So when the audience interpretation goes against everything the artist believes in in a way that’s abhorrent and unfair to the artist (in the sense that they believe that the artist is or believes X when he really is or believes Y), whose fault is it? Or is just the hazard of art? Does it in any way matter?
Tengu: I agree with your Star Ocean point; in fact, I think it was the entire message of the game that no matter how unreal the 4Ders thought the 3Ders were, that they WERE, on their own, sentient beings whose lives and actions mattered.
As for the FFTA one, well, I’d debate that, but I don’t think this is the place for it.
I’m not the only one to mention it, nor the first (though I did come up with it on my own - promise!), but I’ve argued that The Wizard of Oz depicted the final skirmishes in a larger war between warring witches and warlocks. When you get right down to it, the vast majority of the Oz power structure lies in ruins after Dorothy leaves. Wicked Witch of the East? Dead. West? Dead. Wizard of Oz? Gone on a delusional flight of fancy.
Who remains to pick up the tatters? Glinda. Oh, how the munchkins must wail under her cruel lash!
I think that the Beast in Beauty and the Beast (the Disney version) did not actually think of himself as a beast; I think he still thought of himself as a prince. My reasoning for this is that in the song in which he sings (Something There) his singing voice is noticeably higher than his speaking voice throughout the rest of the film. This was the only time he was talking to himself (well, thinking out loud in the form of the lyrics) instead of speaking to the audience. In other words, he thinks in the Prince’s voice and not in the gruff, growly Beast voice, even though he can only outwardly express himself in the latter.
If you’re trying to figure out what the artist believes, then reader response is the wrong way to go about things. If someone reads 1984 and says, “This book is a ringing endorsement of Stalinist totalitarianism!” then that’s what that person got out of the book. If they read is and say, “George Orwell supports Stalinist totalitarianism,” that’s where they’re objectively wrong, and you start bringing in outside sources to disprove them. But at it’s heart, reader response isn’t about objective truth, it’s about subjective experiences - What did you learn from this book?
It’s worth noting that, while the idea that “there are no wrong answers” is a big part of this approach, that doesn’t rule out better answers. If someone comes out of 1984 thinking, “Yay, police state!” then it’s fair to ask, “Did you miss the part with the rats?” I mentioned earlier that the purpose of art is to reveal something about the viewer. Sometimes, what it reveals is that he’s a dumb ass.
I have fallen foul of this. I once mentioned, in a poker thread, the winner of the WSOP. Someone reading the thread jumped all over me because the replay had not yet been shown on TV and I had ruined the surprise. Well I hadn’t seen a replay either, the story was all over the news. The idea that anyone could be a poker fan and not know the result seemed as bizarre as a baseball fan not knowing who won the World Series a month after it was played. Now I err on the side of caution with spoilers.
When I read 1984 as a high schooler, I originally thought Winston Smith was literally executed by firing squad & his last thought was that finally “he loved Big Brother”, perhaps for finally putting him out of his misery.
I do maintain that at the end of Kubrick’s movie of A Clockwork Orange, Alex was indeed cured- no longer Ludivico-neutered, but ALSO so longer evil-driven. His violent urges are now random & disorganized while his final sexual fantasy is joyously non-violent.
For years I’ve argued that American Pie is not just about the death of Buddy Holly (and by extension, the death of rock and roll) but about the entire political scene in the 1960s.
His widowed bride = Jackie Kennedy Drove my Chevvy to the levee but the levee was dry = a wishful reinterpretation of what should have happened at Chappaquiddick The jester, the coat from James Dean and a voice that came from you and me = an obvious reference to Abby Hoffman and the antiwar protestors The jester stole his thorny crown = LBJ wore the thorny crown, and his decision not to run for re-election in 1968 The courtroom was adjourned = the Chicago Seven trial The players tried to take the field but the marching band refused to yield = the Kent State shootings The three men I admire most, the father, son and ghost, they took the last train for the coast = John and Robert kennedy, and Martin Luther King. The train was the funeral train that took RFK to Washington.
And the metaphors keep on coming, but I trust I’ve made my case.
**Frosty the Snowman **is Christ. He’s magic; he performs miracles. He dies and returns from the dead. Then he leaves again, promising to come back again ‘someday.’
I agree that It’s a Wonderful Life can be depressing. Especially as regards the bar - there’s no indication that in the ‘good’ world that Nick is any better a person - he’s presumably still an asshole, but with less power.
I think there are clear cultural references in the song, but I would interpret this line perhaps differently. According to The Straight Dope, an interview with Don McLean revealed that he was indeed referencing Bob Dylan when he said, ‘‘the jester.’’
My knee-jerk reaction to this line would be that it is a commentary on a cultural shift away from traditional religious values and toward… well, Bob Dylan et al. Christ’s metaphorical crown stolen by a new wave of philosophers, a new way of thinking about the world, embodied in the image of Bob Dylan. Music kind of ruled that era, if you think about it. It took on a new kind of social consciousness, it created new values.
The idea of this ideological rift is reinforced by stanzas like:
*Did you write the book of love,
And do you have faith in God above,
If the Bible tells you so?
Do you believe in rock 'n roll,
Can music save your mortal soul,
And can you teach me how to dance real slow? *
I’m not convinced by McLean’s mourning tone that he is 100% comfortable with this cultural shift, either.
I won’t speak to the rest, but the Jester is Bob Dylan.
for the coat, see the cover of “The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan”
re: the voice, a reference to Dylan adopting different elements of American singer-songwriter tradition
“Oh, and while the king was looking down,/The jester stole his thorny crown”: reference to Dylan’s fame/voice to the American youth rising as Elvis’s falls
“With the jester on the sidelines in a cast.”: reference to Dylan’s 1966 motorcycle crash
Starship Troopers really was a face-value celebration of fascism and militarism, and nothing more. I mean if it really was intended as a parody of same, on those grounds it failed (would have failed) miserably.
(the movie, not the book)The Bridge on the River Kwai is set in WWII, but is about the British military’s bloody-mindedness in WWI
(the book, not the movie) The Planet of the Apes is set on an imagined planet, but it’s inspired by the author’s experience as a European colonial in SE Asia when the Japanese took over.
