Seen Recently: Une Affaire Des Femmes (1988), Seven Psychopaths (2012), Battle of Algiers (1966), The Bling Ring (2013), Tomorrow (1972)

story-of-women-poster-claude-chabrol

Une Affaire des Femmes or: Story of Women
directed by Claude Chabrol

This movie is as deep as the Mariana Trench. I suppose it all depends on which angle you want to look at it, which filter you want to use, what part of it you find most fascinating, it doesn’t matter: there are multiple ways in. There usually are with Chabrol, someone I count as one of my favorite directors. You could talk about the crime aspect, which is always Chabrol’s fascination. He uses crime as the architecture to explore all kinds of societal issues, and culture, and criminality, and oppression. So there’s that. There’s the political aspect: the film takes place in German-occupied France in the years 1942 to 44. This is a society that has been, as one character says near the end, “unmanned”. We can take that statement literally, too: men in this world are often impotent (politically, physically, whatever). Like Vera Drake, Story of Women tells the story of a woman who gives abortions to women who need one. Most of the women have been impregnated by Germans, and their husbands have either been killed or imprisoned. Therefore, if your husband has been in a German prison camp for two years, then you being pregnant means … well, you just can’t be pregnant, that’s all. Any expectation you may have, though, that this is a serious examination of the topic of abortion, or a tragic look at what women will do if they are desperate enough, or whatever, is totally blown out of the water by Isabelle Huppert’s performance as Marie, the illegal abortionist in question. Moral questions go out the window when you spend time with this woman. What would I call her? A sociopath? Whatever she is, she is not right. Isabelle Huppert is so good at playing such characters. It doesn’t ever seem to be an “affect” with her. It seems to be an attitude that she understands, intuitively. Of course she was in Chabrol’s La Ceremonie which is one of the most frightening performances ever, due to its insouciant blankness. I had nightmares after seeing that film for the first time. Marie, in Story of Women, is a mother of two. When the film opens, she is on her own, her husband having been hospitalized from shell-shock, he’s been gone for a long time. When he returns home, she greets him with a flat-eyed affect which is both chilling and obvious. Turns out she never once wrote to him in the hospital. She refuses to sleep with him. She treats him with contempt. War and the occupation makes all kinds of things commonplace, and Marie profits from the situation by performing abortions in her kitchen and renting out her own bedroom to local prostitutes to do their business. She hides all of this from her husband, who sits in his room, making collages out of cut-out newspapers. Unlike the lead character in Vera Drake, you get the sense here that the abortions are incidental to the real story, which is that Marie is drawn to crime, Marie is drawn to money, Marie likes being naughty, it gives her a rush. Her behavior is never appropriate. I don’t particularly like that word, but here I am using it in the context that, say, a homicide detective would. It’s what makes Huppert so watch-able. Wait, what was that reaction she just gave? Does she realize how that looks to outsiders? Wait, what is she doing now?? When interrogating a witness or a crime suspect, detectives are on the lookout for appropriate/inappropriate reactions. The “tells” that people used to dealing with criminals are trained to look for. You know, Amanda Knox doing cartwheels in the Italian police station, to relax, she says, but you can see why the cops would think, “This is not a normal reaction to the murder of your roommate.” Marie, in Huppert’s hands, comes off as an immature and reckless woman, who dreams of being a singer, and it is Huppert’s genius that you can see that this is a fantasy cloud-cuckoo land. Not ONCE do you believe that this woman could ever “make it”. There’s no harm in taking singing lessons or loving singing, but it becomes incredibly creepy here, especially considering the things she subjects her children to in their own home, her greed, her absolute un-awareness of … her self. This is not a developed human being. She is stunted emotionally (the grownup son says in voiceover at the end, “My mother was arrested when I was seven years old. She was about the same age.” or words to that effect.) Huppert so understands un-developed women, women stuck in a certain prepubescent stage, women who are unable to grow and change. Stunted people, with blunt emotions. In other words, a perfect criminal. You can see it in her fantastic performance in Amour, where … she is completely unprepared to give up her selfishness in order to face the disintegration of one of her parents. I love people who are “bad” onscreen. I love people who have no sense that the “rules” have anything to do with them. I love actors who play such parts. Think of Gene Tierney in Leave Her to Heaven, a perfect example. Don’t plead mercy for your characters. Don’t try to be understood so that people will be on your side. That is NOT your concern. Huppert is so unafraid of being judged that she really is a high watermark for me, in terms of acting, bravery, and psychological insight. (I place her alongside Barbara Stanwyck and Gena Rowlands, and those two stand alone in my book in this regard.) There’s a moment with a lawyer near the end of the film, who has come to explain the dire-ness of her situation to her. Because the Germans are in charge, the court will probably over-punish her, in order to appease the overlords. They will make an example of her. She may get the death penalty. She listens dully to him speak, and then says to him, with an echo of brightness in her face, “I want to become a singer.” The look on the lawyer’s face in response to this is indicative of what Chabrol is really after here, and what Huppert is after: the lawyer looks taken aback, he realizes that he is in the presence of something … slightly otherworldly, not quite “right”. He says “good day” and exits the cell. Throughout the film, we see Huppert react to things in this manner, and because it’s a war, and because the Germans are everywhere, and nothing is “normal”, she is able to “pass” for a while. The moral question of abortion never comes up. Or if it does, it is only uneasily, in the viewer’s mind. This is not an explicitly political film. It is not pro- or anti-abortion. It is an examination of an amoral mind. Huppert is chilling. It’s a tour de force performance.

seven_psychopaths__121013190252-275x407

Seven Psychopaths
directed by Martin McDonagh

I love the cast, and I have liked Martin McDonagh’s stuff before. But there was something a little bit too “meta” about the entire thing to hold my interest. I know that was the point, but it didn’t always work for me. A screenwriter, stuck for ideas, is given an idea by a friend of his, who has seen an item in the newspaper that might spark something. Screenwriter decides to write about “seven psychopaths”. We meet them all, in the course of his doing “research” for his script. Everyone is great: Christopher Walken, Sam Rockwell (a favorite of mine: he’s riveting here, funny and scary), Colin Farrell, Tom Waits, Woody Harrelson … but commenting on the Hollywood tropes of gory crime films is so par for the course now that one really has to be original to pull it off. This doesn’t quite make it. However, I found much of it very funny. I particularly liked how every single character picks up on Colin Farrell’s character’s alcoholism, which then becomes a running joke. It’s dumb, but repetition makes it funny (that is not often the case, sometimes you feel like, “God, that joke isn’t funny, stop beating a dead horse.” But here, the cumulation works.) The film had a lot of potential. I wanted less cleverness. “Meta” can be too clever for its own good. Charlie Kaufman is brilliant at “meta” material. He’s the one to beat.

2-algiers

Battle of Algiers
directed by Gillo Pontecorvo

Perhaps more famous for the way it was shot than the final product, although the final product is rightly famous as well, it’s the type of film where I sit, watching it, and find myself thinking, over and over and over again, “Jesus God almighty, how on earth did they pull this off?” Shot in Algiers, in the actual locations of the actual events in question, with a lot of non-actors, and gigantic crowd scenes (again: “How on earth did they organize these mobs?”), Battle of Algiers gives you the feeling, at times, that you are watching documentary footage. You feel like you are watching a newsreel of how the revolution went down. It’s phenomenal. But then there are scenes that are highly orchestrated and choreographed, like the Muslim women dressing up as French women, to get through the checkpoints, each holding an explosive in her purse, each one will plant the explosive in a different crowded eatery, each explosive set to go off at the same exact moment. It plays out like a thriller. The scenes of violence have a sweeping ultra-real feel, and the sense of place is indelible.It seems to me it is meant to be seen LARGE. The scenes are so gigantic. The mobs are real. The riots are real. Amazing film.

The-Bling-Ring-poster-trailerjpg-744x1000-595x800

The Bling Ring
directed by Sofia Coppola

Katie Chang, as Rebecca, the real ring-leader of the “Bling Ring”, has a moment in the film which sums up why I loved it so much. The kids have broken into Lindsay Lohan’s house and are raging through the house, stealing stuff. Lindsay Lohan is the Grand Pooh-Bah of Awesome to Rebecca, and while it was fun to break into Paris Hilton’s house or Rachel Billson’s house … neither of them represent to Rebecca what Lindsay Lohan does. Rebecca is mostly full of smiles and sweetness throughout the film, which slowly takes on a chilling aspect as you realize her character (or lack thereof). In Lindsay Lohan’s house, as the others careen around trying on clothes and stuffing objects into bags, she stands by Lohan’s dresser, picks up a perfume bottle, and sprays some on her neck. Coppola slows the film down here, a subjective move, which puts us inside Rebecca in a way we never have been before. Staring at herself in the mirror, she spritzes her neck, and all the extraneous sound falls away, and she is lost in her own reflection. Slowly, as the scene continues, tears fill her eyes. It is the most mysterious and gorgeous moment in the film, not to mention terrifying. The crowd started laughing at the opening-night showing, but I didn’t find it funny at all. I found it to be a great “mad” moment in cinema (I’d add her to this list), putting her up there with Ms. Isabelle Huppert dancing around in her war-time kitchen, boiling the water for an illegal abortion, singing French songs to herself, ignoring her children. That slo-mo moment of Katie Chang is the dark heart of The Bling Ring. It is what it is all about. Coppola lost her nerve only once during the film, when Marc, being questioned by a psychologist late in the action, says something like, “Americans are obsessed with celebrities.” That one explanatory note was unnecessary, although I am sure Coppola had her reasons for including it. But when I think of the film, I think of Katie Chang staring at herself, tears in her eyes, spritzing herself with Lindsay Lohan’s perfume, and my blood runs cold. Katie Chang clicked into something extremely primal in that one scene. I loved it.

519W5FHHZQL

Tomorrow
directed by Joseph Anthony

My father loved this film. Robert Duvall has said it is one of his favorite experiences as an actor. Based on a story by William Faulkner, and written into a play by frequent Duvall collaborator Horton Foote, it tells of a lonely farmer who takes in a runaway pregnant woman who has nowhere else to go. Duvall had done the play in New York and it had been a huge hit for him. He is interviewed in the special features and describes performing the play on a night when Al Pacino and Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman all came to see it, and they were all stamping their feet in excited approval when he took his bow. The film is black and white, and shot in Mississippi (I think some scenes are even shot in Tupelo, birthplace of you-know-who), and you can tell that Joseph Anthony was a bit like a kid in a candy store when it came to the movie camera. There are some weird unmotivated camera angles, which made me think, “Wait … what??” Duvall is unable to be condescending, which is one of the hallmarks of his great career. He does not condescend to the simple rural men he has sometimes played, and he wouldn’t know how to “slum” if he tried. Other actors could learn from him. His voice is unlike any other voice you have ever heard from him. His baffled kindness towards the pregnant woman (played by Olga Bellin) is heartbreaking, and yet you can’t at times point to why. You can clearly see that this was a stage play, and not much has been done to adapt the script to the needs of a film. That’s fine. The acting is the thing here. It is the capturing of one of Duvall’s New York theatre triumphs, a role that did a lot for him, a role that he clearly loves. 40 years later, he’s being interviewed for the DVD, and you can still feel his fondness for that character. The acting is the thing here. Duvall is riveting as this taciturn kindly man, and the ending rips your heart out. I needed to be mopped up off the floor as the credits began to roll. I love that Dad loved this film. It speaks volumes.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Diary Friday: “Okay, so you know Oedipus?”

This diary entry is from the beginning of my junior year in high school, which would be a very tumultuous year, full of the scheming/planning of a gigantic crush, and then heartbreak at the end of the year. An arc of epic proportions.

But that is all in the future at this point, as the first sentence of the following entry will clearly show.

I am 15 years old here.

Sept. 21

Sting is so intelligent. It blows me away. [hahahahahahaha]

Okay, so you know Oedipus? [Not personally, Sheila, no] In “King of Pain” there’s a line “There’s a king on a throne with his eyes torn out…” Can you believe it?? [Yes, actually, I can believe it. I know YOU just discovered Oedipus – but pretty much everyone else on the planet already knows about him. Welcome to being educated!]

Today at school was good. We had auditions for Cinderella. I tried out for the Fairy Godmother. She’s funny, she speaks in an Irish brogue, I love the way it feels rolling off my tongue. [Oh, do ya now?]

Mrs. Franco gave us a surprise in-class essay today: How is the theme of loyalty central to The Odyssey?

That is so easy. [Oh. The contempt!] Loyalty is everywhere! Penelope, Telemakhos – but NOT Odysseus. J. and I both hate the man. He is an arrogant dork who sleeps with a nymph while his wife mourns, lies a lot, and thinks that only he is trustworthy. YUK!

Yesterday we broke up into discussion groups to talk about Odysseus. I heard J. say, immediately, to her group across the room, “I have nothing to say but ‘I hate Odysseus.'” [That’s pretty hilarious.]

Today in gym when we had to run through the tires my foot twisted and I fell. Now I can’t even walk on it. I hope it’s not strained. [Was this your Navy SEAL training elective?]

Then I had to walk on stilts [What? You go from running through tires to walking on stilts? What the hell is this gym class all about? Now let’s do the parallel bars, and then end with a nice game of golf. No continuity.].

D. kept helping me get up but then I’d teeter and totter and wobble and fall off right onto him, holding onto his neck so I wouldn’t kill my ankle again. [This is the first mention of “D” in the diary. In about 3 weeks, I was so in love with him that he basically dominated my entire junior year, and every page of my diary is full of stories about him and our various encounters through the day. But here is his first entrance.]

Alex – whenever he walks by – April and I just look at each other, lips pressed together. [What a strange image. I know what I MEAN: Alex was the notorious “hot guy” in the school, he caused a ripple of attention everywhere he went … but my response to hotness is to look at my friend and press my lips together? That makes no sense. As a gesture.] Today he strolled into gym in shorts and a T, hair sticking up, stud in his ear [So John Taylor!], books under his arm, black sunglasses and Sony Walkman [You knew the brand name?] in his ears.

That is what I mean by cool. Alex is cool.

What’s more – he is gorgeous.

OK, Diary, brace yourself.

Actually, forget it. It’s past midnight and I’m sleepy. [Tease!!!]

[Then my writing gets HUGE and sprawls across the page in a frenzy]

I CAN’T BELIEVE how much better I’m feeling.

God can do anything!!!

THANK YOU, GOD, for creating the glorious human race!

Posted in Diary Friday | 9 Comments

Cousin Emma in the Daily Mail, and other projects

I follow Lena Dunham on Twitter, and one day she posted a picture saying “most attractive PAs in NYC.” I opened it, and saw … excuse me? My cousin Emma. Emma? What are you doing in Lena Dunham’s Twitter feed?? Seriously, the O’Malleys get around. Emma rocks the house as a PA (production assistant) on many New York-based shows, but it was so bizarre, a worlds-colliding moment. Then, suddenly, the Daily Mail picked it up. My cousin Emma is in the freakin’ Daily Mail, TWO pictures of her, the one that I saw on Twitter where she is standing with another PA (photo by Lena Dunham), and the other of her and Dunham laughing and walking together, Dunham holding onto Emma’s arm.

Speaking of “the most attractive PA in New York”, Emma is also a rapper, aka Lil Freckles, and here is her new music video, for a song called “Row Dat Boat”.

Seriously, I can’t keep up with all of these developments.

I’m wicked proud of my cuz. I wrote a post about her a long while ago, some of you might remember. Cousins are important. Cousins are everything.

But still: Lena Dunham, Lil Freckles, Twitter, Row Dat Boat.

Just another day in the O’Malley Dynasty.

Posted in Personal | Tagged | 8 Comments

Jafar Panahi Defies Ban

Jafar Panahi defies the ban and appears at a film festival, via Skype. And this is not even mentioning the fact that he has another film out, Closed Curtain, also defying the ban. I haven’t seen it yet. I cannot. WAIT. But his words are heart-wrenching: “I live in an absolute world of melancholy.” It is an outrageous situation.

If you’ve been reading my site for a while, then you know what this man means to me. He is a hero. A true revolutionary. Courageous.

Posted in Directors | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“[Tootsie] Was Never a Comedy For Me.” – Dustin Hoffman

Profound. Fiercely honest. “If I was going to be a woman, I would want to be as beautiful as possible.” Through acting, he really does enter into the female experience. He gets it. I remember him talking about this at the time Tootsie came out, that he was horrified at how unattractive he was as the character, and how it brought up shame in him over how he had overlooked women due to the fact that they did not conform to what he thought he deserved as a man. And all of that is in the performance.

Posted in Actors | Tagged | 15 Comments

The Books: Life Stories: Profiles from The New Yorker; edited by David Remnick; ‘Travels in Georgia’, by John McPhee

116828

Next up on the essays shelf:

Life Stories: Profiles from The New Yorker, edited by David Remnick

Life Stories is a collection of “profiles” from The New Yorker, edited by David Remnick. The pieces span the 20th century, one of the best parts of these compilations. I also love that it’s not just celebrities who are covered, although they are represented here too. There are celebrities in certain sub-cultures, and then also a couple of people who are virtually unknown (“Mr. Hunter” from Staten Island), and yet fascinating. The best part of the profiles is that they are so in-depth and so lengthy (some of them run to 40 pages long), that you actually feel like you have met these people.

I haven’t read much John McPhee, the author of today’s excerpt – a long melodic travel piece which is both informative, haunting, and evocative of a time and place. But I checked out his background and found (not surprisingly) that he has written a ton of books, and was known as one of the pioneers of the “new journalism”, which incorporated literary elements into non-fiction stories. Folks like Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote, Norman Mailer, Hunter Thompson, were all pioneers, and McPhee was very influential. It’s funny: now this kind of stuff is par for the course. You read long-form journalistic pieces in The Atlantic or Rolling Stone, and often they read like short stories. This is how much these influential writers have helped shape our culture.

As someone who is not into creepy-crawly insects and stuff, at times this piece is challenging to get through. But what a payoff! This is the kind of stuff The New Yorker excels at. It’s hard to imagine this long piece, almost 40 pages long, fitting in at any other magazine. It takes time to get through it. You might not get through it in one sitting. It reads like literature. And yet it is an informative piece of writing, all about bugs, snakes, animals, the terrain in Georgia, and things like stream re-channelization, and conservation efforts.

Published in 1973, “Travels in Georgia” tells the story of John McPhee traveling down to Georgia to follow around two biological researchers/geologists named Carol and Sam. They both work for Georgia State University, and also work for a preservation society, making the case for this swamp, or this buffalo lick, or this patch of woods to be protected from desecration, due to its geological interest or animal-world interest. Carol and Sam are both serious woods-people. Carol lives in Atlanta and her place is overrun by animals, either in the freezer (she eats roadkill), or alive, in jars. She has rattlesnakes, and beetles. She keeps gerbils to feed to the snake. She rescues wounded animals. A gigantic red-tailed hawk with an injured wing sits in her house, glaring at the people who come near him. She reaches into a dark pool of water, feeling around for the snake that she knows is down there. Like I said, if you are afraid of snakes, this will be a challenging piece. Carol and Sam travel around the wilderness of Georgia, and pull over to inspect all of the “D.O.R”s, animals killed on the road. Many of them are fresh kills, and perfect for a university biology class, so Carol puts the corpses in a cooler to be delivered. Some of them she saves for herself. She knows everything about animals. She’s a fascinating woman. McPhee describes following along behind her through the woods, and she’s babbling on about poisonous snakes all around them, and she’s only wearing tennis shoes. Sam and Carol go out in canoes to check out the river life, where the frogs are hanging out, where the snakes are. These are all then put into reports for the “Natural Areas Council”.

James Dickey’s Deliverance had come out, and had caused quite a stir. In it are all of the issues that McPhee senses in the landscape and community: the corporations, the bureaucracies, changing the natural course of a river, completely obliterating entire ecosystems as well as communities. In this piece, the movie had not been filmed yet, but there had been scouts sent out to find the cliff that Jon Voight climbs up at the end.

The whole piece ends with Governor Jimmy Carter going out into the canoe with Carol, Sam and John, to see the areas they are investigating. Then they go to the governor’s mansion and shoot some hoops with Jimmy Carter.

McPhee’s style is melodic and compelling. He does not editorialize. It’s hard to find him giving an opinion. He is not omniscient. He is a participant, and sometimes a cautious one. They take a canoe ride down a narrow river with overhanging tree branches and he is truly fearful of a cottonmouth dropping down on him from above. But more than anything, he just describes what he does with his two guides, he describes Carol’s background, and then stands back as he watches her do her thing. And, like all great profiles, you come away with a sense that you have really just met someone rather extraordinary.

Hopefully we find our destiny in this world. Carol, climbing up trees covered in snakes and raccoons, fearless and intelligent (she wants the animals in the area, many of whom have not seen that many humans, to be afraid of her: they need to learn to fear humans) has found her destiny. You can’t imagine her living any other sort of life. She listens to Johnny Cash constantly, telling McPhee that Cash has gotten her through some very rough spots in her life.

And Georgia. Georgia is another character here: a rich, complex, fertile, diverse land filled with beautiful animals and insects and amphibians, all living side by side, eating one another, sunning themselves on rocks, or getting run over by 18-wheelers. McPhee is given a look at Carol’s journal, where she takes notes every day, and in one section, where she is camping out (she spends most of her time outdoors), she notes that the fireflies are so thick you mistake them for stars. And, startlingly, because you really don’t learn much about Carol personally (you don’t have to: all you need to do is watch her at work to know who she is), right after the firefly comment, she writes, “As of old, I wished for a human companion.”

Fascinating. Carol is in her thirties. She is fit, brown-skinned, outdoorsy, with a ponytail. We never learn that much about her but that one comment speaks volumes. I am drawn to the “as of old”, which implies that this was a familiar longing in her past, but she is now somewhat “past” it.

Regardless: Great!

Gorgeous piece of writing – from her, and from McPhee.

Here’s an excerpt. The piece is huge, this excerpt is just a small section.

Life Stories: Profiles from The New Yorker, edited by David Remnick; ‘Travels in Georgia’, by John McPhee

D.O.R. cat. D.O.R. dog. Near the Mitchell County line. Carol sighed, but no move was made to stop. We were heading west on 37 to check out a river that the Natural Areas Council had been told was like no other in Georgia. Florida was only forty miles away. The terrain was flat and serene between the quiet towns – Camilla, Newton, Elmodel. Cattle stood on light-green grassland under groves of dark pecans. Sometimes the road was a corridor walled with pines. Sometimes the margins opened out into farms, then closed down toward small cabins, more palisades of pine.

D.O.R. grey squrrel. “We could eat him,” Carol said.

“We’ve got enough food,” said Sam.

More pines, more pecans, more farms, a mild morning under a blue-and-white sky. Out of the sky came country music – the Carter Sisters, Johnny Cash, philosophy falling like hail: “It’s not easy to be all alone, but time goes by and life goes on … for after night there comes a dawn. Yes, time goes by and life goes on.”

D.O.R. fox squirrel. Baker County. He was as warm as in life, and he was in perfect shape. Kneeling in the road, Carol held out his long, feathery silver-gray tail so that it caught the sunlight. “There aren’t many things prettier than that,” she said. “Makes a human being sort of jealous not to have a pretty tail like that.” Gently, she brushed the squirrel and daubed blood from his head. He looked alive in her hands. She put him in a plastic bag. The ice was low. We stopped at the next icehouse and bought twenty-five pounds.

D.O.R. nighthawk, fresh as the squirrel. Carol kept the hawk for a while in her lap, just to look at him. He could have been an Aztec emblem – wings half spread, head in profile, feathers patterned in blacks and browns and patches of white. Around the mouth were stiff bristles, fanned out like a radar screen, adapted for catching insects.

D.O.R. box turtle.

D.O.R. loggerhead shrike.

D.O.R. gas station. It was abandoned, its old pumps rusting; beside the pumps, a twenty-year-old Dodge with four flat tires.

D.O.R. cottonmouth. Three miles east of Bluffton. Clay County. Finding him there was exciting to Carol. We were nearing the Cemocheckobee, the river we had come to see, and the presence of one cottonmouth here on the road implied crowded colonies along the river. There was no traffic, no point in moving him immediately off the road. Carol knelt beside him. “He was getting ready to shed. He would have been a lot prettier when he had,” she said. The skin was dull olive. Carol felt along the spine to a point about three-quarters of the way back and squeezed. The dead snake coiled. “That is what really frightens some people,” she said. She lifted the head and turned it so that we could see, between the mouth and the nostrils, the deep pits, sensory organs, through which the striking snake had homed on his targets. Slowly, Carol opened the creature’s mouth. The manuals of herpetology tell you not to do that, tell you, in fact, not to touch a dead cottonmouth, because through reflex action a dead one can strike and kill a human being. Now a fang was visible – a short brown needle projecting down from the upper jaw. “You have to be very careful not to scratch your finger on one of those,” Carol said. She pressed with her fingertips behind the eyes, directly on the poison sacs, and a drop of milky fluid fell onto a stick she held in her other hand. Four more drops followed, forming a dome of venom. “That amount could kill you,” she said, and she pressed out another drop. “Did you know that this is where they got the idea for the hypodermic syringe?” Another drop. “It has to get into the bloodstream. You could drink all you want and it wouldn’t hurt you.” She placed the cottonmouth off the road. Carol once milked honeysuckle until she had about two ounces, which she then drank. The fluid was so concentratedly sweet it almost made her sick.

Carol’s purse fell open as we got back into the car, and out of it spilled a .22-calibre revolver in a case that looked much like a compact. Also in the purse was a Big Brother tear-gas gun, flashlight bulbs, chapstick, shampoo, suntan lotion, and several headbands. Once, when she was off in a swamp frogging and salamandering, a state trooper came upon the car – thinking it might be an abandoned vehicle – rummaged through it. He found the purse and opened it. He discovered the pistol, the chapstick, the shampoo, et cetera, and a pink garter belt and black net stockings. He might have sent out a five-state alert, but Carol just then emerged from the swamp. She was on her way, she told him, to make a call on Kimberly-Clark executives in an attempt to get them to register some forest and riverbank land with the Natural Areas Council, and for that mission the black net stockings would be as useful as the pistol might be in a swamp or the chapstick in a blistering sun. “Yes, Ma’am.” The visit to the Kleenex people was successful, as it happened , and the result was the Griffin’s Landing Registered Natural Area, fifty acres – a series of fossil beds on the Savannah River containing the many thousands Crassostrea gigantissima, forty-million-year-old oysters, the largest that ever lived.

Down a dirt road, across a railroad track, and on through woods that scraped the car on both sides, Sam worked his way as far as he could toward the river’s edge. We took down the canoe, and carried it to the water. The Cemocheckobee was a rejuvenated stream. Widening its valley, long ago, it had formed relaxed meanders, and now, apparently, the land was rising beneath it, and the river had speeded up and was cutting deeply into the meanders. The current was strong – nothing spectacular, nothing white, but forceful and swift. It ran beneath a jungle of overhanging trees. The river was compact and intimate. The distance from bank to bank was only about thirty feet, so there could be no getting away from the trees. “I’d venture to say we’ll see our share of snakes today,” Carol exulted. “Let’s go! This is cottonmouth country!”

Posted in Books | Tagged , | 11 Comments

Seen Recently: Corman’s World (2011), Imitation of Life (1959), Viva Zapata! (1952), The Skin I Live In (2011), Undercurrent (1946)

corman-s-world-pstr01

Corman’s World
directed by Alex Stapleton

A great documentary about Roger Corman whose low-budget productions in the 1960s/70s basically acted as film-school and film-experience for a generation of filmmakers who now run Hollywood. The stories are legendary, but here in this recent documentary, we get it all in one place. Interviews with Martin Scorsese, Robert DeNiro, William Shatner, Jack Nicholson (who has one heart-stopping moment when he breaks down during his interview), Pam Grier, Ron Howard, and many many others. Peter Fonda. Bruce Dern. These people all went through the Corman School of Film-making. In many cases, it was their first shot at helming a picture. He would hand productions over to first-time directors, whose only job was to not go over budget, and film the whole damn thing in 7 days or whatever. Roger Corman is still with us, and is a fascinating guy, a true anti-establishment type. You get the sense that the way to get something done is to tell Roger Corman it can’t be done. We don’t have anything like this nowadays. Perhaps directing television episodics, but it’s not the same thing. The fondness people have for Corman is profound. He helped create modern Hollywood.

Imitation_of_Life_1959_poster

Imitation of Life
directed by Douglas Sirk

The 1959 remake of a Claudette Colbert film from 1934, Imitation of Life is a masterpiece. A giant schlocky complex glorious melodramatic masterpiece. Filled with irony and subtext (“Mama, stop ACTING,” sneers Sandra Dee, as Lana Turner’s feisty daughter), it tells the story of two single women, one white and one black, who live together with their daughters for decades. Annie (the great Juanita Moore, who was nominated for an Oscar for her role) meets Lora Meredith on the beach at Coney Island. They bond. Their daughters are the same age. Annie’s daughter Sarah Jane is so light-skinned that she can “pass” as white, which is the real thrust of the film, its revelatory and pioneering topic. Sarah Jane does not want to be black, she wants to be white. She shuns her mother, which at first is, yes, painful, but you forgive a lot when someone is a child. As she grows older, though, and turns into a young woman (Susan Kohner, who gives a searing performance of such pain and desperation that her final scene always – always – makes me sob) her dismissal of her mother turns into a betrayal and rejection that has long-lasting consequences. This is challenging stuff, and very risky. Lana Turner’s role, as Lora Meredith, is an absolutely fascinating psychological portrayal of an ambitious woman who wants to be an actress, although she is a bit long in the tooth to be starting out in her career, a point made to her repeatedly. But she is ruthless, and she does get what she wants. She sacrifices quite a bit, though: her daughter is used to her mother not being there for her, and the love she finds with a kind-hearted guy who is normal and not part of the glitterati, cannot compete with her desire for fame. Every time she tries to step away from the limelight, another opportunity comes down the pike. Lana Turner is brilliant in the role. The year before had been the huge scandal of her life (a life filled with milder forms of scandal): her daughter Cheryl stabbed her lover, mobster Johnny Stompanato, and killed him. Cheryl was acquitted, but it was a tabloid frenzy and Lana wondered if her career was over. Imitation of Life was made to be a blockbuster, and created to solidify Lana’s place in the business. It is a reminder: She is one of our greatest movie stars, scandal or no. But what is so fascinating is that the film is all about the mother-daughter relationship, both with Annie and Sarah Jane, and with Lora and her own daughter. Douglas Sirk, knowing full well that the audience would come to the picture with all of the previous year’s scandal fresh in their minds, didn’t ignore it, or wish it away, but dealt with it in serious and pointed ways. He is commenting on Lana Turner’s real life, all in the context of this fictional story. Lana Turner is quite brave in the role (which shouldn’t be a shock, if you know her career), and presents a ruthless career-driven woman, desperate, with gleaming eyes, and a rough edge to her voice when she speaks about how she wants to go “up … up … UP”. Douglas Sirk is a master. The film has so many elements it is a bit of a miracle that it keeps all its balls in the air. Susan Kohner basically takes over the film in its final sections. She is tragic, heartbreaking, and in her you see the legacy of slavery, of racism, and her self-hatred, which her mother tried again and again to warn her against. But it’s 1959. She doesn’t want to go to a secretarial school for “colored girls”. She wants to have all of the opportunities that white people have, and she COULD, if only nobody ever found out she was half-black. Troy Donahue, teen boy wonder, has a vicious scene as her white boyfriend who discovers she is half-black and beats her in an alley. This is powerful stuff. Superb acting. One side note: in 8 Mile, there is a scene when Eminem walks into the trailer home he shares with his trashy mother (Kim Basinger). She is painting her toenails and being grumpy. He doesn’t want to deal with it. She has no boundaries. On the small black-and-white television is playing Imitation of Life, the famous scene when Annie goes to the all-white school to drop off the umbrella for her daughter, and basically blows the daughter’s cover. Painful scene. An interesting choice by Curtis Hanson, in the story he is telling, about a white boy entering the all-black world of hip hop and rap, not to mention the tormented relationship he has with his mother (which is the real dark underbelly of the picture).

Viva_Zapata!

Viva Zapata
directed by Elia Kazan

Kazan’s story of the illiterate revolutionary who threw out the elite powers in Mexico, after a protracted land war. Zapata here is played, of course, by Marlon Brando, with a thin moustache, and a strange casual delivery that always makes him the most riveting person on screen. You can’t help but look in the background to see what he is doing. It’s always interesting. Anthony Quinn, who was a professional rival of Brando (he played Stanley in the touring company of Streetcar) does his best to act Brando off the screen by being loud. Sorry, Tony. It’s a common mistake, but Brando is your better. It sucks, I know, but that’s the breaks. Of course the roles are different – Anthony Quinn plays Zapata’s hot-headed brother, who eventually is thrown off of his own land for stealing other people’s wives and basically behaving like an idiot. So yes, the parts are different, but if Brando had played that part and not Zapata, he would still have been the most riveting thing onscreen. Brando is just one of those actors who makes other actors seem thin and conventional. Jean Peters, as Zapata’s wife, is strangely effective, and my favorite scene in the film is when he confesses to her that he can’t read (on their wedding night), and she goes to get her Bible to start the process of teaching him. It’s lit gorgeously, night-time, the bed gigantic and symbolic of the passionate love-making that just occurred there – she’s in a nightgown, he is bare-chested, and he is heartbreakingly vulnerable and ashamed about this failing. He doesn’t even have to do anything and he brings me to tears. Kazan, of course, is amazing, and they filmed it out in the desert (not in Mexico: that ended up not working out), and the locations are all real, dusty, and you can smell the sweat in the air. He was always so excellent with realistic atmospheres. It’s a story of how power corrupts, and that one Communist dude (played by Joseph Wiseman) who oversees the entire revolution, basically playing puppet master with these poor peasants who are seen as disposable the second they stray from the party line, is despicable. You can feel Kazan’s hatred for such manipulation (which went way back for him, to his days at the Group Theatre, when the local Communist Party wanted the Group to be a mouthpiece for their agitprop) in the performance. But this is Brando’s show all the way.

skin-i-live-in-posterau

The Skin I Live In
directed by Pedro Almodóvar

I find this film so disturbing, and so interesting. Antonio Banderas plays Robert Ledgard, a famous plastic surgeon, who is so tormented by the death of his wife that he falls off the rails. He holes himself up in his fortress of a mansion, and works on a type of synthetic skin that is impervious to pain, to burning, to being destroyed. Horrifyingly, he has a woman imprisoned in a room in his mansion, and he experiments on her. She lies around, doing yoga, reading books, writing on the walls, and occasionally he will come and visit her, to give her opium, or to experiment on her. He will burn her with a blow torch, to see if it hurts, etc. He has state-of-the-art equipment at his disposal, as well as a couple of devoted assistants. Throughout the film, we learn the backstory, which is typically Almodóvar-ian: it’s a soap opera to the nth degree, with intersecting paths, and horror stories upon horror stories, and when we learn who the woman is who is held prisoner (she is played, gorgeously, breathtakingly by Elena Ayana) … well, I wonder if some people can’t continue watching the film after that revelation. It’s tough to take. It’s extremely upsetting. It’s gross. But it’s FASCINATING. Almodóvar is one of the best feminist film-makers working today. He really thinks about women, he loves women, and – to be blunt – he sees the problem. He goes at the problem. He is inventive about the problem. This has been his obsession from the start of his career. His films are filled with fantastic hilarious performances by women of all shapes, sizes, ages … they are sometimes monstrous, sometimes trapped by circumstances, but never victims. They sometimes behave violently, but wouldn’t you, if you were trapped? Gnawing off your own leg is par for the course in the animal world. Almodóvar is brave enough to suggest that women are often in the same predicament. Here, he examines what it means to inhabit the body of a woman, a body that is never finished, a body that is reconstructed from scratch by the mad-scientist doctor. Banderas is fantastic. It’s a grisly film, tough to take, but well worth it.

undercurrent

Undercurrent
directed by Vincente Minnelli

I’ve seen this a couple of times and I really like it. Katharine Hepburn plays the daughter of a scientist, and she is a burgeoning scientist herself. Yes, she might just help out in the lab, but she is an essential part of her father’s work. Of course, the housekeeper and her father are worried that she’ll never find a mate (I bet Hepburn got tired of playing such roles: everyone was always so concerned that she would never get married, if she didn’t, you know, change her entire personality.) Hepburn pooh-poohs their concerns, spurns a guy who keeps stopping by, but then she is blown away by a visiting scientist from Washington, D.C., who is interested in her father’s work. He is played by Robert Taylor, whose widow’s peak is incredible pronounced here. He is dashing, good-looking, intelligent, and sweeps her off her feet. You get the sense that maybe she loves him because he so clearly loves her father. Whatever the case may be, they marry and she moves to Washington with him, where she is immediately confronted by snobbery about her clothes, and the growing uneasy sense that her husband has some kind of a weird dark past. Secrets whisper at her, everyone seems to know more about him than she does. But she is a woman in love, and therefore a moron. She allows him to dress her, so that she will look like every other Washington hostess. She keeps stepping over land mines which explode in her face (metaphorically). Her husband has a brother who is NOT. TO BE. MENTIONED. But why? she wonders. Why?? She does her own little investigation, thinking that she is being a caring wife, when actually her husband sees her as a threat. It’s quite disturbing. This mythical brother is played by Robert Mitchum, who strolls onscreen, and very nearly walks away with the movie in the few scenes that he has. He’s Sex on a Stick, frankly, but the best thing about it is that he doesn’t TRY to be. Meanwhile, the poor little Hepburn wife finds herself sneaking around, asking questions, and being yelled at by her husband, who seriously thought that the tomboy in flared pants he married would ever fit in as a snooty upscale Washington wife? Or … is there more going on here than meets the eye? Of course there is. Gorgeously shot by Vincente Minnelli, which I realize is unnecessary to say. Every shot is a work of art.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

The Books: Life Stories: Profiles from The New Yorker; edited by David Remnick; ‘Covering the Cops’, by Calvin Trillin

116828

Next up on the essays shelf:

Life Stories: Profiles from The New Yorker, edited by David Remnick

Life Stories is a collection of “profiles” from The New Yorker, edited by David Remnick. The pieces span the 20th century, one of the best parts of these compilations. I also love that it’s not just celebrities who are covered, although they are represented here too. There are celebrities in certain sub-cultures, and then also a couple of people who are virtually unknown (“Mr. Hunter” from Staten Island), and yet fascinating. The best part of the profiles is that they are so in-depth and so lengthy (some of them run to 40 pages long), that you actually feel like you have met these people.

Today’s piece is a famous one by Calvin Trillin, about Edna Buchanan, a crime reporter for the Miami Herald, from 1986 (the year she won a Pulitzer Prize). It’s delightful. An improbable tale. Edna Buchanan spent her career “covering the cops” in Miami, a beat usually reserved for brand-new green reporters. But something about crime set Buchanan’s genius free. At the time of the article, she lived alone (well, except for her five cats), and spent her days tracking down leads, calling up the police department (they all knew her by name: “It’s Edna”) and asking “what’s going on over there?” The cops had a love-hate relationship with her. She had to be told to stay behind the yellow crime tape. Repeatedly. Sometimes, just to freak her out, a cop would show her the crime scene of some gruesome homicide – maybe hoping that the gory details would turn the little lady’s stomach. The opposite result would occur. Edna was like a dog with a bone. She would interview neighbors of suspects, she was interested in the small detail, the human detail that could make a story come to life.

Miami-Jump-Starts-Writer’s-Creativity-460x240

She wrote an article whose first line has since become hallowed-ground in crime reporting, generally considered one of the best first lines in an article ever: “Gary Robinson died hungry.”

I Googled her this morning to see what she was up to, if she was still around, and found this very interesting article. She just got married. Her background was fascinating. She didn’t go to journalism school or anything like that. She took a creative writing course, wrote a short story (a thriller) and the teacher praised some of it as reminding him of Tennessee Williams. That was it. She was a writer. She heard the Miami Sun was looking for reporters. She applied and got the job. She wrote up all kinds of things: society events, local politics, and crime. It was in crime that she found her niche.

Trillin hangs out with Edna, picks up on her way of speaking (she’ll look over a report from the cops over some crime and say to herself, “That’s interesting as heck”), and tries to break down for us what is so unique about Edna Buchanan. It’s great.

Here’s an excerpt, the opening of the profile.

Life Stories: Profiles from The New Yorker, edited by David Remnick; ‘Covering the Cops’, by Calvin Trillin

In the newsroom of the Miami Herald, there is some disagreement about which of Edna Buchanan’s first paragraphs stands as the classic Edna lead. I line up with the fried-chicken faction. The fried-chicken story was about a rowdy ex-con named Gary Robinson, who late one Sunday night lurched drunkenly into a Church’s outlet, shoved his way to the front of the line, and ordered a three-piece box of fried chicken. Persuaded to wait his turn, he reached the counter again five or ten minutes later, only to be told that Church’s had run out of fried chicken. The young woman at the counter suggested that he might like chicken nuggets instead. Robinson responded to the suggestion by slugging her in the head. That set off a chain of events that ended with Robinson’s being shot dead by a security guard. Edna Buchanan covered the murder for the Herald – there are policemen in Miami who say that it wouldn’t be a murder without her – and her story began with what the fried-chicken faction still regards as the classic Edna lead: “Gary Robinson died hungry.”

All connoisseurs would agree, I think, that the classic Edna lead would have to include one staple of crime reporting – the simple, matter-of-fact statement that registers with a jolt. The question is where the jolt should be. There’s a lot to be said for starting right out with it. I’m rather partial to the Edna lead on a story last year about a woman about to go on trial for a murder conspiracy: “Bad things happen to the husbands of Widow Elkin.” On the other hand, I can understand the preference that others have for the device of beginning a crime story with a more or less conventional sentence or two, then snapping the reader back in his chair with an abbreviated sentence that is used like a blunt instrument. One student of the form at the Herald refers to that device as the Miller Chop. The reference is to Gene Miller, now a Herald editor, who, in a remarkable reporting career that concentrated on the felonious, won the Pulitzer Prize twice for stories that resulted in the release of people in prison for murder. Miller likes short sentences in general – it is sometimes said at the Herald that he writes as if he were paid by the period – and he particularly likes to use a short sentence after a couple of rather long ones. Some years ago, Gene Miller and Edna Buchanan did a story together on the murder of a high-living Miami lawyer who was shot to death on a day he had planned to while away on the golf course at La Gorce Country Club, and the lead said, “… he had his golf clubs in the trunk of his Cadillac. Wednesday looked like an easy day. He figured he might pick up a game later with Eddie Arcaro, the jockey. He didn’t.”

These days, Miller sometimes edits the longer pieces that Edna Buchanan does for the Herald, and she often uses the Miller Chop – as in a piece about a lovers’ spat: “The man she loved slapped her face. Furious, she says she told him never, ever to do that again. ‘What are you going to do, kill me?’ he asked, and handed her a gun. ‘Here, kill me,’ he challenged. She did.”

Now that I think of it, that may be the classic Edna lead.

Posted in Books | Tagged , | 4 Comments

The Ocean State

9236223309_075939f2dc_c

9239007466_1d3f125d68_c

9236229069_6a66543ffe_c

9239002980_97647f7dc7_c

Posted in Personal | Tagged | 2 Comments

Reading the City, Last Night at Housing Works

9200925452_e43746577c_z

Last night, to celebrate their first e-book (called Making the City), Capital New York hosted an event at Housing Works Bookstore with a bunch of Capital writers reading their stuff (or, in some cases, just regaling the crowd with a good story). The event was called “Reading the City”, and its focus overall was New York. The pieces were so much fun, and I now need to break into North Brother Island, after hearing Starlee Kine’s story about doing so. Her story involved a rubber raft and climbing over fences in the dead of night, carrying a fledgling peach tree. Starlee’s story included the immortal words: “Typhoid Mary was kind of a jerk.”

You can read a re-cap of events here, by the event’s organizer, editor Gillian Reagan. There are also links provided (where applicable) to the pieces read by everyone. Please check them out!

I met a lot of great people, many of whom I only know from their writing. I was pleased to participate! Those Capital New York folks are a great bunch.

Posted in Personal | Tagged | Leave a comment