“My films are about ideals that clash with the world. Every time it’s a man in the lead, they have forgotten about the ideals. And every time it’s a woman in the lead, they take the ideals all the way.” — Lars von Trier

It’s his birthday today. So … happy (?) birthday to this provocative sometimes-maddening always-fascinating auteur.

Question mark due to the doubt that “happy” has anything to do with the Danish film director, who has been poking the bear from the jump, outraging people (sometimes including myself), and then saying shit that puts him “way beyond the pale” – like his notorious press conference at Cannes which got him banned. If you watch that press conference, he’s got this little smirk on his face as he’s saying the shit about Nazis. I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him. He wasn’t “accidentally” making those comments as a “slip”. He knew they were provocative. It’s why he said them.

He first came to my attention with Breaking the Waves, which every single person in my circle of friends FLIPPED over and I …. really REALLY hated. I don’t normally hate things, so even I was surprised by my reaction. I think the public fawning over it (as I saw it anyway) was partially why I rebelled against it so strongly. And so I was done with Lars von Trier. I proceeded to ignore him for a decade. He came out with films. Everyone talked about them. I ignored it all. (By the way: if your opinions have never changed over the years … you scare me.) I wasn’t working as a film critic back then so I felt no obligation to “keep up” with anything that irritated me so MIGHTILY as the guy who directed Breaking the Waves. There were plenty of other directors I loved and admired. He just wasn’t one of them.

Then … I saw Melancholia at the New York Film Festival (by that point I was working as a film critic), and …

I was flattened. Melancholia spoke to me in a way few films have … and it’s strange, but I didn’t get my proper psychiatric diagnosis until two years later, but I was already struggling – MIGHTILY – by 2011 (and had struggled since I was a kid). It was no longer even a crisis (in my mind anyway): this was just how I lived, how I saw the world, and I couldn’t make anyone understand. I couldn’t describe what it felt like. John Keats’ poem on melancholy helped. That Sylvia Plath poem where she describes what her son must see when he looks up at her from his crib: a “ceiling without a star”. That comes close to it. Emily Dickinson’s “slant of light”. These are all things which help to explain the experience – the experience which is beyond words.

Then came Melancholia. Not only is the story of a rogue planet on a crash collision course with Earth a perfect metaphor for what the approach of madness actually feels like – this is the thing sane people just can’t “get” because they are sane! – but on a more earth-bound level (heh), it’s almost a clarion call of respect for those who suffer – respect, not pity – because those who suffer are better able to face reality, the “melancholic” are WAY better equipped to face catastrophe than sane people. I mean, there’s not even a contest. Tennessee Williams’ plays are all about this: the “sensitivies”, the “fragiles”, the “broken” … they’re the strong ones. They’re the ones unafraid to face the truth of the matter. The healthy ones cringe and close their eyes.

Here’s what LVT had to say about “melancholy”:

“True values entail suffering. That’s the way we think. All in all, we tend to view melancholia as more true. We prefer music and art to contain a touch of melancholia. So melancholia in itself is a value. Unhappy and unrequited love is more romantic than happy love. For we don’t think that’s completely real, do we?…Longing is true. It may be that there’s no truth at all to long for, but the longing itself is true. Just like pain is true. We feel it inside. It’s part of our reality.”

Sane people believe the world is logical. And they call US delusional. And so logical people refuse to accept harsh reality, they push it away, saying “No No, this can’t be true.” Just like Charlotte Gainsbourg, the “stable” sister does in Melancholia. So responsible, so capable, she falls apart when the end of the world arrives. While Kirsten Dunst’s character, debilitated by depression, stares unblinkingly at the catastrophe and even – in one stunning scene – welcomes it, seduces it.

Melancholia is worth it for the insights provided in that scene alone. I don’t know if anybody is ready to listen. It’s a dangerous truth, which is why it is so rarely spoken, and – incidentally – WHY I have almost never “felt seen” in films. Nobody wants to hear the truth, that madness is sometimes preferable to sanity. That welcoming it is the only option.

The other psychological insight of the film, and the one that really matters, is: Those of us who have been drenched in psychological catastrophe since childhood, know how to accept – and endure – reality. You will just have to trust the word of the insane on this one. When things fall apart, come find the sufferers, come find the people you’ve been irritated by and have been telling to “cheer up” for 20 years. We won’t be freaked out at all when shit goes down. We’ve endured far worse in our own heads.

This is the element of Melancholia that REALLY got to me, and I suppose healthier people would think it’s a dangerous message. Like, don’t let anyone tell you there’s ANYTHING good about “melancholia”. It’s UNHEALTHY to admit that mania is sometimes fun. It’s DANGEROUS to think mood swings are sometimes productive. And etc. But Melancholia says: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, you healthy happy people have an easier time of it, but when the chips are down, when shit gets real … WE will be the ones who can face it. You will disintegrate. Your world view is WRONG. You have ALWAYS been wrong.

It’s not a particularly socially acceptable viewpoint, but … I fucking RELATE to it.

To say Melancholia changed my mind about Lars von Trier is a bit too simplistic. I still don’t care for Breaking the Waves. And there are aspects of his work I find extremely irritating. But I now understand he is a great artist. And like a lot of great artists, he is a complicated and not-always-great human being. (Who is always great, though? Please. Introduce me to that paragon because I’ve never met one.)

I have to come to things in my own way and in my own time.

I find consensus-driven thinking stifling. And always have. It’s why I quit Girl Scouts the day they had us make duffel bags and we were all supposed to be excited. I just felt my own difference too strongly and I couldn’t “fake” excitement. So I walked. I was 10. So consensus around people I’m “supposed” to like – or not like – just does not work on me.

I will make up my own mind. There are those who despise Lars von Trier. I get it. I was that person too.

I changed my mind. I went into Melancholia resistant – an important thing to remember, considering the strength of my response to it. I didn’t grudgingly concede anything to the film. I unabashedly loved it. And I continue to love it. Other people loathe it. I find it glorious, and funny and almost uplifting. Like, I get it. This is madness told from the inside.

I’ve written a couple of things about Melancholia, the first the review I wrote when it premiered at NYFF.

I also wrote about it in The Dissolve’s list of the 50 Best Films of the Decade So far (sadly, The Dissolve – a fantastic cultural site – has vanished from the internet). Here’s what I wrote about Melancholia:

In 1621, scholar Robert Burton published The Anatomy Of Melancholy, a mammoth study of the malady, in which he wrote: “And from these melancholy dispositions no man living is free, no Stoick, none so wise, none so happy, none so patient, so generous, so godly, so divine, that can vindicate himself… more or less, some time or other, he feels the smart of it. Melancholy in this sense is the character of Mortality.” Such a grand topic requires a grand film, and Lars von Trier’s Melancholia is an audacious masterpiece, operatic in scope and tone (and soundtrack: The film starts with a surreal prologue underscored by Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde.) Early on in Melancholia, Justine (Kirsten Dunst), in her fluffy wedding dress, stops and stares up into the night sky. She asks her sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), “What star is that?” It’s actually a planet on a collision course with Earth. Justine’s depression prepares her for mortality better than the stable Claire, who falls apart. In one of the most gorgeous scenes in the film, Justine goes out at night and lies naked in the grass, luxuriating in the bright glow of the oncoming planet. There has rarely been a better depiction of the siren call of melancholy. And so despite its grim fatalism, Melancholia puts into images an experience so difficult to describe that even great writers falter. “There it is,” the film says. “That’s what it’s like.”

I also posted something about it on Twitter back in 2018, and it generated such a discussion over there – mostly from people who hadn’t seen it and then saw it because of my recommendation – that I opened up a thread over here to continue the discussion. It’s a great one!

Then I reviewed his truly wacky and truly audacious (words fail) two-part erotic-intellectual manifesto, Nymphomaniac, Vol. 1 and Vol. 2.

The movie is everything at once: smart and silly, pretentious and simple, erotic and gross. After all of it, after watching both films … that last scene blew my hair back. I still think about it.

And I loved House That Jack Built, the movie deemed too controversial to even be seen, the movie people erupted in outrage over without even having seen it … and where it was considered socially unacceptable to even SEE it, let alone have any reaction to it other than pearl-clutching horror. Fuck that. I thought it was amazing. Dillon gives one of his best performances in years, I wanted Uma Thurman to get SOME kind of award for her one scene alone, and it was also quite funny, in such a weird deadpan way.

Back in the day, with Breaking the Waves, I was so irritated at Lars von Trier’s views of women. Yeah, well, I was younger then. I get it now.

A humorous exchange around the time Nymphomaniac came out: at a film critic party, a younger 20-something male, who had barely let me get a word in edgewise as he talked AT me about the horrors of misogyny (being a good ally, you understand) – told me how offended he was by Lars von Trier’s misogyny. This guy was so sure of himself, so sure that I – the poor woman afflicted by such a harsh society (these guys truly don’t realize how Victorian they are in sensibility) – would be so GRATEFUL that I had an ALLY in my fight against nasty mean old Lars von Trier – that he looked totally dumbfounded when I said, “Misogynistic? Really? I don’t think he’s a misogynist at all! Why do you say that?” (I didn’t go to acting school for nothing. I played dumb. Like I had never before heard that critique. Like I had never once felt the same way myself. Like, I was TRULY surprised to hear him say those words.) This poor guy literally had no idea what to do. I suppose he could write me off as “retro” or “unenlightened” because I’m older, but I hope it at LEAST made him feel a little less secure in his hyped-up look-at-me-be-a-great-ally attitude, and hopefully a little bit more hesitant the next time he feels like lecturing a woman about who is or is not a misogynist.

People always talk about how they “feel seen” by this or that story, and how important it is to “feel seen” by something happening onscreen. It’s important. And no one, male or female, has expressed the experience of mental illness and madness and depression – visually or otherwise – the way he did in Melancholia – in a way where I felt “seen.”

He still irritates me sometimes. He says some stupid thing and everyone gets mad and I roll my eyes, thinking, “Oh, come ON, Lars.”

But all of that is fine and really beside the point. I’m here for the art, after all. Lars von Trier has earned my undivided attention.

I’m going to end with a quote from the great Chantal Akerman. Very gratifying to hear what she has to say. She echoes my thoughts about Lars von Trier and women:

Lars von Trier is very, very, very clever about women. He gives the woman a space that I don’t know any filmmaker does. Because in Breaking The Waves, protagonist Emily Watson is the Christ. Which man is doing that? I don’t know any man giving that space to a woman. No one.

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

Posted in Directors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

“A woman came up to me after one of the screenings with tears pouring down her face and sobbed, You’ve defined my entire life for me on the screen.” –Jill Clayburgh

This was part of a larger series. I would throw a name at Mitchell, ask him to describe that person in “one word” and then we would discuss. Here’s our discussion on Jill Clayburgh, whose birthday it is today.

SOM: One word.

MF: Awkward.

You know I have this whole thing about the 70s, and 70s filmmaking and 70s actresses. Jill Clayburgh, in much the same way Diane Keaton was, was so awkward. Even when she was playing women who were successful, she was still always a little bit awkward and unsure. She was this beautiful woman who wasn’t a knockout, she was a successful woman who wasn’t always competent. I think my favorite Jill Clayburgh movie is Starting Over with Burt Reynolds. It’s marvelous.

MF: Jill Clayburgh got to be famous in a very brief window of time that was tied to women’s liberation. She wasn’t famous for very long although she continued to work. She made An Unmarried Woman, and Starting Over, she played the first fictional woman on the Supreme Court in First Monday in October.

MF: She got to play grownups. She didn’t have to play child-brides or coquettish victims. She got to play grownup women with all of their power and neuroses intact, and not many people had that. Even Jane Fonda had to start as a sex kitten. Diane Keaton got to do it. The thing with Diane Keaton, of course, is that – not to take anything away from Diane Keaton – but she was Woody Allen‘s muse –

SOM: And Warren Beatty’s. She was tied to the two most powerful men in Hollywood at the time.

MF: She reaped the benefits of her incredibly interesting love life. Not that she didn’t deserve those parts, or that she slept her way to the top, but that the collaboration, emotionally, sexually, professionally, was fabulous, and she did it the way a man would do it. And she didn’t get shit for it. Like, “Look at Diane Keaton fucking to get a part.” She earned it. But that’s what Jill Clayburgh represents to me: the 70s woman. Diane Keaton, Jill Clayburgh, Jane Fonda… They got to play grownups. As the 80s came, and suddenly blockbusters came, and we had Tom Cruise, and Risky Business, suddenly an actress as beautiful and skilled as Rebecca De Mornay has to be a sex kitten for a horny teenager. We went backwards. Imagine if Rebecca De Mornay had become famous in the 70s. Imagine the roles she would have gotten.

MF: Jill Clayburgh escaped that. She started in the theatre, she was in the original Pippin, she comes up on my Shuffle every once in a while. And then she went back to the theatre, basically.

SOM: I loved seeing her in Bridesmaids.

MF: She’s so good and so real. It’s so sad that she passed away, in so many ways. Because, of course she’s playing Kristen Wiig‘s mother. Of course she is.

MF: In some ways, the character that Kristen Wiig is playing is the daughter of the neurotic “I hope I’m getting this right” character that Clayburgh played in the 70s. There’s a continuum there that I think is really great in Bridesmaids, and it would have been interesting to see her have that opportunity to play that in more dramatic parts. You know, play the mother of the daughter that she raised, in the Hollywood sense. There’s a daughter in An Unmarried Woman, and it would be interesting to see: where is she right now? How did her parents’ divorce and her mother’s response to it affect her life? It’d be interesting. One of the things I love about Catherine Deneuve‘s career is that she’s continuing to play interesting women who are the older versions of the women that we loved from her when she was younger.

MF: So many of Deneuve’s films are about what it must have been like to be such a beautiful woman. It is a part of her character. In France, they still revere her, and they revere women of a certain age, and in America we don’t. Jill Clayburgh wasn’t Rebecca DeMornay or Tawny Kitaen or Kelly LeBrock. She was a grownup woman playing grownup women, but after that brief window of time in the 70s, there was only room for Meryl Streep.

MF: Meryl Streep or Glenn Close but Glenn Close was sort of asexual in a lot of ways. She was either a sexual threat or she had no sex whatsoever. Except for the golden age of Hollywood when the studios made “women’s pictures”, there’s very little room for the female movie star.

MF: In a world that caters to blockbuster fan-boys, using the Kelly LeBrocks of the industry … in that world, there’s no place for Jill Clayburgh.

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

Posted in Actors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged | 8 Comments

“When I started counting my blessings, my whole life turned around.” — Willie Nelson

“Ninety-nine percent of the world’s lovers are not with their first choice. That’s what makes the jukebox play.” – Willie Nelson

Legend.

It’s his birthday today.

I will never ever forget his performance of “America the Beautiful” in the telethon on September 21, 2001. The date alone says it all.

I saw him in 2017 at Outlaw Fest, and it was such a thrill. One of the things that was a revelation, seeing him live, was the distinct jazz-like riffing quality of his guitar playing. His guitar speaks. It provides a counter to whatever is going on in the melody or in Willie’s voice. It has its own conversation going on, meditative, dreamy. Whatever is happening with the guitar is, of course, the melody – but it is a fractured prismatic version of it: Willie’s VOICE is the melody. It was unbelievable experiencing this live. It’s like he’s doing a DUET with the guitar.

This is one of the greatest Tweets/Pictures I’ve ever seen.

I also want to point your way towards Waiting for the Miracle to Come, a film directed by Lian Lunson, starring Willie Nelson and Charlotte Rampling. The film was shot on Willie Nelson’s ranch in Texas. Willie sings a song written by Bono (who executive produced the film) over the end credits. Soundtrack is also available. I interviewed Lian about Waiting for the Miracle to Come here – and there’s a great Willie Nelson/Bono anecdote included.

I love Willie Nelson. He’s getting so old now. I feel like I have to prepare myself for the next phase. Because it’s coming. And I can’t imagine the American landscape without him being there.

Posted in Movies, Music, On This Day | Tagged | 5 Comments

“I don’t cook and I don’t care.” — Ann-Margret

big-ann-margret-1
Ann-Margret entertaining US troops in Vietnam, 1966

Today is Ann-Margret’s birthday. Her autobiography, Ann-Margret: My Story is wonderful. What a career. And it’s still unfolding. There are so many classic scenes. Tommy. Carnal Knowledge.

Of course, too, there is the Elvis connection and that is what I will write about today, although there are so many other phases to her extraordinary career. These are edited re-posts on Viva Las Vegas, the one film she did with Elvis. One of his best, partially because of her presence, and their onscreen chemistry. In a perfect world, the two of them would have made 5 or 6 movies together, instead of just the one.

tumblr_ltkoxrKxCC1r4fbz5o1_500

It’s no secret that the two had a love affair. They remained friends to the end, and she was one of the only Hollywood people who made the trip to Memphis for Elvis’ funeral. The two of them were raised in similar old-fashioned conservative ways, and that was one of the ways in which they bonded, as she describes in her book: Respect for your elders, do the right thing, be kind and polite, grateful for what you have, etc. The entire time they were dating, Ann-Margret was living with her parents, and Elvis would come over, and have dinner, and hang out with her family, and do all the things a good old-fashioned boyfriend is supposed to do. He “got it”.

tumblr_ltkowfQKjQ1r4fbz5o1_500

And while we don’t know about the sex they had, and neither should we, we do know that Elvis bought her a gigantic round bed. You figure it out. Beautifully, the check for that damn bed ($780.00) is on display at Graceland, with a note in Elvis’ handwriting in the Memo section: “Personal gift for home of Miss Ann Margret.”

6661453299_62cbfbf0a5_z

The two of them were sometimes fish-out-of-water in the more brutal and selfish atmosphere of Hollywood show-biz, and they found much comfort and ease in one another’s company. They would drive around the Hollywood hills, and park the car, looking out over the skyline, and talk about everything under the sun. They were idealistic, hopeful, and total fans of one another. “You’re awesome,” “No, YOU’RE awesome,” was how they felt.

Ann-Margret wrote in her book, bluntly, “I will never recover from Elvis’ death.”

While she does devote a chapter to their relationship, she does not give away much, and never speaks of him in anything less than a totally complimentary way. She refuses to divulge “dirt”. (You will find that that is the case with all of his girlfriends. All of the women in his life. Including Priscilla. They are loyal to him, and protective. It says a lot about who he was in life.)

tumblr_lt0m42CCH01r4fbz5o1_500

Watch this extraordinary clip of Charlie Rose’s interview with Ann-Margret. Watch her quiet firmness, the sense of heartbreak still there, the feeling of Love you get from her. Rose is not being too pushy, and is clearly reacting to what is right in front of him, her sensitive refusal to “go there”. Other than her book, Ann-Margret does not speak of Elvis. At least not of their relationship. That was their private business. Elvis trusted her. To betray his trust would be unthinkable, even from beyond the grave.

The two were paired up together in 1964’s Viva Las Vegas, Elvis being the biggest star in the world at that point, and Ann-Margret on her white-hot rise to superstardom.

5

From the first moment they met, each recognized a kindred soul in the other. They both said words to that effect. They drove the producers of the film crazy by risking their lives riding motorcycles like daredevils around late at night (there’s a motorbike sequence in Viva Las Vegas, too). Elvis’ nickname for her was “Ammo.”

tumblr_ltkovtPYfO1r4fbz5o1_500

tumblr_lzpizkGubM1r4fbz5o1_500

Presley, at the time he was dating Ann-Margret, became so overcome by his feelings that he actually approached his manager, Colonel Tom Parker, and asked him to manage Ann-Margret’s career, too. Col. Parker only had one client: Elvis. It was a tense situation between the two men, the Colonel reminded him that if he took on Ann-Margret that would leave less time for Presley. It was a warning. The Colonel was not a fan of Viva Las Vegas anyway, because Ann-Margret had too much screen time. You know, as brilliant as the Colonel was, in his P.T. Barnum way, there were a lot of things he didn’t “get”.

It didn’t work out between Elvis and Ann-Margret, but for the rest of his life, any time Ann-Margret opened in Vegas, she’d find her dressing room filled with flowers (in the shape of a guitar) sent there by Elvis. She was always on his radar. She was in the inner circle of his heart.

To see Viva Las Vegas now is to see all of that happening in real-time. It translates onto the screen in unmistakable ways. I mean, watch this. (And look for Teri Garr! She was one of the dancers.)

Here’s a woman who not only can resist him, as well as hold her own onscreen beside him, but she also obviously openly adores him, who he is and what he does onstage. She looks up at him in “Come on Everybody”, dancing like the fangirl that she is, beaming a smile saying, “Give it to me! You’re so AWESOME! Give it to me!”

In that moment, she is US.

tumblr_lyu28lkNNp1r4fbz5o1_500

Elvis Presley and Las Vegas went way back. At the height of his exploding popularity in 1956, he played Vegas, which, at that time, was made up of a middle-aged establishment crowd. Entertainers like Patti Page, the Rat Pack boys, performed in small clubs, and well-dressed people sat at tables, clapping. Presley, the grease-bomb from Memphis, was already known for wreaking havoc at his shows. There had been a riot in Florida, where girls poured backstage and ripped his clothes off (at Elvis’ instigation, by the way). Playing Vegas was risky but an important step at broadening his fan-base. Unfortunately, though, the 1956 Vegas shows did not go well. Everyone (including Elvis) considered the whole thing to be a disaster, and Elvis walked around Vegas late at night after his shows there, beside himself with anxiety. Why didn’t they love him? Dismissive reviews were written in national magazines, and Presley and the boys went back on the road to connect to the teenagers who seemed to “get it”. And so Las Vegas remained a fearful image in Presley’s mind, although he loved to go there on vacation. Vegas was a potent symbol to Elvis of the rare crowd he could NOT conquer. (Of course, in the late 1960s and on until the end of his life, Elvis came back and took Vegas by storm).

elvis_11555-x600

tumblr_m09v13NQL01r4fbz5o1_1280

But before all that, in 1964, Presley had taken another crack at the Vegas scene, with Viva Las Vegas, directed by George Sidney, and co-starring the young Ann-Margret, who had just made her first big splash in Bye Bye Birdie (a spin on the Elvis Presley story). Viva Las Vegas was the biggest and most traditional Hollywood musical that Presley ever did. The plot is the same as most of his other movies: Race car driver/singer, girl he wants, race he needs to win, exotic location, etc. Presley loved Vegas, as I mentioned, and even if he had never played Vegas so successfully in the 70s, he still might be associated with that town forever, due to the catchy anthem of the title song. It’s one of the few songs he ever sang that didn’t have to do with either a romantic relationship or his love for Jesus. It’s about his love for a town.

tumblr_ltkoy4tHlX1r4fbz5o1_500

Viva Las Vegas works primarily because Presley was partnered with someone who could go toe to toe with him, and was actually compelling enough in her own right that the audience felt some tension in the romantic relationship (and tension is where it’s at, when it comes to cinematic romance). Who wants to see a smooth guy who knows he will get the girl get the girl? Yawn.

But Presley is so strong a sexual presence that it’s difficult to imagine anyone turning him down, and many of the movies made that mistake … of not investing enough in the tense possibilities of a girl who would play hard to get with such a strapping sex symbol. Ann-Margret, as the swimming instructor in Viva Las Vegas, doesn’t play hard to get, not exactly, although the first number, where she puts him off, and he pursues, could be construed as in that realm. The beauty of it is that you know she wants him, but she certainly doesn’t want to make it too easy for him. And he enjoys the pursuit.

The two of them together are charm personified.

It’s fun seeing Elvis Presley have to work to get the girl (and every time the champagne cork explodes out of the bottle, surprising him, during the scene where he is waiting on Ann-Margert and his rival, the Italian racing star, I laugh out loud. I have been laughing out loud at that moment since I first saw the movie when I was a kid. What can I say, I’m easily pleased.)

Ann-Margret was almost as much of a powerhouse, in terms of a sexual persona onscreen, as Presley was. Presley needed resistance, as a star, someone who could stand on her own, give as good as she got. At the same time, what she gives him, especially in the number “Come on Everybody” (clip above), is the adoration and gleeful attention of his hordes of young female fans. There are shots of him up on the stage performing, and she’s down below, rocking out, and looking up at him with total joy, pushing him on. (Look for the expression on her face at around the 1:23-24 mark. It’s abandoned with joy and need. Very honest moment.) I would also like to point out that the final section of the number, when the two are onstage together, is filmed in one take. No cuts.

It’s fun to watch because it seems real. It IS real. The mutual appreciation society of two big stars.

They were so in sync they were like twins. Elvis said to a friend after the first recording session with Ann-Margret for the film that they moved the same, that their impulses were the same, they both felt the music in the same instinctive way. It was such a pleasure for him to “play” like that with someone who anticipated his moves, reflected them, and brought her own fire to the process.

tumblr_ltkoygc2YT1r4fbz5o1_500

tumblr_lus7nrtTsh1r4fbz5o1_500

tumblr_lur3a2ObLV1r4fbz5o1_500

Presley, as a performer, offered sex, but it was a certain kind of sex. It was friendly sex. Not that he wasn’t overpowering, he was, but he still managed to seem friendly and fun about it, rather than off-puttingly confident and cool, and that was what his formula movies so often missed. He’s portrayed as a cool guy, surrounded by throngs of eager women, and while he is never less than entertaining … it’s that heat he brought to the table that was so watchable, erotic, undeniable.

tumblr_m331rz98cN1r4fbz5o1_500

tumblr_lt0mct8Z6N1r4fbz5o1_500

In Viva Las Vegas, even Elvis seems surprised at what’s going on for him. A guy who looks like he looks will have an easy time with women, and the role encompasses that obvious fact. To pretend Elvis isn’t a stunner would be ridiculous, denying reality. But the way she watches him in the movie, the way she glories in him (while not losing a bit of her own power), makes him come alive, makes him explode with even greater heat, the kind of heat and need that made him famous in the first place.

You can see the exchange of heat in evidence in all of their numbers together, but the most powerful representation of it is in a number where they don’t sing at all (clip at the bottom of the post). They’re on their first date at some Vegas club, a quartet is singing a song with the dance moves in the lyrics (‘do the squat’, etc.), and the two of them are pushed together on a crowded dance floor surrounded by other couples.

And it is as though they are the only two people on the planet.

After the dance number, Presley takes the stage and does a groovy manic version of the Ray Charles song “What’d I Say”, as Ann-Margret, once again, wiggles and jams out beside him, pushing him on by looking at him with the adoration of all of his fans. Yet still: being fabulous herself. It’s a fascinating combination, part of her very own brand of indelible movie magic. Elvis Presley could be overwhelming. Ann-Margret meets him, lovingly, enthusiastically, on his level.

That’s why people still love Viva Las Vegas. That’s why people still think it’s fun, and why it was one of Presley’s most successful pictures. Because you get the sense you are in the presence of – or at least in the vague vicinity of – something that is actually real, that is actually happening. Nobody was more powerful than Elvis Presley when he was allowed to be real.

Observe how they are together in that first dance number in the clip below. It’s shockingly intimate. We are being let into a private world of appreciation, heat, and mutual enjoyment. And for a second or two during that dumb dance number, it almost feels like we shouldn’t be watching.

Ann-Margret, of course, has had a stunning career, with many other roles beloved by her fans. She continues to work. I am always happy when she shows up in anything. A class act. A true dame.

Happy birthday.

Posted in Actors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , , | 10 Comments

“Sometimes I think no matter how one is born, no matter how one acts, there is something out of gear with one somewhere, and that must be changed. Life at its best is a grand corrective.” –Jessie Redmon Fauset

“Better the wound forever seeking balm
Than this gray calm!”
–Jessie Redmon Fauset, from “Dead Fires”

Jessie Redmon Fauset, whose birthday it is today, was a “forgotten writer” for many years, after her heyday in the 20s and 30s. Her work was resurrected by feminist academics and scholars in the 1970s, after which awareness of her has risen (complete with full biographies and critical studies of the groundbreaking aspects of her work at the time when she was writing it).

She was born in 1882. The family she was born into was very large, and somewhat complicated. They lived in poverty. I believe her mother died when Fauset was young, but not before she impressed on her daughter the importance of education. Fauset took the lesson to heart. She was valedictorian of her mostly-white high school class. She set her sights on Bryn Mawr but was rejected due to her race. Cornell, however, accepted this promising young student. At Cornell, she studied classical languages, and went on to get a Master’s in French from the University of Pennsylvania. Fluent to the point where she was bilingual, she visited France often, and ended up translating many black European and African authors into English for the first time.

After getting her master’s she taught French at a prestigious and exclusive black high school in Washington D.C., where poet Anne Spencer was the librarian for 20 years (post about Spencer here). The two knew one another, were colleagues, members of the NAACP, and there’s probably a good story in there about their friendship. During the ‘teens of the 20th century, when Fauset was busy teaching, she spent her summer vacations in France, studying at Le Sorbonne, as well as visiting some of France’s colonies in Africa.

Along with all of this, Fauset began her writing career. She joined the NAACP and started contributing to the organization’s magazine, The Crisis, founded by W.E.B. DuBois. This was around 1917-18. Her op-eds, poems, essays, journalism so impressed DuBois he offered her the job of Editor. She accepted. This began an exciting time, not just for her, but for everyone, what with the explosion of creativity going on (which she helped foster as editor of such an important magazine). She served as editor from 1919 to 1926. During that time, she basically “discovered” Langston Hughes. Hughes said:

“Jessie Fauset at The Crisis, Charles Johnson at Opportunity, and Alain Locke in Washington were the three people who midwifed the so-called New Negro literature into being. Kind and critical—but not too critical for the young—they nursed us along until our books were born.”

DuBois asked Fauset to move to New York when she took the job. She did. This thrust her into the center of the Harlem Renaissance. She was a major figure. As Hughes wrote, she was critical of his writing, but “not too critical”. Most of the black writers she championed were new – with zero experience in being published anywhere. She was often the first editor they encountered. So she was caring and nurturing, but also strict and exacting. In this fashion, she was a great mentor to not only Hughes, but Claude McKay (post about him here), Countee Cullen (post about him here), Jean Toomer (post about him here), her former colleague Anne Spencer.

At the SAME time , she was the co-founder and editor of a children’s magazine called Brownie’s Book (you can read more about Brownie’s Book here). She eventually got a teaching gig at a high school in the Bronx, where she taught French and Latin for 20 years. She also wrote 4 novels in the 1920s and 1930s; these novels took place mostly among the Black middle-class (an unheard-of ‘category’ in literature at the time her novels were published.) The hierarchy of skin color among the Black community was one of her main themes, but she also addressed issues of feminism, economics, as well as what it was like to be part of a generation whose parents and grandparents had been slaves. There can’t be a bigger generation gap than that.

Her first novel, There Is Confusion, was rejected by a publisher (white, of course), whose comment was “white readers just don’t expect negroes to be like this”. The title of the book came from a poignant and troubling line from Tennyson’s “The Lotos-eaters”:

There is confusion worse than death,
Trouble on trouble, pain on pain–

If you want to learn more about this amazingly learned pioneer, in researching this piece I stumbled upon this essay in The New Yorker, which is well worth checking out.

Here are two of her poems, as well as an excerpt from There is Confusion.

Dead Fires

If this is peace, this dead and leaden thing,
Then better far the hateful fret, the sting.
Better the wound forever seeking balm
Than this gray calm!

Is this pain’s surcease? Better far the ache,
The long-drawn dreary day, the night’s white wake,
Better the choking sigh, the sobbing breath
Than passion’s death!

Rondeau

When April’s here and meadows wide
Once more with spring’s sweet growths are pied
I close each book, drop each pursuit,
And past the brook, no longer mute,
I joyous roam the countryside.

Look, here the violets shy abide
And there the mating robins hide—
How keen my sense, how acute,
When April’s here!

And list! down where the shimmering tide
Hard by that farthest hill doth glide,
Rise faint strains from shepherd’s flute,
Pan’s pipes and Berecyntian lute.
Each sight, each sound fresh joys provide
When April’s here.

Excerpt from her first novel There Is Confusion (notice how she gets an entire world and its context and its generation gap into her specific description of one young man’s journey):

But alas for poor Joel! His idea of greatness and his Mammy’s were totally at variance. The kind of greatness he had envisaged had been that which gets one before the public eye, which makes one a leader of causes, a “man among men.” He loved such phrases! At night the little boy in the tiny half-story room in that tiny house in Virginia picked out the stories of Napoleon, Lincoln and Garrison, all white men, it is true; but Lincoln had been poor and Napoleon unknown and yet they had risen to the highest possible state. At least he could rise to comparative fame. And when he was older and came to know of Frederick Douglass and Toussaint l’Ouverture, he knew if he could but burst his bonds he, too, could write his name in glory.

This was no selfish wish. If he wanted to be great he also wanted to do it honestly and faithfully, the things that bring greatness. He was to that end dependable and thorough in all that he did, but even as a boy he used to feel a sick despair,–he had so much against him. His color, his poverty, meant nothing to his ardent heart; those were nature’s limitations, placed deliberately about one, he could see dimly, to try one’s strength on. But that he should have a father broken and sickened by slavery who lingered on and on! That after that father’s death the little house should burn down!

He was fifteen when that happened and he and his mother both went to work in the service of Harvey Carter, a wealthy Virginian, whose wife entertained on a large scale. It was here that Joel learned from an expert chef how to cook. His wages were small even for those days, but still he contrived to save, for he had set his heart on attending a black seminary. Some day he would be a minister, a man with a great name and a healing tongue. These were the dreams he dreamed as he basted Mrs. Carter’s chickens or methodically mixed salad dressing.

His mother knew his ideas and loved them with such a fine, if albeit uncomprehending passion and belief, that in grateful return he made her the one other consideration of his life, weaving unconsciously about himself a web of such loyalty and regard for her that he could not have broken through it if he would. Her very sympathy defeated his purpose. So that when she, too, fell ill on a day with what seemed for years an incurable affection, Joel shut his teeth and put his frustrated plans behind him.

Extraordinary.

It’s the only one of hers I’ve read, and it’s probably the most famous (the Modern Library brought out an edition), but I’m sure her other novels are well worth checking out.

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

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

“I’ve had my best times trailing a Mainbocher evening gown across a sawdust floor. I’ve always loved high style in low company.” — Anita Loos

Anita Loos’ screenwriting credits are so extensive it’s impossible to absorb them. She’s most well-known for writing the book Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, which was made into a successful movie a couple of times – first in 1928 and then again in 1953. The 1953 version, starring Jane Russell and Marilyn Monroe, is the one everyone knows.

According to IMDB her earliest credit was in 1912. Born in 1889, she started out writing treatments and scenarios with the Biograph when she was just a teenager. Many people wrote treatments and scenarios for films that weren’t ever even made, but Loos’ WERE turned into films. She had a knack for the gig. She also wrote titles for silent films (including, famously, the interstitial titles for DW Griffith’s Intolerance).

With the advent of sound, moving into the pre-Code era, she continued churning out scripts, logging multiple credits a year. She wrote the screenplay to the shocking (still) Red-Headed Woman, starring Jean Harlow and directed by Jack Conway. I love this jokey pic of Loos and Harlow:

Loos also wrote the hard-hitting Midnight Mary, directed by William Wellmann and starring Loretta Young as a young woman who emerges from a destitute childhood and descends into the criminal underworld.

Loos was a finger-on-the-pulse writer, and this was one of the reasons she was so valued by studios. She grew up in and around show business and from her earliest memory she was surrounded by shady rakish barely-socially-acceptable humans, from the lower rungs of society’s ladder. The outlaws, the actors, the reprobates. Her familiarity with the denizens of that world infuses her writing. Along with Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, she is probably most well-known for writing the screenplay for The Women, a legit classic almost 81 years later. Think about that. Similar to what she did in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, in The Women Loos zooms in on how women become rivals for male attention, the jostling for position, the hurt when one is preferred over the other. Additionally: despite the fact that men are talked about constantly, there are no male characters in the movie. None.

Loos wrote Babes in Arms, a film dealing with a situation she had lived it: the transformative journey from vaudeville to silent films to talkies, all happening in one generation. Babes in Arms predates Singin’ in the Rain by 20 years.

Her marriage to Jack Emerson was not easy. She was, by far, the bigger name, and he had a problem with that. Little did he know just how much bigger her name would get. She wrote Gentlemen Prefer Blondes almost on a whim, in 1926, piecing together a bunch of different scenarios into one uproarious farce, with acute observations about men, women, money, sex. It didn’t take her long to write it or to find a publisher. She had a deep friendship with “the sage of Baltimore,” H.L. Mencken, at the height of his fame, his columns syndicated across the land. That such a staid guy, living at home with his mother, would become an emblem of the Jazz Age is one of American culture’s little mysteries, but that’s what happened. Anita Loos was, how you say, “into Mencken”, and he got a kick out of her, and they exchanged many letters. Mencken loved the book, saying to to her in a letter “You’re the first American writer to ever poke fun at sex.” And of COURSE a woman would be the first in that arena. Women have much more of a sense of humor about the absurdities of sex (obligatory and tiresome #notallmen) and they are less sentimental about the whole thing. Mencken helped usher Gentlemen Prefer Blondes to publication and reviewed it favorably in his column. His column was read by millions. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes was a bestseller.

This article in The Missouri Review has a lot of great information about Loos.

Here’s a really interesting interview with Anita Loos in a 1972 issue of Interview magazine.

Anita Loos – a real role model – died in 1981.

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

Posted in Books, Movies, On This Day, writers | 8 Comments

Substack: An interview with screenwriter Bonnie Gross about her script Lady Parts

One of the stand-out features I saw at last week’s Florida Film Festival (where I was a juror in the Narrative Features category), was Lady Parts, written by Bonnie Gross, directed by Nancy Boyd. It’s a fictionalized version of the writer’s experience with vulvodynia and vaginismus, the surgery she endured “down there”, and the hilarity/trauma of the recovery process. We were so impressed with this film, particularly its script, so much so we gave it a special jury award. I chatted with Bonnie over Zoom about her script and the process getting it made. I am hoping Lady Parts will soon arrive to a streaming platform near you.

A conversation with Lady Parts screenwriter Bonnie Gross

Posted in Movies, writers | Tagged | Leave a comment

“I would rather take a photograph than be one.” — Lee Miller


Lee Miller, by David Scherman

It’s the birthday of Lee Miller, fashion model, Surrealist artist, and … as if all that wasn’t enough … the only female combat photographer in Europe during the war, taking photos of concentration camps, firing squads, and all the concomitant horrors she saw embedded with the 83rd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army, documenting the Allied advance from Normandy to Paris, as well as the liberation of Dachau and Buchenwald.

Much of her history was erased through decades of obscurity and a total and shameful lack of a proper archive where her accomplishments get proper credit. Her son discovered a treasure trove of over 60,000 photos and negatives, and slowly but surely Miller is taking her proper place. More work needs to be done. There are biographies out now, and art books featuring her photos, and there have been a couple of very prominent exhibitions, heavily covered in the press. Because of her background as a fashion model, her work has also been covered by Vogue (which launched her career), Elle and etc. This little tribute post is the tip of the iceberg of this completely fascinating woman.

Miller’s lifetime was crammed with many lifetimes, through which she was both photographer and a photograph. Miller was a stunningly beautiful woman, but her beauty was the least interesting thing about her. However, her beauty should not be discounted or ignored. It would be an elephant in the room otherwise. What was it like to be her? What was it like to turn heads, the way she did? Consider how she was “discovered”: She was 19 years old, crossing the street near her apartment on West 48th Street in New York and was almost hit by a car. A man pulled her out of the path of oncoming traffic. That man was Conde Nast. You can’t make this shit up. Soon after that, she appeared on the cover of Vogue, in a drawing by George Lepape.

Vogue fell in love with her. Photographers did too. She was in demand. She had the look of the 1920s modern woman. Everyone wanted to photograph her.


Lee Miller, Vogue, 1931. Photographer: George Hoyningen-huene

Considering the weighty sum of Miller’s historic accomplishments as a combat photographer with not just a front-row seat to the horrors Germany inflicted on the Jews – she was actually on the stage – it may strike people as unfair to start off with the beauty/modeling part of her life. That’s fine, write your own piece. I, however, find it fascinating that this woman – so used to being looked at – would end up Looking At some of the worst atrocities of not only the 20th century, but all time. Who better to observe than one so used to being observed? As a model, and as a Surrealist artist (and collaborator of Man Ray – let’s not say “muse” – we’ll come back to that), Miller was woman as Art Object from a very young age. She was also, disturbingly, Child as Art Object. This was all normal for her, and it’s not possible to untangle all of it and I don’t think Miller untangled it either. The Surrealist movement wasn’t about untangling, it was about tapping into the unconscious, the Jungian dreamworld. For such an artist to then stare unblinkingly at WWII reality is one of her many fascinations. For Miller, “being looked at” was the air she breathed from an upsettingly young age, and so of course she would be fascinated by the art of Looking.

Born in 1907, Miller died in obscurity in 1977, broke, broken, and alcoholic, having alienated everyone who loved her, including her family. Her legacy as a combat photographer – all that work – was completely erased – it was as though it never happened – and yet her image – her face and body – was still famous the world over, because of all the photographs Man Ray took of her. SHE wasn’t famous though, she was famous just as the Looked at object of a genius. Another example of this: in 1930, Miller appeared in Jean Cocteau’s 1930 film The Blood of a Poet, where she played a marble statue which – creepily – comes to life, freaking out its creator. The Blood of a Poet is a beloved piece of Surrealist art (released on Criterion, played at festivals, Cocteau a cinema darling). And so there she is, again, immortalized by another genius – and this time in motion – and yet still … Miller, the woman, was in the shadows when she died. It occurs to me that her performance as the statue (her only experience in cinema) is an apt metaphor for her life. Cocteau knew what he was doing in casting her: The marble statue doesn’t behave like a proper statue. The marble statue is disobedient and comes to life. If Miller was a muse, she was a very unruly one.

But I am getting ahead of myself. Part of the fascination for me is going through her life chronologically and not leaping ahead.

By the time Conde Nast “rescued” her and put her on the cover of Vogue, Miller had already lived about four lifetimes. Her childhood was extremely dark. She was raped when she was 7 years old and contracted gonorrhea. The treatments for this were brutal and extremely traumatizing. Her father was a photographer and took nude photographs of her (as a child, yes, but also as a teenager and into adulthood). So I am comfortable saying that Miller was raised in an extremely sick atmosphere. She took the secret of her childhood to her grave, she never told anyone, not even her two husbands. She was blessed – or cursed – with extreme beauty, a chilly golden beauty – which drew people to her, but also made men want to control her, own her, pin her down in some way. Her education was erratic. She got expelled from schools left and right. She was a rebel. When she was a teenager, she upped and moved to Paris to study stage lighting and costume design. When she came back to New York, she joined an experimental theatre program at Vassar, and also enrolled in an arts program, studying drawing. Then along came modeling, and she was very successful. Photographers adored her, and loved shooting her. Many high-fashion photographers of the time listed her as one of their favorite subjects. People like Edward Steichen, no less.


Lee Miller. Photographer: Edward Steichen

One of Steichen’s fashion photographs of Miller was used in an ad for Kotex menstruation products, and the controversy ended her modeling career, which had only just begun. Probably a blessing in disguise. It got her to Europe, where she needed to be, where she found “her people”.

I mean … Periods are still controversial to this day. It’s so ridiculous. It’s a normal bodily function experienced by half the planet. Get over it.

Miller’s restlessness meant she wouldn’t have been satisfied with modeling for long, anyway. From the jump, she took self-portraits, experimenting with lighting, framing, and placing figures in the frame (an important element of her later work). This woman who had been “looked at” constantly from the moment she appeared on this planet turned the camera on herself.


Self Portrait, New York, 1932

Miller arrived in Europe in 1929, when Modernism was busy knocking over the pillars of the 19th century, and the work of Freud and Jung had made such major inroads that the Surrealists flourished in its wake. Miller’s childhood was a literal nightmare. One doesn’t wonder at Surrealism’s draw: reality was a pale shadow, a lie, really. In Paris, she knew where she wanted to be: with Man Ray. His work spoke to her. She approached him, out of the blue, and basically informed him that she was his new assistant, apprentice, and lover. He had no choice, really.


Man Ray and Lee Miller

Here’s a good article about Man Ray and Lee Miller’s relationship, artistic and otherwise.

Let’s go back to the “muse” thing: To call her a Muse for Man Ray is incorrect. She collaborated with him, yes, and he took many photographs of her, photos that are now famous, but in they influenced each other. She finished his projects sometimes if he was too busy, and she had her own studio where she did her own thing. Because of the enmeshment of these two, and because of the erasure of Miller’s place in the history of Surrealist art, oftentimes you’ll come across one of Miller’s photos and it will be credited to Man Ray. This has really got to stop. The two of them developed “solarisation” together – one of the visual “tics” by which Man Ray is known. One of his portraits of Miller is a “solarised” one, making her look epic and mythic, like she’s on a Roman coin from antiquity.


Solarised Portrait of Lee Miller, Man Ray, 1929

Man Ray gets the credit for this. But Miller was just as instrumental in developing solarisation and exploring its eerie almost dystopian-like possibilities, abstracting the human form into Pure Image. Here is one of Miller’s solarised portraits of silent film star Lilian Harvey:

Atomization was a big concept in Surrealism, isolating parts out from the whole, so much so that you can’t even tell what you’re looking at. The human form is chopped up into pieces. Man Ray’s nudes are beautiful, and Miller was often the model. You can see the atomization concept writ large in Miller’s photography as well (this creates a fascinating queasy dovetail with her photos from the concentration camps – where atomization took a genocidal form). Here’s Miller’s “exploding hand” from 1930.

Then there is Miller’s photograph of an actual severed breast, “rescued” from a hospital, and served up for dinner.

That’s atomization to the extreme. She wasn’t kidding around.

Consider also Miller’s “Nude Bent Forward”:

Surrealism was often quite chilly, in its treatment of the human form.

Miller herself was very very CHILLY.

And she drove men MAD.

Here are some of the (many) photographs Man Ray took of his lover and collaborator:

In 1923, Man Ray created something he called “Object to be Destroyed”, a metronome with an eye attached to the swinging arm. He found metronomes tormenting and he did, eventually, destroy said “object.” But people remembered it and in 1933, for an exhibition of his work, he re-created it, only this time he attached a photograph of Miller’s eye. He updated the title, too: “Indestructible Object.”

This was a very fruitful time for Miller…


Pablo Picasso and Lee Miller

… but of course she had to move on eventually. Never stay in one place for too long. She moved back to New York and opened her own photography studio. I wasn’t really aware of this period in her life and I have had fun digging into it. She had many clients, corporate, high-fashion, she did advertising jobs, fashion spreads – using all her modeling contacts – but also was well-known in Surrealist circles, and was in demand as a portrait photographer. She did portraits of many famous people, in art, in cinema. I had no idea she did this very well-known and striking portrait of Joseph Cornell:

Then she gave it all up, married an Egyptian businessman, and moved to Egypt. Because that’s how Miller rolled.

She didn’t work as a photographer during this (brief) marriage, but she did take a number of photographs during her time there, striking visuals showing her abstract eye. She never looked at things head-on – she always had a point of view – the world was Art to her:

She also took one photograph of the desert, seen through a ripped piece of netting, that I would classify as a piece of Surrealist art. It is called “Portrait of Space.”

Magritte spoke about how inspired he was in his own work by “Portrait of Space.”

Unsurprisingly, Miller kicked her Egyptian husband – and Egypt – to the curb and moved to England, hooking up with the Surrealist crowd there. She was well-known. She participated in a couple of Surrealist group shows, all as the war clouds gathered over Europe. I mention this only because it’s weird how history is erased. It wasn’t THAT long ago and there’s no reason that she should have vanished so suddenly. She burned a lot of bridges in her later years, and Conde Nast – who owned many of her photos since she was a war correspondent for Vogue – did not take care of the archive, did not highlight the major work she did for them, literally capturing “breaking news” from Germany to Poland to Hungary. Maybe, too, her reputation didn’t travel because her work had been done for Vogue and not, say, Time or Life. Everyone knows Robert Capa’s name.

When war broke out, Miller was dating a photographer named David Scherman (his name will come up again). She was living out in the country, but when the Blitz began, she pulled up stakes and moved to London, to document the Blitz for Vogue.

With no background at all, she became a photojournalist, training her eye on the devastation of London. If you’ve ever looked into the Blitz, some of her photos will be instantly recognizable. Now you know who took them.


Fire Masks, 1941.


Air raid.

To me, her photos don’t look like anyone else’s. She found the small moment, the unique moment. Maybe her work seems too frivolous to her critics. Like: this is war, not a fashion shoot. These don’t strike me as frivolous at all. A Surrealist mindset is often better equipped to look at reality, to react to the insanity. She didn’t have any emotional distance.

Her friendship with Scherman was important. He was a photographer with Life, and he had the contacts necessary to get her hooked up with the War Department. She was desperate to get to the heart of the action. She had no fear. Years later, Scherman said that “being left out of the biggest story of the decade almost drove poor Lee Miller mad.” So instead of just going mad, she made it happen. Condé Nast Publications hired her as a war correspondent, which led to her accreditation with the War Department. This allowed her to join up with the U.S. Army just a month after D-Day.


Miller in 1943 with other female war correspondents in Europe: from left to right: Mary Welsh, Dixie Tighe, Kathleen Harriman, Helen Kirkpatrick, Lee Miller, and Tania Long

She was there to capture the liberation of Paris from Nazi control. This is her most famous photograph from that event:

But there are others:

And this one, from later:

She then accompanied the Army into the Axis territories, where the real horrors began. In Vienna, which was almost completely destroyed, she captured German soprano Irmgard Seefried, singing an aria from ‘Madame Butterfly’ in the ruins of the Vienna Opera House.

Lee Miller, amirite?

Mark Haworth-Booth, who curated a show of her war photography, said: “Her photographs shocked people out of their comfort zone. She had a chip of ice in her heart. She got very close to things. Margaret Bourke-White was far away from the fighting, but Lee was close. That’s what makes the difference–Lee was prepared to shock.”

In early April, the Army reached Buchenwald and Dachau. Lee Miller was there.

The remaining SS guards at Buchenwald had been beaten to a pulp by the liberated prisoners. Miller got right up close to take pictures of them.

Klaus Hornig, kapo in Buchenwald, also beaten by the prisoners, does the Nazi salute as Miller snaps his picture.

When the Army arrived, the remaining SS guards tried to fight them off. They were killed, lying crumpled all over the camp. Miller saw a dead SS guard floating in the canal and took the photo:

In advance of the Allies’ entry into Leipzig on April 20, the Nazi deputy mayor committed suicide with his wife and daughter, biting into cyanide pills. The bodies were discovered by the Army in the mayor’s office. Miller, of course, was there, and took numerous photographs of the scene but the most famous one is of the daughter, sprawled dead on the couch, head flung back.

I can see why people may object to this. It looks like a fashion shoot. But, remember, Lee Miller didn’t pose the dead Nazi daughter in this position. It’s not Lee Miller’s fault the daughter is beautiful. Miller just captured what was in front of her.

On April 30, they reached Munich, and arrived at Hitler’s secret apartment. Hitler, of course, wasn’t there. He had been in the bunker in Berlin for weeks. Coincidentally, although they had no way of knowing it at the time, Hitler committed suicide on the very same day Miller and Scherman wandered around through Hitler’s apartment – I think a couple of hours before. The two photographers were still covered in the mud of the camps. And because Lee Miller never played by the rules, and because she could not resist, she wiped her muddy boots on Hitler’s immaculate bath towel, took off her clothes, and climbed into his tub. Scherman snapped.

Miller said later, “I took some pictures of the place and I also got a good night’s sleep in Hitler’s bed. I even washed the dirt of Dachau in his tub.” She also curled up in Eva Braun’s bed (there’s a picture of that too). It’s ghoulish in the extreme, “not done” in any way, but also weirdly cathartic. Defiling the monster’s abode. The man had a picture of himself IN his bathtub. Miller witnessed what this man had wrought. The piles of bodies, the ground-up bones, the emaciated men. Fuck his clean bath towel. She was lolling about in his tub as he and Eva Braun are being set on fire in a ditch.

After the liberations of the camps, she sent an urgent telegram to Vogue:

“No question that German civilians knew what went on. Railway into Dachau camp runs past villa, with trains of dead or semi-dead deportees. I usually don’t take pictures of horrors. But don’t think that every town and every area isn’t rich with them. I hope Vogue will feel it can publish these pictures.” — Lee Miller, May, 1945

Vogue published huge spreads in the June 1945 issue, with Miller’s commentary. The headlines, written by Miller, speak to the horrified reaction at the time. Everyone knew shit was bad in Germany, but … this bad?


Headline: “Germans Are Like This”, June 1945 Vogue


Headline: “Believe It”, June 1945 Vogue

Imagine flipping through Vogue in June, looking at spreads of summer bathing suits and spring hats, and coming across that. Miller’s fury comes off the page, particularly “ordinary” Germans considering themselves “a liberated, not a conquered people.” She also writes of all the fur coats (this was Vogue, after all), but with a war-time spin: every German woman, including prostitutes, wore fur coats, all of them “stolen from Paris”.

One of her scariest photos was taken the following year, as the consequences of German war crimes continued to unfold in an unstoppable wave: László Bardossy, the fascist ex-Prime Minister of Hungary, had been extradited to Hungary from Germany in October 1945, and faced the firing squad in Budapest. Leave it to Lee Miller to find such a unique position, where she could capture the whole scene in a birds’ eye view.

Schermer, years later, spoke of Miller’s wartime experience, having witnessed her in action as she walked through the camps, camera to her eye:

“This was a journalist’s finest hour, a story worth crossing Europe for. If she had any emotional reaction at all, it was almost orgasmic excitement over the magnitude of the story. She was, in her quiet, methodical, practical way, in seventh heaven… When, as a journalist, do you get the chance to shoot as fast as you can, left and right, and make a horrible, exciting, historic picture? The emotional breakdown, if any, was in the subsequent let-down after the high of Dachau, and a week later, the burning of the Berghof. The let-down of ‘no more hot, fast-breaking story.'”

So that brings us to the final phase.

After the war, Miller returned to the United States, with a new husband. They had a son. But what she saw in the war altered her forever. She had what we would now call PTSD. She did not seek treatment. It was barely understood as a condition. She drank heavily. Her son had very little good memories of her. She could be monstrous. All of the things she experienced – the rape, the exploitation by her father, the concentration camps – it was a perfect storm of trauma. She was shattered. She continued to do high-fashion photo shoots, on occasion, but the love affair with photography was over. How could anything “go on” after what she saw? She couldn’t forget.

We can’t forget her, either, or the images she left behind, images that live on in the world, still with so much to tell us.

I’ll end with a great quote. Lee Miller, later in life, was asked what photography meant to her. She said:

“It’s a matter of getting out on a damn limb and sawing it off behind you.”

You can look through the massive archive of her work here.

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

Posted in Art/Photography, On This Day | Tagged , , , | 29 Comments

When proud-pied April, dressed in all his trim, / Hath put a spirit of youth in everything …

Today is (supposedly, roughly) the birthday of William Shakespeare. April 23, 1564. (Title of the post from Sonnet 98.)

One of the things I think about when I think about Shakespeare, is my late great teacher Doug Moston, who died in 2003. Moston (whose father, by the way, was Murray Moston, the man who gets his hand blown off in the hallway in Taxi Driver) was one of the best teachers I’ve ever had. Moston was responsible for getting Shakespeare’s first folio from 1623 published in facsimile. It’s indispensable for actors, I think, but would also be fascinating for anyone interested in Shakespeare.

I am not a scholar. Anything I know about Shakespeare I learned by doing. This is just an actor’s perspective on language. These plays are meant to be spoken, not read. I speak with authority but hopefully not arrogantly, or like a know-it-all. Again, I learned by doing, by trying to SPEAK those words and ACT them. Just so we know this going in.

In more modern versions of Shakespeare, many editors have ironed out or “modernized” his punctuation. Some of the additions are defensible. But, less defensibly, many editors have added punctuation, sometimes to the detriment of the meaning of the lines. Huge no-no! Here’s what I mean: modern editors look at these plays as academic texts, works of literature, as opposed to scripts meant for actors to play. If you have the plays in facsimile (ie: how they looked in the first folio), you can see the uncorrected unmodernized English. Modern editors have sometimes added exclamation points, which I find not only insulting but wrong. An exclamation mark is an extremely important – and evocative – punctuation mark and actors pay very close attention. An exclamation mark is directorial, in other words. An exclamation mark says “The emotion behind the line should be THIS.” It’s the difference between “Oh my God.” and “Oh my God!” Shakespeare used very little “emotional” punctuation marks in his work. It’s mostly just straightforward periods and commas and question marks. Actors are sponges. Actors delve into a text in ways that leave scholars in the dust. They analyze everything, everything is meaningful. There’s a reason why most actors, upon getting a role, cross out the emotional stage directions put there by the playwright/editor – “haughtily”, “sternly”, etc. Actors want to make their own choices, and once something like “sternly” or “haughtily” or an exclamation mark !!! – is imprinted in the brain, it is very hard to get rid of it. You don’t want to LIMIT your choices at the very start of the process. In the end, you may very well choose to say the line “haughtily” or “sternly” or with three exclamation marks in your line-reading, but you want to get there on your own. So actors see something like an exclamation mark, and they play it. But once you learn it was some crusty professor in 1946 ADDING a punctuation mark to Shakespeare’s text, thinking to himself, “Well, this line obviously should be shouted, or said with intensity”, it changes the game a little bit. I don’t want some editor to tell me how to play Lady Macbeth.

“Play to the lines, through the lines, but never between the lines. There simply isn’t time for it.” – George Bernard Shaw to actress Ellen Terry on performing Shakespeare, 1896

The good thing about the first folio is that it is the earliest evidence of a Shakespearean text put together (apparently) by his peers, people who knew him or worked with him. It’s the closest we’ve got. The first folio bears close studying (I recommend every actor having at least a copy of it, so you can compare with the modern versions. Compare/contrast can be very revealing.)

First folio page of Romeo and Juliet:

Years ago I wrote about working on a monologue from Cymbeline for some audition. Michael was staying with me and we were talking about it. We were in my little one-room apartment, and I did the monologue for him. (Because of one mess-up I made with one word I now call it the “twixt clock and cock” monologue. We couldn’t stop saying “clock and cock”.) As I was working on the monologue, I wanted to compare the modern text in my little paperback with what was in the folio.

Here is the comparison. Line by line. (All the “s”s in the folio are “f”s. You get used to it.)

Riverside Shakespeare:

False to his bed! What is it to be false?
To lie in watch there and to think on him?
To weep ‘twixt clock and clock? if sleep charge nature,
To break it with a fearful dream of him
And cry myself awake? that’s false to’s bed, is it?

Folio version:

Falfe to his Bed? What is it to be falfe?
To lye in watch there, and to thinke on him?
To weepe ‘twixt clock and clock? If fleep charge Nature,
To breake it with a fearfull dreame of him
And cry my felfe awake? That’s falfe to’s bed? Is it?

Let’s look at the differences. In the Riverside, the first “false to his bed” is presented as an exclamation. But in the folio, it is a QUESTION. I cannot even tell you what a huge difference this makes in the playing of the moment. But it also makes a huge difference in terms of the monologue’s MEANING. What is Imogen DOING here? What is she actually saying?

My interpretation: when it’s a question, she, after reading his letter, is still trying to process what her husband just said to her. She is in a state of shock when she says it, where she repeats what she just heard. “False to his bed?” She’s stunned, disoriented. She can’t believe this has happened. Whereas, with an exclamation mark, like in the Riverside, she immediately jumps to anger and hurt. She is pissed, defending herself. “False to his bed!” (Subtext: the NERVE of that guy!)

Like I said, this is how actors read a text. You’re looking for how to play it, how to lift it off the page.

Also, let’s look at the last line:

In the Riverside, it’s all one sentence, with commas added by an editor: “that’s false to his bed, is it?” It’s all one thing, one thought, with a small hiccup at the final, “is it?”. But in the folio, it’s chopped up by a question mark. “That’s false to his bed? Is it?”

Read both versions out loud.

In the folio version, her thought process is still erratic (Olivier was right: the thought is IN THE LINE), so she’s asking one question: “That’s false to his bed?” Then she realizes she is not done, and questions again: “Is it?” You can feel Imogen processing the betrayal IN the punctuation. This is how we, as humans, actually speak. In the Riverside, it’s ironed out, and in the ironing process the thought itself has changed.

In the same way Shakespeare does not overdo the use of exclamation points and emotional punctuation, there are also almost no stage-directions in his plays (as written, at least) except for: Enter and Exeunt. (Of course there is a notable exception from Winters Tale, which my sister Siobhan has called “the funniest stage direction ever”: the famous Exeunt pursued by bear.) Shakespeare put all of the stage directions INTO the language. If the scene is supposed to be at night, Shakespeare will have the character ask for a torch, or talk about how he can’t see. In this way, he gets multiple things done at the same time, especially for his era, where lighting effects weren’t a possibility. The action, the props, the setting, the motivation, everything, is in the language.

Modern playwrights would add a stage direction to fill in the blanks: Horatio picks up a torch and squints through the darkness. I knew a wonderful playwright once who took the cue from Shakespeare, merely because she had been burned so many times with productions of her plays not being true to her intent. She said, “I have learned that if you want a character to be drinking a cup of coffee during a scene, if you think it is crucial to your plot that your character drinks coffee, you have to have the character say, ‘I am going to have a cup of coffee.’ It has to be in the language, not in the stage directions.”

Back in the day, there weren’t extensive rehearsals for Shakespeare’s plays. And because paper was expensive and scarce, often they wouldn’t be given the whole script, they would be given only their part. (That’s where the word “role” comes from: each part was printed on a “roll” of paper, and so you would be handed your “roll” to learn.)

Doug Moston made his students play scenes that way. He would have parts written out on “rolls” of paper and you would have to get up with other actors, and try to make the scene happen, only having your part in front of you, the other actor only having his part in front of him. It was so fun!

People make jokes about lines like “O! I am slain!”, but if you think about it: that is a stage direction placed in the language. That line tells the actor (who might not have the whole play at his disposal): “Okay. Die now.” Shakespeare doesn’t put into the text: Elaborate sword fight. Macbeth dies. (If you see something like that in a modern version, 9 times out of 10 it was added by an editor.)

Michael Schmidt’s Lives of the Poets is a book I adore, even though I read it only because I was MADLY!!! IN. LOVE. with a poet at the time, and he recommended it, and so now the book still has a wafting atmosphere of heartbreak, because I lost my freakin’ mind when that thing ended. I grieved like an Italian widow. But still: if that guy gave me one thing, it’s this book – which has become an essential part of my library, one I refer to so often the book has literally fallen apart.

Lives of the Poets is a survey of English-language poets, from Richard Rolle of Hampole to Les Murray. What makes this book unique and also accessible to someone like me is that Michael Schmidt is not an academic (Academics make me feel dumb. I stay away!) He is a publisher and a reviewer, a poetry fan. He does not use the distancing and incomprehensible language of literary theory, or postmodern lit-crit or any of that. His style is clear, concise, readable.

How he deals with Shakespeare is especially interesting. Because Lives of the Poets spans so much time, Shakespeare is just another name on a long long list … and yet of course he overshadows pretty much everything before he arrives and also after. His shadow stretches backwards, so that the poets who came just before him don’t stand a chance. Their role in life was to be a prelude. It is hard to get Shakespeare out of the damn way to see what else might have been going on. James Joyce is a similar figure.

Here’s what Schmidt has to say about Shakespeare, and Poems vs. The Plays:

The greatest poet of the age — the greatest poet of all time, for all his corruptions — inspires in publishers and in other writers a kind of vertigo. For Donald Davie Shakespeare represents “a vast area of the English language and the English imagination which is as it were ‘charged’, radio-active: a territory where we dare not travel at all often or at all extensively, for fear of being mortally infected, in the sense of being overborne, so that we cease to speak with our own voices and produce only puny echoes of the great voice which long ago took over that whole terrain for its own.” This is true of the plays. But had Shakespeare produced only the epyllia, the Sonnets and the occasional poems, we’d have a much more proportioned view of him, smaller in scale than Jonson, Donne, Spencer and Marlowe. The poems are excellent, but it is the language and vision of the plays that dazzles. The slightly absurd scenario of Venus and Adonis, the excesses of Lucree and the unevent brilliance of the Sonnets would not by themselves have changed the world. Venus and Adonis was, it’s true, Shakespeare’s most successful poem. By the time he died, ten editions had been published, and six followed in the two decades after his death. There was money in that large, bossy, blowsy goddess almost eating alive the pretty lad. Nowadays it is read because it is by Shakespeare. And Lucree, with its cruel eloquence, its harsh tracing of one of the most brutal tales of rape in the classical repertory, while better balanced and constructed, touches unreflectingly on matters that require a less restrained psychology than the poet can provide…

This is a story about poetry, not drama or literal prostitution; the plays I’ll leave to someone else. I’m concerned with “the rest”, a handful of works that the poet took most seriously; the epyllia Richard Field published, the 154 Sonnets and “The Phoenix and the Turtle”. I could add songs from the plays, but once you dip into a drama, where do you stop? A monologue is like an aria, a description can be like a whole pastoral or satire. And which songs are Shakespeare’s, which did he pull out of Anon.’s bran tub? Two Gentlemen of Verona, Love’s Lavours Lost, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, The Merchant of Venic, Much Ado About Nothing, As You Like It, Twelfth Night, Hamlet, Measure for Measure, Cymbeline, A Winter’s Tale and The Tempest all include detachable songs, but the plays snared them and that’s where they belong.

Shakespeare is so much at the heart — is the heart — of this story that even by skirting around him we take his measure. Apart from his genius, Shakespeare had some real advantages. The world for him was new, as it had been for Chaucer. There were the navigators’ discoveries, there was the rising power of the monarch, new industry, new learning.

And now (you can sense reluctantly) Schmidt talks about the plays.

Drama could be profitable: this discovery coincided with “the coming into the field of the first pupils of the new grammar schools of Edward VI”, men who did not resent or distrust commerce and entrepreneurship. A new class of “mental adventurers”, the classically educated sons of merchants, made the running. Marlowe was the son of a cobbler, Shakespeare of a prosperous glove maker of Stratford-on-Avon, where the poet was born in 1564. Both were provincials, one educated at the grammar school at Stratford, the other at King’s School, Canterbury. They were harbingers of the social change that would culminate in the Commonwealth.

One of Shakespeare’s advantages was an apparent disadvantage. He was not university-trained. “When Shakespeare attempts to be learned like Marlowe, he is not very clever.” That is part of the problem with his epyllia. But Ford Madox Ford reminds us that he had “another world to which he could retire; because of that he was a greater poet than either Jonson or Marlowe, whose minds were limited by their university-training to find illustrations, telles quelles, from illustrations already used in the Greek or Latin classics. It was the difference between founding a drawing on a lay figure and drawing or painting from a keen and delighting memory.”

Sidney advises: “Look in thy heart and write.” In the Sonnets, Shakespeare takes Sidney’s counsel without the platonizing the great courtier intended. The heart he looks into is singularly complex and troubled, and the poems he writes from this impure “I” are as full of life as the plays.

I’ll let Puck’s words that end Midsummer close this post.

If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumber’d here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend:
if you pardon, we will mend:
And, as I am an honest Puck,
If we have unearned luck
Now to ‘scape the serpent’s tongue,
We will make amends ere long;
Else the Puck a liar call;
So, good night unto you all.
Give me your hands, if we be friends,
And Robin shall restore amends.

Came across a very fun article which lets you know only a couple of the phrases invented (or co-opted) by Shakespeare :

Eaten out of house and home
Pomp and circumstance
Foregone conclusion
Full circle
The makings of
Method in the madness
Neither rhyme nor reason
One fell swoop
Seen better days
It smells to heaven
A sorry sight
A spotless reputation
Strange bedfellows
The world’s (my) oyster

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.

Maybe you were born to greatness, Will. Maybe you achieved it. Maybe it was thrust upon you. Or maybe Christopher Marlowe or Edward de Vere wrote all the plays, and you just get all the credit. I’m with my dad who said, in regards to the authorship controversy, “It doesn’t matter to me at all.”

What matters is the work. We have the plays and poems. They’re ours.

Recommended reading:

First Folio of Shakespeare in Modern Type

The Riverside Shakespeare

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

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

Substack: On Radu Jude’s latest, Do Not Expect Too Much From the End of the World

For my Substack: on Radu Jude’s new film, Do Not Expect Too Much From the End of the World, the film I’ve been most eager to see this year. I love his work so much.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment