I have an analytical mind.
I say that as neither a boast nor an admission of something embarrassing. It’s merely a statement. It’s an inevitable result of three things: firstly, my Dad’s an engineer, and always taught me that a logical approach is the correct approach. Secondly, my education as an engineer. An engineering degree, in whatever sub-discipline, is so much more than just being trained as an engineer – it’s about instilling an analytical methodology. The analytical methodology transcends the discipline. An electrical engineer can apply an analytical methodology to a problem in exactly the same way as a civil engineer could. The details aren’t important; the process is. Thirdly, my occupation as a software engineer. Day in, day out, I’m forced to solve problems, some of my own creation, others the product of people scattered far and wide across the world. Each problem I encounter forces a logical, analytical, approach to solving – wild shots in the dark may (very) occasionally yield immediate results, but it’s not something to base a career on. Only by rigorous analysis of a situation and its empirical data can a theory be deduced and a solution established. Testing that theory and improving it in an iterative process is often required. Usually, this is the only effective manner to solve any given problem.
So what has this got to do with anything? Well, I have a sneaking suspicion that the above is the main reason why I don’t seem to be able to understand subtexts. No, that’s not quite phrased correctly. It’s not that I notice that a particular movie seems to be allegorical, but I can’t quite put my finger on what it’s alluding to; no, it’s that I don’t notice the subtext at all. Blind to it, I am. OK, so I’m not totally blind – I occasionally see the odd glimmer of light: I realise that ‘Animal Farm’ isn’t a simple tale of farmyard animals and their daily travails. But I didn’t get that it was a political allegory, and consequently I had no idea the person or ideal each character represented. Nope, nothing. Consequently, this classic tome was somewhat wasted on me, annoyingly.
Some examples are more obvious, others more subtle. I read Pullman’s ‘His Dark Materials’ trilogy without fully comprehending its religious subtext. Sure, I got the whole Magisterium malarkey, but seeing it as a coming-of-age story, with Will and Lyra as Adam and Eve, and Mary Malone as the serpent that encourages their fall from grace? Nope, missed that. Thanks, Wikipedia, for filling me in ex post facto. I missed the alleged Christian imagery in ‘Superman Returns’. Homo-erotic subtext in ‘Top Gun’? Nope, although I was probably too young to spot that first time through.
I have no chance with still-life art. Kath repeatedly tells me what this or that signifies. Bread is Jesus, apples are probably temptation, wine is blood, I get that. But what about birds or violins or melons? It’s just birds and violins and melons to me. No amount of educating me will convince me that a melon actually signifies chastity (or whatever); it’s just a fucking melon, for god’s sake. I can see a melon with my eyes. It’s a melon. A bloody melon, no more, no less.
It annoys me greatly. I see a movie that I think is only OK, but I’m constantly told that this bit alluded to something, and that bit signified another thing, and those two things together were the key point of the movie, and was what made it great. Am I destined to go through life not appreciating complex, layered movies? Am I going to have to stick with one-dimensional Michael Bay blow-up-the-aliens/White House/robots kind of movie, that barely work on one level, never mind more?
I hope not. To me, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that a logical approach to life, something that’s been inculcated in me for many years, and which is an approach that I use everyday in a job I love, is restricting my enjoyment of complex art, of one form or another. This is unfortunate.
On the bright side, though, I’m great at fixing computers.
What Did You Do, Ray? 