Don Draper in a Dark Wood of Middle Age

“The Doorway” (Mad Men 6.1)

April 10, 2013
Credit: Mad Men, AMC

Credit: Mad Men, AMC

Back in July of last year, John Semley wrote a terrific essay on how Breaking Bad is the “baldest show on TV.”  Reflecting on changing conceptions of baldness in popular culture, he argued that Walt, Mike, and, eventually, Jesse are bald “in the way that Bruce Willis or Yul Brynner or Vladimir Nabokov is bald.  Not enfeebled or emasculated, but sleek and effectual.”  Baldness signifies power, not inadequacy.  More specifically, it signifies corruptible power in the moral universe of Breaking Bad. It also reflects a kind of brutal efficiency in the way the show tells its story from episode to episode–Semley calls Breaking Bad “cold, deceptively unvarnished television, stripped right down to the wood.”

Mad Men doesn’t have quite the same aesthetic.  There’s a lot of varnish.  (Every now and then, I wonder if the styles and fashions alone are the guiding principle—if the show gets tied up in a kind of 60s nostalgia.)  And as Season Six gets underway with “The Doorway,” plenty of hair.  Paul Ford describes some of the “hair narratives,” pointing out the woman’s beehive in Hawaii, Betty’s dyeing her hair black, and—my favorite description—Pete’s sideburns: “It’s like he went to bed Charles Grodin and woke up Burt Reynolds. His side profile has become monumental, like that of a Civil War general after a tight shave.”

Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) in Episode 1-2Photo Credit: Michael Yarish/AMC

Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) in Episode 1-2
Photo Credit: Michael Yarish/AMC

Those sideburns are yet another period detail Mad Men gives us—a wink that the 70s are right around the corner. But the hair narratives also reflect the simple, and moving, fact that as the world changes, the characters age.  Pete’s hairline recedes just a tad more each new season; for me, the sideburns emphasized how much further it’s gone back this year.  Mad Men’s creator Matthew Weiner says that much of the opening episode “was thematically about how you are perceived by the outside world.” A change in hair suggests a change in how characters wish to be seen, as they grow older.  Betty dyes her hair after the young (heavily bearded) guy looks at her driver’s license, reads out her eye and hair color, and tells her, “We hate your life as much as you do.”

“The Doorway” struck me as being about middle age, and Don’s middle age in particular.  Near the start, Don reads from Inferno, which famously opens with Dante having a midlife crisis of sorts.  Here are the opening lines (from Robert Hollander and Jean Hollander’s translation, so not exactly what we hear in the voiceover):

Midway in the journey of our life/I came to myself in a dark wood,/for the straight way was lost.

Ah, how hard it is to tell/the nature of that wood, savage, dense and harsh–/the very thought of it renews my fear!

In Hawaii, Don meets at the bar a younger version of himself in PFC Dinkins, who tells him, “I’m you in twenty years.” Don doesn’t know it, but Megan snaps a picture of him on the beach the next morning—he’s participating in Dinkins’ wedding, giving away the bride.  When that picture comes up later in the slide show at their dinner party in New York, I fully expected him to be furious with Megan; after all, she caught him at a vulnerable moment.  But he keeps his cool. The vulnerability seems to come later, when the firm’s professional photographer tells him to “be himself,” a direction that hints at the impossibility of “Don Draper” (or, Dick Whitman) being himself.

PFC Dinkins (Patrick Mapel) and Don Draper (Jon Hamm) in Episode 1-2 Photo Credit: Michael Yarish/AMC

PFC Dinkins (Patrick Mapel) and Don Draper (Jon Hamm) in Episode 1-2
Photo Credit: Michael Yarish/AMC

Don’s midlife anxieties only make things worse, it seems.  If Dinkins conjures up his past (and especially his identity as Dick, fighting in the Korean War), Jonesy the doorman, falling with a heart attack, throws Don’s own mortality into his face. Mad Men often invites us to imagine “what if?” scenarios about Don’s life, about how it might have been different had Dick not assumed the identity of Don Draper and become a wealthy ad man.  (Consider those early episodes in which Don sees the direction his brother’s life took; or Don’s life in retail, before his chance meeting with Roger kicks his ambition up a notch.) The doorman doesn’t just reveal a cardiac vulnerability Don may fear. Jonesy also shows him, I suspect, what else Dick might have turned into.  The doorman might tap on his anxieties—which Don masterfully hides away—of being exposed as an impostor. (That he struggles to recall Jonesy’s name hints at a social distance between them.)

This connection to the doorman is set, in advance, by the cold open.  A POV shot suggests that someone is having a heart attack, the doctor performing CPR.  I was certain the scream I heard in the background belonged to Megan, and that Don was in cardiac arrest.  The season begins with a sleight of hand, though, because the Don in this opening shot turns out to be someone else.  Only later do we realize that it was Jonesy looking up to find the doctor’s face.

I thought the doctor–Dr. Rosen–was gracious, kind. (I can’t remember: have we seen him in prior seasons, or is this the first time?)  That scene when he stands in the snow, preparing to ski out to see a patient, with Don in the doorway looking on: I found it beautiful.  In the quiet isolation it creates, it reminded me of Dante’s opening lines, and made me think of the doctor as Virgil—a guide for Don, someone who’ll help him navigate the dark wood, savage, dense, and dark.

That we see Don sleeping with Rosen’s wife in the next scene—and that it was she who gave him Inferno to begin with—doesn’t make that moment in the snow any less moving to me.  (Or, I would guess, Don, who seems genuinely touched by the doctor’s dedication.)  The episode left me wondering how the affair would affect Don’s relationship with Rosen, someone he seems to admire and respect.

Opening Shot of "The Doorway"Credit: AMC

Opening Shot of “The Doorway”
Credit: AMC

Second Shot in "The Doorway"Credit: AMC

Second Shot in “The Doorway”
Credit: AMC

Ford implies that the buildup to the hair narratives in “The Doorway” starts with “Megan’s bald and glistening navel.”  It doesn’t.  It begins with the doctor’s bald head in that deceptive POV shot, and then goes to Megan’s navel.  I can’t help but think that Rosen’s baldness suggests an effectuality that comes with age—experienced and knowledgeable, the doctor saves a life—and that’s undermined by Don’s desire and lust, reflected by the glistening torso.  Held together by a smooth fadeout and the sound of a wailing siren, the two shots nevertheless have a jarring effect: we move from unstable, disoriented vision to the completely controlled look at Megan’s body.

I associate Don’s point of view with both shots.  Indeed, both shots give you a pretty good idea of how Don lives his life. When he listens to the doctor in the snow, Dante in the wood, my sense is he’s seeking out a measure of stability.  In bed with the doctor’s wife, he’s poised for another fall.  (Remember how last season ends: “Are you alone?” the woman at the bar asks him.  Often, when Don seems most in control, he’s the most alone.)  For five seasons, we’ve watched Don Draper endlessly falling in the opening credits.  I don’t think you can avoid the connection between that and Jonesy’s fall.  So I begin this season wondering not just where Don ends up falling, but if it’ll be possible for anyone to help him up—if anyone’s there.

Arnold Rosen (Brian Markinson) in Episode 1-2Photo Credit: AMC

Arnold Rosen (Brian Markinson) in Episode 1-2
Photo Credit: AMC

Side by Side: “The Name Game” and “Zou Bisou Bisou”

“The Name Game” (AHS Asylum) and “A Little Kiss, Part 1″ (Mad Men)

January 18, 2013

So I’ve started to catch up on AHS Asylum and saw “The Name Game” last night (2.10).  That Jessica Lange number might be the strangest thing I’ve seen this season.  Lange’s Sister Jude has just returned from electroshock therapy (disturbing enough; why’s Asylum piling up on Jude?).   She plays “The Name Game,” aka “The Banana Song,” from the common room’s new jukebox, Briarcliff’s replacement for the record player she recently destroyed.  (She’d been driven to rage, you’ll remember, by the ever-playing “Dominique”. ) Then we get this hallucination in which Jude and nearly everyone else start dancing to the music.  See for yourself:

J. Bryan Lowder has an interesting take on the number. He’ll watch Asylum to the end, he writes on Slate, in the expectation that he’ll be absolved of the guilt he feels watching all the bad stuff that’s happened to characters along the way:

But that’s where Murphy’s got us screwed. In almost all cases, horror, as a genre, provides its audience with an alibi to avoid the inherent guilt (assuming you’re not a certified sadist) of taking pleasure in violence. We are meant to identify with a striving victim, with the archetypal “final girl” who makes it out of the psychopath’s lair. We are absolved from enjoying her pain, because we are, of course, rooting for her ultimate escape. Unfortunately (and brilliantly),American Horror Story doesn’t give us that out. In Briarcliff, just as in Murder House before it, there are no morally uncomplicated heroes, no innocent characters to act as our confessors. Though individuals may from time to time act altruistically, everyone is dirty, and there is no redemption waiting at sunrise for them (in fact, if Murder House’s conclusion is any indication, they’re all likely to end up dead or otherwise beset)—or at the end of the season for us.

We Americans are superbly skilled at forgetting; indeed, the grand American self-conception is contingent upon the repression of all the violence that it took to establish the nation and that is still required to keep it propped up. Murphy knows that the land is soaked with blood, and American Horror Story is precision-tuned to exploit and critique that pathology. That is why Jessica Lange’s dance number last week was truly genius: What happens when you stop numbly twirling and hallucinating your way through life (or a TV show) and actually try to name the situation? Like Sister Jude, you may find you’re in a far darker place than you imagined.

Watching “The Name Game” made me think of another number.  Remember “A Little Kiss, Part 1,” the opening episode of Mad Men‘s fifth season?  When Megan sings “Zou Bisou Bisou” to Don for his 40th birthday party?

Megan’s performance was as much a surprise to Don as the party itself, and a mix of embarrassment and desire clouds the room while she sings.  Both “A Little Kiss, Part 1″ and “The Name Game” take a popular song from the 1960s, and make it not just the centerpiece for the episode, but also a crucial starting point for specific characters’ lives.  In other words, both episodes are partly about characters who are “renamed” at this point in the story–the beginning of the season for Mad Men, the start of the second half of the season for Asylum.  Megan sings “Zou Bisou Bisou” as the new Mrs. Don Draper.   Jude sings “The Name Game” as the newest inmate–Sister Mary Eunice keeps referring to her by patient number rather than name.

Still of Jessica Paré in Mad MenPhoto by Ron Jaffe/AMC – © Copyright: AMC 2012

Still of Jessica Paré in Mad Men
Photo by Ron Jaffe/AMC – © Copyright: AMC 2012

The difference between the two performances is in how each names the situation, to borrow from Lowder (whose article, by the way, is worth reading in full).  Though it is true that new Mrs. Draper will come to know unhappiness and dissatisfaction, her performance, in keeping with the tone of Mad Men in general, stands out to me as a nostalgic celebration of the 1960s.  It’s of a piece with the mod apartment–the furniture, the clothes people are wearing, the drinks they’re holding.  And as though the celebration continued, the song was a trending topic in the days after the episode aired.

Sister Jude, just after "The Name Game" ends.Still from AHS Asylum.  (FX)

Sister Jude, just after “The Name Game” ends.
Still from AHS Asylum. (FX)

As much as I like Mad Men, I think it more often than not tends to romanticize the 60s. Jude’s performance of “The Name Game” resonates differently from “Zou Bisou Bisou.” The number’s fun, sure, but it comes with strings attached. It begins as an act of defiance on Jude’s part: fresh from the electroshock treatment, she pounds the jukebox and yanks its cord, meaning to destroy it like the record before.  Then, when Lana asks her, “Do you know your name?,” she selects “The Name Game” to play.  And here’s where it gets tricky.  Sister Jude struggles to find some residue of who she is.  The singing and dancing evoke her past and all its complications, which left me wondering how that past surfaces again by the time Asylum ends.  ”You’re Judy Martin,” Lana tells her at the end of the performance/hallucination, a moment of solidarity I found affecting. Twirly it may be, but I saw the number as Jude’s effort to name the situation, or–to borrow from Lana this time–to know her name.  Still, I wonder when the performance stops suggesting the effort. Does it become another version of “Dominique”?–the institution’s way of keeping inmates docile?  (And what do we call her now?  Sister Jude?  Judy?)

Side by side, “Zou Bisou Bisou” and “The Name Game” present us with competing visions of the 60s.  One is celebratory, seductive, and its good feeling lingers.  The other leaves you cold.  Just look at Sister Jude (Judy?), above, when the music’s over.  The juxtaposition is telling when you consider the stories of injustice Briarcliff holds, reflected in the characters (including Kit, Lana, Pepper) that participate in the number. Mad Men occasionally hints that the 60s might have been a dark place.  Asylum acknowledges that it was sometimes far darker than we might care to imagine.

Year In Brief: 12 From ’12

January 14, 2013
Louie (TV series)

Louie (TV series) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Most Moving Show on Television.  Louie (FX). Comedian Louis C.K.’s observations on life–aging, relationships, disappointment, love, failure–hit close to home. While I find the show very funny, I’m struck by how often it moves me to feelings of sadness, empathy, and tenderness.  Like: Louie’s quiet moments with his daughters (and what was that touching joke his younger tells him, the one about why the manager didn’t want the animals to perform?); Louie’s date with Liz (Parker Posey), and how they end up on the rooftop; Louie’s nighttime odyssey with a comedian friend whose life didn’t turn out the way he thought it would; the goodbye wave between Louie and Pamela (Pamela Adlon) at the airport.  This will go down as one of my all-time faves, and I’m disappointed that it doesn’t start back until 2014.

Best Book (Tie).  Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn and Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel.  Flynn writes smart suspense thrillers that also look satirically at our tendency in the U.S. to turn murder into spectacle and entertainment. Gone Girl is about a wife who’s gone missing, and the husband who might have killed her.  Mantel writes historical fiction where characters are as realistic as people from your own life and times.  She’s incredibly good at making Thomas Cromwell creepy yet sympathetic. I’m calling this a tie because I can think of no other books this year that made me want to go on and read everything else the author has written–and as soon as possible.  I just finished Flynn’s Dark Places, and I’m finally getting around to reading Bring Up the Bodies, the sequel to Wolf Hall.

Photo by NBC – © 2012 NBCUniversal Media, LLC

Photo by NBC – © 2012 NBCUniversal Media, LLC

Best Episode in a TV show I do not like.  ”Kashmir” (1.9), Revolution (NBC).  In which Miles, Charlie, and the rest must travel though Philadelphia’s abandoned subway tunnels.  The J.J. Abrams show was a huge miss for me, and I won’t be returning.  I tried to like it.  Really I did.  In one post, I started keeping track of pop culture references and fully intended to keep the list going. I remember planning to add a Children of the Corn allusion.  Oh, and someone talks about “a pack of hairless Ewoks” somewhere.   “Kashmir” reminded me of tunnel scenes like those in Carol Reed’s The Third Man (1949) (or sewer scenes, as the case may be). Granted, bad science abounds (as you’ll have fun reading in this review from Seshat Travels), but the subterranean atmosphere for the memories Miles and Charlie had to contend with I found compelling.  Just not enough to go back.

AHS Asylum (FX)

AHS Asylum (FX)

Best Horror on TV.  AHS Asylum.  Definitely not for everyone.  I like horror, though, so I suspect that’s a factor here.  I like the mix of camp and fright.  The movie allusions are fun, and relevant to the plot.  I like the anthology approach, too: each season tells a completely different story, which means you don’t have to know the first season when you start the second.  But it’s fun if you do. I’ve enjoyed seeing Jessica Lange and Zachary Quinto return to the show as different characters. I’ve also enjoyed following episode reviews on HorrorBoom.

Most Disappointing TV Show from last year that I returned to and wish I hadn’t, and that frustrates me because I watched nearly ten episodes of it, and makes me go, what was I thinking?! for putting it on my Fall Preview List back in September.  Revenge (ABC).  It has stopped making sense, and I’m not sure it’s even trying to anymore.

Best Sake Bar in New York City.  Decibel.  The best description of this glorious place you can find in a patron’s quote on Decibel’s website: ”when you walk through that door you are no longer in NYC…it feels like you are in some secret underground speakeasy that you have to know a password to get into.”  Below street level, it’s dark with low-hanging ceilings, and it feels like the different spaces are connected by tunnels.  Incredible sake, and different varieties to choose from, which Decibel will be glad to help you with.  I’ve had many meaningful conversations here with a dear friend who lives in New York.  We always make a point to step in when I’m in town.  When in NYC, you should, too.

Most Bizarre and Disturbing Advertisement for the NRA.  Wayne LaPierre’s press conference on December 21.

Best New-To-Me TV Show.  Doctor Who.  To clarify: the show’s reboot from 2005.  It’s a big hit in our household, where we’ve neared the end of the third series.  I spoke highly of it when we were still in the Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper era, which you can read about here and here.

Walter White (Bryan Cranston).Photo by Frank Ockenfels/AMC

Walter White (Bryan Cranston).
Photo by Frank Ockenfels/AMC

Best character arc.  Perhaps ever.  Breaking Bad (AMC).  I’m thinking of Walter White, of course, whose transformation from mild-mannered high school Chemistry teacher to evil drug kingpin will be complete as the season resumes in 2013, if it’s not complete already.  I wrote last August that I had been sympathetic to Walter in the early going.  Watching Breaking Bad in 2012 made me realize how masterful it’s been in slowly, deliberately draining that sympathy until nearly nothing’s left.  And along the way, Vince Gilligan dropped hints about Walter’s past that made me think he was never as mild-mannered as I thought–that he was, really, an asshole whose “transformation” makes a weird kind of sense.

Most Disturbing Moment in a Republican Primary Debate.  When one of the candidates was asked about what should happen to a person in medical crisis who didn’t have healthcare, and someone in the audience shouted: “Let him die!” Seems a lifetime ago now, but that one moment encapsulates for me the ugliness and cruelty of a fringe that has come to define the GOP.

Favorite Blogs.  I said in my most recent post that running logs are like diaries, and meaningful in similar ways.  So are blogs.  At least, this one is. Thanks to the several friends who suggested I start it, and thanks for running along with me.  One of the things I enjoyed in 2012 is discovering and reading blogs I might not have found if I hadn’t been keeping one myself.  My favorites include Say It Ain’t So Already: in tone and substance, in politics and outlook, it suits me to a T, right down to its celebration of the awesomeness of dogs; You Jivin’ Me, Turkey?: heartfelt, honest, and energetic, fo SHO!, and with features I’ve thoroughly enjoyed, like quotes of the day, and scenes from an imagined horror movie; skeptically devout: this thoughtful blog is provocative in a respectful, non-confrontational way, and I’ve come to appreciate how it encourages you to think about faith.

Best Board Game revisited.  The Settlers of Catan.  This is something of a gateway game in my circle.  We first played for the first time five or six years ago, and it led to some terrific gaming experiences with titles like Battlestar GalacticaDominant Species, and A Game of Thrones (card game).  Back in November, we decided to play Catan for the first time in, well, five or six years.  And we had a blast.  We had forgotten how fun it is, and how effectively it combines chance and strategy for gameplay.  It’s all about the roads, baby!

Photo Credit: Alan De SmetPhotograph of players playing "Settlers of Catan" at Gen Con. The board is a custom, exceptionally large version. The photograph is unmodified from the digital camera. (Alan De Smet)

Photo Credit: Alan De Smet
Photograph of players playing “Settlers of Catan” at Gen Con. The board is a custom, exceptionally large version. The photograph is unmodified from the digital camera. (Alan De Smet)

The Days of YOR

January 7, 2013
Marty Jerome

Marty Jerome, The Complete Runner’s Day-By-Day Log

I’ve kept running logs for almost as long as I’ve been running.  Since the late 90s, I’ve mostly used Marty Jerome’s The Complete Runner’s Day-by-Day Log.  A pair of running legs graces the cover every year, a throwback to the cover of Jim Fixx’s The Complete Book of Running, which I found as essential growing up in the 80s as Tigers or Bill Rodgers shorts.  I like the essays at the beginning of each month, offering tips and encouragement for your run through the year.  And I like the log’s structure, which encourages details in brief: where & when (I note the course or–if I’m not at home–the city);  comments (time of day; weather; people I ran with); distance (which you could enter in time or mileage; I do both).  

Jim Fixx, The Complete Book of Running

Jim Fixx, The Complete Book of Running

When it comes right down to it, I want to record just the basics.  Sometimes I don’t feel like jotting anything down at all.  I’ve gone days without making an entry.  But after a run I save my time to my watch’s memory, which I’ll later consult if I need to catch up.  If the data help me remember how I felt during the run, I’ll make a note of it.  Otherwise it’s just the time and the mileage–which I’ve gotten good at gauging, based on the time.  If I don’t run on a given day, I’ll write DOR, or ”day of rest,” an acronym a runner once told me he used in his logs.  Often there’s nothing more than those three capital letters inked across an entry like a stamp.  Other times, there’s an explanation for why I was taking the day off, as though to convince myself it was a good thing to do.

I remember joking with a friend that if we went a year without running, we could talk about the days of YOR.  My friend laughed politely, probably because we were enjoying a couple of post-run beers.  It’s a memory that occasionally comes back when I write down DOR; writing now, the memory reminds me how valuable these day-to-day logs can be.

Running journals, like daily planners, are diaries in shorthand. The basics are preserved.  I can go back and see, for example, a record of my training for a race–milestones reached; setbacks; adjustments I made to avoid injury; what worked, what didn’t.  But I also get a sense of how I navigated events in my life.  And because I always use a pen to write them, the entries have an immediacy that, say, the data in a fitness app wouldn’t have: it’s like touching the time you lived in, or talking with your younger self.

During an extremely difficult phase in my life, a week of DORs was held together by nothing more than a scribbled “Troubled Times,” as though I was so depressed I could neither write nor run.  The simple act of writing something, though, must have been assuring: I was keeping the journal going, I was anticipating future runs.  I started running again after a WOR; I recorded a distance of 5.4 miles, the time 40:56, and the comment: “went a lot faster than I thought. a lot on my mind.”  On the day after 9/11, I ran 9.25 miles in 1:11:13, and my comments emphasize that I ran with friends: “The group talked about the terrorist acts this morning. I went into  the park, where I saw S. at the fountain–we ran about 30-40 min. together.”

At some point, I decided it’d be a great idea to log ten miles every New Year’s Day, no matter how tired (read, hungover) I might be.  On January 1, 1998, I ran 11.5 miles in 1:39:07: “long slow run–and felt great!  started off with Dad, D.E., D.M., M.–D.M. went 3 mi, M. 5–rest of us picked it up in last 3-4 mi.”   I’m not sure I thought of it as a tradition at that point, but the seed had been planted.  New Year’s Day 1999 was a DOR; in 2000, I ran 11.25, and according to the journal, “felt OK–confident–after a lot of New Year’s champagne.  great way to start the year!”  I was sick in 2001, but logged 11.35 in 2002, and since then the tradition has pretty much remained intact.  I’ve missed only 2004 (sick) and 2009 (stress fracture).

The most valuable thing about running on New Year’s Day isn’t the feeling of celebration that comes with it, whether I’m running by myself, or with family or friends.  It isn’t that it helps strengthen my discipline as a runner.  It’s not even that it strengthens my resolve for whatever new goals I’ve set for myself, running-related or not.  What’s most valuable about running on New Year’s Day is the affirmation it gives me that life continues to be full of possibility. It’s the “troubled times” thing: a run on New Year’s Day affirms that I’ll continue to run in the new year, that this is the first run of keeping the whole thing going.

“Glad u can still make 10 miles at your age!” my YOR-friend texted me a week ago, after I told him the tradition had lived to see another year.  It was a friendly ribbing, but it also made me wonder about when it’ll be silly to log my annual ten.  At what point will I do more damage to my body than good?  I’m definitely slowing down.  What used to be a relaxed pace is now closer to tempo effort.  If it used to take me ten minutes to warm up and run comfortably, it now takes twenty or twenty-five.  I hope I’ll have the good sense to modify the tradition.  Instead of ten miles, five.  When running’s out, maybe cycling, or walking. And you know what? The tradition will be just fine.  Because it’s not running that keeps the whole thing going–it’s the willingness and eagerness to move forward.

When I log my first entry for the year, I turn through the journal’s blank pages and imagine what lies ahead, what stories will be reflected in the brief notes I’ll make for the Where & When.  The first run of this year, I wrote last Tuesday, was “a struggle.”  Not all runs will be good, of course, just as some of the stories I record will surely contain struggle or disappointment I can’t yet see.  But there’s something hopeful in the blank slate a new year offers, and that’s what I celebrate when I lace up every January 1st.

Have an amazing run this year!

“AHS Asylum” and Samuel Fuller: Keeping Up Appearances

“I Am Anne Frank: Part 2″ (2.5)

November 21, 2012
Cover of "Shock Corridor - Criterion Coll...

Cover of Shock Corridor – Criterion Collection

Sam Fuller’s Shock Corridor (1963) came to mind when I saw the first episode of AHS Asylum, “Welcome to Briarcliff”.  Journalist Lana Winters (Sarah Paulson) works her way into the asylum with the goal of writing an exposé of the horrors that take place inside.  In Shock Corridor, journalist Johnny Barrett (Peter Breck) has himself committed in order to unmask a murder.  Things turn out badly for both.  Barrett goes mad, and Lana–well, the last we see of her in the most recent episode, “I Am Anne Frank: Part 2,” she’s poised to be Bloody Face’s next victim.  (And now we know who Bloody Face is.)

My last post on Asylum looked at Tod Browning’s Freaks (1932), and I had thought about writing my next on pre-code Hollywood: in addition to Freaks, there’s another nod to that era in “Nor’easter” (2.3), when the inmates are gathered for a screening of The Sign of the Cross, also from 1932, directed by Cecil B. DeMille, and starring Frederic March, Claudette Colbert, and Charles Laughton. That’s Colbert taking a bath in a scene that causes a stir among the inmates, and leads to Lana’s ruse to visit the bathroom–it’s not “appropriate,” she tells Dr. Thredson, for her to be watching it. Here’s a brief digression that might be of interest to some viewers, from Mark Vieira’s Sin in Soft Focus: Pre-Code Hollywood:

“Nor’easter,” from “AHS Asylum” (FX)

For the obligatory bath scene, DeMille put Poppaea in a huge pool of asses’ milk.  [Mitchell] Leisen said: “DeMille wanted the milk to just barely cover her nipples, so the day before, I had Claudette stand in the pool and I measured her to get the level just right.”  The studio technicians filled the pool with powdered milk.  In a few days, the heat of the lights turned it sour.  Cinematographer Karl Struss recalled: “Oh boy! It smelled to heaven!  It was there for a week.  Claudette was really nude, so she couldn’t get out too often.”  When she did, DeMille tried to get a free look; a technician inadvertently blocked it, and DeMille cursed him. (106)

Cover of "The Naked Kiss  - Criterion Col...

Cover of The Naked Kiss – Criterion Collection

I decided to change direction after watching Fuller’s The Naked Kiss (1964) last week.  It had been on my list after I read about it on Richard Brody’s blog–he picked it as his “DVD of the Week” back in October. It’s campy and disturbing, both–kind of like AHS Asylum–and, also like the TV show, it delves into the horrors of hypocrisy.  The Naked Kiss is not a horror movie, but more film noir, a style Fuller’s often associated with. It’s about Kelly (Constance Towers), a prostitute who moves to a small town and reforms, landing a job as a nurse at a children’s hospital; her past threatens to undo her in a place where outward appearances seem so perfect.  ”One of the story’s surprising elements,” Brody writes, “concerns a local grandee of high-cultural accomplishment who takes a shine to her—asserting . . . that devotion to the arts and sciences is no guarantee of moral character.”

The movie opens with Kelly’s beating her drunken pimp with her purse:

Fuller throws you into the story in a shockingly violent way, and what makes it even more shocking is when the pimp snatches the wig away to reveal Kelly’s bald head–it’s something you don’t expect.  After Kelly gets the money that’s owed her, she looks in the mirror and, with the opening credits superimposed over her, she fixes her appearance.

Those opening minutes play with the ideas that things are not what they appear to be; that what lies underneath might shock you; that “keeping up appearances” might be necessary to protect certain interests.  Towards the end of the movie, Kelly’s in jail, and lurid headlines suggest that’s exactly where she belongs.  In one scene, children play in the alley outside her cell, and she reaches through the bars to get the attention of a girl.  ”I won’t hurt you,” she calls out. “Please come here!”  Understandably, the children run off.   The scene is as silly as it is unlikely.  But it’s also unsettling, because it makes Kelly look threatening, monstrous.  It’s not easy to read her appearance: on one hand, her desperation taps into the horror of knowing you’re not a monster, but you’re seen as one even so; on the other, it matches the rage and violence we’ve seen in her at other points in the movie.

Still from “The Naked Kiss” (1964); Dir. Sam Fuller

That scene came to mind immediately when I saw where Shelley (Chloë Sevigny) ends up in “I Am Anne Frank: Part 2″.  Dr. Arden has turned her into a monster, and it’s a shock when you first see her.  We’ve learned that Sister Mary Eunice (Lily Rabe) has thrown her into the woods–she wasn’t that heavy, she tells Dr. Arden (James Cromwell).  Cut to a school playground.  Two girls drink from an alley water fountain.  One stays behind for a longer drink and turns her head when she hears a labored, raspy breathing.  She sees Shelley crawling up the stairwell and runs back to the teacher screaming: “There’s a monster!”

I hadn’t thought of the scene as funny until I read this post on Horror Boom, which describes how the initial moments of horror gave way to something else upon a second viewing: “the shot where the teacher and all the kids all screamed in unison with their mouths open as far as possible was actually funny.”  I agree–that united scream’s a bit over the top.  And it’s funny to me–silly–that Shelley finds her way from the woods to a schoolyard playground, of all places.

But less silly if, according to that post, Sister Mary Eunice left Shelley near the playground. Such purpose suggests that she’s deployed the monster Dr. Arden created. . . . Aaaaand this is where I wish I knew more about Nip/Tuck (2003-2010), Ryan Murphy’s show about a plastic surgery practice.  I’m wondering how Nip/Tuck might have explored body perception, or even if it looked specifically at how popular culture influences the ways we see our bodies.  How might Murphy’s earlier show shed light on body horror in Asylum?  Sister Mary Eunice uses Shelley’s new monstrosity to horrify children. Shelley recognizes as much, I think, which partly makes the scene emotionally difficult to watch.  Still, what rage might lie ahead?  How might it erupt from Shelley?  We saw rage in the housewife who thinks she’s Anne Frank, but Arden seems to have done away with it–as well as the threat she posed of revealing his Nazi past.  The Stepford wife she becomes is a version of the monster Shelley’s been turned into: the changed appearances remind us that this isn’t who they “really” are.  And that someone else has done the changing: Dr. Arden, who gets to go on keeping up the appearance of perfect respectability.

For now, at least.  I wonder if the transformations of Shelley and “Anne Frank” will be answered by Sister Jude–who incidentally is not unlike Kelly in The Naked Kiss, in the life she’s known and in the move toward outward respectability.  As more details of her past emerge, she seems to be undergoing a transformation of her own, as if realizing the habit she wears can’t repress everything. She has her doubts about Dr. Arden, for example, as we see when she hires a Nazi hunter to investigate his past.  So how might rage erupt from Sister Jude? Think she’ll ally herself with some of the other inmates to fight back against the Dr. Ardens of the world?

Asylum has shown all season how hypocrisy can thrive in society, maybe even to the point of overstating the case.  I can’t shake that early image of Kit’s (Evan Peters) arrival at Briarcliff, when doctors, nurses, and nuns line the steps leading up to the asylum.  These are the respected authorities, looking down in judgment as the car pulls up.  Lana’s part of the group, but she stands to expose the asylum for what it is, a threat that will be neutralized by the episode’s end. Whether this will be so by the end of the season remains to be seen.  She just might be my favorite character, and I hope she makes it through the sixth episode.  I’ll find out tonight.

“Welcome to Briarcliff,” from “AHS Asylum” (FX)

Falling Snow in Chris Ware’s “Building Stories”

November 9, 2012

Parts of Chris Ware’s “Building Stories”

Chris Ware’s graphic novel Building Stories comes in a box.  Inside, you’ll find 14 discrete newspapers, pamphlets, strips of paper, even something that folds out like a game board.  These are all components of the graphic novel, and how you put them together is entirely up to you–there’s not a set order you’re supposed to follow.

One component, a broadsheet, shows the main character searching for a book to take with her on a trip. She gets frustrated at finding nothing she wants to read: “Can’t I just find one that’s about regular people living everyday life?” This is what Building Stories is about: regular people, everyday life–even down to the details of an hour-by-hour account of a single day (September 23rd, 2000), one of my favorite parts.  Mostly it’s about that woman, an artist with a prosthetic leg who’s coming to recognize that her life isn’t turning out the way she thought it would.

But it gives us glimpses into other lives as well, particularly the people with whom she shares a building during one phase in her life: an unhappy boyfriend and girlfriend living together on the second floor, and on the first an old woman, the landlady, who grew up there, and aged there as her mother’s caretaker.  Depending on where you are in the story, the artist (we never learn her name) lives on the third floor.  We also see her at other points in her life, when she lives in other places: when she works as a nanny for a wealthy family; or looks out her bedroom window as a child and imagines the trees in the yard as a dense and wondrous forest; or lives with her husband Phil and daughter Lucy in suburban Chicago.

Building Stories is also about how the most mundane things have the power to take us into the past.  On a single page in the larger of the hardcover books (the smaller one evokes Little Golden Books), the artist lies awake in bed, her gaze held by a hook in the ceiling.  She wonders what the original purpose of the hook might have been–did it hold a plant? a mirror?–which leads her to imagine the everyday events that might have taken place years ago, in that very room.  Meanwhile, in her bed on the first floor, the old woman suddenly remembers what it was like as a girl to hear the bottles of milk being delivered to the building: “And the girl downstairs is jostled awake by the klinktink of a bottle, smashing on the pavement below.”

Recollections of things you had read in another part of Building Stories can come back to you almost unbidden.  Before long, you anticipate that what you read in the present will somehow work its way back into the story–and sometimes, as it turns out, in ways you wouldn’t have guessed.  When the artist moves into the building, she asks the movers if they want a pizza.  I remembered another moment in the building when she had offered coffee to someone else working for her.  Only after I went back to it did I see that it wasn’t the artist, but the old woman’s younger self.  The mix-up got me to think about how the artist and the old woman are alike: both had hopes for their future; both experienced disappointment as they grew older.  Often taking on the role of narrator, and having seen tenants come and go over the years, the building itself will later say that the old woman’s “romantic memories . . . rival those of the girl’s, both in count and frequency.  (Her disappointments, too, were just as heartfelt and hurtful.)”

Still of Takashi Shimura in Ikiru

In many ways, Building Stories is, well, depressing.  The last part I read in the story as I assembled it was the larger hardcover, which means the images I ended with were of the artist in bed in a fitful sleep, tortured by her thought that “I am entirely, 100 percent, horrifyingly alone.”  Building Stories spends a lot of time exploring loneliness, and a recurring image that emphasizes the theme is of the artist at the window looking out at the falling snow.  Every time, it reminded me of 1.) the ending of Joyce’s “The Dead,” when Gabriel stands at the window, alone: “His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead”; and 2.) the shot of Watanabe in Kurosawa’s Ikiru (1952) sitting alone on a swing in the snow, an empty swing next to him.

What I see in these two scenes–loneliness, disappointment, regret, sadness, even a kind of peace, a coming to terms with life–I also saw in the artist’s look into the falling snow.  The image can be hopeful.  In a wordless booklet focusing on the relationship between the artist and her daughter, a series of panels shows the two at the window.  The first panel shows them inside looking out into the snow.  The second “cuts” to a close-up of the window pane inside, with an emphasis on separate and unique snowflakes outside.  The final two panels shift viewpoints, so that we end outside looking in at mother and daughter.  It’s an everyday life kind of moment, and I found its quietness very moving, the two at peace in each other’s company.  I may not have ended with these images, but they are among the ones that have stayed with me.

In an excellent “Crosstalk” piece on The A.V. Club (which I highly recommend if you think Building Stories might be worth your time), Tasha Robsinson says:

. . . people who read just the Golden Book would come away thinking Building Stories was relatively upbeat, since the “24 hours in the life of an apartment building” gives way in its final page to a look ahead to 2005, when the artist is married and a mother. That’s mainly what I mean about the hope in the book: Take certain passages out of the context of the whole, and Building Stories can seem like the story of a sad young woman who got her life together. And because of the way Building Stories is assembled, readers are actually encouraged to create their own context, simply by virtue of the randomized order in which they read.

By virtue of what they’re encouraged to remember, too.  When the building gives us the numbers on its history, room by room (for example, “2,349 squashed bugs”; “13,246 light bulbs”; “469 feelings of ‘being watched’”), I remembered the pleasure I had as a child reading Richard Scarry‘s captions for the different spaces in a house or a school, and the animals who seemed so happy to be there.  Though I found the wordless booklet moving, even soothing, initially it conjured an ugly religious tract that scared the shit out of me when I read it at the YMCA, where I found it as an impressionable junior high school kid.  I started Building Stories with the newspaper.  Unfolding it and snapping the wrinkles out recalled for me the pleasure my father and I take in reading newspapers–still, in spite of the decline of print journalism.  No reader’s context will be the same as any other reader’s.  Similar, maybe, like the artist and the old woman.  But not the same: your own memories will help create a unique context for experiencing this amazing work.

If you’ve read Building Stories, I’d love to hear your thoughts.  Leave a comment, or grab a beer with me!

“AHS Asylum” and the Problem of “Freaks” (Tod Browning; 1932)

October 30, 2012
English: Low resolution image of 1949 release ...

1949 release lobby card for the film Freaks (1932), featuring star Olga Baclanova (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

American Horror Story has a Freaks problem.

Co-creators Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk are back for Asylum, their second season of the FX anthology series. The first episode, “Welcome to Briarcliff,” introduces us to Pepper, a microcephalic character that points immediately to Freaks, Tod Browning’s controversial horror flick from 1932.  Pepper (Naomi Grossman) approaches Lana (Sarah Paulson) early in the episode with a rose, as though she’s come directly from that forest scene at the beginning of Browning’s movie, when the circus “freaks” dance and play.

Over at the A.V. Club, Todd VanDerWerff calls the introduction of Pepper “particularly distasteful.”  Writing for The Atlantic Wire, Richard Lawson says, “The presence of a character named Pepper who has microcephaly and is styled in an homage to 1932′s exploitative horror movie Freaks suggests that Murphy is up to his old backhanded other-celebrating/other-shaming ways, which I hope there isn’t too much more of.”

But I think there’s something interesting going on here. Some viewers are put off by how AHS piles up the horror tropes and movie references; the general argument is that the show’s such a sprawling, cluttered mess it’s difficult to see just what the story is, or where it’s going.  On the other hand, as VanDerWerff writes, “part of the fun of American Horror Story is in the way the show tosses so much shit at the wall to see what will stick.”  I’m one of those who like the mess.  I enjoy AHS because it offers up an almost fevered celebration of the history of horror.  Pepper’s presence dares to ask why Freaks shouldn’t be considered as part of that history.

Browning’s movie is about a circus of what MGM promoted as “‘strange and grotesque freaks and monstrosities’” (qtd. in Norden and Cahill 154), including the microcephalics Zip and Pip, who take revenge on a “normal” woman Cleopatra; her plan is to marry Hans, a midget in the circus, in order to steal the fortune he’s going to inherit.  At the wedding feast–perhaps the movie’s most famous scene–the freaks welcome Cleopatra with their chant, “We accept her, one of us.”  She rejects them in disgust and contempt, and at the end they turn her into a monstrosity–a “chicken woman”.

Freaks was supposed to be MGM’s attempt, the story goes, to “out-horror” Universal’s enormously successful Frankenstein (1931).  Having directed earlier horror pictures, Browning was the go-to man, and the result was disastrous.  Critically panned and widely censored, Freaks ended up losing $158,607 (Viera 85).  What set it apart from its competition is that it relied on the performances of people who really were disabled, a fact MGM worked hard to publicize. In one publicity photo, Browning poses with the performers.  The shot emphasizes what the studio promoted as the “‘authentic’ quality” of the “freaks” (Norden and Cahill 153-54).  Yet it also reveals mutual acceptance and fondness between Browning and the people he directed.

Publicity Photo for “Freaks” (MGM)

The problem is that the photo seems at odds with how the performers are represented in the film. Martin F. Norden and Madeleine Cahill have written that Cleopatra’s transformation suggests something positive about the power of a collective minority, even as it seems to perpetuate stereotypes.  ”Though ostensibly challenging it,” they say, “Freaks reinforces the cultural link between evil and disability/ugliness; the cruel woman who early in the film is a beautiful spectacle is made hideous by the end . . .” (163).  Their larger point is that what makes the movie so “unsettling” (164) is that you never quite get a good grasp on what Browning’s trying to do. The publicity photo feeds that ambiguity.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

And this is where Pepper comes in.  After the season premiere, Murphy tweeted a photo of Pepper striking a pose in the makeup room, which led to postings of before and after pictures of Naomi Grossman. In effect the tweet is a publicity photo for AHS Asylum (especially in the page version, below); like the picture of Browning with the cast of Freaks, it creates a behind-the-scenes look for viewers interested in the show.  Grossman stands with her back against the mirror, as if she’s just turned around after being made up, and behind her you can see the reflections of what appear to be crew members (including the makeup artist?).  All this works to remind us that Pepper is a fabrication–a performer in pretty convincing costume.  But Murphy’s caption–”Pepper knows all”–disrupts that a bit by making the fabrication seem freakishly real, as though Pepper is played by herself. Sure, the whole thing’s playful, but part of that playfulness lies in our willingness to pretend the illusion isn’t an illusion.

Ryan Murphy Tweet

In This Mad Masquerade, Gaylyn Studlar writes about Americans’ fascination with freak shows in the early twentieth century, and how that fascination helped structure Lon Chaney’s career in the movies. She writes of “gaffed freaks,” who “were totally constructed; the physical condition or appearance that provided the basis of their act was fabricated” (217).  Pepper is a gaffed freak in Asylum, and rather than being a “baseless provocation,” as VanDerWerff would have it, her presence invokes not just Browning’s movie and the sideshow culture that informed it, but meaning that’s circulated from those things, and beyond them.  In other words, I think we’re invited to consider what all Pepper’s act may be drawing on.

Lon Chaney as seen in The Phantom of the Opera...

Lon Chaney as seen in The Phantom of the Opera, 1925. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There’s Lon Chaney, about whom Studlar writes:

After a knockabout career in regional theater, Chaney started in Hollywood in 1912 as a bit player at Universal.  In some seventy-five films in five years, he increasingly foregrounded his ability to change his appearance through the application of makeup and distortions of his body that made him the equivalent of a ‘gaffed freak.’ (224)

Chaney came immediately to mind when I went to Grossman’s website, where I learned more about her work as a writer and actor.  It’s uncanny, like she’s channelling Lon Chaney: I saw an amazing physical range in the YouTube video she’s posted (and where a scrolling review at the top of the page praises her “yoga-inspired physical agility”).

There’s Bill Griffith’s Zippy the Pinhead, whose presence in the comics works as a running commentary on popular culture, and somehow transforms the notion of sideshow gawking to thoughtful reflection.  According to one of the “lessons” in a “How to Read Zippy” feature on the site, “To really appreciate ‘Zippy,’ you need a thorough grounding in American pop culture.”  The “12-hour-a-day TV viewing regimen” Zippy recommends may or may not be necessary, but I do think there are ways to read Pepper’s presence other than . . . “it’s a stylistic homage.”  Look at Pepper long enough, and you begin to see more than just a spectacle of horror.

Contents copyright © 2002-2010 Bill Griffith

And that’s the problem, I guess. The distasteful exploitation very well might remain, in spite of where Pepper might take you.  Studlar writes that the creation and presentation of strangeness relied on a contradictory strategy. A public photo of freaks might show them posing with “normal” family members, for example, but that normalizing would be undercut when the same photo “sought to foreground or exaggerate the distinguishing peculiarity that was thought to make them objects of repulsion, of social stigma, and of fascination” (220).  Browning is a normalizing presence in the Freaks publicity photo, but he’s looking down–he doesn’t look into the camera as everyone else does–and this foregrounds the distinguishing peculiarities of everyone he’s posing with. (Most everyone: there are two people looking down, as if to underline both the connection and difference between normal and strange.)  For better or worse, Murphy’s tweet works the same way.

Works Cited, and Suggestions for Further Reading

TCM airs Freaks tonight at 9:15 ET, as part of its “History of Disability on Film”.  If you haven’t seen it, it’s worth watching, if only to work through some of the contradictions I’ve described in this post.  You can read a brief background piece on the movie on TCM’s website, here.

David J. Skal and Elias Savada.  Dark Carnival: The Secret World of Tod Browning.

Martin F. Norden and Madeleine Cahill.  ”Violence, Women, and Disability in Tod Browning’s Freaks and The Devil-Doll.”  Horror Film Reader.  Ed. Alain Silver & James Ursini.  150-165.

Gaylyn Studlar.  This Mad Masquerade: Stardom and Masculinity in the Jazz Age.

Mark A. Vieira.  Sin in Soft Focus: Pre-Code Hollywood.

Footballs and MacGuffins in “Revolution”

What’s On Your Nightstand?

October 22, 2012

Photo Credit: NBC (“Soul Train”)

Five episodes in, Revolution has been hit or miss for me.   The acting is often weak, and the writing can be cringeworthy, as when Aaron wonders what that amulet he finds at Grace Beaumont’s can possibly mean: “It’s like Lucy yanking some enormous cosmic football just as Charlie Brown’s about to kick it.”

But I’ve also really enjoyed the characters’ backstories.  In fact, I look forward to those scenes set in the days or weeks after the blackout, and almost dread going back to the present-day setting 15 years later. What interests me most is how characters adjusted in the weeks and months that followed the blackout, how they got caught up in the power struggles.  My favorite so far has been Tom Neville’s story, opened up for us in “Soul Train” (1.5).  An ineffectual insurance adjuster before, he’s brutal and powerful now, and my sense is that he prefers what he’s become to what he was.

I’ve also enjoyed the numerous references to pop culture, which make lines like that one from Aaron a little easier to swallow.  I’m starting to think a lot of those references are like Lucy’s football: Revolution holds them up and invites us to unlock their significance to the story, when maybe they’re nothing more than shout-outs, knowing winks to the audience.

Some viewers have suggested that the amulet is a MacGuffin (there are twelve amulets, we’ve learned).  All the references and allusions to pop culture remind me of the MacGuffin’s function to draw us deeper into the story, into fuller interaction with the characters.  What does it say about Aaron that he might like AC/DC?  Or Miles that he appears to be a Stephen King fan?  Or Neville that he reads Iaccoca?  At the same time, I’m curious about the creative decisions behind the references–I’m tempted to see more than just plot elements, but essential aspects of the storyworld.  In particular, what’s going on with all the books?

Charlie Brown

Charlie Brown (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Episode reviews on Seshat Travels have noted a number of cultural references in Revolution; look here for the most extensive list.  Fond as I am of lists, I propose a “What’s On Your Nightstand?” for Revolution.  What characters read, or what they want to read–these are the seemingly inconsequential details that could contribute to a compelling mythology, even as they draw on pop culture to tighten our connection to that mythology.

Below are titles that have been displayed or mentioned in the first five episodes.  I’ll update the list periodically, and I’ll include anything that might belong exclusively to the world of Revolution–a circulating revolutionary pamphlet, a novel published six or seven years after the blackout, a Monroe-friendly monthly (it’d be cool to see made-up titles).  If I miss anything (and I’m sure I will, if I haven’t already), please let me know so I can add it. Ditto for your ideas on why a book gets acknowledged.  I’m not entirely sure what this will accomplish.  But dammit, Lucy’s holding that football steady, and I’m gonna kick it.

“No Quarter” (1.3)

Iaccoca: An Autobiography (Lee Iacocca and William Novak) Neville reads the former Chrysler chairman’s 1980s autobiography in camp, keeping an eye on Danny.

The Stand (Stephen King) Miles uses characters’ names from this novel as aliases.

Shawshank Redemption (King) Holed up in an Applebee’s-type chain restaurant, Miles says, “We’re going to Shawshank our asses out of here.”  It’s not clear if he alludes to King’s novels, or the film adaptations.  My hunch is that Miles would have consumed both back in the day.  Now that people can’t watch movies anymore, though, would they read the novels?  Would Stephen King still be popular, and if so, in which regions?  Would there be a resurgence anywhere of, oh I don’t know, Mrs. Gaskell’s novels?

“The Plague Dogs” (1.4)

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (L. Frank Baum)  Before the blackout, Maggie’s children beg her to read them “just one chapter”.  Plot element: Maggie is like a mother to Charlie, and her children would now be young adults, roughly the same age as Charlie and Danny; this element makes her death devastating to Charlie, and poignant to viewers (to this viewer, at least).  Lucy’s football: yeah, yeah–the reference to Baum’s novel underlines that we’re in a different world now (along with the tornado that sends Neville and Danny to the cellar).  But more interestingly, it raises the question of how culture is passed on to new generations in this new world.  For example: what, if anything, do parents read to their children in the  post-blackout era?  If Charlie had heard Aaron, would she have known Lucy and Charlie Brown from Peanuts anthologies? Man, I hope people are still reading comics.

“Soul Train” (1.5)

A biography of Joe Biden.  I laughed like Biden when I heard this.  Nora asks for a biography in the bookstore (or printer’s shop? cartographer’s?).  It’s the password that gets her access to the local rebel leader, although an Amazon search shows that as of this post there are at least three biographies to choose from.  How’s Biden remembered 15 years from now?  With all the references to pop culture, I wonder if we’ll see the impact of historical figures on Revolution‘s development–not to mention the impact of historic events like the upcoming election in the U.S.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (J.K. Rowling) The printer is working on proofs of this novel when Nora gives him the password.  I’m curious whether we’ll see what Harry Potter means now, in a world without electricity.  As for Nora: wouldn’t she be a younger member of the Millennial Generation? Would she have grown up with Harry Potter?  Would she have streamed the movies as a child?  Read the books?  Gone to Universal Studios?

Photo Credit: NBC (“Soul Train”)

Ghosts at the Stanley Hotel

Sinister (2012; Scott Derrickson)

October 16, 2012
English: The Stanley Hotel in Feb, Estes Park, CO

The Stanley Hotel, Estes Park, CO (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When it’s not tourist season, Estes Park, Colorado feels like a deserted town.  If you take US 36 from Lyons (near Boulder), you drive about 17 miles of climbing roads and then descend into the valley, just after you see the slab of rock welcoming you to Estes Park, where a lot of people stop to have their pictures taken.  Lake Estes comes into view, and soon the power lines along the lake’s southern side.  But the thing from Estes that always seems to greet me first is way off in the distance.  The stately white building with a red roof–you see it nearly your entire drive down.

This is the Stanley Hotel.  Stephen King conceived of The Shining while staying here, and it’s where the 1997 television version of the novel was filmed.  You often see people parked off the road that horseshoes out from the hotel, snapping pictures and pointing, and sometimes just standing with their arms folded, looking without saying anything.  I always wonder if they’re Stephen King fans.

My parents used to live in Estes Park, and a few years ago family and friends met there to spend Christmas together.  There wasn’t enough room for everyone to stay in the house (there would not have been enough patience, either), so several of us ended up at the Stanley.  As it happened, my wife and I stayed in a room on the second floor, a few doors down from where King supposedly spent the night.

I remembered our time there while watching Scott Derrickson’s Sinister over the weekend.  Please don’t draw any conclusions.  I simply wondered if Ethan Hawke’s character Ellison Oswalt would sink into madness, like Jack Torrance in The Shining.  Which made me think of the Stanley.  Which got me to recall that one Christmas in Estes Park.

© 2011 – Summit Entertainment, LLC.

Sinister, by the way, is one of the latest in the line of “found footage” movies. Ellison is a true-crime writer who prepares for his next book by moving with his wife and two children to a house where a family was murdered.  His wife’s used to the extent he’ll go for his research, but I never quite bought that she’d go this far.  He doesn’t even tell her the history of the house, the jerk, and instead lies that they’re just “a few doors down” from the crime scene. He finds Super 8 films in the attic, and really unsettling scenes follow, especially when we watch, with Ellison, the grisly details recorded in the footage.

No crime scenes at the Stanley that I know of, but there are plenty of ghost stories attached to the hotel.  From Wikipedia:

Many believe the Stanley Hotel is haunted, having reported a number of cases of ghostly activity, primarily in the ballroom. Kitchen staff have reported to have heard a party going on in the ballroom, only to find it empty. People in the lobby have allegedly heard someone playing the ballroom’s piano; employees investigating the music purportedly found nobody sitting at the piano. Employees believe that particular ghost is of Freelan O. Stanley’s wife, who used to be a piano player. In one guest room, people claim to have seen a man standing over the bed before running into the closet. This same apparition is allegedly responsible for stealing guests’ jewelry, watches, and luggage. Others reported to have seen ghosts in their rooms in the middle of the night, simply standing in their room before disappearing.

Four of us will swear to ghostly activity in that room on the second floor.  It was late in the afternoon on Christmas Day, and we had experienced a wonderful dinner in the ballroom.  We were all meeting back at my parents’ place for the evening, just a short walk from the hotel.  We four detoured to the room so my wife and I could get coats for the walk.  We were boisterous in a Christmas-cheer sort of way as we went inside and I shut the door behind us.  Each of us sat in a different place in the room as someone continued the story he had been telling.

Then suddenly it was quiet, as though we had all stopped laughing or talking at the exact same moment. A clicking sound broke the silence, followed by a single creak, and we turned our eyes (as we all confirmed later) to the door as it slowly opened inward.

“I thought you closed the door.”

“I did,” I said, and immediately the radio turned on and white noise filled the room.  After several long seconds, one of us got up to turn the radio off.  We found our coats and left.  No one spoke a word.

There’s a scene in Sinister when Ellison walks through the hallway in his house, looking into different rooms.  We see the ghosts of children following him, watching him.  Sensing their presence, he snaps his head to where he thinks they are, but every time, they dash into one of the rooms and out of his sight.  That scene becomes even more haunting once you see what happens when the film ends, but in real time it makes you feel vulnerable to an unknown presence, which was incredibly unnerving.  This is what I felt in our room at the Stanley.  No apparitions, no missing luggage.  We didn’t see a thing, but we felt a presence.

Probably the door didn’t latch when I closed it, and the radio alarm coincidentally went off.  Even so, the strange feeling those couple of minutes left us with was real.

And that’s how I felt when Sinister was over: the movie left me with a weird feeling.  The “haunting” at the Stanley didn’t feel all that sinister; when I walked out of the darkened theater, however, I felt really uncomfortable.  The movie was fun, to be sure.  It’s smart in the way it reflects on horror in the digital age—Ellison digitizes and edits the celluloid images, and in one fantastic moment, he’s positioned between the humming film projector on the left side of the frame, and the glowing computer monitor on the right. It also scared the hell out of me, and this can be pleasurable, like remembering the ghosts at the Stanley.

Photo by Phil Caruso – © 2011 Summit Entertainment, LLC.

But Derrickson manages to do what Hitchcock does in movies like Psycho. He makes you aware of the desire you might have to watch evil acts. The films Ellison finds turn out to be murders recorded by the killer(s).  At his first screening, he pours himself a thumb of bourbon (I think it was) over three cubes of ice, and then sits back to watch the grainy film projected on the white sheet he’s tacked to the wall of his private office.  It’s as if his work as true-crime writer is not without its pleasures.  As Jason Bailey recently pointed out in an excellent article on Sinister and V/H/S, the revulsion we feel that killers would film their victims “gets tangled up with a fear that we might, somewhere in the darkest corner of our psyche, want to see their handiwork (which in turn further feeds our own revulsion).”  It’s difficult to look that feeling square in the eyes, to acknowledge it might even exist.

I guess it should be noted that friends staying on the fourth floor that Estes Christmas claimed to have heard the sounds of feet pitter-pattering on the roof–like children running back and forth, they said.  I remember there was rain on the night they described, so that’s probably all it was.

in , USA

Photo credit: Wikipedia

“Treme” and David Simon’s Dismissal of Melodrama

“I’ll Fly Away” (1.10)

October 3, 2012
List of songs in Treme

Treme (Wikipedia)

Willa Paskin’s interview with David Simon from a week ago reminded me why I like Treme so much–and it’s inspired me to go ahead and start the second season, instead of waiting until January as I’d originally planned.  (See “What I’m Watching This Fall”.)

Talking with Paskin as Treme began its third season on HBO, Simon calls most television “unwatchable”; he says it fails to get viewers engaged with the world they live in.  Here’s part of his response to Paskin’s question about how his work might be different from other TV:

This sounds really snobbish and I don’t mean it because it’s not like I don’t watch TV, but I find a lot of it to be unwatchable, because I don’t see it as being reflective of anything. It’s not as if we don’t cheat when we make drama. There are cheats in “Treme,” there were certainly cheats in “The Wire.” You’re not trying to make a documentary, you’re not just turning the camera on and letting people be. This is not Frederick Wiseman. But I start seeing those seams where people have sewn together melodrama and they’re not really interested in what the invasion of Iraq at 30 days can tell us or what the years after Katrina in this city that suffered a near-death experience can tell us; what they’re interested in is sustaining a franchise. They’re interested in having a TV show and writing these characters and maximizing the number of eyeballs.

I think he’s right when he talks about corporate efforts to sustain a franchise.  You could go further and say that a good franchise helps strengthen the brand, whether it’s NBC or HBO.  Simon heads in this direction later in the interview when he expresses gratitude to HBO for supporting his brand of storytelling, which he implies is something you wouldn’t find on “regular TV”.

What you will find there, he suggests, is melodrama.  Just before the remark I’ve quoted above, he observes, “I have very little threshold for melodrama. Probably too low to not get kicked out of television at some point.”  It’s as though Simon wants to distance himself–and his work–from something so low.  Treme‘s a drama, sure, but not melodrama!

I doubt Simon means to be snobbish, but his comments do reflect snobbish attitudes toward melodrama, often dismissed as manipulative, emotionally excessive entertainment. Yet the term can also be descriptive of the complexities of emotionally powerful experiences.  In Film Studies, Linda Williams argues that one characteristic of melodrama in American cinema is a profound sense of loss, and that what moves viewers to tears is the feeling that it’s too late to recover what’s been lost, or that what’s been lost has been recovered, more happily, just in time, before it was lost for good.

After reading the Simon interview, I went back to the last several episodes of Treme‘s first season, and was struck by how they explore varying experiences of loss, including: the death of a loved one (if you’ve seen Season One, you know the characters I’m talking about, as well as the people their deaths affect); the exclusion from community (I have in mind Albert Lambreaux’s being locked up, in what feels like a cruel whim, forced to miss Mardi Gras); the impending loss of a treasured city (as Janette prepares to move to New York, in spite of Davis’s moving efforts to keep her in New Orleans).

The season’s final episode “I’ll Fly Away” closes with a funeral.  Several flashbacks show characters preparing for the arrival of Katrina, and partly what’s so overwhelming is that we know what the characters do not: the storm will be devastating; indeed it’s why we’re all gathered at this funeral. When we return to the present, the service concludes, and a second line forms:

HBO

The entire season is invested in these closing minutes.  I felt like I understood something of the characters’ emotional pain because I had witnessed their stories over ten episodes.  The sequence affirms this intimacy by placing us in the midst of the action, inside the second line.  For me, the most moving moment (there are several in these seven minutes) comes at around 4:25, when LaDonna seems to collapse in grief, only to rise back to the line, as though strengthened by the community she’s part of.

But the sequence also reminded me that I’m not part of this community, that I watch Treme as someone who hasn’t lived in New Orleans, and who knows it mostly from what he’s seen on HBO. The sequence alternates between involvement and detachment–we’re part of the line, then distanced observers of it.  The music follows suit, growing louder or softer depending on where we are.  (You also recognize the powerful draw of the music in the shots of people who hear the approaching sounds, looking to join the line–a draw that reflects my own frequent desire watching this show to be in New Orleans.)

HBO

HBO

HBO

Towards the end of the sequence, we move into an overhead shot as the line breaks up below; the music stops, and the day resumes.  The sounds you hear all come from the street, but at 6:07, a voice jars you because it comes unexpectedly from somewhere closer–as though from someone standing next to you.  I don’t know if anyone else can make out the words, but as of this post I hear something like “You put up the mike?”  Whatever’s being said, that voice makes you aware of a different space–the space from which you look out on the street scene.  It’s almost like we’re standing with the film crew, or in a group of onlookers.  We observe from a distance.

“You’re not trying to make a documentary,” Simon tells Paskin, “you’re not just turning the camera on and letting people be.”  It’s questionable, of course, that any documentary really lets people be.  Still, note Simon’s hope that viewers will be able to hear what New Orleans says through the dramatic fiction of Treme.  Whatever his attitude towards melodrama, his dismissal of it seems more a concern that the imperatives of commercial television (to which HBO is not immune; but that’s another post) won’t be exploitative of the real stories of suffering in New Orleans.  (He mentions the impact of disaster capitalism on the city, and my sense is that Season Two will start to explore that impact.)

The opening credits of Treme have a shot of former FEMA director Michael Brown.  Remember him?–the guy Bush praised in the days after Katrina: “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job.”  I mention that because at the end of “I’ll Fly Away,” the distinct sound of a helicopter at 6:32 conjures up similar reminders of the national response to Katrina–specifically, the now-famous images of President Bush surveying the damage from his helicopter.  In one image, Bush looks through the window.  The photo betrays the president’s very human response to the devastation, but I’m unable to separate the sadness in his face from the suffering caused by the failures of an administration that kept its distance.

At 3:55 in the sequence above,  John Boutté asks a man standing on the street, “Who dead?”  Treme is remarkable for the way it encourages us to discover what’s been lost in Katrina and its aftermath–and what it’s not too late to lose.  I realize “us” is kind of a problem in talking about these things.  I don’t know what it’s like to live in New Orleans, or what it might have been like to grow up there.  I don’t know the real stories, in other words.  But I’m trying to hear.

Frith Street Post

A view from Soho on the important issues in life

UNPOPCULT

We think TV is better than real life

US 31 Film Reviews

a discussion of television, with digressions

eating the pages

one man's valiant attempt to balance travel, teaching, reading, writing, coffee, and fatherhood

Alison Klejna

This one life

Curnblog

Movies, thoughts, thoughts about movies.

Fit for a year

Running to fitness, year two.

HORROR BOOM

I got lucky and grew up during the horror boom in the 1980s. Here's what happened!

judgmental observer

a blog about film, television & popular culture.

Lily Wight

The Arcade of Arts & Arcana

Sidekick Reviews

Sci-Fi Movies TV Gaming News & Reviews

BAGnewsNotes

a discussion of television, with digressions

Say It Ain't So Already

Media & Politics, Musings, Food, Irritations, Gardening, Science, We the People, Weather, Dogs. Stuff Like That.

"You Jivin' Me, Turkey?"

“The Conventional View Serves To Protect Us From The Painful Job Of Thinking.” –JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH

Designing Geek

Pop Culture News & Reviews

Just TV

random thoughts from media scholar Jason Mittell

Peekawhoo

a discussion of television, with digressions

a discussion of television, with digressions

a discussion of television, with digressions

Confessions of an Aca-Fan

a discussion of television, with digressions

Filth Screen

a discussion of television, with digressions

FlowTV

a critical forum on television and media culture

Brainy Gamer

a discussion of television, with digressions

a discussion of television, with digressions

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: