The Shining

He was "absorbed" into that netherworld probably for eternity.

"Put Down the Bat Wendy. I'm not going to hurt you, I'm just going to bash you brains in."

It could be that he's in hell, because he sold his soul to the bartender, ?Lloyd?.

Or... maybe the Mansion has some sort of space/time crossroads or something to where whenever Jack goes into the ballroom with all of those people, he actually existed in the time when the first guy killed his family.

At any rate, it's Kubrick perchance for enigmatic ednings letting one speculate just what it does mean. Your last interpretation is pretty close to mine. Welcome to A2K and the film forum.

It doesn't look like Hell as Jack is drinking, smiling and having a good time. I think he might just have escaped to the place he wanted to be. It could also be that he was a reincarnation of the first murderer. Having read the book decades ago, I'm not sure if Stephen King left the ending open for interpretation.

John: The key to that picture is the scene in which Jack and Delbert Grady are talking in the washroom.

Jack: "Mr. Grady, you were the caretaker here."
Grady: "I'm sorry to differ with you, sir, but you are the caretaker here. You've always been the caretaker. I ought to know. I've always been here."

(I'm writing this dialogue from memory -- it may be a bit different on the screen). The point, then, is that Jack and Grady are manifestations of the spirit inhabiting the Overlook. Indeed, it means that Jack, in a previous life, was Delbert Grady, or at least the same spirit inhabited both men. The photo at the end (which shows Jack at a 1921 party) confirms what Grady said in the washroom: that Jack has always been the caretaker at the Overlook Hotel.

whoeee, that movie gives me chills!

I took the photo to mean that Jack had been absorbed into the evil force fo the hotel as well.

As I recall, the hotel is destroyed at the end of the book. Stephen King hated Kubrick's take on his novel--thought it missed the point entirely. That's why they made a new film version of The Shining as a TV mini-series some years back--King wanted what he felt was a more faithful adaptation.

However, it paled in comparison. I actually like Kubrick's ending better than King's. I stopped reading King after "Firestarter" which read like a novel to be sold to the movies.

Well that went without saying. The King-Kubrick issue is a good lesson for writers--what you think your story 'says' isn't necessarily what the reader will 'hear'. Kubrick's vision of The Shining, while certainly taking artistic liberties, is authentic; his movie is a sincere adaptation.

Yes, it is. That King would be at all chagrined about Kubrick's movie is telling. It's more of an ego trip than anything else.

Grady tells Jack, "You've always been the caretaker." The picture at the end, then, implies the truth of this. For example, Jack's insanity - combined with his perpetual existence inside the hotel - manifests in various different stories (e.g. a wife, Wendy, and a son, Danny) but ultimately he has just "always" been part of the hotel.

In a sense, the whole movie is just a manifestation of Jack's insanity. Whether you're talking about the "sane" family life - the writer trying to make ends meet - or the guy who goes nuts with an axe, it's all inside Jack's crazy head.

This is just my opnion, of course.

Hi everyone,
I'm so glad I found this forum because this film has been bugging me for years. I must have seen it a thousand times, it's one of my favourites.

I think a lot of people interpret this film as being purely psychological and not supernatural, which I think is a mistake. It is clear that the strange goings on in the hotel are not just delusions of a madman.
When Grady unlocks the store room for Jack, we realise that Grady is not just imaginary but a physical manifestation or ghost or whatever.
(also both Danny and Wendy see the ghosts of the hotel. Danny is even attacked by the ghost of room 237).

I'm also confused by the old photograph at the end and Grady's words that Jack has always been the Caretaker. Whats even more confusing is that in Jack's interview, Ullman refers to the old caretaker as Charles Grady. The Grady we see later on is not only called "Delbert" but has a totally different role in the hotel as a butler.

Probably the most revealing part of this mystery is the conversation between Delbert and Jack in the bathroom. When questioned by Jack, Delbert lies that he has no recollection of killing his family. He also denies that he was ever the caretaker of OverLook Hotel (but Jack is adamant that he WAS because he recognises him in the photo. Could this be the same photo that we see at the end of the film?).
However we then hear the truth from Delbert that he "corrected" his family. He did kill them and he DOES remember it. But that still leaves the question, who was the caretaker back in the past? This leads some to believe that Charles, Delbert and Jack are one and the same person (or different incarnates of the same person throughout history).

As you can see this has bugged me so much that I even did some research into it.

Here's a kind of timeline

1921 - July 4th Party - Delbert Grady is the Butler
1921 - July 4th Party - Jack is the caretaker, photograph taken
1970 - Charles Grady (Delbert incarnate) - Caretaker - Murders twins and wife
19xx - Present Day - Jack reincarnated - New caretaker


So we can see here that Jack may have always been the caretaker from the very beginning, he certainly wasn't the only caretaker. And the photo that Jack was referring to ("You were the caretaker Mr. Grady. I recognise you from the photo"), is NOT the same photo as the one we see at the end dated 1921. Because Charles Grady was caretaker in 1970.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your comments on this, especially from people who have read the book and seen the film.

Thanks!

Nice post, Monkeon. I will say I tend not to associate the book with the film. This picture was clearly the work of Kubrick and Johnson, and much less King. King has even said that it was after seeing The Shining he declared to never allow another depiction of his books without his direct involvement and/or consent; and hence the later release of "Stephen King's The Shining," that you may have seen.

Having said that, I can't find any holes in what you've preseted. Seems like a much stronger theory than mine, at the very least. I like it!