This film 'Oh, Mr Faulkner, Do You Write?' takes its title from an incident during William Faulkner's stint as a Hollywood screenwriter. The director Victor Fleming separately invited Faulkner and Clark Gable (who had never met before) to join him on a duck hunt. (Some versions of this story claim that the director on the duck hunt was Howard Hawks; I think it was Fleming.) On the trip, their discussion turned to literature. Gable asked Faulkner to name, in his opinion, the greatest living authors. Faulkner offered a brief list, ending with his own name. 'Or, Mr Faulkner, do you write?' asked the started Gable. 'Yes, I do, Mr Gable,' said Faulkner. 'What do YOU do?'
At the time, Clark Gable was America's most popular male film star, so Faulkner's response has been regarded as a witty put-down to Gable's lack of literary savvy. However, the screenwriter and science-fiction author Leigh Brackett (who worked with Faulkner on the script of 'The Big Sleep') told me that Faulkner was so deeply oblivious of popular culture (except for literature) that he was probably genuinely unaware of Clark Gable's box-office stardom ... and his reply to Gable -- 'What do YOU do?' -- was a legitimate question!
Which brings me to my review of this film. Actor/writer John Maxwell (who somewhat resembles Faulkner here, at least in make-up) has staged a one-man show about Faulkner's life and work: this film records the stage performance. Maxwell's script, co-written by Tom Dupree, includes the Gable anecdote, but presents it in a manner which flatters Faulkner, implying that he knew exactly who Gable was, and that his reply was meant as a witty put-down. (Full disclosure: Mr Dupree and I are both members of the same professional authors' association, although -- as of this review -- we've never met.)
This entire show, while entertaining, is careful to give only a selective view of Faulkner's life, rather than an honest overview ... picking and choosing its incidents in a manner which flatters Faulkner as much as possible, and which also flatters his hometown of choice: Oxford, Mississippi ... not Faulkner's birthplace but the town in which he chose to live and work for most of his life.
This performance was filmed before a live audience in Oxford. (The one in Mississippi.) The audience make no secret of their enjoyment, but much of their laughter and applause is self-congratulatory. We are given here, as true history, a well-known anecdote about Faulkner which is now believed to be apocryphal. Supposedly, while Faulkner was living in Hollywood and working on a screenplay for Howard Hawks at Warner Brothers, Faulkner complained that he had difficulty working in the Warner studio and asked Hawks for permission to write 'at home' instead. Hawks obliged. A few days later, checking on Faulkner's progress, Hawks rang up Faulkner at the apartment he'd rented in Los Angeles ... and learnt that Faulkner had moved out, to write at HOME in Oxford, Mississippi! It's an amusing story -- and I can well believe that Faulkner would dislike writing in the prison-like building on the Warners lot where Jack L Warner required his scriptwriters to toil -- but it's simply not true. However, Maxwell relates the incident here as if it had happened ... to the great glee of his Oxonian audience.
The play is staged to depict Faulkner in his Oxford studio in 1950, on the eve of his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for Literature, looking back on the life that has brought him to this point. The moment was not randomly selected. The peak of Faulkner's prestige occurred here: NOT when he actually accepted the Nobel Prize, but in the preparatory period when he'd been told he was to receive the award, and was writing his acceptance speech. What Maxwell's play neglects to tell us (intentionally, I'm sure) is that the actual Nobel ceremony was no high point of dignity either for Faulkner himself or for the Nobel committee: Faulkner was drunk when he gave his acceptance speech, disgracing himself and embarrassing everyone else. This is documented fact; if you don't believe me, look it up.
Indeed, Maxwell's play tiptoes round the subject of Faulkner's alcoholism: a dishonest decision, since it affected so much of his life and his writing. We are told one point in Faulkner's favour: he apparently never drank while writing, and also never claimed that alcohol improved his writing. However, we are never told here about any of the many, many occasions when Faulkner's indulgence had detrimental effects on his health or his writing. By setting this play in 1950, Maxwell is able to omit the drunken equestrian incident in 1962 which led to Faulkner's death from pneumonia. Instead, we get a few winking comments about how Faulkner liked his bourbon.
This one-man show achieved what it set out to do: depict William Faulkner's life and career (and his relationship with his hometown) in a manner that would flatter him and the citizens of Oxford, Mississippi, rather than offer an honest overview. This film largely succeeds at what it set out to do -- rather than what I wish it had done -- and on that account I'll give it a high rating of 7 out of 10.
At the time, Clark Gable was America's most popular male film star, so Faulkner's response has been regarded as a witty put-down to Gable's lack of literary savvy. However, the screenwriter and science-fiction author Leigh Brackett (who worked with Faulkner on the script of 'The Big Sleep') told me that Faulkner was so deeply oblivious of popular culture (except for literature) that he was probably genuinely unaware of Clark Gable's box-office stardom ... and his reply to Gable -- 'What do YOU do?' -- was a legitimate question!
Which brings me to my review of this film. Actor/writer John Maxwell (who somewhat resembles Faulkner here, at least in make-up) has staged a one-man show about Faulkner's life and work: this film records the stage performance. Maxwell's script, co-written by Tom Dupree, includes the Gable anecdote, but presents it in a manner which flatters Faulkner, implying that he knew exactly who Gable was, and that his reply was meant as a witty put-down. (Full disclosure: Mr Dupree and I are both members of the same professional authors' association, although -- as of this review -- we've never met.)
This entire show, while entertaining, is careful to give only a selective view of Faulkner's life, rather than an honest overview ... picking and choosing its incidents in a manner which flatters Faulkner as much as possible, and which also flatters his hometown of choice: Oxford, Mississippi ... not Faulkner's birthplace but the town in which he chose to live and work for most of his life.
This performance was filmed before a live audience in Oxford. (The one in Mississippi.) The audience make no secret of their enjoyment, but much of their laughter and applause is self-congratulatory. We are given here, as true history, a well-known anecdote about Faulkner which is now believed to be apocryphal. Supposedly, while Faulkner was living in Hollywood and working on a screenplay for Howard Hawks at Warner Brothers, Faulkner complained that he had difficulty working in the Warner studio and asked Hawks for permission to write 'at home' instead. Hawks obliged. A few days later, checking on Faulkner's progress, Hawks rang up Faulkner at the apartment he'd rented in Los Angeles ... and learnt that Faulkner had moved out, to write at HOME in Oxford, Mississippi! It's an amusing story -- and I can well believe that Faulkner would dislike writing in the prison-like building on the Warners lot where Jack L Warner required his scriptwriters to toil -- but it's simply not true. However, Maxwell relates the incident here as if it had happened ... to the great glee of his Oxonian audience.
The play is staged to depict Faulkner in his Oxford studio in 1950, on the eve of his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for Literature, looking back on the life that has brought him to this point. The moment was not randomly selected. The peak of Faulkner's prestige occurred here: NOT when he actually accepted the Nobel Prize, but in the preparatory period when he'd been told he was to receive the award, and was writing his acceptance speech. What Maxwell's play neglects to tell us (intentionally, I'm sure) is that the actual Nobel ceremony was no high point of dignity either for Faulkner himself or for the Nobel committee: Faulkner was drunk when he gave his acceptance speech, disgracing himself and embarrassing everyone else. This is documented fact; if you don't believe me, look it up.
Indeed, Maxwell's play tiptoes round the subject of Faulkner's alcoholism: a dishonest decision, since it affected so much of his life and his writing. We are told one point in Faulkner's favour: he apparently never drank while writing, and also never claimed that alcohol improved his writing. However, we are never told here about any of the many, many occasions when Faulkner's indulgence had detrimental effects on his health or his writing. By setting this play in 1950, Maxwell is able to omit the drunken equestrian incident in 1962 which led to Faulkner's death from pneumonia. Instead, we get a few winking comments about how Faulkner liked his bourbon.
This one-man show achieved what it set out to do: depict William Faulkner's life and career (and his relationship with his hometown) in a manner that would flatter him and the citizens of Oxford, Mississippi, rather than offer an honest overview. This film largely succeeds at what it set out to do -- rather than what I wish it had done -- and on that account I'll give it a high rating of 7 out of 10.
