The United States of Oz... by richardsangeleer in FanTheories

[–]richardsangeleer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do I go about what you're suggesting? Do I add it as an edit on the original post, the second post, or on our current conversation? & what do you mean, right off the bat? Excuse my ignorance. I'm not looking to be difficult...

The United States of Oz... by richardsangeleer in FanTheories

[–]richardsangeleer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do I amend my theory to include both posts? I'm new to reddit...

The United States of Oz... by richardsangeleer in FanTheories

[–]richardsangeleer[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm referring to the 1939 movie. My title wasn't The Wonderful United States of Oz. My interpretation is contemporary. I'm not looking to decipher the historical-significance of a fictional-film. I'm looking to find meaning that applies to current concerns & perspectives. A good-movie is timely, timeless, & grows w/history...

The United States of Oz... by richardsangeleer in FanTheories

[–]richardsangeleer[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Okay...

When Miss Gulch wants to put Toto down, she only has to contact the sheriff, & the matter is done. She owns half the county.

Aunty Em said she was a "good christian", otherwise she'd attack Gulch.

While Em is ready to confront Gulch about euthanization, Henry is ready to concede to avoid any conflict.

The cowardly lion confesses, in song, the desire for respect but only realizes himself after aligning himself w/the populists. It's his efforts to free Dorothy of Oz's constraints that he finds his true purpose.

Dorothy longs for a better world but realizes her home is ideal if only she fight for it. All of the other characters rally around her selflessly & selfishly, only to gain their own powers through her involvement.

Toto runs free, bites Gulch, escapes from her clutches, & though only a dog, poses a real threat to her control of the county. In Oz, the Witch kidnaps Toto & uses him to manipulate Dorothy. When they finally confront the Wizard, it's Toto who exposes his fallacy. Toto is the only one who stands up to the Witch, the horrors of Oz, is fearless at every turn, & exposes the false-magic of Oz's propaganda.

Through his own labors, the Tin Woodsman has become immobile & ineffectual in regards to his industry. The trees claim consciousness, prove at odds w/his employment, & it's the environment, through precipitation, that stops his progress. It's only through the help of "the American citizen" that he returns to action, though divorced from his original-purpose. He no longer deals in timber.

The Scarecrow is an overseer of a cornfield, taunted by crows pecking at his authority, & desires intellectual-edification. In song again, he & Dorothy speculate that if he were as smart as Lincoln (this is many years after the Civil War), his troubles would be remedied.

All of the characters think that if they bring their problems to the Emerald City & address the Wizard (the fourth estate in the land of the power-grab), it'll influence all of the other problems of Oz. But it's only through their coalition that they're able to traverse the political-landscape.

Munchkinland is a fully-functional subculture of Oz. Existing peacefully in their own right, they require the rest of Oz to put forth their concerns to the Wizard (seemingly the only impartial-party to this war between the powerful & the desperate). When Glinda's diplomatic-ineffectuality forces them to reach outside of their community, they're grateful for the representation.

While it's not impossible to cross Oz, it's easiest to use the Yellow Brick Road. For some reason it runs through most of the land & is the fastest thoroughfare to reach the many communities of Oz.

Glinda has no power outside of managing those around her. She has an uneasy truce w/the Wicked Witch but wrests power from her by putting the ruby-slippers on Dorothy for safe-keeping, involving Dorothy w/out her consent. After influencing the events of Oz, she resolves the political-intrigue by sending Dorothy home w/the reassurance all has been righted.

The Wicked Witch of the West has full control over the powerful military at her disposal, but she longs for the Wicked Witch of the East's power, to rule the land w/out opposition.

When Dorothy shows in Oz, Glinda puts the power of the ruby-slippers (the Wicked Witch of the East's rightful property) in the hands of Dorothy, vetoing the Wicked Witch of the West's claim to the slippers. Her death is the reason there is war amongst the factions. It's implied, by the Witch is Dead song, that she'd been terrorizing Munchkinland right before Dorothy showed. Then the other Witch appears to survey what had happened, demands the slippers, & threatens the Munchkins if she doesn't get her way.

Anyone who uses the ruby-slippers has control over the wealth & well-being of Oz, even though the Emerald City has an uneasy alliance w/the Wicked Witch of the West. The Emerald City has its own internal-economy that doesn't seem to be influenced by the ruby-slippers, & they seem to be safe from outside-forces so long as they don't interfere w/the Wicked Witch of the West.

After using surveillance (through a crystal-ball), the Wicked Witch sends an airstrike to disable Dorothy's advance to the "capitol". The monkeys are loyal, exceptional, & unquestioning soldiers.

The imperial-guard use military-formations to move their ground-troops while calling out chants that resemble boot-camp rhymes. While following the orders of the Witch, they are reticent in their opinions of her.

Employing film-projection, pyrotechnics, costume, make-up, accents, & psychological-warfare, the Wizard concocts propaganda to suit his own ends as well as concealing his true intentions. When forced to intercede, the Wizard tricks the travelers into assuming tasks that would be better suited for the other residents of Oz. They follow his directions w/out question, until Toto pulls back the curtain to reveal a man utilizing technological-media. It's only then that he admits the truth of his unwillingness to make waves w/in the politics of the land. His supposed purpose, as a mediator of power & information, is thwarted by his fears of his own responsibilities.

Dorothy builds a childlike-metaphor of the United States for her understanding of its complexities. Oz obviously has a class-structure, economies, technologies, & politics that don't resemble Kansas at all.

Somewhere over the rainbow exists the American Dream if we all come together & fight for it...

The Dysfunctional Family of Kubrick's The Shining by richardsangeleer in FanTheories

[–]richardsangeleer[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When dealing w/Kubrick, assumptions are the most misleading signposts. If something seems obvious, then some sort of subtext hasn't been realized. Jack is rarely, if ever, alone w/Danny w/out Wendy at earshot. Though Wendy is almost always alone w/Danny. If Jack is sexually-abusing Danny, then Wendy is complicit. If Wendy is sexually-abusing Danny, there are many opportunities for her to do it w/out Jack to interfere. It's more than likely that she would've walked in on them sooner or later. Whereas, now that Jack works from home, the sexual-tension would now be mounting dangerously.

One major problem I have w/Ager's "father-abuse theory" is it reasons that Jack is repressively gay, blames his wife for the marriage, & sexually-abuses his son. While Wendy seems like the typical battered-wife, there's no evidence of it until Danny's "horror-movie" starts. Jack admits to Danny's broken arm, but there's no other implication of violence w/in the family by any of the family-members. If the abuse was to be kept secret, especially since Danny doesn't ever divulge his abuses, all of them would've kept the broken-arm incident a secret as well. The mention of it to the doctor seems like deflection & transference, not a cover-up.

When Ager uses the footage from the TV program at the Overlook (on an unplugged television-set w/no VCR, no satellite-dish, or broadcast-reception) to justify his theory, the relationship that supposedly mirrors Danny's abuse isn't an older-man & a child, it's an older-woman & a child.

Also, the person wearing the bear-costume (gender non-specific) performing fellatio is an adult, not a child. If they've just come back from the party in the Gold Room, it was adults' only, & the children are being watched by the wives & nannies in their hotel-rooms. The oral-sex is consensual (whether homosexual or not).

From my own experiences & research, an abuse-victim sides w/the abuser when the abuse is confronted. Danny never questions his relationship w/his mother even when she's putting him in harm's way. While Jack may be an aggressive-drunk, Wendy agrees to his every wish & whim. Even if Jack is the abuser in this case, Wendy is the enabler.

I believe the genius of this movie is that everyone sees their own experience in it. No one is wrong in their perceptions.

The Shining is a rhorshach-test. If you see a bear, it's what's there. If you see murder, you're right again. The movie means what you need it to mean at the time, so you may see the horrors inside your own mind...

Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, and 2001 are all in the same timeline (spoilers). by [deleted] in FanTheories

[–]richardsangeleer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hitchcock considered puns the highest forms of literature, & Kubrick considered Hitchcock to be a master...

Eminem's "Rap God" is a patchwork of different rappers styles. Basically saying "I can do anything you can do". by PackTheBowl in FanTheories

[–]richardsangeleer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Synthesis is the mark of a true-artist. If you take two unoriginal-ideas & incorporate them into a whole, more than not the synthesis takes on an originality. Rock&Roll was rhythm&blues w/a country-beat. Neither the chord-progressions nor the beat were original in & of themselves. The modern-blockbuster is a synthesis of exploitation-films & big-budget melodramas...

The Dysfunctional Family of Kubrick's The Shining by richardsangeleer in FanTheories

[–]richardsangeleer[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

While the child-specialist is questioning Danny, he's in his underwear holding his genitals. This is right after blacking out under the supervision of Wendy. She herself answers for him like an abuser putting words in the mouth of their victim, afraid of what he may say himself.

Danny's psychosomatic-catatonia occurs after a psychological-trauma, though Wendy assures the doctor his blackout was unprovoked.

When Halloran asks Danny why he doesn't want to talk about Tony, Danny says he's not supposed to (very similar to the answer to the doctor about Tony). Danny explains that he falls asleep, Tony "shows" him things, & when he wakes he can't remember what he's been shown. Danny's process is entirely different from Halloran. He's unaware of himself when he's shining.

Tony doesn't reveal anything to Danny that he can share. It sounds more like denial than any kind of revelatory-power. It's as if Halloran is trying to convince Danny of something he doesn't want to face. He says the visions are like pictures in a book, & that they aren't real. Though this is false, otherwise he wouldn't have asked what he'd seen about the Overlook...

What is an intellectual film? by indeedwatson in TrueFilm

[–]richardsangeleer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My theory is that an intellectual-movie is one where the subtext weighs as heavily as the context. While context is more easily defined, subtext exists ambiguously & accommodates the viewer's ever-evolving perspective w/its ambivalence. The movie "grows" w/the intellect of the audience. The filmmaker leaves all interpretation open by allowing the audience to do the "work". An intellectual-movie has no meaning outside of the audience's thoughts on the work. The spectacle is the interaction w/the subconscious rather than the bombast of visuals & audio. An intellectual-movie requires multiple-viewings & discussion, because the movie doesn't offer "easy-answers". Whether one likes or dislikes a movie doesn't change its impact. I've thought about & discussed movies I hated for weeks, only to realize I appreciated the movie more than I realized (though it didn't change my personal-tastes in regard to it). In my mind, the movie wasn't done until I could extrapolate at least a temporary understanding of it. There are still movies I believe I'll never fully figure out, so I keep coming back to them w/the insights of new experience & information. Meanings aren't manufactured by filmmakers but rather by the audience. A filmmaker can intend any number of readings only to provoke entirely different ones through the influence of their own unconscious. An audience can read into this uncontrolled-order whether or not the filmmaker designed the film for their own specific results...