The Wendy Theory is Bad
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 06. 2024
- Kiyoshi Kurosawa's PULSE is now streaming on MUBI in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Get a whole month of great cinema FREE on MUBI: mubi.com/eyebrowcinema
Like and subscribe if you'd like to see more video essays about movies.
0:00 - Introducing
2:40 - Unpacking
8:10 - Unraveling
14:13 - Questioning
23:43 - Confronting
Support me on Patreon! Benefits include early access, exclusive vlogs, and more: / eyebrowcinema
In this video essay, I respond to "The Wendy Theory", a popular fan interpretation of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining which argues that Wendy Torrance is the true villain of the story, popularized by CZcamsr "Rob at the Movies". My goals are not only to debunk "The Wendy Theory", but also to explore film and media interpretation more broadly.
The Wendy Theory Link: • The Wendy Theory - Thi...
Filmography: letterboxd.com/pgcooper/list/...
See also:
"The Birth of a New Avant-Garde: La Caméra-Stylo." Alexandre Astruc. 1992.
"A Dialectic Approach to Film Form." Sergei Eisenstein. 1949.
Music Featured:
"No. 8 Requiem" by Esther Abrami
"Love Him" by Loyalty Freak Music
"The Plan's Working" by Cooper Cannell
"Marxist Arrow" by Twin Musicom
"The Wind" by Komiku
"Martian Cowboy" by Kevin MacLeod
"Both Flanks" by Small Colin
"Setup with an E" by Small Colin
"Measured Paces" by Kevin MacLeod
"Strange Stuff" by Matt Harris
"The Six Realms" by I Think I Can Help You
"Northern Lights" by Chris Haugen
Marxist Arrow by Twin Musicom is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Artist: www.twinmusicom.org/
Martian Cowboy by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Measured Paces by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
More Stanley Kubrick Videos:
Barry Lyndon - The Unworthy Protagonist - • Barry Lyndon - The Unw...
Hierarchies of Violence in The Shining - • Hierarchies of Violenc...
Stanley Kubrick's Favourite Actors - • Stanley Kubrick's Favo...
The Shining Dissolves - • The Shining Dissolves
More Eyebrow Cinema:
The Death of Michael Corleone - How I Learned to Love The Godfather Part III? - • The Death of Michael C...
The Last Picture Show and the Legacy of BBS - • The Last Picture Show ...
This Might Be My Masterpiece - Inglourious Basterds and Lady in the Water - • This Might Be My Maste...
The Film Bro is Dead - • The Film Bro is Dead
Villains Reformed in Batman: The Animated Series - • Villains Reformed in B...
Listening to Blade Runner's Terrible Voiceover - • Listening to Blade Run...
No, Superhero Movies are Not Like Westerns - • No, Superhero Movies a...
Dark Souls Difficulty and the Easy Mode Debate - • Dark Souls Difficulty ...
The Fly - The First Horror Movie I Loved - • The Fly - The First Ho...
Dune, Star Wars and Building Sci-Fi Worlds - • Dune, Star Wars and Bu...
On Her Majesty's Secret Service and The End of James Bond - • On Her Majesty's Secre...
Long Movies are Good, Actually - • Long Movies are Good, ...
Harry Potter - 10 Years Later - • Harry Potter - 10 Yea...
Never Say Never Again is a Waste - • Never Say Never Again ...
Being John Malkovich and the Office Movies of 1999 - • Being John Malkovich a...
The Plot Holes of Vertigo (and why they don't matter) - • The Plot Holes of Vert...
Learning to Love Batman v. Superman - • Learning to Love Batma...
The Decay of Cinema - • The Decay of Cinema
Sleepless in Seattle - Crying at Action Movies - • Sleepless in Seattle -...
Star Wars Can't Move On - • Star Wars Can't Move On
Contextualizing Insomnia - Nolan's Secret Gem - • Contextualizing Insomn...
Movie Theaters and the Value of Inconvenience - • Movie Theaters and the...
Action and Pacifism in Castle in the Sky - • Action and Pacifism in...
The idea that Jack is covered in too much snow for a single night is HILARIOUS. This is a guy who never had to dig his car out in the winter.
That's what I was thinking, I've seen 2 feet of snow appear overnight and I've been on an walk for just an hour in heavy snowfall and come back looking like that... (Definitely exactly like that lol.)
Exactly, and the story supposedly takes place in the Colorado mountains. You can get two feet of snow overnight easy.
if anything, it's suspicious we can even see him given the circumstances. the fact he died in a way that prevented him from being completely buried by snow is miraculous.
@@Pihsrosnec Yeah I was thinking there are stories I've heard of people disappearing in snow storms their bodies only turning up after it's all thawed... And even live sheep needing to be dug out of snow. Not still dead ones, actual living, relatively warm sheep can get trapped in a downpour of snow and disappear under it! In Scotland anyway.
I lived in Colorado and I can attest that when it snows out there, it is like NOWHERE else I have ever been.
After a day of skiing at "Winter Park," I was at my car in the lot. The snowflakes coming down each were the size of four (4) cornflakes stuck together. I opened the hatch of my Mazda RX7 and before I could place my equipment inside, the entire deck of my hatch was covered in snow. So, if "Jack" was sitting out in a Colorado mountain snow for any length of time at all, I would expect him to be buried! 😮
If I had a nickel for every time someone came up with a theory that boils down to “It was all in their head!” Or “It was all just a dream!” I’d have enough money to fund a film production.
Of a movie where it was all in their head hopefully
@@Ln6Ec lol
I hate those "theories". They're so vapid and lazy and can apply to literally anything. They're not falsifiable.
But the Protagonist Has Amnesia, or Protagonist Is Imagining It, or Dreams Of A Dying Man tropes are well worn for a reason. It's not a twist any more so whatever but it's a core idea of mystery.
The reason I really dislike these kinds of theories is because they’re not only lazy, but add nothing. “Ash from Pokémon is in a coma and that’s why he doesn’t age!”, “Harry potter hallucinated hogwarts as a way to cope!” okay, what does this add to the plot? Does this do anything other than edgiefy a narrative or add chock value where it’s not needed? It’s the same with this theory. It adds nothing other than a quick “Actually, they were evil and hallucinating!”. Cool, does this change anything? Does it add to the themes? Is there anything to it?
It kinda sucks that these types of theories are so popular because they never add anything or speculate over something that makes sense or could add interesting thoughts that align with the media in question
The Wendy Theory reminds me of when you get into an argument and the only comeback they have is that you’re “being crazy”
That's called "gaslighting", named after a movie, Gaslight. Really good one if you're into psychological thrillers or just films about con artists.
Actually that never happened, you are just crazy
That never happens, you're being crazy
@@orangegradient4309 yeah she is being extremely delusional, must be the stress from her insomnia, cause everyone but her knows it **didn't** happen...
@@KasumiRINA btw its gaslamping, not gaslighting, judging by the name, being a foreigner its an understandable mistake.
Wendy reading Catcher In The Rye = indicative of psychopathic behavior and unstable grasp on reality
Jack chasing his family with an axe = symbolic of Wendy's psychopathic behavior and unstable grasp on reality
I think it just means Wendy has a bad taste in books
reading catcher in the rye makes her unstable? good lord. silly theory@@averagemordhauplayer4821
@@averagemordhauplayer4821 or that she's just reading placeholder "school curriculum stuff from the nearest shelf".
OMG WENDY IS GONNA KILL JOHN LENNON
Does me reading American Psycho indicate anything malicious or nefarious about my character or am I simply just reading a book?
Damn I can't believe Wendy hallucinated Kubrick's entire filmography
I can’t believe Kubrick orchestrated John Lennon’s murder to retroactively plant a clue to interpret his movie differently
@@huckthatdish it's funny how she's reading catcher n the rye, when this movie came out John was still alive. Also Regan's assassin & Lennon's assassin both had this book in their possession when arrested after this movie was released. How could Kubrick foreshadow this?
Actually, it's all part of the Tommyverse.
We all exist in Wendy’s mind. Ain’t it grand.
they all take place in a snowglobe
Stanley Kubrick said himself that he purposely kept changing the look of the hotel to make it feel more vivid and dream-like. He purposely make any structure maze like that’s why he made the hedge maze larger in the movie than described in the book.
There is no hedge maze in the book. The book has hedges trimmed in the shape of animals.
i always found it curious that the model replica of the maze in the hotel is larger and more intricate than the 'actual' one depicted outside. not sure if this was also supposed to impart an unreality into everything, or just emphasize an extreme intricacy, like the maze of the mind, but i always appreciate that touch
Sure. I accept this. But Wendy is still innocent
@@ursidae97I’m pretty sure the comment is explaining that the inconsistency is not proof of Wendy being abusive but instead is to create an unnerving atmosphere
@@clumsydad7158 Is that not just the film telling us that's how big the maze is, without the need to actually create a maze that size?
I'm not sure which made me laugh more -- the idea that that's too much snow for one night in the Colorado Rockies, or the idea that there can't possibly be any supernatural events in a Stephen King novel.
i like your comment, cause its the only one which doesn't immediately bash the narrator on a personal level, and is also the only comment which isn't unironically partaking in misandry. :) You made my night.
It’s literally called The Shinning 😆 The book is named after the supernatural power.
@@AllTheOthersgod yeah its so fucking weird seeing so many comments here about bashing the narrator himself. like, why are you here? lol
There was a supernatural influence in Cujo, for crying out loud. You wouldn't think this was needed, but there it is, in the original text.
Checked for this comment immediately, lmao, I've had to clear off multiple times more snow off my car after a half shift, much more from an entire night!
What I don't understand the most about the Wendy theory is why they'd focus on it "not being supernatural at all, actually" when Stephen King is most well known for supernatural horror and is like...pretty much all of what he writes 😭
Because these kinds of theories are.made by people who think being "realistic" is the height of intellectual thought and that pointing put this fictional story has fiction is it makes them super special and smart.
To be fair Stephen king said he doesn't like the movie and that it was very different from his vision
yeah the film WAS very different than the book, so I can see why King didn't love the adaptation. But he didn't hate the adaptation because of the supernatural elements. In fact, there was MORE supernatural elements in his story than in the film.
@@Jacoboy27 I think he's later said that after the massive failure of book-accurate made for TV mini series that he appreciates the movie and kinda likes it now.
It's to the cast & crew's credit that this atmospheric, disturbing film is a lightning rod for interpretation, analysis & conspiracy theorists seeking evidence after all these years.
The irony that this movie is all about how Wendy is abused and gaslit, when the actress who played Wendy was abused and gaslit on set so her ‘acting terrified’ would be more genuine.
“woman bad man good” theory 🌬️
@Chandller Burse In Kabbalah, the Hebrew letter Shin (שׁ) holds significant symbolism and meaning. It is one of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, each representing a divine force or spiritual principle. The letter Shin is associated with several concepts and interpretations in Kabbalistic teachings:
Divine Fire: Shin is often associated with the element of fire, representing the divine flame that connects to the spiritual realm. It symbolizes the transformative and purifying power of fire, which can consume and refine.
Divine Name: In Kabbalah, Shin is connected to the divine name "Shaddai," which signifies the Almighty or the All-Sufficient. It represents God's expansive and limitless nature, encompassing all aspects of creation.
Three Pillars: The shape of the letter Shin resembles three flames or branches converging at the top. These three branches represent the three pillars of the Tree of Life: the Pillar of Mercy (right), the Pillar of Severity (left), and the Pillar of Balance (center). It signifies the harmonious integration of these pillars in the divine and human realms.
Shema: The Shema is a central prayer in Judaism, and the letter Shin holds a prominent place in it. The Shema begins with the words "Shema Yisrael," and the letter Shin is enlarged and emphasized in the first word. This represents the unity of God and serves as a reminder of our connection to the divine.
Spiritual Transformation: Shin is associated with spiritual growth and transformation. It represents the journey of the soul from a state of limitation and separation to one of unity and enlightenment. It signifies the path of elevating consciousness and transcending the mundane aspects of existence.
The letter Shin, with its multifaceted symbolism, carries deep spiritual significance in Kabbalistic thought. It represents the divine presence, transformative power, and the potential for spiritual growth and connection with the divine. THE SHIN INING =)
@@MrJohnDocHollidaythis has completely changed how I now Shin-Gojira. Well... Slightly
@@ursidae97 im glad you now understand the true wisdom of SHIN
And the irony is that people are still blindly defending Kubrick's original plot as political correct. There's no way he would create a subplot where Wendy would be crazy. Kubrick wouldn't do it. Those are just continuity errors. You are all misogynistic. Lmao.
The theory that Wendy abused Danny is bunk. The reason Jack was unemployed is that he also abused a student and got fired, in lieu of being arrested
False. That was the book.
@@jbo4547and? A film is based on a book isn't it
@@anisaafsar4528 key phrase "based on"....... every single movie ever made that was based on a book takes liberties with the story itself, character traits/backrounds, certain themes, vibes, etc.
@@jbo4547 I understand that and although the film is it's own version the original story was from Stephen King and I don't think the movie has as much backround story or theory compared to his writing. I believe he's actually said himself he wasn't happy with the end product of the shining because of how the movie portrayed the main character. The book gave him a lot more detail in terms of his character arc and the bonds between good and evil
@@anisaafsar4528 Not to counter act your point, because it's a good point and i like it, but im pretty sure he's come around to it now. Just thought i'd say that, but anyways, yes i agree, the book is more canon. Just cause we dont see harry potter mention he wanted to be an auror when McGonagle asks him what he wants for a job in the movies, that doesnt stop McGonagle from commenting about it in the movies. She just mentions how his behavior/lack of studying is questionable since he said he wanted to be an auror, but we never see him say that. its only in the books
it’s so funny to me to hear that “breaks in continuity are Wendy hallucinations” when from the film itself it’s pretty obvious breaks in continuity exist to place the audience in a subliminal state of unease.
"But Kubrik was a insanelly perfectionist guy"
Yeah, that's why his works have so much continuity errors. When you're so perfectionist with the main parts (light, lines, etc.) you tend to dont care that a fucking chair was moved between two perfect cuts.
SPECIALLY SO in a movie where you can blame a poltergheist for moving the chair
@@albertonishiyama1980I don’t think his movies had any more or less continuity errors than any other film of similar scope. You’ll find plenty of entries in the Goofs section of IMDB for tons of films. I think it’s just unavoidable.
@@albertonishiyama1980 Umineko mentioned
Something that always struck me was how, when wendy interrupted jack’s writing to check on him, he SCREAMED at her, blaming her for not being able to work. And later in the film, wendy finds that jack hasn’t been working this whole time, just typing nonsense on his typewriter. Jack hates himself SO MUCH and he scapegoats all that onto his wife and child, unable to bear the weight that the problems in his life may be his fault.
As a woman, I’ve BEEN on wendy’s end in that screaming scene. As a little girl, I’ve SEEN my own father scream at my mother that way. The scene was so real to me that I didn’t know it could be interpreted any other way. So to think that was the scene that “inspired” the wendy theory…
I'm sorry to hear that, but I also believe you must hate the fragile position in which Stephen King forced Wendy into. As an exercise of abuse, then the movie for me is just unbearable. She is just a cardboard target for Jack's rude and over-the-top hate/sarcasm. It's clownish even. I much rather see a movie where the female character, even if flawed, at least is a driving force in its own destiny. Scarring the victimization cycle into a caricature has solved nothing. And to think that Kubrick *actually* abused Shelley Duvall onset to "draw" her panic and emotional pain, then, jesus, how can anyone still try to protect a sort of virtuous plot perspective on this director. Read what Tarantino said about him: an hypocrite that pretended to be against violence while actually glamourizing it to its full extent in perfect cinematic exercises as displays of power (Shining, Clockwork, Lolita).
@@vitoryugojsmThis is the only Kubrick movie I’ve ever seen. I don’t really know much about him. But also, movies are a huge collaborative effort. Lots of people work on them, so there are other things to appreciate than just the direction.
I never said the movie was empowering or valuable in solving the abuse cycle. I just said that the scene with the typewriter really scared me because it was so real to me. Which to me holds some value, both as effective horror and also as a means of self reflection (ie being able to experience traumatic emotions in a safe environment where I can simply turn the tv off).
Movies aren’t necessarily made to be tools to solve society’s problems. Sometimes a scary movie is made to be scary. I think you’re right to discuss it (and to be outraged at what was done to Shelley Duvall), but please understand that my experience with the movie and your experience aren’t going to be the same because we might be seeking different things. I didn’t go into the movie expecting to be given a lecture on how to break society’s cycle of abuse; I just wanted to experience how the movie felt.
@@NutyRiver I respect your view, and specifically understand the point where a movie can replicate some suffering in an encapsulated environment, serving as a catharsis to the audience. I believe it is even the original idea behind the foundation of the Greek dramatic arts. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Kubrick wasn't carrying these topics throughout his filmography as mere cleansing exercises. I agree with what Tarantino says about him, there was hypocrisy there.
@@vitoryugojsm fair enough. Again, I don’t really know anything about Kubrick, so I can’t claim to know what he thought. But in a world where abuse like this has spotted my life, I want to make my own choice to live without fear of my own shadow. As Shelley was abused, and Kubrick supposedly an abuser, it makes her performance meaningful to me. And that’s something I want to appreciate. Kubrick nailed directing an abuser, and Shelley nailed acting as an abused.
Thanks for considering my view, btw. No need to agree, but I appreciate that you took the time to read and consider.
Duvall does an amazing job of portraying this stress, and she carries it for the whole movie. To see her as anything less than a captive of a madman is to truly "overlook" what is going on.
If you watch a movie where a father abuses his son and wife and every scene serves to portray his descent into madness, and your first response is to say "nuh uh it's the woman who is wrong", there's something going on...
edit: I don't know how many comments I've gotten calling me an abuse apologist. Let me get things straight
"do you think women can be abusers?" - yea
"do you hate men?" - sometimes
"you must think that in this other case where a female abuser abused someone the man was in the wrong" - no I don't
"do you think think this theory is mysoginist" - yes
"do you think I am a mysoginist" - no probably not
yes, women can be abusers. But not in the shining, a movie about a male abuser. Blaming the victim as a conspiratorial mastermind is a textbook abuse tactic, please leave me alone. If I could mute this comment I would.
False.
I watched this for the first time like a week ago with my sisters and i had no idea where it was going but like 10 mins in I was like "gang ... i think we're watching the story of abuse but with ghosts" anyway if anyone tries to tell me Wendy was the victim, i'm going to be very scared for them
@@erika-paigehutch3930 scared for them? Thats odd. If you listen to/watch watch the thoery without the nerd in this video getting butthurt about it, its very interesting. What's wrong with speculation or what if's based on inaccuracies and things in the film?. Nothing
@@jbo4547 idk maybe jts a personal thing, minus the actively trying to kill his family part I related to having a father like the one in this movie and it worries me people would think of Wendy as someone other than the victim because I have seen stuff like that happen first hand and also I very much hate when people try to rewrite stuff like this film to say the victim was the villain, you can believe what you want but I don't thibk anything is going to make me believe Wendy is the villain
@@jbo4547because the text doesn't support it. The premise is essentially "what if the story we saw was different?" and then reinterpreting scenes to fit whichever way you want the story to actually be. If your choice theory about a movie requires you to deny the things presented on screen as real, while conjecturing other evidence must have happened off screen because that would make your theory make sense, you are no longer theorizing interpretations of a given text, you're writing fanfiction.
"Tell me you hate women without telling me you hate women" This theory
More like "Tell me you hate woman, while still leaving yourself room to get layed." 🤣🤣🤣
Basically
Can you please explain why it Hayes woman, sorry I'm slow
@doodoopants thank you
"The Wendy Theory" is correct. This channel is just angry cause Kubrick trolled him and your peabrains can't grasp it. 😆
The only Wendy theory I follow is that she is actually a feminist icon and a strong female character, contrary to popular belief. She's the one down doing all the work while Jack is lazing about and complaining, she listens to and cares for Danny while also still trying to help Jack, and eventually she rebels against his abuse to save her son and herself. I never understood why people always called her a weak female character just because she cried and screamed a lot or was constantly confused. She was in a terrifying AND confusing situation, trying to make the best of things and care for others. As I always believe: fear doesn't make you a coward, inaction does. And she is constantly doing stuff to either help or protect the others.
She’s basically the hero of the story, even if Jack is the main character for most of it.
I watched The Shining again last night and every time I watch it I like Wendy more and more. Agree with your reflections. She was the one strong enough and with it enough to get her and Danny away in the end (albeit with some cunning trickery from Danny too). I find this Wendy theory to be ludicrous on its face.
Men want strong female characters to be physically strong, macho, 'masculine' women. Not that that archetype is bad, but they refuse to see the emotional strength present in characters like Wendy which allow her to conquer seemingly insurmountable odds.
I agree wholeheartedly, even though I still think Kubrick did Wendy dirty. She's kinda badass in the novel.
@@wachyfanning Men are far more likely to resonate with an emotionally strong female character than a physically strong one. Your argument comes across to me as expressing such a negative and inaccurate view of men as to be misandrist. Though, I admit that it's true that we men at times really enjoy a physically strong female character as well, if written well, or at least, in an entertaining way (for an example of the latter, I like Mr and Mrs Smith).
Also the Wendy Theory being “the most plausible thing bc there’s no supernatural events” is a wild take for a “more likely meaning” for a film adaptation of a supernatural horror novel
especially when you take into consideration that the shining was written by Stephen King ... an author famous for supernatural horror
Some people seem to be so against the existence of the supernatural, that it can’t even exist in media form. They try to “logically” explain things away in the most incoherent way possible. “It’s more logical than ghosts!” No. It’s not. As my roommate and I like to say, “sometimes, it’s just a fucking ghost. 🤷🏻♀️”
This guy has never read the book
@@augustbrown9711 this is the logical explanation (they are crazy)
Aside from the whole "twisting the story to make an abusive husband look like the real victim" issue, my biggest problem with the Wendy theory is that it very clearly starts with a conclusion and works backwards. Navarro obviously didn't look at the evidence and use it to conclude that Wendy is crazy, he decided that Wendy was crazy and then went looking for things that could be used as supporting evidence.
And I don't need to explain why that's fallacious on its face. If you go into any piece of media looking for evidence that supports your beliefs, you're going to find it, even if it's not actually there.
You are obviously projecting artificial intentions and then condemning someone for it. I could very well state the equivalent: you want the Wendy Theory to be wrong so you went looking for a video on youtube that accuses him. In the end, no one cares, only people that were satisfied with The Shining being Kubrick's easiest film are triggered that an extra layer can be reasonably sketched, one that was quite above their heads all this time. And I absolutely love the fact that this "debunking" video does not consider for a second that Kubrick, the same dude that abused Shelley onset over and over again, could have a subplot where she would be crazy.
There’s no issue with their theory. No need to cry. I don’t think the theory holds any weight by the way.
Yes, confirmation bias has ruined do much of the theorist community
"muh problematic theory" you realise these aren't real people? that you're trying to accuse him of being malicious towards a fictional character?
@@ccshumshum8104TIL ideas cannot be problematic. Only actions taken against real people can be problematic
..... For some reason
Another thing to note, mental illness is not indicative of a bad person. Dealing with things like psychosis and schizophrenia does not make you an abuser. People suffering with mental illness are more likely to experience abuse than to cause it.
It's funny how neurotypical people spend so much time demonizing mentally ill people when mentally ill people experience more violence from them than the reverse. Extremely telling that they demonize mentally ill people as ENTERTAINMENT by manufacturing stereotypes, but somehow this is not a form of paranoia. Sheesh.
God thank you. I'm so sick of mental illness being used as an excuse for abuse rather than the person just being a bad person. I have schizoaffective disorder which is a combination of schizophrenia and a mood disorder, bipolar in my case, along with chronic depression, and you know how much abuse I've done? None. Know how much I've been abused? A lot more than none
I mean you say that but it isn't the mentally healthy pushing people in front of subways or stabbing old asian people in NYC or anything, it's all unmedicated schizos who should have been put in an asylum years ago
@@crunchbuttsteak8741 Source?
yes! this theory seems both ableist in that sense and also misogynistic. it annoys me to no end.
The part talking about how jack's body is found with "more snow than could have fallen in one night" {a light dusting, in the mountains} is so beyond ridiculous
yeah the person behind this nutty theory seems to have never been outside of his parents basement.
Looks like a hour of light snow fall lmao
The Wendy Theory is really giving game theory "Mario is schizophrenic" lmao. Great dissection, thanks for covering it.
Omg I rember that theory
To be fair, the Mario sociopath theory has a lot more plausibility and direct evidence than Wendy theory XD
i LOVE well explained schizo theories... yknow, for fun! that being said, the claim that it "explains everything" is grandiose and that's a bit harsh. if it was presented as "hey, here's a thought" i think it'd be better accepted. i still like wendy theory tbh, but don't believe it "explains everything", much less was the intended interpretarion by either king or kubrick lol
@@LithiumPsychosis very reasonable. I don’t very much like it. It’s fun to play around with thoughts and create alternate narratives but it just doesn’t do it for me, however that doesn’t discount other’s theories they find fun, wether they believe the theory or just enjoy it.
She was actually 3 meerkat stood on eachothers shoulders wearing a dress and pretending to be people the whole time. She tried to kill her family because they got too close to her shameful secret.
The Shining was actually about a family of penguins. Any evidence to the contrary is actually a hallucination, as demonstrated by the lack of penguins in the film.
The real truth leftists don't want you to know
the whole thing was Beast from Beauty and the Beast hallucinating in his isolation from the world. as evidenced by the fact that Wendy reads books and Beast has a library.
This is the worst attempt at humour that I've ever seen.
@@whenwasthat big chungus
I know this is unintentional, but this is pretty much “gaslight: the theory”
Wendy: My husband is insane and hurt me and my son
Theory: No, that never happened - you’re wrong. It’s all in your head.
An extremely thinned vail of sexism is in the theory too.
@@Yourgurtisgood EXACTLY! “WOman nEvER riGHT!! Poor mAn whOd deAls witTh cRazy WomaN….. SNIFF SNIFF”
That is exactly what I thought when I watched the guy's Wendy theory video. This man was tripping all over himself to make Wendy the villain because 1) she's a woman and 2) I like Jack, he's a great guy, not an abusive husband or father, so it can't be him.
pretty sure its intentional
Sounds like the plot to Alice: Madness Returns.
I know the movie is very loosely related to the actual book but the book itself was written because King feared of himself becoming somebody like Jack since he felt at the time that maybe he was spending too much time writing in what he was passionate rather than being a good parental figure. That's probably the reason why so many people love this story: the horror is finding that you yourself may be the true monster that is ruining those around you rather than an unexplained force that we need to use loose theories in order to explain
If you want to know which character represents a side of the author...
_It's all of them._
The "Wendy Theory" is necessarily based on a conclusion that Kubrick either didn't know that this is where King was coming from, or didn't care and deliberately undermined it because... unexplained Genius Reasons? ...and also that Kubrick's "perfectionist and therefore non-supernatural movie about a totally innocent man abused by little Wendy" supposedly meticulously supports this re-interpretation of King's characterization and themes, citing the disagreement between King and Kubrick as supposed evidence that Kubrick diverges from King's fears of becoming his own drunk, abusive father.
It's hard to watch 'The Shining' and not conclude that Kubrick was with King at least as far as the movie, like the novel, being about Jack falling into the trap of following in his father's violent, alcoholic footsteps... conversations between Jack and his "ghosts" pretty much spell this out as explicitly as Kubrick could possibly get: Jack was haunted by his past, and doomed to become his own father, in a vicious generational cycle of abuse!
The "Wendy Theory" just pretty much chooses to ignore this in its pursuit of trying to blame all of Jack's obvious problems on Wendy, in spite of the fact that Wendy was pretty obviously being depicted as having her own fair share of problems in the dysfunctional family dynamic, by meekly and passively living in denial of her husband's problems, and excusing and even enabling them until she finds herself and her son trapped with her husband's escalating depression, violence and break with reality in a position where they are beyond outside help or escape from disaster, while Jack... I guess has no problems at all in this theory, and is just an innocent victim of that evil shrew, or something?
This theory really personifies the phrase "when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail"
Time for my wild theory to shine: The Wendy Theory was created by Jack.
My theory is that The shinning is all in the head of a writer called Steven King and we're watching a cinematic representation of it
@@dr.anderson1847 The shinning is actually from the heads of 'The Simpsons' writers.
@@dr.anderson1847 That's a pretty good theory. I have one of my own. I believe that the moving representation you were referring to was actually a movie directed by this guy called Stanley Kubrick.
Still, it's only a theory. We may never learn the truth- except that Wendy was definitely not the abusive one in either version.
That would be stupid and illogical.
Ooooooo! Point for you.
@@dr.anderson1847 Shhh do you want to get sued!?!?
The Wendy theory was definitely made up by someone who didn’t read the book. Jack wasn’t just violent towards Danny the one night he was drunk, he also attacked and beat a student that slashed his tires which led to him getting suspended. Thus beginning his search for a job.
The book is irrelevant
@@jbo4547 my guy, it's the source material for the movie.
@@DeeDeedoestuff and the movie is just like the book? No. Just like Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, A Series of Unfortunate Events, even other King stuff like Misery, the written books were guidelines and inspirations. The filmed movies are different and not the same. Just because a character has a certain motivation in the book does NOT mean its the same for the movie. And thats goes for anything else
@@jbo4547 myeh myeh myeh
@@jbo4547 get off reddit kid. this is real media analysis. there are multiple approaches. what you're describing is death of the author, which some people take as a 100% guarantee. but no, death of the author is only one way of looking at a piece. it's opposite would be word of God, taking everything from the author as 100% true and canon.
true media analysis and critique lies somewhere in the middle, taking into account the authors intentions but not letting that tell you how the piece makes you feel.
Watches a movie where a wife and son scream and flee in terror as their madman husband chases them around with an axe: "Yeah that wife kinda evil ngl".
Bro Kubrick had more reason than any other director to have continuity errors because of the ungodly amount of takes he made all his actors do for any one scene.
THAT was the form that Kubrick's famous "perfectionism" took - in putting the cast through dozens of takes to get their performances "just right", far more so than getting continuity and background details just "perfect"!
Because, in the end, THAT was what was really important to Kubrick: getting the "perfect" performances from the human element, not getting the carpet patterns just "perfect" for the reassurance of obsessive fans to follow like an objective reality!
These "conspiracy theories" take on an especially bizarre aspect when one really notices that fact: it's kind of insane and funny to imagine Kubrick raving "yeah, I don't care about things like characterization, symbolism, atmosphere, mood, theme, foreshadowing and other storytelling techniques, because damn it, I'm making a naturalistic, realistic documentary about that chair in the background, and that chair has gotta be JUST RIGHT or nobody will understand that the moon landing is a feminist lie!"
i’m sooo glad this creator pointed out the clear anti-woman / abuser defending undertones of this theory. they make a whole movie abt an abusive man who eventually tries to murder his wife and child and they say “no it was his crazy wife hallucinating and trying to pin it on him”
Can I just say, you're the first comment in this comment section that I've seen that pointed this fact out, and didn't have a massive argument start underneath your comment. Seeing this comment was very relieving lol
Edit: well, they were bound to dig deep enough eventually! They’re nothing if not stubborn! Almost impressive in a way
That's what I thought
Uhh, what does this have to do with her being a woman? Leave it to the left-leaning kino connoisseurs to turn everything into an intersectional feverdream. It's like you guys seriously think the possibility of wendy being in the wrong (not that she actually is) means you don't support abuse victims in real life? It's just strange....
Im soo glad you shared your opinion with us because we all care soooo much
@@IPITYTHEFOOLZif you really don't care, why comment?
To me it's especially weird that she is presumed to be some sort of point of view character, even in scenes she's not in. How is Wendy the point-of-view character when Jack is alone in the bar? I never assumed her to be the main character let alone the point of view character.
That would be my question too. Jack has PoV, most frequently, especially with ghosts. Even if you want to go with a theory where there is no supernatural, just hallucinations, Jack would be more likely to be hallucinating or having a breakdown since that is actually shown in the film, where nothing from the Wendy theory is shown.
The Wendy theory seems more like someone trying to come up with the most out there theory possible, and then finding a couple things that could support the idea if you squint hard enough and ignore everything else on the movie. It's like people on tiktok who say deliberately dumb or provocative things to get attention.
@@kira5505I have not watched Navarro's original video, but I think the explanation for those situations is that Wendy made them up to account for killing Jack.
Yes, the premise of the theory is that everything we see on screen is either a) a hallucination from Wendy, b) a very detailed depiction of a lie Wendy told someone off screen.
People who believe that surely don't suffer from cramps, with all that reaching they do.
ikr? dont you have to be present to hallucinate something? is she just standing in a room staring at a wall imaging this halfway across the hotel?? and if she is hallucinating these things happening, how does she never react to those things? if shes imagining that jack is planning to kill her with an axe, how does she.. not anticipate... jack coming ot kill her with an axe? why doesnt she try and escape before hand? im so confused
@@kira5505 I know the conclusion is warped, but the approach is valid. Why would Wendy not be just as vulnerable to the loneliness and isolation, as Jack is? Mind you, she has Danny for company. In fact, for the first half hour of the filmwe see them as a perfectly happy family. It is only when Jack leaves that circle, in order to focus on his responsibilities, that he starts to crack.
And, in reality, Jack should never have done that. He admitted himself that he had no good ideas to write.
@happinesstan Oh, I totally agree that she would be vulnerable to loneliness and isolation- but the film itself just doesn't give evidence of her being violent or being the primary focus or PoV character in the film both of which would be needed to support the theory. Jack experiences the main activity of the hotel (or the majority of hallucinations) without her being there.
You could make that film, but it isn't the film that was made.
It would be a really interesting idea to make a horror movie where the continuity errors are actually canon to it and is key to solving the story and adding to the horror.
_Run with it!_
Don’t even make it a horror film, you could even make it a normal investigative crime movie.
And every”continuity error” would just be something the murderer changed, while the camera wasn’t on him, because it would incriminate him.
Hate to break it to you, but that's the movie Jigsaw. The continuity errors and gaps in logic are sgins that SPOILER it's happening in two separate timelines.
There have been a few movies of the sort - can't think of the titles off the top of my head, but it's certainly been done bef... wait, I CAN think of a pretty well-known example or two: try "The Others" (2001) and "The Sixth Sense" (1999) - sorry for the spoilers, but yeah, the little details in these movies that don't really add up become important by the end of both movies, changing the story entirely when the plot twists kick in!
And with that in mind, you're quite right: it IS an interesting idea, and when pulled off successfully it makes for a pretty satisfying and entertaining gothic horror story!
King: [makes a story about a man who goes insane because of a haunted hotel]
Some guy on the internet: nah it’s clearly Wendy who’s insane
Wait, so according to Rob, Wendy going insane is more plausible than Jack going insane?
you think a manic skitzo episode is less likely than a HAUNTING of a HOTEL that ENTERS YOUR MIND AND BODY? lmaoo. MSBP is a real thing...Haunted Hotels arent.
@@TheRealDarrylStrawberry did I mention a haunted hotel
@@angrybidoof847 Jack didnt "go insane" the hotel is HAUNTED...what movie did you watch? the hotel brings out the evil in people. Thats the BASE plot. The entire Torrance family are victims of the hotel. Rob is saying A LOT MORE than "jack going insane". No you didnt say "hotel" but you said "insane" which defeats the whole purpose on theorizing what this movie is really about. Jack Dull Boy is not the baseline.
@@TheRealDarrylStrawberry
The context
Rob said that Wendy going insane is more plausible than jack going insane.
That is, if you wanted to ignore the ghost plot, viewing the film though Jack's eyes, the character we've all ready been shown to not be the most mentally stable, as him having some kind of breakdown is less likely than Wendy having a break down.
The whole things moot anyway as we do know that in universe ghosts do in fact exist, and the reason they latched on to Jack so quickly was because his mental health wasn't in the best place to begin with.
Steven King explicitly stated it was ghost and explored it in greater detail in the sequel, Doctor sleep.
men are sane and rational 100% the time and never ever do anything to hurt their families ever. Women be crazy. /sarcastic
But honestly, with the history of women being labeled 'hysterical' or 'crazy' for asinine things, it's kind of baked into our society that women are more likely to be insane than men because they're 'more emotional' or whatever. Add to that the rhetoric that victims are lying for attention or they just imagined the abuse and you've got some victorian era, diagnosis of hysteria, misogyny on your hands.
I like how the Wendy theory tries to say Wendy is hallucinating all these scenes, even when she isn't in them! She is never made to be the narrator or storyteller, so how would her mental state effect the story's narrative?
Not only is she not in them and not the storyteller. But she has no way of knowing about many of them on top of that.
Dang, maybe Wendy had a Shining power and is omnipotent and omnipresence. /j
The explanation in the Wendy theory is that those scenes are what she believes Jack was doing when he wasn't around her. If you go into this movie following the Wendy theory it really just makes it into a new movie with a different story. Its an interesting way of having two different experiences with the same movie. I say watch the full video explaining the Wendy theory and watch the shining right afterwards you will be watching a different movie then before you watched the Wendy theory
@@darinfullmer8367 or constantly pointing out how the Wendy theory doesn't really apply...
It just seems the Wendy theory is a theory gaslighting her..... ironically when in movie Jack's constantly gaslighting her.
Now thats Metta.
It is shockingly common for abusers to spin a narrative of their victims being the real perpetrators and everyone believing them. Please, everyone read "Why is he doing that" by Lundy Bancroft.
there is a DISTRESSING amount of people in this comment section with that mindset trying to defend the wendy theory
@@murciadoxial8056 1 in 30?
Watch the end of Ryan and Tatum Part 5 and 6. Tatum accuses her dad of felonies against her child self. Ryan appears completely baffled and leaves the restaurant in anger. Tatum cries a lot, and they both go to therapists. Who to believe? The comments section is almost all with Tatum.
@@murciadoxial8056 This is a theory about a movie, not a real life scenario. It's ok to think differently, what is not ok is to label people as abusers or abuse sympathisers just because they don't agree with your interpretation of a movie.
@@f.th.4299 the fervor you people display when defending this theory makes it pretty explicit
You see how many books they own together? Wendy must like to fantasize!
They’re Jack’s books too and HE’S LITERALLY A WRITER 😵💫
These are such silly arguments😂
One thing I take quite a bit of issue with is that The Shining is a story showing a bad man being driven to hurt his family once more. To turn it from "Jack is a terrible husband and father who tries to murder his family" to "Wendy is schizophrenic and is the real abuser" is such an insult to people who've been abused.
Imaging taking a fan theory made purely for contemplation to being a personal attack on said people.
This is stupid and you should feel bad.
(like wendy's actor herself, During the film's production itself, but people don't like when you bring that up)
It's not an insult to me... you can't speak for all who have been abused.
@@DemstarAus neither can you
That was... the point they made.
The Wendy Theory puts a bad taste in my mouth. It reminds me of how abusers will gaslight their victims into thinking they’re the abuser- or how other people outside of the situation blame the victim for being mentally ill. As an abuse victim, I related a lot to Wendy and the film felt really familiar to me and my experiences. No, we didn’t “make it up” or “remember it wrong”. Jack, and all abusers, are the true villains here.
I literally thought "this is just the film theory version of gaslighting" while he was explaining the Wendy theory at the beginning
These type of replies are more of a representation of the current times and not an accurate depiction of what was going on in the late 70s and early 80s, but you already knew that.
@@ML-kx9gz The "you already knew that" is an fun addition to your comment. Do you think there's some conspiratorial agenda by abuse survivors to project their experiences with abuse onto... stories of abuse?
They are all fictional characters. There are no victims
The whole point is Jack is not an abuser he’s just with a crazy chick!
Tell with a straight face that Isn’t reality!
Majority of women are bat poop crazy!
Stop simping we just spend months on lock down watching crazy karen videos!
I just have one question for The Wendy Theory, how'd she hallucinate the parts she wasn't there for?
She has headcanons about her husband?
@@Mikescool444 noooo, I don't think so.
I'm not in any way supporting the Wendy Theory, but honestly? It's totally possible to hallucinate things happening in other places
It doesn't really matter that you couldn't have possibly seen them. You "just know" that they happened. When people do have delusions, they often don't notice the logical inconsistencies
(At least, that's my understanding. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about it)
@@Canadamus_PrimeI don't think so either. But I don't think it makes the Wendy Theory inconsistent
I think the Wendy Theory is "wrong" because it's just not the story that the movie is telling us, rather than because it's internally inconsistent
@@douglaswolfen7820 I think what you're describing, with her "just knowing" stuff is happening that isn't, is a different psychological phenomenon than a hallucination. If I'm not mistaken, a hallucination is explicitly something that they witness, not imagine. I'm not describing that very well.
If I’m remembering this correctly, Stephen King wrote the book because he also went through alcoholism, isolation, and acted abusive in ways that Johnny acted towards his family. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but the whole movie seems to be a warning to victims of abuse to get the hell out of there before the metaphorical demons come for them too. The Wendy theory is so deeply based in misogyny that it’s actually delusional and makes LESS sense than ghosts haunting them.
I'm sorry I know Navarro probably doesn't mean to come across this way, but it will always rub me wrong when someone takes a story about a abusive man, and makes it out for him to be the victim.
is the sam levinson effect
There's a value to pointing out "Hey, abusive people tend to have been victims of abuse". However, and this is the thing that many of those "theorists" don't get, the biggest thing to remember is that while terrible people are often times "a" victim in a story, but they very rarely, if ever, are THE victim of the story.
Women are never abusers?
Mostly I’m just shocked you managed to get through an entire text-to-speech video essay. Bravo
Yeah.
Yeah, I listened to one of their videos and couldn’t do any more.
I can’t stand AI voices
@@Patchouliprince They can't stand us either, which is why they're so bloody annoying. That's my guess, anyway.
Lol yeah I heard the TTS and instantly bailed.
I think all those examples of continuity errors in Kubrick's other films clearly indicate that he was establishing the Wendy Cinematic Universe.
HELLO! I'M SHELLEY DUVALL!
A thousand voices screamed in unison.
People wanna blame woman so much they even try to blame her for the cause of The Shining lmaooo
Shelley Duvall deserves a fruit basket every day for the rest of her life for all this.
That’s too much fruit
She deserves a medal of valor for putting up with an abusive director who tried to break her mind for certain. I'm sure it felt like being in a war zone for her during the shoot.
Kubrick broke Shelly Duvall for this film.
she's certainly not doing well at present, sadly. Have to think her abuse by Kubrick during this film didn't help her current state
I felt bad for Shelley when I heard King say, "Jack did a great job". Ouch!
The "more snow than would have fallen in one night" point of the theory is fucking hilarious. The author of the fan theory must not be from anywhere cold.
Lol, right? As a Canadian I did have a bit of a chuckle at that point.
Yeah I thought the same thing. I live in Pa, we can get a foot of snow in 6 hours lol
Yes. This.
It's not like a foot of snow can fall overnight or something.
A better argument might be that he seems too frozen compared to what would be expected, even in Colorado.
But the snow is hilarious nonsense. And frankly, I'll bet a fiver that he just looks that frozen because it looks creepy as shit.
More snow that could fall in one night, a perfectionist would never allow end-tables to move, etc. Just a guy wholly convinced any nonsense that pops into his head makes sense just because.
What debunks the idea Kubrick was too meticulous to make errors, is that it's not the directors job to check continuity that is the script supervisor. His theory is based on limited understanding of how movies are made.
The fact the video this is responding to used text-to-speech is generally a good sign unto itself that the video won't be very high-quality; if they can't even bother recording some audio or even just using text, chances are pretty good they're not gonna be thorough enough to think their theory all the way through.
Did the original video actually use that audio?
I thought this video was using text to speech to avoid copyright / avoid using someone else's voice without consent
The original was text-to-speech.
This theory is indicative of why I hate a lot of theories about media. Most of the time they are going for shocking revelations that are completely counter to the story. Characters are just imagined by the protagonist, all of the characters are in purgatory, or some other random nonsense… they are all so dumb
I wonder if they're mostly written by AI anymore...Ai figuring out what clickbait is...the old-school notion that "shocking title sells newspapers."
The 2 types that you listed are often the go-to for people trying to convince others that they're smarter than they actually are and I too am annoyed to no end by it. Like, even the films that are openly and canonically like that go about selling it way better than the people trying to force those "theories" onto whatever movie they're talking about.
But also add to that list "something something seven deadly sins because vague less-than-flawless personality traits".
Like it’s so obvious none of these people are writers because how can they think a writer would make it so that the story has a massive plot-changing twist that they never reveal. Like imagine if fight club was written as though Tyler Durden was actually real? How stupid would that be? Why would anyone do that?
Also since this film is a story of abuse! They watched a story of a woman being terrorized by an abusive husband and went “nuh uh”
@@eldritchcupcakes3195… why did you comment this?😂 it has absolutely nothing to do with the comment you’re replying to.
"A perfectionist like Kubrick would never allow so many mistakes" Kubrick probably spent more of his perfectionist energy on berating Shelley Duvall and the other actors, and missed that joey in props forgot to put back the light switch, or end table, or chair.
And then the editors were using the best takes and didn’t notice the takes they picked were the ones missing some distant background details. bc who the fuck would notice that or even care
@@ElvenSonic Editors would notice and care. It is literally their job to check continuity.
@@Digglesisdead They would notice, but not necessarily care if the performance/visual integrity/ etc. is superior.
Also, on set the Script Supervisor's job is to constantly check continuity in the moment to make the editing process easier, so I think it's a small fallacy to put it all on the editor's shoulders.
Light switches are not like chairs. They are part of the wall, and it is definitely odd that they appear and disappear.
@@bob7975 it's entirely possible that when the set burned down and got rebuilt they forgot to add the light switches or it was overlooked (ha) in some way
Kind of horrible fun fact: people with schizophrenia are 14 times more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to be the perpetrators of such. Even if Wendy was hallucinating everything as much as this theory posits, that is no indication that she is abusive to Danny or that Jack isn't abusive to Wendy. Experiencing hallucinations is not equal to being violent or abusive or evil, it just means experiencing hallucinations in addition to experiencing real things.
A lot of the other comments have already noted the misogyny, intentional or not, of misreading the entire narrative just to make the female victim of abuse actually the one abusing her husband and child because um reasons, so I figured I'd point out this instead, that that misreading doesn't even really support the theory.
Even the narrative as presented doesn't make Jack try to murder because he's mentally ill oh no, he tries to murder because he was already abusive and kind of violent and the extreme isolation of the hotel and/or the supernatural properties of the hotel amplify that to dangerous extremes.
Clearly it was Wendy that pulling the strings all along.
Clearly She was the reason Jack beats a student for poking holes in his tyres
you dont understand she walked on her knees, dressed as a child and poked holes in his tires where she purposely made him witness! Then when he ran over she quickly switched out with the child!! Oh my god she thought of everything!!
@@Strawberry_Cubes if you look closely at the scene where Jack is in the interview in the Kubrick version you can see a black and white photograph of Wendy cutting the red tape when the hotel was opened! Coincidence? I think not
@@mathiaswilhelm1902 if you look at pictures of the overlook zoomed out you come to the real shocking truth, the overlook IS Wendy
@@Strawberry_Cubes if you squint your eyes real hard and listen to midnight the stars and you slowed and reversed you will find out that the whole state that the movie was filmed in was Wendy.
this is just the "it was all in their head" theory type and the "bad guy good good guy bad" theory type combined into one
Aka often the worse theories
With a touch of misogyny and victim blaming too
"It was all in le head 😨"
in a very harmful case . . .this is toxic as fuck, blaming women for their abuse is commen as hell and this is plain scary for we see hem hunt her and still, she gets blamed
@@cellinemartins thats more then a touch
The film also shows us a few instances of Jack gaslighting and manipulating both Wendy and Danny.
When Danny asks Jack, "You would never hurt Mommy or me, would you?" his response isn't, "No, of course not," but "Why would you ask that? Did your mother say something like that to you?"
Wendy takes Danny at his word that there was a woman in 237 who tried to strangle him. Jack says he didn't see anything, and that Danny's bruises must have been self-inflicted. Never mind we just saw him making out with Miss 237.
When Wendy locks Jack in the storage room, he tries to play on her kindness and sympathy by asking her to get him a doctor, saying she hurt his head real bad.
Maybe Jack's tactics worked on the guy behind the Wendy theory, too.
Wendy theory addresses these issues. The "continuity errors" that are so clearly not emblematic of Wendy's psychosis according to the author of this video actually serve as subconscious markers to inform the audience that these scenes are part of Wendy's grand hallucination. The author of this video comes across as pompous and dismissive on this point alone. The missing light switches and furniture are obviously not production whoopsies.
@@dennyshimkoski2728 I'm not sure where I mentioned the continuity errors. Like the video author said, there are continuity errors throughout Kubrick's filmography and the Wendy theory, in his opinion, reads way too much intentionality into the errors in The Shining. Especially considering the stuff that is going to maybe not line up because the hotel set burned down at one point.
What I'm commenting on is the issues surrounding emotional abuse, and how abuse is treated in The Shining, and how it is turned on its head in The Wendy Theory. I agree with the video author that flipping Wendy from victim to abuser does nothing for the movie and the story it's trying to tell. If you wanna read the movie that way, fine, it's none of my business. But understand there are legitimate criticisms, in spite of what you may think about this take's tone.
@@annaolson4828 I'd give him the furniture placement, maybe, but even that is very unlikely since the shots in question would've likely been sourced from same day footage, so the set burning down is irrelevant. The light switches appearing and disappearing are used in numerous places, so the argument for them being a story telling device is much more compelling. However, admitting the switches only lends further credence to the idea that the furniture placement was used intentionally as well. Subverting the assumptions and expectations of the audience is its own reward. Why tell only one story when you can tell two or more at the same time? No need to pigeonhole the narrative.
@@dennyshimkoski2728
The entire movie contains deliberate continuity errors. They actually do not serve to inform the audience that what we see is a hallucination of Wendy’s.
@@FirstnameLastname-bn4gv Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Also, under the guise of this theory, why would a “loving husband” deliberately bring his wife to a place that will drastically erode at her “fragile” mental health?
They might as well called it “hysterical woman” theory
Shelley Duvall's performance as a survivor was so authentic and immersive in The Shining partially because she was being emotionally abused on set by Kubrick, which accelerated the deterioration of her mental health and eventually ended her career. It's such a slap in the face to go back and wildly reinterpret the movie to make her character the villain on top of that.
@Collins Avenue what the fuck????
@Collins Avenue dude, no. even if people are annoying, that nowhere near justifies abusing them. its not about being "pc" or "woke", it's about not being an asshole. saying you can't just abuse people because they're annoying to you is not being triggered or some shit, it is literally just being a normal human. nothing justifies abusing another person.
@Collins Avenue You are absolute trash.
@Collins Avenue "Haha guys, I wasn't saying I would abuse someone, it was just a le joke"
What a weird thing to joke about in a video that talks about a movie that has themes of abuse
@Collins Avenue shut the fuck up if there’s anyone I’d abuse it’s you
"Solving the plot"
"It's the best theory since it doesn't involve the supernatural"
Lesson 1: realism is not the base of every piece of art
exactly! like it's based on a Steven king novel, it's not going to be dripping with realism
Sorry, but Kubrick would never do a Stephen King novel without adding something to it or have it just rely on King's "magic hotel".
@@vitoryugojsm he did add alot. And Stephen King didnt like it. But just saying "Its all in Wendy's head" isnt adding anything, but rather taking amazing stuff out.
@@vitoryugojsmwhy do people tell other what he can and cannot do. He was allowed to do whatever he wanted he isnt bound by the film rules because those dont exists
I like thinking about the shining in the context of hyperreality, but that's clearly not the intent. It's a ghost story.
I viewed that cross fade as showing how time passed while Wendy was busy doing the caretaker work that Jack was actually hired to do.
She finds Jack sleeping and Danny injured. The incident in 237 might not have happened if Wendy wasn't covering for Jack and was with Danny.
I always viewed it as an added layer of terror, that Danny (a small child) had no supervision because Jack didn't care and Wendy was busy doing the stuff that needed to be done. Literally anything could happen to that boy in that giant hotel, and no one would know for however many hours it took for Wendy to notice his absence.
They would’ve filmed the scene of Wendy reading Catcher In The Rye in 78/79. Lennon was murdered in 1980. There was no connection between the book and murder at the time Kubrick chose what Wendy was reading.
I kind of admire the mental gymnastics it takes to notice a continuity error and decide that it's a secret code
Did your wife's boyfriend fact check this before you posted it?
@@PeachBoi_Real lol
@@PeachBoi_Real Did your wife's three boyfriends fact check this post for you
@@PeachBoi_Real The fuck are you talking about?
I don't. There's a whole generation of people who grew up watching stupid film theory videos and Mario 64 theory videos we have no understanding of game development or even hardware resources of the time. People who genuinely think that Nintendo could have made every copy of Mario 64 a personalized and unique experience.
It's hard enough to just implement branching story paths and 3 dialogue options. But that's not the point. It's a whole group of people completely ungrounded in reality
It’s sad that people look at a victim of abuse and instantly say that they’re the abuser
That"s how Kubrik got all of you to fall for the "Wendy is the victim) rather than Both Jack and Danny are victims of Wendy's insanity.
Kubrick didn't tell the actors, he overworked them to get the look he wanted. Desperate, unhinged, barely hanging on. Watch the psycologust, Danny and Wendy. She almost puts the pieces together. Then she shrugs - na! I'll believe the lie the crazy lady made up, on the spot, to blame Jack. And poor Danny and Jack are stuck with her. They know how dangerous she has been, and how much worse she is capable of. Did a ghost let Jack out of the store room? That's easier to believe than it's a psychological horror story with no supernatural ghosts, or "shining". Get it, Kubric is Shining you on... Fooling you into believing Wendy is a victim rather than the real monster.
@@eldronjaedike9374Dude.........
@@Quackervoltzhe thought he did smth
@@eldronjaedike9374 The entire family is victim to 'The American Dream'
@@eldronjaedike9374 if "the woman with ptsd from the abuse of herself and her child is actually the abuser" is the take you're going with, please, for the love of god, seek therapy.
I want somebody to tell John Carpenter how much they love his story about an innocent man being blamed for that spat of babysitter suicides.
The red flags I get so early from this idea are just insane. The mere idea of this theory is misogynistic.
There is also something distinctly misogynistic about watching a film about an abusive man abusing his family in a haunted hotel and coming away with the conclusion that it’s the mom’s fault bc she’s insane and the actual abuser. Also f doctor sleep I guess we are just gonna ignore poor Danny’s story like he hasn’t been forgotten enough 😢
no its not misogynistic
They could get a 10 minute scene of a man beating his son and wife and somehow still say "mom bad" so 💀
While I can see it as misogynistic, I don't think that was the intent. I simply believe it was a way to try to make a theory that subverts a movie's true intention/story. Like the thousands of "X isn't actually in a fantastical story, it's actually a coma"; it's a subversion of what the story aims to be, a story aims to be fantastical? Well what if it was actually extremely realistic and instead was all in a coma? It's "The story presents Jack as the insane? but what if it was actually Wendy?"; it's just a subversion and I think it's just that the theory tries to twist the movie so hard into something that it doesn't really fit into, that it ends up becoming misogynistic with it's surface level evidence-lacking claims.
@@mothmantra6289 shut up
@@Aprocrisin I am in your walls
A point you never brought up that I think is nonetheless important to debunking the Wendy Theory is that this isn't just a movie: it's an adaptation of a Steven King novel. You know, Steven King? The guy whose entire wheelhouse is SUPERNATURAL HORROR STORIES?
Kinda makes me wonder what he has to say about this theory.
I don't care about Kubrick's opinion, he can eat a bag of dicks for what he did to Shelly Duvall. He didn't even write the original book, anyways.
Exactly! Yes a bunch of stuff is changed from book to film but it at its core still a Stephen King story. Look/read at IT. Salem's Lot. Silver Bullet. Eyes of the Dragon. What do they all have in common besides SK writing them? Supernatural and spooky thing are real and have actual effects on the world!
I think an even better way to debunk the theory is the fact that this story has a sequel. Both book and movie and the movie one still carries on the events and themes of the past movie. Among which, is the fact that Wendy was a caring mother while Jack was an abusive father
King already hates this movie for trying to remove the supernatural element and changing Wendy, I'm pretty sure that this theory would further piss him off to no end.
A wheelhouse that was just a dream
I had never heard of this theory before starting this video, but everything about the summary of it left me feeling a bone deep wrongness. I've been in a household like Wendy and Jack, I've seen the ways my mom coped with psychological abuse. Implying she's crazy and doing it for attention genuinely made me disgusted, and the careful deconstruction of the theory in this video made that feeling much more justified. I appreciate it, sincerely. I also want to add to this conversation a fact Mr. King has talked about himself: Jack is a reflection of his own alcoholism when he was younger. Jack was written to be abusive because Stephen King was exploring the horror of what a father can do to his family. Narratively, this was always meant to be a story of abuse told with elements of the paranormal. To think the Wendy theory can even be pulled from that is almost funny to think about, in a messed up sort of way
Refreshing to see a critic who doesn't blow his load over every tiny discontinuity in Kubrick's film.
Yep
My film theory is that Eyebrow Cinema is actually Rob Navarro and they put out a terrible theory just so they could debunk it, that's why Navarro really uses TTS. It's the most plausible explanation because it doesn't involve supernatural occurrences like someone watching the shining and thinking "ah yeah, Wendy is the problem here"
Tbh, I'm shocked a TTS video could get that many views, when I hear TTS, I automatically think of those auto-generated reddit reading channels or something which I associate with lazy content
@@JordanPlayz158 I can sort of understand it. Not everyone has a good, or even passable, narrating voice. So it can be the least bad option. That said, when coupled with the content of the vessay, it becomes really hard to ignore.
That is possible. People are so desperate for click-bait, views, and monetization they might generate a "controversy" to debunk. I can't imagine anyone's real voice being any worse than the TTS voice. So, that might explain why he uses it so he can use his real voice in the debunking video.
My film theory is that Rob Navarro is actually Jack Torrance, who made the video to paint himself as the victim and Wendy as the villain.
And I think that it was Mr. Navarro on the grassy knoll. 😮
The Wendy theory illustrates the every present appeal of misogyny in our society. A cinematic interpretation of a man’s novel about his own personal struggles with alcoholism and writer’s block, and it’s effects on his relationship with his family. This “theory” simply acts as a mirror to its author and fans.
👏👏👏
False. It is so so so fucking disrespectful to say that people who may think the theory is true or like to think that it is, means they are mysoginstic and hate women. Gross
haha yea, because a woman cannot behave bad, god forbid! how can someone even think of that possibiilty!!!
Everyone has to be a victim. Implying Wendy could be a bad person and it HAS to be misogyny?
@@hobson1098 you can say that a woman is a bad person, withouth misogyny, or dismissing abuse.
The existence of doctor sleep completely destroys this hypothesis
Here’s another theory: Wendy just likes scary things, and the overlook is really haunting the family.
Kubrick talking about Jack's murderous intent:
"Jack comes to the hotel psychologically prepared to do its murderous bidding. He doesn't have very much further to go for his anger and frustration to become completely uncontrollable. He is bitter about his failure as a writer. He is married to a woman for whom he has only contempt. He hates his son. In the hotel, at the mercy of its powerful evil, he is quickly ready to fulfill his dark role."
But no guys, Kubrick really secretly thought Wendy was the abusive parent.
Right. Or like Wendy is crazy because an aspiring author has a bunch of books in their home? Not to mention that Jack doesn’t say he’d give his soul for a drink, then a bartender in a red suit appears and drinks are “on the house.” 😂
Interpreting art is not about the intention of the artist.
Also this theory ignores its based on a book which clearly doesn’t have similar continuous edit clues. Now the book and movie have differences and movies can be wildly different from soured material. But if there was such a huge change from the book like Wendy us hallucinating everything, the director would have communicated through the movie clearly that this is very different. And not just made clues be furniture moving that isn’t really even noticed by people watching in theaters like people die back then more.
@@irgendsoeineziege1058 the intention of the artist is important to the interpretation. Their intention doesn’t fully encompass how you should interpret their work, but to completely disregard it because otherwise your theory wouldn’t make any sense. That just means your interpretation is bad quality.
@@kittycatcuties But the artist might not always be able to express his intentions. Sometimes because it's not allowed, and sometimes because he doesn't want to give too much away and prefers to be vague or stick to what it appears to be like on the surface. Also, there are many levels and aspects of a story and you can't possibly cover all of it in a single statement.
“Wendy is crazy and imagined all the abuse and ghosts in her head.”
“How do you know that?”
“She reads books.”
Taking a lot of good faith on my part to assume the dude behind this theory isn’t an extreme misogynist in real life.
Right? Like, hi, the main MALE character is a self proclaimed “WRITER.” Maybe some of those books were, I don’t know, HIS??? Stupidest fucking theory I ever heard.
Yeah this is a perspective I can't disagree with.
But interpretations usually reveal more of the interpetor than the art.
This "theory" is based on interpretation and not on analysis.
Something something language of film
I was thinking the same thing. This theory reeks of woman-hate
That viewpoint is quite victorian lol
Calling him a misogynist or a "woman-hater" just because he proposed a theory where the woman is actually the bad guy is a stretch.
It's simply an extremely shitty theory, full of confirmation bias and mental gymnastics of Olympic proportions, along with the usual pondering to the "Kubrick myth".
That Wendy theory "overlooks" way too much.
There are tons of these 'continuity errors' in the novel. They are used to unsettle and create a horror tension. One of the big ones is how the topiary (sculpted bushes) moves around when you are not looking. In the book there is no maze, the grounds are filled with animal topiary.
As for the cut between rm 237 (rm 217 in the book) and the boiler room the script went through many rewrites and the final script bore little resemblance to the final script. Room 237 is sort of the 'soul' of the Overlook. However, the boiler in the book plays a much bigger part and is the 'heart' of the Overlook. Blowing the boiler is how Jack destroys the Outlook at the end of the novel. It is not unreasonable that Kubrick either originally intended the boiler to play a bigger part so the cut was meant to highlight the connection. Or, maybe consciously or subconsciously Kubrick made the cut as an easter egg or tip of the hat to the novel.
One other thing about Wendy reading The Catcher in the Rye and its supposed significance to the validity of the Wendy Theory is that interpreting her reading this book as a sign that she's mentally unstable because other unstable people in real life were obsessed with it not only doesn't line up with the history of the book's interpretation, it also overlooks a much simpler interpretation that fits with the presented narrative of the film.
Holden Caulfield, the main character of The Catcher in the Rye, has a fixation on protecting children from harm or corruption. The book's title itself, is a reference to a scene in the book where Holden describes a sort of idealized fantasy of himself as a sort of guardian, who catches children running through a field of rye so they don't fall off a cliff on the other side.
So we have Wendy reading a book whose main character sees himself as a protective figure for children...Which is the role Wendy ends up taking on over the course of the film's narrative. She tries to shield Danny from Jack's abuse and increasingly unhinged behavior and ultimately has to rescue him from her murderous husband at the film's climax. What we have here is the movie presenting us with a very obvious bit of subtext reinforcing the themes of the film, and Rob at the Movies looked at that and said "Ah, I get it, this means the exact opposite thing".
Not to mention all of the most well known crimes associated with the book (Mark David Chapman, Hinkley, etc) were committed after The Shining was released kind of puts the nail in that theory. Sure the book had a reputation from the word go, but it didn't have this cemented association in popular culture until John Lennon was killed by Chapman like 8 months after the film came out. Kubrick was a visionary but I don't think he was psychic.
“idealized fantasy of himself”…It kinda sounds like he’s created a fantasy where he’s protecting them from a danger that really isn’t there. Very interesting.
Comments like this is why I still have hope for CZcams comment sections, informative, well put, and hilarious.
But tgen again, who's even read the Catcher in the Rye? Or had to read it in high school but completely forgot about it. Most people associate it immediately with "the book that killers read" instead of the whole thing about the protagonist in a book that nobody really knows anymore. So there's that...
@@SilviaVanThreepwood Yeah but as someone already said this movie came out before the book got associated with high profile assassinations. That association with violence can't be considered written intent.
A good thought about “continuity errors” can easily be explained by “holy shit the director was absolutely mad and did so many takes as to make the actors nearly insane there are bound to be things out of place if he wanted ‘take 24/200’ then you used that take regardless of what chair was out of place”
Plus a set fire which means sets to be remade and will never be 100% identical to the originals. Lol
Lol, after the 100th take somebody needed to sit down and took the chair.
@@johnmckay1961 also it's a hotel, chairs could have just gone moved around. Especially a single chair up against the wall.
@@johnmckay1961 lmao totally
None of the violence and supernatural stuff in the film is real. It's a story written during Jack's descent into alcoholic psychosis -- he found where they locked up the liquor.
There are clues that we are in the story as Jack is writing it: while talking to Grady in the bathroom, he keeps making typing motions with his hands. Also, this explains why he gets Grady's first name wrong -- he either misremembered it, or changed it for his book. This also explains continuity errors and how they are mostly intentional. As Jack is writing, he's changing little details here and there: he walks into an empty bar... suddenly there is someone there.
During psychosis, he is having evil, paranoid thoughts about everyone in his family and fantasizing about things he'd like to do to "correct" them.
This is why King hates it -- he knows Kubrick saw right through him and made the movie personally about him and his thoughts. Being exposed in this way disturbs him.
Alot of people attempt to claim that inconsistencies mean something more in q-brick movies, solely because he was a perfectionist, most people don't understand that just because you're a perfectionist, doesn't mean you don't miss details. They presume that a perfectionist, being obsessed with everything being perfect, wouldn't miss stuff, but the truth is, perfectionists often find one thing out of place, and obsess and focus on it. Often it's possible they will focus so hard on a single detail so much, to get it specifically perfect, that they completely forget other, more important details. That means no matter what, a detail can still just be an oversight. Even if the person who made the film was a perfectionist.
Fun fact ive heard somewhere the Stanley used those continuity errors to build a sense of confusion and horrer, basically.
The problem with the Wendy theory is that it re-writes the entire movie, in a language that can't be proven or disproven, with meanings that can't be confirmed or refuted.
That is what makes it interesting.
@@machomaam4975People who take pride in skepticism have been taught to think things that can't be proven or disproven are inherently illogical.
And the book. The movie is pretty different from the book, but the book provides a lot of subtext to the alcoholic Jack aspect.
The main downfall of the movie when compared to the book is that is leaves out the main premise of the book, in that the malevolent hotel uses Jack to try to get to Danny's Shining. Danny is almost ancillary in a lot of the movie, whereas he's the lead in the book.
@@machomaam4975 actually in terms of the scientific method, the main hallmark of a bad theory is when it cannot be proven or refuted.
@Chandller Burse In Kabbalah, the Hebrew letter Shin (שׁ) holds significant symbolism and meaning. It is one of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, each representing a divine force or spiritual principle. The letter Shin is associated with several concepts and interpretations in Kabbalistic teachings:
Divine Fire: Shin is often associated with the element of fire, representing the divine flame that connects to the spiritual realm. It symbolizes the transformative and purifying power of fire, which can consume and refine.
Divine Name: In Kabbalah, Shin is connected to the divine name "Shaddai," which signifies the Almighty or the All-Sufficient. It represents God's expansive and limitless nature, encompassing all aspects of creation.
Three Pillars: The shape of the letter Shin resembles three flames or branches converging at the top. These three branches represent the three pillars of the Tree of Life: the Pillar of Mercy (right), the Pillar of Severity (left), and the Pillar of Balance (center). It signifies the harmonious integration of these pillars in the divine and human realms.
Shema: The Shema is a central prayer in Judaism, and the letter Shin holds a prominent place in it. The Shema begins with the words "Shema Yisrael," and the letter Shin is enlarged and emphasized in the first word. This represents the unity of God and serves as a reminder of our connection to the divine.
Spiritual Transformation: Shin is associated with spiritual growth and transformation. It represents the journey of the soul from a state of limitation and separation to one of unity and enlightenment. It signifies the path of elevating consciousness and transcending the mundane aspects of existence.
The letter Shin, with its multifaceted symbolism, carries deep spiritual significance in Kabbalistic thought. It represents the divine presence, transformative power, and the potential for spiritual growth and connection with the divine. THE SHIN INING =)
There’s something about this theory that really rubs me the wrong way. At its heart, The Shining is a story about demotic violence. Jack Torrence is inarguably an abuser. He beats his young son, constantly berates his wife, and in the end, attempts to murder them both. And the thing about people like Jack is that saying things like “Well, Wendy was the *real* violent parent. She’s hallucinating! She’s hysterical!” is absolutely within their wheelhouse. It is very common, in fact, for abusers to shift the blame of violence onto their victims.
This is not to say that Mr. Navarro is some kind of abuse apologist. That would be an absurd leap in judgement to make of the character of a total stranger. I’m sure this was not the intended effect of the Wendy theory. But, much like Kubrick’s continuity errors, intended or not, it remains there.
Thanks, this is exactly why the Wendy Theory has always seemed off to me too. There is no fully "right" answer to what's going on in The Shining, but interpreting Wendy as the main villain who is going crazy feels like it contradicts all the clues the movie hints at.
Robo narrator seems to delight in demoralizing the Wendy character. The vitrol comes through even with an auto narrator, I can't even imagine how bitter it would sound with a human narrator
Yes it does rub me the wrong way. Especially with the obvious leaps in logic needed to get there. Like oh there are lots of books so Wendy must be imaginative, instead of the other alternative of oh a writer owns a lot of books I bet that’s reference material. I mean clearly Wendy does read since we see her do so, but it’s weird to assume that the non writer would own most of the books isn’t it?
Major misogynist red-flags in the Wendy Theory and anyone who accepts it.
There's an acronym for this: DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender)
Bro made gaslighting into a theory
I see two reasons someone might make the wendy theory. Wanting the movie to be more complicated so you can cleverly figure it out or her character is visually strange enough that it would often signal her as a villain or crazy person in a cartoon
As a schizophrenic one thing that annoys me about this theory is the 'it's more plausible than a supernatural explanation' part, because the way this theory portrays schizophrenia is in my experience simply not how the illness works lol
The version of schizophrenia that exists in most (non schizophrenic) people's minds is as fictional as our favourite supernatural hotel
Not to mention that, ironically, Shelly Duvall actually has a mental illness (I think schizophrenia?) and hopefully has been doing well. I wonder if that gives any inspiration to the theory.
What bugs me about it is it feeds into stereotypes. All of these serial killers and big cases of violence/murder you hear about are NOT schizophrenic or even deemed to have any mental illness, yet this stereotype persists that schizophrenics are dangerous.
I’m sure symptoms/presentations are different with everyone but these explanations of Wendy’s schizophrenic symptoms are a STRETCH at times
Not to mention that this "argument" fails to adress the fact that the shinning is a piece of FICTION and therefor there is no reason to assume a supernatural explanation isn't plausible ("it can't happen in real life" is irelevant when it's not real life)
@@xavierbontoux7836 This goes triple for a movie based on a book that definitely has ghosts and psychic powers in it.
@@xavierbontoux7836 That's a good point!
"Our favorite supernatural hotel" sounds funny. Like we've been to multiple, and decided one was clearly better than the rest.
Imagine if this theory was correct. Imagine Kubrick stopping a scene and going "Alright boys, remove that light switch! That'll get those film analyzers real good..."
Looked like Lolita was holding the plate in her left hand as she turned to walk away not her right hand.
Considering they did like 150 takes probably yeah
I’d say more takes would make it more likely to have continuity errors, honesty…
Honestly if I had to bet, I probably would say the light switch thing was on purpose because I don't really understand how that would happen accidentally (like, either there's a light switch on that wall or not, right?), but it's probably just to jiggle your subconscious into going "hey something's off here" rather than to secretly indicate that actually this scene is being hallucinated by someone who isn't in it. Especially because this movie has been analysed to death, and apparently nobody noticed that it was secretly Wendy the whole time? If that was Kubrick's intention and it's only been noticed decades later by a text to speech man, that's not subtle and secret, it's just bad filmmaking.
@@nkbujvytcygvujno6006 I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this. Like they did tens or hundreds of takes of different scenes. Even IF they had a specific continuity director, someone is gonna miss something inevitably and the fact some of the Wendy theory defenders seem to refuse that this is possible or even likely is driving ME crazy 😭
This video is finely researched and thought-out. One suggestion though; when gauging the popularity of a youtube video as you do here of the Navarro video essay I think its flawed to cite how many times it was "viewed". That number isn't really an accurate account for it does not factor if people actually watch the whole video. Probably best to reference how much discussion is made in the comment section and on other videos . It is often the case where someone momentarily clicking on a video which does not mean those people subscribe to the ideas inside...much less even listen to what it has to say at all
also the number of views does not indicate if the same person is clicking on the video thereby creating a common confusion when people analyze the popularity of a video
The inconsistencies could also (in the shining) be a way to unsettle the audience. Im pretty sure horror games do the same thing because it makes the viewer feel something is off
What bugs me the most about these movies is that Kubrick wasn’t some kind of super subtle guy where you have to watch the movie twice in order to figure out what’s even going on. There are guys like that, but if Kubrick wanted to make a spooky ghost story about abuse he did that. If he wanted to make a movie about war bad he did that.
If he had wanted to make a movie about a psychotic woman terrorizing her family and playing the victim, he would have done that. But he just didn’t.
I’m starting to think an effect of watching this film too much is going crazy yourself.
@@samuelbarber6177 in college I watched The Shining 18 times in a month (kept running into people who hadn’t seen it). Can confirm.
@@ProgShell I’ve seen it once and I feel like it’s driving me crazy just thinking about it, but then again I have also seen 1408 recently (good movie, recommended)
Agreed. Also worth noting that while Kubrick's films are loaded with subtext and complex themes, he was also a populist Hollywood filmmaker for the majority of his career. And for all his uncompromising standards, he also cared a lot about an audience's reaction to his work. The notion his films are this 5D chess that you need a 150 IQ to appreciate is deeply silly.
The Shining essentially gets used as an ink-blot. People know it's supposed to be deep before seeing it, so any reading seems reasonable, because the explanation for a theory with suuuper tenuous textual evidence [like the Wendy theory] can seem reasonable because "It's just that The Shining is THAT deep, dude."
That can cause a cascade effect where the more someone likes The Shining, the more complicated and subtle they're willing to assume The Shining is, and the lower their standard of evidence for readings of The Shining gets. It leads to some people literally just projecting their thoughts onto it without noticing.
This take is absolutely unbelievable, like the fact that this guy made a whole video about how a victim is hallucinating the violence done to her and is actually the abuser betrays a deeply abusive mindset. I cannot stress enough that it's a very common abuse tactic to make your victims believe they're "going insane" and halucinating their abuse. Like so many red flags, i would not touch anyone who likes that video with a 10 ft pole ngl
I hope the people in Rob's life are safe I'll just say that much
Real darvo material
I wouldn’t go as far and say that nevaro is inherently abusive, but it’s definitely a terribly ironic coincidence that such a theory circles back to further enhancing the actual movie.
I definitely think that Wendy could very well have hallucinations, I just don’t believe it’s just “oh she a crazy woman”, I think that she could have hallucinations because of the abusive her and her son received from Jack. Same with the arm injury I believe she could have been the one to injure him but not out of malice possibly in an earlier failed attempt to escape with her son from Jack
the main problem with this entire theory; king is a repetitive genre hack and his works are largely focused on the supernatural (to the point its a meme). very little of his works aren't. and while kubrick tends to put his spin on things, he also tries to do so fairly faithfully. ergo; kings work is almost entirely based upon the supernatural, and so the movie is.
the secondary is that yes, while kubrick tried to minimize continuity errors, he still had them, because constant reshooting, the rebuild, etc, got expensive, and even he had limits to how far he could carry his quest for 'perfection'.
Knowing what Wendy's actor went through on set, the true villain of this story is Stanley Kubrick's loose morals
Agreed!
This is, in fact, true.
Source? I wanna learn more
@@Sam-bm6yf Don’t want to get flagged by CZcams with a link but “Shelley Duvall’s traumatic experience while shooting Stanley Kubrick film 'The Shining'” From Far Out Magazine gives a pretty concise summary of things said in cast interviews.
An excerpt:
“He commanded the crowd not to show any sympathy for Duvall and asked them to ignore her completely. He never complimented her scenes while constantly praising Nicholson, who was seated right next to her. This intensive training of the mind with isolation and “torture” for the role was too stressful for Duvall to bear, who started losing hair and was “in and out of health”, having been pushed to the very threshold. The most difficult moment would be the baseball scene for Duvall…ended up with a hoarse throat, raw wounded hands and severe dehydration. The “primal scream therapy” she underwent caused immense torment and emotional anguish, which somehow proved cathartic, for every time she went back home, she would feel at ease.”
@@Sam-bm6yf With regard to The Shining, Duvall spoke of the emotional toll of performing the role of Wendy Torrance and the challenges of long days on the set, but stated that Kubrick was "very warm and friendly" to her.
to me the Wendytheory really sounds like a classic case of "working backwards from the answer you want"
the idea is kinda interesting in its own way, so every possible clue must be forced to fit a Wendy sized hole at all costs
It's called confirmation bias. You look for and accept only the evidence that supports your existing assumptions.
To me it seems like someone who really wanted to blame a woman for the events of the mvie
@@jackgardner2514 so what, if I make a theory that Danny was actually the murderer in the overlook hotel, that means I'm someone who really wants to blame children for the events of the movie?
"the idea is kinda interesting in its own way, so every possible clue must be forced to fit a Wendy sized hole at all costs"
So, a Mattpatt theory?
@@-tera-3345 🤣🤣🤣
The whole snow thing is written by someone who has never experienced a blizzard in the north
Excellent essay!& For what it's worth in the book Jack is abusive. He is self admittedly abusive!I wouldn't even watch 'The Wendy Theory' so much of a reach did I think it was. Again,this is excellent & I'm so glad you pushed back on such a theory.❤ From Australia 🐨
I personally believe that the "continuity errors" aren't errors at all. They were specially put in to give viewers the subconscious feeling that something isn't quite right. Like seeing your room in a dream. Something is different.
Absolutely. I think that there probably are some genuine (minor, tiny) goofs, but the big ones are there to disorient the viewer.
That's a cheap trick and not even one that's necessarily going to pay off. Cinematography, set design, performances, etc, are for the viewer's enjoyment but things changing in the film's universe like a chair or lightswitch disappearing just to "unnerve" the viewer is as I said, cheap, and as I also said, not necessarily going to pay off, because I don't find continuity errors even the least bit frightening because they're in every movie.
@@ImperialCaleb first, you can say it's a "cheap trick" but that is just your opinion. Filmmaking is a very complex field. You use everything that you need to achieve the desired result. Is overexposing the film for effect a "cheap trick"? How about stop motion, or computer effects?
As for it working, I'm sure that you watched the film with a cold, calculating eye and noticed all of these things straightaway and pointed them out with an air of triumph. Most of us didn't. We sat and enjoyed the otherworldly sort of vibe of the film.
@@jonathannelson103 Stop motion and computer effects are happening in the movie's universe. A chair disappearing and this not being acknowledged by a character practically staring right at it is not happening in the universe and is a cheap trick (assuming it's not just a continuity error)
Do you also believe that Kubrick did that in every movie movie he ever made, so that they would all feel like a dream, because they all have continuity errors? Is that his auteur signature? Continuity errors?
“I remember one time, a fan asked me, "Hey, um, you know that episode where the horse has to give Ethan a pep talk, after Ethan finds out his crush only asked him to the dance because her friends were having a dorkiest date contest? In all the shots of the horse, you can see a paper coffee cup on the kitchen counter, but in the shots of Ethan, the coffee cup's missing. Was that because the show was making a statement about the fluctuant subjectivity of memory, and how even two people can experience the same moment in entirely different ways?” And I didn't have the heart to be, like, "No, man, some crew guy just left their coffee cup in the shot.” So instead, I was, like "Yeah." “ (from BoJack Horseman)
literally shows how hes going insane, is a recovering alcoholic and abused his son once before, and their conclusion is "nah its all in her head"💀 we went back like 200 years with the female hysteria lmfao
"no no, shes actually insane, not the husband who went after her with the axe-"
and for anyone saying "well whats bad about speculation and interpreting things differently??" nothing, but you cant claim its true then, also writers and producers dont just drop a movie and dissappear, they talk abt it
It is obvious Danny is the real villain
Hahahahaha
People named Daniel are historically evil.
@@EyebrowCinema
As someone with two ex-boyfriends named Daniel, I can definitely confirm this.
@@Elora445 Damn, Daniel!
Oh, Danny Boy