re: The real Dottie lives in West Monroe

quote:

---

I see the audience (define the audience as myself really) as being the entire reason for telling a story. Without that the story is never actualized.

---

Na, the story still exists. The author already created it with or without your participation.

quote:

---

A story of true depth (probably not A League of Their Own) can sometimes convey meaning that the other never even thought of intending when mixed with the perspective of the consumer. This is the true fun of fiction for me.

---

I wouldn't disagree one bit, and this doesn't contradict the importance of the author. But you have no effect on the author (there are few exceptions).

I'm open to saying that the audience and the author engage in a dialog, but the goal of the author is to frame that dialog, control it for a purpose. His opinions, his story, his structure, is far more important than your interpretation. So unless Marshall's comment was 20 years after the movie was made (and I'm not sure we have a way to date it), then I would assume that it was the intention. And that anyone disagreeing is operating outside of the authorial intention and their opinion, with whatever facts they choose to "interpret", is irrelevant.

To me, there's no point in discussing if we allow movies to mean anything to anyone. There's nothing to discuss there because then movies are meaningless. What's the point of the board?


( And this discussion is WAY more fun than the ball dropping debate.)

quote:

---

Na, the story still exists. The author already created it with or without your participation.

---

Details of the story still exist. Meaning doesn't exist entirely until there is a reader to interpet those details.

quote:

---

I'm open to saying that the audience and the author engage in a dialog,

---

This is probably a much better way to phrase the thought that I was trying to get across. I like the image it brings in my head.

quote:

---

but the goal of the author is to frame that dialog, control it for a purpose.

---

Or I guess I would say that the author may just paint a scene, show actions unfold, and let the audience decide on personal meaning. Statements can be made explicitly, but intentions can also be left ambiguous for the audience to decide on what explanations make sense to them.

quote:

---

So unless Marshall's comment was 20 years after the movie was made (and I'm not sure we have a way to date it), then I would assume that it was the intention.

---

It may have been her intention as you said it. Shoot, it pretty much sounds like it was definitely her intention. I'm mostly arguing for ambiguity. It may have been a failure either on my own part or the part of the movie makers, but there seems to be at least some ambiguity to the scene. I still see something of a worthwhile statement either way.

quote:

---

To me, there's no point in discussing if we allow movies to mean anything to anyone. There's nothing to discuss there because then movies are meaningless. What's the point of the board?

---

I don't think so at all. It doesn't reduce meaning of a movie. It expands the meaning. The point of discussing different meanings that people derive becomes an opportunity for acquiring different ideas that people may take out of the exact same experience. It's the opportunity to see things in a different light and expand your mode of thinking.

quote:

---

Details of the story still exist. Meaning doesn't exist entirely until there is a reader to interpet those details.

---

Meaning exists too. The author had a point. He had a meaning, a lesson, a theme to communicate.

quote:

---

This is probably a much better way to phrase the thought that I was trying to get across. I like the image it brings in my head.

---

quote:

---

Or I guess I would say that the author may just paint a scene, show actions unfold, and let the audience decide on personal meaning.

---

Why personal meaning? Why is your experience more important than what the author is telling you?

quote:

---

Statements can be made explicitly, but intentions can also be left ambiguous for the audience to decide on what explanations make sense to them.

---

Even when ambiguous there's a guide, 99% of the time stories still have a goal. The truly ambiguous is rare.

quote:

---

It may have been her intention as you said it. Shoot, it pretty much sounds like it was definitely her intention. I'm mostly arguing for ambiguity. It may have been a failure either on my own part or the part of the movie makers, but there seems to be at least some ambiguity to the scene. I still see something of a worthwhile statement either way.

---

Why is ambiguity important? All that tells me is that someone, either the audience or the author, is afraid of commitment, afraid of making a case that is supported by "real" details.

Take Inception for instance. It has nothing to do with the top, and everything to do with the idea that Cobb accepts his fate either way. The top is essentially meaningless. Yet, the audience gives it all the meaning.

The best ambiguous ending of the last 10 years is probably Gone Baby Gone, but the ambiguity there is on a moral level, which is honest and real ambiguity.

quote:

---

I don't think so at all. It doesn't reduce meaning of a movie. It expands the meaning.

---

There's no meaning in expansion. It's like saying Huck Finn is about feminism because it isn't about women. I mean, I can see the twists and bends to get there, but it's stupid and does a disservice to the author's intent.

quote:

---

The point of discussing different meanings that people derive becomes an opportunity for acquiring different ideas that people may take out of the exact same experience. It's the opportunity to see things in a different light and expand your mode of thinking.

---

That's what the author is for. He is different from me. That is where I get my difference. He has a point to communicate. Therefore, my dialog is with him. And I'm already at a disadvantage. My experiences, my frame of reference is already set, so approaching the author from his frame is already hard to achieve. Therefore, my efforts should be spent looking for his entrance point, not listening to someone else's.



I'll say this, I do think there are some artistic pieces that are meant to be ambiguous, and that can achieve an open interpretation successfully. But again, these are exceptions, not rules. I think most art, in general, has a set idea/narrative/theme to communicate and the audience, or my viewer relationship to the audience, is only important insofar as they engage with me on communicating with the author. If they want to communicate with themselves, then there's no point.

Abstract art is the extreme. Again, an extreme with no meaning.

this thread had me googling the movie, and I just realized Kit was same girl in Point Break, the surfer girl. I had no idea.