This post went largely ignored, but I thought it was very good.
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.
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.
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 …
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.
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) 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:
(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.
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.
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.