Must interpret: Zizeks’s cinematic deductions on the plain realistic screen (Sontag, 11)
Zizek is a certified cinephile. His documentaries as well as his books are filled with expositions of movies. Is Zizek reading way too much into movies? Should film be interpreted or enjoyed?
ZIzek’s Parallax View is a running commentary of cinematic classics. From Star Wars to The Graduate. Classics for sure but it is questionable whether they were intended to have philosophical deductions so deeply layered with symbolic characteristics. Maybe Zizek is reading too much into movies. Just as countless critics have interpreted Kafka’s Castle in their own discourses. Is it a religious political or ethical circus? Did Kafka write Metamorphosis for kicks or was he deriding the shallow morality of man? Was Dostoevsky writing fiction or religious themes? The role of the the reader is to interpret the author’s intent but there is a disconnect. He is reading the author’s intent through his writing. A text with punctuation to guide emotion. Only estimating the authorial intent. The reader is a clumsy guesser. He shouts the three numbers but without any context or framing. Just assuming what the author would potentially mean. He cannot visualise the author nor ask him his inquires. He assumes and runs with it.
Did Lucas insist on blue and red lightsabers to distinguish between the good and bad guys? Did Lucas intend for the Jedi to be a little more accountable for their failures? To some extent only Lucas knows. Does that matter? Not really. Any reader can assume the intent based on his interpretation. It is a free country. Are his deductions false? Maybe but maybe not. Others may argue with him pointing out his fallacies but maybe the director just screwed up or blundered in according the pattern. Without verification from the director the question remains uncertain. People shout and shout over what a certain author meant. Nietzsche wrote this and therefore meant this but what about this passage and this story passed down from his youth that entertains this path. Nietzsche can’t answer so it is just the loudest voice wins. The most convincing voice momentary is victorious but since there is no verification to end the war the battle will restart with a later challenge. Criticising and complimenting is a part of realising the truth but it can never be realised if the artist is absent to confirm.
It is a waste? No. The creative deduction of a text or a scene empowers the self. They noticed a clue of the genius. To the deducer the book or the film is art and art is not a hodgepodge of colours thrown on a sheet of paper (though postmodern art has received this criticism—yet even in its inadequacy it is an expression of creativity even if that creativity seems bland rather than bold). Scanning a portrait at a museum will yield one of two results marvelling at the sketches and congruent lines while another passes enjoys the flash of colours mashed on a 12x14 piece of paper. Appreciation for art depends on its value to the looker. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Beyond appreciation is its symbolism. A connoisseur in his expert opinion deduces a plausibility. Drawing on the style and theme. Yet his final conclusion is far from the truth. It is what he assumes based on the proof he has exposed. Yet it is the variables that he has focused upon. A layman may deduce differently. His knowledge inferior to the expert yet his ignorance may yield better results unbiased by frequency or awards.
Art may be drawn for aesthetic purposes. For the sheer beauty of the colours combined in a tremendous landscape or for pleasure. Bored one day picked up a brush and painted. What came out may have had subconscious motifs but no conscious meaning implored. Viewers rush to apply meaning. The best is after their death. No ability to respond or critique the nonsense spewed by reviewers. Silence from beyond the grave and yet arguments rage. The unknown makes it that much more ironic. Maybe Kafka liked castles. Maybe Lucas liked space cowboys. Not everything means something above. It is not a natural truth. It is a natural aspiration. The only truth is that people see meaning in that which possibly has no meaning. There is no way it could be meaningless. Absent meaning it is worthless. But it simply isn’t. It doesn’t need some philosophical or self-help guidance to inspire. Its creation alone is sufficient. The esoteric hope is but a novel collapse of intellectual absurdism. Some things do not make sense. They do fit the pattern. Maybe the author was having an off day maybe he misspelled.
The sheer arrogance is but a symptom of human editing skill. Pride is but a stubborn asset. The mind cultivates a novel pattern. This must be correct. The brain has figured it out. The enlightenment firing neurones as dopamine fills the neurological sanctuary. A sacred dogma unveiled in the detective mind. Eureka he screams smiling ear to ear. Solving the unsolvable forty year murder mystery. A hot shot first day on the job. Not realising that he is the fifteenth person to entertain this idea. Others weren’t privileged to publish their ideas in recent centuries with the luxury of the internet age to salvage their notebooks. The idea is creative but usually not original. It is possible but also quite improbable with massive amount of people on earth. The amount of people who have pondered the same piece of art or the same text. Mathematically it is quite foreign but hey give it a shot. Who cares. Don’t be shy publish and take credit for your brilliance. A gift for a keen eye and modern platforms.
A subject art but a formidable one. A little overzealous but intriguing. Acknowledging the depth of the content. Aroused by the beauty even if it is a personalised construction. It is in the eye of the beholder. It is centralised by his focus. Others are not captivated by its brilliance. He shrugs his head as a passerby skims by the age old portrait. Thinking this guy doesn’t get it. How shallow can someone be. He forgets the acquired taste. Not everyone is privy to the artistic majesty that he examines. They are uneducated or unconcerned. It is rather irrelevant. He is imbued with an interest in the complexity of the portrait. The time and expertise explored in the masterpiece. He has found meaning in the unveiling of its colours. The hodgepodge is a canvas of subliminal messages. He is jolly by the excitement of this painting. He assumes the rationale behind this painting. Maybe he is wrong. He has found meaning in this artistic piece. The artist would be pleased that his work has been received even if it is not directly in line with his thinking. He has inspired, he has affected an audience.
Yet ought we be to be careful in our interpretations. Would Springsteen be upset that many have mistaken his Born in the USA as a pro-nationalistic song over the explicit subtitles to the anti-war themes dominating the lyrical jolt? Would Sting be upset that many have accepted his Every Breath You Take as a love song instead of a stalking experience? To some extent it would irritate the artist to know his hard work has been misinterpreted. For his message to be undermined by false messaging. Is it so wrong for the song to take on new meaning? Is that not an inevitable part of human history? Nietzsche would’ve hated Nazis and yet his work was highlighted to their standards. Despite Heidegger’s Nazi affiliation his ideas have carried much weight in the latter half of the twentieth century even by Jews. To interpret is to internalise a message based on the subjective reception. A story is examined from all different angles. It is not a one size fits all. The more esoteric the character the more vague and more open interpretation is. Time shifts the relational element evolves. Art gains meaning as new cultural contexts develop.
An artist ought to be annoyed when his words are taken out of context yet it is an inevitable part of social development. Yet it is not clear that all art is to be interpreted. While Bruce’s song was a message, was Stings? Was Sting telling others his story to inspire or just to vent? Or maybe he just was playing good music. Bruce’s Born to in the USA follows the anti-war movement of Scarborough Faire and Fortunate Son. Sting seems more in line with Claptons’ Tears in Heaven. What does the artist expect, to just enjoy? The lyrics will be listened and repeated aloud by the audience. Music is not theatrical it is reciprocal. It is less sermonic and more harmonic—at least it has evolved in such a manner. A portrait can’t respond and while it is hanging in a museum visitors marvel at its beauty interpreting as they go along. A novelists’ goal read a century later may go over the reader’s head. Context is bleak beyond the setting by the author. Exoteric fiction does aid to inform the reader of the context even if the reader be a descendent. Then again the esoteric fiction can only be discerned by each and every individual. Patterns may be spotted and insights intuited but there is no doubt without a personal confession the reader is at a disadvantage.
Yet that is the second part of art. It is the message of the artist to the world as well as the audience’s internalisation. Whether the audience has satisfied the adequate meaning is important to reciprocate the artist’s intent but when it is vague he is to do his best and deduce to his best capability. From there, the value of the art remains even if the artist and audience have divergent opinions on the matter. Both believe it meaningful but in different aspects. The artist may be upset but his work is public. The audience ought to do right by the author but if it be vague or uncertain it has lost all linkage. Though once it has been publicised, it is in the hands of the audience to deduce as they see fit. Authorial intent is critical insofar as the audience is arguing that this is the artist’s intent. When it comes to commentary authorial intent is inseparable. Since the the artist’s philosophy and perspective are the string behind the song. On the other hand a criticism of sorts values the song with little correlation to the artist. It is the words and the meaning derived to inspire rather than the author’s message. In this vein, the message is deciphered as the critic entails. It isn’t to argue that this is the intent of the artist but this is a way of reading it alternatively.
There may be where to distinguish Born and the USA where the artist has ousted the meaning while cinema is left vague, portraits are left vague. Without authorial explanation the intent is left to pondered. In the former case, any meaning outside the artist’s explicit instruction undermines the art on the other hand maybe his subconscious embedded a second narrative. It is still possible to read art in multiplicity even upon authorial admission. Though if need be they can be excluded. This does not cease the interpreter of vague esoteric art still out there. Whether the author intended as such or failed to disclose the truth behind it. Art is publicised to the audience and the audience internalises. The artist will see his script different than the audience. The viewer is subject to varied phenomena and perceives the plot with more nuance than the artist does. It is in no way to shame or upend the artist’s beauty but it is to offer a viewer’s opportune. The viewer has his own credibility to what he has witnessed. A critic offers his perspective on what he has seen. It may not jive with the artist’s expectations but he has publicised it for review and is entitled to evaluated.
To this end, Zizek’s analysis may be off-putting or wrongheaded. Lucas and Hitchcock may scoff at such attempts. Yet Zizek is applying his philosophical expertise to the plot. His Lacanian view would differ from another’s analytical or Heideggerian postulation. Each character can be examined in light of a certain approach. The divergent diagnosis leads to a varied conclusion. It doesn’t make it right or wrong. It is Zizek’s understanding of the film. It is his interpretation. Yet another may offer a different conclusion. Whatever the truth may be is of little importance. The critic relates to the art from his view. He approaches the film with his preconceived notations. He finds the storyline disturbingly deep. It is no kickback monotone. This is more than sport. This is art. He takes notes. He is inspired. Lucas is a genius, Hitchcock is a philosopher. Who knew. Deeply embedding powerful themes esoterically. Telling a profound plot with essential themes of power and ethics.
His message from the films enhances his view of the world. It fills his philosophy. Film is not just an enjoyable experience but an educational purpose. While this may be reading too deeply into the text, art is a message from the artist to the public. Bruce clearly meant to send a message of anti-war to the public. Did Lucas intend on good guy imperfection or bad guy morally grey area? Maybe he adduced the shift when he made the prequels or he felt that way the entire time. What is obvious is not evident. Zizek is not turning Lucas into a philosopher only that his art is deep and purposeful. It need not resemble human society or engender a shift in the world. Orwell’s 1984 seems to be a grim message but that is not true of all novella. Yet it does seem that art does reflect the socio-cultural layout of the times. While every piece may not semantically seem deep, it is truly an esoteric masterpiece. Zizek’s move whether authorial intent or not is to derive beauty from enjoyment. To cultivate meaning in the plain entertainment of the age.
To find meaning is powerful. It may come off peculiar to others. Just enjoy the film and marvel at the art. Yet the deeper layer exposes something more. The viewer is not a passive actor. He isn’t just to take it, to observe and clap. He is to actively deduce and analyse. He is to see the entertainment as beauty to perpetuate. To follow the artist’s hope to further its beauty. Art is more than a spectacle it is meaningful. It is powerful and overwhelming. Respecting the artist may be to cheer or it may be to analyse.
No comments:
Post a Comment