To review this article, select My Account, and then select View Saved Stories.
Find everything you save to your account
By Lauren Michele Jackson
An academic’s life is none too cinematic. Those employed in the fields of law, medicine, or finance may grumble at onscreen depictions of their trades—while, I imagine, privately preening at the attention—but their jobs are at least worth dramatizing. Who can find narrative momentum in the minutiae of peer review?
One way to make academics attractive is to propel them from the ivory tower into the world, as seen in European auteur films all the way to Hollywood. In Ingmar Bergman’s “Wild Strawberries”, a medical professor (Victor Sjöström) leaves his In “Arrival”, linguist Louise Banks (Amy Adams) has just finished her course before the elegance is interrupted due to an activity alien. Several on-screen “ologists” are having a laugh in the field: the paleontologist couple from “Jurassic Park”; the Harvard symbology professor devoted to “The Da Vinci Code”; and successful archaeologist Indiana Jones, who began his film with a vision worthy of tweed slime. The newest film in the franchise, released earlier this year, shows the old professor retiring, his most unorthodox move yet.
If a movie professor remains confined to campus grounds, he (it’s almost always a “he,” isn’t it?) must have a reason for doing so, something freakish: genius, say, or madness, or some combination of the two (see: “A Beautiful Mind”). Even then, campus is often a mere waystation. I might be the only one who preferred the first forty-five minutes of Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” over the latter two and a quarter hours, before the titular physicist is whisked away from academia to turn his ideas into a weapon of mass destruction. Nolan stokes the fantasy of a self-consciously academic environment with all the necessary tableaux—oaken surfaces, chalk dust, the Socratic method—illustrating J. Robert Oppenheimer’s faith in campus life as the center of the universe. (In my experience, virtually every professor on Earth labors under a similar illusion.) During his graduate studies in Europe, young Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) is absorbed in the breaking thought of his time, not only in physics but also in literature and the arts. In a montage, we see Oppie in the classroom; Oppie at a museum, in a face-off with Picasso’s “Woman Sitting with Crossed Arms”; Oppie at a chalkboard, at his desk, or turned away from it, smashing wine glasses against parquet floors and observing the scattered aftermath. This is academia as romance, independent study as origin story, and I, for one, was entertained. “Algebra’s like sheet music,” the elder physicist Niels Bohr tells him gravely, adding, “Can you hear the music, Robert?” Cue the strings. Later, as a professor at Berkeley, Oppenheimer works down the hall from Dr. Ernest Lawrence (Josh Hartnett), who, in high-waisted trousers and a variety of vests, gives Indiana Jones a run for his money. Oppenheimer’s classroom is initially near barren, which is to be expected when you’re “teaching something no one here has ever dreamt of.” Then, in a series of shots, we see a crowd gradually form—a star professor is born. (Ominously, the professor is preoccupied with what might happen when stars die.) As “Oppenheimer” tips into the forty-sixth minute, though, our hero takes his leave from the realm of theory and devotes himself to the admittedly far more spectacular imperatives of war.
Hollywood recently discovered a new way to keep academics on campus without lulling the public: simply “cancel them. ” At the beginning of the new movie “Dream Scenario,” Paul Matthews (Nicolas Cage) is a guy who doesn’t inspire any passion. At the fictitious Osler University, his classes are sparsely attended. Worse still, he didn’t publish anything interesting, or maybe not at all. He’s just a guy with a job. “There’s nothing wrong with just being a teacher,” says a former classmate. (I haven’t forgotten Larry Gopnik, the physics teacher in the middle of the Coen brothers’ “A Serious Man,” who was told, “Doing nothing isn’t bad. Ipso facto. “) But Paul disagrees. He needs to be known, which is lacking, and, since this is a movie, relevance has to locate him.
One day, he discovers that he’s been appearing in people’s dreams. The dreams are intense and extraordinary in the way that dreams can be, but the Paul of everyone’s unconscious remains, well, inert. His daughter dreams that the sky is falling, while Paul, rather than rushing to save her, or himself, continues raking leaves. “You don’t do anything. You’re just there,” an old girlfriend tells him, of a dream in which he strolls breezily by as she tends to a gravely injured friend. Word spreads from there—strangers are dreaming of Paul, too—and soon the press wants an interview. Paul doesn’t pretend to understand the dreams; he knows, in keeping with the ethos of our time, only that he ought to capitalize upon his minor celebrity. He might have written a best-seller and settled into a cozy gig as an opinion columnist, if not for what comes next. The dreams about him change. On the upside, Dream Paul is no longer so feckless. Unfortunately, he has instead become violent—menacing, choking, and bludgeoning his dreamers.
Cage has a knack for playing the role of the “remarkable user,” lending an unconventional energy to the boring, generic, and passive. But his last erudite role, the unflinching historian (and treasure hunter) in “National Treasure,” had a lot more bravado. In “Dream Scenario,” Cage is the quintessential boring teacher: shades of gray sunshine, bald hair, glasses over his squinting eyes. (The film’s most productive scene takes place in the apartment of a young woman whose erotic Dreams, starring an unusually proactive Paul, sours when he discovers that Paul’s true strategy in the bedroom doesn’t live up to fantasy. )Over the course of the film, Paul transforms from user to user non grata. His students “don’t feel comfortable” with him, and when they prove unable to triumph over his “triggers,” Paul is given leave.
The film posits itself as a parable of cancel culture, but the story’s premise removes the variables that would ordinarily lend intrigue to the proceedings. Paul’s alleged offenses are literally the stuff of dreams. We’re not meant to think highly of him, but we’re meant to think even less of an audience who shuns a man based on a shared experience that resides only in their heads. Paul is dumbfounded that an institution would take these concocted versions of himself seriously. “Dreaming is like a psychosis,” he says. “I have nothing to do with it.”
Public disgrace has come for movie professors before: Philip Roth’s “The Human Stain,” in which the narrative of a professor accused of racism takes an ironic twist, and J. M. Coetzee’s “Disgrace,” about an English professor undone by an affair with a student, have both been adapted for the big screen. (In a different register, Oppenheimer, too, faces disgrace, when the Communist sympathies he expressed during his campus days come to roost in Cold War America.) But those stories, set decades ago, predate the ripening of Gen X and the social Internet, which have brought handy new dramatic opportunities for screenwriters to seize. The first such example that I recall watching was Netflix’s 2021 series “The Chair,” in which Sandra Oh plays the recently appointed chair of the English department at a New England-y university, who is tasked with discipling a colleague and friend, Bill (Jay Duplass), after a clip of him giving an offhand Nazi salute during a lecture on Fascism goes viral. On the whole, “The Chair” serves up a facile, if droll, microcosm of contemporary literature programs. Its depictions of intradepartmental dynamics might appear truer to life than whatever “Grey’s Anatomy” cooks up in a given week, but the students—conspicuously diverse and wielding vague progressive contrivances—are straw men assembled from hand-wringing opinion pages. The viewer understands the salute to have been a gaffe, ill-timed and unwise in the way that certain professors—popular, unkempt, and, yeah, sorry, male and white—are sometimes permitted to be. A gaffe, we can agree, is not a fireable offense, but what can an administration do when the Internet does its thing, much less when students have feelings?
The portrait of a cowed institution has little in common with the reality of campus politics. The truth is that a university, like any other institution, chooses which complaints it will hear, whom it does and does not want to protect. How stark that has been of late, as campus leaders pursue their own students and faculty for pro-Palestinian sentiment, a position that, for decades, has seemed more verboten within academia than being a sex pest. Yet an errant verisimilitude—film’s prerogative—doesn’t quite address what’s at issue. The problem with the stock scenarios of hyperreactive youths and the Pauls and Bills who unnerve them is not that such persons do not exist but, rather, that the people writing them seem incurious about the heart of their antagonism.
Another curious new film, Cord Jefferson’s “American Fiction,” is an adaptation of Percival Everett’s novel “Erasure,” though it begins with a scene of his own making. Its protagonist, Professor Thelonious (Monk) Ellison, played by Jeffrey Wright, has launched a provocation to his literature seminar in the form of a harsh epithet: “Nigger”, written on the blackboard of his elegant living room. The insult would possibly not be trivial given today’s lesson on Flannery O’Connor, from the short story “The Artificial Nigger,” among other books. But, naturally, no one in elegance has any idea of reading. Students are pretty obsessed with how that word makes them feel (hint: “uncomfortable”).
In my few years as a professor, I can’t say I haven’t at some point felt like Lydia Tár (Cate Blanchett), in “Tár,” who, a master of elegance at Juilliard, wonders, then wonders, then demoralizes and then enraged by her scholars’ refusal to sit before an art painting in aesthetic terms. According to her, today’s young people hide their bad taste by obsessing over identity politics. Tár is angry about one student in particular, a self-identified “pangender BIPOC person” who ignores Johann Sebastian Bach, bringing up the composer’s “misogynistic life. ” (Perhaps Tár would be comforted by the news that her beloved Bach, however, has surpassed nine million monthly listeners on Spotify. ) I assigned this scene as home paintings last month in an English elegance that I teach about intergenerational conflict. On the day of the discussion, I braced myself for impact. The scene is dominant, almost raw, in its betrayal of what PhD student Asa Seresin (in paintings I also assigned to elegance) described as a “seething contempt for the spoiled, ineffectual, self-obsessed Generation Z. ” archetype. ” I was curious to know what my students think of the scene, less as a mirror of their own reports than as a study in the parodic treatment of “today’s children. ” I am not one of those teachers who interact in public anecdotes . about academics, but suffice to say, I found our intergenerational (millennial for Zoomer) assembly edition full of smart religion and clever humor.
I don’t want to spoil too much, but in “American Fiction” the opening scene’s portrayal of kids these days serves a narrative purpose: Monk is pressured into taking a leave of absence from the university, allowing the plot to abandon his academic endeavors in favor of his literary ones. In both the film and the novel from which it was adapted, Monk writes esoteric novels that, his agent tells him, would sell better if they were “Black novels”—as in, novels about gangs and inner-city folk written in eye dialect. Monk does, in a way, surrender to market forces, spewing out a “gritty” novel that drives the publishing industry wild. But “American Fiction” dulls the thrills of its source material. “Erasure” is a novel about an English professor who would kindly like to be excluded from race as a project of meaning-making until, like a man possessed, he is overcome by it. “American Fiction,” blunting Monk’s ambivalence, is a pleasant enough film about a professional writer with a righteous grudge against the Tyler Perry-industrial complex. The film asks why publishing sees Black authors as a monolith and permits itself a monolithic answer. “Erasure” thinks that question is something of a waste of time. “It used to be that I would look for the deeper meaning in everything, thinking that I was some kind of hermeneutic sleuth moving through the world,” Monk narrates in the book, “but I stopped that when I was twelve.”
Musings, digressions, asides—figuring out how to convey the stuff of thought is one of cinema’s definitional challenges, but don’t tell me that the pondering can’t look good. The “life of the mind” may have diminishing purchase in reality, but cinema can prolong the fantasy, with or without the theatrics of cancel culture, so long as the filmmaker has the audacity to make it interesting. For an exquisite portrayal of academic life, I recommend “Losing Ground,” the 1982 film by Kathleen Collins, centered upon Sara (Seret Scott), a philosophy professor—and, blessedly, not a man—who is writing a paper on ecstatic experience. Sara begins the story in a lecture hall, but she is gradually pulled from her too-comfortable routines of rumination—in her office, in the library—which have so far failed to yield any breakthroughs on her project. She follows her artist husband to a retreat upstate, in the hope of jostling her ideas loose by letting loose. In one scene midway through the film, she wears a bright dress and a flower in her hair, a sort of vacation drag that she seems to hope might manifest a revelation. Gorgeously shot and studious about its people and places, the film takes a keen interest in the professor’s life as equal parts intellectual and libidinal and pedagogical, both frustrating and full. “I want to understand what it feels like to see something that has not yet happened,” Sara tells a psychic whose insights are underwhelming—yet another failed search. “What am I looking for?” she asks. “Losing Ground” proves that the question is film-worthy. ♦
The submersible Titan “an imminent accident”.
Black notes of Prince Harry.
The jokes of 2023.
What happened in San Francisco?
The novelist who went too far.
Why 2023 was the year of Ozempic.
Listening to Taylor Swift in prison.
Sign up for our newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker.
By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Statement. This site is through reCAPTCHA and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
By Alex Ross
By Anthony Lane
By Adam Gopnik
By Anthony Lane
Sections
More
© 2023 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement, Privacy Policy, Cookie Statement, and your California privacy rights. The New Yorker would possibly earn a portion of sales of products purchased through our site as part of our partner component partnerships with retailers. Curtains on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached, or otherwise used without the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad Choices