What did he (he, as in director Stanley Kubrick) mean by this?

What did he (he, as in director Stanley Kubrick) mean by this?

Jack was a pedo.

Repressed memory of Wendy wintnessing a young Danny performing blow job on Jack in past.

Stop shitposting

That's actually from the book.

Remember this disturbing me as a kid.

I was about 9 when I watched this with my Nan and it freaked me out horribly.

Any insight? I've not read the book.

>Shining is supposed to be Scary and kino
>Laugh and be bored throughout the entire film
Man, Kubrick is pleb as shit

Weak reference to two characters from the book. I don't think it's very well implemented.

It's not as bad as the part where Wendy meets Grady and he's all bleeding though, that was just stupid.

i've read the book, but i dont recall this bearsuit fellatio scene.
i do remember though alot more stuff orientated towards alcoholism, the kids powers, jacks crappier life before taking the job (rubbish car wash jobs, hurting danny), and a scene involving danny playing in the overlook playground in a big creepy tunnel.
was quite a long time ago.

i do recommend watching the made for tv movie, it does stay closer to the book. but i think the shining movie everyones heard about, whilst differing from the book, is a really great movie, very much unique in terms of atmosphere and build up to any other films of similar genre.

It's been a few years since I read the book, but the general idea is that he was a gay man who was a frequent guest at parties in the hotel's glory days. He was a super freak and the dog costume was part of his "lead me around and fuck me in the ass, master" gimmick at one of the parties.
It's really got no reason for being in the film aside from being creepy, and possibly

In the book, those two characters are in a weird, mostly sexual relationship in which one (the well-dressed guy) dominates the other. This escalated during a costume party at the Overlook where the submissive guy actually dressed up as a dog and was subsequently treated like one and thereby publicly humiliated by the other. The story exists only as an example of the depraved and debaucherous past of the hotel.

10/10 explanation user.

So it's not some repressed molestation imagery? That's good to know, I always had a hunch that this explanation was bullshit.

...

What's a Nan?

>So it's not some repressed molestation imagery?
The problem with this is that you can't really use "what did the book say?" to determine what Kubrick did or didn't mean, since Kubrick didn't give a fuck and put his own meanings into the movie. Why do you think King won't shut the fuck up about how much he hates it?

Grandmother

The molestation interpretation only applies to the movie. "Book Jack" is/was physically abusive, mostly due to his alcoholism, but he was never portrayed as or implied to be a child molester.

The hotel, on the other hand was. Specifically the aforementioned dog man, who implied he'd molest Danny.

This.

I'd love to think it was kubrick just fucking with the audience by throwing out the most bizarre imagery he could conjure and seeing autists debate the meaning for a quarter of a century

It's definitely repressed molestation imagery. Kubrick wasn't about telegraphing King's mediocre book to another medium, he was making his own film. That's why King hates the movie so much. (And, incidentally, why King's attempt to 'fix' the movie with a 90s miniseries was total garbage.)

Specifically he wanted to eat him starting with his "fat little cock", he appeared with the mask off in just the fursuit with his sweaty hair plastered to his forehead and chased Danny.
I think the dapper man was the hotels owner who was a Belasco/Crowley type who swung both ways.
The hotel owner also appears to scare Wendy with the "Great party isn't it?" but much older.
That ghost was a survivor of the Overlooks destruction and chases Danny into adulthood in "Dr.Sleep".