Should we then conclude to a general relativism and repeat, as a commonplace, that we all see films differently and that we each have our point of view on films? The answer is undoubtedly less simple, more complex but also more uncertain. From https://new-fmovies.pro/ you can find the perfect bit now.
The different interpretations of the same film can be described as forming a spectrum or a fan from the most certain or easily accepted interpretations to the most hypothetical interpretations and beyond, downright false. Let us first consider these.
The General Options
- In general, an interpretation consists in connecting by relationships of meaning a limited number of filmic or textual elements: in the case of a film in particular, there is necessarily a choice insofar as the image visual or audible is continuous and the number of observable elements is therefore potentially infinite. But, when we analyze a linguistic text of a certain magnitude like a novel, we also make choices by privileging certain elements that are intended to “support” the interpretation.
- Thus, it is always possible if not easy to find elements which confirm one or the other interpretation, but this confirmation does not constitute validation since other elements can be evoked to support a concurrent interpretation: on the other hand, certain elements can invalidate an analysis, ie demonstrate that it is false.
The Lives of Others by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
An example will help concretize these somewhat abstract reflections. In the Life of Others by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (Das Leben der Anderen, 2006), an agent of the STASI (the political police of the former GDR), particularly mute, betrays the mission entrusted to him by his superiors but masks any evidence of his betrayal: a few years later after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the victim of this espionage discovers in the STASI archives a red imprint on the last report made by this officer before his demotion.
- For the spectators as for the character who consults these archives, it is a visible clue it is filmed in very close-up of the real role played by this officer, but a discussion with the spectators very often reveals a difference between ‘interpretation on this subject: for some, this red trace is left by the finger of the officer who would have bathed in the blood of the woman of the spied character, victim at the end of this long espionage of a dramatic accident; for others, however, you have to go back further into the film and remember that the spy’s typewriter had a red ribbon and that it was stolen by the officer who thus left this red mark on the document in question.
The first of these interpretations is actually false, because, when we see the film again, we see that the officer approaches the injured woman but does not touch her; moreover, experience teaches us that the blood turns brown over time and therefore loses its red color. An objective element of the film, easily observable by all at a second vision, therefore decisively invalidates this interpretation. When these various remarks are made to the spectators in question, they easily admit that they were mistaken and then agree with the second interpretation.