quote:



Fredric Jameson's Marxist analysis highlights the polysemy of the shark and the multiple ways in which it can be and has been read—from representing alien menaces such as communism or the Third World to more intimate dreads concerning the unreality of contemporary American life and the vain efforts to sanitize and suppress the knowledge of death. He asserts that its symbolic function is to be found in this very "polysemousness which is profoundly ideological, insofar as it allows essentially social and historical anxieties to be folded back into apparently 'natural' ones ... to be recontained in what looks like a conflict with other forms of biological existence." He views Quint's demise as the symbolic overthrow of an old, populist, New Deal America and Brody and Hooper's partnership as an "allegory of an alliance between the forces of law-and-order and the new technocracy of the multinational corporations ... in which the viewer rejoices without understanding that he or she is excluded from it."

quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

So I came across this

quote:



Fredric Jameson's Marxist analysis highlights the polysemy of the shark and the multiple ways in which it can be and has been read—from representing alien menaces such as communism or the Third World to more intimate dreads concerning the unreality of contemporary American life and the vain efforts to sanitize and suppress the knowledge of death. He asserts that its symbolic function is to be found in this very "polysemousness which is profoundly ideological, insofar as it allows essentially social and historical anxieties to be folded back into apparently 'natural' ones ... to be recontained in what looks like a conflict with other forms of biological existence." He views Quint's demise as the symbolic overthrow of an old, populist, New Deal America and Brody and Hooper's partnership as an "allegory of an alliance between the forces of law-and-order and the new technocracy of the multinational corporations ... in which the viewer rejoices without understanding that he or she is excluded from it."

I mean.... really? What? Anyone ever seen anything else quite this straight up crazy? Anyone actually have weird movie theories or think any of that adds up, I mean at all.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhubarb

Well that at least keeps Bane scary to the end, instead of being undone by that twist so you think "aww Bane you big softie, awwww give me a hug"

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

So I came across this

quote:



Fredric Jameson's Marxist analysis highlights the polysemy of the shark and the multiple ways in which it can be and has been read—from representing alien menaces such as communism or the Third World to more intimate dreads concerning the unreality of contemporary American life and the vain efforts to sanitize and suppress the knowledge of death. He asserts that its symbolic function is to be found in this very "polysemousness which is profoundly ideological, insofar as it allows essentially social and historical anxieties to be folded back into apparently 'natural' ones ... to be recontained in what looks like a conflict with other forms of biological existence." He views Quint's demise as the symbolic overthrow of an old, populist, New Deal America and Brody and Hooper's partnership as an "allegory of an alliance between the forces of law-and-order and the new technocracy of the multinational corporations ... in which the viewer rejoices without understanding that he or she is excluded from it."

I mean.... really? What? Anyone ever seen anything else quite this straight up crazy? Anyone actually have weird movie theories or think any of that adds up, I mean at all.....

For some people the shark is a vagina with teeth - yes, a vagina with teeth (vagina d'entarte) - symbolising the male fear of female sexuality; this kind of "monstrous feminine" theory has also been applied to Aliens. Yes, really.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

So I came across this

quote:



Fredric Jameson's Marxist analysis highlights the polysemy of the shark and the multiple ways in which it can be and has been read—from representing alien menaces such as communism or the Third World to more intimate dreads concerning the unreality of contemporary American life and the vain efforts to sanitize and suppress the knowledge of death. He asserts that its symbolic function is to be found in this very "polysemousness which is profoundly ideological, insofar as it allows essentially social and historical anxieties to be folded back into apparently 'natural' ones ... to be recontained in what looks like a conflict with other forms of biological existence." He views Quint's demise as the symbolic overthrow of an old, populist, New Deal America and Brody and Hooper's partnership as an "allegory of an alliance between the forces of law-and-order and the new technocracy of the multinational corporations ... in which the viewer rejoices without understanding that he or she is excluded from it."

I mean.... really? What? Anyone ever seen anything else quite this straight up crazy? Anyone actually have weird movie theories or think any of that adds up, I mean at all.....

For some people the shark is a vagina with teeth - yes, a vagina with teeth (vagina d'entarte) - symbolising the male fear of female sexuality; this kind of "monstrous feminine" theory has also been applied to Aliens. Yes, really.

If you honestly think that it's a stretch to find that subtext in Aliens, I don't know what to say really.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

So I came across this

quote:



Fredric Jameson's Marxist analysis highlights the polysemy of the shark and the multiple ways in which it can be and has been read—from representing alien menaces such as communism or the Third World to more intimate dreads concerning the unreality of contemporary American life and the vain efforts to sanitize and suppress the knowledge of death. He asserts that its symbolic function is to be found in this very "polysemousness which is profoundly ideological, insofar as it allows essentially social and historical anxieties to be folded back into apparently 'natural' ones ... to be recontained in what looks like a conflict with other forms of biological existence." He views Quint's demise as the symbolic overthrow of an old, populist, New Deal America and Brody and Hooper's partnership as an "allegory of an alliance between the forces of law-and-order and the new technocracy of the multinational corporations ... in which the viewer rejoices without understanding that he or she is excluded from it."

I mean.... really? What? Anyone ever seen anything else quite this straight up crazy? Anyone actually have weird movie theories or think any of that adds up, I mean at all.....

For some people the shark is a vagina with teeth - yes, a vagina with teeth (vagina d'entarte) - symbolising the male fear of female sexuality; this kind of "monstrous feminine" theory has also been applied to Aliens. Yes, really.

If you honestly think that it's a stretch to find that subtext in Aliens, I don't know what to say really.

I don't think it's a stretch, I just don't necessarily buy it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

I don't think it's a stretch, I just don't necessarily buy it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles B. Potatoes

It's overt. It's not a question of you buying it, it's the point of the Alien.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

Dan O'Bannon on Alien: "One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex... I said 'That's how I'm going to attack the audience; I'm going to attack them sexually. And I'm not going to go after the women in the audience, I'm going to attack the men. I am going to put in every image I can think of to make the men in the audience cross their legs. Homosexual oral rape, birth. The thing lays its eggs down your throat, the whole number.'"

quote:

We're not even talking about an audience interpretation in this case - the whole series revolves around sexual imagery (there's a fairly overt sexual disease/AIDS allegory running through Alien3 as well) and as the quote above shows, that was explicitly what the creators set out to make. If anything, it's more of a wilful misreading of the text to suggest there *isn't* that subtext.

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

Not as huge into detail as that but a friend of mine was convinced in The Dark Knight Rises that



SPOILER




Bane was a paedophile and raped Talia as a child which then led to their twisted romance. I thought, I know you like your films gritty mate but no. Just...no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhubarb

Well that at least keeps Bane scary to the end, instead of being undone by that twist so you think "aww Bane you big softie, awwww give me a hug"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

I don't personally think reading too much into something is a bad thing. The filmmaker goes on a personal journey when they make the film, and the viewer does the same when they view it, whatever they make of it or read into it is a personal experience for them.

I'm slightly suspicious of anyone who claims to be an absolute authority on someone else's work, it seems more like a case of trying to be the loudest voice in the room sometimes.

Granted, I do have my limits sometimes If someone claims to be seeing the most batshit insane of ideas within a film then great, as long as they can point out what they're seeing and when it's justified, but if they start making up fanfiction to justify themselves then I think they're a snowball short of an avalanche.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

So I came across this

quote:



Fredric Jameson's Marxist analysis highlights the polysemy of the shark and the multiple ways in which it can be and has been read—from representing alien menaces such as communism or the Third World to more intimate dreads concerning the unreality of contemporary American life and the vain efforts to sanitize and suppress the knowledge of death. He asserts that its symbolic function is to be found in this very "polysemousness which is profoundly ideological, insofar as it allows essentially social and historical anxieties to be folded back into apparently 'natural' ones ... to be recontained in what looks like a conflict with other forms of biological existence." He views Quint's demise as the symbolic overthrow of an old, populist, New Deal America and Brody and Hooper's partnership as an "allegory of an alliance between the forces of law-and-order and the new technocracy of the multinational corporations ... in which the viewer rejoices without understanding that he or she is excluded from it."

I mean.... really? What? Anyone ever seen anything else quite this straight up crazy? Anyone actually have weird movie theories or think any of that adds up, I mean at all.....

For some people the shark is a vagina with teeth - yes, a vagina with teeth (vagina d'entarte) - symbolising the male fear of female sexuality; this kind of "monstrous feminine" theory has also been applied to Aliens. Yes, really.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhubarb

The thing about overinterpretation is that they are often funny - you can watch it and wryly laugh at the faux-subtext and move on, it doesn't really break up your enjoyment of the film (at least for me). I was watching the original King Kong the other day, and the racist subtext (big black savage comes to the west, steals the white woman which he can't resist, reeks havoc etc) is obvious, but its entertaining to take it further - for example when he's climbling the Empire State Building, this is clearly a metaphor for the black working class trying to climb up the social ladder only to be gunned down by the white elite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

Interesting that this thread has popped up on the eve of the release of Room 237, a documentary which explores some of the more outlandish theories concerned with The Shining. I actually buy in to one of the theories completely, and was surprised to find (upon viewing Room 237) that it wasn't the accepted reading of the film. It revolves around this idea that the film is an analogy for the way in which the Native American's were treated by the Europeans that "discovered" the continent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

I don't think it's a stretch, I just don't necessarily buy it.

Dan O'Bannon on Alien: "One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex... I said 'That's how I'm going to attack the audience; I'm going to attack them sexually. And I'm not going to go after the women in the audience, I'm going to attack the men. I am going to put in every image I can think of to make the men in the audience cross their legs. Homosexual oral rape, birth. The thing lays its eggs down your throat, the whole number.'"

We're not even talking about an audience interpretation in this case - the whole series revolves around sexual imagery (there's a fairly overt sexual disease/AIDS allegory running through Alien3 as well) and as the quote above shows, that was explicitly what the creators set out to make. If anything, it's more of a wilful misreading of the text to suggest there *isn't* that subtext.

though more general point for the thread - I don't think there are definitively 'good' and 'bad' readings of any film/book/etc. There are however plenty of readings that don't have much textual content to back them up, or readings that take an element of the text out of context to support a pre-existing thesis (the TDKR one mentioned above being an example).

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49 (via Gizoogle)

Gentleman, please - could our crazy-ass asses leave dis thread ta gangstas wantin ta say shit bout a funky-ass bad film?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scruffybobby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

I don't think it's a stretch, I just don't necessarily buy it.

Dan O'Bannon on Alien: "One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex... I said 'That's how I'm going to attack the audience; I'm going to attack them sexually. And I'm not going to go after the women in the audience, I'm going to attack the men. I am going to put in every image I can think of to make the men in the audience cross their legs. Homosexual oral rape, birth. The thing lays its eggs down your throat, the whole number.'"

We're not even talking about an audience interpretation in this case - the whole series revolves around sexual imagery (there's a fairly overt sexual disease/AIDS allegory running through Alien3 as well) and as the quote above shows, that was explicitly what the creators set out to make. If anything, it's more of a wilful misreading of the text to suggest there *isn't* that subtext.

though more general point for the thread - I don't think there are definitively 'good' and 'bad' readings of any film/book/etc. There are however plenty of readings that don't have much textual content to back them up, or readings that take an element of the text out of context to support a pre-existing thesis (the TDKR one mentioned above being an example).

Then again there's this from Ridley Scott (from an Alien retrospective in Neon magazine scanned HERE)

"There's nothing very intellectual about Alien. That's the point of the film. It has absolutely no message. It works on a visceral level - and its only point is terror"

If one of - if not the - key contributors to the film says there's nothing much to the film it seems quite valid to me that someone watching it might consider the whole "male fear of female sexuality" thing to be so much bunkum.

It really is about your own interpretation. Mark Kermode is very big on this  saying something like "trust the tale not the teller". As much as the film makers may be trying to convey one thing the viewer can see something totally different and they're both right - or both wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf
I'm not fascistic about authorial intention or anything - anyone who offers an interpretation of a film that intelligently uses the material to support it is fine with me. The post I initially responded to wasn't doing that though, it's doing the opposite (dismissing a valid reading of a text does not constitute a valid interpretation in and of itself).

quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.