Can a Film Rely on a Viewer Too Much for It Work?

In a recent conversation I suggested an illustration about getting at the meaning of an artwork. I said that this requires at least two components: the artwork itself (the meaning “within” the artwork) and the person perceiving the artwork—specifically his/her ability to interpret or “construct” meaning from the artwork. If we place these two qualities on a continuum, with the artwork on one end and the person on the other, I would say that if the object in question is art, then the meaning would be found on the “artwork side” of the continuum. If the object or art depends too much on the imagination and interpretation of the person experiencing the art, then the validity of the artwork comes into question. Do people agree with this or not?

I know that this often happens when the meaning and worth of a film only become clear after watching the film—through some conversation with friends or analysis by myself. I feel even more suspicious when the film viewing experience was either really confusing and/or boring. I feel like the meaning I find is a pure fabrication—or in the words of Sherman T. Potter: horse-puckey. I’m not sure anyone else feels this way, but, for the most part, if I can use many examples of the film to support my interpretation, I feel the interpretation is valid.

Still, is there a point when a viewer is fabricating the meaning versus actually finding the valid interpretation—i.e., discovering the meaning that was within the film? How do we distinguish a valid interpretation from an invalid one?

And, a slightly different question: can a film rely too much on a viewer? Maybe not in terms of meaning, but in other ways. For example, I sometimes hear filmmakers talk about trusting the audience—i.e., not having to spell things out for the audience. Are there times when a film trusts the viewer too much? Can you think of examples?

As Haneke said:

I like the multiplicity of books, because each book is different in the mind of each reader. It’s the same with this film – if 300 people are in a cinema watching it, they will all see a different film, so in a way there are thousands of different versions of Caché. The point being that, despite what TV shows us, and what the news stories tell us, there is never just one truth, there is only personal truth.

@G

It’s the same with this film – if 300 people are in a cinema watching it, they will all see a different film, so in a way there are thousands of different versions of Caché.

Thousands? That seems like an exaggeration—unless he means that no two interpretations are exactly alike. My guess is that if we examined the interpretations from every viewer we would see a lot of overlap between interpretations.

I’m not one who believes the meaning depends strictly on the individual (to construct the meaning).

Well my personal opinion on it is that films will be made (probably) with an intended meaning behind them, and it is interesting to try and look in depth into the film to try and find out what it was. I gather you prefer this sort of analysis from your thoughts on ‘Antichrist’, but I do think multiple interpretations are fine, as long as they fit. For example, 2001: A Space Odyssey has countless interpretations, and many of them I find logical and interesting, but if someone were to say that the film was a metaphor for the breeding patterns of camels, well that would definitely be an incorrect interpretation.
There are also films like ‘Eraserhead’ though, where it would be impossible to settle on any one interpretation as it is all far too ambiguous, so the interpretation does rely entirely on the viewer.

So yes, it is up to the audience to decide what a film means, but it is also possible for an interpretation to be wrong. I’m not sure if that made any sense, but I hope you get what I’m trying to say.

@G

I gather you prefer this sort of analysis from your thoughts on ‘Antichrist’, but I do think multiple interpretations are fine, as long as they fit.

Agreed. To be clear, I’m not saying that only one interpretation is allowed.

For example, 2001: A Space Odyssey has countless interpretations, and many of them I find logical and interesting, but if someone were to say that the film was a metaphor for the breeding patterns of camels, well that would definitely be an incorrect interpretation.

I’m with you here.

There are also films like ‘Eraserhead’ though, where it would be impossible to settle on any one interpretation as it is all far too ambiguous, so the interpretation does rely entirely on the viewer.

I hear you, and I think this is an interesting example. Are you saying that any and all interpretations are valid? So could we say that Eraserhead is about breeding patterns in camels? With a film like this, how do we distinguish a valid interpretation from an invalid one?

And if the film relies entirely on the viewer, doesn’t that make the film feel fraudulent?

Off the top of my head, my personal feeling about Eraserhead is that it’s value doesn’t reside in a coherent meaning. It works more like an actual nightmare, so it’s value lies in the feelings that the film evokes—feelings that are largely ineffable.

No, sorry I wasn’t very clear. I mean that you couldn’t give one interpretation (on the story) of Eraserhead because of the ambiguity. There are still incorrect interpretations.

Off the top of my head, my personal feeling about Eraserhead is that it’s value doesn’t reside in a coherent meaning. It works more like an actual nightmare, so it’s value lies in the feelings that the film evokes—feelings that are largely ineffable.

And yes, I agree entirely with that.

@G

I mean that you couldn’t give one interpretation (on the story) of Eraserhead because of the ambiguity. There are still incorrect interpretations.

How would you go about distinguishing a valid interpretation from an invalid one?

You appeal to the work, to the tradition of movie-making that the artist is working in, and to intertextuality. Then you base your interpretation on what makes sense.

If the object or art depends too much on the imagination and interpretation of the person experiencing the art, then the validity of the artwork comes into question.

Different works of art serve different purposes If a work was created primarily to disseminate a message and the message is so vague that it can be interpreted as the very opposite of what was intended then you could argue the work was not successful at what it set out to do. If, on the other hand, the work specifically sought to stir the imagination, inspire debate and generate multiple interpretations then you can’t really fault it for doing what it set out to do. In either case questioning its validity is a sort of moral judgment on the filmmaker that I’m not always comfortable making.

There can be such a thing as ambiguity for the sake of ambiguity though which might be what you’re getting at. This is a lazy, cynical device used to feign depth and resonance where there often is none. This can happen in cases where either the filmmaker has nothing to say, has no idea how to resolve the issues he has raised or is simply too cowardly to stick to his guns. I’m sure we can all think of examples here.

From the point of view of the audience, well, different audience members have different expectations. If you go in expecting to sit back for two hours, shut off your brain and simply react to what is presented to you via reflex then you will feel that a film that asked you to do more than sit passively and stare at the screen failed you. If, on the other hand, you want to be challenged and to be an active participant in the cinematic experience then you might feel captivated instead.

As ever, it depends on the film and the person watching it.

If a puzzle is difficult, challenging and requires the full involvement and intelligence of the player who still might not be able to solve it, that’s the sign of a great puzzle.

If a puzzle cannot be solved under any circumstances because its designed to have no possible solution, that’s the sign of a bad puzzle.

Yeah, I would say the meaning of a film is a construction of the communication between the artist and the audience.

I prefer that over spoon-fed exposition and overly obvious visual metaphors, to go to the converse extreme.

My thoughts are a film can be ambiguous and require the work of the audience IF it’s an interesting film. Eraserhead, 2001 and Tree of Life for example have so much going on visually that it encourages you to make your own conclusions.

On the other hand a film like Film Socialism seemed like a boring and irrelevant film about nothing. Compare that to an earlier Godard film like Weekend and I see a film that deserves the participation of the audience, whereas Film Socialism just felt like a waste of time.

I’m convinced that some director’s make these lazy and confusing films because people seem to think they’re brilliant regardless and often point to the small mindedness of the audience as the only possible explanation of why the film can be confusing. I have been postulating for awhile now that Manoel de Oliveira and Straub/Hulliet are guilty of this, and I know Pedro Costa is the greatest current offender to currently be making films.

Now maybe it’s the fact that visually speaking the dry styles of Oliveira, Straub/Hulliet, and Costa don’t engage me the same way that Lynch, Kubrick, and Mallick do, or maybe they’re just nowhere near as good filmmakers.

So to answer your question, I figure it’s a two-way street. I’m willing to put in the work if they are.

interesting topic. haven’t read through thread yet.

quick answer is no. but that’s personal preference because I love the process of interpretation. and I do it damn well.

@Michael

You appeal to the work, to the tradition of movie-making that the artist is working in, and to intertextuality. Then you base your interpretation on what makes sense.

I sort of know what you mean (although I don’t know what “intertextuality” means), but I’m not entirely sure, either. If possible, and it’s not too much of a hassle, could you be a little more specific?

@Hell

This is a lazy, cynical device used to feign depth and resonance where there often is none. This can happen in cases where either the filmmaker has nothing to say, has no idea how to resolve the issues he has raised or is simply too cowardly to stick to his guns.

Right. What I’m trying to get at, in part, is how do we distinguish the “real” films (or at least real attempts) from the “phony” ones?

@Brad

I like the response, but knowing whether a film is a puzzle or not isn’t always easy. How do we know? Something like Last Year at Marienbad seems clearly like a puzzle. How do we know this? Off the top of my head I’d say the film presents a mystery—did they meet before or is the man lying (and possibility up to no good)? The film offers clues that may or may not help viewers determine the answer. Also, the question is pretty central to the entire film. But other films aren’t so clear-cut.

Think of some CCC films. I don’t think a lot of them are “puzzles,” but they seem to beg for the viewer to actively interpret and construct meaning from the film. How do we know when the meaning actually comes from the film or we’re making too much of it up?

@Jirin

Yeah, I would say the meaning of a film is a construction of the communication between the artist and the audience.

Would agree that there is a point where the audience has to or is doing too much of the “construction?” If so, what can we say about that point?

@Pierre

I prefer that over spoon-fed exposition and overly obvious visual metaphors, to go to the converse extreme.

Well, if by “converse extreme” you mean that the film has no coherent meaning at all—that the viewer must construct the meaning to the point of fabrication, then I agree with you (I think). But if there is meaning in the film, but the film offers very little help, making the extraction of meaning very difficult, I prefer this.

@WPQX

On the other hand a film like Film Socialism seemed like a boring and irrelevant film about nothing.

What is coming to this realization like? What kinds of things make you arrive at this conclusion?

Now maybe it’s the fact that visually speaking the dry styles of Oliveira, Straub/Hulliet, and Costa don’t engage me the same way that Lynch, Kubrick, and Mallick do, or maybe they’re just nowhere near as good filmmakers.

Right. So, is there a way we can now when the problem is with the film or the viewer?

…getting at the meaning of an artwork. I said that this requires at least two components: the artwork itself (the meaning “within” the artwork) and the person perceiving the artwork—specifically his/her ability to interpret or “construct” meaning from the artwork.

Can we say that meaning derives from the perception of art?
If so, can a continuum be formed?

If we place these two qualities on a continuum, with the artwork on one end and the person on the other, I would say that if the object in question is art, then the meaning would be found on the “artwork side” of the continuum. If the object or art depends too much on the imagination and interpretation of the person experiencing the art, then the validity of the artwork comes into question. Do people agree with this or not?

I’m trying to ferret out what you are proposing. The first part seems like a redundancy:
“the meaning of an artwork…requires …..the artwork”

Then it is attached to a false dichotomy in the form of a continuum: “artwork on one end and the person on the other”.

Apparently, you are suggesting that an art object can be inherently meaningful i.e. objects have meaning outside of the human perception of them.
The only way this would make sense is if one believes that a superior being has created these art objects and thus imbued these objects with meaning.

@Jazz

I was using the term “puzzle” as convenient shorthand, but replace that with “meaning” or “mystery” and I think what I said still applies.

@Robert

The continuum I’m talking about covers a range of ways we derive meaning. On one end, the meaning comes strictly from the person experiencing the art—that is, the person constructs the meaning by themselves. For example, if I look at a bubble gum wrapper and determine that the wrapper makes a statement about the love between a father and a son, that meaning is coming wholly from me—specifically my imagination—not from the wrapper.

On the other end of the spectrum, the mean comes strictly from the artwork, although this might be impossible as I think a person perceiving and interpreting the art, at least to some degree, is necessary. (That’s not to say that I believe an artwork is only art if someone is perceiving it, but that’s another can of worms.)

The point of the continuum is that the way derive meaning from an artwork (or anything) can either move towards one end of the continuum or the other. Does that make sense?

The first part seems like a redundancy:
“the meaning of an artwork…requires …..the artwork”

We could say this instead: meaning requires something perceived and a “perceiver”—the meaning occurs from the interaction between the two. Based on my understanding, the artwork is something that has meaning “within” itself—at least to a large degree—and the meaning doesn’t depend entirely on the person perceiving the art. My sense is that if the meaning depends “too much” on the person perceiving the art, then the “artiness” of the artwork comes into question.

@Brad

OK, I see what you mean.

If a puzzle cannot be solved under any circumstances because its designed to have no possible solution, that’s the sign of a bad puzzle.

But how do we know when a film is “designed to have no possible solution?” Can we talk about identify general principles or patterns that could help us determine this?

@Jazz
Re bubblegum wrapper: sounds like a direct emotion e.g. your father gave you your first piece of bubblegum

if the meaning depends “too much” on the person perceiving the art, then the “artiness” of the artwork comes into question.

Not sure what to do with that sentence. Do “too much” and “artiness” have to do with accessibility?

My problems with the Godard film are in no way a slight on Godard as he would easily rank among my top 5 favorite directors ever. My problem was that the whole style seemed old to me and irrelevant. The same way people can chastise Woody Allen for making the same damn film every year for decades I felt about the Godard film. Even though a film like Anything Else might be horrible at it’s core it’s yet another Woody Allen film about relationships set in New York with another neurotic standing in for Allen.

The same way I find that on the surface Film Socialism was another one of Godard’s puzzles filled with random people spouting revolutionary gibberish. It seemed cool in the 60s when revolutionary cinema meant something but today it seems like some old grey haired hippy in a tie dye shirt carrying on a very lost cause.

As far as whether it’s a problem with the film or with the viewer I believe it is largely in the eye of the beholder. To stick with Godard, David Bordwell did a pretty good blog about Godard’s 80s and 90s work and he makes the argument that the films are well worth the effort to decipher even if they aren’t as sexy and exciting on the surface as his much better regarded 60s work. I often get the idea he’s being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

I’d say the great films and filmmakers who deal in ambiguity entice the viewers to draw their own conclusions. You may say someone isn’t intellectually adept enough or mature enough to appreciate the finer nuances of say de Oliveira but I would say if he made more interesting films I’d be more than willing to meet him half way.

There are plenty of deliberately ambiguous art films that are always going to have people herald them as brilliant and others are going to be bored to tears. Sometimes you just have a filmmaker who is difficult because he thinks its a joke or wants to celebrate his genius by boring the shit out of his viewers (Andy Warhol is by far the guiltiest party).

Good point about Marienbad, it’s a film to me that is ambiguous as hell, actually everything Alain Robbe-Grillet has written or directed is confounding. However I enjoy his particular brand of confusing cinema because visually it keeps me guessing and I don’t get bored even if I have no idea what the hell is going on and wonder if even he does.

@Robert

I said, if the meaning depends “too much” on the person perceiving the art, then the “artiness” of the artwork comes into question.

What I mean is that people can come up with a BS interpretation of something (anything) and make it sound profound and meaningful. But one of the differences between art (or at least good art) and non-art is that the viewer’s interpretation isn’t pure fabrication—i.e., BS; the art itself “contains” the meaning—it isn’t strictly dependent a wild imagination. See what I mean?

@WPQX

WRT, Godard. You’re saying that you find his films boring because it seems like he’s repeating himself and not bringing anything fresh or interesting to the table? That makes sense, if so (not that I’ve seen Godard’s post-60s films).

You may say someone isn’t intellectually adept enough or mature enough to appreciate the finer nuances of say de Oliveira but I would say if he made more interesting films I’d be more than willing to meet him half way.

My interest is in knowing when the blame is with the viewer or with the film. If we can’t really know that (at least with specific films—then the implication is that all films can legitimately be great films or terrible ones; the quality of art depends strictly on the individual. (I don’t buy that argument myself.)

There are plenty of deliberately ambiguous art films that are always going to have people herald them as brilliant and others are going to be bored to tears.

But is there a way to know who has a more valid case—or can both be equally valid? (I think that the latter is possible, but sometimes only one position is more valid than the other.)

Is this painting relying too much on its viewer?

@Matt

I haven’t really looked at or analyzed the painting, so I can’t really give any strong opinions. In general, fwiw, I don’t think Pollock’s art is bogus, though….but that raises the question: how do I know that his work isn’t bogus—that it doesn’t depend too much on the viewer? Off the top of my head, I’d say that a viewer doesn’t need to construct a language-based meaning from the painting. They can enjoy the look of the painting and the feelings the painting evokes—feelings that may be ineffable. The response is similar to what I said about Eraserhead.

Here’s a question: how do we know when we don’t need to judge a film through some rational analysis—i.e., come up with meaning we can articulate?

If you don’t judge an art work by what others think of your judgment, you pretty much get it.
Is “bogusness” an aesthetic quality in the work or aesthetic emotion from the perception of the work?
Many do think Pollock’s art is bogus – why do you NOT think it is bogus?

Your original question can be applied to nearly all films ambiguous or not, simply by asking what makes a film worth a damn.

Jazz: Are we talking personal analysis of a film or critical analysis of the film? Personal analysis has to be based on specifically what the film means to YOU, what the film evoked from YOU. Critical analysis has to take a more rational analysis involving form and generally agreed upon qualities, because the purposes of critical analysis is to try to be universal and disregard things specific to you.

But if films didn’t make individual connections with us, nobody would care enough to write critical analysis.

@Robert

If you don’t judge an art work by what others think of your judgment, you pretty much get it.

Meaning, the work is legitimate? This sounds too relativistic to me. So, if a person ignores what critics say about GI Joe, and he concludes that it’s a great film, it’s a great film?

Is “bogusness” an aesthetic quality in the work or aesthetic emotion from the perception of the work?

I would say the issue relates directly to the quality of the work. Real aesthetic emotion (as opposed to positive emotions or feelings that people could mistake for aesthetic emotion) should only occur if the quality of the work is good. That’s my assumption, anyway.

Many do think Pollock’s art is bogus – why do you NOT think it is bogus?

I’m not confident I can answer this question in a satisfactory way, but off the top of my head, I think the techniques and approach are legitimate and interesting; I think the results are compelling and interesting as well—not only in a visual sense, but maybe even in terms of expressing concepts and ideas. I suspect I could also provide reasons based on criteria like originality, unity, among others as well.

@WPQX

Your original question can be applied to nearly all films ambiguous or not, simply by asking what makes a film worth a damn.

And what makes a film “worth a damn?” How do we know if a film is “worth a damn or not?”

@Jirin

Are we talking personal analysis of a film or critical analysis of the film? Personal analysis has to be based on specifically what the film means to YOU, what the film evoked from YOU.

I think I know what you’re getting at, but even in this case aren’t there limits? Or can a person ascribe any meaning to a film? I guess if a person could get any meaning from a film, regardless if it was appropriate or not.

Critical analysis has to take a more rational analysis involving form and generally agreed upon qualities, because the purposes of critical analysis is to try to be universal and disregard things specific to you.

Well, I don’t think this description is precise enough. I wouldn’t say we have to “disregard things specific to you” when critically analyzing a film, but understanding and judging a film on its terms takes priority over personal preferences, interests, associations, etc.

Fwiw I think Pollock’s work is bogus. But defending this position (or the contrary position) would be folly, although possibly interesting from the point of view of seeing sparks fly :)

@Scampi

If I analyzed Pollock’s work more and felt more confident about it, I would be interested in discussing the issue with you, as I think we might be able to get at the questions I’m raising in this thread. Is there a filmmaker or film that you think is bogus? Maybe we could discuss that.

At the risk of raising the ire of some people here I think Benning’s Ten Skies is bogus. Again though I would be hesitant to discuss why at any great length here in the forum because ‘dissing’ a film someone loves never ends well.