“You can’t be on top all the time. It isn’t natural.” — Olivia de Havilland

It’s her birthday today.

In The Heiress, Olivia de Havilland gave one of the greatest performances in the history of cinema. Her final moment, ascending the stairs, as the grifter Montgomery Clift bangs on the door screaming her name, is one of the greatest final shots in cinema. The Heiress is that rare thing, a perfect movie. It’s really a quartet – played by de Havilland, Ralph Richardson, Miriam Hopkins and Montgomery Clift – an interwoven portrayal of a sick family system, undone by the outsider. Catherine is a victim not just of a controlling father, a manipulative fantasist aunt who encourages the delusions and ignores the threat, and the user who “courts” her and betrays her … but of her society. She is a victim of the world into which she was born. This was, of course, Henry James’ point, and Washington Square, the novel on which The Heiress is based, is slim (compared to his other works) – with every word an indictment. For me, it is a criticism of patriarchy, a word now so over-used as to become almost meaningless. Catherine lives in a world where a certain class of woman has only one option: get married. If you don’t get married, you will be at the mercy of your family, you depend on them for food/shelter. You can’t do anything else. In this world, love doesn’t come into the picture. “Class” is important here. Poor people were trapped in many ways, but they weren’t trapped by these byzantine social rules dominating private life.

So Catherine is a victim. She is a capable woman, but she has been kept in a state of suspended childhood, almost a forced naivete. She has no other option. Her naivete is not charming or adorable. It is grotesque (and infuriating: there is a social critique in James’ portrayal). Her naivete leaves her open to predation. When a predator appears, in the glamorous form of the pretty-talking fortune hunter Morris Townsend (Montgomery Clift), Catherine is completely unprotected. Patriarchy not only couldn’t save/protect her – as it promised to do – it offered her up into danger. Catherine is foolish in many ways, but her foolishness is imposed from the outside. The world is to blame. What other options did she have? She couldn’t get an education, beyond what was deemed appropriate for young ladies of a certain class. She couldn’t circulate on her own as a single lady, and get some experience which would have helped her clock Morris instantly as a Bad Dude Up to No Good. She couldn’t travel on her own. Or … she COULD. But she would have had to be brave enough, smart enough, resourceful enough, to reject her entire upbringing, to face scandal and shunning … and not too many people can do that. We are social animals. We need our community.

Catherine could have been a happy person in any other era. She could have gone the Now Voyager route, and find her place in a more bohemian world (the films have much in common). She could have made her own money. She could have been a librarian or a secretary or … really, anything. But in her time, in her place, she had to stay at home and play by the rules. These rules destroyed her.

The revelation of de Havilland’s performance is profound. (And don’t even get me started on Ralph Richardson. He totally understood what was being critiqued and set about – meticulously and perfectly – to embody Patriarchy with a capital P, in all its cruelty, condescension and control.) But there’s more complexity to be added. Catherine’s father is right to be concerned. He clocks Morris instantly. He knows his daughter is being used. He tries to save her. Unfortunately, and tragically, this comes out as “why would this glamorous young man be interested in YOU?”

The real revelation for Catherine is the contempt in which her father holds her. She has been living in a state of illusion. She has bought her society’s lie, about her place in it, about her value and worth. When she finally perceives how her father really sees her, nothing will ever be the same again.

De Havilland portrays this in chilling totality: her voice, her manner, her gestures – that needlepoint moment – her very soul has been altered. The scales have been ripped from her eyes. She now sees her world for what it is. She sees the lie.

While this truth is terrible, one wouldn’t wish for Catherine to stay in the place where her illusions are intact. Those illusions are built on sand. They cannot hold. They are phony. They are designed to keep her down, to keep her pliable and passive. And so when her life is destroyed by Morris’ betrayal, and when she sees how her father looks at her, her old self dies and a new one emerges, a stronger harder person. But free.

It is a towering performance. It is an example of what great acting can convey. It is not about “self”, it is not even about giving a great acting performance. It is attached to the larger world and its fictions, the lies it tells itself: de Havilland exposes the lie. She lives the consequences of the lie dying. She walks up the stairs, ignoring her lover’s anguished cries, her heart is hardened to him, she is turned to stone. Nothing could make her turn around and go open the door. She would rather die.

Her hardness is a tragedy. What would it have been like if the world had actually protected her, had nurtured her naive openness, and allowed her to blossom on her own terms? Wouldn’t it have been nice if the patriarchy had held up its end of the bargain?

Well, sure. But it’s all a lie.

At least Catherine knows it’s a lie now. The truth has set her free. Freedom can be a terrible thing, but the alternative is worse.

Posted in Actors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“If I don’t feel it, I can’t play it.” — James Cotton

Blues-harmonica legend James Cotton was born on this day in 1935 on a cotton plantation. He was a working musician by the time he was 10 years old. He toured with Howlin’ Wolf. Eventually he hooked up with Muddy Waters and toured with him for years, his harmonica solos an integral part of the songs. Later on, he formed his own band, and toured as a solo act for 60-plus years. He played with everyone.

In the early 1950s, he – like so many others – gravitated to Memphis, to Sun Records specifically, the space Sam Phillips had created to record blues and gospel music. Cotton’s Sun tracks are incredible, with that unmistakeable Sun sound, a sound you would recognize in a blind sample. There’s a raw-ness to the Sun stuff, because even though you had to pay to record there, it wasn’t really a commercial enterprise. At least not at the start. (One arm of the business was the money-making arm, which paid the bills, Phillips recording weddings and stuff like that.) Phillips was on a mission. He wanted these musicians and this music to be heard.

Of all of James Cotton’s Sun stuff, I love “Cotton Crop Blues” the best, a 1954 recording at Sun Records, with a grinding slightly distorted and totally modern-sounding electric guitar solo by Pat Hare.

Here’s a live clip from a Muddy Waters show from 1966. A performance of “Got My Mojo Workin’,” James Cotton harmonica solo.

And here, James Cotton, alone, slows it all way, way, WAY down. Center stage. His harmonica was as eloquent as human speech. Maybe more eloquent. Because I’ve listened to a lot of people talk, and they never sound like THIS.

He died in 2017. Here’s a full obituary, with more information.

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

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

“I don’t have to be an imitation of a white woman that Hollywood sort of hoped I’d become. I’m me, and I’m like nobody else.” — Lena Horne

It’s her birthday today.

Mitchell and I – in yet another of our series of conversations – discuss Lena Horne. Weirdly, we had an enormous discussion about her one night when I was staying with him in Chicago. We watched endless clips of her singing and talked about her with enthusiasm and love. We woke up to the news she had died. Mitchell looked at me and said, “We didn’t even know it, but last night we gave her a sendoff.”

Part of this “series” was me asking Mitchell to describe whoever it was in “one word” as a launching point.

On Lena Horne

SOM: One word.

MF: Angry.

SOM: Talk about that.

MF: It’s almost like she was the Mike Tyson of singers. There was always this idea that she might bite. She bit her words, and she bit her phrasing.

I read that beautiful biography about her, Stormy Weather: The Life of Lena Horne. It talked a lot about how she would stand in these clubs as a black woman who was considered pretty. How generous of the white audience to consider her pretty, right? And she wouldn’t be able to go in the front door, but she’d sing for these rich white people, and her friends and family couldn’t come in, and she was so furious that it kind of created her style.

She was angry about a lot of things. She was angry about the fact that she was never really given a role at MGM. All of her roles were AS Lena Horne. Well, not all of them – there were two exceptions and they were primarily black movies. But most of her movies, she was basically Lena Horne singing a song, which they would then take out when the movie played in the South. She was the link between Ethel Waters and Hattie McDaniel and the next generation, with Diahann Carroll.

MF: And she was pissed about it. She didn’t want to be anyone’s link. She wanted to be a movie star, and she wanted to be a top-rated concert singer, and she got stuck in the middle. She was very angry politically, when she got older. Totally justified. She was labeled as a female Uncle Tom, in a way, because her career was based on a white world. Her credibility as a black woman, or a civil rights activist, was called into question and that made her mad.

MF: I think a lot of people get disappointed when they hear Lena Horne for the first time. They think she’s going to be a soul singer. And of course she had a soulful voice because she sang from the heart, but she was like Sinatra and Dean Martin and Judy Garland and Peggy Lee and Rosemary Clooney.

MF: Lena Horne sang standards. She sang on the jazz edge of standards, but really, she was more of a pop singer. Not a blues singer, not a soul singer, not an R&B singer. She was a black woman who sang the standards. She was famous for singing Cole Porter, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Harold Arlen. She was also stunningly beautiful. It was interesting because she married a white man, and then seemed to regret it. She regretted that she had done that because she felt like it took her credibility away. She seemed to die fairly bitter. If you want to get a real sense of her, watch her in Cabin in the Sky (1943).

MF: Then watch some of her TV appearances in the 60s. Watch her sing with Judy Garland on the Judy Garland Show. They do two duets. They do “Day In Day Out”, and then they sing each other’s songs, which is really brilliant.

MF: I think my favorite recording of hers, for some reason, is from her Broadway show The Lady and Her Music that she won a Tony for. She does “Surrey With the Fringe On Top”, and it’s kind of a throwaway but I think it’s genius. She starts it off by saying, “I’m gonna sing this one …….. cause I like it.” And then she sings “Surrey With the Fringe On Top”, and it’s so good and jazzy and informed and sexy. To me, that’s a real mark of her artistry, that she could take a lyric and make it very much about whatever her story is, and it didn’t have to do with the context, it had to do with whatever she was thinking about. That’s the mark of a great singer.

MF: I love Christina Aguilera, and I know it’s a different tradition of singing, but she’s so busy acting like she’s singing, which she doesn’t have to do because she is in fact singing better than 90% of the planet. But she’s always showing us that she’s singing, and it’s like “Why don’t you talk to us about the story that you’re telling, and we’ll understand that you’re singing”.

SOM: One last thing about Lena: Could you talk to me about her gestures?

MF: Her gestures really are so unique, so connected to whatever she’s going through, but also really out there. Her gestures are less striking to me, though, than her facial expressions. She would do this wide-mouth to get the sound out, and her weird vowels. Like she wouldn’t say “there”, she’d say “thay-ah”. So if you say that, you can feel your mouth open – and it’s this open-mouthed A, even though that’s not really the vowel sound of the actual word. Her gestures were a lot of clenched fists, but her face – she sort of made her eyes huge, and she would scrunch up her eyes and growl. In a weird way, she had a tightness to her gestures, whereas Judy’s gestures flowed out, or Ethel Merman‘s gestures flowed out. Lena Horne’s was more of a clenched-fist gesture. In comparison to Shirley Bassey, who has the other extreme: the weirdest gestures ever.

MF: I mean, really. And Bassey got validated for it pretty early in her career so they kept getting more outrageous. She stopped judging herself. She knew she would get great reviews if she did the wildest gestures that anyone had ever seen. I feel like Lena’s gestures were born out of anger. According to a lot of reports, Lena Horne could carry a tune but wasn’t necessarily considered a great singer at the beginning, and she developed her style while doing those club dates that she hated. A lot of her style, which became famous and sexy, was based on her fury.

The biography of her is really good, because it’s about her but it’s also about that time, and what a lot of performers of her time went through. She had a lot of support in Hollywood, except she felt very very lonely, because as much as they supported her they still didn’t have much to say to her. She wasn’t working with everybody like everybody else was. They supported her, they went to see her shows and concerts, but they weren’t on set together. That kind of camaraderie, she didn’t have it. There’s that famous black and white clip showing all the MGM stars having lunch. Watch it again and see that she’s not talking to anyone, and no one’s talking to her. She looks lonely, and beautiful, and stuck there around people she doesn’t know. That’s Lena Horne in Hollywood.

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

Posted in Actors, Music, On This Day | Tagged | 6 Comments

“But man has always succeeded in rising again.” — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

saint-exupery-website

Today is the birthday of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

Here is an extraordinary excerpt from Wind, Sand and Stars – a book I last read in high school, when I was in my Richard Bach-airplane-writing-soulmate-search phase. Listen to this prose.

And yet we have all known flights when of a sudden, each for himself, it has seemed to us that we have crossed the border of the world of reality; when, only a couple of hours from port, we have felt ourselves more distant from it than we should feel if we were in India; when there has come a premonition of an incursion into a forbidden world whence it was going to be infinitely difficult to return.

Thus, when Mermoz first crossed the South Atlantic in a hydroplane, as day was dying he ran foul of the Black Hole region, off Africa. Straight ahead of him were the tails of tornadoes rising minute by minute gradually higher, rising as a wall is built; and then the night came down upon these preliminaries and swallowed them up; and when, an hour later, he slipped under the clouds, he came out into a fantastic kingdom.

Great black waterspouts had reared themselves seemingly in the immobility of temple pillars. Swollen at their tops, they were supporting the squat and lowering arch of the tempest, but through the rifts in the arch there fell slabs of light and the full moon sent her radiant beams between the pillars down upon the frozen tiles of the sea. Through these uninhabited ruins Mermoz made his way, gliding slantwise from one channel of light to the next, circling round those giant pillars in which there must have rumbled the upsurge of the sea, flying for four hours through these corridors of moonlight toward the exit from the temple. And this spectacle was so overwhelming that only after he had got through the Black Hole did Mermoz awaken to the fact that he had not been afraid.

And now I’ll share the full text of an open letter he wrote. Settle in. It’s a doozy. It’s called “Letter to an American”.

“Letter to an American”

I left the United States in 1943 in order to rejoin my fellow flyers of “Flight to Arras”. I traveled on board an American convoy. This convoy of thirty ships was carrying fifty thousand of your soldiers from the United States to North Africa. When, on waking, I went up on deck, I found myself surrounded by this city on the move. The thirty ships carved their way powerfully through the water. But I felt something else besides a sense of power. This convoy conveyed to me the joy of a crusade.

Friends in America, I would like to do you complete justice. Perhaps, someday, more or less serious disputes will arise between us. Every nation is selfish and every nation considers its selfishness sacred. Perhaps your feeling of power may, someday, lead you to seize advantages for yourselves that we consider unjust to us. Perhaps, sometime in the future, more or less violent disputes may occur between us. If it is true that wars are won by believers, it is also true that peace treaties are sometimes signed by businessmen. If therefore, at some future date, I were to inwardly reproach those American businessmen, I could never forget the high-minded war aims of your country. I shall always bear witness in the same way to your fundamental qualities. American mothers did not give their sons for the pursuit of material aims. Nor did these boys accept the idea of risking their lives for such material aims. I know – and will later tell my countrymen – that it was a spiritual crusade that led you into the war.

I have two specific proofs of this among others. Here is the first.

During this crossing in convoy, mingling as I did with your soldiers, I was inevitably a witness to the war propaganda they were fed. Any propaganda is by definition amoral, and in other to achieve its aim it makes use of any sentiment, whether noble, vulgar, or base. If the American soldiers had been sent to war merely in order to protect American interests, their propaganda would have insisted heavily on your oil wells, your rubber plantations, your threatened commercial markets. But such subjects were hardly mentioned. If war propaganda stressed other things, it was because your soldiers wanted to hear about other things. And what were they told to justify the sacrifice of their lives in their own eyes? They were told of the hostages hanged in Poland, the hostages shot in France. They were told of a new form of slavery that threatened to stifle part of humanity. Propaganda spoke to them not about themselves, but about others. They were made to feel solidarity with all humanity. The fifty thousand soldiers of this convoy were going to war, not for the citizens of the United States, but for man, for human respect, for man’s freedom and greatness. The nobility of your countrymen dictated the same nobility where propaganda was concerned. If someday your peace-treaty technicians should, for material and political reasons, injure something of France, they would be betraying your true face. How could I forget the great cause for which the American people fought?

This faith in your country was strengthened in Tunis, where I flew war missions with one of your units in July 1943. One evening, a twenty-year-old American pilot invited me and my friends to dinner. He was tormented by a moral problem that seemed very important to him. But he was shy and couldn’t make up his mind to confide his secret torment to us. We had to ply him with drink before he finally explained, blushing: “This morning I completed my twenty-fifth war mission. It was over Trieste. For an instant I was engaged with several Messerschmitt 109s. I’ll do it again tomorrow and I may be shot down. You know why you are fighting. You have to save your country. But I have nothing to do with your problems in Europe. Our interests lie in the Pacific. And so if I accept the risk of being buried here, it is, I believe, in order to help you get back your country. Every man has a right to be free in his own country. But if and my compatriots help you to regain your country, will you help us in turn in the Pacific?”

We felt like hugging our young comrade! In the hour of danger, he needed reassurance for his faith in the solidarity of all humanity. I know that war is indivisible, and that a mission over Trieste indirectly serves American interests in the Pacific, but our comrade was unaware of these complications. And the next day he would accept the risks of war in order to restore our country to us. How could I forget such a testimony? How could I not be touched, even now, by the memory of this?

Friends in America, you see it seems that something new is emerging on our planet. It is true that technical progress in modern times has linked men together like a complex nervous system. The means of travel are numerous and communication is instantaneous – We are joined together materially like the cells of a single body, but this body has as yet no soul. This organism is not yet aware of its unity as a whole. The hand does not yet know that it is one with the eye . And yet it is this awareness of future unity which vaguely tormented this twenty-year-old pilot and which was already at work in him.

For the first time in the history of the world, your young men are dying in a war that – despite all its horrors – is for them an experience of love. Do not betray them. Let them dictate their peace when the time comes! Let that peace reassemble them! This war is honorable; may their spiritual faith make peace as honorable.

I am happy among my french and american comrades. After my first missions in the P-38s Lightnings, they discovered my age. 43 years! What a scandal! Your American rules are inhuman. At 43 years of age one does not fly a fast plane like the Lightnings. The long white beards might get entangled with the controls and cause accidents. I was therefore unemployed for a few months.

But how can one think about France unless one takes some of the risks? There they are suffering, fighting for survival-dying. How can one judge those – even the worst among them – who suffer bodily there, while one is oneself sitting comfortably in some propaganda office here? And how can one love the best among them? To love is to participate, to share. In the end, by virtue of a miraculous and generous decision by General Eaker. My white beard fell off and I was allowed back into my Lightning.

I rejoin Gavoille (French pilot), of “Flight to Arras”, who is in charge of our Squadron in your reconnaissance Group. I also met up again with Hochedé, also of “Flight to Arras”, whom I had earlier called a Saint of WAR and who was then killed in war, in a Lightning. I rejoin all those of whom I had said that under the jackboot of the invader they were not defeated, but were merely seed buried in a silent earth. After the long winter of the Armistice, the seed sprouted. My squadron once again blossomed in the daylight like a tree. I once again experience the joy of those high-altitude missions that are like deep-sea diving. One plunges into forbidden territory equipped with barbaric instruments, surrounded by a multitude of dials. Above one’s own country, one breathes oxygen produced in America. New York Air in a French sky. Isn’t that amazing? One flies in that light monster of a Lightning, in which one has the impression not of moving in space but of being present simultaneously everywhere on a whole continent. One brings back photographs that are analyzed by stereoscope like growing organism under a microscope. Those analyzing your photographic material do the work of a bacteriologist. They seek on the surface of the body (France) the traces of the virus that is destroying it. The enemy forts, depots, convoys show up under the lens like minuscule bacilli. One can die of them.

And the poignant meditation while flying over France, so near and yet so far away! One is separated from her by centuries. All tenderness, all memories, all reasons for living are spread out 35,000 feet below, illuminated by sunlight, and nevertheless more inaccessible than any Egyptian treasures locked away in the glass cases of a museum.

Antoine de Saint Exupéry.

Saint-Exupéry and his plane vanished over the Mediterranean in 1944. Neither he nor his plane were found, and this situation of not-knowing lasted for 60 years. Then, in the year 2004, 60 years after his disappearance, the remains of his Lockheed Lightning P38 aircraft were found off the coast of Marseille. It is still a mystery why the plane went down. We’ll probably never know the full story.

That the author of The Little Prince, a story of a mysterious prince from another planet, who visits us for a short while before vanishing, also vanished without a trace – was eerily symmetrical, as though prophetic.

The final line of The Little Prince:

“Ne me laissez pas tellement triste: écrivez-moi vite qu’il est revenu… ”

“If this should happen, please comfort me. Send me word that he has come back.”

Saint-Exupery-800x530

I first read The Little Prince in French, as part of the curriculum of my 10th grade French class. The whole thing sounds better in French, of course. The most famous lines from The Little Prince I know by heart and they just have to be read in French.

Voici mon secret. Il est tres simple: on ne voit bien qu’avec le coeur. L’essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.

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

Posted in Books, On This Day, writers | Tagged , , | 14 Comments

Mirrors #25

I wrote a whole essay about scenes where men look at themselves in the mirror. Mirrors are amazing thematic and visual motifs, but they also work for moments where a character has to grapple with himself. Women grapple too. But because of societal norms – as well as enormous different kinds of psychological and cultural pressures – male grappling is re-directed and/or internalized – and how does one show on film something so deeply internal? Enter: the mirror scene.

These scenes are really useful for characters who walk through the world behind a persona. And “persona” could just be something like “I am normal” “I am a good person” “I am unthreatening”. However, when this person is alone at home, staring in the mirror, the truth comes out. OR, looking in the mirror is the character’s attempt to get to the truth, because the persona is so set in stone they don’t even KNOW anymore. They’re so used to hiding their softer spots.

And so there’s an extended mirror moment in Countdown, the new series which will unfold over this summer, one episode a week. The first three episodes launched a couple of days ago. I was excited to watch, because of Jensen Ackles, and then got very sucked in to the thing as a whole. The setup is cliched, but as I’ve said a million times, if a cliche is used well, it’s because the cliche works. Cliches can be lazy but they don’t have to be. They’ve hired a diverse cast of good solid actors – not just pretty new faces – people with some miles on them, in other words. I’m old. I appreciate people with mileage.

Ackles plays a Los Angeles police officer who has done mostly undercover work, and it all sounds very dangerous. Like, there’s mention of his time infiltrating an Aryan gang. Literal Nazis. When we first meet him he’s in prison in an undercover capacity, but he’s been in there for eight months. He’s off the grid. It’s The Departed shit. Not everyone can do that kind of work. You can’t really have normal attachments, a wife or kids, even a social life. (His counterpart is Amber, played by Jessica Camacho, who works mostly undercover, finds desk-job work tedious, and loves the adrenaline of being undercover. Nothing can compete with it.)

Pulled out of undercover to be on this supposed rag-tag task force, Ackles’ Mark swaggers through the office, antagonizing people, but trying to be charming, or maybe he’s not even trying. His charm isn’t charm at all. Charm has to WORK to be charming, lol. He doesn’t care. He’s not used to normal interactions and doesn’t seem to value it. He emanates “personal train wreck”. Being legitimately open with anyone is not on the table for him. If you’re going to watch the series, I won’t spoil it, but he has a secret. (Most of the characters do.) And his secret is a bad one. A scary one. He has told no one. Who would he tell anyway? He has no friends and no family (at least not as seen in the first three episodes).

Enter: an overwhelming mirror scene which opens episode three. (On the Plaidcast, I brought up Countdown near the end of the podcast, because the trailer had just dropped, and Bethany said, “Wasn’t there a Jensen mirror moment in the trailer?” I couldn’t remember if there was but … YES. There is a mirror moment par excellence in episode 3.) Jensen Ackles had so many fantastic mirror moments in Supernatural, which I documented in their entirety over on my personal meaningless Instagram project: Movie Mirrors. You’ll have to scroll back but they’re all there, 15 seasons of Dean Winchester mirror moments. Dean is a character MADE for mirror moments since
1. he’s so tough
2. he is a master at pushing stuff down
3. he is really good at compartmentalizing to such a degree that he actually doesn’t know what’s going on with himself.

So episode three of Countdown begins with Mark, at home, alone, taking a shower, grappling with what’s going on. He’s in the truth of his situation and it’s upsetting. He’s face to face with the secret. The scene goes on and on. He gets out of the shower and begins to consider himself in the mirror. He avoids it at first, and then faces it, leaning in, to stare at himself eyeball to eyeball. This is what I am here for. This is why I love these moments and have an entire category on my site called “mirrors“. Mark is trying – at the very least – to be there for himself. He’s avoiding the landscape of the secret, and is in active denial about what should be done. He knows what should be done but he is refusing to deal with it. There’s a devil-may-care kind of thing with his persona, but “devil-may-care” is synonymous with “death wish”. Here, alone, he feels the weight of it.

If there’s a mirror in a room, we are not alone. You can’t hide from your own reflection. Mark’s reflection says: You can lie to everyone else, Mark, but you can’t lie to me.

Posted in Television | Tagged , , | 35 Comments

June 28, 1914: “But if ever a man went anywhere of his own free will, Franz Ferdinand went to Sarajevo.”

FWWarchdukeMe[1]

June 28, 1914: Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie – setting out in their motorcade in Sarajevo that fateful morning, as the assassins, unseen, move into position.

Here are two excerpts from Rebecca West’s towering Black Lamb and Grey Falcon. The book is not solely about the assassination; it’s a travelogue, detailing her trips through Yugoslavia in the late 1930s. The whole book is worth a read – don’t let its daunting size scare you off – but the assassination section is very good.

This [June 28th] was a day of some personal significance to him [Franz Ferdinand]. On that date in 1900 he had gone to the Hofburg in the presence of the Emperor and the whole court, and all holders of office, and had, in choking tones, taken the oath to renounce the royal rights of his unborn children. But it was also a day of immense significance for the South Slav people. It is the feast-day of St. Vitus, who is one of those saints who are lucky to find a place in the Christian calendar, since they started life as pagan deities; he was originally a Vidd, a Finnish-Ugric deity. It is also the anniversary of the battle of Kossovo, where, five centuries before, the Serbs had lost their empire to the Turk. It had been a day of holy mourning for the Serbian people within the Serbian kingdom and the Austrian Empire, when they had confronted their disgrace and vowed to redeem it, until the year 1912, when Serbia’s victory over the Turks at Kumanovo wiped it out. But, since 1913 had still been a time of war, the St. Vitus’s Day of 1914 was the first anniversary which might have been celebrated by the Serbs in joy and pride. Franz Ferdinand must have been well aware that he was known as an enemy of Serbia. He must have known that if he went to Bosnia and conducted maneuvres on the Serbian frontier just before St. Vitus’s Day and on the actual anniversary paid a state visit to Sarajevo, he would be understood to be mocking the South Slav world, to be telling them that though the Serbs might have freed themseves from the Turks there were still many Slavs under the Austrian’s yoke.

To pay that visit was an act so suicidal that one fumbles the pages of the history books to find if there is not some explanation of his going, if he was not subject to some compulsion. But if ever a man went anywhere of his own free will, Franz Ferdinand went to Sarajevo.

Another excerpt:

In January 1913 [Danilo Ilitch] had gone to Toulouse with a Moslem friend and had visited the wonderful Gachinovitch, the friend of Trotsky. He had received from the leader weapons and poison for the purpose of attempting the life of Genera Potiorek, the Military Governor of Bosnia, but on the way he and his friend had thought better of it and dropped them out of the carriage window. Ilitch had also enrolled two schoolboys called Chubrilovitch and Popovitch, and gave them revolvers. Neither had ever fired a shot in his life. The few days before the visit of the Archduke Ilitch spent in alternately exhorting this ill-assorted group to show their patriotism by association and imploring them to forget it and disperse. He was himself at one point so overcome by terror that he got into the train and travelled all the way to the town of Brod, a hundred miles away. But he came back, though to the very end he seems at times to have urged Princip, who was living with him, to abandon the attentat, and to have expressed grave distrust of Chabriovitch on the ground that his temperament was not suited to terrorism. It might have been supposed that Franz Ferdinand would never be more safe in his life than he would be on St. Vitus’s Day at Sarajevo.

This very nearly came to be true. On the great day Ilitch made up his mind that the assassination should take place after all, and he gave orders for the disposition of the conspirators in the street. They were so naive that it does not seem to have struck them as odd that he himself proposed to take no part in the attentat. They were told to take up their stations at various points on the embankment: first Mehmedbashitch, then Chabrinovitch, then Chubrilovitch, then Popovitch, and after that Princip, at the head of the bridge that now bears his name, with Grabezh facing him across the road. What happened might easily have been foretold. Mehmedbashitch never threw his bomb. Instead he watched the car go by and then ran to the railway station and jumped into a train that was leaving for Montenegro; there he sought the protection of one of the tribes which constituted that nation, with whom his family had friendly connections, and the tribesmen kept him hidden in their mountain homes. Later he made his way to France, and that was not to be the end of his adventures. He was to be known to Balkan history as a figure hardly less enigmatic than the Man in the Iron Mask. The schoolboy Chubrilovitch had been told that if Mehmedbashitch threw his bomb he was to finish off the work with his revolver, but if Mehmedbashitch failed he was to throw his own bomb. He did nothing. Neither did the other schoolboy, Popovitch. It was impossible for him to use either his bomb or his revolver, for in his excitement he had taken his stand beside a policeman. Chabrinovitch threw his bomb, but high and wide. He then swallowed his dose of prussic acid and jumped off the parapet of the embankment. There, as the prussic acid had no effect on him, he suffered arrest by the police. Princip heard the noise of Chabrinovitch’s bomb, and thought the word was done, so stood still. When the car went by and he saw that the royal party was still alive, he was dazed with astonishment and walked away to a cafe, where he sat down and had a cup of coffee and pulled himself together. Grabezh was also deceived by the explosion and let his opportunity go by. Franz Ferdinand would have gone from Sarajevo untouched had it not been for the actions of his staff, who by blunder after blunder contrived that his car should slow down and that he should be presented as a stationary target in front of Princip, the one conspirator of real and mature deliberation, who had finished his cup of coffee and was walking back through the streets, aghast at the failure of himself and his friends, which would expose the country to terrible punishment without having inflicted any loss on authority. At last the bullets had been coaxed out of the reluctant revolver to the bodies of the eager victims.

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

Posted in On This Day | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

Review: Ponyboi (2025)

River Gallo is a really interesting newcomer, holding a unique space as an intersex actor/writer/director and activist. Their background – working-class New Jersey – suffuses Ponyboi, the feature length film they wrote and starred in (Gallo made it as a short back in 2019). I’ve talked a lot about the lack of working-class perspective in film and television: plenty of stuff takes PLACE in the working-class world but often you can feel the middle-class presumptions/preconceived notions/condescension of the creators. It’s too early to say “Gallo’s work is different” – and of course their position as openly intersex is probably the most noteworthy – but, for me, Ponyboi, with all its cliches, feels authentically FROM a very specific world – and it’s because Gallo is really FROM that world. Anyway. Here’s my review.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Review: My Mom Jayne (2025)

What an interesting emotional documentary, directed by actress Mariska Hargitay, about her mother, Jayne Mansfield. I reviewed for Ebert.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

“I know why the caged bird sings, ah me…” — poet Paul Laurence Dunbar

It’s the birthday of poet/novelist/playwright/editor Paul Laurence Dunbar. The child of freed slaves, he was publishing poetry when he was still a teenager, and went on to be the first Black American writer who gained an international reputation.

He was known (at first) for writing in the “Negro dialect,” conversational pieces, funny and lively, all “local” voices – like Kipling did, like Robert Burns did – and he was devoted to his mission in bringing the voices he knew to the public. He was included in volumes of American poetry, edited by white editors, a true breakthrough at the time. This was how he became known the world over. (He was criticized for his use of dialect, by people at the time, who found it a stereotype, as well as some later figures in the Harlem Renaissance. And perhaps those pieces don’t date well today. They need to be seen in the context of the time.)

He was extremely versatile, though, and didn’t ONLY write in the dialect – some of his non-dialect poems have simple forms – and simple rhyme schemes – but with a kind of romantic yearning – and clarity of expression you can still feel when you read them.

The Debt
This is the debt I pay
Just for one riotous day,
Years of regret and grief,
Sorrow without relief.

Pay it I will to the end —
Until the grave, my friend,
Gives me a true release —
Gives me the clasp of peace.

Slight was the thing I bought,
Small was the debt I thought,
Poor was the loan at best —
God! but the interest!

More on Dunbar after the jump:

Continue reading

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

“[Poetry is] a way of trying to come to peace with the world.” — poet Lucille Clifton

It’s her birthday today.

Rita Dove said of Lucille Clifton’s body of work:

In contrast to much of the poetry being written today—-intellectualized lyricism characterized by an application of inductive thought to unusual images—-Lucille Clifton’s poems are compact and self-sufficient…Her revelations then resemble the epiphanies of childhood and early adolescence, when one’s lack of preconceptions about the self allowed for brilliant slippage into the metaphysical, a glimpse into an egoless, utterly thingful and serene world.

As an example, here is the stunning poem she wrote two days after 9/11. Such simple words, such a simple structure – and yet what a huge outpouring of feeling. This is the kind of thing a Poet Laureate would do, express the grief, express what we all were feeling about firemen in those horrible days and weeks following the attack. And yet the poem feels almost “tossed off” – and maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t – either way: sometimes it takes a LOT of effort to create something seemingly so effortless. I wept openly the first time I read it.

Thursday 9/13/01

the firemen

ascend
in a blaze of courage
rising
like jacob’s ladder
into the mouth of
history
reaching through hell
in order to find
heaven
or whatever the river jordan
is called
in their heroic house

The Academy of American Poets creates these wonderful small videos called “Poetry Break.” A poet sits and reads one poem, maybe prefacing it with a couple of sentences about the writing of it. Nothing too elaborate. It’s a “poetry break”. A meditative moment where you can put your focus on something else, lose yourself in the worlds created by another’s words.

Here is one featuring Lucille Clifton, and interestingly enough (considering what I just wrote above about how her poem feels like it poured out of her in one “take”), she prefaces the reading of this title-less poem with a couple of words about how this was the easiest poem she ever wrote. It tumbled out of her.

Lucille Clifton thoughtful words about poetry:

While poetry sometimes to teachers is a matter of text and something to be studied, for me poetry is a way of living in the world. I think that I don’t produce texts, and I don’t do it to be studied, though I do recognize the value of those things. But for me poetry is a way of trying to express something that is very difficult to express, and it’s a way of trying to come to peace with the world. The mistake teachers sometimes make is that they think art and poetry—-they think that’s about answers. And it’s not about that, it’s about questions. So you come to poetry not out of what you know but out of what you wonder. And everyone wonders something differently and at different times. It is a mistake in poetry—-it is not a mistake to try to figure out the ways that it’s crafted, but its crafting is not what it is.

Her words remind me of Rilke’s command to the young poet:

Live the questions.

You can learn more about Lucille Clifton at Poetry Foundation.

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

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