Re: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

>>>>> "dave" == Dave Rolsky <[email protected]> writes:

  dave> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Kendall Clark wrote: Is that review a joke
  dave> 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?

  dave> Uncharitable.  I didn't really like the review.

The principle of interpretive charity says, roughly, that *before* you
criticize something you should do your best to understand it,
including resolving ambiguities -- as far as possible -- in favor of
making the text (or person or claims) you're trying to understand
*make sense* or as much sense as possible.

Rather than doing that, you seem to have tried to resolve ambiguities
(the question of what the reviewer meant by literacy, for example) in
the worst possible way. Not something *I'm* comfortable boasting
about, but YMMV.

  >> "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?

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

Why not? Because it's not what Ang Lee intended? 

That begs the question since the kind of political reading presented
in that review doesn't *make any claims about authorial intent* and,
in fact, comes out of an intellectual tradition in which authorial
intent is viewed as uninteresting and unimportant.

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

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

Not being a relativist, I find this silly. Of course it commits you to
being able to say nothing more in criticism of the reviewer of CTHD
stronger than "it's not an opinion I share". How pedestrian!

  >> 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.

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

Read more carefully. I said "political interpretation of film" not of
*this* film. I claimed that your original response implied a disdain
of political interpretation of nonpolitical works *in general*. Do you
deny that is your position? If it is your position, I reiterate:
you've given no one any reason to think it's true.

What you have said is that a political interpretation of CTHD is
inappropriate, primarily, I guess, because it wasn't Ang Lee's
intention.

  >> 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.

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

Sure, as the reviewer -- being Japanese and culturally sophisticated
-- fully knows. Of course one thing that often gets done, critically,
with genre that enact nontraditional gender (or other social) roles is
precisely to give them overtly political readings.

I could understand the tone of your reaction better had I or the
reviewer made a claim of interpretive authority or exclusivity. She
read CTHD politically in a way that I liked, agreed with, and
similarly to what I would have done had I the time.

How does any of that threaten either you, the film, Ang Lee's
intentions, or the genre?

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

I can suggest several things you might want to read that would help
you answer this question, if you're interested.

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

Not only am I not saying that, the original reviewer didn't say it
either. I'm curious why it would be okay to do give a strong political
interpreation of "that whole group of films" but it's not okay to give
a strong political interpretatino to one film from that group. In
fact, the most ordinary way to go about a strongly political reading
of a genre of text is *precisely* to give a strong political reading
of several of the classics of that genre. Whether done *in toto* or
*seriatim* seems to be irrelevant.

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

The Freudian points here are contingent, of course, but setting that
aside, why do you *care*? You're firmly in the Allen Bloom & Ed Hirsch
(and from Hirsch on back to Dilthey and Schleiermacher) School of
Interpretation (a very politically conservative school, by the
way). The reviewer isn't, however. Clearly.

As I said from the beginning, your not liking the reading of CTHD I
forwarded is one thing. You seemed -- and still seem -- to be going
beyond that to question it's legitimacy *as* a reading of CTHD. I
still find that objectionable.

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

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

It was obvious. I'm surprised you missed it.

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

  dave> Hmm, they're not doing all that much to help her father.

No, just trying to return the sword, save his daughter. These are
little things? Besides, the question isn't *how much* they're doing
for him; the quesion is *what* are they? In fact, going to such great
lengths to do *very little* for him is *better* evidence that they are
mercenaries or retainers to the ruling class, doesn't it.

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

But Jade Fox *criticizes* Jen for not *teaching her*, for keeping
things from her; if she thought her failure to master Wu Tan properly
was a matter of her own innate lack of talent, does it make sense to
blame *that* on Jen?

  >> 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.

  dave> But we know nothing of Jade Fox's history and education. 

We know some things. We know she's a servant woman, which doesn't
bespeak high station (or maybe it does, I'm not entirely clear about
downward social mobility patterns in this period (hell, in any period)
of Chinese history.)
	 I
  dave> still stand by my interpretation, which is that Jade Fox's
  dave> inability to understand the secrets of the book have to do
  dave> with her natural talent, not her education.

Wonderful. I think there are reasons to say this isn't a good reading,
but no one disputes its legitimacy *as* a reading of the film.

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

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

That's not what I was thinking about at all; I was thinking that the
review wasn't a joke (clearly since I expressed admiration for it) and
that you weren't a troll-biter but a troll, that is, your response to
my admiration of that review was meant to inflame. You claim, in a
message in which you ask whether something I've clearly and sincerly
admired is a "joke", to be *responding* to a troll? Uncharitable
indeed.

  >> 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
  dave> [snip]
  >>  Are you going to give *any* grounds for such a broad claim?

  dave> Nope, cause I never made it.

I guess I was the only person to hear you implying such a thing.

It's typical to find someone making that claim who also defends
authorial intention as the guiding criterion of interpretation, but I
guess you're an exception.

Kendall