brian trageskin Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 a different perspective on kubrick's the shining. it gets really cohesive and to the point from part 4. i expect no less than a shitstorm of arguments about biased methodology and such. however, despite some weaknesses (like, *rolls eyes* moments), i personally find the demonstration very convincing, and the perspective very unique, like a complete paradigm shift. part 7 will be the last and will be posted soon. oh and before you mention it, yeah, i know about the "room 237" documentary :) part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7JLFjoo5no the rest on his youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/robag88/videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadameChaos Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Very interesting even if a little over elaborate and/or tenuous in parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 In the middle of watching it. I have to say after seeing several of these kinds of videos is my biggest takeaway is how much effort people are willing to go to to try to draw attention to themselves by dissecting a well-known piece of art. This guy keeps mentioning his own films in a rather pathetic attempt to tie himself to Kubrick. I'm pretty sure that in most cases, the incongruities people are picking up in the Shining, such as the chair disappearing and reappearing in that one shot, or the exterior of the building not matching the interior, are either mistakes or "they look close enough and it's not like viewers are going to notice". I know Kubrick was a methodical filmmaker, but corners are cut all the time in filmmaking, and errors in continuity do end up in film all the time, even with someone as fastidious as Kubrick. As for the rest, I sometimes wonder if guys like this understand the importance of ambiguity in films. Ambiguity and multiple interpretations are usually a good thing; Kubrick is often suggesting associations but I don't think he expects people to come to a single literal conclusion. Some of the stuff is just plain silly, like focusing on the presence of James Mason on the Shining set, or the way Nicholson buttons up his pants. I feel certain Nicholson was a sexually virile guy, and that he and Kubrick discussed some of the sexual subtext of the film. Doesn't necessarily follow that Danny was sexually abused. Although I haven't got to the end, will watch the rest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 "with her buck teeth she even looks like him facially" bwahahah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 so tired of people analyzing this film. let it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Have you seen Twin Peaks? Spoiler alert: it's a story about an incestuous father and his daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 hehe, good comparison lynch is such a plagiarist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Stuff like this would be a bit more bearable to watch if people would drop the "these hidden themes were a conscious effort on Kubricks part, because blablabla...". If it was presented as a "hey I watched the Shining 100 times, and I came to this interesting new interpretation of what this movie is about, and here's why..". Kinda like Tarantino talks about movies when he talks about putting various subtexts underneath them. So, if you put the "gay subtext" underneath the Shining you arrive at Jack, still in the closet, who married some subservient wife with which he had a son. You could also add a troublesome relationship between Jack and his boy son, because of his suppressed homosexual feelings. Room 237 represents the metaphorical closet with the unbearable truth Jack tries to hide from ... yadadadadada I mean, with a bit of imagination you could make any subtext a viable one. Just drop the part where Kubrick supposedly masterminded it all and nobody noticed but this one special person. Kinda like Moses on the mountain talking to this God. ... how about the Moses subtext? Where people think the have some kind of special connection to some truth which remains hidden to the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triachus Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 ... how about the Moses subtext? but I do feel this subtext tends to be more about patriarchival misogynisticisity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary C Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Minotaur. Hardly subtext though, more of a theme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KovalainenFanBoy Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Wasn't this movie based on a book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbpete Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 'parrently Steven King prefers the TV Movie adaptation to the Kubrick version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary C Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 'parrently Steven King prefers the TV Movie adaptation to the Kubrick version Nostalgia Critic has a good (if long, and somewhat annoying) review of the TV movie. Worth a watch if you can't be arsed to watch 3+ hours of nothing happening, terrible child-acting and a generally much less interesting version of The Shining. King should just suck it up. Kubrick's version isn't true to what he wrote and intended but it's better in its medium because Kubrick understood cinema. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbpete Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 I can't stand Nostalgia Critic - would probably find is less watchable than the 3 hours of low budgetness I mean ... this voice ... It's like a 'JonTron crossed with PBG' clone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2I2K2nsy7w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary C Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 He's lame and unfunny, although a little more stomachable than that guy with spiky black hair. But I've found myself enjoying a couple of Nostalgia Critic reviews over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 ... how about the Moses subtext? but I do feel this subtext tends to be more about patriarchival misogynisticisity LOL + true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Have you seen Twin Peaks? Spoiler alert: it's a story about an incestuous father and his daughter. There's a spoiler function, you monkey wrench. Sheesh, I'm in the middle of watching that for the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 It's twenty years old, dammit. O, and spoiler alert: Darth Vader is Luke's fasjer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Plus Kevin Spacey is Keyser Soze, Bruce Willis is already dead, and Brad Pitt is an alter ego of Edward Norton's. Also this "critical" examination of the Shining is weak as fuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Wait, Bruce Willis is already dead!? Cowabunga, dude! Also, all James Bond movies have a good ending! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 lame.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian trageskin Posted December 21, 2013 Author Share Posted December 21, 2013 you guys are welcome to explain why you find that analysis stupid, or weak or anything. i myself find the parallels, the visual analogies in part 2 and 3, a rather weak way to start his explanation. he should have started with part 4, then the visual analogies would have more consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pennywise Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWqTXPsDUMc wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Will do once I'm home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 yeah that guy is nuts. There are some interesting observations buried here and there. I like the idea of the red and blue clothing of both Danny and his mom, I do believe that part is intentional, and matches the goofy doll and (plausibly) does echo the gore-covered twins. Also the downward pointing knives over Danny probably aren't coincidence, I agree. Much of the rest seems like an overactive imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.