Room 237 (2012) - September 24, 2013

[Scottie]

Room 237 (2012)

A subjective documentary that explores the numerous theories about the hidden meanings within Stanley Kubrick's film The Shining (1980). The film may be over 30 years old but it continues to inspire debate, speculation, and mystery. Five very different points of view are illuminated through voice over, film clips, animation and dramatic reenactments. Together they'll draw the audience into a new maze, one with endless detours and dead ends, many ways in, but no way out.

[MifuneFan]

People seem to either love it or hate it. As a big fan of The Shining, I've been curious about seeing it since I first heard about it, but I'm sure I'll be doing plenty of throughout.

[SilentDawn]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

People seem to either love it or hate it. As a big fan of The Shining, I've been curious about seeing it since I first heard about it, but I'm sure I'll be doing plenty of throughout.

I did do plenty of throughout but I still thoroughly enjoyed myself with this film. I was probably just so happy that people continue to debate and discuss a film in such detail after so many years. It shows that The Shining still has plenty of mystery and power in it's hallways.

[dvdmike]

I wish it was not marketed as the story behind the shining or the making of the shining or such.
It was all about weird gonzo nutters and their conspiracy theories.
Hugely disappointed

[kashif]

I watched it and though some of the things make sense but many coincidences were very forced and I laughed when they were trying their best to link it with shinning lol.

[KillerJuan77]

This is basically the Kubrick filmic version of those people that post "Illuminati!" on nearly every music video that haves triangles. It starts being funny and then it's just annoying and ridiculous.

[jwick13]

I love how the blu ray reviewer said the Apollo conspiracy theorist was an absolute nutball. I watched this on Netflix last night and when that whack job started talking about that stuff, I was sitting there for literally 10-15 minutes, listening to him talk and all I could was shake my head. It was ridiculous.

[rickah88]

Finally got a chance to watch this last night, and I really liked it. I'm a fan of a good conspiracy theory, although I usually don't place much faith in them...but I like hearing about them.
I'm one of the rare fans that likes the book and movie and mini-series of The Shining, so I was quite sure I'd like this. Yes there was quite a bit of reaching going on here, but for me, it was entertaining.
I really enjoyed the Panel discussion, as you had opposing views right on the 5-person panel. It brought some added insight to the whole "Shining Phenomina".
I can't wait to go back and rewatch the movie, just to perhaps see things from a different point of view.

[MifuneFan]

I just finished watching it, and I thought it was good. There's a lot here that I just rolled my eyes at, but as a fellow fan of the movie it was still fun to see so many differing views about this one film. It really got me thinking that The Shining, in a way, feels like a canvas for conspiracy theorists to paint whatever picture they think they see onto it. And it's safe to do so too since the man himself can't approve/deny the theory. I even got my brain working during it, and saw a "666" at the center of the maze, and thought, "hey maybe this movie is about the devil, and related themes". And sure enough, a google search brings up theories about that too..

Much of the theories presented don't really get elaborated that thoroughly in the documentary. Often they'll just say a sentence or two about something and move on to a different person, or topic. Because of that, it kind of felt like one long trailer at some points. The editing as a whole just felt disjointed, and the incorporation of scenes from different movies made it even worse (though ironically they were put there to try and help visualize things).

I watched it through Netflix, and I'm not really sure if I'll buy the BD. I'm interested in hearing the commentary from "MSTRMND" since the review here says it's more credible and better thought-out than the actual interviewees in the doc.

So yeah, if you're a fan of The Shining, I'd say it's worth checking out, but just make sure to fully moisten your eyes before watching, as you'll be rolling them quite a bit.

3/5

(I really didn't expect to write this much, but here we are )

[TylerDurden389]

I love this movie to and enjoy conspiracy theories also. The poster who kept linking the same article in this thread over and over saying that Danny was molested by Jack had me going for a laugh. Especially how they kept on rebutting anyone's objections with "No no. You're wrong. Read this...".

So I guess the next question is, does this documentary also try to say Stanley Kubrick predicted 9/11 and tried to warn us in the movie as well? Sorry if it sounds like I'm making a joke about/belittling a tragedy, but considering the amount of theories that have been linked to this film already, I think it's the only one I haven't heard yet.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden389

I love this movie to and enjoy conspiracy theories also. The poster who kept linking the same article in this thread over and over saying that Danny was molested by Jack had me going for a laugh. Especially how they kept on rebutting anyone's objections with "No no. You're wrong. Read this...".
t.

Wrong thread, sexy.

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Much of the theories presented don't really get elaborated that thoroughly in the documentary. Often they'll just say a sentence or two about something and move on to a different person, or topic. Because of that, it kind of felt like one long trailer at some points. The editing as a whole just felt disjointed, and the incorporation of scenes from different movies made it even worse (though ironically they were put there to try and help visualize things).

I disagree, and I would say the disjointed editing makes the point - it's not about constructing a valid argument for any of the theories, but rather about the possibility to construct a seemingly endless list of theories based on the very same images. It's a film about the love for film.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

I disagree, and I would say the disjointed editing makes the point - it's not about constructing a valid argument for any of the theories, but rather about the possibility to construct a seemingly endless list of theories based on the very same images. It's a film about the love for film.

Aren't most documentaries exactly that?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

I disagree, and I would say the disjointed editing makes the point - it's not about constructing a valid argument for any of the theories, but rather about the possibility to construct a seemingly endless list of theories based on the very same images. It's a film about the love for film.

The synopsis reads "A subjective documentary that explores the numerous theories about the hidden meanings within Stanley Kubrick's film The Shining (1980)". It doesn't read "A subjective documentary that explores the possibility to form differing theories about The Shining". No, the point truly is to delve into the theories of the 5 people being interviewed, and as such, it doesn't do a very good job at that at times. I say at times, because there are moments where they elaborate perfectly fine and illustrate the point in such a way that it can be illuminating, if not believable. But then there are other parts where an interviewee will say one thing, and then we as the audience are left wondering how they came to that conclusion, and we don't find out.

You don't need to watch the documentary to know that there's a possibility of constructing endless lists of theories for the same images. This is obvious, and can probably be done with every film, though not as effectively since The Shining is rather vague and more open to interpretation. The fact that each theorist finds something completely different from the images shown is interesting, no doubt, but I don't feel it's the point of the documentary itself to show that this is a possibility, but rather it's merely a by-product of conspiracy theories in general.

I enjoyed the documentary as I mentioned, but it's because I'm a fan of the movie, and also of conspiracy theories. If I attempt to factor out those personal biases and judge it purely for its merits as documentary, I think it could have been presented better. The whole thing came off as something very amateur. All we see are a bunch of clips thrown together for the most part. We even have a part where an interviewee has to pause because his child in the background is making noise. I'm sure the formatting is a result of the the documentary's budget, but it's unfortunate since it failed to immerse me into theories.

I also didn't like the constant clips of other movies being shown to try and illustrate something. If it a clip like the Three Little Pigs, thats fine, since that was relevant. But they kept showing clips of Eyes Wide Shut so much, that much of what I remember visually, is from that movie.

I feel like the documentary tried to get as much into the allotted time as possible, without truly exploring most of the theories. It's a jack of all theories, but a master of none sort of thing. I remember one of the theorists even saying that if we want to see more of his theories that we have to watch his own documentary. The whole thing just feels like a small sampling of what's out there, essentially forcing the audience to research each theory further if they're curious. That's good on one hand, because it engages the audience to go deeper if they want, but it's also frustrating for those who expect the documentary to break down the well-known theories in question as the synopsis might have you believe is done. This is merely my take on it though, not saying I'm more right than you or anything of the sort. Like the movie itself, I'm sure the documentary is open to interpretation.

[format916]

overall a waste of time. i did find some things interesting like

[Show spoiler] the holocaust, 1942 and playing it backwards

other than that people were reaching.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Martoto]

I enjoyed this a lot more on second viewing. It felt like a bit of a waste first time around since, as many people have said, if they were going to make a doc and fill it with theories about stuff that was unintentional or not even in the Shining at all, most people and their mum could come up with stuff at least as good as the things in Room 237.

But watching it again I figured they had to put something in and the people providing their insights do so from a good place.

Except the Kubrick faked moon landing footage guy. The fact that Kubrick said stuff about the making of the Shining that turned out not to be true is not a clue. If that were the case, then you could claim that just about every director makes stuff up about the production of their movies.

As for the Kubrick face in the clouds. Come on. If one single frame had been airbrushed it would stick out a mile and you'd be able to see it in the documentary. It is not there.

I have a question for The Shining fans though. Does the helicopter shadow appear in the 1.85:1 version? Or only in the "correct" 1.33:1 version.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by Martoto

I enjoyed this a lot more on second viewing. It felt like a bit of a waste first time around since, as many people have said, if they were going to make a doc and fill it with theories about stuff that was unintentional or not even in the Shining at all, most people and their mum could come up with stuff at least as good as the things in Room 237.

But watching it again I figured they had to put something in and the people providing their insights do so from a good place.

Except the Kubrick faked moon landing footage guy. The fact that Kubrick said stuff about the making of the Shining that turned out not to be true is not a clue. If that were the case, then you could claim that just about every director makes stuff up about the production of their movies.

As for the Kubrick face in the clouds. Come on. If one single frame had been airbrushed it would stick out a mile and you'd be able to see it in the documentary. It is not there.

I have a question for The Shining fans though. Does the helicopter shadow appear in the 1.85:1 version? Or only in the "correct" 1.33:1 version.

As far as I know the helicopter is only in the 1.33:1 version.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

As far as I know the helicopter is only in the 1.33:1 version.

Well then. Case, as they say, closed.

[Region_unlocked]

I'm glad I caught this on Hulu. I would've been pissed off if I'd paid money for this. I've seen free YouTube documentaries that were better than this.

[Jack Theakston]

When this came out, I don't think most people got that it's intended to be satire about how people look too much into artwork, especially when the artist cultivates an aura of mystery as Kubrick did. And many people still seem to be taking it at face value.

Check out Ascher's previous short, THE 'S' FROM HELL, in which half a dozen people talk about how they were traumatized by the '60s Screen Gems logo. The tone in that one sets the precedent for the tone in ROOM 237, but the editing in the short makes it far more apparent that Ascher is poking fun at these folks.