'inner meaning' behind films

Randorama · Post by **Randorama** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:03 pm

Every time i hear about inner meanings in movies i think to this high-school buddy of mine that, well, was rather bad at everything (especially math and sports), dressed in black, and spent his life worshipping "the arts" and "literature" because they are supposed to be full of inner meanings and whatnot, and of course he was the only one sensible and smart enough to recognize them. He basically stopped acting this part once he lost his virginity and started having relationships.

So, i think that behind inner meanings and mysterious interpretations, there's just a 40 years-old virgin who's being exploited by the Moloch which is society, in order to propagate disturbing memes of pseudo-gnosis, embedded in shallow pop-art productions. Please, help society and find an easy girl for these 40 y.o. virgins

Beside that, nothing beats "Bad dudes have kidnapped Ronnie" in terms of Reaganophilia

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:29 pm

^
40 Year Old Virgin is about collecting.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:30 pm

Randorama wrote:Every time i hear about inner meanings in movies i think to this high-school buddy of mine that, well, was rather bad at everything (especially math and sports), dressed in black, and spent his life worshipping "the arts" and "literature" because they are supposed to be full of inner meanings and whatnot, and of course he was the only one sensible and smart enough to recognize them. He basically stopped acting this part once he lost his virginity and started having relationships.

So, i think that behind inner meanings and mysterious interpretations, there's just a 40 years-old virgin who's being exploited by the Moloch which is society, in order to propagate disturbing memes of pseudo-gnosis, embedded in shallow pop-art productions. Please, help society and find an easy girl for these 40 y.o. virgins

I think of the day I spent at a workshop for film majors when i was thinking about going to school for film which completely turned me off from film school/film majors. I thought to myself "These people are fucking retarded." Overanalyzing every moment, every shot, every line, taking all of the joy and wonder out of story telling and filmmaking, and turning it into a circle jerk for pseudo intellectuals.

Case in point; I got a copy of Casshern after my friend showed me a trailer of it. Said friend wanted to see it so I brought it home so we could watch it. In the beginning of the movie, a lightning bolt strikes a tank of bodies designed to be used in medicine and they come to life. Immediately after this happened, my friend turned to me and launched in to a half hour diatribe about possible meaning of the lightning bolt.

LoneSage · Post by **LoneSage** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:47 pm

Acid King wrote:
Randorama wrote:Every time i hear about inner meanings in movies i think to this high-school buddy of mine that, well, was rather bad at everything (especially math and sports), dressed in black, and spent his life worshipping "the arts" and "literature" because they are supposed to be full of inner meanings and whatnot, and of course he was the only one sensible and smart enough to recognize them. He basically stopped acting this part once he lost his virginity and started having relationships.

So, i think that behind inner meanings and mysterious interpretations, there's just a 40 years-old virgin who's being exploited by the Moloch which is society, in order to propagate disturbing memes of pseudo-gnosis, embedded in shallow pop-art productions. Please, help society and find an easy girl for these 40 y.o. virgins
I think of the day I spent at a workshop for film majors when i was thinking about going to school for film which completely turned me off from film school/film majors. I thought to myself "These people are fucking retarded." Overanalyzing every moment, every shot, every line, taking all of the joy and wonder out of story telling and filmmaking, and turning it into a circle jerk for pseudo intellectuals.

Case in point; I got a copy of Casshern after my friend showed me a trailer of it. Said friend wanted to see it so I brought it home so we could watch it. In the beginning of the movie, a lightning bolt strikes a tank of bodies designed to be used in medicine and they come to life. Immediately after this happened, my friend turned to me and launched in to a half hour diatribe about possible meaning of the lightning bolt.

Ahahha, these two posts made me laugh.
I know a co-worker who's very pretentious about movies, huge know-it-all who doesn't know much...he tried to tell me the deeper, symbolic meaning of Underworld 2.

Art/Film snobs are the scum of the earth.

it290 · Post by **it290** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:03 pm

I seriously doubt Cronenberg would have been able to do a straight adaptation of Naked Lunch for film. It has no linear narrative structure and so much of the content is, to say the least, unfilmable if you're going to actually try and get a theatre release.

The movie doesn't have an incredibly linear narrative, either. I think it did a good job of going into Burrough's mentality a little bit, but it wasn't Naked Lunch. That's not to say I don't enjoy the movie, but it could have explored the themes in the book more faithfully to say the least.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:53 pm

LoneSage wrote:
Ahahha, these two posts made me laugh.
I know a co-worker who's very pretentious about movies, huge know-it-all who doesn't know much...he tried to tell me the deeper, symbolic meaning of Underworld 2.

Art/Film snobs are the scum of the earth.

I used to work at a video store some years back and there was this guy I worked with who was a total film snob/geek theater major. The stereotypical everything-you-like-sucks type snob that would lambast action movies for being stupid... then he would put on episodes of Friends in the store. Go figure...

::high nasally voice:: "Ya see, Man Hunter, now that's a film! Silence of the Lambs, that's a movie..."

The movie doesn't have an incredibly linear narrative, either. I think it did a good job of going into Burrough's mentality a little bit, but it wasn't Naked Lunch. That's not to say I don't enjoy the movie, but it could have explored the themes in the book more faithfully to say the least.

I agree, the thematic content was pretty much dropped entirely in favor of a pseudo biographical blending of material from his life and the book. The only way I could see him being able to get around that in terms of being able to thread a story together, would be to come up with another story and set the movie itself in Annexia. Even so, I think he would have to drop a lot of what Burroughs used to show these themes because of content regulation, so to speak.

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:18 am

I have some 'deeper meaning' for you right here...

Eh, I think I'm different from most film snobs in one way. I'm a bit of a filter feeder. I hate all the hollywood junk, but I go see it anyway. In fact, I'll watch any movie once, and enjoy a lot of the really crappy ones to boot.

That said, I won't pretend that any of them or good, or that any of these directors are geniuses or have even promoted cinema in any direction. If anything, the art of films has seeming gone backwards in the last 30 years.

So I guess that makes me a snob.

GaijinPunch · Post by **GaijinPunch** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:00 am

Oh, and Lord of the Rings is the most overrated garbage yet. "Good vs. Evil", yea never seen that one before.

If that stopped you from enjoying the movie, then you really missed the boat.

Ataru · Post by **Ataru** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:30 am

NTSC-J wrote:Dawn of the Dead was a statement on the growing consumerism of the 80s. Reaganomics = zombies.

Despite being released in 1978, eh?

neorichieb1971 · Post by **neorichieb1971** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:31 am

Castaway -

That Fedex employees go far and beyond the call of duty to get the job done

Specineff · Post by **Specineff** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:40 am

You ever saw that Fedex ad released after the movie, showing that the supposed package that Hanks didn't open contained a radio, a GPS and a water purifier?

dpful · Post by **dpful** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:31 am

I was thinking about this recently---
Steven Speilberg movies.....
I really like them, I think he is a real master of the medium concerning the moment-- I mean a REAL MASTER, he's great.
But the one thing he can't grasp is the topic of this thread- He really can't make movies with any convincing underlying theme at all lately. Such a shame! What if you could watch one of his movies and leave the theater remembering what it was about beyond whatever cool thing happened?

Really great by the moment, though. Anyone who says otherwise is a snob.

neorichieb1971 · Post by **neorichieb1971** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:46 am

One of my favorite movies is "stand by me".

You can't choose your family, but you can choose your friends. Its just so powerful, yet so mellow.. its like an out of body experience.

Proof that Hollywood can make great movies.

Specineff · Post by **Specineff** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:08 am

Besides we all know that Cherry Pez is the greatest food known to man.

NTSC-J · Post by **NTSC-J** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:51 am

Ataru wrote:
NTSC-J wrote:Dawn of the Dead was a statement on the growing consumerism of the 80s. Reaganomics = zombies.
Despite being released in 1978, eh?

Yea, Reagan was around before the 80s I'm afraid. Consummerism exploded in the 80s, big thanks to him. If you don't believe me, google it or go to wikipedia.

Vexorg · Post by **Vexorg** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:54 am

neorichieb1971 wrote:One of my favorite movies is "stand by me".

You can't choose your family, but you can choose your friends. Its just so powerful, yet so mellow.. its like an out of body experience.

Proof that Hollywood can make great movies.

Or rather, that they had the capability of making a great movie about 20 years ago... Haven't seen much evidence of it since then.

I think I own a total of two movies that have been produced within the past twenty years (and one of those is a sequel in a box set I bought mostly for the earlier one. Granted, I'm not much of a movie person in the first place, but I have all but completely rejected Hollywood at this point. I think it's been three years now since I last saw a movie in the theater, and probably longer than that since I bought a music CD.

Hollywood is increasingly becoming disconnected from their audiences. There seems to be a lot of films coming out of there these days that don't amount to much more than self-validations of the echo chamber views most Hollywood types seem to hold. This results in preachy pseudo-allegorical stuff almost completely devoid of any entertaining content. If I'm going to be lectured, why should I ever bother going to the movies in the first place?

The whole place could disappear and I could care less.

neorichieb1971 · Post by **neorichieb1971** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:26 am

If a Hollywood movie did come out that was extremely good, nobody would watch it. It would take a DVD release and then a sequel for any profits to be made.

Much like Matrix.

Its only Pixar these days that have that ability to be consistantly pleasing.

Hollywood movies of late that I liked were - Saw and Identity, much liked Hero and Oldboy as well but they are foreign.

Ataru · Post by **Ataru** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:02 pm

NTSC-J wrote:
Ataru wrote:
NTSC-J wrote:Dawn of the Dead was a statement on the growing consumerism of the 80s. Reaganomics = zombies.
Despite being released in 1978, eh?
Yea, Reagan was around before the 80s I'm afraid. Consummerism exploded in the 80s, big thanks to him. If you don't believe me, google it or go to wikipedia.

Reaganomics is a term from the 80's, Reagan wasn't president until the 80's, and the movie was about the consumerism of the 70's, not the 80's.

Ataru · Post by **Ataru** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:27 pm

neorichieb1971 wrote:If a Hollywood movie did come out that was extremely good, nobody would watch it. It would take a DVD release and then a sequel for any profits to be made.

Much like Matrix.

The Matrix made shitloads of money theatrically.

"The Matrix is poised to dominate the box office again. With positive word of mouth, high repeat business, and no real direct competition, it should have another blockbuster weekend of around $20 million, raising it's total to around $70 million in just 12 days."

it made $171,479,930 domestically, theatrically in 1999 alone.

Post by **system11** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:50 pm

Rollerball was not about Rollerball. The real theme wasn't hugely hidden in there, and in fact was emphasised in a lot of places, but audiences STILL wrote it off as an action movie about a future sport.

Idiots.

EDIT: And I mean the old 70s one, not that piece of trash they released more recently.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:09 pm

Ataru wrote:
NTSC-J wrote:
Ataru wrote: Despite being released in 1978, eh?
Yea, Reagan was around before the 80s I'm afraid. Consummerism exploded in the 80s, big thanks to him. If you don't believe me, google it or go to wikipedia.
Reaganomics is a term from the 80's, Reagan wasn't president until the 80's, and the movie was about the consumerism of the 70's, not the 80's.

I'm not sure when the term was first coined, but the idea was already there in the 70s. Remember that Reagan made several runs at the White House, and was a popular Governor of California for 8 years. His economic views were at the center of his platform, and served to distinguish him from others in his party.

captain ahar · Post by **captain ahar** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:27 pm

and he made a movie with doris day... and she died!

NTSC-J · Post by **NTSC-J** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:11 pm

Ataru wrote:Reaganomics is a term from the 80's, Reagan wasn't president until the 80's, and the movie was about the consumerism of the 70's, not the 80's.

Ok...so, yea it was about consummerism. What's your point? Being anal about horror movie trivia?

gaijinpunch wrote:If that stopped you from enjoying the movie, then you really missed the boat.

Nah, what kept me from enjoying the movie was the setting, characters and story. Just not my bag. I'm a Star Wars-man myself.

Ataru · Post by **Ataru** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:16 pm

NTSC-J wrote:
Ataru wrote:Reaganomics is a term from the 80's, Reagan wasn't president until the 80's, and the movie was about the consumerism of the 70's, not the 80's.
Ok...so, yea it was about consummerism. What's your point? Being anal about horror movie trivia?

my point was just that the film is from the 70's, so how could it be about Reagan? You're the one going out of their way to defend their original point instead of saying "uh, oops, wrong decade I guess."

DEL · Post by **DEL** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:08 pm

As has been stated earlier in this thread, Hollywood movies are just about ca$h these days. Rarely do we come across a director who has put in, or been 'allowed' to put in painstaking efforts on a Hollywood film. You have to look elsewhere for that kind of film.

With regards to inner meaning though, Hollywood came up with the following:-

National Treasure - Nicholas Cage/Turtletaub 2004 :- A PR exercise for the FreeMasons
A Blatant one at that!
Clandestine meetings of secret societies should not be foistered off to the general public as 'heroic'.
Do a Google search on 'Bildebergers' if you want to discover more.
(Ignore the Biblical references that will come up with this search, just concentrate on the known facts).

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

NTSC-J wrote:Oh, and Lord of the Rings is the most overrated garbage yet. "Good vs. Evil", yea never seen that one before. How boring and unchallenging can you get. Way to send the message that everything is in black and white, unlike the real world. I guess it makes bombing brown children a little easier.

yea dude lets ignore that its a book written during wwii