# Most unenjoyably Pretentious Movies **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 24, 2004, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171 "2004-03-24T19:16:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/281 "2004-04-07T00:13:27Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > I didn’t say it doesn’t exist, I said **I** couldn’t _think_ of many movies that have more going on than surface text. > > On the other hand, I don’t really like your The Crucible example; you learn the McCarthism aspect of the play in lit classes in high school and/or college, so I have a hard time believing there are many people who see the movie (any version) _without_ already knowing what it’s “really” about (much like Animal Farm.) I guess what I’m getting at is I dislike it as an example of a movie’s subtext since it’s only relying on the book’s plot to create it. I’m not sure exactly what your objection is, here. Knowing about the subtext before you see a movie doesn’t make it stop being subtext. Knowing that _The Crucible_ is about McCarthyism before you see the movie doesn’t make it stop being about McCarthyism. Besides which, I think that when people say it was about “McCarthyism” they’re not refering specifically to the HUAC hearings, although that was the specific target of the play when it was first written. If it were that rigidly topical, it wouldn’t be as popular as it is today. Rather, just as “McCarthyism” became synonymous with any baseless ideological inquisition, _The Crucible_ has become a condemnation of all such inquisitions. The subtext of the play isn’t specific to the witch hunts of the fifties, but applies to all subsequent and preceding witch hunts. Even though the film was two decades removed from Joe McCarthy, the subtext between it and the play it was based on remains the same. A person who’s never heard of Joe McCarthy or HUAC could still understand the subtext to _The Crucible_: it’s a human phenomenon that everyone has some personal experience with, although usually in not quite so dramatic and mortal a fashion. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/282 "2004-04-07T00:18:26Z")
> [@AugestWest](#): > > It is about mine. As a young(er) man, I swore not to follow in my father’s footsteps, to live a more exciting, intellectual, stimulating life than he did. Yet as I age I find my life pursuing much the same arc as his. There’s an analogy for you. > > Of course, I did go fishing with my brother last week, but did not shoot him. So there goes _that_ parallel. OK, now THAT was funny. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/283 "2004-04-13T00:42:31Z")
GREAT analysis of BR theatre release vs. Director’s cut deleted for space, see original… > [@RickJay](#): > > But hey, changing the movie is valid. The Director’s Cut did make it quite possible Deckard was a replicant, though not certain as you claim. The original movie didn’t really hint at all that he was a replicant. Give Scott credit, at least he changed the movie to give it a new message; it’s better than just claiming you meant something that isn’t there. Too bad we never even SAW the original movie. It was previewed by studio execs who told Ridley to add the voiceover and cut a few scenes so the audiences could understand it. The Director’s cut was an attempt to get back to that original, but what came out was changed even from that ‘first cut.’ So, we have: Original pre-release cut Theatrical Release Director’s Cut. I know no one besides Ridley and participants who saw the first cut, and don’t know exactly what differed. Would I buy a copy if it was available? You bet. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171.md?page=14)