Showing posts with label emotional terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emotional terrorism. Show all posts

Friday, March 02, 2018

The Flower People Screaming: DOCTOR FAUSTUS (1967)


Richard Burton's semi-forgotten directorial debut/swan song, DOCTOR FAUSTUS came out in swingin' 1967 and it's too bad it didn't know there was a whole summer of love going on outside the halls of Oxford, because with a few tweaks, thanks to all its Satanic, Illuminati, 'interiority-hallucination' and horror film iconography, FAUSTUS could have been a nice psychedelic midnight movie. All it needed was the right poster (and a younger, sexier lead actress as Helen of Troy). Like BOOM, it's a film undone by wrong casting, since Burton and Taylor were so big, you couldn't get one without the other. Thus characters meant for younger actors are burdened with someone never meant for the part. The reason: because one didn't want to anger them. Burton and Liz, cockblocking each other from the May-December nectar. (a young stud with haunting eyes, like John Phillip Law or Terence Stamp for Liz in BOOM; an ethereal beauty like Marianne Faithful or Julie Christie for Dick in FAUSTUS). But hey, that's show biz. 

An adaptation of Christopher Marlowe's Elizabethan play, made by Burton to raise funds for his alma mater, the Oxford Dramatic Societ. And man, it can drag a bit, until you can barely wait for hell to roar up and get its claws and fangs sunk into our ranting antihero, so class can end and you can race out into the quad and smoke grass or drop acid. 

But, dig man, see it again the next night, brain and pupils still expanded, and you may find there's a sensationalist, existential, trippy drug fantasia in its margins. It's there, I swear! So drop a micro-dose an hour before class starts, then mosey in and see where things land.

Oh but the trepidation of taking one's first trip, one's first big lysergic step. There's no going back. I remember the hysteria and hype in the 80s that kept me from doing it for the longest time: you could go insane permanently! Chromosomes damaged! In other words, damned, so the newbie's trepidation is mirrored in Faustus' second thought, needing to egged on by his cronies.

And so it is, whether intentionally or not, Burton susses out the commonality between Faust's devil bargain, Marlowe's sub-Shakesepearean prose, and the "lay down all thought / surrender to the void" philosophy of the flower people singing in the street. Both are in the sway of the beyond (sunflower petals glowing like flames in the dilated pupils of the dosed), and between all the psychedelics in the wind and Burton's own alcoholism and habit of disappearing into a fog with Liz (those drunken bender weekends), it's as if any kind of normal baseline by which to measure the bizarre in a British/Italian vanity production has been permanently eroded.

Like Roger Corman in the US that same sunshiny year, Burton was quick to make use of already-available props and sets from Italy's early-60s glut of Gothic horror films. All the macabre symbols and colors and imagery carry over from schlock to art, serving as hallucinational markers through the Jungian birth/rebirth Hell-initiation / the 'it is not dying / it is knowing' nirvana being over one side (the good trip) and the thousand rending talons of self-centered fear that shred your resistant ego to ribbons (the bad). In the end, while it's better to experience the former, the latter is much more cinematic.


Filmed in Italy and England, there's a lot of painterly craftsmanship at work in Faustus that few critics are in the mood to mention. The lighting evokes Bava's Black Sabbath (the gold standard) in its stunning use of colored gel spots. turning cobwebs and walls all sorts of ghoulish, unnatural, but strangely cozy colors. The subject -- a seeker who finds and realizes he was better off not knowing -- evokes Roger Corman's very California The Trip (from the same year, 1967 - above) and Corman's earlier, yet still highly-psychedelic horror films Masque of the Red Death (1964) and X-The Man with X-Ray Eyes (1963), even 1966's Wild Angels in a way. These Corman films ten towards sidpa bardo-aping hallucinations that subsume our seeker in 'careful what you look for' ironic comeuppance: kaleidoscopic images of painted women writhing in delight that change to withered crones the closer you get to them, monstrous orgies smeared on all sides by vaseline for trippy distortions, time lapse dissolves; the descent to madness kickstarted via dungeons, caves, cobwebbed skulls under cozy purple gel spots, sudden strange juxtapositional overlaps, and copious occult symbolism.

That the story's parallels to drug use are never overtly emphasized by Burton doesn't matter. He can't escape the tenor of the times, and drunks like he and Liz fit right in with acidheads, for both--sooner or later--get the honor of taking a Dante-style tour through the depths of hell. Both the high art of Burton and Marlowe and the drive-in sensationalism of Corman are centered around this savvy of the well of woe waiting right outside the blinders of our world. We would know more, like Faust, like Peter Fonda in The Trip or Prospero in Masque or Xavier in X-The Man with X-Ray Eyes. We seek to attain enlightenment, not through aeons of meditation and work with a guru, but the fast way... via a little tab on the tongue.

And should you disregard the warning label on Medusa's chintzy veil, don't whine when you're too stoned to write anything down, even though you dropped all that acid to improve your poetry. How ironic! That's the devil's bargain - he gives you endless inspiration but then--oops--no ink for your pen. The stores are closed; your car doesn't work and you shouldn't drive anyway. Everyone else is asleep, and there's no way to write down your flights of genius. How the devil doth laugh and laugh! Even if you had a pen it would take you years just to stop staring at it in quiet awe. 

The Trip

The books and drug pamphlets and 12-step meetings, and theaters, are all full of tales of those fools who'd ignore the 'caution' signs to "sound the depth of that they would profess" (as Faustus puts it), who live it up and order everything on the menu, still they aren't full nor satisfied; comes the devil's check they try to stave it off by ordering more and more. But finally they may order no more. the check must be paid. And so it is, by screaming, psych wards, rehabs, withdrawal, and suicide. These days psychedelics are being de-demonized but in 1967 they were still being blamed for anti-Vietnam protests so made illegal by a spooked Nixon. Thus even in The Trip there is the disclaimer in the beginning and 'cracked glass' ending, both forced on the film by the nervous producers who wanted to make sure the psychedelic experience was portrayed, ultimately, as causing calamitous long-term brain damage. More than governmental censure, I'm wagering James Nicholson was worried about lawsuits, suing AIP for endorsing a drug that convinced cousin Timmy he could fly out a sixth-story window.

In Faustus, however it's even more bleak and final than a cracked head or a splat on the concrete:  the voyage to Hell being paved with eternal DTs is represented by an evil Liz Taylor in green body paint, her hair a bed of snakes, laughing evilly.

Dude, I've been there. The ghost demon girls all laughing at me after luring me into a no-exit trap. It's like you wake up with a hangover so screaming you know it's going to turn into DTs in a few hours if you can't find your last Librium, or secret whiskey stash. You can't because you can't even get of the couch without shaking, dry-heaving. and hyperventilating. the visions and shakes consume you so bad all you can do is scream, a scream without end... Close your eyes / Close your Eyes / Relax, think of nothing / tonight" - as Mary sings in Jesus Christ Superstar. But that does nothing to dispel the visions, and time slows to a crawl. Your hangover shakes don't get better as the hour click by, the way they would for a non-alcoholic (i.e. someone who hasn't signed that infernal contract). The longer you wait before getting high or drunk again, the worse the shakes get, exponentially, lower and lower, until perdtion's flame licks your culo. 

"Heyyy, Swamp! Hey Swampyyy!")

It's ironic then that Burton and Taylor--then married and still tabloid gold--are the weakest parts of the film. Like many towering drunk titans of the stage and screen, each could rely on a bag of tricks to mask their various hangover and bloated periods for only so long. Burton, especially, as he'd later prove in nearly every role he took, uses tortured booming depth of voice and harrowed stare of beady eye to mask his doleful hangover; ever gazing past the camera, he's presumably looking at cue cards, or the clock, waiting..... waiting.... for cocktail hour (1).

That's not to say great genius couldn't be wrung from such sad states! Burton and Taylor had just made their two--by far--best films--Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Taming of the Shrew--right before doing Faustus. They were on their career-defining roll, making up for their inert chemistry in Cleopatra with a vengeance. 

But it's all gone for Faust -- and it's clear right away what the problem is: Burton needs a playmate of equal stature, someone to provoke and challenge him, or he loses his energetic madness X-factor. He needs to plays off Liz's energy, making full use of their Pisces-Scorpio dynamic. BUT her character in Doctor Faustus never speaks, or appears as anything but a Ligeia/Rebecca-style anima (with an initially haunting but eventually tiresome Yma Sumac-ish leitmotif following her around like a ghostly herald). In short, she is simply miscast. She overflows the boundaries of a mute object role/phantom role. It's like casting Bette Davis as Jessica in I Walked with a Zombie or Anna Magnani as Lolita. To put it bluntly, she is simply way too old, too regal, too grand, too tremendous, to play a cipher role like this. Clearly these interludes where she sashays through the scene were not in Marlowe's play. They're written for her, so they can put her name on. the marquee while at the same time freeing her from having to memorize any of the fancy-pants Elizabethan dialogue. In one groan-worthy scne Faustus beholds her beauty and asks "is this the face that launched a thousand ships?" you feel like raising your hand to give the obvious answer. If you loved the brawling Liz in Shrew and Woolf, and were hoping for more of the same, you too might be inevitably weirded-out to see that same sexy-buy-clearly-aging force of nature posited as the ultimate silent objet-d'art of youthful ephemera, especially when she's competing with an array of young, sexy British models, all bravely clad in nothing but the glow from the OS hellfire.


Every straight male in the world knows this scene (above) from their fantasies and nightmares, the odalisques lounging in the flames of the fever / bad trip / vision of fear/desire/hell/heaven rolled together. They're always there, deep in our straight male DNA, judging all we see and do with scathing insolence. Their silence speaks volumes to our frenzied bloodstream.  Liz's silence in Faustus speaks only to the gay sensibility's love of high camp, a kind of pre-Madonna plays Mona Lisa on a Tracy Lord pedestal. (2) She's neither terrifying or beguiling, while the above scene is both. These girls above are the maenads from the sidpa bardo. One wrong move, one flinch of fear, and they change from seducing you to rending you to pieces and devouring the remains. They are the demon reflections of our anima.  To put it in Jungian archetypal terms, Taylor is simply not a blank enough canvas for our inner woman to project on. She's already fully filled in. 

Another particular flaw with the film is the mythic-reference-choked language of the text, recited by Burton with great oratory declarations unto heaven but without much fire or oomph. I'm sure Marlowe is a genius but he's no Shakespeare. His fancy words resonate far less cosmically than the smaller more personal oratory we find in Franco Zeffirelli's Shrew and Mike Nichol's  Woof, where the mythic resonance cracked through even the most banal of situations. Wth Marlowe it's the reverse: even the most mythically resonant scenes have a king of core banality dampening the mantle.

Maybe that has to do with Burton's lack of directorial experience? Nichols and Zeffirelli both know that true mythic grandeur comes from sharply observed small moments, not big declarations. Awareness of this paradox (specifics are universal; generalities are alienating) separates windbags from geniuses.  Thus, when Burton is playing a middle-aged history professor shouting at his wife, he's as vivid and mythic as the cosmos; when he's a mythic figure shouting at the cosmos, he's as dull as a middle-aged history professor. When he kisses Liz as Helen and talks about her kiss sending his soul flying around the room, it's hard not to roll your eyes and think of that old adage of acting class, "you're telling us not showing us, and we don't believe it."

He should have pretended he was saying that to a dry triple martini. We'd be able to feel that passion in our toe tips! Burton comes alive!

"the fruits of lunacy"

Consider how how both Welles in his self-directed Macbeth and Olivier in his self-directed Hamlet (both 1948) give you the impression they love every minute of their character's tortured guilt and suffering. No matter what dour calamity their characters wallow in, they--- the director/actors-- revel in the poetry and mythic undertones, capturing the essence of art in small perfect little gestures. Director/star Burton on the other hand, can't even revel during Faustus' moments of revelry, let alone in his dour calamities. One must wonder if the demands of directing, the essence-draining demands of marriage, the endless intrusion of paparazzi, and staying sober long enough each day to stay on schedule-- tanked his energy. 

Maybe he let his brown-nosing reverence for 'the classics' undo his natural crazy Wagnerian oomph? Unlike Olivier and Welles, both of whom swim in Shakespeare like it's the literary equivalent of 100 proof whiskey (which it is), there's a 'mustn't spook the dean of letters' kind of respectfulness with Burton's performance. Sure Burton was a vibrant earthy Petruchio in Shrew, but that was under Zeffirelli's direction, far from any dean of letters' stern looks. Like Welles and Olivier, Zeffirell is a director who swims in the poetry of Shakespeare (see his definitive Romeo and Juliet, and the shamefully underrated Mel Gibson Hamlet -see my review here) amongst others. Though Shakespeare is considered bourgeois, something only the educated snobs would attend, Welles understood Shakespeare was writing for the cheap seats as well as the queen, so would give himself permission to heedlessly go for a more reckless 'give the dean a heart attack' approach that, paradoxically, would be more faithful to the material at hand. 

In short: If you film a respectful, staid depiction of a prankster thumbing his nose at staid authority figures, then you become the very thing you're rebelling against, and that kind of feedback squall is so exhausting it may takes years of painless deconstructive art history to recover any semblance of wit therefrom. End of rant. 

Any similarity to packing a massive gravity bong is presumably unintentional

As a result, the play's dense intertextually-lined language unpacks rather flatly, especially since there is --essentially-- so little at stake. This is, after all, the tale of an aged recent (he must have been on the 30 year plan) college graduate who fritters his time away doing tons of drugs and wine up in his apartment, alone but getting periodic visits from his drug dealer, fellow academes hoping he'll get them high. The rest of the time he's either lost in a whirl of phantom anima dream imagery (i.e.when he takes too much) or suffering insane hallucinatory tortures (when he takes too little). If he's in the Goldilocks zone where he's taken just the right amount, why, he can patter around his garret, whipping up alchemical formulas and writing or painting or reading as his whims dictate. 

Still, there's nothing in the play for film to help us understand why he's so keen to worship Lucifer and denounce god, to sign away his soul, rather than just doing drugs and writing poetry all day while ostensibly teaching at some cushy university (hmmmm). Nor is there any indication of why we should sympathize with his latter bratty copping out (he's like a Satanic narc) and second-guess antipathy. What a welsher. our once so faux-brave Faustus.  

If you've 'been there' (it's called college), you can relate when his occasional visitors find him lying on the floor, staring at some unseen phantom, or writhing in the grip of a fine, frothy madness, his clothes and brain in a state of disarray, unable to distinguish his corporeal guests from the phantoms. But as Bill Lee says to his visiting buddies who visit him in similar circumstances in Naked Lunch, "the Zone takes care of its own." 

None of that is any excuse to sign away your soul, though, idiot. That's just overkill, like getting a huge Led Zeppelin tattoo just because you saw Song Remains the Same for the first time, while on acid, last night, and ended up at the Zep-bedecked dorm room of some hot Pittsburgh brunette. Dude, you haven't even read Hammer of the Gods yet, don't be hasty. She loaned it to you on your way out, like a Christian giving a native a bible. A great night and Zeppelin is now your god. But a tattoo is a big commitment, bro. So make sure you listen to both sides of Presence and Coda before the needle hits the skin. No one is perfect. Jimi Page even wears chinos in one of their latter concert videos. Chinos! .

Now, all those negatives aside, there is much to love about old Faustus. Even if Burton the lead actor seems to be suffering from boozy stress, Burton the director is able to use that same boozy stress as a subtext for a richly familiar and welcome streak of Gothic horror and illuminati in-jokes, showing he learned some important things from his drinking buddies John Huston and Tennessee Williams about using alcoholic highs and lows as mythic narrative touch points. And showing too that despite his lofty airs, Burton harbors a secret love of horror. You can tell he's seen Black Sabbath and Masque of the Red Death and he wants to use some of their aesthetic tricks. The popping rich spectrum of dusky deep ochres, blues, purples, and cherry reds, glow as if Mario Bava himself were doing the gel lighting, giving many scenes (restored to glowing HD for Amazon streaming) a highly evocative atmospheric surreal glow that, for me, as a 70s monster kid, reminded me of old Key comic book covers--the kind my mom would buy you in packs of three at the department store to keep me occupied while she shopped for clothes. 

Walks through anachronistic/period sets and surrealistic historical tableaux (the Garden of Earthly Delights, the Vatican, a king's reception hall, a crypt) bring not just mythic resonance but call back to the various movies and genres those props were purloined from. Largely filmed in Italy, these sets were no doubt used in everything from peplums to westerns to Gothic horror (the way Masque used still-standing Beckett sets) creating a sense of stripping away of time's linearity, allowing a stage-like but very psychedelic rapid scene-changing (there's similar bits of Gothic horror call-back in Head, and Psych-Out as well as The Trip, keeping the old Gothic props and sets close at hand for quick inexpensive visits to the archaic subconscious). Copious tripped-out occult magic (nice use of made of a haunted mirror), cobwebs, skeletons, candles, alchemical test tubes and conjuring crucibles, volumes of forgotten lore, and astral charts-bedeck the torture chamber-cum-Illuminati arcane alchemist sanctuary that will be home base for Faustus' solitary drug experiments. Boldly treads our Faustus! Going where one might hallucinate yearning naked women inside the flames of a candle or the eye of a skull, or float through a veil of kaleidoscope effects and blurred edges, time lapse flowers and occult symbolism, to see the effects of time and age upon desire's ripe fruit. The laughing of the flower children switches to screaming with an imperceptible twist of the pitch shifter. 


Like its contemporaries in the Elizabethan dream theater era, Faustus gambols freely amidst the arcane iconography of spirits and demons that would previously (or then-currently, if performed in Spain) be charge enough for heresy. As it is, thanks to the rise of sane Protestantism, even making fun of the pope is not frowned upon, so long as the knave who dares winds up trapped in the arms of burning hellfire by drama's close (we mustn't get the Spanish ambassador too mad, after all). Thus Burton's Faustus (under an invisibility spell) makes fart noises behind the rows of bishops, pelts the pope with a fancy cake, and flogs a bunch of empty robes in a moment that seems straight out of Jodorowsky. Then the psychedelic college kid experimentation aspect continues with the slow downward slide from seeking truths to questions that lie far past the known parameters of life and death to just getting massively hammered. There is no joy of evil in Burton's performance of these things, only a kind of peevish aggression, like a sulky ten year-old kicking his little brother's lego fort.

 The ultimate in devil's bargains is, as I can tell you from direct experience, the alcoholic's. Only by staying drunk can he forget the horrible shakes, DTs and misery that compounds with interest for every day he doesn't suffer them. On and on he goes, on a massive bender, until eventually one morning he comes to and there's not a drop left in the house, and he's physically unable to move without it, so unless someone comes by with a bottle to save him, the voyage to agonizing hell begins. His is the terror of the cold turkey addict tied to a bed table in a hospital, screaming his guts out, like Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood.

From top: Hopper schools in TRIP; FAUSTUS

In the beginning of Faustus we find Burton as an aging scholar in round owlish glasses and long gray hair -freshly graduated, advised by one of his druggie friends to "sound the depths of that they would profess."- In other words: don't just say no to drugs, try them first! Condemnation prior to experimentation is not wisdom, but its own sort of vice, twice as vile for its hypocrisy in one so allegedly open-minded and well-researched.

Faustus and Valdez Cornelius mixing a full decanter of the good shit - shhhh - don't let the RA hear

Later, alone in his study, not quite sure which field in which to further broaden his academic acumen, which tome to grace with owlish eye, Faustus is buffeted by a sudden surge of boyish ego and curiosity. He feels the wave knock his soul up against the sand break of the known, made all the more pathetic and indulgent by his speaking aloud at us, as though his imaginary class: "To live and die in Aristotle," seems wise and--to him--oddly sexy, or to study medicine BUT--as as he notes, "the end of physic: our body's health." So from what new field shall his alchemist's brain next turn? Why not to the occult!

In other words, Faustus is bored, antsy, and doesn't feel like studying. His idle hands, the devil's workshop

Drinking buddies Valdez (Ram Chopra) and Cornelius (Robert Carawadine)--as sketchy a pair of Satanic drug dealers as one is likely to find in all of London-- drop by to regale him with tales of the fame and wealth that comes from conjuring demons. Soon trundles the trio graveyard-ways to raise hanged sinners and summon devils! It's all a little too convenient... Faustus gives in way too easy.

You expect the heavens to shout, or at least whisper--to explore the black arts is blasphemy, Faustus! Turn to the church and repent. This sort of disclaimer seems only fair -- due diligence to ward off those who are better off not venturing beyond the No Trespassing sign. And it's no idle threat, either. In all the tales of those who'd ignore caution to sound the depth of that they would profess, the price of enlightenment is dear. And as anyone 'called' to try these things will tell you, even your hardcore hippy friends may warn you off. People you thought were cool declare 'you'll damage your chromosomes, Faustus!"

In Faustus, however it's more bleak and final, the damage permanent.  Hell is only a feeling for one having a bad trip. Eventually --after timeless aeons of distress-- everything will wear off. On some level, as many a scholar has noted, the only difference between a schizophrenic and an LSD user is that the latter knows he's just 'visiting' where the schizophrenic lives.' The opposite of the Sunday tripper, the schizophrenic knows he is just 'visiting' reality via medication and is actually living in the void, like a phantom signal forever caught between neighboring TV channels. 

But whither Faustus? Which reality will be his final resting place?



But it all starts innocent, if sin can be so called. The three head to the graveyard like a trio of errant hippie sophomore knaves shrooming behind Sadler in Syracuse University, circa 1986, finding all sorts of universal truths and froth-at-the-mouth delights there (big rolling graveyards being the perfect place in which to trip, both emblematic of the experience you're on as far as death/rebirth awareness, and the way egoic fear keeps the lightweights away). These pleasures are the first reward of daring, to buffet manly against the current and enjoy the rarefied air above the superstitious public's boorish din.

No sooner has Faustus found his spot for conjuring. he bids his friends depart him so he may work alone. They are never seen again and indeed one wonders about his social skills, for here is a man not literally cut off from the society like, say, Prospero is in The Tempest, and yet he prefers only the company of his own unconscious projections, vis-a-vis the devil, and his anima.

In hindsight, it would be great if Valdez and Cornelius return, for Burton came to life in their presence; he plays well against their relish in demonic control. Like the bulk of the cast, they're students and teachers from Oxford's Dramatic Society and Burton often flickers to life in their company, only to turn dour again when sidelined through lengthy solo dark rants that we know in but a second he will deny having said. He chides Mephistpholis' sadness over his failing soul, urging him to take a lesson from his resolute bravery and "scorn those joys thou never shalt possess." Aa dissolve later and he's letting a statue of St. Sebastian urge him turn to God, then to let a skull on the desk encourage him back to Lucifer. All he needs is a hard push one way or the other and he not just hesitates but thoroughly changes his mind. He's wishy-washy! Take another little drink, Faustus! 


It's hard to get involved in the plight of a man so unmotivated in his flight to Lucifer that its very reason defies credibility. He's a dude burning out his brain for pure onanistic thrill-seeking"magic" and only realizing it's not some dumb heavy metal pastime when it's too late to weasel out. He assures Valdez and Cornelius he'll stick the course. He says "magic enravishes me!" but we're never really sure what his end game is beyond pleasure and sport, to revel in the folly of others. The presence of these two enablers might have made it clearer (peer pressure) but without them, it's hard to fathom why he sticks to it. Whatever he once sought to know, being known, he'd rather forget fast, so turns to drink - which makes days flow faster especially with a devilish enabler servant at your side to make sure you never wake up without a stiff drink at your bedside.

"Glad tidings from great Lucifer"
Drunk writers and artists who sequester themselves for long periods of micro-tripping in service of their art can--with proper blocking--drift into just the drinking part quite seamlessly, as Faustus does here. But as he's not a writer or artist why we should care? Beyond the realization that all pleasure is fleeting and he shouldn't have signed the contract, there's not much he learns or brings to the table.

Reveling by proxy too proves a challenge. Whether flatly chanting along with the bell, book-and-candle monks who try to exorcise his spirit or belligerently chanting "he wants his money!" to an aggrieved bartender, we're not amused or thrilled (like we were in Woolf or Shrew) but rather embarrassed by this base schadenfreude and tone deaf infantile prankishness. Here is a man who freely takes more than would befit a man, then tries to weasel out of paying - drinking vainly against the passing of time (his ever-present hourglass) ticking down to his Hell journey. All the wealth in the world is his for the asking but he'd rather stiff the bartender.

He's a 'bad' drunk!

THOU ART FULL OF HOLLOWNESS:

In his groovy man cave, doth Faustus have the alchemical tools to astral travel the world over and have his heart's desire granted time and again, the only caveat being it brings him no real joy, since there's no strife or earning of the goal, there's none but the pale shadow of gratification. And as anyone who suffers from depression knows, getting all you want in life might make you more miserable than just wanting, which at least gives you the hope you will be happy once said desire is attained. To attain it and still be unhappy is to be faced with the reality of a no-escape misery, a room without an exit. The gorgeous women you coveted as a geek in high school clamor all over you now that you're in a band, but their sudden, almost aggressive affection creeps you out; the terror of actually merging your naked body with someone who you barely know supplants your lustful reveries and turns desire's promise into the stuff of future shame and regret. For Faustus, his wish for 'a wife' is ridiculed by the devil with an open flower of beautiful women who turn into men or aged crones on contact. This is the Sidpa bardo in Buddhism at play. Women never stay lovely, and so outside of space/time, beyond the illusion of permanence; sexual allure beckons like a sticky web of flame that evaporates on contact but leaves you stuck, devoured by withered crones where once were massive babes. (i.e. the woman in room 237)

You can argue that movie stars are the exception, their images frozen in time. Marilyn still looks alluring in Niagara,  and will be just as alluring in 100 years, but imagine you saw that movie and wished you could share a bed with her; then you wake up trapped in her coffin with her rotting corpse! That's what the DTs are like, vs. watching Monroe's movies over and over in a state of benumbed boozy grace. You don't get to actually sleep with Marilyn, but isn't watching Gentlemen Prefer Blondes for a hundred straight times (even with Elliot Reid in it) better than even a single night with the "actual" Marilyn in her actual current underground boudoir?

It's in this aspect, the terrors of the DTs, where Burton brings his alcoholic and priapic issues into the subtext: the realization that--when given a chance to be endlessly indulged--angelic vice soon turns to a tar pit 

Movies are to the ego what the ego is to the soul, distraction from the terror of eternity. When tripping the distractions collapse into the real, especially on a so called bad (or 'bum') trip. For example, on one bad tip I forgot how to breath. I became aware of lungs, understanding at last their slavery to the body, the awful duty they have, their constant inflating and deflating, year after ear. I could feel them almost collapse from the weary shock of recognizing their eternal bondage. Of course the deliverance from this realization is that you only have to deliver one breath at a time. That's the AA secret. The "I'm just not drinking today" adage, the "one day at a time" is the 'good news' that helps many a drunk, myself included,. No one wants to imagine never drinking again. It's too awful to contemplate, but just not drinking today? Sure, it's a trick to make the abstinence endurable, but is booze's trick any less devious? Both use our ego's need to escape living in the moment (for the ego has less control when we are fully aware of living in the 'now') against itself. Like tricking you into self reflection by putting a top hat on the mirror and telling you it's Fred Astaire. 

Supposedly immortal, the soul is paradoxically comforted by the ephemeral nature of all things, which is the direct opposite of the ego's anxiety. The space-time continuum allows us the comfort of the ephemeral, allows us to dwell under the protective illusion of impermanence. That all things die, that life is rounded with a sleep, wounds heal, flowers wither, traumas are buried in the repressed unconscious, seasons change, nights and days alternate ---these are comforts that deliver us from the terror of continuity. Hell, then, as realized by Marlowe's Faustus, is the waking up from this illusion of impermanence so that the terrifying eternity of existence is revealed and is inescapable. This is the trial of the cave crypt hallucination in The Trip, ("I don't want to die, man"). This is the 'bad trip' every psychonaut sooner or later must endure, the wave that sucks us under for an eternal night, the giant eye at the center of the universe gazing pitilessly through our X-Ray Eyes. This is Hell as inescapable awareness of, as Mephistophilis puts it, "all that isn't heaven", the great flaming void that is left "when all else dissolves."

"The depths of all that thy would profess" i.e. all therein that may be explored
As Faustus will soon learn, the double-edged gift of heaven is the gift of illusion and forgetfulness.  Our way our brain is hard-wired to veil the ever-looming specter of our inevitable death so we can go about our day without being paralyzed with fear. But to function in its correct aperture (as a veil rather than a window), this veil needs death near enough to cover successfully, to know where it is at all times. If we death moves too far away from our vision, the veil covers everything and anything it can. Soon we can't appreciate life due to this veil creating a thin filmy wall between us and the world. Eventually we need to go seek out death so the veil can find something its actually supposed to cover, freeing us to see around its corners at last.

Hell, then, is the terror of eternity that makes us long for the illusion of impermanence. When faced with extinction, life at last becomes unbearably precious -- so that each miserable second is clung to like one clutches a piece of floating bed frame in the midst of a tidal flood current.

Yet, as he clings, Faust has no love of the life he's led, only fear for what is to come. Not knowing that his fear of eternity is itself already hell, he indulges full force. These are the types of lightweights you need to avoid when culling a 'set and setting' for your 'voyages' - as they're invariably the dudes who can't shake their ego's sticky grip, and foolishly believe all the fear mongering their ego incites to keep itself in power. Knowing how to ignore ego's panicky horse-in-the-stall bucking is one of they key skills for successful inter-astral navigation. When God is your co-pilot, you don't even need to go in the plane. With their ego as their co-pilot, these lightweights inevitably panic, and demand to be taken to the ER because they are sure they're dying. Ugh what a drag.

LAST STASH LOST

Early in their meeting, Faustus asks Mephistophilis where Hell is and why he's not there. "Why, this is Hell," notes Mephistophilis. "Think'st thou that I who saw the face of God and tasted the eternal joys of heaven am not tormented with ten thousand Hells in being deprived of everlasting bliss?" 

Such a junky thing to say, bro. If you're living as--or have ever lived--as a drug addict or alcoholic, or known the bliss of a 'perfect' peak ecstasy experience, you may have tried unsuccessfully to recapture that high for years, eventually realizing you can never return to it. That is its own kind of Hell. The only thing that saved me from it back in the 90s was Lacan, and then SSRI meds in 2003. Since my relapse last Feb, I now get that same magnetic tug from the sight of all the IPA beers, the various small batch brews in the grocery store, none of which existed in 1998, when I initially stopped drinking. It was worth it to relapse just to sample those delicious brands. Except now when I pass them on display my heart breaks, my mouth waters, and the yearning increases exponentially the longer I linger. Is that in its way, not Hell, but it's okay since it's always there, the way depressives sometimes keep nooses or guns hidden in their closet, as a kind of assurance. The Hell in Faust's world is the hell of knowing you can never get back to that closet or the beer aisle. You're 86-ed for life... and beyond/ 

If any of that sounds familiar, maybe you too might find a special love for Burton's Faustus or if not love, at least unnerved understanding. For to be in the throes of a serious addiction is to know the joys of hell and heaven are as a coin ever flipping, and one may become the other just through the other's absence, and so sooner or later heaven always flips back to hell. Hell is the constant. It's a question of numbers, of days, of time. For every day the horrible shakes/convulsions/DTs of detox are staved off, the worse they will be when that key moment arrives: waking up completely out of alcohol, and unable to get to the store or bar to get some more due to intense shaking and hyperventilating. But until then, there's that moment in the morning (if you don't have to go to work) where you decide to try and wait until 4 PM cocktail hour, and after about a half hour your hands are shaking and your vision is getting weak and your heart feels as if will explode. Hell gradually comes into focus. You relent and crack open that first delicious IPA, and within seconds Heaven appears instead. 

The only place, it seems, you can't exist, is anywhere between those two extremes. Mephisto's version of hell ("everywhere that isn't heaven") is almost identical with the advanced stage alcoholic or addict, whose heaven is mere absence of Hell (withdrawal), i.e. just not being in the agony of hell is heaven.



By contrast what delight then, to up the ante still further, for heaven may yet become euphoric than just not-hell, with the one caveat that any new plateau of ecstasy may become the new baseline, so that anything less than that same euphoria becomes the next Hell. Eventually Hell is anywhere that isn't euphoria and euphoria is just hell's momentary absence.

The irony of Faustus's deal with the devil--which holds true to for any addict's postponement of withdrawal--is that the decades of decadence he gets (24 years, as in hours of the day) are all elapsed by the end of the film-- they flit by. If there is any enjoying to be had, we don't really get the impression Burton's Faustus has done so, for his ecstasies are wasted worrying about Hell. That's the terrible bargain, the sacrifice of memory: most of a drunk's happy time is either not remembered due to black-outs or slept through. A drunk can tell if he had fun the night before only by how messed up his apartment is the next time he wakes up.  Sandwiched between black-outs, benders, waking up in strange positions on strange floors, and suffering all the tortures of being departed from on-highness, it could take hours for him to figure out how long he's been asleep, what day it is, or what AM or PM on the clock means.

For a would-be escapee into booze's warm clutches, how unappealing Faustus' tavern-carousing, ugly life suddenly looks. Burton, an actual drunk, seems just mean and juvenile rather than the monstrous wit he was in Woolf. Burton the director spares us nothing of the scene's wild guffawing Breugel-esque peasant squalor --yet it's strangely beautiful too, as in the way the walls are painted to resemble both cracks, dirt and trees. Isn't that what it's all about, man, finding the trees in the bar wall filth rather than the other way around?


"Sweet pleasure conquers deep despair," counsels the demonic voices that guide Faustus towards his decades-long spree. Ah but the fine print, Faustus: the longer thy deserved measure of despair stays conquered by sweet pleasure, the higher the compounding interest on the loan against future joy, and the weaker the sweetness. Finally, the sweetness has grown too stale to conquer anything. The despair is now so deep that water line has risen to the ceiling. Thou art thus asphyxiated by woe, Faustus, swallowed up into Hell eternal, all for postponing your deep despair, whose fair judgement and scathing portion - felt in full at the time of payment, might have done more for your artistic vision than all the demonic libations in all of 1967 Berkley.

The Adulation of Future Masses:

Sooner or later if we keep drinking, we die; sooner or later if we keep writing we live forever. The caveat: we're not there to enjoy whatever benefits that immortality may bring. We make a deal with the fates -we get to keep our souls by agreeing to labor in obscurity now, for the promise that 20 years after our death we'll be revered as geniuses. We won't feel the lionizing because we'll be dead, but the idea it's coming is enough to keep us working. Lost in the process of creation, our whole life flits by in a paintless brush.

Drinking on the other hand, brings us the adulation of the future masses in advance - hence it's a kind of reverse direction time line of reward, tapping into an ego gratification time machine. Whatever Akashic record crystal teraflop transfiguring time/space device they're accessing to read your work in the future and send payment of their love back through the past, it's as tactile and sweet in our third eye's ear as god's own indulgent applause.

One thinks too of this time travel authorship with writer Jack Torrance saying "I'd sell my soul for a drink," and thus summoning Lloyd the bartender, and eventually a whole room of hoi poloi. And while he lives forever via his life's work, it's not that repetitive work about being a dull boy, but the real life murder of a black cook and an epic fail of the mission to kill his wife and child - so there you go.


The devil's bargain - Jack would sell his soul for a drink, as if that wasn't the price to begin with, it's like going to the cashier of the liquor store with a $20 bottle of bourbon and announcing "I'd pay twenty dollars for this!"

And beyond all that is the feeling of control that only surrendering control can bring. To have the ability to postpone the anguish of hell and prolong the joy of heaven available to you is surely worth any price even if that price is that, sooner or later, you use up your heaven and can no longer avoid hell's ever-increasing tab. It is due.


"Hell hath no limits"

A special high point is saved for that final act: Faustus's being swallowed up by Hell is effectively done with just a trap door in the floor opening and hands pulling him below, to the depths, at which point the whole production--set backdrops, actors, all--wheels backwards and outwards, as if Hell the Ghastly Furnace was there the whole time, its flames flickering at the other side of the clapboard walls confining Faustus's pained charade. Now, the set is pulled back, the furnace erupts from reality's cracks the way it does on intense DMT or salvia. Burton's Faustus--surrounded by red/orange glowing embers and a fully green demonic Taylor--is sort of twirled in a bad ballet slow-motion spin deep inside a kinky Rube Goldberg-meets-Brueghel haunted house tour Hell. Overlapping layers of Faustus, yelling and pleading; demonic figures writhing; reds and orange layers contrasting with Liz/Meduas's greed and demonic body paint--her mouth frozen in a Norma Desmond grimace. At last her stoic silent treatment and the obedient kissing and many guises she assumed to please him all make sense. She finally roars to life with a macabre flaring of the eyes that's thrilling all the more being so late to arrive (like Tura Satana erupting from a mannequin) Here is the green absinthe fairy showing her true size, shape and spirit.

She is, in every way, tremendous!

Her laugh is in the same beguiling voice that--for example, lured me last year around this time into buying a 15 pack of 'All Day IPA' at the grocery store (how it would whisper to me on my walk home from work, "what a great thing it would be to have that around, have one or two once in awhile") and the way that same voice laughed and sneered a month later when I was shaking and convulsing on the floor from alcohol withdrawal. That was the same laugh!


In her fathomless patience and malevolence, that demonic anima gets us all, sooner or later. And Taylor--who seemed so frozen in this burlesque of statuesque refinement in her earlier Helenic incarnations--now, as Medusa, finally lets loose. Look at her eyes (above)! Now that's a she-demon! In her eyes I see shades of Madeline Usher, Ligeia, Morella, and all those other ghostly/mad women in Corman's Poe films, the ones who come back from the dead, laughing and throttling an ever-terrified Price while flames consume them both, utterly.

But through it all Burton the director sucks the wind out of Burton the actor, leaving him too deflated to project any Woolf-level gusto into his hamming. I can't help but wonder how much more energetic this would all be with a less wearily portentous Faustus, someone who could inject some camp vitality, like Vincent Price, with Burton as Mephistopheles instead, a role better in league with his direction. He shows a welcomely macabre flair,
an admirable sense of pacing and the sort of keen eye for psychedelic vistas that only acidheads, schizophrenics, or alcoholics who've experienced the DTs can really know. He taps into the core iconography of the then-burgeoning psychedelic drug 1967 culture via the same graveyard root Corman used for The Trip and X-the Man with X-ray Eye. Emphasizing the commonality between camp Gothic horror and countercultural psychedelia. If his acting isn't all there this time around, we'll always have Liz and Dick in Padua and "New Carthage" and sometimes we'll even watch them in Big Sur and Heathrow and if we're also the same persons who love Bava's Black Sabbath and Kill Baby Kill then anything that six-degrees them all together, be it problematic and stilted or not, is going to get us right in the Jeffrey Cordovas.

Have I gone off the deep end with my alcoholism metaphor and Trip comparisons again? Sure I have. But so what? I'm no more repetitive, belligerent and self-indulgent in my fancy (did you get the Band Wagon reference in that last paragraph, didja?) than Marlowe and I relate to Burton's pained hangover more than most; I appreciate that he so gallantly tried to alchemically transubstantiate his weariness into the context of the Faust myth. If he failed, well, who hasn't? His low energy level as Faustus--the tired, sad, 'too many hats broke the camel's neck' distracted nature of his performance--is hardly new, but I'm probably projecting, for I too have tried to direct and act, while hungover/drunk, at the same time - and the results were even more tepid (we can't all be Orson Welles, or Mel Gibson). Burton's eyes may betray insoluble weariness, but his heart was in the right place and today we can still savor many aspects: that beguiling mellifluent booming voice, the way Marlowe's velvet language rolls trippingly off his tongue as if to its fleshy whiskey-soaked manor borne; the eerie Bava-esque gel lighting and horror movie accoutrements; and the druggy college sophomore connotations. I find comfort in the idea that, once upon a time, even professors could continue experimenting with drugs and sorcery up in their attic apartments without losing status. I may not feel much pity for Faustus's 'last-second desperation' as Hell's gorgon arms drag him down into the flames, but I understand how he got there. It's like hearing the 'before' of an AA qualification. And I've found out a lot of things from my own experience of hell's thirsty flames: eternity is only as long as you think, Faustus! Let go of regret for Heaven's memory, for what else is Heaven but Hell, once its fully accepted?

The great rule of eternity is that only nothing is forever...  except thirst.

So.. Drinks, now... let each vicious circle be a signature on our natural habitat's cocktail napkin contract.

Whatever the cost, it's already worth it.



(PS - 12/12/18 - I had a major spiritual ass-kicking this past weekend, when I felt all my recent debauchery sins come up and grab me (though they didn't used to feel like sins, #metoo and my own advancing age have combined to make me a born again prude) and felt suddenly the absence of the holy god light that used to be there automatically all the time, like so constant I never thought it could go out. It is as chilling. Being alone while sick with a bad cold making it hard to breathe and already with COPD and other things and realizing how easily I could just die, with no one to notice, etc. I was so wigged out even putting on my DVD of Twentieth Century didn't help - I understood with a chill everything Mephistopheles talks about in this film, and the whole textual tenet of Flatliners (which was on during my last big scare like this) thatwanted to instantly become a Catholic so I could go to confession, or find a new sponsor to do a fifth step with - chilling. That lovelight has come back on, somewhat, since then, thank god, thank god I never signed anything)

NOTES:
1. That last part seems quite sexist today, presuming a kind of condoned satyriasis is packed kit and caboodle over the hump of spiritual awakening - not no more!
2.  That's a reference to Philadelphia Story, cuz this blog is high-class.
1. I'm guessing, based on my own experience doing the same thing - I may be projecting but, on the other hand, as they say in AA, you can't shit a shitter - not one of AA's best phrases, I'll grant you. 
5. Technically the Hell might not 'be' eternal in the space-time sense, but in Hell, space/time ceases to exist. One comes out the other side of a cold turkey detox--which may seem to have taken less than a weekend to those around you and to the calendar--as if one had been away for centuries of endless torment. Yet you barely remember it, for the brain which records such things was so badly burned. All you remember is that it was an eternity, and eternity is over.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Babes of Wrath: Dangerous Women of the New Depression vs. American Dogma



According to some wide mean streak in American pop criticism--stretching from bourgeois Academy voters all the way to  the soured douchebags of the comments sections--gorgeous sexy young girl artists and performers are meant to be just about anything but genuinely subversive. Never challenging to the status quo in any other way but via shrill feminist harangues and union cards. They can be gazed on but not gaze back, not threaten our place of omnipotent safety in the theater/living room. Medusas in Reverse, we presume our right to gaze upon their loveliness (or lack of) at our Mulveyan leisure, judging them for their garb, hair, posture, youthfulness; but if they look at us the same way, it turns us instantly to stone. It's the revenge of Lacan's petit a, when one's persona-accruing object of desire turns suddenly and stares back, or even worse, sends us a come hither stare. Suddenly they're no longer achingly far away but too close for comfort. We run shrieking to the channel changer like a window shade, embarrassed and angry. Later when they've closed those eyes to sleep we creep up from the dark and scribble mean things on their door. We're so mature.

If you don't know what I mean, here's an example: you're a regular straight dude gazing at some beautiful woman across a crowded room or street, not even thinking consciously, just spreading some proprietary gaze around like a radar, as a man does, especially in our constant state of televisual hypnosis, where we're conditioned to treat all pretty girls as if they're onscreen and can't gape back. So there's this one girl you see across the street and she's way hot, so you're gazing a little more wistfully, as if she was your favorite new actress. Then suddenly she sees you. She stares back at once, unflinching, smiling enigmatically, and starts to cross the street towards you, slowly but not shyly.

Before you can stop yourself, you blush and turn away, start walking in the other direction, like you got caught at something. A second later you reconsider. You're not a shy poseur, you should turn and meet her and who knows? Is she waiting there for you to nut up or shut up, gaze-wise?

Of course not. She's already gone. It's too late. She's talking to someone else, or was actually walking towards someone behind you. You realize her proprietary gaze is way more advanced than yours. For you she was pretty, for her, you were fresh meat. She knew she'd cow you, knew you were all gaze and no follow-through. Now though, you hate her. She popped your balloon with a pin eyelash.


Welcome to the New Depression. For the American critic, who is too high up the bourgeois ladder to look down without getting vertigo, this is where it ends. That hate constitutes sufficient ground for the poison pen to write and having writ, move on, and often that means on down to their parents' basement, as they been fired, their editors have had their budget slashed and can hire prettier younger critics at 1/4 their price... all these old dog critics can do is bark petulantly from the safety of their wordy leash columns. And their reviews get more and more blatantly misogynist the more and more power--imaginary or other--they're forced to secede to women 1/2 their age eager to work twice as hard for 1/4 the money. Most obvious of all though is something I see in academia all the time, a complete blindness to their own faults and foibles. Having years of clout, all access laminates, and Fed-Exed daily screeners have left them spoiled and egotistical, and if someone comes along and points out their writing betrays an insecure misogynist virgin at its core, they wig out like it's not just they have been insulted, but--as JJ Huensecker would say--all 20 million of their readers. And if the someone pointing it out is a hot bitch 1/3 their age who writes twice as well for 1/10 the price and just got the exact same all-access laminate and put on all the same PR screener mailing lists, they lash out blindly and viciously. In the words of some pompous silver-bearded bourgeois behind me at Magno Screening Room circa 2003, "how dare that little blonde bimbo call me a misogynist?!"

Isn't this the reason so many women don't gaze back? The average male gaze becomes like a prison searchlight, or a buzzing hornet. The woman mustn't seem like it bothers her, that she even notices, lest that average male gaze turn hateful, fearful, threatened. This gives her power in its way, as she becomes more and more like an onscreen heroine, a babe on a jpeg, an abstract locus of petit a Lacanian desire. But it's got to be withering on the nerves, like not flinching while one hornet after another buzzes around your ears and eyes for minute after minute, year after year.

Kristen Stewart, looking
If you are man able to embrace that reciprocal sting of the woman's return gaze, without needing to sting in return (recognizing your flinching as a pre-conditioned response that's 'on you' not them) even savor it like a Joseph von Sternberg protagonist, then you can stay in awe, as a friend and admirer, and thus not lose her as a source of soothing beauty, inspiring cool, and seething wit. You can bask in her soothing charm and imperious aura as she commands the dream screen cabaret, not imagining oneself as her would-be wooer but as her life coach, a cool friend, advisor in romantic affairs.

On the screen this translates more or less automatically, which is why for example I hate to see an actress I admire date an actor I don't (in a movie). George Brent or Fred MacMurray, for example, have faces my fists clench up instinctually to punch. I want my girl to date someone played by Cary Grant or William Powell, someone with class and wit. They can return that gaze without blushing and looking away, and I can watch them as their unborn child might from some Enter the Void perspective, their godlike figures looming on the screen. It's this position most film critics refuse to acknowledge, as it's way more prenatal than their billing/cooing staring judgment. It's the Studlarian masochistic viewer rather than the Mulveyan sadistic. This position posits that viewers we inhabit a perspective beyond age and gender, beyond control, tied to the winds like a roller-coaster like a newborn. We are subject only to the presence/absence of the goddess, our gigantic mom idol, Nicole Kidman beaming overhead like a rectangular religious vision over the 'Exit' sign when you see Birth alone in the dark of the Orpheum.

First we need to erase from our brains certain rom-coms that try undo von Sternberg's masochistic gaze, that try to flatter the shot guy complex neediness of certain little pisher comics desperate to seem desirable to hot blonde shiksas.

Rot in Hell, "Harry"! 
THE DEFAMATION OF THE PLATONIC PAIR BOND: 
WHEN HARRY MET SALLY (1991)

In American rom-coms of today, love scenes are generally written and acted by people drawing on a collective cinematic memory that doesn't reach father back than 1991's When Harry met Sally, which smugly taught that men and women can't be best friends without eventually hooking up, that even if you're smaller than she is with a voice like a tin piano, you can pull some late inning guilt trip to get her into bed, craftily knock her up, and then live happily ever after, elf princess hand-in-hand with craven Gollum.

Sally's arrival into the mainstream lexicon ("I'll have what she's having") stunted the sexual development of American romantic comedy, trapped it in a nose-wrinkling cutesy fake orgasm tourist mentality ever since. There's only a handful of romantic comedies made in Hollywood in the last 20 years that get the complexity of French love stories by say Rohmer or even Clint Eastwood's early films like Breezy. And none have been able to really show falling in love happening right there onscreen; as Yogi Berra might say, they can't slow down fast enough. Maybe that's because the PC corrective shoes on our 70s swinger feet have left us hobbled so that we can't even retreat. There's no Mae West to lead us out from under the unending parade of televisual hot mess permafrost. Amy Schumer came close in Trainwreck but then copped out by learning cheerleader dances and curbing her drinking. Only recently, with women-penned young adult novels like Twilight and Hunger Games, are we presented with female protagonists too strong and complex for insecure male screenwriters and directors to sabotage, and actresses too young and strong to be yet cowed by that old devil searchlight male gaze. They got gazes all their own, these dames, and god forbid they cast their beams back into the camera, the whole audience freezes up like a corrupted share drive.

Not since the days of Mary Pickford and Lillian Gish have women characters been so true to novels and plays, i.e. genuinely complex--even to the point of feigning weakness-- rather than our current movie idea of strong, where no heroine is allowed to go farther than her own surface and becoming empowered means a gun and a new hat, rather than ripping a hole in the glass ceiling and smoking the sky like crack. These Reverse Medusas don't get the same kind of open praise as the 'little sisters" (Jennifer Lawrence), or old school Hollywood knock outs (Scarlett Johansson)-- the ones who fit inside established persona categories, who talk the walk and wow the interviewers and generally play the game, the kind your parents want you to marry when you bring them home over Christmas (as opposed to locking up the liquor cabinet and shooting you baleful looks). I love both those actresses, I love most all actresses in fact. But I have a soft spot for the apple cart kickover artists, the hot mess crazy wreckers.

But to swap the genders, in which category do you think Brando or James Dean would have fallen in the early 50s?  Certainly they would scare the shit out of your parents' parents, simultaneously generous and miserly, girly and manly, fey and churlish, mercurial, dangerous, alive, smelling terrible. These bad girls and reckless boys were all over the 70s, and the drive-in, but where are they now? We need them! Go to bed already "mom" and let the bad kids come over. And if some shit gets broken, stolen, or bloodied, so what? Crazy is so close to genius you have to just trust all the smashing is going somewhere relevant, even if it never does. Otherwise, we'll never make a movie any better than Forrest Gump. 





THE REDEMPTION OF THE PLATONIC PAIR BOND: MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING (1997):

You can still find mainstream badass women characters that average critics love but don't recognize for their genius, any more than they do Kristen Stewart (until she was lionized by the French this year). Julia Roberts is brilliant in My Best Friend's Wedding but those who revere her tend not to be film theorists, maybe for no other reason than they haven't seen it due to the title and dippy ad campaign/poster. If not for Robin Wood's high praise in Sexual Politics in Narrative Cinema I wouldn't have seen it either. From afar it looks like a typical rom-com except for one thing: Julia's two best friends are men, one an aesthete gay editor (Rupert Everett) miles away from the 'gay best friend' cliches, and the other a blank slate sports writer (Dilbert McDevitt) who has a sexual past with Julia which was transcended by friendship, which is in the context of the film, proved more important. 

The moral of the film, that Wood picked up on is essay and I'm running with here, is that having a platonic love affair/best friend of the opposite gender one never hooks up with (either anymore or ever to begin with) is not only possible it's better than actual carnal love, at least for a certain kind of person, i.e. a true writer in the sense that sex and procreation are never as important to a writer as writing, or shouldn't be. Writers only engage in sex long enough to write about it later. In The Leopard, Burt Lancaster says "marriage is six months of fire and forty years of ashes," but the platonic soulmate best friendships are more like forty years of smoldering coal, continually giving enough heat to warm the entire room and allow for freer movement, but with a sweater on instead of naked on a bearskin rug, with roaring fire sweating followed by post-orgasmic freezing.

DAMAGE

And so today, a new age is born, where women cut through the male gaze barbed wire and emerge bloody and triumphant. We have subversive outside-the-box genius women on screen and airwave who are unafraid to tap into their own personal hells, their bi-polar melancholia, drug addiction, abusive past, as colors for their performer paintbox. And above all they unveil the willingness to sit there, in make-up, furs and write large upon our screens such reverse Medusa gazing as Hollywood not seen since the era of screwball comedy. They are like a relatively young version of Gloria Swanson, continually shedding her Norma Desmond reptilian scaly hide on a monthly basis, rather than letting it accrue, get flaky and become the ascendent ego.

It's terrifying for a man to realize just how much damage his gaze inflicts; he doesn't even think he has a gaze at all until some girl gazes back and he feels so suddenly caught and threatened. For startled bourgeois critics, self-assured return gaze brazenness better have a British or French accent attached, or she better be over 40 and playing a villain. If she's one of ours, a young American, then she's just being uppity, trying to glorify those haughty hussy habits which mothers would willingly ween from the line. If these dangerous women try to find the poetry that is there in the abyss of the mirror, they become a threat.

The Europeans aren't as threatened, which is why their women are allowed to be so much more vibrant, intellectual and confident. They know that just because it's destructive and pointless doesn't mean it's not brave, beautiful and poetic. Sixty years ago the whole continent was smashed to shit, but look where they are now compared to us! Shit doesn't matter. Only occasionally are there critics in the American press and mommy blogs who can locate and analyze the dark chthonic core of feminine power and celebrate its destructive Kali currents rather than moping like some Fordian Irish scrubwoman.

You know you are, you Kali flame dancin' foxy fur-wearin' bitchez!

ANGELINA JOLIE, for example, once had the kind of crazy that scares the shit out of the status quo Oscar-giving bourgeois (they gave her one anyway) but then she starred in Beyond Borders (2003) and became that character, i.e. a Red Cross Saint Theresa-type enamored of saving the third world's children. Now she just earns an eight figure check on the blockbusters to pay the orphanage bills but saves her real chutzpah for saintly suffering mother roles like Changeling.

That's okay, that's her trip. Who am I to judge her on what she says or does (Dan Hill, bro), now. But she used to be a bona fide badass, as you can see if you scroll up her red carpet moments at the 1999 Oscar ceremony where she showed the kind of black widow resonance a genuinely dangerous actress could radiate, especially since her date was her equally sexy/creepy brother (above left).

Because such crazy sexy cool as hers in that picture is usually only celebrated in men (Jack Nicholson, De Niro, Day Lewis), the only way American actresses can show their fiery goddess of chthonic psychosexual power and still catch an Oscar is if said fire is contextualized and confined to the psych ward, or meets death at the end. Angelina Jolie could win an Oscar because her Lisa in Girl wound up even crazier and less likely to be released than when we first meet her. The bourgeois were 'safe' in applauding her, loving the caged lion but ready to run like hell if it ever got loose.

Well, it escaped, collectively, and the bourgeois critical consensus has been running ever since, still loping around behind the web's instant feedback loop like that old Italian guy chasing after Barbara Steele in 8 1/2. unaware they're on a goddamned hamster wheel, fighting every day for space in actual print publications like wildebeests at a shrinking watering hole. There's no more Pauline Kael to call them out as they pile into any old van marked 'Important' art cinema, only to find they have nowhere to come back to when the festival is over; they've been replaced on the mastheads by cute interns with six-digit Twitter followers who never even heard of Hitchcock.

French publications like Cahiers du Cinema, meanwhile, once our tastemakers, pointing out what amongst our perceived B-movie dross was gold and in the process helping us re-examine all B-films in a new light, are becoming more bourgeois, busy praising small third world proletariat struggle documentaries rather than Ants in your Plants of 2009. And so our White Elephants stampede towards Oscar gold, renting space on the dwindling art house screens for a week to be eligible, pushing the real art, the dangerous art, off in just the same way their editorial champions were pushed off their mastheads. Only a few Europeans like Von Trier, Assayas, Refn, and Noe seem to be still trying to unearth the weird undiscovered worms beneath unturned rocks of the Now, but they get very hung up on sex and violence, both to please executive producers and to get shocked write-ups. If the critics feel something, these auteurs reason, even if it's just shock and disturbed trauma, at least they felt.

Meanwhile, in America, we just don't get deluges of German Expressionists fleeing the Fatherland to Hollywood any more, bringing women like Marlene Dietrich and Garbo to school us in the return gaze, the sick pleasure in seeing a beautiful self-possessed women seen both herself seeing you and you seeing what she sees, and feeling the sting of rejection when she turns to look at someone else (hopefully not goddamned George Brent).

As Mick La Salle points out in his book Dangerous Women, there was nothing sexual in the love of a 1920s moviegoing male for Garbo.  They'd go to the theater every night, eyes looking up to the big screen, with a love that encompassed and then transcended even the giant mommy aspect (her silver screen projected face as large as mom's was when he was a suckling child); the 'Garbo widow' effect tapped into primordial matriarchal pagan harvest goddess worship, and outwards into a kind trans-behavioral oceanic state of aesthetic arrest.

But today Laura Mulvey's theory of the sadistic gaze is treated more or less as factual gospel in academia, and so pre-empts and denies that relationship can exist. Though Mulvey is on record saying the meant her theory more as a conversation starter rather than the first and last word, mainstream theory has irrevocably begun using it as a new dogma. And now even the Femme Fatale is criticized as a male design, and the result has been a generation of crypto-feminists trying to slap the imagined masculine gaze from out of their eyes and face like a crazy person batting at invisible mosquitos.


LANA DEL REY: 60s AMERICA'S SWEETEST SUICIDE NOTE

Lana Del Rey's made a string of great sad sexy videos that seemed to prove the ghosts of early 60s Los Angeles suicides are the only thing of substance left in America, and even then only because their last few memories were shot on Super 8 and 16mm home movie stock. But the negative feedback her schtick received, even from third wave feminist pundits, back in the early days, was quite alarming. It wasn't exactly new (she would fit right in any David Lynch or Don Draper nightmare) but she tapped a nerve. She was gorgeous yet strange, with those lips that hovered between seeming real and seeming augmented; a dazzling body and great cascading beehive-ready hair and a never say no policy to drugs, alcohol and bad boys that sent our American Puritan minds racing. She was just doing whatever drugs the bad boys have, getting into cars with strangers, and engaging in all sorts of twisted scenes with hot black guys and middle-aged bikers, much to our masochistic Von Sternbergian fury. The privileged PC Communist infiltrator liberal arts faculty-brainwashed feminists found themselves angry over the most mundane inconsistencies in her origin story. She used to be named Lizzy Grant and have curly hair and sing bubblegum pop or something, like she was the only singer who ever changed names or personas.

Meanwhile, the Jungian mythos and psychomythological natural law-abiding Paglia feminists like myself were genuinely enthralled by Lana del Rey/Lizzy Grant's ability to zero in on and then embody the dark dream anima of the American culture dreamscape consciousness, as if she was a succubus from space who'd lived many lives and been soaking up America's broadcast radio, TV and dream transmissions as she flew closer and closer to our dreaming third eye, ready to meet that return gaze and Medusa us at a moment's notice should our sympathy but waver a nanosecond.

In short, if the naysayers had gone in for Jung or even modernism then they'd know their their indignant anger was the correct aesthetic response, the same one response solicited by the girl who stares back and causes us to blush instinctively, look away, and feel like a loser. The anger over the sting of shame is the correct aesthetic response; it's the not realizing this--not realizing masochism is the purist cinematic experience--that's the problem. It takes self-awareness to be able to detach from one's shame long enough to appreciate its all-encompassing beauty, rather than just presuming you're right to hit back if you feel hit, regardless of you actually were. Those Del Rey videos sting our pride like a slap in the face. We can storm off and volley off some outraged tweets or use the pain, the humiliation, as a kind of reset button. We can savor it the way we savor dream cinema, the type where not possessing or controlling the seen stimuli that so affects our emotions is a liberation through enslavement.


ROSE McGOWAN'S COUNTER-TERRORISM AESTHETIC: RM486

Trained as we Americans are by today's multiplex cinema to slough off actresses and characters into various boxes (sullen daughter, misguided vixen, All-American heimliches dumbmadchen, materialistic villain, traumatized victim / avenging angel, etc.) we feel bewildered when a woman, especially a young pretty woman kicks them over, not after a third act sulking montage but within the same bedroom conversation, navigating a push-me-pull you Sun Tzu-Rommel strategy. We're Americans, we're not comfortable with ambiguity and fluid personae in attractive young women. It makes us nervous. Would we want to sleep with them or not? It's a simple question! Yes or no? Our fantasy is being punctured by her bi-polar ambiguity.

Let's say you're an average SWM in the 90s but haven't had any luck with the ladies for almost a year. Then, you see "her," everyone in your posse thinks she's gorgeous, and you are the one who brings her home to your bachelor pad. You sit her down on the bed, and go to make some drinks in the kitchen, high on yourself, already mentally slapping five with your clique the next day at brunch. Then... as you mix the drinks and she unfurls, she remembers she has to quick call her friends so they don't worry where she is. Her mom cuts in on another line and she spends an hour shouting in Russian. After ten minutes, you go in the other room and watch TV; you come back when she hangs up but within minutes she's already asleep, totally passed out. You're a gentleman so that's that; you tuck her in under the covers and lock up your valuables, go in the other room and watch The Lost Weekend as the sun comes up. Then you crawl into bed, on top of the covers, and a few hours later you half-asleep mumble a good-bye as she slips out the door.

Man, if your buddies could see you now.

But if you're bitter the next afternoon; if you feel you were owed some sex or something--to justify those high-fives-- that's on you, bud. Sorry your fantasy, or rather "the" fantasy--the one conjured and subliminally promised by Esquire, NBC, and cinema--didn't pan out just exactly as you fantasized, that you'll have nothing to boast of. But! If you can sublimate that frustration and shame into your art, then it's just a question of masochistic tolerance, and love of women moves into the abstract. That's when you can appreciate her ferocity and honesty rather than what your boys expect you to "get out" of her, what "base" you crossed.

But even we Von Sternberg masochists, we debauched libertines who worship the Medusa, feel slightly like we let Rose McGowan down when we see her looking like a gray alien or Argento Opera-lashed post-pagan in her badass music video, RM486. Bald, chalk-white, whispering Roy Batty's Blade Runner monologue like her full WB Network-encoded matrix is being spat out in digital ticker tape, she's a new model, a Nexus 9, fluid and beyond duality, the gender strait-jacket in chewed-up tatters at her feet. She's let the full brunt of our collective gaze rain on her, raze her, and let the old self dissolve like William Shatner's tears... in The Devil's Rain.

To paraphrase Lori Williams in Faster Pussycat Kill Kill, whatever she's training for, she's ready.



There was only one imdb user comment (last I checked) on her video's page, from a German guy named Thomas who notes:
"I must say I quite like her as an actress, saw all her 'Charmed'" episodes, but it's tough for me to appreciate these 4 minutes, maybe because I find her very attractive and in here, she goes for the exact opposite."
I don't mean any disrespect to Thomas--he at least is self-aware enough to imply he's biased because he find finds her attractive. But Thomas, that's it in a nutshell! Being 'tough to appreciate' is the goal of all modern art. Rose and her video artist director Jonas Ã…kerlund have taken your attraction to beauty and used it to fuck with you.

When a hot woman transforms herself not into an approximation of a Maxim airbrush but into a kind of abject Molloch style alien--as RM does here--she's reacting to the beauty and youth industrial complex that's kept her and her sisters in anxiety and paranoia to the point they torture their face with collagen and Botox late into the night until they emerge at dawn like Universal pre-code Jack Pierce abominations, teeth scarred from eating disorders, faces frozen fast in a hideous duck-like grimace; they go from aging beauty to avian gorgon in a single long and tortured night. RM's given you the real Self beneath the illusion and if an hour phone call in shouted Russian wasn't your expectation when taking the hot girl home, relish that feeling of alienation and confusion, because so few men even get to that level--it's like secret initiatory hazing, the first step to liberation from desire. It's the true "modern" aesthetic response, as important as the initial riots over Picasso's debut of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. (upper left)

Maybe there's something deeper than narcissism and fear at work behind RM's overpainting, self-sabotage, reverse beautification, a kind of counterespionage CIA mind trick, throwing a Perseus mirror shield visor over your face, to reflect Medusa's Vogue-Revlon gaze, to freeze it with horror, paranoia, creeping dread as it beholds its own hideous reflection. Rose McGowan's lashing out against the Hollywood beauty grist mill is heroic, as the Brits would say: it's absolutely bonkers! As daft and admirable and crazy as they come: half Frances Farmer punching out cops, half Saint Francis marching the dye-stained child laborers out of his parent's textile mill into the blazing sunlight.

Sleeping with the enemy of my enemy on his enemy's command = a cinematic love story for the ages

HITCHCOCK'S LADY SPIES

I used to think that the casting of so many attractive young girls in high ranking CIA spots in movies like Zero Dark Thirty and TV shows like Homeland and Alias was just licentious license, but if you see an actual CIA documentary, like the one on HBO, recently you realize it's the truth: pretty young women are all over the upper ranks of the CIA. They are brilliant and brave and better at connecting the dots of seemingly unrelated events and movements into a serpentine whole than men.  Beauty and charisma are keys to success in any field that relies on winning people's loyalty, turning their allegiances around using nothing more than a warm smile and maybe waterboarding. Acting and spying are really more or less the same, drawing on the same skills. Beauty is as valuable to a spy as a photographic memory or crack shot marksmanship. Only an American would think that using beauty to excel in your job is somehow 'cheating.'

Hitchcock's movies point even darker: spies are not only actresses but whores, stealing uranium secrets instead of 'earning' cash, forced to sleep with the bad guy by the good guy for the country she loves (there's no concrete difference between a CIA handler and a pimp), doing what needs be done to get evidence, cash, the part, or the script. Even if it means losing the respect of Cary Grant, the show must go on. If she pretends she's in love with someone long enough that even she starts to believe it, well, isn't that the same as falling in love for real? It's the kind of thing that can drive a girl mad even while earning her Globes, Oscars, and jury prizes. Glittery ephemeral dreams leave just a blue key and an empty box where once was a Betty and Diana. Slimy spiders scatter through the bulletin board web, pinning every nude scene movie still helplessly out of context, then hating you for your image's power over them. You've become not just a spy, not just an actress, not just a whore, but a target, a bullseye at the center of the board, the spider that all strands lead to, your every trapped panicked thrashing movement part of the inexorable slow sexual strand red carpet roll up between fear, desire, and procreation. It's this exact madness censorship tries to stem, in vain.

When it gets out of hand, it's time to tell mother.

Notorious
Now the spy comparisons get too close for comfort, and the terrorism of celebrity begins, the slow poisoning by flash bulb and corrosive gossip. Wherever you go people stare or demand to be stand next to you for a selfie. The only sane response is to go mad. There's that old koan about the beautiful woman who wanted to become a Buddhist monk but the master wouldn't let her because she was too beautiful to not be distracting. Undaunted, she took a hot iron to the side of her face, and was admitted immediately. The moral: you shouldn't seek enlightenment unless you do so as one whose hair is on fire seeks a pool of water. And if you've never been on fire then what good are you, o uncooked roast, o churlish banal carcass that for wont of heat doth rot and bloat with banal surmise, while impaled on spit and turned on flame to sizzle doth a kingly feast make?

And then to choke them aye... that is art, and the core of honey trap assassination.

Hail Stewart!

A César for Kristen...

In European cinema, the performance of dangerous womanhood within feminist parameters is more alive and less bourgeois, less dour and militant. You can still smoke and dance in the cafe (I think?) prostitution is far less stigmatized (still?), and May-December romances accepted without Puritanical staring (for now). Women are assertive without being bitchy (and are still hot). Just compare the self-possession of Isabelle Huppert vs. say, Susan Sarandon, or Isabelle Adjani vs. Geena Davis as they look and act today. And this is not to say Davis and Sarandon are not great actresses, just that what they were fighting for as American women in Thelma and Louise is a birthright to Europeans. Luckily, bourgeois America's Puritanical sexism is eclipsed only by its trust in intellectual Europe's opinion. What fearless actress titans from the US need in order to not be maligned domestically is Europe's sanctification. Now that Kristen Stewart won a Cesar for Clouds of Sils Maria she can begin to earn the awed respect me and a scattered few always felt she was due. Maybe we missed something, reason our own critics. So they go back with less provincial-reactionary hostile unconsciously misogynist glasses over the Stewart oeuvre and decide yes, we did believe in her all along.

Another fact about Europe is sex itself, in which standards are far more relaxed. People want to have sex, they do. They don't wait for a Mr. or Mrs. Right they feel they're owed by years of televisual, cinematic, and magazine promises. But there's more to the cultural difference between USA and Europe than just that, for in losing the unrealistic ideals so critical to American conspicuous consumption, the Europeans become less hypnotized, less locked in a state of Lacanian 'pressure to enjoy,' a pressure which all but squelches actual enjoyment in the cradle. There's not a lot of TV commercials in Europe (relative to here, I mean), and what there are are generally more clever, existential and risque, less shrill and incessant.  As a result, maybe, European women aren't as broken down by the staggering sexism that comes from the constant consumerist barrage. I'm sure there are pockets of unconscious consumerism in the East, especially, where it carries anti-authoritarian currency, but socialist education and freedom from the hobbling albatross of an anti-intellectual 'moral majority' voting bloc have helped the West stay progressive. Partying with them when they come to visit us in NYC provides a huge relief from the stultifying cluelessness with which Americans party every day. Finally we can talk about Freud and Jung instead of just pretending to already know them and be 'over' them in favor of banal cognitive behavioralism (as seen in Von Trier's Antichrist).

If she was a guy, she'd be dubbed the new De Niro
I think if a pretty young actress is really leagues above her peers the critical mainstream (in America) is unwilling to take the leap, to climb up and risk being exposed by championing her, to be the first to applaud amongst the booing Moroccan mob when Marlene walks onstage for the first time, to cheer her for having the guts to call into question everything that's grown familiar.

If great acting isn't met halfway it can look like bad acting, just like avant garde music and random ambient noise are indistinguishable, and so great artists must march off to places where they 'get' greatness and can better be contextualized by critics as 'other.' Hendrix was dismissed in the US until he found acclaim in London; crazy-haired Nicholas Ray was just some idiosyncratic journeyman until Godard declared he 'was' cinema, forcing American critics (terrified of being left behind on a trend) to re-evaluate soul-withering explorations of human darkness like In a Lonely Place and Bigger than Life. In other words we respect Europe's opinion so much we're willing to go back and re-evaluate the work of American artists we previously marginalized. Oh now we get it. Now we get Kristen Stewart.

The French critics have mapped out a route through our cinema's past like a museum guide trying to unravel the opaque and meaningless tangle of a Pollack to an incredulous Indiana tourist. The last voice we had in the States with the clout and guts to champion the underdog, Pauline Kael, is gone. Without her, would we even have noticed Bonnie and Clyde or Taxi Driver? Maybe not. She would have loved Kristen Stewart and would have explained and contextualized her work to the point we'd be valuing her here well before that Cesar.

Kael is dead though, and it behooves our new Bonnies and Bickels to go once again back to Europe to seek the recognition they warrant. In the US, alas, if you put a relatively hot young broad in a debate with a stodgy, sexist older man like Norman Mailer (as in Town Bloody Hall), and the broad is more than holding her own, calling him out on his bullshit, she's a dour buzzkill and he's a hero to the lumpen proletariat. In Europe the mixture of different languages keeps everyone guessing and leads to a kind of of eternal now unbound by the past or religious dogma, a now that floats constantly on the cutting edge of thinking and social connection, because language can't grow stale when no one understands each other.

In the States we expect the Ruby Tuesdays in White Plains to be the same as the one in Toledo rather than a unique snowflake. Appearances are measured up to, fit into, the excess cut away. So if we can't rely on the basic maxim that someone in a suit and tie, white, straight and over 60, is more intelligent and worldly than a cute under-30 blonde in a tight sweater, then we can rely on nothing, and are too terrified to pay attention. Our fingers tighten on our pitchforks and torches instinctively. Europeans would just be amused and intrigued--after all, to the young women in Paris white male writers over 60 are sex objects--but Americans froth at the mouth when their obtuse book-by-cover dictums are challenged by cool-headed pretty blonde undergrads. And it doesn't even matter who's right or wrong in a debate, it's that the prettier they are, the more hostile the (middle-aged bachelor) professor gets. He has tenure! Why is he shouting!? It's because she's too pretty, and young and would never in a million years go out with him and anyway, it's frowned upon by the academic senate... at least now, at least here, but if this was Paris '68, oooh chippie, thinks the prof.

And there she is, expecting an A without even so much as sleeping with him once; her intellect an affront to his sense of entitlement, a sense that our outdated counter-productive practice of tenure encourages. And then who has to deal with her? Me, as she comes to my office to complain about him.

I explain to these understandably aggrieved girls that higher learning doesn't always accompany or even encourage self-knowledge. The development of one's own unconscious madness, the source of all genius, is criminally neglected in academia. Higher learning often serves only to convince the teacher that his dull sanity trumps chaotic madness, and why? Because that glint can't be taught and therefore can't be measured so must in academia be devalued. All we need from the higher ed wizard to be a real museum-ready artist is a grant, an endowment, a write-up in Artforum. If we're not going for the grants and endowments then we're either mere 'entertainers' or outsiders; either we get a three picture deal or a prescription to Lithium, either way, the madness that creates genius stops through lack of oxygen. The diploma is awarded... the ship sinks... the guns go silent.

 COURTNEY LOVE, AMERICAN SMOKER

And either way all the reckless energy the hussy young girl genius pours into her career is suddenly sidestepped when she has a kid. That's the moment when I get mad and the drink-counting mothers relax. When a great insane hot mess skirting the lip of brilliance thinks she can put that all on hold to become a mom, eat healthy and quit her vices, and then come back and be the same badass, I know that, like Uncle Paulie when Henry starts peddling the garbage, I have to turn my back on them. They're acting selfish, denying their madness a voice, giving all their love to a newborn instead of me, her public. If, like Courtney Love, she can somehow stay rowdy, raise the child punk rock style, but without that Ann Dvorak in Three on a Match-type negligence, that's a frickin' rarity.

Hats off to Courtney Love, still rockin' and still terrifying the academy and still, as of this post, sober.

She may not still be the siren voice unconscious of L.A. but I listen to Celebrity Skin and remember the last time I was there, whipping too fast around curves up in the hills, wind pulling my hair like a crazy hottie sitting behind me in the car, trying to either strangle me or give me a massage as I cringed in the shotgun seat, the crazy gorgeous blonde driver--who I flew in to visit over spring break--didn't get off her cell phone once during the week I was there, even after the car almost flipped over zipping around those dangerous hills; and "Boys on the Radio" roared to life in the speakers right in the moment we almost "crashed and burned". Love's rock oomph carved a space for a soul inside L.A's bottomless surface, celebrating these same curves and the countless honored drunks and druggies they'd taken, honored the scuzzy bottom feeders photographing the wreckage that is Hollywood's rapture with self-immolation (we wouldn't see a better incarnation until Cronenberg's Maps to the Stars.)

Mark my words, one day, once she's safely dead, Love's letters and notebooks will be researched and archived ad nausea. Dabbing their pens in the theoretical equivalent of Dillinger's blood, the academia will hug themselves with the richness of her life's work, digging numerological cryptograms from her teenage speedfreak Boggle word lists, gin rummy scores, Paglian chthonic feminist poetry.

But only when she's dead and therefore immortalized (and unable to bite them) will they dare appreciate the thing that so scared them when it came roaring up on them alive at a party. "You're brave with a fish as long as it's a dead fish" the cook says in Night of the Iguana.  

But Love's not dead, yet. She'll piss on your luggage and hide the distributor cap and help the sky begin to blanche while you're still struggling for a hip disaffected response to her first question. She's the female Keith Richards, a survivor because she can play guitar and loves rock over drugs, music over sex, and even death, but what's the difference? She's Orpheus descending into the reptilian tunnels beneath downtown LA, armed with a blazing guitar torch. She rides her amp's electric currents high above the glitter, an overdose-surviving valkyrie swooping down onto LA rooftops to collect the beautiful and dying boys about to jump and see if they can fly, for her Valhalla bloody chamber record collection. Let the haters hate, and they do all over the web; to earn such vitriol, from so many losers, she must be doing something right.

Asia Argento (Scarlet Diva)





THE KEYHOLE MIRROR: ASIA ARGENTO

A very unique and raw analysis of what it means to be young, gifted and constantly mauled as an Italian film starlet while roaming through daytime press junkets and financing meetings, photo shoots and hotel room film pitches, and having it be no big deal to smoke while pregnant (and burn herself with the lit end on purpose), Aregento's SCARLET DIVA really unnerved some critics over here. If you read the average Amazon comment it's of the bent that 'Asia's like totally hot but I couldn't get turned on by it,' (i.e. that comment on McGowan's music video) like the film was mispromoted, its promos a tease promising softcore sex and delivering only self-mutilation and nervous K-hole breakdowns instead.


It's like dude that's the point!

That's the only way Europe can sneak art down middle America's throats, on the Trojan horse of sex. Art House cinema as we know it got big in the US in the late 1950s only by promising "European" and "Art" in the same sentence meant the kind of frank openness about sex and nudity our own puritanical censorship forbade. A single nude shot or dirty word could create lines around the block. But eventually they didn't need the promise of 'dirt' because the art had taken hold. Subtitles had a Pavlovian association with lack of censorship, which allowed for more imports, allowing art to take root. And with it, strong intelligent women. The amount of backbone in an actress like Kate Winslet, Helen Mirren or Keira Knightley in England, or Isabelle Huppert and Adjani, Beatrice Dalle, or Sophie Marceau in France, or Monica Vitti in Italy vs. that of, say, Sandra Bullock, Julianne Moore, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Winona Ryder, even Jodie Foster here is as different as that between a tiger and a house cat. Both are still cool, sleek, stylish, but which could more believably devour you?

I've got theories: I recently saw a Hammer film DVD extra where an old writer or someone was remembering the way Britain and American censorship of the 50s-60s was vastly different - the Americans would demand cuts to the sex, but the violence was allowed; the British would allow the sex but demand cuts to the violence! This ties perfectly into my theory, as exposited in Acidemic #6, that sex is to the French what guns are to Americans, and vice versa. And there's that old Dietrich quote "In Europe, sex is a fact. In America, it is an obsession." And there's no doubt it's much easier to get a gun in this country than to hook up at a party. And vice versa.

My final theory on this has to do with World War Two: Being bombed nearly to death in the 40s made Europe permanently less enthralled with global destruction than we are here in the US, and their more liberal views on sex may well be a result of that too; the result ensures that premarital sex plays quite a larger and more healthily complex sophisticated yet accessible and straightforward part there, and in its way, so does prostitution, which seems more than a few degrees less tawdry in, say, Paris or Amsterdam, than here. We see these demoiselles crop up in French New Wave films, but less in a tawdry Taxi Driver manner (or Liam Neeson manner) and more in a just two casual 'people hooking up' sort of way. It's still no kind of a life for a lady, but for a lonely dude and a cash hungry Parisian of the same approximate age and class, what's the harm?

At least it's regulated to an extent and therefore less overrun by sleazy gangsters, presumably, and the pimps are French, little guys who just get funnier the harder they try to be menacing. Meow, n'cest pas?





Then again, that impression, like all my others, comes from films not France itself, which I have never visited. What do I know about actual reality? I never watch it. From what I have seen, it's a real mess.

And it's my fault, probably, for never looking.

And of course, the four furies:
Pauline Kael
Camille Paglia
Kim Morgan
Molly Haskell
NOTES:
1. Hey STELLA: Do you imagine they would dare show such a complicated monster as Stanley Kowalski in today's draconian PC environment? He'd either have to be an irredeemable brute whose every gesture is amped up with ominous music cues and lewd looks (so there's no possible way we can like him)--the particulars of the rape spread out in ugly rutting and sadistic sexual violence and intensity (instead of just showing a shattered mirror)--or they'd cut it out altogether, block it out of the screenplay, and just turn him into a passive whiner who cockblocks buddy Karl Malden. And now, going back and watching Dean's three film roles, it's hard to understand sometimes what the fuss was about. He seems to mince a lot in Rebel -- stopping the action cold so he can play with little toys or befriend Sal Mineo as if he's a timid marsupial at the zoo he's trying to feed a peanut by hand. He doesn't make a lot of sense - he mumbles - one minute he's cool and playing chicken, and winning, and smoking and putting dirt on his hands, the next he's trying to rat the whole gang out to cops even though even his parents don't want him to (they're not squealers --they're actually cooler than he is). "Just once I want to do something right!" he says. So he wants to drag everyone else down with him so he can be noble. In New Grenada we say something too: "a kid who squeals on another kid is a dead kid." Wanting to call in the cops is almost as bad as not making a more coherent effort to hook up with Carroll Baker in GIANT.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...