Wednesday, November 19, 2008

The last few days, it has been cold in New York City, and the news has been hysterical, with bailouts and (possible) bankruptcies and more news on Obama's possible cabinet. (Tom Daschle for Health... it used to be called Health and Human Resources, but i think the name has been changed.) The buzz is about Hillary Clinton: will she accept Secretary of State? This has become a whole soap opera in itself, with everyone weighing in. The attempt by the executives from GM, Ford and Chrysler to get a bailout from the government was some sort of comedy: the men are such rich idiots that they didn't realize that their $20 plus million salaries look mighty bad when they're asking for $25 billion. And they flew to Washington in their own private jets. Which didn't sit well with the congressmen. In fact, it was a publicity fiasco. And Paulsson is an idiot: he went to Congress to explain why the Treasury should bail out companies and Wall Street, but not homeowners and small businesses. The situation seems clear: the government can take over the factories and the companies and kick the executives out. And that's it. The government can then decide to use the factories to manufacture whatever is really necessary for the country. And not hideously designed gas-guzzling cars. But then you hear all these idiots saying that the bailout is necessary. Well: the damned bailout of Wall Street was "necessary" and it doesn't seem to have stopped the bleeding of the economy. And will Wall Street (or GM or Ford) pay back the American people? I think not.

So much for that.

Well, tonight is Janet Gaynor night on TCM. Just watched "Small Town Girl" (1936, MGM, directed by William Wellman) and now watching "Sunrise".

Yesterday, watched "First Comes Courage", the last feature film directed by Dorothy Arzner. It was actually not bad, it's one of the more credible World War II Resistance melodramas. And Merle Oberon is also not bad. She's looser and less stiff and artificial than in most of her 1940s movies. The thing is: over the years, i'd heard Arzner being used as an example of a "terrible" director, yet her pre-Code movies are fast and quite well-done (movies like "Anybody's Woman" and "Sarah and Son", both starring Ruth Chatterton, or "Merrily We Go to Hell" starring Sylvia Sidney, or "Working Girls" which actually didn't have any big-name stars, but was one of her best movies); during the retrospective that Jytte Jensen put on at MoMA, for me one of the revelations was "Craig's Wife" because it was trim and streamlined but very elegantly crafted. (Because of "Harriet Craig", "Craig's Wife" had been long unavailable; it deserves to be more widely known, not just because it's one of Arzner's better movies, but it has a very fine dramatic performance by Rosalind Russell, the first one where you can tell she's going to be a star.)

On Monday, TCM had its Charles Laughton night (he's the Star of the Month) and i watched two movies (both of which i'd seen before): "The Old Dark House" (directed by James Whale) and "The Canterville Ghost" (directed by Jules Dassin). In terms of "The Canterville Ghost", Dassin had been directing programmers like the low-budget propaganda melodrama "Nazi Agent" (1942) and this was his first "A" budget movie. It's entertaining enough, Charles Laughton gets to show his comic talent, and Margaret O'Brien was still fresh (her next movie would be "Meet Me in St. Louis", also 1944).

But the interesting thing was to see Whale's "The Old Dark House", because there are so many things that are so odd and fey; in addition, there was almost a self-conscious decorative quality to a lot of the scenes, where the set-ups and the lighting were obviously patterned.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that, if you didn't know Whale was gay, would you suspect it from the comic and expressionistic overtones of "The Old Dark House"?

And this is hard to say, because the apparatus of the Hollywood machine was so strong.

Some obits: Grace Hartigan died over the weekend, Clive Barnes's death was just announced.

Anyway, it's been hard to get out, it's so cold (and it's only the middle of November), but tomorrow there's the screening of "Milk". And on Friday, "Wendy and Lucy" as well as Ferzak Ozpetek's "A Perfect Day".

The other important political news has been the sudden appearance of a new gay activism. Especially the passing of Proposition 8 in California (though similar measures were passed in other states, such as Florida and Arizona). This ban on gay marriage seems so retrograde. It's like this is the 21st Century, and we're still mired in prejudice. Yes, Obama was elected, but it's sparked a lot of hate crimes (especially in the South), and now, if black people are now "acceptable" (we've got a black president), well, there must be somebody that can be discriminated against, and gay people are just the perfect targets.

Only we're not the perfect targets anymore. (What i find so funny is that so many people now are saying that we shouldn't be angry, and we should try to see the other points of view... you know, it's like whites' anger and fear over Black Power... and it still happens. Just watch the hideous "View": Elizabeth Hasselback is always saying that black people are "racist" for expressing anger over white privilege, as if black people have no right to their righteous emotion for the centuries of oppression. Please!)

Anyway, over the weekend, i watched a short film made by Jenni Olson, "575 Castro Street" (which was the address of the store owned by Harvey Milk in San Francisco). It was quite a lovely short... consisting of shots of the (reconstructed) store interior (used as the set for the Gus Van Sant movie "Milk") accompanied by a taped message by Harvey Milk, which was made "in case of" his death. (Milk felt that he would be assassinated, because his stature as an openly gay man elected to public office was going to be under attack.)

Jenni's film brought to mind the attempts (since the 1960s) to find a way to meld "radical" content to formalism. On its own, it's a very evocative short: the "empty" interiors take on a ghostly quality as Milk's words (which foretell his assassination) pervade the space. Milk's own space is devoid of his presence, which is reinforced by his own words which explain the possibility of his absence.

I was reminded of how many people (Straub-Huillet, Marguerite Duras, Yvonne Rainer, Peter Wollen and Laura Mulvey, William E. Jones) have attempted to create disjunctive relationships between sound and image. "575 Castro Street" is a evocative addition to this aesthetic legacy.

Well, now watching the last of the Janet Gaynor films, "Three Loves Has Nancy". Well, it's the kind of too-cute movie that looks like someone is trying to kill off her career: she just so damned winsome in this. (She's lucky that her last starring movies were the two Selznick produced ones, "A Star Is Born" and "Young In Heart" from 1937; of course, she'd return decades later playing Pat Boone's mother in "Bernadine".)

3 Comments:

Blogger Ian said...

Hello Daryl--I'm a teacher in Vancouver, BC. I co-sponsor a Gay-Straight Alliance club at my high school. I want to show "The Times Of Harvey Milk" to a club meeting.

New Yorker Films controls US distribution of the movie, and I've asked Telling Pictures if there is a Canadian distribution. New Yorker's FAQ on PPR is pretty fussy about the Teaching Exemption.

In your humble opinion--a little of which I've read today and at robert-bresson.com--would New Yorker consider my GSA screening covered by the Teaching Exemption?

Please contact me at
ian.weniger@gmail.com

Much appreciated--Ian Weniger, Vancouver, BC, Canada

8:31 AM

 
Blogger MDHKAUAI said...

Daryl-
In response to what you wrote in your blog about people saying to pipe it down a bit. This is an example of that. My very good friend Makana wrote me this note. I was floored.

InboxSent MessagesNotificationsUpdatesCompose Message
Prop. 8
Between You and Makana M. Grant
Makana M. Grant

November 18 at 11:05am
Wow, you are doing some good work!!

I have been thinking about prop 8. I totally think it should be repealed but the no on prop 8 people are fanning the fire of culture war. The tactics don't seem to be help the cause. I can't put my finger on it but not such a good taste in my mouth. somehow the hurt that the activists feel comes across as blame. I hope they figure it out because I fear that all the gains made since '04 may come undone. The reality is that in '04 the gay marriage proposition lost by something like 22 percent and 8 was like 4or 6. That is a crazy net gain. In California at least in the next several years it will happen, unless people who have no reason to be against it strat feeling alienated by the movement. That would be a shame.

I love you,
Makana

I just wanted to send this to you. you can only reply to everyone you sent the painting to.
Michael Douglas Hummel

November 18 at 5:55pm
The reason people are angry is that it (PROP 8 campaign) was completely feuled and funded by religious organizations (mainly the church of Mormon). All of the advertising that was done on Prop 8's behalf...religious organizations bankrolled. These same organizations are under tax exempt status which says EXPLICITLY that they are not to invest monies into public or political campaigns, state initiatives, etc. So what this issue is about is Church doctrine influencing public law. The issue goes way beyond gay civil liberties... but even if it were only just about gay civil liberties I think anger is a justified response. Let's just think of it in terms of Roe vs. Wade (if that were over turned). Would anger be a justified response? Hell yes it would. What if states decided to revoke the rights of interracial couples to marry (a law overturned in most states in 1967-not that long ago) would that justify anger? Hell yes it would. Frankly, the "wait and see how far we can come by waiting around" tactic hasn't worked for us. It hasn't worked for alot of disenfranchised people. There comes a time when you let 'em know that you just are not going to take it lying down anymore. And if that means culture war, well honey please...bring. it. on.

Love,
Michael Makana M. Grant

November 18 at 9:22pm
Hey there my brother,

I think that anger is justified. I think that a fight is justified and marches and telling people about the funding and all of that. I just think that the way it is coming across, even in this the most liberal county of the USA, is alienating. I only wonder about the tactics. How do you get back the right? I voted against prop 8 and donated money. My boss is not sure about the status of her marriage. I believe that one can fight AND invite people to learn. I don't see that happening. I see people being lumped into a camp that is against gay marriage who simply are not, perhaps they were duped or maybe the issue is not high on their priority list. Now those people are being made to take a side, they are not being wooed. What I was saying about the percentages is really this... Over the past several years the gay rights movement has made GREAT strides. I am worried that the way gay rights pundits are spinning things of late does not build on the foundation built before Nov. 4.

i don't know if my assessment is right, perhaps I am full of shit. I think it is crazy that two people can't marry for any reason. I did not mean to upset you. I am amazed that it only takes a simple majority to change the constitution of Ca.

I love you too,
Makana Michael Douglas Hummel

November 18 at 9:51pm
Oh my Makana,

YOU didn't upset me. It's this notion that everything is so fucking fragile and will break with resistance. Resistance is a fundemental element of change. When intelligent discourse falls on deaf ears then sometimes you have to use a language that is permiable.

As for those people that were duped into voting for something that they didn't understand, or perhaps they were just too apathetic to mark their ballot on that particular issue because it wasn't high on their priority list...well they are the most culpable. That is the very attitude that saw the rise of Nazism in Germany.

THE BOTTOM LINE: The foundation that was built before November 4th was smashed long before the "gay pundits" ever "spun" anything. It has continually been smashed in this country. Ask Mathew Shephard. Ask Moses "Teish" Cannon. Ask Harvey Milk. Ask all the gay men who have died of AIDS before anyone gave a shit, when the disease was only thought of as a gay one. Ask me.

xoxo
Michael

4:08 PM

 
Blogger helan said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


Barbara

http://www.ipodepot.info

11:11 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home