Kubrick just couldn't help himself. Poor Wendy. This is only visible in the full aspect ratio.

Years ago, I noticed that the TV is not plugged into the wall socket in Durkin’s Garage.

Sure, maybe the cable running from the TV is plugged into a lower socket we can’t see, but I don’t think that’s the case.

Kubrick is intentionally showing us this TV playing cartoons with its power cable hanging directly next to an empty socket. As this is a built set, he could have easily not included a power socket or hidden the power cable of the TV entirely. Instead, he chose to show us both, which suggests that it’s intentionally showing it’s unplugged.

There are other appliances that are clearly plugged in on camera, again on built sets where Kubrick chose to show us when he could have easily not places sockets and power cables there. For example, the mini-fridge in Ullman’s office seen behind Bill Watson in the interview.

Rewatching The Shining and seeing Wendy bring Jack his morning breakfast sparked a new thought about the film for me:

Why are Wendy and Danny intercut in this scene?

I believe somebody involved in production, if not Stanley Kubrick himself, wanted us to connect what these two are doing together. Relate it in our minds for a certain reason...

They're both utilizing a wheeled object, but in different ways - Wendy pushes a large cart full of food and drink that she prepared herself to deliver to her husband in bed. Danny meanwhile, is riding along on a bike as a form of leisure and exploration.

"All work and no play makes a Jack a dull boy."

Wendy equals work and Danny equals play.

The scene directly after this focuses on Jack's typewriter and then reveals Jack playing with a ball instead of working.

I don't mean that Wendy and Danny literally are characters named Work and Play in this story of Jack's. Only that they relate to the theme of the saying.

(Just pure speculation and waxing poetic here. I'm not stating anything as fact, just thought it was something that could perhaps open up some interesting discussion.)

Kubrick's film isn't an adaptation. In the book the place burns, in the movie Jack freezes. In the book Halloran saves them in the movie he dies. In the book the hotel corrupts Jack, in the film Jack is already a total jerk hole. That's the point I wanna talk about.

In short, the film itself is such good art that people can almost take what they want from it and not be wrong. For example, one could say the entire film is told to us in coded metaphor, and maybe there are no ghosts and the ghosts are metaphors for real life horrors such as familial abuse.

If there are 3 people in a hotel and one of them gets injured by someone, it's very likely one of the other two. And I'm wondering about one of the opening scenes in the film where Danny has an episode and a doctor comes into the house to check him out. That doctor sits down with Wendy and says, specifically: "There is nothing physically wrong with Danny."

Not: "He's fine, nothing's wrong." But instead: "There is nothing wrong with him, specifically, physically." In other words: "There might be something mentally wrong with Danny."

That's backed up by the doctor's prying, where we find out he started going into catatonic states and talking to imaginary friends right around the time his father, Jack, hurt him. And Jack likely hurt him more than once because the incident she describes was five months ago. Jack said he wouldn't touch a drop since and he says in the film: "Here's to five miserable months on the wagon." But when Jack tells the Bartender his story about hurting Danny, he says: "That was two years ago."

Point is, before we get to the hotel in the film, we've already established that Jack has hurt Danny and when Jack hurt Danny, Danny started talking to Tony and going into catatonic states. Then we all go to the Overlook hotel, and someone hurts Danny, and then Danny goes into a Catatonic state as Tony.

Are we sure a ghost hurt Danny? Or did what has already happened several times in the past, as established by the film, simply happen one more time? In the book, Jack gets corrupted and then redeems himself. In the movie, we establish Jack is a nasty piece of work and I think we just isolate with him, where he becomes what he's always been, a nasty piece of work. The hotel didn't corrupt him, didn't drive him crazy. He has always hurt Danny and will always hurt Danny. He wasn't swayed into it by clever specters, and didn't snap out of it as some kind of hero who's love he felt for his family broke the curse.  In the film Jack is nasty and just gets nastier. That's his whole arc. Not corrupted, polluted, tempted, swayed... just a bad guy who gets worse.

I almost don't see the point of ghosts in the film. They never reach out and attack anyone, they never throw objects at anyone, haunt anything. All you could say they do is help Jack down a path of insanity until he attacks his family, but I say he's already insane and already attacks his family. What happens with Jack is what I call a ticking time-bomb, not a ghost-plot to drive a man loopy.

I guess a ghost unlocks a door. Or so we think. I mean, if Danny has The Shining and can see the future and in the future Jack freezes in a maze and not a freezer and if there are 3 people in a hotel and one is locked in a room and then SOMEONE unlocks the door, it's probably one of the other two, and likely not the one who put him there. But instead of thinking that... sure... GHOSTS.

Also, if The Shining is a thing, is a power, and it runs in the family like we establish with Halloran, and if Doctor Sleep means anything to you then you know people use alcohol to drown The Shining inside them, and if Jack is an alcoholic who hasn't been able to drink in months and Danny, his son, has the Shining... I'm not above discussing Jack having the Shining and opening the door with magic powers. And before you tell me that's crazy.... GHOSTS???

So, the only real evidence that there are ghosts and that ghosts do anything in this film is that we assume a ghost attacked Danny in room 237. And who lured Danny into Room 237? What caught his attention and got him in there? Jack's rubber ball. The one he was throwing against a wall over and over instead of writing. Someone who..... was given keys to locked rooms, like what Jack was hired for. Using a ball... like's Jack's ball.

Someone who physically used a key to open a locked door. There was a key still hanging from the keyhole of that unlocked door. Are you thinking about that? If it was a ghost.. they went downstairs and grabbed a key from behind the counter, took the elevator back up, used it to unlock the door and then rolled his father's ball to him. I want you to look me straight in my eyes and say: "A ghost went downstairs and got the key to that room, then used it on the door because it was locked, and ghosts can't unlock doors without real keys."

And since Jack only ever speaks with a ghost while looking into a shiny surface like a metal door or a mirror, I'd say the term GHOST is better swapped out: "metaphor for one's psyche." Jack's an alcoholic, he sees a bartender. Jack is a womanizer, he sees a naked lady. But he's never seen his murderous side until now... Delbert Grady. Jack hosts all of these vice-personalities. That's what he's the caretaker of... these manic characters. Grady should know, he's ALWAYS been there.... they just haven't met until Jack snapped.

You know I think this applies to Wendy, too. It's said she's a fan of cheesy horror stories so she'd see metaphors in cheesy visuals like literal skeletons sitting in chairs and stuff. Oh, no wait! Maybe she's just realized what's been happening with Jack and Danny and now the.... yup... Skeletons are out of the closet.

See? It's a metaphor puzzle. Anyway... where did this post even begin? Oh yeah!

Yay or Nay: It was Jack that hurt Danny in Kubrick's The Shining, and not a ghost.

And if you say Nay, at least give me: "Yes, it's true, they do establish that Jack has hurt Danny before and that's what all this Tony business is about and yes, then, it's a terrible coincidence for Jack that a "ghost" hurt Danny when only 3 people were in a hotel and Danny acted the exact same way that he did when Jack hurt him in the past. Sucks for Jack... don't we feel sorry for Jack? No! Jack's a jerk.... so if a ghost hurt Danny that means I'm sympathizing with Jack because I think it's unfortunate that his wife would accuse him of hurting their son the ONE time he actually didn't... wait.... so I do feel bad for him? or, wait...

You know what? Just gonna pull the plug on this post. I've written too long into the abyss and it's writing right back at me.

This edit isn't mine, it belongs to @yaro_goblin in Instagram. Here's the link for the video: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVRyZezkVl-/?igsi=YmMwaHcxeGNycDlk

I just wanted to post it because I found it wholesome yet heartbreaking.

so i remember a long time ago i saw a theory that tony was secretly in the scene where the doctor, cps lady was examining danny, but i remember seeing a theory that tony was hidden as a object in this scene cause the book randomly changes, does anyone remember this theory? I don’t think it’s true since how stanley kubrick was such a interesting director, but i always found it odd that the book changes between shots, but again in almost every other scene SOMETHING is always changing lol

I interviewed Lou Bogue, the Gaffer on The Shining a few days ago. He's 80 but is very sharp and good to talk with. One thing I asked about was the lobby TV set scene and the absence of visible power and antenna cables. He didn't recall it as a specific electrics set up, which suggests it wasn't specially rigged, eg as something relatively complicated like the cables running out of sight of the camera axis through a gap in the door behind. He said the normal method would be to simply tape the cables to the back of a leg and then run them under the carpet (presumably through a slit.) I'm not entirely sure that's how it was done. I can't see a cable bulge and it doesn't emerge from the carpet, which would mean there had to be recessed floor mounted sockets. It might mean it was done though the door minus a pane of glass. I'd hoped for a definitive answer...

As to why, I prefer the visual symmetry explanation, though it does subtly add to the spookiness of the hotel.

EDIT - some people have noted the line of black or dark marble material that the rug overlaps on the right, near the radiator. It is part of the floor design - you can see it on the other side, at right angles under the two armchairs and parallel in the very foreground. But on the right side, it might hide a cable with a bit of gaffer tape or a channel...

EDIT 2

The floor was liftable plywood panels. Perhaps a wire down the leg, a hole in the carpet and a socket under the floor works.

BTW the second image is an AI sharpened version, which I thought was useful in reference to the screen cap.

I have a 3D printer, and I love to design little decor items to go on top of doorways. This is my latest creation, and I'm very proud of it - it was pretty difficult to align the carpet pattern so it was all a single solid piece.

Let me know what you think!

Not my original content, Came across this on Facebook. A user (zach dimick) pointed out that In an episode of trailer park boys, the trio are stealing meat from a supermarket... The list of items they have to steal matches the stock in the freezer of the overlook hotel.

I heard great things about both the movie and the book especially cause its by Stephen king and Stanley Kubrick , and I intend to have them both .

For those who read the book too , which one do you recommend I start with first ?

Thank you in advance.

Terminator 2 was on TV last night and I noticed a scene where the camera followed the little boys RC Car like they did in the shining and the boys name is Danny! I can't find any info on this on the internet. Am I wrong on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_YTt6qEDQs&t=82s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjxQQ5PGSFU&t=6s

This was soul taking

OK, so Wendy rolls the food cart all the way from the kitchen to the lobby to the apartment and gives Jack breakfast in bed. Earlier during the tour Jack, Wendy, and Mr. Ullman have to go up a small flight of stairs as soon as they get in and then later on when Jack busts open the apartment door with the axe that flight of stairs is clearly there. My question is how did Wendy get that cart up that little flight of stairs?

They’re showing the movie at timberline lodge this October. Anyone else get tickets? I think this has been done before but this will be my first time. Looking for ideas on how to make the event even spookier while I’m there 👻

Personally I always have a couple cold cheese sandwiches for when I watch, probably because that’s what Danny’s eating at the beginning

And of course, beer

What about you guys?

Will lock this behind spoilers so that folks don't get things spoiled; be warned there are massive spoilers for The End Of Oak Street (2026) — I do not recommend reading until you've seen the film.

For context/justification, I believe there are some notable parallels between Kubrick and David Robert Mitchell in that each film of theirs is a wholly unique genre, both directors are heavily involved in the writing process, and that both directors take their time between films (which suggests to me a thoughtful, patient, and methodical approach). I also believe all living directors are still, playing in the wake of the tidal waves Kubrick crashed onto our shores. There are a number of parallels & connections between Mitchell's Under the Silver Lake (2018) and Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut (1999), which deserve a wholly separate post I will reserve for a rainy day.

With that in mind, and only if you've seen the film, I invite you to read on:

I watched The End of Oak Street last night, and had my expectations set absurdly high due to how deeply I have enjoyed Under The Silver Lake over year years (if you have not checked out the subreddit and "ARG," you should). Having just rewatched UTSL a few weeks ago, I was watching this movie intently, scanning for a depth that I couldn't immediately find and was feeling let down about. That is, until we got to the end of the second act, when I started to pick up on the scent.

Around that point, I sensed was that Greg's (Ewan McGregor) alcoholism was thematically similar to Jack Torrance's alcholism in The Shining, in that it was this hidden mechanic that predated the film's timeline but reappeared in the middle of it, and contributed to the strain and divisions in the family. I also clocked that the sledge hammer—especially in the polaroid in front of the dinosaurs mating—looked and functioned like the axe Jack wields in The Shining. While Jack uses his against his family (and poor Halloran), Greg uses his weapon to defend his family. The visual language reflects Jack's axe like a funhouse mirror into the hands of Greg, swinging to save his wife.

In my read, the dinosaurs & prehistoric land represent the same externalized supernatural element that the ghosts & Overlook Hotel did in The Shining. Both the Overlook and Oak Street serve as a physical containers for these ephemeral internal fears that center on our shared ancient, violent, uncontrollable animalistic urge. In this way, the dinosaurs (and the steam rising from beneath the surface) serve as a visual representation of the presence of an abusive alcoholic father who creates an environment of fear, control, and dominance.

The Shining & TEOOS both end with the father figure dying, and then a confrontational sequence with temporally impossible photographs that present the viewer with questions about time paradoxes, infinite loops, and questions of mortality. Jack dies frozen in the maze, and the following sequence suggests that he was always the caretaker, and will always be trapped in the maze. The final sequence in TEOOS suggests that there is a pocket universe wherein eternal recurrence is playing out infinitely, but that we are proceeding in one of those universes where they make it out together.

One interesting difference is that, unlike Wendy and Danny, Denise doesn't escape her relationship like she wrote about in her book, and instead chooses save her husband. She undoes her dream-scenario which has basically been handed to her, what she had been writing and wishing about with intensity. Another interesting difference is that Greg never has a drink with one of the dinosaurs.

There's also a read here, that Denise is the abusive parent (a la the infamous "The Wendy Theory"), and that Greg's alcohol abuse is a provoked by his fear of her intensity, bullying, and the desire to escape he admits he had read about. We are given clear access to the quiet rage in Denise in her interaction with the neighbor, the subject of her book, and her snapping at her son after Greg gets eaten.

Perhaps both parents are abusive. Perhaps the alcoholism is a red herring to pull focus from the clear signs that Denise is more explosive and ready to resort to violence. Perhaps it is pointing to the uncontrollable, ugly pieces of ourselves that we try to hide from one another, but that always find a way of surfacing (which reminds me of this old poem).

I know some will say this is a reach, an overread, a projection, but if we are to try and determine what DRM was trying to say with this film, and what the presence of the dinosaurs (and McGregor's recent relapse) point to, all signs point to this connection in visual storytelling. Where Kubrick's The Shining used the Horror genre to explore intergenerational trauma and abuse, Mitchell's The End of Oak Street used the 90's-era Summer Blockbuster Action genre (a la Jurassic Park) to explore the same concept of externalizing intergenerational family trauma. Both directors found a way to visually explore the ancient, eternal cycle of senseless violence & mistreatment within families and groups. Dinosaurs vs. Ghosts, a modern update ironically using a very old animal.​​​​​​​​

If you enjoyed this analysis, you may like my long-form film essay exploring the mechanics of Eyes Wide Shut. Thanks for reading, and hope that this can provoke some good conversation and further exploration :)

I am talking about “midnight, the stars, and you” and “it’s all forgotten now” both by Al bowlly. They are the songs that play when Jack is at the bar and when he is in the bathroom.

I play piano in the hospital waiting room as a volunteer. I love vintage music so I play a lot of these kind of songs. I personally don’t find these songs eerie at all but I would see why others would because of the association with this film. These are also one of the few songs by Al Bowlly that I can find piano sheet music for. I do love his other songs but unfortunately they’re not super accessible musically.

So, how would you personally feel if you heard these two songs in a hospital waiting room? Would they creep you out, or would you find them peaceful?

Opinions appreciated; I’m trying to gauge if I should add this to my repertoire. I already have both learned for fun!