Or, How I came to
realize that I did not even know why my favorite films by Kubrick were my
favorites.
Is it possible to have a favorite film director, a group of
favorite films, and think you know why you love them, only to realize you
really had no idea why you enjoyed them? It happened to me, and it started with
The Shining.
Years ago, while writing my own drivel fiction and continually
watching movies, I remember watching The
Shining for the umpteenth time and wondering to myself why, exactly, it was that I enjoyed the film so much. As far as
films go it’s pretty slow, talky, and, mostly, uneventful. As a favorite horror
film that I always considered to be in good company among my top five
favorites, it shared little in common with the other four. The Exorcist, The Thing
(1982), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,
and Invasion of the Body Snatchers
(1978) have little in common with The
Shining, at least on the surface. The question as to why such a seemingly
uneventful and mundane horror film would continue to gnaw at me over the years
while other horror films that seemed just as competently assembled would not stick
to me and gnaw at my mind was a mystery that eventually had me digging on the Internet.
Thank God for the Internet. For if I did not have good Wi-Fi and laptop that
night in my man-cave, it might have been Room
237 itself that first clued me in.
The first thing I stumbled across was the great article by
Bill Blakemeore, “The Family of Man.” That was the first time I read anything
that theorized that The Shining is
not just about the surface story, but actually about something else. Genocide.
The destruction of the American Indians. Once I read his article, it seemed
completely obvious. The gnawing on my brain ceased some and I was filled with
awe! How had I missed that? I mean, on the surface I had not missed it. It was
there all along. They even mention it in the dialogue. Still, once pointed out,
it’s easy to take that leap. But did Kubrick intend that, or at the very least
try to allude to that? I wanted the answer to be yes.
More digging online had me discovering more and more. Some
ideas were clearly just theory, other things were very obviously intentional,
and verifiable, by anyone who cares to look at the film to test it out. I did
some testing of my own and did confirm many things that are not entirely
obvious when watching the film, even over 100 times, which I easily have over
the years.
I always knew that the ball that rolls into Danny’s circle
of cars rolls over a different section of carpet than it appears after a cut
takes place. Everyone who has studied Kubrick even a small bit knows he was a
perfectionist. He was meticulous in nature, and would repeat many takes of a
scene, often an insane amount, to get a shot exactly the way he wanted. He took
a very long time to cut together The
Shining, too—around a year, if memory serves. He was not the type of
filmmaker who just threw takes together with breaks in continuity and did not
care. If a break in continuity was there, it was for a reason. Even in 2001, when the bone becomes a satellite—arguably
one of the most profound jump cuts in cinema history—the bone and the satellite
do not line up and overlap in the obvious alignment everyone would imagine they
should. He could have done it that way. It would seem obvious to do it that
way, but he did not do it that way. And you can bet your ass there was a reason
behind the bone and satellite not aligning perfectly, even if the reason was as
simple as just to not do it the
obvious way. There was still intent behind his decision, not sloppiness. So
when the ball and the carpet patterns misalign over a cut, he did that too, for
a reason. Why? Why? Why?
The more I dug, the more wacky stuff I found about The Shining. Stuff you can see by just
carefully putting the film on and watching, slowly, bit by bit.
Rather than go into the exhaustive list of very real and
verifiable things Kubrick intentionally did with the editing, continuity, and
sets within The Shining, I will simply
point you to two very well researched and complied sites on this.
Much of what is listed on these two sites is also theory as
to what The Shining means. Much too,
are actual facts, things that can be verified by carefully going through the
film and checking for yourself. If you are a fan here reading this, I encourage
you to do so.
One crazy theory I even feel I disproved all by myself. Something
falls out of the blood from the elevator. It’s there to see on the floor when
the doors open. I had to know. What the hell comes out of the blood when the
door opens? One theory floated around is that it’s Tony, Danny’s imaginary
friend. I put the Blu-ray on my big TV and watched. There is something there.
Something long and grey and curved and something brown on the floor. What I
concluded, based on how the blood erupts onto the wall so insanely, is that
those are guides, likely metal, differently-colored so as to mask them as ambient
room lighting reflections in the blood. But they are also guides used
pragmatically to direct the liquid flow, to get it to splatter on the walls,
ever so dazzlingly, on the left and right of the screen. That’s my conclusion.
I even took pictures and passed them along. I could be wrong but not everything
has hidden meaning. Sure in this film a lot might, but not every single thing.
This was before CGI, and if guides were needed they could not be masked after
the fact, they’d need to be hidden in plain sight as reflections. See for
yourself and conclude for yourself.
Onward… When you conclude further though, that Kubrick was
in fact editing the film in a wacky way, screwing with continuity, adding
subliminal breaks in continuity, messing with the layout of the sets, causing
stickers to vanish, chairs and ash-trays to move and reappear, the maze to
change, carpet patterns to change, and intentionally adding odd disconcerting
elements to the film, one must conclude that there was a reason for this,
beyond just doing it for the fun of it. It could simply have been that he just
wanted The Shining, a supernatural
horror film, to be subliminally uncomfortable and off-putting. However, once I
realized he was doing this likely also with A
Clockwork Orange, 2001, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut, then that explanation
alone, that he wanted The Shining to
be subliminally creepy, cannot alone account for it all.
He rarely explained what he meant with his films. He was
even quoted in an article once where he himself re-quoted H. P. Lovecraft
saying: ‘In all things mysterious – never explain.’
He likely wanted the hidden stuff in his films to spur
imagination and eventually decades later it did. First and foremost, beyond
Kubrick’s obvious genius, I am thoroughly impressed with the many people who
have dug out so much, and on their own found so much more in the film than I
ever could have. I was just spurred to dig, but only with the aid of other
minds, and the information connectivity of the Internet, was I able to find
anything. On my own I only knew something about the film gnawed at me. After
reading the websites listed above, my mind was continually blown. Whether or not
you buy into any theory about what The
Shining might mean beyond the surface story or not, you must admit that there
is still information intentionally hidden in the film. These are things within
the film I had never consciously noticed, that I now plainly see. The film was
blown wide open for me, as was Kubrick the director, someone I already
considered a favorite. After all this, I arrived at the conclusion that I
likely did not even know, completely, why some of the films from my all time
favorite director were my favorites. Maybe others have been playing around like
this too? Kubrick was operating multiple levels above and beyond what I even
considered to be top tier master filmmaking.
Then came Room 237, Directed by Rodney Ascher.
Room 237
objectively takes several theories about the film and presents them. Much of it
I already knew from digging online before I even saw the film. Still, I was
thrilled that others had found the fact that The Shining is way more than the surface story, and that they were
driven to work on much of this information and present it. Then it was all compiled
together as a documentary.
I was first able to see Room
237 for the first on my Apple TV when it became available for rent. I loved
it. I was so happy to see the clever visual pointing out of things I had read
about, like the sticker and chair disappearing, the carpet, the maze, etc. The
theories too were fascinating for me to watch and consider.
I was surprised at how quickly many people scoffed at the
film, the theories, and just summarily dismissed it all as whack-job conspiracy
hogwash. Many people hate the idea that they are not in the know, or loath idea
they are somehow outside the scope of what’s going on. Many of these people
just saw faked moon landing and went,
“Bla bla bla crazy faked moon landing nonsense!” Even if you think every theory
is complete nuts, the information that Kubrick still intentionally cut the film
oddly is there. Why discard that rather important revelation just because you
may not agree with a theory or two? The moon landing stuff seemed to irk people
the most. This film did a poor job of explaining the theory, too. The way I thought
I understood it before seeing Room 237
was not that Kubrick faked the moon landing and man has never been to the moon,
but rather that the government concerned that we might fuck up getting to the
moon, look like jack asses, possibly with dead astronauts, wanted back up
footage to show the public and the Russians, just in case. That seems entirely
plausible, especially now with all the crazy NSA stuff that has come to light
in the news. Turns out the paranoids were, perhaps, onto something. And we all
know the government is capable of quite a lot of wacky stuff. Still, I consider
the moon idea the wackiest of the bunch. The crazy uncle.
As much as I enjoyed the film I still felt it could have put
in just a bit more information. There are a few shots—like when the twins first
see Danny and there is a cut and furniture moves slightly—that I would have
enjoyed seeing in the film. I read reviews that promised more would be included
with the DVD/Blu-ray. As soon as it became available, I ordered it. I watched
the deleted scenes and although there were some more, it was not as exhaustive
as the few websites I linked to above.
The one thing about the DVD/Blu-ray of Room 237 that I was thoroughly impressed with, beyond my initial
enjoyment of seeing the film for the first time, was the commentary by Mstrmnd.
He declined to be interviewed for the film itself. In the commentary he explains
that he did not want his ideas to be lumped in with conspiracy theories and for
them to get lost in the mix. After hearing his commentary, I see why. His
commentary over Room 237—already a film
about a film—is even better than Room 237
itself. He takes it to a whole other level. His website is even better. I think
it’s been updated since I found it years ago, but I have no way to confirm
that.
Mstrmnd’s commentary goes beyond the many theories and gets
down to the WHY. Why did Kubrick construct his films like this? The short
answer is that Kubrick was likely inventing a new form of filmmaking and/or
language. Mstrmnd also points out that many films today are just jumbled
remakes of earlier films. He even mentions Oblivion,
a film I enjoyed, some, and reviewed on this blog. I mentioned in my review here
that Oblivion feels a lot like other
films that came before it. Mstrmnd says, basically, the same thing about Oblivion and many films today in
general. He also alludes to a sort of filmmaking regurgitation going on out
there with blockbusters and the desire, the need, the will for something new to
come along—a new way of making films. A new way of communicating. Films that
work on multiple levels. Films that engage our brains not entirely on the
surface, but interact with them based on the way a human brain might root-process
information, in clumps. A new visual pictorial language. I likely am not even
explaining what he did properly. Watch Room
237 with his commentary. I do know that Mstrmnd, finally, got to the ‘root’
of what was gnawing at me about The
Shining. He mentioned Star Wars
too, another life-long favorite of mine, the first one from 1977, before Lucas
lost his shit. Mstrmnd points out the similarity between the shape of the
escape pod and the restraining bolt in Star
Wars. Escape and restraint. Opposites shown with a similar shape, one
small, and one large, both dealing with the two droids. This is Carl Jung
stuff. This is collective unconscious archetype, Joseph Campbell stuff. This is
a whole other level. Lucas may or may not have known what he was doing with
these opposites when he made Star Wars.
My guess is that he did on some level. Mstrmnd explains that some filmmakers
may just be more in touch with their inner brain, and as well, these subliminal
concepts, and as a result produce better films, (subconsciously?) that resonate
with us, gnaw at us, and we love them so very much but we don’t know, truly,
exactly why. We just know we love them. The new more recent Star Wars films don’t do to us what the
very first one did to us. We point to Jar Jar Binks. We point to how Lucas
screwed with the originals. We point to the force being explained and no longer
mysterious. Someone point out all this stuff in this clever video. All valid and pretty obvious observations in that video. Mstrmnd
was the first to point to the escape pod and restraining bolt shape similarity,
for me, likely just one of many things he’s noticed that I have not, as perhaps
adding subconsciously to why we continue to love some films, while others fade
into non-Kubrickian Oblivion.
If you have not done so already I highly recommend you go
buy a good wide-screen TV, a Blu-ray player, The Shining Blu-ray, Room 237Blu-ray, and saddle up for the ride of your cinema-viewing life. Grab Kubrick’sother films too while you are at it. It’s also claimed that 2001 and The Shining might be loosely connected. Watch ‘em all back-to-back!
Then in reverse! Then stand on your head. There is always a new way to see, new
way to experience, new way to watch, and much more to learn!
My God, It’s full of stars!
—A
—A
***Addition after seeing a panel discussion from the first
annual Stanley Film Festival on the Blu-ray***
Leon Vitali, Kubrick’s
personal assistant on The Shining is
the biggest skeptic so far, insisting that any and all possibility that Stanley
Kubrick had any subtext in any of his films is just not true. That they sat him
next to the moon nut only helps his impossible case. Vitali too, a bit of a
character himself, seemed the least grounded out of the four in the group, unkempt
and even wackier than the moon guy. Vitali even did not hold his microphone the
entire time and seemed hell bent on denying that there was anything in the film
aside from what is there on the surface. Personally, I don’t buy this one man’s
opinion. I don’t even care if he was right there “holding Kubrik’s hand”
through the entire production. He is not Kubrick and therefore had no real
influence on what, in the end, went into the film. Kubrick had the final say. Sure,
loads of people helped Kubrick, brought material to him, etc. Kubrick did not
work alone, but Kubrick had the final say. Apollo sweater…up for debate for
sure. Consecutive intercuts with disappearing or moving furniture with a jump
cut in between, well, in my humble opinion, with all we know about how Kubrick
worked, how long he took to edit, there is no freaking way those jump cuts with
crap disappearing or moving are an accident. Do I want to believe? You bet your
ass I do. One guy, a close Kubrick assistant, saying otherwise does not negate
the very contrived obvious photographic and editing evidence. When Dick
Halloran opens the freezer door and the direction it opens switches right as
the cut happens. I’m supposed to believe that is a mistake? A mistake Kubrick
made in editing? Right as the fucking cut happens? In the only supernatural
horror film of his career? No fucking way. Zero chance that’s a mistake. The
furniture and ash tray moving between when we first see the twins in the game
room and when it cuts to Danny and then back to the twins. That, too, can only
be seen if you first frame-grab the two shots and overlap them, or if you use a
tripod to take two shots and compare by flicking back and forth on your digital
camera. The stuff moves imperceptibly. That’s no accident. That’s intentional.
Kubrick may have misdirected numbskulls on the set and said “Oh I hate that chair.
Get that friggin thing outa my sight!” after getting a zillion shots with it,
and then taken another zillion without. He carefully used one of each when
editing. For sure he did. Don’t for a second doubt that, no matter what Leon
Vitali says. Kubrick’s wife could agree with him and I’d still not believe
them. I’m an artist myself. I know filmmakers and have made short films myself
too. Even crap films get TLC from the people involved. Sure, mistakes happen,
but this is Kubrick and The Shining
we are talking about, not Leprechaun 4.
For all we know Kubrick may have gotten some of these people sworn to secrecy,
or just, and more likely, simply kept them in the dark right up close. “Oh some
lady sewed this Apollo sweater. No biggie. Just throw it on the kid.” Please!
While the moon landing stuff is the hardest for me to swallow, the evidence
there is still uncanny. Even if that is 100% BS, the fact that it even has
enough information to make it worth mentioning is crazy.
There is another, very slow, poorly edited online
documentary, but it’s chock full of, basically, number 11s and other such
number details about just the moon landing stuff. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0hOiasRsrA
Remember, this is a horribly slow and poorly edited film, not even close to
being as good as Room 237, but the information
is there. It could all be nuts. I don’t buy it myself, but still, there is a
lot of freaky moon coincidence in here. It’s worth a look-see at least once
before you take a giant shit on it!
The genocide of the American Indians, the Holocaust, freaky
jump cuts, and more I am almightily convinced are intentionally there, obvious,
or alluded to, and intentional by Kubrick himself. The Playgirl with the incest article. The bear pillow in Danny’s room
and then the blowjob bear at the end. Catcher
in the Rye. Disappearing art in the bedroom. Impossible hallways. The never-consistent maze. Moving carpet. Impossible window. TV
with no cord. Manifest destiny, westward expansion dialogue. German typewriter
that changes color. And on and on and on. At the bare minimum, he put the film
together to fuck with our subconscious. Kubrick was never a bear minimum type
of guy. His famous reclusiveness and reluctance to talk about his films or
explain them speaks volumes about what he hid in them. He knew this was coming
eventually. He probably thought we’d catch on sooner. Only Bluray and DVD
helped in the end. It was as if he was insulating himself from it in advance.
Eventually, I suspect, when his wife dies, we might hear more. Maybe not. Dark
secrets kept close to the chest can travel far, unknown by anyone.
—A
—A
