Deep Inner Meaning

[aruvqan]

Am I the only person in the world that can watch a movie and NOT look for deep inner meaning, reshuffle the letters in characters names into words and phrases with deep inner meaning ... look at the costuming without seeing deep inner meaning?

I have been reading the movie threads in the dope, and some of the forums on IMDB ... I swear there is a group of posters on the IMDB that make wordplay with character names looking for super secret deep inner meaning phrases...I was looking at specifically At the Mouth of Madness ...

Dudes, it is a freaking horror movie based on H P Lovecraftian memes ... John Carpenter was out to make a buck, the writers were out to make a buck, the actors were out to make a buck ... Horror movies were popular that year...

Ferris Bueller was out to have fun, skip school and maybe get laid ... the Breakfast Club were sitting through detention and trying to amuse themselves.

Deal with it, sometimes a movie is just a movie .... the studios want to make some money, not make deep inner meaning.

[Lumpy]

I wouldn't worry about it. If there is a Deep Inner Meaning, you should get it- or not. Trying to "decode" a subtext misses the point, it wouldn't be meant to be appreciated on that level.

[The Hamster King]

Trying to "decode" a subtext misses the point, it wouldn't be meant to be appreciated on that level.Who cares what the creator meant?

A work of art is like a ball. There are lots of different ways to play with it. One person might bounce it up and down, someone else might throw it against the wall, two other people might use it to play catch.

What is the right way to play with a ball?

That doesn't mean that properties of the ball itself are immaterial. Soccer balls lend themselves to certain types of games. Baseballs lend themselves to others. And don't even get me started with hockey pucks.

But the fact that a ball might have been manufactured with a particular game in mind doesn't mean you're required to play it. What if my friends and I construct a set of rules that allows us to have fun by rolling a hockey puck down a hill to see how far it goes? The fact that a hockey puck can be used like that is kind of interesting, even though the manufacturer never envisioned it being used that way.

All movies allow a wide range of different ways to experience them. Some of those ways were intended by their creators, but many others weren't. Constructing a framework that allows you to "play" with a movie in a new way is fun, just like figuring out a new set of rules to play with a ball is fun.

[Khadaji]

I have said in other threads that I'm pretty shallow when it comes to movies - my only requirement - and my only goal in going - is to come away feeling good.

So yeah, I hardly ever look for a deeper meaning.

[aruvqan]

I have said in other threads that I'm pretty shallow when it comes to movies - my only requirement - and my only goal in going - is to come away feeling good.

So yeah, I hardly ever look for a deeper meaning.

So what is your 'comfort food' movie .... one movie that you will want to watch if you aren't feeling good, or don't want to have to think about anything? Mine is Buckaroo Banzai because it is pure cheese, if I am ill and want brainless amusement and M by Fritz Lang if I want to enjoy a good noir ...

[C K Dexter Haven]

I have said in other threads that I'm pretty shallow when it comes to movies - my only requirement - and my only goal in going - is to come away feeling good.
So yeah, I hardly ever look for a deeper meaning.Whether you look for it or not, I suggest that movies that DO have a deeper meaning are the ones you can watch over and over and again. There are some movie that you look at once and enjoy, and that's it. You can't watch it a second time, it's boring. There are others that you watch over and over, and still enjoy them. This is often because that movie has deeper levels (whether you want to call them "meanings" is irrelevant, but deeper levels of understanding, certainly.)

By analogy: within the murder-mystery genre, I read an Agatha Christie novel once, and that's it. OK,Yeah, I might be able to read it ten years later when I've forgot the plot, but that's all there is. On the other hand, I can read the same Dorothy Sayers novel several times.

[Khadaji]

aruvqan, I don't really have one I guess. I used to watch The Princess Bride with friends way back in the day, but I don't have anything that I put on over and over now.

C K Dexter Haven, I'm not saying movies never have deeper meanings, but it isn't a requirement for my enjoyment. Having said that, I am not one to re-watch movies much. On a lazy day I might watch parts of a movie I've seen before, but I can't remember when I last sat through an entire movie that I had already seen.

[Thudlow Boink]

Am I the only person in the world that can watch a movie and NOT look for deep inner meaningIt's not that everybody watches for the deeper, less obvious stuff; it's that the ones who do are the ones you tend to hear from, because it gives them something to talk about.

[De La Rue]

Well, occasionally creators intend a deeper meaning. Some stuff works on several levels, from obvious to subtle. On the other hand, if someone really reaches in their interpretation and goes beyond the subtle to incredibly convoluted, there's probably no meaning except the one they invented.

[aruvqan]

Well, occasionally creators intend a deeper meaning. Some stuff works on several levels, from obvious to subtle. On the other hand, if someone really reaches in their interpretation and goes beyond the subtle to incredibly convoluted, there's probably no meaning except the one they invented.

My perfect example of this sort of film wankery is in a comedy - The Freshman (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099615/) matthew Broderick is playing a guy off to college, film school of all things. Paul Benedict plays the film professor. He seems to think that The Godfather is the worlds greatest film, and there are several hysterical scenes in class where they are watching and discussing the movie .... he literally treats the movie like some deep secret enlightenment.

There seem to be a number of films that people worship - The Godfather, Apocalypse Now being two of them. I have serious trouble staying awake through Apocalypse Now - the favored name for the movie in my circle of friends is PorkLipz Now as we really cant figure out why people seem to worship it. It is stultifyingly boring and one time I actually watched it with the reels out of order, and it made as much sense as watching it in order. The Godfather is about mobsters. People kill other people, make deals and try to kill more people. Meh. Puzo wrote the book to make money, the studio made the movie to make money.

[The Hamster King]

On the other hand, if someone really reaches in their interpretation and goes beyond the subtle to incredibly convoluted, there's probably no meaning except the one they invented.What's wrong with that?

[Wendell Wagner]

So, aruvqan, you're saying that if you and your circle of friends don't happen to see a particular meaning in a film, it isn't there?

[The Hamster King]

The Godfather is about mobsters. People kill other people, make deals and try to kill more people.If you approach a work merely as a sequence of events, most narrative is boring. The depth comes from the opportunities that the story provides for extended rumination. What were Michael's motivations? How do our family ties determine our fate? Can a criminal be tragic ... or even noble?

The Godfather is not Transformers. If you just sit there passively and expect to be entertained by thrilling chase scenes and explosions, you're going to be disappointed. Enjoying The Godfather requires that you do a little work to get inside the character's heads and try to puzzle out their actions.

Puzo wrote the book to make money, the studio made the movie to make money.Why is this a bad thing?

[De La Rue]

What's wrong with that?

Nothing in jest, of course (I myself have interpreted "I Am the Walrus" as being about an alien invasion). However, a serious specious interpretation shouldn't be put forth as fact.

[The Hamster King]

However, a serious specious interpretation shouldn't be put forth as fact.What makes an interpretation "specious"? Is it merely an interpretation that the author didn't intend?

What do we do in cases where the author is dead and his intentions are unknown? What is the "correct" interpretation of such works?

[Lust4Life]

I think that everyone so far who have posted in this thread have fallen into aruvqan s little philosophical trap.

On the face of it he/she APPEARS to be making a case for movies being made to enjoy at its ovious level.

Ah ha ......ON THE FACE OF IT !

Whereas at a very subtle multi level even the most basic anaylsis shows that he/she is in fact asking us to question the very meaninglessness of the Exisitentialists shallow version of reality when as applied to ourselves using a post Jungian psychological metaphor.


Why even the O.P.s name is an anagram of the name of a famous T'ang dynasty poet/warrior noted for her commentaries on the underworld as compared to a fading Lotus blosom in autumn.


Anyone who has seen "The Nutty Proffessor",that savage indictment of neutralism in a world conflict knows that.

[Lumpy]

Whereas at a very subtle multi level even the most basic anaylsis shows that he/she is in fact asking us to question the very meaninglessness of the Exisitentialists shallow version of reality when as applied to ourselves using a post Jungian psychological metaphor.Class Struggle. You forgot Class Struggle.

[aruvqan]

So, aruvqan, you're saying that if you and your circle of friends don't happen to see a particular meaning in a film, it isn't there?

I am saying that a long lingering shot of some guy doing the whole cigar prep and light ritual doesnt mean sex, he might just be taking his time lighting a cigar. Just because we now associate cigars with Monica Lewinski and Bubba, it does NOT mean that there is anything about sex going on. The director probably eneded a pause for timing and putzing with a cigar took the right amount of time.

[Frylock]

I'm curious what posts the OP is talking about where people are habitually doing acrostics of character names and stuff like that.

[kunilou]

I am saying that a long lingering shot of some guy doing the whole cigar prep and light ritual doesnt mean sex, he might just be taking his time lighting a cigar. Just because we now associate cigars with Monica Lewinski and Bubba, it does NOT mean that there is anything about sex going on. The director probably eneded a pause for timing and putzing with a cigar took the right amount of time.

So your argument is "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"?? How very Freudian of you.

The whole thing reminds me of an old Jay Leno joke, which boils down to "First the wife whines 'what about my needs?' and then the husband whines 'what about my needs?' Hey! What about MY needs? I need to be entertained. Go blow up a car or something!"

[Indistinguishable]

A work of art is like a ball. There are lots of different ways to play with it. One person might bounce it up and down, someone else might throw it against the wall, two other people might use it to play catch.

What is the right way to play with a ball?
This post went largely ignored, but I thought it was very good.

[Spoke]

The OP is annoyed by people who spot subtexts in movies.

I am annoyed by people who are filled with resentment because they CAN'T spot the subtext in movies.

If you watched say, The Dark Knight, and all you saw was a comic book movie with no subtext, that is your problem, not mine.

[Lakai]

I am saying that a long lingering shot of some guy doing the whole cigar prep and light ritual doesnt mean sex, he might just be taking his time lighting a cigar. Just because we now associate cigars with Monica Lewinski and Bubba, it does NOT mean that there is anything about sex going on. The director probably eneded a pause for timing and putzing with a cigar took the right amount of time.

If you are watching a movie directed by Micheal Bay then the scene probably has no hidden meaning. But if it's a Kubrick film, then you can bet your house and cat that every single movement on screen was done for a reason.

Sometimes a scene has no subtext. It can be there to just move a story. But if there is subtext in the scene, then it should make sense within the context of the movie. If a cigar means sex, then there should be other details throughout the movie that back up that theory.

Just keep in mind that if you are watching something by a well respected director, then there will be subtext in the movie. Film fans know this, and that's why they always look for something. Great directors do not put meaningless scenes in their movies. Every camera angle in the Godfather, from the opening scene to the door closing on Micheal Corleone, was highly intentional. The fact the the opening line from the movie was "I believe in America" tells you a lot about what the movie is about.

So don't look for subtext if you don't want to, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is subtext in the Breakfast Club or in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. While it has been a few years since I watched his films, John Hughes doesn't strike me as a hack. But I could be wrong.

[aruvqan]

I'm curious what posts the OP is talking about where people are habitually doing acrostics of character names and stuff like that.

If you read the message boards at IDMB, there are regularly people who do reshuffle the letters of characters names to other words looking for meaning ...

[aruvqan]

The OP is annoyed by people who spot subtexts in movies.

I am annoyed by people who are filled with resentment because they CAN'T spot the subtext in movies.

If you watched say, The Dark Knight, and all you saw was a comic book movie with no subtext, that is your problem, not mine.

Dude, I am perfectly fine if there IS a subtext in a movie, what annoys me is the people who look for deep inner meaning in a roadrunner cartoon

Sorry, it is brainless entertainment, not commentary on the world.

And I seriously doubt that there was any deep inner meaning in The Breakfast Club or Ferris Buellers Day Off

[The Hamster King]

Dude, I am perfectly fine if there IS a subtext in a movie, what annoys me is the people who look for deep inner meaning in a roadrunner cartoon

Sorry, it is brainless entertainment, not commentary on the world.

And I seriously doubt that there was any deep inner meaning in The Breakfast Club or Ferris Buellers Day OffThe problem is that you're looking at meaning as a fixed thing contained within the work waiting to be extracted. But there's another way to look at it.

What if a work isn't a container, but a playground? It's an invitation to explore. The meaning that emerges from your exploration then isn't something "hidden" by the creator like buried treasure. Rather it's a fresh creation of your own, brought into existence through the process of exploration. The author of the work may have structured it in such a way to guide your wanderings, but ultimately where you wind up is up to you.

This means that no work of art has a single, fixed "hidden meaning". Rather all works of art are playgrounds for the construction of multiple meanings, many that may be far different from those originally intended by their authors.

[Lakai]

The problem is that you're looking at meaning as a fixed thing contained within the work waiting to be extracted. But there's another way to look at it.

What if a work isn't a container, but a playground? It's an invitation to explore...

I just want to add that a work of art can be a playground, but sometimes the director will place specific subtext into his work.

Here is an example of intentional subtext:

Toward the end of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022835/) there is a pot coming to a boil while Mr. Hyde is going crazy. It's not there because the director happens to like boiling pots. It's there to represent sexual energy coming to a boil. That's what Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is about; how men turn into something different when consumed by lust.

Here is an example of a playground:

In the relatively unknown movie Brick (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0393109/):

(I don't think this one gives much away, but I'll spoiler it just in case)

There is a character in the movie that people have interpreted to exist entirely in the main character's imagination. The theory was presented in a forum dedicated to the movie, and the director himself came in to say that this was his new favorite theory. Which means that he has never heard of the theory before but likes it anyway.

If you watch the movie you might come to the same conclusion. The movie allows the interpretation that the person is completely imaginary even though the director was not trying to convey that angle.

Brick, BTW, is great film. It's a film noir set in a 1990's California high school. It's a very nice treat for film noir fans.

[The Hamster King]

I just want to add that a work of art can be a playground, but sometimes the director will place specific subtext into his work.I agree. Sometimes a subtext is intentional. But the fact that a subtext is intentional does not make it more "correct" than an unintentional one.

[De La Rue]

What makes an interpretation "specious"? Is it merely an interpretation that the author didn't intend?

What do we do in cases where the author is dead and his intentions are unknown? What is the "correct" interpretation of such works?

Well, the playground isn't infinite. Claims without any logical basis whatsoever, or ones that can be shot down with fact, are not valid interpretations. Richard III is not about eBay, as eBay, the internet, computers, and electronic machines came centuries after Richard III was written.