I’m Curious What the Monkey Thinks About All This

a0066-1

Posted in Art/Photography, Music | 2 Comments

December 2015 Viewing Diary

Christmas, Again (2015; d. Charles Poekel)
So good. I reviewed for Rogerebert.com.

Back Street (1932; John M. Stahl)
Back Street is the story of a woman who allows herself to be a “back street” woman: a long-time mistress to a married man, a woman who gives up her own chance for happiness to stay by his side (or … hovering on the sidelines of his life.) It’s so pre/anti-feminist that I am sure some people’s heads would explode. But, in my opinion, it does show the tendency of women to hang on, to submit themselves to doomed situations, to hope that he will change. (Or, to save myself the trouble: SOME women’s tendencies.) It’s honest about the allure of sex, and it’s honest about the fact that some men marry the wrong woman and then want to have what they’ve missed out on, which isn’t necessarily sex but intimacy. Back Street is bold enough to portray that his desire is for comfort and intimacy, not crazy sex. So you may hate him, but it’s great (story-wise, anyway) that the character is not portrayed as a villain. He’s weak but not evil. It’s based on a best-selling novel by Fannie Hurst, who knew how to write about powerful female emotions of loyalty and passion and heartache (along with Back Street, she also wrote Imitation of Life). Her stuff was made for the movies (even short stories were adapted to film.) Irene Dunne plays Rae, an innocent flirty young woman who is swept off her feet by a charming guy named Walter (John Boles). But turns out, he’s married. She accepts the position of being in the “back street” of his life, and the film shows us the next 30 years of her experience, where she is kept on hold in the background. It’s agonizing and infuriating. Irene Dunne makes it work. You can’t really understand what is so great about Walter, but she makes us understand. She’s a martyr to her own love and that may be a bitter and unwelcome truth, but it’s a truth nonetheless.

Night Owls (2015; d. Charles Hood)
Loved it. Reviewed for Rogerebert.com.

Sicario (2015; d. Denis Villeneuve)
It was showing up on so many people’s Best of 2015 lists that I finally saw it. I don’t like Denis Villeneuve’s work, so I wasn’t really looking forward to it – although Roger Deakins, as cinematographer, was a huge draw. My favorite of Villeneuve’s films is Enemy, and one of the reasons why I like it, compared to his others, is that it is not political. It’s when Villeneuve gets all political that I hurt my head while rolling my eyes. He sounds like a spluttering undergraduate who just discovered the world was unfair, haranguing his family at the Thanksgiving dinner table: “DID YOU KNOW THAT U.S. OFFICIALS ARE CORRUPT????” “Yes, dear. Everyone knows that.” “I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE IN POWER ARE CORRUPT!!!!” “Read history books, dear. It’s always been that way.” Like, that’s what Denis Villeneuve sounds like to me.) So Sicario is very political, and I had my typical response to it. It looks great (there’s an incredible shot of a phalanx of gleaming black government vans swooping through the Mexican border-booths, from high overhead.) But is it a revelation that in order to bring down bad guys (and no one except the very naive, or brainwashed, would suggest that the drug cartel guys are not bad – like, empirically bad: and Villeneuve connects the bad-ness of the drug cartels to the US system, but until decapitated bodies hang with regularity from the Brooklyn Bridge, and people just drive on by because it’s such a common sight, I’ll maintain a little skepticism about that view, thankyouverymuch) sometimes the good guys have to BECOME bad, and make alliances with bad people? If this is a revelation, then you need to read more. Also see more and better films. Every other movie in the 1970s was a corrupt cop movie. This is well-trod territory. Emily Blunt, whom I really really like, is okay here … but just okay. She’s supposed to be “us,” but she’s really just Villeneuve’s stand-in. She’s an FBI agent who is shocked … SHOCKED … that CIA/DEA guys get in bed with unsavory characters and do some pretty shitty things in order to fight the drug cartels. I found myself on the side of the supposed bad guys, Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro (both are great in the film). I mean, they’re not “bad,” but they’re practical realists, who know the monstrous nature of what they are fighting and they will do what it takes. Stop crying, Emily, there’s work to be done. I’m actually shocked that people list this as one of the Best Of the Year. Especially in such a strong year.

Arabian Nights, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 (2015; d. Miguel Gomes)
It’s a six-hour extravaganza: three separate movies. Each movie was released separately, in staggered fashion over a three week period. I saw all three. They resist easy summary. They are breath-taking.

Mustang (2015; d. Deniz Gamze Ergüven)
Astonishing and important. I wrote about it here.

The Big Clock (1948; d. John Farrow)
This noir is extremely depressing to me. I guess all noirs are depressing, but this one in particular. Maybe it’s the long-suffering wife. And the delusion in office-bureaucrats that someday they’ll be allowed to take a breather from the Rat Race and go on a honeymoon. Something. The film is relevant to today’s world, too, where no one, ever, is “off the clock.” You go on vacation and you’re still checking your emails. So yeah. It’s depressing.

Supernatural, Season 11, Episode 8, “Just My Imagination” (2015; d. Richard Speight, Jr.)
So much fun. I still can’t stop laughing when I think about air-guitar imaginary friend crying out in agony, “SHE WAS MY GIRL!” That actor MEANT that in his bone marrow and it was very very very funny.

Hitchcock/Truffaut (2015; d. Kent Jones)
Charlie and I went to go see this at the Film Forum. I’ve met Kent Jones before, and he was there that night. Charlie knows him well, so we talked with him briefly before going into the theatre. I read the “Hitchcock/Truffaut” book so many times in college that my huge paperback copy is literally falling apart. It’s so good! And the documentary is excellent: a feast for Hitchcock fans, for sure (tons of clips illustrating the conversation going on), but also a feast for Truffaut fans, and film fans in general.

Born Under Libra (2001; d. Ahmad Reza Darvish)
I don’t know how I had not seen this film before. It was right up my alley, especially the final sequence of the film where the lovers find themselves trapped in an old battlefield, still sprinkled with land-mines. It’s frankly surreal, terrifying … you’re not sure whether it’s all a dream or not. The lovers surrounded by the apparatus of the war with Iraq, a war that has haunted Iran for a generation (well, mainly because it practically lost an entire generation in that war). This is an extremely angry and political movie. The director was kidnapped by opponents to Iran’s reform-minded government and taken out into the desert where they left him stranded. The final sequence is so strange and scary and dream-like, but the opening of the film has almost a documentary feel to it: a student uprising at a small college, the two lovers embroiled in a student strike about the college’s plan to separate the sexes. Put together, these two parts of the film make it an extraordinary unforgettable experience.

Criminal Minds, Season 4, Episode 8 “Lucky” (2007; d. Steve Boyum)
The show is so overblown (and the “device” of having cast members read quotes throughout is pretentious and often the quotes have nothing to do with what we just saw … they just are supposed to sound “smart”), and yet I can’t look away!! I’ve seen all episodes multiple times. I just choose one at random from Netflix. Shoutout to Supernatural’s Steve Boyum!

Joy (2015; d. David O. Russell)
Lots of people seem to hate this movie. I didn’t mind it. It has a lot of problems, and it’s not great, but I didn’t mind it.

Mistress America (2015; d. Noah Baumbach)
I missed this on its original release. I love Greta Gerwig, and I love what she has brought out of Noah Baumbach. Something kooky. He is clearly inspired by her. It’s making for a very interesting and entertaining collaboration. Gerwig is that weird thing: an original. I read some silly person comment on Twitter or FB (and this is a critic person): “Every movie Greta Gerwig is in, becomes a Greta Gerwig Movie.” He did not mean it as a compliment. It’s such a stupid thing to say, I’m sorry. Yes: everything she is in becomes a Greta Gerwig Movie: That’s called Being a Star. She’s not a transformational actor. She’d look ridiculous in a corset, for example. She is who she is. And Noah Baumbach has created stuff for her to do that highlights her special Greta Gerwig-ness. You may not LIKE Greta Gerwig, she may not be to your taste, you may not ENJOY her persona. But to turn that into “everything she does turns into a Greta Gerwig Movie” means you don’t understand how Stardom operates (and always has operated), and if you don’t understand how Stardom operates and you spend the majority of your life watching films, then you’ve got some serious issues in terms of analysis. I happen to be one of those people who enjoys the Greta Gerwig Thing, but what I really loved about Mistress America was its weird-ness. It’s not weird just to be weird. It’s weird because sometimes human beings are VERY VERY weird. There’s an extremely long sequence in the middle of the movie, with multiple characters hanging out in a Connecticut mansion. Some are connected to each other, others just happen to be present, but the event of that encounter is so loopy, so chaotic, so hilarious, that I almost couldn’t believe it was sustained as long as it was. The movie is very good, but that Connecticut sequence was magnificent.

’71 (2014; d. Yann Demange)
A bat-out-of-hell thriller with the backdrop of 1971 Belfast, represented (correctly) as Hell on Earth. I visited a friend in Belfast in the late-1990s, a friend whose family (and husband, in particular) lived in the neighborhood depicted in ’71. When I visited her, they were still on “that side” of the Falls Road, the Catholic housing-projects side, and while much had changed, the remnants existed – You could feel the remnants in the amazement of people that a Starbucks had opened in Belfast (international businesses feeling Belfast was safe now): we went to the Starbucks and the excitement was palpable. You could feel the remnants when my friend and I went to have an afternoon drink at a restaurant with gigantic picture windows that overlooked a public square surrounded by government buildings, my friend telling me that this was a major moment for Belfast, because huge picture windows would never have been safe in ’71, or at least those windows would have had to have been bulletproof. My visit was over 20 years later, and the community was still in the thick of it. The Black Cab tour we went on was a fascinating monologue of residual – and in many cases – understandable outrage. “See dat pub over dere?” asked our Catholic tour guide (the Black Cab tours are all Catholic). “My girlfriend’s Da got his leg blown off from a bomb in that pub.” It’s PERSONAL. ’71 is not really a political film, and treats Belfast as a third-world anonymous country that untried British soldiers are dropped into with little/no preparation for how much they will be hated. Good thriller.

The Revenant (2015; d. Alejandro González Iñárritu)
Gorgeous, violent, and unforgettable.

Starting Point (2014; d. Michał Szcześniak)
A fantastic short documentary (it’s about half an hour long), about a Polish woman in prison for murdering her grandmother, who then starts to work (under the auspices of the prison) at a local old folks’ home. It is part of the hope for rehabilitation: she will learn responsibility and caring for others. Maybe it will help in her eventual release from prison. An elderly lady who has been disabled all her life shares afternoons with the prisoner, and the two talk. The documentary is excellent. The Polish Filmmakers of NYC asked me to do a QA with the director after a recent screening. It was a wonderful event. One of the most striking features of the documentary is that it LOOKS like a feature film. One of the audience members observed, “The film looks very very expensive.” Starting Point is short-listed for the Academy Award.

The Big Short (2015; d. Adam McKay)
I am in love with it. I’ve seen it three times already.

Grand Hotel (1932; d. Edmund Goulding)
All of those 1960s/70s movies featuring a star-studded cast holed up in one location (for disaster reasons or otherwise) owe a great debt to Grand Hotel. Grand Hotel also has a light giddy European touch (you can tell that Wes Anderson watched it repeatedly, it’s all over Grand Budapest Hotel). Joan Crawford is excellent and almost walks away with the whole thing. Her posture! Her shape! Her easy friendly manner, the shop-girl vibe. She may have been a thoroughbred physically, but she hauled her way out of poverty and obscurity to get where she was, and she played those types of roles. I love this movie (in particular the opening sequence, with the busy lobby and snatches of conversation heard at the telephone banks.)

I Heart Huckabees (2004; d. David O. Russell)
A re-watch in preparation for my Joy review. Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin are a match made in heaven. And Naomi Watts with the sun-bonnet? Dying laughing.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012; d. Stephen Chbosky)
I had somehow missed this one. It was very good. Also, it was such a perfect representation of what my own high school years were like, complete with midnight screenings of Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Leftovers, Season 1, Pilot (2014; d. Peter Berg)
Allison is deeply involved in this show so she made me watch Episode 1. It was creepy as shit and I admit I am now sucked in.

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip (2015; d. Walt Becker)
Sue me. I found it entertaining. Almost against my will. I reviewed for Rogerebert.com.

Wild Strawberries (1957; d. Ingmar Bergman)
Dream-like and strange. Eerie at times. A man who has never taken the time to really get to know himself, starts on that process of discovery. He moves in and out of the past. The scene where the teenagers serenade him is so frankly sentimental – one of the most sentimental things Bergman ever did – and I find it so poignant.

Air Force (1943; d. Howard Hawks)
I’m working on a Howard Hawks project so I thought it was time to re-visit this one. It’s a fabulous movie.

Sadie McKee (1934; d. Clarence Brown)
Joan Crawford, in another of her early “shopgirl” roles. It’s a tour de force performance. She’s humorous and funny in the early sequences. After her experiences in the city, the downfall into prostitution, her entire demeanor has changed: her voice, the look in her eyes, the posture, her reactions. It’s a sad film and she’s great in it. I have a post in the works about one of her bits of physical behavior but I just haven’t gotten around to putting it all together yet.

Millennium, Season 1, Episode 6, “Kingdom Come” (1996; d. Winrich Kolbe)
Keith and I have continued on with our project to binge-watch Millennium! (He’s watched the whole thing multiple times, of course. It’s all new to me.) “Kingdom Come” has almost a spooky supernatural aspect: Priests are being targeted and their deaths have a ritualistic aspect to it. One man is burned at the stake. There are deeper existential issues at work: a bird flies into the window of Frank’s house, and their adorable young daughter is very concerned about it. Is it dead? Will it come back to life? I am very very curious to see where this series goes. Keith isn’t telling me anything! He’s a good guide.

Millennium, Season 1, Episode 7, “Blood Relatives” (1996; d. Jim Charleston)
I thought this one was really interesting: a sort of creepy young man appears to be going to funerals and then attacking attending family members. Is he a killer? Or is he just one of those weirdos who likes to be in the presence of other peoples’ strong emotions in order to feel like he belongs to something? Side note: It is the actors who play the “guest spots” who have to do the real heavy lifting. The stars are more remote, although they get to have emotional depth too. But these guest spot people have to create a fully realized character in 2 minutes, and usually have enormously emotional scenes they have to play. Millennium has superb acting, across the board.

Millennium, Season 1, Episode 8, “The Well-Worn Lock” (1996; d. Ralph Hemecker)
Paul Dooley! I got so excited when I saw his name in the credits: “I love him!” Keith murmured, “I don’t think you’ll love him here.” And I don’t.

Millennium, Season 1, Episode 9, “Wide Open” (1997; d. Jim Charleston)
So much for investing in hi-tech security systems. No one is safe. You would have to pay me money to live in a community like that.

Millennium, Season 1, Episode 10, “The Wild and the Innocent” (1997; d. Thomas J. Wright)
First of all: Go, Thomas Wright from Supernatural! I loved “The Wild and the Innocent” for a couple of reasons:
1. Clearly inspired by Badlands, with its dreamy somewhat cut-off narration by the young girl (Heather McComb, who was so so excellent in that one episode of X-Files, and she’s excellent here too.)
2. Jeff Donovan plays the wild boyfriend. Jeff Donovan is an old old friend of both my cousin and my brother. He is an honorary O’Malley. He used to show up at O’Malley cousin get-togethers in New York and comedy always ensued, because that is the kind of person he is. It has been very exciting to see him reach the level of success he has, with Burn Notice and the Clint Eastwood films, and speaking of Sicario, he was great in his small role in Sicario. My brother was on a couple of episodes of Burn Notice, in a very funny recurring role. The first time he appeared on the show it was filmed in Colombia and Donovan was the director. So it’s all kind of a fun full circle. It was fun to see him here, too. He was great. His emotions blunted and impulsive in that psychopath way.

45 Years (2015; d. Andrew Haigh)
Such an incredible film: quiet and unrelenting. Good observations about behavior and rhythms. It plays like a stage play (it could definitely work in the theatre). It’s theatrical: it opens with a morning scene of a woman (the great Charlotte Rampling) going through her morning routine: walking the dog, washing the dishes. She gets the mail, delivers an envelope to her husband (Tom Courtenay): he opens it, reads it, and … nothing will be the same again. All of that happens in the first … 2 minutes of the film? That plot description may make it sound like a thriller or something. But it’s not. It’s the story of one woman, busy planning the party for her 45th wedding anniversary, realizing that not only did she not know the extent of her husband’s past, she ends up realizing that she did not know her husband at all. And her whole life starts to seem like a lie. They’ve been married 45 years. Nothing was really changed by that letter. But nothing will ever be the same. You know, sometimes I wish I had been married. The culture so assumes that that is “what you do” that it’s almost like living in a one-party state if you opt out. But still: the wish is there. But when I saw the final gesture in the film – what Charlotte Rampling does with her hand just before the screen goes to black – I thought to myself afterwards that maybe I’ve gotten off easy by opting out of that nonsense. INCREDIBLE film.

Son of Saul (2015; d. László Nemes)
I had heard so much buzz about it, but didn’t know “what happened.” I went into it pretty cold. There aren’t real spoilers or anything, but it was a very interesting experience because the film is quite confusing: much of it is done in whispers by characters huddled in the dark where you can’t tell who is who. Not knowing even the bare bones of the plot helped, I think, immerse me in the sheer chaos of that film, of that time. I would think, “Wait … who the fuck is that now?” and before I knew it, he’d be gone. Nobody has time. Nobody can speak in normal tones. Everything is rushed. It’s brutal. It’s a unique style, and apparently some people issues with it, with focusing on one individual in that dreadful historical moment. I found it harrowing and effective.

Creed (2015; d. Ryan Coogler)
Not only one of the best films of the year, but one of the best of the Rocky franchise. I like all of the Rocky films, although I think Rocky V was a bit of a misfire. Rocky Balboa was terrific too. It’s an important and emotional franchise on a populist level, with Stallone’s writing akin to Clifford Odets’ street poetry (which Stallone acknowledges as an influence.) Nothing can really touch the original, but Creed brings that franchise into the new era. (And it has a similar Odets-ian feel in the dialogue: the “date” over Philly cheese-steaks is a perfect example.) The film acknowledges the nostalgia for those early Rocky films, it’s a tribute in many ways to what that franchise means to people … but it’s also a new and energetic thing, a very NOW thing. I loved it. (I’ve seen it three times.)

Supernatural, Season 6, Episode 9, “Clap Your Hands If You Believe” (2010; d. John F. Showalter)
A favorite. I watch it when I’m stressed out. I was very stressed out in December. It works like a charm. “What were the aliens like??” “They were grabby incandescent douchebags. Good night.”

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015; d. J.J. Abrams)
A lot of fun. It was what I wanted/hoped for it to be.

The Mend (2015; d. John Magary)
What an incredible and bizarre film. Josh Lucas is amazing: when has he ever even been allowed to be this good, this out there? There’s a Repulsion-like thing going on with the two brothers: the wife leaves, and all hell breaks loose, the apartment descending into such chaos that you feel like life will never go back to normal. There is nothing here that is expected. You, the audience, are on your own.

Queen of Earth (2015; d. Alex Ross Perry)
So so good! Elizabeth Moss and Katherine Waterston (who was so unforgettable in Inherent Vice) play best friends (but with friends like these who needs enemies) spending a weekend at a house in the country. Elizabeth Moss is recovering from a couple of horrible life events. Katherine Waterston tries to understand. But doesn’t seem to really get it. But that’s just the beginning. I found this film so unsettling and half the time I couldn’t point to why. It’s fantastic.

Ballet 422 (2015; d. Jody Lee Lipes)
Such a good film. One of the best of the year, certainly one of the best documentaries. I wrote about it here.

Supernatural, Season 3, Episode 8, “A Very Supernatural Christmas” (2007; d. J. Miller Tobin)
A classic. I watched it on the night before Christmas Eve. It’s still a miracle that it works as well as it does and doesn’t tip over into … too much. I’ve watched it a bunch. And it’s still mysterious how all the pieces fit together. I love it when that happens, when the nuts-and-bolts don’t show … when it’s clearly well-constructed but there’s still magic at work.

Supernatural, Season 3, Episode 9, “Malleus Maleficarum ” (2008; d. Robert Singer)
I hadn’t watched this one in a long time. I love blonde Ruby. I could never have her hair unless I had a wig stitched to my head, and I love her hair.

A Fool There Was (1915; d. Frank Powell)
A vehicle for the sexy vampire woman Theda Bara, it was a blockbuster for the time, and very controversial. At one point, the title card says, “Oh, kiss me. Kiss me, you fool!” That was too much for the mores of the day. While Theda Bara’s character is every stereotype of the spider-woman known to man (she brings men to ruin using her sexuality and does so just for the fun of it), it’s still pretty radical and at least – at LEAST – it acknowledges that women have power. I know it’s not all that nuanced, but whatever: it has almost a mythic quality. Woman as so Other that she is barely human. Bara is great (I love the opening sequence, the only really surreal sequence, where she picks up a rose from a nearby table, admires it, and then plucks the head off, laughing. It’s something from out of a nightmare: and watch her gestures: that’s the echo of the 19th century, it was already on its way to becoming a lost art). She drives men to suicide, she lures men away from the plump stodgy wives (looking at the wife in the film and then looking at Bara I think, “No contest. I’d choose Bara too.”) There are a couple of scenes where Bara is running around in her loose nightgown, with her hair tumbling down her back and around her shoulders, and she’s luscious and unbound and touchable. To quote Camille Paglia: a powerful sexual persona.

Supernatural, Season 7, Episode 7, “The Mentalists” (2008; d. Mike Rohl)
A conversation on Twitter where I mentioned my love for Melanie (well-known to old-timer SPN participants here) caused confusion for some, because she’s not generally touted as a major character, she’s supposedly just a one-off so there was a: “Wait … who is that?” She’s my favorite of all the Dean Girls, and became much more than a one-off for me, but as a valid alternative for Dean Winchester if he wasn’t such a weirdo. In other words: he’s a specific man and he needs a specific kind of woman. Or, he doesn’t need her, but if something WERE to solidify with another person, she would have to be … equally weird, but with an energy to counteract/calm down his. So I went back to watch, and got sucked into their very unique dynamic, unlike anything else in the series (in terms of his male/female interactions, that is). Much of this in part to Dorian Brown, who plays her. It’s not a generic “girl of the week” performance. There’s humor in her line readings (watch HOW she says “I need a drink” – it’s not just the line that’s funny, it’s how she says it). She seems fun, not a DRIP, Dean could never be with a drip. I love how the character is written and I love how she plays it.

The Sons of Katie Elder (1965; d. Henry Hathaway)
John Wayne was too old to be dragged into that river by his feet. The moment always hurts me, he looks awkward. Wayne should never be allowed to look awkward. (He had just gotten diagnosed with the “Big C.”) Dean Martin is great, drawling, and natural in the role. You can tell Wayne and Martin get a kick out of each other (they were friends and had worked together before). The youngest brother is terrible. Wayne is great. Not my favorite Wayne, but I’ll take it.

Shampoo (1975; d. Hal Ashby)
Some of the commentary about this film doesn’t do it any favors. The commentary: It’s social-commentary/it’s political-commentary/it’s a sad and existential treatise on loneliness. Granted, you can’t get more existential/lonely than that final sequence. But come on, the thing is practically a French farce, except a French farce usually takes place in one location, with bedroom doors slamming open and shut down hallways, and here, poor Warren Beatty has to race around from bed to bed on his motorcycle, because L.A. is so spread out. But he is his own walking embodiment of a French face, spiked with distraction, desperation, and also (so important) a kind heart, which is hard to believe, and only Beatty could put that all together. The guy is not a user. He’s a pleasure-spreader, he feels an obligation to please all these women. It’s not really “using”, what he’s doing. God, I love this movie. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen it. Julie Christie getting drunk at that election party is a high-point, flicking olives at the back of Jack Warden’s head. And the Senator showing up with his drum to sing some “Native” type of song? “Hy-uh hy-uh hy-uh hy-uh HY-uh HY-uh …” It goes on forever and it is so funny – the deadpan looks on everyone’s faces as they watch him, like: “What the hell has happened to politics in this country … what exactly are we watching …” I tried to count how many times Beatty had sex in that one day. I think it’s 6, but I may be missing one. Brilliant film.

Concussion (2015; d. Peter Landesman)
O’Malley Tribal Pride must be taken into consideration since my cousin Mike appears in the early scenes of the film as Will Smith’s boss, who gets increasingly frustrated with his underling’s approach, and also conclusions. The two have a great fight scene that suddenly sparks into rage on both sides: and it’s a wonderful setup for all of the pushback that Dr. Bennet Omalu (Smith) will face throughout the film, and the sheer scope of the Football Temple he is cracking apart. Aside from cousin Mike, though, this is a very good film featuring a really superb performance by Will Smith. He is so charming, and inhabits this man’s personality so beautifully: it seems organic. Smith has tapped into the humor and the honesty that drives the character forward. David Morse is absolutely haunting. And if Concussion doesn’t make you re-think some of the aspects of football, if it doesn’t cause you grave concern for these players, especially when it comes to the Pee Wee Leagues, you’re part of the problem.

Henry Gamble’s Birthday Party (2015; d. Stephen Cone)
It opens this Friday. I will be reviewing for Ebert. All I will say is it is gorgeous and funny and sad and thought-provoking: Look for it.

Ball of Fire (1941; d. Howard Hawks)
An all-time favorite. It’s re-released in theatres right now (or, at least, it’s playing at the Film Forum) and what an intense joy it was to see it in a packed house. There was none of that “oh aren’t we so superior to those old-fashioned people in old films” laughter that RUINS so many screenings of old films (even in arthouse cinemas like the Film Forum where you think the audience would know better) … everyone was truly engaged. “14 watercolors ….”

Heaven Knows What (2015; d. Ben and Joshua Safdie)
Incredible film. I discussed it here.

I’ll See You In My Dreams (2015; d. Brett Haley)
Do you know how exciting it is when Blythe Danner generates buzz? It’s just as exciting as Charlotte Rampling generating buzz. Oh, what Bette Davis and Joan Crawford might have done in their latter years if they hadn’t been shuffled to the side due to their age. They still worked. Dammit, they were actresses to the end. But some really interesting things are going on right now with older actresses, Meryl Streep being the main pioneer. If Barbra Streisand starred in something right now, she’d be a bigger box office draw than any young actress I can think of, even Jennifer Lawrence. So yay for the older ladies. But Blythe Danner has always been a supporting character in films (although in theatre she always plays leads.) And she’s always wonderful. But here, she’s the lead. And when the film opened, people were calling it one of the best performances of the year. I missed it on its release, and finally caught up with it, and in this case the Buzz is justified. It’s one of the best performances of the year. Before I say more on Blythe Danner: I get excited when Mary Kay Place shows up in anything. She’s awesome, and has one of the funniest moments in the film: “We live right over there. In the Royal Oaks Village Retirement Community Village.” Long long silence as you watch the struggle on her face and then she BURSTS into laughter as though her head has exploded. And Rhea Perlman! Yes!! Great ensemble of older ladies. And Martin Starr: the younger man in the film. He’s phenomenal, he gives a very unexpected performance (and it’s unexpectedly written as well: Brett Haley also wrote the script). You keep thinking (or I did anyway) that his character will go a certain way. But he doesn’t. He’s so wonderful. But back to Blythe Danner: Her performance in this film was part of the Best Performances of 2015 list, put together by Rogerebert.com contributors. I loved what my friend Odie had to say about her performance:

Later, she is serenaded by Lloyd (Martin Starr), whose friendship has a slightly romantic, though unrequited touch. Carol’s a musician, so Lloyd’s act is a big risk on his part. But watch Danner’s reaction. She’s paying attention with her entire being: she’s the musician impressed with Lloyd’s composition, the supportive friend easing the nervous singer through his performance, and the listener experiencing an introspective catharsis through the lyrics.

Rent it immediately.

The Making of a Murderer
I watched all 10 episodes in a frenzied binge because I could not bear the suspense and the whole thing was giving me a heart attack. I may have a minority view on this one. The police are corrupt, no doubt. The prosecutor is a skeeve of the highest order. (In the last episode, when it’s revealed what was going on with him during the trial, I admit I thought: “I KNEW it. I KNEW something like that was going on with that guy.”) And there’s a lot of pathos in the poverty/attitude of the Avery family. But I don’t see Steven Avery as a martyr. Or not in terms of the SECOND case. What happened in the first case was an abomination, but I think there’s more to the story than we’re being told in the doc. He had a violent reputation, and a violently sexual reputation already. I think him making “jerking off” gestures at his cousin was just the tip of the iceberg. She may have exaggerated (and I think she did: NOBODY comes off reliable or truthful in this thing – and neither does Avery) but that behavior doesn’t come out of nowhere. The man doused a cat in oil and threw the cat into the fire. He did jail time for that. Killing animals is a clear indication of a disturbed and violent mind. So I don’t think the police (corrupt and awful as they are) were way off-base in focusing in on him. I am not exonerating the police. But I think equating this totally with wrongful conviction – at least in terms of the second case – is not really what was going on there. To counteract this thought (because the whole documentary is so ambiguous I couldn’t keep up with everyone’s lies): I don’t think the prosecution proved its case in court, by the way. The evidence did not match up and there was evidence of police misconduct. No doubt. But I think Steven Avery did that second crime. I’m sorry everyone. I don’t think he did it in the way the police/prosecution painted – that whole story was a fabrication and the evidence did not support it (where the hell was the blood in that trailer?). We will never know what really happened to that woman because the police/prosecution fucked it up so badly. But I think he did it. Maybe with help from the cousin who was “going hunting” at the time. Not the 16-year-old cousin, whose first legal representation was so sinister I couldn’t even catch my breath. He’s the real victim in this thing, but I also think he was involved, even if he just watched. I also think Teresa’s brother knows more than what he is saying: not that he killed her, but that there was something else going on that he felt guilty about. (In the video where Teresa mentions love for the people in her life, she mentions only her sisters, not her brothers.) So maybe somebody else did it, maybe Steven Avery didn’t do it. I turned on him and distrusted him the second I heard the cat details. (He mentions it so casually, but if you realize what really happened – the real story that the documentary does not provide, but the information is out there – it was brutal and gleeful cruelty on his part, and that behavior doesn’t come from out of nowhere. Imagine dousing a cat in oil and throwing it into a fire. Can’t do it, can you? Steven Avery could.) I imagine a lot of people will be angry with what I have to say. I’m sorry, I truly am! I’m not alone though. One of the best things about this documentary was the sheer confusion it creates. And the flip-flop of attitudes. Maybe some people immediately assumed he was railroaded because of the current environment and its attitude towards the cops, and that’s understandable. I went into it feeling the same way. But slowly, my mind changed. I felt the documentary was not telling the story it thinks it was telling. Or maybe it was. The whole thing remains ambiguous (and I think that’s one of its huge strengths.) The only people in the film whom I thought were even halfway reliable/truthful were his two defense lawyers and then the false-confession advocates brought in late in the game. Everybody else had something to hide and lied lied lied. I won’t be signing any online petitions to free Steven Avery any time soon.

On that not-so-positive note, my viewing diary for December 2015 has ended.

What have you seen this year that you really liked? Or disliked?

Posted in Monthly Viewing Diary, Movies, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 63 Comments

Year in Review: Running my mouth in 2015

For Rogerebert.com: R.I.P. Edward Herrmann.
“The moment lasts two seconds and consists of only two words: “Welcome home.” Two seconds and two words is all an actor like Edward Herrmann needs to get the job done.”

On Seth Rogen’s controversial The Interview, which I loved:
“It’s not about the specific movie and whether or not it is good, or perfect, or hilarious, or unfunny and bad. It’s not at all about the quality of the movie, and those who were saying, “It’s a stupid Seth Rogen movie, who cares” are the scariest of them all. It’s not even about the subject matter. The movie should be allowed to be seen. I would be arguing for this even if it were a movie made by someone I didn’t like, even if it were a movie that made light of subject matter I took seriously. It IS “the principle of the thing.” People can certainly go on and argue otherwise, but I’m done listening. I’ve heard enough.”

On Music and Lyrics (2007), starring Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymore, which I had never seen:
“I love movies about work, movies that prioritize work as just as important as love. So often characters in rom-coms have “jobs” only, jobs that are metaphorical or symbolic, and involve nothing more than symbolic gestures suggesting the “work” being done. Ooh, she’s uptight, therefore she jabs at her office phone with a pencil, wearing severe retro glasses, surrounded by sleek glass tables, and that’s her ‘job’. By the end of the movie she’ll be wearing comfy sweats and will have achieved balance! To many of us, work has practically a sacred position. Work is not symbolic. It is our very essence.

On 2014’s The Congress, starring Robin Wright, which blew me away:
“How to laugh with vivacious joy when you feel no joy whatsoever? It seems impossible. Well, that is the magic of acting, isn’t it? That is the craft and talent required to appear alive and in the moment onscreen. The Congress suggests, in its subversive way, that what actors bring to the role cannot be measured, and it is a pearl beyond price. And when we move away from stories with living breathing humans, we move away from what is human in us.”

On 2013’s When Evening Falls on Bucharest or Metabolism, directed by the wonderful and ironic and inventive Corneliu Porumboiu:
“Just as 12:08 East of Bucharest prioritizes the HOW of the story (using the amateurish format of local television programming) over the WHAT of the story (the Romanian revolution, the fall of Communism and Ceaușescu) When Evening Falls on Bucharest or Metabolism tells its story of forms and limits through the medium of a limited form. The limits placed on the film itself reflect the subject matter, make jokes about it.”

For Rogerebert.com: On 2015’s Appropriate Behavior, a first feature by Desiree Akhavan.
“Maxine thinks Shirin is a tourist in the gay world. But Shirin is a tourist everywhere: that’s the problem.”

On the extraordinary – on so many levels – 2013 Saudi film Wadjda:
“SHE wasn’t allowed to be who she wanted to be, why should her daughter experience anything different? And so tyranny is passed down. It’s an inner tyranny.”

On 2014’s Locke, starring Tom Hardy, and only Tom Hardy:
“Written and directed by Steven Knight, Locke operates like a thriller, and yet the only action is a man in a car on the phone. Yet it is a grueling experience, an exhausting emotional cliffhanger.”

For The Dissolve: On Cake starring Jennifer Aniston.
“None of Cake’s problems lie in Aniston’s performance. The tendency to list The Good Girl as evidence of her acting chops is dismissive of her clear comedic gifts; valuing dramatic performances more than comedic ones reveals the industry’s skewed value system. Aniston actually gave one of her best performances in The Break-Up, combining pathos, humor, and sharp intelligence. In Cake, she brings a kind of flinty hardness to Claire, an irresistible drive toward nastiness and the cynical side-eye. She weaves chronic pain into her performance so it feels lived-in and experienced, not a matter of imposed tics.”

For Movie Mezzanine: Time after Time: Looking Back on Richard Linklater’s Before Sunrise.
“Life is made up of small moments, not big ones, and Linklater has a tremendous sense for the importance of the small. ”

For Rogerebert.com: On the amazing Girlhood (2015); directed by Céline Sciamma. One of the best films of the year.
“A masterpiece scene comes halfway through, so powerful in its representation of shared joy and freedom that it sets off echoes around it that continue throughout the rest of the film.”

For The Dissolve: I participated in the huge poll for The Best Films of the Decade So Far. I wrote about Amour and Melancholia, but the whole list is invaluable.

On 2014’s great John Wick:
“Stephanie Zacharek referred to it as a barbaric ballet, and I couldn’t put it any better.”

For Rogerebert.com: If We Picked the Winners: 2015 Best Actress. I wrote about Marion Cotillard in Two Days, One Night.
“Many actors have a tendency to underline emotions, to “play up” certain things, so that the sense then arises that the actor is enjoying delving into these dark areas. A person struggling with depression enjoys none of it, and Cotillard brings that scorched-earth emotional landscape to the table.”

On the 4 musical numbers in Elvis Presley’s 1956 film debut Love Me Tender.
“Despite the fact that Elvis did not want to sing in the movies, and had other goals and ambitions, none of that is apparent in his performance (indicative of his impeccable old-school professionalism, completely unacknowledged by a critical establishment that doesn’t really understand acting and performance. Elvis makes it look so easy that he is dismissed.). You never get the feeling that Elvis is “slumming.” He is never embarrassed.”

For The Dissolve: On the documentary Farewell to Hollywood:
“Should we even be watching this? Is Corra’s presence in the midst of this grieving family really necessary? What’s the purpose of this project?”

For Rogerebert.com: My interview with long-time Scorsese editor Thelma Schoonmaker about Tales of Hoffmann.
Schoonmaker: Powell and Pressburger never worried about lack of continuity in their movies and that’s something that Scorsese and I agree with. There are people who spend their lives sitting in front of a TV with a remote, saying, “That’s a bad cut there because this doesn’t quite match.” Well, movies for 100 years have had bad continuity and it doesn’t matter. So that attitude has encouraged us a great deal.”

For Rogerebert.com: On 2015’s Home Sweet Hell:
“It’s wretched.”

Silhouettes and shadows in Mildred Pierce (1945).
Screengrabs only.

For Rogerebert.com: My interview with writer/director Victor Levin about 5 to 7:
Levin: Don’t help the audience more than they need to be helped. Show a little respect for the people watching the movie. They’ll look where they want to look. They have eyes. They’ve been to movies before.

For The Dissolve: On 2015’s The Girl Is In Trouble:
“Onah’s Lower East Side is packed with people who came from other places. August’s friends are documentary film-makers, Fashion Institute students, bartenders, and drug dealers. Drug use crosses class lines, pulling in Wall Street kids with money—which connects everyone. Onah treats this material affectionately, comedically, and confidently. It’s not didactic or preachy. It’s the background noise for all of the characters, the ground on which they walk.”

R.I.P. Leonard Nimoy.
“Today I thought of the sad and quiet domestic scenes in A Woman Named Golda, and how beautifully and gracefully Nimoy played support-staff to her powerhouse performance.”

On The Ocean of Helena Lee, directed by Jim Akin, starring the extraordinary young actress Moriah Blonna. The film was created by husband-and-wife team, Akin and the great Maria McKee. It is their second feature, one of the best films of the year.
“These are streets Jim Akin knows well. But it takes a poet, it takes an artist, to look at that which is familiar and see it anew, examine it, upend it, revel in it. This process could be self-indulgent or narcissistic, but not in the hands of an artist.”

On Asghar Farhadi’s incredible About Elly, made in 2009 but first released here this year. It’s on my Top 10.
“The great David Bordwell said of the film: ‘A masterpiece. The less you know in advance, the better.’ It’s really the way to go.”

On The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceaușescu (2010); directed by Andrei Ujică. Riveting.
“The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceaușescu does not provide any new information to those who remember these events. What it does do is reveal the self-perception of one of the world’s most repressive absurd dictators.”

R.I.P. Anne Meara
“Mary was a small character part in a juggernaut of a show, but Meara brought a stature to that arc, a scope, as well as a fearlessness that helped the series as a whole. She always did that. Whatever she was in, she helped elevate.”

On John Wayne’s gestures, one in particular:
“But there’s one moment I’d like to discuss and that’s from The Angel and the Badman (1947).”

For Rogerebert.com, Tribeca Film Festival 2015 coverage: On Albert Maysles’ final film In Transit. If it had been properly released this year, it would have been on my Top 10.
“As the young pregnant woman (three days overdue, causing some consternation among the conductors that she would deliver the baby on the train) hurries across the icy platform in Minneapolis to go meet her mother, her retreating figure seems plucky and indomitable. You hope everything will be all right with her, with everyone you have met in the film.”

For Rogerebert.com, Tribeca Film Festival 2015 coverage: On a wonderful film from Argentina, El Cinco (2015):
“In its own quiet way, “El Cinco” is radical in insisting on what it is about.”

For Rogerebert.com, Tribeca Film Festival 2015 coverage: On the super-fun documentary Fastball:
“Great baseball players often cannot explain how they do what they do (they speak about being in a “zone,” or getting into a “flow”), but they are almost incapable of being un-interesting about the game. Hock has filled his documentary with baseball players talking, reminiscing, analyzing, commiserating. There is not one dull moment. Questions like “who threw the fastest?” take on huge importance to those who play the game, especially since the radar gun didn’t come along until 1974.”

For Rogerebert.com, Tribeca Film Festival 2015 coverage: On Reed Morano’s feature-film debut (as a director, anyway), the haunting Meadowland:
“”Meadowland” is strongest in its understanding that grief does not necessarily bring people closer together. It can just as easily, with an irresistible and terrible flow, drive people apart.”

Tribeca Film Festival 2015: Attending the 40th Anniversary of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, plus Monty Python QA with Host John Oliver:
John Cleese: I do a lot of … I don’t know if they’re really racist jokes … but jokes like: Why do the French have so many civil wars? Answer: Because they love to win one now and again.
John Oliver: That’s not racist. That’s a historical fact.”

For Rogerebert.com, Tribeca Film Festival 2015 coverage: On Monty Python Live:
“There were times when events careened out of control because there were 5 Pythons on that stage, 5 master improvisers and comedians, who refused to stand on ceremony, who felt as comfortable onstage as they do off (more, probably), and were not afraid to say what they thought. After the third question from the audience, Cleese remarked flatly, ‘These are fairly bad, these questions.'”

For The Dissolve: Review of a teen romance/dance movie that I really enjoyed, Bravetown.
“Mary thinks the town needs it. She knows she needs it. There’s an urgency to those kids on the dance team that’s truly touching.”

For Rogerebert.com: On the beautiful documentary, I Am Big Bird: The Carroll Spinney Story:
“In acting classes, it is common for teachers to tell students that during sad scenes, perhaps the best choice is to hold back the tears, because that leaves room for the audience to cry. At Henson’s funeral, Spinney shows the eternal truth of such advice. He, the actor, had to hold back his own tears in order to make it through that song. He wept later, by himself. Spinney’s understanding of what was needed in that moment, that the moment was bigger than his own personal loss, and the catharsis he would provide for others, is near transcendent.”

For Rogerebert.com: On the terrifying documentary Nightmare:
“Each person interviewed has struggled to control their sleep paralysis. Is the condition psychological or physiological? Many of the people interviewed cannot believe or accept that it is a purely physical phenomenon. Everyone describes that there is a spiritual element to the experience, a tug-of-war between Good and Evil.”

For Rogerebert.com: On Me and Earl and the Dying Girl:
“Every cliché arrives with a wink of self-knowing commentary before it, to say, “Yes, we know this is a cliche, but we are making a comment about the cliché!” Saying it don’t make it so.”

On Love & Mercy, one of the best films of 2015.
“After watching Love & Mercy, I will always have a deeper appreciation of those chopping cello sounds in ‘Good Vibrations’!”

For Rogerebert.com: Mia Hansen-Løve’s Eden. Loved it.
“She devotes herself, methodically, to what her characters do, refusing to zoom in, so to speak, on the highs/lows of emotion. Those highs/lows exist, but they are not lingered over, or fetishized.”

On Ex Machina:
“Ex Machina has something to say about women, and how they are viewed, the prisons men put them in, literal and imaginary. It’s subtle and sneaky, there isn’t too literal a point made of it, but it’s there, it’s the atmosphere of the film, it’s the air it breathes.”

On Hondo (1953) at MoMA: John Wayne in 3D
Great experience: Post has an acting lesson to demonstrate John Wayne’s greatness (and it is invisible common-sense story-based greatness. Not flashy or actor-y.) This is one of the pieces I’m most proud of from this year.

For Flavorwire: Best Movie Characters of All Time. I was so happy that editor Jason Bailey let me include and write about the “Elvis Presley Persona.” I wrote about many others too but Elvis was particularly gratifying.
“You can count on one hand the figures who can sustain such careers (let alone for ten years), who are powerful and appealing enough just by showing up to justify a picture getting made.”

For Rogerebert.com: On the wonderful Diary of a Teenage Girl:
“Does it endorse a 35-year-old man sleeping with a 15-year-old? Shouldn’t she or he be made to “pay” for it in order to show the wrong-ness of the situation? But that opening scene, showing Minnie strolling through the sunshine, smiling to herself, loving the world, sets the mood and tells us the film’s attitude towards the story that is about to unfold.”

I really liked Ricki and the Flash. Sue me.
“The dress. It’s all about the choice of that dress for me.”

For Bright Wall/Dark Rooms: On Love Me Tender, Elvis Presley’s film debut in 1956:
““And introducing Elvis Presley,” read the credits for Love Me Tender, Presley’s debut as an actor. Released in 1956, it would be the only time in his movie career that he didn’t get top billing.”

For Rogerebert.com: On Joe Swanberg’s Digging for Fire. I am not a Swanberg fan but I liked this one.
“It’s strangely refreshing to watch a film that is not worried about nuance.”

On Christian Petzold’s glorious Phoenix, on my Top 10 for 2015.
“Along with identity, the main question here has to do with guilt. Who feels guilty? Who doesn’t? Even when someone’s lack of guilt is right in front of you, it’s common for humans to forgive, or at least try to excuse it, especially if it’s coming from a loved one. There has to be some other explanation, right? This person I once knew can’t actually have been a monster … can he?”

On the excellent Straight Outta Compton:
“Straight Outta Compton gets the little details right, the interactions, the various friendships, the arguments about money, the nuts-and-bolts of behavior, eloquent and unselfconscious, all part of the reason I love movies. But it also gets the social and political aspect, something that demands to be addressed with a group like NWA.”

For Rogerebert.com: Goodnight Mommy: My Interview with Co-directors/Writers Severin Fiala and Veronika Franz.
“We didn’t want to make a film that you can watch from a distance. In the first place, we wanted it to be a thrilling film, and once the thrill ride is over and the film is over, then you can see all of these themes in the film, but only in retrospect. It’s kind of why we like cinema. It has the power to really get to you.”

For Rogerebert.com: Review of M. Night Shyamalan’s entertaining The Visit.
“What is Pop Pop doing out in the barn all the time?”

For Rogerebert.com: Mélanie Laurent’s wonderful Breathe.
“The story is linear (unlike the book, which is told in flashback), but the style is fragmentary, deceptively casual.”

On 1955’s powerful and upsetting Love Me or Leave Me, starring Doris Day and Jimmy Cagney.
Love Me or Leave Me is practically Star 80-ish disturbing.”

On Jafar Panahi’s Taxi. On my Top 10 for the year.
Taxi is not supposed to exist. Neither is This Is Not a Film or Closed Curtain. But they do exist. And they found their way out of Iran (a passive way to express what were acts of tremendous courage and daring: putting zip drives containing the film in the middle of cakes, etc. so they could make it past the borders). Panahi’s films reach us. They are not meant to reach us, but they do.”

For Rogerebert.com: Ramin Bahrani’s excellent 99 Homes.
“Andrew Garfield, as a man who has “failed” in his duty as protector and provider, has an almost constant sense of panic throughout, catching his breath in his throat, his posture tight and alert. Tears threaten to overwhelm him, but Dennis does not have time for self-pity. Nobody does.”

On Ida Lupino’s powerful 1950 drama about rape Outrage.
“The sexualization of the atmosphere that women experience is omnipresent in Outrage, an accepted part of life, noxious and yet invisible. She even gets it from her co-worker, who is a nice person, but still manages to touch her inappropriately in one of their interactions. Women are up for grabs, you see. And it is expected that women will tolerate it.”

For Rogerebert.com: I reviewed Guillermo del Toro’s Crimson Peak.
“Kitchen-sink realism is a recent phenomenon, and Del Toro’s films are not bound by those requirements, although the emotions in his films are always real. As actors from before the advent of cinema (and the closeup) understood, acting needed to be big enough to fill a theatre. This did not necessarily mean hollow declaiming. It meant that their emotions had to be big enough to travel, to reach the cheap seats, to fit the scope of the story. The cast of “Crimson Peak” understands that.”

On Rita Hayworth.
“Sometimes the personal life dramas overshadow the work, especially with bombshell sex-symbols unfortunately. It’s all part of that uneasy (or it seems uneasy to me, so uncomfortable are we still with freely expressed female sexuality) and vested interest in boxing those types of women in, tossing them out when they get old, diminishing their accomplishments, lessening the meaningfulness of their impact. Honestly, what is more meaningful than a Movie Goddess?”

For Rogerebert.com: I interviewed Reed Morano, cinematographer/director of Meadowland.
Morano: Actors feel empowered and safe when they’re being trusted. Sometimes when you give an actor a little bit of freedom and they feel trusted, they’ll be more vulnerable, more honest, and take more risks. You get better stuff that way.”

For Rogerebert.com: My review of Suffragette.
“Streep, in the two minutes (tops) she’s on-screen, places a genteel overlay of breeding in her ringing hoity-toity voice, but her speech is filmed in such a haphazard way that what it ends up being about is her gigantic hat.”

Quotes By/About Gena Rowlands.
““When Gena and I are home together, we’re husband and wife. On the set, we’re deadly combatants. We have great respect for each other, like enemies do.” – John Cassavetes”

On the wonderful James White, one of the real pleasant surprises of the year.
“James’ mother is not always a brave inspiring figure, as cancer-patients often are in film (so insulting.) She can be querulous. Even in a rage. She’s impulsive, she fights, she turns on James. Sometimes she refuses help. Sometimes she demands it. And then, too, she is tender, tender, tender, with such softness you want to weep. They are in this together.”

For Rogerebert.com: My review of the excellent Spotlight.
“McCarthy and his entire team, from production designers to location scouts to extras casting directors, get Boston right.”

On Hou Hsiao-Hsien’s beautiful The Assassin, one of the best films of the year.
“This is one of the most beautiful looking films this year, or any year.”

On the harrowing Room, also from this year.
“Until two things happen, one after the other: A mouse crawls out from beneath the refrigerator and Ma beats it back into the wall. And Jack turns 5 years old.”

Essay #1 on Angelina Jolie’s gorgeous By the Sea.
“A lot of the commentary I’ve seen about Angelina Jolie’s By the Sea has been that it is a self-indulgent vanity project. I have some different feelings about all of that, and also have a suspicion that “self-indulgent” means different things to different people, as does the word “vanity” as does the word “project.”

For Rogerebert.com: My review of Todd Haynes’ beautiful Carol.
“A lush emotional melodrama along the lines of the films of Douglas Sirk, Haynes’ patron saint, “Carol” is often about its surfaces, their beauty contrasting with the scary duality of people, relationships. The surfaces in “Carol” are so seductive that one understands the ache to belong in that world.”

For Rogerebert.com: Gena Rowlands: A Life In Film.
“To celebrate the career of this living legend, here’s a chronological commentary on many of her roles.”

On my specifically Generation X reaction to Cobain: Montage of Heck:
“Watching Montage of Heck opened up that wound again. There is a “missing” in all of us, because we felt like he was ours. And he couldn’t take it and he left. Nothing I say here is original. My experience is not unique. I do not own any of it. Every generation has a defining moment. Along with Reagan being shot, John Lennon being shot, and The Challenger explosion, Nirvana was one of ours.”

For Rogerebert.com: The wonderful Christmas, Again.
“Loneliness does not express itself in language. Loneliness is the air Noel breathes. It’s in his posture.”

For Rogerebert.com: My review of a new favorite, Night Owls.
“As someone who loves screwball—its rat-a-tat dialogue, and the virtuosity required of the performers—it is great to see it so alive and well.”

On Mustangs, a brutal and unforgettable and important film from a first-time Turkish director. See it.
“They are innocent. They are children. They did nothing wrong.”

Essay #2 on Angelina Jolie’s By the Sea. Now I’m fired up. And I’m right.
“Please, if you’re talented: INDULGE yourself. BE self-indulgent. If your “self” is fabulous and inventive, then indulge the hell out of it.”

For Rogerebert.com: My interview with Charles Hood, director/co-writer of Night Owls.
Hood: The shot list for “Night Owls” was practically the final draft of the script. We planned out every shot, and stuck about 95% to the shot list.”

My Top Films of 2015.

For Rogerebert.com: Ten Best Films of 2015. I wrote on Creed.
“When a press screening filled with film critics erupts into applause at the familiar sound of the “Rocky” theme, you know a film has tapped into something enormous.”

On the really good Heaven Knows What, a film I missed on its original release.
“It is not a redemption tale. It does not follow the normal rules for addiction stories.”

For Rogerebert.com: Best Performances of 2015. I wrote on Kristen Stewart in Clouds of Sils Maria.
“The intelligence always struggling to express itself in the “Twilight” saga is freed in unpredictable ways. Stewart’s Valentine is insightful, capable, doggedly unafraid of conflict. Her awkward gestures are still present, hand pushing back her hair compulsively, but now they seem both restless and grounded at the same time, Valentine impatiently clearing the decks to say what she needs to say.”

Posted in Actors, Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

2015 Books Read

Even I am impressed with how much I read this year. Along the course of the year, occasionally I’d think to myself, “Good job, Sheila, with your Self-Imposed Reading Plan!” I’ve read a lot of new novels (not really my thing normally, but I’ve enjoyed it), plus lots of non-fiction (I’ve always read more non-fiction than fiction). I have my “hour-before-bedtime” book (usually something non-fiction, something historical and complex – I can’t do fiction before bed.) I have my “commute” book (something light, and – if possible – episodic. A book of essays, usually. Nothing requiring too much concentration. My commute is super quick.) I have my “early morning” book, usually something huge that I tackle a tiny bit at a time. No pressure. Currently, I’m making my way through the complete published work (what’s available anyway) of Pauline Kael. A couple of pieces a morning. And this year I almost finished up my Chronological Shakespeare project this year – one more play to go, Two Noble Kinsmen, which I won’t finish by midnight tonight, that’s for sure. It took me two years to get through each play in chronological order, and I’d read an Act of whatever play every morning. Sometimes two acts. It’s a nice ritual. It takes as long as it takes. And then, for vacations or beach days or weekends, I bust out the Big Guns: “challenging” stuff, super-long 19th century novels, gigantic philosophical works, whatever. I got into a rhythm with juggling all of these different ongoing book projects this year and it felt really nice.

Full disclosure: Each link goes to my Amazon Affiliate page.

Side note: I cannot believe how long I have been doing this site. It’s amazing I ever got anything else done.

2015 Books Read

1. Stoner, by John Williams.
I had never heard of this novel before. Somewhere around December 2014, no less than three people I trusted (my brother and my mother among them) were saying things to me, in hushed voices, practically holding back tears (literally): “You have GOT to read Stoner.” I was like, “What is this book, how have I never heard of it, and why is everyone telling me to read it SIMULTANEOUSLY?” Well, it’s because the New York Review of Books re-issued it in their fabulous series, and there was a huge piece in the New York Times about it, and suddenly it became a best-seller years after it was published. But the WAY people spoke about it. Honestly, I haven’t heard people talk like that about a book since The Shipping News. It was different than “Oh, it’s a great book,” or “Oh, he’s such a good writer.” It was something else. It went deeper. I think my mother even gave it to me for Christmas (or maybe my brother), basically insisting that I read it. It was my first book of 2015. It is a novel. All I can say is, now I will join the chorus of the others, and tell you in a hushed voice, holding back tears, “You have GOT to read this book.”

2. Station Island, by Seamus Heaney.
A collection of his poems. I’ve been missing my father. We talked about Seamus Heaney all the time.

3. Seeing Things, by Seamus Heaney.
Another collection of his poems. My father gave me two collections of Heaney’s prose, as well as one of the “collected poems” volumes, but I also went out and bought, over the years, each individual volume. They each have their own story to tell.

4. Amy Falls Down: A Novel, by Jincy Willett.
Over the past five years, Jincy Willett has written three hilarious, touching, totally unique novels. Winner of the National Book Award: A Novel of Fame, Honor, and Really Bad Weather, The Writing Class, and now Amy Falls Down (a sort of sequel to The Writing Class). I love her novels so much. Each one made me laugh out loud, and I treasure the books that can do that FAR more than the books that can make me cry (although I love those too). They aren’t just larky-larks though. They are also suddenly, piercingly, touching as well. All of it feels earned and right, not sentimental or manipulative. Each of the novels are about writing, to some degree (as the titles would suggest). There is a scene in Amy Falls Down, involving a train crash, that was so absurd and so howlingly funny that I actually had to stop reading for a while. Just so I could absorb the image. I think I’m still absorbing it. And it’s STILL hilarious. Jincy Willett is a writer I treasure, and I’m embarrassed because she’s also a regular reader here, but I figured: what the hell, she might as well know how I feel about her stuff. How often do you get to say to someone’s “face,” “I really dig what you’re doing.”?? I recommend her so highly (plus her collection of short fiction called Jenny and the Jaws of Life: Short Stories.

5. The Redress of Poetry, by Seamus Heaney.
A re-read. One of those collections of prose, I mentioned above. Although they’re really the texts of lectures he gave when he was a guest professor at … the name escapes me. Each lecture focuses on a different author. A feast for the mind. I wrote a bunch of posts about some of the lectures.

6. The Testament of Mary: A Novel, by Colm Tóibín.
I love him so much. I love that the film adaptation of his gorgeous Brooklyn was what it was: faithful to that beautiful work, but cinematic, visual, powerful in its silences and suggestions. His Testament of Mary is a very small and emotionally brutal book. It is what the title says. Mary, the mother of Jesus, talks about the years after her son’s death and what they are like. She talks about her son’s final years, and what she sensed, what she feared. It’s not what you think it is. The section on Lazarus is haunting. He’s an amazing writer.

7. The Tent, by Margaret Atwood.
I am so sorry to say this because her work meant the world to me in college and my 20s, but I’ve outgrown her. It doesn’t wipe away the impact of The Handmaid’s Tale, Lady Oracle, Bodily Harm, and most of all Cat’s Eye, but The Robber Bride was the last novel of hers I could make it through. And I tried. I found The Tent a chore (and it’s only 100 pages. I had to force myself to finish it.) 11 months later, I don’t remember a word. I’m sorry.

8. Field Work: Poems, by Seamus Heaney.
Poems. The poems that helped make him famous. Even now, after so many re-readings, over so many years, the poems still blow me away.

9. Finders Keepers: Selected Prose 1971-2001, by Seamus Heaney.
Another gift from my father, for my birthday or for Christmas. I cherish the volume. A collection of prose (book reviews, essays, lectures) over many years. Another goldmine. He makes you want to read more, read more deeply, pay attention to language. I wrote a series of posts about some of these pieces as well. I miss my father.

10. Double Indemnity, by James M. Cain
I love his writing so much, it’s so chilly and spare and sociopathic.

11. The Merry Wives of Windsor, by William Shakespeare.
What a ridiculous play. Even more ridiculous: the nerdy Shakespeare scholars who seem somehow … offended … or even in denial … that Falstaff should show up in this play, a play completely anachronistic with the “Henry” plays where Falstaff first appeared. The fact that Queen Elizabeth apparently said to Shakespeare, “I would love to see Falstaff in a romance” (she loved Falstaff. I mean, who doesn’t?), and that Shakespeare, as a good citizen, promptly wrote one … isn’t “enough” for the nerds. They argue about whether or not it “counts,” it’s almost like they wish Merry Wives didn’t exist. This is the difference between scholars and show-trash. A person of show-trash origins, like Shakespeare, would get a direct request from his own QUEEN and of course immediately shove everything else aside in order to oblige her. And he would make it as entertaining as possible. None of this important historical armies clashing by night business. Let’s put Falstaff in a sexual farce, where he has to hide in baskets and dress up as a woman, and be an apolitical buffoon. The academics, though, just don’t want to admit that this play exists because it would mean that Falstaff had jumped forward two hundred years in time from when he REALLY existed. (When he’s a fictional character in the first place.) Get a life.

12. The Red and the Black, by Stendhal.
I had never read any Stendhal and had always meant to rectify it. I have Red and the Black and The Charterhouse of Parma on my bookshelves, and have had so for years. You know, for when I felt like picking one up. Finally, I did so. I had no idea how funny Stendhal is! And he’s funny in very modern ways. The book is filled with epigraphs: each chapter has one. And he made most of them up. He gives some ponderous quote, attributes it to some real-life author, when said author never said/wrote anything like that in the first place. Stendhal has sent the scholars jittering through reference books trying to find the source of these epigraphs, to no avail. This is so so funny to me. The epigraphs give the book a “serious” feel, but they are not serious at all. They’re one big lying joke. And the HYSTERIA of the characters! They are all out of their minds! It’s extremely entertaining. I’ll read Charterhouse in 2016.

13. People Who Eat Darkness: The True Story of a Young Woman Who Vanished from the Streets of Tokyo–and the Evil That Swallowed Her Up, by Richard Lloyd Parry.
Look at that title! Cousin Mike randomly sent this to me. (He sends me books randomly.) I love that he looked at a book called PEOPLE WHO EAT DARKNESS and thought, “Cousin Sheila will love this.” It’s a true crime book about a woman who – for reasons that are still unclear – decided to move to Tokyo and work as a “hostess”. She thought she could make money … but … surely there are easier ways? Anyway, she vanishes off the face of the earth. It’s a terrible story. Thanks, cuz.

14. Henry V, by William Shakespeare.
Speaking of Falstaff … You know, it’s funny, this is clearly a great play, with some great speeches. St. Crispian, etc. But if you looked at that speech, you would think that England had been invaded or something, that her very existence was threatened. No. The war in Henry V is basically a skirmish over Henry V’s rapacious land-grab. The campaign itself is nothing noble at all. England isn’t threatened by a foreign occupation. They’ve decided: “Hey. Let’s go get that piece of land back. And a wife for our King in the meantime.” So that speech, with its ringing sense of patriotism, is rather ridiculous seen in context. Like, you brought this on yourself, boys. It was your choice to invade. If you want that land, go get it, but don’t make it seem like this is the most momentous day in English history. (I realize it’s a bit more complex than this, and it was an important battle, but the play itself shows the rapacious and impulsive choices that led up to it.)

15. Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare.
The play is so ceremonial. The language is extremely formal. As though it is a translation from another language. It’s interesting: no other play sounds like this.

16. The Rasputin File, by Edvard Radzinsky.
I’ve read this fantastic book a couple of times. (I’ve read all of his books a couple of times. Or, at least the ones I own, which are: The Rasputin File, Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia’s Secret Archives, and The Last Tsar: The Life and Death of Nicholas II.) Radzinsky is a playwright. His writing is living and energetic, obsessive and questioning. He’s not an academic. After glasnost/perestroika, when the Kremlin archives opened up, Radzinsky went to work. So much was missing, so much had been destroyed and altered, that it takes a true detective to try to put the pieces together (especially with Stalin). Each one of these books reads like an unfolding mystery, told from Radzinsky’s experience as a researcher. “I needed to find the file that had such and such in it … but where was it … who had it … I needed to know …” When you read The Rasputin File, you are not at all surprised that the Czar and his wife would have such a spectacular downfall. It’s horrible, their deaths, and the Bolsheviks showed their true colors immediately with how that went down … but in terms of their “administration”? They both seem like extremely stupid people. Like: literally DULL in their brains. I don’t think he ever had one thought in his head. And she was superstitious and takes the word “bossy” to another level. Rasputin was God to her. If her husband ever disobeyed Rasputin, God would punish Russia. And Rasputin was just a nasty smelly con-artist, with intense powers of suggestion. You just can’t believe some of this shit when you read it. I babbled about this book here after I first read it. As much as I hate the Bolsheviks, and Stalinists and all the rest of those criminals, you read something like this and know that the entire culture STANK to HIGH HEAVEN and NEEDED to go down. And of course it would take something violent. Autocrats like Nicholas II don’t just “step down.” In other words: Rasputin was a douche.

17. Bark: Stories, by Lorrie Moore.
One of my favorite contemporary writers. And she’s not all that prolific so her fans are really made to wait for her next book. She’s written a couple of novels, and while they are filled with Moore’s excellent and unmistakable style (there’s nobody else like her), it’s the short story where Moore is the true master. If you haven’t read Lorrie Moore, I would suggest starting with Birds of America: Stories, the short story collection that put her on the map. Bark is excellent too. I’m always happy to read her stuff. She is able to make me laugh out loud … and yet there is such despair in some of her stories, too. It’s a crazy hat-trick and I don’t know how she does it.

18. As You Like It, by William Shakespeare.
One of my favorite Shakespeare plays. I would like to live in this play.

19. Hamlet, by William Shakespeare.
When you read the damn thing you realize yet again just how long it is, what a huge huge piece of text it is. Shakespeare’s longest play. And that, in itself, is fascinating, since the majority of it features Hamlet procrastinating. So we have 1. Shakespeare’s longest play. and 2. Not much “action,” mostly procrastination. Those two things put together make for this enormous tension: and Hamlet’s procrastination becomes even more striking because it goes on for so long. He is unable to act. Books have been written about why. There are many great theories. Much of it is in the language of those five major soliloquies that he has. But still: there’s a mystery in the character. The theories don’t answer that mystery. The character will not be boiled down, or even explained. It just sits there, its mystery intact.

20. Saving Agnes: A Novel, by Rachel Cusk.
I’ve had this novel for a while, but hadn’t ever read it. Cusk has written a lot more, and she tends to be controversial because she’s honest. You’ll see her name around and think, “Oh God, what did Rachel Cusk say now.” I remember once – in an essay? in a public statement? – she admitted that although she loved her child, of course she did, she was bored by the actual “mothering” part of it. She yawned through play dates. She didn’t find coloring with her children a rapturous activity. She yearned for adult conversation and time by herself. Hanging out with the 2-year-old set was not her idea of a good time. And of course the Shrieking Sisterhood rose up in Outrage to Denounce Her. Women who express alternative perspectives are often shunned or screamed down or ignored – “Oh don’t listen to her, she’s internalized patriarchy”. It seems these critics protest just a wee bit too much? Or she’s dismissed as “male-identified.” (Some woman emailed me – a couple years back – that she thought I was “male-identified” because of something I had written. Only women say such shit to other women. It was not a compliment, I realized that, but I pretended it was and emailed back, “Thank you so much!!” What does that even mean? I’m human-identified, bitch. Plus, I love the boys. So … sorry? I don’t know what else to tell you.) There’s been a couple of recent pieces about how there are so few female film critics these days and that it’s a problem. I agree that diverse voices are needed. 100%. If there is a film site with a biggish roster and there’s only one woman writer on staff, that’s a problem. And when women’s voices are sidelined, the entire culture suffers. (I am proud to write for Rogerebert.com because of its diversity of voices. Such a great mix.) However, where this conversation annoys me is when it moves into “Women have a different perspective” kind of thing. Well, yeah. I guess. (Not necessarily, though.) It’s one step away from that to “Well, let’s hire a female film critic to review ‘chick flicks’ because those are more ‘for’ her and she’ll understand them more because she has a different perspective”. How about you hire women writers and minority writers because it’s better for your site to be more representative of the population it serves? Also it’s the right thing to do, don’t be a dick. But to assume that women will LIKE and RESPOND to the same things is marginalizing the diversity of OUR voices. I’ll say this and then I’ll go back to Rachel Cusk: there are some critics where I can predict (men and women), with 100% accuracy (I’ve tested it) what they will like and what they will not like. It’s predictable and (usually) ideologically-based. Now this is their thing, and of course they are free to go for it, just as I am free to not want to read it. I love the Wild Women out there where you have no idea where they will come down on anything. I’ve got my list of women out there where I always want to know what they think about EVERYTHING, because I know it will be a surprise, and whether or not we agree/disagree, I love to hear the perspective of someone who is independent. The male critics I love have this same quality: it’s an individual perspective, based on individual taste … not clustering around predictable ideological faultlines. The human mind is a gorgeous thing, and everyone is different. BRING IT ON. (Just in case it’s not clear: Sidelining women/minorities professionally is evil and retro. People need to stop doing it and they deserve to be called out on it loudly.) ANYWAY. Back to Rachel Cusk: she tells the truth, as she sees it. If some women find it off-putting, that’s partially evidence of cultural brainwashing (i.e. “Every NORMAL woman loves EVERY SINGLE SECOND of being a mother and to say otherwise means you are a BAD MOTHER. blah blah blah”. It’s WOMEN who say that shit to each other, not men. Go to any Mommy online forum and find the “breastfeeding vs. formula” message board. You would think the war in the Middle East was at stake. It’s insane.) I like Rachel Cusk because she is not intimidated. I’ll be reading more of her work.

21. Twelfth Night, by William Shakespeare.
Magical story. Poor Malvolio. Although he deserved it. I probably say “What country friends is this?” once a week. It’s applicable to so many different situations.

22. Mildred Pierce, by James M. Cain.
I love his stuff so much. The Joan Crawford film is a classic, for very good reasons, but I also really loved Todd Haynes’ adaptation which stuck, almost word for word, with Cain’s original, including that crazy final line from Mildred. Wonderful book. A noir about a woman who makes pies. Brill.

23. Troilus and Cressida, by William Shakespeare.
The play is extremely and explicitly homoerotic. Blatant. Fun. The romance between the men far overshadows the romance between Troilus and Cressida, who seem pretty cipher-ish.

24. Measure for Measure, by William Shakespeare.
For a comedy, there’s some pretty messed-up shit that goes down here. Out of wedlock pregnancy. A city of brothels. A woman in a cloister being tricked into going to bed with someone (in the darkness – so she THINKS it’s one man, when it actually is another man. The Tumblr police would have a field day with this one.)

25. Othello, by William Shakespeare.
Shakespeare’s great examination of jealousy. Othello, already plagued by insecurity, cannot resist Iago’s sinister whispers of insinuation. For all his warrior laurels, Othello is a highly susceptible man. A perfect “mark” for Iago. The play is tragic in the classical sense because as you watch (or read), you think helplessly, “All of this could have been avoided.” Desdemona is a powerhouse. Mainly remembered for being strangled by her husband, before that she is his political ally, a wheeler-dealer in a realm seen as only for men. She’s not some cringing wifey in the background. She’s involved.

26. Black Earth: A Journey Through Russia After the Fall, by Andrew Meier.
I’m not a fan of Meier’s stuff (I did not like his Chechnya: To the Heart of a Conflict: he was trying too hard and he didn’t get “to the heart” of anything. He tries to imitate Robert Kaplan or Ryzsard Kapusinski or Colin Thubron’s travelogue/historical style, and while I realize the draw of these writers, he’s just not up to snuff as a narrator of his own journeys.) But still, I read this book because I was curious about Russia’s experience of Putin, and the upheaval that has gone on since the fall of the Empire. And it’s a fascinating and sweeping book, and although I am relatively well-informed there was a lot here that was new to me. I recommend it.

27. The Motel Life: A Novel, by Willy Vlautin.
So good. I re-read this in preparation for Ebertfest, where the movie adaptation would be playing, and I was going to interview one of the directors onstage after the screening. I had reviewed Motel Life for Ebert, and absolutely loved it. It was a lot of fun interviewing the director, and I had just wanted to ground myself again in the original source material.

28. Passions of the Mind, by A.S. Byatt.
I read this collection of essays on literature (by one of my favorite authors) years ago, and during my ongoing Book Excerpt project (where I go systematically through my vast library and share excerpts, a project I’ve been doing since 2006, hard as it is for me to believe), Passions of the Mind was the next book on the shelf. I ended up re-reading it as I went through the process of excerpting and discussing some of the essays. Great thought-provoking stuff.

29. Art Objects: Essays on Ecstasy and Effrontery, by Jeanette Winterson.
Another collection of essays on art (literature and otherwise) by another of my favorite authors, Jeanette Winterson. I read the collection when it first came out, and it was the next book on the shelf in my Book Excerpt project, after the Byatt. And so I re-read that one, too, as I prepared and posted the excerpts and my thoughts on each essay.

30. All’s Well That Ends Well, by William Shakespeare.
The title is a dare. It’s almost sarcastic, considering the play. The script references the title multiple times, contributing to the feeling that Shakespeare doesn’t actually agree with the sentiment in his own title. Funny.

31. Silas Marner, by George Eliot.
I mentioned on FB I was reading it, and my pal Larry joked, “What, are you working on your overdue book report from 10th grade?” It made me laugh. I’m going to be making my way through George Eliot again (I’ve read most, but there are some I haven’t), and of course I read Silas Marner, and yes, in 10th grade, but I don’t think I’ve read it since then. It made me cry.

32. The Young Rebecca: Writings of Rebecca West, 1911-17, by Rebecca West.
Rebecca West, another favorite writer. A resourceful editor tracked down many of the op-ed columns and reports written by Rebecca West when she was just starting out (age 18, 19 or so). She emerges fully-developed as a writer. She needed no learning curve. She was breathlessly confident as a teenager, and her style is instantly recognizable although I mainly know her writing from when she was 40 and beyond. She was a PHENOM. Again, this was the next up in my Book Excerpt project (one of the best byproducts of that self-imposed project is that I re-read a lot of stuff that I haven’t read in years). I posted a lot of excerpts and it was super-fun.

33. The Prince, by Nicolo Machiavelli.
When things get crazy politically, as they always do, I take out The Prince again. It helps. The more things change, the more they and etc. Re-realizing that is soothing.

34. Christopher Marlowe: Poet & Spy, by Park Honan.
An interesting biography of Marlowe: his writing and his espionage. I’ve been fascinated by him for decades now. The plays alone would be enough. Anyone who equates him with Shakespeare hasn’t read or understood either. The fact that they were contemporaries is evidence of the sheer vital alive-ness of that period in British culture. Two geniuses emerge at the same time. Amazing. And I love the spy stuff, too. Who knows what he would have accomplished had he not squabbled over the bill at that dirty tavern.

35. Timon of Athens, by William Shakespeare.
What a bore.

36. King Lear, by William Shakespeare.
Maybe Shakespeare was gathering his strength for Lear as he slogged through Timon of Athens. (There are a lot of similarities between the two plays.) King Lear is such a great play that it’s difficult to even perceive it as a whole. It may be the most powerful expression of human despair ever put on paper. I was in tears at the end, but the real revelation this past time reading was in the scene of the storm out on the heath, and Lear – descending into madness (which is a kind of clarity) – realizes, suddenly, that the majority of people in the world live in hovels, poor shelter against storms. In the middle of a monologue, he exclaims, “O, I have taken too little care of this!” I have tears in my eyes typing those words. What madness brings is awareness and compassion. If the whole world could look around and say, “O, I have taken too little care of this” and then acted upon that feeling, we would live in a better place. King Lear is one of the Monuments of world culture. We would not be the same if it didn’t exist.

37. The Good Soldier, by Ford Madox Ford.
Ford Madox Ford was a big “blank” in my self-directed education. I was not an English major. I grew up with bookish parents who had read everything, but my education was theatre and acting. Any reading I’ve done since I graduated from high school was on my own. And Ford Madox Ford was one of those people I skipped, inadvertently. Like Evelyn Waugh and Nabokov, he was a later discovery for me. This was the first year I read anything by him, and it was one of those moments where you go, “Oh. So THIS is why everyone talks about this book all the time.” I read it in one sitting at the beach this summer. Amazing, and one of the best examples of an unreliable narrator in literature.

38. The Perfect Storm: A True Story of Men Against the Sea, by Sebastian Junger.
Of course I read it already. This is maybe my 4th time. I remember that storm. I grew up in a fishing town, not as well-known as Gloucester, but with a similar vibe. That was a crazy crazy storm. My favorite part is the “rescue swimmers.” Sebastian Junger actually goes off on a tangent about those incredible guys and their insane training. You can tell it’s a real draw for Junger, whose persona is pretty self-consciously macho. It’s one of the best sections of the book. Unforgettable image: Rescue swimmer dropped out of helicopter into an ocean where the waves are peaking at 80, 90 feet. #1: Imagine that. Rescue swimmer swims to the flailing sailboat, and he recalls later that he had to swim VERTICALLY at one point (shivers.) He arrives at the two women in the water, holding onto a life raft, and the women remember his arrival: he shouted about the roar of the storm, “Hi, my name is So-and-So and I’ll be your rescue swimmer today.” hahaha Like he’s a waiter at TGIF’s. That’s who these guys are. Cool as cukes. Very good book.

39. Macbeth, by William Shakespeare.
I always forget how short Macbeth is. It plays like a bat out of hell. The action is compressed and feverish. Everyone dies in what feels like a two-day period. Macbeth rises to the top, and then falls immediately. Very disturbing bloody play. There’s a reason “Macbeth” is a forbidden word to actors.

40. The Daylight Gate, by Jeanette Winterson.
I haven’t been into her fiction lately, as she has started to mess around with children’s books and fantasy books. I find them didactic. It’s all a clumsy obvious metaphor for climate change, one of her main topics. So they’re boring. I read them all, but they bore me. This, though, this brings Winterson back to the form I prefer, the form that made her name in the first place, with phenomenal books like Sexing the Cherry and The Passion (one of my favorite books of all time.) The Daylight Gate takes place during the first years of King James’ reign, when fear of witches was starting to reach a peak. It’s a beautiful book. I love her writing so much. And Shakespeare makes a cameo!

41. Harry and Hortense at Hormone High, by Paul Zindel.
I read Paul Zindel’s The Pigman when I was in 8th grade, and it has remained a favorite forever since then. It holds up even to Adult Sheila. “The Marshmallow Kid” still makes me howl. I’ve read all of his stuff except for this one. Zindel really gets the nerd-outcast thing that happens in high school. He creates unforgettable characters, and situations that are at times hilarious, and at times tragic. Harry and Hortense is quite disturbing (in ways that Zindel fans will recognize). Harry and Hortense, a high school couple who have been together forever, meet a new kid in school who is convinced that his real father was Icarus. The boy is clearly mentally ill but maybe … maybe … he’s onto something? They’re not sure. They’re drawn into his life, his dreams, and he seeks them out to get the work out about his “message” to all of humanity. The book is really good.

42. My Darling, My Hamburger, by Paul Zindel.
A serious book about a couple of high school couples and their struggles/issues with sex. Written in an earlier time, when girls resisted “putting out,” when people broke up over these issues, it has a lot of similarity with William Inge’s Splendor in the Grass, an indictment of what that double-standard does to girls. I had forgotten how sad this book was. Oh, and parents in Paul Zindel’s book range from ineffective to downright sinister and cruel. Not surprising, considering the mother in his famous play The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds, based on his own mother. Zindel does not relate to good caring parents. I think he’s written a couple of them in his books, and they don’t ring true. It’s not his experience. His characters are pretty much orphans, raising themselves, finding comfort with their own peer group.

43. A Train of Powder, by Rebecca West.
I’ve read this one before. It’s Rebecca West reporting on 4 separate trials, starting with the Nuremberg Trials. Invaluable, but then her stuff always is.

44. Antony and Cleopatra, by William Shakespeare.
I had forgotten how “out there” this play was. Cleopatra, the embodiment of music and nature and luxury: she is barely human. The love affair is a man sinking into luxury, but it’s almost as though he’s drawn into her magnetic vortex and literally cannot extricate himself. It’s not quite a romance on the level of Romeo and Juliet because neither character really emerges as an individual. They are their roles in society, they are submerged into one totally, and Cleopatra herself is practically supernatural in her connection to deeper earthier forces. It’s a great great play. W.H. Auden said, in one of his lectures on Shakespeare, that if he had to choose one play out of all of them – if Shakespeare had only written one play, which one would Auden prefer it to have been, which play could he personally not live without – and he said Antony and Cleopatra.

45. Seymour: An Introduction, by J.D. Salinger.
A re-read. I think I last read it in 1994, 1995, when things were getting distinctively spooky in my life. It’s such a painful piece of writing. Brilliant. J.D. Salinger gets lost in his own parentheticals. He gets distracted into tangents, and he has to keep interjecting commentary about how he is not capturing what he means, he is not capturing Seymour, something is eluding him. And the novella just stops. Not in mid-sentence, but Salinger puts down his pen (or stops typing), “giving up.” I see this as deliberate, a stylistic thing, as opposed to an author actually unraveling. But again: poignantly painful to read. Almost like Emily’s famous monologue at the end of Our Town: can we ever really BE with one another? Can we ever really SEE one another. In Seymour: An Introduction, J.D. Salinger tries. I got through this one as quick as I could.

46. John Wayne: The Life and Legend, by Scott Eyman.
What a phenomenal biography of one of my favorite actors. Long overdue. It’s fair and it’s detailed. And Scott Eyman understands acting, like so few writers on film do. He can describe what is good, and WHY. With someone like John Wayne, who is continuously under-rated by people who don’t know what they’re talking about, it is so so important to examine the nuts-and-bolts of his acting, to understand WHY he was so effective, and WHY he was a #1 box office star for 40 years. Hats off, Eyman.

47. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream, by Hunter S. Thompson.
God, I love this book. It takes my breath away. The section where the lawyer, out of his mind on some hallucinogen, gets stuck on the carousel, and is terrified, makes me howl with laughter. I posted some favorite excerpts here.

48. Pericles, by William Shakespeare.
I love the Wikipedia entry about the authorship controversy: “Modern editors generally agree that Shakespeare is responsible for almost exactly half the play—827 lines.” God bless people who spend their lives figuring such shit out. It’s not my thing, but I love them nonetheless. Freakin’ John Gower appears throughout as a narrator, a very bizarre device, but interesting.

49. Vengeance: A Novel, by Benjamin Black.
The next in line of the “Quirke” novels, written by John Banville under his pseudonym. Banville, as the Irish “Booker Prize” guy, writes serious novels that I find rather dreary, although gorgeously written. At some point, he himself got sick of John Banville. He wanted to write crime novels, noir detective novels. So he created Benjamin Black (being very open that it was him), and started a series about an off-and-on alcoholic pathologist in 1950s Dublin who gets sucked into these enormous conspiracies and crimes. They’re fabulous.

50. Subtle Bodies, by Norman Rush.
I’ve written a shit-load about my love of Norman Rush, in particular his sweeping epic novel Mating: A Novel. I know a lot of women hate this novel. I love it more than I can even express. It helped explain my own life to me, it helped me put into words who I was, what I was looking for, it even helped contextualize a certain apocalyptically passionate love affair I was trying to recover from. This book HELPED me. Norman Rush has not written a lot. A collection of short stories, and three novels. He is in his 80s. It’s been years since his follow-up to Mating, a sort-of sequel called Mortals, which I didn’t care for. I heard he had come out with a new one, I read all the interviews with him, I learned that Subtle Bodies does not take place in Africa (as all his other books do). And it was described as a sort of Big Chill type thing, a bunch of Baby Boomers gathering for the death of a friend. (Rush is excellent on the whole Baby Boomer THING. He gets the delusion, but he also understands it from the inside.) He is a very funny writer. His voice is funny. His observations are funny. Subtle Bodies is hilarious. And much shorter than his other two novels. It ZIPS.

51. Consider the Lobster and Other Essays, by David Foster Wallace.
I went through a huge David Foster Wallace resurgence this year, mainly to counteract the effect of The End of the Tour. I wanted to go back and get to the source. No way did Jason Segel as David Foster Wallace write like this. It just didn’t compute. Sorry. I know a lot of people loved it. I love David Foster Wallace almost desperately. I yearn for his writing.

52. The Varieties of Religious Experience, by William James.
I finally read this gigantic tome! It comes up so often in other peoples’ writing, it’s used as a reference point so constantly, that I almost felt like I could talk about the book without having read a word. It’s like Das Capital or something. But I finally decided, “Sheila. Stop assuming you know this book when you haven’t read it. Read it.” I read it on vacation. It was, at times, a slog (especially the long excerpts from people describing their religious epiphanies), but all along I could feel that beautiful sensation I’ve described before: “Okay. I get why everybody references this book so much.” Not that I doubted their sincerity. It’s just that I need to discover things for myself.

53. The Origins of Totalitarianism, by Hannah Arendt.
I’ve only read Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil , but I’ve had this book for years, and like Varieties of Religious Experience it’s referenced so often (and I read so much about totalitarian governments) that I felt like I knew what the book encompassed even without reading it. And I was right. But there’s nothing like discovering it for yourself. It’s a rich reading experience and her analysis … well, you can see why she is controversial. But I like her clear-headed and independent iconoclastic perspective. It’s an enormous book.

52. White Nights, by Fyodor Dostoevsky.
Another re-read. I read it in one sitting on a windy day at the beach. I love it so much. It’s got that typical craziness of Dostoevsky, the heightened mania, the passion so intense it makes people insane. It’s also so funny (as Dostoevsky often is. Notes from the Underground!!) I particularly love the moment when the lead character describes his daily walk and how he says hello to the houses as though they are people, and is startled when things change: they get painted, trees get cut down. He wants to ask the houses how that happened and how they feel about it.

53. Betrayal: The Life and Lies of Bernie Madoff, by Andrew Kirtzman.
Unbelievable. The whole thing is so unbelievable.

54. Coriolanus, by William Shakespeare.
One of Shakespeare’s most ceremonial grand-opera plays. It’s all gigantic speeches and processions. Coriolanus is hard to get a handle on: he speaks SO MUCH and tells us SO LITTLE. He’s not like Hamlet, or Lear, or Othello, telling us their innermost feelings. He remains ceremonial, a public figure. And kind of a douche.

55. The Days of Abandonment, by Elena Ferrante.
My friend Dan talked to me about this book in a way that made me order it 5 minutes after I talked to him. “Okay, so the book opens when this woman’s husband leaves her. And then … oh my God … oh my God …” “Wait, what happens?” “She just … goes out of her … MIND.” Elena Ferrante is a pseudonym, for an author who has remained anonymous. (Fascinating!) I read Days of Abandonment, again, in one sitting at the beach. It is all that everyone says it is. I read it in one sitting because I could not BEAR to put it down. It remains beyond my powers of description, so all I can say is: Run, don’t walk, and read this extraordinary novel. The less you know about it the better.

56. Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man (Books That Changed the World), by Christopher Hitchens.
A slim volume about Thomas Paine’s classic, the spark that ignited a revolution. I miss you, Hitchens.

57. A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again: Essays and Arguments, by David Foster Wallace.
A great collection with some of my favorite pieces, especially the piece on David Lynch, one of the best pieces of in-depth criticism ever written. It’s my kind of criticism.

58. A Little Life: A Novel, by Hanya Yanagihara
Oh my God, this book. It was so unrelentingly brutal that I had to force myself to finish it. But I had heard from my friend Ted how much he loved it, but also the look on his face told me that it was a trial for him as well. Yanagihara said that she had wanted to write a novel where “someone DOESN’T get better.” In a way, it’s a welcome corrective to the American love of the redemption tale. I have no love for the redemption tale, at least not as it is currently presented. People act like redemption is a FACT, as opposed to a glorified wish-fulfillment. Some people do the best they can with the hand they’ve been dealt (as the lead character does here), but he is the Walking Wounded, and nothing, nothing can alleviate that. Somerset Maugham wrote, “It is not true that suffering ennobles the character; happiness does that sometimes, but suffering for the most part makes men petty and vindictive.” I agree with this. I am a realist. The lead character in A Little Life is not petty and vindictive, but his childhood, and its torments, ruined him. It’s an enormous novel and the first 150 pages are pretty difficult (Ted had warned me about that), but then the real book kicks in. I read it in about 5 days, because, again, like, Days of Abandonment, I couldn’t bear to put it down. I knew nothing about the plot of A Little Life. I went into it cold, with only Ted’s vague words of recommendation. He didn’t tell me much else. As it unfolded, I felt dread and horror start to build, and I couldn’t leave it. I wanted to put it down many times and it was a book I explicitly avoided reading near bedtime.

59. Both Flesh and Not: Essays, by David Foster Wallace.
Again, I had to re-read it all. Well, not Infinite Jest. But these essays. These journalistic essays and personal essays … He’s just the best.

60. John Tyler: The American Presidents Series: The 10th President, 1841-1845, by Gary May.
Along with the ongoing Shakespeare project, I picked up my Chronological U.S. Presidents project, after a short break. The New York Times edits a series of small books, by different authors, about each President. Each one is about 140 pages long, and cover only the Presidency. (Well, maybe a brief biographical backstory chapter). I really enjoy this series and am learning a lot about Presidents I knew almost nothing about. (My father used to make us memorize the Presidents, in order, for part of our allowance. We would chant the names out in our living room, and then put our hands out for the money.) John Tyler was Vice President to President William Henry Harrison, who became President after WHH died only a month into office for making a long long speech on a cold cold day. Put on a scarf, WHH! He was the first Vice President to assume the office of the Presidency in such a manner, and there was quite a crisis at first about what to do. Tyler’s main thing was the annexation of Texas.

61. The Great Crash 1929, by John Kenneth Galbraith.
A re-read. It’s a slim little volume, and compulsively read-able. I took a class on the Great Depression (the 1930s, in general) in college, taught by the same professor who taught another class I took on the Industrial Revolution that was, hands down, the best class I ever took. Including acting classes. I signed up for the 1930s Class because I had loved the Industrial Revolution class so much. At the beginning of the semester, he had us pick out a company from the 1920s, and over the course of the semester – through microfiche files, remember – chart its progress from 1920 to 1929. We had to draw it on a graph, and we had to spread it out over however many weeks of the semester. It was such a fabulous exercise, because you could SEE it happen on your own individual graph. Great class. Anyway, I enjoy this book and enjoyed re-reading it. I enjoy reading about economic disasters (see Madoff book.)

62. Cymbeline, by William Shakespeare.
Lots of similarities to Othello, in its interest in jealousy. Unlike Othello, however, who was pushed into jealousy by Iago, King Cymbeline – a mild-mannered loving husband in the first page of the play – suddenly descends into murderous jealousy about his wife’s relationship with his kindred spirit childhood friend. Her relationship is entirely innocent, but he turns into a madman in about one stanza. Mayhem ensues.

63. James K. Polk (The American Presidents Series), by John Seigenthaler.
“Young Hickory.” A Jacksonian. He did lots of good things (set up the Smithsonian, for example), but the main thing I remember about him is the harrowing operation he went through for urinary stones when he was a kid (no anesthesia, remember), and it probably left him sterile. It’s too painful to even read about (people had to hold his legs up in the air throughout) … but one thing it reminds us of: We are made of strong stuff. We can endure so much. Look at what our ancestors endured. Childbirth without drugs. Mastectomies without drugs. Etc. Yes, many people died, but look, the human race is still here, so we are able to withstand such things. But still: shivers for poor Polk …

64. Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow.
I decided to re-read this magnificent biography (I’ve already read it twice) in preparation for going to see Hamilton on Broadway. I finished up just before we went to see it, and I’m so glad. It was all so fresh. And yes: Lin Manuel-Miranda got it all in there. Insane. That production was one of the highlights of my year.

65. Democracy, by Joan Didion.
I wrote a long semi-rant about Joan Didion on Facebook, the gist of which was: Because The Year of Magical Thinking was such a huge hit, and because her second memoir Blue Nights, came on the heels of it and also was a success – and because these books were how a lot of people were introduced to Joan Didion, I think there’s a huge misunderstanding about what kind of writer she actually is. Some of the things I wrote on FB: She has been cast in the popular imagination as a tremblingly sensitive personal-essayist….The rest of her work is NOT ingratiating. Go back and read her 1972 piece on the women’s movement (it’s a scorcher), or her reportage of the Patty Hearst thing (one of my favorites) – or her most famous pieces on the Summer of Love/creepy-hippie thing going on in San Fran in 1968-69…I just wonder if those who only know her as a sensitive personal writer – through those last two books … feel startled by the earlier stuff. Or put off by it.” This goes for her novels, too, which are the opposite of “sensitive.” Democracy is SUCH a bizarre book, and political, and angry, and often extremely funny, as only Didion can be funny. She is often a MEAN writer, which would certainly be an affront to those who think of her as an Oprah-Book-Club candidate (no disrespect. I’m not Jonathan Franzen. But, you know: there’s a love of the redemption personal narrative on that Book Club. Didion is not that.) Democracy is pretty mean about liberals and do-gooders and rich silly people. It’s a great novel about the Vietnam period (written at around the same time it was all going down. It feels like reportage). The most sympathetic character is a guy who profits off of war in mysterious ways, unconnected to any one country, although he is an American citizen. The book takes place right before and right after Saigon falls. I really encourage those of you who loved Year of Magical Thinking, but haven’t read anything else, to branch out. Read her journalism, her political pieces, and definitely read her novels. I don’t mean to be mean. I love Year of Magical Thinking too. But I dislike how her reputation has been somehow softened, pasteurized, and self-help-ified. It is not who she is. She’s tough and a little bit mean turning a gimlet eye towards things a lot of people hold dear.

66. Zachary Taylor: The American Presidents Series: The 12th President, 1849-1850, John S. D. Eisenhower.
Zachary Taylor was a war hero. He had no political ambitions and spent 30 years stationed in various rough forts out on the frontier. But his national profile rose, because of the war triumphs (many that weren’t as triumphant as reported), and so he became President. And died a year after he took office. America had a couple of dying Presidents almost in a row. Fascinating guy. (And the good thing about chronological reading is that you can feel the approach of the cataclysm, and everyone was aware of it, and trying to stave it off through various compromises.)

67. Play It As It Lays: A Novel, by Joan Didion.
To beat a dead horse, Joan Didion is not a cuddly soft sensitive writer. The narrator’s voice in this is so cold it’s practically from outer space. Didion has her detractors. Obviously, I’m not one of them. She’s one of my favorite writers and I love this novel.

68. The Price of Salt, by Patricia Highsmith.
Written in 1949 and published under a pseudonym, The Price of Salt is a frank story about two women who fall in love. I had already read it, because Highsmith is such a favorite, but re-read it in preparation for my Ebert review of Todd Haynes’ Carol. Those who love Highsmith’s Ripley novels, or Strangers on a Train, or all the rest, should definitely check out The Price of Salt. The ending is breathtaking … Literally: I gasped, the first time around reading it. Beautiful book.

69. The Winter’s Tale, by William Shakespeare.
My God, what a strange and magical play. He was moving into such interesting areas with his art at the end. Not easily classifiable. And really “out there.” Love this play.

70. Lectures on Shakespeare, by W.H. Auden.
This was my reading-guide for the Shakespeare project (along with another beautiful book that will come later). In 1946, Auden gave a series of lectures about Shakespeare at the New School (my alma mater! Or one of them.) He talked about each play in something close to chronological order. There are no texts of his lectures, but a guy in the audience wrote down everything he remembered from each lecture. So they’re chatty and jokey and filled with tangents and long quotes from other things, and they are no less than riveting. You actually feel like you are there in that auditorium. It was a great study-guide. I read a lecture at a time, before starting each new play. No wonder it’s taken me two years to get through the complete works. I’m such a nerd.

71. William Henry Harrison: The American Presidents Series: The 9th President,1841, by Gail Collins.
I probably won’t be believed but I’ll float this out there anyway: I laughed out loud reading this book. Poor William Henry Harrison, famously, was only in office for a month. Known for making excruciatingly long speeches, he spoke for two hours on a freezing cold day, and promptly came down with pneumonia. He was “treated” by a bunch of panicked doctors, who probably hastened his death, what with laxatives, and leeches, and “bleeding” him. So there’s not much of a Presidency to discuss anyway. He wasn’t in office long enough to DO anything. While that is mainly what he is remembered for, the really historical importance of William Henry Harrison is that his campaign for President (not run by him, but those of his party, in the custom of the day) was the first modern Presidential campaign. No different than what we experience now: the lies, the exaggerations, the political jostling for position, trying to make the candidate something he is not. An “everyman,” a “regular guy,” a “Christian,” whatever works. The story of William Henry Harrison’s campaign is so entertainingly told by Gail Collins that it made me laugh out loud. It was 100% Theater of the Absurd and it helped create the modern political system. All for naught. Dude died a month after being sworn in.

72. A Book of Common Prayer, by Joan Didion.
See above rant. I don’t mean to hurt people’s feelings: I know her book on grief was so helpful and VERY helpful to me because I hadn’t realized how disorienting grief was until it happened to me. Like, your mind is actually altered. And that’s what her whole book was about. But as someone who has been reading Didion since college, you know … there’s more out there. A Book of Common Prayer is another novel and I think of it as a companion piece to Democracy, even though they are not about the same things. A Book of Common Prayer takes place in a Latin American dictatorship. There are American wandering around, one in particular. CIA operatives. A coup is imminent. But coups are so rote at this point that everyone just sits around wondering who will win. It’s a pretty bleak book, written in that classic Didion style, cold, remote, slightly scary, with lots of repetition … a stylistic “tic” that maybe she overdoes a little bit here … but I love this book. Not as much as Democracy, but it’s up there.

73. The Tempest, by William Shakespeare.
Magical again. It was also perfect timing, because I re-watched Paul Mazurky’s Tempest in preparation for my Gena Rowlands pieces (for the Oscars, as well as for Ebert.) I love the movie and I love the play and it was so fun to see the adaptation/re-imagining.

74. Shakespeare After All, by Marjorie Garber.
What a great and invaluable book! I’ve been mean to scholars in this thread, although I appreciate the work they’ve done. But I don’t and I won’t clog my brain with academic-speak. Garber is a scholar and historian, but her style isn’t academic at all. She does point out similarities in language and prosody and rhyme scheme that I would never pick up on, and also provides background on the history of each play. Also: it goes in chronological order, each play getting a chapter. Each chapter is about the same length: 30 pages or so, so easily digestible in small portions. Before starting each new play, I would read the Auden lecture as well as the Garber chapter. A perfect launching point. If anyone is even vaguely interested in reading the Shakespeare plays in chronological order, I recommend this approach. It’s fun. Trust me.

75. Baseball: A Literary Anthology
I didn’t read this cover to cover. I spread it out, an essay here, a poem there. I’ve been doing excerpts, and so I got swept away by it. A lot of it I hadn’t read. It’s a huge book, but you can whip through it because some of the essays are only two pages long.

76. The Disappearing Spoon: And Other True Tales of Madness, Love, and the History of the World from the Periodic Table of the Elements, by Sam Kean.
Sam Kean is not a scientist. He is interested in a wide variety of topics, philosophy and interesting people from history. As a kid, he loved to break open thermometers, pour the mercury out on the ground and watch it burble and race away from its own self. It began a lifelong fascination with the periodic table. My sister Siobhan had given this to me for Christmas last year, she loved it, and it took me this long to get to it. It is so entertaining. You actually laugh out loud sometimes. Or I did. Imagine the nerdiness. But I knew almost none of this and it was a lot of fun to get more perspective on this familiar thing called the periodic table.

77. The Female Thing: Dirt, envy, sex, vulnerability, by Laura Kipnis.
Apparently college-campus women’s-group organizations hate Laura Kipnis and ban her from speaking. Lovely. What a lovely way to deal with disagreement. Stalin would be so proud! I don’t even want to get into those groups and how awful I think they are, with their requesting trigger warnings on Ovid and other such nonsensical time-wasters. Maybe higher education actually isn’t for you, girls, if you find intellectual inquiry so “triggering,” if you only want to learn what you already know/agree with. No seriously: college isn’t for everyone. Another thing that drives me insane (and that has also been a so-called issue with Kipnis’ work) is the brand-new thought that women talking about their health issues is “transphobic.” I am in full support of my transgender friends and could not be happier about what has happened in the last year, in terms of awareness and visibility. It is important and ground-breaking. But women’s health issues – those born with vaginas, I mean – are still critically important around the world (like: women are in danger because of their genitals in most places on the planet) and we need to be able to discuss these things freely without being called transphobic. To put the vulnerable vagina and ovaries at the bottom of the heap AGAIN … this MUST NOT HAPPEN. We’re already in a dire enough situation as it is. Laura Kipnis gets similar criticisms. But her voice is important. She’s interested in things nobody wants to hear. I love hearing how she thinks about things. Often I disagree with her, and vehemently! I’ll think, “Don’t speak for me, Kipnis!!” And she does leave out sections of the demographic, but she’s frank about that, she admits it. You may not like what she has to say, but to try to silence her is totalitarian.

78. American Movie Critics: From Silents Until Now
An important volume? Yes.
Great pieces of writing included? Yes.
Interesting? Oh my God yes.
Typos and errors and incorrect words not catch-able by spellcheck on almost every single page, no exaggeration: almost every page? Yes.
BOO to the editors.

79. Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock ‘n’ Roll, by Peter Guralnick.
I have been waiting for this biography for years. It did not disappoint. It was everything I had hoped.

80. Elvis, by Dave Marsh.
One of the best books about Elvis ever written, and sadly it’s out of print. I was interviewed recently about Elvis (I’ll put up the link when it goes live), and I babbled on and on … and on? … about this great book. Indispensable if you want to understand Elvis and cut through the bullshit.

81. Millard Fillmore: The American Presidents Series: The 13th President, 1850-1853, by Paul Finkelman.
I did not know much about him. Approaching the Civil War now, day by day. Millard Fillmore, xenophobic, not well-educated compared to others and insecure about it, anti-Catholic, anti-immigration, anti-abolitionist, comes off as an incredible jerk and really ruinous towards any hope of compromise. His entire Presidency was taken up with enforcing the draconian Fugitive Slave Act. In a way, the Fugitive Slave Act ignited the North in solidarity on the abolitionist side. It made people who were on the fence get off the fence. Some of the stories are unbelievable: freed slaves being tried in the court, and then hustled off to escape out the back door, and it WORKED. Literally right under the noses of all of the officials and judges and security lined up around the courthouse. There are multiple such stories. Fillmore devoted his whole Presidency to watching over the Fugitive Slave Act and making sure it was utilized. A pretty terrible legacy. A very interesting book!

81. The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, by Michael Lewis.
I love Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, have read it a couple of times, but hadn’t checked out The Big Short. I thought Adam McKay’s movie was FANTASTIC, so I went out and bought a second-hand copy at The Strand and read it in about two days. It’s superb. The fact that I actually understood (sort of) what was happening in both is a testament to their effectiveness.

82. Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster, by Svetlana Alexievich
So upsetting and haunting I had to force myself to finish it. Finishing it became an act of bearing witness to what these people went through and are still going through. I felt helpless reading it. I read it over the Christmas holiday. I sat in front of the lit-up Christmas tree reading it. Siobhan’s husband Ben came into the room, got one look at me, and burst into laughter. “This is the most incongruous thing I’ve ever seen.” The book is all “voices.” No editorial interjections from Nobel Prize winner Alexievich. The voices come to us unedited. Important important book.

83. To Rise Again at a Decent Hour: A Novel, by Joshua Ferris.
This writer amazes me. His first novel, Then We Came to the End: A Novel, was so good that I couldn’t believe it was his first. I’m not a first-novel person, but Siobhan recommended it to me so highly I had to pick it up. It’s unbelievable. I read his second, The Unnamed, and found it viscerally upsetting. A man can’t stop walking. His whole life is destroyed because he can’t stop walking. He doesn’t know why he has to walk. But he must. It’s one of the best descriptions of “unnamed” mental illness I’ve ever read and it hit a bit too close to home. It is so so so sad. I read it in the year I got diagnosed, so maybe it was too soon. I picked up his latest recently. It’s about a dentist. Who is a Red Sox fan. Who falls in love so immediately with various women that they are put off by it. It’s outrageously funny at times (out-loud laughter), and then really really bizarre too, with a kind of “double” thing going on, an alter ego appearing, trying to co-opt his identity. I enjoyed it.

84. Henry VIII, by William Shakespeare.
A fun companion piece to Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies (Wolf Hall, Book 2), third part of the trilogy still pending.) Cromwell is only a small part in Shakespeare’s play but because of Mantel you wonder, always, what the hell he is up to. What an amazing story and what an amazing start to a religion. I mean, you can’t even believe it.

85. Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness, by William Styron.
I’ve read this multiple times. It’s only 80 pages long. I’ve written a lot about it before. It’s an incredible articulation of depression, although he admits that one of the worst parts about the disease is how it escapes language. Interesting though: I have some additional thoughts about it. This is the first time I’ve read it since I got diagnosed. So I saw some other things in it. Maybe I’ll do it someday. It’s a hot topic, I realize. Everyone’s experience is different. We owe Styron a great debt for this little book.

86. The Flick, by Annie Baker.
Pulitzer Prize winning play. Currently running in New York. The play generated the kind of buzz that you don’t hear all that often. Buzz about the script itself. People say stuff like, “It’s not like anything else.” And you wonder: how can that be? I went to go see it, and yes. It is not like anything else. And yes, it is as good as the buzz promised. BETTER. The first act is an hour and forty minutes long, to give you an idea. The second act is that long as well. Lots of people walk out. They’re missing out. It is a profound piece of work that pushes theatre forward into new and strange areas. I hadn’t read the script, though, and wondered how it would read on the page. Well, there it is: there it all is. The script is ON the page. Maybe that isn’t clear, but actors and writers will get it. Many scripts need to be theatricalized to be realized. Well, that’s the point of a script. But some scripts feel … thin … not finished … when you just read it (in other words: on the page.) But some scripts: you read and there it is, the final production, already there in the words. Elia Kazan said Tennessee Williams’ scripts were like that. He read them for the first time and saw the entire production in his head. Annie Baker’s script reads like that.

2014 books read
2013 books read
2012 books read
2011 books read
2010 books read
2009 books read
2008 books read
2007 books read
2006 books read
2005 books read

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 22 Comments

Star Wars Violin Medley

I thought this was really cool. Violinist Taylor Davis (there are many Youtube clips of her performing other movie themes) plays a medley of the various John Williams Star Wars themes (the hopeful epic theme and the Darth Vader dark side theme), complete with two different costumes/makeup and neon violin bows. Very cool arrangements, too.

Posted in Movies, Music | Leave a comment

The Books: Baseball: A Literary Anthology; from The Wrong Season, by Joel Oppenheimer

31253

On the essays shelf (yes, there are still more books to excerpt in my vast library. I can’t seem to stop this excerpts-from-my-library project. I started it in 2006!)

NEXT BOOK: Baseball: A Literary Anthology

Joel Oppenheimer was a Village Voice columnist and a poet. He was born in Yonkers, and except for his time at Black Mountain college, he was a New Yorker through and through. Immersed in the New York literary scene in the 1960s, and a vigorous and hearty scene it was! Experimental theatre, literary magazines, St. Marks Poetry Project (of which he was the first director), and heavy-drinking experimental poets/writers/playwrights hanging out at these legendary literary bars, talking the night away. Oppenheimer was a huge part of all of that. He was also a devoted Mets fan. So he would spend his nights at the famous Lion’s Head tavern in Greenwich Village,. (Sadly, the The Lion’s Head is no more, it closed in 1998, but the stories live on. Frank McCourt tells stories about hanging out there while he was a substitute teacher. The writers who frequented the Lion’s Head had their book covers tacked up on the walls, a display of the literary power that came to drink there every night. McCourt describes, movingly, how he felt when he looked up on the wall and saw that Angela’s Ashes had been added to the gallery. He had been drinking there for 30 years.)

Joel Oppenheimer was not a prolific poet (there are only two published collections), but his Village Voice columns were widely read and is how he is remembered. However, he did write a book about The Mets, in particular the 1972 season. The book is called The Wrong Season. The 1972 baseball season almost didn’t happen. In April the players went on strike due to disputes over salary/pension. The strike only lasted 13 days but the season lost 86 games because of it. When the season started up again, post-strike, there would be no makeup games, so the whole season had an uneven fractured quality to it. 1972 wasn’t the kind of strike that baseball saw in 1981 or 1994, totally decimating to the sport, but it was prophetic of the havoc a strike could cause.

Oppenheimer spent the time of that strike, wondering whether or not the 1972 season would happen at all, arguing about it at the Lion’s Head with his writer-poet-baseball-fan friends.

The Wrong Season is told in a chatty and intimate style, with a poet’s verve for language. It is not hi-falutin’, but neither is it prosaic. At some points, you feel that you are sitting at the Lion’s Head bar with the guys talking like this. It’s overlapping, it’s chatty and learned (in the way true baseball fans are learned), it’s all over the place, it’s argumentative. There are no capital letters. At times, he sounds desperate. He considers consulting an astrologer. No baseball? How on earth would anyone survive a summer with no baseball? What do the stars say about this prospect?

The best thing to do is just leap right in. This sounds like the O’Malleys sitting around the table during the off-season, going over hypotheticals like sabermetrical maniacs.

Excerpt from Baseball: A Literary Anthology, edited by Nicholas Davidoff. From The Wrong Season, by Joel Oppenheimer

the other thing that had been in my head before the strike was still rattling around there too and that was the season itself, because the last week of the exhibition schedule is when you start that kind of figuring, and i couldn’t drop it now, just because there might not be a season.

i mean, that’s the week you go to bed secure in all sorts of beliefs: like the exhibitions don’t count, except the ones you’ve won, and that batters who aren’t hitting now will start to, while the batters who are hitting are obviously raring to go already, and the pitchers are ahead of the batters anyway and your pitchers are going to stay that way. will seaver ever lose? i doubt it, or at least not before the all-star break. then too, the schedule is favorable, because a preliminary check shows that the mets can’t lose a game until, possibly, the sag of jetlag in l.a. at the end of april, and that’ll only be the first one of the three-game set that they drop, and since it’s clear that the mets will run away with the season, you settle down quiet nights with the macmillan encyclopedia and the baseball register, and you update records to see who has a shot at what.

clemente needed nine triples to make the top twenty-five triples hitters of all time. he didn’t make it – he got only seven in 1972 and won’t hit any more. it ain’t funny – because musial is the only modern on the list, and he’s got a lot more at-bats, so that’s nice select company for one of our boys to be in. i mean, hardly no one hits triples these days.

despite the fact that henry aaron is becoming everybody’s darling, and fickle fame has turned her glance away from willie, because of the damned homers, henry is still worthy of attention, because he’s moving up on a lot more than that. like, this season, he should move to second in all-time hits, runs batted in, and total bases, as well as making the homerun run.

hoyt wilhelm can’t really gain anything, since he leads in practically all the categories he can lead in anyhow, but ain’t it a groove that he’s still going at forty-eight, turning forty-nine?

tom seaver needs thirty-five wins to pass christy mathewson’s total for his first six years, and he and nancy need one more commercial to give me spasmodic nausea.

cleon jones needs to bat .375 with five hundred at-bats to have a lifetime .300 average. his middle name is joseph.

and understand that this is what baseball’s about, too – this and the kids. so when you laugh at me, hunched over my transistor at the dark end of the bar, laugh quietly. remember that i don’t laugh at you as you stare at the greater greensboro open, whatever that may be. i know that ken solo, alone in front of his stromberg-calson on memorial day, dazed by all the radio-borne static of all those growling offenhausens, understands. i know that tommy sugar in the rain at aqueduct understands. and i know that the reasonable world does not.

the hope is eternally there – always some specific hopes; this year, before the strike, it was to see vida sign, to see that fast ball rip through. it was even to wish that bouton’s knuckle kept floating through the jersey night, just like his fast ball once cut through october days, and to hope that nathaniel learned once and for all the right way to hold a bat – he’s five and a half, and give me a child ’til he is six, i ain’t got much time – and then, the constant hope, the thing the game is about, the moments of perfection in the long, slow drag of the game, the long, slow drag of the season. i wanted to see those.

now i have to worry, instead, if willie, poor willie, can keep his legs for one more season if i don’t see him in this one.

Posted in Books | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Review: Heaven Knows What (2015)

large_k1a5uBVvy0jaVnwMBt6MWZ8bct2

Someone on IMDB called Heaven Knows What an “incomprehensible mess.” But a junkie’s life IS “an incomprehensible mess,” right? The life of a drug addict does not proceed in a linear way. Days do not make sense the way they make sense for people who are sober and have other obligations besides shooting up. The whole point of Heaven Knows What, co-directed by Ben and Joshua Safdie, is to show the “incomprehensible mess” of the lives of New York junkies, as seen from the claustrophobic bell-jar inside.

The junkie drama is a cliche at this point, and is the main barrier to even wanting to SEE the film. My God, enough with the heroin addict living on the streets storyline. As I said in my review for Animals, another recent heroin drama that came out at around the same time as Heaven Knows What (and I wish I had seen it then so I could have used it as comparison): Drug addicts are boring. They don’t have multiple interests. They only have one. And it proceeds in the same way for everyone. But Heaven Knows What has a lot of things going for it, things that make it unique.

First, it’s based on the writings of one Arielle Holmes, who also stars in the film, as herself, presumably. The Safdies were doing research for another film, roaming the subways and parks of New York City, doing “street casting” and they saw a petite blonde near a turnstile and assumed she was a Russian diamond worker. She looked the part. And she had “something” they found intriguing so they went to talk to her. Turns out, she was not a Russian diamond worker at all, but a homeless junkie who hailed originally from New Jersey. They took her out for coffee, they wanted to know about her life. In the making-of featurette included with the DVD, Arielle Holmes says, “They were infatuated with something about me.” That infatuation led to the Safdies asking her to write down her experiences and send it to them. They told her it could be anything, write down what happens to you in a 24 hour period, write anything. Holmes would plant herself at various Apple stores, and write it out there. And so Heaven Knows What began to take shape. Based entirely on Arielle Holmes’ writing, Heaven Knows What is filled with non-professional actors, some of whom are Arielle’s real-life junkie friends. The people in the film give Heaven Knows What a verisimilitude that other drug dramas, inhabited by actors we’re all familiar with who have “uglied up” for the role, lack. In Heaven Knows What, the characters sit at White Castle, or Dunkin Donuts, arguing, talking, telling stories, or they lie around in the park on a cold day sharing a bottle, and the faces are the faces of homelessness, drug addiction. It’s an unmistakeable look: wind-burned faces, grey hardened hands, terrible teeth, a ferocious involvement in the NOW. If you’re a New Yorker you’ll recognize it. You’ve walked by these people. You’ve thrown a couple coins in their paper cups. Or, you’ve crossed the street to avoid their screaming arguments on the sidewalk. None of it feels like acting, because it really isn’t acting.

S6Y1lyA

Secondly, Heaven Knows What does not use the familiar trope of someone going on a downward spiral. Or someone starting out clean, then trying drugs for the first time, and the next thing you know she’s a hooker. (Panic in Needle Park, for example.) While that type of story is meant to be a cautionary tale, it is also a romanticization of the reality. Heaven Knows What launches you into the middle of the group, and it never leaves that group. Characters come and go, alliances form and then shatter, for no real reason that is comprehensible to anyone who is sober, but it makes sense in the world of Heaven Knows What. It’s a world where everyone uses everyone else. It’s part of the life. Everyone needs to get high, and everyone will do what it takes to get that need met. That’s all that matters in any given moment. (This is why drug addict stories can be so boring.) Harley (Arielle Holmes) has no backstory. When we meet her, and we do immediately, she is so fully in “the life” that there is no past and no future. This is true for every character. Parents aren’t mentioned. Nobody has any memories of “the time before.” There are no social workers who check up on people. The characters are not “in the system” in any whatsoever. Everything is off the grid. And it stays off the grid. The grid is only there to be exploited and stolen from.

And so, by full immersion into the nonstop hustle that makes up the New York junkie’s life, Heaven Knows What is confusing, depressing, stressful: There’s no “stand-in” for the healthy sober world, no onlooker, no participant who hasn’t been living that life for years. None of the characters express any hope that there might be something else. It’s just not a factor in their conceptions of their lives.

heaven-knows-what2

Harley is madly in love with the sinister narcissistic Ilya (Caleb Landry Jones, the only professional actor in the cast). She is so in love with him that when he rejects her she threatens to kill herself. That threat then becomes a dare. She declares she will kill herself to show how much she loves him. He goads her on to do it. These confrontations take place first in a public library, where the group goes to get out of the cold and also use the computers (if you frequent NYPLs, you know this is a realistic depiction of the atmosphere). Then it moves out into the freezing parks of the neighborhood in full sunlight. Harley slashes her wrists and ends up in a psych ward. Once back out on the streets, wrist bandaged up, the round of her life begins again. Ilya recedes for a while, then returns. Mike then rises. Mike is played by Buddy Duress, a non-professional actor who gives an extraordinary memorable performance. Duress has been a drug dealer all his life, and got out of Riker’s Island just 4 days before shooting started. (It wasn’t his first time in Riker’s either.) Mike and Harley pair up in a “let’s get through the day together” kind of way. Mike is chatty, repetitive, extroverted, and resourceful. But then – like clockwork – the alliance falls apart.

screen-shot-2015-10-01-at-06-46-24

One of the things Heaven Knows What really captures is just how crazy all of this seems to anyone outside it. (I realize many people have a problem with that word. I don’t. I use it deliberately, because it feels the most accurate, with all its connotations of madness, mental chaos, insensibility, and “lost to the world” implications) It’s one of those things where you can imagine one of these characters getting themselves together enough to step out of that world, even slightly: get into rehab, live in a halfway house, get a part-time job, even leave New York for whatever reason – anything where there is enough distance from the environment so they can SEE it, and realizing: “Was that me screaming in public, chasing someone down the sidewalk because he stole the hat I dug out of the trash? How did THAT happen?” In other words: within the context of Heaven Knows What, that kind of behavior is not unexpected, no one even blinks an eye. But if you take one step back, it would blow your mind how out of control and frightening it all seems. (It’s kind of how I remember the spring/summer of 2009. I wasn’t a drug addict but I was so engulfed in my illness that I look back and find myself thinking, totally uncomprehendingly: “Wait … did I actually hyperventilate at that Staples store because I couldn’t figure out what boxes to buy? That can’t be right, can it? There has to have been more to it. Did I actually make a scene like that in a public place?” Well, yes. I did. And it wasn’t the only one. There were similar scenes: on a Virgin flight from LA to NYC, in Port Authority, on train platforms, in the office where I was working. There was a big public scene a day. I’m mortified now, but it all made 100% sense at the time. And I am sure the Staples workers, who were very patient, looked at one another when I left the store like, “Holy fuck”, and maybe even made a little “She’s cuckoo in the head” gesture after I was gone, and they would not have been wrong, although it’s painful to think about.)

The style of Heaven Knows What is striking. It’s documentary, cinema verite stuff, and the cameras sometimes seem to have been placed across the street, capturing the characters’ arguments from a distance. It’s effective because the style places them in the outside world, with New Yorkers passing by, never looking over. Sometimes the camera goes in close close to the various faces, plunging you into the belljar of their individual experiences. Characters emerge. You can see the essence of them, the essence not destroyed by drugs. Everyone is ruled by addiction, and addiction is predictable, but there are scenes between Harley and Mike, Harley and one of the other drug dealers, even Harley and Ilya, where you can see who they are, who they always have been, before drugs took over the #1 spot in their lives. Sean Price Williams was the cinematographer and he is so talented. A young man, his list of credits is truly impressive, and he shot some of the best-looking films in recent years (including the recent Christmas, Again, which I reviewed for Ebert, and loved). He also shot Queen of Earth, another 2015 film I adored, with a classical style interspersed with hallucinatory subjectivity – a gorgeous and terrifying mix.

Heaven Knows What comes to no conclusions. It is not a redemption tale. It does not follow the normal rules for addiction stories. Like the characters, it is completely off the grid.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Elvis: Enough Said.

I would like to point out a couple of obvious self-explanatory things about this list on The Atlantic of The 100 Most Influential Figures in American History (it’s an old list but I just came across it):

1. There are some entries here that are a surprise. Some names you would expect to be on the list. Some that I think should be there are missing altogether. Not a lot of entertainers or music producers. One movie mogul. But how about Sam Cooke? Ray Charles? Aretha? Barbra? Or the SNL team? Only one sports figure, Jackie Robinson, which is expected but still I thought: Muhammad Ali? But in such a list, of course you’re going to have politicians and inventors and social activists dominate. “Influential” does not mean positive or negative. Creating/starting change is what influential means. So who would be on it? You wonder. It keeps you clicking (through 100 separate slides – really, Atlantic?). But even as I started to click from slide 1 to slide 2, I knew Elvis would be on there. It wasn’t even a question. There are some figures where it would be a question. (For example, I hoped against hope that my dead boyfriend, Alexander Hamilton, would be on the list, to take his proper place in the Pantheon. He’s there, by the way, near the top of the list. GOOD.) But Elvis? Unquestioned place in the firmament. I didn’t even have to click through to discover whether or not he would be there. Of course he would be there.

2. Each slide boils down the influential person into one sentence. What that person did, and why it was influential. Hard to boil down some of these folks into one sentence but that’s the format. Thoreau: “The original American dropout, he has inspired seekers of authenticity for 150 years.” Samuel Gompers: “The country’s greatest labor organizer, he made the golden age of unions possible.” Now these are somewhat ridiculous because each life here is so huge that to turn it into a sentence is reductive. Like Melville. How do you boil that man down? But that’s the format. It’s consistent with each entry. Elvis’ entry, however, is different. Here is what his slide says: “The king of rock and roll. Enough said.” That’s it. It doesn’t look like the other entries. If it looked like the other entries, it would have said: “The boy from Tupelo wiggled his way to superstardom and created rock and roll” or whatever. “The humble-roots truck driver revolutionized music.” Or even, if you want to get mythic about it, “He brought rock and roll to the masses and changed American culture forever”, blah blah. But no. For Elvis, they decide they have nothing else to say about him, because it’s all been said, and his importance is so self-evident and obvious that why even bother trying to put it into words. Even George Washington gets a sentence about why he’s important, which seems so silly, because it, too, is patently obvious. But Elvis gets the “Enough said,” not George. It’s like trying to describe why the sun is important. Nobody else, not presidents, not explorers, not famous inventors (I mean, you could just have easily have said, for the Jonas Salk entry: “He saved our lives. Enough said.” and it would have fit), not social activists, get that kind of “Well, you know why he’s here, of course he’s here” kind of language. ”

But what exactly does “Enough said” signify? Isn’t it extraordinary? Isn’t “enough said” so eloquent and mysterious?

Elvis. Even with all the language thrown around about him, libraries full of books about him, a figure so omnipresent in our culture that you see pictures of him more often than you do the current President, he’s still too vast to encompass, express. He sits there, in the middle of the 20th century, gigantic. He won’t BE boiled down.

“Enough said” will have to do.

Posted in Music | Tagged | 4 Comments

Director/Screenwriter Shane Black on Christmas: “Being in a blizzard is wonderful.”

My friend Kim Morgan shares a small and beautiful excerpt of an interview she recently did with director/screenwriter Shane Black on why he is so obsessed with Christmas.

Posted in Directors, Movies | Leave a comment

Review: Ballet 422 (2015)

large_large_KcEAR9iBOYld8V8A4bKCEmuQzE

Jody Lee Lipes’ documentary Ballet 422 charts the progress of conception to premiere of the New York City Ballet’s 422nd new ballet, developed within the company. New York City Ballet is a large company (91 dancers), with a Santa’s Village staff of musicians, lighting designers, costume designers, seamstresses, makeup/hair artists, all of them working together in one building. The New York City Ballet, of course, presents the classic ballets by the masters of old (like opera, ballet has a reverence for its own past not shared by many other art forms), but this new ballet was commissioned from one of their own company.

Justin Peck, the choreographer, is only 25 years old. He is not a star in the company but a member of the “corps de ballet,” the “lowest” ranking you can get. (Despite the “crowd scene” function of the corps de ballet, dancing like that represents an entire lifetime of focused commitment and hard work. Getting to be a prima ballerina or a ballet star is such an improbable occurrence that there are only a handful at the top. But ballet is so rigorous it’s like gymnastics at an Olympic level. To get to that stage, even “just” to the “corps de ballet”, you have to have been immersed in ballet from the youngest possible age. Everyone’s a thoroughbred.) Justin Peck had participated in a choreography workshop through the auspices of the New York City Ballet and had shown enough promise that the company trusted him, invested in him to create a new ballet. Along with the corps de ballet, he would also use three company members, those who have “names.”

06BALLET422-articleLarge

Peck only had two months to create his ballet. Two months to conceive of the ballet, rehearse it, design it, and then put it up on the main stage. It seems impossible, yes? The stress! The pressure! The work involved! And he’s new at it! All eyes are on him! I felt terrified just thinking about it.

Ballet 422 is one of the best process-oriented films about an artform that I have ever seen. It shows every aspect of the collaboration that goes into a production, something that feature films (focusing, as they do, on tension, in-fighting, backstage squabbling, egos) often misses. There just isn’t time in a real process to take things personally. As someone who spent the majority of my youth and on into my 20s and 30s, as an actress, I know that when you’re rehearsing, you try to do what you’re told. (Ballet 422 filled me with longing for that kind of collaboration again. Writing is so solitary.) Even if there are personality differences, even if you bitch about something afterwards, such issues rarely take over the whole process, because the process IS the process. This is true even more so of ballet, because ballet requires discipline. When you are in class, as ballet dancers always are, you do not fight the instructor. Insisting on your individuality just isn’t part of ballet. Even someone like Mikhail Baryshnikov submits to his own art form, as revolutionary a dancer as he was. The whole thing is grounded in exquisite technique, and technique comes through discipline. Ballet 422 shows that in a way that might be revelatory for audience members who assume that all artists are mis-behaved self-involved maniacs. Self-involved maniacs are total anomalies. And ballet is different from any other artform due to the rigor of the training, its classical formality, its unquestioned hierarchy. Submission is as much a part of it as working hard. Even the stars know that they are subordinate to the vision of the production, to the director, to the instructors in dance classes. This type of internalized training and discipline makes for a kind of work ethic that operates such a high level, and so ingrained, that the dancers don’t even have to work at it, or remind themselves of it. It’s like breathing to them, the desire to get it right, to do what the director says, to make it work.

Ballet-422-3

Ballet 422, with all its tension, shows dancers submitting to the young untried choreographer, in rehearsal, in the workshop element of the early sessions. They all work together, using as a template Justin Peck’s individual vision. He knows what he wants, he knows what he wants it to look like. The dancers work to create that: sometimes it requires adjustments, and the dancers suggest those adjustments, based on their own knowledge of the body and its capabilities. In one moment, Peck wonders why a female dancer’s turn doesn’t look the same as her partners (a male), and the ballerina says, “Toe shoes are different.” There’s just a whiff of frustration in her tone: and she’s right and Peck adjusts the movement to accommodate the toe shoes. He’s 25 years old and he’s a “boy” (in ballet terminology: even 30 year old dancers are referred to as “boys” and “girls.”) He hadn’t thought of the toe-shoe differentiation, because he’s a “boy”, but you can bet he will next time.

In rehearsal, Peck sometimes concedes ground, because it is a collaboration and dancers come to the table with their own strengths (especially the three company members), but he also sometimes insists on what he sees for any given move: “No, bring your arms in together … ” Dancer tries it. “No, it should be like this …” He shows her. Dancer tries it again. He stops her. “No, bring arms in together, and then out …” Dancer finally says, “It’s not in my body yet. I’ll get it.” Peck nods, and the rehearsal moves on. She doesn’t throw a tantrum. Neither does he. Again: there simply isn’t time. Also: tantrums may be cathartic but they are not productive and they don’t necessarily lead to better work. That dance-rehearsal scene in All That Jazz is also a portrayal of a highly-stressed work environment, and it’s not at all unrealistic, especially with a demanding choreographer. But more often than not, it’s a process of trying it, getting a correction, trying it again, getting another tip, incorporating the tip, trying it again, and knowing you’ve almost gotten it, but you just have to go over it yourself 50 times to have it be “in” you. THAT’S process.

What respect Ballet 422 shows towards the art, the dancers, how everyone works. There are the costume designers (one of whom keeps saying, “I don’t come from the dance world. How do dancers feel about trailing scarves? How would a dancer feel about a little cut-out in the belly area?” These are valid questions, brought up to the dancers, who answer honestly, and for the most part, say stuff like: “We can work with anything.” And they can.) And then the seamstresses, hand-stitching many of the costumes. The costume fittings, with Justin looking on at times, offering suggestions, saying he wants the male dancers physique to show more, his powerful legs and chest. The costume shop take notes, and go back to the stop to make those adjustments. This quiet work ethic, this easy (although highly pressurized) collaboration, was exhilarating.

web 920 x 550 July 2015 AC - Ballet 422 04

Meanwhile, Justin Peck is shown on his quiet commute to and from the theatre. Standing on lonely train platforms. Sitting in his apartment, watching videos of the rehearsal, taking notes. The film begins with him alone in the studio, iPhone propped up to capture his original movements, as he leaps across the floor, and then stops … thinking. He goes to his notebook and draws diagrams, working out the geometry of each dancer, and then goes back to work. The rehearsals show the inexorable development towards performance level. There are stops and starts. You start to see it, whatever it is, come together. The documentary features no talking-heads. Justin Peck does not speak to the camera, telling us his thought process, or what the ballet is “about,” or why he picked the music, a 1930s piece called “Sinfonietta La Jolla” by Bohuslav Martinu. One assumes it is personal. One assumes he has his reasons.

Justin Peck’s youth is one of the most striking aspects of the documentary. Think of the 25-year-olds you know. Many are competent, many are on the way towards being good at what they do, millennial stereotypes be damned. But Peck is on another level. It’s fascinating on the premiere of the ballet: he is shown putting on a suit in the dressing room, adjusting his tie while he looks in the mirror. In that shot alone, do you remember just how young he really is. He suddenly looks like a teenager having to dress up for some high school function.

I felt in awe of him.

The premiere, when it comes, is gorgeously shot, from all sides of the theatre (including from high up in the wings, so that you can see those shifting geometrical shapes of the company down on the stage, those geometrical shapes Peck had worked out in his notebook in the earliest scenes). Peck, sitting in the audience, looking on, is not bathed in triumph, or crying with emotion. He is seriously watching. That’s all he’s doing. Who knows what he sees. Intersecting parabolae of movement. The pinnacle of his career so far. How one dancer’s arm placement is wrong, or sloppy. It could be any of those things. His face tells no tales.

ballet-422-rehearsal-590x337

This, too, is an aspect of collaboration that is often missed in theatrical representations of process, or in reality TV “backstage” looks at a competition, where high emotions are the name of the game. It’s all just one big fight, right? No. It almost never is.

In a way, the final scene is the most powerful of all in its portrayal of what ballet is all about, what a dancer is LIKE, his psychology, his focus, his concerns. As from the beginning of Ballet 422, seeing Justin Peck alone in the studio working out his ballet (having only two months to put it all together), what the main takeaway is the work ethic of everyone involved, the full immersion in the process towards production.

The final scene reminds us even more startlingly that there simply isn’t time to take anything personally. Even triumph.

The work is ALL.

Ballet 422 is streaming on Netflix. It’s only an hour and fifteen minutes long. It’s one of the best films of 2015.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments