I’m definitely not agreeing with the premise that the movie is a blank page for people to fill in. I think it’s pretty straightforward and I’m not much of a Garland fan.
Replies
i mean that also proves my point: Garland says the movie is explicitly about one thing and you’ve come away thinking it’s explicitly about another. that means you had to fill in the blanks!
sep 1, 2025, 3:05 pm • 1 0 • view
I just completely disagree that listening to director’s interviews are a productive tool for interpretation. That seems like auteurism run amok in an inherently collaborative medium. Most people aren’t engaging with a director’s interviews before seeing a movie because it isn’t part of the text
sep 1, 2025, 3:07 pm • 0 0 • view
It’s not a contradiction that Garland says something different about the movie because his commentary isn’t part of the text
sep 1, 2025, 3:07 pm • 0 0 • view
you’re not wrong there — using Garland’s interview is just the easiest way to cite a source. the issue is how audiences walked away with wildly different ideas about what the movie said, i just didn’t have a collection of those opinions to link back to
sep 1, 2025, 3:13 pm • 0 0 • view