William Faulkner

At 24 minutes, it would be difficult for the film to provide any episodes—much less the entirety—of the author’s life with any depth at all. Indeed, the film can only provide audiences with a very superficial, chronological retelling of significant events in Faulkner’s life. Other than vague biographical information on the writer’s early disappointment in love, difficulties enlisting in World War I, and his later alcoholism, the film is strictly and linearly chronological: dates of publications of his various titles are recited with significant personal points alluded to therein. Audiences learn that, born in 1897, Faulkner met Sherwood Anderson in New Orleans in 1925, published Soldier’s Pay in 1926, introduced the Yoknapatawpha County characters in 1929’s Sartoris, won the Nobel Prize in 1950, died in 1962, and so on.

While the author’s innovative use of multiple points of view and shifting temporal streams is mentioned as Faulkner’s groundbreakingly significant contribution to American letters, the film might, ironically, benefit from adopting these techniques to provide a much more evocative and entertaining film. We are told that Faulkner’s childhood in a decayed American South impacted his writing, but it is difficult for the film to make convincing proof for this. As such a superficial recounting of biographical points, for instance, the film only points out that Faulkner was denied entry into the United States WWI forces “because of his height.” Why not say that he was too short? Similarly, Faulkner’s “alcoholism and womanizing” is mentioned only once, as are his frequent sanitarium visits. Due to this glossing over of “real life” events, the film may present Faulkner as a significant author, but not really a real person.

Geared toward high school audiences, of course, some of Faulkner’s social missteps necessarily must be bowdlerized, as it were. On the other hand, given the recitations of Faulkner’s sometimes coarse language, it is difficult to see why the film would not explore these “touchy” subjects a bit more deeply. Even in the brief excursions away from bullet points regarding his publication schedule, the intended audience would probably be interested to learn why Faulkner wrote the admittedly lurid and sensationalistic Sanctuary simply to make some quick money. And what about his excursion to Hollywood...? Surely this episode in his life impacted Faulkner, either as author or person.

Though the film mentions many potentially interesting points regarding the writer, it is unclear how his personal experiences lead to his works, or how the professional struggle he assumed impacted his personal life. Since the film hints that the relationship between thought and deed (as proven by his use of interior monologues, for example) was central to Faulkner’s work and success (and failure), it is somewhat disconcerting that the film, then, insists on such a pedantic recounting of Faulkner’s chronology. William Faulkner is, oddly, very non-Faulknerian!

That said, the film provides a potentially useful overview of the author’s life, and may allow for some potentially interesting classroom discussion and further research. Unfortunately, there is nothing expressed in the film that is not available to interested audiences via standard reference sources. In all, William Faulkner is not recommended for collections of American studies or writing.