Do some film analysts go too deep and erroneously attribute meaning to things that may have just been oversights in...

Do some film analysts go too deep and erroneously attribute meaning to things that may have just been oversights in production, or coincidences?

The most obvious example to me is the theories regarding the impossible layout of hotel in The Shining. While Kubrick is supposed to have a reputation for his meticulousness, the same happens with the layout of the streets in Eyes Wide Shut. In both instances these are seen as intentional mistakes, to or make the hotel feel "mazelike and supernatural", or the streets of New York "dreamlike and otherworldly".

Is it possible that these were just unintentional errors? Or that they weren't noticed, or were, and nobody expected anyone to care so much as to explain them away with wild theories?

MOON ROOM

I ponder this often as well, OP.

I often think this could be a mixture of both. Some parts of it seem deliberate, like they were set up to make you go "uh ?" and some of them are so inconsequential that they could just be goofs that people just bundle together with the real stuff.

As Kubrick was something of a perfectionist, there are two possibilities:
>he knew about it, and left it in because he liked it
>he didn't know about it

Which is more likely?

I think the impossible spaces in The Shining are intentional. Kubrick believed in details and he was shooting that movie for well over a year. He did everything to make the movie as unnerving as possible. That means making the audience consciously and unconsciously uncomfortable.

Hi Nasa shill

People act like Kubrick's perfectionism is omnipotence.

its obviously intentional, to add to the sense of madness. i mean the entire maze motif and those endless identical corridors pretty clearly emphasize that.

i do agree that they read too much into shit though, and at the end of the day its just a motion picture. they make too big of a deal about things

ofc he didn't know about it.

He's not as smart as you faggots think he is.

>Do some film analysts go too deep and erroneously attribute meaning to things that may have just been oversights in production, or coincidences?

Yes

>Although his work was not initially taken seriously by British critics of the Sight and Sound circle, he was venerated by French critics associated with Cahiers du cinéma, who intellectualized his work in a way Hawks himself was moderately amused by

It's been stated the hotels layout was done in an impossible way intentionally buy the people who built it/worked on it.

But you are right, it's pretty crazy how far people go to pin themes/ideas/reasons behind lots of mundane/irrelevant things.

Just look at any pretentious wanna be reviewers reviews.

>300+ takes
>not omnipotence

literally this

I like to experience Kubrick movies as canon as possible. And they're viewed wondefully in such a way.

Most of the time the analysis doesn't come to any conclusions. And I hate that autistic shit anyway.

I recently saw the gold standard theme in the shining, and that did seem legit though.

intentional or not, I'd say its pretty amazing that such a simple effect/accident can be so disorientating and hypnotic in either instance. If his 'mistakes' are really just positive coincidences that enhance the visual appeal of the film, Kubrick quite literally can do no wrong

Me too, also most of Kubrick films take place in the same universe:Kubrickverse.

how about the shining helicopter shadow? intentional?

Yes. it was kubrick showing that the shining was a tool/vehicle for his esoteric revelations. The fact that the VW was yellow and in the novel by Stephen King it is red, and that the yellow VW passes a crashed red VW is evident that this is not Stephen's story.

Bravo Kubrick

No. It wasn't visible in the original aspect ratio.

he knows

UNDER THE MASONIC MOON

GET THE PRESIDENT OUT OF THE WAY AND HIRE STANLEY KUBRICK

UNDER THE MASONIC MOON

Cancer

EVERYONE HOPED THAT THE BOYS WOULD COME HOME SOON

ONE MORE DAY AND THEY WILL DROP FROM THE PLANE SPLASH INTO THE OCEAN

UNDER THE MASONIC MOON

WERNHER VON BRAUN AND HIS CONSPIRATORS GOT A FREE RIDE TO THE STATES

THEY TURNED NAZI INTO NASA THEY JUST COULDN'T WAIT

UNDER THE MASONIC MOON

PLANS WERE MADE BY THE BANKERS IN THE BACK ROOM

THE OWL SEES INTO THE NIGHT AND THE SECRET WILL NEVER BE TOLD

Some of the reviews are insightful. Some are pure autism.

In what way did Shining's hotel feel "mazelike and supernatural"? Seemed pretty normal to me.

Autist.

well, in general people read too much into everything - song lyrics, movies, their relationships etc.

usually things are just simple and stupid

Apparently the layout thing was confirmed by the producer.

>Do some film analysts go too deep and erroneously attribute meaning to things that may have just been oversights in production, or coincidences?

Yes.

Also, happens to 90% of books. You can prescribe any meaning to most classical books, because the authors are dead and won't challange your interpretation

You serious m8? Those long hallways without geographical context, offices moving around, the gold room shrinking and growing, windows being in impossible places.

I always thought it was Jack being...well... batshit crazy?

I mean, maybe

I'm pretty sure Rob Ager was the one who discovered the fact that The Outlook Hotel'sayout didn't make any sense.

donnie darko

Is it possible that Kubrick wasn't actually as good as everyone says he is? Yes.

Except in this case it's the director making up stupid theories about his own movie.

In actual classical scholarship your interpretation is irrelevant without significant evidence.

Problem is that people are too pleb to understand it since they want to think all art is entirely subjective rather than admit they aren't smart enough.

If you read bios, essays, history, and the authors other works, you can figure out objective meaning in almost ant book. Like in movies, most art is way too hard to make NOT to have deep meaning.

No one spends years writing a book in lead it has these qualities.

the stylistic elements of film were different back then.
There was an art in taking shots from unique perspectives or defining symmetry like in OP image.

As I do.

huh, i didnt know. I just read a bunch of shit here or on google.

I don't see what's so hard to believe about the impossible layout being intentional. It's not a particularly deep detail

All the shit you read is canon. Watch the directors commentary sometime if you want a good laugh. Richard kelly is a fucking retard.

You're smart :)

>at the end of the day its just a motion picture
I wonder about this from time to time. So Kubrick was a certified genius, and he chose to spend his life - to use his gift of intelligence - to make movies. I understand intelligence isn't necessarily transferable - ie, he probably couldn't have just decided to go off and cure cancer instead of making films - but you'd think the films he made would be a little more substantial. Instead, what did we get? (I'm serious here - WERE they more substantial, and I'm just too stupid to get it?)

I don't buy that interpretation but I bought Freudian and Marxist and post colonial interpretations

Yes you're too stupid to get it

not everyone wants to have the world's problems on their shoulders

>So Kubrick was a certified genius

Source?

Thanks for the quality input. Hard to believe you have no friends. ;-)

yea i think people take it way too fucking far

the people who analyze the hell out of the shining are by far the most pants on head retarded. there's nothing very deep going on in it. kubrick is intentionally playing with the audiences sense of space, that's pretty much it. the whole native american burial ground thing is straight from stephen king and gives the paranormal stuff some sort of grounding.

the bullshit with the furniture moving and the continuity errors are just that, ERRORS. he was rewriting the fucking script every goddamn day, errors are bound to happen with the way he filmed it.

there's nothing deeply hidden in the movie. i remember reading some forum a few years back with some guy who was literally watching the shining every day and had been doing it for like 2 years. he'd post every once in a while about "new" hidden things he found in the movie, like how there were "doppelgangers" moving furniture around the hotel.

very disturbed individuals do things like this. rob ager is one of those disturbed individuals. i find it funny people actually take rob ager seriously, the dude is a fucking mental case.

Maybe. Some might argue one has a duty. Not me, mind you. But some might.

Oh someone is salty. Is it because you're stupid?

I'm his friend. You're the one with no friends.

It's accepted wisdom. Check out a site called google.com if you need to do some research.

And the hits keep on coming. You ARE a clever boy, aren't you.

So no source? Cool, I win :)

go watch stanely kubrick's boxes

he was a high functioning autist that read a lot of books.

Mutual masturbation don't necessarily make you best buds.

>has obviously never had a best bud

Wow ok cheers.

Yes, you win. Again. What is it, a perfect average so far, right? What ARE the odds.

Yes i am, maybe I can give you private lessons or smth

He didn't knew about it. He loves to simplify stuff from the books he adapt because they're too complex for him.

he is. donnie darko was a complete fluke.

Yes.

His movies are absolutely timeless. A film like 2001 will be watched and discussed and referenced for as long as human beings are watching movies. I think you're underselling him a bit.

Kubrick brings specific attention to some of the continuity errors. At least some of them, like the typewriter, are intentional. It's a common technique for psychological movies.

how could a movie with such an unobvious if that's even a word... meaning be so successful?

>buy

Rob Ager and Kubrick are too inteligent for me: The Post

>stephen king
>complex

keks

Their films are all style and no substance. He found out that if he just threw out a bunch of weird shit, not too weird to be irrelevant but weird enough to work within the "context" of the film, the audience and critic will create and imagine the context to what essentially is the carcass of a movie.

Itself this is a brilliant move. But does it make him the greatest filmmaker that has ever exited and worthy of all that praise? I don't think so.

At best, he figured out a fantastic formula to make his movies sucessfull. He's on par with Michael Bay who pretty much did the same thing, only with action flicks.

Because the theatrical cut has a great atmosphere. Nobody likes it for all the alien shit Richard Kelly thinks the movie is about.

alright, thanks.

okay you need to shut the fuck up right now?

the monolith in 2001 a space odyssey is a theater screen: the post

Because it's a good film.

>donnie darko
>"film"

It IS a theatre screen

It IS a film.

Does anyone have any Rob Ager torrents or such?

you realize Stephen King himself calls his books the Mcdonalds of literature right

i guess you are not part of Sup Forums which also reads literature, what a pleb

every great artist is hard on their own work

>stephen king
>"artist"

if you think stephen king is great you need to read more . im serious

>I've only seen 3 Kubrick movies: the post

No I didn't realize that. I don't know anything about stephen king or books.

>tumblr filename

Hilarious. Nothing better than a retard pretending to know what he's talking about.

He IS an artist.

cis white male scum

i've actually never read any of his books but what i said is a real phenomenon so i thought it might be relevant :^)

im reading king's the stand right now. meh, 800 pages in and not much has happened.... and this is supposed to be one of his better books....

Shouldn't that be Kubrick "flicks"?

>800 pages in and not much has happened

not saying king is good but that is one of the most retarded critique you can say about any movie or book

>he knew about it, and left it in because he liked it
This is what happened but plebs who don't know anything about Kubrick will say
>he didn't know about it
>He's not as smart as you faggots think he is.
Yes he was, he was insanely perfectionist. He researched practically every single day of Napoleon's life for his Napoleon epic that never got made. I'm sure he knew what he was doing on The Shining.
>Stephen King's The Shining
>complex
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's a good horror novel but it isn't very complex. Kubrick's films are far more complex than Stephen King's novels.

i'm 2/3 through the book and all they've done is travel to boulder

Yes, some film analysts go too far in their analyses, in the same way that many literary analysts do.
Kubrick's layouts in both of those movies are likely intentional on his part, however.
It should also be noticed that even if something is accidental, but fits the theme or contributes to the value of the piece of art, it may not be reaching too far to mention it, even if it was accidental or an oversight.

>i need plot because I can't appreciate prose, character development, motifs etc

king is shit but you should just kys