I’m not sure how unpopular my interpretation of 1984 is, but it does differ from how the story is often regarded:
Far from being the hero (or even the martyr) of the story, Winston Smith is a cowardly self-pitying hypocrite. He lost his soul back in childhood when he let hunger turn him into a starving animal, saving his own life at the cost of his family’s. When he’s finally caught and broken by O’Brien, his narcissistic illusions are stripped from him in a ghastly parody of confession, penitence and redemption, as Smith is shown that he was trying to make Big Brother the scapegoat for his own maladjustment and inadequacies. One suspects that in Oceania real rebels are simply summarily shot in the head- Smith is exactly the kind of sniviling traitor that makes the Party look noble by comparison.
Hell yes. The movie doesn’t make sense unless Deckard is a human on the verge of losing his humanity, contrasted to the replicants fighting like hell to gain their humanity.
Not sure how Biggirl feels, but in my opinion if the magic is real it renders the movie completely meaningless. The film takes place at the end of The Spanish Civil war, a time of horrific atrocities. No matter how the film ends, one must acknowledge, given the historical context, that there is no real victory here. It doesn’t matter who survived. Franco wins. I really took this film to be a sort of nihilistic examination of life’s horrors that couldn’t help but comment on the triumph of the human spirit in spite of it all.
How she escapes from the locked bedroom is beside the point. What matters more is how she perceives that she escaped. Life is hell, magic is not real, but damn it if humans don’t keep coming up with these remarkable coping mechanisms to deal with it.
If, as the director insists, the magic is real, then wtf is the point of this film? Why chose such a bleak moment in history?
Moreover, if the magic is real, why did she have to die? Is the point that magic is real, but not real enough to impact anyone’s life in any meaningful way?
This especially bizarre because I saw his 1993 film Cronos which is just about as metaphorical as you can get. I don’t get how I’m supposed to understand that a giant metal insect that sucks your blood and turns you into a vampire is an examination of the Mexican oil industry, but meeting freakin’ Hades in a cave underneath your house is supposed to be real.
Well, this thread is about Unpopular Interpretations, so I can’t complain if your interpretation is different than my own.
I don’t see any reason to think the magic is just a coping mechanism. It does provide a somewhat happy ending in an otherwise depressing film.
As for the WTF point of the film, I’m not sure. I didn’t love the movie as much as most reviewers, but think the point of the magic was to spook the the viewer with “is Pan good or evil” questions.
For me there was a constant dread that the tasks she performed would bring about a terrifying result. So, I can’t see the magic as being a comfort and refuge for the girl.
Why the Spanish Civil War? My guess is that the director found the era fascinating and a convenient source for a horrifying villain. Kinda like using Nazis as bad guys but a little more original.
First, I want to say I’m sympathetic to this view of the movie. I think that, in many ways, this reading is a lot more emotionally resonant. The movie would have been stronger if del Toro had left the question of the reality of the fairies entirely ambiguous. On the other hand, I’m also a big softy who loves a happy ending, and I like the idea of the little girl living happily ever after. And there are two scenes that argue pretty strongly for the second interpretation.
The problem here is that there’s no reason for her to perceive her escape through her fantasy filter. People create that sort of coping mechanism for two reasons: they are either trying to deny the horrors that surround them by creating a world in which those horrors don’t exist, or they are trying to cope with those horrors by creating a world in which they have power over them. The second explanation works well for all of the girl’s “fantasies” up to this point, but here, there’s no reason for her to create an alternate explanation. She’s clearly not trying to deny reality, because even in her fantasy, she’s still risking her life to save her infant brother from her psychopathic stepfather. In that regard, the fantasy is no better than the reality. But neither does it make sense to explain it as a way of giving herself power she lacks in the real world. She’s actively working to thwart her stepfather, and she’s being successful at it. There’s no reason for her to invent a magical explanation for things she’s actually capable of doing.
The other scene I mentioned follows shortly thereafter, when she runs into the labyrinth. I’d have to watch the movie again to be sure, but as I recall it, she runs down a path which closes behind her. Her stepdad turns the same corner, hot on her heels, and is presented with an impassable wall, and is clearly flabbergasted by her not being there. Now, he is drugged up at this point, so his perceptions aren’t 100% reliable, either, so it’s possible that she crawled through a hole he didn’t notice. But that runs into the same problem above: at this point in the film, she doesn’t need to pretend to be powerful. By acting against her stepfather, she has seized power. She doesn’t need to invent a fantasy in which she is able to outrun him if she’s actually able to outrun him.
Lastly, if the fantasy stuff is all in her head, why does she fail at the second task? How does being bitched out by a figment of her imagination help her handle the horrors of Franco’s Spain?
I suppose that depends on how you view the film. Is it a movie about the Spanish Civil War, that happens to have fairy tale elements? Or is it a fairy tale that happens to be set during the Spanish Civil War? If it’s the latter, then setting it at that moment in history could be intended to highlight how much better the fantasy world is than the real world. It could be that an especially terrible real world situation was needed to justify the little girl abandoning it in favor of the fairy realm. On the other side of the ledger, it could be argued that the existence of the magical world is meant as a balm to the horrors of the real world. After all, as bleak as things were in Spain, there were still places in the world where things weren’t so bad off. That’s sort of implicit in the escape of the maid and the baby brother - they’re leaving Spain for (one hopes) a better life somewhere else, just the same as the little girl escaping into the fairy world.
If we take the fantasy elements at face value, the little girl gets to be a princess in a magical world. I’d call that a pretty meaningful impact.
I’ll have to check that one out. That being said, being real in the context of Pan’s Labyrinth does not rule out also being a metaphor for something else.
And this is supposed to be a good thing? Or is the point of the movie that the “cure” is worse than the disease?
Consider this: the country has gone to hell. A generation of men, betrayed by their parents and emasculated by society, is suffering through a culture of venality and empty greed.
A leader arises, charismatic and compelling (and also, incidentally, batshit insane). He attracts a cadre of unmarried male (only male) followers, teaches them the ancient martial codes and urges them to think of themselves as being stronger and tougher than the average man. He puts them through a series of secret (“You do NOT talk about Fight Club”) rituals and rites of passage. He gives them cool uniforms, a sense of belonging and a purpose to their lives. He tells them that the rules don’t apply to them, and if their will is strong enough, they can rebuild the world in their image. And then he has them blow things up.
The specific details may differ, but basically, I could be talking about Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler or Tyler Durden.
That’s why I think the whole Project Mayhem isn’t just one part of the movie, it’s the whole point of the movie. The first third of the film shows us that the world needs fixing, the second illustrates the appeal of Durden’s solution, and the third turns it around and shows us how we too have been enthralled by something monstrous. It’s a masterful piece of bait-and-switch.
Word. Donnie Darko was a great movie, but not because of any of the crap Richard Kelly was thinking about for the backstory that is not included in the finished product in any way, shape or form.
You know what? You’re right. I’m sorry. I just went back an re-read that part of the thread (taking into consideration that when I posted this only your OP and a couple of responses had been made) and public opinion was in your favour. I was just looking for examples where the “obvious” thing was far enough from obvious that others didn’t agree, but my use of “stands alone” was overly dramatic enough to be simply wrong.
(Thanks to whichever mod added the spoilers tag to the thread title by the way…)
I agree with your take completely. One of the things that makes Fight Club so brilliant is that it makes you want to agree with Tyler Durden. He’s smart, good looking, witty, passionate. The stuff he says seems to make sense, except that somehow, when you follow it, you end up in a public restroom threatening to cut some guy’s nuts off with a bowie knife. A lot of other films, when they try to have a charismatic cult leader, don’t have the guts to make him genuinely charismatic, and you end up thinking, “Why the fuck would anyone follow that guy?”
The final episode of Seinfeld: I think the plane crashed and they died. The trial was some sort of Defending Your Life kind of thing, and jail is purgatory.
But most people find it more believable that a fat guy getting mugged is going to turn into the trial of the century.
My favorite movie Western?
Sunset Blvd.
Think about it.
It is set in the American West. (Hollywood)
It has a theme that many great westerns explore. That theme is that of a two phase settlement of the wild west. You have the gunmen and the ranchers drive out the wild indians or the outlaws and such, and then settlers/farmers come in and displace them. Shane, The Searchers, The Magnificent Seven.
You have the silent film stars who invent the movie business pushed aside by the sound people. Or the overly dramatic acting style of the early era pushed aside but the more natural style.
Then again, when I look at all the space monkey type kids who go out trying to emulate Tyler and his Project Mayhem, I tend to think that maybe not everyone realizes that at some point, we’re supposed to turn around and realize how much everyone, including we the audience, was manipulated by Tyler. Kind of scary…
I just want to thank **Miller **for expressing clearly a distinction that far too many deconstructionist literary types fail to make. I could have used that incisive parsing in all those lit classes I took back in college.
In Arrowsmith, I think that Martin Arrowsmith was a prima donna, and while he admittedly had talent, the real tragic hero was his mentor, Gottlieb. I also think that Sinclair Lewis intended to portray them both as such. He didn’t want us to support or identify with Arrowsmith very much.
The whole situation in Dave, where an idealistic goofball somehow gets into the White House and makes a bunch of significant changes no one elected him to make is about the most fucked-up, manipulative things I’ve ever been meant to support in any artistic medium.
The Lord of the Rings is not an allegory of World War 2. It is however an allegory of World War 3, in which Old Europe and the New World must unite against the soulless, godless, bestial, mechanised hordes of the East, with their dark-skinned subhuman slave-men. Hobbits are English, Elves are French, Dwarves are German and humans are American, but all must unite under the leadership of an American to defeat the Red Menace, and althought they are ultimately successful, Old Europe is fast fading from importance, with the Elves departing, the Dwarves and Hobbits beginning an inexorable slide into irrelevance: the end of the Third Age signals the dawn of the Pax Americana.
If you doubt this interpretation, consider that Tolkien explicitly alluded to socialist in “The Scouring of The Shire”, in which the gatherers and sharers are derided as doing a lot of gathering but no sharing: hell, they even collectivise agriculture in The Shire.
