|Originally posted by GoSpeedGo! |
This is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
First, if I can make a meaningful interpretation of a movie and back it up - that is, there can't be anything present in the film that contradicts my interpretation - then it is perfectly valid. It can differ from what the author intended, but that doesn't matter. The thing is, you're suggesting that a movie like Sucker Punch has zero subtext and is just plain (bad) entertainment without any meaning at all, which is just ridiculous. Like, even if Snyder really was loldumb and put the dragon, steampunk nazis and robots in the movie just because he thought it looked cool, there would still be subtext (and possible meaning). You can't accuse me of faux-intellectualism without offering any other interpretation of the movie (or without pointing out why mine is wrong), so I'm not sure what are we arguing about here.
Then you say that the author, for him to succeed, has to convey some message to the audience, yet this doesn't make any sense with regards to the interactive nature of postmodernity that you described earlier. The viewer, in your opinion, isn't responsible for interpreting the movie, it has to be fed to him by the author, and if he fails it's entirely his fault. Many people who go see Sucker Punch go see it with the intention of "turning their brains off" (and they are even proudly saying that which is precisely that anti-intellectualism I was talking about) which basically means they aren't trying to interpret the movie at all, and are just reading it as plain text. Some folks still think that Starship Troopers is a straightforward, blatantly fascist action film, many people don't get the point of Funny Games yet it literally has the director going "Haha, fuck you!" in the viewer's face. That doesn't mean Haneke or Verhoeven failed to convey "the message" (whatever it is), it means people can't read film.
Dude, not that I want to get in to this tussle, but you're reading way too much in to the subject matter, and even if the director thought he was conveying certain statements, the final product does not.
Again, playing devils advocacte, even if I were to agree, and say that Snyder is making a commentary on female inequalities and our post modern perceptions, making a badly acted CGI shitfest, with a poorly conceived story line "aimed to make you see the real statement" is a terrible way to go about it.
Maybe it was the fault of the studio, or the producers who edited the shit out of it, but regardless, it's a poor concept in the first place, and you know these things (that others have creative control or the final word in terms of the finished product) going in.
Have to agree with Hal on this one, even if Snyders intentions were otherwise, simply because the execution is so poor and the finished product does not support the context or narrative. It just seems so dumb when these directors think they're going to make a intellectual statement with multi-million dollar hollywood production.