Jonathan Taylor writes:
I normally avoid the cross fire of film criticism, but must quickly second Wolcott’s estimation of the “stupendous” post at The Sheila Variations about Michael Tolkin’s 1991 film The Rapture, illustrated with a stunning parade of the faces of Mimi Rogers; as many times as I’ve seen this film, I was too often too focused on what Tolkin was up to, to realize how much Rogers was doing.
I’d even quibble with Sheila’s assessment of the girl who plays Rogers’s daughter—or at least of the hair-raising effect of her whiny plea, “Why can’t we die now, mommy?” (Just see it. Ditto re: “the pearl.”)
I think Gary Indiana somewhere described Tolkin’s films as “period movies about the present.” That present still remains ours enough to still feel this effect, even as it is now enough the past, to add another layer of significance.
Monthly Archives: March 2011
Paulette Forever: A Charles Taylor Interview
I was rereading some of Charles Taylor’s beautifully crafted, sometimes contentious reviews on Salon (I didn’t like Million Dollar Baby either), and the web wonderland led me to this 2006 interview with Taylor (or Charley, as I may call him because we’re friends) in Slant magazine. He talked about his career at Salon and elsewhere, the state of film criticism and media outlets (a phrase I already know will make him wince–sorry about that) generally, and more. Here’s a choice response, among many:
JK [Jeremiah Kipp]: You’ve frequently cited Pauline Kael as a major influence.
CT [Charles Taylor]: I got a paperback copy of “Deeper Into Movies” by Pauline Kael when I was in eighth grade. That was a major influence. I still think she’s the best film critic that is ever going to be. She was the best influence and the biggest influence. It was about trusting your instincts, which always the line about her. This is what I loved. This is why all of the “I Was a Former Paulette” articles I’ve read are all, to a one, simply wrong on the facts. I had countless disagreements with her, even arguments. I was never excommunicated. Some of the critics she liked were people she didn’t agree with. She wanted people to be honest. Art should be pleasure, not work. You have to bring your life experience to it, your experience of the other arts to it, you have to be well read, and no one should tell you what you have to like or what you should be interested in. The job of the critic is to help you formulate your own thoughts. Articulate them. Not to tell you what to think, but to get you to think. There was a freedom in her.
There Are Delicious Sensations: The Paris Review Celebrates Sybille Bedford
Jonathan Taylor writes:
Last Thursday, the Paris Review hosted a convivial reading from the works of novelist, memoirist and journalist—of author—Sybille Bedford, who would have turned 100 this year (and came closer than most; an Alan Hollinghurst article headlines her as a “Child of the Century“). The event was organized by Lisa Cohen, the author of the forthcoming All We Know—”portraits of the neglected modernist figures Esther Murphy, Mercedes de Acosta, and Madge Garland”—and a friend of Bedford.
Cohen called Bedford a “sympathetic, vulnerable mind,” exhibiting something of the gift for “compression” she also noted in Bedford’s writing. To wit: Courtney Hodell read from the opening of Bedford’s travelogue of Mexico, A Visit to Don Otavio, which includes the observation that “Arrival and Departure are the two great pivots of American social intercourse…. What counts is that you are new. In Europe where human relations like clothes are supposed to last, one’s got to be wearable.”
And in an assessment of her protagonist’s first sexual encounter with a man, in the novel Jigsaw, Bedford wrote, and novelist Sylvia Brownrigg read, “There were no delicious sensations.”
Poet and memoirist Honor Moore read climactically from the opening of Bedford’s last book, Quicksands, in which Bedford plunges back through the decades to resurrect that vulnerability in her formation as a writer.
These were all passages I knew, but a dramatic reading of Bedford’s account of the British Lady Chatterley’s Lover obscenity trial, by Cohen and Caleb Crain, revealed to me for the first time the felicitous role of Richard Hoggart, the British pioneer of cultural studies and author of the wondrous The Uses of Literacy in 1957. (I also just learned that Hoggart assembled the words “Death-Cab for Cutie”—as a made-up title for a type of “sex and violence novel,” as part of The Uses of Literacy‘s study of the encroachment of mass popular culture on traditional working-class culture.)
Born in 1918, Hoggart is not much younger than Bedford would have been (yes, is—still alive!). He argued that Lawrence’s novel was essentially “puritanical” in its sense of exceedingly stringent responsibility to conscience. Bedford recorded prosecutors’ smug attempts to mock his hypothesis by reading him passages laden with four-letter words (or five, in the pertinent case of “balls”). As played by Cohen, he responded as an enthusiastic teacher might to eager students thirstily requesting further demonstrations of his wisdom.
The reading had a little bit of a feel of a private party, a slumber party in Lorin Stein’s rec room. It was not inappropriate to the esprit of the friends you might find gathered, in her books, in a Provence farmhouse; nor to the consequent sense of being in good company one feels privy to, once you’ve started reading Bedford. I read her books at the same time as I did a number of her contemporary authors of travel and discovery, like Lawrence Durrell and Patrick Leigh Fermor. More than theirs do Bedford’s books crackle with the formation of thought amid the unpredictable eventfulness of company.
Thus it was a bit disappointing that the podium was limited strictly to readings, with no further discussion or reminiscence, what with Cohen in the house, as well as (if I understood correctly) Bedford’s friend and literary executor, Aliette Martin. Fortunately, the Paris Review‘s site promises to post a series of “essays and archival finds” on Bedford, beginning with this post by Cohen, this by Brenda Wineapple, and a 1963 Review interview.
TV Talkers Jeff Greenfield and Charlie Rose Talked at 92Y
Martin Schneider writes:
Last Sunday 92Y perpetrated a switcheroo. Longtime TV analyst Jeff Greenfield has hosted a recurring series of interviews at 92Y for (if I heard the intro right) something like 30 years, a forum he has used to interview people like Newt Gingrich and presumably also people whose opinion is worth a damn. (Although, to be fair, Greenfield referred to that interview in a way that made it sound worth watching.)
At the moment Greenfield has a new book to flog, Then Everything Changed, an entertaining exercise in alternate history from the sound of it. So for this one night, Greenfield was the subject of the interview, and 92Y enlisted longtime friend Charlie Rose to host the proceedings.
In short, the event featured two of America’s best and smartest professional talkers, although perhaps not the most exciting two people in the world. Not surprisingly, Rose and Greenfield are such fluent talkers/thinkers and also such political junkies that the event was highly amusing and entertaining.
Rose, whose affable drone has occupied the 11pm slot on PBS for a generation now, was remarkably amusing and fluid as the host on this night. Greenfield spoke at length about two former bosses, Robert F. Kennedy and John Lindsay, both of which feature in the book to some extent. It was fun to hear Greenfiled explore the possibilities of an RFK presidency (and therefore no Nixon presidency, no Watergate) and similar scenarios.
Late in the session, Greenfield made some quite critical remarks about President Obama for not making the urgency of the economic crisis of 2008-09 (and ongoing) the central theme of his presidency. Greenfield ventured that he “may have been overtaken by events.” He also noted the political wisdom of “acknowledging the elephant in the room,” a move that voters appreciate and that Obama has not done sufficiently.
I was a little surprised that Greenfield had swallowed the conventional wisdom about the election of 2010 to that extent, but then again, he works for a major news network — as smart as he is, it’s not his role to push a big alternate version of events (given his book, ironic) in which most of what Obama did worked fairly well and so forth. But I’m picking nits. It was a good time!
Without Mad Men We’d Go Mad, Men!
Emily Gordon writes:
My friend Meg (famed Short Fat Dictator blogger and recent transcendent vacation host) just alerted me to a distressing possibility: that Seaon 5 of Mad Men might be in danger. This isn’t new news, but it’s newly distressing to me. People are having tedious arguments about contracts and budgets in some Aeron-riddled, humorless rooms, and that means we might not get to see Don Draper wrestle ever more painfully with the sixties and his multiple superego-id hybrids. Worse, we might be deprived of all those jackets and ashtrays!
Hollywood, it’s time to reorder your mangled priorities and make it happen. Give the man what he wants, even if it’s more episodes featuring his son Marten’s peculiar character Glen. Although if Marten’s brother Arlo could appear on the show as a mysterious diminutive fashion maven, perhaps in a Sally Draper dream sequence, we might all get what we want.
Sam Gross: “I don’t do things for The New Yorker; I do things for me.”
Emily Gordon writes:
My friend Nathaniel Wice just pointed me to this stellar interview with New Yorker cartoonist Sam Gross at The Comics Journal, by the veteran music critic Richard Gehr. It looks as though this is the first in a series of “Know Your New Yorker Cartoonist” columns, which is great news for all of us who celebrate these hardworking and (literally!) marginalized artists. Here’s an excerpt I especially liked because Gross talks about Charles Addams and other strong influences, but read the whole thing:
GEHR: When did you become a New Yorker contract artist?
GROSS: I didn’t get a contract under William Shawn. I had a special rate under Robert Gottlieb. I got a flat fee but higher than their contract rate. The contract rate started below my special rate and went up incrementally for each five you sold until they would be way ahead of my rate. Then it would go back down again at the beginning of the year. And there was also a signature fee, a quantity bonus, and a pension. None of this do they have now.
GEHR: How has your work changed over the years? Do you get direction from your editors as the magazine’s editorial vision changes?
GROSS: My work hasn’t changed because of The New Yorker. I don’t do things for The New Yorker; I do things for me. I don’t do anything for The New Yorker because I operate on the premise that Bob Mankoff can be there today and gone tomorrow, and the same with David Remnick. Somebody else could come in and have a totally different outlook and I will either fit in or not fit in. If I’ve geared my work toward the people that were there before, I’m basically embedded with these older people and I’m screwed. But I am my own person. You either take me or leave me, simple as that.
GEHR: What cartoonists have influenced you?
GROSS: Charles Addams, Mischa Richter, Saul Steinberg. We all go through these things. Addams still influences me.
GEHR: What did you learn from Addams?
GROSS: I learned how to create a mood and get involved with the characters. I did a Puss in Boots gag some years ago. The cat is wearing these high leather boots with stiletto heels and has a whip. And a guy is looking at the cat and saying something like, “This is not the Puss in Boots I knew as a child.” I could tell there was something wrong with my sketch, however, and it finally dawned on me that the guy I drew never read a book in his life; he looked like he drove a truck or something. I had to draw somebody bookish. I know I have a poor eye. People like Sergio Aragonés, though, he can sit there and just fill up a page and there it is. I shared a studio with Dick Oldden, a penthouse on 78th Street. This guy didn’t own an eraser, Wite-Out, or even a pencil. He had trained himself to start on the upper left-hand corner, finish on the lower right-hand corner, and just sign his name. I thought everybody was like this. Sometimes I have to give a drawing a lot of thought afterward. I may look at it for two weeks if I’m trying to sell it to The New Yorker – or three weeks if it’s really bothering me. There’s no time element involved with most of my work. It can go on forever, and I have drawings that are still pumping money. “Son, your mother’s a remarkable woman,” that drawing with the cow jumping over the moon was done in 1982 and it’s going on and on. And the frogs’ legs cartoon was in the December 1970 issue of the Lampoon.
