I guess it sort of comes down to the notion of "necessity."
When you say that a certain level of analysis is unnecessary, I assume you mean that you think it's unnecessary to the understanding of the story and you see this reading as a stretch.
But the question about any metaphorical/allegorical/subtextual reading shouldn't be if we find it necessary. It should be if we find the reviewer's reasoning and evidence sound enough to support such an interpretation.
I don't actually think that Brain Damage was meant to be about the dynamics of an abusive relationship. But I think that I could make a decent case for how it could be read that way. This isn't a necessary reading. And, as I've said, I don't even think it's the intent of the film. I could see someone rolling their eyes at this interpretation. But it adds value and meaning to my experience of watching the film.
That said, I think that sometimes in an attempt to appear intelligent in reviewing art or speaking about it, there can be a tendency to focus on "deep reading". I mean, who doesn't feel smart when they figure something out or see something that others haven't? When reviewers hit this same note over and over, it's probably best just to tune them out. Reviewing art shouldn't be seen as a "who's the most perceptive?" competition.
When you say that a certain level of analysis is unnecessary, I assume you mean that you think it's unnecessary to the understanding of the story and you see this reading as a stretch.
But the question about any metaphorical/allegorical/subtextual reading shouldn't be if we find it necessary. It should be if we find the reviewer's reasoning and evidence sound enough to support such an interpretation.
I don't actually think that Brain Damage was meant to be about the dynamics of an abusive relationship. But I think that I could make a decent case for how it could be read that way. This isn't a necessary reading. And, as I've said, I don't even think it's the intent of the film. I could see someone rolling their eyes at this interpretation. But it adds value and meaning to my experience of watching the film.
That said, I think that sometimes in an attempt to appear intelligent in reviewing art or speaking about it, there can be a tendency to focus on "deep reading". I mean, who doesn't feel smart when they figure something out or see something that others haven't? When reviewers hit this same note over and over, it's probably best just to tune them out. Reviewing art shouldn't be seen as a "who's the most perceptive?" competition.