The Shining | A Typical Tragedy of American Nuclear Family

This article provides an analysis of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980), arguing that it depicts the disintegration of the typical American white nuclear family when its members have been fully exploited. The article examines the transformations that each character experiences due to their family roles, as well as the physical or emotional exploitation that occurs within the family. The analysis also critiques the idea of the nuclear family model, which is built upon exploiting one another. The document concludes with a discussion of the ultimate fate of the Torrance family and a warning to viewers that a similar situation could happen to any other American family.

Some critics have noted that the narrative of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980) is rooted in the historical context of the exploitation of Native Americans by Caucasians. David A. Cook once suggested that "(The Shining) is about the murderous system of economic exploitation which has sustained this country since, like the Overlook Hotel, it was built upon an Indian burial ground." However, this comment overlooks the fact that alienation and exploitation can occur on a smaller scale, such as within the typical American white nuclear family.

The story of the film is rather simple. It portrays how a typical American family can fall apart. Nevertheless Instead of asking "What's wrong with this family?", I would like to argue "What has to be wrong with this family?" Kubrick demonstrates the inevitable disintegration of the family when there is nothing more to be exploited from any member. Each character experiences a different transformation due to their family roles, with the nuclear family model building on a foundation of exploitation.

Throughout the film, it's apparent that the Torrance family hasn't spent much quality time together. While Jack has legitimate reasons to isolate himself from his family, in order to focus on his writing, we see that the only activity Wendy and Danny share is playing "Chase and Catch". When Wendy makes her intriguing claim, "The loser has to make the American clean," it raises the question: does family time have to involve demanding labor from each other in order to be enjoyable?

Or, in other words, does each family member have to exploit one another to make their family work? This "exploitation" can be either physical or emotional. For example, as the father provides money for the family, he requires love and support from his wife and child in return. However, as Frank Manchel points out in his essay, "the film never shows the wife or the child being affectionate to the father, nor he to them." [1] If this mother-father-son triangle is so unbreakable, then what happens when one of its bonds is broken or disconnected? Will the whole triangle fall apart?

The only time the family appears together in a photo is during a conversation about cannibalism in the car. If you found that scene thrilling, you might be even more surprised by Danny's comment: "Don't worry, Mom, I learned it all from TV." What's particularly strange is not just the parents' indifference to violence, but also the suggestion that the mother has delegated the role of educating their child to the television, and that the father sees nothing wrong with that.

Furthermore, in his essay, Greg Smith notes that the parents find nothing wrong with Danny repeatedly watching the Roadrunner cartoon where violence is aesthetically dissolved as an entertaining element.[2] Given this context, Danny's perception of violence is problematic. Although he has the ability to "shine" and see things across time, he cannot prevent violence or alert his mother to it. This affects him deeply, as his alter ego, Tony, can only communicate his warnings as "REDRUM" (MURDER) when Danny is asleep and unable to wake up. At the same time, Danny's absence also suggests that he denies being part of this family's violent culture.

Jack's insanity is often cited as the sole cause of his act of murder, but I find his character to be the most ambiguous and perplexing in the film. As a father, he struggles to reconnect with his child. He admits to having "accidentally" hurt Danny in a bar scene, and Wendy is finding it difficult to forgive him for it. With no support from his wife and an uncertain future at work, he finds himself blaming his family for his shortcomings.

Cook notes that "he rapidly becomes alienated from his wife and son (not a difficult maneuver, since he is openly contemptuous of them anyway after all, they don’t work, and if you don’t work to produce income at the Overlook, you’re worthless)."[3] When Wendy accuses him of hurting Danny again, which he did not, he decides to betray his original role as a provider and instead fully embrace the patriarchal role of disciplining his wife and child.

In the next scene of the story, we see Jack trade his soul for a drink, something he had previously avoided doing because of a past accident. This act shows us a change in his character and suggests that he has lost faith in the value of his soul. This is perhaps due to his family's lack of appreciation for him and his efforts to provide for them. Jack sees the acquisition of the "white man's burden" as a means to regain some control over his life and to feel valued again.

During his conversation with the ghost bartender, Lloyd, Jack expresses his dissatisfaction with his life. He talks about the five months he has spent at the hotel, which he describes as miserable. This highlights the mental and emotional toll that his isolation and lack of purpose have taken on him.

When asked if he had any issues during his stay, Jack responds by referring to his wife Wendy as a "sperm bank." This derogatory term shows his lack of respect for the domestic role of his wife and reflects a capitalistic mindset that values productivity above all else. On a deeper level, it suggests that Jack now views his family in a negative, cold, and materialistic light, which is a stark contrast to his earlier portrayal as a loving and devoted husband and father.

Later when Jack meets Grady and recognizes him as the formal caretaker of the hotel and the ruthless murderer of his wife and two daughters, their dialogue reveals that Grady has no any recollection of that at all. Instead, what he did was only “correct” them. Jack then learns that he has to “correct” his family, too. As Robert Kilker asserts in his essay, Jack has to kill his family in order to achieve material success, although this success is being approached at a psychic cost to themselves.[4]

Nevertheless, Jack’s figure should not be deemed completely evil. As humanity is inherently both moral and immoral, it is necessary for us to think about what has triggered Jack to betray his good-natured half, and then to embrace his dark half. Frank questions why his family could not have shown more understanding and love to each other, and why Jack could not have more patience for holding up. He views Jack to be a “sad figure more deserving of our pity than our contempt”. Furthermore, he claims that it was a “materialistic society celebrating patriarchal authority” acting as the true cause of Jack “choosing to put profit and prestige over personal relationships.”

Since Jack is the bone structure of his family, his degeneration marks the beginning of disintegration. In the scene where Wendy discovers that all of Jack's writings consist of the same sentence, "All work no play makes Jack a dull boy," albeit in different formats, she is completely frightened. Meanwhile, Jack fully descends into madness. However, from Jack's speech, we can understand that his madness comes from a place of reason: his family has overlooked his responsibility, despite being the ultimate cause of his failure.

Cinematically, Kubrick uses a tracking shot on both Jack and Wendy. Although neither of them is directly addressing the camera, we can still sense the serious tension that has built between them through these shots and over-the-shoulder shots. This is the first time over-the-shoulder shots are used in the film. Kubrick's particular use of the camera aims to transfer our role from spectator to participant, as we witness the disintegration of the family. As Smith questions in his essay:

“(As an audience), do you see yourself and your attitudes and values reflected here? Which aspect? What about your country? Your family? Your ideas about family? About marriage? About being single? Being male? Being female?”

When considering the scenario presented, it is important to take a step back and reflect on how we would react if we were in a similar situation. As participants, we might suggest a number of different actions that the Torrance family or ourselves could take, such as seeking professional help or finding alternative living arrangements. However, it is also possible that we might feel powerless in the face of such a challenging situation, much like the characters in the film.

Indeed, Kubrick's thought-provoking work forces us to confront a larger question: what happens when the traditional nuclear family, which is often held up as the ideal model for modern families, fails? Do we simply stand by as victims of events beyond our control, or can we take an active role in addressing these issues and finding new solutions? These are complex questions that require careful consideration and open-mindedness in order to be properly explored and understood.

In the final scene of the film, each character's transformation is presented through their behavior. Wendy witnesses excessive entertainment that disregards human morality and mortality, while Danny outsmarts his father to mark his adolescence, no longer hiding which might have been seen as a "feminine act". Kilker notes that Danny's passive perception of violence pays off as an "agency" for him to "grow out of it" Unfortunately, Jack ends up frozen to death alone, forever remaining with the other white ghosts in the hotel, where they all hold the same stereotypical values in common.

In other words, each character's transformation is actually a betrayal of their initial family role. Wendy has betrayed her role of a domestic wife, and that is why she is no longer able to tolerate and digest any dark side of humanity. Danny has betrayed his role as a child, as he no longer obeys his father but outwits him to survive. Jack has betrayed his role as a father, as he no longer provides anything for his family.

In the end, the nuclear family model appears to be flawed because it is built upon the idea of exploiting one another. This triangular structure is bound to fail when there is no longer anything left to exploit from any of its members. Jack fails to provide for his family, and he fails to earn the trust and support of his wife and son. Wendy fails to educate Danny and bridge the gap between him and his father. Meanwhile, Danny is unable to simply be a child, as his parents are too preoccupied with restoring their own roles to care for him. Despite their efforts to escape this structure, none of these characters are able to restore it. The transformations that allowed them to escape would not allow them to fit into another triangle. Because Kubrick does not confirm the ultimate fate of Wendy and Danny, he leaves a warning to his viewers that the same situation that happened to the Torrance family could happen to any other American family. This raises the question: would another family have a different fate?

Source

1. Manchel, Frank. “What About Jack? Another Perspective on Family Relationships in Stanley Kubrick’s ‘The Shining.’” Literature/Film Quarterly 23, no. 1 (1995): 68–78. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43798713.
2. Smith, Greg. “‘Real Horrorshow’: The Juxtaposition of Subtext, Satire, and Audience Implication in Stanley Kubrick’s ‘The Shining.’” Literature/Film Quarterly 25, no. 4 (1997): 300–306. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43796810.
3. Cook, David A. “American Horror: ‘The Shining.’” Literature/Film Quarterly 12, no. 1 (1984): 2–4. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43797366.
4. Kilker, Robert. “All Roads Lead to the Abject: The Monstrous Feminine and Gender Boundaries in Stanley Kubrick’s ‘The Shining.’” Literature/Film Quarterly 34, no. 1 (2006): 54–63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43797256.