Today in class, we spoke of D.H. Lawrence's image of Whitman driving in a car on the open road, as if it were a truly American thing to do. Whitman supposedly runs over anything and everything and goes forever in one direction.
This image reminds me of one of my favorite books, Into the Wild, by Jon Krakauer. This book was quite recently made into a movie, a big blockbuster. I read the book and loved its insight, detail, research, and story. The main storyline is a true account of a young man named Chris McCandless who gives up his belongings based on his ethical values and goes on a journey through the U.S. and into the wild.
I refuse to see the movie, but I have seen the previews showing several famous/big name cast members. Some people have told me it is a great movie, but from what I've seen from the preview's clips and dramatic overdubbing, this appropriation of the book seems like American proganda that sensationalizes rugged individualism and going out on the open road. Isn't this the epitomy of the "American spirit?" It's sure to bring in big bucks because don't Americans like to see the "American spirit" glorified?
This man's story is now broadcast on the big screen for anyone willing to pay $9.00. For me it is no longer Whitman's vision that no one and nothing can escape, it is now American consumer culture from which nothing can escape.
Sorry that this blog may depart in a somewhat cynical way from the main themes and concerns of this course. But I just thought of Whitman's all assimilating "I" and how this type of mentality has really been adopted into American culture. We will take anything and try to make a buck off of it, "oblivious of the corpses under the wheels" (D.H. Lawrence reading, 176).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Why is it that because it has been made into a movie, you consider this some type of appropriation? Books cost money too, so the same degree of commodification occurs when writing a book. Perhaps your problem with the movie is because of a certain privileged position that books hold in that they are not passive entertainment in the way that a movie is, and also because they are supposedly able to contain "higher ideas," however one wants to define that. However, in the case of Whitman, books were the popular entertainments of his time, so therefore his appropriation of identity as he "drives down the open road" is possibly even more akin to that of this movie than to the book that it was based on.
I agree. My feelings about this movie root in a lot of issues unrelated to this class, so I didnt mean for that to be the focus of the thought. I just think it is interesting how this type of story gets reproduced- and yes, both in book form and movie form. It was a popular book and it is a popular movie because it appeals to the "American spirit" or what has been constructed to be. I think it is interesting that this is what we concieve the American spirit to be. Why is it important or necessary that we see ourselves in this way, or am I reading to much into this? Have I taken one too many community studies classes about commodifying experience? I'm interested in why Whitman is the "first great American poet" and what he does for the American spirit and why his poetry is specifically American and how this relates to our world views today. Thanks for your comment.
Post a Comment