Over Analyzing Films

Tools    





You’re the disease, and I’m the cure.
Do you feel some people are over analyzing films at times. If so which films?
__________________
“I really have to feel that I could make a difference in the movie, or I shouldn't be doing it.“
Joe Dante



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."



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. Maybe Jack's Volkswagen climbing uphill was symbolic of the Nazi presence in American government in the 40's and 50's.

I had an epiphany once while writing an essay on symbolism in Dicken's works - that I could write whatever I wanted to write because it's all subjective. Dickens wasn't symbolizing child abuse with Uncle Pumblechook's elbow - he probably just got hit with a stray elbow at dinner as a kid and stuck it in there.

That said, it's still fun to analyze movies.



You’re the disease, and I’m the cure.
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.
The Shining is a lot more simple of a film then some may think for a Kubrick film, it’s pretty much just a man going crazy in a hotel.



You’re the disease, and I’m the cure.
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.



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.



You’re the disease, and I’m the cure.
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”.



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”.
I really do think it's all down to presentation.

There was a video essay circulating a while back about The Descent (the idea was that
WARNING: spoilers below
there actually were no creatures and it was actually the main character who was killing all of her friends
). While I didn't wholly buy into it, I enjoyed the enthusiasm that the presenter had for the film and for their idea.

I also think that people who aren't very self-confident will sometimes present in an overly assertive/condescending way, because it's a way of deflecting criticism. If you sound like you know more than other people, sometimes you can bluff people into deferring to you.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
Do you feel some people are over analyzing films at times. If so which films?

I think it depends on the movie. Some movies have a lot of hidden meanings, and you can get more out of them by analyzing them, but some movies are better if you can just sit back and enjoy them, rather than analyzing everything about the movie, and nitpicking every little goof or minor plot hole.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



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.



There's good analysis and bad analysis and both can vary in brevity. I'm assuming "over" analyzing refers to elaborate readings that don't quite or only loosely line up to what's in the actual film (conspiracy-theory-type analyses like the Shining theories cited upthread are an obvious example). But I think you can have a good, in-depth analysis of a seemingly lightweight film (i.e. if like Takoma stated, you bring cultural context and/or knowledge of the artform). I also appreciate if the reviewer approaches the film from a specific, personal perspective, but one which feels natural. (Personal as in specific to their personality or way of thinking, not necessarily about their personal experiences.) One of the few critics I bother reading anymore is Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, because he seems to approach movies from a very specific angle, sees things in them that wouldn't necessarily occur to me, but also is really good at explaining his arguments. (I struggle however with critics who explicitly adopt viewpoints and take a prescriptive, dogmatic stance accordingly. I find it rarely feels natural and don't find the resulting reviews interesting to read.)



Anything can definitely be over analyzed. If someones thoughts on any film become so up close and granular that we lose sight of the actual film itself, something can't help but get lost. If you take a painting hanging on the wall of an art gallery, and look at it closer and closer until all we now see are the flecks of paint without any larger context, are you really looking at the painting as the artist intended. The same can go for any piece of art. You can sap it of its vitality if you try and start decoding it right down into its molecular structure. There's a point where it becomes silly.

That said, I think the term 'over analyzed' is frequently just used as a criticism to anyone who elaborates at length on any parts of a film that they have found illuminating or interesting. In these cases, I'm not sure why people take issue with that. It seems the claim against such things is always 'can't you just enjoy it and leave it be?" To which my answer would be a pretty strident 'no'. If a film matters to you, the notion that it can only cast its spell while you are in the thrall of watching it, seems pretty limited. 'Over analyzing' is simply what you do when a film doesn't leave you once you've left the theater. You're still mulling it over, trying to understand what it made you feel or think. These can be pretty complicated things, and trying to articulate that is one of the most interesting parts of being a fan of film. To try and unravel what the movie means to you, figure out how it won you over, understand what it might all mean, think of it in the larger context of the entire history of cinema. To write about a film in this way gives others a peek into what it did to you, which then allows us to empathize with those who had a different take on it than we did. Possibly even giving us a key into appreciating it ourselves. So in this way, over analyzing should be welcomed.



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.



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.
No, it doesn't matter. I actually mostly don't even care what an artists specific intentions are, and rarely go out of my way to figure them out. But I do think you can get so far into the weeds reading into something that we not only become divorced from whatever the intentions of the artist are, but also anything that can be considered even remotely communal with those who might be reading this particular interpretation.

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.

Now of course people can still write whatever they want about a film even if I don't think it has any great value. I'm not talking about taking anyones pencils away. Only that, in terms of the criticism of 'over analyze', I do see that there can be a tipping point. Now, I would definitely prefer a world where there is more 'over analysis' to 'under analysis'. And I generally find those that go deep under the hood of what makes a movie tick usually find something of worth. But Im not about to give that pass to everyone. I always have faith there there are people out there that have absolutely nothing to say, no matter how hard they might try.



On Kubrick, I think people overanalyze his movies to a level I've never seen from any other director, partly because of his reputation for attention to detail, and partially because, especially after Eyes Wide Shut and 2001, people put him in the middle of some conspiracies, I've seen the most insant overreading of his movies on the Kubrickskeys tumblr. That, however, is more conspiracy theorizing than overanalysis. When you just make up a context that ties in all the elements in the piece into a cohesive whole.

Outside of Stanley, I've seen very, very long movies reviews on movies I didn't personally think were terribly deep, but I never consider it overanalysis. I think whatever meaning someone can find in a piece, is there. Regardless of writer or directorial intent. Like finding a use for a tool that wasn't meant for a particular task.



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.



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.
My whole initial response was basically a reaction against what was initially going to be my knee jerk response of "Of course you can't over analyze a film". Until I thought of all of the dead weight I've read over the years in service of over analysis. Now this isn't to say other people couldn't get anything out of what I deem 'too much overthinking'. Only that there is a point for me when I don't see why I should have the slightest interest in what this person is saying. And it usually is in regards to your above "king of logic" definition.

I am obviously in no way against self indulgence in film criticism or taking completely idiosyncratic and "death of the author" takes. In fact, that's almost the only thing I am interested in, and what I try and devote myself solely to. But as I'm sure we're all well aware, this can go quite badly at times. And I find those that leave me the coldest are those that seem to treat a piece of art as little more than a puzzle, that they alone have found the key to, and this only becomes more exasperating (and emotionally dead) to read when what they are saying also comes off as kinda dumb and boring on top of everything else.

In short, while I am strongly advocating for over analysis, anything can be taken too far. Excess does not always lead to any sort of palace, especially if its some deep dive on the hidden meanings of Ghosts of Girlfriends Past.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
I think a lot of it has to do with our experiences. There might be something symbolic in our own lives that appears on the screen that means nothing to the director. But, if the writer or director were to tell the audience his/her intention, I'd listen.



I do notice a lot of retro-analysis, even if it had no relevance to a movie made 60 years ago. I'm guessing this is probably done with directors like Antonioni, where there isn't much dialogue, slow-paced.


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"