Proof differs from analysis. Proof establishes that something happened. Analysis shows why it happened. Proof is a mode of argument that is, by definition, complete; but the price of its completeness is that proof is always formal. Only what is already contained in the beginning is proven at the end. In analysis, however, there are always further angles of understanding, new realms of causality. Analysis is substantive. Analysis is a mode of argument that is, by definition, always incomplete; it is, properly speaking, interminable. The extent to which a given work of art is designed as a mode of proof is, of course, a matter of proportion. Surely, some works of art are more directed toward proof, more based on considerations of form, than others.
Movies - Before sunrise (1995), Vivre sa vie (1962), Cold War (2005), La Jalousie (2014), La Dolce Vita (1960), High noon (1952), Spellbound (1945), Double Identity (2009), It's a wonderful life (1946), Hiroshima mon amour (1959)
All art tends toward the formal, toward a completeness that must be formal rather than substantive — endings that exhibit grace and design, and only secondarily convince in terms of psychological motives or social forces. (Think of the barely credible but immensely satisfying endings of most of Shakespeare’s plays, particularly the comedies.)
Lately been thinking a lot about having to explain everything through words and what it means to share that invisible understanding with someone.
Movies in order- Pierrot le Fou (1965), Worst person in the world (2021), Vivre sa vie (1962), Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind (2004), Pulp fiction (1994)