Joyce Carol Oates: A Body in the Service of Mind

Telling the story of a talented and prolific artist can be quite a challenge: What should be included? What should be excluded? And how should the narrative effectively fuse the personal and professional sides of the artist's life? It's a task that's easy to get wrong (and, unfortunately, it happens far too often in many contemporary film biographies). So it's indeed comforting to see one that gets things right, as is the case with this well-crafted documentary about writer Joyce Carol Oates, author of more than 100 books (many of them award winners) in multiple genres, both under her own name and several pseudonyms. On top of that, though, she has also developed a renowned reputation as a professor and as an outspoken and eloquent liberal social and political critic, both through her writings and social media posts. Writer-director Stig Björkman's latest presents a comprehensive, articulate and skillfully organized profile of Oates, showing how her meager beginnings played a role in her love of writing and the views she embraced upon coming of age, themes repeatedly reflected in her prose. The film accomplishes all this in a clear, concise, balanced, economically packaged offering, making its points about her public and personal lives without unduly belaboring them and backing them up with voice-over readings from her books by Laura Dern. If I had any complaint about this release, it would be that its ending seems a bit abrupt and truncated, almost as if the filmmaker didn't quite know how to suitably wrap up the project. There's really no need for this, either, given that the picture's efficient 1:34:00 runtime is far from excessive. That aside, however, this is an otherwise-excellent overview of a writer whose works truly deserve all the gracious attention and praise that they receive, providing Oates's fans with a fitting tribute of the author and viewers unfamiliar with her books plenty of good reason to give them a serious look.

I wrote an entire review and then got bumped and it's all missing now. So I'm not going to try to reinvent my words I am frustrated with this system. I will say I feel this was worth a great deal getting to know Joyce Carol Oates through this documentary and I recommend it highly. Now you won't allow me to even do this without 600 total characters very very frustrating so you're never going to get me to do this again on your site just so you know. That is purely ridiculous to demand a certain number of characters completely disrespectful to my time. And now I'm just blabbing just to fill it up to use the remaining characters.. most likely you won't even post this. A shame.

I have never read Joyce Carol Oats because I am not fond of her subjects. But I had just seen the good bio-pic "Blonde" based on her book. So while looking for my next film to watch I came across this film and thought if she could write a good biography of Marilyn Monroe maybe this might be OK. It wasn't.

I have seen many bio-pics, many quite good. As a writer myself, non-fiction, many have been about writers, artists or musicians. Creative people. But my first rule of a good bio-pic is that the subject should not be actually in the film. Preferably dead. There is nothing like interviews of the subject to make a bio-pic boring. There should be a story, perhaps accurate, maybe not so accurate as was "Blonde". We want to get a feel for the person. Maybe some of her writing, or her books, films, art, music etc. Especially popular music, here is where extended performances are much better than 15 second clips. There was some of this here, the most effective were written rather than spoken. But mostly for those of us who maybe did not know much about her. There can be some film clips of events pertaining to her life, but again don't overdo it.

But most of all, professional actors, often several, should play parts of the subject's life. The writer of the bio-pic can more efficiently portray an idea than a random clip of the subject herself. Fiction is usually better than real life.

Frankly I was not very engaged by this film and didn't come away with an appreciation of her as a person or writer. I may run out and read her book "Blonde" to see how it compared to the film but I am quite sure I will not read many other of her books. They should have Oat's book which knows how to do it right before attempting this film.

I have long admired the talent of Joyce Carol Oates. She can tell a good story and knows how to flesh out a character. But she is not a philosopher or in a position to give her opinions on the prevailing presidency as if she is an authority on such matters. She is a prolific writer and knows how to string words together in a poetic and touching way. But when she gives speeches on the the state of the union or declares that the state of humanity now is absurdity because we have elected such and such, she falls flat. She is not fascinating or dynamic and exemplifies the introvert. This does not make for dramatic viewing.

She is frail and shy and not really dynamic and is not qualified to speak on subjects outside her field. It's like asking star basketball players about their social and political concerns. They may be very astute if they talk about game strategies, psychological approaches to the game, spiritual approaches to their fears and how they deal with fame. But if they start bringing in what is supposed to be an informed opinion about what is going on in the world politically, I am not going to give too much credence to them.

Joyce Carol Oates spent her life in isolation and quiet, as most writers must. Writers are cerebral, introspective, and through their art can shed light on the human condition. But to use a gathering for literary enlightenment as a podium for denouncing the presidency is beyond her talents and purpose as a speaker. I was very disappointed that the director led with her political beliefs at the outset of the film. She is not a very interesting person and therefore he may have been trying to add some sort of controversy or action to the movie. It ended up infuriating me on a number of levels. She's a storyteller. Period. She is not the voice of the people.

Art is a thing of beauty and is not a propaganda organ for political views, such as the wooden Soviet Union "artworks" that are there to spur people to work harder for the state. Let creativity reign when it comes to art and leave out the social reform. Some may argue that Dickens' works spurred much social reform as he brought the plight of the poor and needy to light in Victorian England. But that was a byproduct of his inspired writing. In Oates' case, she is not a political writer and has as much clout as the Kardashians or film starlets when it comes to an educated outlook on political systems. I would have liked to have seen more depth of character in her instead of the schoolmarmish moralism that thinks the world can be saved by the right president.