I knew full well this would bring us back head to head
.
See I didn't limit my acceptance of interpretation to the artist's intentions alone, but it's patently false to say that those intentions go out the window once something is completed. My other big defense of interpretation was in what something means to you as someone partaking in that piece of art, which to me is enhanced by authenticity of the voice creating it. For instance, I believe and relate to a book like This Side of Paradise or most of Fitzgerald's books over say things like the latest book club lit, because you know the author experienced events or elements in life that are brought to life in the book. Or how I went in to The Tree of Life and saw so much of the filmmaker's life, opinions, existential troubles, and faith played out on the screen. It was powerful to see what Malick was able to evoke, but it meant even more to me because of my own feelings towards faith and my relationship with my father.
I'm not saying there isn't validity in what someone else can see or feels as a result of something, but I am denying the importance of projecting things that aren't there and making criticism a career as someone who doesn't practice whatever art it is he writes about. There is a line, you do make your point well to say that as long as they make their case it has validity, my biggest railing was against self-inflated indulgence, which absolutely does happen. Hell, we have people who spend their entire lives writing dissertations of the most flimsy pieces of media out there and get paid to do it. What does that contribute to humanity?
Yes, there can always be something more seen and contributed to a conversation about interpretations, but that is different from the career of criticism, that's more in line with discussion as I said. And to say that there isn't a loss of authenticity or attachment in experiencing something when done through the lens of analysis of form or following hearing someone else's interpretation of something is ludicrous. Now, if you go back and watch something following discussion or a new idea being brought to you, or with an analysis of form that's one thing. But when people go into viewing or reading something having first been spoonfed someone else's ideas? You'll never have that pure reaction to something. Look, I've been able to see things with more sophistication following a discussion with someone before, but there's also films that I have never discussed with someone else to a great degree that I gain more and more from purely from what I happen to latch onto at the moment or what I've gone through since having seen it. I get a lot more personal satisfaction out of understanding something in a new light that came from me.
I don't deny the place of analysis, I deny criticism's principal importance over personal reaction and yes, in a lot of cases intentions of the creators (but no, not that exclusively, and with film there are very few filmmakers who put so much of themselves onto the screen or have that much control over the process where this part factors in as much as it does to me with a songwriter). Music's kind of different, a performer can put a lot of their own emotion into a powerful rendition of what was created as an empty pop song, but to me there's nothing more powerful than the perfect storm of the lyricist's true emotion coming out in the poetry of their lyrics, the melody of their song and the inflection of their performance. That's probably the biggest reason I'm a U2 fan actually.
on the inclusion of Shadow of a Doubt as well.
. I've only seen probably half of the public domain films in his filmography for that very reason, most of the ones I've watched are just so shot to hell it takes away from them. I'll look for it on your recommendation though.
