Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> info at pulpculture.org wrote:
>
> >By leaving the ending ambiguous, it allows people to project on to
> >the film their own interpretations.
>
> Is that the Hollywood way?
Possibility: It is inherent in photography (moving or still). The 'creator' in photography does not have the control over the meaning of an image that creators in other media have. Or to use E.D. Hirsch's distinction, films have only significance, not meaning. The distinction: the meaning of a text is the intention of the author; the significance of a text is in principle infinite. For example, someone might find the significance of this text to be that some leftists have read Hirsch -- though that is certainly not my intended meaning it would be a perfectly valid significance of the text.
This speculation is grounded in the fact that disagreements over the "meaning" of a film don't seem to generate the irritation that disagreements over the meaning of a text may generate.
Carrol