This video was posted today on the Nerdwriter YouTube channel. He does a pretty good job of describing an element of literary theory called intertextuality as it applies to recent films. He doesn't quite go far enough though, as his analysis is limited to a sort of complaint against self-referential connections in popular movie franchises. Intertextuality actually has some interesting elements and allows for a broader exposure to great works of literature, be they in film or other forms. Here's some more info...
Using the latitude offered by poststructuralism, in which work and text can be interchangeable and complementary, and messages can be interpreted and reinterpreted, we may be able to bridge the divide of various perspectives of art and implement a logical, cohesive, and respectable network of intertextuality.
The detractors of intertextuality are many in number and vocal in position. Such critics have said that today’s popular culture promotes anti-intellectualism through the mocking of smart characters and the over-simplification of important issues for the sake of comedy or convenience. The emptiness and decadence of intertextuality is often claimed for its ultimate relegation as a substandard creative form. Literary critic Q.D. Leavis once described popular culture as “cheap and easy pleasures” that “do not encourage or demand active participation” or “critical thought” and “is not worthy of being analyzed as true or authentic literature or culture."
In her intertextual study of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and its reproduction and reinterpretation in both film and television, critic Linda Dryden surmises that “popular culture is reliant upon high culture for much of its imaginative and creative inspiration,” and that without literature, “popular culture itself would be impoverished.” On a similar note, Frederic Jameson believes that the constant replication of artistic material eliminates original style as “depth is replaced by surface, or by multiple surfaces (what is often called intertextuality is in that sense no longer a matter of depth)." “Intertextual practice,” Jameson says, “…collapses into a kind of pointless resurrection of past styles and past voices.”
Fordham University professor Jonathan Gray, however, believes in intertextuality. He states, “Textual studies have a long history of fetishizing the text as a solitary, pristinely autonomous object….Even now intertextuality is often invoked in a merely hit-and-run manner, without its full ramifications for televisual form and phenomenology of reception being carefully considered.” Blurring the lines between classic and popular forms of text is nothing new, as fiction went through a similar process. “English professors used to be what TV professors are now,” professor Robert Thompson says, concerning the fun and creative (and initially controversial) use of popular literature in the classroom. “There have always been complaints about making room for the next tier of popular entertainment.”
Admittedly, however, there are some serious issues to be raised with regard to such postmodern creations. Steven Connor writes that “in contemporary fiction, telling has become compulsorily belated, inextricably bound up with retelling, in all its idioms: reworking, translation, adaptation, displacement, imitation, forgery, plagiarism, parody, pastiche.” We have become a culture that can only copy and comment on art, rather than produce original, imaginative work. And in these reproductions, the allusions that the new text relies upon are excluding, through their obscurity, the very audience to whom the text aims to entertain. Consequently, the back-and-forth dynamic intended by the creator is only possible if the viewer of the medium is aware that it has a literary origin. Therefore, the creator of the newly reinterpreted work is simply producing references for his or her own amusement and the intellectual entertainment of those who happen to be “in” on the allusion. While appearing to be inclusive through popular and accessible media, a resulting exclusivity and elitism occurs.
In clarifying and adapting the previous theories of Roland Barthes and Ferdinand de Saussure, theorist Barbara Johnson states, “While Literature is seen as a series of discrete and highly meaningful Great Works, textuality is the manifestation of an open-ended, heterogeneous, disruptive force of signification and erasure that transgresses all closure.” The relationships between signs, signifiers, and the signified become mutable, and if we apply the same structural theories of language to literary works as whole units, the understanding of literature is altered and expanded, as well. Julia Kristeva took this view a step further in first coining the word ‘intertextuality’ by explaining that “Since there is no end to the text’s significance, inside and outside are merely product of any particular reading of the text, which itself can always proceed further, ceases arbitrarily, never comes to the end of the text’s threads.” Barthes concurs in that “The intertextual in which every text is held, it itself being the text-between of another text, is not be confused with some origin of the text.” Barthes goes on to outline the evolving definition of text: it is always in motion and production; it cannot be classified in a hierarchy by perceived quality or by genre; it is based in signification; it is irreducibly plural; it is constantly filiated as different readers acquire authorship; it is to be consumed, regardless of its history; and it is innately pleasurable. This analysis means that text is constantly being reinterpreted by whomever the reader is at the time or by whomever decides to use it in a subsequent creation. This is the basis for intertextuality, whereby art or literature can be reproduced with a borrowed set of meanings or an entirely new set of meanings. The respective texts are simply links in a never-ending chain of literary interpretation that cannot be classified due to its constant motion.
Novels, television, plays, films, artwork, architecture, music or other forms of creation can be examined for intertextuality, not simply to recognize references, but to create connections. Understanding our place in culture and history requires an analysis that compares where we are to where we have come from. Theorist Mikhail Bakhtin writes, “The text lives only by coming into contact with another text (with context). Only at the point of this contact between texts does a light flash, illuminating both the posterior and anterior, joining a given text to a dialogue.” It is this illumination and dialogue we should seek when using the intertextuality literary creations. Understanding intertextutality can be an entertaining and insightful excavation of previously inaccessible literary terminology, topics, and concepts that will enhance the cultural experience that lies ahead and engrain upon all the quality and creativity that has come before.
Using the latitude offered by poststructuralism, in which work and text can be interchangeable and complementary, and messages can be interpreted and reinterpreted, we may be able to bridge the divide of various perspectives of art and implement a logical, cohesive, and respectable network of intertextuality.
The detractors of intertextuality are many in number and vocal in position. Such critics have said that today’s popular culture promotes anti-intellectualism through the mocking of smart characters and the over-simplification of important issues for the sake of comedy or convenience. The emptiness and decadence of intertextuality is often claimed for its ultimate relegation as a substandard creative form. Literary critic Q.D. Leavis once described popular culture as “cheap and easy pleasures” that “do not encourage or demand active participation” or “critical thought” and “is not worthy of being analyzed as true or authentic literature or culture."
In her intertextual study of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and its reproduction and reinterpretation in both film and television, critic Linda Dryden surmises that “popular culture is reliant upon high culture for much of its imaginative and creative inspiration,” and that without literature, “popular culture itself would be impoverished.” On a similar note, Frederic Jameson believes that the constant replication of artistic material eliminates original style as “depth is replaced by surface, or by multiple surfaces (what is often called intertextuality is in that sense no longer a matter of depth)." “Intertextual practice,” Jameson says, “…collapses into a kind of pointless resurrection of past styles and past voices.”
Fordham University professor Jonathan Gray, however, believes in intertextuality. He states, “Textual studies have a long history of fetishizing the text as a solitary, pristinely autonomous object….Even now intertextuality is often invoked in a merely hit-and-run manner, without its full ramifications for televisual form and phenomenology of reception being carefully considered.” Blurring the lines between classic and popular forms of text is nothing new, as fiction went through a similar process. “English professors used to be what TV professors are now,” professor Robert Thompson says, concerning the fun and creative (and initially controversial) use of popular literature in the classroom. “There have always been complaints about making room for the next tier of popular entertainment.”
Admittedly, however, there are some serious issues to be raised with regard to such postmodern creations. Steven Connor writes that “in contemporary fiction, telling has become compulsorily belated, inextricably bound up with retelling, in all its idioms: reworking, translation, adaptation, displacement, imitation, forgery, plagiarism, parody, pastiche.” We have become a culture that can only copy and comment on art, rather than produce original, imaginative work. And in these reproductions, the allusions that the new text relies upon are excluding, through their obscurity, the very audience to whom the text aims to entertain. Consequently, the back-and-forth dynamic intended by the creator is only possible if the viewer of the medium is aware that it has a literary origin. Therefore, the creator of the newly reinterpreted work is simply producing references for his or her own amusement and the intellectual entertainment of those who happen to be “in” on the allusion. While appearing to be inclusive through popular and accessible media, a resulting exclusivity and elitism occurs.
In clarifying and adapting the previous theories of Roland Barthes and Ferdinand de Saussure, theorist Barbara Johnson states, “While Literature is seen as a series of discrete and highly meaningful Great Works, textuality is the manifestation of an open-ended, heterogeneous, disruptive force of signification and erasure that transgresses all closure.” The relationships between signs, signifiers, and the signified become mutable, and if we apply the same structural theories of language to literary works as whole units, the understanding of literature is altered and expanded, as well. Julia Kristeva took this view a step further in first coining the word ‘intertextuality’ by explaining that “Since there is no end to the text’s significance, inside and outside are merely product of any particular reading of the text, which itself can always proceed further, ceases arbitrarily, never comes to the end of the text’s threads.” Barthes concurs in that “The intertextual in which every text is held, it itself being the text-between of another text, is not be confused with some origin of the text.” Barthes goes on to outline the evolving definition of text: it is always in motion and production; it cannot be classified in a hierarchy by perceived quality or by genre; it is based in signification; it is irreducibly plural; it is constantly filiated as different readers acquire authorship; it is to be consumed, regardless of its history; and it is innately pleasurable. This analysis means that text is constantly being reinterpreted by whomever the reader is at the time or by whomever decides to use it in a subsequent creation. This is the basis for intertextuality, whereby art or literature can be reproduced with a borrowed set of meanings or an entirely new set of meanings. The respective texts are simply links in a never-ending chain of literary interpretation that cannot be classified due to its constant motion.
Novels, television, plays, films, artwork, architecture, music or other forms of creation can be examined for intertextuality, not simply to recognize references, but to create connections. Understanding our place in culture and history requires an analysis that compares where we are to where we have come from. Theorist Mikhail Bakhtin writes, “The text lives only by coming into contact with another text (with context). Only at the point of this contact between texts does a light flash, illuminating both the posterior and anterior, joining a given text to a dialogue.” It is this illumination and dialogue we should seek when using the intertextuality literary creations. Understanding intertextutality can be an entertaining and insightful excavation of previously inaccessible literary terminology, topics, and concepts that will enhance the cultural experience that lies ahead and engrain upon all the quality and creativity that has come before.