As we say in the vernacular: it is what it is. Sontag was right. She was trying to get us the reader, the viewer to engage, to enter, to feel. Take the ride with Danny on that little big wheel car in a vast lovely lonely place. You Feel that Doppler!
Excellent video! I'm a huge fan of Sontag's ideas, and next time I want to introduce someone to her ideas I might have to send this to them! I think something that a mistake people make when reading this essay (usually people who don't read anything else she's written) is that she doesn't believe at all in what other people call "depth," but that's just not true! To illustrate what I mean, I recently heard someone say that Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" was a symbol for man's struggle against nature and aging towards inevitable death -- if we take a Sontagian perspective this is a problematic statement, but it's not a totally crazy one -- one can easily see why someone would say that. But it's not that the story is a symbol, the story literally IS a man struggling against nature and aging towards his inevitable death! It's an important difference, and once you see why you begin to understand what Sontag was saying. Now, you might say "that's still symbolizing something," and in a certain sense of the word it is, but not in the sense that "X really means Y"
Thanks! And yes I really like your example. Your anecdote is also indicative of the fact that most people tend to overuse the words "symbolism" and "symbolize" when they're trying to analyze a novel or a film. Saying the story is a "symbol" for man's struggle against nature is simply a misuse of the concept called "symbolism," which usually involves the attribution of abstract meanings to concrete objects/actions within a story. Symbolism is just one particular kind of meaning making. One might instead say that man's struggle against nature is a 'theme' of The Old Man and the Sea, which is importantly not the same thing as symbolism.
I’m looking it from a religious perspective. This absolutely crazy. Like there is obsessive pursue with religious text to be interpreted for obvious reason. However the highest form of engagement with Religious life tends to be the experiential. This in fact is the core of religious text pointing you to engage in it. There so many ideas that I springing into my mind just by watching your videos. Thank
I understand what Ms. Sontag is getting at. With Kubrick's films specifically, he did explore certain themes and may not be the director to employ in illustrating her arguments. Most Sincerely, Chris Howley, Wollaston, MA
Yeah, Kubrick's films are thematically rich and meticulously crafted, often with objects that invite symbolic readings. And The Shining is definitely about *a lot* more than just the fact of its being scary or creepy; its creepiness is pretty low on my list of why I personally think it's a great film. But if you read Sontag's essay, you'll find that at times she herself will make her own point with examples from similar filmmakers known for heavy symbolism, like Ingmar Bergman. I like it makes rhetorical sense to do so.
Thank you for sharing some of your classes with the world! This video reminds me so much of David Lynch's commentary on his own works (Happy Birthday to that King!). He famously said “I never interpret my art. I let the audience do that.” because art is supposed to move you and make you feel and be interpreted in a way so that it relates to you. And if your theory isnt that of what the artist intended, does it matter? because it still became impactful to you.
the film “room 237” takes the concept of interpretation to an exaggerated degree, but the film doesn’t assert that its interpretive findings are solid, truthful facts but instead is more playful about over-analyzation i haven’t ever seen anything with a vibe like that, but i’d like to
Thanks for the comment! I certainly agree regarding Room 237, and I hope the video didn't come off as a critique of the film itself, which I like quite a bit, but a critique (from Sontag's perspective) of the habits of interpretation that are exhibited in the film. I also agree that the film itself may not even be critiquing its subjects, which I think is one of the film's strengths.
6:45 The "stedicam" had recently been invented when this film was shot. So in all likelyhood, all of this is merely the filmmakers exploring the possibilities of this new camera that could be moved like this.
Such a pretensious way of saying people often read too much into things. Love to hear her reactions to the Wizard of Oz/Dark Side of The Moon stitch-up.
this really helped with my upcoming exam, thank you. Could you also make a video about phenomenology, especially about Vivian Sobchacks "Carnal Thoughts"? :)
I only searched her up because she made a statement saying men are seen as attractive before and after puberty but women are only seen as attractive before puberty. It really bothered me because it's just not true.
Thanks. I really learnt a lot from this. Do you know of film critics that interpret movies in this way or is it mostly something you'll learn in film schools?
Good question. There's definitely tons of debate in academia right now about the very issues Sontag discusses, and there are some film scholars who practice something related to Sontag's descriptive approach (some under the heading of 'phenomenological film criticism'). And in youtube criticism, I'd say 'Every Frame a Painting" is fairly on the Sontag side of things. For big name 'film critics,' though, it's kind of a different story; the critic Matt Zoller Seitz even wrote about the lack of formal description in film criticism here: www.rogerebert.com/mzs/please-critics-write-about-the-filmmaking. In the 60s, though, there was less of a division between scholarly 'analysis' and popular 'criticism;' the writings of British critics like Victor Perkins and Robin Wood was always grounded in formal details, and is generally really good.
@@filmandmediastudieschannel thanks again. I'm not sure it's in the actual article but I found a quote by Godard about rather than saying how a critic 'feels' about the feel they need to show how what they feel is visible on the screen, which is obviously harder and requires a certain expertise.But I think this is a higher level debate that is not present in the critical media. For example, I watched the movie Potiche last week and for the life of me I cannot find a review that isn't some carbon copy of the next one. Wikipedia provides much the same information so why do we need so many reviews that say the same thing?
This is why "interpretation" instead of experiencing the film is idiotic. Also, the Shining is a Steven King novel, not a CubKubrick film, but an adaptation. Lastly, movies are visual storytelling thus setting a mood, feeling, or narrative is set by sound & sight. Unlike books that can be filled with exposition which is anathema to good films.
Having seen both Kubrick's version of The Shining and Steven King's own film version of his own story, I can definitely say The Shining is Kubrick's film. Because King's version is utter garbage. Like, *really* bad.
Sure, except "The Shining" had a lot of stuff in it that was supposed to be interpreted. Many people don't realize the sexual abuse that was intentionally kept in the background by Kubrick. When you decide everything, the story becomes more clear, and watching it a 2nd time is even more chilling.
The overall feeling I had watching this was boredom. It illustrated to me just how deadly dull academia can be and how it can suck the very life out of art.
![John Berger ve Susan Sontag, "How to Tell a Story" (Voices, 1983), 3. Bölüm [Çeviri: Özge Çelik]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PDAvxeCLGB0/mqdefault.jpg)
I know it's a foundational concept, though it reminds me of my undergrad poetry professor who used to always phrase it as "a poem is not a puzzle."
haha yes same basic idea!
lmao
Robert Lowell had similar thoughts.
yep!@@bluehydrangea5506
And he's wrong...or might be. Depends.
It makes sense why Tarkovsky argued against symbolism
This really helped my understanding of Sontag's arguments, thank you!
As we say in the vernacular: it is what it is. Sontag was right. She was trying to get us the reader, the viewer to engage, to enter, to feel. Take the ride with Danny on that little big wheel car in a vast lovely lonely place. You Feel that Doppler!
I don't believe she right at all. Or even close. This argument is ridiculous.
Excellent video! I'm a huge fan of Sontag's ideas, and next time I want to introduce someone to her ideas I might have to send this to them!
I think something that a mistake people make when reading this essay (usually people who don't read anything else she's written) is that she doesn't believe at all in what other people call "depth," but that's just not true! To illustrate what I mean, I recently heard someone say that Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" was a symbol for man's struggle against nature and aging towards inevitable death -- if we take a Sontagian perspective this is a problematic statement, but it's not a totally crazy one -- one can easily see why someone would say that. But it's not that the story is a symbol, the story literally IS a man struggling against nature and aging towards his inevitable death! It's an important difference, and once you see why you begin to understand what Sontag was saying.
Now, you might say "that's still symbolizing something," and in a certain sense of the word it is, but not in the sense that "X really means Y"
Thanks! And yes I really like your example. Your anecdote is also indicative of the fact that most people tend to overuse the words "symbolism" and "symbolize" when they're trying to analyze a novel or a film. Saying the story is a "symbol" for man's struggle against nature is simply a misuse of the concept called "symbolism," which usually involves the attribution of abstract meanings to concrete objects/actions within a story. Symbolism is just one particular kind of meaning making. One might instead say that man's struggle against nature is a 'theme' of The Old Man and the Sea, which is importantly not the same thing as symbolism.
She is a bit full of herself, no? She was the guardian of so called NY intellects, yet this essay is complete nonsense and foolish pseudo bs.
I’m looking it from a religious perspective. This absolutely crazy. Like there is obsessive pursue with religious text to be interpreted for obvious reason. However the highest form of engagement with Religious life tends to be the experiential. This in fact is the core of religious text pointing you to engage in it. There so many ideas that I springing into my mind just by watching your videos. Thank
I'm surprise this video not have one million of views - yet. Thanks!
Me too. What a feeling that video creates. A great one.
I understand what Ms. Sontag is getting at. With Kubrick's films specifically, he did explore certain themes and may not be the director to employ in illustrating her arguments. Most Sincerely, Chris Howley, Wollaston, MA
Yeah, Kubrick's films are thematically rich and meticulously crafted, often with objects that invite symbolic readings. And The Shining is definitely about *a lot* more than just the fact of its being scary or creepy; its creepiness is pretty low on my list of why I personally think it's a great film.
But if you read Sontag's essay, you'll find that at times she herself will make her own point with examples from similar filmmakers known for heavy symbolism, like Ingmar Bergman. I like it makes rhetorical sense to do so.
this video was published a year after I started my podcast on discovering the subtext of each episode of mad men. Thanks a bunch Susan Sontag
😂
Excellent video. I was hoping for someone to make this point!
Sontag was the greatest essayist of the last century argue with the wall
yeah she rules honestly
Antonin Artaud has entered the chat, and has demolished the chat
Thank you for sharing some of your classes with the world! This video reminds me so much of David Lynch's commentary on his own works (Happy Birthday to that King!). He famously said “I never interpret my art. I let the audience do that.” because art is supposed to move you and make you feel and be interpreted in a way so that it relates to you. And if your theory isnt that of what the artist intended, does it matter? because it still became impactful to you.
It's funny how phonies and people with bad art projects use that type of rhetoric about their work.
An excellent and clear explanation. Thanks.
the film “room 237” takes the concept of interpretation to an exaggerated degree, but the film doesn’t assert that its interpretive findings are solid, truthful facts but instead is more playful about over-analyzation
i haven’t ever seen anything with a vibe like that, but i’d like to
Thanks for the comment! I certainly agree regarding Room 237, and I hope the video didn't come off as a critique of the film itself, which I like quite a bit, but a critique (from Sontag's perspective) of the habits of interpretation that are exhibited in the film. I also agree that the film itself may not even be critiquing its subjects, which I think is one of the film's strengths.
Me, thinking of all the essays I wrote doing exactly what Sontag criticized :') lol
Great video! The only thing is around 2:31 when you mention Green representing Envy your slide shows a scene with Yellow tint.
6:45 The "stedicam" had recently been invented when this film was shot. So in all likelyhood, all of this is merely the filmmakers exploring the possibilities of this new camera that could be moved like this.
Genius explanation and simply put, I love it, thank you :)
Thank you!
Live Susan Sontag. 💗🦚💙 Thank you 🙏
This was a really helpful for me, thanks a lot sir🙏🙏
I do feel that it's stupid to find meaning where there isn't any.
Such a pretensious way of saying people often read too much into things. Love to hear her reactions to the Wizard of
Oz/Dark Side of The Moon stitch-up.
this really helped with my upcoming exam, thank you.
Could you also make a video about phenomenology, especially about Vivian Sobchacks "Carnal Thoughts"? :)
I actually realized a had a video lecture on this topic so I uploaded. More soon!
@@filmandmediastudieschannel thank you so much for your work! Your channel is super helpful for my studies :)
I only searched her up because she made a statement saying men are seen as attractive before and after puberty but women are only seen as attractive before puberty. It really bothered me because it's just not true.
Thanks. I really learnt a lot from this. Do you know of film critics that interpret movies in this way or is it mostly something you'll learn in film schools?
Good question. There's definitely tons of debate in academia right now about the very issues Sontag discusses, and there are some film scholars who practice something related to Sontag's descriptive approach (some under the heading of 'phenomenological film criticism'). And in youtube criticism, I'd say 'Every Frame a Painting" is fairly on the Sontag side of things. For big name 'film critics,' though, it's kind of a different story; the critic Matt Zoller Seitz even wrote about the lack of formal description in film criticism here: www.rogerebert.com/mzs/please-critics-write-about-the-filmmaking. In the 60s, though, there was less of a division between scholarly 'analysis' and popular 'criticism;' the writings of British critics like Victor Perkins and Robin Wood was always grounded in formal details, and is generally really good.
@@filmandmediastudieschannel thanks again. I'm not sure it's in the actual article but I found a quote by Godard about rather than saying how a critic 'feels' about the feel they need to show how what they feel is visible on the screen, which is obviously harder and requires a certain expertise.But I think this is a higher level debate that is not present in the critical media. For example, I watched the movie Potiche last week and for the life of me I cannot find a review that isn't some carbon copy of the next one. Wikipedia provides much the same information so why do we need so many reviews that say the same thing?
This is why "interpretation" instead of experiencing the film is idiotic. Also, the Shining is a Steven King novel, not a CubKubrick film, but an adaptation. Lastly, movies are visual storytelling thus setting a mood, feeling, or narrative is set by sound & sight. Unlike books that can be filled with exposition which is anathema to good films.
Having seen both Kubrick's version of The Shining and Steven King's own film version of his own story, I can definitely say The Shining is Kubrick's film.
Because King's version is utter garbage. Like, *really* bad.
Sure, except "The Shining" had a lot of stuff in it that was supposed to be interpreted. Many people don't realize the sexual abuse that was intentionally kept in the background by Kubrick. When you decide everything, the story becomes more clear, and watching it a 2nd time is even more chilling.
Publication year is 1966 Or 64?
But I mostly feel agree was lazy lol
The overall feeling I had watching this was boredom. It illustrated to me just how deadly dull academia can be and how it can suck the very life out of art.
I guess she didn't like the modernists. Or Kubrick.
I truly disagree with her as many of them DO encode messages as use symbolism.
Amazing. Thank you so much.