Ashamed to say, of the 8 writers mentioned in this film (or omitted), the only one I didn't know before watching the movie was the protagonist Thomas Wolfe. In addition to Wolff, Fitzgerald and Hemingway who appeared in cutscenes, the writers who existed in the lines included Tolstoy, Flaubert, Henry James, Joyce, Proust. There are not too many viewers who can be touched just by hearing these names being pronounced, not at all. I'd like to count myself in and think this movie is made for these audiences.
Having never heard (and seen) the name Thomas Wolfe before, I doubt it. But what is certain is that even if you have heard (seen) it will not be so familiar, and it will not be as familiar as the other names mentioned above. It also gave me an opportunity to get to know the writer purely from the narrative of the film. The main body of the film is not to present "the whole process of a genius being a genius", perhaps there is no such process at all, that is a natural thing. It's a genius when it comes out. It all started so directly, the audience just followed him to the end, this is a rather "plain" biopic.
The title of the film is Genius (literally translated as genius), and the Chinese translation of the title "Genius Catcher" is too explicit. Genius in this film can undoubtedly refer to the writer Thomas Wolfe and the editor Max Perkins who discovered him. Only genius can discover true genius. What's more, the editor also found three, and the other two were Fitzgerald and Hemingway. Although such a person does not completely belong to his own creation, no one can deny that he is also a genius. So the "genius" in this film actually refers to that group, or even the golden age that has the soil for cultivating genius.
Before I get into ramblings outside of the movie, let's set the tone for the movie. The first-rate biopics of geniuses I can think of right away are like A Beautiful Mind, and the lesser but good enough ones are The Imitation Game. Further down, down to the general level is "Knowing No Boundaries". The so-called general level is those biopics that are stable and flawless, but the audience will also be touched by the character's experience itself. "Genius Catcher" is in this category in my opinion. Some people pointed out that "Genius Catcher" is too stereotyped. I completely agree with this point. The routine is almost the same as that of "Knowing No Boundaries", and even the relationship between the characters can also correspond. Both films are based on Bole and genius, one is literature, the other is mathematics, and other famous characters of the same era also appeared in them, Littlewood and Russell in "Knowing", Fei in "Heaven". Zgerald and Hemingway. The core of the story is the work of genius and Bole, and the periphery is the family of several characters. The final fate of the protagonist inevitably leads to tragedy. In such a comparison, the stylized label cannot be removed. But what does it matter, the audience cannot be faked when they are truly touched.
In order to avoid being too flat, the film also deliberately designed something that could be called a dramatic conflict, and even some lighthearted jokes. But my most visceral laugh came when Wolff's editor told him after his new book was published that some critics even compared him to James Joyce, and Wolfe directly replied that I wrote much better than Joyce. Literary slogans like this are very useful to me. Although "Genius Catcher" and "Knowing No Boundaries" are on the same level in terms of the film itself, because of the different fields involved, I naturally like the former more than the latter.
Let’s take this film as an introduction and talk about literary topics related to it.
1. Two "triangles"
The "triangle relationship" in the film refers to Wolf, Perkins, and his wife and wife. From the casting, you can see the weight of these three to the whole film. In addition to the movie, there is another "triangle relationship" that can be compared with it, that is, Fitzgerald, Hemingway and Fitzgerald's wife. His wife Zelda (who is mentally ill in the movie) once joked about Fitzgerald and Hemingway's relationship: Look, they're like a couple. Perkins is Wolf's Bole, and Fitzgerald is Hemingway's Bole. From the perspective of later development, these two relationships are almost following the same trajectory. From honeymoon to estrangement, in the end, it is a certain person. ended in sudden death. It is exactly what Hemingway said: "All stories, to a certain extent, end in death."
2. Writing style
I haven't read Wolff's work in its entirety, but I can only understand it from the plot of the film, the descriptions and materials of other writers, and have a general understanding of his writing style. This is a writer who writes tome works, almost all of them autobiographical in nature. The style of writing flows slowly like a river, but it is endless. Critics compared him to James Joyce, and he himself spoke of admiring Proust's style. Some people even call the system composed of Wolff's series of works "the American version of "Reminiscence of Time Like Water". From this, we can know that reading his works is not an easy task. Both Joyce and Proust, in my impression, belong to the kind of writers who are talked about a lot but read very little.
3. Autobiographical nature
Thomas Wolfe has a very stubborn opinion: "All serious literature is autobiographical." About one point, looking a little further, I think of Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther. Joyce and Proust, who were compared to Wolff, did the same. Fitzgerald and Hemingway fit the same criteria, just with a little more storytelling. I am afraid that the autobiographical nature is the most thorough, in addition to Wolf, can only be Proust.
4. Scott Fitzgerald
Guy Pearce's Fitzgerald has three or four scenes in the movie (I don't remember exactly), and I think that's the best character in the movie. From this, I think that his life (and Hemingway's part) may be more exciting than this film, which is another genius story. From the amazing debut to the gradual decline, until the ambition of writing was exhausted, he was sick and had no time left. It is worth mentioning that Fitzgerald died in 1940 at the age of 44, two years after the death of the film's protagonist Wolff. On his tombstone is inscribed the ending of The Great Gatsby: So we slid forward, sailed against the current, pushed back and forth until we were back in the old days. "Going back to the old days, the best part of the past may have been Fitzgerald when he wrote "The Great Gatsby." For Fitzgerald at that time, Hemingway believed that if one could write "The Great Gatsby" Books like The Gatsby", then he must be able to write better works. Countless beautiful possibilities have been in front of us, but they are all at an untouchable distance from the only reality after that.
5. The best of the time
It was a time of genius. In addition to the three great writers that Perkins collaborated with, another master also appeared on the map of American literature at that time, that is William Faulkner. As a representative of "stream-of-consciousness novels", Faulkner's name is often juxtaposed with Proust, Joyce and Woolf in later narratives. But in the literary world at that time, Faulkner's most respected was his compatriot Thomas Wolfe, who he thought was the best of his generation. His ranking was Wolf first, himself second, Dos Passos third, and Hemingway fourth. In Hemingway, the most admired contemporary writer is, of course, Fitzgerald. Faulkner and Hemingway's novels are just two extremes in style, but both have far-reaching influences on later writers.
6. The role of editors
Can editing make a literary work better? This is the suspicion of Max Perkins, the editor of the film. He suspects that instead of making a literary work better (Better), he just made them different (different). In fact, big editors like Perkins have long discovered that books belong to authors, and their job is only to discover and shape talented authors, and at the same time do their best to push the works of these authors to readers, so that readers can accept them them. Asking writers to take care of their readers, he told Fitzgerald: "I totally understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think you can write it that way. You have to respect those who are warm and sincere even when people are wrong. people". In view of this, Wolff's personalized writing must be slashed and edited to meet readers. As for how much better the published "Time and River" is than the original three boxes full of manuscript paper, who can say clearly Woolen cloth? As for the pros and cons of literary and artistic works (literature, film, and other arts), to paraphrase Murakami, “objective evidence of value does not exist. , it is not an exaggeration to regard it as a treasure.”
7. The End of the Geniuses
Looking back at this point in time today, everything can be concluded.
Thomas Wolfe (1900-1938), Encephalitis.
Francis Scott Fitzgerald (1896-1940), lung disease, complicated by heart disease.
Maxwell Perkins (1884-1947)
Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961), committed suicide with a shotgun.
William Faulkner (1897-1962) died of a heart attack in his later years.
The birth and death years of Hemingway and Faulkner are almost the same. Although they cannot be said to be mutually reinforcing, I think they can be called "enemies" in many aspects. By the way, the two representatives of "stream of consciousness", Joyce and Woolf, have an even more surprising coincidence, born and died in the same year, 1882-1941.
8. Between the two world wars (1914-1945)
According to the generational division of American literary history, the period between the two world wars (1914-1945) was a major golden age of American literature in the 20th century. Several of the classic American writers mentioned repeatedly in this article were active in this period. "Beat Generation" representative Jack Kerouac grew up in this period, he called Wolfe his literary idol. For a long time after the golden age of the 1920s and 1930s, it was hard to find an American writer who could match this group of writers. It wasn't until the end of World War II that a new group of writers took the stage and created their own era, with Norman Mailer and Owen Shaw appearing. Then there were Saul Bellow, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Joseph Heller, Kurt Vonnegger... From the Lost Generation to the Beat Generation Each is wonderful, in short, they are better than boring generation after generation.
9. Nobel Prize in Literature
The first American writer Sinclair Lewis to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, when looking forward to the future of American literature, highlighted several young compatriots: Wolfe, Hemingway and Faulkner. He said that Wolfe's work undoubtedly rivals our best work. The latter two of the three Lewis mentioned ended up winning the Nobel Prize in Literature, and Wolfe died too early. Faulkner, who became famous later, gained international recognition earlier than Hemingway, and the Nobel Prize was 5 years earlier than Hemingway. Hemingway defined his own unique style in the early years of communication and collision with Fitzgerald. Raymond Carver first imitated Hemingway's style and finally formed his own style. Think of Haruki Murakami. Fitzgerald, Hemingway and Carver are all writers that Haruki Murakami admires, and he prides himself on introducing Carver's work to Japan. The reality of running with the Nobel Prize all the year round does not explain anything. Haruki Murakami relies on works for Haruki Murakami. The aforementioned Wolf, Fitzgerald and Raymond Carver have not won the Nobel Prize, and no one will deny their greatness. As Haruki Murakami himself said: "It is the works, not the awards, that endure forever... As for whether Hemingway won the Nobel Prize for Literature (he did), Borges did not (did he win) , who would care about such a thing? Literary awards can make a particular work shine, but it can't breathe life into it. It doesn't need to be stated."
10. The pattern on the butterfly's wings
This is a Hemingway metaphor used to describe Fitzgerald's talent. He said Fitzgerald's talent was "as natural as the pattern of powder on the wings of a pink butterfly". The latter part of the metaphor says that just as a butterfly doesn't care how the patterns on its wings are made, Fitzgerald doesn't care where his talent comes from. But later, the butterfly found that the pattern on its wings was beginning to break, and realized that it might never be able to take off again. The only thing I can recall is how easy it was to soar in the sky. This process of genius exhaustion was written by Hemingway into the short story "The Snows of Kilimanjaro". The talent of a genius comes naturally, and looking at this alone, other geniuses of the contemporaneous fit the metaphor.
Suddenly I thought of the opening line of "The Social Network": The number of geniuses in China may be more than the total population of the United States. But where have all the geniuses gone?
In the end, I briefly talked about ten points. The reason why I said it was simple is because each point can be explained in detail, but there is no need for that. I just want to stop there. There is nothing more to say about literature than the simple act of opening a book and reading it. It is more practical to understand and judge for yourself than to listen to someone else.
View more about Genius reviews