PALGRAVE CLOSE READINGS IN FILM AND TELEVISION Ambiguity and Film Criticism Reasonable Doubt Hoi Lun Law Palgrave Close Readings in Film and Television Series Editors John Gibbs Department of Film, Theatre & Television University of Reading Reading, UK Doug Pye Department of Film, Theatre & Television University of Reading Reading, UK Palgrave Close Readings in Film and Television is an innovative series of research monographs and collections of essays dedicated to extending the methods and subjects of detailed criticism. Volumes in the series – written from a variety of standpoints and dealing with diverse topics – are unified by attentiveness to the material decisions made by filmmakers and a commitment to develop analysis and reflection from this foundation. Each volume will be committed to the appreciation of new areas and topics in the field, but also to strengthening and developing the conceptual basis and the methodologies of critical analysis itself. The series is based in the belief that, while a scrupulous attention to the texture of film and television programmes requires the focus of concept and theory, the discoveries that such attention produces become vital in questioning and re-f ormulating theory and concept. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14712 Hoi Lun Law Ambiguity and Film Criticism Reasonable Doubt Hoi Lun Law Bristol, UK ISSN 2634-6133 ISSN 2634-6141 (electronic) Palgrave Close Readings in Film and Television ISBN 978-3-030-62944-1 ISBN 978-3-030-62945-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62945-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: PictureLux / The Hollywood Archive / Alamy Stock Photo Cover design: eStudioCalamar This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland A cknowledgements Looking back at the path I’ve travelled, I appreciate all the help and kind- ness I encountered along the way. My special thanks go to Alex Clayton, who has patiently guided me to rediscover and reflect on what I mean by what I say during my doctoral research. I was told “Alex can teach you things” before commencing the degree. What I learned over the years working with him has made this book possible. My ongoing conversations with Dominic Lash have not only informed the arguments of this volume but also enriched my understanding of film and film aesthetics. Most importantly, we share the acquired taste in sour beers! Catherine Grant has been a great mentor and (later also) a dear friend ever since I came to her office to discuss film theory in late 2010. Her generosity is legendary. And surely, I am not the only one who thinks Katie is a magnificent human being as well as a wonderful educator. Adrian Martin has been extremely supportive of this project since the early stage. Pointing out a notable omission in my arguments, his erudite comments helped refine my claims. Andrew Klevan (who, by the way, made the aforementioned remark about Alex) gave an unpolished draft of Chap. 2 the kind of sustained critical engagement (and critique) that I’ve always wanted for my work. Part of Chap. 6 was presented as a paper at Screen conference 2016 and benefited from Chris Keathley’s keen eye (in this specific case, ear) for detail. Jacob Leigh and Kristian Moen were attentive and discerning as the examiners of my doctoral thesis. Pete Falconer (half-jokingly?) said his role as my second PhD supervisor was to not get in my way. But I knew very well— and he made sure of it—that he was available if I ever needed his aid. v vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Whenever I talk to James MacDowell, not least about ambiguity, I profit from his lucidity of thought. Elliott Logan and Murray Pomerance prof- fered heartfelt words of encouragement when they were most needed, during that exhilarating yet trying final stretch of writing. I am glad to have John Gibbs and Doug Pye, who are sympathetic to my critical approach and temperament, as the series editors of this title. At Palgrave Macmillan, Emily Wood had provided excellent editorial assistance. It is my pleasure to be friends with Hanna Kubicka (with whom I enjoyed many intellectual and not-so-intellectual conservations), Ali Rasooli-Nejad (whose enthusiasm about “movie masterpieces” is galvanising), and Jordan Schonig (whose perceptiveness never fails to bring clarity and rigour to a discussion). Thank you to Lara Perski for being my travel com- panion throughout this difficult but rewarding path. I will always remem- ber the time when we had walked such a path and found ourselves “stuck” on a hilltop. The trail down was steep and narrow, frighteningly treacher- ous. What to do? We braved the adverse uncertainty together. My greatest gratitude goes to my parents and my sister, who are always there for me. This book is for those who are attuned to the teachings of doubt. c ontents 1 Introduction: Why Is It as It Is? 1 Part I Pursuits of Reasons 23 2 Difficulty of Reading 25 3 Perplexity of Style 49 4 Depth of Suggestion 87 Part II Drama of Doubt 113 5 Uncertainty of Viewpoint 115 6 Threat of Insignificance 149 7 Concluding Remarks: Reasonable Doubt 175 Index 183 vii l f ist of igures Fig. 2.1 Late Spring (Yasujirō Ozu, 1949) 26 Fig. 2.2 Late Spring (Yasujirō Ozu, 1949) 27 Fig. 2.3 Late Spring (Yasujirō Ozu, 1949) 28 Fig. 2.4 Late Spring (Yasujirō Ozu, 1949) 31 Fig. 3.1 Ten (Abbas Kiarostami, 2002) 61 Fig. 3.2 Ten (Abbas Kiarostami, 2002) 62 Fig. 3.3 Ten (Abbas Kiarostami, 2002) 68 Fig. 3.4 Ten (Abbas Kiarostami, 2002) 76 Fig. 4.1 In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray, 1950) 89 Fig. 4.2 In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray, 1950) 98 Fig. 4.3 In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray, 1950) 100 Fig. 4.4 In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray, 1950) 101 Fig. 4.5 In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray, 1950) 102 Fig. 4.6 In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray, 1950) 103 Fig. 4.7 In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray, 1950) 104 Fig. 4.8 In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray, 1950) 106 Fig. 5.1 Force Majeure (Ruben Östlund, 2014) 120 Fig. 5.2 Force Majeure (Ruben Östlund, 2014) 124 Fig. 5.3 Force Majeure (Ruben Östlund, 2014) 124 Fig. 5.4 Force Majeure (Ruben Östlund, 2014) 127 Fig. 5.5 Force Majeure (Ruben Östlund, 2014) 133 Fig. 5.6 Force Majeure (Ruben Östlund, 2014) 140 Fig. 6.1 Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (Fritz Lang, 1956) 150 Fig. 6.2 Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (Fritz Lang, 1956) 151 Fig. 6.3 Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (Fritz Lang, 1956) 159 ix CHAPTER 1 Introduction: Why Is It as It Is? In spite of its wide currency in film scholarship, criticism, and everyday conversation, ambiguity has not been systematically developed as an aes- thetic concept for the medium of film. It has received considerable atten- tion in discussions of “art cinema” and “modern cinema”, which often assert the significance of ambiguity in these modes of filmmaking without unpacking its implications (see Armes 1976; Bordwell 2008; Self 1979). And when the concept is studied in detail, it is typically in reference to André Bazin’s phenomenological understanding of cinematic realism (see Andrew 1973; Carruthers 2017). As a result, there is room in critical lit- erature for an exploration of ambiguity across diverse film styles. What would such an account involve? A main task of this book is to offer a useful framework to appreciate the variegated manifestations of ambiguity in movies. What Makes aMbiguity aMbiguous? Perhaps one reason why ambiguity is understudied, habitually taken for granted, has to do with its ironically unambiguous standard definition. Dictionaries define ambiguity as the characteristic of what bears multiple meanings. This is arguably how the term is ordinarily understood too. The straightforward definition seems sufficient in itself, not only detailed enough as a description of what ambiguity entails but also capable of © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1 Switzerland AG 2021 H. L. Law, Ambiguity and Film Criticism, Palgrave Close Readings in Film and Television, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62945-8_1