MovieChat Forums > Crack in the World (1965) Discussion > The Crack as Sexual Metaphor? (spoilers)

The Crack as Sexual Metaphor? (spoilers)


The whole dual-story about the two men in love with the same woman, while the world is splitting apart, could be about human relationships. But could one dare to venture that the "crack" that is being mentioned is really a metaphor for the woman's vagina? Is it her sexual power that is threating to destroy the men around her? Furthermore could not the whole missile into the lava be not another sexual metaphor?

I don't have time to get into a detailed analysis but there definitely seems to be something Freudian about this film.

I.S. Oxford

"The books have nothing to say!"
-- Fahrenheit 451

reply

I think you have been indulging in too much porn.




"just panties, what else do I need?"

Poseidon Adventure

reply

LOL

No blah, blah, blah!

reply

Yeah, I believe you're thinking of the porn classic "The Biggest Crack in the World" :)

reply

Yeah, I believe you're thinking of the porn classic "The Biggest Crack in the World"

Is that the one with the Kardashian woman in it?

reply

Either you have a really dirty mind, or you have WAY too much time on your hands, or both.

As Freud himself said, "Sometimes a crack is just a crack." Or something like that.


All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?

reply

Silly crack.

reply

Oh, god, I love it. Yeah, sure, it COULD be, but I doubt the film makers had this this notion uppermost in their minds. I went to film school and we were taught to look at films from all sorts of angles, and we did a module examining Freudian aspects of all sorts of films from Now, Voyager to Aliens. I ended up writing a piece on how Thunderbolt and Lightfoot was a thinly veiled homo-erotic tale about a mother fixated love triangle - George Kennedy being the third "angle"!! Even now I cant believe I wrote this.

As a previous poster wrote, sometimes a crack is just a crack.

reply

I would not be surprised that the writer(s) put in those veiled references and any studio chief who figured it out loved it -- since back in the day sexual allusion is all they could do.

Heck, they had the woman prance around in a back-lit nightgown and then practically dry-hump her husband, plus her skirt get ripped to the crack at the end, necessitating a grappling/clenching maneuver to save her.

I about expected her to rip off her shirt at the end and scream "Take me before we die!!!!!" Instead, we get a planetary "money shot" into space.

IS - You are right on target with your comments. In any event, the gal was a real bombshell!



reply

I agree...think about it, the guy's eagerness to launch that missile was obviously supposed to be related to his performance difficulties...why have that scene otherwise?

reply

The movie is COMPLETELY a metaphor for the sexual/reproductive process:

>large phallic missile aimed over hole
>missile enters hole and "explodes"
>crack expands/dialates
>as crack expands, the earth goes through violent "birth pangs"
>the earth gives birth to a cute little baby earth
>and of course, the enigmatic appearance of the squirrel

reply

>I don't have time to get into a detailed analysis but there definitely seems to be something Freudian about this film.

Oh, there is something Freudian, all right. And it does not involve this film.

Just a suggestion; Find a productive interest beyond your obsession with sex.
_______________________________________________

The wise do not require a "word".

reply

[deleted]

Ordinarily, I'd be down with everyone making fun of the original poster, but really, I just watched this on Netflix and it really is is a very, very Freudian movie.

Just as one isolated example, check out the scene where Dana Andrew's character uses a hot poker to burn a hole through a glass pane to demonstrate what his missile will do to the earth, while his wife smiles suggestively in the audience....

The science is outdated and occasionally not just outdated but genuinely stupid. But the personal dynamics still give one pause. After all:

The gadget was tested at Trinity Site, New Mexico, near Alamogordo. For the test, the gadget was lifted to the top of a 100-foot (30 m) bomb tower. It was feared by some that the Trinity test might "ignite" the earth's atmosphere, eliminating all life on the planet, although a classified report produced several years earlier had demonstrated that this was not possible.[16] Less wild estimates thought that New Mexico would be incinerated. Calculations showed that the yield of the device would be between 0 (if it did not work) and 20 kilotons (metric, equivalence of TNT). In the aftermath of the test, it appeared to have been a blast equivalent to 18 kt of TNT.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)

It seems pretty clear that in real life, governments and scientists were perfectly willing to roll the dice on life on planet Earth.

reply