I have been watching some documentaries about films and film makers, including some of the better Cinema youtubers. (Really, that makes them sound related to potatoes.) One thing I kind of struggle and rebel against is the idea that something is ‘coded’ into a film when there is no documented evidence of the filmmaker’s intent.

Coded has the clear implication that something was done with intent. In Robocop the Christ imagery, though in my opinion it is highly misplaced, is there by intent. Paul Verhoeven deliberately created that imagery for his own artistic purpose. It is coded. However, I can find no evidence supporting my interpretation that the corporate executives enjoying Robocop food paste that ‘tastes like baby food,’ is a deliberate symbolism that they are children playing with things that have moral implication that they do not understand.

Perhaps the best example of coded versus interpreted comes from John Carpenter’s They Live. From interviews and on-line debates, plus anyone with even a passing knowledge of Carpenter’s political philosophy, it’s clear that the aliens in that film and their objectives are a stand in for Conservatism and particularly Reaganism. Neo-Nazis interpreted the aliens to be coded as Jewish and have embraced the film as something delivery their kind of message.

Another example is Disney’s The Lion King. One interpretation is that the film contains a message about environmentalism and the great circle of life, but it can also be seen as an argument for conservative social Darwinism because the entire system collapses when Scar brings the ‘takers’ in has them live off the ‘makers.’ I do not think that is what the filmmakers intended but I can and has been read in that manner.

There are times when the message is clear, there is no coding in Birth of a Nation, the message is plainly racist and it is meant to be, but I would be wary of seeing intent where there is possibly only interpretation.