When sets change or props change in different shots... when the layout of the hotel as shot doesn't make sense... this is not symbolism... it's just Stanley Kubrick making mistakes.
Yes... he was a perfectionist... but he's made numerous amateur errors in a number of his films.
Well, some of the continuity "errors" are clearly intentional. For example, the car that appears to hit the Torrance family as they approach the Overlook for the first time, only to disappear in the editing -- there's basically no way that could be unintentional, because the stunt driver would have needed to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting Jack Nicholson et al after Kubrick called "Cut." That was a good catch and I'd never noticed it before I saw this documentary, but directors play tricks like that all the time. A continuous edit is always a good opportunity to play around with background elements because the viewer is typically focused on the actors.
I would also say that Kubrick consistently plays with the geography of the Overlook, and makes it less sensical as the movie progresses, to give the viewer the subconscious impression of being lost in a labyrinth. It's not fair to chalk some of these instances up to error when there's clearly a method to the madness -- he begins the film with long Steadicam shots of the hotel to situate the viewer, then starts adding in phantom hallways and rooms that shouldn't exist later on.
The chair appearing and disappearing during the writers' room confrontation? That seems likely to be a simple continuity error which the interviewee is reading way too much into. But hardly an amateur one. Name one movie that doesn't feature at least a dozen continuity errors. The masters all have issues with that, even Kubrick.
Everyone keeps talking about that chair appearing and then disappearing.
Folks are so preoccupied with this chair. Some think it is a continuity error, some think it is a purposeful cinematic device.
What gets me is that there is an end/coffee table that appears/disappears at the same time that the chair does.
Is that end table impervious to all these discussions? What about the f'ing end table?
Continuity errors may not be art, the same way paint is not art.
But in the hands of a master like Kubrick, continuity errors become art -- they are part of the fabric and texture of his cinema vision, like dots are to Seurat. They may have no deeper 'meaning' than abstract patterns and rhythms, but they are music for anyone with an eye for them.
And by the way, that end table appears in the Torrence's bedroom after Jack visits Room 237 ... taking the place of another disappearing chair.
Catch the flying rubber ducky and call me in the morning when you find that yellow Beetle in the parking lot.
Having not seen Room 237. Can you explain to me when the car that appears to hit the Torrance family happens? I have seen the movie numerous times and even re-watched the beginning after having read this post and still have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks.
_______
Alt+F4
On this last frame of a shot, you can see the touring party stepping into the road before a moving car.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llidjigFEr1qi4nyc.png
You (and the person who said it in the movie) make it sound like that car was speeding down the street. The driver wouldn't have needed to slam his brakes at all.
And even if it were true, what kind of "trick" is that? What would it mean?
This is just one of the many, many useless and inane things pointed out in this bad "doc".
What makes me wonder about the chair is, why isn't it there? It's not like it's in the middle of the room or in the way. It was purposely moved. Someone probably needed a chair to sit on and didn't mind it was in the shot. There is nothing about a chair moving that makes any sense relating to the movie.
shareThe chair appearing and disappearing is clearly just an error. Some other aspects could have meaning but that one is clearly just a mistake.
share[deleted]
You're wrong. Mistakes occur in all art, all the time. Nothing emerges fully formed and perfect ever. An artist can fix a mistake, leave a mistake, transform a mistake, or be oblivious to a mistake. An audience can interpret, or misinterpret the artist's mistake. But that doesn't mean that the mistake isn't art or part of the creative process.
shareI'm pretty in to Kubrick conspiracy but this movie is pretty crackpot. A lot of things they're pointing out are quite random and unintentional, open to interpretation as much as anything in life is. I think the chair is a legit continuity error which i've never noticed despite having seen this movie 20 times. But the Dopey sticker on the door was clearly intentional. Kubrick definitely messed around with the geography of the hotel to keep it looming and mysterious and unreal.
"I said no camels, that's five camels, can't you count?"