Thursday 18 February 2010
Film-makers' Intentions
In critical circles I think too much stock is put in what the Director (and his team) thinks, hopes to achieve and seeks to convey. The art itself, and the effect it has on its audience, should be the paramount concern. Foremost in our minds must be taking the film on its own terms. It is the creation of the director, yes, but just like a child (of his mind rather than his body) it has its own life.
There are two issues that some get caught up in. Two fallacies. The first is that a film or body of films can be considered representative of who a director is.
Lars Von Trier's Antichrist caused quite a stir, with charges of misogyny quickly laid at his door. This attitude, seen from a little distance, is baffling. If an individual and fictional character believes women to be evil and mutilates herself, is she her creator's mouthpiece? Is her hand an extension of Von Trier's? Though there may be an overlap, one simply cannot work back through a film to arrive at its maker's character, his ideologies and his preoccupations. It is fiction, after all. If he had not told us himself, could we use Avatar as proof of James Cameron's peace-loving world view? No. Do Martin Scorsese's films glamorise violence? Yes. Does it logically follow that he loves violence and wishes to promote it? No. It is too easy to see the film as a portrait of its maker.
You cannot even, with any confidence, assume that Michael Mann's 'concerns' with men, their identities inextricably linked with their jobs, actually 'concern' him. They could be the motifs he finds easiest to explore. There are any number of reasons for people to make the films they do - a niche in the market, ease of distribution, money, pushing boundaries, provocation...
The second fallacy, a partial corollary of the first, is that we can work out, from a film, precisely what a director wants from said films, or what he wants to communicate with them. Fallen Angels is full of jump cuts. Wong Kar Wai has stated that a good number of them are not there to create a certain energy, a dislocation of time or anything else but because passers-by could not be prevented from getting in the way of his location shots. Those feelings are still created. They are still there, but not in the way intended.
It is for this reason that the notion of a director's intentions holding great import (beyond academic interest) loses some traction - at least if we are to use the film as evidence.
Many critics I think make a leap of faith (or at least they write or talk as though they do) in imagining a director picking from an infinite array of choices. The question often implied is: 'Why did he do it like this and not like that?'. A director's vision is walled in and warped by limits at every turn: Time limits, budget limits, logistical limits, the limits of the collaborative process, the limits of adherence to well-established film language. Most importantly of all, the limits of their own imagination.
What matters most is what is left after this process and what an audience can get out of it. An extreme example, but what if a film-maker sought to create a sombre treatise on loss but the work came across as an uproarious comedy of manners? Is it any less funny if it is accidental? Perhaps. Perhaps not.*
You know what is in front of you and how it effects you. A film will almost mystically set its own parameters, asking, so to speak, to be judged in a certain way.**
Cinema has no rules and each film has a unique fingerprint that could be radically altered (without us realising) by an edit a second earlier or the use of mustard instead of custard yellow. Bad acting may be a killer in one film but not in another. If I were to write 'the film lacks depth' I would mean to say that the film in question suffers because of a lack of depth - not that depth or 'character development' or any other factor is a pre-requisite for a good and worthy film.
Take the film on its own terms and praise or bury the director for it (we can do no other) but hesitate to assume who he/she is or exactly what he/she wanted to say or do and why. One could say that once an artist has completed and exhibited his art, it is ours as much as it is theirs.
*It goes without saying that an audience will generally become painfully aware of an absurdity in the gap between what the film seems to want to do and what it is actually doing (i.e. The Happening, a parody of itself) and the film may well be damaged because of it.
**It may be useful not to think so much of a straight line from the director through his work to the audience but of the three as the points of a triangle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Some very fair points. I particularly agree with the risks of assuming the director INTENDED everything that's onscreen; so much of it is accident, compromise, happenstance. That doesn't mean they didn't shape it into something approaching their vision, or that they're vision didn't inform all these accidents, compromises, and happenstance going in. But filmmaking is always a collaboration between the operating intelligence(s) and the external facts of reality in its many facets. That's what's so thrilling about it - that friction - and one reason why CGI is rather unfortunate; it reduces this thrilling tension between (to borrow that old dichotemy) the Lumiere/Melies school of the cinema, which are usually both present to varying degrees in a given live-action film. Animation's great, don't get me wrong, but CGI seems to lose many of that benefits of that form (in its adherence to a "convincing" reproduction of reality) while also losing benefits of live action. But I digress.
ReplyDeleteI think in part your point is a semantic one. To what extent do critics, in speaking of the director, make points about him/her AS A DIRECTOR rather than as a person? Perhaps they don't do this enough, but perhaps when you read the whole context sometimes they are; I for one certainly try to take this approach. Hence, we don't know if Michael Mann's real-life concerns are with the social behavior of men, particularly in a crime milieu, but we certainly know his cinematic concerns are with that. Likewise in von Trier's or Scorsese's cases we can speak of their interests or concerns or attitudes "as filmmakers" which is another way of talking about what they produced. We don't know "who they are" as people but we can deduce who they are as filmmakers.
I don't know that input is "essential" in film criticism - what's most crucial is what's onscreen - but I don't see how it can hurt. In Wong Kar-Wai's case it may not impact our understanding of the film's jump cuts but if in another case the director had a certain effect in mind it can give us a new perspective to find out what it was - just as another viewer's reading of something can also shift our opinion or give us new "eyes." In the filmmaker's case, more so, because that perspective actually shaped what we saw in some regard. Anyway, I don't think it's either/or.
I like the triange analogy.
MovieMan,
ReplyDelete"That doesn't mean they didn't shape it into something approaching their vision, or that they're vision didn't inform all these accidents, compromises, and happenstance going in."
Yes, I agree. I'm just trying to deal with the troublesome issues arising from seeing absolutes...
"We don't know "who they are" as people but we can deduce who they are as filmmakers."
Yes, I agree. Some of what I'm saying here is indeed semantic and I do exaggerate and take out of context in order to better see and address what little qualms I have.
"We don't know "who they are" as people but we can deduce who they are as filmmakers."
"I don't know that input is "essential" in film criticism - what's most crucial is what's onscreen - but I don't see how it can hurt."
No, it can't hurt but I'm just saying you can go too far and end up slamming your head against a brick wall.
"I like the triangle analogy."
Thank you.
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteThis is marvelous. I was discussing this with a friend in a post that I put up two weeks ago. Does the intention of the director override every evidence in the film or not?
The characters, clearly, needn't reflect the filmmaker, but the attitude of the film towards them sure does reflect the filmmaker's/writer's sensibilities. You know that Cameron's conscious message in Avatar is far from the subconscious message, through the film's choices, that is transmitted to us. I felt the two were completely out of sync.
I'm currently reading Robin Wood's book on Hitch. He seems to discuss the same in about 50 pages, bringing into and criticizing semiotics and structuralism and the notion of cultural authorship to ultimately defend the major tenets of the auteur theory.
'll come back to post more soon.
JAFB, glad you're bringing in Wood, semiotics, cultural authorship et al. It occurs to me that the likes of Barthes, Derrida, and other postmodern thinkers (as well as those who applied some of the new questions about lit crit to cinema) could add a lot to this discussion; but as I'm not particularly well-versed in any of these names, I'll leave it to you guys - or another guest!
ReplyDeletePsst...
ReplyDeleteI think I found your screen-shot (2/3 of the way down):
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews37/4_months_3_weeks_2_days.htm
For some reason, DVD Beaver - though it has far and away the most far-ranging catalog of screen-caps on the net - doesn't show up in google searches...
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI know zilch about these topics. Just that Wood makes it so clear in his discussion. I'm almost through with the 50 pages. Here's what seems to be the summary so far:
He tells us that the semiotics, Barthes et al., propose the notion that "the author does not write, he is written" (which is another way of saying "the author is dead") by his culture and that every modern art form can be deconstructed down to generic cultural symbols, tropes, stereotypes and pop opinions. Wood tells us that the director, for them, is basically a builder who takes this preformatted bricks to assemble their work.
Wood, on the other hand, believes that artists (and humans) cannot simply be reduced to ideologies and that there is always a human dimension consciously trying to impose a uniqueness of its own. He backs all his specific arguments with his own political ideology that looks like a meticulously concocted cocktail of Marxism, Feminism, Humanism and Spirituality (dismissed from organized religion and proposing that man's innate nature isn't entirely defined by external forces).
Consequently, he seems to arrive at a theory that recognizes both how contemporary culture influences a work of art and how the artist - the individual - can twist and rebuild those symbols (even when the larger structures of genre, production and commerce seem restrictive) to assert a unique authorial signature. His theory seems to take into consideration both the conscious choices of the director (his individualism, sensibilities and intellectuality) and the unconscious decisions that lie beneath and seep into the work (that the semiotics seem to consider as the only base for evaluation).
I kind of like Wood's method. Since, in cinema, the artist is far removed from his audience, it is a tedious task to try to match the evidence we obtain from the film and the conscious intention of the director. Although this may lead to reading too much, I feel any such interpretation based on sound evidence and arguments shouldn't be discarded. The best way, like Wood, would be to take the film as it is, know the specific sociopolitical and autobiographical situation it was made in and arrive at an evaluation that both credits the culture that defines the film and the artist who intervenes to make the film from being completely conformist to culture.
I think I'm gonna love Wood's book.
JAFB,
ReplyDelete"This is marvelous."
Thank you very much.
"The best way, like Wood, would be to take the film as it is, know the specific sociopolitical and autobiographical situation it was made in and arrive at an evaluation that both credits the culture that defines the film and the artist who intervenes to make the film from being completely conformist to culture."
I'm going to have to track this book down. Of course there are directors who seem to conform less than others. I have read precisely nothing on this sort of thing.
I was seeking to pose questions as much as answer them because there are so many grey areas involved. My thoughts were about letting those grey areas remain grey and rejecting absolutes and challenging the convincing illusion of film and director as one.
Thank you for steering me in the direction of some interesting writing. I hope I don't get lost in the dark and disorienting woods of film theory.
"Psst...
ReplyDeleteI think I found your screen-shot"
Ah, thank you very much.
Thank again, MovieMan.
ReplyDeleteThe image is in place.
Sure do. Woods may seem like distorting certain theories to the extreme, but what he does with those distortions is simply brilliant and provocative.
ReplyDeleteYes, Even V.F. Perkins talks about "fluke masterpieces". Now is it really fair to discredit a great work just because the director, may be years after its acclaim, tells us that he intended none of those? Food for thought.
Thanks for the wonderful article and Cheers!
I do not disagree with the substance of your article. Indeed, cinema being such a hugely collaborative and lengthy process that it is impossible to infer from a film or even a body of films that we truly know the mind of a director or screenwriter.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, to turn this argument around, what can we really infer from an audience member who professes that he loves the work of Van Trier or Peckinpah? Maybe he is a misogynistic lover of violence and cruelty that tortures small creatures whilst his wife does all of the housework. On the other hand, maybe he is just indulging one smally corner of his mind through celluloid escapism.
At the same time, by reducing its significance above, I think that you too readily dismiss the role of the creator in terms of how art should be appreciated. Attempting to understand an artist, his life, environment, and preoccupations can surely only enhance and enrich one's appreciation of his or her art.
Now, this is not to lose sight of your point. There are dozens of film directors whose work that I admire of whom I know nothing about them outside of their name, approximate age, gender, and nationality!
Yet, being aware that Van Trier had a breakdown prior to making Antichrist gives an interesting insight into the film. Equally, knowing about Peckinpah's rural Californian upbringing adds to one's understanding of his cinema.
You call it a triangle. Unlike MovieMan, I am not sure if this is apt, though, as it implies an relationship between the director and audience that is independent of the film. Rather, I think of it as a Venn diagram, where the director and each audience member are sets and the film is where they intersect to some extent or other.
Good article on the whole. Just picking up on a few points really in a slightly hurried fashion!
Thanks for the comments Longman,
ReplyDelete"Indeed, to turn this argument around, what can we really infer from an audience member who professes that he loves the work of Van Trier or Peckinpah? Maybe he is a misogynistic lover of violence and cruelty that tortures small creatures whilst his wife does all of the housework. On the other hand, maybe he is just indulging one smally corner of his mind through celluloid escapism."
Yes, a very good point you make here.
"Attempting to understand an artist, his life, environment, and preoccupations can surely only enhance and enrich one's appreciation of his or her art."
I do agree. I am addressing the danger of assumptions and absolutes. Of course these perspectives are/can be of interest. I'm not downplaying the all-important role of the maker, I'm merely suggesting that criticism redresses the balances on certain aspects a little.
I think some of the difficulties questions of "intent" raise have to do with taking intent as something that exists prior to the text, and forms the text. While that might be literally true - it hardly matters, because the only way we can know anything about intentions is through the text. I think the intentions of whatever relevant artists are involved have to be read - "intent" is often just part of the meaning of the text...
ReplyDeleteThe other problem is that there are no such things as self-sufficient, self-contained texts. A film is a specific text - but it's part of other texts (as much as a given shot is part of the sequence or the film). ANTICHRIST is a film itself, but it's also a film signed by Lars von Trier, a body of films with definite shared images and themes and story situations and characters; it is a horror film, and an art film, positioned in relationship with other horror and art films. It is made a particular way, that can itself shape how we read it, impose meanings or at least suggest what things mean. Von Trier is a good director to talk about this way, since he is very much aware of all the contexts and codes that can surround a film. His films are very intertextual, with their quotes and references, and he is extremely interested in the physical processes of making films. Dogme, the 100 camera stuff he talked about making Dancer in the Dark, the automated camera stuff he used in Boss of it All - even his famous refusal to fly seems to be at least partly a kind of formal limitation, forcing him to work in Europe, even if he's setting films in the US. All of which shapes what gets on film, as well as how they are seen. (And, I suppose, since a big chunk of this stuff seems to be a joke, deliberately undermining attempts to pin their meanings down.)
I largely share and celebrate Wood's approach. Narrow-minded determinism, with thinly-veiled moralistic ideological overtones, is so prevalent in academia today and helps account for the increasing airlessness of intellectual discourse for the past 30 years. Among the many books I'm reading right now (because, alas, I can't focus on one at a time) is Harold Bloom's Genius which takes a similar approach.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I love about the auteur theory is that, for all its flaws, it approaches cinema with a romantic enthusiasm which the medium deserves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intentionality
ReplyDeleteI am a huge fan of Wood's Hitchcock volume and hope to hear your summary appraisal JAFB. I am "between movies" at my house now, having just seen SHUTTER ISLAND, and heading out to see a documentary at the Cinema Village, so presently I am not prepared for a lengthy comment here. But this is an intellectually challenging discourse and the comemnt section here is extraordinary.
ReplyDeleteStephen, the font-size you use for your posts is too small...
ReplyDeleteTony,
ReplyDeleteThis is the only font that I really like the look of and if I make it bigger (I just tried it out) it becomes massive and bold too.
It used to be even smaller, actually (there is a remnant of this smallness, which I can't change, at the start of my Revenge of the Sith essay)
Do you find it easier to read white on black?
Most other blogs, including your own, seem to use font of the same size. I'm sorry Tony but I just don't think it would be particularly appealing or smart if the font was bigger.
Thanks, Sam.
ReplyDeleteThese are simple thoughts, things I've noticed over the years.
I've never really read anything on this subject and I think part of me doesn't want to! The more I think about how to go about thinking the more conscious of and withdrawn from my natural way of viewing films I might become. Generally I don't like to get at the brute mechanics.
This is a conversation that actually touches on many aspects of human life and all of art. I look forward to reading your contribution(s) to this 'extraordinary' comments section, Sam.
No worries Stephen re the font. I can cope - I am using a res of 1680*1050 so I am probably in a minority...
ReplyDeleteOK, Tony.
ReplyDeleteAs I was telling a friend who dislikes the idea of criticism (all my friends seem to, what with me being in a science college and all), it doesn't matter what you say, but if you are able to substantiate it from the piece of art and it feels right, it's fine to say it.
ReplyDeleteIn most cases, the substantiation is not important except on a vague level.
I think this whole business of intentionality carries over to criticism as well. Writing is also a smokescreen in the sort of way cinema is, and we may often carry away meaning the critic never intended, but meaning which may shape forever our view of that film as well as the critic.
In fact, come to think of it, all communication is subject to the smokescreen effect; it's just human to try and map out the person from the stimuli we receive rather than look for all the stimuli that that person gives out.
All that said, I have to say that I essentially agree with all of the comments here and only mean to add to them.
"In most cases, the substantiation is not important except on a vague level."
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more.
"...it's just human to try and map out the person from the stimuli we receive rather than look for all the stimuli that that person gives out."
Good point
"All that said, I have to say that I essentially agree with all of the comments here and only mean to add to them."
Well, thank you Ronak you've added to them very intelligently.
One more interesting bit about us trying to create an artist from the art: http://denisdutton.com/hatto.htm
ReplyDeleteThank you, Ronak.
ReplyDeleteWhat a story that is. You've got to admire her chutzpah.
I've said all of this stuff before, it seems to me, although I'm sure you've said it better. I didn't even bother reading it all because I already saw myself speaking in the premises that I figured the arguments would lead in the same way. But, then, this is probably inferring from the text that I understand the author's intent and, well... hypocrisy is agreeable to me.
ReplyDeleteThis is my boring statement of agreement, with a dash of hypocrisy to flavor it a bit.
Thanks, Leaves!
ReplyDelete