For 13 years now, I have been teaching a film studies course at one of the high schools in my town. and a comment I've made to students during that time that has been repeated frequently enough so as to have developed into a mantra, which is that "most of you are passive viewers of film. You treat them like carnival rides or things that just happen to you or wash over you, and then they are done. When you leave this class, you are going to be active viewers of film. Whether you like a movie or not, you're going to learn to ask and answer the question 'why?'"
The biggest compliment I feel I've ever been paid as a film teacher is when a student returns to visit years later and says, "Mr. Carlson, you ruined the way I watch movies." I take great pride in teaching high school kids to think critically about how film makers control the way we as an audience think and feel by manipulating what we call the "elements of composition," which include camera work, lighting, editing and sound, among other aspects.
So for me to say that Rodney Ascher's documentary "Room 237" is almost too much for even me to handle is telling.
I had been looking forward to seeing this film for a long time, excited to watch a feature-length dissection of Stanley Kubrick's classic horror film, "The Shining," a movie I have taught at least 20 times by now. And I can't tell you how many times throughout the movie's 102 minute running time I had one of the following rotating reactions:
1. "I can't believe I didn't notice that! I've seen the movie 30 times! I feel so stupid!"
2. "Whoa. Mind blown with the Nabokov/Hitler/"Jesus Christ Superstar"/T.S. Eliot/insert reference here reference."
3. Echoing the response I often get from my students when I dissect a film in class: "Okay, that's a little bit insane. You're trying a little bit too hard now."
Say what you want about "Room 237," unless you want to say that it isn't interesting. Too much? Yes. Ridiculous? Frequently. Intellect-expanding? Oh, yes. But damn, this is fascinating stuff. The documentary is really more of a video diary of sorts, assembling five film geeks (and there's no phrase that's more appropriate here) theorizing about what they have found to be the true and typically deeply hidden meaning of "The Shining."
The theorists range from college professors to journalists, and just as each theory grows more ridiculous than the last, each fan of the film, through voiceover, stakes his or her claim (mostly his, of course...film geeks, remember?) by talking over slowly forwarded images from the film and bringing in historical references and outside sources. Is it possible, for example, that the Calumet baking soda can on a kitchen pantry shelf behind Halloran is a reference to Native Americans? The argument is that Kubrick was so meticulous about every single thing that went into every frame of his films that he would have been conscious of how the label was facing. Frankly, I'm willing to buy that.
How, then, can I explain what appear to be continuity errors regarding the color of Jack Torrence's typewriter changing and a chair against the wall in those scenes appearing and disappearing? After getting over my shock in having those errors proved to me - because in years of watching the film, I noticed neither - I was challenged with trying to accept that Kubrick, as meticulous as I've mentioned, could have either missed those mistakes or allowed them to happen. Which means they had to be intentional. And if so, why? Mind, blown.
I thought the giddy height of over-analysis was occurring when a segment of the film brought in the use of an animated map to prove how the floor plan of the Overlook Hotel contained implausibilities, like a window in the office that couldn't possibly have a view of the outdoors. But then came the most deliriously ridiculous idea of all, when near the end of the film, someone decided to loop the film so that we'd watch from the opening frame forward and from the closing frame in reverse simultaneously. No doubt the very suggestion arrived in someone's marijuana-induced haze, likely brought to you from the same guys who first decided to set the needle on Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" at the start of "The Wizard of Oz" to watch what happens. And I'll be damned if -despite the insanity of the very thought of it - I wasn't captivated by what I was seeing. I had dry mouth, in fact, from my mouth being agape for so long.
"The Shining" was a veiled commentary about the atrocities of the Holocaust. "The Shining" was a statement about the genocide of Native Americans. "The Shining" was simply filled with deeply buried inside jokes because a genius film maker was bored. All of these theories and more are put forth in "Room 237," a reference, of course, to the infamous room to which the supernaturally gifted child Danny Torrence is eventually led and in which Jack has an encounter with a mysterious woman.
Oh, and that room is a metaphor for the Apollo moon landing, which, by the way, Kubrick was hired to fake for the government, the film his way of confessing to what he had pulled off.
Are you interested yet?
If you love movies, you have to allow yourself the opportunity to take in "Room 237." Because while the film is obviously a dissection of an undeniably great film, it's even more a love letter to loving movies themselves. Sure, you will shake your head and most certainly laugh at the zealous commitment of a chosen few who clearly seem to have too much free time on their hands. And you will dismiss much of what you hear as bunk. But I am certain you will also pick up a detail or two that you are wiling to believe.
Best of all, you will be reminded that the intentions of the artist are only important at the moment in which the art is created, because all that matters after that is the history and perspective we bring to our consumption of that art. What a wondrous thing our senses are; all of them vital to our being and each one purely subjective. Yes, even our sense of sight. "Room 237" serves as a reminder that we can look at the same thing but see things completely differently. It's one of the reasons why I love film so much and hope to develop in students a fire for seeing for themselves instead of just waiting for me to force an interpretation on them.
I don't see how I can get away with NOT showing "Room 237" from now on after I teach "The Shining" in my film class. The film is the ultimate in film criticism, and the best example I can think of to support what I tell my students almost every day, which is that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but you have to be able to provide evidence to support that opinion if you want to be respected. Even with evidence, much of "Room 237" is outrageous. But if nothing else, showing the film to my students is going to make me look a lot less crazy.
No comments:
Post a Comment