Psychoanalysis: Maybe a knife is just a knife?

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by Sarah@Cult Labs

I was just about to come on here and write exactly the same thing!

It always surprises me how many people firmly believe that the director puts meaning in at one end and the audience unpacks that meaning at the other. As you say, the director isn't the only person who is responsible for making a film so that's a flawed argument in itself. And every single member of the audience will have a slightly different reading of the film depending on their life experience, education, familiarity with other films, mood etc. And that meaning might be completely different to the one the filmmakers (and I include in this directors, writers, cinematographers, editors, producers) "intended."

That's the great thing about an arts subject like film studies, I guess. The people who make the film can say it's about one thing, I can say it's about another, someone else can say it's about something else, and all of us can be right as long as there's enough justification in the film itself.

Of course, that makes marking essays a real bitch...

I certainly agree with a lot of that. On the other hand, if we take that route, that a film can mean anything to anyone, then we are essentially saying that the artist has no control of the artform or creation. Would we say this is true?

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by Make Them Die Slowly

I tend to read films through my own theory of Cockology which is based on involuntary movements in my nether regions to whatever happens to be on the screen at any given moment. This is more than a theory and approaches the realms of science as I also measure the "angle of dangle" and the "thrust of lust" (remember to warm your protractor to body temp if you wish to try this, as a cold protractor can effect the results). I then multiple the combined results of these measurements by how many naked ladies Demdike has posted on the "Film Stills" thread in a given hour. I then take this number, look up a word that has the corresponding numerical value in Hebrew and base any feeling and thoughts on the film around this word.

Remind me to decline any invitations to watch movies with you. That could be....awkward...and don't expect me to measure films with the same method.

[PaulD]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

I certainly agree with a lot of that. On the other hand, if we take that route, that a film can mean anything to anyone, then we are essentially saying that the artist has no control of the artform or creation. Would we say this is true?

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.

[BAH-Marc]

I like what Sarah said -

Originally Posted by Sarah@Cult Labs

...every single member of the audience will have a slightly different reading of the film depending on their life experience, education, familiarity with other films, mood etc. And that meaning might be completely different to the one the filmmakers (and I include in this directors, writers, cinematographers, editors, producers) "intended."

I've always contended that we all watch films from our own unique space and perspective and this of course is what makes reviews so highly subjective and why well thought out criticism so important.

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.

[Daemonia]

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?).

[Sarah@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by iluvdvds@Cult Labs

In my last essay of uni I argued that bigfoot was an allegory for homosexuality and the disco scene of the seventies. Most likely total drivel but I had 'evidence'

If you have a copy of that can I read it please?

Originally Posted by Daemonia

I certainly agree with a lot of that. On the other hand, if we take that route, that a film can mean anything to anyone, then we are essentially saying that the artist has no control of the artform or creation. Would we say this is true?

I guess I'd say that the artist has control over the artform/creation but has no control over how the audience views it. Basically what Paul has already said!

Originally Posted by Daemonia

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?

If the filmmaker's intentions are known/available then it's always important that you understand them and acknowledge them but I guess I always believe that just because the filmmaker says that was their intention, the viewer doesn't have to take it as the only way to read the film.

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!

[Demoncrat]

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.

[iluvdvds@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by thehamish

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.

All fear the...vagina!

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.

[Make Them Die Slowly]

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.

[Daemonia]

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'?