In a certain number of cases (all the films in question do not fall under such an analysis), one can think that the “demonstration”, the questioning, the interpretative research, the will to seize the “complexity” things require, if not an ethical indifference, at least a certain distance from our spontaneous moral judgments (those that we would adopt spontaneously if we were really confronted with the staged events). From free-putlockers.com you can have the best choice.
The Right Distance
It is not an aesthetic distance but rather a kind of “axiological neutrality” (close to that observed in the humanities) even if, in cinema, a large part of the interpretative and explanatory work is then left to the spectators: in this type of film (like those cited above), the film’s author favors the “objectivity” of the facts (even if they are mixed with fiction) over their interpretation and moral judgment that we can wear on it. But this “posture”, which gives great freedom to spectators, also risks being interpreted as a kind of acquiescence to an otherwise intolerable reality.
This type of film thus raises the question of the supposed intentions of the author of the film, which will now catch our attention.
The author of the film
Often we see films (but also television series) without even asking ourselves about their author: we follow the story, we share more or less intensely the life of the characters, we feel emotions sometimes very lively in front of certain sequences, but we let’s not ask ourselves what the author of the film wanted to “say” or do or how he made his film. Thus, we sometimes learn with surprise that the film is the fruit of an adaptation of a little-known novel when we thought it was an original script. Or we happen to discover that the alleged filmmaker was in fact a woman whereas spontaneously, we thought that it was about a man (perhaps regretting then to have been victims or accomplices of a sexist stereotype). Or again, an interview reveals that the director of a film we love does not share our philosophical, political or religious opinions at all.
What role should we assign to the filmmaker?
Can we analyze a film without questioning the intentions of its director?
Can we even understand a film without resorting to interviews where its author explains his work or his project, without knowing the context in which he works and where he expresses himself? Indeed, it also happens that a cinematographic realization escapes us and leaves us perplexed (one can think of films voluntarily hermetic like those of Peter Greenaway), and we are then tempted to resort to the explanations possibly provided by its director.
But is he really in the best position to clarify the meaning of his film and does he even has the will to explain what he does?
In some cases, finally, when a film shocks or scandalizes us, we take it out at least verbally on its author, whom we accuse, for example, of taking pleasure in the representation of violence, or of giving a biased representation of reality, or to propagate unhealthy or detestable ideas, or quite simply to have made a stupid, ugly or vulgar film. But does a film merge with its author? And who is really the author of a film? the director, the screenwriter, the whole film crew, the producer?