There’s a new emotional currency in Hollywood, and it’s called “intertextuality.” As explained by Nerdwriter1, it’s something shaped by another text, and that can be the silent first reveal of the Millennium Falcon seen in “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” or the presentation of the red rose, alongside the words “Be Our Guest,” in the first trailer for the live-action “Beauty and the Beast,” just to name two recent examples. Although it relates to movies in these cases, the device is as old as storytelling itself. It’s how language works. It is how it was always informed. But today, there’s a new intertextuality coming about in the moviemaking system, and that’s the basis behind this six-minute video essay, as seen above.
READ MORE: The Importance And Impact Of Composition In Cinematic Storytelling
In a time when endless sequels, remakes, reboots, adaptations, shared universes and franchise-builders populate the Hollywood system, intertextuality is the new re-enforced norm in big-screen storytelling. And that aforementioned “Star Wars” moment perfectly encapsulates that movement in a nutshell, or when Han Solo and Chewbacca board the ship, or when BB-8 “unknowingly” pulls the cover away from R2-D2. The emotion of the movement is felt from what we’ve seen and felt before, whisked back in our collective memories as they’re re-introduced in their modern format. These are now, as our narrator puts it, “objects, people or situations explicitly meant to trigger an emotional response.” So it’s not merely intertextuality these days; it’s “weaponized intertextuality.” And that might be a problem, as filmmakers today are starting to use this more-and-more as “a dramatic substitute” for the real deal.
We’ve seen this method used in “The Hobbit” films, “Star Trek Into Darkness,” “Spectre” and “Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice.” And at worst, the results can be a little cheap, and disturbingly pretty empty. With “The Angry Birds Movie” hitting theaters this past weekend, and “Finding Dory,” “Ghostbusters,” “Independence Day: Resurgence,” “Jason Bourne,” “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” “Warcraft” and “Star Trek Beyond” coming soon, we’ll be expectedly flooded with “weaponized intertextuality” at every single turn. But that’s not to say it’s outright bad, or the be-all, end-all to emotionally-rewarding filmmaking. It’s a just a matter of how they are used. As long as they’re not a substitute for good storytelling, we should be okay. But let’s just hope they use it wisely, and they don’t repeat their same mistakes.
Thoughts? Let us know in the comments section.
You know, people who read books have known the term “intertextuality” for quite a lot of time now. It’s been in literary criticism sphere for a while. Nothing new. It transpired to movies? Also nothing new.
In case of The Force Awakens, I didn’t feel it as some kind of “emotionally-rewarding filmmaking”, but rather a cheap ploy to lure the fans of the previous series. It didn’t even anger me (anger is an emotion), it was just a blatant try to incorporate older mythology. Nothing else.
To be clear, nobody is saying intertextuality is necessary new by itself. The first paragraph even states that it’s as “old as storytelling.” What’s new is the idea of “weaponized intertextuality” in the modern movie climate. And, again, nobody is suggesting these are necessarily emotionally rewarding by themselves, but rather the opposite when used inefficiently, or when the viewer isn’t connected to the emotional resonance brought by these specific image, characters and moments. I think you indirectly stated the video editor’s point while trying to argue against it.