Against Interpretation

Revisited: A Crisis in
Contemporary Film
Criticism

Our task is not to find the maximum amount of content in a work of art,
much less to squeeze more content out of the work than is already there.
Our task is to cut back content so that we can see the thing at all, Susan
Sontag, Against Interpretation, (1966).
Earlier in the year I saw Terrence Malicks To the Wonder (2012) in a New
York City movie theater. The film, like most of Malicks work, is more
concerned with visual and aural poetry than storytelling, and contains
breathtaking images that struggle to add up to a coherent narrative. As I was
watching, I wasnt quite sure what any of it meant, but I was enraptured and

enthralled by the beauty projected onto the screen. This film, I thought to
myself, is art.
When the film was over, I overheard other moviegoers debating the films
content, which is to say that they were offering different theories on what
the film meant, or what it was trying to say. One woman suggested that
Malick was representing the limitations of love and its inevitable decay,
while her husband argued that the film was more hopeful in its presentation
of romance. They probably continued this conversation over dinner or a cup
of coffee, and Im willing to bet that they didnt come to a consensus. The
wife had her opinion and the husband had his, and that, as they say, is that.
And while I certainly dont want to undermine the importance of an
individuals opinion, a part of me wanted to join in the conversation and ask:
Who cares? Why does To the Wonder have to mean anything? Why does
Malick have to be saying something with the film? Cant we just appreciate it
on a surface level, noting the beauty of its images and the sensuality of its
sounds? Whats with all of this interest in interpretation?
In 1966, Susan Sontag posed a similar question in her seminal essay Against
Interpretation, where she challenged art criticism at the time for applying
aggressive and impious theories of interpretation from the likes of Marx
and Freud. According to Sontag, interpretation violates art and makes art
into an article for use, for arrangement into a mental scheme of categories.
The alternative for Sontag was to engage with arts formal qualities, and to
supply a really accurate, sharp, loving description of the appearance of a
work of artwhich reveal the sensuous surface of art without mucking about
in it. Sontags famous conclusion to her essay is simple yet profound: The
function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is
what it is, rather than to show what it means. In place of a hermeneutics we

need an erotics of art.

In cinema studies, theories of interpretation dominated the field throughout
the 1970s and 1980s as scholars approached cinema from either
psychodynamic or semiotic perspectives to, as Sontag put it so eloquently,
find a subtext which is the true one. Theorists like David Bordwell
and Nol Carroll attempted to correct this, but their recent interest in
cognitive theory suggests that watching a film is a mental experience as
opposed to an emotional one, which moves us away from cinemas ability to
stimulate the senses. Moreover, if the IMDB message boards or recently
published scholarly articles in Cinema Journal are any indication,
individuals still find the need to interpret films in an attempt to discover
what the director is trying to say. As I hope to show, this is a problematic
approach, and film critics and scholars would be wise to return to Sontags
plea for an erotics of art.
This is not to suggest that films are meaningless or that they dont deserve
to be discussed and debated. However, when people spend so much time
trying to understand what Mulholland Dr. (2001) means they forget to
notice the films aesthetic beauty. If all they do is interpret the films
content, which is to say that they try to construct a narrative, thematic, and
ideological meaning out of its visual images, then they overlook the various
ways the filmmakers construct the images in order to elicit an emotional
and sensory reaction from the viewer.
In certain ways, this discussion engages with endless historical debates
about what cinema is supposed to do and how audiences are supposed to
approach it. That is, does cinema makes us think or make us feel, and should
we approach it from an intellectual perspective or from an emotional or
sensory one? Should we look at films, as Sontag suggests, or should we

interpret them?
Perhaps we can make room for both approaches, but it is not unreasonable
to claim that most people spend more time interpreting films and less time
simply looking at them, which renders a problematic implication that
content and meaning is more significant than form and aesthetics.
However, to put it bluntly, some films dont mean anything, but exist to be
pleasurable objects of beauty for us to look at. Consider, for
instance, Persona (1966). Any attempt to interpret Persona (1966) is futile.
The film deliberately strives to be cryptic, and it avoids narrative clarity for
artistic experimentation. So how, then, can one discuss a film as elusive as
this? Is there anything that can be said about Persona that cant be reduced
to arbitrary speculation? I dont think so.
If we are to understand cinephilia as an obsessive love for the cinema, then
we must remember that there are cinephiles who love the cinema
obsessively. One of the many activities cinephiles often engage in are
intellectual debates about a given film. Persona is a fitting example because
it is such an ambiguous film to which viewers often return for more
understanding. If we study the message boards on IMDB, for instance, we
can see that many fans offer their so-called definitive interpretations of the
film. That is, they believe after watching the film a certain number of times
that they have somehow discovered the secret to what the film is all
about. Picasso2, for example, created a thread entitled My view of the plot
**SPOILERS** which tries, once and for all, to explain the film (the
explanation has to do with Elisabeths persona, but it is explained poorly
and thus becomes as ambiguous as the film itself ). Casio_balboa argues
against this interpretation, responding with a tone of authoritative
condescension: Wheres the evidence for all this within the film? Then

there is eikosaedron, whose thread Why cant people admit when a film is
stupidly ambiguous + meaningless caused outrage amongst the group, even
if the user raises a pertinent point by suggesting that the film is just
confusing and vague for the sake of it. As a result, eikosaedron deems
Bergman a lazy director. This discourse illuminates the viewers constant
need to interpret a film. As I was reading these discussions, I was reminded
of Sontag and her opposition to interpretation.
If any film demands to be seen in the way that Sontag suggests, it is Persona.
On the surface, the film is beautifully constructed, with gorgeous close-ups
of the actresses faces, captivating monologues with meticulous framing and
camera movement, and a wonderfully weird opening montage that serves no
purpose other than to stimulate the senses. Im not sure what any of it
means, but who cares?
The films aural and visual components give rise to the kind of sensory,
erotic viewing experience that Sontag calls for. Persona is an aesthetically
pleasing work of art, and to try to interpret its content is to take what
should be an emotional viewing experience and turn it into an intellectual
exercise. The problem with viewers (and I am sometimes guilty of this),
ultimately, is that they spend too much time trying to intellectually
comprehend films that they overlook the aesthetic potential of the image
and its ability to stimulate emotional and sensory reactions. Persona is the
best kind of film because it does not need to be understood to be loved. It
only needs to be looked at.

Persona is not the only film to which this applies. 2001: A Space
Odyssey (1968) also defies interpretation, and the more viewers try to
discuss the films meaning, the more they ruin its artistic ambiguity.
Similarly, Rashomon (1950) is a challenging film about memory and

subjectivityprecisely the limitations of interpretationand there is one

particular scene in which a character simply walks from one area of the
woods to another:

This scene doesnt serve any narrative, thematic, or ideological purpose, but
it is beautifully filmed, so why not let the viewer look at it?
It goes without saying that this article wont convince everyone to abandon
interpretation. For many viewers, it is fun to figure out what a film means. I
am also aware that some may find it more stimulating to approach a film
intellectually as opposed to emotionally, and my bias certainty lies in my
belief that conversations about a films meaning are less interesting than
ones about the look of a film, the way a film is constructed as a work of art,
and the way a film makes us feel.
Still, as we approach the release of films like Gravity, 12 Years a Slave,

and All is Lost that expand the cinematic form, it might be wise to watch
these new works of cinema from an emotional, sensory perspective and see
how they make us feel, and how beautiful and mystifying the moving image
can be when we simply look at it.
What do you think? Leave a comment.

" Share on Facebook

# Share on Twitter

POST ED ON SEP 3 0 , 2 0 1 3 B Y

Jon Lisi
Jon Lisi is a PhD student who writes about film, television, and popular
culture. You can follow his work here: http://jonlisi.pressfolios.com/.

Want to write about Film or other art forms?

Create writer account

Receive our weekly newsletter:

Enter your email

Subscribe

Decoding the
Oscars

Multi-Part Films
in Hollywood:
When Profits
Matter More than
Storytelling

Avatars Shock
and Awe:
Technology,
Race, and Space

The New Classics

in Horror Film
Formulas

14 COMMENTS

SEP 3 0 , 2 0 1 3 R E PL Y

Jernigan
The quality of posts are very good here and keeps getting better. Against Interpretation is
certainly a book which needs to be read by all who debates or analyzes.
SEP 3 0 , 2 0 1 3 R E PL Y

C.
I do not find myself often disagreeing with Susan Sontag in matters of taste (although I admit that
her dislike of big swathes of Bunuels and Resnaiss oeuvre was quite a surprise; Maybe Bunuel
less so, however she is obviously conflicted as to the aims and effects of the Nouveau Roman,
and finds these same effects at work in Resnai), but her appraisals quite often seem dated.
OCT 1, 2013 R E PL Y

Aliya Gulamani
I find this really interesting and feel that your points are relevant to all kinds of art forms, not just
films. I sometimes find when reading literature that the critical explanation of the literature Im
reading is sometimes too analytical everything is deemed to have some kind of significance and
is linked to a definite meaning. Whilst theoretical thinking is sometimes necessary to threedimensionalise our perception of the artistic product, there are certainly times when it is too
much.
OCT 28, 2013 R E PL Y

Jon Lisi
Thanks for your commentand yes, I do think it applies to MUCH of the literary
canon.
OCT 1, 2013 R E PL Y

Samira
I just spend about 30 minutes writing a comment only to accidental delete it. Im so pissed off.
Going to bed.
OCT 1, 2013 R E PL Y

yrne
Interesting read. Her opinions and perspectives on literature, film, and art are addictive.

Admittedly, I did disliked a few of her essays, but some of the later film reviews were very
enjoyable.
OCT 5, 2013 R E PL Y

Lisa Lee
Really interesting, thought-provoking article. It reminds me a lot of Bordwells ideas in the
chapter Parametric Narration in Narration in the Fiction Film, which I studied in a film module as
part of my English Lit MA this year. I do struggle with this sort of film theory because personally I
do think that the vast majority of films visual and stylistic techniques do lend themselves to an
interpretation of meaning, even if this meaning is different for every individual viewer and/or not
intended by the film-maker. For me, if a film is just made of stunning sensory images which are
lacking in any meaning behind them, no matter how beautiful and awe-inspiring these images
are, the films status as Art becomes diminished. Sort of the same way that it is the meaning
and the pursuit of finding meaning behind postmodern art that distinguishes it from childrens
finger painting.
OCT 28, 2013 R E PL Y

Jon Lisi
Bordwell would certainly agree that more attention should be paid to formal
qualities, but I think he takes it to the extreme by not making room for the
subjective movie-going experience.
I guess what Im saying is that its okay if we want to understand the meaning of a
film, but when so many great films are ambiguous, maybe we need to consider that
they cant be bogged down in a simple I have the answers! explanation.
Thanks for your response!
OCT 6, 2013 R E PL Y

Jessica Koroll
I havent read Sontag so, while working my way through your article, I wasnt entirely sure
whether I completely agreed with your points or not. It wasnt until you mentioned 2001: A Space
Odyssey that I understood the feeling you were describing. I have very distinct memories of my
first year film class watching this film for the first time and many people hating it while I nearly
wanted to talk about nothing else. I think the issue is that, from such an early age, were
introduced to narrative films that have very clear structures and a strong sense of purpose
throughout. Even as we get older, if were faced with an ambiguous ending or plot points that
arent immediately clear, people often get angry and feel an ingrained need to try to fill in the
gaps. I often find myself on the fence about it. I think interpreting and reading others reactions
to a film can be loads of fun, it can even act as an important method of uncovering less than
pleasant details about a work, but I dont feel any need to find a definitive answer. The base
feelings evoked by a film, and the ways in which the film produces those feelings through sound
and imagery, can be just as meaningful and informative to the cinematic canon as a work of
deep, purposeful meaning.
This is a really well thought out article. Its given me a lot to consider and Im going to make a
point to try to read Sontag in the future.

point to try to read Sontag in the future.

OCT 28, 2013 R E PL Y

Jon Lisi
You should definitely read Sontag! Her work on photography is even better.
I agree that SO many people want that definitive explanation and, as you say, its
unattainable.
OCT 8, 2013 R E PL Y

Michael Hedges

With Sontag, I always feel inclined to distinguish between rigorous and replicable literarylinguistic criticism, such as stylistics and formalism, and more creative criticism based on
interpreting (and arguably constructing) meaning. She talks of replacing hermeneutics, but also
advocates that the function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is. In my
understanding, appreciation/study of the mechanisms at work would fall under hermeneutics,
such as Barthes structuralist text, S/Z. Here, the form of Sarrasine by Honer de Balzac is
undoubtedly Barthes subject, but it is only through interpretation of the data he finds in the
language of the short story that brings him back to the relationship between form and aesthetics,
rather than a passive approach of simply looking, or in this case, reading. This kind of criticism,
although far removed from abstract speculation on what Persona means, is interpretive, but
perhaps since it makes form its subject of interpretation, rather than content or meaning, it is still
more concerned with aesthetics; the role of form in creating the emotional or sensory experience
is what is being interpreted, rather than meaning taking precedent over form.
OCT 28, 2013 R E PL Y

Jon Lisi
Thats a valid pointespecially if were going the everything is subjective route,
which Im all for.
Sontag also notes that we cant really escape interpretation, which is what you allude
to here, but she does suggest that we dont need to be so intellectually rigorous in
our interpretations. Shes against the Marxist/Psychoanalytic readings of films that
undermine the artistic qualities to locate a problematic ideological agenda.
More than anything, I think her points are useful because she wants us to be less
skeptical and more appreciative of art.
M A R 1 1 , 2 0 1 4 R E PL Y

Roman
If theres a narrative any narrative at all theres no escaping examining that narrative. We
can call it interpretation or understanding or whatever we like, it doesnt matter. Even if the
film is more thematic or expositive, theres still usually going to be meaningful content that tries
to make observational or causal or spiritual claims about how the world works, doesnt work or
ought to work. Emotions do not exist in an intellectual or cognitive vacuum, even if they can be
evoked through contentless form. Emotions and moods combine with and encourage ideas,
values, and judgments. They work in tandem because thats what makes up human perception.

Philosophers have long understood this and many of them (Plato) hold that form is a necessary
subordinate to content, or vice-versa.
That is not to say there arent examples of film that more closely resemble other art-forms than
narrative. That anyone would TRY to explain Malicks To The Wonder is surprising to me.
Kubricks 2001 is probably the best example of film-art that may or may not be about the
narratives relationship to the form. Take away the story and dialogue, however sparse, and you
dont have a film or movie as we all understand it you have some not so moving pictures.
J UN 15, 2014 R E PL Y

Peek 824545301
I completely agree with this article, and for these reasons David Lynch is my favorite living
director. I saw once, I think in the Lynch documentary, that much of Inland Empire was merely
a collection of stuff that he thought would be cool to film. I think people forget far too often
that, more than anything, film is an art form. People like Georges Mlis and Luis Buuel did away
with the novel and cheap appeal of cinema as mere entertainment at the turn of the 20th century,
and over a hundred years later, it seems like people once again need to be reminded.
I do think, however, that approaching the film in an non-interpretive sense is also an intellectual
pursuit as much as attempting to discern meaning, just harder for general audiences to
appreciate. I wonder though, do you consider the writer/director/cinematographer/etc. to be an
authority(authorities) on their own works? If a director said point-blank, this film was all about x,
and thinking about y or z is totally wrong, would that really make y or z any less correct than x?
Great read, solid writing!

Leave a Reply
Leave a comment

Post Comment

The Artifice is an online magazine that covers a wide spectrum of art forms. It operates
independently with the writers collaboratively building and maintaining the platform.

Home

About

Write for us

Writers

Logo

Privacy Policy

Login

Contact

Sign up
Why join us?