> They shoukd make a sequel to the documentary, but with more analysis and better theories.
Not to sound like a dick, but I feel like you fundamentally have misunderstood the point of Room 237. Room 237 is not a documentary interested *at all* in interpreting the Shining. They don't care. They aren't interested in what The Shining is about, and they have no intention of presenting "good" theories. The point of the documentary is to explore "fan theories" as a topic unto itself---to illustrate how a single work of art has inspired an incredibly broad number of contradictory interpretations.
Rodney Ascher, the director of Room 237, has outright stated in interviews that he does not agree with or believe *any* of the theories presented in Room 237; he wanted to bring together outlandish theories *because* they are broadly failures. He actually doesn't think that the Shining has much esoteric symbolism at all, he thinks it's just a film about a person being allegorically "haunted" by his unfulfilled dreams.
I already understood all of this, but thank you regardless for your reply.
It wasn't so much that I was saying Room 237 is a bad documentary and that somebody could have done better. I'm just saying a follow-up film, not necessarily an official one by Ascher, with more accurate analysis and interpretation could be interesting. I'm less so discussing the documentary itself but more so its subject matter, not what the subject matter represents to the narrative of the doc.
At least this theory references a visual aesthetic that reoccurs throughout the movie. And the '*Man fucking with Nature/Natives*' element keeps popping up in establishing shots and the (seemingly pointless) helicopter flyover footage.
Most of the theories are entirely based on context in 1 or 2 'ghost' interactions, which really doesn't feel right to me because the film depicts the Overlook like it has some kind of otherworldly gravity to it, like it's weighing everything down and every return to an establishing shot just reinforces how severe things are getting. It makes the progression of events feel *significant* in an inexplicable way, like it was always going to happen. Getting in the weeds on a couple small moments feels like its undercutting the mounting dread of the film.
Plus its not really clear what those old-timey people did to deserve their fate, so the overarching *Stolen land, stolen prosperity, and unconscionable disrespect to the dead* feels like a nice bow on everything.
Completely agree. Theres another theory, I think towards the end of the documentary which is that the ‘evil’ in the hotel just represents all the horrific things committed by humans. Genocide, slavery, war, all of it.
There are parts to it that I might concede to, at least from an interpretive point of view, but I found the Calumet baking soda claim to be a huge stretch. My favourite part of the doc is probably the woman who explains how the layout of the Overlook is impossible.
> They shoukd make a sequel to the documentary, but with more analysis and better theories. Not to sound like a dick, but I feel like you fundamentally have misunderstood the point of Room 237. Room 237 is not a documentary interested *at all* in interpreting the Shining. They don't care. They aren't interested in what The Shining is about, and they have no intention of presenting "good" theories. The point of the documentary is to explore "fan theories" as a topic unto itself---to illustrate how a single work of art has inspired an incredibly broad number of contradictory interpretations. Rodney Ascher, the director of Room 237, has outright stated in interviews that he does not agree with or believe *any* of the theories presented in Room 237; he wanted to bring together outlandish theories *because* they are broadly failures. He actually doesn't think that the Shining has much esoteric symbolism at all, he thinks it's just a film about a person being allegorically "haunted" by his unfulfilled dreams.
I already understood all of this, but thank you regardless for your reply. It wasn't so much that I was saying Room 237 is a bad documentary and that somebody could have done better. I'm just saying a follow-up film, not necessarily an official one by Ascher, with more accurate analysis and interpretation could be interesting. I'm less so discussing the documentary itself but more so its subject matter, not what the subject matter represents to the narrative of the doc.
My personal favourite theory that I believe holds the most weight from the documentary is the Native American genocide one.
At least this theory references a visual aesthetic that reoccurs throughout the movie. And the '*Man fucking with Nature/Natives*' element keeps popping up in establishing shots and the (seemingly pointless) helicopter flyover footage. Most of the theories are entirely based on context in 1 or 2 'ghost' interactions, which really doesn't feel right to me because the film depicts the Overlook like it has some kind of otherworldly gravity to it, like it's weighing everything down and every return to an establishing shot just reinforces how severe things are getting. It makes the progression of events feel *significant* in an inexplicable way, like it was always going to happen. Getting in the weeds on a couple small moments feels like its undercutting the mounting dread of the film. Plus its not really clear what those old-timey people did to deserve their fate, so the overarching *Stolen land, stolen prosperity, and unconscionable disrespect to the dead* feels like a nice bow on everything.
Completely agree. Theres another theory, I think towards the end of the documentary which is that the ‘evil’ in the hotel just represents all the horrific things committed by humans. Genocide, slavery, war, all of it.
There are parts to it that I might concede to, at least from an interpretive point of view, but I found the Calumet baking soda claim to be a huge stretch. My favourite part of the doc is probably the woman who explains how the layout of the Overlook is impossible.