Do you feel some people are over analyzing films at times. If so which films?

Oh dear God The Shining.
There's everything in there from fake moon landings to Native American genocide to cannibalism and on and on. And on.

To me there is a difference between analysis that attributes things to intention from the creators, and analysis that goes into what the viewer got out of the film.

I frequently take things from movies that I'm very aware may or may not have been intended by the filmmaker. I recently wrote up some thoughts about Brain Damage, and I fully acknowledged that a theme I felt I saw (about being in an abusive romantic relationship) may not have been intended. I admitted that the clear analogy in the film is to substance abuse.

I think that it's shaky to attribute subtext to a film if it's not something the artist themselves has discussed. Every now and then I read "XYZ was clearly meant to be . . . " and I just don't agree.

I think that analysis can go as far as a viewer wants, as long as it doesn't take that attitude of "I have cracked the code and my interpretation is the final word."

A lot of people who do film analysis seem very full of themselves at times. For instance, when I talked about the movie Haggard, I tried to keep to simple because it’s just a comedy movie. If I were talking about a movie like Taxi Driver, their are a lot things you can analyze in that. But don’t say your interpretation is the end all be all.

I think that there is something to be said for people who have a deep understanding of cultural (literature, art, etc) elements and who can explain how those things have informed a film. I have read many illuminating essays about symbolism that I did not realize was present in movies. With the right writer, it comes off as informative and not condescending or arrogant.

And, again, I think that the great thing about art is that different people can pull different interpretations from it. As long as someone acknowledges the element of subjectivity, I don't mind if their interpretation is radically different from mine or if they seem to be finding meaning in something I think is meant to be taken literally.

That is very much true. I have seen some people on YouTube who seem very condescending more recently, but as a wise man once said, “Film is subjective”.

Do you feel some people are over analyzing films at times. If so which films?

are you really looking at the painting as the artist intended.

Does it matter?

When people laugh at Troll 2 instead of seeing it as a serious message about vegetarianism or whatever, we are not seeing it as the artist intended.

I think that people can look at art however they want. They can sit back and take everything literally, or they can try to draw meaning from every minute detail of every frame. (I imagine most of us fall in the middle of these two extremes, and obviously certain films lend themselves more or less to these different approaches).

And if either of those review styles is off-putting, well, not reading an essay is pretty easy.

For example, while the obsessive interpretations of The Shining can lend us interesting and fanatical material for a documentary about Shining obsessives, an awful lot of their actual arguments from that film are dead ends, both emotionally and intellectually. Telling me that you think a poster on a wall of a man skiing kind of looks like a Minotaur, and so this supports some labyrinth based theory you have, only tells me you've been staring too closely at the screen. It tells me nothing about the film itself.

There are a lot of film interpretations out there that are similar to this, reading much closer to conspiracy theories than film criticism, primarily interested in simply compiling irrelevant fragments that they think bolster their point. I can't be compelled to care about that kind of scavenger hunt approach to talking about films. I often find it absolutely empty at its core.

I think that there are two different intellectual/emotional aspects at play here.

The first aspect--let's call it Elaborate Theory Building--can seem obnoxious (or, as you note, like a dead end), but I think it's mostly harmless. There can be something thrilling about choosing a lens and then looking at a film through it. When I was watching Brain Damage, I was surprised to see how soon the relationship between the main character and his girlfriend fractures, and then I watched the whole rest of the film with my "filter" set to see things that seemed relevant to the theme of relationships. It was kind of fun--like a treasure hunt looking for new angles on a film I'd already seen many times before.

But let's call the second aspect the King of Logic. That's more what I think you mean when you say primarily interested in simply compiling irrelevant fragments that they think bolster their point. I agree that this seems to come from a less "pure" place. It seems more driven by the emotional satisfaction of being right about a piece of art.

There's a protocol we use with our students called "What? So What? Now What?"--it basically breaks down to "What did you see in the text?" (what is literally on the page); "So what?" (why does it matter); and "Now what?" (how does this move us deeper in our understanding or inspire us?).

I think that a lot of the King of Logic types miss out this last part, which is why their criticism/analysis feels more like digging heels in to a point of view than actually trying to approach art with an open mind.

Ultimately, though, I'm not sure that we can write for anyone besides ourselves. When I write movie reviews, they are like 80% for me as a way to process my own thinking. Someone might read them or no one might read them. I definitely agree that we can promote writers who use a form of analysis that is illuminating to the reader, and my favorite writing about movies often feels as though I've been invited to participate in a discussion about the film at hand.

I will only accept analyses from a King of Logic if they are wearing a crown while making their arguments.

Does a thin sheen of flop sweat count?

What I can't stand is when someone justifies everything.. "Such a boring movie" -- "That was the point! It's to show how empty and boring our lives are"

What I can't stand is when someone justifies everything.. "Such a boring movie" -- "That was the point! It's to show how empty and boring our lives are"

Only if it is induced by the weight of the crown.

Here is an excerpt from a review from someone who gave a film 1/10 on IMDb:

The most boring film I've ever seen

This pretentious art-house film is well over three hours long and has very little entertaining content and not much dialogue. . . . She's far too dull for the viewer to feel anything for her.. .
. This film is so boring that I had to watch it over a period of several days.

This person is, of course, describing Jeanne Dielman.

Boring is a subjective term. Some people genuinely take value in attributes that bore or annoy others.

There are quite a few movies where the things that others criticize are what I actually find to be the film's strength. Yes, some people will dig in and talk themselves in circles trying to defend any criticism, but most of the time I think it comes from a genuine place.

It probably is the most boring movie I've seen.... I won't even dare read the reviews praising it.

But . . . . you get that being "boring" was the point, right?

Or do you imagine that Chantal Akerman wrote, filmed, and gave the thumbs up to her 3.5 hour film, and then someone was like "Hey, Chantal, parts of this movie are kind of slow and mundane . . ." and she was like "WHAT?!?!?!?!".

I think it was all a marketing gimmick.

The theory that the amount of care and craft and thought and emotion that was put into this movie was for nothing but a marketing ploy doesn't pan out from my experience. It's most likely that people have different tastes in things.

You're such an idealist.

Everyone knows that the best way to bring in that sweet, sweet box office cash is with 200 minute, slow paced domestic dramas about the mundane lives of unsatisfied housewives.

You're such an idealist.

Everyone knows that the best way to bring in that sweet, sweet box office cash is with 200 minute, slow paced domestic dramas about the mundane lives of unsatisfied housewives.

I actually remembering arguing with Izzy years ago that it was a completely accessible movie, even if it might try a lot of people's patience. I got raked over the coals for that one.

You think that a 3.5 hour film about a housewife was a marketing gimmick?

I must know . . . for what market? People cringe when a Marvel movie crosses the 2.5 hour mark.

Marvel is 2020, Jeanne was 1975 - completely different audiences.


If there was a movie coming out tomorrow that was 5 hours long, many people would see it only because it's 5 hours long. Curiosity.



Or the gimmick could be a pretentious one. Something made so that people on message boards could talk about it 50 years later :)

Or, the way this story needed to be told took three and a half hours. It is a movie that is both a political and empathetic statement. Excess is the only way it would have an impact.

There are different ways to tell stories. There are different tactics to affect viewers. The fact that this one is unorthodox doesn't automatically make it a gimmick. People have written at length at how this film has made an impression on them. Gimmicks don't do that.

Exactly. The long runtime is integral to the entire point of the film, not something done as a cheap trick to get noticed.

I didn't love the film because it was 3.5 hours long. I didn't take some weird pride in having watched a 3.5 hour long movie. In fact, I am the ideal audience for this film (I enjoy slow burns, I enjoy movies outside of the mainstream, I'm interested in the political/social issues it discusses) and for years the 3.5 hour runtime was literally the only barrier to me actually sitting down and watching it.

People have written at length at how this film has made an impression on them. .

People have written at length how "Howard the Duck" left an impression on them, too.

Considering how I know literally no one who has watched this movie, and because of its slow pace and long length I would never recommend it to anyone, if this was a marketing strategy, it's a baffling one.

I won't even dare read the reviews praising it.

People have written at length how "Howard the Duck" left an impression on them, too.

The analysis is specific to each. I cannot say that one is wrong because its kind of his. Plus every analysis is own to a time, period and location. For exemple, in metropolis we see worker getting thrown in fire. Nowadays, it is clear that it is a reflexion on concentration camp but in the time of the making of the movie in '27 nazi's stuff was not known. Exemples like this are very common. Plus, we cannot realize hw much things are decided by the director. In fact, in a movie that cost million every decision is wisely chosen.

Marvel is 2020, Jeanne was 1975 - completely different audiences.


If there was a movie coming out tomorrow that was 5 hours long, many people would see it only because it's 5 hours long. Curiosity.



Or the gimmick could be a pretentious one. Something made so that people on message boards could talk about it 50 years later :)

It is my understanding that German expressionism was intended as an artistic reaction to the fallout of Germany's defeat in World War I, embracing fantastically off-kilter art direction as a means of illustrating how disturbed postwar society and its inhabitants had become (a more direct example of this being the lopsided sets and gloomy characters seen in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari). The designs in Metropolis may be more polished and straightforward but they still reflect those same anxieties about the class divide that led to lower classes effectively being sacrificed for the good of the upper classes. This is most obviously represented in the protagonist seeing workers suffer in a factory and envisioning it turning into an ancient temple for human sacrifice to the god Moloch, whose name is spelled out in heavily stylised and angular letters instead of the more conventional font seen in other title cards to truly accentuate the discordant nature of the image. In drawing this comparison between literal human sacrifice in the past and the physically ruinous demands of working-class employment in the future, Metropolis outlines not just the severity of the haves treating the have-nots as expendable resources but also how such a dynamic has existed since time immemorial and would certainly continue to exist without direct intervention. It's imagery that establishes that this is a concern that extends beyond a modern viewer's superficial visual association with concentration camps - this film didn't predict the Holocaust, it merely understood how poorly in-groups could mistreat out-groups if it suited them.



The "movies have been bad for the last 40 years" guy is going to complain about pretentiousness now? Especially when you want to write off a movie for giving people something to talk about 50 years later as if being significant enough to be talked about for decades afterwards isn't what practically every piece of art ever made strives towards. Bet if I said The Battle of Algiers shooting in a documentary style was a pretentious gimmick you'd give me sh*t over it.

Besides, "if there was a 5-hour movie coming out tomorrow"? Leaving aside how a filmmaker like Lav Diaz drops films that exceed 5 hours on a regular basis, there's also the matter of Martin Scorsese dropping The Irishman last year (itself about as long as Jeanne Dielman) but it's hard to judge how much of its viewership was done purely out of "curiosity" and not for all the other reasons one might watch it (e.g. because it's good).

Why? Wouldn't it help you to understand why some folks like it?

Seriously. We can almost always learn from differing points of view that might make us consider a film from another angle. After all, it's not like were talking about Baby Driver here.

And speaking of Baby Driver, did MKS ever supply a link to his TV thing?

I have a lot to say about this topic, just saving it until I have time to properly compose my thoughts.

When people write about film, you learn about the film, you learn about the writer, or some mix of the two.

I watched it when it aired live. It's on NUDU.tv which I swear is not a porn site.