“The only cause I espouse is man’s right to find his own centre, stand firm, speak out, then be kind.” — Michael Davitt, “Dissenter”

Save your breath,
Poem maker
Keep it under wraps
In the tall tree of yourself
— Michael Davitt

Both quotes above are English translations of the original Irish language versions, just to be clear.

Poet Michael Davitt, born (on this day) in Cork, didn’t grow up speaking Irish at home. He learned it at school, which he writes about eloquently in his poem “3AG”. Munster Irish! His academic background in the Irish language gave him a different perspective than a person who grew up bilingual, hearing Irish spoken in the home, etc. Irish was a language to be learned and conquered.

Davitt (who sadly passed away far too young in 2005) was an Irish language poet. Unless you speak the language, you must content yourself with reading his work in translation. Luckily, some great contemporary Irish poets have done wonderful translations of his stuff (Paul Muldoon – my post about him here, Mícheál Ó hAirtnéide – my post about him here, and others), but Davitt’s work is meant to be read in the Irish. Something is always lost in translation.

To him, Irish was not a purely rural language. This set him apart from the traditional view of those writers who connected the Irish language with a pre-Industrial-Revolution society, untouched, rural, and pure. He used the Irish language for contemporary and urban subjects. He started writing and publishing poetry in the 70s, when a lot of Irish language poets started cropping up – a way to reclaim their history in a time of strife. The Irish language had been stomped out long ago, and these poets took it off the shelf. Michael Davitt was against “cultural McDonaldisation”, yet he also disagreed with the thought that the Irish language should be isolated, or even COULD isolate those who spoke it. It was not a “dead” language to him, not at all. Davitt was loose with his Irish, he did things with it other more traditional writers wouldn’t, he treated it like a living language, as opposed to an artifact in a museum. He wrote a poem for Bobby Sands. He wrote a heartbreaking poem about September 11, 2001. His was a responsive sensibility, outward-facing.

Davitt founded a magazine – Innti – dedicated to Irish language poets (including Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill, whom I saw read once at the The Ireland House in New York City: an unforgettable night). and was also a television producer and director at RTÉ. A vibrant man and also a huge intellect, he died suddenly and unexpectedly. His work comes out with translations attached on facing pages, but all you need to do is scan what it looks like in Irish and you can see how beautiful it is. He was a master. Those who thought of the Irish language as limited, isolated, or backwards-looking – about mud and potatoes and the Aran Islands or what have you, were surprised at how vital it became, through poets like Davitt.

First, I’ll post his poem Ciorrú Bóthair (Shortening the Road), with the translation by Irish author Philip Casey below it. One of the tensions in his work was dealing with modern subjects in the Irish language, which had rarely been done before. Here, you can see him address some of that tension directly. Also, he incorporates English words in his Irish – which gives the humorous (if you’re Irish, anyway) impression that ENGLISH is the foreign tongue here, the tongue that “doesn’t fit”, the language that “sounds weird”. A subversion there. Of course I can’t read it, but I do get excited, though, when I recognize words. As my sister Jean said as we drove around the outskirts of Áth Cliath (ie: Dublin), reading the dual-language street signs as we whizzed by them, “Well as long as we’re headed an lár …” (“city center”, “downtown”). She said it so casually, so over it. We still laugh about that. Yes, Jean, we are headed an lár.

Ciorrú Bóthair

Dúirt sé liom gur dhuine é
A bhí ag plé le diantalmhaíocht,
A d’oibrigh riamh faoin spéir;
Bhí an chuma sin ar an stróinséir
Ó dhubh a iongan is ó bholadh an fhéir ghearrtha
Ar a Bhéarla deisceartach.

Cith eile flichshneachta;
Ansin do las an ghrian
An bóthar romhainn trí an Uarán Mór
Soir go Béal Átha na Sluaighe
Is bhí an carr ina tigín gloine
Ar tinneall lena scéalta garraíodóireachta.

Bhí roinnt leathanta caite aige
La gaolta taobh thiar den Spidéal:
‘Tá Gaelige agat, mar sin?’
‘Níl ná Gaeilge acg Gaolainn…’
Múscraíoch siúrálta, mheasas; ach níorbh ea,
‘Corcaíoch ó lár Chorcaí amach.’

Ghin san splanc; phléase comhrá Gaeilge
Gur chíoramar dúchas
Is tabhairt suas a chéile,
Is a Ghia nach cúng í Éire
Go raibh na bóithríní céanna canúna
Curtha dínn araon:

Coláiste Samhraidh i mBéal Átha an Ghaorthaigh,
Graiméar na mBráithre Críostaí,
Tithe tábhairne Chorca Dhuibhne,
Is an caolú, ansin, an géilleadh,
Toradh cúig nó sé de bhlianta
I gcathair Bhaile Átha Cliath.

‘Caithfidh gur breá an jab sa tsamhradh é?’
‘Sea mhuis ach b’fhearr liom féin an tEarrach,
Tráth fáis, tá misniú ann,
Agus tá míorúiltí datha sa bhFómhar
A choimeádfadh duine ón ól…’
D’éalaigh an splanc as a ghlór.

Ach bhí an ghráin aige ar an Nollaig,
Mar a bhí ag gach deoraí singil
Trí bliana is dhá scór ag déanamh
A bhuilín i bparthas cleasach an tí óil.
‘A bhfuil de thithe gloine á ndúnadh síos…
Táim bliain go leith díomhaoin …’

Níor chodail sé néal le seachtain,
Bhí sruthán truaillithe ag caismirneach
Trína cheann, ba dhóbair dó bá.
Bhí air teitheadh arís ón bpéin
Is filleadh ar Chamden Town,
Bhí pub beag ag baintreach uaigneach ann.

Thai Sionainn soir trí scrabhanna
Faoi áirsí na gcrann méarach,
Dár gcaidreamh comhchuimhní
Dhein faoistin alcólaigh:
Mise im choinfeasóir drogallach
Faoi gheasa na gcuimleoirí.

Stopas ag droichead Shráid Bhagóid.
Dúirt sé gur thugas uchtach dó,
Go lorgódh sé jab i dtuaisceart an chontae,
Go mba bhreá leis a bheith
Chomh socair liom féin,
Go bhfeicfeadh sé arís mé, le cúnamh Dé.

Ar imeacht uaim sa cheobhrán dó
Taibhríodh dom athchaidreamh leis an stróinséir
Ar imeall mórbhealaigh san imigéin:
Ach go mba mise fear na hordóige
Is go mb’eisean an coinfeasóir –
É chomh socair liom féin,
Chomh socair liom féin.

Shortening the Road

He told me he had spent
His life in horticulture,
Had always worked in the open air;
That was clear about the stranger
From his black nails and the smell of cut grass
Off his southern English.

Another sleet-shower;
Then the sun lit up
The road before us through Oranmore
East to Ballinasloe
And the car was a glasshouse
Warming to his gardening lore.

He had been spending a few days
With relatives west of Spiddal:
‘You have Irish then, I suppose?’
‘Not Irish, but Munster Irish … !’
A Muskerry man definitely, I thought; but no:
‘A Corkman out of the heart of Cork.’

That lit a spark, exploding into Irish
And we combed through our backgrounds
And upbringings,
And God it’s a small world
That we both could have travelled
The same backroads of dialect:

A Summer College in Ballingeary,
The Christian Brothers’ Grammar,
The pubs of the Dingle Peninsula,
Then the compromise and watering down
Of five or six years
In the city of Dublin.

‘It must be a great job in the summertime?’
‘Yes indeed, but I prefer the Spring,
A time of growth, it’s reassuring,
And there are miracles of colour in Autumn
That would keep a man off the booze …’
The spark had left his voice.

But he hated Christmas,
As would any single exile
Reaching forty-three
Loafing in the deluded paradise of the pub.
‘They’re closing the glasshouses down …
I’m a year and a half on the dole … ‘

He hadn’t slept for a week,
A polluted stream was meandering
Through his brain, he had nearly drowned,
He was running from the pain again
Going back to Camden Town
Where a lonely widow had a small pub of her own.

East across the Shannon through squally showers
Under the arches of fingery trees,
What had become an exchange of memories
Had become an alcoholic’s confession:
I the reluctant confessor
Under the spell of the windscreen wipers.

I stopped at Baggot Street bridge.
He said I’d given him hope,
That he would look for a job
In the north of the county,
That he’d love to be as steady as me,
That he’d see me again, please God, someday.

As he walked away into the fog
I imagined meeting the stranger again
On the verge of a foreign motorway
But I was the hitch-hiker
And he the confessor –
As steady as me,
As steady as me.

Next, is his 1982 poem Ó Mo Bheirt Phailistíneach (O My Two Palestinians), a timeless work, as well as a reminder that Ireland was colonized longer than any other country, giving them a highly developed sensitivity to any oppression anywhere. English rule came in the 11th century, when the country was basically handed over with one flick of the pen. The centuries following were marked by rebellions and revolutions, followed by centuries of oppression: famine, destruction of culture, community language. It’s weird that people don’t know this. I was going to say “it’s weird that people forget this”, but honestly it’s like they don’t even know in the first place.

Ó Mo Bheirt Phailistíneach

Bhrúigh mé an doras
oiread a ligfeadh solas cheann an staighre
orthu isteach:

na héadaí leapa caite díobh acu
iad ina luí sceabhach
mar a thiteadar:

a gúna oíche caite aníos thar a mása
fuil ar a brístín lása,
as scailp i gcúl a cinn

a hinchinn sicín ag aiseag ar an bpiliúr,
putóg ag úscadh as a bholgsan
mar fheamainn ar charraig,

ae ar bhraillín,
leathlámh fhuilthéachta in airde.
Ó mo bheirt Phailistíneach ag lobhadh sa teas lárnach.

O My Two Palestinians

(18/9/82, having watched a news report

on the massacre of Palestinians in Beirut )

I pushed open the door
enough to let light from the landing
on them:

blankets kicked off
they lay askew
as they had fallen:

her nightgown tossed above her buttocks
blood on her lace knickers,
from a gap in the back of her head

her chicken brain retched on the pillow,
intestines slithered from his belly
like seaweed off a rock.

liver-soiled sheets,
one raised bloodsmeared hand.
O my two Palestinians rotting in the central heat.

“What is important is to continue believing in the Irish language as a vibrant creative power while it continues to be marginalised in the process of cultural McDonaldisation.” — Michael Davitt

Posted in Books, On This Day, writers | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“I do love Alice in Wonderland though. That’s something I think I could do very well.” — Edie Sedgwick

It’s her birthday today.

Her influence on me was massive and I came to her young. I discovered her in high school through the famous oral biography by Jean Stein and George Plimpton, which I inhaled, over and over again. I must have run across it in my after-school job as a page at the library. I discovered a lot of books through re-shelving them. I was deeply intrigued by what I read, drinking up all the pictures. It scared me a little bit. I had no frame of reference. She came to me with no context. There was a darkness in her story. An anecdote that made a huge impression on me was a friend describing going to see The Blue Angel with Edie – maybe at the Brattle? This was pre-Warhol – and when Emil Jannings cracked and goes insane, Edie apparently shrank down into her chair, staring up at the screen, horrified, shook. There was madness in her family, the ancestral line peppered with early deaths and suicides. Her family tree was wild. (Andy Warhol’s movie Poor Little Rich Girl was basically the vibe. She really was.)

The entire Factory scene was long over by the time I read about it, but it exerted a pull. I was young and impressionable and I am trying to put into words the FEELING I absorbed. It wasn’t particularly coherent at first. Edie worked ON me.


Poor Little Rich Girl (1965)

In high school, I had a ripped denim jacket which I decorated with purple magic marker, a peace sign, other things, and across the back I wrote “Ciao! Manhattan”. I was a very NICHE type of nerd. I have a picture of myself in it, at a street fair in Chicago (we were walking advertisements for our friend Christina’s hat-making business.)

My dream of going to New York City wasn’t really about joining a downtown-cool-kid group, like Edie at the Factory. When I dreamt of New York, I dreamt of All That Jazz. Edie was a model, she was compelling and charismatic, and of course drew people to her, the movers-shakers, the fashion designers and magazine people and art-scene people. She was glamorous the way Hollywood actresses were glamorous, but she was somehow divorced from actually having to DO anything to PROVE she deserved to be looked at. She just WAS. In other words, she wasn’t waking up early to go to cattle calls, dragging her dance bag around town, going to auditions, dance class, working a waitressing gig after your jazz class at Broadway Dance. There was this whole other THING going on below Houston Street. I discovered All That Jazz and Edie around the same time, and they hovered in opposition, almost, as versions of the New York City in my imagination. (Itt’s not like I lived in Kazakhstan: I went down to New York a lot as a kid. My aunt was an actress and singer, so my “version” and experience of New York City was already the All That Jazz one. What I’m trying to say is that discovering Edie – and Andy – and that whole scene, all those people, was a mesmerizing counter-point. I couldn’t really get a GRASP on it as a teenage kid, which I think is why I kept going back to the book again and again, staring at the pictures over and over. I remember just falling into this picture like it was a bottomless pit:

This was around the same time I was learning as much as I could about the Group Theatre, another close group of eccentric people, and far more my speed … but the dream was the same. Edie’s never really left me. By the time I tripped over the book, Ciao! Manhattan was available on VHS. So I rented it. There’s an insouciant overlay to the action – a sort of “look at the kookiness and freedom on display” but then … there’s shock therapy, and this desolation seeping into everything, a desolation of waste. You get the sense she didn’t stand a chance. The ’60s destroyed a lot of people. Or, the people destroyed themselves. There have always been addicts and the 60s drugs were particularly gnarly.

Most of Warhol’s stuff wasn’t accessible back then, I’d have to see those films later. But I inhaled Ciao! Manhattan and it freaked me out. It was so cool to actually see her in action, this woman who glimmered in my imagination. You can see her charisma. The charisma isn’t alive, though, somehow. It doesn’t spark with impulses, her inner life illuminating her face. Her charisma is somehow static. Another word for dead? A lot of the models in the ’60s were “flat” like this, and now, of course, deadpan is the accepted trend for models. Whatever the source, it doesn’t even matter, Edie is riveting with her huge tragic eyes. It’s a cliche but it’s true: You can’t take your eyes off of her.

When I got to college and met Mitchell, turns out he had a similar trajectory. He read the book. He saw the movie. He knew all about Warhol and that whole crowd. So we decided to be Edie and Andy for Halloween. This party was legendary – the whole town showed up it felt like (to be clear: we did not invite the whole town. But word got out). At its height, the party was like a Mad magazine cartoon. The cops arrived. People in full costume fled into the night. It was a mess. But we were so proud of our costumes. We fell asleep in bed, still in costume.

You never forget the people who come into your life at a certain moment when you are receptive to whatever it is they bring. If I had discovered Edie – and that whole crowd – in my 30s, it still would have been interesting, of course, but I would have had a bit more distance. I would have looked at it in a more abstract way, and I would have had a larger frame of reference for all of it. Also, by my 30s, I had been through a lot of heavy shit. I wouldn’t have been as afraid of Edie, or afraid FOR Edie. But Edie came into my life a year after I read The Bell Jar for the first time and a year before I read The Handmaid’s Tale. She arrived just in time.

“I’m in love with everyone I’ve ever met in one way or another. I’m just a crazy, unhinged disaster of a human being.” — Edie Sedgwick

 
 
Thank you so much for stopping by. If you like what I do, and if you feel inclined to support my work, here’s a link to my Venmo account. And I’ve launched a Substack, Sheila Variations 2.0, if you’d like to subscribe.

Posted in Art/Photography, Movies, On This Day | Tagged | Leave a comment

2026 Shakespeare Reading Project: Much Ado About Nothing

My progress:
Shakespeare Reading Project
Henry VI, parts 1, 2, 3 and Richard III
Two Gentlemen of Verona
The Taming of the Shrew
Titus Andronicus
The Comedy of Errors
Love’s Labour’s Lost
Romeo & Juliet
A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Richard II
King John
The Merchant of Venice
Henry IV, Part 1
Henry IV, Part 2
The Merry Wives of Windsor

Much Ado About Nothing

I sometimes forget how very very strange Much Ado About Nothing is. Beatrice and Benedick are the scene stealers, their witty sometimes biting back and forth – covering up their longing for one another – they are living examples of “you both protest too much” … they are so dazzling, their chemistry sparking off the page over 400 years later… in other words, they are the only game in town. When you think Much Ado About Nothing, you think of them.

But … Beatrice and Benedick are not the leads. They’re always AROUND, but the play is an ensemble piece, and the main plot-line belongs to Claudio and Hero, a brief nearly silent romance which goes south at the altar, due to the lying scheming brother of the Prince (like, what is your DEAL, bro), who spread rumors about Hero, set up Claudio to doubt her chastity. The treachery is real, the betrayal catastrophic, seemingly insurmountable. The solution to the conundrum is suggested by the priest – one of the only truly helpful priests in Shakespeare’s entire canon. His priests usually veer from incompetent to downright corrupt and/or evil. So the priest comes up with a WILD plan. He wants to fake Hero’s death, launch a whirlwind of community mourning, led by Claudio, the now penitent man who was the cause of her disgrace. But then, the cherry on top: we will PRETEND that the still-alive Hero, in hiding due to the shame, is her own cousin, who looks exactly like her (just like Maddie in Twin Peaks). To “make up” for his awfulness, Claudio will marry this cousin, sight unseen. I guess as long as they look exactly alike then what’s the difference?

Like, this is a LOT and it takes up most of the air-space in the script. Beatrice and Benedick are onlookers to the unfolding tragedy, they get roped into it due to their care for Hero and Claudio, and they seem – frankly – like the only grown-ups onstage. They are not ingenues. They are seasoned. They’ve clearly already had a relationship. There is a treacherous maid, the treacherous brother and his two “knaves” who skulk around the manor making mischief – for no discernible reason. To round things out, there’s a group of “watchmen”, tasked with policing the grounds. They are led by Dogberry, puffed up with his own ego, but struggling mightily with language. He insists on using this lofty tone, and yet he doesn’t have the vocabulary. It’s malaprop after malaprop. You can tell what he means, in every instance, but he’s reaching towards something that isn’t there. When he arrests Borachio and Conrade he says, “Masters, never speak, we charge you, let us obey you to go with us.” What he MEANS to say is “…Please obey, and come with us.” “Let us obey you to go with us.” hahaha

There is so much eavesdropping in this play! People barely have enough time to plan for the wedding, they are so busy staging conversations for the person they know is listening. There’s a masked ball, where no one knows who anyone is. Lots of dirt is dished. The entire family decides to join forces to make Beatrice and Benedick fall in love and … honestly, they don’t have to work that hard. Their love for each other is obvious from the start. They just needed the nudge, the sign that the coast was clear.

The revelation of their love comes just before the devastating wedding and Claudio’s horrible behavior. This leads to one of the most shocking moments in any Shakespeare play. Beatrice and Benedick have melted together, they still banter but they are now soft and open, admitting their feelings. Benedick pleads with her, “Come, tell me what you want and I’ll do it.” Whatever he might have hoped she’d say, whatever we in the audience might expect her to say – something soft and loving – she says, “Kill Claudio.”

I’ve seen this play many times and there are shocked gasps from the audience. And she MEANS it. She basically breaks up with him immediately when he hesitates. They’ve barely gotten together and she’s telling him to murder someone!

The play is called a comedy but … the overall sensation is uneasiness. There’s real terror and grief and horrific behavior. Honor has to die and then pretend to be her own cousin to find happiness. You don’t get stuff like this in Midsummer or As You Like It. Joy is threatened here, the happy ending is conditional, you find your love but there are still really bad actors out there. Claudio’s behavior is reprehensible, even more so since he seemed so nice and tender. (He is the Nice GuyTM. Look out for them. They’ll slut-shame you at the earliest opportunity.) Don John is a sociopath emissary from another play, and somehow he seems worse than Iago, although Iago is bad enough! But Othello is a mighty tragedy, and there Iago makes sense, even with his – as Coleridge calls it – “motiveless malignity.” Don John is sinister. What the hell is he doing in a romantic comedy?

The strangeness of tone is fascinating, especially since his next comedy is not only one of his best but one of the best comedies ever. Here, tragedy looms. In As You Like It, there’s pure joy coming out of overwhelming longing – longing that is sweet. Most noticeable, though, is As You Like It‘s prioritization of play above all else. Rosalind practices wooing with Orlando. She trains him through role play. It’s a game. Much Ado also features play, with all the mini “scenes” of people having audacious phony conversations so the person hiding in the corner can hear. This, too, is play. In As You Like It, though, play totally takes over. Play’s the thing. Don John would be laughed out of the forest.

Having gone through the sonnets, and drinking up Stephen Booth’s unbelievable footnotes, some of which stretch for ten pages, I have some thoughts on the title. At first glance, the title seems like a throw-away. Much Ado About Nothing means … you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill, you’re getting all worked up over nothing, calm down it’s not that deep, etc. Maybe this would fit for Merry Wives where the stakes are nearly nonexistent but here? The title doesn’t fit at ALL if you take it at surface level! There’s so much at stake in Much Ado. “Nothing” is a big word to Shakespeare, though. “Nothing” is everywhere. Cordelia’s “nothing” in King Lear is the most famous “nothing” in Shakespeare’s body of work. You can’t say her “nothing” means “no big deal”. Nothing is not a dead end, it’s endlessness. Booth’s breakdown of the multiple layers of associations with “nothing” was a permanent perspective-change. Once you know about the nothing thing, you see nothing everywhere. You grasp/grok the deeper meanings. And here it’s in the title! Pay attention!

“Nothing” has multiple layers of meaning. In one way you can think about it like “nothing” can also mean “everything”, like the infinity inside of a circle. Nothing is a starting point: anything can happen if you start with “nothing”. But – of course – there’s a sexual slang connotation. “Thing” was slang for penis and therefore if you have “no thing” then you see where we’re going. Gives Much Ado About Nothing a very different connotation than “Much Ado About Fluff”. So the “no thing” and “everything” comes straight from Stephen Booth, and one of the main topics of conversation and controversy in Much Ado is Hero’s virginity. She literally has to fake her own death in order to avoid the shame, which she shouldn’t even feel ANYway because she is guilty of nothing. (Nothing). And so here: Vaginas are a BIG deal even though the slang term describes what they are NOT. (Kinda like the Latin root of “pudendum” being “shame”. Misogyny baked into the language. If the Latin root for “penis” was also “shame” maybe it would be a different story, but no, the root for “penis” is “tail”, descriptive – sort of – of what it is as a body part. There’s no judgment attached to it.) In my research, I learned another potential meaning from Marjorie Garber. “Nothing” in Elizabethan English was pronounced “noting” – at least this is what people who know things believe – and Much Ado About Nothing or “Noting” – is FILLED with the word “note” (as well as “nothing”). Taking notes: Much Ado closes with the reveal of a torn-up sonnet, and earlier we watch Benedick struggling to write said sonnet. “Taking note of” means “paying attention” and/or “noticing”, and in this play where everyone keeps a close eye on everyone else “noting” is more than relevant. “Noting” is all anyone does in Much Ado. Take note (see how I did that?) of how many times the words “nothing” “none” “note” “noting” and, hell, “nobody” or even “no” show up in the play. I started a tally and finally gave up because it was tedious (“Neighbors, you are tedious”) and neverending. Suffice to say: examples on nearly on every page.

While Kenneth Branagh’s 1993 version is so good, I also love Joss Whedon’s version from 2013, starring Amy Acker, Alexis Denisoff, Nathan Fillion (as the aforementioned Dogberry: hilarious), and many other people from Whedon’s repertory. Apparently Whedon hosts gatherings where all his actor friends come over for a night of Shakespeare. Their casual just-for-fun workshopping of Much Ado turned into a film, almost on a whim. They all made the decision to go for it, and they shot it over a long weekend at Whedon’s house. I highly recommend the film. It’s very funny and charming but doesn’t soft pedal the cruelty of Claudio, the pain of Hero, the malevolence of Don John.

In my Merry Wives post, I mentioned our local community theatre. Every summer they put on a couple of Shakespere plays outside, on the little landing behind the theatre building. We go to all of them. But their programming is year-round, just not outside. My niece and I went to see Much Ado. I basically insisted upon it because I knew she would love it. She was around 13, 14, and was afraid she wouldn’t understand the language. I told her the language was easy, she would totally understand it, and I gave her the bare bones of the plot. As I have come to expect, the production was wonderful. They chose a sort of Jazz Age milieu, with bootleg drinks at the celebration, and Charleston dancing before the wedding, etc. All of the eavesdropping scenes were so funny, with Benedick at one point hiding in a trunk for the entirety of a scene, listening to the gossip above him. Knowing he was in there the whole entire time made the scene even more hilarious. Lucy was losing it! Our favorite guy, the high school librarian, who played Caius in Merry Wives played the sinister Don John – two totally different characters – and he played the whole thing as a kid’s temper tantrum (which actually made Don John make sense!) Two women played Beatrice and Benedick (this company doesn’t care about gender, refreshing, especially when you consider neither did Shakespeare. How could he, when men played all women’s parts? Thereby making most of the love banter a comment upon the performance of our roles as people in the world. This sort of subversion was baked in to the original, because everyone in the audience knew Juliet was actually a 13-year-old boy, or Rosalind – dressing up as a boy – was, therefore, a boy dressing up as a girl dressing up like a boy. At a certain point, we’re through the looking glass as far as gender is concerned.) And, just as I predicted, Lucy understood every word.

I love revisiting the strangeness of Much Ado About Nothing‘s world.

Quotes on the play

Continue reading

Posted in Theatre | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

“I don’t represent anything.” — Liz Phair

It’s her birthday.

I don’t mean to go on and on in a generational way because of course we are not a monolith (after all, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are Gen X. Ew.) … but “I don’t represent anything” – said by Liz Phair – who truly does represent something to MANY – is one of the most Gen-X comments said by a Gen X icon ever.

This is why talking about her is difficult. She didn’t set out to change the world, she was so shy and working in such isolation, but change it she did. She is beyond her own art, even though my initial response was about her art. In retrospect, it’s obvious what happened and why. But in the moment, it was beyond analysis. At least for me. I wasn’t a writer then. I was an audience. Her audience. She was a singer-songwriter. Maybe you’d have to be Gen X to really get it. I don’t mean this is an exclusionary way. I think of people who were actually teenagers when East of Eden came out. What that must have been like. I wasn’t there. But I love hearing about it. I try to imagine myself into it. The first time I saw East of Eden, I felt like I was in 1953. I was 13 years old, but it was as though the movie came out yesterday. I think of David Lynch’s comment on Elvis, something like “He wasn’t there and then suddenly he was there.” Liz Phair’s “arrival” was like that. The second she arrived – with a double album, no less – and no touring history, no bar band phase, nothing – it was like you couldn’t imagine how you had lived without her. Who WAS this woman, growling and murmuring in a flat-affect monotone about her life, her men – with such specificity you feel like you were IN those rooms, meeting those people? (The thing is: I WAS in those rooms, and not with those same people, but really they WERE the same people. It was the VIBE. The early-90s vibe.) Who WAS she?

Liz Phair emerged at a time when the traditional music industry had exploded (it would soon implode again). New voices emerged, blazing not just out of the Pacific Northwest, but everywhere. And it wasn’t just “grunge”. Rap and hip hop in the mid-90s? Forget about it. Everything was changing. There was always an indie scene, a punk scene, an underground scene, but in the early-mid 90s the indie went mainstream. The experience of it was amazing, and we didn’t know how good we had it. People like PJ Harvey and Ani DiFranco were very big in my crowd, but then a new crowd burst on the scene and blazed out into stadium tours in a matter of months – Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, The Breeders – and it didn’t feel surreal, but in retrospect it was. Liz Phair is a Midwesterner but she was also a Chicagoan. She did not hail from New York or LA. She was midwest and also urban, a subtlety of her outsider context.

Exile in Guyville seemed to come from nowhere and everywhere at once.

Liz-Phair-Exile-In-Guyville-608x608

The album – a track by track “retort” to the Rolling Stones’ Exile on Main Street – sounded like it was recorded in a basement apartment at 3 a.m. And indeed much of it was. So authentic the sound is – still – almost frightening. The album still has the ability to freak me out – and I’ve been listening to it constantly ever since it was first released. The album is never far from me. I could not fucking BELIEVE it when I first listened to it, front to back. Song after song after song … I had never before had the experience of hearing my own life, exactly what I was going through at that very moment – and in Chicago, no less! – reflected in a contemporary musician. That first listen was almost embarrassing. She was saying shit I was going through, but afraid to say in such a blunt way. It’s an album where the track listing is woven into my consciousness. Back when albums were listened to in their entirety. Back when track listing had meaning, when an album told a story. So I listen to “Help Me Mary” and I know what comes next.

More after the jump.

Continue reading

Posted in Music, On This Day | Tagged | 15 Comments

“I don’t really know why, but danger has always been an important thing in my life – to see how far I could lean without falling, how fast I could go without cracking up.” — William Holden

It’s his birthday today.

Years ago, I wrote a long essay about William Holden for Slant, which focused a lot on his physicality (he was so athletic and he had great control). I really like that piece.

I reiterated my thoughts on Holden – and his physicality – in one of the most popular columns I ever wrote for Film Comment, on the art of the death scene. Because William Holden’s death scene in Sunset Boulevard is my #1 favorite. I do go on and on about it – and I broke it down here once, moment by moment – mainly because I just want people to GET how amazing it is, what he does with his body there.

I recently did an audience QA following a screening of Network at the Jacob Burns Film Center in Pleasantville, NY. Last year, same venue, I did an audience QA following a screening of Sunset Boulevard. A little tour of William Holden’s filmography. I keep mentioning Stalag 17 at these events. It’s not nearly as well-known as it should be. I hope they screen it eventually.

In a career of famous roles in famous films, I think his best – and perhaps most characterstic and essence-driven – of his roles is Sgt. J.J. Sefton in Stalag 17. Sefton has not just a hardness to him, but a sharp edge, an essence many call cynical but I call realistic.

Director Billy Wilder said in his interview with Cameron Crowe that Sefton was the closest stand-in to himself in all of his films. Sefton, in essence, was Wilder saying: “This is who I am. This is how I see the world.”

Sefton’s parting shot before he disappears into the tunnel underneath the prison camp – “If I ever run into any of you bums on a street corner, just let’s pretend we’ve never met before” – sums it all up, sums up the movie’s unsentimental mood. Does Sefton mean it? Is he being ironic? I don’t think so. There is no romanticism in Sefton, and his memory of the prison camp – and what humanity becomes under such circumstances – will not be something he wishes to dwell on, and any later encounter will just be a reminder. No good-byes. No looking back. If I see you, I’ll pretend I never know you. And finally, to take the edge off, he pokes his head back up, and gives a little toss of the hand and a cocky grin. Aaaaand scene. What a movie star. What an actor.

Wilder:

“I liked having him around … The idea of making him a braggart … then we find out slowly that he is really a hero. As he pleads there with that lieutenant at the end, he tucks his head out again, from the hole they have there in the barracks, and says, ‘If I ever see any of you mugs again, let’s just pretend that we don’t know each other.’ And off he goes. And he only does it because the mother of the lieutenant who is captured is a rich woman, and he’s gonna get ten thousand dollars. He’s no hero, he’s a black-market dealer—-a good character, and wonderfully played by Holden.”

Playing Sefton required an almost stern resistance to expanding the role into the self-consciously heroic. One can see the traps for that kind of “commentary” all throughout the role. Holden resists. It’s a performance of great control. But within that control there is a jaundiced and knowing acceptance of the ugliness of human nature – the accusations tossed around and the willingness to throw people under the bus – Sefton is not at all surprised by these things. In a way, it’s a relief: civilization has broken down in the camp, and so now people can show themselves in their true form.

Obviously Stalag 17 is also a comedy, but it’s a black-hearted one, just like Wilder liked it.

Wilder worked with Holden numerous times. He loved him as a leading man. He loved Jack Lemmon too, for his “everyman” qualities, but Holden was not – was never – an “everyman”. He had stature and scope. Just watch Stalag 17. Sunset Boulevard may be more famous, more quotable – but Stalag 17 cuts to the heart of Holden’s essence. Because … Sefton is tough, does not suffer fools, but … my God, don’t you just ADORE him?

François Truffaut wrote about Sefton in The Films in My Life:

Sefton is intelligent; that’s why he acts as he does. For the first time in films the philosophy of the solitary man is elaborated; this film is an apologia for individualism. (Certainly, the solitary man has been a theme in films, as with Charlie Chaplin and many other comedians. But he has usually been an inept person whose only desire was to fit into society.) Sefton is alone because he wants to be alone. He has the qualities of leadership, and everything would tend to establish him as the barracks’ trusted leader. After the deception has been uncovered by Sefton himself, and the leader the man trusted has been unmasked and convicted, we may wonder if Sefton escapes in order to avoid being named to take his place, knowing his fellow prisoners would do exactly that, both to exonerate themselves and because they finally recognize him as their only possible leader.

What’s sure is that Sefton escapes to get away from the companions whom he despises rather than from a regime he has come to terms with and guards he’s been able to bend to his needs.

Sefton needs those whom he despises to despise him in turn. If he remains, he will be a hero – a role he rejects no matter what the cost. Having lost his moral solitude, he hastens to regain it by becoming an escapee, with all the risk that entails.

One final word about Sunset Boulevard: not too many actors would have submitted to the requirements of that role, to the mere suggestion of that role: to be a pretty-boy sex-toy. Paul Newman could – and would – do it. In Sweet Bird of Youth. Roles like that put the man in the stereotypically female position: of being owned, of being objectified, used for sex, trapped. It could be seen as emasculating. It IS emasculating, that’s the whole point.

Montgomery Clift was originally cast in the role Holden ended up playing, but Clift backed out (igniting Wilder’s wrath). Clift was, at that point, in a similar position in his real life, with a much older woman, AND he claimed he didn’t want to repeat himself, and the role was so close to the one he played in The Heiress. (Although … it wasn’t really that close. I mean, sort of, but not really.) Some friends of Clift’s wondered if Clift’s underlying torment about being gay, and being closeted had something to do with him backing out: to play an “emasculated” role might be too revealing. All of that being said: Holden, a golden boy (literally: he had played the role in the movie of the same name), an athlete, a stereotypical leading man – gorgeous, manly, strong – did not balk at taking on the role, at using his handsomeness in this subverted perverted way: that he could be “had”, he could be “bought.”

I am haunted by William Holden’s end.

I try to focus on his career, his work, how good he was, how controlled, how intelligent in his process and approach.

Posted in Actors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , , | 14 Comments

“Some syllables are swords.” — Metaphysical poet Henry Vaughan

”I’ve always been much influenced by the 17th-century metaphysical poets like Donne, and especially Henry Vaughan.” — Philip K. Dick

It’s Henry Vaughan’s birthday today.

I was just thinking the other day about how I encountered certain famous writers in my childhood through hearing them mentioned in favorite childhood books. It’s a wonderful way to learn and grow, almost by osmosis.

For example:

Continue reading

Posted in Books, On This Day, writers | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

“To me, music is no joke and it’s not for sale.” — Ian MacKaye

“People ask me: ‘What is punk? How do you define punk?’ Here’s how I define punk: It’s a free space. It could be called jazz. It could be called hip-hop. It could be called blues, or rock, or beat. It could be called techno. It’s just a new idea. For me, it was punk rock. That was my entrance to this idea of the new ideas being able to be presented in an environment that wasn’t being dictated by a profit motive.”
— Ian MacKaye

It’s MacKaye’s birthday today.

Ian MacKaye is one of my brother Brendan’s heroes and inspirations. He’s written a lot about him, both as frontman for Minor Threat as well as Fugazi, so I thought I’d share those pieces here (again). I posted my brother’s music writing from his old blog here – Music Monday – which included his list of 50 Best Albums – and it’s a pleasure to share this stuff again. He wrote three pieces on MacKaye and his bands Minor Threat and Fugazi:

50 Best Albums, #17. Minor Threat, Minor Threat EP/In My Eyes

50 Best Albums, #49. Fugazi, Steady Diet of Nothing

Fugazi Won’t Stand For It

 
 
Thank you so much for stopping by. If you like what I do, and if you feel inclined to support my work, here’s a link to my Venmo account. And I’ve launched a Substack, Sheila Variations 2.0, if you’d like to subscribe.

Posted in Music, On This Day | Tagged , | 3 Comments

“All I need to make a comedy is a park, a policeman and a pretty girl.” — Charlie Chaplin

“The secret of Mack Sennett’s success was his enthusiasm. He was a great audience and laughed genuinely at what he thought funny. He stood and giggled until his body began to shake. This encouraged me and I began to explain the character: ‘You know this fellow is many-sided, a tramp, a gentleman, a poet, a dreamer, a lonely fellow, always hopeful of romance and adventure. He would have you believe he is a scientist, a musician, a duke, a polo-player. However, he is not above picking up cigarette-butts or robbing a baby of its candy. And, of course, if the occasion warrants it, he will kick a lady in the rear—but only in extreme anger!’ I carried on this way for ten minutes or more, keeping Sennett in continuous chuckles. ‘All right,’ he said, ‘get on the set and see what you can do there.’”
— Charlie Chaplin, My Autobiography

Some years ago, I wrote an essay about Charlie Chaplin and what it means to “be funny,” and also how Chaplin’s example served as inspiration for subsequent generations of comedians/comics/funny people. It’s in the details. The details may be planned, or they may come out of the performer’s tuning-fork sense of what is right. Either way, this kind of attention to detail cannot be taught. For instance, in the famous dinner-roll dance scene above: notice the way he looks all the way to the right. And then, what makes it funnier, is the small eyebrow-raise as he looks down, like, “Yup. Check out that move. I know. It’s awesome.” There’s a mix of pride and faux-humility in that eyebrow raise that gets me every time.

It’s like perfect pitch. Either you have it or you don’t.

Here’s my essay (re-built on my site, since Capital New York and its archives vanished earlier this year):

Why actors still talk about Charlie Chaplin, and what he teaches them about not acting funny

Chaplinesque
By Hart Crane

We make our meek adjustments,
Contented with such random consolations
As the wind deposits
In slithered and too ample pockets.

For we can still love the world, who find
A famished kitten on the step, and know
Recesses for it from the fury of the street,
Or warm torn elbow coverts.

We will sidestep, and to the final smirk
Dally the doom of that inevitable thumb
That slowly chafes its puckered index toward us,
Facing the dull squint with what innocence
And what surprise!

And yet these fine collapses are not lies
More than the pirouettes of any pliant cane;
Our obsequies are, in a way, no enterprise.
We can evade you, and all else but the heart:
What blame to us if the heart live on.

The game enforces smirks; but we have seen
The moon in lonely alleys make
A grail of laughter of an empty ash can,
And through all sound of gaiety and quest
Have heard a kitten in the wilderness.

 
 
Thank you so much for stopping by. If you like what I do, and if you feel inclined to support my work, here’s a link to my Venmo account. And I’ve launched a Substack, Sheila Variations 2.0, if you’d like to subscribe.

Posted in Actors, Directors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“As a cinematographer, I was always attracted to stories that have the potential to be told with as few words as possible.” — Reed Morano

“I feel like directing is more about who the individual is rather than if they’re a man or a woman. It’s kind of hard to generalize and group all of us female filmmakers into one group, like we’re all going provide you with the same thing, because we’re not. We’re all individuals.”
— Reed Morano

Louder for the people in the back.

Reed Morano started out as a cinematographer before segueing to the director’s seat (although she continued to shoot her own films). Because of The Handmaid’s Tale, which was “her” project, or at least “hers” in that she was responsible for setting the tone, mood, and look of the series – Morano’s profile went through the roof. The “look” of Handmaid’s Tale is part of its fascination (although I stopped watching after Season 1 – I had major issues with the adjustments made to the story). But you really can’t find any fault with the feel of that series, its tightly-controlled color scheme, its striking visuals, its claustrophobic close-ups … all of that is Reed Morano’s fingerprint.

I love Reed Morano’s career because it is a good example of “just doing the work”. Just do your work. There will always be bullshit, there will always be naysayers, there will always be obstacles. Take a second to feel bad about it, sure, but move forward and “just do the work”. Be the best possible whatever-it-is that you can be. There are many cinematographers-turned directors, and – similar to all the editors-turned-directors … having this other skill, working a job so crucial to the making of any movie/television show, a job that puts you in intimate contact with the director, serving the director but also serving the story … all of this gives these people an edge. They are accustomed to fulfilling another person’s vision. They are highly skilled at this. They think in pictures and rhythms already. It is the nature of the job. And so once they segue to directing – if they ever do – they have all that knowledge within them. They probably know how to communicate with other departments, they know how to work with cinematographers – since they’ve been one – or editors – since they’ve been one.

I interviewed Reed Morano on the occasion of her directorial debut – Meadowland, starring Luke Wilson, Olivia Wilde, John Leguiziano, Giovanni Ribisi … with Elisabeth Moss in a memorable cameo – and so I felt something almost like pride when everything happened after that, the rise of Handmaid’s Tale as a cultural phenomenon, its fortuitous timing, the rise of 45 and the awful specter of the people in charge who seemed to view Handmaid’s Tale not as a cautionary tale, but a How-To … And Reed Morano was at the helm, establishing the powerful mood and atmosphere and look of that series. I was happy for her. I remembered our conversation, her intelligence, her kindness, her toughness. She deserves all the success.

I loved Meadowland, which I saw at Tribeca in 2015 (its premiere) – Merano shot it as well as directed. I highly recommend it.

Here’s my review of Meadowland.

And again, here’s my interview with Morano.

 
 
Thank you so much for stopping by. If you like what I do, and if you feel inclined to support my work, here’s a link to my Venmo account. And I’ve launched a Substack, Sheila Variations 2.0, if you’d like to subscribe.

Posted in Directors, Movies, On This Day, Television | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“Even though I’m writing about very dark material, it still feels like an escape hatch.” — Olivia Laing

“As a writer, I am always trying to get past abstraction, the world of ideas, and putting actual objects in my writing — paintings, photographs — really helps with that. They’re beautiful tools with which to think.” — Olivia Laing

It’s Olivia Laing’s birthday today.

Every generation needs a new voice bringing a fresh interrogation on art with a voice speaking to where we are, where we’ve come from, where we might be going. Big Picture, but also minute and personal. It is hard to do: many try, most fail. Like a Susan Sontag. Or Ellen Willis. Or Camille Paglia! Hell, Tom Wolfe. Mencken.

You may not even like some of these writers. Whether or not you like them is irrelevant. Someone bringing something new to the table doesn’t come along every day (or every generation): when they do, pay attention! Engage with it, even to say “I disagree”. I’m so tired of people DISMISSING other peoples’ voices. Boring.

More on Laing after the jump.

Continue reading

Posted in Books, On This Day, writers | Tagged , , | 8 Comments