Giant (1956): 60th Anniversary Screening at Film Forum

September 30, 2016: QA with George Stevens Jr. – the son of the director – and Carroll Baker before the film, moderated by historian and writer Foster Hirsch

Foster Hirsch: We are very lucky to have with us the son of the director, George Stevens, who was on the set in Texas, and he tells us a wonderful story that not only was George Stevens was one of the great Hollywood directors, but a wonderful father. George Stevens, Jr.

[Applause, as George Stevens Jr. went up to the stage.]

As time goes on, and these are 60-year-old films, there are fewer and fewer stars of the film who are around to speak to us about the film, but we’re lucky tonight because one of the principal stars – the only principal player who is still with us – is here to remember her work in Giant. She’s one of the Hollywood Greats. Baby Doll herself. Please welcome Carroll Baker.

[Thunderous ovation for her. I was in tears. You might as well start strong, you know what I mean? Her work has been important to me since I first discovered it in middle school.]

f2af9bb278c17869df2c3b7ecbb33b8f
Carroll Baker in “Giant”

Foster Hirsch: Now this film is 3 hours and 21 minutes. No intermission. And you won’t want one. Every minute of it is riveting. Why did your father decide to present the film without an intermission? That was his choice, wasn’t it?

George Stevens, Jr.: Yes. The film was actually designed with an intermission. By coincidence, in that year, 1956, there had really been no major film since Gone With the Wind that ran 3 hours or more. In the late summer of 1956, there were 3 pictures ready for release. Giant, running 3 hours and just about 20 minutes. The Ten Commandments.

FH: That was four hours.

GS: And Around the World in 80 Days. And they were all planned with intermissions, with the idea that it would be more like a theatre experience. Giant opened with an intermission, and quickly – with all three films – it was decided they were better running without intermissions. Audiences didn’t seem to like it.

14462913_10154090697612632_2147580345492298738_n
George Stevens Jr. and Carroll Baker, Friday night at the Film Forum

FH: Nowadays, people don’t sit still. But these guys are going to sit still for 3 hours and 20 minutes. They’re not going to move because they’re going to be riveted! We’re here to talk about the film but also about James Dean. Carroll, I know you’ve been asked a lot about what it was like working with James Dean. You have one or two glorious scenes with him, one of them, frankly, you steal from him. What was it like in that table scene working with James Dean?

Carroll Baker: First I have to tell you, whenever I think of James Dean, it always reminds me of George Stevens, Jr. We were in the projection room. It was just about the end of the film. It was Elizabeth and Rock, and several other actors, and of course our director George Stevens. And I was so fond of George Jr. We became very very good friends. He was in the Air Force then, and he was flying around, and he was so cute because he would always fly back to Hollywood to come on the set to say Hello to everybody. At any rate, the lights were off, while we’re watching the day’s daily rushes – the lights suddenly go up. George Stevens stands up and all the blood had drained from his face. I knew it was something tragic. And the first thing I thought of was my dear friend George Jr., who was flying, and that something happened to him. And George said, “Jimmy Dean has just died in a car accident.” That’s how we found out.

FH: When you were working with him – you were both Method-trained. The other actors, most of them weren’t. Did you feel you and James Dean were speaking a common language?

giant_james_dean1

CB: Yes, in a way. He was very inventive, like on the porch scene which you will see. He had learned to use the rope, and he was able to twirl the rope, which was a bit of an accomplishment. So he added things like that to the film. One day Rock and Elizabeth came to me and they said, “Listen. You’re the only one who can handle James Dean. You give it to him!”

FH: There was some competition between the Hollywood actors and the New York Method actors?

CB: There was. Yeah, there was. [Long contemplative pause, she appeared to be either lost in thought, or NOT saying a library-full of observations, and everyone started laughing.]

FH: I love the subtext. George, I know over the years, your father was frank about having problems with James Dean in the making of the film, always aware that he was a brilliant actor and giving an extraordinary performance, but he was difficult, is it fair to say? Or troubled?

dean-giant-4
James Dean

GS: Jimmy marched to his own drum. My father took a lot of time making a film. He liked a lot of camera angles. They got a little behind schedule because Jimmy didn’t like waiting around on the set. They had a little difficulty from time to time. For the scene at the end, Jimmy came to my father and said, “I can’t figure this out.” And Dad and Jimmy went on a sound stage for two nights, and Dad being about the age of the older man, and having been around the theatre a lot as a boy, he was able to work with Jimmy, and Jimmy got comfortable with it, or much more comfortable. Jimmy was enormously talented. The tragedy of his death – which became sensationalized, but if you just take it in human terms – he was a wonderful actor but I think he had his eye on being a director. He was watching and learning. That was the beginning of the time when more actors were thinking about getting the camera. We lost a lot when we lost him. He was 24 years old.

FH: Did he resist direction from your father?

GS: Not really, but he was very inventive, as Carroll said. He’d bring a lot to the scene. Sometimes – having sat in the editing room – you’d see that he’d come and he’d have this piece of business, and he’d have that piece of business – and it was so interesting, but in the editing, you were able to weed it out and keep the story moving. But he was gifted, I think.

giant_2_taylor_dean
Elizabeth Taylor and James Dean

FH: Were you doing any improvisations in your scenes with him?

CB: George wasn’t encouraging of improvisation.

FH: He wanted you to deliver the dialogue as written.

CB: I think Jimmy was a great actor and I think he would have gone on to be a great actor, and he was a friend of mine, and despite all of his difficulties, I did like him very much and I was sad when he passed away, but I have to tell you that he had just become a star, and he was a little brat. [Huge laugh from audience.] And George was wonderful with him. He was very patient. But really, Jimmy would try anybody’s patience. He just didn’t show up on the set! You didn’t do that! You didn’t do that! You didn’t say, “You kept me waiting! Me! The new star! You kept me waiting! And now I’m not going to show up when YOU want me to be there!” You don’t do that.

annex-dean-james-giant_13
James Dean and George Stevens

FH: What’s fascinating about the film, which takes place over many years, is that the actors age. There’s some controversy about the makeup, but what’s really interesting is that Carroll Baker plays Elizabeth Taylor’s daughter. Carroll Baker was one year older than Elizabeth Taylor.

GS: [to Carroll] He ratted you out.

CB: Oh, thank you, Foster! Thank you! I needed that!

GS: [to the audience] How many people are seeing Giant for the first time?

FH: And how many returnees do we have? It’s about half and half. A lot of young people here seeing it for the first time, which is great.

GS: There’s a wonderful article about Giant in last month Harper’s magazine, and I think it might be an interesting read for people – both who’ve seen it before and those who haven’t. The writer [Rebecca Solnit] calls it a revolutionary film. She had seen it on its 30th, 40th, 50th, and 60th anniversaries. To look at this film and realize that in 1956 – I don’t think the word ‘feminism’ was yet used – and Elizabeth Taylor plays a uniquely feminist role in an interesting and humane way. Giant was one of the first major films about race, in this case Mexican-Americans in Texas. As this writer pointed out, Giant was made when Martin Luther King was in graduate school. And, rounding that out, it was not some arch-serious polemic. It was the most successful picture that Warner Brothers had ever made, and it was very popular. But my father cared about the human condition.

giant4lunch
Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor

FH: It’s a 1956 film that is politically correct in today’s terms. There are very few 60-year-old films that can claim that. Carroll, you worked with I think three of the greatest actor’s directors in film history. Carroll worked with Elia Kazan in Baby Doll, William Wyler in The Big Country, and with George Stevens in Giant.

CB: [chiming in] John Ford! John Ford!

FH: I wouldn’t put him in the same category. [Audience reaction. Foster hastened to add a clarification: ]Not in terms of acting! What did those three – and John Ford – what did they have in common? They’re all great directors. You worked with four of the best. Three of the four were known as great actor’s directors. [There was much laughter during this small speech.] What did they have in common?

CB: Nobody who writes about films is going to like this answer. They never told an actor how to act. They cast you because they thought that you were right for the part, that you could do it. Only the bad directors tell you how to read a line, how to define your character. The good ones let you do your job.

babydoll
Elia Kazan directing Carroll Baker and Karl Malden”Baby Doll”

[People started clapping and cheering, myself included. Many people who write about film write with such CONFIDENCE about how such-and-such a director brought OUT this or that performance from an actor, or “gave” the performance to the actor. It’s such bullshit, sorry. But the myth persists, from people who have never acted or participated in an artistic collaboration. Clearly there were many others there who felt the same way.]

GS: Very well said, Carroll. I was around my father on a number of pictures, Shane and Giant and a little bit on Place in the Sun and Diary of Anne Frank. What he thought his job was was to create an atmosphere where the actor was comfortable and do her best work.

CB: I think that’s one of the reasons why he did so many takes. He wanted the actor to just relax into it, and after doing it a number of times, come up with something a little more original.

FH: But he wouldn’t tell you what he was looking for in the scene?

CB: Absolutely not.

FH: But you did take after take after take. Did you like that approach?

CB: I did.

FH: It didn’t work for everyone.

GS: A slight distinction between Dad and his dear friend and fellow officer in WWII William Wyler is that Wyler would do as many as 70 takes. My father was more about multiple camera angles because he always felt he could fix a scene if it wasn’t working if he had these different angles. He’d do fewer takes, but many more set-ups.

stevensg
George Stevens

FH: This film took one year in the editing process. He shot an enormous amount of film and then edited it down. Carroll, what was your impression when you first saw the film? You were at the famous Roxy opening when people thought James Dean was going to be there in person?

CB: It was the first opening that I went to! It was a great big event at the Roxy Theater in New York. They used to think New York was as important as Hollywood. They don’t today, but they did then. Jimmy had hit a note in young people. They identified with his character, they identified with this rebel character, they needed him. The rumor went out that he was still alive, that his death was just a publicity stunt, and that he was going to be there at the opening. It’s not what I expected for my first opening. I expected it to be glamorous, you walked down a red carpet, people took your photograph. Instead of that, the police couldn’t handle the crowd. All these kids were rushing in. They pushed everybody. Elizabeth was just starting with Mike Todd. And he was the first one, by the way, who bought her diamonds. She had a present from him, $10,000 diamond earrings – It would be much more expensive today, but in those days it was very expensive! And she was pushed by the crowd, and one of the earrings fell on the ground. You can’t imagine the pandemonium.

FH: That was your first opening.

CB: That was my first opening.

FH: I want to talk about Rock Hudson, who came from a different tradition than Carroll Baker or James Dean. I know there are some differences of opinion about his work as a film actor. I think he became a terrific film actor and I think he’s fabulous in this film.

CB: Yeah, I think he was just perfect. Perfect.

FH: He was perfect for film. He never overstates. I think it’s wonderful that your father cast him? Do you know the circumstances? A lot of people wanted to play that part.

giant1
Rock Hudson

GS: My father had an awful lot of confidence in himself in terms of working with actors. He said that he had talked about William Holden and Grace Kelly and others for the lead roles – but he felt that it was better to have young people, so that you believe the romance of the young people, rather than having older people playing young. So he chose that. Rock gave himself over to it. I really admire what he did. I think it’s a wonderfully strong part and he’s strong in it.

FH: Never pushing. Jimmy Dean does a lot of acting. It’s glorious but it’s a lot of acting. You never catch Rock Hudson doing any acting.

GS: You remind me what Rock told me about what my father said to him. They’d be doing a scene and this was early in the shooting. And my father would say to Rock, “We’ve got a long way to go with this story.” It kept Rock from trying to do too much.

rock-hudson-and-elizabeth-taylor-giant-set-rock-hudson-26788412-643-477
Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor

CB: When we were in Marfa, Texas, it was a little bit glum in the evenings. First of all, it was a one-street town then. I understand it’s grown up a lot now. Everybody had to eat in the hotel dining room. There weren’t enough accommodations for people. And of course, Rock and Elizabeth and Jimmy all had their own houses. But for the rest of us, after they took all the rooms in the hotel, they had to find places for the rest of us. I lived in an apartment with Jane Withers, Mercedes McCambridge, and Fran Bennett … and there was one bathroom. And we had to be up very early in the morning. The living was a little bit glum. However, Rock was one of the most fun people I have ever met, and he had a party every single night. There was nothing else to do in Marfa! He invited everybody. He didn’t mind what kind of a small part you were playing. He was so funny. He was such a great guy. He threw those parties every night and it was wonderful.

FH: And that humanity comes through–

CB: Oh, and Jimmy never went!

Uproarious laughter.

FH: The rumors were that they were not good friends, their acting styles were so different, their temperaments were different.

GS: I spent a weekend with Rock and Jimmy and they got along fine.

CB: [sounding surprised] Did they?

Uproarious laughter.

FH: I admire your father to no end, but I always question his avoidance of Cinemascope for Giant. He wanted it to be tall but not wide, when the other epics were all in Cinemascope. I love Cinemascope, and I think Giant should have been Cinemascope, but what was his rationale for having it tall?

giant-88

GS: He thought that that wide Cinemascope screen was good for taking graduation pictures and not much else. He felt that the story was in the faces of the actors and in the landscape, and if you have that wide Cinemascope screen, it’s harder to get the closeups. He later did a masterful job in The Diary of Anne Frank, but he liked the aspiration of height. I know we want to start the film, but I just thought I would share three insights.

Robert Towne recently talked about this: there’s a wedding scene in Giant about a third of the way through. I’m not giving much away that Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor get married, but you don’t see their wedding in the film. You don’t see the wedding of the principals but you see the two of them at another wedding later in the film. And Robert Towne – the great screenwriter – thinks that the wedding scene in this picture is a masterpiece. The power of visualization.

giant

There are two other masterful scenes: when James Dean paces off his land. Just to see how the music and visuals and an idea can make a scene powerful.

hqdefault

And then also the return of the Mexican boy when he comes home from the war: pure cinema.

FH: Famously, James Dean was very nervous about playing an older man in the drunk scene at the end, which he never felt he “got.” And he said, “I’m not getting this scene. But Carroll Baker’s reaction is so perfect – use the scene of her reaction.”

CB: That was a great compliment. He said, “I’m having some difficulty getting through the message of this scene. But keep it on her face because it says everything.” It’s so touching.

FH: It’s very touching. It’s very true. 3 hours and 20 minutes of glorious cinema. There are some naysayers who say this film doesn’t deserve its reputation. They’re wrong.

16360_3

Giant is playing through the week at Film Forum.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , | 21 Comments

September 2016 Viewing Diary

Kicks (2016; d. Justin Tipping)
Absolutely loved it. There have been so many excellent first-time directors making features this year. My review for Rogerebert.com.

Kiss Me Deadly (1955; d. Robert Aldrich)
I love this bizarre paranoid insanely phantasmagorical … film noir? Yes. It’s film noir on acid, pushed into its most Baroque form. But also … it’s a nuclear-dystopian-X-Files-conspiracy-theory-anxiety in the flesh? I’m sure Quentin Tarantino’s seen this movie 100 times. Not just because he loves Ralph Meeker (and I don’t trust a person who doesn’t love Ralph Meeker, or … worse … says “Who’s Ralph Meeker?”) – but because the entire plot revolves around a briefcase filled with … a mysterious object/entity/whatever that glows, light pouring out from the interior.

kiss_704

GOD, I love the opening, with Cloris Leachman racing down the dark highway in bare feet, scared out of her mind. Watched this for the 25th time, whatever, who counts, as research for a big project I was working on this month. Announcement to come TBD. That project nearly dern killed me.

The Wild Life (2016; d. Vincent Kesteloot and Ben Stassen)
Re-telling of the Robinson Crusoe story from the animals’ point of view. My review for Rogerebert.com.

Far From the Madding Crowd (2015; d. Thomas Vinterberg)
This is a holdover from the Matthias Schoenaerts research-blast from last month. It started as preparation for the release of Disorder (my review here) which is still in my ever-changing Top 10 for the year. It’s been a great year. That research-blast also led me to write this monster-post about Rust and Bone, which I’ve been yearning to write since I first saw the damn thing. Anyway, I’ve always thought he was one of the best things going in our current Male landscape, so it’s been fun going back to re-visit all of this stuff I’ve already seen. I am not a Carey Mulligan fan. Like, at all. The fact that she gets leading lady roles baffles me. I just don’t see it. But HE in this … what a challenging role. In another actor’s hands, he would have seemed totally passive. Or a dupe. A lovelorn guy who didn’t get the girl and then sort of sticks around. But in his hands, it becomes this amazing portrait of selfless love. Which is how Schoenaerts talked about it in interviews. The man’s love is powerful, and yet uncomplicated. When he is rejected, he continues on with his life, but sort of hovers around her … in the background … trying to watch over her. Occasionally he intervenes. It usually does not go well. She pulls rank on him, randomly, even though when they first met the roles were reversed. He also manages to suggest deep and intense passion, by … raking up wheat and sharpening knives. I mean, the ENTIRE ROLE is subtext. It is not in the words he says. Schoenaerts recognized that. He’s wonderful. In my opinion, the reason to see it. Well, also for the fact that the book is wonderful and this is a fair adaptation.

The One Thing to Do (2005; d. Michaël R. Roskam)
A short film, starring Matthias Schoenaerts, long before he moved into the international scene. Directed by Roskam, who eventually would direct Schoenaerts in Bullhead, which got an Oscar nom for Best Foreign Film. This was the beginning of their collaboration. You can see Roskam’s striking talent already in his visuals. Two Belgian secret-intelligence guys – head to Italy, or the south of France, I can’t remember – to track down a guy wanted for war crimes. Told in a non-linear fashion, it’s hallucinatory and spooky: empty cafes, narrow winding alleyways, sudden cuts to Schoenaerts staring at himself in the mirror, cuts again to Schoenaerts sitting across from his colleague at a cafe, and his nose has been broken. He’s got a bandage over his nose, bruises under his eyes. It’s unclear what the hell they are doing. You have to figure out that they are actually agents to the government. You might think that they were gangsters, they both seem so shady. It’s an ambitious short, the short of a young man, trying to make a splash and a political statement. That part is a dime a dozen. What really matters and what you’re really left with is the look of those empty streets, the feeling of tension in the air, like a spring about to snap.

explore_the_stunning_italian_island_in_a_bigger_splash

Another Day (2005; d. Ingrid Coppe)
Another short starring Matthias Schoenaerts. It feels more like a perfume commercial than a film. It’s a “mood piece,” very much a first short. I’ve seen a million like it. Pretentious. Beautiful. But to what end? There is no dialogue.

Lady with Red Hair (1940; d. Kurt Bernhardt)
Oh, this movie! Starring Miriam Hopkins and Claude Rains. I watched it for piece I was working on, coming out soon, I’m not sure when. I had never seen it before (it’s very hard to find. Unless you have …. ways. As I do.)

Wise Girl (1937; d. Leigh Jason)
Another film starring Miriam Hopkins – also for the upcoming piece I mentioned. What a fun assignment. I had never seen this one either. (Another very hard to find film). Miriam Hopkins plays an heiress who “goes undercover” in bohemian Greenwich Village to try to get her nieces back, so they can be raised in the wealth that is their birthright. Will the heiress be drawn into the egalitarian communal environment where everyone follows their bliss? Will she find herself having fun for the first time in her life? Will she fall in love with a broke painter? Well, what do YOU think. Very funny.

Something Wild (1961; d. Jack Garfein)
I wrote about this forgotten film here. At length. Ahead of its time in so many ways. Still ahead of our time. Extremely disturbing. Powerful. Unique.

The More the Merrier (1941; d. George Stevens)
After a long day in the city with my brother and my nephew – who stayed with me for a while in the beginning of September, to check my nephew into college – we were exhausted. I suggested a movie. Brendan and Cashel stood at my floor-to-ceiling shelf looking at all my titles. I asked Cashel what he felt like. He said “Something light.” I thought of The More the Merrier – an all-time favorite. I suggested it. It ended up being the most absolutely perfect choice. There were moments where Brendan and Cashel – both – simultaneously – were collapsed in laughter. Great stress release.

Rust and Bone (2012; d. Jacques Audiard)
Clearly I wasn’t done watching this film. Why would I be?

tumblr_ns3eblghhv1rjn473o1_500

Injury Time (2010; d. Robin Pront)
Very upsetting and violent short film, featuring Matthias Schoenaerts – a year before Bullhead, 2 years before Rust and Bone. It was director Robin Pront’s graduating film from the Sint-Lukas Academy in Brussels. Jeroen Perceval (who would also show up in a key role in Bullhead) and Pront have collaborated numerous times (similar to Schoenaerts’ collaborations with Roskam, three-and-counting – there’s a 4th in post-production.) In Injury Time, Schoenaerts plays a skinhead-type raging-racist rugby fan (or football. Or soccer. Whatever they call it.) He’s basically stepped right out of Bill Buford’s terrifying book Among the Thugs. Looking for revenge. He pushes it too far. His friends – who are also psycho skinhead types – finally discover that they have a “line”, and that he has crossed over it. Extremely violent. Schoenaerts is a great psycho. He’s got tremendous softness and vulnerability as an actor, but he can cut all that off and go dead in the eyes too.

Daughter (2005; d. Marleen Jonkman)
A short film in which Matthias Schoenaerts plays a supporting role to two other leads. It’s been interesting to watch all of these shorts because you can see the slow development of a “career” – or, not even really a career yet … just an awareness of who he is, and what he brings to the table. In Daughter, he is skinny, looks like a woodcut of a medieval Christ, plays a regular guy, in love with the lead character who has Daddy Issues (understatement). He’s sweet, but it’s a nothing part. This is 2005. He did a lot in 2005. He did a ton of these shorts, and in each one he plays a different type of character.

The End of the Ride (2005; d. Hans Van Duffel)
Another short from 2005, with Matthias Schoenaerts in a lead role. Very good film. (All of these are on Youtube, by the way, for you Matthias fans out there). There are only three actors: Schoenaerts, Dolores Bouckaert and Günther Lesage. Schoenaerts plays a dying man, who begs to be let out of the hospital, because he’s done with treatment. His two friends take him home with them. Once upon a time, he dated the woman – she was the love of his life. When he got sick, she and his friend hooked up. It’s all out in the open between them. But it’s extremely intense. Everyone is grieving. Schoenaerts does not play a graceful and gentle dying man. He is demanding. There’s a kind of “Look. I’m dying. Do what I want you to do.” It’s an extremely rich subject, and quite emotional. It’s like a one-act play.

A Bigger Splash (2016; d. Luca Guadagnino)
For me, one of the films of the year. Matthias Schoenaerts, Tilda Swinton, Ralph Fiennes, and Dakota Johnson, in a crazy decadent sun-drenched fucked-up situation during a vacation on an isolated island off the coast of Italy. A remake of the superb and sexually-luscious La Piscine, starring Alain Delon and Romy Schneider, two more gorgeous people you have never before seen in your life. There have been some updates and changes, but the situation is the same. Guadagnino directed the superb I Am Love, with Swinton also, and here she plays a totally different kind of character. A Chrissie-Hynde-type rock star – so in danger of losing her voice, that she is on “vocal rest”. She is not allowed to speak. (Swinton, apparently, only agreed to do the role once it was agreed that she would never speak. I love that. She’s so smart and weird.) Ralph Fiennes, in my opinion, gives a career-best performance. And Schoenaerts is superb: lazy and sensual, practical and stable. Dakota Johnson is the trouble-making sexpot. No innocent nymphet. This chick is up to no good. She’s disturbing. Put these four people in one house, and let’s see what happens. Loved it.

Audrie & Daisy (2016; d. Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk)
Very upsetting documentary. Reviewed for Ebert.

Southwest of Salem: The Story of the San Antonio Four (2016; d. Deborah S. Esquenazi)
Another very upsetting documentary. Reviewed for Ebert.

The Strange One (1957; d. Jack Garfein)
Jack Garfein also directed Something Wild (see above … which is indicative of the gigantic project I’ve been working on.) This was his first film. (Astonishing.) Something Wild in 1961 was his second (and final) film. If THOSE are the only two films you’ve directed?? Very fine directors go their whole careers without creating TWO such films! The film came totally out of an Actors Studio workshop situation. Everyone involved was Actors Studio. Ben Gazzara made his film debut (he’s unbelievable). Pat Hingle is great. George Peppard was basically discovered by Jack Garfein – and he’s wonderful in this. Those are the three real leads. A moody film about sadism in a military college. Jack Garfein is a Holocaust survivor, the only one alive in his immediate family, all of whom were killed in Auschwitz. The two films he ended up directing – and he also did the screenplay adaptations – are films about people who are trapped. He has said that it wasn’t until 50 years later that it occurred to him that somehow he might have been “working out” the horrors of his childhood. This is a great film.

The Perfect Crime (2016; d. Cathleen O’Connell)
PBS documentary about the Leopold and Loeb trial. This was a carry-over from my research for the Dean Stockwell piece in Film Comment. This is very good. You can watch the whole thing online.

Baby Doll (1956; d. Elia Kazan)
God, I love this movie. Directed by Elia Kazan. Script by Tennessee Williams (based on his one-act “27 Wagons Full of Cotton”). Starring Karl Malden, Eli Wallach (in his phenomenal film debut), Mildred Dunnock, and Carroll Baker. Elia Kazan said later in life that if he wanted to show people the films he was most proud of, Baby Doll would be one of them. It’s funny, messed-up, with three GREAT characters in the center, circling one another with competing objectives. Fantastic mood. Filmed on location in Mississippi, giving it an authenticity, mixed with the deeply moody atmosphere inside that crazy empty house. One of my favorite Kazans. And a very important film for me – along with East of Eden. Long story. But Carroll Baker – and her memoir – which I tripped over when I was 12 years old – was the beginning of it all for me. She was my guide, my “way in” to this world I knew nothing about: words like “Gadg” and “Jimmy” and “Marlon Brando” … I was so fascinated I began my own personal investigation into all of these mysterious individuals. And here I am today. When I met Elia Kazan, finally, it was like my whole life flashed before my eyes. No, it wasn’t LIKE that. It WAS that.

Sully (2016; d. Clint Eastwood)
I loved it. I remember that day in New York vividly. I could see the plane in the Hudson from the cliff in Jersey where I live. Cousin Mike has a terrific part, and he’s listed in the credits after the three leads. Go, Mike! Very proud of him.

A Little Chaos (2015; d. Alan Rickman)
Oh, Alan Rickman, you left us too soon. This movie is a little too … I just didn’t believe that a woman like Kate Winslet’s character existed. THAT BEING SAID: it’s a fun movie about chaos and order, taking place in the court of Louis XIV (played by Rickman: wonderful). Stanley Tucci, of all people, plays the Duke something-or-other. Matthias Schoenaerts plays the moody unhappily-married brilliant gardener at Versailles, who is annoyed and irritated by this new gardener (Winslet) coming in with her new-fangled gardening ideas. They fall in love. Of course. The screen is PACKED with brilliant British character actors. Lots of fun.

Magic Mike XXL (2015; d. Gregory Jacobs)
It’s been a rough month. It’s actually been a rough year! But last month … good God. One night I came home rattled and frazzled and WIPED OUT and could not do any work, so I calmed down totally with this bottle of Uncomplicated Joy.

anigif_enhanced-32388-1423016284-12

Tunnelrat (2008; d. Raf Reyntjens)
Another Matthias Schoenaerts short! They’re all on Youtube. It’s a goldmine! This is a WWI story, two enemy soldiers trapped in a collapsed trench. The short is so claustrophobic I could barely breathe. And the ending is devastating. Not bad for 20 minutes.

Death of a Shadow (2012; d. Tom Van Avermaet)
This short film is heads-and-shoulders above the rest on this list. A truly creepy-weird premise from out of Edgar Allen Poe, or Gothic melodrama/horror. A nearly-unrecognizable Matthias Schoenaerts stars (he also associate-produced. Bullhead had come out, Rust and Bone was on its way … he started to invest in projects he really wanted to do.) You can tell there is a lot of money behind this. Special effects. Very very effective. And these effects do not compromise the emotions of the story, its strange catharsis, its obsession with mortality. Death of a Shadow was nominated for an Oscar, and rightly so.

deathofashadow_still_06
Matthias Schoenaerts, “Death of a Shadow”

Suite Française (2014; d. Saul Dibb)
When one works an obsession, as I was working the Schoenaerts obsession, it leads you down some unexpected pathways. I am very glad to have discovered Death of a Shadow! And Suite Francaise – which I don’t think was even released here – maybe it was – at any rate, it’s not on DVD. But, like I said above, I have my ways, if necessary. The story of the German invasion of France, experienced in one small town. Germans commandeer private homes, the citizens have to live side by side with their oppressors. There’s one nice (?) German soldier (played by Schoenaerts) who lives in a home with a mother and her daughter-in-law (Kristen Scott Thomas and Michelle Williams). He plays the piano. He and the daughter-in-law bond about music. And then … oh noes … they fall in love. Her husband is off at war, has disappeared – maybe into a concentration camp. It’s a soap opera in the middle of a terrible war. The acting is very good, although you have to deal with supposed French people all talking in British accents.

Desert Fury (1947; d. Lewis Allen)
Rather hard to find. Dan had a gathering at his house for a small group of friends so we could watch Imogen’s pretty good copy of it. This movie is INSANE. Lizabeth Scott, Wendell Corey (who would be reunited again 10 years later in Hal Wallis’ Elvis project Loving You), a young Burt Lancaster, and Mary Astor. Technicolor. The color scheme rivals that of Johnny Guitar. You could write a dissertation on the colors of Mary Astor’s various outfits and head-scarves. And the sexuality! That was what really struck us. There is a clearly and openly gay relationship between the two male leads. It’s not subtext. It’s text. 1947!! I mean, come on:

desert-fury-sunbathing

Wendell Corey is the “odd man out,” watching jealously and heartbroken as his boyfriend starts taking up with Lizabeth Scott. It’s tragic. But then there’s all this sexual tension between the mother and … her daughter too. For realz yo. The thing is overBLOWN and SENSUOUS, and you drown into the colors and the intense emotions. If this movie is running on TCM, do yourself a favor …

Jeopardy (1953; d. John Sturges)
Interesting premise: Very short film, just over an hour, and it plays like a bat out of hell. Barbara Stanwyck, Ralph Meeker (see comments above), a scary situation, and the ultimate question (as told to us by Stanwyck in voiceover): Wives, how far would you go to save your husband? What would you do? Don’t answer before you watch the film!

The Naked Spur (1953; d. Anthony Mann)
Great Western, directed by the great Anthony Mann. Small cast: Jimmy Stewart, Robert Ryan, Millard Mitchell, Ralph Meeker (see above. Hm. Could I perhaps be working on something??), and Janet Leigh! Powerful personalities: mercenaries, an Indian-killer, a giggling psycho, a short-haired feisty woman who spends the majority of the film fending off the sexual advances of all of them, who seem to regard her as a prize. The movie is a feast of Good Acting.

I Wake Up Screaming (1941; d. H. Bruce Humberstone)
I’m not a film noir historian. There are enough of those out there. This is an early example of this new style (new to America, at any rate), and it’s a great example. Wonderful performance from Victor Mature and Betty Grable, fantastic lighting effects – dramatic and almost 100% abstract.

vlcsnap-2013-02-24-12h25m19s224

Bringing Up Baby (1939; d. Howard Hawks)
Man, I just needed to relax. It makes me laugh every single time. I wrote about the film’s dirty mind years ago for Capital New York. All that talk about bones and boxes. The man is searching for his LOST BONE. I mean, come on. I know this movie by heart, and yet it is still full of surprises.

I Love You Again (1940; d. W.S. Van Dyke)
What on earth is better than William Powell and Myrna Loy together? I wish the industry today operated the way it did then: two people are shown to have unique chemistry, and therefore, they make 10 films together, sometimes playing the same characters (as in The Thin Man series), but sometimes not. I mean, Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin … their chemistry in Prairie Home Companion was so off-the-charts, that if it had happened in 1940, their dynamic would have become a franchise.

myrna-loy-and-william-powell-the-thin-man-1934-mgm

I had actually never seen I Love You Again, but it’s part of a Powell/Loy box-set I own, so one night I pulled it out. It is hilarious. William Powell starts off playing a cheapskate fuddy-duddy whom no one likes (because who on earth ever likes a cheapskate fuddy-duddy?) Then he gets a bump on the head, and wakes up and he is an entirely different person, a fast-talking wise-talking gangster. Turns out: the gangster had been hit on the head 9 years before, woke up as a fuddy-duddy, not remembering anything in his past, and then proceeded to live his life as that fuddy-duddy – even MARRYING a woman (Loy) – and so now, he has woken up back to himself, and decides to PRETEND he is still the fuddy-duddy husband so that maybe he can con his “wife” out of her money. This is a ridiculous situation so ripe with comedic possibilities. The wife knows her uptight husband has changed. He is more ardent, sexually, first of all. She doesn’t know how to handle it. There’s a moment where Powell forgets his wife’s name (it’s Kay), and he fumbles around for it, and what comes out is: “Oh …. Kay. Okay! Ohhhkay. Oh! Kay!” He’s trying to nail down her name in his head, and he looks completely insane. Powell was so brilliant. Very entertaining movie.

Moonlight (2016; d. Barry Jenkins)
One of the best films of the year. Opens in the States on October 21. Mentioned it here.

Christine (2016; d. Antonio Campos)
This film – about the 1970s TV reporter who committed suicide on air – opens in two weeks. It stars Rebecca Hall. I’ll be reviewing for Ebert.

I, Daniel Blake (2016; d. Ken Loach)
Again: one of the best films of the year. It opens October 21. Mentioned it here.

8 Mile (2004; d. Curtis Hanson)
A re-watch in tribute of the recently deceased Curtis Hanson. When he died, everyone was talking about LA Confidential and Wonder Boys. Fine films! But let’s give it UP for 8 Mile!

tumblr_n31z8lpoz11sgfk95o1_500

The Heiress (1949; d. William Wyler)
A masterpiece.

The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001; d. Joel Coen)
People don’t seem to discuss this one all that much when they discuss the films of the Coen brothers. I thought it was fantastic when I first saw it in the movie theatre, and I thought it was fantastic on this re-watch. Stylish and dark and … slightly crazy. UFOs. I mean, come on. UFOs.

Certain Women (2016; d. Kelly Reichardt)
This beautiful and quiet film opens on October 14. Please see it. Support smaller films. Support films made by women, especially talented women such as Kelly Reichardt. It’s gorgeous and sad, but all done in such a gentle way, no bopping you over the head with import or a “message.” Little character studies. Mentioned it here.

Miss Stevens (2016; d. Julia Hart)
Wow, Lily Rabe is wonderful. I’m not all that familiar with her work. I’m a fan now. An English teacher drives 3 of her students to a Drama competition out of state. The Teacher is … a total mess. She’s a good teacher but it’s the only thing she’s good at. She bonds … sort of … with the students. She hooks up with another (married) teacher during the competition. She drinks a couple of glasses of wine when out to dinner with the kids and tells a slightly inappropriate story. She bonds with one of the students, in particular, who clearly has a huge crush on her, and it feels like it might start to tip over into something … inappropriate. I wasn’t crazy about the soundtrack (too many on-the-nose songs played in on-the-nose moments), but I really enjoyed the film – especially the Theatre Kids aspect. I participated in acting competitions like that myself in high school and college. It’s pretty much exactly like that.

miss-stevens

Other People (2016; d. Chris Kelly)
Molly Shannon, y’all. Molly Shannon. This is a GREAT performance. The lead actor/character is the least interesting person in it, which is unfortunate since he’s, you know, the lead. But the ensemble is so good, and the story so heartbreaking that I got sucked in, and was a wreck by the end. If you’ve had to take care of a parent in the final stages before death … well. This movie nails it. It’s quite beautiful. And Molly Shannon, y’all.

Supernatural, Season 4, Episode 1, “Lazarus Rising” (2008; d. Kim Manners)
A favorite episode for so many different reasons. Padalecki’s line-reading: “I don’t pay, Dean.” But I’m mainly “in it” for the RED camera, and the look of pure-cinema it gives. The look is so different from Season 3 as to be a shocker if you go from one straight to the other. This is Beauty on an intense and achey level of perfection and expression. Freckles and sweat and dirty fingernails and dust and silence. It makes me yearn for the show to look like this again. I know those days are done. I know they are not coming back. I miss the Beauty and the Artistry in terms of Mood, because Mood is SO difficult to achieve, the MOST difficult, and mood HELPS the story tremendously. How do you tell the story when the guys are wearing orange-tinted greasepaint and the scenes are lit like a soap opera or a music video? Season 4 though … whoo boy. Those early seasons are beautiful in their total darkness and horror-noir shadows. Season 4 moves into something else, helped by the RED. One of the most sensitive cameras ever developed. Yummmmmmm.

Pelé: Birth of a Legend (2016; d. Jeff and Michael Zimbalist)
Why is everyone speaking English? Why? It takes place in Brazil, a polyglot nation, first of all. It makes no sense, AND runs counter to the whole theme, which is that through Pele, Brazil found pride in itself and its mixed-race population, and who they were. What, American audiences won’t read subtitles? Well, those people are stupid, why do you want to reach them anyway? Having everyone speak English when the whole thing takes place in Brazil pulled me out of it. Aside from that, though, I am a sucker for a Sports Genre Movie. And so the journey of Pele, much of it already familiar to me, was beautiful to watch – and extraordinary. He created records that have yet to be broken. So yeah, I’m a sucker. I cried. Sue me. I wish they had been talking all of the different languages and dialects, though. This is a story about BRAZIL.

Giant (1956; d. George Stevens)
This year is the 60th anniversary of this epic! It’s playing at the Film Forum this week and I went on Friday night for its opening night. The director’s son, George Stevens Jr., and Carroll Baker (see above … it’s Carroll Baker Month round these here parts) were both in attendance for a discussion before the film. The place was packed. It was a pouring rainy night and the ticket line went out the door and down the block. A line out the door and down the block for a film from 1956. I love New York. I’ll be writing more about the night when I have a second to breathe.

14462913_10154090697612632_2147580345492298738_n
George Stevens Jr. and Carroll Baker, September 30, 2016, Film Forum

Posted in Monthly Viewing Diary, Movies, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Warmonger O’Malley Cousins: Text Exchange Last Night

Kerry: Can you recommend a book about the siege of Leningrad?

Sheila: Shut up!! Last week I Googled “good books about Leningrad.” I am not kidding.

Kerry: OMG

Sheila: It’s a gap in my Warmonger Knowledge. I’m pretty sure there’s a gigantic book just called “Leningrad” but I’ll see what I can come up with.

Kerry: There is a great exhibit at the Museum of Man here about Cannibalism. There was a whole section on the siege of Leningrad and how many people were starving and eating people. I turned to Karl and said, “I did not know that.” Big gap in my Warmonger Knowledge.

Sheila: Oh man it was like Dante’s Inferno I do know that. 100% destruction and the siege lasted how long? Over a year?

Kerry: 872 days according to Wikipedia

Sheila: Unbelievable. Okay we need to find THE book to read.

Kerry: The Leningrad book club.

Sheila: Literally laughing out loud

Kerry: hahahahaha

Sheila: Are you in costume backstage as you type this? Just trying to picture it

Kerry: hahahahaha, no, just warming up. From Wikipedia: NKVD files report the first use of human meat as food on 13 December 1941.[67] The report outlines thirteen cases which range from a mother smothering her eighteen-month-old to feed her three older children to a plumber killing his wife to feed his sons and nieces.[67] By December 1942, the NKVD arrested 2,105 cannibals dividing them into two legal categories: corpse-eating (trupoyedstvo) and person-eating (lyudoyedstvo). The latter were usually shot while the former were sent to prison. The Soviet Criminal Code had no provision for cannibalism so all convictions were carried out under Code Article 59–3, “special category banditry”.[68] Instances of person-eating were significantly lower than that of corpse-eating; of the 300 people arrested in April 1942 for cannibalism, only 44 were murderers.[69] 64% of cannibals were female, 44% were unemployed, 90% were illiterate, 15% were rooted inhabitants, and only 2% had any criminal records. More cases occurred in the outlying districts than the city itself. Cannibals were often unsupported women with dependent children and no previous convictions, which allowed for a certain level of clemency in legal proceedings.[70]

Sheila: Absolute horror show

Kerry: “corpse-eating” or “person-eating” Dear God

Sheila: On that cheery note I have to go to bed

Kerry: Hahahahahahahaha

Sheila: Again I am literally laughing out loud! Hope is scared!

Kerry: So am I
Kerry: dying laughing

Sheila: Cannot stop
Sheila: Person-eating. Sweet dreams!!

Posted in Personal | Tagged , | 20 Comments

3 Movies Opening in October That Should Be On Your Radar

images

Director: Kelly Reichardt
Screenplay: Kelly Reichart (adaptation of three short stories by Maile Meloy)
U.S. release date: October 14, 2016.
U.K. release date: TBD, but it is screening at the London Film Festival on October 9, 2016.
Reichardt is a master of the minimal, the observant, the quiet. Michelle Williams, Laura Dern, and Kristen Stewart – all three heavy-hitting names – wander through this movie giving absolutely non-star performances. Riveting, though. And newcomer Lily Gladstone gives such a memorable performance that she was all I could think about afterwards. No major catharsis here. Fragments and snapshots of the lives of three (really, four) women living in the same small town in Montana.

la-1470932350-snap-photo-1471019442

Director: Barry Jenkins
Screenplay: Barry Jenkins
U.S. release date: October 21, 2016
U.K. release date: TBD, but it is screening at the London Film Festival on October 6, 2016.
One of the best films of the year. And for me, along with Krisha Fairchild (who has almost no professional credits outside of voiceover work before playing the lead in Krishamy review of Krisha here), Trevante Rhodes – the actor on the far right of the poster – gives the performance of the year. Do not miss.

cdaa213d8371386c9e0012894f0798d8

Director: Ken Loach
Screenplay: Paul Laverty
U.K. release date: October 21, 2016
U.S. release date: TBD. Doing the festival rounds now.
I was unable to shake the power of this movie for 24 hours. It still haunts me. I must point out – yet again – that the two leads – Dave Johns and Hayley Squires – have minimal credits to their names. They give two of the best performances I’ve seen in 2016 thus far. Shattering. To call this movie “angry” is far too tepid. I, Daniel Blake positively shimmers with rage.

All of these films are an indictment of those who judge the “health” of the movie industry by how well summer blockbusters do. All of these films are a reminder that art is still personal, that directors have personal visions, are drawn to material for personal reasons, that the industry is not just a cash-grab. The Oscars may be entertaining but they are rarely a portrait of what actually happened in film during the year. Films are not successful because of how much money they make. All of these films are a reminder that while the “star system” is of course alive and with us, and I have no problem with that – I’ve got my favorites, you’ve got yours – actors – like Kristen Stewart, like Michelle Williams – are still drawn to challenging weird little projects, where they probably work for scale, because they believe in the director, the story. They are not careerists. They are artists. And all of these films are a reminder that there are so many actors out there – brilliant and emotionally sensitive and intelligent – who rarely get cast in stuff where they can really show us what they have. Who are taking big BIG risks. Like Gillian Welch wrote of Elvis: when he went out on stage he did so “with his soul at stake.” With the acting in these films – the two leads in I, Daniel Blake and Trevante Rhodes in Moonlight in particular – you can FEEL that people’s SOULS are at stake.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | 2 Comments

My Kind of Breakfast Joint

14390757_10154074080137632_3839118606306758475_n

Posted in Personal | Tagged , | Leave a comment

R.I.P. Bill Nunn, aka “Radio Raheem”

bill-nunn

In the comments section for Spike Lee’s FB message passing on the sad news of the death of Bill Nunn (most well-known for his portrayal of Radio Raheem in Do the Right Thing, although he had a long career with a lot of other good roles), there are so many commenters sharing stories of their interactions with Bill Nunn, either recently, or back during his Morehouse days, or any time in between. These stories give a portrait of a kind and generous man, always willing to help others, show people the ropes, step up. One guy shares this story: “Bill Nunn provided stage lighting for a play I directed in a theatre class I took at Spelman. I was a freshman at Morehouse at the time. Bill was a senior. I was so impressed that a senior would help out a confused freshman. Thank you brother. Rest in Peace!” Many of the stories shared in that thread have the same theme. (Jim Beaver’s FB post about working with Bill Nunn in The Sister Act does too.) These stories are all the more touching because there are so many of them: “I did his family’s tax returns …” “I met him fishing once in Atlanta …” “His family were my neighbors …”

Bill Nunn made his debut in fellow Morehouse-alum Spike Lee’s School Daze, but it was the boom-box-carrying Radio Raheem – whose death at the hands of the NYPD is the inciting incident for the riots that follow – that put him on the map then (and for all time). He worked with Lee a couple more times, in Mo’ Better Blues and He Got Game. I loved him in New Jack City and Regarding Henry: watch those films back to back (they were made back to back, too) and then consider – just consider – Bill Nunn’s range. He did a lot of guest spots in TV series, and I also loved him in The Last Seduction: he’s this big bear of a man but you know he’s in the presence of a cunning predator, you feel his vulnerability, but you also feel his curiosity about her: Are the stories about you true? He’s terrific in it.

3-bill-nunn-as-harlan-and-linda-fiorentino-as-bridget-gregory-in-the-last-seduction

But let me just talk about Radio Raheem. I will not be saying anything that others haven’t said, and far more eloquently.

Do the Right Thing was not “prophetic.” Radio Raheem is not “prophetic” of the world we live in now, where there’s a new police brutality case every freakin’ day. The film is only prophetic to people who weren’t paying attention back then, and are barely paying attention now. Radio Raheem’s murder-by-cops in Do the Right Thing was the way things were, and always were, and only now – 25 years later – are white people actually getting that memo. SOME white people. Because there are those who cannot bear to even have the conversation without tossing in #alllivesmatter as some kind of … rejoinder, Kumbaya, Yay for the human race, I don’t even know what to call it.

I am done arguing with such people and listening to the other side. There is no other side. (I haven’t argued here, but on FB and in real life.) Once you decide an argument is worthless, then no, there is no need to get sucked into arguing it anymore, except to make clear your stand. So if you are an “alllivesmatter” person, save your breath to cool your porridge. I consider you an enemy, and I also consider you no longer worth listening to. I felt the same way about the anti-gay-marriage people. You are on the wrong side of history. Your children and your grandchildren will be embarrassed by you. Listen. We all have our lines in the sand. I never do this, but if a commenter arrives with an “alllivesmatter” message, I will consign you to the dustbin of my Trash folder. I’m done with listening. Put that shit on your own blog. I need the bandwidth.

UNTIL “black lives matter” as much as white lives “matter”, then NO, you cannot say in good conscience that “all lives matter.” Because CLEARLY they don’t.

Radio Raheem’s murder – and the entire film Do the Right Thing – an unquestionable masterpiece – was not “prophetic” or “eerily” ahead of its time. It spoke out the reality as Spike Lee knew it, as black people always knew it, and – part of its masterpiece stature – it did not present solutions. It presented the problem. It didn’t even diagnose the problem, because what the hell is there to diagnose? It just showed the problem. Certain demographics didn’t want to hear it then and they still (“I’ll listen to their protests when they stop trashing their own neighborhoods …”) don’t want to hear it now. I saw it in a movie theatre when it first came out, with a mostly-African-American audience, on the weekend it opened, and it is, to date, one of the most exhilarating experiences I have ever had seeing a movie out in public. I get goosebumps just thinking about it. And thinking about the reaction of that crowd.

When Spike Lee came and presented Do the Right Thing at Ebertfest – a night I will never forget – there will still those in the audience – black and white – who wanted him to “weigh in” on current events, suggest solutions and ideas for how to handle such and such. Spike Lee – true to form – refused. Not his role as an artist. The film is a powerful act of social and political critique. It stands for itself.

Now. Radio Raheem. A big intimidating handsome man, you can hear him and his boombox from blocks away. Public Enemy roaring into the heat wave:

Our freedom of speech is freedom or death
We got to fight the powers that be!

Radio Raheem’s monologue – straight to the camera – about his LOVE – HATE rings/brass-knuckles – is a direct and confrontational nod to Robert Mitchum’s (equally famous) monologue in Night of the Hunter about his LOVE – HATE tattoos on his knuckles. Robert Mitchum’s character is filled with hate, and that is reflected in his monologue.

Radio Raheem is filled with righteous anger, but most of all, he is filled with Love. He does not present a solution either. He just states the problem in analogy form.

I’ll just take a second to praise Bill Nunn’s masterful delivery of that monologue, its unearthly confidence, its reaching-for-the-stars extroversion, and the voice – with its depth of tone and its prosody, like a Holy Roller preacher in a tent revival. He’s ferocious. He’s smart. It’s theatrical. It’s not “woven into” the scene, because that’s not how the film operates. The film operates like a Greek tragedy, with chorus members weighing in from the sidelines, direct address monologues and soliloquies, a sense of urgency in connecting with the audience.

Spike Lee also shared a poem on his FB page about Radio Raheem:

An Original Poem
By Lemon Andersen

…And than there was Radio Raheem,
Flat top, tight fade,
Built like an ’89 NY Giant,
The Majestic Brother
you could hear two blocks away
in any direction
pumping Public Enemy
from the horns of his Ghetto Blaster,
the Conscience brother
who wanted nothing but
to be alone and live
in the loud solace of his Radio…
A Young, Black, Beautiful Man
who died in the hands
of Blue Fear and White Fury.
People walked across the street
when Radio Raheem
came down the Block,
the Starch in his frame
scared them away
from the Gap in his smile.
The four fingered rings
were seen like Brass knuckles
when if you stopped him
like Mookie did as the sun set
On that Hot summer day in BK, Brooklyn
You would see Raheems hands
like his mind were worth
its weight in Gold.

Bill Nunn is a memorable actor with many memorable performances. But very few actors get to create a character as important as Radio Raheem is. I am trying to think of another similar example and at the moment I am coming up empty. A character that symbolizes everything that is wrong with our world, and with the assumptions of the clueless majority. A warning. A reminder. Radio Raheem haunts the landscape. Radio Raheem is the symbol of “the problem”, as it has always been in this country – and it’s the rare kind of character where you all you have to do is say his name and people nod in understanding of what it means.

Until Radio Raheem’s value as a human being is recognized by the cops/court systems/passersby who recoil from his size/”scary” demeanor/refusal to be soft and ingratiating … until his value as a human being is equal to the value of property, until the death of Radio Raheem hits us just as hard as the destruction of a white-owned pizzeria … then we will get nowhere. We’ll stay right where we are, which is NOWHERE.

Do the Right Things presented the problem.

It provided no solutions.

Except for, except for …. wait, what was it, oh yeah, I forgot, except for one very important thing:

The title.

Rest in peace, Bill Nunn. You were wonderful throughout your career, and – judging from all of the comments of those who knew you and worked with you – you were a lovely person, and generous to up-and-comers, and helpful to those who needed it. But Radio Raheem is one for the ages.

radio25n-1-web

Posted in Actors, RIP | Tagged , | 8 Comments

Review: Audrie & Daisy (2016)

large_audrie_and_daisy_ver2

A very unnerving and upsetting Netflix documentary about sexual assault in high school, bullying, social media.

My review of Audrie & Daisy is now up at Rogerebert.com.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | 2 Comments

R.I.P. Curtis Hanson

8 Mile took over my life for a time. I saw it on its opening day. I returned 3 or maybe 4 more times. I was a Slim Shady fan from the beginning and had felt apprehensive about the film, although I loved L.A. Confidential and Wonder Boys. Curtis Hanson approached material like a storyteller, in the way the old-school directors used to do before everybody got self-important about their own personal vision. What matters is the story being told. A good director is versatile with style (this is more apparent in the theatre, where you could direct Oedipus and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof in the same year.) Hanson delved into the worlds of the stories of his films, with an attention to detail that was both exacting but also fluid. MOOD was as important as getting the vintage cars right. If you just get the vintage cars right, but have no mood, then all you really have is an exercise in kitsch. So in 8 Mile, a semi-autobiographical film showing Marshall Mather’s earliest years – the really bleak shit before Dr. Dre came along – Hanson dove into the world of underground rap battles, Detroit, and the unforgiving atmosphere from which Eminem emerged. One of the special features on the 8 Mile DVD shows Curtis Hanson putting together a “rap battle” for all of the extras in that final club scene. Those extras sweated it out for almost a week, having to keep their energy up, having to do it again and again, cheer, and howl … and it was a grind. To show he appreciated their being there (and those extras are SO important to that final scene – see clip above), he put out a call for any amateur rappers in the house, to do rap battles during the breaks, working their way up to a battle with the star himself, Eminem. Of course half the people there could spit rhymes. Curtis Hanson playing “emcee” for this rap battle was so touching. He was this gangly kind-faced white guy, holding a sheet of loose-leaf paper, calling out names of people to come up onstage. It was a very smart move, as a director, showing generosity and appreciation, of course, for the random people in Detroit who had showed up to be club-goers in those important scenes. He looked like a fish out of water, but he wasn’t, because he cared about this material, he had developed it WITH Eminem (who – more so than anyone else – was very very nervous about the film and how it would portray him. He just didn’t want it to be stupid of self-congratulatory. He wanted it to seem real.) Those amateur rap battles – in a bare break room with fluorescent lights – are so filled with adrenaline and energy and need and emotion – especially wen Eminem finally stepped up to battle with the winners – that it practically justifies the film’s existence, all on its own. It’s also a glimpse of a director at work, wearing multiple hats, caring about the material, caring about the environment and the people around him, creating a space where everyone can let loose a little bit, before going back to what he knows is a grueling and punishing schedule. YOU try to cheer for 3 days straight and “keep it fresh”!!

He was a wonderful director, one of my favorite kinds. Devoted to STORY.

Almost 10 years ago, I participated in a “Close-Up Blog-a-Thon,” hosted by Matt Seitz, where people wrote about their favorite close-ups in film.

I wrote about the close-up of Russell Crowe that opened L.A. Confidential.

Rest in peace.

Posted in Directors, RIP | Tagged , | 11 Comments

Review: Southwest of Salem (2016)

large_large_gotlwxyxho2lf72xwotnjs1b1bd

I saw red watching the documentary Southwest of Salem, about the “San Antonio Four”, four lesbians accused of gang-raping two children in 1994. They all got lengthy prison sentences, even though there was zero evidence of a crime, and even though they maintained their innocence and none of them took plea bargains.

Southwest of Salem is a very good documentary, and it opens today. My review is now up at Rogerebert.com.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | 2 Comments

How It Went Down, Or: As I Remember It: Two Separate Things Became One Thing.

Preamble

I was diagnosed bipolar in February of 2013, after months of first being in a manic state, before moving into a period of rapid cycling. I had no sense of how dangerous it was because I have lived this way my whole life and have had to deal with this type of emotional storm many times before, since I was around 12. I white-knuckled the storm. They are quite literally anguish, but I would calculate it out, saying to myself in, say, November: “Okay, this will pass by around May.” (I understood the time-table of these things. I was always right, almost to the day.)

I’ve written before about the initial diagnosis and treatment, designed to stabilize me, and it did, but it was brutal, and difficult, and a full-time job. My mother came and stayed with me because I couldn’t do it by myself my nerves were so completely shattered. A lot of my writing work had to take a back seat in 2013, which was tough because the mania had been so damn productive (the best part of mania), but I just had to let that go. 2012 (with all its greatness, and it was quite often great) scared the shit out of me. I’ve been scared before, though. 2009 scared me. 2002 scared me. 1998 scared me. I have lots of experience. But the storms had progressed in intensity, and each one left me weaker than the last. I was never bouncing back.

I wanted to write about these two separate things – that happened on the same day in 2015 – and how they became one thing in my mind because it was the first time I had some sort of “episode” post-diagnosis and so it was really the first time that I actually had some distance to be able to see what it is that I did and HOW it was that I did it. I couldn’t see it in the middle of the whole thing, but I saw it about a week later, which is some sort of record for me. I don’t write often about these types of struggles but when I DO, I always get a lot of nice emails from people who either get it or sympathize.

So here is an archaeological dig involving:

thing1-and-thing2

… and how I ended up processing them as the same exact thing. My reaction seemed quite appropriate to me, considering the circumstances, but then my doctors (two of them) intervened, told me I was hypomanic (my response was along the lines of, “Give me a fucking break”), and they tried to help me un-collapse the two events that had magnified in size to one single building of the Brutalist Architecture school. Like, that’s how SOLID my interpretation felt.

One doctor said, “Anyone would be upset after what happened. Your reaction is not inappropriate, but these two separate things are not the same thing.” “No, they ARE the same thing.” “Sweetheart, they are not.” My doctor calls me “sweetheart.” Sometimes “darling.” In his Italian accent. I paced in the lobby of the building where I work, a gigantic echoing space, hissing at him on the phone, as I tried to explain to him – as I tried to make him see – that how I interpreted this thing was real and how DARE he take that from me. Dragons don’t die without a fight, y’all. It’s never fun to be told that your mind is not processing REALITY correctly.

I did not want to go to the hospital, especially not over something so silly (a date gone … bizarrely … awry), but I had been crying for 5 straight days at that point. Straight. Morning till night. 5 days. But I had cried for 19 straight days in July of 2009. 5 days? Please. Piece of cake. I didn’t understand why the doctors were concerned. But whatever, I worked with my cognitive person to think my way out of the Vice I had constructed for myself, something that would have been inconceivable to me pre-diagnosis. That’s the problem with an illness that is in your own mind. 1. It is very very difficult to describe the experience of it. and 2. It feels so real when you’re in it that you may very well fight like a tiger to hold onto your interpretation because if you let go of it, THEN where will you be? Nobody WANTS to be nuts. There are a couple of things I wrote here on my site in the summer/fall of 2009 that are so hair-raising for me to read now that I have been tempted to take them down. So far, I’ve let them stand.

Virginia Heffernan wrote a beautiful essay about her depression in which she describes constructing a series of rituals that she called “The Pillars”, and these pillars were the only things that controlled her life:

I also talked that way to my friends, who told me that I sounded “abstract”. Sometimes I thought they were right, and so I briskly invented an antidote, the Pillars – a rote series of activities designed to ground me like a middle-school curriculum: exercise, travel, religion, dates, art/music, job. Robotically, I went to the gym, to church, to the Met, to parties, to Seattle. I tried to confine my schedule exclusively to the Pillars – checking them off like a tourist – to keep myself from meandering or morbid thinking.

I didn’t do The Pillars, but I did erect something called The Triangle in my mind, a rigid and Euclidean formula within which I understood my own life. I thought The Triangle was brilliant and I told all my friends about it. I felt that the Triangle’s angularly-connected lines gave me great freedom and it also provided blinding INSIGHT into how Things Really Were. The Triangle gave me rules of engagement. It was an Isosceles triangle, too (very important) so keeping each “line” equal was difficult (impossible) but it set the standard. I could not see how unforgiving it was, I could not see how STINGY it was. As a matter of fact, at the time I thought the Triangle was freeing. The post I wrote describing The Triangle is one of those hair-raising posts I mentioned before. I was so – forgive me – fucking CRAZY when I wrote it. I wish people understood mental illness better. You’re not, like, “out of your mind.” Or huddled in a corner not able to speak. You are often completely lucid. Everything is clear as CRYSTAL. You see connections other people cannot. And sometimes, you know what? You’re right. But clarity like that is its own kind of madness, because there is no “give” in your understanding of life. The Triangle had NO “give.” How are you supposed to live life within the confines of a Triangle? Jeez Louise. (Incidentally, the “triangle” has become a kind of joke among my group of friends. I told a couple of my really good friends that if I ever started talking about the Triangle again, to tell me to knock it off. Of course, because my friends are who they are, now when I say something even mildly introspective, one of them will murmur, “Triangle.” Or I’ll post a deep quote on my FB page, and my friend Luisa will leave a one-word comment: “Triangle.” What would I do without these people?)

So what happened last year during that week when I cried for 5 days was that the Triangle re-erected itself in all its terrible perfection, and it was the perfect structure on which to hang my interpretation. It was as intricate and deadly and simple as an atom bomb.

If all of the below sounds like I was “making a mountain out of a mole hill,” what can I say. You are the one who needs to read this the most. People pay lip service to wanting to understand and sympathize with mental illness, but then knee-jerk judge how, well, bonkers it looks and sounds in reality.

Let’s move on to the archaeological dig.

The First Thing

In 2014, I went to the Bloomsday celebration I’ve been going to for over 10 years. It’s a joyous and raucous event, with the same people attending every year. We drink beer, sit at picnic tables, and listen to people get up and read from the book. I read from the book. My friend Therese reads. Everyone reads. The writer Colum McCann has been the emcee from the beginning, and he’s awesome. It’s a blast. At this particular event, I found myself sitting at a table with Therese (my regular Bloomsday friend) and two other guys. What a relief it is to hang out with people who understand this obsession. I found myself having a lot of fun being social with people I don’t know, which never happens. And at some point, when I was talking with one of them – a guy I had not met before, not familiar to me from other Bloomsday gatherings – I suddenly realized – like a dim message from a star on the other side of the galaxy- “Huh. I find this man attractive.” It wasn’t a huge deal, just a momentary recognition that I felt attraction, and it had been a while, and wow, that was kind of fun. The next day he sent me a friend request on Facebook. Click Accept.

I then did not think about him again for an entire year. I was wretchedly sick for a lot of 2015, with an ailment that I had had surgery for 5 years before, but it sprang up again. (I now have it handled for good.) The ailment made my physical life HELL, and so Bloomsday came around again and I decided I couldn’t go, I was too sick. I was very upset. I haven’t missed one Bloomsday celebration there since it started, it’s this weird little thing I do every year, an event feeds my soul/mind/heart, connects me to my Dad, my PEOPLE, and I love seeing all of those crazy people once a year. But I could barely walk. So bah humbug, I didn’t go. I lay in bed with a water bottle on my stomach and felt sorry for myself.

I woke up the next morning to a FB message from that guy: “Where were you yesterday?” We had never corresponded before. When I decided to not go to Bloomsday, he did not enter my mind once. I was thinking about Therese, and Colum and Joe, the “regulars”. His message surprised me. If I had gone, and he hadn’t been there, never in a million years would I have messaged him asking him why he hadn’t gone. I wouldn’t have even noticed, probably, since his presence there in 2014 had been an anomaly (as far as I knew). I told him I had been sick, asked him how the day was. He told me some funny stories. I asked if he read from the book at the Bloomsday celebration. He said he did. I asked him what section. He told me. I told him I loved that section. He said he did too. (We were online at the same time.) And so then began a FB message conversation that lasted the entire day, before we moved it to email, and then finally to text. He was the last person I “talked” to that night, when he texted me “Good night” at 10 p.m. It was very bizarre, and I kept waiting for it to stop, but he kept coming back. So what the hell, sure, I’ll FB message with you all day. He told me he liked my writing. So, okay, so that meant he had somehow been paying attention to me on FB and the links to my stuff I put up there. He said he wanted to be on my mailing list. I told him I didn’t have a mailing list and did he think I should get one? He said he didn’t have one either. But he wanted to “keep track” of me. He was very persistent, he had started it, so he kept the conversation going. It was a humorous conversation. Elvis Costello came up. I told him I loved that Elvis, but I loved “the other Elvis” more. He said, “I gathered.”

At some point, again like a dim message from a far away star, I realized – shamefully late into the process – that he was trying to ask me out. At one point he said, “We might have to become, like, y’know, friends.” I told him I thought that would be good. I mean, it seemed like a no-brainer from the moment I met him at Bloomsday. He was clearly “my kind.” Then began this weird thing where now I realize he was feeling me out. “Do you like to eat?” “Do you drink coffee?” I didn’t understand what he was saying. Of course I eat. Yes, I drink coffee. What the hell. He said something like, “Do you like to eat or drink coffee with other people?” It’s so obvious now, but although I am very smart in some areas, I am very slow in others. He said, “Are you in the city this weekend?” I finally realized: “Oh. He’s asking me out. That’s what’s happening. Duh. And he probably thinks I’m playing hard-to-get, when actually, no, I’m just dense.” Had he been looking forward to seeing me at Bloomsday and then bummed I wasn’t there? That had to be it, right? I couldn’t picture it though because if I had gone to Bloomsday the day before he wouldn’t have entered my mind at all. Anyway, this is so granular I feel like it’s a Diary Friday entry. I was going to see a John Wayne movie at MoMA that Friday, and I was so excited about it, so I figured what the hell, and I told him what I was doing on Friday, and would he like to join me? Put this man out of his “Do you like to eat/drink” misery-nonsense. He said immediately, “Yes, let’s do that.” And then he bombarded me with the details of his schedule so we could figure out a time to meet up. Then we moved it to email, then we moved it to text, and we joked about how we barely remembered what the other person looked like, so maybe we should show up both carrying fruit baskets so we could recognize each other. Dumb. But fun.

I headed to MoMA. He had texted me a couple of times that afternoon – first to tell me he might be late, and then to give me a blow-by-blow update of his progress from Long Island into the city. It was funny, and also weirdly thoughtful. “Okay, so now I’m waiting on the train platform.” “Okay so now I’m boarding the train.” Dude, stop. I got to MoMA and stood outside the theatre, scanning every face for the one I vaguely remembered from last year. Still, though, he walked right by me, and I didn’t recognize him, and he didn’t recognize me. He texted me from inside the theatre: “I’m here. Where are you.” I walked into the theatre and looked around. It was the big theatre, and there were a lot of people there, and I didn’t even know what I was looking for except a head of wild black hair. I finally just said his name loudly into the void, and of course everybody turned around in that sacred-silent space, but then I saw his face, looking back at me, sitting a few rows down. Of course, that’s what he looks like, I remember now. He started laughing because I had yelled his name into a movie theatre and the whole thing was absurd. The movie was in 3D, by the way, which made it all even more ridiculous, such a fun light-hearted thing to do with someone. At certain points during the movie, we’d glance at each other, and I’d see this Joyce-symposium-literature-professor-guy grinning at me wearing 3D glasses and I’d burst into laughter. It was fun.

Afterwards, we went out for a couple of beers at a nearby bar, and as we walked there he was asking me questions about my life, and each time I answered, he would say something like, “Oh, that’s right …”, or nod, showing that I was saying something he already knew. But how on earth could he know any of it? I gave him a look and he admitted, “Yes. I have been reading up on you.” It was funny. (I should have done the same thing with him! CLEARLY.) I wondered, panic-struck, what the hell I had put up on my site in the last couple of days … was there anything overtly insane? But really what I felt was safe when he said that, because I pictured him at his laptop, clicking around my site, and reading my bio … and so I felt like, Well. Whatever is going on with him, he’s at least interested in me – like, me, out here in the world, not some other damn thing that has to do with HIM. (This is a residue of the run-ins with sociopath users I’ve had, ever since my Dad died. My radar has been WAY off.) He was curious about me. That made me feel safe. (The feeling of safety ended up becoming the major Red Flag in my post-event Triangular analysis.)

It was a cool and beautiful night, the bar was open to the street, and we sat in the window, drinking beers and talking. We talked a lot about our writing and what we wanted to happen with it, in our own spheres. He had things he wanted to work on. I asked him what those were. He told me. He told me about his job. I asked him what the best part of the job was. He thought about it and gave a really cool answer, very interesting and thought-provoking. A curious and open and thoughtful man. Eventually he said, “Okay, so you’ve asked enough questions about me. Let’s do you now.” Again, the feeling of safety. He was aware of how I was tilting the conversation his way (I was being polite, sure, but I also was truly curious. I knew nothing about him.) – and so he course-corrected for us, not wanting to just sit there and talk about himself for our entire night. Good man. So then we talked about me for a while. He asked me questions. I told him what I wanted to be doing. At one point I said that I wanted to get gigs on my own merit, not just so that some site could have “a vagina on the masthead” and he could not stop laughing. He said, “I’ve always wanted a vagina on my masthead.” “I mean, why wouldn’t you. I get it.” You know, whatever, none of this was world-shaking, but I felt safe and in my own element – which was very strange to me, and notable, especially since I didn’t know this person, and two days before I had barely known he existed.

When I spoke, he leaned forward, really listening. Sometimes I busted him looking at my mouth as I spoke. I’m not an idiot. I know what this means. Then, in a flash, the event changed … somehow. It started with a pantomime-symphony of body language from him. This kind of stuff can really only be picked up on by a movie camera, and it loses a lot in the translation into words. I could mimic it perfectly, to show you what I saw, but I’ll give it a shot describing it. After a night of relaxed body language, him lounging in the seat next to me in the theatre, leaning over to whisper in my ear, or leaning across the table at me … he got suddenly awkward, looking at me in this weird kind of hesitant way. Like he had something to say. It wasn’t in reaction to anything I said, or not that I remember. The awkwardness looked like: he straightened up a little bit, but there was an aimlessness in his movement too, and one of his hands went to his shirt pocket, where his cell phone was. He didn’t take the phone out, but it was this involuntary gesture, almost like the cell phone had summoned him from the pocket. And he looked embarrassed. I have no idea what was going on with him, but I have no insecurity about what I SAW. I spent 20 years as an actress. I know body language. I must have looked confused at his behavior/gesture, which – in my memory came out of nowhere – and he said, by way of explanation: “My kid and my … baby-mama … are out of town for the weekend.” Which came from out of nowhere, it was not in reply to anything I said.

I should have Googled him before the date, that’s for sure! Or at least trolled his FB photo albums. I have no idea what look flashed across my face, although I’m sure there was something there, and then I adjusted, with the swiftness brought about only by long experience. The situation I THOUGHT I was in was clearly NOT the situation I was ACTUALLY in, and … judging from the awkwardness and the look of embarrassment … he knew it too. Maybe he realized that I seemed to think it was a date when – from his perspective – it hadn’t been a date at all, although that doesn’t strike me as correct. Maybe he had no idea what he was doing. I also highly doubt that. This guy isn’t a kid. We’re the same age. REGARDLESS. I couldn’t help it. I gave him a look and said, “So Mom’s out of town, huh.” The comment landed like the lead balloon it was meant to be. He laughed a little bit, but didn’t say anything in reply. It was all weirdly awkward. Was I creating the awkwardness? But he started it with his awkward behavior! Inside I was thinking, Sheila, a quick Google search would probably have told you all of this. I also was thinking: Baby mama? What the hell is THAT? It was (in my mind) kind of a distancing term, so maybe he was just trying to take the edge off the awkwardness, or … to somehow … downgrade her in importance? A friend of mine said, “They may not even be together. They may just have the kid together. You have no way of knowing.” No. I don’t.

Clearly I had misunderstood something. Or he had misunderstood something. Or maybe he was “feeling me out” for a hookup while Mom was out of town. I don’t know. I didn’t care. I was done with him from that second forward. Wiping my hands briskly of the entire event, which had been so random anyway.

The swiftness with which I wrote him off drove my friends – male and female – crazy when I told them about it later. “Why didn’t you just say ‘Dude, are you married? Are you single? What are we doing here? We are on a date, you do realize that, don’t you? And might I remind you that you started it. You pursued me. So what’s your deal?” I know. I should have. But I didn’t. Listen, you’re the sum of your experiences, and I’m the sum of mine. Besides, as I realized when I looked back on it, the way the initial interaction went down … if you wanted to split hairs, technically I was the one who asked him out. He hemmed and hawed, I guessed what he wanted, and then cut to the chase. So … plausible deniability? Oh whatever. Too intricate.

Two last memories remain of this “first thing”:

Because I was ready to leave from the second he said the word “baby-mama”, the conversation sort of dragged, and it was clear we were both about to go our separate ways. Then came another symphonic pantomime from him. He paused, and gave me this look, a sort of assessing squint across the table, it had some intent … or question … in it I couldn’t locate or name. He was considering whether or not to continue, that’s what it looked like. Then he said, “Do you smoke?” He wanted to go out on the sidewalk and have a cigarette with me. But the look he gave me … the look seemed to signify something else. Cigarettes = Bad. Cigarettes = Naughty. Cigarettes = Something We Shouldn’t Be Doing. In other words, I felt that it was a sexual moment. There was the potential of sex there in that moment. I’m not a naive young thing. I know the look. His look was throwing a line out there, saying, “You wanna be bad? Naughty?” Honey, do not start what you can’t finish. You have no idea who you’re dealing with. There will be a vagina on your masthead in a matter of half an hour if you don’t watch your step. It could have been totally what it was on the surface: him not knowing if I smoked, and wondering if I would judge him for smoking, wanting to smoke with me, maybe to take the edge off of the weirdness that had just come about with his pantomime gesture towards his cell phone filled with other obligations. But honestly, I do not think so. I am rarely wrong about Sex Stuff. It’s practically a superpower.

I just knew that if I said “Yes” to his offer and we went out and had a cigarette on the sidewalk, that cigarette would lead to a couple more drinks and that would lead to … some kind of a clinch. I could feel that progression in the air and I could see it on his face. Believe me, I wanted to say, “Oh, what the hell, why not,” but instead I said, “No, I don’t smoke.”

We got up and left the bar. I was about to head a block West to turn down 8th Avenue to get my bus, and he was about to head East to pick up whatever subway he needed. He said, a propos of nothing, “Hey, my band is playing a party down in Coney Island tomorrow night. Do you want to come?” By that point, I was irritated so my inner response was: Do I look like that big a “mark”, pal? You’re asking me out AGAIN? Maybe he’s clueless. Maybe I am. Both are equally possible. I clearly was missing SOMEthing that was going on. I said, without thinking beforehand, “No, I don’t think I will be doing that,” and my tone was gentle and thoughtful, although I didn’t plan it that way. It was a funny “line-reading,” I have to say, and he laughed in surprise, seemingly at the openness of my language, that I hadn’t made up some excuse or softened the blow. I didn’t say it in a mean way. The mood was awkward but still pretty open and relatively good-natured. It’s not like he led me on and lied to me for half a year like my last relationship. It’s not like he informed me of the existence of baby-mama-child the morning after we fucked. As far as I was concerned, no harm no foul, although irritating. I had invested barely 24 hours in this thing. And I was going to the John Wayne movie anyway, so it’s not like I wasted a night. We hugged goodbye, saying, “Had a great time, thanks, see ya later!”

I turned away from him and now we are moving into …

The Second Thing

… which happened 45 seconds later.

This was literally what I did AS I turned from him. If he had been looking at me, he would have seen this:

giphy

I wasn’t hurt. I was irritated as HELL. I put my ear-buds in and blasted Metallica as I stalked across the block towards 8th Avenue. I was laughing I was so irritated, shaking my head. “That was so fucking stupid. What was that.” I didn’t have time to deeply question what had happened before the “second thing” went down, but later, I thought, “Wait … did he ask me out? Is he a philanderer? But if he was a philanderer, then why did he TELL me about his family being out of town in such an awkward way?” Maybe it was as simple as he didn’t think it was a date. But then why get awkward when referencing his family life if he didn’t perceive it as a date? What’s to be awkward about in that scenario, if we’re just going out as friends? The worst explanation was: I had completely misinterpreted his “do you eat/drink with other people” charade, and that I had somehow behaved like a fool and he saw that I was a fool and was trying to ward me off. But … but … he texted me the whole damn day and into the night, with jokes and banter and “I’m going to be 20.3 minutes late” texts … Is it possible to misinterpret that?

But all of that came later. I had no time for anything beyond the Judge Judy eye-roll, and the opening strains of “Master of Puppets” before the “second thing” was upon me.

There’s now a bike-lane on most streets in New York, with a little buffer-zone outside of it, where cars park or idle their engines. Most of these are town cars, waiting for people to come out of the restaurants. I don’t walk in the bike path, but I do walk in that buffer zone, skirting the cars. I walk there because I avoid the crowds on the sidewalk. Or I did walk there. I don’t walk there anymore. And I would suggest to all women to avoid that buffer zone as well. Or at least be on high alert as you walk by all of those waiting cars.

45 seconds after I left my date, just as I approached 8th Avenue, a man leapt from out of nowhere – from between two of the town cars – and pounced on me, grabbing hold of both of my breasts with both of his hands, squeezing so hard I had finger-print bruises on my breasts the next day, and whipping me around – by my breasts – screaming in my face, “NICE TITTIES, BITCH, NICE TITTIES.” It was a crowded street. It was only 9:30, 10 o’clock. It all happened so fast that my reaction was totally instinctual, and immediate. The self-defense training my cop friends gave to me in my 20s kicked in (and I’ve used those techniques a couple of times. This is not my first time at this particular rodeo). I started screaming and flailing around, trying to get his hands off me, screaming, “GET OFF ME YOU MOTHERFUCKER” (I believe those were my exact words, and my diction was impeccable so there would be no mistaking my intent), and he kept screaming “NICE TITTIES, BITCH” and I flung out my fist wildly – going for his eyes (like my cop friend told me to: “Girls always go for the nuts. Don’t go for the nuts. Go for the eyes.”) – but my fist missed and I punched his throat instead. I was screaming the whole time. Nobody came over to help me. It probably only lasted about 10 seconds so there wasn’t time. If I hadn’t made a scene, Lord knows what would have happened. Girls, #1 rule: Make a scene. Your life depends on it. I made a scene – just like I was supposed to do, just like my cop friends drilled into my head, to attract attention. And whaddya know, still nobody helped me – but the most important thing was that the message to my attacker was clear: If you continue to attack me, I will fight the entire time, and do you really want to put yourself through something like that? When I punched him in the throat, I heard a quick gurgle-grunt sound from him, and he let me go, and I staggered away from him, screaming back at him, “YOU MOTHERFUCKER,” once more for good measure.

The sidewalk was crowded with people. Nobody came over to me to ask if I was all right. But that didn’t occur to me at the time as some outrageous awful thing. Probably because, hell, obviously I didn’t NEED any help. I just punched him and he stopped attacking me. “Uhm, yeah, that woman has it covered, I think.”

I will not be believed but Scout’s Honor, after he let go of me, I put my ear-buds back in, and – as I stalked down the blocks towards the bus station – my mind immediately went back to: “What the fuck was that date all about …” (When I told my friends this, they howled with laughter. Some stranger just flung you around the street by your breasts and the first thing you think of when you get away is, “Wow, that was a weird date I just had, huh?” All I can do is tell the truth.) The attack was just a blip on the radar screen, and DEFINITELY not the weirdest thing that happened to me that night. The weirdest thing was the date and the awkward-pantomime towards the cell phone that I still couldn’t quite parse. A friend of mine asked if I went to report the attack to the police. Huh? I said, “Of course not.” I didn’t even have a sense that it was this horrible thing that had happened. I was walking away from the date – I was attacked – and then I took the bus home, still running in my mind the last 24 hours and wondering if I had mis-read the FB messages and texts, and what the hell had just gone down. On the date. Not on 8th Avenue.

My date and I were still so close – geographically – that as he walked to his subway after our date he probably could have heard – dimly – some woman screaming “GET OFF ME YOU MOTHERFUCKER” from the next Avenue over. That’s how close in time/space the two events were.

The Two Things Became One Thing

In the days that followed I did notice, shall we say, that my date had not texted me saying “Had a great time” or any of the other niceties. After all that “we should be friends” business. Something weird had definitely gone down at the end of our time together, but I couldn’t say what it was. At all. It very well may have been me, although I think we co-created the weirdness. Action, equal re-action. Very quickly, in the couple days after, I thought, “Jesus, though, imagine if he hadn’t told me about the kid and the baby-mama.” I knew what would have happened then. I would have texted him the next day: “Had a great time! Want to do it again?” And he most probably would have … iced me, or ghosted me. Or maybe not, maybe he would have been like, “We just have a kid together. We’re not in a relationship. I felt awkward and didn’t know how to say that. Can we try it again?” That is an EQUAL possibility, but it didn’t occur to me until much later. I felt grateful that he DID, through his awkwardness, tell me of his situation because, inadvertently, he spared me the humiliation of trying to reach out, and him having to turn me down, or say “Sorry, I think you misinterpreted me … I’m not available.” If he had done THAT, he would have felt my Wrath. So in a way he spared us both that. Fine, so it was just this weird 24 hours where my phone was buzzing with his texts, and now afterwards … crickets … and so okay, chalk it up to weird, move on.

Literally, nothing came into my mind about the violence of the attack that came 45 seconds after I left that guy’s side.

When it finally returned, about 4 or 5 days after the whole thing, it returned with a vengeance, but it didn’t return as its own event, it returned as a SYMBOL that EXPLAINED the date, and CONTEXTUALIZED what had happened, it was a Message from the Universe about My Place In It.

I had felt safe with my date, for a variety of reasons. He was attentive, he was a good listener, and he seemed interested in me and what I was about. All of this was true. I don’t think any of that was a lie, or a trick, or anything else. (We are still friends on FB and we Like each other’s posts, and it’s all fine and in its proper place.) And so I – who never feel safe – ever ever ever – felt safe. That’s why I noticed it. (“Oh, he’s asking me about me …” Men who only talk about themselves and don’t even THINK to say “So how about you?” are my #1 Turn-Off.) Safety on this level does not mean anything significant like, “Finally. Here is The One.” I am far past any of that. I didn’t attach any romantic significance to it, or at least not further down the line than that particular moment sitting across the table from him. He was working on that date, as all Good Men should do, just like I was working, although it wasn’t work like drudgery-work, just work like being-a-good-social-person-with-manners work: making conversation, talking, asking questions about the other person, listening, making jokes, even going a little bit deep. All of this takes work, and we both were doing it, and so we had a good time. This is how it should go. So. When I say safety on this particular level, that’s what I mean. And I don’t question any of this, Cellphone-In-Pocket-Pantomime notwithstanding. I had a very good time with him. That remains.

But safety also has a larger meaning, with huge significance and potential treachery for me. So what happened was that one sense of safety – the momentary – bled into another sense of safety – the permanent/assumed/buffer-zone/net-underneath, like a small creek pouring into a huge rushing river of associations. That’s where the boundaries get messy. Romantic couple relationships provide a certain measure of safety. I’m not talking about physical safety (although once the mania started ratcheting up, it became about physical safety too: If I had been walking with him – or with any man-partner-mate – I would never have been attacked. This is reality.). I’m just talking about: You are part of a duo, you are not alone. You have someone to back you up, run interference, bounce ideas off of, cheerlead, or even just distract you with jokes, mundane tasks, sex, and stupid fights about nothing. Not to mention societal acceptance – which I never really cared about (pursuing acting knocks that right out of you), but it must be there on some level. So, in general, I have a sense that nothing is safe, and I have to stand guard for myself. Be vigilant. Always. Nobody else is looking out for me. I was thrown to the wolves young. I was in therapy for 7 years and that bitch never clocked the cycles and so I was sentenced to another 10, 15 years, without a diagnosis. I got worse under her care. I am a LETHAL companion to myself at my worst. I am not safe in my own company. You see why safety is a huge deal to me. The only relationships I’ve had with men where I felt totally safe – with Michael and with him – gave me a BUFFER, not just between me and the world, but between me and myself, me and my own lethal qualities. I remember saying some tremendously insane thing once, and Michael said, “Babe. No. That’s not what’s happening. At all.” And I trusted him and he said it with love so I listened to him, and his simple words sort of shuffled the experience around, making it smaller, and I was able to move OVER the abyss where normally I would have fallen. That process takes much longer when I am by myself.

So even though my sense of safety during a conversation with this guy was a small thing and not meaningful in a Long-term “This is The One” Relationship way, just a feeling of having a nice time and being comfortable with him, it all kind of poured into one container in my mind, labeled: Safety(TM), or The Lack of It In Your Life. Exhibit A: Nice Titties Man on 8th Avenue.

So. If I can clock the progression:

I had a delayed reaction to the assault. It took about 4 days for me to even remember it. Or consider that I might need to do some processing about what had happened. It flat out did not exist for me.

But when I finally did take a second to go, “Wait a second … member THAT? What was THAT?” it instantly became looped in with the date-gone-awry. The two separate things operated like mercury, racing to be at one with the other, and I could do nothing to stop it. I had no sense that it was anything to BE stopped because it was just so OBVIOUS that one thing had led to another. Later, when I was talking to one of my doctors, she said she was hearing “victim-blaming” language, but she wasn’t getting me, she wasn’t getting what I was saying, the larger issue of it, the whole Triangle of it. Honestly, all she was trying to do was have me snap out of the belief that the two things were the same thing and that somehow the date had led to what happened next. And okay, that’s totally valid. But once the train leaves the station, it takes an act of enormous willpower – buffered by support – to slow all that shit down. I was incapable of it.

If I had to write it down – and that’s the task I’ve given myself – here are how my thoughts went, once I remembered the attack:

You thought you were safe. Silly you. You are not safe. You were deluded in thinking you were safe, even for the couple of hours you were with that guy. You are not safe at all, and to REMIND you of that, here is an attacker, literally 45 seconds after you walked away from your date. You see? Yes, if you were walking with your date, if the date had continued and you two were walking together on the same route, you never would have been attacked. But how many times do we (we? I guess it was The Universe, it was definitely a chorus of taunts) have to remind you that safety of that kind is not for you and never will be? You still don’t get it? It used to be that we’d give you months of time to realize you were not safe. But we’re sick of it, so now we’re gonna throw it in your face 45 seconds later.

Sheila, admit it. The thought had crossed your mind that any date carries a possibility that there might be a little boob-touching at the end of it, if things go well. Well, don’t you see that YOU GOT YOUR WISH. You cannot deny that your boobs were, indeed, touched that night, can you? Yes, you have bruise-handprints on your tits from that touch, but you didn’t specify it should be a GENTLE touch. Hahahahaha, you asked for something and we gave it to you. It’s a pretty funny joke, isn’t it.

You want to be touched. Well, here’s a touch, bitch. Don’t say we never give you what you want.

You think you’re safe? You think for one second you were safe on that date? You are worth nothing to him. You ARE nothing. He was just trolling for a hookup. He had no interest in you. Not really. Your desire for safety makes you WEAK. Your desire for safety SCREWS WITH YOUR RADAR, don’t you KNOW that? STOP looking for safety. Never ever lull yourself into a state of relaxation. And if you DO, we will make sure you pay a price for it.

He offered safety for a couple of hours and then withdrew it. And look what happened. What would it feel like to have had BACKUP during the attack? What would it be like to have backup, support? I will never know what that is like, I am on my own. I am on my own. Not like this is news, I KNOW I am on my own, and I do fine on my own, and I’ve had to fight men off me before, but the date somehow opened up another possibility – and then immediately shut off that possibility – so much so that I had to punch some stranger in the throat less than a block away … and so now all I feel is how vulnerable I am. Not emotionally, but physically.

Safety is not possible. It’s not for you. It’s not for you. How many times do we have to teach you this? Why do you still not get it? Don’t you understand by now that we will KILL you in order for you to finally get it?

That’s what it was like inside my head. For 5 straight days. I was beside myself. I cried from morning till night. I fell into bed exhausted. I woke up like this:

For 5 days. I called no one. I told no one. I thought I was being really silly, actually, and was embarrassed at my CLEAR over-reaction. I thought it was a silly thing to get so worked up over, both the date AND the assault. I was embarrassed by the whole thing, but it hit me so hard and so all-of-a-sudden that I didn’t have time to erect any defenses. I floundered for days. I was scared to leave my apartment because I thought I might be killed, that something was out to get me. I made serious promises to never allow myself to feel safe again. That that was a dumb dumb thing, to look forward to going on a date, to curling my hair, to having a good time. Dummy dumb dumb. Look what happened. I had a therapy session already scheduled, and showed up in this state. I was so far gone that I could not be talked out of my interpretation. I fought hard for it. It was 100% real. “THIS is what I get for feeling safe.” The train was so far out of the station that she called in the Big Guns, and that’s when I had the hissing conversation with the Head Honcho in the lobby where I worked. The Head Honcho had also put me on drugs a month before, and I said to him, “CLEARLY THEY’RE NOT WORKING.”

Both doctors said basically the same thing to me.

“Sheila, any person – with or without a bipolar diagnosis – would be upset and traumatized by such a series of events.” “This is a delayed reaction to the assault and that’s very common.” “The date with that guy did not lead directly to the assault. The assault was a completely random event, and horrible, but one did not CREATE the other.” “You did NOTHING. You asked for NONE of this. You have NOTHING to do with why ANY of this happened.”

I still didn’t believe a word they said to me. It all sounded like bullshit. The way they talked, I was just some victim or something. They were avoiding the Grander Truth that I had glimpsed. But their words did somehow create a speed bump, and I could actually feel the Brutalist edifice crack open a bit, and some other kind of clarity become possible. And then it was possible to actually talk about the assault, and the adrenaline that comes about because of something like that. Even me saying I shouldn’t have walked where I was walking when it happened got the “Don’t victim-blame” response, and I rolled my eyes. I am taking responsibility for my part in it. If I had been on the sidewalk with everyone else, he couldn’t have reached me. Come on. But whatever, okay, I won’t talk that way anymore if it’s not helping.

Somehow, somehow, I got back on track but it took me about a month. Both doctors told me I should have called them immediately, to recognize the signs of a gigantic cycle ratcheting up. But to me, it wasn’t a “cycle.” It was just the most valid reaction to what had happened. They spoke to me like I was not getting it: “If you cry for 24 hours straight, call us immediately even if you feel like crying for 24 hours is normal.” I was like, Okay, fine, if you think that’s not normal, then okay, I’ll call you next time.

What On Earth Have We Learned From All of This?

Jack-squat.

To be honest, the two separate things still are (somewhat) one thing in my mind. I still feel that they are most probably connected. (Triangle.) But I’ll trust the people in my life – the doctors and friends and family – who insist that the two events have nothing to do with each other.

Then again, it’s also possible that I have misinterpreted this whole entire thing.

Posted in Personal | 105 Comments