Review: That They May Face the Rising Sun (2025)

It seems fitting to have been assigned this one to review: a film adaptation of John McGahern’s novel of the same name. John McGahern is one of my favorite authors – I’ve written a lot about him – his Amongst Women is one of my favorite books of all time. McGahern connects me to my father: he’s the one who told me to read him. That They May Face the Rising Sun is McGahern’s final novel, about a small group of elderly people living on the edge of a lake in County Leitrim (where McGahern himself lived). It’s a “quiet” novel but it flattens you. I found a piece I wrote about it back in 2008. My father was still alive then. Hearing present tense mentioning of my dad makes me catch my breath. I wrote about the book when I finished reading it in 2007 and my dad commented on the post. I trip over his old comments occasionally and it’s such an eerie yet beautiful feeling. He called me “dearest”.

I loved this film. At a certain point, about 20 minutes from the end, tears started pouring down my face and … kept going until the credits rolled. I reviewed for Ebert.

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

“For I am of the seed of the WELCH WOMAN and speak the truth from my heart.” — Christopher Smart

“For in my nature I quested for beauty, but God, God hath sent me to sea for pearls.”
— Christopher Smart, from “Jubilate Agno”

Christopher Smart, born on this day in 1722, spent over 10 years of his life locked up in mental institutions (a kind term for what such establishments were back then). He seemed to suffer from some sort of religious ecstasy (although “suffering” is not the right word at all). He was overcome by the love of God. It made him tremble with happiness. To quote my Dad, “I see no problem.”

Smart was born in Kent. His father died when he was 11, and he was taken under the wing of the Vane family (his father was a steward at their home). The Vanes made sure he went to college, Pembroke. He became friends with Alexander Pope, and also somehow became acquainted with Dr. Johnson. He had problems right off the bat with drinking and money, being irresponsible with both. He was arrested in 1747 for not paying his debts. He moved to London. He worked as an editor. He got married. In 1756 he was sent to an insane asylum and stayed locked up until 1763. His wife left him during his incarceration, but in general he had not alienated his friends, and most stood by him, trying to help him out, financially or otherwise (he had two children by this point).

While Smart was in the asylum, he wrote A Song to David. It was published the year of his release. You can see in it Smart’s essential qualities, one of which is a love of lists. Lists/outlines seemed to organize his high-flying rapturous thought processes. He couldn’t BEAR how much he had to say about David, and so he tried to break it down, break David down into essences, which takes the form of a list. Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and so on. Smart’s language is startling, right off the bat. There is energy in the language. He was not lost in quiet contemplation. He was right up against it: he needed URGENTLY to speak.

Christopher Smart died in 1771.

His life was chaotic, but his confinement was almost a blessing in that it allowed him the space to write without the pressure of having to make a living (a struggle for most writers). I am hesitant of making a blessing out of madness, even when some good art comes out of it. Anyone who has experienced madness to any degree will know that nobody would ever choose it. (I think of David Lynch’s comments on Vincent van Gogh in his book Catching the Big Fish:

Right here people might bring up Vincent van Gogh as an example of a painter who did great work in spite of—-or because of—-his suffering. I like to think that van Gogh would have been even more prolific and even greater if he wasn’t so restricted by the things tormenting him. I don’t think it was pain that made him so great—-I think his painting brought him whatever happiness he had.

In his most famous poem, the one most often quoted today, Christopher Smart sat and watched his cat Jeoffry stretching and playing in the sun, and became overwhelmed by God’s nearness and presence, obvious in every ripple of muscle in the cat’s body. The resulting poem is one of my favorites of all time: “Jubilate Agno, Fragment B [For I will consider my Cat Jeoffry]”.

Christopher Smart’s influence was local during his own time, but he has easily crossed the centuries following his death, and new generations of readers continue to discover his wonderful work. Allen Ginsberg spoke of him as a huge influence. In Smart’s poem about his cat Jeoffry, you can almost feel Christopher Smart “rapping” about the cat, riffing … a la the Beats of the 40s and 50s, with complete confidence in what Ginsberg, centuries later, would call “first thought best thought”. I don’t believe first thought is always best thought. Sometimes “first thought” needs to go through an editing process. But Smart’s sound – a voice murmuring over and over, turning around and around the same topic – can be heard in poets centuries later.

Smart’s lines don’t look like other poet’s lines (at least not in the 18th century). His lines look like the lines from poets in the mid-20th century. He often begins all lines with the same word, giving the verse an incantatory feel. His lines are long and conversational, they look like the lines of “Howl”.

And about his “cat poem”:

First of all, check out this gorgeous post.

Second of all: Hope was the living embodiment of Christopher Smart’s lines. Of course this is true of most cats. I’d just sit and watch Hope do her thing, enjoying witnessing her mind and body working to accomplish a goal, conquer a foe, get her needs met, whatever. And she’d do something, and I’d immediately think of this or that line from Smart’s poem. A continuum between Hope and Jeoffry. The world changes. Technology changes. Cats do not change.

I put together this post years ago when I started commemorating people’s birthdays. I used photos of Hope to illustrate. I miss her so much. She was the best. I love you, Hope.

For she can creep
2737752212_044dc36533_z

For every family had one cat at least in the bag.

For she is tenacious of her point.

For every house is incomplete without her and a blessing is lacking in the spirit.

For she purrs in thankfulness, when God tells her she’s a good Cat

For she is the tribe of the Tiger

For she can set up with gravity which is patience upon approbation.
3250480866_6a14d60711_z

For she counteracts the powers of darkness by her electrical skin and glaring eyes.
2833080557_545620438b_z

UPDATE: and of course now Frankie has come into my life! Who, like Hope, evokes Jeoffry, in all his creepy-creeping ness, his stretching, his “wreathing his body seven times round”, the way he curls up in a perfect circle, the way he has a “witching hour” at around 6 pm when he goes absolutely BERSERK for a straight HOUR before curling up next to me … It’s also perfect that he is in love with what I call “Hope’s blanket”, made for me by my friend Maria, which Hope totally co-opted. Frankie took one look at it – probably smelled the whiff of Hope around it – and chose it.

A home isn’t really a home without a cat in it. Or, better put: “For every house is incomplete without him and a blessing is lacking in the spirit.”

For I Will Consider My Cat Jeoffry

For I will consider my Cat Jeoffry.
For he is the servant of the Living God duly and daily serving him.
For at the first glance of the glory of God in the East he worships in his way.
For this is done by wreathing his body seven times round with elegant quickness.
For then he leaps up to catch the musk, which is the blessing of God upon his prayer.
For he rolls upon prank to work it in.
For having done duty and received blessing he begins to consider himself.
For this he performs in ten degrees.
For first he looks upon his forepaws to see if they are clean.
For secondly he kicks up behind to clear away there.
For thirdly he works it upon stretch with the forepaws extended.
For fourthly he sharpens his paws by wood.
For fifthly he washes himself.
For sixthly he rolls upon wash.
For seventhly he fleas himself, that he may not be interrupted upon the beat.
For eighthly he rubs himself against a post.
For ninthly he looks up for his instructions.
For tenthly he goes in quest of food.
For having consider’d God and himself he will consider his neighbour.
For if he meets another cat he will kiss her in kindness.
For when he takes his prey he plays with it to give it a chance.
For one mouse in seven escapes by his dallying.
For when his day’s work is done his business more properly begins.
For he keeps the Lord’s watch in the night against the adversary.
For he counteracts the powers of darkness by his electrical skin and glaring eyes.
For he counteracts the Devil, who is death, by brisking about the life.
For in his morning orisons he loves the sun and the sun loves him.
For he is of the tribe of Tiger.
For the Cherub Cat is a term of the Angel Tiger.
For he has the subtlety and hissing of a serpent, which in goodness he suppresses.
For he will not do destruction, if he is well-fed, neither will he spit without provocation.
For he purrs in thankfulness, when God tells him he’s a good Cat.
For he is an instrument for the children to learn benevolence upon.
For every house is incomplete without him and a blessing is lacking in the spirit.
For the Lord commanded Moses concerning the cats at the departure of the Children of Israel from Egypt.
For every family had one cat at least in the bag.
For the English Cats are the best in Europe.
For he is the cleanest in the use of his forepaws of any quadruped.
For the dexterity of his defence is an instance of the love of God to him exceedingly.
For he is the quickest to his mark of any creature.
For he is tenacious of his point.
For he is a mixture of gravity and waggery.
For he knows that God is his Saviour.
For there is nothing sweeter than his peace when at rest.
For there is nothing brisker than his life when in motion.
For he is of the Lord’s poor and so indeed is he called by benevolence perpetually–Poor Jeoffry! poor Jeoffry! the rat has bit thy throat.
For I bless the name of the Lord Jesus that Jeoffry is better.
For the divine spirit comes about his body to sustain it in complete cat.
For his tongue is exceeding pure so that it has in purity what it wants in music.
For he is docile and can learn certain things.
For he can set up with gravity which is patience upon approbation.
For he can fetch and carry, which is patience in employment.
For he can jump over a stick which is patience upon proof positive.
For he can spraggle upon waggle at the word of command.
For he can jump from an eminence into his master’s bosom.
For he can catch the cork and toss it again.
For he is hated by the hypocrite and miser.
For the former is afraid of detection.
For the latter refuses the charge.
For he camels his back to bear the first notion of business.
For he is good to think on, if a man would express himself neatly.
For he made a great figure in Egypt for his signal services.
For he killed the Ichneumon-rat very pernicious by land.
For his ears are so acute that they sting again.
For from this proceeds the passing quickness of his attention.
For by stroking of him I have found out electricity.
For I perceived God’s light about him both wax and fire.
For the Electrical fire is the spiritual substance, which God sends from heaven to sustain the bodies both of man and beast.
For God has blessed him in the variety of his movements.
For, tho he cannot fly, he is an excellent clamberer.
For his motions upon the face of the earth are more than any other quadruped.
For he can tread to all the measures upon the music.
For he can swim for life.
For he can creep.

QUOTES:

Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac, 1948 bebop collaboration:

“When I think of death
I get a goofy feeling
Then I catch my breath
Zero is appealing
Appearances are hazy
Smart went crazy
Smart went crazy.”

Dr. Johnson:

“I do not think he ought to be shut up. His infirmities were not noxious to society. He insisted on people praying with him; and I’d as lief pray with Kit Smart as anyone else. Another charge was that he did not love clean linen, and I have no passion for it.”

Robert Graves:

[He] wrote A Song to David in a lunatic asylum, and when his collected poems were published in 1791, it was omitted as ‘not acceptable to the reader.’ This poem is formally addressed to David – Smart knew that he was no madder than King David had been, and a tradition survives that he scrabbled the versese with a key on the wall of his cell.

Christopher Smart:

The beauty, force and vehemence of Impression…[is] a talent or gift of Almighty God, by which a Genius is impowered to throw an emphasis upon a word or sentence in such wise, that it cannot escape any reader of sheer good sense or true critical sagacity.

Michael Schmidt, in Lives of the Poets, writes:

However [Song to David] was written, they remain a wonder and a mystery, begotten of the Bible, of broad and deep learning, and of some catalyst that made a confusion that poet resolved, against chaos as it were, to put in some sort of order.

For the word of God is a sword on my side – no matter what other weapon a stick or a straw.
For I have adventured myself in the name of the Lord, and he hath marked me for his own.
For I bless God the Postmaster general & all conveyancers of letters under his care especially Allen & Shelvock.
For my grounds in New Canaan shall infinitely compensate for the flats & maynes of Staindrop Moore.
For the praise of God can give to a mute faith the notes of a nightingale.

Is it nonsense? Yes. Is it nonsense? No.

Northrop Frye:

“[Alexander] Pope’s ‘Messiah’ is not musical, but Smart’s ‘Song to David’, with its pounding thematic words and the fortissimo explosion of its coda, is a musical tour de force.”

Peter Porter:

The purest case of man’s vision prevailing over the spirit of his times.

Richard Rolt, Westminster Journal, 1751, reviewing Smart’s Poems on Several Occasions:

[The poems have] all the glowing fire … that can enrapture the Soul of Poetry, and enliven the Heart of the Reader.

Thomas Percy, letter to Edmond Malone, October 17, 1786:

Poor Smart the mad poet.

Robert Graves:

It is not impossible that when Smart is judged over the whole range of his various productions – conventional in form as well as unconventional, light and even ribald as well as devotional, urbane or tender as well as sublime – he will be thought of as the greatest English poet between Pope and Wordsworth.

Harold Bloom, Best Poems in the English Language:

Of the significant poets of the later eighteenth century, sometimes termed the Age of Sensibility to distinguish it from the Augustan Age of Pope and Swift, a high proportion went mad. Like William Collins and William Cowpoer, Christopher Smart is rarely discussed without reference to his clinical insanity.

Fanny Burney, journal entry, September 12, 1768:

[Smart sent] a most affecting Epistle to papa, to entreat him to lend him 1/2 a guinea…How great a pity so clever, so ingenious a man should be reduced to such shocking circumstances. He is extremely grave, and has still great wildness in his manner, looks and voice–’tis impossible to see him and think of his works, without feeling the utmost pity and concern for him.

Dante Gabriel Rossetti, letter to T. Hall Caine:

A Song to David [is] the only accomplished poem of the last century.

Marcus Walsh:

Smart’s Hymns are imaginative poetry, hymns only in name, making too few of the inevitable practical compromises to be acceptable in popular congregational use.

Christopher Hunter, Smart’s nephew:

[He was friendly, affectionate, and liberal to excess.

Michael Schmidt:

Smart’s originality is the product not of a candid, puzzled, anxious personality like William Cowper’s, nor the lucid, nostalgic and humane sensibility of a Goldsmith. It’s the product of a distinctly poetic imagination, using that term in a classical sense. Smart seldom composes verse: he is a poet rare in any age, most rare in the eighteenth century, a spiritual enthusiast and a consummate verbal artist. He might resemble Blake, only he has greater formal tact, a better ear, a better (that is, a less didactic) nature. His poems exist to celebrate God, not to cajole, instruct and persuade us.

Christopher Smart, on his time being locked up:

“For they work me with their harping-irons, which is a barbarous instrument, because I am more unguarded than others.”

From “With Christopher Smart”
By Robert Browning

Armed with this instance, have I diagnosed
Your case, my Christopher? The man was sound
And sane at starting: all at once the ground
Gave way beneath his step, a certain smoke
Curled up and caught him, or perhaps down broke
A fireball wrapping flesh and spirit both
In conflagration. Then—as heaven were loth
To linger—let earth understand too well
How heaven at need can operate—off fell
The flame-robe, and the untransfigured man
Resumed sobriety,—as he began,
So did he end nor alter pace, not he!
(full poem here)

John Butt on A Song to David:

The poem is unique amongst the lyrical poems of the century in its expression of religious ecstasy within the confines of the strictest formality.

Donald Davie:

The greatest English poet between Pope and Wordsworth.

Dr. John Hawkesworth, on visiting Smart after his release:

He replied very quick, ‘I cannot afford to be idle;’ I said he might employ his mind as well in the country as the town, at which he only shook his head.

Allen Ginsberg to students in a “Basic Poetics,” class, May 26, 1980:

“The reason I want to lay Smart on you now is (that) his line is basically the same line I used for Howl. I didn’t get the Howl line from Whitman and I didn’t get it from Robinson Jeffers or Kenneth Fearing, who are the American precursors of long line, nor from the 19th century British poet Edward Carpenter, who was also as a student of Walt Whitman, writing long lines – but from Christopher Smart. Kerouac’s long line comes somewhat out of Christopher Smart also. Smart is smarter than anybody else around. His language is smarter than Pope or Dryden. Their’s is very stiff, compared to the liquidity and intelligence and humor (of Smart), as well as classical scholarship involved, as well as a pure vernacular improvisation and contemporary quotidian reverence.”

Dr. Samuel Johnson to James Boswell, on Smart’s Universal Visiter, stopped because of his insanity:

I wrote for some months in ‘The Universal Visitor,’ for poor Smart, while he was mad, not then knowing the terms on which he was engaged to write, and thinking I was doing him good. I hoped his wits would soon return to him. Mine returned to me, and I wrote in ‘The Universal Visitor’ no longer.

Harold Bloom, Best Poems in the English Language:

Smart never could escape the stigma of madness, which prevented A Song to David and other later works from receiving the esteem they deserved. He died in debtor’s prison, a melancholy end that haunts me whenever I reread Jubilate Agno and A Song to David.

Christopher Smart, on gardening at St. Luke’s, October, 1762:

“Let Pink, house of Pink rejoice with Trigonum a herb used in garlands–the Lord succeed my pink borders.”

John Kempe, Gentleman’s Magazine (1823), remembering when Smart visited their home as a child, to listen to John play the flute:

I have often soothed the wanderings of his melancholy by some favorite air; he would shed tears when I played, and generally wrote some lines afterwards.

Michael Schmidt:

We readily assume that he wrote in madness, that what he wrote, in its forms and themes, partakes of his derangement. Or we divide the work into sane and “insane” and judge the parts by distinct criteria. But his madness can be seen not so much as a disorder as alternative order, his religious vision not as eccentric but as direct, comprehensive. To say an artist is “mad” is to say very little. What matters is what he makes of language. Smart makes passionate poetry.

He is not an imitator even in his translations, which hold the original in a form and language that make no concessions. He feels and conveys the force of the poetry he admires. His intution is attuned to a broad tradition, not caught in the rut of convention. Marcus Walsh calls Smart’s mature style “mannered, religiose and self-conscious” – and each becomes a positive critical term, for together they produce a “homogenous” style that “unifies” – the crucial word – “a number of divergent influences”. It is the paradoxical combination of influences, biblical and classical, and the disruptions his imagination registers, that make him outstanding and eccentric. Learning and accidents of biography delver him from the bondage of Augustan convention into the sometimes anarchic, vertiginous freedom of Jubliate Agno and the originality of the Song to David. He has few heirs.

Christopher Hunter, on his uncle’s breakdown:

Though the fortune as well as constitution of Mr. Smart required the utmost care, he was equally negligent in the management of both, and his various and repeated embarrassments acting upon an imagination uncommonly fervid, produced temporary alienations of mind; which at last were attended with paroxysms so violent and continued as to render confinement necessary.

Fanny Burney, Memoirs of Dr. Burney (1832)

[Smart alternated between] partial aberration of intellect, and bacchanalian forgetfulness of misfortune…[He was pious] though fanatical rather than rational.

Christopher Smart on Horace:

The lucky risk of the Horatian boldness…Horace is not so much an original in respect to his matter and sentiments … as to that unrivalled peculiarity of expression, which has excited the admiration of all succeeding ages.

Harold Bloom, Best Poems in the English Language, on “Jubilate Ago”:

The great chant from the Jubilate, “For I Will Consider my Cat Jeoffrey,” is superbly poignant, as it celebrates Smart’s asylum companion. At certain moments, here and elsewhere in Jubilate Agno, Smart becomes a precursor of William Blake.

Marcus Walsh, Christopher Smart: Selected Poems (1979):

[In Smart’s poems] every creature worships God simply by being itself, through its peculiar actions and properties…. The well-known lines on Smart’s cat Jeoffry, far from exemplifying a childlike naivety of vision, are an elaborate demonstration of how each closely observed act may be taken as part of the cat’s divine ritual of praise.

Donald Greene:

[Smart is] the earliest of the outright rebels against Newtonian and Lockean ‘rationalism’.

Christopher Smart:

“For there is no invention but the gift of God, and no grace but the grace of gratitude.”

Christopher Hunter, June 25, 1771, a month after his uncle’s death:

I trust he is now at peace; it was not his portion here.

 
 
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, writers | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 26 Comments

“I prefer a national film to an international film.” — Jean-Paul Belmondo

It’s his birthday today. I wrote about him on my Substack.

 
 
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 , , , | Leave a comment

“Sometimes I can sing it when I can’t say it.” — Carl Perkins

“The music was new, the kids were just eatin’ it up. They were claiming it as their own music. But I really think when the kids were comin’ to the sock hops and to the rock and roll shows, I really sincerely believe that mom and dad was home tryin’ to learn how to jitterbug to those same records. I never really thought that the kids were buyin’ all of those millions of records back then and I think time has proven that the older folks like it too. They just kind of rebelled against it a little bit because they first said it was bad music, they said it would entice our teenagers wrong, but it really wasn’t. It was music that made you feel good. They danced to it and I think time has proven that it was worth recording because it’s still around and never did leave.” — Carl Perkins

It’s Carl Perkins’ birthday today.

The guys who “created” rockabilly for the most part created it at Sun Studio – although there was definitely something “in the air”, in general. Sun Studio was just the place that devoted its energies to expressing it, whatever “it” was. There are multiple factors behind Sun’s supremacy in the rockabilly rise … mostly Sam Phillips, although I would put Marion Keisker in the pantheon as well (too often she is left out. Thank you, Baz Luhrmann, for recognizing her and including her!) One of the common denominators at Sun was economic hardship. This music was not made by people who had “enough” in any way, shape, or form. Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash, Carl Perkins … the Big Four, were all sons of sharecroppers, they spent their earliest years picking cotton, being hungry. Jerry Lee Lewis was shocked the first time he stayed in a motel. He had never been anywhere where the “outhouse” was inside. THAT’S “poor”. If you listen to all the early Sun tracks, no matter the artist, what you hear is economic want and hunger – hunger for validation/being seen and heard in an environment designed to ignore the needy – but also actual hunger. This actual hunger is a huge part of the sound – what we might even call “the Sun sound”, even beyond the slap-back echo (which no other studio could recreate, even with all the new-fangled bells and whistles).

There are stories about how Carl Perkins, who spent his youth picking cotton, learned to play guitar on a broom handle, and once he actually got a guitar, he could not afford new strings, so he would tie them and knot them if they broke. His distinct guitar styling was a result of him bending around the strings order to avoid the knot. The people who came after – who imitated Perkins – could buy as many guitar strings as they wanted. But they wanted that bendy awesome sound, a sound borne from poverty.

More, much more, after the jump:

Continue reading

Posted in Music, On This Day | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

“I never wanted to be this famous. I never imagined this life for myself.” — Kristen Stewart

It’s her birthday today.

“Really, I’m incredibly disjointed and not candid. Just in general, my thoughts tend to come out in little spurts that don’t necessarily connect. If you hang around long enough, you can find the linear path. But it will take a second. That is why these interviews never go well for me.”

Some people have fame thrust upon them. This has been the case with Kristen Stewart, one of the most interesting and unique actresses to come along in a long long time. There are others who have more “range”. There are others who may are more skilled, technically. But nobody has what she has. It’s her own thing. It’s charisma. It’s movie-magic. This charisma movie-magic does not show up in interviews (as she is well aware of – see above quote) – but interviews are irrelevant. Put the camera on her and something happens. She understands the camera. And the camera understands her. She does not have to work at that part of it. It’s the ineffable weird thing that cannot be explained about her. She seems to have a good head on her shoulders and she picks interesting non-commercial projects.

She was launched into the public eye with the most commercial of products – a franchise geared towards teens – and she cringed her way through every interview and red carpet event. Those movies were sneered at. I know I am a broken record but let’s say it again for the cheap seats, as well as the mostly-straight mostly-male film critics who think they should be the ones to tell other people what is good or worthy: When you ignore the ecstatic screams of teenage girls, you basically announce “I want to be out of touch with the zeitgeist. I am okay with missing out on what will be the Next Big Thing.” By sneering at Twilight, by mocking Kristen Stewart’s awkwardness on red carpets, by expressing baffled surprise that anyone cares about this no-talent young actress (and actor – too – let’s not forget) … you show a dismaying lack of curiosity about WHY teenage girls were so ENRAPTURED. And when teenage girls get enraptured, the whole world can hear. They are often the first wave. They were the first wave with Elvis. With the Beatles. With Zac Efron. With so many others. Ignore the raptures of teenage girls at your peril – particularly if you are a film and/or cultural critic.

Who has the last laugh now. Look at what Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson have chosen to do with the fame that was thrust upon them before either of them even knew who they were or knew what they wanted to do. Look at what they have done with this amazing opportunity. They have worked steadily in odd-ball non-commercial high-art projects, and they have two of the most interesting careers in Hollywood.

The teenage girls knew. They usually do.

So. I’ve written a lot about Kristen Stewart. Here’s a link-dump:

This was my first attempt to get at the whole Kristen Stewart “thing” – because it’s not easily explainable or pin-down-able.

I elaborated further in my Film Comment column.

I didn’t think Lizzie was a particularly good movie but my Ebert review gave me a chance to discuss Stewart’s almost eerie gifts.

One of my favorite things I’ve ever written was one long in the making – since I was, say, 11 – a piece about the Tomboy Golden Era (1970s movies). In discussing where the tomboy “went” in pop culture, Kristen Stewart comes up.

I wrote about Personal Shopper for Ebert’s 10 Best Films of 2017 feature.

I wrote about the fascinating dream-like short film she directed, Come Swim.

I wrote about her performance in Clouds of Sils Maria for a feature on Ebert about the Best Performances of 2015.

And here, I wrote about Clouds of Sils Maria, a movie which affected me so much I haven’t gone back to watch it again.

And finally: a couple years back I interviewed one of my Actors Studio teachers – an amazing teacher named Sam Schacht. I wanted to hear his thoughts on the misunderstood “Method”. Out of the blue, he brought up Kristen Stewart.

 
 
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 , | 7 Comments

I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!

I’ll be at the Jacob Burns Film Center tomorrow night for the 7 pm screening of Network, to host a little discussion and audience QA afterwards. It’s been a regular thing now, these Jacob Burns events – their programming there is so robust and esoteric, and the team there is committed and talented. So far I’ve introduced Gilda, I’ve done post-screening discussions after The Apartment and Sunset Boulevard, I interviewed Peter Sarsgaard aftger the screening of Memory. Really looking forward to tomorrow. Also, the subscriber base there is fantastic. They come out for stuff. It’s a real hub of art and community.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“For never has such soothing voice / Been to your shadowy world convey’d…” — Matthew Arnold on William Wordsworth

“I have said that poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings; it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquillity; the emotion is contemplated till by a species of reaction the tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced and does itself actually exist in the mind. In this mood successful composition generally begins.” — William Wordsworth’s famous preface to Lyrical Ballads

Wordsworth was born on this day in 1770.

People argue about Wordsworth’s above statement to this day. (Lee Strasberg’s emotional memory exercise was based on a similar concept. Powerful feelings need time to percolate in order for you to enter into them in order to “use” them artistically.) I love Saul Bellow’s comment on this “tranquillity” concept listed below.

More – a lot more – beneath the jump.

Continue reading

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

“It sounds like something from a Woody Guthrie song, but it’s true; I was raised in a freight car.” — Merle Haggard

Merle_Haggard_F35tif2

It’s his birthday today.

“There were so many things I loved about the thirties. I could find many reasons for wanting to live back there. Such as trains was the main method of travel, the glamour of trains always appealed to me. And America was at the dawn of an industrial age. Coming out of a Depression into a war. Then again the music was young. So many things were being done in music, it was wide open back then, electronics had not yet been involved, and basically it was REAL. Sure, I’d have liked to have visited those days and at least seen it happen. For musicians of that generations such as Eldon Shamblin and Joe Venuti it was an unbelievable period to live in, they saw it all.”
— Merle Haggard

In this great Rolling Stone interview, Merle Haggard describes being in prison in San Quentin in the 50s when Cash came to play there. Very emotional:

“I heard [Johnny Cash] when he first came out in ’55. I heard them all. I was two years younger than Elvis, and I was in a lot of trouble then. I was going to jail a lot. I went to jail and did a year, ’54 to ’55, and Elvis came out. Elvis got my attention first and I liked Jerry Lee Lewis a lot and Carl Perkins. I was a fan of all of those Memphis guys. I worked in the nightclubs quite a while before I got lucky with records and I did all of their songs and identified a lot closer with them than Hank Williams or somebody. They were more my age and it was a little more modern. And it was rockabilly. That’s sort of what I was. Both Elvis and Johnny were widely accepted by people in jail. They were both rebellious against the system, and we read that clearly. That’s what they saw in Cash, that he didn’t like the system and he didn’t like the people in charge and didn’t like being told what to do.”

Excerpt from the chapter on Merle Haggard in Peter Guralnick’s wonderful book Lost Highway: Journeys and Arrivals of American Musicians:

His whole career has been founded upon … paradox. As a young man barely out of prison, he crooned love songs, sounding very much like Marty Robbins, who was hot at the time. It was not even his own compositions that few drew upon the prison experience for him; instead he virtually stumbled upon the song, ‘I’m a Lonesome Fugitive.’ “Liz Anderson [the writer] came to a show we were doing in Sacramento. She said she had some songs, but I wouldn’t have listened if it hadn’t been for my brother Lowell. It turned out she had six hits in her pocket. Well, that kind of opened up a whole trend of songs, such as ‘Branded Man’ and ‘Sing Me Back Home.’ It gave me thought for writing. It gave me a direction for writing. You see, what it was, with that song I was really and finally some way or another come together – musically and image-wise. I mean, it was a true song. I wasn’t trying to shit nobody, because long ago I had made the decision not to try to hide my past, but then I found out it was one of the most interesting things about me.”

Nonetheless, when it looked as if the prison songs were becoming a trap, Merle neatly sidestepped that issue by embarking upon the first in his series of historical albums. And when ‘Okie from Muskogee’ hit in 1969, bringing undreamt-of fame and presidential invitations, Merle’s first inclination (thwarted by his record company) was to release ‘Irma Jackson,’ a tale of interracial love, as the follow-up. His whole career in fact can be looked upon as a series of deliberate avoidances (walking out on the Ed Sullivan show, quitting a network production of Oklahoma), instinctive retreats from the obvious, and restatements of his central role as an outsider (remaining in Bakersfield, rather than moving to Nashville, was one very key element of his alienation; even his blues singing, a major component of his music, stresses over and over that ‘I’m a White Boy,’ a ‘White Man Singin’ the Blues’).

Perhaps this is what has enabled him to create the astonishing body of work that represents the ‘career’ of Merle Haggard. There is no one in contemporary popular music who has created a more impressive legacy, or one that spans a wider variety of styles. In a genre that has always relied upon filler to round out the album coming off a country hit, Merle has written the vast preponderance of his material (“Without writing, you have nothing,” says Merle, meaning both the royalties and the satisfaction) and has used each album as a vehicle for personal expression, sometimes not even leaving the room to include the hit. He has written blues and folk songs, social commentary and classic love songs, protest and anti-protest, gospels and ballads, prison and train songs, drinking songs, and updates of Jimmie Rodgers’ blue yodels. He has written just about every kind of song there is, in fact, except a convincing rock number, and while such prolificness is not without its price (some of the rhymes are less than fresh, some of the metaphors could have been worked out a little more fully, and sometimes you wish an idea had been left to simmer rather than having been incorporated immediately into a song), taken as a whole the body of work that he has created is absolutely staggering.

Here’s Eric Church: “Pledge Allegiance to the Hag.”

“I sometimes feel like I’m standing up for the people that don’t have the nerve to stand up for themselves. I just enjoyed winning for the loser. I’d never been around anything except losers my whole life.”
Merle Haggard

He also was … how you say … not hard to look at.

Haggard pays tribute to Elvis in “From Graceland to the Promised Land.”

Haggard said to Peter Guralnick in the 70s:

[Elvis was] a prisoner of success. I’m positive he was. I didn’t know Elvis well, but I met him and I knew a lot of people who were close to him. Elvis, I believe, was just plain simply tired of it. He didn’t want to live any longer. I don’t know how you feel about these things, but the celestial life – if such a thing exists – I think that was what he was seeking. I think it released him. Either that or he didn’t die at all. Had a face-lift and a fingerprint job – if you think about it, it isn’t that far-fetched. A lot of people who were there swear it wasn’t him in the coffin.

He died on his birthday in 2016.

 
 
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 | 9 Comments

March 2025 Viewing Diary

I embarked on a backwards-Supernatural watch in February, and it is continuing still, and is pretty much what I am doing right now, outside of viewing for work. We will soon be back to our regular scheduled program. But I’m burnt out right now because of the big project I’ve been working on for a year. I can’t take in much that is new. I’ll recover.

Being Maria (2025; d. Jessica Palud)
A movie about Maria Schneider’s experience making Last Tango in Paris, her horrifying treatment, and the tragic aftermath. I admire what this film is doing and also HOW it does it. I reviewed for Ebert.

Adolescence (2025; d. Philip Barantini)
The one-take-ness of it all is amazing, particularly in episode 2, which reminded me of the extraordinary 2002 film Russian Ark, shot in one take – with literally thousands of people in it. 3,000 people are in this thing. I knew I wrote about it. 20 years ago. Oh my God. It was filmed entirely in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg and the action flows from room to room, showing the entire timeline of Russia’s history, all the major figures, vignettes, snapshots. So you have a small scene with four little girls in white running up and down the hallways – the tragic children of Tsar Nicholas II and then the action moves into a ballroom, with 300 people waltzing around in full-on formal wear with a live orchestry. So … 300 people were literally just sitting around for 35 minutes, silent, waiting, as the rest of the movie is filmed elsewhere, and then – via command over a walkie talkie – they start dancing and then “their” scene begins, just before the camera comes through the door. The coordination aspect! Everyone’s talking about episode 3 of Adolescence, and yes, it’s good, but we’ve seen similar stuff before. Two characters talking in one unbroken take. Hunger, the Bobby Sands movie, with Michael Fassbender, comes to mind. But episode 2 takes place at an elementary school, where the child population is basically FERAL – and there are so many people in it, crowds of kids everywhere – to coordinate all of that had to have been a monumental task. And then, to top it off, the episode ends in a drone shot, which culminates in a tight close-up on Stephen Graham’s face. Like, what? I’ve always admired Stephen Graham. I think of his great scene in The Irishman (“You people”): let’s face it: it’s not easy to hold the screen with Al Pacino. Al Pacino is very competitive and he won’t LET you dominate. But in that scene? Graham dominates. I will let others chatter about the sociological implications of Adolescence and whether or not it “works” or has a “good” message or and if it’s anti-male or whatever. I’m not really interested in those “debates”. I’m more into the making-of this thing, as well as what it must have been like to be in it. The collaboration! The cameramen! Passing off cameras to each other throughout the shots. Just amazing.

Posted in Monthly Viewing Diary, Movies, Television | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

“There won’t be another Bette Davis. There can’t be.” Mitchell and I discuss Bette Davis

From the audio files: Mitchell and I discuss one of our favorite topics: acting, and how the “old” style of acting – let’s call it before what’s loosely known as the Method- is not only under-appreciated in certain circles (most dishearteningly, in ACTOR circles, where it should be celebrated) but – worse – dismissed, as “phony” or “over the top” or “weird.” Someone like Bette Davis, whose mannerisms are so distinct, whose lines are parroted parody-like across the land … is seen as somehow LESS real than other more “modern” actresses. Or that her gestures are somehow “funny” or “campy” – as opposed to CONNECTED to her deep understanding of the characters she played. I don’t have to fight this so much in “cinephile” circles, but I definitely had these fights with other actors sometimes. (Pity the poor dumbbell who made the mistake of saying to me in an acting class that “Spencer Tracy was okay, he just played himself all the time, though.” I thought to myself, “You WISH you could be HALF as real as Spencer Tracy was EVER in ANY moment of ANY scene you EVER attempt.” I didn’t say that to his face. I just gave him a lecture on the history of acting, and also reminded him that Marlon Brando said the only actor he ever “studied” was Spencer Tracy. There is such a thing as a WRONG opinion.

MF: Barbra and Bette are weirdos. So, I’m sorry that every moment every actor has has to feel like your version of reality – you, being the viewer. But with Barbra and Bette Davis, specifically – they’re so weird, they have weird facial tics, they have weird gestures, but all of it is real to them. I’ll give you a perfect example: Barbra swallowing aspirin in The Way We Were. People are like, “It’s so phony, the way she does that.” How about – that’s just how she swallows aspirin? Stop making everyone having to be like you. These actors are being truthful on a theatrical level. That’s why I call them weirdo actors. Bette Davis was a weirdo. [perfect Bette imitation] “With aaallllll my heart, I still love the man I killt!” It’s such a weird line reading but it is real to HER. Stop trying to make it real to YOU and see that it’s real for HER. It’s also why it’s impossible to take your eyes off Bette Davis.


Bette Davis in “The Letter”

SOM: The Letter.

MF: I mean, can we talk about her fucking hand in The Letter.

SOM: I’m obsessed with her hand in The Letter.

MF: Watch that movie, and watch her hand, the one that shot the gun. In every scene, track that hand. Because I’m telling you, BETTE tracked that hand. Through the whole movie, she tracked that hand. This is next-level acting shit that nobody even talks about. I’ve never even read an article about The Letter where they talk about it, but it’s so clear she’s doing it. The tension in the hand that shot the gun … it’s there in every scene, she keeps it going in every single moment in every single scene.

SOM: And then of course there’s the back-ting she does in The Letter.


Bette Davis in “The Letter”

MF: Bette Davis was the best back-tress in the business.

SOM: The whole movie is her back!

MF: Nobody does it better. Or Barbra – the way she holds her mouth, her gestures, certain words: “Hubbell – people aaaare their principulllls!” Like, if you were to tell somebody you were going to do the line the way she does it, people might say, “Uhm … you sure about that?” But it’s totally real for her.

SOM: And then you can’t imagine it any other way.

MF: And also let’s remember this, it’s shit like that that becomes iconic. You can imitate them, sure, but you won’t even come close. Immortality means: there’s nobody else like you. There won’t be another Bette Davis. There can’t be. She came out of a time and place – Massachusetts – and an era of women’s pictures – there can’t be an equivalent. She already did it. She already opened a door – and she didn’t close it behind her – but you can’t go back through the door. You’ve gotta open another door. And speaking of opening doors, can we talk for a second about Bette in Of Human Bondage. That character … What a HORRIBLE woman. She was a rising star at that point and she plays THAT absolutely wretched character?

SOM: She was so fearless that way.

MF: It’s insane!! Even watching it now, I still cannot believe she had the balls to do it. I cannot believe she chose to play that part and I cannot believe she played it as fearlessly as she played it. Who in recent memory has given a performance that truly ugly? I can’t think of anyone!

SOM: And you can’t compare that character to, say, femme fatales, who at least get to be sexy, even though they are evil.

MF: Every actress worth their salt has to play some version of the evil queen. Anjelica Huston, Michelle Pfeiffer, Angelina Jolie – but to be truly AWFUL like that woman? “I wipe my MOUTH” … So ugly. She was 26 years old! Just unbelievable.

SOM: Think about her in Three On a Match – which is really a Joan Blondell and Ann Dvorak movie, and she’s the cute little blonde support staff tossing a beach ball around with the little kid on the beach. But Three On a Match was only a year or so before Of Human Bondage. Look at that leap she took. She had to take it and boy, she TOOK it.

MF: To give a performance like she did in Of Human Bondage – I still don’t think it’s fully appreciated what that meant to Hollywood at that time. Or – oh God, you know I go back and forth on this because I’m such a huge fan of hers I can never pick a favorite role – but Mr. Skeffington. Talk about fearless, about exposing the vanity of her character and yet you have empathy for her because she’s so trapped in it. She’s trapped in it and goes insane from it.

MF: It’s like finding out my grandmother was depressed because she didn’t have a successful marriage. Meanwhile, my grandmother seemed like such a rock to us. She kept generations of people safe and fed and housed but she saw herself as a failure because of what was expected of women – and that’s what that movie was ultimately about. And then when you compare Mr. Skeffington to Now Voyager, Dark Victory, Little Foxes. I mean, that’s a definitive performance. Has anyone ever played that role better? But then look at how lovely and quiet she is in The Man Who Came to Dinner. She’s so contemporary and subtle and she lets everybody else do the “acting”. It shows you that there were all sorts of people inside Bette Davis and she was just more fucking creative than everybody else. Why not be Fanny Skeffington? Why not be Regina? Or Mildred? Bette Davis plays these harridans but then she’s the sweet one in The Great Lie, with Mary Astor.

SOM: And you buy it.

MF: You totally buy it. Mary Astor’s a bitch and she’s brilliant at it. “Can’t we do something about that lamp?”

SOM: I love Mary Astor.

MF: She won the Oscar.

SOM: How about Bette Davis in The Star? So meta. Her character is trying to make a comeback, she’s ruined her marriage, her husband has custody, and so one night she gets wasted, grabs her Oscar statue, and drives around Beverly Hills, drunk and talking to her statue. And she MEANS it. It comes from such a raw place. Same with All About Eve. She was able to play actresses dealing with aging in a way that is still somewhat definitive.

MF: And it’s still a problem in Hollywood. She called it out and that bullshit is still with us. She also has that gorgeous speech – which is kind of anti-feminist but whatever – in the car in All About Eve: “That’s one career all females have in common, whether we like it or not: being a woman. Unless there’s a man to come home to, you’re not really a woman.” It’s a little sexist but there’s honesty in it.

SOM: It’s truthful.

MF: Even the funny lines she makes desperately true. “Bill’s thirty-two. He looks thirty-two. He looked it five years ago, he’ll look it twenty years from now. I hate men.” Genius. Mankiewicz frames it to make it a little showpiece for her – but when she says those lines, Bette Davis is not fucking kidding. I just want people to get how connected people like Bette Davis and Barbra Streisand are to their own weird choices. I want people to stop judging them for not being normal people with normal behavior. [suddenly screaming] THEY’RE BARBRA STREISAND AND BETTE DAVIS, FOR GOD’S SAKE. They are both weird women and they are both irreplaceable. There is nobody like either of them on earth. They are fascinating to talk about but difficult to explain to people who don’t just immediately get that, who are like “They seem phony to me.” Phony to you, but Bette Davis believed every goddamn word she said, and if you look at it that way, then it’s the most real acting you’re ever gonna see.

Posted in Actors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , , | 25 Comments