Wednesday, March 15, 2023

The Quiet Girl

Perhaps some might suggest this requires a “spoiler alert.”

The last scene ends on an unresolved question. Eleven-year-old Caite is in the arms of her mother's cousin Eibhlin’s husband, Sean, as they weepingly cling to each other. But down the road looms her brutish, selfish, irresponsible, drunken and adulterous father, Da. 

The question: Will her father insist on taking her back, another mouth to feed but another servant to use? Or will he risk the loss of face and free his daughter to the more nourishing life she discovered in her summer with the cousin? 

It’s the old “Lady or the tiger?” trick I remember from Grade IX (with no idea what short story that’s from.) 

Perhaps we’re not given the answer so we’re free to choose which we prefer. I can imagine some viewers rigid enough in their sense of filial obligation to require the pathetic girl to return to her parents' overcrowded and stifling condition. It takes a leap of the imagination but I can imagine someone who would prefer that ending. Think Republican. 

At my (Canadian) matinee I’m certain 110% (staff included) wanted her to be taken back to her cousins. There she was well fed, properly dressed, excused for mistakes and mainly embraced with love by the couple who had lost their only child. The stifled child from her large, penurious family, becomes the other couple’s loved replacement of their dead son.

That optimistic ending finds some support in Da’s earlier instruction to his wife: “Tell them they can keep her for as long as they like.” But that was when she was raggedy, suppressed at home and bullied at school. When the cousins return her well-dressed, more grown (i.e., more useful) to the family burdened by a newborn son, he may decide not to free her. The 1981 rural Ireland setting may support such a tribal conclusion.

We certainly enjoy watching her blossom at the cousins’. She speaks freely, laughs, improves her reading ability (after a humiliation at school) and even “runs like the wind” in a burst of open joy. Her every pore silently cries out against having to return to her cruel home. Desperate, she runs to catch up with those loving supporters. But Da comes lumbering up.

Withholding the question is not resolved  in favour of a deeper meaning. Caite’s ending uncertain, we witness Sean’s growth in emotional openness. Sean does not have wife Eibhlin’s immediate embrace of the recessive child. He can ignore her, be curt, even scold her. He may be the more frozen in grieving his son. But as the couple warm Caite into blossoming, she erodes Sean’s crust. Now he can share his wife’s desire to keep the girl and feel her despair at returning. Suspending her fate, the last shot reveals Sean’s growth in emotions. Like Caite, he is enriched and freed from their respective repressions. Whatever Caite's home, she and Sean have through each other recovered an emotional life. That is clearly the happiest ending, because it brings them interior peace, regardless of where the girl will live.

Monday, March 13, 2023

Manhattan (1979) -- reprint


After the somberness of Interiors, Woody Allen has returned to the romantic comedy style of Annie Hall. The result is his most lyrical and emotional film to date. Although it may not be as complex as Annie Hall, Manhattan is a magnificent film, subtle both in expression and in feeling. It proves that Allen’s genius is still growing and capable of fertile surprises.

In Manhattan Allen plays Isaac Davis (inaptly nicknamed Ike, as if an old Hebrew could become an icon of Gentile leadership), a TV comedy writer who suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous romance. For one thing, his ex-wife Jill (Meryl Streep) is a bisexual who left him for another woman (Karen Ludwig as Connie). Isaac is humiliated when Jill exposes their marital break-up in an “honest” book, Marriage. Divorce, and Selfhood. In addition, the 42-year-old Isaac feels squeamish about his affair with a 17-year-old high-school student, Tracy (Mariel Hemingway). He breaks off with her in order to have an affair with a nervous, chic journalist, Mary Wilke (Diane Keaton), but only after the collapse of Mary’s affair with Isaac’s best friend, a married English professor named Yale (Michael Murphy). At the end Mary goes back to Yale, Yale leaves his wife Emi­ly (Anne Byrne), Isaac goes back to Tracy, and Tracy goes to England on a six-month theater scholarship.

This tangle of lovings and leavings demonstrates the theme of a short story Isaac is writing: “People in Manhattan are constantly creating these real unnecessary neurotic problems for themselves that keep them from dealing with more unsolvable, terrifying problems about the universe.” More specifically, the film details the professional and romantic compromises by which man avoids confronting his insignificance in the cosmos and his inability to control his fate. Both concerns are familiar from Allen’s earlier work.

The film’s dominant theme is man’s need for personal integrity in a decaying culture. In an empty anthropology classroom, Isaac attacks Yale for having undermined their friendship and his marriage by resuming his affair with Mary. “Well, I’m not a saint, okay,” Yale admits, but Isaac holds fast: “You’re too easy on yourself.” Yale charges that Isaac is too rigid and self- righteous: “You think you’re God.” Isaac replies: “Well, I’ve got to model myself after someone.” In this exchange Isaac prefers to follow a remote, even impossible, ideal rather than adhere to the corrupt human norms around him. Behind Yale we see a showcase of skulls that suggest a kind of unsupported cerebralism or rationalization. Isaac’s lecture is undercut by the 5’4′ ape-man skeleton that stands grinning beside him. Compared to Yale’s skulls, the skeleton associated with Isaac is the full man. “What are future generations going to say about us?” Isaac asks, as if the skeleton has reminded him of man’s responsibility beyond his own desires: “Some day we’re going to be like him. . It’s very important to have personal integrity. I’m going to be hanging in a classroom someday. I want to make sure that when I thin out I’m well thought of.” From the mottietito mori Isaac draws the need for an assertive morality. There may be a comical denial of death in the euphemism “when I thin out”—after Allen’s fear of the cold, analytic touch of film teachers—but Isaac admits moral imperatives which Yale and Mary deny in their indulgent pursuit of tortured pleasure.

In Manhattan Allen continues his satire against man’s foolish use of logic and culture. Hence the skulls when Yale rationalizes his betrayal of Isaac. Often there is a comical discrepancy between what the characters know and what they can effectively use in their lives. As Isaac admits, “When it comes to relationships with women I’m the winner of the August Strindberg Award.” Although he still wants her himself, he warns Yale that Mary is “the winner of the Zelda Fitzgerald Emotional Maturity Award.” Both quips combine intellectual knowledge with emotional deficiency. As Isaac tells the cerebral Mary, “Nothing worth knowing can be understood with the mind,” for “the brain is man’s most insignificant organ,” and “everything really valuable has to enter through another opening.” Similarly, Mary’s first husband may be a semantics professor, but he has trouble putting together a sentence. At the Museum of Modern Art reception, the sophisticates applaud a biting satire in the Times against the neo-Nazis marching in New Jersey, but the verbal and fragile Isaac prefers the more direct persuasion by brick and bat. Man’s culture is no defense against his greatest dangers. Greater truths are told by the heart and the senses than by the mind. Not for Isaac the problem reported by the dim girl, who finally had an orgasm but was told by her analyst that it was the wrong kind! Isaac’s orgasms are all “right on the money” because they are experiences untouched by analysis. He learns to accept his relationship with Tracy in the same way. Tracy’s last line, “You have to have a little faith in people,” is really a call to trust his instincts. Tracy’s own faith in her relationship with Isaac overrides her sense that “maybe people weren’t made for long relationships, but for a series of relationships with different links.”

Otherwise Isaac is a character of exemplary integrity. He wouldn’t court Mary (“never in a million years”) as long as Yale is involved with her—a courtesy not reciprocated. Rather than accept the approval of an audience whose “standards have been systematically lowered over the years,” Isaac quits his “antiseptic” TV show and undertakes a novel—about the decay of culture. On a minor, but telling, level, Isaac resists the temptation silently to assent to Mary’s and Yale’s flippant consignment of major cultural figures to their Academy of the Over-rated (e.g., Lenny Bruce, Mahler, Boll, Van Gogh, Ingmar Bergman). When it would have been easy to smile along, Isaac affirms that the attacked artists “are all terrific, every one you mentioned.” Here he supports his earlier claim (reminiscent of Allen’s Joey in Interiors) that “Talent is luck; you’ve got to have courage.”

In a parallel scene later, Isaac enumerates the things that make life worth living. They vary fr^m unpretentious popular culture (Groucho Marx, Willie Mays) to various forms of the classical (the Jupiter Symphony, Louis Armstrong’s “Potato Head Blues,” Flaubert’s A Sentimental Education, Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra), and from art to experience, when he turns from Cezanne’s apples and pears to “the crabs at Sam Wo’s” and, climactically, to Tracy’s face. This scene begins with a full-screen close-up of a tape recorder. At first we do not know whether Isaac or the machine is reciting the list. When we see Isaac speaking, Allen’s point is that values are due sole­ly to man, not to the things in his setting. The resolution of this ambiguous opening establishes man as the center of values and choice in his world. At the end of the scene, Isaac retrieves the harmonica that Tracy gave him at their last meeting. The harmonica is not just another thing, like the tape recorder; it embodies and revives the harmony between Isaac and his lost Tracy. In coming to accept his love for Tracy, Isaac receives his own sentimental education.

The theme of integrity relates to the feel of the film. As Isaac describes himself as “a non-compromiser” who is “living in the past,” the film assumes a rigorous, classical spirit from its straight-forward romantic narrative, its resolute black-and-white photography, and its George Gershwin score. Moreover, Allen’s choice of songs provides specific settings in which to read the scenes. For example, the orchestrations of songs over the scenes between Tracy and Isaac are direct expressions of love. Behind their first intimate scene in his apartment, “Our Love is Here to Stay ” undercuts Isaac’s detachment from her. Over their ride through Central Park we hear “He Loves and She Loves,” which is reprised when Isaac’s list of life’s rewards concludes with Tracy’s face. When he finds her in the apartment lobby, about to leave for London, his sense of her remoteness is suggested visually in the intervening door, a bar across its glass, and musically by the song, “They’re Writing Songs of Love, But Not for Me.” On the other hand, the selections of music in Isaac’s scenes with Mary are ominous: “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off” at the MOMA reception; “Someone to Watch Over Me,” when they take her dog, “a penis-substitute,” for a walk (and he mentions his short story about his mother, “The Castrating Zionist.”) When they drive in the country to ‘”S Wonderful,” it is at first unclear whether Isaac is with Tracy or with Mary. We hear “Embraceable You” when Isaac and Mary dance, enjoy a murky boat- ride, and walk in the city. When this song is repeated over the end credits, the emotion refers to the more embraceable Tracy. When Isaac frolics with his son, Willie, the song, “Love is Sweeping the Country,” relates to the later scene of a football team of single fathers with their sons, as if the phenomenon of fractured families, not love, were what is sweeping the country. When Isaac first sees Jill’s book, we hear “Oh, Lady Be Good.” In these ironic references, the songs establish a setting which either expresses or undercuts the attitude of the characters. The musical setting is analogous to Allen’s use of Manhattan as the symbolic setting of his film.

Manhattan opens with a three-minute abstract sequence which establishes the setting and its characters, first the skyline, then individual buildings, then the streets and population. We hear Allen’s voice, which turns out to be Isaac’s, choosing from a variety of openings for the first chapter of his novel. The different tones of Isaac’s openings suggest the different meanings that Allen’s Manhattan may carry. For instance, in one opening, the hero admits that he romanticizes Manhattan “out of all proportion.” In another he presents it as a virile force, in another as “the metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture.” But the reading of the place depends upon the character of the reader, whether it is “as tough and romantic as the city he loved,” or a sexual power, like the city, “coiled like a jungle cat.” Isaac’s hero—and so Allen’s—describes the city as a projection of his own character. Rather than the setting influencing the character, the character projects his own mood and nature onto the setting. When in the mellow dawn Isaac tells Mary, “This is really a great city. I don’t care what people say. I’m really knocked out,” this is a tribute not to any real Manhattan, but to the mood between Mary and Isaac, which the city at that point seems to embody.

Similarly the setting offers both elegant beauty and the rough streets, with a citizen­ry “desensitized by noise, music, drugs, and garbage.” The city is in constant change, as one scene of a demolition crew at work reveals. Of the innumerable and contradictory aspects which will characterize the setting is the individual’s choice. To both Allen’s and Isaac’s heroes, “New York still existed in black and white and pulsated tc the great tunes of George Gershwin.” But this is due to the idealism of the characters When we hear “New York was his town and it always would be,” we see a contradictory shot of gleaming, modernistic high- rises, denoting the change in the cityss physical nature. The setting is a projection of the human viewers. What one is and does, therefore, is one’s own responsibility and not to be attributed to any influence from the setting. As Isaac works around to an affirmation of life’s pleasures and his love with Tracy, the opening montage concludes with an exuberant harmony between the climax of Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue and the spectacular fireworks against the night skyline. The delicate and precise editing here discovers harmony in an ambivalent and discordant setting.

This point also lies behind the film’s most striking visual technique. Allen often holds his stationary camera on a physical space after the actors have vacated it. The pretense is that the setting has its own personality independent of the human life that passes through it. But Allen’s point is the opposite. The meaning lies in the human choice. In this spirit, the film does not have a title shot. We read “Manhattan” from a flashing hotel sign in the opening montage —but we also read a static “Parking” in the same shot. The film does not announce its name or identity, but rather seems to discover it in the setting. This is a formal equivalent to the characters’ rooting their behavior in what they find rather than in their own ethical core.

Similarly, Yale joins Isaac and Tracy at the art gallery by stepping into the frame from an off-camera position and from behind a pillar; then Mary makes her first appearance by coming out from behind Yale. Here Allen uses the space of his shot to express the arbitrary framing of elements and the continuous life beyond the shot. In the marina scene, Isaac passes through a stationary shot while his wife’s book is read out loud, railing against his Jewish-Liberal paranoia, male chauvinism, self-righteous misanthropy and his narcissistic obsession with death. The camera holds on the beautiful waterfront both before and after the harsh quotation and Isaac’s sullen reaction. The shot establishes an ambivalence in the peaceful beauty. The calm waters seem to confirm Jill’s shallow cheer and to deny Isaac’s gloom. But in the earlier boating scene, Isaac reached into the water and befouled his hand. Beautiful waters run yucky.

In Manhattan Allen’s compositions avoid the sometimes obvious symbolism of Interiors. For example, in a single shot at the symphony we view a line of profiles. Isaac, Mary, and Yale shift restlessly and shuffle to avert each other’s eyes; Emily stares straight ahead. Later, we learn that she has known about Yale’s infidelities but chose to ignore them; Emily’s rigid stare may be as evasive as the shiftiness of the others. Similarly, when Mary phones Isaac to invite him out for an afternoon walk, Isaac is outside, but photographed from within his apartment. No, he tells Mary, he hasn’t read the Times piece about the faceless masses in China; he’s been too busy with the lingerie ads. As he chooses between two contrasting cultures of faceless­ness, his own face is obscured from us by the plants and Venetian blinds through which he is seen. Moreover, the shot of him outside expresses his sense of remoteness from Mary, that he must not intrude upon his friend’s affair.

The richest scene occurs in the planetarium, in which Mary and Isaac take refuge from the rain. The once-antagonistic characters are drawn into an emotional attraction against a backdrop of the moon and stars. The location suggests that their love may require such an other-worldly setting. Moreover, as they grow more intimate, Isaac and Mary assume more of the screen, and the lunar landscape is allowed less. The setting disappears altogether for their most intimate exchange. Also, their inchoate love seems to be extravagantly literalized by the moon imagery, given the June-moon lyrical tradition over which Gershwin reigns supreme. This setting brings down to earth the “problems about the universe” that Isaac’s Manhattanites avoid. Finally the force of human habit is comically imaged in the Japanese tourist who walks across the moon and pauses to take a snapshot (effectively of the cinema audience). This scene suggests that Manhattan contains the cosmos.

As an emblem of moral and aesthetic choices, Manhattan means something rather different in Manhattan than it meant when Annie Hall compared the insular Alvy Singer to it (“this island unto yourself”). In Manhattan Allen’s hero reconciles a compromised, new Manhattan with his old idealized one and extends his rigorous ethics into a romance that exceeds logical and conventional limits. Despite the familiar Jewish, sexual, and paranoia jokes, Isaac is Allen’s most competent and confident role. He smokes, drinks, drives, has no trouble getting girls, and at one point invites his audience to share his self­acceptance. When Mary compliments his “good sense of humor,” Isaac replies, “Thanks. I don’t need you to tell me that. I’ve been making good money off it for years now.” Allen is still drawing his fictional character out of the limbo between his own experience and his public image. Thus the first sound we hear is the instrument Allen is associated with, the clarinet solo beginning Rhapsody in Blue, and the first scene is set in Allen’s favorite hangout, Elaine’s. (On the other hand, Yale warns us against taking Isaac as Allen: “Gossip is the new pornography”).

Allen expands and inflects the vocabulary that his comedy has developed over the years. When Isaac comes home with shattering news from Jill—her book may be made into a movie and their son is taking ballet classes—and is about to hear that Mary is returning to Yale, there is a fleeting image of his vulnerability. When he closes his door we see that it has three locks and a security pole as defenses against the outside world. This passing joke is not even paid the emphasis of a close-up. Because Allen developed it more fully in Bananas, the image can be quoted quickly. Similarly, the sidewalk cafe where Yale breaks off with Mary recalls the health-food restaurant where Annie Hall declined Alvy’s proposal. The point of this echo is the common occurrence of such scenes. Behind Yale we see another couple lunching happily—at a rather early stage in their inevitable separation! Behind Mary we see another romantic mismatch, an elderly man and a young lady, that parallels both her situation with Yale and Isaac’s with Tracy.

The familiar Woody Allen hero, for all his competence, remains shivered by the impossibility of justice. At one point Mary, before making love, asks Isaac what he’s thinking. “I think there’s something wrong with me,” he replies, “because I’ve never had a relationship with a woman that’s lasted longer than the one Hitler had with Eva Braun.” Here Allen is at the peak of his artistry. He freezes in a one-liner the aspiration, compromise, horrifying history, and rueful resignation that comprise the ethical man’s response to the ambivalences of modern life.

    This is a chapter from my book, Loser Take All: The comic art of Woody Allen

Die Hard (reprint)

 

JUMP CUT
A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY MEDIA

Die Hard
The white man's mythic invincibility

by Maurice Yacowar

from Jump Cut, no. 34, March, 1989, pp. 2-4
copyright Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media, 1989, 2006 

Though the box-office success of John McTiernan's DIE HARD is primarily due to its breakneck action, it may also be striking a popular nerve in its reactionary politics. When the ruggedly individualist hero thwarts a terrorist takeover of an L.A. office tower, he lives out a macho pipedream on two political fronts, the international and the sexual.

In Los Angeles for Christmas, New York cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) meets his separated wife, Holy Gennero McClane (Bonnie Bedelia), at her office party in the Century-City and Fox Towers. The building is taken over by a highly-institutionalized terrorist group, faintly suggestive of the Baeder-Meinhof group in Germany. McClane fights a guerrilla war against the terrorists. Despite the intervention of the police force, FBI and television reporters, McClane eventually overcomes the terrorists and is reunited with his wife.

In terms of international politics, McClane exercises the mythic invincibility of the U.S. individualist. Not only is he out of his element, a N.Y. cop in L.A., but he is a reject/misfit in his separated wife's world. He wears working class among the designer silk suits. But he exploits his nature as an outsider. His separateness - for a close shave - saves him from the terrorists' initial sweep, enabling him to wage his war. From the chief terrorist's sneer at the cowboy heroic, McClain adopts the nom de guerre Roy (as in Rogers but also - as we shall see vis-á-vis women - as in King).

At its simplest this is a reflexive escalation of the first Rambo film, First Blood, which replayed the Viet Nam war in a small U.S. town. The L.A. battle graphically evokes Nam. There's the spectacle of swooping and suddenly rising military helicopters. The terrorists deploy such sophisticated weaponry as an anti-tank rocket. The glossy building is reduced to rubble; specifically, McClane rushes through the indoor garden that has been turned into a reeking jungle. So too his strategy has him belly-crawling and swinging through the skeleton of the building, the air vents and elevator shafts, as if he were engaged in jungle warfare. This metaphor - Coppola out of Conrad - discovers the jungle at the heart of the L.A. slick. That's also the implication of his fighting barefoot, bleeding from the deliberately shattered glass (the unsympathetic environment) and shifting from white undershirt to combat green. At one point McClane must duck FBI bullets (the "friendly lire" of Nam). The FBI are also prepared to accept the massive loss of "civilian" hostages to effect their textbook "rescue." Indeed one attacking FBI officer (Robert Davi) even gloats "Just like fuckin' Saigon" - as indeed it will prove in his military failure. The abundance of "Johnsons" in the FBI delegation locates the assault in the context of Lyndon (as in Mel Brooks's version of the Johnson County wars in Blazing Saddles). Finally, as a New York City cop in Los Angeles, McClane assumes a moral authority outside his precinct (another Beverly Hills Cop), as if his movable authority were by necessity valid in alien terrain.

More profoundly, this plot attempts to deny the hard reality of the United States' failure in that war. The Rambo and Chuck Norris series have well established the commercial viability of such revisionism.

To conceal the film's denial of Viet Nam, the villains are drawn from broader traditions. The chief killers are two Aryan brothers, who evoke the Hollywood Nazi. Karl (Alexander Godunov) proves even more of a die-hard than the hero - or his dinosaur macho ethic. Their colleagues include an apparent Japanese, a wisecracking black (of whom more later), two Italians and more Germans. The leader is a sophisticated business-type (the post-war Nazi?) Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman). He disguises the greed of his mission (objective: $640,000,000 in bonds) in clichés of third-world radical politics. With tongue-in-cheek the villain demands the initial release of a variety of "political" prisoners, his "comrades in arms" from Ireland, Quebec and Sri Lanka (the latter cited from Time). Thus the film reduces the concept of freedom fighter (or even terrorist) to a greedy hypocrite, in effect denying the validity of any non-U.S. crusader.

In the hero's isolation the film by implication draws upon common rationalizations for the United States's loss in Viet Nam. The myth assumes that the indomitable, just U.S. soldier could only lose a war through sabotage. Here the local police are ensnarled in red tape (the hero is scolded for calling on an emergency channel). Deputy Police Chief Dwayne Robinson (Paul Gleason) is not just mean but always dead wrong. The FBI proves even more unwieldy and treacherous.

The second institutional scapegoat is the ever-reliable Media. An unscrupulous newsman (William Atherton) endangers the hero and his hostage wife by exposing their children on TV. In context this replays the myth that the U.S. lost in Viet Nam because of television's irresponsible exposures. There is a civilian fifth-column counterpart to the journalist: a self-serving executive, Ellis (Hart Bochner), reveals McClane's identity to the terrorist.

The film also seems studied in its xenophobia. Gruber is triply negative because he is a German thief, British-educated and cultured. The occupied office is already suspect because it now belongs to a Japanese company. The country lost its Pearl Harbor attempt so it's now coming with tape decks, the president quips. The audience is set up to relish the demolition of the posh tower because it represents foreign ownership, the clutch of transnational megacapitalism, which makes the individualist's rescue all the more satisfying. The victim company is also contaminated with high culture, what with a string quartet performing at the Christmas party and a Degas stashed in the vault.

Even more condescendingly, the film plays all its blacks for laughs. One black cop comically pricks himself on a rosebush. The film's one super-intelligent black, gang member Theo (Clarence Gilyard Jr.), has the most technological skill and cleverness but he personifies play. He raps about basketball to set up the first murder ("Two points!"). As he makes a game of everything, he represents ability spoiled by amorality. Here we have an upscale version of the "shuck'n'jivin" black character of yore.

McClane is aided by two blacks outside the tower, but both are introduced as comic figures and allowed only dubious redemptions at the end. The young chauffeur Argyle [Devoreaux White) is Theo's opposite number, a cocky streetwise black who misses the early chances to act because he's lost in his four-wheel stretch ghetto-blaster. In his style-pretentious name and in the glories of his lavish limo, Argyle represents the young black of larger style than merit. He's the over-dressed buffoon. When he finally acts it is in a simple, brutish reflex that smashes the luxury he has been (undeservedly?) enjoying. Ironically, the untalented Argyle thwarts the technological, experienced but corrupt Theo. That is, U.S. innocence bests worldliness. That happens every time out, except perhaps in reality.

McClane's chief support is the middle-aged, portly black cop who first responds to the alarm, then by his CB conversation sustains a spiritual lifeline to McClane. Sgt. Al Powell (Reginald Veljohnson) is introduced as a comic stereotype, loading up on Twinkies for his pregnant wife. But he grows to provide a human alternative to the textbook deputy Robinson. Powell is so sensitive that he has refused to fire a gun since he accidentally killed an innocent 13-year old. But the film does not allow this sensitivity to stand. As if liberated by McClane's example, Powell overcomes his (neurotic) sensitivity to kill again. (The audience dutifully applauds.) It is also given to Powell to correct McClane's estranged wife: "You've got yourself a good man. You take good care of him." Thus Powell is allowed to transcend his initial comedic register, but only to deliver retrograde macho.

Powell's advice to McClane's wife defines the sexual politic in the Die Hardpipedream. The couple is separated because the woman has presumed to move West to pursue her brilliant business career, while her husband chooses to fight New York crime. Although she manages home and career superbly, the film subtlely condemns her for abandoning her husband. The implication is that she is wrong to stand by an additional man, as she serves her boss. The Christmas setting amplifies Holly's violation of family sentiment, especially as it means celebrating the winter fest in balmy (both senses) L.A. (where the only snow off the soundtrack is up Ellis's nose).

Here is the pipedream: McClane's adventure provides him with the opportunity to correct his wife. He demonstrates that she cannot survive without him; she needs him to look after her. The TV exposure even proves that she cannot escape her married name. At first she used her maiden name at work out of respect for her boss's traditions; she reaffirms her married identity at the end. In her climactic rescue McClane sends Gruber to his death by undoing the expensive watch on Holly's wrist. In an early scene that Rolex was introduced as her company's reward to her for a spectacular business success. The symbolism is clear: McClane saves his wife by stripping her of the emblem of her success. In bringing her down from her tower he saves her from her vulnerability, her success, in a word, her independence. The film speaks potently to and for men who have lost their protective power over their women. Holly's last aggression is wholly within the traditional role of woman: she slugs the newscaster who violated her family's privacy.

Consistent with the film's demeaning of woman are the passing bits of gratuitous sexism. McClane catches the stewardess's eye. He glances at overstretched tights at the airport and an undressed woman in the next tower. He ritually pats a pin-up by the power panel. This sexist is a man's man. He laughs off a man's kiss at the party.

The casting of Bruce Willis confirms the film's sexist ethos. From his first scene, anxious in an airplane, Willis draws upon his bathetic, mock-heroic persona from the airwaves, David Addison of MOONLIGHTING. He plays roughly the same character here, wise-cracking even when he's alone. In the TV series the light characterization and self-reflexivity undermine his macho pretensions and authority. But the larger-screen epic allows them unquestioned sprawl. Willis's heroic role here contrasts sharply to his ironic roles in his two Blake Edwards films, BLIND DATE and SUNSET. DIE HARD could be David Addison's pipedream, wreaking a largescreen vengeance unallowed in his small-screen reality and reaffirming a male dominance over woman that his "real" (i.e., MOONLIGHTING) persona lacks.

The open appeal of DIE HARD lies in its snappy wit and crisp action. But it has a deeper appeal in its political assumptions, which speak to the sexist who craves to have his obsolete delusions reaffirmed.

Just A Moment in Stoppard's Utopia (reprint)

 page1image31122784

Fall 2003 77

Just a Moment in Stoppard's Utopia Maurice Yacowar

A single moment in Tom Stoppard's new 9-hour trilogy, The Coast of Utopia, concentrates its major themes and strategies. Before we tum to that moment, however, perhaps a detailed overview is in order, because The Coast of Utopia may well prove an instant monument. With its 5//z/7ewc/z-challenging length, buoyant Stoppardian density, and need of massive resources, who but London's subsidized National Theatre could ever afford to mount it?^ The Olivier's rotating stage and William Dudley's brilliant design for sets, costumes, and the cyclorama slide and video projections managed to make the debates theatrical. But that budget would likely preclude any production in Russia (where, of course, Stoppard used to be banned anyway). Yet where else is there a sufficient audience for such a laborious anatomy of the politics of the Left? Hardly in America, where "liberal" has become a pejorative closer to "traitor" than to "ratfink." In short, the Olivier audiences had a rare privilege indeed, for this ambitious triumph is likely to prove more often honoured in the read than in the performance.

At the National it worked. As John Peter reviewed the first all-day performance of the three plays, "With intervals, it lasted nearly 12 hours, but the 1,100-seat Olivier theatre was packed to the rafters and the sense of intense attention was palpable."^ The trilogy is, as Rosencrantz—or is it Guildenstem?—might say, "a hit, a palpable hit."

***

First, then, the trilogy, on which Stoppard worked from 1997 until its August 2002 premiere at the London National's Olivier Theatre directed by Trevor Nunn. In three sequential dramas, Stoppard explores the revolutionary philosophy, politics, and personalities in Russia between 1833 and 1865, the seeds for the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.^

The first. Voyage, demonstrates the effects of German Romanticism on the Russian upper classes. Shipwreck chronicles the development of social criticism in Russia, 1846-52, and the failure of the 1848 Paris Revoh. Here the radical writer Alexander Herzen, who will prove the trilogy's hero, loses his mother and son in a shipwreck, and his wife thereafter. In Salvage, Herzen launches the revolutionary newspaper The Bell and reaches his own measured conclusion about the nature of revolution.

Maurice Yacowar is professor of English and Film Studies at The University of Calgary, Canada. His latest book is The Sopranos on the Couch: Analyzing Television's Greatest Series (Continuum).

page2image14477712

78 Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism

Stoppard's point is that human nature is too flawed ever to achieve any Utopia. Any glorified abstraction—whether a political ideal or a work of art—is as likely to obscure the quest as to advance it. As we Voyage toward Utopia, through the manifold dangers of Shipwreck, with humanist compromises, we may Salvage some of our mission, but, at best, we cannot get closer than the coast of Utopia. Like that other unachievable ideal, Christianity, the political ideal is necessarily an unending process. Uhimately Herzen rejects Utopianism: "A distant end is not an end but a trap. The end we work for must be closer, the labourer's wage, the pleasure in the work done, the summer Hghtning of personal happiness .. ." (Salvage 118).

Ironically, Stoppard's last father figure (Herzen) here echoes the first, also named Alexander, the senior Bakunin: "Philosophy consists in moderating each life so that many lives will fit together with as much liberty and justice as will keep them together—and not so much as will make them fly apart, when the harm will be the greater" (Voyage 24). But with his selfishness, and his cruelty to his serfs, Alexander Bakunin resembles his antagonistic son, Michael: "Revolution is his new philosophy of self-fulfilment" (Voyage 109), not the service to his country Michael professed as a soldier. Herzen is Stoppard's hero: he lives his values selflessly and generously and has a knack for aphorism and paradox.

Our required values begin with the unstrained "quality of mercy" that Tatiana Bakunin quotes in the first scene. Stoppard values the individual human act of charity above the large, ostensibly generous sweeps of history. Hence, little Olga's malapropism about a woman's hysteria: "When she gets historical the only thing that calms her down is intimate relations" (Salvage 84).

***

I tum now to the individual plays, with the preface that, though Stoppard has said they can be seen in any order, their meaning and emotional impact would be much diminished if taken out of sequence.

Voyage begins as a Chekhovian drama set on the Bakunin country estate 150 miles northwest of Moscow. The action of the first act centers on Michael Bakunin and his four educated sisters (presumably that's Chekhov's three plus VAT!): Liubov, Varenka, Tatiana, and Alexandra. Act II covers the same time period—March 1834 to Autumn 1844—but from the larger context of Moscow and St. Petersburg, before retuming to close on the twilight of the aged, blind Bakunin senior. Domestic situations or personal impulses limned in act I are explained or redefined in act II. These rangefi'omthe career of a vagrant pocket knife to the Bakunin girls' romances. High passions and mortal blows are reported in passing, as if they were incidental to the political focus. But Stoppard's point is that individual lives are more important than the lofty abstractions in whose name people are devoured. Self-serving causes are embodied in the fat, cigar-smoking Ginger Cat at the fancy dress ball, "this Moloch that eats his children" (106).

page3image31218176

Fall 2003 79

Though Michael Bakunin's radicalization seems supported by his parents' arrogance and cruelty, all he does is scrounge money and suppress his sisters. He has them do the translation he is paid to write. He is as selfish and unproductive as the tradition he seeks to overthrow for "the great discovery of the age! The life of the Spirit is the only real life." Professing that "The outer worid ofmaterial existence is mere illusion" (9), he constantly entreats his dad and friends for money.

In Voyage, Michael moves from dashing soldier to exiled renegade. He resigns his commission, "On grounds of ill health . . . I'm sick of the Army," having been shocked to find "the whole Army's obsessed with playing at soldiers" (14-15). As he fervidly sweeps from Kant to Schelling to Fichte to Hegel, one appreciates his father's summary: "You've changed windbags, that's all" (46). In a parody dialectic, his colleague Belinsky lives above a blacksmith's forge and beside a laundry; respective images of a harsh, contaminating material reality and the philosopher's doomed compulsion to sanitize it confront each other.

In Shipwreck, Stoppard explores the effects of the intelligentsia: "A uniquely Russian phenomenon, the intellectual opposition considered as a social force" (17). Now Bakunin argues against putting "ideas before action. Act first! The ideas will follow, and if not—well, it's progress" (37). The fool grows dangerous. For acting on abstract principles can have harsh consequences, whether politically—as in the thousands gobbled up by the Moloch revolution—or personally—as with the first Natalie's destructive infidelity to Herzen. Natalie and Herzen never recover from her rationalized self-indulgence. Across the trilogy, Stoppard prefers Herzen's rational humanism over Bakunin's irresponsible "action." Herzen's generosity emphasizes Bakunin's parasitism.

Again, political debate pales beside the characters' heartbreaks, such as Herzen's loss of his family. Preferring people over abstractions, news of Belinsky's death ends Herzen's discussion with Turgenev: "No, no . . . oh, no, no, no . . . No! . . . No more blather please. Blather, blather, blather. Enough" (56). Earlier Herzen rejected the "ceaseless March of Progress": "Oh, a curse on your capital letters! We're asking people to spill their blood—at least spare them the conceit that they're acting out the biography of an abstract noun!" (18).

As our perfection is impossible, even the esteemed Turgenev foolishly pursues an uninterested opera singer. After the overthrow of Louis Philippe's monarchy, "In afreevote, the French public renounced freedom" (62). As poet George Herwegh is shocked to learn, "history has no respect for intellectuals. History is more like the weather. You never know what it's going to do" (63)—like the shipwreck that shatters Herzen's life. More practical than the revolutionary's hands-on politics is the Herzens' hands-on attempt to teach their deaf son Kolya speech. As the dashed Herzen concludes, "If we can't arrange our own happiness, it's a conceit beyond vulgarity to arrange the happiness of those who come after us" (100-101).

page4image31446096

80 Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism

The more intimate fmale, Salvage, centers on the wise Herzen from 1853 to 1868. At forty, he avers, he has "lost every illusion dear to me" so "the world will hear no more of me" ( 18). But even as his London estate slides from Hampstead to Finchley to Fulham, it remains the vital hub for revolutionary rhetoric and European gossip. The idea of starting an expatriate Russian press and an affair with another

Natalie (née Natasha) revitalize him.
The title points to a range of salvage operations. Herzen's publication salvages

him from despondency. Malwida saves the children and Herzen from chaos, then Natalie saves them from Malwida's order. Natalie salvages Ogarev from his misery after his wife leaves him. After losing Natalie to Herzen, Ogarev salvages the prostitute, Mary, and her young son, Henry. The latter familiarly helps Ogarev through an epileptic fit. Ogarev lives Herzen's/Stoppard's values. Serving an individual life outweighs any abstract ideal.

***

Finally, to that promised moment in which the trilogy's themes and strategies concentrate. In Shipwreck, a scene set in June 1849 opens with an explicit allusion to Manet's famous painting Déjeuner sur l'herbe^ Two fully dressed men frame the nude Natalie Herzen: her husband Alexander and the German poet George Herwegh. The latter's wife, Emma, dressed and obviously pregnant, stoops to pick a flower behind Natalie. Another dressed man, Turgenev, sits stage left, drawing on a sketchbook. Natalie appears to be posing for him.

As the scene unfolds we leam that Natalie is instead exposing herself only to George, whom she is about to take as a lover. Turgenev is actually sketching Emma, who is uncomfortable from posing stooped over. As Stoppard explains in his notes, this tableau overlaps two locations, Natalie and George in the bush alone— ostensibly hunting mushrooms—and their spouses' more open space.^ Of course, in Arcadia, Stoppard played two different time periods (1809 and 1989) in the same space. Here he plays two physical spaces together at the same time. The context of art, i.e., the specific Manet composition, seems to perform the deception.

As if to prove Bakunin's early assurance that "the outer world of material existence is mere illusion" (Voyage 9), Stoppard collapses two physical spaces into one. The material illusion denies the two locales' integrity. Conversely, this illusion conveys greater truths: for showing the lovers in the context of their respective mates more accurately represents their situation than their physical separation would, and for their mates' affair will affect Herzen and Emma calamitously. The illusion that combines two physical spaces contradicts the lovers' naïve rhetoric of romantic freedom.

Yet the image remains misleading. The Manet parody initially implies that Natalie addresses her nudity to the group and that her husband accepts that exposure. This art image does not harmonize its divergent components and tensions, but creates a false impression that it does. The marriages' turmoil will prove the real

page5image13727968

Fall 2003 81

human cost when fervid ideahsts abandon themselves to an abstraction, whether it is art (pace the Manet) or political philosophy (the radical free love and spiritualism by which Natalie rationalizes her affair with Herwegh).

Moreover, as this scene occurs fourteen years before Manet made this painting, the characters seem to inhabit an as yet unrealized pattem. This posits art as a parallel to politics and philosophy: an abstraction intended to improve the human lot, but which can prove disastrous instead. In Voyage, Belinsky collates art and politics: "If something true can be understood about art, something will be understood about liberty, too, and science and politics and history—because everything in the universe is unfolding together with a purpose of which [his criticism] is a part" (39). In Shipwreck, Turgenev agrees with Herzen that "a single- minded conviction is a quality of youth, and Russia is young. Compromise, prevarication, the ability to hold two irreconcilable beliefs, both with ironic detachment—^these are ancient European arts . . . " (55). Far from not taking sides, "I take every possible side," Turgenev explains later {Salvage 96). For Stoppard, any exclusive abstraction—whether in art, politics, or philosophy—represents the dangerous delusions of Utopianism.

Similarly, Stoppard's characters often unwittingly echo lines from literature, whether the Russian classics—e.g., Liubov's wail for "Moscow!" {Voyage 42) and Michael's (then Herzen's and George's) "What is to be done?"^—or the modem colloquial—"What is wrong with this picture?" (asked variously by Stankevich, Turgenev, and Herzen). As they are not knowingly quoting a text, they operate in a context beyond their apprehension, just as they plan and theorize completely unaware of their situation. Hence, the stmcture of Voyage, where the scenes of act II interlock with and explain the scenes of act I. The Manet image reminds us that one's vision is inevitably partial, restricted by one's own perspective and experience. This notion argues against imposing any theory about human society and how best to serve it.

As Stoppard always relishes reminding us, a lot of learning can also be a dangerous thing. It can breed vanity, selfishness, lack of scmple, as Belinsky properly charges Michael, "and above all your permanent flight into abstraction and fantasy which allows you not to notice that the life of the philosopher" depends upon exploiting the serfs "who somehow haven't managed to attain oneness with the Absolute" {Voyage 101). Michael is shocked to leam that the family's food comes through some profession called "Agriculture," and he demands that the blacksmith below Belinsky's flat hammer more softly. Similarly, our knowingth& Manet makes us believe the illusion that the characters are all in the same space.

The Manet image also exemplifies the presence of absence and the ambiguity of physical presence. Belinsky describes the artist's power:

page6image13696320

82

Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism

A poem can't be written by an act of will. When the rest of us are trying to be present, a real poet goes absent. We can watch him in the moment of creation, there he sits with the pen in his hand, not moving. When it moves we've missed it. Where did he go in that moment? The meaning of art lies in the answer to that question.. . . Every work of art is the breath of a single eternal idea breathed by God into the inner life of the artist. That's where he went. (Voyage 39,41).

In Shipwreck, with the monarchy replaced by a republic that acts like it, a tattered "Blue Blouse" (worker) appears motionless and invisible to the lazing Natalie, Natasha, and George. He is only seen by Herzen, but even his address is rhetorical: "What do you want? Bread? I'm afraid bread got left out of the theory. We are bookish people, with bookish solutions" (51). In Salvage, Bakunin seems to appear to Herzen in the flesh on page 90, having just escaped from Siberia. This action means that his otherwise naturalistic appearance on page 35 was Herzen's fantasy. This notion is supported by Bakunin's sudden materializing behind him ("I thought it was [his dead wife] Natalie") and by this jocular exchange: "BAKUNIN (happily): You faintheart. You need me to remind you what it is to be free. / HERZEN: But you're in prison. / BAKUNIN: That's why you aren't free" (36). Herzen's capacity to see the absent, to apprehend beyond his own personal situation and desires, enables him to transcend the self-serving rationalizers.

Stoppard provides a verbal equivalent to visualizing the absent. He deals strictly with unspoken inferences, not implications, in Turgenev's exchange with Emma, when she is properly concemed about her husband's fidelity:

EMMA: I want to ask you something but you might be angry with me.

TURGENEV: I'll answer anyway No.
EMMA: But how do you know the question?
TURGENEV: I don't. You can apply my answer to any question

of your choice....
EMMA: Devotion such as yours should not go unrewarded.

(Pause.) Now I want to ask you something else. TURGENEV: Yes. (Emma starts to weep.) I'm sorry. (78)

The theme ofpresent absence includes Stoppard's doubling characters' names. The two father figures are Alexanders—^Bakunin and Herzen. Herzen's wife is Natalie, but so is her friend (introduced as Natasha) whom he later loves. Ogarev was married to the unfaithful Maria and ends up with the devoted prostitute Mary Sutherland. In Voyage, five radicals are Nicholases (Nikolai?)—Stankevich, the

page7image14589152

Fall 2003 83

silly editor Poleyev, and the three young members of Herzen's circle. Add another radical Nicholas, Sasanov, in Shipwreck and a Chemyshevsky in Salvage, The shared name may suggest the lack of individuation among the radical "thinkers," especially in Voyage, from v^hich only Ogarev remains significant. Also, the presence of one of these characters provokes a distinction from the other; the presence evokes the absent. Natalie makes this explicit in the last scene, when she tells Herzen she is only a replacement for the Natalie who died in Shipwreck: "I am not the real Natalie. The real one is in the sky" {Salvage 112).

At the National Theatre, this doubling was augmented by the casting of the strong actor Eve Best as Liubov in Voyage, Natalie in Shipwreck, and Malwida in Salvage. Here Best projected a spectrum from destructive romanticism to responsible practicality. John Carlisle played the aristocrat Alexander Bakunin, Leonty Ibayev (the Russian consul in Nice), and Stanislaw Worcell (an exiled Polish nationalist), characters that diminish in power as they increase in political status. In this meta-theatre, the characters live in another pattem beyond their comprehension, their performer, so again any absolute understanding is impossible for them.

All this suits Stoppard's familiar stock and trade—dramatic irony. The characters' understanding is undermined by our broader vision. Thus, after the Manet exposure of the affair, George blithely tells Emma they will be sharing a house with Herzen and Natalie, and Herzen tells Emma her husband is "kindness itself for offering to escort Natalie and the children south. In Voyage,Mother Bakunin's apparent non-sequitur about Michael—"STANKEVICH: Is he studying philosophy? / VARVARA: Yes, he's at the Artillery School" (63)—is validated first as a metaphor (Michael will make a weapon out of his radical philosophy) and later by Michael's observation: "Study is difficult in the Artillery, owing to the loud explosions which are a regular feature of Artillery life" (70). In Shipwreck, Herzen calls Ogarev "a free man because he gives away freely" (65)—as Ogarev's wife Maria poses nude for an unseen painter. Ogarev seems more giving than he realizes.

Re-enforcing the theme of limited comprehension, Stoppard continually upsets our plot expectations. In the first scene of Voyage, Liubov is engaged, but "the newlyweds" referred to at the start of act I, scene 2 tum out to be Varenka and her Dyakov. The gunshot that disturbs the crows on page 42 kills Pushkin on page 95.

Finally, lest anyone think Stoppard's portrait is of an exclusively Franco- Russian picnic, clearly his epic addresses the contemporary West, especially Britain. His analysis of the Left's need for compromise and conciliation applies equally to Tony Blair's New Labour government and to George Bush's Right in/to America. Thus Ogarev: "With all this liberty, there's no beggar in France or Russia as destitute as the London poor, and with all this poverty, no Frenchman or Russian has his liberty guarded like a London beggar. . . . What exactly is going on here? Do

page8image30969920

84 Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism

poverty and liberty go together, or is it the English sense of humour?" (Salvage 11). The characters' bewailing the lack of a national literature and a rational, just govemment can be heard even more widely. Stoppard's assault on Utopianism is a response to the firebrand, revolutionary idealisms across our globe. Herzen's last words address all bellicose idealists, whether they are suicide bombers or their avengers:

We have to open men's eyes and not tear them out... and if we see differently, it's all right, we don't have to kill the myopic in our myopia . . . We have to bring what's good along with us. People won't forgive us. I imagine myself the future custodian of a broken statue, a blank wall, a desecrated grave, telling everyone who passes by, "Yes—yes, all this was destroyed by the revolution." . . . [in Russian:] Will you give me a kiss? (118- 19)

The translated revolution is less important than one honest kiss. Stoppard privileges the individual human exchange over any political, philosophical, or aesthetic abstraction. The Manet trick is an example. For intimate relations are our only cure for the hysterias of history.

Notes

1. The cast of thirty played seventy characters and wore ninety-six wigs, forty face-sets (moustaches and beards), and 416 costumes. Of the latter, 271 were for the actors, sixty for their understudies and eighty-five for the stagehands.

2. "Culture," Sunday Times, August 11, 2002, sec. 9: 17.

3. Unless otherwise noted, all citations from the plays are from the Faber and Faber editions of the trilogy (London, 2002).

4. The Manet image in the setting is de/pre-scribed on pp. 73-4.

5. The scene reverses the situation that opened Shipwreck, where Ogarev read to Natalie while Herzen and Granovsky were off picking mushrooms. There Ogarev suggests his love for his wife Maria has waned.

6. This latter quote is also the title of a political novel that Nikolai Chemyshevksy (a minor figure in Salvage) wrote in 1863 as a rebuttal to Turgenev's Fathers and Sons (1862).

page9image14497008

Fall 2003

85

SUPPLEMENT

page10image14486480

86 Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism

page11image14545040

Fall 2003 87

The value of art is defined by its spiritual contents.

- Konstantin Stanislavkii

In our present scientific and postmodern era, materialistic sensibilities drive us to value understandings of the world that come from empirical and "positive" evidence, while claims of essential truth are called into question as the construction of knowledge is explored. The actor's art has come to be spoken of in terms of psychology and physiology (and the relation between the two) or as a semiotic or semiological moment in a greater discourse. Although the theoretical standpoints of scientific materialism and the postmodern form of skepticism seem to be engaged in a constant critique of each other, they do share a common rejection, or at least an assertion of the impossibility of understanding, of the idealistic and the speculative. As a result, academic scholarship on acting treads lightly when it approaches spiritual turf, while the works of theatrical practitioners such as Stanislavsky, Grotowski, Chaikin, Brook, Suzuki, and Bharucha unabashedly place spirituality at the center of the actor's art.

The recognition of this distance between much of the work of critical theory on acting and the theoretical work of actors led to this supplement. I wondered, and still wonder, how we can talk about spirituality with current theoretical vocabularies. The three articles presented in this supplement each approach the discussion of spirituality in different ways and with different ends, but they all explore how vocabularies based on indigenous theories of spirituality interact with the dominant "modem" vocabulary of acting as Stanislavsky and his interpreters in the West represent it.

Evan Winet in "Interpolating American Method Acting in 1950s Indonesia" explores the complex interaction of spiritual and political power in Indonesia through the lens of the Indonesian adoption and adaptation of Stanislavsky's ideas— ideas that were transmitted through English translation, which were translated once again into the Indonesian context. He explores how the inner discipline of the performer translates into a spiritual power that is also a political power, the revolution of the spirit of the actor as a part of the broader project of the political revolution in Indonesia.

In "Stanislavsky, Smarana, and Bhav: Acting Method as Religious Practice in Vrindavan, India," David Mason sets Stanslavskian theories in a conversation with the constmction of rds lila theatre. His discussion challenges Westem conventions of what is "realistic" and "believable" in performance and explores how religious practice and spirituality play a role in the aesthetics and power of theatrical performance in the community of Vrindavan.

Kathryn Wylie-Marques focuses on the development of a no actor's personal spiritual power through performance practices that share a common theoretical

page12image31195968

88 Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism

foundation with zen reHgious practices in "Opening the Actor's Spiritual Heart: The Zen Influence on No Training and Performance with Notes on Stanislavski and the Actor's Spirituality." While exploring the praxis of spirituality in this performance tradition, she also offers some commentary that relates the fiindamentals of no performance to Stanislavsky's writings on performance and actor training.

I find it interesting to note that these papers (as well as other submissions) pick what may be broadly defined as an Eastern tradition (Indonesia, India, and Japan) from which to explore the idea of spirituality. I take this not as an indication that spirituality does not exist in Western acting traditions, but rather that the words we have to discuss this spirituality have been devalued in academic discourse on the subject (at least in English).

—Patrick Carriere

Saturday, March 11, 2023

David's Michelangelo: A review

  Michelangelo’s David: a review


It’s bigger than the pictures. Way bigger. Ten, maybe twenty feet high. Maybe 25. Who knows? But bigger. Bigger than the Taschen!

But that’s okay. Far be it from me to dispute an artist’s choices. Conscious, subconscious, a choice is a choice. That’s the artist’s right.

The workmanship is amazing. Muscles detected under the stone — first class. At flesh Bernini was better but this is still some achievement.

But — and this grieves me to say — I think Michelangelo could have done better. There’s a real failing here.

The work lacks social and moral point. The problem is the head. It’s on the level. Now, research has established (Wikipedia) that this prophet David is casting “a warning glare” at the Medici rulers in Rome, in defence of civil rights. OK, but from ground level — where most of us mortals are looking from — that does not come through. He’s up there staring into space. Even in Taschen.

What Michelangelo should have done was give the head a 45-degree angle. Tilted up, it would have been an eloquent exhortation to aspiration. Secular, spiritual, viewer’s choice, but aspiration! Or tilt it down: a call for compassion. Or if there is that “warning glare” — a moral exhortation to the citizenry. That is, after all, what the prophets were all about. 

Now, that would have been a success, a great work, for the ages.

There’s another problem that maybe I shouldn’t raise in these sensitive times. But my valour has always been the better part of my discretion. So here goes.

Why isn’t Michelangelo’s David made Jewish? We know he was, if we read the book. All the prophets in that series were Jewish. Why is he left an Everymentsch with no Jewish signifier?

You can’t tell from the schmendrick. Michelengalo gave him a small dick. Three little marbles. Marble marbles. Maybe he didn’t want to intimidate the male viewer. Or to arouse the female. I respect his choice. But you can’t see if it’s circumcised. So no clue, Jew or no.

It would’ve killed Michelangelo to put on a yarmulke? His budget wouldn’t allow? 

Or maybe even a tallis. The kid could do marble folds of fabric, robes; he could have managed tzitzis too, Bernini was better but tzitzis could have put Michelangelo up there. They can do wispy locks of hair and gleaming satin, he could do tzirtzis

Perhaps Michelangelo couldn’t foresee this — there are limits to even the best artists’ intuition. But this denial of David’s Jewishness leaves it vulnerable to expropriation. 

Today that plays into the Palestinians’ campaign to replace the Jewish state. They already say Jesus was a Palestinian non-Jew. That Jewish patriarchs, their burial sites, even all the Jewish historic land is really Palestinian. Small step for them now to say this David was a Palestinian too. And that “warning glare” is indeed against the rootless, modern flood of Jewish “settlers” who are “stealing their land” and won’t accept peaceful coexistence so should be eradicated.  

Here’e the historic background that threatens the Jewish David. In a 1977 interview with the Dutch paper Trour, Zuheir Mohsen, a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, stated that "the Palestinian people" were a propaganda invention. (The KGB proposed that idea to Arafat, an Egyptian, around 1962). As Mohsen admitted, the demand for a Palestinian state solely continues their campaign against the Jewish state. ”In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism….. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem." 

I guess Michelangelo just could not see that coming. To be fair, who could? Even today, who can believe that rewrite of history is believed? 

        Still, Michelangelo -- a great artist! But his David could have been better. Wish I'd been there.