The Carpet-Baggers’ Progress

The Canadian Review of American Studies, Volume lO, No. 3, Winter 1979 TheCarpet-Baggers' Progress Maurice Yacowar Robert K. Johnson. Francis Ford Coppola. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1977. 199pp. John Francis Kreidl. Nicholas Ray. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1977.230 pp. H Wayne Schuth. Mike Nichols. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1978. 177pp. When film first won the dubious respectability of academic study, it was largely due to converts from English Literature. Many a scholar ceased to garble the footnotes wild of his well-ploughed dissertation field, for the virginal lays of unstudied film. Not that the invasion by these literary carpet-baggers was unjustified. Rivals might argue the musical analogue to the experience of film or its obvious root in art, but the Eng-Litters could fairly claim the continuity of narrative fiction from Beowulf to Bunuel and the essential stance of Leavis humanism for their authority. Some indeed proffered Aristotle as the first (genre) film critic and Plato's Parable of the Cave as the first film, a totally realized conception that needed only machinery to be fulfilled in form as in idea. For some, to bring to film the techniques of literary criticism was a duty, so that film audiences, unfit though many, would not remain in the dark. Of course, it was a commonplace that the differences between film and printed fiction were as great as their connections. The carpet-bagger was expected to adjust to his new setting: to modify his methods so that he would see as well as hear, to learn some new language, and to leave behind some of his expectations, biases and the reflex of classical allusion. In time, of course, a generation of pure film scholars would be bred, at which point these original settlers could retire to their verandahs to bemoan the pas- 380 Mau rice Yacowar sage of interdisciplinary criticism. But for the early days, formal film study depended upon scholars who had been raised on literary analysis. The situation has changed. We now have hordes of film majors craving graduate studies or a job. The library stacks devoted to film books and periodicals fair threaten to overtake the work already done on Late Middle English. But the carpet-baggers remain. For better or worse, literary scholars continue to shape and to fill the mainstream of film criticism (most recently abetted by the structural linguisticians, whose effect may be hindered by their penchant for discussing film instead of films). The news that Twayne Publishing was to join the fading market of filmbooks raised excited hopes. This was carpet-bagging of some scale. The house is well-established as a worthy source of literary monographs, especially dealing with little-known authors. For many European and American writers, a slender Twayne volume remains the sole critical-biographical introduction available. Moreover, ten years ago Twayne published Birgitta Steene's study of Ingmar Bergman, which was a model of lucid scholarship and sensitivity. There were grounds for high expectation when Twayne announced its new line in film monographs, under the general editorship of Warren French, especially when its prospectus listed some Young Bloods as well as the Old Masters. But alas. If these three random samples typify the series, these high hopes have been dashed. True, the subjects represent a lively and necessary range of study. For one thing, all three directors have done challenging work. Moreover, none has yet received the book-length English analysis that he deserves. Of the three subjects, one is an acknowledged master (Ray), one a famous contemporary (Coppola) and one unjustly neglected and not understood (Nichols). These should have been worth-while studies. The series fails on three counts. First, two of these three books are completely inadequate as film studies. In different ways they fail to express an understanding of their subject. Kreidl obscures Ray; Johnson trivializes Coppola. Moreover, as if to geld the filly: all three are so carelessly written and so obviously in need of aggressive editing that they must be an embarrassment to a publisher of traditional literature. None of the three authors achieves clarity either of expression or of organization. Now, perhaps we should not expect wit or elegance from scholars who scribble their notes...