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:
Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Mon, 4 May 1998 16:14:05 -0500
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (122 lines)
Birgit Kellner comments:
 
 
> 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.
 
A similar dynamic was going on in WORKING GIRL, where Melanie Griffith
couldn't wait to get off of Staten Island and into that cubicle (even
if it is a separate office and not a Dilbert box) in Manhattan.  In
WILL HUNTING, I don't think the opposition is so much academia as such
as what it leads to, i.e. the NSA and all those think tanks that are up
to God knows what.
 
Actually, while the Williams character (who has resigned himself to a
mere community college post) baits his old roommate for academic
snobbery, the intellectual lust of the math prof (a truly fine
performance by Stellan Skaargard) is a tangible example of what a
passion for a life of the mind might be.  One could speculate about
whether Will really wants a life of the mind--or just a life.  It's the
latter that the film gives him.  In both WILL HUNTING and WORKING GIRL,
there's no looking back once that body of water (harbor or river) has
been crossed for the last time.  But what Will is going toward, as he
heads toward California and Minnie Driver, is far less certain than
what Melanie Griffith might be going for (with only a hint of irony in
that final shot of the office exterior).
 
 
>
> 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".
 
Well put.  One of the several threads in the film that might have
developed into something more interesting is the unspoken jealousy of
the other math grad assistant, who obviously covets the time and
attention that Will gets.  But he too turns out to be a reasonably nice
guy.  As to the working class women, they're all portrayed as sluts or
on the make--or both.  Could this film have ever been GOOD JILL HUNTING?
 
 
> 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.
 
Which in the long run suits him just fine for a computing slot in the
military-industrial complex, where the only questions to ask are the
practical ones.  But his background is supposed to give him an immunity
to this sort of thing.  But, again, we're never told just what the
"good" think tank that he almost signs up with is processing.
 
Now compare the intuitive leaps that led to the hard math of the real
pioneers (as much as I know of at least the pop versions of their
lives)!  I can't imagine Einstein splitting for the Coast, even though
his personal relations did belie the absent-minded professor facade.
 
Don Larsson
 
----------------------
Donald Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
[log in to unmask]
 
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2