Anyone ever understand what the ending was about?

Read the book...

Redrum

The Shining can only be undertood if you know that Stephen King is an alcoholic. The protaganists fantasies are delusional and the maze is symbolic of his state of mind (as an alcoholic). I think his photo in the foyer, from a much earlier time, is meant to say that his delusion (that he has lived before) is "real" from the writer's (SK's) point of view. That is, SK is living through his characters because that is what an alcoholic writer does autobiographically. I think its just a literary indulgence. It makes you think and put yourself in the character's shoes, who is a writer of course. I'm not sure I've explained that clearly.

Anyway, its a good movie. I've watched it many times. Its Kubrick's best movie I think (along with Paths Of Glory and Dr Strangelove).

I really wanted to say I enjoy 'Corner Gas' (Canadian) on TV here in Australia.

OMG...what have YOU been drinking...you can't give a clear & consice synopsis of the movie if you don't read the book! Sheesh! It has nothing to do with literary indulgence or alcoholism...but hey! I suppose you're entitled to your opinion...

WAS an alcoholic. He's been sober for a LONG time already.

Hi

Re "The Shining". I regard films as autonomous works of art without reference to their origin. A film adaptation is not good or bad in relation to a novel or play on which it is based. Are all art forms to be judged with reference to what may have inspired them. For example, Van Gogh's 'Irises' is not a faithful representation of "real" flowers; it is impressionistic.

The "artist" for "The Shining", as a FILM, is Kubrick. He can adapt the book any way he likes, presumably. He was inspired by the book and brought it to life visually. And, I think SK was an alcoholic when he wrote the book. Anyway, even if he wrote it after he had dried out, I think he was writing it from the point of view of what it was like to be an alcoholic.

May I interpret films anyway I see them? Its a free country here (Australia)!

As I said...you are entitled to your opinion...no matter how wrong it is... Lighten up, dude...we're all here to have fun...

<- his fave movie/book

what ending are you talking about? the made for tv movie or the stanley kubrick film?

it's been a long time since i've seen it.
i loved jack nickelson in the role
i'd like to read the book
stephen king is a genius and to use imagination in reading it over watching anothers imagination (producer) put it into perspective FOR you is so much better.

don't get me wrong, i do believe film is an art also, but it's understandably someone elses vision.

Yes, but film is autonomous, like all art forms. Otherwise it has no integrity as art. Filmmakers are authors. But an adaptation is not plaigarism (they need to get copyright clearance of course) because film is a series of images not words. I think we agree, just stating things differently.