Analysis and Interpretation of a Movie - Research Paper Example

? Movies: The Mirror Of The Myth And The Legends of the and number submitted Introduction Cinema is awindow to the world of fantasy, dreams, music and magic. It allows people to ‘live’ a dream like life through their favorite stars in the movie. People watch movies to experience those things which they cannot experience in their own life. It is a beautiful world where ‘good’ always wins over ‘bad’ and stories end in happy way. Hence, even though most of the movies tell stories which are far from reality, they attract viewers because of the dream like experience they provide. People enjoy watching those movies which are close to their dream world. Hence, different people like different genres of movies. People who are dominated by emotions like romantic movies, people who take life lightly enjoy comedies and people who are aggressive love to watch action movies. Movies are nothing but a mirror of an individual mind which is shaped by cultural beliefs, rituals, social environment, religion etc. Hence, analyzing or interpreting a movie is not an easy job. People project their internal make up on movies and choose watching those movies which are compatible with their emotional and psychological make up. Moreover, movie is not just about stories. It involves technical aspects like script, screenplay, sound, technology, light etc., which viewers are not aware of (Gordon, 1975, p.99). Hence, one has to keep in mind the technical aspects of a movie while analyzing one. However, as human being is trained to analyze things on the basis of his own point of view, the factor that dominates the process of analysis is the internal psychological frame of mind of the analyst. This distorts the chances of analyzing a movie without prejudice and bias. Hence, an unbiased and honest analysis of a movie is possible only when the analyst is capable of being completely independent from projecting his personal ‘mind’ on the movie and, who understands the importance of the connection between the intention of the movie maker and the psychology of the audience for whom the movie is intended. Analysis And Interpretation Even though the words analysis and interpretation look similar in their meaning, there is a huge difference between them when they are applied to the art of understanding the movies (Metz, 2004, p. 7). According to Elsaesser and Buckland, ‘analysis’ of a movie involves a scientific approach towards the understanding of the movie (Metz, 2004, p. 7). In analyzing a movie, people who analyze, study all the technical and aesthetic aspects of the movie like sound, narration, script, direction etc., to see how they contribute in the making and the performance of the movie (Metz, 2004, p. 7). Hence, movie analysis is an objective process as people who analyze the movie do not allow any preconceived ideas or notions to influence them while analyzing a movie (Metz, 2004, p. 7). They do it with a fresh mind and outlook. Hence, ‘analysis’ of a movie is different than ‘interpretation’ of the movie as ‘interpretation’ involves the evaluation of the movie from a ‘personal’ point of view. People apply ‘general’ ideas and the personal experiences in understanding the meaning behind the movie. That is, when people try to interpret the movie, they try to understand the story, characters and the technical aspects of the movie by relating their own beliefs, experiences and prejudices to different elements of the movie (Metz, 2004, p. 7). Even if the characters and the stories are not directly related to their personal lives, they interpret the meaning of the story and the characters of by relating it ‘symbolically’ to their personal lives. Hence, interpretation of movies is not an objective process. It is a subjective process as people interpret the movie on the basis of their cultural beliefs, prejudice, personality, religion, social influence, political choice etc (Metz, 2004, p. 7). It was this quality of interpretation that led the theorists from the field of psychology to study, interpret and relate movies to people’s life through the eyes of psychoanalysis. This study was so deep that it formed an altogether new meaning to the experience of watching movies. Interpretation Of Movies People interpret everyone and everything around them based on the cultural beliefs and notions they are brought up with. Their environment, cultural background, ethnic background and their religion, play a major role in formation of their beliefs. Movies are nothing but representation of life. Hence, when people interpret movies, they do it on the basis of their cultural and ethnic beliefs. There are different traditional aspects of culture and religion that help people in decoding the meaning of art around them. Myth Art is an expression of life. Artists try to expression their emotions, messages and attitude through their art. They express their emotions of anger, love, frustration, melancholy, happiness etc. through different forms of art like paintings, literature, dramas and movies. To understand the message or the meaning behind the art, people have to interpret the art. As art is the manifestation of human thinking and imagination, it is usually expressed in a pictorial ‘language’ that people understand. Same is the case with the movies. Movies take the help of a story and characters to express their ideas and emotions. It remains the job of the audience to interpret the meaning through the behavior of characters and the events in the movie. What really helps people in deciphering the meaning of the movies is the fundamental notion of ‘good and bad’ story and characters which they learn through the traditional ritual of story telling called the ‘myth’ (Indick, 2004, p.3). Myths are traditional and legendary stories which have been repeatedly told for thousands of years without changing them according to the changing times (Indick, 2004, p.3). The same myth is passed from one generation to another of a particular culture to ingrain the fundamentals of the cultural beliefs in children, so that they understand the roots of that culture. The art of storytelling has been in practice since the ancient times. Through the medium of stories, myths and characters, parents and teachers in the ancient times used to teach their children and students the importance and the meaning behind the cultural beliefs, religious rituals, traditional practices, human behavior etc (Indick, 2004, p.3). Things have not changed since then. Even today, people belonging to ancient cultures use storytelling to ingrain their cultural beliefs in children. The only difference is that now, films have become a strong medium of storytelling. One can say that in the long heritage of storytelling, films are the latest medium (Indick, 2004, p.3). Despite of being modern, the films also use myth and legends to tell the stories, although it is hidden behind the mask of modernism. The modern characters, art, literature and creativity of the artists are based on the myths and legends of the culture to which they belong (Indick, 2004, p.3). Hence, people like those movies which are close representation of the myths and legends belonging to their culture. Hence, if one is to know why certain movies influence certain people, then one need to analyze the root level of storytelling and that level is myth (Indick, 2004, p.3). Myths and stories are so deeply ingrained in the psyche of people that they are not even aware of its influence on their minds. Myths and stories become a part of their unconscious mind and hence, originate in imagination (Indick, 2004, p.3). People express their unconscious mind through myths and stories (Indick, 2004, p.3). Sigmund Freud has demonstrated through psychoanalysis that the elements of unconscious mind are represented in the myths through different characters (Indick, 2004, p.3). Hence, it is clear that people interpret the movie through the eyes of the myth that is stored in their unconscious. Moreover, the element that helps them to interpret the meanings in film is the element of ‘symbol’. Symbols According to Carl Jung, the mythological characters that are the part of the unconscious are made meaningful to the collective consciousness through the medium of myth (Indick, 2004, p.3). Jung, through the idea of ‘symbolism’, expressed the influence of images in the film on the minds of the people (Hauke & Alister, 2001, p.4). According to Jung, symbol is defined as “the best possible description of formulation of a relatively unknown fact”, and hence people interpret different images and symbols in different way (Hauke & Alister, 2001, p.4). The interpretation of symbols is not a fixed thing as the interpretation depends on the myth and legends stored in the unconscious. Hence, if the film makers make movies based on the ideas and themes prevalent in the myth and legends of another culture, then they transform the images and symbols to suit the collective consciousness of viewers for whom the movie is intended (Vojkovic, 2009, p.175). The viewers interpret the stories by interacting with the characters and the plot which symbolizes the imagery of their unconscious (Vojkovic, 2009, p.175). Hence, the film makers make the movies keeping in mind the cultural and symbolic taste of the audience (Vojkovic, 2009, p.175). Moreover, most viewers form the expectation about the movie even before watching the movie (Pramaggiore & Wllis, 2005, p.8). Hence, fulfilling their expectations becomes important for movie makers. However, what really attracts the audience towards a particular movie is the depth of its emotions as people get instantly and deeply attached to those things which appeal to their emotions. Cognitive Theory Cognitive theory explains the experience of movie watching as an emotional one. According to cognitive theory, people try to interpret the moving images in movies not only intellectually but they also get involved emotionally (Plantinga, 2009, p. 238). Hence, the viewers watch those movies repeatedly which offer them the range of emotional experience. The viewers relive the emotions by identifying themselves with the characters and plots in the movies (Plantinga, 2009, p. 242). People have the capacity to empathize with the characters and feel what the characters are feeling in the movie (Plantinga, 2009, p. 242). Their involvement with the movie becomes so deep that they begin to ‘think’ themselves as a protagonist and live the emotions of the protagonist in the movie (Plantinga, 2009, p. 248). The viewers forget their reality and become a part of the fiction as the emotions suppressed in their unconscious mind finds an outlet through the characters in the movie (Plantinga, 2009, p. 248). Viewer’s ability to get involved with the characters in movie is called as ‘projection’ in the psychological language. People have a tendency to project their unconscious fantasies, fears, desires and emotions into the film (Henderson, 1985, p.436). Viewers unconsciously identify with the protagonist’s life and situations in the movie, and ‘experience’ their hidden unconscious desire of beating the bad people, romancing a beautiful and exotic woman, being strong and invincible and most importantly, being a ‘hero’ (Henderson, 1985, p.436). This is the reason why viewers get so deeply involved with the movie. They laugh when the protagonist does something funny, they cry when their hero goes through misery, they feel happy when their hero wins in the end etc. The viewers project their unconscious desires into the character and get emotionally attached to him (Henderson, 1985, p.436). In this way, viewers interpret the movie according to the involvement of their emotional and unconscious aspects of mind with the movie. This shows that interpreting a movie is a subjective thing. Hence, it is completely different from the process of ‘analysis’ of the movie as ‘analysis’ of a movie involves technical and objective approach. Aspects Of Movie Analysis Objectivity ‘Objectivity’ and ‘knowledge’ plays a vital role in analysis of the movie. Very few people have authentic knowledge of the technical aspects of movie making. They are unaware of the importance of script, sound, camera angles etc., which play a vital role in the process of movie making and have the ability to affect the creation of the movie (Gordon, 1975, p.99). For example, a good script can go waste if the director does not know how to handle it. Similarly, bad performance by actors can make a movie dull and unbearable. Hence, only those people who have studied movies in detail and who have the knowledge of the nuances involved in movie making should analyze the movie. However, it has been found that people who analyze movies lack the knowledge of movie making and hence, end up analyzing only the ‘parts’ of the movie (Gordon, 1975, p.99). Their analysis is incomplete as it is limited to their ‘personal’ understanding of the movie. This affects the craft of movie making negatively. After all, movie is not just a medium of entertainment but is an art in itself. Movies have the ability to influence people in many ways and common people get influenced by the analysis of the movies thinking that it is done by ‘experts’. Hence, movie should be analyzed only by those people who are aware of the nuances of the art called cinema. However, having the knowledge of movie making is not enough for doing proper analysis of the movie. What is also important is the quality of ‘objectivity’ in analyzing a movie. Sadly, objectivity is the most difficult thing to achieve in the process of movie analysis (Gordon, 1975, p.99). Movies As Mysticism Movies, due to its accessibility and popularity as a mass media, have been a target of criticism and analysis from people specialized in different fields like literature, art, media, politics, social sciences etc (Gordon, 1975, p.99). This has made movies a target of being analyzed under the artistic notions and ideas prevalent in those fields. For example, people in the field of psychology analyze the movie with the aid of psychological notions of myth, symbolism and projection etc. Media theorist McLuhan has called movie a ‘hot’ medium implying that the visual aspect of the movie impacts the visual sense of people so strongly that nothing is left for their imagination (Gordon, 1975, p.99). In this way, movies have been portrayed as a medium which is something ‘out of this world’ and has a quality of mysticism, dreams and fantasy. This kind of reputation and repeated representation of movies as mystical medium has influenced the mind of analysts so much that now, they are incapable of analyzing movies without preconceived notion of mysticism and symbolism attached to it (Gordon, 1975, p.99). This has led to the practice of analyzing movies of different genres based on the set criteria of ‘criticism’ for movies (Gordon, 1975, p.99). Instead of treating movies as literature, drama, recreation of reality or pictorial symbolism, analysts are treating movies as medium of ‘mysticism’ (Gordon, 1975, p.99). This sort of approach implies that movies are not part of human life but are a part of spiritual cosmic power and myth, which is beyond human understanding and hence, has a hypnotic effect on human beings (Gordon, 1975, p.99). According to Gordon, movies of different genres should be analyzed on the basis of “various intellectual standards”, which increases the chances of an objective approach to film analysis (Gordon, 1975, p.100). Hence, for a movie to be analyzed honestly, objectivity is an important approach. However, human mind is so influenced by his surrounding that what dominates his opinion about things around him is not objectivity but social and psychological elements of life. Hence, other powerful aspects like biased thinking and prejudice play a major role in the process of analyzing movies. Lack Of ‘Wholeness’ Approach Most of the times it is found that when analyzing a movie, the analysts focus only on one aspect of the movie like the actor, director, producer or the studio (Gordon, 1975, p.100). They forget that they are doing the analysis of the ‘whole’ movie and not the analysis of the work of one actor or director, who is just a ‘part’ of the ‘whole’ movie (Gordon, 1975, p.100). This shows that analysts lack the integrity of providing a ‘bias free’ analysis as their analysis is highly influenced by the stardom of the actor or the director. Their analysis focuses so much on the ‘part’ of the film that it ruins the chances of the film attracting the audience in the future (Gordon, 1975, p.100). This is because the popularity of an actor comes with an expiry date. The current trends, style and fashion contributes in making actor a ‘star’, and helps that movie to attract the huge audience (Gordon, 1975, p.100). So, even if the movie is not good, it becomes popular because of the popularity of the star. Hence, as the popularity of the ‘stars’ wane, the popularity of their movies also wane (Gordon, 1975, p.100). However, same is not the case with the movies. A ‘good’ movie remains popular no matter how old it is. Hence, if the analysts get influenced by the ‘star power’ while analyzing a movie, then their analysis does not remain authentic and it loses its relevance when the popularity of the stars fades. Film analysts should understand that their analysis play an important role in creating a library of movies which is going to be a guide for the audience and the critics of the future (Gordon, 1975, p.100). If their analysis is based on their bias towards certain aspects of the movie, then even the mediocre movies which do not deserve to be in the library will become a part of library (Gordon, 1975, p.100). This will affect the integrity of the process called as film analysis. Hence, a movie should be analyzed keeping in mind the 'wholeness’ of the movie and not the ‘parts’ of the movie. Personal Criteria Evaluating a movie is a huge responsibility. While evaluating a movie, one has to do justice to the art, the viewers and the people involved in movie making. According to me, justice can be done only when a movie is ‘analyzed’ objectively and artistically. If a person evaluates a movie objectively and artistically, he not only gets entertained by it but can also go beyond the cultural and social division and find divine pleasure in the most creative and brilliant craft called ‘movies’. Conclusion The above discussion shows how the ‘analysis’ and the ‘interpretation’ of the movies are two different things that depends on the approaches one take in understanding the movie. Hence, it is clear that a genuine ‘analysis’ of the movie is possible only by a person who has the technical knowledge of movies and who understands the importance of connection between the intention of the movie maker and the psychology of the audience for whom the movie is intended. Only such a person is capable of both, ‘analyzing’ and ‘interpreting’ a movie, without mixing the two processes with each other. References Gordon, G.M. (1975). Communications and Media: Constructing a Cross-discipline. New York, NY: Hastings House. Henderson, B. (1985). The Searchers: An American Dilemma. In B.Nichols (Ed.), Movies and Methods: An Anthology. London, UK: University of California Press. Hauke, C. & Alister, I. (2001). Jung and Film: Post-Jungian takes on the Movie Image. East Sussex, UK: Brunner-Routledge. Indick, W. (2004). Movies and the Mind: Theories of the great psychoanalysts applied to Film. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. Metz, W. (2004). Engaging Film Criticism: Film Story and Contemporary American Cinema. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Plantinga, C. (2009). Trauma, pleasure and Emotion in the viewing of Titanic: A Cognitive Approach. In W. Buckland (Ed.), Film Theory and Contemporary Hollywood Movies. New York, NY: Rutledge. Pramaggiore, M. & Wllis, T. (2005). Film: A Critical Introduction. London, UK: Laurence King Publishing Ltd. Vojkovic, S. (2009). Formulating the Symbolic Universe: Kill Bill and tarantino’s transcultural imagery. In W. Buckland (Ed.), Film Theory and Contemporary Hollywood Movies. New York, NY: Rutledge. Read More