SCREEN-L Archives

May 1998, Week 1

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Birgit Kellner <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 1 May 1998 04:05:37 +0900
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (138 lines)
Murray Pomerance wrote:
 
> Now, GOOD WILL HUNTING is not, to me, mediocre-and-therefore-discrdable;
> it's meaningful.
 
I am somewhat surprised about this sudden emergence of the motive of
"mediocre-and-therefore-discardable"; to the extent that I have followed
this thread, I cannot recall any messages to the effect that Good Will
Hunting should be discarded *because* it was mediocre. Mike Frank
initially raised questions about the screenplay, and a couple of people
(including myself, just a lurker on this list for most of the time) came
in, significantly enough, raising the issue of how the white
working-class is depicted in Hollywood films. I don't remember anyone
saying that the *film* was so mediocre that it might not even be worthy
of a trashcan, rather, it was claimed that the film is highly
problematic in regards to pursuing one of the goals it has (depicting
the working-class); but the issue whether the *screenplay* deserved an
oscar, and if so, why, still awaits clarification.
 
> And Will's problem with that History grad student in
> the bar suggests a widening and, for me, terrifying division between town
> and gown, between the official "thinkers" and people's attempts to
> think. He's a kid, after all, a bright one, and so is Matt Damon, so he
> surely knew how to write Will Hunting. He's not Plato, he's a kid, and
> I'm wondering how that grad student suddenly stopped being a kid when
> he's clearly not much older. In fact, Will shows that he can read the
> same texts, even more of them, and more deeply. But he doesn't have the
> pretence and the arrogance, and what bothers me is the sense I have very
> often that the pretence and arrogance really do constitute academic
> life.
 
Apart from my reaction to (and against) the implications of how the film
depicts working-class youth, this is another thing I took issue with.
Academics come off as arrogant, shallow, exploitative and career-driven
bastards, whether as students or as teachers. The issue is not whether
that's reality or not, but it is certainly significant that the "gift"
of Will is one that could get him academic prowess, and that the world
which his working-class background is depicted *against* is university,
academia.
 
Pursuing this opposition a little further, it could be said that the
dynamics of the individual vs. environment actually work exactly the
opposite for the working-class situation and its university counterpart.
Working-class areas are shown to be bad places to live in, they make
good people bad, and the implication is that one had better get out of
there. If one stays there, the only way to do it is to form a strong
bastion of close personal relationships that somehow serve as a cushion
against the intrinsic evil and badness from the outside. But preferably,
one should get out, and possibly get into university, an intrinsically
good place, which has, unfortunately, been corrupted by bad individuals
(such as the grad student in the bar). In the end, the implications
confirm rather than undermine a very naive ideal of academia as a
heavenly ivory tower of freedom and creativity, which is bad for Will
simply because the people are not good enough. They have taken away his
natural refuge, these beasts. The palace where the prince could finally
take the princess to is not there anymore, too sad.
 
(Which, by the way, eliminates what *I* would have found a nice and very
relevant drift, that is, pointing out the parallelism or connection
between the condition of the working-class and that of academia. The
university-professor is still the god who reigns; interestingly enough,
the factory-boss is not even there.)
 
Another aspect of the grad student in the bar is, of course, his
function as a rival in a good old mating ritual. Imagine the same
situation, and Will's rival would have been just one of his buddies, or
"class-mates" - it just wouldn't work. The princess has to be a
university-person (again, note that there are no working-class women to
speak of in the entire film), and so has the "dragon", who turns up as a
grad-student. Only that the saviour, the prince, doesn't really know
about the details of the mission, nonetheless manages to slay the
dragon, then gets doubts as to whether he really wants to go through
with this whole "bring the princess to the palace"-business, because the
palace isn't what it used to be, and the prince is not what princes used
to be, but finally, he manages to resolves these doubts and drives off
to "see about a girl".
 
I also find that what Murrey Pomerance writes above, i.e. "Will shows
that he can read the same texts, even more of them, and more deeply", is
not really the case.
For the depth of Will's learning and reading is clearly taken away by
the psychologist's "teaching" about the Sixtine chapel, where we are
told that experience is what matters, so don't bother with the reading.
Which basically leaves Will just where it left the grad student.
Interestingly enough, this unites them in shallowness, and pretence.
Only, Will is redeemed, whereas the grad student isn't. Because - coming
back to what I wrote above - he's a good guy corrupted by his
environment, whereas the grad student is a bad guy corrupting his
paradise.
 
> Obviously I don't have this sense always. But sometimes, and it's
> disturbing. And this idea, that one can have such a sensation and it can
> be disturbing, and that academic life can be this way, is surely worth
> thinking about, and this film is surely worth taking seriously if it
> raises this issue to the foreground.
 
To get off on yet another tangent (though this goes miles away from
discussion the screenplay, but then again, this thread already has, so
why not): There is also the contrast between *real*-life experience and
theory (the latter symbolized by academia). And the emphasis is clearly
on the former, which is valued highly, whereas theory is basically
presented as, well, what losers who don't have Will's gift have to do to
make up for it. For Will just *does* and *experiences* maths, whereas
others
- unfortunately - have to not only *work* at it, but also theorize and
conceptualize it. It is this aspect of the film which I found, from a
viewpoint of academia, the most disturbing and alarming. Theory is for
the unhappy, the unfulfilled, the deficient. To my recollection, Will is
never told that, yeah, it's great that you can do all these things much
faster and easier and with better results than us, but could you explain
them, analyze them, give them meaning. Instead, the academics
uncritically admire his natural genius, and only take issue with the
fact that he doesn't seem to eager on pursuing it. OK, Will verbalizes
and conceptualizes well when it comes to fighting his rival for the
princess. But again, this is a skill which he has and utilizes for the
mating ritual, but which is not at all brought up, let alone valued, in
the academic context (and ultimately denigrated by the psychologist
anyway). So he can do the theory job, if he has to, but it's better not
to have to, and just *experience*. Let alone discuss. This goes far
beyond the opposition of genius vs.
not-so-genius-and-therefore-having-to-work-at-it. It goes towards an
all-encompassing and all-redeeming notion of experience, for which
theory, or argumentation, can but be a poor substitute.
 
Certainly a film worth considering, but just because of its inherent
problems (none of which, I would say, are part of some sort of intended
complexity), and because of the way these may stand for certain social
trends.
 
--
birgit kellner
department for indian philosophy
hiroshima university
 
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite

ATOM RSS1 RSS2