In an evening of boredom, my roommate and I decided to see a movie entitled “It’s Kind Of A Funny Story.” A movie I found to be rather unique and refreshing. It is undoubtedly a highly simplistic story, so direct with the concept of solving one’s problems, that the story itself began to feel immensely original. The simplicity suggests that the target audience is those still in their teen years and I find that the over all lack of depth would confirm this. However, as the credits rolled upward, I began to think about the unintended depth of the story, and how this “lack of attention to depth” inadvertently caused the film to feel much deeper. I compared this feeling to the critiques that I have read, regarding other films, and came to the revelation that these critics who search so thoroughly for depth never actually find it. For, in my opinion, true depth could only come into existence if one notices it without the assistance of others. I could very wrong in this idea, and await the opportunity to be proven my fault.
A question that one must ask, in regard, to this discussion is unquestionably,”What is depth?” In my more shallow opinion, I view depth on the basis of a Metaphor… using symbols and symbolic meaning, but I also respect the fact that people, as individuals, interpret meaning differently. It is the diversity of interpretation that I would peg as the true, or deeper, meaning of depth.
Using the idea of Diversified Interpretation seems to support the notion that anyone who attempts to force the audience to see the individual’s interpretation of an idea is not actually bringing any depth to a story, but merely preaching. Or, is this really what people mean when they converse about depth?
I find it interesting that so many believe that the only concept of depth is one that preaches to them. A visual example of what I have just suggested is as follow; imagine that a professor has just handed you a microscope with three lenses and a slide containing some form of bacteria. The professor asks to you switch to the first lens, the weakest of the three, and examine the specimen. You take notes as directed. After you have finished jotting down the last period, the professor reveals to you that this class is actually about what you can see with the second lens, the middle in strength. You are asked to rotate the lenses accordingly and examine the specimen again. With a stronger lens, you are able witness a much more vivid and revealing level of the specimen. You take notes as directed and the professor begins a discussion about this revelation. As he continues to teach, you quietly raise your hand. The professor calls on you to speak, and you ask,”What about the third lens?” He replies,”What third lens?” It is at this time that you realize all of the other classmates have only two lenses on their microscopes.
That example may seem to put this post at a contradiction with itself, but actually all becomes remedied with my asking of one question, the one question, I am beginning to understand, that very few people ask themselves,”What does this mean to me?” I may have given an example, which will assuredly be the basis on which you will attempt to understand my meaning, and it is exactly that that I wish to be an absent concept. This post is not about my meaning but yours.
And ironically it is kind of a funny story that I thought of all of this based on the shallowest movie of depth I have seen in quite awhile.
