Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[theinevitable]

I really liked it. But the people I saw it with pissed me off. Specifically, one guy.
Me: "wow, I loved how ambiguous it was. I mean (lists several ambiguous things)"
guy: "um, no. it wasn't ambiguous."
guy 2: "he's right. you just didn't get it."

and then we had this big argument where they refused to acknowledge anything I thought about the movie, and told me I didn't get it. Nothing gets my goat more than being told that my opinion is not valid.

[AugustWest]

Yeah, that's what I expected somebody like you to say.

[theinevitable]

what disturbed me even more is that I started comparing it to other works of popular/folk fiction, and they had the same response to these others, as well.

Apparently, none of the people I was with have ever believed that Magic could happen-- including in children's stories, Calvin and Hobbes, fairy tales... etc.

people, you cannot know a thing about a work of fiction that the author does not know. that is not possible-- the world of the fiction does not exist without his mind.

Hobbes was alive, goddamnit.

[littlefallsmets]

Hobbes was alive, goddamnit.

I've always found it to be a useful mind-clearing exercise to... read some Calvin and Hobbes comics?

And then remember that Calvin is equally as imaginary as Hobbes.

And, because of that, equally as real.

But... I'm a flake, I smoked some pot in colllege, I just got back from a laser show of "Dark Side of the Moon" and so on. Your mileage may vary.

[AugustWest]

people, you cannot know a thing about a work of fiction that the author does not know. that is not possible-- the world of the fiction does not exist without his mind.

All kidding aside, I think you are dead wrong in this assertion.

Yes, the artist knows everything that went into the creation of his work.  However, the viewer is not a tabula rasa.  When I read a work of fiction, I am approaching it from my own particular perspective which the artist cannot predict.  I submit that the Mona Lisa means something slightly different to you than it does to me.  Your sensations, perceptions and interpretations are influenced by your genetic background and your personal history.  Consumers of works of art are neither fungible nor interchangible.  Our differences in perception add to the totality of the art.

To Achewood-ize it.  In my life, I've known guys sort of like Beef or Ray or whatever.  So have you.  I come here to TOUAMB and post about the comic, and my post is influenced by the guy I knew who was very Ray-like.  You read my post and your understanding of Onstad's work of art is fleshed out and enhanced a tiny bit.  Therefore my understanding of the comic has somehow influenced your appreciation of it.  Onstad had nothing to do with that part of it.

Have you never gotten a fresh perspective on a strip from something posted here.  Can't you conceive that a reader might glean some hidden or unexpected meaning that Onstad hadn't ever intended?  And if so, wouldn't that add to the totality of the artistic value of the strip?

Nothing exists in a vacuum.  Every bit of the universe affects and interacts with every other bit.  Artists create art, but together we all create our shared perception of it.

[littlefallsmets]

In my mind, the Mona Lisa is smiling because she thinks we're funny looking.

There are people who think that the Mona Lisa is smiling because she is the artist drawing himself as a girl.

The artist could not have been thinking both things when making it.

...authorial intent goes a long way and... I would even go so far as to say that it is probably the first and last place to look for in terms of a work's meaning? But it isn't the only place. The people who made "Friends" certainly don't know that it will be put forth as the final proof that mankind has failed in every way but... there is it.

[theinevitable]

ok, but, what I am trying to get at is... I mean, Bill Waterston has told multiple people that he didnt' intend it to be clear whether hobbes was "really" alive or not. So it's silly for people to assert that "he obviously was fake." Similar to the people telling me that it was completely wrong for me to say the end of the movie was ambiguous-- obviously their interpretation is the only correct one.

So what I'm saying is, of course the viewer can have his own interpretations of the meaning, etc. But deciding that, for instance, Hobbes has to have been all in Calvin's imagination, when Watterston himself says that he "doesn't know for sure"... and then arguing that someone is an idiot for not seeing it your way... is ridiculous.

[robot_god]

Yeah, that shit is vague.  Mild spoilers to follow:




























My friend stands by the fact that she (what was her name?) was schizophrenic but I think he just needs to poor out his Coors Light and drink some cough syrup 'cause that movie was obviously a creation of life/evolution of the universe tale.  Additionally, the stuff going on in the real world at the end was incredibly dreamlike, so much that it probably couldn't exist, hell of Huck Finn styles.  I heard an interview with Guillermo del Toro and he mostly talked about the purity of childhood.  He went out of his way to show he does not mean the innocence of childhood, since children are also capable of the purest form of hate, which perhaps what's-her-name is guilty of.  But what could be more pure than the creation of the universe?

Anyway, I just saw GdT's picture on imdb and god damn he looks like Peter Jackson's twin.  He does the voice of the faun, too;  I figured he would have dark, rough, wrinkled skin, black hair, and a brimmed hat hiding his eyes, but he's just a fat-ass whitey, wtf?  I wish I never saw his picture, now I like his film a little less.

Also, Mona Lisa is similing because she is about to get stuffed with some dick.

[jough]

Actually, I find that the artist is usually the *worst* person to ask about what something *means*.

A CASE STUDY

Inev is clearly a Modernist.  He believes that it is the artist who assigns meaning to his work through his own past, experiences, and history.

August is a Post-Modernist (perhaps a Post-Structuralist) who believes that we bring meaning *to* the work.

I'm some bastard hybrid of a Deconstructionist and a Modernist - I believe that the Most Important Thing is the text, and then you can colour-in the meaning, fill in the gaps, etc., with history.

POP QUIZ!

James Joyce wrote: "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake."  Does this statement betray a prescriptive or descriptive conveyance of meaning?

Discuss.  Show your work.

[theinevitable]

no, see, I don't feel like that's what I'm saying. What something -means- is different from deciding facts about a piece of art--

spoiler: The guy was telling me that at the end, it was obvious that none of the magic stuff was real. I maintain that it is impossible to know-- there are multiple ways to interpret the ending. I am not saying that I am "right" in believing that it was real. What I'm saying is that the ending was purposely ambiguous, so no one can claim to "know" that it was either "all real" or "all in her mind"

a-so: was he going to smash his watch at the end? I kind of got the impression from the rest of the film that he had some creepy obsession with the watch, and he wasn't going to do it.

[AugustWest]

August is a Post-Modernist (perhaps a Post-Structuralist) who believes that we bring meaning *to* the work.

Sort of, I guess.  I believe the author instills an intended meaning into her work, and the consumer brings additional meaning to the work through the process of interpretation.

[robot_god]

The guy was telling me that at the end, it was obvious that none of the magic stuff was real. I maintain that it is impossible to know-- there are multiple ways to interpret the ending. I am not saying that I am "right" in believing that it was real. What I'm saying is that the ending was purposely ambiguous, so no one can claim to "know" that it was either "all real" or "all in her mind"

a-so: was he going to smash his watch at the end? I kind of got the impression from the rest of the film that he had some creepy obsession with the watch, and he wasn't going to do it.

Yeah, I say this dude is as much of a cornball as my schizo interpretation buddy.  Just because they show the Cap see what's-her-name (seriously though, what is her name??) talking to the air, doesn't mean that it wasn't happening.  Hell of Polar Express styles, you have to believe it to experience it, the Captain is barred from experiencing it.  These realist interpretations are committing the same sin as the Captain does, if you don't believe in the magic of earth, you won't be treated to it and you can die on your knees for all the universe gives a shit.

[pmcd9]

was he going to smash his watch at the end? I kind of got the impression from the rest of the film that he had some creepy obsession with the watch, and he wasn't going to do it.

He carried that watch up his ass for seven years in The 'Nam.

[jough]

I'm seeing this tomorrow.  Will post thoughts.

[AugustWest]

I'm seeing this tomorrow.  Will post thoughts.

So did you ever see it?  It's 9 months later...

I just finished it mere moments ago.

Wow. 

That was one hell of intense movie.

I don't think I care whether or not the dream world stuff was "real" or not.  Only Ofelia knows for sure.  Either way it doesn't change what happened in the "real" world and what may or may not have happened in the "dream" world.  I don't think Ofelia's death was meaningless either way.