I'm going to quote from Social Justice League for the most succinct and interesting statement on the film's purpose, which I pretty much agree with. Also, I notice that men under the age of say 30-ish tend to fall into Camp 1, while men my age and pretty much most women are in Camp 2:
"[P]eople seem to divide into two camps when analyzing the underlying message of the film:
1. The film (and audience) sympathizes with the plight of the protagonist and the purpose is to reinforce the dominant sexist narrative that women are emotionally manipulative and “play games” with men, while men get their hearts broken.
OR
2. The protagonist is an unreliable narrator who is selfish and unable to consider anyone else’s emotional needs but his own. As he embodies many of the negative traits commonly given to women in romantic comedies, the film is in fact a subversion of sexist gender stereotypes.
Surprisingly, the latter (2) was the intention and the belief of the writers, the producers and the actors of the film, and they expected the film would be viewed with interpretation #2.* ... [So], how did interpretation #1 become so popular when it was the exact opposite of what everyone involved in the creation of the film intended?"
http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2011/11/the-500-days-of-summer-dilemma-and-how-to-manage-your-unreliable-narrator/
reply
share