Who do you believe: The tale or the teller?

Started by Gold Trumpet, November 08, 2003, 09:06:17 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions

Gold Trumpet

November 08, 2003, 09:06:17 PM
I see this happen on the board every now and then: A discussion about interpeting something specific in a movie goes on and then information is found to what the director/producer meant and discussion ends and both sides allign to the basis of "what the author says has to be right". Mutincyo, whom I disagree with more than anyone but I also really do respect his opinion, thinks this is correct and has ended debates (or sometimes in his mind he thinks has) about the movie because both sides are willing to accept the notion that the author knows all.

I disagree with this to the fullest sense. Thing is, directors and producers are unreliable people to take their word on for interpreting their own work anyways. It is likely, in the history of films, that some directors have made purposeful contradicting interpretations to just confuse; also, that some have made comments to swing the interpretation of the film a certain way to make a political statement or to make it more controversial to sell tickets. If speaking about the film, they could also take the film away from being private property to its audience. Even if the points of the film are obvious, many people will allign it to something important in their own life. If they hear the writer say where everything in the story came from personally for him, they may see it as for him more so and lose that privacy. Most importantly, for a work to grow, it must be allowed to expand in interpretation.

So, who is to believe, the tale or the teller?

SoNowThen

#1
November 08, 2003, 09:10:35 PM
I agree that artists are lying all the time about what things "mean".

BUT -- sometimes I hear people say things like "that director is horrible, nothing cuts together and he never shows the exteriors they're in", and you have to point out that the director designed the film to have jump cuts and to never use establishing shots. In the case of a preconceived stylistic idea, I think we should accept that. It may not work for you, but you can't say the person is incompetent. They made a clear choice. That is not up to our interpretation.

That being said, I don't know why a director would mislead people about what his film means or "is about". True, they often don't see themes or patterns until they're pointed out by critics, but to author a film one must have some idea or end in mind, or purpose...

I dunno...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Kal

#2
November 08, 2003, 09:25:42 PM
Its like when you have a son or a daughter (I dont yet) and because its yours you believe something about them and its probably different that what the rest of the people think of them... But no matter what they tell you and even if some part of you knows that you're wrong, you're still going to believe whatever you want because you created them

Jeremy Blackman

#3
November 08, 2003, 09:39:21 PM
The problem with saying "the artist is always right" is that the artist doesn't always know what the artist has created. There has to be room for psychological interpretation. What about the unconscious? Artists are human beings... they can never completely know themselves, let alone what they create.

Weak2ndAct

#4
November 08, 2003, 11:52:18 PM
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThe problem with saying "the artist is always right" is that the artist doesn't always know what the artist has created. There has to be room for psychological interpretation. What about the unconscious? Artists are human beings... they can never completely know themselves, let alone what they create.
This pretty much sums it perfectly IMHO.  I've had people come up with theories/themes about some of my work that weren't at all apparent during creation.  Sometimes that stuff just kinda happens by itself.  And you get an even more skewed perspective when people you know personally look at it, using you as a prism to decipher it.  It's ultimately all up to the viewer to decide what he/she believes, and what they take from the movie.  If you show 10 different people Donnie Darko, you're going to get 10 different interpretations, and none of them (not even Kelly's) is truly 'right.'  I respect directors who don't offer up all the answers and shy away from giving away any 'meaning' (Lynch being the most obvious).  I feel like directors that try to qualify their work, by announcing some hidden subtext/allegory/etc. are either cowards or blowhards.  Why not say what you really wanted to in the first place?  In 20 years, when someone randomly rents their movie, none of that knowledge will be even considered.

Sanjuro

#5
November 09, 2003, 06:03:13 AM
Quote from: andykIts like when you have a son or a daughter (I dont yet) and because its yours you believe something about them and its probably different that what the rest of the people think of them... But no matter what they tell you and even if some part of you knows that you're wrong, you're still going to believe whatever you want because you created them

yes that is so true.

and i agree with jblackman.  you can control the process of creating something but youll never know how the finished product looks like until youve finished creating it, so in a way it is a discovery for the creator. once it is created it holds a life of its ownand it starts to speak for itself.
"When you see your own photo, do you say you're a fiction?"

Gold Trumpet

#6
November 09, 2003, 01:22:31 PM
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThe problem with saying "the artist is always right" is that the artist doesn't always know what the artist has created. There has to be room for psychological interpretation. What about the unconscious? Artists are human beings... they can never completely know themselves, let alone what they create.

Maybe I should specify better to forward the discussion. What if the artist specifically interprets something in his film even when you disagree with it. Do you take his interpretation or your own? I still side with the position you take your own.

SoNowThen

#7
November 09, 2003, 11:21:35 PM
I hate it when people impose their own shit on another person's work. I had bad english teachers do that their whole life. Just because they wanted to fuck their father doesn't mean the filmmaker did.

So I say, if an artist specifically interprets something, sorry, that's the way it is. Either it works for you or it doesn't, but you can't say they're wrong because you wanted it to mean something else. If you wanted that meaning, go out and make your own movie.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Weak2ndAct

#8
November 10, 2003, 01:14:41 AM
I caught some shit in high school for telling my English teacher that "The majority of symbolism and metaphors are just teachers trying to justify their jobs."

Jeremy Blackman

#9
November 10, 2003, 09:32:02 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenI hate it when people impose their own shit on another person's work. I had bad english teachers do that their whole life. Just because they wanted to fuck their father doesn't mean the filmmaker did.

So I say, if an artist specifically interprets something, sorry, that's the way it is. Either it works for you or it doesn't, but you can't say they're wrong because you wanted it to mean something else. If you wanted that meaning, go out and make your own movie.

An artist can have an intention when making something, but it can always have more meaning than that. I think that art is not something that anyone, including the artist, can trap and define. It has a life of its own, and interacts personally with each person it encounters. Having your own interpretation doesn't have to mean you're imposing anything. It's your experience, and it can't be wrong unless you believe that any given art can have a definitive knowable truth.

SoNowThen

#10
November 10, 2003, 09:46:35 AM
I think we may be on divergent paths here. I'm all for personal experience, and of course we're each going to have our own responses to movies. For instance, some may watch Amarcord and come out remembering when they lived in a small town for their childhood, others will just carry the message that Facism was a poison that slowly snuck up on a largely naive population, and yet others will just have a pervading sense of the sexual frustrations of youth. Fair enough. But if some dolt film critic tried to tell you that the peacock in the snow symbolized the people's intoxication with Mussolini, they'd be wrong, and an idiot. Yet sometimes critics (and mostly teachers) have these wild points to prove, and try to teach this to ignorant people, then the people go off believing them, and the absolute wrong idea is propagated. And that I'm fully against. D'ya see what I mean?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Jeremy Blackman

#11
November 10, 2003, 09:49:37 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenBut if some dolt film critic tried to tell you that the peacock in the snow symbolized the people's intoxication with Mussolini, they'd be wrong, and an idiot.

No, they wouldn't be wrong, but they would be wrong if they claimed that interpretation was anything more than their own, if they claimed it was the absolute truth.

SoNowThen

#12
November 10, 2003, 09:52:05 AM
But they would be wrong!!!! That peacock was an italian symbol for death, as a signpost for Titta's mother passing away. To attach any sort of political meaning on it would be wrong, and manipulative, and altogether degrading of the work. And that's what I'm strongly against. It's the perversion of art for a personal agenda...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Jeremy Blackman

#13
November 10, 2003, 09:54:12 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenIt's the perversion of art for a personal agenda...

Doesn't everyone have that personal right, as long as they don't impose it on others?

And if they have that right... you have the right to call them stupid (but not to call them wrong).

SoNowThen

#14
November 10, 2003, 10:02:06 AM
Yes, as long as they don't impose it. That is the thing.


And call them stupid I most certainly will.  :)

Does that address what you were talking about, GT?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions