there he goes, another drive by cineshooting ...
"it was part of the art of cinema to figure out the meaning for yourself. "
I agree. Director's can tell if they want, but they're job is to show so well they don't need to and it's the audience's job to experience that director's art to the fullest and hopefully glean that meaning with nothing but the film and it's parts to take them there. Works, ironically (compared to your arguments) just like a book. Just like any work of art.
Of course, there is a huge margin for error, but in film, it is not error. It becomes the fluidity that makes the very work of art itself even more complex and beautiful. It's like the director hands us ... what, a crystal ball, a mirror, whatever. Each person who looks into it will see something different. They may see things similar to what others see (hence, most people going to see Rush Hour will think it funny) but others won't (hence the others who found it offensive). Doesn't matter what they see. Doesn't matter how they got there. What matters is that they're looking, and the thing that they are looking at. It's a 1-1 relationship. It's a world of connection and possibility. It's a limbo of ideas that happens with all art that I love, and that's why I love movies, becuase it's so visual, sensual, it's a world that sucks you in in ways a sculpture or a painting has never done for me.
the film ...
I totally agree about the visuals. Beautiful. Lush. However, I found the film itself bland. I don't know if Cruise was actually giving us any true display of "acting." And there was such a lutter lack of chemistry between him and his wife that I came out surprised by how unerotic the film was. Not to say I expected the film to arouse me. I expected the film to show me sensual things that would reveal the characters to me, make me feel and see and explore and comprehend. This did not happen. Perhaps it's because I'm a jaded sensualist and Kubrick's idea of exploring the wants and desires of a married couple entirely ... how shall I put it ... dry. Nothing new was shown to me. Nothing shocking at all really. I suppose it might shock mainstream viewers but I sat there and pretty much ... I wasn't bored. It was unmoved. Things felt soft focus and for me, without depth, without connection, without emotion. I felt very little emotion at all and truly, cared VERY little for the characters.
And I can only blame that on the director because I went in there wanting to be moved. Everyone was talking smack about the film and how awful and long it was and how shocking this or that and I said - a film meant just for me. Let's go see what it's all about. And I sat down and got nothing that pushed any boundaries, unravelled any mysteries, tangled any preconceived notions.
This was why I found it a blunder. I really think Kubrick was so caught up in his presentation that he failed miserably on the content. I'm not talking plot or such. I'm talking ... like biting into the most perfect apple you'll ever see and finding it's mushy and tastes like water. Like you guys said, unhappy endings do not make masterpieces. Neither do gorgeous set pieces, soft focus, and lush cinematography.
Reply to Topic
