“If the thing is there, why, there it is.” Happy Birthday, Walker Evans

Sadie Tingle, Alabama, 1936.

4405761259_a37237e25d_o

walker-evans-3

8a44521r

walker_evans_03_girl_in_french_quarter_new_orleans-web

walker-evans-lunchroom-window-new-york-city-1929

6TiYiyNurqskbngdMieRglDPo1_1280

013_walker-evans_theredlist

081

360

000000.-Evans6

104701

h2_1999.237.1

49.1971

walker_evans_mujer_madre_cubana_cuba_habana

walker-evans 2

162612178_b606590d35_o

alabama-farm-kids484x384

frazier_1-110713

let-us-now-praise

old-movie-posters-walker-evans-inkbluesky

PH2797

That last photo is Walker Evans’ innovative perspective of the parade for Charles Lindbergh after Lindbergh successfully crossed the Atlantic in 1927. It’s one of the first photos Evans took, and shows that he had a “good eye” from the start. A conventional photographer would have shown the parade, the cheering crowds, the scope and size of the event, Lindbergh himself. Evans, however, was struck by the backs of the marching band, and the carnage of ticker-tape. The empty aftermath.

And the photo above that one I love in particular, since I love Carole Lombard, have that movie poster on my wall, and Carole Lombard with a shiner was my Twitter avatar from the moment I signed up until the day I de-activated.

Walker Evans captured America at a certain time of upheaval, gigantic events which had wide-sweeping consequences, for the world, yes, but more importantly, for individuals. It was a time of both technical innovation and abject poverty. He focused on American’s homes, the objects in the homes, the rusty bed-steads in the shacks of the poor and destitute, the stoves in the corner, the kitchen utensils. Beds were important. Beds represent a respite for the economically-ravaged people he photographed. But Evans, too, just had an eye for the detail, the one essential thing that would make a photograph pop. It is a remarkable record of what America looked like at the time, its cars, its billboards. Ordinary life was what he was after. You can feel the dust in the air from the unpaved roads, smell the sugary soda from the fountains, the quiet of those small towns. But he was also an urban street photographer, taking pictures of women on subways wearing little hats, gossiping, collapsed against one another during the commute, lunch rooms crowded with office workers, the vast bustle of city life. It’s an amazing archive, an incredible historical record.

In 1936, James Agee, film critic, novelist, reporter, asked Walker Evans to come down to Alabama with him to document the life of sharecroppers for Fortune magazine. Hard hard times in America, all around. Evans’ photographs (Agee and Evans stayed with three tenant-farmer families, so you get to know the faces) are haunting. The direct gaze. The dirty children. The hovels. The gaunt cheeks. The hard-bitten eyes. Evans initially felt uncomfortable with the assignment, photographing people in such misery. He worried he was exploiting them. A common issue with photographers who go into terrible areas. But the issue is two-fold: documenting horrors brings news of events to the world, makes it palpable, energizes people to “get involved”, whatever that might mean. (One remembers Kevin Carter’s horrifying photo of the starving child in the Sudan curled up on the ground with a vulture crouching nearby. While there are conflicting reports on how that photograph came to be, Carter won a Pulitzer Prize for it. It was one of those photos, like the “napalm girl” that sears into your brain once you’ve seen it. The horror of humanity. Carter committed suicide. He had photographed many horrible things, executions, torture. His suicide note spoke of not being able to bear all of the things he had seen, they had blotted out the possibility of joy. AND, as a photographer, his job was not to change things, or provide aid. It was to document, to bear witness. That’s it. This is an ethical struggle that Walker Evans felt acutely as he photographed these families in dire straits.)

The collaboration with Agee eventually became, of course, the classic of American literature/photography, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. Agee’s prose is incantatory and emotional, free-flowing and high-flung, tapping into the human condition and the terrible beauty of our drive to survive. Here is an excerpt:

Each is drawn elsewhere toward another: once more a man and a woman, in a loneliness they are not liable at that time to notice, are tightened together upon a bed: and another family has begun:

Moreover, these flexions are taking place everywhere, like a simultaneous motion of all the waves of the water of the world: and these are the classic patterns, and this is the weaving, of human living: of whose fabric each individual is a part: and of all parts of this fabric let this be borne in mind:

Each is intimately connected with the bottom and the extremest reach of time:

Each is composed of substances identical with the substances of all that surrounds him, both the common objects of his disregard, and the hot centers of stars:

All that each person is, and experiences, and shall never experience, in body and in mind, all these things are differing expressions of himself and of one root, and are identical: not one of these things nor one of these persons is ever quite to be duplicated, nor replaced, nor has it ever quite had precedent: but each is a new and incommunicably tender life, wounded in every breath, and almost as hardly killed as easily wounded: sustaining, for a while, without defense, the enormous assaults of the universe.

Walker Evans’ contribution to the 20th century cannot be measured.

walker_evans01

 
 
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, On This Day | Tagged , | 20 Comments

“I’ve had the kind of fame which I felt was just the right amount.” — Lois Smith

Lois Smith, who turns 96 years old today, made her film debut in 1955, playing a young prostitute in East of Eden. She has a small scene with James Dean, and then exits the film forever. But the memory of her lingers.

In 2021, 66 years later – let me say that again – 66 years after she made her film debut – Lois Smith won a Tony for her performance in The Inheritance. She was – at age 90 – the oldest Tony winner. Her speech was amazing. Unfortunately it’s not on YouTube. The speeches of all the YOUNGER winners are on YouTube. Typical. Let us honor our history. The video is here. She was so happy, and so was the audience.

While I lived in Chicago, my friend Ted and I went to go see Lois in a new play (The Mesmerist) at Steppenwolf (she’s a company member). Ted knew Lois, so the three of us went out to dinner afterwards. I was SO starstruck because of East of Eden, and so wanted to ask her about James Dean. At first I sat there, silently, just trying to put together the images: the beautiful white-haired woman sitting next to me, and the girl at the bar in East of Eden – but Lois was so friendly, so nice, such an interesting person, I soon forgot about being starstruck. We all just discussed the new play, its problems, what worked and didn’t, the process of development, she wanted to know what we were working on, it was regular shop talk among theatre people. I’ve always loved her, but ever since that night I had dinner with her, she is a role model for me for what it means to be a working actor.

Success – or at least the regular meaning of the word – is truly irrelevant. It’s just work.

Four or so years after that first encounter, I was involved in a project where we workshopped a new play about the artist Joseph Cornell. Ted directed the workshop, and we worked as of those giant airy studios at Juilliard. We played around with format. We envisioned the play taking place IN one of Cornell’s boxes. I played the young woman who came into his life late – one of those aimless Automat girls he loved so much – and he gave her money and was obsessed with her. She ended up stealing a couple of boxes and – like a dummy-dumb – tried to sell them to New York galleries. Cornell was famous. Everyone knew him. So they called Cornell to report that a raggedy strange young woman was trying to sell his boxes. Horrible. He was devastated but refused to press charges. She had a horrible end, murdered in a hotel on the UWS. Some of the details are hazy, my research was a long time ago. A sad episode in JC’s life.

Cornell’s boxes are magical, whimsical, sometimes disturbing, fetishistic tributes, escape routes. They’re pure magic. He made boxes “for” actors and ballerinas etc. whom he adored. (I did not know that Eve Babitz corresponded with Cornell for years, since she was a late teenager starting to make collages.) Cornell loved Lois Smith, knew her casually, and made a box for her. It was 1955, and she was on Broadway in an adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Young and the Beautiful. This was before East of Eden. Lois Smith actually has the box (unlike, say, Lauren Bacall – the box Cornell made for her is probably priceless at this point). The Cornell box hangs in Smith’s hallway. In a New Yorker article, the writer, Michael Schulman, gives a description of the box:

Cornell, who knew Smith through the writer Donald Windham, cut out her image, in a white tulle gown, from the Playbill cover. “The back of it is wonderful,” Smith said recently, flipping the box to reveal papier-mâché text. “It has a quote from Hölderlin: ‘Home, poor heart, you cannot rediscover, if the dream alone does not suffice.’ ”

Fast forward to the Joseph Cornell workshop, run by the aforementioned Ted. Lois came on as an adviser for our project. She opened a lot of doors for us, including getting us into the private screening room at MoMA to watch Cornell’s chopped-up and now-famous films. We were shown the JC collection, including the ones not on display. One quick phone call from Lois, and we were in.

As I said, when I met her I kept seeing her defeated pose at the bar in East of Eden, the movie that “turned me on” to acting and also moviemaking as an artform. I saw East of Eden at age 13. I remember wondering who she was. She made an impression, even in the bombardment of James Dean on my psyche. I memorized the name. “LOIS SMITH.” And there I was, an adult, so many years later, having dinner with her, and then, a couple years after that, talking with her about Joseph Cornell in a huge rehearsal studio at Juilliard, and it all seemed perfectly normal, a straight line between then and now. As though 13-year-old me cleared a space for the moment.

The rarest kind of experience.

Thank you Lois for all of your work, for being a role model, for opening up the possibility for others what a good working career looks like – success doesn’t matter, keep doing the work, keep striving, it’s the work that matters – and also for showing an interest in our experimental open-ended project – and not just an interest – but actually HELPING us achieve our goals (one call to MoMA by Lois Smith and we were in). Thank you for taking the time out of your busy career to meet with a ragtag group of young actors to tell us stories about this artist who loved you so much.

And we loved you right back.

 
 
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, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Nov 12-15: AFI Silver Classic Film Weekend

Really pleased to announce I’ll be presenting three films at the upcoming Silver Classic Film Weekend, an annual festival hosted by the American Film Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland. It will be a jam-packed four days, with some old favorites – like Three on a Match, Rain, What Price Glory? – being programmed, but also some harder-to-see films. The full schedule can be viewed here.

The lineup includes rarities and restorations, silent animated films (with live accompaniment), and a series of pre-Codes. The festival will include talks and QAs, plus an introduction for each film. Archivist and historian David Pierce has been the fearless organizer.

The closing night film, which it will be my honor to present, is Letty Lynton, the Joan Crawford film so bogged down in legal confusion that it has been basically un-seeable for 90 years. Earlier this fall, the Paris Theatre ran Letty Lynton in an afternoon matinee, which I attended, and it sold out. Over 500 seats, an all-ages crowd. Many of the younger crowd – early 20somethings – showed up in vintage clothing, and they all looked amazing. There was such a sense of excitement, like you wouldn’t believe. We have all heard ABOUT this movie but no one’s been able to see it.

Joan Crawford: still selling out theatres 90 years later!

Letty Lynton is terrific, based on a true story, and has all the earmarks of a classic Pre-Code, including … the lack of punishment when someone does a “bad thing”. Sometimes people get away with things. You can have murder AND a happy ending. Once the “code” was enforced, circa 1933-34, such ambiguities were no longer allowed. In Letty Lynton, Joan is right at the tipping point of her real fame, and it’s great to see. Joan’s costumes – by the incomparable Adrian – are worth the price of admission, including of course the famous “Letty Lynton dress”, all ruffles and chiffon.

Along with Letty Lynton, I’ll be presenting two films on the first day, 1932’s Wild Girl, starring Joan Bennett as a tomboy girl living in the redwood forest, and the plot involves vigilante justice, brothel girls being hustled out of town in a stagecoach, and every man in sight is an absolute sleazebag. Ralph Bellamy and Eugene Pallette are also in it!

I’ll also be presenting 1930’s Man Trouble, a film long impossible to see, incomplete and in degraded condition. The film has now been restored by the UCLA Film Archive.

The other presenters are Farran Smith Nehme (a friend, incredible writer and historian, plus a novelist), film preservationist (and television writer-producer) David Stenn, and author/historian Scott Eyman. Eyman has written a number of excellent biographies. His celebrated biography of John Wayne is one of the best “entertainment” biographies I’ve ever read (and long overdue), and he also wrote a biography of Cary Grant. This year, he published the first biography of Joan Crawford (another excellent read). I’ve admired Eyman from afar for a long time so I am looking forward to meeting him.

If you happen to live in the DC area, maybe this would be a fun event to attend! All Access passes are $200, but you can pay $15 per movie too. We’re expecting a lot of the films to sell out since so many of these screen so rarely. I love Three on a Match but have never seen it on the big screen! All films are playing in the AFI Silver and Cultural Center in Silver Spring, Maryland. If you end up attending, find me to say hello.

You can explore the lineup and buy passes here.

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

From the archives (February 29, 2008): Patrick Stewart as Macbeth


Patrick Stewart and Kate Fleetwood

I saw Patrick Stewart do Macbeth tonight at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. It was a lovely evening. It’s freezing today and I trekked out there, emerging into the utter chaos of Atlantic and Flatbush. A couple was having a screaming fight about a drug deal gone awry on the sidewalk. The girl shouted, “There’s fuckin’ police all around us right now. They’re already curious about what we talkin’ about – let’s get the fuck outta here!”

I thought it was so funny. Here I was, going to see the Scottish play and there, on Flatbush Avenue, was the Brooklyn version of “Unsex me here”!

I had a glass of wine in the lobby, warming up, and people milled about. Wonderful atmosphere. At intermission, a couple struck up a conversation with me about the play, and it was great fun. They actually had never read the play or seen it, they were there for the Patrick Stewart of it all. We were trying to figure out where the hell Banquo was going when he ran off before intermission. I get he knows he will be killed, but where the hell you going, bro? The couple were wondering who MacDuff was. They hadn’t caught his name. “Who was that man with the wife and kids?” “That was MacDuff,” I said. “he’s a nobleman who was really close with Duncan. I hate to break it to you but … don’t get attached to the MacDuff family.”

This production, highly acclaimed in England, and now here for a run, takes place in Stalinist Russia. It had a more chilly quality than some other productions I’ve seen. The set was stark and bare and there were no scene changes. They used video projections during certain sections, like the forest moving, things abstracted, becoming more and more fragmented, as Macbeth and his wife slowly went mad. There were a couple of moments when I thought it was over-produced.

The play itself, just as a work of literature, is terrifying and one of the most gruesome in all of Shakespeare’s plays. The monologue that reports the deaths of MacDuff’s family, you get the picture in your head of children screaming and being slaughtered. You really don’t need to add TOO much to it. For the most part, I thought the video projections were awesome (the visions of enormous totalitarian armies marching, with Soviet-esque banners waving) but a couple times I was pulled out of it.

Stewart was incredible. His voice! His voice goes right through you. I had a moment when he was doing the “tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow” monologue where I almost got disoriented and I didn’t know what to focus on. First of all, his performance of it was quiet and bitter, and totally underplayed. He just SAID it. He didn’t ADD anything. You just lost yourself in it. Because of his quiet approach, I was allowed space to really listen to him, to hear those famous words, as though for the first time.

It’s easy to take Shakespeare for granted. And to hear – really HEAR – that language, so well-known now, so damn famous … you realize, as though for the first time, how damn brilliant the writing is. It’s like being in the actual presence of God, or a higher power, or something like massive, like seeing the cosmos in one glance. Whatever you want to call it. The language is beyond “good”. It is an emanation of deep and human truth, passed down through the ages … and here it is. Before us. Being spoken simply and clearly by a marvelous actor.

A human being wrote this.

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Kate Fleetwood played Lady Macbeth like Eva Peron. She thirsted for power and emasculates her husband like a pro. Fleetwood is much younger than Stewart, which added to the sexual tension. (To be fair, Stewart is a little old for Macbeth. But here, it worked: an older man with a younger hot wife might be a little … anxious … about satisfying her.)

Stewart’s body language in response to her “are you a man?” comments was subtle, and eloquent. He kind of collapsed, a little bit. Just a little, a subtle deflation of energy and stamina. Coming from the inside.

He strutted in in their first scene together, and she embraced him, and they were kissing and passionate as they said their opening lines, eating each other up, his hands all over her, her breasts, her thighs … and then she starts going off on what she thinks needs to happen next, and she is so far beyond him at that point, she is so much further down the path … he was struck dumb, in response. He looked a bit helpless. And seeing Patrick Stewart look helpless is very disorienting. He was wearing military garb, combat boots, he was the picture of a virile strutting man. But Lady Macbeth unmasks him, disarms him … He was helpless. Stewart is so strong a figure you felt the world shake a bit seeing him not know what to do, seeing him hesitate, helpless.

I have seen so many terrible “Out damn’d spot” performances. The actress uses it as an opportunity to become a gibbering gleaming-eyed maniac. Kate Fleetwood was real, and because it was real to her – she WAS out of her mind. Her hands writhed about, and there was something about the moment where I actually started feeling the sticky blood all over MY hands. This was no kitchen-sink acting. She rose to the occasion, but without any fanfare. Just like Stewart with “tomorrow and tomorrow” … she just said the lines. There they were.

The play is horrifying in its action, but even more so it is horrifying psychologically. The two of them cannot stop their ambition, and for a moment all seems possible. They might get away with it. But to live with the repercussions, to walk through life knowing murder got you there … neither of them are up to that.

The relationship those two created was intricate, codependent and twisted. The chiding, the sex, the way they knew what the other person was going to say even before the words were out … Loved seeing them in their scenes together.

My favorite part of the whole production was how they handled the witches.

Those witches are tough, man. It’s tough to play one of the witches (and I should know, since I played one of them once, in a production so bad it still makes me shiver – post about it here, and photos here, here, here … I heard some of my lines come back to me in the play at BAM and felt a shiver of shame. “Doubtless it stood …” ACK!). When playing the witches it’s so easy to go over the top. It so easily can just be SILLY.

The witches in this production were truly frightening. They were omnipresent. They weren’t isolated out in a wild heath (the way I’ve seen it done in many productions). They weren’t cackling and rubbing their hands over a froggy-filled fire. They all wore grey institutional dresses, with white aprons, and white veils on their heads. They were either nurses on the battlefield, or workers in the kitchen. They were in disguise. They took on many guises. They were all of the same physical type: young women, thin, almost girlish, probably 22, 23 years old. Little thin women. You couldn’t tell them apart, they were identical. They scared the SHIT out of me.

I have never before seen a production of Macbeth where the witches were actually frightening. These girls had the bodies of teenagers, but they were dressed as rigid identical Stalinist matrons. Black tights, black shoes. They chopped up food in the kitchen, wielding knives, slashing at bread, and then carrying it to the table, holding the knife behind them in a clenched fist. The action went on around them, but they were always there.

Occasionally, Stewart would glance up at one of them, and hesitate for a bit. Something about her would give him a start. Do I know that girl? Have I seen her before? She ladles soup onto my plate … but there’s something about her … she seems familiar …

It was a trek for me to get out there but I am so glad I went. I’d heard so much about this production and I really wanted to see it for myself. Getting to see Stewart in person, swaggering and collapsing and speaking so quietly but you heard every word, every syllable, every consonant … I won’t forget.

2026 thoughts

Rest in peace, Patrick Stewart. Your career was so vast and you were so loved. I am forever grateful I made the trek out to Brooklyn on a freezing night to see you play Macbeth. It was an honor to get to see you work. Out, out, brief candle!

From the archives archive

The pros and cons of “smotheration” (2004)
Under the Ghostbuster sky (2006)
The first post on my blog (2002)
Wisconsin Idyll in Funny Hats with Rocket Launchers (2011)
I Was Told I Would Get Wings (2004)
My Situational Crush (2006)
Chicago: The Cold Extreme (2004)
A Sea-Level Kind of Girl (2006)
There Was Already Something a Little Off… (2003)
“Go Ask Sheila.” (2010)
How We Talked (2011)

Posted in Actors, RIP, Theatre | Tagged , , | 28 Comments

Off Campus, episode 5: You actually can choose your family

Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1999 film Magnolia, one of the most eccentric mainstream American movies ever made, culminates in a sequence where thousands of frogs rain down on the empty streets of Los Angeles. Up until this moment, each character – and there are about 8 main characters – grapples with their past, running from it, denying it, enduring life rather than living it… and so when the frogs arrive, because who could plan for such an event, it’s like a boil bursting from underneath the skin, releasing the poison that’s been hidden for so long. Truths are spoken. Truths are acknowledged. In some cases these buried secrets have never before seen the light of day. The falling frogs are such a rift in the space-time continuum that, briefly, a small space is carved out of the generational trauma: and in that small space, you can say anything, you can be anyone. You get to choose. The frog hurricane is Moment One of the rest of your life.

Claudia (Melora Walters) is a tormented young woman who spends most of the movie holed up in her apartment, doing lines of coke, blasting music. Her father is a famous host of a TV quiz show, and they are estranged, for reasons unknown (although one could suspect). When the frogs fall from the sky, Claudia huddles in her bedroom, terrified, and her mother arrives, having dashed through the dangerous frog monsoon to – finally – “save” her daughter, after years of not doing a damn thing. As the two embrace, the camera quickly zooms in on a tiny detail in one of Claudia’s paintings on the wall, words in a tiny font: but it did happen

The damage done to Claudia is so total that the words can only be whispered, in a tiny font, hidden in the corner of a huge painting about something else. Nobody saved her as a little girl. But the words in the corner are a declaration of the truth people refused to believe.

But it did happen.

“Trauma” is often handled hap-hazardly or incompletely in what we call “media”, trauma is written into scripts where it doesn’t belong, and written by people who have no business “weighing in” on serious subjects. When trauma is used as short-cuts to emotional engagement the overall effect is hollow. When trauma is used as a big “plot” reveal, the effect can be salacious and deeply un-serious. Sometimes stories revel in the intricate details of the trauma. Sometimes, for any or all of these reasons, the handling of “trauma” is often just …. ikky.

Maybe because in the contexts I just mentioned, trauma is presented from the outside.

Films where trauma is presented from the inside … I mean, you can tell. It’s undeniable.


Catherine Deneuve, Repulsion (1965)

Of course there are so many films that handle trauma in sensitive creative ways showing deep and rich understanding. Your mileage may vary but some of my favorites: Repulsion. Marnie. Vertigo. (Hitchcock is great, overall, for this subject.) The Silence. Through a Glass Darkly. Persona. (I guess Ingmar Bergman was always making stories about trauma, in one way or another.) Melancholia. Out of the Blue. Opening Night.. I could go on. The Bergmans are explicitly about people going through a traumatic event, but the others are less direct. The films go at the subject sideways, or they focus on other things, so the background stays blurred, except for occasional glimpses.


Kirstein Dunst, Melancholia (2011)


Linda Manz, Out of the Blue (1980)


Ingrid Thulin, The Silence (1963)


Tippi Hedren, Marnie (1964)


Gena Rowlands, Opening Night (1977)


Harriet Andersson, Through a Glass Darkly (1961)

These films are cross-genre. Sci-fi. Thriller. Horror is often a flexible “container” for larger themes of trauma. The Babadook is one of the best films about grief and depression I’ve ever seen. That ENDING. The ending shows the real insight into the subject matter. A really strong genre structure can use indirection in fascinating ways. Supernatural comes to mind. The show’s genre-surface level was hunting monsters. But what Supernatural was actually about was two brothers growing up in a traumatic family system, coping in different ways. There were times when the theme was spoken out loud and made explicit, but the strongest episodes worked through inference and indirection, where what was not being said was louder than what was.

The most artful example may be Season 9’s “Alex Annie Alexis Ann”, where a teenage girl is rescued from her life being held captive by a nest of vampires, who have been using her as “bait”. The storyline had sickening Jeffrey-Epstein-styled implications, with a 14-year-old sent out to truck stops to lure men back to the house. She’s luring them to their deaths, but of course how she does this is through the promise of sex. She’s 14. The girl is so brainwashed she thinks these vampires are her family. The teenage girl calls the head vampire “Mama”. There is “love” here. She doesn’t feel like she’s trapped. She’s also done really really bad things during her time in captivity – so she is complicit, she is not “innocent” even though she too was a victim. Really queasy stuff. Handled beautifully.

Where this gets really interesting is for those of us who always looked for deeper thematic connections to the brothers. When the show was really cooking, those connections were always there. Dean, the older brother, was also used as “bait” when he was a child, dangled in front of monsters by his father. Just like the girl is sent out to the truck stops by her “Mama”. And, although it’s not said outright, it’s heavily implied that Dean’s father knew he had a very “pretty” teenage son who made attractive bait. It’s sickening, and plays out in adult Dean’s responses to threats (he’s often sexually provocative in the face of his own death – “you want me? I taste good” etc.). There are sections of the fandom (guilty) who believe a lot of VERY sketchy things happened to the teenaged Dean (there’s a whole “truck stop prostitute” subset of Supernatural fanfic). Nothing is said explicitly but we aren’t making this shit up out of nowhere. Ackles himself said in some QA long ago, “Dean probably had to do all kinds of things to get money to support him and his brother.” And not just shoplifting or hustling people at pool. Those resonances are there. In “Alex Annie Alexis Ann”, Dean never once says, “Wow, this girl’s life is reminding me of my own life.” Nothing is said. Nothing is even hinted at. However. His baseline, already low, deteriorates over the course of the episode. He is completely “off”, start to finish.

Dean’s erratic intense behavior in the episode makes perfect sense with the larger more visible plot of the season. Dean is not doing well in season 9. But if you shift the lens a bit, and consider the kidnapped over-sexualized teenaged girl … and how she might be working ON Dean … other intriguing stuff comes into focus. He starts to seem not just jumpy and unhappy, but triggered. And because Jensen Ackles is the actor he is, I fully believe he was playing the subtext. It’s there for him. You can almost HEAR his background noise.

“Alex, Annie, Alexis, Ann” is Supernatural at its best. The episode’s plot is engaging and upsetting, etc. But way down in the corner of the episode is Dean whispering in teeny tiny letters, “but it did happen“.

While genre can be good scaffolding for these explorations, romantic comedies usually are NOT. Romantic dramas can get away with serious plot-points like death and illness or changes in health (think Coming Home), but often those dramas are primarily about those things. You have to be really really on point to get away with it in other contexts (Terms of Endearment). When you toss a serious subject into what is ostensibly a romance, you have to do it well or not do it at all.

To come, finally, to Off Campus:

Continue reading →

Posted in Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 49 Comments

From the archives (October 27, 2004): The pros and cons of “Smotheration”

Last night, I was at a bar. Of course. I am very much looking forward to next week when I don’t spend literally HOURS every night in a bar watching the playoffs. Last night, two guys were sitting next to me. They look familiar to me because we’ve all been hanging out in this bar every night all week. They both had on backwards baseball caps, they were chowing down a plate of buffalo wings, and from comments they dropped, I gathered they were Yankee fans, and couldn’t get enthusiastic about the Series.

I admit I eavesdropped. Blatantly. I had to hold myself back from taking out a pen, then and there, and start transcribing the whole thing.

I will do my best not to editorialize or interpret what they said. I will probably have to add little notes indicating HOW they said certain things, or at least my interpretation of their tone.

For whatever reason, this male-bonding conversation really got to me. I realized almost immediately that what was going on was quite deep, like REALLY deep, although, being the type of guys who wear backwards baseball caps and eat a pile of buffalo wings – they weren’t speaking in psycho-babble, or over-analyzing things, and they weren’t particularly comfortable treading into these waters. They were both a little hesitant.

I had to restrain myself from leaning over and saying, “I have been listening to this whole thing, and I wish you both well.”

From what I could gather, here’s the situation:

They are old close friends. One of them has started dating a girl (whom I will refer to as Katie), and it sounds like it’s getting pretty serious. There seemed to be some issues around this for the other guy. But remember: they’re old close friends.

I tuned into their conversation at the point where the guy who WASN’T dating Katie said to his friend, “Listen, I really like Katie, but …”

Try to follow it if you can.

“Listen, I really like Katie, but … and … I probably have no right to say this to you … but …”

“What?”

“I guess I feel like … Listen, she’s great, okay? I just …”

[Long silence. I thought: Come on, dude, just say what’s on your mind.]

He kept speaking: “I just guess I feel like she smothers you sometimes. Like … there’s some smotheration going on.”

“Yeah.”

“You know what I mean?”

“Yeah, man, I know. I know … I guess I kinda like it, though?”

[Silence. I took note of how he turned “I like it” into a question, which told me: He LOVES it, he’s just afraid to tell his friend how much.]

He went on: “Like, it’s just so nice hanging out with her. It’s so nice. I can relax, you know?”

Then came a conversation about the problems Katie may be having with another friend of theirs, who is a girl. Possibly an ex-girlfriend? I couldn’t tell.

Guy dating Katie said, “I’ve tried to explain to her that Heather is just a friend … and … we never … You know. Heather and me never …”

“Of course not. No, it’s like …Yeah, I get what you’re saying.”

“Like, Katie doesn’t need to be nervous about Heather.”

“Right. Like – you’re not gonna cheat on her or whatever.”

“No. Totally.”

“But like I said – that’s kind of what I mean. And I like Katie too, I really do – but it’s the smotheration thing.”

[Silence.]

Guy dating Katie said, “I know. I know.”

“Cool. Just so long as you know.”

[Silence. I sat there wondering who would speak next. Guy dating Katie spoke next. I was proud of him.]

“Still, though – it’s just that – if I have to choose – and I hope it doesn’t come to that – but if I have to choose – I choose Katie. Because … yeah, I know, she kind of smothers me, and stuff … but I’m tellin’ ya – it’s just so nice being with her.”

[I thought: I bet he ends up marrying that girl.]

[I also thought: This is a warning. He is telling his friend “I hope it doesn’t come to this, but if you make me choose, I’m choosing her.”]

His friend thought about this for a long time. Then said, quietly, “I’d like to have a girl like that.”

[My mind fell out of my head. It was so vulnerable! He said his quiet part out loud! I was proud of him for that!]

Later on … they came back to the “smotheration” issue.

The friend concerned about his friend being smothered started talking about HIS love-life, which sounds very frustrating.

He went on a couple of dates with one girl. And that very day she had emailed him, and all she said was: “Do you think I’m totally empty inside?”

[Oh my God. I can see myself sending such a horrible email when I was younger and want to tell her: DON’T PRESS SEND.]

He said to his friend, “What the fuck am I supposed to say to that? ‘Do you think I’m totally empty inside?’ What? I was going to email her back with a bunch of question marks but then I thought, fuck it, I don’t even know what the hell she’s talking about. I mean … I’ve called her a couple times … but – I don’t want to deal with that shit.”

They both sat there, thinking. Not speaking. Then the same guy said, seriously, “What do you think that means: ‘Do you think I’m empty inside’?”

Guy-dating-Katie said: “Oh who the fuck knows. One of her friends probably said something to her about whatever, and now she’s all fucking dramatic about everything.”

“Yeah, but what the hell do I have to say about her being empty inside? Jesus.”

Then he started talking about a semi-“relationship” he was having with some other girl named Meg … and I really felt bad for him. (Especially harking back to the revealing moment when he said to himself, “I’d like to have a girl like that.”) From what I could gather, the situation appears to be: he is really into Meg. They have a great time together whenever they get together. But it’s really difficult for them to hook up, there’s a lot of phone tag, etc.

He said, “Like … she’s really really busy.” (Like my friend Jackie has said to me before, “No one’s ever that busy. If they’re into you, they’ll call you, they’ll make it happen.”)

He said, “I respect the fact that she doesn’t have a lot of time and I don’t want to push or whatever … but still … I guess it’s that she’s really really independent.” (I’m thinking to myself: She’s giving him the “I’m really busy and I’m really independent” line?? Poor guy!)

So here he is talking to his friend, currently being “smothered” by Katie. But the friend obviously likes it, and doesn’t feel “smothered” at all. What his friend feels is taken care of. Katie gives a shit enough to let him know she’s interested, she’s available, etc. She doesn’t leave him out there hanging and wondering. She wants to be in his life. Maybe a little too much? Doesn’t matter. He likes it. He feels considered and cared for.

The other guy kept coming back to this Meg person, though. Even I noticed it. The “empty inside” girl was left in the dust. He went on and on about the busy independent Meg. “And whenever we hang out, it’s great, you know? It’s totally great. But for the past couple weeks, I haven’t been able to see her, but she texts me all the time. I got one from her last night. It’s just kind of frustrating cause I don’t want to be … I respect that she’s busy.”

But then came the coolest part:

The famous “smothering” Katie arrived. Her boyfriend got up, gave her a big hug, a kiss … and made her sit on his bar stool. She was blonde and pretty, in a sweatshirt, jeans, I couldn’t help but peek over at her. Her body language was eloquent. She was open, happy, alert, she sat on her boyfriend’s stool, didn’t just talk to her boyfriend, she also engaged in conversation with the friend. She was in the flush of a new relationship and I could see, too, that SHE felt “cared for” by her new boyfriend. They were both being thoughtful with each other.

The boyfriend left to go make a phone call or something and Katie and the other guy started talking.

Within 2 or 3 exchanges, I am not exaggerating, it started almost right away, he opened up about “independent busy” Meg. !!! So listen to THIS. He may think Katie smothers his friend, but there’s something in Katie he can trust. Maybe he doesn’t have any friends who are girls. I LOVED that he started sharing with HER about this other woman!

I am interpreting this like a fiend, I realize. I can’t help it!!

I heard him saying the same things he said to his friend – only it was a tiny bit different because he was talking to a girl, not a guy.

“She texts me and stuff and keeps saying she wants to get together but then it’s impossible to get together with her … Do you think that means she doesn’t really want to see me?”

Why did I find all of this so touching? I was bored waiting for the game to start. I got very emotionally involved.

Katie took a hard-line, making me love her for all time. “Pick up the phone and call her. Say to her, ‘I want to see you. Let’s set a date.’ Just do it! You say you really like her?”

“Totally. You met her that one night, member?”

“Wait … when?” Katie thought and then said, “Oh! Right! Yeah, she was so great! Okay, so be persistent. Call her. Do it.”

Katie and the boyfriend went out to put their car into a garage, I believe … leaving the friend by himself at the bar.

I wasn’t paying attention anymore. It was almost time for the game to start. But I shit you not …

Suddenly I heard him say, “Meg. Hey.”

I thought to myself: Meg! Oh! He’s calling her right now!! This is happening now! The famously “busy” Meg! Katie told him to call and he’s doing it!

BLESS HIM, he leapt right in. “Listen – I’d like to take you out to dinner this week. Would you like to do that?” He listened. “You would? Great … how about Thursday? I could pick you up …” Meg made some comment. “Great. 7:30.”

Good work, my man. Good work.

I can see why Katie is beloved by her boyfriend, even though she might “smother” him. A common-sense girl, that one.

A full three-act rom-com played out next to me. I ended up having great affection for all of the people involved (even “busy independent” Meg, even the girl who asks a guy she’s been on a couple of dates with if he thinks she’s “empty inside”. Yes, even her.)

2026 thoughts

This took place in late October, 2004, and if you are a Red Sox fan – or a Yankees fan – or a baseball fan – then you know what that means. I had a full-time job, I was WORKING, but I spent every night of that playoffs season in a Red Sox bar in Hoboken. (If you recall, those were long games, too. I was staggering home drunk every night like a lunatic. I had to wake up early!) I was getting drunk every night for WEEKS, so not like me, but I was in a bar, I was stressed, I’m a Red Sox fan, everything is brand new, I need to drink. Dragging my ass to work every morning hungover and sleep-deprived. Completely unraveled into a seedy dissipated wreck in two weeks. Once the playoffs were over, I could get back to REALITY. But until then, this is what I must do!! I didn’t have NESN, and I couldn’t listen to those games on the radio (although I really love listening to baseball on the radio).

I posted this “smotheration” piece during the day on October 27.

Later that night, in the bar in Hoboken, literally as a harvest moon went into an eclipse … I witnessed:

And the whole world changed.

But most importantly, I finally could get a good nights’ sleep.

Part of the fun of this whole time was getting to know people around us, since it was the same crew showing up night after night after night for these marathon length games. And it was a Red Sox bar, rare in New York (although Red Sox fans are everywhere). So you could just be openly INSANE about what was going on and not fear for your life. (My car was vandalized though. I had a Red Sox bumper sticker and some Yankee asshole sliced it off, damaging the paint. Imagine being that pathetic person.)

And I so remember these two baseball bros having a conversation about their relationships with women, and the sense you got that their friendship was changing … and the dude who thought his friend was being “smothered” was actually jealous, and he felt comfortable enough with his friend to SAY that out loud.

I wonder what happened to all of these people. Knowing Katie, as I clearly do, she snagged her man. And he was happy to be snagged.

I hope the other guy and Meg had a nice date. However, I feel like this other guy could go full manosphere once the manosphere was created. The manosphere would be very attractive to a guy like this, and before you know it, this nice albeit frustrated guy will be a regular viewer of Fresh ‘n Fit and talking about “high status males” and hating women. A definite possibility. So I hope he didn’t go that route!

With the distance of so many years, I find myself thinking mainly about the girl who worried she was empty inside. She was so worried she sent an email to a guy she’d only been out with a couple of times. I’ve been her. I hope the girl who feels empty inside is okay. Hell, I hope she is thriving.

From the archives archive

Under the Ghostbuster sky (2006)
The first post on my blog (2002)
Wisconsin Idyll in Funny Hats with Rocket Launchers (2011)
I Was Told I Would Get Wings (2004)
My Situational Crush (2006)
Chicago: The Cold Extreme (2004)
A Sea-Level Kind of Girl (2006)
There Was Already Something a Little Off… (2003)
“Go Ask Sheila.” (2010)
How We Talked (2011)

Posted in Personal | Tagged , , | 18 Comments

From the archives (September 12, 2006): Under the Ghostbuster Sky

Michael and I sat up on my roof for a couple of hours on the late afternoon-early evening of Sept. 10. The sky was what I call a “Ghostbusters sky”: smudgy, charcoal grey, heavy and low, dramatic. Smudgy almost-black clouds overlapping each other, pressing up against each other. The buildings of our fragile beautiful skyline came out in stark relief against that black sky. Occasionally, a stray red gleam of sunset would break out from behind the clouds to the west (behind us), and then, suddenly, the buildings of Manhattan would GLOW. But only for a moment. The spire of the Empire State Building would blaze into a golden-white paper cut-out, the Chrysler Building beaming, and then, as the clouds closed up again, the gleam would subside, back to the shadowy building shapes of late afternoon.

We were surrounded by butterflies. Big orange butterflies, soaring in the wind, not even having to flap their wings, just taking off, hang-gliding, but then flap flap flap flap pumping it up a notch, chasing each other. At one point Michael and I literally had two orange butterflies hovering over our heads. Were they like the little angel and devil who sit on your shoulder at the same time, whispering contradictory demands? At first we thought there was only ONE butterfly, we kept seeing him, and he certainly seemed to get around: first he was here, now there. Then we realized there was a whole PHALANX of them. Not really watching over us, no, they were too self-absorbed for that (and who can blame them? Have you ever heard of an altruistic butterfly?) … but it did seem like they hovered around our heads protectively. Taking shifts. “Okay … you go off and hang-glide for a while … I got these two … no, no, you go … have fun! I got this.”

We had been walking around all day. Breakfast at a diner in Hoboken (we HAD to go to a diner, for old times’ sake). We talked our heads off (jazzed on caffeine), then we walked around Hoboken for a couple hours. We went into the second-hand bookstore. We talked. Michael so enjoyed the overcast sky and the cool wind, coming, as he does, from living in LA. He had been so excited that the forecast was “overcast”. We went to Barnes and Noble. There were a couple of hysterical moments involving a certain Pulitzer Prize winning author with whom I have a checkered past, which Michael knows about. Michael, looking at the book, said, bluntly, “I will NEVER buy this book.” So protective.

After that we walked to Frank Sinatra Park, near the spot where I watched the buildings fall and the air filled with screams, and sat on the low wall for an hour or so, the Hudson slate-grey and choppy, the buildings of Manhattan in shadow, the clouds marching down from the north, heavy and low and portentous. The skyline doesn’t look right. It never will. There is a hole in the ground but more haunting is the hole in the sky.

We talked about cults. They came up a couple times. Michael finally asked, “So why are you fascinated by Scientologyy?” I said, “Oh God. How much time do you have?” Turns out, he had a LOT of time, as a matter of fact, and he egged me on. “So tell me more. What else do you know?” This was like blood to a vampire.

He talked about how he had been trapped next to Scientology member on the plane, and how the dude had a stack of Hubman books in his lap AND Hubman’s lecture tapes playing on his iPod. Seriously. The guy started up talking to Michael, and he had seemed so nice, and so interested in Michael, and then, of course, came the recruitment moment and Michael was like: Fuck YOU. The emotional blackmail – the “bait and switch” – is so offensive. We talked and talked about brainwashing and cult recruitment and Patty Hearst and the strain of power-worship going through all cults.

Meanwhile, there’s a cool breeze, sailboats careen by, teeny little whitecaps slapping up against the dock, the sky is low and black, but still: no rain. I had forgotten (sort of) how easy it is to talk with and be with Michael.

We walked the length of Hoboken again, talking about libertarians (“I have noticed that the magic community has a lot of libertarians, for some reason,” said Michael), Christopher Hitchens, and the 9/11 myth dummy-dumbs, we talked about Katrina and politics and elections. I don’t think we ever talked about politics when we were dating. It was all books and movies and actors and our emotions.

I couldn’t face walking back up the cliff to where I lived – the steep incline, and we had been walking for hours already – so I called a cab. Somehow, as we were waiting for the cab, we started talking about our relationship, that took place 5 billion years ago. I brought up our whole crossing the street arguments. We always used to have these mini-showdowns when we would cross the street, because Michael would always charge across the street just as the light turned yellow, regardless of whether or not cars were coming. I would always just wait for the light to turn red. This drove him batshit.

Hilariously: as we walked around in Hoboken, I silently noticed that this dynamic was still going on. Yellow light. Michael would start across. I would hesitate, looking down the street, and then follow. I had to smile to myself. I love continuity of any kind. We were young when we dated, or much younger than we are now, but there is something eternal in both of us. I do not know why I doubt that. Perhaps because I am alone and with my thoughts too much. People who live with the same person, day in, day out, probably have a much better grasp on how some people never change, how the same things keep coming up.

I don’t mean “better grasp” at all. I need to re-think how I’m wording this because I actually think MY way is better. Maybe people who deal with someone else’s same-ness on an everyday basis get frustrated by it, or annoyed, because they’re over it, they’re used to it, same-ness is not evidence of something eternal and beautifully unchanging, it’s ANNOYING. But to me? The fact that this whole silent “how to cross the street” battle is STILL going on, even with the intervening years, even with not seeing each other in so long made me smile, made me feel like there was a silver thread of connection between us now and us then. There’s a sense of being confronted with something eternal, and this is a huge comfort to me. Things change, people grow, move on, move apart. Every day is a little loss, things must be grieved, small and large, you must always be letting go, every day a process of letting go.

Naturally I have a terrible time with this. I have lost a lot. It’s hard for me to let go. But our silent traffic-light moments, our silent different ways of handling crossing the street, is forever. If we see each other when we’re in our 70s, it would be the same damn thing, except maybe we both would be walking with canes. I think my consciousness comes from the fact that I do not have continuity in my life on an everyday basis. I relish those moments and they are intense. I am intense. Michael was never put off by my intensity, and he still isn’t. He goes right into it. He asks about it. He asks for more information. Maybe because he’s the same way.

I said, “Remember the whole crossing the street thing we used to have?” He thought a second and then just BURST into laughter.

What used to happen when we were dating was that Michael would call me on it. He was a hot-blooded young rebellious guy and he hated that I would hesitate. So he would yell at me. Literally: YELL. And I would yell back to him across the street, pointing at the approaching car that was 1.2 miles away, as evidence of why I wasn’t crossing. We were both howling at the memory of the two of us, young and fiery, standing on random empty corners in Ithaca New York, yelling at each other. To him at the time it was a symbol: it said a LOT about me (according to him): If I crossed the street the way HE did then I would have a breakthrough as an actress, a writer, a woman. Michael was just guffawing as I reminded him of this. “So I was basically bullying you to be a better person?” “Yes.” “Jesus.” We were laughing, I said, “Yeah but have you noticed how that shit is still going on? I mean, you’re not YELLING AT ME anymore but it’s still the same thing when we cross the street.”

We eventually got home. The light was low and heavy and my apartment cozy and late-afternoon-ish. He hadn’t been up to the roof yet, and I wanted him to see the view. He took his New York Times and I took my Cymbeline script and we went up to hang out on the roof. Of course we didn’t end up reading, just talking, and laughing, and sometimes just silently staring across at the glowing/shadowing skyline. The slow march of clouds. The hole in the sky. The butterfly army watching over us.

He said, “So what else. Besides crossing the street. What else do you remember?”

So we talked about what we remembered.

Later:

I lay in bed memorizing my lines. He sat in the chair reading The New York Times “cover to cover”.

Sometimes we talked. Mostly we didn’t. We were wrapped up in our own private activities. But we shared space. I don’t share space. I am always alone. It was so nice to have him there.

Night fell outside. We ordered dinner. We ate at my kitchen table.

Then we talked for hours and hours, late late into the night.

The black Ghostbuster sky was still there, I imagine. The black clouds continued marching by overhead, in their smudgy procession, but they blended into the general blackness of night now, imperceptible. My lamps glowed, soft, golden and homey.

Talking. Late into the night.

2026 thoughts:
I am a little bit amazed at how I used to write on here. This is wild to me. Of course I remember the day and Michael’s visit. A couple days after I wrote a bunch of quotes from our five-day long conversation: Snippets. No Context.

I lived in a one-room apartment, with a kitchen that was basically a narrow corridor in which I squeezed a table. The main room was big enough for my bed, a small bookcase, this low squishy chair that was kinda just a big pillow, and a desk. Michael came to visit and stayed with me. In the one room. Michael and I dated years before. The relationship was brief but strangely important to both of us and we are friends to this day. I thanked him in the acknowledgements section of my Guillermo del Toro Frankenstein book. We remain, to this day, “fans” of one another and we keep an eye on each other. I mean, you aren’t interviewed together on a cable access show in Ithaca, New York, and then just never speak to each other again.

Back then, he lived in Los Angeles, I lived in a building perched on top of a cliff in Weehawken (you can see the end of my street in the opening credits sequence of The Sopranos, right when he comes out of the tunnel).

My apartment was incredibly cheap but the views were spectacular. I would sit on the roof and watch the colors change. I lived in that one tiny room from 2003 to 2009, some of the most awful years of my life. I don’t remember much of it. And 2009 to 2012 was even worse, but at least my apartment was bigger. I started this blog in 2002, and it gave me an outlet. Michael came to New York for a week and stayed with me in my one tiny room. I remember the visit as being very soft and tender, familiarity and sparks, the intellectual stimulation we found with each other. We talked for five days straight.

He’s one of my forever people. He asked me to marry him, maybe six years before this original post in 2006. I think I was a year out of grad school when he proposed. We hadn’t been in contact at all – three years maybe?, and suddenly, there he was proposing on my answering machine. He talked about John Cassavetes movies (one of our bonds), and how he was at a John Cassavetes retrospective by himself and he kept thinking I should be there, and why wasn’t I there with him. (Because you live in Los Angeles and I live in New York? Basically he was missing me terribly. But remember, we hadn’t spoken in three years. There was no social media.) Then he popped the question. “Call me back with your answer.” Click. The funniest thing – but it makes sense to me – is I said yes. I called him back and left a message on his answering machine: “Hey, I got your message. Here’s my answer: Yes. Call me back.”

Why is my life like this.

Why would I say yes when I hadn’t seen him in three years? It seemed like a no-brainer to me. If he was going to a John Cassavetes movie, and missing me the whole time … I mean, what else do I need to know. He hasn’t changed. I hadn’t had any luck in the whole traditional “we dated, fell in love, moved in together” scenario, so I totally understood why he would do what he did. We were good friends. When we were dating: It wasn’t some sweeping love affair, but we got along great, we fought a lot but we fought well and made up, we had the same interests, we valued the same things, we had similar senses of humor, we loved going dancing (he was a great dancer), we had physical chemistry, we also liked just sitting around reading quietly. We liked each other. We cared about each other. We also believed in each others’ dreams! I mean, come on, what more do you need? People fall wildly in love, get married, and a couple years later the honeymoon phase wears off and they realize they don’t even LIKE each other. We have at least that part down pat!

We got together in Chicago to discuss marriage. We sat in a diner. It was freezing rain outside, and we talked pros and cons. We talked about going to Vegas or City Hall. Then he took back his proposal. Reluctantly. The conversation was very chaotic. Not rancorous, just … “wtf” all around. He said, “I didn’t think you’d say yes!” “Oh for God’s sake, what are you even DOING!!” “I DO want to though! I was missing you SO BAD. Maybe we can come back to it later?” “Michael, are you kidding me with this bullshit.” “You really like me that much to say Yes?” “Well, not anymore.” “No, seriously, you do?” “We get along great. I don’t know, seems like there are worse reasons to marry.” So romantic. Snapping back and forth across the table at the diner.

This was my SECOND marriage proposal by the way. There would be one more. Michael’s is the only one I said “yes” to. After talking about all of the problems with us getting married, when we hadn’t seen each other in 3 years and weren’t even dating (I reiterate: why is my life like this), we walked back to Mitchell’s apartment through the freezing cold, and lay on the couch together, fully clothed, all tangled up, watching television, not speaking. Mitchell, who knew the whole story, and loved Michael, came in from the cold, looked at us on the couch and said, “You two are ridiculous.” Michael called out, “Mitchell, tell us what to do!” Mitchell said, unwrapping his winter scarf, taking off his coat, totally over it, “You two need to spend the rest of your lives together, I mean what more do you want me to say?”

Well, we didn’t. I wasn’t heartbroken or anything when he took back his proposal. The whole thing was so random. It’s definitely a road not taken though. I wonder how it would have worked out. (Or not.) I still think the two of us had as good a chance as any. But we’re there for each other to this day. We keep track of each other. We cheer each other on from afar. I didn’t have much space in the acknowledgements section of my Frankenstein book. But I knew from the jump, even before I wrote the thing, that Michael had to be in there.

From the archives archive

Under the Ghostbuster sky (2006)
The first post on my blog (2002)
Wisconsin Idyll in Funny Hats with Rocket Launchers (2011)
I Was Told I Would Get Wings (2004)
My Situational Crush (2006)
Chicago: The Cold Extreme (2004)
A Sea-Level Kind of Girl (2006)
There Was Already Something a Little Off… (2003)
“Go Ask Sheila.” (2010)
How We Talked (2011)

Posted in Personal | Tagged , | 10 Comments

From the archives (October 18, 2002): the first post on my blog

A Saturday in NYC with Allison and the Manson Family

Saturday was a cold day, wind biting up and down the canyons. Sheila kind of weather. My friend Kate and I have discussed at length our preference for autumn as opposed to summer. While everybody else blisses out with the onset of warm sunny weather, she and I bliss out when the we bust out the sweaters.

Kate puts it this way, “There’s no irony in the summer.”

I arrived Saturday morning at my friend Allison’s apartment in the West Village, to find her deeply engrossed in Helter Skelter, a book I have read multiple times, and with which I have a strange and sick fascination.

Allison and I were trying to pinpoint why exactly it is that we are so engrossed by such a grisly terrible story. We discussed it at length, lolling about in her cozy pillow-y bed, flipping through the book for reference.

I am fascinated by the Manson Family for the same reasons that I am fascinated by totalitarian, autocratic, fascist, communist regimes. What is it in human beings, some human beings, that makes them susceptible to such madmen? What is it like to be in someone’s thrall like that? What is it in human psychology that can crack under such magnetic pressure?

I found Allison in a state of recent and fevered conversion to the Helter Skelter madness.

We signed on, and began to search the Internet for more information.

For example: where is Clem right now? Has Clem been paroled? (Yup. He’s out.)

And Bobby Beausoleil…what has he been up to? His face always terrified me. There was something so obviously missing there.

We learned that Patricia Krenwinkle has recently received a puppy, through a special prison program which allows inmates to adopt animals. How sweet…a ferocious murderess cuddling a little puppy.

Squeaky Fromme still corresponds with Charlie. FREAKS.

Allison and I got sucked into the strange world of Manson Web sites…going deeper and deeper and deeper. We veered a couple of times into the world of the Zodiac Killer and Jonestown.

Allison said, “If my job ever saw the search terms on my computer, they would think I had gone crazy. ‘Dead bodies’…’Sharon Tate’ … ‘serial killers’…”

The last time Allison and I hung out together in her apartment, we started looking things up in the dictionary. It began simply, but the game evolved. Eventually, it became a relatively complex guessing game: one of us would call out a name from history, say…Madame Curie, or Theodore Roosevelt … and we would guess whether or not said person had a PICTURE beside their definition in the dictionary. This may sound like a dry and academic pursuit, but we ended up in complete hysterics and it occupied our time for 2 hours.

It’s actually a fun game. Try it yourself on a rainy day.

Finally, we had to shake off the pall of the Mansons and Spahn Ranch and Shorty Shea’s decapitation and Susan Atkins’ crazy loony smile…and how haunted we are by the children fathered by Manson….WHERE ARE THEY??

We signed off reluctantly, and rejoined the life of the West Village. We went to Chumley’s and had delicious Bloody Marys, and some lunch.

Then, we accidentally set a newspaper on fire. This is in a bar run by firemen; the bartenders are firemen, the clientele are firemen. Firemen were everywhere in sight. Meanwhile, Allison and I were battling to put out the flaming New York Post in front of us, and none of the firemen around us even looked up, or glanced over, or even batted an eye. I don’t think they even noticed the inferno. We were on our own. And we did okay. We dumped a glass of water on the blaze, and then ordered 2 more Bloody Marys.

We returned home and watched Moulin Rouge. Actually, I should say we LIVED it. During the “Spectacular Spectacular” extravaganza at the end of the film, when everything gets very tense, Allison screamed at the top of her lungs, “THE GUN!! THE GUN!!”

After the film, still in a Moulin Rouge kind of mood, we looked through her book of Toulouse Lautrec prints. Marvelling at them. Beautiful. We talked about what it must it have been like…

And after that? We basically killed time until “Trading Spaces” came on at 8 p.m. We are jointly addicted to that show. Especially when the participants hate the newly designed rooms.

We crawled out onto Allison’s fire escape, trying to keep our candles lit through the wind. The sugary air from the bakery floated up to us.

2026 thoughts

Today is the 24th anniversary of me starting this blog. This was the first post.

Every year I put a post summing-up the formation of the blog and its history. For years, I thought this first post was lost – a lot was lost when I transferred to WordPress. But maybe 10 years ago, Allison found a Word doc on a hard drive, one dated October 18, 2002 – with this post typed out. I set up the blog in her apartment. Maybe I didn’t have my laptop with me and so I used hers. Amazing to re-claim the first post.

What I find so striking about this first post is … you can tell I’m starting the blog on a whim. I do not introduce myself. I do not say “hello world here is my blog and here is what I will discuss”. I just jump in. 2002 was a different time, a more wild-west-y time, especially for blogs, and things weren’t as curated or collated or stage-managed and categorized then. Lots of eccentric people started up blogs, people who had never heard of the word “monetize”.

I love this first post so much. Allison is one of my best friends in the whole world – and in 2002, we were still (relatively) new-ish friends. But this post captures who we are together, who we still are together. A month ago we holed up in a beautiful house in Woodstock NY, and did some exploring, had margaritas looking over a river, but also sat in the house talking, I made her watch Off Campus, she made me watch Furious, we talked and talked and talked late into the night.

I love Allison and I love so much that I crouched over my laptop, 24 years ago, in her apartment, went through the 3-step process of creating a blog on Blogspot – wrote up what she and I did that day – and pressed POST.

From the archives archive
Wisconsin Idyll in Funny Hats with Rocket Launchers (2011)
I Was Told I Would Get Wings (2004)
My Situational Crush (2006)
Chicago: The Cold Extreme (2004)
A Sea-Level Kind of Girl (2006)
There Was Already Something a Little Off… (2003)
“Go Ask Sheila.” (2010)
How We Talked (2011)

Posted in On This Day, Personal | Tagged | 7 Comments

Today, the Sheila Variations turns 24

The above pic of me – taken by Michael in a field somewhere in Ithaca – graced the top of my original blog, when I set it up 24 years ago today. I never should have put my picture up – it led to a lot of creeps! – but the picture was taken on a perfect day, by the boyfriend – and looking at it makes me remember things I want to still feel and experience. I look at the picture and think: “…. that wasn’t a pose. That was real. That was how I actually felt.” It kind of amazes me. I don’t know if I could ever cavort across a field and blow kisses at a camera now but it’s good to know I DID do that once. This must have been on my mind when I stuck her up there in the original banner. I could have no way of knowing I’d still be here literally over two decades later. She was replaced by ELVIS, which is only good and right.

The very first post I wrote is hilariously un-ceremonious (I’ll post it in full today). I don’t even introduce myself! I just launch into a story about a day spent with one of my best friends, Allison. On October 18, 2002, Allison and I went to Chumley’s, a bar that had been a speakeasy back in the day. Chumley’s had a secret entrance, and there was no sign.) We sat there, had some Bloody Marys, and accidentally set our newspaper on fire, while surrounded by the mostly firemen clientele, who saw the fire, and basically were like, “Meh.” I wrote that piece huddled over my laptop in Allison’s apartment, the apartment I helped her move into, the apartment that is my home away from home to this day, and … sitting there on October 18, 2002, I decided to finally do what I had been wanting to do for about 6 months: set up a blog.

More after the jump!

Continue reading →

Posted in On This Day, Personal | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 149 Comments

Off Campus, episode 4: Moonlight in a chamber

If random people find these recaps they might get frustrated with how I do things. They clearly missed the 10,000-word Supernatural re-caps. I like to write about things that inspire OTHER things, like aesthetics, film acting, dramaturgy. I was inspired to write about Off Campus mainly because of the dramaturgy of it all, but I was also inspired by this mostly unknown cast, and how fun it was to see them work with no preconceived notions. This is rare for me as a writer!

Louisa Levy said she wanted the series to be victim-focused. Hannah’s point of view is prioritized in the “disclosure” scene opening episode 4, reflected in the choices made with edits and shots. Hannah tells Garrett her story and the camera mostly stays on her, not “checking in” with Garrett to see his response. You don’t realize the cliche until they take it away. Keeping the camera on Hannah is just a technical thing, but you can FEEL the difference.

Continue reading →

Posted in Television | Tagged , , , | 99 Comments