Relative Relevance

As this class began, I was not very well versed in literary theory. I admit, along the way, there were points where I sat there thinking things like “what the hell does that matter?” and “that’s just plain wrong.” However, as we wind down, I have begun to grasp the impact of the many theories we studied. There are still some aspects I may not agree with, but I can see the value of them and why it is we study these theories.

Good Will Hunting is far and away my favorite movie of all time. It is entertaining, well-scripted, and makes me think about many elements of my life that would otherwise go unevaluated. Thus, I chose to evaluate it in a Marxist form as my essay topic. Doing so helped me comprehend not only Marxist theory, but also many of the other theories we studied that I had yet to grasp. I was amazed at how the movie fit into so many types of theory, and even more amazed that I had not previously recognized these theories seeing as I have watched it 9 billion times.

The lack of the self was by far the most difficult concept for me this year. I didn’t understand how people could sit there and say that a work was a product of society and not of the individual author’s originality. However, as I studied Good Will Hunting, I found this to be exactly the case. While Matt Damon and Ben Affleck (who wrote the screenplay) are both from the Boston area, their background in no way resembles that of Will Hunting. In fact, they could be described as being more closely linked to Professor Gerald Lambeau, who is seen as the “semi-antagonist” of the movie. Brought up in wealthy families, it does not seem like they would ever be able to relate to their characters in the movie.

So the question was, where did they come up with this brilliant story that would eventually win them Oscars for best original screenplay? After analyzing the story further, the answer was clear. It was a direct representation of our society. The views expressed in the film were not the views of two upper-class white kids (Damon and Affleck), but they were a direct result of the hegemonic forces in American society. While I may have lost a little appreciation for the innovative genius of Damon and Affleck, I definitely gained an understanding of literary theory.

As I started to write this post, I looked back through my notes. I turned to a list of the tenets of liberal humanism. If I had to pick a theory that I most agree with, it would be liberal humanism. This may be because it was the easiest for me to understand. Yet, one of the tenets seems particularly accurate to me. “Good literature is timeless and speaks to what is true of human nature.” As I read this sentence a few times, it reminded me of a passage that I read in one of the critical articles I used for my essay:

“Good Will Hunting presents a young man on an Odyssey. He is not Odysseus exactly, but he moves and talks like him and is lost like him. He fights battles and loses them, and then hoists himself up again, scarred and bruised. More importantly, he is here and now, and speaks to some of us in a way that Odysseus no longer can. We identify with Good Will. We feel his fears and desire his triumphs. If we are not able to do this - and give a rhetorical expression to how we do this - then we will have a hard time convincing our audiences that there is merit to our work, and that they should follow us.”
-The Good Will Hunting Technique by Todd Cesaratto

All at once, it made perfect sense to me. Good Will Hunting is a present day version of The Odyssey. I may enjoy watching it more than I enjoy reading The Odyssey, but this is merely because Damon and Affleck adapted their story to appeal to modern day hegemonic forces. It speaks to me because I share the same ISAs and everyday life. And so, for the first time, and possibly the last time, I begrudgingly admit that literary theory is indeed pertinent to my everyday life.