Few of you know, but I majored in Comparative Literature AND Cinema Studies. I could adapt well enough to the former to get a master degree but cinema analysis was something else. A clever, artistic-minded director can stack an amount of narrative detail that'll blow your mind in every single frame of his movie *. A clever, artistic-minded director like Stanley Kubrick for example. His movies 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and THE SHINING literally have created communities around people trying to decipher their potential cornucopia of hidden meanings. ROOM 237 is a documentary about the multiple theories of hidden meanings and subliminal messages of Kubrick's iconic horror movie.
One thing you have to understand from the get go, Stanley Kubrick loved to play with your mind. He did plant hidden messages all over his movies. His main thing was to feed off your gullible need for realism. As a viewer, you have faith in a certain level of realism. If nothing looks earnestly out of place, you accept an image as is. I'm as guilty of that as any movie lover. It's what cinema institutionalized. Without having an overarching thesis about THE SHINING, Juli Kearns breaks down the deceitful architecture of the film. She taps into the heart of the complex yet minimalistic strategy that Kubrick uses to make the Overlook Hotel seem haunted. I don't think every detail of her analysis is pertinent, but of all of the theorists interviewed, she made the most valid point, in my humble opinion.
ROOM 237 is about THE SHINING, but it's also a movie about the viewing experience. How is it possible to have such radically different interpretations of the same film? As clever as Kubrick was, I believe he was too focused of a director and had too much artistic integrity to make a film about everything and nothing. Some theories are easier to dismiss than others. For example, the natives genocide interpretation. I can safely tell you that THE SHINING isn't about the natives' genocide. It's part of the storyline that the Overlook Hotel was built on an native cemetary. It's a detail that was written by Stephen King, the author of the novel, not Stanley Kubrick. The clues scattered throughout the movie are supposed to indicate who or what exactly is haunting the Overlook. It has a 100% narrative purpose. As detailed as the interpretations of ROOM 237 can be, you often can't detach them from their theorists, so are rendered invalid. If it can be understood by more than one person, it IS not.
Crucial shot about Juli Kearns' minotaur theory. One of the most plausible of ROOM 237.
One of the theorists of ROOM 237 invoked reception theory in an attempt to validate his perception of the film ** and I thought brought an interesting ethical debate forward: can a credible work of art free itself from interpretation? I'm ready to admit that there is a certain level of subconscious in artistic creation, but it's possible to have authorial intent too. What was it that Kubrick was trying to say with THE SHINING? To me, it will remain a benchmark horror movie with amazing depth in details, several mythological references and subtle, yet free jabs taken at Stephen King. Was there an overarching, hidden meaning that could only be deciphered by die-hard theorists? I don't think so. I think the human mind simply has difficulty to cope with a thorough mystery. After all, what are mysteries for, if not to be solved?
* Too bad I spent three years relearning how to watch movies with the most pretentious, overblown European arthouse flicks.
** Which was bullshit, I find. THE SHINING is NOT about Stanley Kubrick's guilt of staging the moon landing. The guy's clues were ridiculously cryptic.