Additional points I forgot to put in the vid, plus response to comments (updated) - The video author has not updated the description, nor responded to comments claiming I'm the author. Seems happy to let that assumption by some viewers continue. - Good point by some in the comments section here. The vid is heavily linked to my work right at the beginning and in description on nothing more than a single continuity error observation. This is clearly an excuse to boost algorithm recognition of the video by associating it to my vids and audience. - The Wendy Theory not only mismatches the larger themes of Kubrick's filmography, but has no correlation with the other well known themes in the movie (Native American genocide, Gold standard, the hotel as the United States, certain scenes being within Jack's head as he writes etc). - For those who say that interpretations like the Wendy Theory aren't meant to be plausible, just "fun" ...The now common practice of deliberately positing "fun" ideas about themes that could have been put in a given film, but weren't, and disguising those ideas as actual interpretation ... is a disservice to genuine film study and to viewers. - For those who claim that I come across as angry or jealous in this presentation or claiming that I am being abusive of the Wendy theory author. This is denial and projection on their part. At no point in this video do I swear, raise my voice or call the WT author names. This was a relaxed presentation, maybe a bit too relaxed being that I rambled a bit rather than doing a pre-scripted debunk. And, as I said in the video, there are lots of other videos out there offering theories on the Shining that have many more views than the Wendy Theory, but I don't bother debunking those because the authors didn't confuse their work with mine in any way. Here are some examples that I haven't even watched, but invite you to do so and make up your own mind on ... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/itOJltKg36y9nok.html 1.7 million views kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mtxoftWg3dWlmJ8.html 1.5 million views kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sLiomdKGm8WwmHU.html 1.8 million views Despite plagiarizing my work and changing their channel name (formerly known as Screen Prism) after I publicly called them out on it, I haven't even bothered watching this one. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nK6mnpWrzLumoI0.html 934k views Several in the comment section are claiming I didn't debunk the video, but when giving their reasoning they actually provide an altered version of the Wendy Theory (not the one I debunked). The simple fact that commenters are having to alter the theory to try and give it credibility illustrates that several of the debunk points I have given hold sufficient merit. Nevertheless, I'll address some of those altered theory points ... - Someone suggested that scenes involving groups of more than two characters are real events. This doesn't work at all. The Gold Room scenes contain hundreds of people who aren't at th hotel and are actually from a different historical era. The twins scene involves three characters (two girls plus Danny) and same goes for the bear costumed man scene (two seen by Wendy plus Wendy herself). - Some say the Wendy Theory works alongside other interpretations of the film and that Kubrick meant them all to be true. First, that logic could be used to shove any interpretation into the movie and ignore all conflicting evidence. Second, the Wendy Theory video says in its title that it "finally explains" the film, meaning it supposed to be the definitive interpretation. - For those who say that my statements at the end of there being some details that point the idea Wendy might be an abuser, this is not an endorsement of the Wendy Theory at all, which posits Jack as wholly innocent. My take on this at the moment is that Wendy trying to cover up for Jack's abuse, shares a certain amount of guilt and responsibility. This is totally different to the Wendy Theory.

One has to admit that, whether absolutely correct or not, the "Wendy Theory" does give a new perspective on the line "there's a crazy lady in the hotel with us".

10:29 video starts (in summary in those ten minutes he says he is not the producer of the wendy theory video)

For some reason I was fixated on the small island in the opening shot - turns out it's named Wild Goose Island (as in wild goose chase). Is this pure coincidence or is there a chance Kubrick told us in the first 10 seconds that he created an unsolvable maze of a film?

His daughter, who worked on the film, told me that Wendy turns into the strong female hero of the film. In the beginning she is a weak, abused woman who then finds the resoucefulness to fight back against Jack. If you notice, Jack does scary stuff, but Wendy does the most actual, physical damage with her baseball bat and knife (between Wendy and Jack). Kubrick's own notes in his copy of The Shining never references Wendy as an abuser. He did wonder why she stayed with him, though. I remember Kubrick writing in the margin, contemplating the reason why she stayed with Jack after the drunk dislocation of his arm, "Danny, Love, or Sex"?

Actual video starts at 11:05 He preambles for ever

I believe that Kubrick intentionally crafted clues and hints that would lead to multiple interpretations. This would create more uncertainty in the audience... it is that uncertainty that made The Shining so effective as a horror movie. Jack goes crazy. Jack imagines his book's story 'come to life'. Danny's Shining reflects Jack's and Wendy's fears back on them. Jack AND Danny AND the hotel ALL Shine, causing interference and amplification of their imaginations. The hotel is haunted with the spirits of natives. Wendy is nuts and hallucinating it all. All could be true, but the audience doesn't know which one is true. That's good horror.

About halfway through and zero debunking has happened...

My son jokingly told me that in the scene where Danny meets the twin girls, that it is Danny that imagines chopping them to pieces, and the thought shocks him into running away from them. That part will never be the same for me again.

I don’t think a lot of people actually believed in this theory as much as they were fascinated by how the theory uses certain parts of the movie for its argument, and I found the theory more entertaining than some of the ones in the Room 237 documentary, but I’ll happily watch a debunk video from Rob Ager anyway haha

I agree with a commenter below: not so much a debunking as a disagreement.

I see that at a certain point, the movie completely dives into the novel the character Jack is writing. It takes place at the hotel, and features the scenes we see. You know Kubrick is telling you that there is a shift in realities because there are several changes including the typewriter color/model and the removal of a giant wooden sculpture in the main lobby. The Jack in the novel wears the red jacket.

This isn't a "debunk" video. It's an "I disagree" video. A debunk would give reasons why the Wendy Theory CAN'T be right or examples of what it fails to answer.

That´s not a debunk. And dozens of "real" continuity errors in a Kubrick movie? Ridiculous.

I dunno man. I think you're being a bit dismissive. Guy reaches a little for sure but I don't think reasons like "it doesn't fit" or "it doesn't make a lot of sense" are very convincing. I don't think it's only about continuity errors tho he certainly brings that up a lot. I'm happier to accept that as symbolic of insanity etc. But I think it's a little weak that you'd put out a video pointing out the absence of the bear rug symbolically referring to Jack's sexual abuse and criticize this as far fetched. Both make sense and require a little reach. Anyway the real point I wanted to make was yea I don't think it's only linked to continuity errors. I think it's quite interesting because since the very first time I watched this there seemed to be something dramatically off with how everyone was interacting. Things didn't line up. Expressions didn't fit the narrative. And if you give the benefit of the doubt to the Wendy theory that kind of goes away. First off she just seems spacey and out of it. Especially when she approaches him at the typewriter. Before he loses his shit at her she's just looking totally off. And then afterwards Jack does appear almost, confused and perplexed. Like what the fuck are you doing/saying? It happens way more than a few times as well where he's just trying his best to cope with her instability. I've always felt as well the scene with the bat he 'really' seems so even and measured, fully expecting her to just hand it to him never thinking she's going to actually swing. It really, really does feel like someone trying to talk a crazy person down off the ledge. Also the part with the carpet. Man. I don't know if that's a continuity error. The pattern changes entirely and the shot is set up with Danny's toys and the ball in the exact same place but reversed the pattern. That feels dramatically intentional. Esp when Jack goes back and it's reversed the same way cuz they clearly have two patterns for that spot in the set. There's other continuity errors as well like major set pieces being removed. Lamps added to ceilings or removed which would have meant taking it out and drywalling everything. The part with Danny sucking his thumb after being hurt as well he looks totally confused. And that flash of her looking over the radios or what have you when Danny goes in room 237? That's definitely suggesting something. With her spacey out of touch explanation of how Danny hurt his arm. And the fact that Jack knows Grady's name but he only told her his last name, and then he shows up with a different first name. Then the super freakout at the end with all these wacked out scenes where she's seeing the river of blood, skeletons, bear guy. A whole lot of things make a lot more sense if she's the one actually going crazy. Not saying this is canon now or anything but I do wonder about the consistency of things in all the other scenes of the movie regarding the continuity and I honestly do think this movie totally makes sense if she's the one losing her mind. I don't think it's a home run but it's awfully compelling. Calling it garbage isn't really fair by any means. Considering you've made theories about the freezer door opening on opposite sides giving guy a bit of rope on his own continuity errors seems appropriate.

To believe The Wendy Theory, one must buy into The Shining’s continuity errors being purposeful prop manipulation, not production crew “accidental errors.” Unintended continuity errors are commonly made during scenes requiring multiple shooting sessions to complete, up to multiple days, which demand separate set ups. I find the scene where Wendy approaches a typing Jack compelling. The background chair and side table disappears and reappears in the closely edited clips, but Jack’s hair remains precisely in the same place as do the folds and wrinkles in his shirt, not to mention the camera never shifts, and Jack’s position in the frame is the same. This is an impossible feat if the final edit was cobbled together from separate shooting sessions. So, this sequence of reaction shots of Jack were filmed during the same session, and there seems to have been an orchestrated effort to manipulate the chair and table. This begs the question, “Why?” I’m not stating The Wendy Theory is that “why”… but why?

One thing that debunks the Wendy theory to me is he never explains Dick Hallorin calling the sheriff's office after Danny shined the incident in room 237. How could Wendy hallucinate that if she doesn't know he is coming?

So, the wendy theory got me thinking that the shining was 3 movies. Which one you're watching is based on who you watch as the protagonist. If it's Danny, a ghost story. If Jack, a nightmare about his life issues. And if wendy, about a paranoid schizophrenic experience. It's just a theory of course.

He only used one reference to your theories which was the props and environment being moved around during scenes. It spent maybe 10 seconds showing your website on the subject and was only used as a springboard for his theory. Personally, I found a decent amount of info very interesting and the now deleted ending by kubrick kind of adding credence to the theory. Edit: After watching the video through, this isn't really a debunk video, but more of a ''this guy isn't me, and this is not my theory''. I think the amount of layers of context this movie has is almost impossible to determine and even then our most beloved theories are still just theories after all. I have watched yours over the years and have found them entertaining just as I found the wendy theory entertaining, but if you do debunk in the future, try not to make it so personal and focus more on the points of the theory itself.

I disagree with the notion that he has to expose his real life identity on the Internet, but he shouldn't have cited you without making it clear that he isn't associated with you in any way. Not that it seems like he had an actually good reasons to cite you to begin with.

Wendy: Danny, who did this to you? Danny: [stares only at her] Jack: [looks on in horror] Wendy: [grabs Danny and backs out of the room] [to Jack] You did this, didn't you? Jack: [looks confused]

It seemed to me that the uploader had honest intentions and was paying you respect.

If Kubrick had faked a moon landing, the cinematography would have been better.

Ooh, more stuff to get me through the night shift. Hope you're having a great (start to the) festive season sir

People will say anything to get a click, the Wendy Theory was absolutely absurd.

I think the Wendy Theroy is a clever A.I experiment.

I quite like the Wendy theory. That’s not saying I think that it’s correct or what Kubrick intended. The theory itself though I found interesting. The idea that Wendy was “the crazy lady” in room 237 was something that I thought might have worked. As I say I don’t think the theory is right, but it’s interesting to think about the film if it had been made with that underlying theme. Thinking of it as an alternative version it’s intriguing. Keep up the great work Rob.

How could you say the guys video wasn’t genuine? He put more work into it than you did In this one. The thumbnail is click bait (like most videos) and isnt meant to be taken as fact. He says the entire video this is what he thinks and nothing more. He used your website to have all the continuity errors in hand. As a viewer we can take the errors as fact since you already have been accepted as a creditable researcher. You would have preferred him to spent (however long it would take) in finding the errors himself before making a theory? Or better yet he could have pretending he found the error and not give you credit. How do you personally explain all the continuity errors? Are we suppose to believe they were accidental? Would you say it was all 100% an accident? If you consider some to be deliberate then there has to be a reason. Not saying his reasons are correct but then I ask you to make a video and explain. Just know I’m going to say your video isn’t genuine. Sorry

Please expand on the points made at 19 minutes. Long said most of the movie is simply an adaptation of the novel Jack is writing in the hotel, a story inspired by the tale Grady relates in the interview. Look at the lightbulb go off in Jack's head as he hears the story for the first time. Also, very key to this theory is the burning cigarette in the ashtray. Jack does not smoke in the entire film, but the cigarette indicates the fictionalized version of Jack in the story he's writing. The purple jacket is also very telling.

There are, generally, no continuity “errors” in a Kubrick movie. The visual ambiguity is disorienting and makes the audience question what they are seeing. The theories, whether hallucination vs. ghost story vs. any other perspective, is a reflection of the viewer. Kubrick’s movies tend to be about the complexity and mystery of human nature, as shown by human behavior and relationships. The Wendy theory is plausible. You can make sense of the movie from the perspective of Wendy’s supposed “mental illness” as much as Jack the unhinged psychopath theory, or most other theories. The moon landing bit is also a potential clue. That theory has been around since 2001 (the movie) which came out around the same time as the moon landing. It was so “realistic” in many people’s minds that a fake moon landing seems possible. Kubrick could easily be playing with the audience putting that sweater on Danny. It’s a work of art, a puzzle, a joke, but most of all, it’s a reflection of the audience.

I don't think that anyone really thought that this was your work.

When are you going to actually debunk this Wendy Theory?

Glad you did this video as I was assuming you did collaborate on it or at least it was a throw away theory another creator decided to expand on.

Why, in spite of the counter evidence, I still think the "Wendy theory" video adds an interesting layer to my appreciation and interpretation of the movie: it reveals to me nuances in the portrayal of Jack Nicholson's character and Wendy. It really DOES seem as if Nicholson is sometimes playing a normal , non-pathological version of the character and sometimes he plays an exagarated pathological cartoonish version (and the "switching" occurs throughout the movie), plus the possibility of Wendy's pathology had not occurred to me before, yet it seems kind of obvious on rewatching the film.

What if the events are occuring in the mind of all 3; Wendy, Danny and Jack. The story is about 3 people going insane in the hotel, right? They all imagined it, and it was different for all 3. That's why the story and hotel keeps changing based on the perspective of the character. This includes the audience, director, and film, if you wish to interpret deeper.

What about the cut scene where Ulman visits Wendy and Danny in the hospital and states nothing out of the Ordinary happened at the overlook. Apparently that scene was viewed during the first weekend of release but has been cut completely.

I totally respect you wanting to distance yourself from certain people or theories but the tone of your voice reminds me a loT of how my very old USC film professors talk down to students when they don't like something because it doesn't live up to their "Hollywood ideals". nothing wrong with it but kinda rubs me the wrong way. everyone's entitled to their own opinions and everyone takes away different things from different films- I understand wanting to de confuse people on where theories came from tho. I am a USC film student and I love making and studying films and I have lots of respect for those who do but KZfaq is not really the platform to be gatekeeping who is "qualified enough" to talk about films. have been fascinated by your theories for a long time but the tone in this video comes across as very condescending and mirrors how an older generation of filmmakers looks down upon the next generation-not saying that's what's happening here just reminds me of it.

Rob, been following your channel the past year or so and get a lot out of it. An acquaintance at Reclamation Entertainment once said in a discussion that when I watch film I should realize that everything on the screen is there for a reason. Nothing is by chance. That was decades ago and I thought he was overstating the case, but you have helped me see that reality. I enjoy your insights on the modern myths especially, Star Wars, and wonder if you will ever take on sacred storylines now that they are becoming more popular, i.e., the Passion, the Chosen, et al.

Nice continuity errors in the background, Rob, with the chair and the extra Rubik's Cube.

11 minutes into the 24 minute video the guy actually starts talking about the subject at hand lol

"... Oh, about the things you saw at the hotel. He told me they've really gone over the palce with a fine tooth comb and they didn't find the slightest evidence of anything at all out of the ordinary. Mrs Torrance, I think I know how you must feel aobut this, and it's perfectly understandable for someone to imagine such things when they've been thru something like you have. You mustn't think about it any more." -Ullman, from Deleted Hospital Scene

Such a fan of Kubrick! It's so amazing that so many years after the release of this film, it is still being pored over and re-anaylized by so many fans. I don't know if I buy the Wendy theory, but it's an interesting take. I've become literally addicted to your channel, and have become much more observant as I re-watch my favorite films. The way Kubrick allows us all to draw our own conclusions, especially in the Shining, Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, and 2001 point out how unique his approach to the art of filmmaking truly was. I was just a kid of 13 when I saw the Shining, and even then, I was intrigued by the idea that the hotel might not have been haunted, and that it was a story of Jack's descent into insanity. I felt almost cheated when it seemed that the ghosts let Jack out of the cooler. Your video examining the various ways Jack might have escaped really was relavatory to me. As a film lover, when I'm talking to younger viewers, who are used to the terrible state of movies these days, the reboots, sequels, prequels, endless superhero blandfests, etc, the immense satisfaction of introducing them to Dr Strangelove, other films by Kubrick, Akira Kurawsawa, Jim Jarmusch, Terry Gilliam, etc, and watching them realize how amazing and fantastic the filmmaking art can be, is immensely satisfying.

Man that thumbnail creeped me out 😅 I agree about Room 237, really enjoyed the movie and the presentation and it got me thinking about some interesting interpretations, but I found myself being really skeptical about the interpretations, especially the moon landing theory.

Watch this turn out to be an ARG when we find out Rob was Rob the whole time.

The only thing that caught my eye in the "Wendy theory" is the TV they watch before Danny going for the fire engine - the TV is not plugged in anywhere and it feels like she may be staring in the blank TV...? Any thoughts on this or continuity "error"? Thank you! Appreciate you work so much, Rob

Rob, I don't know if you've ever come across this info, but after checking a website for more obscure stuff about this film, I found something I hadn't seen before. It talks about the epilogue that Kubrick had left out of the theatrical release; this is the entire entry: It’s not uncommon for a film’s ending to change in post-production, but Kubrick changed the ending of the film after it had been playing in theaters for a weekend. The film version is lost, but pages from the screenplay do exist. The scene takes place after Jack dies in the snow. Ullman visits Wendy in the hospital. He tells her, “About the things you saw at the hotel. [A lieutenant] told me they’ve really gone over the place with a fine tooth comb and they didn’t find the slightest evidence of anything at all out of the ordinary.” He also encourages Wendy and Danny to stay with him for a while. The film ends with text over black, “The Overlook Hotel would survive this tragedy, as it had so many others. It is still open each year from May 20th to September 20th. It is closed for the winter.” Roger Ebert deemed the cut a good decision. According to him, “Kubrick was wise to remove that epilogue ... it pulled one rug too many out from under the story.” Would you say that Ullman is perhaps trying to cover up what his crew did find, or does this idea lend some credence to what Navarro is talking about?

When I saw 'Wendy theory' video, I was wondering, what would Rob Ager think about it. And now I know. Thank you.

The scene with Jack at the red loo always gave me the vibes like he's inventing a horror story on the spot.

Hi Rob. I’d be interested in knowing your opinion on the so called “shone report” video, about a recurring sound in the first twenty minutes or so (I think it might be looped background noise during the hotel’s closing preparations). And, I also noticed that Danny’s belt in his bathroom at the beginning of the movie has a pattern reminiscent of the hotel carpet’s one.

Rob, I've been a fan since 2011. One scene which I've puzzled over since I first watched The Shining was towards the end , just before Wendy sees the man in the bear costume, as she's climbing the stairs, you can hear a chorus of voices. Has anyone been able to make out what they were saying?

There is no competition, Rob mate your channel is the best out there, I'd say objectively so too.

What’s his explanation for the continuity errors? Just mistakes?

When all else fails, play the "hallucination card/dream card."

See Rob Ager, you've mentioned that something was not quite right in that movie with the props constantly in and out of shots and the continuity errors, which gives a sense of fear but not the typical spooky jump scares and that's what Rob Navarro's video was alluding to, the continuity errors were very noticeable not subtle, and was a frequent theme throughout the movie. Navarro highlighted that it was known Kubrick was an avid chess player and a perfectionist cinematographer. After viewing that movie again I get the sense that those props missing and reappearing was deliberate, the running theme of (shining) lights, lamps and chandeliers disappearing and reappearing, Kubrick is telling a story that those with their eyes wide shut, won't understand. America has deep psychological, schizophrenic like tendencies to harm it's children in society and won't acknowledge their deeds steeped in denial. Kubricks a genius.

Based on what I saw from his channel he seems like a fan inspired by you (or is a very elaborate troll) and he probably uses a robot voice because he's not a native english speaker (or he's super shy maybe?). If he's not a native speaker he may have a thick accent that he might believe is hard to understand or think could be off-putting in some way.

I forget about this channel cause I'm just subscribed to so many but when the algorithm shows your vids in my main home feed I always click

I love your channel and your insights but I don't really feel that you debunked this one but rather that you just don't agree with it. Yes, the other Rob, that clearly has a different last name as you, did mention your videos as an influence but never stated or even implied that you endorsed his point of view. It merely seemed that he wanted to acknowledge you as someone whose work informed his own ideas. I felt that was pretty clear and never saw any reason to assume otherwise. Furthermore, I think that your own interpretations of the abuse themes of Kubrick do work inside the Wendy Theory. Now, whether your right about inconsistencies in correlation between continuity errors and Wendy's theorized psychosis is correct or not, I can't say. There are too many details in that movie to keep up with, but nothing you said in your own video has convinced me to readily dismiss it as wrong. You spent so much time emphasizing that you weren't affiliated with the video, that it feels like this is what you really cared about, more than anything and that's fine if you felt it wasn't clear. I think it's important to be understood in where you stand, especially if lines are getting crossed. However, again, I really think other Rob was also clear where he was coming from and it seems unfair to suggest that he was trying to ride on your coattails, at least to the extent of trying to fool people in believing there was an association. If he did a few tricks to boost the algorithm, I wouldn't let that bother you. As far as I can see it would boost yours too if it caught on... or not. Is it that big a deal? (Honest question, there.) As someone who has let misunderstandings get me out of sorts in the past I think the situation may require a little more pondering. My two cents in the age of the internet. Cheers.

On topic of things moving around between shots remind me of the hedge animals from the novel that only move when you aren’t looking them. Maybe this was Kubrick’s transition of just that. Things move when you’re not looking, which in my opinion is more frightening

Isn't it great when guys our age have a full head of hair as opposed to many of our unlucky friends 😂

8:18 this could simply be that the creator of this video is capable of writing english, but may not speak it very well, or with a heavy accent that would either turn the audience away, or make it difficult to understand the creator.

Citing you made the wendy theory video seem incredibly creditable

I think Kings reaction to the Wendy character was all wrong. Yes, she cried a lot in a scary situation. But she beat Jack unconscious with a bat, dragged him to the storage room and locked him up. She escaped with Danny and drove off in the Snowcat through the Wilderness.. She was the hero of the film.

For me, this is not persuasive. Doesn’t address the deleted end scene. The Wendy Theory explains the apparently paranormal activity through the film as well as putting logic to otherwise juvenile continuity errors.

My Theory: Every Scene In Every Movie Ever Made That Has A Continuity Error Is AN HALLUCINATION

If I were asked what my favorite movie was, The Shining would immediately come to mind. Just like Kubrick is probably my favorite director. And, I know that must sound strange, not every Kubrick fan puts The Shining as their #1. But for me it's just about its immersion. The tone and pacing just work for me. there is something intoxicating almost about watching it alone in the dead of night when everything is dark and quiet, especially if its cold. I've always been a sort of, "night owl" so watching The Shining alone around 3AM is just something that i can always return to and find gratifying. And I have looked into various analyses of his films and perhaps my own interpretations are trash, but i definitely do sense a sort of conspiracy element. more blatant with work like Eyes Wide Shut, but i believe there are common themes throughout all of his films and that he picks particular stories or source material that he can make his own or insert his own interpretation, experiences and beliefs into. I have to mention before I forget how frustrating it is, the amount of continuity "errors" in The Shining. as if it had to have been deliberate, but, that begs the question as to why? simply to create an effect of uneasiness? just like his framing, symmetry and geometry. perhaps he wanted to mess with the subconscious mind. playing tricks on the viewer simply to create a feeling or tone. like something is off but you don't know exactly what it is, you more so sense it. I have to say my interpretations or theories may be a little more, "tin foil" and thats not to discredit him as an artist. He was truly a brilliant and talented storyteller and visionary. but, i think you can't exactly get where he did just on raw abilities. He was in some fraternity or another and found himself in the service of.. lets say, powerful, influential, rich, elite types.. they hired him and threw money at him because of how masterful he was at his craft. and i have to mention that Stephen King probably belongs to this same fraternity. and that both his original book and Kubrick's version of the story are still about the same things and it has everything to do with the ill effects of rituals and "mind control". Its also important to look into the other material that Stephen King published regarding this story, the continuation of the story when Danny grows up and faces off against a sort of Satanic cult that for a lack of better comparison, ritually murders children to sort of consume their "souls", and they more they suffer as they die the sweeter or stronger it is. and it really brings to mind theories of adrenachrome. and if you want to analyze movies, check out Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and From Hell ask yourself if Satanists really are dominating Hollywood. there is a pattern, actors playing similar roles that go beyond typecasting. like movies seemingly unrelated are actually tied in meaning or referencing the same things. And in The Shining its all about abuse and the effects on the mind. i think the Schizophrenia theory holds water or makes sense to a degree, for sure. especially considering the Apollo references, as if Kubrick was suggesting those theories were delusion, or even the idea itself that we went was a widely believed delusion. But, I'm more concerned, and about not the themes of alcoholism, but what trauma does to the brain and mind and how people dissociate or develop sort of alternate personalities. there is that moment of shock and horror that overcomes every single character. even Hollaran, not just Danny and his mother and father. they all have that wide eyed, deer in headlights look. thats when people are petrified with fear, as if they just shit themselves. thats when the brain is so overloaded that it splits and people escape or dissociate behind amnesia walls. From Danny's abuse he developed Tony, who takes over when Danny needs to escape the harsh reality of his abuse. and this sort of thing is generational, even the trait of being easily disassociated or hypnotized. people are born into these secret societies and cults. So its safe to assume that Danny's parents also suffered similarly when they were younger. Like the parents can have alternate personalities that take over and are the ones that do the abuse and create alters and perform the programming within their own children. Stephen King has similar themes in his other stories, especially IT.. the idea of fear, that causes the trauma and dissociation. The town and the adults almost seemed in on the whole thing, like they overlooked the disappearing children who ended up consumed.. i think the supernatural is used as a cover or is part of these characters delusions, again being the effects of trauma from ritual abuse. its deeper than mere alcoholism.. this is about the occult, i think. and the dark side of it. Not sure how else to explain it or break it down for a succinct conclusion. Danny was abused, emotionally, physically, psychologically and i dare say sexually. might be more obvious in the TV miniseries that was more true to the source material. For example, it keeps returning to his father, "transforming" into a Werewolf when he puts on a mask. yet again a reference to disassociation or an alternate personality. which was missing entirely in the film. But, to me its as if Danny was brought to that isolated hotel for his programming and was scared shitless in order to split his mind and program him. as if the ones that hurt you the most are the ones you love and trust the most. its as if both of his parents were in on it, and nobody is coming to help him except Hollaran who may be part of it. the ones tormenting Danny are his own parents and they don't even realize it. They seem to have their own handlers as well. and the scary thing is i honestly don't think i'm reading too far into things or being paranoid with my interpretation. I am under the impression that just like with ghosts, aliens, clowns, vampires, werewolves, clowns.. its all a coverup for the abuse people are doing to each other. say if someone claims to have been abducted by aliens, thats how they remember the trauma.. and thats how we see these stories, through the characters perception or eyes. and thats what they were convinced to believe, about being probed or whatever, well people are less likely to believe them if they think they're crazy. as compared to saying, men came into my room and forced themselves on me. the mind copes by believing it was ghosts or aliens and it covers the tracks of the abusers who whispered those lies into their ears before leaving. the mind has weird defense mechanisms and it can retreat or hide behind amnesia walls. we see Danny go through this throughout the film when he speaks to Tony. we even have the crucial scene in the beginning when Danny's mother is speaking with his doctor and she specifically asks about the traumatic event and Tony. And les not forget Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange.. just like Stephen King has several themes he goes back to and works into new stories, i think Kubrick's style involved particular and related themes as well. and for the record there is something strange about the Apollo missions, all the photos and videos and interviews with the Astronauts. I wouldn't be shocked if Kubrick was utilized for such a thing and if it ended up being.. lets say.. traumatizing for him. i wonder if Danny and his parents were truly alone at the hotel or if all the ghosts were other people there. they were all "hallucinating" or suffering delusions or dreams and false memories. perhaps Jack went crazy with an axe out of defense of his family but it was turned around and made to seem like he killed them, when the true story.. some creeps were hiding in the hotel, lured this family there and .. had their way with them and then turned it all into a ghost story.

I love a bunch of other educational/analysis on film channels, however yours is unique and my favorite by far though. The movies you choose to analyze are great and what you find is always interesting.

I like what you have set up there for your presentation with your desk and looks like you have a spiffy mic there too! Not sure what or if you changed anything that much, but it looks new to me and pretty cool. 😎

The typewriter scene is fascinating. Jack is writing the story, but he disassociates and believes the typewriter is writing the story, and manifesting events in the hotel.

Tbh I always liked the red book theory. I know it isn’t Jung’s book per-say on Ullman’s desk, but knowing that Stanley was really interested in Jung’s work is a major clue imo

Rob what do you make of the man sized toad in the picture at the end? A demon?

I don’t agree with people having to reveal their identity in public for their arguments to be taken seriously, or even been accepted well. It shouldn’t matter who said something when considering if it might be true, or even just interesting or compelling.

Funny as this popped up on my feed just yesterday, unfortunately you’re helping his algorithm as I’m subbed to you

I like the Wendy theory, just because Wendy, though it seems rather a stretch. Once in college, an instructor straight out told me my interpretation of something was wrong. I was pretty offended, because an interpretation is a very personal thing, and that felt like she was telling me my height was wrong. I got along with this instructor much better outside of class, and later she explained herself adequately. The Wendy theory sounds like someone did what I did and chose an interpretation, then found things to support it, rather than the other way around.

I remember watching the video on this theory months ago, and thinking it was both pretty ridiculous and existing solely to be contrarian/different from other theories. In addition to that, Wendy having one big hallucination wouldn’t match up with any of the overarching themes that Kubrick establishes in the film. Did Wendy hallucinate Danny telepathically connecting with Hallorann? Did she hallucinate Danny’s interactions with the Grady twins when she was cooking lunch at the other end of the hotel?

I like the "constantly solved" Rubik's Cube atop the pile of books.

I thought the most intriguing aspect of the Wendy Theory was how Jack is suddenly calm and no longer disheveled after ranting at Wendy by the typewriter, as well as explaining the different point of views and movement of switches, lamp shades, etc, but think it's overall not satisfying. Still, fun to think about and discuss. I appreciate Rob engaging it directly.

This video should be titled "Rob Ager Makes a Grandiose Bullshit Claim Part 50".

Ah c'mon Rob, its still fun to watch :) I love how The Shining created its own genre of ideas and theories about it

It DOES make sense now how Kubrick "handled" Shelly Duvall. To put her in character, he broke her mental stability.

I was like "What's The Wendy Theory?" and then looked it up and I had seen the video but didn't remember any of it.

Rob, your debunking of The Wendy Theory and the Apollo theory doesn’t hold water. With Apollo, it may not mean Kubrick fakes footage; rather, it may have meant Kubrick picked up on the Apollo rumor and decided to run with the theme and symbolism for creative reasons.

I am so glad you chose not to appear in room 237 that doc gets made fun of so much

If there weren't all the "continuity errors" then the theory would fall apart?... but.. there ARE "continuity errors", so..

Crazy, I just saw the Shining for the first time tonight in a theatre and you happened to post a video analysis hahaha. Maybe you've always been posting video analysis's...I should know, I've always been here 👻

Another reason you can be glad you weren't involved with Room 237: though there were interesting theories proposed, there is an undercurrent in the film suggesting that the interviewees are following their own obsessions, like Jack Torrance, down slightly dangerous rabbit holes, going a bit too far perhaps. Some of the participants, I think, are cast in a slightly unflattering light. That's what makes the documentary especially clever, actually - it's about the shining but it's also about obsession. In fact, that's a consistent thread running through the filmmaker's other documentaries: there isn't any guidance as to who is reliable and who is delusional, and sometimes also you can hear interesting theories from people who otherwise come across as near-mad. It's up to you to sift through the ambiguity and figure out where meaning lies on an unsteady, ever-shifting field.

Oh god the Wendy theory, I couldn't even finish it.

What're your thoughts on Twin Peaks explained by Twin Perfect?

Haha, good job with that Rubik's cube moving around!

Side-note: maybe it's just me, but I really do not like the "It was all in somebody's mind" plot device, like in Shutter Island or It Comes at Night (or in a LOT of videogames, particularly in the survival horror/indie genre). To be honest, it comes off as lazy development, like the writers came up with this idea but couldn't find a way to connect it to reality, so they just say "Well, let's make it a hallucination or a dream." It's one thing to have a dream or hallucination in your movie; it's quite another to pull the rug out from your audience with it in order to make your movie cohesive.

I don't understand why there are some many (very) negative comments about the Wendy theory (or any theory). A movie like this clearly has many layers going on. And many "theories" can exist at the same time. The Wendy Theory video does make sense on one level. Whether it says "finally explains" or not is no different than fully dismissing it... ;)

love your videos, super calming!

The thumbnail is way scarier than I feel like it should be

This Wendy vid popped onto my "recommended" page a few months ago. I have to wonder if they really got inspiration from you, or if they cited you so the you tube algorithm would key word search for your subscribers, and people searching specifically for YOUR vids, and they could piggy back off you a bit. The Wendy theory is certainly interesting. Weird and flawed. But interesting.

I personally find unstable mental health a much more horrific and terrifying story than ghosts and a haunted house.

@10:29 it appears he might start discussing the theory.

Sorry, off topic I know, but you seem to be a very good analyst, and so I wondered, have you ever pondered the Wallace case (1931), as you are from that area?

Rob, I asked for your opinion on this theory few months ago, and you noted that you'd exhausted your analyses of the Shining, and you couldn't respond to every other video. I'm thrilled you're going to dispell this silly notion. Thank you!

I can believe that Jack abused Wendy in addition to Danny, leading Wendy to take out her frustrations on Danny as a proxy target since she is afraid of Jack. Maybe the idea of the woman in Room 237 being Wendy could have some merit. (Maybe Danny is reliving a moment of abuse at home when his mother was in the tub, and later maybe Jack is reminiscing about an intimate moment with Wendy only to realize that she is turning into an ugly monster, even if he denies responsibility for it.) But for all the reasons you said, Jack is the main abuser, it can't be Wendy alone. It wouldn't make sense. This idea can even tie back into the twin theme. There are the Grady twins that Danny sees, there's the Native American art that shows twin figures, there's the "All work and no play makes Jack adult boy" thing between Jack and Danny that you have pointed out, there's the abundance of mirrors, and so on. And there is the reference to Apollo 11. The precursor to the Apollo missions was Gemini, which means twins, and the 11 or even the double Ls in Apollo could be seen as a visual representation of twins. But there is more, as in Greek mythology Apollo himself is a twin--the twin brother of Artemis. A male twin and a female twin. If Wendy is abusing Danny too, then she and Jack could be considered behavioral twins or whatever one might call it. And if so, maybe Wendy's moment of realization at the end of the film (with the bear costume, etc.) isn't just about Jack's abuse of Danny, but also the fact that she is becoming like him. Ironically, according to a cursory search on Wikipedia, both Apollo and Artemis were considered protectors of children. Perhaps this is why the reference to the Apollo 11 mission is in here, along with possibly being meant to draw the mind toward Kubrick's space/astronaut themed film 2001, given his tendency to have overlapping themes across films. If this theory that Wendy is a second abuser has merit, then I guess the "Wendy Theory" video is good for something, Rob Navarro just went way too far with his ideas.

I think he cited you because you always ask to be cited if inspired or used by others (& you are known for The Shining)...I still like his video. The use of Yung's "Red Book" & that colourful indian painting "The Good Mother" bolster his theory. I enjoyed it.

Rob Ager’s voice and cadence are incredibly engrossing. So glad I found his channel!