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

Michael Davitt, born in Cork on this day, didn’t grow up speaking Irish at home. He learned it at school. Munster Irish! His academic background in the Irish language gave him a different perspective than a person who grew up bilingual from the beginning, hearing Irish spoken in the home, etc. Irish was a language to be learned and conquered, which he did.

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

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

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

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

Ciorrú Bóthair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortening the Road

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 2024 Viewing Diary

Conspiracy (2001; d. Frank Pierson)
I went down a little Wannsee Conference rabbit hole so figured I’d re-watch this chilling nasty little movie.

Lured (1947; d. Douglas Sirk)
I had never seen this. I love discovering new Douglas Sirks! This one stars Lucille Ball as a “dancer” (quotation marks since it’s really a “ten cents a dance” situation), who goes to work undercover for the police to hunt down a serial killer. Boris Karloff shows up at one point. George Sanders is in it.

Bless Their Little Hearts (1983; d. Billy Woodberry)
Billy Woodberry directed and produced, and the film was shot by the great Charles Burnett (whom I met at Ebertfest, when his To Sleep with Anger screened). The cast is made up of mostly non-professional actors, and is very honest and raw in its approach. Shot in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles, on an obvious shoe-string, it tells the story of a family, a man who should be looking for a job – and is, kind of – but he still finds time to mess around with his friends, as his increasingly distressed wife tries to keep things going at home.

Cane River (1982; d. Horace B. Jenkins)
I had never seen this one either. Horace B. Jenkins wrote, directed, produced. Everyone behind the camera, the entire crew – and everyone acting FOR the camera – was Black, something unheard of in the mainstream industry, especially in 1982. It’s a fascinating story about Black land ownership, and the community of Natchitoches, which has an interesting history. The lead character – Peter (a hunky Richard Romain) – comes home to fight for his family land, which has slowly been taken away from him. He meets a local girl (Tommye Myrick), who’s feisty and smart and about to go off to college. The two of them hit it off. There’s a clear power-differential: he’s from a well-known family, she’s struggling to get the hell out of there. The script contains layers, the intersections of class and race, the tensions of family history and generational trauma (and unfairness). The film has a sad history. There was one screening of it down in New Orleans, where it was shot, but before it could got any kind of distribution deal, Jenkins died. It was a real passion project for him. The film was actually considered lost – until it was eventually “re-discovered” 30 years later. Cane River was re-released in 2013, and just a couple years ago it played on the Criterion Channel, where it got everybody talking – like it should have back in 1982. Very happy I saw it.

Glitter and Doom (2024; d. Tom Gustafson)
A jukebox musical featuring the music of the Indigo Girls. I reviewed for Ebert.

The Program: Cons, Cults, and Kidnapping (2024; d. Katherine Kubler)
Kubler has done something rather extraordinary with this docu-series. I watched another series recently about one of those tough-love desert schools for “bad kids” – the school Paris Hilton went to – but it was conventionally done. This one is different. Kubler found herself at Ivy Ridge Academy, a “behavior modification” school run by a bunch of lunatics and predators. The school is now an abandoned cluster of buildings and Kubler and many of her class-mates return there, talking about what they went through in this eerie setting. They find all of their personal files in the moldering dust. It’s a very bold approach and … possibly illegal? Like, who owns that land now? Kubler is a film-maker. She doesn’t just say she is a film-maker. This docu-series proves she IS a film-maker. This is a personal and painful story and she has taken a very bold approach.

Club Zero (2024; d. Jessica Hausner)
Creepy and gross. Fascinating. I reviewed for Ebert.

A Question of Silence (1982; d. Marleen Gorris)
When I hear people calling Barbie “subversive” – including the film’s director – I wonder if words have meaning anymore. A Question of Silence is subversive in the truest sense of the word, as all of Gorris’ films are. This one is probably the most well-known.

You’ll Never Find Me (2024; d. Josiah Allen, Indianna Bell)
What a strong directorial debut! Mood so thick you can barely move. The sound design, the lighting, the performances, just every single detail was so on point. It wasn’t just style for the sake of style. Every choice had meaning, every choice was there for a reason. I was super impressed. I reviewed for Ebert.

Do Not Expect Too Much from the End of the World (2024; d. Radu Jude)
Radu Jude is one of the most exciting – and relevant (horrible word: but I mean it specifically) – filmmakers working today. I’ve seen as much of his stuff as I can get my hands on, including his shorts. I was introduced to him, like a lot of people were, with his 2021 film Bad Luck Banging or Loony Porn. It was in my Top 10 for that year. It’s an exhilarating break-neck chatter-box film, a lampoon of every single thing that is stupid and/or absurd going on in our world right now. It was filmed during the pandemic. A lot of Right Now movies take a self-serious or “here is the trouble we are facing” solemnity, which … ages like milk. Those movies will date by next week. Bad Lucky Banging or Loony Porn may as well date too: I’m reading a collection of George Orwell’s weekly “As I Please” columns, which he maintained for 4 or 5 years, during WWII and after. In them, he talks about all of the big issues of the day (including the bombs raining down on London, where he actually was), but he also talks about things that were relevant in the moment but lost to history: the tempests in a teapot, the off-the-cuff comment of an MP, the letters to the editor expressing annoyance – etc. But they are all fascinating as snapshots of a time. Bad Luck Banging is that, as is his 2018 film I Do Not Care if We Go Down in History as Barbarians. His films are often about confronting the more unsavory and/or evil aspects of Romania’s past. Barbarians is explicitly about that. Bad Luck Banging is a bit more universal, because of the pandemic and social media: things we all had to deal with. I have been waiting to see his latest for half a year now, since I missed it at NYFF. His films are almost like Dispatches from the Front of Sanity. Sanity in an insane world. Sometimes all you can do – the only appropriate response – is lampoon and caricature. I hear his stuff called “satire” all the time, but I don’t think that’s quite right. His style is one of exaggeration: he exaggerates a truth into absurdity, so we can all SEE it as absurd. Perhaps some people would say that is “satire” but I think there’s a subtle difference here. I went to go see this at IFC in New York. It’s three hours long – as most of his movies are – and you never feel it. The propulsive motion never stops, more so here than in his others, since it takes place in one day, and follows a woman around from morning to night, as she drives through Bucharest traffic to go from appointment to appointment. I can’t wait to see it again.

Scoop (2024; d. Philip Martin)
So this is a very interesting film about how BBC Newsnight, and one doggedly determined junior producer, got Prince Andrew to agree to sit down for an interview. And we all know how THAT went. It’s such a recent event, I wondered if it could be effective, we don’t have any distance yet. But it was really good! I didn’t know the backstage story. I reviewed for Ebert.

Wicked Little Letters (2024; d. Thea Sharrock)
This was a hoot. I adored it. I reviewed for Ebert.

My Man Godfrey (1936; d. Gregory La Cava)
I love it so much. I zoom in on different people in different viewings. This time I couldn’t get over the dad (the hilarious Eugene Pallette). He is completely overrun by in the insane females in his family. He just walks into the room, looks around, and can’t believe what he is seeing, and what he – a nice responsible man – has done to deserve this.

Man of the World (1931; d. Richard Wallace)
If I’m not mistaken, this is the first film Lombard did with her future first husband, William Powell. The chemistry is apparent. I had never seen this one. I was surprised by how tender/heart-breaking the ending was. This is the pre-Code vibe. You expect at the last minute for every wrong to be righted, and everything is going to be okay. But here, that doesn’t happen. And it’s not a TRAGEDY, it’s just very realistic and adult. We aren’t in screwball territory yet.

Hands Across the Table (1935; d. Mitchell Leisen)
Just adorable and pleasing. Maybe the first pairing of Lombard and Fred MacMurray (writing without notes). Great energy. Mitchell Leisen is a lovely director.

Love Before Breakfast (1936; d. Walter Lang)
I’ve written about this one before. This is the one where Carole Lombard gets a black eye (the image of which is the poster, one of the most striking posters in Hollywood history. It’s been my avatar on Twitter since I first signed up).

The Princess Comes Across (1936; d. William K. Howard)
Hilarious. Carole Lombard plays a con artist, really, pretending to be a Swedish princess, and she is clearly aping Garbo. Fred MacMurray again!

True Confession (1937; d. Wesley Ruggles)
Lombard and MacMurray are married – seemingly happily – but there’s one little problem. She is a compulsive liar.

Nothing Sacred (1937; d. William A. Wellman)
This was Lombard’s only outing with Wellman and it’s a very fortunate pairing. Now THIS is a satire. It’s about the public’s hunger for “tragic yet inspiring” news stories, where the public gets to display how good they feel about themselves when they care about others – even if it’s fake. Emotion like this is the essence of performative. Nothing Sacred shows that very familiar situation – we all know it, we all participate in it – on steroids. Beware the inspiring story! Interrogate your responses, just so you know you’re keeping yourself honest.

Twentieth Century (1934; d. Howard Hawks)
Insane. Start to finish.

Ladies Man (1931; d. Lothar Mendes)
Early stuff, fairly rough, sound-wise, but fascinating. A gigolo (William Powell) “dates” a mother and a daughter, simultaneously. It’s pretty wild. Kay Francis and Carole Lombard in stunning gowns. What more can you want?

One Day (2024; d. Created by Nicole Taylor)
I am so busy right now but I got sucked in and watched the whole thing in a 48-hour period. I am so impressed with these two young actors.

Posted in Monthly Viewing Diary, Movies, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

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

It’s his birthday today.

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

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

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

Wilder:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since that piece was so long ago, I didn’t feel bad about reiterating my thoughts on Holden – and his physicality – and how he was able to use his body – in one of the most popular columns I ever wrote for Film Comment, on the art of the death scene. Because William Holden’s death scene in Sunset Boulevard is my #1 favorite. I do go on and on about it – and I broke it down here once, moment by moment – mainly because I just want people to GET how amazing it is, what he does with his body there.

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

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

I am haunted by William Holden’s end.

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

Posted in Actors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , , | 12 Comments

“I don’t like being approached by people who look at me too intensely, who needed something from me that I didn’t have. I don’t represent anything.” — Liz Phair

It’s difficult because to so many – including myself – she does represent something. Maybe you’d have to be Gen X to get it. I think of David Lynch’s comment on Elvis, something like “He wasn’t there and then suddenly he was there.” Liz Phair’s “arrival” was like that. And the second she arrived – with a double album, no less – and no touring history, no bar band phase, nothing – it was like you couldn’t imagine how you had lived without her. Who WAS this woman, growling and murmuring in a flat-affect monotone about her life, her men – with such specificity that you feel like you were IN those rooms, meeting those people? Who WAS she?

It’s her birthday today.

Liz Phair emerged at a time when the traditional music industry had exploded. All bets were off. New voices emerged, blazing not just out of the Pacific Northwest, but everywhere. There was always an indie scene, a punk scene, an underground scene, but in the early-mid 90s indie went mainstream. It was amazing to experience it, we didn’t know how good we had it. People like PJ Harvey and Ani DiFranco were very big in my crowd, but then this new crowd burst on the scene and blazed out into stadium tours in a matter of months and it had to have been very surreal. Liz Phair is a Midwesterner but she was also a Chicagoan. So there’s a difference there in context, a subtlety.

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

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

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

More after the jump.

Continue reading

Posted in Music, On This Day | Tagged | 11 Comments

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

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

It’s Henry Vaughan’s birthday today.

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

For example:

Continue reading

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

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

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

It’s MacKaye’s birthday today.

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

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

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

Fugazi Won’t Stand For It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chaplinesque
By Hart Crane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louder for the people in the back.

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

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

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

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

Here’s my review of Meadowland.

And here’s my interview with Morano.

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

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

“At some point, you have to set down the past. At some point, you have to accept that everyone was doing their best. At some point, you have to gather yourself up, and go onward into your life.” — Olivia Laing

It’s her birthday today.

Laing is one of the most exciting writers to come along in a long LONG time. Every generation needs someone who plays by her own rules, who brings her unique perspective, interrogates/meditates on art in a voice that speaks to where we are, but also where we’ve come from, where we might be going. Susan Sontag. Or Ellen Willis. Dorothy Parker. I choose women because they are often “labeled” as speaking only to women, because the default is considered to be masculine. It is assumed men speak to everyone, and it is assumed women speak to women. This attitude requires constant combat. If I can read Clive James and thrill to his observations, not feeling at all “left out” because he is a man – if I can read David Foster Wallace or Lester Bangs or whatever – people who write from a male point of view – and still feel these writers have so much to say to me personally – then the obverse should be true. No arguments against this are valid.

More on Laing after the jump.

Continue reading

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

“It’s just one of the mysteries of filmmaking that sometimes you do something that you don’t even think it’s important, then it turns out to be.” –Lili Horvát

It’s the birthday today of Hungarian director Lili Horvát.

I believe I made clear my love for Horvát’s Preparations To Be Together For An Unknown Period of Time, in a lengthy piece on my Substack.

It’s been a while since a film has grabbed me so deeply. I felt shaken up by it. I watched it three times in a week.

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