That is a perspective that I fundamentally disagree with, but it is interesting to me that you hold it. I don't suspect I can say anything to persuade you out of that line of thought, but that's all right.

The word "interpretation" seems pretty key to this understanding, doesn't it? Should I consider a painting as something different that an "interpretation" of someone or something? Questions like that come to mind.
[Reply]

No a painting is a creation from scratch. Regardless of the topic.
[Reply]

I had a thought about screenplays. They specifically state in the text sometimes what the camera should be doing, for example. This indicates that the screenplay is not the complete work of art, no? That, for original screenplays at least, they are a part of a greater whole?
[Reply]

I'm thinking if a screenplay is giving direction to a director that is even more of an indication that the directors interpretation isn't art..
[Reply]

I see that, and thought about it when posting the question. But I feel as if you dodged the question. Does that speak to the "incompleteness," if any, of the screenplay? Or, put another way, why was the original screenplay conceived as a screenplay and not a stage play or a novel?
[Reply]

Difference of intended medium.
[Reply]

I see. Thx.
[Reply]

Wow. As an artist and filmmaker, I'm genuinely offended. Not to mention surprised by this statement.

:-)
[Reply]

Don't start with your dimestore psychology!!!
[Reply]

I've written a couple of things that have been professionally produced. Nothing big, in fact very small, but for paying audiences, and I've got to say that I think what the director and actors do is most definitely art.
You could have the same script done by three different directors and all three would be different.
I've got to tell you, if you don't think what a director does can be art, that's pretty asinine.

As far as the people saying it's judgemental to say others didn't "get" the ending- No one started this thread by saying, "You're Stupid if You Don't Get the Ending." The thread invited the discussion. The thread said the ending sucked as its premise. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to defend the ending, if they liked it, because the thread introduced the topic.
[Reply]

Didn't intend to offend anyone, it's just my view. I'm sure what you do is quite difficult and let me expand my point. I can see how you're creating something, but just have never felt it to be considered art.

What he said was a statement based on his thoughts. What did is say: If you don't like this ending then so and so must be wrong with you.

His statement is a response, yours is a diagnosis. Big difference.
[Reply]

The thread wasn't started that way, but a few have indicated that if you didn't like the ending you must be a non function idiot. Being pompous and condiscending is not likely to garner any ones support.

Oh, and Midnight Vulture liked the ending.....so it must suck.
[Reply]

Then by all means, defend the ending. Someone saying I'm stupid because I didn't like the ending isn't defending the ending. It's trying to strip away credibility from me in hopes that my statement, still standing, will be less credible because it was made by a less credible person.

I didn't intend for my statement to be so cookie cutter cut and dry. I think some of what a director does can be considered art. I think that most of the artistic context of a movie goes to the writer though.
[Reply]

prepare to be dime store analyzed.........
[Reply]

There is not one dime store analyzer on this board that could handle my mental problems!
[Reply]