MovieChat Forums > The Shining (1980) Discussion > 40 years old! The ending still ambiguous...

40 years old! The ending still ambiguous.


One of the many great things about this movie, is the open for interpretation ending.

Experts on this movie have theories but they remain just that, theories.

reply

I never thought this movie was that ambiguous.

The ghosts were real. They let Jack out of the storage closet. When Jack dies at the end of the movie, he joined the other ghosts as the caretaker. Like Grady said, he was the caretaker. He was always the caretaker.

reply

Here are the reasons supporting the psychosis / cabin fever theory, and what we are seeing are the delusions of cabin fever, not ghosts.

1. The delusions are never seen by two characters at once.

2. The viewer never sees the delusions without a character present. The viewer only sees what the character sees, nothing more.

3. The delusions are specific to each character, no character has contact with another characters delusions.

4. Cabin fever is real psychiatric condition. People without adaquate social contact can eventually develop it.

5. The photo in the ending shot was seen by Jack soon after the staff left; and along with the murder story by a previous cartaker, provided the framework for his psychosis, which the viewer is invited into.

6. The Grady delusion is never seen alone to the viewer unlocking the door. We HEAR the delusion of the unlocking along with Jack. Grady's "ghost" is not even in the scene, implying that we are hearing Jack's delusion.

reply

I find those arguments to be pretty weak. It's clearly established that Danny has genuine psychic powers and he sees ghosts himself, and he sees the ghosts first and most clearly, at least until the hotel really starts to get its hooks into Jack. IMO it makes a lot more sense that his abilities were showing him something real than that all three of them were having delusions due to cabin fever.
IIRC Kubrick said in an interview that Jack being let out of the storage closet confirmed that the ghosts weren't imaginary, which just confirmed what I already thought.



reply

I find it very interesting that the ghosts and Danny's abilities can never be proven real to the viewer.

There is no actual proof that the ghosts are real and not delusions.

All that is needed is one of the conditions to be violated above.

Why do these conditions 1,2,3 and 6 exist? Surely that is not just a coincidence that they do in this film. But put in deliberately to provide doubt for viewers who don't believe in ghosts.



reply

I just want to give a shout-out to the film's near timelessness. Most films are very much of their time, any film geek can look at the clothes and cinematography and listen to the slang in the dialogue and identify when it was made to within a few years, but there's very little of that in this film. The main setting is isolated and old-fashioned, the leading characters dress unfashionably on their best day and let their looks go to hell as the film progresses, there's nothing topical in the dialogue. Heck, the film's biggest tell as to the era is showing people in fashionable 1920s clothes, and saying they had been there 40 years ago!

And that means that it's as accessible to modern audiences as it was to the people of 1980, even people who say they "...don't like old movies" can enjoy this film. More filmmakers should make an effort to be timeless! I'm not saying that Kubrick had any such intent, because you never know about Kubrick one way or another, but that he made a nearly timeless film and that it's a fine thing.

reply