I'm paraphrasing since don't have the exact quote, but the film critic Mark Kermode once said of director's interpretations of their work: "You only made this, I actually had to watch it." I wasn't sure how I felt about that until I read ***** Planet. Now, ***** Planet is a fairly good comic with an interesting art style and story. However, what the author thinks she's written and what she's actually written are completely different. What I think the book about is about how totalitarian dictatorships control the masses and make them enjoy being controlled. However, judging by the author's notes at the back she apparently thinks she's writing about feminism and female oppression. It's entirely possible I've missed the point, but in my own arrogant way I'd like to think she forgot to put the ideas she actually wanted to convey into the work, and my friends who also read it agree. Has anyone else ever thought a similar thing about this or any other piece of art?
As a historian, I've constantly run into a particular phenomenon that resembles what you're talking about. Basically, when someone creates something, a speech or pamphlet for example, once that something has been released to an audience, the author loses control over their creation. The audience is able to interpret that creation however they see fit and further use that interpretation as they desire as well, regardless of the desires or intent of the original creator.
Oh, it happened to me a LOT in college. Of course, I also think--as did some of my classmates I found out later--that the teacher had it in for me, so that didn't help. There were times where I thought I had a poem or short story nailed, and yet I'd get my papers back and I was always wrong. So there's an example of apparently the author meaning one thing and me getting something totally different out of it--at least according to my teacher.
However, I will offer up another example, one that many people may be familiar with. Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", a very depressing book. Sinclair wanted the book to be a rallying cry for the working people of America. Some say he wanted them to rise up against the greed in capitalism, and possibly capitalism as a whole, and join Socialism. He meant for the book to be about how horrible people were treated at meat packing plants and by big business in general.
However, that's not what the public took away from the book. They were appalled by the conditions described in the book, sure, but not because they felt bad for the characters--they suddenly realized they were eating this crap! The stuff that went on in the books, the filth and grime that went into the meat at the plants, was what they were consuming at breakfast, lunch, and dinner. As such, they demanded that reforms be made. Again, not because of what was happening to the workers, but because they had just found out what they were actually eating.
As Sinclair himself said, "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."
As Dopo said, this is Death of the Author. Auteur Theory is rightfully dead because, frankly, its kind of foolish. Of course people will have multiple interpretations of stories. Some are so obvious in what the author intends that its absolutely transparent, like Animal Farm, and others more obfuscated, but the author isn't the one sitting down to experience it. I think its important to recognize what the author intends when analyzing a story but your analysis is just as valid.
People can, and will, read all sorts of shit into stories. Usually shit that conveniently confirms their current shit. Either that or shit that must surely be a direct and personal attack against their own shit.
There's nothing exactly wrong with that. If I were to write something I wouldn't mind people interpreting it any way they liked. However there's a thin line between "personal interpretation" and "complete load of waffling bollocks".
I know when I'm thinking about what a story "means", the one and only interpretation I'm interested in is that of the person who made it. Even if they did a poor job of communicating their intended meaning. The rest is just noise.
Granted, that can get tricky when it comes to collaborative efforts like movies.
An optimistic hero who is a symbol of American values inflicting the greatest nation tragedy America ever experienced, 9/11, a hundred times over with a callous disregard for human life in a childish grudge match from which he learns nothing.
Interestingly, I didn't like the movie and I had a different interpretation. I wasn't too bothered about "the symbol of American values" because I've never viewed Superman like that. Two reasons: one is that I'm not from the States, second that I've never really been exposed to Superman that much. I mean I know who he is - fairly recognisable and so on, all over the cartoons I watched as a child, as well, however, I never really knew he was supposed to be upholding American values. Dude was just flying around and zapping people with his eyes, back when I was a kid, and that was about it.
At any rate, the reason I didn't like it can probably be summarized as "pointlessness". Really, I can't make it shorter than that, however, I'll have to elaborate on what I mean here - in no particular order:
- the way it was shot was pointless. It begins in, like, 3/4s into the timeline or some shit, then jumps back, then forward a bit and so on. It was all over the place. It was convey somewhat a "documentary" feel, I think, then it blended into Louis' investigation but it just felt...well, wasted. Pointless.
- setting up Superman as Jesus. Oh, that was really a waste of time. Seriously. Why the hell would you do that? Sure, we get it, he's the good guy. We could guess that already - he's Superman after all. If somebody who was a devote Christian and didn't know anything about the character went and saw the movie, they'd still not need the symbology to guess that Superman is a good guy. He's the main character, after all. Again, pointless.
- the beginning on Krypton. OK, not the entire thing - getting some backstory more than "Krypton blew up. Oh, here is a guy who survived and he's bad" is good, however, it just felt overstreched. I think that segment was around 20 minutes which is not an issue by itself, but it felt stretched. Especially the last scene with Kal-El's mother walking away in slow motion as the planet exploded. OK, sure - some cool imagery. But ultimately pointless. It could have been compressed - I remember sitting there thinking "why the fuck is she just lounging around when her world is literally ending".
- Clark's life. No, I'm not saying his life was pointless but the way it was portrayed.
The scene with the tornado? Absolutely fucking avoidable. I don't know how it was meant to be in any way a problem. His father sacrificed himself for nothing. Clark could have ran and grabbed the stupid dog or whatever it was from the car and be done with it if it wasn't for his father actually stopping him. And even if the tornado did take him, so what? Would the witnesses there really see him surviving? Fuck no - at most, they'd see some completely random shmo being sucked by a tornado. Clark and his (adoptive) parents know he'd survive - everybody else - they'd have no idea. Even if some of the completely random witnesses managed to actually meet Clark or his parents ever again, they could just go "Oh yeah me/my son survived that miraculously. We thank the Lord every day". Done. Finished. Finitto. Case closed. Would anybody really make the logical conclusion "Oh, that means he MUST have had super endurance and is thus some sort of super-man"? No, they'd assume he was injured but survived. Or maybe not injured - who the fuck cares, whatever the case, they wouldn't think Clark was abnormal and thus survived just because he's an alien.
Totally pointless sacrifice for a totally fake bit of tension.
and there was the truck stop scene
Worst. Petty. Revenge. Ever. Also, after your (adoptive) father literally sacrificed himself so you don't get "discovered", that's the absolute worst fucking way to lay low. Oh sure, giant ass trucks just happen to tie themselves to a noose high above where anybody can reach. There was, what, like 20 people in that diner or something? Gee, I wonder how big the suspect list is.
But back to the beginning here - that was absolutely a petty revenge. Only it wasn't petty. It was tying a truck to a knot up on some pole. In retaliation to...some guy making fun of you a little. There is overreaction and then there is this.
- Zod was just...I'll say it - pointlessly over the top. "Oh, sorry Kal-el - we can't live in peace with Earth because we don't even know if we'll adapt to the atmosphere here. I'll just destroy your entire planet for that." and like literally half an hour after he is exposed to the atmosphere (fuck, even less, perhaps) he is suddenly completely adapted and isn't bothered at all.
That's off the top of my head. I found pretty much every aspect of the movie has some irrelevant and insignificant bits added. The messages it tried to convey rung hollow because of it and the entire thing felt like padding that pretended it isn't.
I think this is a common problem in art because of inherit 'flaws' in the concept. 'Classical' art, whether it be written, heard, or watched, is supposed to engage the audience, which ultimately means that at least part of the process is 'offloaded' onto the consumer. However, people are different, so what they bring in themselves can sometimes color the experience more then than the artist themselves. So an artist can put 'too much' effort into the piece, creating an experience that completely overwhelms the viewer and leaves them with nothing to do (Avatar's absurdly heavy hand with its morals comes to mind), or they can put so little into it that whatever message they intended is completely lost (Many people missed the themes present in Robocop (The Original), for example, as they were easily washed out by just by how cool a Robot Cop is).
I can't think of any recent personal examples that dealt with themes as lofty as dictatorship or feminism. I apparently missed the point of Psychopass - It seems its supposed to be a detailed analysis of the balance between security and freedom through the lens of Japanese culture. I just thought it was a bunch of two dimensional morons running around in a quasi-fascist wet dream. I'm informed by everyone I've ever talked to about it that I'm dead wrong, though, so I guess that the problems on my end, not the creators.
On that note, I suppose I should mention that sometimes, its the case that the viewer is 'fucking up' when interpreting the work, and not the creators. An extreme example would be the new Star Wars - a small portion of the population saw it and thought that the biggest take away was forced diversity. One deranged individual put it as having 'big black dick' forced on him. It's a case of the individuals mentality being so overwhelming that all art, no matter what its intent, is forced through as something entirely different. So I think it's worth double checking with other people before claiming that a work missed its intended mark. None of us are immune to our own sometimes bizarre biases.
I'm in full on ramble mode, so I'm gonna post this and go off to find a 40K RPG hit table before I go completely off the mark here.
As Dopo said, this is Death of the Author. Auteur Theory is rightfully dead because, frankly, its kind of foolish. Of course people will have multiple interpretations of stories. Some are so obvious in what the author intends that its absolutely transparent, like Animal Farm, and others more obfuscated, but the author isn't the one sitting down to experience it. I think its important to recognize what the author intends when analyzing a story but your analysis is just as valid.
People can, and will, read all sorts of shit into stories. Usually shit that conveniently confirms their current shit. Either that or shit that must surely be a direct and personal attack against their own shit.
There's nothing exactly wrong with that. If I were to write something I wouldn't mind people interpreting it any way they liked. However there's a thin line between "personal interpretation" and "complete load of waffling bollocks".
I know when I'm thinking about what a story "means", the one and only interpretation I'm interested in is that of the person who made it. Even if they did a poor job of communicating their intended meaning. The rest is just noise.
Granted, that can get tricky when it comes to collaborative efforts like movies.
I've got to go with Zhukov on this one. In my opinion, personal interpretation is much less important than that of the author. Personal interpretations can vary wildly and, quite frankly, be completely invalid, let alone just as valid as the author. If I went on sperging about how Fight Club was about white supremacists, since the protagonist built a personal army of of skinheads, or how Huckleberry Finn was about the black supremacy due to its portrayals of ignorant white people, everyone would be right in telling me I was full of shit and that my personal interpretation was both wrong and worthless.
I give much more weight to what the author meant in their work than that of some random person whose personal worldviews and experiences will likely skew their interpretation so far its completely off base.
Ray Bradbury (The author of Farenheit 451) was told by a class he was giving a lecture to that his interpretation of his book was wrong.
As ridiculous as that situation was, I think that there is some merit to the idea of somebody's work being detatched from the author. Whatever you intend to communicate in your work, what people get out of your work will be what the work ended up actually communicating to them. For instance, EL James intended for Anastasia Steele to be brave, cultured, witty and a good friend. Despite those intentions the character is none of those.
You missed possibly the worst and most shoe-horned in romance I've ever seen in a movie. They spend pretty much the whole movie not building any sort of chemistry or relationship between them (besides the fact that Lois is just obsessed with him), and end it with a kiss that feels like they added in 5 minutes after finishing filming just to say there was a romance in it.
And it's nonsense. An authors interpretation of a work is concrete. A mere critic will never be able to understand the work on the level of the creator. This is probably one of the most arrogant theories in academia. It's also incredibly narrow minded. Advocates of Death of the Author like to claim that there's nothing outside the text. That the only thing that matters is the work itself. Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. A work of art is a product of a time, a place, and, yes, a person. How could one hope to fully understand Dante's Divine Comedy without also understanding Dante? The two are inseparable. Art is not created in a vacuum. To claim otherwise is to throw out a large body of very important research.
I've most often seen grave of the Fireflies been harolded as a major anti-war movie, and while it serves that cpacity, I've also read the movie's intended message was more about respecting one's elders as going it alone can have a bad end in real life.
death of the author is a funny thing. On the one hand, I do give preference to the author's intent where possible and anything can be interpreted many ways, and always by personal opinions and biases. The Man of Steel thing for example has often been less about liking or disliking the movie, so much as liking or disliking it's presentation. You have the negative interpretation if you see Superman as a beacon of hope and nobility, while you're more tolerant of it if you were okay with a superhero movie trying to be more realistic with the property damage and risk to civilians.
On the other hand, authors are people too, and frankly, can fuck up whatever they were going for often due to their own biases and values, or just idiocy. A glaring example in my mind was the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland: watch Alice learn to cast off the life she was born into and make her own choices...by blindly accepting her role in a prophacy negating the idea of her free will. Others have pointed out the bigotry toward the X-Men came off less irrational hateful and more legitimate and understandable fear when cyclops blew up a building, or Magneto showed he could kill the president at a whim if he chose. Most often however is when it is one sided. From Ayn Rand's works to Captain Planet, little hurts an argument than a work of one dimension good guys versus one dimensional bad guys. Makes great action, but for ethical arguments, it's just strawmanning.
There is a story of some author who was approached by his nephew[footnote]or it might have been grandson or something. I'll just go with nephew[/footnote] to help him with an assignment that was about one of the author's works. So the author helped his nephew, as in, he wrote the entire assignment. And then the assignment was marked with an F and the comment was "That's not what the author thought!".
It's entirely possible this is made up, in fact, I wouldn't claim it's true - it's just a somewhat popular story I've heard. However, there is another thing - it's entirely possible it's correct, since I see no reason why this couldn't happen in the real world.
And it's nonsense. An authors interpretation of a work is concrete. A mere critic will never be able to understand the work on the level of the creator. This is probably one of the most arrogant theories in academia. It's also incredibly narrow minded. Advocates of Death of the Author like to claim that there's nothing outside the text. That the only thing that matters is the work itself. Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. A work of art is a product of a time, a place, and, yes, a person. How could one hope to fully understand Dante's Divine Comedy without also understanding Dante? The two are inseparable. Art is not created in a vacuum. To claim otherwise is to throw out a large body of very important research.
I disagree. I think it's the job of the creator to understand the work on the level of the consumer. It makes complete sense to them, but that's because they wrote and their thoughts on it are tied into what they wanted to say in the work.
I disagree. I think it's the job of the creator to understand the work on the level of the consumer. It makes complete sense to them, but that's because they wrote and their thoughts on it are tied into what they wanted to say in the work.
Well, of course their thoughts are tied into the work. They likely had very specific themes they wanted to tackle.
Here's the issue. People will see whatever they want to see. My issue is that, if a work can mean anything, then it means nothing. There's a very real purpose behind a great work of art. To turn someone elses work into a vehicle for your beliefs is a little silly.
But that's not my main issue. My main issue is that a critic could never hope to have the same level of understanding as the author. They can't know about the alternate drafts, the early manuscripts, or the detailed notes that the author has. Now, some will argue that those things don't matter. That the only thing that matters is the text itself. The problem is that these things lead to a greater understanding of the text itself. Understanding the life of Jane Austen, and the time period in which she lived, is very important to understanding her work. You can't simply ignore that information, and then hope to have a complete understanding of the work. That's bad scholarship. It's even worse with writers like Dante, whose personal life is tied to the work itself. I know it makes some people feel good, that their interpretation is as valid as the author's, but it doesn't feel like an intellectually honest position.
There's a great deal of information that only the author may be privy to. Every time I read Watchmen, or watch Neon Genesis, I pick up something new. Different people may be able to understand certain pieces of the puzzle, but I doubt anyone has the whole picture... except the author. Those works are so complex, in so many different fields of study, that I don't expect to ever fully understand them. They're far too subtle. And I don't expect any critic to ever fully understand them, either. There is important information that the author may hint at, that, for the sake of subtlety, is never directly stated. This is good writing, but certain critics would argue that the artist should have made these things clear if they wanted it to be canon within the work, no matter what the author says. This strikes me as foolish. A critic can simply never hope to understand a deeply complex work of art on the same level of the author.
As Dopo said, this is Death of the Author. Auteur Theory is rightfully dead because, frankly, its kind of foolish. Of course people will have multiple interpretations of stories.
Hmm. It sounds like you're mixing up two different things here. The "Auteur Theory" is not simply the traditional notion of authorship, but a specific concept in film criticism, developed by the French "New Wave"/Cahiers du Cinema crowd in the 1950s. Briefly, it's just the claim that movies deserve greater critical respect because they reflect the singular artistic vision of an individual, the director, rather than just some bunch of people who made it together. Because a bunch can't have "A vision".
I've never been a fan of the death of the author pov.
To me, which I look at everything with a wrestling in mind. A guy doing stuff in the ring to provoke a desired reaction out of a live audience. I feel that authors, story tellers, are suppose to be just like that. Theres a certain feeling or message they're trying to convey with the art, and make it pop into the audience's head hopefully with the illusion that it was their own original thought and not a seed planted by the author.
And if work provokes that desired reaction? The work is successful. If it does not, then the work is a failure.
I'd say that an author's interpretation of their work is the correct one.
I'd also say that if an author's interpretation doesn't match the interpretation of the majority of their intended audience then he/she is a bad author.
Considering the example given in the OP I don't know if the OP is the intended audience and whether or not the majority of said intended audience shares the author's interpretation.
Whilst obviously a work is much more impressive and ambitious if it attempts to convey an idea to an extremely large and diverse group of people, I do think criticism should take into account who the intended audience was ( but please don't take that as me saying only the intended audience can be critical, that's not at all what I'm saying ).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
