|
|
|
|
|
|
by krrrh
2338 days ago
|
|
|
> I think that a lot of the "understanding" part of these kind of films are quirks to do with constraints that the filmmakers had. This reminded me of one of my favourite (possibly apocryphal) tidbits about Solaris. People have differing theories about the significance of the very long highway scene, and Tarkovsky had an elaborate explanation for it when the film came out. [1] [2] At some point he admitted that he and his camera operator mostly really wanted to visit Japan, so he included a suitably long scene to justify visas and a travel budget. I don’t recall where I read that, but it helped me to be comfortable taking my own meaning from a work of art and not worrying too much about discovering the author’s absolute intent. [1] https://www.quora.com/In-Tarkovsky-s-film-Solaris-what-is-th... [2] https://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/content/real-world-metropoli... |
|
|
It's funny how random things like that can obfuscate your impressions in so many things in life. I feel like this about a lot of computer science and mathematics: If you are not the author of a text, then your focus is easily distracted by peculiarities that have little to do with the core message.
I guess this would partly also be why a lot of high school students struggle with calculus. By the way, on that topic, if you consider dx and dy to be variables, then calculus's strange notation is easier to try to make sense of.