THE CONSPIRACIES IN KUBRICK'S 'THE SHINING', AND 'ROOM 237':

Sorry for my lack of posts for the past few weeks, assignment deadlines at university were piling up, but now I'm on Easter break, meaning I have the time to write some posts on here.

Tonight I watched the documentary regarding Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, The Shining, titled Room 237. Incase you're unaware of the documentary and the subject it explores, it deals with the numerous conspiracy theories and subjective interpretations of the 1980 film, giving close analysis of scenes in the film and using the social and historical context of Stanley Kubrick himself, and the time he grew up in, as reference for many of the points. The theories explored include the film being a portrayal of the rise of the white American and degrading/destruction of the Native Americans, a portrayal of the holocaust, a confession from Kubrick that he helped to create the 'fake' video of the 1969 moon landing and many more.

Through all 100 minutes of this documentary I was absolutely in awe. The detail that the critics speaking have gone into in their research of the theories is clear in their analysis of individual frames, set locations, and even the directors childhood, and gives a well-structured and interesting argument in trying to prove their case. The openness of the ending of the film is one of the things that makes all of the conspiracy theories key, with no clear message to guide the audience, the interpretation of the audience is something that Kubrick enjoyed, therefore I feel it is plausible that numerous hints of historical events and theories were put in the film in order to spark critic's interest, I believe that Kubrick would have been happy to watch this documentary, gaining an insight into just how effective his extremely detailed mise-en-scene and cinematography is in provoking thoughts.

The theory that has always interested me the most is the theory of Kubrick being involved in the faking of the 1969 moon landing footage. This footage has always intrigued me, as a child I thought it was incredible that I could witness, at my disposal, something that was recorded on a different planet (the moon isn't a planet, whatever, I was a kid.... OKAY?). As I grew older, started school and found ways to distract myself (watching documentary channels on repeat for days on end), I was interested in the faking of the footage because of numerous factors. Why is that flag blowing in the 'wind'? Why does the scenery look exactly like a part of Area 51? etc. etc.
This is going off on a most wonderful tangent, however, this is a film blog so I'll stick to Kubrick. I have explained one of the most solid theories of the faking of the moon-landing of '69 footage down below. The documentary explains it in much more detail, as you can expect, but anyway, enjoy.

THEORY: KUBRICK SUGGESTING HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE FORGING OF THE MOON-LANDING FOOTAGE.The pattern on the carpet that Danny rises from is shaped exactly like the launch pad for the space ships that sent astronauts to the moon. Danny steps up from this hexagon take off pad, wearing a jumper that has a picture of the Apollo 11 on it, physically showing the spaceship taking off from the launch pad.

Danny then walks to room number 237. Kubrick changed the number of the room from the original Stephen King novel from 231 to 237, claiming that the hotel they were filming in already had a room number 231, and the manager worried that nobody would want to stay in that room after the film was released, however it has been said that many people have rung up the hotel requesting said room, and it does not exist, suggesting Kubrick was covering this up. The relevance that the number 237 has to the moon-landing theory is that the moon is exactly 237,000 miles away from earth! Simple as that. Also, as said in the documentary, if you read the writing above the number 'ROOM No' the only capitalised letters are R O O M & N. The only two words you can make out of this are 'moon' and 'room', suggesting this is the 'moon room'. A confession from Stanley Kubrick of his involvement in the 'false' recording?

CLOUD ATLAS & THE POWER OF NUMEROUS DIRECTORS:

Cloud Atlas was a film I was highly anticipating since I first heard of the adaptation being made. The concept itself is enough to provoke intense interested from anyone interested in pushing the artistic boundaries of film, however the feature of this particular film that intrigued me the most was the use of three directors, two of whom being responsible for The Matrix Trilogy and V for Vendetta (both absolutely astonishing films, and some of my personal favourites), and the third director being responsible for some less-known films, but still some exceptionally good ones such as Run Lola Run and Paris, Je T'aime.
I was not disappointed by the film.

Although arguably perplexing and requiring constant concentration for 3 hours, I found the numerous stories moving and beautifully told. The excerpts from the original novel by David Mitchell were compelling and fitting, it didn't appear forced, simply streaming its way into the film in coalition with the great cinematography.
In basic terms, for those who aren't aware of the plot, the film follows numerous stories of numerous people through numerous periods of time, with links in the characters thoughts and situations linking them. From the 1800s to the 2300s, the film takes you on a journey of drama, sci-fi and comedy, to name a few. For those sceptical of the plot, as I know many people are, think of it as a number of different short films, all with a few similar themes, mix up the formal editing techniques and you have Cloud Atlas.

The connection with the characters is one thing I was sceptical about before watching the film. How the hell are they going to introduce so many characters (check the IMDB character listings, for the top 10 actors credited, they play a total of 56 characters between them) and expect the audience to, first of all, keep up with who is who, and also how do they expect us to relate and empathise with these characters, who come and go so quickly.
Although, yes, if the film was based on only one of the seven major stories it tells, there would be an extreme connection between audience and character, one of the beauties of this film is the quantity of characters going through the same issues in their heads. The introduction to all of these characters is not aimed at giving you a connection with just one of them, it wants you to understand the links, almost (getting a little bit deeper) question the process of human life. There was a quote from Halle Berry's detective character in the film which I think sums it up quite nicely.
I'm definitely paraphrasing here:

"I'm just wondering why we keep making the same mistakes over and over"

The situations involved in the film, although only one of them (and interestingly, the comedy storyline) is set in the modern day, are reflective of the struggles of the past, future and most obviously present.
The portrayal in the film of a man in the 1930s in a homosexual relationship, having to hide his desires (jumping out of a window at one point) and conform to the beliefs of society could reflect the current fight for global equality.
The futuristic story of a village of people haunted by the 'Kona' tribe could be representative of the constant civil wars in Africa and the uncertainty of the future for many people living under conditions similar.

This film is arguably one of the best I have seen for numerous years (although this is only an opinion, made clear by the man in the cinema who snored ever so loudly for two thirds of the film). It is a perfect blend of spectacular editing, a solid storyline (or seven), and cinematography that rivals that of many current directors.
This film is an event, prepare to sit back for three hours and be blown away by a combination of visual effects and good old fashioned cinema.

FLIGHT: A BATTLE BETWEEN PLOT AND THEME?:

I recently watched Robert Zemeckis' latest drama, Flight, featuring the wonderful Denzel Washington. I enjoyed the film a lot, I thought it had a really good plot, likeable characters and the lead role of Whip was played fantastically by Mr. Washington himself, however, I couldn't help but to be put off engaging with the story because of the constant use of religious phrases and terminology used throughout.

(possible spoilers to come, although I think everyone has a brief idea of what happens in the film due to trailers etc)

It was through the introduction of one of the flight crew that it started, an invitation given to Whip to join the cabin crew member at a church ceremony when the plane landed, however, we all knew that the plane, in fact, was not going to land and therefore this invitation was void to start with, I just wish that the preaching had crashed mid-air as well as the airplane.
It was all well and good (meaning I had accepted that religion was a part of the film) until Whip met his co-pilot in the hospital post-crash and his girlfriend/fiancé/wife blurted out "PRAISE JESUS" in the middle of a sentence..... twice. Being British, and seeing the film in a British cinema, the whole audience obviously burst out laughing. It was the most ridiculous thing ever. In what was an extremely crucial plot point, and a moment in defining the character of Whip, the religious outburst completely took away any attention the audience was paying to the sombre moment of the film, and made it comical.

Saying all of this, however, I did really, really enjoy the film. It was a lot better than I imagined, and although I think there are factors that could be improved (the ending being a key one, surely there's a better way to get his relationship with his son back on track that that), altogether I had a good two hours whilst watching it and would definitely recommend it!

STOKER: AND UNEXPECTEDLY AMAZING FILM:

Last night I went to the cinema on a whim with a university friend. We had no idea what we wanted to go and watch and came to the decision to go and watch Stoker, a film by Chan-wook Park (director of Oldboy). With reasonably low expectations mainly due to the (let's be honest) reasonably bad trailer and my feeling that all of the characters were going to be revealed as vampires (Stoker.. c'mon), as soon as the film ended, me and my friend looked at each other with exactly the same expressions "wow".

With the huge advertisements all over the London tubes making this film seem like a (as said previously) vampiric period drama, I can't help but feel that this film is going to be sold short, and not receive the recognition it deserves.

The film starts of immediately living up to its name of a psychological thriller. A mysterious man, later to be found out as India Stoker's uncle Charlie, turns up at her fathers wake. India has never heard of him, therefore instantly not trusting him, and as an audience, as we have seen through India's eyes for the most part at this time in the film, we put our faith in her, suspecting Charlie of something at once. This suspicion that the audience has of Charlie builds up constantly throughout the film, however his character is not a straightforward one. I could never put my finger on his motives, and I guess that is the point. The characters in this film, though only three major ones, make it what it is, constantly putting questions and doubts in the audiences head.

The film did seem a little 'Twilight-y' at some points, unfortunately, however I feel that may be the permanent scars which that unfortunate quintology left in my head. Charlie turning up at places constantly, and 'saving' India on occasion made for a slightly unrealistic characteristic, however, it was never too much and was all made clear at the end (don't worry, I won't give (m)any spoilers).

The part of the film that stands out most for me, however, was around the middle of the film when India and Charlie played a beautiful duet on the piano. This piano piece, starting as a solo from India represents the constant struggle that India has with Charlie. As Charlie joins in, we see both fighting for dominance in the tune of the piano, and eventually see Charlie succeed in playing the most dominant part.
This was a beautiful musical metaphor for the struggle going on in India's head. She doesn't want to let Charlie in, however she is intrigued by him, she doesn't let any infatuation with him show for a lot of the film, keeping it all inside, once again, playing with the audience's minds over characters and their motives, however she is intrigued and eventually inspired by him, showing this outwardly (especially the intrigued part.. awkward incestual kiss that nearly happened.. remember?).

The cinematography in this film was really, really good also. In the parts of the film where the plot was not as strong, the beautiful camera work mixed with wonderful editing and a lovely soundtrack made the viewing experience extremely pleasurable. One piece of camerawork in particular that was great was (possible spoiler alert!) when India had dragged the body out of her house and the camera followed the trail of blood, speeding up the footage and showing how little relevance the blood stains would be, almost that in India's world, she doesn't have to worry about the police, easily outsmarting them when they questioned her.

This blogpost was quick and easy (much like the film) as I'm writing it in between university classes, and I apologise for that, however expect posts more frequently as I've recently become a member of Cineworld Unlimited, a service that allows you to watch unlimited films in cinemas. I'm going to see Cloud Atlas tonight, so i'll possibly post on that sometime in the week if I find anything relevant to say about it (I've heard many good things).
I'll leave you with a tweet that sums up this post in seven words: