Bike film

I agree: I did say I tend toward over-analysis. We studied a lot of Roland Barthes (who is probably out of date now)

Don't even know him! I mean, I've heard the name, but not read any further.

but his theory of semiotics means that every image contains symbolism and provides a structure of interpretation.

This sounds like a very 'thin' theory--are you sure that there isn't more to it? I can hardly imagine that this point of view is unique or original to Barthes, or even referenced as 'semiotics' most of the time.

I think what you're saying is sufficient and very worthy, but you can go deeper if you are so inclined.

Ain't. ;)

I will counter the perversity element tho: the film very explicitly references the tradition of the salt flats, and mimics its record-breaking past. I think you have to remember that present land-speed attempts are quite iodine compared to the pioneering ones of yesteryear, which are closely associated with the location. These men built machines in their garages, risked life and limb. It was eccentric, it was obsessive and I think describing it as perverse isn't out of place. Given that reference I'll stick with my initial vibe from the film.

It helps if you know that history--I don't. I think films are always more valuable if they only reference things that everyone can understand from the reference without having to access data banks of culture-specific background material. Simple things, often the most important things. If I find value in a film that does important and simple things, that's usually enough for me, as that is what can be reliably shared and understood by as many people as possible. (Of course, no film is free of specific cultural references, but for me, the fewer the better.)

Complicated and recherché I think only works if you can point to full-on filmic evidence that it's there. I think here, obsession isn't--no collapsing in exhaustion, etc., as I said above. Uh, I'm getting obsessed with this now. ;)

I don't even think that the two kinds of activities, someone's car driving and his bike riding, necessarily share the gradual improvement thing. I agree that car driving is referenced in the tyre tracks, but of course these are not necessarily tyre tracks from record attempts (erm, do record breaking cars even use tyres? ;) ).

All of these things could be built in, of course, if the film-maker wanted to revise anything. As it is, I think any meaning beyond the bread-and-butter interpretation isn't clear. There are so few stylistic devices--e.g., no dialogue--that I think it would really be quite hard to nail more meaning down clearly. IMHO.

Which leaves us with the film-maker's intention ...

Perhaps I am Russel can shed some light on the filmmaker's intent. I'm sure both will be proud they have provoked some debate

... and there I can only say: 'It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.' ;)