Spring Break
Stop neglecting America's artistic heritage
Notes from Underground
Adam Roberts
Issue date: 12/1/08 Section: Opinion
Imagine growing up in Rome and never visiting the Sistine Chapel, or living in Russia and never hearing anything by Tchaikovsky. That's exactly the situation many Americans are in now.
Most of you reading this have never seen "Citizen Kane." Orson Welles' 1941 fictional biopic about media magnate Charles Foster Kane is widely regarded as the greatest movie ever made. There's a very good case that it's the greatest artistic achievement that this country has ever produced.
And yet, I keep meeting people who don't even recognize the title.
This is bizarre because film is the one medium that Americans should be the most familiar with.
Two thousand years from now, people will remember exactly three things about the United States of America: the Declaration of Independence, World War II and Hollywood.
Moving pictures, whether projected at a theater, broadcast over the airwaves or streamed across the Internet, have been the dominant form of art for more than a century, and there's no sign of that changing. Film is to the modern West what architecture is to Ancient Greece, or painting is to the Renaissance. "America" and "Hollywood" are synonymous terms in most of the world.
Everyone who graduates high school is expected to have read "Hamlet," listened to Beethoven and seen a copy of the "Mona Lisa." They're essential parts of our cultural heritage. You simply can't function in the Western world without being at least somewhat familiar with these masterpieces.
But somewhere along the way, film has been left behind.
Think of all the missed opportunities. Instead of using the Winona Ryder version of "The Crucible" to teach us about McCarthyism, my history teacher should have showed us "High Noon." "The Godfather" or "Modern Times" would have taught us about American history in a much more vivid and memorable way than reading assignments did.
In English, I'm sure we could have used at least one of the 20 class periods we spent memorizing lines from "Romeo and Juliet" to watch "To Kill a Mockingbird" instead. Why did Arthur Miller get four weeks, while John Ford and Stanley Kubrick got none?
Most of you reading this have never seen "Citizen Kane." Orson Welles' 1941 fictional biopic about media magnate Charles Foster Kane is widely regarded as the greatest movie ever made. There's a very good case that it's the greatest artistic achievement that this country has ever produced.
And yet, I keep meeting people who don't even recognize the title.
This is bizarre because film is the one medium that Americans should be the most familiar with.
Two thousand years from now, people will remember exactly three things about the United States of America: the Declaration of Independence, World War II and Hollywood.
Moving pictures, whether projected at a theater, broadcast over the airwaves or streamed across the Internet, have been the dominant form of art for more than a century, and there's no sign of that changing. Film is to the modern West what architecture is to Ancient Greece, or painting is to the Renaissance. "America" and "Hollywood" are synonymous terms in most of the world.
Everyone who graduates high school is expected to have read "Hamlet," listened to Beethoven and seen a copy of the "Mona Lisa." They're essential parts of our cultural heritage. You simply can't function in the Western world without being at least somewhat familiar with these masterpieces.
But somewhere along the way, film has been left behind.
Think of all the missed opportunities. Instead of using the Winona Ryder version of "The Crucible" to teach us about McCarthyism, my history teacher should have showed us "High Noon." "The Godfather" or "Modern Times" would have taught us about American history in a much more vivid and memorable way than reading assignments did.
In English, I'm sure we could have used at least one of the 20 class periods we spent memorizing lines from "Romeo and Juliet" to watch "To Kill a Mockingbird" instead. Why did Arthur Miller get four weeks, while John Ford and Stanley Kubrick got none?
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Becky
posted 12/01/08 @ 2:51 PM CST
I have watched this movie, but it has been years! Perhaps it is time to review? Thanks for your insight once again.
Post a Comment