More on Mickey Rourke:

mickey-rourke_1.JPG

More on Mickey Rourke at clarkblog – an extensive piece about the actor.

Excerpt:

For my money, he never burned brighter than in The Pope of Greenwich Village, an immensely enjoyable character-driven story elevated into the mythic by Rourke’s magnetic presence. He stars as a struggling NYC restaurateur so desperate to make a buck that he foolishly steals from the mob. He’s loose and fun and tense and frantic all at once — an embodiment of the city itself. Rourke’s amazing work here is matched on every level by Eric Roberts, never better anywhere, as his weak-willed and shifty cousin. In the shot above, Rourke’s playing stick ball while dancing a dreamlike lilt to Frank Sinatra’s “Summer Wind.” It’s always this scene that springs to mind first whenever I think back to this film.

And:

That pale, sometimes ruddy but always soft face is gone. But as a washed-up and battered wrestler still struggling for glory, it’s a face that fits the role. Look beyond the rebuilt cheekbones, the suddenly lantern-sized jaw, the plastic pug nose and Cro-Magnon brow, and there they are: that unforgettable pair of wounded, human eyes.

Read the whole thing.

Speaking of Pope of Greenwich Village, here’s an essay about it by one of my favorite film bloggers out there.

Jeremy writes:

Twenty eight year old Mickey Rourke was on absolute fire in 1984. It didn’t matter that he hadn’t had a major hit yet or wasn’t even a household name, nearly every critic and fan was laying down odds that this guy was the rightful heir to Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. Searing, intense and beautiful, Rourke had just floored many people with his triple shot of Body Heat (1981), Diner (1982) and Rumble Fish (1983) and it looked like he was getting ready to absolutely explode. Watching him today in The Pope Of Greenwich Village, I still feel the same way I do when I see Brando in On The Waterfront or Pacino in Serpico. It is that performance that comes in every great actors career, when everything falls into place and there is something nearly sacred in their work. I’ll take Mickey’s relatively un-acclaimed work as Charlie in The Pope Of Greenwich Village over almost any Oscar winning work you care to name…he was my guy back in the mid eighties and he is still my guy today.

Yes.

And … you knew this was coming right? I just set up a Mickey Rourke Category. I can’t believe it, actually … that the Mickey Rourke I so admired 20 years ago … is actually walking amongst the living again … enough that I feel safe enough to resurrect my interest in him.

More thoughts on him to come. It’s been a lot of fun and strangely moving to watch his movies again – because somehow – in him – I see my OWN journey … I fell in love with his acting when I was, what, 19 years old? What time does to us all. I am aware of that when I see Rourke now.

Posted in Actors | Tagged | 3 Comments

Disgruntlement, Thy Name Is Hope

Disgruntled_Hope.jpg

Posted in Personal | Tagged | 2 Comments

Purple Rain Redux

My brother Brendan, among his many talents and being a great dad, is also a fantastic writer.

He is writing a series of essays on his blog now about great albums. It has been so so fun to watch what he picks, and what he has to say about it.

His latest is on Prince’s Purple Rain and his writing gave me chills. It also made me want to put on Purple Rain immediately to listen to it again. (That was one of those albums which I pretty much listened to DEATH back then. I rarely listen to it now. Perhaps it’s time for a resurgence).

People can, of course, get very personal about the music they love – and Brendan is one of the most passionate music fans I know. I had him write an essay about the first time he heard “Smells Like Teen Spirit” in France – he had told me that story so many times, and it’s just so exciting to me.

Anyway – please go read Bren’s essay on Purple Rain ! It brought back SO many memories!!

Posted in Music | Tagged , | 2 Comments

The Books: “The Time Is Ripe: The 1940 Journals of Clifford Odets”

Daily Book Excerpt: Entertainment Biography/Memoir:

The Time Is Ripe: The 1940 Journal of Clifford Odets : With an Introduction by William Gibson

Clifford Odets (playwright in the 30s and 40s – inspiration to Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, a generation of playwrights – and he inspires still (although some of his plays have dated badly) kept a journal throughout his tumultuous life. His plays mean the world to me. I was in a production of Golden Boy in Chicago, and his language, of all the great playwrights, is one of the funnest to chew on. It’s meaty, poetic, streetsmart, idealistic, tough, hard-boiled, soft underbelly – it’s evocative so much of a time and place (you can usually FEEL the Great Depression in his work … that world is IN the language) – and it’s not easy for modern actors to get that language right. It’s not NOW. It’s not strictly THEN either. But if you have a line like (one of my favorites of his): “Don’t give me ice when your heart’s on fire!” – you cannot – you MUST not – say it with a wink at the audience, you must NOT add any sense of irony to it … you must find it within yourself to really feel and mean “Don’t give me ice when your heart’s on fire” – or you will just sound like a big fat phony up onstage. And worse than that, a condescending phony. Clifford Odets, as a playwright, really reveals falsity in actors … You can’t hide, or do any tricks when you’re in an Odets play. You have to be comfortable with that language, make it your own, and you have to fill up the inner life with whatever needs to be there – so that that language feels organic. Nobody SINKS an actor like Clifford Odets. We’ve got lines in his plays like:

We got the blues, Babe — the 1935 blues. I’m talkin’ this way ’cause I love you. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t care …

Or

You won’t forget me to your dyin’ day — I was the first guy. Part of your insides. You won’t forget. I wrote my name on you — indelible ink!

Or this, from the same scene = I love this line:

So I made a mistake. For Chris’ sake, don’t act like the Queen of Romania!

Or

Yes, yes, the whole thing funnels up in me like a fever. My head’ll bust a vein!

Or

A sleeping clam at the bottom of the ocean, but I’ll wake you up. I’m through with the little wars: no more hacking, making a pound in a good day. Like old man Pike says, every man for himself nowadays, and when you’re in a jungle you look out for the wild life. I put on my Chinese good luck ring and I’m out to get mine. You’re the first stop!

Or this famous exchange from Golden Boy:

JOE. What did he ever do for you?

LORNA. [with sudden verve] Would you like to know? He loved me in a world of enemies, of stags and bulls! … And I loved him for that. He picked me up in Friskin’s hotel on 39th Street. I was nine weeks behind in rent. I hadn’t hit the gutter yet, but I was near. He washed my face and combed my hair. He stiffened the space between my shoulder blades. Misery reached out to misery —

JOE. And now you’re dead.

LORNA. [lashing out] I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about!

JOE. Yes, you do …

This is tough stuff. It requires 100% authenticity. It’s easy to make it a cliche – the hard-boiled mugs of the 1930s – but if you miss out on what is underneath – these people’s real fire and dreams – you got nothin’. Sylvester Stallone has credited Clifford Odets as a major influence on his own writing, and you can hear echoes of it in Rocky and even more so in Paradise Alley – a movie I adore (that will be next up in my Under-rated Movies series) – which takes place in the early years of the 20th century, and the SCRIPT. That’s one of the few movies where I thought: “I need to get my hands on that script. I want to see that language on the page.” It’s fantastic!

Clifford Odets was catapulted into fame in the early 30s with his play Waiting for Lefty (excerpt here. He became a resident playwright with the influential Group Theatre (although they didn’t believe in him at all at first – but the success of Waiting for Lefty changed things). It hadn’t even been, strictly, a Group Theatre production – it was put together for a benefit night to support a Communist magazine – it was one piece in a long night of agitprop. But it hit to such a degree that it was one of THOSE moments in American theatre – a watershed moment … God, for a time machine to have seen that play in its first incarnation in 1935! Wendy Smith in her comprehensive book about the Group Theatre Real Life Drama describes what happened on that night, and what it meant:

To Kazan, seated in the auditorium waiting for his cue, the response was “like a roar from sixteen-inchers broadside, audience to players, a way of shouting, ‘More! More! More! Go on! Go on! Go on!'” Swept up by the passion they had aroused, the actors were no longer acting. “They were being carried along as if by an exultancy of communication such as I have never witnessed in the theatre before,” wrote [Harold] Clurman. The twenty-eight-year-old playwright was awed by the emotional conflagration he’d ignited. “You saw theatre in its truest essence,” Odets remembered years later. “Suddenly the proscenium arch of the theatre vanished and the audience and actors were at one with each other.”

As the play mounted to its climax, the intensity of feeling on and offstage became almost unbearable. When Bobby Lewis dashed in with the news that Lefty has been murdered, no one needed to take an exercise to find the appropriate anger – the actors exploded with it, the audience seethed with it. They exulted as Joe Bromberg, playing the union rebel Agate Keller, tore himself loose from the hired gunmen and declared their independence: “HELLO AMERICA! HELLO. WE’RE STORMBIRDS OF THE WORKING-CLASS … And when we die they’ll know what we did to make a new world!”

“Well, what’s the answer?” Bromberg demanded. In the audience, as planned, Odets, Herbie Ratner, and Lewis Leverett began shouting “Strike!” “LOUDER!” Bromberg yelled – and, one by one, from all over the auditorium, individual voices called out, “Strike!” Suddenly the entire audience, some 1,400 people, rose and roared, “Strike! Strike!” The actors froze, stunned by the spontaneous demonstration. The militant cries gave way to cheers and applause so thunderous the cast was kept onstage for forty-five minutes to receive the crowd’s inflamed tribute. “When they couldn’t applaud anymore, they stomped their feet,” said Ruth Nelson. “All I could think was, ‘My God, they’re going to break the balcony down!’ It was terrible, it was so beautiful.” The actors were all weeping. When Clurman persuaded Odets to take a bow, the audience stormed the stage and embraced the man who had voiced their hopes and fears and deepest aspirations. “That was the dram all of us in the Group Theatre had,” said Kazan, “to be embraced that way by a theatreful of people.”

“The audience wouldn’t leave,” said Cheryl Crawford. “I was afraid they were going to tear the seats out and throw them on the stage.” When the astounded stage manager finally rang down the curtain, they remained out front, talking and arguing about the events in a play taht seemed as real to them as their own lives. Actors and playwright were overwhelmed and a little frightened by the near-religious communion they had just shared. Odets retreated to a backstage bathroom; his excitement was so intense he threw up, then burst into tears. The dressing room was hushed as the actors removed their makeup. They emerged onto 14th Street to find clusters of people still gathered outside, laughing, crying, hugging each other, clapping their hands. “There was almost a sense of pure madness about it,” Morris Carnovsky felt.

No one wanted to go home. Sleep was out of the question. Most of the Group went to an all-night restaurant – no one can remember now which one – and tried to eat. Odets sat alone: pale, withdrawn, not talking at all. Everyone was too dazed to have much to say. It was dawn before they could bring themselves to separate, to admit that the miracle was over.

There had never been a night like it in the American theatre. The Group became a vessel into which were poured the rage, frustration, desperation, and finally exultation, not just of an angry young man named Clifford Odets, but of every single person at the Civic Rep who longed for an end to personal and political depression, who needed someone to tell them they could stand up and change their lives. The Group had experienced the “unity of background, of feeling, of thought, of need” Clurman had said was the basis for a true theatre: during his inspiring talks at Brookfield, at the thrilling final run-through of Connelly, in some of the best performances of Success Story. Never before had they shared it with an entire theatre full of people, never before had it seemed as though the lines they spoke hadn’t been written but rather emerged from a collective heart and soul. Theatre and life merged, as Clurman had promised they could.

Waiting for Lefty changed people’s ideas of what theatre was. More than an evening’s entertainment, more even than a serious examination of the contemporary scene by a thoughtful writer, theatre at its best could be a living embodiment of communal values and aspirations. Theatre mattered, art had meaning, culture wasn’t the property of an affluent, educated few but an expression of the joys and sorrows of the human condition as they could be understood and shared by everyone.

aas-group.jpg

Waiting for Lefty made Clifford Odets a star in New York, and in the circles of the American Left – and while the Group Theatre had been devoted to developing new work, and fostering playwrights who could speak to the NOW, they had missed out on the genius in their midst. They ended up putting on many of his plays – which are now considered classics of the American theatre: Awake and Sing (excerpt here), Paradise Lost (excerpt here), Golden Boy (excerpt here) – just to name a few. He was the voice of the Great Depression, of the angry radical, the Jewish New Yorker, the downtrodden, the hopeful. Odets was a Zeitgeist kind of guy. It’s one of the reasons why he found his later career so strenuous and difficult … when you tap into a Zeitgeist of a certain time and place (and not just tap into it – but give voice to it) it can be nigh on impossible to translate that into another time/place. That’s what happened to him. Also, how do you compete with such blazing early success? I love all of Odets’ plays – not just his famous 1930s plays – I love Big Knife (excerpt here), I love Country Girl (excerpt here), I love The Flowering Peach (excerpt here)… but his time, his PLACE, was the mid-1930s. And that’s IT. Without context, Odets’ work does not translate. HIs writing does … but these are, necessarily, “period” pieces, although at the time of their first productions they were the most relevant new thing anyone had ever seen. There’s a similarity here to William Inge, although his themes and style are quite different. He was the biggest playwright of the 1950s. He was a Neil Simon, a Tony Kushner – in terms of the HITS that he had. But outside of the stifled conventional atmosphere of the 50s – where young people bucked up against the social and sexual conventions of the older generation – his work doesn’t travel. You can’t REALLY update William Inge. You have to place those plays in the 50s. They don’t travel.

hh0092s.jpg

Without understanding that context of Odets, his plays may seem … trite, or small, or naive. His theme is how the individual man can maintain his dignity, his human worth, in the middle of a capitalist society. He has written lines like, “Is life written on dollar bills?” WORTH has nothing to do with money … but when you have no money, it sure as shit is difficult to remember that. His plays in the 30s insist upon human dignity, but also (like in Golden Boy) insist on the fact that there is compromise, and tragedy. This is where he can seem, to modern eyes, a bit naive – but it is essential to place him in his context.

USAodets.jpg

But what remains (for me anyway) is not so much the thematic elements, the snapshot of urban life in the 30s – but the language. Odets’ language!! It’s raw, it’s poetic, and it’s not realistic. I like to read his plays out loud, just to myself – that language is fun fun fun to say.

Harold Clurman wrote about Odets:

Odets wrote some of the finest love scenes to be found in American drama. An all-enveloping warmth, love in its broadest sense, is a constant in all Odets’ writing, the very root of his talent. IT is there in tumultuous harangues, in his denunciations and his murmurs. It is by turns hot and tender. Sometimes it sounds in whimpers. It is present as much in the scenes between grandfather and grandson in Awake as in those of Joe and Lorna in Golden Boy. It is touchingly wry in Rocket. This explains why these scenes are chosen by so many actors for auditions and classwork.

gb_pr.jpg

The Group Theatre lasted for only a decade. By the end of it, much of the original mission had been smoothed over – and they were hiring “outside” people for roles, as opposed to relying on the ensemble, and there were many other issues. People wanted out. And the world was changing, too – the Group had some really rough times at the end, where they couldn’t seem to “hit it” as they had earlier in the decade. Had they just run their course?

Clifford Odets wrote a play called Night Music, and it is, I think, one of his best. It has Saroyan elements – a sort of magical middle-of-the-night quality – and there is much of it that I feel Lanford Wilson was inspired by, later in the 60s – even though his characters in Balm in Gilead are the dregs of society. But Odets – by having his play full of people – there has to be 40, 50 characters in that play – similar to Wilson – and these denizens of the night streets, the people who only come out at 2 a.m. … the floating snippets of conversation, fragments heard, all operating in order to highlight the lonely journey of the two leads towards each other – really reminds me of Wilson. Night Music is an ambitious play and I would love to see it done more. It’s funny, it’s touching, it has great characters – and it’s one of those plays that take place in only one night – a crazy night when nobody gets any sleep, and everyone appears to be homeless, looking for something in the crazy 3 a.m. hour. This would be the last play put on by the Group Theatre. It was 1940. Elia Kazan was the male lead. I believe Harold Clurman directed. It was a production and a half – a giant stage, tons of characters … and for many different reasons, the play was a huge flop. It was the end of the Group Theatre. They had really needed a hit, and had hoped Night Music would be it. I somehow think that Night Music COULD have been a hit. It is not a dreary play, there are not awkward plot elements like some of Odets’ earlier stuff – he keeps it light and funny and romantic. Seems like a sure thing to me. But for whatever reaon (and Clifford had many opinions about it) – the play failed to find an audience.

It was over. The grand experiment in American theatre was over. The ensemble members would scatter to the four winds. Some would find their way to movie stardom (like John Garfield, Elia Kazan) – others would eventually become the premiere acting teachers in this country (Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, Sanford Meisner, Bobby Lewis). Many of them were impacted by the Hollywood blacklist, due to their Communist associations in the past – and also just guilt by association. Odets went to Hollywood and started writing screenplays. His journey is told in the Coen brothers’ Barton Fink. Odets never found his stride in Hollywood – he had a similar sensibility to F. Scott Fitzgerald – he was an artist and he couldn’t seem to protect himself properly from the mercenary demands, and … he was always left with the feeling of: “Is this all there is?”

Not a happy man.

In 1940, during the rehearsal and failed production of Night Music, Clifford Odets kept a journal. That journal has been published and it is now certainly a classic of its kind, essential reading for anyone who is an artist, for struggling actors, playwrights – whatever – When I was in grad school, I didn’t know one person who hadn’t read it. It’s AMAZING and it makes you want to … oh … I don’t know … run out and be an artist! Have every part of your life reflect your commitment to your art! LIVE TO THE FULLEST. Etc. Odets was obviously not having the best year in 1940 – so he was not at the top of the world … Much of the diary describes late nights at jazz clubs, troubled rehearsals during the day, and evenings when he would lose himself in his beloved Beethoven (boy, is he eloquent on Beethoven) – to try to regroup. It’s a rather wandering type of journal – as any journal would be … and on every single page there is something to “take away”. Almost none of it has to do with to-do lists or what he did that day. He is trying to work out his own artistic problems in the pages of his journal – his issues with “form” and character and subtext … at times he’s like a dog with a bone – an entire week he devotes to talking about “form”, and what that means for him as a playwright, and how Beethoven teaches him about form.

It’s a wonderful book. I cannot recommend it highly enough. I pick it up all the time – it’s one of my constant books, something I dip into, just open it up and whatever page it falls on there will be some gem, something that helps me to go deeper, to contemplate, to struggle, to strive.

cliffo.jpeg

He is about to go into his long decline – which is sad, because he has such fire and energy here. In 1944, he made his directorial debut with None but the Lonely Heart – starring Cary Grant. This was the second part Grant was nominated for an Oscar for – mainly because of the big crying scene at the end. (The fact that Grant would not be nominated – then or now – for his performance in His Girl Friday – is just indicative of how silly those awards can be!!)

st3085.jpg

Odets and Grant were friends until the very end – and Odets had a particularly sad end. The guy had a long way to fall, and boy, did he fall. Grant would lend him money, or go and sit with him and talk and laugh and try to help his friend. None but the Lonely Heart is obviously Odets-ian – the themes, the compromises (it’s always about choosing money or love, choosing money or humanity) – but what’s really interesting about it is how great it LOOKS. The MOOD of the movie is really the reason to see it. It has an almost Fritz Lang-ish feel to it, eerie, melancholy, big empty urban streets, the alienation of urban life made manifest in the dark cobblestones – it’s a great looking movie.

But The Time is Ripe gives us just a glimpse – a glimpse of a working man of the theatre in 1940 – working on one particular play – and, as Stanley Kauffman has said in response to the book – Odets comes off as “bursting, struggling, impatient, agonizing, egocentric, limited … generous … eager to understand his society, even more eager to be the best dramatist that his times and his talents would allow.”

I consider The Time is Ripe to be required reading. Not only is it interesting about Odets himself – but it is interesting about America, and cultural issues, and Marxism, and Stalin, and the big thought of Russia – and all of those elements of the Left at that time – here they are, on paper. As always, Odets was a man of his time. He embodied it. Thank God he could write. He might have been just another propagandist, but you cannot argue with the power of those early plays. Yes, he has a point of view. What good artist doesn’t? But as I mentioned before: what really remains, what he has left us, is those WORDS.

Here’s an excerpt.

Continue reading

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

I Guess I Should Feel Honored

… that Hope feels so comfortable with me.

Continue reading

Posted in Personal | Tagged | 11 Comments

“the loneliness of the long-distance literary editor”

A piece that is of great interest to me now in my life (and I had somehow missed it although James Wolcott is one of my regular destination pitstops on the Web): Long-distance literary editors and the whole process of editing, in general. Wolcott takes, as his launching-off point, a couple of tributes to editors, now dead, and the magazines they worked for. But I liked, mostly, the thoughts on editing – from Wolcott and the excerpt he chose to share.

It reminds me of the relationship Maxwell Perkins had with F. Scott Fitzgerald, and here is just a brief excerpt of the giant letter Perkins wrote to Fitzgerald after getting the manuscript of The Great Gatsby:

The other point is also about Gatsby: his career must remain mysterious, of course. But in the end you make it pretty clear that his wealth came through his connection with Wolfstein. You also suggest this much earlier. Now almost all readers numerically are going to be puzzled by his having all this wealth and are going to feel entitled to an explanation. To give a distinct and definite one would be, of course, utterly absurd. It did occur to me though, that you might here and there interpolate some phrases, and possibly incidents, little touches of various kinds, that would suggest that he was in some active way mysteriously engaged. You do have him called on the telephone, but couldn’t he be seen once or twice consulting at his parties with people of some sort of mysterious significance, from the political, the gambling, the sporting world, or whatever it mayb be. I know I am floundering, but that fact may help you to see what I mean … I wish you were here so I could talk about it to you for then I know I could at least make you understand what I mean. What Gatsby did ought never to be definitely imparted, even if it could be. Whether he was an innocent tool in the hands of somebody else, or to what degree he was this, ought not to be explained. But if some sort of business activity of his were simply adumbrated, it would lend further probability to that part of the story.

Editing is not easy. It is certainly not easy to edit your own work, and I have found that it sometimes takes me MONTHS of stepping away from something before I can even look at something I have written with anything even resembling clarity. Distance is great. Reading what you have written out loud is invaluable. But when that outside eye comes … Boy. If it’s someone you trust, then you had best listen.

I had written a piece I felt was perfect. I don’t know, the piece just flowed, as far as I was concerned. I worked hard on it, editing, chopping it up, rearranging things – and I really felt that there was nothing more I could do with it. I sent it to my agent just to get her feedback, and we talked on the phone about it. She said one thing, “It feels like the piece has three climaxes.”

The light broke in on my head. I resisted her words, vaguely, because I fear change, and it would mean totally re-thinking the whole thing … but once I realized that I had been building the narrative to not one, but three climaxes – I realized, well, obviously, three is too many. How about just focusing on ONE, Sheila? So I chopped that poor thing up some more, honing in on just the one. It made the piece infinitely better. Maybe the two other climaxes could be their own stand-alone pieces, who knows. But I honestly can’t imagine I would have, all on my own, realized that flaw in the piece. Maybe I would have – you never know, I have a good eye … but sometimes that outside first-impression eye from someone you trust is the only thing you really need.

Follow Wolcott’s links …

More agent and editor talk from my friend Cara.

Posted in Personal | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Favorite Types Of Photos

I love this post (I love that site in general). I love it because of the photos she chooses to share, and how she talks about why she loves them. She loves “gents surrounded by ladies”, she loves any photo with a year in it, she loves photos of trios, she loves photos of “snooty Edwardian women”, she loves photos with old radios or old appliances in them.

Who can say why we love the things we do. The “why” is not interesting. What is great is the FACT of the love, and how it is expressed and shared. It’s why I love her site so much.

So in the spirit of that. These are not my favorite photos, per se, but they are representative of the themes and images I am compulsively drawn to.

I like photos of women from the 20s wearing furs, little hats, and cute strappy shoes.

I like photos of little ragamuffin children working in factories at the turn of the last century.

I like any photo that involves an old-fashioned kitchen. I love to see old toasters and percolators and eggbeaters and refrigerators with rounded edges.

I like photos of old-fashioned (but brand new then) gleaming cars.

I like photos of Rosie the Riveter women working on assembly lines during WWII.

I like photos of women floating underwater.

I like photos of Coney Island, back in the day.

I love photos of Ziegfeld girls.

>

I love photos of old movie palaces.

Any photo involving an aviatrix is dear to my heart.

I love photos that involve: sailors or guys with slicked ducktails, girls with curled hair, a floor smudged with cigarette ash, Coke bottles on the table, an integrated crowd (as an added bonus) and a dance floor.

Make sure you go check out her favorites – the images she has in her collection is extraordinary!

Posted in Personal | 4 Comments

“O tell me all about Anna Livia!

I want to hear all about Anna Livia. Well, you know Anna Livia? Yes, of course, we all know Anna Livia. Tell me all. Tell me now. You’ll die when you hear.”

Finnegans Wake, James Joyce

A wonderful post from one of my favorite bloggers about Finnegans Wake, which he calls “one of history’s freakish cul-de-sacs”, (I love that).

Like Patrick, I have read Finnegans Wake – in increments – and mainly outloud to myself. In my opinion, it reads much better out loud – you can hear it – because Joyce, being nearly blind himself, was mostly all about the sound of things. He experienced the world not visually, but aurally … and the music of Finnegans Wake, because that is what it is, is in what it sounds like.

I was in grad school, a rigorous environment already – and I found, while I was in school, that I only gravitated towards mostly difficult works. My brain was used to difficulty (and I’ve never been one who thinks “it’s an easy book” is the highest of compliments anyway) so while I was in school, and already tremendously strapped for time, I found myself reading difficult things like Leviathan and Antonin Artaud (Artaud? I need you to CHILLAX, okay? You’re freaking me out. Just CHILLAX) and Finnegans Wake. If it wasn’t rigorous, it didn’t hold my interest at that time. Finnegans Wake was not a book I carried around with me, reading while I was in line at the bank. It didn’t seem to lend itself to that kind of behavior, so typical for me with other books. I couldn’t just pick it up and put it down again. I needed to clear a space for it, intellectually, and I did so every morning for about half an hour at a time.

Then, as now, I was a morning creature – waking up at 5:30 a.m. to have quiet alone time before charging off to school where I would be busy until 11 o’clock at night, with barely time to grab a granola bar for lunch. I would sit on the couch in the living room, and read out loud to myself (quietly, because I had a roommate) – drinking my coffee – and sometimes taking notes, underlining things that struck me. I could only do a couple of pages a day. That was fine for me. I felt no pressure. I didn’t try to read it like a regular book.

I had, of course, already read all of Joyce’s other stuff – multiple times – “The Dead” is a story I go back to time and time again (I consider it to be that rarity: a truly perfect thing) – (excerpt and essay about it here) … not to mention certain sections of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (excerpt and essay here) – and my reading experience of Ulysses, one summer, under the tutelage of my dad, is one of the most memorable and exciting reading experiences I have ever had, rivaled only by my first re-reading of Moby-Dick, 15 years after I had first read it (and hated it) in high school.

There is always a ‘code’ in Joyce, he loved codes and symbols and secret messages – and while there is always much for me to learn with Ulysses, that first time, with the help of my dad, I cracked the code. I got it. Once I could see what he was doing, it was seriously like Alice in Wonderland going through the magic locked door into the Queen’s garden of roses. Not that the language is that opaque, it’s really not – certainly it’s not the mysterious dreamspace language of Finnegans Wake – but it’s way more fun to figure out what Joyce was attempting so that you can then just relax, and stop struggling. (“The Oxen of the Sun” chapter in Ulysses is a perfect example of what I am talking about. It is, by far, the most difficult chapter of the book – with language that predicts Finnegans Wake – and it was the only time where I felt, within 1 or 2 pages, “Yeah, uh-huh, so I am obviously not QUALIFIED to read this.” And I still feel that way, to some degree – I am not a linguist, so I can’t say what Joyce is up to 9 times out of 10 – but with the help of my dad, I saw what Joyce was doing – and so it stopped being a foggy mystery, a wall of incomprehensible language – and suddenly became, oh, one of the most genius things I have ever read in my life. Not because it was difficult – but because it was complex and had an inner structure that I couldn’t really see until I adjusted my own vision. I was really pleased when I received an email from a graduate student in Ireland, telling me that he had tripped over my post about the “Oxen of the Sun” episode, and it had really helped him crack the code for himself. I MUST give the props to my dad for that, because he was a big reason why I could figure it out. “Okay, so that’s a chapter about birth. So look for nine sections … everything’s about NINE in that chapter…” etc.)

Finnegans Wake (excerpt and essay here) makes Ulysses seem easy, like a dime-store novel. But to me, that is the fun of it. Ironically (or, not so ironically) Joyce considered it his most accessible book. Joyce did not worry about his audience (of course he didn’t – he went 17 years in between books!!) – but he felt that Finnegans Wake was almost populist in nature, made up of folklores, myths, oral history, legends … Anyone could understand it. (Of course “anyone”, at least in the Western world, was way more educated back then – Greek, Latin, all of that was par for the course in primary education … so the frame of reference was much larger). Nora (Joyce’s wife) looked at one of his pages of gobbledygook language and said, “Why can’t you write a book that people would want to read?”

However, she – a rough uneducated girl from Galway – said, after his death, when reporters continually brought up Ulysses to her:

“What’s all this talk about Ulysses? Finnegans Wake is the important book.”

I can’t say I enjoyed Finnegans Wake (although once I got into it I actually found the whole thing to be a hoot. Seriously. A HOOT.) Joyce famously said about Ulysses:

The pity is the public will demand and find a moral in my book — or worse they may take it in some more serious way, and on the honor of a gentleman, there is not one single serious line in it.

And you know, the more I read Joyce, the more I see what he was talking about. He obviously took his work seriously, agonizing over commas, and stuff like that … but regardless of his giant reputation in the canon of 20th century literature – and the shadow he casts forward and back … I always find there to be a silliness in his work, a lightness (this is actually not the case in The Dubliners, which feel like straight-up social realism to me – you can feel the influence of Ibsen there, Joyce’s favorite writer) … but I find the books to be ABOUT nothing. There is no “theme”, no “message” and if you try to pin it down you will certainly miss the whole of it. Ulysses and Finnegans Wake are not their plots (thank God – because what the hell happens in those books??) … they are their language.

To quote Samuel Beckett, who had this to say about Finnegans Wake:

You cannot complain that this stuff is not written in English. It is not written at all. It is not to be read. It is to be looked at and listened to. His writing is not about something. It is that something itself.

And once I surrendered, once I let JOYCE lead, and stop trying to lead the book myself … the language took over, filling my head with sounds and echoes and reverb … silly, juvenile, audacious, pointless – yet fun. Because it was fun for Joyce.

E.M. Forster gave a series of lectures on “the novel” and devoted a great deal of time to Melville’s Moby Dick. He closed his lecture with words I find appropriate for Joyce as well, and Finnegans Wake in particular:

Moby Dick is full of meanings: its meaning is a different problem. It is wrong to turn the Delight or the coffin into symbols, because even if the symbolism is correct, it silences the book. Nothing can be stated about Moby Dick except that it is a contest. The rest is song.

And speaking of song: Patrick also has a link to James Joyce reading from Finnegans Wake.

Posted in Books, James Joyce | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

James Baldwin shimmying

Mitchell – linking to this awesome photo for you!

Posted in Art/Photography, writers | 1 Comment

The Books: “As I Am: An Autobiography” (Patricia Neal)

ed37b2c008a01a1c2fe06010._AA240_.L.jpgDaily Book Excerpt: Entertainment Biography/Memoir:

As I Am: An Autobiography, by Patricia Neal

This is one of those rare books where my response to it was, “Dear God, it’s me, Sheila. Could you please give Patricia Neal a break? Hasn’t she had enough??” The bare bones of her life story are enough to make my blood run cold – because so much of what happened to her was random, the luck of the draw. It’s a great fear of mine – to be incapacitated by something like a stroke – something where my mind has gone, and I have to rebuild it … where I am still in there, but my body won’t behave. It’s terrifying. Not to mention being (like Patricia Neal was) pregnant! But there’s so much more to this fantastic book than just the story of her stroke and her incredible recovery (which had as much to do with pure grit and willpower than anything else). It’s beautifully written – emotional and in-the-moment … The things that hurt her once still seem to hurt her, the experiences she had as a young woman still seem real to her … Patricia Neal is not “over” it, she doesn’t come across as distanced in any way – and yet at the same time, I don’t get that ikky sense that I get from some biographies that she has an axe to grind. No, what I get is that Neal – as a wonderful actress – is able to do the same thing in her writing that she can do as an actress: imagine herself into another world, this time her past – and re-experience it. You FEEL what she feels. You can’t believe what this woman has gone through.

And what an actress.

2741_0000.jpg

I think Neal’s book is fantastic. It’s fantastic about acting, and her career – moments where she had breakthroughs, troubled moments with directors, whatever … and it’s also fantastic about the real-life aspects: love affairs, life, motherhood, grief, religion, career … It’s quite a book, and I love the title. You really feel, by the end of the book, that you have been through the wringer with her – and that she has truly earned the right to say the words, “As I Am.” It was hard-won, that peace with herself, hard hard won … She had to scrape and claw for so much, she had to climb herself back to health, she had to insist to herself that life, after all, was worth living. The story of her recovery from her stroke brings tears to my eyes. It’s terrible.

Dahlneal.jpg

Roald Dahl, her husband, was not a warm man. There was something off about him. He told Patricia Neal he loved her twice in their whole marriage. But his response to her stroke – what we would call now as “tough love” – is much of why she recovered. Well, that and the neurosurgery team at the hospital. But when Neal came home, she was on her own. Dahl refused to baby her. If it took her 45 minutes to button her blouse, then it took her 45 minutes. He would not help. They would have enormous battles, and she would be screaming at him – only she still couldn’t remember the words for things (horrifying – it just gives me chills) – so she’d be shouting gibberish, trying, trying, to remember the word for, oh, “son of a bitch” or “I hate you”.

Prior to marrying Roald Dahl, Neal – early in her career – had been cast in The Fountainhead with Gary Cooper.

dominique_and_roark.jpg

Gary Cooper was a married man, but he was also a famous philanderer. He had great respect for his wife, Rocky, and always stopped his affairs before they went too far. Rocky knew all about them, and I have no idea what it was like for her – but the two of them seemed good companions. Cooper needed to be married, having a homelife was very important to him – and Rocky loved her position in society as his wife. It was a tradeoff. Cooper and Neal had an affair. Neal was not a floozy, not really, and she fell so in love with Gary Cooper that she counts him as the great love of her life. Really the only man she ever loved. Her entire book ends with her going out to lunch with Rocky, and the two of them talking about Gary, and Rocky seeming to understand what it was that Neal had lost (after all, she loved him too) – and it felt good for the two of them to sit there and reminisce about him. Rather extraordinary, huh? Neal writes:

This was the one man I loved passionately, the one I had fought to get. But the bond of his marriage was stronger than our passion. And I was forced to submit to that. I am now grateful that I did. If I had not married Roald Dahl, I would have been denied my children, even my life, because he truly saved me and I will be forever grateful to him for that.

Complicated. Life is not simple.

In 1963, Patricia Neal played Alma, the earthy humorous housekeeper in Hud. Neal won the Oscar for Best Actress.

Hud%20pic%202.jpg

The year before, her 7-year-old daughter Olivia had died, unexpectedly, from measles encephalitis. Neal was still struggling, at the time of filming Hud, with an almost baffled sense of grief, how do you incorporate such an event into your life, how on earth do you go on?? Watching her as Alma is a true testament to the power of art as some kind of healing force. She is not “playing” her own biography here. Alma is a tough Texas woman, with some miles on her, a divorce in her past, and yet a philisophical attitude which allows her to hang out with tough men and be one of them. Despite her housekeeper status. It’s a marvelous portrayal – three-dimensional in its scope and a constant surprise. Her grief about her daughter was somehow mysteriously channeled into that performance … It was like Neal needed to lose herself in her work, and boy, did she ever.

In 1965 she had a debilitating stroke. Actually, she had three strokes – which left her in a coma. It was thought she would never come out of it. She was 39 years old. A long road to recovery followed, and she credits much of it to Roald Dahl, who shouted at her until she could do nothing else but fight back. He would not let her be weak. Whatever issues they had in their marriage (and who knows, maybe Dahl sensed all along that he was her second choice) it did not stop Dahl from insisting that she get strong. If she had to hate him in the process, then maybe that would be good for her, motivational.

Neal describes sitting and watching the Academy Awards in 1965 – post-stroke – where, if she hadn’t been incapacitated, she would have been there to present the award to the Best Actor – it was her spot, because she had won the award the year before. Audrey Hepburn gave out the award in her place, and Neal – still sick, still unable to form or remember words – had the expectation that Hepburn would at least acknowledge her – would say something nice about her, to remind the audience, “This should have been Patricia Neal presenting …” but Hepburn didn’t say a word. Just gave out the award. Neal flipped out. She and Dahl were sitting on the couch at home, and Neal started shouting at the television, expressing her anger at being so forgotten and ignored. It hurt her. But because of the stroke, what came out was gibberish – she couldn’t remember any words for anything – but the sentiment was clear.

Dahl took that as a wonderful sign. That Neal had a memory of something outside of her own sickness, and was invested enough in it to be pissed off … He thought that was great. A sign of health. Being able to say, “Goddammit, that is so UNFAIR” is a sign of mental health (I’ve often thought so … when we stop having the ability to rail at the unfair-ness of things, we lose a lot of our fire …). I think Dahl was on to something – and perhaps he didn’t really love her (sure doesn’t sound like it) – but perhaps it was that very DISTANCE from her, the fact that he could remain separate from her, and see her clearly, that he didn’t feel the need to hover over his poor darling, cooing over how sick she was … that made him such a great and enormous help in her recovery.

She was offered the role of Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate (amazing to contemplate, huh?) – but she turned it down, feeling that it was still too close to her stroke. Neal rebuilt her life. She worked with a speech therapist, she worked with neurologists … and she came back. When she returned to work, in The Subject Was Roses, she was again nominated for an Academy Award.

As I Am is one of my favorites in this particular genre: entertainment autobiography … It palpitates with real feeling, and is very specific. She remembers people – Kazan, Cooper … and she also, frankly, comes off as someone I would love to know. A real person. Whose life has been a true journey. Who had shit thrown at her – time and time again – and she survived it. Not without a lot of fighting and a lot of grief – and one nervous breakdown – but she survived.

patricia_neal.jpg

Her memories of Gary Cooper are so tender that it makes my heart crack … and I often wonder, in my own life, what is left in me to give someone else … after my great and failed love. My guy said to me, in a song he wrote for me, “You’ll always be my great lost love.” Thanks for nothing, pal. No, just kidding. But it really resonated with me, her journey. And how she tells it like it is. She does not spare Dahl in many respects. He had an affair with her best friend – which was what finally ended their 30-year marriage. He laughed in her face when she told him her heart was broken. I don’t think he ever really recovered from his daughter dying … it made him twisted and mean. So Neal just tells it like it is. BUT she does not throw out ye olde baby with ye olde bathwater. Dahl MADE her get well, MADE her recover, on her own, from the strokes that should have killed her. And so, like she says, she owes him her LIFE. Pretty amazing.

I chose an excerpt today that really moves me. In 1959 Patricia Neal was cast in the play Miracle Worker, being directed by Arthur Penn. She was a big enough star at that point that she was hurt that she was not offered the role of Annie. She played Helen’s mother. BUT: Neal took the role, knowing that she needed to work – rather than not work – and yes, her ego took a blow … but I love her grace here, and also her honesty. It was not easy to back off and not be the star. But she did.

EXCERPT FROM As I Am: An Autobiography, by Patricia Neal

It was April in 1959 when I heard from Arthur Penn, the director. He was casting William Gibson’s The Miracle Worker, about the young Helen Keller. Everyone knew it was bound to be one of the biggest hits of the season and the vehicle of a lifetime for the actress who played Annie Sullivan, Helen’s teacher.

The only problem was, Arthur was not offering me that part. He thought I would be wonderful as Helen’s mother. It was not a starring role, but I hadn’t done a play in the United States in four years or a film in three. I was in no position to command the star spot and I knew it. I could fantasize all I wanted, but if I was to keep working I would have to go with what was offered.

The star of Miracle Worker was Anne Bancroft. Like me, Anne had left Hollywood and returned to New York to make a new start. I first saw her at The Studio and admired her as an actress. Later I got to know her socially at the Strasberg parties. She was great fun and I liked her very much. Our paths were destined to cross many times.

We were in rehearsal only a few days when Anne and Arthur invited me for a drink. Arthur asked me quite candidly if I resented not playing the star role. I was equally candid. I admitted that I did, indeed, find it tough to step down, but I was trying my damndest to do it graciously. They breathed sighs of relief. Both of them thanked me for being honest and assured me they knew how difficult it was. I can truthfully say that the fact that I adored Anne and Arthur helped. I felt better than I had in days for having gotten it out. It was one of the happiest companies I ever worked with. It also afforded me a reunion with Phyllis Adams, of my pavement-pounding days. Phyllis was now married to George Jenkins, our set designer.

Near the end of rehearsals I saw Fred Cox, our producer, in the auditorium with a man and a woman. I couldn’t see their faces from the stage, but the man kept waving at me. Finally I walked down the aisle to see who he was.

“Do you recognize me?” he asked with a tinge of wickedness. “We met in Chicago.”

I searched the familiar face for a name.

“I’m the fellow you told not to go into show business.”

“Oh yes,” I said, nodding. “Michael …”

Fred helped me out. “Nichols.”

The woman with him, of course, was Elaine May.

I had gone six weeks without my family and we were just beginning out-of-town previews in Boston when Roald arrived with the girls. I could not wait to see my babies, and as they got off the elevator, I bellowed my welcome. Olvia looked at me with fright and Tessa let out a terrified wail. They obviously had no idea they were coming to see me and, in fact, did not seem to know why I had been absent from their lives for so long. I was annoyed with Roald for this oversight, but later, when all was well and we laughed it off, I scolded myself for making too much of it.

Eventually Roald came to the show. Following the performance, Arthur appeared at my dressing room. He was shaking with anger. “He’s quite a fellow, that husband of yours. He doesn’t think we have much of a play. Of course, he gave us his recommendations. We’d appreciate it if you’d see that he doesn’t come again.”

I was humiliated. And so angry that when Roald came backstage, I seethed. “This has nothing to do with you. Will you keep your fucking nose out of my business and let me make my own enemies!” We did not speak again about the progress of the play.

The Miracle Worker opened on October 19, 1959. Our reviews were as great as everyone hoped. Especially for Anne and little Patty Duke, who played Helen.

I got pregnant on opening night. Obviously Roald did not hold grudges.

Patty was older than the six-and-a-half-year-old Helen she portrayed on stage. I used to take her home with me and she was the perfect guest, completely charming and gracious. She loved to read stories to the girls, who adored her. Her visits spurred Olivia’s pestering to come and see Mummy act for the first time. I arranged for Sonia to take her to a matinee but asked that she kept in the lobby during my first scene, fearing my frantic screams for my stage child might set up a howl from my own. After the performance, she looked at me very seriously and said, “I loved you, Mummy. You were jolly good.” At that moment I didn’t mind that Anne had gotten all the reviews. I had just gotten the most important notice of my life.

Posted in Actors, Books | Tagged , , , , | 9 Comments