Skip to main content

Room 237 fuses fact and fiction through interviews with ardent fans convinced they have decoded Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining’s secret messages regarding genocide, government conspiracy and the nightmare that we call history.

2.5 out of 4 stars

Title
Room 237
Directed by
Rodney Ascher
Genre
Documentary
Classification
14A
Country
USA
Language
English
Year
2012

To me, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining has always seemed a minor work that only a major director could have made, a psychological fright flick stuck in a strained limbo between the pure horror mechanics of Stephen King's original novel and the more interior take imposed on it by Kubrick's adaptation.

Well, the quintet of superfans in Room 237 couldn't disagree more. This strange, frustrating, occasionally fascinating doc immerses us in their frame-by-frame obsession with the 1980 film, and in their extravagant claims for its vast significance. Because we never see them, but only hear their voice-over analysis, they come to seem as ghostly as any of the apparitions in the movie under discussion, until a documentary about The Shining begins to shine with its own ambiguous glow: Are these enlightened critics or dark nutcases themselves?

Director Rodney Ascher, inevitably a self-confessed Shining junkie, assembles the voices and then plays, and replays and replays again, the individual scenes crucial to their specific dissection. Two in the group, journalist Bill Blakemore and history professor Geoffrey Cocks, have already developed a reputation in this rather narrow field, and are quick to establish their credentials.

Story continues below advertisement

So Blakemore, citing the fact that the film's haunted house, the Overlook Hotel, is said to be built on an ancient burial ground, develops his thesis that "the movie is about the genocide of the American Indians." Hmm, tangential references maybe, but "about"? Surely not.

Meanwhile, Cocks sets his thematic sights on another genocide, the Holocaust, finding proof in Kubrick's highlighting of a German typewriter and the calculated recurrence of the number "42" (the Final Solution was adopted in 1942). But when he points to the most haunted room in the haunted house, 237 of course, and does some quick math – "2 x 3 x 7 = 42" – our eyes glaze and we start to fashion our own thesis, the classic one about some people having way too much time on their hands.

The glaze only thickens when the other voices join the fray. Someone drones on about spatial anomalies in the picture, such as the appearance of "impossible windows" in interior rooms. Another, an avowed conspiracy theorist, argues that Kubrick was employed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to shoot fake footage of the moon landing, and then detects in The Shining a convoluted admission of that fakery.

At this stage, it's safe to conclude that much of this close analysis is itself over the moon, and we've entered that netherworld where the passionate eye can find in a totemic object or sacred text pretty much anything it wants to find. In other words, believing is seeing.

For reasons that elude me, certain fright flicks – Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is another obvious example – lend themselves to this sort of obsessive scrutiny. Medical science has a phrase for it: excessive ideation, or, in common parlance, taking an elephant gun to an ant. Some of us have experienced this condition while imbibing an illicit substance and pondering, say, the metaphysical import of the tip of that pencil clutched in our sweaty palm. Or counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Such musings, like this doc, are kind of fun while they last, but then the high ends, sanity returns and the pin is once again just a slender metal object. And The Shining just a minor work by a major director.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies