You're an idiot. That's brash, but in this instance it's completely true. The director himself has stated one thing, you continue to argue the opposite. You're not even trolling. This may be the greatest example of idiocy I've ever come across. I could say something funny and quote your tag ("I think you picked the wrong week to quit thinking!) but, aside from being corny, that would imply that you had been thinking at some point before, which I seriously doubt.
For anyone else who thinks there's a debate to be had here, something along the lines of an artist vs. his audience in the battle to define the "truth" of his work, (and the last poster isn't even clever enough to formulate on these lines, see the first paragraph for my response to that) realize that, concerning works of fiction, there are three arguments to be made as to who defines the "truth" of the fictional reality:
1. The audience. The truth is subjective. Each audience member defines their own individual truth for this movie. For some Alex is alive. For some he's dead. Everyone is correct. There is no objective truth, and debate is pointless. If this is what you believe, your views have no place on a thread debating "what actually happened".
2. The author. That first perspective sounds very noble and egalitarian, but this is actually the correct view, as can be cleanly proven by a simple analogy:
You best friend (let's call him Tom) turns to you one day and tells you "My dream car is a red convertible". Upon hearing this, you, for some crazy reason, envision a green convertible. Next day, Tom buys the car. You see it. It's red. How crazy would you sound if you said "WTF? No man, you got it wrong! That's not your dream car!"
Let's take it a step further. The visual language of cinema isn't quite as clear as "red means red" and "green means green". Let's say, instead, you friend tells you, "my dream car is the color of roses". He thinks of red. You, by chance, come from a town where all roses are white. You think of white. The situation follows as before. He buys the car. You see it. It's red. Is it rational for you to tell him he got the wrong car?
Since we have this analogy, let's use it to interpret the first perspective noted above in which the audience defines the work. It could be said that, when it comes to a work of art, the sense that it gives you (that image of the white car in your head) is the end result in and of itself and there is no show and prove to come later (while your friend can get his convertible and show you the color, we'll never have a real Alex to see if he really lived or died). The thought in your head is what's of concern, not the actual car. You thought of a white car. There's no debate about what you thought. Car is white. That's it. Problem is, your other friend Bob was standing there when Tom told you about his dream car, and he envisioned something blue. By this token, you're both right (though perhaps also hard of hearing) and neither of you can claim to have any truth that applies for the both of you.
Lastly, let's go one final step, and consider a third possibility.
3. What if, as soon as Tom spoke, his words became an independent "thing", wholly transcendent of any after-the-fact-definition no matter who's providing it. This sounds a bit grandiose for a simple sentence, but films are often seen this way. If you abide by this principle a work can only be judged on it's own original merits. If, upon review, it's meaning is uncertain, it can be defined no further than that. It can only be said to be ambiguous, and no one can reasonably profess to know any more than that.
All of this to say, whatever your philosophy on who defines truth in a fictional work, there is no reasonable basis to openly argue a contradiction of the author's truth. Ironically, it doesn't really take a whole lot of philosophy to get that either. Just taken on it's face, you're saying that you understand an authors work better than they do. How utterly pretentious.
reply
share
GuyOnTheLeft
11 years ago
The problem here though is that if we really take the director's word for this, it downgrades his work. That scene is poorly done, much below the quality of the movie overall, if it is depicting him still alive. I think he should have left well enough alone there.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
reply
share