Room 237 (Rodney Ascher)

[Boner M]

IMDb

[Milky Joe]

Conspiracy/Kubrick nut that I am, I found this a tad disappointing, but maybe that's because I'm already pretty familiar with all this stuff and wanted something a little more than surface level. John Fell Ryan in particular was amazingly uninsightful. His observations were inane and mostly boiled down to "whooaaa, man, isn't that, like, weird." There are far more interesting writers on this film out there that apparently turned down the chance to be interviewed (Rob Ager and Mark LeClair, for instance).

I do want to watch the forwards/backwards version of the film. That looked really cool.

[Mal]

Somewhat interesting, mostly annoying. I'd rather listen to a roundtable of elderly discuss talkies.

[number8]

This was the most appropriate movie I've ever decided to go see for the first time high to.

[EyesWideOpen]

The Shining is one of my favorite movies and Kubrick my favorite director so I have no idea how they managed to make a doc about those themes that literally put me to sleep. I found nothing even remotely thought provoking or insightful other then a few cases of continuity errors.

[Boner M]

I could've watched it for another three hours. *shrug* I think the intentions of the film are being misunderstood, or at least mis-sold. Copy & paste from my TIFF dispatch last year:

[...]Most of the theories in said doco – Rodney Ascher’s fascinating Room 237 – are not particularly productive in and of themselves. A few early ones, making claims for the film as a veiled grappling with the plight of Native Americans or the Holocaust, are surprisingly sound. More often than not, however, the participants tend toward crackpot conspiracy theorising, or using Kubrick’s self-evident and much-publicised perfectionism to treat activity and phenomena at every corner of the frame as highly-composed Rorschach blotches, finding minotaurs and erections and even Kubrick’s own face on allegedly photo-shopped clouds.

Fortunately then, that Room 237’s value isn’t as an essay-film. Ascher remains remarkably respectful to the subjective responses of his speakers, and through his democratic approach, he creates a testament to the fascination and sustenance that interpretation can have for the beholder, however problematic. In turn, we’re not being lectured to, so much as forced to examine our own personal boundaries when it comes to the kind of investigative interpretation depicted, which can be described mostly as ‘The Death of the Author’ taken to its dizzying extreme. More broadly, Room 237 has considerable appeal as a character study of a kind of highly specific, rarely encountered subset of enthusiasts; or rather, given its subjects feature as disembodied voices only, a ghost story befitting the obsession object in question.

[number8]

Is it mis-sold? Sorry if this is condescending, but I thought that much is obvious about the film? I was not aware that anyone was actually looking for a serious analysis of The Shining in this, but I guess I'm wrong on that. The buzz around the film that I was aware of during its festival run is that of a "crazy Kubrick fans tell you their awesomely bizarre crackpot theories" movie.

[Boner M]

I was not aware that anyone was actually looking for a serious analysis of The Shining in this, but I guess I'm wrong on that. The buzz around the film that I was aware of during its festival run is that of a "crazy Kubrick fans tell you their awesomely bizarre crackpot theories" movie.

Well, the replies in this thread suggest the opposite. And then there's the unfortunate trailer:



EDITED by Bialas for proper video viewing.

[EyesWideOpen]

Is it mis-sold? Sorry if this is condescending, but I thought that much is obvious about the film? I was not aware that anyone was actually looking for a serious analysis of The Shining in this, but I guess I'm wrong on that. The buzz around the film that I was aware of during its festival run is that of a "crazy Kubrick fans tell you their awesomely bizarre crackpot theories" movie.

I never said I expected serious analysis. I did expect their crackpot theories to be interesting or "awesomely bizarre" and they were neither.

[Ezee E]

I never said I expected serious analysis. I did expect their crackpot theories to be interesting or "awesomely bizarre" and they were neither.

Yes. There's way better out on the internet. The best piece was from someone that wouldn't even be interviewed, so they paraphrased another guy talking about it. That being the strangeness of what happens when you play forward/backward at the same time.

It's certainly not missold. I expected crackpot theories, but I can google for 90 minutes and find better ones is all. The minotaur one is reaching so hard that it's just annoying, not funny at all.

The use of the maps is touching on something very fun, but they seemed to cut that short whenever it started to touch on anything.

[Pop Trash]

This was a lot of fun. I don't think the interviewees are meant to be taken at face value. I thought the filmmaker's decision to cut out them out visually and just have the running audio was inspired. I also liked that they are never called out for how inane some of their theories were (esp. the moon landing one). Essentially this is about semiotics. About how one movie can conjure up signs and meanings that may or may not be intentional (does it matter?) and how the filmmakers can then use that source material to be re-edited in a way that can magnify what they are talking about. There's a lot of Kuleshov effects here in how shot 'A' (generally from The Shining) can be cut with shot 'B' (sometimes from The Shining but often from some other film or newsreel footage) to create the new meaning 'C.'

This would make a good double feature with Oliver Stone's similarly minded JFK.

[Pop Trash]

John Fell Ryan in particular was amazingly uninsightful. His observations were inane and mostly boiled down to "whooaaa, man, isn't that, like, weird."

Was that the stoned sounding guy? Yeah, I agree they used him too much. He was a little too "uhhh yeah if you open up the door and uhhh room 237 and uhhhh huhuhuh ya know?...oh by the way I'm unemployed."

[Ivan Drago]

I do want to watch the forwards/backwards version of the film. That looked really cool.

It's playing at the indie theater near me this weekend. I'm thinking about going.

[baby doll]

I don't think the interviewees are meant to be taken at face value.

I suspect that the interviewees would beg to differ.

[Grouchy]

Come on, guys, this was fucking awesome. It was a combination of genuinely sound interpretations (the guy who was a Holocaust historian pretty much convinced me and I found his "past" segment fascinating) and crackpot theories at their most outlandish such as the Minotaur or erection sightings.

But the bottom line is that it's a love letter to movie-watching and obsession about movies and I think the filmmakers should win some kind of editing award.

[baby doll]

It was a combination of genuinely sound interpretations (the guy who was a Holocaust historian pretty much convinced me and I found his "past" segment fascinating) and crackpot theories at their most outlandish such as the Minotaur or erection sightings.

Really, the dude counting forty-two cars in a parking lot and multiplying 2x3x7 to get 42 convinced you? At least the Native American guy had actual onscreen signifiers to work with; the Holocaust dude just has allusions to allusions.

[Rowland]

The Shining is a MacGuffin. Quoting "Preston" from Letterboxd, "what it's really 'about' is in fact Religion (one guy says The Shining gave him "my first religious experience"), and the way belief in a godlike figure who's omniscient ("Kubrick is thinking about the implications of everything that exists") and infallible ("Continuity error? I don't think so") allows believers to tailor their beliefs into whatever they themselves need to hear," which has intriguing implications when applied to Cinephilia. On a surface level, the editing technique is highly involving, not to mention unexpectedly respectful to even the most crackpot theories, and of course I loved the use of Bava's Demons movies for stock footage.

[Grouchy]

Really, the dude counting forty-two cars in a parking lot and multiplying 2x3x7 to get 42 convinced you? At least the Native American guy had actual onscreen signifiers to work with; the Holocaust dude just has allusions to allusions.

Hahahah I'd forgotten about that!

What I mean is probably that his theory at least has some thematic relevance, whereas the "Kubrick filmed the lunar landing" part is just conspiracy theory.

[Grouchy]

The Shining is a MacGuffin. Quoting "Preston" from Letterboxd, "what it's really 'about' is in fact Religion (one guy says The Shining gave him "my first religious experience"), and the way belief in a godlike figure who's omniscient ("Kubrick is thinking about the implications of everything that exists") and infallible ("Continuity error? I don't think so") allows believers to tailor their beliefs into whatever they themselves need to hear," which has intriguing implications when applied to Cinephilia. On a surface level, the editing technique is highly involving, not to mention unexpectedly respectful to even the most crackpot theories, and of course I loved the use of Bava's Demons movies for stock footage.

Yeah, the editing is where this truly shines.

[D_Davis]

This was interesting, but poorly made. The same footage was used over and over, the interviewees were never shown, and we don't know anything about them. Without knowing about the people, we can't contextualize the theories.

The best theory - the moon landing - is covered much better on the web.

[D_Davis]

There are far more interesting writers on this film out there that apparently turned down the chance to be interviewed (Rob Ager and Mark LeClair, for instance).

Ager continues to be my favorite film analyst. His piece on 2001 is the single best piece of film analysis I've ever read.

[Ezee E]

And the Minotaur woman was just braindead.

[D_Davis]

And the Minotaur woman was just braindead.

By far the lamest of them all.

It's so weird, but The Shining seems to be in the zeitgeist right now. I started re-reading the book last week. Then I stumbled upon this movie, and I've been seeing pictures and things about the film and it's stars on various websites.

I wonder if this is some kind of mass hype machine generated to drum up sales for Dr. Sleep?

[Pop Trash]

It's so weird, but The Shining seems to be in the zeitgeist right now. I started re-reading the book last week. Then I stumbled upon this movie, and I've been seeing pictures and things about the film and it's stars on various websites.

I wonder if this is some kind of mass hype machine generated to drum up sales for Dr. Sleep?

Yes, but as far as I know, King still can't stand Kubrick's version.

[D_Davis]

Yes, but as far as I know, King still can't stand Kubrick's version.

I think that's true, which is understandable. He provided Kibrick with an incredible book, and Kubrick pretty much dismissed it. However, Kubrick's film is what I would consider to be a perfect adaptation, in that it is a work created be another author filtered through the eyes of another. I prefer the book, but the movie is great in its own right.