I only have time for a post per month now, in this white elephant of a blog. In this month's post, detailing what my brain has been up to in April, The Beatles are now as old as Mozart; Doris Day sings about
stalkers; and Roberto Bolano makes me hallucinate.
Aesthetic Prejudice
The other day I came
across this children's reference book, published by Doris Kindersley,
on Great Musicians, which pictures The Beatles on the cover,
along with smaller illustrations of Mozart (that's the little guy in
the periwig, right?) and Billie Holiday. It occurred to me that this
was the best answer to the high-low conundrum posed in my last post.
With time it doesn't particularly matter in what sense an artist is
considered “great,” or whether that sense is decided at the time
or at any point afterwards. Less than 50 years after their advent,
The Beatles are now “classics”; they have been canonized; as part
of their education, children must be taught about the contributions
of the great rock musicians and of jazz musicians as well as
classical musicians to culture. To children who would not have heard
of any except through their education they must all look the same: 50
years ago or 250 years ago, it's all old.
I'm not saying The
Beatles don't belong there, either; I'm simply curious about the
process by which pop culture gets incorporated into the
cultural canon, since it's not by a rationally-formulated critical
consensus based on a systematic, comprehensive aesthetic theory. For example, I've noticed
on the internet that movie fans frequently come in two flavours these
days: “movie geeks,” who are interested in contemporary movies
(going back to, say, the 90s); and “cinephiles” (or movie snobs),
who are interested in “the classics” (or, Hollywood and European
cinema up to the mid-60s) and Modernist and avant-garde cinema up to
the present, and tend to scorn geek favourites. It would be easy to
argue that movie fans who are interested in classical Hollywood
cinema are not interested in contemporary movies because the two have
almost nothing in common: classical Hollywood movies were based on
popular (and often dreadful) novels and plays and influenced by
theatre; contemporary Hollywood blockbusters are based on comic books
or YA series and influenced by video games. But then, classical
Hollywood movies have nothing in common with Modernist and
avant-garde movies, either, and “cinephiles” (myself, for
example) tend to be open towards both, whereas they are less open
towards contemporary blockbusters (although this, like everything, is
generational, and probably changing). So why do the snobs appreciate
both but scorn comic book adaptations? (For my part, despite being a
superhero comics fan as a child – yeah, I know, that's no geek cred
at all – I disliked The Dark Knight because it was
heavy, ponderous, hard to follow, no fun – not even the Heath
Ledger parts – and had none of the basic, dramatically powerful
psychological interest that the superhero genre – including such
extensions of it as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and some manga –
shares with Greek tragedy. From the favourable reviews I glean that
The Dark Knight was a “morality play,” but I can't be that
bothered about superhero moral dilemmas, so if the introduction of
weighty moral questions into comic books is considered an advance in
the form, I apparently prefer it in its immaturity.)
One huge difference
between the play-or-book-based movie and the comic-based movie or the
movie based on a YA or sci-fi or fantasy print franchise is that it
is often assumed by cinephiles that the movies, by some mysterious
alchemy that no one has ever systematically formulated, aesthetically
elevated trashy novels and plays: although themselves (arguably) a
kind of trash, classical Hollywood movies transformed the detritus of
the traditional literary arts into a kind of art (“American art,”
like rock and roll, although the British quickly appropriated the
latter as they never managed to do with the former). Whereas now the
source medium has overtaken the adapting medium; the former comes
with devoted fans who are disturbed if the movie is unfaithful to the
source (or who sometimes view both movies and books as “products”
of the franchise to be separately considered and possibly enjoyed on
their own merits). David O. Selznick anticipated the future of
moviemaking when he adapted the pop classic Gone With the Wind
into an epic blockbuster, realizing that he had to please the novel's
rabid fan base. What I wonder about are movies like The Notebook.
If many film critics are willing to consider the Bette Davis soap
Now, Voyager, based on the bestselling novel by Olive Higgins
Prouty, a “great woman's picture,” why isn't the same respect
extended to contemporary woman's pictures based on bestsellers?
Really, I'm asking the question of myself. I love the woman's
pictures of the 1930s and 40s starring Bette Davis, Joan Crawford,
and Barbara Stanwyck, but I wouldn't even consider watching a
contemporary movie in the same genre. Maybe I should put my
irrational prejudices to the test by comparing The Notebook
(which I've never seen) to a couple of well-received “postmodern”
woman's pictures that I disliked, Todd Haynes's Far From Heaven
and Stephen Daldry's The Hours. But I'll probably just rewatch
Now, Voyager instead.
Like A Good Girl Should
My YouTube find for
this month is this Doris Day song, “A Guy Is a Guy,” which
conjures a creepy stalker scenario in a manner reminiscent of
Morrissey's unsurpassed masterpiece of lyrical economy, “Suedehead." According to the
fascinating, and also blessedly brief, Wikipedia entry, the 1952
song, written by Oscar Brand, was a cleaned-up version of a bawdy
song, “A Gob Is a Slob,” sung by WWII soldiers, which was in turn
based on an early 18th century British song, “I Went to
the Alehouse (A Knave Is a Knave)." I don't know about you,
but I don't want to know anything more than this about any of the
songs; as with the Day and Morrissey songs, I prefer to let my
imagination run wild based on the few provided evocative tidbits.
Brand's version ends
respectably with marriage, which made it appropriate for Day's
squeaky-clean image. But then, as with other great American pop icons
of the 1950s and early 60s, Day's image is a lot more complicated
than the way it was officially presented and is now recalled –
incorporating the shadings found in this song, for example. Pillow
Talk (1959), with Rock Hudson,
is the tragedy of Clarissa and Lovelace reimagined as a sex farce
that's all the smuttier for its surface cleanness, showering the
viewer with double entendres and treating them to scenes like the one
where Hudson and Day, in split screen, talk in their respective
bathtubs with their naked feet seemingly pressed together (and tubs
seemingly joined). The prurient battle-of-the-sexes question,
unchanged in the over two centuries between Clarissa
and Pillow Talk
despite the new female independence, is whether Day, the single
career woman guarding her virtue, will be tricked by Hudson into
giving it up, or whether she will domesticate him into marriage. The
audience, naturally, roots for both while fearing for Day even as we
now that she will, by the code of the time and rules of the genre,
win in the end.
One
of the strangest pop culture artifacts of the 50s I've ever come
across is this Colgate Comedy Hour performance by Jerry Lewis of a
song called “Never Been Kissed,” which also slyly undermines his
squeaky-clean image (which the song appears to celebrate) with a
bawdy, and possibly queer, subtext. In the performance, Lewis trades
on his juvenile/asexual/queer image (a “queerness” that wouldn't
necessarily have been associated by the majority of the audience with
then beyond-the-pale homosexuality) by selecting elderly men as his
backup singers and giving them the names of elderly women. Then, as
he gives his trademark deconstruction of performance through lip
sync, he uses them for a running gag of turning to them indignantly
whenever the comic sound introduces the chorus and he thrusts his
hips forward (anticipating, before The King had even appeared on Ed
Sullivan, Morrissey's queerification of Elvis's dangerous pelvis in
his Top of the Pops “Shoplifters of the World Unite”
performance), as though suspicious of their designs on his rear end.
(Anality is a key feature of some of Lewis's best comedic
deconstructions of class and gender, as in the spike over the
college's sign that spears the telephone repairman, the ultimate
victim of the electric nervousness beneath the Lynchian placidity of
all-American Milltown, in the opening sequence of The
Ladies Man,, and the outrageous
bit of business in The Disorderly Orderly,
directed by Frank Tashlin, in which Lewis as the clinically
hysterical, menial orderly of the title plugs a vacuum into his ass
to perform his hospital chores.)
The
narrative of the song itself involves a racy woman who pretends to be
virginal; Lewis's gender-crossing identification with her is evident
not only in the way the song fits his official persona but in the
brief flirtation with cross-dressing when he dons a wedding veil to
narrate her wedding. In the curious denouement, the fallen woman
who's found a way around the double standard gets her just deserts
when it turns out that she's “married a man who has never been
kissed” – in other words, a man like this
one?
The
American 1950s, as the last moment when innocence was valued in pop
culture icons, is a rich and strange era for the student of pop
culture to examine. As pop culture has become more permissive, it has
also become, paradoxically, cleaner, since restrictions on
permissible sexual content (and, ostensibly, on permissible sexual
behaviour) no longer tempt performers and writers to subversion, with
the result that, overall, there's less
convention-flouting content in mainstream pop culture. When Beyonce
tells her ex that if he didn't want her to go out and flirt with new
guys he “shoulda put a ring on it,” she's relating a narrative
that many women of her generation can, apparently, relate to, but
there's are no additional layer of meaning, no examination or satire
of sexual mores or gender roles. Somehow we're sexually freer than
ever, yet at the same time more conventional than ever.
Roberto Bolano, Ghost
Author
Reading Roberto
Bolano's posthumously published novels since 2666 sometimes
inspires in me the fantasy that these are in fact the works of ghost
writers who are playing around in the vast, vague field of “the
Bolanoesque,” as V. C. Andrews's ghost writer has continued to
churn out novels employing the themes she established in the two
series and one stand-alone novel she wrote or started before her
death. What do Andrews, the trashy Gothic novelist, and Roberto
Bolano, the darling of the literary avant garde, possibly have in
common? Well, they both became famous as authors late in life,
Andrews at the age of 56, with the publication of Flowers in the
Attic in 1979, and then died young, Andrews at 65. (Bolano, as I
understand it, became famous in the Spanish-speaking world with the
publication of The Savage Detectives in 1998, when he was 45;
he died at the age of 50.) They were also both obsessives in their
fiction, Andrews's circling around themes of incest, rape, family
romance, and a traumatic female coming-of-age, Bolano's around themes
of rape, fascism, and the idea of art. Andrews's ghost writer, Andrew
Neiderman, can perform variations on her themes but can't capture the
claustrophobia of her fiction – of her Gothic imagination. (As a
female Southern writer whose experience outside her family and
imagination was severely curtailed by incapacitating illness, she
reminds me of Flannery O'Connor – in her different literary mode.)
My fantasy is no doubt
encouraged by the fact that Bolano has two English translators,
Natasha Wimmer and Chris Andrews, which exacerbates the wide
stylistic differences in these posthumous works. The first two I've
read are The Third Reich, translated by Wimmer and apparently
written in 1989, and Monsieur Pain, translated by Andrews and
apparently written in 1981 or 1982. The first is an exercise in
seeing how little event a novel can sustain, the second an
invention-packed surrealist riff on the death of a poet by hiccups in
Paris (and half the length of the first). It should come as no
surprise that I preferred Monsieur Pain.
In a review of Monsieur Pain in The Guardian, Ursula Le Guin (a literary
connection that heightens Bolano's genre-bending incorporation of
sci-fi and fantasy elements into I guess what we have to call his
avant-garde fictions) objects to the “surrealistic devices” of
the novella, calling them “overly cinematic.” Her phrasing made
me wonder how a novel can be overly cinematic, while her
observation made me further reflect on why I – in common with many
reviewers – want to call Bolano's writing cinematic at all. In his
Guardian review of The Third Reich, Giles Harvey notes
of the far-spaced and abortive “events” of the novel, “As in a
film by Antonioni, what we are left with – what we are forced to
get by on – is atmosphere,” and, I think, correctly pinpoints why
the novel is unsuccessful: the menace that Bolano seemingly intends
by the events is not communicated to the reader. We know that the
author feels they're portentous, but the atmosphere isn't there on
the page.
I also thought of Antonioni
while reading The Third Reich,
as well as - another “atmospheric” Modernist filmmaker, Roman
Polanski – particularly his early work about relationship angst
between eccentric couples, Cul-de-sac.
But Antonioni and Polanski are still interested in meaning, whereas
in The Third Reich,
Bolano seems to be on a quest to erase any trace of meaning as he
writes. Bolano's Nazi obsession shows up in the titular war game that
the protagonist, Udo Berger, plays with the scarred burn-victim
pedal-boat purveyor with whom Udo has become inexplicably obsessed,
but the reader never learns what, if anything, is at stake (actually
or symbolically) in their game, and the anti-climactic climax,
centred on the pedal-boat structure that also has a great and
mysterious meaning for Udo (but not the reader), is equally baffling.
Maybe Bolano is going after something like Jane Bowles's achievement
in “Camp Cataract,” which is also full of symbols that only have
meaning to the eccentric protagonist, but whereas Bowles's story
builds up to a crisis for her isolated, neurotic protagonist,
Bolano's tendency in The Third Reich
is to defuse the crises that seem to loom around every corner. It
almost seems like the classic writer's error of not being able to
bear anything too awful happening to one's characters – combined
with a sensibility that supposes that horrors are everywhere, lurking
in the most mundane details.
While
reading Monsieur Pain
I thought of Polanski, again (The Tenant,
this time, though only briefly, related to one episode where Pain
interacts with the woman next door in his apartment), and of
avant-garde cinema generally, especially Lynch. In what I guess can
be taken as the novella's climactic scene, there's an episode where
Pain encounters an apparition in the labyrinthine corridors of a
hospital at night that so strikingly parallels Laura Dern's corridor
wanderings towards the end of INLAND EMPIRE
and her encounter with a figure there that it contributed to my
hallucination that I was reading the work of a ghost writer (writing
after INLAND EMPIRE,
that is) who was checking off the list of references that make up
“the Bolanoesque”: David Lynch, check. And earlier in the novel
Pain reads Bolano's oft-mentioned favourite book, Schwob's
Imaginary Lives, which also
seemed suspiciously on-the-nose. As far as being “overly cinematic”
goes, again with shades of INLAND EMPIRE,
at one point Pain goes to see a movie that seems to anticipate
Rivette's avant-garde deconstructions of melodrama in the 1970s,
although the novella is set in the 1930s (and the name “Rivette”
occurs separately in the novel); Bolano blends the dream-like,
absurdist narrative with his description of the dream-like, absurdist
film.
What
makes Bolano's writing “cinematic”? All I can come up with for an
answer is that his imagination draws on tropes that have been
explored by avant-garde and horror films (or both) rather than prose
fiction. At least in his minor novels, he seems to be more influenced
by film than by other writers, despite having a greater passion for
reading than any other contemporary novelist I'm aware of. As for his
major novels, 2666
made me think of Lynch, although I couldn't pin it down to more than
a “shared sensibility,” and The Savage Detectives
employs the documentary form for its middle section. Does this
influence mean that Bolano's writing is “overly cinematic”? That
– all I can make of Le Guin's comment – he isn't taking advantage
of the elements specific to the novel? Le Guin seems to think that
narrative or “story” is an essential component of the novel, but
Bolano's quarrel with conventional narrative can't be the reason his work
is cinematic, since many would make the same claim about film.
Unless, again, what she's thinking of is that film has been more open
to experiments with narrative than the novel (although, since I know
very little about the experimental novel, I don't know whether that's
true). And that is presumably because film – like poetry but unlike
the traditional novel – can be a (non-narrative) series of images. Since these
images are directly visual (not visual images rendered in language,
like the images of poetry), many have been tempted into making pronouncements about the relationship between movies and dreams,
which seems to make film an ideal medium for surrealist experiment.
However, although one may prefer a conventional narrative or a story
that plays with narrative (or either, as long as they're done well),
there's no inherent reason why a novel, which is to say, a long work
of prose fiction, has to have a conventional narrative. Story can be
a process of making meaning; or a long work of prose fiction can do
something else entirely while defeating our desire for story to make
meaning. There is no guarantee that the frustration of the reader's
desire for meaning will result in something profound; but then
there's no guarantee that the fulfilment of the reader's desire for
meaning will, either.
For more on the extremely interesting political background to Monsieur
Pain, which I was unaware of
while reading it, and which earns Le Guin's grudging respect, see the Quarterly Conversation review by Stephen Henighan, “Fascism, Art, and Mediocrity.” I am,
however, taken aback by Henighan's confident assertions about what
Bolano has to say about “mediocrities.” I would be hesitant to
confidently assert what Bolano feels about anything,
certainly based on his fiction; perhaps Henighan is eager to
demonstrate to those who feel the way Le Guin does about experimental
fiction that Bolano can
be interpreted – and easily. But I have no idea where Henighan is
coming from when he writes, “Art dies two deaths here: in the form
of Vallejo, who is killed (perhaps) by fascism, and in the more
painful – literally – death that is suffered by Pain, who
fritters away his creativity and enthusiasm in a life of increasing
irrelevance.” As though there is some kind of lesson to be learned
from the novel, or Pain's (hallucinatory) experience; in fact,
Henighan actually speaks of a “lesson” in the last line of the
review.
I
think all of this is sheer projection on the part of the reviewer,
although it goes to show that deliberate, elaborate ambiguity does
not necessarily stop readers from feeling that the meaning and
interpretation of a story are secure. I think that Bolano is
interested in his mesmerists, as he's interested in his Nazi writers
of the Americas and war game fan culture, because he's fascinated by
fringe figures, interests, and practises. Bolano's eccentric fringe
figures aren't failed artists – or, for that matter, for the most
part successful ones – but figures for
the artist, at once mundane and fantastic, possessed by their obscure
obsessions. However, Bolano doesn't do much with Pain's interest in
mesmerism; like the Polish curse in INLAND EMPIRE,
it's simply there as part of the atmosphere of irrationality and
horror. Whatever its political backdrop, the novella itself is a
series of set-pieces of surrealistic horror, and Bolano's attempt to
bring together the backdrop and Pain's bizarre adventures in his encounter
with a Harry Lime-like figure seems halfhearted indeed. Le Guin is
far too generous: this really is
all a bunch of nonsense, and compared to his best works, which are
virtually indescribable in their originality, it comes off as
derivative, almost like an homage to capital-S Surrealism. Apparently the hiccups and the
intervention of the mesmerist are factual (there was a real Monsieur
Pain), which shows the sort of real-life surrealisms – the
absurdities and mudanities – that tickled Bolano's imagination in
connection with the atrocities of history and the lives and deaths of great poets.