What was the scene with the clothed mouth of Keanu Reeves' character during questioning really supposed to symbolize, was it really s***** assa*lt - and if THAT was the case, why metaphorically show it in THAT way? Unless it was meant to symbolize - unspeakable horror of it, no?
But even so, what do you think, thanks.
I have no idea what this is: "was it really s***** assa*lt"
Be an adult and type it out.
If you're an adult, I am sure you no longer need to spell out (like, come on, REALLY "no idea"??!!) the most sensitive and famous issue in the world, it is what it is, I just type it with semi-censored use of asterix to feel less uncomfortable in the process.
And for your information, I got that part off Movie Tropes web site that referred to that scene as a metaphor for that. )
Oi TheMan18, we don't all get this censored shite, so ffs just type the fucking thing out in full you uncomfortable pansy snowflake wank stain.
No worries. Well... :)
shareI don't wanna insult the roll you were on there with your insult you were giving, but i honestly think the only person that would mention a wank stain is a person familiar with it themselves. If your too shy to meet a girl in person, fear not, we have the technology. Use the internet/apps. I'm afraid your mom may be right, you may go blind by shooting yourself in the eye.
shareSorry for giving you shit. Have at it. If you read above you'll see why I've changed directions
shareI've never seen it as a metaphor for that, and I think that's stretching it. I think it's just about the power and control that the Agents have over those trapped in The Matrix, combined with the dystopian sci-fi "big brother is watching you" (or, in this case, bugging your navel), and wrapped up in a ribbon of good, old-fashioned, "HOLY COW, THERE'S A ROBO-BUG CRAWLING INTO MY STOMACH!"
sharePossibly, I wonder why Film Tropes site thought so.
shareBecause literally anybody can edit it and because there is a trope for *everything* on that site. It's a site dedicated to reading too far into things. It's fun and I've lost an hour or two over there (and contributed some edits!) but it's not an academic analysis, think-piece by an admiring artist, or tell-all by the creative team. Unless Keanu is the one who put that bit in.
shareReading too far into things, you say? There is a trope for that!
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Applicability
This is a fundamental question when it comes to works of art in general. The example of Alien for this trope (or rather concept) is the following:
Ridley Scott said that there is no allegory to be found in Alien, and that his intent was to make a simple monster movie. That has done nothing to stop decades of endless analysis of the film's use of H. R. Giger's extremely Freudian imagery, the role of Ripley as a feminist icon, and its portrayal of a group of working-class space truckers abused by a rapacious corporation, among other things.
Well, Ridley Scott also said that in the scene where Ash is assaulting Ripley with a rolled up magazine, the rolled up magazine is a fallic symbol, so... Anyways, this boils down to authorial intention VS viewer interpretation. For me, the rolled up magazine thing was clearly a malfunction, of Ash, he is glitching out at that point, so there is the explanation. I think the fallic symbol thing doesn ot add value, so I easily go Death of the Author on Scott regarding this, I don't need this for Alien to work for me.
I think ultimately it's best to first form your own opinion on movies, then research what the author might have intended and see if they match. If they don't, that still doesn't mean that the author's interpretation is "right" and yours is "wrong". If your interpretation of a scene is part of a consistent view on a film, then it's one of the multiple "right" interpretations of the movie, ven if it's not the same as the author's. In my view the focus should be on the consistency of your interpretation. All other considerations secondary (heh).
All in all there are more than one way to interpret films, and this is by design. Art is like that. And this is the beauty of this forum and any other forum where film discussion is happening: you always learn something from someone else's interpretation.
Perhaps Scott was using allegory in the truest definition of it. Tolkien complained of allegory (I believe the phrase was that he, "cordially dislikes [allegory] in all its forms") even though Tolkien also spoke openly about the applicability of his works, particularly in the Catholic/Christian vein. Even C.S. Lewis said he didn't like allegory and said that Narnia wasn't allegorical, but applicable, and while he's closer to allegory, I still see his point.
So, with Alien, maybe Ridley Scott means that his monster isn't literally meant to be a rapist, even if the acts it commits are applicable as such.
Broadly speaking, I think it's good to investigate the themes and ideas of a film (if it's actually well-made) and get what one can, but not to just start reading into things ad absurdum. I'm about 50/50 on death of the author. I think the author gets a say, but there does come a point where you just go, "You know what? You're saying it's about X, but I can't see that anywhere." A good example here might be with the 9th Star Wars film (SPOILERS) where Finn keeps trying to confide something deeply important and personal to Rey, and never gets a chance, and everybody in the audience went, "He loves her; it's obvious based on everything up until now," but JJ Abrams said, "Nah, he just wants to tell her he feels the Force, too." What? Where in the movie was that?
And, yes, learning about another's interpretation can be really nice and thought-provoking.
So, with Alien, maybe Ridley Scott means that his monster isn't literally meant to be a rapist, even if the acts it commits are applicable as such.
Agreed, I also think he means that, and for my interpretation of Alien, the rape / sexuals stuff is not really needed. Although Giger's artwork is obviously suggestive, but it's also horrifying, so it fits the movie with or without the sexual suggestions.
On that note, to elaborate on the rolled up magazine thing: Scott's exact statement was that androids (Ash included) secretly want to be more human than human. So Ash tried to be more similar to the humans surrounding him, adopt their habits, norms, etc. He himself has no sexual drive, but he desires to have it, and this is why he picks the magazine over a dozen instant death options he has in stock for killing Ripley.
The problem with this statement is that there is nothing else supporting this in the movie. There are scenes where Ash is doing weird things (the small "jog", the fact he never eats, the weird smile and wave he performs when Dallas et al are leaving the ship), but there is zero hint at any sexual desires he has for Ripley or for Lambert (or any other crewmember for that matter). And the movie is not about the androids. There is Blade Runner for that - so Ash's pursuit of humanity is not a theme inside the movie. He never says or does anything that would support Scott's words on that.
So the rolled up magazine assault can be chalked up to malfunction - Special Order 937 was just revealed, maybe he has a conflict now in his programming about not harming humans, but they are expendable... this is my interpretation anyways. Scott thinks otherwise, but did not include any evidence or hints in the movie to support this, so I'll just treat his as any other interpretation.
Yes, Alien works with or without the knowledge or implication that anything involved is sexual, although I do think it adds to the horror, either consciously or subconsciously, because the idea of sexual assault (especially resulting in pregnancy) is repugnant, so it compounds revulsion.
SPOILERS BELOW, for anybody who hasn't seen Alien and is reading this.
It also contributes to Alien's pantheon of horror. Every facet of terror seems to be represented from primal fears of the unknown or animals to fear of the dark to fear of the shadow side of sex. We even get things like betrayal and existential dread. The idea that we are truly alone and God doesn't care about us is in there, too, with MOTHR telling Ripley about the true purposes of the mission.
I love that they put so much thought into everything about character motivation and gave Ash a "humanity complex". That's great. I wonder if Alien-verse androids have sexual organs...
I think it still works, even without direct support in the movie, because it doesn't affect the story and it can be read in or not.
He might not eat because he physically can't? Or maybe he actually wasn't hungry at the time? As for displaying sexual interest in Ripley or Lambert, it's possible he is mimicking human restraint (I'm guessing any crew trapped in a ship like that would result in sexual shenanigans but Parker and Dallas aren't pawing the ladies constantly, either). It's also possible he has an Asimov-type rule in place where he won't/can't harm people (obviously overridden by his programming to protect the xenomorph at all costs).
I think there are 3 levels of analyzing art.
Factual analysis - text. It's about what is actually filmed, written down, pictured, painted, etc. Entirely objective.
Reading between the lines - subtext. Going deeper, but still trying to find clues in the work itself. Half-subjective.
Your own imressions - interpretation. Even deeper, and 100% subjective.
I like to have a combined approach when it comes to forming my own "canon" interpretation.
So about Alien - it works with and without Ash's humanity complex.
As for displaying sexual interest in Ripley or Lambert, it's possible he is mimicking human restraint (I'm guessing any crew trapped in a ship like that would result in sexual shenanigans but Parker and Dallas aren't pawing the ladies constantly, either).
Exactly. They could have included Ash's gaze upon Lambert or Rip, but it would have created a needless subplot, and it would have had the opposite effect - it's nothing special, since the audience doesn't know he is an android, so it's just a guy looking at ladies. The android reveal would have been confusing with that in mind... so it was a good decision not to have such hints at all.
So I treat this as Scott's headcanon. For me it's just a needless subplot, since the movie is not about androids. And I'm not sure I want to go with this interpretation anyways. Wanting to be similar to humans would make the androids in the Alien 'verse boring and cliched. I like to see them as enigmas. We can never fully understand them, and that's ok.
It's also possible he has an Asimov-type rule in place where he won't/can't harm people (obviously overridden by his programming to protect the xenomorph at all costs)
This is my headcanon too! There has to be something in his programming about not harming humans, which conflicts with the "crew expendable" directive...
Those are good layers. Where does "Word of God" fit in? Do you take the author's word for it sometimes, throw it into the mix, or not at all?
Voice of the Author is even more interesting with film, because there are so many authors. It's not like with a book where you go, "This guy wrote it," or you have a couple authors (like with Good Omens) working together, but who are generally on the same page. With films, you have a scriptwriter, a director (usually considered king), an editor, and any number of actors who might have different ideas. Ben-Hur, for instance: apparently Gore Vidal wrote it with a homosexual subtext between Judah and Messala, but Charleton Heston said there wasn't.
The scariest thing about Ash is that we know very little of his motivation. Is it programming? Is it feelings? He just goes berserk, and this formerly-nice, intellectual doctor becomes another threat we don't understand. The creepiest thing is his head talking and saying, "I admire its purity". Hm... thinking about that line, it almost seems to me the opposite of Scott's intention. Ash doesn't envy humans, he's repulsed by them. Although, I suppose it's possible he yearned to be human, realized he couldn't be, and got bitter enough to fester. I think he think he's superior, though, and admires/envies his perception of the xenomorph's own superiority to his perceived superiority to us.
I think Ash has "protect the xenomorph" as directive 1, and then "protect Nostromo crew" as subordinate to that, if that makes sense. But I also think of the Alien-universe androids as a bit more greyscale than that. It's not like they're pure programming; I really think they're some of the closest-to-human androids in sci-fi - maybe even more-so than replicants.
Those are good layers. Where does "Word of God" fit in? Do you take the author's word for it sometimes, throw it into the mix, or not at all?
Good point - let me add layer 4 then - the impressions / interpretations of others. And I consider the author's interpretation to be the same weight as anyone else's. It's all about how consistent the interpretation itself is, regardless of who comes up with it.
Voice of the Author is even more interesting with film, because there are so many authors.
Exactly, and especially in the case of Alien, I read many times that Scott himself although being the director, did not really add much to the film - for how the end product turned out, we should mainly credit O'Bannon and Sushett, who scripted the film and crafted the universe, etc. I'd contest that: While Scott made some mistakes (like cutting the cocoon scene instead of inserting it to the point after Parker and Lambert's death but before the self destruction started - obvious blunder), he also came up with the idea of using children in tiny spacesuits in the Space Jockey scene to have a sense of scale - which is brilliance. Also, he himself puppeted the facehugger inside the egg - so even though the world building and the atmosphere was great due to O'B and S (and Giger), he did his part.
So what Scott himself says about Ash is his interpretation, and I think he had plenty of chance to express his idea of androids - Blade Runner, Prometheus, Alien: Covenant - and I don't like how he tried to twist the Alien saga to make it seem like it is about an android... but that's beside the point.
The scariest thing about Ash is that we know very little of his motivation.
And I think it's for the best! Obviously an integral part of his behavior throughout is the programming, but beyond that - does he ever object (internally) to it, due to the obvious unethical nature of order 937? Can he object? Does he have a choice? Does he care about morality at all?
I think I weight authorial statements over other people's the same way I will weight an expert's opinion over a general observer. An extreme example is with medical science. I've known some proponents of homeopathic medicine over the years, but I'm more interested in what M.D.s and nurses have to say. So, if somebody goes, "Oh, Marshall McLuhan's films are very indulgent," but then McLuhan himself steps out from behind a poster display to say the guy knows nothing of his work, I'm on Team McLuhan (y'know, if life were only like that).
On the other hand, I have read where authors vehemently deny something is in their work, or else swear that it is, and I read/view the art piece and think, "Well, that's not what you put on the page/screen..." Ray Bradbury swore that Fahrenheit 451 was about television stunting minds, not about authoritarianism. I'll accept that it skewers pop-media, but not that it has nothing to say about authoritarian regimes. He put it in there, even if by accident.
The author's lens is, to me, a good tool for figuring out the intention of the work, but the work still has to say it or show it. And if it's ambiguous, I'll default to the author's final say, or their worldview. We don't have to read Lord of the Rings as indicative of Christian theology, but Tolkien said it was, and the text supports it. It doesn't support theories like "The orcs are just misunderstood, and it's racist to indict them," (we see that their actions are nasty, not just their perception) or "Frodo and Sam were lovers" (they don't end the book living together; Sam marries Rosie).
I think I weight authorial statements over other people's the same way I will weight an expert's opinion over a general observer. An extreme example is with medical science.
Understand your point, but I think medical science (or any other kind of science) is not a good example for this discussion. In science, there is a "truth", and from the point it is found, it can be referenced as a sufficient answer to certain questions about a certain subject.
Art is not like that at all. There are facts and "truths", but only on the surface layer (text) and anyone can come up with a consistent interpretation of a work.
I've known some proponents of homeopathic medicine over the years, but I'm more interested in what M.D.s and nurses have to say.
Right, I can see where you're coming from with this, but I am always careful not to fall into the "appeal to authority" trap. If I research a scientific topic, it's never enough for me that an expert in the field states something about the subject. In science there should be no statements - there should only be explainable and verifiable facts. For this reason, I think there is always a chance that someone other than an expert could bring an interesting question or fact (experiment result) to the table about just about any scientific topic. It would be foolish to dismiss a question or an experimental result for the reason that the person who is bringing it (up) is not an expert - they can still be right after all.
The author's lens is, to me, a good tool for figuring out the intention of the work, but the work still has to say it or show it.
Very well put, I like this - ultimately I think we are on the same page, but wording it differently. Also, your Bradbury example is also great and 100% agreed by me.
I however take issue with your McLuhan example - continued in the next reply, due to character limit.
Your point is well-taken. Art and science are not the same, so the same rules don't apply. But I do think that the expert on the work adds weight to their answers, at least to some degree. If I read something from the filmmakers, I take that a bit more seriously than something from John Q. Public.
Also well-taken is your point on appeal to authority, but I have seen this fallacy cited a lot, and I am becoming a bit wary of it. I fear that it is overused (I'm not saying you're guilty of this), and we see it all the time where people distrust experts with knowledge and favour idiots with no knowledge or experience. Obviously, somebody being an authority shouldn't grant them superiority over all discussions or opinions, but there are some people who are just better at certain tasks, and taking their word for it isn't a bad idea.
I would use Lawrence Olivier as an example for anybody who was saying method acting was the only way to get excellent results, for instance (particularly the story of Olivier and Hoffman on the set of Marathon Man).
And, yes, all that aside, anybody bringing anything interesting or true to the table ought to be listened to, regardless of who they are, personally; in the same way, anybody saying something foolish ought to be ignored, regardless of how much of an expert they are.
If I read something from the filmmakers, I take that a bit more seriously than something from John Q. Public.
And there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever - until you keep your earlier statemend in mind:
The author's lens is, to me, a good tool for figuring out the intention of the work, but the work still has to say it or show it.
The reason I brought up appeal to authority in the first place was essentially that I experienced it many times in discussions. Yes, these fallacies (this one included) are overused, but sometimes they need to be highlighted. For example I only call out appeal to authority as such, when the only argument someone has to back up his postion is that Expert Guy #34 claimed X, therefore X is so. Emphasis on only. In many cases I managed to ask questions about the claim which should be answered, but the best I got out of the guy I was arguing with was something to the effect of: "Yes, I agree this needst to be answered before we can accept X, but I accept X, because Expert Guy #34 wouldn't claim X if he didn't know the answers to your questions.". Then I highlighted how this actually sounds: the burden of proof is on you, because you are claiming X, and your only argument is that Expert Guy #34 claimed it, and you yourself admit that you cannot find sources to answer related questions... you know where this is going.
You could say this is an extreme example, but I had this many times, people are sometimes parroting sources and expert opinions without going in-depth on what actually supports their claim. Because expert claims don't exist in a vacuum, they are not axioms you must accept in any give argument about any given subject. This is what I meant - a case where the guy's only support for his position is an expert claim. As long as you have other sources, other arguments to support your position, an expert claim could be one of them and you're fine.
Well said. If the author makes a claim that the work doesn't support, they're just as any other quack theorist making things up ("The Wicked Witch of the West just wanted her lawful property back! She wasn't evil!" (I've read that argument, albeit never from L. Frank Baum)).
I will say that there are certain cases where I will take an expert's word on it over a layperson. Medical science, for instance, or astrophysics. If I'm arguing with somebody about a sci-fi show going, "Oh, come on, it's unrealistic that XYZ," and the person says, "Well, according to this scientific paper..." then I'm taking the appeal to authority. It doesn't apply to subjective material, of course, without internally-valid statements which are true regardless of advanced degrees.
Continued due to character limit.
So in my mind it is not about doubting experts, it is about the structure of how my opponent is arguing in a debate.
Agreed that people are often calling out fallacies needlessly and too frequently. When this happens, my usual reaction is to point out that they either did not identify the fallacy itself correcly or have just committed the fallacy fallacy:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy
we see it all the time where people distrust experts with knowledge and favour idiots with no knowledge or experience
Yeah, that's taking it into the opposite direction and too far. Weirdly, it's appeal to authority all the same, while the guys they are refeering to are NOT experts... really bizarre, but fits right into today's postmodern / post truth bullsh!t zeitgeist I guess.
I hadn't heard of fallacy fallacy; that's funny and sad that we needed to come up with that term.
We live in an era of bizarre information chaos, where everybody trusts nobody, yet they blindly seem to trust anybody. It's echo chambers as far as the eye can see. It's factionalism and blinders-on and just bizarre out there.
"Oh, Marshall McLuhan's films are very indulgent,"
I think this example is different from the Bradbury one. This is clearly an opinion and not a reading or an interpretation of a McLuhan film. The Bradbury example is great because in it, someone (Bradbury himself) clearly states something ("it is not at all about authoriarism") about a specific work of his (Fahrenheit 451). This statement can be examined and falsifiable - the work clearly presents a society in which authoririarism takes place.
"His films are very indulgent" on the other hand is an empty statement. I haven't seen any of McLuhan's films, but if someone would make this statement about Kubrick, even though I don't think Kubrick's films are indulgent, I wouldn't really be able to come up with any arguments for my position - but there are no arguments in favor of the original position either, so this is not something we can discuss. So I don't think this example fits what we are talking about - I sort of understand why you came up with it though, but subjective statements were not in my scope originally :-)
Not gonna lie, I mostly included McLuhan to get the Annie Hall reference in there.
Your objections are fair.
My bigger point, though, is simply that authors have insight into their works that we don't, and while it's a good idea to listen to them, they sometimes undermine themselves ("[Milton] was of the Devil's party and didn't know it," I believe is the quote?)
Lord of the Rings SPOILERS below, for anybody reading who needs this warning.
Still, I tend not to listen to people making claims like (for instance) Frodo and Sam were in love in Lord of the Rings, because even though they can show examples of affection, there is no definitive evidence of romantic love between them, there are contrary evidences (Sam pines for, and ultimately marries Rosie), and because from what I know of J.R.R. Tolkien, he wouldn't have intended it. I give a bit more weight to the "they weren't" side because of Tolkien's voice.
I tend not to listen to people making claims like (for instance) Frodo and Sam were in love in Lord of the Rings, because even though they can show examples of affection, there is no definitive evidence of romantic love between them, there are contrary evidences (Sam pines for, and ultimately marries Rosie), and because from what I know of J.R.R. Tolkien, he wouldn't have intended it. I give a bit more weight to the "they weren't" side because of Tolkien's voice.
Excellent example. You are on the side of "they weren't", not solely based on Tolkien's word, but for multiple other reasons, and you cite facts to support your standpoint. No appeal to authority here at all!
Talking about analysis of certain works, I recently came across this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIvl5VmDyLs
I follow Rob Ager for more than a decade now, and he has some good points in some of his videos, and while I don't always agree (I think the monolith is NOT a cinema screen in 2001), the guy has an excellent framework to think about movies and analyze them. I would especially highlight what he says about Occam's razor. I was always bothered by that idea and he worded why it isn't worth using the principle (in most of the cases) excellently. Give it a watch / listen and do check out his channel, he has truly great videos on many of my favorite movies, Alien and The Thing are two of them.
The authorial voice there is just to add a small amount of weight to the argument and to take out suggestions that it was "hinted at" or "intended". Something like, "Well, he couldn't overtly say they were lovers because the book wouldn't be published," can be (somewhat) refuted by saying, "Given what we know of Tolkien, it's unlikely he was intending it subtextually or overtly."
I'll check out the video. I don't know what he has to say about Occam's Razor yet, but I can say with confidence that a principle designed for scientific thought is not necessarily applicable in art evaluation, and that it's like any razor: it's a good tool if used prudently.
I can say with confidence that a principle designed for scientific thought is not necessarily applicable in art evaluation
You are right about that 100%. The main reason is that films are deliberate creations. There is always artistic intention behind them. And these intentions are translated to the screen at the end of a complex thought process by the creators. For this reason, all films are complex, and interpreting certain elements of a film must involve speculation about artistic intent. You need to sort of reverse engineer the creator's thought process to explain and interpret - and by default you are talking about something complex with many many moving parts. So of course simple explanations rarely cut it in those cases.
But let's go a step further. I would argue that Occams razor is vastly overused in scientific debates as well. And this is what Rob says in the video: nature and reality is really complex, so simple explanations are severely lacking in most cases. Every time science thinks it understands a phenomenon, new scientific results and evidence turns up, showing that basically everything is more complex than originally thought. And it always goes deeper - you can't really say about an issue in science that "ok, boys, this is definitely solved and done". And even if you do say this about something, the explanation will not be simple, on the contrary, to account for all the details about the topic, it has to be complex.
I was involved in multiple scientific debates on forums all over the internet, and every time my opponents tried to cite Occams Razor, I always to ask further questions, that the simple explanation did not cover or covered insufficiently. So there is always uncharted territory. Always room for more research, and for this reason, I always consider it as a red flag when someone cites OR, even in scientific debate.
I'm now trying to remember every time I've used Occam's razor to check myself.
To the best of my recollection, I don't think I use it in debate. I usually employ it when trying to figure out a problem. "Why did my tent fall down? Occam's razor suggests that I didn't assemble it correctly. Let's go over how I put it up before looking for flawed materials, broken tent poles, or rips in the fabric." That kind of thing.
Excellent example, and a fitting use of the principle there!
shareFinally found the half hour necessary to watch the video! It was really great! He does a good job of breaking down the different reasons people don't want to see beneath the surface (I loved his point about how it's rarely an intellectual failing, but more of a choice into ignorance, or almost a defence mechanism).
His point was well-taken about "some people would just be happier reading the script" - I got what he was getting at, but I would point out that most good scripts wouldn't be "surface reads" either. I know he wasn't saying that, I just... lack of respect for writers (generally, especially in film) is one of my personal hangups/crusades.
I'm also reading up on Occam's Razor, questioning what I know about the principle, and I think most people just don't understand it or over-apply it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Controversial_aspects
I loved his point about how it's rarely an intellectual failing, but more of a choice into ignorance, or almost a defence mechanism.
I also liked that part, and it was great that he highlighted that people don't want to face how movies change their emotional states, and that some movies are exploring deep psychological themes - especially horror movies - and people don't really want to deal with these.
About the "some people would just be happier reading the script" point, I am reminded of an interview with David Lynch, where he revealed why he generally doesn't explain his works. He said something to the effect of words cannot do justice to his film, since if what he conveyed would be possible to describe, he wouldn't have made a film, he would have just written it down. So there is a deliberate artistic intent behind choosing a medium. He chose film, because visuals and sounds express his ideas way better than words.
This is connected to the fact that thoughts are not formed in words initially, our brain needs to constantly translate them into words. This is why we are often miscommunicating, and why often we cannot express our ideas as clearly as we understand them in our own heads. More on this topic here, this video explains this quite clearly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Zel07vrro
About Occam's razor - thanks for digging this section up from the wiki, and this hit close to home:
"Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may"
People in debates are often using this in the "embargo" sense, or they effectively communicate sometihing like: "get away with your complex ideas, I already made up my mind".
Oh, indeed, yes. People are often almost defensive, "I don't get scared at all during horror movies!" Like that makes them tough. So what? It's a movie, so I get why you're not running through the streets screaming, but it's also an experience you're clearly refusing to engage with.
Side note: we've talked Alien before, and it's my favourite horror because it touches on so many psychological fear nerves at once. Again, I'm not running down the street, but how it makes me understand human fear is what I like about it.
I agree with Lynch: the full experience is on the screen, not the page, so reading the script isn't a full experience and it wasn't intended to be. But if it's a worthy script, a lot of symbolism and hidden depths will already be there, especially in the dialogue, so that it would still allow for study deeper than a glance-reading. The writer has to bake in the depths for the director to explore or else the director is working too hard (and probably can only elevate the shallow, vapid script so far, anyway). Good scripts can make great movies, but crummy scripts can only hit "okay" if paired with a talented director/cast.
I'll hit that vid next.
That's exactly the quote I was looking at, and your conclusion is exactly the danger of the razor's edge.
Fully agreed about Alien. I have Alien and The Thing tied as my favorite horror, and it's an unbelievably complex movie. Hiring Giger as the artist for the alien ship and creature was genius. And how much work really went into all the small details is just incredible. Well over 40 years after it was released, still it sparks new discussion, it just keeps on giving.
One of my favorite articles for example is about the fonts and the fact that there was a semiotic standard created by Ron Cobb for the movie, there was a whole sheet of icons designed for the Nostromo. That's simply awesome and if you haven't read this article yet, you are in for a treat!
https://typesetinthefuture.com/2014/12/01/alien/
Also, just wanted to link one of Rob Ager's vids on the film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoyoFotOXgU
Lynch and Kubrick are really similar. I think this is the reason why Kubrick seldom talked about the meaning of his works or specific scenes in his films. They both have the "if I could just tell you, I wouldn't have filmed it" attitude. Kubrick also explicitly stated in some of his interviews that he wants the audience to arrive on their own conclusions. You know, put some intellectual work in... which is also something most people want to avoid.
I rewatched The Thing last October (I did a Hallowe'en month horror movie kick) and it has a lot of similarities to Alien, in my opinion, including the bickering, tight group (albeit with more in-group paranoia in The Thing) and the Unknown Strange Monster as the antagonist. It's also got that great '80s "lived-in" sci-fi look (which, okay, I know Alien was the '70s, but Star Wars kinda started the look, and that's '77; pop culture phases never match up neatly with decades, anyway).
That typographic article was something else. Very well-written, mostly interesting, and as somebody who enjoys typefaces, really fun. I did have a bit of a chuckle at myself, though, reading a (fairly long) article focused mostly on being a font of trivial knowledge. But it was informative and contained several little bon mots like the tons/tonnes thing and the comparisons to 2001.
Good video, too. I missed a lot of the visual symbolism and never even thought about how the design of the film made for perfect xenomorph camouflage. It just all seemed so "natural" that I didn't notice. Cap tipped to the design team who had to make it look realistic but also work for the story.
The repeated "teeth" imagery in-particular was a good find on Ager's part (in the title credit and around Dallas).
I think artists don't always want to spell it out for people because they want to give audiences the chance to be affected and learn it themselves - always a more rewarding experience. Sometimes, though, I do think (particularly after the passage of time) they could maybe answer one or two of the most burning questions. Christopher Nolan, for instance, and the ending to Inception. Has he ever just said, "Yeah, it's reality."? He should. I didn't care for that ending; I found it needlessly pretentious, and almost like it was trying to be smart (instead of just being smart, like the rest of the movie).
About The Thing I appreciate the world building and the characterization of the Outpost 31 crew, this brings the paranoia and horror closer. The reactions and thinking of the characters are consistent and believable throughout. And also the imitation concept is great and a tremendous value added. Alien is basically the same, the lifecycle and the top notch visual design by Giger being the added value there.
In the typographic article, my favorite parts were the semiotic standard, the icons signaling the Nostromo's various rooms and functions - they really made the Nostromo a character on its own there.
The other favorite part was how the text on the self-destruction keyboard was containing concepts from esoteric literature. I of course never realized that before, but I found it to be consistent with the eerie, psychedelic aura of the movie, it was truly fitting in my mind, and added an extra dimension to this masterpiece.
The Xeno camouflage seeming "natural" is a compliment of the highest order towards the set & creature design of Alien. I remember when the first time I saw the movie, I recorded it on VHS. I was 12 and endlessly rewatched that tape (later I recorded Aliens on the same tape as well). I remember thinking very early on about the Narcissus pipes that "Hah! They look exactly like the head of the Alien...". On a factual level, this though surfaced, but my immediate next thought was "... and this seems right!" and not something like "... how ridiculous, how convenient, how lazy from the filmmakers". That movie is in a class of its own...
My re-watch of The Thing happened after a re-watch of Community, so I really dug Keith David a lot more. Dude's awesome.
I've always enjoyed the "who is the killer?" stuff. Agatha Christie's plays/stories go into that a lot. The Thing does it. Hateful Eight did it (although I'm not a big fan of Hateful Eight). It's fun as a viewer to try and figure it out. The shapeshifting aspect makes it more fun. It's like Invasion of the Body Snatchers written by Agatha Christie.
Have you seen the X-Files episode Ice? It *clearly* owes a debt to Carpenter's The Thing. It's not as good, partly because they have to work within a 45 minute time limit, but it's one of the best X-Files episodes.
Semiotic standard was good. It got me thinking about future dialects and how sci-fi "Earth" civilizations should logically handle language barriers. Star Trek does the typical thing (hey, they all happen to speak/write the same language as the viewer!). Firefly and Serenity made everybody English-Mandarin bilingual. That was cool, I thought. Semiotic standard is a good touch.
And, yeah, the psychedelic/consciousness stuff on the keyboard is neat. It's also a great example of how random decisions (the guy who did it just needed any "deep sounding" terms and picked stuff out of a book he was reading) can make a world feel full, rich, and (ironically) deeper. You'd think that'd take more planning...
Next time I watch Alien, I will definitely be thinking about that camouflage.
X-Files "Ice" - yeah, I saw it, and I saw it before I saw The Thing, actually. In the mid-90s, X-Files was the hot mystery show, and I watched most of the episodes as a teenager, but I was not really hooked. On paper that show is everything I wanted a great show to be, but still... I couldn't really get into it. Maybe I was bothered by the episodic nature of it, as in "after witnessing THAT, how could you go on with your life, dude?" and "If in that episode they did not really get rid of that monster, how come it didn't take over the area already?" - stuff like that. The episodic structure doesn't bother me anymore, but still, I can't get into the X-Files.
That said, "Ice" is one of the 3 or 4 episodes I consider truly brilliant. It helps that it is a self contained story, the threat (as far as I can remember) doesn't make it out of Antarctica, so all is well. And the tension throughout is well built up, even though you know Mulder or Scully have plot armor, it still manages to excite and terrify at times. Thanks for reminding me, it's a great episode.
About random decisions and how the guy picked deep sounding terms for the keyboard - I would argue that it is not random. Even if it seems random, it was not random why he picked that exact book he was reading at the time. He could have picked any book he read 5 years ago. He could have picked terms from an esoteric magazine article he read 2 years prior. Still he picked that book, because it felt "right" to him. It felt consistent with the work they were working on. And that's not random, that's intuition. And I'm sure this is what you meant, just wanted to address this, because... I hit the gorram character limit again, so continued in the next post.
I got really into the X-Files around 2005. I was (typically for me) late to the party. I don't know why I didn't, but I just didn't. I still haven't watched Squid Game, either.
Ice is one of my favourites. It's in my top three with Squeeze (the guy who can meld through vents) and Drive (Walter White in a car with Mulder).
It hasn't lasted as a favourite show, but several episodes stand out to me.
The episodic nature didn't bug me too much. Honestly I was more put-off by the mythology episodes because they never actually made any forward momentum. It was wheel spinning; I think because the series creators were stalling to stretch the show out for longer. If I was watching them one at a time, months apart, I might not have noticed. But I was watching in an era of binge-watching and online access, so I saw two or three a week and the lack of actual story was palpable.
(continued)
I think intuitive decisions like these are what separate the masterpiece tier from the mediocre pile. While making Alien, maybe camouflage was not explicitly on their minds at all times. Nor teeth imagery. But they subconciously created designs that looked "right" that expressed the atmosphere of the universe. At no point did Scott go to any set designer to tell him "make this or that like a row of teeth would ya" - at least I don't believe he did. Also the title sequence is also mostly affecting the subconscious of the viewers and I bet most of it was designed subconsciously, intuitively.
Then along comes someone like Ager who analyzes it, discovers the teeth imagery, studies the camouflage aspects exhaustively, presents his findings and gets some flak from his viewers for "reading too much into it" and "that couldn't have been intentional, come on" - and stuff like that in the comments. I don't fault these people. When they say this or that couldn't have been intentional, they think the director planned everything along exactly same analytic thought process as Ager is using when analyzing the work. But in 90% of the cases that is not how it is: the filmmakers pick what "feels right" to be in a scene, not necessarily because it is consciously planned, like "in scene 39 I set up some symbolic imagery that will be reiterated in scene 88" - but they keep the symbolism going by picking designs that match their intuitive understanding of their work.
Maybe with Kubrick I think it's the other way around, he was very analytical, so I can imagine he preplanned most of the symbolism in his movies, but I still think 10% of even his work is intuitive.
When I say "intentional", I mean both the intellectual and the intuitive aspects of a decision a director / filmmaker made. So in that sense I think nothing in movies is accidental. Maybe the creator wouldn't be able to give an intellectually acceptable reason for all he decisions, but they are still decisions...
Intuition definitely helps, but I'd put it down as much to every member of the team taking time and caring about their work while Ridley Scott made "big" decisions. So, he said, "go make me a computer panel", and the panel guy decided to make the buttons mean something to him. Everybody seemed to do that - possibly feeling they had to step up their game while seeing the concept art by Giger - and brought their own intuitions and meaning to every piece.
So, absolutely, I don't think Scott said, "make teeth", but I bet the set designer went, "This spiky stuff looks scary," or perhaps even figured the spikes looked like monster jaws or claws.
Some of it's probably subconscious, too. While framing the shot, maybe Scott went, "I like it like this," not knowing why. It's also possible he went, "Oh, this looks like it's closing in on Dallas - let's do it here."
To me it doesn't matter if it's intentional: it's there. That looks like teeth. My subconscious feels the claustrophobic terror of that. Does it matter if they did it on purpose?
And you're 100% right: most of the time it's a happy accident. Filmmakers study their craft, prepare for the movie, and then jump in and find serendipity. But without mastering their art and preparing, they'd miss all those golden mistakes.
Kubrick was probably more prepared than most, yeah, but he still would've "found" stuff - not to mention other members of his creative team contributing their own accidental genius. It's his job to capitalize on that, too (as director).
Good point on how everything is, to some extent, intentional in movies. But "accidental" and "intentional" are still useful words to describe the stuff that came up on its own vs. pre-planned symbolism or ideas.
Good point on how everything is, to some extent, intentional in movies. But "accidental" and "intentional" are still useful words to describe the stuff that came up on its own vs. pre-planned symbolism or ideas.
Lumping all previous points together: I wouldn't use the word accidental for anything in any art (not just movies).
Agreed on how set designers care about their craft, and thus creating designs in line with the director's vision. And that is the thing: the director should have a strong and detailed vision, and that needs to be executed on film. The most valuable ability of a director is to first realize that he cannot do everything on his own, filmmaking is teamwork. And realizing this, he needs to work on implanting his vision to the minds of the set designers, creature designers, lighting guys... everyone around him. That will make them actually care about their work. This is what Lucas did masterfully, during the making of the first Star Wars movie - he fostered an exciting working environment, where innovation was thriving, they came up with new effects techniques, pushed the boundaries of filmmaking in general - so he successfully transferred at least part of his vision to the people working on his film.
So for this reason I would make a different disctinction than "accidental" and "on purpose" in film. I would say "driven intuitively by the shared vision" and "explicitly planned". I think these two categories cover everything, and "driven by vision" feels closer to what is actually happening during the fillmmaking process than "accidental".
But I think we are in agreement about this, I was just arguing semantics :-)
I know what you mean. Yeah, it's entirely semantic.
Basically, I agree with you, but the word "accidental" and phrase"on purpose" get across the idea to anybody I'm talking to, so I don't think I can get rid of them; they're useful linguistic tools.
The ending of Inception... oh, boy. I need to rewatch the movie, but the moment I stepped out of the theater I remember not understanding how the conversation was around "was it real or a dream" - instead of the 3 possible scenarios the movie clearly sets up before the ending!
Scenario 1 - Real life (the top would wobble and stop spinning eventually)
Scenario 2 - Cobb's dream (the top would spin infinitely)
Scenario 3 - Someone else's dream, who doesn't know how Cobb's totem works, and would apply common sense and slow it down. (the top would wobble and stop)
The entire point of totems was NOT to determine it was real or a dream, it was to determine whose dream it is.
So if we accept what the ending clearly shows (the top wobbles) that still leaves the possibility of Cobb being in someone else's dream.
We are wildly off topic now from The Matrix, but I'm curious - am I remembering the totems right? Is there anything in the movie that would rule out someone else's dream and only leaving "real" as a possibility?
The totems let them know if they're dreaming at all because in a dream world (anybody's) they generate the totem and boink the physics so they can know if it's fake or real. Cobb's totem wobbles, ergo they're outside.
What bugged me about the ending was two things:
First, it seemed like it was shoving in our faces how "smart" it was by being deliberately ambiguous. Up until this point in the film, we the viewer aren't asked to question stuff like this, so it felt tacked-on like it was trying to be deep. Not actually being deep, but just trying to.
Second, because it doesn't match the point of the movie. Cobb's character arc is about reuniting with his family. We should know if he did or didn't. I've heard people say that the ambiguity is to show Cobb doesn't care anymore. He's letting go to move on with his life. The problem is that the final shot focuses on the top, sending us a visual cue that we're supposed to care about that. If we weren't, it should have panned away from the top and onto Cobb and the kids and focused on what really matters.
As I said, I haven't seen it in 7-8 years, but I looked up some quotes and explanations about the totems, and I seem to remember right, as Arthur says this at some point in the movie:
I can't let you touch it, that would defeat the purpose. See only I know the balance and the weight of this particular loaded die. That way, when you look at your totem, you know beyond a doubt that you're not in someone else's dream.
Also, the Inception wiki's article on Totem, has this opening sentence:
A Totem is an object that is used to test if oneself is in one's own reality (dream or non-dream) and not in another person's dream
So it seems the possibility of someone else's dream is still on the table?
Totally agree with your comments about Cobb's character arc - the whole movie would not make sense if he is not in reality at the end. Dramatically, there is no other solution. So the even though in-universe the someone else's dream scenario would still be possible, I also don't think this is the case. I was just musing about why people (seemed to) forgot that crucial part of the totem explanation.
Along the same lines of thinking (character arc) do I believe Total Recall was real all along - all what Quaid went through would be meaningless if the whole ordeal was just an implanted memory.
And here it is again - I'm ignoring Word of God, as Verhoeven explicitly stated in his commentary that it was a dream. But the movie could work either way, so I as a viewer choose it to be real. And of course I have my arguments locked and loaded to support my view. I have never encountered an argument using anything from the movie that would have proved it beyond any doubt that it was a dream - or real for that matter. And I think this is exactly the brilliance of TC. Also, I normally don't really like movies that are ambiguous and only function as a rorschach test, not subscribing to a standpoint about the story / issue that they are presenting, having an open ending... but in the case of TC, I can accept that us getting no conclusion is the conclusion. I think the fade to white at the end is a call for "pick your own solution". Also, there is that meta-brilliance of it cannot be "real" because at the end of the day, it was still a movie, even if you think it was real in-universe. And also you can pick what kind of movie it was: a meaningless sci-fi action romp or an actually deep philosophical work of art... your choice speaks more about you than about the movie here. And that's another layer of brilliant.
I concede the totems; I'm not remembering them 100%. Maybe I need to rewatch the film - it's pretty complex (one of its great attributes). So it's possible he's in somebody else' dream. But, as you say, that wouldn't be thematically as satisfying. We'd at least need a hint of whose dream it was.
Theme is one of the reasons the ambiguous ending bugs me. "Are we in reality!?" was never a major theme of the movie. Compare it to something like eXistenZ. The characters question reality, but we don't, only to bring it up right at the end.
Total Recall is a great example/counter to bring up because that movie does question "What is real!?" the whole time. Inception talks about it, but doesn't try to have the viewer experience it. TR does.
It's been awhile since I've seen TR. I don't remember what I thought at the time, although I think I'm on the "everything is a dream" side... But I don't totally recall (!) why.
Part of the fun of the movie is that either interpretation works and is valid, of course. Verhoeven rocked that. One of the reasons I think it works is because, even while keeping it ambiguous, he knew what he thought. He treated it as a dream, but then made it open-ended. I think some filmmakers (or authors or whoever) don't have that in mind. They put "ambiguous" as the main purpose and, as a result, the film feels messy. I think the filmmaker needs to pick an answer while making the movie, which grounds the narrative and makes it fun to watch. If it isn't grounded, it just feels like their making it up as they go along and makes for a frustrating viewing experience.
Frankly, I get that "we didn't pick" vibe from Inception. I don't know if Nolan even decided or if he just shot the somewhat-wobbling top and went, "This'll blow their minds!" But "Blow audiences' minds" isn't a good goal and makes for a frustrating ending (for me; I know a lot of people loved that ending).
Continued due to character limit.
My favorite example of falsely citing Occam is when someone claims X, I start asking questions about details, supportive arguments for X, evidence for X, etc. - and people who claim X, say that according to Occam's razor, their claim (X) is right, attempting to shut the conversation down completely.
Then I point out, that I myself did not offer any explanations to counter claim X, I am questioning it without presenting an alternative explanation, so there is no point using Occam's razor, because there is nothing to cut. We are testing claim X if it holds water, if it can even be considered as an explanation in the first place... But I think this comes down to the burden of proof - people often don't recognize they have it, even if they claim something to be true / the right explanaton for something, etc.
Deliberately obtuse is the phrase that springs to mind. People will go through a lot of trouble to avoid trouble (that is inevitable anyway). It's like people who put off going to the doctor, scared about a severe diagnosis. Putting off going doesn't change it. Go now, catch it early.
Burden of proof... yes, that's always the other person's responsibility in a debate, isn't it? At least, that seems to be the attitude I've seen most people take.
About the burden of proof - I think it is mainly because people often don't even realize they stated something. For example we are talking about a phenomenon in science, and the topic of the debate is about possible explanations. Along comes a forum user and tells us that Theory X explains the phenomenon. I ask follow up questions about how exactly does Theory X explain a specific detail of the phenomenon. Then he says: "How can you ask something like that, Theory X is the currently accepted scientific theory, of course it explains all the details about the phenomenon!"
I think you see where this is going. "Accepted" theories are not automatically right, and the guy didn't even realize that he claimed something, and now the burden of proof is on him... The rest of the converstaion goes like this BTW:
I follow up with "If the theory is accepted, then it should be easy for you to explain the specific detail - so please provide the explanation." He then links an article about Theory X, saying "there, you should read up on Theory X". I read the article, it is about Theory X, but nothing is there about the specific detail of the specific phenomenon that needs to be explained. So I ask for it the third time, and the answer is something along the lines of "I will not play google for you, look it up on your own."
It's really tiring to even keep a debate on topic, let alone making people understand the burden of proof is on them...
I re-read my post and all this "Theory X" makes it harder to understand so here is a specific example: There is a documentary titled American Moon, by an Italian filmmaker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpuKu3F0BvY
I like this documentary, because it doesn't state anything, it's asking questions about specific details of the moon landing. I myself don't believe that it was hoaxed, but there are some really curious details about the video footage of Apollo missions. At 2hrs and 13 mins into the documentary, they find an example of flag movement, while the astronautsa are nowhere near the vicinity of it, in fact they are not even on the surface, they are in the LEM! Worth checking out, really bizarre.
So let's say I try to google this - just tried, and there is nothing about this specific instance of flag movement, debunking sources only mention 2-3 other, easily explainable flag movement cases. So nothing on this one. Let's say I go to a space forum, link to this video, give the timestamp and ask for the explanation. The answer would be something like "Get out of there with your lunacy, the accepted scientific consensus is that Apollo was real, so of course there is an explanation!" - and they would not tell me what the explanation is. They would call me a hoax believer (which I am not) for even asking the question.
My experience is that I really like to think about specific details of specific events / phenomena, but if there is a scientifically accepted standpoint, then it's nigh impossible to actually discuss any details, because people rather parrot the accepted consensus, instead of actually trying to provide an explanation for this flag movement. It seems some details of some subjects can't even be debated, which is a somewhat understandable reaction - just think about the flocks of hoax trolls on the forums - but at the same time, really sad that interesting conversations can't happen, because they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater...
I got it with "theory X", but the additional clarification was welcome, too.
I think the main confusion with burden of proof is that people have a kind of catch-22 logic going on in their heads about it. They think, "I'm right," (or Theory X is right), "and therefore anybody who says otherwise must prove me (or it) wrong. Ipso facto: the burden of proof is not on me, but on them."
It's almost like, "I said it, so you have to prove me wrong now."
I've seen fights on moviechat of two people who seem to be under that, uh, burden (pun intended!) and are shouting at each other to disprove their side.
Usually those fights are peppered with horrid levels of illogical thought, fallacies, and just "being a dick".
As to the moon landing example, it's a really good example because it also shows the necessity of pausing long enough to question long-accepted beliefs or deep-rooted knowledge.
What was true yesterday might be proven false tomorrow, or expanded on to the nth degree. Take physics, for instance. In cosmology we knew we were the centre of the universe until it was the sun, then not even that, leading to further physics discoveries until we're coming up with gravity and then refining the idea so it barely looks anything like what Newton asserted in the first place. Einstein refines it, then quantum physicists just go bananas.
Now, some conversations advance faster if we don't question *everything*, and generally-speaking, I find (interestingly enough) Occam's razor is a good starting point for a lot of conspiracy theories. JFK? Well, the easiest answer is, "Lee Harvey Oswald". Doesn't mean I don't look into alternatives or question the "easy answer".
Contiuned due to character limit.
Just wanted to add that I completely agree with your analysis on Ash - and precisely what we don't know makes Ash so interesting, exciting and scary.
Ash doesn't envy humans, he's repulsed by them
That is also how I interpret everything he said after his head was turned back on. My sub-theory: up until they encountered the xeno and he could study it, he wanted to be somewhat similar to humans, maybe not as an internal desire (and none of that sexuality nonsense Scott is talking about), but to be better suited to complete his mission(s). So he wanted to blend in, and continuously refine his abilities to blend in.
But once he studied the xeno, he was struck by the idea that maybe humans are not the most superior beings in the universe. This lifeform under his microscope was stronger, more durable than any human, and later on it was able to best almost all of the crew. It might have occurred to him that he himself is more durable and stronger than humans - so he had to re-evaluate his situation, maybe that was the point where he started to despise humans, but at the very least it was easier for him to see them as expendable. Of course as already discussed, the underlying programming had to contain something about not harming humans, so that still caused the malfunction we saw when he attacked Ripley.
It's great to have such great in-depth discussions on a film that came out in '79.
I love that. He's going about his artificial life thinking, "Humans are cool. I'm lucky to be kinda like them," only to encounter the xenomorph and have some encounter with a cthonic god that gives him "religion" for the cosmic horror.
As to his orders, I get the feeling Ash might have been a warm friend, but that he's also a "company man" and puts career before family, as it were. I do also think that programming is a factor. I'm guessing all androids have some leeway in personality and free will, but they have certain immutable tenets at their core. If Weland-Yutani are making these things (either that or buying them from somewhere) and they are capable of programming them with "Obey the Company Overlords," you can be darned skippy they're doing just that.
I do think it's a combination of the two, same as I believe in a combination of nature and nurture.
Did he have a choice? Yes. But could have taken any choice but "protect the alien"? I don't know. I don't think he *would*, but whether that's Ash's personality (which W-Y would have in a folder somewhere) or direct programming they hypnotized him with, who can really say?
Mr.Smith is communism, his boss is anarchism and neo is neo nazism in America. America would be the rebels.
shareMaybe you're just being silly, but if you really want to examine it along those lines:
The Matrix is communism. It's the system in total control, with everyone obedient to the state, and the state providing literally everything. Everyone is equal, all contribute to the best of their ability, and have every need met by the government.
Neo is anarchism. No rules apply to him, he does whatever he wants, and disrupts the system wherever he goes.
Agent Smith's political opposite number is a bit tougher to assign. He's probably closest to Nazism, in that he seeks out those who aren't true to the state and kills them. He represents protecting the national identity from outsiders.
The Oracle represents capitalism. She is all about making sure everyone does their job, and receives the appropriate reward.
Devil's advocate: Neo could also be seen as an interpretation of Nietzsche's ubermensch, which was co-opted/corrupted by the Nazis. He also is dressed in rather "neo-Nazi" apparel. But I think that would be reading way too far into it.
The Matrix films aren't allegories for politics, in my opinion, although they do seem to be strong proponents (generally) for anarchist ideas (which seems typical of cyberpunk material).
If we were to play that game, though, yeah, I think The Matrix is best associated with communists.
Smith is Ayn Rand exceptionalism, frustrated by the system not rewarding his obvious extra abilities?
The Oracle isn't investing in anything or controlling companies. She doesn't seem to collect benefits from labour. I don't think she's capitalism. An argument could be made for Morpheus, who hires people for his ship, gives them freedom to operate as they see fit, but not the keys to kingdom.
I agree it's a stretch, and I was not sure if the person I replied to was joking when I chimed in.
Smith as exceptionalism makes sense.
I am thinking of the Oracle more as capitalism in its raw form than as a capitalist herself. Capitalism is the one -ism that isn't an -ism, because it's man's natural state. It's only once you start imposing rules on people that you create a new -ism, and that's kind of how I see the Oracle. She's like the rulebook. She knows all the parameters that are in place, i.e. the "natural state" within the Matrix, and lets people know "if you do x, y will happen."
Morpheus might fit as a capitalist, as he's working within the system. He could also represent a theocracy, as all he does is founded on his belief in The One.
I'm not sure if the original post was joking, yeah, which is kinda why I replied to you; just wanted to have some fun overanalyzing things.
Tank and Dozer are symbolic of Virgil from Dante's Inferno, serving as guides (bringing people to and from the Matrix, uploading training, etc.) but unable to move between worlds themselves (they must remain in Limbo).
Zion is the stock market. I assume that orgy is basically what day traders do on Wall Street.
I would like to r******s****** f***** sssltlsss****** your statement, but I just don't h*** a f******* cl**** z****** what you are s********aying there.
shareDid you mean SEXUAL ASSAULT?
Wow, it's very easy to type it out, why censor something you obviously wanted to say? I mean, if you want to use some words, have the guts to USE THOSE WORDS. If you don't want to use those words, choose some other words. Don't be a chicken and do a cop-out to please the unpleasable by stupidly CENSORING yourself, holy cow. Is this a new trend, where people try to out-stupidify each other?
In any case, what the hell is sexual about that situation? Nothing! It was just a flex of the Matrix-powers the agents have, and a way to SHUT UP Neo, so he can't call anyone. Why are you insanely reading something sexual into it?
Of course now you can claim you never SAID it, because you used asterisks, so you could have said anything, blahblah.. so are you censoring yourself to chicken out even more, by creating an artificial plausible deniability?
Nothing makes me angrier than dishonest, slimy, sneaky, hypocritical cretins, except turdy snakes, like you.
In a nutshell, yes I did mean it, but only because this is what the TV Tropes saw that scene as a metaphor for.
I "censored" it because the topic itself, for my own personal reasons in the last few years, has been making me rather uncomfortable. But don't worry too much here.
Take it up with them, not "me".
shareAnd its not as if I censored it so "strongly", it was actually very mild on that front, that people didn't grasp at what was being said. Its like BS and WTF and we all know what they mean. Just in my own way. No big deal on that front.
Plus, I simply wanted to know whether that scene really was a metaphor for it or based on it as in fact according to what filmmakers have intended or if the TV Tropes web site simply put their own spin on it.