show of hands: how many people here think hitchcock was abducted by aliens at least once, maybe twice? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dewrede said: It's just a movie
Why overanalyze it ? [/b] oh, here we go again. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ace said: Natsume said: yes! If the meaning is open for the viewer's interpretation, then why intend a meaning at all? Why not just make something totally abstract? If I am a songwriter and I write a song that opposes racism (for example), but someone interprets it as being pro-racism, is that interpretation equally valid? Sure, it's valid. But there are variations in artists' control of meaning. Some make really abstract art, some make really concrete art and require varying degrees of work from the viewer/reader/listener. I tend to prefer art toward the abstract end because I like bringing my own interpretations to it and playing with meaning myself. But there can also be very clear themes, more obvious messages, that bring out a lot of complexity too. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It's on tcm now. what about the caged birds he brings to the island, is that of any significance wonder? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It's a foresight into the future about how the bird flu is going to come and kill us all. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TMPletz said: It's a foresight into the future about how the bird flu is going to come and kill us all.
and parrots can fly up your skirt if you are not careful, just ask my auntie | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
charlottegelin said: TMPletz said: It's a foresight into the future about how the bird flu is going to come and kill us all.
and parrots can fly up your skirt if you are not careful, just ask my auntie HA! I don't wear skirts! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TMPletz said: charlottegelin said: and parrots can fly up your skirt if you are not careful, just ask my auntie HA! I don't wear skirts! dressing gown then, same thing | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
charlottegelin said: TMPletz said: HA! I don't wear skirts! dressing gown then, same thing Now maybe if you had said "Jedi robes".... | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TMPletz said: charlottegelin said: dressing gown then, same thing Now maybe if you had said "Jedi robes".... no, I said dressing gown | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
hmmm... we have tippi hendren's character, a woman who is so bold, crafty, and independent, as well as passionate about following her urges,go through this story... a lady tells her that she has brought the birds after her... that she is evil... and by the end of the movie she is a mumbling, traumatized, dependent, invalid....
hmmmmm My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Watching it last night there is also an over protective mother who has turned many women away. Notice how the Rod Taylor character is so much older than his sister and there's no father to be seen [Edited 10/31/05 5:13am] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ace said: Natsume said: yes! If the meaning is open for the viewer's interpretation, then why intend a meaning at all? Why not just make something totally abstract? If I am a songwriter and I write a song that opposes racism (for example), but someone interprets it as being pro-racism, is that interpretation equally valid? It is my opinion that all good art is subjective. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lilgish said: Watching it last night there is also an over protective mother who has turned many women away. Notice how the Rod Taylor character is so much older than his sister and there's no father to be seen
[Edited 10/31/05 5:13am] I watched it last night and thought the same thing! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
heartbeatocean said: Ace said: If the meaning is open for the viewer's interpretation, then why intend a meaning at all? Why not just make something totally abstract? If I am a songwriter and I write a song that opposes racism (for example), but someone interprets it as being pro-racism, is that interpretation equally valid? Sure, it's valid. Your argument means that interpreting Roots as pro-slavery is valid. Sorry, I disagree. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
heartbeatocean said: Dewrede said: It's just a movie
Why overanalyze it ? [/b] oh, here we go again. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MISOGYNISTIC! did I spell that right? Great film though, just the opening scene surprises with little character twists.
ufoclub said: hmmm... we have tippi hendren's character, a woman who is so bold, crafty, and independent, as well as passionate about following her urges,go through this story... a lady tells her that she has brought the birds after her... that she is evil... and by the end of the movie she is a mumbling, traumatized, dependent, invalid....
hmmmmm My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ace said: heartbeatocean said: Sure, it's valid. Your argument means that interpreting Roots as pro-slavery is valid. Sorry, I disagree. Oh, whatever. There's misinterpretation and there's aberrant readings -- actually taking something against the grain of what it was originally intended to mean. The idea of camp is to take something and adopt it for an entirely different purpose than it was meant for to begin with. No, that probably would not work for Roots. Although, at some point in history, people may get tired of watching black people be whipped on television. Oops, now I've really opened a can of worms. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Moderator | DorothyParkerWasCool said: One of my favorite films! My take is that Birds generally don't harm anyone but they are typically overlooked and or harmed by human beings. Hitchcock showed how a creature that seems so docile, so insignificant and minute could rule the world if they wanted to. The irony in all of this is that the humans didn't consider their actions towards the birds as terrorizing or harming them. i.e. putting them in cages, eat them, keeping them in pet store etc. The typical respone, because the one who initiates terror generally overlook their own actions and then label retaliation terrorizing.
sidenote, I love the tall crane shot where the camera looks down on Bodega Bay as the birds are terrorizing the citizens for a change. Hitchcock called it his God angle/POV, where the all-mighty just sits back and watches the birds retaliate and does not intervene. Great film and thought provoking. [Edited 10/28/05 10:14am] Well said. In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |