Dawn

7328913322_fa020923a6_c

Posted in Personal | 4 Comments

Cousin Mike: O’Malley Tribal Pride

Cousin Mike was on fire this week. Well, he’s on fire every week, but two pieces came out on practically the same day, praising him for two separate things happening in his career right now, and it’s awesome.

1. Performer of the Week: Mike O’Malley, Justified: “Perhaps especially impressive is the fact that O’Malley’s performance here is a full-on 180 from the role for which he’s best known: Kurt’s dad – perennial Father of the Year Burt – on Glee. That he can not only make us forget Burt but make us forget Burt and absolutely loathe Nicky is the kind of feat that deserves recognition.”

2. “Civil Wrongs” – Shameless review. “First, I want to get into all the good stuff about ‘Civil Wrongs,’ because there was as much to love about it as there is any Mike O’Malley-penned episode of this show. I’m ready to declare O’Malley this show’s MVP. He seems to have a precise understanding of the show’s voice that elevates any episode he writes. He’s not responsible for my favorite episode of Shameless (that distinction belongs to Alex Borstein, who wrote season one’s ‘But At Last Came A Knock’), but there’s something about the way he integrates the show’s elements that always feels incredibly balanced and confident.”

Posted in Television | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Books: The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town, edited by Lillian Ross; ‘Angel’, by James Thurber

9780375756498_p0_v1_s260x420

Next up on the essays shelf:

The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town (Modern Library Paperbacks) is a collection of “The Talk of the Town” pieces in The New Yorker, grouped by decade, which is a lot of fun because you can see how the “voice” of the magazine developed, and how “The Talk of the Town” has grown and changed over the years.

In 1930, James Thurber wrote the following “Talk of the Town” piece about Howard Hughes, and his aviation extravaganza Hell’s Angels. Howard Hughes and that film were not just the “talk of the town”, but the talk of the entire country at that time. Hughes was a millionaire many times over, and had decided to make a movie. It was in production for years. He “discovered” Jean Harlow. Hughes was an interloper in the Hollywood world, but money talks.

Howard Hughes

Even then, he was a fascinating and mysterious creature. This Talk of the Town piece pre-dates his relationship with Katharine Hepburn, which really put him into the paparazzi limelight. Dating “starlets”, you know you’re in the “in” crowd. But Hepburn was no regular starlet, and the two made a dashing pair, climbing in and out of airplanes, both wearing trousers and googles. Were they the coolest couple who ever lived or what?

kh and hh

She always maintained a fondness for Howard Hughes, and looked back fondly on their relationship.

Howard Hughes was only 26 years old when Hell’s Angels was finally foisted upon the public. Everyone was curious about him. Hughes was in New York City for the premiere of Hell’s Angels, and that was the occasion of the “Talk of the Town” piece.

howard_hughes_film_hells_angels

I absolutely love the snapshot given here of Hughes, and it’s a great example of why James Thurber became King of Talk of the Town. Look at the artful use of “we”, and look at the interjection where the “we” shows up. Classic New Yorker voice at that time.

Here is an excerpt.

The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town (Modern Library Paperbacks), edited by Lillian Ross; ‘Angel’, by James Thurber

You’ve read about how he leased counties, rounded up authentic wartime planes in Europe, hired and organized a staff of approximately two hundred fliers, built on the lot a dirigible half the size of the Los Angeles. It took a year and cost a million to make the Zeppelin shots alone. No miniatures were used; tricks were employed to get only a comparatively few effects, such as the clouds into which the Zeppelin rides. Bewildered by the task of commanding nearly a hundred airplanes in maneuvers as dangerous as those of actual warfare, the director Hughes had hied gave up. Hughes took over the job himself. He piloted his own plane to direct the scenes in the air. It took eighteen months to complete them. Hughes has been a licensed pilot since he was twenty-one.

Three men – perhaps we should say only three men – were killed during the making of the picture. They say that if you look close enough during the shots of the thrilling “dogfight” between fifty or more planes, you can see one of them, a small trailing thread of smoke in the background, plunging ten thousand feet. Another man was killed in a collision between two planes. He was equipped with a parachute, as were all the fliers, but didn’t get loose in time to jump. The man in the other plane made it. The third fatality was due to the failure of one of the German Fokkers attacking the big bomber.

The picture was started in pre-talkie days and the on-the-ground part of it, including a plot which doesn’t amount to much, had to be retaken. The air scenes, however, were made later, with sound, and didn’t have to be redone.

Hughes next plans to do some all-color pictures. He has bought the rights to “The Front Page” and to “Queer People”, a novel satirizing Hollywood life. Nobody reads or buys stories for him. He does it himself. He rarely writes letters, using the long-distance telephone instead. He has put in as many as twenty calls to Los Angeles during his stay here.

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

The Books: The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town, edited by Lillian Ross; ‘Corsets de Luxe’, by Geoffrey Hellman

9780375756498_p0_v1_s260x420

Next up on the essays shelf:

The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town (Modern Library Paperbacks) is a collection of “The Talk of the Town” pieces in The New Yorker, grouped by decade, which is a lot of fun because you can see how the “voice” of the magazine developed, and how “The Talk of the Town” has grown and changed over the years.

Another fun thing is you really get a sense of the New York in all of these different eras: the Jazz Age, the Depression, its Golden Age of the 40s and 50s … they are snapshots, of very specific sub-cultures and personalities. So you get glimpses of Fred Astaire’s stardom, of Lou Gehrig’s personality, of all of these New York personalities, in different cultures, careers, classes … all making up the giant bustling collage of the metropolis. Love this collection!

This 1930 Talk of the Town piece, by Geoffrey Hellman (bylines became more frequent as the decades went on) is a perfect example. It’s about a famous corset-maker in New York, Mme. Binner. She was corset-maker to the stars. Mae West was a regular customer. Lillian Russell, too.

Mae-West-1928-Diamond-Lil

Lillian-Russell-9467712-1-402

Mme. Binner was also an innovator. She developed the corset to be a more comfortable garment. I was just Googling around and there are some interesting pieces out there about Binner.

In my wild 20s, I used to wear corsets and garters belts and thigh-high stockings. I never wore heels, I’d wear saddle shoes or Doc Martens. It was a pleasing ensemble to me. I could have used Mme. Binner’s help – but her innovations made so much of all of that possible.

Here is an excerpt. I love the bit about doctors sending their patients to Mme. Binner, to create a better less painful corset. “I know just who to send you to!” Also: “Before that garters had just wandered around with no real home.” Funny.

The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town (Modern Library Paperbacks), edited by Lillian Ross; ‘Corsets de Luxe’, by Geoffrey Hellman

Whenever Mae West needs a new corset for something like “Diamond Lil” she goes to Mme. Binner’s in Fifth Avenue at Fifty-eighth Street. Many, many people needing corsets go to Mme. Binner. She started on her career in Vienna. At the age of eleven she took to making corsets, to pass the time away. After coming to this country, in the early eighties, she was a lone – but a loud – voice in the wilderness, pointing out the horrors of the hourglass corset. Women clients who insisted on having them she sent to doctors for X-rays, to show them what a mess tight corsets made of their ribs. The grateful doctors sent clients to Mme. Binner, who made them light sensible corsets. At present, they say, she has two thousand customers, including such women as Mrs. Charles Steele, Mrs. Seth Thomas, Mrs. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Mrs. Elbridge Gerry, and Mrs. Thomas Lamont. Some ladies buy ten or a dozen corsets at a time. Mme. Binner also has a few men customers who have curvature of the spine or who need artificial support while recovering from an operation. For them she designs special corsets. She is also the inventor of the detached brassiere and – probably more important – she was the first person to think of attaching garters to corsets. Before that garters had just wandered around with no real home.

The first gartered corset was made for Lillian Russell, who was so enchanted with it she became a regular customer, later ordering from Mme. Binnie the most expensive corset ever made. It cost thirty-nine hundred dollars – fourteen hundred dollars for the corset proper and twenty-five hundred dollars for the garters, which had diamond buckles. Once, when her house in Long Island burned down, Miss Russell’s first cry after her escape was, “My support! My support!” “Your what?” demanded a fireman. “My corset!” shrieked Miss Russell.

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

“Give Me Back My Beast!”

bb1

Greta Garbo reportedly called out those words at the ending of Jean Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast (1946), when she first saw the film.

When the trapped Prince appears, after shedding his monstrous exterior, there is a strange sense of disappointment and loss, something that the film, beautifully, does not shy away from. The Beast, as played by Jean Marais, is such a visceral presence, so fearsome in aspect and yet so deeply emotional, that to see him as just a regular human (also played by Jean Marais) is upsetting. Something has been born, something has died.

Belle (Josette Day) stares up at the glimmering prince before her, and you can see the loss flickering in her eyes. She does not fall upon him with lusty gratitude that he is now “beautiful” and therefore worthy of her love. She stares at him, in awe at the magic that has unfolded, but it is clear that her feelings are mixed. Finally, she says, “I’ll have to get used to it.”

bb56

bb75

This is profound.

The “happily ever after” is tempered by other emotions, and is one of the reasons the film is such a masterpiece. The ugliness is real, and because of that there is a complexity to it, that works on the viewer in surprising ways. Belle’s two sisters are horrifying creatures, dressed in gowns that make them look like demonic playing cards, or a Vermeer gone horribly wrong. They despise Belle, and flounce around haughtily, doing what they can to thwart Belle’s chance at happiness. The sisters are portrayed in a ridiculous manner, but they are symbolic of every hard-hearted person in the universe, every selfish rapacious impulse we have. Laugh at them at your peril. Their towering hats and gigantic puffed sleeves are absurd, and although it’s cartoon evil, it is also actual evil.

bb3

bb62

bb61

Fairy tales can reflect our deepest fears, can express our most buried dreams. Fairy tales act as stand-in narratives for humans who cannot admit sometimes in our own hearts what is going on for ourselves. It may seem silly or childish to say, as a grown human, “I just want someone to whisk me away from all this, I want someone to save me”, but just because it is silly doesn’t mean that it is not one of the truest and most universal wishes of all.

It is also a universal truth in Fairy Tales that you should be careful what you wish for. Anyone who has ever been confronted by a genie coming out of a bottle will know that. Don’t be hasty with your wishes. Be very very specific. Try to think ahead, try to project yourself forward into the ramifications of your wishes. Otherwise, you’re screwed.

bb4

‘In fairy-tales,’ said Gillian, ‘those wishes that are granted and are not malign, or twisted towards destruction, tend to lead to a condition of beautiful stasis, more like a work of art than a drama of Fate. It is as though the fortunate had stepped off the hard road into an unchanging landscape where it is always spring and no winds blow. Aladdin’s genie gives him a beautiful palace, and as long as this palace is subject to Fate, various magicians move it violently around the landscape, build it up and cause it to vanish. But at the end, it goes into stasis: into the pseudo-eternity of happy-ever-after. When we imagine happy-ever-after we imagine works of art: a family photograph on a sunny day, a Gainsborough lady and her children in an English meadow under a tree, an enchanted castle in a snow-storm of feathers in a glass dome. It was Oscar Wilde’s genius to make the human being and the work of art change places. Dorian Gray smiles unchangingly in his eternal youth and his portrait undergoes his Fate, which is a terrible one, a fate of accelerating deterioration. The tale of Dorian Gray and also Balzac’s tale of La Peau de Chagrin, the diminishing piece of wild-ass’s skin that for a time keeps Fate at bay, are related to other tales of the desire for eternal youth. Indeed we have methods now of granting a kind of false stasis, we have prostheses and growth hormone, we have plastic surgery and implanted hair, we can make humans into works of some kind of art or artifice. The grim and gallant fixed stares of Joan Collins and Barbara Cartland are icons of our wish for this kind of eternity.’
— A.S. Byatt, ‘The Djinn in the Nightingale’s Eye’

bb26

The magic of Beauty and the Beast has a raw rough energy. It’s brutal. There are hidden rules beneath our ordinary human lives, iron ties that bind us to our Fates. I suppose the horrid sisters are lost souls, because they will never understand this, they are too busy jostling for position. They have no awareness outside of themselves. But for Belle … and her troubled father … they understand that they are not entirely in charge.

Perhaps that is why the magic presents itself to them in the first place.

bb21

Belle lives a life of drudgery, heckled by her two sisters (who are far more monstrous, ironically, than the actual Beast). Despite her lowly position in her family, she is loved by her father (Marcel André), and relied on to do the cleaning and cooking. She actually has a purpose. Her brother and his goofball friend Avenant (also played by Jean Marais, in a trifecta of awesomeness from this magnificent actor) tease Belle, and it is obvious that Avenant has a crush on her. But will he be faithful? Will he value her and be true? Is he not too light-hearted about something as serious as love? Regardless of Avenant’s flaws, in this world, already, Belle stands out. The sisters may wear flashy puffy finery and flounce around trying to crash royal balls down the road, but Belle is the one desired. Belle is the one who has something valuable, a love of life, loyalty, helpfulness. When her father makes a journey (to beg his creditors to give him a break), he asks what Belle wants him to bring back. She thinks a bit and then says, “A rose.”

bb7

She is laughed at by her brittle sisters for this (why not ask for jewels or a nice hat, you moron?), but it is that simple request that starts the Magic in motion. Gifts are important in fairy tales, but they always come with strings attached. You can have all that you desire, but you must be willing to pay the price. The price could be monetary, but more often than not, it is emotional. Her father gets lost on his way home, and finds himself in a dark wood filled with thrashing trees. There is thunder and lightning. He comes across a house in the woods (we never see it in its entirety, we just see the giant front doors). Needing shelter, he puts his horse in a nearby stable (the doors open of their own accord, as though they “know” that someone is there), and runs into the house.

The home of the Beast is one of the greatest sets ever created (or imagined). There is a long dark hallway, with human arms coming out of the walls holding candleabras. As the father walks down the hall, the candles spontaneously light (they played the footage backwards to get the effect). Two of the arms let go of the candleabras, which remain hovering in mid-air, and point the father to where he needs to go. At the end of the hallway is a small dining area, with a roaring fire in a fireplace. There are carved faces in the stone borders of the fireplace, and these faces are clearly alive: the eyes move, smoke comes out of the nostrils. A giant hairy hand pours the father a glass of wine.

bb12

bb16

bb13

bb14

It is sheer enchantment. The effect is creepy, and yet there is no apparent danger. The father escapes the house and sees a glimmering rose in a bush by the front door. He thinks of Belle, he forgets all else, and hastens to clip the rose. It is then that the Beast emerges, furry and gigantic, snarling and growling, but also glorious in his Elizabethan velvets and stiff ruff, ferocious and angry at the theft of his rose. The Beast offers the father an exchange. (Remember: with true magic, there is always a catch.) He can have the rose, as well as his life, if he sends one of his daughters back to stay with him. If the father disobeys this request, he will die.

Think about that. Think about the impossibility of that choice. Magic, here, is not freeing. Not initially. It’s limiting, it binds you in. It acts as a vise. No way out. This, certainly, is the world the Beast lives in, trapped, as he is, in a form that the human race finds repellant. And anyone who comes into contact with the Beast must live by those rules as well. It’s not so much vengeance, on the Beast’s part, as it is an existential sense of isolation and aloneness. Won’t someone come into the Magic with him, because he is not allowed to venture out of it? The fact that Beauty and the Beast is not ONCE sentimental, even with that underlying theme, is a bit of a miracle.

The father returns home and presents Belle with the beautiful rose, but also confesses the deal he made with the Beast. He is tormented. Belle is terrified. Her sisters laugh hysterically at Belle’s doom.

bb18

But Belle has a sense of duty. If this is what she must do to avoid his horrible fate, then so be it. She sets off on the white horse the Beast has sent for her (its name is Magnifique), and it takes her where she needs to go. All she has to do is whisper in its ear, “Go, go, go.” Such a gorgeous metaphor for the human condition, for our level of participation in our own fates, for the importance of letting go, of giving up control. Belle trusts. She also Loves. She loves her father, and that makes her strong.

bb23

Speaking of letting go:

When Belle first enters the Beast’s house, her movements are captured in slow motion, giving her cape a dramatic sweeping flow, making time itself slow down. It’s like a dream, where you are filled with terror but you cannot move. She flies up the staircase, and finds herself in a long hallway with billowing white curtains. (It is a reminder of how little you need to do to create a surreal atmosphere.) Belle is propelled along the hallway, as if on a conveyor belt (Spike Lee dovetail!). Her fate is not in her hands.

bb25

bb27

Belle’s first encounter with the Beast is so terrifying that she swoons to the ground in a dead-faint.

Now let’s talk about Jean Marais’ (and Jean Cocteau’s) Beast. We all know the story. And so, as with most oft-told tales, it is the “how” of the telling that really matters.

The Beast picks Belle up from the ground and carries her into his house. (I loved how Cocteau chose to film that moment: the camera peers through a fence in the foreground, so it is as though we are eyewitnesses to a crime taking place. The camera placement adds to the tension: it seems that the Beast may look up and see us looking at him.) In a spectacular scene, filled with Gothic eroticism and suspense, he is seen walking up the dark staircase, with Belle in his arms, as misty light streams through the dungeon-like grate on the right-hand side. It’s a potent and powerful image, frightening and yet sexy too. She is unconscious. The Beast, here, is acting as Fate. He holds her life in his hands (literally, metaphorically, the whole shebang). He carries her into her room, and as she goes through the doorframe, her dress changes, from simple peasant garb to a glittering princess dress. But she is conscious of none of it. He places her on the bed and in a breathtaking moment, he leans over her, his furry paws gently lying on her skirt. It seems that he could be about to ravish her. His body language suggests that, but also suggests the tension of holding back. She wakes up, and cringes in terror at the sight of him, and he backs off, saying to her, “Don’t look into my eyes.” He leaves the room.

So what are we left with? A Beast sensitive to the effect he has on others, certainly. When he emerged to face Belle’s father, he “played up” his ferociousness. But with Belle, he plays it down. He knows it is a losing battle, he cannot help his appearance.

The outside doesn’t match the inside.

bb29

bb31

bb32

bb33

bb34

Belle’s lucky. Her outside matches her inside. She is a sensitive sweet soul, with a caring heart, and this is reflected in her appearance. However, one could also make the case that the shunning she receives in her own family is part of the general unfair-ness of judging people on their appearances. The sisters have flash and finery, they unfurl like peacock feathers. Belle’s beauty is subtle, soft, and unassuming. And yet what a heart she has, what capacity for love. Who can see that in her? Even Avenant, who crushes on her, doesn’t seem to recognize her special-ness. He just sees the beauty. He does not value the soul within.

But, as we shall see, the Beast does. That is ALL he values.

A routine develops. Belle does not see the Beast all day. Every night at 7 p.m., they meet for dinner. The hands serve them, the statues look on, alarmed, frightened, stunned, they have a variety of expressions. Who are they? Are they also trapped in forms not their own originally? Did the Beast do this to them, out of vengeance? There is one moment where a statue behind the Beast almost seems to be laughing, gleefully, at the Beast’s distress. It is hateful.

bb42

But, in general, the hands are there to help. The hands do nothing scary. Once you get used to them, you can perceive their benign nature. They open doors, they anticipate your needs, they pour wine, and they dress Belle for dinner. Like the Beast, their outward aspect is quite frightening. Think of the scene in Repulsion, when arms emerge from a prosaic hallway and grasp at the terrified Catherine Deneuve. (Thank you, Kent, for that detail about Polanski being inspired by Cocteau for that scene.)

r147

But in Cocteau’s dream-scape, the arms are helpful. They do not move suddenly, they do not grasp or attack. They serve. It’s yet another indication that the magic here is real (it has flesh, it seems to be alive) and yet mysterious. One must accept the creepy arms as part of the landscape. One must trust them. They mean no harm.

In the same way, Belle grows to love the Beast.

In the first dinner scene, she sits at the table alone, frightened. He approaches from behind, resplendent in his velvet and jewels. He moves at an agonizingly slow pace. She, feeling his presence, does not look back at him, but literally quivers in what looks like ecstasy. A fine line between ecstasy and terror. He stands behind her chair. The tension is unbearable. She has picked up a gleaming knife, and she stares down at it, turning it this way and that. Again, the magic of the image: the knife is not a knife, and we could debate what it represents, although the phallic nature of it is probably obvious. She does not clutch the knife in a self-defensive manner, she does not look ready to plunge it into his side. She caresses it, stares down at it as if in a dream.

bb35

And that is the moment. That is all that happens.

We tremble on the precipice of something, some gesture, some catharsis, and then we are left there, unsatisfied, and yet still anticipatory. Each scene operates in this manner. It’s sexy, but dark and brooding. There is much to dread. There is much to desire.

Late at night, Belle flees into the dark hallway. She is stirred by something, a sense, a noise. She hides behind a statue and sees the Beast, coming in from his nocturnal wanderings. His hands are smoking, from the killing he has done. He looks terrifying and he seems terrified of himself. He is in a daze, his hunger satisfied, perhaps, but he is groggy from over-satiation. And there is another hunger, a deeper one, that will never be satisfied. Belle watches, horrified, as he collapses against her door, caressing its solidity. He does not enter the room. That is forbidden. But he wants to go in. In that caressing gesture, done in a moment he thinks he is alone, he reveals his inner ache.

bb40

bb41

Jean Marais had to sit in the makeup chair for five hours every day to create the Beast. The furry mask is flexible and expressive, and his eyes are always blazing from behind the fur. It is an extraordinary feat of stage makeup and prosthetics. Even though I know I am looking at a mask, nothing can convince me that the Beast is not real, that I am not looking upon an actual creature. Marais is not limited at all, despite the fact that we cannot see his entire face (and the face is the actor’s main tool of expression). It’s incredible. The Beast is scary, you get the sense of his innate power: physically, of course, he is quite intimidating, but emotionally as well. He is sitting on a tidal wave of rage, hurt, and hunger. All of this blazes out of his eyes, when we get a look at them. It is no wonder that he warns Belle not to look in his eyes. They give him away.

bb53

But that’s true of all of us. The Beast is otherworldly, but he is a potent symbol of loneliness, of the desire for human connection, love, touch. Babies are forever marked if they are not hugged and cuddled in the first two years of their lives. This can also be true of adults. You are shunned long enough, and you internalize the shunning. You are not worthy of touch. You have been judged by the world as lacking in some essential human quality, your worth is called into question. Beauty and the Beast honors that very painful human truth. And it is honored by Jean Marais’ compassionate pained performance.

In another moment when the Beast does not know that Belle is watching, she sees him huddled by a stream, dipping his whole face into the water, taking big thirsty gulps. Their “dinner dates” do not involve him eating or drinking. That is his private business, done when he is alone. He is a hunter, a predator, alert to every movement in the forest that may turn out to be a meal. Belle watches the Beast take his great heaving gulps from the stream (and Marais is brilliant: his body language here is not human, it’s animalistic, he looks like an elephant in the wild, unselfconscious and utterly himself).

Belle watches. Something is dawning on her face. Tenderness. Pity. Seeing him in a private moment, seeing his open unabashed thirst, touches her. Perhaps she realizes the strength it takes for the Beast to hold himself back in her presence. At least that’s one of the things I imagine I see on her face in that moment, but there’s more to it than that. It’s the birth of love.

bb69

As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, one of the most profound elements of Beauty and the Beast is that the love here dawns while the spell is still on the Beast. Love does not require physical beauty, although the entire culture has always told us otherwise. You are not only worthy of love when you have a beautiful form. Belle struggles with dismay when the spell is broken and the gorgeous Prince stands before her.

If the film gives us nothing else, it gives us a pure and lyrical vision of love unfettered from cultural norms and expectations, a love based on what is inside. Recognition reaches out to recognition. The Beast recognizes that the daughter’s love for her father is so strong that she will do anything to save his life. Belle does not operate from selfishness, and her actions are eloquent. But the Beast is cautious, too. She could not feel the same way about him that he feels about her.

He underestimates Belle. Everyone does.

bb46

There are some incredible magical sequences, some involving the enchanted mirror in Belle’s room. When you look in it, you see things as they really are. Belle gets a vision of her father lying in bed, tossing and turning, dying. Later, when she returns home (with the help of a magic glove given to her by the Beast: put it on your hand and it will transport you to your destination), she has the mirror with her. The sisters look in the mirror: one sees a withered old crone, and one sees a jibbering little monkey. It’s hysterical. The mirror reveals the true essence of things. When Belle puts on the glove in the Beast’s house, she then finds herself back at home, emerging from the wall, a phenomenal effect.

bb58

Racing to her father’s death bed, she assures her father that the Beast is kind, there is nothing to be afraid of. She must return as soon as she can, but for now, she is here at his side. Tears fall from her face, turning into glistening jewels in the father’s hand. Another amazing effect. A tear seeps out of her eye and seems to transform, on her cheek, into a teardrop-shaped gem. Wonderingly, the father peels it off her face. Belle is fully in the enchantment, and her heart is torn. The Beast did not want to let her go. But sensing her distress about her father’s condition, he allowed it. Belle loves her father, but she now loves the Beast, too, with a desperation that is heartrending to behold. When she returns to the Beast’s house, she cannot find him. She runs through the magical house, bursting out of the front doors, calling into the empty air, “MY BEAST!”

I dare you to listen to the way she screams that line and not be moved.

bb59

bb68

The story of the filming of Beauty and the Beast is fascinating, and there are published journals by Cocteau about the entire process. Filmed in the wake of WWII, in the middle of a decimated France, the film has in it a vision of hope, of love fulfilled, of possibility, that is all the more poignant when you realize the context in which it was filmed. It takes great strength to believe in love, in the midst of such devastation. It takes great moral courage.

Like anything that is perfect, analyzing its parts is problematic. Because nothing can quite capture the magic: language certainly can’t. It’s like looking at a rainbow against a lowering black sky. Poets can sometimes capture the meaning behind such a moment of perfection, but more often than not the magic is lost in translation.

Here, the magic is not.

The film shimmers with it, glimmers and glows with it, breathes with it, exudes it.

bb72

bb73

Ugliness is not to be feared, shunned, or despised. It is to be loved. A difficult concept, and one human beings struggle with mightily.

In the final incredible shot, when Belle and her now beautiful Prince fly up into the dark sky, we are left with mixed feelings. We have been through so much. The beauty underneath, the beauty of the Beast’s soul, was always there. We felt it. We saw it. Even in his most terrifying moments, with smoke burning off of his claws. How will love now translate when his form is so changed? Can we love beauty as much as we have come to love ugliness? Belle doesn’t seem sure.

But, as she always has done, she trusts. Even with her trusting of Fate, she is still honest. “I will have to get used to it,” she says.

So will we.

I’m with Greta Garbo, though. I want my Beast back.

bb76

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

Well, Now

This is going to be fun.

Posted in Personal | 22 Comments

The Books: The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town, edited by Lillian Ross; ‘Dancing Couple’, by James Thurber

9780375756498_p0_v1_s260x420

Next up on the essays shelf:

The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town is a collection of “The Talk of the Town” pieces in The New Yorker, grouped by decade, which is a lot of fun because you can see how the magazine developed, how the “voice” of the magazine developed, and how “The Talk of the Town” has grown and changed over the years.

Back in the 20s, most of the “Talk of the Town” pieces ran without bylines (editor Harold Ross didn’t like bylines), but a couple of their regular writers – James Thurber, E.B. White – became Masters in the Art of Miniature, required by the “Talk of the Town” format.

Today’s excerpt comes from 1928, and it’s by James Thurber. It’s a tiny profile, so to speak, of the brother-and-sister dancing duo, Fred and Adele Astaire. How wonderful to get a snapshot of them at this time, just as the vaudeville years were ending, and right before Fred would burst out of the duo and become a mega-Hollywood movie star. When I was 11 years old, I wrote a report on Fred Astaire, and did all kinds of research, and that was when I discovered his vaudeville years. I remember being a tiny bit obsessed with Adele. First of all, she was so adorable in pictures. And Fred Astaire was always not only complimentary towards his sister, but downright reverential. He maintained that she was one of his best partners. Please go check out my old friend Trav’s piece on Fred and Adele Astaire. (He wrote a book on vaudeville: No Applause–Just Throw Money: The Book That Made Vaudeville Famous.)

tumblr_m06cp8N70o1r65of0o1_500

There was something, too, about the idea of kids being professional performers that captivated me (not difficult to understand why). I was so obsessed with them that I gave them a cameo in my celebrated novel about a teenage vaudeville troupe, written when I was 12 years old. I love how I write that Fred and Adele “had great promise”. So generous of you, Tween Sheila! I loved the Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers movies, which was yet another reason why that fateful Eight is Enough episode that changed my life, struck such a deep chord. But because of my research when I was a kid, I always wondered about Adele. Was it hard for her to give up performing? Did she have any feelings of jealousy watching her brother become such a huge international star? What was Adele’s experience of all of this? I was a sensitive child.

Here, in James Thurber’s “Talk of the Town” piece, Fred and Adele Astaire are big stars in the New York vaudeville scene. And there is talk of the two retiring their act. This was huge news. The world was changing. Theatre was changing. The movies were rising in importance. It’s a beautiful snapshot of a time-and-place.

Here’s an excerpt.

The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town (Modern Library Paperbacks), edited by Lillian Ross; ‘Dancing Couple’, by James Thurber

Their first appearance in this city was in 1907. They did a clog dance in a vaudeville house until the Gerry Society objected. In those years they were forced to play in Shamokin and Passaic and places like that in order not to be molested by societies who knew that dancing was terrible for children.

Their first real chance in New York, after they got old enough to be let alone, came at the old Fifth Avenue Theatre and their hearts were high with hope. On the same bill was Douglas Fairbanks. He got over very well but after the first show the Astaires sadly noted that their names had been scratched from the call-board, which meant the management had given them, as Mr. James Gleason would say, the works. You couldn’t daunt the children, however, and they made their first big success not long afterwards in the revue “Over the Top.” Since then they have snapped their fingers at call-boards.

One of their earliest friendships was with George Gershwin, then a piano player for Remick. He used to say he hoped some day to write a score which the brother and sister could dance to. That happened first in the production of “Lady Be Good.” Then came “Funny Face.” We were interested to learn that dancing shoes rarely last the Astaires more than three weeks, which, to coin a statistic, means that each of them has used about four hundred pairs since they began to dance together. Fred is superstitious and on opening nights always brings to his dressing-room and wears a funny looking red and green bathrobe he bought in Bridgeport thirteen years ago. It hasn’t always brought him luck though. For instance, he was selected, not long ago, by a Columbia professor and a cigarette manufacturing company, to be blindfolded and to pick out, as the best of four cigarettes offered him, the kind manufactured by the company in question. He picked the wrong one.

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

On This Day: March 23, 1775

Patrick Henry made his famous “give me liberty or give me death” speech at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia.

Benson Bobrick writes in his book Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution about a speech Henry made a decade earlier. You get the sense in the following excerpt of Henry’s power as a public speaker, the consciousness with where he chose to PAUSE (the pause is crucial: it set up an expectation in the listeners, which he then turned on its ear when he concluded the thought), as the cries of “treason” rose around him. But without that carefully chosen pause, the impact would not have been what it was. Henry was a man who understood rhetoric and understood theatricality:

On May 29, 1765, Patrick Henry rose in the Virginia House of Burgesses to introduce a series of momentous resolutions which he had hastily drafted on a blank leaf of an old law book … Henry accompanied these resolutions with a fiery speech given the next day in which he concluded, “Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third” – amid cries of “Treason” that arose from all sides of the room – “and George the Third,” he continued artfully, “may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it!”

Thomas Jefferson, then a student at the College of William and Mary, was standing in the doorway and heard Henry speak. “I well remember the cry of treason,” Jefferson wrote afterward, “the pause of Mr. Henry at the name of George III, and the presence of mind with which he closed his sentence, and baffled the charge vociferated.” To Jefferson it seemed as if Henry “spoke as Homer wrote”.

Paul Johnson, in his wonderful book, A History of the American People, writes of the “Give me liberty or give me death” speech:

A common American political consciousness was taking shape, and delegates began to speak with a distinctive national voice. At the end of it, Patrick Henry marked this change in his customary dramatic manner: ‘The distinctions between Virginians and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian but an American.’ Not everyone agreed with him, as yet, and the Continental Congress, as it called itself, voted by colonies rather than as individual Americans. But this body, essentially based on Franklin’s earlier proposals, perpetuated its existence by agreeing to meet again in May 1775. Before that could happen, on February 5, 1775, parliament in London declared Massachusetts, identified as the most unruly and contumacious of the colonies, to be in a state of rebellion, thus authorizing the lawful authorities to use what force they thought fit. The fighting had begun. Hence when the Virginia burgesses met in convention to instruct their delegates to the Second Continental Congress, Henry saw his chance to bring home to all the revolutionary drama of the moment.

Henry was a born ham actor, in a great age of acting – the Age of Garrick. The British parliament was full of actors, notably [William] Pitt himself (‘He acted even when he was dying’) and the young [Edmund] Burke, who was not above drawing a dagger, and hurling it on the ground to make a point. But Henry excelled them all. He proposed to the burgesses that Virginia should raise a militia and be ready to do battle. What was Virginia waiting for? Massachusetts was fighting. ‘Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we her idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?’

Then Henry got to his knees, in the posture of a manacled slave, intoning in a low but rising voice: ‘Is life so dear, our peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!’ He then bent to the earth with his hands still crossed, for a few seconds, and suddenly sprang to his feet, shouting, ‘Give me liberty!’ and flung wide his arms, paused, lowered his arms, clenched his right hand as if holding a dagger at his breast, and said in sepulchral tones: ‘Or give me death!’ He then beat his breast, with his hand holding the imaginary dagger.

There was silence, broken by a man listening at the open window, who shouted: “Let me be buried on this spot!’

Henry had made his point.

There’s a great description of acting: “Acting is like a sculpture carved in snow.” Obviously, that phrase came from the time of stage acting. Movies now can capture the “sculpture” before it melts. Or at least one version of it. But that quote makes me think of Patrick Henry. Nobody alive today can ever experience his oratorical skills. There are no video tapes, tape recordings. We just have to take the word of those who were THERE. So while no “record” exists, and his speeches were, indeed, “carved in snow”, a whiff of the power of them comes down to us regardless. Eye-witness accounts give a sense of his electric impact on a crowd.

Patrick Henry’s “Give my liberty or give me death” speech did not quite have the tinder-box effect on the culture as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense … but it was close. It was a rallying cry of revolution, spoken in melodramatic and evocative terms, that those who were there that day (future revolutionaries and Presidents) never forgot.

Here, in full, is Patrick Henry’s speech that he made on this day in 1775:

Patrick Henry’s Speech, St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775

No man, Mr. President, thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Posted in Founding Fathers, On This Day | Tagged , | 12 Comments

Tough Guys With Pets

tumblr_lhxaqnw93A1qhlul0o1_500
Alan Ladd, ‘This Gun for Hire’ (1942)

s46
Alain Delon, ‘Le Samourai’ (1967)


Charles Bronson, “Hard Times” (1975)


Marlon Brando, “The Godfather” (1972)

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Snapshots

— I took a bellydancing class with a friend of mine on Tuesday and it was extremely challenging, I was turned into a giant tomato-headed sweatball, wearing a drenched Elvis T-shirt, and I was still feeling it the next day. The teacher (who was incredible) handed out little bellydancing skirts to the class, sheer fabric with jangles sewn on, so you could really hear the sound as you practiced your various hip and booty jiggles. I seriously need to work on my shimmies. The whole thing was awesome.

— We’ve had more snow this week, and the weather has been quite cold. I love this time of spring. Dark days. A chill in the air. The sound of geese returning. But still cold enough for blankets and slippers.

— Busy with writing and various healthy projects involving my diet, my sleep, and exercise. My mother was here for a bit, which was great. I miss her. She’s been such a support (my whole family has). I am looking forward to Easter, although I love Palm Sunday too. I’ll see my family on Easter.

— Lots of movies, lots of screenings, screeners, and all the rest. Seen some really great stuff recently. I’ll be writing about some of it in detail, although you can check out my two reviews for Roger Ebert (more to come).

— I have been working on my apartment, which has (let’s be honest) had bad juju from the second I moved in. And then the building half burned down. I have never felt safe here, even before the fire. But now I have cleaned out my closets, changed my schedule radically, and the feeling of the place has started to transform. I am always happier in hotels/motels. I don’t know why. I am trying to get that feeling into my apartment, and it has been working, actually. It’s not a decor issue or anything like that. It’s a great apartment but I have never felt completely right here. Really trying to change that. So far so good.

— Reading a LOT. I’ve been reading some lighter stuff, romantic comedies and short novels, mysteries, fairy tales, which has been wonderful for me. I mean, I still love to read about gulags and tribunals, but I am trying to mix it up a bit.

— Have a road trip planned for April. Very much looking forward to it.

— I put Hope on a diet. She doesn’t understand what’s happening. She’s a good girl.

— Awesome dinner with Brooke and Liz the other night, two of my oldest friends. We met up at Brooke’s, had dinner, caught up, laughed hysterically, supported each other, talked about everything. I am so lucky. To quote Mr. Yeats:

Think where man’s glory most begins and ends,
and say my glory was I had such friends.

Posted in Movies, Personal | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment