Brustein, Munson, Rothstein, Simon, Nichols, Kimball, and Pinsker

73

A Defense of Popular Culture

Mary P. Nichols: professor of political science at Fordham University in New York. Her
most recent book is Reconstructing Woody: Art, Love, and Life in the Films of
Woody Allen (Rowman & Littlefield, 1998).
A few days before the Academy Awards, the New York Times ran a story lamenting the publicity blitz being c o n d u c t e d by Miramax Studios for its film
Shakespeare in Love (7 March 1999, Arts & Entertainment, 1 if). Normally we
might expect that any movie with Shakespeare in the title would be seen as the
highbrow alternative to the intellectual popcorn typically p r o d u c e d by Hollywood. But the world has changed. In today's world greedy, philistine movie
producers, debating which movie to put their huge advertising budgets behind, don't see any irony at all in saying "Shakespeare's hot, let's go with him."
Not only have adaptations of Shakespeare plays turned to box office gold,
but a romantic comedy about Shakespeare himself has recently captured popular attention--as well as the 1999 Oscar for best picture. While Shakespeare in
Love has delighted a large n u m b e r of critics, it has also been seen as an intellectual light-weight. The New York Times describes Shakespeare in Love as "a charming romantic comedy," but goes on to quote one studio executive who claims
that academy voters "like to vote for important films, not comedies." The important film the executive had in mind was Saving Private Ryan. In a somewhat
incredulous tone the article asks: "How could the 5,500 members of the academy vote against one of the most acclaimed films of Mr. Spielberg's career, a
searing and patriotic drama about World War II soldiers?" The answer according to the Times is the "Miramax juggernaut" of "spinning journalists" and
"resentment and jealousy" toward Steven Spielberg.
In the end the "Miramax blitz" did manage to capture the best picture award,
although evidently there was not e n o u g h "resentment and jealousy" to deny
Mr. Spielberg the award for best director.
The Times article never considered the possibility that a charming romantic
comedy could be as serious as a film that offers a graphic depiction of the
horrors of war and the doubts of American soldiers about its purpose a n d
meaning. But that is the possibility I would like you to consider, and also the
possibility that popular culture might be the subject of significant scholarship. I do not believe that serious intellectual and artistic works address only
an elite. Some of them at least can play a role in popular culture, and in the
best cases contribute to popular culture's elevation.
I also do not believe that seriousness must always be painful. O n e critic
suggested that Private Ryan lost out to Shakespeare in Love because viewers could
only stand to watch Private Ryan once. It is simply too unpleasant and painful
to watch a repeat performance, whereas Shakespeare in Love is not as d e m a n d ing. Private Ryan makes us uncomfortable; Shakespeare in Love makes us feel

74

Academic Questions / Winter 1999-2000

good. We can watch a n d b e c h a r m e d by the latter b e c a u s e it requires so little

o f us. Far from causing us to c o n f r o n t life's perplexities a n d miseries, Shakespeare
in Love is merely a diversion, a distraction, c o m i c relief.
F r o m this perspective, o n e c o u l d also argue that even Private Ryan cops o u t
to commercialism. In the early interviews with Spielberg a n d T o m Hanks, b o t h
stressed the h o r r o r of war a n d the cynicism of the individual soldiers a b o u t
their roles in the war. In this movie, realism a n d a little nihilism were to take
the place o f patriotism. But this is n o t the movie Spielberg finally m a d e . In the
end, the soldiers do their duty, a n d their sacrifice is r e m e m b e r e d . T h e r e is n o
hint o f irony or c o n d e s c e n s i o n in the old veteran's salute to his fallen comrade, w h o gave his life to save h i m a n d others a n d also to serve his country.
T h e veteran has tried to live a g o o d life in o r d e r to r e d e e m the h o r r o r s o f war
and give m e a n i n g to the sacrifice so m a n y h a d m a d e .
As an artist Spielberg knew instinctively that his a u d i e n c e w o u l d n o t turn
o u t for a film that offered only pain a n d nihilism. Contrary to critical o p i n i o n ,
Spielberg the p o p u l a r artist is m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d than the S p i e l b e r g w h o
wanted to send a message a b o u t the futility o f war. Moreover, the c h a r m i n g
romantic c o m e d y o f Shakespeare in Love is even m o r e sophisticated a n d serious
than either the film Spielberg i n t e n d e d to m a k e o r the o n e he ultimately
made.
J o h n M a d d e n ' s Shakespeare in Love, in fact, illustrates the potential o f works
o f p o p u l a r culture to make accessible the best o f the past to c o n t e m p o r a r y
audiences. Shakespeare in Love may n o t b e Shakespeare, b u t it is a serious movie
a b o u t art a n d life, a reflection o f t h e m e s f r o m the work o f the m o s t r e n o w n e d
artist o f all time. Shakespeare in Love n o t only i n c o r p o r a t e s scenes f r o m Romeo
and Juliet b u t also offers us a m o d e r n version of that tragic love s t o r y - - a l b e i t
set in Elizabethan England. Its h e r o is S h a k e s p e a r e himself, w h o has a r a t h e r
m o d e r n problem. Deadlines are a p p r o a c h i n g , a n d he is u n a b l e to p r o d u c e
his p r o m i s e d comedy, Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter. H e is suffering f r o m
a writer's block, as we w o u l d say, or his Muse has left him, as he tells his Elizab e t h a n therapist, Dr. Moth, with w h o m h e discusses his love life. We s h o u l d
n o t suppose, however, that this movie imposes twentieth-century p r o b l e m s o n
the past, or even trivializes the a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s o f the literary giants o f o u r
tradition. It is no disrespect to Shakespeare b u t a m a r k o f his greatness that
the c o n t e m p o r a r y world can see itself reflected in his life a n d work, a n d can
imagine the Bard also seeking s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d g r o p i n g for inspiration.
It turns o u t that Dr. Moth's help goes only so f a r - - t o ineffective c h a r m s that
Will Shakespeare gives to the w r o n g w o m a n . T h e e p i s o d e mocks c u r r e n t day
expedients at least as m u c h as it mocks Renaissance beliefs in the occult. Fortunately, Will Shakespeare's Muse returns w h e n h e falls in l o v e - - w i t h a w o m a n
w h o so loves Shakespeare's p o e t r y that she c o m e s to the theater disguised as a
y o u n g m a n to a u d i t i o n for the role o f R o m e o . But m a r r i a g e is o u t o f t h e

Brustein, Munson, Rothstein, Simon, Nichols, Kimball, and Pinsker

75

question. Shakespeare is a lowly actor, a n d Viola De Lessups, w h o s e sex s o o n

b e c o m e s a p p a r e n t to him, is f r o m a wealthy family, c h o s e n by England's q u e e n
herself to marry the L o r d Wessex. A n d besides, Will S h a k e s p e a r e has a wife
and children in Stratford. No w o n d e r that his n e w love inspires h i m to convert his c o m e d y a b o u t R o m e o a n d the pirate's d a u g h t e r into o n e o f his m o s t
famous tragedies.
Shakespeare a n d Viola love as deeply, as poetically, a n d with even less h o p e
than the R o m e o a n d Juliet w h o m S h a k e s p e a r e n o w creates. His i n t e n d e d comedy b e c o m e s a tragedy of y o u n g lovers, as art reflects a n d is inspired by life,
even if life's m o m e n t is so p u r e a n d beautiful as to be e x p e r i e n c e d as art. "This
is n o t life, Will," Viola tells him, " b u t a stolen season." A n d well it m i g h t seem.
All o f life's m o m e n t s do n o t have equal weight, n o r d o they similarly reveal
what is real. A n d it is those m o m e n t s that d o that art at its best captures. T h e
true love o f Shakespeare a n d Viola can b e c o m e art, for it is e x p e r i e n c e d by a
most talented playwright a n d an actress w h o is so g o o d that she successfully
plays an actor in o r d e r to be allowed to act o n the Elizabethan stage.
Earlier in the movie L o r d Wessex, n o t particularly p l e a s e d by the theatrical
life to which his bride-to-be is attracted, wagers that a play c a n n o t "show us the
very truth a n d n a t u r e o f love." After Q u e e n Elizabeth attends the p r e m i e r e
p e r f o r m a n c e o f Romeo and Juliet, the English ruler p r o n o u n c e s j u d g e m e n t
against L o r d Wessex in favor o f poetry. Elizabeth may b e entitled to j u d g e
because she is q u e e n , b u t it is h e r j u d g m e n t for Shakespeare's poetry, we sense,
that entitles h e r to be queen, even if it is an expression of what the less aristocratic m e m b e r s o f the a u d i e n c e all f e e l . J u s t as Shakespeare's p o e t r y has drawn
Viola to disguise herself as a m a n so that she may act on stage, it has drawn the
English q u e e n to disguise herself a m o n g the motley a n d rowdy a u d i e n c e to
watch the play. By the e n d o f the movie t h e q u e e n has clearly c a p t u r e d o u r
s y m p a t h y - - j u s t as J u d i D e n c h did that o f the a c a d e m y w h o r e w a r d e d h e r as
best s u p p o r t i n g actress. T h e movie is a d e f e n s e at the s a m e time o f p o e t i c
genius a n d p o p u l a r culture.
But has the q u e e n b e e n watching a play o n stage, or s o m e t h i n g in fact m o r e
real? By an accidental turn o f events, Viola is called u p o n to play J u l i e t to
Shakespeare's R o m e o . W h e n after the play Viola is a c c u s e d o f b e i n g a w o m a n ,
the q u e e n protects Viola by p r o c l a i m i n g that she is i n d e e d a man, the resemblance to a w o m a n b e i n g "remarkable." But Viola is only p r e t e n d i n g to b e a
man, a n d the q u e e n is only p r e t e n d i n g to think that she is what she p r e t e n d s
to be. As Viola herself was inspired to act by S h a k e s p e a r e ' s poetry, so t o o is the
queen. A n d she too acts in his service.
Does this latter p r o c l a m a t i o n o f the q u e e n ' s a b o u t Viola's sex, however, n o t
reflect back on h e r decision a b o u t the truth o f poetry? Elizabeth knows full
well that Viola's r e s e m b l a n c e to a w o m a n is too r e m a r k a b l e to be a resemblance. Perhaps this is true o f the r e s e m b l a n c e o f art to life as well. In watching Shakespeare a n d Viola play R o m e o a n d Juliet, is n o t the q u e e n m o v e d less

76

Academic Questions /Winter 1999-2000

by poetry than by life, albeit disguised as poetry? The answer, I believe, is yes
and no. Poetry as such does not move, only poetry inspired by life. Life as such
does not move, only life that can be e x p e r i e n c e d as poetry, whether or not
that life is blessed by a Shakespeare. Shakespeare in Love may be popular, but it
is not simple.
What Romeo and Juliet can do for its audience in Shakespeare in Love, Shakespeare
in Love carl do for us. Madden's movie is a m o d e r n replay of the Elizabethan
tragedy, which acts as a Muse for the c o n t e m p o r a r y movie just as surely as
Viola De Lessups does for Shakespeare. Shakespeare's play thus becomes acc e s s i b l e - a n d r e a l - - t h r o u g h the movie's demonstration of the c o n n e c t i o n
between life and art. We experience Shakespeare's poetry through the loving
eyes of Viola De Lessups, and ultimately through the vision of this contemporary film.
Shakespeare in Love, however, does not merely replay Romeo and Juliet for a
m o d e r n audience. Will Shakespeare in love is not Romeo in love. Shakespeare
and Viola, playing Romeo and Juliet, die on stage, but then they get up for the
curtain call. Shakespeare and Viola must part, and life goes on for both.
Madden's contemporary movie transforms a tragedy into a comedy. But this
transformation does not merely serve what sells at the box office. It is required
by the movie itself. When Q u e e n Elizabeth commands the actor who played
Juliet to fetch the Lady Wessex to join h e r new husband who is about to sail to
his lands in America, she also c o m m a n d s Shakespeare to write a new play for
Twelfth Night, a comedy this time. Shakespeare had captured his and Viola's
love by turning a comedy about a pirate's daughter into a tragedy, but the wise
queen asks him in effect to capture it in comedy as well. The h e r o i n e of the
new play will be a shipwrecked Viola, whose rescue from the sea holds the
promise of a new life.
In more ways than one, Shakespeare in Love affirms what popular culture
senses when it, like Q u e e n Elizabeth, d e m a n d s c o m e d i e s - - t h a t the m o m e n t s
of joy enfolded in ordinary life are m o r e p r o f o u n d than those of suffering
and despair and that the former r e d e e m the latter, even if it is life's suffering
that makes possible the full experience of its joys. And that is why Spielberg's
subservience to popular culture caused him to make a better movie than he
intended. Popular audiences d e m a n d hope, not because they refuse to face
reality, but because their diverse experiences teach the complexities of reality.
As academics we often lament the decline of academic standards. We complain, as we should, about the curricula of our colleges and universities where
Shakespeare is increasingly ignored. We hear reports about how m a n y English Departments, for example, have replaced the study of such greats as
Chaucer, Milton, and Shakespeare himself, with electives in "Women in Contemporary Film," "Prison Literature," and "Deconstructing Classics."
Over a h u n d r e d and fifty years ago, Tocqueville pointed to the cultural and
artistic decline that follows the growth of democratic social conditions, and

Brustein, Munson, Rothstein, Simon, Nichols, Kimball, and Pinsker

77

predicted the days when the lowest c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r would become the

arbiter of taste in all areas of m o d e r n life. It is not clear to me, however, that
the declining standards in our cQlleges and universities should be traced to
the dominance of public opinion in a democracy. One of the early giants of
the Canon, Aristotle himself, cautioned us of the truth found in popular opinion, and thought that the common sense of the people could operate as a healthy
check on the absurd propositions of "the wise" when their visions became divorced from the practical affairs of ordinary life. At the same time, common opinion, Aristotle thought, required education by poetry and philosophy. Because of
the influence of various "postmodern" strands in the twentieth century, poetry
and philosophy no longer understand their calling. But if Shakespeare is dying in the classroom, he is alive and well in the movie theater.
A short story, "The Kugelmass Episode," expresses what I believe is the role
of a contemporary artist toward both popular culture and the Great Books of
the past. The story first appeared in the New Yorker over twenty years ago, and
was written by Woody Allen, who may not be the most obvious choice for
moral and intellectual guidance. But regardless of his life, I would argue, his
work, both his films and his short stories, should be of interest to us. Woody
Allen is far from being a university man, but his story of "The Kugelmass Episode" is about a professor. Its hero, who teaches humanities at City College, is
bored with his wife, with his mistress, and with his life in general. Kugelmass's
therapist thinks that he lacks inspiration. But the therapist suspects that modern life, including therapy, cannot provide it, and sends Kugelmass to a magician. When Kugelmass learns that the Great Persky can transport his customers
into any book of the past they desire, Kugelmass asks to visit Madame Bovary.
The lovely Madame Bovary has aroused the professor's love, and he enters the
novel to have an affair with her. Imagine the surprise of the readers of this
French classic when this strange little Jewish professor keeps turning up on its
pages. As one reader observes, "the mark of a classic is that you can read it a
thousand times and always find something new." The old classic changes in
time, as it affects its readers and they are drawn into it.
Kugelmass serves as a paradigm for Woody Allen himself, who as artist enters the books of the Western canon by means of his artist's magic--attracted
by their beauty, but also engaging t h e m in dialogue, and transforming t h e m
as Madame Bovary was transformed by the appearance of the professor. As
Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors does to Dostoyevsky, the c o n t e m p o r a r y artist
might replay the "greats" of the past in ways that both address them and compel them to address the present. W h e t h e r or not Woody Allen as artist always
lives up to the calling that his short story implies, he does suggest the role of
an artist in bringing the past into contact with the present, great works of the
past into contact with popular culture.
I would like to end with the reflection that Shakespeare himself was, like
Woody Allen, not a university man, and that his appeal in his own day was not

78

Academic Questions / Winter 1999-2000

merely to an e d u c a t e d elite. We are r e m i n d e d o f j u s t h o w lowbrow S h a k e s p e a r e

was during his own time by M a d d e n ' s movie, w h e n it culminates in a perform a n c e o f Romeo and Juliet to the roaring approval o f the w o r k i n g m e n a n d
w o m e n o f L o n d o n , even if a q u e e n sits disguised a m o n g them. It was a considerably better dressed crowd at the r e c e n t Oscars, b u t Shakespeare in Love's being awarded the most Oscars e c h o e s Shakespeare's own success. W h e t h e r or
n o t Ben J o n s o n ' s attribution is t r u e - - t h a t William S h a k e s p e a r e k n e w little
Latin, a n d less G r e e k - - i t has stuck, b u t not, I believe, in the way J o n s o n int e n d e d it. J o n s o n m e a n t his description o f Shakespeare's learning as a criticism, b u t in increasingly d e m o c r a t i c times it has b e c o m e a m a r k o f praise.
Shakespeare's p o e t r y does n o t d e p e n d o n b o o k learning. This historical transformation o f a criticism into praise is entirely appropriate. This praise does
n o t m e a n that we look down on the learning o f the past, b u t that if truth is
accessible to the h u m a n m i n d it is n o t a privilege o f the classics. If t h e r e is
anything we should learn from the classics, I believe that this is it.
P o p u l a r culture is p o p u l a r b e c a u s e it resonates with life. At its worst it resonates with the lowest, most vulgar, or most trivial aspects o f life, b u t at its best,
it appeals to life's complexity, its nobility, a n d its wisdom. If we fail to distinguish these different aspects of p o p u l a r c u l t u r e we are as guilty o f simplem i n d e d prejudice as those w h o w o u l d a b a n d o n the classics b e c a u s e they are
old. T h e vitality o f the classics is based on their reflection on h u m a n experience, an e x p e r i e n c e continually revealed to us if we are wise e n o u g h to look
for it.

The Corrosive Trivialization of Culture

Roger Kimball:

managing editor of the New Criterion. His most recent book is an

anthology of the writings of the Australian philosopher David Stove titled Against the
Idols o f the Age (Transaction, 1999).

W h e n it c o m e s to education, almost every rule has exceptions. A n d I a m

sure that there are instances in which a plausible case c o u l d be m a d e for giving over some part o f a liberal arts c u r r i c u l u m to the study o f p o p u l a r culture.
By a n d large, however, I believe that w h e n we talk a b o u t " H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n
and the Study o f P o p u l a r Culture" we are talking a b o u t an e d u c a t i o n a l disaster area. Nor, to b o r r o w an image f r o m the Australian p h i l o s o p h e r David Stove,
is it a disaster area "of the merely passive kind, like a b o m b e d building, o r an
area that has b e e n flooded. It is the active kind, like a badly-leaking n u c l e a r
reactor, or an o u t b r e a k of f o o t - a n d - m o u t h disease in cattle."
I could easily devote the rest o f my c o m m e n t s to retailing h o r r o r stories o n
the t h e m e o f " H i g h e r Education a n d the Study o f P o p u l a r Culture." So c o u l d