The Art of Overanalyzing Movies 

@@ForwardEarth it's a joke.

My brain hurt

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

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.

*ANALYZECEPTION !!!!!*

haha that's very funny.

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

Qual é o nome do artista?

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.

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

Lol

Or is it.....?

Hah 😂

Litterature teachers can be so pretentuous.

the girl's name? albert einstein

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

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.

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

Jack Saint / LackingSaint 🤯

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.

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

S E X !

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

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.

Mkkkk

Or beating anything up with a female in the room

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

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

Are you commenting on every video I watch?

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

Christ! Stop promoting yourself, Jesus.

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

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

Highland Kingman how so if I may ask?

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

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

All art is quite useless.

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

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

@@umok7837 forgive my ignorance

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

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.

i super 100% agree with you

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.

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

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.

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

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

That's the same goddamn thing

indigo wendigo I have no sense of sensation.

@@TheWatchernator why are you so right

You mean like The Room?

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.

White room - cream

Md Shariful Islam 1604064 so true

J.k Rowling. "artist"

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

@@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

@@grinshady0164 That's not the reason

me neither! SOMEONE TELL ME WHERE IT IS

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

Alexander Supertramp whoosh

It's not there, it's a meme

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

What a surrealist

ensiana oooooooooooooooooooollololooloooooool

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."

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

There is no such thing as overanalyzing.

Death of the author?

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.

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

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

Beautiful comparison.

HEY ITS FUNNY HORROR MAN

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

​@@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.

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

this comment thread sounds like a dictionary eating itself

Techno Bacon what?

He likes to play, *Da Foe*

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

Thank you, you're a certified meme og.

William James "Willem" Dafoe

If there was no meaning behind it, it wouldn't be mentioned...

@@fabianweber6937 See that's where you're wrong. Converting a setting from your brain to writing means putting minuet details like that on the page. You want the audience to see what you are imagining. Of course you can't be too descriptive with the writing, but if you blue curtains being a big part of the scene, then I'm going to make sure the audience sees blue by saying 'blue'.

@@plantenthusiast3052 but like you said, if the blue curtains are a big part of the scene, then the author draws out attention to them. Mentioning the colour of the curtains for no reason other than accuracy to some scene you have imagined in your head is pointless. Why are you telling me the colour of the curtains if it has no meaning in the rest of the novel? That's just boring writing, in my opinion.

@@BobJoe-rq9nz Because the curtains were blue. How else are you supposed to know the curtains were blue?

@@plantenthusiast3052 why do we need to know the curtains were blue?

ok

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

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

@@Maxxxim1 Y E S

If Only his films were that great to justify this statement

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.

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.

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.

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

@@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.

*cough cough* Gatsby *cough cough*

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

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

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.

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

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

@@rorywhelan_ oh shit.

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

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.

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)

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.

@@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.

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

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.

@@SerWhiskeyfeet living off what?

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

@@SerWhiskeyfeet ah

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

Amen.

Maybe they are?

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

shut up durpen

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

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

Jesus dude, it all makes sense

Ah that works

Can you write my AP Lit essays please

I just had a stroke

Wait lets see Don Cely's card

🤣

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

what?😂

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.

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

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

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.

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

That quote made choke up a little.

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

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

Crash from 2005? Oh you poor souls...

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

@@Retrostar619 lol great movie!

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

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

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

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.

No. what a load of shit.

the fuck?

That was an extremely dumb comment

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."

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

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

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

@@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

Breaking bad fans:

​@@John34bruhthe Fly episode?? 😅

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

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.

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

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.

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.

FrMZ yes yes thank you

Same here.

Your gay

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

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.

@@Vanilla_Skynet Couldn't have said it better.

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.

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

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

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...

@@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.

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.

@@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

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

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

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.

i wanna say both

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

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.

King Kong.

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

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.

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

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.

@@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

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

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

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.

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

I felt like the conclusion was at 8:08

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

Omg the twist 😂

yes! this story is about Atonement written by Ian McEwan

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

yawn

People with iq of 200:Kowalski, Analysis

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.

*Kowalski, analysis*

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.

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

Honestly!!!

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

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

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

DavDav 🤘🏻🤘🏻

There you are

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

Good one

Nice

Tyrone Biggums does crack, this must mean he likes crack

@@youngbobbyhill1911 i don't know why but it seemed like you were about to say "commu- nicator".

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

welcome to postmodernism

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.

@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.

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."

@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.

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

...oh...excellent point

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.

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

​@@SamLee74 Still got his name wrong though

It's Dafoe.

@@JoJoBAd5 ...Bel Biv Dafoe.

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

@@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.

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.

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

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-er_o82OMlNM.html

Fixed!

Or David Lynch's interview

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

@Sunken Visions i tried

Waffle Wagon it symbolizes communion