they do live life, and are living in the here and now, but lets face it they were invaded, by the poms, just to let you know both my parents and brother are pommies, in case you think I am being politicly incorrect.

Piddz, Australia Day is the day Australia was discovered, at least by the white man. :rolleyes:

Yes. A historical event, so to speak. It just seems strange to me that SB thinks it is allright to clelebrate one historical event but at the same time accuses an ethnic group of living in the past. Especially since it is probably their present situation that has led them to rename the day to an according to them more suitable name.

:yup:

I didn't think that, don't worry.

:)

I don't support Australia Day as a historic event though, you see? I consider it more a celebration of present-day Australia than anything else, even if others don't [and I guess that renders me the odd one out]. I acknowledge that some terrible things have happened in this country, the same way terrible things happen in most countries, but I'm all about moving forward. The Australian government should apologise to the Aboriginal people, yes, but they Aboriginal people shouldn't expect "white Australia" to keep repaying them. I guess more than anything, I'm about moving on together. That's what Australia Day is for me, I suppose.

Anyway, I don't consider it okay to celebrate one historical event and not acknowledge all of its ramifications. I'm not one for celebrating many historical events at all.

I hope I've explained myself well-ish.

I am not too familiar with the australian situation, but don't you think the phrase "Invasion Day" says something about the present as well as history? What is the reason to why they call it that? You think they should not expect you to repay them but you shouldn't expect them to be quiet about their past. Even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

At least in Ausland there have been positive moves to make amends for land possession and past crimes in recent years, and to respect surviving Aboriginal beliefs (so i also understand why enough-is-enough camp has gained ground too. I think Silver's probably right that it's time to move on - tho from what i've read it can still be difficult for Aboriginals to integrate in cities and find employment - so they might well feel the repurcussions of the invasion are still here)

I was shocked to realise to what extent modern native-indians and aborigines live on the originally de-marked "reservations" (i.e. **** land for the most part) To this extent, there is a continuation of the original encroachments. Again, i think Aus has been far more accomodating in rectifying this. (I'm sure Cait can put me right if there have been similar moves in the US over the last decades)

Interesting that Nebs blames all this on the "Poms". Almost sounds like the successive generations who continued the same practices aren't guilty as well [heheh, and yet i do the same thing - distance myself from the dodgy baggage that comes with Englishness by bigging-up my Aussie side]

I think all cultures sharing a country benefit from respecting each-others' differences.

Incidently, do you think the old cook getting killed represents the way "native" attempts to continue their cultural beliefs regardless - or to help the "invaders" - have ended unfavourably for them??

I wasn't blaming it all on the "poms" it was just that they were the people who colonised Australia, and lets face it they just loved to take over other countries and claim them as there own, there is no malice implied or harbored by me towards England, they were once a very powerful country and the Commonwealth was very large, so much so they still till this day have there own huge sporting event e.g. the Commonwealth Games. :cool:

It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable at all. Maybe I should have said constant repayment. We owe Aboriginal people a lot, but in the same way they cannot be expected to "keep quiet" about their past, "white Australia" cannot be expected to constantly be expressing guilt. Personally, I think the whole idea of expressing guilt on behalf of an ancestors and their demanding it on behalf of theirs is all...well...a little silly. And I know that sounds awful, but it's only because I'm one for there being no "white Australia" and no "black Australia" and just an "Australia". I'd love for us to be one group as opposed to two, which really isn't a racist notion at all. I know you didn't say I was being racist. I was just saying.

:D

I will admit to being mostly unaware that the invasion aspect of Australia's past is still striking a strong a nerve as it obviously seems to be. The major issue regarding Aboriginal people in Australia, at present, is that the current Prime Minister refuses to say sorry on behalf of "white Australia" for the "Stolen Generation" [which you can learn more about to some extent in Rabbit-Proof Fence].

Oh, we've got a bigger sporting tradition than that. The one where we get beaten at our own games by all you ex-Coms ;) [cricket, rugby...and hell, with football we just let the whole world join in ;)]

Believe me Nebs, some days i feel like i've got every bit of English baggage sitting in the closet - from massacres to cultural-repression. (I love Ghandi's response when asked what he thought of English civilisation. I believe he said "It could do with some", or something to that effect :)). Other days i think they brought back some nice souvenirs, from Asian/"oriental" (tho not many African) influences, to the kind of weird multi-culturalism you still see in places like London to this day. (and even the fact that many ex-commonwealth countries ran into extreme probs after we removed patronage suggests there's a tiny bit of truth in the "paternal" impiricism some people like to perceive i.e. doing a bit of a roman job - laying down roads and helpful social structures here and there etc) And other days i remember my nearest English relo is my Cornish great great grandfather. Oh ****, but i'm half welsh too. They were in on the deal and all.

Ah well, least we can all sit back and laugh at any current Empire-building attempts ;) We may have lost the near terminal optimism that comes with an Empire, but we get the down-to-earth sense of humour as a balance ;)

:shudder-non-smilie: now that was some English-stylee cultural-destruction-n-snobbery if ever there was some.

My suspicion, from a distance, is that there's still a dual-culture set-up going on that needs resolving in some way. A bit of meeting in the middle perhaps. We'll see.

Snobbery on my part, or on that of our ultra-conservative Prime Minister?

And that, my friend, is what I'm all about.

nother rant (kind of on topic ;))
 

On the part of those who originally took the kids, no matter how well meaning. Now worries mate, we're cool ;)

To Lord Slayt: Yeah man, i know where you're coming from on a lot of that. The Korean one i understand on their behalf too tho, coz of how they feel they've lost democratic control at home [i.e. they feel the US tells their government what to do - and they've been ripped to pieces on a farming level by the uneven Free Trade set up/cheap US food-imports etc - ironic isn't it, considering a preoposition amongst some Stateside to moan about cheap-foreign imports from "Asia" etc ;)] - this is what powers a lot of their anger/contempt [ungrateful as it is when receiving a hand-out etc etc.]

Anyway, loads of history in all the cases. The indian one i was going to defend until you said they used a modern harpoon etc. The clothes etc are fine, but it only feels justified if they're genuinely rexploring the importance behind those old actions - and some how, doing it the fully automated way makes me suspect they're not. Depending on what the rational was (and let's face it, getting food and other uses out of the carcass would have been one of the major ones ;)) you could argue that they're still justified if it all helps them reaffirm past customs [i.e. if it allows them to feel an intimate knowledge of an aspect of their environment, or to readdress an old form of thinking about the world etc]. I'd definitely like to know why they thought they were doing it.

The black-african-caribbean confusion just keeps whipping it's tail about doesn't it. That beast that we've all created - the myth of the black man. I reckon it's like Bamboozled seems to put it: we pay more attention to an idea of what "blackness" is than paying attention to the actions of the various people that get called "black". (there's gotta be a better term/word out there that sits well with everyone. Seeing as how "black" skin tones can mix from honey to ebony, maybe we should say, erm, i dunno, hebony or something. Hmm... "That heboney guy just payed for my lunch! Hey! Stop him!". Who knows :rolleyes: )

Anyways, this last one seems the most cruely intractable. I think the continental displacement has just been too much to expect people to be able to re-attach to old cultural ways which neither they nor recent generations have experienced. I think everyone needs to move further forward on this one - but how? It's no good some white guy being told he should pay up for his ancestors' actions, by some golden skinned gal who's living in the past, who's being told by a darker guy she ain't ancient enough, and he's enraged coz the white guy says all that history's done. And on and on.

And to be honest i don't know where my culture's gone either - so i understand the ghetto-isation of habits and views that can happen when races segregate and congregate alone. What current society has to offer isn't always that pretty, so you've gotta make your own. I'm just pondering now what the difference is between being white or black while adrift in Brit society (i.e. traditonal "British" values have totally mutated, so now there's no real "constant" for behaviour i wouldn't say - just lots of varied norms across society) I'm just wondering if the fact that an afro-caribbean person can fixate on their cultural heritage - and attribute it in a broader sense to everyone they see of "black" appearance - is part of what's behind the social under-acheivement? We all know the feeling of alienation/seperation means engaging is unlikely (and opportunity is still stunted in many areas - but to me too ;) - i don't know the right people either - or i wasn't born amongst them ;))...
Arggh, i really don't know.... anyway - i should probably stop b4 u stop reading.

As for the Mexican lady with lots of children - man, some people call Mother Theresa a curse of Africa now - i.e. she preached against-contraception during her time there etc. I hope no Catholics are offended by this, but i'm really no big fan of this particular pronouncement by his pontiffness. Or the Vatican withholding aid/patronage etc from those who promote it etc. If that's what's behind a lot of bouncing Mexican babies as well - well, that's annoying.
If it's just them spreading the family net wide - well, if your net's too heavy to haul in, then you can't handle it, and it can't look after you. That's to act like a fool :shrugging-smilie:

Oh wait, i haven't stopped.

Back to The Shining, wasn't most of what Cait described part of Stephen King's novel? So wouldn't that make them King's ideas that Kubrick incorporated into the film? I read the book, but it's been almost 20 years, but I seem to remember most of that Native American stuff from the novel.

I've read the book about three times, but can't remember for the life of me, whether it did or didn't.

Thanks Mark, for bringing people back to the point.

Also I am sorry if my thing about Australia day re named by my indigenous friends sparked some anger etc, it wasn't ment to.

Welfare is for all of us regardless of our background, if I am ever unemployed and penniless then I am also entitled to benefits thank god.

Sorry again. :blush:

Slay, I think you have a point in the part where you say that whites as a race don't have a responsibility towards native americans and african americans only because they're white. I believe the responsibility lies on the government.

As for the rest of the post.. I just can't find much in it that I sympathise with.

I shouldn't have posted my veiw, because it's obviously unpopular. However, just to make something clear, I am not racist. I've had friends and lovers of all different varieties and flavors. It's just that where I live, it is a huge melting pot. Oregon has a huge influx of Mexican immigrants, and me riding the train everyday, I see the same thing constantly. It just irritates me, I can't help it. I can also go on and on about things that drive me nuts about my fellow white Americans (Jerry Springer and Jenny Jones audiences, 'nuff said), so it's not race or cultural differences that bother me. It's ignorance (which I know I can be accused of) and the expectations of a few that does.

Sorry for posting off topic and expressing my tiredness.

You are entitled to your opinion even if people don't agree, I still like you, and hey we all post off topic. :D

Nope.

In many cases, Kubrick departed from the source text quite significantly. You'll notice that the film is referred to as "Stanley Kubrick's" The Shining, and not as "Stephen King's".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe King actually disowned the film version of his story. There was a mini-series in the 1990s that used his name, and it was much more faithful to the original text.

It didn't spark any anger. Just suprise, I guess.
But then, not everyone shares my opinion, which is that we should strive to be one people as opposed to two that are constantly at each other.

Are you talking about the Makah Indians? If so, they have been whalers for centuries and were guaranteed the right to continue whaling in a treaty signed by the US Government in the 1800’s in exchange for hundreds of thousands of acres of land… The Makah voluntarily stopped whaling in the early part of the 1900’s because the gray whale was endangered, thereby foregoing a tradition that has religious significance to them. When the gray whale was no longer endangered, the tribe decided to start whaling again and even though it was unnecessary, they asked for permission from the government and it was granted. From what I understand, the harpoon that was used was due to an agreement the tribe made with the International Whaling Commission as was the decision to shoot the whale once it had been harpooned to end the animal's suffering… and each member of the tribe received a portion of the whale meat… and just because the tribe has a casino in no way means it is rich… it just means it is trying to be self-sufficient and not rely on handouts from anyone…

agreed :yup:

Ditto... :yup:

I said I was ignorant, what more do you want professor? ;)

...a government which is presumably funded by the people. You can say the responsibility lies on the government, and not the majority race, but it ultimately comes to the same thing.

Is it true that Stephen King hated the movie??

Does anyone know what it was about the movie that he didn't like, I thought it was great, and that Jack was very good as the writer descending into madness.

Colleen McCullough also hated the terrible mini series they made of the "Thorn Birds" and she let everyone know, I know it isn't in the same league as "The Shinning", anyone could see why she hated it, but not sure why Stephen would not like "The Shinning" :confused:

Well, in many ways it wasn't at all loyal to his source text. Which, while I love the film myself, is a perfectly good reason for King to be displeased by it.

Mind you, we're talking about Kubrick, so surely King couldn't have been expecting something that wouldn't be profoundly marked by the man. Everything Kubrick touched just screamed out his name.

OK, i haven't read any of Stephen Kings Books. Do you remember what parts weren't true to the text? :)

The entire ending differs from the book.

The blood on the elevators also, I believe.

So what happened in the book? details, details, :yup:

Yup.

The film doesn't have any of the back story that explains Jack's life and childhood--and that gives more of a sympathetic tone to his descent into psycho-land and his relationship with Danny. But, more than that, the film removes any of the redemptive elements for Jack, which come out in the book's ending. Unlike the book--as dark and creepy as it is--Kubrick's version is just bleak and unrelenting in every way, which is part of why I dig it.

For me, one of the things that always bugged me about the movie is that I cannot see any kind of connection, emotion-wise, between Jack and Wendy. Maybe it's the lack of chemistry between Nicholson and Duval, maybe it's the complete lack of any kind of "married people" mannerisms or habits or actions, but the two of them feel like strangers, and that, too, is different from the book--in King's version, they do love each other, but their marriage is strained because of the alcoholism and Jack's hurting Danny.

But after considering all this, I finally came to the conclusion that Kubrick simply wanted it that way. A lot of marriages and families end up like that, I suppose, so we get some Stanley-commentary on the frustrations of a man who is tied to something he isn't invested in (his family) while fruitlessly pursuing something beyond his reach (writing). Once the hotel gets hold of him, there's nothing to prevent him from (or to really even think twice about) wanting to kill his family. He can get them out of the way for good, and be with his beloved hotel--something that, unlike his writing, he's good at.

Another thing: I never quite understood why Kubrick would want Duval in the movie in the first place, unless it was for her looks (that butt-ugly face always seems to have a vaguely frightened expression, and she genuinely looks terrified throughout the entire last sequence of the movie). The woman is a terrible actor--she makes me cringe every time she speaks, and of course we all know the "100-plus takes" stories. Any thoughts or knowledge 'bout this?

How about you read it?

Now don't be like that, why should I read it when someone here will know and tell me, because thats what people here are like. :D

Thanks Mary for that. :D

Well, I didn't say much in the way of details, but no problem. :) The book is excellent, though, so you should really check it out. :yup:

Most of my reading is to do with work, only read for fun on holidays, so how did it end in the book? ;D :love:

The Chinese diplomat burns down the oatmill and escapes into the snow on horseback. And after the crocodile attacks of the second-to-last chapter, oh! It's certainly a twist!

:rolleyes: you are such a spoil sport

You wanted to know how it ended!

:D

I don't think that view is unpopular at all, I just don't share it. And that is no reason for you to not post it.

Oh, I remember that mini-series... The only nightmarish about it was its crappyness. :D

I agree. But that doesn't necessarily mean that every white person is individually responsible. That would mean that I myself as a non-american but white person is responsible for the tragedy of native americans and slavery etc. etc. even though neither I nor my ancenstors have been part of it. If we looked on this matter on an individual basis we should devote our time to look up the descendants to the slave traders and make them pay - even if these descendants have never set their foot in US themselves. That would be absurd. No, the responsibility lies on the government as an institution because now as well as then they are the decisionmakers and the representatives of the american people. Actions sanctioned by the government are forever the responsibility of the government. That's how it works (or should work) in all democracies. A governmental institution doesn't disappear with the individuals running it, but the decision made by those individuals are forever until their followers change them.

I think it is a brilliant move by Kubrick to pick her. He probably picked her because she annoys the **** out of the audience, and be honest... A little part of you wants Jack to smash her skull in because of her sheep-alike appearance. I think this is one of the things why this film is so brilliant. In "ordinary" horror films, there is someone going completely mad but no one really knows why, and that is supposed to be scary as hell. In The Shining we don't exactly get an explanation to why Jack goes mad (apparantly you get this if you read the book which I haven't), but we see a few of the things that triggers the madness. And some of us can even understand the poor guy. That makes it scarier because how can you tell someone to calm the **** down if you somewhere can understand why he is going mad? Seeing and listening to that stupid cow would drive me insane any day. ;D

I've heard somewhere that Kubrick was irritated with her during the whole shooting of the film. But I think he had to talk her into doing the part in the first place so he had to suit himself, I guess. :)

Right. But haven't they done so already? The laws have been changed, of course; the United States government abolished slavery some time ago.

Slay talked about hating to feel indebted to Native Americans and African Americans because he was white. I just pointed out that if anyone was in debt, it was the government, not the white people as individuals. If the debt was settled the minute the US government abolished slavery is another question. Personally, I don't think so, but that's your own business.

I don't know if I've ever met an Aboriginal. I wanna meet one. I think that would be a cool thing to call myself - an aboriginal. Or maybe a faboriginal.

http://www.lookfilm.com.au/images/ernie.jpg

This is a Faboriginal, his name is Ernie Dingo, he was in the 2nd Crocodile Dundee movie, He is a really nice guy. :love:

I’ve been thinking about this… Shelly’s frumpy/scared look reminds me, in a way, of some of the women you see who have been living in abusive relationships… and blindly loving their abuser even though they are afraid of them… If Kubrick really was trying to make a statement about mankind, maybe he was hinting at that… and trying to show women they are stronger then they think they are…

It certainly made a lot of women want to kick the crap out of Shelly Duval.

Referring a bit to the discussion in "Women in horror"; maybe Kubrick wanted to criticize the way that conventional horror films show women by having a woman in his film that acts more like a cow than all the other women in horror film put together.

Everything I've seen with Shelley Duvall (about 4 films and one made for TV), I think, "How the hell did she ever get a part?" One would think she would never make it past the audition. Doing a quick check on IMDb, it appears Robert Altman set her up with several of her early roles.

Shelley Duvall = Blechh! :sick:

You gotta admit though, there is no one who could've played Olive the same way.

Hey you, stop reading my mind that is what I was going to say. ;D {Off to take more Zypexa} :goof:

hmmmmmmm......personal experience tells you this Nebbit...... :D

I was waiting to cross the road in Sydney, there was this handsome aboriginal guy standing next to me, he looked at me and we smiled at each other, I'm thinking is that Him and it was :love:

i don't him person ally but my best friends sister knows him and she says he is a nice guy. That's all i know :)

do you know something else?

:) .........I've only heard that he is adorable......

Yes, he is. Do you remember the name of the ABC series years ago that he Made with Cate Blanchett??? :)

Just found this thread, and I remember hearing something similar about Kubric and the hidden meanings in the film.
I'm not 100% sure if this is truth or fiction, but I would not put it past Kubric.
Just watching a poll on scariest moments on tv, The Shining topped the list.
REDRUM!!!!

About Kubrick's hidden meanings: All his movies are adapted from books, so most of the hidden meanings are probably extracted from teh general idea of the author. I hate it how Stephen King does not get credit for works of art such as ShawShank Redemption, The Green Mile, The shining, and Kujo. I understand Kubrick played the biggest role in making The Shining big, but more credit needs to go to Stephen King for his incredible writing.

Rose Red, on the other hand, blows.

I guess we'll never know for sure… but I'm inclined to believe Kubrick really was making a statement pertaining to the genocide waged against American Indians… and as far as the poll… no matter how many times I watch it, "Here's Johnny" still gives me the creeps…


If you'll go back and read the posts in this thread… particular those by The Silver Bullet, I think you'll find out that was apparently not the case here… King reportedly hated Kubrick's version…. which is why he made his own version called Stephen King's The Shining in the 1990's…

Silly people. All of The Shining's hidden themes can be seen HERE (or HERE).

LOL Holden. Funny you mention those links. Was just looking at both prior to being here.

This movie was released in 1980...why is this is the first time I am hearing anything resembling what you're talking about?

Re: The Shining -- Hidden Meanings
 

The Internet age has given rise to a whole new level of thematic analysis and--more importantly--theory sharing. Even if stuff like this existed in the past, there was never any way for it to catch on. One out of a thousand, like Pink Floyd and The Wizard of Oz, lined up well enough and got passed around enough that it became common knowledge anyway.

So I think it's a mix of technology facilitating the deep dive itself, and the fact that it can make its way around a lot more now when a particularly intriguing one comes along.

A documentary was made about all of this and more called Room 237. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2085910/

http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads...AnhvoVhTe3.jpg

If I recall correctly in watching some of this documentary, the opening shot of The Shining has a yellow VW Beetle go by a red one crushed underneath a semi. Red was the color used by King in the book, so Kubrick was essentially flipping the bird at King who he knew was unhappy with his adaptation.

The documentary seems to revolve around hidden meanings, symbolism, etc. found in Kubrick's meticulous and detailed scene staging. Which isn't to say any of the theories are true as some have claimed they aren't. Of what I watched, it could interesting, far-fetched and long-winded.