With our biggest event of the year being Higbridge Film Festival and the Miller Communications building being a museum, it makes sense that this campus is very focused on the arts, particularly film. Initially, this is what drew me to Asbury: the film program. I watch a lot of movies. It’s what I want to do. Last year, I averaged about two movies a day, and by New Years, I was far from regretting how much time I’d spent consuming films. However, I did regret how little I’d consumed other media. I’d shelved books, music and television shows, forms of media I indeed enjoy but definitely don’t prefer, in order to watch more movies. This year, my resolution has been to find balance in what I consume.
Media is vital to society. At its core, it’s all just storytelling. Whether it’s fiction or non-fiction, news, photography, live television, books, films, music and video games are all different methods of storytelling, and each plays a critical role in how we interact.
Neuroeconomist Paul J. Zak has spent most of his career studying brain imaging in regards to decision-making, and he was one of the first people to connect the neurochemical oxytocin to mediating trust between humans. Since then, oxytocin has often been connected to empathy. One of Zak’s many experiments took a look at the difference of an individual’s oxytocin levels before and after watching a “classic dramatic arc,” as he writes in his published paper “Why Inspiring Stories Make Us React: The Neuroscience of Narrative.”
“Oxytocin infusion increases prosocial behaviors,” he writes, later saying, “The experience I had watching Million Dollar Baby caused me to wonder if movies, in addition to direct personal interactions, would cause oxytocin release.” The results of the experiment were positive; his hypothesis was correct. Those who watched the material meant to promote empathy had much higher levels of oxytocin than those in the control group.
Now, a fairly generalized definition of media literacy could be stated as the broadened conceptualization of literature, viewing various forms of mass media as literary works to be analyzed and understood on a deeper level. These forms of mass media include everything I’ve previously listed, and so, if each holds a story or narrative, the concept of this biological reaction of an oxytocin release being a direct response to an emotional narrative should then be applicable to any form of media, film or not.
How, though, does oxytocin or empathy relate to my personal level of media intake?
Media plays a vital role in both our individual interactions and our societal interactions. Mainly because narratives evoke feelings in us, and the result of such is a neurological reaction of oxytocin or empathy. Empathy means connection. Media, and art in general, fosters connection.
Film is what drew me to Asbury, but connection is what drew me to film.
A prime example of such would be the recent release of “Hamnet” directed by Chloe Zhao. At its core, it’s a tragedy, focusing on the death of Shakespeare’s son and the resulting creation of Hamlet, and with all the critiques floating around as Oscars approach, one distinct opinion sticks out: “Hamnet” is emotionally manipulative Oscar-bait. One of the followers of this critique, Hannah Brown, writes in an article, “Buckley, playing Agnes, wails in scenes when their 11-year-old contracts the bubonic plague and passes away, in just the kind of over-the-top performance, sometimes described as a tour de force, which generally wins Oscars.”
Since its release, a multitude of people have gone to see this movie and walked away in tears, deeply moved by its heavy themes. Despite each of our unique perspectives, these themes have connected all of us, bringing us into a multi-layered conversation on literature, its inspirations and its resulting emotional impact. While the film may have been primarily focused on Agnes, it does not shy away from Shakespeare and his own journey of grief. After all, it is his grief that shines in the last fifteen minutes, giving us Hamlet and the public’s universal reaction to its tragedy. In that moment, even in the fictional world of “Hamnet,” the audience of the Globe Theater is connected, all quite literally reaching out to the story. While the film may be presented in a familiar fashion that lets it fall prey to the Oscar-bait buzz, this stylistic fact should not impede the audience’s interpretation of the material.
For me, “Hamnet” was an incredibly emotional narrative. It fostered connection in ways I didn’t know were possible. Last year, though, I lost sight of connections unique to other forms of media, and this year, my goal is to remedy that lack. It’s only been a month and already I’ve noticed a difference; I’m able to hold deeper conversations and better understand those around me. It’s my way of connecting. Everything is better in moderation, yes, but it’s also important, at least for me, to remember that no matter how much media is consumed, intention with art should be based in connection and understanding.
