'Rudger, I am so happy to have you here. Let's start right away, what is the most important message of "Against the wall"?', the young moderator from the podcast channel ‘Daily Diary’ wants to know of her guest.
Film producer and director Rudger Wellington turns first to the camera lens, as if also addressing the viewer, and then back to the presenter: ‘Thank you for the invitation, Abby dear, but what do you think the message is?
‘Well, ... I think ... it's like a great identity piece, a collectively memorable enactment of two nations traumatised by insurmountable conflict, seeking orientation, including heroes and anti-heroes alike. A story, as if written from two diaries, which is why we've invited you, Rudger', the blue haired moderator gives her interpretation.
‘Almost. It's more that I'm trying to show the audience that the two nations, through their collective consciousness, nevertheless experience the boundaries of their own identity as fluid.’
‘Oh, yes, yes! That's how I see it too. This difficulty of not knowing when I enter one field of identity and leave the other is what makes this film so unique! How did the actors manage to put themselves in this conflict-ridden state?’
‘Good question. We asked them about their own authentic experiences during casting. We wanted to know ‘what authenticity do you bring to the film that corresponds to our idea of the role of identity rupture?' And then we simply let them tell their story.’
Rudger grins at the babe.
‘Simply brilliant!’ she enthuses immediately. ‘So it's like the actors also have experienced the brutal reality of an identity crisis and like took on their roles credibly in the film?’
‘Exactly. Just imagine how moved we were by it. We knew immediately that what we were going to tell could be like both fiction and reality. The film serves a purpose. It doesn't just exist for itself, as a purely aesthetic object; it exists in the context of the collective environment. Since it stems like from reality, it must also return to it. But since reality is illusionary, it remains a mystery, what is true and what is fictitious, you know.’
He leans back.
‘Does that mean that as a producer and director you like basically can't say whether the viewer can perceive one thing as subjective and another as objective? So, it's like up to the viewer to find the truth, like?’
‘Bingo! Yes, ... no, I just don't know, you know, because based on the stand-alone theory, I can't decide that for all viewers. Who am I to tell the audience, what to think?’
He winks into the camera.
‘Wow, just ... Wow! That's like such a freedom! I wished, all films could do that!’
"Ahem ...!", Kruzmaka cleares his throat from the third chair, onto which the studio management invited him to take a seat in his role as a well-known film critic.
The chick and Rudger turn towards him.
'May I ask a question?' he says politely.
Abby: ''Sure, sure, what's your question?'
Kruzmaka turns to Rudger.
'Your intention was to make a film that is not your intention?'
'Well, ... strange question ... not really, no. ... Ugh ...'
'Then what is your intention for the film? How do you want the viewer to perceive it?'
'As I said, I don't want to influence the viewers view on what the main message shall be. That's the beauty of interpretation, is it not? Look, ...'
And he sets off to explain that beauty, but is interrupted by Kruzmaka again.
"Well, then I take the authority and tell that this movie has no meaning at all."
'... Ugh... You can't say that. That's a bit rude to say.'
'But I just did. I say it again, it's void of any message. I think, I am going to host a film critique show and will tell the entire internet audience that here we have a movie, which tells nothing at all' and that I don't recommend watching it', Kruzmaka smiles.
'Wait a sec!', Abby interferes, 'You can't do that. Of course, the movie has a meaning. I just described it myself.'
'Did you? I wasn't aware, you did. But anyway, it's just you. That doesn't count much', Kruzmaka responds smirkingly.
'Since everyone else can take authority over the film's message, right? Have you not said so a couple of seconds ago?'
'No, no, no! I mean, how I like to see the movie and how every one else likes to see the movie, that altogether will go into the great collective meaning of it!'
'What meaning? It has none, I say.'
Rudger:
'Are you nuts? I do have an intention! It's just not that I can dominate my audience with what I think is the most important message of the movie!'
'HaHa! You're funny!', Kruzmaka laughs out loud. 'Alrighty, but I do it then for you! I am going to say that this film is a piece of crap and unworthy to watch, since what you say is, that what every one else says is of equal importance. And I find it very important to say that it's meaningless. What can you do about it?'
'You are stupid! Every film creates like an infinite number of new contexts in an absolutely indeterminable way’. That is why I myself cannot be the one who determines it. That does not mean, and I repeat, that does not mean, I have no intention!'
'You can't determine? You cannot say in one sentence what your movie is about? Come on, give it a try!'
'What the fuck is wrong with you? The movie is about ... about ... suffering! About the hell a person goes through when facing an identity crises, about all the different perceptions about different people who want to oppress that person's unique perception!'
'Nah, won't do it. Make it quick and dirty. Take just one sentence out of your script. You have a script, do you?'
'You are bullying him!', the moderator wants to get her voice back and be of assistance to Rudger. But he shoves his arm right in front of her face to shut her up.
'Here! Here is your damn sentence, right from the lips of Gillian, our main character:
I WANT TO LIVE, I WANT TO DANCE, I WANT TO FUCK!’
Kruzmaka bows and applauds with words:
'There you have it. Well done, my dear film maker, well done! You've just achieved a Guy Ritchie, may I say. Strong, short and to the point. Make that your main message.'
Picture source:
Foto von Matt Botsford auf Unsplash
Thank you. Nice graphic :)
Although I am not a native English speaker, I recognize when a story is very well written. I am also fascinated by the way you constructed the story, gripping from beginning to end.
Bravo! Exquisite prose, modern and entertaining. The counterpoint between Rudger and the critic Kruzmaka is great. My compliments to you.
I am German and also not a native English speaking, by the way :)
Thank you for the compliment.
Good to know, since how I began the story, actually was intended to be a bit boring (people babble and swagger around the subject for the sake of talking) in order to make later a point. LoL
And I was not sure if the reader makes it up to the point where it gets interesting.
Well, I think that sometimes the stories we create, take their own course, and surprise us. For me, this is a clear example.
This is an interesting story and abstract discussion about the nature of films (or any other type of art for that matter) and their meaning. I think I've come across the Kruzmaka character before, but I wasn't sure. I enjoyed the scene set up in the studio and how the combative Krumaka tries to dismantle the director's arguments.
I like the dry humour and the contrast between the two characters. The story has depth and complexity without being too obscure. One side argues that meaning and intention are subjective while the other seems to think it's all just gobbledygook 😆
Thank you for coming and reading. Happy that you enjoyed it.
Yes! :)
Kruzmaka doesn't care about what "every one else" might say about the film but what Rudger wants its main message to be. Since he is the producer and director alike; what makes him an artist. Kruzmaka wants to tickle it out by provocation (he is well intended).
As a storyteller I have something in mind, the famous "moral of a story" and I want my audience to catch it and to have it understood in the way I understand it. If I am unclear about it, I may run into the difficulty of trying to please everyone. But if I try to please everyone, I weaken what I myself want to emphasise.
An author takes authority over his work. What makes him the chief of meaning giving. If I were a teacher and would have my students make an interpretation of my given story, I would not rate them equally but unequally, since the student who came closest to the main message would score higher than the one who missed it completely. I'd be a bad teacher if I was to rate them all equally, since that would mean that I am not very interested in teaching students to refine their skills. Of course, there is a wide spectrum, on which one outer end there is "you missed it" and on its other outer end "you got it". But a lot of middle ground.
Which makes the statement that everyone experiences a story also subjectively an obvious matter of fact. Nothing to fancy about (what our chick excitedly expresses as "freedom" - LoL).
Kruzmaka wanted the audience to experience an "aha"-moment ;)
Good points. I had the pleasure of being in an environment surrounded by artists of many skills, interests, and abilities. They all had unique perspectives about their work that was often informed by the technology that they used such as video, audio, computers, sensors, wearable tech, tangible tech, and so on. They were all committed to their art and were incredible to work with. I never had a real clear sense about why they did what they did. They would come up with sublime creations and sometimes I felt the artist had a clear goal and message, but most of the time, I could see that they were just experimenting with new tech and techniques. Exploring the boundaries of the technological medium and the relationship between artist and audience (in participatory design for example). So, their art work wasn't so much about intention and meaning but exploration and discovery. One general zeitgeist that was accepted was that the old roles between an artist and audience were blurring. It wasn't about a single genius artist coming down from the mountains with a masterpiece to wow the masses. Thanks to digital technology, the audience could become the artist or the art itself for that matter. There was no need for a message because the medium was the message. There were certainly a few artists who were more traditional in their approach, but in general, it was accepted that in the world of high tech art at least, we were not in Kansas anymore.
If that is the point, there is no need to have a podcast/show where it's talked about a film, since the film IS the message. My man is often joking about the fact that if you have the medium itself, why talk about it?
Same with authors. If you have a book why explaining its contents since if one is interested, he may read the book. LoL
Since we have both writers and other artists, and since we have book reviewers and movie critics, it's what people do, they express what they think of a piece of art. People are both interested in being given a message and give one themselves. The "critical drinker", for example, is a huge youtube-channel I regularly watch.
You've got the huge middle ground and the freedom of interpreting as the viewer, and you've got the freedom on the artists side to have a main message be absent. Same counts for having a main message in mind.
It's alright both ways. If I have a clear intent, I may say so. If I haven't one, I may leave it. But where ever I place myself into the open, I can reckon with being questioned. And, why not?
I like to be wowed by a piece of art ;) The artist, who achieved to wow me can do nothing about it when I did not get his personal message and he cannot demand that I ought to get it. He can wish for it.
If I see a great movie whom others see as well, and if we have a common sense of its message, it might be impossible to nail it down but that doesn't diminish the possibility that it's the main aspects of greatness towards what we applaud.
'The medium is the message' is a famous quote by Canadian media thinker Marshall Mcluhan. Interesting guy. Look up the quote to get a better sense of what he meant by that. Film is an old medium for art, so your points make sense in that context, but there are new technologies for art in which your points are no longer valid. As I mentioned, it's difficult to penetrarte the mind of any artist, but working with them challenged my own assumptions about the meaning of art in general.
Cann you tell me in your words?
How would you know?
Which are? You talking about AI?
Do you talk to me as an artist (like a story teller)? Or do you talk to me from a non artist perspective?
I distinguish between to penetrate the mind of an artist and his work. I may never be able to talk to the artist myself, only to see his art. Being it the former, and I would be interested, I would ask him what was on his mind when he produced his art. Being it the later, I may talk about his art, or not.
What were your assumptions? "Art in general", what do you mean by that?
Art is produced in many ways and through many mediums. There is always art which is considered to be classic and always art which is being seen as new. There is no one superior or inferior, how I see it.
Art is not just creating something expressive but added to that to be able to understand the rules of composition, perspective, proportion, as well as skillful use of the tools.
Me: Look up the quote to get a better sense of what he meant by that
You: Can you tell me in your words?
Copilot: