Georgia was an excruciatingly awful borefest. Long passages of nothing happening, punctuated by really, really terrible singing. Bleah.
Hm. More thoughts on Happiness: it occurred to me that Todd Solondz makes movies about the same kind of people that John Waters makes movies out of, but in a completely different way. Solondz makes his movies in all apparent seriousness, with good actors making the characters seem real and deeply human. This is somehow more disturbing than Waters’s approach, which is to take these ridiculous oddballs and portray them with ridiculous actors, keeping the joke on the surface the whole time. For all the taboos that Waters broke, his movies tend to stay safely on a stage. His clear affection for his characters and his actors, and his winking inclusion of the audience on the joke, make his movies ultimately not very threatening. Solondz gives you the same kind of situaitons, but with an utterlay straight face, and then give you a deadpan “What?” when you’re appalled. FAr more subversive and disturbing. Not that there’s anything *wrong * with that.
When a Solondz movie works, it’s really good (Happiness is one of the few movies in this thread that I really love) but when it doesn’t… you get a far-fetched movie about unlikable characters. Or maybe I’m the only one really underwhelmed by Storytelling. Though I like Happiness and Welcome to The Dollhouse, I can’t shake the suspicion that he has made so few films because he hasn’t found that many things taboo enough to engage his interest.
You must be forgetting the Luca Brazi zombie scenes.
I thought **CK Dexter-Haven ** blew up that Birds myth in Ilsa’s Birds thread? 
As for the Godfather… at what point does subtext become text? One doesn’t need a secret decoder ring to pick up on the message there…
Haw! **CK ** expressed an unconvincing opinion in that thread, I think is what you mean.
So . . . it’s not subtext unless it’s hard to read?
In The Godfather, it’s subtext because it’s about your family and my family, not just literally about the literal Corleone family and nothing else.
It’s sure as hell not about my family… my family’s not even remotely analogous.
And if it’s not obscured in some fashion… it’s just plain old text, in my view.
And this raises one of my main points of contention about subtext… you call it subtext because you can extend the movie to contain some message about yourself or those around you. The trouble is… nearly every film ever made is analogous to something. Do all movies have subtext? Whether or not the filmmaker actually intended for subtext to exist? Can any given subtext be said to be ‘true’ or objective, when others can put forth equally valid, thought-out arguments for contrary subtexts, such as **CK’**s comments on The Birds? You may disagree with his comments, but his arguments were sound.
Perhaps the “sub” in subtext doesn’t mean beneath or below, perhaps it’s short for ‘subjective’. Would you argue otherwise?
To say that subtext is subjective is not to say that it doesn’t exist; to say that individuals can disagree about subtext is not to say that it doesn’t exist. So I don’t get your point.
You’re suggesting that NO movies have subtext because it’s theoretically possible to pretend that ALL movies have subtext. Your logic escapes me.
Also, I’m curious why you only address The Godfather, arguably the least sub of the examples I gave. It was not the strongest example, so it was the easiest to dismiss. Dismissing it still leaves my other examples to be considered.
I see what you’re saying, I think. I adore John Waters and everything he’s ever done, but after reading what you’re saying I think it’s probably because it’s so over the top that the joke is on the surface the whole time. A movie like Happiness, well…I’ve seen enough people acting like disgusting animals in real life, I guess I feel like I don’t need to see that portrayed realistically in a movie. Which is why it makes sense that I mentioned Bloodsucking Freaks, a movie which is sick and wrong and disturbing, but so incredibly over the top that it becomes just funny.
Let me clarify : Do you agree that subtext is subjective?
And no, I’m not suggesting no movies have subtext. I merely asked you a question, in an attempt to clarify your definition of subtext.
I addressed the Godfather because it was the subject at hand.
I swear that in my entire life I have never encountered anyone so resistant to attempts at understanding them and their position as yourself.
But if you’ll just be so kind as to answer the question bolded above, I will be a tiny bit more content. If you disagree, an explanation as to why would be appreciated, but by no means is required.
That subtext is subject to subjectivity is a given.
Sorry; it was elfkin who was saying that there was no such thing as subtext. Your post read like a defense of that position.
The Big Chill was perhapd the most pretentious movie I’ve ever seen. Kasdan takes the lives of those characters so seriously it makes me retch. He is just so full of the “importance” of his generation and the disillusionment those pathetic losers feel. And don’t even get me started on the soundtrack. Could Kasdan have made it more unimaginative? Until I watched that movie, I’ve never been angry after watching a movie. Now I’m angry every time I think of it.
Also, Safe was crap, no matter how many indie movie lovers (and I am one) liked it.
Well, it was like pulling teeth, but after much contention, we discover we agree.
Criminy. :rolleyes:
The subjectivity of subtext is why I don’t enjoy arguing about them… it’s like opinions. I may be curious to know what someone’s opinion on a subject is; I may be curious as to why they hold that opinion; and I may try to see if there’re aspects or ramifications about that opinion that they haven’t considered… but when it comes down to it, I’m not going to argue about it, or be looked down upon because I hold a differing opinion.
It has been my experience though, that any discussion of subjective matters lead to such things… and while I usually resist, because I think the arguments that follow just waste time, sometimes I am pulled in against my better judgment.
I suppose it’s just the use of the word ‘is’… when you say something ‘is’ the subtext of this or that movie, it implies to me that you see it as objective or factual. Some people really do see it as objective or factual, you know. And when I see that, I feel compelled to argue … the cycle begins anew.
So - getting to the point - now that I know that you consider it subjective, I should be able to safely ignore the ‘is’ and go about my merry way.
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.
. . . I guess it depends on what your definition of “is” is. 
There is a subset of “critics” who do nothing but supply quotes for movies on demand, whether or not they’ve seen the movie in question. It’s usually the big budget mainstream films that use this sort of advertising, so I don’t think that’s what you meant.
The majority, however, do actually see every movie they reiview, and I believe that they are giving their honest opinions. These opinions are hardly monolithic, as your post suggests. Check out Rotten Tomatoes, and you’ll find that very few movies have gotten 100% positive reviews–perhaps a dozen or two–and almost none get 0% positive. Critics’ tastes differ among themselves, just as fans’ tastes differ.
Why assume that if a critic liked a movie you didn’t, that he’s being dishonest. Why not assume that the critic has different taste than you, or different experiences that led him to find somethng of value that wasn’t there for you?
There are critics who seem to like every arthouse film that comes along, and there are critics who routinely dismiss them. The trick is to find one whose writing tells you what you want to know to properly judge whether a movie is right for you.
Regarding the OP: Of the movies labeled as pretentious here, I’ve enjoyed or appreciated nearly everyone I’ve seen.
You know, I was thinking about that line the entire time I was writing my last post.
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.