Joanna writes:
> But art is more than just what is intended -- it
is also about how its received.
Agreed. A work of art has both intended and unintended meanings. But my point is that you left the realm of film criticism when you imposed a reading on the film that has no material basis in the mise en scene you experienced. A person is free to impose any meanng that they want, but to have some validity should criticism not have some relation to the object being critiqued?
As I posted earlier, there is a school of French Surrealist criticism that engages in criticism like yours, but it does not pretend that it is anything more than a fantasia inpsired by what has been seen.
Your appoach makes criticsm meaningless since you have unmoored it from the evidence of things seen.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister