Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema
Discussion Questions:
In “Making Meaning…” Bordwell adopts a cognitive approach, which emphasizes human perception, cultural experience, and institutional norms and practices. This leads us to the conclusion that meaning (for Bordwell) is not intrinsic to the film, but extrinsic and constructed by the spectator. This approach has been met with criticism from those whose theories are rooted in psychoanalysis, including Slavoj Žižek. What do you make of this approach to constructing meaning from a film? When we interpret a text, are we uncovering a hidden meaning? Or are we imposing a meaning from the outside?
When reading Bordwell’s “Making Meaning…” I was struck by what he seems to determine as ‘good interpretation’ its subsequent treatment of theory. In highlighting the approaches to film interpretation, Bordwell seems to focus less on what an interpretation’s theories draws upon, and more on rhetoric and what’s being said. That is, if the interpretation is interesting and convincing. What do you make of this? Is there a privileging of rhetoric over theory in film interpretations and criticism?
Slavoj Žižek argues that we are dealing with a mysterious case of the “missing Lacanians.” A Lacanian himself, Žižek questions what if one should finally give Lacan a chance? Referring back to Bordwell, this claim can also be loosely considered as a case of the “missing psychoanalysts or symptomatic interpreters.” With this weeks readings in mind, what do you think of this question that Žižek poses?
Each article articulates a concern or observation regarding theory and interpretation in relation to cinema and cultural theory. In tracing the different trends and arguments surrounding film theory and interpretation, this week’s readings also highlighted their differences and similarities. Which of these approaches was the most compelling to you? Are you more inclined to agree with Bordwell or Žižek? Or both?
Key Concepts in Cinema and Media Studies 