Are there secret messages hidden in the horror film The Shining?

Oracle

Are there secret messages hidden in the horror film the Shining? The theories are explored in a new documentary ....

A new documentary, Room 237, explores the theory that messages are hidden in horror film The Shining. So what meanings do some people believe its director Stanley Kubrick secreted in the frames of his chilling masterpiece?

According to some the movie contains cryptic clues that reveal hidden messages ....

They are convinced the characters' dialogue, their clothing and even the pattern of the Overlook's carpet are codes. Breaking those cryptic clues, they argue, reveals hidden messages about the genocide of America's indigenous people, the Nazi's Final Solution and even an admission the 1969 Moon Landing was faked.

Monty Burnz

This is a great example of how you can make (perceived) connections between things. Most connections are just coincidence - but I'm sure everybody believes their own 'secret' interpretation of the film (the moon landing hoax, the Native American holocaust, the Jewish holocaust) is the correct one, even though they are all the product of coincidence.

looksee

Just from a practical point of view, how can you envisage Stanley Kubric becoming the bearer of such diverse secrets as Native Americans, the moon landing and the Nazi's?

Did the government of the US decide, we want to reveal this information so we will put it out so secretively that no-one will recognise it? Or did Kubric think, here are three interesting topics, I wonder if there is a conspiracy that I could reveal *sends out investigators at great expense from the film budget*? Or did three separate people/groups 'in the know' decide independently, lets reveal all these secrets in this particular film?

Having got this information together however it was done, Kubric then had to employ people to code it into the production and persuade the set designers, producers, directors, continuity etc that it had to be done exactly this way.

And then what did he benefit from this complicated exercise in the end?

Just looking at the explanation in the link, the room number explanation sounds eminently reasonable, and 32 years ago '42' was becoming a meme (except that they didn't have memes then) relating to the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

JustinDee

Usually the buttnuggets trying to read into something that is just there have something to sell like a book or a movie. Who cares if 2 x (3 x 7) = 42?
All just convenient piffle.

Its a very good movie. Excellently acted, very well shot, edited not so well.
Just enjoy it.

gbee

Stanley was hired by the US gov to make a moon landing as well as some of the shots that were slotted in to 'live' feeds.

Preparations were made for failure, and a 'fake' moon landing was always going to happen once the bird left. Capricorn One (1977) offers an explanation.

The Shinning (1980) certainly holds many oddities, if Stanley had messages built in, imo, they've been edited out. Certainly the long, long lingering scenes gives on the expectation of other than what unfolds, sometimes, nothing at all happens.

Like the expansive opening scene as Jack drive his VW Beetle along the lake and mountain road. It's not mathematically beautiful as in a vista, it's disguised as such but the interplay is sinister and strained, but nothing happens, Jack arrives at the hotel and is given a coffee and a sandwich ~ seriously anticlimatical.

Jonny7

gbee wrote: »

a 'fake' moon landing was always going to happen once the bird left.

How do you know this?

senorwipesalot

Why do RTE always leave out the dancing skeletons and blood from the lifts and yer man getting axed scenes when they show it.

gbee

Jonny7 wrote: »

How do you know this?

It's well covered in other threads already. Search for 'Fake Moon Landing' and Stanley's wife is on video about some of the activities. The US gov had alternate cover stories/plans for almost all missions of all types.

gbee

senorwipesalot wrote: »

Why do RTE always leave out the dancing skeletons .

Dancing skeletons? I don't think I've seen them, I've a DVD whereabouts an I'll have a look.

looksee

gbee wrote: »

Stanley was hired by the US gov to make a moon landing as well as some of the shots that were slotted in to 'live' feeds.

Preparations were made for failure, and a 'fake' moon landing was always going to happen once the bird left. Capricorn One (1977) offers an explanation.

The Shinning (1980) certainly holds many oddities, if Stanley had messages built in, imo, they've been edited out. Certainly the long, long lingering scenes gives on the expectation of other than what unfolds, sometimes, nothing at all happens.

Like the expansive opening scene as Jack drive his VW Beetle along the lake and mountain road. It's not mathematically beautiful as in a vista, it's disguised as such but the interplay is sinister and strained, but nothing happens, Jack arrives at the hotel and is given a coffee and a sandwich ~ seriously anticlimatical.

Ok so assuming we accept the moon landing possibility, to make this CT work we also need an association with Nazis and American Indians.

gbee

looksee wrote: »

Ok so assuming we accept the moon landing possibility, to make this CT work we also need an association with Nazis and American Indians.

Well the american Indian aspect of the Shinning is self evident, Wendy looks Indian, long black hair and all, husky boots and she runs around with a huge knife.

The dressing of the set is very teutonic in nature, though disguised as possibly Indian, it is very defined and clearcut whereas similar Indian designs would tail off with hieroglyphics.

Jonny7

gbee wrote: »

It's well covered in other threads already. Search for 'Fake Moon Landing' and Stanley's wife is on video about some of the activities. The US gov had alternate cover stories/plans for almost all missions of all types.

Its a (pretty bad) spoof documentary - it's called 'Dark side of the Moon"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ge8KiaWTA

JustinDee

gbee wrote: »

Stanley was hired by the US gov to make a moon landing as well as some of the shots that were slotted in to 'live' feeds.

Preparations were made for failure, and a 'fake' moon landing was always going to happen once the bird left. Capricorn One (1977) offers an explanation

You do realise that Capricorn One is a work of fiction by the same person who directed some Schwarzenegger and Van Damme movies as well as a space version of High Noon?

gbee wrote: »

Well the american Indian aspect of the Shinning is self evident, Wendy looks Indian, long black hair and all, husky boots and she runs around with a huge knife

Brilliant. I guess the running "around with an huge knife" gave the game way. Don't suppose she'd a pocket full of wampum too?

berettaman

Kubrick was a genius. All his films are filled with meanings within meanings and layers etc. I don't know about the OP but see attached for a decent gist of the argument..
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_apollomissions10.htm

It has been done to death already though..

gbee

berettaman wrote: »

It has been done to death already though..

Thanks, never saw this.

For what it's worth, my take is the Moon landings were real and they did go ahead, though as we all know they were very nearly the disaster that had been planned for.

The 'crime' is not whether the TV pictures were fake, but they could have been if The Eagle had crashed.

magicbastarder

i thought the native american angle was fairly well understood?

http://www.cracked.com/article_18967_6-famous-movies-with-mind-blowing-hidden-meanings_p2.html

looksee

magicbastarder wrote: »

i thought the native american angle was fairly well understood?

http://www.cracked.com/article_18967_6-famous-movies-with-mind-blowing-hidden-meanings_p2.html

Well obviously the clues were there, otherwise we would not be discussing it. I am asking why Kubric felt it necessary to get involved with the random mix of moonlandings, american indians and Nazis. Maybe we could find a connection between the three? Like Hitler had straight black hair and american indians have s.b.h and the moon landing crew appear to have s.b.h. (well two of them do, its kind of hard to tell) Obviously Kubric had a fetish about straight black hair. But is that enough to cause him to reveal secrets?

Monty Burnz

gbee wrote: »

Thanks, never saw this.

For what it's worth, my take is the Moon landings were real and they did go ahead, though as we all know they were very nearly the disaster that had been planned for.

The 'crime' is not whether the TV pictures were fake, but they could have been if The Eagle had crashed.

They might have had a small problem with creating the movie of the rest of Aldrin and Armstong's lives for the next 40 years or so.

gbee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They might have had a small problem with creating the movie of the rest of Aldrin and Armstong's lives for the next 40 years or so.

Don't know what this means? The Moon landing and some transmissions were pre-recorded, Nixon had a speech prepared commiserating with the families of the deceased and the USA.

The plan was that in the event of failure, the Moon Landing fake would be televised. In the end the Moon landing went more or less live but there were a few of the fake transmissions used, either deliberately or because they were spooled ready to go.

Say they did crash on the Moon like they nearly did, Armstrong really lost the Eagle and the two died, then the fake Moon landing would go ahead on TV and the recovery of the capsule would only contain Collins. Armstrong and Aldrin would get posthumous medals and state funeral.

There could also have been other plans to destroy the capsule in space after a non fatal failed landing as in the story line of Capricorn 1. IMO there probably were and the Russians we now know, also had their own space disasters and dead cosmonauts with imposters paraded with the Order of Lenin in public.

Stanley was seriously paranoid to his death and was certainly in fear of his life, be that due to a real fundamental threat or due to his illness.

I'v no idea where the Hitler connection comes from, we do know that it was ultimately Hitler's scientists that developed the V1 and V11 solid fuel rocket and bombed London from France and are generally considered the fathers of both Space Rocketry Science and Intercontinental Thermonuclear Missiles. We know that the RAF formed a Foo Fighter squadron to fight what they thought were German UFOs during WWII and then disbanded quietly.

Jonny7

gbee wrote: »

The plan was that in the event of failure, the Moon Landing fake would be televised.

There wasn't any plan of the sort. If you have some sort of groundbreaking information to the contrary please share.

If the lander crashed on entry or failed to lift off the moon, Nixon had a prepared letter.

Hunchback

looksee wrote: »

Well obviously the clues were there, otherwise we would not be discussing it. I am asking why Kubric felt it necessary to get involved with the random mix of moonlandings, american indians and Nazis. Maybe we could find a connection between the three? Like Hitler had straight black hair and american indians have s.b.h and the moon landing crew appear to have s.b.h. (well two of them do, its kind of hard to tell) Obviously Kubric had a fetish about straight black hair. But is that enough to cause him to reveal secrets?

lolol. tis perplexing indeed

Monty Burnz

gbee wrote: »

Don't know what this means? The Moon landing and some transmissions were pre-recorded, Nixon had a speech prepared commiserating with the families of the deceased and the USA.

The plan was that in the event of failure, the Moon Landing fake would be televised.

So why bother preparing the 'failure' speech at all?

The 'failure' speech certainly existed because it was leaked or released a couple of years back.

Additionally, if they broadcast the fake 'successful' landing, they would then have to somehow engage in a huge cover-up for decades pretending that the astronauts were still alive (but somehow never, ever appearing in public) - and this cover-up would all of their families, all of their friends, all of their colleagues, all of the people working wherever the cover-up story line had them working. Thousands of people keeping a big secret.

Zero chance.

gbee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Zero chance.

Again I'm having trouble understand your points.

The Moon mission was a near impossibility for NASA but they were under much more pressure because the US were losing out to the USSR, or at least that was the presumption at the time, and the Russians were preparing for their own Moonshot.

We now know that the USSR had not been as successful as they claimed at the time and staged mission recovery events that had in reality been fatal.

The apparent success of the mission for the US was paramount. If the mission failed, it was to be concealed from the world, there was never a plot to pretend the astronauts were alive when in fact they were dead, if they died, they really died. They could die in any part of the mission, except take-off.

Tracking was almost non existent remember, plots were computer enhancements and not actual or even live, in fact satellite tracking today is exactly the same, the most recent satellite to come to earth was still showing up three days after it crashed into the ocean.

Once the rocket blasted off and reaches orbit, the mission was going to be televised as a success. If the rocket blew up half way to the Moon, the pre-recordered films would be played and the public would believe the landing was successful, the mission was a success. The public would be informed later that the craft blew up with the loss of all on board on the return journey.

NASA was and is very compartmentalised, very few specialists would be aware of overall plans, mission status or equipment status, as the O-Ring Challenger disaster has shown us, and how many years on are we by this stage?

gbee

gbee wrote: »

Tracking was almost non existent remember, plots were computer enhancements and not actual or even live, in fact satellite tracking today is exactly the same, the most recent satellite to come to earth was still showing up three days after it crashed into the ocean.

That's not true. The Apollo capsules were tracked and monitored by several independent agencies, including the Russians and several gifted amateurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Apollo_missions_tracked_by_independent_parties

If there had been any form of accident, the US would have been called on it.

And even if this mythic compartmentalisation myth were true, it does not stop any of the Nasa technicians (or other specialist from any other agency or business) for being able to figure it out.

And why then did they write a statement for Nixon to read which in your theory they would not use?

gbee

King Mob wrote: »

And why then did they write a statement for Nixon to read which in your theory they would not use?

I give up, it's like pulling teeth with your statements. Facts are facts, Government documents relate to what was there, none of this would have been officially available untill 30 years after the events and more won't be available until after the death of all involved.

The plan was simple, if the Lunar Landing was a success, then there would be no need for the cover story. The problem is, and IMO this is ALL the problem, that some of the cover story footage was in fact transmitted as live and has been spotted and thirty years after the event the US release documents that says that Nixon has a TV recording made announcing the failure of the mission and the deaths of the astronautics even before the launch-date.

The US government were prepared for failure and were prepared to fake the Moon Landing if necessary, IMO, it was not necessary, but how far those plans went is still to be to be uncovered.

gbee

gbee wrote: »

I give up, it's like pulling teeth with your statements. Facts are facts, Government documents relate to what was there, none of this would have been officially available untill 30 years after the events and more won't be available until after the death of all involved.

The plan was simple, if the Lunar Landing was a success, then there would be no need for the cover story. The problem is, and IMO this is ALL the problem, that some of the cover story footage was in fact transmitted as live and has been spotted and thirty years after the event the US release documents that says that Nixon has a TV recording made announcing the failure of the mission and the deaths of the astronautics even before the launch-date.

The US government were prepared for failure and were prepared to fake the Moon Landing if necessary, IMO, it was not necessary, but how far those plans went is still to be to be uncovered.

But they already have a letter prepared to be read out by Nixon in the event of the landing not happening. It specifically mentions the astronauts not being able to take off from the Moon. This is not what you claim they would say. Why did they make this when they planed to say the spacecraft was lost on the way back?

Further, you've not addressed the fact that there are thousands of experts who would be able to tell and prove that the the landing was fake if they had faked it, making the plot pointless.

And then if that's assuming they could pull off a fake in the first place. Given that people knew there was problems with Apollo 13 as it happened, and there was no attempt to fake that landing, that assumption is a very shakey one.

And then all of this is based on secret messages in a movie. Shakier still...

gbee

King Mob you are taking my words for a fact, you can't do that. I was speculating on how they would reveal the story, you took the blowing up of the rocket on the way back as THE plan.

No sir. The plan was elastic and there were many possible outcomes, not least driving the lander and/or the command module into the Lunar Surface so there would be wreckage on the surface.

Scientist from Earth would not be able to distinguish wreckage from the landing module that was left there.

I also think you are applying techniques and attributing functionality that just was not that good forty years ago.

gbee

gbee wrote: »

King Mob you are taking my words for a fact, you can't do that. I was speculating on how they would reveal the story, you took the blowing up of the rocket on the way back as THE plan.

No sir. The plan was elastic and there were many possible outcomes, not least driving the lander and/or the command module into the Lunar Surface so there would be wreckage on the surface.

Scientist from Earth would not be able to distinguish wreckage from the landing module that was left there.

So why did they only record a message for one eventuality?
How do you know what outcomes they were preparing for?

And why would they bother when it's not actually possible to fake it and not be called on it?

gbee wrote: »

I also think you are applying techniques and attributing functionality that just was not that good forty years ago.

I supplied you with a list of agencies and individuals who tracked the missions and would have been able to tell if something had gone wrong.

Further people at the time, and now would have been able to put the clues together and would be able to prove it.

gbee

King Mob wrote: »

I supplied you with a list of agencies and individuals who tracked the missions and would have been able to tell if something had gone wrong.

No in fact they would not. You must remember that for whatever reason this network was down and NASA had to rely on an Australian dish for live TV pictures.

Your other questions are just pedantic and if you have to ask them, then any reply would simply elicit a repeat.

gbee

gbee wrote: »

No in fact they would not. You must remember that for whatever reason this network was down and NASA had to rely on an Australian dish for live TV pictures.

And these people, which included the Russians were dotted around the world.

They used Jodrell Bank not because the "network was down" but because the moon was on the other side of the planet at the time of the landing.

The independent observers not only were able to track and hear transmissions from the capsule, they were able to hear the transmissions to the capsule. If there was any kind of incident, there would have been transmissions back and forth, and dozens of agencies and individuals would have been able to listen in.

gbee wrote: »

Your other questions are just pedantic and if you have to ask them, then any reply would simply elicit a repeat.

So you can't actually answer them.
You have no explanations for these gaps in your theory, yet you still believe your theory....

Jonny7

gbee wrote: »

The Moon mission was a near impossibility for NASA but they were under much more pressure because the US were losing out to the USSR, or at least that was the presumption at the time, and the Russians were preparing for their own Moonshot.

In the space of 2 years NASA successfully landed 5 unmanned missions on lunar soil. After Apollo 11, Apollo 12 landed later that year. Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17 all landed within a few years of the first landing.

The apparent success of the mission for the US was paramount. If the mission failed, it was to be concealed from the world, there was never a plot to pretend the astronauts were alive when in fact they were dead, if they died, they really died. They could die in any part of the mission, except take-off.

Show us some proof that doesn't Kubrick's wife talking in a spoof documentary.

Once the rocket blasted off and reaches orbit, the mission was going to be televised as a success. If the rocket blew up half way to the Moon, the pre-recordered films would be played and the public would believe the landing was successful, the mission was a success. The public would be informed later that the craft blew up with the loss of all on board on the return journey.

Absolute twaddle.

NASA was and is very compartmentalised, very few specialists would be aware of overall plans, mission status or equipment status, as the O-Ring Challenger disaster has shown us, and how many years on are we by this stage?

I guessing they didn't have Kubrick films ready for Apollo 13 or the fire on Apollo 1 for that matter.

namloc1980

gbee wrote: »

Thanks, never saw this.

For what it's worth, my take is the Moon landings were real and they did go ahead, though as we all know they were very nearly the disaster that had been planned for.

NASA in planning for contingency shocker. Do you not think it would be down right weird if they hadn't planned for potential disasters?

storker

On the subject of hidden meanings in movies:

http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?/archives/191-HOMOEROTICISM-IN-ZULU-THE-ELEPHANT-IN-THE-ROOM.html

Short version: "Zulu" is stuffed to the gills with hidden gay themes.

Make of it what you will...

Stork

Border-Rat

Well, there was no 'final solution' in the 1940's. If operated as alleged, the 'gas chambers' at Treblinka would've exploded.

Jonny7

Border-Rat wrote: »

Well, there was no 'final solution' in the 1940's. If operated as alleged, the 'gas chambers' at Treblinka would've exploded.

Of course it didn't.

--Kaiser--

berettaman wrote: »

Kubrick was a genius. All his films are filled with meanings within meanings and layers etc. I don't know about the OP but see attached for a decent gist of the argument..
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_apollomissions10.htm

It has been done to death already though..

Since the movie was based on a book by Stephen King, most of the argument here is complete bunkum (and that's ignoring the wild connections and leaped conclusions the author makes)

gibraltar

Border-Rat wrote: »

Well, there was no 'final solution' in the 1940's. If operated as alleged, the 'gas chambers' at Treblinka would've exploded.

A few guesses here,

1; Your grasp of history is tenuous.
2; You are not an engineer and/or have no knowledge of engineering other the pieces you have blindly accepted from random sources.
3 and most important of all - your in the wrong thread or you have a very strange take on the shining.

Dead Man Walking

Redrum was the only one I could find