The Sheila Variations

Hollywood does such a horrible job with biopics, I hardly bother with them anymore. Hollywood is just never going to portray Stalin and his fans as equals to Hitler and those who revered him. To do so would be to cast doubt on the ideals socialism and communism represented, which a lot of people in the industry adhere to. You would never find a sympathetic portrayal of an artist who idolized Hitler.

An another note: I wanted to boycott Sean Penn's movies for all time, but damn, does "Mystic River" look good. I'll have to convince some friends to drop their boycott.

Mystic River looks unbelievable, and Sean Penn is the best actor there is right now. Except for maybe Daniel Day-Lewis.

I think it was Roger Ebert who said, "Sean Penn makes everybody else in the movie look like they are actors."

With such a stellar cast, that is a feat indeed.

I stand by Sean Penn's art. I can't deprive myself of it.

That was one mother of a great post, Sheila.

Sheeesh! All of that (which is great by the way) just to tell us you met somebody you considered a worthy foe? Tell us more...

I'm a big fan of Frida Kahlo. I wasn't impressed by the Frida movie (but I saw it on an airplane); it was breezy and superfical, missed a lot of stuff, including her art, which is as much of a crime (if not more so) than glossing over her politics. In my opinion the movie did not do justice to the whole of her life. How can you show the complexities in a Hollywood movie, especially realizing how complex this woman's life in particular was? What we got was a scratching of the surface. There is a better movie yet to be made out there.

I'm not a fan of Kahlo's because of her politics - in a sense they are an irrelevance. As Jonathan Richman once sang, "Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole," and apparently he was one hell of an asshole. If I limited my appreciation of art, music, creative work to those who shared my politics, I'd have a very bland outlook.

I think the guy at the Oscars was wrong; Frida is dead, she has no opinion on anything going on today. No one ever gets it right when they attempt to speak for the dead. If your man didn't have the courage to speak out against the war in his own voice, he shouldn't have tried to use Frida's.

I think Dean is anti-Communist and that fuels his position against Frida; his post read to me as someone whose bottom line is his politics: "if they are communists I have no time for them." That's fair enough, that's his right. But his quote from Octavio Paz gives a better perspective: "The great Mexican writer Octavio Paz, a Nobel laureate and one of Frida Kahlo's contemporaries, has said, "Diego and Frida ought not to be subjects of beatification but objects of study--and of repentance . . . the weaknesses, taints, and defects that show up in the works of Diego and Frida are moral in origin. The two of them betrayed their great gifts, and this can be seen in their painting. An artist may commit political errors and even common crimes, but the truly great artists--Villon or Pound, Caravaggio or Goya--pay for their mistakes and thereby redeem their art and their honor."

Frida's art moves me. I relate to it, I connect with it. I've read biographies of her (which did not seem to me to hide her politics as Dean suggests), I've studied her. At the end of her life, when her 'adolescent scribblings about Stalin' were written and the portrait of herself and Stalin was painted, she was extremely ill. You can see that in the painting itself, which looks as broken and physically tortured as she herself, bedridden and immobile, was. Her life was confused, all over the place, twisted, tortured, warped, physically and mentally. It's all there, in her paintings, and I am not surprised that it is there in her politics, too. You must also understand some of Mexican history at the time she lived to see why she and Diego came to hold the politics they did. Does any of this excuse their beliefs? Do they need to be excused?

Knowing more about Kahlo gives more depth to her paintings, just as knowing about Tennessee Williams or Ernest Hemingway contextualizes their work and brings a deeper understanding of why they were saying what they said. In both cases that knowledge can both add to and detract from their work. This goes for all artists, of any stripe. Paz argues for a deeper study and understanding of Rivera and Kahlo, and he is right. The Cult of Kahlo is not enough; her art is powerful and her life condensed can be 'beatified' but that's the easy way out. What is the mainstream but the easy way out, however?

Dean's opinion shows more about himself than it does about Kahlo and her opinions. It is quite possible that Kahlo's politics are not made much of not because people want to hide them away or make little of them, but because in the context of her importance they are beside the point. The art is what we are looking at, and the politics are all there. It is also possible that, knowing her politics, when we look at her art, and study it, we can learn from their 'weaknesses, taints, and defects'.

This turned into a much longer post than I had intended! I'd better stop now....

PS I have an old poem I must find for you about wanting a 'worthy foe' that I think you will really like. If it's anywhere here on this side of the water I will hunt it up.

you said it......."communism, in practice"
so its not communism, its the people running it.
we just haven't been able to find the right person yet. STOP it is communism and it is the the people who run it.........how many times do we have to relearn the meaning of "old" maxims
power corrupts........
do unto others b4 they do unto you...oh wait wrong one.

why do our "elites" and those of europe keep pushing us along those lines......its easier to control people who have surrendered to the nanny states all responsibility, easier to mold you, easier to kill you.
saw a site recently, that pointed out over 110 million people were killed by their own governments in the last century. and that we tolerate( i hate that word) the fools who espouse such drivel, only adds us to the list of useful idiots.

another guy...yada yada yada

SPIGNOLLI, the greatest actor of our time? are you frickin kiddin me?

Why are so many people tolerant of the crimes of Communists and even Stalinists? Part of it, I think, is because Communists said the "right" words: peace, brotherhood of man, end of exploitation, etc etc. Many intellectuals--perhaps even most--are more concerned with the words that are used than with the reality behind those words. It's an inversion of the usual expression; in this case, it's "watch what they say, not what they do."

Carrie:

Thank you thank you for that perspective. My sister is a huge Frida fan - and I guess one of the things I was trying to get at, in a circuitous "rambling" way is that - I do not love the artists I love because of the political beliefs they hold. It could not matter less to me.

I wasn't sorry when Sean Penn was criticized for his behavior - but it does not take away from his achievements as an actor. It just doesn't.

Since when have artists ever been 'correct' anyway?

I was at a seminar once, where Mark Rydell (film director, he directed On Golden Pond and many others) was speaking. Mark Rydell is very very liberal. He directed John Wayne in "The Cowboys", and he told us that he had all these preconceived notions about who John Wayne would be, based on his political stances. Rydell said, "I hated his politics. I hated what he stood for. But - he was John Wayne - and I wanted him in my movie."

When he finally met John Wayne - he encountered a man who was the consummate gentleman, unbelievably humble, sweet and gentle with all the children who were in the movie - an absolute pro, etc.

Rydell, Mr. Liberal, then said a GREAT thing: "You know ... a lot of people who agree with me ... are JERKS."

His point was: when it comes down to art, and, essentially, humanity - that other stuff does not MATTER.

And about communism: many people that I respect (Elia Kazan, Arthur Miller, Lee Strasberg, Clifford Odets) embraced communism orignally. It was the middle of the Great Depression when capitalism had obviously fallen apart. Some of them, like Kazan, began to see the reality of communism, and turned away - Others couldn't see it.

I loved this quote from your comment, by the way: "The Cult of Kahlo is not enough; her art is powerful and her life condensed can be 'beatified' but that's the easy way out."

I absolutely agree.

Thank you so much for the generosity of your comment - it is a necessary element of any conversation about art and Frida Kahlo.

And yeah - bring on the poem about the worthy foe if you can find it! I would love that!!

All of these comments are terrific and very thought-provoking.

David Foster - your comment about language - the "rightness" of the words used - was fascinating. I must think more upon this.

The belief in the WORD.

I actually touched on that in my post about "no means no" a couple days ago.

The kind of mystical belief in the magic abracadabra of the word "no" -

Oh, and about the potential worthy foe?

My lips are sealed. Don't want to jinx anything. I always talk too much about the men in my life - and then they disappear before I even have a chance to get used to them being there. I must learn to SHUT THE HELL UP.

"Why are so many people tolerant of the crimes of Communists and even Stalinists?"

I kept coming back and reading this - it became an unkown itch and I just identified it. When I was a bartender in a newly gentrified neighborhood we had some very interesting demographics walking in the door. There was the calssic "yuppie," young, college educated, good job and income, middle to upper class background. There were also typical upper westside newcomers who were in one form or other of the arts. Then there were the neighborhood people who were seeing the place they grew up taken away from them one block at a time.

Many a time, as in any crowded bar, misunderstandings would occur and I would have to intervene. It became very obvious that the newcomers to the neighborhood really had no idea or real concept of violence. They had some embeded sense of fairplay that regulated their actions and responses to threats. Their expectations of potential outcomes had been dulled through lack of experience. However, they thought they knew. Had they not been to college? Had they not traveled? Had they not seen it all in film and television? Opps, there it is! They expectations were based on fistfights and media representations of reality. The taste and smell of blood and urine adds a dimension to a situation that is lost on a screen or on a printed page. The speed and impact of the practiced delivery of a beer bottle or a blackjack or whatever is at hand is numbing to the senses. The unexpected confrontation of a weapon wielding foe is startling. I remember the first time I was shot at and realized that this wasn't a movie.

Now back to tolerance of the crimes of Communists and even Stalinists - the people who play with ideas generally have no experience with crime or violence beyond media representations and the people who do have that experience don't often spend anytime playing with those ideas unless they are involved with a political movement where violence is being used as a tool.

Excellent post, Sheila.

Sheila..more thoughts on words. It seems to me that one of the main things going on politically and culturally is that we now have millions of people who in their professional lives deal with nothing but words and images. I'm talking about writers, journalists, consultants of certain types, and academics (outside of the hard sciences.) Their view of the world tends to be very different from that of people who deal with harder, more resistant media--metal, electrical circuits, or even computer code. It's hard to imagine a tool-and-die maker, say, having a postmodernist worldview.

There's another thing about the people I'm referring to. They tend to be "staff" rather than "line". That is, they have no responsibility for outcomes.

I left comments a few other places, but...

I mostly agree with you, Sheila. To a certain extent, our view of an artist's work will be viewed by how we see the person, but we ought to be able to separate them.

I'm still stinging a bit from the notion that we should reduce the mass murder of millions of people to "politics" that say more about me than the people who share those "politics."

But, whatever.

We can of course appreciate great art regardless of our opinion of the artist. Still and all, I don't think there's anything wrong with feeling ambivalence toward that artist. I feel ambivalence toward Leni Riefenstahl, who was a genuine genius, and the vast majority of her work was not Nazi propaganda. Some of her greatest work was done decades after the fall of the Third Reich. Yet she's always remembered first and foremost for the work she did for Hitler.

I, for one, see no difference here. I don't think we should excuse people just because they're artists, nor do I think we should dismiss someone's art just because we don't like a certain aspect of the person.

Dean - agreed.

I saw Mystic River last night. And ... let me just talk about TIM ROBBINS. I hate his politics - I really do - but more than that, I hate his pious arrogance ... but that movie would not have succeeded if HIS performance, in particular, were not so powerful.

Sean Penn is incredible, of course - everyone is - Larry Fishburne, Kevin Bacon, Marcia Gay Harden - the acting is amazing, across the board. But it is the work of Tim Robbins that elevates the film to tragic proportions. I can't get that character out of my mind today. I just can't.

I hate his politics. I've never even been a real fan of his acting, actually - although I thought "Bob Roberts" was a hoot - I always thought his acting was kind of smirky, and obvious.

But HATS OFF to Tim Robbins for the performance he turns in in this film. I could not believe my own eyes - First of all, because of my preconceptions about his acting ability. And then, because of my own subjective feeling that he is a prick.

So as the film unfolded I realized: Holy shit. This is a powerhouse performance.

My whole position on this is one of "ambivalence". Did I not make that clear? I think ambivalence towards artists is fine - and part of the game, actually.

An interesting article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,790476,00.html

I'm not sure I get this "leniency on Stalinist apologists", I mean what was the Cold War about then? But if you mean placing Stalin on a higher footing than Hitler, I think Milne has a point when he observes that under Stalinism, killing was a means to an end wheras under Hitler, killing WAS an end in and of itself. I don't know about you, but not being racially White myself, if I was forced to choose between living under Stalin or under Hitler....I think I'll have to go with "Uncle Koba"!

Besides, we've done plenty of "Dictator Apologizing" ourselves: It was FDR who coined the phrase "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch" (referring to Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, who founded a 46 year old dictatorial family dynasty in Nicaragua). Pres. Eisenhower visited Madrid and embraced Francisco Franco as a valued American ally. Ronald Reagan claimed that Gen. Efrain Rios Montt of Guatemala "got a bad rap" at a time that Montt was conducting massacres and scorthed earth campaigns against Mayan villages in the highlands. Not only did we serve as their cheerleaders, but we provided them and dozens of others like them with military aid.

I think that's why people are so mum about bashing "Stalin apologists" nowadays. Not only does it seem like a throwback to the '50's, but in hindsight we can see that the Cold War in actual practice was not about "Democracy vs Dictatorship" but supporting right-wing tyranny against left-wing tyranny. If some of our countrymen (be they American, Mexican, whatever) should be crucified for having a few kind words for one Red leader or another, then what about all the kind words AND MILITARY AID wev'e lavished on the Somozas, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Chun Doo Hwan, the juntas of Brazil, Greece, and Argentina, and others like them? Call them dupes if you like, but I think people recognize that it's not worth pilloring (did I spell that right?) a few artists or intellectuals who at heart wanted a better world when the societies they lived supported their own share of oppression in the name of "national interest".

You say "call them dupes if you like". All right then, I call them dupes.