Apollo and the Muses on the Screen Author(S): Martin M. Winkler Source: International Journal of the Classical Tradition, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Neo-Mythologism: Apollo and the Muses on the Screen Author(s): Martin M. Winkler Source: International Journal of the Classical Tradition, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Winter, 2005), pp. 383- 423 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30221990 Accessed: 16-08-2015 20:33 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of the Classical Tradition. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:33:12 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Neo-Mythologism:Apollo and the Muses on the Screen MARTINM. WINKLER In antiquity,the idea of myth was fluid enough to accommodatea wide variety of divergent,even contradictory,versions of the same story.This traditioncontinues in modem times:myths, whether ancientor later,preserve their Proteannature. Striking examples for this flexibilityof mythicaltales are the adaptationsof ancient myths to the screen. Classicalantiquity has always played a major part in the history of film (and television),but screenwritersand directorsas a rule take great liber- ties with their source materials.In films based on Greekand Romanliterature, especially epic and tragedy,and in films with invented or modern settings, figures familiarto us fromclassical sources recurwith surprisingvariability. Vittorio Cottafavi, director of several films set in antiquity,coined the term "neo-mythologism"for this phenomenon. The present paper intends to demonstratethe validity of critical examinationsof such neo- mythologism by examining one specific topic: the appearancesof Apollo and the Muses on the screen. It is the first comprehensivesurvey of its subjectand analyzes the most importantfilms in which Apollo and the Muses play majorparts. The paper demonstratesthe wide variety of neo- mythologicalapproaches which films on ancientsubjects usually exhibit.They range from tragedy to epic, from musical, comedy,and romanceto science fiction, from art-housefilms to commercial products.Although individual works differ considerablyin their artisticqualities, they all present noteworthyexamples of the continuingvitality of the classicalpast in today's culture. This paper addresses the survival of classical mythology in today's culture in one area of cinema. Filmic representations of antiquity either take the form of adaptations of classical literature or of modern narratives in which figures from ancient history or myth play a part. Most of them are highly inventive and partially or completely contradict our ancient sources. This phenomenon goes back to the earliest days of the cinema, which has made the greatest variety in the modern resurrections of ancient myths possible. As rep- resentative and at the same time thematically focused examples of filmmakers' different approaches to ancient myth I will examine the screen appearances of Apollo and the Muses, whom we encounter both in artistically significant films and in crassly commer- cial products. The very differences between and among these films make a systematic en- quiry rewarding.' This is the more important today because the cinema, although pri- marily a visual and not a textual medium, has become the most influential way in which 1. Readersunfamiliar with the variety of Apollonian myths and images in antiquitymay find an overview in the essay collectionApollo: Origins and Influences,ed. Jon Solomon (Tucson:Uni- versity of Arizona Press, 1994). MartinM. Winkler,Dept. of Modernand ClassicalLanguages, George Mason University,4400 Uni- versity Drive, Fairfax,VA, 22030-4444. InternationalJournal of the Classical Tradition,Vol. 11, No. 3, Winter 2005, pp. 383-423. This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:33:12 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 384 InternationalJournal of theClassical Tradition / Winter 2005 we tell stories. A brief theoreticalconsideration of modem representationsof classical themes provides the basis for my discussions of individual filmic "texts." 1. Antiquity, Cinema,and Neo-Mythologism In recent decades, classical philology has expanded in new interdisciplinarydirections that encompass a far greatervariety of methods of enquiry into the cultures of Greece and Rome than preceding generationsof scholars might have thought possible or desir- able. The main impulse for this expansion has come from modem theories of literature and the social sciences. By contrast,the most revolutionarycultural medium of the twen- tieth century,the cinema, came into its own as a legitimate and importantarea of concern for classical scholars only about twenty-five years ago. Before then, most professional classicistshad kept a wary distance,chiefly because filmic retellingsof ancient history,lit- erature,and myth used to take great libertieswith their sources. (They still do.) It is nev- ertheless appropriatethat classicalphilologists should also become what may be termed film philologists. The extensive list of historical films and television series about Greece and Rome alone provides ample justificationfor this.2Indeed, a classical scholar has re- cently referred to "the value of cinema to classicists (and the value of classicists to cin- ema)" and concluded: It [the cinema] readily reveals connections and differences between antiquity and modern societies, and exposes the mechanisms whereby modern cultures use the classical past to interrogatethe present;its study can illuminate classical cultures and their literatures.... cinema brings classics out into a very public domain and makes the interrogationof antiquity and the classical tradition available globally.3 In addition to historical cinema, classicists may legitimately think of literatureand myth in their film-philological undertakings.What cinema scholar Pierre Sorlin has deduced about historical films applies as well to related subjects,as my parentheticaladditions to his text here quoted will make evident: An historical film [or a film based on a work of literature]can be puzzling for a scholar:everything that he considershistory [or importantfor the plot and style 2. Jon Solomon, TheAncient World in the Cinema,2nd ed. (New Haven and London:Yale Univer- sity Press, 2001),36-99, gives the most extensive overview.For detailed analyses of specific as- pects of Roman history on film see MariaWyke, Projectingthe Past:Ancient Rome, Cinema and History,ser. The New Ancient World(New Yorkand London:Routledge, 1997),and Gladiator: Filmand History, ed. MartinM. Winkler(Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell,2004). 3. Maria Wyke, "Are You Not Entertained?Classicists and Cinema,"International Journal of the ClassicalTradition, 9 (2002-2003),430-445; quotation at 445. I have argued for the importanceof classicists' involvement in film philology on two previous occasions:in my "Introduction"to ClassicalMyth and Culturein the Cinema,ed. Martin M. Winkler(Oxford; New York:Oxford University Press, 2001), 3-22, and in "Altertumswissenschaftlerim Kino; oder: Quo vadis, philologia?"International Journal of the ClassicalTradition, 11 (this same volume), above, 95-110 (review articleon PontesII: Antike im Film,ed. MartinKorenjak and KarlheinzTochterle, Com- paranda5 [Innsbruck:StudienVerlag, 2002]). This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:33:12 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Winikler 385 in a literarywork] is ignored;everything he sees on the screen is, in his opinion, pure imagination.But at the same time it is importantto examine the difference between history [or the scholarlystudy of literature]as it is written by the spe- cialist and history [or the original text] as it is received by the non-specialist. Sorlin sees the most important aspect of historical film in "the use of historicalunder- standing in the life of a society"-that is to say, in the society that makes such films.4The same goes for literary adaptations:the ways in which particularmodern uses of source texts illuminate aspects of the life of the society that produces such adaptations.So the conclusion becomes unavoidable that, as far as cinematic recreationsof times past are concerned,in adaptations of either historicalor literarysubjects, scholars' demands for authenticity,while understandable,are beside the point.5 They fail to take into account the natureof film as a narrativemedium which needs the freedom to be creativein order to tell its stories. Philologists will be reminded of the comparableconcept of contamina- tion that is importantto the establishmentof the manuscripttradition of classical texts.6 For this reason the cinema cannot be solely or chiefly indebted to or dependent on prin- ciples of historicalor philological authenticity.This, of course, is not meant as a denigra- tion of historicalor literaryaccuracy in a visual adaptation or retelling.On the contrary: concern for authenticityin the recreationof the past is a sign that creativeartists such as screenwriters,set decorators,costume designers, and directors take their task seriously. But correctnessin the representationof