I’m always picking apart movies and TV shows for subtext, deeper meaning, Jungian archetypes, revelation of social patterns, inner psychology, etc., but it seems like there are two related trends that make the traditional, scholarly approach of a close reading increasingly unpopular:
-
The work is about whatever the author says it is about or could have intended it to mean. Literature can have a multipilicity of meanings, some of them deeply personal to the reader, and many of them unintended. That the fun of thinking about a piece and breaking it down an examining scenes and dialogue and symbolism can all be replaced by doing a search on the author’s Twitter is deeply depressing and completely destroys the role of art–to be an ambiguous sounding board for our souls and unconscious reflection of our society.
-
A work is bad or good depending on the political messages it explicitly and implicitly communicates." and related: I’m more likely to agree with an interpretation if helps me politically. Stories with flawed characters are condemned in this system, because the point of literature isn’t to explore the human condition, but to create propaganda for ideologies, and your role isn’t too seriously examine the text but to create your own propaganda for your side online.
Examples:
-
“300 can’t have a gay subtext because that would mean Zach Snyder was woke!'”
-
“The Matrix is definitively a trans-allegory because The Wachowskis said it was. If you disagree, you are stupid, because they said so.” I love reading the Matrix as a trans-allegory, but it is not ever explicitly mentioned in the text so I chafe at it being definitively, or even obviously, a trans-allegory.
-
Sex and the City is bad because Carrie has an extremely fucked up relationship with Mr. Big (ie, only positive role models are “good”–I’m absolutely OK with people pointing that out, but the problem is building a world where only “safe messages” are propagated and treating all audiences as uncritical 3-year-olds in front YouTube Kids).
The only real pushback against art-by-tweet is against JKR declaring Dumbledore to be gay. But, really, that’s just politics taking precedence, because people don’t want her in the LGBT tent exlcuding trans people.
There also seems to be a knock-on effect in writing rooms, where complexity and ambiguity are being sacrificed for clear moralizing and political point-making.
And as a long-time Star Trek fan, I’m not saying art can’t be explicitly political! Of course it can! But I am saying it is increasingly not allowed to be anything else.
Is this a vibe anyone else is getting? My references are obviously seriously dated, but whenever they come up, I feel like I’m speaking Ancient Greek.
Bonus question: Who has a better story than Bran?
Sure, but I guess the question is if it’s a common enough problem to rise to the status of “red flag.” Someone can like ANYTHING for the wrong reasons, and I think Fight Club is a pretty damn entertaining movie and you’re probably getting a lot of false negatives red flagging it.
But watch out for lye burns on the back of their hands tho
There are specific reasons that uncritically liking fight club is a red flag though, which not all movies share, for instance, Titanic you can criticise for other reasons.
American Psycho is another one similar to fight club. They can be seen as critisisms for the main character, but plenty of people watch it and think, damn i like that aesthetic, i want to be like that.
So I can defend the red flag association for movies like that.
Yes, I absolutely understand your point, but I think American Psycho is much stronger example because I don’t think it’s hugely popular (?), so your false negatives would go way down. But I haven’t seen it because I am insanely disturbed by everything I’ve seen and read and heard about it. Honestly, this is exactly the context I see it most often brought up–as a red flag for men.
I guess part of my question is if red-flagging SatC is partially just misogyny–like just assuming that women can’t see flawed characters without emulating them. I bring up Fight Club sort of as a way to test if misogyny is the underlying issue or if it’s a general mistrust of the public.
What is SatC?
I think American Psycho has had a resurgence in popularity (and admiration) lately which hasn’t been matched by fight club. If anything in my circles fight club is less talked about.
To me there is a big difference between enjoying fight club as a movie (a common experience) vs. being a fan of that movie (much rarer). My eyebrows go up. I start thinking what did they like so much about the movie? Why is it important to them?
So someone who goes out of their way to tell me that they like American Psycho or Fight Club, especially in this cultural context and with no added explanation, is cause to be curious, and find out if their fandom is alarming or not.
Well, maybe it’s time to do some personal evaluation because I am a fan of Fight Club in that it acknowledges some major cultural flaws in a way that I almost never see, and it’s soaked in existential anxiety that few other movies are willing to address so directly. I think Jack’s reaction to that existential crisis–investment in hypermasculinity–is psychologically accurate and today we see that same impulse in Tate bros and nationalist Christianity.
I think for me it’s a bit like acknowledging Marx understood capitalism better than anyone, but that doesn’t necessarily make me a communist. Just defining an otherwise undefined problem is a work of greatness, even if the solution is flawed.
Interesting that Psycho is coming around again… it’s just sitting on my shelf. Too bad Nicolas Cage didn´t get the role or I would have seen it by now.
SatC = Sex and the City.
Since you are not uncritically liking it, i think there is hope for you yet :p
I will keep thinking of it as a red flag if someone likes it but hasn’t drawn those distinctions as you have.