Friday, April 19, 2013

Room 237 Review by Dio Rochino




      Anyone who appreciates film knows that it’s impossible not to equate Stanley Kubrick as one of the masters of the art form.  Even to the point where the previous sentence probably already sparked a mental conversation in your mind over the validity of that statement.  He was one of the foremost directors who created think films that cinephiles like to dissect simply because of the puzzling poly-semantic material he chose to display.  Fans know how Kubrick can be very meticulous about his vision and the imagery he creates is the result of extensive research and planning.  Therefore, The Shining continues to be a great mystery.  A long time in the making, adapted from a Stephen King book whose premise he chose not to follow and filled with a morass of continuity errors, awkward set pieces and unusual prop placement.  Was it intentional?  Depends on which school of thought you’d like to follow in which there are many.  What Room 237 does is gives us a chance to see some of the more popular theories surrounding the mysteries of the film and while none of them are based on anything substantial, they are fun to know nonetheless.
      The five interviewees that this film focuses on offer their own theories into what the hidden meanings and symbolism represents.  All of which are entertaining.  They range from Kubrick attempting to teach a lesson on the history of genocide to the movie actually being a confession to one of the government’s greatest conspiracies.  By showcasing these theories, each interviewee perpetuates their own ideas as the film displays the hidden symbolism in specific scenes to support it.
      The symbolism can appear in many forms.  It could be set pieces disappearing or moving from one scene to the next.  Also, It could be certain unusual props that Kubrick decided to use such as posters and portraits that seem out of place.  Or my personal favorite, certain selections of canned goods he decided to position on a shelf inside the pantry during the kitchen scenes.  One chilling theory surrounds the type of typewriter that Jack Nicholson uses and equates it with the the fact that the number 42 keeps appearing in the film.  In fact, this uses the main title by showing that if you take the number 237 and multiply it out individually, 2x3x7 equals to 42.  One interviewee even went as far as to create a map of the Overlook Hotel and realized that the way the architecture was set up didn’t make sense.  That if someone were to build the actual hotel as it was portrayed in the film, there would be doors that open to nowhere and windows opening to walls.
      So the question one has to ask when watching Room 237 is this.  Was the bizarre prop placement, confusing set design and continuity errors a way for Kubrick to send us an unspoken narrative?  Did he simply do it for the sake of doing it?  Or was it evidence of another popular notion.  That he simply had beef with Stephen King and wanted to show that he could destroy his work. The problem proposed by these theories is that many of them individually claim they are about one thing.  They can’t all be right because the conclusions overlap each other.  Of course, If it showed without a shadow of a doubt that any of them are correct, the film would placate Kubrick’s genius but without any concrete proof to back up these theories, the movie simply points out two things.  You can find symbolism in anything if you look hard enough and anyone can add their own agenda to anything to create an assumption based on random imagery.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Oz the Great and Powerful Review by Dio Rochino




      There’s a disturbing trend lately where filmmakers purposely make a movie as a provocation to an impending series.  They create incomplete chapters to sucker the audience into another sequel and the film ends abruptly without giving any answers to the story it presents.  It offers no finality but forces us to stay tuned in and shell out money for another movie which may or may not give the conclusions it promised.  To me, it’s a sense of laziness.  By barely moving the story along, they make the film a feature length tease that answers no questions therefore providing the audience with very little information.  I’m shaking my fist at Prometheus which is a recent example of this.  When the film is finished, there are no actual story arcs.  Just a portion of a tale that leaves audiences feeling unfulfilled.  This is why I was a little weary to see Oz the Great and Powerful.  Before it even got released they were talking about sequels which quite frankly, made me uneasy.  It felt like they were going to take a concept and try to draw it out through multiple pictures.  However, upon viewing the film I am glad to say that I was wrong.
      Disney has definitely been doing their homework.  Oz the Great and Powerful can definitely be viewed as a worthy precursor to The Wizard of Oz.  While the story itself is original and is not an adaptation of any Oz material that has come before it, they definitely payed great respect to it’s source material.  Both to the books written by Frank L. Baum and the classic 1939 film.  Sam Raimi has crafted a worthy companion piece that is actually great for children to watch and sends a solid moral message in the form of it’s main character Oscar Diggs.  A man who strives to be great but has to face aspects of the people he wronged in life, personified by the characters he encounters in the magical land of Oz.
      The film has definitely been crafted with a lot of heart whose rich design not only gives a painterly beauty but invokes a wonder that’s seldom seen in today’s fantasy pictures. It was a nostalgic touch to have the film begin in black and white while maintaining a square 4:3 aspect ratio only to switch to colorful widescreen upon arriving to Oz.  The movie was picturesque and beautiful, picking a palette that looked like technicolor on crack and while some critics slandered the acting as not being up to par, I totally disagree.  The performances felt like an extension of the Judy Garland classic which I’m sure is what they were going for.
      Everything was cleverly well structured.  With aspects from multiple portions all coming together in the end.  It felt like we were watching something complete. What Oz the Great and Powerful reminded me of is what today's filmmakers seem to forget.  That even the best series contain individual films that can be seen as absolute narratives.  It has a beginning, middle and an end.  Even though they may hint that a sequel is yet to come, it does a good job of tying up character arcs within the movie to make the audience feel like they saw something finished.  That’s why people can argue whether Raiders or The Last Crusade had a better story.  Or which Lord of the Rings film had a better conclusion.  Even though these movies are portions of something bigger, we felt that those individual chapters began and ended.  Not only does Oz the Great and Powerful pay tribute to the classic 1939 film but it can also be seen as a stand alone.  Although, should they want to continue the series, the setup can definitely go on well into other stories before the arrival of Dorothy Gale.