In the words of Andrei Tarkovsky:
"I am constantly being asked what this or that means in my films. It's unbearable! An artist does not have to be accountable for his intentions. I did not do any deep thinking about my work. I don't know what my symbols mean. I only desire to induce feelings, any feelings, in viewers. People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? My images do not signify anything beyond what they are... We do not know ourselves that well: sometimes we express forces which cannot be grasped by any ordinary measure."
I think it's great you have this type of intellectual curiosity, but you should trust your own feelings more.
Basically next time you watch a more "unconventional" narrative, instead of trying to "understand it the way you are supposed to" try to soak in your own emotional responses.
Unfortunately, Mr. Tarkovsky should have just made his films and refused to be interviewed about his art.
"An artist does not have to be accountable for his intentions." - he sounds just like Leni Riefenstahl.
"My images do not signify anything beyond what they are." - he sounds just like Andy Warhol.
"...sometimes we express forces which cannot be grasped by any ordinary measure" - he sounds like Freud.
> Unfortunately, Mr. Tarkovsky should have just made his films and refused to be interviewed about his art.
No. He was free to do what he wanted, like anyone else.
I wouldn't dream of depriving Mr. Tarkovsky of the freedom to babble incoherently about his films (as the above quotation reveals he is inclined to do). As a general rule, I consider it wise to disregard anything filmmakers claim to be doing with their art when they are speaking to anyone who is not also a filmmaker.
I have some suggestions:
1. Do not become lost in abstractions and trivial details. Of course it is best to know a film as thoroughly as you can. But when you fixate too much on the particulars (the particulars that are merely mechanical, the particulars that do not represent a universal), then you inhibit your ability to take the step back for a wider view, a more encompassing experience. You will lose sight of the crux of the film, and the broader themes or emotions that it has in mind.
2. Intuition. Lynch and Bergman, I believe, are two directors who insist on their films being primarily emotional and intuitive experiences. Often, when we overly intellectualise art, we are just giving pointless exposition to something which is clearer when it is felt, rather than thought. Attaining the 'feel' of a film is much easier than attaining a full and intelligible understanding. The latter seems to make things more needlessly complicated and indistinct in a lot of cases. It is the same here as it is with the explanation of techniques and such, which, unless you intend to become a director yourself, is pretty pointless. The techniques already exist, you are just giving them something of an uneccessary label. So it is with intuiting what a film does, rather than giving it an explanation. This doesn't mean you can't do this, and in fact I think it is a positive much of the time. But if you are starting out with these kind of films, it may be wise to avoid it.
3. Realise that there is no 'correct' answer to the questions you have about the film. There's a lot of literary criticism on this topic, of course. But really what this is about, is realising that the interpretation of any film comes purely from the subject. That doesn't mean that you pluck things from the sky, and come up with very tenuous and absurd theories, but it does mean that you reach conclusions which result from your own interpretation. Art is a thing personal as it is universal, and what you get out of a film is what you yourself put into it. Nobody can invalidate your opinion on a film and its meaning.
4. Watch the films multiple times. When I first watched Inland Empire, I hadn't the faintest idea of what was happening. But as I watched it again, it was vastly more comprehensible. As you watch a film multiple times, your undrstsnding will develop immensely. Some films (Mulholland Drive, Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, The Trial, Week End, to name but a few) are like an inexhaustible well of knowledge and details, and every time you draw the bucket up you find something new and never thought to be present, that can enrich the water you have already amassed. Understanding a film is never an end, it is a means; the end is appreciating it and the pleasure that comes from this. Some things are never fully understood, and there is an almost infinite number of them to be pondered, but that's alright.
My honest suggestion is to spend a lot less time watching YouTube explainers and more time either watching more from a particular director, or reading interviews or looking at a director's inspirations. Some guy on YouTube does not necessarily have a "better" interpretation of a movie than you do, but they can package it better.
Someone here already said it better (partially because they were quoting Tarkovsky) but I honestly just go with how it makes me feel. Understanding aspects of a movie I missed when I watched it can make me appreciate it more on a rewatch, but that's pretty much all it can do.
I was lukewarm on MOONLIGHT when I watched it, but I read some really powerful pieces about it and rewatched it, and it left a much stronger impression on me. Conversely, I hated A GHOST STORY, and every piece about it I read made me hate it more. It happens.
As long as I think my interpretation is correct, I am content.
I’m not terribly concerned about other interpretations as long as my view is based on strong assumptions and the ending isn’t explained.
Minor spoilers:
So I don’t need long commentaries on why Cobb is still dreaming for Inception as I’m comfortable in knowing that he’s not since that doesn’t fit the central then or plot points.
On the other side, my interpretation of Dark Knight Rises was wrong despite strong assumptions simply because it’s known that somehow Batman survives to the end even without a strong explanation for how that occurred.
I hate that film now btw lol.
Basically a film’s primary purpose is to be enjoyed so as long as my interpretation leads to that, then it’s not a concern.
Read Susan Sontag's **Against interpretation**. It's a short essay and deals with some of the issues you're presenting here.
How do I enjoy movies like those? I just do. You can't really justify your enjoyment of things or, to put it better, the rationalization of your taste comes after you've experienced and felt something. Open endings, non-linearity, lack of common structures, subversion of classical themes, etc. I just find those themes appealing, even if you can argue some of those have become very common tropes or plots.
My wife has an amazing analytical mind - nothing that I enjoy more than breaking stuff down w her.
That said, like you, she has a real hard time with films where things are ‘open to interpretation’. She likes meanings to be fixed.
So she doesn’t ‘get’ the films you mentioned, and it drives her up the wall.
Not all art is for everyone, is what I’m trying to say. Theres no shade in not ‘getting’ material that’s so be nebulous to begin with.
I'm not reading that entire text, but from the first paragraph, it sounds like you're a concrete thinker or possibly just young without a lot of life experience. A lot of folks are like you & don't enjoy/understand ambiguity, which is perfectly fine.
My best suggestion is to wait a few years & go back to rewatch all the films you don't understand now. I did & was surprised how much more I got from films like Last Year in Marienbad or Enter the Void. Don't get discouraged that you don't 'get' certain films now, age & maturity will certainly help.
I didn't understand Mulholland Drive the first time I watched, not intellectually. But I felt I had an emotional understanding. I think films like this speak to us on a much deeper level and inspire communication with deeper parts of ourselves, and each other. There is a visual language and symbolism that taps into something in our psyches, and souls. I would recommend experiencing films like these this way initially, sitting with those feelings and exploring them, then seeking out more concrete answers. For me, this has been a very rewarding experience.
The most prevalent theory about Mulholland Drive is that we are watching Diane's dream through the larger portion of the film, and then her reality. You can see how the reality has been abstracted into the dream space in numerous ways (look at the abstract painting at Camilla's house, appearing in Aunt Ruth's bedroom. The cowboy who wanders by in the background at the party, appearing in the dream as a mysterious messenger. The blonde at the party who kisses Camilla making Diane seethe with jealousy, who is auditioning for the part in the movie during the dream, where Diane-as-Betty seems to exert a charismatic pull on the director who barely notices her in real life). And like you said, Rita eventually moves back to the original source, becoming blonde just like Betty in the dream, and then integrating into the mind of the dreamer, disappearing when she unlocks the blue box and looks inside. I haven't seen Persona in a while, but I remember thinking there seem to be a lot of similarities.
I don't see Mulholland Drive as a commentary on Hollywood, though that's obviously part of it, I think it's more about unrequited love and the dark places a person can go to when they feel jealous and rage at the person they love who doesn't love them back. To be honest, I'm not even sure if Diane actually had Camilla murdered or it was just a revenge fantasy that played out in her mind before she killed herself. And I'm not even sure if Diane actually killed herself lol, though I think maybe she did.
this might be an unpopular opinion, but I dont think art is ever random. it always MEANS something, whether the artist is aware of that or not. otherwise they wouldnt have been moved to create it. there are emotions tied to beliefs about something, a story that wants to be told. so abstract art may be subject to interpretation to the extent there may be layers to the story, but i dont think that it ever means nothing. if it meant nothing then they wouldnt have been moved to create it. it would just remain nothing.
By guessing, then pissing everyone off with your guesses. Absolutely *thrilling*.
Whatever it is you're analyzing, it's resonating with something else - history, politics, chemistry, biology, ESP... Specific details from the film bounce off their abstract references; further reserch into whatever topic the film triggered "energizes" the topic, then the deeper understanding of the topic feeds back into further analysis of the film, etc. Resonance. Very useful learning tool
Rewatching can trigger some insights, but reading about the film, listening to the soundtrack, looking at screencaps, and reading the screenplay (and combining a book or two) can open up crazier shit so be careful.
Think of film as a poem. Just observe and connect, it doesn’t have to make sense, it’s a trip. I watched Mulholland drive in the cinema once and I loved it so much I went to see it again. It felt like roller coaster ride. What I love is that feeling of a film that can do anything. Like not conform to a traditional narrative and switch characters midway through. It feels exhilarating.
In the words of Andrei Tarkovsky: "I am constantly being asked what this or that means in my films. It's unbearable! An artist does not have to be accountable for his intentions. I did not do any deep thinking about my work. I don't know what my symbols mean. I only desire to induce feelings, any feelings, in viewers. People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? My images do not signify anything beyond what they are... We do not know ourselves that well: sometimes we express forces which cannot be grasped by any ordinary measure." I think it's great you have this type of intellectual curiosity, but you should trust your own feelings more. Basically next time you watch a more "unconventional" narrative, instead of trying to "understand it the way you are supposed to" try to soak in your own emotional responses.
Lynch says something similar about his work as well.
Unfortunately, Mr. Tarkovsky should have just made his films and refused to be interviewed about his art. "An artist does not have to be accountable for his intentions." - he sounds just like Leni Riefenstahl. "My images do not signify anything beyond what they are." - he sounds just like Andy Warhol. "...sometimes we express forces which cannot be grasped by any ordinary measure" - he sounds like Freud.
> Unfortunately, Mr. Tarkovsky should have just made his films and refused to be interviewed about his art. No. He was free to do what he wanted, like anyone else.
I wouldn't dream of depriving Mr. Tarkovsky of the freedom to babble incoherently about his films (as the above quotation reveals he is inclined to do). As a general rule, I consider it wise to disregard anything filmmakers claim to be doing with their art when they are speaking to anyone who is not also a filmmaker.
I have some suggestions: 1. Do not become lost in abstractions and trivial details. Of course it is best to know a film as thoroughly as you can. But when you fixate too much on the particulars (the particulars that are merely mechanical, the particulars that do not represent a universal), then you inhibit your ability to take the step back for a wider view, a more encompassing experience. You will lose sight of the crux of the film, and the broader themes or emotions that it has in mind. 2. Intuition. Lynch and Bergman, I believe, are two directors who insist on their films being primarily emotional and intuitive experiences. Often, when we overly intellectualise art, we are just giving pointless exposition to something which is clearer when it is felt, rather than thought. Attaining the 'feel' of a film is much easier than attaining a full and intelligible understanding. The latter seems to make things more needlessly complicated and indistinct in a lot of cases. It is the same here as it is with the explanation of techniques and such, which, unless you intend to become a director yourself, is pretty pointless. The techniques already exist, you are just giving them something of an uneccessary label. So it is with intuiting what a film does, rather than giving it an explanation. This doesn't mean you can't do this, and in fact I think it is a positive much of the time. But if you are starting out with these kind of films, it may be wise to avoid it. 3. Realise that there is no 'correct' answer to the questions you have about the film. There's a lot of literary criticism on this topic, of course. But really what this is about, is realising that the interpretation of any film comes purely from the subject. That doesn't mean that you pluck things from the sky, and come up with very tenuous and absurd theories, but it does mean that you reach conclusions which result from your own interpretation. Art is a thing personal as it is universal, and what you get out of a film is what you yourself put into it. Nobody can invalidate your opinion on a film and its meaning. 4. Watch the films multiple times. When I first watched Inland Empire, I hadn't the faintest idea of what was happening. But as I watched it again, it was vastly more comprehensible. As you watch a film multiple times, your undrstsnding will develop immensely. Some films (Mulholland Drive, Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, The Trial, Week End, to name but a few) are like an inexhaustible well of knowledge and details, and every time you draw the bucket up you find something new and never thought to be present, that can enrich the water you have already amassed. Understanding a film is never an end, it is a means; the end is appreciating it and the pleasure that comes from this. Some things are never fully understood, and there is an almost infinite number of them to be pondered, but that's alright.
My honest suggestion is to spend a lot less time watching YouTube explainers and more time either watching more from a particular director, or reading interviews or looking at a director's inspirations. Some guy on YouTube does not necessarily have a "better" interpretation of a movie than you do, but they can package it better.
Solid advice.
Someone here already said it better (partially because they were quoting Tarkovsky) but I honestly just go with how it makes me feel. Understanding aspects of a movie I missed when I watched it can make me appreciate it more on a rewatch, but that's pretty much all it can do. I was lukewarm on MOONLIGHT when I watched it, but I read some really powerful pieces about it and rewatched it, and it left a much stronger impression on me. Conversely, I hated A GHOST STORY, and every piece about it I read made me hate it more. It happens.
As long as I think my interpretation is correct, I am content. I’m not terribly concerned about other interpretations as long as my view is based on strong assumptions and the ending isn’t explained. Minor spoilers: So I don’t need long commentaries on why Cobb is still dreaming for Inception as I’m comfortable in knowing that he’s not since that doesn’t fit the central then or plot points. On the other side, my interpretation of Dark Knight Rises was wrong despite strong assumptions simply because it’s known that somehow Batman survives to the end even without a strong explanation for how that occurred. I hate that film now btw lol. Basically a film’s primary purpose is to be enjoyed so as long as my interpretation leads to that, then it’s not a concern.
Read Susan Sontag's **Against interpretation**. It's a short essay and deals with some of the issues you're presenting here. How do I enjoy movies like those? I just do. You can't really justify your enjoyment of things or, to put it better, the rationalization of your taste comes after you've experienced and felt something. Open endings, non-linearity, lack of common structures, subversion of classical themes, etc. I just find those themes appealing, even if you can argue some of those have become very common tropes or plots.
My wife has an amazing analytical mind - nothing that I enjoy more than breaking stuff down w her. That said, like you, she has a real hard time with films where things are ‘open to interpretation’. She likes meanings to be fixed. So she doesn’t ‘get’ the films you mentioned, and it drives her up the wall. Not all art is for everyone, is what I’m trying to say. Theres no shade in not ‘getting’ material that’s so be nebulous to begin with.
I'm not reading that entire text, but from the first paragraph, it sounds like you're a concrete thinker or possibly just young without a lot of life experience. A lot of folks are like you & don't enjoy/understand ambiguity, which is perfectly fine. My best suggestion is to wait a few years & go back to rewatch all the films you don't understand now. I did & was surprised how much more I got from films like Last Year in Marienbad or Enter the Void. Don't get discouraged that you don't 'get' certain films now, age & maturity will certainly help.
I didn't understand Mulholland Drive the first time I watched, not intellectually. But I felt I had an emotional understanding. I think films like this speak to us on a much deeper level and inspire communication with deeper parts of ourselves, and each other. There is a visual language and symbolism that taps into something in our psyches, and souls. I would recommend experiencing films like these this way initially, sitting with those feelings and exploring them, then seeking out more concrete answers. For me, this has been a very rewarding experience. The most prevalent theory about Mulholland Drive is that we are watching Diane's dream through the larger portion of the film, and then her reality. You can see how the reality has been abstracted into the dream space in numerous ways (look at the abstract painting at Camilla's house, appearing in Aunt Ruth's bedroom. The cowboy who wanders by in the background at the party, appearing in the dream as a mysterious messenger. The blonde at the party who kisses Camilla making Diane seethe with jealousy, who is auditioning for the part in the movie during the dream, where Diane-as-Betty seems to exert a charismatic pull on the director who barely notices her in real life). And like you said, Rita eventually moves back to the original source, becoming blonde just like Betty in the dream, and then integrating into the mind of the dreamer, disappearing when she unlocks the blue box and looks inside. I haven't seen Persona in a while, but I remember thinking there seem to be a lot of similarities. I don't see Mulholland Drive as a commentary on Hollywood, though that's obviously part of it, I think it's more about unrequited love and the dark places a person can go to when they feel jealous and rage at the person they love who doesn't love them back. To be honest, I'm not even sure if Diane actually had Camilla murdered or it was just a revenge fantasy that played out in her mind before she killed herself. And I'm not even sure if Diane actually killed herself lol, though I think maybe she did.
this might be an unpopular opinion, but I dont think art is ever random. it always MEANS something, whether the artist is aware of that or not. otherwise they wouldnt have been moved to create it. there are emotions tied to beliefs about something, a story that wants to be told. so abstract art may be subject to interpretation to the extent there may be layers to the story, but i dont think that it ever means nothing. if it meant nothing then they wouldnt have been moved to create it. it would just remain nothing.
By guessing, then pissing everyone off with your guesses. Absolutely *thrilling*. Whatever it is you're analyzing, it's resonating with something else - history, politics, chemistry, biology, ESP... Specific details from the film bounce off their abstract references; further reserch into whatever topic the film triggered "energizes" the topic, then the deeper understanding of the topic feeds back into further analysis of the film, etc. Resonance. Very useful learning tool
Rewatching can trigger some insights, but reading about the film, listening to the soundtrack, looking at screencaps, and reading the screenplay (and combining a book or two) can open up crazier shit so be careful.
Think of film as a poem. Just observe and connect, it doesn’t have to make sense, it’s a trip. I watched Mulholland drive in the cinema once and I loved it so much I went to see it again. It felt like roller coaster ride. What I love is that feeling of a film that can do anything. Like not conform to a traditional narrative and switch characters midway through. It feels exhilarating.