The Shining Movie Meaning
The Shining, a film produced by Stanley Kubrick in the year of 1980, is a classic horror movie about a family isolated in a haunted hotel for the winter. However, Bill Blakemore, a journalist, has written an article that claims that the film has much more meaning to it than just a man gone mad in a sinister hotel filled with dark entities. The article “The Family Of Man” written by Bill Blakemore, could make it seem as if it is almost an entirely new film. However, the movie is no more than what it portrays, and Blakemore’s argument is a major stretch. He is trying too hard to make it of something it’s not. His overthought ideas that consist of baking powder cans and white supremacy are in no real correlation to The Shining. The Indian massacres
…show more content…
that occurred over history are not actually involved in this movie like he wants his readers to believe. Kubrick even speaks for himself of his film, in an interview with Michel Ciment, mentioning nothing of the sort. Bill Blakemore’s accusations of Native American genocide and racism are not backed up with real facts and have no physical evidence. In “The Family Of Man,” Blakemore has used baking powder cans, one of the least supportive arguments he could possibly use, as an example to support his thesis. Blakemore speaks on the Calumet baking powder cans, which coincidently have the Native American chief logo on them that show up in the food locker, saying they have a specific significance (Blakemore 4). This unsupportive argument says nothing at all about the film, and does not back his statements one bit. These baking powder cans are hardly even noticeable in the scene, and it comes to question what cans have to do with anything at all, as after all, Calumet baking powder is a real company. It was placed in the food locker because that’s where it belongs. There is no special symbolization behind this. Perhaps they used Calumet because of the Indian symbol on it to go along with the theme of the hotel. Blakemore is trying to turn nothing into something, and he seems to be going out of his way to bring a silly detail like this up in support of his thesis. In reference to the “visual puzzle” topic in Blakemore’s article, he addresses the ending of the movie when the photograph of the Overlook Ball appears (Blakemore 4). The photograph was said to be taken on July 4th, 1921. According to Blakemore, the reason the photo is shown is because it takes place on July 4th, Independence day. Bill Blakemore believes that Kubrick uses this scene to express the irony of Independence day upon the Indians, because it represents the complete opposite to the Native Americans. However, Kubrick explains to Ciment in their interview together that the ballroom scene is just a mere suggestion that there is a reincarnation of Jack (Ciment), meaning Blakemore’s statement is false. This also means that Jack is a part of the hotel now. He is now a former caretaker and present spirit of the Overlook Hotel. Although, Jack never succeeded in his mission. He failed in slaughtering his family as Grady had done and passed on to Jack to do the same. In “The Family Of Man,” Blakemore also explains in his article that Kubrick adds the heavy use of Indian decorations in the hotel to show that although the Indians are wiped out, they are still spiritually there (Blakemore).
This, however, is a statement that can be agreed with and can easily tie into the storyline. Blakemore has attempted to involve much more meaning to The Overlook rather than just an Indian themed hotel. Although most hotels typically tend to have themes, the Overlook’s just happens to be Native American themed. This does most likely tie into the fact that it was built on an Indian burial ground, but this doesn’t matter. Not everything has to have secret meaning behind it. Bill Blakemore also points out the fact that there is no actual Native American spirits in the movie, but of course there is none because that’s not what the movie is about. The Shining isn’t about Native Americans at all, and if it was there would be much more of a focus on it rather than just decorations and furniture. The reason that Kubrick brings into the movie that the Overlook Hotel was built on an Indian burial ground was to give off a hint that something dark and evil was present. Building on Native American burial grounds is considered to be extremely bad luck. Not only does this take away from Blakemore’s thesis, but Blakemore also contradicts himself. If there are no Indians in the movie, then why make an entire article about why the movie is about
them? In Blakemore’s article, he attempts to compare Grady’s daughters who look very similar to each other to the broken treaties with the Native Americans. (Blakemore 4). To bring into argument , he’s comparing two caucasian girls to broken treaties with Indians. This argument makes no apparent sense and is not a very well thought out supporting statement. These sisters show up in the film because of the story behind them. It was clearly stated in the film that Grady, the father of the girls and the previous caretaker of the Overlook Hotel, slaughtered his daughters in that very hotel. Common sense prior to many other scary movies, ghosts tend to appear where they were killed. That’s obviously why the sisters appear. They’re not there to represent treaties, they’re there to fulfill the story line and make the audience feel uncomfortable with their eery presence. Bill Blakemore also addresses the ending of The Shining in his topic, “The Sound Of Moviegoers” (Blakemore 3), where once the movie has ended, an audience can be heard speaking amongst themselves and then proceeding to applaud the film. This is just to show the audience were confused, as this was Kubrick’s plan. He indeed had an alternative ending already filmed for the movie, and then suddenly changed his mind and cut the ending out, leaving it to be a slight cliff hanger (Ciment). However, on behalf of Blakemore, this scene is apparently an ironic twist. He believes that the audience is confused that they have just seen a movie about themselves and have not even realized it. His claim is that “this reflects their unawareness that they've just seen a movie about themselves, about what people like them have done to the American Indian and to others” (Blakemore 3). Though, Kubrick explained he just wanted to throw the audience off, and didn’t want an obvious ending. Kubrick wanted the audience to continue to wonder what happened next (Ciment). This shuts down Blakemore’s overthought ideas on how the audience is apparently the people of the Overlook Ball, which doesn’t quite make much sense. As Blakemore speaks out about Chef Hallorann, he claims that there is no coincidence that he, a black man, is the only one actually killed in the movie, not including the protagonist,
Jack (Blakemore 2). According to him, Kubrick is trying to send a message to the audience about racism. He believes that chef Hallorann was killed by Jack on the large Indian design on the floor for a reason (Blakemore 2). However, according to Kubrick, “Hallorann is a simple, rustic type who talks about telepathy in a disarmingly unscientific way. His folksy character and naive attempts to explain telepathy to Danny make what he has to say dramatically more acceptable than a standard pseudo-scientific explanation. He and Danny make a good pair” (Ciment). This is all Kubrick had to say about the character, and shows no sign of secret representation as Blakemore discussed. In fact, the so called Indian design on the floor is no more than a tile design on the floor and hardly even noticeable in the movie. Anyone watching the film would have to try incredibly hard to even notice the correlation, as the tile pattern is the same throughout the entire room. It means nothing that he was the only black character in the movie, because even if he was white he still would have been killed off. Kubrick’s statement is that Hallorann had to die because his personality was so folksy, not because he was black (Ciment). According to the interview with Michel Ciment, all that was really spoken from Stanley
Kubrick about The Shining were supernatural and psychological discussions and explanations. (Ciment). Nothing in the interview came near close to Native Americans or genocide or even racism. The Shining is a movie about paranormal mind tricks and a man with psychological problems. It’s about ESP and supernatural forces and activity. This is a paranormal horror film, not any kind of secret code. There are no hidden messages about race or genocide. In his interview about his movie, Kubrick was asked about the dangers of audience misunderstanding the films he makes. His response was that “People can misinterpret almost anything so that it coincides with views they already hold. They take from art what they already believe, and I wonder how many people have ever had their views about anything important changed by a work of art?” (Ciment). Of course Blakemore can have his own ideas and opinions on what really happened in the movie, but to convince others to believe these ideas is a difficult task. The audience can believe whatever they think about The Shining, but as brilliant of a man as Stanley Kubrick is, he meant no more for this movie than what is portrayed.
that occurred over history are not actually involved in this movie like he wants his readers to believe. Kubrick even speaks for himself of his film, in an interview with Michel Ciment, mentioning nothing of the sort. Bill Blakemore’s accusations of Native American genocide and racism are not backed up with real facts and have no physical evidence. In “The Family Of Man,” Blakemore has used baking powder cans, one of the least supportive arguments he could possibly use, as an example to support his thesis. Blakemore speaks on the Calumet baking powder cans, which coincidently have the Native American chief logo on them that show up in the food locker, saying they have a specific significance (Blakemore 4). This unsupportive argument says nothing at all about the film, and does not back his statements one bit. These baking powder cans are hardly even noticeable in the scene, and it comes to question what cans have to do with anything at all, as after all, Calumet baking powder is a real company. It was placed in the food locker because that’s where it belongs. There is no special symbolization behind this. Perhaps they used Calumet because of the Indian symbol on it to go along with the theme of the hotel. Blakemore is trying to turn nothing into something, and he seems to be going out of his way to bring a silly detail like this up in support of his thesis. In reference to the “visual puzzle” topic in Blakemore’s article, he addresses the ending of the movie when the photograph of the Overlook Ball appears (Blakemore 4). The photograph was said to be taken on July 4th, 1921. According to Blakemore, the reason the photo is shown is because it takes place on July 4th, Independence day. Bill Blakemore believes that Kubrick uses this scene to express the irony of Independence day upon the Indians, because it represents the complete opposite to the Native Americans. However, Kubrick explains to Ciment in their interview together that the ballroom scene is just a mere suggestion that there is a reincarnation of Jack (Ciment), meaning Blakemore’s statement is false. This also means that Jack is a part of the hotel now. He is now a former caretaker and present spirit of the Overlook Hotel. Although, Jack never succeeded in his mission. He failed in slaughtering his family as Grady had done and passed on to Jack to do the same. In “The Family Of Man,” Blakemore also explains in his article that Kubrick adds the heavy use of Indian decorations in the hotel to show that although the Indians are wiped out, they are still spiritually there (Blakemore).
This, however, is a statement that can be agreed with and can easily tie into the storyline. Blakemore has attempted to involve much more meaning to The Overlook rather than just an Indian themed hotel. Although most hotels typically tend to have themes, the Overlook’s just happens to be Native American themed. This does most likely tie into the fact that it was built on an Indian burial ground, but this doesn’t matter. Not everything has to have secret meaning behind it. Bill Blakemore also points out the fact that there is no actual Native American spirits in the movie, but of course there is none because that’s not what the movie is about. The Shining isn’t about Native Americans at all, and if it was there would be much more of a focus on it rather than just decorations and furniture. The reason that Kubrick brings into the movie that the Overlook Hotel was built on an Indian burial ground was to give off a hint that something dark and evil was present. Building on Native American burial grounds is considered to be extremely bad luck. Not only does this take away from Blakemore’s thesis, but Blakemore also contradicts himself. If there are no Indians in the movie, then why make an entire article about why the movie is about
them? In Blakemore’s article, he attempts to compare Grady’s daughters who look very similar to each other to the broken treaties with the Native Americans. (Blakemore 4). To bring into argument , he’s comparing two caucasian girls to broken treaties with Indians. This argument makes no apparent sense and is not a very well thought out supporting statement. These sisters show up in the film because of the story behind them. It was clearly stated in the film that Grady, the father of the girls and the previous caretaker of the Overlook Hotel, slaughtered his daughters in that very hotel. Common sense prior to many other scary movies, ghosts tend to appear where they were killed. That’s obviously why the sisters appear. They’re not there to represent treaties, they’re there to fulfill the story line and make the audience feel uncomfortable with their eery presence. Bill Blakemore also addresses the ending of The Shining in his topic, “The Sound Of Moviegoers” (Blakemore 3), where once the movie has ended, an audience can be heard speaking amongst themselves and then proceeding to applaud the film. This is just to show the audience were confused, as this was Kubrick’s plan. He indeed had an alternative ending already filmed for the movie, and then suddenly changed his mind and cut the ending out, leaving it to be a slight cliff hanger (Ciment). However, on behalf of Blakemore, this scene is apparently an ironic twist. He believes that the audience is confused that they have just seen a movie about themselves and have not even realized it. His claim is that “this reflects their unawareness that they've just seen a movie about themselves, about what people like them have done to the American Indian and to others” (Blakemore 3). Though, Kubrick explained he just wanted to throw the audience off, and didn’t want an obvious ending. Kubrick wanted the audience to continue to wonder what happened next (Ciment). This shuts down Blakemore’s overthought ideas on how the audience is apparently the people of the Overlook Ball, which doesn’t quite make much sense. As Blakemore speaks out about Chef Hallorann, he claims that there is no coincidence that he, a black man, is the only one actually killed in the movie, not including the protagonist,
Jack (Blakemore 2). According to him, Kubrick is trying to send a message to the audience about racism. He believes that chef Hallorann was killed by Jack on the large Indian design on the floor for a reason (Blakemore 2). However, according to Kubrick, “Hallorann is a simple, rustic type who talks about telepathy in a disarmingly unscientific way. His folksy character and naive attempts to explain telepathy to Danny make what he has to say dramatically more acceptable than a standard pseudo-scientific explanation. He and Danny make a good pair” (Ciment). This is all Kubrick had to say about the character, and shows no sign of secret representation as Blakemore discussed. In fact, the so called Indian design on the floor is no more than a tile design on the floor and hardly even noticeable in the movie. Anyone watching the film would have to try incredibly hard to even notice the correlation, as the tile pattern is the same throughout the entire room. It means nothing that he was the only black character in the movie, because even if he was white he still would have been killed off. Kubrick’s statement is that Hallorann had to die because his personality was so folksy, not because he was black (Ciment). According to the interview with Michel Ciment, all that was really spoken from Stanley
Kubrick about The Shining were supernatural and psychological discussions and explanations. (Ciment). Nothing in the interview came near close to Native Americans or genocide or even racism. The Shining is a movie about paranormal mind tricks and a man with psychological problems. It’s about ESP and supernatural forces and activity. This is a paranormal horror film, not any kind of secret code. There are no hidden messages about race or genocide. In his interview about his movie, Kubrick was asked about the dangers of audience misunderstanding the films he makes. His response was that “People can misinterpret almost anything so that it coincides with views they already hold. They take from art what they already believe, and I wonder how many people have ever had their views about anything important changed by a work of art?” (Ciment). Of course Blakemore can have his own ideas and opinions on what really happened in the movie, but to convince others to believe these ideas is a difficult task. The audience can believe whatever they think about The Shining, but as brilliant of a man as Stanley Kubrick is, he meant no more for this movie than what is portrayed.