Quest for meaning

I believe that an important measure of the value of any work of art is its ability to support different interpretations, to allow different people to find different meanings in it. And a true artist does not foreclose any of those possible meanings by telling the world what his or her work “really” means. Those who leave no doubt as to what they “really” mean are creating polemics, not art. For Carina Chocano to analyze and discuss her interpretation of movies is an important contribution to our societal conversation; for her to complain that the filmmakers won’t confirm that her interpretation is what they “really” meant is childish [“No Big Statements Intended. Oh, Yeah. We Believe That,” March 20].

Frank Miller, Zack Snyder and Mel Gibson may well be war-mongering right-wing fanatics, but even if they are, that’s beside the point. What’s important is the work they produce. I view both “Apocalypto” and “300” as movies that (a) are visually impressive, (b) bring to life places and times that most of us know nothing about, and (c) do so in an entertaining manner. The fact that these movies have engendered discussion and controversy merely confirms that they have served their purpose as works of art, and served it well.

DANA E. MILES

Rancho Santa Margarita

*

THANK you for Carina Chocano’s insightful review of “300.” Although some may have grown weary of “Orientalist” critiques, that a Hollywood production in the 21st century would portray the Achaemenid Persian civilization as “a horde of homosexual monsters” indicates that, consciously or unconsciously, the makers of this film are perpetuating and exploiting very old stereotypes about the East.

DAVID SIMONOWITZ

Los Angeles