If you get a chance, take a look at this short film, Room 237. It's an analysis and interpretation of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Part of what fascinates me so much in this film (besides the inherent content) is how wide and deep an interpretation can be. One guy claims it's about the genocide of native americans. Another speculates that Kubrick is actually confessing about the fake apollo 11 moon landing, and that he supposedly filmed it himself.
These sound incredibly far fetched, but things become tricky when certain objects or details that they point out start making sense. Here's a dilemma: on the one hand, The Shining is notorious for the ambiguity of its meaning, and we are dealing with Stanley Kubrick, perhaps one of the greatest film directors of all time (his genius, the entire cerebral context of his work, cannot be overstated). Thus, some interpretation that attempts to make sense of things (turning phenomena into noumena!) is perhaps warranted - even encouraged. But where do we draw the line? How to we know that interpretation is "getting it right?" This ties into the Sinnerbrink dilemma about the intentionality of film and how film's can philosophize by themselves.
So, what is really happening when we interpret? What is happening when films "do philosophy?" I mention this stuff because (1) there is an awesome paper topic floating around here and (2) Halloween is nearing and who doesn't love The Shining right? I would absolutely love if we could discuss this film briefly in one of our next meetings.
No comments:
Post a Comment