tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850434496522412492.post7111235565487922348..comments2023-10-19T05:46:47.188-07:00Comments on The Cine File: On the Interview in Film Criticismandrew schenkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03827165807994115459noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850434496522412492.post-71282509620563207102009-08-25T11:16:01.408-07:002009-08-25T11:16:01.408-07:00I wrote this just the other day:
"[I]’ve alw...I wrote this just the other day:<br /><br /><i>"[I]’ve always preferred to think of myself as an entertainer first and artist second, primarily because entertainers can’t get away with resumes, credentials and clever artist’s statements. Entertainers have to make people laugh or cry, and would be horrified to find a theater half -empty at the end of one of their films.</i><br /><br />Of course being of this disposition, I then made the fatal mistake of pursuing subject matter wherein my intentions count for more than what I put on the screen; and having the wrong intentions can get my films banned or land me or my distributors in jail.<br /><br />C'est la vie?Tony Comstockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06376376894244593929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850434496522412492.post-79621768682403078822009-08-24T12:58:35.497-07:002009-08-24T12:58:35.497-07:00Thanks, Joseph.
Obviously I liked your piece quit...Thanks, Joseph.<br /><br />Obviously I liked your piece quite a bit and had been thinking a great deal about it since you posted it in May, so I was glad to be able to use it as a springboard for some of my thoughts on authorial intent.<br /><br />I think you make one more very good point about the possible harmful effects of the director interview when you note that, if anything, an artist may be a less valuable interpreter of his own work than an outsider since direct engagement with the process of creation can color his perspective in ways potentially harmful to analysis. Which is not to say, I suppose, that this perspective has no value, but that we should be very wary of applying it wholesale to our own interpretations.andrew schenkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03827165807994115459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850434496522412492.post-151040504215254312009-08-24T12:37:58.726-07:002009-08-24T12:37:58.726-07:00A great post, and I'm not simply saying that b...A great post, and I'm not simply saying that because I was quoted and engaged with (thanks much for that, btw...glad to see someone actually that piece, considering that it's one of the few I've written this year that I don't completely regret, but I digress).<br /><br />Dan and Jason both make excellent points, and in the case of the Sorin issue, I think that what was done with the artist's interpretation was, indeed, the problem. Don't get me wrong: the influence of "Wild Strawberries" on "The Window" is certainly there on the screen, but it's so superficial (a senescent academic, contemplation, pastoral landscapes) that I assumed no critic worth his/her salt would dare use that as the germ for a thesis. Boy, was I mistaken. The more observant folks got that Sorin was channeling Borges before Bergman, but the rest--including Sarris--seemed to be lashing out at him for not simply delivering an Argentine "Wild Strawberries" (which makes little sense). In this case not only were critics holding an artist's interpretation of his own work as definitive -- they were holding him to his interpretive word as well. This frustrated me for the simple fact that "The Window" is still the best film I've seen all year--the only example of unadulterated cinematic mastery--and it seemed as though if Sorin had never made the foolhardy connection to "Wild Strawberries" in the first place his project would have received better write-ups. Let's hope the Dardenne's quotes aren't thrown back in their faces, either.<br /><br />Finally, I certainly do feel an artist has the right to interpret his own work, but no more so than anyone else--perhaps less so, in fact, because having inside knowledge of an artwork's genesis can "color" your perspective in ways that hinder more usefully concrete commentary on the finished product. And while treating an artist's intention/self-analysis as sacrosanct isn't exclusively 19th century, it does seem to have been rampant during that time; Coleridge and Wordsworth put out annotated versions of their own poems after tiring of what they considered misinterpretations (can you imagine TS Eliot or Ginsberg doing the same?). But the relationship between art and spectator was far more didactic in the romantic era.<br /><br />This didacticism is returning today, however, not only in the form of what you're referring to above and the issue of interviewing artists but also in the stereotype that critics are "out-of-touch" with both the general public and artists, existing only as nocuous filters (or even obstacles) between a work of art and its audience. This would be a laughable notion if we weren't essentially playing into it by assuming that a perfunctory quote by a director in a film's press packet is to be adopted as a measure of aesthetic merit. <br /><br />To put the shoe on the other foot, can you imagine if folks starting assessing film criticism this way? "Well, what I was TRYING to do with this piece is write my own version of Manny Farber's 'Underground Films'." More evidence that criticism is rarely treated or approached as a true art form, even by its most hallowed practitioners. <br /><br />(sorry for the lengthy comment...)Joseph "Jon" Lanthierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00826623899121215596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850434496522412492.post-52849760189537565852009-08-24T10:09:12.366-07:002009-08-24T10:09:12.366-07:00Dan,
I suppose you're right that critics who u...Dan,<br />I suppose you're right that critics who uncritically incline to authorial interpretation would find other material to capitulate to if they didn't have the interviews to draw on. But what bothers me is that these directorial interviews seem by their nature designed to suss out the artist's personal take on his film and then because of his authority to present this interpretation as a standard of judgment, whether the interviewer intends this or not. Ideally, one would not take the director's statement as the final word in interpretation, and the fault is probably more with the critic who does so than with the interviewer himself. But still, from a philosophical point of view, such direct fishing for the director's own interpretation seems to me, at least potentially, to be very dangerous. The problem isn't that the director's point-of-view is less valid than ours, it's that it unavoidably carries so much more weight.<br /><br /><br />Jason,<br /><br />"Determining intent is a worthwhile endeavor in many ways. But intent doesn't supersede what's actually on the screen."<br /><br />I think it's important to distinguish between what the filmmaker says his intent is and what the film may actually seem to be trying to accomplish. So if a film, for example, makes an obvious allusion to a previous movie, it's fair to say the film's intent is to recall that earlier work. But as in the case of Carlos Sorin, just because he says he's invoking <i>Wild Strawberries</i> doesn't mean the result is there on-screen. So in the sense that the intent is discernible in the actual product I agree that "determining intent" can be "a worthwhile endeavor."andrew schenkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03827165807994115459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850434496522412492.post-82172948505113474042009-08-24T09:33:10.098-07:002009-08-24T09:33:10.098-07:00"it presumes to place the filmmaker’s reading..."it presumes to place the filmmaker’s reading of his own work as the standard by which the final product ought to be judged"<br /><br />Indeed! However, while your criticism of lazy journalism is apt, not to be overlooked is lazy (journalism and cinema) consumption. Yes, these interviews further the idea that the director's intentions are the thing by which the final project should be judged. Then again, even without that, many movie fans quickly fall back on source material -- what was in the original novel, or the history book, or the screenplay.<br /><br />Determining intent is a worthwhile endeavor in many ways. But intent doesn't supersede what's actually on the screen.<br /><br />Thoughtful post. Thanks!Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850434496522412492.post-63429228775279139402009-08-24T09:30:35.098-07:002009-08-24T09:30:35.098-07:00Andrew - isn't the problem less about our gett...Andrew - isn't the problem less about our getting the interpretation from the artist, and more about what we do with it? I'd hate for interviewers to "scrupulouly avoid" issues of intention: artists are often well-positioned to give us interesting leads: and in any case their angles are no less valid than ours. If critics are inclined to capitulate to authorial interpretation too readily, that's a problem with critics: they'll just find something else to capitulate to if we take their interview material away.Dan Sallitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13136066978329749513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850434496522412492.post-31449805203078476392009-08-24T08:18:50.789-07:002009-08-24T08:18:50.789-07:00Thanks, Catherine!Thanks, Catherine!andrew schenkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03827165807994115459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850434496522412492.post-28293105901230015642009-08-24T08:04:35.028-07:002009-08-24T08:04:35.028-07:00A wonderful post - thank you. And timely, too! (Ju...A wonderful post - thank you. And timely, too! (Just added to a long links list on film criticism: http://bit.ly/sEp1U)Catherine Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844538902594202591noreply@blogger.com