|
|
Post by wizzlbang on Apr 1, 2013 0:57:39 GMT
No it wouldn't, the whole subtext of a black dude with extraordinary talent being rejected by society because it hasn't advanced past prejudices yet would not be present.
This is operating on the assumption that the subtext was intentionally placed there to begin with, creating circular logic. |
|
|
|
Post by i love my dead gay forum on Apr 1, 2013 1:34:26 GMT
no it isn't, subtext by its nature arises out of the text, it does not have to be and frequently isn't placed there intentionally.
|
|
|
|
Post by outhouseinferno on Apr 1, 2013 1:53:51 GMT
It's not completely like that either, the paper you list lists a bunch of executive behind-the-scenes actions that created the subtexts, they knew what they were doing, or at least, knew what kinds of subtext they were trying to avoid.
Now I'm remembering Daredevil which made its version of Kingpin black, no one really said a word about it probably because that movie as a whole was too shallow.
I guess i'm just gonna agree to put the point between "authors can create subtext" and "the author is dead" squarely in the middle.
|
|
|
|
Post by wizzlbang on Apr 1, 2013 1:57:11 GMT
But the subtext you're reading into is what we're discussing to begin with, I put forward that the movie would be the exact same movie without a black actor, when you insist it would be different because the subtext you're reading into wouldn't be there.
Bit if simply swapping out an actor with someone else of a different race, which wouldn't affect anything and leaves every other aspect of the movie exactly as it is, completely nullifies the subtext you're reading into, then it's probably not what the movie is about.
|
|
|
|
Post by wizzlbang on Apr 1, 2013 2:01:57 GMT
 Holy damn, Aorta, Even xolta's tired of your college freshman psychoanalysts shit... |
|
|
|
Post by xolta on Apr 1, 2013 2:08:39 GMT
I delteed that post beacue i thought it was to mean sprited. Should have siad that your logic was flawed sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by i love my dead gay forum on Apr 1, 2013 2:12:52 GMT
i'm not just making shit up, i watch a movie and try to think about what it means. like i'm not talking about colonialism in Hancock, for instance, because i didn't see anything about that in the movie. it's pretty funny how angry you get when i suggest that movies mean things tho.
|
|
|
|
Post by cosbydaf on Apr 1, 2013 2:14:00 GMT
 But yeah, let's all just chillax and not rabble shall we |
|
|
|
Post by wizzlbang on Apr 1, 2013 2:22:45 GMT
this movie is totally about this but my opinions are completely subjective you guys are so willfully ignorant i'm analyzing ART
WHY ARE YOU SO ANGRY
|
|
|
|
Post by The Leader on Apr 1, 2013 2:23:35 GMT
all i can read in that screen-capped post is "sorry"
|
|
|
|
Post by xolta on Apr 1, 2013 2:33:35 GMT
Yes and infact time for bats.  |
|
|
|
Post by i love my dead gay forum on Apr 1, 2013 2:51:53 GMT
this movie is totally about this but my opinions are completely subjective you guys are so willfully ignorant i'm analyzing ART WHY ARE YOU SO ANGRY i read the movie as being about race. you're free to suggest an alternate reading if you want. what i think of the movie draws from viewing it, i'm not advocating a kind of solipsism where it can mean absolutely anything. |
|
|
|
Post by cosbydaf on Apr 1, 2013 3:54:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by outhouseinferno on Apr 1, 2013 3:58:36 GMT
I don't know about all of you, but I think he's black
|
|
|
|
Post by cosbydaf on Apr 1, 2013 4:05:57 GMT
I don't know about all of you, but I think he's black I dunno, some of those looks he gives to camera near the end seem to suggest that he doubts his own claims. |
|
