- 9 hours ago
No, Black Widow wasn't talking about being infertile.
Category
📺
TVTranscript
00:00Ambiguity can be a wonderful thing in cinema. It allows people to bring their own experiences to movies and draw
00:05their own conclusions as a result, often inviting spirited, healthy debate in the process.
00:11But you know what? Sometimes people are just flat out wrong about a movie scene, and they misinterpret the author's
00:16true intent in a way which might even end up altering their opinion on the entire movie.
00:21Now don't feel bad though, because misinterpretations like this are very, very common indeed, but ultimately, they weren't actually what
00:27was intended by those in charge.
00:29So let's take a look at them. This is WhatCulture.com, and these are the movie scenes everyone always gets
00:34wrong.
00:35Andrew wasn't really rushing or dragging. Whiplash.
00:38The most famous scene in the tenacious Oscar-winning Whiplash sees ruthless jazz instructor Terence Fletcher become increasingly frustrated with
00:47student Andrew as he seemingly fails to match his tempo.
00:51Throughout this gut-wrenching scene, Fletcher calls Andrew out for either rushing or dragging to his beat.
00:56And to the layperson, it seems that while Fletcher may be an absolute asshole, he's also a strident perfectionist above
01:02all else.
01:03But one curious fan actually decided to take a deep dive into the scene and analyse Andrew's timing for themselves.
01:09And as it turns out, he's actually pretty much spot on, and Fletcher is just calling him out as a
01:13rusher or a dragger willy-nilly, presumably in order to get a rise out of him.
01:17While the film makes no secret of Fletcher's near-psychopathic desire to push his students to greatness, many nevertheless assumed
01:24his critique of Andrew's drumming was in fact correct.
01:28Ultimately, Fletcher's method of testing Andrew's patience and commitment to perfection is defined by one line late into the movie.
01:35There are no two words in the English language more harmful than good job.
01:39The Khan scene isn't William Shatner overacting.
01:43Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan
01:45If you look up overacting in the dictionary, you'll rightly find a picture of William Shatner.
01:50But his most widely mocked bout of scenery chewing actually isn't that at all.
01:54Or at least, not in the way so many people think.
01:57Also, overacting is great.
01:58Get me more overacting!
02:00Even people who've never seen a single episode of Star Trek might be familiar with Captain Kirk's infamous
02:05TRAN scream from Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan.
02:09Kirk bleats the legendary villain's name in hilariously exaggerated fashion after Ricardo Maltelban's genetically enhanced space tyrant leaves him and
02:18the crew of the Enterprise marooned on the planetoid regular.
02:21But Shatner isn't overacting.
02:23It's actually Kirk who is overacting.
02:25Given that he knows full well that he and Spock have set a trap for Khan, but he can't give
02:30any inkling of this, and so plays the part of being absolutely incensed just as Khan would expect.
02:37Jango Fett's head flies out of the helmet.
02:40Star Wars Episode 2, Attack of the Clones.
02:43Ever since the release of Star Wars Attack of the Clones, fans have speculated about the scene where Mace Window
02:48parts Jango Fett's head from his body with a swift slash of his purple lightsaber.
02:53Moments later, we see a young Boba Fett pick up his father's helmet, causing many to note an apparent mistake,
02:59given that Jango's head should have still been within the helmet, right?
03:02Though this gaffe resulted in a hilarious R-rated fan edit, it's also easily resolved if you actually just pay
03:08attention to the scene in question.
03:09Because when Windu delivers the killing blow, there's a fleeting shot where the shadow of the helmet can be seen
03:15as it flies through the air.
03:16You might also notice here that there's a second shadow, which is clearly Jango's decapitated head flying out of the
03:22helmet, ensuring that Boba doesn't get an added grisly surprise when he picks it up.
03:26It's still a disturbing scene, mind you, but not quite as unsettling, nor as mistake-laden as fans seem to
03:32think it is.
03:33I'll Never Let Go isn't literal.
03:35Titanic.
03:36Folks love to make fun of James Cameron's Titanic, the climactic sequence where Rose tells Jack,
03:41I'll Never Let Go, only to quite literally let go of him moments later as she's rescued.
03:46Despite how widely parroted this facetious reading of the scene is, it's of course completely wrong.
03:52Rose isn't literally talking about the physical act of letting go of Jack as he freezes to death in the
03:58water, but of holding on to life, not giving up,
04:01and ultimately living the adventurous life she wants, rather than the one that's expected of her by her family and
04:07her status.
04:08And ultimately, that's what she does, with the moving final sequence of the movie showing the full, joyous life Rose
04:14ended up living.
04:15Two-Face's coin flip isn't what you think.
04:18Batman Forever.
04:19Comic book fans have plenty of issues with Joel Schumacher's Batman Forever, not least its treatment of iconic villain Two
04:26-Face.
04:26And one scene in question that really riles up the fans involves Two-Face and the Riddler invading Wayne Manor,
04:32where they blow up the Batcave, shoot Bruce, and take Dr. Chase Meridian with them.
04:36In the comics, Two-Face is noted for flipping a coin to decide a victim's fate and accepting the outcome
04:42no matter what.
04:43But in this scene, we see him flip a coin three times until he gets the outcome that he desires,
04:48allowing him to fire a shot at Bruce.
04:50But there's actually an alternate explanation for this scene, that Harvey Dent is actually flipping the coin each time for
04:56a different person currently inside Wayne Manor.
04:59Alfred, Chase, and finally Bruce.
05:01Now, if that sounds far-fetched, remember that Aaron Eckhart's Two-Face did the exact same thing in the climax
05:07of The Dark Knight,
05:08flipping his coin three times in quick succession to determine the fates of Batman, himself, and Jim Gordon's son.
05:14Bond isn't being callous about Severin's death.
05:17Skyfall.
05:18Midway through Skyfall, 007 and his contact Severin end up in the custody of villain Raoul Silver,
05:25where Silver shoots Severin in the head in front of Bond.
05:28Silver then asks him,
05:29what do you say to that?
05:30To which 007 coolly responds,
05:32a waste of good scotch,
05:34before launching into an assault against Silver's men.
05:36At the time of Skyfall's release, there were plenty who were wound up by Bond's remark.
05:41To that, I would say that not every character in a movie has to be likable,
05:45and Bond himself has done and said way worse historically,
05:49but that's not even the defense this time.
05:51What Bond is doing here is refusing to give Silver what he wanted.
05:55Silver had been trying to break through Bond's psychological armor and rattle him,
05:59but in refusing to react and deflecting him with such a heartless one-liner,
06:04he doesn't give him an inch.
06:05Upham isn't a coward, he's the viewer.
06:08Saving Private Ryan
06:09One of the many, many disturbing sequences in Saving Private Ryan
06:14sees Corporal Upham paralyzed with fear
06:16while his comrade Private Mellish is overpowered
06:19and slowly stabbed to death by a German soldier.
06:21Now, the common audience response to this scene, sadly,
06:24is that they find Upham's actions inexplicable,
06:27that his failure to save his teammate is an act of abject cowardice,
06:30and that we, the audience, would never behave in such a way.
06:33Except, we most certainly probably would.
06:36The entire point of this scene, as is missed by so many,
06:39is that the average human being thrust into war
06:41would likely freeze up just as Upham did.
06:44Our knee-jerk revulsion to his inaction
06:46only underlines the part of ourselves that we prefer not to actually confront,
06:50that, in a traumatic situation,
06:52heroism would actually be the last thing on our minds.
06:55To say that Upham picks up the idiot ball
06:57in this scene is to bafflingly gloss over the effects of trauma on the human psyche.
07:02Karras' sacrifice is meant to be triumphant, the exorcist.
07:06The debate over the exorcist ending has been so spirited
07:09that it even led to a fallout between screenwriter and author of the original book,
07:14William Peter Blatty, and Friedkin himself.
07:16Blatty, a devout Catholic, was insistent on keeping a scene
07:20where Father Dyer and Lieutenant Kinderman walk off together talking about films,
07:25as a means of showing that Damien Karras' memory lived on.
07:28The scene was cut for the original theatrical release,
07:31ending instead with Dyer looking down the steps where Karras died and then walking away.
07:35The thing is, despite the benefit of that additional scene enshrining Blatty's authorial intent,
07:41I still think it's clear that the exorcist is triumphant in its good versus evil approach.
07:46It's a story about Karras' crisis of faith,
07:49and at the moment of his biggest test,
07:52he takes the demon into his body
07:53and vanquishes it by hurling himself out the window and down the steps.
07:58Dyer reads him his last rites as the two clutch their hands together tightly.
08:02It is absolutely heartbreaking in many respects,
08:04but Karras' demise is also divinely heroic.
08:07Again, it's perfectly valid to read it differently,
08:09but as far as Blatty is concerned,
08:12this is what the exorcist means.
08:14Tom has probably learned nothing at the end.
08:17500 Days of Summer
08:18Though 500 Days of Summer announces not to be a love story at its very beginning,
08:24it's also fair to say that most viewers seem to misinterpret the movie's emotional throughline,
08:28blaming Summer for her and Tom's breakup,
08:30despite Tom clearly having unrealistic expectations from the outset.
08:34Even Gordon Levitt himself called Tom selfish in a recent interview,
08:38agreeing that he is effectively the villain of this movie.
08:41But the end of the film goes one step further
08:43by having Tom move on from Summer and meet a new romantic interest named Autumn.
08:48While a superficial reading would say that this is a mere cute wink to the audience
08:52that Tom has moved on to somebody new,
08:54an altogether darker interpretation is that Tom actually hasn't grown as much as he thinks he has.
08:59The fact that the film's ongoing day counter resets from 500 to 1
09:02seems to suggest that he's going to repeat a similar cycle with Autumn.
09:06And this isn't to say that Tom didn't learn anything from his time with Summer,
09:09but that he may well fall into a similar pattern of unhealthy,
09:13obsessive romantic behavior with this new prospect.
09:15Again, as stated before, it isn't a love story.
09:19That isn't Steamboat Willie, Saving Private Ryan.
09:22One of the biggest cases of on-screen mistaken identity
09:25has to be Steamboat Willie from Saving Private Ryan.
09:28A Wehrmacht soldier spared by Captain Miller's unit
09:31after they take his machine gun in placement,
09:33Willie is told to walk in the direction of the Allied line
09:36so he can be picked up by the advancing American-Bredish and Canadian forces.
09:40However, he shows up at the end during the battle at Rommel,
09:44having been reabsorbed into the Wehrmacht's forces.
09:47Willie fires and kills one of the US airborne soldiers before he surrenders,
09:51and is then summarily executed by Corporal Uppen.
09:55However, Willie has also been charged with more crimes
09:58than the one he gets up to in Saving Private Ryan,
10:01with many viewers having mistaken him for the SS soldier
10:04who bayonets Mellish, and whom Uppen couldn't bring himself to kill.
10:08This is down to a few factors,
10:09namely the fact that both characters are wearing a similar uniform
10:12and aren't wearing helmets.
10:14However, they are in fact two different people
10:16who just so happen to bear a resemblance to the other.
10:19Superman didn't make the Earth spin backwards.
10:22Superman.
10:23Few who've seen Richard Donner's original 1978 Superman
10:26will forget the iconic scene where an enraged Superman turns back time
10:30in order to undo Lois Lane's death.
10:32Superman is seen flying around the Earth to reverse time,
10:35and because we're shown Earth spinning backwards on its axis,
10:38many chose to believe that the Man of Steel
10:40literally exerted enough force on the planet itself
10:42to reverse the flow of time.
10:43But you know what?
10:44The real answer is a lot simpler and less silly than that.
10:47Superman is actually flying around the Earth
10:49in order to reach the speed of light,
10:51allowing him to travel back through time,
10:53not to pull the Earth back through time.
10:56It's still relatively ridiculous, of course,
10:57but it actually makes far more sense.
10:59Showing the Earth rotating backwards
11:01is just an easy visual shorthand
11:03to explain to the audience what's going to happen,
11:05though it's at least easy to appreciate
11:07why so many people have gotten the scene wrong over the decades.
11:10Billy in 4C is actually Billy in 4C, Dumb and Dumber.
11:15A minor but extremely memorable character in Dumb and Dumber
11:18is Billy in 4C,
11:20a blind boy who Lloyd sells Harry's dead parakeet to.
11:24Despite Billy having maybe a minute of screen time in the movie,
11:27the whole gag is so hilariously cruel
11:29that his name certainly sticks out in the mind.
11:32Except he's not called Billy in 4C.
11:34You can blame Dumb and Dumber being released
11:36before audiences en masse watched movies at home
11:39and had the access to subtitles and stuff,
11:41because anyone who does turn on the subtitles on today
11:43will come to learn that the boy is actually called
11:46Billy in 4C, as in apartment 4C.
11:50It's an easy mistake to make
11:51considering how quickly Carrie and Daniels
11:54race through the words in 4C,
11:56and also how relatively uncommon it is
11:58to refer to someone by their apartment number.
12:00In any case, typing Billy in 4C
12:02into Google or Twitter
12:03brings up a large number of like-minded folks
12:06who got the kid's surname totally wrong.
12:08But again, you can't blame them all.
12:10The ending doesn't glorify Jordan,
12:12it criticizes the audience,
12:14the Wolf of Wall Street.
12:15The Wolf of Wall Street was another
12:17expertly crafted winner for Martin Scorsese,
12:20though invited spirited discussions
12:22about the tone and intent of the entire piece,
12:24which some criticized as overtly glorifying
12:27Wall Street fraudster Jordan Belfort.
12:29Especially polarizing was the film's final scene,
12:31where Jordan is released from prison
12:33and embarks on a new career
12:34hosting seminars on sales techniques to regular people.
12:37Many have interpreted the scene
12:39in which he asks the gawking audience
12:40to try and sell him a pen,
12:42as effectively deifying him
12:44as a one-in-a-million talent
12:45with a peerlessly unique knack for salesmanship.
12:47But you know what,
12:48the scene isn't actually doing that at all.
12:50Really, the ending is a critique of the audience,
12:52both those there at the seminar
12:54and those watching the movie,
12:55who hang on his every word
12:57and find his story of crooked greed aspirational.
13:01Scorsese's final pan to a sea of blank,
13:03clueless faces is a pitch-perfect reflection
13:05of the movie's audience themselves,
13:07and that if we found Jordan's personality charming
13:10or his chaotic lifestyle appealing,
13:12his sail pitch clearly worked on us too.
13:15Let the past die isn't the movie's central theme.
13:18Star Wars Episode 8, The Last Jedi.
13:20Both those who loved and loathed
13:22Star Wars Episode 8, The Last Jedi
13:24gave way too much credence
13:26to Kylo Ren's memorable one-liner,
13:28let the past die,
13:29kill it if you have to.
13:30For many, they interpreted it as Kylo Ren
13:33essentially being a mouthpiece
13:35for the movie's central theme,
13:36that writer-director Ryan Johnson
13:38wanted to quote-unquote kill the past
13:41of the Star Wars franchise
13:42by so radically shaking up the series formula.
13:45But that's not even what The Last Jedi is about.
13:47In fact, so much of the movie
13:49is still about embracing the past
13:51rather than assassinating it.
13:53Yoda literally tells Luke Skywalker in the movie,
13:56the greatest future failure is,
13:58indicating a need to learn from the past
14:00rather than obliterate it entirely.
14:02Bonnie discarding Woody
14:03doesn't sour Toy Story 3,
14:05Toy Story 4.
14:07Though fans were pleasantly surprised
14:09by the wildly unnecessary Toy Story 4,
14:11there were nevertheless those
14:12who expressed frustrations
14:13at the actions of young Bonnie,
14:15who, despite inheriting Woody
14:17from Andy at the end of the third film,
14:19ends up neglecting him in the follow-up.
14:21Some went as far as to call Bonnie
14:22the real villain of Toy Story 4,
14:24which is incredibly cruel,
14:26that in discarding Woody
14:27and moving on to the other toys,
14:28she not only broke her promise to Andy,
14:30but actively soured the perfect ending
14:32of Toy Story 3 in the process.
14:34But neither of these claims
14:35are actually true at all,
14:36beyond the fact that it's ridiculous
14:38to hold a small child
14:39to account for such a benign promise.
14:41It's important to remember
14:42that while it was a huge
14:43passing of the torch moment
14:44for Andy and the audience,
14:46it was actually likely
14:47a minor footnote for Bonnie.
14:48It's unreasonable to expect
14:50a young child to remain
14:51attached to one toy indefinitely.
14:53And in the end,
14:54Bonnie's abandonment of Woody
14:55only allowed him to realise
14:56his own sense of agency
14:58outside of ownership,
14:59becoming a lost toy capable
15:01of charting his own path.
15:03As wonderfully bittersweet
15:04as Toy Story 3's ending was,
15:06expecting Bonnie to be Andy 2.0
15:08was obscenely optimistic,
15:10if not flat-out unfair.
15:12It's meant to be both things.
15:14Last Action Hero.
15:16Has there been an action film
15:17more unfairly reviled
15:19than 1993's Last Action Hero?
15:21I mean, seriously,
15:22it's directed by legendary action maestro
15:24John McTiernan
15:25and featured a peak
15:26of his prime Arnie
15:27in the leading role.
15:28It is at once a send-up
15:30and send-off
15:31to that iconic era
15:32of action cinema,
15:34combining fun meta jokes
15:35with an affectionate look
15:36at film's ability
15:38to whisk us away
15:39to happier pastures.
15:41And then it got eaten alive
15:42by a giant T-Rex at the box office.
15:44As well as by critics.
15:46McTiernan's movie
15:46has long been criticised
15:48for being confused
15:49between whether it wants to be
15:51one of two things,
15:52an action satire
15:53and an action celebration.
15:55Epitomised in the film's
15:56closing sequences,
15:58which sees Arnie's Jack Slater
15:59come face to face
16:01with the real Arnie
16:02and then bid farewell
16:03to Austin O'Brien's
16:04young Danny Madigan.
16:05The thing is,
16:06the film has always,
16:07always been about both.
16:09And the most clever part
16:10of these final scenes
16:11is that we're basically
16:12having Arnie wreck him
16:13not just with the legacy
16:15of his screen presence,
16:17but also his celebrity.
16:18Not vibing with that
16:19tonal contrast I can totally get,
16:21but Last Action Hero
16:22is still way more clever
16:24than it has ever
16:25gotten credit for.
16:26Black Widow calls herself
16:27a monster for being an assassin.
16:29Avengers Age of Ultron.
16:31Avengers Age of Ultron
16:33received a ton of blowback
16:34upon its release,
16:35as many fans took issue
16:36with the scene where
16:37Black Widow tells Bruce Banner
16:38that she was sterilised
16:40as part of the Black Widow program,
16:41only to follow up
16:42by calling herself a monster.
16:44Now while you can't really
16:45blame people for not giving
16:46Joss Whedon the benefit
16:47of the doubt here,
16:48and the scene
16:49absolutely should have
16:50been handled more tactfully,
16:52the intent isn't at all
16:53to imply that she's
16:54an abomination
16:55because she can't bear children.
16:57To quote her exact dialogue,
16:58they sterilise you,
16:59it's efficient,
17:00one less thing to worry about,
17:02the one thing that might
17:03matter more than a mission,
17:04makes everything easier,
17:05even killing.
17:06You still think
17:07you're the only monster
17:08on the team?
17:08If you actually break down
17:10the exchange,
17:10it's clear that Natasha
17:11is referring to herself
17:13as a monster
17:13only in the context
17:15of being a blunt object,
17:16a hired assassin
17:17shaped to murder people
17:19above everything else.
17:20If she's a monster at all,
17:22it's because of the
17:22countless people
17:23that she's killed,
17:24and obviously all of the
17:25red in her ledger,
17:27not about being unable
17:28to bear children.
17:29The ghost job scene
17:30is a dream.
17:32Ghostbusters.
17:33Ghostbusters is one of the
17:34most beloved comedies
17:35of all time,
17:35but in recent years,
17:37as younger generations
17:37have been exposed to it,
17:39there has been increased
17:40attention paid
17:40to its most risque scene.
17:42I'm talking, of course,
17:44about the ghost job sequence.
17:46Hubba hubba.
17:47They're ignoring
17:47one part of that equation,
17:48though.
17:49It's a dream sequence.
17:51Literally,
17:51at the start of the scene,
17:52the screen goes wavy.
17:54The universally agreed
17:55visual language
17:56for the start of a dream.
17:58And once the,
17:58ahem,
17:59job is done,
18:00we cut back to Ray
18:02sleeping in reality.
18:03This is, in part,
18:05a symptom of modern
18:05internet culture,
18:06where movie scenes
18:07are listlessly reposted online
18:09devoid of their context,
18:11often with crucial elements
18:12selectively removed.
18:13And I get it,
18:14look,
18:14it's funny to pretend
18:15that this is actually
18:16a real thing,
18:17but it's Ghostbusters.
18:19It's kind of shocking
18:20how many people
18:21have generally forgotten
18:21that, no,
18:22Ray did not get
18:23noshed off by a ghost
18:24for real.
18:25Jimmy doesn't commit suicide.
18:27Quadrophenia.
18:28Cult classic drama
18:29Quadrophenia concludes
18:30with an ending which,
18:31depending on your viewpoint,
18:33is either ambiguous
18:33or absolutely cut and dried.
18:36In the final scene,
18:36protagonist Jimmy
18:37is seen riding a scooter
18:38to the edge of Beachy Head,
18:40before we cut to the scooter
18:41flying over the cliff,
18:42albeit without any sign
18:44of what happens to Jimmy.
18:45Many, regardless,
18:46believe that Jimmy
18:47committed suicide
18:48by riding his scooter
18:49off the cliff edge,
18:50while forgetting
18:50the ever-important fact
18:52that Jimmy can be seen
18:53standing by the cliff
18:54at sunset
18:54right at the start
18:55of the movie,
18:56a scene which clearly
18:57takes place chronologically
18:58after this scooter ride.
19:00Jimmy's survival
19:01is backed up
19:01not only by the director
19:03and the lead actor,
19:04but numerous other cast members.
19:05The future
19:06is still a likely bleak one
19:07for him,
19:08but immediately less so
19:09than hurtling himself
19:10into oblivion.
19:11It's not child,
19:13the thing.
19:13One thing about modern
19:14internet criticism,
19:15everyone loves a good theory.
19:18And while they can be fun
19:19to entertain,
19:20sometimes they end up
19:22being taken a tad too literally.
19:24As is the case
19:24with one of John Carpenter's
19:26many masterpieces,
19:27the thing.
19:28The past decade or so,
19:29a growing contingent
19:30of folks online
19:31have insisted
19:32that the film's downbeat,
19:34ambiguous ending
19:35isn't so unclear.
19:36That there is evidence
19:37to suggest that
19:38Keith David's child,
19:39who joins McCready
19:40after the research station
19:42explodes,
19:42is in fact the thing.
19:44The theory goes
19:45that this is the case
19:45because he can't be seen
19:47breathing in the cold temperature,
19:49as well as for him
19:49being shot in a particular way
19:50by cinematographer
19:51Dean Cundey,
19:52where a lack of reflection
19:54in the eyes
19:55was meant to hint
19:55at who the creature
19:56had assimilated.
19:58But this isn't literally
19:59the case,
20:00and apart from the thing's
20:02bleak, nihilistic ending
20:04working way better
20:05by not knowing
20:06whether or not
20:07Childs or McCready
20:08is the thing
20:09because they're dead anyway,
20:11the evidence
20:12for the theory
20:13is all circumstantial.
20:15Childs not having
20:16visible breath
20:16has been chalked up
20:17to a technical error on set,
20:19and hey,
20:20if you don't want to listen to me,
20:21take Kurt Russell's word for it.
20:23When asked about the theory
20:24by HuffPost back in 2016,
20:26Russell shook his head
20:28and said that the intent
20:29on the ending
20:29was to quote,
20:30bring the audience
20:31right back to square one.
20:33Russell continued
20:34by saying that quote,
20:35one of my favourite lines
20:36in the movie is
20:37where were you, Childs?
20:39And I think that
20:40basically says it all.
20:41I love that over the years
20:42that movie has gotten its due
20:44because people are able
20:45to get past
20:45the horrificness
20:46of the monster
20:47to see what the movie
20:48was about,
20:49which was paranoia.
20:51In short,
20:51the ending of the thing
20:52works because we do not know
20:54and we're not meant to.
Comments