MovieChat Forums > Room 237 (2012) Discussion > Theories based on Kubrick's 'dialogue' i...

Theories based on Kubrick's 'dialogue' in the film....


A few theories in the documentary quote some dialogue in the film, such as Grady telling Jack that Danny is attempting to bring someone in from the outside (Halloran). The man with the theory starts saying, "Aha! That's all Kubrick" or some garbage.

WRONG. Those lines come from Stephen King. I read the book, and if some of these so-called "theorists" had bothered to read the book, they'd know King wrote those lines, not Kubrick.

I know Kubrick changed a lot of the book, but in at least two theories from ROOM 237, they directly quote lines as "proof" that King himself wrote. Incredibly sloppy and I can't believe the filmmakers of 237 didn't notice this.

In general, I think 237 is ridiculous. Freezing frames so it appears that Ullman is sporting an erection, when he just happens to appear in front of a book on his desk? Laughable.

And don't get me started on the whole moon landing thing.

About the only thing I found interesting was watching the film backwards and forwards and superimposing the images. It made for some interesting visuals. However, there's the question of where EXACTLY do you begin the films, especially from the end. The end credits? The final shot? It's not an exact science.

This film is a gigantic waste of time.

reply

And the problem I have with the backwards/forwards thing. Well, by definition, it will always be The Shining on The Shining, so lots of parallels will just naturally exist.

Oh look, it's Danny and Jack - well both of those are in the film alot, so it's quite likely you'll get them together. Oh, their faces are superimposed - well, the main character in a scene tends to be in the center of the screen. Oh their lips are in the TV - again, frames are shot that way.

I would guess that the vast majority of the combined footage would be boring and hard to even invent meaning out of.

reply

Agreed.

Look, I know Kubrick was a very interesting fellow and probably did place some hidden meaning within this film and all his films....as many directors do. But to exist on the level of this ridiculous "documentary"?

Pathetic.

"You're telling me the future is video and not film?"

reply