The intentions of the authors

Some of these posts have a make-or-break attitude about what the authors mean. Regardless of what they may say afterwards (such as in the cited interview), the meaning of a work of art is not limited or even defined by the authors' explanations.. D.H. Lawrence said, "Trust the tale, not the teller." I tend to throw out arguments that go, "Clearly, the writer intended us to ... " Whatever follows that ellipsis is bound to be illegitimate. I like close readings of films or novels, but the author of a work is not the authority on what it means to others. Example: "Milton took Satan's part without knowing it." Not true. And even if it were true, that doesn't give us an understanding of how the character of Satan functons in Paradise Lost. Similary, in The Red Violin, whether the authors intended the two violins to be switched or not isn't of any importance. They as much say so themselves by using the word 'ambiguous.' As soon as a work of art leaves the hands of the artist, it begins a life of its own that cannot be controlled by the artist. How does the ending unfold in The Red Violin? How does it strike viewers? What do the visual elements in the closing scene add up to? That's the important thing, not what the artist(s) may or may not have meant. Without overanalyzing it, the ending seemed utterly clear to me: the fake violin is auctioned off; while the real one goes home to a little girl.
~ KP
~