I’m starting this thread off the back of watching Malignant. I can’t for the life of me see any spoilers here, so will carry on with no spoiler tags, because I don’t want to get into the habit of sticking them on “just in case” - but if anyone disagrees, let me know.
I was reading reviews and one of them said something along the lines of “interprets the [insert metaphor] metaphor literally”. I see that relatively often in reviews as a way of summarising what a film does. “Takes the x metaphor literally”. I find that less objectionable than some people might; after all, I’m the kind of person that loves puns.
The play on taking language literally makes sense to me; see The Silence of the Lambs, self storage and all. But I don’t see what criticism via metaphors has to add to the appreciation of the piece. If you accept that a monster in a horror film is a metaphor for someone’s ugly personality or that the snow in The Grey denotes the protagonist’s loneliness, does that really tell you anything? It’s not like x is literally anything like y.
That reminds me of my (bizarre to the bone) English teacher in Sixth Form who, when we were reading The Wife of Bath from The Canterbury Tales, suggested that “a candle burning” and melting denoted male impotence, power melting away and all, then proceeded to explain in detail how exactly. I mean, maybe it does to some, but is everything, to quote The Parasite, really “metaphorical”? And should it be?
Why does it seem like the sheer fact of taking a metaphor literally is worthy of attention? Does it really add any kind of layer of meaning or philosophical lens to events? I feel like any abstract science fiction/speculative idea that doesn’t neatly match a metaphor is just as interesting/valid. How is it any less of an event if someone turns out to be a ghost in the twist and that doesn’t immediately beg any sort of metaphor-heavy conclusion such as “we’ll all die/be ghosts one day” or “we’re all dead already because global warming”?
To me it’s a bit like the usual conversation about twists. Are twists in and of themselves worthy of attention, let alone praise, and are metaphors? Maybe a film has a headless woman shot just because the director had always dreamt of having a headless woman shot, a bit like the Facility guy from The Cabin in the Woods had his favourite monster.
I was reading reviews and one of them said something along the lines of “interprets the [insert metaphor] metaphor literally”. I see that relatively often in reviews as a way of summarising what a film does. “Takes the x metaphor literally”. I find that less objectionable than some people might; after all, I’m the kind of person that loves puns.
The play on taking language literally makes sense to me; see The Silence of the Lambs, self storage and all. But I don’t see what criticism via metaphors has to add to the appreciation of the piece. If you accept that a monster in a horror film is a metaphor for someone’s ugly personality or that the snow in The Grey denotes the protagonist’s loneliness, does that really tell you anything? It’s not like x is literally anything like y.
That reminds me of my (bizarre to the bone) English teacher in Sixth Form who, when we were reading The Wife of Bath from The Canterbury Tales, suggested that “a candle burning” and melting denoted male impotence, power melting away and all, then proceeded to explain in detail how exactly. I mean, maybe it does to some, but is everything, to quote The Parasite, really “metaphorical”? And should it be?
Why does it seem like the sheer fact of taking a metaphor literally is worthy of attention? Does it really add any kind of layer of meaning or philosophical lens to events? I feel like any abstract science fiction/speculative idea that doesn’t neatly match a metaphor is just as interesting/valid. How is it any less of an event if someone turns out to be a ghost in the twist and that doesn’t immediately beg any sort of metaphor-heavy conclusion such as “we’ll all die/be ghosts one day” or “we’re all dead already because global warming”?
To me it’s a bit like the usual conversation about twists. Are twists in and of themselves worthy of attention, let alone praise, and are metaphors? Maybe a film has a headless woman shot just because the director had always dreamt of having a headless woman shot, a bit like the Facility guy from The Cabin in the Woods had his favourite monster.
Last edited by AgrippinaX; 09-15-21 at 04:15 PM.