Film & Literary Aspects - Help! (1 Viewer)

[Chemboy]

Hi.
I seem to be having a lot of difficulty in actually proving that some of the obscure aspects of some texts are the genuine intention of the composer, and was hoping that maybe someone out there could tell me how they do it. Things like juxtaposition and metaphor are fine, because they are more apparent, but how do I actually prove that, for example, Peter Brook purposely cast actors with english accents as French soldiers in his King Lear production, as opposed to just making a compromise?

Any help, or thoughts on the matter would be very greatly appreciated

-Many thanks

 

[malkin86]

To emphasise the common humanity, perhaps?

 

[silvermoon]

the question here is: why should you have to prove that this was his original intention? under the new syllabus guidelines, it doesn't matter what the message of the original composer was - the idea is now that the text means different things to different responders. so if you think Brook's playing with language proves something, then it does prove it. In your answer you just say: "Brook creates his French soldiers with stereotypical English actors, revealing..." or whatever. you don't have to prove in this instance that you are correct. in essence, the inclusion of the fact that the french soldier's speak with english accents forms the 'proof' for your argument on humanity or whatever.

 

[Chemboy]

So, in other words, I could absolutely misinterperet the meaning of something, or make-up a whole bunch of crap about something that was obviously just a coincedence or compromise, and still get marked correct! Cool! 'cause my stupid english teacher says that every single aspect of film and literature is deliberate!

There's probably a similar reason as to why a drunkard friend of mine is a finalist in an international poetry competition. He can't distinguish between a simile or metaphor, and left school when he was 14. But all of these english scholars completely overanalysed this piece of poetry he wrote (whilst stoned) about friggn' dung beetles! It's really quite funny, especially the way they treat him all dignified and such.

PS, thanks for the comments, it takes a load off knowing that I can still rely on my overactive immagination. -Cheers

 

[silvermoon]

thats okay. in english, interpretation is so wishy-washy: the theory is that if the text means something to you than that's the meaning of the text, regardless of what the author intended. be careful what you say though. for example, if you wrote that Peter Brook dressed Cordelia in purple and purple signifies honesty, then they could mark you wrong. if, however, you wrote that Brook dressed Cordelia in purple to emphasise her royalty - even if the marker knew that Brook had actually dressed Cordelia in lime green, or canary yellow, they can't mark you wrong: they're marking on your analysis of technique, so make sure that that still makes sense.

 

[Sophie777]

Everything is deliberate. Every single thing in a film is there for a specific reason. You have to find out what, for you, these things mean.

 

[silvermoon]

Everything is deliberate. Every single thing in a film is there for a specific reason. You have to find out what, for you, these things mean.

heh, in other words...as long as you can find an example to back up your theory - you're set.