November 13, 2013

 

To my left, please find sexy, smouldering, Rudolph Valentino, circa 1926. This photo is from The Son of the Sheik. I watched my first Valentino film at the suggestion of my mother-in-law, Norma. I was bit by the Valentino bug and have just started the Valentino biography “Dark Lover” by Emily W. Leider.

On The Son of the Sheik DVD there are extras, among them a little newsreel called “The Sheik’s Physique.” Oh! That title brings me such joy! The featurette depicts Valentino going for a swim and then hiding in a car. That’s all it is. A few minutes of bathing suit (with the tank top) and running about and then jumping in a car. Not much plot but the job is accomplished, the physique of said sheik is revealed.

Next time I’m in L.A. I’m going to visit his grave at Hollywood Forever Cemetery. Oh dear, Hollywood Forever Cemetery makes me miss Los Angeles. But no, I’m not letting myself sink into a nostalgic despair, there is plenty about my location here near Chicago that I’m determined to explore.

But more on movies later.

No!

Before we talk about books, let’s talk about the beauty of not going anywhere. For six weeks now I’ve had no place to be that’s out-of-town, and little or no appointments in town. It feels revolutionary. I get so much done! I get my exercise in, I get my writing in, I make dinner for the family, things get organized. I’ve watched a fair number of movies. Sometimes I fantasize about never going anywhere, ever. Just being in my house. There’s always been a part of me that just wants to hibernate, but I fear this aspect of my character only gets stronger with age. So you see, I may pine for Los Angeles from time to time, but mostly I just want routine and the expediency of familiarity and home.

I am about to leave town, however.

Just for five days, then soon after, another five days. The first five days are going to be fun. Jill Sobule and I are doing 5 shows in the NorthEast: In Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. (See the performing schedule for exact dates and times.)

Dave Carpenter is coming along to play stand up bass. We are the three musketeers, and we had such a good time on the west coast a month or so ago. We’ll be driving a mini-van (the big bass requires it) from gig to gig - a few hours of travel each day. We listen to books on tape, we listen to songs, we sing and tell stories and laugh and have fun. Please come out and see us if you’re so inclined. After this tour I’m taking a long break from performing on stage. So I feel a bit giddy and unhinged at the specter of doing five last shows. It may make for nutty shows. C’mon out. It’ll be fun.

Then, after this, we’re spending Thanksgiving in Los Angeles. That’s when the walk through Hollywood Forever Cemetery will be taken.

Okay.

Books read in October 2013.

I have four books to discuss.

1.) How Should A Person Be? written by Sheila Heti. I started this, got halfway through, then finished the book a few weeks later. Heti is really something. I loved this book, even though I’m sympathetic with the critics. It is written from a (possibly) off-putting and rarefied voice - the young artist who can indulge herself in navel gazing. But oh god, what funny and glorious gazing! This book is what I want “Girls” (the HBO show) to be more like - which it often is, but sometimes isn’t. In any case, I recommend this book. Get lost in it. Wander around in the mind of this author, and you will find you care about her quite a bit, in spite of your expectations. It’s really beautifully written.

2.) Dissident Gardens, written by Jonathan Lethem. Okay, I decided to stop reading this book about - well, a little more than halfway through. I may go back to it someday. I’m keeping my copy of the book. It’s just… I don’t know. Am I not up to Jonathan Lethem? It’s really dense. One might say overwritten. The sentences are highwire acts, I often had to start the sentence again and again to get what he was trying to say. The characters have more thoughts in a single action that I think is reasonable. There were many sentences that were astonishingly brilliant. But in the end, I felt they were calling attention to themselves. Like watching a dancer do titillating leaps and twirls, you begin to be awed by the skill and forget the story. Also, the characters are mostly unlikable. Yes, I get it. We are all flawed. Flawed characters resemble real people, and are more interesting than completely likable characters. But I feel in some cases - it’s hard to hang out with someone - or a group of people - you don’t like that much. In real life, I avoid these types of people. Maybe that’s a lame excuse, but I gave up. I set the book down and decided not to continue it.

3.) I See You Made an Effort, written by Annabelle Gurwitch. I know Annabelle and I was asked to read this book to possibly provide a blurb. It was really good. I laughed so much, and was moved deeply by the last half. It was easy as pie to write about how much I liked it. The book comes out in March.

4.) One Summer: America, 1927, written by Bill Bryson. Okay, I listed this book last month as one in which I’d read half. Bill Bryson was in town and did an author event that I attended. (I’m a big, BIG fan.) After seeing him at this event, I never went back to the book. It may have been (and this is possibly a poor excuse) that Bill answered an audience question that rankled me so deeply that I was disgruntled. Bryson wrote “A Short History of Nearly Everything” which is a wonderful book about the history of science. I love this book dearly. I’ve read it at least twice and listened to it as well (he reads the audio book version.) I count this book as one of my all time favorites.

But, at this author event, someone said to Bryson: “Your book ‘A Short History’ was deeply meaningful to me, changed my life even. What do you think about faith and science being in conflict?” I got the impression that the person was like me, in that my deepened understanding of science made faith in God impossible. However, Bryson answered, “I’m not a person of faith, but I found during my research for this book that many scientists had no problem with their faith in God and science.” Bryson went further, he spoke at length about how it was fine to believe in God and also study science and that at it’s deepest level there was no conflict and that faith was exactly that - faith - and that it was fine to believe. He even intimated that science didn’t contradict the claims of religion. (I am paraphrasing and summarizing, but that’s basically what he wanted us to understand.) I got the impression that the young men in the audience was surprised by this answer. His face was in a pinch. He looked disappointed. As was I. How could my beloved Bill Bryson give such a stunning defense of faith in God, and not in conflict with science?

However, the others in the audience - mostly affluent, white (and white-haired) suburbanites - were nodding their heads, like - yes - I am a person who understands science and is also religious and it’s okay! And here is Bill Bryson saying it’s fine!

What?

Huh?

Maybe if you believed in a deist version of God - some power that started the universe and stepped back - maybe a scientist could not find conflict in that. But that’s not what most people define as “God.” They think of God as - here in the West anyway - as the all-powerful and all-knowing God - a God that intervenes in human lives, watches over all, is responsive when appealed to, who had a son and sent him to earth, and who sends cryptic messages (especially to pre-literate and pre-historic people!) That’s what most people call God.

A deep understanding of science is absolutely at odds with faith in a God such as that.

What I thought was happening was this: Bill Bryson doesn’t want to wade into this territory. He wants to please (by saying he is not a person of faith) but he also wants to appeal to the (hazy, lazy) believers, too. He gave an answer that was appealing and self-congratulating (and not challenging!) to an audience that mostly wants to attend their church because, well, frankly because it’s their culture. Church provides them with social dividends, and a place to go on Sundays, to meet and know each other and a place for all their rituals of birth, death and marriage. This is all understandable. But these are also people who want to think of themselves as scientifically literate and they don’t want to challenge the literal nature of the stories they’ve assimilated and accepted.

I wished Bill Bryson had said, “There are a lot of scientists that have no problem with their understanding of how the world works and belonging to a church. I’m not sure how they reconcile it but it might have something to do with how pleasant it can be to belong to a church.”

But he said their “faith in God.”

Okay, he could have said, “I don’t get it, but some scientists have no problems with their faith in God.” Because really, how could you get it? It makes no sense.

Anyway…

This just… really bugged me.

And then I just… didn’t pick up the book again.

Even though it’s probably great. Even though I will read it eventually. I swear I will. This isn’t like Lethem. It’s Bryson for chrissake. I love him. But why did he answer that question that way?

Grrr…..

Okay, now onto movies. I had quite a movie month. But I probably won’t write much about them because I am getting tired of writing and you are probably getting tired of reading, too.

Movies watched in October 2013

1.) The Girlfriend Experience, 2009, directed by Steven Soderbergh

2.) Bloom, 2003, directed by Sean Walsh

3.) Fill The Void, 2013, directed by Rama Burshtein

4.) Lucky Star, 1929, directed by Frank Borzage

5.) Cleo From 5 to 7, 1962, directed by Agnes Varda

6.) Magic Mike, 2012, directed by Steven Soderbergh

7.) Behind the Candelabra, 2013, directed by Steven Soderbergh

8.) The Sheik, 1921, directed by George Melford

9.) The Son of the Sheik, 1926, directed by George Fitzmourice

10.) The Bling Ring, 2013, directed by Sofia Coppola

11.) Pariah, 2011, directed by Dee Rees

12.) Gravity, 2013, directed by Alfonso Cuaron

13.) Argo, 2012, directed by Ben Affleck

14.) 56 UP, 2012, directed by Michael Apted

15.) Like Crazy, 2011, directed by Drake Doremus

16.) This is 40, 2012, directed by Judd Apatow

Quick notes: This is 40, I really didn’t think I’d like - even though I like Apatow movies, particularly The 40 Year Old Virgin. But I enjoyed This is 40 sooo much, I laughed so hard, I found it really truthful and honest in the middle of the exaggerated nature of — well, of all of the plot and sub-plots. I wanted to watch it again.

I watched The Bling Ring twice. So haunting and gorgeously directed. So detached and yet intimate - only Sofia Coppola can get that simultaneously. 56 Up, I wake up at night thinking of those people. We are almost the same age. They seem so old. It feels like the end, is it the end? God, I hope not.

I loved, loved, LOVED Behind the Candelabra - such perfectly pitched and audacious performances by both Damon and Douglas.

Lucky Star is so viscerally gorgeous, so tender and sad, so brilliant. Jesus, Borzage, the best silent director of all? I think so!

Cleo from 5 to 7, well - this is my third time seeing it this year, and it won’t be my last. I adore Agnes Varda.

Okay, best movie of the month? Pariah. Just, just, just, just - you have to see it. It’s about a young black girl coming to terms with her parents and her sexuality - omg, so great, so moving.

Oh! Fill the Void. Another really moving film about an orthodox Jewish girl in Israel and the tragic and yet brilliantly hopeful situation she finds herself in.

I really liked The Girlfriend Experience a great deal. I became a bit obsessed with the lead actress afterwards - she is a famous porn actress, her name is Sasha Grey. Okay, here is my thought about this movie. Sasha’s character in the film, Chelsea, is very flat and affect-less. But I liked this - because I felt that it was part of the point that Soderbergh was making. She was a blank - a blank personality that she actually cultivated (she is a prostitute… a high-priced prostitute) because men projected onto her what they wanted. Some people complained that she was so flat. But I thought her flatness enhanced the film. I figured she probably is really like that. Then, after I watched the movie, I watched a few videos of Sasha Grey - not in her porn, but in real life, on You Tube, talking about her porn. Well, Sasha Grey is NOT FLAT AND AFFECTLESS. She is bubbling with opinions and personality. This made me feel very confused about the movie I thought I saw and what I thought I saw in it and what Soderbergh was trying to convey. Grey is a fully dimensional and interesting specific personality. But he made a movie, using her, as a person with almost no personality. Hmmm…. I began to wonder if Soderbergh knew what he had with Grey.

I have to say, I enjoyed Magic Mike.

Okay, I’m tired and I want to post this blog entry. Until next month people….