The Books: Slouching Towards Bethlehem: ‘Notes From a Native Daughter’, by Joan Didion

A fourth excerpt from the essay collection:

Slouching Towards Bethlehem, by Joan Didion

Joan Didion has many topics that obsess her. Crime, narrative, real estate, language, to name a few. One of her obsessions is her home state, California (and, interestingly, these other obsessions (crime, narrative, real estate, language) could be seen as “having to do” with California. She moved to New York as a young woman and lived there for almost a decade before returning to California. Perhaps it was her “time of exile” that allowed her to see her home state in such a unique clear-eyed way. She comes back to the state, again and again and again in her essays, and wrote an entire book about California a couple years ago called Where I Was From. She writes about land, she writes about water, she writes about the defense industry which is huge in California, she writes about the Getty, she writes about the freeways. She can’t get enough. Her vision is not rose-colored. There’s more of an investigative spirit behind all of it. There are narratives beneath the accepted story lines, of a person, a place, a time, and it is that underlying narrative Didion is always after. The vision one gets of California, just by hearing the name, doesn’t “explain” it. It is often a sentimentalized vision. Or one thing pops up: “Hollywood”, as though the entire state can be defined by that one industry. And, indeed, in many ways, it can.

Didion thinks about these things. She worries about them. She has been worrying about them for years. You can still feel her squinting at the streets of Sacramento, or Malibu, thinking, “What is really going on here?”

Her essay “Notes From a Native Daughter” is about her home town, Sacramento.

Excerpt from Slouching Towards Bethlehem, by Joan Didion

It should be clear by now that the truth about the place is elusive, and must be tracked with caution. You might go to Sacramento tomorrow and someone (although no one I know) might take you out to Aerojet-General, which has, in the Sacramento phrase, “something to do with rockets”. Fifteen thousand people work for Aerojet, almost all of them imported; a Sacramento lawyer’s wife told me, as evidence of how Sacramento was opening up, that she believed she had met one of them, at an open house two Decembers ago. (“Couldn’t have been nicer, actually,” she added enthusiastically. “I think he and his wife bought the house next door to Mary and Al, something like that, which of course was how they met him.”) So you might go to Aerojet and stand in the big vendors’ lobby where a couple of thousand components salesmen try every week to sell their wares and you might look up at the electrical wallboard that lists Aerojet personnel, their projects and their location at any given time, and you might wonder if I have been in Sacramento lately. MINUTEMAN, POLARIS, TITAN, the lights flash, and all the coffee tables are littered with airline schedules, very now, very much in touch.

But I could take you a few miles from there into towns where the banks still bear names like The Bank of Alex Brown, into towns where the one hotel still has an octagonal-tile floor in the dining room and dusty potted palms and big ceiling fans; into towns where everything – the seed business, the Harvester franchise, the hotel, the department store and the main street – carries a single name, the name of the man who built the town. A few Sundays ago I was in a town like that, a town smaller than that, really, no hotel, no Harvester franchise, the bank burned out, a river town. It was the golden anniversary of some of my relatives and it was 110° and the guests of honor sat on straight-backed chairs in front of a sheaf of gladioluses in the Rebekah Hall. I mentioned visiting Aerojet-General to a cousin I saw there, who listened to me with interested disbelief. Which is the true California? That is what we all wonder.

Posted in Books | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“MICHAEL!”

It’s Bobby Darin’s birthday. I will take this opportunity to post one of my favorite clips from the Judy Garland TV Show, of Darin singing “Michael Row the Boat Ashore”. It’s so coiled and intense, a bit psychotic, with the “Poor Jud is dead” set, and his one hand clenched in a fist. So intense. Shouting “Michael” is a common phrase in my group of friends. We all love this performance. Happy birthday, Bobby Darin.

Posted in Music | 5 Comments

“This Project Has Set Me Free.” – Shelagh Carter, Director of Passionflower

Shelagh Carter is a filmmaker based in Winnipeg, and she has also worked in New York and Los Angeles. A woman of many talents, she got her start in film and television when she founded Casting in Stone Inc., a casting agency in Canada. She is a Professor of Theatre and Film at the University of Winnipeg, and a graduate of the prestigious Canadian Film Centre’s Directors Lab in Toronto. She also received her MFA in Directing from the Actors Studio Masters Program at the New School, a member of the second graduating class. We were in the same class, and became fast friends on the first day of orientation when we both hurried back from lunch together so as not to be late. She is a member of the Actors Studio. She has directed many award-winning short films, and “Passionflower”, which emerged during her time at the Canadian Film Center, is her first feature. She wrote the script as well. Filmed entirely in Winnipeg in 14 days, “Passionflower” is currently traveling the film festival circuit, and recently won the Platinum Remi award for best Dramatic Original Feature at the Houston International Film Festival.

See my review of “Passionflower” here.

Check out my interview with lead actress Kristen Harris here.

I got Shelagh on the phone recently to talk about her experience directing “Passionflower”.


Darcy Fehr and Kristen Harris, “Passionflower”

Sheila O’Malley: Talk to me about the shoot.

Shelagh Carter: I was sincerely blessed on this shoot by the team around me. Everyone believed in the script. Some of these folks who came to work on it were very very experienced people that usually work on all the American films, but they loved the script and they wanted to make it happen for me. We only had 14 days. That’s what our budget would allow as an indie film.

SOM: How do you compile your team and then get them all on the same page with what you want to create? Because you can feel it on the screen.


Lyle Bernard Morris

SC: Andrew Forbes, who shot it, read the script and he just got it.

SOM: How did you find him?

SC: My producer, Polly Washburn, had gone earlier through the Canadian Film Center, and she suggested people to me. Andrew was the one she felt would be copacetic with me from the work she’d seen him do. I definitely looked at reels. Andrew and I had so much fun working together. We’re very simpatico in terms of the look we wanted. And my editor, Mike Reisacher, had gone through CFC, and had already worked with the art director, crazy Richardo Alms, fabulous guy. Richardo had come off of Guy Maddin‘s Keyhole. He’s Guy Maddin’s guy, but he’s done a lot of my short films. I found the right costume person, Lauren Martin, but with all of them, I would present visuals. And of course you see the influence of the 60s there, you see it with Mad Men, so Andrew and Lauren had a reference of that time, and they love what they do, so they just researched, researched, researched. It was about chemistry. I hope all the films I get to do have this wonderful chemistry. Polly and I have had experiences where we’ve met difficult people in positions of power that bring in negativity to a set. It’s so unnecessary and we were determined not to have that, so we made sure that those key positions were with people that were respectful.


Kassidy Love Brown

SOM: The camera work is subtle, and doesn’t call attention to itself. It’s very classical filmmaking. The scene where Sarah (Kassidy Brown) and her friend Charlie (Mitchell Kummen) are walking, and it’s windy, with those green leaves rustling, and it’s a dolly track, following them, and he says, “Til tomorrow?” And then he runs off and he’s in a blur in the background and you see him, blurry, hugging his mother, and Sarah’s watching. It’s so simple, a mother hugging her son when he comes home from school, but this little girl doesn’t have that. She’s going back to this fraught anxious home, and it’s all in that camera move.

SC: I was told once to never trust a camera operator who doesn’t know how to dance. It’s really true. I favor moving cameras that feel the performance without leading the performance. The inspiration, finally, for some of that was The Godfather. This came from Andrew. He was watching a particular scene in The Godfather where they would tell so much information with a very simple camera move. We filmed in order as much as we could, and of course the house was also a character. Every night before the next day, the AD, Daniel Lavoie, who was lovely, I’d worked with him before, and Andrew and I, would walk the next day’s scenes. We’d have a plan and then if something disastrous happened, like we blew a light or whatever, we would improvise, but we always had a plan. It was Andrew’s first feature, it was Lauren’s first feature, everybody wanted to get behind me. We have this reputation in Manitoba now of being one of the best sets the professionals have ever worked on.

SOM: How was it for you, filming your first feature?

SC: This project has set me free. I love being on a film set. The moment I stepped on one years ago, I knew I’d come home. Even more than theatre, for me. The theatre has given me all kinds of other stuff that has been so critical, it has grounded me in truth, in terms of choices and the language and being in the moment. But it’s cinema for me that tells the story.


Kristen Harris

SOM: Let’s talk about the script. Clearly, you’re being very open in interviews and at QAs that the story is autobiographical.

SC: Yes.

SOM: So talk about developing the script and when you decided that this was the one.


Kassidy Love Brown

SC: I think what started to solidify it was when I was accepted into the Canadian Film Center. We had to send in two feature film treatments. I had written about my mum and me and the cat [a key event in the script]. I had written it as a short film around that time, and I showed it to my friend John and he said, “Shelagh, I think this is actually a feature, for some reason.” Scenes started to come to me, all kinds of scenes, they were all over the map. To the best of my ability I wrote a treatment. It was called Hello Darling at the time. I sent it in. And when I was at the Film Center, we were supposed to do an introductory piece to what our features might be, and one of the advisors said, “You’re not ready to do Hello Darling” and one of the other advisors, John Paizs, who I actually knew from Winnipeg, said, “Nope, I think that’s the one she should do.” I wrote the party scene and I did a six minute short. It was the first time that I started to think about it as a feature.


Cindy Marie Small and Kristen Harris

SC: It was on my reel, and I left CFC, I come back to Winnipeg, and I get introduced to Polly. I don’t know her from Adam, I just know she’s been recommended, and she looks at Hello Darling and she said, “That’s the one we’re gonna do.” By that time in my life, I had woken up to the experience I had with John Cassavetes and A Woman Under the Influence. When I was 18, and really struggling with my mum, a really smart teacher pulled me out of class one day and said, “Hey, we’re going to the movies” and it was Cassavetes’ Woman Under the Influence. And I’m looking up at the screen, and there’s Gena Rowlands, and I think, “My God, that’s my mother.”


Gena Rowlands in “A Woman Under the Influence”

SC: And people started to laugh behind me, they began to laugh at her. And Sheila, I swear to God, I was up over those seats, I was gonna deck them, I was so mad. My teacher was pulling me off of them. And it was at that moment, at 18, that I realized that I loved my mother.


Kristen Harris

SC: I met Polly in November, 2009, and she said “We’re gonna make this film. I’m going to the Olympics in Vancouver, and I’m going to talk to Telefilm out there because they’re the funding people. We’re not going to worry about going into development, we’re going to go straight to production.” With her believing in me, in January I took a screenwriting course. I got a structure going, and I would send it to Polly. She’s a wonderful editor. I met with Telefilm in Vancouver, and they knew me from my shorts. I told them, “We’re going to make this film out in the prairies, and you want to be part of it? Because we’re gonna make it anyway.” I happened to take some of my drawings, of the Vargas girls, and they loved the drawings. By April, we submitted it. We had three tough phone calls. By June 1, we had the go-ahead. Because I had to be back to work in September, we had to film in August, and that’s what we did. It just came out of me. I was ready. I think I was the only director that showed up at the CFC where they didn’t think of me as a writer. I didn’t think of myself as a writer, and that was based on my mother telling me that that wasn’t my thing, and me buying into it. So it was also breaking that spell.


Blake Taylor and Darcy Fehr

SOM: One of my favorite lines in the film is from the doctor who visits the house: “You’re a smart man, David. Call me.” It’s a great line. That whole scene, where the doctor shows up, is terrific. There’s the embarrassment of mental illness, and clearly her game face by that point is pretty bad. The doctor is seeing everything. He knows that he is in the presence of flagrant mental illness. The structure of the script is so good that way.

SC: That was one of the things I fought for. People would say, “Where’s your turning point?” And I would say, “You have to trust me. It’s there.”

SOM: Obviously if you’re filming in 14 days, the planning has to be intense.

SC: It was very intense.

SOM: Can I ask you about working with actors? Are they all Winnipeg people?

SC: Everybody was Manitoba. Darcy Fehr has certainly been seen in Guy Maddin’s stuff, he’s Guy Maddin’s alter ego. I knew he was right and I had to put my foot down. He was busy working on Keyhole and Polly said, “Well, I don’t know if we can get him” and I said, “No, we gotta have him.” In terms of working with the actors, I thought to myself, I am going to make sure that I am succinct. And I am going to talk to them in terms of something they can do, and I am going to stay away from ideas as much as possible, but if they want to ask me any kind of personal questions, they can.


Darcy Fehr

SOM: Darcy was so moving with the subtlety and complexity of the loving lonely husband. Did he just click into it?

SC: Yes. He asked me a couple questions, and I said, “Just keep it honest.” He is also so good at understanding camera. He’s just one of those gifted guys that way. He knows that it’s about doing less and less and less.


Kristen Harris

SOM: Could you talk to me about working with Kristen Harris?

SC: We had a meeting on her porch and she talked about how much she loved the script. She had a few questions and that’s when I said, “I just want you to know that this is not a hate fest, this is not Mommie Dearest – this is about the illness, this is about the truth of how it all went down – so the film has to be honest that way.” My mum was a tragic figure. In the early readings, I could just feel Kristen’s intelligence. She just said to me, “I’m going to ask you to trust me. If I have questions, I’ll ask.” We hit it off. I just tried to stay out of her way.

SOM: Did you just find that she clicked with the material to such a degree –

SC: Yeah. It was one of those. And of course, she wants it. She wants to do well. She’s committed.


Ethan Harapiak


Kassidy Love Brown

SOM: How did you find the kids and how did you know they could do it under these circumstances?

SC: Part of it is good ole spidey-sense based on experience and trusting. Also, Winnipeg is small enough that I’ve got connections through the people that work here. I gave the script to a couple of trusted folks, like the fellow whose house we shot in – Jeff – he teaches acting, and I said, “Jeff, you’ve read the script”, and he said, “There’s this little boy, you’ve got to see him,” So supportive friends in the industry helped. And Telefilm, just to be sure, we put the script out in a national call and the casting director that was helping me – it turns out I actually helped get her in the business and I didn’t even realize it. Fifteen years ago, and here she is working on my film. She came up to me and said, “Do you remember when my mother came up to you and spoke in the church basement …” So I feel, it’s a cliche, but I feel there’s a lot of good karma that way. In any event, she put it out nationwide and we got tapes from some very serious actors across Canada to be in the film, but I just felt I could do it out of Manitoba. In an earlier workshop, just to hear the script, I invited Kristen, Darcy, Jacqueline Guertin, Cindy Marie Small and a couple other people to do the party scene, and I had them riff off of my script.


Cindy Marie Small and Jacqueline Guertin

SC: I had them in my back pocket, although I certainly looked at other actors. One of the questions was about the children working on the script, especially the little girl in that scene in the kitchen and how was that filmed? The script was given to the parents. Quite frankly, they all felt it was a piece of art, and they wanted to support the story. And Kristen and Darcy really made the kids feel that all the drama is on the screen, and off the screen, everything’s cool. And so that’s how it was. And Ethan Harapiak, the little guy who plays Thomas, he knew everybody’s lines. If you didn’t deliver your line right, he would correct you. The hardest one to cast was Sarah. I had seen a lot of kids but they were all very theatrical. I had this picture in my head of the little girl who played the lead in Atonement. I was sitting there and I turned to the guy who was our camera person, I just put it out into the world, “Does anyone know anyone who looks like the lead in Atonement?” And this guy, who I barely knew, said, “Oh! I know someone like that! Here’s a picture!” I said, “Do you think she wants to be in a movie?” He said, “I think she might be interested. I’ll call her Mum.” So Kassidy Love Brown came in and she read the scene about the cat. And she was so true, and there was so much going on inside of her. Polly and I just turned to each other with tears running down our faces and we said, “That’s the one.” I had a talk with Kassidy and said, “This is a pretty intense story, what do you think?” She said, “I’m afraid I won’t be able to cry. I’m not much of a crier.” I said, “Don’t worry about it.” And of course she performed beautifully.


Kassidy Love Brown

SOM: When Sarah is crying on that kitchen floor in the scene you mentioned, it’s heartbreaking.

SC: We shot that scene twice. We did two takes. It was me, the camera, and the actors. Brad [Shelagh's husband] actually chose that evening to come and visit me and he literally felt trapped, he couldn’t get out of the house fast enough, because it was so emotional for him.


Darcy Fehr and Kristen Harris

SC: A director cannot do it alone. It’s your job to show up there and be absolutely prepared for every question.

SOM: Did you rehearse at all?

SC: Yes. We had that week where I was writing the script and they were workshoppping it, and that had settled in them. We had some rehearsal time a few days before we were setting up in the house. They didn’t want to do too much, actually. Darcy and Kristen asked me to trust them. And I said Yup, I think you’re right. I stayed very open with the kids. It was about the event in the scene, clear-cut: Mum has killed this cat. I was very careful in terms of pushing Kassidy.


Kristen Harris and Kassidy Love Brown

SC: Certainly with Blake Taylor, who played the doctor, he said, “I’m sitting here, I’m listening to them, what’s going on for me?” I said, “You are sizing them up.” He said, “Okay. I got it.” I would speak to the actors in the most basic way, always in terms of a verb. It had to be active. If they needed a little bit more, we would talk about the conflict, we would talk about the circumstance, we would talk about the event, and I would really try to keep it as succinct, but loaded, as possible. I could tell when they would get it and then I would just leave them alone.

SOM: I loved the actress who plays David’s mother with her little pillbox hat and her judgmental attitude.


Susan Kelso and Darcy Fehr

SC: Susan Kelso! Wasn’t she great?

SOM: She reminded me a lot of the mother in Woman Under the Influcne, who was Cassavetes’ mother in real life. “You’re crazy” she’s shouting. “You’re crazy!”

SC: Susan said to me, “Oh my God, Shelagh, I used to work in an advertising office, we were so like this, with the dresses and the cigarettes!” That’s the stuff that I know my mum experienced with my dad’s mother, because, boy … when she broke down the first time, she was pounding on the floor and I came up to see what was going on, and I was in my pajamas, and she was saying, “You tell your father to tell his mother ….” I was, what, 9 years old at that point?


Darcy Fehr and Kristen Harris

SOM: Could you talk about the sexuality of the film?

SC: I was definitely pulling on my experience with my mum and the competitive quality of it. At the time, I was becoming a daddy’s girl. He thought he was being a great dad, but it set up this competition, What would happen is everything my mum would attempt would never get finished. But I was drawing and winning these prizes at school but it seemed if I showed her something, she would dismiss it. About that time, playing outside with a group of kids, we discovered this amazing Vargas on the ceiling of this guy’s garage. That image still stays with me.


Mitchell Kummen, Kassidy Love Brown, staring up at the Vargas

SC: You know how kids feel the sexuality in the house. My mum would drive my brother to school in her nightgown. That was one of the things that I wanted to get at. We can be so stupidly politically correct in our culture now, that Sarah hanging out at the barbershop surrounded by nude pictures might be seen as inappropriate, but that was a real place of refuge for me when I was a young girl.


Kassidy Love Brown at the barber shop

SC: That’s when I first saw the famous nude Marilyn Monroe, and of course my mother was obsessed with Marilyn. And forget about cartoon books, I was looking at Photoplay as a kid. My mum wanted me to be a good girl, and yet there was all this blatant sexuality around her. My mum was out there with her sexuality.


Kristen Harris

SOM: The scene with her in the road was striking, when the sound drops out. Could you talk about your conception of that scene?

SC: It was interesting because that day, Kristen’s agent had called because she had done some scenes in a television show and something had gone wrong so they called her back in and it was that afternoon. So we just said, “Okay, this is what we need to feel in this scene.” And she just went and did it. What we came up against in post is that people were fighting me on why that scene was silent. Well, I’ll tell you why it’s silent. When I first got to New York, and I escaped my family, I was walking in Greenwich Village, 8th Street, and there was a moment when my body cut off, and I was suddenly in a silent movie. I knew then that I had to deal with my feelings. I wanted that experience in the film with that character.

SOM: Beatrice’s mental illness is never named.

SC: That was important, I felt.

SOM: I’m very curious about how you thought about all of that.


Kassidy Love Brown and Kristen Harris

SC: Some of the things that came up years later in my own analysis is that they never were clear in what my mother had. Terms were thrown around, schizophrenic, manic-depressive. People today would say bipolar, but I don’t even know if that was my mother. One of the questions was about the end of the film where the little girl is looking back at the house. We did wonder how we would end the film. Was it just on her face, or was she outside? I felt that people needed time to be with her and think about what they had just witnessed. If we just left it on her face and cut out that would be too abrupt and not really the tone we had established. I remember in my 30s, I was back from New York, and trying to talk to my mum. She was having a bad time again. I said, “Mum, do you love me?” She said, “Dear, it’s so hard for me to talk about these things.” I knew she loved me ultimately but boy, we missed each other on some level. And of course my dad hasn’t been well enough to know exactly what I’m doing. A couple weeks ago, I went to see my dad and I walked into his room and playing on the television was the musical Gypsy. Gypsy is what my mother sent me to when I was 9, to see Natalie Wood and the strippers, and that was playing on my dad’s television. The hair on the back of my neck went up. And in Passionflower, of course, the way I referenced that film was with Beatrice singing to Thomas in the bedroom. We couldn’t use “Little Lamb” so Kristen, who’s a singer, made all that up.


Kristen Harris, Kassidy Love Brown, and Ethan Harapiak

SOM: In my second viewing of it, the anxiety of the father is what came across to me. The first viewing was about the mother and the sexual competition she has with her prepubescent daughter. The second viewing was about the sort of cultural Mad Men thing that you’re tapping into, what I would term as “the loneliness of men”. I felt his loneliness in that situation. His role, as a man, was that he was going to have to take care of this situation.


Kristen Harris, Darcy Fehr

SC: I felt that with my dad in their relationship. He didn’t know what to do. Everyone knew that my mother was not functioning. We were sort of the orphans on the street.

SOM: You really see that with the mother of the friend Charlie. It’s very subtle. She’s peeling the potatoes, and they leave, and she looks back, and you don’t even see her face, but you know she knows: “I want that little girl to be at my house every day. I want to know what’s going on with that little girl.” Those are the details that are often missed.


Dana Horrox

SC: When I had to write my director’s statement, once I discovered that Passionflower was the one I had to do first, I came across this quote from Cassavetes: “You must be willing to risk everything to really express it all.” I know that I did lots of things with Passionflower where I’m not sure why I did them but I made those choices because they felt right. Polly was so receptive. She helped me crystallize a couple of things. She came into my room where I had all the storyboard stuff, and she saw my drawings, saw the Vargas girls. Later, during the writing of the script, she said, “You know what? What about paper dolls?” I said, “Oh my God, I used to have all these cutouts …” So she would really guide me in a way.

SOM: If you look only at the surface of Beatrice, you just see easy sex. If you want her, you can have her. It doesn’t matter that she’s married or has kids. And the fact that that was sort of incorporated into their marriage – that he had incorporated that, was so interesting. The mental illness was manifesting itself in a way that would be judged. How do you even diagnose someone like her? It’s still not addressed.


Kristen Harris

SC: A couple came up to me after one of the screenings and asked me about the children. They said that their son is married to someone who is struggling with bipolar and they are really worried about the children. They’re the grandparents, and they were tearing up. They said, “Thank you for this film, because you survived this family. Our concern is that the kids won’t survive.” I said, “I know you’re in a position where you can’t just step in – but if you create that safe place for the kids – ” and they said, “We do.” I said, “Well, there you go, keep a safe place for those kids.” They asked about my parents and I said, “The truth of it is that in the last 10, 15 years, my mum was much better and my parents had some good time together.” When I grew up, I sure didn’t trust doctors. I eventually found someone that helped me through all this, after that moment of everything going silent in the New York streets. I am the happy ending. But this moment in time of the film, told from a child’s perspective, that was the most important thing for me to say in Passionflower, and not rush to a happy ending or anything, tie it up in a neat bow.


Kassidy Love Brown, Ethan Harapiak, Susan Kelso

SOM: So what’s next for Passionflower?

SC: Distribution is going to be very interesting. We do believe there is an audience for it. Everything that’s been said to us by people coming to the screenings matters, they’re all saying, “Why aren’t we seeing these kinds of films?” We’re waiting on a film festival in Russia. We’ve been requested to send a screener to one in Italy. I’m waiting to see if I get into Edinburgh, the Talent Lab. They were very excited that it had just won the award in Houston [Passionflower won the Platinum Remi award for Dramatic Original Feature at the 2012 Houston International Film Festival]. There’s a hot shot in Canada who would love to get his hands on it but he doesn’t have enough of a track record yet. Nobody wants to rush into anything because they’re protective of me and the film, and they’ve often said to me, “We want to make sure you take time for your next project.” Meanwhile, I would love it to be in Russia, I would love it to be in Edinburgh, I would love it to be in all of these other festivals, but I sort of had to let go of it and let it find its way.


Darcy Fehr and Kristen Harris

SOM: What would your mother have thought of the film, do you think?

SC: I think she would have been proud of me, actually. My greatest sorrow is that I realized maybe too late how much guilt she carried, because she couldn’t remember what she did, with all of those shock treatments. Some of it would come back to her and she would have a sense of how horribly she’d behaved, so she carried in her life a huge amount of guilt and pain. In the week that I was home when she died, I remember her sitting on the couch and sobbing, “I’ve had so much pain in my life, what did I do?” And she died four days later. Sometimes I wish my mind wasn’t so vivid in terms of remembering everything. So thank God there’s art.


Kassidy Love Brown

Posted in Directors, Movies | 7 Comments

“There Was No Need To Be Anywhere Other Than In the Moment.” – Actress Kristen Harris, on Passionflower (2011)

Actress Kristen Harris, based out of Winnipeg, studied voice performance at the University of Toronto. As a teenager, she studied with the famed improv troupe The Groundlings in Los Angeles. Harris has worked in both America and Canada, with various roles in film and television. In the year 2011, she was in two films at the Cannes Film Festival, “The Lost Dreams Of Narcissus” and “Echo, The Forest Path”. “Passionflower” marks the first time she has worked with fellow Winnipeg resident, Shelagh Carter. She was generous enough to speak with me over the phone about her unforgettable performance as Beatrice in “Passionflower”, the mother and wife deteriorating at an accelerated rate with mental illness.

See my review of “Passionflower” here.


Kristen Harris

Sheila O’Malley: How did you meet Shelagh and get involved in Passionflower?

Kristen Harris: I’ve been living in Winnipeg for 10 years, but I did not know Shelagh before this project at all. I met her in April the year that we shot the movie, 2010, and we did a workshop for the film for one night, and that was my first time meeting her. Polly [Washburn, the producer] called me and said, “Would you come in and read for this workshop for this script that we’re developing” and so I went. Shelagh is such a warm person. It was just one night but obviously a project she was really passionate about. We all could see that. I really didn’t have any contact with her again until the auditions.


Kristen Harris and Darcy Fehr

SOM: When you first got the script, what was your reaction to it?

KH: You know what, we didn’t get a script. She didn’t want to release the script. The only thing I had read were the audition sides. She was still developing it, and they were moving really fast. We did the workshop in April and we shot it in August. Shelagh’s work ethic is crazy, she works around the clock. She doesn’t come across as Type A when you meet her because she’s so laid back and relaxed but she works. She was always very candid that this was her family story, it was never a secret, right from the workshop. We were very humbled to be a part of this vision to tell her story. I think I felt – more than I felt “I have to do this for the sake of what was on the page’ – I felt that about Shelagh when I met her. That time at the workshop, there was a connection that I had with her, in between scenes. You can tell instantly when you finish a scene based on the director’s reaction if they are responding – taking in what they’ve seen and responding to what they’ve seen and want to build on that versus somebody who’s looking at something and they’re superimposing what they want onto it, and their desired effect is for you to conform to what they’re superimposing upon you. There’s so many subtleties of that. You can experience that in so many different ways. And I am not saying it as a pejorative, it’s not necessarily a negative thing. I don’t necessarily like it when people just let me go my own way, but there was something implicit between Shelagh and I. I just felt, “Oh, she’s gonna let me play.” I felt that instantly after the first scene that we did. I think I wanted to do Passionflower because of her.


Kristen Harris

SOM: I know you shot in 14 days, so that’s a marathon. The arc of this character – what I perceived anyway in seeing it – was at the beginning she’s clearly still somewhat socially engaged and then you watch the deterioration. The woman at the end is not the woman at the party scene, and it seems like a spiral down. I’m curious about creating such an arc under the gun of such a schedule, and how do you track that disintegration?

KH: On a certain conscious level, I was very aware – even though we were moving in fast time as a crew and as a film production, and even though we’re making an hour and 20 minute film – I was very conscious as an actor that I wanted to portray not the totality but certainly a generous slice of this woman’s life. Despite the fact that we were moving in fast time, and despite the fact that we’re telling this very specific story – even within the film, because it happens within a relatively closed time frame – I wanted to explore how these things happen. The groundwork for illness is always there, the possibility of mental illness is always there, and it’s not so much that she necessarily changes, it’s that circumstances presented themselves over the course of the film in which she could no longer hide. It was getting more and more difficult for her to hide. I think it’s much like the bumper sticker, When Preparation Meets Opportunity. I think you could say the same thing for any kind of illness, or mental illness: when the groundwork meets the opportunity to express itself, there’s quite a chemical reaction. And the subtleties, when you think about illness of that nature within the context of motherhood: suddenly your kids are both gone and to combine that isolation with the groundwork, which is already there inside of yourself chemically and psychologically … you don’t have your children at home anymore to distract from that, and the husband was getting promoted at work – These are all of the subtleties of life that sort of massage the illness out. That’s how I felt about it. In the shooting of it, though, I was just in the moment. We certainly talked about what happened, not just the moment before, but the series of events, we would always contextualize what we were shooting in the moment – but there was no need to be anywhere other than in the moment.


Kassidy Love Brown and Kristen Harris

SOM: How was it working with the kids?

KH: Oh, so magical. I see Ethan [Harapiak] now and he’s growing up so much. I just remember that time and how precious it was. Kassidy [Love Brown] and I had an instant bond. I remember saying to Shelagh before the film, “I’m really worried here. This is the one film that I am not going to become the life of the party on set, I’m not really wanting to expend that energy doing any of that”. I didn’t really buddy up to anybody. I wasn’t anti-social, but I knew going into it that I wasn’t going to be able to turn it on and off all the time and be really social and joking around with everybody. I was worried. Ethan was too young to understand a lot of things, and Kassidy – I didn’t want her to think I was brushing her off. Shelagh said, “I think when you meet her, you’ll see that she’s gonna get that.” And she was right. That was just that way it was right from the first day of rehearsal. Kassidy and I just looked at each other, said “Hi”, and we didn’t really speak after that. We would trade a couple of words here and there, everything was non-verbal between us. I have seldom experienced anything like that. It was absolutely unusual. At the end of the shoot, I remember hearing her talk with people at the wrap party about things in her life, and I remember thinking, “I don’t know anything about you. I don’t know any of these things. And yet how do I know you!” The connection was so profound that it did not involve getting to know each other at all outside of these characters. I loved every minute of it.

SOM: The relationship between you and the daughter was so interesting. Very tense and painful. And remains unresolved at the end, which I loved.


Kassidy Love Brown and Kristen Harris

KH: I know Shelagh intended that to be a mixed moment, definitely a hopeful one, but for me, when I watch it, it’s so ambiguous. I remember shooting that scene. It was perfect timing. We shot a lot of it chronologically, particularly the stuff inside the house because we were there so long, and that scene was the last day of filming inside the house. And so there were so many emotions flying around because it doesn’t really hit you how close you’ve become to this person, this character, this family, this home, everything, until the last hour that you’re there shooting. We were all quite overwhelmed. As an actor you’re not supposed to necessarily make these comparisons between what was going on in the real world and what we were shooting, but I don’t care.

SOM: Can you talk a little bit about the marriage and working with Darcy Fehr? Darcy is incredible, and I loved your dynamic. How did you see that marriage?


Kristen Harris and Darcy Fehr

KH: The same thing that existed with Kassidy existed between Darcy and I. It was instantaneous. At the workshop, Darcy was there. And I was there. I guess I sort of took for granted that that chemistry was pretty great, and then cut to the auditions in July, and Darcy couldn’t make it to the auditions. We were actually reading with the other actors, so I was reading with a couple of wonderful male actors for the husband part, and I can’t describe it but I felt forlorn and lost. I was looking for Darcy. Because of that workshop, I remembered the chemistry, and I felt anxious, I felt that I couldn’t play this woman without Darcy being there. I would go out into the hallway, looking for him, thinking, “Maybe he’s just late.” I was a little bit lost. As an actor, and within that relationship, that’s how attached to him I was. I actually felt like I couldn’t really do my job without him. That, I think, is not a coincidence. Her husband was a witness to her world and she could not have expressed what she expressed to him to anybody else. And so perhaps that was his trump card. His trump card was: “Yes, you do misbehave, and it’s uncouth, and it affects me and it gnaws away at me”, but I think that the reason he can always come up for air is because nobody else has this access that he has. And even though she goes to certain extremes… For example, in the intervention where the mother is there and Beatrice is hitting him and she’s very abusive. There’s nothing really redeeming about that, even when she finally crumbles into the vulnerable submission of it all. It’s not terribly endearing by that point because she is so far gone.


Kristen Harris and Darcy Fehr

KH: In the beginning, I think, when she has these incredibly vulnerable moments where she’s in tears – and Lord only knows why – only she knows why – he’s the witness to that, and I think before things get really scary and out of hand with her behavior, there is a real tenderness and vulnerability to him that she shows that to him. She shows a completely different face to the rest of the world and always has. I feel like that’s maybe a secret in their relationship. Not necessarily the secret TO their relationship, but maybe David’s secret is: “Yes, but I know this about her, I know who she really is” and it’s funny, because I sort of feel more transparent, me Kristen, than I really am, and I felt like Darcy knew that, that he must have known that I couldn’t do that role without him.


Kristen Harris and Darcy Fehr

KH: I said to him, “Did I ever tell you at that audition I was really anxious – and looking around for you – I felt like I couldn’t land because you weren’t there.” He had the oddest look on his face and he said, “No. You didn’t tell me that.” I said, “Darcy, you were everything for my Beatrice. I couldn’t have played it without you.” I am sure on some level he must have known.


Kassidy Love Brown and Kristen Harris

SOM: I was so taken by the whole pin-up thing and the mother’s sexuality, with this daughter on the cusp of being a teenager. Could you talk a little bit about that?

KH: Sarah is going through the regular confusing pre-adolescent feelings that anyone would go through, and that all seems very rational and normal to me. But watching her mum’s behavior … There was always a fine line for me and I never really wanted to decide, and put it in one column or the other. I mean, there are certainly times when she’s misbehaving. In one column, there’s 1960s housewife stifled by the limitations of that role, and therefore some misadventure results because there’s a freedom that the men had that the women did not have. Where did that sort of combust with her personality to make that go to the next level of perhaps inappropriateness? And then in the other column was her illness, and it’s like an acting out in a childish way. I never really knew where that line was, per se. There legitimately was some sort of back story between her husband and Myra, they had a history together. So I think that this other man comes into the scene because of the inferiority she feels with David. As much as she seems like she has the upper hand – anyone who has ever been married knows that that isn’t always the case. Behind closed doors, whatever is going on in the marriage is a language understood between those two people. So she wasn’t always in control and obviously felt the opposite of in control which is what led to so many of her actions.

SOM: One of the things I loved about the structure of the script was there were a couple of scenes where the character is by herself. Looking in the mirror, dancing around by herself – you got the sense of who this woman was when she wasn’t having to be social. You could feel her boredom and restlessness alone in that house.

KH: Those were some of my favorite scenes to shoot.

SOM: The scene in the road was fantastic.


Kristen Harris

KH: Yeah. That’s a good one. That one was a golden piece of alchemy. I don’t know how it all came together. I think it’s so powerful because it was the absolute summation of this woman’s grief and rage and shame, knowing that something is wrong but not knowing what. And then coupled with being a mother of children! All the responsibility heaped on a young mother and all of these things coming together… all of that was in the mix that day.

SOM: Your performance stayed with me and I thought about that woman. I wondered what it was like to be her. It wasn’t a diagnosis presented onscreen.

KH: And Shelagh wouldn’t let me do that. She wouldn’t clarify what was wrong with Beatrice specifically. But I thought, She isn’t curled up in the fetal position in a mental hospital, rocking back and forth, chewing on her skin. She is alive and vibrant and vivacious. She is a real person, breathing in and out, and very strong-spirited. Don’t play a caricature here. This is a real woman, and for whatever reason that vivaciousness – depending on the synapses in her brain, the filters go off and the illness spills out – and it translates into ways that are not socially acceptable and beyond that are also quite damaging.

SOM: Did you do any specific research?

KH: Shelagh wouldn’t put a label on anything, but I just knew the general mapping of it all from the script. I don’t even know how a lot of research would have helped because the scenes were written so specifically. Normally, in acting, we get the character breakdowns and there are anywhere between four and eight adjectives and that’s who the character is. We go to these auditions and we hear, “In the breakdown it says that she’s this, and you really need to play that”. But the magic of acting is in the being alive and being a person. Let’s not water that down.


Kristen Harris

Posted in Actors, Movies | Tagged | Leave a comment

Passionflower (2011), Directed by Shelagh Carter


Kassidy Love Brown as Sarah in “Passionflower”

A little girl sits in the kitchen of a friend’s house. The friend’s mother, wearing an apron, stands at the counter peeling potatoes. The mother says, “Sarah, would you like to stay for dinner?” Sarah, an alert bird-like little thing, says, “Oh. No. I have to get home.” Maybe it’s in how she says it, maybe it’s a little too intense, maybe it comes too quickly, but whatever it is it catches the mother’s ear, and she turns around to look at Sarah. Her son, Charlie, who is Sarah’s friend, explains to his mother, “Sarah’s mom hasn’t been well.” Then, impulsively, he reaches his arm across the table towards Sarah. His arm is too short to touch her, but the gesture is eloquent. The mother sees it all. She says, keeping things bright and cheerful, “Okay! Well, Sarah, just know you are welcome here any time.” Sarah says, “Thank you.” The mother turns back to her potatoes. Charlie and Sarah silently stand up and start to leave the room. Charlie touches his mom’s back, to let her know he’s walking Sarah to the door. He’s a good kid. As the children walk out of the room, the mother turns and watches them go. We don’t see her face. We don’t need to. Underneath her behavior is a silent alarm bell going off. I am worried about that child.

She should be.

Passionflower, a first feature directed and written by Winnipeg filmmaker Shelagh Carter, is full of such silent eloquent moments, the kind of small moments that many films miss.

It is the early 1960s. Sarah (Kassidy Love Brown) and her brother Thomas (Ethan Harapiak) live with their parents in Winnipeg. Sarah is 10 years old, and a good artist and student. Her father is in advertising. Her mother is a housewife. But we know right off the bat that something is “off” in that house. Sarah shows her mother her report card excitedly and her mother criticizes Sarah’s clothing, “Darling, you’re a mess.” That very well may be just the distracted response of a busy mother, right? But Kristen Harris, as Beatrice, in a searing unforgettable performance, manages to convey, with no language, the invisible faultlines running through this woman’s character, fault lines that will wrench apart over the course of the film. She’s a housewife, yes. She cooks a big dinner, and then she and her kids sit at the table waiting for the husband to come home. Nobody eats or speaks. The silence is loaded and intense. Beatrice is beautiful, and dressed to the nines. Her wine glass is full to the brim. When she looks at her son, her face cracks into a warm and gushing smile. When she looks at her daughter, her eyes squint in a cold assessing manner. All of this behavior is in the first five minutes of the film. When the father, David (played by the wonderful Darcy Fehr) walks into this environment, the kids visibly relax. He somehow brings with him a sense of air and space, of the world outside that house. He, in his slicked hair, dark suit with handkerchief in the pocket, is an emissary from outside the bell jar. But we can also see, in the anxious tender way he treats his wife, that all is not well. “How was your day?” he asks her, in the same tone one would use to talk to a chronic invalid. She seems beyond words. She kisses him hungrily. She stares at him across the table. As the kids clear the plates, she turns on music in the living room and draws him up out of his seat to dance with her. His arms grasp her tightly. They circle together in the living room, a contained unit of need and passion, as little Sarah crouches behind the door, watching.

Sarah sees everything.


Kristen Harris

Passionflower is the brutal depiction of a woman disintegrating into psychosis, a psychosis that has probably been bubbling under the surface for years. Her daughter’s burgeoning success at school is a trigger. There is something uneasy in their relationship. Sarah has a cat that she fawns over and takes care of. Beatrice, when alone with the cat, hisses at it in a hostile manner. Beatrice favors her young son. Sarah, adrift, loses herself in her drawings, where she mainly portrays happy smiling families and sunshiny skies.

Sarah befriends a young boy at school, Charlie, played by the sweet Mitchell Kummen, and they bond about art. Charlie draws superheroes. Sarah praises his work. She lets him into her secret world. Every day after school, she goes and hangs out at a local barber shop. She takes Charlie there. Without a word of dialogue, you understand that the barber shop is Sarah’s safe place, it is where she goes before going home to the hothouse environment of her mother’s realm. She sits in the barber chair, and draws. The walls are covered with naked girls. Sarah looks up at them with interest. “My mom used to be a model,” she informs Charlie proudly. Charlie says, “My mom … is just a mom.”


Kassidy Love Brown

Beatrice and David throw a party for some of David’s colleagues. Beatrice dresses as though she is going to the Oscars. David has invited Myra (Cindy Marie Small) and her husband Bill (Lyle Bernard Morris). Before the guests arrive, Beatrice and David have a tense conversation. Myra and David were once involved, when they were in college. Beatrice can’t let it go. David reassures her: “But you got your man, didn’t you?” Beatrice, a chain smoker, coolly looks at her husband, and asks, “Did I?” The party, as can be expected, does not only not go well, it descends into anarchy. Beatrice comes on to Bill, and David catches her in the act. He pleads with her, “Not tonight …”, an interesting line, which shows that her behavior has been incorporated into the warp and weft of their marriage. He is not shocked that she is making out with one of their guests. This has happened before. Meanwhile, on the outskirts, Sarah crouches behind the couch in her pajamas, watching her mother’s appalling behavior.

Shot beautifully by Andrew Forbes, with a real sense of the period (the colors blue and cool) the camera in Passionflower floats from face to face, catching glimpses, fragments, truth. The camera is not random in its movements, it is highly specific, a laser beam cutting to the heart of a moment. Even in a complex multi-person scene like the party scene, we never lose track of what is happening. That is obviously due in large part to the actors, all of whom are phenomenal, but without that insightful camera the power of the event might be lost. The feeling in the scene is palpably disturbing, and also is reminiscent of what it was like to grow up in the 60s, when kids were banished from adult events. I have vivid memories of being a kid, sitting at the top of the stairs in my pajamas, listening to my parents below play bridge with their friends, the clinking of ice in the glasses, the laughter, the cigarette smoke. I wasn’t allowed down there. That was Grown-Up Time. I understood my part in the hierarchy. Passionflower really captures that generational dynamic.


Kassidy Love Brown

The party ends with the guests fleeing into the night, Beatrice having attacked Myra with the devastating analysis, “At least I like to fuck”. Later that night, David is awakened by the sounds of his wife sobbing. He comes downstairs and finds her in the kitchen, totally naked, her handmade Oscar ceremony dress crumpled in a ball. Beatrice writhes on the floor in psychic anguish. Sarah, in tears, sits nearby, watching. David, horrified, runs to his wife, and the second he touches her, she erupts into violent resistance like a trapped animal. He struggles with his nude wife on the floor. All three actors are so lost in the chaos of the event that you yearn for escape, for relief and peace. The scene cuts off with Beatrice screaming in agony, a heartrending sound. This is not sadness we are seeing. What we are seeing is terror.

Something is wrong. Inside.

A doctor is called. Beatrice, who is, at the heart of it, a social woman, puts on her most charming self for the doctor, laughing at his questions, and saying, “I haven’t been sleeping, yes, I am quite tired.” The doctor prescribes a sedative. The look on David’s face during the doctor scene tells us all we need to know. He is our “way in”. He doesn’t think his wife needs rest. He thinks it must be something else.


Kassidy Love Brown

Sarah hangs out with Charlie after school. He takes her to his safe place, a tit for tat with her barber shop. There is a shed in the woods filled with gardening equipment, and on the wall is painted a giant naked pin-up. He wanted to show it to her. Such an interesting scene, so delicate. It could have gone so wrong, this scene. Instead, what we see are two kids, bonding on a deep level, and the little boy showing something that he thinks will interest her. He’s right. Sarah stares up at the pin-up girl, and says solemnly, “She’s beautiful.” Sarah starts to incorporate pin-up girls into her drawings. She makes clothes for her paper doll collection, and now, instead of making nice little cocktail dresses, she starts to design bodacious bathing suits and see-through nighties. Charlie supports her in this. “That’s art,” he declares, looking at her naked lady drawings.


The Vargas


Kassidy Love Brown

Sarah’s mother, who spends her days wandering through the empty house in her negligee, criticizes her daughter for being a tomboy. But instead of ushering her into the world of being a teenage girl, and maybe showing her how to use makeup, or giving her tips on clothing, she presents herself to her daughter in a competitive manner. “See how hot I am? You’re not hot. I am. Oh, well, sucks for you” is her underlying attitude. Sarah picks up on that. She retreats further into her loving relationship with her cat, and her obsession with pin-up girls. Her bookcase is lined with posing nude women, clothed in sexy garters and polka dot underwear. Nobody seems to notice. Sarah’s father is too consumed with worry for his wife. He misses the signals.

Seen mainly through Sarah’s eyes, Passionflower is a sensitive and painful evocation of the explosion of mental illness and how it affects one family. David’s mother (the fantastic Susan Kelso) seethes with judgment. “She’s an unfit mother,” she snaps.


Kristen Harris

In one unforgettable scene, Beatrice, who is supposed to be picking up her son, drives through the countryside on the outskirts of Winnipeg. The sky is vast and blue. She pulls over to the side of the road. She lies against the door of the car, smoking, staring out at the fields. It is impossible to ascertain how long she is out there. She gets out of the car, staring up and down the empty road. The scene is reminiscent of the opening of My Own Private Idaho, with River Phoenix placed on an endless road, looking back and forth. No way out. She starts to walk away from the car. The light is blinding. Suddenly, startlingly, the sound drops out. No more do we have the sound of wind and birds, or the sound of her heels on the pavement. Now we have a void of soundless space where we watch her take off her shirt, throw it to the side, we watch her pick up rocks on the side of the road and fling them off in a rage, we watch her suddenly lie down in the middle of the road, flat and prone. She turns over, staring up at the sky. There is no sound. We are left only with the abyss that is within her, the shivering knowledge that something is going very very wrong.


Kristen Harris

Events tailspin. Beatrice kills her daughter’s beloved cat. It becomes increasingly apparent that Beatrice is going to a place beyond the pale. This is no longer the expected boredom of a trapped housewife. This is something else entirely. There are a couple of ferocious confrontations, painful in their openness, the children present, watching their parents fight and scream. Sarah gets in trouble at school for drawing naked ladies. A sensitive teacher tries to talk to David about what might be going on at home. David says, “Everything’s fine.”


Darcy Fehr and Rebecca Gibson

Of course that is what he would say. He is alone in his worry. In his role, as head of the household, it is his job to handle this situation. He doesn’t know what to do. He loves his wife. He does not understand what is happening to her.

And Beatrice doesn’t understand either. Her unnamed mental illness is like an outside force, something that descends upon her with the force of a thousand demons. He leaves her in the house, and she stands against the wall, alone, looking around her with panicked eyes. A whole day yawns in front of her, empty and meaningless. She whispers to herself, “I will be good ….. I will be good.”


Darcy Fehr and Kristen Harris

Kristen Harris gives a tragic and powerful performance. Beatrice’s behavior is often unforgivable, and it is to Harris’ credit (and Carter’s as well, for the script) that although we judge her, we ache for her too. We see her writhing naked on the kitchen floor, and we want to soothe this woman’s pain. Her attempts at being social, her bright brittle laugh, are painful to observe. Flickers of unease pass through her eyes. Harris does not make the mistake of “playing crazy”. Instead, she plays the deep upheaval going on within Beatrice’s psyche, and the various attempts Beatrice makes to stave off the inevitable.

Darcy Fehr, as David, will be well-known to anyone familiar with Winnipeg director Guy Maddin’s films. He had key roles in Maddin’s Cowards Bend the Knee and Maddin’s autobiographical My Winnipeg (starring the great Ann Savage, where Darcy Fehr plays “Guy Maddin”). He is also in Maddin’s Keyhole (2011). A solemn-faced gentle presence, Darcy is a watchful careful character in Passionflower, and in the course of his marriage to Beatrice he has taken on the role of caretaker, not just provider. He senses that his wife is somehow not up to the challenges of her life. His concern is such that his children become secondary, until the key moment when Thomas is not picked up from school and Sarah gets in trouble for drawing naked ladies. Suddenly, he realizes that his family is shattering. Once the kids start to disintegrate, and once Sarah’s cat is killed, David must step up to the plate. He must make some difficult decisions. It is a tragedy for him as well. We get all of that in every shot of this wonderful actor. He brings a world of tenderness to his role, a world of loneliness.


Darcy Fehr and Kassidy Love Brown

Kassidy Love Brown makes her film debut in Passionflower, and she is the heart and soul of the picture. Not an easy job for a young untried actress, and she is wonderful, serious and sweet, open and accessible. It is a difficult role. The scenes with her young friend Charlie are gentle, showing that the young girl has quite a survivor’s instinct. She knows that Charlie is part of her “tribe”, a member of her chosen family as opposed to her natural family, the people who get her, understand her, see her. She will need many such people throughout her life, since her own family dynamic is a nightmare. She watches her mother’s descent into madness, and in one key scene she finally tells her father how afraid she is that she will go crazy herself.

Based on Shelagh Carter’s actual childhood, growing up with a mentally ill mother, this is no Lifetime Movie. There are no neat endings, no “and here is what we all have learned from this” catharsis. It is a more difficult film than that. It is honest about mental illness. It is honest about it in terms of how it impacts the woman suffering from it, but also honest about how it impacts her family, her children, and the deep reverberation that will continue to operate through their lives as they grow up. These children will be forever marked. Life is messy. Marriage is messy. Parenting is messy. Mental illness exacerbates the mess.

Passionflower, an heir to John Cassavetes’ great A Woman Under the Influence, refuses to be neat, and in this day and age, when adult domestic dramas have nearly vanished from our cinema, that refusal is almost a revolution.


Kristen Harris, Ethan Harapiak, and Darcy Fehr

My interview with director Shelagh Carter.

My interview with lead actress Kristen Harris.

Posted in Movies | 4 Comments

A New York Institution

Posted in Personal | Tagged | 1 Comment

The Books: Slouching Towards Bethlehem: ‘Slouching Towards Bethlehem’, by Joan Didion

A third excerpt from the essay collection:

Slouching Towards Bethlehem, by Joan Didion

One of Joan Didion’s masterpieces. It’s unlike a lot of her other writing, which can be quite openly analytical. In this, she only has a couple paragraphs of what I would call “diagnosis”, and that comes at the end when we already have been beaten down by the parade of anecdotes which comprise the essay. At the end, she the competent narrator re-asserts herself and tells us what she sees, beyond the surface details. It is for that reason that this is one of her most disturbing essays. I keep waiting for her to jump back in and arrange the narrative, I keep waiting for her to make sense of all of it. But she doesn’t, not until the end, and then when she does, her analysis is devastating. This was written in the spring of 1967, when things were going to hell. The first line of the piece is another echo of the Yeats poem referenced in the title: “The center was not holding.” Joan Didion, in her early 30s, was struck by the influx of runaways and drug addicts pouring into Haight Ashbury – it was front page news at the time. What is going on in San Francisco? Didion went up there to check it out. The piece is a collage of her interactions with various people she meets. The same people keep showing up, giving a sense of the meandering sameness of the “scene” in the Haight. She tries to talk to the cops about what’s going on, but doesn’t get very far. She watches street theatre. She hangs out with Grateful Dead fans. She hangs out at a place called The Warehouse, where a bunch of people are living collectively, and doing drugs. They come from all over. Nobody can really tell Didion what it is they are all after. Is it political change? These people, high as they all are, don’t seem capable of bringing about any kind of change whatsoever.

Life out there in the Haight seems temporary. The kids are all transplants from somewhere else. A very funny and insightful line, so typical of Didion is: “Almost everybody I meet in San Francisco has to go to court at some point in the middle future.” She doesn’t do drugs, despite the constant offers of her new friends. She tells them she’s “unstable”. The prose Didion uses to describe the whole Haight scene is almost of a flat affect, no drama: “Here’s what happened. Here’s what I saw. Oh, and then this is what I saw next.” The paragraphs proceed in short square-like chunks, each anecdote self-contained. What can it all add up to?

Didion doesn’t ask that question, not until the end, but you can feel the question throughout. At the end of the essay (which is quite long), she talks about how the media is getting the story wrong. The media is focusing on the clothes, the music, the free-love, the drugs … Didion senses something much darker underneath. She senses a yearn for totalitarian rule, for sameness, which is a brilliant point and something almost no one at that time, in the thick of it, was seeing. It would be only two years before this “scene” came crashing to a halt, some say the 60s (at least symbolically) came to a halt, on August 9, 1969. The yearning for a totalitarian leader, the political and personal naiveté of the hippies, the sense that the middle class had gone off the rails if they were producing daughters who would follow a madman such as Charles Manson … Reading “Slouching Towards Bethlehem”, it is not at all surprising that a Manson would emerge from the environment Didion describes.

But Didion didn’t know the end, when she wrote the piece. She was searching for something, searching for some kind of insight as to what those kids were doing hanging out in Golden Gate Park. She didn’t care if it made her sound like a fuddy-duddy to ask, “What is it you all are after?”

The answers she got were either totally inarticulate or articulate in a way that sounds totally insane to anyone who has any understanding of how the world actually works.

“Slouching Towards Bethlehem” is a deeply depressing piece. Didion sounds depressed in the prose, too. She doesn’t dismiss what was happening in the youth culture as unimportant or silly or stupid, which was a huge mistake made by a lot of observers at the time. She knew what was happening was important, but she also felt it was deeply disturbed. She felt it had nothing to do with drugs, and sex, and music, although that was what got all the attention by the gaga media at the time. It also didn’t have to do with Vietnam, although that was another misdiagnosis given out by observers. It was a failure of the society to pass on the rules of the game to the younger generation. It was a failure of the society to pass on the necessity of learning how to speak, use language, express yourself. She refers to the kids in Haight Ashbury as “children without words.”

Written from the thick of it, written while it was happening, Didion slices to the heart of it.

It’s hard to excerpt since it is so meanderingly episodic, but here’s one part.

Excerpt from Slouching Towards Bethlehem, by Joan Didion

It is a pretty nice evening and nothing much happening and Max brings his old lady, Sharon, over to the Warehouse. The Warehouse, which is where Don and a floating number of other people live, is not actually a warehouse but the garage of a condemned hotel. The Warehouse was conceived as total theater, a continual happening, and I always feel good there. What happened ten minutes ago or what is going to happen a half hour from now tends to fade from mind in the Warehouse. Somebody is usually doing something interesting, like working on a light show, and there are a lot of interesting things around, like an old Chevrolet touring car which is used as a bed and a vast American flag fluttering up in the shadows and an overstuffed chair suspended like a swing from the rafters, the point of that being that it gives you a sensory-deprivation high.

One reason I particularly like the Warehouse is that a child named Michael is staying there now. Michael’s mother, Sue Ann, is a sweet wan girl who is always in the kitchen cooking seaweed or baking macrobiotic bread while Michael amuses himself with joss sticks or an old tambourine or a rocking horse with the paint worn off. The first time I ever saw Michael was on that rocking horse, a very blond and pale and dirty child on a rocking horse with no paint. A blue theatrical spotlight was the only light in the Warehouse that afternoon, and there was Michael in it, crooning softly to the wooden horse. Michael is three years old. He is a bright child but does not yet talk.

This particular night Michael is trying to light his joss sticks and there are the usual number of people floating through and they all drift into Don’s room and sit on the bed and pass joints. Sharon is very excited when she arrives. “Don,” she cries, breathless. “We got some STP today.” At this time STP is a pretty big deal, remember; nobody yet knew what it was and it was relatively, although just relatively, hard to come by. Sharon is blond and scrubbed and probably seventeen, but Max is a little vague about that since his court case comes up in a month or so and he doesn’t need statutory rape on top of it. Sharon’s parents were living apart when last she saw them. She does not miss school or anything much about her pst, except her younger brother. “I want to turn him on,” she confided one day. “He’s fourteen now, that’s the perfect age. I know where he goes to high school and someday I’ll just go get him.”

Time passes and I lose the thread and when I pick it up again Max seems to be talking about what a beautiful thing it is the way Sharon washes dishes.

“Well it is beautiful,” Sharon says. “Everything is. I mean you watch that blue detergent blob run on the plate, watch the grease cut – well, it can be a real trip.”

Pretty soon now, maybe next month, maybe later, Max and Sharon plan to leave for Africa and India, where they can live off the land. “I got this little trust fund, see,” Max says, “which is useful in that it tells cops and border patrols I’m O.K., but living off the land is the thing. You can get your high and get your dope in the city, O.K., but we gotta get out somewhere and live organically.”

“Roots and things,” Sharon says, lighting another joss stick for Michael. Michael’s mother is still in the kitchen cooking seaweed. “You can eat them.”

Maybe eleven o’clock, we move from the Warehouse to the place where Max and Sharon live with a couple named Tom and Barbara. Sharon is pleased to get home (“I hope you got some hash joints fixed in the kitchen,” she says to Barbara by way of greeting) and everybody is pleased to show off the apartment, which has a lot of flowers and candles and paisleys. Max and Sharon and Tom and Barbara get pretty high on hash, and everyone dances a little and we do some liquid projections and set up a strobe and take turns getting a high on that. Quite late, somebody called Steve comes in with a pretty, dark girl. They have been to a meeting of people who practice a Western yoga, but they do not seem to want to talk about that. They lie on the floor awhile, and then Steve stands up.

“Max,” he says, “I want to say one thing.”

“It’s your trip.” Max is edgy.

“I found love on acid. But I lost it. And now I’m finding it again. With nothing but grass.”

Max mutters that heaven and hell are both in one’s karma.

“That’s what bugs me about psychedelic art,” Steve says.

“What about psychedelic art,” Max says. “I haven’t seen much psychedelic art.”

Max is lying on a bed with Sharon, and Steve leans down to him. “Groove, baby,” he says. “You’re a groove.”

Steve sits down then and tells me about one summer when he was at a school of design in Rhode Island and took thirty trips, the last ones all bad. I ask why they were bad. “I could tell you it was my neuroses,” he says, “but fuck that.”

A few days later I drop by to see Steve in his apartment. He paces nervously around the room he uses as a studio and shows me some paintings. We do not seem to be getting to the point.

“Maybe you noticed something going on at Max’s,” he says abruptly.

It seems that the girl he brought, the dark pretty one, had once been Max’s girl. She had followed him to Tangier and now to San Francisco. But Max has Sharon. “So she’s kind of staying around here,” Steve says.

Steve is troubled by a lot of things. He is twenty-three, was raised in Virginia, and has the idea that California is the beginning of the end. “I feel it’s insane,” he says, and his voice drops. “This chick tells me there’s no meaning to life but it doesn’t matter, we’ll just flow right out. There’ve been times I felt like packing up and taking off for the East Coast again, at least there I had a target. At least there you expect that it’s going to happen.” He lights a cigarette for me and his hands shake. “Here you know it’s not going to.”

I ask what it is that is supposed to happen.

“I don’t know,” he says. “Something. Anything.”

Posted in Books | Tagged , | 15 Comments

Passing the Guitar Around

Kim Morgan on Link Wray.

Posted in Music | 3 Comments

Opening Night: It’s All In the Eyes

on10.jpg

on11.jpg

on7.jpg

on12.jpg

on13.jpg

on15.jpg

on16.jpg

on17.jpg

on18.jpg

on19.jpg

on20.jpg

This post is for my friend Shelagh Carter.

Posted in Actors | Tagged , , | 13 Comments

What It’s Really About

Sex is just a distraction from what was really going on, from what he was really about. By distraction I don’t mean for him on the ground, in his real life dealings with lovers and girlfriends, although I suppose a case could be made for that as well. It is a case I am not interested in making. I am not so much interested in biography or psychology. I am interested in art and myth, and how an inchoate longing for communication could somehow have transformed itself into the biggest star of the 20th century. You won’t find the answers in the biography. The details will always elude. Because of that, and because it is still somewhat taboo, the sex continues to act as a magnet, drawing all conclusions and theories towards it. And it is true that “the sex thing”, as I call it, was quite acute, shall we say, with this particular individual. Not all sex drives are created equal, and it cannot be denied that “the sex thing” was the powerful basis from which he operated.

Critics and followers continue to be drawn into the sex, because sex is something we all understand, long for, love, and it’s cathartic to see someone who obviously loved sex so much be so damn open about it. It also crossed the all-important and ever-elusive gender line. Women wanted to fuck him, men wanted to fuck like him, and while there were certainly some bumps along the way, with angry boyfriends and husbands punching him in the face after shows because of what he was doing to “their women”, he had a broad base of support from the start. Martin Sheen remembers it being the first time in his life that boys and girls really went for the same music. Keith Richards says that Elvis “turned everybody into everybody.” Sex is the great equalizer. No matter who you are. No matter how celibate, repressed, or disapproving. We are all human and sex is part of being human. This young man, a minor when he got started, and most probably a virgin when he did his first major show in Memphis and reduced the crowd to a quivering pulp with his nervously wiggling leg, understood that, somehow.

What is interesting is that he wasn’t coming from a particularly knowing sexual place at the beginning. He wasn’t an emissary from the world of hot loose women and lots of sex and breaking the rules and rebelling against the conformity of the times, although that is what he symbolized almost instantly. But he wasn’t that at all. Not then, and not ever, really. His rebellion as a teenager manifested itself in sideburns, ducktail, and pink pants, which certainly got him attention, but it wasn’t on the level of racing hot rod cars and drinking moonshine and taking his girlfriend to have an abortion in a back alley or having knife fights at Griffith Observatory. His rebellion was pretty tame. He lived with his parents and was dating a nice Christian girl, and the two of them had pledged to be pure until they got married. That was where he was at in his life at the time of his first show in 1954 in Memphis. That makes him even more unusual. A lot of the other guys around him at that time cutting records for Sam Phillips were true wild men, who were really “walking the walk” of their songs. This young man wasn’t. He had never had a drop of alcohol. He thought about being a preacher. He went roller skating with his girlfriend and attended church with her.


Elvis and Dixie Locke, his girlfriend from 1954-1955

But beneath all of that was an understanding at a cellular level that something needed to be released here, and that when he was up in front of people was the only proper time to release it. This would continue to be true for the rest of his life. His personal life was often quite boring. Read Elvis Day By Day to get a glimpse of the monotony. He was spending his time as a 40 year old man doing the same stuff he had liked doing as a 20 year old man. Except for the gold records and being a huge superstar, the day-to-day reality is almost numbing in its sameness. He wasn’t jetting off to Monaco. He vacationed solely in Hawaii and Vail. Once he went to Bermuda. He wasn’t particularly adventurous socially. He wasn’t attending art openings and going to Andy Warhol’s silver-lined factory and trying new things. He did the same things for pleasure, for years. He ate the same thing every day. He was still having touch football games and dangerous firecracker wars on his lawn. He was going to the movies, and throwing water balloons. It’s actually all rather boring, when you read it all out, although I’d rather have a water balloon fight with Elvis than jet off to Monaco with anyone else. It makes sense, his career was so insane, of course he would find comfort in doing the things that gave him peace, that he found fun. He was adventurous in his music and in how he spent his money, but other than that, it was pretty much same ol’ same ol’ for 20 years.

So at the start, this sweet polite teenage boy becoming a symbol of the degeneracy of rock ‘n roll is ironic in the truest sense, an irony not lost on the young man himself. Despite the criticism, he continued to insist that there was nothing evil about what he was doing. He was looking for a release himself. He had seen the ecstasies in church, he had seen the egalitarian acts of healing and worship in service. He had experienced that oneness at a very young age, with his mother, sitting in the pews, and it gave him a peculiar and individual outlook. In that context, it was only a short leap from God to Sex. Still a very taboo topic, one that is still resisted, and in that way, as in so many other ways, he was ahead of not only his own time, but still ahead of ours. Given the right circumstances, there is nothing more divine than sex. He always insisted he wasn’t trying to be vulgar. He spoke the truth. While he cannot have been innocent about what he was “doing” onstage, and while some of his comments defending himself may be a tad disingenuous, I think a deeper comment is there underneath his spoken denials, one that showed him as a true radical, then and now. Those calling him vulgar were missing his unspoken and yet implied point. It’s not that what he was doing wasn’t sexual, it’s that vulgarity and sex do not necessarily have to go hand in hand, and it was sex as freedom and release and fun that he was handing to his audience in the package of himself. Now that’s radical. That’s a revolution. Those who see any sexuality as vulgar will always miss that point. How could what he was doing be vulgar when sex came from God? How could anything made by God be vulgar? He didn’t waste time with such intellectualizations, however. He just continued to insist that what happened between him and his audience was innocent, and “no one was getting hurt”. Sex is pleasurable and for a couple of moments you release yourself from being a regular everyday person with troubles and struggles. So before he even knew what he was doing, before he even knew the vast possibilities that sex would end up providing him and how easy it would be for him to get laid in a mere matter of months (his friend Red West recalls that Elvis was such an innocent at the time that it was actually a revelation to Elvis when he discovered that women loved sex as much as men did – like, this was a surprise to Elvis, he had had no idea), he started providing that release. And once he knew what he was doing, once he understood the doorway that he had wrenched open for other people, well, he kept on opening it. Sex is how he did that. He made it seem friendly and fun. He made it seem like we could have that for ourselves, too. And of course we can.

It was the sex that got him notoriety. It was his movements onstage, and those baggy trousers that made it seem like, in the words of Scotty Moore, “all hell was breaking loose under there”. He allowed people to feel things, to live vicariously, to project onto him what they wanted. He was seen as a corruptible influence. He made girls melt. If girls start melting willy-nilly without pre-approval from the establishment, then where will we be? It was a matter of great national concern.

As you can see, the sex is a distraction for me as well.

But if there’s one theme I detect in his work, if there’s one underlying vein that was really driving him, it’s not sex. Sex was how he got a lot out, that’s true. Sex was how he expressed himself. Shy people are often exhibitionists. Even his girlfriends and lovers report that he was very shy one on one, and many of them never even saw him naked, even though they were sleeping with him. He was modest. Shy. This has been spun by people who wish him ill as a calculated move on his part, that his deferring manner and shyness was a way for him to get what he wanted. I don’t think that is entirely untrue, although there is certainly no need to be cynical about it. His mother had instilled in him good manners, knowing that her son, growing up in poverty as he was, was going to need every leg up he could get, and having good manners is a way to get respect, and to show respect. Having good manners opens doors for people, no matter what lowly station one comes from. The fact that everyone and their mother and their grandmother, anyone who ever met him actually, remarks upon Elvis’ good manners shows that it was a deeply engrained way of being in him.

Those who see that as contradictory, and somehow incompatible with his bad-ass leather-clad self, again miss the point, and in so doing miss the enormous appeal of the man. One of the things he brought to the table, over and over again, was that yes, there are contradictions, but no, these contradictions are not incompatible. Contradictions are part of the human fabric. His sweetness as a man is what allowed the leather-clad bad-ass to operate onstage. He would be nothing without those contradictions. The divine and the earthy, God and the Devil, the aspirational and the guttural, both were given equal sway within him. He needed no segue from one to the other. He performed “Peace in the Valley” during his third Ed Sullivan appearance. Now just picture that. It was at the height of the controversy surrounding him, and he was filmed from the waist up, and he chose to end his appearance with a heartfelt earnest gospel song. And that song went to #1, which just goes to show you that from the get-go his fans always accepted the contradictions. Critics and parents and preachers may bluster: “The bad-boy rock ‘n roller singing gospel now?? This is outrageous!” But the fans all just poured into record shops across the land to buy the single, en masse.

While the sex he provided as a performer was tremendously appealing, it wasn’t the only thing he offered. The fans didn’t want him to do only one thing. They would follow him wherever he wanted to go. Gospel? Why not. If they had only wanted him for the Sex Thing, they would have rejected “Peace in the Valley”, but they did not.

All of this, though, again, eludes the main point.

What I feel, underneath all of his work, is not the sex drive. Nor is it the love of God, although you can feel both of those things, sometimes in the same moment.

What is really there, underneath it all, and what it is really about, is loneliness.

The loneliness is almost existential in its vastness, and he reaches about, graspingly, for relief from that state of being and mind through connection with others. You can see it in the flickering of his eyes, going up, down, out, in his live performances. He does not look straight out at an imaginary single audience member. He always seems to be searching, searching for someone in particular, looking for a face, a glimpse, a look, something to latch onto. This is one of the reasons why girls in the audience always felt that he was singing to them and them alone. He was looking for them. He needed them. They sensed it.

His entire career could be seen as a giant exercise in staving off loneliness, a loneliness that had to be so huge it was at times unbearable. I am not solely talking about biography here. It is true that his divorce left him shaken. He missed his wife, and he missed his daughter.

It is true that his mother’s death was a blow from which he never recovered. He would never stop being lonely for her once she passed.

It is also true that the death of his twin brother marked him. While Elvis obviously wouldn’t remember the circumstances of his birth, and while he obviously wouldn’t remember his time in the womb, it cannot be denied that he was there, that he lived through it, that he spent nine months curled up next to his dead sibling. As gruesome as that might sound, that was the context of his entry into the world. There have been studies done about twinless twins, especially those who have lost their twin before birth, and these people often report feeling an ache for something that should be there, like something is missing from their lives, although they can have no conscious memory of their sibling. Elvis’ mother obviously fostered in him a love and respect for his dead twin – this was not an event that was pushed under the carpet in the Presley family. They talked about Jessie all the time, they honored him, they prayed to him, they both talked to him.

Elvis himself was open about that missing place in his life. He had some feelings of guilt, too, like: why did he survive? Did he somehow get the strength of his dead brother? Is that why he was “chosen” to be who he was, is that why he was plucked out of obscurity? He felt that he had the power of two men, and so his twin haunted him. But again, one cannot rely on biographical details alone to understand the music, or what drove him. It will always come up lacking.

What does a 19-year-old boy, surrounded by his mother’s loving embrace, and a busy social world with a girlfriend, and a couple of good friends, and supportive bosses, know about existential loneliness? I have always sensed that the loneliness at the heart of who he was was not pinned on biography, although circumstances exacerbated the loneliness that was already there, that was always there. Fame exacerbated it. He wasn’t a member of a band, like the Beatles, where the stress of fame could be distributed equally between the members. He was by himself. But that’s not the loneliness I am talking about, either. That came after. The loneliness he had was something he was born with, I believe, and it is that that keens through every one of his songs, even the hardest rocking ones. There is no other way to explain how he could tap into the eerie loneliness of a suicidal man in “Heartbreak Hotel”, or his swoon of transcendent emotion that sounds like the beginning of the end in “Blue Moon”. The interesting thing is to hear the alternate takes of those songs, to hear him laughing or giggling before going into “Blue Moon” again, a perfect example of the artistic process. He wasn’t a gloomy boy. He wasn’t a tormented intellectual. He was actually kind of sunshiny, to be honest, a nice kid, with an exuberant laugh.

But there he is, in “Blue Moon”, wailing and cooing in a creepy wandering falsetto that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up every time I hear it.

I have written before about Elvis’ “suggestibility”, and in his case I meant that as a great compliment. It was his suggestibility that allowed him to tap into whatever emotion a song required, with something that always sounds like ease. It was his suggestibility that allowed him to be a quick learner on a movie set, and to never make the amateurish mistake of trying too hard. It was his suggestibility that, to go back to the Sex Thing, allowed him to tap into that energy before he had even had sex himself. Of course, any adolescent understands the sex drive. You don’t need to have had sex to know what it feels like to want to have sex. But the songs themselves, those early songs, “I Got a Woman”, “Good Rockin’ Tonight”, “Lawdy Miss Clawdy”, “Money Honey”, “Baby Let’s Play House”, come from a knowing sexual place. Men live with their women in the songs, men bitch about how their women are unfaithful, one man sneaks off with his girl for some “good rockin”, one man sings about his fuck buddy “way across town” who’s good to him, one man sings about his money woes and hiding from his landlord, one song is about shacking up with someone without getting married. This was not Elvis’ actual world. He was a teenager. He lived at home. He did his best to not worry his mother. The songs were a couple steps ahead of Elvis in terms of his literal experience. He had no literal experience! But his suggestibility makes all of that irrelevant. The songs suggested to him how to sing them, where to come from, what to draw on, and while that transfer may be a mysterious one, there is no doubt that it took place.

His suggestibility is what separates him from some of the other artists at Sun at that time, guys who were equally as hungry, guys on the same train, but guys who were a bit more limited in their ability to go wherever a song needed them to go. Plenty of guys can sing “I Got a Woman”, but fewer guys can pull off “I Got a Woman” and “I Was the One” in the same show, and be equally as convincing in both. It was Elvis’ suggestibility (not to mention his vocal gift) that allowed him to go where he went, musically. His sensibility was flexible, he could pour himself into the container of a song. He could modify himself, transform himself, he could be “any way you want me”, like the song says.

There is nothing on earth like “Heartbreak Hotel”, and the song still barely makes sense, at least in context of what was going on with Elvis at that time. The song is so well-known now, that you have to squint through the mists of time to see what a huge risk the song was, how odd it was and still is (listen to the arrangement – remember that Elvis was rocking out in his other songs, or singing pleading ballads – nothing prepares you for “Heartbreak Hotel” in anything he was doing at that time). The song is terrifying, the images bleak and surreal, there’s a soft burlesque quality to the beat, there’s minimal orchestration, and his echoing voice moaning the lyrics above it all. He is only 20 years old. It makes no sense. It makes perfect sense.

His loneliness would become more explicit in his later years, when he began to devote himself to the ballads. They are cries of pain. His sex drive plunged underground. You can hear it in the music. And, as my friend Kent pointed out, you can see it in the cars he bought in the mid-70s. The disappearance of the sex drive was due to the drug addiction, of course, but also the disorientation following the breakup of his marriage, and his knowledge that somewhere, along the way, he had fucked it all up. He was self-pitying, sure, and there is some self-pity in the 70s songs, but I hear more the legitimate cries of pain and loss, the loneliness that is now an affliction, an ongoing condition, something he can neither run from, nor escape.

Loneliness had dogged him from the beginning. He was born into it. Maybe it was the ghost of his twin, embedded in his DNA, maybe it was something else, the yearning to connect, to be a part of something, to belong, to speak, to be heard. Who knows. Loneliness had always been something he feared, and did whatever he could to fight against. He hired his friends, so they could be together all the time. He spent hours on the phone with his girlfriends, every night. He wanted everyone to be together. Always. He couldn’t stand people leaving him. It was abandonment. This is not just pop-psychology, because I think these things were in him before the trauma of his mother’s death, which certainly changed him irrevocably.

Entelechy is one of my favorite words and concepts.

en·tel·e·chy
n. pl. en·tel·e·chies
1. In the philosophy of Aristotle, the condition of a thing whose essence is fully realized; actuality.
2. In some philosophical systems, a vital force that directs an organism toward self-fulfillment.

The entelechy of an acorn is a giant oak. There is something here that relates to Elvis. Within him, he knew how bad loneliness could get. He was a sponge. He saw his mother’s drive to make good, he saw his mother’s courage in the face of her husband’s imprisonment. He experienced poverty, he experienced the abyss poverty created. He understood shame. He understood fear. He understood the need to protect. He understood that it was him and his mother against a cruel world. He understood all of this young. Despite his later devotion to esoteric topics, Elvis didn’t think in abstractions. The full-blown scope of his loneliness was there, in the pit of him, early, he knew it like he knew the back of his own hand. Where did it come from? Why had he been given it? What was he to do with it? He worked hard to keep loneliness at bay. His whole drive to become a star could be seen, then, as the determined erecting of the ultimate barrier against the void inside of him, beckoning to him already.

The loneliness made him an odd and eccentric young man, shy, with a stutter, yet somehow bold enough to dress in kelly-green bolero jackets in high school, for God’s sake. Dave Marsh says that one of the main drives in this man was to be “unignorable” and I think there is a lot of truth in that. If you are unignorable, then maybe you will never be lonely.


Elvis backstage at the Overton Park Shell show in Memphis, July 1954.

When he first walked into Sun Records in 1953, he could have no way of knowing where he was going to go. He just knew he wanted to communicate. He knew he had to communicate. What it was he needed to ‘say’ may not have been clear, but he didn’t care, that didn’t stop him. He had to communicate. It was so imperative that I can imagine him lying awake in bed at night, eyes wide open, staring at the ceiling, aching to be heard, to connect, to get ….. there. It had to happen for him. He had no Plan B.

While he couldn’t have known how famous he would become, I do believe that he had the entelechy of it in him from the start. Perhaps we all do, but we dismiss them as pipe dreams, fantasies, or pleasant ways to pass the time in daydreams. But I think Elvis knew. To Elvis, they were in sight, something to grasp for, a brass ring in the sky above him. In those beginning couple of years, he would say, on occasion, that he wanted to be a country and western star like Ernest Tubb, or he wanted to be an actor like Marlon Brando, or he wanted to be part of a gospel quartet. All of these were true dreams for him. But there was more. He wanted to be all of those things. He wanted to rise to a level of universal belovedness, he wanted to entertain the world, not just the folks in honky-tonks in his area, not just the folks on the C&W circuit. I am only guessing here, because there’s no real way of knowing. He says that he walked into Sun records to cut a song to give to his mother as a gift.

That’s the official story.

Well, of course that’s what you would say if you actually had dreams inside of you, at age 18, of being the biggest star the world has ever known. And of course that’s what you would say if you were Elvis, growing up in a staunch matriarchy. Of course it was for his mother. Of course that would be the official line. Why would you openly express what you could see in your mind’s eye if worldwide eternal fame is what it was that you saw? Why would you say, “I have visions of screaming millions of people who love me”? You can’t let people in on something like that. You must hold it close, close, close. Because it’s sacred. And because it is sacred, it is fragile. Best to just say he wanted his Mama to hear him sing. That keeps us all safe from the implications.

To quote my sister Jean, when I was talking to her about all of this: “That’s a hell of a secret to keep from people.”

Isn’t it though?

A secret like that, burning inside him, forcing him to overcome his shyness and to keep “dropping by” Sun Records until they gave him a chance, is a lonely place to be. Having dreams is lonely. Having a dream like that is even lonelier. That is why I say that Elvis’ loneliness is separate from biographical details that may “explain” his loneliness. His loneliness was actually alone-ness, a true solitary nature, intensified by his superstar status and the isolation that that necessarily created. But on that other level, the level of art and myth, it was something he was born with, something he played with and expressed, even in songs that weren’t about loneliness. He didn’t have to grow into anything. He was one of those rare artists who emerged already in full bloom. He was the pampered son of a loving mother who kept his plates separate from the rest of the family’s because he was finicky that way, and washed his underwear for him, and made his bed, and hovered around him listening to him, loving him, touching him, supporting him. He loved her. He called her every day. She had prophetic dreams about him, dreams that came true. He would never be truly alone as long as she was in his corner. But even his mother couldn’t touch that core of alone-ness, or his private and fiercely guarded secret of where he wanted to go, and what he saw for himself. Once his dreams started coming true, his loneliness intensified and you can sense it in the sometimes disoriented interviews he gave during those early years of 1955, 1956, before the Colonel Clamp-down was in full effect. He talks about everything being like a dream, he talks about being afraid to wake up, he talks about not being able to understand what has happened because “it all happened so fast”.

He had Scotty and Bill and DJ. That’s true.

But he was front and center. By himself. Where he had pictured himself, where he knew he had to be. It was what he wanted. It was what he had seen and dreamt of and yearned for and pictured. It happened.

In September of 1956, he recorded something called “The Truth About Me”, which was released as a 45, and included in Teen Parade magazine. He answers the questions about himself, and speaks in an unguarded and seemingly spontaneous manner, with that gentle stutter showing up from time to time, making the whole thing feel strangely intimate and off-the-cuff. While all of this is obviously part of a huge promotional push for Love Me Tender, it doesn’t feel like a canned promotional response. There are a couple of moments that are startlingly revealing. He is 21 years old.

I guess the first thing people want to know is why I can’t stand still when I’m singing. Some people tap their feet, some people snap their fingers, and some people just sway back and forth. I just sort of do them all together, I guess. Singing rhythm and blues really knocks it out. I watch my audience and listen to them, and, and, I know we’re all getting something out of our system and none of us knows what it is. The important thing is that we’re getting rid of it and nobody’s getting hurt. I suppose you know I’ve got a lot of cars. People have written about it in the papers and a lot of them write and ask me why. When I was driving a truck, every time a big shiny car drove by it started me sort of daydreaming. I always felt that someday somehow something would happen to change everything for me and I’d daydream about how it would be. The first car I ever bought was the most beautiful car I’ve ever seen. It was second-hand but I parked it outside of my hotel the day I got it and set up all night just looking at it. And the next day, well, the thing caught fire and burned up on the road. In a lot of the mail I get, people ask questions about the kind of things I do and all that sort of stuff. Well, I don’t smoke, and I don’t drink, and I love to go to movies. Maybe someday I’m gonna have a home and a family of my own and I’m not gonna budge from it. I was an only child but, uh …. maybe my kids won’t be. I suppose this kind of talk raises another question. Am I in love. No. I thought I’ve been in love but I guess I wasn’t. It just passed over. I guess I haven’t met the girl yet, but I will, and I hope it won’t be too long because I get lonesome sometimes. I get lonesome right in the middle of a crowd. I’ve got a feeling that with her … whoever she may be … I won’t be lonesome no matter where I am. Well, thanks for letting me talk to you and sort of get things off of my chest. I sure appreciate you listening to my RCA Victor records and I’d like to thank all the disc jockeys for playing them. Bye-bye.

In December of 1976, in Las Vegas, Elvis lay in his bed in his palatial suite. He wrote the following note on a piece of paper which was later found crumpled up in the wastebasket:

I feel so alone sometimes. The night is quiet for me. I’d love to be able to sleep. I am glad that everyone is gone now. I’ll probably not rest. I have no need for all this. Help me, Lord.

As Seal wrote, “It’s the loneliness that’s the killer.”

It was the loneliness that made him want to reach out and communicate with thousands, not just with one or two. Only thousands (and then millions upon millions) would help him feel less alone. He “always felt that someday somehow something would happen to change everything for [him] and [he'd] daydream about how it would be.” The loneliness was in him and made him wise beyond his years (just listen to his “Blue Moon” again to get a sense of that). Perhaps it came from his striving towards God, his longing for communion, for communication with the Creator. Perhaps it came from his economic status, highlighting the gap between where he was and where he wanted to go, and “all the lonely people” and all that. But perhaps it was just part and parcel of his character, a vein of melancholy and self-awareness that made him able to tap into loneliness, before he had actually experienced it to the degree that he experienced it at the time he wrote that despairing note to God in 1976.

Sex is a great way to feel less alone. We all know and understand that. It can be used as a crutch, sure, but the drive to connect is in all of us, and it’s a good thing. This teenage boy launched himself into that expression, letting out his need to connect, his need to communicate, and his audiences got the message loud and clear. He put it out there, and their screams of approbation let him know, night after night after night, that he had been heard. That his needs were their needs, that he was not alone. At least for that moment in time.

The sex is still a magnet. It is still what we talk about when we talk about Elvis.

But it’s the loneliness that is the whole shebang. You’ll be so lonely you could die.

Posted in Music | Tagged | 54 Comments

RIP, Adam Yauch

I won’t lie. This one feels personal.

Please go read this. Beautiful. It helped provide a catharsis because otherwise I was kind of staggering around listening to License To Ill on the iPod, not sure what to do with myself. Or say. I love it when someone out there knows what to say.

Rest in peace, MCA. You were a huge part of my life.

Posted in Music, RIP | 3 Comments

Happy Birthday, Machiavelli!

machiavellis_portrait.jpg

Niccolò Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy, May 3, 1469

We first had to read The Prince in high school. I remember it as drudgery. I flat out didn’t get it. I read it again a couple years later, and the light had dawned. I “got” the book, I got its importance. It became especially relevant with all of my reading about the Founding Fathers, and their thoughts on government, and the workings of power, and the general corruptibility of man. I would go back to Machiavelli time and time again to read the passages Jefferson loved, or Adams. One of my favorite things about all “those guys” was their distrust of idealism, in and of itself, and certainly a distrust of Utopias. They were hardened skeptics, actually, at least about mankind and human nature. Hence: the checks, the balances. Man is not to be trusted with power. Ever.

Machiavelli understood that better than most.

Every time I read the book, it seems to change, morph. It has a strange chameleon-like quality. There are times when, depending on where I am at in my life, it seems as though new sections have been added. It’s a book to have a relationship with, that’s for sure. The Prince has become increasingly important in the last couple of years to me personally as I have started to move into areas in my career where I need to negotiate, where I need to maintain a strong position, where I need to be wily and cunning in order to get my way, where I have a property that I know is valuable, and I need to figure out how to not get taken advantage of. Machiavelli helps with that stuff, man. (So does Colonel Parker.)

I really like the section on armies. But in honor of the guy I’m gonna post, now, an excerpt from the famous chapter: “On Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether It Is Better to be Loved or Feared”.

The edition that I have starts with an awesome introduction about the history of people’s responses to this book. How “Macchiavellian” became a certain type of descriptive term pretty much in his lifetime. How the work is misunderstood, essentially. (He’s similar to Orwell, in that way. Christopher Hitchens, in Why Orwell Matters analyzes brilliantly how “Orwellian” became a descriptive term, and how so often Orwell is associated with totalitarianism, as though he ENDORSED those views, merely because he was able to portray them so accurately. A true association of author with subject, mistaking the messenger for the message.) Machiavelli has a similar reputation. His very name now means something malevolent, it is a signifier, a shorthand. Maybe the only thing people remember from the book is “the ends justify the means”, which, taken out of context, can, yes, be terrifying. Even in context it can be terrifying. Always, Nick? The ends always justify the means?

Machiavelli was a political insider with a cushy government job, but all of that changed when the Medicis took power. Machiavelli was imprisoned, tortured, and exiled. During his exile, he wrote The Prince, hopefully as a way to get in the good graces of the Medicis. A gift, a presentation: “Here is all that I know about politics. You shouldn’t exile me. I can help you. I can be of service to you.” Seen in another light, the book could be seen as a groveling piece of sycophancy. I love all of the levels in it.

Here is a bit from a letter he wrote to a friend during his exile:

I am living in the country since my disgrace. I get up at dawn and go to the little wood where I see what work has been done …

Then comes a long section where he discusses sitting outside, on a hill, reading Dante, Petrarch, Tibullus, Ovid. Then he goes to spend the afternoon at the inn, with the miller, the butcher, a cook, some bricklayers. The letter continues.

[Spent the afternoon] with these boors playing cards or dice; we quarrel over farthings. When evening comes I return to the house and go into my study. Before I enter I take off my rough mud-stained country dress. I put on my royal and curial robes and thus fittingly attired I enter into the assembly of men of old times. Welcomed by them I feed upon that food which is my true nourishment, and which has made me what I am. I dare to talk with them, and ask them the reason for their actions. Of their kindness they answer me. I no longer fear poverty or death. From these notes I have composed a little work, The Prince.

I find that extraordinary. What a description. My favorite part is how he needed to change into his old court robes, even though he was now exiled from the court, in order to get to work in his study. A sense of humility, awe, and respect when sitting down to contemplate Dante or Ovid. Sitting there in your mud-stained trousers would be the ultimate insult, and in order to “dare to talk with them”, he had to be appropriately dressed.

Tycho Brahe, apparently, used to put on his court robes every time he looked through a telescope.

One must approach one’s work with awe and respect.

I think that’s really cool.

The Prince didn’t win over the Medicis, and Machiavelli remained an outsider for the rest of his life. But the document stands as one of the greatest books of political philosophy ever written. If all you remember of it is having to read it in high school, or if all you remember is “The ends justify the means” I suggest picking it up again! It’s great stuff.

Here’s an excerpt from The Prince:

From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared more than loved. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting. For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger, and covetous of gain; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours; they offer you their blood, their goods, their life, and their children, as I have before said, when the necessity is remote; but when it approaches, they revolt. And the prince who has relied solely on their words, without making other preparations, is ruined; for the friendship which is gained by purchase and not through grandeur and nobility of spirit is bought but not secured, and at a pinch is not to be expended in your service. And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligation, which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Still, a prince should make himself feared in such a way that if he does not gain love, he at any rate avoids hatred; for fear and the absence of hatred may go well together, and will be always attained by one who abstains from interfering with the property of his citizens and his subjects or with their women. And when he is obliged to take the life of any one, let him do so when there is a proper justification and manifest reason for it; but above all he must abstain from taking the property of others, for men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. [I guess Marx and Lenin didn't read their Machiavelli, huh?] Then also pretexts for seizing property are never wanting, and one who begins to live by rapine will always find some reason for taking the goods of others, whereas causes for taking life are rarer and more fleeting.

But when the prince is with his army and has a large number of soldiers under his control, then it is extremely necessary that he should not mind being thought cruel; for without this reputation he could not keep his army united or disposed to any duty. Among the noteworthy actions of Hannibal is numbered this, that although he had an enormous army, composed of men of all nations and fighting in foreign countries, there never arose any dissension either among them or against the prince, either in good fortune or in bad. This could not be due to anything but his inhuman cruelty, which together with his infinite other virtues, made him always venerated and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, and without it his other virtues would not have sufficed to produce that effect. Thoughtless writers admire on the one hand his actions, and on the other blame the principal cause of them.

And that it is true that his other virtues would not have sufficed may be seen from the case of Scipio (famous not only in regard to his own times, but all times of which memory remains), whose armies rebelled against him in Spain, which arose from nothing but his excessive kindness, which allowed more licence to the soldiers than was consonant with military discipline. He was reproached with this in the senate by Fabius Maximus, who called him a corrupter of the Roman militia. Locri having been destroyed by one of Scipio’s officers was not revenged by him, nor was the insolence of that officer punished, simply by reason of his easy nature; so much so, that some one wishing to excuse him in the senate, said that there were many men who knew rather how not to err, than how to correct the errors of others. This disposition would in time have tarnished the fame and glory of Scipio had he persevered in it under the empire, but living under the rule of the senate this harmful quality was not only concealed but became a glory to him.

I conclude, therefore, with regard to being feared and loved, that men love at their own free will, but fear at the will of the prince, and that a wise prince must rely on what is in ihis power and not on what is in the power of others, and he must only contrive to avoid incurring hatred, as has been explained.

Happy birthday, Machiavelli!

Posted in Books, On This Day | Leave a comment

The Books: Slouching Towards Bethlehem: ‘John Wayne: A Love Story’, by Joan Didion

A second excerpt from the essay collection:

Slouching Towards Bethlehem, by Joan Didion

This is one of the best things written about John Wayne. It’s not just an essay about who he is as an actor, or his biography – although it is that, too – but it’s a Didion mix of personal recollections (“What John Wayne Means To Me”), as well as her visit to the crazy set in Mexico of The Sons of Katie Elder in 1965. Wayne had been diagnosed with cancer (or “the big C” as he called it) in 1964. The news rattled a lot of people, including Didion. Wayne was human, yes, but he seemed more than that. He was a symbol of something, something very important, a deep strain in the American psyche. He still is. Of course he was mortal, but he SEEMED not to be, his persona and his presence was so palpable, so strong, so eternal. Who knows why he had that. I have written before about John Wayne (although nothing compares to what Didion writes here – In fact, whenever I have written about him, I have turned to her essay first, just to orient myself to the man’s size). Henry Hathaway directed Katie Elder and Wayne and Dean Martin starred. When Didion visited the set in Mexico, she entered the mainly male world of camaraderie, joshing, and total unreality that characterizes a movie set. She sat around with everyone, and writes down their conversations. She watches how everyone regales one another with stories. “That was like that time on such-and-such a movie … ” “Member that stunt guy from such-and-such …” Didion is great at describing the no-man’s-land of an in-between time, something she captures in a lot of her essays: the strange alienation and yet also coming-together that can happen during out-of-the-ordinary circumstances. That’s why she’s so good at reporting political campaigns. She picks up on behavioral shit nobody else thinks it’s worth to mention. Didion is interested in reality, yes, but I think that interest is secondary for her.

What is primary is narrative.

One of her most famous lines is “We tell ourselves stories in order to live.”

That is always where her mind is. Even in something as prosaic or bureaucratic as a water board meeting in California, or the background information of the Getty Museum, she is always standing there with her ear to the ground, listening for the rumble of the other story, the one beneath it all.

Movie stars are the embodiment of that Didion line. “We tell ourselves stories in order to live.” What is it that makes one star “hit” over another? There are certainly business decisions that are made, contracts signed, that push this or that actor to the forefront. But John Wayne didn’t become who he was because of a business decision or a good deal. He didn’t even become “John Wayne” because of the opportunities he got early on. Plenty of people get good opportunities and don’t “show up” like Wayne did. Plenty of people get one shot and then are never heard from again. And Wayne was in the trenches for a long time. Forever. It was not a done deal for him. It was not immediately apparent to everyone the second he walked into the room: “Oh my God, yes, he is going to be one of the biggest stars of the 20th century.”

There are many reasons why John Wayne became who he was. I have my theories. There was a time-and-place factor going on with him. 20 years later, and it might not have happened. But even that cannot explain his overwhelming effectiveness onscreen. There’s that one quote from him in an interview with Peter Bogdanovich. Bogdanovich asks him about his gestures, and how bold they are – and Wayne replied, “Well, I think that’s the first thing you learn when you do a high school play. If you’re going to make a gesture, make it.”

There, we are getting close to the heart of Wayne’s genius onscreen, his unfailing sense of truth. This is something that cannot be taught. You just have to know it. Wayne knew it from the start. He never hesitated. Gesture to be made? He made it. He launched himself out into the imaginary. He held nothing back. He also never lied. That’s one of the things that also cannot be taught. It can’t even be cultivated. You have it, or you don’t. He was not perfect. But he was always honest. His onscreen persona had such authority because of that. You relax when you see him. Even when he’s acting like a son of a bitch, he’s coming from a place of truth. And truth, above all else, has authority. In the end, it is the ONLY thing that matters onscreen.

Sure, it helps to be beautiful. It helps to be subtle. The camera doesn’t like obvious phoniness.

But Truth is the one thing that the movies can hand to us like no other medium, and it is the hardest thing to capture or convey. If it weren’t difficult, we’d see it more often. Don’t underestimate how difficult this gig is. But it’s not difficult for people like John Wayne. He just had to be given the opportunity to show what he could do, and when the time came, he SHOWED UP.

Although his star power is never denied, his chops as an actor are often dismissed, or taken for granted. Recently, I saw someone on Facebook – someone I don’t know, but a person who makes his living writing about film – say that John Wayne wasn’t “a great actor”. He then went on to babble the tiresome lazy bullshit about how Wayne “just played himself”. I honestly am sick of writing about my problems with this mindset, which I have been doing for years, but whatever, here I am obnoxiously going off on it again. The “he wasn’t good, he just played himself” attitude represents a critical failure and the fact that so many people think that that is a valid reaction, that that is valid criticism is just an indicator of how deep the failure goes. Listen, I don’t pontificate on trade unions and financial institutions because I have the good sense to know that I would not know what I was talking about, and it’s better to defer to those who actually know the topic at hand. But with acting, everyone considers themselves an expert because it is seen as subjective, and we all go to the movies, right, we all have a part in this gig! True to some extent, that’s the beauty of it, but when I hear someone say, “Sure, he’s okay, but he just played himself over and over”, I know that that someone has actually not thought deeply enough about acting, they have not considered it deeply enough, and therefore I think to myself, “Okay, well, you don’t know what you’re talking about, or, you certainly haven’t taken the time to think it through in an indepth way, so you certainly won’t mind if I don’t take you seriously, right?” If you’re just a general audience member, it’s not so much an issue, but when I see it show up in professional writing, people who spend their lives observing the industry and watching movies, that’s when I get irritated. If I babbled on about Wall Street dealings in a tone of total certainty and pomposity, giving recommendations and opinions, then I would certainly expect to be taken down a peg by those who actually know that world and understand its subtleties. I don’t run around “dismissing” other people’s opinions, but “he just played himself” is one I wholeheartedly dismiss. It’s actually helpful, it saves a lot of time.

To not understand that there are trends in acting – and that now the trend is to congratulate those who go after total transformation (“I’m beautiful, therefore I will play ugly” “I’m tall, therefore I will play short” “My nose is perfect, therefore I will wear a putty prosthetic nose”, etc.) – is to not understand the history of the industry. “Playing yourself” is devalued NOW, but it wasn’t in the beginning when the greatest stars were born. So at least admit that your stupid comment “he was just playing himself” comes out of your own limited understanding of the history of the trends of acting. Don’t just pass that off as Truth. (It’s interesting that if you remove the word “just” from the sentence “He just played himself”, then I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it. It’s the “just” that is so dismissive, so lazy, so wrong. The “just” is always there, which is the clue to me, the “tell”, that the person speaking has not thought about the issue deeply enough and is coming from a deeply mistaken understanding of what acting actually is. There is nothing, nothing, nothing “just” about honestly playing one’s self and to say so reveals the shallowness of your thinking. That’s all. In the same way if I blithely made comments about nuclear fusion or insider trading or bonsai trees – whatever – my comments would reveal my ignorance to those who actually worked in those fields. A dismissive “He was just playing himself” is a “tell” on the same level.)

Let me put it to you plainly: Once Upon a Time, Great Stars Walked the Earth. And they had specific Personae, that were cultivated by smart studio heads and smart directors and projects were developed to keep that Persona in the public eye. That was How It Used To Be. In the Current Day, we are in the Baroque phase of the Method Acting trend, where actors are congratulated for either starving themselves or gaining 120 pounds, where that type of actual physical transformation is what is perceived as good acting. But back in the 30s and 40s, you put on a fat suit and some old-age makeup, did your job, and went home at the end of the day, happy with a good day’s work. Today that would be seen as “cheating”. But it wasn’t back then. And that’s not even an accurate depiction, actually, of the situation because “back then” you were cast in terms of what you already brought to something. If you were thin, you played thin. If you were old and jowly, you played old jowly guys. If you were ugly, you played ugly people. If you were gorgeous, you were a lead. (This is still mostly true. It is only when people become giant stars now that they want to start messing with their personae, to get more “respect”, ie: “I made my name being a gorgeous babe who looks hot in a bikini but I want more ‘respect’ so now I will put on prosthetic buck teeth and walk with a limp and go for the Oscar gold!”) But back in the day, careers were cultivated around what was already there, and if you hit “paydirt” with your persona, you only messed with it in a very calculated and cautious manner (see the entire career of Cary Grant). There were those who were able to find huge amounts of versatility within their own established personae – these are the people who became long-lasting stars – and then there were those who were so versatile that they seemed to step out of another time entirely, a harbinger of the future of acting – Bette Davis comes to mind. She could do anything, and was not “stuck” in one set persona. She was unique in that way. But you hire Errol Flynn, you get Errol Flynn. You hire Carole Lombard, you get Carole Lombard. Carole Lombard didn’t have to make herself “ugly” to get respect as an actress. That would have been an odd thought back then. James Cagney didn’t try to re-make himself as some smooth slick guy, in order to show his “range”. That would have been seen as a totally bizarre choice. Now it’s par for the course, but that is a recent phenomenon.

So. Do you see the history of acting now? You see how trends happen? Robert DeNiro gained a ton of weight for Raging Bull and, in some eyes, “raised the bar” for other actors. Unless you drastically changed your appearance – ACTUALLY – you were “phoning it in” and “faking it”. This attitude is so prevalent now that it goes almost unexamined and unacknowledged. But that is only because people are trapped in their own time, in the way everyone is trapped in their own time. The goal, then, is to understand the history of acting, and how acting has been seen and understood over the generations – but to do that, you would actually need to do some, you know, research, and actually try to look at moments other than your own time in the context of that particular time, and that would take work, wouldn’t it? This stupidity is not just limited to film critics who think they understand acting when they know nothing but their own personal preference. It’s also deeply engrained in actors as well, those who think movies began in the 70s. Those who think Robert DeNiro invented good acting, with maybe a shoutout to Marlon Brando. I remember hearing someone say something dismissive about Spencer Tracy in an acting class in grad school, and it was along the lines of, “God, he just did the same thing over and over again … he just played himself”. And this was an ACTOR. Dear Stupid Actor, you WISH that you could be as interesting as Spencer Tracy was “just” being himself.

You talk to any illiterate 19 year old ballerina-in-training, and she may not know the history of the Spanish-American War, but she can tell you the history of her own business, and the big stars of the past, and why so-and-so was so good, and what so-and-so brought to it, and how the art form developed and grew and changed. You can still find actors now who haven’t watched a black-and-white movie. This is shameful. Actors who have no curiosity about the history of their own profession should be ashamed of themselves. You can actually learn from these greats who “only played themselves”. You can learn a hell of a lot more, and more important stuff than “Let me go on a crash diet so everyone can see how dedicated I am to my craft.”

I do not mean to sound totally dismissive of the current trend. There is some great work being done. And those who achieve a transformation – from the inside-out – have my greatest admiration. I love that shit. But not at the expense of those like John Wayne, or Spencer Tracey, or, hell, Elvis Presley, who showed up onscreen with an indelible personality specific to them, and will be talked about long long after the current batch of actors have turned to dust. Understand that what is congratulated now has not always been congratulated. Understand that a trend is a trend. The fact that Jason Robards spoke dismissively of “the Method” does not say anything about his talent. The fact that Cary Grant always had the same haircut in every single movie does not mean that he wasn’t “dedicated” to his craft, or some such bullshit. You can certainly have a personal preference, but don’t be a moron about it.

Another thing I want to mention about John Wayne, and then I’ll get to Didion: I have been writing about actors for a long time. I write about all kinds of actors. People show up here and comment on their favorite moments, their favorite movies, the roles they loved of whatever actor I’m talking about. But when I have written about John Wayne, people show up and tell me about themselves. In this, John Wayne stands (almost) alone. Yes, people talk about the movies they loved, but more people show up and say, “He makes me think of my grandfather …” “He makes me think of my father …” “My father loved John Wayne …” The reactions to John Wayne, then, are ultimately personal. And the only other person I have written about that engenders that same kind of personal response is Elvis Presley. People certainly show up and talk about Elvis’ movies, music, etc. But more often than not, I hear about the Aunt who had a shrine, the grandmother who said “Elvis really loved his mother”, the father who fell in love with Elvis when he heard his gospel music… People talk about Elvis, yes. But what they are really talking about is themselves. It’s one of the reasons that I think Elvis is hard to get a handle on, culturally and critically.

The same thing is true of John Wayne.

One of my favorite actresses is Jean Arthur, and I have written a lot about her, and people just LOVE this woman. Any time I write about her, people come pouring out of the woodwork. But they talk about her roles, her life, her relationships … they don’t talk about themselves. The same is true for Cary Grant, another favorite of mine, and clearly a favorite of a lot of people. Cary Grant gets under your skin and people are not just fans of the man – they are fans for life. People are LOYAL to Cary Grant.

But still. The comments threads of a John Wayne post are very different than the comments thread of a Cary Grant post. With John Wayne, I hear about family members, childhood memories, the First Time I Saw One of His Movies, my mother loved him, my father loved him, my uncle who was a Vietnam vet loved him ….

This is unique, make no mistake. It’s one of the reasons that I equate John Wayne and Elvis Presley. They are both important public figures, with important careers. But there are many people who have had important careers. They both tapped into something unique, something wholly American, they dug right in to the Mother Lode of our dreams and fantasies and wishes for ourselves – but, in the end, they tapped into something universal and eternal. Not by making a big deal out of it, but by “just” being themselves. Or being the best version of themselves. Comfortable with wearing the mantle of their own myths. “Okay, okay, it’s a bit of a burden, sure, but you see this in me, so sure, I’ll carry that mantle for ya … ”

And both did so for a long period of time, Wayne for his entire career which spanned decades, and Elvis for the entire half of his life that he was famous. And it certainly would have continued, had Elvis lived.

You can literally count on one hand the performers who can do that. You might hit into something important, trendy, and have a good 5 or 10 years at the top – but 40? Or 20?

Good luck with that.

And so Joan Didion’s relatively short essay about John Wayne is massive in scope. She writes it in the knowledge that Wayne has cancer, and there is an uncertainty about it all. Nobody speaks about it, but it’s there, underneath her prose, keening through it. “If the big C can get him … and it can … what will that mean for us? What will happen to our stories then?”

She begins with the story of the first time she saw John Wayne in a movie. It was 1943 and she was eight years old.

Excerpt from Slouching Towards Bethlehem, by Joan Didion

We went three and four afternoons a week, sat on folding chairs in the darkened Quonset hut which served as a theater, and it was there, that summer of 1943 while the hot wind blew outside, that I first saw John Wayne. Saw the walk, heard the voice. Heard him tell the girl in a picture called War of the Wildcats that he would build her a house, “at the bend in the river where the cottonwoods grow.” As it happened I did not grow up to be the kind of woman who is the heroine in a Western, and although the men I have known have had many virtues and have taken me to live in many places I have come to love, they have never been John Wayne, and they have never taken me to that bend in the river where the cottonwoods grow. Deep in that part of my heart where the artificial rain forever falls, that is still the line I wait to hear.

I tell you this neither in a spirit of self-revelation nor as an exercise in total recall, but simply to demonstrate that when John Wayne rode through my childhood, and perhaps through yours, he determined forever the shape of certain of our dreams. It did not seem possible that such a man could fall ill, could carry within him that most inexplicable and ungovernable of diseases. The rumor struck some obscure anxiety, threw our very childhoods into question. In John Wayne’s world, John Wayne was supposed to give the orders. “Let’s ride,” he said, and “Saddle up.” “Forward ho,” and “A man’s gotta do what he’s got to do.” “Hello, there,” he said when he first saw the girl, in a construction camp or on a train or just standing on the front porch waiting for somebody to ride up through the tall grass. When John Wayne spoke, there was no mistaking his intentions; he had a sexual authority so strong that even a child could perceive it. And in a world we understood early to be characterized by venality and doubt and paralyzing ambiguities, he suggested another world, one which may or may not have existed ever but in any case existed no more: a place where a man could move free, could make his own code and live by it, a world in which, if a man did what he had to do, he could one day take the girl and go riding through the draw and find himself home free, not in a hospital with something going wrong inside, not in a high bed with the flowers and the drugs and the forced smiles, but there at the bend in the bright river, the cottonwoods shimmering in the early morning sun.

“Hello, there.” Where did he come from, before the tall grass? Even his history seemed right, for it was no history at all, nothing to intrude upon the dream. Born Marion Morrison in Winterset, Iowa, the son of a druggist. Moved as a child to Lancaster, California, part of the migration to that promised land sometimes called “the west coast of Iowa.” Not that Lancaster was the promise fulfilled; Lancaster was a town on the Mojave where the dust blew through. But Lancaster was still California, and it was only a year from there to Glendale, where desolation had a different flavor: antimacassars among the orange groves, a middle-class prelude to Forest Lawn. Imagine Marion Morrison in Glendale. A Boy Scout, then a student at Glendale High. A tackle for U.S.C., a Sigma Chi. Summer vacations, a job moving props on the old Fox lot. There, a meeting with John Ford, one of the several directors who were to sense that into this perfect mold might be poured the inarticulate longings of a nation wondering at just what pass the trail had been lost. “Dammit,” said Raoul Walsh later, “the son of a bitch looked like a man.” And so after a while the boy from Glendale became a star. He did not become an actor, as he has always been careful to point out in interviews (“How many times do I gotta tell you, I don’t act at all, I re-act”), but a star, and the star called John Wayne would spend most of the rest of his life with one or another of those directors, out on some forsaken location, in search of the dream.

Out where the skies are a trifle bluer
Out where friendship’s a little truer
That’s where the West begins.

Nothing very bad could happen in the dream, nothing a man could not face down. But something did. There it was, the rumor, and after a while the headlines. “I licked the Big C,” John Wayne announced, as John Wayne would, reducing those outlaw cells to the level of any other outlaws, but ten so we all sensed that this would be the one unpredictable confrontation, the one shoot-out Wayne could lose. I have as much trouble as the next person with illusion and reality, and I did not much want to see John Wayne when he must be (or so I thought) having some trouble with it himself, but I did, and it was down to Mexico when he was making the picture his illness had so long delayed, down in the very country of the dream.

Posted in Actors, Books | Tagged , , , | 31 Comments

The Books: Slouching Towards Bethlehem: ‘Some Dreamers of the Golden Dream’, by Joan Didion

Moving on from the Hollywood shelf to what I call my Essay shelf. First up, is the Joan Didion section. She is one of my favorite writers of all time.

Slouching Towards Bethlehem, by Joan Didion

Slouching Towards Bethlehem is a famous collection of essays, most of which had been previously published elsewhere, in The Saturday Evening Post and other places, and is one of her most famous collections (although The White Album is right up there too).

Here is how Joan Didion came to me. I was working at an internet start-up in the heady days pre-Internet-Bubble-Crash of the late 90s. I was a freelance programmer for their AOL platform and I made crazy money. Money I could never make today. Money like that no longer exists. I worked 20 hours a week and fully supported myself, with room to spare, with my part-time paychecks. I was in grad school. The people who worked at this office were intelligent and eccentric and fun, and the whole thing had a revolutionary and dorm-room feel to it. There were beanbag chairs. The lights were low. I sat next to a guy whose nickname was “Pat the Rat”, and as we both hunched over our computers, he would reach out and play with my ear lobe. He liked the feel of it. We would sit there for hours, doing our work, as he massaged my ear lobe. In that environment, this behavior wasn’t strange at all. This start-up had been bought by New Line Cinema, so money was pouring in, and although there was a huge corporate connection, we were still the weirdos in the metaphorical basement wearing Converse sneakers and throwing darts at the walls to blow off steam. Jobs like that exploded in the mid-90s. I had to turn down work. I met people at that crazy job I am still friends with today. One of the women I met, Rebecca, who is still a friend today, asked me if I had ever read an essay by Joan Didion called “Goodbye to All That”. Rebecca and I had been talking about our lives in New York, our boyfriends, our other dreams, why we were in New York in the first place, and how it was we both came to be working at this crazy Internet start-up. And … when would our lives begin? Or had they begun? It was a strange static no-mans-land, the mid 90s, when there was insane money to be made doing basically NOTHING, grunt work, for big big money, and everyone who worked at that place had other dreams, dreams that brought them to New York in the first place. They were photographers, they were in bands, they were writers, artists, dancers. We were keeping ourselves afloat, keeping our other dreams alive, by huddling over computers messing with code and launching content. Before the mid 90s, to make money we signed up with temp offices and answered phones in banks and financial institutions. Or we waited tables. Or worked minimum wage jobs. But suddenly, there was a wealth of opportunity in Internet startups for weirdos like us. Looking back, it was all very surreal, but I suppose it was surreal at the time, too, and that is what Rebecca and I were talking about. And that is why she brought up Joan Didion’s famous essay about her decision to leave New York, “Goodbye to All That”.

I had not read it. Rebecca gave me a Xeroxed copy of it.

An odd coincidental dovetail: Rebecca was friends with Allison (I did not know her yet at the time, although we would soon become the best of friends, and remain so to this day), and Allison was the one who gave “Goodbye to All That” to Rebecca to read. And then Rebecca passed it on to me. The fact that it was Allison, unknown to me at the time, who, by one degree of association, introduced me to that essay, is just perfect, and kind of an example of the small-world that New York really is.

I read the essay quickly and it blew the top of my head off. It actually was so powerful that I have only read it two or three times since then, because I need to be ready for it. I need to gear up for the implications, gear up for the fact that it will call into question my own choices. It’s that good. It seemed to speak directly into my experience at that moment, and not only that, but it captured a certain quality of New York that may only be comprehensible to those who live here, to those who live here but who have not been born here, who come here specifically to follow a dream, and who sweat it out in the trenches in their late 20s, early 30s. It’s very specific.

So that was my start with Joan Didion. I have since read everything she has ever written. Well, I haven’t read her latest book, about the death of her daughter, but I will.

“Slouching Towards Bethlehem” is a phenomenal collection, vast in scope. One of the interesting things about my own experience with Didion is that because the first essay of hers I read was so quintessentially New York-based, I always thought of her as a New Yorker. She always admitted she was a transplant, she was a native Californian (a strange and interesting breed of person), but her understanding of New York and her uncanny ability to describe its beauty and pain and ache, always made me think of her as an East Coast girl. Perhaps it is because she was not from New York that she was able to describe it so accurately. There is something to that fresh outsider’s perspective. If you move to New York to follow a dream, then New York is not a city. It is a symbol of your dreams. It lives in the imagination of people who have never even been here. You don’t have to have visited Paris to have an idea of it in your head. New York is that kind of city too. One of the funnest things for me, in delving into her work, was reading all of her California stuff (she wrote an entire book about California), because it is so foreign to me (I only visit California, I always feel like a tourist there, despite my family connections out there). She wrote about the freeways, she wrote one brilliant essay about water in California, she writes about crime, she writes about drugs. And one of the things I love so much about her writing is how deep it goes. She writes about surface events, but you always sense Didion, the questioner, the philosopher, drilling down to find out what is really going on.

What is it in a culture, a landscape, a time and place, that makes people do the things they do?

The first essay in Slouching Towards Bethlehem is a perfect example. “Some Dreamers of the Golden Dream” was originally published in The Saturday Evening Post with the chilling title “How Can I tell Them There’s Nothing Left”.

It tells the story of a murder trial in the San Bernardino Valley. A young housewife gets in a car accident with her husband who burns up in the car while she screams for help, to no avail. She is arrested a day or so later for murder. It comes out she had been having an affair. She is convicted of murder. She is pregnant at the time, and delivers her baby while in prison.

Didion starts the whole thing with a contemplation of the San Bernardino Valley, delving into the history of the place, and why people move there, and what it is about the landscape, the air, the wind, the heat, that may impact the culture of the area. She provides context for where we will be going. It is, yes, a Didion context. She makes broad statements, out of her own knowledge of Califrornia, and to Didion – a cigar is rarely just a cigar. Everything comes from somewhere, every small element has an impact on other elements. She sees something in this particular murder trial which is, on the face of it, rather banal. A dime a dozen.

To her, though, it is a California story, through and through.

Here’s an excerpt.

Excerpt from Slouching Towards Bethlehem, by Joan Didion

In some ways it was the conventional clandestine affair in a place like San Bernardino, a place where little is bright or graceful, where it is routine to misplace the future and easy to start looking for it in bed. Over the seven weeks that it would take to try Lucille Miller for murder, Assistant District Attorney Don A. Turner and defense attorney Edward P. Foley would between them unfold a curiously predictable story. There were the falsified motel registrations. There were the lunch dates, the afternoon drives in Arthwell Hayton’s red Cadillac convertible. There were the interminable discussions of the wronged partners. There were the confidantes (“I know everything,” Sandy Slagle would insist fiercely later. “I know every time, places, everything”) and there were the words remembered from bad magazine stories (“Don’t kiss me, it will trigger things,” Lucille Miller remembered telling Arthwell Hayton in the parking lot of Harold’s Club in Fontana after lunch one day) and there were the notes, the sweet exchanges: “Hi Sweetie Pie! You are my cup of tea!! Happy Birthday – you don’t look a day over 29!! Your baby, Arthwell.”

And, toward the end, there was the acrimony. It was April 24, 1964, when Arthwell Hayton’s wife, Elaine, died suddenly, and nothing good happened after that. Arthwell Hayton had taken his cruiser, Captain’s Lady, over to Catalina that weekend; he called home at nine o’clock Friday night, but did not talk to his wife because Lucille Miller answered the telephone and said that Elaine was showering. The next morning the Haytons’ daughter found her mother in bed, dead. The newspapers reported the death as accidental, perhaps the result of an allergy to hair spray. When Arthwell Hayton flew home from Catalina that weekend, Lucille Miller met him at the airport, but the finish had already been written.

It was in the breakup that the affair ceased to be in the conventional mode and began to resemble instead the novels of James M. Cain, the movies of the late 1930′s, all the dreams in which violence and threats and blackmail are made to seem commonplace of middle-class life. What was most startling about he case that the State of California was preparing against Lucille Miller was something that had nothing to do with law at all, something that never appeared in the eight-column afternoon headlines but was always there between them: the revelation that the dream was teaching the dreamers how to live. Here is Lucille Miller talking to her lover sometime in the early summer of 1964, after he had indicated that, on the advice of his minister, he did not intend to see her any more: “First, I’m going to go to that dear pastor of yours and tell him a few things . . . . When I do tell him that, you won’t be in the Redlands Church any more . . . . Look, Sonny Boy, if you think your reputation is going to be ruined, your life won’t be worth two cents.” Here is Arthwell Hayton, to Lucille Miller: “I’ll go to Sheriff Frank Bland and tell him some things that I know about you until you’ll wish you’d never heard of Arthwell Hayton.” For an affair between a Seventh-Day Adventist dentist’s wife and a Seventh-Day Adventist personal-injury laser, it seems a curious kind of dialogue.

Posted in Books | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Baseball Season

My friend Jason has been reviewing baseball movies, to celebrate the start of baseball season. He’s such a wonderful writer (love the Bull Durham one), but they’re all interesting to read. I hope he continues. It’s been a great series so far. Some of my favorites are there, real blasts from the past.

Posted in Movies | Leave a comment

Because It’s Monday

Because it’s fun. Because it’s perfectly satisfying.

No time to breathe. I am busy working, and planning and scheming. And writing. And reading a book about the House of Rothschild. And visiting with family. And getting together with friends. And leaving some time out for crying jags. And exercise.

But mostly … mostly I’m scheming.

I have always loved the above clip and find it very relaxing. It’s two Superpowers Meeting and Chilling. It’s two grown men enjoying each other, being awesome for each other. Kinda like that great Cher/Raquel Welch duet.

Happy Monday.

Posted in Music | 10 Comments

TFF 2012: Rubberneck: Director/Actor Alex Karpovsky: “Hopefully we can create a character where you can still nurture empathy for him even after he commits a heinous act.”

Rubberneck is Man of the Hour Alex Karpovsky’s fourth feature, and a total departure for him, being a thriller. It’s a blast, tense, suspenseful, psychologically harrowing. Very upsetting and unbalancing. He stars as well, and it’s a great performance, a real portrait of obsession, paranoia, and damage.

I interviewed Karpovsky and lead actress Amanda Good Hennessey following a screening this week at Tribeca. It is now up at Capital New York.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“In an old house in Paris that was covered with vines …” Happy Birthday, Ludwig Bemelmans

clavelruns.jpg

Today is the birthday of Ludwig Bemelmans, author of the beloved Madeline books. Here is a really interesting biographical sketch of him.

When he was a teenager, his parents apprenticed him to his Uncle Hans, who owned a string of resort hotels in the Tyrol. After the 16-year-old Bemelmans shot a head-waiter during a dispute, his family gave him the option of going to reform school or emigrating to America.

Bemelmans chose the latter and arrived in New York in 1914, carrying two pistols with which to fend off hostile Indians. Once again, his career as a waiter was disastrous. After losing a job because he arrived wearing one yellow and one white shoe, Bemelmans enlisted in the Army.

“Once again, his career as a waiter was disastrous.”

He served in the Army in World War I, and he is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

I always loved the Madeline books, and still do. Madeline: the red-haired feisty rebellious girl in the convent school, the one who always gets in trouble (even if it’s just getting her appendix taken out) but also the one who is also most loved.

I loved how Miss Clavel would wake up in the middle of the night, in her cavernous bedroom, sitting up in her cavernous bed with the draperies hanging above it … saying to herself: “Something is not right!”

She got a candle, and ran down the hallway (the illustrations are so dramatic, so wonderful) and burst into the dormitory, to see Madeline moaning in her bed, all the other little girls sitting up, awake, worried. Madeline is rushed to the hospital to have her appendix taken out.

Things might have gone very wrong that night if it weren’t for Miss Clavel’s powers of prophetic thinking. How many problems could be solved if we woke up in the middle of the night, alarmed, and said to ourselves: “Something is not right!”

I loved the watercolors as a child. I loved the urban setting, the beautiful blotchy rain-wet images of Paris, with the “12 little girls in 2 straight lines” going on their daily walk with Miss Clavel.

I’m sure it will not come as a surprise that my favorite of the Madeline books as a child (and I still own a copy) was when she and Pepito, the little boy next door, join the circus.

Actually, they are forced to join the circus, since they are kidnapped by gypsies at a local carnival in an actually alarming scene if you think about it realistically. They have been abducted. Their old life has vanished.

I mean, look at that gorgeous artwork.

The two end up embracing their new circus life. As a little girl, I found that book to be so magical. I loved how so much of it took place at night. There is one particular illustration of the small company of circus performers sitting around a campfire in the middle of nowhere, their caravan parked nearby. The night around them is dark, a midnight-blue wash of watercolors … and the bright jester costumes and the Pierrot get-ups of the gypsies gleam out from the dark, like magic little gems. I wanted to sit around that campfire. Today, it reminds me of the whimsical beautifully-rendered scenes of the traveling band of performers in Sylvia Scarlett. It has that magic, that ability to transport.

Of course, since Madeline and Pepito had been KIDNAPPED by the gypsies poor Miss Clavel was losing her MIND back in Paris. This time, Miss Clavel’s precognitive powers failed her. At no point when she took the 12 little girls to the carnival did she think to herself: “Something is not right!”

Oh well. Even French nuns with powers of prophecy have their off days.

Happy birthday, Mr. Bemelmans. Glad you didn’t end up being a waiter. Seems like we all are much better off because of your original failure in the service industry.

clavelskates.jpg

Posted in Books, On This Day, writers | 9 Comments

Newport Beach Film Festival: Two Films: Certainty and Passionflower

The Newport Beach Film Festival is going on right now, and by coincidence, two of my loved ones (friends and family) both have feature films in the festival. I am putting this out there for those of you who might live in that area. While there are a ton of films on the docket, the two I want to mention are:

Certainty, directed by Peter Askin, and written by my cousin Mike O’Malley. I saw the film last year at the Boston Film Festival.

Here is my review of Certainty. It’s a rare film, funny, deep, and moving, with Mike’s typically awesome dialogue. Terrific ensemble, including many friends and family (my brother Brendan is in it, my cousin Kerry, friends Larry Clarke, Missy Yager – all have great cameos) – It’s the story of Deb and Dom, a young couple on their Catholic “pre-cana” retreat – something that has never been shown in film before. Adelaide Clemens and Tom Lipinski are beautiful in the two leads, Giancarlo Esposito plays the priest running the pre-cana, in a wonderful performance, and Valerie Harper is fantastic as Dom’s mother. Please check out my review, and if you live in Orange County or thereabouts, this is definitely a film you won’t want to miss.

Certainty screens this Sunday, April 29, at 6:30 p.m. Information here.

And then there is Passionflower, the first feature by my great old friend and collaborator Shelagh Carter. She hails from Winnipeg, and has been in the trenches of Canadian film for years. I was one of the leads in her first short film, shot here in New York! She also wrote Passionflower, the story of a young girl in 1962 Winnipeg, watching not only her parents’ marriage unravel, but her mother descend into psychosis. She sent me a screener, and I was blown away by its power. Doing a period film is never easy, but Shelagh gets the details just right: the cars, the kitchen appliances, the home decor, the clothing. Phenomenal performances, too, by all of the leads. It’s a mix of Mad Men and John Cassavetes. Raw and beautiful. I wish I could fly out to Newport Beach to see it. Shelagh has been making the festival circuit now with her film, and it has been racking up well-deserved awards.

Passionflower screens at the Newport Beach Film Festival on Wednesday, May 2, at 8:30 p.m. Information here.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | Leave a comment

TFF 2012: Interview with Curfew Director Shawn Christensen: “We Definitely Were Trying to Romanticize Aspects of New York.”


Shawn Christensen, in “Curfew”, a film he also wrote and directed

A 19-minute short, Curfew was so satisfying to me I never wanted it to end, and yet it was perfect at its current length. My review is here.

I spoke with director/writer/actor Shawn Christensen about Curfew last week.

My interview with Christensen is now up at Capital New York.

Posted in Directors, Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment