😂

Stuart went a "Little" Nuts. "Stuart Little", is a Rat, not a Squirrel. Oh, ya. "Crazy as a Shit House Rat." It all makes scents, now.

@@ihavefallenandicantreachmy2113 I'm going a little nuts because you wrote, "makes scents". 🤣

@@ihavefallenandicantreachmy2113 How the fuck did we go from 'The Shining' to Stewart Little? hahahaha

@@readingbetweentheframes I notice the difference in the names when I first saw the movie when it came out... I didn't think to much about it at the time I just chalked it up to typo error on the script anyone can make a mistake when writing a script or book.

‘The Shining’ 💥💥💥

Except in the cooling room

@@Klangresonanzwhen Jack is in the locked freezer pantry the door is a semi reflective metal. Making a crude mirror.

You guys got these theories from other shining videos breaking the film down on KZfaq lol

​@WieDunkelHell highly polished metal door buddy !!!

Assuming I understand the general theme of the movie (and I probably don't) it wasn't simply the fact he was the caretaker that drove him insane. The Shining I think was trying to delve into the outer limits. I'm not sure it completely pulled it off. You're partly right it had a happy ending compared to most movies that are diabolical. In a way the protagonist became sort of a hero I don't think he was going to hurt anyone. That's why it was so disappointing when he did. In a way I think what Kubrick was suggesting was that evil wears a face. It wasn't his intention to hurt anyone but he felt he had to keep the legacy alive and there were also other elements. The hotel was from another time. The people associated with it were absent and it was in a remote location. He wasn't writing a book he was reminiscing the entire time about his past. He couldn't escape the past. It was also supposed to be about alcoholism. I know that was supposed to be a part of it. In fact he was supposed to be an alcoholic who couldn't escape his past as one. So there were a lot of overlap.

I thought of Jack in the twenties being not there because you don't see him in that picture until the end, only when he was fully taken by the hotel is he shown in that photo. So I don't 100% subscribe that Grady or the twins were from the, "roaring twenties" as Jack was dressed in similar attire only when he's consumed by the hotel and earns a spot in the photo.

That was always my thought. He had been taken in by the hotel.

Not the roaring twenties. Just the 1920s

@@sage1682I agree with you, and I think the 1920’s has a significant hold on the hotel for whatever reason. It seems almost that the overlook is a stage, and the “cast” of ghosts are actors playing their eternal roles.

In the book there is also the added reference of calling him 'John' at certain points, within his thoughts and/or mutterings. Yes it's an average alternate for 'Jack', but also another step from that version of himself.

Jack is Not Jack anymore when He get insane. Hes Johnny Torrance. He calls himself Johnny as He Breaks thru the door. 😉👍🏻

This is the conclusion I have come to as well. I think this is actually one of the two ideas Kubrick was laying out in this film. That's the actual plot analysis. I believe Kubrick wanted this film to be analyzed on multiple levels. The first one is the plot. Jack is almost certainly the reincarnation of some guy, with the last name Torrance, who lived in the early 20th century and was involved in the Overlook Hotel somehow, and probably murdered his family in a similar manner to Grady. The thing about the Torrance in the photograph is, we have no information about him at all, other than that he is "Mister Torrance", and the ghosts acknowledge him as such. Delbert Grady, from what we know of earlier scripts where Jack reads about him in newspaper clippings, murdered his wife and twin daughters, while Charles Grady did the same thing, only his daughters weren't twins. The other level Kubrick intended was definitely the whole Native American genocide angle, and how the actions of these horrible white people from the early 1900s still reflect on us as a society today.

Yep, very creepy, but a fearless confrontation, atta boy Jack!

When Jack very first realizes who he’s talking to his voice is shaky for just a second..but yeah eventually Jack’s also like, “oh shit, this is THAT guy!”

Ok let me give some opinions: 1. Grady's full name was Charles Delbert Grady. 2. Just because the girls are played by twins doesn't mean the characters are supposed to be twins-perhaps the ghost girls made themselves appear to be the same age. 3.When Grady tells Torrance that he's always been the caretaker he's referring to Torrance's previous incarnation.

Manson probably got that a lot: "It's a real honor to meet you, Mr. Manson."

YOU are the caretaker, Mr Torrence. You have ALWAYS been the caretaker

If Jack is the caretaker in the 1920s why is he a guest at the ball and not a caretaker

He's off duty. @@Alex-cw3rz

But Delbert and other Jack were around in the 1920s.

That's what I thought too. I didn't take the date on the photo to mean that they we're all literally there that day. Every time someone does something evil and dies at the hotel they get trapped there and added to the cast of doomed ghosts.

That's very King in Yellow of you to assume

@@Progger11Jack couldn't have been there in the in the 1920s he would have been older if he did . I believe he was there in a past life

I think 💬🤔 he was when his Son was at the Bar . I believe Jack was the Bartender

Burnt toast.

@@mackermaldrill2656 lol ty! Adjusting upon this.

I was going to say maybe the ghost scenes are supposed to be like a dream, where people from your life appear altered and morph into other people.

@@watermelonlalala like a dream realm, yes.

1921 Jack murdered the lady in room 237. On the 4th of July.

Beneath the surface you won't actually find anything more going on because it's all just unfounded fan theories that don't actually hold water any better than your biggest conspiracy theories, attempts to try and give depth to what is undeniably a very shallow adaptation of what was so much more than just a horror story. That somehow through years of Kubrick fans regurgitating total nonsense they've managed to retroactively change the film's status from flop to misunderstood masterpiece is actually quite funny.

@@beowulf1417 Why so serious?

@@alecaquino4306 edgy people trying to be edgy 🤷

@@alecaquino4306 just pointing out the reality of Kubrick's take on The Shining.

@@BobBy-zu6lo nothing to do with edgy, Kubrick fans just have a major issue with reality. He was an amazing photographer with a nuanced understanding of lenses and lighting. He managed to effectively translate that to cinematography and do some beautiful things with film, beyond that he genuinely had minimal input on all the other things that make his films the classics they're now considered to be. He's given the reverence of a high class restaurant head chef when 99% of the time he was nothing more than the restaurant manager. He may have chosen the menu, but the ingredients, the cooking and prep etc didn't see his touch.

It is a good first name. Of course I may be a bit biased. lol.

I'd just have people call me Big D.

@Nospater yeah and the interview dude was charles

My mother won't go by her first name. I hate my first name, but she can't understand why. Hypocrisy.

@@k_h_nobody What’s your first name?

Thanks for sharing this!

I'm starting to think Stephen King's book was the one that made more sense. Kubrick seems as if he was caught between portraying a man's descent into cabin fever and the other worldly elements

I'm not convinced the scrapbook scene was taken out for time. The film is much stronger without the scrapbook IMO. It leaves more questions in the viewer's mind. With the scrapbook being the source of evil, it's not as scary as knowing that evil really lives within all of us. I think Kubrick recognized this.

The scene was probably removed because it’s sorta redundant. The “sell your soul to the hotel” motif happens when Jacks would “give his soul” for glass of bear, then Lloyd appears. He sells his soul for alcohol in Kubrick’s version

You described exactly my feeling about t his scene, which I have always felt was one of the most terrifying movie scenes ever made. But I would never have been able to express the reason why as well as you did.

Eternal life is the worst curse of all.

Relieving school would be a nightmare.

Jack is repeating the cycle this time- trying to kill his family with an ax.

Danny is the bug in the matrix i.e the overlook hotel

You're not allowed to _nor_ unless first you _neither._

3 Gradys :Delbert...Trebled...Charles...Jack.

Also... Charles Grady was around in 1970. Delbert Grady in the Ballroom is the 1920s. The Latter never existed, its part of the Imagination of Jack's writing for his book. Kubrick's adaptation of Stephen King's book is quite a departure from the source material... its not a simple Ghost Story, but a story about a man writing a book about a Ghost story and what we are seeing is what he is writing. ALSO: The Applause during the End credits is the applause Jack is receiving for writing such a great book... His Wife and Boy are also alive, and he is not a Lunatic as he imagines himself in his novel...

@@JiveDadson yes you can.

Nor can you Neither, Nevertheless Evermore…

I don't know if this is a coincidence (but is anything a coincidence in "The Shining"???) but the lady with the bloody handprint on the back of her dress reminds me of a scene in the movie version of "Carrie" from a few years earlier. After Carrie first gets her period in the shower and there's a terrible scene, the gym teacher who helps Carrie is talking with the school principal in his office and there's a blood handprint on her white pants. What it might mean I don't know, but I can't help but think there's some connection between the bloody handprints in the two movies, both of which are based on Stephen King stories.

You are confusing this with the sixth sense.

What an interesting point! However, even though Wendy “killed” Jack, there was still enough of him there to interact with Danny later on. Perhaps Grady was horrified by his acts and then “finished the job?”

Family annihilators often off themselves after disposing of the family. No surprise there.

Well, he'd have had a hard time killing himself with an axe, wouldn't he? But I think there's a lot of evidence that Ullman is an unreliable narrator (to whatever degree) - maybe he gets Grady's name wrong, maybe he's gotten other details wrong (like the ages of the girls), so what's one more factual error? It's not a huge point, but slightly intriguing that a big point is made of the fact that there's no alcohol stored at the lodge in winter; somehow there was a shotgun there in 1970 but not in 1980. But some of the loose ends about the actual past at the Overlook are deliberate. Kubrick seems at pains to impress us that whatever horrors we think we can figure out, there is more and worse. In the alternate ending of the movie, which was cut very early in the theatrical release, Ullman appears in the hospital and tells more of the story, which again seems inconsistent with what we've seen, and there's apparently a ball rolling that suggests he might be one of the evil spirits, and that he might have been there all winter. The movie is more powerful if it doesn't throw up superfluous doubts - we did actually witness some of these horrors and that there might be hope of escaping from whatever forces led to the events.

Where'd you find that interview?

@@johnkeckYou may find it in the book "Kubrick: The Definitive Edition" by Michel Ciment. You can also find it online but I'm afraid KZfaq won't let me post a link to the comments. Try searching for the following phrase on Google (without quotes): kubrick on the shining an interview with michel ciment

He was in A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, and The Shining. Yeah he was in three Kubrick films

I've watched Barry Lyndon once, I plan on watching it again sometime, I'll look for him. I gotta admit it took me a few viewings of Clockwork and Shining before I realized it was the same actor.

@@coinraker6497 I never realized it was the same actor in CO and The Shining.

I believe the only other who was in three Kubrick's is Joe Turkel (The Killing, Paths of Glory, The Shining)

@@fmellish71 indeed.

Very interesting analysis.

1. Why did "Shining" Chef Halloran have no problem with the ghosts of the hotel in all the time he worked there? You'd think they'd be after him too. 2. If no literal re-incarnation took place, as this video suggests, the allegorical reincarnation suggesting generic "cycles of evil" would be the only way Kubrick could have justified having descendants of the same family look identical. If that's what it meant, the physical carbon copies were merely for the audience's benefit in discerning overall themes.

@@frankb821 Perhaps Halloran's shining wasn't as strong as Danny's. And he did succumb to Jack, suggesting Jack wasn't hallucinating but that he had the psychic ability which was passed on to Danny. The ancestor theory does hold up in that respect but it's a little bit all over the place. If Jack had the ability then he'd have been psychically connecting with Danny, though it may be that the hotel woke up his ability. Halloran's conversation with Danny about Shining suggested he knew that some things had gone on in the Overlook and specifically told Danny not to go into room 237, but that could be because he knew someone had committed suicide in there, or it could because he knew what Danny would see. I like the ambiguity of not knowing for sure.

@@frankb821 Maybe the identical appearance is allegorical to suggest the same spirit which may or may not have actually reflected the true outward appearance.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "ancestor".

Did you find it scary? My friends and I all saw it as a dark comedy.

​@@duderama6750dark comedy supposed to make you laugh not be scared.

@@Thespeedrap I didn't find it scary at all.

Excellent theory and dot-connecting, my Friend! 👍🏾 I believe you *_nailed_* that one.

I never seen the Shining on TCM but they do show other Kubrick movies though.

What an interesting idea! I love it!

I think the scene is, in part, a formulaic scene where one character confronts another one and says, "Who are you? What are you doing here? I don't believe you are just an innocent person. You're lying." And so on. Basically, someone threatens someone else.

Yes. Rob Ager covers this and has us observe the two colored jackets Jack wears; one for real, author Jack, the other for novel character Jack.

@@KutWrite do you have a link to his video/article about this? big fan of his work but haven't seen that theory by him yet

@@verifiedbadvibe8124: No, I'd have to go to his channel and scan the video titles. I think you could find it as easily doing the same. I think it had to do with "Two Jacks" - something like that.

I always took it that Charles influenced or possessed Jack into killing his family like he did and he was just one of many ghosts who were evil or murderer's of the hotel... Let's keep it simple people. Lol and as for the man in the pic at the end is just an evil man who looked like Jack ironically to give that creepy feeling

I think Kubrick saw the ending of Polanski's 1965 film 'Replusion' and thought: that's a great ending. I'll steal it. Because only GOOD ARTISTS borrow. A GREAT ARTIST steals. Does it make complete sense? I'm not sure.

Delbert's daughters were twins (1921). Charles Grady's daughters (1970) were not.

@@stephenwalker2924 so confusing lol. Thank you!

Or things change during production, Kubrick was influenced by the portrait of twins that his peer had made, and changed the daughters to twins.

Cycles of abuse and violence.

No twins in the novel so this one of the correct things Kubrick got right.

Ever heard of punctuations?

Why what was left out

@@morpheus6749 what is the point?

@@carlosmeelopatchen9773 What's the point of writing anything on a public forum?

Whoa, well I never heard of the hospital scene, or the yellow ball before, & that has my interests PEAKED! I fell into a rabbit hole, as there's this huge multi-part examination of this movie on a channel called Truth Seeker or something like that. It was great, a lot of work went into it. A labor of love and respect, really. & they covered SO MUCH there, like, I've never seen anything like it lol. They were stopping to look for the art on the walls & showing how much the crap in the backgrounds wasn't just "crap" at all. But they broke down what is IN THE MOVIE. Not anything taken out, that I can recall. Def not this stuff! Thanks very much for mentioning this lost context, I'll be looking for it 😁

Great point well made.

Baloney. The movie actors are phony, or they might have been trained to do English plays. Never take a Hollywood movie as an example of "the way it was".

@@watermelonlalala everything including you! is a reflection of what everything was.

The actor is actually British and was used by Kubrick often. Philip Stone was also in Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom and Coronation Street.

My point doesn't concern whether he's British, but was to address those who wondered why characters identified as Americans---not Brits----Americans would have British accents, and my point is that New England blue-blood accents often are confused with British accents.

I actually thought the same until I discovered the scrapbook as well

Or the hotel preferred Delbert and have him an English accent

Well yeah you could see it in Jack's Eyes when he was driving up there with Wendy and Danny that Little by Little the Hotel was Drawing him in .

Makes sense. Wendy started to see the ghosts once Halloran blood was spilled. The murder probably fueled the full force of the evil within the hotel.

That’s actually the image on the left, in the thumbnail

Yeah. I'd like to see the whole thing!

The film also changed Ullman's character. In the film, he seems like a nice, pleasant person. In the novel he's a huge asshole who doesn't even want to hire Jack, but is overruled by the hotel owners. One of the big reasons being he was an alcoholic. This was omitted from the film, along with most of the subtext about alcoholism, and thus one of the big reasons why King has rather famously not been a big fan of the film (although in recent years he's appreciated it more).

There's a downplay of slavery in general, with a microcosm of blame on US. Any research becomes both dire and matrix breaking, esp w.r.t. Muslim slave trade and current open trade slave markets in Libya, thanks to Hillary.

*_"I say you are the true Messiah, Lord, and I should know, I've followed a few!"_*

They had to be real. Otherwise who let Jack out of the pantry?

No, he didn't. In fact Kubrick did not believe in the supernatural.

@@morpheus6749 what we're discussing is the internal logic of the film, not the personal beliefs of the director.

@@morpheus6749 the funny thing is that kubrick did not believe in life after death but the movie hints at reincarnation

@@tophers3756 The problem was that Kubrick removed many chilling scenes from the film because of his beliefs.

Look up the wendy theory

Only point of order is that Kubrick's last film was Eyes Wide Shut. And if you don't count that because he didn't live to screening, Full Metal Jacket was after The Shining. But that's very much picking nits.

The overlook hotel

Just came to say I watched the movie today on HBOMax and the word wasn't censored out

Kubrick definitely wanted to leave the room for you to think everything is in their heads but he actually states in an interview that he put the locker scene in to tell the audience that this is in fact really happening and the ghosts are real.

Hello. You're the only other person i know that has dreams where your friends look totally different, but you know its them. Thank You. My friends had me convinced i was insane.

I have a theory that jack and grady is the reincarnation of the soul of the hotel caretaker and in the bathroom scene the evil spirit gets into grady reminds jack that he must correct his family

Job security 🤡

The video is wrong, but believe what you like.

@@MarkLewis... care to elaborate?

@@BeersAndBeatsPDX I did... Rather verbosely, lol, but as you requested) in elaboration. Just find my post.

Jack freed himself. Those walk in freezer doors have a failsafe mechanism that prevents people from being locked in. You just push the knob that Jack has in his hand in that scene.

@@duderama6750 He was in a dry-goods pantry not a freezer and a screwdriver was in the door preventing the safety release. Grady's ghost in the horror novel the real Jack Torrance was writing, let out character Jack Torrance from the storage room.

Agree 100%

Exactly

I read in a comment that the delberts are called charles of affection in some states of usa

Nope. Charles Grady and Delbert Grady are Two different People... First of all... Charles Grady is a real person, and committed his Murder Suicide in 1970. And he had two daughters 8 & 10. Mr. Ullman was alive and around when this happened. I doubt he would have forgotten the name so easily, or even details about it, as it would have been the topic of many conversations for the past 10 years while he was running the Overlook Hotel. Secondly... the Ballroom scene with DELBERT Grady is taking place in the 1920s. Which means its a completely different time, and to pile onto that, its DELBERT Grady, and his children are Twins. The most Simplest Explanation is there are NO GHOSTS in this movie, and what Jack is seeing (and we are Seeing) is Jack's Imagination as he writes his book.

@@annoyboyPictures Many have the theory that nothing was real and everything was the product of Jack or Wendy's imagination, but in the interviews that Kubrick gave, he said that the events of the film were real, even the ghosts.

@@carlosmeelopatchen9773 When it comes to the "Unreliable Narrator" format, the creators such as the Director, the Writers, the Cast and Crew, tend to lie and hide the truth about the film when giving public interviews so as not to ruin the ambiguity of the film. Case in Point: American Psycho - Brett Easton Ellis even remained vague and ambiguous when asked whether Patrick Bateman was actually a real person in the movie, and not just the concoction of someone's mentally ill thoughts... (which it turned out to be in the end).

@@annoyboyPictures but how do you explain danny's glow if it were a product of jack's imagination and his novel how he knew about his gift in the movie danny is never shown with tony in the presence of jack

The way he says “fine” is constantly in my mind. Most passive aggressive agreement ever.

@@liamshanley_21 How about Scatman Crothers character Dick Hallorann?He seems to know alot too! He called Danny Doc without foreknowledge of his mother calling him that! And being able to talk without moving his lips to Danny. 🤨🤔🙄🕵

I see him as an example of go along to get along, and before you know you're stuck. He does look like the domesticated native in the mix, accepted yet seething...🧂🇺🇸

@@SuperMarioBrosIII your comment makes it seem like you are unaware that hallorann obviously had the gift of 'shining' just like Danny. He literally says it in the scene where he's talking to Danny.

@@ericbuzzard2041 I'm aware of Halloranns gift ther shinning and him telling Danny he would have long conversations with his grandmother for hours without moving there lips. I merely meant his character being explored or being done more in depth like the rest of the characters. I know he was also in the Twilight Zone movie Kick The Can. 😀🙄📽🙏

Brilliant🎉

Perhaps as in FMJ, "twins"= duality of man. You could expand that Theme to his other movies too.

I know this is an old comment, but I recently rewatched The Shining and have gone down the analysis rabbit hole so here I am. I just wanted to correct one thing. Jack mentions "white man's burden" during his first interaction with Lloyd, when it's just the two of them. Not in the later scene of the party in the Gold Room. In that scene Lloyd tells him his money is no good there and to "drink up." (Though we know all alcohol had been removed from the hotel)

I noticed that too.

@@LawnBunny777 Ditto for me!

Unlikely. Kubrick was a perfectionist & shot many repetitions of each scene, even one where Jack just crosses the street. Nicholson got frustrated with it, saying "Perfectionist doesn't mean perfect" afterwards, But Kubrick did it to get the exact right tone, & also to make sure that the film is working on the unconscious level. He called films "controlled dreams."

Jack also says he "chopped them up into little bits." This clearly goes beyond what Ullman told him - and when we see the apparent aftermath of their murder, they are clearly victims of an axe murder but relatively intact. It's important that Torrance (the wannabe novelist) is taunting Grady, and laying a bit of a trap right out of cop fiction. If Grady shows emotion, or corrects a maddening falsehood, he has to confess that he's a murderer, and to confess that he's also a ghost. Grady doesn't take the bait. What's it mean? 1) It seems to impugn Jack as a writer - his idea isn't original enough and making it more gruesome doesn't make it more shocking; 2) It seems to challenge our assumptions about ghosts. Most of them are in ghost form for some specific reason that advances the story, and here is Grady, whose motives are fairly opaque. 3) For all of the clues that encourage us to weigh every detail, the issue of whether he's real or not doesn't even change the fact that the idea of him contributes to Jack's madness.

Wendy doesn't notice/realize that the door's bolt hasn't been drawn to the open position when she's trying to force it open. Understandable under the circumstances. But you make some excellent points. Caretakers certainly never serve drinks at such a swanky hotel.

I didn't mean that she didn't realise; that's separate; Stanley wanted her to struggle with the door not only to raise tension but more importantly to subtly draw attention, again, to the doors: 'What is seen sideways - sinks deep'. Only honing in on one literal/surface aspect of her struggle (or anything for that matter) is too narrow and I'm sure we agree it wouldn't have much interested Stanley; it might well have interested King who appears to enjoy surfaces more than beneath them? I don't know his work well enough to further comment!

@@Omnicient. 'What is seen sideways - sinks deep'. I like that. Thank you.

I think they should put the scrapbook scene back in.

Kubrick liked to leave important pieces out, I suspect for the sole purpose of leaving people guessing. He didn't want people to fully understand.

Yes, but the old hag coming for Jack, who is that supposed to be? And the woman in the bathtup looks quite old and no indication of an axe attack. And don't get me started on the hottie that Jack sees first. I love the scene but fail to make real sense of it. Maybe no point to try.

Pacing and lack of importance to the story. Never tell the audience what they already know. Jack was told at the start about the killing. He may have found a scrap book but that's meaningless because we already know. the details being discrepencies is forgivable but again, wasted time watching jack read a book about something we're already aware of in broad strokes. the fact the book is in any scenes is good enough. estute observers will see it and conclude that to be where jack saw the cutouts. besides.... reading a bunch of clippings at that point in the film would have killed the pacing. the movie has a great pace and fantastic editing. just as it seems to be uninteresting, something new shows up. it takes about 20 minutes for the exposition and moving to the hotel to really get the story moving. we get to see layouts and geometry, we see rooms of importance as well as places of significance like the Gold Room. it's a small cast and watching someone reading, isn't interesting. you might want the scene included but i promise, it won't change anything in the story, it will only serve to slow down the pace. for all we know the shots were unusable.camera stuff might have upset Kubrick.... OR an even better reason could be that Kubrick got the actors to truly get in the heads of the characters and story. like "method acting" but it's the director and nobody is aware this is what he planned. come on, this is the same guy who got 6 men to stay outside in the cold watching someone die, again and again and again along with a barrage of gun fire more than once, and it really pulled great performances out of all the men, despite thier dislike of the moment, it truly gave the movie what it needed. so maybe that scrap book scene was to give Jack what he needed to become the psycho he had to be.... shit... even Wendy got the short end of Kubrick's stick. poor cow..... best movie she's been in by every metric.

@@swanclipper Well, Jack was told at the start about *a* killing (Charles Grady's), but as made clear in this video, that was a different killing than the one talked about in the newspaper clippings in the scrap book (Delbert Grady's). So yes, we, as the audience knew about the Charles Grady klling, but not about the earlier Delbert Grady killing. Meaning the scrap book isn't meaningless. The details are important, because they were two separate incidents. That being said, I am fine with the decision to leave the scene out. There is just enough context in the movie for people to piece things together, and that's a good thing, it makes the movie memorable because it leaves puzzles to be solved. Contemporary audiences want everything spoon-fed to them, and contemporary directors oblige them.

I doubt any fancy hotel like that would have a Tuxedo-required party for the 4th of July!?!? I thought it was New Years Eve in the movie?? Winter and such????

Interesting, I should look into that.

Except, that is, when the not-real Delbert Grady unlocks the pantry door to let Jack out.

That still doesn't mean he has to have a different name.

Danny unlocks his father. You never see Delbert Grady actually unlock the door.

I am a believer in the no ghosts theory. Charles Grady had two daughters - 8 and 10. Charles murdered his family in the 1970s. The twins were a product of Danny’s mind. Delbert Grady was a product of Jack’s mind. These discrepancies are Kubrick telling the viewer that these are made up.

@@scottpoerschke8807 You don't see Danny do it either

They are LEGION lol.