Serial Experiments Lain is this. A lot of what goes on in the series has multiple interpretations. One of the producers of the series has said he wanted American people to understand the show differently from Japanese people. He was dismayed to discover that foreigners interpreted it the same way the Japanese audience did.
Neon Genesis Evangelion: Word Of God stated numerous times that this work was generally designed with Mind Screw first, plot second. This became more and more apparent in later episodes with all of the symbolism and Freudian imagery splattered all over the place in such disjointed fashion, mainly in the form of jump cuts.
David Lynch's works are explicitly this. So much to the point where if anyone on the set of Inland Empire asked him what's the plot/symbolism/whatever, he'd quote a passage from an Asian text that meant, "We make our own meanings."
"We are like the spider. We weave our life and then move along in it. We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives in the dream. This is true for the entire universe."
Two Thousand One A Space Odyssey: There is enough contradiction between the book and movie to allow for multiple interpretations anyway, as Kubrick was not involved with the former and Clarke never had the last say on anything in the latter (his script having been changed a lot).
"If you understood 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise more questions than we answered." — Arthur C. Clarke
The Tokyo driving sequence in Andrei Tarkovsky's film Solaris. This four minute black-and-white sequence consists solely of Burton and his son driving aimlessly through 70s downtown Tokyo.
A Serious Man aggressively and deliberately pursues this trope, to the befuddlement of viewers and critics everywhere. Some argue that several of The Coen Brothers' other films, particularly The Big Lebowski and Barton Fink, exhibit this as well. Very appropriately The Big Lebowski has a scene where a character mishears Lennon instead of Lenin and goes on saying "I am the Walrus" for a while.
Subverted by Donnie Darko, which features a director's cut that explains every possible ambiguity in the original film... which more than a few people couldn't understand either. Double Subversion? But played straight in that the commentary reveals that even the writers don't know what's up with Frank the Bunny or who or what is manipulating Donnie throughout the movie. Apparently it's God... or aliens. Whatever.
Southland Tales. Director Richard Kelly (who also did the equally convoluted Donnie Darko) has admitted that he made the plot so convoluted that almost no meaning can be extracted from it. It includes Time Travel, the impending end of the world, Orwellian dystopia, revolutionary new energy sources which will change the world, Neo-Marxist terrorists, an actor who seems destined to be the new Messiah, and a government conspiracy all colliding in Los Angeles aka the Southland.
The clearest statements anyone has ever got from Quentin Tarantino himself and his collaborators regarding the contents of the mysterious glowing suitcase in Pulp Fiction all unequivocally agree that the whole thing was just there for the sake of providing a mystery. Tarantino has said that in hindsight even adding the glow was a mistake, since it gave an implication of what it was, even if extremely vague (Gold? Something supernatural?). Word Of God stated:
"Originally the briefcase contained [the] diamonds [from Reservoir Dogs]. But that just seemed too boring and predictable. So it was decided that the contents of the briefcase were never to be seen. This way each audience member would fill in the blank with their own ultimate contents. All you were supposed to know was that it was 'so beautiful.' (from an interview for Roger Ebert's "Questions for the Movie Answer Man").
The suitcase is actually a perfect example of MacGuffin.
Inception is clearly designed to provide ammunition for numerous different interpretations of the ending (and the whole film).
In Blade Runner, there is intentional ambiguity over whether or not Deckard is a replicant, though some versions of the film are less ambiguous. Ridley Scott saying he is and Harrison Ford saying he isn't. Clearly meant to leave the audience thinking...
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: In his introduction, Khan makes a show of removing his left-hand glove, but leaves his right-hand glove on for the rest of the movie. According to director Nicholas Meyer, this was meant to provoke this reaction. When people ask for an explanation, he likes to reply, "Why do you think he left one glove on?"
Prometheus practically runs wall-to-wall with this trope, with many of the ambiguities doubling as both Sequel Hook and Continuity Nod to Alien. Who are the Engineers? Why did they create humans? Why do they want to kill us? What was the creature that came out of Shaw's stomach? What was that last monster and why did it look so much like the Xenomorph? And so on.
James Joyce said he hoped Ulysses would "keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant, and thatís the only way of ensuring oneís immortality."
Alice in Wonderland The riddle "How is a raven like a writing desk?" as posed to Alice by the Hatter. The Hatter did not know the answer to the riddle, and it was never revealed. A great many letters to Lewis Carroll requesting an answer to this madness inducing question returned replies that there was no answer, which was the point of the riddle.
In 1896 Carroll added in a preface to a new edition of the story:
"Enquiries have been so often addressed to me, as to whether any answer to the Hatter's Riddle can be imagined, that I may as well put on record here what seems to me to be a fairly appropriate answer, viz: 'Because it can produce a few notes, tho they are very flat; and it is never put with the wrong end in front!' This, however, is merely an afterthought; the Riddle, as originally invented, had no answer at all."
Note that this was supposed to be a pun, but the editor "fixed" it, the last sentence was supposed to say "and it is nevar put with the wrong end in front!"
To deepen the mindscrew aura of this little detail, here are some answers provided by other notables:
Because the notes for which they are noted are not noted for being musical notes. (Puzzle maven Sam Loyd, 1914)
Because Poe wrote on both. (Loyd again)
Because there is a B in both and an N in neither. (Get it? Aldous Huxley, 1928)
Because it slopes with a flap. (Cyril Pearson, undated)
Cream is better than lemon In tea at breakfast. I think of tigers as eating lemons. Thank God this tea comes from the green grocer, Not from Ceylon.
Live Action TV
BBC's Robin Hood has a scene in season 2 in which Sir Guy has a dream where Marian massages his shoulder and says that she "Should have let [him] take care of [her]" then Marian turns into Allan who say "I'm your boy" "I should've let you take care of me". The scene pleased many slash fans, but the writers admitted that it was just to get people talking.
The ending to The Prisoner. Patrick McGoohan wanted people to scratch their heads and cudgel their brains out trying to understand the final episode. He did too good a job — apparently disgruntled or just plain confused fans showed up at his house demanding to know what it was all about.
A Babylon 5 episode features Sheridan having a dream with all kinds of symbolism that actually means something...and Garibaldi with a bird on his shoulder, which was only put in because JMS thought it would be a funny thing to make the actor do.
P J Hammond keeps saying that he never had any explanation for any events in Sapphire And Steel that didn't appear in the show's dialogue.
Henrik Ibsen made a rather obvious one in Peer Gynt from 1867. At the beginning of the fifth act, the title character is encountered by an enigmatic fellow, only labeled as "the unknown passenger". His apparent function is to freak out the main character, and the second time he shows up, is while Peer Gynt hangs on for dear life on a capsized life boat. While Peer struggles to survive, the "passenger" chats away as if nothing bothered him, and the conversation gets weirder and weirder, until he just slips away, stating that Peer should not worry, because "one doesn`t die in the middle of the fifth act". This character, what or who he is, has been debated ever since the play was published, and nobody has gotten to a secure conclusion, as the lines in question points in many possible directions. It is quite possible that Ibsen yanked the audience`s chain here, just to make a sequence that would be screwy enough for everyone to be confused. For 150 years and counting.
It's safe to say it's not just "I Am the Walrus", but half the songs John Lennon wrote. His quote proves it: He was so fed up with fans trying to find hidden allusions in their songs that he decided to write a completely nonsensical one — namely, "I Am the Walrus". Lennon allegedly said, "Let's see the fuckers figure that one out" after finishing it. Which, in an ironic twist, was still searched for "clues". But Lennon had the final word during his post-Beatles career when, in his song "God" he sang, "I was the walrus, but now, I'm John."
"Come Together" has the same origin.
After making a particularly good point during a TV interview in regards to The Beatles' waning popularity among teeny-boppers, John Lennon looked directly into the camera and said "Isn't that right, Harry?". Who's Harry? He doesn't exist. John randomly chose the name to keep the audience guessing.
Veruca Salt parodied/homaged the "Glass Onion" example in the bridge to "Volcano Girls" — "Well here's another clue if you please/ the Seether's Louise", referring to a member of the band and the song "Seether", which had lyrics that were often debated over by fans. It was probably just meant as a tongue in cheek reference to interpretations rather than an actual mind screw though, as they'd already said in interviews that "the Seether" was a personification of anger. It's actually a very good homage to the original mind screw, though, right down to the misdirection (just as it was John and not Paul who sang lead on "I Am The Walrus", it was Nina and not Louise who sang lead on "Seether").
The art-rock group Tool runs off of this. They put a huge emphasis on personal interpretation of the imagery used in their songs, to the point where they never release official lyrics with their albums. Their early endorsement of lachrymology (literally, "the science of crying"), a fabricated philosophy that was psychobabble.
David Bowie has written most of his songs this way. When asked about the meaning of lyrics, he's given different answers, but most recently he's claimed that he sometimes just picks words out of magazines and strings them together because he likes the sound.
Interviewer: What's your message? Dylan: [mortally offended] What's my message? [brandishes mercury light] Keep a cool head and always carry a light bulb!
Much of composer Erik Satie's music poked fun at the idea that music needed to serve some grand purpose or be consciously about anything.
Carly Simon has given many utterly contradictory hints over the years as to who the subject of "You're So Vain" is. She changes her answer to a different clue, each just as incompatible with the others, every decade or so. The likeliest explanation of the song is that she originally wrote it without intending it to be about any actual, existing, specific man, and was as delighted as she was surprised by all the endless speculation and debate, so she decided to take the misconception that the song refers to someone in particular and run with it for as long as she could. There is one guy, in the entire world, who knows for certain who the song is actually about. He won the answer in an auction, and Simon made him sign a non-disclosure agreement. It lasts at least until Simon dies.
The singer Seal intentionally does not put out official lyrics to his songs, feeling that if someone realized the lyrics were something other than what they thought it was, it would rob them of what they feel the song's meaning is to them.
Adriyel's "Natasha/Natalie" features lyrics such as "You're a person, and a concept / You're both and neither I suppose", insisting that "this audience will never know / what you mean and what you show" and referring to the narrator's fun times with the girl in question, despite the fact that the girl in question has never met him, doesn't know who he is, and apparently doesn't even speak English because she's from the Ukraine. The only definitely solved mystery is of the two names: in Russia and the Ukraine, the names Natasha and Natalie are interchangeable.
Faith No More's "Epic" has inspired many theories about what in particular "it" is (The last half of the song is in fact just a refrain of "What is it? / It's it."). The most popular theories are "rape" and "style," showing just how vague and contradictory the lyrics are. Eventually the song's writer mentioned in an interview that he just put together words that sound good, without any regard to meaning.
Similarly to The Beatles, Bernie Taupin's poetic lyrics with Elton John, including Word Salad Lyrics like on "Levon" or "Take Me To The Pilot", were overanalyzed and misinterpreted. Bernie and Elton wrote the Caribou album track "Solar Prestige A Gammon" to, like "I Am The Walrus" before, mess with people's heads and parody the overanalyzing. And it, like "Walrus", was overanalyzed itself!
The meaning of Michael Stipe's lyrics for REM - when they can be deciphered at all - have sometimes been: (a) criticised by Stipe for being totally inaccurate; (b) announced by Stipe as being meaningless and just conveying a mood; or (c) both (or neither) of these at different times.
Silent Hill: Even the stuff that's All There in the Manual doesn't help anyone make sense of the series. It's not meant to. Even the fans' most cherished theories have never received any confirmation more solid than a shrug or an inconclusive reply from the producers. Among other things, they claim that the only canonical conclusions to each game are the UFO Endings.
The Mirror Lied: A complete and deliberate Mind Screw. To quote the author: "It has no defined story by me, that's certain — but its point is to be on the extreme end of the scale as far as ambiguity goes, for the sake of a possibly refreshing experiment of interpretation for some."
Yume Nikki is a dialogue-free, non-linear journey through the dream world of a girl who won't go anywhere while awake except for her bedroom and adjacent balcony. Good luck getting any answers about what any of the dream symbols mean, what happened in the ending, or what the fuck is up with Uboa.
OFF makes a few explanations for its madness, but they're either very wacky or very vague.
In Dark Seed 2, the ending doesn't explain anything, doesn't entirely make sense, and calls into question literally everything that happened over the course of the game. And according to Raymond Benson, it's intentionally open-ended:
Raymond: Ahh, well, I'll never tell. It's supposed to be ambiguous. I was highly influenced by the work of David Lynch at the time, especially "Twin Peaks." In "Twin Peaks," did Laura Palmer's father really kill her, or was it a supernatural being known as "Bob"? Or was "Bob" really Leland Palmer? Same kind of thing. Lynch never tells us. You're supposed to make up your own mind about it, interpret it as you wish.
Andrew Hussie is well known for mercilessly toying with the concept of Word Of God by trolling factoid-hungry fans, memorably claiming that the faces of Homestuck's trolls are actually collections of specialized genitalia that happen to look like an angry face to the human eye, and that all trolls have two penises, one for love and one for hate. When asked why he does this? "Because it's fun!"
This completely random YouTube Poop, as evidenced by this conversation in the comments:
sfraser0:i don't get it.....
CornIceProductions, the guy who made the video:I do
∆on Flux messes with your head constantly, and Peter Chung has gone out of his way not to explain anything, in hopes that the viewers will derive their own meanings. This approach eventually backfired badly on him, though. The plot of the film, almost universally considered terrible, had its genesis in the scriptwriters' own interpretation of one of the mind screwiest episodes of the series.
The whole basis of Dada, which was gibberish and nonsense meant to infuriate everyone who came across it.
Jackson Pollock's legendary "dribble" style of painting evoked many debates that persist, even after his death, to this day regarding their meaning. When asked some paintings' meanings, Pollock would often describe his definition of the painting in an almost-outlandish fashion.