What's with film critics desperately searching for subtext in movies?

So, lemme get this straight: Peter Pan is pedophilic, The Passion is anti-Semitic, and The Alamo is anti-American? What’s with people these days and why do they feel the need to inset their own meaning into a film? Peter Pan is about first love and the sadness involved in not being able to let go and The Passion is about sacrifice and love for your fellow man.

People can get whatever they want out of any film. I can say Monty Python’s and the Holy Grail is about homosexuality. That doesn't mean it's so.

__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale

I haven't heard anything like that about The Alamo. Dogville; yes, The Alamo; no.

Some people like to be different, thinking that they are different, when all they're really doing is selling themselves out.

Or maybe they're not deep enough.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

I havent heard that about Peter Pan, but come to think of it it is kinda pedophilic

Passion was considered anti-semetic because it kinda is. I was disappointed with how they portrayed the jews against the Romans. Gibson almost painted the Roman leaders as heroes doing everything they can for Jesus while the Jews were hell-bent on his destruction, it isnt as black and white as the movie made it out to be. On the opposing side the lower-class Romans were painted as barbarians and the lower-class jews were exalted, but the actions of leaders tend to lay a lot more weight.

As for finding subtext I believe you called it, many movies do have it, and good movies almost always try to portray it. So trying to find hidden meanings in movies isnt a bash against a movie in most circumstances, it is usually what the director is aiming at.

__________________
Just back from my Alaskan cruise.
Highlights - art auctions at amazing prices, got my Divine Comedy original edition for the cost of the frame. All you can eat steak, lobster, shrimp, ribs... hmmmmm
Low points - Seen it all before not living too far from Alaska

There was a special on Fox the other night. I didn't wait for it, due to my displeasure with the whole 'looking for subtext' thing, but there is some sort of arguement going on.

What's Dogville about?

*Not really replying to you as much as commenting on the anti-Peter mindset* Maybe if you think of love purely in terms of physical, and thus, sexual contact. Me, I think love is something MUCH deeper than sex, and thus, something which is perfectly wholesome between minors (as portrayed in the movie).


It wasn't really the leaders, or even the general populace. It was just the specific people involved. Pilate doesn't represent the Romans and Caiphas doesn't represent the jews. They were just people in the story. Each race in the film is portrayed as both fair and barbaric, much like any race of people to this day. If The Passion had taken place in Mexico, would the film be anti-mexican?

And, to the general idea about anti-semetism in The Passion, you forget that all the films heroes are jewish. If anyone gets portrayed as evil, it's the Romans, but this is not a film about any specific race. It's about the human race.

That's just my stance, though. I respect yours, but I must question the validity of the overall trend being shown.

The jews that were portrayed as heroes are all adopted into Christianity and do not represent judaism. How can you say that the leader of the Jewish priests and the consulate in charge of Judea have nothing to do with jews and romans? Who were the jews that Mel Gibson gave R.E.S.P.E.C.T (sung in my highest voice), Jesus, Mary, etc. Why does this give jews of now-a-days any comfort?

While I don't blame Mel Gibson for his views, and I LOVED the movie, he could have given a more realistic view of what happened in terms of the leadership issues (the second-thoughts and late nights which Pilate engaged in throughout the film were similar to that of Caiphas and he could have portrayed it).

Thats not even the point though, because I am really just arguing with myself. I agree with you that the movie was not really anti-semetic, but then again I am not a jew living in Israel who every day has to live with the fact that when they are taking the bus to work, this could very will be their last day alive. Until you can understand that fear, you can not truly decide whether things are anti-semetic, homophobic, racist, whatever.

The subject was brought up because of Hook and his obsession for Peter, not what Peter and Wendy felt for each other; that was another issue of it being too pseudo-erotic for its target audience. It’s just another time where the rating pundits underestimate young people’s intelligence and wisdom.

Not really. Hook was obsessed with Peter because Peter was eternally young and happy, not because he was a hairless boy that sweats a lot.


Dogville is Lars Von Trier’s newest film. Nicole Kidman stars as a woman on the run from mysterious people when she comes across the town Dogville, which is a struggling community in rural America. As the pressure to hide her from the law and the more dangerous men that are relentlessly searching for her intensifies, the town subjects her to terrible things. Von Trier has never come to America before because he fears air and sea travel, but he has notions of what America, and its people, are all about. Whether Dogville is about how terrible we American’s are is all subject to debate, personally, I see the town of Dogville as a town and people that can exist anywhere in the world, but many critic’s are taking it as a personal attack. Regardless of what Trier’s motives are, Dogville is a wonderfully original and imaginative piece of work. I recommend it to anyone.

Here's the link to its official website.

Very true. I mixed criticism. I also don't believe in the 'child porn' aspect of the movie.

Awesome! I'll be sure to check it out.

I agree with you, to a degree, but I don't believe that the fear someone experiences becuase of something (and I don't believe that The Passion has a large bearing on the Israeli/Palestine conflict) determines anything other than fear. That's somewhat muddled, so I'll rephrase. This is a perfect example of the audience determining the message of a movie. If someone wants to believe the film is anti-semetic, then they will. It doesn't mean the film was made as such, nor does it mean the film is. In any event, I love the film and I respect your criticisms.

I completely agree.

All this politically correctness makes me sick!

If the makers of these movies are guilty of a crime, great, sue them!

Why don't all filmmakers make movies that don't offend anybody?

Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Everything would look like the Teletubbies.

Except Tinky Winky...

...we don't want your kind.

You know what I mean Jerry.

Sorry everyone, you don't the right not to be offended.


Actually there is question about Sir Lancelot's sexuality.

Lancelot wouldn't allow Sir Galahad to seek 'peril' with the fair maidens of Castle Anthrax.

hmm, i always thought peter pan was about a kid's death wish. kind of like that movie with charles bronson.

I've seen the Disney version, the new version, plus I read the book, and nowhere did I get that impression.

After seeing the most recent version of Peter Pan (which Slay has told me is the version truest to the source material), I thought there most definitely was subtext...but not about pedophilia.

I think Peter Pan may be a metaphor for manhood in general. In this more faithful telling of the story, a lot of emphasis is placed on the struggle between Wendy and Peter; Wendy wants him to grow up, because unless he grows up, he can never love her. Peter, on the other hand just wants to "have fun," as he puts it. You couldn't ask for a more obvious parallel to the choice between casual sex and commitment. In the story, as in real life, the woman must convince the man that by abandoning his impulsive, fun-seeking ways, he can find something greater: love.

And that's to say nothing of the obvious psycological implications: the Lost Boys lack (and desire) a mother. This also parallels the real world, wherein a more relaxed attitude towards sex is often accompanied by a missing or less-than-satisfactory parent.

And let's not forget that, while the family and world Wendy leaves behind are at first painted as unfair and dull, she ultimately wishes to return, and is happy to do so. It could be said that Neverland is a place she visited to sow her wild oats, but ultimately rejected the carefree attitude she was met with.

Looked at from this angle, it's a very impressive story.

The book is a lot different in regards to Wendy. In the book, Wendy becomes 'Motherly' to the lost boys, and spends most of her time cooking, cleaning, darning, and reading bedtime stories. Another part of the curse that Peter is under is that he can't remember things. He regularly forgets who Wendy is while she is still living in Neverland. There is less love from Peter in the book, and the ending is a lot different. It finishes with Wendy all grown up with a daughter. Peter has promised to come see her every year, but forgets her more often than not. The Lost boys have all forgotten about Neverland and Peter as well. Then one day, Peter shows up mistaking Wendy's daughter for Wendy herself, thinking he will take her back to Neverland for a visit as promised (he remembers once every few years), and Wendy allows it. You should read the book some day; it's rather short and can be read in one setting.

What about the man forced to help him carry the cross and then feel sympathy for the man. Not the martyr, or the savior, or the messiah; he saw a fellow man suffering and wanted to help him. Even the Jewish leaders were shown being sick to their stomachs while the Romans guards were beating him, yet they knew that they could not undoe what they had started.

__________________