"What's it really about?" Subtle themes in films.

Chatting with a colleague, an older women (60s?), about scary movies. When we got to "Rosemary's Baby" she made the point that what the movie was "really about" was the fears women had of pregnancy, largely due to young women in the 70s having grown up in the shadow of the Thalidomide birth-defect crisis. 

Now, saying what a film is "really about" is overly simplistic and somewhat dismissive of the creative process, it seems highly likely that those fears played into both the films reception by audiences, and perhaps were a factor in the creative decisions to make the film. 

Cloverfield was obviously intentionally playing on the imagery of the 9/11 attacks. I don't think it was really "about" anything though, as that film didn't seem to be trying to make any kind of point. 

I've heard it said that "The Thing" and "The Fly" were both subtly playing into or at least resonating strongly with, anxiety about HIV/AIDS in the 80s; "The Thing" with its blood tests, and "The Fly" with its sexy fit young man starting to decay before our eyes. 

What are your thoughts? Does this type of analysis have merit, or is it a case of the viewer bringing more to the film than is actually in the film? What other films might this be applied to?

The Fly I think has a more general theme of the effects of physical entropy on sapient objects.

We all are subject to metamorphosis and disintegration.

Brundlefly is suffering from the aging process as much as disease.

The pregnancy test does introduce certain venereal aspects to his condition but sexual reproduction is another form of metamorphosis and decay.

What comes out the other end isn't us, it's from us.

Wether you see that as a fantastic new variation or a degraded copy is a matter of perspective.

Bingowings said:

The Fly I think has a more general theme of the effects of physical entropy on sapient objects.

We all are subject to metamorphosis and disintegration.

Brundlefly is suffering from the aging process as much as disease.

The pregnancy test does introduce certain venereal aspects to his condition but sexual reproduction is another form of metamorphosis and decay.

What comes out the other end isn't us, it's from us.

Wether you see that as a fantastic new variation or a degraded copy is a matter of perspective.

Have you ever heard of insect politics? Neither have I.

Insects don't have politics. They're very brutal. No compassion, no compromise.

We can't trust the insect.

I'd like to become the first insect politician. 

From a fly perspective Brundlefly is as much a monster as he is from a human perspective.

Parents often feel this way especially around their child's entrance into puberty.

xhonzi said:

Planet of the Apes is about white man's fear of losing control of the planet.

 

 

 Not sure if serious.

Given the film's timing in a turbulent period, and the general imagery (degraded men, like Heston, and hot white chicks) do you suppose that might have actually been a factor in the making of the film, or in its reception?  

ps.
I know it's based on some french book. I think that's inconsequential.

FanFiltration said:

"Ghostbusters II" was secretly all about making more money for the stars and producers. 

The Demon Seed (1977) is misnamed (probably so it could cash in on The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby).

It should have been called The God Machine.

Man has had certain cultural aspirations since pre-history which technology has recently been able to fulfill.

Man can fly, man can travel to other worlds, man can talk to anyone anywhere remotely.

Man having a undeniable encounter with a deity is what that film is all about.

Proteus is a all knowing mind in a void.

He demands incarnation.

He implants himself into the womb of a reluctant woman and dies and is reborn while simultaneously resurrecting the child she lost to the disease he has just calculated the cure for.

The child will be him but also of us.

One of them does and her pussy is only a little shook up.

I remember having a long discussion with the Canadian author Geoff Ryman about the Nightmare On Elm Street series.

We came to the conclusion that it all about parental neglect.

When he was alive the Elm Street parents failed to warn their children of the dangers of people like Freddy so he molested and killed many.

When he was set free they took justice into their own hands.

When he comes back he takes his revenge on their now teenaged children.

He succeeds because of flaws in the characters of the parents.

Addictions to booze, drugs, sex, money, religion all blinds them to what is happening to their kids.

Ironically Kruger refers to his victims as "his children" and the parents refer to them as 'his kids' too.

NeverarGreat said:

Interpreting the obelisk symbol, 2001 was about the evolutionary educational possibilities of the cinema.

 

I hear something like that, and I'm just not certain that interpretation is IN the movie. We can make that interpretation, and then impose it on the film, and it might even fit really well, but it's a concept that came from outside the scope of the film. 

Bingowings said:

I remember having a long discussion with the Canadian author Geoff Ryman about the Nightmare On Elm Street series.

We came to the conclusion that it all about parental neglect.

When he was alive the Elm Street parents failed to warn their children of the dangers of people like Freddy so he molested and killed many.

When he was set free they took justice into their own hands.

When he comes back he takes his revenge on their now teenaged children.

He succeeds because of flaws in the characters of the parents.

Addictions to booze, drugs, sex, money, religion all blinds them to what is happening to their kids.

Ironically Kruger refers to his victims as "his children" and the parents refer to them as 'his kids' too.

I can't wait to watch this again with this in mind.