Aug 18, 2008
How does authorial intention determine interpretation when there’s more than one author?
Like this post?
A movie’s writer, director, and actors won’t all intend the same thing.
If the artist’s intent matters, whose should we look for?
* * * * *
Method 1: For basic theme – look to the screenwriter. For Character based concepts – figure out what the actor’s intent is. For other themes and ideas, figure out what the director intends.
Method 2: Who is the most powerful presence in the movie (i.e. who’s vehicle is it)? – Choose that one.
Abraham, did you just watch a movie that triggered this question?
GREAT question. I’m eager to hear what people say.
Jamsco,
No particular movie motivated the question. Movies are just a simple example of an art form that always has more than one artist.
And regarding your Method 1, wouldn’t you say that’s a little too cut-and-dry. For instance, the writer surely has at least as much to do with character as the actor, no?
Is there perhaps a Method 3 that would allow us to interpret a movie without caring too much about the artists’ intentions? After all, most of us aren’t watching movies to see what a writer, director, actor have to say.
Is it possible that they would all get together and agree on view point and intent before even entering the project? Each has his own area of expertise, but the direction in which that expertise is applied would be decided by a unanimous agreement. Otherwise the whole project would end up like a child’s whisper game. This indeed happens often. The most successful projects start with agreement and end with the agreement still in tact. IMHO
If a certain looseness of the term “intent” is allowed…
We only have access to the whole work, not distinct pieces. Many-authored media are understood by artists as a particular form of art, one that naturally unites the intentions of all involved. Authorial intention, in this case, is the combined visible intention in the completed work.
It’s a bit like the Church actually. One body, many parts. Is our intention lost in our diversity? No, it is unified in Christ. The brokenness of the Church and the quality of a film are analogous in this way: the measure of success or failure can be measured by our distance from that singular intent.
I like Micah’s thoughts.
Ultimately, I think he would say (and I would agree) that it’s the EDITOR whose intent we see.
If he doesn’t think the actor displays the right intent… snip.
Or if a certain scene in the screenplay is useless or contrary to his purposes… snip.
Regarding movies, my guess is most writers hope (and make efforts to try to ensure) their intent is carried through the director, the actors, the producers, and is delivered, as intended by the writer, to the audience.
In reality, I think the producers/directors/actors will not be perfect in delivering the writer’s intent. Also, other things can distort the intent like politics and egos by those involved (like a director wanting his “touch” to be seen, or, a producer insisting on a change to make the movie more marketable in their eyes). Sometimes these changes can be for the better.
I think anyone going into the process of making a movie (or any type of collaborative work) needs to realize it is a group effort, and that it will be almost impossible for one party’s intent to be perfectly carried out.
I think that leaves me to agree with Abraham’s Method 3- enjoy the work (if it’s good) and not care too much the artists’ intentions
Yes, but I’m guessing the Director is the boss of the editor and will instruct unsnipping if he sees fit.
In the extras you find that Jackson was there for almost all (or all-all?) of the LOTR editing, just as one example.
And yes, method one is clearly too cut and dry.
Re: Is there perhaps a Method 3 that would allow us to interpret a movie without caring too much about the artists’ intentions?
I think you’ve touched on this before – but it sounds like you want to ‘redeem’ a movie in this way. Is it okay for us to do this, when we don’t want people to use the Bible for their own intentions?
Jamsco,
I think it’s a matter of who the communicator is, whether it’s OK to ignore the author’s intention.
We should never ignore God, however what Jackson intended in LOTR, for instance, couldn’t be more irrelevant to me. Nevertheless, I enjoy the movies…well the battle scenes, at least.
. . . And not the shire scenes, or the moria scenes or Gandalf heals Theoden scene? What?
re: whether it’s OK to ignore the author’s intention
I thought it was kind of a big deal for your dad that the intent of any author was important.
(But you get a pass on Jackson – Tolkein is clearly the person who’s intent we should determine with LOTR)
Whether it’s a book or a movie, or some other type of art, I assume the people involved get together and discuss their purpose(s) so that there is a unity that they’re trying to communicate. Then under that (and contributing to that) unity are various parts related to the unity. These parts stand alone to some degree, but must always be part of the unity. So if there are different intents in the different parts, they should all be part of the big intent. That makes it so much more interesting. I don’t think it hurts that there are some differences if they are all working together.
I happened to be reading Adler and Van Doren’s How To Read a Book this morning, which reminded me of this post. I hope I am understanding them correctly and applying their ideas in the right way to this topic.
Interesting question. Here is my take.
A good movie is a collaberative work representing an organization, not a variety of individual efforts. Individual efforts are involved but for a collective purpose. Agreeing on and communicating that purpose is part of making a good collective artform.
By the way, if a shameless plug is appropriate here, I just wrote a blog that relates to authorial intention in the Bible and more specifically how it relates to the reader formulating beliefs. Anyone down for reading it can just click my name.
Thinking about the Tolkein-Jackson question, I wonder how much thought is given to the author’s intention when someone is making a movie. When reading Huck Finn in high school, the our class was taught by an atheist. What I remember most from those discussions was the hypocrisy of Christians. When I read it in college, the teacher was a Catholic nun, and what I remember most from those discussions was the “no man is an island” theme. So whether someone is leading a discussion or making a movie about a book, it seems like their world view could have a lot to do with how the story is presented.
Another art form that begs this question is classical (or “art”) music. As a classical musician myself, I have often thought about whether I should actually try to pay homage to what the composer’s intentions were regarding his or her message–a difficult task, since 99% of the composers whose music I play are dead, and a large percentage also left no clues as to their intended message. So when I perform a piece for an audience, should the audience be looking for the composer’s intentions or mine? I think ultimately the audience will interpret what they hear according to their own predispositions, regardless of what I or the composer intend to convey. Of course, music is a lot less concrete as a language than film or spoken word; but does that mean I should have no internal intentions, since the audience will make whatever they want of what I do? I’m not really sure yet…
Tolkien Jackson … wow. I’ll just let that one sit, as I walked away from the first movie (opening night) and never saw the others.
I’m not a big one for authorial intention. I just wanted to exercise one of my rare occasions to express my distaste for Jackson’s LOTR.
A musician who performs a piece according to the composer’s intention is not an artist but is merely a technician. Who even cares what the artist’s intention is? Art transcends the artist’s intention, if the artist even has one.
Any movie that is considered an ‘art form’ would likely have more than one level of meaning, more than one theme and more than one take-home message. So why not listen to all their intentions?