Ricky Nelson and James Burton

James Burton, of course, is known for being Elvis’ guitarist throughout the 1970s, but he played with everyone, most notably Ricky Nelson. Listen to some of that old Ricky Nelson stuff. Listen to Burton’s guitar solos. Astonishing stuff. Completely contemporary, thrilling stuff. James Burton is still alive. Me and Charley went to go see him in 2013, and it was such a memorable awesome night. Burton played with legends. Burton is a legend. I went on a bit of a Ricky Nelson/James Burton tear yesterday and found a couple of clips.

The first one is from 1958, from Ozzie and Harriet. Ricky and James sit down and play acoustic guitars together, an extended duet. Wonderful!

The second clip is from when James Burton played with The Nelson Brothers (Matthew and Gunnar Nelson), sons of Ricky Nelson. They play a really fun Ricky Nelson song, “It’s Late,” (listen to how strong the 1950s are in the lyrics! The couple stayed out too late, and they will be in big trouble!).

Ricky Nelson’s original is a lot of fun.

The contemporary version, with Nelson’s sons and James Burton, is awesome as well.

Zoom in on what James Burton is doing on that guitar in that last clip. Goosebumps.

Posted in Music | Tagged , | 5 Comments

The Books: Aspects of the Novel: ‘Prophecy,’ by E.M. Forster

41MgHiw9VxL

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: Aspects of the Novel, a series of lectures by E.M. Forster.

These were a series of lectures given by E.M. Forster on “aspects of the novel” in 1927. Forster thought there were 7 aspects to any good novel: Story, characters, plot, fantasy, prophecy, pattern, and rhythm. He wanted to examine these “aspects” outside of chronology, to try and seek out connections between authors and books that may not be evident if you only look at things on a timeline. There is so much compartmentalization in the teaching of literature, and it’s gotten even more exaggerated now, where entire departments in universities are devoted to one grouping or another: women’s literature, minority literature, lesbian literature, etc. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. In many ways, it is a positive development. Voices have been ignored due to the predominance of the accepted canon. There is redress in these types of studies. The giant names overshadow all else, and so sometimes it is good to get those giant names out of the way to see what the landscape was without them. There were all kinds of people writing all kinds of things in all eras. What was going on with them? The danger in that approach, when taken too far, is that you lose sight of the whole. And the “whole” – which includes the “canon” (the ‘dead white male’ brigade) – is what helps form culture, trends of thought, style, the whole shebang. It’s like a jazz musician or a modern dancer: the best of these know the classical forms inside and out, and it is only because of that that they are able to “riff” and “go off”. They are reacting to the classical structures. Their deviations can only be fully understood when you know the old-fashioned forms. The same is true with literature. Much of literature reacts to each other. It’s unavoidable. This is what Harold Bloom called “the anxiety of influence.” It’s interesting, if you read interviews with current-day Irish authors, James Joyce inevitably comes up. Or Yeats, but mostly Joyce. They are writing in a landscape rich with writers, rich with an intellectual and literary tradition, and they have the monolithic reputation of Joyce looming over their landscape. They may resent him for that, they may love him for that, the responses vary, but he DEMANDS a response. Much of literature post-Ulysses was a reaction to it. It’s kind of like Elvis. Elvis came out of the swamp of mixed-influences in the Memphis world: black gospel, white gospel, rhythm and blues, country music. He was imitating the black singers he admired, the guys who played on Beale Street, or sang in their church choirs. He felt the connection with his own white tradition there, that there was something to be mixed up, that he could sing that way too. Elvis’ influence was so predominant that even just a year later everyone who was coming up was imitating Elvis. And while many of these performers were wonderful, you can hear that the sound thins out, becomes generic. Their focus is on one figure (Elvis), and Elvis’ focus was on … everyone. Elvis’ influence in music was like Joyce’s. He was the game-changer. Country music was practically destroyed by Elvis inadvertently. It took them 15 years to re-discover their own identity after he dominated their charts. The powers-that-be in Nashville finally came to the decision to leave him OFF their charts – because there was no way they could compete. To go back to Ireland: Irish writers have to deal with the Elvis-like figure of Joyce. Still. To this day.

Forster gave these lectures in 1927, in the midst of the full-flowering of the modernists. T.S. Eliot, Joyce, Gertrude Stein, Ford Madox Ford, Ezra Pound, the whole lot. Ulysses was still banned in most places. The 19th century was still very close. (T.S. Eliot, famously, said after he finished Ulysses, “James Joyce has killed the 19th century.”) Talk about your anxiety of influence! The 19th century featured such minor writers as Charles Dickens, Charlotte Bronte, George Eliot, Herman Melville, Henry James, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy … These people changed our conception of literature. These people created the modern novel. So Forster is speaking from the midst of a world that was not only acknowledging all that, but wanting to break free of it as well. The influence of, say, Dickens, is so overwhelming that it may make a writer want to put down his pen forever!

One of the “aspects” Forster discussed in a lecture was the aspect of “prophecy.” In his other lectures, about story and characters … the references run rampant because there are so many examples. All novels have story and characters. But, in his estimation, there was this thing called “prophecy,” a unique aspect, and only a couple of authors “had it.” Here is how Forster puts it:

His theme is the universe, or something universal, but he is not necessarily going to “say” anything about the universe; he proposes to sing, and the strangeness of song arising in the halls of fiction is bound to give us a shock.

Forster elaborates (and this will be key in the excerpt below):

Prophecy – in our sense – is a tone of voice … We shall have to attend to the novelist’s state of mind and to the actual words he uses; we shall neglect as far as we can the problems of common sense. As far as we can: for all novels contain tables and chairs, and most readers of fiction look for them first. Before we condemn him for affectation and distortion we must realize his view-point. He is not looking at the tables and chairs at all, and that is why they are out of focus.

In speaking of Dostoevsky in this same lecture (and Forster considered Dostoevsky to be one of the “prophets,” as he defined it):

Mitya is a round character, but he is capable of extension. He does not conceal anything (mysticism), he does not mean anything (symbolism), he is merely Dmitri Karamazov, but to be merely a person in Dostoevsky is to join up with all the other people far back. Consequently the tremendous current suddenly flows – for me in those closing words: “I’ve had a good dream, gentleman.” Have I had that good dream too? No, Dostoevsky’s characters ask us to share something deeper than their experiences. They convey to us a sensation that is partly physical – the sensation of sinking into a tremendous globe and seeing our experience floating far above us on its surface, tiny, remote, yet ours.

And that experience that Forster describes, that reading experience, is what he calls “prophecy.”

I love his observation about these “prophetic books”:

Anyhow, it characterizes these novels and gives them what is always provocative in a work of art: roughness of surface. While they pass under our eyes they are full of dents and grooves and lumps and spikes which draw from us little cries of approval and disapproval. When they have past, the roughness is forgotten, they become as smooth as the moon.

Forster does not see these “prophets” as philosophers. Many novelists whom he does not classify as “prophetic” are philosophers, and they have a philosophy, very clear in the reading of their books. Henry James comes to mind. Thomas Hardy comes to mind. George Eliot comes to mind. Forster believes that the prophets do not think all that much about the meaning of things, at least not in the way that other novelists do. They are not concerned with meaning, or self-reflection, or self-examination. They are not concerned with the inner workings of the human mind. They are concerned with the universal. They actually have a perception OF the universal – which very few people have, and many novelists strain for that universal feeling – but in the prophet there is no strain.

I admit that this is not something I had considered, but it is really fun to wrestle with Forster’s thoughts. Ideas are there to be taken on, try them on for size, really sit with them, you’re not going to lose yourself entirely, or be dominated or whatever. This is the rigor of intellectual conversation, this is how it goes, and it’s bracing.

Forster has given the matter much thought. In his mind, with all of the books he has read and all the preparation he had done for the lectures, he only came up with four authors who could be classed as “prophets” as he defines the term: Dostoevsky, Melville, Emily Bronte and D.H. Lawrence.

He goes into each one, providing examples, and it’s all just fascinating. I admit to not having read much D.H. Lawrence beyond his poetry (which I really enjoy), and Lady Chatterlye’s Lover. His prose never really did it for me, but it was years ago that I tried to read him. Perhaps it’s time for a re-visit. After all, I found Moby Dick a crushing bore in high school and now I count it as one of my favorite books of all time. (Speaking of which, Forster’s words on Moby Dick, which will make up part of the excerpt today, is my favorite thing I’ve come across about that book. Camille Paglia’s chapter on Moby Dick in Sexual Personae is also well worth seeking out, but Forster, for me, NAILS the truly strange out-of-time bold and radical feeling of that book. It’s not “ahead of its time.” It is timeless.) Forster is also brilliant on Withering Heights, but I’ll just excerpt the Moby Dick section.

I have read and re-read Moby Dick. I succumb to it. It demands that you succumb. It is an extremely bossy book that way, similar to Ulysses. If you do not succumb, the book will not crack open to you. It will seem impenetrable. The sections on whaling, descriptions of the different parts of the whale, they go on for three pages, it’s a cetological lecture, and then in the final paragraph – WHOOSH. Melville whips back the curtain and shows you the whole universe. It happens repeatedly. It takes my breath away. My favorite example comes from the chapter about blubber. Melville tells us all about blubber: why the whale needs it, how it operates, what it provides the whale. And then …

A word or two more concerning this matter of the skin or blubber of the whale. It has already been said, that it is stript from him in long pieces, called blanket-pieces. Like most sea-terms, this one is very happy and significant. For the whale is indeed wrapt up in his blubber as in a real blanket or counterpane; or, still better, an Indian poncho slipt over his head, and skirting his extremity. It is by reason of this cosy blanketing of his body, that the whale is enabled to keep himself comfortable in all weathers, in all seas, times, and tides. What would become of a Greenland whale, say, in those shuddering, icy seas of the north, if unsupplied with his cosy surtout? True, other fish are found exceedingly brisk in those Hyperborean waters; but these, be it observed, are your cold-blooded, lungless fish, whose very bellies are refrigerators; creatures, that warm themselves under the lee of an iceberg, as a traveller in winter would bask before an inn fire; whereas, like man, the whale has lungs and warm blood. Freeze his blood, and he dies. How wonderful is it then – except after explanation – that this great monster, to whom corporeal warmth is as indispensable as it is to man; how wonderful that he should be found at home, immersed to his lips for life in those Arctic waters! where, when seamen fall overboard, they are sometimes found, months afterwards, perpendicularly frozen into the hearts of fields of ice, as a fly is found glued in amber. But more surprising is it to know, as has been proved by experiment, that the blood of a Polar whale is warmer than that of a Borneo negro in summer.

It does seem to me, that herein we see the rare virtue of a strong individual vitality, and the rare virtue of thick walls, and the rare virtue of interior spaciousness. Oh, man! admire and model thyself after the whale! Do thou, too, remain warm among ice. Do thou, too, live in this world without being of it. Be cool at the equator; keep thy blood fluid at the Pole. Like the great dome of St. Peter’s, and like the great whale, retain, O man! in all seasons a temperature of thine own!

That, my friends, is the voice of a prophet.

On to the excerpt.

Excerpt from Aspects of the Novel: ‘Prophecy,’ by E.M. Forster

Moby Dick is an easy book, as long as we read it as a yarn or an account of whaling interspersed with snatches of poetry. But as soon was we catch the song in it, it grows difficult and immensely important. Narrowed and hardened into words the spiritual theme of Moby Dick is as follows: a battle against evil conducted too long or in the wrong way. The White Whale is evil, and Captain Ahab is warped by constant pursuit until his knight-errantry turns into revenge. These are words – a symbol for the book if we want one – but they do not carry as much further than the acceptance of the book as a yarn – perhaps they carry us backwards, for they may mislead us into harmonizing the incidents, and so losing their roughness and richness. The idea of a contest we may retain: all action is a battle, the only happiness is peace. But contest between what? We get false if we say that it is between good and evil or between two unreconciled evils. The essential in Moby Dick, its prophetic song, flows athwart the action and the surface morality like an undercurrent. It lies outside words. Even at the end, when the ship has gone down with the bird of heaven pinned to its mast, and the empty coffin, bouncing up from the vortex, has carried Ishmael back to the world – even then we cannot catch the words of the song. There has been stress, with intervals: but no explicable solution, certainly no reaching back into universal pity and love; no “Gentlemen, I’ve had a good dream.”

The extraordinary nature of the book appears in one of its early incidents – the sermon about Jonah and the friendship with Queequeg.

The sermon has nothing to do with Christianity. It asks for endurance or loyalty without hope of reward. The preacher “kneeling in the pulpit’s bows, folded his large brown hands across his chest, uplifted his closed eyes, and offered a prayer so deeply devout that he seemed kneeling and praying at the bottom of the sea.” Then he works up and up and concludes on a note of joy that is far more terrifying than a menace.

Delight is to him whose strong arms yet support him when the ship of this base treacherous world has gone down beneath him. Delight is to him who gives no quarter in the truth, and kills, burns and destroys all sin though he pluck it out from under the robes of Senators and Judges. Delight – top-gallant delight is to him, who acknowledges no law or lord, but the Lord his God, and is only a patron to heaven. Delight is to him, whom all the waves of the billows of the seas of the boisterous mob can never shake from this sure Keel of the Ages. And eternal delight and deliciousness will be his, who coming to lay him down, can say with his final breath – O Father! – chiefly known to me by thy rod – mortal or immortal, here I die. I have striven to be Thine, more than to be this world’s or mine own. Yet this is nothing: I leave eternity to Thee: for what is man that he should live out the lifetime of his God?

I believe it is not a coincidence that the last ship we encounter at the end of the book before the final catastrophe should be called the Delight; a vessel of ill omen who has herself encountered Moby Dick and been shattered by him. But what the connection was in the prophet’s mind I cannot say, nor could he tell us.

Immediately after the sermon, Ishmael makes a passionate alliance with the cannibal Queequeg, and it looks for a moment that the book is to be a saga of blood-brotherhood. But human relationships mean little to Melville, and after a grotesque and violent entry, Queequeg is almost forgotten. Almost – not quite. Towards the end he falls ill and a coffin is made for him which he does not occupy, as he recovers. It is this coffin, serving as a life-buoy, that saves Ishmael from the final whirlpool, and this again is no coincidence, but an unformulated connection that sprang up in Melville’s mind. Moby Dick is full of meanings: its meaning is a different problem. It is wrong to turn the Delight or the coffin into symbols, because even if the symbolism is correct, it silences the book. Nothing can be stated about Moby Dick except that it is a contest. The rest is song.

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

Supernatural: Season 2, Episode 15: “Tall Tales”

t57

Directed by Bradford May
Written by John Shiban

When something works, it just works. And when it works once, hopefully it works repeatedly. I’ve read Jane Eyre probably 20 times. It always works. I’ve seen What’s Up, Doc? probably 200 times. It is never not funny. I cherish those things I can “visit” over and over again, the things that never disappoint, that always entertain, and that get more entertaining WITH repetition.

Now the question of WHY these things work all the time is up for grabs, and there are multiple factors going into it. I love discussing the “why” of the thing, although sometimes you just pop in Bringing Up Baby because you need to roll around laughing and you don’t worry about why it’s so funny. But the nuts-and-bolts architecture is fascinating to me.

Where does magic come from? in other words.

Continue reading

Posted in Television | Tagged , , , , | 78 Comments

Chess in Union Square

chess2

The chess players in Union Square set up their tables year-round. On rainy days, they sit there under umbrellas. Passersby will stop and sit to play a game. Sometimes you can tell the two chess players are old friends, who meet up daily to have a go at the game. Other times, it’s total strangers. I love the chess ritual here in New York and I pass through Union Square every day and love to check out how everyone is doing. Yesterday was a real spring day, chilly and windy and sunny and beautiful. I was half an hour early for my doctor’s appointment so I sat down on the circular steps to relax for a second and not do anything but observe, soak up the scene, slow the hell down. A chess player to my left was sitting at his table, the pieces all set up. Waiting for someone to sit down and start a game. This is how it goes. Three ladies, loaded down with shopping bags, strolled by, and one, wearing a fuzzy sweater covered in hearts, stopped, clearly drawn to the chess table.

I looked away for 15 seconds, and when I looked back, here was the new tableau.

chess

Life is working as it should.

Posted in Personal | Tagged | 6 Comments

The Books: Aspects of the Novel: ‘People,’ by E.M. Forster

41MgHiw9VxL

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: Aspects of the Novel, a series of lectures by E.M. Forster.

In these 1927 lectures about “aspects of the novel,” Forster took an unconventional approach (discussed here). He wanted to ignore chronology altogether, and put authors side by side who were, in actuality, separated by decades. He wanted to look at things thematically and structurally, and wanted to avoid too much compartmentalization. Putting authors/genres/time-periods into separate buckets means you somehow miss the grand sweep of that huge thing called English literature. Instead of moving through the timeline, he mucked it all up, and focused on what he saw were the 7 “aspects” of the English novel (and all novels, really, but he focused on English-speaking authors mainly in these lectures). The aspects were:

Story, characters, plot, fantasy, prophecy, pattern, and rhythm.

He devoted a couple of lectures to “characters,” under the heading “People.” Forster wanted to look at the different ways authors used characters. What does “point of view” mean? What does character mean? How do you get “inside” a character’s experience? Some authors care about that, others don’t, they are up to something else. In this lecture, Forster looks at the difference between what he characterizes as “flat” and “round” characters. He does not place a judgment one way or the other, not really (i.e. “round” is better than “flat”), although he does point out that “flat” characters don’t really work in tragedies. He understands that Dickens is doing something different with “characters” than, say, Emily Bronte (whom he considered, along with Dostoevsky, a prophet. Not just a writer, an artist, a novelist, but a prophet – which he gets to in a later lecture). The approach is different, and the end-goal is different. In re-reading these excerpts it occurs to me that I stated the case too strongly in that former excerpt. Forster didn’t dismiss Dickens – although sometimes Dickens fans can be extremely defensive on his behalf (a sign of how much he is loved. I include myself in this.) Forster discusses differences – and different of course does not have to be a negative. Pointing out differences in style and intent should be instructive. George Orwell, in his huge essay on Dickens, talked a lot about Dickens’ characters, referring to them as “grotesques.” There is a lot of truth in that, and Forster expands on it here, discussing the “flat”-ness of Dickens’ characters (they are brilliant caricatures, for the most part, although he excepts Pip and David C.), and then he moves on to a discussion of the people who populate the novels of Jane Austen.

It’s hard to summarize so I’ll just hand the floor over to Forster. I would be very interested in hearing responses to all of this! (Well, I always am, but here in particular.)

Excerpt from Aspects of the Novel: ‘People,’ by E.M. Forster

For we must admit that flat people are not in themselves as big achievements as round ones, and also that they are best when they are comic. A serious or tragic flat character is apt to be a bore. Each time he enters crying “Revenge!” or “My heart bleeds for humanity!” or whatever his formula is, our hearts sink. One of the romances of a popular contemporary writer is constructed round a Sussex farmer who says, “I’ll plough up that bit of gorse.” There is the farmer, there is the gorse; he says he’ll plough it up, he does plough it up, but it is not like saying “I’ll never desert Mr. Micawber” because we are so bored by his consistency that we do not care whether he succeeds with the gorse or fails. If his formula were analyzed and connected up with the rest of the human outfit, we should not be bored any longer, the formula would cease to be the man and become an obsession in the man; that is to say he would have turned from a flat farmer into a round one. It is only round people who are fit to perform tragically for any length of time and can move us to any feelings except humor and appropriateness.

So now let us desert these two-dimensional people and by way of transition to the round, let us go to Mansfield Park, and look at Lady Bertram, sitting on her sofa with pug. Pug is flat, like most animals in fiction. He is once represented as straying into a rosebud in a cardboard kind of way, but that is all, and during most of the book his mistress seems to be cut out of the same simple material as her dog. Lady Bertram’s formula is, “I am kindly, but must not be fatigued,” and she functions out of it. But at the end there is a catastrophe. Her two daughters come to grief – to the worst grief known to Miss Austen’s universe, far worse than the Napoleonic wars. Julia elopes; Maria, who is unhappily married, runs off with a lover. What is Lady Bertram’s reaction? The sentence describing it is significant: “Lady Bertram did not think deeply, but, guided by Sir Thomas, she thought justly on all important points, and she saw therefore in all its enormity, what had happened, and neither endeavored herself, nor required Fanny to advise her, to think little of guilt and infamy.” These are strong words, and they used to worry me because I thought Jane Austen’s moral sense was getting out of hand. She may, and of course does, deprecate guilt and infamy herself, and she duly causes all possible distress in the minds of Edmund and Fanny, but has she any right to agitate calm, consistent Lady Bertram? Is it not like giving pug three faces and setting him to guard the gates of Hell? Ought not her ladyship to remain on the sofa saying, “This is a dreadful and sadly exhausting business about Julia and Maria, but where is Fanny gone? I have dropped another stitch”?

I used to think this, through misunderstanding Jane Austen’s method – exactly as Scott misunderstood it when he congratulated her for painting on a square of ivory. She is a miniaturist, but never two-dimensional. All her characters are round, or capable of rotundity. Even Miss Bertram has a mind, even Elizabeth Elliot a heart, and Lady Bertram’s moral fervor ceases to vex us when we realize this: the disk has suddenly extended and become a little globe. When the novel is closed, Lady Bertram goes back to the flat, it is true; the dominant impression she leaves can be summed up in a formula. But that is not how Jane Austen conceived her, and the freshness of her reappearances are due to this. Why do the characters in Jane Austen give us a slightly new pleasure each time they come in, as opposed to the merely repetitive pleasure that is caused by a character in Dickens? Why do they combine so well in a conversation, and draw one another out without seeming to do so, and never perform? The answer to this question can be put in several ways: that, unlike Dickens, she was a real artist, that she never stooped to caricature, etc. But the best reply is that her characters though smaller than his are more highly realized. They function all round, and even if her plot made greater demands on them than it does, they would still be adequate. Suppose that Louisa Musgrave had broken her neck on the Cobb. The description of her death would have been feeble and ladylike – physical violence is quite beyond Miss Austen’s powers – but the survivors would have reacted properly as soon as the corpse was carried away, they would have brought into view new sides of their character, and though Persuasion would have been spoiled as a book, we should know more than we do about Captain Wentworth and Anne. All the Jane Austen characters are ready for an extended life, for a life which the scheme of the book seldom requires them to lead, and that is why they lead their actual lives so satisfactorily. Let us return to Lady Bertram and the crucial sentence. See how subtly it modulates from her formula into an area where the formula does not work: “Lady Bertram did not think deeply.” Exactly: as per formula. “But guided by Sir Thomas she thought justly on all important points.” Sir Thomas’ guidance, which is part of the formula, remains, but it pushes her ladyship towards an independent and undesired morality. “She saw therefore in all its enormity what had happened.” This is the moral fortissimo – very strong but carefully introduced. And then follows a most artful decrescendo, by means of negatives. “She neither endeavored herself, nor required Fanny to advise her, to think little of guilt or infamy.” The formula is reappearing, because as a rule she does try to minimize trouble, and does require Fanny to advise her how to do this; indeed Fanny has done nothing else for the last ten years. The words, although they are negatived, remind us of this, her normal state is again in view, and she has in a single sentence been inflated into a round character and collapsed back into a flat one. How Jane Austen can write! In a few words she has increased Lady Bertram, and by so doing she has increased the probability of the elopements of Maria and Julia. I say probability because the elopements belong to the domain of violent physical action, and here, as already indicated, Jane Austen is feeble and ladylike. Except in her school-girl novels, she cannot stage a crash. Everything violent has to take place “off” – Louisa’s accident and Marianne Dashwood’s putrid throat are the nearest exceptions – and consequently all the comments on the elopement must be sincere and convincing, otherwise we should doubt whether it occurred. Lady Bertram helps us to believe that her daughters have run away, and they have to run away, or there would be no apotheosis for Fanny. It is a little point, and a little sentence, yet it shows how delicately a great novelist can modulate into the round.

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , , | 24 Comments

Finally.

I hope this news makes Jafar Panahi smile in vindication. Wherever he is. Disobeying his house arrest and making another illegal movie, hopefully.

It’s about time, you neanderthals.

If you haven’t seen Panahi’s film Offside (my review here), which features 6 feisty girls dressing up as boys and trying to attend a soccer game in Tehran, what are you waiting for??

Panahi’s film can now be seen as a history lesson, as he always said he wanted it to be, showing future generations who did not have to suffer so: Here is how we lived. This is how stupid it was.

offside

Posted in Miscellania | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Books: Aspects of the Novel: ‘Introductory,’ by E.M. Forster

41MgHiw9VxL

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: Aspects of the Novel, a series of lectures by E.M. Forster.

In 1927, novelist E.M. Forster gave a series of lectures on the English novel at Trinity College in Cambridge. The lectures were so popular they were compiled into a book, and it’s still in print today. It’s a slim little volume, and it’s one of the books in my library I reference all the time. If I’m writing something on, say, Melville, or Jane Austen, or whatever … I’ll just flip through his words on the subject, to see if it jogs anything loose, or if there’s a quotation I can use, or some element I might be missing. They’re wonderfully concise, these lectures, and he has a unique attitude, one that is extremely refreshing, especially in our post-post-post-modern world. Here he was, giving lectures in the first post-modern phase … and people like Ford Madox Ford and James Joyce and Gertrude Stein and Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot were bursting forward as new and important voices. (Proust, too … but since Forster focused on English-speaking writers, we’ll leave Proust out. Forster has a lot to say about novelists from other traditions, and how the English hold up next to them. They do not fare particularly well, according to Forster. He seems almost relieved to leave Dostoevsky or Tolstoy out, because nobody can compare to them, in his estimation.)

Forster expresses mild irritation (everything is somewhat mild with him) at the categorization of literature, or the over-categorization, more like. Chronology is the first problem, as he sees it: novels get grouped together by their publication date, and then scholars (or “pseudo-scholars” as he calls them) pontificate on what the time period meant, and how literature “was” in that time period, and it’s all just so neat and tidy and perfect, and so the grand sweep of literature is lost. Forster also lampoons the categorization impulse, scholars who group together books that have to do with certain topics: religion, industry, love, small-town life, whatever. (It’s so insanely out of control at this point that the canon has no coherence whatsoever. Everything is compartmentalized into its own grouping.) Scholars like the categorization impulse because it neatens out the playing-field (and justifies their own jobs.) In the film critic world, the whole “auteurist” thing sometimes goes in that direction, and entire film-makers or actors or films are basically ignored because they don’t fit into the auteur narrative. It drives me insane. But moving on.

Forster opens with an introductory lecture on how he wishes to proceed. He realizes that the common way to discuss literature is through chronology and categorization. He does not want to do that and he wants to challenge his listeners to resist the impulse as well. He wants to discuss the seven different “aspects” of the novel: story, characters, plot, fantasy, prophecy, pattern, and rhythm. These “aspects” exist in every great novel, in all different chronologies, in comedies, tragedies, realism, farce, etc. I suppose you could say these “aspects” are Forster’s way of categorizing, but he takes an interesting tactic. Throughout the lectures, he reads two excerpts from two different novels, back to back. He does not reveal the authors of each, although sometimes it is immediately apparent. It’s basically a blind sample. After he reads the two excerpts, he reveals the authors/novels from which the excerpts came, and moves onto a discussion. Often, the books excerpted from have 150 years or more between them. But Forster’s point is that if we could resist chronology, we could start to see English literature as a whole. I tend to agree with him. I was not an English major, I was an Acting major. I grew up in a family that loved books, and I had very good English teachers in high school. But I probably would have come to all the great books even if I hadn’t had great English teachers, merely because my parents were well-read and books were a part of our lives. My point is that I did not come to literature through academia. Once I left high school, I barely took an English class. I took a couple of poetry classes in college, and a Shakespeare class. I read on my own. I read widely and wildly, veering from Stephen King to Thomas Hardy. I still do that. I love it. And that type of anarchic reading list brings forward connections that might be missed in a more academic or compartmentalized context. That seems to be part of Forster’s point. It’s been a while since I’ve read the book in its entirety, although his lecture on Moby Dick is one of the best things I’ve ever read on that novel, and I have quoted from it often.

Forster’s book is well worth checking out: it’s a little book, you could read it in a couple of days, and it’s a refreshing outlook, vigorous and vital. There’s much to argue with here too, as Forster acknowledges. You may say, “Hey, but I like that book” that he dismisses, or “I hate that book” that he loves. If total agreement is your only measure of whether or not a human being is worth listening to, or if you veer away from “discredited tropes” because you don’t want to sully your precious post-post-modern enlightenment, you’ve got some problems. Forster doesn’t seem to be a big Dickens fan, for example. I’m like, “DUDE. COME ON.” But still, he brings some interesting analysis to the table, things well worth considering. (The same is true for George Orwell’s magnificent huge essay on Dickens. It’s really good stuff, but he also looks at it from a purely Socialist standpoint in many respects, missing the humor entirely. Like, can’t these books just be fun, George? No? Still: well worth reading!) Forster’s feelings on Joyce are well-documented: he admits Ulysses‘ massive status (and remember, these lectures were in 1927, when the novel was still banned in most places), but he finds the whole thing rather distasteful. To quote the final line of Some Like It Hot:

giphy

Here, in his introductory lecture, Forster lays out how he would like to proceed. The image he mentions repeatedly is that the authors he is going to discuss are not to be seen as falling along a timeline at different markers. The way he would like to view them is as sitting in a room, all writing their books at the same exact moment in time.

Exciting, yes?

I also like these lectures because you can hear him speaking. They are chatty.

Excerpt from Aspects of the Novel: ‘Introductory,’ by E.M. Forster

That is why, in the rather ramshackle course that lies ahead of us, we cannot consider fiction by periods, we must not contemplate the stream of time. Another image better suits our powers: that of all the novelists writing their novels at once. They come from different ages and ranks, they have different temperaments and aims, but they all hold pens in their hands, and are in the process of creation. Let us look over their shoulders for a moment and see what they are writing. It may exorcise that demon of chronology which is at present our enemy and which (we shall discover next week) is sometimes their enemy too. “Oh, what quenchless feud is this, that Time hath with the sons of men,” cries Herman Melville, and the feud goes on not only in life and death but in the byways of literary creation and criticism. Let us avoid it by imagining that all the novelists are at work together in a circular room. I shall not mention their names until we have heard their words, because a name brings associations with it, dates, gossip, all the furniture of the method we are discarding.

They have been instructed to group themselves in pairs. We approach the first pair, and read as follows:

1. I don’t know what to do – not I. God forgive me, but I am very impatient! I wish – but I don’t know what to wish without a sin. Yet I wish it would please God to take me to his mercy! – I can meet with none here. – What a world is this ! – What is there in it desirable? The good we hope for so strangely mixed, that one knows not what to wish for! And one half of mankind tormenting the other and being tormented themselves in tormenting.

2. What I hate is myself – when I think that one has to take so much, to be happy, out of the loves of others, and that one isn’t happy even then. One does it to cheat one’s self and to stop one’s mouth – but that is only, at the best, for a little. The wretched self is always there, always making us somehow a fresh anxiety. What it comes to is that it’s not, that it’s never, a happiness, any happiness at all, to take. The only safe thing is to give. It’s what plays you least false.

It is obvious that here sit two novelists who are looking at life from much the same angle, yet the first of them is Samuel Richardson, and the second you will have already identified as Henry James. Each is an anxious rather than an ardent psychologist. Each is sensitive to suffering and appreciates self-sacrifice; each falls short of the tragic, though a close approach is made. A sort of tremulous nobility – that is the spirit that dominates them – and oh how well they write! – not a word out of place in their copious flows. A hundred and fifty years of time divide them, but are not they close together in other ways, and may not their neighborliness profit us? Of course as I say this I hear Henry James beginning to express his regret – no, not his regret but his surprise – no, not even his surprise but his awareness that neighborliness is being postulated of him, and postulated, must he add, in relation to a shopkeeper. And I hear Richardson, equally cautious, wondering whether any writer born outside England can be chaste. But these are surface differences, are indeed no differences at all, but additional points of contact. We leave them sitting in harmony, and proceed to our next pair.

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

Review: About Elly (2009); directed by Asghar Farhadi

about-elly-poster

If you give an answer to your viewer, your film will simply finish in the movie theatre. But when you pose questions, your film actually begins after people watch it. In fact, your film will continue inside the viewer. — Asghar Farhadi

Asghar Farhadi’s A Separation, which won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film in 2012 (the first Iranian film to ever be so honored) was an international sensation. It was one of those seismic cinematic events that really can’t be anticipated or even planned for by hopeful publicists. A story about a well-to-do Iranian couple, on the verge of divorce, who get embroiled in a scandal involving a nurse they hired to take care of a family member with Alzheimer’s. You know. It doesn’t scream “worldwide sensation.” I saw A Separation at the New York Film Festival in 2011 and it knocked me flat. I felt like I was watching a long-lost play by Ibsen. It had that same epic scope, it had that sense of tragic inevitability, and meticulous care is given to the setting up of the inciting event and all that follows. The people were all totally human-sized, flawed, no villains. You can’t point the finger at where this thing went wrong. It all depends on where you stand. And that’s a very big deal for Asghar Farhadi. Truth, and one’s sense of it, depends on where you stand. This is anathema to those who prefer morality to come in black-and-white shades: i.e. fundamentalists (of any religion or political stance). The relativity of truth is evident on the most corporeal level: If you’re standing in front of me, and blocking an object from my view, then I can say, “No, I don’t see that object behind you” – even if I know it’s there. From where I stand, at that moment, I can’t see that object, and therefore no, it’s not there for me. If you move out of the way, then yes, I can see the object and now we both are looking at the same thing. But still: no two people ever see the same thing, not really. Any cop on the beat, interviewing multiple witnesses of the same event, will tell you that.

1.-Simin-and-Nader
Leila Hatami, Peyman Moaadi, “A Separation”

Asghar Farhadi takes that small philosophically-rich situation and expands it out into the human experience.

In A Separation there are four “actors” in the drama that unfolds. Five, including the young daughter. There were only two witnesses to the actual event. Nobody can agree on what actually went down. But something did go down, and someone must be to blame. But who? Farhadi is patient with these questions, he leaves no stone unturned, and his films often include scenes of relentless interrogation. Not police interrogation, but characters interrogating one another, or interrogating themselves, re-living the moment where things went wrong, trying to piece it together into a coherent narrative. This takes time. Farhadi has the time. It is why his films feel so relentless.

separation1
Peyman Moaadi, Sareh Bayat, “A Separation”

These moral and ethical issues – what does “blame” mean, what does “guilt” mean, should I feel guilty, and if so, why? What was my role in this event? What is my responsibility? These insistent questions, nagging away at the center of each of his films, end up creating a deeply moral universe, a universe where ethics really matter, where goodness really has resonance – because everyone is trying to be good, everyone is doing their best … and when bad things go down, is it random? What does responsibility mean? And if someone takes responsibility, then what? In the works of Ibsen, the small circle of domestic life was put on top of an ever-increasing flame. The pressures of the larger society impact human beings in their small everyday lives. When Nora walks out the door at the end of A Doll’s House, it is not Nora who is to blame (although audiences at the time rioted in outrage). It is the society in which she lives, it is the society which created her, that is to blame. And Torvald isn’t off the hook either. He, too, is a victim of the same society. Will he be able to look at his role in these events? At how he contributed to the situation? Nora’s actions didn’t occur in a vacuum. Society made her helpless, society had a vested interest in keeping women docile, uneducated, and child-like. Slaves. If you point the finger at Nora, you point the finger at yourselves.

Asghar-Farhadi-wins-ocskar-2012-www.jahaniha.com_

This is tough grown-up stuff, and it’s the stuff of Farhadi’s films, too. His films deal with private domestic life, friends and family and parenting and parents and divorce. But all of these things are impacted by the society at large. In the opening scene in A Separation, a married couple talk to a magistrate about getting a divorce. The wife wants to take the daughter away to live abroad. The husband will not grant her a divorce because that means he will never see his daughter again. And he can’t leave Iran with his family because his father has Alzheimer’s and he has to care for him. The issue is not that the couple has fallen out of love with each other. They clearly still love each other. But the wife does not want to raise her daughter in Iran. The reasons why are so obvious that the wife feels no obligation to put it into words. So. There you have it. Farhadi, without being obvious or speechifying, indicts the society at large for all of the events that follow. He’s subtle about it (for censorship issues, for sure, but also because it’s not his main interest: his main interest is human beings and how they behave during a crisis), but the critique is clear.

19671303.jpg-r_640_600-b_1_D6D6D6-f_jpg-q_x-xxyxx
Shahab Hosseini being restrained by a crowd in “A Separation”

I was just talking with my friend Farran about Farhadi the other day, when we met up at the screening for About Elly. The hip thing to do is to assume that all human beings are repulsive, selfish, and corrupt. So much of cinema emerges from that nihilistic attitude. Maybe it seems cooler to look at things that way than to assume the far more difficult attitude that everyone is, honestly, doing their best. Farhadi assumes that everyone is doing their best, and sometimes their best sucks, that’s true, but that does not negate the fact that it represents their best. Also: someone doing their best may seem like a villain to you because that person’s “best” means that you will lose. You see? How it looks depends on where you stand. When someone wins, it means that somebody else loses. That’s life. That’s the difficulty of it. It’s no big deal on a soccer field or a basketball court, but in the realm of human life, the stakes could not be higher.

My first encounter with Farhadi’s work was Fireworks Wednesday, which played at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2007 (my review here). It starred Taraneh Alidoosti, a lovely actress, and Hedye Tehrani (one of my favorites, an actress I’ve written a lot about). It told the story of a lower-class traditional girl hired to be a housekeeper for an upscale family.

fireworkswednesday
Taraneh Alidoosti, “Fireworks Wednesday”

That upscale family is in the process of disintegrating, and it’s ugly: the husband and wife fight constantly, their little boy is caught in the middle, and there’s all this intrigue in the apartment building because the wife suspects the husband of cheating. The wife decides to use the chador-wearing housekeeper as a pawn in the ongoing battle with the husband. Housekeeper is intimidated by the wealth, by the women who pin scarves lightly on the backs of their heads, letting their hair show free … she’s not sure what to make of all of it. It’s a culture-clash, a class-clash – something Farhadi never gets sick of examining and he does so in really subtle and innovative ways.

The housekeeper is not a prude or a fundamentalist (the film opens with her and her boyfriend riding around the mountains on a motorcycle and wrestling in a snow bank together.). But she seems that way to the more “liberal” wealthy people she encounters during the course of the film. All they see is the full chador (and the fact that she does not wax her eyebrows. Everyone comments on it.)

@zx_640@zy_391

And the rich wife is not a silly frivolous woman, although she seems that way to people who hold more traditional values. In fact, she is a depressive paranoiac. Her fashionable sister, wearing Ugg boots and a blue silk scarf pinned on top of her luxurious hair, says to her, “You look like shit. What is happening to you? You’re letting yourself go.” The wife spends her days listening through walls, weeping in the bathroom, treating her son roughly, and unable to see that she shouldn’t use her maid as a go-between in her game of gossip and lies and innuendos. The chador is symbolic. It announces I am religious, and I am working-class-poor to the snootier residents of the gated apartment building. The wife takes one look at the black-veiled creature huddled in her doorway and immediately under-estimates this girl: Well, she’s clearly religious and working-class, therefore she’s probably not too smart and I can just use her to get back at my husband.

fireworkswednesday-1
Taraneh Alidoosti, Hedye Tehrani, “Fireworks Wednesday”

And so it goes. How we see each other, how we interpret each other, how we underestimate each other and dismiss one another … it’s all there. I am sure there are subtleties I am missing, since I am not from Iran, but all of that I got. It’s a fine film. Unfortunately, it’s not streaming anywhere, and it’s also not listed on Netflix. You can buy a copy though, through Amazon, if you would like to see it.

Farhadi followed up Fireworks Wednesday with About Elly, which got a brief release, but has never been seen again. It has not been rent-able. It has not been purchase-able, either. It has been bound up in “rights issues” (according to the press notes). There were times I felt desperate to get my hands on a copy. I have been dying to see it, especially in the wake of A Separation and Farhadi’s film after that, The Past (a good film, showing the concerns now associated with Farhadi: divorce, love, parenting, Iran-vs.-elsewhere, culture/class clash). Suddenly, word on the street was: Farhadi’s film About Elly was finally released from its Limbo and getting an international release in a new 35mm restoration! Hooray! About Elly is playing at the Film Forum for a couple of weeks, starting April 8.

I went to a press screening a couple of days ago. I went into it knowing only that it was directed by Farhadi, starred Alidoosti (who was the housekeeper in Fireworks Wednesday), as well as Peyman Moaadi, who was so unbelievable in A Separation (and many other films, he’s so talented). It also starred Golshifteh Farahani, the first Iranian actor since the Revolution in 1979 to leave and appear in a major Hollywood film (Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies). I knew of Farahani because of her unforgettable small performance in Bahman Ghobadi’s Half Moon (which also starred the aforementioned Hedye Tehrani). (All of these women, by the way, every single one of them, appear in Abbas Kiarostami’s Shirin, which is like a Who’s Who of Iranian actresses.) Shahab Hosseini, who was so amazing in A Separation as the furious husband of the nurse who comes to care for Alzheimer’s patient, is also in About Elly (and, to be completely unprofessional for a second, hubba-hubba. Wow.). About Elly is an ensemble piece, with a sort of Big Chill structure, and obvious shades of Antonioni’s L’Avventurra. A group of friends come together for a holiday weekend. Mani Haghighi plays Amir (he co-wrote Fireworks Wednesday with Farhadi). Merila Zare’i plays Shohreh, and she, too, was in A Separation (as well as Shirin). Iranian cinema is a small world. Watching it is like going to a local repertory theatre company, where you see the same people over and over again, but in different roles and functions.

Now about About Elly.

about-elly-1
Taraneh Alidoosti, “About Elly”

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. So I’ll just talk about the set-up and the acting and other things, leaving as much of the plot out as possible (although the L’Avventura nod should give you some idea of where it is going).

So do not read further if you want to go into it a blank slate. I avoid spoilers, but even saying this much may be too much.

A group of friends, who knew each other from university (law school), go for a weekend on the coast. The opening scene shows Sepideh (Farahani) leaning out the window of her car, as it careens through a tunnel, screaming and laughing at the top of her lungs. Leaving Tehran brings freedom, a chance to breathe. The friends are piled in their various cars, screaming and laughing as they drive along the highway. Everyone is coupled up: It’s Sepideh and her husband Amir (Mani Haghighi). Shohreh (Merila Zare’i) and her husband Peyman (Peyman Moaadi). There’s Nazy (Ra’na Azadivar) and her husband Manoochehr (Ahmad Mehranfar). The various couples have brought their children, three in all, ages about 3 to 8. Tagging along is an old friend from university, closest to Sepideh, a guy named Ahmad (Shahab Hosseini), who has been living abroad in Germany. He just got divorced.

screen-shot-2013-03-20-at-18-23-56
Shahab Hosseini, “About Elly”. See what I mean?

Sepideh, playing matchmaker, thinks that Ahmad might really like Elly (Taraneh Aldootsi), who is her daughter’s 2nd grade teacher. Sepideh invites Elly to join them on their weekend vacation. The various friends, and Sepideh’s husband, are wary about this. “We don’t know her, why do you always do this, Sepideh, why are you putting Ahmad in this awkward position? Can we be ourselves around this girl? We want to relax.” (There are multiple levels to this. First: This is a very close-knit group. Having a stranger come with puts a crimp in their style. Second: It’s awkward because if Ahmad did want to flirt with Elly, he would have to deal with the snickering group of friends standing on the other side of the room, watching and laughing. Which is basically what happens. And Third: Ahmad and his friends come from the modern liberal section of Iranian society. Elly appears to come from the lower-class (i.e. more fundamentalist) social strata. This tension also comes into play in Farhadi’s other films. When these two layers of society meet, things have a tendency to explode.

about-elly
Golshifteh Farahani, Taraneh Alidoosti, “About Elly”

The group take over a big rambling house on the seashore, and promptly start to have fun. Volleyball, charades, swimming, cooking, laughter. But there’s something up with Elly. She says she can only stay for one night. She tells Ahmad that her mother has a heart condition. Sepideh, determined to follow her match-making through, laughingly refuses Elly’s request to be taken to the bus station. What’s one more night? Come on, relax, isn’t Ahmad handsome, can’t we all just have fun?

about-elly-2
Playing charades, “About Elly”

And then something terrible happens. It is filmed in such a visceral style that it was unbearable. The event felt like it lasted 20 minutes onscreen. And never once does Farhadi lose track of the clarity of his visuals: who is where, what each person is doing, where they are going, their diverse trajectories. There are 8 people onscreen, it is utter chaos, and you never lose your bearings as a viewer. Not to be tried by amateurs. The sequence is masterful.

Once the event ends, the real troubles begins. And then come the interrogations, a familiar device used in every Farhadi film: the questioning, the going-over of things, everyone turning into a detective trying to unearth motivation and what really happened. Who is to blame? Should we tell the truth? Did we all see the same thing though? Should we leave out parts of the truth because of these very valid societal reasons? Tellingly, and not surprisingly, the group begins to turn on one another. “Yes, well if you had not such and such …” “I was just trying to such and such …” Problems that may seem benign take on greater weight. In the middle of the crisis, Shohreh says to her husband, “Stop using that tone of voice with me.” He’s furious: “At a time like this, what matters what tone of voice I use?” “It matters.”

A crisis does not always bring people together. It can drive people apart.

Fissures open up. The abyss widens.

About Elly 2
Peyman Moaadi, “About Elly”

That driving-apart of people proceeds on almost an inevitable course. It’s like a car crash, or an explosion: chaotic in the moment, and yet behaving with the utmost predictability. The car continues to careen forward, bodies flailing around inside, and the event cannot be stopped. Until it stops of its own accord. This is what Farhadi presents like no other filmmaker working today. The sheer momentum of catastrophe.

The sense of catastrophe is so strong, but Farhadi’s film-making style remains sure and steady and certain.

I was thinking about it so much afterwards. What is it that sets Farhadi apart? I would say that one of the things is his patience. This is where he is in line with Ibsen, who carefully and meticulously set up the extenuating circumstances of his plays: here are the people, here is what they do for a living, here is their world, here is how they operate in “peaceful times.” The set-up is careful and patient. We need all of it. We need all that information given to us, so that when the crisis comes, we can see the edifice cracking, the building falling once the structure loses its stability. It’s not enough to show people laughing, and then show them experiencing some tragedy. That’s lazy. You must be patient and understand the importance of details, of behavior, of the “tells” in characters’ emotional lives, so that when the crisis does come, you become a collaborator. You, too, go into the interrogation room atmosphere of the film. Who is at fault here? Where does the fault start? Farhadi shows all sides. It’s brutal. And as the film moves on, step by step, entire lives start to unravel. The transformation in the characters from start to finish is terrifying (the acting is magnificent).

2009_about_elly_010
Golshifteh Farahani, “About Elly”

In order to get the payoff of your catharsis of “terror and pity”, you have to have the patience to set up what needs to be set up. There are no short-cuts. Farhadi is a psychologist of the highest order. He cares deeply about things like responsibility and ethics, moral compasses and sense of truth, and he is also courageous enough to know that all of these things go through different prisms. Who is “responsible” depends on how you look at it. At one point in About Elly, one character says, “From where he stands, though, everything we have done is wrong.”

You cannot argue with that. But the best part is, you do argue. Farhadi makes you argue. Look back at that quote that starts off this post. Farhadi’s films, when they end, are really the beginning of a conversation. You cannot leave one of his films and be like, “That was good – wanna grab some tacos?” You have to stand on the sidewalk and talk about it. That’s what Farran and I did after the screening. “Didn’t you think that Sepideh maybe so and so?” “I definitely think that Elly was coming from this such and such …” “I wonder, though, if maybe that group of people were blah blah?” And on and on. This happened after seeing A Separation too. After my mother finally saw it, we had a conversation that lasted probably 45 minutes about it. Not about the plot, but about … what it meant, what it showed.

I find myself arguing with Farhadi’s films. I argue with Fireworks Wednesday. I argue with A Separation. I want people to find a way out of their trouble! If only she had said this … If only they had talked about this moment … if only so-and-so had been a little bit more clear … This arguing/questioning response is one of the reasons why Farhadi is such a master, and why his films can be such harrowing experiences.

aboutelly
Golshifteh Farahani, “About Elly”

About Elly is up there with A Separation in its sense of disaster, emotional catastrophe, and dealing with the fallout. It’s not the catastrophe that matters so much: it’s how we deal with the aftermath that shows us who we are. The film has not yet let me go, and I saw it four days ago. I would put it on par with A Separation, in terms of what it achieves, and I do not say that lightly. Fireworks Wednesday is wonderful, but it feels “minor”, at least in comparison to A Separation (everything feels minor compared to A Separation, so maybe that’s not fair).

So after all these years of dying to see About Elly … and then to discover that it is AS “major” as A Separation

Thrilling. I tell you, it’s thrilling.

Farhadi is one of the best things going right now. It’s so great, too, that he is still relatively young. So much to look forward to!

About Elly 9

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

The Books: Finders Keepers: Selected Prose 1971-2001: ‘Through-Other Places, Through-Other Times: The Irish Poet and Britain,’ by Seamus Heaney

41RVsNQ1eYL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

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: Seamus Heaney’s Finders Keepers: Selected Prose 1971-2001.

The following excerpt is from a 2001 lecture Seamus Heaney gave at the University of Aberdeen. In it, he discusses the often-triangulated position of Irish poets who live in Great Britain, or Northern Ireland … and he also loops in the Scottish and the Welsh to his discussion. All part of the same nation. All different dialects and cultures. One dominant, though. One so dominant that it rendered the others voiceless, at least in terms of publishing opportunities and inclusion in the all-important canon. Heaney is interested in questions of language, first and foremost: how certain phrases he grew up with, in Ulster, made perfect sense to him, and yet were completely invisible/non-existent in the poetry he was taught in schools. He has written before about the moments of revelation when he discovered Patrick Kavanagh, or Robert Burns – who wrote in a vernacular that he recognized. It blew young Master Heaney’s mind. It opened up space for him, even before h knew he wanted to be a poet.

Now art has many purposes, and only one of its purposes is to see yourself reflected in it. What, I can’t enjoy a WWII movie because there are no women in it? I can’t “relate” to a male character? I am only going to really respond to books/movies that have middle-aged freckled film critic/culture writer Elvis fans as the lead? Is that it? (I’m exaggerating to make a point.)

However: when you are completely not represented at ALL … well, that’s a problem. My friend Mitchell and I have talked often about that offensive gay character in St. Elmo’s Fire, swishing around holding a drink with a paper umbrella in it. It’s not that there aren’t gay swish-y men out there. Of course there are. But at that particular period of time, the dark homophobic 1980s, there was almost NO representation of adult gay men in cinema at all. And so that ridiculous guy was IT. To those who get annoyed at “representation” and spout shit like “We’re all people, we’re all human beings, we all can relate to stories” … yes, but please imagine that you never once see yourself onscreen. Or, maybe once or twice a year, a big movie will have a “you” in it. And when a “you” shows up in a movie, the “you” is there to be made fun of. Just try to imagine it, and shut your cake-hole in the meantime about “we’re all human beings, we’re all people, stories are for all of us, kumbaya …” And so Mitchell watched that movie, enjoyed it, because, duh, everyone enjoyed it at that time, but he was no dummy. He knew he was being made fun of. That guy isn’t even a PERSON. He is there to poke fun at because of his sexuality. That’s his purpose. This situation ends up taking on the feeling of political propaganda. And indeed it IS political propaganda. That’s what people who get all misty-eyed about the Production Code in old Hollywood forget. Yes, the Code wanted to cut down on sex and violence. But the Code also wanted to keep the Negro in his place. Eliminate fraternization between the races. Certainly no romance, but also friendship. (The friendship Barbara Stanwyck had in Baby Face with a black woman, a partner-in-crime, an egalitarian relationship, was not possible after the Code came down. And Baby Face was one of the movies that made The Powers That Be realize that they needed to create a code in the first place.) My point with all of this is: when a culture engages in complete erasure of another, or turning entire peoples into “Other,” or boiling an entire sexual preference down into a silly idiot holding a froo-froo drink … and there are no other options out there … then you’ve got some serious problems with diversity.

Heaney is careful to avoid overstatement. He had said he thought the term “diversity” was “pious” (that is not a compliment), and I tend to agree with him. At least when it is expanded out into the ONLY arbiter of whether or not a movie is good or worthwhile. It turns art into a checklist. I will never be for that.

However, speaking from his own experience: he grew up as part of a hated minority in an extremely strong dominant culture. That dominance was reflected in the language, in the terminology, the vernacular. And so how, as a poet, do you negotiate those things? Especially if you move between those worlds (as everyone did). The term Heaney latched onto for that experience was “through-other.” Boundaries are not hard and fast: they can be crossed, you go “through” borders and boundaries, you have one voice you use at work, one voice you use at home, and everyone understands this. Why is it so difficult to understand politically? The Irish poet will always be a political figure as long as the political situation stands. Heaney has written extensively about that. He started making a name for himself in the mid-60s, as all kinds of ground was breaking up, and it was all very exciting. Then, of course, came the late-60s, and early-70s, and dreams died, en masse.

It’s a wonderful lecture, and should be read in its entirety but here’s an excerpt.

Excerpt from Finders Keepers: Selected Prose 1971-2001, ‘Through-Other Places, Through-Other Times: The Irish Poet and Britain’ by Seamus Heaney

‘Through-other’ is a compound in common use in Ulster, meaning physically untidy or mentally confused, and, appropriately enough, it echoes the Irish-language expression tré na céile, meaning things mixed up among themselves, like the cultural and historical mix-up that the poet [W.R. Rodgers] acknowledges, a bit too winsomely perhaps, in the last two stanzas of ‘Armagh’:

Through-other is its history, of Celt and Dane,
Norman and Saxon,
Who ruled the place and sounded the gamut of fame
From cow-horn to klaxon.

There is through-otherness about Armagh
Delightful to me,
Up on the hill are the graves of the garrulous kings
Who at last can agree.

The Irish for ‘Armagh’ is ‘Ard Mhacha’, meaning the heights of Macha, and the garrulous kings are presumably those who once upon a time occupied the legendary royal seat of Emain Macha, home of King Conor and the Red Branch Knights, although they must include as well all those warring lords of the great Gaelic families of Ulster, those O’Neills and O’Donnells and Maguires whose descendants continued to hold sway until the Flight of the Earls in 1607. But obviously, more recent and more rancorous battles between the house of Orange and the house of Stuart are being alluded to in that concluding cadence: “Up on the hill are the graves of the garrulous kings / Who at last can agree.” The problem is that the dying fall has the effect of settling the argument a bit too quickly and too amicably, it dodges very nimbly past the dangers, so I don’t find that it provides the momentary stay against confusion which Robert Frost said a poem should provide and be; the conclusion is more like an evasion, more like saying ‘There are faults on both sides’ – the old palliative catch-phrase that has got Northern Ireland people through embarrassing situations for years and at the same time got them nowhere.

All the same, a certain amount of evasion is understandable in such a through-other situation. I remember, for example, a moment in Belfast early on in the Troubles, sometimes in 1970, when I myself hesitated to face the full force of the sectarian circumstances. I was living then on the wrong side of Lisburn Road, socially speaking, since Lisburn Road was a thoroughfare that divided a wedge of middle-class and university-related housing from a largely working-class barrio that grew more and more boisterous as it ran down, in more senses than one, to its loyalist limit, a distract known locally as The Village. The Village in those days was no place for somebody called Seamus, and I wasn’t often to be seen there, but I did frequent a lock-up fish-and-chip shop just round the corner from us, on the outer edge of what was still strongly loyalist territory. Anyhow, one night there was a new assistant behind the counter, a young English girl who happened to recognize my face because she’d seen me the night before on some television arts show. “Oh,” she cried as she lashed on the salt and vinegar, “I saw you on the box last night, didn’t I? Aren’t you the Irish poet?” And before I could answer, the owner of the shop turned from her tasks at the boiling oil and corrected her, “Not at all, dear. He’s like the rest of us, a British subject living in Ulster! God,” she went on, addressing me and rolling an eye behind the innocent mainlander’s back, “wouldn’t it sicken you! Having to listen to that. Irish poet!” And Irish and all as I was, I’m afraid I hesitated to contradict her.

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

Eminem Annotations

Eminem is a chatterbox to beat the band on his Genius annotation page! I don’t know much about Genius, but apparently artists discuss their own catalogs in the Annotations series, and amazingly, the reclusive Eminem just participated. So much good stuff there! I love his thoughts on how competitive he is with himself, on rhyming as many syllables as possible, inter-lines, throughout an entire song.

I liked what he said about “Sing for the Moment”:

“This is where I was dealing with critics who didn’t understand why people were identifying with me. I realized I was becoming like the rappers that I looked up to as a kid. I identified with and loved LL Cool J and the Beastie Boys. I felt like if everybody didn’t understand their music, it didn’t matter — they were speaking to me. So that’s what I was trying to make people realize on this track. I may not be shit to you, but there’s a kid in fucking Nebraska, or somewhere, that I’m talking to. I don’t care if you’re listening, because he’s listening. That’s who I’m directing my material at.”

When he sang that live (when I saw him), the sound of 30,000 people singing along, to every single lyric, was profound. Indescribable.

Posted in Music | Tagged | Leave a comment