And I also COMPLETELY LOATHE all the people (who are primarily women) that have to point out phallic symbolism constantly. It’s everywhere all the time; GET OVER IT. Its fine to make these correlations but I as long as you acknowledge that “you can connect ANYTHING to a film if you really tried”.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/hozhiwei/RluSrBbn9NI/AAAAAAAAJsQ/nv17fnAlubs/DSC_3453.JPG

While I wouldn’t doubt the assholish nature of somebody in an art class, I feel a need to point out that with abstract art, there is obviously a chance that its meaning will change for you over time. So I wouldn’t say that people who at one point got something out of a painting, and later on something else, were necessarily lying – even though I honestly don’t doubt that is the case with your example.

I have quoted this several times, mainly in dealing with personal relations though. Nothing pisses me off more than when somebody mentions “you know, this is a really good debate” or “man, I am having such a good time”. With artistic experience, I can see in the moment shutting up is the right response, but things that are indeed masterful, will prove to become better the more you open them up, and it’s a shame to leave them closed for fear of ruining them. Perhaps, they weren’t worthy of your praise afterall, if they weren’t able to stand up to scrutinizing.

“That Miro painting might as well to me be called ‘Cock Chocolate’”

The title is an inseparable part of the artwork though. Had it been called Cock Chocolate, it would have been a completely different painting. I will say that it’s much more impressive in real life than on the screen, but it’s hard to recreate things like this. I do appreciate your individual responses.

The Joker analogy is not meant as saying that The Joker is literally a terrorist. But the film does evoke certain themes that are comparable to the real world situation. I think you’re getting hinged on minor details, when I was talking about certain elements that makes you think about it in a different context. In no way is Batman a great example of this mind you, but it’s the one that has been brought up. I would agree that anybody who would argue that Batman was directly comparable to George Bush is a failure at being an intellectual, and at being a human being.

I’ll just say that I agree with you on the point that anyone can come up with some crazy connect-the-dots theory about any film, but I really think the Batman/Bush thing has caught on because there’s something there. If someone were to come up with an intricate thesis about how The Dark Knight was commenting on the plight of Native American mushroom farmers or something (which I’m sure any egghead with a wild imagination could), of course it would be bullshit. But saying that The Dark Knight is in many ways deliberately set against the backdrop of real life political realities is legitimate.

That’s why this particular question has resonated with people, even though equating Batman with George W. Bush is transparently simple-minded. Similarly, I think it’s pretty obvious that Wall-E is making some sort of comment about American overconsumption and environmental neglect. Just what it says and how strongly it does so and whether that matters is where the discussion comes in. I guess I’m just saying it is a fine line between what is ridiculous and what is legitimate, but to me, it’s usually interesting to argue anything that can be backed up by solid examples from the films themselves.

It’s also hard for me throughout all the messaging to relate back to the analogies because

1) Everyone loves the Joker, he’s make to be pretty likeable, admit it. ledgers face in makeup is going to be on t-shirts for the rest of our lives, and is the new Scarface as far as bad merch is concerned.

2) He has no specific religious, political or even personal motive other than destruction for destruction’s sake. No one is going to ever say that the Joker hates Gotham for its freedom.

Perhaps my favorite artist of all time is Keith Haring. A lot of his work is abstract/pattern based. But I appreciate that when he actually makes those, if they don’t have a stupid (to be funny and take the piss) or obvious title, they are simply left Untitled.

There was this humongous asshole in my art classes in college, where we had very specific assignments, and he’d come in with abstractish paintings and explain to the teacher how it connected to the assignment. Most of the time he got away with it. Years later though, I went back to his website and saw that these same paintings were up there with completely different explanations. So he’s lying now or was lying then. That Miro painting might as well to me be called ‘Cock Chocolate’

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with searching for meaning in films. I just think there’s a very fine line between genuine and original opinions and regurgitated, sensational, pretentious verbal wankery. I suppose it’s a personal line that I’m unwilling to cross. Just listen to the Movie Club Podcast for some good dot-connecting between Funny Games and Lady in the Water. I’m cool with it. It’s fun.

HOWEVER, as I stated in the title of this post…it’s easy to see films differently. It’s easy to apply a meaning to anything. I imagine that any character in the history of film could, in some complicated way, be connected to George W. Bush. This doesn’t impress me and it doesn’t interest me. Maybe the fact that 98% of reading into film is simply opinion, and 50% of the time those opinions are rooted in intellectualizing for the sake of intellectualizing rather than truley attempting to understand or appreciate what a film is trying to say or do.

I would hate for the stunning and original imagery of a Werner Herzog film to be ruined by an intellectual battle of metaphors. It reminds me of a great scene from one of my favourite films, Crimson Tide. Denzel and Hackman are enjoying a cigar above deck of their submarine, taking in a beautiful sunset. After a moment of silence, Hackman commends Denzel’s character; ‘You knew to shut up and enjoy the view. Most eggheads want to talk it away.’

As for the painting…it’s nice to look at, but I’m not interested in trying to figure out what the artist is trying to say. Especially when it’s an obvious statement agains the treatment of women within the Muslim world.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2070/2382725440_6e7561398e.jpg

It’s by Joan Miro and it’s called The Birth Of The World. Granted, in real life it is much bigger, but when I saw it in New York I spent a good 20 minutes thinking about it, contemplating the title, the composition, and how it made sense, or didn’t make sense. Initially you are struck with the colors and emotion that it emits, and then the thought processes kick in – a title helps alot in this case. But I know alot of people will just write this off as nonsense that kids could paint. But this is a case of a (in my opinion) a masterpiece, where alot of the work is done in the thinking of it as you experience it. I would be interested to know Jay’s opinion as well, but I think I can guess it .

Jay, I don’t see how reading into things isn’t a valid way of approaching moviewatching. It is precisely the sign of something truly good, that you can keep on digging and it will keep on answering back and answering back. I know that you, from what I can deduce, have little interest in digging in anything, but your attitude towards people who are more interested in the ideas than the execution, comes off as defensive more so than anything else.