The Art of Overanalyzing Movies

[@reecegallagher1822]

I love how you are over analyzing over analyzing

[@generalcrustard0311]

@@ForwardEarth it's a joke.

[@twisterants389]

My brain hurt

[@genin69]

I just made it 666 likes.. on a post written by another god

[@sharif47]

We should learn to over-analyze over-analysis so that any time someone over-analyzes something, we can over-analyze their over-analysis so that we can prove why over-analyzing is bad overall. I hope I didn't over-analyze this topic.

[@MtnDewGuy100]

*ANALYZECEPTION !!!!!*

[@ingrid9635]

I went to an arts exposition in Brazil (excuse my English) as an arts student. We had been analyzing a lot of paintings and the meaning behind the colors that were used. We came across a well known artist, and he had a painting of a guy with green hair. My teacher was like, "what is the meaning behind his hair color?" and the guy said "well I ran out of brown paint, so I just used green because it looks cool lmao". Teacher was very disappointed

[@YumiSumiYT]

haha that's very funny.

[@ell5261]

Krähe ' that sum up all these so called critics career!

[@bilibalbu]

Qual é o nome do artista?

[@ponderatulify]

The disconnect between the do-ers and the talkers. The ones in the arena, experiencing it viscerally, and the zombie crowd just mindlessly looking at the ones in the arena, judging, gossiping, and finding whatever topic they need to invent just to avoid being in the arena.

[@minimerceloki]

we do a lot of that here... our SAT's has a bunch of questions about analyzing what did this guy meant with this lyric.. what does this photo represent... etc etc just kill me

[@Zushi1312]

When I was in secondary school studying English literature we spent literally two weeks over analysing the "fog" outside of the house in the 'woman in black' which was later made into a movie with Daniel Radcliffe and what it means and one girl actually got so sick she emailed Susan hill, the author and asked her exactly what she meant. Her reply: "it's literally just fog"

[@darkseid856]

Lol

[@roro_81]

Or is it.....?

[@cmrdecc6516]

Hah 😂

[@GirlDo3]

Litterature teachers can be so pretentuous.

[@MoofEMP]

the girl's name? albert einstein

[@dimitreze]

Bob Dylan and John Lennon intentionally started to write nonsensical lyrics on the 60's to make fun of these people who tries to see the hidden meaning on everything

[@LackingSaint]

And, as a result of writing those nonsensical lyrics, they were making a statement about the desire of audiences to read deeper meanings into what they consume - which is, in itself, a deeper meaning.

[@crazycreeper888]

If I recall correctly, I Am The Walrus by The Beatles was made to be nonsensical as well for the same reason.

[@putrefaction1630]

Jack Saint / LackingSaint 🤯

[@ChildOfHephaestus]

Dislexeeya there were fan theories that Paul McCartney had been dead for some time, and that his appearances and singing since then had been made and arranged. Paul “was the walrus,” because in an earlier song they’d mentioned a walrus dying. So Paul saying “I am the walrus” was like him confessing that he was actually dead. But they did it as a prank lmao obviously he’s alive Edit: read what @DeathToDictators said below for a more accurate account. I’m not a Beatles expert, I’m a Queen person, so you know this ain’t all right.

[@MonotoneCreeper]

Take 'Stuck Inside Of Mobile With The Memphis Blues Again' or 'Glass Onion' as examples.

[@swtb3773]

"If someone tells you what a story is about, they are probably right. If they tell you that that is all a story is about, they are very definitely wrong." -Neil Gaiman

[@elevenseven-yq4vu]

Praise to the master. And praise to those who refuse to become his slaves. 😊

[@BobJoe-rq9nz]

I like Oscar Wilde's take on art, specifically what he wrote in the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray: "The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. The critic is he who can translate into another manner or new material his impression of beautiful things." (Just the first few lines of the preface)

[@umok7837]

All art is quite useless.

[@CrydonPT]

@@umok7837 Not useless at all. At the least, it entertains and inspires

[@umok7837]

Crydon ... it’s a quote from Oscar Wilde, taken from the preface regarding the aestheticism movement that is mentioned above.

[@CrydonPT]

@@umok7837 forgive my ignorance

[@seanmackenzie6450]

Sounds like religion. We’re all critics and the artist is God!

[@JishinimaTidehoshi]

I personally really like it how a piece of art can have a different meaning to everyone.

[@caloomface]

Very true. And whatever feeling or vision you see from it tends to be your own. There's something special about that.

[@Wyllowisp]

Highland Kingman I personally really like it how a comment can have a different meaning to everyone.

[@shady596x4]

Highland Kingman how so if I may ask?

[@joshlamson5329]

Guys, please. Pearl is commenting this because of the controversial artwork that is his profile picture.

[@Melkac]

I do as well, but some works simply don't have a deeper meaning, they're just as they appear on the surface. And that's ok. I love analyzing works when it shows the Creator intended it to have a deeper meaning, but it's really dumb to see fucking little mermaid as some allegory for feminism in the 20s. Or something. Some people believe in dead of the author. I do as well, but not for cases like these

[@jordansullivan5764]

I love what David Lynch says: "I hate when something is finished, and people want you to translate it back into words."

[@maxwellschmidt235]

Paired with the Kubrick line about how ridiculous it sounds when a director just says the idea they were trying to convey, the two lines really get across why authorial intent is an unreliable guide. They already said it in the art. If they could have said the same thing with the same effect in a few lines of interview, they would have communicated it that way to begin with.

[@Herbivor7]

I don’t see stanley kubrick’s face in the clouds :/

[@MasterNinjaXz]

me neither! SOMEONE TELL ME WHERE IT IS

[@87Marilia]

Pyrologe I see too.. we don’t know if a face put there for a reason or own brain make we think it’s a face cause the Brain trying make to us a image we familiar

[@heythere9707]

Alexander Supertramp whoosh

[@awayforthewin1325]

It's not there, it's a meme

[@kevtb874]

That's weird. All I ever see in the clouds is Stanley Kubrick's face.

[@NateandNoahTryLife]

I think Tarantino said it best with “it wasn’t the movie they intended to make but it was the movie they made.” Judy Garland never meant to be a gay icon. Pee Wee’s playhouse was meant for kids but gained a huge following with college kids. You don’t get to pick who likes your work and why they like it and what they see in it. And that’s ok! For me it keeps movies fun to talk with my friends after about what we thought .

[@thejoker0123]

i super 100% agree with you

[@laurenbi]

Nate and Noah Try Life I agree. Artists need to realize what they create becomes more then just theirs the moment they share it with the world. Everyone experiences things their own way and those experiences and interpretations are a valid aspect of their work. An artist is more than his artwork and artwork is more than its artist.

[@MTankTheTurtle]

When was Julie Garland a Gay Icon? I know Doris Day had "secret love" from Calamity Jane but never heard of Garland.

[@NateandNoahTryLife]

M-Tank The Tortoise there’s actually an entire Wikipedia page devoted to just this subject! I first heard about it through You Must Remember This (a podcast on the golden years of Hollywood). I’d highly recommended the episode on her, she had a really interesting and tragic life.

[@TomCantDance]

There's a really good video by Lindsay Ellis this idea intersects with, which is about how Nazi's really like their portrayal in most films and adopt them into their culture. It's all about The Producers and Mel Brooks and I'd sincerely recommend it

[@indigowendigo8464]

Good art will create a slightly different sensation in every viewer. That's what gives it power.

[@Make-Asylums-Great-Again]

indigo wendigo I have no sense of sensation.

[@theevertaz1612]

@@TheWatchernator why are you so right

[@hebinyao709]

You mean like The Room?

[@TheHyena-ru8bz]

Your comment is a year old but its wisdom is timeless!! Thank you! Art is an expression and every one who views it is looking at it through a different lense.

[@luizhenriquemoraismazzucco4526]

White room - cream

[@zwickflixproductions4379]

Character: uses key, gets stabbed, or drives into tunnel Freudian analysts: S E X ?

[@user-jl4zz1re4c]

S E X !

[@appealtoreason7584]

God I fucking hate this. Can’t watch analyses on any Slasher film because it’s always “male sexual dominance because they’re stabbing”

[@andrewlivingston1590]

Remember: any object that's longer than it is wide is always phallic and any object that's wider than it is long is always vaginal.

[@luizhenriquemoraismazzucco4526]

Mkkkk

[@Pyraticalpunk]

Or beating anything up with a female in the room

[@bc9942]

Me: * overthinking this video *

[@topgoers]

What a surrealist

[@hidydog6628]

ensiana oooooooooooooooooooollololooloooooool

[@eftorq]

Hahaha same! The only thought in my head was "Maybe these directors deflect it, so that everything seems to be easy. But actually, they intended everything and just deny the layers if depth."

[@icecreamalacarte]

This video explains why I love David Lynch; nothing explained, all on the viewer to figure out-limitless interpretations

[@robinhyperlord9053]

There is no such thing as overanalyzing.

[@sharif47]

After J.K Rowling, it's hard to take artist's words as law. Edit: after a certain point YT decided not to remind of this post and whoa! That's a lot of likes.

[@mnikhk]

Md Shariful Islam 1604064 so true

[@rae5425]

J.k Rowling. "artist"

[@WassilyMyBigLovex3]

@@rae5425 So? Why wouldn't she be an artist?

[@grinshady0164]

@@WassilyMyBigLovex3 I think they meant cause she's a writer but then again writers are/can be artists in their right too, just with words

[@SpikeLawliet]

@@grinshady0164 That's not the reason

[@CZsWorld]

I'm a bit believer that a crucial part of movie analysis is introspecting unintended themes. That is why it's called subtext. It is subconscious. That's not to say that intentional hidden meanings don't exist and those are fun to analyze too. I'm also convinced The Shining contains a lot of both.

[@rH0und]

HEY ITS FUNNY HORROR MAN

[@almogz9486]

Subtext is not subconscious subtext is what is implied yet not stated directly. Subtext could be an advisor character smooth talking a king giving them praise and compliments while subtlety trying to "innocently" give the king biased facts to make the king arrive at the conclusion the advisor wants the text says that he is saying what he says but the subtext might say that he hates the king and is just using him to further his agenda. This could be inferred without the advisor breaking into a monologue about his true plans or intentions later. In a movie you can get subtext by examining the music tone camera angles colors and more. If a calm seemingly innocuous scene has erie music and muted colors it might imply the scene has hidden subtext that justifies those film making choices despite the mundane text. Subtext is not subconscious

[@chrisjfox8715]

​@@almogz9486subtext isn't inherently and unilaterally subconscious but it most definitely can be. When subtext is so subtle that you don't realize it until later that it nonetheless informed certain instincts you, as a viewer, had about the scene then I would nonetheless call that subconscious.

[@breakfreak3181]

Subtext isn't subconscious. They aren't interchangeable terms.

[@levmyshkin8366]

this comment thread sounds like a dictionary eating itself

[@missnewbienoob]

My college creative writing prof back in the 1990s told us students that once you release your art to the public, it is no longer yours. No matter what story you intendended or meaning you imbedded, the ultimate message is up to the viewer. As a writer that giddily thrives on subtext, that notion terrifies me. Still, I also realize that I can't have my cake and eat it, too. If I put my work out there, it's because I'm able to let it go at some level. In that, I think artists and chefs aren't that different. Our work is to be consumed, and it will never come back to us the way we originally presented it.

[@lc1279]

Death of the author?

[@zachmiller8725]

There is something freeing and poetic about that notion, but in this age of cancel culture, that thought also kind of terrifies me a little bit. If everything's fair game, it does give a large swath of the audience license to discredit and slander your work (or you personally) for something you never put into your work.

[@jamesmata2945]

Thats exatly right thats why i scoff at people who judges ones interpitation.

[@jamesmata2945]

Thats exatly right thats why i scoff at people who judges ones interpitation.

[@elevenseven-yq4vu]

Beautiful comparison.

[@thejesuschrist]

Glorious! Keep these overanalyzed video essays coming. I love them!

[@jakeroosenbloom]

This is a smart way to spread your channel. I love it.

[@CharlesTheClumsy]

In a way, you're one of the reasons for the adpocalypse.

[@CharlesTheClumsy]

Are you commenting on every video I watch?

[@alsogaba]

When your videos get the approval of the literal son of god.

[@allthingsfascinating]

Christ! Stop promoting yourself, Jesus.

[@ComboSmooth]

I took an art class in college. After one of my pieces the teacher asked me to write a short description talking about the meaning of my work. I told her there was none, I just did what I felt like doing in the moment. She said make up the meaning then. That's just a story, I guess make up your own meaning to it

[@rorywhelan_]

CT Your lack of an explanation reflects your dissociative identity disorder, how you’re constantly making up new personalities for yourself everyday, and the teacher is your subconscious telling you to be someone different every time you wake up

[@tfwthelsdkicksin6083]

@@rorywhelan_ oh shit.

[@likelihoodoccurrence2384]

Dirty streets are no advertisement for a prosperous society...

[@hardincrowder2545]

The blue curtain example always bothers me because most authors won’t draw attention or even mention something as mundane as the color of curtains unless there is a reason to do so. If the author of a book describes the color of the curtains for no reason then they are a sloppy writer. This is where films and books can differ. If you are filming a scene by a window you may need curtains in the shot even if you have no message or meaning to convey in the curtains. Someone watching a film and basing their interpretation on something like the color of curtains may be overstepping, but if the author of a book goes out of the way to tell the reader the color of curtains, then they should expect the reader to think there is at least some small significance to be found in this detail.

[@TheRadioSquare]

That's a general example. You can tell someone a curtain is blue just in a context of describing a room that character finds comfortable and colorful with the color blue having no deeper meaning. The curtain analogy itself is simply about overanalyzing and trying to assign great meaning to something without much meaning behind it. You probably got that so going into semantics and saying "well akshully in most cases..." is pointless.

[@yurivincentweber]

And yet, the filmmaker cannot avoid the decision of what color curtains to choose. Whether they want to or not, if the curtains are visible, they will be a certain color, texture, style. And that decision may be a symbolic one, choosing a color to evoke a specific mood, or a stylistic one, choosing a color beause the film is set in a specific era or pertains to a specific genre. Or maybe the decision is a pragmatic one, and the color is chosen because it fits best with the interior; even so, it implies something about who lives there. The only way I see it not being a conscious choice, is if the filmmaker decide to use "whatever is available", and that just sounds like lazy filmmaking to me.

[@hardincrowder2545]

TheRadioSquare in the example you gave the curtain does have a deeper meaning. It is conveying comfort for the character, which proves my point. A good author doesn’t point out the color of curtains without reason.

[@viljamtheninja]

@@TheRadioSquare I think you missed the point about the differences in interpreting film and literature.

[@TheRadioSquare]

@@viljamtheninja it might have went over your head but my point was that this point is shit. It's trying to poke a hole in an old ass analogy that everyone can immediately understand for no good reason.

[@TechnoBacon]

"William Dafoe" Oh.

[@TxxT33]

Techno Bacon what?

[@boslyporshy6553]

He likes to play, *Da Foe*

[@justarandomguywantingtostu6539]

@@TxxT33 His name is Willem not William and the "oh" is a reference to the green goblin

[@stuartlittle3048]

Thank you, you're a certified meme og.

[@guineapig55555]

William James "Willem" Dafoe

[@Jordan03042]

“Somethings aren’t meant to be understood, their meant to be felt” Christopher Nolan on Interstellar

[@thepineappleman4442]

ok

[@piratedgenes]

"Don't try to understand it, feel it."

[@Maxxxim1]

PiratedGenes « Don’t just stare at it, eat it »

[@Johnnysmithy24]

@@Maxxxim1 Y E S

[@jothishprabu8]

If Only his films were that great to justify this statement

[@Navzzzz]

I think everyone is allowed to take what they want out of a movie. That's the thing about art, it allows you introspect, and learn valuable things about yourself and life.

[@abeherbert6603]

Although it can sometimes be ridiculous, I think the stigmatising of textual analysis, particularly in school, is dangerous. Teachers aren't forcing a particular reading of a text on students, they are trying to teach and encourage analytical skills. That's their job. So, when your teacher says "the curtains are blue because X", rather than dismissing it as wrong, come up with your own interpretation that you can back up with evidence from the text. You can say literally anything about a text, as long as you can convincingly support it with evidence. Textual analysis is a great skill to have in future, whether you end up using it in your employment or just to get that extra enjoyment out of a book or film.

[@afrosymphony8207]

Nah thats still kinda wrong to me. Like kubric said, he wanted the audience to feel something at the end of 2001 and thats the key thing for me, FEELING!. I think teachers should focus more on how the reading, a particular sentence, passage etc made students feel instead of forcing them to textually analyze stuff they dont care about. My english literature tried this in my class and i mean it was fucking amazing. People started sharing really interesting and personal stories about themselves based on that and it just encourages students to be more open and to be empathetic towards others really.

[@katrinepetersen2566]

Kittenstomper If a teacher says that the curtains Are blue because X, They Are doing it all wrong. They Are supposed to give room for justified interpretations. No matter what. They Can say that the general consensus is X, but Then They should ask if the students agree. It is just as much learning how to find clues and interpretate as Well as learning how to argument (Particularly, when it is someone in ‘power’ like a teacher You look up to)

[@madeleinek.8089]

afro symphony but you can use textual analysis to look at the choices the artist made to generate that feeling. How did the artist employ their craft to produce those kinds of reactions in your classmates? For me this kind of analysis makes me appreciate great artists even more because a lot of the time they are making conscious decisions in order to evoke a particular kind of reaction, even if it is unique to each person. Great art isn’t all random, even if it’s based on feeling instead of conscious decision like some of the examples in the video. I think the more skillfully the art you’re discussing is created, the richer your discussion can be about the powerful reactions ppl had to it.

[@rolanddeschain6089]

@@afrosymphony8207 to textually analyze stuff doesn't exclude the feelings. Feelings are still there. Feelings even can't be teached or taken away from the viewer.

[@theodorebarger3840]

Once a Text has become a Text it is no longer the Artist's; it has become the Interpreter's

[@Doc-Holliday1851]

I once had a teacher insist that the story of “Lord of The Flies” matched up perfectly with “Bohemian Rhapsody”. She also had us over analyzing why the author chose to describe the foliage on the island as green.

[@nineveh17]

🤣

[@patricksnoring4739]

I can see people pointing out things like that, so long as they aren’t claiming that the author intended them without evidence

[@meicc398]

what?😂

[@YouCanCallMeReTro]

Feel like the books read in school were so over-read and over-analyzed by generations of students that they just praised anything that was outside the box because they've heard it all at this point.

[@warrior1563]

⁠@@loadishstone because 99% of the time it won’t invoke any meaningful thought.

[@4real675]

“The world's a hard place, Danny. It don't care. It don't hate you and me, but it don't love us, either. Terrible things happen in the world, and they're things no one can explain. Good people die in bad, painful ways and leave the folks that love them all alone. Sometimes it seems like it's only the bad people who stay healthy and prosper. The world don't love you, but your momma does and so do I.” ― Stephen King, The Shining

[@gravityvertigo13579]

There's a character named Stephen King in The Shining?

[@jstarwars360]

I saw The Shining a couple weeks ago and I don't remember that quote being any...oh wait never mind it's from the book.

[@4real675]

@@gravityvertigo13579 haha....it's from the book 😃 .

[@deadsoon]

That quote made choke up a little.

[@venusinblurs9430]

@Bob Robberts The movie actually sucks. Watch the book.

[@Akula114]

Did you notice the order of the film clips in this piece? And the audio clip from Kubrick using the phrase "duality of man." These "easter eggs" reveal a deeper, more subtle meaning to the very low-level music track with the jazz piano. When you look at these and compare and contrast them Nugent's other analytical pieces, it all falls into line. The red men's room in The Shining clip, Nugent's "The Meaning of Red In Movies" and "How to Break the Fourth Wall" are so telling of Jack Nugent's obsession with the Oedipus complex! Don't you see how obvious it all is!! How predictable it is that he'd do a piece on Dave Chappelle dodging laser beams! Once you see these partially hidden meanings, you can see the depth of Nugent's involvement and mastery of mise en scène. The emphasis on "There Will Be Blood," "Writing Women," and "The Power of the Vampire Myth," exposes the control of the Bund der Perfektibilisten or Bavarian Illuminati has over the importation of Sushi-grade "red" clam and lesbian Freemasonry. Brilliant!

[@letsgo_123]

Jesus dude, it all makes sense

[@gorillaman-pb7mo]

Ah that works

[@nategwright]

Can you write my AP Lit essays please

[@PT-on-YT]

I just had a stroke

[@Ethernet-q5o]

Wait lets see Don Cely's card

[@surrealdynamics4077]

This is precisely what troubles me when I finish a movie and start to analyze it. I just want to find a balance between connecting it with a lot of simbolism, and not thinking about it at all.

[@house0paine535]

Amen.

[@littleevo9776]

Legends say the curtains are still being analyzed

[@TerrifiedKaggy]

*cough cough* Gatsby *cough cough*

[@rolanddeschain6089]

And thats the great thing about art. There can be many interpretations and all of them are true

[@Sapsche]

Haha, you're joking, but wait til they've gotten to the cute little pom-pom curtain pull cords!!

[@KotoCrash]

Why the fuck would he tell the reader the colour if it was unimportant? Either theres a reason or its bad writing. This video is ignorant af.

[@nightmareTomek]

Tekno Pathetic ... .. xD ..... .... ....... xD ah damn, there's nothing I can say without insulting you.

[@janebaker7116]

Film: *Introduces a character who is eating* Me: 'oh he's hungry or greedy' My English teacher: 'this character has a vast emptiness inside him that needs to be filled'

[@likelihoodoccurrence2384]

Dirty streets are no advertisment for a prosperous society .....

[@jwanbesande2734]

That's the same goddamn thing

[@seanmackenzie6450]

I think there’s a distinction to be made between analyzing and over analyzing. You can look for overall themes and motifs and character motivation and development etc without assigning a meaning to every little thing. It’s okay to just let the curtains be blue. Every single detail doesn’t need to have a deeper meaning. The meaning can simply be to give the reader a better mental picture of the setting to make the book more immersive.

[@weightlessfilms5651]

"Over" analyzing is a natural consequence of analyzing for deeper meaning in general. While I agree with the general premise that overanalyzing may ultimately defeat the intended purpose of the film, I think it's more often than not used within education for a purpose. Teachers are too often lambasted for "over" analyzing, but you have to bear in mind that teachers (if we're referencing high school English per the example) are working with (majority) a population that at best read/watch passively. You have to give hammer-over-the head symbolic examples in order to teach students to engage actively in film; you're attempting to teach them that film and literature are not created merely for entertainment, and whether you're referencing subtext or not, it takes quite a bit of abstract instruction and practice to even help students wrap their minds around that notion. You may argue that I'm not giving high school students enough credit, and that when you were in high school (or you're currently in high school) this made perfect sense to you; well look what video you're watching haha. As a high school English/Film teacher, I can tell you to get students passed trying to sleep, talk to other people, or do 1 of a million things on their iPads and understand the depth of film and literature, it is a difficult task to accomplish... Cut the teachers some slack for overanalyzing every now and then...

[@LutraLovegood]

I don't remember any "the curtains are blue" moments from school, but I do remember "rats represent the jews" (Nazis weren't very subtle), which sadly enough still finds mirrors today ("demon rats").

[@Chandasouk]

Reminds me of what Hemingway said about The Old Man and The Sea, "There isn't any symbolism. The sea is the sea. The old man is the old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The sharks are sharks, no better, no worse."

[@SerWhiskeyfeet]

But then you can get authors like jk Rowling who retroactively say Dumbledore was gay. Like yeah, whatever lady, except you didn't have the guts to say that the headmaster of a wizarding school for little boys and girls is gay back in the mid 90's when you were scribbling notes on the back of diner napkins and living off welfare. Now that you're rich it's no risk to retroactively insert that as canon even thought there isn't any concrete evidence to support it. Just word of God in the form of the author. I'm all in favor of subjective reception theory so long as it is consistent and/or uses concrete evidence from the text or film. As far as I'm concerned, if authors wants to put forth a certain meaning, they should do it through the text, not through some bogus afterthought.

[@alfa01spotivo]

@@SerWhiskeyfeet living off what?

[@SerWhiskeyfeet]

@@alfa01spotivo in the us welfare is benefits from the state for people in relative poverty, not sure what it is called in the uk.

[@alfa01spotivo]

@@SerWhiskeyfeet ah

[@Wazzok1]

@@SerWhiskeyfeet It's called benefits or welfare in the UK. Older people call it social security.

[@Shaun-vy9vi]

“To the complaint, 'There are no people in these photographs,' I respond, There are always two people: the photographer and the viewer.” ― Ansel Adams

[@maddu8437]

3:13 J.K Rowling needs to understand these precious words.

[@badrecords-6476]

Your gay

[@likelihoodoccurrence2384]

Dirty streets are no advertisment for a prosperous society.....Dirty streets are no advertisement for a prosperous society.

[@dylanrambow2704]

I like to look at film from two arenas: the visceral, and the thematic. When you're analyzing the meaning of the choice to make the curtains blue, you're dealing with the thematic side of film, you're asking the questions about deeper meaning(s) behind all the creative choices in the film. When you're concerned with how you *feel* in the moment of the film, the emotions evoked by the image of the blue curtains, you're dealing with the visceral side of cinema. I believe there are always these two aspects of a film. A good film delivers profundity in one of these two categories, a great film delivers in both, a poor film in neither.

[@gabeugenio]

Author: *add a random detail meaningless to the story. Analyzers: That detail actually represents the self-destruction of society and loneliness caused by traumas. Author: Yes! That's exactly what I meant. You nailed it!

[@connor5669]

Doesn't matter what the author means. The product they create is out of their hands. There is no "correct" analysis of text, just compelling ideas. That's the point of analyzing art. To think, not to be right

[@gabeugenio]

@@connor5669 But that's right. I also see this way.

[@ialwayswatchyoutube812]

@@connor5669 there's a difference between annalizing something for meaning and annalizing something for the author's meaning. English teachers always say "what did the AUTHOR mean" and not just finding a possible meaning

[@John34bruh]

Breaking bad fans:

[@John34bruh]

@johan_94 lol any episode (besides ozymandias Abe face off, those are masterpieces)

[@FrMZTsarmiral]

Reminds me of Tolkien talking about the differences between allegory and applicability.

[@tysonasaurus6392]

FrMZ yes yes thank you

[@michaelt.5672]

Same here.

[@tilerdurpen4135]

Every young 20 year old that listens to Lo-fi and overanalyzes movies thinks they're part of the 1%

[@nzgkilla]

Maybe they are?

[@javirios3107]

How dare you project your inner millennial with comments like this! Edit: Well whatever a late millennial old gen z'er is

[@fa-ls9jw]

shut up durpen

[@bobjones2187]

1% of 7.7 billion is 77 million which means there’s 77 million people in the 1%, it’s really not much of a statement anymore to say someone’s in the one percent

[@humanbeing8602]

I don't even know what this means. You wrote a nonsense sentence.

[@raoul3016]

I bet that if the actual author of a book wrote an essay about his own book my English teacher would give him a C-

[@needamuffin]

I realized shortly after high school where my English teacher stopped the film Crash to point out that stop signs are red that the purpose of them picking apart texts and movies like that is not to find the true meaning behind them, it's the teach critical thinking and that that *may* be what the writer/director meant, but not necessarily that it is what they meant. It's to teach the students to pick things apart piece by piece instead of just taking everything as is. It may not exactly be useful to pick apart books or movies, but nonetheless it teaches a skill that may prove useful in other areas.

[@mackychloe]

I know exactly what you mean...... or do i?

[@kostajovanovic3711]

Crash from 2005? Oh you poor souls...

[@Retrostar619]

I really hope it's the Cronenberg he shew you.

[@mackychloe]

@@Retrostar619 lol great movie!

[@Kassidar]

This is kind of tangential but I think there's a difference between analyzing the colour of curtains in a movie and the colour of curtains in a book. That is: In a book if the colour of the curtains is irrelevant then the text would just read "the curtains" instead of "the curtains". Meanwhile in a movie a room that looks strange without curtains will have curtains in it and they have to be _some colour_ even if there's no reason for which colour they happen to be. In a book you can leave out whatever is not important so you can assume whatever is there is important (given a competent writer). While in a movie; unimportant things sometimes have to be there anyway. *EDIT* This really shouldn't have to be said but since some people apparently think others need to be told: Obviously the colour of the curtains in a movie can be on purpose and meaningful. "unimportant things _sometimes_ have to be there anyway" doesn't mean that features in a scene are never important or meaningful.

[@JovemEverton]

That also dependes. Some filmmakers would go as far as picking the color of the curtains based on something other than aesthetics.

[@cogginsnuff]

I agree with what you say about books, the color wouldn't or shouldn't be mentioned if it doesn't contribute in some meaningful way. On the other hand, in films things like the color of curtains may not be meaningful on their own, but the colors used in a scene CAN be very meaningful. The same could be argued of books in that describing the color of the curtains may not be directly conveying any specific meaning other than the color, but say spending a lot of text describing the scene in an extreme amount of detail could be used to give other sorts of meaning (like say a character being overly observant, setting up later changes to the color, maybe the color is a recurring theme etc.). I feel like he really hit on the head in this video by saying that it needs to be backed up by evidence/context and contribute in some way to the film or text.

[@nonk6441]

Kassidar in Vertigo by Hitchcock the color of the curtains were very important

[@radiofriendlybox]

or they could just be describing what the curtains look like. if there was a ten page description of the curtains then maybe the author intended something more.

[@charlierose7153]

@@radiofriendlybox but why is the author describing what the curtains look like? So that we understand the space the characters are in? but then why stop there when describing the room? For me, the sentence 'he entered a room with red curtains' and 'he entered a room with blue curtains' give different images about the rest of the room, ie red curtains are giving me a wealthier, more extravagant room. The colour itself doesn't have to represent an emotion, or Sin, or anything like that, but there is a LOT that can be said about a room, size, furniture, lighting etc etc, meaning what's left in and what isn't can change the emotional response/meaning of a piece. IMO

[@Professor-id4jh]

Never I had a problem with over-analyzing art. The different interpretations that people come up with shows how deeply they were affected by that piece of art. Art won't live for ages if people will just consume it for the feeling it carries, it has to send a message.

[@kaaghalaa]

Not entirely true: Before every sentence, an author has a decision on what to write next. It may sometimes not be intentional. When a writer describes a curtain as blue, why didn't they pick another color? You could say that it's just how he pictured it in his head and no other reason. If that's the case, then why was that image in his head pictured that way? If the author is trying to write that scene to be cold and isolating, the image that comes to mind is dark blue curtains. That's the image that comes to the author's mind too, but not intentionally. Tldr: Writing is subjective. Every sentence is subjective. The writer chooses how to write that sentence after all.

[@Vanilla_Skynet]

Yes, exactly! Also, as an example, Stephen King has said he didn't realize that The Shining was about his own feelings about his family and his worsening alcohol problem til years later. So even when the artist has their conscious intentions, their subconscious could have a mind of its own, in a sense. But yeah, your point is exactly why I think "over-analyzing" art is a perfectly logical response to have. Most artists have something they're trying to express, and they make tons of decisions in the process of expressing it, typically looking for what "works" and what doesn't. Why certain things work and certain things don't can frequently be a mystery even to the creator of the work, therefore it's perfectly appropriate to "read into" every decision made, at the very least as a fun exercise, but also deconstructing things can help sharpen your own mind (subconscious and conscious) when creating your own art or interpreting other works.

[@kaaghalaa]

@@Vanilla_Skynet Couldn't have said it better.

[@MarkHogan994]

Not necessarily though. There may genuinely be no reason, subconscious or otherwise, for why a certain color is picked. It can be completely random. If I ask you to think about a celebrity right now, any celebrity, and George Clooney comes to mind, would it really make sense for me to read into that and assume that there's a meaningful subconscious reason why you thought of him instead of someone else ? I mean, there might be, but not necessarily. And so it is with curtain colors.

[@luigiwiiUU]

I dont really get how people say everything in a book has to have meaning, I mean sure it's understandable especially in your example that the author said the curtains were blue because maybe the room is cold and dark, so yeah a blue curtain could definitely have meaning there. But it's also funny to think what would happen if the arthur just decided to make the curtain yellow instead, just to purposely subvert analysis just for the hell of it

[@Retrostar619]

Spot on @kaaghalaa. Writers are steered by their subconscious.

[@VertPingouin]

Excellent video but OMG could you make a real conclusion instead of sneaking a product placement. I don't mind product placement but it hurts the conclusion the way it is done.

[@hikarikouno]

I really hate that this is being done more nowadays; a lot of creators are opting to attach the advertisement with the actual contents of the video, but it feels more shoehorned in than anything. Let ads be ads, not be embedded directly on the video itself.

[@eduardocordero3828]

He transitioned it pretty well. Ads on KZbin is pretty nonexistent so he needs sponsors to get money The less than a minute ad is totally work a video in my opinion

[@moth3562]

I felt like the conclusion was at 8:08

[@tvortbox]

Yes and is also illegal. I will continue reporting each video to hopefully get their attention.

[@friedmule5403]

LOL this is a true story: A teacher had asked the students to analyze a text as homework. Many students had analyzed the text as the teacher would and got great marks, other less so, one particular student had nearly wrote nothing and said that it was just a story not much more and he failed totally. Until the next day he took his father to the class, the father had helped his son write that analyze, oh and yes, the father was the original author of that text! :-)

[@Iheartlofi000]

Omg the twist 😂

[@elephant7427]

yes! this story is about Atonement written by Ian McEwan

[@NemorisInferioris]

Sorry but I don't see a face in the clouds in The Shining...

[@kaizokuAUTO]

I can't see it either, but I suppose that is almost beside the point

[@WalterLiddy]

He didn't even shoot that footage. It was second unit stuff. Nobody's work is undermined more than Kubrick's by supposed fans and their stupid theories. As both he and Lynch say in the video here, the work is intended to be received as it is, not to symbolize some kind of argument that needs to be decoded.

[@blakedavis2447]

I agree with the clouds thing but at 4:14 I swear to god I saw a face in the mountain. That being said I’m not saying you will or won’t see it or even that it was put in there on purpose , I just thought it was interesting he said there was a face in the mountains and then I immediately see said face in the mountains

[@michaelt.5672]

There's a small blue patch of sky right above the mountains on the left. The supposed face is right above it. It takes a bit of phantasy, but you can spot it if you focus on Kubrick's hairline. The theory that this was on prurpose is nonsense though.

[@Novasky2007]

I see kubrics eyes directly above the mountain. I also see a laid back head in the mountain. If i look at the snow on that mountain i see a old bearded man. If i look at clouds on the far left i see two faces with big lips and 2 skull shapes in the top right rocks. So im sure people see what they want.

[@jearn11]

As one of those English teachers, I feel the need to make a few comments; English majors are generally told to ignore authorial intent. We are not meant to say "Hemingway is saying..." and instead "The novel is saying...." because there is skepticism about whether the author truly knows their creation as well as they think. There are often unintentional inclusions that might say more about the author than the author would admit to themselves (like daddy issues or deep seated racist thoughts). A second question is the author's authority. This question is coming up a lot with J.K. Rowling. Can an author make a claim without adding any evidence in their text and we just take it at face value?

[@MrBdenver]

so you extrapolate the meaning of a novel or a movie about the subconscious of the author, wich is unknown and then give infinite possibilities of interpretation...

[@jearn11]

@@MrBdenver I'm not saying the product is entirely built from someone's subconscious. I'm not even saying you can't take cues from the author on where to look for meaning. I'm saying that evidence from the source material always supersedes the author's own interpretation. I expect the author to know, say, 85% of their work. But because things like subconscious thoughts, or shifting time periods that change a books meaning, or the inclusions made by collaborators like editors or sound designers or special effects people or any other member of a film's significant crew.

[@iaw02]

While I hate what JK Rowling is doing to Harry Potter at the moment, I'm also fascinated by it due to questions it asks about authorial ownership of a piece of art. From my point of view, only what is in the books is canon and anything she says about it is not, because she only has authorial ownership of what she puts out within the novels and the interpretation is out of her control. Following this logic, I would insist that Dumbledore is gay because of the subtext is book 7, not because of JKs Twitter (which I refuse to see as the eight book!) I appreciate though how other people may wish to insist that an author has the ultimate control over their creation and that anything they say about it is correct.

[@jearn11]

@@iaw02 great thoughts! I prefer to think of Dumbledore as gay because it gives him added depth and makes his story far more interesting. But for the most part I think of it more as my head canon. But you're right, there is some subtext to back it up. What I'm interested in is do the new films have the authority Rowling's Twitter lacks? Mixed media canon is a difficult question for me. Star Wars is a prime example, with movies, shows, books and graphic novels all vying for authority

[@georgevargas9774]

@sosy1178 What is it exactly that the "post-modernists" have taught?

[@carlos412]

I really like this Kubrick quote that says "The feel of the experience is the important thing, not the ability to verbalize or analyze it" David Lynch is like this as well. He does not care at all about explaining his films. I personally am terrible at verbalizing my feelings towards anything, there are several movies I have not understood and yet have really enjoyed. I have not cared for trying to find any deep meaning behind it, I just love the sensation it gave me.

[@JamesLeeFilmmaker73]

Over-analyzing is what keeps movies alive, so the next generation of audiences can continue to discuss and analyze the movies.

[@louisdavies8050]

No. what a load of shit.

[@cheloxmv]

the fuck?

[@biker3982]

That was an extremely dumb comment

[@MoxieCat]

No? Over-analysis only serves to make people LESS enthused about a work. Lord of the Flies is a great book, but because it's been on school reading lists for so long, it's been shoved into a spot where nobody really enjoys it and think of it as "that novel I read in middle school one time."

[@vrxcld5014]

Over analysing is for imbeciles that are not educated. How can you know everything the director meant? Are you in his head?

[@wiseguy100]

Reminds me of people who watch The Magic Roundabout and tell everyone each different character represents a type of illegal drug. During an interview for C4, the creator’s wife said, he had no idea about drugs.

[@RealBadGaming52]

heres another one, some cartoon i watched said that each character represented a different mental illness, it might have been ed and eddy but im not too sure

[@nothing-but-milk]

I appreciate how you showed david lynch,he's so wise not to divulge the meaning so you get people talking about the film.

[@Kammerliteratur]

So the problem really is overINTERPRETING, not overANALYZING, isn't it?

[@RazziPermana]

You're making it sound like they used the wrong word, in my head interpretation is the Output while analyzing is the Process

[@Kammerliteratur]

Razzi Permana then your head is wrong. If i analyze something, for instance a poem, i look how it is structured and what components it has. For instance, has that stanza an alternate or an embracing rhyme, etc. If you interpret something you do not only list its components and structure, you think about what those components might mean. It is an analysis, that he is wearing a blue dress, but it is an interpretation that this sybolizes his feeling of emptiness or whatever. You cant destroy a piece of art by analyzing it. Analyzing something means more or less that you are describing it.

[@ikeeprunningandrunning6375]

i wanna say both

[@richardsantanna5398]

Overinterpreting doesn't exist. It's overanalyzing that leads to misinterpreting.

[@Kammerliteratur]

Richard Santanna I'll grant you that overinterpreting is the wrong word and that it actually is misinterpreting. But i wouldn't say that you can overanalyze. I can analyse the way the sand lays in my backyard, and maybe it would be pointless to analyze every bit of that, as long as i am not for instance a painter who tries to capture this in a naturalistic painting. But it would never be wrong to do so, it would only be wrong to interpret the way the sand lays there to mean anything. It would be misinterpreting it. A right interpretation would be, that those structures are only random and don't mean anything.

[@4thlord51]

I over-analyze Michael Bay films... looking for intelligence....

[@rbzcrimegaminggroup2874]

Transformers are the most intelligent species being without any intelligence in his movies

[@arturhours]

Lindsay Ellis does this great series of semi ironic analysis of Michael Bay Transformers movies called “The Whole Plate”, it’s really fun and pretty educational about cinema, and I think that’s definite proof anything can be over analysed

[@itchin4scratches]

riiiight because the irishman and gangs of new york are better than the first transformers? not for me , so it makes them dumb? sigh. once again thats just like our opinion man

[@SCIFIguy64]

His movies are probably the best examples of film being entertainment. You don't have to dig for details, it's simple popcorn action you can remember the next morning well enough.

[@princekyle4132]

I've been writing movie scripts for about two years now. A lot of the time, I think about hidden meanings, but mostly, I just write whatever feels right.

[@ottowalter6102]

"Art is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone will have their own interpretation." E.A. Bucchianeri

[@the_primal_instinct]

When I was a kid I found it funny, as a poet, when our literature teacher was explaining us why a certain word at the end of the line in a poem was chosen. I wanted to jump and scream "BECAUSE IT RHYMES"

[@wesselconway3920]

I learned something a while ago from a cardistry video (The Virts) that I feel applies to this. “The audience can’t tell the difference between something done well and something done poorly, but they will FEEL the difference.” The audience won’t consciously point out all of those deeper meanings we analyze from movies, but they are still subtly, unconsciously influencing our emotions and feelings.

[@EOTA564]

There’s clearly a grey zone in between the conscious intent of the creator and the interpretation of the viewer. A creator doesn’t necessarily consciously or explicitly understand everything he expresses through his art form - his subconscious is going to spill through.

[@whateveryasaypal5022]

I think it completely depends on the how the artist wants people to see their art. Some artists have a very specific meaning behind their art and want everyone to interpret their art exactly as they meant it; while other artists are very open to any interpretation people may have. Of course there are also artists who’re somewhat in between and may accept certain interpretations that they didn’t intend but still dismiss certain others; or artists who really don’t care that much about what other people think of their art and just want to create art to express their ideas and feelings in the way they want

[@doctoriampagliacci7945]

The primary thesis is flawed. Just because there is no final authority for the artist, doesn't mean that there are instead an endless subjective valid interpretations. It is wholly possible for interpretations to be wrong and provably wrong.

[@matt41252]

welcome to postmodernism

[@billwilliamson1506]

Jack EGAN Meaning is a subjective nature, but I would argue it’s more of a weighted subjective. Obviously if someone interprets a piece of art differently than the intended meaning then s/he is wrong. This does not mean they can’t hold a theory, but when the author vocalizes a purpose for the art, the theorizing is suspended.

[@TallicaMan1986]

@Jack EGAN actually the artist can. If their work is a period piece about nazi germany. It's a period piece about nazi germany. Not some wacko theory that some random person projected onto something they didnt make or have had any input in the process. Art at times is highly personal and it's stupid watching people pour there own emotions onto something that has literally nothing to do with them and everything to do with what that artist was dealing with at that time. Understand the artist before interpreting their work.

[@0Enigmatic0]

The thing is more about if you can back your interpretation with evidence from the text. It's one thing to say "Sky High is about Communism because red" and another to say "Sky High is about eugenics because the power structures in the film benefit those who have super powers, while those without powers are lower class and treated as inferior, such as in this scene where _____. Because of their genetics, the movie portrays one set of people as more desirable."

[@hennamaedelosreyes9070]

@Jack EGAN It's not possible to have "no wrong interpretation" on art. If there is no wrong interpretation then there should never existed an "overanalization" or "overinterpretation" of something. An artist can decide if they will or will not put strong boundaries on the meaning of their works depending on how they intended it to be, and even if it is still up to the audience how to view the meaning in relation to their personal experiences or perception, it is still a need to understand what the artist intended in order to understand the work completely. There is a case, ofcourse, where the interpretation can be a mirror of the intended message where situations are parallel or connected in some way, but it still rely on understanding the piece as it is, not having such a far cry understanding of it.

[@Skinnymarks]

That scene in brokeback mountain. I totally picked up on the back and forth. Was really impactful and its fun to know the mechanism for that impact. It deffinatly made the scene incredibly memorable

[@goobertsnoobert9015]

So I was reading the first chapter from the book “the twelve tribes of Hattie” and there’s a scene where the main character buys eucalyptus for her children who are sick with pneumonia. I was like “oh yeah whatever” But my teacher told me that he eucalyptus was very VERY symbolic and that she wanted us to find out what it meant. I spent nearly half an hour trying to find what it could possibly mean other than she bought a goddamn plant. By the end of it I had pulled some random connection out of nowhere and I’m still pretty my analysis wasn’t ‘right’. Needless to say, it shouldn’t take you leaving your book and searching on the internet for 30 minutes to find even an inkling of a connection. I find it far more likely that there was no hidden meaning behind ONE word and that it was just some fucking eucalyptus.

[@Ideataster]

Very likely. But the entire point of those questions is to get students to take a second and just try to read deeper in a piece of media. The whole point is to see if teachers can inspire students to pause and digest what they read, rather then focus entirely on "just getting through it" to pass the class. It's hit or miss.

[@TheBlueMeanie101]

There's a great story that I feel fits this video very well. Jan Harlan(Kubrick's long time Producer) asked him one day "What's your vision? What's your style?" Kubrick Replied. "I don't know what my style is, I never really know what I want. But I do know what I don't want"

[@Daniel-Rosa.]

I recommend to any human being not to ask "What was the reason", but instead "What is the fruit" (effect/result). Life gets better.

[@TheOvadex]

Its quite frustrating when someone says they'll link something in description and then don't. **edit** Thanks for getting the link in there. :)

[@pepinyostep3592]

Honestly!!!

[@neurohack9038]

It’s quite frustrating when an audience member has an unwarranted sense of entitlement but you don’t see me complaining.

[@4f52]

@@neurohack9038 It's pretty clear, I doubt he doesn't see it.

[@TheOvadex]

@@neurohack9038 How is it entitlement to express disappointment that a link that was mentioned in the video wasn't there when I watched.

[@ejipuh]

A helpful point of clarification: I think that in this video, he means that to "overanalyze" is to analyze beyond the intent of the author into the realm of speculation. (You ever get those friends who say you're "overanalyzing" when all you're doing is thinking?) On this, there is something to be said about artistic leitmotifs within cinema: "The curtains were blue." Cool. But not really. Let's associate blue with the main character. "The curtains were speckled with blue, and caught Henry's eye upon entering." Later in the narrative, when something cool happens to Henry, you could use this as a link to Henry's character. "He peered in the deep aqua of the cave, and resolved the settling of his fate." So this color (blue) is associated with the main character (Henry), but is not clearly linked to a social happening. What we can be pretty sure that the color "blue" represents and is tied to "Henry", but in this case, more than that is simply guesswork.

[@uwirl4338]

"Of course King Kong is a metaphor for slavery. I'm not saying the makers of King Kong wanted it to be that way, but that's the movie they made, whether they wanted or not." This is absolutely right.

[@silmafilm3682]

Yeah but how can Tarantino determine that the film’s allegory IS about slavery? That’s his opinion of the plot. And honestly, if I’m trying to find out what the true subtext of a film IS (if there even is one “true” subtext), I would believe the creator over the viewer.

[@LordVader1094]

It's not absolutely right. It's not the movie they made, it's the interpretation Tarantino has of it. He is not the authority on what King Kong is a metaphor for.

[@nurarihion]

@@silmafilm3682 but you have something wrong there: authors can't take every decision about a work of art, the second half corresponds to the viewers, the way a work of art is consumed and appropriated by the public is in most of cases the final way a work of art should be understood, since that is the way it enters our collective imagery. Did the filmmakers wanted to make an allegory of slavery on King Kong? Of course they didn't, they said it themselves, but there is a Zeitgeist at play in every film, the common anxiousness and desires of a given society reveal themselves though that might not be the authors intention, precisely because Zeitgeist is mostly about assumptions and common beliefs and feelings within a society, that we can only start to comprehend after some time and distance has placed itself between societies. The same can be said about films of UFO's in the fifties and sixties and the general fear Americans had to Soviet Communists and their mysterious advancement on technology threatening to invade USA. In that case are apparently "simple" or "Innocent" films like King Kong and pulpy science fiction always allegories to a specific social condition? Of course not, but there is always something to say and comment about a film when you consider the time it was released in and the social and cultural conditions that surrounded it. Just think about the recent interest in films like "Pocahontas", "Dance with Wolves", "Avatar", "Lilo and Stitch" and "Moana". At first glance they are just emotional dramas, but on a wider scale they are part of a general need in America to rethink its colonialist origins and its relation with the people who were exploited for this country to exist. Were they made with that express intention? Most certainly the Disney films I mentioned where made with the intention to be money grabs and not cultural comments on colonialism, but the comment on colonialism is still there, whether the authors intended it or not. Same goes for King Kong.

[@nurarihion]

@@silmafilm3682 In conclusion, Should we always look for these bigger interpretations on social and cultural scales? No, films and visual products are produced to be consumed, to be enjoyed. King Kong is a shitty yet entertaining film, we should experience it as such, the same with all the other films I mentioned. I agree that trying to interpret everything ruins the enjoyment of the film/ book/ painting. But there is always room for some interesting comments, I love the Shinning and shit my pants every time I see it, at the moment of watching it I don't give a shit about any hidden meaning or subtext, though later on I might try to reflect on it a little. My personal opinion is that any kind of interpretation or analysis that's worth the time should serve to enhance the experience and enjoyment of a work of art, anything other than that is just theoretical nonsense.

[@56jklove]

@@nurarihion king kong is an art of its time. Of course it has racial overtones

[@UntamedStrange]

Definitely always felt that the scene with Anne in Brokeback represented a real feeling we have all had. We know but, do we really know? And that's the beauty of the way she played it and they edited it.

[@SpencerColaco]

Been saying this for years. I've taken some film theory classes and people always seemed to get hung up on what metaphors they could make out of colors, time of day, etc. I always tried to focus purely on the mise en scene to avoid over-analyzing and really try and understand what was going through the director's head.

[@4nem0ne]

Overanalyzing is part of the fun! it's about being curious and always asking questions.. I mean there is not one way to watch a movie. Everyone is quite different, consider how a kid and a adult interprent a movie. Creators are seldom understood like they want to be understood, and that's a sad truth but that's how most stuff in life is. Unclear. There is so much we don't know, and I can't stress enough the importance of different perspectives! Either way, it's entertainment! And it follows a story of sorts, if I was at a campfire with some children, I do not scold some kid for saying that he thinks that the blue curtains means something to him. I move on, shrug it off if I have to or see if I can use that detail to tell a story to just that kid.

[@bonurse7969]

Okay, so my question is: What are you doing at a campfire with a bunch of kids?

[@4nem0ne]

@@bonurse7969 hahaha, lol, well dude, I grew up with it, when I camped with school or family. And that's what people been doing throughout history, before we had cinema and everything, we would listen to some person who had great stories to tell.

[@natesmodelsdoodles5403]

it's only fun until your mother starts finding biblical symbolism about the end times in every single act of dystopian privacy-violation in a movie.

[@autumnisbetterthanspring]

Are we overanalysing lyrics of imagine dragons and twenty one pilots too?

[@m.webster1261]

Eastwood Music no. Imagine dragons doesn’t write anything worth analyzing anymore.

[@Arsenalfanx562]

4:54 I have the same exact blue pen, this is the happiest day of my life.

[@internallyscreaming2788]

Dave Chappell wears red, must be a com- edian who likes red

[@leboiboiboi]

@Jack Courtney i don't know why but it seemed like you were about to say "commu- nicator".

[@yammolcho8127]

Dave Chappelle a black dude wearing red, must be a blood- y good lad with great taste in colours

[@davdav3350]

Overthinking, overanalyzing separates the body from the mind.

[@jacksonlong7034]

DavDav 🤘🏻🤘🏻

[@georgewootten4428]

There you are

[@user-jl4zz1re4c]

Such vague wisdom pleases everyone, and separates the body from the mind.

[@nonamemcgillicutty9585]

Good one

[@lucasgraeff5391]

Nice

[@rb5519]

6:49 "Maybe some stories are better enjoyed without analysis" "The Little Prince" comes to mind. Just read it and connect with the feeling that comes.

[@Kugelschrei]

It boils down to communication. An artist has an idea, a concept in mind. Whatever he does to communicate that idea - writing, speaking, painting, filming... - the only thing interpretable for outsiders is the communication of that idea, not the idea itself. You create your own truth by interpretation. This doesnt conflict with the actual idea behind it, because your truth doesn't touch that idea, it touches the description. The idea is only known to the creator and can't be expressed fully with any to us humans known form of communication. Thus there is no conflict, the miscommunicaton - or misinterpretation - only happens because we cannot express what we truly mean.

[@Kugelschrei]

@Sunken Visions i tried

[@jimmyhsp]

danielewski has this great bit that's up on youtube somewhere where he talks about house of leaves' impact on people. one of the readers thought of it as a love story, which struck him by surprise. instead of correcting the reader he admits that his book is not him, and does things to people he never intended, embracing the idea of over/under analysis (which kinda makes sense, the book is almost designed to be over analyzed because of how much information it omits in order to make you scared.)

[@kh7688]

The King Kong bit from Inglorious Basterds is brilliant.

[@good-questions]

Wow, so Kubrick is the John Williams of film. Basically here he admits to mashing up Vonnegut’s Billy Pilgrim and the monomyth for his “masterpiece” ending.

[@rydo728]

Abstract art or writing: *exists* English teacher: STUDENTS, ANALYSIS

[@wraithsz]

RidonkulousMG well if its supposed to be abstract then obviously the teachers have a reason to ask the students to analyze

[@d48731]

yawn

[@urielgonzalez900]

People with iq of 200:Kowalski, Analysis

[@krypto276]

Well often what's interesting about abstract art is the commentary on the art itself. Mondrian's work for example is often interpreted to be a study of composition -- of how to make something beautiful out of some random lines, colors, and shapes arranged together in a thoughtful way. The problem is that's often a high-level analysis that students just being introduced to analysis aren't capable of making.

[@mollymop5618]

*Kowalski, analysis*

[@peterjeffery8495]

Go check out the video in which Dan Fogelberg was asked by a very young fan why in his classic song "Another Auld Lang Syne" he ended the song with the refrain "and as I turned to make my way back home..the snow turned into rain". Turns out the song was completely autobiographical AND as it happened, as he turned to leave his old lover on that day the snow indeed turned to rain. Sometimes its life, not art.

[@4020Error]

I like the idea that with analyse, you can recreate the original object with your own ideas. That way both the creation and its interpretation by the author and the interpretation of any viewer are valid.

[@christopher19894]

Even if an artist doesn't know exactly why they chose all the elements of their creation, there is still a reason and meaning for each one of their choices. Even attempts at randomness can be subverted by the subconscious. A lot of the creative process is emotional and intuitive, like a blitz chess game, and when you try to analyze your own work, it feels like analyzing a dream. There's a definite hidden meaning underlying the main message, and you definitely came up with it on your own, but it still takes a while to realize what the deeper meaning is.

[@ski-retro]

Tippi Hedren once commented actor's classes and students how they discuss in a very serious manner every aspect of Hitchcock's movies. For example why did Hitch use three blue cars and one red car in that particular scene? What did he mean by it? And then they analyze it for hours. Hedren said ''We simply didn't have others'' and added ''Hitch would've died of laughter if he saw this.''

[@pia1945]

this is actually talked about in literary theory and one of the points is that they were trying to prove that the "author is dead" when interpreting texts because you can never read the same text (or watch the same movie) exactly the same in the exact same time, in the exact same space. each time each person at different times will have different interpretations making it valid!

[@Iamwhoiamifiammyself]

It's all fun and games until someone instills a racist/mysoginist/homophobic meaning into your work and devalues it for it despite it never being your intention.

[@Haley-s8x]

King Kong.

[@donnyp]

“A book read by a thousand different people is a thousand different books.” ― Andrei Tarkovsky

[@willdabeast8509]

Long comment incoming: In the novel “A Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy,” an extremely intelligent computer is built. A scientist asks the computer what the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is. The computer prints out a response. On the sheet of paper is printed the number 42. 42 is the Answer to Life, The Universe, And Everything. The author made this decision as a joke, and nothing more, but readers studied and studied, stating that for a rainbow to form, light must pass through water at an angle of 42 degrees. I’m sure you know the Google Easter Egg: type “the answer to life the universe and everything” in Google search, and it will display the number 42 on the calculator.

[@willdabeast8509]

That’s a great theory...but the book was written in 1979

[@willdabeast8509]

...oh...excellent point

[@aly8950]

Every time I watch a movie I try to understand the creators own meaning behind it without using my own imagination but from what I get from this video is that, i should come up with my own interpretation or just simply enjoy a film without thinking too much

[@egilsandnes9637]

Nice! I think we often tend to like stories that we don't fully understand, exactly because we don't understand them. I actually quite like when people analyze movies (or other pieces of art) to bits, as long as it makes some kind of sense, wether or not it was the "correct" intension of the artist, or the artist even had a concrete intension/interpretation in mind at all. (The analazys of Minecraft lore by RetroGamingNow is quite interresting, entertaining and artsy. I love people who can tell a story! I mean, he is _probably_ mostly "wrong", as Minecraft isn't made with a comprehensive lore from the beginning. But it still has value!) This is also why I dislike some extreme "blue curtain overanalyzing" cases. If there is one case of blue curtains in a movie with many curtains of other colors, it's probably a coincidense. The analazys doesn't make sense. If all the sad people live in houses with blue curtains, and all the happy people live in houses with red curtains there is probably some intent behind it. (I mean, some movies and series are litterally full of very intensional use of color palettes) One beautyful thing about art is that your intension as an artist may be just to make something beautiful or entertaining, or you may have a deeper meaning, or intensionally be open to interpretation, and at the same time the viewers/liteners/consumers of your piece of art may not know if you had an intension or what it was, and some might just enjoy it, and others might analyze the heck out of it. And no matter what, your piece of art made an impact on someone. Some might have enjoyed it, some might have had a blast analyzing your art, and for some it might have been a bit of inspiration or a source for thought. I mean, even if they were simply annoyed that you wasted their time, you still made an impact.

[@ShellShock794]

I'm more into music than I am into film but they are extremely similar in a lot of aspects. It never matters what the artist's intentions were while creating their music, what matters is the interpretation that the audience draws from it. Media in general is by design meant for individual interpretations. My interpretation is different than yours and your interpretation is different than the creator's.

[@GrandmasDay32]

6:53 I always think they're in a Target restroom lol

[@GreenScreenBartender]

I really wish The Thing was mentioned here. For some reason everyone loves overanalyzing the ending of that film when there's nothing ulterior about the ending.

[@aldoush2950]

As my professor once said: how many readers, that many critics

[@danieltaber4924]

You said 'William Defoe'. It's 'Willem'.

[@SamLee74]

His name really is William. He confirmed that on an interview and, to my girlfriend, personally, when she thought she made a mistake, when she met him.

[@Ten_Thousand_Locusts]

@@SamLee74 he goes by Willem so it's Willem.

[@SuperEddiewardo]

​@@SamLee74 Still got his name wrong though

[@JoJoBAd5]

It's Dafoe.

[@stopusingthisavatar56]

@@JoJoBAd5 ...Bel Biv Dafoe.

[@GDO9099]

The intro is now my screen saver on my TV, computer and my ipad

[@wrinkleintime4257]

That post at the beginning always feels like a personal attack to my 4 years of studying comparative literature and to my career as an English teacher 😂 Either way, I think the interpretation of media is a very personal thing. We attribute meaning to things we watch, read and the media we consume and that’s a beautiful thing!

[@nebulousisgod]

The beauty of Art is everyone can interpret it in their own personal, meaningful way. Songs are the epitome of this.

[@mason.2628]

Why is a subjective interpretation valid if it is not what the author intended?

[@berner]

So glad someone's doing a video on overanalyzing movies. There are just some analysis done by people that are WAY over the top that I swear most of them are just someone going "Hey I just saw this really big movie, but what if... the bad guy is actually the good guy and the good guy is actually... THE BAD GUY OMG?!?!" and then they just look for things in the movie to support their claim just so they can get their edgelord fix.

[@RyanKaufman]

The issue with the "English Teacher" is not really because the teacher wants to analyze blue curtains. Rather, they are trying to show you how to extract meaning. If you do it with EVERYTHING, you'll start accessing the mental pathways needed to analyze when it's relevant. Having spent close to a decade analyzing poetry and novels, I can read something and pick up where subtext is lingering. Is it because the author wrote it there? Not always. If it's not deliberate it might just be connective tissue the author accidentally used or perhaps just stumbled upon, and these can be footholds for the reader to traverse an analysis. You can't just wake up and see that. You can't just wake up and decide you see imperialism in No Country for Old Men. Frankly put, some of us don't wake up seeing Apartheid in District 9. Even something basic like that still needs to be earned. You *can* get to District 9 just by being smart. But most "My English teacher FUCKING SUCKS" stories are from youth, when your intelligence is much lower than you perhaps realized. Is it a necessary skill? No. But it intensifies great works. I don't even bother turning that side of my brain on for Tarantino. I don't really care enough. But when I read, I often just find it was already on without me realizing it. I'm already connecting dots and enjoying the work that much more because of it. And that's pretty cool. I'm grateful for that. Just my two cents.

[@LutraLovegood]

It should be a mandatory skill considering we're now swimming in trivial information and even outright dangerous misinformation.