“I got my luck with Gun Crazy. It’s a part I thought I could play, don’t ask me why. ” — Peggy Cummins

It’s her birthday today.

I wrote this in 2011 for a Film Noir Blogathon. I post it today in tribute to a great actress.

5 Things About Peggy Cummins in Gun Crazy

Introduction

Joseph Lewis’ brilliant, erotic, and influential Gun Crazy was originally called Deadly Is the Female (which could be an alternate title for almost every film noir ever made). Peggy Cummins, as Annie Laurie Starr, is definitely deadly. She’s a sharp-shooter, and she makes her living with a traveling circus, daring good shots in the audience to come up and take her on. Although she is obviously a deadly shot, the “female” isn’t the deadly thing in this movie. What is deadly is the pairing, the alchemy of Barton (John Dall) and Peggy together. A classic folie a deux. She picks Barton out of a crowd at one of her shows, and they engage in a blatantly sexual shooting competition. They cleave to one another almost immediately. What is love to these two is not tenderness or communication, but how close they both can come to blowing the other one’s brains out. How far each is willing to go … now THAT’S love.

Annie Laurie would never have been an upright citizen, she’s too wild, but she may have continued in an unremarkable way, breaking men’s hearts probably but nothing too out of the ordinary, if she hadn’t met Barton. History is full of murderous duos, those who perhaps would never go off the rails alone but who require that “other” to push them over the edge. Leopold and Loeb. The Papin sisters. Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme. And, of course, Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn’s movie references Gun Crazy at almost every turn – even down to Faye Dunaway’s beret, which makes her look like a svelte revolutionary). Literature is filled with deadly duos too. Lady Macbeth hissing to her husband,

We fail?
But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we’ll not fail.

In other words, “Don’t be such a pussy.” There are certain types of men who are not susceptible to this kind of thing (try it with John Wayne, you’ll see), and then there are those who ARE. They have a faultline in their characters, a vulnerability, an uncertainty, a desire to prove themselves, a fear they are not enough. Macbeth required his wife to push him. Two elements combine. The alchemy brings forth monsters.

And so I believe Gun Crazy is the perfect title for this dark sexy noir: it’s an attention-getting title, but it’s far more accurate than Deadly Is the Female, which puts the blame on the woman. Gun Crazy describes, at heart, what is going on between these two characters.

Peggy Cummins gives one of my favorite performances of all time as Annie Laurie. The female in film noir is often the “other”, the mysterious force-of-nature strolling into a man’s life, knocking over all his chess pieces. She is often ruthless. Her blood pressure doesn’t rise like other humans: she remains calm and in control. Her surface may be sexy (Barbara Stanwyck’s blonde bangs and anklet in Double Indemnity), but her heart remains uninvolved. Annie Laurie has those elements, but Cummins adds to it a hot-blooded soul. She’s not cold-blooded. She experiences a surge of fear and panic when her finger is on the trigger. Fear at her own power? Fear at having to shoot her way out? Without that fear, she could be a high-paid assassin, but as it is, she trembles in the face of confrontation. She’s human. While she does use Barton in order to free herself from the circus, you also get the sense that she needs him, she can’t even breathe without him. It makes for a truly disturbing film, because you get caught up in their weird violent little belljar, and you start to root for both of them, even with the havoc they wreak.

Annie Laurie knows how to play Barton. She’s got him by the balls, so to speak, and here, in Gun Crazy, the sexual nature of deadly duos is made explicit. I get the feeling that Barton has never been laid before, at least not how she does it. She knows sex is one of the hooks for him, so she uses it. However, I get the sense that it’s a hook for HER as well. This is what Peggy Cummins brings to the noir table. It is unique.

These two characters drive each other crazy.

Here are 5 things about Peggy Cummins in Gun Crazy, a performance for the ages.

1. There’s something in the way she eats.

Movie actresses didn’t eat like that back then, and it is rare to see them eat like that now. Movie actresses delicately twirl their fork in a plate of linguine, and take tiny neat bites. Eating is awkward in films, and I know some directors who try to avoid showing it at all, because it’s such a hassle. Does Julia Roberts have parsley in her teeth? Is there a bit of tomato sauce on the side of Charlize Theron’s face? Forget it, let’s just cut the scene. I was in love with Gun Crazy from the opening shot, but it was at the moment in the diner when she digs into that hamburger that I felt that tell-tale prickly-goosebumpy feeling on the back of my neck. The goosebumps when you know you’re in the presence of something real.

Peggy Cummins attacks that hamburger, voraciously, you can even hear her breathing through her nose as she eats. It’s actually kind of gross. It is just right for the character. Actresses often avoid looking unattractive, and it’s easy to see why. They are judged so harshly on their appearances already. Why open themselves up to criticism? Or if they play “unattractive”, they keep one foot back through the Glamour Door, so that we in the audience know that “that is not really them”. Peggy Cummins has none of those defense mechanisms. She digs her front teeth into that burger, oblivious to the world, chewing hard but not waiting to swallow before going back in for another giant bite. It is a metaphor for the character, obviously, but not the way she plays it. She plays it on the level: “Dammit, I’m freakin’ STARVING.”

2. There’s something in the way she runs.

There are a couple of scenes where the duo has to make a run for it. They rob the payroll office at a meat-packing factory and have to flee with the loot. Then, after their crime spree across the country, they realize, while dancing at an arcade in Santa Monica, that they have been discovered. We see the two of them barreling down a sidewalk together. She drops her purse. They hustle back for it. Annie Laurie and Barton have been in this thing together from the beginning. They huddle over floor plans, smoke cigarettes, and argue over tactics. They hold each other close, breathing in one another’s breath. And here, they run for their lives. Often, in movies, when a male and female run from something together, the male maintains his alpha-status, while running, and holds the hand of the female (as though she can’t run without his assistance. But wouldn’t you both be able to go faster if you didn’t hold hands, Sir and Madame?) Barton and Annie are too desperate for such niceties. As happened in the first scene when they met at the circus, she drives him on, and vice versa. Peggy Cummins, in heels, barrels down the sidewalk, leaps off the platform into the parking lot, and her urgency, her adrenaline, is part of what makes the character so damn memorable, so herself. She is a femme fatale, but she’s also a grubby dame in heels running for her life.

3. “She thicks man’s blood with cold.” – S.T. Coleridge

… and woman’s too. Cummins’ most frightening moment in Gun Crazy is not during the scenes where she manipulates Barton sexually and emotionally, or when she suddenly pulls a gun out on some unsuspecting citizen. Her most frightening moment is the chilly look she gives to Bart’s sister, while the duo is hiding out at her house. The sister is a harried mother of three, with a mostly-absent husband, and she loves her brother. She is willing to let them stay with her for a night, but that situation quickly goes south. It is too dangerous. Too many people know they are there. Cummins walks into that small domestic world, looks down at the kids with an expression totally lacking in warmth, and immediately starts sizing up what she needs to do to get the hell out of there. The key for Annie is keeping the sister in her cross-hairs at all times. The cross-hairs of her eyes. She stands in the kitchen, filing her nails, but she never looks down at her hands. Her eyes remain trained on Bart’s sister.

Finally, Bart’s sister can no longer take it, and says, “Why are you looking at me like that??” Flatly, Cummins tosses the nail file down and says, “To make sure you won’t go to the phone.” This dame can hit a target from out of a moving car. But she doesn’t need to point a gun at the sister to keep her in line. All she has to do is look.

4. The turn-around.

In one of the most amazing scenes in Gun Crazy, the two decide to separate, thinking it would be safer if they were not together. It is a wrenching decision. By this point, they are breathing and thinking as one. They barely need to speak anymore. This is a unique element Peggy Cummins brings to her noir anti-heroine. Annie may be smarter than Bart, that is almost certainly true, but she, unlike, say, the ice-cold Jane Greer in Out of the Past, merges completely with her man. She’s as hooked on him as he is hooked on her. We may always keep Annie Laurie at arm’s length, but we never doubt she is connected to Bart on a primal level. Maybe she’s connected because she can so easily control him, but I don’t think it’s that simple. I think she is so hooked into him she couldn’t stop if she tried. The word “love” doesn’t even come into it. One can live without love. But Annie Laurie cannot live without this man, quite literally.

So, after a tormented and rushed goodbye, they flee to two separate cars on a quiet street. Director Joseph Lewis films it in a rush of movement, his camera following the two cars as they pull away from separate curbs, the couple looking back at one another, devastated. They both drive away. At the same moment, they both put on the brakes, and turn to stare back at each other. Then, they both turn their cars around and barrel back towards one another. Brakes screech as the cars come to a halt. Bart jumps out of his car and runs toward her car. She moves over, he gets behind the wheel, and the two doomed lovers drive off, exhilarated to be back together after 5 seconds of being apart. This flurry of circular movement occurs in one shot, with no cuts.

From what we have seen of Annie Laurie up until this moment, we may not be sure about her. We may think that she, like so many noir dames, is out to double-cross her lover, the innocent man with the wide grin. She may be ready to kick him to the curb. He was dead weight anyway. But she plays this rushed scene with an abandon that almost borders on the embarrassing. She is serious, grim, and in survival-mode, as they go through the process of separating, but as they drive away from each other, she can’t bear it. When he runs towards her car, she nearly leaps into the frame, leaning out of her seat from her need to be close to this man. Her need to be close to him, to merge with him, is life or death, and that is what Peggy Cummins plays in the frenzied moments when he gets into the car beside her. She nuzzles him, laughing out loud, head thrown back, a voracious portrait of need, desire, and satisfaction. It’s rather scary. It’s totally right.

The scene is not a swoon of romance. It is the companion piece to how she ate that burger.

Gun Crazy works on an ultra-disturbing level, the level most memorable crime movies approach. We in the audience recognize these people need to be caught. But we get so involved in their story, we can’t help but hope it all works out somehow, even though we know it will not.

There is nothing calculated or manipulative about how Peggy Cummins nuzzles him and laughs, throat exposed, head thrown back, as the car drives off. She has thrown her lot in with his. For better or worse. If they’re going to go down, they will go down together.

5. The end

The doomed standoff between the couple and the cops chasing them through the mountains calls to mind every standoff filmed, before or since. I think of Humphrey Bogart in High Sierra huddled in his mountain hide-out, surrounded on all sides, screaming down at the cops. Then there’s Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid. Or Dog Day Afternoon. What happens when two people come to the end of the line? How do they finally give up? How do they decide to “go out”? When they realize there is no way out, how do the criminals react? Suicide by cop? Suicide suicide? Going out in a blaze of glory? If the movie has done its job, we still hope for a respite, for some bargaining chip, for a deus ex machina. But the characters in the film are ahead of us. It’s over. They know it. Their time is up. There is one final decision: HOW to go out. For someone like Annie Laurie, there is only one way.

In Gun Crazy, Annie Laurie and Bart have been chased into the mountains. There is no more road. They abandon their car and take off on foot. Ferocious dogs are on their trail. The duo stumble through rivers, trying to throw the dogs off, but the altitude is so high they struggle to catch their breath. She starts to lose momentum. She leans against a tree, heaving for breath. She can’t understand why she can’t run anymore. It is a very human moment: the criminal suddenly realizes her fallibility. Altitude affects us all. They finally hole up in a swamp, as the fog rolls in. They lie in one another’s arms in the darkness, listening to the barking dogs in the distance, the echoing shouts of the cops looking for them. Night has fallen. They are filthy. Peggy Cummins’ hair is long and wild, and in this, she looks completely and utterly modern.

While Bart was classified as a “juvenile delinquent” very early on, due to his love affair with guns, it is Annie Laurie who is the career criminal. Bart wants to try to do something good with his love of guns, he has vague plans of teaching others to shoot. He can’t shoot an animal. He doesn’t want to hurt anyone. Annie Laurie is a different story. She is a wild animal when cornered. And as we saw from the jump, fear makes her dangerous. If a man corners her, he’ll end up dead. She’ll do what it takes. She has found a couple of stooges along the way, but these men were annoying to her. The heat between her and Bart, felt immediately, is irresistible. It’s not only the altitude that proves to her her human-ness. It’s her response to Bart. She starts to make decisions that lead her to her inevitable end because of her connection to Bart.

There’s a moment in the swamp, when she raises her head up a little bit and looks down at him. The terror in her eyes is the rabid terror of a fox caught in a trap. It is against her nature to surrender. To the cops, to death itself. But this is true for all of us. It is her decision, finally, about “how to go out”. She’s the one who throws herself into the void, shouting at death and those who want to capture her: here she is, HERE SHE IS, she’ll kill ALL of them before she lets them take her! You can see that knowledge in her eyes, of where she is going, when she raises her head and looks at her lover.

Death is present already. It’s over.

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

Posted in Actors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , , , | 47 Comments

Happy birthday KEEF

It’s Keith Richards’ birthday.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: If you are feeling introverted, if you are feeling lonely for conversation and human contact, read Keith Richards’ spectacular autobiography in public. People will come up to you when they see what you’re reading and have to talk about it. I read it when I was having a prolonged and almost hallucinatory manic episode in Memphis, where I alternately felt like I was in a transcendent state of pure truth OR like I was a ghost … I went for days without speaking to anyone. Shit got spooky. I went to the Peabody Hotel, sat at the bar in the gorgeous lobby, and drank a couple of Bloody Marys. I was alone but I just needed to be surrounded by people. It made me feel like I wasn’t a ghost. I took out Richards’ book and fell into its mesmerizing pages. Richards is an engaging writer, and so knowledgeable about music he helps you understand how he does what he does, how the great guitarists did what they did … It’s very nuts-and-bolts, his memoir, while also moving from nuts-and-bolts into meaning and connection: how certain chords affect us, how certain musicians changed the game. So I was lost to the world. And my Bloody Mary was delicious. Suddenly, a guy down the bar struck up a conversation with me. He noticed the book I was reading. He hadn’t read it but he was a huge Stones fan. We ended up talking for 45 minutes.

I realized I still knew how to talk to people. It happened again at a diner in Memphis, during the same period, where I was having breakfast. The 20something waitress also had to talk to me about it. She had just read it. Her boyfriend gave it to her for Christmas. So. Take this tip, go forth, and have interesting conversations with strangers!

An interesting side note: the audio version of the book was read by three different men, one of which is a pal of mine, Joe Hurley. I met Joe Hurley at a Bloomsday celebration, the one I go to every year. I had one of my most memorable New York experiences that particular day. The planets aligned. Joe Hurley was the maestro conductor of our impromptu sing-along. I was like, “MY PEOPLE. I HAVE FOUND YOU.” We have intersected occasionally over the years. He was a performer at the Losers Lounge tribute to Queen at the Bowery Ballroom – such an unforgettable night. Every year, Hurley hosts an Irish Rock Revue on St. Patrick’s Day, which I’ve gone to a couple of times. Anyway, when news hit of Richards’ audiobook, and I saw Joe Hurley’s name in the mix, I couldn’t believe it but it also made so much sense!

My brother Brendan wrote quite a bit about the Stones in his music essays, which I posted here on my site, so I thought I’d share links to some of them. Brendan is such a good writer, and I just couldn’t deal with the fact that these essays were hidden on a defunct blog. I wanted to resurrect them.

On The Beggars Banquet.

Beatles vs. The Stones

Teensy Jagger (seeing the Stones at Dodger Stadium)

Check out this awesome clip, of Jerry Lee Lewis and Richards performing “Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On” in 1983. It starts off pretty conventional, albeit awesome, these two giants performing with a mutual respect for one another.

But then … something happens. The mood changes. Something electric sparks. The group coalesces. The shit ignites. Maybe it’s when Jerry Lee commands, “Play it, Keith!” Something is unleashed. A wildness, a crazy, a connection, the performance catapults to the next level. The level where magic exists. Where a performance expands into something else – an experience, pure expression. And they both feel it. It’s exhilarating!

So now, onto some excerpts from his memoir, Life. His writings on his discovery of rock ‘n roll, via Radio Luxembourg, are electrifying. He loved all the voices he heard – Little Richard, Chuck Berry – and then, of course, there was you-know-who.

I think the first record I bought was Little Richard’s “Long Tall Sally”. Fantastic record, even to this day. Good records just get better with age. But the one that really turned me on, like an explosion one night, listening to Radio Luxembourg on my little radio when I was supposed to be in bed and asleep, was “Heartbreak Hotel”. That was the stunner. I’d never heard it before, or anything like it. I’d never heard of Elvis before. It was almost as if I’d been waiting for it to happen. When I woke up the next day I was a different guy. Suddenly I was getting overwhelmed: Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran, Little Richard, Fats. Radio Luxembourg was notoriously difficult to keep on station. I had a little aerial and walked round the room, holding the radio up to my ear and twisting the aerial. Trying to keep it down because I’d wake Mum and Dad up. If I could get the signal right, I could take the radio under the blankets on the bed and keep the aerial outside and twist it there. I’m supposed to be asleep; I’m supposed to be going to school in the morning. Loads of ads for James Walker, the jewelers “in every high street,” and the Irish sweepstakes, with which Radio Lux had some deal. The signal was perfect for the ads, “and now we have Fats Domino, ‘Blueberry Hill,'” and shit, then it would fade.

Then, “Since my baby left me” – it was just the sound. It was the last trigger. That was the first rock and roll I heard. It was a totally different way of delivering a song, a totally different sound, stripped down, burnt, no bullshit, no violins and ladies’ choruses and schmaltz, totally different. It was bare, right to the roots that you had a feeling were there but hadn’t yet heard. I’ve got to take my hat off to Elvis for that. The silence is your canvas, that’s your frame, that’s what you work on; don’t try and deafen it out. That’s what “Heartbreak Hotel” did to me. It was the first time I’d heard something so stark. Then I had to go back to what this cat had done before. Luckily I caught his name. The Radio Luxembourg signal came back in. “That was Elvis Presley, with ‘Heartbreak Hotel.'” Shit!

This passage reminds me of George Harrison’s answer to the question: “What are your musical roots?” He said he had no musical roots. The only “root” he could think of was being a kid and hearing “Heartbreak Hotel” through an open window. Think about that for a second.

Here’s a great interview excerpt where Richards talks more about Elvis, and what it was like when he first hit. “The world went from black and white to technicolor.”

My favorite quote from that interview – and it’s mind-blowing the more you think about it – is when he says, “The beautiful thing about Elvis is that he sort of turned everybody into everybody.”

That’s why he was controversial. That’s why he’s still controversial. His unifying force is something humans resist. Richards is so eloquent on these things. He has the history of 20th century music – particularly 20th century American music – in his DNA.

Another excerpt, and I’ve used this quite a bit in my writing, and it’s also helped clarify my thinking about – and HEARING – the early rock ‘n roll legends, even back to Robert Johnson and Lead Belly, because you can hear it there too. You can REALLY hear it in Johnny Cash, his early days. Richards put it into words like nobody else has. He writes about “the rhythm of the tracks”:

There’s something primordial in the way we react to pulses without even knowing it. We exist on a rhythm of seventy-two beats a minute. The train, apart from getting them from the Delta to Detroit, became very important to blues players because of the rhythm of the machine, the rhythm of the tracks, and then when you cross onto another track, the beat moves. It echoes something in the human body. So then when you have machinery involved, like trains, and drones, all of that is still built in as music inside us. The human body will feel rhythms even when there’s not one. Listen to “Mystery Train” by Elvis Presley. One of the great rock-and-roll tracks of all time, not a drum on it. It’s just a suggestion, because the body will provide the rhythm. Rhythm really only has to be suggested. Doesn’t have to be pronounced. This is where they got it wrong with “this rock” and “that rock”. It’s got nothing to do with rock. It’s to do with roll.

I swear, I hear things differently because of that passage.

Another excerpt, and this is crucial: this is about Scotty Moore, Elvis’ now-legendary guitarist, on all those Sun recordings at the beginning. So teenage Keith Richards is listening to these Elvis songs float out of the radio – and Elvis himself was such a mesmerizing figure – but Richards tuned in to what Scotty was doing back there, how crucial Scotty was to Elvis’ sound. (He talks about it in that interview clip above, too). But here, in the book, he goes deep into Scotty Moore:

That Elvis LP had all the Sun stuff, with a couple of RCA jobs on it too. It was everything from “That’s All Right,” “Blue Moon of Kentucky”, “Milk Cow Blues Boogie.” I mean, for a guitar player, or a budding guitar player, heaven. But on the other hand, what the hell’s going on there? I might not have wanted to be Elvis, but I wasn’t so sure about Scotty Moore. Scotty Moore was my icon. He was Elvis’s guitar player on all the Sun Records stuff. He’s on “Mystery Train”, he’s on “Baby Let’s Play House”. Now I know the man, I’ve played with him. I know the band. But back then, just being able to get through “I’m Left, You’re Right, She’s Gone”, that was the epitome of guitar playing. And then “Mystery Train” and “Money Honey”. I’d have died and gone to heaven just to play like that.” How the hell was that done? That’s the stuff I first brought to the johns at Sidcup, playing a borrowed f-hole archtop Höfner. That was before the music led me back into the roots of Elvis and Buddy – back to the blues.

To this day there’s a Scotty Moore lick I still can’t get down and he won’t tell me. Forty-nine years it’s eluded me. He claims he can’t remember the one I’m talking about. It’s not that he won’t show me; he says, “I don’t know which one you mean.” It’s on “I’m Left, You’re Right, She’s Gone.” I think it’s in E major. He has a rundown when it hits the 5 chord, the B down to the A down to the E, which is like a yodeling sort of thing, which I’ve never been quite able to figure. It’s also on “Baby Let’s Play House.” When you get to “But don’t you be nobody’s fool / Now baby, come back, baby …” and right at that last line, the lick is in there. It’s probably some simple trick. But it goes too fast, and also there’s a bunch of notes involved: which finger moves and which one doesn’t? I’ve never heard anybody else pull it off. Creedence Clearwater got a version of this song down, but when it comes to that move, no. And Scotty’s a sly dog. He’s very dry. “Hey, youngster, you’ve got time to figure it out.” Every time I see him, it’s “Learnt that lick yet?”

“I’d have died and gone to heaven just to play like that.”

Keith Richards is a giant. He is revered. You can instantly recognize his sound as a guitarist. He is at the top of the top of all the lists. But look at that quote. The humility in it. You can’t be humble and be a rock star. You have to have an ego the size of Jupiter to even stand on a stage as big as the ones the Rolling Stones inhabited. It’s part of the game. But within that egotism can also be humility, and awareness of all who came before you, of everyone who inspired you to help you step onto that massive stage. Nobody successful gets there by themselves and on their own steam. They are inspired, pushed, by people who came before. Keith Richards has ghosts all around him, ghosts inside of him, and every time he plays … it’s a kind of tribute. A tribute to everyone who got inside his soul with their sound, to everyone who showed him the way.

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

Posted in Music, On This Day | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

“I can only work against bourgeois society. I can never work with it or through it.” — Erwin Piscator

It’s Erwin Piscator’s birthday. Even if you didn’t set OUT to learn about him, if you have done any reading about actors/theatre in the 20th century – either in Germany or in America – you will run into his name again and again and again. You get his biography by osmosis. Memoir after memoir, bio after bio, his name comes up as a formative figure. Finally he’s in your head, without you even noticing it happening, so you find yourself reading a new bio, and you think, “Whaddya wanna bet Piscator’s gonna show up here somewhere?” And HE ALWAYS DOES. He is one of the many many many immigrants who came to this country, fleeing oppression, bringing with them wealths of knowledge and experience, which they then poured into the American “scene”, transforming it forever, and for the better. Let’s hear it for immigrants.

After working in Moscow, collaborating with revolutionary artists, and not being able to return to his homeland Germany after the rise of Hitler, he came to America and wasted no time. He founded the New School of Drama and ended up training so many people in his class (a class everyone wanted to take) that you could basically track mid-century American acting through his influence: Harry Belafonte, Elaine Stritch, Eli Wallach, Marlon Brando, Tony Curtis, Ben Gazzara, Rod Steiger, Tennessee Williams … all studied with Piscator.

Piscator was the one who looked at one of his acting students – a recent immigrant and Holocaust survivor – and said, “I don’t think acting is your thing. I think directing is your thing.” That student was Jack Garfein, who ended up marrying Carroll Baker, founding the director’s unit at the Actors Studio, directing tons of theatre as well as 2 amazing films – The Strange One and Something Wild (for which I wrote the booklet essay for the Criterion release). Piscator was right: this guy wasn’t an actor but he had SOMEthing, and maybe directing was it. We are so much richer for Piscator’s insights.

When you boil it all down, Erwin Piscator’s influence – on actors and performers in America – can’t even be measured. It could even be greater than Strasberg’s, since it wasn’t limited to one approach or one venue.

But even beyond all that, Piscator was a hugely influential theatre director in Weimar Germany in the 1920s, and BFFs with Bertolt Brecht (who was Best Man at his wedding). Piscator ran a theatre company and put on elaborate productions of hugely controversial works by Tolstoy, Gorky, and others, often featuring rousing renditions of “The Internationale”. Sign of the times. He and Brecht were proponents of “epic theatre”, theatre meant to have a socio-political resonance (their compatriots in this a decade later in America was The Group Theatre – whose members are a roll call of those who helped FORM “modern” acting in America: Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, John Garfield, Bobby Lewis, Sanford Meisner, Elia Kazan, Harold Clurman, Cheryl Crawford … Piscator’s influence can be felt THERE too.) Brecht and Piscator were the philosophers of the “epic theatre” movement and also those who attempted to move the philosophy into the real world, into productions, through visionary set and production design, and lighting design, all of which can be felt to this day. Piscator had a vision for what epic theatre would look like and the set designs for his productions are out of this world. Lots of scaffolds and dizzying stairways up to higher levels …

Orson Welles was hugely influenced by Piscator’s ideas (see the designs for Orson’s famous 1937 production of Julius Caesar – it’s all scaffolds and platforms – a totally abstract space).

Piscator also would project images behind the action, which was really ahead of its time. In a 1926 production, he projected images of a clamoring crowd above the action onstage.

As cinema and photography were developing as artforms, Piscator saw the possibilities (many theatre artists ignored it, hoping it would go away, or at least be irrelevant.) Consider Tennessee Williams incorporating “slides” and “projections” into the script of Glass Menagerie, making visual the play’s themes of memory, and the porous boundary between the present and the past. He “got the memo” too. Piscator was basically a multi-media artist, decades before that term was even coined in the 60s. Three German theatre artists – Brecht, Max Reinhardt, Erwin Piscator – all so influential it’s hard to even point to the results of their influence since it’s so seeped down into everything.

What I wouldn’t give to go back in time and attend Piscator’s New York workshop.

Along those lines: It was always so meaningful for me to attend workshops run by Actors Studio people – Ellen Burstyn, John Strasberg, Vivian Nathan, etc. – in the very building where Piscator had his studio, in the very room where he taught people like, oh, BRANDO.

Stepping into that round workshop room was like stepping into a continuum, a continuum not exactly started by him, but pushed forward inevitably by his presence. He was a huge part of establishing modern theatre in this country. Stepping into that room was stepping into that flow. Piscator’s ghost could be felt. His influence continues.

“In lieu of private themes we had generalisation, in lieu of what was special the typical, in lieu of accident causality. Decorativeness gave way to constructedness, Reason was put on a par with Emotion, while sensuality was replaced by didacticism and fantasy by documentary reality.” — Erwin Piscator

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

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

For Liberties: What Was Good About 2024? (in film)

Over at Liberties: my top 20 films of 2024.

Tis the season for end-of-year lists. I tend to switch them up, depending on the outlet, because I don’t get attached to my lists. But those are the stand-outs.

(Thanks to Liberties: this has been a great year because I’d been feeling a bit stagnant in my career. Hence, the newsletter. More long-form pieces. And then, from out of the sky, I am offered a column at Liberties magazine, alongside contributors like Fouad Ajami, Mary Gaitskill, etc. Idols. I feel lucky to have it and lucky I am given leeway to basically write what I want.)

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

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

“Beside her Joyce seems innocent as grass.” — W.H. Auden on Jane Austen

“The little bit (two Inches wide) of Ivory on which I work with so fine a Brush.” — Jane Austen on her writing

In 2020 – which feels like it was 1,000 years ago, I reviewed the new film adaptation of Emma., directed by Autumn de Wilde – her first feature, astonishingly. The date of my review is March 20, 2020. And so it had begun. I loved the film so much. Inspired by it, I decided to re-read Emma. It’s been years. I think I read it in high school. I re-read Pride and Prejudice, on average, every 5 years or so. I know whole sections practically by heart. But with Emma, it was almost like the first time reading it. I always forget how funny Jane Austen is. Her eye is so sharp it’s brutal. There’s a Tom Wolfe-ian ruthlessness in her eye: you could imagine her contemporaries not wanting to invite her to a garden party because she would see all, she saw beneath the public-facing masks. Emma is a fascinating book because the primary character does not know herself. She is not a pleasant character. Andrew H. Wright, author of Jane Austen’s Novels: A Study in Structure, wrote, “[Emma has] supreme self-confidence and serene delusion.” Serene delusion! Emma acts in childish imperious ways, making a complete mess of multiple peoples’ lives, through her mistaken belief that her powers of match-making are second-to-none. She hurts people. She ruins people’s potential for happiness. She uses people, but – and this is crucial – she has no idea she’s using them. It’s clear to US, reading it, why she does it, it’s clear to the people AROUND her … but her own motivations are completely opaque to her. This can make for frustrating reading, I suppose, but for me, it makes for a hilariously engaging read. Part of the tension of the book is thinking, as you read, “When is Emma gonna get it? When is she going to actually look within herself and realize why she is doing what she is doing? When will she EVER admit to her flaws?” When this moment finally comes, her whole world comes crashing down. And she must then “eat crow”, as they say, and trudge around to everyone she’s hurt, apologizing for what she’s done, making amends, and then turning herself inside out to undo the damage she’s done. She is a fascinating character, extremely well-drawn.

Jane Austen said, “I am going to take a heroine whom no one but myself will much like.” I love this! Emma was the last of Austen’s novels published during her lifetime.

Austen’s work, of course, lends itself to cinematic adaptation (in so many of the adaptations, the dialogue is lifted wholesale from the book: why would you alter it?) Austen didn’t write a lot, and you can see the quick maturation process between Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice, published only two years apart. Sense and Sensibility relies heavily on the binary formulation, drawing it out in obvious ways. She’s already in the thick of her own talent, her own gift for storytelling, but you can feel the slight lack of development and characterization (speaking comparatively, of course. 9 writers out of 10 don’t start as strongly as she did. Nobody’s going to DIS Sense and Sensibility.) But if you read Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice back to back, the difference is so apparent, startlingly so. It’s like Sense and Sensibility was a rough draft for the second book, a circling around the issues that interested her, the tensions in the culture and how it impacted women and male-female relationships, the bifurcation of these qualities – sense, sensibility, pride, prejudice … It’s all there in Sense and Sensibility, but Pride and Prejudice shoots these ideas into the stratosphere. That book glitters and crackles, and the caricature-ish personalities in Sense and Sensibility are gone. We still get the broad characters, the “personalities”, but they appear to walk and talk on their own. You feel no marionette strings. Pride and Prejudice is an amazing leap into mastery.

“By a Lady”

I love Auden’s observations of Jane Austen in his poem “Letter to Lord Byron”.

from “Letter to Lord Byron”
By W.H. Auden

There is one other author in my pack
For some time I debated which to write to.
Which would least likely send my letter back?
But I decided I’d give a fright to
Jane Austen if I wrote when I’d no right to,
And share in her contempt the dreadful fates
Of Crawford, Musgrove, and of Mr. Yates.

Then she’s a novelist. I don’t know whether
You will agree, but novel writing is
A higher art than poetry altogether
In my opinion, and success implies
Both finer character and faculties
Perhaps that’s why real novels are as rare
As winter thunder or a polar bear…

She was not an unshockable blue-stocking;
If shades remain the characters they were,
No doubt she still considers you as shocking.
But tell Jane Austen, that is if you dare,
How much her novels are beloved down here.
She wrote them for posterity, she said;
‘Twas rash, but by posterity she’s read.

You could not shock her more than she shocks me;
Beside her Joyce seems innocent as grass.
It makes me most uncomfortable to see
An English spinster of the middle-class
Describe the amorous effects of ‘brass’,
Reveal so frankly and with such sobriety
The economic basis of society.

QUOTES:

Mary Lascelles, Jane Austen and Her Art, 1939:

Few novelists can be more scrupulous than Jane Austen as to the phrasing and thoughts of their characters.

Jane Austen’s brother Henry:

Jane was fond of dancing, and excelled in it.

Joyce Carol Oates:

My role models were childless: Virginia Woolf, Jane Austen, George Eliot, the Brontes.

Sebastian Faulks:

If I hadn’t read all of Jane Austen and D.H. Lawrence, Tolstoy and Proust, as well as the more fun stuff, I wouldn’t know how to break bad news, how to sympathise, how to be a friend or a lover, because I wouldn’t have any idea what was going on in anybody else’s mind.

^^ I love that so much.

Howard Jacobson:

No good writer ever merely cheered us up. But there’s an unblinking stare into the darkness of things we have to go elsewhere to find. Jane Austen was made of strong stuff. She was too satiric for D. H. Lawrence’s taste and too unforgiving for Kingsley Amis’s, but you would still not call her hellish.

Critic Robert Polhemus:

To appreciate the drama and achievement of Austen, we need to realize how deep was her passion for both reverence and ridicule … and her comic imagination reveals both the harmonies and the telling contradictions of her mind and vision as she tries to reconcile her satirical bias with her sense of the good.

Sir Walter Scott, 1815 review of Emma – in general Austen’s books were not reviewed:

The art of copying from nature as she really exists in the common walks of life, and presenting to the reader, instead of the splendid scenes from an imaginary world, a correct and striking representation of that which is daily taking place around him.

Michael Dirda:

Deep in my cortex, the year is divided into reading seasons. The period from mid-October to Christmas, for instance, is ‘ghost story’ time, while Jane Austen and P. G. Wodehouse pretty much own April and May.

Director Whit Stillman, whose superb Love & Friendship, starring Kate Beckinsale, based on an early short story by Austen, captures the whole Austen THING to perfection:

I don’t think there’s anything cliche feminine about Jane Austen. And, anyway, her earliest champions were Sir Walter Scott and the Prince Regent.

I love Whit Stillman.

Cathleen Schine:

Emma is my favorite Jane Austen novel – one of my favorite novels period; a novel about intelligence outsmarting itself, about a complicated, nuanced, irresistible heroine who does everything wrong.

Whit Stillman:

My theory in the ’90s was that I didn’t want to take a Jane Austen book I loved and reduce it to a 90-minute movie. The Emma Thompson-Ang Lee Sense and Sensibility was beautiful, but other ones, I didn’t think justice was being done. It’s not a slam dunk to adapt these books.

Jane Austen, letter of advice to her niece, 1814:

Having written so much on one side of the question, I shall now turn around & entreat you not to commit yourself farther, & not to think of accepting him unless you really do like him. Anything is to be preferred or endured rather than marrying without Affection.

Jan Fergus:

[Austen was] an embittered, disappointed woman trapped in a thoroughly unpleasant family.

Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae:

[In the first sentence of Emma,] there is a delicate play of modern irony about the psychological perimeter of this sentence that is almost impossible to arrest and define. It is an atmospheric rippling, an undulating vocal convection. The sentence contains the whole novel. Rhetorically, it is a glissando from eighteenth-century to nineteenth-century style. The grand public oratory of “handsome, clever, and rich” sinks down to the small, homely “vex,” the thorn that will prick the bubble of Emma’s pride. As the sentence ends, we hear the new obliqueness of modern writing and almost see the author’s hidden smile. Philosophically, Austen’s novels, though contemporaneous with High Romanticism, affirm the eighteenth-century world-view, with its neoclassic endorsement of the sexually normative. Only in Emma is there anything sexually ambivalent (Emma’s infatuation with Harriet), and even there it is slight and discreet.

The first sentence of Emma:

Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her.

Salman Rushdie:

I think the space between private life and public life has disappeared in our time. There used to be much more distance there. It’s like Jane Austen forgetting to mention the Napoleonic wars. The function of the British army in the novels of Jane Austen is to look cute at parties. It’s not because she’s ducking something, it’s that she can fully and profoundly explain the lives of her characters without a reference to the public sphere. That’s no longer possible.

Sir Walter Scott on Jane Austen, 1826:

… the exquisite touch, which renders ordinary commonplace things and characters interesting … is denied to me.

Eudora Welty:

I love and admire all [Jane Austen] does, and profoundly, but I don’t read her or anyone else for “kindredness”.

Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae:

Egoism is the androgyne’s raison d’etre. Self-complete beings need no one and nothing. Jane Austen’s Emma illustrates the social novel’s association of androgyny with selfish privation…Emma’s autocracy and lesbian flirtation are a single phenomenon, a hermaphroditic hierarchism which the social novel cannot tolerate…In other words, the novel itself, in its formal essence, rises up to check the pretensions of the charismatic personality, humanizing and normalizing it for marriage, foundation of the social order. There is a parallel with English Renaissance literature, where the Amazon sacrifices her androgyny for the public good.

You could pick a Camille Paglia sentence out of a blind lineup.

Truman Capote:

These are the enthusiasms that remain constant: Flaubert, Turgenev, Chekhov, Jane Austen, James, EM Forster, Maupassant, Rilke, Proust, Shaw, Willa Cather – oh the list is too long, so I’ll end with James Agee, a beautiful writer whose death over two years ago was a real loss. Agee’s work, by the way, was much influenced by the films.

Allegra Goodman, “Pemberley Previsited, Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen”:

The rain poured down all the first night and kept coming the next day. It was too wet to take the baby out, so he played on the floor and I listened to the rain. It rattled on the skylight in the stairwell and thrummed the roof, and I began to reread Pride and Prejudice. I read the book slowly and uncritically, lying on our new blue sofa in our new sparsely furnished town house. I read it because my mother had loved Jane Austen and because rereading it for solace was something she might have done. I read it because my mother was like Jane Austen in her wit, her love of irony, and her concision. My mother was shrewd like Austen, and ingenious, she flourished in difficult professional situations. And like Austen, my mother had died young with her work unfinished.

It rained all day, and I kept reading steadily. I didn’t laugh, but I smiled at Mr. Bennet and Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Mr. Darcy didn’t bother me at all, but strode into the book, a dashing hero brooking no doubt or literary disappointment. Perhaps he was only a figure of romance, and perhaps Pemberley was just Austen’s castle in the air. The romance and the castle were no less powerful for their escapist construction. Indeed, what I found irresistible this time was the way Austen combines astute social satire with fairy tale. The combination did not seem awkward to me, but inspired. The satire is exquisite, while the fairy tale is viscerally satisfying. How delightful to watch Elizabeth rise like Cinderella above the impediments of her mother and her younger sisters! Her mother is not wicked, but she is thoughtless and vulgar. Her sisters, with the exception of Jane, are pedantic, insipid, and lusty, and, as such, throw as many obstacles in Elizabeth’s way as if sabotage had been their intent. And, of course, Mr. Bingley’s sisters supply their venom. Naturally, the obstacles make Elizabeth’s victory more delicious. Hers is the triumph of wit over vulgarity, self-respect over sycophancy. Until this reading, I had never appreciated Austen’s fairy-tale so well, but perhaps I had never needed it as much. No one dies in Pride and Prejudice – not even of embarrassment, as feckless Lydia and Wickham demonstrate. I no longer faulted the book for its cheerfulness or made invidious comparisons with Henry James. A dark imagination is, perhaps, more appealing before you know anything about darkness.

Clive James, Cultural Amnesia:

There are not many great writers who oblige us to accept that inattention might have been essential to their vision. Jane Austen left the Napoleonic wars out of her novels, but we assume that she heard about them.

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

Posted in Books, On This Day, writers | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

“The best thing that can come with success is the knowledge that it is nothing to long for.” — Liv Ullmann

It’s her birthday today.

In 2018 I was assigned by the Criterion Collection to write tributes to four of Ingmar Bergman’s actresses: Liv Ullmann, Bibi Andersson, (Liv and Bibi were paired together in one video – Bergman saw them as a part as well) Ingrid Thulin and … one more (which hasn’t launched, hence my not mentioning it). This assignment required a deep dive into Ingmar Bergman’s work, which took up an entire month and a half of watching, 2, 3 movies a day.

The landing page for all of the videos is here, and here’s the one I did for Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson, a deep dive into their work with Bergman, how he saw each of them, their journeys with him, and who they were as actresses, both together and separate.

I didn’t mention Ullmann’s directorial career which has been extensive (movies and theatre). I was able to review her film adaptation of Miss Julie, starring Jessica Chastain, Colin Farrell and Samantha Morton.

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

Posted in Actors, Directors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

“The vote means nothing to women. We should be armed.” — Edna O’Brien

Today is the birthday of the great Irish writer Edna O’Brien, who just died this past summer at the age of 93. I came to her Country Girls trilogy fairly young. I was in college. I think that might be the best time to encounter those books. I didn’t read them. I inhaled them and lived them. Her writing is so pure and free, passionate, detailed: you literally don’t feel like it’s writing. It’s experiential. When I learned much later that she wrote the first of the trilogy in the matter of a couple of weeks, I was awe-struck but also not surprised. The thing poured out of her. She’s been very important to me. I’ve written quite a bit about her if you want to search around. She lived a long life, started publishing young, and wrote almost up to the very end. A prolific woman, not only not afraid of controversy but she kind of couldn’t do it any other way. It was her destiny, as an Irish writer, and an Irish woman writer at that.

Excerpt from a 2008 essay by O’Brien in The Guardian:

The Country Girls took three weeks, or maybe less, to write. After I brought my sons Carlo and Sasha to the local school in Morden, I came home, sat by the windowsill of their bedroom and wrote and wrote. It was as if I was merely a medium for the words to flow. The emotional crux hinged on Ireland, the country I had left and wanted to leave, but now grieved for, with an inexplicable sorrow.

Images of roads and ditches and bog and bog lake assailed me, as did the voice of my mother, tender or chastising, and even her cough when she lay down at night. In the fields outside, the lonely plaint of cattle, dogs barking and, as I believed, ghosts. All the people I had encountered kept re-emerging with a vividness: Hickey our workman, whom I loved; my father, whom I feared; knackers; publicans; a travelling salesman by the name of Sacco, who sold spectacles and sets of dentures; and the tinkers who rapped on the door demanding money in exchange for mending tin pots. There was the embryo poet, an amateur historian and the blacksmith who claimed to have met the film director John Ford on the streets of Galway and was asked to appear in The Quiet Man, but declined out of filial duty. The lost landscape of childhood.

Sinéad O’Shea’s new documentary Blue Road — The Edna O’Brien Story doesn’t have distribution yet, but it’s been wowing audiences at festivals over the last couple of months. There was bound to be a documentary about the life of O’Brien eventually – she was just so freakin’ famous – but O’Shea’s is the first, and – lucky for us – she began filming before O’Brien died, and interviewed her for it. Invaluable. Let this gossiped-about insanely famous writer tell her own story.

I just interviewed O’Shea for my column at Liberties: Edna O’Brien: Documentary of A Writer and A Star.

“I hear stories. It could be myself telling them to myself or it could be these murmurs that come out of the earth. The earth so old and haunted, so hungry and replete. It talks. Things past and things yet to be.”
― Edna O’Brien, House of Splendid Isolation

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

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

“Here I was, stuck in the middle of a dying nation with all these funny looking children who didn’t even realize the world was coming to an end, and now on top of everything else they expected me to turn my room into a hippie crash pad!” — Lester Bangs

It’s his birthday today.

A lot of ink has been spilled on Lester Bangs, including on this site. My feelings for him are as chaotic as his writing style. There are times I read him and I think, almost wildly, “How is he doing this?” Everything seems fueled by amphetamines, and that’s probably the case. I get the image of him sitting down to write and just starting. And not stopping until he’s done. No dilly-dallying. But out of him pours memoir, reference points, anecdotes, opinions – and he doesn’t worry about contradictions. He contradicts himself multiple times, sometimes even in the same piece. He is ENGAGED with the art he is writing about, and sometimes that engagement is akin to mortal combat. He’s also hilarious. Sometimes I think, “What the hell are you even going on and on about, Lester?” He’s written a couple of pieces that have become essential to me, pieces I reference all the time, in my head, in my writing, pieces that have organized themselves as perfect expressions of this or that difficult or complicated subject. His wild piece on the Troggs. That might be my #1 favorite piece from Lester Bangs. It’s WILD. And it includes all the elements I mentioned above. It’s about adolescence, first sexual feelings, high school, sexual inexperience, it’s about the Troggs’ frankness in re: sex, and finally … all of his observations pour into a small bottle of rage, rage pointed at James Taylor, of all people. Now I love James Taylor, but I cannot deny that Lester Bangs makes his case, and it’s a very convincing one. The piece is so long it’s impossible to predict where it’s going, and no matter how many times I’ve read it, I continue to discover new things.

But there are gems throughout. He died so young but he started writing early, so we do have a lot of him.

Here’s a smattering of excerpts:

Lester Bangs on Nico:

There’s a ghost born every second, and if you let the ghosts take your guts by sheer force of numbers you haven’t got a chance though probably no one has a right to judge you either. (Besides which, the ghosts are probably as scared of you as you are of them.) Nico is so possessed by ghosts she seems like one, but there is rather the clear confrontation of the knowledge that she had to get that awfully far away from human socialization to be able to write so nakedly of her love for damn near anyone, and simultaneously and so crucially the impossibility of that love ever bearing fruit, not because we were born sterile but directly the opposite, that we come and grow ever fiercer into such pain that we could sooner eat the shards of a smashed cathedral than risk one more possibility of the physical, psychic, and emotional annihilations that love between two humans can cause, not even just cause but generally totally as a logical act of nature in its ripest bloom. Strange fruit, as it were. But only strange to those who would deny the true nature of their own flesh and spirit out of fear, which reminds me somehow that if you seek this album out you should know that this is a Catholic girl singing these songs, and perhaps her ultimate message to me was that the most paralyzing fear is not sin, not even the flight from the feared object/event/confrontation/who cares what – that the only sin is denial, you who would not only turn your eyes way from what you fear as I sometimes must turn my ears away from this album, but would then add injury to what may or may not be insult by asserting that it does not exist.

In this one essay he tackles:

1. Nico’s album The Marble Index
2. His terror of Nico – her face, her music, everything
3. His fear of everything
4. Ghosts
5. The genius of one of his ex-girlfriends, whom he reached out to specifically for help in understanding Nico
6. Drugs, which he ingests in order to understand Nico
6. The rapture of death

And with him … his writing always feels like a first draft. Written at white-hot speed. I don’t know if he edited his stuff. Either way, it READS as though it poured out of him whole.

On Black Sabbath:

In his book The Making of a Counter Culture, Theodore Roszak suggested that given the current paucity of social leaders worth investing even a passing hope in, the coalition made up of the young and the free-form wing of the Left should turn to the ancient notion of the shaman, the holy madman whose prescriptions derived not from logic or think tanks or even words sometimes, but from an extraordinarily acute perception of the flux of the universe. Well, we’ve reaped Roszak’s script in spades by now, there’s a shaman slouching on every corner and tinhorn messiahs are a dime a dozen. Some are “political” and some are “mystical” and some are building their kingdoms on a “cosmic” stew of both, and each seems to have his little cadre of glaze-orbed acid casualties proselytizing for him.

Then there are also the cultural shamans, Dylan being the supreme artifact: Biblical, rooted in the soil and tradition and his own Old Testament brand of conscience. Burroughs too, of course, and his “Hassam i Sabbah” is nothing more than a particularly malevolent form of shaman, while the “Nova Police” are the benevolent regulation agency out to save the universe from addiction and control. Burroughs has been one of the foremost moralists in American literature; his work amounts to a demonology for our times, portraying the forces currently threatening our planet’s survival as evil gods operating from without.

Where Black Sabbath fits into this seeming digression is that they unite a demonology not far from Burroughs’ (if far more obvious) with a Biblical moralism that makes Dylan look positively bland, although they can be every bit as vindictive as Dylan with the Jehovan judgments.

They are probably the first truly Catholic rock group, or the first group to completely immerse themselves in the Fall and Redemption: the traditional Christian dualism which asserts that if you don’t walk in the light of the Lord then Satan is certainly pulling your strings, and a bad end can be expected, is even imminent.

They may deny all this: Ozzy Osborne responded to a question about how the band’s concept came about with a vague “I don’t know, I met the guys, we got together and rehearsed for about two years, starved, bummed around hoping for a break and it just happened. You relate to me that it’s about doom or something, but I can’t relate it to you because I’m in the middle of it.”

It really doesn’t make any difference how conscious they may be of what they’re saying, though. The message is there for anyone with ears, and it’s unmistakable. The themes are perdition, destruction, and redemption, and their basic search for justice and harmony in a night-world becomes more explicitly social all the time. On their first album that quality only appears in one song, “Wicked World.” But the prevailing mood is a medieval sense of supernatural powers moving in to snatch the unwary soul and cast it into eternal bondage.


Debbie Harry and Lester Bangs, Coney Island, 1976

On Miles Davis:

Much of Miles’ finest music, from Blue Moods to “Prayer” on Porgy and Bess to Sketches to My Funny Valentine, has been about inner pain translated into a deep mourning poetry so intense and distilled that there have been times when I (and others have reported similar reactions) have been almost literally unable to take it. I have always been offended when people ask me to take off any jazz record because they find it “depressing,” but secretly I always knew what they meant. Because there were times when I found Miles’ anguish not purgative but depressing, when I had to yank Jack Johnson out of the 8-track deck because I could not drive to the laundromat with such a weight on my heart; but I also knew the reason why I (and, if I may be presumptuous, the nebulous anti-jazz people I just mentioned) was depressed: because at that moment there was something wrong with me, of a severity that could reach by degrees from my consciousness to my heart to my soul; because I was sweeping some deep latent anguish under the emotional carpet, or not confronting myself on some primal level – and Miles cut through to that level. His music was that powerful: it exposed me to myself, to my own falsity, to my own cowardice in the face of dread of staved-off pain. Because make no mistake, Miles understands pain – and he will pry it out of your soul’s very core when he hits his supreme note and you happen, coincidentally, to be a bit of an open emotional wound at that moment yourself. It is this gift for open-heart surgery that makes him the supreme artist that he is. So, obviously, I am damned if I am going to shrug him off at this point. I am going to tear these fucking records apart and find out what the source of the cancer running through them is, praying for cure.

On the Rolling Stones, which – in the 70s – gave Bangs a nervous breakdown, which he lived out in print in a series of unhinged hilarious SMART essays:

The greatest rock and roll band in the world, for sure, and my heroes ever since I got my first look at Mick’s leer way back in ’64: the decadent badass princes we’ll never put down or lose!

I saw them in 1964 on their second American tour, and in ’65 twice. The second time, in December, I cried because I thought they’d turned away from the True Faith of Pure R&B and sold out to the crass commercialism of rock.

I’ll never forget that day. My girlfriend and I took the bus all the way from our suburb into downtown San Diego, went right to the concert hall ticket window, and suddenly I said, “Fuck it! Fuck them! Who needs ’em?” And went staggering erratically in the general direction of Skid Row, dropping tears as big as cantaloupes.

Since we’d had our own troubles, my girlfriend thought I was crying over her and me. When she found out I was crying for the Stones you better believe she was pleased as puke!

“You’re so immature!” she said. “Here I thought it was all because you loved me, when it’s really because you’re mad at the goddamn Rolling Stones.”

Damn straight I was!

In praise of sexual repression:

Maybe this gets down to it: the Ronettes, the Shangri-Las, the Crystals, the guy singers too, all of those old classic rock ‘n’ roll songs were fueled by one thing: sexual repression, and consequent frustration. They may have been sexist, they may have been neurotic or even masochistic – sometimes I think the whole reason pop music was invented in the first place was to vent sick emotions in a deceptively lulling form. THEY WERE LITERALLY EXPLOSIVE WITH ALL THAT PENT-UP LUST AND FEAR AND GUILT AND DREAD AND HATE AND RESENTMENT AND CONFUSION. And it gave them a kind of anarchic power, which can still move us.

Listening to certain old Shangri-La sides, you might find yourself laughing and crying at the same time. And the Spector stuff . . . not just the storied Wall of Sound but the urgency in those girls’ voices spelled pure sex, distillate of every scene between a boy and girl at the drive-in, vacant lots, house when the folks were out, wherever we found to sneak off to back then to see how far we could take it this time.

All that frustration got channeled into rock, all those powerful emotions were way out front and there was plenty of meticulous detail in the productions behind them. They were like magnificent tapestries depicting the most embarrassing and ridiculous yet painful situations, and they stand to this day.

On Helen Reddy:

I don’t blame Helen and the rest of womankind for being mad. All men but me are puds. What I’d like to see is an all-girl band that would sing lyrics like “I’ll cut your nuts off, you cretins,” and then jump into the audience and beat the shit out of the men there. Meanwhile, Helen’s chops are up: she’s no artist, she’s a constant pulsation, 50,000 watts of Helen Reddy arcing into diffusion with a glow that touches every stucco nautilus in every housing project from here to Bobby Goldsboro’s composite dream suburb. Helen is not merely heavy, Helen is not just a downy-necked sex object like Anne Murray – Helen is a beacon, the perfect Seventies incarnation of Miss Liberty herself in pantsuit and bowler crooning for America in a voice like the tenderest walls brushing together – the real velvet underground.

On the “withering” of The Beatles. Bangs was not only not afraid to piss people off, he courted it:

But the main thing that emerges from the career of the Beatles is the rise and fall of the concept of the group, which began to give way in rock to the ascendance of the solo artist at about the time they released their White Album, which has often been criticized for being a collection of songs by four separate individuals instead of a unified statement. Not to get too pretentious, but the Beatles’ decline also parallels the decline of the youth culture’s faith in itself as a homogenous group, for the proof of which we need look no further than the very corniness of a phrase like “youth culture” when you encounter it upon the page. That ain’t no fuckin’ culture no mo’, the blacks even started imitating whites imitating blacks, and the adjourned Beatles, like most of their peers and contemporaries, have by now finally settled for imitating themselves.

To listen to early Beatles albums, or any Beatles album up to the White Album, is to listen to collective enterprise, and course the banality of the early songs becomes doubly ironic when you consider that “love” in the “I Want to Hold Your Hand” sense became transposed into “LOVE” as in flowers and beads grubbily handed to you on street corners and all you need is a little crystalline surcease of sorrow, the whole confused mess driving you crazy as John Lennon yelps out “Gimme Some Truth” and Paul responds from suburbia with “Another Day,” perhaps his most topical solo venture ever. Impotent flailings vs. the celebration of the mundane.

A memoir-style piece about his teenage experience of the assassination of Robert Kennedy:

The shooting of Kennedy last nite was something in the way of a final straw for me. I can see the great storms coming, but at this point I’ve given up hope on finding any sort of even temporarily pacifying solution. McCarthy is almost certainly out of the Democratic running for the presidency. Humphrey will most probably run against Nixon, & the latter will almost certainly win. Whatever else happens, I’m thru combing magazines and papers and pamphlets and what not in that vain effort to figure out what is going on in all those regions of darkness around. Fuck ’em all, squares on both sides.

I had a LOT to say about his “unpublished” (now published) “notes” he took for a review of Peter Guralnick’s book Lost Highway, which starts out as a normal book review and then explodes into one of my favorite pieces of commentary about Elvis ever written, and that includes Bangs’ famous obit.

On Bob Seger:

The difference between “Lookin’ Back” and “Feel Like a Number” is seven years: from hippie alienation and paranoia to the feeling that we’re dwarfed by institutions we don’t really understand, except that somebody somewhere wants us to believe that human beings don’t matter much anymore. It would be condescending to say, Gee, isn’t it amazing that this long-haired midwestern journeyman rock sharecropper thinks about such high-flown concepts, because everybody’s freaked out by them these days. The average purchaser of current Seger albums is probably a male kid who works on some shit job and has never even considered dropping out, is in fact a stranger to the concept, so he’ll understand “Feel Like a Number” in a second. But it’s no accident that the album is called Stranger in Town. Bob Seger feels like a stranger in this society, especially the rock superstar version of interlocking corporations. And that doesn’t mean he’s some old-fashioned “relic,” even though he’s embarrassed enough to use the word himself; it means he’s a man of sanity and insight. I respect Bob Seger as much as almost anybody I can think of in the music business today.

From his great essay about hanging out with The Clash:

It’s no news by now that the reasons most of rock’s establishment have dried up creatively is that they’ve cut themselves off from the real world of everyday experience as exemplified by their fans. The ultimate question is how long a group like the Clash can continue to practice total egalitarianism in the face of mushrooming popularity. Must the walls go up inevitably, eventually, and if so when? Groups like the Grateful Dead have practiced the free-access principle at least in the past, but the Dead never had the glamour which, whether they like it or not (and I’d bet money they do) the Clash are saddled with – I mean, not for nothing does Mick Jones resemble a young and already slightly dissipated Keith Richards – beside which the Dead aren’t really a rock ‘n’ roll band and the Clash are nothing else but. And just like Mick said to me the first night, don’t ask me why I obsessively look to rock ‘n’ roll bands for some kind of model for a better society . . . I guess it’s just that I glimpsed something beautiful in a flashbulb moment once, and perhaps mistaking it for a prophecy have been seeking its fulfillment ever since. And perhaps that nothing in the world ever seemed to hold even this much promise.

It may look like I make too much of all this. We could leave all significance at the picture of Mick Jones just a hot guitarist in a white jumpsuit and a rock ‘n’ roll kid on the road obviously having the time of his life and all political pretensions be damned, but still there is a mood around the Clash, call it whatever you want, that is positive in a way I’ve never sensed around almost any other band, and I’ve been around most of them. Something unpretentiously moral, and something both self-affirming and life-affirming – as opposed, say, to the simple ruthless hedonism and avarice of so many superstars, or the grim tautlipped monomaniacal ambition of most of the pretenders to their thrones.

On one of the essays he wrote about Lou Reed – like the essays about the Rolling Stones – they become increasingly unhinged. He was OBSESSED. Here, he interviews Lou Reed but basically … goes after Reed. If you haven’t read these essays in full, you really must. You only get this angry if you LOVE and love HARD.

Anyway, I was ready to ask my Big Question, the one I’d pondered over for months.

“Do you ever resent people for the way that you have lived out what they might think of as the dark side of their lives for them, vicariously, in your music and your life?”

He didn’t seem to have the slightest idea what I was talking about, shook his head.

“Like,” I pressed on, “I listen to your records shootin’ smack, shootin’ speed, committing suicide–”

“That’s three percent out of a hundred songs.”

“Like with all this decadence and glitter shit – none of it would have happened if not for you, and yet I wonder if you –”

“I didn’t have anything to do with it.”

“Bullshit, you started it, singing about smack, drag queens, etc.”

“What’s decadent about that?”

“Okay, let’s define decadence. You tell me what you think is decadence.”

“You. Because you used to be able to write and now you’re just fulla shit. You don’t keep track of music, you’re not on top of what’s happening, you don’t know the players or who’s doin’ what. It’s all jive, you’re getting very egocentric.”

On David Bowie:

This is the first Bowie album without a lyric sheet, and I’m glad, because aside from reservations voiced above I’ve always agreed with Fats Domino that it’s more fun to figure them out for yourself. The first line on the album is the worst: “The return of the thin white duke / Throwing darts in lovers’ eyes.” Somehow, back in Rock Critics’ Training School, when they told me about “pop poetry,” I didn’t and still don’t think that they were talking about this, which is not only pretentious and mildly unpleasant, but I am currently wrestling with a terrible paranoia that this is Bowie talking about himself. I have a nightmare vision in my mind of him opening the set in his new tour by striding out onstage slowly, with a pained look in his eyes and one spotlight following him, mouthing these words. And, quite frankly, that idea terrifies me. Because if it’s true, it means he’s still as big an idiot as he used to be and needs a little more cocaine to straighten him out.

One of my favorite Lester Bangs essay is on The Troggs but it has the eye-catching title “James Taylor Marked for Death.” James Taylor is only mentioned once!

Now that we’ve been brassy enough to use a word like “anthemic,” we might as well stick our necks out and get even a little more pretentious and note that many of the Troggs’ most prurient songs, with their lumberjack-balling-honky-tonk-woman-in-iron-bed-with-screws-loose bum-crash rhythms and drooling “lyrics” as Time magazine referred to the hits of the Stones in an early smear, are actually just a smidgen beyond the average “Hey, baby! Here I come with a shag haircut and my big Wazoo!” type of composition which jaded fops like Led Zeppelin and virility complexes like John Kay have helped bring to prominence. Many of the Troggs’ songs, aside from the fact that they were immediate come-ons and male self-aggrandizement, also seemed to have an extra-excited, almost celebratory quality about them, sexual anthems and sexual whoops that get banned from the radio and get played by their proud owners never at parties for the titillation of giggling cases of arrested development but rather at home alone sitting in front of the speakers so you can pick up that full charge of bravado and self-affirmation even if the basic image is as corny at least as John Wayne; when you’re a kid you need stuff like that. And those guitars blast you through the wall, out cross the rooftops ‘tween antennas of your neighborhood, straight out of your cell into perfect release in a troposphering limbo of blizzard noise at last, home free.

On the Stooges and Iggy Pop:

So now you see what I’m driving at, why the Stooges are vital, aside from being good musicians, which I’ll prove just as tangentially later. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself, to say, “See, this is all a sham, this whole show and all its floodlit drug-jacked realer-than-life trappings, and the fact that you are out there and I am up here means not the slightest thing.” Because it doesn’t. The Stooges have that kind of courage, but few other performers do. Jim Morrison, of late – how inspiring to see the onetime atropine-eyed Byronic S&M Lizard King come clean stumbling around the stage with a Colt 45 in hand and finally wave his dong at the teeny minions who came there to see him hold both it and his gut in and give them some more vivid production which communicated nothing real but suggested everything a fertile pube brain could dredge up! Morrison, def, does not get a pie in the face! He ‘fessed up! And even old John Lennon, who for a whole qualified for the first and biggest pie (to drown him and Yoko both in slush as ersatz as that which they originally excreted on the entire Western world), has set such a consistent record for absurd self-parody above and beyond the needs of the revolution (like saying, “I gave back the MBE also because ‘Cold Turkey’ was slipping down the charts” – a fine gesture. We won’t forget it later, either) that he too qualifies for at least a year’s moratorium from the creem guerrillas. But then there’s all those other people – George Harrison (a giant pie stuffed with the works of Manly P. Hall) and that infernal snob McCartney and those radical dilettante capitalist pigs like Jefferson Airplane (it’s all right to be a honky, in fact all the Marxists are due for some pies in pronto priority, but to wit on all that bread singin’ bout bein’ an outlaw when yer most scurrilous illegal set is ripping off lyrics from poor old A.A. Milne and struggling sci-fi hacks, wa’al, the Creem Committee don’t cotton to that, neighbor).

Similarly, Mick Jagger gets immediate pie-ority as a fake moneybags revolutionary, and in general for acting smarter and hipper and like more of a cultural and fashion arbiter than he really is. If Jesus had been at Altamont, they would have crucified him, but if Mick Jagger makes me wait forty-five minutes while he primps and stones up in his dressing room one more time and then blames it on some poor menial instrument mover, then me and the corps are goin’ stage ward with both tins blazing when he does show his fish-eyed mug. And he’s far from the worst offender – in fact, as a performing artist, he’s one of the least offensive around – his show, with its leers and minces has always been outrageous and foolish and absurd and transcendentally arrogant, yet pretentious only in the best possible way, a spastic flap-lipped tornado writhing from here to a million steaming snatches and beyond in one undifferentiated erogenous mass, a mess and a spectacle all at the same time. You won’t catch Mick Jagger lost in solemn grimaces of artistic angst, no sir! So he really is almost as good as the Stooges, in fact anticipated them, but I’d still hate to think of his tantrum if some grinning geek from down in the street tried to commandeer the sacred stage where he jerks out and rips off his rushes. In that sense, his whole show is another anachronism, though nowhere near as fossilized as most other rock acts, who will drown in creem and crust before we’re through. The plain fact is that 99% of popstars do not have the true charisma, style or stature to hold their bastion (Bastille) stage without the artificial support they’ve traditionally enjoyed. Most of them, were they splat in the kisser with a pie or confronted with an audience composed of sane people demanding calmly (crude militant bullshit is out), “What the fuck do you think you are doing? Just what is all this shit?” – most of your current “phenomenons,” “heroes” and “artists” would just fold up a stupefied loss, temperamentally incapable (by virtue of the debilitating spoiled-brat life they’ve been living, even if they ever had any real pizazz in the first place – the oppressor is fat and weak, brothers!) of dealing with their constituency of wised-up marks on a one-to-one basis. They simply don’t have enough personality, enough brains or enough guts, your average popstar being neither very bright nor very aware of much that goes on outside his own glittering substratum, half lodged in fantasy, where ego and preening vanity are overfed and corrode substance like a constant diet of cocaine.

But the Stooges are one band that does have the strength to meet the audience on its own terms, no matter what manner of devilish bullshit that audience might think up (although they are usually too cowed by Ig’s psychically pugnacious assertiveness to do anything but gape and cringe slightly, snickering later on the drive home).

From his review of Van Morrison’s Astral Weeks:

Where I live, in New York (not to make it more than it is, which is hard), everyone I know often steps over bodies which might well be dead or dying as a matter of course, without pain. And I wonder in what scheme it was originally conceived that such action is showing human refuse the ultimate respect it deserves.

There is of course a rationale – what else are you going to do – but it holds no more than our fear of our own helplessness in the face of the plain of life as it truly is: a plain which extends into an infinity beyond the horizons we have only invented. Come on, die it. As I write this, I can read in the Village Voice the blurbs of people opening heterosexual S&M clubs in Manhattan, saying things like, “S&M is just another equally valid form of love. Why people can’t accept that we’ll never know.” Makes you want to jump out a fifth floor window rather than even read about it, but it’s hardly the end of the world; it’s not nearly as bad as the hurts that go on everywhere everyday that are taken so casually by all of us as faces of life. Maybe it boils down to how much you actually want to subject yourself to. If you accept for even a moment the idea that each human life is as precious and delicate as a snowflake and then you look at a wino in a doorway, you’ve got to hurt until you feel like a sponge for all those other assholes’ problems., until you feel like an asshole yourself, so you draw all the appropriate lines. You stop feeling. But you know that then you begin to die. So you tussle with yourself. How much of this horror can I actually allow myself to think about? Perhaps the numbest mannikin is wiser than somebody who only allows their sensitivity to drive them to destroy everything they touch – but then again, to tilt Madame George’s hat a hair, just to recognize that that person exists, just to touch his cheek and then probably expire because the realization that you must share the world with him is ultimately unbearable is to go only the first mile. The realization of living is just about that low and that exalted and that unbearable and that sought-after. Please come back and leave me alone. But when we’re alone together we can talk all we want about the universality of this abyss: it doesn’t make any difference, the highest only meets the lowest for some lying succor, UNICEF to relatives, so you scratch and spit and curse in violent resignation at the strict fact that there is absolutely nothing you can do but finally reject anyone in greater pain than you. At such a moment, another breath is treason. That’s why you leave your liberal causes, leave suffering humanity to die in worse squalor than they knew before you happened along. You got their hopes up. Which makes you viler than the most scrofulous carrion. Viler than the ignorant boys who would take Madame George for a couple of cigarettes. Because you have committed the crime of knowledge, and thereby not only walked past or over someone you knew to be suffering, but also violated their privacy, the last possession of the dispossessed.

Jesus.

What is supposed to be a review of Count Five’s Psychotic Reaction becomes an ode to being a teenager:

So perhaps the truest autobiography I could ever write, and I know this holds as well for many other people, would take place largely at record counters, jukeboxes, pushing forward in the driver’s seat while AM walloped you on, alone under headphones with vast scenic bridges and angelic choirs in the brain through insomniac postmidnights, or just to sit at leisure stoned or not in the vast benign lap of America, slapping on sides and feeling good.

And finally, of course, his most famous piece, the obituary he wrote for Elvis. Here’s how it was laid out in the Village Voice.

As a writer, Bangs challenges me to do better, write faster, trust my instincts, don’t pay attention to what other people are doing, DON’T try to fit in, do your own thing, make your own connections, who made up the rules? fuck those people, follow your obsessions, be PERSONAL in your writing, don’t hold back, let art lift you up, let art break your art, and let your readers see ALL of it.

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

Posted in Books, Music, On This Day, writers | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

“I have written myself into the house.” — Shirley Jackson, during her 1962 breakdown

“When I first used to write stories and hide them away in my desk, I used to think that no one had ever been so lonely as I was and I used to write about people all alone…I thought I was insane and I would write about how the only sane people are the ones who are condemned as mad and how the whole world is cruel and foolish and afraid of people who are different.” — Shirley Jackson, unpublished essay

It is her birthday today. Although she is one of my favorite authors, I had never read Hangsaman until a couple years ago. What an amazing strange book. Eerie. Smart. And boy does it capture what it feels like to be 18 years old. It’s terrifying and upsetting.

I was introduced to Shirley Jackson, like most people were, I suppose, through “The Lottery”, which was on my high school curriculum. The story made a huge impression. Once you read it, you never forget it. I read it the same year I read 1984 – also because of the high school curriculum – and those two things, together, helped formulate my own ideas about groupthink, autocracy, mindless following of authority, etc., all of which has been a lifelong obsession, as anyone who reads me knows already. Jackson captures it all in eerily flat and everyday prose, that also manages to be unbearably menacing. Her stock-in-trade.

But she had an interesting split in her nature, in her life and in her writing life. She had four children with her husband, and wrote a couple of hilarious books about parenting – precursors to Please Don’t Eat the Daisies, precursors to Nora Ephron, Erma Bombeck, far FAR ahead of her time. She looked at parenting as the chaotic venture that it was, and instead of giving tips on how to be a perfect parent, she just related the craziness of raising four “savages”, and it was completely unlike anything else available for parents out there at the time. This is an aspect of Shirley Jackson that is often forgotten – and was completely ignored in Shirley, the 2020 film starring Elizabeth Moss as Jackson (which I reviewed for Ebert). Jackson was a regular contributor to Good Housekeeping, Ladies Home Journal, Woman’s Home Companion, and her irreverent hilarious pieces about motherhood struck a warm chord in readers, hungry for non-judgmental and relatable parenting advice.

Jackson was ENMESHED in domesticity – Mothering. Chores. Cooking – and this bleeds into her work. Sometimes domesticity is hilarious and raucous and ridiculous, as in her parenting books. But sometimes … sometimes … it’s not funny at all. This was the split in Jackson’s nature, the threat she felt in other women’s homes, in her own home, in neat little villages, in town squares, in pruned gardens … There’s something Lynchian about how she sees it all. The horrors beneath “normalcy.”

There was a piece in The New Republic about “The Lottery”, published in The New Yorker in 1948:

She put away her groceries, put the baby in a playpen, and in a single sitting wrote the story, which describes, without elaboration or allegory, a village ritual in which the inhabitants gather annually to stone one of their neighbors. Her agent did not like it, but sold it to The New Yorker nonetheless. Soon after it was published, letters began to pour into the post office in the rural Vermont town where she was then living—more than three hundred of them, the most The New Yorker had ever seen for a work of fiction. Some of the letter-writers informed her that they were cancelling their subscriptions. Others wrote to express their puzzlement or to demand an explanation. But many, assuming that the story was based on fact, wanted to know where lotteries like the one Jackson described were held. “Are you describing a current custom?” asked a reader from Pennsylvania. “I have read of some queer cults in my time,” wrote a reader from Los Angeles, “but this one bothers me.”

Jackson’s collection of short stories should be read in its entirety. They are a disturbing read. Domesticity is a nightmare. Other housewives are a nightmare. (You can feel that in “The Lottery” too. Other housewives will stone you without blinking an eye if they’re asked to.) Jackson writes about loneliness, alienation, dissociation, split psyches, madness. The Haunting of Hill House is maybe her most well-known novel (and the recent TV series has NOTHING to do with Jackson’s novel. It was so irritating. Get your own damn title, TV series) – but We Have Always Lived in the Castle is her masterpiece.

She was unhealthy all her life. She was a chain-smoker, a heavy drinker, and obese. She died of heart failure, in her sleep, at the age of 48. It is a great loss to American literature. But, my God, what power she was able to summon while she was here.

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

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

“I dont want to just do just country type stuff the rest of my life. I want to do some different things.” — Charlie Rich

Charlie Rich was only 62 years old when he died, but he managed to cram in so much music in that time. Massive fame came to him fairly late, with the “countrypolitan” phase of country music, where a more sophisticated i.e. urban vibe – less dusty boots, more flashy cowboy boots, came into vogue. He was the primary countrypolitan singer, and his two massive hits – “Behind Closed Doors” and “The Most Beautiful Girl in the World” still get regular radio play. But … the “countrypolitan” thing limits him and limits our ideas of what he did. Digging into his catalog – dating back to his days at Sun Records – is a very gratifying and illuminating experience, and you can’t really understand Rich without it. He brought in innovations, he brought into country music different strands – jazz, in particular – torch-song jazz – but also blues and soul – which really hadn’t been done before, at least not the level he did it. Nobody was really putting jazz and country together. And it still isn’t really done. But he did it.

And his VOICE. It’s one of my favorite voices ever. It’s smooth and gorgeous, with deep rich tones, and filled with feeling. It’s a voice that can do anything.

Like most of the guys who came up in the ’50s, through Sun Records, and other little labels, Rich grew up dirt poor, and grew up in a religious household. His dad sang gospel, his mother played the piano, and Rich learned how to play the piano, the saxophone, etc. He actually went to college on a football scholarship and then joined the Air Force. So already this is a little different from, say, Carl Perkins or Dale Hawkins. Or Elvis. Or any other of those guys. He had a wider experience of the wider world. He played in little bands, and he wrote his own music. He wasn’t a wild rockabilly boy. He was a man, he was steeped in jazz, which he played in music clubs around Memphis.

Like most Memphis musicians, he gravitated to Sun. Phillips wasn’t crazy about the sound. He loved Rich’s voice, but mellow smooth-jazz-country wasn’t his vibe. He liked rough, raw rhythm & blues, raucous rockabilly. (Phillips had his limitations. He really only liked one thing. He couldn’t even HEAR it if it wasn’t the thing he liked. Roy Orbison was driven to distraction by Sam Phillips trying to turn him into something he wasn’t. Phillips didn’t like ballads, it wasn’t his thing. Roy Orbison loved them. Conflict.)

Still, though, Phillips recognized – and was moved by – the overall talent of the man.

“Charlie Rich had the intuitive instinct to feel, see and hear pain, disappointment, happiness and joy and somehow transmute it into music. I don’t know anyone who has ever written or sung in a way that depicted more of the humanity of man, with greater melodic beauty, than Charlie Rich.”
— Sam Phillips

Rich ended up being a session musician for Sun, but it is so worth it to dive into all of Rich’s Sun recordings (and also the recordings he did for Phillips International Records, a subsidiary of Sun). It was the late-50s, 1960 … Sun/Phillips had been tapped out by Elvis, and new things were happening to diversify the operation. I prefer these early recordings to the “countrypolitan” phase, which was – by design – slick and polished. Rich’s Sun stuff is mostly just him and the piano, light arrangements around him, everything to highlight his rich moody deep voice. They’re to die for.

I mean, hell, he recorded “Lonely Weekends” at Sun. It was a hit, his first hit.

He also recorded the great “Unchained Melody” at Sun. You can hear the influence of soul and also the jazz sound of those soft drums. I love his piano-playing, too. The dreamy opening and closing, the mood of a dark nightclub with a jazz trio, and it’s 3 o’clock in the morning.

Rich thought of himself as a jazz pianist/singer, not a country/rock singer. It was a weird time for him. There was no place for him, really. Not in 1960, that’s for sure. The “trends” were so strong, and he did sound a little bit like Elvis, but he didn’t have Elvis’ restless-youthful-sexpot-ness. He was a MAN.

Like, listen to this: “Who Will the Next Fool Be”, recorded at Sun:

It’s so beautiful. Jerry Lee Lewis recorded this one when he moved into his country-star renaissance/rehabilitation period.

I think maybe one of my favorite recordings is “River Stay Away From My Door”. I was just going to post the song here, but I found a clip of him appearing on the Jimmy Dean Show in 1964 singing the song and also “Big Boss Man”. It gives such a good feel, I think, for Rich’s appeal as a performer. We’ve got the ballad and then we’ve got “Big Boss Man”, which shows his “raunchy” side (you’ll see he calls it “raunchy” in the clip below). He was almost as good-looking as Elvis. As Jimmy Dean gives the introduction, you can hear Rich trilling around on the piano off-screen, creating, again, that nightclub feel, very unusual for a country singer – then or now. Charlie Rich created a MOOD.

Listen to the purity of his tone. His voice is PERFECT. And in “Big Boss Man” he brings in a RASP which is thrilling, especially since his voice is so SMOOTH.

Also, he CRUSHES it on piano. Sam Phillips had in his head Jerry Lee Lewis’ style, which of course was completely distinct and unique to him, and explosive! Pushing the stool back! Banging on the keys! Howling to the devil! Rich is an accomplished and fluid and intuitive piano player, steeped in all his influences, but … he’s not Jerry Lee Lewis. Phillips equated pianist with Jerry Lee … and … well, that’s not how it works, Sam. Charlie Rich could be a little stiff when he stood up and sang, away from the piano. He’s definitely not grooving around the stage, moving his body, that wasn’t his thing. He was very sexy but it wasn’t because of how he moved. The piano released him. You can SEE it, it’s like he and the instrument are one.

Rich had a decade to go before he became a huge star. He had some songs that hit the charts, but nothing really moved the needle for him. Still, there’s a lot there to discover. “Milky White Way” is one of my favorite gospel tunes, and I probably have 15 versions of it by different artists in my music library. Rich’s is gorgeous. And bold, in its blending of styles.

Also, his beautiful “Don’t Put No Headstone on my Grave”. Jerry Lee Lewis covered this and rocked it up – fantastic – but here, Rich keeps the pace slowwwww – and there’s a kind of horse-clopping sound keeping the beat, with his piano swooping up and trilling down around it. And he’s got the rasp in his voice. So it’s … blues and jazz and country.

It is to die for.

In the late 60s, he signed with Epic Records and ended up in Nashville, where his transformation began.

Nashville can be bossy. They basically set the tone for what they want (what they will tolerate). Nashville was afraid of rockabilly. The Grand Ole Opry rejected Elvis when he auditioned. We’ll have none of that HERE. Doing THAT to country music was an abomination. Let’s not discount the racism behind a lot of this. When Elvis dominated the country charts, in the early days, the powers-that-be shunned him, banning him from the charts, and the same thing happened to Buddy Holly and the Everly Brothers. Country music would stay the same, dammit. Country music would stay white only. It didn’t matter that these were all white boys, it was clear those white boys were listening to “race records”, and Nashville would have none of that. Nashville paid the price for their conservatism and racism. They stopped having any relevance. They were a closed system. (People like Willie Nelson/Waylon Jennings/Merle Haggard changed that, but that was a bit later). Art can’t decide to stay the same. Art can’t refuse other influences into it. Not if it wants to grow.

Rich, an oddball, really, became the new face of country music with the whole “countrypolitan” thing, a massive star, a gorgeous imposing figure with white hair, wearing white suits, just impossibly glamorous.

And then the totally unforeseen happened. Along came two outlaws, Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings, who looked around at the artistically conservative landscape, and were like “The hell with all THIS.”

Rich was an alcoholic and – along with changing of the times – this contributed to his sad and early decline. A rough hard-living life. He was a huge star but he got stuck in a rut and some of the countrypolitan stuff all sounds the same (to me, anyway). His voice is always a pleasure, though. There was the whole controversial setting-fire-to-John-Denver thing on live television that happened, something which still gets chatter, and is still one of the things most people know about Charlie Rich. Was he just drunk? Was he bitter? Rich said no, it wasn’t that. He had no problem with John Denver.

I don’t want to toss countrypolitan on the trash heap! He’s always fun to listen to. I adore “Beautiful Woman”.

He was married to the same woman for over 40 years. He had three children. He had darkness in him, for sure, something he struggled with, occasionally drowning in it. But he had that something, that unique spark – the gleam of originality – a sense of self-knowledge when presenting himself – it’s unmistakable and can’t be faked. He knew who he was and what he had to offer, and he offered it freely. You can FEEL it when you watch him live. Early on, he was in the Elvis-aftereffect, as so many young male musicians were, he sounded so much like him, but eventually he shook that off, inhabiting his own beautiful voice in his own way.

It may seem weird to end on his version of “America the Beautiful” because the song is so done – overdone – and (to Americans, at least) – we have heard it so often it’s hard to even HEAR it anymore. However, Rich’s version is special and filled with feeling – almost corny, but he makes it work because he means it. What makes his version startling and very much his own is the long spoken-word opening, where he basically preaches – you can practically see the pulpit – about the meaning of the words, how to say it in different languages, giving a vision of the melting-pot ideal of America, or what America should be. There are so many of us who no longer feel America should be this way, and I do not – and will not – forgive them for betraying this essential ideal. The song hits very different now. Rich builds and builds this section, taking his time with it, the way he took his time with his piano playing, the way he took his time with everything. Jazz is all about tempo, and so is blues really … and Rich could slowwwwww things down without erasing the tension. Quite the opposite: when a master like Rich slows things down, he just builds the anticipation in the audience.

While the pinnacle of “America the Beautiful” is Ray Charles’ version – I don’t think it can ever be topped – I love Rich’s version too.

Charlie Rich was a giant while he was here, and his time at the tippity-top was brief. But those early years … those Sun/Phillips years … that’s the REALLY good stuff. He was an artist.

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

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