Month: November 2006 Page 1 of 3

Brrr

Well, November finally hit Waco. Walking a half-mile to school in freezing rain really isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

After our last Bibliography and Research class last night, several of us students had a mini-party, which was well-deserved in my opinion. Sangria, chips and salsa, and good conversation. And I’m totally not alone in my current disillusionment with the grad school thing. Several of us voiced the feeling that we’d expected to come to grad school to learn more about English literature, but instead of content, we’re getting career training. Granted, that was sort of the point of Bib & Research, I suppose, so none of us have lost heart completely yet, since we hope that next semester will be more content-based. Yet, I don’t know. I lot of what I’ve read about grad school is that it really is career training…I just didn’t believe it. Perhaps I should have. If that’s the case, what about those of us who don’t really want the career it’s training us for? There are at least two or three of us, I know, that don’t really intend to follow out the professor’s career path, seek tenure, and all of that. We either don’t want it badly enough to put up with the tenure-track requirements, or we don’t want it at all.

(Part of this is a problem of academia and scholarship being increasingly institutionalized…many of the great literary scholars and critics a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago were not strictly academics. They were preachers. They were lawyers. They were journalists. Matthew Arnold was even a government employee, as a school inspector. But now, the idea of being a literary critic in your spare time is nearly unheard of. The barrier of entry into the field is horrendous.)

If what we really want out of grad school is the content rather than the career outcome, what better way would there be to get that content? 1) Reading on our own. But reading on our own doesn’t give the additional viewpoints or accountability that reading for class does. Also, you lose the discussion with others who are reading the same things. 2) Book club group or some such. I’ll grant you, I haven’t been in too many book clubs, but although I like the idea, I have a connotation of shallowness associated with them. As in, they read the latest “serious fiction” book and talk about how it relates to them, as opposed to how it relates to literature throughout history, which interests me more. Are there “academic” book clubs out there? If I started one away from a school environment, would people come and really engage the literature? 3) Take random classes. I like this idea, but it’s expensive. Plus, you’d never really be a part of the community, especially if the majority of the other students in the class were full-time students, and you weren’t.

So what I want is the content and the community that you get from being in school (especially the closer community you can get in a good graduate environment, which I think we have here), without the career training expectations and mentality. Where would one find that?

Perspective

I’ve been sort of down on and off for days, not just worrying about papers due and such, but whether I’m even in the right place. I was so frustrated this afternoon (in the moments leading up to the class wherein I had to present on Sir Thomas Browne–see previous entry) that as my friends and I were in the lounge waiting until it was time for class, I offhandedly remarked that I was going to shoot myself in the head, especially thinking of the venerable Sir Thomas.

Well. I got set straight on that one pretty quickly. Not five minutes later another friend walked up, something clearly wrong. It turns out that a boy in a fraternity house down the street from her…a fraternity that she’d been close to as a Baylor undergrad and the fraternity her boyfriend had belonged to…shot and killed himself this morning. Talk about showing how unimportant a presentation on metaphysical prose really is in the ultimate scheme of things. To make things worse for her, she presented today, too…and did fine…but she commented that we really didn’t need to worry about our presentations (we were worrying about them together, last night, sort of, on Facebook), given how small a thing a single grade in a single class really is. Thinking that for this boy life was so unbearable that he felt he had to end it puts our grad school stress in perspective–virtually all of us first-years have thought and said over the past few weeks variations on “shoot me now,” but he really meant it. What was that insurmountable to him? I may never know, but it’s sobering.

Casino Royale

I have been highly anticipating Casino Royale since I heard about Daniel Craig’s casting. I loved him in Layer Cake and Munich (ooh, and he was in Road to Perdition as well) and just knew he’d make a great James Bond, especially since the intention was for this film to return to the more rugged Bond of the early Connery days and the Ian Fleming novels. And I was not one whit disappointed, in either Craig or the film.

After a long run of Bond films getting progressively more reliant on gadgets, elaborate chase scenes, and a suave and debonair 007, it was extremely refreshing to have a brawling Bond who’d rather beat up his adversary with his fists than shoot him. Casino Royale posits a Bond who has just been given 00 status–and celebrates by shooting up an African embassy. He’s raw and unpredictable (Bond is always somewhat unpredictable, but Craig gives him an edge that he hasn’t had for at least the last few films…intriguingly, GoldenEye was the last really good one, and it was also directed by Casino Royale director Martin Campbell).

The interplay between Bond and Vesper Lynd, the main Bond girl of the film, was also nice…people have worried about Eva Green playing a Bond girl, a role which is often the kiss of death to an actress’s career, but they needn’t. Her Lynd is every bit a match for Bond, and they play off each other well. The intertext between Casino Royale and the previous Bond films was fun to see, as well. He returns to an Aston Martin after several films in BMWs (and has the shortest car chase ever in it, which is a nice reversal of expectations), he receives a vodka martini (the bartender asks “shaken, not stirred?” and he responds “Do I look like I give a damn?”), and ends the film with his trademark “Bond–James Bond,” which is particularly appropriate because it is only then, in the final few minutes, that he truly becomes the Bond that the other movies portray. There are no fancy gadgets beyond your basic spy cellphone and laptop; Q (or R) is not even a character. Some Bond fans may cry foul, but remember, Q did not appear in Dr. No, either. Casino Royale is about returning to the roots and revitalizing a franchise that has become bloated and unwieldy. It has done that.

Granted, it’s not without its faults. It is a bit too long, for one thing, and becomes a bit “and then this happened” in the last half. The opening scene was very effective–black and white, in Prague, showing Bond’s first real mission after being secretly made a 007 by M–yet, rather misleading. Its intent, I believe, was to underscore the fact that we’re returning to the beginning of Bond here…there’s a Cold War film atmosphere to it, and it would fit right in alongside the 1965 film of John LeCarre’s The Spy Who Came In from the Cold. Yet, the film isn’t set during the Cold War, it’s set today, and takes full advantage of innovations in wireless technology over the past few years. So in a sense, we’re returning to the beginning of Bond’s career only because the film says we are…keeping Judi Dench as M continues to muddle the time-sense. I mean, of course it’s a nitpick you can brush off and enjoy the film anyway, since we’re used to having the actor playing Bond change every few films anyway–but explicitly changing the point in Bond’s career without changing his temporal surroundings struck me as a little off. I wish they’d actually set it back in the Cold War period…that would have been more interesting to me.

But really, that’s all I got. I really enjoyed it, even the half-hour of it that should’ve been cut for length. It both acknowledged and modified all of the stereotypical Bond elements, and Daniel Craig can stay around in the role as long as he pleases, and I hope it’s for at least a few more films. But Daniel? Do other stuff in between. You’re too good an actor to be typecast as Bond, as much as I enjoyed you in the role.

Modernism and the Nouvelle Vague…

To ponder…

The French New Wave is to cinema what the Modernist Novel is to fiction.

“In the novel, writers like Virginia Woolf and James Joyce tried to evoke ‘inner speech’ or ‘stream of consciousness,’ through associative and fragmented forms, omitting verbs, pronouns, connectives, and articles, and leaving sentences uncompleted. A number of filmmakers, interestingly, have shown interest in cinematically rendering inner speech. [Literary theorist and linguist Mikhail] Bakhtin’s contemporary [filmmaker and film theorist Sergei] Eisenstein repeatedly expressed a desire to render the stream-of-consciousness monologues of Joyce’s Ulysses, and [New Wave director and film critic Jean-Luc] Godard, in both Une femme mariée (1964) and Two or Three Things I Know About Her (1967), approximates inner speech through discontinuous and fragmentary voice-over commentaries” (Robert Stam, “The Theory and Practice of Adaptation,” 2005).

Modernism and post-modernism hit film nearly the same time, in the 1960s-1970s. Golden-Age-Hollywood-era film (1930s-1950s) is equivalent to 19th-century fiction. Modernism in fiction hit in the 1920s, but was disrupted by WWII and post-war concerns, resurfacing as post-modernism in the 1960s. Postmodernism in literature is not a reaction against modernism, but a continuation and extension of it.

Echoes from the past

So I’m trying to write a curriculum vitae as an assignment for one of my classes…a task that shouldn’t be difficult because I haven’t done anything. Then I notice that people are including unpublished papers, so I thought, well, I’ll go back and see if there’s anything I’ve written that’s worthy to go on a CV, and I delve into my folder of undergraduate papers. What do I find? A book report I did my first semester in college on Howards End. Wow. I knew I had read it before, but I had completely forgotten that I had actually written about it before! Even on the mundane level of a book report. Huh. I disagree with myself-of-seven-years-ago. Imagine that. I wonder how much of what I’m writing now I’ll still agree with in ten years?

So far I like CVs more than resumes. More “here’s what I’ve done, you figure it out” than selling yourself. I dislike selling myself. It feels dirty. But that doesn’t solve the fact that I have nothing of real value to put on it.

Page 1 of 3

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén