You got a major paper coming up on Kurt Vonnegut.
You haven’t even read any of the books.
I tried.
Hi.
I’m Kurt Vonnegut.
I’m looking for Thornton Melon.
What do you think?
Someone else wrote this?
Look, all I know is that you didn’t and that’s what disappoints me.
I’ll tell you something else, whoever did write it doesn’t know the first thing about
Kurt Vonnegut.
Just give me one more chance to prove it Mr Grady.
That’s all I ask.
Trust the art, not the artist.
The old phrase is perhaps never more meaningful in an era where artists are interviewed about
their work and expected to provide insight into their thinking.
The problem is: What they say doesn’t matter, even assuming they are being direct in their
commentary and offering the audience the keys to the kingdom so to speak, which legendary
directors like Stanley Kubrick rarely are.
This brings us to Kubrick’s horror masterpiece, The Shining.
I’ve previously argued that the film does not contain any ghosts.
Regardless of the source material, there are simply no ghosts on screen in the real world
of the film.
Instead, the supernatural aspect is all in the character’s heads.
There’s no need to repeat the entire argument here, but I wanted to focus on the main objection
to the “No Ghost” theory.
Which is essentially, “How can you say there are no ghosts in the movie when Kubrick himself
confirmed there were”.
This is the ultimate argument of authority: Kubrick crafted the film.
He said there were ghosts.
There is no argument because he is the creator.
To which I say, so what?
Even if the master director did say that as explicitly as it is used to justify the existence
of ghosts in the film, so what?
Did the brilliant 1986 Rodney Dangerfield classic comedy Back to School teach us nothing?
From all I can tell, Kubrick’s comments on the matter all stem from one interview.
Here are just a few examples of how Kubrick’s original comments have been used to claim
there are absolutely, positively ghosts in the Shining.
Essentially, they claim that the ghost of Grady released Jack from the larder and there
is no other explanation for how the locked door could’ve been opened.
Here are a few more samples of the most popular type of objection I’m seeing.
This, however, is not what Kubrick actually said.
In the interview in question, Kubrick is explicitly referring to his thoughts on the novel, not
the film.
The full quote is far more ambiguous and does not directly address how to analyze his work.
As the filmmaking master put it, “Yes, I do.
It's what I found so particularly clever about the way the novel was written.
As the supernatural events occurred you searched for an explanation, and the most likely one
seemed to be that the strange things that were happening would finally be explained
as the products of Jack's imagination.
It's not until Grady, the ghost of the former caretaker who axed to death his family, slides
open the bolt of the larder door, allowing Jack to escape, that you are left with no
other explanation but the supernatural.
The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely
well worked out, and for a film that is often all that really matters.”
In other words, the entire quote is taken completely out of context.
The quote was not a quote about Kubrick’s masterpiece, the quote was in reference to
Stephen King’s novel.
In the context of the film, the ghost of Charles Grady does not appear at all.
If Jack does indeed see real ghosts, they are not of a 1970’s caretaker, but of a
bartender and others from a much earlier era, like Lloyd the Bartender and a fella named
DELBERT Grady.
But Charles Grady is only mentioned in the initial interview.
He does not appear on screen, whether real or imagined, after that.
Why would anyone reasonably believe that Kubrick crafted a pivotal scene in the movie, one
upon which our entire understanding is supposed to hinge, by featuring a ghost that simply
doesn’t exist anywhere else?
Of course, in the actual movie, we do not see how the door is unlocked or who does it,
more on that in a moment.
It’s important to note that Kubrick is very careful in his wording throughout the entire
interview with Michel Ciment.
He does not specifically reveal any details of the film, instead he focuses on his thoughts
about the novel.
He does, however, repeatedly reference the desire to mislead the audience at two other
points in the conversation.
He couches the line with "my view" and "for purposes of telling the story," which means
he is employing an artifice one way or another, and he mentions these things in the context
of tricking the audience.
The question is: In which way is he tricking them?
What does the film actually say?
We might begin by determining who actually opened the door.
The film only shows the scene from Jack’s point of view.
Jack is pleading against the locked door and then magically it opens.
So who opened the door?
It had to be a ghost, right?
That is what Kubrick said he loved about the novel, ergo it has to be that in the film,
but why?
Kubrick also introduces another storyline about child abuse.
Of the actual facts in the film, few are more established than Jack having abused Danny
before they arrived at the Overlook Hotel.
Wendy recounts the story about how Jack grabbed Danny so hard he hurt his shoulder, but the
master also uses this to introduce another idea that is critical in understanding the
sequence with the larder door: Denial.
As is common in abusive scenarios, Wendy makes excuses for Jack and claims he didn’t really
mean it.
Danny himself retreats into his imaginary friend Tony.
We also have every reason to believe Jack abused Danny at the Overlook hotel, foreshadowed
two days prior to the incident in the larder.
Danny arrives on screen distraught after investigating Room 237, with a ripped shirt and a hurt shoulder.
Are we supposed to believe a ghost did that as well?
No, I think most people assume it was Jack, even after he goes to investigate the room
and has the strange vision of the older woman in the bathtub.
Jack himself doesn’t claim it was a ghost, bizarrely insisting he must have hurt himself.
This sets up the scene in the larder: Wendy has finally seen enough and realizes the extent
of Jack’s madness and abuse.
She hits him with the bat and locks him in.
We do not know where Danny is during this, but what scenario is more plausible?
That a ghost we do not actually see even at this pivotal moment, appears out of nowhere
simply to unlock the door and then disappear again forever, or Danny, in denial about the
abuse, finds his father in the larder and unlocks it?
Before the larder is unlocked, Jack pleads for one more chance, just give me one more
chance.
Does that sound like it would appeal to a ghost we’ve never really seen, or his own
son he abused?
I’ve previously dismissed the idea of appealing to authority and said to trust the art, not
the artist.
At the risk of disagreeing with myself a bit, it’s worth noting that Kubrick intentionally
did not show who unlocked the larder door.
He filmed something, but cut it out.
We know this from one of the film’s editors, Gordon Stainforth, who was kind enough to
post a comment on the previous video.
He wrote, “This is one of the best analyses of the movie I've ever seen, and strangely
enough (or perhaps, not so strangely) how I saw it while I was working with Kubrick
on it during the editing.
NOT that we ever discussed it!
Such was his nature.
So much done by suggestion.
At the end of the day, the movie can best be described as totally ambiguous: it can
be read equally easily either way – Kubrick still leaves in just enough apparently 'supernatural'
visions to satisfy the gullible who like to believe in ghosts.
This total ambiguity is what makes the film so clever ... and I was working with him the
night he cut out a shot of Grady actually opening the larder door (I was the one who
actually had to cut it out).
So all we were left with then was the sound of the door being unlocked.
I remember going home very late that night thinking, that is brilliant.
The last element of non-ambiguity gone.”
Ok!
Take it easy!
This isn’t an appeal to authority here, and trust the art not the artist still holds
true.
But that’s damn interesting, is it not?
Confirmation that, at some point in the creative process, Kubrick intended to show Grady unlocking
the larder door, but in the end, he chose to omit that scene from the movie.
Of course, Stainforth makes a valid point that it is intended to be ambiguous, a point
many others mentioned - and I can accept that, but that in no way, shape, or form detracts
from the validity of the no ghost stance, which I maintain is the only reasonable interpretation
of the movie - both within the confines of the cinematic masterpiece itself, and also
within the larger body of work during the extraordinary filmmaking career of the great
Stanley Kubrick.
It is impossible for me to believe that Kubrick, an enigmatic director, known for making works
that require engagement from the audience and are subject to reams of analysis, would
have spelled out the meaning of one of his films so clearly.
As we’ve seen, he did not actually say what he’s claimed to have said, but even if he
did, I repeat my question from earlier: What the hell does Kubrick know?
If Vonnegut doesn’t know the first thing about Vonnegut, then why the hell should I
believe that Kubrick knows a damn thing about Kubrick?
A work of art exists on its own, outside the will and intention of the creator.
This point of view is controversial and can seem self-contradictory, but what is really
the alternative?
If we are to assume that the creator is the de facto expert on their work and the sole
source of truth in interpretation, then we also need to assume that a creative work comes
together entirely intentionally.
That every decision made throughout the hard work of creating a project is made intentionally
toward a certain goal.
This, of course, is absurd: Creativity is a process.
There is inspiration.
The initial idea of a work: No one knows where this comes from or why.
There is evolution, sometimes the final work doesn’t reflect the initial idea at all.
The creator could well reach a place different than they planned.
Regardless, much of the work that occurs throughout the process is subconscious.
This idea was perhaps best captured by Sir William Blake commenting on John Milton’s
epic Paradise Lost.
In principle, Paradise Lost is a Christian morality tale about original sin.
In practice, Satan is by far the most engaging, interesting character in the entire work.
For generations critics have argued why Milton made Satan so cool and God so boring and bland.
William Blake put it this way, “The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels
& God, and at liberty when he wrote of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet and
of the Devil's party without knowing it.”
In other words, it doesn’t matter what Milton might have thought.
The facts are that Satan is the lead character in the final product.
Likewise, Kubrick might well have wanted to show Grady opening the larder at one point
in time.
It doesn’t matter.
We do not actually see who opens the larder in the final film, making Kubrick’s statement
about what happened in the book completely irrelevant.
We can also look at another example closer to our own time.
My favorite filmmaker of all time alongside Kubrick, the great David Lynch!
Lynch is notorious for never explaining his own work, always encouraging the viewer to
find one’s own interpretation.
But back in 2017, when some fans referred to a beloved Twin Peaks character as a giant
teapot, even Lynch himself jumped in and said, WHOA!
TAKE IT EASY!
Lynch stated, “It’s not a tea kettle.
It’s a machine.
I actually sculpted that shape, and people see it as a tea kettle, but it’s a machine.
If you want to see it as that, that’s fine, too.”
I never saw it as a teapot myself, but it does kind of resemble one.
Incidentally, one of Kubrick’s favorite films of all time is Lynch’s cult classic
Eraserhead.
And to that I say, Kubrick had damn good taste!
I would also add that it’s impossible to believe he ranked an ambiguous mind fuck like
Eraserhead among his favorites, and then choose to squeeze all ambiguity out of The Shining.
Meteor Shit!
Of course, we know that Kubrick did not do any such thing.
The film touches on every supernatural concept imaginable from ESP to reincarnation, possibly
something about a Native American Indian burial ground, making it clear the master was playing
with the audience.
We know some of this from the interview itself, where Kubrick mentions that “I've always
been interested in ESP and the paranormal.”
Regarding ESP in the film, Kubrick responds to the interview noting any sequences of visions
are very short.
“If Danny had perfect ESP, there could be no story.
He would anticipate everything, warn everybody and solve every problem.
So his perception of the paranormal must be imperfect and fragmentary.
This also happens to be consistent with most of the reports of telepathic experiences.
The same applies to Hallorannnnn.
One of the ironies in the story is that you have people who can see the past and the future
and have telepathic contact, but the telephone and the short-wave radio don't work, and the
snowbound mountain roads are impassable.
Failure of communication is a theme which runs through a number of my films.”
Again, this might sound definitive on the surface, but two things come to mind.
First, a broader definition of paranormal does not mean ghosts.
We can imagine a world with some kind of ESP, but that doesn’t directly imply ghosts can
open doors or people can be reincarnated.
Second, Kubrick is careful to be two steps removed.
Danny has “a perception of the paranormal” that is “imperfect and fragmentary,” which
ultimately results in the same failure of communication as any technology, ground he’s
covered in his films, and which leads Hallorahan to his death.
Kubrick further emphasizes this point a few questions later, when he explicitly states
that Danny’s imaginary friend is just that, a coping mechanism of his own mind.
“Danny has had a frightening and disturbing childhood.
Brutalized by his father and haunted by his paranormal visions, he has had to find some
psychological mechanism within himself to manage these powerful and dangerous forces.
To do this, he creates his imaginary friend, Tony, through whom Danny can rationalize his
visions and survive.”
In any event, I continue to maintain that there are no ghosts in the movie.
None whatsoever.
The movie is really about an alcoholic who failed and failed miserably with his aspirations
to become an author, and he was an abusive drunk who took out his misery on his poor
wife and son, and he was ultimately driven to madness due to isolation, exactly as Kubrick
spelled out for us right at the very beginning of the movie during the initial interview.
Kubrick never said there were any ghosts in The Shining based on any quotes I’ve ever
seen, and those which I have seen like the ones regarding the larder door are taken grossly
out of context.
As he put it, “A story of the supernatural cannot be taken apart and analysed too closely.
The ultimate test of its rationale is whether it is good enough to raise the hairs on the
back of your neck.
If you submit it to a completely logical and detailed analysis it will eventually appear
absurd.”
Why then would Kubrick spell the whole thing out for anyone and why should we care if he
did?
In conclusion, if you eliminate the fact that this movie is based on a simple Stephen King
book about ghosts, and you view Kubrick’s movie for what it really is, there are obviously
no ghosts in Kubrick’s film.
In other words, if you eliminate Stephen King’s version of events…
Once you rule out his version of what happened, there is no other explanation.
Is there?
Thank you very much for watching everyone, I hope you enjoyed, and have a wonderful night!
And have a Happy Halloween!
Cheers!
And another thing Vonnegut!
I’m gonna stop payment on the check!
What’s that?
Fuck me?
Hey Kurt, do you read lips?
Fuck you!