Potential Cinema: Closet Film in Twentieth-Century Fiction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
POTENTIAL CINEMA: CLOSET FILM IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY FICTION A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Nicholas Tobin Roth January 2014 © 2014 Nicholas Tobin Roth POTENTIAL CINEMA: CLOSET FILM IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY FICTION Nicholas Tobin Roth, Ph. D. Cornell University 2014 ABSTRACT: This dissertation lays the initial groundwork for theorizing closet film as a literary genre. Though closet drama––poetry written in playscript form––has received attention from a wide variety of critics in literary, performance and cultural studies, no such body of work exists for thinking about closet film––fiction written in the form of the screenplay. Aside from the self-published work of independent scholar Quimby Melton––with whom I have collaborated on his ongoing project to form an online bibliography of what he terms the closet screenplay–– there exists quite literally no field of study, nor any initial attempt to theorize the limits and potentialities of the genre. This project offers a theorization of closet film informed by the philosophy of Giorgio Agamben, especially his focus on potentiality, which I argue helps describe closet film’s tenuous stance toward production––closet film is a genre organized around the potential-not-to produce. Studying closet film also helps us rewrite the boundaries of what is considered possible in terms of literary and visual realism, and the “closet” itself constitutes an excellent new paradigm for understanding the space between film and the novel, opening up discussions of texts that have been largely overlooked or marginalized and enabling us to encounter old ones afresh. This project thus completely revamps our understanding of the novel and its relation to cinema, realism, ontology, and aesthetics. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nick Roth was born and raised in Los Angeles. He graduated highest honors and Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California Berkeley in 2007 with a B.A. in English. In 2011, he received his M.A. from Cornell in English, and his Ph.D. in 2014. Nick has taught freshmen writing seminars on film, the year 1985, and Stanley Kubrick. He received the Martin Sampson Teaching Award in March 2013. He has published short articles on Vladimir Nabokov’s Pale Fire and on film adaptations of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. A longer article on Thomas Pynchon’s Mason & Dixon is currently under review. He is more recently the author of a number of screenplays, including a co-authored Chinese feature film, Chui Deng Legend, the experimental documentary Eva and Liza, and the queer sci-fi short film Nanoblood. He is also working on a novel entitled The Extraordinary Chicken and is looking for a job writing for television if you know anyone who is looking. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are innumerable people who have helped either directly with this project or by supporting me while I worked on it. Here are those whom I would like to express my gratitude to in particular. Foremost, this dissertation would certainly not exist at all if not for three key people. The first is Quimby Melton, whose work laid the foundation for the present study, but also whose advice and friendship throughout the project have been invaluable. The second is Adam Cohen, in whose name I checked out more books from the UCLA Library than I care to mention, and who has done more proofreading for me, on this project and others, than any mortal ever should. And finally, Matt Bucemi, whom I owe one half of every academic thought I’ve had in the last five years. I also wish to express my deep gratitude to my committee, all of whom have had a hand in guiding this project to its present state and helping immensely throughout the process. Amy Villarejo guided my thinking about historicism and genre, and tipped me off to several of the texts I analyzed. Nick Salvato inspired the initial idea for the project itself and offered advice on this project and others that shaped my thinking greatly. Kevin Attell has guided the direction of this project since its inception and supported it throughout. He is also entirely responsible for what grasp I have of Giorgio Agamben. And Jeremy Braddock offered much good criticism, called me on a lot of my bullshit, and kept me thinking about materialism. There are also a number of people who helped in more individual and specific capacities. Jacob Seldes brought Mark Leyner’s Tetherballs of Bougainville to my attention. Darius James (whose Negrophobia is the focus of Chapter Three) entertained a lot of my nonsense and grounded the project in reality by spending a whole afternoon showing me around New Haven. Harry Shaw gave me extremely helpful feedback on the section of the project that now forms the conclusion. All of my peers at Cornell, as well my dear friend Jackson Malle, proved deeply needed resources in the fields of professional advice, specific intellectual questions, and emotional support. Toby Bryan helped me conceive of dunamism as an art movement. My parents encouraged and supported me throughout. Without the time and energy and money and guilt they exerted on me I definitely would never have been able to accomplish this. And finally, I wish to thank the one person who kept me sane throughout, and without whose love I don’t know what I’d have done, and who despite (reasonably) having little interest in the subject matter, put up with me working on this for years, the love of my life, Lindsey Haun. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: What Closet Film Is 1 Chapter One: The Japanese Closet Film from Akutagawa to Murakami 61 Chapter Two: The Impotentiality of Surrealist Cinema 114 Chapter Three: The Queer Black Closet Film 158 Chapter Four: Badass Literature & The Golden Age of Closet Film? 200 Conclusion: Realism as Potential Cinema 227 Bibliography 240 v INTRODUCTION WHAT CLOSET FILM IS It is a weird and wonderful feeling to write a booklet about something that does not in fact exist. –Eisenstein Closet film is a literary genre defined in part by an absence: the films themselves do not exist. Instead, what we have a is a unique kind of literary text: one rendered in screenplay format, but for which actual film production is neither intended nor, in some cases, even possible. This absence is in some ways even more stark than closet film’s antecedent genre, closet drama, literary (often poetic) works rendered in playscript format. Whereas closet dramas have historically most often simply been read and occasionally performed in private and coterie settings, closet film, for various reasons discussed below, is perhaps even more literary in the sense that closet film production has been and probably will continue to be even less likely than closet drama performance. For example, Percy Bysshe Shelley’s 1819 closet drama, The Cenci, A Tragedy, in Five Acts, a paradigmatic closet drama, was conceived of as unstageable for decades––until it received its first public performances in the late nineteenth century (Catherine Burroughs 217), and later a notable attempt by Antonin Artaud in 1935 (see below). No such record of attempted film production accompanies closet film (yet). In fact, closet film, as a genre, though absolutely parallel to closet drama in several intuitively obvious ways, is itself radically absent in a way closet drama most certainly isn’t. Closet drama bears a long history of scholarly study, and continues to this day to engender a strong critical interest. But no such record exists with closet film, a literary genre which remains almost wholly undiscovered. Not only is the present study the first booklength examination of closet film, but the existing field is constituted solely by a few essays by independent scholar 1 Quimby Melton, whose ongoing online bibliography of closet film constitutes the sole attempt at understanding closet film as such in the English language. But even Melton’s interest in closet film is merely a subset of his more general interest in screenplays and script culture itself, and to that end Melton focuses on what he has termed the “closet screenplay” (more on this terminology below). What seems most striking is not simply that so few critics in film and literature have studied closet film, but that so few have even asked the question in the very first place. Given the history and sustained interest in poetry written as if it were a play, should not there be a corresponding genre of fiction written as if it were a screenplay? Since the screenplay at the formal level constitutes in a direct lineage the cultural offspring of the playscript, is it not the case that we might presume the existence of closet film? Is it not the case that we should expect to be surprised if closet film did not exist? And yet attention to the question of whether there even is a genre of closet film has itself remained marginal. A rare example comes from Nick Salvato’s excellent book on closet drama, Uncloseting Drama: American Modernism and Queer Performance (2010), which ends with a brief discussion of William Burroughs’s The Last Words of Dutch Schultz (1970) as a kind of modern closet film. The novel is a fever dream based on the historical last words of the dying gangster Dutch Schultz, rendered in a vague kind of screenplay formatting, though pastiched throughout with photographs and drawings of film negatives. It turns out that Burroughs’s formal experiment is not a totally singular one. There are, as one might expect, other closet films. But while critics have certainly noted the formal idiosyncrasies of several of the works discussed below, to date Melton’s is the sole attempt to group together the entire body of such texts under the rubric that they are screenplays not intended to be filmed, or are otherwise unfilmable.