|
The movie recommendations thread, son (pg. 158)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| GoSpeedGo! |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
So does the creator, or the viewer create meaning in a film? |
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:
| quote: | Originally written by Roland Barthes
To give a text an Author and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it is to impose a limit on that text. |
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. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| 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? |
|
|
| GoSpeedGo! |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
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? |
I'm not sure what you mean by "hard form", but I assume you're talking about a definitive meaning of some sort.
Basically, what I guess you're asking is: What makes an individual interpretation valid if there is more than one possible/"correct" interpretation of a given text?
That's quite hard to answer and I'm not sure if anyone's come up with a set of rules that would be able to guarantee a perfectly valid interpretation. What's undeniable is that the interpretation should be supported by evidence from the text and ideally, there shouldn't be anything in the text that would contradict that interpretation.
For example, Melancholia is about the collapse of western culture because the film shows us only white people gathered around a mansion - symbol of western values. (This is really simplistic but it should help to illustrate the point.) |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
I'm not sure what you mean by "hard form", but I assume you're talking about a definitive meaning of some sort.
Basically, what I guess you're asking is: What makes an individual interpretation valid if there is more than one possible/"correct" interpretation of a given text?
That's quite hard to answer and I'm not sure if anyone's come up with a set of rules that would be able to guarantee a perfectly valid interpretation. What's undeniable is that the interpretation should be supported by evidence from the text and ideally, there shouldn't be anything in the text that would contradict that interpretation.
For example, Melancholia is about the collapse of western culture because the film shows us only white people gathered around a mansion - symbol of western values. (This is really simplistic but it should help to illustrate the point.) |
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?
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. |
|
|
| GoSpeedGo! |
| 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/...ing--david.html |
|
|
| LeopoldStotch |
just want to take note his top 10 list, which is interesting:
1. A Dangerous Methos / The Tree of Life
2. Drive
3. Terri
4. Take Shelter
5. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
6. Shame
7. Meek's Cutoff
8. Hugo
9. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
10. Midnight in Paris
one thing i feel good about. He left out 'Tinker Tailor Solider Spy' out of his list, and marked it as an honorable mention. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by LeopoldStotch
just want to take note his top 10 list, which is interesting:
1. A Dangerous Methos / The Tree of Life
2. Drive
3. Terri
4. Take Shelter
5. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
6. Shame
7. Meek's Cutoff
8. Hugo
9. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
10. Midnight in Paris
one thing i feel good about. He left out 'Tinker Tailor Solider Spy' out of his list, and marked it as an honorable mention. |
who?? |
|
|
| GoSpeedGo! |
Yeah, I really like his list, though I still haven't seen half of it. Hugo and Tinker, Tailor next week hopefully.
His essay on The Tree of Life is great, too, probably best piece about it on the internet. |
|
|
| LeopoldStotch |
| I've been meaning to watch Hugo. It's a tossup between girl with the dragon tattoo or Hugo. I might as well watch both this weekend. :D |
|
|
| Jarvmeister |
Watched 'Submarine' 3 times this week - and I expect it to be the best film I see all year.
It's about a schoolboy's developing relationship with a new girlfriend and his efforts to keep his parents marriage from falling apart.
Heart warming and funny, and exactly the way I looked at life when I was 15.
SUPERB. |
|
|
| WittyHandle |
| Hugo bored me to tears. Some nice shots in it tho. |
|
|
|
|
