"Rigorous intellectualism" does not, in itself, have an alienating effect at all. Leading a life which is out of balance, however, does. One may spend his or her days pondering at great length and depth the secrets of the universe but one must still eat, sleep, and every once in awhile, give someone a hug.
Writing about movies is like dancing about architecture
Yes, yes indeed. Do you also see that the balance lies in not an equal amount of "left" and "right", but as the film reveals it is from a third, transcendant view that one begins to be free of the dictates of both. Also well brought out, escpecially in the later interactions of 'Susie' and 'Jason', that there lies a world running behind and more or less parallel to what is perceptible to the intellect - and in such a way that it does not occur to him that this world is even there. Fear, it even suggests, is what ensures that it goes unnoticed. "Afraid of whom?", says Jason in his dialogue with Vivian (the living - viva)
Interesting thread.... I'm not sure I agree that _Wit_ sets out to demontrate, as it were, the bankruptcy of a life based around ideas and professional pursuits rather than around, say, family. It does argue that there's no escaping mortality or a kind of perspective on human life where merit/excellence/posterity just drops out - one will be stuck in the drooling now, begging for some unconditional warmth from someone/anyone no matter what one does.
Vivian's life has had a particular shape and has particular consequences for her at the end but I don't believe we're supposed to say "Oh, she should have lived her life very differently..." Perhaps all lives have a sting in their tail? One person wishes they'd had kids, one person wishes they'd hunkered down and completed their thesis, one person wishes they'd spend less time at the office, another wishes they'd spent more time at the lab finding a cure for autism rather than wasting years of energy on a series of divorces, and so on.
I may be completely wrong about this and y'all may be completely right... I'll have to watch _Wit_ again in the light of your remarks to be sure.
Actually, I find your comment the most astute and correct and humane out of this entire thread. You don't need to watch the movie again to get it, because you already do. If only there were more people like you.
"Perhaps all lives have a sting in their tail? One person wishes they'd had kids, one person wishes they'd hunkered down and completed their thesis, one person wishes they'd spend less time at the office, another wishes they'd spent more time at the lab finding a cure for autism rather than wasting years of energy on a series of divorces, and so on."
True, very true, Swanstep -- and very eloquently stated.
There is very likely some sort of 'opportunity cost' related to any choice of career or lifestyle.
Fascinating thread, and that was my take on it too: Wit is not just a tearjerker about a woman dying of ovarian cancer, but a critique of the aloofness, isolation and emotional detachment of following an intellectual life. That's what chilled me most about the film.
Vivian Bearing made a choice to live with her brain rather than her heart/gut, only to find that when she was on her deathbed, all she wanted was human kindness and compassion. And when she says "I thought being incredibly smart was enough", she has reached a point of no return, where cerebral rationalization just doesn't cut it anymore. I was so glad the nurse Suzy (Audra McDonald) was there with her.
I agree, swanstep. I mention in another thread that it is somewhat sad and of course telling that the one person who visits her is her mentor, as she no longer has her parents, and had no siblings (per her interview with the doctor in an earlier scene). However, this is her life...she probably did spend more time researching, writing, studying, etc. than "partying" with a bunch of friends, or, clearly, having a family of her own. I don't feel pity for her in that regard. I simply found it quite touching, however, that someone, in fact, did reach out to her in the end, and it was fitting that that person happened to be another intellectual, and that they bonded over a simple children's story...about all one could listen to at the very end of his/her life. Just as the previous poster says, there is no escaping mortality, and one's life's work becomes completely useless in the moment of being "at the end". Of course it's not useless for how it changed the world or affected others in any way...but it certainly does "drop off" for the patient who's suffering.
A former teacher of mine for Calculus didn't want her student to acknowledge her outside of school grounds. She apparently said, though I wasn't a witness to it, that if you saw her in public she would not acknowledge you. I did see her once at a bookstore. This was about 8 or 9 years after I had taken her course, of which my brother had taken also previous to me in the mid 90s, and she was talking to an employee about her dog that she brought with her. Apparently, she couldn't bring the dog into the store since it wasn't being used for companion purposes; seeing eye dog or something. I was in line and just witnessed the conversation from afar(no voices), and then I decided to just not say anything to her, as I remembered her remark about being confronted in public. BTW, she was a lesbian too, but I don't know if that had anything to do with her wanting to be kept alone. Her girlfriend would stop in at class, before or after, and it was apparent they were a couple. Great teacher, but she had this problem about being confronted in public. Apparently not even a "hi!" Anyway, I bought my book and drove somewhere else and got gas or whatever, then saw her walking with her dog across the street. That's the last time I've seen her.
My point is that maybe Emma's character was like this, and wouldn't want her personal issues to collide with her career issues. One is a job, one is your own life. I don't everything you do is really you, but people tend to compartmentalize themselves, their behavior, their daily routine. So just because no students didn't visit her doesn't mean the students are to blame for the absence.
"Nice beaver!" "Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun
Could it's more likely that the type of people who tend to be introverted, eccentric and reclusive tend towards fields with high levels of 'rigorous intellectualism'. That seems more likely than to say 'rigorous intellectualism' causes isolation.
Someone who's a social bunny with an active social life probably wouldn't pick a career that requires a lot of solitude and introspection.
Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
I got that impression too. I grew up with a father who was a college professor, though he was not of the "intellectual" brigade by any means, and enjoyed social life, activity and certainly didn't bury himself in his discipline. But so many of the professors at the university were so incredibly limited by their immersion in their various intellectual pursuits. They seemed to think that it was of the utmost importance to study these things that have already been studied absolutely to death. Worse, they seemed to think that their work made some sort of difference in the "real" world, when it reality, most of it was repetitive, and practically none of it would interest anyone but their fellow intellectuals.
All I could think while watching Wit was "you spent your entire life, you isolated yourself from the world, you immersed yourself in these sonnets written by a man who has been dust for four hundred years - and now you're dying, and you're alone and John Donne is pretty cold comfort". I think the fact that she lived her life in such a way made the film even more tragic.
Even when her professor turned up and read The Runaway Bunny to her, the professor couldn't stop teaching. She couldn't just read the darn story, she had to start commenting on it being "a nice little allegory about the soul". This is so typical of the intellectual that it just hurt. The woman couldn't even give comfort without "teaching".
This movie was bleak and the main character's occupation added immeasurably to that bleakness.
The intellect is what seperates man from beast, a gift from the gods (or God, if you prefer) that makes those who decide to use it superior.
With the mind, we can fight disease, unravel the mysteries of nature, amuse ourselves in ways that do not involve the violation of others, think things through carefully, learn to be polite, harness the power of stars, and be like unto the gods.
Classical music and correct spelling alike all stem from the awesome power of the Intellect, as do all things bright and beautiful that have been created by mankind. Moreover, the Intellect gives mankind the capacity to appreciate natural beauty that the wild beast does not possess.
Wars are not started by Intellectuals, who are capable of calm, quiet reason. No, violence is the act of the Beast, of Passion. Listen to your heart--the heart has served the animal kingdom quite well for many millions of years, after all--but do not let it rule you. The Mind is where your soul lies, it is there that decisions are made, light bulbs invented, "A Little Night Music" composed, marriage proposals rehearsed.
And although the heart might say to you, "love your child," it also says, "rape that woman--kill that man." The Mind does not suggest these things. The human who has mastered Reason--that is, the Intellectual--knows when to restrain herself, and when to act. The Mind does not hate--the Mind is not racist or bigoted. The Mind, as its title implies, knows better.
Yes, Professor Bearing was a cold intellectual. She was also stoic and strong, with an admirable dedication to her chosen field. While we must certainly appreciate the tragedy of what happened to her (fiction though she may be), to begin seeing her intelligence (synonymous with "wisdom," far more often than not) as a weakness would be to belittle her character. She was a strong woman who stands to be admired. The tragedy is that she was not cared for, that she was not loved for her mind. And if she was lonely, it is, after all, lonely at the top.
Do you think you should voluntarily fail to live up to the potential you know you could reach, just because very few others would ever be able to keep up? Should the fear of loneliness keep you from being what you know you could be? Think on it.
I do not think you have to choose between your intellect and "being what you know you could be" as you say and having fulfilling personal relationships. You said it was sad that she was not loved for her mind... I think it's sad she was not loved/did not love. You have to reach out and form relationships - they do not just appear and flourish because you are intelligent. It was her choice to live that way and maybe she was happy in life, but in the process of dying, she was questioning that choice and finding that her intellect was not providing the comfort she was wanting.
"Wars are not started by Intellectuals, who are capable of calm, quiet reason."
Capable of yes, but ultimately they are still human. Yes they can be calm and reasonable, but they also can be motivated by more base feelings. To say they can't start wars is to look at them as they are not, which is to say more than human. It falls into the blanket generalization. Wars are as much motivated by ideas conceived by intellectuals as anything else, and people in positions of power who make decisions leading to war have had intellectual backgrounds to varying degrees. The leadership of both the Nazi and Stalinist regimes was made up predominately of doctors and engineers respectively. The ideology that motivated them was conceived of by people who were often anything but morons. And that ideology naturally served as a driving force for the leaders who implemented them. It's when intellectuals conceive of systems that are inherently militaristic in their implementation that such things can and have occurred. The leaders implement the ideology, but the ideology itself was given to them by those who conceived it. Sometimes the intellectuals themselves implement them directly, if they reach positions of power that enable them to do so. The doctrines that motivate present day military policies are not uncommonly conceived of by educated individuals, who are ever now and then entrusted with their implementation. It ultimately comes down to the individual, the idea itself, and how it is implemented.
"You're from the 60s! Peace love dope! Back, back to the 60s! No place for you in the future!"
pug_rider_captain , that is a VERY beautiful explanation.
I agree with you. My intellect has served me well; it imposes on me discipline and frees me of bigotry. However, there have been times when intellectualism is indeed isolating, but that is because I do not balance it with other things that make me human. Balance is key.
I don't think that simply because one chooses to live her life in the head that she doesn't have a heart. We should embrace both and not draw a dichotomy.
Having worked at a university (non-teaching position), I regularly came into contact with professors. Some of them only wanted to associate with other academics and thought they were better than everyone else.