Douglas Fairbanks and “When the Clouds Roll By”

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

549905_10151459468795316_1142875688_n

This Douglas Fairbanks project, the first directing effort of Victor Fleming, stands at the nexus of a number of popular art traditions. It dates from 1919, a year prior to Fairbanks’ swashbuckling debut in “The Mark of Zorro,” when Doug was less a superhero and more of an urban go-getter — a more athletic variant of the upbeat everyman Harold Lloyd was beginning to embody around the same time. The plot involves a little bit of everything, from romance to disaster epic to wild slapstick fantasy. It’s such a bizarre mash-up, in fact, that it almost feels like the antecedent of today’s “Crank” films; it works very hard to induce a state of heart-thumping whathefuckitude. [1]

Continue reading

Posted in Commercial art, Movies, Performers | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Desert Island Discs

Fenster writes:

Desert Island Discs is a BBC radio program, one that has been running since 1942 and is one of the longest running radio programs in the world.  Various prominent types are asked to imagine themselves cast away to a desert isle and invited to come up with a list of eight musical selections they would take with them.  They may also take one book and one luxury item, and are asked to pick one of the eight musical selections that they would save first from the waves.

Needless to say, the selections run quite a gamut owing to the many changes to the world, including to music, that have taken place since 1942.  I suspect, too, that changes to the BBC have played a part in the gamut run.

The general idea that the media should elevate has a longer and stronger pedigree over there, with the result that even in 1979, deep into the rock era, one would be more likely to come across Sir Osbert Lancaster plugging for Gluck, Poulenc and Stravinsky than Marc Bolan plugging for Styx.  On the pop side, Michael Palin, also interviewed in 1979, did in fact include the Beatles’ Things We Said Today, but in the end opted to save Elgar’s Enigma Variations from the waves first.  I suspect there’s pressure to show one’s good taste (in which regard see the snippet from Tom Stoppard below).

Moving on to the current day, there’s an inevitable movement away from the idea of elevation, at least as regards the high-minded classics, but something of the BBC tone remains.  The most recent interviewee was (clearing throat) the Rt Hon Eric Pickles, who plumped for Puccini.  But it is increasingly the case that popular artists do show up as guests and as picks.

Pickles Plugs Puccini

Pickles Plugs Puccini

Various technological and legal factors kept the archived shows from becoming available.  Now over 1,800 of the over 2.900 shows are available for download at the BBC.  It’s worth a visit,  and not only for the downloads but because the website itself is designed to make for a fun tour.  You can analyze the site chronologically, of course, by decade.  But you can also plug in artists or musical selections to find references to them, and if you select a certain kind of interviewee (a pop musician, say, such as Eric Clapton), the site offers up suggestions for other musicians who have been interviewed (John Lee Hooker, Elvis Costello, Randy Newman).

It can be fun to see how taste works.  Have you ever had the experience that someone other than you shares your tastes even though you take yours to be idiosyncratic or eclectic?  Is there a shared sensibility that runs through certain kinds of artistic experiences that tilt them in the direction of persons x,y and z but not a, b and c?

For example.  I am not a fan of Pink Floyd.  Having been pro-psychedelia in the sixties and pro-progressive in the seventies, you’d think I would have been, but no.  Yet Roger Waters’ picks totally resonated for me.  Neil Young’s Helpless, Leonard Cohen’s Bird on a Wire, Ray Charles Georgia and Chet Baker’s My Funny Valentine have all at one time or another been special to me as specific songs, and not just because of the artists.  There was even one selection by Waters (an instrumental number entitled Endless Flight from the Babel soundtrack) that grabbed me in the first few notes.  I wondered why Waters and I would overlap to such a degree.

What goes through someone’s mind when being asked on the show, particularly given its long-term prominence in Britain?  Do you select songs you listen to the most and don’t get tired of?  That you admire the most?  That you think will meet the BBC’s expectations?

Tom Stoppard’s lead character in The Real Thing (1982) had to grapple with this decision.  The lead character, Henry, is an accomplished playwright and has been asked to be on the show.  He would have appeared, and put on the spot, in 1982, at a time when the real show was interviewing a real theater person, the head of the Mermaid Theater Lord Bernard Miles.

Miles goes for Mozart

Miles goes for Mozart

The esteemed Lord Miles selected a classical-heavy eight, with concessions to non-classics in the form of Art Tatum and Louis Armstrong–high-minded in their own way.

Poor Henry’s anxieties about his upcoming appearance follow:

HENRY: Yes, Charlotte will provide dips for the crudity. She knows where everything is. (Charlotte takes charge of the vegetables. Henry gets a fourth glass.) Sit down, have some buck’s fizz. I feel reckless, extravagant, famous, and i’m next week’s castaway on Desert Island Discs. You can be my luxury if you like.

ANNIE: I’m not sure I’m one you can afford.

MAX: What are your eight records?

HENRY: This is the problem. I hate music.

CHARLOTTE: He likes pop music.

HENRY: You don’t have to repeat everything I say.

MAX: I don’t understand the problem.

CHARLOTTE: The problem is he’s a snob without being an inverted snob. He’s ashamed of liking pop music. (Charlotte takes the vegetables out into the kitchen, closing the door.)

HENRY: This is true. The trouble is i don’t like the pop music which it’s all right to like. You can have a bit of Pink Floyd shoved in between your symphonies and your Dame Janet Baker – that shows a refreshing breadth of taste or at least a refreshing candour – but I like Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders doing ‘Um Um Um Um Um Um’.

MAX: Doing what?

HENRY: That’s the title. (He demonstrates it.) ‘Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um’. I like Neil Sedaka. Do you remember ‘Oh, Carol’?

MAX: For God’s sake.

HENRY: (Cheerfully) Yes, i’m not very up to date. I like Herman’s Hermits, and the Hollies, and the Everly Brothers, and Brenda Lee, and the Supremes… I don’t mean everything they did. I don’t likeartists. I like singles.

MAX: This is sheer pretension.

HENRY: (Insistently) No. It moves me, the way people are supposed to be moved by real music. I was taken once to Covent Garden to hear a woman called Callas in a sort of foreign musical with no dancing which people were donating kidneys to get tickets for. The idea was that i would be cured of my strange disability. As though the place were a kind of Lourdes, except that instead of the front steps being littered with wooden legs, it would be tin ears. My illness at the time took the form of believing that the Righteous Brother’s recording of ‘You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feelin” on the London label was possibly the most haunting, the most deeply moving noise ever produced by the human spirit, and this female vocalist person was going to set me right.

MAX: No good?

HENRY: Not even close. That woman would have had a job getting into the top thirty if she was hyped.

MAX: You preferred the Brothers.

HENRY: I did. Do you think there’s something wrong with me?

MAX: Yes. I’d say you were a moron.

HENRY: What can I do?

MAX: There’s nothing you can do.

HENRY: I mean about Desert Island Discs.

ANNIE: You know damned well what you should do.

HENRY: Cancel?

I think I would have some of Henry’s anxieties, not that anyone is asking me on the show.

Any suggestions for your own DIDs?

Posted in Music, Performers, Personal reflections | Tagged , , , , | 9 Comments

Goosing My Religion

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

atheist

Atheism is big these days. Have you noticed? And by “big” I don’t mean that a lot of people don’t believe in god (that’s been the case for a while); I mean that a lot of people are going around proselytizing for the non-church of atheism. You see this a lot on internet dweebgroups like Reddit, where many posters seem positively militant about their nonbelieving. Now, I’m someone who has always sort of leaned towards disbelief where higher powers are concerned. And yet this militant atheist stuff strikes me as being pretty weird. For one thing, I wonder if these kids realize that they’re being just as obnoxious as the do-gooding Christian busybodies they claim to detest. For another, there’s a strain of elitism in their proselytizing that I find off-putting. These guys actually think they’re smarter than everyone else because they’ve taken the supposedly bold step of casting off religion. Reminding them that Newton and Einstein both believed in a god of some kind, or at least in the possibility of such a thing, fails to impress them. They either believe that Newton and Einstein were just putting on believin’ airs or, well, they think they’re smarter than Newton and Einstein. (Where scientists go, these folks tend to favor Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson, often with an intensity that rivals the love of teenage girls for Justin Bieber.)

[Note: As Peter Winkler’s helpful comment makes clear, there is considerable controversy regarding what Einstein actually believed (or didn’t believe). The stuff I’m seeing online indicates that he was more or less agnostic — he didn’t subscribe to the idea of a personal god, but he believed in an overarching order of the universe, which he thought might be synonymous with a god-like presence. He also seems to have been sympathetic to Buddhism. The bottom line is that he was not a self-satisfied atheist.]

Continue reading

Posted in Personal reflections, Philosophy and Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

The View from My Train

Blowhard, Esq. writes:
CASunset
Took the Amtrak from Orange County to San Diego over the weekend. On the way back home, I snapped this snap of Solana Beach. No wonder everyone wants to live in California.

Posted in Photography, The Good Life, Travel | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Excellent Email Subject o th Season

Fenster writes:

Messiah Returns to Brandeis

Join the Brandeis community for our annual community sing-along of George Frideric Handel’s stunning oratorio MESSIAH. It is led by students from the Brandeis-Wellesley Orchestra and the Brandeis University Chorus under the direction of Professor James Olesen. This year, there will be a special finale:Brandeis President Fred Lawrence will conduct the “Hallelujah Chorus.”

And you thought he was coming back to Missouri!
Posted in Philosophy and Religion | 3 Comments

“The Sadist”

Paleo Retiree writes:

sadist01

Ultra low-budget — shot in two weeks for $33,000 —  b&w psycho-killer thriller with Arch Hall, Jr. as the nutcase, written and directed by James Landis, and set almost entirely in an automobile junkyard in the California desert. It’s partly a bad-movie hoot, but it also has a lot of scrappy appeal, and it works up some effective tension of a surprisingly harsh (for its early-‘60s era) kind.

Hall wears tight jeans with a big belt buckle, swigs soda pop, shows off his pompadour haircut and gleaming teeth, and sneers, postures and smiles threateningly in amazingly exaggerated ways — he was a either a truly terrible actor, over-trusting of his director, or an avant-garde genius. The Question Lady and I found it impossible not to like and enjoy him, though — Hall had some undeniable kind of teen-exploitation-movie, lower-half-of-a-double-bill star power. And you could certainly never accuse him of not having gone balls-out. The other actors do well enough — and Marilyn Manning, as the psycho’s white-trash g.f., is better than that. One of the potential victims is played by Helen Hoving, an earthy/ethereal beauty of a very soulful sort — she wouldn’t have looked out of place in a D.W. Griffith movie. (She discovered Jesus soon after making “The Sadist” and never acted in movies again.) But everyone pitches in enthusiastically and helps the action move forward in occasionally shocking ways.

The film was loosely based on the Charles Starkweather / Caril Ann Fugate case, and —  who knows? — may have inspired “Badlands” and “Natural Born Killers.” A lot of trash-movie buffs are very fond of the movie, and The Question Lady and I had a good time surfing the web looking for bits of lore about the movie and its makers.

Fun trivia: the cinematographer was the later-legendary Vilmos Zsigmond; and the film director Joe Dante is one of “The Sadist”‘s biggest fans.

Bonus link

  • A long q&a with the smart and affable Arch Hall, Jr., who went on to become a professional airplane pilot.
Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

Linkathon

Paleo Retiree writes:

Posted in Linkathons, Music, Politics and Economics | Tagged , , , , , | 7 Comments

Queer Guy for the Alpha I

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

I’ve been amused in recent years to see terms and ideas seemingly derived from the “Game” blogosphere turning up in respectable outlets. The rise of the word “alpha” has been particularly interesting. Yes, I know that “alpha male” is not a new term, but its use outside of nature shows, and especially within a marketing context, strikes me as being pretty new. Commercials which use the term seem to be telling guys that, if they buy X product, they will instantly cast off the chains of betadom and become irresistible to women, just like when they use Axe Body Spray.

I see that Dockers has a whole line of pants branded as “alpha,” though the logo has the last “a” in parentheses for some unfathomable reason. Here’s a commercial:

Continue reading

Posted in Personal reflections, Sex, Television, Women men and fashion | Tagged , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Paleos and Porn

Paleo Retiree writes:

I’ve been spending some time recently marveling at paleoconservatives, and particularly at the traditionalist-Catholic crowd. Now, I’m sympathetic to a fair amount of the cases they make, and the paleo/traditionalist critique of modernity is one of the most eye-opening things I’ve run across in recent years. (You can get a good taste of it by exploring Jim Kalb’s site and/or by reading my four-part interview with Jim: Intro, Part One, Part Two, Part Three.) My own blogging has occasionally elicited appreciative and brainy comments from serious and intelligent paleo/trad/Catholics. I’ve learned a great deal from my encounters with this crowd.

And then there’s the issue of porn …

Porn is an issue on which I’ll never see eye-to-eye with them. To many of the paleoconservatives, the traditionalists and the especially the trad-Catholics, porn seems to be the work of the Devil. It’s created by the wicked, the damaged and the depraved, and it destroys lives and undermines Western Civ. The idea that many of the producers and performers might be semi-rational people making their own decisions seems inconceivable. As far as I can tell, it’s a deeply-held assumption for the paleo/trad/Catholic crowd that nobody in his/her right mind would choose voluntarily to have sex for money on camera. So, inescapably and almost by definition — and no matter what the actual evidence reveals — porn performers aren’t in their right minds. QED, right? The idea that many millions of people manage to enjoy the occasional look at sexy imagery — even the extreme stuff — without having their lives wrecked by the experience seems like a hard one for them to wrap their brains around. And the further idea — one that I hold — that racy erotic pleasures are a redeeming feature of civilization really seems to flip them out.

Incidentally, I agree completely that the ease-of-access-to-porn that the digital universe has brought about is a concern. Is it really desirable for pre-teens to be running across the material that, for instance, Kink.com puts online? (Kink.com the company is extremely responsible, but a quick Google Image search on Sex & Submission or Hogtied.com will demonstrate how much of their content has escaped into the wild.) Still: Given the fact that online producers who are criminalized in one country can instantly relocate their businesses to another country, I don’t know practically speaking what can be done about it. And even if there is something practical (law-wise) to be done about it: I revel in the roughhousing, Wild-West, everyone-gets-to-have-an-opinion cosmos that is the internet. Thanks to it, many voices that wouldn’t otherwise be heard — my own, for instance, but also those of the paleo/trad/Catholic set — are able to get out in front of the public. For the sake of gaining greater control over porn, would I be willing to give up some of these benefits? Hell no.

FWIW, here’s the sense that I make of porn. For one thing: It’s a branch of erotic entertainment, a field that also includes pole dancing, fashion, romance novels, special bikini issues of sports magazines, ballet, striptease, and many foreign movies. (If you think ballet is out of place in the above list, I suggest you read the work of the former ballerina Toni Bentley, who makes it quite clear how sexually driven — and erotically-intended — much of ballet is. It’s supposed to be, among other things, a high-class turn-on.) To me, all of the above entertainment forms are potentially enjoyable, even potentially transporting in a religio-aesthetic way. For another: porn is an adult pleasure analogous to booze, which means: potentially dangerous, sure. Some people are going to have serious trouble with it, sure. And some lives will get wrecked. But many can handle it fine, and in a general way it’s one of the rewards of civilized life. Besides: Are you really in favor of Prohibition?

Posted in Personal reflections, Sex | Tagged , , | 22 Comments

“Tiny Furniture”

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

tiny_furniture_poster-xlarge

Lena Dunham has deflected attempts to categorize her work as mumblecore. Watching her “Tiny Furniture” I understood why: the picture is tightly scripted and controlled, a caterpillar-like series of awkward-comic vignettes that never lapses into navel gazing or gets encumbered by dust bunnies. That’s probably why I enjoyed it more than I have the work of mumblier directors, which often seems so intent on being authentic (whatever that means) that it just about disappears while you’re watching it. (These films tend to play like “My Night at Maud’s” with lousy dialog, if you can imagine such a thing.) Dunham, by contrast, has fashioned her screenplay to play to her strengths, namely her dry, self-deflating wit and her oddball comic timing. This latter gift may not be the same as having a great “movie sense,” but in a film comprised of comic encounters it serves pretty well  — the episodes swell, crest, and flatten out like jokes in slow motion, and they’re over before you have a chance to grow bored of them.

Continue reading

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments