“I’d marry again if I found a man who had fifteen million dollars, would sign over half to me and guarantee that he’d be dead within a year.” — Bette Davis

tumblr_n1t1gvARIg1qazanuo1_500

“I was thought to be ‘stuck up’. I wasn’t. I was just sure of myself. This is and always has been an unforgivable quality to the unsure.”

It’s her birthday today.

First up: For Film Comment, I wrote a piece about “back-ting” – acting with your back to the camera and/or audience. Bette Davis HEAVILY figures in it. Because she was a Back-tress of the highest order.

From James Baldwin’s The Devil Finds Work, an indispensable work of not only film criticism but cultural commentary and observation.

Here is Baldwin on the effect that seeing Bette Davis on the screen for the first time had on him as a small boy. A white schoolteacher (female, although everyone called her “Bill”) befriended young James and introduced him to cinema, theatre, and literature. She took him to see a Bette Davis movie.

My father said, during all the years I lived with him, that I was the ugliest boy he had ever seen, and I had absolutely no reason to doubt him. But it was not my father’s hatred of my frog-eyes which hurt me, this hatred proving, in time, to be rather more resounding than real: I have my mother’s eyes. When my father called me ugly, he was not attacking me so much as he was attacking my mother. (No doubt, he was also attacking my real, and unknown, father.) And I loved my mother. I knew that she loved me, and I sensed that she was paying an enormous price for me. I was a boy, and so I didn’t really too much care that my father thought me hideous. (So I said to myself – this judgment, nevertheless, was to have a decidedly terrifying effect on my life.) But I thought that he must have been stricken blind (or was as mysteriously wicked as white people, a paralyzing thought) if he was unable to see that my mother was absolutely beyond any question the most beautiful woman in the world.

So, here, now, was Bette Davis, on that Saturday afternoon, in close-up, over a champagne glass, pop-eyes popping. I was astounded. I had caught my father, not in a lie, but in an infirmity. For, here, before me, after all, was a movie star: white: and if she was white and a movie star, she was rich: and she was ugly…Out of bewilderment, out of loyalty to my mother, probably, and also because I sensed something menacing and unhealthy (for me, certainly) in the face on the screen, I gave Davis’s skin the dead-white greenish cast of something crawling from under a rock, but I was held, just the same, by the tense intelligence of the forehead…Eventually, from a hospital bed, she murders someone, and [Spencer] Tracy takes the weight, to Sing Sing. In his arms, Davis cries and cries, and the movie ends. “What’s going to happen to her now?” I asked Bill Miller. “We don’t know,” said Bill, conveying to me, nevertheless, that she would probably never get over it, that people pay for what they do.

I had not yet heard Bessie Smith’s “why they call this place the Sing Sing?/Come stand here by this rock pile, and listen to these hammers ring,” and it would be seven years before I would begin working on the railroad. It was to take a longer time than that before I would cry; a longer time than that before I would cry in anyone’s arms; and a long long long long time before I would begin to realize what I myself was doing with my enormous eyes – or vice versa. This had nothing to do with Davis, the actress, or with all those hang-ups I didn’t yet know I had: I had discovered that my infirmity might not be my doom; my infirmity, or infirmities, might be forged into weapons.

That’s one of my favorite things ever written about Davis.

bette-davis-3

And speaking of the “ugly” thing, which gets a lot of traction still: I do want to point you to my friend Farran Nehme’s gorgeous essay on Bette Davis’ face. The Face of Bette Davis.

There are so many unforgettable roles of such astonishing diversity she makes Meryl Streep look like a slacker: Of Human Bondage, Petrified Forest, All About Eve, The Letter, Now, Voyager, Jezebel, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, Marked Woman, The Star, Dark Victory, Strangers (the TV movie she did with Gena Rowlands in the 70s – the whole thing is on Youtube, people) … more, more, more. I love her in her early pre-Code cheese-cake phase too, before she became a star (Three on a Match where she is golden and pale and adorable).

She paved the way for other serious actresses who wanted to do quality films, and wanted to guide their own careers. Her fights with studios are still legendary.

She didn’t break the mould. She created it. It’s still hers.

Posted in Actors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , | 37 Comments

Review: Eric LaRue (2025)

I reviewed Michael Shannon’s directorial debut, Eric LaRue for Ebert (randomly, I saw the original production back in 2002!).

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | Leave a comment

In Memory of Roger Ebert: Michael, Roger & Me

Roger Ebert died 12 years ago today.

I wrote about him and how he reached out to me a couple of months before he died and how it coincided exactly with the other Great Event in my life in the late winter of 2013.

One of the early series the Rogerebert.com writers participated in was something called “My Favorite Roger.” Each writer wrote an essay discussing their favorite review written by Roger. I chose his review of Kwik Stop, a little-seen never-even-distributed indie movie, directed by Michael Gilio (who also wrote it, and starred in it). Here is Roger’s 3-1/2 star review of Kwik Stop.

The reason this matters is not just that Kwik Stop is a wonderful movie people should see (it is now – finally – on streaming platforms) – but that Michael and I have been friends for forever, basically. And our lives both intersected with Roger’s, independently, on separate tracks.

Michael was writing the script for Kwik Stop, or at least talking about it, the autumn we dated. We were a couple of kids, basically. Years after we split up (I moved to New York, I think he was in Los Angeles): boom, somehow the pre-social-media grapevine provided the information that Michael’s film was completed. He did it!

And then came Roger Ebert’s review. Ebert reviewed the film at a time when you could not even SEE it, even if you wanted to. This was major. There was no online community of critics to spread the word. Roger Ebert was the most famous film critic in the country. And the review was a rave. Chicago friends reported back on the screening at Facets, with QA moderated by Roger (you see how much Roger involved himself in getting the word out. He meant business.) And THIS is why I picked Roger’s review of Kwik Stop as “My Favorite Roger.” If you are in a powerful position, like Roger was, it’s meaningful when you use your power for good, when you point your vast audience towards something small, off-the-beaten path, not-mainstream, under the radar. (Steve James has said repeatedly that Roger Ebert basically MADE Hoop Dreams. Roger reviewed it in print, he reviewed it on television, he included the film in his Best-of-the-Year roundups. He beat the drum for Hoop Dreams for a YEAR. THAT’S using your power.) This is what Roger did for Michael’s film.

And here’s where it gets cosmic: It all just seems too weird to be a coincidence. Way back in 2001, Roger reached his hand out to Michael to acknowledge Michael’s work … and then over a decade later, in 2013 – two months before he died – Roger did the same thing to me, reaching out to me via email, asking me if I would start writing reviews for him.

He had no idea I was connected with Michael. How would he?

And THEN … to bring it even FURTHER … that I would eventually be in a position to write a tribute to both Roger AND Michael, on Roger’s site for the “My Favorite Roger” series … I’m not a New Age woo-woo, but this whole thing gives even me pause. Something cosmic MUST be at work here.

But there’s still more: In 2002, Roger screened Kwik Stop at Ebertfest (which was then known as the Overlooked Film Festival. Kwik Stop played in the 2nd year of its existence). 15 years later, in 2017, MY short film, July and Half of August played at Ebertfest. I have the Golden Thumb to prove it.

What are the odds of all of these coincidences intersecting three separate people being coincidental?

Here is what I wrote about Roger Ebert’s review of Kwik Stop, my favorite Roger because he wanted people to KNOW about this beautiful film that was being unfairly ignored.

My Favorite Roger: Kwik Stop

Here are some screen-grabs from Kwik Stop. Hopefully you will be intrigued enough to check out the film. It’s finally streaming!

UPDATE: Michael wrote Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, released last year. So proud of this guy!

 
 
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 Movies, On This Day, Personal | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

“The only thing an actor owes his public is not to bore them.” — Marlon Brando

“Sending Marlon Brando to acting class was like sending a tiger to jungle school.” – Stella Adler

Marlon_Brando_in_Steetcar_Named_Desire_trailer

It’s his birthday today.

Let’s start off with this, a piece I had long wanted to write: Revelations about Marlon Brando in about 5 or 6 pages in David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest.

Next up, another piece I’ve been saying “I really should write that” for literally over a decade. Old-timers will remember its genesis here: About those movie scenes when men look at themselves in the mirror, for the Musings blog at Oscilloscope. Brando has a DOOZY in Reflections in a Golden Eye. (Great performance.)

“You can’t always be a failure. Not and survive. Van Gogh! There’s an example of what can happen when a person never receives any recognition. You stop relating: it puts you outside. But I guess success does that, too. You know, it took me a long time before I was aware that that’s what I was – a big success. I was so absorbed in myself, my own problems, I never looked around, took account. I used to walk in New York, miles and miles, walk in the streets late at night, and never see anything. I was never sure about acting, whether that was what I really wanted to do; I’m still not. Then, when I was in ‘Streetcar’, and it had been running a couple of months, one night — dimly, dimly — I began to hear this roar.”
Marlon Brando

484771_444324465642351_1178880797_n

“We all know that movie actors often merge with their roles in a way that stage actors don’t, quite, but Brando did it even on the stage. I was in New York when he played his famous small role in Truckline Cafe in 1946; arriving late at a performance, and seated in the center of the second row, I looked up and saw what I thought was an actor having a seizure onstage. Embarrassed for him, I lowered my eyes, and it wasn’t until the young man who’d brought me grabbed my arm and said, ‘Watch this guy!’ that I realized he was acting.”
Pauline Kael

Marlon-Brando-marlon-brando-30585300-1900-2289

4 things about the famous taxicab scene in On the Waterfront:

1. In the closeups of Rod Steiger, he wasn’t even talking to Brando. Brando had left to go see his shrink. Steiger did his closeups looking at Kazan. You would never know. Steiger never forgave Brando for that.

2. When Rod Steiger pulls the gun on him: the way it was written was to have Brando be shocked and frightened, and say his lines from a panicked emotional “don’t shoot me” state. Brando knew it was wrong. He couldn’t say why. His understanding of acting was not a verbal one (although he could be extremely articulate about character development and script analysis. Listen to some of the things he said about Stanley Kowalski. He had thought about this shit.) Brando tried to express his issues with the gun-moment in Waterfront to Kazan before shooting. “If my brother pulled a gun on me … I wouldn’t be like this … ” He couldn’t express his feelings about it, he just knew it wasn’t real. Kazan said, “Okay – so show me how you would do it.” They played the scene. Steiger pulled the gun. And Brando’s response, now an indelible moment in American cinema, flowed out naturally. His sorrowful look, the gentle “shame on you” glance he gives his brother, the regret, shaking his head, putting his hand on the gun, gentle, gentle, like, “No, no, you’re my brother … no … this isn’t you …” Brando always chose relationship over abstraction and that stunning moment is the best example I can think of of his sense of emotional truth. Directors who didn’t trust him in that way, who didn’t trust that he knew more about emotional truth than they did, were in for a tough time with him. Kazan said later, about that most celebrated scene in Waterfront:

“What other actor, when his brother draws a pistol to force him to do something shameful, would put his hand on the gun and push it away with the gentleness of a caress? Who else could read, ‘Oh, Charley,’ in a tone of reproach that is so loving and so melancholy, and suggests that terrific depth of pain? I didn’t direct that; Marlon showed me, as he often did, how the scene should be performed. I never could have told him how to do that scene as well as he did it.”

And lastly:

3. Brando taped his lines to the top of the cab roof, so he could glance up at them for reference if he ever got lost during the scene. You can even catch him doing it at times, if you’re looking for it. Those who do not understand acting often use the “cue card” Brando thing as evidence that he was a slacker, or somehow pulling one over on us. (Peter Manso took that stance in his poison-pen biography. Honestly, I wish that people who spent so much time writing about movies and movie-making would devote just a little bit of time to researching and understanding acting. Or take an acting 101 class. Play a scene. Rehearse it. Try to “get there.” Just see what it’s like. Just to understand a little bit about this most important element of the artform they supposedly revere so much.) All I can say is: Actors who have learned their lines perfectly can only WISH they were as connected to action/objective/emotion as Brando was in those scenes where he was “just reading off cue cards.”

So after all that:

Watch.

A post I wrote about the development of Streetcar Named Desire on Broadway.

A post I wrote on Peter Manso’s biography of Brando. Some good stuff there on why I think Manso is an idiot.

An excerpt from Truman Capote’s famous New Yorker profile of Brando.

marlon-brando-new-york-april-19-1951

 
 
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 , , | 38 Comments

“I never retired.” — Doris Day

“I like joy; I want to be joyous; I want to have fun on the set; I want to wear beautiful clothes and look pretty. I want to smile, and I want to make people laugh. And that’s all I want. I like it. I like being happy. I want to make others happy.”

It’s her birthday today.

It was so much fun to pay tribute to Doris Day’s tour de force performance in Love Me or Leave Me – opposite an equally tour de force performance from James Cagney – for Film Comment. People need to see this movie if they have the incorrect assumption that Doris Day was just a perky 1950s blonde. Learn your history before you judge it.

To continue the Doris Day tribute:

Mitchell and I discussed Doris Day a couple years back. I would give him the name of a star and ask him to boil that person down into one word. Then he would begin. Mitchell is prolific and thoughtful. He knows his stuff. Doris Day deserves that kind of consideration.

DORIS DAY

SOM: One word.

MF: Under-rated.

Here’s the deal with Doris Day. She was such a huge star in her day and she’s almost forgotten now, except for being a footnote to mean something about virginity or a 1950s or 60s throwback to virginity and fear of women’s rights or something like that. But that’s so not who she was. She was such an interesting woman. She was a movie star, a pop star, she had a great voice, she could dance, she could act her balls off. She was a triple, quadruple threat for many many years, a top box office star for many years. Imagine a top box office star now being almost forgotten so soon later.

MF: Her singing was swingy and big band-y, but it wasn’t brassy, it wasn’t Lena Horne, it wasn’t Judy Garland, it wasn’t even Peggy Lee. It was softer, it was more Dinah Shore. Once the 60s happened, and the youth revolution happened, her day was over. I think that most people don’t know the difference between Doris Day, Debbie Reynolds, Gidget, or Sandra Dee. They’re all lumped in together.

MF: It is so unfair. Look at Doris Day’s work in silly musicals, Doris Day’s work in Hitchcock.

Here’s the deal. That Down With Love movie with Renee Zellweger which was an attempt to re-do a Doris Day movie is a perfect example of how hard it is to do what Doris Day did. Because Renee Zellweger didn’t do it well. And we really believe Doris Day. We think Renee is slumming a little bit, we can see her acting.

MF: And watch those movies again, you don’t see Doris Day acting. You see Doris Day being this character. Those women were also, interestingly enough, often single successful working women. This was not a woman waiting for a man to take care of her.

SOM: What’s her best role, do you think?

MF: I think probably her best role that she ever got was in Love Me or Leave Me where she played the jazz singer and James Cagney was her mobster boyfriend.

MF: But my favorite performance of hers is in Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much. There’s a scene where their son is kidnapped and James Stewart knows it but she doesn’t know it yet, and so he secretly gives her sleeping pills in her drink so that she’ll fall asleep when she finds out the news so she can’t freak out. The period of time from when she finds out to when she falls asleep is masterful acting. Her fear and her fury at her husband, and the knowledge that she’s gonna fall asleep and she can’t participate, and how dare you do this to me – and she’s playing all of it and she’s playing it gorgeously.

MF: That’s why I say she’s underrated.

Day’s image got tied to Pillow Talk. And here’s the deal with Pillow Talk: Nobody else could do Pillow Talk. Member that big argument we had with you and David and Bobby – we were talking about when Julie Andrews won the Oscar for Mary Poppins and she was up against Kim Stanley in Seance On a Wet Afternoon, a very Method dramatic performance. My argument was: other actresses at that time could have given Kim Stanley’s performance but nobody else could have played Mary Poppins.

SOM: It’s what I’ve been working on with the Elvis Presley movies.

MF: Exactly. There may have been better actors, but they weren’t doing what he was doing, because they couldn’t, because they weren’t Elvis.

SOM: And Elvis certainly felt like “This is the stupidest shit I’ve ever been asked to do”, he wasn’t wacky about it either, but sorry, Elvis, you’re irreplaceable in this kind of stuff, because you’re you.

MF: I can’t even think of any of her contemporaries who could do what she did. Even Debbie Reynolds who was the closest, being a perky blonde – not even she comes close to what Doris Day did. The only movie where you can see Doris Day acting, and it’s because it’s an over-the-top ridiculous musical and she was clearly directed that way, is Calamity Jane. But still, there’s that great scene, where she sings “Secret Love” out by a tree, and there’s this weird lesbian undertone to it, and it’s gorgeous. So in this ridiculous movie where she’s acting up a storm in this over-the-top way, she sings the song, and it’s the only famous moment from that movie, really – and it’s so real and so beautiful, and it’s a classic.

MF: I think that she deserves another looking-at. There’s so much joy from Pillow Talk and Send Me No Flowers and Please Don’t Eat the Daisies or The Man Who Knew Too Much or Love Me or Leave Me. Even her TV show was so charming. She had a situation like Joan Rivers where her husband lost all of her money, and so she had to go back to work when she thought she was set. And she did this TV show, and she was gorgeous, and it ran for 7 seasons, and it was a hit, and then she got the hell out of Dodge.

MF: And the only time she made public appearances in the last 30 years, was when she was there to support Rock Hudson when he announced he was dying, and for animal care and research, she was a big animal rights activist. And that’s it. She’s done nothing else. She’ll only show up if there’s a cause she believes in and that’s been 4 or 5 times in 30 years. She’s like Greta Garbo in a lot of ways. She made her money back, she did it with integrity, she did it with a hit TV show, and then out the door. I love that. Lena Horne left pissed. Doris Day is still reaping the benefits of the life she had lived, and I would love to see a revival of that kind of talent.

MF: You know I love a soulful singer, but I think we live in an era where white singers think they have to sound like black people. Even Adele, or Amy Winehouse. And Doris Day made no attempt to sound like anything else other than herself.

MF: And that’s out of style, too. It doesn’t take away from the fact that she was as good as anyone and as popular as anyone in their day.

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

Posted in Actors, Music, On This Day | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

“The films I find boring are the ones that have no space for the audience’s misconceptions.” — Josephine Decker

Josephine Decker has only made six features (five of which I have seen) and most are marked by her very distinct gaze.

Let’s define our terms. With all the talk about “female gaze” and “male gaze” – overused terms, to the point they’ve become meaningless – when I talk about Decker’s “gaze” I mean it literally. How she sees, how she translates what she actually sees into a visual fingerprint.

I could recognize one of Decker’s shots in a blind lineup. (Decker’s regular cinematographer Ashley Connor – who shot four of her films – deserves much credit too.) For Decker it’s about focus: focusing on the minute and microscopic detail, blurring out the background drastically, forcing the audience to stare at, say, a raindrop on a leaf, through which the whole world can be seen, except distorted. She peeks at the peripheral, leaving the main event in a blur – this can be a very destabilizing experience for the audience. She doesn’t do things “the normal way”. She doesn’t “set up” shots. It’s un-traditional, what she’s doing.

She started as an actress in the “mumblecore” scene in New York, which brought us so many weird and eccentric talents. She made experimental shorts all along, inspired by Joe Swanberg’s example. One summer she attended a Balkan folk music camp in California, and found the entire experience eerie, compelling. The experience stuck with her. The following summer she got an artists’ residency in the same area of California, and realized the Balkan camp was happening the next month. She decided, spur of the moment, to film her first feature while attending the Balkan music camp. She put out the call to actor friends, she got permission from the camp to film her movie , and that’s what she did. The result was her first feature, 2013’s Butter on the Latch. With everything that’s happened since, and I don’t mean this to be contrarian, I think Butter on the Latch is her best film. It traveled the festival circuit, but didn’t even get distribution.

Seek it out on streaming, if you can find it.


Butter on the Latch

Two young women attend the folk music camp. The friendship seems to be perilous, maybe even too intense, with a lot of things left unsaid. The boundaries are nonexistent. This is true in the film’s structure as well, a fluctuating hybrid of documentary and narrative. The Balkan music camp goes on around them, and they participate. It’s the kind of footage you can only get in a documentary: real people, real experiences. But the two young women have their own melodrama, and Decker’s approach is mysterious, alluring. Butter on the Latch is often an unnerving film. Decker knows her Bergman. I think of this film sometimes in connection with Always Shine, directed by Sophie Takal, another intriguing director who came out of the same environment as Decker.


Butter on the Latch

Trailer for Butter on the Latch

The following year came Decker’s second feature, Thou Wast Mild and Lovely, which got more attention than Butter on the Latch and knocked me flat. In a way, the film is more about Decker’s distinctive visual style than anything having to do with plot or character. The film is a showcase of her style.


Thou Wast Mild and Lovely


Thou Wast Mild and Lovely

There are images in the film with real staying power. The frog. The kitchen utensils in the air, against the blue sky. The final scene. In Decker’s films, the potential of losing your “self” altogether is always present, where the background is totally blurred, and the teeny and peripheral loom in the foreground. Where can the individual reside in such an environment?

Her work is unfettered from conventional filmmaking “tropes”, and sometimes it makes other films seem unnecessarily rule-bound. Who established these random rules about what a shot is supposed to look like, how a story should operate, that the best way to tell a story is long-shot-to-medium-shot-to-closeup etc.? Break rules. Do whatever the hell you want to do. People may hate it, may not respond to it, but that didn’t stop John Cassavetes.

Trailer for Thou Wast Mild and Lovely:

After Thou Wast Mild and Lovely, there was a gap of a few years. She did a couple little things, but no follow-up feature. Then came a documentary, co-directed with her boyfriend at the time, Zefrey Throwell. They documented their 8-month-long relationship and eventual breakup. It’s called Flames.


Flames

This relationship seems to have been all-consuming, complicated by an artistic partnership. They are film-makers, they wanted to create something together. But what happens when one partner (i.e. Decker) pulls ahead of the other (Throwell)? (It’s A Star is Born.). At times I got the sense he was hitching his wagon to hers, hoping to gain success for himself. This causes stress. It’s navel-gazing in an extreme form. I would not suggest you start off your Decker journey with Flames. You might never want to move forward. I’d suggest starting with Thou Wast Mild and Lovely or Butter on the Latch. It took Decker and Throwell forever to extricate themselves from the relationship, especially since they had decided to document themselves and wanted to finish the film. If it sounds self-indulgent, it is. Your personal life is really only interesting to you. I say this as someone who has broken the rule many many times. HOWEVER. (And it’s a big “However”.) What matters is how Decker SEES. Her vision is unique, her expression and approach is her own.

Trailer for Flames:

Madeline’s Madeline was her most accessible work to date, ending up on many critics’ “Best Of” lists at the end of that year. For the first time, Decker worked with “names” (Molly Parker, Miranda July). She also directed an amazing debut performance from newcomer Helena Howard.


Madeline’s Madeline

There’s a “meta” quality to much of Decker’s work. Similar to Butter on the Latch‘s full-immersion into the folk music camp, actually happening in the real world, Madeline’s Madeline takes place during the rehearsals of a New York experimental theatre company. The scenes don’t appear to be set up. They show real people doing the real things they do in real life. A fictional narrative weaves through the real-ness, and so the two worlds merge. Madeline’s Madeline has a “message”, unlike her other films, and I don’t particularly groove to the message part of it. I mean, it’s fine, it’s a good message! But I appreciate movies that don’t pressure themselves into imparting a message.


Madeline’s Madeline

Whatever Decker grapples with at any given moment goes into her films. In Madeline’s Madline, Decker grapples with the responsibility of an artist, of creating community as artists, but also a more mature examination of motherhood and family. Extraordinary performances all around, particularly from Howard. Despite the realistic New York setting, this is not kitchen sink realism. Decker is not a kitchen-sink-reality director.

Trailer for Madeline’s Madeline:

What Decker does is make me question why everything we see seems so rote and recycled. Where are the people with new visions, and the boldness to attempt to put on screen what they see in their heads? Find a new way – your way – to bring what is inside of you OUT. This is what Cassavetes did and he changed the world of film forever. He put what was inside of him OUT.

Madeline’s Madeline was such a critical hit that it probably opened some doors for Decker, or at least got bigger-name actors interested in working with her. And so along came Shirley, starring Elizabeth Moss as Shirley Jackson.


Shirley

Shirley is the only Decker film I’ve formally reviewed. I had a major issue with Shirley, which I get into in the review – but since it’s a fictionalized portrait of Shirley Jackson – taking place when she was writing her extremely terrifying The Hangsaman, based on a real story of a girl who went missing in the area – I didn’t so much let it slide, as took everything else into consideration. I was trepidatious going in that Decker’s style would be conventionalized, or ironed-out, with a bigger budget. This was her first real character-based movie, AND it’s based on a real person, AND it’s starring a well-known actress. AND, this was the first film of Decker’s which Ashley Connor didn’t shoot. I was happy to see Decker’s style – all those blurred-out creepy backgrounds, and eerie shots of nature with small blurred-out figures moving through it … was still present.


Shirley

It established that Ashley Connor realized Decker’s vision, not the other way around.

Trailer for Shirley:

I haven’t seen her latest, The Sky Is Everywhere, and it’s gotten very bad reviews, from a couple of friends of mine whose opinions I trust. I won’t weigh in then except to say that the project doesn’t seem to be in her wheelhouse, at least from the description of it (adaptation of a tearjerker YA novel). Someone as individual as Decker needs to go her own way. Her talent might be too eccentric for the mainstream. Nothing against the mainstream. It’s just that there’s mainstream storytelling – coherent, graspable, mostly linear – and then there’s the avant-garde. Decker is the latter.

“Can you make a feature film for less than 10,000 dollars? You can.” – Josephine Decker

 
 
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 , | Leave a comment

March 2025 Snapshots

Mitchell’s change purse

Our new normal. The water jug is the third in our polyamorous relationship. Frankie likes it to be there so he can push back against it, or wrap himself around it. If the water jug isn’t there, he stands on the blanket (which was Hope’s blanket) and stares at the empty spot and then looks at me, and I swear I can see him asking, “Hey, where’s that thing I like?”

Watching Supernatural under these conditions is something I’ve needed to get used to.

Cousins.

Two laptops in a hotel room. So much time in hotel rooms in the last couple of months. I love it. Especially when it’s paid for.

Out at this new place near me, having a blood orange margarita and reading The Bad One, by Erin Tyler. More to come on this one.

I got Frankie in November 2024. After a period of adjustment, where he wandered around nervously and alert, and struggled mightily with massive food anxiety due to starving on the streets, poor guy, he settled into the rhythm of being with me. He’s chilled about food. He leaves kibbles in the bowl because he knows it will be there when he wants it later. My heart!! He is my shadow. He loves being next to me on the couch. With the water jug, of course. For some reason he found my bedroom a little alienating and he didn’t like it when I went in there. He’d stand at the doorway, meowing urgently at me, like “WHAT ARE YOU DOING.” To compensate for his alarm, he’d only come into the bedroom to tear it apart. He knocked my jewelry box off the dresser. He attacks the curtains. He tiptoes along the shelf where I have precious things (to me) on display: photos, the china cat my niece Pearl gave me. He bats at things with his paws. He can’t calm down. I’d turn off the light to go to sleep and I’d hear him tiptoeing around, attacking the dresser legs, clawing at the side of the bed, and I’d finally have to get up, usher him out of the room and close the door. He would stand outside the door, meowing in protest. I’d love it if he’d come and curl up with me and sleep next to me but … About 3 weeks ago, I couldn’t find him. He wasn’t in his normal places. It’s weird because he’s always there, underfoot, lying next to me, etc. Finally, I found him. We’ve had a breakthrough. He comes into the bedroom on his own for private naps. He now goes to sleep right next to me, pushing his body into my chest, probably imagining I am a water jug.

I sit at my desk in my back study working for hours. Writing for hours. Sitting until my back aches, even with all the pillows and “tush” padding I have on my chair. Hours disappear. I’m feeling tapped out but I have to dig deep for more, because I have to keep going. “Weekends” have no meaning. Every day work has to be done. This has been my reality for months. Since the fall of last year. I’m so exhausted, and it’s been a struggle to find it within me to keep going, especially with the political nightmare right now, as well as my family situation which takes up so much time (time I of course am willing to spend), and also just feeling torn because I want to be with my family all the time and I miss my friends. This too shall pass. It’s crunch time. For a while I worked on the couch, mainly because Frankie was now a factor, and he curls up next to me all day as I work. It’s comforting, his little warm body pressing into my thigh (and the water jug). But I needed to move to the study, just to formalize my inner relationship to my writing, and keep it professional. (Being a writer is weird. You have to play mind games just to keep going.) Frankie saw this as a betrayal. He wandered around the first day I worked in the study, getting into mischief, knocking things off shelves, meowing, constantly pulling my attention. I then moved his cat bed into the study, right below my desk chair. Problem solved. Although I’m sure it’s not entirely okay with him. Maybe I need to put the water jug into his cat bed.

My relationship to being a woman is sometimes rocky. I wouldn’t have it any other way, don’t get me wrong, but gender norms affect us all. I broke free when I was a little tomboy kid and never looked back. Thank you Tatum O’Neal/Kristy McNichol/Jodie Foster for leading the way in the scrappy-tomboy 70s. I mean, this is how I dressed at age 10. Bless my parents for not making me wear a dress. I came of age in the fluid New Wave era, so dressing in suits just wasn’t a big deal. I wasn’t the only one. I wore sneakers to my prom. Big whup. But there’s a dark side. Real dark. I’ve been getting into painting – and thus growing – my nails. I bought a whole kit and everything. I spend time on it. The polish is chipped in this picture so I’ll have to fix it. There’s a kind of woman who doesn’t feel like an imposter when she wears nail polish. I’m not one of those women. Reviewing films is actually a form of autobiography. I can’t be more clear than I was here. Feeling like an imposter doesn’t mean I don’t like wearing costumes. I love costumes. I don’t have a “style”. My default style since I was 9 years old is Harriet the Spy meets Peppermint Patty. Anything deviating from that is a costume. When I used to go out all the time I’d be like “okay who should I be tonight? Biker chick? Gibson Girl? Courtney Love? Gena Rowlands?” My favorite hair-cut ever was the buzz cut I got in grad school. I wondered why I had never shaved it all off before. I felt so much like myself. Having long painted nails doesn’t feel like me and maybe that’s why I like it. I look at my hands and go, “Oooh, pretty!!” Like it has nothing to do with me. Small pleasures.

One of the biggest perks of my small apartment is that there is actually room to move stuff around or re-organize the space if I feel I need to. I’ve spoken before about talismans: one of the things I love to do is to surround myself with what I call my talismans: objects that have great meaning to me and connect me to the continuum of my life. The music box (that no longer works) given to me by my grandfather. The shelf of Irish books inherited from my father. The little glass ball with a suspended doohickey inside that my friend Brett gave me: you dangle it over a light and the doohickey inside starts spinning. He got it at a science museum. He’s dead now. Once upon a time he was one of my favorite people on earth. I have so little of him. But I have the talisman and every time I look at it I think of him. My crappy Lucy Maud Montgomery paper backs have been with me since high school / college. I never got new copies. I don’t care for some of her books. I will never read Kilmeny of the Orchard or Pat of Silver Bush again. But I can’t get rid of these talismans, never! I have a collector’s mindset. I want my things to be together (as though they have an interior life). I need them all to be lined up, together. I don’t keep every book, and some books come in and out of my life and there’s no need to keep them with me. But Lucy Maud? I need her to be “around”. I got new shelving for my physical-media (i.e. DVDs). The Criterion Collection was starting to look haphazard, piled up, a mess. So I put together new shelving for it, and it fits on the little wall underneath one of my sharply slanted ceilings. (My apartment is basically in the roof of this little beach house). By making room for this collection, I opened up space in the other shelves, the ones in my little study. All of my children’s books, which I’ve had since I was a little child, have been in the back of my closet since I moved here. But I want them out. They are talismans and even if my eye just floats by the shelf, it gives a sense of well-being to just see them there. So I made the transfer yesterday, piles of books out of the closet into the little empty shelves. I had to organize everything, of course, and alphabetize, and choronologically line it all up. Flashback to the catastrophic move Mitchell and I made from one apartment to another in Chicago: we showed up to move in and the hungover guys in our new apartment hadn’t even started packing up the place. We had to wait around the whole day to move in. My friend Ann Marie was a fellow Lucy Maud obsessive (“I always liked Sophy Sinclair,” she said to me early on in our friendship. Sophy Sinclair is a minor MINOR character in Anne of Windy Poplars, and when Ann pulled HER out by name, I knew we would be friends). She showed up to help with our move, because when you’re in your 20s you help each other move. She set herself the task to organize my books. We are so alike. At one point she sat on the floor surrounded by my stacks of Lucy Maud books. She asked, “So I’m assuming you want each series to go together?” “Yes, please.” “And what about the stand-alone books? Do you want those by publication date?” Slightly ashamed, she knew me so well, I said, “Yes, please.” So that’s also what I think of when I look at my Lucy Maud collection. Yesterday, I sat on the floor and organized the books, lining up the Anne books, the Emily books, the Story Girl books, the “Pat” books, and then I put together the stand-alones, the short story collections, etc., checking the publication date. I’m a leopard. These spots won’t change.

It was arranged by TPTB to screen a movie for me – specifically – and the only people there were 1. me 2. the studio liaison 3. the projectionist. I have had “personal” screenings before, as a member of NYFCC. If I didn’t see something, or missed the screenings or whatever, then TPTB want to do whatever to make it happen, just because every vote counts. I saw The Zone of Interest that way. I couldn’t get to New York, I wasn’t at 500 festivals last year, I just didn’t see it. Clearly it was going to be an important film so TPTB asked me what movie cineplex was near me. I told them. It’s the AMC theatre which has existed from before I was born probably. So this is the power of these studios: they “made a call” and rented one of the smaller theatres just so I could see Zone of Interest. I took a friend. He and I were all alone in one of the smaller theatres. It was surreal. He brought a flask. Which was appreciated. At any rate, I had another one of those this month but at a screening room in New York. My hotel was half a block away. It was extremely last minute: “Hi, can you be in New York tomorrow” (text at 4:30 pm the previous day). This project is nearing its completion and shit is getting BUSY. But there was something beautiful about checking into the hotel 5 hours later that night – I moved FAST – taking a pre-bed shower, sleeping like a BABY – I always do in hotels, I spent the next day working, sitting on the bed, ordering food from my favorite nearby place to come to the hotel. Later, I walked half a block to the screening room where I could finally meet the woman I’d been corresponding with. We emerged later into the cold night and talked about the movie, standing on the sidewalk. The hotel was so close, I could just slip back in. Woke up at 5:45 the next morning to take the early train back. To home. To Frankie.

Reading
The collected works of John Keats. I am VERY familiar with his most famous ones, and a couple – like On Melancholy and On Autumn – are among my favorite poems of all time. They’re like friends.
Karaoke Culture, by Dubravka Ugrešić (happy birthday)
The Bad One, by Erin Tyler: she used to have a blog I adored called The Bunny Blog. I still miss it. Will be writing more about this book.

Posted in Personal | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

“Here’s to better times ahead and saying goodbye to bombs and bullets once and for all.” — Lyra McKee

Born on this day, investigative journalist Lyra McKee was shot and killed in Derry in 2019, during a standoff between police officers and dissident republicans. She was there as a journalist, covering the events. A masked person fired a shot at the police vehicles, and McKee was hit. Her haunting final Tweet:

She was 29 years old. This was devastating news.

Born in Belfast, right off the socalled “Murder Mile,” she was of the generation that came of age post Good Friday Agreement. In fact, she was killed on the 21st anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. Hers was a very perceptive take on the challenges and struggles of what she coined the “Ceasefire Babies,” her generation raised in the aftermath of decades of terror and violence (centuries, really). Her generation came up when all of it was supposedly “over” but … it wasn’t over, not really. McKee wrote:

The Ceasefire Babies was what they called us. Those too young to remember the worst of the terror because we were either in nappies or just out of them when the Provisional IRA ceasefire was called. I was four, Jonny was three. We were the Good Friday Agreement generation, destined to never witness the horrors of war but to reap the spoils of peace. The spoils just never seemed to reach us.

That this important voice has been silenced makes me so angry and so sad.

She got a lot done in her 29 years. Martin Doyle featured her in his 10 Rising Stars of Irish Writing list. She was chosen by Forbes to be in the first European version of their regular feature “30 Under 30 in Media”. McKee worked as a freelance journalist, and had just signed a book deal with Faber & Faber prior to her death. I was very much looking forward to her first book, due out in 2020, called The Lost Boys. The book was described thus:

“The Lost Boys will explore the disappearances of a number of children and young men during the Troubles. Many of them were not believed to be victims of the IRA or the UVF. Some were kids who left home for school and never came home and their disappearances were never solved by the police. McKee will investigate what happened to them.”

Her 2016 piece in The Atlantic about the high suicide rate among the “Ceasefire Babies” is what first got my attention. It’s an extraordinary piece of journalism, and I highly recommend everyone read it: Suicide Among the Ceasefire Babies

She was also an advocate for LGBTQ youths. The struggles of growing up in Belfast are unique. It’s not like growing up other places. (Read Anna Burns’ extraordinary novel The Milkman. Burns was one of the many attendees at McKee’s funeral.) McKee spoke from and to those in that particular struggle. In 2015, she wrote a letter to her 14-year-old self on her blog – the blog-post proceeded to go viral, and was eventually made into a beautiful short film.

The man who murdered McKee. was caught on camera. The statements of condemnation came from both sides of the conflict – a rare thing. And yet the following year, things reverted back to the way they were, with dissidents continuing their threats/intimidation. Her murder rocked the community. Belfast is complicated, Derry is complicated, the whole situation is complicated, with centuries of bad blood on both sides. But still: nothing happening in re: an investigation into who the hell murdered her – no sense of the pursuit of justice, etc. – was outrageous. Like … nothing happened. McKee’s friends headed up the protests to get a conviction, demanding that something be done, that the investigation not be dropped, that at LEAST charges be made. This won’t just go away.

In 2019, Peter Taylor directed a documentary for the BBC about Lyra McKee’s friends, and their fight to find the man who killed their friend. It’s called The Real Derry Girls. You can watch the whole thing here.

In the fall of 2021 – finally – two men were charged “in connection” the murder of Lyra McKee. Three years after her murder charges are filed, and yet still: “Prosecutors said the two defendants are alleged to have been with the gunman who fired the fatal shot. A judge released the two men on bail until their next hearing on Oct. 7.” In January of 2023, two men were charged with her murder and are going to stand trial. Still though: nothing. I have found no news of anything else happening. It’s a disgrace.

My friends Anthony and Carrie McIntyre, two journalists who live and work in Belfast, knew and loved Lyra McKee. As veterans of that conflict, they found hope for the future in her perspective, in who she was, and how she wrote. (I stayed with Anthony and Carrie when I was in Belfast almost 15 years ago.) Anthony’s site, The Pensive Quill, has a couple of different tributes to McKee, which I encourage you to read. This is such a huge loss. One of the pieces is by human rights lawyer Sarah Kay, and one is bymy friend Carrie, whose rage shimmers off the page.

Heartbreaking and infuriating.

The legendary Christy Moore wrote a song called “Lyra McKee”. Here he is performing it live:

The English group The Young’uns also wrote a song for Lyra (“Lyra”):

… and they went to Belfast, the land of graffiti and murals, to see the Lyra mural. They spoke to Lyra’s niece, standing in front of the mural:

 
 
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 , , , | 4 Comments

“Art indeed is long, but life is short.” — Metaphysical poet Andrew Marvell

“Andrew Marvell spans three ages like a delicate but serviceable bridge. The first length spans Charles I’s reign and fall, the second spans the Commonwealth, the third the Restoration.” — Michael Schmidt, Lives of the Poets

It’s his birthday today.

Metaphysical poet Andrew Marvell was in that generation spanning a time of huge upheaval in England: the reign of Charles 1, the Civil War, the Restoration and then the Commonwealth. Marvell was often on the losing side of these events, yet unlike some other public figures (Milton, in particular), he was not punished. He was also instrumental in saving Milton’s ass, intervening when things got hairy. He was an Oliver Cromwell stan, and his Cromwell poems were kept out of his published collections when the wind blew in the opposite direction. Marvell was a member of Parliament, writing satirical pamphlets on the hot issues of the day. His pamphlets and prose writing were more well-known than his poetry during his lifetime. He was not an ivory tower poet.

Marvell is famous most of all for the gorgeous line “Had we but world enough and time…”, but most of his poems are political. He also wrote many religious poems, but they lack the sweeping grand devotion of Milton or Donne. Marvell was more reserved in his faith. Or maybe I’m mis-reading them entirely. The political poems, too … I could be not equipped to analyze them, there may be much more ambivalence there than is perceivable to the naked eye, to the 20th/21st century eye, underneath all the “anti-Popery” hatred. The poets of this era did what they had to do to survive. If that meant toadying up to the Head Honcho, then that’s what they did. Of course there were also the true believers. As the monarchy toppled, and then resurrected, it was impossible to stay on the right side, because the “right side” swapped. You either changed sides or went into hiding or faced the consequences. That ol’ boomerang of history: it’s such an inevitability in power and politics, and yet we continue to fail to learn the necessary lessons.

His ode to Oliver Cromwell is fascinating and grotesque. There’s nothing else like it, really, in the literature. (Thank goodness.) But still: if you can stomach it, and you probably should, read it. It’s called “An Horatian Ode upon Cromwell’s Return from Ireland”. Fuck you, Cromwell.

Marvell has written so many famous lines:

The grave’s a fine and private place,
But none I think do there embrace.

And this, his most famous:

To his Coy Mistress

Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love’s day;
Thou by the Indian Ganges’ side
Shouldst rubies find; I by the tide
Of Humber would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the Flood;
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires, and more slow.
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, lady, you deserve this state,
Nor would I love at lower rate.

But at my back I always hear
Time’s winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found,
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song; then worms shall try
That long preserv’d virginity,
And your quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust.
The grave’s a fine and private place,
But none I think do there embrace.

Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul transpires
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may;
And now, like am’rous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour,
Than languish in his slow-chapp’d power.
Let us roll all our strength, and all
Our sweetness, up into one ball;
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Thorough the iron gates of life.
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.

QUOTES:

17th century writer/gossip John Aubrey:

He was of middling stature, pretty strong sett, roundish faced, cherry cheek’t, hazell eie, browne haire. He was in conversation very modest, and of very few words; and though he loved wine he would never drinke hard in company, and was wont to say that, he would not play the goodfellow in any many’s company in whose hand he would not trust his life. He had not a generall acquaintance… For Latin verses there was no man could come into competition with him.

T.S. Eliot, from his famous essay “Andrew Marvell”, 1921, which was an extended argument that Marvell wasn’t “all THAT”:

Marvell has stood high for some years; his best poems are not very many, and not only must be well known, from the Golden Treasury and the Oxford Book of English Verse, but must also have been enjoyed by numerous readers. His grave needs neither rose nor rue nor laurel; there is no imaginary justice to be done; we may think about him, if there be need for thinking, for our own benefit, not his. To bring the poet back to life–the great, the perennial, task of criticism–is in this case to squeeze the drops of the essence of two or three poems; even confining ourselves to these, we may find some precious liquor unknown to the present age.

Harold Bloom, The Best Poems of the English Language:

Friend and admirer of John Milton, Marvell was no more Miltonic than he was Jonsonean or Donnean in his poetry. Critical admiration for Marvell began in the Romantic period with Charles Lamb and William Hazlitt and continued with Tennyson, achieving an apotheosis in T.S. Eliot. Since Eliot, Marvell has been another poet’s poet, but a general audience has held fast to a few poems … Marvell is also immensely influential upon modern poetry; the greatest living American poet, John Ashbery, abounds in Marvellian allusions.

Michael Schmidt, in Lives of the Poets:

Marvell was not a professional writer. Most of his poems are in one way or another “flawed”… Yet because of some spell he casts, he is a poet whose faults we not only forgive but relish. Beneath an inadequate logic the poetry follows its own habits of association and combination. Two modes of discourse are at work, a conscious one, and something unwilled yet compelling. We cannot decide which of a poem’s effects are deliberate, which casual or accidental. They seem products of a not altogether untroubled leisure at Nunappleton. T.S. Eliot contrasts Marvell with Donne. Donne would have been “an individual at any time and place”; Marvell is “the product of European, that is to say Latin, culture.” The difference is in the use of the “I”. Donne’s “I” demands attention, Marvell’s directs it. In Marvell the flaws do not disappear beneath gesture; inconsistency and uncertainty are aspects of a mind concerned with subject. That subject is not self. However distinctively he appropriates a landscape or scene, it never becomes a paysage interieur. The macrocosm is never displaced by the microcosm.

Camilla Paglia on “To His Coy Mistress,” in Break, Blow, Burn: Camille Paglia Reads Forty-three of the World’s Best Poems:

This is the most famous as well as the most intricate carpe diem poem. The term means “Seize the day” – that is, “Live now,” a brazen pagan message descending from Greco-Roman literature. Marvell’s oratorical plea for a young woman’s sexual surrender builds like a legal argument from evidence to summation. The three long stanzas (really verse paragraphs of rhyming couplets) mimic the structure of a simple syllogism in formal logic. To paraphrase the three parts: (1) If we had all the time in the world … (2) But we don’t … (3) So let’s make love.

The poem’s driving theme is the transience of time: all things must pass. This sober insight, fostering detachment from earthly illusion, is shared by classical philosophers (such as Heracleitus and the Roman Stoics), Christian theologians, and Buddhist monks. But Marvell, quite the opposite, wants to reclaim and intensify the sensual present: “Now … now … now,” he insists (33, 37, 38). By creating an alarming sense of urgency, he lures the lady (called “mistress” not for her sexual status but for her social position or power over her admirers) to side with him against the hostile forces of the universe.

T.S. Eliot, from “Andrew Marvell”, 1921, on “Coy Mistress”:

Where the wit of Marvell renews the theme is in the variety and order of the images. In the first of the three paragraphs Marvell plays with a fancy which begins by pleasing and leads to astonishment.

Had we but world enough and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime,
… I would
Love you ten years before the Flood,
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews;
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires and more slow. …

We notice the high speed, the succession of concentrated images, each magnifying the original fancy. When this process has been carried to the end and summed up, the poem turns suddenly with that surprise which has been one of the most important means of poetic effect since Homer:

But at my back I always hear
Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near,
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.

William Empson, on the Mower poems:

In these meadows he feels he has left his mark on a great territory if not on everything, and as a typical figure he has mown all the meadows of the world; in either case Nature gives him regal and magical honors, and I suppose he is not only the ruler but the executioner of the daffodils–the Clown as Death.

Harold Bloom, The Best Poems of the English Language:

Marvell is the most enigmatic, unclassifiable, and unaffiliated major poet in the language. It is finally unhelpful to call his poetry Metaphysical, Mannerist, Epicurean, Platonist, or Puritan, though all of those terms somehow are applicable. One of the most original poets in Western tradition, Marvell had no strong precursors, though Spenser may be near his hidden root. His poetry has a clear relation to the schools of Donne and Johnson, but is of neither, unlike that of such contemporaries as Randolph, Carew, and Lovelace. The distance from Milton, his greatest contemporary, and the subject of one of his most admirable and admiring poems, is remarkable. His authentic affinities were with quite minor French poets who came after the Pleiade, Theophile de Viau (1590-1626) and Antoine-Girard de Saint-Amant (1594-1661).

Frank Kermode:

Marvell is not a philosophical poet; in his role as poet he engaged his subjects as poetry, bringing to them a mind of great intelligence and intelligently ordered learning. our knowledge of his religious and political thought helps us only a little more than our knowledge of his personal life (quick temper, preference for solitary drinking) and can be related to the substance of his poetry only very cautiously and generally (the power of a mind engaged but detached, the alertness, leaning on the wind.

T.S. Eliot, from “Andrew Marvell”, 1921:

Marvell’s best verse is the product of European, that is to say Latin, culture.

Harold Bloom, The Best Poems of the English Language:

One can choose 1587 as an arbitrary date to begin the richest eighty years of poetry in English. Christopher Marlowe’s Tamburlaine was then first performed, perhaps with Shakespeare in the audience, though we do not know when the greatest of poets first arrived in London: 1589 seems to me rather too late, even as an outward limit. The first three books of Spenser’s Faerie Queene were published in 1590. In the early 1590s, Donne wrote many of the Songs and Sonnets, to be published only posthumously. By 1595, at the latest, Shakespeare was at his first full greatness, joined by Jonson at his strongest in Volpone (1606). The Tribe of Ben–disciples of the lyric and epigrammatic Jonson–included Robert Herrick, Thomas Carew, and Richard Lovelace. Andrew Marvell, a poetic party of one, wrote his lyrics by the 1650s, coming after the posthumous publication of George Herbert’s poetry in 1633. Richard Crashaw and Henry Vaughan published by the 1650s. Milton’s Comus was composed in 1634; Paradise Lost, dictated by the blind poet, was finished by 1665, seventy-eight years after Marlowe first shattered his London audiences.

Ruth Nevo on “Damon the Mower”:

A pastoral elegy for the quiet mind disturbed radically by desire unsatisfied.

T.S. Eliot, “Andrew Marvell”, 1921:

And in the verses of Marvell which have been quoted there is the making the familiar strange, and the strange familiar, which Coleridge attributed to good poetry.

Michael Schmidt:

In “To his Coy Mistress” the poet begins with a cool, reasonable proposition. From the temperate beginning the poem gathers speed, rushing to a cruel resolution. Image follows image with precise brevity; each extends and enriches the idea… If drama is generated, as in “To his Coy Mistress”, it is by control of pace and imagery, not by situation. His verse is urbane, detached, with recurrent motifs and words and a recognizable tone that distinguishes it from the work of other Metaphysicals.

Harold Bloom, The Best Poems of the English Language:

Nor are there Marvellian poets after Marvell. T.S. Eliot, though his essay on Marvell has been so influential, is a Tennysonian-Whitmanian elegist of the self, whose actual verse has more in common with that of William Morris than with Marvell. Eliot’s celebrated essay, still being exalted by Frank Kermode and others, is in fact quite bad, being replete with irrelevant assertions as to how much better a poet Marvell is than Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Tennyson, Browning, Hardy, and Yeats.

Geoffrey Hartman on the Mower poems:

[The theme is] labor of hope … hope in nature frustrated by love or by the very strength of hope.

T.S. Eliot, from “Andrew Marvell”, 1921:

The wit of the Caroline poets is not the wit of Shakespeare, and it is not the wit of Dryden, the great master of contempt, or of Pope, the great master of hatred, or of Swift, the great master of disgust. What is meant is some quality which is common to the songs in Comus and Cowley’s “Anacreontics” and Marvell’s “Horatian Ode.” It is more than a technical accomplish meet, or the vocabulary and syntax of an epoch; it is, what we have designated tentatively as wit, a tough reasonableness beneath the slight Iyric grace.

Michael Schmidt on the Cromwell poem:

It is the most complex and the best directly political poem in the language. It retains a radical balance in the terms of its celebration and commendation.

Harold Bloom, The Best Poems of the English Language:

That Marvell was a bad-tempered, hard-drinking, lifelong bachelor and controversialist is more helpful knowledge than everything we know of his religion and politics, for the paradoxical reason that such a personality simply does not manifest itself in the poems, except perhaps for the satire. The Mower poems could have been written by a good-tempered married man who never touched alcohol and had little notion of religious and political quarrels. Yet they are at once absolutely idiosyncratic and personal and totally universal in scope and emphasis, which is only to say that they are very great, very enigmatic lyric poems rather than philosophical tractates or scholarly investigations.

T.S. Eliot, from “Andrew Marvell”, 1921:

Marvell, therefore, more a man of the century than a Puritan, speaks more clearly and unequivocally with the voice of his literary age than does Milton.

Michael Schmidt:

Marvell is the poet of green, a “green thought in a green shade,” his eye on a fruitful garden; Vaughan is the poet of white in its implications of moral and spiritual purity, skyscape, cloudscape: “a white, Celestial thought,” the white light of stars, or in his translation of Boethius’s “that first white age.”

Harold Bloom, The Best Poems of the English Language:

This extraordinary lyric [“The Mower to the Glowworms”], addressed by the fallen Mower to the luminaries of his severely shrunken world, is surely one of the most mysterious and beautiful poems in the language.

T.S. Eliot, from “Andrew Marvell”, 1921:

Marvell is no greater personality than William Morris, but he had something much more solid behind him: he had the vast and penetrating influence of Ben Jonson. Jonson never wrote anything purer than Marvell’s Horatian Ode; this ode has that same quality of wit which was diffused over the whole Elizabethan product and concentrated in the work of Jonson. And, as was said before, this wit which pervades the poetry of Marvell is more Latin, more refined, than anything that succeeded it.

You, Andrew Marvell
By Archibald MacLeish

And here face down beneath the sun
And here upon earth’s noonward height
To feel the always coming on
The always rising of the night:

To feel creep up the curving east
The earthy chill of dusk and slow
Upon those under lands the vast
And ever climbing shadow grow

And strange at Ecbatan the trees
Take leaf by leaf the evening strange
The flooding dark about their knees
The mountains over Persia change

And now at Kermanshah the gate
Dark empty and the withered grass
And through the twilight now the late
Few travelers in the westward pass

And Baghdad darken and the bridge
Across the silent river gone
And through Arabia the edge
Of evening widen and steal on

And deepen on Palmyra’s street
The wheel rut in the ruined stone
And Lebanon fade out and Crete
High through the clouds and overblown

And over Sicily the air
Still flashing with the landward gulls
And loom and slowly disappear
The sails above the shadowy hulls

And Spain go under and the shore
Of Africa the gilded sand
And evening vanish and no more
The low pale light across that land

Nor now the long light on the sea:

And here face downward in the sun
To feel how swift how secretly
The shadow of the night comes on …

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

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

“That’s the Irish People all over – they treat a serious thing as a joke and a joke as a serious thing.” — Seán O’Casey, Shadow of a Gunman

“You cannot put a rope around the neck of an idea; you cannot put an idea up against the barrack-square wall and riddle it with bullets; you cannot confine it in the strongest prison cell your slaves could ever build.” — Seán O’Casey, The Death of Thomas Ashe (1918).

Irish playwright Seán O’Casey was born on this day in 1880. He was the first major Irish playwright to deal with slum life and the Dublin poor. He grew up working-class in a family of thirteen children. His father died when he was a boy, a catastrophic event throwing the family into chaos. Initially very religious, he eventually broke with the Church. He worked odd jobs, including gigs as an actor. He was of the generation coming to maturity during the Irish cultural Renaissance.

In the early years of the 20th century, there was a concentrated and conscious movement (helmed by those such as W.B. Yeats, and Lady Gregory) to re-claim Irish history from English domination. This wasn’t a spontaneous flowering. It was a planned effort. Yeats and Lady Gregory started the Abbey Theatre to provide a place for Irish voices: developing homegrown playwrights was one of their goals. The Irish language came back in vogue. There were classes and festivals and an all-around campaign to give Ireland back its sense of self. This, naturally, had a political component. The English were rightly worried about all this Celtic self-love going on. (And James Joyce seethed on the sidelines, finding it all ridiculous. Get me the hell outta here, he thought.)

Seán O’Casey was born at the perfect moment. His given name was John Casey. He Gaelicized it, a popular thing at the time. He learned to speak Irish. He got involved in the Gaelic League and became an Irish nationalist. Politics and art blended together. Then the upheaval of 1916 came. O’Casey lost friends in the war, as well as in the hunger strike following. It was a dangerous time. All the strife launched him into poetry. He also started to write plays. His work had a radical socialist bent, expressing his rage at the living conditions of the Irish poor, but his attitude was mocking and satirical, rather than sentimental. There may well have been a Golden Age of Satire, but you can bet in every age, in every time and place, there will be those who do not “get” it. They will share Onion articles as the real thing on Facebook, and be unable to recognize the sophisticated jokes/lampooning being made. Seán O’Casey’s work was challenging. People bristled. “But … you’re making fun of something people take very seriously …” Yes. That’s the point. Theaters shied away from putting on productions of his plays.

The time was right, though, for O’Casey. The Abbey Theatre was rising in prominence. Yeats was devoted to the Irish nationalist cause (albeit from the ANGLO side, an important distinction) and was open to the radical. O’Casey submitted a couple of his plays to the Abbey.

The first play accepted was The Shadow of a Gunman, first put on in 1923. The smoke hadn’t yet cleared from 1916. Home Rule started in 1922. There was a Civil War on. O’Casey’s play, about the slum residents of Dublin embroiled in revolutionary politics, is brilliant and biting. Then, in an extraordinary back-to-back homeruns, came Juno and the Paycock and The Plough and the Stars, in 1923 and 1924. Both Juno and Plough deal with the Easter Rising. To write just one of these plays would be a great accomplishment. To be the author of three in such a short time is … extraordinary. Sometimes war brings a fiery intensity out in an artist whose work was otherwise unfocused. O’Casey’s Socialist politics and poverty-struck childhood made him very concerned about the impact all these events had on the poor in his country.

Juno and the Paycock was a hit, but Plough and the Stars did not go over as well. The audiences rioted during the production and the actors refused to say their lines. (This is reminiscent of what happened with J.M. Synge’s The Playboy of the Western World in 1907, also at the Abbey, ie: “the Playboy riots” – if I could have a time machine to go back and experience famous theatrical productions, that Playboy riot is in my Top 10.).

Satire attacks sacred cows. It is meant to be threatening. Satire is not parody. It’s not comedy. You know satire is working when people say nervously, “Is he … serious?” For example, A Modest Proposal is satire, one of the high watermarks of the form, and reading it I feel a little nervous fluttering in my gut. This is the reaction satire encourages. You get nervous people won’t “get it”, even 400 years later. What if this gets into the wrong hands? What if someone wants to implement Swift’s proposal into policy? Satire is often local and specific, it has a target and goes after it. Because of this, some satire seems impenetrable outside of its own time. Swift’s satire is more potent once you know the background, and the same is true with O’Casey. However, remove the context of the Irish Civil War and the reprisals following the Easter Rising, and you still have brilliant powerful works, relevant to our world today. Poor people will always weigh heavily on the minds of those more fortunate, especially those who came from poverty. And so what is to be done? O’Casey worried about what was to be done.

There is a wonderful anecdote about O’Casey from his colleague Gabriel Fallon who wrote (among other things) a book about Seán O’Casey. Here is Fallon’s description of the rehearsal process for Juno and the Paycock (1924). The actors and director started out in a state of confusion: how should they approach this difficult material? The play was untraditional, it required a specific tone. O’Casey was not famous yet, not yet an Irish household name.

Here, Fallon describes the dress rehearsal:

We could make nothing of the reading of Juno and the Paycock as it was called. It seemed to be a strange baffling mixture of comedy and tragedy; and none of us could say, with any certainty, whether or not it would stand up on the stage.

The dress rehearsal would be held at 5 p.m. on March 2, Sunday. I arrived at the theatre at 4:30 p.m., and found the author there before me looking rather glum and wondering if a rehearsal would take place … Gradually the players filed in and went to their dressing-rooms. Lennox Robinson arrived shortly before 5 o’clock and was followed by Yeats and Lady Gregory. The curtain rose about 5:36 p.m. so far as I could see and hear while waiting for my cue in the wings the rehearsal seemed to be proceeding smoothly. As soon as I had finished my part of Bentham at the end of the second act I went down into the stalls and sat two seats behind the author. Here for the first time I had an opportunity of seeing something of the play from an objective point of view. I was stunned by the tragic quality of the third act which the magnificent playing of Sara Allgood made almost unbearable. But it was the blistering irony of the final scene which convinced me that this man sitting two seats in front of me was a dramatist of genius, one destined to be spoken of far beyond the confines of the Abbey Theatre …

We watched the act move on, the furniture removers come and go, the ominous entry of the IRA men, the dragging of Johnny to summary execution, the stilted scene between Jerry Devine and Mary Boyle, and then as with the ensnaring slow impetus of a ninth great wave Allgood’s tragic genius rose to an unforgettable climax and drowned the stage in sorrow. How surely was the very butt and sea-mark of tragedy! But suddenly the curtain rises again: are Fitzgerald and McCormick fooling, letting off steam after the strain of rehearsal? Nothing of the kind; for we in the stalls are suddenly made to freeze in our seats as a note beyond tragedy, a blistering flannel-mouthed irony sears its maudlin way across the stage and slowly drops an exhausted curtain on a world disintegrating in ‘chassis’.

I sat there stunned. So, indeed, as far as I could see, did Robinson, Yeats, and Lady Gregory. Then Yeats ventured an opinion. He said that the play, particularly in the final scene, reminded him of a Dostoevsky novel. Lady Gregory turned to him and said, “You know, Willie, you never read a novel by Dostoevsky.” And she promised to amend this deficiency by sending him a copy of The Idiot. I turned to O’Casey and found I could only say to him, “Magnificent, Seán, magnificent.”

Excerpted from Gabriel Fallon’s memoir: SEAN O’CASEY: The Man I Knew

Posted in On This Day, Theatre, writers | Tagged , | 7 Comments