Surely the esteemed writers of such articles as this, are not opposed to, and would not make light of, art lovers analyzing artistic works at multiple levels?. The 'Room 237' film even mentions this obvious point- that these hidden subtexts, meanings and "clues" very well might not even be the intent of the artist. Methinks some critics and writers, might be quite ignorant about the subject of art analyses and appreciation in general. Take for example, Bob Dylan's 'Visions of Johanna.' This song can be interpreted on any number of levels. It's not even a matter of "my analysis is correct, and yours wrong." it simply lends itself to myriad interpretations and various meanings. This comes to mind as well- James Joyce is on record as making the following statement regarding his novel Ulysses - "This should keep intellectuals busy for the next two hundred years." Indeed it has. This is part of the fun and enjoyment of art, and would anyone disagree with this obvious fact? However, if such analyses are framed in such a way as "I've cracked the Da Vinci Code" then yes, that borders on ridiculous.
If any director is worthy of scholarly, detailed analysis, it is Kubrick. This Bronx-born, high school drop-out, self-taught/autodidact, with an IQ of 190, did the near impossible during the span of his career- He created films with mass audience and commercial appeal, and yet of the level and artistic significance of a Bergman, Fellini, or Antonioni film- Auteur directors much less accessible to the American movie going public and the causal moviegoer's palate. It's no wonder at all, that many of his fans would read deeper meanings into his films, than what might appear at the surface, and certainly it would be hard to argue that this type of mental exercise and detailed analysis would be a negative thing. History may prove me wrong, but I doubt there will ever be another Stanley Kubrick.