“Rock n’ roll! It’s the music of puberty.” — Suzi Quatro

Suzy Quatro was born on this day.

In July of 2020 , I reviewed the documentary Suzi Q, about Suzi Quatro. Because it was July 2020, the tour she had planned, alongside the doc, had to be canceled. Or, at least, postponed. July 2020 was some serious shit. I was bummed because I was so turned on by the documentary I would have definitely bought tickets.

Quatro’s journey is interesting: she knew what she wanted to do when she was very young. She was already touring as a teenage kid. Amazingly, she didn’t get caught up in drugs or men or exploitation: These things were all around her but she wasn’t even tempted. She married young. Had a baby young. Was a rock star (at least in Europe) young. Her fame in Australia almost rivaled the Beatles, and she is – to this day – more famous there than she ever was here in America. When she toured Australia in the 70s, she was greeted by screaming fans at the airport, and transported via motorcade to the venue, throngs of people lining the roadways. She was massive in Europe. #1 hits, all of which – I should mention – were songs she wrote. She is mainly known in America for one shmoopy duet-ballad (the only song of hers that charted in America) as well as her regular appearance on Happy Days as Leather Tuscadero. Also, the song was a departure from her normal aggressive sound. 10 years later, Joan Jett came along, and we embraced Joan Jett, not realizing someone else did it all FIRST.


Debbie Harry, Suzi Quatro, Joan Jett

Joan Jett modeled herself after Suzi Quatro, which she fully admits in the interview she gives in the documentary. She had a poster of Suzi Quatro on her wall as a teenager.


Joan Jett in her bedroom, 1977

Jett was so inspired by this tiny girl playing a huge bass. Suzi Quatro paved the way for Joan Jett and so many others. Understand the continuum, and respect your elders. Or at the very least KNOW ABOUT your elders, because they got there first, and they made possible the things that came after. Do not erase them. Resist recency bias. It’s important always but even more important now, when the powers that be want to erase memory itself.

Just tripped over this and I love it: Quatro discusses her favorite bass riffs.

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

2026 Shakespeare Reading Project: Twelfth Night: or, What You Will

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
Henry V
Julius Caesar
As You Like It
Hamlet

Twelfth Night: or, What You Will

I can’t verify this with any certainty but I believe Twelfth Night was the first Shakespeare play I saw. I was in middle school, I think, and my parents took us to see a production at the university (where my dad was a librarian, and where I eventually was an acting major). I don’t remember if my parents clued us in to what was going to be happening, but my memory of the show is vivid. The guy who played Malvolio was Maury Klein, a history professor who also acted in the plays. (One of the cool things about our theatre department was that lead roles obviously went to students, but for bigger shows or musicals they also had open casting, which meant we got to act with older people who had more experience – a great thing for young actors). Maury Klein is a famous historian (look him up). His main area of expertise in 19th century American industrial development, in particular the railroads. There was a great docu-series on the History Channel about the robber barons of the late 19th century, and Maury Klein was one of the experts interviewed. Allison and I watched it together during a weekend away in the country – the weather was gorgeous, there was a pool on the property, and we sat inside glued to the television learning about the Rockefellers and the oil and the railroads. And suddenly, I exclaimed: “That’s Maury! I was in shows with him!!” I also took two classes from him, and the class on the Industrial Revolution was the best class I took in college, not even a close contest. I should write a whole post about Maury Klein. Fascinating guy and GREAT teacher.

So. My introduction to Maury Klein was his performance as the ridiculous Malvolio. I still remember the mincing ridiculous way he tiptoe-stepped daintily down the stairs, displaying his yellow stockings with blue garters criss-crossed, and I remember the howling waves of laughter rolling through the theatre – so much so that the actors couldn’t say their dialogue! The whole show had to stop! And Maury had to just stand there, displaying himself, to let the audience get it out of their system. I had no way of knowing that this scene – where Malvolio follows the devilish Maria’s instructions and “presents” himself to Olivia in this manner – is one of the funniest scenes Shakespeare ever wrote, and one of the funniest scenes in any play period. But KNOWING the history behind it is irrelevant because didn’t I already KNOW that, sitting in my seat in the theatre? Hearing that laughter? Laughing so hard I cried?

The play is so funny I found it hard to excerpt, hard to pull out lines, since the scenes are so perfectly designed, the dialogue so woven together. The motifs and themes are so seamlessly utilized they don’t even feel like themes and motifs. Everything flows. The action of the play is very fluid and loosey-goosey: nothing too set in stone, no “obligation” to hit certain points.Water dominates, from the shipwreck, and the sea coast, the tears, the multiple references to urine (“water”), and Feste the Clown’s haunting final song about the “rain and the wind”. Also present is “epiphany”, operating on multiple levels. Twelfth Night is January 6th, the end of the Christmas festivities, and the celebration of the Magi’s arrival. In Shakespeare’s time, “twelfth night” was a night of “misrule” and mischief, a night when the rules were loosened. So “Epiphany” is obviously religious, but Twelfth Night doesn’t even reference “twelfth night”. The Epiphany doesn’t operate at all in its religious sense. But the pagan celebration of misrule and mischief? Basically, that’s Illyria. There is no sanity in Illyria.

It makes me think of Howard Hawks’ eventual assessment of Bringing Up Baby, of which he had a critique years later: everyone was insane, even the sheriff. There was not one sane person in the film. He said he didn’t make that mistake again. I don’t agree with his assessment, although he has the right to critique his own work! Because Twelfth Night opens on such a painfully beautiful note – Orsino’s “If music be the food of love, play on”, one can consider Twelfth Night a romance more than a comedy, although the “prank” on Malvolio – which takes up so much time, and is, as mentioned, one of the funniest scenes ever – makes the distinction, again, irrelevant.

The main plot involves elements Shakespeare used again and again: a shipwreck, separated twins, a girl in boy’s clothing, love at first sight. Viola and Sebastian are twins, boy and girl but identical, so much so they are mistaken for each other. Viola thinks Sebastian died in the shipwreck, so she puts on men’s clothing and heads to Duke Orsino’s house, to present herself as a servant/assistant. Viola falls in love with the drippy narcissistic Orsino, and Orsino – in love with Olivia – enlists “Cesario” as his go-between. Olivia welcomes Viola (aka Cesario) into her riotous chaotic household and – of course – immediately falls in love with “him”.

Olivia is no shrinking maiden or stereo-typical dignified lady. She is an individual and an absolute screwball. Her brother died seven years before and Olivia has been in ostentatious mourning ever since, draped in black, wandering through her house, living in isolation. Her grief breaks the bounds of what is socially acceptable, but in the general chaos around her it’s barely remarked upon. Olivia is wealthy, and she houses her dissolute uncle, Sir Toby Belch, who spends days and nights sitting around with his best pal, Sir Andrew Aguecheek. The two are in a constant state of inebriation. Slithering among them is Maria, Olivia’s lady-in-waiting and mischief-maker. (It’s hard to imagine Hamlet “hanging out” with other characters in Shakespeare’s other plays. Trying to picture Hamlet meeting Falstaff. Or Rosalind. Or Hal. Hamlet’s so isolated, it’s hard to picture him being with these other people. But I feel like he and Maria might get along. Or at least have enough respects to steer clear of one other. She’s not exactly the “mighty opposite” Hamlet says he longs for but … she operates in similar ways. He might see himself a little bit in her … and Hamlet doesn’t see himself in anyone.)

There’s a sharp demarcation line between two plots, which seem like they’re woven together because they take place in the same location but … On the one side, there are the “love scenes” between Olivia and Viola, on the other side, the shenanigans with Toby, Andrew, and Maria. The two worlds really don’t meet, but the play is so well-constructed you barely notice.

Enter: Malvolio, Olivia’s steward. As the steward, he runs the house. As we have seen in Upstairs Downstairs, Gosford Park and Downton Abbey, stewards are very important figures, they run everything, but class-wise, they are still “downstairs”. Malvolio “puts on airs”, which is really his greatest “crime”. He is a climber, for sure, and he is deluded enough to think Olivia might actually fall in love with him. He is an enemy of everything pleasurable, he is a snooty hoity-toit, who sniffs with disapproval at Toby and Andrew’s revelries. Maybe the most famous line of the play, excepting the first line (“If music be the food of love, play on”) is Sir Toby’s challenge to Malvolio’s prim-and-proper attitude: “Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?” Shakespeare, as a man of the theatre, had to deal with periodic shutdowns of the theatres, either due to plague or to Puritan protests. The holier-than-thous among us have always been among us, and never seem to learn that just because you are virtuous doesn’t mean that OTHER people can’t have fun.

Malvolio is an enemy of fun and this is a capital crime in the madcap Illyria. It’s hard, though, to watch what happens to Malvolio – eventually dragged away and kept in a “dark house” for the insane, where he screams and hollers to be let out. The punishment is out-sized, but not if you consider Shakespeare’s critique to be part of a very specific time when the persecutions of the theatre were about to take on an even more Puritanical (literally) shading, particularly after the death of Queen Elizabeth. Punishing Malvolio must have been cathartic, or – to speak speculatively – it FEELS like it must have been cathartic, because the punishment of Malvolio really takes over the whole play. Viola and Olivia barely register anymore.

Maria sets her sights on cutting Malvolio down to size. Malvolio is a ridiculous unpleasant person but Maria is a “mean girl”: if you were made fun of in middle school you will remember your run-ins with Maria-types. Maria comes up with a plan to write a love note to Malvolio “from” Olivia in Olivia’s handwriting. In this forged note, “Olivia” tells Malvolio how much she loves his smile (he never smiles!) so that when he is in her presence, he should smile non-stop. She also asks him to wear yellow stockings with “cross garters”. Malvolio reads the letter and falls apart in ecstasy, as Maria, Toby, and Andrew cackle in the nearby bushes. The prim and proper man disintegrates into excitement, even declaring at one point, “I am happy!” You can barely pay attention to the next scenes because subconsciously you are waiting for Malvolio to show up. He finally enters, maniacal smile frozen on his face, yellow stockings on his legs. Olivia, of course, is stunned. The man has clearly gone insane!

He hasn’t, though! He’s been tricked!

Naturally, getting to watch this uptight humorless man make a fool of himself is hilarious and cathartic.

However …

Let’s examine our responses to Malvolio. In his own way, he is as bottomless as Bottom.

There’s something painfully touching about Malvolio: his thrill at being loved (or so he thinks), going all to pieces like a teenage girl, how eagerly he runs off to put together his “outfit” for the next time he meets Olivia, his belief that he is finally about to get what he has always desired: validation, love, and belonging!

You feel me? Malvolio is not malevolent, like Iago is malevolent. He doesn’t mean any harm. Yes, he’s a bore, but everyone laughs at him. He doesn’t dictate the laws of the land. He’s just crabby. A drip.

So when I read Malvolio’s expressions of happiness after receiving the forged letter, there’s a bruise in my heart. An old bruise. Because I have been Malvolio. I, too, have felt the thrill when I think something wonderful is going to happen, when I have believed a dream is about to come true … only to find later that … I was mistaken. Maybe I wasn’t tricked, like Malvolio was tricked – although a couple times I could characterize a “romance” as me being essentially tricked (hello, 2009 man, hello, 2012 man) … but still, the heartache and shame at being so gullible, at having been fooled, and – worse – the anger at myself for letting myself believe … is all there in Malvolio – or, perhaps I am projecting. Maybe he doesn’t feel shame. Maybe he just skips the shame and goes to the rage. I wish I could have skipped the shame.

Are we supposed to cackle with glee when Malvolio is locked up in an insane asylum? He is eventually released, and he promises to avenge the wrong done to him before storming off the stage … but I can’t help but feel relieved that at least Shakespeare didn’t throw away the key!

I suggest that if you don’t see yourself in Malvolio, to some degree, well, first of all, consider yourself lucky! But secondly, you can’t truly understand the play. Or at least what might be going on. In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is eventually shunned from society, and it has to be that way because 1. it’s an anti-Semitic society and 2. he is too disruptive to the gentle magical society on display. Malvolio isn’t like that. The society of Illyria will continue on its merry melancholy maniacal way with or without him. The entire play, in fact, could exist without Malvolio in it. He has no impact on the main plot. So … why Malvolio? What is he even DOING in this play?

I always assume Shakespeare knew exactly what he was doing. The effect we get from something is deliberate, and it’s up to us to puzzle it out. We know him by the RESULTS. We have no evidence of what he meant or even thought, except in the plays and sonnets. So you have to just look to the results. I feel, though, that Malvolio might have started out as a smaller part, a caricature, a side-show, and Shakespeare got caught up in him, Malvolio walked off with the play and Shakespeare couldn’t stop him. This is not an original observation. Almost every critic, dating back to the 1800s, feels like Malvolio is one of those characters who “got away” from Shakespeare. Like Falstaff did. Or Faulconbridge. Someone who starts out playing a very specific function – but then blooms into a living breathing complex character, where you can almost feel Shakespeare leaning in to his interest.

Let me just riff. I think the punishment of Malvolio is so severe because we see ourselves in him, and it’s the part of ourselves we never want to acknowledge. We don’t want to be that embarrassing, we don’t want to show our cards so plainly and be made to look a fool. People live their entire lives trying to avoid shame because shame is maybe the worst and most intolerable emotion in existence. You can live with grief. You can’t LIVE with shame. Not forever. You will do what it takes to avoid it.

Malvolio is our softest most vulnerable side. Malvolio is our unprotected desires, our need for belonging, our yearning for love. If we let others see it, what will happen? Will they laugh? Will they mock? Well, yes, they will. And thanks to social media, the fear of mockery is now so rampant it’s having wide societal consequences. My acting teacher friends are kind of amazed, especially those who have been doing it for 20, 30 years, at how different acting classes are now. Suddenly they are confronted – for the first time – with a generation of acting students who don’t want to “put themselves out there” emotionally. They have to spend weeks on just getting them to feel like they can open up. If all emotion expressed is labeled as “cringe”, then what does that leave you? We expect this in regular citizens but actors are supposed to express things for ALL of us! That’s usually been the types of people drawn to that career. Why do you even want to be an actor if you spend your life trying to avoid being “cringe”? I am not putting down a generation. Everyone is formed by the circumstances of the world around you. Gen X kids had our own struggles, and if we had grown up with social media we would be having similar issues. I am acknowledging the new challenges. My nieces and nephews and I talk a lot about these things!

We exert so much energy in avoiding our own inner Malvolio, in attempting to never ever ever be “caught out” like Malvolio is. Frankly, we would rather be locked up in an insane asylum than show the world our most vulnerable needy side. Public shaming is very real thing!

He is who we hope we aren’t. He is who we fear to be. So of course the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Of course the entire household conspires to “reveal” him in all his idiocy, and to destroy his hopes and dreams. None of us can tolerate the thought that we are Malvolio. Everyone thinks they’re a Viola. Everyone wants to believe they are Feste the clown. You can even admit you have a little Toby Belch in you. You can even “relate” to Maria a little bit, even if you’re ashamed of that time you were mean to someone in middle school. We all grow up, most people “grow out” of the Maria phase. But nobody grows out of the Malvolio phase. He’s always there. He’s always threatening to reveal himself. We want to lock him away in the darkest house in our psyches and throw away the key.

A couple summers ago, I went with my nieces and my sister to the local theatre production of Twelfth Night, put on outside by the little river snaking its way through town. My niece Lucy was so upset about Malvolio she could barely “be” with the happy ending. She wanted a redemption arc for him. She is a teenager. She is very very close to the Maria-mean-girl society, and she is very close to the fear of being a Malvolio, of having her peers gang up against her and try to make a fool of her. She almost found the play unbearable because of the mean-ness towards Malvolio. I don’t think Lucy is wrong.

This is not a flaw in the play. I don’t think Malvolio needs a redemption arc. But I do think Malvolio is not a Iago or a Shulock or an Edmund. But his punishment is severe because Malvolio touches a nerve. He exposes a nerve. Nobody wants to be him, but if you are human, you can’t avoid being him.

Let’s reiterate though the weirdness of all of this: Viola “courting” Olivia is extremely engaging and their scenes together are so so good. Great parts. So funny. Viola has fascinations of her own, as does Olivia and Orsino. Feste the clown is the best “jester” yet. But when I think of Twelfth Night I think of Malvolio and his yellow stockings and his girlish glee at the thought that Olivia loves him.

Partially this is because it’s hard to invest in Viola and Orsino. Or Olivia and Orsino. Or Orsino and anyone, really. The ending, when it comes, is swift, brief, and as wacko as the rest of it. Viola – still in boys’ clothes – ends up with Orsino, who 5 seconds before believed Viola was a boy. Olivia, heartbroken for 2 seconds, “accepts” Sebastian – the identical twin – as her mate, and Sebastian – who has no idea what’s been going on – just accepts it. Like, Okay I guess I’m marrying this random woman now. With Rosalind and Orlando, you feel like it’s a good match: they’re good enough pals through all their experiences in the forest – even though she has been in disguise – that you feel like at the very least the marriage will be a fun romp (and a romp for a marriage sounds like Utopia, honestly). The Twelfth Night couples are not like this! Viola is not the same as Rosalind, although they get lumped together. If Rosalind showed up in Illyria, she would have taken one look at the insanity of Orsino and Olivia, and would have set about taking over both houses, making sure everyone ended up with the right person, all while purposefully molding Orsino into a better man, a man worthy of her. Viola does not do any of this. She floats from Orsino to Olivia and back, a victim of circumstances, in love with a man who thinks she’s a boy, and avoiding the love of a woman who also thinks she is a boy. Viola is trapped in her disguise while Rosalind is freed by hers.

Viola is interesting. Olivia is interesting. Orsino is funny in his poseur melancholy almost sickened-by-love way. Feste is wonderful. Toby and Andrew are disgusting. Maria is a little bit scary. Illyria

But Malvolio … Malvolio is a black hole, sucking the rest of the play – and us – into the “dark house” with him.

Quotes on the play

Continue reading

Posted in Theatre | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Literature is the written expression of revolt against expected things.” Happy Birthday to the least happy man ever, Thomas Hardy

“A certain provincialism of feeling is invaluable. It is the essence of individuality, and is largely made up of that crude enthusiasm without which no great thoughts are thought, no great deeds done.” — Thomas Hardy

That quote above from Thomas Hardy is something I have thought of, often, and used quite a bit in my own work, as a critic and also as a writer of other things, here, my script, everywhere. It is a reminder to stay specific, to not worry about being universal, to let that (and the reader) take care of itself.

He was criticized often for the “provincialism” of his novels. They all took place in a 10-mile radius. He delved deep into one particular slice of society and never left it or branched out. But depth is as valuable as WIDTH. I love some of his novels, although I had to come BACK to them after being forced to read them in high school (here is my post on Tess).

The interesting thing is: I think because he’s so firmly established in “the canon”, it makes it seem like he’s part of the status quo or something. I’m not a scholar, I’m just talking about the vibe. He’s seen as one of those Dead White Males who represent gatekeepers and canon and establishment. But that’s just retrospect and a lack of … people actually reading him? lol Hardy’s views were so anti-establishment he was basically perceived as a radical in his day. His first novel was rejected because its satirical lampoon of society was judged too harsh. He did not look around the world and find any of it good. This was then – and is now – a radical standpoint, and in some circles, damn near heretical. It could be seen as a very conservative viewpoint, the kind of conservatives who yearn for the past, seeing it as some sort of Eden, disliking the complexity of modernity – OR it could be seen as a rejection of the status quo, a firm NO to upholding the existing structures – burn it all down, in other words – which is basically the opposite of classical conservatism. The establishment now “claims” him but they rejected him when he was alive. Hardy published all these novels, famous great works – titanically angry and compassionate for the suffering of the “little” people, those with no voice or power – and then – abruptly – switched to poetry. He then wrote VOLUMES of poetry over the last decades of his very long life. He was born in 1840 and died in 1928. Look at the changes he witnessed. He watched an entire world pass away.

More after the jump:

Continue reading

Posted in Books, On This Day, writers | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

“I’m not interested in money. I just want to be wonderful.” – Marilyn Monroe

tumblr_le5xwfneJv1qbzp0ko1_500

It’s her birthday.

Marilyn Monroe:

People had a habit of looking at me as if I were some kind of mirror instead of a person. They didn’t see me, they saw their own lewd thoughts, then they white-masked themselves by calling me the lewd one.

Dont-Bother-to-Knock

Billy Wilder from Conversations with Wilder:

She had a kind of elegant vulgarity about her. That, I think, was very important. And she automatically knew where the joke was. She did not discuss it. She came up for the first rehearsal, and she was absolutely perfect, when she remembered the line. She could do a 3-page dialogue scene perfectly, and then get stuck on a line like, “It’s me, Sugar”… But if she showed up, she delivered, and if it took 80 takes, I lived with 80 takes, because the 81st was very good …

She had a feeling for and a fear of the camera. Fright. She was afraid of the camera, and that’s why, I think, she muffed some lines. God knows how often. She also loved the camera. Whatever she did, wherever she stood, there was always that thing that comes through. She was not even aware of it.

Eve Arnold:

If an editor wanted her, he had to agree to her terms. She knew how she wanted to be seen, and if her cooperation was sought, she reserved the right of veto.

She knew she was superlative at creating still pictures and she loved doing it.

She had learned the trick of moving infinitesimally to stay in range, so that the photographer need not refocus but could easily follow movements that were endlessly changing.

At first I thought it was surface technique, but it went beyond technique. It didn’t always work, and sometimes she would tire and it was as though her radar had failed; but when it did work, it was magic. With her it was never a formula; it was her will, her improvisation.

Peter Bogdonavich from Who the Hell’s in It: Conversations with Hollywood’s Legendary Actors:

The fact is that Marilyn was in bad trouble from the day she was born as Norma Jean Mortenson on June 1, 1926, in the city of angels and movies, a poor bastard angel child who rose to be queen of a town and a way of life that nevertheless held her in contempt. That she died a martyr to pictures at the same time as the original studio star system — through which she had risen — finally collapsed and went also to its death seems too obviously symbolic not to note. Indeed, the coincidence of the two passing together is why I chose to end this long book about movie stars with Marilyn Monroe.

What I saw so briefly in my glimpse of Marilyn at the very peak of her stardom (and the start of my career) — that fervent, still remarkably naive look of all-consuming passion for learning about her craft and art — haunts me still. She is the most touching, strangely innocent — despite all the emphasis on sex — sacrifice to the twentieth-century art of cinematic mythology, with real people as gods and goddesses. While Lillian Gish had been film’s first hearth goddess, Marilyn was the last love goddess of the screen, the final Venus or Aphrodite. The minute she was gone, we started to miss her and that sense of loss has grown, never to be replaced. In death, of course, she triumphed at last, her spirit being imperishable, and keenly to be felt in the images she left behind to mark her brief visit among us.

Elia Kazan from Elia Kazan: A Life:

Relieve your mind now of the images you have of this person. When I met her, she was a simple, eager young woman who rode a bike to the classes she was taking, a decent-hearted kid whom Hollywood brought down, legs parted. She had a thin skin and a soul that hungered for acceptance by people she might look up to …

The girl had little education and no knowledge except the knowledge of her own experience; of that she had a great deal, and for an actor, that is the important kind of knowledge. For her, I found, everything was either completely meaningless or completely personal. She had no interest in abstract, formal, or impersonal concepts but was passionately devoted to her own life’s experiences. What she needed above all was to have her sense of worth confirmed. Born out of wedlock, abandoned by her parents, kicked around, scorned by the men she’d been with until Johnny, she wanted more than anything else approval from men she could respect. Comparing her with many of the wives I got to know in that community, I thought her the honest one, them the “chumps”. But there was a fatal contradiction in Marilyn. She deeply wanted reassurance of her worth, yet she respected the men who scorned her, because their estimate of her was her own.

vlcsnap-2010-06-15-21h43m26s34

Marilyn Monroe:

Being a most serious actress is not something God has removed from my destiny as He chooses to destroy my chances of being a mother. It’s therefore my perogative to make the dream of creative fulfillment come true for me. That is what I believe God is saying to me and is the answer to my prayers.

d3f5b9d079b5ab1b9566002b910a80c9

Marilyn Monroe:

Well-behaved women rarely make history.

MarilynLeg1-620x499

John Strasberg (son of Lee Strasberg, Marilyn’s acting teacher):

I think I was talking about cars to Mother and Father. You know how I loved cars. I’d just come home and it was going to be my eighteenth birthday. I’d wanted to come for that.

Mother and Father hadn’t wanted me to come. “Why don’t you wait till the end of the year?” Well, i’d already been kicked out of college. They didn’t know yet.

When I’d gone off at the airport, I’d turned to Mother and said, “For two cents, I won’t go.” Nobody gave me the two cents, but I’d meant it. What I’d wanted to do was work. I’d wanted to work from the time I was fifteen, and they were always against any effort on my part to be strong or independent. I remember how much I resented it. “You don’t have to work, we’ll take care of everything,” undermining me.

So I was talking about cars, no one was listening, and Marilyn was there and out of the blue said, “Why don’t you take my car, Johnny?”

I thought I hadn’t heard her right, and I said, “What?” She had remembered the summer before, in California, I’d had that Chevy I’d rented. God, I loved that car, a ’57 Bel Air silver Chevy, and she had the Thunderbird.

She continued, “I’ve got the Ford Mustang the corporation gave me, and Arthur and I have a car. That one’s just sitting in the garage, we don’t use it.”

I was stunned. I couldn’t believe she meant it.

Mother and Father were horrified; they didn’t like it at all. I don’t know if it felt like too much to give me or if they were worried about my driving in my state of mind, but they objected strenuously. “He’s too young. Maybe later, Marilyn. You don’t have to. It’s impossible, he can’t afford it, it could be dangerous.”

Marilyn just said, “Well, don’t worry about any of that, it’s in the corporation’s name, so I’ll take care of the insurance.”

I’ll never forget that … There were so few, so very few people who were generous like that. Especially to me, who couldn’t do anything for her.

I think that car saved my life.

ab10cc66bbd16c1b661d1b7e13a6ed86

Ella Fitzgerald:

I owe Marilyn Monroe a real debt. She personally called the owner of the Mocambo, and told him she wanted me booked immediately, and if he would do it, she would take a front table every night. She told him – and it was true, due to Marilyn’s superstar status – that the press would go wild. The owner said yes, and Marilyn was there, front table, every night. The press went overboard. After that, I never had to play a small jazz club again. She was an unusual woman – a little ahead of her time. And she didn’t know it.

Billy Wilder:

I never knew what Marilyn was going to do, how she was going to play a scene. I had to talk her out of it, or I had to underline it and say, “That’s very good” or “Do it this way.” But I never knew anybody who … except for a dress that blows up and she’s standing there … I don’t know why she became so popular. I never knew. She was really kind of … She was a star. Every time you saw her, she was something. Even when she was angry, it was just a remarkable person. A remarkable person, and in spades when she was on the screen. She was much better on the screen than not on the screen.

giphy

Marilyn Monroe:

Some people have been unkind. If I say I want to grow as an actress, they look at my figure. If I say I want to develop, to learn my craft, they laugh. Somehow they don’t expect me to be serious about my work.

monroebday2

Billy Wilder:

It’s very difficult to talk seriously about Monroe, because she was so glitzy, you know. She escaped the seriousness somehow; she changed the subject. Except that she was very tough to work with. But what you had, by hook or crook, once you saw it on the screen, it was just amazing. Amazing, the radiation that came out. And she was, believe it or not, an excellent dialogue actress. She knew where the laugh was. She knew.

Screen-shot-2011-11-30-at-10.42.13-PM

Marilyn Monroe:

For breakfast, I have two raw beaten eggs in a glass of hot milk. I never eat dessert. My nail polish is transparent. I never wear stockings or underclothes because I think it is important to breathe freely. I wash my hair everyday and I am always brushing it. Every morning I walk across my apartment rolling an empty soda bottle between my ankles, in order to preserve my balance.


Monroe’s recipe for stuffing

MM
If you’ve seen “The Misfits,” and if you haven’t you really must, you’ll know what a hoot this scene is. It’s the drink in her hand, staying steady, that is so funny. Or, ONE of the things about this scene that is so funny.

Eve Arnold:

I never knew anyone who even came close to Marilyn in natural ability to use both photographer and still camera. She was special in this, and for me there has been no one like her before or after. She has remained the measuring rod by which I have — unconsciously — judged other subjects.

marilyn-monroe-eve-arnold-1955

Marilyn Monroe:

It’s not true that I had nothing on. I had the radio on.

Ernest Cunningham (photographer):

I worked with Marilyn Monroe. A rather dull person. But when I said “Now!” she lit up. Suddenly, something unbelievable came across. The minute she heard the click of the camera, she was down again. It was over. I said, “What is it between you and the camera that doesn’t show at any other time?” She said, “It’s like being screwed by a thousand guys and you can’t get pregnant.”

Peter Bogdonavich:

More than forty years have passed since Marilyn’s mysterious death, but her legend and persona have survived. This is all the more remarkable because she actually made very few films, and even fewer that were any good. But there was a reality to her artifice — she believed in the characters she played, even if they were inherently unbelievable. “Everything she did,” [Arthur] Miller said to me, “she played realistically. I don’t think she knew any other way to play anything — only to tell you the truth. She was always psychologically committed to that person as a person, no matter what the hell it was, rather than a stock figure. Because the parts she got could easily have been stock figures, which had no other dimension. But she wouldn’t have known how to do that. In other words, she did not have the usual technique for doing something as a stock figure … She was even that way when [director] John Huston used her the first time [in a memorable walk-on bit] in The Asphalt Jungle [1950].”

This went for every picture she did in her surprisingly, painfully short career as a star, barely a decade, little more than a dozen pictures. Though she managed to work with quite a number of major directors, it was not necessarily always in their best efforts; but still they were Fritz Lang, Howard Hawks (twice), Otto Preminger, Billy Wilder (twice), George Cukor (twice, if you count her last unfinished one), John Huston (twice), Laurence Olivier, Joshua Logan, and Joseph L. Mankiewicz (bit part in 1950’s classic All About Eve). In my conversation with Miller, he said, “I thought she had the potential for being a great performer if she were given the right stuff to do. And if you look at the stuff she did do, it’s amazing that she created any impression at all because most of it was very primitive. And the fact that people remember these parts from these films is amazing … She was comitted to these parts as though they were real people, not cardboard cutouts. Even though the director and author and the rest might have thought they were cutouts and would deal with them that way. The way the two men [Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon] in Some Like It Hot felt with their parts, or George Raft with his part. She was real. And therefore she had the potential of being a great comedienne.” (Norman Mailer, in his book on Monroe — he never met her — wrote that starting with 1953’s Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, she was a great comedienne.)

Marilyn-Monroe-Clash-by-night

Marilyn Monroe from The Making of the Misfits:

I’d prefer not to analyze it [acting] … it’s subjective; rather, I want to remain subjective while I’m doing it. Rather than do much talking I’d rather act. When it’s on the screen, that’s when you’ll know who Roslyn [her character in The Misfits] is. I don’t want to water down my own feeling … Goethe says a career is developed in public but talent is developed in private, or silence. It’s true for the actor. To really say what’s in my heart, I’d rather show than to say. Even though I want people to understand, I’d much rather they understand on the screen. If I don’t do that, I’m on the wrong track, or in the wrong profession…. Nobody would have heard of me if it hadn’t been for John Huston. When we started Asphalt Jungle, my first picture, I was very nervous, but John said, ‘Look at Calhern [the late Louis Calhern, a veteran actor], see how he’s shaking. If you’re not nervous, you might as well give up.’ John has meant a great deal in my life. It’s sort of a coincidence to be with him ten years later.

John-Huston-and-Marilyn-Monroe-during-the-filming-of-The-Misfits-by-Eve-Arnold

John Strasberg from his sister’s book Marilyn & Me: Sisters, Rivals, Friends:

The first time I met her I remember she came out of the living room and Pop said, “This is my son,” and my first impression of her was that she was different from most of the people who came to the house. I’d watch all these people trading their most human qualities, betraying themselves for success at all costs, to become rich and famous, and afterward, when it was too late, they’d realize they had lost the best part of themselves along the way, but she, she was like me. When I looked into her eyes, it was like looking into my own, they were like a child’s eyes. I was still a child. You know how children just look at you. My feeling was she had less ego or was less narcissistic than most of the actors who never really bothered with me. She was just another person to me, another one from that world I felt cut off, excluded, from. She was nicer, real simple, no makeup, and she really looked at me as if she saw me. It wasn’t that I wanted people to look at me, but I knew the difference when she did. I knew everyone said she was the sexiest, most sensual woman in the world. Not to me. I thought there was something wrong with me for not feeling that from her. I’d felt it from other women who came to the house. I was pretty sexually frustrated then. She was so open, so loose, and her sensuality as such was so totally innocent, nothing dirty in it at all, and the first time it was just like talking to an ordinary person, only realer than most who came into the house in those days. She was quiet, too, I remember, like an animal is quiet, and I was like that too, survival tactics. She seemed smart, but not in an educated way, instinctively smart, nobody’s fool.

Couldn’t resist, especially since Bloomsday approaches:

monroe-reads-joyce1

Judging from where she is in the book, she’s in full-on Molly Bloom mode. She would have made a perfect Molly Bloom.

Marilyn Monroe:

I am a failure as a woman. My men expect so much of me because of the image they have made of me and that I have made of myself, as a sex symbol. Men expect so much and I can’t live up to it. They expect bells to ring and whistles to whistle, but my anatomy’s the same as any other woman’s. I can’t live up to it.

tumblr_nc41d4ZfA61sr7xmio1_500

Marilyn Monroe:

My illusions didn’t have anything to do with being a fine actress. I knew how third rate I was. I could actually feel my lack of talent, as if it were cheap clothes I was wearing inside. But, my God, how I wanted to learn, to change, to improve!

tumblr_m7h8w4aMIc1rv63c0o1_500

Arthur Miller from Timebends: A Life:

She was a whirling light to me then, all paradox and enticing mystery, street-tough one moment, then lifted by a lyrical and poetic sensitivity that few retain past early adolescence. Sometimes she seemed to see all men as boys, children with immeidate needs that it was her place in nature to fulfill; meanwhile her adult self stood aside observing the game. Men were their need, imperious and somehow sacred. She might tell about being held down at a party by two of the guests in a rape attempt from which she said she had escaped, but the truth of the account was far less important than its strange remoteness from her personally. And ultimately something nearly godlike would emerge from this depersonalization. She was at this point incapable of condemning or even of judging people who had damaged her, and to be with her was to be accepted, like moving out into a kind of sanctifying light from a life where suspicions was common sense. She had no common sense, but what she did have was something holier, a long-reaching vision of which she herself was only fitfully aware: humans were all need, all wound. What she wanted most was not to be judged but to win recognition from a sentimentally cruel profession, and from men blinded to her humanity by her perfect beauty. She was part queen, part waif, sometimes on her knees before her own body and sometimes despairing because of it — “Oh, there’s lots of beautiful girls,” she would say to some expression of awed amazement, as though her beauty betrayed her quest for a more enduring acceptance.

dbrnr67m4ow26uqvnk7snx9fo1_5001

Peter Bogdonavich:

The year before her much-speculated-over death at thirty-six (rumors of presidential involvement, etc.), playwright Clifford Odets told me that she used to come over to his house and talk, but that the only times she seemed to him really comfortable were when she was with his two young children and their large poodle. She relaxed with them, felt no threat. With everyone else, Odets said, she seemed nervous, intimidated, frightened. When I repeated to Miller this remark about her with children and animals, he said, “Well, they didn’t sneer at her.”

tumblr_nryr4jziR51tvnjmto7_1280

Burt Glinn (photographer):

She had no bone structure — the face was a Polish flat plate. Not photogenic in the accepted sense, the features were not memorable or special; what she had was the ability to project.

Billy Wilder:

Marilyn was not interested in costumes. She was not a clotheshorse. You could put anything on her you wanted. If it showed something, then she accepted it. As long as it showed a little something.

article-2595707-1CC8986D00000578-551_634x654

Henri Cartier Bresson (photographer):

She’s American and it’s very clear that she is – she’s very good that way – one has to be very local to be universal.

Frank Taylor (producer of The Misfits):

Monty and Marilyn were psychic twins. They were on the same wavelength. They recognized disaster in each other’s faces and giggled about it.

Marilyn Monroe:

Acting isn’t something you do. Instead of doing it, it occurs. If you’re going to start with logic, you might as well give up. You can have conscious preparation, but you have unconscious results.

2rlQZWG

Arthur Miller:

To have survived, she would have had to be either more cynical or even further from reality than she was. Instead, she was a poet on a street corner trying to recite to a crowd pulling at her clothes.

Marilyn Monroe:

I’m not interested in money. I just want to be wonderful.

monroebday23

Marilyn Monroe (this is what she pleaded at the end of the last interview she gave):

What I really want to say: That what the world really needs is a real feeling of kinship. Everybody: stars, laborers, Negroes, Jews, Arabs. We are all brothers.

Please don’t make me a joke. End the interview with what I believe.

monroebday4

The Death of Marilyn Monroe
By Edwin Morgan

What innocence? Whose guilt? What eyes? Whose breast?

Crumpled orphan, nembutal bed,

white hearse, Los Angeles,

DiMaggio! Los Angeles! Miller! Los Angeles! America!

That Death should seem the only protector –

That all arms should have faded, and the great cameras and lights

become an inquisition and a torment –

That the many acquaintances, the autograph-hunters, the

inflexible directors, the drive-in admirers should become

a blur of incomprehension and pain –

That lonely Uncertainty should limp up, grinning, with

bewildering barbiturates, and watch her undress and lie

down and in her anguish

call for him! call for him to strengthen her with what could

only dissolve her! A method

of dying, we are shaken, we see it. Strasberg!

Los Angeles! Olivier! Los Angeles! Others die

and yet by this death we are a little shaken, we feel it,

America.

Let no one say communication is a cantword.

They had to lift her hand from the bedside telephone.

But what she had not been able to say

perhaps she had said. ‘All I had was my life.

I have no regrets, because if I made

any mistakes, I was responsible.

There is now – and there is the future.

What has happened is behind. So

it follows you around? So what?’ – This

to a friend, ten days before.

And so she was responsible.

And if she was not responsible, not wholly responsible, Los Angeles?

Los Angeles? Will it follow you around? Will the slow

white hearse of the child of America follow you around?

Marilyn_Monroe_Sam_Shaw_Photoshoot_2_Sep_1957_01

Posted in Actors, On This Day | Tagged , , , , , , | 27 Comments

“[My ambition is to] give something to our literature which will be our own.” — Walt Whitman

“I like to think that eventually he will shame us into becoming Americans again.” — Guy Davenport on Walt Whitman

Whitman is the organizing principle behind my review of Martin Scorsese’s Rolling Thunder Revue. Bob Dylan quotes Whitman all the time. If you put them together, it contextualizes the way we think about them both. Or at least that’s true for me.

More – lots more – about Whitman below the jump.

Continue reading

Posted in Books, On This Day, writers | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

“I don’t want to show things, but to give people the desire to see.” — Agnès Varda

It’s the birthday of Belgian filmmaker Agnès Varda, a pioneering force in the development of the French New Wave – she was French New Wave before it was even named “French New Wave.” When she died at the age of 90, you could feel the waves of loss and tribute breaking over the landscape. My first disoriented thought when I heard the news was, “But what am I supposed to do now?”

Here’s an anecdote about Varda as a director, an anecdote that has always stayed with me. Maybe it stayed with me because of my actor background: I love examples of directors who know how to give good direction.

Here is the great Sandrine Bonnaire giving her unforgettable performance in Agnès Varda’s Vagabond.

Like all great directors, Varda knew when to give direction/guidance, and when to stay silent. When Varda DID give direction, it was specific and action-oriented. Bad directors talk about abstractions and themes, none of which an actor can really play.

Bad director: “Remember, your character represents innocence in a fallen world.”
Actor: “….. Okay. Got it.” [Inner monologue: WTF.]
Scene begins. Actor tries to represent innocence in a fallen world.
Bad director: “Cut! Okay, so maybe this next take think of a really happy circumstance in your childhood that you now look back on and feel sad about.”
Actor: “So … I wasn’t really getting across innocence in a fallen world, is that what you’re saying?”
Bad director: “No, it was great, what you were doing was great, I just want you to maybe think about something personal.”
Actor: “So … a happy childhood memory that makes me sad now?”
Bad director: “Yes. Let’s try it.”
Actor: “Should I keep trying to be innocence in a fallen world?”
Bad director: “Let’s forget about that for now.”

This is not an exaggeration of what it is like to work with a bad director who
1. does not know what he/she wants
2. does not understand the actor’s process

Good directors always give actors something to DO. If you’re a bad director, and you don’t know how to do that, then just say NOTHING to the actor, let the actor work, stay out of their way. (Unfortunately, of course, bad directors don’t know they’re bad. That’s why they’re bad.) Good directors know how to say one tiny thing, one tiny suggestive thing, that sets the actor’s imagination on fire, or makes the actor know, “Got it. I know just what you want.”

Varda didn’t “help” Bonanaire give the great performance she did in Vagabond. That’s a misunderstanding of the relationship between director and actress. Bonnaire is, quite literally, brilliant – all on her own. It’s what she brings to the table. But every actor needs guidance, or at least information from the director that helps contextualize what the director wants, what the movie is, what the director envisions. So Varda made one comment, one very pointed comment early on, and this was THE thing that gave Bonnaire her “way in” to the character.

In the early development stages, Varda said to Bonnaire, “Your character never says ‘Thank you.’”

Something in this simple statement sparked something in Bonnaire. She was curious about it, she hadn’t thought about it in those terms, she wondered what that would look/feel like. Also, on a practical level, it was something she could DO. Specificity is ALWAYS preferable to generalities. No exceptions. Even in highly stylized work.

Bonnaire began experimenting in her own life with not saying “Thank you,” just to get a feel for it, just to see what it might provide her in understanding the character she was going to play. She said she was surprised at how difficult it was. It felt wrong. It made her confront all kinds of things in herself, how you internalize society’s rules until they are automatic, how we all use good manners to get by the best we can in this world. This is not a bad thing. But what happens if you opt out of it? The “why” isn’t even as important as the “what.” Choosing not to say “Thank you” in the preparation phase of the film made Bonnaire realize how often she said “Thank you.” A cashier hands you change. A guy holds a door open for you. You trip off a stair and someone reaches out to help you. A waitress clears your table. You say “Thank you” for the help in every single circumstance. Or you should.

But not if you’re playing the lead character in Vagabond.

Bonnaire got into the groove of what it was like to accept help and never say “Thank you.” It was a whole other world and it opened up all of the possibilities of the character for her.

And it all came from a six-word sentence of direction. PLAY-able direction.

It set Bonnaire – already enormously gifted – free. Keeping those words in mind, she literally could do no wrong in her performance. It showed her how to be, where to go, what to do, what not to do.

Young directors, take note: THAT’S how you give direction.

 
 
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 | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

“I never made a message picture, and I hope I never do.” — Howard Hawks

It’s his birthday today.

My favorite director. I’ve written so much about his movies, here and elsewhere, it’d be too much to link to all of it. I’ve seen it all. Only Angels Have Wings is my favorite movie ever made.

One of the reasons why I do not value the Oscars (beyond the spectacle of a community coming together to celebrate individual accomplishments) is because someone like Howard Hawks – who helped CREATE modern movies – who gave us so many incredible ground-breaking films and gave so many now iconic stars defining roles – was only nominated for one Oscar, and that was for his one message-y film, 1942’s Sergeant York, one of his weakest films, with a saccharine love story completely out of his wheelhouse. He didn’t come alive as a director in this thing – and THAT’S what he was nominated for, because Hollywood liked the patriotic message. Oscars do not equal value. Stop putting too much on them. The one value of Oscars is films are sure to be preserved if they won one of those damn things. And it creates opportunities, etc. But it doesn’t equal success. Plenty of shitty movies have won Oscars. Cary Grant never won one and the two times he was nominated were for “serious” roles, where he cried (Penny Serenade and One for the Lonely Heart.) Roles that have nothing to do with what Cary Grant was – to this day – famous for, one of the most famous movie stars ever. Anyone who continues to think Oscars = Value just has to ignore so much information to the contrary.

Howard Hawks had a run of hits in the late 1930s and 1940s, all of which are now considered classics: Bringing Up Baby, Only Angels Have Wings, His Girl Friday – He did those three stone-cold classics in a row. Directors are STILL trying to catch the magic he pulled off in those three movies. (I wrote the booklet essay for Criterion’s release of Bringing Up Baby.)

Other titles, just cherry-picked: Twentieth Century (which made Carole Lombard a star), Scarface (I mean, come on), Air Force, To Have and Have Not (which made Lauren Bacall a star), The Big Sleep, Red River. So let’s look at these: We have the birth of screwball comedy in Twentieth Century, we have one of the most influential gangster films of all time, we have a thrilling war film based on a true story, and then we have two Bogart-Bacall films, mixes of noir and erotic adventure. Then we have a great Western, starring THE Western old-guard star John Wayne, and the up-and-comer Montgomery Clift, in his film debut.

Hawks was an “auteur” in the most classic sense: he wrote, he produced, he directed, he did things his way. You can tell, to this day, if he directed something. He felt no pressure to be anyone other than himself, and he won most of his battles with various studio heads. Not all, but most. He introduced innovations. A whole new Oscar category was created for the flying sequences in Only Angels Have Wings. His scripts were longer than most scripts – so much talking! – but he introduced overlapping dialogue. Everyone trips over everybody else’s speech, interrupting constantly. This was a nightmare for the sound department and incredibly challenging for the actors but there’s a reason why his films, particularly the 1930s ones, have the reputation of being the FASTEST. If actors read the His Girl Friday script without cutting each off every line, where they finish their sentences before someone else speaks, the movie would have been three hours long. Instead, it’s 92 minutes. And you don’t miss a word.

There’s an interesting clip (audio only) where Hawks is asked about the overlapping dialogue.

Hawks’ 30s and 40s were awe-inspiring. He went on to have great success in the 50s too, which makes him slightly unusual, although in his cohort – George Cukor, John Ford, etc. – these guys kept going, with excellent films in every decade. Still. Hawks brought us Monkey Business (silly, but enjoyable), Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (iconic and bizarre), and Rio Bravo (a classic).

He was an elder statesman for what felt like forever. He lived long enough to give lengthy interviews about his craft (most notably, with Peter Bogdanovich, who came back to him again and again, looking for more nuggets of wisdom). Hawks’ heirs are legion. He created so much. He established so mmuch. He set bars of accomplishment people still can’t reach. Bringing Up Baby. His Girl Friday. Only Angels Have Wings. Untouchable.

This is a personal riff on a line that shows up in three of Howard Hawks’ films. Written during the first wave of #MeToo – which should be obvious. I had a lot on my mind.

 
 
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 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

“If I am going to be a poet at all, I am going to be POET and not NEGRO POET.” — poet Countee Cullen

Yet do I marvel at this curious thing:
To make a poet black, and bid him sing!
— Countee Cullen

It’s his birthday today.

Cullen is often compared to Langston Hughes (my post on Hughes here), seems a little unfair, not to mention reductive. You don’t have to pit these two artists against each other, or set them up in an either/or way … The Harlem Renaissance is such a rich subject, with so many figures and voices. I’m grateful I took a semester in college on the Harlem Renaissance because although some of the poets (Langston Hughes, primarily) had been “covered” in high school humanities classes, there was so much else going on and the course was a beautiful deep dive into the period. Countee Cullen was a major figure.

Langston Hughes took his inspiration from black American forms: blues, jazz, spirituals. He was criticized for this at the time, mainly by other black writers, who protested how they were being portrayed to the white world.

Countee Cullen used strictly European forms. Sonnets, ballads, Elizabethan rhyme schemes. He was criticized for this at the time, mainly by other black writers, for abandoning his heritage, and associating himself with the white world.

So you see where the criticisms were coming from, in both cases. To boil it down: Hughes was criticized for using so-called “low” forms, Cullen was criticized for using so-called “high.”

More about Countee Cullen below the jump:

Continue reading

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

Reviews: Currents (2026)

Currents doesn’t help you interpret what you see. But what you see is so mesmerizing, watching the movie is like falling into it. You’re in the currents, if you will. Virginia Woolf’s extreme subjectivity in approach is an obvious reference point, but there are more at work in this beautiful mysterious film about a woman in the process of removing all of the attachments keeping her IN her life. I reviewed for Ebert.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Reviews: Forge (2026)

What an interesting fun film about a brother-sister art-forgery team operating in the elite wealthy circles and/or art underground of Miami. Really good. I reviewed for Ebert.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | Leave a comment