Intentional Fallacy

[equanimus]

My respect for Bala's extremely good works coexists with doubts that spring from ordinary-ness of many of his sequences.

I think now we're talking along parallel lines. My point was only about how easily we condescend to the personal sensibilities of filmmakers in general. I'm not making an exclusive case for Bala here. I talked about some arbitrary "specifics" of Bala just to take a few steps back and see where we stand in comparison. That's all. This is true for a Mani Ratnam as well. I find many parts of his films quite ordinary too. But I can't bring myself to patronise him as unsophisticated on these grounds. Why are we talking about filmmakers we like so much? I'm saying it's silly to patronise even the ones we don't think much of. The next time I condescend to Gautham's sensibilities, somebody please spank me!

It's not like I think Bala's films are flawless. Far from it, as I often clarify when I talk about his films. For instance, none of his films are as even as as the great 'kAdhal,' as far as I'm concerned. But nevertheless, he's a fantastic filmmaker in my books.

Of course there are several problems with the analogy between a dabbA novel and a popular filmmaker. Money, creative control, mani-ramani teamwork and all. But this more an attempt at rationalization than something clearly driven by cold logic.

As for such ordinary patches/pieces/films/phases, I don't even feel the need to rationalise really. It might just not work out. That's how (or as much) I try to understand. For instance, I think 'nAn kadavuL' fails at some levels (though I also think it's a tremendous accomplishment in other ways). To me, it didn't seem to be because of any "commercial compromises" at all. For that matter, I can't for my life understand how Kamal came to write a film like 'dasAvathAram.' It happens. oNNum seyyaRadhukku illai.

[complicateur]

Forgive me for possibly redirecing the conversation towards NK but here is an excerpt from Jeyamohan's article:

மூன்று, பாலாவே ரசிகர்கள் ஊகிக்கட்டும் என்று விட்டது. மையமான விஷயங்களை ‘ஸ்பூன் ·பீடிங்‘ செய்ய முயன்ற பாலா சண்டைக்காட்சிகள் போன்ற வழக்கமான விஷயங்களை தன் ரசிகர்கள் சாதாரணமாக ஊகித்துவிடுவார்கள் என்று எண்ணிவிட்டார். ஆகவே ஒரு சிறிய முரண் அமைப்பை உருவாக்கினார். தாண்டவன் ருத்ரனுக்காக கோர்ட் வாசலில் காத்திருக்கிறான். அடுத்த காட்சியில் ருத்ரன் தாண்டவனைக் கொன்றபின் தலைகீழாக நிற்கிறான். அதன் பின் ருத்ரன் தாண்டவனை நேருக்குநேர் சந்திக்கும் காட்சி. கொலை. அதன்பின் மீண்டும் முந்தைய காட்சி. அம்சவல்லி வருகிறாள்.
வில்லந் கதாநாயகனைக் கொல்லவருவதும் கதாநாயகன் வில்லனை துரத்திச்சென்று கொல்வதும் எல்லாம் எல்லா படத்திலும் வருவதுதானே சீக்கிரமாக தாவிச்சென்றுவிடலாம் என்று பாலா சொன்னார். எனக்கு அப்படி எளிதாக நம் ஆட்கள் வந்துவிடமாட்டார்கள் என்றுதான் பட்டது. இல்லை இப்போது மிகவும் மாறிவிட்டார்கள் என்றார் பாலா.

The bolded part in specific implies one of two things:
1. Audience awareness of what a 'BAlA' film entails.
2. Audience awareness of the typical constraints of a thamizh film.

This throws another wrench in the works. Every work of art depends on the purveyor to be at a certain level 'preparedness'. For example it seems to me to understand Dostoevsky's impact one would need to be aware of, if not familiar with, Gogol and his depictions of St.Petersburg (Must thank you for that book btw PR. The introduction to the collection provided an excellent 'chronological progression' of Russian Lit.). What does one make of this 'pre-requisite' to art appreciation?

[P_R]

That of course does not automatically mean the merit of the artist's work is itself incidental.

Ok. ippo purinch.

Yes, and well, I don't think there's any need to.

This is also a 'binary'. Knowledge of the intention sometimes (often) enhances the experience of the viewer. Never 'ndgreengaLA ?

Surely you would agree acquaintance with alternative perspectives of others sometimes leads better appreciation of the work. This is true when the 'other' is just a somebody hazarding a guess. So it as much, if not even more, true when that somebody happens to be the author himself.

In one frustrating experience for RKNarayan recounts when filming the "Guide" is one about location choice. When he heard they were scouting for locations in North India he had an argument with the Exec Producer who stumped RKN with the response : "besides, how do you know where Malgudi is ?"

It's not mere lucky coincidence just because he's not consciously aware of all that he has accomplished, the way I see it.

Well I was admittedly being a little polemical but I am a little discomfort when there is seems to be a 'risk' that what I enjoy may be an attribute of the creation but perhaps not that of the creator. Why feel uncomfortable at all is a fair question.

To me, it didn't seem to be because of any "commercial compromises" at all.

In some ways that is what is worrying. Isn't it. When Kamal is making Dasavatharam we know he is not writing with "all that he has". And when he laughs all the way to the bank that is pretty much its own scary argument. But with NK - Bala is indeed writing with all he has (now, from where do we get such notions !). That is why the chinks are held up for disproportionate scrutiny and doubt.

[P_R]

"Wow.
IdhellAm dhaan proof of the pudding-kku appArppattavai"

You explain?

My claim 1: Bala probably has no idea how great his films are because he is just good and not conscious of the art/craft aspects.

Answer 1: That is of no concern. All that matters is the film. Pudding matters not the chef (something I clearly agree with in another context)

Answer 2: Snooty of you to doubt Bala when on the other hand.... (Yes,
guilty as charged)


All said and done, when Bala seems to make my claim wobble it makes me glad and this has got nothing to do with his film. So when he makes a statement like "one fails when one tries to prove", I take it as an extremely profound statement about art itself which reveals a certain degree of consciousness about art and craft which thrills me.

The struggle is to keep all this out when judging the work. True. But that does not mean I will just look away and refuse to be impressed by the artist himself. Why not ? I say.

oru maadhiri theLivA kuzhappurEnA ?

[Plum]

Ok, got what you are saying.
In a way, I always think of how posterity can judge a work - that will be contextless and independent of the author, right? What happens if we judge one of Bharathiyar's particular work on his patriotic songs bereft of the context, as many in the next generation(or even current) sure will?

Heck, even as I prepare to submit this comment, I find compli has already made this point.

[equanimus]

Yes, and well, I don't think there's any need to.

This is also a 'binary'. Knowledge of the intention sometimes (often) enhances the experience of the viewer. Never 'ndgreengaLA ?

No, I had said that specifically in response to the quoted line in your post. There's no need to be sure about how he intended I receive the works. But in general, it's indeed very valuable to know what the artist had in mind even when if he's simply going to say, "well I thought it looked good," or, "please don't bother me."

Surely you would agree acquaintance with alternative perspectives of others sometimes leads better appreciation of the work. This is true when the 'other' is just a somebody hazarding a guess. So it as much, if not even more, true when that somebody happens to be the author himself.

Yes, completely agree.

To me, it didn't seem to be because of any "commercial compromises" at all.

In some ways that is what is worrying. Isn't it. When Kamal is making Dasavatharam we know he is not writing with "all that he has". And when he laughs all the way to the bank that is pretty much its own scary argument. But with NK - Bala is indeed writing with all he has (now, from where do we get such notions !). That is why the chinks are held up for disproportionate scrutiny and doubt.

No, actually I gave 'dasAvathAram' as a far better (or should I say worse?) example, in that I just can't come to terms with the sloppy writing for whatever reasons. I can see that Kamal didn't mean to write it with all that he has, but surely, all of it was not about Kamal laughing all the way to the bank? The musings on God, religion and what not, nothing worked for me. I think it failed on all fronts. (I'm able to brush it all aside easily because I didn't expect much out of it to begin with.)

For all my bits of disappointment about the failures of 'nAn kadavuL,' I think it's a stellar film.

[equanimus]

I've posted whatever I had typed in as my response back then... so that we can continue from where we left.

[P_R]

Is there such a thing as a literary hoax ?

[equanimus]

Idhukku pEsAma intention 'doesn't motor' -nu sollittu nimmadhiyA irukkalaam

ஆமாம், ஆமாம்!

By the way, I'm not sure where we stand now. So let me put forth a statement.

There are many qualities that spill on a work of art without the artist being conscious of it. Do you think this makes the work of art any less praiseworthy?

[P_R]

By the way, I'm not sure where we stand now. So let me put forth a statement.

There are many qualities that spill on a work of art without the artist being conscious of it. Do you think this makes the work of art any less praiseworthy?

Thanks...was thinking about this (yet again) yesterday. Here are some latest exceprts from the stream of consciousness

I think it is important to make a distinction between art forms. Cooking - for instance. I am not being frivolous - it is not for nothing that it is one of thee aayar kalaigaL aRubathinaangu.

There I don't care about the intention/design etc. I purely taste the final product. The proportion achieved by the cooker - Crazy vaazhga- could have been completely incidental. And the applause misplaced <which is somehow at the foundation of my 'art appreciation in general>. But we don't actually care.

Now I tried extending it to music. For example the 'mathematical' perfection

I mentioned to Plum in a PM - that I don't get what it means for a BGM to be 'appropriate' because music - by the very nature of what it is - cannot help being larger than life. Every user slices the cake as he sees fit. Since last evening, I have the reasonable conviction that the duet between the mridangam and violin in 'I met Bach in my House' is the greatest piece of music I have ever heard. I am not at all uncomfortable about the fact that this may suggest different emotions to different listeners. Each may appreciate it for different memories of emotions and associations (akin to your point of 'our whole life rallies behind us at the moment at which we consume a piece of art'). I know for certain that IR and his musicians - know nothing about 'how' I am going to like it. I am not at all fluttered by this.

Now, this may also be because I don't slot myself as a nuanced listener of music. I have taken it upon myself to become the Prof.Higgins to my own Eliza about it this year, that's another story.

I suppose some musical(ly nuanced listeners) appreciates the mathematical perfection in the song, will he be itching to know if IR achieved it consciously or not. (After all, as Poisson once said: music is the pleasure the human mind gets out of counting without actually knowing it). If IR were to reply a la ThiruviLayAdal siVaji : summA kaththunEn (i.e. not the humility - that I guess would be beyond him and anyway irrelevant to our discussion- just the lack of consciousness of the monstrous brilliance of his creation) then would the musical be a tad heartbroken or even more baffled by the 'natural' genius.

Could be either way.

This is all because of the inherent 'form' of the art. In music there is no 'meaning' independent of the form. If the math of the synchronoicity can be deemed 'meaning' over and above the creation then it is for musicals to say (there is a lovely scene in MogamuL where Ranganna and Babu listen to the perfection of unplayed music !)

OTOH In literature - I find it very difficult to digest. The writer is doing more than arranging syllables to achieve highest aesthetic appeal from the arrangement. There is a 'meaning' <not sure if that is the right word> coming out of the of the form that makes it appealing. Not to say the arrangement of syllables isn't inherently enticing (eg. aruNagirinAthAr) but the appeal rises beyond that.

I can at best acknowledge that the creator cannot fully guess how he will be received. But if the creator's intent is 'lost' and the reader's 'principal reading experience' was far removed from the author's intent - then the disappointment is highly justified.

This whole 'author is dead' movement has gone too far. If Vijay Anand can ask R.K.Narayan 'how do you know where Malgudi is ?' then amends need to be made.