“I got my first guitar at age of 7 and never laid it down. Momma taught me G, C, and D. I was off to the races son!” — Jerry Reed

Jerry Reed was everywhere in the ’70s. He was on every variety show. He was in movies. He did duets. He popped up. He was a major star, and – better than a star – a CHARACTER. I miss CHARACTERS. Like, I miss Jack Nicholson being a regular presence at awards shows, irreverent, playful, reminding us all to not take this shit too seriously. Jerry Reed was like that.

And dazzlingly gifted. Crazy. The original “Guitar Man”.

Let’s talk about his songwriting too. He was the ultimate MAN, right? But he had this wary sardonic awareness of the sometimes SILLY behavior of men, which he lampooned in his songs – which people blind to irony would probably take as endorsements. Like “U.S. Male”, which Elvis did. Like, that song is not a celebration of the qualities on display by the speaker/singer. It’s sarcastic. It’s a lampoon of the dummy-dumb boring macho male. Elvis, who had a sharp sense of irony, clearly knew this in his version. His asides are hysterical: “That’s m-a-l-e, son.” The lyrics are clearly tongue in cheek.

It takes a free man to laugh at the ridiculous foibles men – especially randy wild men, of which Jerry Reed was one – get themselves into. No wonder he and Burt Reynolds got on like gangbusters. Roosters of a feather, ya know what I mean?

More celebration after the jump:

Continue reading

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

“Can’t no man play like me.” — Sister Rosetta Tharpe

It’s her birthday today. In 2018, Rosetta Tharpe was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as an “Early Influence”. I mean, that’s nice, but it’s decades too late. She should have been in the first “class” of Early Influencers, alongside Robert Johnson. Never mind. She’s there now and her influence has been widely recognized. If you don’t know about her, then that’s entirely on you at this point. Catch up.

More, much more:

Continue reading

Posted in Music, On This Day | 2 Comments

“The worst enemy of truth and freedom in our society is the compact majority.” — Henrik Ibsen

henrik-ibsen

It’s his birthday today.

Some posts from my archive:

This is a doozy, an excerpt from an amazing book made up of transcribed lectures on Ibsen, Chekhov and Strindberg, by legendary actress and acting teacher Stella Adler. It’s a great acting book (and an insightful portrait of who she was as a teacher: she was the one who taught Brando (although she said that Brando in an acting class was like “a tiger in a jungle school”. She taught everyone. She turned out different types of actors than her rival and former colleague Lee Strasberg. Robert De Niro said one of the best acting classes he ever took – and the most useful – was her script analysis classes. These lectures are from those script analysis classes, and even just an excerpt shows why De Niro felt the way he did. Stella Adler on playing Ibsen: “You have to learn the size of Ibsen. The size of the conflict. The size of the land and how it stuck out into the sea. The size of the darkness.”

Henrik Ibsen was crucial in James Joyce’s development. Ibsen’s plays went off like a BOMB in the culture. They changed everything. They were controversial. They were hot topics. They were social critiques. They “went after” long-held status quo assumptions (like the position of women in society, as just one example.) James Joyce was awe-struck at what Ibsen had wrought – Joyce would cause an even bigger revolution than Ibsen caused – although the young college student had no way of knowing it at the time. Joyce became so obsessed he learned Norwegian so he could read the plays in the original. He wrote a letter to Ibsen, in halting Norwegian. Ibsen wrote back. Here’s a post about it: James Joyce’s correspondence with Ibsen: “I am a young Irishman, eighteen years old, and the words of Ibsen I shall keep in my heart all my life.”

More on James Joyce and Ibsen: Joyce write to Ibsen: “I did not tell them what bound me closest to you. I did not say how what I could discern dimly of your life was my pride to see, how your battles inspired me — not the obvious material battles but those that were fought and won behind your forehead — how your wilful resolution to wrest the secret from life gave me heart, and how in your absolute indifference to public canons of art, friends and shibboleths you walked in the light of inward heroism. And this is what I write to you of now.”

When someone changes the world as much as Joyce did, it is essential to understand what changed HIS world. In many ways, Joyce did two things: he shattered the cultural connection with the past – it was destructive, his gift – while also incorporating the entirety of the past in his own writing. It was both and all. Ibsen was the spark that lit Joyce’s flame.

This is critical of Ibsen, but I still think there’s much insight to be taken from it, and you can’t say that the comment is inaccurate. In Clifford Odets’ 1940 journal The Time Is Ripe: The 1940 Journal of Clifford Odets, he relates a comment from Lee Strasberg on “the blight of Ibsen”.

I think about Strasberg’s comment all the time.

And finally: The greatest performance I have ever seen was an Irish actress playing Nora in A Doll’s House at the Abbey Theatre in Dublin, when I was a kid. That performance LOOMS in my memory. It wasn’t until the Internet was invented that I could track down her name. I was 12 years old. I will never forget that performance. I wrote about it, and her.

 
 
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 James Joyce, On This Day, Theatre, writers | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

2026 Shakespeare Reading Project: Richard II

My progress:
Shakespeare Reading Project
Henry VI, parts 1, 2, 3 and Richard III
Two Gentlemen of Verona
The Taming of the Shrew
Titus Andronicus
The Comedy of Errors
Love’s Labour’s Lost
Romeo & Juliet
A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Richard II

I benefited from absorbing all the commentary on Richard II, because I don’t think I was picking up on the subtleties and what was happening in the language. Similar to Love’s Labour’s Lost, Richard II is a play about language, about how Richard’s language moves from empty rhetoric to poetry, showing – maybe? – his unfitness for the role of king. Harold Goddard refers to Richard II as a “narcissist king”, made most explicit in the famous deposition scene where he is stripped of his crown. What does he do the moment the crown is off his head? He calls for a mirror. He gazes upon himself. What does he look like without the crown? He has no concept of his SELF without a crown on his head. It’s a perfect example of a “mirror moment“, which I’ve been writing about for years and years – I even created an Instagram account solely for mirror moments – and I included the Richard II mirror moment in my Oscilloscope essay on male mirror moments

As I was reading Richard II, I kept thinking of Tsar Nicholas, and how his often infuriating passivity – his sluggish unimaginative day-dream-y personality – came from how he thought about his role. He considered himself an autocrat, he assumed it was forever. The winds of change were upon his land, and he could not adjust. He was the worst possible person for that particular moment in time.


Sorry, bro, but no.

Every democratic change pushed through – changes which might have saved him or at least staved off the catastrophe – he resisted. He allowed some change but then got in the way by insisting on doing everything himself. He is a deeply frustrating historical figure. Maddening. If I were being mean, I would call him a pussy-whipped idiot and I’m not sorry. I have no love for monarchs anyway. No Kings. My people are Irish. My ancestors are referred to as “rug-headed kerns Which live like venom” in Richard II. Look forward to your downfall. I’ve read biographies and histories of Nicholas and Alexandra, I’ve read their correspodence, and the two of them are MADDENING. These people are going to kill you, don’t you get that?? Rasputin is a PROBLEM. Put your foot down, Nicholas, get your wife under control! But he couldn’t. He didn’t really understand he was trapped until it was too late. I imagine he died still confused about how it had all happened.

Richard II, too, just assumes the divine right of kings will last forever. He does not understand what is happening until it’s too late.

Queen Elizabeth, apparently, saw the play when it was revived in 1601 and said, “I am Richard the Second, know ye not that?” Which is pretty interesting. She, too, was a poet. England was very proud of its absolute monarch, as well as their recent defeat of the Spanish Armada, but they also worried about what would come next, since the Queen showed no signs of marrying and/or producing an heir. Succession was on everyone’s minds and could be seen as the subtext screaming underneath all of these history plays. I squint at the family tree in my Riverside Shakespeare, but honestly the details of each “branch” are sometimes hard to hold onto, mentally. Richard II was seen as a nostalgic figure, symbolic of English unity (about to fall apart after him).

The history plays exist in clusters, triads – or maybe quartets, since some of the plays have multiple parts. You could see the three Henry VI plays and Richard III as the same narrative. The next cluster is Richard II, the two Henry IVs, and Henry V. The rise and fall of the Lancaster line. Or fall and rise. I get confused. From Richard II we move into Bolingbroke’s (Henry IV’s) chaotic reign. In Henry IV, Henry’s son hangs out with low-lifes in taverns, including a person named Sir John Falstaff, and shows no interest in being a king. In Henry V, of course, that wild son becomes king, victorious in his battle with France, where he makes a great speech (“we few, we happy few”) … but if you think about it for more than five minutes, the battle fought is not exactly the beach at Normandy. That’s a pretty rousing speech for what is, essentially, a rapacious land-grab.

Speaking of “we few, we happy few”, the old John of Gaunt in Richard II has a patriotic speech to rival that one in his death-bed scene. “This England …”

In Richard II, Shakespeare was more into the poetry than the history. Richard II is close – in form and style – to Romeo and Juliet and Midsummer – written around-ish the same time. The playwright was spreading his wings, lyrically. These plays make another kind of cluster, a stylistic one.

Quotes on the play

Continue reading

Posted in Theatre | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

“In the beginning I never found poems in the American literary pantheon about the things I knew best. I decided that I would at least do my part and try to put some of those poems in there.” — Rhode Island’s first poet laureate, Michael Harper

“My poems are rhythmic rather than metric; the pulse is jazz; the tradition generally oral; my major influences musical; my debts, mostly to the musicians who taught me to see about experience, pain and love, and who made it artful and archetypal.” – Michael Harper

It’s Michael Harper’s birthday, Rhode Island’s first poet laureate 1988-1993! That link is to the obituary in The Providence Journal and it gives a wonderful portrait of the man, his status in Rhode Island, and what he was all about as a poet. Here’s the obituary in the New York Times as well. He won many awards in his lifetime, including the prestigious Frost Medal for Lifetime Achievement from the Poetry Society of America.. Read that Providence Journal piece too to get a sense of who he was as a teacher, the accolades pouring in from students who were lucky enough to study with him (the girl who wrote the poem about her grandfather’s suicide is especially touching). He was born in Brooklyn, went to college in California, got his MFA in Iowa, and ended up in Rhode Island. He traveled widely, in America and elsewhere, accumulating a wealth of knowledge and experience which broadened his perspective. His poetic rhythms were, famously, influenced by jazz.

He was deeply interested in history, and many of his poems feature real historical figures, like John Coltrane, Jackie Robinson, Frederick Douglass and Roger Williams (the founder of the State of Rhode Island …and Providence Plantations. Littlest state in the Union, longest name). He focused on “kinship”, the dovetailing of narratives crossing cultures.

Harper got his start by submitting a poem (“Dear John, Dear Coltraine” – listed below) to a contest judged by Robert Penn Warren, Denise Levertov and Gwendolyn Brooks. He didn’t win the prize, but Gwendolyn Brooks (my post about her here) was so impressed she helped arrange the publication of his first collection of his poetry, Dear John, Dear Coltrane in 1970. It was nominated for the National Book Award. In college, he studied poetry under Christopher Isherwood, and through Isherwood met Auden and Stephen Spender – the great trifecta of ex-pat poets at that time. Simultaneously, Harper’s deep immersion in Keats and the Romantics made him feel that poetry was a thing he could actually devote himself to. (Can you even BE a poet if you don’t go through a Keats phase? It seems required). He got his degree, got his MFA, and began a very successful teaching career – in many different universities before he ended up at Brown University in Providence, where he taught until his death.

Rhode Islanders are proud to claim him.

Here are three of his poems below, two to John Coltrane, and one to Roger Williams.

Dear John, Dear Coltrane

a love supreme, a love supreme
a love supreme, a love supreme

Sex fingers toes
in the marketplace
near your father’s church
in Hamlet, North Carolina—
witness to this love
in this calm fallow
of these minds,
there is no substitute for pain:
genitals gone or going,
seed burned out,
you tuck the roots in the earth,
turn back, and move
by river through the swamps,
singing: a love supreme, a love supreme;
what does it all mean?
Loss, so great each black
woman expects your failure
in mute change, the seed gone.
You plod up into the electric city—
your song now crystal and
the blues. You pick up the horn
with some will and blow
into the freezing night:
a love supreme, a love supreme

Dawn comes and you cook
up the thick sin ‘tween
impotence and death, fuel
the tenor sax cannibal
heart, genitals, and sweat
that makes you clean—
a love supreme, a love supreme

Why you so black?
cause I am
why you so funky?
cause I am
why you so black?
cause I am
why you so sweet?
cause I am
why you so black?
cause I am
a love supreme, a love supreme
:

So sick
you couldn’t play Naima,
so flat we ached
for song you’d concealed
with your own blood,
your diseased liver gave
out its purity,
the inflated heart
pumps out, the tenor kiss,
tenor love:
a love supreme, a love supreme—
a love supreme, a love supreme

Here Where Coltrane Is

Soul and race
are private dominions,
memories and modal
songs, a tenor blossoming,
which would paint suffering
a clear color but is not in
this Victorian house
without oil in zero degree
weather and a forty-mile-an-hour wind;
it is all a well-knit family:
a love supreme.
Oak leaves pile up on walkway
and steps, catholic as apples
in a special mist of clear white
children who love my children.
I play “Alabama”
on a warped record player
skipping the scratches
on your faces over the fibrous
conical hairs of plastic
under the wooden floors.

Dreaming on a train from New York
to Philly, you hand out six
notes which become an anthem
to our memories of you:
oak, birch, maple,
apple, cocoa, rubber.
For this reason Martin is dead;
for this reason Malcolm is dead;
for this reason Coltrane is dead;
in the eyes of my first son are the browns
of these men and their music.

History as Apple Tree

Cocumscussoc is my village,
the western arm of Narragansett
Bay; Canonicus chief sachem;
black men scape into his tribe.

How does patent not breed heresy?
Williams came to my chief
for his tract of land,
hunted by mad Puritans,
founded Providence Plantation;
Seekonk where he lost
first harvest, building, plant,
then the bay from these natives:
he set up trade.
With Winthrop he bought
an island, Prudence;
two others, Hope and Patience
he named, though small.
His trading post at the cove;
Smith’s at another close by.
We walk the Pequot trail
as artery or spring.

Wampanoags, Cowesets,
Nipmucks, Niantics
came by canoe for the games;
matted bats, a goal line,
a deerskin filled with moss:
lacrosse. They danced;
we are told they gambled their souls.

In your apple orchard
legend conjures Williams’ name;
he was an apple tree.
Buried on his own lot
off Benefit Street
a giant apple tree grew;
two hundred years later,
when the grave was opened,
dust and root grew
in his human skeleton:
bones became apple tree.

As black man I steal away
in the night to the apple tree,
place my arm in the rich grave,
black sachem on a family plot,
take up a chunk of apple foot,
let it become my skeleton,
become my own myth:
my arm the historical branch,
my name the bruised fruit,
Black human photograph: apple tree.

QUOTES:

Michael Harper:

“[My travels] to Mexico and Europe where those landscapes broadened my scope and interest in poetry and culture of other countries while I searched my own family and racial history for folklore, history, and myth for themes that would give my writing the tradition and context where I could find my own voice. My travels made me look closely at the wealth of human materials in my own life, its ethnic richness, complexity of language and stylization, the tension between stated moral idealism and brutal historical realities, and I investigated the inner reality of those struggles to find the lyrical expression of their secrets in my own voice.”

Keith Leonard:

“[Harper’s] best poems about personal pain, about historical figures like Frederick Douglass, or about musicians and writers and, therefore, about artistry, his chiseled, forbidding poetics effectively suggest the harrowing unity between vision and memory, Western and non-Western, pain and beauty, by which Harper defines black identity and resists literary convention.”

Don Share, editor of Poetry magazine:

“He brought voices, traditions, and convictions into poetry that hadn’t been part of it before. His vast experience expanded American literature, and though he will be missed, his words will carry on resoundingly.”

Scholar Michael G. Cooke elaborated on Harper’s use of “kinship”:

Kinship means social bonding, a recognition of likeness in context, concern, need, liability, value. It is humanistic, a cross between consanguinity and technical organization… [Harper’s] approach to kinship is a radiant one, reaching out across time, across space, even across race.

Michael Harper, 1978, interview with The Washington Post:

“I’ve been called a black poet, revolutionary poet, a black aesthetic poet, an academic poet, an ameliorating poet — you name it. I’ve never made any attempt to qualify out the black content in my poetry. I’ve written poems about a good many things. I’ve tried to keep my range of experience as wide as possible.”

“A poet has the most difficult task: to be functional in the long line of tradition, the long line of the continuum of human culture. It is through the poet that the spirit flows… . You have a job to do, a function, and you must live up to that function, and that has to do with serving, with making yourself available, so that you can do the kinds of cosmic duties, human relationships, that are in the cards that you do; and you’d better do them.”
— Michael Harper

 
 
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 , | 3 Comments

Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh!

“Hear Dublin Roar!”

An exhilarating performance of the unofficial Irish national anthem.

For St. Paddy’s Day. Not “Patty’s”, you philistine.

Sláinte!

 
 
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 | Tagged , | 4 Comments

“If it hadn’t been for the videocassette, I may not have had a career at all.” — Kurt Russell

It’s his birthday today. How I love him. I grew up with him. The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes. I remember that being screened for us in grade school in what they called “the multi-purpose room” (lol: gym, cafeteria, theatre). And I loved him, I loved his face. I didn’t think “handsome” because I was 10, but there was something in him I related to. This continues to be the case. He reaches out to audiences, and you’re on his side. It’s that simple.

But that’s the thing: It’s NOT simple. What Kurt Russell has naturally, other actors try to acquire. But you can’t really acquire it. It doesn’t work if you have to work at it. Personal charisma can’t be taught.

I love that one of his earliest roles was in It Happened at the World’s Fair, an Elvis movie, where he kicks Elvis in the shins – at Elvis’ bidding, because Elvis wants an excuse to go visit a hot nurse he just saw walking by. He pays the little whippersnapper and the kid hauls off and kicks him in the shins.

It’s surreal, almost, that just over 15 years later, Kurt Russell would PLAY Elvis, in the 1979 John Carpenter-directed television movie, the first movie to “deal with” Elvis after Elvis passed away.

He’s fantastic as Elvis. It’s a thoughtful and deeply empathetic performance, and his “imitation” is fantastic. Elvis is easy to imitate and/or mock, but very hard to embody. Try to do an imitation of Elvis and do it seriously, organically. It’s not as easy as it looks. I wrote about the movie here.

Russell’s career has had many different phases, and there have been certain moments when he surged forward into an obviously new phase, but in general there has been no fallow periods. He’s never fallen so off the radar that he needs to climb his way back. Slow and steady wins the race. He’s been a star since he was a child. He has a very practical attitude. He’s not straining for the brass ring, and it shows. This is a compliment. Oscars don’t communicate actual WORTH. I mean, they’re fun and all, but it wasn’t until I started hanging out with film critics that I realized … wow, people take them this seriously? Actors and show folk of course are interested in the awards, and even get invested in their faves – but … they know that an Oscar doesn’t equal actual WORTH. The Oscars are important in terms of careers and opportunities. But none of it has to do with WORTH. Very very worthy films – and artists – have never been nominated.

Kurt Russell is one of the best actors we’ve got and he’s not “in the conversation” of the Oscars – at all – and he doesn’t run his career trying to get that statue. This is more a comment on the Oscars culture than on him. Cary Grant never got a “competitive” Oscar. Kurt Russell may never win an Oscar. He’s never even been nominated. If I were in charge of the world, and if Oscars actually meant what was worthy, he would have been nominated for Best Supporting in Silkwood, he would have been nominated for Best Actor in Miracle.

Silkwood came out in 1983, and his performance will never “date”. It’s one of his very best. He makes it look easy. He doesn’t linger or belabor over things. You don’t feel like he’s slumming, the way you sometimes feel when actors play working-class. He’s casual about things, casual meaning: he doesn’t make a huge deal out of himself, because it’s not ABOUT him. It’s about: what story is being told? How does my character help tell this story? What can I do to help this story be told? This type of thing doesn’t have to do with talent. It has to do with where he focuses his talent. Because he’s casual with his talent, because he doesn’t make a big deal out of it, because he doesn’t seem to need our approval … or even our attention … we DO pay attention. We are in a relationship with him.

Maybe because he focuses on story rather than on self, he’s not positional about his career: none of it appears over-planned. The biggest segue he had to go through was from being a child star, associated with Disney, to a young man, free of all that. First he did the Elvis movie, which began the process. Then, in 1980 and 1981, he made Used Cars and Escape from New York, and that was that. If you want to kill your Disney child-star past, then that’s the way to do it. He didn’t tiptoe his way into adult stardom. He took a blowtorch to any Disney expectations, by appearing in the most cynical American comedy ever made, and then as the badass-iest badass ever onscreen, eyepatch and all.

This focus on story – on “this script sounds good, let’s do it” – leads him down more interesting paths than he might take otherwise. I think it’s the main reason that he’s been in a number of movies that have gone on to be stone-cold cult favorites. Directors are smart. They trust him. They WANT him. He’s a movie star. He’s a great actor. He’s fearless and funny. He’s sexy. He can be very VERY dark. He can also be a clown. When he’s allowed to express his cynicism and pessimism, he’s electric and unpredictable. He’s got an EDGE. A steely EDGE – this is not something you associate with former Disney child stars.

In my opinion, he can do anything. Oscars Shmoscars.

For my column at Film Comment, I wrote about two movies starring Kurt Russell:

2020 was the 40th anniversary of the “miracle on ice”, so I wrote about the 2004 movie Miracle for my Film Comment column, including commentary on other hockey-related films, and also Kurt Russell’s amazing performance as coach Herb Brooks.

The second piece for Film Comment was something I had been wanting to write about for years: a piece on Robert Zemeckis’ Used Cars.

The movie was a flop. But it helped wrench Kurt Russell as far away from Disney as possible. It’s one of my faves. Russell got to be charming, but he got to use his charm in service of something calculating, cunning, and dishonest. A sweet spot! He may very well be the Last of the Great Rakes. I love a good RAKE and it’s a character type quickly vanishing from the earth … and we will miss them when they all go.

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

Posted in Actors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , , | 19 Comments

“A pas de deux is a dialogue of love. How can there be conversation if one partner is dumb?” — Rudolf Nureyev

Rudolf Nureyev — born on this day — was once asked how he got so much height in his legendary jumps. He replied, “When I am at the peak of the jump, I just pause a little bit.”

As though gravity didn’t work on him the way it works on us mere mortals.

And he was right.

02ballet-600

Joan Acocella, dance critic for The New Yorker:

Almost everyone who describes Nureyev eventually compares him to an animal. They bore you to death with this, but it was true.


Rudolf Nureyev’s solo debut on American TV, 1963

All quotes below come from Nureyev, by Julie Kavanagh, a wonderful biography.

But first: Here was MY introduction to Nureyev.

Excerpt from Kavanagh’s book:

We have to remember what Rudolf looked like back then on a staid British stage,” says writer and photographer Keith Money: “The bare midriff and all that glitzy Soviet campery were to some the absolute height of bad taste.” Most people, however, were transported by the sight of this exquisite youth yearning up toward Margot as the curtain fell, his fingers splayed, his back arched and pelvis thrust forward – “like a great Moslem whore”. And it was not only his passion and animality that were so stirring, but the speculation their union prompted about the ballerina’s own sexual depths. It made Verdy think of the King Kong legend – a “scene of seduction and cruelty … like the whole thing really was a bedroom … and you were watching through the keyhole.”

rn
Rudolf Nureyev and Margot Fonteyn

“They seemed aware of each other even when their backs were turned. When their eye met, a message was passed.” — Alexander Bland

“Combine the smolder, the mystery, the dynamic presence, the great streaks of vivid movement which Nureyev gives us with the beauty, the radiance, the womanliness, the queenliness and the shining movements of Dame Margot…” — Walter Terry, ballet critic, on Rudolf Nureyev and Margot Fonteyn

margot-fonteyn-rudolf-nureyev-great-ballet-partnerships-2
Nureyev and Fonteyn

“My husband called [the partnership] a celestial accident. To probe into its componenets is like trying to analyze a moonbeam.” — Maude Gosling, (ballerina wife of writer Nigel Gosling – good friends of Nureyev – and the two wrote a dance column together, under a joint pseudonym, Alexander Bland, see first quote above)

“Emotionally, technically, physically – in every way. They were just meant to meet on this earth and dance together.” — Ninette de Valois


Rudolf Nureyev and Margot Fonteyn, “Romeo and Juliet,” 1966

“We become one body. One soul. We moved in one way. It was very complementary, every arm movement, every head movement. There were no more cultural gaps; age difference; we’ve been absorbed in characterization. We became the part. And public was enthralled.” — Rudolf Nureyev

“He was transfigured when he danced. I’d never seen such unearthly beauty. He seemed unreal; not of this world – like an archangel.” — Ballet fan on Nureyev

2006ah5584_rudolf_nureyev_in_the_nutcracker

 
 
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 , , | 7 Comments

“The Greeks already understood that there was more interest in portraying an unusual character than a usual character – that is the purpose of films and theatre.” — Isabelle Huppert

It’s her birthday today.

Nobody like her. She’s almost in her own category. Her work is mysterious. It feels like she gives the wheel over totally to her subconscious. You never feel the puppet-strings of the actress. She never even seems to be “giving a performance”. It’s something ELSE, whatever it is she is doing. She can go deep – as deep as the Mariana Trench – but she can also present the surface – an equally important skill. Not every performance requires in-depth backstory. For example: La Ceremonie, the chilling film by Claude Chabrol, which is my favorite Chabrol, and one of Huppert’s best – most eerie performances. (She is often VERY eerie.). In La Ceremonie, she is all surface. And this is by design. Jeanne is shallow. The way psychopaths are shallow. She is what she seems to be. A perky mischievous young woman. Free-spirited and impulsive. Fun. Huppert doesn’t add anything to it.

Same with Sandrine Bonnaire, her extraordinary co-star. She is what she seems to be, too, a submissive easily-flattered lonely young woman, a bit dazzled by her new friend, pleased to have someone so glamorous and fun be interested in her. The two meet, and then flit along on the surface, having coffee, watching television, talking about nothing (again: seemingly: when you watch it again, you can practically HEAR the subterranean level of inchoate communication going on). Nothing seems to be happening, for most of it. You pick up on undercurrents, but nothing comes to the surface. Nothing is verbalized.

There isn’t even a conversation about deeper subjects, their resentments, their feelings of being stuck or wanting more, all the things you FEEL but they never say. They don’t say ANYthing and the terrifying final scene emerges almost like it’s a whim. It could not be scarier, since … it makes you realize: this is probably how events like this often go.

But that’s the thing about Huppert, and why she is unlike anybody else: you don’t NEED those conversations to occur, you don’t NEED to lead the audience by the hand. Besides, when you’re talking about psychopathy – which is what La Ceremonie is all about – psychology really doesn’t come into it. That’s why people are fascinated. What is it like to have … no depth? Huppert shows you.

But she can show you the opposite, too. Like Charlotte Rampling, like Theresa Russell, like Bibi Andersson – all actresses whom I consider to be in a similar category – if you can even categorize it – they don’t work IN the moment. They work way way WAY out on the far EDGE of any given moment, pushing it as far as it can go, so much so that they’re out in outer space, without oxygen. Their work is not literal in that way … they don’t work in easily-verbalized labels, they don’t take traditional routes, they don’t think traditionally. They go so much deeper “into character” that you are forced to lean forward, in awe, wondering: How … HOW … are they doing what they’re doing?

The eeriest thing about Isabelle Huppert is she doesn’t make a big deal of ANY of it. She came to Ebertfest for the screening of Elle, and during the QA following it was obvious how different she was from most other actresses. Actors want you to know how much work they’ve done. They list their research. They detail their process. This is not to say that process isn’t important and/or fascinating. If you know me, you know I love process. But Huppert … what IS her process? It doesn’t seem to exist at all. All that exists is the truth of the moment. And her ability to play make-believe within the moment. If I had to boil it down, I would say: she senses what is needed in any given script, and she devotes herself fully to that which is needed. She has no trouble excluding the things that AREN’T necessary (see, again, La Ceremonie. She is ALL surface in that. It’s why she is so tremendously frightening in it). She doesn’t worry about making herself understandable to an audience.

Think of her performance in The Piano Teacher. Now I love Meryl Streep, but it’s hard to picture her going where Huppert goes in that performance. Huppert is adorable and glamorous, and she can often be hilarious. She is very “realistic” – you never feel her “acting”. But she has zero fear about the ugliness of this world. She’s almost unwatchable in The Piano Teacher, the pain is so titanic and yet Huppert herself – the actress – breezes out of whatever role she plays un-touched. It’s like Gena Rowlands. Off-screen, Rowlands is a stable woman. She raised kids, she was supportive of her husband, she kept the house, she was responsible. But the roles Cassavetes gave her allowed her to let the panther out, the panther of her understanding of madness. Something similar happens with Huppert.

The woman I saw at Ebertfest saw Elle as a lark. That movie erupted a controversy – does the film endorse or condone rape? – one of those tiresome controversies it’s hard to avoid. I don’t mean to criticize those who hated the film. If you hated it, that’s of course fine. But I can think of nothing more tiresome than worrying over whether or not a movie condones bad behavior. I prefer to leave that to PTA groups and Christian family values organizations. I want no part of that. For such an upsetting movie, with such a bizarre central character (played by Huppert), the way Huppert discussed it really struck me. She had fun doing it.

She understood Paul Verhoeven. She understood that the film was not meant to be realistic AND that she wasn’t playing a strictly realistic character. “You’re not going to meet this person on the subway,” said Huppert.

And so she didn’t sweat it.

This is the thing I find so amazing about Huppert’s work, which is amazingly consistent in its excellence, and it’s just gotten more and more interesting as the years have gone by.

Some of the things I’ve written about Huppert:

I was going to write about La Ceremonie for my column at Film Comment (sob), but the movie was somewhat hard to find a couple of years ago. It’s now streaming on the Criterion Channel. Huzzah! I wrote about “folie a deux” films recently on my Substack, and of course, wrote about La Ceremonie, among other films.

Then there was Elle, which I adored. And to all the female film critics on Twitter who said things like, “No one who has been assaulted could like Elle“: How about you come up with an actual argument for why you didn’t like the film? You know, like, do your job, instead of attacking the women who did love the film – and there were many of us – in such a DISGUSTING way. I’ve been assaulted and I loved Elle. How DARE you. Only women do this to each other, by the way. I’ve been dealing with it since I was in high school. They draw lines, set up borders, police each other: You’re the RIGHT kind of woman, you’re one of us, and you’re the WRONG kind of woman, and so we don’t include you in our charmed circle. I think the film is brilliant on the concept of consent. I got into that in my Ebert review.

I also reviewed Mia Hansen-Løve’s wonderful film Things to Come (more on Hansen-Love here), which came out on the heels of Elle, and together they can be a master-class in why she is so unique. Things to Come is the epitome of down to earth and realistic. Elle is extremely stylized.

She can do both. Without breaking a sweat.

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

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

On grief: Eric Church and Anderson Cooper

Anderson Cooper’s “grief” series has been going on for years now, really, and I always find them so soothing, so comforting, just … the quietness of two people listening and talking, sharing, opening up the space to share thoughts on grief. There’s something weirdly healing about these conversations. Maybe healing isn’t the word. Maybe being in the “presence” of an honest conversation about what’s really going on … helps me to drop in to what’s really going on. Cooper creates a little oasis around himself and his guest. Grief is so personal and yet so universal. Grief takes many forms. There is no right (or wrong) way. But there’s no way you could even know this unless people TALKED about grief, which we don’t in this culture. At all.

I love Eric Church so much – I saw him at Outlaw Fest back in 2017! with Willie freakin’ Nelson! – and here he joins Anderson to talk about grief. I was aware of many of these events – the embolism that nearly killed him, the Las Vegas shooting – but I guess I was unaware about his brother’s death. Church’s brother – who co-wrote a couple songs with Eric – died by suicide in 2018. Anderson Cooper’s brother also died by suicide, 40 years ago, but things like this don’t get easier, they just change. So the two men talk about all of this with a disarming openness – nobody “has this”. Nobody does grief right. A conversation like this is almost like: How are YOU doing with all this? How do YOU cope with this? Because here’s how I’M trying to cope.

I’ve watched all of Anderson’s videos about grief – I always “get” something out of them, but also there’s something so lovely in just sitting and listening. I really love that he’s doing this. This one hits pretty deep.

Posted in Music | Tagged | Leave a comment