Intertextuality: Pygmalion

Intertextuality: Pygmalion

commons.wikimedia.org

Connections between different works of literature, Intertextuality, is something that has fascinated me all of my life. I think it is very interesting to see how one artist can assess another’s work and build upon it in a very unique way. When I read books, watch movies, or even look at works of art, I really enjoy finding the hidden connections it has with other works. I truly admire when authors pay subtle homage to their source of inspiration while also adding their own spin on a story. One interesting example of Intertextuality is the story of Pygmalion. Believe it or not, this story originates in ancient Greek mythology. In the ancient myth, Pygmalion was a conceited sculptor who believed there existed no woman worthy of him—so he decides to sculpt the “perfect” woman. Though he has ideally sculpted the perfect woman, the goddess Aphrodite intervenes and points out one big flaw. The goddess asserts that the sculpture, “Galatea”, is not alive. Being the goddess of love, Aphrodite gives life to Galatea so that Pygmalion and his perfect woman can live happily ever after.

In 1912, however, a playwright by the name of George Bernard Shaw writes his own, more serious version of Pygmalion. Shaw’s contemporary Pygmalion is not a sculptor, but instead a phonetic specialist named Henry Higgins who also believes there is no woman worthy of him. Higgins meets a lowly flower girl named Eliza Doolittle who, coincidentally, speaks very poor English. Much like Pygmalion, Higgins is determined to create perfection. He makes a bet with his coworker, Colonel Pickering (the Aphrodite figure in this version of the story), that he can transform Eliza and pass her off as a princess by the coming of the annual ball. Higgins succeeds in transforming Eliza into the perfect lady in all aspects but one. Colonel Pickering points out that she lacks one very important characteristic of a lady—self-respect. The unexpected and rather disappointing twist in Shaw’s Pygmalion is that Higgins refuses his Galatea’s love. Eliza has fallen deeply in love with her “creator” and, unfortunately, Higgins does not feel the same and believes he is too good for love.

I personally found Shaw’s Pygmalion very unsettling, in that, after everything that had happened between them, Henry and Eliza’s relationship does not grow further. In fact, I’m not the only one. Though he tried to avoid it, in 1938, Shaw finally gave in and offered a conclusion that he felt to be a fair compromise to his largely upset audience. Come on, how could he end such an intense relationship the way he did? Instead of leaving us with such an ambiguous yet hopeless ending, he consoles our previous disappointment. His added conclusion offers a romantic farewell between Eliza and Henry but still insists that Eliza ends up happily married to another man. Shaw personally found romance rather silly and his audience’s subsequent romantic craving quite ridiculous. So there you have a very different example of the original, light-hearted myth. I find Pygmalion to be a great example of Intertextuality because the underlying story is still found in many modern works of literature, art, and film. 

www.mahalo.com

A Hero is Born

From favim.com

From ourpreciouslambs.wordpress.com

The story of a hero being separated from his family at birth, growing up in a different environment, and returning to save his “people” is a common story line.  It can be seen in works such as Oedipus Rex, the Harry Potter series, and the story of Moses in the Bible.  The latter two texts are the two story lines that stick out for me.  In Harry Potter the main character Harry is flown away as a baby to live with his aunt and uncle, who are Muggles (non-magical beings,) after almost being murdered by an evil wizard named Voldemort.  Similarly in the story of Moses, baby Moses is sent down the river by his mother so that he isn’t killed under the Pharaoh’s rule and is found by a member of the Pharaoh’s family and taken in.  In both cases not only are the babies evacuated in order to live, but in these evacuations they both have a change in social class.  As each grows older they end up returning to their original class, Harry to the wizarding world and Moses to the Israelites, and help them to overcome their oppressors, Voldemort in Harry Potter and the Pharaoh in the Bible story.  I had read the story of Moses way before I even knew what Harry Potter was, but after reading Harry Potter and other works with the same story line I understood that many people in the Bible, like Moses, were actually heroes.   Their lives followed the same outline as a lot of protagonist in modern literature.  If you think about it, it also goes a little further than works of literature, and into people’s everyday lives.  Although the average person isn’t an infant when they leave for college, most people that go to college go off to whatever school, get a degree and better themselves, and then possibly return to the city they came from if they left it, and start a career and a family.  This scenario doesn’t reflect every person, but it is a common one.  They story of the hero is not only one for literature, but one for life as well.

Intertextuality The Lion King

When I think of intertextuality I instantly think of the relationship between Disney's, The Lion King and Shakespeare's, Hamlet.  The two texts share similar characters and moments. Intertextuality is the interaction between two different texts, a text being anything that can be read or interpreted. So, intertextuality would be a new text that has been influenced by an older text. What is the purpose of intertextuality? Why would an author want to incorporate someone else's ideas in his/her own work? Bringing successful elements of one text into another has the potential to enhance the reader's interest and connection with the work since it is familiar and even ironic.
So, in The Lion King Simba born to Sarabi and Mufasa is the prince of the Pride Lands, just like prince Hamlet is the prince of Denmark. The moment where I personally saw the closest connection between the two stories, is when Scar murders his brother Mufasa hoping to one day be in power of the Pride Lands just like when Claudius murders his brother King Hamlet succeeding to the throne of Denmark. Throughout both stories the princes take revenge on their uncle.
Since I saw the movie The Lion King before reading Hamlet, it made reading Hamlet more enjoyable and thrilling since I could relate it to a childhood movie. It also made me value The Lion King more since it is based off of such an important piece of literature.

Intertextuality in popular culture

The most famous family in America

Intertextuality is the main form of comedy in the hit show The Simpsons. In the more than 20 seasons of the show they have recreated many famous texts both new and old. The writers have made references to stories as recent as Them, Robot using the film I, Robot as the bases to classic texts such as Moore’s poem The Night before Christmas in their episode of the same name.

The Simpsons is a great example of Intertextuality because the show will not be funny if you do not understand the texts or events the show is based upon. But if you do not know of the texts the episode is based, you would just think that this family finds themselves in silly events.  I have gone back and read the texts that a specific episode has been referenced and gained a new respect for the writers of the show. The scripts of these episodes show that the writers have a great understanding of the text that they are recreating.

Since the show, which is currently in its 23^rd season, has so many episodes and references that it is hard to pick just a few. One of the first episodes based off of a text is in the first season titled The Night before Christmas based on Clement Clarke Moore’s poem. In the episode, Bart follows the same rhyme as the narrator, yet adapting it to his own version of their family Christmas. In the episode titled Them, Robot based on the popular movie, Homer Simpson’s boss realizes that it would be too expensive in the long run to keep all of the employees at the site so he replaces them all with robots and places Homer in charge. The robots follow the same three rules of robotics as in the movie and take away his Duff beer stating that beer harms humans. Homer tries to reprogram them and they become reprogrammed to kill him. All the laid off employees rally behind Homer and destroy the robots.  Another very simple example is the episode based off of Shakespeare’s play A Midsummers Night Dream called A Midsummers Nice dream where Homer goes to a Cheech and Chong show and when Chong leaves, he takes the stage and recites the whole act from memory and replaces Chong on tour. There is even an epilogue in this episode given by Bart.

It is very easy to identify which stories the Simpsons are recreating if you know the original story. If you happen to not know it though, the episode will be confusing and not as funny of a show that it actually is. The writers of this show are great showing that they understand these texts enough to use the same plot yet make it their own. 

What Do a Bunch of Lions Have to Do With the Prince of Denmark?

            It is said that there are only seven types of stories in the world.  If this is really true, every story uses intertextuality.  One just has to figure out which story comes from which whether it is from a myth, a fairy tale or the Bible. 

            Intertextuality is when “writers find themselves engaged in a relationship with  writers from the past; that relationship plays itself out through the texts, the new one emerging in part through earlier texts that exert influence on the writer in one way or another.”  Writers cannot help but to base their stories off of previous ones but newer writers put their own spin on their new literature. 

An example of this is Disney’s The Lion King and Shakespeare’s Hamlet.  It is plain to see that they follow the same story line. What does a bunch of lions have to do with the Prince of Denmark? First of all, Simba is Hamlet; a young prince whose father is murdered. Both of them wish to avenge their fathers’ deaths but are delayed in their action of retribution. Both of them avoid taking the responsibility of steping up to the throne right away due to their fathers’ absences.  Even the late Kings in both stories have many similarities.  Each of them were murdered by their jealous brothers who want to take the throne and both Kings come back as a “ghost” to provide knowledge for their sons, especially about avenging their deaths. 

Even the secondary characters show a great deal of resemblance. Timon and Pumbaa matches with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  Both pairs of characters, that are good friends of the princes in each of the works are there to lighten the mood. They lead the princes away from their responsabilities and hauntings of their pasts.

Another secondary character is the queens of the murdered kings, Sarabi and Gertrude. They have many close similarities including, having an equal amount of power over their kingdoms, the same spot in the social hierarchy, and emotional ties to the Princes of both stories.

Baby Simba

In conclusion, every modern day story is based off another story from the past due to intertextuality.  Writers cannot help but be inspired by the works that came before theirs.  Some stories are just worth re-telling in as many ways as possible. 

Intertextuality

The most prominent example of intertextuality that comes to my mind is the likeness between The Sound of Waves by Yukio Mishima, and William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Both deal with star-crossed lovers who are fated to be together, but are denied to be together by their families. The Sound of Waves was published in 1954 in Japan, and since it is not a western novel the degree to which Mishima  purposely borrowed from Shakespeare can be left up to debate. However, knowing the story of Romeo and Juliet was of great importance and truly was helpful. 

Taken from flickr.com

The persistent theme of young love leading young people to do rash things plays an ever-important part in each story. The greatest difference in each story lies in the endings. Shinji, the Romeo of the story, is allowed to prove his worth to Hatsue’s father, the Juliet of the story. This does not change the fact that both families are at odds against each other, but for reasons of class and honor, not an age old clash of clans. The primary difference is not that they’re two warring families but that one is wealthy and the other is poor. The commonality between Romeo and Juliet and The Sound of Waves is helpful because The Sound of Waves, being a Japanese romance story, has some themes that are not as relatable for someone who grew up in Western culture. The idea of honor between families is not a common topic in western literature, but being able to relate it to the blood feud that persisted between the Montague’s and Capulet’s allowed for a greater understanding of not only the story but the culture of Japan. 

Finally Shinji proving his love for Hatsue is quite different from Romeo’s tactics. He continually shows his strength and ability as a fisherman to win her over while Romeo is, well, Romeo. This difference in tactics may be substantial but understanding how much Romeo loved Juliet and his ability to articulate it allowed for a greater understanding of what Shinji showed with his brawn. The similarities between The Sound of Waves and Romeo and Juliet allow for a greater understanding of each. 

The Intertextuality of Religious Scriptures

Website for image

This idea may seem odd, or far-fetched to a degree, but with further elaboration, I’m sure you will understand my point. The Judeo-Christian Bible and all of the shared and unshared beliefs that stem from it, try to define how one should live, what comes after life, and how we all got here in the first place.  In terms of intertextuality and honing in on substantial spiritual answers, one must juxtapose the Judeo-Christian traditions with those of the East Asians cultures. In Buddhism, for example, it is a commonly held belief that Heaven and Hell do exist. This is a Christian belief. In Buddhism, however, death on earth may lead to life in Hell. Death in Hell may lead back to Earth, or up to heaven. This is all part of what Buddhists call the karmic cycle. When one is in Heaven or Hell, karma is paid off or settled. If you have good karma, you go to heaven, die, and pay off bad karma in hell, return to the Earth realm to generate more good or bad karma, or in some rare cases, lifted up to a Pure Land governed by a bodhisattva. This “angel”, if you will, governs its own paradise that one has prayed to be admitted to throughout their lifetime. In Christianity you lead a "good" life, and hope to be raptured, or lifted up to Heaven to reside with God and Jesus. Similar. Yet, Different. 

Website for image

            If one truly looks at these concepts and compares them to Western theology, we can find similarities and differences that, in my mind, help clarify our own personal beliefs. Christians believe that if you lead a “proper” or “good” life, as dictated by the New Testament and Jesus Christ, you will be raptured into heaven and live in paradise with God and Jesus. A “good” Christian goes to church constantly, is religious in the household, and observes the Ten Commandments and other general rules and practices of the religion. Well, in Buddhism, you follow the eight-fold, which is surprisingly similar. Why is this important? It is important because a Christian in Iowa and a Buddhist in Japan are both trying to ensure that they will reside in Heaven. For a Christian, they believe they will reside with God and Jesus. For a Buddhist it is a little more complicated. They can reside in Heaven, or pray enough to a certain bodhisattva and enter a specific Pure Land. One could say that Jesus is like a bodhisattva, for he is divine and resides in a Heaven, except that he resides in one general heaven with “God.”

            The point I am trying to illustrate here is that all sacred religious texts deal with similar issues; sometimes in very similar ways. In other cases, most religions differ greatly on issues.  We cannot, however, ignore the commonalties that do exist within these religions.

            Another eye opening example can be found between Judaism and Buddhism. Observant Jews do not do “work” on the Sabbath. They have “Shabbat Clocks” and other gadgets of the sort that turn on lights, turn off fans, operate microwaves, open doors, and so on, during the Sabbath time. For Buddhism, an average westerner would say, “all they do is sit around meditating.” This of course, is false. In the Buddhist monastic tradition meditation is critical, but so is action. Monks are dedicated to prayer, routine, and action. So too are the observant Jews, yet they have their own way of being observant. Both place heavy value on routine or the “right” way of life (as do Christians and Hindus) and both do it in a different way.

Website for image

          Intertextuality is essential to understanding all world religions, and developing a personal approach to spirituality. I believe that in this modern age, with all the tools that we posses, it is almost               disgraceful to ignore the traditions and beliefs around us. We must study every facet of the human belief system, in order to better understand what brings each one of us a sense of security and faith. 

Intertextuality in The Boondock Saints

Immediately, when I hear the word intertextuality, no one story comes to mind. This is probably because the word isn’t in my everyday vocabulary. However, when I sat down and thought about what stories I had read or viewed that contained a dialogue between old and new texts, The Boondock Saints came to mind.

The basic idea of the story is that two brothers accidently killed a number of criminals and got away with it after turning themselves in to the authorities. They viewed this as a sign from God that they should rid evil from the earth. Subsequently, these brothers risk their lives for truth and justice.

IMDB

The Boondock Saints exhibits intertexuality directly in its plot, drawing close references to Robin Hood. Both stories explore the question of whether or not two wrongs make a right. The director uses the dialogue between stories to challenge the viewer’s ethical stance on ‘killing for good’. In addition, in The Boondock Saints there is a hypothetically public reaction to the execution of criminals by the Boondocks, which furthers the conversation on the subject of ‘killing for good’.

            Aside from the intertextuality of the plot, there is a direct reference to Greek Mythology, when the brothers put pennies in the eyes of those who they have killed. Putting coins in the eyes of the dead was a common Greek custom that was practiced to allow the dead pay the ferryman of the underworld to take them to the underworld so their soul wouldn’t be wondering for eternity. There is also a subtle reference to the Holy Trinity between the two brothers and their father.

            The intertexutality in this movie functions in various manners. The intertexuality of the plot challenges the viewer’s ethical stance, as stated earlier. The reference to Greek mythology creates a familiarity with the viewer due to the common place Greek mythology has in our society. And finally, the reference to the Holy Trinity between the two brothers and their fathers is a clever tool to help further instill the idea to the viewers that these three people view themselves as God like figures because they are carrying out the will of God—to rid evil from the world. 

Biblical to Modern Intertextuality

Tom Shadyac's 2007 comedy, Evan Almighty, is a contemporary display of intertextuality through its modernization of the Bible story concerning Noah and his ark, found in the Book of Genesis. The rising action of the film is a series of strange happenstances that occur during the day-to-day life of the main character, Evan, who is played by Steve Carell. The Bible story from which the movie is based tells the story of a man, Noah, who is warned by God that He is sending a flood to wash away mankind for its various sins. God then commands that Noah build an ark out of gopher wood, or modern-day cypress, and bring a pair of each type of animal onto the ark, and He promises that Noah, his family, and the animals will be saved.

         In the film, the weird events start when Evan’s alarm clock repeatedly goes off at 6:14 every morning. The number, 614, begins to appear in multiple areas of Evan’s life. Unbeknownst to him, the number is a reference to the chapter (6) and verse (14) of Genesis in which Noah’s story begins. Older style equipment as well as a shipment of cypress, brought by a company called GO4-WOOD, appears at Evan’s doorstep, obvious references to the Biblical tale. At this point in the movie, Evan has yet to be informed by Morgan Freeman…fittingly played by God…that his life has recently been inspired from an age-old religious text.

         While Evan is still clueless, a state that Carell seems to perform effortlessly throughout the span of his career, intertextuality comes into play as an effect upon the audience’s interpretation of the movie. If the viewer is unfamiliar with the Old Testament, then it just seems like eerie or irrelevant things keep occurring in this man’s life. But for the majority of American cinematic audiences, these specific events are emphatic clues, foreshadowing the entire plot of the movie. Intertextuality is heavily prevalent in modern media because theme and plot ideas have existed for as long as creation, as evidenced by the motifs incorporated from such ancient texts as the Old Testament and the Vedas.