jasongrimshaw wrote:
Go watch his films.
I have.
Why would I do your footwork?
Because you made an assertion, and I am asking you to back it up. That is the way to convince me that there is something to your argument and that you did not just make it up.I am not saying that you are wrong; I just want you to demonstrate it.
She wears the belt constantly... but it's not unique or featured so conspicuously... that is not an accident.
I don't think that the necklace was an "accident." Someone at least thought that it
fit.You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding that because the necklace is always there and is visually interesting — although as people have pointed, out we don't get a really good look at it — it is not necessarily a symbol. And even if it is a symbol, it may be a private symbol to the director or the actress that we cannot guess.
I read it...
But you do not understand what I am saying.
you were dismissive
I dismiss your idea that the necklace
has to be a symbol.
and asserted your opinions as facts.
Why don't you use copy and paste and back up that assertion.
but it without doubt has significance and meaning... otherwise it wouldn't be there.
That is your assumption. I do not know what you are basing that on. I do not see that as the only possibility.
You've been extremely dismissive and close minded and unwilling to enter into any sort of discussion as to what it may mean...
You said something about maybe it was a damsel fly and what that means — I have no idea what it might mean — but you hardly developed that in terms of the rest of the movie into a convincing argument.If you want to convince me that it is a symbol, make a convincing case for what is a symbol of in terms of the movie. It does not work if you decide what it is a symbol of, and then then try to extract that from the movie.
you have constantly asserted that it *might* be meaningless.
Yes. Obviously. You do understand that is not the same thing as asserting that it is definitely not a symbol and definitely has no specific meaning?
You didn't arrive at that point other than to betray the fact that it means nothing to you, ergo its meaningless...
I have not heard any convincing meaning for it. I supplied you with an example from Faulkner of something that many people have taken as a symbol — and argued about the meaning of — but, according to Faulkner, it wasn't.
Are you American?
Yes.
reply
share
jasongrimshaw
9 years ago
Are you American?
Yes.
Figures...
Go watch his films.
I have.
Then you will know his films are full of symbolism - those I symbols mentioned and many more.
Because you made an assertion, and I am asking you to back it up. That is the way to convince me that there is something to your argument and that you did not just make it up.
I am not saying that you are wrong; I just want you to demonstrate it.
Equally you have made an assertion and dismissed my theory without any discussion. Why you would feel I would have any desire to convince you is puzzling. Why would I?
You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding that because the necklace is always there and is visually interesting — although as people have pointed, out we don't get a really good look at it — it is not necessarily a symbol. And even if it is a symbol, it may be a private symbol to the director or the actress that we cannot guess.
No dear I just don't agree. But way to go to cover yourself either way with that statement.
I dismiss your idea that the necklace has to be a symbol.
My idea? All film theory is just that... theory, a discussion and exploration. many films can be read in different ways. You have shut that down.
If you want to convince me that it is a symbol, make a convincing case for what is a symbol of in terms of the movie. It does not work if you decide what it is a symbol of, and then then try to extract that from the movie.
Typical American. Quench conversation and at the same time expect facts and a convincing case... All provided for you to make a judgement. Typically Amercian.
I supplied you with an example from Faulkner of something that many people have taken as a symbol — and argued about the meaning of — but, according to Faulkner, it wasn't.
Why does that have any relevance whatsoever?
Are you American?
Typically American.
reply
share
ppllkk
9 years ago
jasongrimshaw wrote:
Then you will know his films are full of symbolisma - those I mentioned and many more.
A hajib is more an example than a symbol. There are many natural symbols of death.Can you come up with specific examples of objects that are used the way that you claim this necklace is being? That should be easy if the director is known for that.
But way to go to cover yourself either way with that statement.
LOL Cover myself? The necklace could be a symbol, the necklace could be a private symbol that we cannot guess, or it could simply be a piece of jewelry that someone felt fit.
Equally you have made an assertion and dismissed my theory without any discussion.
That an object does not
have to be a symbol should be obvious to anyone with any sophistication about fiction.
Why you would feel I would have any desire to convince you is puzzling. Why would I?
I think it is clear that you can't.
You have shut that down.
No, whether it is a symbol or not is in my view completely open.
Quench conversation and at the same time expect facts and a convincing case...
I have not said that you should not try to build a convincing case for the necklace being a symbol. My objection is that you start out by insisting that it has to be a symbol and that is dangerous.
Why does that have any relevance whatsoever?
If you cannot figure that out, I suggest that you ask your mother.
reply
share
jasongrimshaw
9 years ago
A hajib is more an example than a symbol. There are many natural symbols of death.
Anything may have symbolic meaning. In a film, something that stands out and is unique or unusal is more likely to.
Can you come up with specific examples of objects that are used the way that you claim this necklace is being?
Why should I? You're not Judge Judy, although it's more at your level... probably on opposite the Friends reruns...
That an object does not have to be a symbol should be obvious to anyone with any sophistication about fiction.
Why the need for bold type? You think it adds gravitas to your opinion?
I think it is clear that you can't.
Again why would I? You haven't engaged in any sort of discussion, just dismissal because you havent been provided with proof of some sort... back to film theory: conjecture, postulation, discussion, surmise, notion and premise... why are you unable to engage in that? I can discuss almost anything but the idea that I need to provide a case and proof destroys conversation and idea generation. I think it's you that is lacking...
I have not said that you should not try to build a convincing case for the necklace being a symbol. My objection is that you start out by insisting that it has to be a symbol and that is dangerous.
Dangerous how? How can my very different perception to someone elses perception be wrong or dangerous. What is dangerous is shutting down conversation by demanding a case be provided.
Of course that item is symbolic and has meaning...
If you cannot figure that out, I suggest that you ask your mother.
Another miserable americanism... gross how that culture is stifling idea. Depressing
reply
share
jasongrimshaw
9 years ago
Another lovely suggestion, not mine, is that it's a mayfly.
The mayfly famously lives for only one day and Certified Copy is the story of a lifetime of love in one day - furthered by the differing generations of love depicted - the young newlyweds, the middle aged couple and the elderly couple that Miller and She cross paths with. A life time in one day, just as is the life of mayfly.
Beautifully symbolic.
reply
share
ppllkk
9 years ago
jasongrimshaw wrote:
Beautifully symbolic.
Now if we had only gotten a good enough look at it to tell if it is a dragonfly, or a damsel fly, or a mayfly or some other sort of fly of the same order, then we might ask what that particular sort of fly may
symbolize.It does not seem to me to be a very effective symbol if you have to be an entomologist to make sense of it.There are too many possible explanations of the symbolism for any particular one, so far, to be convincing.I do not remember that it is ever used in the film in a way that would turn it into a symbol of something.
reply
share
jasongrimshaw
9 years ago
Now if we had only gotten a good enough look at it to tell if it is a dragonfly, or a damsel fly, or a mayfly or some other sort of fly of the same order, then we might ask what that particular sort of fly may symbolize.
Ah yes, again with the dismissal. It's theory and discussion, there is no proof unless the director decides to confirm if and what the meaning is. I'd doubt he will do that.
Why does one have to be convincing? Perhaps it was chosen because it represents a number of different meanings. Many things are open to interpretation... yet here you are expecting something to be convincing... you want a case presented that you can judge... how depressingly American.
I do not remember that it is ever used in the film in a way that would turn it into a symbol of something.
It's ubiquitous...
There are too many possible explanations of the symbolism for any particular one, so far, to be convincing.
They can all be true, or none of them... it may be a copy of a dragonfly, a damselfly or a mayfly... or none of them... it may be a fake, but that in itself makes it genuine. Ambiguity... something you are unlikely to find in Friends (1994)... but then Americans like their movies like their TV - Defined. You should stick to 20 year old TV nonsense.
reply
share
ppllkk
9 years ago
jasongrimshaw wrote:
Why does one have to be convincing? Perhaps it was chosen because it represents a number of different meanings. Many things are open to interpretation...
Sure, but why does it have to be a symbol at all?The only way that you are going to demonstrate that it is a symbol is to come up with a convincing explanation of it.
It's ubiquitous..
Anything may have symbolic meaning. In a film, something that stands out and is unique or unusal is more likely to.
Above
ArcusCircus wrote:
There's nothing in the film that suggests the necklace is a placeholder for some other more obscure meaning. There's no dialogue pertaining to it in the film, and there's no example of Elle touching it that would draw attention to it. I've only seen "Like Someone in Love" and "Certified Copy", but to me it doesn't seem like Abbas Kiarostami resorts to such blatant symbolism tactics that a lot of people tend to seek out when watching a film.
I agree.
Why the need for bold type? You think it adds gravitas to your opinion?
I question your ability to understand what you read without help.
Of course that item is symbolic and has meaning..
The only thing that I have simply dismissed is your idea that it
has to be some sort of symbol. I certainly do not object to your speculating on what it
might be a symbol
of.You simply do not understand how fiction works. I would like to think that whatever high school teacher taught you the nonsense that you believe is going to spend a long time in Purgatory because of it.
I can discuss almost anything but the idea that I need to provide a case and proof destroys conversation and idea generation. I think it's you that is lacking...
In the unlikely event that you ever get to college, be sure to write all of your papers with that philosophy.And now, since you haven't said anything interesting or enlightening in this entire conversation, and you are determined to be dense, I am putting you on ignore.
reply
share
jasongrimshaw
9 years ago
Choosing what you'll answer... typical
Sure, but why does it have to be a symbol at all?
But why not. It's unique and unusual. A copy? A fake? A symbol? Yes, yes and yes
The only way that you are going to demonstrate that it is a symbol is to come up with a convincing explanation of it.
And again here we are with demonstrating... convincing... explanation... have you never heard of theory? Why does it have to be proven in some way? Why is it only meaningful if there is indisputable proof? If that necklace means something to just one viewer isn't it symbolic? We all view a certified copy of the same film!
Above ArcusCircus wrote:
There's nothing in the film that suggests the necklace is a placeholder for some other more obscure meaning. There's no dialogue pertaining to it in the film, and there's no example of Elle touching it that would draw attention to it. I've only seen "Like Someone in Love" and "Certified Copy", but to me it doesn't seem like Abbas Kiarostami resorts to such blatant symbolism tactics that a lot of people tend to seek out when watching a film. I agree.
So? You haven't entered into any exploration just demands for "making a case"
I question your ability to understand what you read without help.
I understand I just dismiss your demands as ridiculous... haven't you ever heard of art appreciation? Does that demand anymore than an elaborated thesis or is there a demand for a case to convince? You won't answer that though will you... typical American... ABC.. if it's not said or shown it isn't there...
The only thing that I have simply dismissed is your idea that it has to be some sort of symbol.
That's not an idea, it's a statement. If your going to be critical at least attempt to get the definitions right.
And now, since you haven't said anything interesting or enlightening in this entire conversation, and you are determined to be dense, I am putting you on ignore.
Et voila! Nailed your colours to the mast... if it's not said or shown it isn't there... You have said nothing of any value here whatsoever. You are incapable of understanding the concept of a theory or an idea or the exploration of it... but of course you have put me on ignore so you won't answer... bravo! bravo!
Dense is commenting on a 20 year old American sitcom when you could be broadening your horizons... I guess in America that means subscribing to HBO... better than nothing
You Americans, you're like dinosaurs. You're very strong, and you think you're meant to live and command forever. You never wondered why you're always making movies about dinosaurs? It's because you identify with them. In a few years, maybe twenty or thirty years, people will try to understand how such an empire, with an army so powerful, managed to disappear so insignificantly. - Orlando
reply
share