What are the limits of cinematic dissection? Perhaps we can ask David Lynch or the ghost of Stanley Kubirck to answer.I know a lot of people(self confessed film buffs included)who insist that the purpose of film is to offer relaxation and a sense of escapism to the viewer.'Why read a book when you can watch the movie?',is what I often get to hear in the form of well meaning advice.
It is a commonly held belief that a film saves you the laborious hours of interpretation you would have spent on the book.It is often overlooked that film does for the director what a book does for the writer.Film represents the conglomeration of art,poetry and literature.If art,poetry and literature have the right to shove the human mind down the throes of discomfiture;why shouldn't film have the same privilege?
Film is as open to interpretation as any other form of artistic expression.It is wondrous to some and loathsome to the rest.An avant garde film maker once said that all films should have a beginning,middle and end but not necessarily in that order.The dissection of film as as simple as predicting the mood swings of the film maker.The limits of dissection are defined by the limits we, as interpreters,impose on our own ennui.
Yet again,what are the parameters that define whether a film needs to be taken at face value or not? I still don't know whether I should consider 'Eyes Wide Shut' as literally as I consider the next blockbuster, or whether I should subject it to the microscopic evaluation of every David Lynch inspired paroxysm.Perhaps the dichotomy grants the viewer the liberty to play the devil's advocate and say,'We only interpret something if the need for interpretation is made obvious'.