2003 Milk Plus Droogies

Best Picture
Kill Bill Vol. I

Best Director
Quentin Tarantino, Kill Bill Vol. I

Best Actor (tie)
Johnny Depp, Pirates of the Caribbean

Best Actor (tie)
Bill Murray, Lost in Translation

Best Actress
Uma Thurman, Kill Bill Vol. I

Best Supporting Actor
David Hyde Pierce, Down With Love

Best Supporting Actress
Miranda Richardson, Spider

Best Screenplay
Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation

Best Foreign Film

Best Cinematography
Harris Savides, Gerry

Members' Marquees

Critical Contacts

Lobby Reading

The Video Store

Reel Resources

The Blog Bijou

-Admit One
-Artistic Delusions
-Belligerent Bunny's Bad Movie Shrine
-Beware of Blog
-The Brain Drain
Biancolo Notes
-The Big Ticket
-Bitter Cinema
-Black & White World
-Bull Durham's Hot Corner
-Brewed Fresh Daily
-Camille's Film Journal
-The Chutry Experiment
-Cineblog (II)
-Cine Club
-Cinegraphic.Net: The Avante-Garde Film and Video Blog
-Cinema 24
-Cinema News
-Il Cinema Secondo (Italian)
-Cineaste (Russian)
-Cinema Toast
-Concentrated Nonsense
-Confessions of an Indie Filmmaker
-Cult Movies I Dare You to Watch
-Cutting to the Chase
-Cynthia Rockwell's Waiting Room
-The Daily Despair
-The Daily Digest
-Day for Night
-Delta Sierra Arts
-Dinky's Docket
-Distorting the Medium
-Donald Melanson On Movies
-Electric Movies
-Fade In: Blog
-Feeling Listless
-Filmfilter (German)
-Filmtagebuch (German)
-Film Talk
-Five Easy Pieces
-Frank Booth
-A Girl and A Gun
-Glazed Donuts
-GreenCine Daily
-Harlequin Knights
-He Loved Him Some Movies
-The Hobo Reviews
-Hot Buttered Death
-Iggy's Movie Review Weblog
-Iguano Film Blog
-In Development
-Japanese Films' Journal
-Joe Sixpack's Film Blog
-Joe's Weblog & Film Project News
-Junk for Code
-Kumari's Movie Blog
-Lights Out Films
-Like Anna Karina's Sweater (Filmbrain)
-Listen Missy
-Magnolia Girl
-Marley's Ghost
-Media Yenta
-Michael I. Trent
-Moov Goog
-Motime Like the Present
-Movie Boy
-Movie Criticism For the Retarded
-A Movie Diary
-The Movie Generation
-The Movie Marketing Blog
-Movie Retard
-The Movie Review
-Moving Pictures
-Nando's Blog
-Netflix Fan
-Or Kill Me
-Out of Ambit
-Out of Focus
-Paolo - Cinema's Radio Weblog (Italian)
-Pigs and Battleships
-Plot Kicks In
-Pop Culture Junkies
-The Projector
-Qwipster's Movie Reviews
-Reel Reviews (Podcast)
-Reviews, Reviews, Reviews
-The Screening Room
-Screen Watcher
-Short and Sweet
-The Silver Screen
-Stinky Cinema
-Sunset Blvd
-Tagline: A Movie Weblog
Talking Pictures
Tea for One
-Tom Vick's Asian Cinema Blog
-Trailer Park
-Truly Bad Films
Waste of Tape
-Wayne's Movie Blog
Whippin Picadilly
Wittgenstein's Bunnies
-Yay! Movies!
McBain Recommends
-Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
-Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
-Kill Bill vol 2
Shroom Recommends
-Top 20 List
-Head On
Joker Recommends
-Top 20 List
-House of Flying Daggers
-The Aviator
-Bad Education
Yun-Fat Recommends
-Eight Diagram Pole Fighter
-Los Muertos
-Tropical Malady
Allyn Recommends
-Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
-Songs from the Second Floor
Phyrephox Recommends
-Top 20 List
-Design for Living (Lubitsch, 1933)
-War of the Worlds
-Howl's Moving Castle
Melisb Recommends
-Top 20 List
-The Return
-Spirited Away
-Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...And Spring
Wardpet Recommends
-Finding Nemo
-Man on the Train
-28 Days Later
Lorne Recommends
-21 Grams
-Cold Mountain
-Lost in Translation
Merlot Recommends
-Top 20 List
-The Man on the Train
-Safe Conduct
-The Statement
Whitney Recommends
-Femme Fatale
-Gangs of New York
-Grand Illusion
Sydhe Recommends
-In America
-Looney Tunes: Back In Action
-Whale Rider
Copywright Recommends
Top 20 List
-Flowers of Shanghai
-Road to Perdition
Stennie Recommends
Top 20 List
-A Matter of Life and Death
Rodney Recommends
Top 20 List
-The Pianist
-Talk to Her
Jeff Recommends
-Dial M for Murder
-The Game
-Star Wars Saga
Lady Wakasa Recommends
-Dracula: Page from a Virgin's Diary
-Dr. Mabuse, Der Spieler
-The Last Laugh
Steve Recommends
-Top 20 List
-Princess Raccoon
-Princess Raccoon
-Princess Raccoon
Jenny Recommends
-Mean Girls
-Super Size Me
-The Warriors
Jason Recommends
Top 20 List
-Old Boy
-Million Dollar Baby
-Head On
Lons Recommends
-Before Sunset
-The Incredibles

Powered by Blogger Pro™

links open windows

(c)2002 Design by Blogscapes.com

The Blog:
Tuesday, June 25, 2002
Not to repeat the refrain from an earlier argument, but I too bristle at the idea that it is even possible to “read to much into a film.” Implicit in that argument is that there is, at best, only a finite number of meanings contained in a film, or any cultural product, and that some of those meanings are somehow “better” than others. I think these kinds of ideas are attributable to pervasive, often unconscious (in a cognitive, not psychoanalytic, sense), cultural beliefs that arise from our bodily interaction with our environment and are expressed via image schemata, which in turn, are expressed metaphorically. I am specifically thinking of the various uses of the container schemata and the conduit schemata.

The container schemata has several important components: the container schemata, is in effect a bounded space (whether this space is physical, mental, or imaginary, the container schemata can be extended metaphorically to many of these cases), containing an inside, an outside, and a boundary; further, this kind of basic structure, gives rise to the in-out orientations (as well as spatial approximations relative to the boundary). Image schemata like the container schema arise naturally through our bodily experience and with our interaction with the world, extending from a rudimentary grounding in the experiences of our own body, to physically bounded spaces, to even more abstract mental spaces (which are elaborated by metaphorically extending the idea of bounded physical spaces to the mental spaces, which aren’t literally bounded, or even have to exist). The very phrase “reading to much into the film,” makes no literal sense, though it’s meaning is perfectly clear, X idea arises from outside the film, not from inside the film. Even if we do not consciously think of the container schemata when we make this statement, and most of us do not, the idea still holds, as the in-out orientation only makes sense when we think in terms of a bounded space. Just think about how pervasive container schemata are, not only in terms of our everyday life, but in our experience of watching film:

The bad acting drew me out of the story.

I got lost in the movie.

The colors seemed to burst out of the screen.

Not only do we think of the diegetic world as a container, thus giving rise to the perfectly rational belief in the separation of the story world from the real world, but we also use it to differentiate between the physical screen and the rest of the theater, for example.

The conduit metaphor, which is actually a more complex structure that we often use to characterize communication, even if it is somewhat misleading. In the conduit metaphor structure, the ideas are objects, the sentences are containers, and the communication is sending. We “gather” our ideas to “put” them “into” words, and if our verbiage is not “empty” or “hollow,” we might “convey” of “get” these ideas “across” “to” a listener, who can “unpack” our words to “extract” their “content.” By substituting the metaphor film is a container, for sentences are containers, we can see how this conduit metaphor can be extended to our ideas concerning the interpretation of film. An unfortunately entailment of this metaphor is that it preserves the stereotypically version of communication as essentially a one-way process with the sender encoding a message and sending it to a listener/viewer to be decoded, instead of what it is more likely to be, a two-way, multichannel interaction.

In the model of spectatorship that I propose, we must purge ourselves of the conduit metaphor, because what I am proposing is a multifaceted interaction with the art object. We as spectators perform multiple operations upon the art object, some of which are conscious, many of which are unconscious. We don’t even a true “sender,” all we have is a constructed, often historically contingent (though many of these historical contingencies are based upon the shared biology and physical environment), hypothetical sender (truly, we don’t even need a “sender,” “communicator,” or “narrator” in the proper sense, as I think David Bordwell as demonstrated on many occasions, however, humans have another pervasive reasoning structure, we create ontological metaphors to personify abstract concepts, such as “ideas are object” or, in a technical sense, “the process of narration is comprehended as a person,” something that is made quite explicit in literary works that can not escape tense) which may bear little or no resemblance to the actual creator(s) of a work; their intentions, while interesting in their own right, do not have to factor in on our hypothetical set of intentions that we attribute to our constructed narrator. Though I know the complexities of film-making, etc., etc. I still utilize an auteurist model (as most critics do when talking about films, even if they don’t necessarily attribute the auteur to the director, it can be collectivized, etc.) because the auteur is a useful organizing principle. I don’t think the auteur literally exists as I characterize him/her, though their may be intersections, as VF Perkins noted, the auteur is a critical construct. When I talk of Spielberg in my review of Minority Report, I don’t mean that the man Steven Spielberg literally put everything I write about into his movie; “Spielberg” is a critical construct, a metaphorical structure that I use to reason and argue about the movie.

So what is an interpretation from my view? It is the interaction of a physical, art object, with definite, tangible characteristics (most studies that I have read have shown a remarkable agreement among spectators/viewers/readers in terms of such things as information parsing and emotional effects, even cross-culturally), in a common, physical environment, with my embodied mind, which in turn was shaped by that same physical environment, a common biology (developed via evolution, and giving rise to human universals, especially at the macro-level; also this common biology also, somewhat paradoxically, gives rise to subjective qualia), a common cultural repository, and a more specific, personal, experiential history. There literally is no meaning in the art object without the interaction of the spectator in it’s environment. I also think there are multiple acts of interpretation occurring parallel with one another. Comprehension at both a local and global level requires interpretation, both of the events as they unfold, and as they are constructed and reconstructed in the memory. Perhaps this should be called first-order interpretation. The kind of interpretation that we often engage upon here is in effect a refinement, a creative reworking of our first-order interpretations, it is in fact an act almost separate from the viewing of the actual art object (for a more jaundiced view of this kind of creative reworking in the context of post-war, American vanguard film culture, see Greg Taylor’s book Artists in the Audience: Cults, Camp, and American Film Criticism). Then of course, these second-order interpretations build back into our embodied minds, and affect subsequent viewings of the film, very much like a feed back loop.

Just one final note. When we speak of ideas like movies that are “integrated,” “unified,” “implicit” or “understated,” we speaking of culturally specific values, set and maintained by a community, and are not objective criteria.