With regard to Donnie Darko, 1) in what way does Kelly’s interpretation wildly disagree with viewer interpretation and 2) what is this elaborate back story that didn’t make it into the film?
WRT: gay cowardly lion - he was kind of gay, in a girly man sort of way, but not really gay in a likes other guys sort of way. But this was a fantasy musical, everyone was acting/looking kinda gay.
WRT: Pan’s Labrynth - when I saw the movie I interpreted it as being purposely ambiguous or up to the viewer to decide what they wanted to believe. Pretty much everything could be interpreted either way except for her escape. I thought i read an interview where he said he purposely made it ambiguous but that his preferred interpretation was the fantasy parts being real. I think it’s more interesting being somewhat ambiguous, but I personally prefer the fantasy interpretation because I’m a big ol softy.
WRT Fight Club: Not unpopular as much as unlikely, but I love the Fight Club = Calvin and Hobbes growed up interpretation (Main guy is Calvin, Tyler is Hobbes, chick is Susie, Project Mayhem is GROSS).
I am concerned that Charlie was singled out to be our “hero” in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Charlie’s main qualification is that he is poor. I know that child worship is a popular theme in stories but is being poor really a virtue? Running a large factory requires business and acumen and good organizational skills. Willy Wonka made some decisive labor moves by recruiting the Oompa Loompas.
From what we know about Charlie, he has a very poor family background to succeed in business. His father not only works in a toothpaste factory but managed to stagnate at the level of toothpaste cap screwer. He is an able-bodied white male. Something is terribly wrong there and his bosses are probably picking up on it. The family is pitifully poor because of this and seems to be unable to make good life choices to save their lives. We can’t really blame the current generation though, both sets of grandparents are horrible example and just lay around in bed all day sucking the life out of the current generations. Charlie demonstrates his own irresponsibility tainted by a culture of poverty by running out and buying a chocolate bar as soon as he got any money at all. I am pleased that it worked out for him and he got a golden ticket but his behavior is akin to people running out and buying lottery tickets as soon as the welfare checks come in.
Most disturbing however, is Charlie’s lack of charisma. The boy simply has no personality. His shtick is being the “nice boy” and we all know that nice guys lose the girl and finish last. Running a chocolate factory like that requires huge vision, grand imagination, and cutthroat business skills. Charlie has none of that.
I think the smart choice would have been to choose Veruca Salt to run the factory. She comes from a family in the food business and has been exposed to large-scale management. Most importantly, she is a nasty little bitch and could deal with any Oompa Loompa insurrections. I also think she would have good vision for new products unlike Charlie who would probably just watch the existing markets slowly decay.
There’s every reason to perceive the escape through her fantasy filter. She built up the courage to do those things only after having sunk into her fantasy world.
As I saw it, the belief of achieving something better was what gave her the courage. It’s the same primal religious impulse that does so much good and ill in the world, just filtered through the active imagination of a young girl fond of fairy tales.And Jesus fuck, that ending tore me up. I’m tearing up again just thinking about it.
I’ve heard it more as Superman’s birth = Moses’s birth. Baby Superman gets sent adrift by his parents, and ends up being raised by strangers. He grows up, realizes his true heritage, and saves people.
Charlie’s qualification in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory isn’t that he’s poor, it’s that he isn’t greedy and actually loves Chocolate. Willy Wonka wants to leave the factory to someone who will love his creation, not a board of directors that will care only about the bottom line and gut everything inside the shell of the brand.
Not sure how popular or unpopular an interpretation this is, but here is my interpretation of Bateman’s killing spree in American Psycho:
He didn’t kill anyone. He’s just so unhinged, he’s convinced himself that he has. The reason he’s never caught, is because there’s no reason for him to be caught.
As for Fight Club, I’m a big fan of the Calvin and Hobbes interpretation of the movie. Basically, the main characters are the kids from Calvin and Hobbes, grown up. Ed Norton is Calvin, Marla Singer is Suzie, Bob is Moe, etc.
As far as the book goes, I’m a big fan of the Chuck Needed A Freaking Editor interpretation.
StarShip Troopers Marauder: [Spoiler]Admiral Phid, for all of her manipulative back-stabby power-mongering craziness, she was an improvement over Sky Marshal Anoke, who was a brain-washed slave of the Bug God of Gods.
Also, the scene where Rico’s Marauders tear up the bugs to save Beck and Holly was supposed to represent the Apocalypse, from a Bug religious POV.[/spoiler]
Seeing as I am the only person I’m aware of who actually freely admits to watching, let alone enjoying, StarShip Troopers Marauder, basically any interpretation I produce will be an unpopular one by definition.
I have also driven friends insane with my Tron-Terminator-Matrix-Dune meta-chronology interpretation (all those movies/books are in fact in one long timeline)
Obviously, Charlie ends up hiring on Veruca to run the internals of the business for him while he goes forth to be the face of the company. Eventually they get married (Sure, she’s a bitch, but I’m told that angry sex is awesome) and have kids, who eventually inherit the company.
I agree with you. There’s no other explanation for…
the police disappearing after he’s holed up in the hotel. I know some people like to hold up that scene as a comment on how self-absorbed the 80s were (“Even the police won’t hang around more than a few hours to catch a mass murderer!”), but that is such a lame explanation I can’t believe anyone buys it.
A little hijacky, but you just made me realize something: Veruca got off easy in the book. All the others, as far as I can remember, had to suffer some kind of physical alteration to get them out of the predicament they got themselves in. The Salts? They just got “covered in garbage”! One shower (okay, maybe five or six, if they’re clean freaks, which as wealthy folks they might well be) and they’re back to normal. Oh, and the clothes, which may or may not be ruined, and that they may or may not care about.
I wonder if this is supposed to be significant, or because Dahl couldn’t find a way to get a similar consequence out of the whole squirrel sequence…
ETA: To address this particular point, I’m not sure Veruca would make the best manager. Doesn’t being awesomely spoiled lead to a “my way or the highway” certainty that can make for spectacularly bad business decisions that no one is able to prevent?
In Star Trek V, I believe that the creature on the planet was indeed “God”, and responsible for all the Abrahamic religions on Earth, plus their equivalents on Vulcan etc.
