[lbo-talk] "Ambiguities"

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Justin wrote:

> Suprised to see you balk at ambiguity, Doug. Also, outside heavt- 
> handed agitprop, and maybe even inside it*, is there any absolute  
> right "meaning" or correct interpretation of a work of art? Would  
> have thought it was one of the results of the last century or so in  
> thinking about this question that there's not. There may be  
> unsupported interpretations, silly and off-the- wall  
> interpretations (Jaws is Jesus, or Capital, etc.), but no clearly  
> and uniquely right ones. No? Even heavy-handed agitprop or plain  
> allegory can be read lots of ways. It's quite possible to read  
> Birth of a Nation as a condemnation of the Klan -- in fact,  
> contrary to Griffith's plain intentions, it's hard not see it that  
> way. On a less blatant plane, Blake thought that Milton was of the  
> Devil's party (this was a good thing for Blake) and did not know  
> it. Etc.


It doesn't make sense to conflate different kinds of ambiguities as  
if they were all the same old Ambiguity.  Some ambiguities are  
purposefully included in the work.  Whether Jack was really killed by  
gay-bashing homophobes unbeknownst to his wife who thinks that he  
died by accident or Ennis only imagined Jack's death by gay-bashing  
is an example of that.  Ang Lee could have easily given one certain  
take on it if he had wanted to, but he didn't want to do so, so we  
don't know.  In the case of Jaws, the big shark is essentially a  
blank screen, on which you can choose to attribute an allegorical  
meaning (if you are desperate to come up with something to write  
about) despite an absence of allegorical clues in the film itself,   
but you don't necessarily have to -- you can simply see it as a big  
scary shark and enjoy being scared by it.

"It's quite possible to read Birth of a Nation as a condemnation of  
the Klan," but few would, and few did when it mattered.  Sometimes,  
propaganda films can backfire, with the audience reading them against  
their grain or making fun of them altogether, but there is no  
historical evidence for that in this case.

Really, works of art don't have to be ambiguous to be excellent.   
Potemkin is a good example of that.


Yoshie Furuhashi
<http://montages.blogspot.com>
<http://monthlyreview.org>
<http://mrzine.org>