Browsings — May 23, 2013, 9:00 am

Surprisingly Germane

Tracing the Holocaust-Symbol Theory of The Shining

In the June issue of Harper’s Magazine, Jay Kirk discusses Room 237, a documentary that screened recently during the Directors’ Fortnight at the Cannes Film Festival. The documentary focuses on the stunningly elaborate webs of interpretation that viewers have created to explain Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. Writes Kirk:

Among the theories held by the fans interviewed in Room 237: (1) The Shining is really a veiled confession by Kubrick that he conspired with NASA to fake the footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing; (2) it’s really about the genocide of the Native Americans; (3) it’s a commentary on the Holocaust; (4) it’s not a horror story at all but actually a very slick vehicle for pulling off a series of seemingly pointless subliminal erotic gags.

Below is the unexpurgated transcript of a quotation from one of the film’s subjects, Geoffrey Cocks, in which he traces the evolution of his own theory.

I saw a number of Kubrick films before I had an academic interest in him, and then I went to see The Shining in 1980 and frankly I didn’t think that much of it. I thought the other Kubrick films that I’d seen were far superior but, as I thought about the film afterwards and even when I wasn’t thinking about it, there were things that bothered me about it. It seemed as if I had missed something and so I went back to see it again and I began to see patterns and details that I hadn’t noticed before, and so I kept watching the film again and again and again and since I’m trained as an historian and my special expertise is in the history of Germany, and Nazi Germany in particular, I became more and more convinced that there is in this film a deeply laid subtext that takes on the Holocaust.

The typewriter from Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Creative Commons photo by Rick Hall

The typewriter from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Creative Commons photo by Rick Hall

I think it probably was the typewriter, which was a German brand — which might seem arbitrary, but by that time I knew enough about Kubrick [to know] that most anything in his films can’t be regarded as arbitrary. That anything — especially objects and colors and music and anything else — probably have some intentional as well as unintentional meaning to them. So that struck me. Why a German typewriter?

And in connection with that, I began to see the number 42 appear in the film, and for a German historian if you put the number 42 and a German typewriter together you get the Holocaust, because it was in 1942 that the Nazis made the decision to go ahead and exterminate all the Jews they could, and they did so in a highly mechanical, industrial, and bureaucratic way, and so the juxtaposition of the number 42 and the typewriter is really where it started for me in terms of the historical content of the film. Of course Adler in German means “eagle,” and [the] eagle of course is a symbol of Nazi Germany. It’s also a symbol of the United States. And Kubrick generally has re-coursed the eagles to symbolize state power.

Kubrick read Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews, and Hilberg’s major theme in there is that he focuses on the apparatus of killing and he emphasises how bureaucratic it was and how it was a matter of lists and typewriters. Spielberg picked that up in Schindler’s List of course, and the film begins with typewriters and lists and ends with a list of course, and so that informs, and I had a chance to talk to Raul Hilberg when he visited Albia College, and he [said] that he and Kubrick corresponded about this, and the fact that he had read it then in the 1970s when there was a big wave of interest in Hitler and the Holocaust and the Nazis, I think, just tells us that that typewriter, that German typewriter, which by the way changes color in the course of the film, which typewriters don’t generally do, is terribly, terribly important as a reference to that particular historical event.

Single Page

More from Harper’s Magazine:

Podcast November 15, 2018, 1:17 pm

Checkpoint Nation

Not satisfied with toeing the line, US Customs and Border Protection agents are expanding their reach into the country’s interior

Weekly Review November 13, 2018, 3:45 pm

Weekly Review

The unresolved midterms; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III replaced; the debut of the world’s first AI television anchor

Podcast November 8, 2018, 2:30 pm

The Tragedy of Ted Cruz

Is any victory great enough for the man we all love to hate?

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada



December 2018


Combustion Engines·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On any given day last summer, the smoke-choked skies over Missoula, Montana, swarmed with an average of twenty-eight helicopters and eighteen fixed-wing craft, a blitz waged against Lolo Peak, Rice Ridge, and ninety-six other wildfires in the Lolo National Forest. On the ground, forty or fifty twenty-person handcrews were deployed, alongside hundreds of fire engines and bulldozers. In the battle against Rice Ridge alone, the Air Force, handcrews, loggers, dozers, parachutists, flacks, forecasters, and cooks amounted to some nine hundred people.

Rice Ridge was what is known as a mega-fire, a recently coined term for blazes that cover more than 100,000 acres. The West has always known forest fires, of course, but for much of the past century, they rarely got any bigger than 10,000 acres. No more. In 1988, a 250,000-acre anomaly, Canyon Creek, burned for months, roaring across a forty-mile stretch of Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness in a single night. A few decades on, that anomaly is becoming the norm. Rice Ridge, for its part, swept through 160,000 acres.

At this scale, the firefighting operation is run by an incident management team, a group of about thirty specialists drawn from a mix of state and federal agencies and trained in fields ranging from aviation to weather forecasting and accounting to public information. The management teams are ranked according to experience and ability, from type 3 (the least skilled) to type 1 (the most). The fiercest fires are assigned to type 1s. Teams take the name of their incident commander, the field general, and some of those names become recognizable, even illustrious, in the wildfire-fighting community. One such name is that of Greg Poncin, who is to fire commanders what Wyatt Earp was to federal marshals.

Smoke from the Lolo Peak fire (detail) © Laura Verhaeghe
Rebirth of a Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump’s presidency signals a profound but inchoate realignment of American politics. On the one hand, his administration may represent the consolidation of minority control by a Republican-dominated Senate under the leadership of a president who came to office after losing the popular vote by almost 3 million ballots. Such an imbalance of power could lead to a second civil war—indeed, the nation’s first and only great fraternal conflagration was sparked off in part for precisely this reason. On the other hand, Trump’s reign may be merely an interregnum, in which the old white power structure of the Republican Party is dying and a new oppositional coalition struggles to be born.

Illustration by Taylor Callery (detail)
Blood Money·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Over the past three years, the city of South Tucson, Arizona, a largely Latino enclave nestled inside metropolitan Tucson, came close to abolishing its fire and police departments. It did sell off the library and cut back fire-truck crews from four to three people—whereupon two thirds of the fire department quit—and slashed the police force to just sixteen employees. “We’re a small city, just one square mile, surrounded by a larger city,” the finance director, Lourdes Aguirre, explained to me. “We have small-town dollars and big-city problems.”

Illustration by John Ritter (detail)
The Tragedy of Ted Cruz·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

When I saw Ted Cruz speak, in early August, it was at Underwood’s Cafeteria in Brownwood. He was on a weeklong swing through rural central Texas, hitting small towns and military bases that ensured him friendly, if not always entirely enthusiastic, crowds. In Brownwood, some in the audience of two hundred were still nibbling on peach cobbler as Cruz began with an anecdote about his win in a charity basketball game against ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. They rewarded him with smug chuckles when he pointed out that “Hollywood celebrities” would be hurting over the defeat “for the next fifty years.” His pitch for votes was still an off-the-rack Tea Party platform, complete with warnings about the menace of creeping progressivism, delivered at a slightly mechanical pace but with lots of punch. The woman next to me remarked, “This is the fire in the gut! Like he had the first time!” referring to Cruz’s successful long-shot run in the 2011 Texas Republican Senate primary. And it’s true—the speech was exactly like one Cruz would have delivered in 2011, right down to one specific detail: he never mentioned Donald Trump by name.

Cruz recited almost verbatim the same things Trump lists as the administration’s accomplishments: the new tax legislation, reduced African-American unemployment, repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, and Neil Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court. But, in a mirror image of those in the #Resistance who refuse to ennoble Trump with the title “president,” Cruz only called him that.

Photograph of Ted Cruz © Ben Helton (detail)
Wrong Object·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.


e is a nondescript man.

I’d never used that adjective about a client. Not until this one. My seventeenth. He’d requested an evening time and came Tuesdays at six-thirty. For months he didn’t tell me what he did.

The first session I said what I often said to begin: How can I help you?

I still think of what I do as a helping profession. And I liked the way the phrase echoed down my years; in my first job I’d been a salesgirl at a department store counter.

I want to work on my marriage, he said. I’m the problem.

His complaint was familiar. But I preferred a self-critical patient to a blamer.

It’s me, he said. My wife is a thoroughly good person.

Yawn, I thought, but said, Tell me more.

I don’t feel what I should for her.

What do you feel?

Photograph © Joseph S. Giacalone (detail)

Chance that a homeless-shelter resident in a major U.S. city holds a full- or part-time job:

1 in 5

Turkey hunting was deemed most dangerous for hunters, though deer hunting is more deadly.

The unresolved midterms; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III replaced; the debut of the world’s first AI television anchor

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!


Happiness Is a Worn Gun


Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today