Directors whose fans read too much into their work.

Hematocyte

I don't know whether it's worth it's own thread but I'll throw it out there because I'm interested to hear examples.

I'm looking for directors whose fans read too much into their work, especially wrt movies that don't seem to really have too much of an issue of ambiguity to begin with.

Here's a couple that come to mind.:

Christopher Nolan - The Dark Knight Rises - Debate :

Did Batman die? Did he not? What did JGL in the cave mean? Seriously, read the The Dark Knight Returns comic book (or watch the movie version). It pretty much explains it to you if you hadn't already got it.

Michael Haneke - Cache Debate :

Who was filming the video? I thought it was clear enough that Majid's son was behind the whole thing (even the subplot of the son running away) was down to him

.

I'm all for a bit of discussion with movie but I find it strange that when 90%-95% of whatever we've seen or what makes sense tends to imply a certain chain of events or outcome, yet because it isn't spelled out explicitly in the final scene by the hero of the movie in monosyllabic words it's somehow open for interpretation.

So anyway, any more examples of these sort of directors or movies come to mind that seem to court endless discussion when the explanation, whilst not literally spelled out, already seems fairly clear? Thanks

(I am already kinda regretting posting this thread as I can foresee it turning into another never ending discussion about Batman rather than discussing what is in the thread title. Seriously, could you post that on some other thread if you want to talk about the specifics of a particular movies meaning).

Tipsy McSwagger

I knew you were going to post about Nolan before I opened this thread.

WatchWolf

Certain audience members were conditioned by Inception to believe the ending of TDKR was a dream.

senordingdong

Yeah, Christopher Nolans fans really need to start separating him from his films.

Duggy747

I know people who refused to watch Inception because they thought it would be too cryptic :pac:

mike65

Nearly all "artsy" directors are subject to over-analysis by fans.

Goldstein

I can't think of many fims more worthy of debate, discussion or analysis than Haneke's Caché. He's so ultra precise, purposeful and focused with every single component, word, shot, perspective, theme, even down to the font, that for me it totally vindicates the degree of analysis his films provoke. It's as if the guy lives in a higher dimension.

everdead.ie

mike65 wrote: »

Nearly all "artsy" directors are subject to over-analysis by fans.

True in my opinion the worst is Shakespeare everyone reads it and sees something different, worst of all he's dead so can't put people straight!


I thought the end of The Dark Knight Rises was pretty clear never understood why people couldn't get the ending.

_Kaiser_

Tarantino is another one who seems to get far too much debate

I watched the animated Batman DKR Part 2 last night myself and I actually thought it was better in some ways than Nolan's final instalment - I don't get the confusion around that either.. seems pretty obvious to me how it ended - but they should have gotten Mark Hamill back though.

Mickeroo

Tarantino? Really?

I've seen plenty of debate about his films alright but never in terms of subtext, deeper meaning or ambiguity over what happened. It's usually someone who doesn't like his movies arguing with someone who does, and that's about it.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

It's ridiculous how far people go into picking apart and analysing every single minute of Nolan's movies at this stage.

CastorTroy

So I'm guessing you're looking for directors whose movies have a seemingly final/clear ending as opposed to someone like David Lynch whose films barely have a clear beginning?

Padraig Mor

The Usual Suspects seems to lead to endless debates about *who* exactly is Keyser Soze.

Err....it's Kevin Spacey's character -

how anyone could think otherwise is beyond me.

Turtyturd

Mickeroo wrote: »

Tarantino? Really?

I've seen plenty of debate about his films alright but never in terms of subtext, deeper meaning or ambiguity over what happened. It's usually someone who doesn't like his movies arguing with someone who does, and that's about it.

It's a soul in the briefcase.

FortuneChip

Padraig Mor wrote: »

The Usual Suspects seems to lead to endless debates about *who* exactly is Keyser Soze.

Err....it's Kevin Spacey's character -

how anyone could think otherwise is beyond me.

I've read a few theories about the identity of Keyser Soze; and while definitely interesting... They're full of crap. It's clear as day!

johnny_ultimate

You'd almost swear that discussion and analysis of film is a bad thing. When Michael Haneke makes a film as cheekily ambiguous and demanding as Caché, he's actively encouraging debate and viewer participation with the discourse it incites. If you think it's as simple as 'the son did it' you missed the point. But Haneke is not alone, and countless directors are worthy of the analysis (critical, academic, casual) that they encourage. Film is not a passive activity for a lot of people, and healthy debate is always encouraged. Why are you on a film forum otherwise?

Of course, there is a difference between healthy debate and crazy readings of things that are spelled out pretty clearly. Doubting the identity of Keyser Soze or the ending of TDKR is not over reading - it is simply misunderstanding.

D-FENS

The only thing I was left wondering about Pulp Fiction is what they call a Whopper in France.