By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
By Alice Laussade
By Scott Reitz
By Claire Lawton
By Kiernan Maletsky
By Anna Merlan
Here are the kind of theories that the five interviewees in Rodney Ascher's Room 237 have come up with about Stanley Kubrick's The Shining: One believes that it's an allegory about the genocide of Native Americans. Another that it's instead about the Holocaust. Or that it's Kubrick's coded confession that he faked the moon landing. Ascher's subjects aren't garden-variety kooks: Native American genocide-theorist Bill Blakemore is a veteran journalist, while Geoffrey Cocks, who sees the Holocaust in the Overlook Hotel, is a history professor. Director Ascher adopts a radically nonjudgmental approach, allowing the viewer to be seduced — or not — by his subjects' ideas. The theorists are heard but never seen; most of the images come from The Shining itself.
Even if the theories don't persuade you, the film fascinates. It's revelatory about the nature of spectatorship in an era when technology allows audiences to watch films frame by frame. When much of the American public believes that President Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim, Room 237 evokes the appeal of conspiracy theories while refusing to endorse or completely disavow them. And without ever referring explicitly to academic theory, it engages with some of the grand ideas that have preoccupied it over the past 50 years. And it's fun.
Much of it plays out like this. In The Shining, Danny, the boy, is shown wearing a T-shirt with the number 42 on it: Cocks argues that this must be a reference to the year 1942, a key point in time for the Shoah. Jack Nicholson's character uses a German-made typewriter, a detail so tiny that Kubrick couldn't have expected most viewers to catch it but one that Cocks seizes. He sees the typewriter as a symbol of Nazi bureaucracy and even does some numerology, arguing that numbers glimpsed throughout the film add up to that "42."
Directed by Rodney Ascher.
The methods of Room 237's theorists are less like the work of film critics than those found on a conspiracy theory site like vigilantcitizen.com, which argues that Lil Wayne videos glorify CIA mind-control programs. When Vigilant Citizen turns to film reviews, it offers thuddingly literal takes on The Cabin in the Woods' anti-war allegory and Videodrome's cautionary tale about the power of TV. Blakemore and Cocks insist they're exposing something of great importance by connecting The Shining to the Holocaust or the genocide of Native Americans, but they're really quite distant from present-day politics.
The postmodern notion of the "death of the author" is both exemplified by the interpretations in Room 237 and disavowed by its subjects. The versions of The Shining devised by Blakemore, Cocks and company are their own inventions, but the theorists insist that Kubrick was a genius puzzle-master who micromanaged the smallest details in his films. As critic Michael Sicinski has pointed out, the weirder their interpretations get, the more wedded they become to the idea that Kubrick was responsible for every detail — even the mistakes. In their versions of The Shining, there's no such thing as a continuity error.
If the death of the author began in the '60s, the empowerment of the reader (or viewer) started to happen via home video technology. The subjects of Room 237 are products of it, although the film seems fiercely ambivalent about the ways in which VCRs and DVD players have changed spectatorship. On one hand, home video has enabled filmmakers to make essay-films as powerful as Jean-Luc Godard's Histoire(s) du Cinema and Thom Andersen's Los Angeles Plays Itself. They've also made room for people to study The Shining frame by frame a dozen times and conclude that Kubrick faked the moon landing. This leads to new, more poetic forms of viewing and criticism, such as a screening (recreated in the documentary) where The Shining is projected simultaneously forward and backward. It also paves the way for dangerous levels of obsession and a nerdy disconnection from reality.
Room 237's lack of judgment enables its spectators to get lost in a delirium of interpretation. Rodney Ascher isn't celebrating or endorsing any of the views he presents, but he suggests there's something to be gained from understanding people's eagerness to embrace them. Just imagine the same movie, but made about birthers or truthers, and you'll have some idea of the philosophical stakes Ascher is playing with.
Join My Voice Nation for free stuff, film info & more!