Click on title to link to YouTube's film clip of Greg Brown performing "I Want My Country Back".
CD REVIEW
Greg Brown: In The Hills Of California- Live At The Kate Wolf Music Festival 1997-2003, Greg Brown, Red House Records, 2004
The last time that the name Greg Brown, singer/songwriter and free-wheeling homespun philosopher appeared in this space was just recently as I found myself publicly ‘flirting’, via cyberspace of course, with his wife the also accomplished singer/songwriter Iris Dement, my Arkie angel (See my review of her “Infamous Angel” CD). It is all Greg’s fault, in any case. I was ‘introduced’ to Iris on his tribute album “Driftless” where she did a cover of “Jimmie Rodgers Going Home” (complete with yodel at the end). So to be absolutely aboveboard and fair I find it necessary to review some of his work
Greg Brown is a particular kind of folk singer who before I listened to his “Greg Brown-The Live One ” album reviewed elsewhere in this space I had not really paid attention to since the days of my early youth when I listened intently to Woody Guthrie whose songs were seemingly forged from the very heart of Americana. As a child of the urban folk revival of the 1960’s I got caught up in listening to the more political message songs provided by the likes of Bob Dylan or Phil Ochs. As a poet/singer/songwriter Greg has come out of the heartland of America, like Woody, in a fury to write and sing his tales of love, remembrance, tragedy, desperation and, on occasion, just pure whimsy. He is thus in very good company, and belongs there.
His songs evoke, under more modern conditions to be sure, the days gone by when the community spirit of small town life meant something. A strong bass voice grainy with the trials and tribulations of life lend authenticity to his words, as does strong guitar playing when necessary. Needless to say the variety of topics covered in his songs speak for themselves from Grandma's food cellars to vanishing Iowa family farms to sweaty nights of lovemaking entwined with the up and down battles of love and, of course, the ubiquitous bouts of fishing that gain more than a nod in his albums.
In this CD collection we are treated to another look at many of those above-mentioned topics via Greg’s performances over several years (1997-2004) at the annual Kate Wolf Festival held in California since 1996. Thus, if one is unfamiliar with Greg Brown, one can get a full range of his work, some of his best work, as he pays honor by his performances to Kate Wolf, one of the post-1960’s most influential folk performers, whose work is still widely covered by contemporary folk singers. Moreover, the group of musicians that back him up on many of the tracks is superior, especially guitarist Nina Gerber.
So what is good here? “Wash My Eyes” and “Two Little Feet” work on Disc One, as does the controlled anger of “I Want My Country Back” and a rocking “I Shall Not Be Moved” to highlight his political perspective. On Disc Two the “Poet’s Game” is always a winner (especially that line about the strip malls and the one about that one night stand lady friend up in New Hampshire) as is “Where Is Maria?” and “Your Town Now”.
So much for the music review. Here is the real reason I wrote this frantic review though. I looked at the pictures on the liner notes and noticed that old Greg has been doing some weight lifting or something. He looks like he could play tight end for the Chicago Bears. Hey, Greg male folk singers are suppose to be scrawny and looking malnourished not healthy and ready to do bodily injury if you mess with their women. All this is by way of saying - all that stuff about ‘flirting’ with Iris in any way, shape or form was just fooling around. Okay?
"Greg Brown- Two Little Feet lyrics"
two little feet to get me 'cross the mountain
two little feet to carry me away into the woods
two little feet, big mountain, and a
cloud comin' down cloud comin' down cloud comin' down
I hear the voice of the ancient ones
chanting magic words from a different time
well there is no time there is only this rain
there is no time, that's why I missed my plane
John Muir walked away into the mountains
in his old overcoat a crust of bread in his pocket
we have no knowledge and so we have stuff and
stuff with no knowledge is never enough to get you there
it just won't get you there
a culture exploded into knickknacks and memories
Eagle and Bear trinkets I don't think it's good
old man what am I trying to say it's a
it's a messed up world but I love it anyway
two little feet to get me 'cross the city
my little hand to knock upon your door
my little thing for your little thing
and a big love to lift us up once more to the mountain
lift us up
tumble us like scree let us holler out our freedom like a
like a wolf across a valley like a kid lost in a game
no time no name gonna miss that plane again
and I'm gonna stay here with you baby and kiss you to a good dream
I'm goin' kiss you
kiss you like you like it
I got two little feet to get me across the mountain
two little feet to carry me away into the woods
two little feet big mountain and a
cloud comin' down cloud comin' down cloud comin' down
Monday, January 19, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
A Modern Day Robin Hood Legend- Pretty Boy Floyd
BOOK REVIEW
Pretty Boy Floyd, Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, Simon and Schuster, 1995
Yes, I am on a roll in reviewing Larry McMurtry inspired works (this one is co-written with his fellow screenplay writer Diana Ossana), although the subject of this presentation, the tale of Pretty Boy Floyd the Oklahoma dust bowl outlaw from the Depression-era 1930’s, has always had a certain personal appeal unlike some previously reviewed McMurtry anti-heroes. The name Pretty Boy Floyd is well known to me from my youth listening to Oklahoma- born Woody Guthrie on a folk music program that I tuned into on the radio in the early 1960’s. The tale that Woody told played into (and still plays into) my attraction toward Robin Hood-type figures (whether truly so or not) as part of the American struggle against the old time capitalist bosses and their bankers. Take this line – “Some will rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen”. Sound familiar today?
Of course the reality, as the plot in this book makes abundantly clear, is that these so-called heroic figures tend to either have feet of clay or have been glorified through sheer "trade-puffing” publicity agents, voluntary or otherwise. Nor is Pretty Boy alone in that category. On a scholarly level the late British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawn spend the early part of his professional career investigating these types in his seminal work, "Primitive Rebels" and other sociological monograms on the subject of social bandits. But enough of the scholarly here because what our two authors have attempted to do here is to take a little away from that heroic notion and tell the tale as it more probably happened- including the boredom and monotony of everyday life even for well-known outlaws.
Pretty Boy’s tale is standard 1930’s stuff. Nothing doing at home except hard words, hard work, no pay and no adventure on the old homestead. That’s 1930’s Oklahoma in a nutshell. So off to the big city to learn a trade. The trade being robbing banks. Every profession has its rules and etiquette and as the authors tell this tale we are treated to some insights into those customs. But mainly it is set up the job, avoid getting shot and get away fast. If not, then jail, the hangman or shot down in some dark alley. Of course, this would not be a McMurtry-inspired novel if there was not a ton of sex, longings for sex or exasperations with sex. That, I might add, is true for those of us who are not social bandits as well. This is a decent read from a period that kind of marked off the Old West from the new-Tommy guns and fast cars did not figure in those Old West tales, right?
So that is the story line. I have added below, for comparison purposes, the lyrics from Woody Guthrie’s song "Pretty Boy Floyd". And here I will get political. Our Robin Hood figures express that certain longing to escape from the tyrannies of the day. All well and good, however, a close look at the social dynamics of even the Pretty Boy Floyd tale tells us that this is not the way to individual to speak nothing of societal justice. That is food for thought.
********
He [Woody Guthrie] also wrote a series of ballads about outlaws, celebrating them as the populist heroes they'd been back in Oklahoma, as poor people who preyed on the rich. He wrote about the Dalton gang,... and about the brazen woman outlaw Belle Starr. But the most famous of his outlaw ballads, and one of his finest pieces of work, was "The Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd," which he wrote in March of 1939.
Joe Klein, Woody Guthrie: A Life, London, 1981, p. 123
Lyrics as recorded by Woody Guthrie, RCA Studios, Camden, NJ, 26 Apr 1940, released on "Dust Bowl Ballads," transcribed by Manfred Helfert.
© 1958 Sanga Music Inc., New York, NY
If you'll gather 'round me, children,
A story I will tell
'Bout Pretty Boy Floyd, an outlaw,
Oklahoma knew him well.
It was in the town of Shawnee,
A Saturday afternoon,
His wife beside him in his wagon
As into town they rode.
There a deputy sheriff approached him
In a manner rather rude,
Vulgar words of anger,
An' his wife she overheard.
Pretty Boy grabbed a log chain,
And the deputy grabbed his gun;
In the fight that followed
He laid that deputy down.
Then he took to the trees and timber
To live a life of shame;
Every crime in Oklahoma
Was added to his name.
But a many a starving farmer
The same old story told
How the outlaw paid their mortgage
And saved their little homes.
Others tell you 'bout a stranger
That come to beg a meal,
Underneath his napkin
Left a thousand dollar bill.
It was in Oklahoma City,
It was on a Christmas Day,
There was a whole car load of groceries
Come with a note to say:
Well, you say that I'm an outlaw,
You say that I'm a thief.
Here's a Christmas dinner
For the families on relief.
Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.
And as through your life you travel,
Yes, as through your life you roam,
You won't never see an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.
Lyrics as reprinted in Woody Guthrie, American Folksong, New York, NY, 1961
(reprint of 1947 edition), p. 27
© 1958 Sanga Music Inc., New York, NY
Pretty Boy Floyd, Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, Simon and Schuster, 1995
Yes, I am on a roll in reviewing Larry McMurtry inspired works (this one is co-written with his fellow screenplay writer Diana Ossana), although the subject of this presentation, the tale of Pretty Boy Floyd the Oklahoma dust bowl outlaw from the Depression-era 1930’s, has always had a certain personal appeal unlike some previously reviewed McMurtry anti-heroes. The name Pretty Boy Floyd is well known to me from my youth listening to Oklahoma- born Woody Guthrie on a folk music program that I tuned into on the radio in the early 1960’s. The tale that Woody told played into (and still plays into) my attraction toward Robin Hood-type figures (whether truly so or not) as part of the American struggle against the old time capitalist bosses and their bankers. Take this line – “Some will rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen”. Sound familiar today?
Of course the reality, as the plot in this book makes abundantly clear, is that these so-called heroic figures tend to either have feet of clay or have been glorified through sheer "trade-puffing” publicity agents, voluntary or otherwise. Nor is Pretty Boy alone in that category. On a scholarly level the late British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawn spend the early part of his professional career investigating these types in his seminal work, "Primitive Rebels" and other sociological monograms on the subject of social bandits. But enough of the scholarly here because what our two authors have attempted to do here is to take a little away from that heroic notion and tell the tale as it more probably happened- including the boredom and monotony of everyday life even for well-known outlaws.
Pretty Boy’s tale is standard 1930’s stuff. Nothing doing at home except hard words, hard work, no pay and no adventure on the old homestead. That’s 1930’s Oklahoma in a nutshell. So off to the big city to learn a trade. The trade being robbing banks. Every profession has its rules and etiquette and as the authors tell this tale we are treated to some insights into those customs. But mainly it is set up the job, avoid getting shot and get away fast. If not, then jail, the hangman or shot down in some dark alley. Of course, this would not be a McMurtry-inspired novel if there was not a ton of sex, longings for sex or exasperations with sex. That, I might add, is true for those of us who are not social bandits as well. This is a decent read from a period that kind of marked off the Old West from the new-Tommy guns and fast cars did not figure in those Old West tales, right?
So that is the story line. I have added below, for comparison purposes, the lyrics from Woody Guthrie’s song "Pretty Boy Floyd". And here I will get political. Our Robin Hood figures express that certain longing to escape from the tyrannies of the day. All well and good, however, a close look at the social dynamics of even the Pretty Boy Floyd tale tells us that this is not the way to individual to speak nothing of societal justice. That is food for thought.
********
He [Woody Guthrie] also wrote a series of ballads about outlaws, celebrating them as the populist heroes they'd been back in Oklahoma, as poor people who preyed on the rich. He wrote about the Dalton gang,... and about the brazen woman outlaw Belle Starr. But the most famous of his outlaw ballads, and one of his finest pieces of work, was "The Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd," which he wrote in March of 1939.
Joe Klein, Woody Guthrie: A Life, London, 1981, p. 123
Lyrics as recorded by Woody Guthrie, RCA Studios, Camden, NJ, 26 Apr 1940, released on "Dust Bowl Ballads," transcribed by Manfred Helfert.
© 1958 Sanga Music Inc., New York, NY
If you'll gather 'round me, children,
A story I will tell
'Bout Pretty Boy Floyd, an outlaw,
Oklahoma knew him well.
It was in the town of Shawnee,
A Saturday afternoon,
His wife beside him in his wagon
As into town they rode.
There a deputy sheriff approached him
In a manner rather rude,
Vulgar words of anger,
An' his wife she overheard.
Pretty Boy grabbed a log chain,
And the deputy grabbed his gun;
In the fight that followed
He laid that deputy down.
Then he took to the trees and timber
To live a life of shame;
Every crime in Oklahoma
Was added to his name.
But a many a starving farmer
The same old story told
How the outlaw paid their mortgage
And saved their little homes.
Others tell you 'bout a stranger
That come to beg a meal,
Underneath his napkin
Left a thousand dollar bill.
It was in Oklahoma City,
It was on a Christmas Day,
There was a whole car load of groceries
Come with a note to say:
Well, you say that I'm an outlaw,
You say that I'm a thief.
Here's a Christmas dinner
For the families on relief.
Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.
And as through your life you travel,
Yes, as through your life you roam,
You won't never see an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.
Lyrics as reprinted in Woody Guthrie, American Folksong, New York, NY, 1961
(reprint of 1947 edition), p. 27
© 1958 Sanga Music Inc., New York, NY
On The Question Of Cease Fires
Commentary
As the reader is probably aware of by now the Israeli government, under whatever prodding from its international allies and pressure from worldwide outrage, has called a unilateral military cease fire (as of this writing) in its dispute with the Hamas-led government in Gaza. Given, the military and political realities, or for that matter the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza no one can be unhappy to see the slaughter stopped (over 1200 Palestinians killed, including many women and children, and thousand more injured and homeless. This, however, begs the question about the radical anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist position on cease fires. In short, where or when do we call for them and to whom do we address the question.
A cease fire, in the final analysis, reflects one option of many in a military situation. In the present case while we welcome a cease fire we did not call on Israel to do so. All of our sympathies here are with the beleaguered Palestinians, despite their Hamas political leadership. We called for military defense of the Hamas-led forces against Israel. We would have supported a cease fire called by those forces, if the military called for it as is apparent here with the disproportion of forces.
The real question for those of us who called for the defense of the Palestinian people is whether we contract out the question of a cease fire to one of more of the imperialist allies of Israel or some imperialist-dominated international agency, like the United Nations. No, we do not do that. As even a brief look at the sordid history of imperialist-brokered cease fires and other military maneuvers demonstrates, at the end of the day this neither does anything for the beleaguered forces we support nor does it resolve any of the questions that are on the historic agenda. All such efforts on the part of militants, well meaning or not, and there have been more than a few socialists who have called on these imperialist agencies, is a rather touching faith in these institutions. Some defense of the Palestinian people! More on this later, as this is hardly a fully worked out exposition on the matter.
As the reader is probably aware of by now the Israeli government, under whatever prodding from its international allies and pressure from worldwide outrage, has called a unilateral military cease fire (as of this writing) in its dispute with the Hamas-led government in Gaza. Given, the military and political realities, or for that matter the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza no one can be unhappy to see the slaughter stopped (over 1200 Palestinians killed, including many women and children, and thousand more injured and homeless. This, however, begs the question about the radical anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist position on cease fires. In short, where or when do we call for them and to whom do we address the question.
A cease fire, in the final analysis, reflects one option of many in a military situation. In the present case while we welcome a cease fire we did not call on Israel to do so. All of our sympathies here are with the beleaguered Palestinians, despite their Hamas political leadership. We called for military defense of the Hamas-led forces against Israel. We would have supported a cease fire called by those forces, if the military called for it as is apparent here with the disproportion of forces.
The real question for those of us who called for the defense of the Palestinian people is whether we contract out the question of a cease fire to one of more of the imperialist allies of Israel or some imperialist-dominated international agency, like the United Nations. No, we do not do that. As even a brief look at the sordid history of imperialist-brokered cease fires and other military maneuvers demonstrates, at the end of the day this neither does anything for the beleaguered forces we support nor does it resolve any of the questions that are on the historic agenda. All such efforts on the part of militants, well meaning or not, and there have been more than a few socialists who have called on these imperialist agencies, is a rather touching faith in these institutions. Some defense of the Palestinian people! More on this later, as this is hardly a fully worked out exposition on the matter.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Playwright’s Corner- Tennessee Williams’ “Suddenly, Last Summer”- A Film Review
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for the movie version of Tennessee Williams' "Suddenly, Last Summer."
Play/DVD Reviews
The Sweet Bird Of Youth Gone Awry
Suddenly Last Summer, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
“Suddenly, Last Summer" is an odd little beauty of a play. Odd in that the appetites of the main (unseen in the play) character, Sebastian, seem to be both beyond the pale and obsessive. Odd, also that his protective monster of a mother is determined to keep the truth about her “genius” son from the world even after his ‘untimely’ death in the play's ...last summer. As if to add fuel to the fire of an already bizarre tale of exploitation, sexual and otherwise, Sebastian’s beautiful lure of a cousin used as bait for Sebastian’s appetites (some form of pedophilia) is to be permanently taken out of the picture (via institutionalization in a mental hospital) in order to keep this world beautiful. Nobody believes the sordid tale she has to tell about dear cousin Sebastian. The play ends with the ‘hope’ that there may actually be someone to believe the girl’s story before she becomes one more sacrifice to ‘beauty’ in the world. Frankly, old Sebastian got what was coming to him over in the islands.
In the movie version, the stories that have to be told verbally in the play get told as cinematic flashbacks as well. Katherine Hepburn is in high dudgeon as Sebastian’s mother and ‘keeper of the flame’. Montgomery Clift is a more sober, somber and searcher for the truth psychiatrist than the one in the play and Elizabeth Taylor as the beautiful lure cousin is a mass of confusions whose memories of last summer have to be erased ….some way. Old Sebastian and his twisted sense of life and his place in history is still a guy who had it coming to him. Well, he did, didn’t he?
Play/DVD Reviews
The Sweet Bird Of Youth Gone Awry
Suddenly Last Summer, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
“Suddenly, Last Summer" is an odd little beauty of a play. Odd in that the appetites of the main (unseen in the play) character, Sebastian, seem to be both beyond the pale and obsessive. Odd, also that his protective monster of a mother is determined to keep the truth about her “genius” son from the world even after his ‘untimely’ death in the play's ...last summer. As if to add fuel to the fire of an already bizarre tale of exploitation, sexual and otherwise, Sebastian’s beautiful lure of a cousin used as bait for Sebastian’s appetites (some form of pedophilia) is to be permanently taken out of the picture (via institutionalization in a mental hospital) in order to keep this world beautiful. Nobody believes the sordid tale she has to tell about dear cousin Sebastian. The play ends with the ‘hope’ that there may actually be someone to believe the girl’s story before she becomes one more sacrifice to ‘beauty’ in the world. Frankly, old Sebastian got what was coming to him over in the islands.
In the movie version, the stories that have to be told verbally in the play get told as cinematic flashbacks as well. Katherine Hepburn is in high dudgeon as Sebastian’s mother and ‘keeper of the flame’. Montgomery Clift is a more sober, somber and searcher for the truth psychiatrist than the one in the play and Elizabeth Taylor as the beautiful lure cousin is a mass of confusions whose memories of last summer have to be erased ….some way. Old Sebastian and his twisted sense of life and his place in history is still a guy who had it coming to him. Well, he did, didn’t he?
*Playwright’s Corner- Tennessee Williams’ “Suddenly, Last Summer”
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for American playwright Tennessee Williams' "Suddenly, Last Summer."
Play/DVD Reviews
The Sweet Bird Of Youth Gone Awry
Suddenly Last Summer, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
“Suddenly, Last Summer" is an odd little beauty of a play. Odd in that the appetites of the main (unseen in the play) character, Sebastian, seem to be both beyond the pale and obsessive. Odd, also that his protective monster of a mother is determined to keep the truth about her “genius” son from the world even after his ‘untimely’ death in the play's ...last summer. As if to add fuel to the fire of an already bizarre tale of exploitation, sexual and otherwise, Sebastian’s beautiful lure of a cousin used as bait for Sebastian’s appetites (some form of pedophilia) is to be permanently taken out of the picture (via institutionalization in a mental hospital) in order to keep this world beautiful. Nobody believes the sordid tale she has to tell about dear cousin Sebastian. The play ends with the ‘hope’ that there may actually be someone to believe the girl’s story before she becomes one more sacrifice to ‘beauty’ in the world. Frankly, old Sebastian got what was coming to him over in the islands.
In the movie version, the stories that have to be told verbally in the play get told as cinematic flashbacks as well. Katherine Hepburn is in high dudgeon as Sebastian’s mother and ‘keeper of the flame’. Montgomery Clift is a more sober, somber and searcher for the truth psychiatrist than the one in the play and Elizabeth Taylor as the beautiful lure cousin is a mass of confusions whose memories of last summer have to be erased ….some way. Old Sebastian and his twisted sense of life and his place in history is still a guy who had it coming to him. Well, he did, didn’t he?
Play/DVD Reviews
The Sweet Bird Of Youth Gone Awry
Suddenly Last Summer, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
“Suddenly, Last Summer" is an odd little beauty of a play. Odd in that the appetites of the main (unseen in the play) character, Sebastian, seem to be both beyond the pale and obsessive. Odd, also that his protective monster of a mother is determined to keep the truth about her “genius” son from the world even after his ‘untimely’ death in the play's ...last summer. As if to add fuel to the fire of an already bizarre tale of exploitation, sexual and otherwise, Sebastian’s beautiful lure of a cousin used as bait for Sebastian’s appetites (some form of pedophilia) is to be permanently taken out of the picture (via institutionalization in a mental hospital) in order to keep this world beautiful. Nobody believes the sordid tale she has to tell about dear cousin Sebastian. The play ends with the ‘hope’ that there may actually be someone to believe the girl’s story before she becomes one more sacrifice to ‘beauty’ in the world. Frankly, old Sebastian got what was coming to him over in the islands.
In the movie version, the stories that have to be told verbally in the play get told as cinematic flashbacks as well. Katherine Hepburn is in high dudgeon as Sebastian’s mother and ‘keeper of the flame’. Montgomery Clift is a more sober, somber and searcher for the truth psychiatrist than the one in the play and Elizabeth Taylor as the beautiful lure cousin is a mass of confusions whose memories of last summer have to be erased ….some way. Old Sebastian and his twisted sense of life and his place in history is still a guy who had it coming to him. Well, he did, didn’t he?
*Playwright’s Corner- Tennessee Williams’ “Orpheus Descending”
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for American playwright Tennessee Williams' "Orpheus Descending."
Play/DVD Reviews
Take A Walk On The Wild Side
Orpheus Descending, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
On reading “Orpheus Descending”, Tennessee Williams’ take on the old Greek legend in modern grab I was struck by the similarity in the character of the Orpheus figure, Val ,and Nelson Algren’s Dove Linkhorn in “ A Walk On The Wild Side." Both are loners, outsiders, have checkered pasts and are ready for anything from deep romantic love to murder and mayhem. And because they are capacity of that range of emotions and reactions they are also as capable of getting burned by a complacent society that does not take kindly to those that it cannot control. Val drifts into town, gets a job at a store by the enigmatic Lady and then the wheels begin to turn and to deal out his fate. Could he have stopped and turned away? Although that is a question that drives many dramatic efforts it is not always resolvable in a play- or in life. Lady’s terminally ill husband lurks in the background with nothing to lose, once the romantic sparks start to fly between Lady and Val. I do not understand why this play was not more successful in its earlier manifestations as was pointed out in the introduction, especially as this society has created a culture that has made space, if only grudgingly, for the outsider to tempt the fates, even if only symbolically.That should have been a draw to Williams-driven theater-goers
Play/DVD Reviews
Take A Walk On The Wild Side
Orpheus Descending, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
On reading “Orpheus Descending”, Tennessee Williams’ take on the old Greek legend in modern grab I was struck by the similarity in the character of the Orpheus figure, Val ,and Nelson Algren’s Dove Linkhorn in “ A Walk On The Wild Side." Both are loners, outsiders, have checkered pasts and are ready for anything from deep romantic love to murder and mayhem. And because they are capacity of that range of emotions and reactions they are also as capable of getting burned by a complacent society that does not take kindly to those that it cannot control. Val drifts into town, gets a job at a store by the enigmatic Lady and then the wheels begin to turn and to deal out his fate. Could he have stopped and turned away? Although that is a question that drives many dramatic efforts it is not always resolvable in a play- or in life. Lady’s terminally ill husband lurks in the background with nothing to lose, once the romantic sparks start to fly between Lady and Val. I do not understand why this play was not more successful in its earlier manifestations as was pointed out in the introduction, especially as this society has created a culture that has made space, if only grudgingly, for the outsider to tempt the fates, even if only symbolically.That should have been a draw to Williams-driven theater-goers
Playwright’s Corner- Tennessee Williams’ “The Rose Tattoo”- A Film Review
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia' entry for the movie version of Tennessee Williams' "The Rose Tattoo."
Play/DVD Reviews
Waiting For A Sign
The Rose Tattoo, Three Plays of Tennessee Williams, New Directions Books, New York, 1959
“The Rose Tattoo” is a little different look at the family. Although the geography of the play is still the American South this play is not peopled with Williams’ usually WASPy characters but rather a little conclave of immigrant Italians who have somehow made a beachhead in the Gulf Coast area. The central character is a previously abandoned but now widowed Italian seamstress trying to survive, mainly through her hopes for her daughter, on her wits, her memories of youth, her integrity and her fierce instinct to survive in alien territory. A philandering husband, the obsessive subject of her adoration, a daughter trying to learn to fly on her own in the love game, and an incidental encounter with a fellow, younger Italian truck driver come together to give her the sign she needs to start over. Maybe. This play, more than most of Williams’ efforts, depends on the strength of the dialogue and not the plot line. That is what gives its dramatic edge as Williams explores yet another tangled up dream gone awry story.
In the movie version, the role of the young Italian truck driver as played by Burt Lancaster and the seamstress as played by the fabulous Anna Magnini is more central to the unfolding story from the beginning. The dramatic tensions between this pair and the ‘waiting for a sign’ by the seamstress are still fairly similar. It is however Lancaster’s enhanced role that really makes this a visual treat and gives one hope that this new family ‘aborning’ can survive.
Play/DVD Reviews
Waiting For A Sign
The Rose Tattoo, Three Plays of Tennessee Williams, New Directions Books, New York, 1959
“The Rose Tattoo” is a little different look at the family. Although the geography of the play is still the American South this play is not peopled with Williams’ usually WASPy characters but rather a little conclave of immigrant Italians who have somehow made a beachhead in the Gulf Coast area. The central character is a previously abandoned but now widowed Italian seamstress trying to survive, mainly through her hopes for her daughter, on her wits, her memories of youth, her integrity and her fierce instinct to survive in alien territory. A philandering husband, the obsessive subject of her adoration, a daughter trying to learn to fly on her own in the love game, and an incidental encounter with a fellow, younger Italian truck driver come together to give her the sign she needs to start over. Maybe. This play, more than most of Williams’ efforts, depends on the strength of the dialogue and not the plot line. That is what gives its dramatic edge as Williams explores yet another tangled up dream gone awry story.
In the movie version, the role of the young Italian truck driver as played by Burt Lancaster and the seamstress as played by the fabulous Anna Magnini is more central to the unfolding story from the beginning. The dramatic tensions between this pair and the ‘waiting for a sign’ by the seamstress are still fairly similar. It is however Lancaster’s enhanced role that really makes this a visual treat and gives one hope that this new family ‘aborning’ can survive.
Playwright’s Corner- Tennessee Williams’ “The Rose Tattoo”
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for American playwrightTennessee Williams' "The Rose Tattoo."
Play/DVD Reviews
Waiting For A Sign
The Rose Tattoo, Three Plays of Tennessee Williams, New Directions Books, New York, 1959
“The Rose Tattoo” is a little different look at the family. Although the geography of the play is still the American South this play is not peopled with Williams’ usually WASPy characters but rather a little conclave of immigrant Italians who have somehow made a beachhead in the Gulf Coast area. The central character is a previously abandoned but now widowed Italian seamstress trying to survive, mainly through her hopes for her daughter, on her wits, her memories of youth, her integrity and her fierce instinct to survive in alien territory. A philandering husband, the obsessive subject of her adoration, a daughter trying to learn to fly on her own in the love game, and an incidental encounter with a fellow, younger Italian truck driver come together to give her the sign she needs to start over. Maybe. This play, more than most of Williams’ efforts, depends on the strength of the dialogue and not the plot line. That is what gives its dramatic edge as Williams explores yet another tangled up dream gone awry story.
In the movie version, the role of the young Italian truck driver as played by Burt Lancaster and the seamstress as played by the fabulous Anna Magnini is more central to the unfolding story from the beginning. The dramatic tensions between this pair and the ‘waiting for a sign’ by the seamstress are still fairly similar. It is however Lancaster’s enhanced role that really makes this a visual treat and gives one hope that this new family ‘aborning’ can survive.
Play/DVD Reviews
Waiting For A Sign
The Rose Tattoo, Three Plays of Tennessee Williams, New Directions Books, New York, 1959
“The Rose Tattoo” is a little different look at the family. Although the geography of the play is still the American South this play is not peopled with Williams’ usually WASPy characters but rather a little conclave of immigrant Italians who have somehow made a beachhead in the Gulf Coast area. The central character is a previously abandoned but now widowed Italian seamstress trying to survive, mainly through her hopes for her daughter, on her wits, her memories of youth, her integrity and her fierce instinct to survive in alien territory. A philandering husband, the obsessive subject of her adoration, a daughter trying to learn to fly on her own in the love game, and an incidental encounter with a fellow, younger Italian truck driver come together to give her the sign she needs to start over. Maybe. This play, more than most of Williams’ efforts, depends on the strength of the dialogue and not the plot line. That is what gives its dramatic edge as Williams explores yet another tangled up dream gone awry story.
In the movie version, the role of the young Italian truck driver as played by Burt Lancaster and the seamstress as played by the fabulous Anna Magnini is more central to the unfolding story from the beginning. The dramatic tensions between this pair and the ‘waiting for a sign’ by the seamstress are still fairly similar. It is however Lancaster’s enhanced role that really makes this a visual treat and gives one hope that this new family ‘aborning’ can survive.
*Playwright’s Corner- Tennessee Williams’ "The Sweet Bird Of Youth"- A Film Review
Click on the headline to link to a "YouTube" film clip of the movie version of Tennessee Williams' "Sweet Bird Of Youth."
Play/DVD Reviews
The Fickle Bird Of Youth
The Sweet Bird Of Youth, Three Plays of Tennessee Williams, New Directions Books, New York, 1959
“Sweet Bird Of Youth” is a case in point of the fickleness of youth. Not for the first time, a seemingly 1950’s style All- American boy Chance who has left his hometown, his home town girl, and his roots behind to drift in that endless spiral toward fame- Hollywood and the movies, naturally- comes back to claim what is his by right. On this little hometown reunion Chance is in the service of one aging and fretful actress who has her own issues with that elusive ‘bird of youth’. On returning to his home town it appears that Chance has stirred up a hornet’s nest with the local political establishment in the person of one red-neck preacher turned politician in order to better do “god’s work”, old Tom Findley. The object of this dispute is one Heavenly Findley, old Tom’s daughter and Chance’s left behind paramour who is now the subject of some scandal (due to the amorphously stated need for female-related medical treatment, an abortion, due to Chance’s irresponsibility). Along the way we get to see how political power is distributed in a small Southern town as well as the inevitable tempting of the fates by Chance in order to win the ‘brass ring’ before it is too late (apparently somewhere over thirty, by my reckoning). At play’s end though, where he is between a rock and a hard place, Chance may not get the chance to be Chance at thirty. Oh, that fickle bird of youth. Still, Chance, go for it.
In the movie version the recently departed excellent actor Paul Newman, a classic example of a 1950’s All-American boy type (among his other acting talents), as the movie star ‘wannabe’ and Geraldine Page as the aging actress recreated their stage performances although with a greater screen presence for Ms. Page. Moreover, Chance’s strivings to reconnect with Heavenly are more central to the plot. More importantly, the endings differ in that, despite some mauling by Tom Findley’s boys Chance takes my advice from the play version and runs, with Heavenly, just as far and as fast as his now aging legs can carry him.
Play/DVD Reviews
The Fickle Bird Of Youth
The Sweet Bird Of Youth, Three Plays of Tennessee Williams, New Directions Books, New York, 1959
“Sweet Bird Of Youth” is a case in point of the fickleness of youth. Not for the first time, a seemingly 1950’s style All- American boy Chance who has left his hometown, his home town girl, and his roots behind to drift in that endless spiral toward fame- Hollywood and the movies, naturally- comes back to claim what is his by right. On this little hometown reunion Chance is in the service of one aging and fretful actress who has her own issues with that elusive ‘bird of youth’. On returning to his home town it appears that Chance has stirred up a hornet’s nest with the local political establishment in the person of one red-neck preacher turned politician in order to better do “god’s work”, old Tom Findley. The object of this dispute is one Heavenly Findley, old Tom’s daughter and Chance’s left behind paramour who is now the subject of some scandal (due to the amorphously stated need for female-related medical treatment, an abortion, due to Chance’s irresponsibility). Along the way we get to see how political power is distributed in a small Southern town as well as the inevitable tempting of the fates by Chance in order to win the ‘brass ring’ before it is too late (apparently somewhere over thirty, by my reckoning). At play’s end though, where he is between a rock and a hard place, Chance may not get the chance to be Chance at thirty. Oh, that fickle bird of youth. Still, Chance, go for it.
In the movie version the recently departed excellent actor Paul Newman, a classic example of a 1950’s All-American boy type (among his other acting talents), as the movie star ‘wannabe’ and Geraldine Page as the aging actress recreated their stage performances although with a greater screen presence for Ms. Page. Moreover, Chance’s strivings to reconnect with Heavenly are more central to the plot. More importantly, the endings differ in that, despite some mauling by Tom Findley’s boys Chance takes my advice from the play version and runs, with Heavenly, just as far and as fast as his now aging legs can carry him.
Playwright’s Corner- Tennessee Williams’ "The Sweet Bird Of Youth"
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for American playwright Tennessee Williams' "Sweet Bird Of Youth."
Play/DVD Reviews
The Fickle Bird Of Youth
The Sweet Bird Of Youth, Three Plays of Tennessee Williams, New Directions Books, New York, 1959
“Sweet Bird Of Youth” is a case in point of the fickleness of youth. Not for the first time, a seemingly 1950’s style All- American boy Chance who has left his hometown, his home town girl, and his roots behind to drift in that endless spiral toward fame- Hollywood and the movies, naturally- comes back to claim what is his by right. On this little hometown reunion Chance is in the service of one aging and fretful actress who has her own issues with that elusive ‘bird of youth’. On returning to his home town it appears that Chance has stirred up a hornet’s nest with the local political establishment in the person of one red-neck preacher turned politician in order to better do “god’s work”, old Tom Findley. The object of this dispute is one Heavenly Findley, old Tom’s daughter and Chance’s left behind paramour who is now the subject of some scandal (due to the amorphously stated need for female-related medical treatment, an abortion, due to Chance’s irresponsibility). Along the way we get to see how political power is distributed in a small Southern town as well as the inevitable tempting of the fates by Chance in order to win the ‘brass ring’ before it is too late (apparently somewhere over thirty, by my reckoning). At play’s end though, where he is between a rock and a hard place, Chance may not get the chance to be Chance at thirty. Oh, that fickle bird of youth. Still, Chance, go for it.
In the movie version the recently departed excellent actor Paul Newman, a classic example of a 1950’s All-American boy type (among his other acting talents), as the movie star ‘wannabe’ and Geraldine Page as the aging actress recreated their stage performances although with a greater screen presence for Ms. Page. Moreover, Chance’s strivings to reconnect with Heavenly are more central to the plot. More importantly, the endings differ in that, despite some mauling by Tom Findley’s boys Chance takes my advice from the play version and runs, with Heavenly ( a fetching Shirley Knight), just as far and as fast as his now aging legs can carry him.
Play/DVD Reviews
The Fickle Bird Of Youth
The Sweet Bird Of Youth, Three Plays of Tennessee Williams, New Directions Books, New York, 1959
“Sweet Bird Of Youth” is a case in point of the fickleness of youth. Not for the first time, a seemingly 1950’s style All- American boy Chance who has left his hometown, his home town girl, and his roots behind to drift in that endless spiral toward fame- Hollywood and the movies, naturally- comes back to claim what is his by right. On this little hometown reunion Chance is in the service of one aging and fretful actress who has her own issues with that elusive ‘bird of youth’. On returning to his home town it appears that Chance has stirred up a hornet’s nest with the local political establishment in the person of one red-neck preacher turned politician in order to better do “god’s work”, old Tom Findley. The object of this dispute is one Heavenly Findley, old Tom’s daughter and Chance’s left behind paramour who is now the subject of some scandal (due to the amorphously stated need for female-related medical treatment, an abortion, due to Chance’s irresponsibility). Along the way we get to see how political power is distributed in a small Southern town as well as the inevitable tempting of the fates by Chance in order to win the ‘brass ring’ before it is too late (apparently somewhere over thirty, by my reckoning). At play’s end though, where he is between a rock and a hard place, Chance may not get the chance to be Chance at thirty. Oh, that fickle bird of youth. Still, Chance, go for it.
In the movie version the recently departed excellent actor Paul Newman, a classic example of a 1950’s All-American boy type (among his other acting talents), as the movie star ‘wannabe’ and Geraldine Page as the aging actress recreated their stage performances although with a greater screen presence for Ms. Page. Moreover, Chance’s strivings to reconnect with Heavenly are more central to the plot. More importantly, the endings differ in that, despite some mauling by Tom Findley’s boys Chance takes my advice from the play version and runs, with Heavenly ( a fetching Shirley Knight), just as far and as fast as his now aging legs can carry him.
Playwright's Corner- Tennessee Williams’ Cat On A Hot Tin Roof-A Film Review
Click on the headline to link to a "YouTube" film clip of the movie version of Tennessee Williams' "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof."
Play/DVD Reviews
Enough Mendacity To Sink A Ship
Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
The first couple of paragraphs here have been used as introduction to other plays written by Tennessee Williams and reviewed in this space. This review applies to both the stage play and the film versions with differences noted as part of the review
Perhaps, as is the case with this reviewer, if you have come to the works of the excellent American playwright Tennessee Williams through adaptations of his plays to commercially distributed films you too will have missed some of the more controversial and intriguing aspects of his plays that had placed him at that time along with Eugene O’Neill and Arthur Miller as America’s finest serious playwrights. Although some of the films have their own charms I want to address the written plays in this entry first (along with, when appropriate, commentary about Williams’ extensive and detailed directing instructions).
That said, there are certain limitations for a political commentator like this reviewer on the works of Williams. Although his plays, at least his best and most well-known ones, take place in the steamy South or its environs, there is virtually no acknowledgement of the race question that dominated Southern life during the period of the plays; and, for that matter was beginning to dominate national life. Thus, although it is possible to pay homage to his work on its artistic merits, I am very, very tentative about giving fulsome praise to that work on its political merits. With that proviso Williams nevertheless has created a very modern stage on which to address social questions at the personal level, like homosexuality, incest and the dysfunctional family that only began to get addressed widely well after his ground-breaking work hit the stage.
“Cat On A Hot Tin Roof” is a prime example of the contradiction that a radical commentator is placed in. The themes of duplicity, latent homosexuality, adultery and dysfunctional families topped off by more than enough mendacity to sink a ship are the stuff of social drama that NEED to be addressed as outcomes in the modern capitalist cultural sphere. However, in the end nothing really gets resolved truthfully here. Old 1950’s-style All-American boy Brick, the ‘great white hope’ of the family, may or may not sober up after the ‘lost’ of his dear friend and fellow football player, Skipper. Saucy and sexy wife Maggie (the cat) may or may not really get pregnant by Brick and save the family heritage for him, or die trying. The only certainty, despite all that above-mentioned mendacity, is that Big Daddy is going to die and that 28,000 acres of the finest land in the Delta is going to need new management, either by Brick, brother Goober (along with his scheming wife and their ‘lovely' brood of children) or some upstart. Off of these possible outcomes, however, I would not get too worked up about the final outcome.
In the movie version, done in the 1950’s as well, which starred the recently departed excellent actor Paul Newman as Brick and a fetching Elizabeth Taylor as Maggie the question of Brick’s possible homosexual relationship with Skipper is far more muted than in the play. The implicit question seems to concern Brick’s fading youth, his search for perfect meaning to life in Mississippi and that one’s existential crisis can be eliminated by reliance on the bottle. The relationship between the dying Big Daddy and his ever suffering wife, Big Mama, is less dastardly than in the play as well. The scheming Goober and wife and family and those ‘lovely’ children, however, run true to form. My sense of the movie, unlike the deeper issues of the play, is that a few therapy sessions would put old Brick back on the right track. The play was far less hopeful in that regard.
Play/DVD Reviews
Enough Mendacity To Sink A Ship
Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
The first couple of paragraphs here have been used as introduction to other plays written by Tennessee Williams and reviewed in this space. This review applies to both the stage play and the film versions with differences noted as part of the review
Perhaps, as is the case with this reviewer, if you have come to the works of the excellent American playwright Tennessee Williams through adaptations of his plays to commercially distributed films you too will have missed some of the more controversial and intriguing aspects of his plays that had placed him at that time along with Eugene O’Neill and Arthur Miller as America’s finest serious playwrights. Although some of the films have their own charms I want to address the written plays in this entry first (along with, when appropriate, commentary about Williams’ extensive and detailed directing instructions).
That said, there are certain limitations for a political commentator like this reviewer on the works of Williams. Although his plays, at least his best and most well-known ones, take place in the steamy South or its environs, there is virtually no acknowledgement of the race question that dominated Southern life during the period of the plays; and, for that matter was beginning to dominate national life. Thus, although it is possible to pay homage to his work on its artistic merits, I am very, very tentative about giving fulsome praise to that work on its political merits. With that proviso Williams nevertheless has created a very modern stage on which to address social questions at the personal level, like homosexuality, incest and the dysfunctional family that only began to get addressed widely well after his ground-breaking work hit the stage.
“Cat On A Hot Tin Roof” is a prime example of the contradiction that a radical commentator is placed in. The themes of duplicity, latent homosexuality, adultery and dysfunctional families topped off by more than enough mendacity to sink a ship are the stuff of social drama that NEED to be addressed as outcomes in the modern capitalist cultural sphere. However, in the end nothing really gets resolved truthfully here. Old 1950’s-style All-American boy Brick, the ‘great white hope’ of the family, may or may not sober up after the ‘lost’ of his dear friend and fellow football player, Skipper. Saucy and sexy wife Maggie (the cat) may or may not really get pregnant by Brick and save the family heritage for him, or die trying. The only certainty, despite all that above-mentioned mendacity, is that Big Daddy is going to die and that 28,000 acres of the finest land in the Delta is going to need new management, either by Brick, brother Goober (along with his scheming wife and their ‘lovely' brood of children) or some upstart. Off of these possible outcomes, however, I would not get too worked up about the final outcome.
In the movie version, done in the 1950’s as well, which starred the recently departed excellent actor Paul Newman as Brick and a fetching Elizabeth Taylor as Maggie the question of Brick’s possible homosexual relationship with Skipper is far more muted than in the play. The implicit question seems to concern Brick’s fading youth, his search for perfect meaning to life in Mississippi and that one’s existential crisis can be eliminated by reliance on the bottle. The relationship between the dying Big Daddy and his ever suffering wife, Big Mama, is less dastardly than in the play as well. The scheming Goober and wife and family and those ‘lovely’ children, however, run true to form. My sense of the movie, unlike the deeper issues of the play, is that a few therapy sessions would put old Brick back on the right track. The play was far less hopeful in that regard.
Playwright's Corner- Tennessee Williams’ Cat On A Hot Tin Roof
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for American playwright Tennessee Williams' "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof."
Play/DVD Reviews
Enough Mendacity To Sink A Ship
Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
The first couple of paragraphs here have been used as introduction to other plays written by Tennessee Williams and reviewed in this space. This review applies to both the stage play and the film versions with differences noted as part of the review
Perhaps, as is the case with this reviewer, if you have come to the works of the excellent American playwright Tennessee Williams through adaptations of his plays to commercially distributed films you too will have missed some of the more controversial and intriguing aspects of his plays that had placed him at that time along with Eugene O’Neill and Arthur Miller as America’s finest serious playwrights. Although some of the films have their own charms I want to address the written plays in this entry first (along with, when appropriate, commentary about Williams’ extensive and detailed directing instructions).
That said, there are certain limitations for a political commentator like this reviewer on the works of Williams. Although his plays, at least his best and most well-known ones, take place in the steamy South or its environs, there is virtually no acknowledgement of the race question that dominated Southern life during the period of the plays; and, for that matter was beginning to dominate national life. Thus, although it is possible to pay homage to his work on its artistic merits, I am very, very tentative about giving fulsome praise to that work on its political merits. With that proviso Williams nevertheless has created a very modern stage on which to address social questions at the personal level, like homosexuality, incest and the dysfunctional family that only began to get addressed widely well after his ground-breaking work hit the stage.
“Cat On A Hot Tin Roof” is a prime example of the contradiction that a radical commentator is placed in. The themes of duplicity, latent homosexuality, adultery and dysfunctional families topped off by more than enough mendacity to sink a ship are the stuff of social drama that NEED to be addressed as outcomes in the modern capitalist cultural sphere. However, in the end nothing really gets resolved truthfully here. Old 1950’s-style All-American boy Brick, the ‘great white hope’ of the family, may or may not sober up after the ‘lost’ of his dear friend and fellow football player, Skipper. Saucy and sexy wife Maggie (the cat) may or may not really get pregnant by Brick and save the family heritage for him, or die trying. The only certainty, despite all that above-mentioned mendacity, is that Big Daddy is going to die and that 28,000 acres of the finest land in the Delta is going to need new management, either by Brick, brother Goober (along with his scheming wife and their ‘lovely' brood of children) or some upstart. Off of these possible outcomes, however, I would not get too worked up about the final outcome.
In the movie version, done in the 1950’s as well, which starred the recently departed excellent actor Paul Newman as Brick and a fetching Elizabeth Taylor as Maggie the question of Brick’s possible homosexual relationship with Skipper is far more muted than in the play. The implicit question seems to concern Brick’s fading youth, his search for perfect meaning to life in Mississippi and that one’s existential crisis can be eliminated by reliance on the bottle. The relationship between the dying Big Daddy and his ever suffering wife, Big Mama, is less dastardly than in the play as well. The scheming Goober and wife and family and those ‘lovely’ children, however, run true to form. My sense of the movie, unlike the deeper issues of the play, is that a few therapy sessions would put old Brick back on the right track. The play was far less hopeful in that regard.
Play/DVD Reviews
Enough Mendacity To Sink A Ship
Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
The first couple of paragraphs here have been used as introduction to other plays written by Tennessee Williams and reviewed in this space. This review applies to both the stage play and the film versions with differences noted as part of the review
Perhaps, as is the case with this reviewer, if you have come to the works of the excellent American playwright Tennessee Williams through adaptations of his plays to commercially distributed films you too will have missed some of the more controversial and intriguing aspects of his plays that had placed him at that time along with Eugene O’Neill and Arthur Miller as America’s finest serious playwrights. Although some of the films have their own charms I want to address the written plays in this entry first (along with, when appropriate, commentary about Williams’ extensive and detailed directing instructions).
That said, there are certain limitations for a political commentator like this reviewer on the works of Williams. Although his plays, at least his best and most well-known ones, take place in the steamy South or its environs, there is virtually no acknowledgement of the race question that dominated Southern life during the period of the plays; and, for that matter was beginning to dominate national life. Thus, although it is possible to pay homage to his work on its artistic merits, I am very, very tentative about giving fulsome praise to that work on its political merits. With that proviso Williams nevertheless has created a very modern stage on which to address social questions at the personal level, like homosexuality, incest and the dysfunctional family that only began to get addressed widely well after his ground-breaking work hit the stage.
“Cat On A Hot Tin Roof” is a prime example of the contradiction that a radical commentator is placed in. The themes of duplicity, latent homosexuality, adultery and dysfunctional families topped off by more than enough mendacity to sink a ship are the stuff of social drama that NEED to be addressed as outcomes in the modern capitalist cultural sphere. However, in the end nothing really gets resolved truthfully here. Old 1950’s-style All-American boy Brick, the ‘great white hope’ of the family, may or may not sober up after the ‘lost’ of his dear friend and fellow football player, Skipper. Saucy and sexy wife Maggie (the cat) may or may not really get pregnant by Brick and save the family heritage for him, or die trying. The only certainty, despite all that above-mentioned mendacity, is that Big Daddy is going to die and that 28,000 acres of the finest land in the Delta is going to need new management, either by Brick, brother Goober (along with his scheming wife and their ‘lovely' brood of children) or some upstart. Off of these possible outcomes, however, I would not get too worked up about the final outcome.
In the movie version, done in the 1950’s as well, which starred the recently departed excellent actor Paul Newman as Brick and a fetching Elizabeth Taylor as Maggie the question of Brick’s possible homosexual relationship with Skipper is far more muted than in the play. The implicit question seems to concern Brick’s fading youth, his search for perfect meaning to life in Mississippi and that one’s existential crisis can be eliminated by reliance on the bottle. The relationship between the dying Big Daddy and his ever suffering wife, Big Mama, is less dastardly than in the play as well. The scheming Goober and wife and family and those ‘lovely’ children, however, run true to form. My sense of the movie, unlike the deeper issues of the play, is that a few therapy sessions would put old Brick back on the right track. The play was far less hopeful in that regard.
Homage To The Outsider- The Work Of Playwright Tennessee Williams
Play/DVD Reviews
Enough Mendacity To Sink A Ship
Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
The first couple of paragraphs here have been used as introduction to other plays written by Tennessee Williams and reviewed in this space. This review applies to both the stage play and the film versions with differences noted as part of the review
Perhaps, as is the case with this reviewer, if you have come to the works of the excellent American playwright Tennessee Williams through adaptations of his plays to commercially distributed film you too will have missed some of the more controversial and intriguing aspects of his plays that had placed him at that time along with Eugene O’Neill and Arthur Miller as America’s finest serious playwrights. Although some of the films have their own charms I want to address the written plays in this entry first (along with, when appropriate, commentary about Williams’ extensive and detailed directing instructions).
That said, there are certain limitations for a political commentator like this reviewer on the works of Williams. Although his plays, at least his best and most well-known ones, take place in the steamy South or its environs, there is virtually no acknowledgement of the race question that dominated Southern life during the period of the plays; and, for that matter was beginning to dominate national life. Thus, although it is possible to pay homage to his work on its artistic merits, I am very, very tentative about giving fulsome praise to that work on its political merits. With that proviso Williams nevertheless has created a very modern stage on which to address social questions at the personal level, like homosexuality, incest and the dysfunctional family that only began to get addressed widely well after his ground-breaking work hit the stage.
“Cat On A Hot Tin Roof” is a prime example of the contradiction that a radical commentator is placed in. The themes of duplicity, latent homosexuality, adultery and dysfunctional families topped off by more than enough mendacity to sink a ship are the stuff of social drama that NEED to be addressed as outcomes in the modern capitalist cultural sphere. However, in the end nothing really gets resolved truthfully here. Old 1950’s-style All-American boy Brick, the ‘great white hope’ of the family, may or may not sober up after the ‘lost’ of his dear friend and fellow football player, Skipper. Saucy and sexy wife Maggie (the cat) may or may not really get pregnant by Brick and save the family heritage for him, or die trying. The only certainty, despite all that above-mentioned mendacity, is that Big Daddy is going to die and that 28,000 acres of the finest land in the Delta is going to need new management, either Brick, brother Goober (along with his scheming wife and their ‘lovely brood’ of children) or some upstart. Off of these possible outcomes, however, I would not get too worked up about the final outcome.
In the movie version, done in the 1950’s as well, which starred the recently departed excellent actor Paul Newman as Brick and a fetching Elizabeth Taylor as Maggie the question of Brick’s possible homosexual relationship with Skipper is far more muted than in the play. The implicit question seems to concern Brick’s fading youth, his search for perfect meaning to life in Mississippi and that one’s existential crisis can be eliminated by reliance on the bottle. The relationship between the dying Big Daddy and his ever suffering wife, Big Mama, is less dastardly than in the play as well. The scheming Goober and wife and family and those ‘lovely’ children, however, run true to form. My sense of the movie, unlike the deeper issues of the play, is that a few therapy sessions would put old Brick back on the right track. The play was far less hopeful in that regard.
The Fickle Bird Of Youth
The Sweet Bird Of Youth, Three Plays of Tennessee Williams, New Directions Books, New York, 1959
“Sweet Bird Of Youth” is a case in point. Not for the first time, a seemingly 1950’s style All- American boy Chance who has left his hometown, his home town girl and his roots behind to drift in that endless spiral toward fame- Hollywood and the movies, naturally- comes back to claim what is his by right. On this little hometown reunion Chance is in the service of one aging and fretful actress who has her own issues with that elusive ‘bird of youth’. On return to town it appears that Chance has stirred up a hornet’s nest with the local political establishment in the person of one red-neck preacher turned politician in order to better do “god’s work”, old Tom Findley. The object of this dispute is one Heavenly Findley, old Ton’s daughter and Chance’s left behind paramour who is now the subject of some scandal (due to the amorphously stated need for female-related medical treatment due to Chance’s irresponsibility). Along the way we get to see how political power is distributed in a small Southern town as well as the inevitable tempting of the fates by Chance in order to win the ‘brass ring’ before it is too late (apparently somewhere over thirty, by my reckoning). At play’s end though, where he is between a rock and a hard place, Chance may not get the chance to be Chance at thirty. Oh, that fickle bird of youth. Still, Chance, go for it.
In the movie version the recently departed excellent actor Paul Newman, a classic example of a 1950’s All-American boy type (among his other acting talents), as the movie star ‘wannabe’ and Geraldine Page as the aging actress recreated their stage performances although with a greater screen presence for Ms. Page. Moreover, Chance’s strivings to reconnect with Heavenly are more central to the plot. More importantly, the endings differ in that, despite some mauling by Tom Findley’s boys Chance takes my advice from the play version and runs, with Heavenly, just as far and as fast as his now aging legs can carry him.
Waiting For A Sign
The Rose Tattoo, Three Plays of Tennessee Williams, New Directions Books, New York, 1959
“The Rose Tattoo” is a little different look at the family. Although the geography of the play is still the American South this play is not peopled with Williams’ usually WASPy characters but rather a little conclave of immigrant Italians who have somehow made a beachhead in the Gulf Coast area. The central character is a previously abandoned but now widowed Italian seamstress trying to survive, mainly through her hopes for her daughter, on her wits, her memories of youth, her integrity and her fierce instinct to survive in alien territory. A philandering husband the obsessive subject of her adoration, a daughter trying to learn to fly on her own in the love game, and an incidental encounter with a fellow, younger Italian truck driver come together to give her the sign she needs to start over. Maybe. This play, more than most of Williams’ efforts, depends on the strength of the dialogue and not the plot line. That is what gives its dramatic edge as Williams explores yet another tangled up dream gone awry story.
In the movie version, the role of the young Italian truck driver as played by Burt Lancaster and the seamstress as played by the fabulous Anna Magnini is more central to the unfolding story from the beginning. The dramatic tensions between this pair and the ‘waiting for a sign’ by the seamstress are still fairly similar. It is however Lancaster’s enhanced role that really makes this a visual treat and gives one hope that this new family ‘aborning’ can survive.
Take A Walk On The Wild Side
Orpheus Descending, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
On reading “Orpheus Descending”, Williams’ take on the old Greek legend in modern grab I was struck by the similarity in the character of the Orpheus figure, Val ,and Nelson Algren’s Dove Linkhorn in “ A Walk On The Wild Side. Both are loners, outsiders, have checkered pasts and are ready for anything from deep romantic love to murder and mayhem. And because they are capacity of that range of emotions and reactions they are also as capable of getting burned by a complacent society that does not take kindly to those that it cannot control. Val drifts into town, gets a job at a store by the enigmatic Lady and then the wheels begin to turn and to deal out his fate. Could he have stopped and turned away? Although that is a question that drives many dramatic efforts it is not always resolvable in a play- or in life. Lady’s terminally ill husband lurks in the background with nothing to lose, once the romantic sparks start to fly. I do not understand why this play was not more successful in its earlier manifestations as was pointed out in the introduction, especially as this is a culture that has made space, if only grudgingly, to for the outsider to tempt the fates if only symbolically.
The Sweet Bird Of Youth Gone Awry
Suddenly Last Summer, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
“Suddenly Last Summer is an odd little beauty of a play. Odd in that the appetites of the main (unseen in the play) character Sebastian seem to be both beyond the pale and obsessive. Odd, also that his protective monster of a mother is determined to keep the truth about her “genius” son from the world even after his ‘untimely’ death ……last summer. As if to add fuel to the fire of an already bizarre tale of exploitation, sexual and otherwise, Sebastian’s beautiful lure of a cousin used as bait for Sebastian’s appetites is to be permanently taken out of the picture in order to keep this world beautiful. Nobody believes the sordid tale she has to tell about dear cousin Sebastian. The play ends with the ‘hope’ that there may actually be someone to believe the girl’s story before she becomes one more sacrifice to ‘beauty’ in the world. Frankly, old Sebastian got what was coming to him over in the islands.
In the movie version, the stories that have to be told verbally in the play get told as flashbacks as well. Katherine Hepburn is in high dudgeon as Sebastian’s mother and ‘keeper of the flame’. Montgomery Clift is a more sober, somber and searcher for the truth psychiatrist than the one in the play and Elizabeth Taylor is the beautiful lure cousin is a mass of confusions whose memories of last summer have to be erased ….some way. Old Sebastian and his twisted sense of life and his place in history is still a guy who had it coming to him. Well, he did, didn’t he?
Enough Mendacity To Sink A Ship
Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
The first couple of paragraphs here have been used as introduction to other plays written by Tennessee Williams and reviewed in this space. This review applies to both the stage play and the film versions with differences noted as part of the review
Perhaps, as is the case with this reviewer, if you have come to the works of the excellent American playwright Tennessee Williams through adaptations of his plays to commercially distributed film you too will have missed some of the more controversial and intriguing aspects of his plays that had placed him at that time along with Eugene O’Neill and Arthur Miller as America’s finest serious playwrights. Although some of the films have their own charms I want to address the written plays in this entry first (along with, when appropriate, commentary about Williams’ extensive and detailed directing instructions).
That said, there are certain limitations for a political commentator like this reviewer on the works of Williams. Although his plays, at least his best and most well-known ones, take place in the steamy South or its environs, there is virtually no acknowledgement of the race question that dominated Southern life during the period of the plays; and, for that matter was beginning to dominate national life. Thus, although it is possible to pay homage to his work on its artistic merits, I am very, very tentative about giving fulsome praise to that work on its political merits. With that proviso Williams nevertheless has created a very modern stage on which to address social questions at the personal level, like homosexuality, incest and the dysfunctional family that only began to get addressed widely well after his ground-breaking work hit the stage.
“Cat On A Hot Tin Roof” is a prime example of the contradiction that a radical commentator is placed in. The themes of duplicity, latent homosexuality, adultery and dysfunctional families topped off by more than enough mendacity to sink a ship are the stuff of social drama that NEED to be addressed as outcomes in the modern capitalist cultural sphere. However, in the end nothing really gets resolved truthfully here. Old 1950’s-style All-American boy Brick, the ‘great white hope’ of the family, may or may not sober up after the ‘lost’ of his dear friend and fellow football player, Skipper. Saucy and sexy wife Maggie (the cat) may or may not really get pregnant by Brick and save the family heritage for him, or die trying. The only certainty, despite all that above-mentioned mendacity, is that Big Daddy is going to die and that 28,000 acres of the finest land in the Delta is going to need new management, either Brick, brother Goober (along with his scheming wife and their ‘lovely brood’ of children) or some upstart. Off of these possible outcomes, however, I would not get too worked up about the final outcome.
In the movie version, done in the 1950’s as well, which starred the recently departed excellent actor Paul Newman as Brick and a fetching Elizabeth Taylor as Maggie the question of Brick’s possible homosexual relationship with Skipper is far more muted than in the play. The implicit question seems to concern Brick’s fading youth, his search for perfect meaning to life in Mississippi and that one’s existential crisis can be eliminated by reliance on the bottle. The relationship between the dying Big Daddy and his ever suffering wife, Big Mama, is less dastardly than in the play as well. The scheming Goober and wife and family and those ‘lovely’ children, however, run true to form. My sense of the movie, unlike the deeper issues of the play, is that a few therapy sessions would put old Brick back on the right track. The play was far less hopeful in that regard.
The Fickle Bird Of Youth
The Sweet Bird Of Youth, Three Plays of Tennessee Williams, New Directions Books, New York, 1959
“Sweet Bird Of Youth” is a case in point. Not for the first time, a seemingly 1950’s style All- American boy Chance who has left his hometown, his home town girl and his roots behind to drift in that endless spiral toward fame- Hollywood and the movies, naturally- comes back to claim what is his by right. On this little hometown reunion Chance is in the service of one aging and fretful actress who has her own issues with that elusive ‘bird of youth’. On return to town it appears that Chance has stirred up a hornet’s nest with the local political establishment in the person of one red-neck preacher turned politician in order to better do “god’s work”, old Tom Findley. The object of this dispute is one Heavenly Findley, old Ton’s daughter and Chance’s left behind paramour who is now the subject of some scandal (due to the amorphously stated need for female-related medical treatment due to Chance’s irresponsibility). Along the way we get to see how political power is distributed in a small Southern town as well as the inevitable tempting of the fates by Chance in order to win the ‘brass ring’ before it is too late (apparently somewhere over thirty, by my reckoning). At play’s end though, where he is between a rock and a hard place, Chance may not get the chance to be Chance at thirty. Oh, that fickle bird of youth. Still, Chance, go for it.
In the movie version the recently departed excellent actor Paul Newman, a classic example of a 1950’s All-American boy type (among his other acting talents), as the movie star ‘wannabe’ and Geraldine Page as the aging actress recreated their stage performances although with a greater screen presence for Ms. Page. Moreover, Chance’s strivings to reconnect with Heavenly are more central to the plot. More importantly, the endings differ in that, despite some mauling by Tom Findley’s boys Chance takes my advice from the play version and runs, with Heavenly, just as far and as fast as his now aging legs can carry him.
Waiting For A Sign
The Rose Tattoo, Three Plays of Tennessee Williams, New Directions Books, New York, 1959
“The Rose Tattoo” is a little different look at the family. Although the geography of the play is still the American South this play is not peopled with Williams’ usually WASPy characters but rather a little conclave of immigrant Italians who have somehow made a beachhead in the Gulf Coast area. The central character is a previously abandoned but now widowed Italian seamstress trying to survive, mainly through her hopes for her daughter, on her wits, her memories of youth, her integrity and her fierce instinct to survive in alien territory. A philandering husband the obsessive subject of her adoration, a daughter trying to learn to fly on her own in the love game, and an incidental encounter with a fellow, younger Italian truck driver come together to give her the sign she needs to start over. Maybe. This play, more than most of Williams’ efforts, depends on the strength of the dialogue and not the plot line. That is what gives its dramatic edge as Williams explores yet another tangled up dream gone awry story.
In the movie version, the role of the young Italian truck driver as played by Burt Lancaster and the seamstress as played by the fabulous Anna Magnini is more central to the unfolding story from the beginning. The dramatic tensions between this pair and the ‘waiting for a sign’ by the seamstress are still fairly similar. It is however Lancaster’s enhanced role that really makes this a visual treat and gives one hope that this new family ‘aborning’ can survive.
Take A Walk On The Wild Side
Orpheus Descending, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
On reading “Orpheus Descending”, Williams’ take on the old Greek legend in modern grab I was struck by the similarity in the character of the Orpheus figure, Val ,and Nelson Algren’s Dove Linkhorn in “ A Walk On The Wild Side. Both are loners, outsiders, have checkered pasts and are ready for anything from deep romantic love to murder and mayhem. And because they are capacity of that range of emotions and reactions they are also as capable of getting burned by a complacent society that does not take kindly to those that it cannot control. Val drifts into town, gets a job at a store by the enigmatic Lady and then the wheels begin to turn and to deal out his fate. Could he have stopped and turned away? Although that is a question that drives many dramatic efforts it is not always resolvable in a play- or in life. Lady’s terminally ill husband lurks in the background with nothing to lose, once the romantic sparks start to fly. I do not understand why this play was not more successful in its earlier manifestations as was pointed out in the introduction, especially as this is a culture that has made space, if only grudgingly, to for the outsider to tempt the fates if only symbolically.
The Sweet Bird Of Youth Gone Awry
Suddenly Last Summer, The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Volume Three, New Directions Books, New York, 1955
“Suddenly Last Summer is an odd little beauty of a play. Odd in that the appetites of the main (unseen in the play) character Sebastian seem to be both beyond the pale and obsessive. Odd, also that his protective monster of a mother is determined to keep the truth about her “genius” son from the world even after his ‘untimely’ death ……last summer. As if to add fuel to the fire of an already bizarre tale of exploitation, sexual and otherwise, Sebastian’s beautiful lure of a cousin used as bait for Sebastian’s appetites is to be permanently taken out of the picture in order to keep this world beautiful. Nobody believes the sordid tale she has to tell about dear cousin Sebastian. The play ends with the ‘hope’ that there may actually be someone to believe the girl’s story before she becomes one more sacrifice to ‘beauty’ in the world. Frankly, old Sebastian got what was coming to him over in the islands.
In the movie version, the stories that have to be told verbally in the play get told as flashbacks as well. Katherine Hepburn is in high dudgeon as Sebastian’s mother and ‘keeper of the flame’. Montgomery Clift is a more sober, somber and searcher for the truth psychiatrist than the one in the play and Elizabeth Taylor is the beautiful lure cousin is a mass of confusions whose memories of last summer have to be erased ….some way. Old Sebastian and his twisted sense of life and his place in history is still a guy who had it coming to him. Well, he did, didn’t he?
Monday, January 12, 2009
Blues In The Night
DVD REVIEWS
The First Time I Met The Blues, various artists, When The Sun Goes Down Series, RCA Victor Records, 2002
As one can tell by the title of this series "When The Sun Goes Down", a series that has also included the work of Blind Willie McTell an artist that I have reviewed in this space previously, this is going to be a bedrock example of a thoughtful way to preserve our blues history. As in the McTell case it does not fail us here. What the folks who have produced this series and this particular CD have done is gone to the old RCA Victor vaults and selected some very nice and very representative songs (and a few obscure one, as well) from the early 1920’s on. For those not aware of this history RCA and other record companies in the 1920’s sent out agents throughout this country scouring the streets and byways for new sound- the foothills of Appalachia, the cotton field of the South, the honky-tonks of the Texas Panhandle. Wherever. Here they have gotten hold of some golden blues material. Listen up.
I will merely summarize this who’s who of early, basically, country blues. Even the barrel house blues of the cities and juke joints has that country flavor during this period. It is not until later when the blues moved north to Memphis and Chicago with the black migration away from the farms and, more importantly got electrified, that we get a bit of a different sound. The tunes here depend on piano, harmonica and acoustic guitar for the most part. Here is what you need to hear- Victoria Spivey (an extremely important figure in the blues business in her own who deserves an entry of her own) on "Telephoning The Blues"; of course, Blind Willie McTell on the classic, no, super classic "Statesboro Blues"; Memphis Jug Band of "Cocaine Habit Blues" (before it was illegal); Sippy Wallace- "The Texas Nightingale"-on "I’m A Mighty Tight Woman"; Jimmie Rodgers on "Blue Yodel#9" (hard to do by the way on a blues number); Little Brother Montgomery on the title cut; and, Blind Willie Reynolds on "Married Woman Blues". You can find your own favorites out of the 25 that you have to choose from here. Nice, just very nice.
The First Time I Met The Blues, various artists, When The Sun Goes Down Series, RCA Victor Records, 2002
As one can tell by the title of this series "When The Sun Goes Down", a series that has also included the work of Blind Willie McTell an artist that I have reviewed in this space previously, this is going to be a bedrock example of a thoughtful way to preserve our blues history. As in the McTell case it does not fail us here. What the folks who have produced this series and this particular CD have done is gone to the old RCA Victor vaults and selected some very nice and very representative songs (and a few obscure one, as well) from the early 1920’s on. For those not aware of this history RCA and other record companies in the 1920’s sent out agents throughout this country scouring the streets and byways for new sound- the foothills of Appalachia, the cotton field of the South, the honky-tonks of the Texas Panhandle. Wherever. Here they have gotten hold of some golden blues material. Listen up.
I will merely summarize this who’s who of early, basically, country blues. Even the barrel house blues of the cities and juke joints has that country flavor during this period. It is not until later when the blues moved north to Memphis and Chicago with the black migration away from the farms and, more importantly got electrified, that we get a bit of a different sound. The tunes here depend on piano, harmonica and acoustic guitar for the most part. Here is what you need to hear- Victoria Spivey (an extremely important figure in the blues business in her own who deserves an entry of her own) on "Telephoning The Blues"; of course, Blind Willie McTell on the classic, no, super classic "Statesboro Blues"; Memphis Jug Band of "Cocaine Habit Blues" (before it was illegal); Sippy Wallace- "The Texas Nightingale"-on "I’m A Mighty Tight Woman"; Jimmie Rodgers on "Blue Yodel#9" (hard to do by the way on a blues number); Little Brother Montgomery on the title cut; and, Blind Willie Reynolds on "Married Woman Blues". You can find your own favorites out of the 25 that you have to choose from here. Nice, just very nice.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Welcome To America?- A Review of "The Visitor"
DVD REVIEW
The Visitor, starring Richard Jenkins, Hazz Sleiman, directed by Tom McCarthy, Anchor Bay Productions, 2008
The quirky little film deals very nicely with the questions of one college professor’s mid-life crisis (a not unfamiliar problem to this reviewer and, I am sure, to the reader of this review and the audience for this film) and immigration in America in the post 9/11 world and various cross-cultural, if not multi-cultural concerns. As the story unfolds it seems that our professor craves some musical outlet to stave off those mid-life blues (and, additionally, get over his isolation due to the death of his wife). Presto- on a dreaded and fruitless trip to New York City as a ‘sub’ presenter at one of those never ending conferences that are central to and bedevil academic life he finds a musical muse, a Palestinian jazz drum aficionado, who also happens to be an illegal immigrant ‘squatting’ in the good professor’s apartment with his also illegal girlfriend.
Along the way the professor, through a fluke of bad timing inadvertently caused by him, learns the hard way the nature of the immigration problem, its seeming absurdities and its abuses. Hovering in the background is our drummer’s deeply concerned mother, a very fetching mother to be sure. The professor and mother form an ‘alliance’ to save her son from the horrors of the deportation process. To no avail and he is deported back to Syria. This deportation to Syria serves as a very useful metaphor concerning the plight of the Palestinian Diaspora and of the continuing non-resolution of the question of a Palestinian homeland.
Although, in the end, the only one who gets out with some resolution of his crisis is the professor we will not fault the creators of this film for that but rather the vagaries of the post 9/11 world, one George W. Bush and friends and a certain innate American xenophobia about immigrants- that is after one’s own ethnic or racial group has ‘made’ it to and in America. After viewing this film I have also become more confirmed that those who make it here to old immigrant-formed and built America should have full citizenship rights. Watch this film to see what I mean. Moreover watch this film for the taboo ‘romance’ between the good WASP professor and his muse’s sparklingly exotic mother. I am sure that it will drive every cultural and religious fundamentalist on both sides of the divide crazy. Good.
The Visitor, starring Richard Jenkins, Hazz Sleiman, directed by Tom McCarthy, Anchor Bay Productions, 2008
The quirky little film deals very nicely with the questions of one college professor’s mid-life crisis (a not unfamiliar problem to this reviewer and, I am sure, to the reader of this review and the audience for this film) and immigration in America in the post 9/11 world and various cross-cultural, if not multi-cultural concerns. As the story unfolds it seems that our professor craves some musical outlet to stave off those mid-life blues (and, additionally, get over his isolation due to the death of his wife). Presto- on a dreaded and fruitless trip to New York City as a ‘sub’ presenter at one of those never ending conferences that are central to and bedevil academic life he finds a musical muse, a Palestinian jazz drum aficionado, who also happens to be an illegal immigrant ‘squatting’ in the good professor’s apartment with his also illegal girlfriend.
Along the way the professor, through a fluke of bad timing inadvertently caused by him, learns the hard way the nature of the immigration problem, its seeming absurdities and its abuses. Hovering in the background is our drummer’s deeply concerned mother, a very fetching mother to be sure. The professor and mother form an ‘alliance’ to save her son from the horrors of the deportation process. To no avail and he is deported back to Syria. This deportation to Syria serves as a very useful metaphor concerning the plight of the Palestinian Diaspora and of the continuing non-resolution of the question of a Palestinian homeland.
Although, in the end, the only one who gets out with some resolution of his crisis is the professor we will not fault the creators of this film for that but rather the vagaries of the post 9/11 world, one George W. Bush and friends and a certain innate American xenophobia about immigrants- that is after one’s own ethnic or racial group has ‘made’ it to and in America. After viewing this film I have also become more confirmed that those who make it here to old immigrant-formed and built America should have full citizenship rights. Watch this film to see what I mean. Moreover watch this film for the taboo ‘romance’ between the good WASP professor and his muse’s sparklingly exotic mother. I am sure that it will drive every cultural and religious fundamentalist on both sides of the divide crazy. Good.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
*"Women Be Wise- Don't Advertise Your Man"- Blues Singer Sippy Wallace
DVD REVIEWS
Sippy Wallace, Volume 2, The Complete Works, 1925-1945, Sippy Wallace, Document Records, 1995
Women Be Wise, Sippy Wallace, Alligator Records, 1992
Okay, okay before we even start here let’s get something straight. I took more than my share of politically correct abuse from my feminist friends, including my companion, when I titled one of my reviews of the work of the legendary blues singer Skip James after the title of one of his songs- "I’d Rather Be The Devil Than Be That Woman’s Man". As penance I noted that the more contemporary blues singer/songwriter Rory Block covered that song and changed the words to "I’d Rather Be The Devil That Be A Woman To That Man". So here, for the politically pure of heart, or their wannabes, you can switch to suit your sexual or gender orientation.
But enough of that, for now because we have the serious business of discussing the blues, and an important component of that genre is the work of the "Texas Nightingale"- Sippy Wallace. Frankly, readers if you are going to discuss the blues you have to take the lyrics the way you find them and work around that. There is not a damn politically correct thing about them from male or female singers. Whiskey or dope. Mistreatin’ man or woman. Hard luck, bad luck or no luck. Anger, murderous intent, hostility. This is the language of the blues. If you want to clean it up go to the modern folk music section. But, my friends then you would be missing some very hard driving, evocative music from down at the base of society in Jim Crow days, especially when done by one of the classic blues singers.
Classic blues singers? Those are, mainly, the black female singers of the 1920’s, most famously the likes of Bessie Smith and Ma Rainey, who played mostly to black audiences in the South (although not solely, witness the career of Ethel Waters). Sippy fits right in there. You may not know her because her career was cut short (for a while) by a return to her Baptist gospel roots in order to get away from “the devil’s music”. This struggle has been a gnawing tension in the fate of more than one accomplished blues singer although usually, as in the case of Howlin’ Wolf and Son House among others, the devil 'wins'.
Sippy’s story has a nice ending though. She was “discovered” by the great folk/blues/country singer and songwriter Bonnie Raitt (who sat at the knee of Mississippi Fred McDowell to learn her craft) in the mid-1960s after covering the above-mentioned "Women Be Wise". Sippy then went on to have a successful revival until her death. That also allows this reviewer to kill two birds with one stone. This review is serving to comment on two Sippy CDs. One, "Sippy Wallace, Volume 2", The Complete Works, 1925-1945, Sippy Wallace, Document Records, 1995. The other, "Women Be Wise", Sippy Wallace, Alligator Records, 1992 so that one can compare quality of the two periods and the presentation of the same song in each period. I am more favorably impressed by her later work, partially because the technical quality of the recordings is better later but also partially because her voice is better later. But you decide. Check these out from Sippy Wallace- "Advise Blues", "Special Delivery Blues", "I’m A Mighty Tight Woman", "Lazy Man Blues", and "Bedroom Blues". Check these from "Women Be Wise"-"Women Be Wise", "Special Delivery Blues", "Caldonia Blues" (definitely), and "Up Country Blues".
Sippy Wallace, Volume 2, The Complete Works, 1925-1945, Sippy Wallace, Document Records, 1995
Women Be Wise, Sippy Wallace, Alligator Records, 1992
Okay, okay before we even start here let’s get something straight. I took more than my share of politically correct abuse from my feminist friends, including my companion, when I titled one of my reviews of the work of the legendary blues singer Skip James after the title of one of his songs- "I’d Rather Be The Devil Than Be That Woman’s Man". As penance I noted that the more contemporary blues singer/songwriter Rory Block covered that song and changed the words to "I’d Rather Be The Devil That Be A Woman To That Man". So here, for the politically pure of heart, or their wannabes, you can switch to suit your sexual or gender orientation.
But enough of that, for now because we have the serious business of discussing the blues, and an important component of that genre is the work of the "Texas Nightingale"- Sippy Wallace. Frankly, readers if you are going to discuss the blues you have to take the lyrics the way you find them and work around that. There is not a damn politically correct thing about them from male or female singers. Whiskey or dope. Mistreatin’ man or woman. Hard luck, bad luck or no luck. Anger, murderous intent, hostility. This is the language of the blues. If you want to clean it up go to the modern folk music section. But, my friends then you would be missing some very hard driving, evocative music from down at the base of society in Jim Crow days, especially when done by one of the classic blues singers.
Classic blues singers? Those are, mainly, the black female singers of the 1920’s, most famously the likes of Bessie Smith and Ma Rainey, who played mostly to black audiences in the South (although not solely, witness the career of Ethel Waters). Sippy fits right in there. You may not know her because her career was cut short (for a while) by a return to her Baptist gospel roots in order to get away from “the devil’s music”. This struggle has been a gnawing tension in the fate of more than one accomplished blues singer although usually, as in the case of Howlin’ Wolf and Son House among others, the devil 'wins'.
Sippy’s story has a nice ending though. She was “discovered” by the great folk/blues/country singer and songwriter Bonnie Raitt (who sat at the knee of Mississippi Fred McDowell to learn her craft) in the mid-1960s after covering the above-mentioned "Women Be Wise". Sippy then went on to have a successful revival until her death. That also allows this reviewer to kill two birds with one stone. This review is serving to comment on two Sippy CDs. One, "Sippy Wallace, Volume 2", The Complete Works, 1925-1945, Sippy Wallace, Document Records, 1995. The other, "Women Be Wise", Sippy Wallace, Alligator Records, 1992 so that one can compare quality of the two periods and the presentation of the same song in each period. I am more favorably impressed by her later work, partially because the technical quality of the recordings is better later but also partially because her voice is better later. But you decide. Check these out from Sippy Wallace- "Advise Blues", "Special Delivery Blues", "I’m A Mighty Tight Woman", "Lazy Man Blues", and "Bedroom Blues". Check these from "Women Be Wise"-"Women Be Wise", "Special Delivery Blues", "Caldonia Blues" (definitely), and "Up Country Blues".
Friday, January 09, 2009
*The Lessons Of Revolutionary History- English Style-Professor Christopher Hill's View
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for Marxist historian, Christopher Hill.
The Lessons Of History- English Style
Some Intellectual Consequences Of The English Revolution, Christopher Hill, The University Of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1980
The first two paragraphs here have been used elsewhere in reviews of Professor Hill’s work.
The name and work of the late British Marxist historian Christopher Hill should be fairly well known to readers of this space who follow my reviews on the subject of the 17th century English Revolution that has legitimately been described as the first one of the modern era and that has had profound repercussions, especially on the American revolution and later events on this continent. Christopher Hill started his research in the 1930’s under the tremendous influence of Marx on the sociology of revolution, the actuality of the Soviet experience in Russia and world events such as the then Great Depression of that period and the lead up to World War II.
Although Hill was an ardent Stalinist, seemingly to the end, his works, since they were not as subjected to the conforming pressures of the Soviet political line that he adhered to are less influenced by that distorting pressure. More importantly, along the way Professor Hill almost single-handedly brought to life the under classes that formed the backbone of the plebeian efforts during that revolution. We would, surely know far less about, Ranters, panters, shakers and fakers without the sharp eye of the good professor. All to the tune of, and in the spirit of John Milton’s Paradise Lost, except instead of trying to explain the ways of god to man the Professor tried to explain ways of our earlier plebeian brothers and sisters to us.
This slender volume, first delivered as a series Merle Curti lectures at the University Of Wisconsin, is sort of Hill’s summing up of the experiences that survived, one way or another, the English revolutionary period from 1640-60 and, more importantly, the monarchical restoration. Elsewhere I will review a later book, "The Experience Of Defeat" by Hill that deals with the question of the defeat of the revolution and it effects on some of the participants, including, as always, some material on Hill’s muse, John Milton. Hill’s contention here and in that book is that although the immediate defeat of the revolution dashed the dreams of the revolutionaries at the time English society did not, in fact could not, go back completely to the old regime- a society based on divine rule of kings, an inflexible and exclusive nobility and an iron-disciplined state church.
To that end, Hill discusses the continued lively underground of the sects thrown up by the revolution, the continued capitalist rationalization of agriculture (enclosures and other improvements), and, yes, the increased naval fleet that won its spurs under Cromwell and would be the vanguard for the nearly two century rule of the late British Empire. Be forewarned, this volume does not do more than outline Hill’s thesis. To flesh this out the reader will have to go to his other volumes and to other sources in the rich scholarship that has developed on the English revolution over the past couple of generations.
The Lessons Of History- English Style
Some Intellectual Consequences Of The English Revolution, Christopher Hill, The University Of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1980
The first two paragraphs here have been used elsewhere in reviews of Professor Hill’s work.
The name and work of the late British Marxist historian Christopher Hill should be fairly well known to readers of this space who follow my reviews on the subject of the 17th century English Revolution that has legitimately been described as the first one of the modern era and that has had profound repercussions, especially on the American revolution and later events on this continent. Christopher Hill started his research in the 1930’s under the tremendous influence of Marx on the sociology of revolution, the actuality of the Soviet experience in Russia and world events such as the then Great Depression of that period and the lead up to World War II.
Although Hill was an ardent Stalinist, seemingly to the end, his works, since they were not as subjected to the conforming pressures of the Soviet political line that he adhered to are less influenced by that distorting pressure. More importantly, along the way Professor Hill almost single-handedly brought to life the under classes that formed the backbone of the plebeian efforts during that revolution. We would, surely know far less about, Ranters, panters, shakers and fakers without the sharp eye of the good professor. All to the tune of, and in the spirit of John Milton’s Paradise Lost, except instead of trying to explain the ways of god to man the Professor tried to explain ways of our earlier plebeian brothers and sisters to us.
This slender volume, first delivered as a series Merle Curti lectures at the University Of Wisconsin, is sort of Hill’s summing up of the experiences that survived, one way or another, the English revolutionary period from 1640-60 and, more importantly, the monarchical restoration. Elsewhere I will review a later book, "The Experience Of Defeat" by Hill that deals with the question of the defeat of the revolution and it effects on some of the participants, including, as always, some material on Hill’s muse, John Milton. Hill’s contention here and in that book is that although the immediate defeat of the revolution dashed the dreams of the revolutionaries at the time English society did not, in fact could not, go back completely to the old regime- a society based on divine rule of kings, an inflexible and exclusive nobility and an iron-disciplined state church.
To that end, Hill discusses the continued lively underground of the sects thrown up by the revolution, the continued capitalist rationalization of agriculture (enclosures and other improvements), and, yes, the increased naval fleet that won its spurs under Cromwell and would be the vanguard for the nearly two century rule of the late British Empire. Be forewarned, this volume does not do more than outline Hill’s thesis. To flesh this out the reader will have to go to his other volumes and to other sources in the rich scholarship that has developed on the English revolution over the past couple of generations.
*Once Again On Christopher Hill And The England Revolution- Collected Essays
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for Marxist historian, Christopher Hill.
The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill, Volume 2: Religion and Politics In Seventeenth-Century England, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1986
The name and work of the late British Marxist historian Christopher Hill should be fairly well known to readers of this space who follow my reviews on the subject of the 17th century English Revolution that has legitimately been described as the first one of the modern era and that has had profound repercussions, especially on the American revolution and later events on this continent. Christopher Hill started his research in the 1930's under the tremendous influence of Marx on the sociology of revolution, the actuality of the Soviet experience in Russia and world events such as the then Great Depression of that period and the lead up to World War II.
Although Hill was an ardent Stalinist, seemingly to the end, his works, since they were not as subjected to the conforming pressures of the Soviet political line that he adhered to, are less influenced by that distorting pressure. More importantly, along the way Professor Hill almost single-handedly brought to life the under-classes that formed the backbone of the plebeian efforts during that English revolution. We would, surely know far less about, Fifth Monarchists, Brownists, Ranters, panters, shakers, fakers and Quakers who populated the social landscape without the sharp eye of the good professor. All to the tune of, and in the spirit of that famous line from John Milton's Paradise Lost, except instead of trying to explain the ways of god to man the Professor tried to explain ways of our earlier plebeian brothers and sisters to us.
This volume contains some specialized studies by Hill, some reviews by him of the work of his peers in his area of expertise and some updating of his earlier works in light of the new research that came cascading along after the tumult of the 1960's died down and some student radicals went back to the cloisters of academia to create "revolutions" of the mind rather than of the streets. A look at the selections here run the gamut of religiously-tinged topics, the language that the social struggles of the time took; a serious look at the struggle to create a national English Church and the place of dissenting clergy and laity almost from the beginning ; the various policies of the Archbishops of Canterbury in the formation of that church; my favorite article in this book a look at the history of dissent from the early days of the Lollards; an always informative piece on the religion of the primitive communist hero Gerrard Winstanley of the Diggers experiment on St. George's Hill (worthy of a separate review of its own; and, a rather nice appreciation of the religious/political doings of the Muggletonians and other sects and sectlets. This is just a good, solid look at religion. Without an understanding of this for the 17th century in England one is at a lost to understand the nature of that revolution (or even that a revolution occurred). Kudos (again), Professor.
The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill, Volume 2: Religion and Politics In Seventeenth-Century England, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1986
The name and work of the late British Marxist historian Christopher Hill should be fairly well known to readers of this space who follow my reviews on the subject of the 17th century English Revolution that has legitimately been described as the first one of the modern era and that has had profound repercussions, especially on the American revolution and later events on this continent. Christopher Hill started his research in the 1930's under the tremendous influence of Marx on the sociology of revolution, the actuality of the Soviet experience in Russia and world events such as the then Great Depression of that period and the lead up to World War II.
Although Hill was an ardent Stalinist, seemingly to the end, his works, since they were not as subjected to the conforming pressures of the Soviet political line that he adhered to, are less influenced by that distorting pressure. More importantly, along the way Professor Hill almost single-handedly brought to life the under-classes that formed the backbone of the plebeian efforts during that English revolution. We would, surely know far less about, Fifth Monarchists, Brownists, Ranters, panters, shakers, fakers and Quakers who populated the social landscape without the sharp eye of the good professor. All to the tune of, and in the spirit of that famous line from John Milton's Paradise Lost, except instead of trying to explain the ways of god to man the Professor tried to explain ways of our earlier plebeian brothers and sisters to us.
This volume contains some specialized studies by Hill, some reviews by him of the work of his peers in his area of expertise and some updating of his earlier works in light of the new research that came cascading along after the tumult of the 1960's died down and some student radicals went back to the cloisters of academia to create "revolutions" of the mind rather than of the streets. A look at the selections here run the gamut of religiously-tinged topics, the language that the social struggles of the time took; a serious look at the struggle to create a national English Church and the place of dissenting clergy and laity almost from the beginning ; the various policies of the Archbishops of Canterbury in the formation of that church; my favorite article in this book a look at the history of dissent from the early days of the Lollards; an always informative piece on the religion of the primitive communist hero Gerrard Winstanley of the Diggers experiment on St. George's Hill (worthy of a separate review of its own; and, a rather nice appreciation of the religious/political doings of the Muggletonians and other sects and sectlets. This is just a good, solid look at religion. Without an understanding of this for the 17th century in England one is at a lost to understand the nature of that revolution (or even that a revolution occurred). Kudos (again), Professor.
*Once Again On Christopher Hill And The English Revolution
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for Marxist historian, Christopher Hill.
BOOK REVIEW
The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill, Volume 3: People and Ideas In Seventeenth-Century England, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1986
The name and work of the late British Marxist historian Christopher Hill should be fairly well known to readers of this space who follow my reviews on the subject of the 17th century English Revolution that has legitimately been described as the first one of the modern era and that has had profound repercussions, especially on the American revolution and later events on this continent. Christopher Hill started his research in the 1930’s under the tremendous influence of Marx on the sociology of revolution, the actuality of the Soviet experience in Russia and world events such as the then Great Depression of that period and the lead up to World War II.
Although Hill was an ardent Stalinist, seemingly to the end, his works, since they were not as subjected to the conforming pressures of the Soviet political line that he adhered to are less influenced by that distorting pressure. More importantly, along the way Professor Hill almost single-handedly brought to life the under classes that formed the backbone of the plebeian efforts during that revolution. We would, surely know far less about, Ranters, panters, shakers and fakers without the sharp eye of the good professor. All to the tune of, and in the spirit of John Milton’s Paradise Lost, except instead of trying to explain the ways of god to man the Professor tried to explain ways of our earlier plebeian brothers and sisters to us.
This volume contains some specialized studies by Hill, some reviews by him of the work of his peers in his area of expertise and some updating of his earlier works in light of the new research that came cascading along after the tumult of the 1960’s died down and some student radicals went back to the cloisters of academia to create “revolutions” of the mind rather than the streets. A short list of the topics covered here is illuminating: an update of the relationship between the Parliament and the people in the 17th century; a quick overview of the role of the great man, here Oliver Cromwell, in a revolution; the always nagging question of whether that revolution was bourgeois or not and various controversies over the role of the state in the new social order.
Furthermore there is a very interesting review of the Lisle letters that are very informative (and gossipy) about household conditions during this period. And a rather speculative piece on the “communism” of the various West Indian pirate communities. I should also mention a interesting article about Karl Marx’s acclimation to British life as an exile; an early review of the then “new” topic of homosexuality in the 17th century and the rudiments of a subculture; and, an arresting article on the methodological disputes in the academia over the use of 17th century parish registers to make generalizations about lower class sexual mores, traditions and attitudes as the modern world emerges.
This last piece is worthy of a separate commentary but for now just read the thing and learn something about the problems that we all have to face when dealing with a period that is remote enough in time for us to be clueless in many regards about what these people were about. Finally, there is a nice little intriguing tidbit about the relationship between science and magic, or rather the brewing controversy between those two ways of looking at the world. I think old muse John Milton was looking over his shoulder when Hill wrote that one. Read on.
BOOK REVIEW
The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill, Volume 3: People and Ideas In Seventeenth-Century England, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1986
The name and work of the late British Marxist historian Christopher Hill should be fairly well known to readers of this space who follow my reviews on the subject of the 17th century English Revolution that has legitimately been described as the first one of the modern era and that has had profound repercussions, especially on the American revolution and later events on this continent. Christopher Hill started his research in the 1930’s under the tremendous influence of Marx on the sociology of revolution, the actuality of the Soviet experience in Russia and world events such as the then Great Depression of that period and the lead up to World War II.
Although Hill was an ardent Stalinist, seemingly to the end, his works, since they were not as subjected to the conforming pressures of the Soviet political line that he adhered to are less influenced by that distorting pressure. More importantly, along the way Professor Hill almost single-handedly brought to life the under classes that formed the backbone of the plebeian efforts during that revolution. We would, surely know far less about, Ranters, panters, shakers and fakers without the sharp eye of the good professor. All to the tune of, and in the spirit of John Milton’s Paradise Lost, except instead of trying to explain the ways of god to man the Professor tried to explain ways of our earlier plebeian brothers and sisters to us.
This volume contains some specialized studies by Hill, some reviews by him of the work of his peers in his area of expertise and some updating of his earlier works in light of the new research that came cascading along after the tumult of the 1960’s died down and some student radicals went back to the cloisters of academia to create “revolutions” of the mind rather than the streets. A short list of the topics covered here is illuminating: an update of the relationship between the Parliament and the people in the 17th century; a quick overview of the role of the great man, here Oliver Cromwell, in a revolution; the always nagging question of whether that revolution was bourgeois or not and various controversies over the role of the state in the new social order.
Furthermore there is a very interesting review of the Lisle letters that are very informative (and gossipy) about household conditions during this period. And a rather speculative piece on the “communism” of the various West Indian pirate communities. I should also mention a interesting article about Karl Marx’s acclimation to British life as an exile; an early review of the then “new” topic of homosexuality in the 17th century and the rudiments of a subculture; and, an arresting article on the methodological disputes in the academia over the use of 17th century parish registers to make generalizations about lower class sexual mores, traditions and attitudes as the modern world emerges.
This last piece is worthy of a separate commentary but for now just read the thing and learn something about the problems that we all have to face when dealing with a period that is remote enough in time for us to be clueless in many regards about what these people were about. Finally, there is a nice little intriguing tidbit about the relationship between science and magic, or rather the brewing controversy between those two ways of looking at the world. I think old muse John Milton was looking over his shoulder when Hill wrote that one. Read on.
Karl Marx On The 17th Century English Revolution, Circa 1850
Guest Commentary
Marx and Engels in Neue Rheinische Zeitung Politisch-ökonomische Revue 1850
England’s 17th Century Revolution
A Review of Francois Guizot’s 1850 pamphlet
Pourquoi la revolution d'Angleterre a-t-elle reussi?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written: February 1850;
First Published: in Politisch-Ökonomische Revue, No. 2, February 1850;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this pamphlet, M. Guizot [1784-1874, French historian; one-time head of government] intends to prove that Louis Philippe and the politics pursued by M. Guizot should not really have been overthrown on February 24, 1848, and that only the wicked character of the French is to be blamed for the fact that the July Monarchy of 1830, after an existence of 18 troublesome years, collapsed so ignominiously and did not acquire the endurance that the English monarchy has enjoyed since 1688.
Reading this pamphlet, one realized that even the ablest men of the ancien regime, as well as men who cannot be denied certain historical talents, have become so confused by the fateful events of that February that they have lost all sense of history and, indeed, no longer understand their previous actions. Instead of gaining, from the experience of the February Revolution, some insight into the totally different historical situation and into the entirely different position that the classes occupy in society under the French Monarchy of 1830 and under the English Monarchy of 1688, M. Guizot dissolves these difference with a few moralistic phrases and asserts in conclusion that the policy overthrown on February 24 was “only one that could master the revolution, in the same way that it had controlled the state”.
Specifically formulated, the question M. Guizot sets out to answer is: Why did bourgeois society in England develop as a constitutional monarchy longer than it did in France?
Characteristic of M. Guizot’s knowledge of the course of bourgeois development in England is the following passage:
“Under George I and George II, the public spirit took a different direction: Foreign policy ceased to be the major interest; internal administration, the maintenance of peace, financial, colonial, and commercial questions, and the development and struggle for parliamentary government became the major issues occupying the government and the public.”
M. Guizot finds in the reign of William III only two points worth mentioning: the preservation of the balance of power between Parliament and crown, and the preservation of the European balance of power through the wars against Louis XIV. Under the Hanoverian dynasty, “public opinion suddenly takes a “different direction”, nobody knows how or why. Here one sees how M. Guizot superimposes the most commonplace phrases of French parliamentary debates on English history, believing he has thereby explained it. In the same way, Guizot also imagines that, as French Prime Minister, he carried on his shoulders the responsibility of preserving the proper equilibrium between Parliament and crown, as well as the European balance of power, and in reality he did nothing but huckster French society away piecemeal to the moneyed Jews of the Paris
M. Guizot does not think it worth mentioning that the struggle against Louis XIV was simply a war of competition aimed at the destruction of French naval power and commerce; nor does he mention the rule of the finance bourgeoisie through the establishment of the Bank of England under William III, nor the introduction of the public debt which then received its first sanction, nor that the manufacturing bourgeoisie received a new impetus by the consistent application of a system of protective tariffs. For Guizot, only political phrases are meaningful. He does not even mention that under Queen Anne the ruling parties could preserve themselves, as well as the constitutional monarchy, only by forcibly extending the term of Parliament to seven years, thus all but destroying any influence the people might have had on government.
Under the Hanoverian dynasty, England had already reached a stage of development where it could fight its wars of competition against France with modern means. England herself challenged France directly only in America and the East Indies, whereas on the Continent she contended herself with paying foreign sovereigns, such as Frederick II, to wage war against France. And while foreign policy assumed such a new form, M. Guizot has this to say: “Foreign policy ceased to be the major interest”, being replaced by “the maintenance of peace”. Regarding the statement that the “development and struggle for parliamentary government” became a major concern, one may recall the incidents of corruption under the Walpole Ministry, which, indeed, resemble very closely the scandals that became daily events under M. Guizot.
The fact that the English Revolution developed more successfully than the French can be attributed, according to M. Guizot, to two factors: first, that the English Revolution had a thoroughly religious character, and hence in mo way broke with all past traditions; and second, that from the very beginning it was not destructive but constructive, Parliament defending the old existing laws against encroachment by the crown.
In regard to the first point, M. Guizot seems to have forgotten that the free-thinking philosophy which makes him shudder so terribly when he sees it in the French Revolution was imported to France from no other country than England. Its father was Locke, and in Shaftesbury and Bolingbroke it had already achieved that ingenious form which later found such a brilliant development in France, We thus arrive at the strange conclusion that the same free-thinking philosophy which, according to M. Guizot, wrecked the French Revolution, was one of the most essential products of the religious English Revolution.
In regard to the second point, Guizot completely forgets that the French Revolution, equally conservative, began even more conservatively than the English. Absolutism, particularly as it finally appeared in France, was an innovation there too, and it was against this innovation that the parlements [French Diets] revolted to defend the old laws, the us et coutumes [usages and customs] of the old monarchy with its Estates General. And whereas the French Revolution was to revive the old Estates General that had quietly died since Henry IV and Louis XIV, the English Revolution, on the contrary, could show no comparable classical-conservative element.
According to M. Guizot, the main result of the English Revolution was that it made it impossible for the king to rule against the will of Parliament and the House of Commons. Thus, to him, the whole revolution consists only of this: that in the beginning both sides, crown and Parliament, overstep their bounds and go too far, until they finally find their proper equilibrium under William III and neutralize each other. M. Guizot finds it superfluous to mention that the subjection of the crown to Parliament meant subjection to the rule of a class. Nor does he think it necessary to deal with the fact that this class won the necessary power in order finally to make the crown its servant. According to him, the whole struggle between Charles I and Parliament was merely over purely political privileges. Not a word is said about why the Parliament, and the class represented in it, needed these privileges. Nor does Guizot talk about Charles I’s interference with free competition, which made England’s commerce and industry increasingly impossible; nor about the dependence on Parliament into which Charles I, in his continuous need for money, feel the more deeply the more he tried to defy it. Consequently, M. Guizot explains the revolution as being merely due to the ill will and religious fanaticism of a few troublemakers who would not rest content with moderate freedom. Guizot is just as little able to explain the interrelationship between the religious movement and the development of bourgeois society. To him, of course, the Republic [Crowmwell’s] is likewise the work of a mere handful of ambitious and malicious fanatics. Nowhere does he mention the attempts made to establish republics in Lisbon, Naples, and Messina at that time — attempts following the Dutch example, as England did.
Although M. Guizot never loses sight of the French Revolution, he does not even reach the simple conclusion that the transition from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy can take place only after violent struggles and passing through a republican stage, and that even then the old dynasty, having become useless, must make way for a usurpatory side line. Hence, Guizot can say only the most trivial commonplaces about the overthrow of the English Restoration monarchy. He does not even cite the most immediate causes: the fear on the part of the great new landowners, who had acquired property before the restoration of Catholicism — property robbed from the church — which they would have to change hands; the aversion of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie to Catholicism, a religion in now way suitable for its commerce; the nonchalance with which the Stuarts, for their own and their courtier’s benefit, sold all of England’s industry and commerce to the French government, that is, to the only country then in a position to offer England dangerous and often successful competition, etc. Since M. Guizot omits the most momentous points, there is nothing left for him but the highly unsatisfactory and banal narration of mere political events.
For M. Guizot, the great mystery is the conservative nature of the English Revolution, which he can ascribe only to the superior intelligence of the English, whereas in fact it can be found in the enduring alliance between the bourgeoisie and a great part of the landowners, an alliance that constitutes the major difference between it and the French Revolution, which destroyed the great landholdings with its parcelization policy. The English class of great landowners, allied with the bourgeoisie — which, incidentally, had already developed under Henry VIII — did not find itself in opposition — as did the French feudal landowners in 1789 — but rather in complete harmony with the vital requirements of the bourgeoisie. In fact, their lands were not feudal but bourgeois property. On the one hand, there were able to provide the industrial bourgeoisie with the manpower necessary for manufacturing, and on the other they were able to develop agriculture to the standards consonant with industry and commerce. Thus their common interests with the bourgeoisie, thus their alliance with it.
For Guizot, English history ends with the consolidation of the constitutional monarchy. For him, everything that follows is limited to a pleasant alternating game between Tories and Whigs, that is, to the great debate between M. Guizot and M. Thiers. In reality, however, the consolidation of the constitutional monarchy is only the beginning of the magnificent development and transformation of bourgeois society in England. Where M. Guizot sees only gentle calm and idyllic peace, in reality the most violent conflicts and the most penetrating revolutions are taking place. Under the constitutional monarchy, manufacturing at first expands to an extent hitherto unknown, only to make way for heavy industry, the steam engine, and the colossal factories. Whole classes of the population disappear, to be replaced by new ones, with new living conditions and new requirements. A new, more gigantic bourgeoisie comes into existence; while the old bourgeoisie fights with the French Revolution, the new one conquers the world market. It becomes so all-powerful that even before the Reform Bill gives it direct political power, it forces its opponents to enact legislation entirely in conformity with its interest and its needs. It wins direct representation in Parliament and uses it for the destruction of the last remnants of real power left to the landowners. It is, finally, at the present moment engaged in a thorough demolition of the beautiful codes of the English Constitution, which M. Guizot so admires.
And while M. Guizot compliments the English for the fact that the reprehensible excesses of French social life, republicanism and socialism, have not destroyed the foundations of their sanctified monarchy, the class antagonisms of English society have actually reached a height not found anywhere else, and the bourgeoisie, with its incomparable wealth and productive powers, confronts a proletariat which likewise has incomparable power and concentration. The respect that M. Guizot offers to England finally adds up to the fact that, under the protection of the constitutional monarchy, more, and more radical, elements of social revolutions have developed than in all other countries of the world together.
At the point where the threads of English history come together in a knot, when M. Guizot cannot even pretend to cut with mere political phrases, he takes refuge in religious catchwork, in God’s armed intervention. Thus, for example, the holy spirit suddenly descends on the army and prevents Cromwell from declaring himself king. Before his conscience, Guizot saves himself through God, before his profane public, he does so through his style.
In reality, not only do les rois s'en vont [the kings depart] but also les capacites de la bourgeoisie s'en vont [the capacities of the bourgeoisie disappear].
Marx and Engels in Neue Rheinische Zeitung Politisch-ökonomische Revue 1850
England’s 17th Century Revolution
A Review of Francois Guizot’s 1850 pamphlet
Pourquoi la revolution d'Angleterre a-t-elle reussi?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written: February 1850;
First Published: in Politisch-Ökonomische Revue, No. 2, February 1850;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this pamphlet, M. Guizot [1784-1874, French historian; one-time head of government] intends to prove that Louis Philippe and the politics pursued by M. Guizot should not really have been overthrown on February 24, 1848, and that only the wicked character of the French is to be blamed for the fact that the July Monarchy of 1830, after an existence of 18 troublesome years, collapsed so ignominiously and did not acquire the endurance that the English monarchy has enjoyed since 1688.
Reading this pamphlet, one realized that even the ablest men of the ancien regime, as well as men who cannot be denied certain historical talents, have become so confused by the fateful events of that February that they have lost all sense of history and, indeed, no longer understand their previous actions. Instead of gaining, from the experience of the February Revolution, some insight into the totally different historical situation and into the entirely different position that the classes occupy in society under the French Monarchy of 1830 and under the English Monarchy of 1688, M. Guizot dissolves these difference with a few moralistic phrases and asserts in conclusion that the policy overthrown on February 24 was “only one that could master the revolution, in the same way that it had controlled the state”.
Specifically formulated, the question M. Guizot sets out to answer is: Why did bourgeois society in England develop as a constitutional monarchy longer than it did in France?
Characteristic of M. Guizot’s knowledge of the course of bourgeois development in England is the following passage:
“Under George I and George II, the public spirit took a different direction: Foreign policy ceased to be the major interest; internal administration, the maintenance of peace, financial, colonial, and commercial questions, and the development and struggle for parliamentary government became the major issues occupying the government and the public.”
M. Guizot finds in the reign of William III only two points worth mentioning: the preservation of the balance of power between Parliament and crown, and the preservation of the European balance of power through the wars against Louis XIV. Under the Hanoverian dynasty, “public opinion suddenly takes a “different direction”, nobody knows how or why. Here one sees how M. Guizot superimposes the most commonplace phrases of French parliamentary debates on English history, believing he has thereby explained it. In the same way, Guizot also imagines that, as French Prime Minister, he carried on his shoulders the responsibility of preserving the proper equilibrium between Parliament and crown, as well as the European balance of power, and in reality he did nothing but huckster French society away piecemeal to the moneyed Jews of the Paris
M. Guizot does not think it worth mentioning that the struggle against Louis XIV was simply a war of competition aimed at the destruction of French naval power and commerce; nor does he mention the rule of the finance bourgeoisie through the establishment of the Bank of England under William III, nor the introduction of the public debt which then received its first sanction, nor that the manufacturing bourgeoisie received a new impetus by the consistent application of a system of protective tariffs. For Guizot, only political phrases are meaningful. He does not even mention that under Queen Anne the ruling parties could preserve themselves, as well as the constitutional monarchy, only by forcibly extending the term of Parliament to seven years, thus all but destroying any influence the people might have had on government.
Under the Hanoverian dynasty, England had already reached a stage of development where it could fight its wars of competition against France with modern means. England herself challenged France directly only in America and the East Indies, whereas on the Continent she contended herself with paying foreign sovereigns, such as Frederick II, to wage war against France. And while foreign policy assumed such a new form, M. Guizot has this to say: “Foreign policy ceased to be the major interest”, being replaced by “the maintenance of peace”. Regarding the statement that the “development and struggle for parliamentary government” became a major concern, one may recall the incidents of corruption under the Walpole Ministry, which, indeed, resemble very closely the scandals that became daily events under M. Guizot.
The fact that the English Revolution developed more successfully than the French can be attributed, according to M. Guizot, to two factors: first, that the English Revolution had a thoroughly religious character, and hence in mo way broke with all past traditions; and second, that from the very beginning it was not destructive but constructive, Parliament defending the old existing laws against encroachment by the crown.
In regard to the first point, M. Guizot seems to have forgotten that the free-thinking philosophy which makes him shudder so terribly when he sees it in the French Revolution was imported to France from no other country than England. Its father was Locke, and in Shaftesbury and Bolingbroke it had already achieved that ingenious form which later found such a brilliant development in France, We thus arrive at the strange conclusion that the same free-thinking philosophy which, according to M. Guizot, wrecked the French Revolution, was one of the most essential products of the religious English Revolution.
In regard to the second point, Guizot completely forgets that the French Revolution, equally conservative, began even more conservatively than the English. Absolutism, particularly as it finally appeared in France, was an innovation there too, and it was against this innovation that the parlements [French Diets] revolted to defend the old laws, the us et coutumes [usages and customs] of the old monarchy with its Estates General. And whereas the French Revolution was to revive the old Estates General that had quietly died since Henry IV and Louis XIV, the English Revolution, on the contrary, could show no comparable classical-conservative element.
According to M. Guizot, the main result of the English Revolution was that it made it impossible for the king to rule against the will of Parliament and the House of Commons. Thus, to him, the whole revolution consists only of this: that in the beginning both sides, crown and Parliament, overstep their bounds and go too far, until they finally find their proper equilibrium under William III and neutralize each other. M. Guizot finds it superfluous to mention that the subjection of the crown to Parliament meant subjection to the rule of a class. Nor does he think it necessary to deal with the fact that this class won the necessary power in order finally to make the crown its servant. According to him, the whole struggle between Charles I and Parliament was merely over purely political privileges. Not a word is said about why the Parliament, and the class represented in it, needed these privileges. Nor does Guizot talk about Charles I’s interference with free competition, which made England’s commerce and industry increasingly impossible; nor about the dependence on Parliament into which Charles I, in his continuous need for money, feel the more deeply the more he tried to defy it. Consequently, M. Guizot explains the revolution as being merely due to the ill will and religious fanaticism of a few troublemakers who would not rest content with moderate freedom. Guizot is just as little able to explain the interrelationship between the religious movement and the development of bourgeois society. To him, of course, the Republic [Crowmwell’s] is likewise the work of a mere handful of ambitious and malicious fanatics. Nowhere does he mention the attempts made to establish republics in Lisbon, Naples, and Messina at that time — attempts following the Dutch example, as England did.
Although M. Guizot never loses sight of the French Revolution, he does not even reach the simple conclusion that the transition from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy can take place only after violent struggles and passing through a republican stage, and that even then the old dynasty, having become useless, must make way for a usurpatory side line. Hence, Guizot can say only the most trivial commonplaces about the overthrow of the English Restoration monarchy. He does not even cite the most immediate causes: the fear on the part of the great new landowners, who had acquired property before the restoration of Catholicism — property robbed from the church — which they would have to change hands; the aversion of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie to Catholicism, a religion in now way suitable for its commerce; the nonchalance with which the Stuarts, for their own and their courtier’s benefit, sold all of England’s industry and commerce to the French government, that is, to the only country then in a position to offer England dangerous and often successful competition, etc. Since M. Guizot omits the most momentous points, there is nothing left for him but the highly unsatisfactory and banal narration of mere political events.
For M. Guizot, the great mystery is the conservative nature of the English Revolution, which he can ascribe only to the superior intelligence of the English, whereas in fact it can be found in the enduring alliance between the bourgeoisie and a great part of the landowners, an alliance that constitutes the major difference between it and the French Revolution, which destroyed the great landholdings with its parcelization policy. The English class of great landowners, allied with the bourgeoisie — which, incidentally, had already developed under Henry VIII — did not find itself in opposition — as did the French feudal landowners in 1789 — but rather in complete harmony with the vital requirements of the bourgeoisie. In fact, their lands were not feudal but bourgeois property. On the one hand, there were able to provide the industrial bourgeoisie with the manpower necessary for manufacturing, and on the other they were able to develop agriculture to the standards consonant with industry and commerce. Thus their common interests with the bourgeoisie, thus their alliance with it.
For Guizot, English history ends with the consolidation of the constitutional monarchy. For him, everything that follows is limited to a pleasant alternating game between Tories and Whigs, that is, to the great debate between M. Guizot and M. Thiers. In reality, however, the consolidation of the constitutional monarchy is only the beginning of the magnificent development and transformation of bourgeois society in England. Where M. Guizot sees only gentle calm and idyllic peace, in reality the most violent conflicts and the most penetrating revolutions are taking place. Under the constitutional monarchy, manufacturing at first expands to an extent hitherto unknown, only to make way for heavy industry, the steam engine, and the colossal factories. Whole classes of the population disappear, to be replaced by new ones, with new living conditions and new requirements. A new, more gigantic bourgeoisie comes into existence; while the old bourgeoisie fights with the French Revolution, the new one conquers the world market. It becomes so all-powerful that even before the Reform Bill gives it direct political power, it forces its opponents to enact legislation entirely in conformity with its interest and its needs. It wins direct representation in Parliament and uses it for the destruction of the last remnants of real power left to the landowners. It is, finally, at the present moment engaged in a thorough demolition of the beautiful codes of the English Constitution, which M. Guizot so admires.
And while M. Guizot compliments the English for the fact that the reprehensible excesses of French social life, republicanism and socialism, have not destroyed the foundations of their sanctified monarchy, the class antagonisms of English society have actually reached a height not found anywhere else, and the bourgeoisie, with its incomparable wealth and productive powers, confronts a proletariat which likewise has incomparable power and concentration. The respect that M. Guizot offers to England finally adds up to the fact that, under the protection of the constitutional monarchy, more, and more radical, elements of social revolutions have developed than in all other countries of the world together.
At the point where the threads of English history come together in a knot, when M. Guizot cannot even pretend to cut with mere political phrases, he takes refuge in religious catchwork, in God’s armed intervention. Thus, for example, the holy spirit suddenly descends on the army and prevents Cromwell from declaring himself king. Before his conscience, Guizot saves himself through God, before his profane public, he does so through his style.
In reality, not only do les rois s'en vont [the kings depart] but also les capacites de la bourgeoisie s'en vont [the capacities of the bourgeoisie disappear].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)