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.
Why, hell yes! You know that's right!
ReplyDeleteAnd personally, I grow weary of hearing these film parasites -- it's said they feed on filmstock -- determined to make symbols, just because they can. There's a place for that sort of thing...you know, scene dissection, like graduate school, or the twice-a-year "synod on screenwriting at the Getty" and so forth. I'm afraid most of what you get is "random imagery" from a self-appointed expert on film. Dio's right; who needs more of that? Got enough of that already!