Are they all autists or is there some good detective work here? We know Kubrick was obsessive with detail...

Are they all autists or is there some good detective work here? We know Kubrick was obsessive with detail, so surely a few of even the more wild theories are probably valid.

Acceptable
>references to Holocaust and Indian genocide
>retracing steps in the maze symbolic of escaping the past
>Jack is a sexually abusive father

Possible
>Kubrick faked the moon landing

People ACTUALLY believe this
>Jack was a minotaur the whole time
>Kubrick's face is in the opening title crawl
>playing the film backwards and forwards at the same time means anything but diddly shit
>the helicopter shadow was actually intentional

Honestly, the documentary is a lot more entertaining if you view it as a study on how fans view films, and how anything can be seen as an interpretation. Viewing every theory as an airtight explanation is retarded, because some have literally no thought put into them.

Agreed 100%. It's less about trying to convince you of these theories, and more about the far-reaching theories that obsessive fans come up with (and I guess how they evolve and fester over time).

I didn't expect anyone to have seen this, but going with your point about it being equal parts commentary on the movie and commentary on fandom for the movie, I really wish these interviews had been done in person, that we could see the people talking in some way, at least in a few scenes. I would love to be able to see the face of that one guy lighting up as he nuts himself over the fact that the paper tray is a phallic object.

All in all, I see it as a success of a film. It has absolutely given me a new respect for the shining. I've only seen it twice, and this doc makes me want to watch it again, which, I guess, means it has accomplished something.

Nice full house btw

The backwards and forwards thing gets a pass, I don't remember the guy saying that anything he thought he saw was intentional, only that he thought it was cool. Could be wrong.

>autists
Schizophrenics more likely

Missed the point by a mile

the whole "this obscure piece of set dressing that you see in the background of these two shots unlocks the hidden meaning behind the whole film" bullshit reduces kubrick to a maker of crossword puzzles

>“A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what’s behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.”

>“How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo had written at the bottom of the canvas, ‘The lady is smiling because she is hiding a secret from her lover’? This would shackle the viewer to reality, and I don’t want this to happen to 2001.”

>“The essence of dramatic form is to let an idea come over people without it being plainly stated. When you say something directly, it’s simply not as potent as it is when you allow people to discover it for themselves.”

That last one sounds like he literally wants to make a crossword puzzle

This really cheapens the creation of art, though. I have a question: why shouldn't a movie, upon satisfying the requirement of creating a fun and interesting narrative, go beyond that and layer within itself a "crossword puzzle"? If you're not sacrificing any of the top level elements of entertainment (like plot cohesion, acting quality, connection to reality, etc.), then what's the harm in adding meaning at a much tougher-to-reach level? I think it can be very fun and can change a movie from a one-time experience to something that can be appreciated in new ways repeatedly.

>tfw they make a documentary on the secret religious symbolism of Snyder's BvS

>recording a piece of commentary for a movie
>have your kid screaming his lungs out in the background
>don't even bother to do a second take

Kubrick himself said it best, he's talking about 2001 but this idea can be transferred to any of his films, or any film for that matter. This is the underlying basis behind the interpretation of art.

>You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.

Yeah. One of the parts that I loved the most is when one of the fans was reminiscing about the first time the movie came out on DVD, so she could stop it, rewind it, and catch all the things she missed in theaters, and she sounded really excited about it. Things like this sound pretty insignificant, but it was neat that something like a DVD was treated as so seminal in the creation of a fanbase. It's a piece of the history of film distribution that no one really seems to care about, but it does matter a lot to a few people.

It was a mockumentary you idiot

Some anons were making a parody of this documentary with the plane scene but the jannies kept deleting it

Kubrick was against giving art singular, specific meanings, but that wasn't to say that he was opposed to giving it meaning altogether. He just valued audience interpretation.

There's pretty overt phallic imagery from every film he made since Paths of Glory, for starters, and all of it would be for nothing if it didn't imbue some kind of meaning.

Wow really?

I am still waiting for someone to film a shot for shot parody fan film of the plane scene.

Thats actually dope tho if there was a meme documentary about the plane scene. Where can i see it bro

You can't see it - it doesn't exist. They were trying to collect vocaroos from anons for the commentary but the threads kept getting deleted by the hot pocket man

But why, Sup Forums can finally do a film that literally embodies our autism

99% autism, 1% picking up on something that seems intentional.

>But why

No fun allowed

Even if half the things were intended. Kubrick was clearly just fucking with the types of people shown in this movie for his own enjoyment. It's kinda hilarious actually.