You say you want a resolution

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.

what exactly happened?

Hello to all,

I'm writing from Tucson, Arizona and have been invited by the Great Ryano to be a part of the Mind over Media discussion. I must say 'Tape' was very powerful indeed. Ryan, I ask of your interpretation of the film, is it true you believe Amy felt there was no crime? The impression I had, even though she talked it off and around it and away from it, was that based on her original reluctance of being in the same room with Jon, her outburst at the end of the movie daming him, and her sarcastic remarks "yea, I let all the guys hold their hand over my mouth," was that she had been savagely raped. It seemed to me she was guarding some very wounded and painful memories and not ready/wanting to confront that incident without warning. I feel the major question is then: could women confront their attackers face to face without the court system and feel vindicated/forgivness regarding a violent crime? Amy was a prosecuting attorny, but would she have known how face Jon and to feel emotional resolution about the incident if she had wanted to? In the movie she did take the upper hand and play tricks on the two men and give them harsh words, but did any of that truely give her satisfaction? Would she/do we even know what to do -- vindication or forgiveness?

-Robert

Is Repentance Subjective?

When is repentance necessary? That's a question that came to my mind last night as I watched the film "Tape." The character John believed that he had committed a crime against Amy. Amy was asserting (right or wrong) that there had been no crime. When John tried to apologize, Amy wouldn't accept it on the basis that he had not been accused, therefore his apology wasn't necessary.
A big point was made in the dialogue of this movie that the perspective of each character helped to shape the actual event that occurred. "How would she describe it?" "I'm just wondering how you would describe it.." That sort of talk went on the whole movie. Also Amy pointing out that John's confession didn't actually prove that he had done anything wrong. If the crime itself is subject to interpretation, what about the repentance?

Could one say in their mind (rightly) that their crime had not hurt anyone but themselves and God, so they only owe repentance to those parties? Can we rightly believe that our actions only go so far? If Amy had truly forgotten about what had occurred (as John had rationalized) would his apology be truly not needed? Are we ever correct to assume that we know when to dish out repentance, and when to just "not do it next time?" Also, was Amy correct in saying that if John was truly repentant, he'd be willing to fully deal with the consequences?

I'm sure we've all done stuff. Is this movie trying to say that we have to go through our past and apologize to every single person for every single thing we've done, is that the point? I think it forces us to ask ourselves.. what is repentance and when is it necessary? I welcome all thoughts and comments...




by the way, I want to thank everyone who attended last night's showing. It was great to see you all and hear your thoughts. I look forward to the next one, which will definitely be Saturday, February 25th at 7 PM (movie rolls at 7:15)