Sometimes when these ambiguities or plot holes happen its by design, sometimes when they happen its from poor writing and directing. For example, being that you are a person who can't seem to stomach guesswork, how does this make you feel Mr. Bullitt?
I believe The Shining is a tremendous work of horror but it is confusing and contains plot holes that are never resolved.
I think the first issue to settle here is how we're using the term "plot hole." As I understand it, a plot hole is a legit problem for which there are no discernible solutions. Ambiguity is one thing; it speaks to the presence of
potential solutions in the absence of explicit confirmation/certainty. A plot hole is something else.
In the case of
The Shining, I don't think that there are any actual plot holes. There's just a ton of fucked up shit that Kubrick sprinkles throughout without providing detailed explanations. At one point, Jack gets told straight to his face in no uncertain terms that he's "always been the caretaker." Explaining that picture in any kind of detail might be a challenging task, but is that really a plot hole?
When Danny goes all Redrum he has a bruise on his neck. Was this caused by his psychotic father or was it caused by the old hag in Room 237?
It's never been a question for me that it was the old hag, but either way, once again, is this intentional ambiguity or a plot hole that unravels the narrative being spun?
To be honest, I actually think complaints about plot holes in
Eyes Wide Shut would have more merit, but even there, Kubrick allows himself the flexibility afforded by dream logic, so, no matter how crazy shit gets, it can always be "explained" at least to some degree with reference to dreams.
You're looking for some sort of indication that this "sin-theme" was what the filmmakers had in mind when making the film?
One piece of corroborating evidence that I forgot to mention. Remember that the son spews out an apple as he's dying? This seemed to me to be a reference to the Garden of Eden story, which's meaning (at least in Puritan Christian teachings) is that mankind has experienced a fall from grace and is therefore inherently sinful. So the kid is spewing out his inherent sin as symbolized by the red apple as he's dying. To me, this seems to me to be a sort of "clue" that is supposed to guide you towards this mindset.
Or at least I can't think of any other reason as to why he would spew out an apple. Please don't tell me that this is some sort of weird cultural thing New Englanders do when they're dying, ok!? That'd seriously freak me out.
As far as I know, that's not something that New Englanders do. When I was watching it, though, I just assumed that it was a callback to his lie to his mom about thinking he saw an apple. That's not to say that that automatically invalidates this thematic reading. I may just be failing for whatever reason to take that step from explicit narrative to implicit thematics. But there
does seem to be a "non-thematic" narrative explanation for that apple.
Well, this film does discuss religious dogmas more in-depth than your usual religious-themed horror movie. The concept of original sin is invoked at several times in the narrative and is used as an implication of horror for the characters. They are clearly distressed that their own teachings tell them that they are going to hell when they die, for what is essentially very slight things (baptism, etc). It seems like a whole lot of content for just being window dressing. Why invoke a concept like original sin so repeatedly when it is a rather abstract concept?
It's not just that the characters are menaced by religious monsters (like Paimon in Heredity, that is what I would call window dressing, a convenient monster out of religious lore), it is that they are menaced by the very ideas and dogmas that make up their religion (original sin, the impurity of others, going to hell for not receiving the proper ritual, etc). Hell the paranoia this causes torments them just as much as the actual supernatural baddies do. It turns them against each other, destroying their little community.
I think I'm seeing a sliver of the light...
Oh, no of course not!
My idea was more that these beliefs and mindsets inevitable lead to a collapse. It's more about puritanism leading onto evil because they view the world and humanity as fundamentally evil which just isn't sustainable. Just because the witches and the devil and such oppose the humans, doesn't make them good in response.
Hmm. Maybe my problem is that I'm hung up on the title. You'd think that if all of this Puritanism/religion/dogma shit was the main point of the film that the title would've been something like
Sin or
Damnation, no? In the movie called
Psycho, it's about a psycho; in
Rosemary's Baby, Rosemary's baby figures quite prominently; in
Halloween, the key holiday isn't Martin Luther King day; etc. In a movie called
The Witch, you'd have me believe that it's not even about a witch? That's one of the main things that bugged me. You barely even see any; it's not really even clear (at least it wasn't to me) if there are any witches, or, if there are, if there's just one or multiple; and, at the end of the day, the movie ends up
really being about a stupid religious family and a goat that's either demonic or literally the Devil.
It just seemed too confused and ended up being too confusing for me to accept it as the type of coherent, premeditated, and well-executed critique that you're arguing it is. Adding to my skepticism...
I don't remember the egg scene at all.
However, I saw those things more as red-herrings to "set-up" Tomasin. Make the audience and the family suspect her.
...is shit like this. Red herrings are fine, but they've got to be internally motivated and intelligible from within the narrative context. If there isn't a diegetic source, then it's bullshit and just adds to the general confusedness/confusion.
So, in sum, while you've helped me to appreciate the movie more, I'm still on the fence as to whether to credit the filmmakers for their filmmaking or you for your analysis
Lies is the only reason why anyone would ever dislike
The Exorcist.
The most overrated horror movie ever made and one of the most overrated movies in general.
For starters, it seems obvious (to me at least) that the first seance was a set up to get Annie to perform the summoning ritual, at home, with Peter present (Joan specifically told her the family must be there). Did Joan summon her kid in that first seance, or did she summon Paimon and act like it was her kid moving the glass? I don't know for certain, but the latter seems more likely given what was revealed about her.
I never considered that. That'd definitely cast the shit that went down after that in a different light. I still would've preferred that being made explicit, or at least revealed/discovered later, but I like this reading better regardless.
Second, who is Charlie? She was possessed by Paimon very early in life. Was Charlie talking through Annie during that scene, or was it Paimon speaking in the voice he's always used?
This is also interesting, but, even more so than the above, I would've liked this to have been made explicit.
I will say I think the ambiguity is as annoying as you do, and it supports your position that a film maker needs to provide enough answers to make a cohesive film.
The Serious Movie Discussion thread is gone?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wanted to post about A Star is Born and I see no thread anywhere.
What happened to sherdog while I've been gone?
The SMD still exists, it just isn't stickied any longer. Now the SMC is the top dog in town! We got the throne after Bullitt68s film opinions leaked to the site admins! I knew his hatred of Chinatown would come back to bite him in the ass someday!
europe's lying. He says it was "the site admins" but it's really part of his and
@jei's grand conspiracy to create a Shadow Sherdog where somehow
Chinatown is a masterpiece but
Raging Bull isn't. They'll be coming for
@Dragonlordxxxxx next and he doesn't even know it.
I've already said too much...
