It's not about legitimizing any of these theories, it's about how obsessive some people can be and how far they'll go towards "proving" whatever they believe. Then again, maybe Kubrick was playing around with the theme of genocide and the number 42, who knows?
share[deleted]
It was still annoying as all hell.
shareOn the other hand I think that only a deconstructionist could not see how hilarious this film is.
shareWe can debate until the cows come home what this film is about. What it IS is a terrible horrible boring piece of $hit. It's poorly made, neither interesting nor amusing. It's not clever, and there CERTAINLY isn't a lot to 'get out of this movie'. It's just a ROTTEN AND BAD FILM. Period.
Anyone who ENJOYED this film isn't qualified to review anything else. Ever.
And YOU? You're so stupid you don't even know how to properly reply to a post.
shareI agree. Analyzing all these things is like going down the rabbit hole. The movie is about how obsessive people can get analyzing things. I think the movie poster for the movie "rm 237 many ways in , no way out" shows how our mind can find all sorts of meanings but there is no way to prove our theory and the pursuit becomes a sort of madness. I think the movie try's to show the theories as clearly as possible so the more suggestive and gullible of us gets swept up in some of the theories. I found some of the theories compelling and some too far fetched. But the director himself quotes Kubrick in an interview and says Kubrick thought the movie was about a man going insane and trying to kill his family, ie the director doesn't buy into the theories for the most part. I think the director does try to get us into the theorists point of view so we can experience their obsession and so analyze to what extent we get obsessed with forcing a certain belief on the outside world. We all warp things with our interpretation. In the end the director chooses to close with the interviewee who admits he's going a little off the rails ala nicholsons character in the movie, I think this makes it pretty clear what the director was intending with this documentary. All in all, I found the whole experience rewarding. It reminds me of how I took various conspiracy theories seriously at least for a little while. it's compelling. One of the interviewees is a college professor by the way, and so we would assume his analysis has some credibility. It is interesting that the credentials of the interviewees is not stated so we are left to decide what is credible and what is not just based on the merits of the ideas.
shareThe movie is about the theories to some extent but it's more about how we interpret things, the process of interpretation. The fact that Kubrick is dead and unable to comment makes the whole exercise of interpreting a metaphorical rabbit hole. We can go in but we can't take a coherant analysis back out. Maybe that sort of thing is part of Kubricks way of doing things. In 2001, and eyes wide shut. A lot of it defies analysis. It's meant to be experienced and an understanding comes out of the experience that cant necessarily be neatly verbalized. As to why there are so many things that would be considered continuity issues in The Shining, I don't know. Was Kubrick just having fun, doing horror movie idea of items disappearing and appearing to disorient the viewer or was there extreme amounts of thought put into it. I think the director sides on the side that they were just making a movie and that the interviewees for the most part have gone way too far in analyzing it.
The floor plan of the building which is not consistent, the chair in the background which disappears, the dopey on the wall that disappears. the carpet that switches around to "trap" the boy. Wow, I could almost talk myself into thinking about it for hours except there are people on the internet whose obsessive analysis would put to shame anything I could come up with, so best to move on. I think Kubrick had fun with imagery and like a painting or a poem, sometimes there is a lot of interesting stuff there that was not originally intended by the artist, and that's OK. It's OK to see all sorts of connections and to see what that reflects about ourself, but perhaps becoming obsessed about it, is well, obsessive.
i absolutely agree 100% with the OP
it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it
I don't have much to add to this but yes, I believe this movie is really about highlighting how obsessive people can be about certain movies/things/people.... if you've ever been close to a person with real mental/social issues, you will understand it. These kinds of people have minds that run wild with paranoia, "crazy" theories and such. I had a good friend who taught me how to play chess and was a good guy, but as the night wore on he would inevitably start talking about how man will have to flee to the moon in order to survive. This picture to me just allows these kinds of people an open mic
shareSo you look down upon people that try to analyze things? If someone puts effort into something they must have mental and social issues?
Have fun with that white bread.
Shaka Da Gnu
and some jam and peanut butter please
shareSo you look down upon people that try to analyze things? If someone puts effort into something they must have mental and social issues? Have fun with that white bread.
You're forgetting about the faked moon landings that Kubrick felt so bad about filming, he put clues about it in the Shining. *twilight zone music*
shareThe only theory that really stuck to me was The main motif of the violent nature of mankind throughout history. The symbolism of the Native Americans and Nazi Germany make sense in the context of the film, and it was the only theory I really bought.
I concur. Not only does it make sense to the evidence shown in The Shining, but it is a theme which occurs in Kubrick's previous films like Paths of Glory and A Clockwork Orange.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.
[deleted]
Not saying I agree with all (or any) of the theories presented in this film, but I do agree that it is compelling on one level or another and is definitely worth watching.
As for the 'continuity errors', I think it is kind of unlikely that there would be so many of them when you consider the fact that Kubrick took so many takes of pretty much every scene and cared a lot about framing and what was in the frame (and what was left out). Of course, the fact that a chair is in one frame and is missing in the next (to take one example) may be just a subliminal reminder that not all things are right in the hotel (or inside Jack's mind). This plays with our own subconciousness in an eerie way as well, like something is off here.
Maybe the op is true, but the egocentric people in the film with their idiotic theories are nutters
sharePlus the audio was atrocious, the people were not noteworthy, and you could find crackpots saying weird irrelevant *beep* about any film. The film was insanely boring and uncreative with just the frame-by-frame shots. This film on a technical level is worse than an amateur you-tuber
share[deleted]
We get it. Really, we do. The problem is there's nothing compelling about these people to make us identify with their obsession. Rather, it's like listening to that annoying guy on the internet rant about his pet interpretation of a movie or book and how IT'S IS ALL SO OBVIOUS IF YOU'LL JUST LOOK!!!
TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com
Yeah, this is exactly the problem. Some of the people giving their theories are pretty coherent and even compelling. But some of them just sound like jack-asses rambling on. In those moments this gets downright tedious.
_____________________
Need a new signature?
Why not Zoidberg? (\/)(°,,°)(\/)
You're right, but that doesn't mean the film was well made.
I don't think most people judge the movie based on the credibility of these theories anyway.
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
[deleted]
I would love to see a doc about these obsessive people. The only problem this isn't it. Do we know anything about these people? NOOOOO!
share[deleted]
"You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here."
shareYep. It's sad that people are so eager to tear something down that they miss such an obvious fact. It's obviously not endorsing the theories people bring to it, since of course they all contradict each other and can't all be right. If anything, the filmmakers are subtly making fun of the subjects of their movie, in the style of Errol Morris, the guys who made Trekkies and Six Days in Roswell, etc. They don't beat you over the head with it, but, some on guys, it's not rocket science here. The movie is clearly more about the people speaking than about the actual meaning of The Shining. It's like if you don't beat people over the head with something and literally explain everything point by point, they'll stubbornly refuse to get it no matter how obvious it is.
Do you feel like Darth Vader?. .
wow you get sad pretty easily
share