“There’s nothing you can tell me about guilt.” — Martin Scorsese

It’s his birthday today.

It will be a huge loss when this man goes. He holds up the torch for continuity of cinema history, and his breadth and depth of knowledge – which he is so eager to share – is an essential part of the movie-lovers’ world. I cannot tell you how many movies I have sought out because of his passionate advocacy. He knows everything. If you haven’t picked up a copy yet of my friend Glenn Kenny’s book Made Men, about the making of Goodfellas, I can’t recommend it highly enough.

Glenn interviewed everyone involved, including a lengthy sit-down with Scorsese (whom Glenn had interviewed before). It gives good context about the phenom of that film AND how it was rejected by a lot of people, because of the violence. (Same shit, different day.) Its reputation has grown to a towering height ever since, but it was one of those things where people didn’t quite recognize what they had when it first arrived. There was a lot of chatter about that movie. Maybe not as totally irritating as the ridiculous chatter around The Irishman, ranging from “This movie literally silences women” (there aren’t enough eyerolls in the world …) to “Scorsese only directs movies about gangsters” (I guess Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, New York New York, The Last Waltz, King of Comedy, After Hours, The Color of Money, Last Temptation of Christ, “Life Lessons”, Cape Fear, The Age of Innocence, Kundun, Bringing Out the Dead, The Aviator, Shutter Island, the George Harrison doc, Hugo, Wolf of Wall Street and Silence don’t count. He’s done more movies NOT about gangsters than movies about gangsters. And these people, some of them, actually write about film. In a way, they help me save a lot of time: I know who NOT to read now.)

One of the honors of my career thus far was to write and narrate a video-essay on the three central performances in Raging Bull, included in the special features of the Criterion Collection’s long-awaited 4k release of that masterpiece. That piece required a deep and concentrated dive into the Scorsese/DeNiro collaboration – one which I have already been invested in since I first became aware of movies as a teenager – but to do so in a deliberate way, with this focus in mind, was an intense joy. I am very very proud of that video-essay (not online: you have to be a paying member of the Criterion Channel and/or buy a copy of Raging Bull to watch it. Of course I highly recommend you do so, and not just because of my video-essay.

One unexpected result of my participation in Criterion’s release of Raging Bull was receiving a hand-written card in the mail.

I had to sit down on my front steps when I figured out what was going on, when I saw the masthead on that little note card. I am truly honored.

For his birthday, here are some other pieces I’ve written where Scorsese figures either prominently or peripherally:

— For my Film Comment column about watching movies in a theatre vs. watching them at home, I wrote about the quaalude scene in Wolf of Wall Street, and how differently it played in the two different contexts. It was fascinating!

— I had the great honor of interviewing Scorsese’s long-time editor Thelma Schoonmaker about her gig restoring Powell/Pressburger’s Tales of Hoffmann, one of Scorsese’s obsessions and influences.

— In 2013, which feels like it was a million years ago, I wrote about The King of Comedy for what was then Capital New York, and is now Politico. I love that bleak joyless movie.

I wrote about Taxi Driver on the occasion of the film’s 35th anniversary. The film hasn’t lessened in power, not by one iota.

— For a feature at Ebert about the Best Films of the 2010s, the contributors all voted on their choices, and the editors tallied it up coming up with the final list. I lobbied – hard – to write about Wolf of Wall Street, which I did. I lobbied hard because:
1. I love that movie.
2. Women criticized the movie for its misogyny. I thought it would be cool to have a woman sing its praises, just to fuck with the accepted narrative.
One of my goals in life as a writer is to combat sexist assumptions – coming from men AND from women – about what women will and will not or should and should not like. If a woman disagrees with the so-called feminist status quo, she is shunned by so-called feminists as “not like us.” It’s happened to me practically all my life. It happened to me in high school, in college, and beyond. It happens to me now in the world of film criticism. The only way to deal with it is to not give a fuck. I already don’t give a fuck about sexist men. They’re everywhere. But women who buy into this “girls like different things from boys” shit? What is WRONG with you? Why are you reinforcing Victorian-era-1950s-era gender roles like this? Make it make sense. I address this in the piece.

And finally, and the biggest: I wrote the booklet essay for Criterion’s release of After Hours, his Beckettian-Surrealist-Kafka-esque (all of the above) New-York-cross-section movie starring Griffin Dunne. My involvement in the release led to a 45-minute phone call with the man himself, where I was nervous beforehand, and then not at all nervous during, because he was so nice. We talked about After Hours, yes, but so much else. He gave me a code-name the next time we meet in person, which we are bound to do: “Sheila-Raging-Bull-After-Hours” so he’ll know who I am. You know I will take him up on it!

I’ve seen Killers of the Flower Moon twice. It’s still in theatres: I highly recommend seeing it in a theatre. It’s different from his other films. There are very few cinematic flourishes, of the kind we associate with Scorsese. There’s one long shot, swirling through the rooms of a house, each room bustling with activity, one of those intricate shots Scorsese is so good at, an attention-getting camera move. But other than that, Killers of the Flower Moon is shot in a fairly straight-forward way, with lots of focus on the faces, on close-ups. Lily Gladstone gives a performance literally like no other – it’s an unprecedented role – but it’s De Niro I think of when I think of this film. This is unlike anything he’s ever done before – so exciting, and – quite honestly – one of his most frightening performances. But what’s going on goes even deeper than that. There are certain performances which are so psychologically acute – so insightful – that they actually explain how the world works. Not many performances are like this, because not many actors (or people, really) have that wide a lens. De Niro does. He had that wide a lens as a young actor too. It’s why he stands out. He’s beyond himself, he’s beyond a SELF. Travis Bickle explains something about how the world works, he explains a TYPE of alienation in the same way Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov explains the same thing. We need these people, these characters, these vessels – and when it “hits”, then forevermore we have it as an example. We can go back to Raskolnikov again and again. It’s not a character. It’s not even a mindset. It’s a psychological state of being: and we need artists who look at things with such a wide lens. Again, it will be rare. Because, in general, human beings are not very smart about why we do what we do, and how we do what we do. Otherwise why would we keep making the same mistakes over and over again? Robert De Niro’s performance is chilly, ice-cold, and perhaps it’s coldest when it’s warmest. If you’ve seen it you’ll know what I mean. Lily Gladstone represents the human cost of the evil perpetrated. De Niro is the evil. And evil doesn’t snarl and cackle like a villain. Evil is caring, evil speaks in a soft voice, reaches out with a soft touch. Evil HIDES itself. Robert De Niro, a pessimistic even nihilistic man – at least in terms of his psychological makeup – understands this. Even very good actors find a way to wiggle out of the psychological implications of what they are asked to play. Playing a villain LIKE a villain is one way actors try to escape, keep themselves safe, avoid complicity in what they are playing. They find ways to distance themselves. De Niro does not.

Seriously. It’s a major performance.

Seeing these octogenarians working, still upping their game, challenging themselves, going to newer deeper levels, and creating a work so personal it implicates ALL of us … this is reason to celebrate.

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

Posted in Directors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , | 16 Comments

Substack: on Christmas Eve in Miller’s Point

One of the best films of the year. A surprise to me. I wrote about it on my Substack. Behind a paywall. Consider supporting my work if you like it. If not, that’s cool too. I appreciate that you’re here.

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

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Stuff I’ve Been Reading

Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the Public Sphere, by Christopher Hitchens
There are a couple of his collections of older pieces – pre 9/11 – I haven’t read before. Many of these pieces were put in later collections (Arguably, and the most recent collection, published earlier this year – A Hitch in Time: Reflections Ready for Reconsideration – of the book reviews he wrote for London Review of Books). Unacknowledged Legislations dates from the late 1990s, an eerie time, for sure, in retrospect. There’s another collection of his pieces published in the 1980s, the early 90s – and the political writing brings back such queasy memories. Iran-Contra! This collection is all literary: book reviews, and lengthy pieces on people like Arthur Conan Doyle and Oscar Wilde (two of those), and then pieces on all of his faves. Do I really need to read another essay by Hitchens on Saul Bellow or Evelyn Waugh? Frankly, yes. I do. Percy Shelley said that poets were the “unacknowledged legislators of the world”.

The Book of Disquiet, by Fernando Pessoa.
I have no idea how I had never even heard of this book before. I love it when that happens. Someone I trust – in this case, my pal Therese, whom I met at Bloomsday 20 years ago – was in Lisbon and posting pictures of following Pessoa’s footsteps, sitting where he sat, walking his streets, like she has also done with James Joyce’s Dublin. She said The Book of Disquiet helped form her own thoughts on writing. I was like: WHAT. WHO IS THIS GENIUS. I am never ashamed of not knowing something. It’s exciting to get caught up to speed. Pessoa was a fascinating individual, creating an entire world of pseudonyms, although what he did moved way way beyond “pseudonym”. He created entire personalities, with biographies, astrological charts, addresses. The outer surface of his life was unchanging. He worked as a bookkeeper. He spent his time sitting in a cafe and writing his thoughts on dreams and reality and Lisbon. He had no relationships. He was solitary. I can’t read the book in large chunks. I have to take it in small doses. The design of it is meant for that kind of reading. You don’t have to read it in order. In fact, Richard Zenith, who wrote the introduction (as well as editing and translating), said Pessoa did have an order for his fragmentary “riffs”, but an ideal way to read the book would be to toss all of the numbered fragments in the air, scattering them, and read them at random. Sometimes Pessoa’s thoughts are so bleak you wonder how he survived the prison of his own mind. But then I think of how I thought before I got diagnosed, the truly apocalyptic visions in my head, the terror of the abyss, always yawning beneath my feet, it makes sense. I get it. I’m making my way slowly. But there are so many passages where I feel recognized, seen. He was brave enough to put it all down.

Some quotes:

• I see life as a roadside inn where I have to stay until the coach from the abyss pulls up. I don’t know where it will take me, because I don’t know anything.

• I asked for very little from life, and even this little was denied me.

• If I write what I feel, it’s to reduce the fever of feeling.

• What is said endures. There’s nothing in life that’s less real for having been well-described. Small-minded critics point out that such-and-such poem, with its protracted cadences, in the end says merely that it’s a nice day. But to say it’s a nice day is difficult, and the nice day itself passes on. It’s up to us to conserve the nice day in a wordy, florid memory, sprinkling new flowers and new stars over the fields and skies of the empty, fleeting outer world.

• Everything was sleeping as if the universe were a mistake. The wind, blowing uncertainly, was a formless flag unfurled over a non-existent army post. High, strong gusts ripped through nothing at all, and the window-frames shook their panes to make the edges rattle. Underlying everything, the hushed night was the tomb of God (and my soul felt sorry for God).

• Solitude devastates me; company oppresses me. The presence of another person derails my thoughts; I dream of the other’s presence with a strange absent-mindedness that no amount of my analytical memory can define.

• They all have, like me, their future in the past.

• The consciousness of life’s unconsciousness is the oldest tax levied on the intelligence.

• The dreamer isn’t superior to the active man because dreaming is superior to reality. The dreamer’s superiority is due to the fact that dreaming is much more practical than living, and the dreamer gets far greater and more varied pleasure out of life than the man of action. In other and plainer words, the dreamer is the true man of action.

• Ah, no nostalgia hurts as much as nostalgia for things that never existed!

• My past is everything I failed to be. I don’t even miss the feelings I had back then, because what is felt requires the present moment — once this has passed, there’s a turning of the page and the story continues, but with a different text.

• Collective thought is stupid because it’s collective.

• I find myself partially described in novels as the protagonist of various plots, but the essence of my life and soul is never to be a protagonist.

• And behind all this, O sky my sky, I secretly constellate and have my infinity.

• Children are particularly literary, for they say what they feel and not what someone has taught them to feel. Once I heard a child, who wished to say that he was on the verge of tears, say not, “I feel like crying,” which is what an adult, i.e. an idiot, would say, but rather, “I feel like tears.” And this phrase — so literary it would seem affected in a well-known poet, if he could ever invent it 00 decisively refers to the warm presence of tears about to burst from eyelids that feel the liquid bitterness. “I feel like tears”! That small child aptly defined the spiral.

• Everything stated of expressed by man is a note in the margin of a completely erased text.

• I know nothing greater, nor more worthy of the truly great man, than the patient and expressive analysis of the ways in which we don’t know ourselves, the conscious recording of the unconsciousness of our conscious states, the metaphysics of autonomous shadows, the poetry of the twilight of disillusion.

• Nothing happened, except in what I felt.

Reading all this, it’s easy to understand why Book of Disquiet is considered one of the masterpieces of Modernism. Every page is like that. Like I said, small doses. I think of Jorge Luis Borges, as an old man, blind, asking Christopher Hitchens to read Kipling to him. Hitchens obliged, and Borges stopped him, saying “Long sips — more slowly.”

The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde
When times get stressful, I take on big rigorous reading projects. This has been a year of big books that took me months to read. I did another reading of the complete Shakespeare sonnets. One a day. It’s maybe my 5th time doing this? So recommend. I read the Library of America collection of Thomas Jefferson’s papers. Again, it took me months. I have the Library of America collections of all of the founding fathers, and have only read the Alexander Hamilton all the way through (of course). I like reading these because there’s no accompanying commentary, and minimal footnotes. You’re on your own. It’s a direct encounter. I read the complete works of Edmund Burke. You know. This is challenging stuff, but I like it, because I do it first thing in the morning, it has nothing to do with anything in my life – it’s not work or even pleasure – it’s just this thing I like doing. Now, this volume is massive. It snaps shut if you try to leave it open. It’s huge. It has the books, stories, plays, poems, and essays. As should be clear, I am intimately familiar with this man. I’ve read Dorian Gray. Of course, I’ve read all the plays, forwards and back. And know his most famous essays – De Profundis – The Soul of Man Under Socialism. And his most famous poems, like Ballad of Reading Gaol. But there are book reviews in here, essays on actresses, on the life around him, on issues of the day – aesthetic and otherwise. I can’t wait. I am currently re-reading The Picture of Dorian Gray. I’m going to read (or re-read) every piece. Excited to re-read the plays!

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

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Ms. Blue Sky

… with apologies to ELO … I am off Twitter because fuck Elon Musk. He made the platform useless – which wasn’t an accident. It was the point. Twitter was used as a way to get out information and a way to gather together. Revolutions were reported on Twitter, as were wildfire warnings from local fire stations. The misinformation was rampant, but there was also information – information these sinister people can’t control. They don’t WANT us to gather together and … say whatever we want. For all their bluster about “free speech” they actually despise it because they can’t control it. I had already weaned myself from it maybe 2 years ago. I would post on occasion but it was becoming too nasty and I could tell nobody was seeing my posts. I had a lot of followers and it was normal to put up a picture of Humphrey Bogart – without even commentary – and get 100s of “likes”. Because … it’s fun and supportive. Suddenly … crickets. Then it turned into X (so stupid and embarrassing), and suddenly it was all bots and porn and no engagement, and they didn’t want you to link to anything – like, what the hell is this place FOR then – and stopped you from posting Substack links altogether (or, you could post them, but they wouldn’t upload). The pettiness was stupid, but the motivation was sinister. I couldn’t justify my presence there. I didn’t deactivate yet but I will. The exodus happened last week, millions left, and signed up with Blue Sky, which my friends had been urging me to try out. I have missed the social aspect of this “social” media, and also the humor! Some things happened on Twitter that still make me laugh when I think about them. The huge snake disappearing from the Bronx Zoo and within hours someone had set up a Twitter feed for the snake, posting his adventures all over the city. It was so funny. If you were on Twitter during the “covfefe” day … then you remember what it was like, the explosion of humor. It was one of the funniest days not only in the history of my participation on that platform, but in the history of my participation in the internet. Period. I got to know Flaco on Twitter (speaking of animals escaping from zoos)! One of the things about these weirdo billionaires is they dislike humor – unless it’s nasty and gets “the libs” upset. Imagine living like this. They hate simple pleasures and people having fun. And then this same crew whines, “What has happened to humor? Everyone’s so woke now you can’t SAY anything.” Yes you can. People still say whatever they want. Louis CK sold out Madison Square Garden. He’s doing fine. You can’t be “canceled” and sell out Madison Square Garden. Being criticized isn’t the same thing as being thrust down Orwell’s memoryhole. I criticize the Left for doing this sort of thing too. I am amazingly consistent, because I don’t “do” loyalty, outside of loyalty to my family and friends. (Catch-22 and the famous “loyalty oath” scene secured me forever from the peer pressure to be loyal to a group or feeling like I must swallow every single thing if I agree with one thing. Nope. Anyone who demands lock-step orthodoxy – no matter what side of the aisle you are on – I resist.). I hate cults and I hate authoritarians. I don’t allow people like this in my “real” life so why was I tolerating it there? I don’t tolerate it here either. I got control of my comments section here a long long time ago.

All of this is to say you can find me on Blue Sky. It’s fun over there. And funny. So far. Not quite sure how it all works yet but it’s good to see my Twitter friends, and also the feeds I love, like the Louvre, and NASA.

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

Posted in Personal | Leave a comment

Review: All We Imagine as Light (2024)

This is so good. I reviewed for Ebert.

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

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

“Omissions are not accidents.” — poet Marianne Moore

“I disliked the term “poetry” for any but Chaucer’s or Shakespeare’s or Dante’s.” — Marianne Moore

T.S. Eliot felt Moore’s poetry was probably the “most durable” of all the greats writing at the time.

Sadly, I have no idea how to recreate what Moore’s poems LOOK like. WordPress irons out her jagged beginning lines. Half of the fun of Moore is what her poems look like on the page. The start of each line is staggered, like little steps, and so the reading of the poem becomes something almost experiential.

Moore was great friends with people like H.D. (more on her here) and Ezra Pound (more on him here) and she had many admirers. Her work as a critic was unfortunately cut short, due to the collapse of the literary journal she wrote for, but you can see her critical mind at work in her poems. She wrote a lot about poetry itself. She had many ideas: she wanted to let images talk to one another through the verse. Perhaps the connecting links were opaque to the readers, but this quality adds to the poems’ power, her poems are puzzles to decipher, they have been compared to Cubist paintings. Poetry is not meant to reveal all. What you leave out is almost as valuable as what you include.

Continue reading

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

“I learned to act while watching Martha Graham dance and I learned to move in film from watching Chaplin.” — Louise Brooks

“One of the most mysterious and potent figures in the history of the cinema … she was one of the first performers to penetrate to the heart of screen acting.” — David Thomson

Louise Brooks is one of the most enigmatic, charismatic, and hard-to-pin-down movie actresses. It even seems wrong to call her an “actress”, although obviously she was. But she was more like a walking talking shimmering fluid persona, open to the camera in a way that is still startling today. She is FREE. Whatever she is doing, it’s not what we normally think of as “acting”. She’s hard to discuss, because … what is she actually DOING? And what did she FEEL about what she was doing? She’s so unbelievably free on camera, she beckons you into her headspace, her world, it’s an extraordinary relationship with the camera. In fact, she often looks directly AT the camera which … you just don’t DO in film. But she did.

To my mind, the best thing written about her as a performer – the most insightful – is the chapter devoted to her in Dan Callahan’s book The Art of American Screen Acting, Volume 1. I interviewed him about the book, and we discuss Louise Brooks quite a bit.

Her career was not long. She had a lot of trouble during her heyday. Her talent was untame-able. She couldn’t “fit in”. She couldn’t “behave”. She was really set free when she went to Europe, and collaborated with the German master G.W. Pabst. She said he was the first director to treat her with respect, the first to “set her loose”. He wanted her emotionality to have free rein. All he had to do was point her in the right direction. The films she made with him were extremely controversial, and still can be somewhat shocking (because we may fool ourselves into thinking we have “progressed”, but we have not. Sorry.) Louise Brooks wrote: “So it is that my playing of the tragic Lulu with no sense of sin remained generally unacceptable for a quarter of a century.”

Her career did not last into the sound era, and she had a very rough road over the following decades. Poverty, obscurity. But eventually came the arthouse revival era of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and her star rose again. And she was still around. She lived to see her work celebrated, her memory revered. Not to mention the fact that she could WRITE, and her book Lulu in Hollywood is a classic. She turned herself into a wonderful writer and an amazing memoirist and anecdotalist. The book is filled with character portraits – of Pabst, of her good pal Humphrey Bogart, and more. She intersected with everyone. She is able to describe her own process, and how it developed. This is extremely valuable. Lulu in Hollywood is not just an actress memoir. It’s a book of cultural and social history unique in the canon. She was there. She lived it. Lots of people lived it, though. Not too many can also write. If you haven’t read Lulu in Hollywood, I urge you to pick it up.

And watch Pandora’s Box, first off. You can still feel “it”, whatever “it” was.

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

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

“People who are wise, good, smart, skillful, or hardworking don’t need politics, they have jobs.” — P.J. O’Rourke

It’s his birthday today.

P.J. O’Rourke’s sentences were masterpieces. Airtight. For example:

“Wherever there’s injustice, oppression, and suffering, America will show up six months late and bomb the country next to where it’s happening.”

Or:

“Sloths move at the speed of congressional debate but with greater deliberation and less noise.”

I don’t know WHY that is so good. Beyond the MEANING he’s conveying … even separate from the meaning – what I truly admire is the skill in execution.

There is an epidemic of people who THINK they’re funny because they think quoting Seinfeld episodes will fool the trapped listener. Or people who think saying, “Alllllll righty then” makes them funny, when really they are just quoting Jim Carrey. Or South Park. Or fill in the blank. Quoting somebody else’s humor does not make YOU funny. Snark also isn’t automatically funny. Comedy is a real skill. For the most part, you have to just HAVE it. It can’t be taught. Although if you do want to incorporate humor – rather than snark – in your writing, then you might as well learn from the masters.

People like P.J. O’Rourke. Or one of his idols, Evelyn Waugh. Both have an unholy mix of gimlet-eyed dissatisfaction with the world and everyone in it and a rampaging sense of hilarity. It’s hard to write funny. A lot of comedians rely on physicality to get the joke across but to do it in language is a rare gift. P.J. O’Rourke KILLED at one liners. They are so airtight it’s difficult to wiggle out of them even if you disagree with whatever sentiment he’s going on about. All you can really do is sit back and admire his dazzling skill. There’s a ba-dum-ching to a lot of it, his stuff is practically vaudevillian, similarly filthy-minded, eternally cranky, unimpressed, refusal to kowtow, with that rebellious National Lampoon mindset, so difficult to describe to people who don’t get it, mainly because National Lampoon has gone so mainstream it basically IS the mainstream – although considering the tenor of the current moment, National Lampoon has the subversive underground appeal it did at the outset.

Sometimes reading O’Rourke made you feel so bad. Not bad, like sorrowful, but bad like ashamed of yourself. I remember reading an essay he wrote about Haiti – I think it was in Rolling Stone – and it made me laugh so hard. Of course the situation in Haiti is not funny. And O’Rourke didn’t find it funny. But his LANGUAGE is funny. One of his eyes always squinted at the absurdity of it all. And absurdity does not mean “un-serious” or “funny”. Absurdity meant incompetence, stupidity, cruelty, bureaucratic fuck-ups (a redundancy, there) … “Absurdity”, i.e. human folly, led to people getting hurt, being trampled over by strong-men, treated unfairly, or ignored. So the stakes are high. O’Rourke’s tone skewered any self-serious person who may think they and only they were qualified to such-and-such. He hated the bureaucratic class. His most dangerous weapon was his humor. There’s a reason satirists are often the first on the chopping block of autocratic governments come to power by strong-arm means. You can’t have people walking around thinking they can make fun of you without there being repercussions!

O’Rourke was *brutal* on his own generation. There was a wry “takes one to know one” tone to his commentary on Boomers, which made it even funnier. Contempt doesn’t even come close to his attitude. You can see the influence of Evelyn Waugh here – who was a member of his own generation – of course, as we all are – but who was also separate from it, distanced enough to make some very cutting observations. O’Rourke’s eerily perfect sentences create little airtight pockets of rhetoric and humor from which you cannot escape. You can disagree with him – of course – but you can’t do so while the sentence is being read. He leaves you no inroads. There’s no way IN. O’Rourke carried the metaphors and analogies to their most absurd and/or satiric extremes. O’Rourke had a healthy sense of disrespect for everything, especially politicians and government, and I always found this refreshing. I’ve said it before: You will never – and I mean never – find me in the audience at a campaign rally, crying and cheering for some politician. Never. I was never like that, not even when I was a naive kid who had just started voting and felt passionately about the issues. I felt passionately about the ISSUES, not the person at the podium. I consider politicians to be a necessary evil. And THEY work for US. They aren’t celebrities. Hold them to account. Don’t stick up for your side if your side sucks. You True Believers are the worst. I am suspicious of all of them and I consider that to be a very healthy attitude, although it doesn’t make me any friends.

I remember being in college, sitting in the quiet library, and reading one of O’Rourke’s essays in Rolling Stone, a ruthless sendup of Congress’ machinations. His writing was so funny I was laughing out loud, so much so that I could not continue and had to get up and walk out. An essay about LEGISLATURE made me disturb the peace. Almost no one can pull that off.

His book Parliament of Whores is a classic: I put it in the company of Hunter Thompson’s Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail as one of the best books about the American political process. Nothing can really top Thompson’s, but O’Rourke’s come close.

My way in, with people like this, is always the writing. You can write about politics all you want, but if you can’t, you know, WRITE, then I won’t be reading you. Something about O’Rourke’s humorous contempt for all the boobs staggering around Washington resonates with me. But even aside from politics, O’Rourke was a funny personal essayist, too, and wrote books on “manners” and “being a bachelor”. He was also a VERY cranky traveler. He was so funny and occasionally mean about other nations. It reminds me a little bit of Paul Theroux’s travel books, which are … hilarious. A crankier traveler cannot be imagined. But they’re both so much fun to read. Mencken is like that too. I disagree with Mencken all the time! But he’s so much FUN to read.

Here are some O’Rourke sentences, plucked out at random. I will miss him.

— A hat should be taken off when you greet a lady and left off for the rest of your life. Nothing looks more stupid than a hat.

— Fish is the only food that is considered spoiled once it smells like what it is.

— With Epcot Center the Disney corporation has accomplished something I didn’t think possible in today’s world. They have created a land of make-believe that’s worse than regular life.

— In fact, safety has no place anywhere. Everything that’s fun in life is dangerous. Horse races, for instance, are very dangerous. But attempt to design a safe horse and the result is a cow (an appalling animal to watch at the trotters.) And everything that isn’t fun is dangerous too. It is impossible to be alive and safe.

— There are a lot of mysterious things about boats, such as why anyone would get on one voluntarily.

— To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze.

— The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don’t know.

— Bachelors know all about parties. In fact, a good bachelor is a living, breathing party all by himself. At least that is what my girlfriend said when she found the gin bottles under the couch. I believe her exact words were, “You’re a disgusting, drunken mess.” And that’s a good description of a party, if it’s done right.

— Nobody knows everything. Nobody even knows everything about any one thing. And most of us don’t know much. Say it’s ten-thirty on a Saturday night. Where are your teenage children? I didn’t ask where they said they were going. Where are they really? What are they doing? Who are they with? Have you met the other kids’ families? And what is tonight’s pot smoking, wine-cooler drinking, and sex in the backseats of cars going to mean in a hundred years? Now extend these questions to the entire solar system.

— Are we disheartened by the breakup of the family? Nobody who ever met my family is.

— It’s hard to come back from the Balkans and not sound like a Pete Seeger song.

— Earnestness is just stupidity sent to college.

^^^^ Oh my God.

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

“Something is gone and that’s why you write.” — Eamon Grennan

“I have a double sense of things, but I tend to write about what’s under my nose. I write about here when I’m here and when I go back to Ireland I write about what’s there. I regard myself not as in exile, but as a migrant. That’s what attracted me, in some of my early poems, to birds. My becoming a poet—in this particular incarnation anyway—was not unconnected to someone giving me the present of a pair of binoculars.” — Eamon Grennan (who wrote a poem called “Sunday Morning Through Binoculars”)

Eamon Grennan was born in Dublin on this day. He has lived most of his life in America. He went to UCD, and moved across the Atlantic to Harvard to get his PhD. He has taught at Vassar for over 30 years. He returns to Ireland annually for what he calls a “voice transfusion”. His career has been long and fruitful, with prizes and National Endowment grants. His poems appear with regularity in The New Yorker. His connection to Ireland is clear in his work (you can hear the cadences of the Irish in his rhythms), yet he looks at things from a distance. It is an international perspective. He says he feels that all poems are “elegies”. Every poem is trying to capture something that has been “lost”. A memory, an image, a feeling. “Something is gone and that’s why you write,” says Grennan.

He is quite eloquent in interviews about language, and the particular problem of language when you are Irish. This is well-trod ground. When you speak English, you are speaking an imposed language. A language imposed with violence. This was most clearly expressed by James Joyce in the famous “tundish scene” in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (I discussed that here and elsewhere.) What happens when the language you use is not comprehensible to all readers? Do you adjust? But if you adjust your language to make it easier for those who don’t understand, are you not cutting yourself off from your own history? Grennan thinks about this a lot.

In this fantastic interview with Grennan, the language-problem is addressed when discussing Grennan’s poem “Wing Road”.

BH: [“Wing Road”] is a street in Poughkeepsie, New York, but “dustbin” is an Irish word.

EG: That’s right.

BH: I wonder if you use that word intentionally. I was thinking of Seamus Heaney’s remark that you should stay close to the energies of generation.

EG: Right. That’s right.

BH: Heaney was speaking of one of his poems where he used the word “flax-dam.” He said originally it would have been called a “lint-hole,” but later he had to explain “flax-dam” anyway, so maybe he should have stayed close to the energies of generation and used the original term. I wondered about that with your usage.

EG: Yes. I mean I’m sure there is something like that. I wouldn’t have formulated it so elegantly or eloquently, of course, but I think I used “dustbin” there because in another book, in “Incident,” for example, I say “garbage can.” In part, I think every choice you make has a whole set of tentacles attached to it. Right? When you’re writing a poem, you don’t know about them until after the fact.

When I look at the tentacles attached to “dustbin,” I would say: One, it’s a word that would come naturally to me. “Empty the dustbin” is what I would say. “Garbage can” is still a foreign word to me and “garbage collection,” too. I mean, I think of them as the dustbin men because that was what I thought of them as a kid in Ireland. And then, I’m sure I’m using “dustbin” here because when I hear the line “young man who empties our dustbin,” I’m hearing the sound of “young” and “dustbin,” so that is a bit of assonance at play. I’m sure I used it because “young man who empties our garbage can” would not have pleased my ear, so the other came more naturally.

BH: You use assonance quite frequently.

EG: Yes. It’s the old and probably Irish kind of nerve beating inside the verse, for me anyway. So I used “dustbin” for that, and then somebody decided I used it because “dustbin” has a slightly more eschatological, last-judgment kind of thing, and this is the last judgment, right; the thing is about the last judgment in some way as is the garbage collection, so “dust to dust” is evoked by dustbin [laughter]. So, in fact,” dustbin” is a more interesting word than “garbage can” in a certain sense, because of its connotations.

BH: That also suggests, perhaps, a religious context…

EG: That’s what I mean.

Amazing.

You can see what Grennan meant when he discusses the “tentacles” attached to every word choice. To James Joyce (and his alter ego Stephen Dedalus in Portrait), “tundish” was the word he would use. It was “tundish” or nothing else. You can’t suddenly call an “elephant” a “magnolia” and have everyone agree to it. There would be holdouts who still would see a great grey-colored trunked-creature and say, “Dammit, that is an elephant.” While “tundish” and “funnel” meant the same thing, the difference was as great as that between an elephant and a magnolia; so the English could call a “tundish” a “funnel” all they wanted, but the entire “tentacle” formation around each word was entirely different. This is a matter greater than just language. You cannot eradicate a language without doing damage to meaning and identity. Stephen Dedalus, confronted with the British Jesuit who says it is “most interesting” that the Irish call a “funnel” a “tundish”, thinks distractedly:

The language in which we are speaking is his before it is mine. How different are the words home, Christ, ale, master, on his lips and on mine! I cannot speak or write these words without unrest of spirit. His language, so familiar and so foreign, will always be for me an acquired speech. I have not made or accepted its words. My voice holds them at bay. My soul frets in the shadow of his language.

Nobody even comes close to what Joyce accomplished in that one paragraph.

But the problem remains, and Irish poets – whether living in Ireland or America – still face those issues.

Grennan has said of the poem I chose to excerpt today, “Men Roofing”:

I have a few poems about workers. The poem “Men Roofing” is another celebratory acknowledgement of a certain kind of work. I don’t know if it sentimentalizes it, but it certainly tries to celebrate it by turning it into art, not so much deliberately, but charging the language used to describe it with a kind of ceremony.

I love the poem. There is a sentimentality at work here, as he says, but it is of a poetic nature: a way of seeing and trying to “celebrate” what he sees. It is a prosaic act, putting on a roof, but what could it mean metaphorically? What could it show us about who we are, and the beauty of it? Eamon Grennan has often been compared to the American poet Elizabeth Bishop (one of my many posts on her here), and here, in this poem, it is obvious why.

Men Roofing
for Seamus Heaney

Bright burnished day, they are laying fresh roof down
on Chicago Hall. Tight cylinders of tarred felt-paper
lean against one another on the cracked black shingles
that shroud those undulant ridges. Two squat drums
of tar-mix catch the light; a fat canister of gas
gleams between a heap of old tyres and a paunchy
plastic sack, beer-bottle green. A TV dish-antenna
stands propped to one side, a harvest moon, cocked
to passing satellites and steadfast stars. Gutters
overflow with starlings, lit wings and whistling throats
going like crazy. A plume of blue smoke feathers up
out of a pitch-black cauldron, making the air fragrant
and medicinal, as my childhood’s was, with tar. Overhead
against the gentian sky a sudden first flock whirls
of amber leaves and saffron, quick as breath, fine
as origami birds. Watching from a window opposite,
I see a man in a string vest glance up at the exalted
leaves, kneel to roll a roll of tar-felt flat; another
tilts a drum of tar-mix till a slow bolt of black silk
oozes, spreads. One points a silver hose and conjures
from its nozzle a fretted trembling orange lick
of fire. The fourth one dips to the wrist in the green sack
and scatters two brimming fistfuls of granite grit:
broadcast, the bright grain dazzles on black. They pause,
straighten, study one another – a segment done. I can see
the way the red-bearded one in the string vest grins and
slowly whets his two stained palms along his jeans; I see
the one who cast the grit walk to the roof-edge, look over,
then, with a little lilt of the head, spit contemplatively
down. What a sight between earth and air they are, drenched
in sweat and sunlight, relaxed masters for a moment
of all our elements! Here is my image, given, of the world
at peace: men roofing, taking pains to keep the weather
out, simmering in ripe Indian-summer light, winter
on their deadline minds. Briefly they stand balanced
between our common ground and nobody’s sky, then move
again to their appointed tasks and stations, as if they
were amazing strangers come to visit for a short spell our
familiar shifty climate of blown leaves, birdspin. Odorous,
their column of lazuli smoke loops up from the dark
heart of their mystery; and they ply, they intercede.

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

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

Goodbye Paula. You will be missed.

To the Supernatural community we have created here, and I know many of you still show up on occasion, I have been informed of the very sad news that Paula – a regular commenter here – passed away this past August. Paula was also a writer of fanfic and I have been reading comments from other fanfic writers, sharing how supportive she was of their work, reading drafts, making suggestions, fully engaged with her own process, but also with others’ process. Paula was an important part of the very specific “vibe” created on this site, through those epic comments threads, the threads which gave us all so much joy. She was smart and sensitive, open to others’ opinions, and able to share her own (without “bashing” anyone who disagreed). One of the unique things that happened here was how we collectively created a space where you could share what you felt without being criticized (or doxxed, or harassed, as we have seen elsewhere in other fandom spaces: The Supernatural fandom can be A LOT).

Paula was here from the beginning. I was looking through her old comments this morning, and so many memories came back! She felt things deeply, she shared her disappointment in later seasons, but was devoted enough to continue watching and – very important – see the good. I often couldn’t, because I was so disappointed, but she still engaged with the art she loved so much. Her comments often helped me calm down. I’d be like “THIS SUCKED”, and she’d show up and leave some eloquent long comment about the value she perceived, moments she pulled out that pleased her – and she did all this without making anyone feel bad who felt differently. I often went back for a second look, based on her observations.

She was a Sam Winchester Whisperer. She was hurt by what was done to the character in later seasons (I think we all sensed this, that nobody “over there” understood Sam or knew how to write him), and was eloquent in her explanations as to what was wrong, what was missing. She stuck up for Sam, she had his entire life in her head at all times – her memory!! – and so she could point out why what was being done was so egregious. I often leaned on her for those observations, since I tended towards Dean Whispering. I loved Sam, but Paula was Sam’s archivist and memoirist.

We were also connected on Instagram, and I loved to see pictures of her life, her family, her husband and dear son, her dogs, the happiness she seemed to find in the small things. Fandom sometimes has a bad reputation because it can get quite toxic and be unwelcoming to anyone with divergent views. Paula always did it right.

She didn’t just comment on Supernatural posts here. She also commented on reviews of movies she had seen, and any other topic that struck her fancy. Here’s a comment she left on a review I wrote of a film called Relic, a haunting horror film which was really about the struggles of caring for elderly relatives. It gives such a good feel for her writing, and the thinking and heart behind it:

A study of identity and guilt rolled up in a burrito of horror. First, the cinematography was beautiful especially in the first half. All that space and distance on the roads, in the forest and between the three characters was lovely and then the transition to claustrophobic both physically in the house and emotionally between the women. The final image of the three women really got me as well.

As a former caretaker for a relative with dementia, this really hit that experience on the head. The whiplash reactions, the stubborn independence, the paranoia and the guilt. The divide between the daughter’s practical taking-charge and the granddaughter’s empathy shows there is no easy answer how to approach it (in a haunted house, that’s a complication, lol).

The emotional journeys were nicely done in those moments where Sammy calling Kay mom and Kay inviting Gran home.

And yes on the horror! //go check into a motel// <<< This! Damn, ladies, get out – you have a car, use it! I constantly have these infinite house dreams (which interestingly enough in this context is a reflection of the search for self and identity) and this movie is nightmare fodder.

As you can see, she was a perceptive critic, open to everything a work of art was doing, its framing, its visuals, its atmosphere.

I no longer post about Supernatural but the community remains. I have said it before and I will say it again: I have written about many subjects and have found many “fellow travelers” for all these subjects. I value anyone who chooses to spend their time here. But the Supernatural crowd “hit different”. The hunger for frank and honest and friendly discussion of the show was insatiable. Paula was a huge part of helping to create the vibe we all cherished here. The rest of the world might be divided and rancorous, but at least we could come together here and talk about Henrikksen and henleys, coffee pots and Sam’s hair, the pros and cons of the bunker, and what the hell happened in Season 12.

Please keep her devastated family in your thoughts. I will add any links here (tribute/memorium pages, obituaries) if they become available. In the meantime, please consider making a donation in her name (Paula Brown Chapman) to Gilda’s Club Minnesota. (Thank you, Jessie, for the idea.)

Paula was a valued person in our community. I was happy to get to know her. We will miss her very much!

Posted in Personal, RIP | Tagged | 14 Comments