How did you all enjoy Chapterella 2? Hopefully as much as I enjoyed writing it. But that's a story for another day. Today I have important things to begin discussing.
This next series, that's right, series of posts are all inspired by a Facebook conversation I had with a friend on there/devoted fan. One of those two pieces are a lie, but part of this conversation did happen on Facebook. First, the back story.
For those who have never seen (500) Days of Summer I present the following trailer. I also recommend seeing the movie, but it isn't necessary to understand the conversation. I'll go into some non-spoiler details.
An important aspect of this movie is that it is a story about love, "but it's not a love story." I use quotations here for a very important reason. It is explicitly stated at the beginning of this movie that it is not a love story. I will repeat that, because it will make my unintelligible ranting further on better. It is explicitly stated at the beginning of this movie that it is not a love story.
Some fans are apparently still calling this a love story.
Ub-bu-whah? How? The movie tells them not to! Why?!
Levitt himself confirms what the movie he starred in is not a love story, in a recent interview in Playboy. Note, the link is surprisingly mostly safe for work, and contains nothing you wouldn't see on late night television. That's a discussion all its own, so I'll stay on point. The quote I want to hone in on is the following.
"The (500) Days of Summer attitude of “He wants you so bad” seems attractive to some women and men, especially younger ones, but I would encourage anyone who has a crush on my character to watch it again and examine how selfish he is. He develops a mildly delusional obsession over a girl onto whom he projects all these fantasies. He thinks she’ll give his life meaning because he doesn’t care about much else going on in his life. A lot of boys and girls think their lives will have meaning if they find a partner who wants nothing else in life but them. That’s not healthy. That’s falling in love with the idea of a person, not the actual person." JGL
So in a story that's not a love story, we have a character played by Levitt who is not meant to be a love icon, and Levitt himself is telling us not to idolize this behavior. And yet people still are.
So on to the first part of my series, where I'm going to talk about the responsibility of the reader/viewer/audience when it comes to their ingestion of media. Media being in this case art, since I consider this art, but I could go on and on about other media as well. I won't today. Must stay focused.
What responsibility does the audience have when they consume their chosen media? When I legally purchase a movie like (500) Days of Summer who says I have to read into it what the writers, directors, actors, production itself is trying to sell me? I paid for it, shouldn't I be allowed to interpret this film anyway that I please?
I'm going to shock you all and give you the answer you can probably guess I was going to give. No. You may not interpret it as you please.
Now don't jump down my throat because I also don't believe there is only one way to interpret something. One of my film buff friends and myself had a good conversation about whether the end conversation between Levitt's character and Zooey Deschanel's character actually have their final conversation, or if it's just in Levitt's head. This is fun to discuss, but in the end it doesn't change what the movie is trying to give us. A not love story.
While the audience should be, and in my mind is allowed certain interpretive rights, they also have a responsibility to take what is presented to them as what it is. What I mean by this is that when an apple is put in front of you, you don't talk about it as if it's a car. The apple is an apple, barring symbolism which I hate anyways.
When a movie tells you that it is not a love story, it is setting the stage for you. A play which does this is Romeo and Juliet. Note that Romeo and Juliet begins by talking about the two houses, Capulet and Montague. This is the important part of the play. What is happening between these two houses and what it leads to. The love story is secondary. It's the story of a 14 year old and a 17 year old killing themselves over tragic circumstances. This play is not Shakespeare telling us this is what true love means, it is him telling of the tragedies which befall two families when they pointlessly war with each other forcing their two children to go to extreme lengths for stupid reasons. Part of that is my interpretation, but it is an interpretation justified by facts I believe I found. At no point does Shakespeare come out and contradict this interpretation. And if he does then congratulations, the zombie apocalypse is upon us.
By ignoring what the author is telling you, as an audience, what you essentially tell the author is that you don't care what they intend. What you are essentially doing is trying to take ownership for something you had no hand in. That might seem extreme since the culture is still arguing over what Shakespeare intended in plays like hamlet, and a lot of fun can be had debating why things happen and what ifs and...all that, but there is a difference between acknowledging what is there, and what is not, and discussing what is not, as opposed to flat out ignoring what is right in front of you.
As a writer who writes particularly strange fiction, I want my audience to be entertained. I want to give them the liberty to imagine my characters in strange circumstances or carry on the story without me. It's no different than fan-fiction or cosplay. People should be allowed to enjoy my stuff outside of the world I put it! But it's one thing to take things out of the world I create, and an entirely different thing to essentially tell me what I created when I explicitly told you what it wasn't. If someone tries to tell me that my work is a scathing social commentary I will become furious unless they present me millions of dollars to support the idea, in which case I'm listening. But seriously, it's not a social commentary except where it is. But I tend to be pretty explicit with these things.
So am I saying you as the audience must interpret something one way? No. Any author worth their salt leaves you some room to spice up the work how you please. But are you allowed to get anything and everything from my work? Also no. You have to work with what I give you.
Don't think it's all on the audience though. Tomorrow I'm going to discuss the responsibilities of an author both to their craft and to their audience. Until then, have a great day.
This next series, that's right, series of posts are all inspired by a Facebook conversation I had with a friend on there/devoted fan. One of those two pieces are a lie, but part of this conversation did happen on Facebook. First, the back story.
For those who have never seen (500) Days of Summer I present the following trailer. I also recommend seeing the movie, but it isn't necessary to understand the conversation. I'll go into some non-spoiler details.
An important aspect of this movie is that it is a story about love, "but it's not a love story." I use quotations here for a very important reason. It is explicitly stated at the beginning of this movie that it is not a love story. I will repeat that, because it will make my unintelligible ranting further on better. It is explicitly stated at the beginning of this movie that it is not a love story.
Some fans are apparently still calling this a love story.
Ub-bu-whah? How? The movie tells them not to! Why?!
Levitt himself confirms what the movie he starred in is not a love story, in a recent interview in Playboy. Note, the link is surprisingly mostly safe for work, and contains nothing you wouldn't see on late night television. That's a discussion all its own, so I'll stay on point. The quote I want to hone in on is the following.
"The (500) Days of Summer attitude of “He wants you so bad” seems attractive to some women and men, especially younger ones, but I would encourage anyone who has a crush on my character to watch it again and examine how selfish he is. He develops a mildly delusional obsession over a girl onto whom he projects all these fantasies. He thinks she’ll give his life meaning because he doesn’t care about much else going on in his life. A lot of boys and girls think their lives will have meaning if they find a partner who wants nothing else in life but them. That’s not healthy. That’s falling in love with the idea of a person, not the actual person." JGL
So in a story that's not a love story, we have a character played by Levitt who is not meant to be a love icon, and Levitt himself is telling us not to idolize this behavior. And yet people still are.
So on to the first part of my series, where I'm going to talk about the responsibility of the reader/viewer/audience when it comes to their ingestion of media. Media being in this case art, since I consider this art, but I could go on and on about other media as well. I won't today. Must stay focused.
What responsibility does the audience have when they consume their chosen media? When I legally purchase a movie like (500) Days of Summer who says I have to read into it what the writers, directors, actors, production itself is trying to sell me? I paid for it, shouldn't I be allowed to interpret this film anyway that I please?
I'm going to shock you all and give you the answer you can probably guess I was going to give. No. You may not interpret it as you please.
Now don't jump down my throat because I also don't believe there is only one way to interpret something. One of my film buff friends and myself had a good conversation about whether the end conversation between Levitt's character and Zooey Deschanel's character actually have their final conversation, or if it's just in Levitt's head. This is fun to discuss, but in the end it doesn't change what the movie is trying to give us. A not love story.
While the audience should be, and in my mind is allowed certain interpretive rights, they also have a responsibility to take what is presented to them as what it is. What I mean by this is that when an apple is put in front of you, you don't talk about it as if it's a car. The apple is an apple, barring symbolism which I hate anyways.
When a movie tells you that it is not a love story, it is setting the stage for you. A play which does this is Romeo and Juliet. Note that Romeo and Juliet begins by talking about the two houses, Capulet and Montague. This is the important part of the play. What is happening between these two houses and what it leads to. The love story is secondary. It's the story of a 14 year old and a 17 year old killing themselves over tragic circumstances. This play is not Shakespeare telling us this is what true love means, it is him telling of the tragedies which befall two families when they pointlessly war with each other forcing their two children to go to extreme lengths for stupid reasons. Part of that is my interpretation, but it is an interpretation justified by facts I believe I found. At no point does Shakespeare come out and contradict this interpretation. And if he does then congratulations, the zombie apocalypse is upon us.
By ignoring what the author is telling you, as an audience, what you essentially tell the author is that you don't care what they intend. What you are essentially doing is trying to take ownership for something you had no hand in. That might seem extreme since the culture is still arguing over what Shakespeare intended in plays like hamlet, and a lot of fun can be had debating why things happen and what ifs and...all that, but there is a difference between acknowledging what is there, and what is not, and discussing what is not, as opposed to flat out ignoring what is right in front of you.
As a writer who writes particularly strange fiction, I want my audience to be entertained. I want to give them the liberty to imagine my characters in strange circumstances or carry on the story without me. It's no different than fan-fiction or cosplay. People should be allowed to enjoy my stuff outside of the world I put it! But it's one thing to take things out of the world I create, and an entirely different thing to essentially tell me what I created when I explicitly told you what it wasn't. If someone tries to tell me that my work is a scathing social commentary I will become furious unless they present me millions of dollars to support the idea, in which case I'm listening. But seriously, it's not a social commentary except where it is. But I tend to be pretty explicit with these things.
So am I saying you as the audience must interpret something one way? No. Any author worth their salt leaves you some room to spice up the work how you please. But are you allowed to get anything and everything from my work? Also no. You have to work with what I give you.
Don't think it's all on the audience though. Tomorrow I'm going to discuss the responsibilities of an author both to their craft and to their audience. Until then, have a great day.
No comments:
Post a Comment