Ahhh yes. The "I don't care about authorial intent" argument.
I'm such a big fan of that one.
Never has a more fallacious attitude been imbedded so deeply into the entire world of critical analysis.
It's actually quite entertaining, though substantially moreso when it's a PhD babbling about it, as opposed to some random schmoe on the Internet.
I'll assume that you've got some compelling evidence of authorial intent in this case, then.
I eagerly await your post in which you tell us all about your extensive script meetings with Matt and Trey, in which they decided to make a film that presents the exact opposite of their extreme right-wing views.
Seriously. Bated breath.
__________________ "You people and your slight differences disgust me!" - Professor Hubert Farnsworth
I eagerly await your post in which you tell us all about your extensive script meetings with Matt and Trey, in which they decided to make a film that presents the exact opposite of their extreme right-wing views.
.
Location: Inside the sealed Computer God robot operating cabinet
Posts: 863
Re: Team American: Reaction From Non-Americans
The overall impression that I got from the movie, and from their interviews, was that shitty American foreign policy may be fucked up, but it's the lesser of two evils.
As for their political stance, from what I understand, they don't like either side very much. They mock both sides in both the movie and in the cartoons. They seem to lean slightly towards the right, though; I remember one of them being quoted as saying, "We hate conservatives, but we really hate liberals."
My point is that your argument for authorial intent rests on a single paragraph of transcribed text so vague it arguably doesn't qualify as a political statement.
My argument rests on an entire film whose political point is so ridiculously unsubtle you'd have to be blind and deaf to miss it.
But let's drop this whole thing. It's getting stupid.
__________________ "You people and your slight differences disgust me!" - Professor Hubert Farnsworth
My point is that your argument for authorial intent rests on a single paragraph of transcribed text so vague it arguably doesn't qualify as a political statement.
Or you choose to ignore it because it disagrees with your preconcieved notion of the authors.
Quote:
My argument rests on an entire film whose political point is so ridiculously unsubtle you'd have to be blind and deaf to miss it.
Films can be misinterpreted.
Quote:
But let's drop this whole thing. It's getting stupid.
Ahhh yes. The "I don't care about authorial intent" argument.
From what I remember, the author of <b>Grave of the Fireflies</b> meant his tale as a lesson in humility for children. But, in the end, the result was that every viewer empathizes with the hero of the film and nobody (that I know of) comes out of that experience saying "Yeah that kid was wrong for being so stubborn and proud."
From what I remember, the author of <b>Grave of the Fireflies</b> meant his tale as a lesson in humility for children. But, in the end, the result was that every viewer empathizes with the hero of the film and nobody (that I know of) comes out of that experience saying "Yeah that kid was wrong for being so stubborn and proud."
THat's funny, because that was definitely one of my reactions to the film, and I've heard other people express that exact sentiment.
People are entitled to their opinions. In some cases, though, those opinions are dead wrong.
__________________
Wolfspider
"What would a HYBRID LARP look like, I wonder? A room full of people sitting at folding tables, hammering at graphing calculators and screaming in frustration?" --Servitor_2152
"Someone asked me yesterday if Dracula met Saruman and there was a fight, who would win. I just looked at this man. What an idiotic thing to say. I mean, really, it was half-witted." -- Christopher Lee
Last edited by Wolfspider; 08-14-2005 at 12:14 PM..
Linear Mode
