But, what does the subversion of the purpose of a hitman game, turning agent 47 into a mass murder really signify? The ramble about the Shining is only corollary to the visual medium which uses the theme of the axe murder, intensified by the apparent reference to the film to communicate the real intent of the author.
Easy. We take the three numbers, 2, 3 and 7. 2+3=5 With the 2 and the 3 combined, there is one number left over, giving us the number 1. Notice how the difference between 2 and 3 was also 1, this is too convenient to be a coincidence, we therefore have double the evidence. We then subtract that 1 from our other number, 5-1=4 We now have two numbers, 4 and 7. Giving us 47. Or, we can use a simpler method. We take the shot of the room label, it lasts exactly 190 frames. (If you use my patented frame counting method.) If we subtract that from our number, we get 47. Or, we can say that 237 divided by five is 47 if you round down, so all we have to do now is identify any instance of five things in the film. Such as how during the scene prior to this one, Jack Nicholson blinks five times before blinking a sixth time. Or we can simply claim that they are both prime numbers, using the secret "othermath" system that Kubrick pioneered according to this scribble on a napkin that I found in the Kubrick archives. So that's it proven by five separate concrete methods, (if you count this paragraph as one, which I do) that's how you know it's all true.
I was just thinking about something similar yesterday, I notice a lot of young artists are disenchanted with what they consider "deep" art because they think adding to the depth of an artwork means using basic symbols. Replacing a literal depiction with a symbol, like a skull representing death. If the literal thing that is being explored isn't very interesting, then the symbols are just being used to disguise a weak concept, and I find it insulting to the audience to expect them to do all the work of interpreting. Besides the fact that there are so many other interesting ways of adding depth to an artwork, I find it disappointing that so many people have lost faith in symbols, because when they are used with the audience in mind they can really expand the experience of a work of art. I personally really like finding clues and interpreting work that I'm interested in. I guess that's why I'm now reading a pdf for the annual archaeological report from the Ontario Archaeological museum.
I took it down. I got duped big time. It's not an element of native philosophy at all. The origin seems to have been at best some prospector in the early 1900s, or at worst some christian evangelical in the 50s. Most infuriating and rather embarrassing.
Well said. The Shining is a good film, but it is far, far from perfect and the fan theories about it are some of the most moronic film criticism ever produced. Kubrick wasn't into horror and only made the film reluctantly because he thought it would make some money after Barry Lyndon flopped commercially. There are multiple scenes in the Shining that seem to be lifted directly from The Amityville Horror, which was released during production of The Shining. It's all stuff that's not in the source novel, and is replicated really closely from Amityville, to the verge of plagiarism, but nobody ever seems to talk about it, despite the reams of paper and reels of film devoted to dissecting every tiny detail of The Shining. If someone really wanted to do an interesting critical examination of The Shining, they could easily look in to that mess and see what the timeline was on the production and either confirm its a rip-off or make a case for it all being a massive coincidence, but instead they all start with the assumption that Stanley Kubrick was a God-like genius and the best film director who ever lived (TM) so it's all some weird attempt to transmit a secret code. It's film analysis as a conspiracy theory. My assumption has always been that Kubrick got creatively blocked at some point around when he was bullying his actors into reshooting scenes fifty times and went to watch another haunted house horror movie in order to get ideas. Or maybe he read the phoney 'true story' book Amityville is based on and borrowed bits from there. The bit about the hotel being built on an 'Indian burial ground' is a trope featured in... you guessed it... The Amityville Horror. That's a pretty sweet Bangkok hotel rampage, although it's gonna get a lousy mission score.
Kubrick cherry-picked from other art to synthesize something larger. An evocative element of one movie, he might repurpose in his work. He saw King had created a compelling setting and framework and used it. I don't consider his methods plagiarism when the completed work is a separate creation. Also, I'm not commenting on the ethics or if it was worth it, but his treatment of actors was to elicit an effect or "unnatural" performances, not just bullying them for more takes.
Why does everything have to be predicated on the notion that Kubrick was an incomparable cinematic genius operating on a higher artistic level than mere mortals? He was undoubtedly talented, but also a depressed, mentally ill guy who resorted to bullying his actors and ripping off another movie in order to finish a project that he was unenthusiastic about from the start. With the possible exception of some kind of emergency situation, bullying people is never justified, and just saying 'I'm not commenting on the ethics' is just deflecting from that. Likewise, saying 'he cherry picked from other art to synthesize something larger' doesn't change the fact he ripped off someone else's work. As someone else nearly said: 'He's not the cinematic messiah, he's a very naughty boy.' Don't hero-worship anyone.
@@chrisball3778 I would suggest that if he just wanted to finish something he was unenthusiastic with, he could have wrapped scenes in 5-10 takes instead of hundreds. I'd also point out that he was abusive Shelley Duvall but not Jack Nicholson. And lastly I'd suggest that not commenting on an ethical question isn't a justification or deflection, but a lack of comment on ethics.
@@snowdroog1 I would suggest that if Stanley Kubrick was creatively blocked and didn't know how to finish the project in a way he liked, then making Shelley Duvall, Jack Nicholson, Scatman Crothers or any other poor bastard who was unlucky enough to be around him reshoot scenes would be the most pathetically obvious way of stalling for time imaginable. I'd also suggest that 'a lack of comment on ethics' is exactly what all the guards at Auschwitz did. Neutrality is endorsement if you have the opportunity to make comment, but choose not to. I'm not saying anyone is a monster for liking The Shining, but there's literally no consequence to saying 'Stanley Kubrick shouldn't have bullied those actors,' beyond a tiny number of very stupid people criticising you on the internet. I've done it numerous times and it definitely hasn't ever made my life worse. It's just made me feel like I'm reinforcing my pre-existing commitment to opposing bullying. He shouldn't have bullied those actors. So why do you feel the need to be a dick about it? Stop defending a talented, but very dead guy's bad behaviour.
LOL, well said sir. I have always thought that if you look hard enough, you will find whatever message you desperately are wanting to find. You just phrase it eloquently. Thank you, I really do like your channel. No nonsense facts is a hard thing to find right now.
Good vid and good points, but it's so weird, to me, seeing people argue about this cuz I could have SWORN the movie directly comments on native genocide? Like: not in a huge and central way, but some sort of line about there having been a native massacre nearby, or the hotel being on the site of one or something.
If memory serves, the hotel was built on an indian burial ground. This is a horror cliche, not a comment. The hotel had to repel an indian attack during construction. This seems to me satire rather than allegory, given the flippant tone of it's delivery.
If you want to understand the shining you need to start with the book to understand why kubrick did not make the shining but a movie loosely based on king’s book
this rant has the highest kill count on youtube I watched Room 237 10 years ago and it spends its whole running time not really saying anything useful. it's all cherry-picking, really.
There's so much stupidity in that documentary, but my understanding is that the film makers wanted to document rather than endorse the crackpot theories. Some of the fan theories that have developed since seem to be even worse
"Collative Learning" is the only channel that provides palatable essays on The Shining, for me. He's visited Kubrick's estate museum to see how their sources differ from his, interviewed surviving crew members, and warns that he's not the final expert on authorial intent. But he knows the material and communicates the hierarchy of theories, focusing on those that have the most plausibility based on his research. I'm sure he makes mistakes (we all do) but I find few. EDIT: BTW, he's held one of the book props, but *not* the final book prop in the film IIRC. He also got to read Jack's journal. It's an interesting anecdote, and he frames it as such, but does make a good argument in favor of the Gold Room and the film props being curated towards *several* messages, *including* the gold standard. Is it a convincing argument? That question remains for the viewer. I can only say that it made me interested in the subject, and so I made sure to watch your opinion on it as well. Your Hitman gameplay scares me as intended, well done. And I think... ...I think the gold and silver standards were just *two* of *many* Great American Betrayals against its peoples. Kubrick, it seems, at least noticed.
When I first watched The Shining, I always assumed that the American Indian stuff what there as a sort of 'creepy background vibe'. Like, almost everything you learn about the hotel has a feeling of "this is not a nice or safe place"
Kubrick did not gratify interpretation questions, but he did say the truth is in the feeling. If there is a "key" to his films it's this. Allegory and symbol are of the few ways to break into our over-mechanized minds, because those break through thought and sense into feeling, the home of our inner reality. The breathless theorizing is pointless, like Malcolm says. With Kubrick, these symbolic elements are so powerful, they elicit a reaction that's pretty specific to the person. That's why Kubrick takes always tell you more about the person than the movie.
@@JackJackKcajifyI thought it was an argument formulated methodically and constructively, and I thought it stated its thesis in a clear and concise manner. I’m not sure why you interpreted this as some wide-ranging ignorance and hostility. Nothing in the video indicates that, and just because you might disagree with Malcolm’s point doesn’t mean you have to pretend like this was some vicious attack on your worldview. As in all of his videos, he is making a point and constructing a simple argument to support it.
But, what does the subversion of the purpose of a hitman game, turning agent 47 into a mass murder really signify? The ramble about the Shining is only corollary to the visual medium which uses the theme of the axe murder, intensified by the apparent reference to the film to communicate the real intent of the author.
Really want to try and make a nonsense Room 217 = Agent 47 number spin
Easy. We take the three numbers, 2, 3 and 7.
2+3=5
With the 2 and the 3 combined, there is one number left over, giving us the number 1. Notice how the difference between 2 and 3 was also 1, this is too convenient to be a coincidence, we therefore have double the evidence.
We then subtract that 1 from our other number, 5-1=4
We now have two numbers, 4 and 7.
Giving us 47.
Or, we can use a simpler method.
We take the shot of the room label, it lasts exactly 190 frames. (If you use my patented frame counting method.)
If we subtract that from our number, we get 47.
Or, we can say that 237 divided by five is 47 if you round down, so all we have to do now is identify any instance of five things in the film. Such as how during the scene prior to this one, Jack Nicholson blinks five times before blinking a sixth time.
Or we can simply claim that they are both prime numbers, using the secret "othermath" system that Kubrick pioneered according to this scribble on a napkin that I found in the Kubrick archives.
So that's it proven by five separate concrete methods, (if you count this paragraph as one, which I do) that's how you know it's all true.
Thanks, i hate it.@@MalcolmPL
@@MalcolmPL the correlation between high intellect and strong shitposting cannot be ignored
theorycrafting is a nerd trauma response to being scared
I was just thinking about something similar yesterday, I notice a lot of young artists are disenchanted with what they consider "deep" art because they think adding to the depth of an artwork means using basic symbols. Replacing a literal depiction with a symbol, like a skull representing death. If the literal thing that is being explored isn't very interesting, then the symbols are just being used to disguise a weak concept, and I find it insulting to the audience to expect them to do all the work of interpreting.
Besides the fact that there are so many other interesting ways of adding depth to an artwork, I find it disappointing that so many people have lost faith in symbols, because when they are used with the audience in mind they can really expand the experience of a work of art. I personally really like finding clues and interpreting work that I'm interested in. I guess that's why I'm now reading a pdf for the annual archaeological report from the Ontario Archaeological museum.
Just out of curiosity, what happened to the tale of two dogs video that was on this channel? Did it get deleted?
I took it down. I got duped big time.
It's not an element of native philosophy at all. The origin seems to have been at best some prospector in the early 1900s, or at worst some christian evangelical in the 50s.
Most infuriating and rather embarrassing.
Well said. The Shining is a good film, but it is far, far from perfect and the fan theories about it are some of the most moronic film criticism ever produced. Kubrick wasn't into horror and only made the film reluctantly because he thought it would make some money after Barry Lyndon flopped commercially. There are multiple scenes in the Shining that seem to be lifted directly from The Amityville Horror, which was released during production of The Shining. It's all stuff that's not in the source novel, and is replicated really closely from Amityville, to the verge of plagiarism, but nobody ever seems to talk about it, despite the reams of paper and reels of film devoted to dissecting every tiny detail of The Shining.
If someone really wanted to do an interesting critical examination of The Shining, they could easily look in to that mess and see what the timeline was on the production and either confirm its a rip-off or make a case for it all being a massive coincidence, but instead they all start with the assumption that Stanley Kubrick was a God-like genius and the best film director who ever lived (TM) so it's all some weird attempt to transmit a secret code. It's film analysis as a conspiracy theory.
My assumption has always been that Kubrick got creatively blocked at some point around when he was bullying his actors into reshooting scenes fifty times and went to watch another haunted house horror movie in order to get ideas. Or maybe he read the phoney 'true story' book Amityville is based on and borrowed bits from there. The bit about the hotel being built on an 'Indian burial ground' is a trope featured in... you guessed it... The Amityville Horror.
That's a pretty sweet Bangkok hotel rampage, although it's gonna get a lousy mission score.
Kubrick cherry-picked from other art to synthesize something larger. An evocative element of one movie, he might repurpose in his work. He saw King had created a compelling setting and framework and used it. I don't consider his methods plagiarism when the completed work is a separate creation.
Also, I'm not commenting on the ethics or if it was worth it, but his treatment of actors was to elicit an effect or "unnatural" performances, not just bullying them for more takes.
Why does everything have to be predicated on the notion that Kubrick was an incomparable cinematic genius operating on a higher artistic level than mere mortals?
He was undoubtedly talented, but also a depressed, mentally ill guy who resorted to bullying his actors and ripping off another movie in order to finish a project that he was unenthusiastic about from the start.
With the possible exception of some kind of emergency situation, bullying people is never justified, and just saying 'I'm not commenting on the ethics' is just deflecting from that. Likewise, saying 'he cherry picked from other art to synthesize something larger' doesn't change the fact he ripped off someone else's work. As someone else nearly said: 'He's not the cinematic messiah, he's a very naughty boy.' Don't hero-worship anyone.
@@chrisball3778 I would suggest that if he just wanted to finish something he was unenthusiastic with, he could have wrapped scenes in 5-10 takes instead of hundreds. I'd also point out that he was abusive Shelley Duvall but not Jack Nicholson. And lastly I'd suggest that not commenting on an ethical question isn't a justification or deflection, but a lack of comment on ethics.
@@snowdroog1 I would suggest that if Stanley Kubrick was creatively blocked and didn't know how to finish the project in a way he liked, then making Shelley Duvall, Jack Nicholson, Scatman Crothers or any other poor bastard who was unlucky enough to be around him reshoot scenes would be the most pathetically obvious way of stalling for time imaginable. I'd also suggest that 'a lack of comment on ethics' is exactly what all the guards at Auschwitz did. Neutrality is endorsement if you have the opportunity to make comment, but choose not to.
I'm not saying anyone is a monster for liking The Shining, but there's literally no consequence to saying 'Stanley Kubrick shouldn't have bullied those actors,' beyond a tiny number of very stupid people criticising you on the internet.
I've done it numerous times and it definitely hasn't ever made my life worse. It's just made me feel like I'm reinforcing my pre-existing commitment to opposing bullying.
He shouldn't have bullied those actors. So why do you feel the need to be a dick about it? Stop defending a talented, but very dead guy's bad behaviour.
LOL, well said sir. I have always thought that if you look hard enough, you will find whatever message you desperately are wanting to find. You just phrase it eloquently. Thank you, I really do like your channel. No nonsense facts is a hard thing to find right now.
Good vid and good points, but it's so weird, to me, seeing people argue about this cuz I could have SWORN the movie directly comments on native genocide? Like: not in a huge and central way, but some sort of line about there having been a native massacre nearby, or the hotel being on the site of one or something.
If memory serves, the hotel was built on an indian burial ground. This is a horror cliche, not a comment. The hotel had to repel an indian attack during construction. This seems to me satire rather than allegory, given the flippant tone of it's delivery.
@@MalcolmPL Ah ok; yeah using it as a horror trope isn't really commenting on it you're right.
If you want to understand the shining you need to start with the book to understand why kubrick did not make the shining but a movie loosely based on king’s book
That's a tough question, which did you prefer? The genocide of the American Indian, or the abandonment of the gold standard?
Poxy theories are why we can't have nice things anymore, except of course Malcolm 😊. Thanks for the content.
this rant has the highest kill count on youtube
I watched Room 237 10 years ago and it spends its whole running time not really saying anything useful. it's all cherry-picking, really.
There's so much stupidity in that documentary, but my understanding is that the film makers wanted to document rather than endorse the crackpot theories. Some of the fan theories that have developed since seem to be even worse
"Collative Learning" is the only channel that provides palatable essays on The Shining, for me. He's visited Kubrick's estate museum to see how their sources differ from his, interviewed surviving crew members, and warns that he's not the final expert on authorial intent. But he knows the material and communicates the hierarchy of theories, focusing on those that have the most plausibility based on his research. I'm sure he makes mistakes (we all do) but I find few.
EDIT: BTW, he's held one of the book props, but *not* the final book prop in the film IIRC. He also got to read Jack's journal. It's an interesting anecdote, and he frames it as such, but does make a good argument in favor of the Gold Room and the film props being curated towards *several* messages, *including* the gold standard. Is it a convincing argument? That question remains for the viewer. I can only say that it made me interested in the subject, and so I made sure to watch your opinion on it as well. Your Hitman gameplay scares me as intended, well done. And I think...
...I think the gold and silver standards were just *two* of *many* Great American Betrayals against its peoples. Kubrick, it seems, at least noticed.
When I first watched The Shining, I always assumed that the American Indian stuff what there as a sort of 'creepy background vibe'. Like, almost everything you learn about the hotel has a feeling of "this is not a nice or safe place"
Kubrick did not gratify interpretation questions, but he did say the truth is in the feeling. If there is a "key" to his films it's this.
Allegory and symbol are of the few ways to break into our over-mechanized minds, because those break through thought and sense into feeling, the home of our inner reality. The breathless theorizing is pointless, like Malcolm says. With Kubrick, these symbolic elements are so powerful, they elicit a reaction that's pretty specific to the person. That's why Kubrick takes always tell you more about the person than the movie.
@@JackJackKcajifyI thought it was an argument formulated methodically and constructively, and I thought it stated its thesis in a clear and concise manner. I’m not sure why you interpreted this as some wide-ranging ignorance and hostility. Nothing in the video indicates that, and just because you might disagree with Malcolm’s point doesn’t mean you have to pretend like this was some vicious attack on your worldview. As in all of his videos, he is making a point and constructing a simple argument to support it.