I am a filmmaker and student in San Francisco, CA. I'm new to this list.
Gloria Monti writes:
>My question to you is, should I, because he says so? Does my
>reading cease to exist because it does not conform to that of the author?
> What I told me students, who were there with me, instead was, who
>cares what the author thinks? I care what we--as readers think.
> How's the Iowa sky?
If all one interprets is the film or its text, doesn't one do so out of a
larger context? What exactly is 'the work' we interpret?
What is the difference between a director placing an explicit intention inside
a film, as opposed to announcing it at a press conference or personal
appearance? Is one to be considered and the other not?
If one only has the text to go on, then that is all one can use. But, if one
has other information, I don't think it is valid to ignore or dismiss it. I'm
not saying it has to be taken at face value, only that it not be denied.
If I as a director claim that my film is not xenophobic, and you interpret it
differently, I think you would be better off trying to explore the disparity
between my given intentions and what you see my film doing, rather than
ignoring my claim.
In this way, the scope of what is to be interpreted goes beyond the actual text
and is placed in a broader historical context. All the information one has, not
just about the text, but its production, reception, and all the events
surrounding it - this is what I feel constitute the work that is available for