Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Reading too much into things...

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Reading too much into things... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 4:11:12 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23695
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W
You wot mate. I don't even know who you are, why would I have any interest in insulting you or whatever? baffling.

And I'm not accusing you of being a pleb at all (unless you're actually taking an honest critical debate to be someone making personal attacks on your intellect or whatever). You might notice that I specifically referred to your initial post - ie 'yes, really' - which is pretty dismissive-sounding to me. My point wasn't that you absolutely have to watch the film with that specific reading in mind - it was that if you're going to suggest that it isn't the primary reading for you as a viewer, you need to back that up with textual evidence and provide another valid interpretation, which you didn't. Again, I don't know why you'd take this as an attack on you personally when I said nothing about you and I don't know you personally.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 31
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 4:42:29 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

You wot mate. I don't even know who you are, why would I have any interest in insulting you or whatever? baffling.


Exactly. You don't know me. Yet despite my attempts to explain what I was saying you were accusing me of being wilfully dismissive and anti-intellectual. I thought that was unwarranted and patronising, and therefore insulting.

quote:

You might notice that I specifically referred to your initial post - ie 'yes, really' - which is pretty dismissive-sounding to me.


It probably did sound a bit dismissive. Which is why, when confronted, I attempted to explain myself in further posts, and I believe I did that.

quote:

if you're going to suggest that it isn't the primary reading for you as a viewer, you need to back that up with textual evidence and provide another valid interpretation, which you didn't.


What? If I don't see something a certain way the onus is on me to justify why? No. If I suggest my own reading, then I have an obligation to back it up. Once again, I am not dismissing those themes in Alien, they're quite obvious. I was talking about the sequel in which I didn't find those themes to be as relevant. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that, for this is about the third time I've said it.


< Message edited by DancingClown -- 14/10/2012 4:43:51 PM >


_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 32
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 4:52:17 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5059
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

You wot mate. I don't even know who you are, why would I have any interest in insulting you or whatever? baffling.

And I'm not accusing you of being a pleb at all (unless you're actually taking an honest critical debate to be someone making personal attacks on your intellect or whatever). You might notice that I specifically referred to your initial post - ie 'yes, really' - which is pretty dismissive-sounding to me. My point wasn't that you absolutely have to watch the film with that specific reading in mind - it was that if you're going to suggest that it isn't the primary reading for you as a viewer, you need to back that up with textual evidence and provide another valid interpretation, which you didn't. Again, I don't know why you'd take this as an attack on you personally when I said nothing about you and I don't know you personally.


Why?

< Message edited by horribleives -- 14/10/2012 4:53:11 PM >


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 33
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 5:02:26 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23695
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W
I didn't call you anti-intellectual - I said your post dismissed a valid critical interpretation without offering anything in its place. (and no, saying 'I just don't buy it' or extensions thereof is not explaining yourself.) The onus is on you to offer another interpretation because a debate is worthless otherwise. Me just saying I disagree with you is only half a debate - I need to say why I disagree and what my personal view is.

And as I said already (and a point you seem to be ignoring), your post is not you. A constructive exchange of ideas is not patronising, or an attack on you personally, or whatever else you want to call it. You making an issue out of me accusing you of 'anti-intellectualism' (your words as it happens, I haven't used them at any point), despite my only intention being to engage you in an on-topic discussion and get your opinion on what you felt to be the major themes of the film, smacks of someone who wants to be offended tbh. (It's also pretty patronising.)

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 34
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 5:04:00 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23695
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

You wot mate. I don't even know who you are, why would I have any interest in insulting you or whatever? baffling.

And I'm not accusing you of being a pleb at all (unless you're actually taking an honest critical debate to be someone making personal attacks on your intellect or whatever). You might notice that I specifically referred to your initial post - ie 'yes, really' - which is pretty dismissive-sounding to me. My point wasn't that you absolutely have to watch the film with that specific reading in mind - it was that if you're going to suggest that it isn't the primary reading for you as a viewer, you need to back that up with textual evidence and provide another valid interpretation, which you didn't. Again, I don't know why you'd take this as an attack on you personally when I said nothing about you and I don't know you personally.


Why?


What's the point in just saying 'I disagree' and leaving it at that?

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 35
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 5:05:47 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

You wot mate. I don't even know who you are, why would I have any interest in insulting you or whatever? baffling.

And I'm not accusing you of being a pleb at all (unless you're actually taking an honest critical debate to be someone making personal attacks on your intellect or whatever). You might notice that I specifically referred to your initial post - ie 'yes, really' - which is pretty dismissive-sounding to me. My point wasn't that you absolutely have to watch the film with that specific reading in mind - it was that if you're going to suggest that it isn't the primary reading for you as a viewer, you need to back that up with textual evidence and provide another valid interpretation, which you didn't. Again, I don't know why you'd take this as an attack on you personally when I said nothing about you and I don't know you personally.


Why?


What's the point in just saying 'I disagree' and leaving it at that?


What am I disagreeing with?

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 36
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 5:11:03 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23695
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

You wot mate. I don't even know who you are, why would I have any interest in insulting you or whatever? baffling.

And I'm not accusing you of being a pleb at all (unless you're actually taking an honest critical debate to be someone making personal attacks on your intellect or whatever). You might notice that I specifically referred to your initial post - ie 'yes, really' - which is pretty dismissive-sounding to me. My point wasn't that you absolutely have to watch the film with that specific reading in mind - it was that if you're going to suggest that it isn't the primary reading for you as a viewer, you need to back that up with textual evidence and provide another valid interpretation, which you didn't. Again, I don't know why you'd take this as an attack on you personally when I said nothing about you and I don't know you personally.


Why?


What's the point in just saying 'I disagree' and leaving it at that?


What am I disagreeing with?


The reading of Aliens as an interpretation of the male fear of female sexuality/the 'monstrous feminine' theory.


_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 37
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 5:23:22 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

You wot mate. I don't even know who you are, why would I have any interest in insulting you or whatever? baffling.

And I'm not accusing you of being a pleb at all (unless you're actually taking an honest critical debate to be someone making personal attacks on your intellect or whatever). You might notice that I specifically referred to your initial post - ie 'yes, really' - which is pretty dismissive-sounding to me. My point wasn't that you absolutely have to watch the film with that specific reading in mind - it was that if you're going to suggest that it isn't the primary reading for you as a viewer, you need to back that up with textual evidence and provide another valid interpretation, which you didn't. Again, I don't know why you'd take this as an attack on you personally when I said nothing about you and I don't know you personally.


Why?


What's the point in just saying 'I disagree' and leaving it at that?


What am I disagreeing with?


The reading of Aliens as an interpretation of the male fear of female sexuality/the 'monstrous feminine' theory.



I'm not saying I don't agree with it. It's there if you want it, although like I said I don't believe it to be as demonstrative as it is in the first film. Personally, I don't find it as relevant when I'm watching Aliens. That is all. I have said this many times, yet apparently I am obliged to present an alternative 'reading' which is nonsense. What I have said is not enough for you. What if I don't have an equally in-depth "reading" of Aliens that would serve as the perfect counter-argument? Maybe you'd have a point if I was dismissing it outright, which I am not, despite the curt nature of my first post - upon which I have subsequently and adequately expanded.

< Message edited by DancingClown -- 14/10/2012 5:29:24 PM >


_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 38
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 5:36:54 PM   
Scruffybobby

 

Posts: 4312
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: My House
quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

firstly, I'm not sure how Ridley can be considered the key contributor to the film (other than on a technical level) when O'Bannon wrote the screenplay, O'Bannon and Ron Shusett came up with the story, and H.R. Giger was responsible for the art design. His reading certainly has validity (the same way any reading has validity) as he was the key figure in putting it on screen, but he's certainly not a central authority on what themes the writers wanted to pursue.

Either way, that quote doesn't actually contradict the previous quotation - there is nothing 'intellectual' about the themes we're discussing. We're talking about very basic and primal fears of a sexual unknown, so Ridley saying that it works on a visceral level is not contradicting this.

Finally, even if he was saying 'THIS IMAGERY IS NOT SYMBOLIC OF ANYTHING IN ALIEN' etc, I'd say he's completely wrong because it goes against the whole point of rewatching and analysing films with the thematic content to sustain such a reading. 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).



Well I suppose that depends on how much you buy into the auteur theory, which I don't much but I do think it's valid to consider Scott a key contributor which is what I called him.

True it doesn't actually contradict the ideas re sexual fears or whatever but it does speak to the notion that a viewer can perhaps "read too much into things". The film's director is saying that it's purely about primal fears. Analysing what makes something scary can actually dilute that scariness. Maybe it's better just to know that a film does scare us than to know why.

I would suggest  that in looking to analyse any film you  intellectualising it. There's nothing wrong it doing that but I think it can lead people to see things that aren't necessarily there.  I can see clear elements of sexual fear and dread in Alien but that's only because I'm looking for them. I can't honestly say I'd see them if I'd never heard of that analysis. I can't say I wouldn't either' In the same way that I can see the "gay" subtext (or even just Text) in Top Gun if I'm looking for it.  It certainly never occurred to me until I became aware of the notion in the mid/late 90's. 

This can very much depend on your agenda conscious or unconscious It's very hard to view a film whether for the first time or the hundreth without all kinds of things informing your experience of  and reaction to the film be it your own experiences, expectations or opionions or those that  influenced by what you have heard or read from others.

Then again you can probably make just about any film be about anything you want it to be. That's certainly true of the interpretation of Jaws in the original post. I can't see how anyone could produce such a political reading of the film without really trying hard  to fit it into one. It's just about a big fuck off fish that eats people.




< Message edited by Scruffybobby -- 14/10/2012 5:39:19 PM >


_____________________________

I want to taste you like yogurt.

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 39
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 6:56:31 PM   
will1000

 

Posts: 1793
Joined: 8/10/2005
There is a fantastic book called 'The Abide Guide'



It takes a VERY in depth look at the hidden meanings and messages in The Big Lebowski which has really made me look at the film in a different light. It's still an awesome film, but now I can appreciate in ways I hadn't before. It's all very zen!

I don't really have any other arguments or comments...I just wanted to change the subject from Aliens.

(in reply to Scruffybobby)
Post #: 40
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 7:33:57 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scruffybobby

Well I suppose that depends on how much you buy into the auteur theory, which I don't much but I do think it's valid to consider Scott a key contributor which is what I called him.

True it doesn't actually contradict the ideas re sexual fears or whatever but it does speak to the notion that a viewer can perhaps "read too much into things". The film's director is saying that it's purely about primal fears. Analysing what makes something scary can actually dilute that scariness. Maybe it's better just to know that a film does scare us than to know why.


Autuer theory works for some, but not for others. von Trier is fine, most of Raimi's work probably not. For Scott, I don't think it applies unless you don't call him "a creator of worlds". Also, how does seeing what type of primal fear scares us dilute the fear we are experiencing? I just can't see how one destroys the other and how it dilutes Alien.

quote:


I would suggest that in looking to analyse any film you intellectualising it. There's nothing wrong it doing that but I think it can lead people to see things that aren't necessarily there. I can see clear elements of sexual fear and dread in Alien but that's only because I'm looking for them. I can't honestly say I'd see them if I'd never heard of that analysis. I can't say I wouldn't either' In the same way that I can see the "gay" subtext (or even just Text) in Top Gun if I'm looking for it. It certainly never occurred to me until I became aware of the notion in the mid/late 90's.


But this is not even analysis nor intellectualising it, this not subtext, this is text. It's there as much as the Christian themes are clearly in Narnia. They're as much there as much as the Bolshevik/French Revolution themes (and A Tale of Two Cities) were in TDKR, or references to War on Terror in TDK, and they are constantly being referenced. You can watch it without seeing them and just for fun, but that doesn't deny THEY ARE THERE.

quote:

This can very much depend on your agenda conscious or unconscious It's very hard to view a film whether for the first time or the hundreth without all kinds of things informing your experience of and reaction to the film be it your own experiences, expectations or opionions or those that influenced by what you have heard or read from others.

Then again you can probably make just about any film be about anything you want it to be. That's certainly true of the interpretation of Jaws in the original post. I can't see how anyone could produce such a political reading of the film without really trying hard to fit it into one. It's just about a big fuck off fish that eats people.


Not necessarily, the film itself might make a direct reference to what it is referencing and what it wants to reference. Your own experience or opinion does not mean it cannot be fallacious. Your opinion is still not indisputable truth.








_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Scruffybobby)
Post #: 41
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 9:10:12 PM   
Scott_

 

Posts: 4154
Joined: 26/6/2008
From: Leeds
All that sexual fear subtext Aliens is something I've not once thought about whilst watching it, Alien is monster hunts humans for me. Subtext is fine, people take what they want from films and thats why we are fans right? Saying that though, I do think you get the odd case where people are looking for a message that just isn't there. Me? Subtext completely goes over my head every time unless somebody points it out beforehand or I read about it somewhere. T'is why I rarely have anything interesting to say...

_____________________________

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

Check out my top 21 films - http://www.empireonline.com/forum/tm.asp?m=3188740

360 Gamertag - SmokinFuzz

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 42
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 9:24:33 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Not so much Aliens as Aliens has femminity going on (Ripley becoming a motherly role fighting what? THE BIG ALIEN MAMMA) and some Vietnam motifs, but Alien did and they did return in Alien 3. There's a difference between Alien, a film where Bannon has accepted the fear, Scott alluded to primal fears (whatever that is) and hiring none other than the guy who constantly draws some very sexualized drawings who already drew a lot of sexualized drawings for Dune, which was going to be directing for a man who deals in symbolic sexual imagery, which strongly tends to imply to something mentioned above, to Jaws as a political metaphor of the sort Spielberg never indulged in.

There's saying that Reservior Dogs is a Holocuast metaphor, than there's the above.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 14/10/2012 9:27:42 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Scott_)
Post #: 43
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 9:30:07 PM   
homersimpson_esq


Posts: 20118
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield
I like the reading of Groundhog Day as a representation of the Buddhist philosophy. Stuck in an eternal loop of repeating days (the cycle of birth, death and rebirth known as "samsara"), Phil must work to improve his life ("karmic balance"). Only once he has done this can he finally move on to the day after groundhog day (attain "nirvana"). It's a perfect match.


_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


Bristol Bad Film Club
A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 44
RE: Reading too much into things... - 14/10/2012 9:47:01 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010
How long does Phil Conners keep re-living Groundhog Day? I reckon it's hundreds if not thousands of years. All that accumulated knowledge about EVERYONE. All those highly specialised skills each would take a lifetime to master. Then there's that haunting line about God not being omniscient, just very old...

Groundhog Day must be one of those movies that theses have been written about and entire college courses have been dedicated to. I can't think of another film more open to interpretation, each as valid as the other. Although I do like the Karma one. The BFI Modern Classic on it makes fascinating (if over-priced) reading.

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 45
RE: Reading too much into things... - 15/10/2012 12:34:09 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 367
Joined: 11/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

How long does Phil Conners keep re-living Groundhog Day? I reckon it's hundreds if not thousands of years. All that accumulated knowledge about EVERYONE. All those highly specialised skills each would take a lifetime to master. Then there's that haunting line about God not being omniscient, just very old...

Groundhog Day must be one of those movies that theses have been written about and entire college courses have been dedicated to. I can't think of another film more open to interpretation, each as valid as the other. Although I do like the Karma one. The BFI Modern Classic on it makes fascinating (if over-priced) reading.


Apparently the screenplay specifies he was there for 10,000 years (click)!

That link leads to another article from 2011 that contains a dead link though. Either way, the main link contains this info:

"But even if we ignore the script, Phil still has to be incredibly old. Consider the fact that by the end of the movie, he's an expert piano player, French speaker, ice sculptor and bank robber, among other things, none of which he could do before being trapped in the time loop. Psychologists have determined that you need "10,000 hours of deliberate practice, usually under expert tutelage" to become an expert in something -- Phil didn't have expert tutelage (the piano teacher, for instance, couldn't keep up with him after a while), plus he could only practice these things for limited hours every day, and he was in no hurry anyway. He has to be a few hundred years old, at least."

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 46
RE: Reading too much into things... - 15/10/2012 12:58:08 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
There is also another, very interesting, Groundhog Day theory that Ned Ryserson is also experiencing his own Groundhog Day.

Anyway, sometimes stuff can be read into it and sometimes it can't. Sometimes it holds water, sometimes it doesn't.

I can't remember what film it is, but there is one that has a lot read into it over the years, but on the commentary both the director and writer said "no, the film is just what it is and what you see on screen - there is no sub-text".

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to FoximusPrime)
Post #: 47
RE: Reading too much into things... - 15/10/2012 1:31:14 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

There is also another, very interesting, Groundhog Day theory that Ned Ryserson is also experiencing his own Groundhog Day.



Yeah, I never quite bought that one. If that were 'true' then why does Ned always act like he's seeing Phil for the first time?

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 48
RE: Reading too much into things... - 15/10/2012 1:41:57 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown
quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

There is also another, very interesting, Groundhog Day theory that Ned Ryserson is also experiencing his own Groundhog Day.



Yeah, I never quite bought that one. If that were 'true' then why does Ned always act like he's seeing Phil for the first time?


It's been a while since I read the theory or watched the film, but, if memory (of the theory, as opposed to the film) serves, there are slight differences in his approach each time, his reactions to Phil can be read that he (Ned) realises there's something a bit weird going on, and the fact that Ned tries quite hard to, in his eyes, do right by Phil (cheap insurance, deep puddle, etc etc). Plus, I'm pretty sure that the theory was first hinted at by Harold Ramis himself in some interview. But like I said, I've not watched the film for a few years, so my specific recall of Ned's scenes is ropey at best.

There is another-nother even more outlandish theory that the whole town is experiencing Groundhog Day, but I think there's more than enough evidence to poo-poo that.

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 49
RE: Reading too much into things... - 15/10/2012 1:44:54 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
Maybe the groundhog himself is experiencing Groundhog Day! That would be awesome.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 50
RE: Reading too much into things... - 15/10/2012 1:50:16 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown
Maybe the groundhog himself is experiencing Groundhog Day! That would be awesome.


Not sure if I'm mis-remembering/making it up, but now you say that I think the whole town theory came about cos, during that scene, someone other than Phil says something like "we've ALL seen this a hundred times before" or something. No?

Can anyone confirm or deny?

I'm probably applying the film to the theory now, not vice versa.

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 51
RE: Reading too much into things... - 15/10/2012 7:33:36 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010
I love that Usual Suspects director Bryan Singer and scriptwriter Christopher McQuarrie both "know" who Keyser Soze is, but it's not the same person! Also, star Gabriel Byrne was convinced that he was Keyser Soze until he actually saw the film. If that doesn't "prove" there are no right or wrong answers then I don't know what does.

< Message edited by chris kilby -- 15/10/2012 7:36:18 PM >

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 52
RE: Reading too much into things... - 15/10/2012 10:00:45 PM   
Scruffybobby

 

Posts: 4312
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: My House
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation


Autuer theory works for some, but not for others. von Trier is fine, most of Raimi's work probably not. For Scott, I don't think it applies unless you don't call him "a creator of worlds". Also, how does seeing what type of primal fear scares us dilute the fear we are experiencing? I just can't see how one destroys the other and how it dilutes Alien.



Well like I said I don't particularly but into it. But whatver you think about that. Scott was a key creative force in the film and the quite form him did suggest his take on the film was different to the genearrly accepted one. As for diluting the fear factor I don't know about others but for me it does reduce it somewhat if I look at things in a analytical way. Isn't that one of the ways to treat a  phobia ?

quote:


But this is not even analysis nor intellectualising it, this not subtext, this is text. It's there as much as the Christian themes are clearly in Narnia. They're as much there as much as the Bolshevik/French Revolution themes (and A Tale of Two Cities) were in TDKR, or references to War on Terror in TDK, and they are constantly being referenced. You can watch it without seeing them and just for fun, but that doesn't deny THEY ARE THERE.


But in order to see them you'd have to have a familiarity with that area of history and / or Dickens' novel which not everyone has. How you see the allegory re terroism depends again on your own knowledge of current events or practices like rendition.  Like I say your interpretation of what is on screen is informed by what you know of the world and your own beliefs and values. It can alos be informed by those of others that you have read or heard.

quote:


Not necessarily, the film itself might make a direct reference to what it is referencing and what it wants to reference. Your own experience or opinion does not mean it cannot be fallacious. Your opinion is still not indisputable truth.



Which is kind of the point I'm making. If film is directly referencing something or cutting out subtext and going straight for text then fair enough it can be taken at face value but it does take a bit of a stretch to find such social or political allegory in Jaws .


_____________________________

I want to taste you like yogurt.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 53
RE: Reading too much into things... - 15/10/2012 10:16:47 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010
Spielberg did indeed go out of his way to, er, fillet anything remotely political, criminal or sexual from Benchley's fecking awful book* (Robert Shaw rightly called it "a piece of shit written by a committee"), although inevitably there is still something undeniably Nixonian about Murray Hamilton's deliriously shifty Mayor.

(Jaws has gotta be the greatest silk purse ever made out of a sow's arse in the history of the cinema. Although, admittedly, I've never read The Godfather.)








* Kurt Vonnegut once proposed three categories of books for the purposes of best seller lists - fiction, non-fiction and blivits. When he was a kid, a blivit was "two pounds of shit in a one pound bag." I think he meant books like Jaws.

< Message edited by chris kilby -- 15/10/2012 10:22:16 PM >

(in reply to Scruffybobby)
Post #: 54
RE: Reading too much into things... - 16/10/2012 2:06:08 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
I had been resisting investigating any of this stuff:

THE SHINING - CLICK

Well, I...I just...I dunno...

< Message edited by DancingClown -- 16/10/2012 2:07:19 PM >


_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 55
RE: Reading too much into things... - 16/10/2012 2:24:55 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5059
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
I much prefer the 'Orson Welles KIlled The Black Dahlia' theory.

< Message edited by horribleives -- 16/10/2012 2:25:26 PM >


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 56
RE: Reading too much into things... - 16/10/2012 2:40:24 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
I haven't heard about that one.

As regards the Kubrick faked the moon-landing and revealed it in The Shining theory, well...for a few minutes I thought there were some compelling points, such as the reasoning for changing the room number to 237 and the pattern on the carpet that Danny plays on while he's wearing that jumper with the Apollo rocket on it - interesting stuff. But then the guy says that the "All" in "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" signifies Apollo 11 abbreviated. Hmmm....

And then Halloran symbolises someone that Kubrick told about his secret and this guy needed to therefore be killed? Hmmm...

And Jack (Kubrick) wakes up in the pantry surrounded by boxes with 000039 written on them? (Landing pad 39) Well, if by boxes you mean ONE box, well....that's just a stretch too far.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 57
RE: Reading too much into things... - 16/10/2012 2:48:56 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5059
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
Putting aside the crackers stuff, I haven't seen Room 237 yet but I'm intrigued by the native american/holocaust theories.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 58
RE: Reading too much into things... - 16/10/2012 4:35:19 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scruffybobby

Well like I said I don't particularly but into it. But whatver you think about that. Scott was a key creative force in the film and the quite form him did suggest his take on the film was different to the genearrly accepted one. As for diluting the fear factor I don't know about others but for me it does reduce it somewhat if I look at things in a analytical way. Isn't that one of the ways to treat a phobia ?


But Scott, as important a factor he was for that film, did not exactly write the entire script nor create the designs. Even on his part, it would be bizarre that he didn't accept it since he still kept none other than HR Giger's designs on the film, most of Bannon's script and even repeated some of the sexuality and pregnancy in Prometheus. His viewing of it being "primal fear" and it being "sex" don't exactly contradict each other in any way either, Scott just keeps it to an abstraction that possibly means nothing by the end of it.

Also, personally I still can't see it how it reduces the fear in Alien. Specifying a fear does not destroy and it is as far away from being analytical as I am from the Andromeda Galaxy. This isn't explaining why sexuality can be fearsome, but showing that it can be fearsome.
quote:


But in order to see them you'd have to have a familiarity with that area of history and / or Dickens' novel which not everyone has. How you see the allegory re terroism depends again on your own knowledge of current events or practices like rendition. Like I say your interpretation of what is on screen is informed by what you know of the world and your own beliefs and values. It can alos be informed by those of others that you have read or heard.


But my interpretation is still stronger than others because the film is making not just winks but direct references to it. Juno Temple saying that everything belongs to everyone now is a direct reference to the revolutions. Bruce Wayne's condition in TDK is a direct reference to that of a character in A Tale of two Cities. Then, that is reinforced with the Nolans saying "Yes that's what we did".

http://collider.com/dark-knight-rises-tale-of-two-cities/178106/

Not every interpretation is great and not every interpretation is bad, with the most abstract films (say, something by Bresson) it can become almost impossible to see which is true, but there are those who thanks to having more knowledge on the material the film is dealing with and how it was made, or by reading interpretations which seem closer to what the film is doing and seems on the right track, may be much stronger than others. Not all interpretations are right. The Jaws one mentioned here is a case of an interpretation being nonsense because there is nothing in the film to properly suggest that and nothing in any of the craftsmen work involved in Jaws that shows that they ever did that shit in that way. With Alien, that differs greatly.


quote:


Which is kind of the point I'm making. If film is directly referencing something or cutting out subtext and going straight for text then fair enough it can be taken at face value but it does take a bit of a stretch to find such social or political allegory in Jaws .



That's true with Jaws, I agree, but with Alien it comes out as rather different, the evidence to "Alien is playing around with fears of pregnancy and sex" are far stronger than "Jaws is a political allegory".


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Scruffybobby)
Post #: 59
RE: Reading too much into things... - 16/10/2012 5:03:32 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Putting aside the crackers stuff, I haven't seen Room 237 yet but I'm intrigued by the native american/holocaust theories.


Yeah, there could be some proper meat there.

I just realised that it's all very well for me to say, "oh, yeah there were a couple of good points" previously but in order to buy any of it you have to believe that the moon landings were faked in the first place, which I don't, so my opinion on the matter seems moot. If Kubrick was only trying to say that he believed the landing was faked, and not that he had anything to do with it, at least there could be room for that interpretation. But to believe that they were faked AND that Kubrick was confessing with The Shining is just one conspiracy theory too far.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Reading too much into things... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125