Saturday, April 20, 2013

Room 237


The very premise of the new documentary, Room 237, represents everything I personally find wrong with film criticism. And I want to get something very clear from the go here: my distaste for this film (and it is a very strong distaste) is a perfect reflection of how I personally choose to view movies. As a great admirer of film (and art in general) I have never achieved satisfaction in breaking art down. Asking, “But what does it all mean?” or pontificating about the purpose of this shot or that specific word of dialogue. Now, this is not to say that I don’t believe artists often live in allegory. I can dig metaphors, parallels, parables and so on, but trying to find the “hidden” meaning of art has never appealed to me.

Inversely, I know plenty of people who value art for the sole purpose of breaking it down. For inspecting and theorizing and asking, asserting, and asking again. They’re not “wrong,” and neither am I. There are simply two ways to go about it.

In Room 237, five off-screen theorists individually assert what Stanley Kubrick’s horror masterpiece, The Shining is all about. They state their claims tirelessly, and often with little conviction. Sometimes they assert what I considered to be far-fetched theories with confidence, but most of the time, they hesitate their way through weak ideas.

If you’ve seen The Shining (and if you haven’t, you should probably wait to watch Room 237 anyway), then you know like many of Kubrick’s films, much goes unsaid. There are shots that confound, subplots that confuse, and entire passages that complicate. But, somehow, the film works, and works rather brilliantly. That was Kubrick’s genius.

Where to begin with the host of speculations thrown around in Room 237? One theorist says The Shining represents America’s staged moon landing, which Kubrick filmed for the United States government on a giant soundstage. Apparently Kubrick didn’t appreciate the harsh scrutiny of that supposed filming project, so he adapted a Stephen King novel to subtly poke fun at US officials. Or… something. Another theory claims The Shining represents the slaughter of the American Indians. Or that the film is an allegory for the Holocaust (look, if you pay attention to Jack Nicholson’s hairline in the final shot, it dissolves into a Hitler moustache). Or… something.
Or no, actually, the film is about repressed homosexuality. If you look closely (which Room 237 tediously does with an eye-rolling, frame-by-frame examination) a paper tray clearly doubles as actor Barry Nelson’s erection when he’s meeting Nicholson for the first time. Or… something.

So basically, Room 237 is a series of never ending, philosophical arguments with too many obnoxious tangents to count, and pretension littered throughout. At one point, a theorist muses that, “If you doubt what I’ve said, then just go see the movie! I learned all of this from seeing the movie. It’s there, it’s obvious.” It is? Really? (Interesting too that just last week, Stanley Kubrick’s longtime assistant, Leon Vitali, told The New York Times that the theories in Room 237 are all complete bullshit.) 

Moving on to the technical aspects of the film, there’s no debating this movie’s atrocious sound design. And I don’t use the term “atrocious” lightly. Room 237 contains some of the poorest-quality audio recording I have ever heard in a film, documentary or otherwise. The interviewees are never seen, so we only have their voices to drive the narrative. Much of the film’s audio is muddled and drowned out by any number of things, including cheap microphones and whatever piece of music director Rodney Ascher happens to be playing simultaneously over the soundtrack. Hell, in a handful of sound bites, you can hear one theorist’s young son crying in the background. At one point, he stops discussing The Shining and actually says into the microphone, “Can you hear my son? Hold on a minute.” We hear him get up, open the door, stop his sons cries, then return a few seconds later.
Room 237 director Rodney Ascher
I’m sorry, but how can I take a movie seriously when it allows for such amateurish filmmaking? Some might say I’m being nitpicky. I’d disagree. Room 237 isn’t a student film that a couple of fans recorded and cut in their dorm room. It played at Cannes, it played at Sundance, and it was picked up by IFC. It’s a real movie made by a man who has been making movies for more than 15 years. It wants to be taken seriously, so that’s how I’m determined to view it.

Look, it’s not my intention to pound away at Ascher or his film. I suspect many will love Room 237 for the precise reasons I did not. It’s all a matter of the way you choose to critique art. The five interviewed theorists all sound like intelligent people who are competent in their overall film knowledge, but they also sound like they’re reaching. I didn’t buy into any of the theories they discussed. Maybe you won’t either. Or maybe you’ll buy into one. But you certainly can’t buy into them all. Can you? D-

14 comments:

  1. Thank you for very valuable opinion as I will again state that I will definitely not see this trite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha, thanks for commenting again man! Yes, skip it.

      Delete
  2. repost of my comment:

    I saw it too recently, and I have to admit it was quite entertaining to watch in a trashy conspiracy theory kind of way. I think the American Indian thing is a legitimate interpretation, which has been brought up in other circumstances, but I agree most of the other stuff is very far-fetched and implausible.
    The problem is, with so much crazy stuff, it devalues any worthwhile elements. The only positive is it will get more people watching The Shining!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Chris, really appreciate you stopping by and commenting again.

      I too think the American Indian theory is the most plausible of the bunch, but I ALSO agree that most all of it devalues the worthwhile aspects. Oh well!

      Delete
  3. Glad you reposted this man. I almost rented it on AIV, but your review kept me from trying it. I'll wait for it on Netflix, if I can be bothered by that point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank YOU for recommenting! Ha, well, glad I could save you the time. I really cannot recommend this on any level.

      Delete
  4. As I commented before, this definitely sounds like a film I'd hate. I think a small percentage of literary/cinematic analysis that helps enrich our appreciation for the art. The rest of it is like dissecting a living thing -- I just kills it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It kills it indeed! Thanks so much for stopping by and recommenting :)

      Delete
  5. I'm halfway through, and I couldn't take it anymore. I literally Googled "bullshit room 237". All five members have a conspiracy theorist inflection in their voice, and they are reaching without providing facts on every single case. I believe that there are plenty of artistic messages, Apollo shirt; doesn't mean it's because he faked the landing, Marlboro next to the Adler typewriter; doesn't mean it's a holocaust film. Why would Kubrick make such an elaborate film, and then deny everything he has put into it? If I made my masterpiece such a "maze" I would thank and reward these five for finding what NO ONE else did. Instead they wasted a lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Tim, thanks so much for stopping by and commenting. Seems we agree all the way here. Honestly, I wish I would've cut out halfway with this one, but I really thought there was going to be some sort of grand catharsis. Sadly, no. I really did not like this one.

      Delete
  6. As I mentioned in another post, I stopped watching this after an hour.

    And I love conspiracy theories, because sometimes it actually makes sense in a way and gives you other perspectives to look and asses situations.

    But when the part came with Room N0 and he said by rearranging you could spell only two words if you left the zero behind, moon and room and made it the moon room. I figured out that Stanley Kubrick had forseen the future, because the first word that I could spell rearranging whas MORON.

    This movie almost ruined conspiracy theories for me and was an utter waist of my time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I figured out that Stanley Kubrick had forseen the future, because the first word that I could spell rearranging whas MORON."

      YES! That is awesome. I obviously hated this movie too. Its attempt to take the piss out of a classic is utterly pointless. Ugh.

      Delete
  7. I was just thinking about The Shining, and was curious to see what you thought of it, and came across this post. I haven't seen Room 237. The main reason being, I hate when people say "You're thinking of this too deeply. It's just a movie!". I just find that to be such a dumb and lazy attitude to take towards film, and pretty much all art in general. Art is meant to be explored, discusses, studied. Sure, there's nothing wrong with taking something at face value, but actually digging a bit deeper can sometimes bring new things you never noticed before, and give you a greater appreciation for the work. The tone of this movie, I presume, is one of derision. "Look at how much time these morons are spending!". Well, so what? I appreciate that there are people out there who are passionate enough to want to over analyze something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey there, thanks so much for stopping by and commenting. I hope you'll forgive me, but I'm rather confused by your comment.

      I think you're saying that you like to explore and discuss and study films beyond their face value. If that's true, then I actually think you'd enjoy Room 237, because that is what the people in this film do: theorize, discuss, explore, etc. My problem with the film was that I found their theories so absurd and reaching that I couldn't even begin to appreciate the documentary. But you actually might dig it.

      And I do adore The Shining, absolutely. One of my all time favorite horror films.

      Delete