Are you not even going to explain the Wendy theory?

Dean Martin's Wendy Theorem posits that "Wendy moon hits your eye like a big piece of pie, that's amore"

It's a film, with a very clear narrative.

Based on a book, with an equally clear narrative.

And a sequel with a very clear narrative.

None of which have anything to do with Wendy hallucinating anything.

If this is the sort of thing you are wasting energy on, you should really try and refocus yourself to do something more constructive with your noodle.

...so what's the theory?

I’m not watching your video.

Yeah what theory

The theory, created by Rob Navarro on YouTube, explains that most of the events in The Shining actually happen in Wendy's head as she goes into psychotic episodes.

I've seen the Wendy theory and I've seen the counter argument. While compelling, I think the Wendy theory is more of a thing where fans are just looking too deeply (like Room 237) into what is ultimately small continuity things. I think it's less that Kubrick overlooked details, and more, just didn't care. He was more focused on the larger story. Genius can still be genius without turning it into a game of three dimensional chess.

I'm oversimplifying for the sake of brevity, and mean no disrespect to super fans that love to slice/and dice those details, but if the question is about director vision/intention, Occam's razor would tell us that it's just not that complicated.

Edit: also, if it takes 40 years to unearth the real meaning of a movie, it may not be that good, lol. I think it's more simple, and definitely that good.

there’s a great video on youtube by eyebrow cinema talking about the wendy theory

That’s not a theory that holds up well to logic. How would you explain the events continuing in Me Mercedes without her? Ignoring the boom, events took place in the film that her character was not privy to.

It is a nice theory.

Do people actually believe that the continuity errors are really errors? Kubrick's use of continuity errors and breaking the line is well documented, but it also doesn't mean it's supporting the Wendy theory.

It can just be used to unsettle the audience. When you're watching it, you don't really notice the errors or the breaking of the line, but subconciously your brain does, which gives a feeling that something isn't right, even if you don't know exactly what.

Similarly, the layout of the hotel isn't possible. There's a slow panning shot through the lobby area where you can see outside through the windows, but then they get to the end of the lobby and turn right down a corridor that follows the same path. It's impossible, but you're not watching the film analysing the layout (though inherently your brain is creating a kind of blueprint).

Obviously this kind of tool is really effective in a thriller with supernatural overtones. You can create tension and unsettle the audience even in a scene with no surface tension.

The idea of a guy watching a movie about an abusive relationship that ends in violence and surmising that it's all in the woman's head is so fucking revealing about that dude.

I never bought into the Wendy theory personally. Out of all the debunking videos I’ve seen, I would say Rob Ager/Collative Learning gives the most detailed and succinct explanations against the theory.

I never bought into the Wendy theory personally. Out of all the debunking videos I’ve seen, I would say Rob Ager/Collative Learning gives the most detailed and succinct explanations against the theory.

Like mostly theories about Kubrick films, it's a reach that tells you a lot about the person who came up with the "theory".

Not to say that Kubrick films don't have themes and subtext and all of that, but one must remember that one of the things Kubrick was criticized for in adapting Stephen King's novel was doubling down on making Jack Torrance the bad guy. I haven't read the book, but from what I'm told, in the film he comes across as much crazier, and it begins earlier, and the character is less sympathetic.

No, I think the Wendy theory is bunk and there are already videos out there addressing, in detail, why it doesn't make sense.

whenever someone brings up the shining in this sub you better be ready for some axes on your door

It's quite accurate, the guy explains things scene by scene, and it's pretty convincing. Not that Kubrick is infallible, but he wouldn't make such amateur simple mistakes.