On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, 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? Zizek has a riff somewhere on the shark in Jaws -
> people have projected all kinds of meanings onto it. But the point is that
> none of them are right. If any were "right" then it might alienate a
> potential ticket-buyers, so best to keep it free-floating.
Not to get too pomo, but the "meaning" must be free-floating, because what the work means is a product of the interpretations of viewers and interactions among those viewers. It is literally and practically impossible for the artist to control or determine the "meaning" of the art they produce. --Even if I'm a director, and I say, "It means X", but everyone who sees it agrees that it means Y, then the meaning of the work of art in that society is Y, not X.
We need to untangle the "meaning" of a work of art from the intention or purpose of the artist. They're necessarily distinct.
Miles