This is key-- and particularly goes back to the issue of Lubitsch's desire for a perceptible pointing out and "working through" for an audience those human characteristics and situations he deems offensive or unacceptable in the present day, characteristics and situations he'd rather not seen celebrated and-- I guess this is the worry-- propagated in present day society.colinr0380 wrote:[I find the best films are where the filmmaker has provided the space for the audience member to bring their own selves to the material, and that is probably what leads to various reactions from feeling that either nothing is happening and the film is boring through to feeling that the film is incredibly thought provoking because the space has been provided for contemplation. Is it less important in certain circumstances to understand and be supportive of the intentions of the filmmaker than to feel instead that the film is a success or failure because of the things we are inspired to think and feel in response to the film, feelings that may be unintended or even actively contrary to the original intent of the filmmakers themselves? Maybe it should be both – understanding the context of the film is important but also that individual responses to a piece of work can be just as valid a reason for feeling positive or negative towards a particular film.
An artist can and should allow space for the viewer to bring his-herself to the piece and inhabit it, make it his her own, and this can occur in just about all aspects of the narrative... from moral themes to examinations of human conflict to something as simple as the rendering of horror and suspense-- i e allowing a violent physical attack to take place offscreen and thus in the veiwer's imagination rather than in a brightly lit bath of shredding prosthetic flesh soaked with Karo corn syrup soaked with Red #1.
The same way onscreen narration can be seen as a shortcut and a cop-out for a lazy director, as can the excessive use of music to tell you what to feel when, as well as manipulative tools that are employed that exaggerate the good guy and the bad guy into unreal and highly unimaginative archtypes, so is the imposing of contemporary judgement on tales of historical figures going to result in plain old Manipulative Cinema... Spielberg Style. If one must "break up" and examine what one director perceives to be the mindlessness of the servitude of bushido at its most loyal, or the dedicated religious belief and sincerity of Joan the maid, then a new, contemporary element is introduced into the narrative which corrupts the historical fidelity of the piece, and which also-- by loss of subtlety and the ambiguity of human variegation-- neutralizes the litmus-test like quality of these kinds of films when dealing with unique and perhaps controversial characters and situations. Rather than a variegated response you get a-- which ironically turns the piece into a piece of propaganda just as manipulative as anything that is alleged to be in Mizoguchi's film, which Lubitsch is seeking to neutralize-- more homogenous audience response... as they are being told by the filmmaker What To Think.
