One of the issues brought up in our discussion of Tape was the lack of resolution. Many people have offered their own interpretations/conclusions, which may well be valid, but I think the brilliance of the film is that it doesn't give enough information for viewers to say, "This is what happened." It's like one of those logic story-problems you do in Jr. High where you have to answer "Not enough information provided." While this is what I liked best about the movie, the lack of resolution frustrated some people. And that leads to my question:
Why do we trust the resolution offered in films?
Movies without resolution frustrate viewers because most movies resolve all the issues at the end. Do we ever think to question those resolutions? One of Ryan's goals in Mind over Media seems to be questioning the worldviews presented in the films we watch. If a filmmaker has a worldview that is different from or even opposed to our own, why would we accept their resolution?
This question rises from one of my favorite issues in literary criticism, the omniscient narrator. When we read a novel or watch a movie that has a narrator or a point-of-view character from whose perspective we receive the story, why do we accept their pont of view? When a movie wraps everything up into a neat little ball, why are we satisfied with it?
Viewers of Tape, as well as the characters themselves, have no objective perspective from which to conclude "what happened." While this frustrates us, it should also remind us that no one has an objective perspective. All stories, films, movies, etc., are mediated and told from a certain perspective. Most movies help or even force us to forget that. Tape makes it abundantly clear.
The great thing about blogging is that even after someone posts a new thread, you can still comment on previous topics (the pity is, no one does). Since this is some people's first experience blogging, we can avoid the bad habits prevalent in the blogosphere. Remember, the post at the top is not the only or the most important one. Keep the conversations going.
Does "Be all you can be" tell me to explore and embrace all parts of me? What about the part of me that can be a total jerk?
About Me
- Ryan
- My wife Mandy and I have a band called willowfair, check us out at www.sonicbids.com/willowfair
Willowfair
.JPG)
8 comments:
Perhaps keep was the wrong verb. Start the conversations going.
Well, I'm seeing a difference in the desire for resolution and the desire to understand anything about the characters. In order to evaluate/learn from their actions, people want to know what the characters are reacting to. It definitely doesn't seem that people are adding in their own view simply to understand, they're just stating what the film led them to believe occurred. There are some films I've watched with people that the problem you're bringing up is exactly correct. lost in translation is a perfect example, which i won't ruin for those who haven't seen it. that's a lack of resolution, b/c you don't understand how the characters choose to end things. Tape makes it clear how the characters end things, people want to know what happened to make them end it that way. And like I said, although I see your point as to why I can't say for sure the film is saying that rape occurred, I can't lie and say that the filmmaker didn't leave enough evidence for me to decide.
I don't understand why the 2 should be hard to reconcile though. You agree that the character John did something wrong, you can assert that something happened that affected these 3 people. You're hesistant to conclude that it was rape, b/c the film doesn't establish it clearly enough. That's fair. But regardless of what you call it, can't you still evaluate/learn from the character's responses?
I agree that the filmmaker's point was not about whether or not it was rape, so we shouldn't spend all our energy trying to deduce that. But we've got Vince accusing John of rape, John admitting to rape, and Amy's reaction (which can be confusing to say the least). But I wouldn't say that believing the rape occured comes from a desire for resolution, rather from the ability to read between the gray lines.
that all being said, I agree 100% that we need to question these things. This is good, this is healthy. I would say that the danger in the narrator situation is that we don't question their motives, we excuse them b/c we are rooting for them. That is where we can be deceived into believing a certain behavior is fine when it might not be.
Titanic is a classic example of this sort of manipulation. The filmmaker makes you feel that Kate Winslett's choice to have an affair with the low class Leo Dicaprio is a NOBLE one b/c she is not being a snob and staying w/ her upper class husband who doesn't make her happy. She's following her heart, which is what the filmmaker has determined is the best standard for making decisions. her adultry is not only not questioned for being wrong, it's held up as being a turning point in setting herself free. how quickly we can fall into traps that are all over the place in films if we don't take the time and perspective. That doesn't mean we should run from films we might disagree with. It means we have to learn to use our minds all the time. Buddy is right, the stories are mediated from different worldviews and perspectives. We must understand, then evaluate them to see if they are true before swallowing.
I grow weary of your babbling. Nevertheless, you're the only one who responded, so I shall deign to reply.
I disagree that we know how the characters end thing. John didn't leave, Amy didn't call the cops, and Vincent is mourning his lost drugs. I fail to see this as resolution. Either way, in our discussion, people expressed their feelings that the film didn't offer enough resolution, and my question was in response to the desire for it more than to the film itself.
Yes, you can decide what happened. We make decisions every day based on less information. But I don't think we can say that the movie offers a solid conclusion our even asks us to. Our interpretations are based on our own points of view and involve explaining away or ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Why is the popular interpretation that Amy is in denial? Because she's a woman and must not be in control of her emotions? Because John is a man and must have forced her? John is an artist; why not assume that he is particularly sensitive and his discomfort with that situation made it easy for Vincent to convince him it was rape? Amy is a strong career woman with a sadistic sense of humor; why not believe that she enjoys rough sex, like she said?
I agree that we can learn from their perspectives regardless of our interpretation. John's situation raises questions about repentance, definitely. Amy raises questions about denial, law vs. justice, and grace/forgiveness. Vincent raises too many questions to go into now. We don't have to deduce "what really happened" in order to learn from and evaluate the characters.
The movie also gives plenty of evidence that Vincent has no idea what he's talking about.
I want to be clear that I'm not saying that Vincent convinced John that he raped or that no rape actually occured. I'm not making any claims about "what happened." You interpret Amy's comment as a sarcastic defense, and as I said, that may be a valid interpretation. But it may be the truth. I'm not interested in what happened outside of the movie. To me, the greatness of the film (and the more we discuss it, the better I think the movie was) is that it offers three radically different, subjective perspectives of an event, and it raises a lot of great questions.
For instance, why is the common interpretation that the men must be right and the woman wrong?
Amy claims she wasn't raped. Vincent assumes she must have been (even though he wasn't there and Amy never told him she was), based on his own arrogance and machismo that can't believe Amy would sleep with John and not him. And John only admits to it (if he does; his description is of rough sex) under coercion. You don't have to watch much Law & Order to know that coerced confessions rarely stand up to scrutiny. (Let me reiterate that I am offering an interpretation of what was actually said in the movie; I am not making any claims about "what happened.")
Concluding that Amy was raped insists that the men are telling the truth and the woman is lying (for whatever reason). What can we learn about ourselves and our culturally constructed views of gender identity when this is the popular interpretation?
Did you delete your comment while I was responding to it?
Great, now I look like the crazy guy who talks to cyber-voices that aren't there.
Well, I guess I should say that for me the film gave enough evidence to discuss what we think happened (which is what we're trying to do) and why we think that. I'm by no means saying that what I believe HAD to have happened (b/c I understand the evidence you bring to the table), which is why the discussion exists. I just don't think anybody is missing the point of the movie if they believe one way or the other. Does that make sense?
Yes, that makes sense. But I disagree (surprise, surprise). I see the point of the movie as revealing the limits of interpretations and the subjectivity of experience. I think that the movie asks us to evaluate why we are drawn toward any interpretation over another.
That said, I recognize that my perception of the point of the movie is based on my own limited and subjective interpretation, and as I've said, other interpretations, including those that seek to determine "what happened" may be equally valid. Even two conflicting interpretations may be equally valid.
I realize that many people don't enjoy discussing interpretation and criticism as much as I do. That paired with my hearing voices may be the reason you're the only one on this blog who will talk to me.
Now if you'll excuse me, my poop just told me to kill my mom.
Sorry, I was reading what I wrote and realized that we didn't need to take the discussion down this road. I only wanted others to not feel their perspective was invalid (and therefore afraid to share it) b/c you didn't think there was enough evidence to support any opinion. Your thinking on the movie only strengthens why I loved it, b/c you took something different away that we can learn from. It's fine if you don't want to determine what happened, that's completely fair.
I'm interested in the questions you feel the movie raised, since it's obviously not about the event itself. We can continue talking about John/repentance on my original post. I'm curious as to what you would say about Vince. ready... go.
note to readers- buddy is not a crazy guy who talks to cyber voices that don't exist. (buddy, I had a strong desire to only comment in return "Comment? What the heck are you talking about?" I could've discredited you once and for all, but i saved you. i saved your life).
Post a Comment