Petrarchive – The most over-analyzed movie of all time?

Do people really? What's the consensus?

There was a documentary called room 237 where they interview people who are obsessed with the movie and present their fan theories. A lot of them are clearly nuts.

I would say the Star Wars Saga is responsible for the most 10-15 hour reviews, re-reviews, rants and ravings on the internet. Also includes the thousands of hours of extra content and whatever is discussed on that.

It isn't analysis per se, but people certainly read a lot of their own shit into those movies.

Yeah star wars generates more commentary for sure, but the shining seems to tap into people’s paranoid pattern-seeking behaviors like no other movie, probably to do with kubrick's reputation as a genius who did nothing by mistake and is all about the details

This blog explains the absurd endpoint of Shining hermeneutics: https://jamiesamson.substack.com/p/the-shining-obsession

this one too https://eyescream237.ca/golden-spirals-fill-your-eyes-how-the-fibonacci-sequence-affects-the-shining/

case in point

>>6421
Star Wars is the really big example, and certainly headlined this entire phenomenon, but really any movie that has been turned into an IP has this happen to it on some level. There's that classic six hour video of that guy yelling at Toy Story 4 for example. No real commentary to show for it, just unimaginably angry the new movie didn't turn out how he wanted it to. These things happen because people become more invested in the IP itself than the actual story, I think. Studios intentionally make stories into brands in an attempt to make it more profitable, and people latch on to these brands and become attached to them like they're a relative or something, thus boosting sales and cultural power and so on. It just so happens that most of the writing for these brands is not too great, and thus comes the whole cycle of rants and anger. It's not an analysis of writing, it's a teardown of a friend who let them down. They use the subpar writing to justify the hatred, but the fuel for the fire is the ridiculous attachment to the franchise. Though I guess this isn't really what the thread is about.

>>6428
Originally I was going to say "People found something pretentious enough to live out their elitist fantasies with ," but this is pretty convincing too.

Americans go fucking nuts for media that makes them feel smart for "figuring it out".

>>6428
>>6429
>>6433
Thanks, this is crazy.
>What is essential “in heaven and on earth” seems to be, to say it once more, that there should be obedience over a long period of time and in a single direction: given that, something always develops, and has developed, for whose sake it is worthwhile to live on earth; for example, virtue, art, music, dance, reason, spirituality—something transfiguring, subtle, mad, and divine.
Maybe this is a yearning in every one of us, and in the consumer world, some latch onto what they can to satisfy it.

lol that substack
>one of the narrators insisted that you could actually see Stanley Kubrick’s face “airbrushed” onto a cloud during the film’s opening sequence. The cloud in question was duly displayed. It did not contain Stanley Kubrick’s face, or anything resembling Stanley Kubrick’s face. It looked, and still looks, like what it is: a cloud.

Probably not as "analyzed" as much as The Shining, but I despise Once Upon a Time in America. There's a certain type of filmguy who raves over that movie, who I may hate more than the movie itself. This person has never seen any media which depicts someone immoral as the protagonist and the novelty of it spurs them into worshiping the movie as if it invented the very idea. I don't think it is also a coincidence that this same individual will also praise the length of the movie, calling it an "epic," even though it is really bloated (and insanely boring, at that), and the moral nuance is surface level. I don't know how the same guy who created Once Upon a Time in the West or Good, Bad, Ugly made it.

I like the opium den scene at the beginning though, I won't lie.

This movie is such a well crafted allegory for intergenerational trauma, cycles of abuse and the horror of paternal resentment.

https://youtu.be/XnxgYYfIooc
"It's his mother. She, uh, interferes", just makes me sick to my stomach every time.

Kubrick captured a very primitive and hideous side of male masculinity, and its so funny that 99% of analysis of this film is focused on the pattern on the carpet or whether the clouds form a picture of a Native American for one frame or something, lol

>>6960
That's an interesting take on it

>>6419
You have to be able to be a complete fanatic like I am in order to find all this, but, you know, um, I’ll give you my favorite. I’m only gonna give you one, but I’ll give you my favorite. When Jack meets Stuart Ullman [the hotel manager, played by Barry Nelson] in the office at the very beginning of the movie? And he reaches over to shake Jack Nicholson’s hand? And so step through that scene frame by frame, and the minute, the moment, the frame that he and Jack Nicholson touch hands . . . you can see that the, uh, there’s a paper tray on the desk, and as soon as they touch hands the paper tray turns into a very large straight-on HARD-ON coming out of Barry Nelson

I like the documentaries about the moon conspiracy kubrick thing more than the original film tbh.

Also the moon landing was so fake lol