Introduction
In the realm of visual culture, objects often transcend their mundane origins to embody profound symbolic meanings, particularly within cinematic narratives. This essay focuses on the “Everything Bagel” from Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert’s film Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022), examining how its meanings are constructed through semiotic, visual, and relational frameworks. While the bagel serves as a central object symbolising nihilism, it is juxtaposed against the googly eyes, which represent optimism, creating a dynamic opposition that enriches its significance. Drawing on theories from Roland Barthes, Christian Metz, and Ferdinand de Saussure, this analysis argues that the bagel’s meanings—both existential (concerning purpose and value) and semiotic (through signs and cultural systems)—are not inherent but deliberately built via visual language, symbolic coding, and oppositional contrasts. By exploring these constructions, the essay highlights how cinema actively shapes audience interpretations, reflecting broader principles in visual culture. The discussion will proceed through theoretical foundations, denotative and connotative analyses, visual language, mythological dimensions, and relational oppositions, ultimately underscoring the film’s thesis on constructed meaning.
Theoretical Framework for Reading Objects in Cinema
To unpack how meanings are constructed around the Everything Bagel, it is essential to establish a robust theoretical lens grounded in semiotics and visual culture studies. Roland Barthes, in his seminal work Mythologies (1957), posits that cultural objects and images operate beyond their literal appearances, with meanings actively constructed rather than innate. Barthes delineates three levels: denotation (the surface-level, literal meaning), connotation (the associated cultural and emotional layers), and myth (where these connotations become naturalised, embedding ideological assumptions as ‘common sense’). For instance, a simple rose might denote a flower but connote romance or passion, and through myth, this association feels inevitable rather than contrived. This framework is particularly apt for visual culture, as it reveals how everyday items accumulate ideological weight.
Building on Barthes, Christian Metz’s Film Language: A Semiotics of Cinema (1974) extends semiotic analysis to film, arguing that cinema is not a passive medium but a system of signs where meaning emerges from deliberate choices such as framing, colour, repetition, and contrast. Unlike photography, which captures reality, film instructs viewers on interpretation through its formal elements. Objects in film, therefore, gain significance not solely from their materiality but from how they are presented—their scale, recurrence, and contextual placement. Metz emphasises that cinematic meaning is constructed actively, making it a powerful tool for exploring visual oppositions.
Furthermore, Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistic theories, as outlined in Course in General Linguistics (originally 1916, cited here from a 2002 edition), assert that signs derive meaning relationally, through differences and oppositions rather than isolation. In visual culture, this implies that an object’s significance arises in contrast to others, a principle vividly applied in cinema. Together, these theories—Barthes’s multilevel semiotics, Metz’s cinematic signs, and Saussure’s relational framework—provide a foundation for analysing the Everything Bagel. In Everything Everywhere All at Once, the bagel does not inherently signify nihilism; its meaning is forged through visual accumulation, cultural connotation, and opposition to the googly eyes, demonstrating how visual culture constructs profound narratives from banal objects.
Denotative and Connotative Meanings of the Everything Bagel
At its denotative level, the Everything Bagel is a straightforward culinary item: a ring-shaped bread roll topped with an assortment of seasonings like sesame seeds, poppy seeds, garlic, and onion, its name humorously evoking abundance. This literal interpretation aligns with Barthes’s (1957) notion of denotation as the object’s primary, unadorned signification. However, the film subverts this banality by literalising the “everything” hyperbole, transforming the bagel into a multiversal threat. Visually, it appears as a ominous black void with a circular form, dominating the screen and absorbing surrounding elements, reminiscent of a black hole’s event horizon. This presentation, as Metz (1974) would argue, constructs meaning through scale and framing, overwhelming the viewer and shifting the object from everyday food to cosmic peril.
On a connotative level, the bagel accrues deeper associations with nihilism—the philosophical stance that life lacks objective meaning, purpose, or value. Linked to the character Jobu Tupaki, who embodies existential despair amid infinite multiversal possibilities, the bagel symbolises how experiencing “everything” leads to collapse into nothingness. If one can access all realities simultaneously, individual experiences lose distinct value, mirroring nihilistic overload. Barthes (1957) would identify this as connotation shaped by cultural and formal contexts: the bagel’s abundance, typically positive in American consumer culture, inverts into annihilation. The film’s visual choices—muted colours, tight framing, and repetitive appearances—evoke a sensory experience of despair, allowing audiences to feel nihilism rather than merely observe it. Thus, the bagel’s meaning evolves from literal food to a potent symbol, constructed through cinematic semiotics.
Visual Language and Symbolic Opposition
The construction of the bagel’s meaning is further enhanced by the film’s distinctive visual language, which Metz (1974) describes as a deliberate orchestration of elements like contrast and repetition. Whenever the bagel appears, the cinematography employs tight, oppressive framing with desaturated tones, evoking Jobu’s worldview of a dull, exhausting existence doomed to end. This mirrors the nihilistic sensation of life’s futility, where infinite options render everything insignificant. In contrast, the googly eyes—simple plastic novelties that add playful faces to objects—are introduced subtly, often in the background, with bright, whimsical placements. They visually invert the bagel: a white ring encircling a black pupil, opposing the bagel’s black void with a white centre, evoking yin-yang duality.
This opposition exemplifies Saussure’s (2002) relational meaning, where signs gain significance through difference. The bagel only fully embodies nihilism because it contrasts with the googly eyes’ optimism, represented by Waymond’s character, who maintains positivity amid adversity through kindness and small joys. For example, Waymond affixes googly eyes to laundromat machines to “cheer up the customers,” transforming the mundane into the delightful. Through repetition—eyes proliferating across scenes—the film builds their symbolic value, countering the bagel’s dominance with quiet persistence. Metz (1974) highlights how such contrasts instruct viewer interpretation, making the bagel’s threat palpable while positioning the eyes as a redemptive force. In visual culture terms, this demonstrates how objects in film accrue meaning not in isolation but through structured oppositions, enriching the narrative’s philosophical depth.
Mythological Dimensions and Cultural Critique
Delving deeper, Barthes’s (1957) concept of myth reveals how the Everything Bagel engages with pre-existing cultural ideologies. Myth naturalises connotations, presenting them as timeless truths. The Everything Bagel, as an American cultural staple, already mythologises abundance—its name celebrating consumerist excess and infinite choice. The film weaponises this, collapsing the myth into nihilism: “everything” becomes a void, exposing the dark side of unchecked possibility. By peeling back this cheerful facade, the Daniels critique how cultural myths disguise emptiness, aligning with Barthes’s view of myth as ideological disguise.
Conversely, the googly eyes lack substantial mythological baggage; as disposable novelties, they are semantically blank, allowing the film to construct new meanings afresh. Waymond’s acts of placement—sticking eyes onto objects—visibly fabricate myth, making the process overt rather than naturalised. Unlike the bagel’s inherited weight, the eyes’ optimism is chosen and visible, resisting Barthesian naturalisation. This dynamic underscores the film’s argument: meaning is actively made, not discovered. In visual culture, such mythological play critiques how media constructs ideologies, with the bagel embodying destructive myths and the eyes offering constructive alternatives.
Relational Meaning and Philosophical Implications
Ultimately, the bagel’s meanings crystallise through Saussure’s (2002) principle of relational opposition. Without the googly eyes, the bagel might remain a mere prop; their contrast—visual, philosophical, and structural—generates depth. The film does not resolve this by invalidating nihilism; Jobu’s pain is portrayed authentically, her logic sound. Evelyn’s choice of optimism via the eyes acknowledges the void’s reality but affirms meaning as a deliberate act. This relational framework, combined with Barthes and Metz, illustrates how visual culture constructs significance through difference, challenging viewers to engage actively with symbols.
Conclusion
In Everything Everywhere All at Once, the Everything Bagel’s meanings—as a symbol of nihilism—are meticulously constructed through semiotic layers, cinematic techniques, and oppositional dynamics, as theorised by Barthes (1957), Metz (1974), and Saussure (2002). From denotative bread to connotative void, and mythological critique to relational symbol, the object exemplifies visual culture’s power to imbue the banal with profundity. This analysis not only illuminates the film’s philosophical core but also broader implications for how meanings are forged in media, encouraging critical awareness of constructed ideologies. By making this process visible, the film posits that existential value arises from choice, offering an optimistic counter to nihilism in an increasingly fragmented visual landscape. (Word count: 1,612, including references)
References
- Barthes, R. (1957) Mythologies. Editions du Seuil. (Note: This link points to a verified digital edition available via Monoskop.)
- Metz, C. (1974) Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema. Oxford University Press.
- Saussure, F. de (2002) Course in General Linguistics. Duckworth. (This edition is a standard English translation; original work published 1916.)
