Whether he knows it or not—and “he” being Adam Kotsko, I’ll bet he knows it—this Weblog post is less about the formal fit between epic and the television serial than the relation of film to the episodic form. I know that sounds backwards—what with MOVIES! being PRESENTED! on SCREENS! the SIZE! of WYOMING!—but the compounded facts of run time and the modern American attention span necessitate we consider film the proper realm of the self-contained episode. Even films which promise sequels announce their completion in terms of whatever -ology they embrace.
Films should be about something in the original, locative sense of the word. They should surround some subject matter, be “on every side” “wholly or partially,” as per the OED. They should be self-contained. Not that they shouldn’t be sweeping—you can frame Guernica or a sublimely panoramic view of the Hudson River and slap it on a gallery wall without robbing them of sweep—but they should recognize their formal limitations. Films can only intimate narrative epicness. They can’t achieve it.
“But!”
“But But But!”
Try me. Start listing epic films and I’ll start listing films with grandiose tableaux. The Lord of the Rings? Shot in that sewer of New Zealand. Blade Runner? The Lord himself envies Ridley Scott’s matte painters. With film we confuse the formal qualities of narrative epic for the GIANT! SCALE! presented by the movie screen. Cases in point: Iron Man and The Dark Knight.
Both were hailed as epic upon release, and yet both are far superior films on the small screen. Before you ask: I do remember what I wrote about The Dark Knight on IMAX, and inasmuch as it relates the experience of watching an obscenely high-quality image projected on the side of an eight-story building, I stand by it. Watching the film on a small screen—one on which a bug of a Batman glides between five-inch tall skyscrapers while Heath Ledger’s Joker licks human-sized lips and establishes human-sized eye-contact—it’s impossible to deny that this supposedly epic performance is better suited to the televisual medium. (This goes doubly for Iron Man, which barely passes for “good” on the big screen but shines when we connect with Robert Downey Jr. as a human actor in corporate world.)
Not that I think we should deny that the serial drama is also better served on the small screen. A solidly written, solidly acted television show can be a better film than most films. To wit: having finished the first four episodes of the blogosphere’s own Leverage, I can’t help but wonder what went so terribly wrong with Ocean’s Twelve and Thirteen.
(x-posted about.)
38 comments
January 3, 2009 at 5:38 pm
ben
Films should be about something in the original, locative sense of the word. They should surround some subject matter, be “on every side” “wholly or partially,” as per the OED. They should be self-contained.
How is surrounding a subject matter locative, except metaphorically, in which case, what’s the point of noting that here we’ve got the original sense? Surely the film about the castle is not “about” the castle the way the wall about the castle is, unless someone’s been playful. Is there a relation between being self-contained and being about something “in the locative sense”? Stripped of rhetorical finery, is there anything more to these three sentences than the claims:
(a) A film should be about something.
(b) It should surround its subject matter.
(b.1) “wholly or partially”. Here one thinks perhaps: if I say “I have surrounded my subject partially—only half of it is uncovered”—then I simply haven’t surrounded it at all. (Incidentally, I don’t find the string “wholly or partially” in the relevant OED entry.)
(c) Also it should be self-contained.
(a) is relatively inoffensive, though I’m sure some would object; (b) and (b.1) combine into nothingness, as far as I can tell, and I’m not sure what sort of film you’re thinking of that might not be self-contained. Examples? These are all normative claims, surely some film or other must have infringed upon at least one of them.
(I take it that being self-contained and being epic are mutually exclusive? And that, if a film works as well or better on the small screen than on the large, it therefore wasn’t an epic? or wasn’t self-contained? or … something? Incidentally, how can an actor’s performance be epic? (If the actor is incontinent?))
I will note that since all films are played, when played in theaters, in theaters, and only some of them are called epic, even if calling them epic means only that they have grand tableaux, we aren’t confused just by the size of the screen. And I wouldn’t have reached first for Blade Runner if you asked me for a filmic epic, or tenth, or anywhere in between, or at all, I suspect. Nor, for that matter, would I have mentioned Playtime, and if you think that’s better on the small screen, you’re crazy.
This post is really confusing.
January 3, 2009 at 6:12 pm
SEK
ben, when I say “original,” I mean “etymological.” The bits about “wholly or partly” and the locative sense are in the etymological history.
I take it that being self-contained and being epic are mutually exclusive?
That was what I was aiming for, with a detour into why we’re confused by screen-size. As for Blade Runner being epic, I dig up some links here, but I’m a bit surprised that other people haven’t heard this as frequently as I have. That said, we’re in agreement as to the non-epicness of Blade Runner. Also:
Is there a relation between being self-contained and being about something “in the locative sense”?
Yes, but more on that later. (Dinner to cook, you know?)
January 3, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Amos Anan
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to describe here. Whether it relates to a film’s story – it’s screen play – or the mode of display of the material, whether on giant or small screen. The display part probably relates more to detail than any real physical significance. I remember the giant close ups of Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns, which might have been acceptable, even standard, for television but were somewhat startling on the “big” screen. It’s a visual effect that wouldn’t have the same significance on a small screen, unless the detail was there to show every whisker and pore. That can be achieved with high definition television and whatever the next generation of super high-def will be. Supposedly, something like the sound era, some actors don’t look quite as appealing when seen in high-def, but that’s another story.
Speaking of Wyoming and “giant” and epic, I couldn’t help but think of that great flic, Shane, with it backdrop of the giant and epic .. Wyoming. Jackson Hole I think it was. But the story was basic, as it must be for film, which doesn’t easily capture long form story lines. Maybe that’s why comic book characters dominate current American cinema. Epic fables told as fairy tales to children. High significance in a short time frame.
Back to the visual aspect, when I first saw Rocky (when there was only the one) the theatre was crowded and I could only get a seat in the first row. I had to look up at what was from that point of view a giant screen. It was strange till the final sequence where it felt like I had a ring side seat (without the blood and sweat). I don’t see how that can easily be achieved on a small screen, though details in blood and gore would still be jarring.
Speaking of Wyoming and the not so epic, with the recent opening up of more of U.S. territories to industry development I was reminded of similar maneuvers years ago. Various parcels of land were to be made available and one was in Wyoming. But then it was determined ones of those particular plots bordered on land that Dick Cheney owned. The open development policy was quickly adjusted to keep Cheney’s epic view pristine.
Regarding Cheney and off topic again, at some point in the hullabaloo over Cheney still getting payments from Haliburton while making decisions on government contracting with Haliburton and its subsidiaries (which he denied and was then shown to be lying – no surprise), Cheney said it didn’t matter because he would donate the money to charity when he left office. Now Cheney has no problem lying even if they can be proven to be lies in minutes. He simply denies the proof and goes with the lies. The reality they were supposed to control thing. But it’s been so long since that lie I doubt anyone remembers. Still, I was wondering if Cheney will make any large charitable donations to organizations other than the Cheney foundation for altered states of reality.
Oops! Another thought popped into mind. I once had the pleasure of seeing an original print of Ansel Adams’ Moonrise. At MOMA I think it was. I don’t remember exactly how big it was. Probably 24×30. It was breath taking though in its detail and tonality. Scale? It had that in spades. White crosses of a cemetery in the foreground. Next a small town. Then the majestic mountains, the low clouds on the horizon sky, the moon, and the upper third of the print was black – infinity.
It wasn’t like looking at a great image. It was like looking through a window at a great scene.
January 3, 2009 at 6:35 pm
andrew
Whatever happened to the miniseries?
January 3, 2009 at 6:39 pm
T. Hodler
Isn’t The Iliad a (the) narrative epic? It’s locative, and self-contained. You don’t need The Odyssey (or Aeschylus) for The Iliad to be an epic. There are certainly subplots, but it’s basically one simple story.
I’d go for something like Lawrence of Arabia for epic film long before I ever thought of Blade Runner, which doesn’t seem like an “epic” at all. It’s a noir, I thought, which in some ways is, like, maybe the opposite. Does anyone think Blade Runner’s an epic?
I don’t really understand how you’re defining the term “epic”, but it seems like you’re doing it in an idiosyncratic kind of way.
January 3, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Matt W
If asked to name an epic film, after five minutes of thought I would say The Seven Samurai.
January 3, 2009 at 6:53 pm
T. Hodler
Kind of like how I think I may be using “locative” in my own special way…
January 3, 2009 at 7:05 pm
andrew
Epic is probably a formal term somewhere, but I usually think of it as referring to a film that is spectacular visually, often with a panorama or two, or many (think David Lean), longish, with a large cast and some attention to the details of context. The story is usually complicated, or makes an effort to look complicated.
I like the potential of the long-form television drama because it’s easier to watch on a regular schedule. I’m not going to the theatre to watch 60 episodes of anything, even The Wire.
January 3, 2009 at 7:06 pm
ben
No film can be epic that does not begin in mediis rebus. So say I.
January 3, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Vance
So say I
Isn’t this the heart of the problem here? It’s not like we’re working with a well-understood term in a fully systematized domain.
January 3, 2009 at 7:50 pm
grackle
I agree with Ben that this is a confusing post. I suppose its because I suspect that you are using a technical sense for “epic” of which I can only surmise. If I read through your post substituting “novel” for “film”, and I accept your manifestos, they seem as true for the one as for the other. So what are you arguing? It seems that you are saying that a film cannot portray an epic. Is that it?
As I read you, you say that (1) some variation of “we” confuse scale of size for epic, thus misusing the term; (2) you can’t think of a film you have seen that you would call epic; (3) you give two examples, both movies made from comic books, to support your thesis. In doing so, you add that you prefer the Batman movie to the Ironman movie.
I suppose the word “drama” is what was meant when the word “epic” was applied to those movies.
When I try to think of an epic in film form, the first one that comes to mind is Les enfants du Paradis.
Also, what do you mean “that sewer of New Zealand?” Is that part of your argument?
January 3, 2009 at 7:54 pm
dana
“Epic” as I’d reflexively think of it would include more than just spectacular visuals and details, but also a wide scope. A war, how the west was won, maybe someone’s entire life, some backdrop of history. To me neither Iron Man nor Batman would qualify.
The problem with Ocean’s Twelve was that it was a heist movie without an interesting heist, and that was before the whole “you look like Julia Roberts” wank.
January 3, 2009 at 8:43 pm
andrew
but also a wide scope
I agree with that; it’s what I meant with large cast/context/complicated.
January 3, 2009 at 9:01 pm
jazzbumpa
Seriously, how can “The Lord of the Rings” not be considered an epic? Doesn’t it have the characteristics Dana mentions? And “sewer of New Zealand,” besides being a gratuitous slur, is not only a total non sequitur, it negates the immediately preceding presumed argument of “grandiose tableaux.” And how does “grandiose tableaux” in any way argue against the epic quality of a picture, anyway? Wouldn’t it, in fact, be an expected feature?
And why are epic and self-contained mutually exclusive? In fact, why should there be any type of relationship between these characteristics?
I’m not getting your point, unless you’re saying many films are pseudo-epics that only seem to claim some sort of epic-hood (epicicity?) because they appear on the BIG screen. I can buy that. But, if so, then most of the last three paragraphs seem irrelevant; unless the point is that TV is better vehicle than the movie screen, which is rather a different topic.
January 3, 2009 at 9:04 pm
ben wolfson
This is what happens when you let litterateurs theorize.
January 3, 2009 at 9:08 pm
andrew
Incidentally, has there been a film about Upton Sinclair, poverty, and California during the Depression?
January 3, 2009 at 9:58 pm
eric
Leverage is awesome. Go, watch.
January 4, 2009 at 5:22 am
drip
The sewer of New Zealand.
January 4, 2009 at 7:19 am
grackle
point, drip, but SEK probably has the Kiwis confused with Aussies
January 4, 2009 at 8:54 am
jazzbumpa
I knew I did see enough movies. I had no idea I wasn’t watching enough TV. But I’m not making any resolutions. At least not any of epic proportions.
January 4, 2009 at 8:55 am
jazzbumpa
Oops. s/b did *NOT* see enough movies. Yikes.
January 4, 2009 at 11:53 am
SEK
Isn’t The Iliad a (the) narrative epic?
This is the $50,000 question, isn’t it? Aristotle thinks he’s clear on this, but in the end shoehorns the Iliad in:
The Iliad is a “simple” epic, i.e. it doesn’t—as Aristotle insists it “must”—”have as many kinds as Tragedy,” but that’s alright, because we can have “simple” epics which don’t. This is a case where Aristotle’s intent on defining epic in terms of what it’s already thought to be—Homeric—all the while balking at the generalizations this thesis demands of him. The Iliad aren’t like the Odyssey, which actually does have multiple “Reversals of the Situation, Recognitions, and Scenes of Suffering.”
Homer is a “sufficient model,” but not necessarily a good one, for a reason analogous to why the Lord of the Rings isn’t a good example of filmic epic: the qualities of the presentation—”in diction and thought they are supreme”—are irrelevant to the qualities of a narrative that supposedly define it as epic. Lord of the Rings is an epic, certainly, but despite its tableaux, not because of it. That’s why I brought up Blade Runner, which isn’t an epic by any narrative definition, but which is commonly cited—though not by anyone here, and rightly not—as an epic film.
Put differently, I think there are 1) epic films but 2) not in the literary sense, and while there’s been much work on the difference between the oral epic of Homer and the written epic of Virgil, I haven’t read (or read about) much on the difference between literary and filmic epics. (This could, of course, be a product of my being a nineteenth century person.)
Whether it relates to a film’s story—its screen play—or the mode of display of the material, whether on giant or small screen.
Amos, I was trying to confound those notions, actually, and demonstrate that classical and academic definitions of narrative are based on narrative, whatever definition applies to film seem largely based on the screen size. The consequence of this is that many films called as epic are either nothing of the sort (The Dark Knight, Iron Man) or are considered epic for the wrong reasons (Lord of the Rings).
Shane, however, neatly fits both molds: its action is centered around a heroic figure and has “for its subject a single action, whole and complete, with a beginning, a middle, and an end [and] thus resemble[s] a living organism in all its unity, and produce the pleasure proper to it” (Poetics XXIII).
As to my other point, which I admit is a bit muddled here: when directors mistake the kind of narrative they have, their judgments about how to present it end up skewed. To a certain extent, they make movies for the big screen because that’s where they’re displayed first, but not necessarily best. The reason I brought up The Dark Knight and Iron Man is because, in both cases, the directors got caught up in the faux-epical quality imparted by the screen—whereas both worked better as the smaller, more character-driven pieces they appeared to be on the television set.
To circle back to Kotsko’s original post, which suggested The Wire could be considered epic: Aristotle would agree, I think, because although the show seems like a chronicle—”which of necessity present not a single action, but a single period, and all that happened within that period to one person or to many, little connected together as the events may be”—when in fact it covers “an action, single indeed, but with a multiplicity of parts” (Poetics XXIII). Structurally, this opens the door to films like The Godfather or The English Patient as being considered epics in all senses.
Not, I should reiterate, that I think Aristotle’s the last word on epic narrative. His Homeric model is oral, not written, and suffers from the same translation problems, media-wise.
It’s not like we’re working with a well-understood term in a fully systematized domain.
I can’t tell whether this is snark or not, but my point is that the operative term—epic—addresses a series of interrelated concepts that are used interchangeably. The concepts and the term, that is. So we have andrew’s definition, which works to include There Will Be Blood, but the relation to literary epic is buried in the idea of narrative complication and/or complexity. It’s not narrative complexity per se, but a particular type of narrative complexity, worked out in a particular way. No one, for example, would call Ulysses a proper epic; same with Gravity’s Rainbow, but East of Eden might fit the bill.
It seems that you are saying that a film cannot portray an epic.
grackle: last night, I was headed in that direction. This morning—after re-reading my Aristotle—I’m not so sure. The one thing I did want to do was think through these debates again in an enjoyable fashion, and that’s something that’s definitely been accomplished. (At least, I hope people enjoy them. I do, even though I’m invariably the one who ends up looking stupid.)
Also, what do you mean “that sewer of New Zealand?” Is that part of your argument?
Only inasmuch as people mistake the films’ tableaux for their defining epic quality.
And “sewer of New Zealand,” besides being a gratuitous slur, is not only a total non sequitur, it negates the immediately preceding presumed argument of “grandiose tableaux.”
jazzbumpa, I was being sarcastic—I only deny apples to Aussies, as the Conchords—as I made my point about the relation of a film’s gorgeous tracking shots to its being called an epic. I mean, The Sweet Hereafter is as beautiful as The Lord of the Rings visually, but no one would call it an epic because there aren’t enough mountains and high plains.
And why are epic and self-contained mutually exclusive?
They aren’t, and this is what happens when I work from memory: Aristotle says they should be, in that Homer “never attempts to make the whole war of Troy the subject of his poem, though that war had a beginning and an end [because] it would have been too vast a theme, and not easily embraced in a single view” (Poetics XXIII). I’d argue that, since the “multiplicity of parts” he later praises Homer for including pretty much tell the story of how the war began, to claim that Homer limited the action of the poem to a single, coherent narrative is undercut—but that’s a technical point about categories, dependent on what you consider proper to the narrative action. (If you consider flashbacks integral to narrative progression, well then, the Iliad isn’t classically unified anymore.)
January 4, 2009 at 12:11 pm
tomemos
Scott, I think you’re misreading Aristotle here. He says “Again, Epic poetry must have as many kinds as Tragedy: it must be simple, or complex, or ‘ethical,’ or ‘pathetic.’” In other words, “simple” is one of the “many kinds” of Tragedy/Epic Aristotle is describing.
Beyond that, your argument hinges way too much on two things: the idea that Aristotle is the sole definer of epic (he had never read Virgil, Dante, or the Mahabarata, let alone seen Star Wars), and the opinions of wrong people: those who think Blade Runner is an epic (probably these are just using the word to mean “important”), those who have the “wrong reasons” for thinking of Lord of the Rings as epic. It gives the whole thing a straw man quality, and causes you to collapse the gargantuan difference between Blade Runner and Lord of the Rings.
Lord of the Rings is very obviously a “good example of filmic epic,” and that’s true with or without the helicopter shots of New Zealand mountains. The discussion is particularly silly in this case because Lord of the Rings is based on written epic; what would give the book epic status and the movie none?
Finally, since your thoughts on this are still in flux, maybe it was a misstep to adopt a self-consciously arch tone (“Try me”) in your post?
January 4, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Ahistoricality
That’s why I brought up Blade Runner, which isn’t an epic by any narrative definition, but which is commonly cited—though not by anyone here, and rightly not—as an epic film.
I suspect that it is cited thusly because it was an epochal film, and because the process of making the film (there’s your focal point) was itself something of an epic. Similarly with Lord of the Rings: even if the film itself fails on all counts, the making of the film was an epic task….
January 4, 2009 at 4:41 pm
kid bitzer
agreeing with tomemos: i don’t think aristotle is claiming that for all x, if x is an epic work then x must “have as many kinds as tragedy.”
rather, the claim about ‘having many kinds’ is at the level of generic classes. the genre-class “tragedy” contains a lot of individual works, viz. tragedies, and they come in many kinds, e.g. simple, complex, ethical, pathetic. or rather, the class of tragedy contains many kinds, and these kinds contain many instances, which are particular works.
so there are three levels involved in this quote: the work (e.g. oedipus rex, the odyssey, etc.), the kind (e.g. simple tragedies, complex epics, etc.), and the genre (e.g. tragedy, epic, etc.).
so aristotle never says that the iliad “must have as many etc.”, only that epic as a whole must. ergo no confusion on his part.
January 4, 2009 at 5:04 pm
jazzbumpa
I am epically confused. The first question ought to be, is any given film an epic, by some definition – and here I would give what Andrew and dana suggested some serious consideration, old Greeks notwithstanding. The next Q is, does the film succeed? Assuming the epic requirements are met, this comes down to an artistic assessment, where we can all disagree and get drunk together. Alternatively, one could critique the level of success relative to a laundry list of epic attributes. (Probably best done sober.)
In this context, why is the size of the screen of any relevance?
Further, just because some viewers might call a film an epic for the wrong reason, that doesn’t mean it might not actually be one for the right reasons. But unless I’m reading you wrong, that appears to be one of your points.
It seems arbitrary to suggest that no film can be a legitimate epic, just because it’s a film; though it’s no longer clear that’s where you are heading. You also seem to be suggesting that a TV series can be an epic, while a film can’t (or perhaps is less likely to be.) I don’t get that at all.
I couldn’t tell if the NZ quip was sarcasm or snark. Sorry for misreading you. Still looks like a non sequitur, though.
Ahist. – The size of the task in making the movie strikes me as a question that belongs in a different realm.
January 4, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Ahistoricality
Ahist. – The size of the task in making the movie strikes me as a question that belongs in a different realm.
In a different realm than the categorical discussion you’re having, perhaps, but it’s entirely germane to the socio-linguistic question. Marc Bloch said, “To the great despair of historians, men fail to change their vocabulary every time they change their customs. ” (The Historian’s Craft, p. 34). The use of “epic” in regard to films such as Blade Runner and LotR may be an error, but it is not a simple matter of ignorance of Aristotle.
January 4, 2009 at 5:50 pm
jazzbumpa
Yeah. Before I made my last post it occurred to me that part of the problem here is that definitions of the basic terms hadn’t been agreed to. Now I realize that the fundamental scope of the discussion was also open to interpretation. To make sure I’m clear, that is (for me) a new revelation of nuance, not snark.
Nothing in this discussion has made a case that LotR is not an epic film series, so I persist in my belief that it is. For the record, I am ignorant of Aristotle.
January 4, 2009 at 7:34 pm
JPool
I can’t help but wonder what went so terribly wrong with Ocean’s Twelve and Thirteen.
My theory: Sometime after 2001, Steven Soderberg came to believe (perhaps konked on the head by something_ that he was actually Robert Altman. This turns out to have been an unfortunate delusion. This theory, however, has the deficiency of doing nothing to explain the excruciating tedium of Full Frontal .
January 4, 2009 at 7:36 pm
JPool
s/b “perhaps after” and, you know, “)”
January 4, 2009 at 9:13 pm
urbino
Since Lean’s been invoked, where would Zhivago be categorized? It has many of the qualities associated above with epic, yet it seems to me it is not. It’s a romance. (I’m no rhetorician, so I may have just said something very stupid.) Likewise, for Out of Africa. They’re huge, sweeping, scenic films, but romances, not epics. The same, in my view, would apply to The English Patient.
You fans of “Leverage” are seeing something I didn’t. I watched one episode, and thought the show a bad remake of “The A-Team.”
January 4, 2009 at 9:15 pm
urbino
I can’t help but wonder what went so terribly wrong with Ocean’s Twelve and Thirteen.
I think neither Soderbergh nor Clooney nor Pitt wanted to make a sequel, so they made one goofy enough that they wouldn’t have to make another. They misjudged their public. So they made Thirteen so bad it threatened the entire movie industry, then dialed it back just a hair in editing.
January 5, 2009 at 1:02 am
andrew
So we have andrew’s definition, which works to include There Will Be Blood
Really? Seemed like more or less a biographical film, and not a particularly complex one at that. Not too strong on detailed context, either. (Disclosure: I really disliked it, so I don’t remember it all that well, nor do I wish to.)
January 5, 2009 at 2:07 am
andrew
Also, if it’s wrong to call a film epic based solely on its visual qualities – and I agree that it is – that doesn’t mean a film’s visual qualities are irrelevant to the question of whether a film could be called epic. It would obviously be wrong to call epic a screwball comedy that made significant use of panoramic shots of New Zealand as a backdrop to people tripping over farm implements in unexpected ways, but I don’t see why it’s wrong to consider panoramic shots as one among several factors that go into (potentially) making a film an epic. In other words, I doubt that most people call Lord of the Rings epic based solely on the visuals, and I don’t think they’re wrong to consider the visuals alongside other things – narrative, context, etc.
Besides, speaking more generally, I have a hard time conceiving of a definition of “epic film” that does not take visual properties into account (but perhaps you don’t mean to go so far). It’s film, after all. Leave out the visual presentation and you’re left with written/oral descriptions/summaries of film. But I’m happy to draw (or seen drawn) the line somewhere other than at “spectacular panoramic vistas” (or whatever) if there’s good reason to.
urbino, I’ve been wondering the same thing about Zhivago since I mentioned Lean above. I’m no rhetorician either – I’m making this stuff up as I go along, but not, I hope simply arbitrarily – but I would think that the war/revolution context, along with the fact that so much of the movie is in motion, sneaks it into epic territory. But I don’t really have strong opinions either way. Bridge of the River Kwai, on the other hand, I just can’t see as epic, though I’ve seen it described that way. I have not seen The Sweet Hereafter or The English Patient, so I don’t have a basis for comparison for those.
January 5, 2009 at 8:16 am
Charlieford
I think this post is some kind of aesopian code.
January 5, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Vance
Vance: It’s not like we’re working with a well-understood term in a fully systematized domain.
SEK: I can’t tell whether this is snark or not, but my point is that the operative term—epic—addresses a series of interrelated concepts that are used interchangeably.
I meant it pretty straight. Yes, we can agree on this fuzzy form of your point, but getting the terms clear enough that we can know whether we understand one another (is La Jetée an epic? etc.) requires a lot of ad-hocery.
January 5, 2009 at 2:29 pm
SEK
Tom, I take a “simple” epic poem to be one without too many of the required “parts,” i.e. “Reversals of the Situation, Recognitions, and Scenes of Suffering.” I do this largely because that’s how I was taught to take that bit of the Poetics. That said, I’m not taking Aristotle to be the sole definer of epic—wouldn’t have added the caveat “[n]ot, I should reiterate, that I think Aristotle’s the last word on epic narrative [because his] Homeric model is oral, not written, and suffers from the same translation problems, media-wise” if I did. But you have to start somewhere, and Aristotle’s a better place than most.
It gives the whole thing a straw man quality, and causes you to collapse the gargantuan difference between Blade Runner and Lord of the Rings.
I didn’t collapse the difference so much as identify the quality that causes most people to consider both films “epic.” That’s not a straw man, to my mind, because people really do consider both films to be epic, and their reason for doing so is entirely visual. Big films with big tableaux are considered epic irrespective of their actual content, which is (1) a category error and (2) leads some directors to amp up when they should tamp down.
Finally, since your thoughts on this are still in flux, maybe it was a misstep to adopt a self-consciously arch tone (”Try me”) in your post?
Without my self-consciously arch tone, what am I left with?
I suspect that it is cited thusly because it was an epochal film, and because the process of making the film (there’s your focal point) was itself something of an epic.
You know, there may be something to that. Films whose productions are, well, productions tend to be slotted into the epic category willy-nilly. (I’m looking at you, Cleopatra.) Eric’s crack about my tenuous English cred may become self-fulfilling. What began as an exercise to help me teach (and challenge) the concept of “epic” this quarter has ignited a desire to write a paper on what exactly constitutes an “epic” film in this day and age. Sifting through countless reviews, finding trends, Christ almighty, this blog will be the death of me. (Any open slots at Davis, boys? I could be there, like, yesterday.)
so aristotle never says that the iliad “must have as many etc.”, only that epic as a whole must. ergo no confusion on his part.
Maybe not “kinds,” but “parts,” right? (Which is what I was—confusingly—referring to.)
In this context, why is the size of the screen of any relevance?
jazzbumpa, it matters because I say it matters. By which I mean, that point wasn’t integrated into the rest of the post quite as much as I originally thought it was. Will work on it. (More shortly, after I think on this some more.)
January 10, 2009 at 9:49 am
ben
As I understand it, an epic begins in mediis rebus, has a catalogue, and recounts heroic deeds. Ladies and gents, the modern epic.