MovieChat Forums > Room 237 (2012) Discussion > Misunderstood by many people.

Misunderstood by many people.

posted 10 years ago by robertolshn
5 replies | jump to latest

This is a documentary about the people who have all these theories...It's about how passionate these people are with their theories and how serious they take them, no matter how far out or "conspiracy" their theories are. It's a movie about how obsessed people get about Kubrick's films and how much time they spend studying them and making these interpretations....and the lengths they will go to in order to explain their theories and try to prove them. The people that made the documentary do not believe the theories, they have made a movie about the people who believe these theories and take them so seriously. You either understand that or you don't. Many people who don't understand are writing angry reviews. It is pointless to write a review about this movie if you think the film makers believe the theories of these people. And the really angry reviews are especially dumb.

[–] El_Skutto 10 years ago

While I agree that some reviews are a bit aggressive, I do not support your claim. Nowhere does the documentary mention that the focus is on the interviewees; in fact, you never see their faces or learn their names, so how can they be the focus? Wouldn't a documentary focusing on the "fringe" fans actually mention one or more by name? Maybe discuss the impact their theories have had on their lives? Or what Kubrick has to say about it?

And shouldn't any documentary at least present some arguments to the contrary? But in this case, this documentary serves only to present the evidence to support these fringe theories, and never casts any doubt as to their validity.

No, this documentary is clearly meant to support these fringe theories, and it deserves ridicule for doing so.

[–] Geeky Randy 10 years ago

this documentary is clearly meant to support these fringe theories

Far from it. Case in point: most of these theories couldn't coincide with the other theories, making the viewer have to choose which theory they most agree with and thus making the support of all "these fringe theories" an impossibility.

Check out the director's interpretation, which seems to be less far-out than the interviewees, and kind of contradicts their perceived depth (http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/03/interview-room-237-director -rodney-ascher):

My personal take on it is, for one, I don’t think it's nearly as visionary as any one of these folks have found. I just see it as sort of a story about juggling the responsibilities of your career and family and as cautionary tale of what may happen if you make the wrong choice. And even maybe looking at the ghosts as these figures that represent fortune or prestige or things that you might be chasing at the expense of paying proper attention to your family.

Basically, to me, Room 237 is almost a satire on over-analysis or a criticism of film-criticism. Furthermore, it presents the idea that interpretation does not necessarily need to start with the work's creator… be that, in this instance, Stanley Kubrick or even Stephan King.

Votes: 2,929
Reviews: 193 (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0756238/comments)

[–] IMDbyebye 10 years ago

Nowhere does the documentary mention that the focus is on the interviewees

The interviewees are the only ones who speak. The documentary is nothing but their theories. Their names are given. They are allowed to describe their theories in detail. Nothing in the documentary is about anything but their theories. The documentary is about what the interviewees think of the movie.

If I can think of any other ways to make it clearer to you, I'll be in touch.

[–] robertolshn 10 years ago

Yes, the interviewees are "the only ones who speak" and they "are allowed to describe their theories in detail." Yes, "the documentary is about what the interviewees think of the movie". It is up to the viewer to see the point of presenting these people with their different theories. In reading interviews with the maker of this film, it is clear that the intention was not to see any of these theories as valid. Yes, I understand that the documentary does not "MENTION that the focus is on the interviewees"....There is no need to put that in BOLD TYPE. It seems that the filmmaker didn't feel the need to include a disclaimer that the film itself doesn't support all these theories. The very fact that the theories are so detailed and specific, some complete with diagrams, and that these people are so sure of themselves....the way it is presented sets a certain tone in the movie...the way each theory is presented after another theory that is completely different...one after another, having nothing to do with each other, often contradicting each other.
I won't try to argue this anymore because it's pointless to go back and forth. Think whatever you want to think. You don't have to "make it any clearer to me." If it satisfies you, I will even write the following statement: You are right.

[–] Geeky Randy 10 years ago

It is up to the viewer to see the point of presenting these people with their different theories. In reading interviews with the maker of this film, it is clear that the intention was not to see any of these theories as valid.

^This.

Votes: 2,978
Reviews: 193 (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0756238/comments)