|
|
|
|
EgosXII
Aphorism
Registered: Apr 2007
Location:
|
|
quote: | Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
To paraphrase a popular saying, "The author is dead, Roland Barthes killed him."
What post-structuralism introduced is the idea that an author can't be a source of any definitive meaning - it's up to the viewer/reader to infer meaning from the text. Or, to directly quote Barthes:
In other words, there's no denying that certain artistic intentions exist. However, we can never know what they truly were (especially in such a collaborative medium like film) and even if we did, it wouldn't matter much. So the most sensible approach is to forget the author figure and work with what's fully accessible to us - the film/text itself.
This viewpoint is shared even by cognitivists (Bordwell & Thompson) whose neoformalist approach is dominant now in film studies, and is far more analytical - in a sense that "analysis" doesn't try to figure out what the film says (the message), but rather how does it say that (grammar/syntax). Their book "Film Art" is well known and is a great introduction to this.
I probably just barely scratched the surface, but this is such a broad topic that I didn't know where to start. I can elaborate on some of this if it isn't clear. |
I'm well aware of all this, but am trying to understand where you're coming from with your claims; given this post-modernism/structuralism. If there is no hard form in a given text how can you claim that what you say of it is accurate to anyone except yourself? Or you can't?
___________________
-Everything I Say is a Lie-
|
|
Jan-27-2012 09:39
|
|
|
|
|
GoSpeedGo!
no more Mr. Nice Guy
Registered: May 2006
Location: Eisenstein's laboratory
|
|
quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
Yeah that's the basic concern.
Using the Melancholia example you gave: If Lars didn't do that intentionally; and denied any kind of meaning like that, would your suggestion still be valid, or not? |
Yes, it would, authorial intent doesn't matter.
Again, this example I used is very simplistic and unfortunately I don't have time right now to write long paragraphs that would give a better explanation, but obviously there would be much more evidence - found throughout the whole body of work - and the interpretation wouldn't seem so arbitrary.
quote: | I think the problem with that type of analysis is that its unfalsifiable; you could say x means y and never be wrong, but it doesn't mean that you're ever actually right about it... If you continue the logic of this it would mean that any film is meaningless; a blank slate against which the viewer sees a reflection of their psychological state. This clearly would invalidate all claims about the film itself. |
That's not true. If you closely follow form and style of a given text and the themes it employs, you can't possibly come up with infinite number of interpretations.
I will write more about this later. For a good example of such an extensive, well-reasoned interpretation, read some of the articles here: http://nilesfilmfiles.blogspot.com/
I really liked the one about the new Fincher movie where the guy shows how is the film about post-humanism and the relationship of words & image. http://nilesfilmfiles.blogspot.com/...fuck-david.html
|
|
Jan-27-2012 12:38
|
|
|
|
|
LeopoldStotch
Suapremae tranecadictt
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Yawbs,Giaks,and Automobiles
|
|
|
Jan-28-2012 14:27
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|