In Glittering Images Camilla Paglia writes of George Lucas’s work:
Lucas says, “My films are basically the graphics”: “Everything is visual.” He views dialogue as merely “a sound effect, a rhythm, a vocal chorus in the overall soundtrack.” In structure, Star Wars unfolds as dynamic action sequences alternating with grand panoramic tableaux, including breathtaking cityscapes stacked with traffic skylanes. Lucas declares, “I’m not really interested in plots.” And elsewhere: “To me, the script is just a sketchbook, just a list of notes.”
Tyler Cowen notes that Transformers 4 may be best seen as an art movie. To accuse a movie like Transformers of being plotless or absurd is pointless because plot is not its point. The utter lack of anything resembling a coherent plot may explain why I thought the first one so stupid; it may also be that I failed to go into it with the proper frame of mind. Expecting something novelistic and getting something like a painting or dance is likely to disappoint. Among novels I tend to prefer ones with plots over ones that are about “consciousness” or similar highbrow topics.
I am not necessarily opposed to movies as dance / art—Gravity (discussed by me at the link) has some Lucasian qualities but is also a plea for us to get off this planet—but there may be other implications.
Neal Stephenson, for example, has noticed the trend in movies towards either the visual (to use a positive term) or incoherence (to use my own feelings): in “Turn On, Tune In, Veg Out” he writes of how the changes in the Star Wars movies from 1977 to today also track changes in American culture, away from writing and dialogue and towards the visual. In the decade since he wrote his piece, it is hard not to see the general trends he describes as accelerating. His novel Anathem could be described in many ways, and one is a commentary on what mind happen if current trends regarding the divergence of the technical / literary / intellectual class (which is a class not defined by income) from everyone else. Paglia has not addressed this directly in a contemporary context as far as I can tell. She has a great deal of deserved scorn for what she calls word-obsessed, French theory laden academics, but in the overall scheme of American culture they’re a very small part of the picture.
Still, even in universities that are supposed to conserve knowledge and promote reading the movie temperament has made headway. In universities English professors are eager to show movies in class and have students write about movies instead of books; while that’s okay, I’m reminded of the phrase, “Writing about music is like dancing about architecture.”* There is always an impedance mismatch between writing and the subject of writing that does not exist in writing about other writing; the latter two inform each other in a way that writing about other subjects, including art, does not.
I’m not opposed to watching movies, or movie criticism, or courses about movie criticism or movie making, but the extent to which the people who are supposed to be teaching writing are using movies is another example of the trends Stephenson describes.
When I was a first-year grad student at the University of Arizona I was part of a small teaching group with other first years and one faculty facilitator. A girl and I got into a discussion about why I didn’t show movies in class, and I told her some of the above; watching movies in basic English classes is a waste of time. Reading is an essential part of writing, and people who don’t read can’t be good writers. Period. Most students have plenty of screen time but very little reading time. She said she thought I was wrong about the coevolution of reading and writing, so I sent her some studies demonstrating what is already obvious to every writer. She said didn’t care and was going to keep showing movies anyway. The exchange is symptomatic of deeper issues in academia itself. As Paglia might say, the culture has corrupted it, in ways that it shouldn’t be corrupted, rather than in ways it should be corrupted (which is a subject for another post).
* If so, the criticisms about modern action or blockbuster movies have incoherent plots or dialogue are no more meaningful than saying that dance or architecture have incoherent plots or dialogue. People like me, who like movies that make sense, don’t realize that we’re criticizing the wrong genre.
I agree with you that kids in English classes need to read, not watch movies; it’s silly to focus so much classroom time on movie-watching skills the students already have. But it’s also economically absurd: Based on the cost of tuition at the University of Arizona, I estimate that in in-state student pays around $50 for each hour of classroom time, while an out-of-state student pays nearly $90 an hour. Students (and parents) should be appalled to be shelling out that much (often, with interest!) to see a movie they could watch in their free time for as little as $1.99.
Alternately, if one believes Bryan Caplan’s signaling theory of education, it almost doesn’t matter what one does in class; it only matters that the school be hard to get into and that the activities are at least creditable enough to achieve their signaling purpose. By that standard it doesn’t really matter what one does in class.
(I realize I am mostly arguing against my own point with this comment.)
Students (and parents) should be appalled to be shelling out that much (often, with interest!) to see a movie they could watch in their free time for as little as $1.99.
I’m not necessarily opposed to movies as a part of academic criticism / culture—one could also buy all the books in many English syllabuses for $100, or get them from libraries free—but the movies should be in classes devoted to movies.
From an intellectual and job perspective, I don’t think movies are necessary for effective thinking, while reading and writing are, and many more students will need to read and write effectively in their work than will need to analyze or make movies.
Pingback: Links: Cancer cures, the Duke Lacrosse Scandal reverberates, more on academia, Google Book Search, and more! « The Story's Story