“The main thing about directing is: photograph the people’s eyes.” — John Ford

It’s his birthday today.

For Film Comment, I wrote about his somber, emotional WWII movie, with the title that really BITES: They Were Expendable. And they really were expendable. It’s an amazing film and – in my opinion – one of his best. It didn’t go over all that well upon its release. Too realistic, I guess. Nobody was in the mood for it. The war was over. Men were coming home damaged, emotionally and physically, or not coming home at all.

But it’s a great film, and a great tribute to the role PT boats played in winning the war in the Pacific.

Here’s a piece I wrote about doorways in The Searchers.

The Fabelmans gave me a deeper insight into John Ford’s horizon lines.

 
 
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 Directors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

2026 Shakespeare Reading Project: The Two Gentlemen of Verona

To continue:
Shakespeare Reading Project
Henry VI, parts 1, 2, 3 and Richard III

Scholars have been trying to justify and/or explain or even make SENSE of the last two pages of The Two Gentlemen of Verona for 400 years. You read it and go …. “Is there a page missing?” “Was a soliloquy cut?”

Proteus is a sociopath. He’s in love with a woman, he dearly loves his best friend Valentine. He goes to visit Valentine, and immediately forgets he even has a girlfriend. He goes after his best friend’s girl in truly nefarious ways, betraying everyone simultaneously. Meanwhile, his girlfriend back home puts on boys’ clothes and goes after her man. In the last scene of the play, Proteus literally tries to rape the new girl and is only stopped by Valentine, who then reads Proteus the riot act. Proteus – who has been nothing but diabolical throughout – listens to the speech and says, “You are right. I am sorry.” Valentine says, “I accept your apology my dear friend.”

And then …. they just go back to normal?

After the sexual assault … 10 SECONDS AGO … you’re good?

It’s funny to read scholars discuss this. They’re so connected to Shakespeare’s genius that they wrestle with his juvenilia. So they agonize about The Two Gentlemen of Verona: Is Shakespeare being ironic? Is the “gentlemen” of the title … sarcastic? Harold Goddard’s two-volume book on the plays is good, but he definitely has a little bit of this over-justification at what is probably just a new-ish playwright imitating a Roman comedy, like, Harold, it’s not that deep. But Harold says something pretty funny: “If taken at face value, this play is inane”.

I feel like it’s “both/and”, Harold, and it’s okay. Taking this at face value doesn’t mean Hamlet is any less great.

So I say:

Take the play at face value AND it’s inane.

Shakespeare didn’t really do “farces” but this is a farce. He’s trying it out. Normally in farces, though, when all the disguises are revealed, and all the lies and misunderstandings are untangled, you are left with a feeling of relief, “oh thank goodness everything is all right now!”

But HERE, Proteus is SO bad that you end up feeling like “….. Ew.” No happy ending can include him!

Back in the mid-2000s, there was a musical version put on in Central Park, and I went with my high school boyfriend. Because this is just how my life works. I am still friends with my high school prom date. The person who introduced me to the Marx Brothers, WC Fields, Mae West. We joined a film noir “group” at the local college, and we would walk there to see The Big Sleep or whatever, because neither of us drove. Anyway. The music was written by the Hair guys, so the songs were good. Rosario Dawson played Julia (the scorned girl back home). I still remember her dancing across the stage in her cap and pants, hair tucked up, since she was a boy. She was delightful. And so there were big dance breaks, and ensemble numbers, and there was a conga line, plus an actor rolling around in a dog’s suit … in my opinion, this is the only valid way you could possibly play this thing! Lord help you if you try to JUSTIFY that last scene or make it make some kind of sense.

You CAN’T justify what happens in the last 10 minutes of this play. Don’t even try. (Don’t even try, CHiPS.)

I don’t know how you fix the problem that the following sequence of events …

1. Attempted rape
2. Accusation
3. Forgiveness
4. Double wedding

.. takes place in a 5-minute time period.

W.H. Auden gave a series of lectures in 1946 on Shakespeare’s plays, they’ve been compiled in a book and I love it. I loved this comment from his lecture on The Two Gentlemen of Verona: “In a tragedy, a character would die in a deception such as Proteus’.”

Quotes on the play

Continue reading

Posted in Theatre | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

“All these weird stages in my teenage years are documented. Why did no one tell me how terrible some of those outfits were?”– Justin Timberlake

“The thing is that my idols have always been the types of guys who could do anything: Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Sinatra, Dean Martin; and when you look up to people like that, you don’t accept that you need to be compartmentalized.” — Justin Rimberlake

Mitchell and I love Justin Timberlake. Some years back, we discussed him. This was “pre” a lot of things, like Llewyn Davis, his new album, the Jonathan Demme concert film … we would have discussed all of these, had they happened yet. I am looking forward to watching Palmer. Big JT fan. I was very moved by his performance on inauguration night, with Ant Clemons, in his home town of Memphis, out in front of Stax Museum.

I asked Mitchell to describe Justin Timberlake in one word. And then I asked Mitchell questions. Mitchell was on the JT train years before I was. So were my sisters.

JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE

Sheila O’Malley: One word.

Mitchell Fain: Old-school.

I say that because he’s so multi-talented. I thought he was adorable when he was in NSYNC and I predicted that he was going to become as famous as he has become, although people laughed at me. I feel totally justified, which is a pun on his album name, by the way. He’s like Hugh Jackman and Neal Patrick Harris. They all could have been working at MGM. They can sing, they can dance, they can act, they have a personality, they can do a talk show, they can do comedy, people like to see them, they make people happy. I feel like he’s an old soul old-school talent. He doesn’t seem to sweat it. There’s something very grateful about him. Of course, I’m getting a lot of this from Rachel [Hamilton – our friend who writes for Justin Timberlake], in that she says that he’s very grateful for the life that he has. He treats people kindly because of it. Which also makes me love him.


Justin Timberlake’s Emmy-nominated performance at the ESPY’s, written by our friend Rachel Hamilton

MF: I think that we’re destined to be friends, that’s what I’m trying to say about it.

SOM: That’s really the thesis statement.

MF: I think we’re destined to be in each other’s lives.

SOM: [I am laughing.] So you liked him in NSYNC. That was when you first clocked him?

MF: I first clocked him when they were on Leno. Celebrity had just come out and they were doing “Pop”. I remember thinking: A, he was adorable, B, I really like the song, and C, he had a Michael Jackson quality. He was exponentially better than everybody in his group and I felt that he was destined to be a solo star.

SOM: What about him as an actor?

MF: I think I’ve seen everything he’s done. Depending on what he’s cast in, he’s more or less good. He was really good in Social Network – mainly because they cast him because of how we feel about him and what a rock/pop star he is. They used him really effectively.

MF: He did some stupid movie called In Time which I didn’t like but I thought he was good in it. His best is Friends with Benefits because he’s utterly charming.

If you think about old-school movie stars – like, the difference between Joan Crawford and Bette Davis. Everyone thought of Bette Davis as The Actress and everyone thought of Joan Crawford as a Star. And that was true of boys, too. There was the serious actors, right? And then the men who were stars, like Robert Young, Robert Montgomery.

MF: They were charming. Were they the deepest, weightiest, rangiest actors who ever lived? Probably not. But we liked to see them because they were handsome and charming. Fred MacMurray is a perfect example. When used well, he was very effective, and when used against type, he was also very effective, like in Double Indemnity.

MF: But was Fred MacMurray James Stewart? No, he was not. Was he Robert Mitchum? No, he was not. But when used correctly, in type or against type, he’s welcome. And Timberlake is the same way. So few people have that kind of multitude of talents and who also are allowed to do it. Neal Patrick Harris is another one, Hugh Jackman is another one. You know, it used to be – if you were a singer, you sang, even if you acted as well. Nobody thought that was weird. And then there was a period of time where it was super weird if you were an actor and decided to be in something goofy or musical. As if artists are only one thing. How many artists or actors or writers do you know that do 8 different things? We all do. We all can do a little bit of everything. Thats what makes us artists. He just isn’t being pigeonholed. My one complaint is that I wish he would go back and do some music.

SOM: I think he’s going for the movie star thing now.

MF: Which is cool, and he’s doing it right. He’s doing it stealthily. He’s taking cool projects, he’s staying in the mix. Maybe he will resist going the action-film route because he doesn’t need the money. He’s a gazillionaire. His body in Friends with Benefits, it’s so beautiful, I’m surprised he hasn’t been asked to do an action movie. His body is almost too much.

SOM: [I start to laugh.]

MF: Do you agree? It’s just a beautiful body.

SOM: It’s a perfect body.

MF: I hate him. I’ve gone to the other side. I hate him. I hate him for everything. I hate him for having it all.

Posted in Actors, Music, On This Day | Tagged | 10 Comments

“Medicine is my lawful wife, and literature is my mistress. When I get fed up with one, I spend the night with the other.” — Anton Chekhov

anton-chekhov

It’s his birthday today.

Anton Chekhov, letter to actress (and wife) Olga Knipper
January 2, 1901

“Describe at least one rehearsal of Three Sisters for me. Isn’t there anything which needs adding or subtracting? Are you acting well, my darling? But watch out now! Don’t pull a sad face in the first act. Serious, yes, but not sad. People who had long carried a grief within themselves and have become accustomed to it only whistle and frequently withdraw into themselves. So you can often be thoughtfully withdrawn on stage during conversations. Do you see?”

I quoted from that letter in my recent short piece on Hidetoshi Nishijima’s performance in Drive My Car (the best film of 2021). Drive My Car‘s central event is the rehearsal process for a production of Uncle Vanya in the city of Hiroshima. Chekhov haunts the film.

And now for a compilation of quotes!

Actors on Acting Chekhov

All quotes below taken from the wonderful book The Actor’s Chekhov : Interviews with Nikos Psacharopoulos and the Company of the Williamstown Theatre Festival, on the Plays of Anton Chekhov


Tom Brennan and Nikos Psacharopoulos, 1960; photo courtesy Williamstown Theatre Festival

Interview with Olympia Dukakis:

Something very interesting happened the first time I did Paulina in The Sea Gull. She comes to them in the third act, and says, “Here are the plums for the journey.” And when I was researching it I thought, why is she giving him plums for the journey? It always seemed like she was a batty person! And then I began reading what it was like to go on a journey then. There was a long time on the train, it was very difficult, the food was very bad, people would get diarrhea, constipation. And when I read that I knew what it was! Bowel movements! So, I mean, I could play that! That’s something that’s a private thing, you don’t announce it to everyone. I mean, if I came up to you and you were going on a trip and I said, “Here’s some Ex-Lax,” I wouldn’t make a big announcement! I would try to be confidential about it. So that helped me with how the moment should be acted. But even then, I thought the audience doesn’t know this, they don’t know that that’s what plums are about. The line should be prunes! An audience will know prunes.

Now the word in the text is plums, there’s no getting around it, the specific literal translation was “plums”. At least that’s what I was told again and again by Kevin McCarthy. Because Kevin had been in that production with Mira Rostova, he considered himself the big Chekhov expert among us. He didn’t think it should be changed. As usual I didn’t go up to Nikos and say, “Listen, I think we should change this, blah blah blah.” I just did it one day in rehearsal. Nikos fell over with laughter! Kevin was apoplectic. But I felt – it’s not the specific word, that’s true, but this is the spirit of it, this is what’s intended, this is what Chekhov wants the audience to know the woman is doing.

Nikos waited till Kevin had given me my scolding and left the room and then he came over and said, “Keep it in.”


Louis Zorich, Olympia Dukakis, “The Sea Gull”

Interview with Olympia Dukakis:

I remember my brother and I came to New York when I was in college and saw The Sea Gull with Maureen Stapleton as Masha. That was the one with Mira Rostova as Nina. And in this production, when Nina said to Trigorin, “Do you think I ought to be an actress,” people in the audience, more than one, yelled, “No!” Unbelievable!

But in that production, Stapleton was, like, on the edge. I still remember the very first cross she made across the proscenium, trailed by Medvedenko, just barely enduring him, and finally he says the line, “Why do you always wear black?” And she says, “I’m in mourning for my life.” She said this like: “Oh my God, I’ve got this creep following me, asking me questions!” You could see that it was funny, but underneath there was a motor running, the clock was running here. Time is running out on these people.

02062006115634
Amy Irving and Christopher Walken, “The Three Sisters”

Interview with Laila Robins:

[Christopher Walken] did something wonderful in that scene [in Ivanov]. Sasha has a line: “Exactly, that’s just what you need, to break something, smash something.” And Chris did this brilliant thing where he then took a pencil and broke it in half. When she says “break something” I feel that Sasha means for him to throw a vase or a chair or something like that! But Chris just did this little, impotent gesture which was so hilarious. And then his next line is, “You’re funny.” I felt every night when Chris said, “You’re funny,” it was really heartfelt. It was like he was looking at my terror as an actress and saying, “You’re funny!”

01262006122123
Dianne Wiest and Christopher Walken, “Ivanov.” I think Walken has played that role 5 times or something like that.

Interview with Christopher Walken

JEAN HACKETT: What was the process with Ivanov?

CHRISTOPHER WALKEN: I loved doing that. I’d like to do that again, actually. It’s a much better evening than it’s given credit for.

HACKETT: What happens with that man? It seems like he starts from a place of complete despair and then just goes lower and lower.

WALKEN: Yeah, but, I mean, he’s so funny. There’s a scene in it where I think he stands on stage and doesn’t speak for about 15 minutes. The party scene in the second act. He says nothing, he just stands there and watches everybody. And I used to get a lot of laughs in that scene. He’s so ridiculous!

Seag600
Chiwetel Ejiofor as Trigorin and Kristin Scott Thomas as Arkadina in “The Seagull”

Director Nikos Psacharopoulos on a scene in Act III of The Cherry Orchard between Mme. Raneskayeva and Trofimov:

There is a great sense of frivolity to this scene. Life catches up with you and you ridicule yourself. You have to allow yourself to go very high and very low. These are people who take their feelings and elevate them and manipulate them but finally the feelings catch up with them and take them to unexpected places. And then, allow the distractions to come in, the distractions of life, deal with what life brings you in the middle of all that’s going on inside. It’s as if Chekhov brings something almost Chaplinesque to this! It requires the emotional ability to drop one thing and pick up another and go any which way – but, underneath, your great need is still there. Break the parts of each scene up and rehearse them separately and you’ll find that.


Lee Grant, Blythe Danner, “The Seagull”

An oldie but a goodie:

In 2001, I waited in line for free tickets to Mike Nichols’ The Seagull (starring Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline, Christopher Walken, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Natalie Portman, Marcia Gay Harden … is that compelling enough for you?), being put on in Central Park. I waited in line for 24 hours, sleeping overnight in the park. It was the longest I have ever stood (or sat, or lay down) in line ever, and the experience got me thinking about what standing in line does to human beings. And all for Chekhov. Here’s a comic essay I wrote about that experience. The first time I decided “let me sit down and craft this narrative” in a conscious way: The Line.


Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline, “The Seagull”

And finally: a poem.

Chocolates

by Lewis Simpson

Once some people were visiting Chekhov.
While they made remarks about his genius
the Master fidgeted. Finally
he said, “Do you like chocolates?”

They were astonished, and silent.
He repeated the question,
whereupon one lady plucked up her courage
and murmured shyly, “Yes.”

“Tell me,” he said, leaning forward,
light glinting from his spectacles,
“what kind? The light, sweet chocolate
or the dark, bitter kind?”

The conversation became general
They spoke of cherry centers,
of almonds and Brazil nuts.
Losing their inhibitions
they interrupted one another.
For people may not know what they think
about politics in the Balkans,
or the vexed question of men and women,

but everyone has a definite opinion
about the flavor of shredded coconut.
Finally someone spoke of chocolates filled with liqueur,
and everyone, even the author of Uncle Vanya,
was at a loss for words.

As they were leaving he stood by the door
and took their hands.

In the coach returning to Petersburg
they agreed that it had been a most
unusual conversation.

And finally, the man himself:

Anton-Chekov-Seated-On-St-001

Anton Chekhov:

The demand is made that the hero and the heroine should be dramatically effective. But in life people do not shoot themselves, or hang themselves, or fall in love, or deliver themselves of clever sayings every minute. They spend most of their time eating, drinking, or running after woman or men, or talking nonsense. It is therefore necessary that this should be shown on the stage.

QUOTES

Eudora Welty:

I love and admire all [Jane Austen] does, and profoundly, but I don’t read her or anyone else for “kindredness… Chekhov I do dare to think is more kindred. I feel closer to him in spirit… Chekhov is one of us – so close to today’s world, to my mind, and very close to the South – which Stark Young pointed out a long time ago … He loved the singularity in people, the individuality. He took for granted the sense of family. He had the sense of fate overtaking a way of life, and his Russian humor seems to me kin to the humor of a Southerner. It’s the kind that lies mostly in character. You know, in Uncle Vanya and The Cherry Orchard, how people are always gathered together and talking and talking, no one’s really listening. Yet there’s a great love and understanding that prevails through it, and a knowledge and acceptance of each other’s idiosyncrasies, a tolerance of them, and also an acute enjoyment of the dramatic. Like in The Three Sisters, when the fire is going on, how they talk right on through their exhaustion, and Vershinin says, “I feel a strange excitement in the air,” and laughs and sings and talks about the future. That kind of responsiveness to the world, to whatever happens, out of their own deeps of character seems very Southern to me. Anyway, I took a temperamental delight in Chekhov, and gradually the connection was borne in upon me.

Raymond Carver on his literary influences:

Chekhov. I suppose he’s the writer whose work I most admire. But who doesn’t like Chekhov? I’m talking about his stories now, not the plays. His plays move too slowly for me…Years ago I read something in a letter by Chekhov that impressed me. It was a piece of advice to one of his many correspondents, and it went something like this: Friend, you don’t have to write about extraordinary people who accomplish extraordinary and memorable deeds…. Reading what Chekhov had to say in that letter, and in other letters of his as well, and reading his stories, made me see things differently than I had before. Not long afterwards I read a play and a number of stories by Maxim Gorky, and he simply reinforced in his work what Chekhov had to say.

Tennessee Williams, letter to Andrew Lynden, March 1943:

Life is more serious than all these things. D.H. Lawrence was the only [one] who realized how serious it was and his writing which is honest about it seems grotesque. Chekhov knew but also knew it would be grotesque if you tried to say it, so there is always the beautiful incompletion, the allusion and delicacy which Lawrence lost, with a sense of a deeper knowledge under it all.

Ted Hughes:

Remember the unresolved opposition of Trigorin and Treplev in Chekhov’s The Seagull? Chekhov had a huge nostalgia for Treplev’s weird vision. Somewhere he described the sort of work he longed to write – full of passionate, howling women, Greek tragedy dimension – and he bemoans the gentle doctor’s attentiveness that imbues his actual writing. Now, if he’d been anonymous from the start, might he have explored the other things too? In poetry, living as a public persona in your writing is maybe even more crippling. Once you’ve contracted to write only the truth about yourself – as in some respected kinds of modern verse, or as in Shakespeare’s sonnets – then you can too easily limit yourself to what you imagine are the truths of the ego that claims your conscious biography. Your own equivalent of what Shakespeare got into his plays is simply foregone.

 
 
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, Theatre, writers | Tagged , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Happy birthday, Polly Platt

“As a child, I wanted everything I saw in movies. I always wanted to strain spaghetti with tennis rackets.” — Polly Platt

She is, of course, referring to Jack Lemmon in The Apartment:

Polly Platt was a mostly unsung jack-of-all trades, married to Peter Bogdanovich at one point, a crucial collaborator on his extraordinary run of early films, and one of those people behind the scenes without whom great movies can’t happen. And someone like Platt won’t get the credit for her contributions – it’s just the nature of the game – but that doesn’t make what she did any less of an accomplishment.

An admirer of Platt, as I am, I could not have been more thrilled that Karina Longworth, creator of the massively successful podcast You Must Remember This devoted an entire season to the career of Polly Platt. It’s a hell of a listen, it’s a far deeper dive into her work than has ever existed before. Even when she died in 2011, and all the amazing tributes started coming in – it’s entirely different than having a multi-part series on her entire career.

She worked on some of my favorite movies of all time, although “worked on” is an understatement and her smarts and drive and creativity (not to mention her work as a producer) helped to actually create movies like The Last Picture Show, What’s Up Doc?, Paper Moon and my God Bad News Bears. She was the production designer for Barbra Streisand’s A Star is Born, she wrote the screenplay for the very controversial film Pretty Baby (and also produced), she was executive vice president of James Brooks’ production company. She was the first woman in the Art Directors’ Guild. (This is nothing to cheer about though. It was the 1970s. You all should be ASHAMED of yourselves.) She was art director on Terms of Endearment (nominated for an Oscar), and co-produced a bunch of classics, indie and non-indie, films like War of the Roses, Broadcast News, Say Anything, Dogtown, Bottle Rocket, production designed The Witches of Eastwick … the list goes on and on (and you’ll notice she worked in so many different fields: art direction, writing, producing, production design. She was often the only woman in any given room.

As a collaborator, she was innovative, smart, and made things happen. She always had her eye on the whole of every project. She did not toil away in a corner on her own little piece of it. Every choice she made dovetailed into the larger concern. This is what is meant by collaboration and Polly Platt was one of the greatest of collaborators.

In the midst of sometimes chaotic movie shoots when people start to lose track of their own names, not to mention their moral compasses, let alone remember what the hell it is they are trying to make, Polly Platt ALWAYS remembered what they were “trying to make”.

Polly Platt described, in her own words, how she solved a problem during the shoot of Paper Moon. I love the story. Pay attention to how she thinks about said problem, and solves the problem, but also look at how she weaves the solution into the WHOLE. She justifies her choice in terms of character (“this hat belonged to her mother”), and the hat itself becomes a potent symbol and character-detail that is one of the unforgettable parts of the movie.

This is how you create art. You solve problems, but you don’t just solve them to solve them. You justify your choices. This is true for actors (justify, justify, justify) and it is true for everyone working on a movie.

Working under the gun to solve an urgent problem, Platt came up with a solution that not only solved said problem, but expands out the character for us, letting us know more about her.

If you think this is easy to do, then you know nothing about making movies.

Polly Platt:

One day Alvin Sargent and Peter Bogdanovich came to me and they said, “There’s a scene in the movie where the sheriff is looking for the money and it’s hiding in plain sight: How can we have the money hiding in plain sight where the sheriff can’t see it? What do we do?” They came to me with the problem. And Paramount had the most beautiful old laces and velvets and silks and buttons and I remembered this extraordinary brown lace and the lace was quite intricate and I realized that if I designed a hat for Tatum which, in my mind, was the hat of her mother, I thought, we could have the lace go around the hat and then we could tuck the money right into the lace. Unless you were really looking for it, nobody would really know it was there. So the hat itself was designed as they were doing improvements on the script. That’s how that came to be, and they were very happy with my solution.

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

Happy Birthday, Dorothy Malone

I was so happy to pay tribute to Dorothy Malone for Film Comment.

The actress – whose career spanned over 50 years – died in 2018 at the age of 93. She was an Oscar-winning actress who ended up on television in Peyton Place, a choice many at the time thought was a shameful “step down”. Television wasn’t seen as legitimate like film or theatre. But Malone’s instincts were correct. Peyton Place was a smash hit and a cultural flash-point. Peyton Place was an early example of “appointment television.”


Dorothy Malone, and fellow “Peyton Place” cast member, Gena Rowlands

My first exposure to Malone – as is probably true of most people – was in Howard Hawks’ The Big Sleep, where she is unforgettable in her one scene in the bookshop with Humphrey Bogart. Malone’s nameless bookstore clerk is one of the few truly liberated women in cinema. I don’t know anyone who isn’t affected by this scene in a primal way. Men never forget her. Women find her aspirational. A lesbian friend of mine – normally very articulate – can’t even discuss the scene. “Forget it. I’m hers forever.”

Liberation isn’t just about being able to say “no.” Saying “no” is important. But true liberation comes when you are able to say “yes” – to feel the “yes” within you before he even says anything and then moving forward to get what you want. It’s such a great scene showing what this “saying ‘yes'” can look like, starting with his questioning of her and then ending with what is obviously going to be afternoon delight … among the stacks … among the stacks! Malone makes such an impression you keep hoping she’ll return. (It’s a bold move to put such a strong female character in the film, since it’s mainly a vehicle for Bacall and Bogart. But Bogart, in the film, is surrounded by viable alternatives, including the sassy cab driver who gives him her card – yet another liberated woman.) Most men would overlook Malone’s character at first glance, or at least not perceive the sexual potential. She’s not a bombshell. She’s not a vamp. She looks prim and proper. But she’s a smart cookie, and – importantly – smart about what she’s feeling in the moment (not too many people are). She feels the heat with this stranger – feels how hot she is for him – and decides to act upon it. Without shame, without coyness, without anything other than a frank admission of her own desire.

She takes off her glasses.

And, to quote my friend: “Forget it.”

In 1956, of course, Dorothy Malone won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance as quintessential “bad girl” in Douglas Sirk’s Written on the Wind. David Lynch is on record with his love for Written on the Wind. I always thought he was referencing Dorothy Malone in Written on the Wind with this shot in Lost Highway.

 
 
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 , , , | 4 Comments

2026 Shakespeare Reading Project: Rose Rage

… or: the three Henry VIs and Richard III

Life is very very hard right now. Unprecedentedly hard on all fronts. And so I wanted a “hard” reading project this year. By hard, I mean, something involved that requires a plan of attack. I don’t need to be RELAXED. I need to be ABSORBED. My reading project of 2026 is a chronological (as much can be determined, anyway) read of Shakespeare’s plays. It’s been a while since I’ve done this. I’m keeping notes, too, which gives the project a “scholarly” feel, like homework, like I’m memorizing for some test that will never come. I thought it might be fun to jot down my decidedly un-scholarly notes and also put together a list of quotes – from the plays and/or people writing about the plays. Just to track my progress. I have a couple books I refer to: Marjorie Garber’s wonderful Shakespeare After All, the collection of essays Auden gave in 1946 about the plays, Mark van Doren’s Shakespeare, Harold Goddard’s The Meaning of Shakespeare, and William Hazlitt’s book The Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays. I’m using my Riverside Shakespeare, which I bought in college, and so glad I did.

I started with Henry VI, parts 1, 2, and 3. Of course which came first in his canon is undetermined and different editions put them in different orders, but in general the early plays are Two Gentlemen of Verona, Comedy of Errors, Henry VI, Titus Andronicus. After Henry VI, of course, comes Richard III, the first major work in the timeline, the first really important play (although the others have their importance: maybe you coudn’t write a Richard III if you hadn’t written Henry VI, parts 1, 2, and 3 yet.)

Henry VI is pretty rough going at times. There’s no humor! Not even anything witty! Nothing! 18th-century Shakespeare scholar Maurice Morgann referred to Henry VI part 1 as “that drum and trumpet thing”, which is pretty funny. But it’s also an accurate description. Except for the rabble-rousing Jack Cade in Part 2, nobody talks like a real person. It’s all declamatory rhetoric. (I remember my Irish-American dad saying to me, in college, when I first read the history plays, his tone dripping with Irish scorn – “it’s just royalist propaganda”. He’s not wrong.)

Suddenly, in the 3rd Henry VI there appears, almost from out of nowhere, the Duke of Gloucester, fourth son of the king, he who would eventually be known as Richard III. Trying to assign anything specific to Shakespeare in terms of his process is a fool’s errand so this is just an observation. Reading the plays chronologically (as much as possible, at any rate. I think there’s speculation that Henry VI part 1 was written after parts 2 and 3, essentially as a prequel) is revealing: it’s as if by the time Shakespeare arrived at Henry VI part 3 he had his sea legs under him, and became more interested in a single character than in laying out the plot. It’s almost as though Richard took Shakespeare by surprise too.

The other plays start with a crowd onstage, “drum and trumpet” flourish, kings and lords laying out what’s going on. But in the mighty Richard III, the next in the cycle, the play starts with Richard alone onstage, saying “Now is the winter of our discontent”. If you read these plays in order, you’re like “Where the hell did YOU come from?”

That first soliloquy is 40 lines but just five sentences. He can’t stop himself from talking. Confiding in us. Letting us in on who he is, how he sees things. He makes us complicit. He’s so evil, but he’s fun and mischievous, winking at us as he goes about some new outrageous plan – and succeeds! (Until he doesn’t.)

Richard’s last soliloquy in Act V of Richard III after he sees the ghosts on the battlefield of everyone he killed (or had killed) is where he shatters. Guilt and shame are foreign to him: he can’t absorb it, falling back on himself. I just counted: the soliloquy is 30 lines and he says the words “I”, “me” “myself” 38 times. He is literally a mirror crack’d – me me me me – he is the only person who exists. What does a tyrant do when he is confronted with the wrong he committed? Of course: self-pity. Suddenly Richard is saying stuff like, “When I die no one will mourn me.”

You’re right, Richard. Maybe don’t kill everyone and people will love you.

Richard III is a monster of a part in a monster of a play. There’s a reason why actors who play the role have injured themselves – for good – contorting their backs physically with no break for five long acts. Shakespeare would get better at this with his other massive plays featuring a central character. He was an actor and a man of the theatre. He understood pacing so he eventually built in breaks. The actor playing Hamlet, or King Lear, has breathers, there are scenes where he’s not involved and can catch his breath backstage. There’s the phenomenal scene with the three Queens (sounds like the finale of Ru Paul) – cursing their son / grandson. It’s a very long scene where the actor playing Richard can go have a smoke break and relax his contorted body.

It’s wild to read a play by Shakespeare where there is no comedic element, and not even a song. Songs are so important in Shakespeare! These “drum and trumpet” plays probably have horns blowing offstage but that’s all the music we’re going to get.

Also: from the jump, Shakespeare devotes care and stage time to the women. They are diverse, they are good, bad, selfish, lustful, earnest, they are victims and they are warriors. So many great women characters from out of the gate.

Reading them in order is not exactly fun but it is fun to “meet” the Duke of Gloucester in Henry VI part 3 and recognize immediately that something else is going on with this character, something has been activated in the writer – imagination, creativity, FUN, even. You can FEEL Shakespeare suddenly get interested.

Quotes on the plays

Continue reading

Posted in Theatre | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

“I think I’m invisible sometimes.” — Ingrid Thulin

It’s her birthday today.

I’m really proud of the video-essay I wrote on her for Criterion: The Eerie Intensity of Ingrid Thulin

One of Ingmar Bergman’s repertory company of actors. As heavy-hitting as Liv Ullmann, Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson. She wasn’t fully fluent in English and therefore she didn’t move into international stardom the way Liv Ullmann was able to do. But let’s not get it twisted. She worked with the great European directors: Bergman, Luchino Visconti, Alain Resnais … Of course her legacy is her work with Bergman. Her work in Bergman’s films is as good as it gets. She trained as a ballerina before switching to acting. She appeared in a number of films and television series in the 1950s, before catching Bergman’s eye. He cast her as the daughter-in-law in Wild Strawberries, where she makes an enormous impression, her chilly blonde beauty hiding a dark ambiguous soul.

After Wild Strawberries, she appeared in two more Bergman films, Brink of Life and The Magician, in two wildly different roles, giving just a glimpse of her dazzling diversity. Unlike other movie stars, she did not have a personality like a “fingerprint” of personality. Whatever Thulin’s personality, it was completely irrelevant to her in her work. She was truly uncanny. Like, who WAS she? It’s literally impossible to know.

In the early 60s, she appeared in Ingmar Bergman films, back to back, Winter Light and The Silence. They are two of his most ruthlessly uningratiating films. In Winter Light, Thuline play a mousy tormented woman, in love with a pastor. In The Silence, she plays an alcoholic dying woman holed up in a hotel room in an unnamed city. These two roles, played so close together, have to be one of the most astonishing displays of acting virtuosity in any career. The films are so difficult to take, they are so unremittingly bleak, their reach will always be smaller than something more accessible, like Wild Strawberries, or even Persona. Thulin is a Priestess of Bleak. Her anguish is so total in Winter Light she’s difficult to look at at times. In The Silence, she drinks, smokes, masturbates, gasps for oxygen to come into her diseased lungs, goes raging against the dying of the light, fears death, courts death … it’s a mind-blowing performance.

She went to places in her work other actors don’t go. Not because they are afraid (although this may be true), but because they literally can’t conceive the depths it is even possible to go. Thulin is frightening that way. She saw farther and traveled farther.

Her hands are maybe the most expressive hands of any actor. They’re agonized, restless. Claw-like, desperate. They look like they’d keep clutching and wringing and twisting themselves up, even after death. She was an actress of supreme control/intelligence – and yet her work does not feel studied, or pre-planned. Her hands have a life/mind of their own.

She appeared in more films directed by Bergman: The Hour of the Wolf, the television movie The Rite, and the great Cries and Whispers, where she is truly terrifying. There’s one damn near unwatchable scene. If you’ve seen the film, you’ll know the scene I mean. Instantly. It’s hard to picture another actress who would even consent to play such a scene, and/or do it the way she did it.

It’s hard to find interviews with her. You have to dig deep. I came across this clip of an interview she gave in 1969, where she spoke about working with Vischonti, Bergman, Alain Resnais – their different styles and approaches. She’s riveting. If you don’t speak French, just turn on closed captioning.

Again, here’s my video-essay on Ingrid Thulin.

 
 
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 , , | 5 Comments

“Acting is like letting your pants down; you’re exposed.” — Paul Newman

giphy

It’s his birthday today.

I am so glad I grew up in a time when Paul Newman was still a leading man (and he was a leading man up until the end). So I got to experience the pleasure of going to see Paul Newman on the big screen. As an Actors Studio fan-girl from when I was around 12, I was well aware of Paul Newman and his work. (That I would go on to be involved in the Actors Studio 15 years later, attending sessions, taking workshops, involved in the Masters Program that Paul Newman himself set up … not a coincidence. I met Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward on the same night I met Elia Kazan. I held it together … barely.) I revere his acting. To look the way he looked is no small thing. But to look the way he looked and then to decide to work your ass off – and he WORKED, boy – in order to have a meaningful career – THAT is what sets him apart.

tumblr_mxty5yFCY41qzgwh4o1_500

Here’s my favorite example of his work ethic. For an actor who cares about acting, there is no resting on laurels. You’re never set. The gig requires you to “show up” each time, no matter how big a star you are. There are problems to be solved. Always. There are pockets of resistance within everyone that need to be addressed. Always. Whether you’re just starting out or whether you’re Paul Newman.

Sidney Lumet tells this story in his book Making Movies, about directing Paul Newman in The Verdict:

He is an honorable man. He is also a very private man. We had worked together in television in the early fifties and done a brief scene together in a Martin Luther King documentary, so when we got together on The Verdict, we were immediately comfortable with each other. At the end of two weeks of rehearsal, I had a run-through of the script … There were no major problems. In fact, it seemed quite good. But somehow it seemed rather flat. When we broke for the day I asked Paul to stay a moment. I told him that while things looked promising, we really hadn’t hit the emotional level we both knew was there in David Mamet’s screenplay. I said that his characterization was fine but hadn’t yet evolved into a living, breathing person. Was there a problem? Paul said that he didn’t have the lines memorized yet and that when he did, it would all flow better. I told him I didn’t think it was the lines. I said that there was a certain aspect of Frank Galvin’s character that was missing so far. I told him that I wouldn’t invade his privacy, but only he could choose whether or not to reveal that part of the character and therefore that aspect of himself. I couldn’t help him with the decision. We lived near each other and rode home together. The ride that evening was silent. Paul was thinking. On Monday, Paul came in to rehearsal and sparks flew. He was superb. His character and the picture took on life.

I know that decision to reveal the part of himself that the character required was painful for him. But he’s a dedicated actor as well as a dedicated man. And … yes, Paul is a shy man. And a wonderful actor. And race car driver. And gorgeous.

I find that story so moving.

When he died, I wrote a piece about Paul Newman for House Next Door, where I picked out three roles/specific acting moments to examine how good a technician he was, how gifted he was with craft. Paul Newman always knew he had to work hard. Marlon Brando and James Dean were his contemporaries.

Imagine the head trip that must have been for young actors at the time. How do you even COMPETE? It must have been like Irish novelists working on their masterpiece in 1921, and then Ulysses came out the following year, scorching the earth with its impact. Or like young hopeful male singers in 1953, who were listening to new kinds of music, wondering if there might be a spot for them there in whatever it was that was happening, and then along comes Elvis the next year, and Boom, not only did he steal everyone’s thunder, he took over the world in 8 months time. And for three, four years after, the influence was so enormous that everyone just tried to sound like Elvis. Elvis created his own gravitational pull. Or like Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. The album was so influential you can hear it in EVERYTHING, in practically every other album released by other bands in the year or so that followed.

That was what it was like for young actors in the early to mid 1950s. Brando to Dean. You could not escape either of them. And that was what it was like for Paul Newman.

What do you do? How do you make your own way? Without imitating them? Without trying to be someone else?

Newman always said there was only one natural genius in his marriage. And it wasn’t him.

He had to WORK to get as good as he was. This makes his lengthy career even more extraordinary.

Here’s the piece I wrote for House Next Door about Paul Newman:

Indelible Ink: Paul Newman.

 
 
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 , , , , , | 26 Comments

“You can’t fake this music.” — Etta James

Etta James was born on this day.

She grew up rough. Real rough. It’s a terrible story of near-constant abuse and neglect. She was in the foster care system, she never knew her dad. She had an early gift for singing, which she trained and cultivated. She was a very small woman with a GIGANTIC voice. One of the great voices of rock ‘n roll. You get glimpses of her in other people’s biographies and memoirs and you always want to know more. You can feel the roughness of her upbringing in her singing: every single note is filled with ALL of her. It’s why she blows the roof off.

She was discovered by Johnny Otis – who discovered so many people he’s one of the BTS people who really should be credited with “creating” rock ‘n roll. She was still a teenager but she had a world of experience and he searched around for the right material for her. The solution was a song called “Wallflower” – at least, that’s the official title but the TRUE title is “Roll With Me Henry.”

It was a hit and went to #1 on the R&B charts, and then was covered – and cleaned up – by Georgia Gibbs, whose version – called “Dance With Me Henry” – because “roll” was FAR too sexually suggestive – was an exact copy of James’ version, except whitened beyond recognition. This was a “thing” at the time, of course (Pat Boone’s “Tutti Frutti” is probably the most egregious example) but Georgia Gibbs was a repeat offender. LaVern Baker was the one who called out Gibbs, to such a degree the practice was, if not stopped, then definitely discouraged. Humorously, Etta James then covered Gibbs’ “Dance With Me Henry”. She had a “fuck it and fuck you” attitude about it. Fine, you copy my shit and have a hit? Well I’ll copy your copy, and I’ll make it BETTER and make some money, which she did.

Etta James was a “player” in late 1950s r&b, but not a central figure. Her songs hit the charts from time to time, but it was an era of such great change and flux it was difficult for anyone to remain on the top, since the top kept shifting around. But she kept doing her thing. Then she signed with Chess. In 1960, she recorded my favorite (or maybe my second favorite, if I had to choose) track of hers, a sexy-as-fuck duet with Harvey Fuqua, called “Spoonful”.

Her voice is all growl and rasp, and there’s an ache behind it, she’s filled with yearning and feeling, and yet the sound – when it came out – was raspy. Rasp is often sexual, and it was with her as well – it clearly is in “Spoonful” – but I think it’s the sense of the ACHE which puts her over the edge into one of the great vocalists of the 20th century. The “rasp” can be a choice. Singers can use it as part of their toolbox. For James, it was how she made sound. It was how she poured feeling into her sound. Some singers use it sparingly, a smart choice. James didn’t. Also a smart choice. She found unbelievable variety, and could twist and manipulate the rasp, up and down the scale. I am not a musician so I don’t even know if I’m using the right terms. Her voice was made for rock ‘n roll.

Like “Something’s Got a Hold Of Me”:

She’s one of the greatest blues singers of all time.

As I said earlier, I don’t really like choosing a favorite this or that, especially not with an artist I love like Etta James. But I will just call out her extraordinary vocal performance on “All I Could Do Was Cry”, sung from the perspective of a woman watching the man she loves marry someone else.

It’s a sad story, but sad like a country song is sad. The song is great, but it’s almost irrelevant in the face of what Etta James DOES with it. The variety she finds in sound, the way she keeps coming back to the same phrases, while deepening them … and also, just the overall operatic EMOTION she pours into it. The sounds she makes are amazing but why you FEEL it is how she expresses what she’s feeling. It’s so authentic. Authenticity like that is unmistakable and you must stop and listen.

Beyond all that, though: listen to the song. Forget the lyrics. Forget even the song. Just listen to what she is DOING. It’s unbeLIEVable.

 
 
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