"Have you seen this? Have you watched this? It's really great! What's wrong with Wendy? B!tch!" If you haven't seen the YouTube video on the "Wendy Theory", then it's basically summed up less elegantly like this. Whenever a scene is "off", then it is a Wendy hallucination. By being "off", this is basically things like a missing rug, missing sofa, missing chair, missing lightswitch, i.e. things missing and re-appearing sporadically during the same scene but different camera angles switching back and forth. The idea is that any time something is missing or whacky...it is a Wendy hallucination from her perspective. When Wendy first bothers Jack when he's typing his novel, he goes off on her for interrupting him while she is trying to be nice ("oh...don't be like that!"), and then he tells her to "F off" so she leaves. In this scene, furniture behind jack mysteriously disappears and reappears sporadically. And, at the end when Wendy is walking away, a piece of paper is in the typewriter again even though he had pulled it out and crumpled it up throwing it on the floor seconds before. And, his hair is not messed up like a madman that just went off on Wendy for interuppting his train of thought. It's nice and he has a calm look on his face. And, lamp shades on the background furniture stands mysteriously appear and disappear and appear again. Is Wendy hallucinating and her visions are not being reflective of reality and, therefore, lack the details of what and where everything is? Did Wendy just walk up to Jack, not say a word, hallucinated that Jack was going off on her and walk away where Jack is just sitting there calmly thinking his wife is losing it? That is just one example of the "Wendy Theory". The issue at hand that created this theory is the ever-changing background objects in the background along with story elements that don't exactly line up. Even if the theory is wrong, it's intriguing enough to make you want to go back and re-examine the film from this perspective by watching the film again or learning more. Other examples include Wendy rolled the ball to Danny in the hall, she went in room 237, Danny went in there, and she hallucinated while damaging Danny. Interestingly enough, the "Wendy Theory" narrative is also derived from the idea that Stanley Kubrick couldn't possibly have allowed for all these continuity gaffes to occur in one of his films where objects and carpet patterns and such don't lline up from shot-to-shot in the same scene. Well...another YouTuber then made a video discounting the "Wendy Theory" citing evidence that Kubrick has a long list of films where objects are shifting and changing in the same scene where these films have nothing to do with "going crazy". You judge for yourself. The "Wendy Theory"...I like to remain open to the possibility that she was the lunatic, a lot of what we saw was from her perspective and her hallucinations. And, she could have dragged Jack out into the maze after hitting him with the bat where he froze over and hallucinated a lot of the rest up until the great escape. It's fun to imagine this is what Kubrick wanted to us think as a possibility based on the way he put the film together. But, seems unlikely when it comes down to it. After all, he was writing and rewriting that script on the fly daily. But, did he really put so much time into making sure every little object lined up from shot to shot versus focusing on all the other things? I think Kubrick's intent might have been to do these things as a mechanism to keep people talking about the film long after he was gone. And, he succeeded. Whether they had any real meaning, could be interpreted as part of one's hallucinations versus the house doing this as kind of a living entity (we know the book...the house could move objects on its own; but, the book was only a template for Kubrick to build on)...I'm not sure Kubrick set out to establish that versus establishing a form of duplicity in what's happening...for the viewer to derive their own interpretations of what is happening while being bounced around between crazy and reality. The honest truth is...most people didn't notice any of this stuff watching the film several times over. It's a brilliant film. It's well known he liked to do many takes of the same scene (up to 148). This could take several days to film one scene. It ran well over filming budget time. The real travest is Kubrick never felt compelled to give his take on the story...other than talking about the concept of reincarnation being present with Jack in a documentary. That would have been a nice extra on a DVD release. I even watched one of the guys doing his input into the filming scene-by-scene and he had ZERO to say about any of this. How can that be if this was done intently to misdirect the audience or add to the confusion of the descent into madness? I think Kubrick just wanted to establish a pattern of a descent into madness but from Jack's viewpoint.
I haven’t seen the Shining in a long time But I’ve heard they theory before. Continuity errors are also something other directors have used to symbolize mindset. David Lynch and David Fincher have used those a lot.
Given how controlling Kubrick is in his films It’s hard to believe he would’ve just missed they many continuity errors. Those changes seem more likely to be deliberate.
It's possible. And I agree about Kubrick's nature. Yet, I could also imagine that he was focused and obsessed with other elements that he wasn't concerned. In addition he may not have known which takes he was going to use and there may have been a version which had perfect continuity but because of an issue with the sound on that take. Or one of 50 other things that can go wrong with a take and forced them to use a different take when putting it together.
I am more inclined to believe Kubrick intentionally placed these continuity errors to further show the Hotel's supernatural elements and dominion over the mental AND physical aspects of the Hotel. Remember the Hotel spirits were able to unlock the pantry door for Jack, roll a ball over to Danny, etc.
I know that Kubrick did read King's novel for a fact because he did want to make the hedge to have the animals come to life but CGI back in 1979/1980 wasn't advanced enough to make it happen, so that is why he went with the maze. Kubrick was also infamous for doing multiple takes. There's one story where he made the 70 plus year old Scatman Crothers open and close a car door over 70 times! So I think it is a combination of all the excessive takes that he shot with a little bit of disorienting the viewer. A great example of this is when Jack is trying to chop the bathroom door down with Wendy screaming. Jack stops when he hears the snowcat coming and clearly only ONE panel of the door is missing. But after he leaves, we see Wendy still in the bathroom but now BOTH panels of the door are gone. Stuff like this happened throughout the movie and I do think that it was intentional.
What Kubrick seemed to care most about was the underlying theme of American conquest and how all the conquest was built on the blood of innocence, etc. etc. Its a cycle of violence and how America is built on it. Wendy is ultimately the protagonist that is trying to break free from the cycle of violence, and help the next generation be better off. I don't see how it serves Kubrick's narrative to have the whole thing be in her head, and for her to actually be the crazy one.
One theory about the inconsistencies is that Kubrick was doing that on purpose to make a point that history isn’t always the way you remember it. There’s also the unreliable narrator aspect where you are being told this story from Danny’s POV most likely. A tell here is that when the chef “shines” with Danny we hear it as if we are in Danny’s head. Kubrick wants you to view this story from Danny’s POV in his memory where he’s likely an older man reliving this nightmare and trying to figure out himself what this traumatic event was all about. Just like with Eyes Wide Shut the simplest explanation is that Kubrick just thought of the story as a nightmare/fantasy and wanted the audience to experience the events through the perspective of the person having that nightmare.
Out of all the Kubrick movies (which sadly is about 13 of them), Eyes Wide Shut has become probably my favorite. I watch it every year and I am just amazed at the cinematography and how dreamy that whole picture is - a true arthouse pic if there ever was one.
I also think it's his most personal film, and for a guy who made 2001, he decided that his final film that he'd put the most effort into would be about human relationships. However it's just jam packed with themes. Some subtle. Some on them obviously spectacle. Alot of folks think Kubrick was trying to send messages about secret societies, or in the case of the Shining messages about the faked moon landing, etc. No... not the case. Kubrick was generally more focused on the human condition. In the Shining it's about the human condition of ambition, the family dynamic of ambition, and generational trauma that comes out of it. In Eyes Wide Shut it's about the human condition of relationships, and us being awake and present... especially as husbands/fathers. Be present for the ones you love. Incredibly deep and layered, but at the same time simple. Kubrick had flaws, but he probably was the best director we've had in film.
I was also just thinking that Kubrick did similar things in Eyes Wide Shut. That Wendy is the protagonist is even more reason why Kubrick would want to explore the nature of her mind and express it through seemingly continuity errors.
