Re: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Kendall Clark wrote:

>   dave> Is that review a joke or something?
>
> Hmm, I certainly didn't introduce it as a joke, on the contrary. Are
> your comments meant to be a joke or just clumsy and uncharitable?

Uncharitable.  I didn't really like the review.

> "Having rich political content" and "being amenable to a richly
> political reading" aren't the same thing; do you deny the distinction
> in general or just here?

I think that CTHD is not amenable to this _particular_ rich political
reading.

As to political readings of works in general, I think its all a matter of
degree.  Sometimes I agree, sometimes I think the interpreter has put too
much of themself into the interpretation.  I think this review falls into
the latter category.

OTOH, it is interpretation so there's no such thing as right or wrong,
just opinions.

> And *only* an "explicitly political work" or one of "rich political
> content" should be read politically? Are those two different criteria
> or just one?

Answers: No.  Two.

> You don't give a single reason for anyone to think that political
> interpretation of film is inappropriate. Too bad; such an ambitious
> argument might have started an interesting conversation.

I gave several reasons, based on my viewing of the film.  You may not
agree but that doesn't mean I didn't give any.  I just didn't give any
_you_ found adequate.

> Unlike the present film which doesn't? Gee, I thought the main plot
> was almost entirely *about* gender roles. I guess I too "saw stuff
> that wasn't really there". The love interest beteween the Yeo and Yun
> Fat characters was thoroughly shot through with considerations of
> gender and sexism.

Well, I really don't think this film was about gender roles, at least not
intentionally.  CTHD is drawing on a rich tradition of films
(specifically, Hong Kong films and more specifically, HK martial arts
films) that portray women in non-traditional roles, quite often as action
heroes.

(the above begs the question of what it means for a film/book/work to be
"about something".  I don't have a good answer, I'm afraid.)

Maybe I've seen so many of these films that I'm somewhat blase about it
but I think it could be argued that the gender roles in this film are
merely an extension of this tradition.  Its hard to say whether the film
knowingly draws on this because of its political meanings or simply
because of the fact that it _is_ traditional.

I think it would be interesting to examine the politics of that whole
group of films.  But picking any one film from the group and saying that
that that one film intentionally addressed sexism seems wrong.  Maybe
you're not saying it did so _intentionally_ though?

To me the intention is fairly important to the interpretation.  I'm sure
that to others this is irrelevant.  But to me, I'm usually more interested
in the intent of the author(s), rather than the unconscious subtext.
Attempting to intensely analyze the unintentional elements of a work seems
to me like dream analysis.  You can find anything you want if you look
hard enough.

> Bah! They are *clearly* mercenaries for the ruling class! Why else are

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up for me.

> they so motivated to aid the father -- who is a rich and powerful

Hmm, they're not doing all that much to help her father.  In the first
part of the film, Shu Lien does try to keep the theft quiet for their
benefit, but in the second half of the film I don't see exactly what is
being done to help Jen's family, much less her father.  They seem to be
trying to help Jen herself, at least to me.  They're certainly not trying
to drag her back kicking and screaming to her family and marriage and
family.

> Well, s/denying her literacy/denying her greater understanding/ -- an
> alternate reading *clearly* withing the bounds of the principle of
> interpretive charity -- and your objection is mooted.

s/denying her greater understanding/denying her natural ability/, another
alternate reading cleary within the bounds.  And my objection is
un-mooted.

> She reproaches with her dying breath Jen's greater understanding of
> the Book, and thus the secrets of the Wu Tan -- whether that's a
> function of literacy or a broader notion of understanding, the point
> remains, namely, Jen has been educated in ways that Jade Fox wasn't,
> these differences in education are variables of class, and thus Jade
> Fox reproaches her.

But we know nothing of Jade Fox's history and education.  I still stand by
my interpretation, which is that Jade Fox's inability to understand the
secrets of the book have to do with her natural talent, not her education.

> I can think of other possibilities which I'm too courteous to voice.

No, you just make half-veiled intimations of my stupidity/ignorance/etc.
Oh, just come out and say it.  It will make you feel better.

> I find your denial of the legitimacy of political readings of 'texts'
> that aren't *overtly* or *explicitly* political to be absurd and prima
> facie wrong. And it flies in the face of about 150 years of the theory
[snip]
>
> Are you going to give *any* grounds for such a broad claim?

Nope, cause I never made it.


-dave

/*==================
www.urth.org
We await the New Sun
==================*/