tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3514668139847782851.post5625728696475286929..comments2023-11-05T02:34:47.429-08:00Comments on Ruth Consumes Some Media: Race, Social Responsibility, and D.W. Griffith's "Broken Blossoms"Ruth Gregoryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05347899112727882947noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3514668139847782851.post-66187431846059896312010-01-28T10:11:59.981-08:002010-01-28T10:11:59.981-08:00More grist for the aforementioned mill:
David Mam...More grist for the aforementioned mill:<br /><br />David Mamet, regarding charges of misogyny: "It's inaccurate and it's a lie, and not only is it that, but it's cowardly. What happened, I believe, was, years ago, I wrote a play called 'Sexual Perversity in Chicago' which was about misogyny; how a nice, healthy relationship between two nice young people was ruined by the incursion of a misogynist. And since then, people have said, 'It's been said that you are a misogynist.' Well, nothing could be further from the truth, either in my personal life, if it's anyone's business, or in my work. I think if someone wants to make such an unpleasant and demonstrably false assertion, let him or her make it, and I'll respond with whatever small courtesy it deserves" (The Boston Globe, 1997).<br /><br />But that doesn't stop people from continually criticizing him for being a misogynist, from interpreting his work as such. So even though he never intended the reaction, he's been stuck with the label since 1974 (reignited by almost everything he writes, from Oleanna to Bobby Gould in Hell to Spartan).wonderyakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03706391979882993213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3514668139847782851.post-55906629836418280762010-01-28T09:59:00.693-08:002010-01-28T09:59:00.693-08:00"Can you separate the intent of a film/filmma..."Can you separate the intent of a film/filmmaker versus the impact of that film on society?"<br /><br />Perhaps the question should instead be, does intent matter? The intent of an artist is largely unknown, because we typically do not have a direct connection to them; we usually can't just ask a writer or director, "what did you mean by this?" <br /><br />And, even in those rare situations where we are offered the chance to interface directly with them, the response is nearly always, "what does it mean to you?"<br /><br />I think most people would agree that art is subjective: that one person's interpretation will be decidedly different than anothers; that what is more important is how people respond, rather than what the artist intended. <br /><br />To go back to "Broken Blossoms": it's shocking how prescient the film is to the issues of today (fear of forigners, apoplectic debate over immigration, war, the inherent cruelty of the human condition). Now, granted, the reason the film still has power today is that society is largely unchanged (well, I suppose we all have iPods and cell-phones now); but could Griffith have possibly intended for his film to speak to audiences nearly 100 years later? Probably not, but that doesn't change how I feel about it.<br /><br />If intent, then, is inconsequential with respect to themes, meaning and "artistic impact", does intent matter with respect to "social impact"?<br /><br />If Griffith wanted to make a film that would essentially give re-birth (no pun intended) to the KKK but failed, we wouldn't give it a second thought. But since he made a movie of dubious intent that did happen to be used by the KKK, his intent comes into question.wonderyakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03706391979882993213noreply@blogger.com