I’m a huge fan of Stanley Kubrick’s movies; IMHO, he was a master filmmaker and pretty sharp cookie, who used his considerable and many skills to make entertaining and thought-provoking flicks.
Last night I watched a “documentary” called ‘Room 237’, which details various supposed hidden symbols Kubrick employed in his 1980 film of Stephen King’s ‘The Shining’ to advance a variety of sub-texts espoused by “experts” who’ve viewed the movie more times than the average bear.
I put documentary in quotes because a) it’s not truly a documentary about the making of the film and contains a disclaimer stating that no one associated with the production of ‘The Shining’ was interviewed/consulted, and b) it’s impossible to determine whether the makers of ‘Room 237’ actually believe the theories espoused or just wanted to entertain viewers with these theories. You’ll understand why I put experts in quotes once you’ve seen the spoilers below:
Here be SPOILERS (forgive me, I don’t know how to embed the “invisitext” spoilers box)
1) Beyond some minor self-identification within some of the interviewees comments, there are no credentials supplied as to WHY these folks are experts, other than they’ve all viewed the movie multiple-times, are all very articulate and imaginative and apparently have waaaaaaayyyyy too much time on their hands.
2) Two of the supposed hidden symbols seem pretty easily to be explained by simple errors in continuity that even a meticulous director like Kubrick, known for an exceedingly high number of takes, could easily make in merging, say, take #17 with take #71.
3) One interviewee outs himself as a loony when he asserts that a major sub-text of the movie is Kubrick’s apology for his involvement in faking the documentary evidence of the Apollo moon landing missions. He doesn’t dispute that we went to the moon, understand - just that ALL of the film, audio and photographic documentation was FAKED by Kubrick and other filmmakers (Douglas Trumbull, I assume?)
4) Two interviewees have made detailed maps of the Overlook Hotel’s supposed layout. Despite the fact that the Overlook Hotel DOESN’T EXIST AND WAS CREATED ON A SOUNDSTAGE fer Pete’s sake!
5) All the interviewees appear to be suffering from various forms and combinations of OCD, fetishism of Stanley Kubrick and/or his films, and medicinal dosages that clearly need to be adjusted either up or down.
So…
if you’ve seen ‘Room 237’, d whaddya think?
And…
whether you’ve seen it or not, what’s your favorite conspiracy theory/loony spotting past time?
I think it’s brilliantly assembled and absolutely hilarious. That some of these interpretations are completely whack-a-doodle is almost beside the point–they’re all very lucidly conveyed, intelligently argued (in their own bizarre pretzel logic) and amazingly inventive.
Your criticism of Point 4 is not a valid one, however. Cinematic space should not, as a general rule, be arbitrary or incoherent, even if it is “fake”. If two doors are side by side and one goes into a hallway but the other a fire escape, this is an apparent spatial contradiction that, unless addressed somehow, can be unnecessarily disorienting. That these viewers go to extra lengths to map out the Overlook’s lobby & offices may be OCD, but not inherently strange.
I think the film is a perfect primer on how all types of art can transcend authorial “intention” and become a fluid system of signs and signifiers that people can read any number of ways. Debates along these lines play less with “right” or “wrong” rather than “How convincing are you?” All these narrators (I don’t recall any being called an “expert”) have conviction. But can they persuade? Not in my book, but their efforts are as perverse as they are sublime.
One thing for certain–you will *never" see the Kubrick film the same way again.
I thought that in some previous commentary that it was said (or hinted) that Kubrick deliberately shot the movie so that there would be small spatial inconsistencies, to make the viewer a little uneasy without knowing why. Certainly, if you have ever been to Timberline, it would be clear that there is no possible way that the exterior of that hotel matches up with the interior shown in the movie.
I saw The Shining at our local art-house theater a few days ago, and just went to see Room 237 last night. The 1980 movie is as icily scary as ever, but I was struck by how heavy-handed Kubrick was with the music - a very loud soundtrack with lots of nerve-wracking crashes of dissonance. No subtlety there.
Overall, Room 237 was a disappointment. The outlandish theories were about 95% jive, based largely on overreaching, inadvertent continuity errors, confirmation bias and pareidolia. About the only parts of it I bought were that the movie may have had a minor subtext about the destruction of Indian culture, and that the interior layout of the hotel was perhaps purposefully disorienting. Otherwise the various theories were just nuts. The clips from other unrelated movies - most of Kubrick’s own filmography, but then Capricorn One, All the President’s Men, An American Werewolf in London, etc. - were also jarringly out of place.
An occasionally entertaining documentary, but almost entirely unpersuasive.
I haven’t seen it, but had a long conversation with my movie club getting their reactions. So forgive me if this is wrong, but from what I understand…
Isn’t it about the act of (over)analyzing movies and the possibly ridiculous theories by “experts”? In other words, your criticisms #1, 2, and 3 miss the point. The film isn’t asserting that the viewer should take the theories seriously. You, as well as most everyone I talked to, find most of the theories ridiculous. Does that make it a bad movie? It’s not a documentary about The Shining…it’s a documentary about Shining conspiracy theories.
Recently watched this and I left with a similar impression as you. The Moon Landing guy to me was the most amusing because he has so much invested in his theory. A lot of the others were like “huh this is really weird” without any coherence. He had an end game. The Minotaur thing was the most unexpected. I don’t get the guy’s point on the forwards and backwards at the same time process.
I have read before how Kubrick tended to make visual inconsistencies to make people ill at ease like the poster above mentioned. He had used this before in A Clockwork Orange changing people’s attire subtly during jump cuts and in other ways. That to me explains the “missing chair” etc.
Also, the forwards and backwards guy claiming that certain people’s heads and other visuals lined up in certain scenes, Kubrick is known for close ups as well as symmetrical framing of subjects. I bet if you were to overlay say 2001 and The Shining you would see actors and objects overlapping in “meaningful” ways also.
I found it to have some interesting spots but was overall tedious.
Haven’t seen the “documentary” but did see an interview with one of Kubrick’s assistants, who said that the typewriter which is supposed to recall the Holocaust in some way was actually Kubrick’s typewriter which was available and which they decided would look good.
We had a thread a while back with a link to an “explanation” of 2001 which was equally implausible. (They concluded that the whole thing was faked by the government.) Anyone know if these clowns are related to those clowns?
Cinematic space and real space have little resemblance. Assuming Kubrick had a map of his Overlook, how much would he spend in creating multiple sets that matched perfectly, especially if some of it was shot on location. I know of one case in a TV series where the gym and the hallway outside of it were shot in two totally different schools. There was also a movie (and Indie, so they get some slack) where characters in a car turn the corner and wind up in a totally different city.
I just saw it recently and thought it was fascinating. Not fascinating as in, "Wow these people have great theories.’ but fascinating look into the psyches of some people.
We watched both movies last week. The Shining was as good as I remembered, though I think I convinced myself some years ago that Shelley Duvall’s annoyingness was a ploy by Kubrick to give us some sympathy for Jack, and I’m less sure now. Also, I forgotten that the book made it really clear how much Jack loved Danny, which is critical to the ending…not only does the movie fail to communicate that, but it maybe even attempts to shorthand it in a scene that ends up being creepy.
The documentary on the other hand is an occasionally amusing pastiche of looniness, but it’s too fragmented to be really good.
The movie streams on Netflix now, so I have seen it and enjoyed it. I agree with the post below.
In fact, I think it is the point of the movie. Look at how a few kooks have tried to interpret a movie.
It is a great movie, though, and I get the obsession. Even Spielburg didn’t think much of it on one viewing, but now has said it is one of Kubrick’s best movies.
I’ve been meaning to see this thing but hadn’t gotten around to it. Since it’s on Netflix now I’ll try to check it out soon.
[Modding]
I know Groucho Twain isn’t posting here these days, but I added spoiler tags to the OP. If anyone else isn’t sure how to make them, they look like this:
I just watched this tonight. The OP completely missed the point of the film and also apparently doesn’t know the definition of documentary.
I thought it was very entertaining and a fascinating peek into the minds of people who obsess over things like certain films, etc.
Another interesting documentary about people truly obsessed with movies is Cinemania.
Slavoj Žižek is a famous philosopher/cultural critic who has interesting theories about lots of films. You might find those theories useful, or you might think them as off-the-wall as some of those in Room 237.
I saw that this film was now available on Netflix and tried to watch it because it had gotten good reviews, but I after 30 minutes I just had enough. I couldn’t take any more bullshit from kooks ranting about their bizarre interpretations of the film. I wanted someone to just smack these people upside the head and tell them “… You know you’re completely crazy, right?”
Exactly. Just because I enjoyed the documentary doesn’t mean I believe the theories of the subjects in the film. I thought it was an entertaining look at people who become obsessed with a subject and go into a kind of “semiotics overload”, finding meanings and symbols in every minute part of The Shining.
