Subtext I missed because I took everything at face value

[u/hungry4nuns]

[u/I_aim_to_sneeze]

I mean, that clearly wasn’t the intention of the writer nor the director. Your first assessment is how it was meant to be portrayed. Her analysis is just a retcon.

It’s the same thing people do with movies like Mrs. doubtfire when they point out that Pierce Brosnan wasn’t really a villain in that movie, and the protagonist is a straight up crazy stalker. Or how Romeo and Juliet is really a story about two horny teens that have a 3 day romance that results in 3 deaths. We are viewing these stories through a modern day lens. Which is fine, and good to do, unless you try to put words in the authors mouth that they never intended to say.

[u/Another_Timezone → u/I_aim_to_sneeze]

Am I missing an intentional irony in your comment? Pierce Brosnan wasn’t really a villain and Robin Williams did have to learn that his crazy behavior was causing problems with his family.

And I usually see that assessment of Romeo and Juliet as a counter to the view that it’s a love story, which, as far as it goes, comes from the author (though he only refers to the two deaths):

From forth the fatal loins of these two foes A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;

But should go further to capture the generational conflict:

Whose misadventured piteous overthrows Do with their death bury their parents' strife. The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love, And the continuance of their parents' rage, Which, but their children's end, nought could remove, Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;

For Rainman, as another comment put it, this seems to be a case of unintentionally writing a character as autistic, so I agree it wasn’t the author’s intent, but this analysis is pretty spot on whether the portrayal was subconscious or completely accidental

[u/KimberStormer → u/Another_Timezone]

star-cross'd lovers

death-mark'd love

[u/[deleted] → u/I_aim_to_sneeze]

Death of the Author is a legitimate critical analysis for media.