REⱭЯUM
December 1, 2013 5:50 PM Subscribe
Perhaps you watched the documentary Room 237 and were intrigued by the version screened by Brooklyn's Spectacle Theater simultaneously superimposing The Shining played forwards and backwards. Here's a 13-minute excerpt from the middle and a tumblr with numerous screenshots throughout the film.
The tumblr link contains quick instructions on how to recreate it (I looked but can't find a full version anywhere online..)
The tumblr link contains quick instructions on how to recreate it (I looked but can't find a full version anywhere online..)
Like the Dark Side of the Moon/Wizard of Oz thing, the synchronicity all depends on how you sync it up. Is there an optimal start/end point? Does the Warner Brothers logo count as part of the movie?
posted by Sys Rq at 6:18 PM on December 1, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Sys Rq at 6:18 PM on December 1, 2013 [3 favorites]
Superimpose the version with the original ending in the hospital and see what *that* gets you.
posted by Ardiril at 6:20 PM on December 1, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Ardiril at 6:20 PM on December 1, 2013 [5 favorites]
The BF and I watched 'Room 237' last night, a few days after his first viewing of 'The Shining.' Just as the 'Wizard of Oz' and 'Dark Side of the Moon' make for some interesting coincidences, I don't know if I really believe that Kubrick planned for a backwards/forwards screening.
Or on preview, seconding Sys Rq. (Damn you.)
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 6:21 PM on December 1, 2013 [3 favorites]
Or on preview, seconding Sys Rq. (Damn you.)
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 6:21 PM on December 1, 2013 [3 favorites]
So I'm a huge Kubrick and Shining geek and even I'm getting tired of all this.
posted by octothorpe at 6:21 PM on December 1, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:21 PM on December 1, 2013 [8 favorites]
Sys Rq, the tumblr mentions they cut out all of the intro logos and the end credits, so all they used was the body of the film itself.
posted by Ghidorah at 6:32 PM on December 1, 2013
posted by Ghidorah at 6:32 PM on December 1, 2013
I thought some of the theories in Room 237 were a little bit ridiculous. I like the videos done by Rob Ager, but even they don't have me fully convinced (I mean, Duke Nukem 3D is used as a reference). Still really interesting though.
posted by gucci mane at 6:32 PM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by gucci mane at 6:32 PM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
I thought some of the theories in Room 237 were a little bit ridiculous
It's more than a little bit, and I thought that was the point.
posted by Hoopo at 7:02 PM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's more than a little bit, and I thought that was the point.
posted by Hoopo at 7:02 PM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
According to urban legend, chocolate is added to tainted batches of milk to hide the blood stains.
Which urban legend is that? I'm not familiar with that at all.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 7:18 PM on December 1, 2013
Which urban legend is that? I'm not familiar with that at all.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 7:18 PM on December 1, 2013
This is so dumb. "When Danny asks if something bad is in the hotel, it overlaps a shot of Jack!"
Guess what? Jack is in every goddamn scene.
"The elevator lines up with the bedroom doors!"
Guess what? Directors put important things in the middle of the shot.
posted by rifflesby at 7:20 PM on December 1, 2013 [14 favorites]
Guess what? Jack is in every goddamn scene.
"The elevator lines up with the bedroom doors!"
Guess what? Directors put important things in the middle of the shot.
posted by rifflesby at 7:20 PM on December 1, 2013 [14 favorites]
During the opening scene of the movie, you can see the helicopter in which the cameraperson is riding. It's at the 56 second mark of this particular youtube clip.
We're through the looking glass here, people.
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 7:20 PM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
We're through the looking glass here, people.
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 7:20 PM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
Er, that is to say, you can see the shadow of the helicopter.
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 7:22 PM on December 1, 2013
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 7:22 PM on December 1, 2013
Subject in middle.
Such film-make.
So wow.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:23 PM on December 1, 2013 [3 favorites]
Such film-make.
So wow.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:23 PM on December 1, 2013 [3 favorites]
Guess what? Directors put important things in the middle of the shot.
Kubrick put a lot of stuff in the middle of the shot.
posted by octothorpe at 7:46 PM on December 1, 2013 [5 favorites]
Kubrick put a lot of stuff in the middle of the shot.
posted by octothorpe at 7:46 PM on December 1, 2013 [5 favorites]
You know if you play Pretty Woman the same way, the movie meets at the moment when Richard Gere slams the jewelry box on Julia Roberts's hand. Garry Marshall - accident, genius, or accidental genius?
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:00 PM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:00 PM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
And if you play Spartacus backwards you get suc-at-raps. Coincidence?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:06 PM on December 1, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:06 PM on December 1, 2013 [3 favorites]
I've only consumed The Shining via The Simpsons, Room 237, various other cultural references, and these screenshots but I think it must be a pretty good movie. Anyway regarding the "crazy theories" in Room 237, in literary criticism it's generally accepted that the author doesn't have to plan to make certain references or even do it on purpose for others to find them there. It only requires that you can make a case for it in the text. Though I'm sure much of what's in there were conscious decisions. And a lot of what people see reflects their own background more than Kubric's ideas.
posted by bleep at 9:07 PM on December 1, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by bleep at 9:07 PM on December 1, 2013 [2 favorites]
When I saw Room 237, the superimposed clips really, really unnerved me. Not because I thought they were intentional -- because I think Kubrick liked visual symmetry, so naturally stuff still looks well-composed when different shots are superimposed, and I think if you did this with any narrative film you'd get some cool coincidences. In fact, I don't really know why the clips unnerved me so much. Maybe they functioned kind of like meditations on something you really don't want to meditate on, or maybe the narrative drive of the film actually mitigates some of the visceral horror of Kubrick's imagery and, when the film is superimposed on itself, perhaps that narrative kind of fades into the background. Whatever the case, I haven't wanted to see The Shining again. It will always be one of my favorites, but I don't know if I'll ever be able to stomach watching it again.
posted by treepour at 9:09 PM on December 1, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by treepour at 9:09 PM on December 1, 2013 [7 favorites]
in literary criticism it's generally accepted that the author doesn't have to plan to make certain references or even do it on purpose for others to find them there
Sure, but in Room 237 many of the theorists/crackpots claim he planned it intentionally. Because of course Kubrick would just randomly plant symbols that supposedly represent the holocaust and the genocide of Native Americans in there as a typewriter and baking powder, none of which really add anything to the film.
It's just odd.
posted by Hoopo at 9:48 PM on December 1, 2013
Sure, but in Room 237 many of the theorists/crackpots claim he planned it intentionally. Because of course Kubrick would just randomly plant symbols that supposedly represent the holocaust and the genocide of Native Americans in there as a typewriter and baking powder, none of which really add anything to the film.
It's just odd.
posted by Hoopo at 9:48 PM on December 1, 2013
You can do this "revealing" with nearly any movie. I believe the name of this phenomenon is apophenia.
posted by zardoz at 9:56 PM on December 1, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by zardoz at 9:56 PM on December 1, 2013 [4 favorites]
I really, really want to click the third and fourth links. But I also want to sleep sometime in the next year. I confess: I've never made it through the film. I'm a ninny.
posted by the_royal_we at 11:04 PM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by the_royal_we at 11:04 PM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
Reminds me of my idea for an alternate version of the movie: the miniseries, cut to match the movie as closely as possible.
posted by BiggerJ at 11:23 PM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by BiggerJ at 11:23 PM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
Really fun to read these things, but they're all an exercise in how to read waaaaaaaay too much into something.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 12:50 AM on December 2, 2013
posted by GallonOfAlan at 12:50 AM on December 2, 2013
At this point, we've not only counted the beans, but individually labeled each one.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:15 AM on December 2, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:15 AM on December 2, 2013 [4 favorites]
Kubrick was a genius. The symbols pointing to the Native American genocide are the smartest and easiest to believe parts of Room 237.
posted by agregoli at 6:40 AM on December 2, 2013
posted by agregoli at 6:40 AM on December 2, 2013
Because of course Kubrick would just randomly plant symbols that supposedly represent the holocaust and the genocide of Native Americans in there as a typewriter and baking powder, none of which really add anything to the film.
It's called mise en scène. It's a film set. Everything that's there is artificial and deliberate; it was all chosen and placed there on purpose. The single big question in criticism is Why?. It's a legitimate and important question, but, well, a practical answer like, "They bought a bunch of stuff to fill out the set, with an eye for simple and bold designs to minimize visual noise," is just not so interesting.
Yes, it can get beyond silly. Film Studies owes a lot to Freud, Jung, and especially Lacan, and when that psychoanalytical angle is leaned on too heavily, it tends to turn films into Rorschach ink blots, so that it's not the film being analysed, but the critic.
That said, it's fun to do, and not always total bullshit--just, you know, usually. (I think, with all the Native American motifs in The Shining, that Calumet is definitely something, even if it's just more of that. Now, in reality, the actual reasoning behind it might just be, "Hey, Stan, how about this one with the Indian on it?" "Neat!" -- or, hell, they might've picked Calumet simply because Magic was too on-the-nose. But, again, reality is boring.)
posted by Sys Rq at 7:55 AM on December 2, 2013
It's called mise en scène. It's a film set. Everything that's there is artificial and deliberate; it was all chosen and placed there on purpose. The single big question in criticism is Why?. It's a legitimate and important question, but, well, a practical answer like, "They bought a bunch of stuff to fill out the set, with an eye for simple and bold designs to minimize visual noise," is just not so interesting.
Yes, it can get beyond silly. Film Studies owes a lot to Freud, Jung, and especially Lacan, and when that psychoanalytical angle is leaned on too heavily, it tends to turn films into Rorschach ink blots, so that it's not the film being analysed, but the critic.
That said, it's fun to do, and not always total bullshit--just, you know, usually. (I think, with all the Native American motifs in The Shining, that Calumet is definitely something, even if it's just more of that. Now, in reality, the actual reasoning behind it might just be, "Hey, Stan, how about this one with the Indian on it?" "Neat!" -- or, hell, they might've picked Calumet simply because Magic was too on-the-nose. But, again, reality is boring.)
posted by Sys Rq at 7:55 AM on December 2, 2013
Kubrick was a genius. The symbols pointing to the Native American genocide are the smartest and easiest to believe parts of Room 237.
And Kubrick is not less of a genius if we view the Shining without this dubious baking soda typewriter overthink. His genius does not lend credibility to any weird theory you can come up with about random film props that make the hotel look like its is actually a hotel. The Calumet in particular was addressed by an aide of Kubrick after seeing Room 237, and it was included because he had been sent by Kubrick to examine what pantries look like in American hotels. He saw Calumet in a lot if them. The "Indian burial ground" thing is a horror trope, and was before the Shining.
For the record I enjoyed Room 237, it was funny and interesting. More for the odd people and ideas than because I buy any of it, and I don't think it's meant to present particularly credible ideas.
It's called mise en scène. It's a film set. Everything that's there is artificial and deliberate; it was all chosen and placed there on purpose. The single big question in criticism is Why?
Because baking powder belongs in a pantry. It's just a prop to add realism to the setting. The guy that chose Calumet explicitly says so.
posted by Hoopo at 9:31 AM on December 2, 2013 [3 favorites]
And Kubrick is not less of a genius if we view the Shining without this dubious baking soda typewriter overthink. His genius does not lend credibility to any weird theory you can come up with about random film props that make the hotel look like its is actually a hotel. The Calumet in particular was addressed by an aide of Kubrick after seeing Room 237, and it was included because he had been sent by Kubrick to examine what pantries look like in American hotels. He saw Calumet in a lot if them. The "Indian burial ground" thing is a horror trope, and was before the Shining.
For the record I enjoyed Room 237, it was funny and interesting. More for the odd people and ideas than because I buy any of it, and I don't think it's meant to present particularly credible ideas.
It's called mise en scène. It's a film set. Everything that's there is artificial and deliberate; it was all chosen and placed there on purpose. The single big question in criticism is Why?
Because baking powder belongs in a pantry. It's just a prop to add realism to the setting. The guy that chose Calumet explicitly says so.
posted by Hoopo at 9:31 AM on December 2, 2013 [3 favorites]
A man goes to a Psychologist and says, "Doc I got a real problem, I can't stop thinking about sex."
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 9:51 AM on December 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 9:51 AM on December 2, 2013 [2 favorites]
I never said his genius rides on believing the genocide thing, and its more than a "weird" theory. Of course its a horror trope...so what? Its all there, and is placed far too carefully to me to be random film props. His meticulous placing of props and shots is well known...why assume its all for aesthetic and not for a larger purpose? He's known for these little hints at a larger meaning. If you reject it, fine, but it seems obvious to me and heightens my enjoyment of the film.
posted by agregoli at 9:46 AM on December 4, 2013
posted by agregoli at 9:46 AM on December 4, 2013
Kubrick did like to embed little references and such in his movies like the 2001 Sweater in The Shining or Serum 114 in A Clockwork Orange so it's not totally unbelievable that he might put other kinds of visual references in his movies but since there's no way to prove one way or another, it seems like pointless speculation.
posted by octothorpe at 2:28 PM on December 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 2:28 PM on December 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
Of course its a horror trope...so what?
So maybe there's no meaning to it beyond "hey this place is totes evil and haunted"
Its all there, and is placed far too carefully to me to be random film props.
Why? There's what, a couple of paintings on the wall in a setting where there's supposedly a history of Native American settlement, and some baking powder? There's certain far more of this movie that suggests it is not an allegory for the genocide of native Americans than evidence that it secretly is.
Kubrick did like to embed little references and such in his movies like the 2001 Sweater
If you're talking about the Apollo 11 rocket sweater Danny wears, apparently that's not any kind of 2001 reference. Kubrick wanted something that looked handmade, and the costume designer actually had it on hand, it was made by a friend of hers.
I would certainly need to see more evidence than a self-referential in-joke like CRM 114 to think Kubrick plants secret messages in is movies hinting at major themes that have nothing to do with the rest of the film. He was apparently very careful about what to include in a shot because he wanted it to look right. That does not mean he is hiding things in every shot
posted by Hoopo at 9:05 AM on December 14, 2013
So maybe there's no meaning to it beyond "hey this place is totes evil and haunted"
Its all there, and is placed far too carefully to me to be random film props.
Why? There's what, a couple of paintings on the wall in a setting where there's supposedly a history of Native American settlement, and some baking powder? There's certain far more of this movie that suggests it is not an allegory for the genocide of native Americans than evidence that it secretly is.
Kubrick did like to embed little references and such in his movies like the 2001 Sweater
If you're talking about the Apollo 11 rocket sweater Danny wears, apparently that's not any kind of 2001 reference. Kubrick wanted something that looked handmade, and the costume designer actually had it on hand, it was made by a friend of hers.
I would certainly need to see more evidence than a self-referential in-joke like CRM 114 to think Kubrick plants secret messages in is movies hinting at major themes that have nothing to do with the rest of the film. He was apparently very careful about what to include in a shot because he wanted it to look right. That does not mean he is hiding things in every shot
posted by Hoopo at 9:05 AM on December 14, 2013
« Older L'eau de rien | It’s a symphony of robots now. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Oh, Kubrik. Much more believable now.
posted by Ghidorah at 6:15 PM on December 1, 2013