Reception v. Intent

[mattorama12]

I just saw Harakiri for the first time. It's a true masterpiece. As I've discussed on other threads, I think a true masterpiece must be entertaining and must have something to say (or at least artfully pose questions).

I think few would argue that Harakiri appears to have something to say. [To follow under the spoiler tag are general discussions about the film that talk about theme, without discussing any specific plot points. That said, I put under the tag because I wouldn't have wanted to read it before I saw the movie] [spoiler]Reading through professional and non-professional reviews on this site and elsewhere, there is near universal consensus the film is a critique of (1) authority in general, (2) feudalism more specifically, and/or (3) the Bushida Code. It's hard to not to get that sense from the movie. The screenplay, quite honestly, seems open to no other interpretation. YET, an interview on the Criterion edition with the screenwriter, Shinobu Hashimoto, had me all turned around. He said that he only wanted to tell a story about a samurai ranting and raving with anger before he commits hara-kiri. He said that the critique of feudalism was never his intention.[/spoiler]

The question is, then, what are some other examples of films that seem to have something to say that was apparently unintentional?

[CMonster]

Honestly, I feel this way about a lot of film and book interpretations or critiques. I remember reading To Kill A Mockingbird in high school and we went over probably about 10 different interpretations all explaining a web of symbolism that just felt like people reading way to much into things. Same would apply to the film. Another example would be The Shining. So over interpreted they made that Room 237 documentary which by all means was mostly nuts.

[cinesexual]

Not everyone who receives a film well, or badly for that matter, is necessarily doing any interpreting — trying to figure out what it really means or is trying to say, or what the author really means or is trying to say. I've never thought that the author of anything is necessarily the best or only authority on his or her own text, and whether or not there is a single film author at all is not a settled question anyway.

My own feeling, and I guess Sontag would have agreed with me, is that interpretation in the sense of finding out what a work really means, is an act of impoverishment and of denial.

Films are experiences and there are as many experiences of them as there are people who see them, and another viewing might yield another experience. I've had that happen to me many times when re-watching films I loved and returning to films I thought I hated. The meaning of a work of art isn't locked down, in other words. And that's a good thing.

[mattorama12]

I remember reading To Kill A Mockingbird in high school and we went over probably about 10 different interpretations all explaining a web of symbolism that just felt like people reading way to much into things. Same would apply to the film. Another example would be The Shining. So over interpreted they made that Room 237 documentary which by all means was mostly nuts.

I never liked English as a student because of this horrible way of teaching it. I only found out in college and since that many of the books I was supposed to read (and didn't) were actually really good.

The meaning of a work of art isn't locked down, in other words. And that's a good thing.

I totally agree with you. And it's why I think it's interesting to find examples where the filmmaker's intent (when (s)he has explicitly stated the intent outside of the work itself) differs wildly from any general consensus on the film. That's also why a film like The Shining wouldn't the focus I was going for here--there's certainly no general consensus on what the meaning of that movie is.

[LEAVES]

I think the words from Shinobu Hashimoto which you mention could equally be the topic of this thread, since he may have intended for you to take his words at face value, but I don't believe him for an instant - unless he simply wants to say that he is only interested in the translation of such words to the screen from a source novel which established the themes. The story as a basis of criticism of authority is so blatant that to be oblivious while writing it would essentially require illiteracy. The occurrence of artists denying, playing down, or lying about their intentions is widespread, though. I would do it - sounds like a ton of fun!

However, it is absurd to think that people in the 1960s would be writing a critique of feudalism and the Bushido Code. That would be like Terrence Malick dropping everything to make a film decrying the practice of alchemy as a method of producing gold. That's just lazy criticism, if it exists. I would imagine that the most common interpretations would revolve around authority, hypocrisy, and the illusion of historical ideals, among other things.

To answer your question, though, I would say that every film can be interpreted in ways that are unintentional, as films don't ever say anything - once created, the viewer gives the text its voice. How many voices the film gives rise to may be only limited by the richness of the text and the imagination and idiosyncrasies of its viewers.

[snallygaster]

Sometimes it feels a bit cheeky to not take a filmmaker at their word, but at the same time it's common for artists to push back against attempts to "interpret" their work. A recent example that comes to mind: in Inside Llewyn Davis,
[spoiler]The Coens pointed out in an interview that if you watch carefully you can see that the animal Llewyn hits with the car isn't actually The Cat. Viewers just think they see the cat because it's a natural connection to make and it's too fast to get a good look at the animal. Fair enough, you sneaky Coens! But then they claim it wasn't even intentional and that they weren't even thinking of the cat when they put that scene in and hadn't made that connection themselves. Which is obviously bullshit.[/spoiler]

However, it is absurd to think that people in the 1960s would be writing a critique of feudalism and the Bushido Code. That would be like Terrence Malick dropping everything to make a film decrying the practice of alchemy as a method of producing gold. That's just lazy criticism, if it exists.

No, revisionist samurai films were a response to the mythology of bushido, etc., as traditionally portrayed. They closely parallel the revisionist western.

Personally, I think the intent of the filmmaker is of secondary importance at best.

[LEAVES]

I still find it hard to believe that someone would deconstruct bushido for its own sake, and within such a deconstruction the particular angle they take would belie a certain attitude towards human behavior, which would transcend the particulars of a given code. Basically, I'm sticking with the alchemy example.