While there are so many classic and unforgettable dance numbers to choose from, the “Girl Hunt” number from Band Wagon is my favorite.
Please read this wonderful tribute to Charisse by my friend, Dan Callahan. Dan has a detailed eye, and is intuitive and tireless in attempting to describe the sometimes-ephemeral gifts of a performer. Please read Dan’s whole piece, it’s wonderful, but his bit on the “Girl Hunt” number is thrilling:
During “Girl Hunt,” when Astaire enters a dive and sees Charisse seated at a bar, she hesitates for just the right amount of time before doffing her greenish cloak and revealing the reddest damn scarlet woman red dress in movie history, with unapologetic little tassels hanging from her beautiful breasts. When the music speeds up, we’re in a kind of no man’s land: I really don’t know how Charisse does what she does here. Part of the magic is her technical skill, of course, but a huge part of it comes from her, and it has to do with a kind of taunting yet witty sexuality that actually makes the icy Astaire look randy in response. At the height of their pulsating, “are we being serious?” interplay, Charisse extends her epic legs out to Astaire on five horn blasts: one, two, three, four, five, and on the fifth beat she turns. Then, one, two, three, four, five, and on that crucial fifth beat, she flings her whole upper body backwards to the rhythm. That’s math, maybe, or dance. But the way that she throws her head back on that second beat of five is quite possibly the most thrilling single moment I’ve ever seen in a movie.
So I dislike sharing pictures of myself but I shared this on Instagram and figured, oh well, what the hell. These have been dark days and I am doing what I can to not just keep my spirits up but to stay motivated and engaged. Last fall, I interviewed Jacob Elordi for a project I’ve been working on for what feels like an eternity (a full year at the end of this month. Not being coy: I’ll announce when THEY announce). His “people” set up the interview and it just so happened to coincide with a terrible week where I was going back and forth from the hospital on lunch breaks, getting up early and going before work, working at cafes so I could be closer to the hospital, and etc. I had zero bandwidth for anything else – writing, pleasure, relaxation, or … getting nervous about interviewing Elordi, one of the hottest new stars in the movie galaxy. I just had no time to think about it, or to even hype myself up. I was prepared for the interview. I knew exactly what I needed to cover, and definitely kept in mind not wasting his time. But on the day of the interview, I had to basically go to the hospital in the morning, race back to my brother’s to do the interview, and then head back to the hospital. I even considered finding an empty room IN the hospital to do my interview with Jacob, but I was too nervous about there being some last-minute problem with connectivity, or us being interrupted … So I left the hospital, raced back to the house, set myself up quickly, and signed on to Zoom with two minutes to spare.
Jacob signed on literally to the second of our meet-up time, which is hugely appreciated. (I’m a stickler for punctuality. It’s not about time. It’s about respect. Although on this particular day it WAS about time as well. I left the hospital for this. I needed to get back. He needed to show up on time. Valuing someone else’s time IS respect.) When I saw his face, I said, “Hi!” The first thing he said to me – literally the first thing – wasn’t even “Hi”. It was the following: “I just wanted you to know I read the tribute you wrote to Gena Rowlands and it was so good and I really needed it. She was my favorite.”
There was so much going on in my life and his comment was so unexpected I was totally not cool in response. “Wait – wow – thank you!”
I do not doubt his sincerity. I know his love of “old” movies. His favorite actor is John Garfield, okay? The man is connected to the continuum (and honestly I think it shows in his work). But the fact that he led with this … was so meaningful as a gesture. He had an awareness of the status difference between us (which is meaningless, but you know, it does exist as a “thing”) and so he said that, and it pulled us on to the same level. He is famous, yes, but he was letting me know, he looked me up. I did my homework on him, and he was letting me know he did HIS homework on me. He actually read something I wrote to get an idea of who he would be meeting that day.
It was so thoughtful! I was instantly comfortable (I consider this to be what “good manners” are all about: making other people feel more comfortable), and we started talking about not his career, but about Gena Rowlands! He was so kind, so smart, so self-deprecating too – so charming. Our conversation was excellent: my questions ranged from the practical, to establish a timeline, to the philosophical (“how do you think about such-and-such and what does it mean?”), and he was forthcoming, funny, and unbelievably open. Vulnerable, too. He told me all about his dog. “She is so pure in how she loves.” Come on. We went fifteen minutes over our allotted time!
I am not ashamed to say I am now a fan for life. I have admired his work already and I find it very promising (particularly Saltburn). Even more than his work, I find his choices promising, the projects he signs on for. His choices show a real interest in potential career longevity. He wants to grow as an actor, he wants to challenge himself. It would be very easy to coast. But he’s going bold. Saltburn is bold. Priscilla is bold, especially since Austin Butler swept the world the year before playing the same “role”. Oh Canada was bold! We like to see such boldness. We like to see a young heartthrob make challenging and serious choices. It bodes well. It means he’s not playing it safe. It means he gets what he wants to do. He’s focused on the right thing. You may be launched into fame due to your good looks and your participation in a hot new show, and new fans might make sexy slo-mo gifs of your every waking moment.
All good! Be hot and young and famous and enjoy it! But it’s what you DO with your brand new fame – what you choose to do NEXT – that is so important. He’s the real deal. “I just wanted you to know I read the piece you wrote on Gena Rowlands …”
Talking about Gena Rowlands crosses all cultural / generational lines. Jacob’s “gesture” made talking to him not a big deal at all. Because he started with that compliment, it just felt like a conversation, not an interview. Hierarchy and status were abolished.
Then we said goodbye, and thanked each other, and then I signed off and drove back to the hospital.
Came across a reference to this book, published in 1948, in one of Christopher Hitchens’ articles, and tracked it down. It was difficult to find and literally took two months to arrive. Written by the British historian Lewis Namier, directly following the Nuremberg Trials, where a lot of previously unknown/classified/secret documents came to light, on the Allied and Axis side. I didn’t know anything about Namier, and came across this interesting personal reflection from a colleague who had known him. I’ve been reading this book over the last couple of months, in the spare snatches of time I could find. It’s fascinating reading, and extremely chilling. It feels very valuable because 1948 is so close in time to the events Namier is writing about. The book details the activity of the diplomatic corps from multiple nations – England, Poland, France, Germany, Russia, Czechoslovakia – in between the catastrophic Munich Agreement in 1938 and the Soviet-German “non-aggression pact” and the concurrent invasion of Poland in August/September 1939. A year that shook the world.
Again, since these events were of recent memory when Namier wrote his book, Diplomatic Prelude has a special immediacy to its tone and perspective. The book is mainly made up of quotes and excerpts from all of the dispatches written by the diplomats, the go-betweens, with additional text from ambassadors, world leaders, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, etc. That year-long period is sickening reading, since the threat was (in retrospect) so obvious, and yet even by 1938 it was way too late. The time to avert all of these events was back in the early 30s. Only then was there even a sliver of a chance of keeping things in check. Even by 1938, diplomats – supposedly sophisticated people – refused to recognize the threat, still kept a doomed hope alive (or, even more sinisterly, welcomed the tyrannical swing of things). Neville Chamberlain is, perhaps, the most hard to understand figure – you squint at the pages of history, trying to get into his head. He will be remembered for one thing only, choosing “appeasement”, and allowing Czechoslovakia to be erased from the face of the earth. (Other European leaders helped in this.)
Namier’s research is so in-depth and presented with such breaking-news immediacy you can practially see the ink on his fingers from poring through all of the files. His work was a big part of at least starting to piece together what had actually happened, at a time when Europe was still in ruins. It’s helpful to be in those rooms where it happened, where those decisions were made (or not made), to get a front row seat for how people responded to the threat, and how – understandably, although misguidedly in many ways – these countries (except Germany) wanted to avoid another cataclysm. They were barely on their feet again since the FIRST World War.
It’s a helpful reminder, too, to ignore people who call certain controversies or struggles a “distraction”. You hear people scolding all the time: “Don’t get distracted from this OTHER thing we should focus on!” But sometimes, something, whatever it is, is NOT a distraction from some other thing. It is, actually, the Thing itself.
I have a beautiful red-leather bound copy of The Complete Poetical Works of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, bought at a second-hand store. The publication date is 1882, with a foreword by Mrs. Browning herself. She died in 1861, so this is obviously a reprint (her husband Robert Browning was responsible for bringing out a lot of her work posthumously), but a beautiful book from another time and era. The pages have that slick texture that old books have, with the print clearly indented into the page. The print is dauntingly small, but it’s a beautiful object, and I am pleased that it is in my library.
You can’t believe how prolific Browning was, just thumbing through the pages. Some of her poems are 200 pages long. She was in a narrative tradition, and she certainly wrote Sonnets and shorter poems, but the focus and intensity it must have taken to write an “Aurora Leigh”, is difficult to contemplate.
Her early gift for verse was encouraged by her father. She published her first epic poem at the age of 14. She was born in 1806, and in her 30s, she published a translation of Prometheus Bound, as well as a collection of poems in 1844 which made her famous. She was sickly, her lungs were weak, and perhaps on the road to spinster-hood, she was devoted only to her work. But poet Robert Browning read her collection of poems and set out to woo and win her, which he did. Her father disapproved. The two eloped in 1846, beginning one of the great literary love affairs of the age. It was a love match. (Their correspondence was published in full.) Both were famous, but Browning, with his long narrative poems in different voices (so funnily aped by AS Byatt in her book Possession) was far the more famous, his only rival was Tennyson. Now, Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s star has risen far above her husband’s (and I’m not sure that’s exactly fair. She’s fine, but …) She did write some immortal lines, one of my favorites from “Aurora Leigh”:
For God in cursing gives us better gifts
Than men in benediction.
What a difficult thought. Sometimes I think, “Fuck you, Barrett, that’s not true.” And maybe it isn’t, at least not in every circumstance. You know, people fleeing war in refugee camps, or marching into gas chambers, etc … You know. It doesn’t really fly THERE. But sometimes I have to admit she was right.
She was famous enough that her name was mentioned as a possible poet laureate when Wordsworth died. The job went to Tennyson, but it shows you the standing she had! Both Wordsworth and Tennyson were admirers.
And then there is Ezra Pound. Pound was not just known for being a fascist antisemite traitor. He was also known for wrestling with his influences, seeming almost angry they had a hold on him. He confronted Walt Whitman in verse, he challenged long-dead predecessors to duels. All very macho (maybe to make up for his notoriously limp weak cold-fish handshake?)! In the Canto addressed to Elizabeth Barrett Browning:
Ezra Pound, from the Cantos
And I discern your story : Browning’s
Peire Cardinal “Bordello”
Was half fore-runner of Dante. Arnaut’s the trick
Of the unfinished address,
And half your dates are out; you mix your eras
For that great font, Sordello sat beside —
‘Tis an immortal passage, but the font? —
Is some two centuries outside the picture
And no matter.
… it’s the “and no matter” that matters. Browning’s “dates” are “out”. In other words, she mixes eras in her poems, she screws up chronology. Pound is disappointed and angry. But then he gives it all to her, with that “And no matter”. She was very important to him.
So many of her poems are dreadfully long, honestly, and there is much that I have not read (and will not read). But her sonnets are amazing love poems (and her topics far-reaching: she writes sonnets to Wordsworth, George Sand, her dog, death, etc.). Here’s one of her love sonnets.
Love
We cannot live, except thus mutually
We alternate, aware or unaware,
The reflex act of life: and when we bear
Our virtue onward most impulsively,
Most full of invocation, and to be
Most instantly compellant, certes, there
We live most life, whoever breathes most air
And counts his dying years by sun and sea.
But when a soul, by choice and conscience, doth
Throw out her full force on another soul,
The conscience and the concentration both make
mere life, Love. For Life in perfect whole
And aim consummated, is Love in sooth,
As nature’s magnet-heat rounds pole with pole.
QUOTES:
L.M. Montgomery, journal entry:
I don’t care a hoot for Mrs. Browning.
lol
Elizabeth Barrett to Robert Browning, 1846:
If it will satisfy you that I should know you, love you, love you – why then indeed … You should have my soul to stand on if it could make you stand higher.
William Wordsworth, on hearing of the marriage:
“Well, I hope they understand one another – nobody else would.”
Robert Browning, 1871:
The simple truth is that she was the poet, and I the clever person by comparison.
She was quite rapidly forgotten after her death in 1861, apart from the Sonnets From the Portuguese (1850) which she dedicated to her husband and in which the traditionally male preserve of the love sonnet became a new kind of instrument, capable of quite unexpected tonalities … Those tonalities sound in many of the love poems. Who – male or female – before her wrote in this manner?
Harold Bloom, The Best Poems of the English Language:
Feminist criticism has focused attention upon the poetry of Elizabeth Barrett, rather at the expense of her husband, Robert Browning, who nevertheless abides as one of the greatest poets in the language. I venture that academic fashion will wane (it always does) and the aesthetic inadequacies of Barrett Browning’s long poem, Aurora Leigh (1856), and of the famous Sonnets from the Portuguese (addressed to Robert, who thought she looked Portuguese) again will be apparent. Very bad also is Barrett Browning’s “The City of the Children,” where the sentiments are admirable but the expression is wearisome. In an occasional lyric, like “A Musical Instrument,” given here, Elizabeth Barrett catches fire.
Jeanette Winterson, “Writer, Reader, Words”:
The woman poet, unlike the majority of the woman novelists, accepted her mantle of Otherness gracefully. She would lead the mind to higher things. She would redirect material energies towards emotional and spiritual contemplation. LEL (Letitia Elizabeth Landon), Felicia Hemans, Christina Rossetti, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, each accepted the distinction of the poet as poet.
George Orwell, “As I Please” column, November 24, 1944
Elizabeth Barrett Browning is supposed to have been takin in by the famous medium Home, but Browning himself saw through him at a glance and wrote a scarifying poem about him (Sludge the Medium).
Camille Paglia, “Love Poetry”:
…Victorian poetry, as typified by the Brownings, exalts tenderness, fidelity, and devotion, the bonds of married love, preserved beyond the grave.
Hart Crane, letter to a friend and fan of Edna St. Vincent Millay:
I think she is every bit as good as Elizabeth Browning…I can only say I do not greatly care for Mme. Browning.
Michael Schmidt:
Robert looms so large that he occludes Elizabeth Barrett Browning. She deserves limelight, not as the object of his romantic attention but as a significant poet herself. In her time she was prolific and very highly thought of; he lived rather in her shadow, whatever adjustments posterity has made.
Virginia Woolf (whose novel, Flush, is the story of EBB, as seen through the eyes of EBB’s dog):
[One of those] rare writers who risk themselves adventurously and disinterestedly in an imaginative life.
On a Portrait of Wordsworth
WORDSWORTH upon Helvellyn ! Let the cloud
Ebb audibly along the mountain-wind,
Then break against the rock, and show behind
The lowland valleys floating up to crowd
The sense with beauty. He with forehead bowed
And humble-lidded eyes, as one inclined
Before the sovran thought of his own mind,
And very meek with inspirations proud,
Takes here his rightful place as poet-priest
By the high altar, singing prayer and prayer
To the higher Heavens. A noble vision free
Our Haydon’s hand has flung out from the mist:
No portrait this, with Academic air !
This is the poet and his poetry.
Michael Schmidt:
How much more than her husband she trusts in the value of vowels, how much closer to Tennyson her music; yet Giulio’s seductive sophistries, which the speaker wishes to believe and we believe too, are the sophistries of a shared love and not of a seducer. There is a sexual complicity in the joy of her love poems, as though the man and the woman understandingly in love are on the same side of the language.
Gerard Manley Hopkins, letter to R.W. Dixon, December, 1881:
The Brownings may be reckoned to the Romantics.
Michael Schmidt:
Ezra Pound loved Browning as only poets love – with jealousy and disappointment…What Pound loves in Browning is Italy and the play of voices (which Pound learns to weave together in the Cantos. “Sordello” is the threshold over which Pound passes, at last, into his great, contested work. It was in part Browning who made it possible for Pound to make peace with another voice of which he is made, his American precursor Walt Whitman. He resented and resisted Whitman; he read again, and resisted, but at last he makes a pact … For good or ill, Pound was made of Whitman, the American cadences ring in his ears.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s last words: Her husband asked her how she felt. She responded, “Beautiful.”
Clasped Hands of Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett Browning, 1853, by sculptor Harriet Goodhue Hosmer
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.
I’ve been paying tribute to him on his birthday for 15 years or something insane like that. I need to take a moment to reflect on my own “relationship” to him and his work. He was really important to me, not just as an actor, but in terms of my writing, and how – without meaning to, without trying – carved out my own lane in the crowded field of film criticism. He did that. Or, he inspired that. I didn’t write so much about him in ORDER to carve out my own lane, it’s just how it happened.
When Dean Stockwell died in 2021, I wrote the tribute for Ebert. I was upset, but I was ready. I had been preparing myself for it.
Normally I don’t link to pieces referencing MOI, but David Hudson – whose column The Daily over at Criterion is a daily pitstop – used my obituary as his organizing principle for his great roundup of pieces about Stockwell. I was truly touched. Thank you, David.
Here is the first piece I wrote about him, years ago, in the first wave of my obsession, for Matt Seitz’s blog “House Next Door”, now looped into Slant. I wrote a career retrospective (Matt set up a “5 for the Day” series, where you wrote about 5 specific roles in an actor’s career).
I was so pleased to write for the great Film Comment magazine an essay on Dean Stockwell’s wonderful and tormented performance in Compulsion. (My first time in the magazine proper.) The piece is not online, but here it is. Isn’t it pretty?
I miss knowing he’s still out there.
Here I am with him in Taos, at that party for him which I blatantly crashed.
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.
I’ve had the key chain for years. My friend Allison just sent me the eerie little blue box from Mulholland Drive. Of course the one in the movie isn’t a music box, like mine is, but instead is a portal to an alternate reality, the black hole at the center of Hollywood and the entertainment industry.
It’s the birthday today of one of my favorite writers, Polish journalist and author Ryszard Kapuściński. His death in 2007 was devastating to me. I went to the memorial tribute at the New York Public Library, hosted by his close personal friend Salman Rushdie. I am not sure I can sufficiently express what his work has meant to me. It expanded my horizons. Brought me into a wider world. Made me think. Made me consider history in terms of millennia not centuries. You can read some background of this extraordinary man (and thinker) here.
He wrote books on Angola, Iran, Ethiopia, Central America, a book on his travels through revolutionary 1960s Africa, and – finally – a book on Russia, only possible after the crackup of the USSR. All of his critiques of tyrannies around the world was a not-so-subtle way of critiquing totalitarianism in his own country (Poland). Obviously I have only read him in translation. I cannot judge how accurate the translations are. But to me, his writing sings, thrums, mourns, paints pictures, sets up context. I get the sense that the poetry of the moment was more important to him than the prose. The MOOD, not the facts. There are no indices in his books, no footnotes. Take his “facts” with a grain of salt. His writing is impressionistic. There’s a story about him that in his travels he was once locked in a cell (he was detained many times). A guard would open the door and throw in a poisonous snake. The room eventually was filled with poisonous snakes. He was locked up for 2 weeks with those snakes. When he was let out, his hair had turned white. Factually true? I am not sure it matters. Consider the possibility that a deeper truth is being revealed about the nature of tyranny, torture, oppression, man’s inhumanity to man. This is his topic. Nothing else matters.
Here are some excerpts from his books:
A great excerpt from The Soccer War: This is probably his most famous book. It’s about war and revolution. I think about this section all the time. There’s so much NOISE, but when things go silent? That’s when there’s real trouble.
People who write history devote too much attention to so-called events heard round the world, while neglecting the periods of silence. This neglect reveals the absence of that infallible intuition that every mother has when her child falls suddenly silent in its room. A mother knows that this silence signifies something bad. That the silence is hiding something. She runs to intervene because she can feel evil hanging in the air. Silence fulfills the same role in history and in politics. Silence is a signal of unhappiness and, often, of crime. It is the same sort of political instrument as the clatter of weapons or a speech at a rally. Silence is necessary to tyrants and occupiers, who take pains to have their actions accompanied by quiet. Look at how colonialism has always fostered silence: at how discreetly the Holy Inquisition functioned; at the way Leonidas Trujillo avoided publicity.
What silence emanates from countries with overflowing prisons! In Somoza’s Nicaragua — silence; in Duvalier’s Haiti — silence. Each dictator makes a calculated effort to maintain the ideal state of silence, even though somebody is continually trying to violate it! How many victims of silence there are, and at what cost! Silence has its laws and its demands. Silence demands that concentration camps be built in uninhabited areas. Silence demands an enormous police apparatus with an army of informers. Silence demands that its enemies disappear suddenly and without a trace. Silence prefers that no voice — of complaint or protest or indignation — disturb its calm. And where such a voice is heard, silence strikes with all its might to restore the status quo ante — the state of silence…
Today one hears about noise pollution, but silence pollution is worse. Noise pollution affects the nerves; silence pollution is a matter of human lives. No one defends the maker of a loud noise, whereas those who establish silence in their own states are protected by an apparatus of repression. That is why the battle against silence is so difficult.
It would be interesting to research the media systems of the world to see how many service information and how many service silence and quiet. Is there more of what is said or of what is not said? One could calculate the number of people working in the publicity industry. What if you could calculate the number of people working in the silence industry? Which number would be greater?
All over the world, at any hour, on a million screens an infinite number of people are saying something to us, trying to convince us of something, gesturing, making faces, getting excited, smiling, nodding their heads, pointing their fingers, and we don’t know what it’s about, what they want from us, what they are summoning us to. They might as well have come from a distance planet — an enormous army of public relations experts from Venus or Mars — yet they are our kin, with the same bones and blood as ours, with lips that move and audible voices, but we cannot understand a word. In what language will the universal dialogue of humanity be carried out? Several hundred languages are fighting for recognition and promotion; the language barriers are rising. Deafness and incomprehension are multiplying.
From Imperium: (his book on Russia and all of its republics – he was only able to write this after the perestroika/glasnost)
The sight of Moscow enraptured Chateaubriand. The author of Memoirs from Beyond the Tomb accompanied Bonaparte on the expedition to Moscow. On September 6, 1812, the French army reached the great city:
Napoleon appeared on horseback near the advance guard. One more rise had to be crossed; it bordered Moscow the way Montmartre borders Paris and was called the Hill of Homage, for Russians prayed here at the sight of the holy city like pilgrims at the sight of Jerusalem. Moscow of the golden domes, as Slavic poets say, blazed in the sun: two hundred and ninety-five churches, one thousand five hundred palaces, houses out of decoratively sculpted wood, yellow, green, pink, all that was lacking was cypresses and the Bosphorus. The Kremlin, covered in burnished or painted sheets of iron, was a part of this ensemble. Among the exquisite villas made of brick and marble flowed the River Moscow, surrounded by parks of pines — the palms of this sky. Venice in the days of its glory on the waters of the Adriatic was not more splendid … Moscow! Moscow!, our soldiers shouted and started to applaud.
” … for Russians prayed here at the sight of the holy city like pilgrims at the sight of Jerusalem”.
Yes, because Moscow was for them a holy city, the capital of the world — a Third Rome. This last notion was put forth in the sixteenth century by the Pskov sage and visionary, the monk Philotheus. “Two Romes have already fallen (Peter’s and Byzantium),” he writes in a letter to the contemporary Muscovite prince Vasily III. “The Third Rome (Moscow) stands. There will not be a fourth,” he categorically assures the prince. Moscow: it is the end of history, the end of mankind’s earthly wanderings, the open gateway to the heavens.
Russians were capable of believing in such things profoundly, with conviction, fanatically.
The Moscow Napoleon saw on that sunny September afternoon of 1812 no longer exists. The Russians burned it down the next day so as to force the French to turn around. Later, Moscow burned several more times. “Our cities,” Turgenev writes somewhere, “burn every five years.” It is understandable: Russia’s building material was timber. Timber was cheap; there were forests everywhere. One could raise a building out of timber quickly, and, moreover, a wooden wall retains heat well. But then if a fire breaks out, everything burns, the whole city. Thousands upon thousands of Russian townspeople went to their death in flames.
From Another Day of Life: (here he describes the exodus of the Portuguese from Angola, in the threat of revolution).
The building of the wooden city, the city of crates, goes on day after day, from dawn to twlight. Everyone works, soaked with rain, burned by the sun; even the millionaires, if they are physically fit, turn to the task. The enthusiasm of the adults infects the children. They too build crates, for their dolls and toys. Packing takes place under cover of night. It’s better that way, when no one’s sticking his nose into other people’s business, nobody’s keeping track of who puts in how much and what (and everyone knows there are a lot of that sort around, the ones who serve the MPLA and can’t wait to inform).
So by night, in the thickest darkness, we transfer the contents of the stone city to the inside of the wooden city. It takes a lot of effort and sweat, lifting and struggling, shoulders sore from stowing it all, knees sore from squeezing it all in because it all has to fit and, after all, the stone city was big and the wooden city is small.
Gradually, from night to night, the stone city lost its value in favor of the wooden city. Gradually, too, it changed people’s estimation. People stopped thinking in terms of houses and apartments and discussed only crates. Instead of saying, “I’ve got to go see what’s at home,” they said, “I’ve got to go check my crate.” By now that was the only thing that interested them, the only thing they cared about. The Luanda they were leaving had become a stiff and alien stage set, empty, for the show was over.
Luis Suarez said there was going to be a war, and I believed whatever Luis said. We were staying together in Mexico. Luis was giving me a lesson in Latin America: what it is and how to understand it. He could foresee many events. In his time he had predicted the fall of Goulart in Brazil, the fall of Bosch in the Dominican Republic and of Jiminez in Venezuela. Long before the return of Peron he believed that the old caudillo would again become president of Argentina; he foretold the sudden death of the Haitian dictator Francois Duvalier at a time when everybody said Papa Doc had many years left. Luis knew how to pick his way through Latin politics, in which amateurs like me got bogged down and blundered helplessly with each step.
This time Luis announced his belief that there would be a war after putting down the newspaper in which he had read a report on the soccer match between the Honduran and Salvadoran national teams. The two countries were playing for the right to take part in the 1970 World Cup in Mexico.
The first match was held on Sunday 8 June 1969, in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa.
Nobody in the world paid any attention.
From The Shadow of the Sun: His book on his travels through Africa. At one point he was Poland’s only foreign correspondent. He was drawn to areas dominated by tyranny and exploding in revolution. He wrote a lot about Idi Amin, and thought for years of writing a book on the subject. Sadly, he never did. But there’s a lot about Amin in Shadow of the Sun.
For its first eight years of independence, Uganda is ruled by Milton Obote, an extraordinarily conceited man, boastful and sure of himself. When it is exposed in the press that Amin has misappropriated the cash, gold, and ivory given him for safekeeping by anti-Mobutu guerrillas from Zaire, Obote summons Amin, orders him to pen an explanation, and, confident that he himself is in no danger, flies off to Singapore for a conference of prime ministers of the British Commonwealth. Amin, realizing that the prime minister will arrest him as soon as he returns, decides on a preemptive strike: he stages an army coup and seizes power. Theoretically at least, Obote in fact had little to worry about: Amin did not represent an obvious threat, and his influence in the army was ultimately limited. But beginning on the night of January 25, 1971, when they took over the barracks in Kampala, Amin and his supporters employed a brutally efficient surprise tactic: they fired without warning. And at a precisely defined target: soldiers from the Langi and Achole tribes. The surprise had a paralyizing effect: no one had time to mount a resistance. On the very first day, hundreds died in the barracks. And the carnage continued. Henceforth, Amin always used this method: he would shoot first. And not just at his enemies; that was self-evident, obvious. He went further: he liquidated without hesitation those he judged might one day develop into enemies. Over time, terror in Amin’s state also came to depend on universal torture. Before they died, people were routinely tormented.
All this took place in a provincial country, in a small town. The torture chambers were located in downtown buildings. The windows were open — we are in the tropics. Whoever was walking along the street could hear cries, moans, shots. Whoever fell into the hands of the executioners vanished. A category soon emerged, then grew and grew, of those who in Latin America are called desaparecidos: those who have perished, disappeared. He left his house and never returned. “Nani?” the policeman routinely replied, if a family member demanded an explanation. “Nani?” (In Swahili the word means ‘who”; the individiual is reduced to a question mark.)
Uganda started to metamorphose into a tragic, bloody stage upon which a single actor strutted — Amin. A month after the coup Amin named himself president, then marshal, then field marshal, and finally field marshal for life. He pinned upon himself ever more orders, medals, decorations. But he also liked to walk about in ordinary battle fatigues, so that soldiers would say of him, “You see, he’s one of us.” He chose his cars in accordance with his outfits. Wearing a suit to a reception, he drove a dark Mercedes. Out for a spin in a sweat suit? A red Maserati. Battle fatigues? A military Range Rover. The last resembled a vehicle from a science-fiction movie. A forest of antennas protruded from it, all kinds of wires, cables, spotlights. Inside were grenades, pistols, knives. He went about this way because he constantly feared attempts on his life. He survived several. Everyone else died in them — his aides-de-camp, his bodyguards. Amin alone would brush off the dust, straighten his uniform. To cover his tracks, he also rode in unmarked cars. People walking down a street would suddenly realize that the man sitting behind the wheel of that truck was Amin.
He trusted no one, therefore even those in his innermost circle did not know where he would be sleeping tonight, where he would be living tomorrow. He had several residences in the city; several more on the shores of Lake Victoria, still others in the countryside. Determining his whereabouts was both difficult and dangerous. He communicated with every subordinate directly, decided whom he would speak with, whom he wished to see. And for many, such a meeting would prove the last. If Amin became suspicious of someone, he would invite him over. He would be pleasant, friendly, treat his guest to a Coca-Cola. Executioners awaited the visitor as he left. Later, no one could determine what had happened to the man.
Amin usually telephoned his subordinates, but he also used the radio. Whenever he announced changes in the government or in the ranks of the military — and he was constantly instituting changes — he would do so over the airwaves.
Uganda had one radio station, one small newspaper (Uganda Argus), one camera, which filmed Amin, and one photojournalist, who would appear for ceremonial occasions. Everything was directed exclusively at the figure of the marshal. Moving from place to place, Amin in a sense moved the state with him; outside of him, nothing happened, nothing existed. Parliament did not exist, there no political parties, trade unions, or other organizations. And, of course, no opposition — those suspected of dissent died painful deaths.
From Imperium: (one could suggest that Poland shares many similarities with Armenia, in terms of its unfortunate geography):
The source of all of Armenia’s misfortune was its disastrous geographic location. One has to look at the map, not from our vantage point, from the center of Europe, but from an entirely different place, from the south of Asia, the way those who sealed Armenia’s fate looked at it. Historically, Armenia occupied the Armenian Highland. Periodically (and these periods lasted centuries) Armenia reached farther, was a state of three seas — the Mediterranean, the Black, and the Caspian. But let us remain within the borders of the Highland. It is this area upon which the Armenians’ historical memory draws. After the eleventh century, the Armenians never succeeded in rebuilding Armenia within those borders.
The map, looked at from the south of Asia, explains the tragedy of the Armenians. Fate could not have placed their country in a more unfortunate spot. In the south of the Highland it borders upon two of the past’s most formidable powers — Persia and Turkey. Let’s add to that the Arabian caliphate. And even Byzantium. Four political colossi, ambitious, extremely expansionist, fanatical, voracious. And now — what does the ruler of each of these four powers see when he looks at the map? He sees that if he takes Armenia, then his empire will be enclosed by an ideal natural border in the north. Because from the north the Armenian Highland is magnificently protected, guarded by two seas (the Black Sea and the Caspian) and by the gigantic barrier of the Caucasus. And the north is dangerous for Persia and for Turkey, for the Arabs and Byzantium. Because in those days from the north an unsubdued Mongolian fury loomed.
And so Armenia gives all the pashas and emperors sleepless nights. Each one of them would like his realm to have a nicely rounded border. So that in his realm, as in King Philip’s, the sun should never set. A border that does not dissipate itself amid flatland, but which leans against a proper mountain, against the edge of the sea. The consequence of these ambitions is continued invasions of Armenia; someone is always conquering and destroying it, always subjugating it.
He didn’t write much but he inspired a generation. The world of history/travelogues is littered with Kapuscinski knock-offs. He was a big picture person, but he also focused on the weird little details, like Armenian books and the making of cognac, the way the sun sets in the desert, and the meaning of borders. The meaning of sitting behind a desk, the desk another border. His great subject is tyranny. And war. His prose is poetic. Hypnotic. He was always on the side of the underdog, the revolutionaries, the oppressed, the colonized. His first memory was of Russian tanks rolling into his small Polish border town in 1939.
He was born into tyranny and he spent his life fighting against it. Speaking out about it. Calling tyranny by its proper name.
Thank you so much for stopping by. If you like what I do, and if you feel inclined to support my work, here’s a link to my Venmo account. And I’ve launched a Substack, Sheila Variations 2.0, if you’d like to subscribe.
The first time I noticed Catherine O’Hara was in her one big scene in Heartburn. It takes place in a grocery store, and she – a put-together gossipy Washington D.C. wife – runs into Meryl Streep’s character – who is all a MESS – and O’Hara practically steals the scene from right out underneath Streep’s feet, and … that’s not an easy feat, particularly considering what Meryl is doing. It’s a scene between equals, clear as day. Meryl would wipe the floor with anyone not up to her level. I had no idea who she was, had probably seen her in things, but didn’t put it all together.
I think she’s one of the best most eerily talented actresses working today. Madeline Kahn left a huge hole when she died. But O’Hara is in that realm, and it’s NOT a crowded realm. In fact, it is sparsely populated. Very few people can transform like O’Hara can, and not just with wigs or accents, but … swap out your soul and your cellular structure and your DNA for that of another character. Her talent is EERIE.
I’ve always felt that actors who “come up” in comedy have more versatility, depth, width, capacity – than “straight” actors. People always express surprise when, say, Adam Sandler is “good” in movies like Punch Drunk Love or Uncut Gems. There should be no surprise. Actors with comedy backgrounds, particularly improv or sketch comedy backgrounds, can fit themselves in anywhere. They work DEEP and they work FAST.
It’s a subject that obsesses me, maybe because I’m not sure why this is and it’s fun to think about, so I wrote about it for my column at Film Comment. (Oh and member I said here that I quoted Window Boy in one of my Film Comment columns? Hmmm. I do keep his name off the pieces I wrote about him – because … well, it’s just my way. besides “Window-Boy” caught on and kind of stuck. But you’ll see how much it fits in the piece and why I couldn’t resist. It was one of the most illuminating things he said to me about his particular field/passion.) In the column, I focused on women who “came up” in comedy, and their chops at dramatic acting. Catherine O’Hara comes up. Of course. Because she is funny but she is also tragic. She can be both at the same time. Like Madeline Kahn could do.
O’Hara’s talent is DAZZLING.
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.
I flew to Chicago because there was a Howard Hawks festival happening at the Music Box, and my favorite movie, Only Angels Have Wings was playing. I’ve never seen it on a big screen. Chicago was my home and I still feel in many ways it is my home. Only Angels Have Wings was the pretext. I don’t think I’ve ever flown to Chicago to see a movie before. 2024 was a terrible year, and we’re not out of the woods yet. I was hired for a massive project and I’m coming up on a year of working on it. It’s an amazing opportunity but I am worn out, particularly since the project arrived at the same time my mother had a health emergency. It’s been very very very hard and has required massive unforeseen life changes for all of us. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel now with this project – which really has been incredible – but writing takes energy and focus, and this project was huge, and I had to summon bandwidth every day to keep going. All while racing to and from hospitals, and meeting with accountants, and bank managers and being there for my mother and helping my siblings when I can. I’ve dreamed up plans for what I will when I am done for real. Take a trip, for one. Do nothing. Hang out with my family. Not having enough time and feeling under the gun of a deadline has dominated my life for the past year. And so I was like, “I’m flying to Chicago for Only Angels Have Wings.”
I stayed with Mitchell and Christopher. Their highrise apartment looks out over Lake Michigan, which was frozen, gleaming white out the window. There were snow flurries and the cold was bitter. It’s been a long time since I’ve been in cold so extreme that my face hurt after just 10 minutes of exposure. Let’s link to this old chestnut. For the first two days, I didn’t leave the apartment. I had to work – of course – but I did it from the comfy surroundings, as the snow fell, and as TCM played in the background. Mitchell made fried matzoh. We ordered food. We talked endlessly.
We watched Ru Paul’s Drag Race. We had in-depth impassioned discussions about all of the queens. We judged them, we discussed the different challenges. I am not as deeply immersed in Ru’s world as they are, so it was a crash course. Mitchell and Christopher’s friends Brad and Jason, who live just a block away, came over one night (we ended up seeing them three days in a row: I said to them in the car, “Okay, so the three of us are basically friends now, okay?”)
Mitchell and Christopher’s coasters featuring men born on January 8th.
Saturday night they all took me to something called the Grelley Duvall Show, which can’t really be described and Mitchell and Christopher refused to tell me anything beforehand. It is the brainchild of Alex Grelle, and his shows are events. He’s been doing them for 10 years, and each show is different. He’ll do a David Bowie focused show. He did a Nosferatu show. He works on them, he puts them on when they’re ready. I’ve never seen anything like it.
We were all crammed into the small Chopin Theatre, and there he was, lying asleep on a slab as the audience filed in. Over the next hour, we saw him become Shelley Duvall, of course – perfect imitations, in the outfit from the Shining (blue dress, red tights), he sang, he danced, his ensemble was amazing, as was his band. There were video components (often put together by Mitchell’s friend Parker, whom I met and love). Everything was so informed and sophisticated and outrageous, not to mention absurd – it wasn’t “too cool for school” – it was a RIOT. The sense of anticipation in the audience was intense. There was a line out the door. It was a freezing cold night. “Where my gays at?” he yelled during the first number. Screams and cheers.
I was totally captivated, and then at the end, he sang “Backstreets”, for his Bruce-Springsteen-loving father, whom he described as “my big straight father who loves his gay son”, and he sang “Backstreets” for his father, and it was as though he was the Boss. Like, it didn’t matter that this was a tiny theatre with maybe 100 seats. He was in a stadium. I was overwhelmed by it.
Especially in these terrible days with homophobia and anti-trans hatred (and legislation) coming from the highest offices in the land. It’s been devastating and infuriating, and people are struggling. My dearest friends. My community. A crowd gathered together like this, suffering and scared but still loud and proud – and also FUNNY – and ABSURD – and filled with irony and a love of art and beauty and humor and each other – makes you grateful to be alive, and that you are among THESE people and not those who want to take away the rights of other people. Who for some reason feel threatened and mad by they/them pronouns, or whatever. We have so little time on this earth and this is how you spend it? Thank GOD, seriously, that I am with artists, storytellers, drag queens, bohemians, goofballs, people who know everything about Joan Crawford or whatever. My people since I was a child. I found them when I was young and for that I am so grateful!
We saw The Grelley Duvall show in preview and a critic happened to be there. She clearly didn’t recognize the scene between Julianne Moore and Matthew Modine from Short Cuts, although she does capture and describe why these shows are so special, why he is special. Mitchell and I wondered how many other people got the reference to Short Cuts. It was a deep cut, so to speak, but we recognized it instantly. You will recall Julianne Moore is naked from the waist down in the scene, which Grelley Duvall conveyed in an ingenious way with what I am assuming is some jerry-rigged merkin. It was riotous.
Sunday morning a huge group of us gathered for brunch on Southport. Brad and Jason, the aforementioned Parker, Mitchell’s old bosses, a lovely gay couple who basically had taken Mitchell under their wing – Chicago father figures. One is writing a book on Edie Beale. I met them way back in the day but it’s been 20 years or something. They were so lovely! We chowed down, we talked nonstop, we then walked up to the theatre. My old stomping grounds. The route Miles and I used to take in between each others’ apartments, walking distance in those long ago days. Southport has changed a lot. It used to be a ghost town. It’s a bustling hub of restaurants now.
So good to be back at The Music Box!
Mitchell and I were the only two who had seen Only Angels Have Wings, so one of his plans was to have me give a little “talk” before the movie, just to contextualize it. I love Mitchell. We gathered in the little lounge off the lobby and I talked about the movie, what was going on, what to look for, where this was placed in Hawks’ career, how this movie is basically a prototype for any male-bonding dangerous-pursuit movie. The Right Stuff. Top Gun. Etc. It was so special.
Again: being with people who are warm and open, who know everything about interesting things, who make funny videos to play behind Grelley Duvall – skits and parodies – amazing talented warm gay men, the torch-bearers for culture, the ones who remember, who pass things on. Things like Short Cuts. Or Little Edie. There was nowhere else I would rather be, than going to see ONly Angels Have Wings on a freezing Chicago morning with a big group of movie-lovers, only two of whom I know, but by the end of our experience together we were friends.
After the movie, we cut through to the street behind the Music Box, where Mitchell and I used to live. I just wanted to see the old house. My last place in Chicago. The stoop where we used to sit in the sun. The window around the side – my bedroom window – which Miles used to climb through at 2 o’clock in the morning. Everything was still there. It gave me a weird feeling. Comforting but lonely.
The next morning, I woke up and walked to meet up with my friend Kate. We had breakfast at the little breakfast place next to Big Chicks, this legendary gay bar we used to frequent back in the day, and of course Mitchell and Christopher still do. I remember being there and the tiny space was so packed with people you literally could not move. Literally. It’s still there! I had never been to the little restaurant next door. It opened at 9 am sharp. My face was frozen by the time I arrived, after walking down Sheridan, just a block from the lake, battered with icy strong winds whirling around every corner. It was BITTER COLD.
Seeing Kate, too, just warmed my soul in such a lonely stressful time. It was warm and cozy, we drank coffee, outside it was icy and windy. We only met up for 2 hours but I feel like we talked about everything, caught up on everything, including the bad stuff, the sad stuff. She is a forever friend and I miss her so much. Grateful for her.
Mitchell came back to Rhode Island with me. We flew back that night. It was an incredibly turbulent ride. The most turbulent flight I’ve ever been on. We both were a little freaked. Especially since a ghoulish billionaire is messing with the FAA, because that’s just what we need. The wind in Rhode Island was massive. I got home that night and the wind was shaking my house. A little perk of living near the water. The reunion with dear little Frankie was very sweet. Coming home feels different now because he is here. (My sister fed him while I was away.) It’s hard to be away from my family right now.
My trip to Chicago already feels like a million years ago. I miss it already. But there are compensations.
Today is Jean Harlow’s birthday. Here is a discussion Mitchell and I had about her.
The setup of the conversation (an ongoing series): I throw names of famous people at Mitchell, and ask him to describe each person in only “one word”. Then it goes from there. Enjoy.
Sheila O’Malley: Jean Harlow. One word.
Mitchell Fain: [thinks a bit] Brassy! She had this beautiful almost pudgy face and this …
SOM: Luscious body.
MF: Crazy luscious body. Gowns cut on the bias were created for Jean Harlow’s body or, at least, she made the look popular. She had this gun-moll voice. Every generation has the dumb blonde, or The Blonde, and Harlow was the dumb blonde of that era, but what’s interesting is – whether it’s Jean Harlow or Marilyn Monroe – those dumb blondes are FUNNY.
SOM: Goldie Hawn.
MF:Goldie Hawn! Every generation has their version of that.
MF: I think unfortunately Harlow’s reputation has either suffered or … she’s not remembered right. First of all, she died so young, and there’s an atmosphere of scandal about all of it, and that’s unfortunate and unfair. She was so of her era. I would say that that was true of Joan Crawford too. Harlow is so of her era that she ends up being totally contemporary. I recently watched Red Dust, with Harlow and Clark Gable. And Harlow comes across, once again – in the style of acting that we love – and the style that most people (who don’t watch old movies, or don’t understand that these people were inventing screen acting) find dated … but you watch her in Red Dust, and compared to the other actresses of her time, she’s making such – and I say this in a positive way – pedestrian choices. She’s so tough. A tough chick.
SOM: She wasn’t Garbo.
MF: She wasn’t Katharine Hepburn. She didn’t use that mid-Atlantic speech that actors used back then. Harlow didn’t even try. As a result, she comes across as very real. And she’s funny. I guess Dinner at Eight has become her legacy. There’s that moment in Dinner at Eight where Harlow shows up at the snooty party, and says something like, “You know, we’re all going to be replaced by robots or machines some day …” and Marie Dressler says, “You have nothing to worry about, my dear.” And sometimes comments like that make it seem like she’s a whore, but she’s so adorable, you like her anyway. I wonder what Harlow’s goals were.
SOM: She was pretty mother-dominated.
MF: She had a stage mother who was powerfully in her life. One of Marilyn Monroe’s tragic downfalls, unfortunately (but fortunately for us, because her work is strangely depthful) is that she aspired to be a great actress. Unfortunately, it kept her constantly disappointed in what she was doing, which she was better at than anyone. It doesn’t seem that that was Harlow’s deal. Harlow was more like Carole Lombard. She seems to have loved what she did. Did she want to be Katharine Hepburn or Bette Davis? Of course, Harlow was before them, really.
SOM: There was no real model for what she did, you mean?
MF: Who would she have modeled herself after? Norma Shearer?
SOM: Jean Harlow was one of those women under contract to Howard Hughes. He put her in Hell’s Angels, that huge expensive legendary extravaganza. It put her on the map.
Jean Harlow and Howard Hughes
SOM: And she was such an attention-getter, the hair, the face, the eyebrows, that BODY, but then when she opened her mouth out came this tough-cookie sassy street girl. And it felt real, like it was who she actually was. It was the 1930s when she really arrived, not the elegant (supposedly) 1920s, and even though she wore white silk gowns and had platinum hair, outside the door of the studio lot was a pretty ugly scary world. And you can FEEL that in Harlow’s persona.
MF: The world she has protected herself from. She’s a scrappy survivor.
SOM: Harlow brought with her a breath of the Depression, the dirty city streets, the criminality. There was something about her that wasn’t fully manufactured.
MF: We always want to compare contemporary stars to the old stars. “So-and-so’s the new so-and-so.” And the reality of it is that there is no such thing as the “new so-and-so”. The people who truly succeed, who leave legacies behind are individuals. They are one of a kind. And certainly at the time, Jean Harlow was one of a kind.
MF: In a way, Pretty Woman is an homage to Harlow, too. People seemed to view it as a tribute to Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s and Roman Holiday.
SOM: That always bugged me. Audrey Hepburn was pure thoroughbred, not like Julia Roberts’ character at all – or Julia Roberts herself, whose persona is pretty down-to-earth.
MF: Also Breakfast at Tiffany’s was such a watered-down version of Truman Capote’s book. Harlow was “Pretty Woman”, now that I think about it. That’s who she actually was. I could totally see her playing that part.
SOM: Harlow is so good in Red-Headed Woman.
MF: I remember the last time I saw her in something, I thought to myself, “This is a modern woman.” Jean Harlow was a totally modern woman.
SOM: She didn’t wear underwear.
MF: When your dress is cut on the bias, you really can’t wear underwear because everyone could see it. They didn’t have thongs back then. She was a modern woman.
MF: I mean, think about the other actresses at that time: if you weren’t from New England, how could you relate to a Katharine Hepburn? Hepburn was aspirational but she wasn’t the girl who worked at the factory next to you. After Jean Harlow, Shelley Winters took up those parts but showed the darker side of them in Place in the Sun, Night of the Hunter …
SOM: And Big Knife, with Jack Palance and Clifford Odets’ script. Shelley Winters plays the desperate starlet who has casting-couched her way to nowhere. They’re going to kill her to shut her up.
Shelley Winters in “The Big Knife”
MF: Harlow hinted at that dark side. What I like about Harlow, and what I love about her in Dinner at Eight, is that as much as Marie Dressler wins that moment in Dinner at Eight, Harlow still wins. She wins the war. You don’t dislike her at all, or judge her. She’s adorable. It’s like that moment in Postcards from the Edge when you meet Annette Bening in that one scene with Meryl Streep. Meryl Streep is the star of the movie, but Bening ends up winning that scene.
MF: Bening’s character is adorable in her whore-dom.
SOM: And she doesn’t give a shit that “endolphins” is not a word.
MF: That’s what it is. Shelley Winters came in in an era when …
SOM: Freud had kicked in.
MF: And so in Shelley Winters’ day, that kind of character had to suffer. What happened to the flapper? Where did she go? She became Jean Harlow. Harlow was like, “I’m going to win.”
MF: Harlow’s sexuality was so full. It’s the same thing that Mike Nichols explored with Ann-Margret in Carnal Knowledge. Ann-Margret had an almost corpulent sexuality, boobs and hips, and in Carnal Knowledge she could barely get out of bed because of it. I mean, did that character ever leave the bed?
MF: In Dinner at Eight, I think the first time we see Harlow, she’s in bed in one of those idealized white fluffy silky beds. Her version of sexuality was … she didn’t have to get scruffy like Crawford. She wasn’t a stick figure. She was a thick gal. In a way, on some level she’s a descendant of Mae West. But what’s also interesting is the little-girl-ness of what Harlow does sometimes. I always thought what a shame that Born Yesterday was written too late for her. What if she had been of the age to play that part in Born Yesterday? Not that Judy Holliday wasn’t great.
MF: Harlow had a fiery anger too that always felt very real. In Wife vs. Secretary, where she’s a secretary and everyone thinks she’s having an affair with the boss … but she isn’t. And her righteous indignation about it, the accusations coming at her only because of how she looks … And she’s innocent. She’s really good at it, and you really get it. It’s like what happens with Meghan [Murphy] sometimes. [A mutual friend. A glorious actress/singer, seen in the clip below.]
MF: I see the way girls who aren’t secure in themselves react to Meghan. They don’t take the time to figure out that Meghan’s actually a real girl’s girl. These other girls treat her suspiciously, like she’s going to be a man-eater.
SOM: But it’s their own insecurities.
MF: Right. And Harlow’s persona wasn’t exactly a man-eater either. Yes, she was a sex symbol. Marilyn Monroe was soft and whispery and pliable. Harlow wasn’t at all. Harlow was more like what Leslie Ann Warren does in Victor/Victoria.
MF: Warren’s performance is more of an homage to Harlow than it is to anyone else. Lying in bed eating bonbons and then throwing them at you when they’re not good enough.
SOM: Harlow seems so much of her era but that’s only because she died in that era. How would she have translated into the more serious socially-conscious 40s or the rigid 50s? By that point she could have played gun-moll matriarchs, for sure, someone like Dillinger’s mother, or something like that.
MF: There were the Mary Astor types who played either someone’s mom or the Bad Girl. Was Jean Harlow a pinup? Did men … Obviously she was a sex symbol because her legacy has lasted. Everyone knows who she was. There’s that line in that horrible song: “Move like Harlow in Monte Carlo … “
SOM: And “Vogue.”
MF: “Bette Davis, Harlow Jean…”
SOM and MF, chanting in unison: “Pictures of a beauty queen.
Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire.
Ginger Rogers. Dance on air.”
MF: But what did she represent at the time? On one level, I think people think she represents a pliant Marilyn Monroe thing but that wasn’t her at all. She was a full-faced tough cookie. I see more of Mae West in her, although Mae was a more cartoon-y version of sex. The lineage might go: Mae West to Jean Harlow to Shelley Winters.
MF: I’d throw Carole Lombard in there too. People always talk about the actors who couldn’t transition from silents into talkie films because they had bad voices or thick accents. And yet Harlow did not have an elegant voice, by any means. I mean, hers were not dulcet tones.
SOM: I think her voice fit with the stories that were being told in the early 30s, the pre-Code stuff, with criminality, and vice, and gangsters. Films rooted in urban life. You needed the type of women who could do that. Women who you could believe were “kept women” and who had come up hard on the streets. Joan Blondell played those kinds of parts, although she could do spunky good sport side-kicks, too.
Joan Blondell
SOM: Like Midnight Mary, with Loretta Young, who plays a character who was put into juvie, basically, when she was a kid, and then came out into a world of crime and prostitution. Those kinds of gritty films vanished within three years once the Code came down. But Harlow was very much a part of that.
MF: Harlow came at that hard tough material with a really light touch. That might be her biggest gift. Harlow’s ultimate legacy is the urban girl who makes her way into society. That’s Dinner at Eight. She does it half by guile, half by accident, as well as an attitude of: “I just happen to look like this. Sorry. But you know what? I’m not sorry at all.”
___________________________________
Lead Belly weighs in:
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.