Room 237: When the Director Haunts the Audience

After watching Room 237, my perception of ghosts has changed.

Room 237 is a documentary in which theorists and experts of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining share their findings concerning hidden messages in the mise en scene of the film. The Shining is already terrifying on the first watch. It is undeniably tense, and creepy, and gory. In the next watching of The Shining one might notice more creepy details; a notable turn of phrase, color themes, a missing piece of furniture.

The folks from this documentary studied The Shining meticulously. Their continuity errors and coincidences turned into theories about hidden messages from Kubrick. The messages and symbolism he hid in the film are like ghosts in and of themselves.

Repeated Native American imagery hints that they were the ghosts haunting the Overlook Hotel. "We built it on an Indian burial ground." Where have I heard that before?

A movie about a haunting is scary on the first viewing because of the surprise elements, but if there is something new to notice in the next viewing that can rekindle the same fear. It causes one to question what is perceivable. What am I missing? What demon was right behind me and I didn't notice?

This is what you get when The Shining is played backwards and forwards at the same time.

Kubrick's added touches (whether he meant them or not - but he probably did) make the avid viewer witness to a real haunting. It is a haunting of the audience by the director. The director is communicating with the audience as a ghost would to it's haunted; without words. He does it with continuity errors in the furniture, things out of place, subtle hints in the shapes of props, the colors characters wear.

Kubrick 1. was very secretive, 2. detail-oriented to say the least and 3. is dead, making these hints literal messages from beyond the grave.

Someone thought the hotel manager got a ghost boner when he shook Jack's hand. While it is undeniable, I'm not sure why it's important.

I know I'm not alone in saying that documentaries such as Room 237 are thrilling. Once you thought you saw The Shinning too many times to be scared, the people in these interviews inject more "ghosts" into it. The most interesting part is that we all know it's just a movie; the ghosts haunting the Overlook Hotel are fictional. Kubrick's hidden messages are not actually scary ghosts, yet hearing about his sly trickery, his subliminal mind teasers, will give you chills. This is because people like to be in control. That's why ghosts - if they exist - are scary; you never know when they will strike, how they will show themselves, and to what severity it will effect you. A powerful and genius director such as Kubrick has power over his cast, set, and audience, with the way he chooses to withhold and dispense information. We continue to find the specters of his cinematic message to this day.

Still, no one in the documentary explained this...

Hunting for a Quailty Ghost Show

We all know that reality shows centered around ghosts have been very popular for the past few years. It started with the Ghost Hunters style shows; groups of rag-tag "ghost experts," psychics and mediums having sleep-overs with night-vision cameras. They jump at every sound, and the show's base soundtrack conveniently plays loudly over every sound bite of a ghost supposedly thumping or talking. They never find anything substantial, but how can you believe it at all with the way these shows are edited?

Currently the Unsolved Mysteries style ghost shows have been en vogue. These are allegedly true stories with interviews and reenactments similar to our favorite 1980's thriller, but without a stoic host like Robert Stack or a hotline. The most popular of these shows are My Ghost Story, Celebrity Ghost Stories, Paranormal Witness, and The Haunting. I prefer those shows, because even though there is always a risk of a person making-up the story, at least you have the gorey details straight from the horses mouth,  instead of watching a bunch of fools saying "did you hear that?" for a half hour.

In addition to all the ghost shows you can shake a stick at, there are the survival story shows, the hording shows, and animal rescue shows. I tweeted recently, "When are they going to make I Survived a Ghost Pet and what channel will it be on?" To my surprise, there is something on Animal Planet that loosely follows that description. Simply called The Haunted, this series follows the stories of pet owners who have experienced hauntings. This could be a good niche show if it actually spent a majority of the time focusing on the animal's experience, but it doesn't. It has been said that animals are known to be sensitive to ghosts and spirits, so why not milk that for all it's worth on a station aimed at people who already give a ton of credence to animals' actions?

When I first found this show, I was confused that it was on Animal Planet. There was nothing perceptively animal-centric about this show, until the haunted animal lover mentioned their pet pug was spooked. Here is an example of how generic this show is in an episode description:  

After having unusual experiences in their home, a family calls upon a paranormal team and demonologist to help. When they try to banish the entity from the home, it violently possesses one of the family members, and literally enters her body.

It would be very interesting and appropriate for the possessed "family member" to be a pet, but it is in fact a human woman. I turned on Animal Planet to watch a possessed dog, not a dog that ran under the couch while it's owner's soul was being eaten by a demon. I can watch that on any other channel.

From Paranormal Witness S01E03 The Poltergeist

The Haunted might be the worst, most contrived ghost show, but Paranormal Witness is the best of its kind. Not just focusing on ghosts, you can also hear about UFO's, strange beasts, and unexplainable coincidences. There are reenactments, but they don't hesitate to also use real videos or photos that are evidence of the paranormal experience. Having many witnesses, from different sides of the story, also helps with the credibility of the show.



If I could make my own ghost show I would feature people who actually have photos, videos, audio, etc. of the haunting. There would be no actor reenactments, no spooky music, especially not over recordings. There would be no embelishments; just the truth as the witnesses know it. The problem with the reenactments in these shows is that they are often padded with extra actions the witnesses never mention in the final cut of the interview. Obviously this causes a gullible viewer into thinking the haunting was more remarkable than it may have been, and alienates viewers that are genuinely interested in what actually happened. A stark portrayal with all the evidence layed out should be enough to make your hairs stand up.

I leave you with the question, can shows about "real life" ghost encounters legitimately fall under the documentary category? If there were any topic people could call bull s*#% on in a documentary format, it would be ghosts. Some people would call it a documentary about ghosts, and another group would call it a documentary about people who believe they saw a ghost. I can't say I wholeheartedly believe in spirits, but I want to be convinced with evidence. I will make it a mission of mine to find a convincing documentary about a haunting. If anyone has any recommendations, please leave a reply.