Download Full Book
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Vision's Immanence Lurie, Peter Published by Johns Hopkins University Press Lurie, Peter. Vision's Immanence: Faulkner, Film, and the Popular Imagination. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Project MUSE. doi:10.1353/book.60332. https://muse.jhu.edu/. For additional information about this book https://muse.jhu.edu/book/60332 [ Access provided at 24 Sep 2021 10:26 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Vision’s Immanence This page intentionally left blank Vision’s Immanence Faulkner, Film, and the Popular Imagination Peter Lurie The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore and London ∫ 2004 The Johns Hopkins University Press All rights reserved. Published 2004 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The Johns Hopkins University Press 2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218-4363 www.press.jhu.edu Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lurie, Peter, 1965– Vision’s immanence : Faulkner, film, and the popular imagination / Peter Lurie. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8018-7929-9 (hardcover : acid-free paper) 1. Faulkner, William, 1897–1962—Film and video adaptations. 2. Popular culture—United States—History—20th century. 3. Motion pictures— United States—History and criticism. 4. American fiction—Film and video adaptations. 5. Film adaptations. I. Title. PS3511.A86Z884 2004 813%.52—dc22 2003023209 A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. In loving memory of Nancy Green Lurie This page intentionally left blank Contents Acknowledgments xi introduction Adorno’s Modernism and the Historicity of Popular Culture 1 chapter 1 ‘‘Some Quality of Delicate Paradox’’: Sanctuary’s Generative Conflict of High and Low 25 chapter 2 ‘‘Get Me a Nigger’’: Mystery, Surveillance, and Joe Christmas’s Spectral Identity 68 chapter 3 ‘‘Some Trashy Myth of Reality’s Escape’’: Romance, History, and Film Viewing in Absalom, Absalom! 103 chapter 4 Screening Readerly Pleasures: Modernism, Melodrama, and Mass Markets in If I Forget Thee, Jerusalem 129 conclusion Modernism, Jail Cells, and the Senses 161 Notes 181 Works Cited 221 Index 229 This page intentionally left blank To anyone in the habit of thinking with his ears, the words ‘‘cultural crit- icism’’ (Kulturkritik) must have an o√ensive ring, not merely because, like ‘‘automobile,’’ they are pieced together from Latin and Greek. The words recall a flagrant contradiction. The cultural critic is not happy with civilization, to which alone he owes his discontent. He speaks as if he represented either unadulterated nature or a higher historical stage. Yet he is necessarily of the same essence as that to which he feels superior. —theodor adorno, ‘‘cultural criticism and society’’ ‘‘So maybe you will enter the literary profession as so many Southern gen- tlemen and gentlewomen too are doing now and maybe some day you will remember this and write about it. You will be married then I expect and perhaps your wife will want a new gown or a new chair for the house and you can write this and submit it to the magazines.’’ —rosa coldfield in absalom, absalom! My task which I am trying to achieve is, by the power of the written word, to make you hear, to make you feel—it is, before all, to make you see! —joseph conrad, ‘‘preface’’ to the nigger of the ‘‘narcissus’’ The visual is essentially pornographic. —frederic jameson, signatures of the visible This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgments If Acknowledgments often possess a wistful tone, it is because with them an author looks back on a period of one’s life while thanking those people whose help was essential during it. In this case that period was long and my e√orts over it were sustained alike by family, teachers, students, and friends. To express my appreciation to them, and to note their contributions to this project in its vari- ous stages, it is also necessary then to describe beginnings as well as endings. This work began as a dissertation under the direction of John Matthews, whose contribution and support extended far beyond the role of thesis ad- visor. His influence is evident on several levels of this book as well as in areas outside of Yoknapatawpha and academe. For that and for much more I owe him a measure of gratitude I can only imagine repaying by o√ering such support to students of my own—but which I have trouble envisioning, given the standards for excellence he has shown me. His work is a testimony to both his enduring fascination with Faulkner and his support of others’ e√orts to read Faulkner anew. My parents, Jim and Nancy Lurie, contributed a great deal both directly and indirectly along the way of this project. To them both I wish to express my utmost appreciation. Of my father I should say that, like those of other writers before me, he overcame his misgivings about a son’s long indenture to writing (while also not being ‘‘of a bum progenitive’’) and gave unqualified, loving support. My mother, who died while I was in the middle of work on this study and to whom it is dedicated, strongly encouraged appreciation of visual ex- pression and artistic meaning. She remains an inspiration for any act of hard work and imagination and is present in the most genuine moments of such an e√ort here. There are several other individuals and parties whose help added signifi- cantly to the project. John Paul Riquelme o√ered insight and advice at key junctures throughout the stages of work; his role in the beginning of its life as a xii Acknowledgments book, as near its end, was instrumental. He too provides a model of scholarly life and activity that I admire deeply and a friendship that I value even more. Leland Monk’s input was essential to ensuring that the project treated film as a real entity—and not just as a theoretical model or idea. His a√ection for and understanding of film’s history and no less important aesthetics are animating presences throughout. A number of friends and colleagues o√ered support in the form of readings of chapters as well as, and perhaps more importantly, moral support. Among them are Jonathan Mulrooney, Mark Eaton, Laura Johnson, and Rebecca Scho√. Jonathan has glided e√ortlessly to a position as a professional colleague yet still helps maintain a vital, ingenuous, nonprofessional perspective. Mark is a fellow-traveling Americanist and has been an optimistic and encouraging— indeed, hopeful—voice over our long friendship. Laura was a wonderfully sensitive reader of chapters in draft form and a no less gracious and cherished colleague. Rebecca came through famously with a last-minute, highly astute reading of the book’s conclusion. Without them I would not be where I am today with this work and otherwise. My anonymous reader at the Johns Hopkins University Press provided invaluable suggestions for the manuscript’s revision. In particular, his advice about the use of Faulkner’s original text of Sanctuary and the invitation for a more expansive conclusion led to some of the more important readings in the book. Carol Zimmerman, senior production editor at the Press, patiently and clearly answered several important questions toward the project’s end. Hu- manities editor Michael Lonegro helped with his correspondence and attentive ear. I would like to thank the administration of the Special Collections of Mugar Library at Boston University. Sean Noel and his sta√ were extremely helpful in my reading the gangster and pulp novels on which my discussion of Sanctuary draws. I would also like to thank the reader at American Literature, whose promptings toward history helped strengthen my chapter on Absalom, Ab- salom! considerably when it was still in article form. In particular I thank the journal’s managing editor Frances Kerr for her focused, good-natured ap- proach to our work, the e√ects of which are still evident here. The editors of American Literature as well as of the journal Études Faulknériennes have also kindly granted permission to reprint materials that appeared originally in those journals. The late stages of preparing the manuscript benefited from the support of Acknowledgments xiii the News International Research Fellowship in Film Studies at Keble College, Oxford. My final and most important thanks are for Kristin. Her understanding and support are indeed remarkable, on which my daily happiness and very well- being, let alone any scholarly endeavors, depend. Just as remarkable though are her deep intelligence and perhaps better knowledge of the importance of everything beyond this book. There are many and more significant meanings of immanence that define our time together. She is the love and the real vision in my life. This page intentionally left blank Vision’s Immanence This page intentionally left blank introduction Adorno’s Modernism and the Historicity of Popular Culture William Faulkner hated the movies. Or so he was fond of saying and apoc- ryphal accounts of his life have made famous. Joseph Blotner reports that, assigned to a screening of a Wallace Beery wrestling picture when he went to work for MGM, Faulkner cut the session short with the assertion that he knew how it would end.∞ Faulkner also despised the popular magazines, if not the short stories he frequently chose to submit to them. In a letter to the editors at Scribner’s from early 1930, he explained why he thought the magazine should publish his story ‘‘Red Leaves’’: ‘‘Not because it is a good story; you can find lots of good stories. It’s because I need the money’’ (Selected Letters, 46).