Week 12: Authorial Intent; Cinematic Ideology
Do you remember the time when bugtong or riddles were common with kids in the household? If you did, do you feel old yet? My mom and sister always tease me then, because I can’t get most of the answers right. It didn’t bother me though that my acuity was in question. I always find myself comfortable with visual expressions rather than verbal. When I was in grade school at science fairs, I was always fond of looking at optical illusions and analyzing them. My friends and I would laugh at ourselves whenever we see things differently. These brain teasers for me are simple proof that we only interpret what we perceive. Our way of thinking is built differently from one another and it is a factor that maneuvers our capacity to make meanings. In literature and films, there is a supposed ruling persona that contributes to interpretation, and that is the author. The reader’s relationship to a text has two fates, either to decipher the author’s intention or to construct their understanding of it.
In Barthes’ essay “The Death of the Author”, he unfastens the author’s dominance against their work that usually succumbs the reader into unraveling the author’s intent. If we neglect that there is an author, we finally acknowledge that the text is free from a higher power and now open to the reader’s multiplicity of meanings. I do agree with how Barthes gave importance to the control and comprehension of a reader. But that’s the concerning part. Privilege plays a big role in enhancing one’s comprehension employing quality education which in reality, is not given to everyone. I also thought of how it could have been meta if, we didn’t know Barthes wrote this text. I knew Barthes as a theorist who contributed to structuralism and semiotics. If I didn’t know this background of his, I wouldn’t understand how he gave so much importance to existence before essence. This is a form of classification that Foucault pointed out.
Perhaps, I am more optimistic with Foucault’s “What is an Author?”. It doesn’t necessarily disagree with Barthes’ arguments but instead evaluates it by giving the ‘author-function’. It is more applicable in this day and age considering that the audience’s reception to ideologies is easily expressed online. Authors are held accountable more than ever because criticisms are very much exposed to a wide variety of readers in different social classes. And I think that’s the difference with literary works then and now. Before, a lot of text didn’t have authors because the audience is not demanding it. We accept the information we can get a hold of. Filmmakers then are also not given much media exposure because a film is more recognized by its actors. Consequently, look at how we try to collect cultural artifacts of the past just to study them for the reason that now, we can and we need to. Responsibilities evolve, audiences are more politically involved, and so should the author.
An author’s any form of work has an ideology lurking in it. In Comolli and Narboni’s essay “Cinema/Ideology/Criticism”, it is stated that every film is political. Films are a material product and ideological product of the system that constitutes cinema into reproducing a filtered reality through its ideologies. (Comolli & Narboni, 1962, pp.754-755). As this industry grows, its roots and principles blend in with our everyday lives via our smartphones. If we scroll through our social media news feed, pop culture is everywhere that is mostly influenced by Western media. This includes the ‘memes’ and ‘#challenges’ that we generate in our posts. We might not realize it, but we are now part of a bigger structure and systematize ideology. We are also authors and influencers no matter how few followers we have or how our accounts are private to only our friends and family. People think what they perceive so it is only ethical for an author to know when to hold power and when to give it to their audience.
I surely miss the simplicity of days back then whenever I don’t understand a concept, I would ask a person to explain it to me orally. But now, most people would say, “I-google mo nalang”. I’d like to believe that the bugtongs we passed from generation to generation or the myths told by our Lolos and Lolas all have their reasons for creation; just like any text that has been said or written. Behind these stories are Filipino ideologies that are already drowning from innovation and fast-paced technology. The modern mind has a short attention span that has been commodified by businesses and the media. Once in a while, I think we should pause, lock our screens, and verbally ask ourselves: What’s on your mind?
References
Barthes, R. (1967). The death of the author. In S. Heath (Ed.), Image Music Text (pp.142-148). Fontana Press. https://monoskop.org/images/0/0a/Barthes_Roland_Image-Music-Text.pdf
Foucault, M. (1969). What is an author?. In D. Bouchard (Ed.), Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews (pp.113-138). Cornell University Press. https://pages.mtu.edu/~rlstrick/rsvtxt/foucault1
Comolli, J. & Narboni J. (1962). Cinema/ideology/criticism. In L. Braudy & M. Cohen (Eds.), Film theory and criticism (6th edition). Oxford University Press.
MusingsByReg 