Sundance Kubrick Doc ‘Room 237′ Lands At IFC Films

COMMENTS (13)

• Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no REAL MEANING behind The Shining. It was a Stephen King novel. And if there was, he’s still alive to discuss it. It’s not like you’re trying to unravel something written by Chaucer. Where’s the movie in this? It’s like the documentary about some filmmaker’s search for Paul Williams. Yeah, he lives in Beverly Hills. Alive and well. We see him out all the time. Mystery solved.

  Comment by Kieran — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 10:27am PST  Reply to this post

  • Yeah, but that’s the point of the docu as I understood it reading reviews, that everyone gains something from it, whether Kubrick intended it or not, and it takes a look at the “coincidences” of the film. Stephen King made his version of The Shining and most people hate it, so no one wants to hear what he has to say.

    Comment by Sean — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 11:05am PST  Reply to this post

  • exactly…its Kubrick’s film, not Kubricks story. You can debate about why he chose Jack N for the lead or what inspired the infamous tricycle shot…but not about what the story means.

    Comment by yup — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 11:13am PST  Reply to this post

  • Read the article, Sherlock. It’s about the Kubrick film, not the novel. And yes, there IS a movie there.

    Comment by Rip — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 12:46pm PST  Reply to this post

    • I’m well aware of what it’s about, thanks. This isn’t a film, it’s a conversation you have in college after you’ve sucked on a three foot bong with your roommate. Way to go, IFC.

      Comment by Kieran — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 6:29pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Saw it at Sundance and loved it. To answer your snide question, “the movie” in this is derived by illustrating a theory about Kubrick’s use of subliminal messaging. Room 237 proposes that he used this film, and others, to tell another story without direct exposition. Whether or not this is the case is up to the viewer. what makes this documentary exciting is the way the evidence is presented to the audience.

    Comment by urdumb — Thursday February 9, 2012 @ 11:01am PST  Reply to this post

  • (To clarify, my post above was in response to Kieren’s post – not the replies to it.)

    Comment by J Sarles — Friday March 2, 2012 @ 11:28am PST  Reply to this post

• Yes – but how is it that he’s so short and over the years still gets the ladies? Somebody’s doin’ somethin’ right. You’d think he was Wallace Shawn.

  Comment by Mark — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 10:46am PST  Reply to this post

• From Film Stage’s Sundance Review:

  “The film is broken down into nine segments, each chapter focusing on a different specific element of The Shining that may reveal hidden clues and hint at at a bigger thematic oeuvre. These range from background art decor of Native Americans and symbols referencing Nazi Germany to camera movement and long dissolves creating subliminal illusions with subtle image juxtaposition. It’s the type of thing you would only notice after obsessively re-watching a film scene by scene, moment by moment, for any peculiarities that might jump out. Some examples go even farther, from mapping out the geography of the hotel to carefully dissecting the bike pattern that young Danny follows. For the die hard fans it’s all very fascinating and extremely revelatory to show potential methods Kubrick was using to subtly manipulate the audience.”

  Comment by Tony — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 11:32am PST  Reply to this post

• Most of these comments are completely stupid and miss the real point. The real point is that thirty years on, some people are still obsessed enough with a film and a filmmaker that they would study it to the point where they discern patterns that may or may not be there. Name one filmmaker alive today who inspires this level of obsession. Name one who merits this level of scrutiny and admiration. You can’t. There isn’t one. Stanley was the one true God of the cinema. In part this is because of the level of detail he imputed into his movies. In part it was due to his brilliance. Sadly, I fear there will never be another like him. Instead, we have Michael Bay and Stevie Boy Spielberg (who, by the way, showed his inferiority to Kubrick with the risible AI.

  Comment by waltkurtz — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 4:07pm PST  Reply to this post

  • That’s delightful. Still not a movie.

    Comment by Kieran — Thursday February 9, 2012 @ 6:02am PST  Reply to this post

• This is an interesting movie and Kubrick is a legend. At the end of the day, people take what they want from all art forms — whether the artist included it or not.

  Comment by Film Slate Magazine — Wednesday February 22, 2012 @ 7:44am PST  Reply to this post

  • Agreed.

    Comment by J Sarles — Friday March 2, 2012 @ 11:33am PST  Reply to this post