We're here to watch movies

Tools    





I essentially agree with this, even though a world without Kafka immediately becomes less worth living in.

Yeah, that's a tough ethical dilemma.



Authors are very guarded about what they release to the public; they will be judged for every word and a poor outing can damage one's reputation and the perception of the quality of one's body of work. If an author decides NOT to share a work with the public, I side with that right, even if it costs us. Once released, it's ours. Outside of that, however, there is this tawdry industry of historical analysis which is the academic equivalent of TMZ--attempting to catch the writer in his intellectual underwear.



The author doesn't get the final word in the interpretation and evaluation of the finished text. They are only strongly authoritative (and only to the extent that their memory and motivation is not suspect) in telling us what they were trying to achieve.

Hey, I agree. And personally, I'd prefer more artists were like Lynch and didn't even bother trying to tell us what they were trying to do.


However, if the reading is only really plausible by way extra-textual evidence (if you have to squint at the artwork in light of some biographical fact), then I am more inclined to reject it

I can either disagree with you or pity you. Anything that unlocks a meaning adds to the text. Quibbling too much over whether it was the intent, or whether it can be found outside of the text, or whether or not the entire concept holds water, gets in the way of finding different ways to react either emotionally or intellectually to a piece of work (and again, this doesn't mean we shouldn't continue with this approach as well...they can be complimentary).



There are entire galaxies of feeling one can only find through less rigorous methods of analysis. We need to learn to love our instincts. Your approach seems akin to trying to find evidence of God exclusively in the words of a religious text, or in the analysis of a piece of wood reported to be from Noah's ark. But sometimes just petting a cat should be enough to confirm such feelings, and to look for further proof dispels the certainty of that illusion. And illusions can be certain (faith has a tangible human value after all). Because of this we sometimes don't need value explained to us in the inflexible and static terms that traditional criticism trades so heavily (and usually so poorly) in.



An artists job is to try and convey the experience of petting a cat. And hopefully there is an audience out there ready to grasp why such a thing means so much more than just that. A critics job is to give hints to where we can find these moments and how to appreciate them within the larger text of the film.



But the author doesn't get a free pass to serve as our eyes and ears either.


Hey, I agree.



Yeah, that's a tough ethical dilemma.

Authors are very guarded about what they release to the public; they will be judged for every word and a poor outing can damage one's reputation and the perception of the quality of one's body of work. If an author decides NOT to share a work with the public, I side with that right, even if it costs us. Once released, it's ours. Outside of that, however, there is this tawdry industry of historical analysis which is the academic equivalent of TMZ--attempting to catch the writer in his intellectual underwear.

I'm never going to complain that the person trusted to burns Kafka's life work instead decided to get it published. But, morally, it should never have been done.



I only start disagreeing with this when we start equating historical analysis as tawdry. I guess it is if the artists didn't want it out there in the first place. But wrestling with a work for all time, and having the way we understand it change from generation to generation, depending on what that generation is generally looking for from art, is the gift that art keeps giving. Meanings will be accepted and then roundly rejected. Certain elements will come in and out of favour. Each piece of art acting as its own independent thermometer of the time.



Maybe this is a perpetual headache for the curators and the academics trying to decode our artistic history with some kind of finality, and come to conclusion on what it all means, and to that I say to myself 'good'. As it should be.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
It's why I encourage people to post movies that are coming up on cable, or movies on YouTube - so we can have more conversation. With so many different options, it's going to be hard to get everyone on board. When we had only three channels, you could talk to millions of people who saw the same thing you did.



The minute someone says "I heard ______ was gay" I ignore them.



I can either disagree with you or pity you.


Anything that unlocks a meaning adds to the text. Quibbling too much over whether it was the intent, or whether it can be found outside of the text, or whether or not the entire concept holds water, gets in the way of finding different ways to react either emotionally or intellectually to a piece of work (and again, this doesn't mean we shouldn't continue with this approach as well...they can be complimentary).
The analysis of art is not the same thing as the experience of it. I take no issue with a person enjoying art in their way and having a wholly idiosyncratic response to it. However, when that person shares that response with me and informs me that I should respond the same way, I will be in need of reasons which are NOT idiosyncratic.


Go adventuring. Have fun. See if you get something new on your latest excursion. However, if you claim to have found buried treasure, bring a treasure map.



However, if you claim to have found buried treasure, bring a treasure map.

I do. As has any critic who has influenced me in understanding a film through articulating their emotional responses.



If I allow myself to become receptive to the personal experience of another, when articulated well enough, it can open a window into scenes or moments I might have otherwise overlooked. And, no, my experience does not have to be exactly the same as the person who pointed it out to me, but it colors my experience of what I am seeing. And it gets me looking for my own moments.



A good critic offers us ways to see, not simply ways to understand. And because of this there are different kinds of treasure maps. Sometimes they are a straightforward bunch of dotted lines leading towards a very specific spot we are supposed to dig. Wonderful. But then there are other times all they are is a series of riddles that simply give us an idea where it is we should be looking. Trial and error may be necessary. A few missteps unavoidable. Yet ultimately they are both effective for those who are willing to listen, and these two different approaches are both important as they can produce different experiences in appreciating the film we are watching. To focus exclusively on one, is to not reap the benefits of the other.


Now, if you happen to be someone who can't be led to a treasure through less concrete means....what can I say other than that's your loss. And while I'm sure you are happy not to first have to do some fruitless wandering before you get to the sweet spot, okay, that's your business. I'm already rich as shit sitting up on my golden mountain and it doesn't really concern me. I'll just keep hollering down my own riddles from time though, because it does feel awful greedy keeping all of these riches to myself.



I do. As has any critic who has influenced me in understanding a film through articulating their emotional responses.



If I allow myself to become receptive to the personal experience of another, when articulated well enough, it can open a window into scenes or moments I might have otherwise overlooked. And, no, my experience does not have to be exactly the same as the person who pointed it out to me, but it colors my experience of what I am seeing. And it gets me looking for my own moments.



A good critic offers us ways to see, not simply ways to understand. And because of this there are different kinds of treasure maps. Sometimes they are a straightforward bunch of dotted lines leading towards a very specific spot we are supposed to dig. Wonderful. But then there are other times all they are is a series of riddles that simply give us an idea where it is we should be looking. Trial and error may be necessary. A few missteps unavoidable. Yet ultimately they are both effective for those who are willing to listen, and these two different approaches are both important as they can produce different experiences in appreciating the film we are watching. To focus exclusively on one, is to not reap the benefits of the other.


Now, if you happen to be someone who can't be led to a treasure through less concrete means....what can I say other than that's your loss. And while I'm sure you are happy not to first have to do some fruitless wandering before you get to the sweet spot, okay, that's your business. I'm already rich as shit sitting up on my golden mountain and it doesn't really concern me. I'll just keep hollering down my own riddles from time though, because it does feel awful greedy keeping all of these riches to myself.

This is all good. We're up to different things in discussing films. You seem more likely to want to use the text as inspiration, as therapy, and adventure, a springboard vaulting one into a realm of possibility. I am more likely to want to make the best warranted assertion about the text itself. For me, the prize is not just to find it, but also to be able to prove it. To move an interpretation from "just another opinion," to something that satisfies a reasonable person of goodwill enough to conceded, at least, that a reading or evaluation has enough merit to deserve a seat at the table of "preferred readings" and should not dismissed as "just another opinion." We're simply at different purposes here.



The difficulty occurs when we happen to find ourselves discussing films and we disagree. When you press me for demonstration of a claim, you will find my answer stodgy and overly limiting (that I am playing professor). When I press you for demonstration, I will sometimes find your answer too loose to be reasonably justified (my policy is to avoid accepting wooden nickles).



We might both do well to remember that we're playing slightly different games here.



This is all good. We're up to different things in discussing films.

Yes. Which should come as no surprise to anyone. The issue has always been you sneering down at how I talk about them.





You seem more likely to want to use the text as inspiration
Of course I do. I don't want to write about anything that doesn't inspire me. But I also use that inspiration from the text to talk about the text.



And personally I don't understand why speaking towards easily observable things regarding plot and themes is somehow the harder way to talk about a film than how I do. It's actually way way easier.




[quoteas therapy[/quote]


Art is always therapy. Even for those who just consider it a pointless diversion.




and adventure
And as soon as it stop being this I'll stop watching them.



a springboard vaulting one into a realm of possibility
I hope this isn't considered some terrible thing.



For me, the prize is not just to find it, but also to be able to prove it.
To prove what? What have you so far proved in your life regarding this? Tell me about the movies you have proved are good? And, if I agree that you've proved it, tell me why this matters.



We're simply at different purposes here.
Only partially. I also consider the worth of a film from the same metrics as you. I can argue on those levels as well. But I also believe there are other things to be looking for in art, which you ignore and I don't. That I try to articulate and you don't. That I talk about and you think aren't worth even talking about.



So, yes, I guess we're different.



The difficulty occurs when we happen to find ourselves discussing films and we disagree. When you press me for demonstration of a claim, you will find my answer stodgy and overly limiting (that I am playing professor). When I press you for demonstration, I will sometimes find your answer too loose to be reasonably justified (my policy is to avoid accepting wooden nickles).
So, wooden nickels in the way that they are valueless. Counterfeits? The kind of things passed off by charlatans?


And you wonder why I get annoyed at you, Professor?



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



All of this ire held against each other is really a front for a secret passion held between you two.

Not this again. "He's screaming obscenities at me because he loves me."
Delusion au grandeur



Yes. Which should come as no surprise to anyone. The issue has always been you sneering down at how I talk about them.
I apologize for any and all perceived slights which I did not intend to send your way. Sincerely. If someone reads a different tone, then they cannot but also read a different message. And as for those slights which I did intend, well you probably deserved those. Let's be honest. You're not exactly a picture of moderation.

So, wooden nickels in the way that they are valueless. Counterfeits? The kind of things passed off by charlatans?
No, they're like game tokens/tickets at Chuck-E-Cheese. They are narrowly redeemable for some purposes and may even have value in acquiring some real stuff (e.g., when we cash in Skee-Ball tickets), but they're not the coin of the realm of aesthetics.



I apologize for any and all perceived slights which I did not intend to send your way. Sincerely.
okay

And as for those slights which I did intend, well you probably deserved those. Let's be honest. You're not exactly a picture of moderation.
I'm not here needing to be treated nicely. Please slight me. I couldn't care less about being made fun of.

I just want my point of view to not be treated with skepticism from ground zero. It gets extremely frustrating to have people not even accept the basic premise of anything I say.

No, they're like game tokens/tickets at Chuck-E-Cheese. They are narrowly redeemable for some purposes and may even have value in acquiring some real stuff (e.g., when we cash in Skee-Ball tickets), but they're not the coin of the realm of aesthetics.
I'm glad my opinions might get someone a free game of Skee Ball. Thanks for correcting me on believing I am saying anything of any value.



Please slight me. I couldn't care less about being made fun of.
Well, if it is said with a smile, sure.

I just want my point of view to not be treated with skepticism from ground zero. It gets extremely frustrating to have people not even accept the basic premise of anything I say.
Fair enough. For what it is worth, you have more store credit with me now that we've talked about Fulci.
I'm glad my opinions might get someone a free game of Skee Ball. Thanks for correcting me on believing I am saying anything of any value.
Just giving you a hard time. Read that as tongue-in-cheek.



I don't want to walk your path, because I've run into far too many people who are totally full of it (not you) who hide behind wine-tasting terms, post-modern fluff, and the general sentiment that no one can really be wrong about art. The great challenge, for me, is finding that which one can justify, if not as a timeless absolute truth, as a best warranted assertion at a time and place, or at least as a "legitimate reading" among many (assuming that we're still parsing better from worse readings). For me the juice is in what you can justify, because you have better grounds to believe it is really there.