# Deep Inner Meaning **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 8, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-inner-meaning/505738 "2009-08-08T14:32:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-inner-meaning/505738/21 "2009-08-10T02:15:01Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-inner-meaning/505738/22 "2009-08-10T02:39:23Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-inner-meaning/505738/23 "2009-08-10T02:41:00Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-inner-meaning/505738/24 "2009-08-10T10:59:03Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > 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 … ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-inner-meaning/505738/25 "2009-08-10T11:01:04Z")
> [@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. 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 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-inner-meaning/505738/26 "2009-08-10T16:32:23Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > 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 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. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-inner-meaning/505738/27 "2009-08-10T17:08:16Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > 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) [spoiler]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.[/spoiler] 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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-inner-meaning/505738/28 "2009-08-10T17:10:38Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![De\_La\_Rue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@De\_La\_Rue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/De_La_Rue)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-inner-meaning/505738/29 "2009-08-17T03:20:24Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-inner-meaning/505738.md?page=1)