Thanks for putting in your thoughts everybody, I appreciate it.
Now, what I’m trying to say with these examples is that the whole idea of cinema is that you can interpret it any way you want to. You’re right about it sometimes being a bit irritating when some critics are basing their reviews on deeper levels in movies that perhaps didn’t even exist before they found/invented them. But why make a big deal of it. What does it matter how they see the movie, unless they’re trying to tell people that their way is the only way?
I don’t really understand why you’re so eager to deny the sub-messages. Directors have all kinds of obsessions. Romero and society, Tarantino and feet, Norifumi Suzuki and making fun of authorities, Chang Cheh and homosexuality (?) etc. Certainly many of those are intentional. Some are perhaps unintentional. Sometimes the message is there but you can’t see it. Sometimes it isn’t there but you can still see it. But in the end, it doesn’t make any difference? It’s just one way to watch movies. Just like watching watching Ong-Bak and not paying attention to the poor storyline. Or watching a Hitchcock movie and ignoring the clumsy action scenes.
EDIT: didn’t see Dex’s post before, therefore came to repeat some of his points.
I disagree. The whole idea of cinema to me is to create entertainment and emotions. Interpreting is no fun. Subliminal messages are no fun.
I like it when movies trigger the brain, yes. Go make a statement about society Mr. filmmaker, that’s cool with me. But don’t be a cheap bastard and leave everything in the open for interpretation. Make your statement clear, otherwise it’s useless.
Tarantino’s obession with feet doesn’t qualify for sub-messaging. He is out there to make 100% entertainment movies, and I love the man for it. He doesn’t want to make politcal statements or hidden messages, he understands the only true purpose of cinema: to entertain an audience.
Any good movie is inevitably gonna have subtext. I believe in the romantic idea that directors should work from their heart when making a movie. In this way, even if the movie is purely made for entertainment purposes, there is gonna be some deeper layer of context of what the movie is about. You have got your time, place, director, script, actors…one big melting pot of people who bring stuff in from their own personal live.
Every movie is about something and has more layers. Even the ones that don’t seem to have them do. Mostly there isn’t any interest in digging deeper into it, but when you like something, I would like to know more about it. It makes my experience more complete in a way.
It also keeps me from being an ignorant dumbass.
What I absolutely hate though is when a movie is pushing me into some fake ass moral or believe. For instance “the passion” or “Crash”.
Movies should not be made to just manipulate and have this big layer of “clichÃ©, forced down your throat moral bullshit” over it.
I want stuff made from the fucking heart. Not made to make money or have half ass retarded messages in them to manipulate me thinking something.
I understand what you saying, and I think what you are talking about are the different themes a movie can have. I like that. In my opinion, movies should have universal themes like love, hate, friendship, revenge, etc.
But I think you can find subtext in anything if you try hard enough, some movie don’t have alot of subtext or any, but I don’t think we should be brainless creatures watching movies to see explosions and tits either. Movies are art and some have a message and some are just trying to entertain. Some do both (I prefer to meet in the middle)
There’s the problem. Some movies are not made for this kinda over-interpretation and analysation.
It depends on what you call “intellectualizing”.
"To furnish a rational structure or meaning for."
Basically, searching for deeper meaning or messages where the filmmakers didn’t even insert them in the first place.