I haven't read much of Garland's interviews on this, but to me the film itself didn't seem to show journalists as flawless arbiters of truth. It showed human beings trying to do that while knowing at the same time that this is impossible. At numerous points we see them blinker their view by choosing to take photos of certain things from certain perspectives or not. Sammy chastises Lee for losing faith, but to me that felt more like him telling her to keep her chin up than the movie showing their mission as correct and achievable.
I agree that this movie has so many interpretations is noteworthy. Is that an unsatisfying provocation? To many people yeah, and I don't think many particularly like getting provoked in this way. However, I think that ambiguity gets at a central part of the film and its conceit. We really don't know how to talk to each other or see things the same way. Can we find a consensus? The movie asks but doesn't answer that question, but I think it does argue that we have to find a way to, to avoid this world's fate.
Dear, I really liked your review and I share most of your opinions. However, it seems to me that your argument is based on the same premise as the director's argument. That is, the belief that the image alone would be capable of communicating something. In other words, as if it alone were its own meaning. What I'm arguing is that no matter the image made by the photographer or the form and story of the film, both only create meaning in the moment someone interacts with it. In other words, it is not the image that will propagate a vision or not, but the relationship created by its viewer with the image. Relationship that takes place in a specific historical and cultural context. This perspective does not exempt the photographer, but understands that he can at most induce a reading of people who share a cultural context in which he dominates the linguistic means of communication. In conclusion, I agree with your criticism of the director's position and the film's "innocence", but I believe that your criticism is based on the same premise as his that images can communicate something.
I haven't read much of Garland's interviews on this, but to me the film itself didn't seem to show journalists as flawless arbiters of truth. It showed human beings trying to do that while knowing at the same time that this is impossible. At numerous points we see them blinker their view by choosing to take photos of certain things from certain perspectives or not. Sammy chastises Lee for losing faith, but to me that felt more like him telling her to keep her chin up than the movie showing their mission as correct and achievable.
I agree that this movie has so many interpretations is noteworthy. Is that an unsatisfying provocation? To many people yeah, and I don't think many particularly like getting provoked in this way. However, I think that ambiguity gets at a central part of the film and its conceit. We really don't know how to talk to each other or see things the same way. Can we find a consensus? The movie asks but doesn't answer that question, but I think it does argue that we have to find a way to, to avoid this world's fate.
Dear, I really liked your review and I share most of your opinions. However, it seems to me that your argument is based on the same premise as the director's argument. That is, the belief that the image alone would be capable of communicating something. In other words, as if it alone were its own meaning. What I'm arguing is that no matter the image made by the photographer or the form and story of the film, both only create meaning in the moment someone interacts with it. In other words, it is not the image that will propagate a vision or not, but the relationship created by its viewer with the image. Relationship that takes place in a specific historical and cultural context. This perspective does not exempt the photographer, but understands that he can at most induce a reading of people who share a cultural context in which he dominates the linguistic means of communication. In conclusion, I agree with your criticism of the director's position and the film's "innocence", but I believe that your criticism is based on the same premise as his that images can communicate something.
Enjoyed reading about war photography excellent