Thread replies: 10
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: sh_sat13.jpg (432KB, 1000x749px) Image search:
[Google]
432KB, 1000x749px
You could pretty much overanalyze anything to the point of ridiculousness if you wanted too, right? What did you guys think about it?
I got the impression the filmmakers were kind of clowning on people's obsessions about the movie, but it was entertaining if nothing else. And with apologies as a fan of SK, I also thought the changes Kubrick made were both great and necessary.
Yeah, you knew as soon as you saw Jack, you he was going to go nuts. King used to bitch that the story was about an alcoholic's gradual descent into insanity, and once you saw Nicholson, you automatically knew he was crazy. So what. Probably JN's 2nd best role after Cuckoo's Nest, and anyone familiar with the source material or marketing had a pretty good idea where the story was going even if they'd cast Paul Neumann.
Still, thank God CGI didn't exist back then. Otherwise we'd have sci-fi channel topiary animals chasing b-listers around.
My main question is don't you think you could pick apart and assign deep philosophical meaning to just about any film? I could get fucked up and opine on De Palma, Raimi, Hooper, Craven, Hooper, or three or four more score auteurs. Is there really a market for this?
Do people watch docs like Room 237 because they just like hearing folks talk about a movie the love, or do some sad souls actually find merit in it (even the filmmakers seem to clown on them).
Also, is Nightmare any good? Same makers if I'm not mistaken, but I suffer from sleep paralysis and I'm hesitant to watch it on the off-chance they just make fun of the people like they do the people on 237.
>>
>>84990827
>opine on De Palma, Raimi, Hooper, Craven, Hooper
I didn't mean to list Tobe twice, I just misspelled Dennis Hopper's last name. I'm lying like fuck, but the point still stands. You could come up with a ton of psychoanalysis on a movie like Colors or Easy Rider. I wonder if people watch that shit because they care about the theories or because they just enjoy hearing people talk about movies they love?
>>
File: 20170221_222022.jpg (256KB, 804x683px) Image search:
[Google]
256KB, 804x683px
>>84990827
I realize that Kubrick was very intelligent but after all these years I finally have to chalk up all the "Rob Ager spacial awareness" stuff as continuity errors, straight up. One scene in particular when Dick is taking Wendy and Danny into the freezer, the door opens on the opposite side and when they come out the background is completely different when they come out. This is not some Freudian trick to make the viewer "uneasy" it's just an error. However I will admit the saturation of Native American imagery/NASA/American History is defiantly there, maybe we'll never know why.
>>
Watch this piece of shit by some retarded conspiracyfag
https://youtu.be/c1v9EKLQD_g
>>
>>84991484
I dont know about the freezer stuff but the hotel is purposefully set up to spacially make no sense
Kubrick was aware that it was impossible geography
>>
>>84991484
>This is not some Freudian trick to make the viewer "uneasy" it's just an error.
It's hard to tell because it's well known he studied hard the art of unconscious marketing in his late carrer. He was fascinated by the manipulation of brain with image.
>>
>the WW2 historian thinks the movie is about WW2
Really made me think.
>>
>>84992011
It's retarded. Everything the movie is about is on the screen. There's nothing related to ww2 on the screen.
>>
>>84990827
I think the filmmakers were making out that any discourse about movies other than promotional shilling is autism. It's not an endearing attitude.
I think you can get something really interesting out of most films, providing you're willing to stretch a point.
>>
>>84992302
I mean, we never get any real analysts, only various eccentrics who are making stuff fit their existing monomanias.
Thread posts: 10
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2