It still doesn’t seem real. I still have moments where I think, “…. wait a second … he’s dead?”
In April of 2016, I attended Ebertfest. Directly following that, I flew to Albuquerque to attend the Albuquerque Film and Music Experience, where my short film – July and Half of August – was having its premiere. I arrived and my friend Stevie (he who stalked Dean Stockwell with me) picked me up at the airport, with much shrieking of joy at seeing one another again. We went to his house, he cooked me dinner, we hung out, it was wonderful. Then he drove me to the big hotel where I would be staying. Mum was flying in to attend the festival with me. I walked into the hotel and there were all these guests, wearing badges, and you knew they were there for the festival. Somehow, as if by osmosis, after I checked in, I got the sense that something had happened. Everyone was talking very intensely and checking their phones. I can’t remember who told me the news. I am sure I checked my phone. Maybe Mitchell texted me: “have you heard?” The bottom dropped out. Literally everyone in that lobby was thinking about the same thing, talking about the same thing, huddled in upset groups. I couldn’t BELIEVE it. I texted five friends. I needed to be with my Prince people. I texted my brother. I was in a state of shock. I got in the elevator to go up to my room, stunned, and a couple of other people got in, and I said, “Prince.” And they all – strangers to me – nodded and shook their heads and said things like “I can’t believe it”. I’ll never forget it. I was in the perfect place for news like this – unwelcome as it was – to come down. These were all artists and professional musicians. Everyone feels connected to Prince. He was only 57 years old.
The festival’s closing night was a concert by its special guest, studio musician/genius guitarist Nathan East, who’s played with literally everybody. His whole family was there, musicians many of them. Mum and I still talk about that concert. There was a FEELING in that theatre, a connectivity and love and power. I wrote a piece about the spontaneous tribute that occurred.
As awful as Prince’s passing was, and as weird as it was to hear the news in a place I’d never been before, surrounded by strangers … it was the perfect place for me to grieve, feel the loss, and also just be thankful I was on the planet at the same time, that I got to experience his rise, his music, in real time.
Personal Prologue over:
The Syncopated Ladies are a tap-dancing group based in Los Angeles, headed up by Chloe Arnold (she and her sister Maud were both featured in the wonderful documentary Tap World). They have a Facebook group where you can see their latest videos.
Here is their tap-dancing tribute to Prince. Tapping away to “When Doves Cry.”
One of the fun things in the wake of his death – if you could call it fun – were all of these crazy stories emerging of Prince’s behavior, random Prince sightings, who he was “out in the wild”. This was a persona he maintained, a persona that went so deep it WAS him. Because that’s how you get to be as huge as Prince was. Jimmy Fallon’s encounter with him is my favorite:
Everyone covers Radiohead’s “Creep.” I wrote a whole post about it. The song is an anthem for the weirdos of the world, the isolated outcasts, the lonely, the self-loathing. Prince did an absolutely epic 8 minute version of it at Coachella in 2008. I can’t even describe where he goes with it, what he does with it. The self-loathing is gone. It’s a celebration, a “fuck you” to the normals – it’s better to be a creep! – and he digs deeper and deeper into it, deeper than even Radiohead itself can go. “Creep” is one of those malleable songs where you can put so much stuff onto it. I still remember the first time I watched this performance. I could barely process it.
A couple years back, I had a blast talking with Film Comment editor-in-chief Nicolas Rapold and writer/Criterion editor Andrew Chan about “concert films” on the Film Comment podcast, and one of the films we discussed was Prince’s awesome Sign o’ the Times. Have a listen!
At the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2004 ceremony, Tom Petty, Steve Winwood, Jeff Lynne, George Harrison’s son and a host of others performed “While My Guitar Gently Weeps.” And that’s awesome enough, right?
But wait for it.
My cousin Liam said on Facebook in regards to this guitar solo by Prince:
Everyone onstage here is completely astonished and delighted. Look at George’s son Dani’s expressions. Widely claimed as the greatest guitar solo ever played. Which is of course ridiculous as that’s done every night somewhere from someone’s bedroom to a dingy dive to a soccer stadium, but this NIGHT, HERE, it was done by Prince. And it is incredible.
You keep thinking it couldn’t possibly get more epic … and then, of course, it DOES.
Prince was the music of my adolescence. I lost my virginity to a Prince song. I am a Gen X cliche, and proud of it. Even if you didn’t choose Prince specifically for your own virginity-loss, Prince would have been on the radio in the background ANYWAY. He was the biggest genius who was actually active during my lifetime. If you were in high school in the 80s, he was everything. He IS everything. And what was the song playing? “International Lover”. lol
He can’t be replaced.
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.
He’s still out there. His voice is not only intact but as powerful as it ever was. He is recently a widow after 59 years of marriage. He is beloved by his fan base who have been following him for 50, 60 years now. Let’s see who, of your young musicians today, will inspire that kind of loyalty. There will be some, I guarantee it, but you never know who it will be. Longevity is the name of the game. Staying power. Generosity. Integrity. Doing what you WANT to do. Not resting on your laurels. Continuing to create. Continuing to be generous.
Tom Jones’ cover of Gillian Welch’s killer song “Elvis Presley Blues” blows my socks off and I didn’t think anything could compare to Gillian’s version. The arrangement of Jones’ version is startling, intense, with no catharsis in it, no resolution, no let-up except in Jones’ vocals … the cover is an ongoing pulse of sound, never varying, a tightrope wire of electricity. But I am also struck by Jones’ performance. Of course, he knew Elvis. He and his wife would vacation with Elvis and Priscilla. So there’s a smile on Jones’ face, in his eyes, as he thinks of Elvis. As sad as it is that Elvis died so young, it is my belief that people should smile when they think of him. His entire life was an act of generosity. It wore him out.
As Gillian Welch so gorgeously wrote in her lyrics: Elvis went out onstage “with his soul at stake.” His SOUL at stake.
As I always say, It’s got to cost you something. Otherwise, why do it? And so someone who didn’t know any other way to do it, like Elvis … should be celebrated, admired.
Jones’ smile, as he watches the footage of Elvis, is soft and open, tender.
Powerhouse.
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.
His schoolmates had never really known him. Even his loving family could not tell for sure what lay within this kid who moseyed around among them with a hat on, singing. There was a pin-tumbler sidebar lock on his guts that no one could pick. That was just the way he was, and it was just the way he always would be.
Unlettered and rough-cut, Dino possessed both wiles and wisdom beyond his years – anyone trying to fuck with his mind or his body or his soul found this out forthwith. But the wisdom served by those wiles was an annihilating wisdom. It was the wisdom of the old ways, a wisdom through which the seductions of reason and love and truth and all such frail and flimsy lepidoptera would in their seasons emerge and thrive, wither and die. The sum of Dino’s instincts had to do with the old ways, those ways that were like a wall, ways that kept the world lontano, as the mafiosi would say: distant, safely and wisely at bay. That was how he liked it: lontano, like the flickering images on the theater screen that gave him pleasure as he sat alone, apart from them and unknown to them, in the dark.
Those close to him could sense it: He was there, but he was not really there; a part of them, but apart from them as well. The glint in his eye was disarming, so captivating and so chilling at once, like lantern-light gleaming on nighttime sea: the tiny soft twinkling so gaily inviting, belying for an instant, then illuminating, a vast unseen cold blackness beneath and beyond. The secret in its depth seemed to be the most horrible secret of all: that there was no secret, no mystery other than that which resides, not as a puzzle to be solved or a revelation to be discovered, but as blank immanence, in emptiness itself.
There was a picnic in Beatty Park. Roozy had gotten hold of an eight-millimeter movie camera, and they were all going to be in pictures. No one who saw that movie ever forgot it. The camera captured the silent laughter of the Crocettis and the Barrs. It followed Dino’s friends back and forth as they ran and fumbled, threw and jumped in a makeshift football game. There was merriment everywhere, but there was no Dino. Then the camera scanned to the right, to a tree off in the distance, and there he was by himself under the tree, away from it all, caught unawares and expressionless, abstractedly toying with a twig, sort of mind-whittling it. That was Dino, all right; the Dino inside the Dino who sang and swore and loafed and laughed.
He was born alone. He would die alone. These truths, he, like every punk, took to heart. But in him they framed another truth, another solitary, stubborn stone in the eye of nothing. There was something, a knowing, in him that others did not apprehend. He was born alone, and he would die alone, yes. But in between — somehow — the world in all its glory would hunker down before him like a sweet-lipped High Street whore.
Jesus GOD, Tosches.
Now whether or not that really is the real Dean Martin is up for debate. It’s really Nick Tosches’ Dino but the writing is so definitive it’s almost impossible to shake. I have always loved Dean Martin, I especially love how he seems to treat everything as an amusing joke, even his talent, his voice. He’s so easy with it. It’s like he’s doing something else, not performing live. I don’t know how he does it.
Here’s a bit from Peter Bogdonavich’s superb essay about Dean Martin, included in his book Who the Hell’s in It: Conversations with Hollywood’s Legendary Actors. Bogdonavich talks to Howard Hawks about directing Dean Martin in Rio Bravo, where Martin gives an excellent performance. According to Hawks, Martin was afraid he couldn’t do it, afraid it would be “too dramatic”, that he would fail.
Hawks told me how he had happened to cast Martin in what would remain the finest dramatic performance of his career. “I always liked him,” Hawks said. “I’d met him personally.” Martin’s agent had asked if Hawks would consider Dean for the role of the drunken deputy and talk with him. Hawks said, “OK, nine-thirty tomorrow morning.” When the agent said he wasn’t sure Martin could get there quite that early, Hawks just closed him off: “Look, if he wants to get here at all, have him get here at nine-thirty.” Hawks grinned, remembering that Dean had come in the next day right on time and said, “Well, I’m kind of shufflin’. I did a show till midnight over in Vegas — got up early, hired an airplane to get down here and I’ve had a lot of trouble gettin’ ‘cross town.” Hawks shook his head. “You went to all that trouble to get here at nine-thirty?” Martin answered, “Yes,” and they talked for a minutes until Hawks abruptly said, “Well, you’d better go up and get your wardrobe.” Dean looked confused. “What do you mean>” he asked, and Hawks replied, “Well, you’re going to do it – go get your wardrobe.” Howard went on to me, “And that’s what we did. I knew that if he’d do all that, he’d work hard, and I knew that if he’d work we’d have no trouble because he’s such a personality. And he did – he worked hard over that drunk.”
It shows – yet only in the best way – never labored, remarkably natural. Clearly, Martin never worked that hard over a role again, nor did he ever have as layered a part to play. Apart from a cowboy burlesque with Lewis (Pardners), Rio Bravo was also Martin’s first Western, which was by far his own favorite kind of entertainment. Especially John Wayne Westerns. In his last tragic eight years, supposedly all Dean ever did was sit in front of the TV and watch Westerns. Therefore, to co-star with John Wayne (of all cowboy stars, the most popular), and to be directed by Howard Hawks – for the director’s first Western since his triumphant debut epic with Wayne, Red River — must have been for Dean one of the crowning moments of his career. The performance he gave was a kind of committed investment proving to doubters that if he wanted to, Dean could, within his range as an actor, do just about anything.
Dean Martin was smart. He worked. He could have been ruined when he “broke up” with Jerry Lewis. The two of them were such gigantic stars together. Their legendary nightclub act helped make his name, as did the crazy movies they made together.
Dean Martin very easily could have sunk into obscurity, post-Jerry-Lewis. But he was bold. He was smart. He struck out on his own. He began performing solo, opening his act in Vegas on March 6, 1957. All of his friends came out to see him. He rose above what could have been a huge detriment. He was so identified as the straight-man to Jerry Lewis’ manic loony. Many lesser performers can never survive such a loss of identity. Dean Martin not only survived, he flourished.
I love the marquee.
Here’s one of the stills from his first solo performance, the night that would launch a spectacularly successful solo career. I love his goofiness.
Here’s a clip to glory in:
Observations: They walk to the left. They walk to the right. They walk forward. They are applauded for this as though it is a Rockettes kickline. Why? Because they are awesome. I like to watch this clip just tracking Dino, or then Judy, or, finally, Frank. Watch how they compete with one another, and then silently give each other props, like, “Wow, you just sounded awesome.” The sense of feeling and friendship between the three is genuine. You don’t need to DO much. Well, except have talent and genius. But if you have that? All you need to do is link arms, walk to the left, walk to the right, and you’re home.
He was a hell of an actor, too.
Perfection. Watch how easy he is with himself, with his talent, how freely and gently he shares it. It’s like breathing with him. It’s that simple and that automatic.
Do you know anyone who doesn’t like him? I don’t. I think of him as the embodiment of a certain kind of show biz, with so much charisma that he transcended trends and fashions, yet so low-key and subtle that it wasn’t shoved down your throat.
His variety show is a gold mine of talent. He is amazing solo, but he is equally amazing in duets with people. I love him and Ella together.
And him and Louis …
You can tell he is there to support the genius beside him, but it is in his almost self-effacing quality that he can be most properly perceived. It’s not easy to be a “sidekick”. But sidekicks make the main event possible. Jerry Lewis was best when he had Dean Martin next to him, reacting. Martin is so beautifully and easily supportive, but he can also keep up, vocally. He blended with everyone. He brought out the best in others.
And finally, my brother Brendan’s amazing comments on Dean Martin.
I remember seeing the Dean Martin roasts and being scared, like a drunk friend of a drunk uncle had showed up unannounced at a dinner party and started shoe-horning everyone into singing along to perverted folk songs. I didn’t know what he was famous for and those roasts seemed to hint that he didn’t really know why either.
Then, years later as a grownup, I heard “Ain’t That A Kick In the Head” in some movie, or in a bar. That’s really all you need to do…just listen to that song a few times in a row. It all seems like a joke. Then you start to hear how well he sings the song. Then you realize that someone could have completely fouled the song up. It isn’t a very good song, actually. Think about all the classic standards. Everybody does ’em. But is there another famous version of that song? If there is, I haven’t heard it.
How does he turn a mediocre song around? He doesn’t sound all that invested in the heartbreak aspect of it, there isn’t irony dripping all over the place. I still can’t quite place what makes the song work so well. But I’m going to try:
His presence and personality are so evident that you don’t even need the song. He has sung the song out of existence. All you want to do is hear him make a rumble in his throat and roll his eyes about how much trouble a broad can be. You also somehow realize that no broad ever caused him too much trouble. He causes them trouble. And they love it.
It is almost a taunt. What could be a stupid jokey brushoff of heartache turns into a come-on. It is a magic trick.
Another thing that strikes me about Dean Martin is that you get the sense that he would have behaved exactly the same had he been a truck driver, a grocer, a whatever. Most of the other stars of that era seem to have been transformed in some way by fame and what came along with it. This guy could have strolled around the streets of Rome with his jacket over his shoulder and 10 bucks in his pocket and it would make no difference to him.
I first encountered Gwendolyn Brooks’s stuff in Humanities in high school. Let’s hear it for public education. It’s only in retrospect that I can really see how good the curriculum was. We did a unit on the Harlem Renaissance. We did a unit on Japanese haikus. And we had to read “The Bean Eaters”. That was my introduction to Gwendolyn Brooks.
Brooks’ most famous poem is “We Real Cool”.
We Real Cool
The Pool Players.
Seven at the Golden Shovel.
We real cool. We
Left school. We
Lurk late. We
Strike straight. We
Sing sin. We
Thin gin. We
Jazz June. We
Die soon.
You have to hear HER read it!
Born in 1917, she died in 2000. She was the descendant of a runaway slave, and her parents instilled in her the importance of getting an education. She started writing poetry very early, and was publishing stuff regularly as a teenager. She meant business. She went to both white and black high schools, which gave her an interesting perspective on Chicago’s racial divide. Her father encouraged her in her dream to be a writer. When she was a child, her father built her bookshelves and a desk, sending the message: “This is what is valuable”. Brooks wrote in everyday vernacular, and you can hear jazz and blues influence in her phrasing.
The Harlem Renaissance poets were important to her, as well as to her parents. In the Norton Literary Anthology, the editors write of Brooks’s influences:
Brooks learned the hard discipline of compression from two sources. The modernists famously demanded that superfluities be eliminated, that every word be made to count (le mot juste), and this seems to have been the guiding principle of the Chicago poetry workshop she attended in the early 1940s, in which she read T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound and E.E. Cummings. Brooks also learned this lesson from the spare, hard, stripped-down idiom of the blues, which Langston Hughes urged her to study. Like the authors of the blues, she uses insistent rhymes and terse simplicity, and she can be at once understated and robust. Despite Brooks’s reputation for directness, her poetry, like the blues and other African American oral traditions, evinces a sly and ironic indirection.
She wrote a devastating poem called “The Boy Died In My Alley”. She observes, but not from afar. This has happened to her neighbor.
The Boy Died In My Alley
The Boy died in my alley
without my Having Known.
Policeman said, next morning,
“Apparently died Alone.”
“You heard a shot?” Policeman said.
Shots I hear and Shots I hear.
I never see the Dead.
The Shot that killed him yes I heard
as I heard the Thousand shots before;
careening tinnily down the nights
across my years and arteries.
Policeman pounded on my door.
“Who is it?” “POLICE!” Policeman yelled.
“A Boy was dying in your alley.
A Boy is dead, and in your alley.
And have you known this Boy before?”
I have known this Boy before.
I have known this boy before, who ornaments my alley.
I never saw his face at all.
I never saw his futurefall.
But I have known this Boy.
I have always heard him deal with death.
I have always heard the shout, the volley.
I have closed my heart-ears late and early.
And I have killed him ever.
I joined the Wild and killed him
with knowledgeable unknowing.
I saw where he was going.
I saw him Crossed. And seeing,
I did not take him down.
He cried not only “Father!”
but “Mother!
Sister!
Brother.”
The cry climbed up the alley.
It went up to the wind.
It hung upon the heaven
for a long
stretch-strain of Moment.
The red floor of my alley
is a special speech to me.
Brooks climbed to the greatest heights any poet can even hope to achieve, being appointed poetry consultant to the Library of Congress in 1985 (the first Black woman to be so honored). Chicago is full of streets named for her. There’s a junior high school named for her in Harvey, Illinois.
In the late 1960s, she went to a Black writer’s conference. By this point she was in her 50s, a published poet, an established voice. But she met and talked with younger poets, many of whom were Black nationalists. She said she found it “uncomfortable”, but she felt that she “woke up”. She put it gorgeously, using words only a writer would use:
“Until 1967, my own blackness did not confront me with a shrill spelling of itself.”
Brooks could not turn back. She organized a poetry workshop for young Black kids, and invited the members of a neighborhood gang called the Blackstone Rangers to join. She wrote a lengthy poem about them:
The Blackstone Rangers
I
AS SEEN BY DISCIPLINES
There they are.
Thirty at the corner.
Black, raw, ready.
Sores in the city
that do not want to heal.
II
THE LEADERS
Jeff. Gene. Geronimo. And Bop.
They cancel, cure and curry.
Hardly the dupes of the downtown thing
the cold bonbon,
the rhinestone thing. And hardly
in a hurry.
Hardly Belafonte, King,
Black Jesus, Stokely, Malcolm X or Rap.
Bungled trophies.
Their country is a Nation on no map.
Jeff, Gene, Geronimo and Bop
in the passionate noon,
in bewitching night
are the detailed men, the copious men.
They curry, cure,
they cancel, cancelled images whose Concerts
are not divine, vivacious; the different tins
are intense last entries; pagan argument;
translations of the night.
The Blackstone bitter bureaus
(bureaucracy is footloose) edit, fuse
unfashionable damnations and descent;
and exulting, monstrous hand on monstrous hand,
construct, strangely, a monstrous pearl or grace.
III
GANG GIRLS
A Rangerette
Gang Girls are sweet exotics.
Mary Ann
uses the nutrients of her orient,
but sometimes sighs for Cities of blue and jewel
beyond her Ranger rim of Cottage Grove.
(Bowery Boys, Disciples, Whip-Birds will
dissolve no margins, stop no savory sanctities.)
Mary is
a rose in a whiskey glass.
Mary’s
Februaries shudder and are gone. Aprils
fret frankly, lilac hurries on.
Summer is a hard irregular ridge.
October looks away.
And that’s the Year!
Save for her bugle-love.
Save for the bleat of not-obese devotion.
Save for Somebody Terribly Dying, under
the philanthropy of robins. Save for her Ranger
bringing
an amount of rainbow in a string-drawn bag.
“Where did you get the diamond?” Do not ask:
but swallow, straight, the spirals of his flask
and assist him at your zipper; pet his lips
and help him clutch you.
Love’s another departure.
Will there be any arrivals, confirmations?
Will there be gleaning?
Mary, the Shakedancer’s child
from the rooming-flat, pants carefully, peers at
her laboring lover ….
Mary! Mary Ann!
Settle for sandwiches! settle for stocking caps!
for sudden blood, aborted carnival,
the props and niceties of non-loneliness—
the rhymes of Leaning.
I love her stark poem for Emmett Till.
The Last Quatrain Of the Ballad of Emmett Till
Emmett’s mother is a pretty-faced thing;
the tint of pulled taffy.
She sits in a red room,
drinking black coffee.
She kisses her killed boy.
And she is sorry.
Chaos in windy grays
through a red prairie.
Brooks dazzles, but not by being ostentatious, proclaiming Truths from on high. The editors at the Norton Anthology compare her to Edgar Lee Masters (my excerpt of him here), which I this is so perfect. Brooks wrote of one community, highlighting all of their voices. Her poems – like “The Bean Eaters” – reveal entire lives in a couple of short lines, just like Masters did in Spoon River Anthology.
The Bean Eaters
They eat beans mostly, this old yellow pair.
Dinner is a casual affair.
Plain chipware on a plain and creaking wood,
Tin flatware.
Two who are Mostly Good.
Two who have lived their day,
But keep on putting on their clothes
And putting things away.
And remembering . . .
Remembering, with twinklings and twinges,
As they lean over the beans in their rented back room that
is full of beads and receipts and dolls and cloths,
tobacco crumbs, vases and fringes.
QUOTES:
Gwendolyn Brooks, from her autobiography:
I—-who have ‘gone the gamut’ from an almost angry rejection of my dark skin by some of my brainwashed brothers and sisters to a surprised queenhood in the new Black sun—-am qualified to enter at least the kindergarten of new consciousness now. New consciousness and trudge-toward-progress. I have hopes for myself… I know now that I am essentially an essential African, in occupancy here because of an indeed ‘peculiar’ institution…I know that Black fellow-feeling must be the Black man’s encyclopedic Primer. I know that the Black-and-white integration concept, which in the mind of some beaming early saint was a dainty spinning dream, has wound down to farce…I know that the Black emphasis must be not against white but FOR Black. In the Conference-That-Counts, whose date may be 1980 or 2080 (woe betide the Fabric of Man if it is 2080), there will be no looking up nor looking down.
George E. Kent:
[Brooks holds] a unique position in American letters. Not only has she combined a strong commitment to racial identity and equality with a mastery of poetic techniques, but she has also managed to bridge the gap between the academic poets of her generation in the 1940s and the young Black militant writers of the 1960s.
Gwendoly Brooks on her style:
Folksy narrative.
Starr Nelson, Saturday Review of Literature, on A Street in Bronzeville:
A work of art and a poignant social document.
Langston Hughes:
The people and poems in Gwendolyn Brooks’ book are alive, reaching, and very much of today.
Annette Oliver Shands, Black World, review of Brooks’ novel Maud Martha:
Brooks does not specify traits, niceties or assets for members of the Black community to acquire in order to attain their just rights… So, this is not a novel to inspire social advancement on the part of fellow Blacks. Nor does it say be poor, Black and happy. The message is to accept the challenge of being human and to assert humanness with urgency.
Toni Cade Bambara, New York Times Book Review:
[At the age of 50] something happened to Brooks, a something most certainly in evidence in In the Mecca (1968) and subsequent works-—a new movement and energy, intensity, richness, power of statement and a new stripped lean, compressed style. A change of style prompted by a change of mind.
R. Baxter Miller, Black American Poets between Worlds, 1940-1960:
In the Mecca is a most complex and intriguing book; it seeks to balance the sordid realities of urban life with an imaginative process of reconciliation and redemption.
Janet Overmeyer, Christian Science Monitor:
Brooks’s particular, outstanding, genius is her unsentimental regard and respect for all human beings…She neither foolishly pities nor condemns—she creates…From her poet’s craft bursts a whole gallery of wholly alive persons, preening, squabbling, loving, weeping; many a novelist cannot do so well in ten times the space.
David Littlejohn:
The words, lines, and arrangements have been worked and worked and worked again into poised exactness: the unexpected apt metaphor, the mock-colloquial asides amid jewelled phrases, the half-ironic repetitions—-she knows it all.
Gwendolyn Brooks’, on the disappointed critical reaction to her autobiographies:
They wanted a list of domestic spats.
Toni Cade Bambara on Brooks’ autobiography:
It is not a sustained dramatic narrative for the nosey, being neither the confessions of a private woman poet or the usual sort of mahogany-desk memoir public personages inflict upon the populace at the first sign of a cardiac…It documents the growth of Gwen Brooks.
Gwendolyn Brooks:
I don’t want to stop a concern with words doing good jobs, which has always been a concern of mine, but I want to write poems that will be meaningful … things that will touch them.
Thank you so much for stopping by. If you like what I do, and if you feel inclined to support my work, here’s a link to my Venmo account. And I’ve launched a Substack, Sheila Variations 2.0, if you’d like to subscribe.
The news of the death of pioneering Belgian filmmaker Chantal Akerman in 2015 came as a shock. She was young. 65 years old. Even worse, it was reported as a potential suicide. Either way, it was heartbreaking to lose her.
The impact of Akerman’s 1975 film Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles was such that it almost feels like its consequent fall – like not included on round-ups of great 20th century films, etc. – it’s like people couldn’t deal with the overhauling-revolution in film that Jeanne Dielman represented. It’s almost a call to arms. AND she was only 24 years old when she directed it. As much of a girl-genius as Orson Welles was a boy-genius, and yet we celebrate the boy-geniuses and ignore the girl-geniuses. Ever since, though, Akerman was busy, making films, making work, stirring shit up, giving great interviews.
Here she is in 1975 talking about Jeanne Dielman. Many film-makers have to work decades before they make a film as confident as this one (although there really IS no other film like this one. It stands alone.)
In the film Delphine Seyrig plays the widowed Jeanne, who lives in a flat with her son, filling her day with housewifely tasks (shown in excruciating real time: cleaning the sink, making veal cutlets, peeling potatoes, etc.), and from 5 to 5:30 every day she “entertains” men in her bedroom. It’s a compartmentalized part of her day, a part that seemingly does not touch all of the other parts. The film is considered (not surprisingly) a feminist classic (although Akerman didn’t like being referred to as a “feminist” film-maker – see quote in the title). The majority of the action is banal and may try your patience. Dennis Lim wrote a short essay about the film in the book Defining Events in Movies and his words capture what Ackerman was up to with her style of storytelling:
Covering 48 hours over three days, the film immerses itself in the ritualized minutiae of Jeanne’s household chores. These mundane events are captured with a static camera, often in real time. The viewer is compelled to experience the full monotony of each task …
Akerman so firmly establishes Jeanne’s routine that when the tiniest cracks start to emerge – overcooked potatoes, a dropped spoon – they play like major events.
The film’s portrayal of deadening ritualistic housework is a critique of the concept of “woman’s work.” Alongside that is Jeanne’s matter-of-fact prostitution, also seen as “woman’s work” since time immemorial. What else could women do if they weren’t all tangled up in so-called women’s work? This topic has been covered in many films. But Jeanne Dielman breaks that mold, shatters it, forces us to endure the “homemaker” stuff, endlessly: each day the same, so that we watch the routine, we understand how it should go, we see how meticulous she is … and then, slowly, also mundanely, the routine unravels. How can a spoon dropped on the floor open up a crack revealing an abyss? Watch how Akerman does it. With no dialogue. Sometimes it is not the story that provides fascination or interest. It is the APPROACH, the HOW of it, that breaks new ground, and that’s the case with Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. There are moments of extreme boredom. But then the film’s insistent and ruthless commitment to its own rhythm pulls you along with it. You can’t stop watching because something is going on. And that “something” is not visible, but you can feel it.
We see her through what she does. When things go awry, no matter how small, we know she doesn’t have much time left. The routine will be shattered for good.
Chantal Akerman has made many more films since that masterpiece in 1975. Some I have seen, more I have not. While she spoke eloquently about how Godard inspired her to get into film-making (she and the rest of her generation, amirite?), she was that very rare thing in cinema, or in any art: an artist with a truly unique vision. An original.
She financed her first film by herself, and also played the lead. It is a 12-minute short called Saute ma ville, and it’s on Youtube. Out of the gate, Akerman was confident, bold, personal, and – most importantly – she believed in the validity of her own perspective, her own voice and vision. She was only 18 years old.
This desire for normalcy accounts for much of the difficulty of assimilating Akerman’s work to any political program, feminist or otherwise. As an account of domestic oppression and repression, Jeanne Dielman largely escapes these strictures, and Akerman herself has admitted that this film can be regarded as feminist. But she also once refused to allow je tu il elle to be shown in a gay and lesbian film festival and, more generally, has often denied that she considers herself a feminist filmmaker, despite the efforts of certain feminist film critics to claim her as one.
On one hand, her films are extremely varied. Some are in 16 millimetre and some are in 35; some are narrative and some are nonnarrative; the running times range from about 11 minutes to 201 and the genres range from autobiography to personal psychodrama to domestic drama to romantic comedy to musical to documentary – a span that still fails to include a silent, not-exactly-documentary study of a run-down New York hotel (Hotel Monterey, 1972), a vast collection of miniplots covering a single night in a city (Toute une nuit, 1982), and a feature-length string of Jewish jokes recited by immigrants in a vacant lot in Brooklyn at night (Food, Family and Philosophy aka Histoires d’Amérique, 1989), among other oddities.
On the other hand, paradoxically, there are few important contemporary filmmakers whose range is as ruthlessly narrow as Akerman’s, formally and emotionally. Most of her films, regardless of genre, come across as melancholy, narcissistic meditations charged with feelings of loneliness and anxiety; and nearly all of them have the same hard-edged painterly presence and monumentality, the same precise sense of framing, locations and empty space.
More generally, if I had to try to summarise the cinema of Chantal Akerman, thematically and formally, in a single phrase, ‘the discomfort of bodies in rooms’ would probably be my first choice. And ‘the discomfort of bodies inside shots’ might be the second.
From Richard Brody at The New Yorker. The following bit about Jeanne Dielman is so important to keep in mind, especially when you think about how often women’s accomplishments are sidelined, ignored, diminished.
Akerman was younger than Orson Welles was when he made “Citizen Kane,” younger than Jean-Luc Godard was when he made “Breathless.” The three films deserve to be mentioned together. “Jeanne Dielman” is as influential and as important for generations of young filmmakers as Welles’s and Godard’s first films have been.
When she died, someone on Twitter (I can’t remember who) said something along the lines of, “Wouldn’t it be amazing if Jeanne Dielman was eventually recognized as the greatest film of all time?”
It could happen. Give it time.
UPDATE: I wrote this post in 2020. A mere two years later, it happened. Sight & Sound held their critics’ poll, and Jeanne Dielman was voted the greatest film of all time, knocking Vertigo out of its primary spot (which, only recently, had knocked Citizen Kane out of the prized #1 shot.) Now. I am not a list person. And the problem with lists is that it brought out the usual suspects, and it makes the assumption that Jeanne Dielman is “better than” Vertigo or whatever, which … I just am bored by that kind of comparison. It’s pointless. What I WILL say, though, is Jeanne Dielman deserves FAR more attention than it has gotten, as a ground-breaking pioneering sui generis work of art – a masterpiece – and it deserves to be “in the conversation”. As I wrote wayyyy back in 2020:
If you see any extensive list of Great Films of the 20th Century and Jeanne Dielman isn’t on it, or Great Directors of the 20th Century and Chantal Akerman isn’t on it, toss the list, it’s no good.
^^ I stand by that.
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.
Thank you to all those who sacrificed their lives — not just Americans — in the name of liberty and the sacred – yes, sacred – importance of the dignity of every human life. Your spirit inspires me now. We faced this once, we can face it again.
Here’s a post I put up every year: a compilation of quotes from the men (and boys) “storming the beach” at Normandy.
The biggest news of the month is that my book is available for pre-order. It’s about Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein (no release date yet for the film, but it will be this fall). I interviewed everyone, from Guillermo himself, to cinematographer Dan Laustsen, to Oscar Isaac, to composer Alexandre Desplat, to costume designer Kate Hawley, to Christopher Young, head of archives at Tiffany & Co. I interviewed production designer, hair designer, makeup department head, Mike Hill the creature designer, concept artist Guy Davis, the sound designer, the visual effects designer, Evan Schiff the editor … so many more. Jacob Elordi! Everything. Guillermo invited me into the mobile editing lab, parked in a warehouse on the waterfront in Dundee, and I watched him piece together a montage. It was an honor! And so interesting to watch the process. I stood on the sidelines during a couple days of filming, which was so cool – it was such a massive production! Putting all of this together in book form was a huge task! But I love the idea of having it be a celebration of the artists and true artisans and who worked on this film. So. Order the book!
I was the official witness for the marriage of my two dear friends, Keith Uhlich and Dan Callahan (both amazing writers: look them up!) The day was overwhelming and filled with joy. Happy Pride!
Three generations walking the sea wall on Mother’s Day. Mum and I went to church and then met up with Jean and the kids. The day was perfect. Sun block is important.
Waiting for Charlie at Bar 6 on a rainy day. Drinking a Bloody Mary and reading about the Beatles. It’s one of my favorite little bistros in New York and it’s been there as long as I can remember. At least, it was there when I first moved to New York. It was a common hangout for us in grad school since it’s basically right around the corner. So many memorable times there and it’s still a good meet-up spot. We walked over to the Strand afterwards. I bought a biography of Irving Thalberg.
Wandering through the green leafy jungle of the neighborhood, watching my nephews ride their bikes.
Here’s how Frankie is doing.
Reading We Don’t Know Ourselves: A Personal History of Modern Ireland, by Fintan O’Toole Journey to Russia, by Miroslav Krleža Revolution in the Head: The Beatles’ Records and the Sixties, by Ian MacDonald The Tragic Mind: Fear, Fate, and the Burden of Power, by Robert Kaplan
In July of 2020 , I reviewed the documentary Suzi Q, about Suzi Quatro. Because it was July 2020, the tour she had planned, alongside the doc, had to be canceled. Or, at least, postponed. July 2020 was some serious shit. I was bummed because I was so turned on by the documentary I would have definitely got tickets. Her journey is an interesting one: she knew what she wanted to do when she was very young. When she was a teenage kid, she was already touring. Amazingly, she didn’t get caught up in anything bad, drugs or men or exploitation: It was all around her but she resisted. She wasn’t even tempted. She got married young. Had a baby young. Was a rock star (at least in Europe) young. Her fame in Australia, to this day, almost rivals the Beatles. Ask an Australian. When she toured there in the 70s, she was greeted by screaming throngs at the airport, and transported via motorcade to the venue, throngs lining the roadways. She was massive in Europe. #1 hits, and these were songs she wrote. She is mainly known in America for one shmoopy duet-ballad, the only song that charted over here – a total departure from her normal aggressive sound – as well as her regular appearance on Happy Days as Leather Tuscadero. 10 years later, Joan Jett came along, and we embraced Joan Jett, maybe not realizing someone else did it all FIRST.
Debbie Harry, Suzi Quatro, Joan Jett
Joan Jett modeled herself after Suzi Quatro, which she fully admits in the interview she gives in the documentary. She had a poster of Suzi Quatro on her wall as a teenager.
Joan Jett in her bedroom, 1977
Jett was so inspired by this tiny girl playing a huge bass. Suzi Quatro paved the way for Joan Jett and so many others. Understand the continuum, and respect your elders. Or at the very least KNOW ABOUT your elders, because they got there first, and they made possible the things that came after. Do not erase them. Resist recency bias. It’s important always but even more important now, when the powers that be want to erase memory itself.
Just tripped over this and I love it: Quatro discusses her favorite bass riffs.
“A certain provincialism of feeling is invaluable. It is the essence of individuality, and is largely made up of that crude enthusiasm without which no great thoughts are thought, no great deeds done.” — Thomas Hardy
That quote above from Thomas Hardy is something I have thought of, often, and used quite a bit in my own work, as a critic and also as a writer of other things, here, my script, everywhere. It is a reminder to stay specific, to not worry about being universal, to let that (and the reader) take care of itself.
He was criticized often for the “provincialism” of his novels. They all took place in a 10-mile radius. He delved deep into one particular slice of society and never left it or branched out. But depth is as valuable as WIDTH. I love some of his novels, although I had to come BACK to them after being forced to read them in high school (here is my post on Tess).
The interesting thing is: I think because he’s so firmly established in “the canon”, it makes it seem like he’s part of the status quo or something. I’m not a scholar, I’m just talking about the vibe. He’s seen as one of those Dead White Males who represent gatekeepers and canon and establishment. But that’s just retrospect and a lack of … people actually reading him? lol Hardy’s views were so anti-establishment he was basically perceived as a radical in his day. His first novel was rejected because its satirical lampoon of society was judged too harsh. He did not look around the world and find any of it good. This was then – and is now – a radical standpoint, and in some circles, damn near heretical. It could be seen as a very conservative viewpoint, the kind of conservatives who yearn for the past, seeing it as some sort of Eden, disliking the complexity of modernity – OR it could be seen as a rejection of the status quo, a firm NO to upholding the existing structures – burn it all down, in other words – which is basically the opposite of classical conservatism. The establishment now “claims” him but they rejected him when he was alive. Hardy published all these novels, famous great works – titanically angry and compassionate for the suffering of the “little” people, those with no voice or power – and then – abruptly – switched to poetry. He then wrote VOLUMES of poetry over the last decades of his very long life. He was born in 1840 and died in 1928. Look at the changes he witnessed. He watched an entire world pass away.