Post by Salzmank on Nov 3, 2017 16:44:51 GMT
While I quite agree with Toasted Cheese and Ban that the schema jonesjxd articulated was probably unintentional, I don't think that Jones was arguing for its intentionality (correct me if I'm wrong, Jones) but only for its observability. That is to say, one can see it in the film--it fits the pattern--even if Carpenter didn't intend it. I'm somewhat reminded of the great Joseph Campbell's work on storytelling and myth; nearly all of the stories we tell fit distinct patterns even if we didn't intend it that way. It seems, Campbell observed, a natural consequence of being human.
(Then again, I'm sympathetic to the argument because I argued something similar about Dracula [1931]--which, I think, possesses a kind of "mystic poetry" that bespeaks less a clear storyline than a nightmare. I didn't argue that Browning and his writers intended it, but the images on the screen point to a very clear and understandable interpretation. In legal reasoning, one may consider it the difference between "original intent" [looking into what the lawmaker meant] and "original meaning" [looking into what the law meant].)
(Then again, I'm sympathetic to the argument because I argued something similar about Dracula [1931]--which, I think, possesses a kind of "mystic poetry" that bespeaks less a clear storyline than a nightmare. I didn't argue that Browning and his writers intended it, but the images on the screen point to a very clear and understandable interpretation. In legal reasoning, one may consider it the difference between "original intent" [looking into what the lawmaker meant] and "original meaning" [looking into what the law meant].)