Heritage in “Everyday Use”

Heritage in “Everyday Use” and the Film: Definitions and Solutions

In the history of American literature, a significant amount of writing efforts has been seen exerted in exploring the meaning of cultural heritage as well as its deep impacts on the people who are constantly demanded to deal with their past and objects related to the heritage. Alice Walker is unquestionably one author who harvests success in the sense of vividly displaying this theme through her short story that features complex conflicts within one African-American family. By relying on respective advantages from two representing mediums, Walker’s “Everyday Use”, and its same-name adaptation directed by Bruce Schwartz in 2003, jointly paints a full picture of the struggles and conflicting attitudes around the legacy left by previous generations of Black families. By putting two works together, this essay gives a detailed review of Walker ad Schwartz’s tackling approaches in accomplishing their goals and illustrates benefits of their creations. It shows that two major aspects, perceptions of the significance of family heritage in the Johnson’s (Question 4) and two daughters’ differing solutions to the issue (Question 6), are crucial to understanding two works’ of achievement of themes and viewing effects.

In the short story, three major characters’ interpretations of the importance of heritage, both material and spiritual, serves as one useful instrument for Walker to announce her definition of it and the value of preservation. Through a series of actions, combined with a first-person perspective, the construction of Mrs. Johnson, Dee, and Maggie’s mama, plays a vital role in representing Walker’s insight. Visible details stem from Mrs. Johnson’s self-introduction that she works willingly and diligently through using her “man-looking hands (Alice Walker pp.72)” and finds milking cows even a soothing job. This example underscores a fact that Mrs. Johnson is in comfort with her identity as a keeper of family traditions that involve the agricultural work and a practical lifestyle. Deepened by her eventual decision of giving the family quilts to Maggie, Mrs. Johnson’s perception embodies Walker’s theory over the daily function of cultural heritage. This method forms a striking contrast to Dee’s behavior. Without any doubt, Dee’s articulation that the quilts, as an heirloom, should be hung on walls due to their artistic usage exists as a contradiction of opinions. The result of depriving Dee of the right of owning the quilts efficiently helps Walker arrive at her goal of restating the historical legacy’s values that could only be realized through daily activities (Juan R. Velazquez Retrieved in 2016).

In the film, mainly due to the abundant advantages accumulated by multiple means of expressions, depictions of characters’ attachments to the African heritage exhibits a higher degree of authenticity. One instance emerges in the scene where Mrs. Johnson and Dee gathers inside the house and quarrels over who should get the quilts. As the camera slowly moves and turns the lenses on half lengths of bodies of two characters, Mrs. Johnson’s claim that “She can make some more, Maggie knows how to quilt (Bruce Schwartz 2006)”, aided by the actress’s excellent performance that characterizes a firm voice, enhances the central subject of inheritance from previous generations. By an ingenious use of filming techniques and strong acting, this arrangement evidently intensifies the conflict as visions and hearing abilities of viewers are adequately stimulated to witness the Mother-daughter encounter.

Another aspect that could equally manifest Walker’s superb writing skills consists in her revelation of two sisters’ nearly opposite points of views and sharply different processing methods to the true heritage. Proofs able to illustrate distinctions of Dee and Maggie come from the description given by Mrs. Johnson. According to the Mama in Walker’s story, Maggie, injured by the house fire, stands “hopelessly in corners”, “ashamed of the burn scars”, and couldn’t read quickly (Alice Walker pp.73). The information helps build an image of extreme shyness shaped by physical and psychological damages: bodily scars and full awareness of her lack of formal education. Walker’s large capacity in employing the character is showcased as Maggie utters that she is capable of remembering Grandma Dee without keeping the quilts. This radical change from silence and timidity to a suddenly brave statement is one potent device that Walker adopts to reinforce the theme around the nature of honoring the heritage without necessarily possessing them. An apparent contrast is made by Dee’s ambitious and pitiless attitude that remains consistently unchanged in the short story. Dee’s consistency of domination is suggested when she gives criticism on Maggie and Mrs. Johnson’s lack of understanding of the meaning of “heritage” and justifies her position in terms of being qualified to keep the quilts. The ironic effect is achieved as Walker constructs an ending where Dee leaves her African family without taking away anything. It belongs to one part of Walker’s purpose of emphasizing the real sense of family object preserved through everyday protections and full usage.

To clarify the contrast evidenced by Dee and Maggie’s recognitions of the concept of heritage, during developing the plots, Schwartz applies a variety of filming techniques, including fantastic cinematography that features unique angles, inviting dialogues and artful plots. One place that can demonstrate the film’s enormous advantages lies in the remarkable scene where three main characters confront inside the room about the pursuit of the old quilts. Two close-up shots, with one employed on Maggie’s resolute face, and the other used on Dee’s widely open eyes that reveals a surprise, combined with Mrs. Johnson’s unfinished line that “Dee, Wangero, how can you… (Bruce Schwartz 2006)”, fully reflects two profoundly different ideals regarding what heritage means. Dee’s understanding, which was observed as empty and false (Sparknotes Retrieved in 2016), meets a stronger enemy embodied by the suitable perception of Maggie as well as Mrs. Johnson. They are the people who maintain a deep connection with their ancestors through knowing and sympathizing with their work that contains valuable home-made elements. Schwartz utilizes this well-knit plot as one powerful vehicle to illuminate the true essence of paying tribute to traditions and their enduring products that could solidify the emotional bond through practical use. To the largest degree, it reminds the audience of the real sense and the exact way of extending the family lines that has been repeatedly emphasized in Walker’s short story.

Whether it’s the different definitions of the significance of ancestral heritage or the opposite embracing approaches given by Dee and Maggie, Walker’s story and its film version, when dealing with these elements, maximize their strongest potentials of communications with global viewers. By acquiring help from the vigor of written words, Walker, in her story, lays a solid foundation made up of a clear explanation of themes involving symbols of heritage and educational layers in the most appropriate solution to inheritance. Schwartz’s work, on the other side, delivers an innovative filming language through adopting a rich set of narrative and formal means demonstrative of the highest level of the art of adaptation. Each of the two works forms an indispensable channel with the minds of the audience during representing family identities and traditional roots, meanwhile, expounding on the real nature of preservation through actual daily contacts.