This is an EXCELLENT question. When it comes to authorial intent, I always try to acknowledge it, but I don’t consider the author to be the final authority. Art’s meaning ultimately belongs to the masses. If a conflicting interpretation is backed by evidence, let’s hear it out.
https://twitter.com/tonyefreeman/status/1347471143599550464
Often my takes are disputed. That’s OK. For Tenet, I argued that two characters are actually the same person at different ages of their life. Despite the evidence, some argue Nolan didn’t intend that. I would argue he loves to play coy and keep tops spinning. So why not?
Tolkien rejected the interpretation of LOTR as an allegory for WWII. But as a man of his time, could he properly acknowledge how his time and place influenced his work? Seeing its political parallels don’t *replace* the Beowulf-influenced myth Tolkien intended to tell.
With Avengers Endgame, the screenwriters’ authorial intent with the logical implications of Captain America returning as an old man are directly contradict the movie’s inner logic, and with the directors’ explanation. So, acknowledge the intent, but then counter-interpret.
I think we give too much leeway to creators to translate their intent in post-release interviews. The work should speak for itself. If you need a follow up to clear things up, we have a problem. That’s why I respect Nolan. He leaves it out there for us to take ownership of.
This won’t be true for everyone, of course. And I’m grateful to creators who take the time to share their visions, and to those who ask. I just think the final say shouldn’t be with an author who couldn’t clearly convey it in their own final draft.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
