“I live life in the margins of society, and the rules of normal society don‘t apply to those who live on the fringe.” — Tamara de Lempicka

Spoken like a true exile of Jewish descent.

For her birthday today:


“Self Portrait in the green Bugatti”

Fascinating woman, to say the least. Just a snippet from her teen years, okay?

In 1912, her parents divorced and Maria went to live with her wealthy Aunt Stefa in St. Petersberg, Russia. When her mother remarried, she became determined to break away to a life of her own. In 1913, at the age of fifteen, while attending the opera, Maria spotted the man she became determined to marry. She promoted her campaign through her well-connected uncle and in 1916 she married Tadeusz Lempicki in St. Petersburg; a well-known ladies man, gadabout, and lawyer by title, who was tempted by the significant dowry.

In 1917, during the Russian Revolution, Tadeusz was arrested in the dead of night by the Bolsheviks. Maria searched the prisons for him and after several weeks, with the help of the Swedish consul, she secured his release. They traveled to Copenhagen, Denmark then London, England and finally to Paris, France to where Maria’s family had also escaped, along with numerous upper-class Russian refugees.

Tip of the iceberg. More here.

And still more. She’s having “a year”. Camille Paglia deserves some credit, in my eyes, for including a chapter on Lempicka in her book Glittering Images, which is how I got into her work. (From the article: “In 2020 her ‘Portrait of Marjorie Ferry,’ a jazz chanteuse, set a new auction record for the artist, fetching almost $22 million.”) So yeah. Her time is now.

“My goal: never copy. Create a new style, with luminous and brilliant colors, rediscover the elegance of my models.”
— Tamara de Lempicka

 
 
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 , | 10 Comments

“That’s the way I work: I try to imagine what I would like to see.” — Sofia Coppola

It’s her birthday today.

Doing these posts is a way to pull up things from my gigantic archives. I might as well find ways to share them. But it’s also a reminder of how much I haven’t written. Topics I should probably explore in print. For example: I haven’t written a word about Somewhere, which I think may very well be Coppola’s best film. I think it’s one of the best films of the last 30 years. A throwback to the Golden Age of 1970s American filmmaking.

I also have never written about Marie Antoinette, which got some VERY weird critiques back in the day … all those ANACHRONISMS (there were anachronisms in Shakespeare, you dolts.) Also, the ever-present criticism of nepotism. In fact, those critiques are SO constant that one could make the argument that Coppola has a VERY difficult battle indeed, to get her work taken seriously IN SPITE of her father. Nicolas Cage changed his damn name to try to make it on his own without the Coppola name. I love Marie Antoinette.

And her wonderful Christmas special – A Very Murray Christmas – which made me happy to be alive. (I’m not exaggerating.) The special is structured like one of those old-fashioned television specials and variety shows, where guests show up and do their thing, tell some jokes, sing a song, “banter”. And Coppola does all this – beautifully – but overlays it with this bittersweet feeling of nostalgia and melancholy and loneliness.

But I have written a couple of things about Coppola’s films:

a piece on Bill Murray in Lost in Translation for my friend Jeremy Richey’s wonderful blog, Moon in the Gutter (RE-POSTED HERE). That one means a lot to me.

— I reviewed the extremely horny The Beguiled for Ebert.

And finally, here are two eloquent shots from Coppola’s first film, a short called Lick the Star. To say “I feel seen” by this doesn’t even come close to expressing the situation. Maybe it’s the Gen-X-ness of it all that I really respond to.

 
 
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 , , , , | 6 Comments

“I’m very concerned that we don’t make movies that are original anymore.” — Robert Zemeckis

It’s his birthday today.

While Robert Zemeckis has gone on to be a bazillionaire and one of the most successful producers in Hollywood of fairly middle-brow movies, he started off small and rowdy – with two films I love: first, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, about a bunch of Beatles fans who all go to New York to try to get tickets to the Beatles’ appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show, and the absolutely filthy – profane – corrupt – and gloriously funny Used Cars.

I mean …

That is not false advertising.

Both I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Used Cars were written by Zemeckis and Bob Gale. I find it difficult to forgive Forrest Gump. I’m not offended by much but I am offended by that film’s glorification of simplification and anti-intellectualism, and if you love it, I’m sorry but I’m all argued out on the Forrest Gump front. I had to deal with friends saying, shocked, “HOW could you not like it??” The critical tide has turned, and many people seem to hate it now, but I felt like I was standing alone at the time. I despise it.

But let’s not dwell. (It’s hard not to dwell, though, because Forrest Gump was such an enormous mainstream hit. I thought the whole world had gone stark raving crazy. I felt the same way about Life is Beautiful too. Any time critics say “If you don’t like this movie, check your pulse” – something is rotten in the state of Denmark.)

Zemeckis has also been at the helm of some other faves – Romancing the Stone and Death Becomes Her: adore both of them.

Contact has a very special place in my heart, and – unlike Forrest Gump – actually prized knowledge and competence and expertise. I love the Jodie Foster character. Back to the Future was, of course, huge – and unlike Forrest Gump justifiably huge. I love Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, loved its wit, loved how it utilized technology without upstaging the actual action. So far so good. I liked Cast Away but – again – did not feel the swoon of adoration so many others felt. I did not feel that it was a “celebration of the human spirit.” I’m cranky. The movie also generated the “if you didn’t like this, check your pulse” response. I’ve checked my pulse. I am, indeed, fully alive. I just disagree with you about Forrest Gump. Calm down. I’m not telling you YOU can’t love the movie. He directed Flight, a very good movie with a cop-out of an ending. Flight was rated-R and the first rated-R Zemeckis film SINCE Used Cars.

Looking at this track record (and I haven’t even mentioned his lengthy producer credits), it is VERY instructive to go back and watch I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Used Cars.

Both films are made with competence and confidence, and both include extremely complicated sequences – multiple characters, multiple narratives. Both films require perfect comic timing, broad yet specific performances, and fearlessness in pushing things forward. These movies really MOVE. There is also a sense of total chaos in both films, runaway trains of madcap adventure. A director has to create the controlled environment where chaos like that can occur.

I’ve been meaning to write about I Wanna Hold Your Hand for years. I caught it on afternoon TV when I was in high school and it launched me into one of those vivid fantasy worlds, where I was one of those kids, trying to storm the barricades.

But I HAVE written about Used Cars, for my Film Comment column. Used Cars is the opposite of heart-warming. It is also laugh-out-loud funny.

If you don’t laugh while watching Used Cars, check your pulse.

 
 
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 | 8 Comments

“Music, at its essence, is what gives us memories. And the longer a song has existed in our lives, the more memories we have of it.” — Stevie Wonder

It’s his birthday today.

I love that quote because I have so many memories “attached” to Stevie Wonder’s songs, so attached that they don’t feel “attached” at all. The song IS the memory. And more than a memory, really: these songs, which have been in my life for what feels like always, call forth eras, times, feelings, sense memory … the inchoate amorphous sense of an entire time. He was on heavy HEAVY rotation among my group of friends in college, and so his songs call forth college: hungover hilarious breakfasts, making out on a beach, late night tech rehearsals, driving home with the windows open, the whole glorious intense chaos of being a theatre major surrounded by best friends and boyfriends, working on creative things, trying hard, enjoying triumphs, striving, dreaming … Summer vacations. Going to the movies. Going through the drivethru for iced coffee and headed to the beach. Stevie Wonder blasting from the car speakers, from the boom boxes, played in the dressing rooms as we got ready for dress rehearsal. It’s a MOOD, it’s a VIBE. He’s hard to talk about, because of that. (I also love Wonder’s perspective on Elvis, how Elvis represented – embodied – without even knowing it, just by standing there – racial reconciliation and healing and how people cannot deal with it. He called him “a Caucasian brother” in an interview.)

If I HAD to choose my favorite, it’d probably “Signed Sealed Delivered”. It’s a seratonin-blast.

My brother Brendan included Stevie Wonder’s classic album Innervisions on his Best Albums list. It’s a really good read.

 
 
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 Music, On This Day | Leave a comment

“I was a sinister child, lazy and cynical.” — Eve Babitz

“What I wanted, although at the time I didn’t understand what the thing was because no one ever tells you anything until you already know it, was everything. Or as much as I could get with what I had to work with. I wanted, mainly, a certain kind of song.
Like scents, certain songs just throw me. And I wanted to be thrown into that moment of perfume when everything was gone except for the dazzle. It doesn’t last long, but in order to have everything you must have those moments of such unrelated importance that time ripples away like a frame of water. Without those moments, your own heaven party can die of thirst. They’re like booster shots, they make you stronger. You know it’s worth the twinge of envy when you’ve recovered from the dazzle because the mystery of life fades when death, people having fun without you, is forgotten. Time escapes unnoticed and time is all you get.
If you live in L.A., to reckon time is a trick since there are no winters. There are just earthquakes, parties and certain people. And songs.”
— Eve Babitz, Eve’s Hollywood

It’s her birthday today.

Eve Babitz, nobody else like her. Discovering her writing was like discovering a part of myself. Or at least seeing it in print written by someone else… and written so beautifully … was a revelation. Outlaw is the word I use. She was a swashbuckling romantic It-Girl outlaw. I wrote about her a lot, but here’s a big piece I wrote on my Substack.

I will leave you with this. In 1963, 18-year-old Eve Babitz was looking for a publisher for a novel she wrote. (It would take her 10 more years to get a book published). So she wrote to Joseph Heller, looking for help. All fine, all ambitious, good for teenage Eve. But here is how she introduced herself:

Dear Joseph Heller,

I am a stacked eighteen-year-old blonde on Sunset Boulevard.

I am also a writer.

Eve Babitz

Unbelievable. I just have to observe: If those two sentences were reversed, the note wouldn’t have nearly the same effect. She knew.

 
 
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

Elvis takes New Orleans: talking King Creole on the Guide for the Film Fanatic podcast

My pal Jason Bailey is a film critic, author, and podcast host. He has many! I’ve been a guest on all of them, I think. His new podcast is called Guide for the Film Fanatic, using as its inspiration the 1986 film guide by Daniel Peary. Peary wrote about 1,600 capsule reviews for all the films he felt were essential for any film fanatic. So Jason sent out a spreadsheet listing all of Peary’s choices, asking critics to pick one to be discussed on the podcast. So fun! You can see the list of episodes – so far – here. And imagine my DELIGHT when I saw that Peary put not one, not two, but THREE Elvis movies in his film guide. Elvis movies never make it into these guides! So of course I had to choose one, and I chose King Creole. (The other Elvis films on the list are Flaming Star and Jailhouse Rock.) But I went with King Creole. Jason and his co-host and dear friend Mike Hull put together a great format for these discussions: so we discuss King Creole, and Elvis, and how the film was received and other things. It was a blast! You can watch on YouTube or listen here.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Miscast? Mayyyybe.

Miscast26 is a one-night-only musical featuring Broadway stars performing songs from roles in which they would not be cast. Apparently the whole night will stream for free starting next week, but clips are popping up here and there, including this beauty: Darren Criss performing “Maybe” from Annie.

This is … one of the best things I’ve ever seen in my life,

Posted in Theatre | 3 Comments

“I don’t care how afraid I may be inside — I do what I think I should.” — Katharine Hepburn

Barbara Walters: “Kate, you always wear pants. Do you even own a skirt?”
Katharine Hepburn: “I have one, Miss Walters. I’ll wear it to your funeral.”

Dan and I discussed her, in my interview with him about his new book. He is very concerned about how the public sees her now, at least judging from the snarky comments left on Facebook posts when he put up images of her through her career. Dan said:

I was upset by the reaction to Hepburn on Facebook. If she was alive now, she’d know how to fix this perception of her. She’s not alive anymore, so we need to try to fix it for her. What needs to be done is that she needs to be recouped as a subversive figure. I feel like people are against her now because they feel like she lied to us. She was basically a lesbian, so they kind of have a point. There’s a kind of false quality to how she was promoted, particularly when she was an old lady.

This is trickier though. When I put up posts about Montgomery Clift and Marlon Brando on Facebook, people went wild for them, and I feel like it’s partly because they’re so good-looking and sexy. I feel like the problem with Katharine Hepburn is a sex problem, and that was the case for her in the beginning too. People aren’t embracing her because she doesn’t care about sex on screen.

So I will do my part in trying to fix it for her. Here are some of the things I have written about her:

— For Capital New York back in the day, I wrote about the restoration of The African Queen.

— A long-ago “5 for the Day” on Slant about Hepburn, and I decided to focus on her work ethic and her appetite for taking risks. Really, it’s a piece about her ability as an actress – even as a giant star (which is rarer) for “taking an adjustment.” That’s an actor term. You play a scene a certain way. A director, if he/she is good, gives you “an adjustment.” “Play it more like this.” “Okay, try it again, but do it this way. Add a little more of this. Take away a little of that.” Often in audition situations, the casting director or director will give you an adjustment – not because you’re doing it wrong, but because they want to see how well you take direction. Hepburn was a master at “taking adjustments.” She knew, even as a great star, that she wasn’t perfect, and that when she needed help – she would take it. 5 for the Day: Katharine Hepburn

— And finally: I wrote the booklet essay for the Criterion release of Bringing Up Baby! I know that movie by heart, and yet I have never written at length about it, so it was a blast working on that.

Happy birthday, Miss Kate.

 
 
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 , , | 4 Comments

“I think a fear of portraying something negatively ends up creating more stereotypes.” — Sophia Takal

It’s Sophia Takal’s birthday today.

“You probably can’t tell this from “Green,” but I actually think that art should have a sense of humor about itself. Art is very important and it can change lives, but it doesn’t actually save lives. So I think it’s important for art to have a sense of humor about itself and not be super-snobby. Artists shouldn’t think that they’re better than everyone else. Fluxus really plays with the idea of what an artist really is and what art means. That’s how I interpreted it, at least, and that’s what I really responded to. I had this idea that art should be repeatable and it shouldn’t just be for the elite and I feel that that’s true.” — Sophia Takal

I’ll just say this up front: I did not like Takal’s re-make of the cult classic Black Christmas, which got a lot of scathingly negative attention at the time of its release (the negativity seemed REALLY out-sized to me. Like, calm DOWN, everybody.) I think it’s important to be honest when things work and/or don’t work. Too much “stan” culture is not good for criticism. HOWEVER: I had been paying attention to Sophia Takal for years, and I was excited for Black Christmas, and bummed out when it didn’t highlight her special qualities as a filmmaker. (Takal’s husband, Lawrence Michael Levine, is also interesting – they collaborate on most everything. His most recent film, Black Bear, is dedicated to Takal. I get into their artistic partnership in my review.)


Always Shine (2016)

What really turned me on to Takal was her 2016 film Always Shine. I reviewed for Ebert. It wears its influences (Persona, Mulholland Drive, Three Women) on its sleeve – but it also shows Takal’s specific sensibility (or, what I would come to know as her sensibility, once I watched the rest of her work). I REALLY love Always Shine.

As the hype for Black Christmas ratcheted up, making me feel uncomfortable – there was something about it that felt off – not necessarily Takal’s fault, but the marketing – I felt this weird urgent sense that I needed to write about Takal’s work as a whole, because I feared what was coming – a bunch of newbies trashing her new film, without having seen the rest of it. This is a new and young female filmmaker, who has been making films for over 10 years at this point. Let’s put this shit into perspective.


Green (2011)

So I wrote about Takal’s work for Film Comment, and really zeroed in on what I think makes her special and for sure someone to watch. Listen, you direct a film like Always Shine, it’s gonna take a lot more than one bad film to turn me away. I’m not a stan, but I am an admirer, and I look forward to seeing whatever it is she does next. Sophia Takal is the real deal.


Always Shine (2016)

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

Posted in Directors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“My dear child, I’m sure we shall be allowed to laugh in Heaven!” — Edward Lear

Edward Lear (the “father of nonsense”) was born on this day in 1812 in London.

I could recite from memory a lot of his stuff when I was pretty close to the age I was in the “candid” photo above. The Big Golden Book Of Poetry was so read in our family that the cover faded completely, the binding fell apart, and I can still see all of the illustrations, and where they were placed on the page. (My mother still has the book.)

When I read those poems now, I hear in my father’s gravelly voice.

“The Owl and the Pussy-cat” is still a favorite. The verse rocks and sings.

The Owl and the Pussy-cat
by Edward Lear

I
The Owl and the Pussy-cat went to sea
In a beautiful pea green boat,
They took some honey, and plenty of money,
Wrapped up in a five pound note.
The Owl looked up to the stars above,
And sang to a small guitar,
‘O lovely Pussy! O Pussy my love,
What a beautiful Pussy you are,
You are,
You are!
What a beautiful Pussy you are!’

II
Pussy said to the Owl, ‘You elegant fowl!
How charmingly sweet you sing!
O let us be married! too long we have tarried:
But what shall we do for a ring?’
They sailed away, for a year and a day,
To the land where the Bong-tree grows
And there in a wood a Piggy-wig stood
With a ring at the end of his nose,
His nose,
His nose,
With a ring at the end of his nose.

III
‘Dear pig, are you willing to sell for one shilling
Your ring?’ Said the Piggy, ‘I will.’
So they took it away, and were married next day
By the Turkey who lives on the hill.
They dined on mince, and slices of quince,
Which they ate with a runcible spoon;
And hand in hand, on the edge of the sand,
They danced by the light of the moon,
The moon,
The moon,
They danced by the light of the moon.

QUOTES:

Michael Schmidt, Lives of the Poets writes that Lear, and Lewis Carroll (Lear’s younger peer) wrote “nonsense verse” which

“[Lear] strays into the musical zones that Longfellow mapped with his self-propelling meters.”

Was Edward Lear the inventor of the term “snail mail” in this whimsical letter to Evelyn Baring? The letter itself reads, along the twists of the snail shell:

Feb. 19. 1864 Dear Baring Please give the enclosed noat to Sir Henry – (which I had just written:-& say that I shall have great pleasure in coming on Sunday. I have sent your 2 vols of Hood to Wade Brown. Many thanks for lending them to me – which they have delighted me eggstreamly Yours sincerely

Harold Bloom, The Best Poems of the English Language:

Lear’s masterwork is his first volume, A Book of Nonsense (1846), replete with his unique limericks and his mysterious lyrics of visionary nonsense that fuse Shelley and Tennyson in quest-poems that are at once laments for lost love and yet weirdly boisterous.

Robert Lowell, letter to Elizabeth Bishop, November 24, 1965:

The great Victorians for me are Tennyson, Browning, Lear, Fitzgerald, Arnold and Hopkins.

William Pitt:

“Don’t tell me of a man’s being able to talk sense; every one can talk sense. Can he talk nonsense?”

Carolyn Wells:

In regard to his verses, Lear asserted that “nonsense, pure and absolute,” was his aim throughout; and remarked, further, that to have been the means of administering innocent mirth to thousands was surely a just excuse for satisfaction. He pursued his aim with scrupulous consistency, and his absurd conceits are fantastic and ridiculous, but never cheaply or vulgarly funny.

George Orwell, “Funny But Not Vulgar”:

However, there are subtler methods of debunking than throwing custard pies. There is also the humour of pure fantasy, which assaults man’s notion of himself as not only a dignified but a rational being. Lewis Carroll’s humour consists essentially in making fun of logic, and Edward Lear’s in a sort of poltergeist interference with common sense. When the Red Queen remarks, “I’ve seen hills compared with which you’d call that one a valley”, she is in her way attacking the bases of society as violently as Swift or Voltaire. Comic verse, as in Lear’s poem “The Courtship of the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo”, often depends on building up a fantastic universe which is just similar enough to the real universe to rob it of its dignity. But more often it depends on anticlimax — that is, on starting out with a high-flown language and then suddenly coming down with a bump.

From Michael Sala, Lear’s Nonsense:

Edward Lear, a skillful illustrator of science books (botany, zoology), started his literary career by chance. As a matter of fact, “most of Lear’s limericks were not written with publication in mind, but rather as gifts for specific children” (Rieder 1998: 50). He was persuaded toward their publication by the enthusiastic reaction of his young audience.

There was an old person of Rimini
Who said, “Gracious! Goodness! O Gimini!
When they said, “Please be still!” she ran down a hill
And was never once heard of at Rimini.

There was an old person of Sestri
Who sat himself down in the vestry,
When they said “You are wrong!” – he merely said “Bong!”
That repulsive old person of Sestri.

This is a typical example of Lear’s limericks, and a perfect example of what is intended by nonsense, that is to say, “language lifted out of context, language turning on itself [a] language made hermetic, opaque” (Stewars 1979: 3), language that “resists contextualization, so that it refers to ‘nothing’ instead of to the word’s commonsense designation [and] refusing to work as conventional communication ” (Rieder 1998: 49). In other words, what happened to the old person of Rimini? What is wrong with the person of Sestri? It is impossible to answer, because, despite the perfectly grammatical use of the words, they don’t tell much. They are just bizarrely arranged so as to sound appealing. If there is a shadow of a story, usually it is nothing more than that: only a shadow of a story (without causes or consequences). In Lear’s limericks, words introduce “a number of possibilities, including dangerous and violent ones, and at the same time disconnect those possibilities from the real world, that is, from what goes on after the game is over” (Rieder 1996: 49).

Vivien Noakes:

In the limericks [. . .] to an extent difficult for us now to imagine, Lear offered children the liberation of unaffected high spirits [. . .]. Here are grown-ups doing silly things, the kind of things grown-ups never do [. . .]. for all their incongruity, there is in the limericks a truth which is lacking in the improving literature of the time. In an age when children were loaded with shame, Lear attempted to free them from it.

Robert Lowell, letter to Elizabeth Bishop, January 4, 1960:

Your poem [“Brazil, January 1, 1502”] is one of your most beautiful, I think–wonderful description, the jungle turning into a picture, then into history and the jungle again, with a practical, absurd, sad, amused and frightened tone for the Christians. I have been re-reading [Edward] Lear whom you like so much. I guess it would be far-fetched to find his hand here; yet I think he would have enjoyed your feeling, your disciplined gorgeousness, your drawing, your sadness, your amusement.

Susan Chitty on Lear’s ballads:

Like the limericks, they celebrate the outsider. Their principal characters are socially unacceptable.

Sir Edward Strachey:

Mr. Lear was delighted when I showed to him that this couple [the Owl and the Pussy-cat] were reviving the old law of Solon, that the Athenian bride and bridegroom eat a quince together at their wedding.

More information on Edward Lear 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 Books, On This Day, writers | Tagged , , , | 15 Comments