The
Emergent Rules
9/11/12
Throughout Charles Jencks’ The Emergent Rules, I was constantly reminded of Macherey’s A Theory of Literary Production,
especially when Jencks focuses on ambiguity and pluralism. Jencks states, “When several possible
readings are presented simultaneously, it is left to the reader to supply the
unifying text. This also entails
frustration – the postmodern counterpart to the classical canon of ‘withheld
gratification’…One has to look elsewhere to find a clearer expression of a
unified view” (285). This idea
directly relates to both Barthes and Jencks, yet in another spectrum. In other words, while Macherey was
concerned with the perversion – the act of flipping the text inside out to fill
in the gaps and find a greater meaning – of text and literature, in this case,
Jencks is focusing on the ambiguity of postmodern art and architecture.
This
idea of ambiguity, however, transcends the categories mentioned by Macherey and
Jencks, and is especially relevant to theatre and cinema. After reading this passage by Jencks
where he states that as the viewer, we have to fill in the gaps of the
ambiguous, I immediately thought of the ending to Christopher Nolan’s Inception, the 2010 blockbuster staring
Leonardo DiCaprio. For those who
haven’t seen it, or for those who forget, DiCaprio’s character, Cobb, goes home
and is reunited with his kids, but during the scene, Cobb spins his top – an
object that, when spinning allows for Cobb to know that he is dreaming. This is important, because as the scene
begins to fade out, the top is still spinning, yet just as the top seems to
start to fall, an indication the Cobb is not dreaming, the movie abruptly
ends. This ending exemplifies
Jencks’ idea that the reader, or in this case the viewer, is left frustrated and
confused as to what just happened.
The ending to Inception relies
on others to “Look elsewhere to find a clearer expression of a unified view”
(285), given that no real ending – or explanation – is given.
No comments:
Post a Comment