Room 237 and the Lure of Deconstruction

Stanley Kubrick is considered by many to be one of if not the greatest filmmaker of all time. 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket, etc, Kubrick is at once a creator of mesmerizing pieces of smart entertainment and confounding puzzles. After you get past the veil of imagery for the sake of entertainment, you realize there has to be something much larger going on; in fact, there must be many different things going on. And Kubrick was known for being extremely detailed and controlling of his mis en scene and every aspect of the image in the same way that Alfred Hitchcock is notorious for. As one of the interviewees for the documentary Room 237 mentions, there are photographs of Kubrick personally arranging cans of sauce on a shelf in a storage room that forms the backdrop for one shot of Jack Nicholson in The Shining. That's the level of control Kubrick reportedly took with his films.

Thus, the floodgates for interpretation and speculation are flung wide open and come sweeping down just like the wall of blood down the hotel hallway in The Shining. Room 237 is the construction of detailed theories from interviewees regarding Kubrick's intention in this film. I will not go into great detail on these theories (for that, you'll have to watch this extremely interesting documentary), but suffice it to say that they involve portraying the Holocaust, the genocide of Native Americans in America and the white man's destruction and oppression of other races, the faking of the Apollo 11 landing on the moon, and several others. Each interviewee pinpoints a number of different scenes, shots, or details in the mis en scene that are quite convincing. Other examples are more of stretch and not so convincing, but as can be seen in the picture I included, little Danny just happens to be wearing a sweater with the Apollo 11 rocket on it. This is just one of the many, many pieces of evidence sighted for all sorts of theories. As the documentary ends, one of the interviewees (the one I found most thoughtful and self-aware), reflected on how such extreme speculation into a work of art like The Shining can lead into a sort of madness akin to what Jack Torrence (Jack Nicholson) experiences in the hotel.

Even though there may appear to be very convincing evidence for each theory, how can each of them be true? Or is it possible for all of them to be equally true and intended by Kubrick? The documentary speaks for itself in this case simply through the interviewees. All of the interviewees admit the connection that they have to the theories they find most convincing and have developed themselves. The one purporting the connection to the Holocaust is a historian and specialist in World War II and the Holocaust. The one supporting the connection to the genocide of Native Americans is also a historian and specialist in Native American history and American history. The one arguing that Kubrik was involved in staging and filming the moon landing using very specific techniques is a filmmaker and very familiar with such processes. In every case, each theory almost perfectly aligns with what each interviewee already finds compelling and important which should set off red flags and discredit their argument.

But each case has very compelling evidence that is present in the film! OK, some of it is very hard to see and only comes to light when you slow down the film and watch it frame by frame or even play the film backwards super-imposed on the film as it plays forwards, but the evidence is still present in the work itself. Moreover, Kubrick's reputation as an auteur with an eye for every detail renders anything possible. Still, as the interviewee at the end says, relying on authorial intention is something that is warned against in postmodern theory most popularly seen in Barthe's famous essay, "Death of the Author." The same interviewee brings up the point made in quantum physics how the act of surveying or studying an object changes the thing itself or how we see it. So, what are we supposed to make of these two contradictory themes?

One major theme to be taken from this documentary is that of extreme attention to detail for all art in general but specifically for film that can be primarily traced to the emergence of Modernism. Gustav Flaubert used to spend weeks or even months working on a single sentence or paragraph to make sure each word and punctuation communicated exactly what he intended. In the same way, director Steven Soderbergh, in a recent speech at the San Francisco International Film Festival, defined Cinema as painful, strict attention to every detail to create a work of art. Writing, painting, singing, filming, whatever, does not come naturally or from some well of inspiration. Old Greek poets used to speak of their "muse" who would inspire them to write and the Romantic authors such as Keats or Wordsworth spoke of very similar things. Kant sought to define this idea as the artistic genius inherent in certain individuals who have a sort of "god given" gift to create beautiful things. Modernity and the Modernist movement in art denied this idea to argue that the best art takes years of practice to perfect. You aren't simply "born" with such talent. Especially with a medium like film, it is easy to see how this is the case. Arguably, all of the elements in the mis en scene in any particular shot are controllable. Thus, who's to say that Kubrick did not control each element of The Shining to convey a certain message or theme? In the end, filmmaking is all about levels and elements of control in what you allow the audience to see or what you make them see.

On the other hand, the one thing that is not controllable in filmmaking is the audience's reaction. What's more, the difference of views and opinions of the interviewees in the documentary seems to contradict a reign of control and intention. It seems to me that, naturally, our minds want to be convinced of one or the other. Either one of these theories is true or it's all Kubrick's way of confusing us and simply showing how we want to attach ourselves to something in the midst of this crazy movie. One of the interviewees suggests this very possibility. Either way, choosing to believe a theory or none at all is arguably the same decision. Choosing to believe or not to believe is a way of ending the turmoil caused by being confronted to choose in the first place!

The value of Room 237 and the questions it raises regarding theory, art, and intention come to culmination at the end with some quotes by the interviewee I spoke of before as being my favorite. He is asked, as a follow up to the previous interviewee saying how random, complicated, and unnecessarily convoluted the purpose of The Shining seems to be, "why make it so complicated?" To this, he chuckles and replies "why did Joyce write Finnegan's Wake?" He goes on to say how people (like himself) are attracted to such works of art, especially by famous artists, who love to follow clues and get so involved in puzzling over the thing that they even begin to dream about it. Such activity begins to mimic Jack in The Shining itself: stuck in the hotel, going crazy, and not able to escape. Possibly never, if one takes the meaning of the picture at the end showing Jack in the hotel in 1921, somehow in the past. The interviewee says "in a way, I become like Jack: "all work no play," a reference to the famous scene where Jack's terrified wife finds Jack's typewriter with the sentence "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" written hundreds of times in a row. This sentence and reference itself seems to hint at (as I do a little of my own theorizing on the film here) how infatuated people become with analyzing something to the point of obsession. Instead of enjoying or learning the art of "play" in regards to art (and life), some people can't stop the need to interpret or define. They miss the possibility of things having no real point but to be ironic or entertaining. Or even, in some malicious cases (especially for English majors), artists create pieces that hold all sorts of meaning that ultimately point to the impossibility of meaning itself!

But that black hole of theory aside, the other part of the interviewee's answer explains how by analyzing such a piece of art, its synchronicity, patterns, ideologies, etc, one begins to see the same things appear in his or her own life. He mentions how after watching the film over and over, studying it endlessly, he began to unconsciously think about going to some remote location or be bothered by the connection between him and Jack Torrence in how he also has a young son. The power of art (specifically language) has an incredible power, when digested and studied many times, to infiltrate a person's life. This may seem like common knowledge because, duh, things like Harry Potter nerds exist! But on a more theoretical level, the intricate analyses of The Shining represent the power of well-crafted art to inspire a host of ideas and aesthetics. But at the same time, that same piece of art creates many divisions and represents the innate subjectivity of experience and perception. Because, whether or not Kubrick would like the idea, once he released The Shining into theaters, it was out of his hands. In the same way, after Flaubert finally finished writing one paragraph after a month of grueling work, once that paragraph is read by a single person, it comes under the lens of another being and creates a different meaning inside his/her head. It may be very similar, perhaps almost exactly the same. But there will inevitably always be a difference. And that is the value of Room 237.