Rogue or Lover

Value-Maximizing Interpretations of Withnail and I

in Projections
Restricted access

Abstract

In this article, I want to consider two interpretations of the film Withnail and I (Bruce Robinson, 1987), one according to which the title character is a rogue and the other according to which he is a lover. I argue that both interpretations are supported by the text and note that, insofar as an intentionalist approach to interpretation is adopted, the interpretation according to which Withnail is a rogue is correct. Nevertheless, I argue that it is a better film—both morally and aesthetically—on the latter interpretation and, hence, that if one adopts a value-maximizing approach to interpretation, one ought to accept this interpretation. Finally, I argue that insofar as viewers are interested in getting other people to admire the film, they ought to adopt the value-maximizing approach and, as a result, endorse the interpretation according to which Withnail is a lover.

Contributor Notes

Peter Alward is Professor and Department Head of Philosophy at the University of Saskatchewan. He works predominantly on issues in the philosophy of art and literature and the philosophy of language. His recent work has been focused on problems involving fiction and interpretation. E-mail: peter.wb.alward@gmail.com

Projections

The Journal for Movies and Mind

  • AlwardPeter. 2014. “Butter Knives and Screwdrivers: An Intentionalist Defense of Radical Constructivism.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 72 (3): 247260.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AlwardPeter. 2017. “The Accidental Author: Interpretation, Intentions, and Responsibility.” Unpublished manuscript.

  • BeardsleyMonroe. 2004. “Intentions and Interpretations: A Fallacy Revived.” In Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: The Analytic Tradition ed. Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen189199. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CarrollNoël. 2000. “Interpretation and Intention: The Debate between Hypothetical and Actual Intentionalists.” Metaphilosophy 31 (1–2): 7595.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CarrollNoël. 2016. “Interpretation.” In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Literature ed. Noël Carroll and John Gibson302312. New York: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DaviesStephen. 2006. “Authors’ Intentions, Literary Interpretation, and Literary Value.” British Journal of Aesthetics 46 (3): 223247.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GoldmanAlan H. 2013. Philosophy and the Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • HirschE. D. 1967. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • LivingstonPaisley. 2005. Art and Intention: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • SteckerRobert. 1997. “The Constructivist’s Dilemma.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55 (1): 4351.

  • SteckerRobert. 2003. Interpretation and Construction: Art Speech and the Law. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • SteckerRobert. 2006. “Moderate Actual Intentionalism Defended.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 64 (4): 429438.

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 6 6 5
Full Text Views 4 4 1
PDF Downloads 0 0 0