Ah, OK, I think Serotoninronin and Joks have officially crossed us over from focusing on the artist’s intentionally to discussion of the audience/critics intentionality as an interpreter of a work.
“the idea that we should just let a bad movie sit as unredeemable.”
For the record, I’m not really interested in endlessly preserving some moribund auteurist canon either, as maintaining the critical status quo was, as I said earlier, quite far from the original intent of auteur theory.
@Matt
Mixing metaphors – not sure why you are throwing in the towel – the pull of the moon on tides?
Western culture has the strongest compulsion with oneness – the one god, one economy, one governmental system, and etc.
In film that amounts to the one theory, the one personae, the one anything to get us through a narrative.
Auteurism thwarts that in toto – it is saying that there is an individual voice – no two being the same. Technology is seemingly following that path – now there can be many individual film voices. Ultimately it is the intentionality of the expression that pulls us through a narrative making each work individual.
I was waiting to see whether Serotoninronin can differentiate voices, as Odi is asking him to do.
Not throwing in . . . but I think some of us are talking about expression while others are talking about impression. The films of Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock, etc. didn’t change (at least, the films they’d previously made didn’t change) post-auteurism, so what changed?
Ah, OK, I think Serotoninronin and Joks have officially crossed us over from focusing on the artist’s intentionally to discussion of the audience/critics intentionality as an interpreter of a work.
Good call.
@ Odi: Sure I have no problem naming names. I should say that you might get a better sense if you just look through some of my favorites and ratings and all that. I’ve already discussed my affinity for Cannibal Holocaust. Big William Castle fan. Most of the Guinea Pig flicks. Jess Franco. Low-end kaiju stuff. Etc.
@ Matt and J-Dog: I actually don’t think that I’ve ever said anything other than that interpretive possibilities available to the viewer are my main concern. From the very beginning, I’ve only been worried about what auteur theory has to say about my experience of a film as a viewer. This is why the question of intentionalism matters, because it seems like auteur theory holds that, on some level, I should care about the director when I’m watching and interpreting a film. My question, and the only question, at bottom, that I’ve asked in this entire discussion, is about why I should care about that. Now, IF auteur theory does NOT make the claim that I think it does (namely that I should care about the director) then I don’t really care about it anymore. However, as I’ve said, I don’t actually think that that’s what auteurists believe and I think that that view turns it into a pretty weaksauce theory, but this is essentially an orthogonal point. To emphasize, all I care about and all I have ever cared about is why I should care about who directed a film aside from in a sort of historical sense (which, I should say, is not a trivial sense).
@ Robert: I guess I missed the bit about differentiating voices, and I can’t even seem to find it looking back over the discussion. Could somebody reiterate the point for me so I can address it?
Matt said, “Does it matter if I know that this was actually an accident rather than a planned effect?”
Joks replied, _it does if you are attributing it to the ‘genius’ of the director in question, yes, of course.
If an accident occurs and then a director decides to use that accident,—and uses it well—I don’t think this would negate a claim for a director’s genius, and it might evem enhance it, right?
Joks said, I do not believe intent can be so easily brushed aside. If a director intends to make a certain film, and it’s bad, or not what he/she wanted it to be, then we should not try to do some fancy footwork on his/her behalf. Just let him/her drown in the sea of his/her own failure.
If the film is bad, then then the film is bad—whether the film fulfills the director’s intentions don’t really matter, right?
Now, if the film is different from the director’s explicity intention—but the film is good—that’s a different situation, imo. I guess we would have to ask to what extent the actual film diverged from the director’s intention. At the same time, can we think of examples of films that were great, but significantly differed from the director’s original intent? It would be interesting to examine some of these examples.
Serontonin said, I think it just makes sense to say that we don’t give credit to people for creating something if they created it by accident or unintentionally. If I slip and fall into some mud, and I have a really fascinating and beautiful pattern on my shirt when I stand up, nobody would be tempted even for a second to give me credit for creating that pattern.
In a way you’re right, but I think this is more complex than you’re making this out to be. For example, if you recognize the pattern to be interesting and beautiful, we could give you some credit for that. Suppose you took that mud splattered shirt and then either framed it in particular way or used it as a part of a larger art work. This would be an example of taking an accident and using it in a creative way. I think this last example is what happens all the time in film and other arts. I remember the jazz pianist, Herbie Hancock, talking about how he make some mistakes and then Miles Davis would hear those mistakes and play something to make those mistakes work within the larger context of the performance. This is a little different situation as the mistakes themselves were not valuable, but it illustrates the way accidents are often used in art. Actors talk about using these spontaneous, unplanned events, too. I recall the scene in On the Waterfront where Eva Marie Saint accidently drops her glove and the way Brando used that in his performance. We don’t credit the filmmakers for the dropped glove perhaps, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t credit the filmmakers, either—especially since they used the situation and made it work artistically.
Could we give you credit for that? Suppose further that you actually created situations for these “happy accidents” to occur—i.e., that the accidents were part of an intentional plan. Again, couldn’t we give some credit to you for that?
Serotonin said, _I think one important aspect of this particular issue that hasn’t been brought out specifically yet is whether or not ‘unconscious’ and ‘unintentional’ can come apart. _
Do you think the two can be separated? I’m not sure it can, but it would be very diffcult to parse out the differences.
Serotonin said, Oh, and here is what I mean when I talk about intentionality, at least roughly. For something to have been done intentionally, it has to be the case that the individual who acts to bring about a state of affairs both has the ability and the desire to bring about that state of affairs.
But does the filmmaker have to be aware of their “desire” and the “state of affairs”? And do they have to be able to articulate this desire and state of affairs (which is a little different, imo)? Imo, this is too limiting and restrictive a view; it rules out artists who work in a more intuitive fashion—sensing what will work or what artistic decisions are the best or more appropriate ones. In my view, this sensitivity and intuitive sense are more important than conscious intention. The latter really limits the artists, while the former allows the artist to go beyond his/her knowledge and (conscious) understanding.
Serotoninronin — I’ve not heard of any of those films or directors you mention, so I’ll have to take a closer look to get a better idea of what you are talking about. Thanks for “naming names.” :)
“it seems like auteur theory holds that, on some level, I should care about the director when I’m watching and interpreting a film. My question, and the only question, at bottom, that I’ve asked in this entire discussion, is about why I should care about that.”
So . . . what are you proposing? That directors aren’t the “author” of their films? That authorship doesn’t matter and every work should be encountered in a vacuum? Or are we just trying to throw a monkey wrench into any machine that doesn’t seem to produce the desired output ( i.e. validate the films we like best)?
I recently saw a Rembrandt exhibition of 47 of the artist’s canvases. Would my experience of these paintings have been altered had I seen them individually over a period of years . . . or randomly distributed throughout a museum space among works by other artists? Exhibitions like this (or volumes of poetry or music recordings released as an album) do something to the manner and intensity in which we perceive the works therein.
@Serotonin
This is why the question of intentionalism matters, because it seems like auteur theory holds that, on some level, I should care about the director when I’m watching and interpreting a film. My question, and the only question, at bottom, that I’ve asked in this entire discussion, is about why I should care about that.
FWIW, I’m not sure “intentionalism” (at least as I understand it) is necessarily related to “caring about the director” (maybe we should define what we mean by “care about the director”). For example, I have very little interest in a director’s specific intentions and goals for a specific films—but I do “care about directors”—that is, I value understanding the themes and ideas that seem to concern them; I value a personal style of filmmaking and unique vision of the world, etc. (Btw, one can obtain this information either by direct statements made by the filmmaker or extrapolation from his/her films.)
In any event, you asked why someone should care about directors. Off the top of my head, here are some thoughts, including personal reasons, I care:
1. I value personal vision and an original style. It’s something that turns me on, and I appreciate it because it’s not easy and not every artist succeeds at it.
2. “Caring about the director,” to me, means understanding the director’s approach and ideas. It means seeing a film within the context of a larger body of work. This can help provide greater insight, understanding and enjoyment of individual films. There many films that aren’t very good, imo, but are valuable or interesting for the light they shed on the individual filmmaker and the othe films they’ve made. So adopting the approach can provide another way of enjoying films (something I appreciate).
EDIT: I wrote the majority of this post before seeing your latest post Jazz. I actually think that the most important points you make in your most recent post are addressed, at least indirectly, in what I’ve written here. If you feel like something got short shrift, you let me know.
@ Jazz: First of all, thanks for a thoughtful and cordial response (not that everyone else hasn’t been in their posts [except Jerry], but a new voice engaging here is good). Now, on to your points. I have NO problem giving credit for creative use of an accidental occurrence, and I tend to agree that this actually adds to the credit I would want to give to an artist. I’m even comfortable with setting up the stage for fortuitous mistakes (this is part of the conceit of improv comedy and music I think) receiving some measure of credit. However, I think that this just falls back on intentionality, since the use of the mistake is, presumably, going to be intentional. If there was a mistake that was unintentionally used in a creative way, then I think we would all agree that nobody should get credit for it, right? That’s my main point.
On your second point, like I said, I’m not actually sure that they can come apart, but it seems like everyone here is ASSUMING that they can’t. I actually think that your third questions, which you’re right to push me on, bears on this directly. I think that I am actually okay for giving credit for following intuitions and the like, and I may actually agree that these are more important than conscious intent, BUT only because these come down to intentionality. That is, what I give someone credit when they follow their intuitions or artistic sensibilities, what I’m giving them credit for, I think, choosing to follow their intuitions. I don’t give someone credit just because they HAVE certain intuitions or sensibilities, since those things are not chosen or otherwise gotten intentionally.
@ Odi: Let me know if you do, and what you think of them. I think naming names is undervalued these days hahaha.
@ Matt: I am actually proposing something close to the first part of the second question. I certainly am saying that authorship doesn’t matter, but this does not seem equivalent to saying, or even imply, that works should be experienced in a vacuum. I would never say that anything should be experienced in a vacuum, since it’s impossible. The claim I am making is about what influences come to bear on the experience of a work. To me, the most important ones are personal or, if you like (or if you’re feeling Cavellian) autobiographical. The director (or author or painter or whatever) seems to me to have nothing to say about how I should interpret a work or what effect the work ought to have on me in any wider sense. It may of course be the case that the author of any particular work, as an empirical fact, DOES influence my experience, but the claim of intentionalism and, I’ve been arguing, the claim of auteurism, is that the director and his intentions SHOULD influence that experience. That is to say, if my experience of a film does not derive from or refer to the director in any way, auteur theory is going to tell me that I’m missing something, and that someone who does refer to the director has, in some sense, a richer (and maybe even truer) experience of the film. It’s that normative claim that I mean to reject.
So the Rembrandt example is, in a sense, irrelevant. Your experience might change or it might not, but the auteurist’s claim, as I understand it, is that your experience SHOULD change, which I reject.
MATT:Ah, OK, I think Serotoninronin and Joks have officially crossed us over from focusing on the artist’s intentionally to discussion of the audience/critics intentionality as an interpreter of a work."
It’s an inevitable leap though isn’t it? esp once you begin to question authorial intent seriously.
JAZZ:“If an accident occurs and then a director decides to use that accident,—and uses it well—I don’t think this would negate a claim for a director’s genius, and it might evem enhance it, right?”
That would depend on the meaning assigned to it by the director. If the director stumbles upon an idea and uses it, then decides later that it means something else because it’s convenient for him to do so, then no, i wouldn’t feel comfortable giving him/her too much credit.
“If the film is bad, then then the film is bad—whether the film fulfills the director’s intentions don’t really matter, right?”
Depends on the kind of film they are making. If it’s a message film, then perhaps it will fail because of how badly the message is delivered. so that ties it directly with intent to me.
“Now, if the film is different from the director’s explicity intention—but the film is good—that’s a different situation, imo. I guess we would have to ask to what extent the actual film diverged from the director’s intention. At the same time, can we think of examples of films that were great, but significantly differed from the director’s original intent? It would be interesting to examine some of these examples.”
Probably, but i’d argue that in most cases that would imply that there isn’t a sense of unity to the work in question. can’t think of any specific examples right now though.
“Serontonin said, I think it just makes sense to say that we don’t give credit to people for creating something if they created it by accident or unintentionally. If I slip and fall into some mud, and I have a really fascinating and beautiful pattern on my shirt when I stand up, nobody would be tempted even for a second to give me credit for creating that pattern.”
To me this is a perfectly valid example. yes it’s simplistic, but i’m sure it happens a lot in the art world. Remember that episode of The Simpsons where Homer averts the nuclear crisis through luck? hahha. I wonder if many artists that were presumed to be great early on in their careers were really more lucky than talented? Hence their inability to sustain themselves over the long term?
And just a bit on what you said later Jazz, to me intent also includes themes, and the exploration of them. So if you claim that you identify with a director for their exploration or treatment of certain kind of ideas, you are already assigning a level of intent to their work. For example, what do you make of the fact that Antonioni has said that his films are not about alienation? Suppose you thought that was a constant theme in most of his work but he denied it(Antonioni always flip flopped on this point but i feel it’s instructive nonetheless), how would that change things? Would it? I’m just asking the question. So the assumption of intent goes beyond a simple message or ‘game plan’ to me. It’s quite multifaceted.
I also want to clarify that i do not associate ‘unconscious structures’ with happy accidents. To me it’s tied in more with the director or artist’s personality and aesthetic preferences, which may only be semi-conscious. Using myself as an example—as a viewer, not an artist—i have a preference for ‘darker’, ‘murkier’, and ‘grittier’ art in general, across a whole variety of mediums. That does not mean that i can not appreciate something that doesn’t fall into that category, but that i’m more likely to respond to art that does. To me this is an ‘inbuilt’ preference that explains why i would choose Tarkovsky or Costa over, say, Joe or Malick nowadays, despite appreciating all four, at least in terms of aesthetics. Why do i have these preferences? I have no idea. I’m sure most artists with distinct aesthetic preferences feel the same way.
SERO:“That is to say, if my experience of a film does not derive from or refer to the director in any way, auteur theory is going to tell me that I’m missing something, and that someone who does refer to the director has, in some sense, a richer (and maybe even truer) experience of the film. It’s that normative claim that I mean to reject.”
But in some cases they may be right? what then?
Ah, so we’re arguing with the should-ness of it. Gotcha. But you like William Castle films, Jess Franco, Jean Rollin maybe, James Whale, so something is guiding your should as well. There’s something compelling enough connecting his films for you to have approached them as a body of work (rather than simply as isolated, discrete films) for you to have identified yourself as a fan, right?
“the claim of auteurism, is that the director and his intentions SHOULD influence that experience.”
As Frank pointed out earlier, the finer points of the theory are somewhat contingent on which of the apostles is preaching the gospel, but really it’s more an matter of the claim of auteurism being not that the director’s personality influences your experience of the film, but rather that your experience of the film is the director’s “personality.”
“It’s an inevitable leap though isn’t it? esp once you begin to question authorial intent seriously.”
Depends on what orientation you start from. New Criticism, right?
“For example, what do you make of the fact that Antonioni has said that his films are not about alienation? Suppose you thought that was a constant theme in most of his work but he denied it(Antonioni always flip flopped on this point but i feel it’s instructive nonetheless), how would that change things? Would it? I’m just asking the question. So the assumption of intent goes beyond a simple message or ‘game plan’ to me. It’s quite multifaceted.”
We already sort of addressed this, but, first of all, there no guarantee that what an artist states to be his/her intent actually was the actually intent; secondly, there’s no reason to assume that an artist is necessarily self-aware/ articulate enough to fully articulate things that may have been done largely by proceeding intuitively. How do you determine what Antonioni’s films are about? Can’t I make that determination based soley on internal evidence? Why can’t I focus solely on internal evidence in a film and later use that evidence as a basis to make comparisons to other films. I’m not sure that I need a concept of “intentionality” per se. What’s in the film is in the film. Maybe it’s intentional, maybe it’s luck. I can make legitimate comparisons between one . . . I dunno, Hawks film and another without having to make that decision precisely because even as an auteurist all I care about is what’s in the films. Otherwise I’m doing literary biography (which is great too, but a great biographer doesn’t make the work any better).
@Serotonin
Thanks for the kind words. And let me return a word of thanks, since this has been an interesting discussion—and we can always use more of those at the site! :)
If there was a mistake that was unintentionally used in a creative way, then I think we would all agree that nobody should get credit for it, right? That’s my main point
An example of such a situation would be helpful, although if you can’t think of one, I would understand.
Here’s what I’m getting at: what determines if a decision was “unintentional” or not? Do we determine this from explicit statements made by the director? Suppose we don’t have these explicit statements? Would that qualify as “unintentional?”
Suppose a director isn’t cognizant of the error or how it was used. Does that mean we shouldn’t credit the director for the way the error is used in the film? Suppose the use of the error occurred intuitively? How would do we know if the decision was intuitive or not? In other words, my sense is that we only have a director’s explicit comments, but these comments aren’t complete or fully reliable because they are limited to the level of self-knowledge and understanding of the director—that is to say, the director may have other reasons, motivations, etc. that he/she is not aware of or can’t articulate. Moreover, the director may have an erroneous perception or understanding of his motivations, thoughts, etc. (It’s not unusual for people to be wrong about themselves.)
Now perhaps we can determine, by the film itself, that the error wasn’t not used intentionally—that the excellent use of the error was somehow a matter of luck or something that we couldn’t credit the director for. That might be possible, but I have a hard time recalling any specific example of this.
Now, I have heard directors talk about their films in a way that diminishes the film, imo. In other words, the comments leave me with the impression that the directors a) don’t really understand their films well; b) have a mistaken impression of the film. Of course, I could be misinterpreting or misunderstanding the film, too. Still, a director not really understanding his/her film isn’t so unusual or strange, imo. Because of that, I think determining whether a director’s use of an error was intentional or not is a bit tricky.
That is, what I give someone credit when they follow their intuitions or artistic sensibilities, what I’m giving them credit for, I think, choosing to follow their intuitions. I don’t give someone credit just because they HAVE certain intuitions or sensibilities, since those things are not chosen or otherwise gotten intentionally.
? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
Ha — Serotoninroin – not the term undervalued, lol! :D
Aren’t most of these objections just about trying to legitimize one’s own tastes (see the proliferation of underrated/overrated threads)? I can understand knocking the critical status quo for not adequately accounting for someone’s personal favs, but that’s the specifics, not the general critic practice.
I’m gonna bet that for most of us here with a serious interest in films, that interest is organized largely according to directors. There are going to be some genre specialists, but even you guys are working with director preferences I would bet . . . otherwise you’re just consuming more or less indiscriminately.“We already sort of addressed this, but, first of all, there no guarantee that what an artist states to be his/her intent actually was the actually intent; secondly, there’s no reason to assume that an artist is necessarily self-aware/ articulate enough to fully articulate things that may have been done largely by proceeding intuitively. "
Sure, but i was just using that example as a hypothetical. and i often do not make that assumption based on the second point(articulation). However, i do believe that artists that can articulate their position generally have more ‘control’ over their ideas. Their work tends to be more coherent. although obviously many are just being evasive and have an equal level of coherency in their work, so again, case by case.
As far as intentions go, stated ones at least, i take that on a case by case basis too(whether i actually believe them). Some are more forthcoming than others.
@Joks
Me: JAZZ:“If an accident occurs and then a director decides to use that accident,—and uses it well—I don’t think this would negate a claim for a director’s genius, and it might evem enhance it, right?”
You: That would depend on the meaning assigned to it by the director. If the director stumbles upon an idea and uses it, then decides later that it means something else because it’s convenient for him to do so, then no, i wouldn’t feel comfortable giving him/her too much credit.
But, again, how do you know the director is doing this? My sense is that many times you won’t really know.
Let me try and sum up my position on intentionality. I think determining a director’s conscious intentions are very difficult for reasons that I and others have brought up. A director may not be articulate, self-aware, or may give flippant, evasive and/or intentionally misleading answers. Determining intentionality is a puzzle or a quagmire, and one that doesn’t seem so important, imo.
Let me suggest an alternative way of framing the issue. Basically, isn’t the main concern not giving credit to directors when they don’t deserve it or alternatively, attributing credit appropriately? I think everyone agrees with that. I don’t think we need to examine the director’s explicit intentions. Instead we can examine the individual films as well as analyzing the film as a whole. Let me give a recent example. We recently discussed Rob Reiner. Most of us agreed that Reiner’s films like This is Spinal Tap and The Princess Bride, for example, were really good, if not, great films. However, several suggested that Reiner should NOT be given credit for these—that he wasn’t an auteur, let alone a great director—based on the fact that many of his post-‘95 films were utterly terrible. Now, this is explanation isn’t definitive (and I don’t necessarily agree with this, heh) but the rationale makes sense. This relates to the example you brought up of a director making only making one terrific film and many bad ones. It’s reasonable to conclude or suspect that the director doesn’t deserve much credit for the terrific film—he/she got lucky, other filmmakers involved deserve more of the credit, etc. In any event, we’re looking at the films themselves as well as comparing them to the larger body of work to determine whether a filmmaker is great or not, and my feeling is that this is a more useful and less problematic way than looking at intentionality.
And just a bit on what you said later Jazz, to me intent also includes themes, and the exploration of them. So if you claim that you identify with a director for their exploration or treatment of certain kind of ideas, you are already assigning a level of intent to their work.
Sure, but I think distinguishing intentionality extrapolated from the films themselves from intentionality based on the director’s explicit statements is important. I don’t have any problem with the former approach, and I think it’s important.
For example, what do you make of the fact that Antonioni has said that his films are not about alienation? Suppose you thought that was a constant theme in most of his work but he denied it(Antonioni always flip flopped on this point but i feel it’s instructive nonetheless), how would that change things? Would it?
Personally, the statement wouldn’t make much difference at all. My opinion would be based almost entirely on the films themselves. People talk about alienation, especially among the upper class, in his films, but I can see that in some of his films, but I think a film like L’Avventura is really about the way the differences between men and women and the tragedy that occurs because they’re powerfully drawn to each other. Not sure what Antonioni himself feels about this, and I really don’t think it’s that important, as I feel pretty confident about this reading. (I feel much of the film backs this reading up.)
Now, that’s not to say that a director’s comments can’t be important or can’t change my mind. A director might say something that makes me see or understand the film differently, but my final judgment would be based on the film itself. The film would have to support the reading of it—not the director’s comments.
Jazz: Since you mention alienation in reference to L’avventura, I thought I’d alert you to my essay on the subject, which is available on-line (for free!). My take suggests that the PERSONAL and GENDER alienation expeienced by the characters is part of a larger societal- and class-based alienation that infects the bourgeosie as much as it does the working class. If nothing else, the article has dozens of frame grabs!
The site is: http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc49.2007/Tomasulo/
BTW, I agree with you and others that it’s what’s ON SCREEN that matters more than all the interviews, statements, DVD extras, and press conferences that directors may provide explaining (or explaining AWAY) their motives and intentions. As the old saying goes, “What you see [and hear] is what you get.”
@Serotonin
It may of course be the case that the author of any particular work, as an empirical fact, DOES influence my experience, but the claim of intentionalism and, I’ve been arguing, the claim of auteurism, is that the director and his intentions SHOULD influence that experience. That is to say, if my experience of a film does not derive from or refer to the director in any way, auteur theory is going to tell me that I’m missing something, and that someone who does refer to the director has, in some sense, a richer (and maybe even truer) experience of the film. It’s that normative claim that I mean to reject.
First, can we agree that sometimes the director does matter—that understanding a film via understanding a director and their oeuvre can influence one’s understanding and experience of a film?
Next, fwiw, I don’t really agree with a normative claim. To say that your experience must derive from the auteur theory seems to be going too far, imo. (But I’d be interested in hearing a case for this position.) Personally, I think understanding a filmmaker and understanding a specific film within the context of a filmmaker’s oeuvre often does add something to my experience and understanding. But I wouldn’t go so far as saying that viewers must use this approach.
@Frank
Thanks for the link.
“dozens of frame grabs!”
I think most people who do not believe the auteur theory is valid either don’t know what it means or are equating it a totalitarianism it never claimed. In any case, here is a question an interviewer asked Atom Egoyan about the film “Where the Truth Lies”, and his insightful response:
When you look at your work – either in retrospect, or as you’re planning a new project – do you ever stop to think about how a given picture fits into your oveure? Do you think about what constitutes an Atom Egoyan film?
Oh, no, I don’t have to do that, because I think things just sort of creep in anyhow. which is kind of weird. When I started making this film, I thought this was going to be completely different from anything I’d ever done, but I think it’s curious to look at it now and go, ‘oh, yeah, the themes are all there!’ I think it’s dangerous when you start doing that consciously, because you risk self parody. There are obsessions and ways in which you will present material, and certainly tonal aspects which are part of your craft, even when you’re in totally new territory like this film is. It’s dealing with popular entertainment and noir and all these other genres, but there are things that I can now identify as being unmistakably mine, but I think it would be lethal to pursue that as a matter of course. It’s probably better to resist it.
odilonvert
Serotoninronin — Some (probably most) of my favorite films, and, more importantly, the films that I’ve been able to extract the most from philosophically, are pretty miserable by most traditional measures.
Which ones? I’m curious. If you feel comfortable naming them, that is.