“Top 25 Most Played Songs”

The best thing about the iPod playlist “Top 25 Most Played” is that you can’t hide who you are when you look at it. All is revealed. You may wish you were the kind of person who listened to Igor Stravinsky enough that he would show up on your Top 25 Most Played – but unless you are, organically, the kind of person who listens to Stravinsky on a daily basis – he will not be in your Top 25 Most Played. If you want your music to give off some kind of specific impression meant to impress others – if you want someone to think you’re cool, or eclectic, or deep, or if you scoff at music made by ‘the man’ – if any of these things are an issue for you, then don’t let anyone look at your Top 25 Most Played. Just keep it under wraps. If you’re not comfortable with people knowing that you listen to “Day Dream Believah” so often that it makes it into your Top 25, then I suggest just not mentioning it. The Top 25 Most Played playlist never lies. It shows you to yourself. It can surprise you.

In the interest of full disclosure – here is my utterly bizarre (and quite revealing) Top 25 Most Played.

I’m kind of amazed that there isn’t more Foo Fighters or Eminem on there … but I guess not. The Top 25 Most Played DOES NOT LIE.

So here it is, here I am, in my unvarnished glory:

(Also, in your iTunes Library you can see how many times each song has been played in your library … and I will go even further with my revelations today and say that: my #1 song – in terms of times-played – is so far beyond every other song numerically that I don’t know if other music could ever catch up. Maybe someday I’ll try to figure out why I listened to that song on an endless loop for a good month and a half, but not right now. I will say that it was NOT because it was Christmastime, and it had to something to do with Michael – but I am honestly not sure what, exactly.)

Anyway, here is my list:

SHEILA’S TOP 25 MOST PLAYED SONGS ON IPOD IN DESCENDING NUMERICAL ORDER:

25. “Dead!” – My Chemical Romance
24. “Son of Sam” – Elliot Smith
23. “A Woman Wouldn’t Be A Woman” – Eartha Kitt
22. “Rock Me” – Liz Phair
21. “Keep The Customer Satisfied” – Simon & Garfunkel
20. “I Don’t Know What It Is” – Rufus Wainright
19. “Big Wheel” – Tori Amos
18. “Too Much Love Will Kill You” – Queen
17. “Heaven on Earth” – Britney Spears
16. “SexyBack” – Justin Timberlake
15. “It is Love” – Hellogoodbye
14. “21 Things I Want In a Lover” – Alanis Morissette
13. “Christmas Is the Time to Say I love You” – SR-71
12. “My Prerogative” – Britney Spears’ cover of the Bobby Brown classic
11. “Cream” – Prince
10. “Aint That a Kick In the Head” – Dean Martin (speaking of which …)
9. “Stars and Planets” – Liz Phair
8. “Gimme More” – Britney Spears
7. “Mr. Blue Sky” – ELO
6. “Les Champs-Elysees” – Joe Dassin
5. “Beale St. Blues” – Eartha Kitt
4. “A Little More Love” – Olivia Newton-John
3. “Kashmir” – Led Zeppelin
2. “Enter Sandman” – Metallica
1. “All I Want for Christmas Is You” – Mariah Carey

UPDATE: It occurs to me that songs can be grouped into constants and time-and-place songs.

For example, “Enter Sandman” and “Cream” are constants and have been ever since I first heard them in the dark dawn age of time.

But other songs on the list signify to me a specific time and place and for whatever reason – my mood dictated me to that song and that song alone.

A couple of observations:

“It is Love” and “Beale St. Blues” will always remind me of going to Taos to stalk and meet Dean Stockwell. Those songs were in constant rotation. Happy sexy songs, I think.

“Les Champs-Elysees” is the song that plays over the final credits in Darjeeling Limited and it pulled my heart up out of my chest the first time I heard it – so powerfully – that I couldn’t even wait to get home and go to iTunes to find it. I had to stop off at a music store and buy the entire soundtrack IMMEDIATELY upon exiting the theatre. The song still transports me … but there was a time there when i was so into it that I made an entire playlist of just that song so that I wouldn’t have to keep pressing “Rewind”.

“Mr. Blue Sky” is what I turn on when I need to escape the world a little bit and enter my favorite fantasy which no, I will not share. But “Mr. Blue Sky” is a big part of it. I don’t even need to work to get into the mood, when I hear the song, I “go there”. My entire fantasy pops up around me, three-dimensional. Which is a little bit scary because a commercial is using “Mr. Blue Sky” right now, so if I hear it out in public I have a Pavlovian response.

And like I mentioned: Mariah Carey’s modern Christmas classic was the song I turned to a couple of autumns ago, after Michael left and I was all worked up. Sometimes I listened to the song and wept. Sometimes I listened to it and laughed. In the month after his visit – it was all Mariah all the time. To such a degree that she has been #1 in the Top 25 Most Played ever since. No one will ever be able to catch up. I think Michael would guffaw, knowing that I turned to THAT song after his departure. He’d be like, Sheila … WHAT???

Posted in Music | Tagged | 25 Comments

The Books: “The Groucho Letters: Letters from and to Groucho Marx”

Daily Book Excerpt: Entertainment Biography/Memoir:

The Groucho Letters: Letters from and to Groucho Marx

When I was a senior in high school, I dated a guy who was an insane Marx Brothers fan, and still is today.

And so it is ironic that Groucho Marx would come up on ye olde bookshelf today: Yesterday I posted about Steve Martin. My boyfriend back then reminded me of Steve Martin, even down to what he looked like. He had the same long lean angular body, the same thick hair, the same serious face that could look, when he was performing, completely surreal. But it was more than that. His sense of humor was very similar – absurd yet traditional – surreal yet goofy – and he, too, was an ambitious actor and stand-up, who was already pursuing his dream when he was in high school. He wore hi-top sneakers when he was my date to the Prom, he would take me to old-movie nights at the campus theatre – where I was introduced to the glory of black-and-white films … and he also made it his business to school me in all things Marx Brothers.

I had a free period in the middle of the day, and my boyfriend lived right down the street from the high school, so I would go over to his house, and he would put in a VHS tape of Marx Brothers movies. Occasionally he would pause the tape and rewind so I could watch a bit again, and he could say to me, “Watch the timing here – watch how perfect it is …” It was so much fun.

marx_thinker.jpg

Miraculously, he came out with a book a couple of years ago on the history of vaudeville. It is called No Applause–Just Throw Money: The Book That Made Vaudeville Famous. (The book is terrific. I highly recommend it – indispensable addition to any theatrical-history library.) It got fantastic reviews, including one in The New York Times.

One of the most beautiful things for me, about the success he has now achieved, is that it is not at all a surprise, remembering the boy he was. The boy who, at 19, made me watch all the Marx Brothers movies, because he was horrified I hadn’t seen them. Who didn’t just watch the Marx Brothers … he STUDIED the Marx Brothers. The boy who was, even then, encyclopedic on vaudeville, knew all the names, all the anecdotes … and I remember the feeling, back then, that to him – WC Fields, and the Marx Brothers, and Mae West, etc. etc. were as vital and important to him as modern-day movie stars. Even more important, because they were the pioneers.

So it seems apt that the day after I write about Steve Martin I would come to this wonderful collection of letters from AND TO Groucho Marx. The best thing about this book is that it is a two-sided replication of his lifelong correspondence with people. So we don’t just get his letters TO E.B. White or Howard Hughes, we see what these luminaries wrote back to him.

Not surprisingly, the letters are hysterical. They rollick along, and you just feel like you are in the presence of one of the wittiest men who ever lived.

groucho2ax0.jpg

Groucho Marx was not formally educated, and he realized that this was a lack, something he needed to rectify, so he set about to make up for it by becoming extremely well-read. I love the following letter he wrote to Peter Lorre, of all people, in 1961, but look at the topic!

Dear Peter:
It was very thoughtful of you to send me a book explaining James Joyce’s “Ulysses”. All I need now is another book explaining this study by Stuart Gilbert who, if memory serves, painted the celebrated picture of George Washington which hangs in the Metropolitan Museum. I realize that there is some two hundred years’ difference in their ages, but any man who can explain Joyce must be very old and very wise.

You disappeared rather mysteriously the other night, but I attribute this to your life of crime in the movies.

Best to you both.

Regards,
Groucho

It is a lovely book and has recently been re-released in a nice new volume, a paperback, that you can find at Barnes & Noble. It was originally published in 1967 and I have a second-hand hard copy, but thanks be – someone decided to put it out again.

Groucho is an elegant and humorous companion. No huge revelations here, just joy and wit. I also like the book because it is not arranged chronologically, with letters flying hither and thither to various correspondents.

The excerpt I chose today is his correspondence with T.S. Eliot.

EXCERPT FROM The Groucho Letters: Letters from and to Groucho Marx

FROM T.S. ELIOT

26th April, 1961

Dear Groucho Marx,

This is to let you know that your portrait has arrived and has given me great joy and will soon appear in its frame on my wall with other famous friends such as W.B. Yeats and Paul Valery. Whether you really want a photograph of me or whether you merely asked for it out of politeness, you are going to get one anyway. I am ordering a copy of one of my better ones and I shall certainly inscribe it with my gratitude and assurance and admiration. You will have learned that you are my most coveted pin-up. I shall be happy to occupy a much humbler place in your collection.

And incidentally, if and when you and Mrs. Marx are in London, my wife and I hope that you will dine with us.

Yours very sincerely,
T.S. Eliot

P.S. I like cigars too but there isn’t any cigar in my portrait either.

June 19, 1961

Dear T.S.:

Your photograph arrived in good shape, and I hope this note of thanks finds you in the same condition.

I had no idea you were so handsome. Why you haven’t been offered the lead in some sexy movies I can only attribute to the stupidity of the casting directors.

Should I come to London I will certainly take advantage of your kind invitation and if you come to California I hope you will allow me to do the same.

Cordially,
Groucho Marx

January 25, 1963

Dear Mr. Eliot:

I read in the current Time Magazine that you are ill. I just want you to know that I am rooting for your quick recovery. First because of your contributions to literature and, then, the fact that under the most trying conditions you never stopped smoking cigars.

Hurry up and get well.

Regards,
Groucho Marx

23rd February, 1963

Dear Groucho Marx,

It seems more of an impertinence to address Groucho Marx as “Dear Mr. Marx” than it would be to address any other celebrity by his first name. It is out of respect, my dear Groucho, that I address you as I do. I should only be too happy to have a letter from Groucho Marx beginning “Dear T.S.E.” However, this is to thank you for your letter and to say that I am convalescing as fast as the awful winter weather permits, that my wife and I hope to get to Bermuda later next month for warmth and fresh air and to be back in London in time to greet you in the spring. So come, let us say, about the beginning of May.

Will Mrs. Groucho be with you? (We think we saw you both in Jamaica early in 1961, about to embark in that glass-bottomed boat from which we had just escaped.) You ought to bring a secretary, a public relations official and a couple of private detectives, to protect you from the London press; but however numerous your engagements, we hope you will give us the honor of taking a meal with us.

Yours very sincerely,
T.S. Eliot

P.S. Your portrait is framed on my office mantelpiece, but I have to point you out to my visitors as nobody recognises you without the cigar and rolling eyes. I shall try to provide a cigar worthy of you.

16th May, 1963

Dear Groucho,

I ought to have written at once on my return from Bermuda to thank you for the second beautiful photograph of Groucho, but after being in hospital for five weeks at the end of the year, and then at home for as many under my wife’s care, I was shipped off to Bermuda in the hope of getting warmer weather and have only just returned. Still not quite normal activity, but hope to be about when you and Mrs. Groucho turn up. Is there any date known? We shall be away in Yorkshire at the end of June and the early part of July, but are here all the rest of the summer.

Meanwhile, your splendid new portrait is at the framers. I like them both very much and I cannot make up my mind which one to take home and which one to put on my office wall. The new one would impress visitors more, especially those I want to impress, as it is unmistakably Groucho. The only solution may be to carry them both with me every day.

Whether I can produce as good a cigar for you as the one in the portrait appears to be, I do not know, but I will do my best.

Gratefully,
Your admirer,
T.S.

June 11, 1963

Dear Mr. Eliot:

I am a pretty shabby correspondent. I have your letter of May 16th in front of me and I am just getting around to it.

The fact is, the best laid plans of mice and men, etc. Soon after your letter arrived I was struck down by a mild infection. I’m still not over it, but all plans of getting away this summer have gone by the board.

My plan now is to visit Israel the first part of October when all the tourists are back from their various journeys. Then, on my way back from Israel, I will stop off in London to see you.

I hope you have fully recovered from your illness, and don’t let anything else happen to you. In October, remember you and I will get drunk together.

Cordially,
Groucho

24th June, 1963

Dear Groucho,

That is not altogether bad news because I shall be in better condition for drinking in October than I am now. I envy you going to Israel and I wish I could go there too if the winter climate is good as I have a keen admiration for the country. I hope to hear about your visit when I see you and I hope that, meanwhile, we shall both be in the best of health.

One of your portraits is on the wall of my office room and the other one on my desk at home.

Salutations,
T.S.

October 1, 1963

Dear Tom,

If this isn’t your first name, I’m in a hell of a fix! But I think I read somewhere that your first name is the same as Tom Gibbons’, a prizefighter who once lived in St. Paul.

I had no idea you were seventy-five. There’s a magnificent tribute to you in the New York Times Book Review Section of the September 29th issue. If you don’t get the New York Times let me know and I’ll send you my copy. There is an excellent photograph of you by a Mr. Gerard Kelly. I would say, judging from this picture, that you are about sixty and two weeks.

There was also a paragraph mentioning the many portraits that are housed in your study. One name was conspicuous by its absence. I trust this was an oversight on the part of Stephen Spender.

My illness which, three months ago, my three doctors described as trivial, is having quite a run in my system. The three medics, I regret to say, are living on the fat of the land. So far, they’ve hooked me for eight thousand bucks. I only mention this to explain why I can’t get over there in October. However, by next May or thereabouts, I hope to be well enough to eat that free meal you’ve been promising me for the past two years.

My best to you and your lovely wife, whoever she may be.

I hope you are well again.

Kindest regards,
Groucho

16th October, 1963

Dear Groucho,

Yours of October 1st to hand. I cannot recall the name of Tom Gibbons at present, but if he helps you to remember my name that is all right with me.

I think that Stephen Spender was only attempting to enumerate oil and water colour pictures and not photographs – I trust so. But, there are a good many photographs of relatives and friends in my study, although I do not recall Stephen going in there. He sent me what he wrote for the New York Times and I helped him a bit and reminded him that I had a good many books, as he might have seen if he had looked about him.

There is also a conspicuous and important portrait in my office room which has been identified by many of my visitors together with other friends of both sexes.

I am sorry that you are not coming over here this year, and still sorrier for the reason for it. I hope, however, that you will turn up in the spring if your doctors leave you a few nickels to pay your way. If you do not turn up, I am afraid all the people to whom I have boasted of knowing you (and on being on first name terms at that) will take me for a four flusher. There will be a free meal and free drinks for you by next May. Meanwhile, we shall be in New York for the month of December and if you should happen to be passing through there at that time of year, I hope you will take a free meal there on me. I would be delighted to see you wherever we are and proud to be seen in your company. My lovely wife joins me in sending you our best, but she didn’t add ‘whoever he may be’ – she knows. It was I who introduced her in the first place to the Marx Brothers films and she is now as keen a fan as I am. Not long ago we went to see a revival of “The Marx Brothers Go West”, which I had never seen before. It was certainly worth it.

Ever yours,
Tom

P.S. The photograph is an oil portrait, done 2 years ago, not a photograph direct from life. It is very good-looking and my wife thinks it is a very accurate representation of me.

November 1, 1963

Dear Tom:

Since you are actually an early American, (I don’t mean that you are an old piece of furniture, but you are a fugitive from St. Louis), you should have heard of Tom Gibbons. For your edification, Tom Gibbons was a native of St. Paul, Minnesota, which is only a stone’s throw from Missouri. That is, if the stone is encased in a missile. Tom was, at one time, the light-heavyweight champion of the world, and, although outweighed by twenty pounds by Jack Dempsey, he fought him to a standstill in Shelby, Montana.

The name Tom fits many things. There was once a famous Jewish actor named Thomashevsky. All male cats are named Tom – unless they have been fixed. In that case they are just neutral and, as the upheaval in Saigon has just proved, there is no place any more for neutrals.

There is an old nursery rhyme that begins “Tom, Tom, the piper’s son,” etc. The third President of the United States first name was Tom … in case you’ve forgotten Jefferson.

So, when I call you Tom, this means you are a mixture of heavyweight prizefighter, a male alley cat and the third President of the United States.

I have just finished my latest opus, “Memoirs of a Mangy Lover”. Most of it is autobiographical and very little of it is fiction. I doubt whether it will live through the ages, but if you are in a sexy mood the night you read it, it may stimulate you beyond recognition and rekindle memories that you haven’t recalled in years.

Sex, as an industry, is big business in this country, as it is in England. It’s something everyone is deeply interested in even if only theoretically. I suppose it’s always been this way, but I believe that in the old days it was discussed and practiced in a more surreptitious manner. However, the new school of writers have finally brought the bedroom and the lavatory out into the open for everyone to see. You can blame the whole thing on Havelock Ellis, Krafft-Ebing and Brill, Jung and Freud. (Now there’s a trio for you!) Plus, of course, the late Mr. Kinsey who, not satisfied with hearsay, trundled from house to house, sticking his nose in where angels have always feared to tread.

However I would be interested in reading your views on sex, so don’t hesitate. Confide in me. Though admittedly unreliable, I can be trusted with matters as important as that.

If there is a possibility of my being in New York in December, I will certainly try to make it and will let you know in time.

My best to you and Mrs. Tom.

Yours,
Groucho

3rd June, 1964

Dear Groucho,

This is to let you know that we have arranged for a car from International Car Hire (a firm of whom we make a good deal of use) to collect you and Mrs. Groucho at 6:40 p.m. on Saturday from the Savoy, and to bring you to us for dinner and take you home again at the end of the evening. You are, of course, our guests entirely, and we look forward to seeing you both with great pleasure.

The picture of you in the newspapers saying that, amongst other reasons, you have come to London to see me has greatly enhanced my credit in the neighbourhood, and particularly with the greengrocer across the street. Obviously I am now someone of importance.

Ever yours,
Tom

Posted in Actors, Books | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

Happy Birthday, Eugene O’Neill

“I remember at one point going through everything of Eugene O’Neill. I was struck by the sheer theatricality of his plays. You could see how they worked. I read them all one summer. I had nosebleeds, and for some reason it took all summer to get the appointment to get my nose cauterized. So I just lay on the porch all day and read Eugene O’Neill. That was all I did. And dab at my face with an ice cube.” – Joan Didion

Today is the birthday of American playwright Eugene O’Neill.

He made his New York debut – with a one-act play presented in a night of three one-acts – at the new Playwrights Theatre – on 139 Macdougal Street, in Greenwich Village. It was the first season for this new theatre. The evening of one-acts were:

The Game, by Louise Bryant (ahem)
King Arthur’s Socks, by Floyd Dell
Bound East for Cardiff, by Eugene O’Neill. (I posted an excerpt of this play here)

O’Neill was completely unknown at the time. He went on to write some of the most influential American plays ever written – he won 4 Pulitzer Prizes – and he is the only American playwright to win the Nobel Prize. His work is untouchable, as far as I’m concerned. Nobody else even comes CLOSE.

In 1916, the Playwrights Theatre was formed by a group of young artists – they all were up in Provincetown on vacation – and they built the Playwrights Theatre on a wharf.

763px-Provincetown_Theatre_-_Van_Vechten.jpg

They called themselves the Provincetown Players. They did everything, they were a true ensemble.

When the idyllic summer ended (and you can see Warren Beatty’s version of all of this in Reds) – the Provincetown Players relocated to Greenwich Village (where many of them lived already) – and opened up their theatre on Macdougall.

This was the beginning of Eugene O’Neill’s career. He got enough of his short plays produced over the next 4 years – that his reputation began to grow – until finally Beyond the Horizon, his first full-length, opened on Broadway in 1920.

In the premiere of Bound East for Cardiff – O’Neill played the “second mate” which is basically a walk-on. He had one line:

“Isn’t this your watch on deck., Driscoll?”

O’Neill’s father, James, had been an actor, very popular, very successful, touring about with popular plays of the day. Long Day’s Journey Into Night was autobiographical. Eugene O’Neill was raised Irish Catholic, and his rejection of the faith devastated his father – just like in the play. O’Neill’s father was also an alcoholic (like James Tyrone) – and has also given up a career as a Shakespearean actor for a part in a very commercial (but worthless) production called Monte Cristo. James Tyrone is haunted by the great Shakespearean actor he could have been … and so was O’Neill’s dad. Like Mary Tyrone, O’Neill’s mother in real-life was a morphine addict. Just like in the play, she became addicted to morphine after an incompetent doctor proscribed it to her following a difficult childibrth. Jamie is modeled after O’Neill’s real-life brother, an alcoholic whoremonger who was basically a huge failure at whatever he tried to accomplish. Eugene had an older brother named Edmund – who had died when he was a baby. In the play, the baby who died is named Eugene. Like Edmund, Eugene O’Neill sailed for years, living a restless peripatetic constantly-broke life. He took odd jobs. O’Neill was also not what you would call a hearty man with a hearty constitution. He was fragile, and eventually got tuberculosis. He spent 6 months in a sanatorium for treatment – turberculosis was a very dangerous disease.

O’Neill was a man with demons, make no mistake. His plays are all personal, all drawing from his own life, but it was as though he held off on family matters until the very end … it was too dangerous, too frightening to even face. There’s a reason why Long Day’s Journey is so relentless, so depressing, so spectacular. It had been boiling up in him for decades.

On Sunday, Aug. 13, 1916 – A.J. Philpot, a journalist for the Boston Globe wrote a piece about the Provincetown Players – and mentioned Eugene O’Neill – the first moment of recognition of this great great writer:

Many people will remember James O’Neill who played “Monte Cristo.” He had a son – Eugene O’Neill – who knocked about the world in tramp steamers – and saw life “in the raw,” and thought much about it. He is one of the Players, and he has written some little plays which have made a very deep impression on those who have seen them produced here.

“some little plays”. Amazing, right?? Knowing what was coming? Knowing the impact that O’Neill would eventually have?

Here’s a photograph of O’Neill at Sea Island Bend (photographer: Carl van Vechten)

O’Neill, due to ill health, was unable to attend the Nobel Prize banquet in honor of him (in 1936) … but he wrote his speech out, and had James E. Brown read it for him. Here it is in its entirety, but I liked this part especially:

This thought of original inspiration brings me to what is, for me, the greatest happiness this occasion affords, and that is the opportunity it gives me to acknowledge, with gratitude and pride, to you and to the people of Sweden, the debt my work owes to that greatest genius of all modern dramatists, your August Strindberg.

It was reading his plays when I first started to write back in the winter of 1913-14 that, above all else, first gave me the vision of what modern drama could be, and first inspired me with the urge to write for the theatre myself. If there is anything of lasting worth in my work, it is due to that original impulse from him, which has continued as my inspiration down all the years since then – to the ambition I received then to follow in the footsteps of his genius as worthily as my talent might permit, and with the same integrity of purpose.

Of course, it will be no news to you in Sweden that my work owes much to the influence of Strindberg. That influence runs clearly through more than a few of my plays and is plain for everyone to see. Neither will it be news for anyone who has ever known me, for I have always stressed it myself. I have never been one of those who are so timidly uncertain of their own contribution that they feel they cannot afford to admit ever having been influenced, lest they be discovered as lacking all originality.

No, I am only too proud of my debt to Strindberg, only too happy to have this opportunity of proclaiming it to his people. For me, he remains, as Nietzsche remains in his sphere, the Master, still to this day more modern than any of us, still our leader. And it is my pride to imagine that perhaps his spirit, musing over this year’s Nobel award for literature, may smile with a little satisfaction, and find the follower not too unworthy of his Master.

Oh, and naturally, because I must:

oneill_14.jpg

Eugene O’Neill wrote Long Day’s Journey Into Night (what a title) in 1939, but it was never performed in his lifetime. His wife remembered the summer he wrote it. He would stay in his study all day working, and emerge in the evening, with his eyes puffed up and red from weeping. He wrote and wept. He wept and wrote. All day long, in his study, emerging as though from a nightmare every night, before going back in to face it every day. And damn, you can tell that from the language in that play that he had ripped out a piece of his own heart in writing it. An astonishing and painful exorcism has taken place. It’s a bleak play. If you find the hope in it, lemme know, would ya?

On his twelfth wedding anniversary with his wife Carlotta, O’Neill gave her the script of the play with this note:

For Carlotta,
on our 12th Wedding Anniversary
Dearest: I give you the original script of this play of old sorrow, written in tears and blood. A sadly inappropriate gift, it would seem, for a day celebrating happiness. But you will understand. I mean it as a tribute to your love and tenderness which gave me the faith in love that enable me to face my dead at last and write this play, write it with deep pity and understanding and forgiveness for all the four haunted Tyrones.

These twelve years, Beloved One, have been a Journey into Light, into love. You know my gratitude. And my love!

Gene
Tao House
July 22, 1941

The haunted Tyrones. O’Neill knew what it would take to get that story out of him. Naturally, he put it off. A couple of his plays (Moon for the Misbegotten and Long Day’s Journey) had their major ground-breaking productions after O’Neill’s death. It is not that his success was posthumous, that is obviously not the case … but his stature has just grown over the years. To me, even with the Tennessee Williams’ and the Arthur Miller’s … he is THE American playwright. In many ways, his work paved the way for the others.

So happy birthday, “Gene”. Thank you for “facing your dead” at last, and putting that to paper.

conn_fig01b.jpg

EXCERPTS FROM O’NEILL’S WORK
Moon of the Caribees
Bound East for Cardiff
The Long Voyage Home
In the Zone
Ile
The Iceman Cometh
Anna Christie
Long Day’s Journey Into Night

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

The Books: “Born Standing Up: A Comic’s Life” (Steve Martin)

Daily Book Excerpt: Entertainment Biography/Memoir:

Born Standing Up: A Comic’s Life, by Steve Martin

If I had been in college in the late 70s as opposed to in grade school, I would have been a Steve Martin fanatic. As it was, as a 10 year old, 11 year old – his fame and importance trickled down to my level … There was enough in his adolescent humor that would appeal to a child – but there was a sophistication there as well that made me feel that he was really for grown-ups. There was a danger to him. He seemed smart, but in a way that sometimes seemed off-putting … he didn’t chat with his audience, he didn’t do casual banter … he was on some other plane. Yet he was also the biggest goofball on the planet, skipping around giant stages with an arrow through his head playing a banjo. He was truly riveting. I had heard of him, of course. Everyone had heard of him. But it was like he came from out of nowhere back then. A new show called Saturday Night Live had aired … and sometimes I was allowed up that late to see it … and sometimes this crazy guy hosted it and he would wear an arrow through his head. Or he would play the banjo. Or make balloon animals. I didn’t understand him. But I didn’t need to understand him. If I had been in college, like I said, I would have understood him on a deeper level – the true anarchy (and yet laser-sharp specificity) of his brand of humor … but as a kid, I understood anarchy. I understood how hilarious this guy was. He seemed like an emissary from another dimension. There was an element to his humor that made it seem like he was making fun of the audience. Or, was it just that some of it was beyond me so it came off that way? And what the HELL WAS GOING ON WITH THAT ARROW? He was a big big deal, and even though I, as a child in Toughskins riding my bicycle to the corner store, was not his target audience – his fame reached me.

In the next couple of years would come The Jerk (an old favorite of mine), and other movies – but I always liked his standup best … and now with Youtube, you can watch some of that concert footage. Uhm …. Steve? It is truly bizarre. Surreal art at its height. With a slapstick undertone. His humor is truly his own. Yes, he references Bill Cosby and Richard Pryor – the giant standups at the time … but he has added his own damn thing here … It stands alone. And please watch his body language. Mixed with that startling white suit … the body language comes off as genuinely odd. (And watch what he does with his hands from about the 1:01 mark to the 1:05 mark). It is a great mistake to think that Steve Martin was “just” being a “wild and crazy guy”. No, he wasn’t. Everything was planned. Everything. And what he does with his hands there, a variation on the larger theme, is hysterical … He is taking the big crazy movements and penning them up in a tiny bottle, so they come out small and squashed. So while the overall impression here is one of insanity, and “anything goes” … at the bottom of it is a meticulous planning spirit. He knows exactly what he is doing in every single moment he is on that stage.

I’m not sure that I got that about him, when I was little. I remember seeing him on The Tonight Show, on roller skates, doing his “King Tut” number and it was so damn funny, I loved him so much, and the “King Tut” song became a favorite in the grade-school set, featured in many a talent show in the Multi-Purpose Room … after all, the whole “King Tut” thing was a cultural event like a bomb going off in my generation. At least that’s how I remember it. Suddenly, everything was about ancient Egypt. Steve Martin’s number tapped into that universal consciousness, and made fun of it, sure – but also honored it. He wasn’t really a cynical presence … not really … I found cynicism scary when I was little. It seemed threatening. There was very little (read: zero) contempt in his humor … which also set him apart from some of his contemporaries. But boy was he subversive. I couldn’t tell what he was actually doing half the time – his process was opaque – HE HIMSELF was opaque in his act – it was not confessional, or even observational humor … it was something else altogether. Like Salvador Dali.

Perspective would come later. But at the time, as a little kid, all I knew was that there was this new guy named Steve Martin and he seemed to be everywhere. I “got” it, but I didn’t get it. He didn’t scare the shit out of me like Richard Pryor did – appreciation for Pryor would come later, when I could handle it … but Martin was daunting, in a way. In the late 70s, I was 11 years old, on the cusp of being a teenager, on the cusp of being part of that larger culture … and I would get a whiff of things from “over there” … on the side of grown-up land … things I wasn’t “ready” for yet, but that were almost in my grasp. Steve Martin, in his white suit, with a balloon wrapped around his head, seemed to be the gatekeeper.

steve-martin.jpg

Years passed. The white-hot flame of the Steve Martin phenomenon faded a bit, and he started making movies. Many of them were good. Some were not so good. It was hard to remember, at times, that once upon a time this man was playing packed stadiums, dancing around in a pharoah’s turban. It was in the past. I never thought to myself, “I wonder why he doesn’t do standup anymore.” It never even occurred to me, which is odd – in retrospect – because those are the kinds of things that always occur to me. It’s not like I forgot. It just receded into the distant past and I accepted this new movie-star Steve Martin, and went to see his movies, and laughed, and recited lines afterwards, and that seemed to be that.

Later, much later, Steve Martin started writing novels. I was curious. I loved his witty intellectual pieces of satire in The New Yorker, and loved him, in general. So I picked up Shopgirl – a novella – and read it in a couple of hours. I cried as I read it. My review of the book is here. I wouldn’t change a word of it. I recognized myself in it. I felt embarrassed, like Steve Martin had seen too much. I cherish such books. I wrote in my review:

The way it is written is what is unconventional about it. The “voice” of the book (and that whole “voice” concept will come up again and again in the book – you’ll even see it in the excerpt below) struck me right away. This is not a casual in-the-moment voice. Of course not. It’s Steve Martin. Steve Martin’s genius had to do with his distance from things – hard to explain (but he does a great job of it in his memoir). He is not in the thick-and-thin of life … he stands slightly to the side. That’s what the voice of this delicate little book sounds like. I loved the voice. It is (not to give anything more away) completely omniscient – which might seen a bit heavy-handed for such a tiny little love story. But Martin uses it very consciously. It is how the story NEEDS to be told. I love the sound of the book. There are times in the thick-and-thin of life, the unfairness of events, the up and down of fortune … when I also yearn for an omniscient voice.

And it occurs to me that what I have been trying to describe in Steve Martin’s standup is a certain brand of omniscience. He is not sharing himself, he does not say, “A funny thing happened to me today …” He stands back, way way way back, and circles above the earth, and at that perspective – not just some things are absurd, but everything is absurd. Yet in Shopgirl, he takes that omniscient perspective and pours it into a deeply compassionate heartfelt little story about a lonely depressed girl who is released into life through her love affair with an older vaguely cold man. The omniscient voice was off-putting for the first couple of pages of the story, but then I realized its purpose. Omniscience does not mean just mean “All-Knowing” or distant. It can mean perceptive. It can mean seeing the bigger picture. Sometimes life, in its mucky-muck, its struggles, can lose a sense of omniscience, of purpose. And it is love, at times, that creates a sense of omniscience. Of being seen, of being known – not just in our everyday selves, but in our spirit, our essence. That is what the book is about. It is shatteringly moving. Martin writes:

Saturday night usually offers a spontaneous get-together with the other Habitat workers in a nearby bar. If that doesn’t happen, which this night it doesn’t, Mirabelle is not afraid to go to a local bar alone, which this night she does, where she might run into someone she knows or nurse a drink and listen to the local band. As she sits in a booth and checks the amplifiers for Jeremy’s signature stencil, it never occurs to Mirabelle to observe herself, and thus she is spared the image of a shy girl sitting alone in a bar on Saturday night. A girl who is willing to give every ounce of herself to someone, who could never betray her lover, who never suspects maliciousness of anyone, and whose sexuality sleeps in her, waiting to be stirred. She never feels sorry for herself, except when the overpowering chemistry of depression inundates her and leaves her helpless. She moved from Vermont hoping to begin her life, and now she is stranded in the vast openness of L.A. She keeps working to make connections, but the pile of near misses is starting to overwhelm her. What Mirabelle needs is some omniscient voice to illuminate and spotlight her, and to inform everyone that this one has value, this one over here, the one sitting in the bar by herself, and then to find her counterpart and bring him to her.

So, as always, Steve Martin knew exactly what he was doing when he “chose” the voice in which to tell Shopgirl. He chose an omniscient voice because that was what Mirabelle needed. Not omniscient as in distant – but omniscient as in knowing and seeing. The couple of times I have been loved, and truly loved, by a man … it has seemed to me as though he had some omniscient understanding of me, my character, my hopes, my dreams … He saw me when I could not see myself. He kept my dreams, my hopes in HIS mind … because I had a tendency to forget. And so I could look to him and remember: Oh yes. THAT is who I am. He knows. This is a great power to give to someone (although, in the moment, it never feels like you are giving anyone power – it feels like they just HAVE that power … and perhaps the experience is a mixture of the two) … and in Shopgirl Martin tells a story where the power that omniscience gives someone can be dangerous … and Mirabelle, fragile already, is shattered. To be seen and released by love after such a long dormant period … and then to have it not come to full fruition … Martin really really gets how devastating that situation is. He does not make it melodramatic. He does not dwell on Mirabelle’s tear-soaked face. With almost cold elegant prose, he details what Mirabelle does, who she is … and who Ray is and who Jeremy is … and by the end of the book, I felt like I had been put through the wringer, but also that I had a deeper understanding of my own dangerous response to love, to an omniscient eye … and the book also told me, gently, It’ll be okay … just hang in there … breathe … it’ll be okay

Steve Martin knocked my socks off with Shopgirl. I guess I had never seen that side of him. He always seemed like a kind man, although a bit distant … he never seemed self-destructive or self-involved … but to write a book with that level of compassion and sensitivity and insight … Wow.

He has also said that the Ray character (the one he ended up playing in the lovely movie of his book) is really the closest he has ever come to playing himself. Which is truly illuminating. Ray is cold, cut off, and yet, like most of us, wants human companionship. He wants it on his terms. He sees the lovely delicate girl behind the glove counter and begins to court her. She is way too young for him, but at a certain level of life, what does that matter? Ray is wealthy. Mirabelle is a failed artist who is a shopgirl and lives in a tiny apartment. It’s not that he showers her with gifts, a la Pretty Woman. This is not a Cinderella story. He quietly insinuates himself into her life, but without ever seeming like a user, or creepy. He sees something in her. His interest in her is genuine. He has no intention of going the long haul with her, but for the time being, she is a nice companion. Mirabelle is in hiding. She is lost. Quiet, narrow, uptight. There is damage there, somewhere. Ray can’t see it at first. By the time he does see it, it is too late. Mirabelle has been shattered by their love affair.

shopgirl_04.jpg

To see Martin in this role is to realize how limiting some of his film work has been. Seeing him in Disney-sponsored pater familias parts just never really worked for me (although I did like him in Parenthood – because there was an underbelly of anxiety and anger in that guy … it seemed to fit with Martin’s energy) … I think Shopgirl is some of his best acting work. You’ve never seen such a Steve Martin. He’s humorless, but not totally cold. He looks at Mirabelle, and he has enough distance from her (which ends up being the downfall) that he can see her, he can be that omniscient voice. But omniscience comes with responsibility … Bah, I’m making the book sound preachy and drippy. It is not at all. It is a short spare volume of character development, quiet fragments, and perfect details. I am so admiring of him as a writer.

So I was beyond excited last year when Martin came out with a memoir of his time as a standup called Born Standing Up: A Comic’s Life. The book would not focus on his entire life, or his whole time on this planet. It would hone in on what happened to him in the 70s that put him into the pantheon, one of the most successful stand-up comics of all time – someone who, unlike many of his contemporaries, did not go the regular route. He was strictly underground. He has said that his success was more “rock and roll” than “comedic” … meaning: he did not play the regular club circuit endlessly, he did not take a traditional route. His superstardom came like a meteor from outer space, but it was his own creation. Like grunge bands playing tiny clubs in Seattle and suddenly finding themselves playing Giants Stadium. That is not normally how a comic becomes famous, but that was what happened to Steve Martin. How?? Born Standing Up: A Comic’s Life describes how.

It was, hands down, my favorite book I read last year.

Steve Martin details, step by intellectual step, the development of his style. It was not organic for him, ever. He was someone who had a lot of interests, who was incredibly geeky, but who wasn’t really good at anything. He is quite honest about that. He wasn’t really funny, he wasn’t the best actor … but he was fortunate enough, very early on, to find some mentors who basically fostered his geeky interests … and so Steve Martin percolated. Over the years. As a child, his family moved right down the street from Disneyland – and it was that that changed his whole life. He got a job at the Magic Shop on Main Street, and so began his intense training in magic tricks. He was a teenager, behind the counter, entertaining tourists with magic tricks, and honing his craft.

steve-martin---magic-shop-w.jpg

He watched professional magicians, memorizing their moves. Most of the stuff he did early on, he stole. He lifted people’s entire acts from them wholesale and recreated them, not realizing how bad that really is. He was just trying to learn. He started getting gigs – at local veterans’ associations and the like … and he would do magic. He kept copious meticulous notes (which he recreates in facsimile in his book) – he knew when something didn’t work, so he would make note of it, to correct it the next time.

Leave out unncessary jokes, change patter for sq. circle, relax, don’t shake.

I find these things, replete with misspellings, in shaky teenage-boy handwriting, very moving. He knew he was working on something, but he just wasn’t sure what yet.

Martin writes in the book:

But there was a problem. At age eighteen, I had absolutely no gifts. I could not sing or dance, and the only acting I did was really just shouting. Thankfully, perseverance is a great substitute for talent.

He was obsessed with things, and he didn’t know why. He was obsessed with the banjo (he couldn’t play, although he practiced like crazy), he was obsessed with magic, he was obsessed with balloon animals, he was obsessed with language … It’s an amazing book because you can see how everything he did later on was 100% deliberate. He didn’t think, “Hey, wouldn’t it be funny if I played the banjo?” He played the banjo because he had been obsessed with the banjo since he was 10 years old. Everything – everything – went into what would eventually become his act. But that was years in the making.

He got jobs in summer stock which was great for building confidence. He started mixing comedy in with magic … but he realized instantly what worked and what didn’t. He was like a mad scientist, or an alchemist, hovering over a bubbling cauldron. If I throw THIS in, will it work? Nothing was accidental. Everything was there for a purpose.

arar_standupguy01.jpg

The book is fascinating – one of the best I have read about what is usually called the creative process. Everyone is different, and everyone has a mind that works in its own way … so this is Steve Martin’s excavation of his own mind, and how disparate elements came together … slowly, adding this in, taking that out … until he not only “broke through” – but shot upwards, into the stratosphere of entertainment. His shows grew. He had an underground following, strictly bootleg. Kind of like Metallica’s early years, when their fame grew by the passing around of cassette tapes – because they weren’t getting any radio play. Amazing. Johnny Carson took notice. He had him on The Tonight Show. And that was that. No turning back. Carson was unbelievably generous with up-and-coming comics and appearing on The Tonight Show was evidence that you had arrived. Steve Martin never was out of character. He did not sit and banter. He glowered, sneered, broke into hysterical silent laughter, danced like crazy – jiggling his body this way and that – always in his immaculate white suit which truly made him look like an escapee from a lunatic asylum. Someone who had once been a banker who tripped off the rails. He was like no one else. Lorne Michaels took notice. By that point, Martin was playing stadiums. It frightened him. The crowds were too big. He remembered the one night he was told 3,000 people were out there. He was like, “What?” Used to playing small clubs, he didn’t know how his act would survive in such a huge arena. Then he was on the cover of Rolling Stone.

RS253-RS.jpg

And the next time he asked someone, “How many people are out there tonight” he heard the unreal answer come back, “22,000.”

Martin’s breakdown of how he made it work, how he adjusted his act to fit the circumstances – all are a great tribute to his intellect, his smarts, his perseverance. He acted SO INSANE yet there he was buttoned-up in a suit like a Jehovah’s Witness on your doorstep.

Martin writes:

I cut my hair, shaved my beard, and put on a suit. I stripped the act of all political references, which I felt was an act of defiance. To politics I was saying, “I’ll get along without you very well. It’s time to be funny.” Overnight, I was no longer at the tail end of an old movement but at the front end of a new one. Instead of looking like another freak with a crazy act, I now looked like a visitor from the straight world who had gone seriously awry.

One of my favorite tidbits of information is about the famous white suit and how that came to be.

I worried about being seen at such distances – this was a small comedy act. For visibility, I bought a white suit to wear onstage. I was conflicted because the white suit had already been used by entertainers, including John Lennon. I was afraid it might seem derivative, but I stayed with it for practical reasons, and it didn’t seem to matter to the audience or critics. The suit was made of gabardine, which always stayed fresh and flowed smoothly with my body. It got noticed in the press because it was three-piece, which appeared to be a symbol of conservatism, but I really wore the vest so my shirt would stay tucked in my pants.

Amazing. A practical choice, made to solve a problem (he needed to be visible on the stage in those giant stadiums) turned into an iconic looking-glass image of the counterculture.

Dalva-SteveMartin1H.jpg

SteveMartin-L1.jpg

SteveMartin-L5.jpg

SteveMartin.jpg

Steve Martin, at the height of his standup fame, walked away. He has never looked back. Time and place, perhaps. He knew to throw in the towel when people would HOWL with despair, rather than overstay his welcome. That took guts. His is not a normal talent, it is not an ingratiating talent. It is his and his alone. He loved the audiences, yes, the energy in those arenas had to be amazing (you can feel it in the clips of concert footage) … but eventually the energy came to be too much, he felt that his act started becoming “automatic” and that was death to him. He needed to shake things up again, walk away, and see what else was out there.

Here’s an excerpt. This is from his years in college. Watch how methodical Martin is here, showing us the step by step process of his obsessions, and how that developed his mind and his ideas about what he thought was funny. He is the most intellectual of comics.

Best book of 2007.

EXCERPT FROM Born Standing Up: A Comic’s Life, by Steve Martin

I continued to attend Long Beach State College, taking Stormie-inspired courses in metaphysics, ethics, and logic. New and exhilarating words such as “epistemology”, “ontology”, “pragmatism” and “existentialism” – words whose definitions alone were stimulating – swirled through my head and reconfigured my thinking. One semester I was taking Philosophy of Language, Continual Rationalism (whatever that is; what, Descartes?), History of Ethics, and to complete the group, Self-Defense, which I found especially humiliating when, one afternoon in class, I was nearly beaten up by a girl wearing boxing gloves. A course in music appreciation focused me on classical music, causing me to miss the pop music o my own era, so I got into the Beatles several years late. I was fixated on studying, and even though I kept my outside jobs, my drive for learning led to a significant improvement from my dismal high school grade average. I was now an A student. I switched to cotton pants called peggers, because I had vowed to grow up and abandon jeans. My look was strictly wholesome Baptist.

A friend lent me some comedy records. There were three by Nichols and May, several by Lenny Bruce, and one by Tom Lehrer, the great song parodist. Mike Nichols and Elaine May recorded without an audience, and I fixated on every nuance. Their comedy was sometimes created by only a subtle vocal shift: “Tell me Dr. Schweitzer, what is this reverence for life?” Lenny Bruce, on the records I heard, was doing mostly nonpolitical bits that were hilarious. Warden at a prison riot: “We’re giving in to your demands, men! Except the vibrators!” Tom Lehrer influenced me with one bizarre joke: “My brother Henry was a nonconformist. To show you what a noncomformist he was, he spelled his name H-E-N-3-R-Y.” Some people fall asleep at night listening to music; I fell asleep to Lenny, Tom and Mike and Elaine. These albums broke ground and led me to a Darwinian discovery: Comedy could evolve.

On campus I experienced two moments of illumination, both appropriately occurring in the bright sun. Now comfortable with indulging in overthinking, I was walking across the quad when a thought came to me, one that was nearly devastating. To implement the new concept called originality that I had been first introduced to in Showmanship for Magicians, and was now presenting itself again in my classes in literature, poetry, and philosophy, I would have to write everything in the act myself. Any line or idea with even a vague feeling of familiarity or provenance had to be expunged. There could be nothing that made the audience feel they weren’t seeing something utterly new.

This realization mortified me. I did not know how to write comedy – at all. But I did know I would have to drop some of my best one-liners, all pilfered from gag books and other people’s routines, and consequently lose ten minutes from my already strained act. Worse, I would lose another prime gag I had lifted, Carl Ballantine’s never-fail Appearing Dove, which had been appropriated by almost every comic magician under the age of twenty. Ballantine would blow up a paper bag and announce that he was going to produce a dove. “Come out flyin’!” he would say. Then he would pop the bag with his hands, and an anemic flutter of feathers would poof out from the sack. The thought of losing all this material was depressing. After several years of working up my weak twenty minutes, I was now starting from almost zero.

I came up with several schemes for developing material. “I laugh in life,” I thought, “so why not observe what it is that makes me laugh?” And if I did spot something that was funny, I decided not to just describe it as happening to someone else, but to translate it into the first person, so it was happening to me. A guy didn’t walk into a bar, I did. I didn’t want it to appear that others were nuts; I wanted it to appear that I was nuts.

Another method was to idly and abstractedly dream up bits. Sitting in a science class, I stared at the periodic table of the elements that hung behind the professor. That weekend I went onstage at the Ice House and announced, “And now I would like to do a dramatic reading of the periodic table of the elements. Fe … Au … He …” I said. That bit didn’t last long.

In logic class, I opened my textbook – the last place I was expecting to find comic inspiration – and was startled to find that Lewis Carroll, the supremely witty author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, was also a logician. He wrote logic textbooks and included argument forms based on the syllogism, normally presented in logic books this way:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
___________________________________________

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

But Carroll’s were more convoluted, and they struck me as funny in a new way:

1. Babies are illogical.
2. Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile.
3. Illogical persons are despised.
___________________________________________

Therefore, babies cannot manage crocodiles.

And:

1. No interesting poems are unpopular among people of real taste.
2. No modern poetry is free from affectation.
3. All your poems on the subject of soap bubbles.
4. No affected poetry is popular among people of taste.
5. Only a modern poem would be on the subject of soap bubbles.
___________________________________________

Therefore, all your poems are uninteresting.

These word games bothered and intrigued me. Appearing to be silly nonsense, on examination they were absolutely logical – yet they were still funny. The comedy doors opened wide, and Lewis Carroll’s clever fancies from the nineteenth century expanded my notion of what comedy could be. I began closing my show by announcing, “I’m not going home tonight; I’m going to Bananaland, a place where only two things are true, only two things: One, all chairs are green; and two, no chairs are green.” Not at Lewis Carroll’s level, but the line worked for my contemporaries, and I loved implying that the one thing I believed in was a contradiction.

I also was enamored of the rhythmic poetry of e.e. cummings, and a tantalizing quote from one of his recorded lectures stayed in my head. When asked why he became a poet, he said, “Like the burlesque comedian, I am abnormally fond of that precision which creates movement.” The line, with its intriguing reference to comedy, was enigmatic, and it took me ten years to work out its meaning.

Posted in Actors, Books | Tagged , , , , , | 13 Comments

Hope’s New Love

No, it is not the sink.

When I first brought Hope home, I bought her a scratching post. You know, one of the kinds that is covered in carpet. Hope couldn’t have been less interested in it. I sprinkled cat nip on it, and that seemed to get her attention … but she was not going to the scratching post to do her business. She ignored it completely, and set about tearing the shit out of my bathmat, my rug, and my sweaters which hung over the back of my desk chair.

I was at my wits’ end.

I wept about it.

I pleaded with Hope.

I cajoled. I would pick her up and go place her right next to the scratching post, and put her paw on it, trying to give her some subliminal hint, like: “You know that scratching thing you do? Do it here!” But she would look up at me with confused and vaguely contemptuous eyes, like: “Lady, why are you manipulating my paw like that? I have no idea what is going on, and please remember: I don’t speak English so you’re just BABBLING as far as I’m concerned.”

A month or so ago, I dropped Hope off at my cousin Kerry’s. I had to go out of town unexpectedly and had no idea when I would return home. Kerry welcomed Hope with open arms (this had been Hope’s second sleepover).

When I finally came back to New York to pick Hope up 7 or 8 days later … I walked into Kerry’s apartment and saw Hope lying on a torn-to-shreds cardboard scratching post. Only it was more like a scratching runway, lying horizontally. Hope was surrounded by carnage. She looked satiated, insane. Her claws gleamed sharp in the sunlight. I was amazed. “I gotta get me one of those!”

So I did.

And yes, my apartment is now a shredded-cardboard wreck that I have to continuously sweep up … but Hope is obsessed – OBSESSED – with her cardboard runway, and actually yowls if I pet her while she is on it, or go to try to pick her up. “Noooooo noooooo please do not separate me from my true love!”

She has no more interest in tearing up my bathmat or my carpet (although she is still VERY interested in swallowing entire Netflix envelopes whole) … and goes to TOWN on her cardboard runway. Tyra Banks would be so proud. Sometimes she just perches on top of it, haunches tucked underneath her, like a watchful Cornish hen.

But yeah. I would say, from the look in her eyes, and her body language, that the new scratching post is a success. I’m almost embarrassed for her. I want to tell her to hide her heart a little bit more, to not show her passion for the cardboard scratching post … at least not so openly … because she might get rejected. Save a LITTLE something for yourself, Hope!

Hope ignores me.

She is happy.

Continue reading

Posted in Personal | Tagged | 10 Comments

Movie night

Tonight? An old beloved favorite.

ghost1.jpg

Posted in Movies | 4 Comments

It is indeed nice …

… when a thing becomes official.

(Scroll down to Barbara Clark).

It’s been a nutso couple of months, I’ll tell you.

Posted in Personal | 37 Comments

Snapshots

These were the elements. Golden light, foliage ablaze, a green river, sunlight and shadow, a stone patio, steam rising off the river at dawn, the stillness of dusk.

Not to mention the work I got done during the day and the Paul Newman marathons at night.


(Golden tree, the river below)


(a troubling thought)


(steam rising at dawn)


(sundial)


(sunset)


(the lawn)


(the dining room area)


(on the lawn)


(the woods)


(my gadgets)


(the patio where I did my work)


(stone steps)

(view up the river)


(the kitchen)

(the nearby levee: you can see a heron stretching its wings, sitting on the end of the log)

(colored glass on the porch)

Posted in Personal | Tagged | 8 Comments

Nothing Like a Cat Stretching …

… to make you feel that all is right with the world.

I especially love how her “fingers” are splayed out in the photo below. It makes me laugh to see how vehemently she is stretching. Her paw must not remain compact and balled-up … she must let each “finger” be free from the others …

Hope is stretching to the very ends of the earth.

Posted in Personal | Tagged | 4 Comments

The Books: “Dino: Living High in the Dirty Business of Dreams” (Nick Tosches)

169_dino.jpgDaily Book Excerpt: Entertainment Biography/Memoir:

Dino: Living High in the Dirty Business of Dreams, by Nick Tosches

David Thomson, in his The New Biographical Dictionary of Film: Sixth Edition writes of Tosches’ book:

Nick Tosches’ Dino: Living High in the Dirty Business of Dreams is one of the great showbiz biographies. Its research is not just thorough, but lunatic, and perverse – for, plainly, Dean Martin had led a life indifferent or averse to recollection, accuracy, or fact. Dino is brilliant on the Lewis-Martin assocation, and inspired in its evocation of the drift, the haze, the numbing futility of being Dino, or being alive.

Tosches’ book, while it covers all the details it needs to cover (Dean Martin’s start as a singer, his immigrant upbringing – he didn’t speak a word of English until he was 6 years old – his meeting with Jerry Lewis and how their particular brand of lunacy made them two of the biggest stars in the world, the breakup with Lewis, and Martin’s surging off into a solo career – his friendship with Frank Sinatra and the other Rat Pack boys – his sketchy friendships with underworld characters – his marriages – particularly to Jeanne, the woman who stood by him until the end, even after they divorced – his family-man lifestyle – his highly successful television show – the “roasts” – the tragic death of his son – an event that Martin never recovered from – and then, suddenly, Dean Martin walking away from it all) – does not stop there. The details are just the jumping-off point for Tosches’ deeper ruminations, all embodied in the persona of the man that we know of as Dean Martin. You get a great overview of Martin’s journey, what it was that made him so special (as a comedian and also a singer – not to mention his potential as a dramatic actor – you need only to see Rio Bravo to understand how good he could be) … but Tosches is up to something else in his book. It weaves a spell. It ends up being about the entirety of American life in the 20th century – its glory, its seedy side, its reliance on the energy of immigrants – the development of television and what that would really mean to the culture at large – the boomtown of Las Vegas, a truly grown-up playland in the middle of a desert … the criminal element married to the legit element … bootlegging and movie stars, poker games and Sunday School …

Tosches goes deep into the metaphoric resonances of our lives, our experiences as a collective … and then … he goes even deeper than that – into an ongoing meditation of what it is to be a human being, the most sophisticated of animals … and yet the most tragic, with our awareness of our own mortality. What does it mean to live one’s life KNOWING that it will end? How does that form us? How does it develop us? We are not cookie-cutters – everyone deals with the reality of death in different ways.

Tosches sees something in Dean Martin – that he had an awareness of death on a cellular level … it is not intellectual with him, it is known, and understood … and it was that that distanced him from, well, everyone. No one really knew Dean Martin (according to Tosches). He remained apart. That was one of the reasons why he could be so unbelievably funny. He hovered above the action, seeming to react to it off the cuff, and you wondered (or at least I do, when I watch him): what exactly is he doing that is so funny? It’s hard to point to it – it’s especially hard to point to it when you are falling off the damn couch with laughter. His humor is subtle, sophisticated, reactive, and deeply human. I would imagine that he was always that funny – and it wasn’t Jerry Lewis, per se, who brought it out of him (although you’d never know that from listening to Jerry talk!) … It was that Dean Martin reacted to whatever person he was standing beside – with gentleness, acceptance, and a ribald sense of the absurd. He made fun of himself, but he never came off looking like just a clown. He was, along with George Burns, the ultimate straight man. It’s hard to do with Dean Martin does. Or – it was easy for him … but what he does cannot be taught. You have it, or you don’t. Being a good straight man is having gold in the bank. There’s probably one genius a generation in that particular field of show business. It’s that difficult and that subtle.

dino_tosches3.gif

I don’t know if Dean Martin would even recognize himself from Tosches’ majestic melancholy book … but like I said, Tosches is up to something different here than a straight biography. It is a rumination on darkness (you can tell that from the title), it is a contemplation of America itself, and the intersection of show business and the underworld. It is a deeply philosophical book, and if you go into it looking for something more traditional, you will be deeply confused. Just give up your expectations. There are other biographies of Martin out there, but this is the one to read. Not just because Tosches really gets Martin’s talent and is able to describe it (although that is true as well) … but because it is spectacular writing. Writing so thick and good you want to scoop it up with a spoon.

Here’s an example of the kind of prose that makes up the whole book:

His schoolmates had never really known him. Even his loving familiy could not tell for sure what lay within this kid who moseyed around among them with a hat on, singing. There was a pin-tumbler sidebar lock on his guts that no one could pick. That was just the way he was, and it was just the way he always would be.

Unlettered and rough-cut, Dino possessed both wiles and wisdom beyond his years – anyone trying to fuck with his mind or his body or his soul found this out forthwith. But the wisdom served by those wiles was an annihilating wisdom. It was the wisdom of the old ways, a wisdom through which the seductions of reason and love and truth and all such frail and flimsy lepidoptera would in their seasons emerge and thrive, wither and die. The sum of Dino’s instincts had to do with the old ways, those ways that were like a wall, ways that kept the world lontano, as the mafiosi would say: distant, safely and wisely at bay. That was how he liked it: lontano, like the flickering images on the theater screen that gave him pleasure as he sat alone, apart from them and unknown to them, in the dark.

Those close to him could sense it: He was there, but he was not really there; a part of them, but apart from them as well. The glint in his eye was disarming, so captivating and so chilling at once, like lantern-light gleaming on nighttime sea: the tiny soft twinkling so gaily inviting, belying for an instant, then illuminating, a vast unseen cold blackness beneath and beyond. The secret in its depth seemed to be the most horrible secret of all: that there was no secret, no mystery other than that which resides, not as a puzzle to be solved or a revelation to be discovered, but as blank immanence, in emptiness itself.

There was a picnic in Beatty Park. Roozy had gotten hold of an eight-millimeter movie camera, and they were all going to be in pictures. No one who saw that movie ever forgot it. The camera captured the silent laughter of the Crocettis and the Barrs. It followed Dino’s friends back and forth as they ran and fumbled, threw and jumped in a makeshift football game. There was merriment everywhere, but there was no Dino. Then the camera scanned to the right, to a tree off in the distance, and there he was by himself under the tree, away from it all, caught unawares and expressionless, abstractedly toying with a twig, sort of mind-whittling it. That was Dino, all right; the Dino inside the Dino who sang and swore and loafed and laughed.

He was born alone. He would die alone. These truths, he, like every punk, took to heart. But in him they framed another truth, another solitary, stubborn stone in the eye of nothing. There was something, a knowing, in him that others did not apprehend. He was born alone, and he would die alone, yes. But in between — somehow — the world in all its glory would hunker down before him like a sweet-lipped High Street whore.

This, obviously, is not a regular book. Tosches sprinkles the book with Italian words, it is as though he is trying to imagine himself into Martin’s psyche – not an easy thing to do on a normal day – because Martin was resistant to analysis and to self-reflection. He did not talk about what he did. He just did it.

His singing came easy to him. And that’s one of the things that really gets me about Martin … the beautiful smoothness of not only his voice, but his persona. His solo songs on his television show are works of art. He sits on the edge of a desk, staring into the camera, and sings. He doesn’t overdo anything. Simplicity like that, the ability to not do too much is deeply vulnerable. He does not protect himself, he lets himself be soft, open, and connected to us. His voice would make you swoon – and that’s what he wants. In a way, his was the most generous of the talents of the Rat Pack crowd … it was a direct communication with his audience, in a way that was singular and set apart. Who knows if he knew how much he was loved, and if that made a difference to Dean Martin, and his experience of being Dean Martin. Nick Tosches surmises that it did not make a difference, that Dean Martin had something in him – an existential loneliness, a solitary mindset – that kept him from joining the world at large. Regardless of whether that is true or not, watching Dean Martin sing is to be in the presence of true grace, in my opinion. You can relax. You can be with him. He demands nothing from you except that you enjoy your own life while you are here. It’s remarkable. Baffling, almost. Generosity of that sort in a performer, without the accompanying subtext of “Love me, love me, love me” is so rare as to be almost unheard of.

dino_golf.jpg

The couple of times that Martin got a chance to really act (The Young Lions, Rio Bravo) showed that when he put his mind to it – he could move out of his comfort zone. This man was such a giant and easy talent that his comfort zone was obviously enormous – he could be funny, he could be sentimental, he could be absolutely insane, he could do a “ba-dum-ching” line like nobody’s business – he could do slapstick, gentle situation comedies, he was sexy – This is not a man who had a narrow path in which he operated. But outside of that enormous comfort zone was the realm of dramatic acting, ensemble acting … It is hard to say what was going on inside of Dean Martin when preparing for these roles, but we only need to listen to the people who knew him, who had hired him, directors, co-stars … who reference what a good person he was, what a collaborator, no bullshit, and also how hard he worked.

a%20rio%20bravo%20se%20PDVD_013.jpg

Here is the section in Tosches’ book where Howard Hawks speaks of the entire experience of Dean Martin being cast in Rio Bravo (his best performance as an actor):

“I hired him,” Hawks remembered, “because an agent wanted me to meet him. And I said, ‘Well, get him around here at nine o’clock tomorrow morning.’ The agent said, ‘He can’t be here at nine.’ So he came in about ten-thirty, and I said, ‘Why the hell couldn’t you be here at nine o’clock?’ He said, ‘I was working in Las Vegas, and I had to hire an airplane and fly down here.’ And that made me think, ‘Well, my Lord, this guy really wants to work.’ So I said, ‘You’d better go over and get some wardrobe.’ He said, ‘Am I hired?’ And I said, ‘Yeah. Anybody who’ll do that ought to get a chance to do it.’ He came back from wardrobe looking like a musical-comedy cowboy. I said, ‘Dean, look, you know a little about drinking. You’ve seen a lot of drunks. I want a drunk. I want a guy in an old dirty sweatshirt and an old hat.’ And he said, ‘Okay, you don’t have to tell me any more.’ He went over, and he came back with the outfit that he wore in the picture. He must have been successful because Jack Warner said to me, ‘We hired Dean Martin. When’s he going to be in this picture?’ I said, ‘He’s the funny-looking guy in the old hat.’ ‘Holy smoke, is that Dean Martin?’

“Dean did a great job. It was fun working with him. All you had to do was tell him something. The scene where he had a hangover, which he did in most of the scenes, there was one where he was suffering, and I said, ‘Look, that’s too damn polite. I knew a guy with a hangover who’d pound his leg trying to hurt himself and get some feeling in it.’ ‘Okay, I know that kind of guy,’ he said. ‘I can do it.’ And he went on and did the scene with no rehearsal or anything.”

For some reason, that makes me want to cry. “Okay, I know that kind of guy.” He was an actor who was willing to listen, to give things a shot – even if they were scary or new to him – and who showed up when he needed to show up (by ‘show up’ I don’t mean being on time, or being actually present – I mean “showing up” – with all your concentration and focus being put on the job at hand). Because Dean Martin was a guy to whom things came easy … being put in a position where he might not know what to do or how to do it … was daunting. He didn’t do it often. There are stories of him before going to shoot The Young Lions and saying to a friend, “I’m so scared. I’m so scared.” So what did Martin do? To deal with those nerves? He went and talked with Marlon Brando, his co-star, just to get some tips on … you know … how to act. Brando was generous with him, telling him to always make sure he was listening – to not plan too far ahead, to try to stay in the moment – and above all else: LISTEN. I love Brando’s generosity there, but I also love that Martin, a GIANT star, knew that he was a bit out of his element, and instead of struggling in silence, or trying to fake it – hoping we would buy it – OR not even realizing he was out of his element, and doing a bad job blithely – thinking it was awesome … Martin went privately to talk to the greatest actor at the time, and said, “Hey, man, can you help me out?”

That’s a pro.

Another thing that I love Dean Martin for is how he put his own career on the line when Marilyn Monroe was fired from Something’s Got to Give – a movie he was co-starring in. This was in the last couple of months of Monroe’s life, and large forces were at work in the studio (which was in the process of collapsing) – and Monroe was one of the ones who took the fall. Martin had signed on to do the picture with Monroe, and when he heard she had been fired, he walked off the picture. Nothing anyone said could dissuade him. The big-wigs begged, pleaded, cajoled, threw money at him. Nope. Nope. Nope. It was a PR nightmare for everyone involved … the studio knew Monroe was beloved by the public, and it did its best to paint a picture of her as a drugged-out mess … regardless of whether or not that was the truth … and so they needed Martin to shut the fuck up, and be a good team player, and continue on to do the movie with Lee Remick – the replacement. But Martin would not budge.

zach450.jpg

He had been friends with Monroe for years, obviously – but more was going on than that. Marilyn Monroe was still one of the biggest stars in the world. Yes, she had some problems, but didn’t we all? Martin was kind to those who were weaker (in whatever ways). Monroe was a damaged girl, sure, but she was box office gold, and he was going to do the movie with her, or with no one. Martin put the studio execs in a hell of a spot. I love him for it. In Marilyn: The Last Take, the book that describes those final two months of Monroe’s life, the authors, Peter Harry Brown and Patte B. Barham, write:

Snyder approached Martin, who was still in golf clothes from a noon game at the Los Angeles Country Club. “Dean, I think they’ve fired Marilyn,” Snyder said.

“What?” Martin said.

“Then Dean had his assistant run to the production to verify the story,” Snyder remembered.

A few minutes later, the assistant was back. “Yep,” he said. “Monroe has been fired and Lee Remick’s going to be your leading lady.”

Martin put his putter down, grabbed his coat and headed for the Fox parking lot. Snyder walked part of the way with him. “Whitey, I made a contract to do this picture with Marilyn Monroe,” Martin said. “That’s the deal; the only deal. We’re not going to be doing it with Lee Remick or any other actress.”

When Martin arrived home half an hour later, Vernon Scott, the Hollywood reporter for United Press International, coaxed a brief interview out of him. Martin told Scott that he had walked off the set and didn’t plan to return. “I have the greatest respect for Miss Remick as an actress,” Martin continued. “But I signed to do this film with Marilyn Monroe.”

Shortly after 6 pm, the UPI wires broadcast this bulletin: “Dean Martin quit the Twentieth Century-Fox film because Marilyn Monroe was fired.”

… Dean Martin never elaborated on his reasons for putting his career and his future on the line for Monroe, but it was typical of a man whose on-screen image as an easygoing good guy was identical to his off-screen persona. An ex-prizefighter and ex-cardsharp, Martin had been laboring in a steel mill when he began singing nights and weekends in small clubs. After he teamed up with frenetic comedian Jerry Lewis in 1946, he assumed the role of a handsome, not-so-bright straight man. The Martin and Lewis partnership endured for ten years, eleven films and a thousand appearances in nightclubs.

When the partnership collapsed in the mid-fifties, many Hollywood producers thought Maritn wouldn’t survive as a solo act. But half a dozen number-one hits, including “Volare” and “Memories Are Made of This”, smoothed his way to film and television superstardom. In 1958, his role in Some Came Running opposite fellow “Rat Packers” Sinatra and MacLaine proved his value as a dramatic star.

However predictable, Martin’s loyalty to Monroe was far from popular. “Nasty sayings were scrawled on his dressing-room door,” production secretary Lee Hanna remembered. “By insisting on Monroe, it seemed as if the film would shut down for good – with the loss of one hundred and four jobs.”

Hedda Hopper warned the actor in her Los Angeles Times column. “The unions are taking a dim view of Dean Martin’s walkout,” Hopper wrote. She quoted a union official as saying, “Dean’s putting people out of work at a time when we are all faced with unemployment.” …

Levathes, who flew back to Los Angeles on Sunday, was determined to change Martin’s mind but, just in case, had Ferguson begin drafting a $5.6 million lawsuit “for breach of contract”.

The three-hour meeting among Feldman, Levathes, Frank Ferguson, Martin and Herman Citron was an exercise in frustration. The executives were determined to sell Remick to the increasingly skeptical actor.

When Feldman tried to verbally recap Martin’s “rejection of Remick,” Martin interrupted him, saying, “I didn’t turn down Miss Remick. I simply said that I will not do the film without Marilyn Monroe. There is a big difference between the two statements.”

Levathes countered, “What kind of position does that put our investment in?”

Martin answered, “That’s not a fair question to ask me. I have no quarrel with anyone.”

Levathes forged ahead. “We think Miss Remick is of adequate stature,” he said. “After all, she has appeared with Jack Lemmon [in Days of Wine and Roses] with James Stewart [in Anatomy of a Murder], and with Glenn Ford [in Experiment in Terror].”

Martin patiently explained that he had taken the role mainly because “the chemistry between Miss Monroe and myself was right.” The actor also said that the whole point of Something’s Got to Give was Martin’s desertion of his new bride, Cyd Charisse, for Monroe, which was something which wouldn’t happen, Martin said, “with Lee Remick.”

The production chief disagreed. “This story is a warm situation in which the husband, with his children, loved his former wife, but was caught in an embarrassing position because he had remarried,” said Levathes. “This is not the case of a man who chucks one woman for a sexpot.”

Martin shook his head.

The situation went round and round, a total impasse. It was never resolved. It might have been, had Monroe lived, there were rumblings that she would be re-instated – but it was not meant to be. She died in August, 1962, a mere 2 months after she had been fired. In those crazy last months, as her friends fell away (and as she fired her staff, left and right, trying to get rid of the sycophant suckers all around her) – Dean Martin stood up for her. He put his career and reputation on the line.

He could not be swayed.

Tosches, in his book, seems interested most of all in that part of Dean Martin that could not be swayed. It was that element of Martin’s character that drove his friend Frank Sinatra up the wall. Sinatra (at least in Tosches’ version) always needed more from Martin than Martin could give. Sinatra was baffled and hurt when Martin decided to stop performing (in the middle of a tour!) – how could he just walk out? How could he not realize his obligations – not just to the tour but to their friendship? Martin did not recognize those obligations. He was done. His heart had been shattered by the death of his son. All he wanted to do in his old age was sit on the couch and watch Westerns on television. And that’s what he did.

But that implacable element of Martin’s personality was always there – it was what made him such an acutely funny and perfect straight man … it was what made him a heartbreaker to the women who loved him … and it was what made him a star.

The excerpt I chose today from Tosches’ brilliant book has to do with the Martin-Lewis dynamic, particularly their first live shows – which were legendary. Martin and Lewis would take the show out into the parking lot – and the entire audience at a nightclub would follow them outside, and watch as the two of them went absolutely insane in the parking lot – messing with cars, valet drivers, chasing each other – whatever – these were electric shows. No record of them exist. But that’s okay. There’s no record of Edmund Kean playing Richard III or Shylock, either. Doesn’t mean I don’t believe it was a great performance – just because I personally didn’t see it. What happened between the two of them in the live shows was one-for-the-ages … and it transferred to radio, to television, to movies … in an unstoppable juggernaut. An amazingly successful collaboration – and Tosches, in that way that he has – a prose styling all his own – really is able to capture what it was in that dynamic that was so resonant, so deep.

dino_tosches.jpg

Below the jump, I have included an image of the bill the famous night in Atlantic City, 1946, when Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin met. Jerry Lewis was doing impressions, and Dean Martin was singing. There they are on the bill – their names separate – having no idea (although it became apparent immediately) what they would be to one another.

I have also included below the jump one of my favorite clips from Dean Martin’s TV show: him and John Wayne singing “Everybody Loves Somebody Sometime”. Those two guys loved each other, that is obvious – I love how funny Wayne is, how generous Martin is with Wayne’s funniness – giving him the props when deserved – and also how he sets Wayne up to look like a million bucks. Not that that is difficult – Wayne was another guy who seemed comfortable wherever he was … but watch how Martin HANDS the entire sketch to Wayne, letting Wayne be the funny one, letting Wayne take it away. It’s glorious!! (I love what Wayne does with his body and his face at around the 1:20 mark … it makes me laugh out loud. So stupid!!) But even with the silliness of it, even with the goofball nature of these two big swaggering guys singing a love song to one another – not to mention the fact that John Wayne – John Wayne! – is LIP SYNCHING … there’s a beauty here, a real slice of Americana … the innocence and pleasure of our entertainment, the thing that more jaded cultures sneer at us for … the open-faced enthusiasm of who we can be, at our best … something that I will never feel shame about. I think it is our greatest asset. And here it is – in Wayne and Martin – writ large.

And finally, I will end this post on Dean Martin – one of my favorite entertainers of all time – with some words from my brother Brendan. Brendan has a way of capturing what it is, what it really is, about a performer … the essence – not just in who the performer is – but the response the performer engenders in an audience – and I love his words here.

I remember seeing the Dean Martin roasts and being scared, like a drunk friend of a drunk uncle had showed up unannounced at a dinner party and started shoe-horning everyone into singing along to perverted folk songs. I didn’t know what he was famous for and those roasts seemed to hint that he didn’t really know why either.

Then, years later as a grownup, I heard “Ain’t That A Kick In the Head” in some movie, or in a bar. That’s really all you need to do…just listen to that song a few times in a row. It all seems like a joke. Then you start to hear how well he sings the song. Then you realize that someone could have completely fouled the song up. It isn’t a very good song, actually. Think about all the classic standards. Everybody does ’em. But is there another famous version of that song? If there is, I haven’t heard it.

How does he turn a mediocre song around? He doesn’t sound all that invested in the heartbreak aspect of it, there isn’t irony dripping all over the place. I still can’t quite place what makes the song work so well. But I’m going to try:

His presence and personality are so evident that you don’t even need the song. He has sung the song out of existence. All you want to do is hear him make a rumble in his throat and roll his eyes about how much trouble a broad can be. You also somehow realize that no broad ever caused him too much trouble. He causes them trouble. And they love it.

It is almost a taunt. What could be a stupid jokey brushoff of heartache turns into a come-on. It is a magic trick.

Another thing that strikes me about Dean Martin is that you get the sense that he would have behaved exactly the same had he been a truck driver, a grocer, a whatever. Most of the other stars of that era seem to have been transformed in some way by fame and what came along with it. This guy could have strolled around the streets of Rome with his jacket over his shoulder and 10 bucks in his pocket and it would make no difference to him.

The most underrated of all time.

dino_tosches5.jpg

Continue reading

Posted in Actors, Books | Tagged , , | 13 Comments