Based in Brooklyn, NY, I write about all things creepy and strange. My book based on the real haunting of Doris Bither (The Entity 1982 movie) will be released soon. Got a question? Drop me a line.

In 1980 Stanley Kubrick released one of the most recognized psychological thrillers of all time. Kubrick’s interpretation of The Shining (One of Stephen King’s bestsellers) is nothing less than a masterpiece on film.

Kubrick does a phenomenal job in extracting the underlying fears in King’s novel and conceptualizing scenes to describe what the characters felt. He uses strong imagery to leave a colorful imprint in your brain. Something to keep you up at nights or to remember for the next time you’re walking down the corridors of a desolate hotel.

However, many are not aware of the deep levels of psychology that exists in the set design. Designs that Kubrick manipulated to mess with your head.

Rob Ager’s psychological analysis of The Shining is something you have to watch. Ager breaks down the film to an almost scene-by-scene basis and points out what first appears to be flaws in set design.

Ager does an excellent job at interpreting these “flaws” as nothing more than the director’s clever way of playing with spatial awareness. The video then moves on to talk about Kubrick’s impossible spaces that appear to have been intentionally created to induce vertigo and feelings of paranoia on the viewers.

  • Angelo Piazza

    I’ve seen this video before and I think it’s mostly nonsense. This is great example of “anomaly hunting” – searching for anomalies and assigning undue importance to them. I haven’t done this, nor will I, but I’m sure you could do a similar analysis of many lesser films, like Porkies III maybe, and reach the same conclusions.

  • Dung Shooken

    “YOU” think it’s mostly nonsense? It’s called analytical thinking you schmuck.
    The guy who made these vids has more of it in the tip of his weiner than you have in your whole head. Meh.

  • Angelo Piazza

    It may be analytical thinking, but I still maintain it’s wrong. Analytical thinking can be rife with mistakes; hadn’t you heard? These vids are loaded with unsupported assumptions about the director’s intentions. Half the time, he’s not even providing convincing proof of an anomaly – we’re just supposed to take a “game developer’s” word that it’s there. And as for his examples of things which do seem ever so slightly out of sorts, these could be discrepancies deemed unimportant by Kubrick. In short, this is OVER-analysed. Minus any supporting documentation from Kubrick or his set designers, I disagree with most of this video’s unsubstantiated conclusions. Now THAT’S analytical thinking, idiot.

  • glen

    I agree with Angelo–easy to make claims when the director’s dead. Mr. Dung is full of, well, DUNG.

  • Angelo Piazza

    Douchbag Dung, here’s a link which mirrors my thoughts succinctly, scroll down and start reading from “the shining”:

  • Pauline9

    Agreed. Over analysed. Not Kubrick mind games, rather plain old fashioned sloppy film making…