#11
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
__________________ Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar |
#12
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
__________________ Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar |
#13
| ||||
| ||||
I like to think that the artist has his own intention in his own creation and when it's finished the viewer takes away his own interpretation of that. Most ideas/concepts/topics etc might meet in the middle for both parties but some might go wildy outside of that. And that's what makes discussion so interesting.
|
#14
| |||
| |||
I like what Sarah said - Quote:
Equally, there is a degree to which it doesn't matter what the true intent was. That's not to say that the director's intent doesn't matter at all, but for example - I don't believe for a moment that George Romero intended to make a socio-political statement with Night of the Living Dead, but he's embraced that observation by critics and therefore defined his place in cinematic history. An artists job is to create and put a creation out there in the world. We are the ones that place value on that artwork and give it meaning. Look at Hitchcock's Psycho. That was a cheaply made thriller that proper filmmakers and audiences looked down upon as pulp. Now? Books upon books have been written on it. At any rate - I don't want to siderail the convo too much. It's a thought-provoking thread for sure. |
#15
| ||||
| ||||
True enough. But wouldn't you say that some films demand that you learn the true intention of the filmmaker because your reading of the film simply isn't enough? Take the controversial Cannibal Holocaust for instance, most people, on initial viewing take away a sense of shock and horror and most viewers do want to know what the true intention of the filmmaker was, as they can't believe that something so harrowing and downright nasty could serve no purpose other than entertainment. So, I guess it depends on the film and, also, if the filmmakers are indeed still around to talk about it. If not, or they refuse to speak of it, then all we have is interpretations and subjective viewpoints. I never meant to undermine critical analysis in any of my previous posts, as it definitely has a place in assessing cinema as an artform. At the same time, though, some films are just films and fall down under close scrutiny. Films like that are best appreciated from a distance, I think. I couldn't imagine that any deep analysis of Zombie Lake would reveal anything very interesting, except to underline how bad it is (just how did a remote French hamlet end up with a stockpile of napalm?).
__________________ Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar |
#16
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Much in the same way that most filmmakers produce a film with the intention of it being good and well-liked, but we're all at liberty to dislike it if that's the way we see it. I would also agree that some films are just plain bad with no subtexts whatsoever, but that doesn't mean that someone can't find things there if they want to - even if it's completely far-fetched. The problem with some cult/horror film scholars is, I think, they way they feel they need to find some kind of subtext in a kind of apologist way of justifying the film's existence. But that's a whole other can of worms!
__________________ |
#17
| |||
| |||
whilst not back pedalling on my original point, i had this whole spiel round about the time i saw TEETH...basically saying that since most horror is about the fear of the vagina, this was the ultimate horror film (this is very phallocentric i know, but sadly i have never been a woman) dripping with "freudian" overtones...the cave being representitive of the womb etc... AHEM. |
#18
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
I think with films like Teeth, they were their psychobabble on their sleeves with pride. The same can be said for many of the sci-fi B-Movies of the 50s and the issues of communism etc, or Romero's dead series for instance. Really? Cool, I'll send you a copy in a bit, Sarah.
__________________ |
#19
| ||||
| ||||
What has always intrigued me about psychoanalysis is that as a therapy it is delivered by a therapist, a word that can be broken down into two words "the" and "rapist"! Discuss. As to film theory, I think it tells the reader more about the author than the subject being discussed. I used to love reading different approaches to understanding film as a young pup but as the years have progressed I'm less and less inclined to bother with other peoples views on films. I can't think off the top of my head any theory that directly interacts with my daily life on a concious level and thus for me all theories are redundant. However I would be most intrigued to read older approaches to art being applied to film, such as how it relates to the sacred and the unfolding of God's master plan. Don't worry I've not come over all happy clappy, it's just that I'm sure there must be a spiritual side to film but I'll be buggered if I can find it. |
#20
| ||||
| ||||
Film is an interesting medium. Over the last hundred years or so it has allowed mankind to document his/her achievements and capture them on film for the rest of humanity to view. No longer was it a case of not being able to see what was going on elsewhere in the world. I think this is partly my fascination with film. It's a glimpse of another world, to see things I wouldn't normally see. And it fascinates me no end watching old movies and seeing exactly what the world looked like back then. Film is a very potent medium and this, I suppose, is why it's so heavily regulated. Over the years it has served as a powerful propaganda tool too and so, I guess, it's a medium that governments have learned to distrust. Ever wondered why the stuff on TV is called 'programming'?
__________________ Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar |
Like this? Share it using the links below! |
| |