"Literary" Criticism on a Film Scene: Osgiliath
For those of you I'm just getting to know, in my not-online life, I'm a biblical scholar. I teach ancient Hebrew and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible to students studying for master's degrees in divinity, and I do original interpretive work on biblical texts. My particular areas of interpretive interest are literary and feminist criticism. I have
( Read more... )
The reason I tweeted him about it (and left this entry unlocked in case he's ever interested in reading it) is not because I'm fishing for a response -- I don't think there's the slightest chance I'll ever hear from him on it. But I wish, I WISH I could, because it would give me the most amazing insight into how I interpret biblical texts. Here's what I mean. When I take a given text -- let's say Ezekiel 37, the vision of the valley of the dry bones, which is a focal text for my dissertation -- I know from the beginning that I can never access authorial intent. I can try to infer what the author of Ezekiel meant to be doing or saying, but I can never be sure, because he/they have been dead for millennia. So there's only so far that authorial intent can take me in the interpretive process. But at the same time, I make the assumption that everything about the final form of the text was intentional on somebody's part -- the author/authors and/or different editors/redactors meant for the text to say what it says, in the words it employs, in the organizational structure in which it exists, etc. I assume the author (or amalgamation of people responsible for the final form of the text) basically meant for the text to be what it is, whether or not every word or letter was a conscious choice. But I can never really know that's true, because I can't ask. The reason I would give ANYTHING to have a conversation with Elijah about this interpretation of his performance is because, well, he's the artist and he's still alive. I would desperately LOVE to know whether he would essentially agree with this interpretation but be freaked out by what he perceives as wild overanalysis, or whether some or all of what I'm seeing there is stuff he meant -- consciously or subconsciously -- for me, the viewer, to perceive. Knowing how he responded to this interpretation would give me so incredibly much insight into my own assumptions, and the flaws therein, about the authors of the texts I work with all the time.
(Okay, that was a novel. Thank you for sparking some interesting thoughts for me!)
Reply
Your Anaïs Nin quote: "We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are."
Perhaps, but we can’t see “things” that aren’t there. By that I mean that something of the SPIRIT of the author’s intent must be there for the reader to see, otherwise he would see nothing at all.
You wrote “Does meaning in art inhere in the space between authorial intent and audience perception, and if so, what does that mean”.
I think it does lie in the middle ground. And that’s what makes art a living organism. Once there is no space for audience perception art is dead. But audience perception needs a sufficiently strong source in the spirit of the author’s intent.
I wonder whether we can ever know for sure about authorial intent, at least with regard to details of a book text, a film scene, etc. It seems to me that so many things depend on chance. On the inspiration of the moment, who were involved in the writing of the text, which versions were kept/lost, film scenes that ended up on the cutting room floor, etc. But, as I tried to say before, if a book/film has sufficient power to make the audience “see things” at least some of the intention of the author must have come through.
Perhaps I should explain a bit about my own background. I worked for many years as a marine biologist, with a specialization in evolutionary ecology and coral reef ecology. So, my view of the world, and art, is formed by that professional bias and I tend to see “chance-processes” everywhere. But I can still be very thankful when I read a book or see a film that is powerful enough to transport me into another world, whatever processes were involved in the making. LOTR, both books and films have done that for me as nothing else.
Just one more remark about Elijah’s acting. I agree that he lets the character take over. IMHO, that is what makes him so unique.
Thanks again for the beautiful post and the thought provoking novel. :)
Reply
Leave a comment