eBay item of the week, or, the other Mr. Oswald
The time has come for me to finally rid myself of the strange vinyl I’ve accumulated over the decades. And they don’t come much stranger than this particular item.
The Oswald Case: Mrs. Marguerite Oswald reads Lee Harvey Oswald’s Letters from Russia is an LP with an exemplary descriptive title. It dates from 1964 and features Mrs. Oswald reading Lee Harvey’s letters aloud and commenting on them. I’m not exactly sure how the LP is supposed to make a “case” for Lee Harvey Oswald being innocent of the murder of John F. Kennedy, but it is nevertheless a riveting listen as we hear Mrs. Oswald give her side of the story and, between the lines, express not only her frustration and disappointment with the way the assassination turned out, but also with the way her marriage turned out. It’s not very good history, perhaps, but it is a deeply sad, personal document of a love gone wrong and a country gone mad.
Readers of this journal are under no obligation to buy anything, as we are supposed to be gathered here to discuss screenplay structure, but if it turns out anyone here is interested in buying stuff, mention in your offer that you read about the item here and I’ll give you a hefty discount.
In a bizarre coincidence, Elvis Costello wrote a song about this Oswald as well.
UPDATE: I am a blithering idiot. Mrs. Marguerite Oswald is Lee Harvey’s mother, not his wife. Which would explain why she sounds so old on this recording. And which adds another layer of psychodrama to it.
Speaking of Elvis Costello…
“Calling Mr. Oswald with the swastika tattoo…”
Some additional material on the father.
Full lyrics here.
iTunes Catch of the Day: The Raconteurs
I first became aware of Jack White when his band The White Stripes were garnering praise for their 2001 album White Blood Cells. Back in those carefree and innocent days, the White Stripes were grouped by lazy critics with a then-emerging bunch of white-guys-playing-electric-guitars bands that I liked to call “The Silent-E Bands” because they all, mysteriously, had names ending in a silent E: The White Stripes, the Hives, the Vines, the Strokes. I bought all the records by all those bands because, well, I like to hear music by white guys playing electric guitars and that thing was at the time becoming an increasingly rare commodity.
(A big spark for my interest in the White Stripes in particular was this video for “Fell in Love with a Girl.”)
Here it is seven years later and I’ve sold all those CDs by all those bands back to the used-CD store, except for the White Stripes. The Vines? I couldn’t even tell you what they sounded like, and they made it to the cover of Rolling Stone. But the White Stripes? As far as I can tell they just get better and better, with no upper limit in sight that I can detect.
Jack White, I have found, is what I like to call “the real thing,” a serious, long-term artist exploding with a kind of talent that I think still hasn’t been adequately measured yet. As a songwriter he has a comprehensive understanding of popular music forms to stand beside that of Bob Dylan or Elvis Costello (two anchors of my collection), plus he can play guitar like nobody’s business and sing better than either of those two guys. That, in my book, is quite a formidable package.
A couple of years ago he announced a side project, The Raconteurs, a band with him a bunch of other guys I’ve never heard of but who I am sure are all talented musicians. Their first record I bought and enjoyed but there was something a little pale about it, like the elements weren’t quite gelling somehow. It was a side project and it sounded like a side project. This is not the case with their new album, Consolers of the Lonely which appeared out of nowhere a few days ago (it had no advance publicity) and has not left my attention since. It is dense, loud, poppy, bluesy, rootsy and irresistible. They sound like a real band, mixing together more influences than I can accurately name. It is not a side project, or it doesn’t sound like one at any rate. It sounds like a major release from a major band and I unreservedly recommend this record to the musically inclined.
UPDATE: I thought the Beatles references on this record might have been accidental or unintentional, but check out the vest Jack White wears in this video and compare it to the one worn by McCartney in Magical Mystery Tour. I knew Jack was the cute one.
Robert Fagles
Robert Fagles was not a movie star, director, producer or screenwriter. He was merely a translator, but if it wasn’t for his lucid, readable adaptations of The Iliad and The Odyssey my understanding of classic literature would be much poorer. Why not read one today?
Spielberg: 1941 part 2
1941 is known as a “comedy spectacle,” a kind of Animal House Goes to War. It is occasionally raunchy, but in a light-hearted, good-natured way. Much bigotry is on display, but it invariably comes from idiots and slobs. It has a sunny, generous, forgiving attitude to the morons and clowns who populate its sprawling, unwieldy plot. I think this attitude, which I ascribe to Spielberg’s approach toward the screenplay, is a mistake.
When I got my “collector’s edition” of 1941 a couple of years ago, the first thing I noticed is that it’s a terrible transfer of a terrible print. The second thing I noticed was that it was twenty-odd minutes longer. So the folks at Universal are saying, essentially, “You know that movie everyone hates? Well now it looks awful and is longer than you remember! The quality of the transfer is still a mystery to me, but it turns out that the longer cut is Spielberg’s. On my first viewing, the “restored” scenes felt superfluous at best and clunky at worst — they threw off the rhythms of a movie that had always had problems but which had always at least moved at a decent clip.
On a second viewing, the DVD still looks abysmal but the restored scenes revealed a darker, more cynical, subversive aspect to the movie.
1941‘s theme is “wartime madness.” Characters in the movie use the threat of invasion as an excuse for all kinds of socially inappropriate behavior, ranging from petty theft to attempted murder. Sex is uppermost on the minds of many folks, but for others the plot machinations of 1941 are an excuse to give vent to unchecked prejudices. Since everyone likes sex, let’s discuss that first.
SEX. As everyone knows, the movie begins with Cmdr Mitamura’s submarine “skewering” (Spielberg’s word) a skinny-dipper off the coast of Northern California. It then moves on to Donna Stratton’s airplane fetish and Maxine’s soldier fetish, not to mention Capt Kelso’s free-floating infantilism. In the “restored” cut, there is a darker version of this. The female dancers at the USO club are coached by their leader Miss Fitzroy that their job is to “entertain” soldiers and sailors before they go off to war. Nothing is left to the imagination as to what “entertaining” constitutes — Miss Fitzroy is, essentially, a madam for the US government, telling the women of the country that it is their patriotic duty to submit to the desires of horny soldiers. Many of the young ladies at the USO eagerly agree with this advice — they’re as crazy about soldiers as Donna Stratton is about planes. “Good girl” Betty Douglas feels less certain — she’s kind of sweet on non-soldier Wally, and has come to the aggressive attention of meathead antagonist Chuck Sitarsky (who in turn is the object of Maxine’s unwanted desires). Before leaving for the big dance, Betty’s father Ward takes her aside for what we suspect is going to be a “be careful” lecture. But no! Betty’s father gives her the exact same orders as Miss Fitzroy. As Ward is too old to fight in the war and his sons are too young, he feels that whoring his daughter out to departing soldiers is the best he can do to contribute to the war effort. (Ward, of course, later gets to contribute to the war by shooting off a big gun, destroying his home in the process. Wartime fetishes, apparently, will destroy the American home — not to mention significant portions of Hollywood.)
Now then:
RACE. There is a scene somewhere in Act II of the restored cut of 1941 where Pvt Jones, a black soldier, reports for duty in Sgt Tree’s tank crew. The otherwise-white crew members humiliate Jones, and one, Pvt Foley, goes so far as to paint his face white. It’s an ugly scene, not at all funny, and it throws the movie deeply out of whack. But on a second viewing I found it to be the tip of an iceberg of racial undertones that make up an entire missing “shadow movie” that moves underneath the text of 1941 like Mitamura’s submarine runs underneath the waters of the Califorfornia coast.
We could start with the cast’s general animus toward the “Japs,” but that aspect is fairly well known, and we know that the filmmakers don’t hate the Japanese because Mitamura is the most dignified and honorable character in the movie. Let’s start instead with Wally, one of the major protagonists (and the sole protagonist of the original script). Wally Stephens is played by Bobby DiCicco, and, despite his dark hair and eyes, exudes about as much “ethnicity” as Barry Williams. Wally is criticized by Sgt Tree and his crew for his taste in clothes several times during the movie, once for his garish Hawaiian shirt commemorating Pearl Harbor (which makes no sense to me) and again for his sleek black-and-red zoot suit. In the theatrical cut, Wally’s zoot suit has no racial importance, but in the restored cut we see Wally hanging out with his Mexican friends before entering the big dance. And of course, any student of Los Angeles history knows that the zoot suit was the trademark of the Mexican hipster in LA, and one of the underdeveloped plot strands of 1941 is the zoot-suit riots of the 1940s, where servicemen battled Mexicans (apparently prodded by a bloodthirsty media — the “riots” were announced, and promoted, in advance by racist radio commentators). So Wally, it seems, if not Mexican himself, is “identified” as such by the racial indicators of the script.
Then there is Capt von Kleinschmidt, the Nazi tagging along with Mitamura, who keeps his Nazism in check for most of the movie, but ultimately informs Mitamura that he and his yellow-skinned countrymen have no place in Hitler’s thousand-year Reich. Von Kleinschmidt is immediately thrown overboard for his bigotry, but many other characters are not punished so greatly.
General Stillwell is accorded great dignity and gravitas by the filmmakers, and gets big laughs when we see him tearing up at Dumbo. In the theatrical cut, we see Stillwell laughing along with the crows as they taunt Dumbo, but in the restored version the scene goes on much longer and includes almost the entire “elephant fly” song. Stillwell knows the song by heart and recites it along with the movie characters, and when it’s over he applauds and invites the officers around him to join in. At first this scene felt like padding, but then I remembered that the crows in Dumbo are minstrel characters. It’s one thing to show Stillwell chuckling along with a racist cartoon, but to show him reciting the lyrics by heart and then applauding implies that, beneath his calm, sane exterior, Stillwell is as racist as Pvt Foley — he just doesn’t know it.
Where are the Jews in this World War II movie from the future director of Schindler’s List? I can identify two. First is USO bandleader Raoul, who, apropos of nothing, reveals his last name to be Lipschitz, which makes him a typical Hollywood Jew, changing his name to something dark and glamorous to make it in show business. Then there is the infamous gnat Herbie Kazlminsky, who, in addition to being a stereotypical Jew, is a dead ringer for the director. To drive the point home, Spielberg gives Herbie a ventriloquist dummy who looks even more like Spielberg than Herbie does.
(Wait — there is a third, Hollywood Bigshot Meyer Mishkin, who is the judge at the dance contest. His character is also a Hollywood Jew, but one from the other side of the table — a shot-caller, not a performer. They didn’t need to change their names — they didn’t need to be loved by the public.)
(It’s odd that in a movie filled with so much racism, no Polish jokes are lobbed at Sitarksky, and the presence of an Italian neighborhood-watch captain, complete with old-world Italian harridan wife, goes unremarked.)
The setup scene between Pvts Foley and Jones is missing from the theatrical cut, but its answer scene remains: in Act IV, a bag of flour or something explodes in Pvt Jones’s face, rendering him white. Foley laughs heartily at this and is answered with an explosion of soot in his own face. When Jones laughs back at Foley, he screams in horror at the notion of appearing to be black.
All these scenes imply that 1941 had, at some point in its development. a much darker, more satirical, more subversive purpose, to suggest that America is an inherently racist, sexually perverse country and that wartime is welcomed by Americans as an excuse to vent that racism and perversion. That message is certainly as true today as it was in 1979, but it explains why John Wayne and Charlton Heston both recoiled in horror when Spielberg asked them to play Stillwell.
There is a moment in the “making-of” documentary where Spielberg recalls Wayne’s reaction, saying that he felt the script was “a slap in the face” of America and the memory of World War II. Spielberg then amends the comment by saying that 1941 is a pie in the face of America and the memory of World War II. Between those two “face” comments, I think, is where 1941 went wrong. Spielberg was given a script with some relatively serious questions to ask about America’s national character and responded by making a movie that is primarily about stuff blowing up. Spielberg mentions that when he got the script he skipped straight to the end because he wanted to read the scene where the Japanese submarine blows up the Ferris Wheel on the Santa Monica Pier, loved it, and wanted the rest of the movie to be just like that.
That is, indeed, the net result. The nice thing is that, as spectacle, 1941 works pretty well, and once the big USO dance-contest set piece kicks in, the movie hits a groove, mows down its lapses in narrative logic, and gets by on sheer kineticism for the rest of its considerable running time. The action sequences, always and forever a Spielberg forte, sizzle and pop as they should, and the craziness reaches an appropriate fever pitch in the final reels. But I for one will from now on watch 1941 and wonder about the other movie that’s hiding in there somewhere among the hijinks.
Richard Widmark
I can’t say that the death of Richard Widmark, at 93, is much of a surprise at this point, but I must say I’m disappointed his death was not caused by being pushed down a flight of stairs by a giggling psychopath. And I say that with the deepest respect.
Spielberg: 1941 part 1
Everyone knows that 1941 is flawed. Spielberg knows it, the screenwriters know it, the studios that released it know it, most audiences know it. The question I wish to address here is why it is flawed. What is wrong with 1941, and how could it have been a better movie?
For this journal entry, I got out that abysmal DVD (there is no other version available) and watched the movie again. I did some research and found that this longer cut is, in fact, the cut Spielberg prefers, so I tried watching it again to see if perhaps, somehow, there was something I had missed in my prejudice against abysmal DVD transfers. I found, in fact, there was. The deleted scenes, while not making 1941 a “better” movie per se, point toward the movie 1941 was trying to be, a movie that seems to have gotten lost somewhere in the development process.
End of tangent.
Where are the flaws of 1941? How did it go wrong? Anyone familiar with this journal will be able to guess my answer — the director took his eye off the protagonist. Everything wrong with 1941 stems from a decision made, early on in the process, to stick a bunch of stuff in the narrative that has nothing to do with the protagonists’ pursuit of their goals.
Who is the protagonist of 1941? As it stands, there are several — three, by my count. The “restored” version indicates a stronger argument for a more classical single protagonist, and the “making of” documentary that fills out the DVD backs this up. The single protagonist of the original screenplay was Wally, the jitterbug-crazy kid who wants only to win a dance contest with his girlfriend and who winds up becoming a war hero. This is a perfectly decent character arc and would have formed the spine of a much better movie.
WHAT DOES THE PROTAGONIST WANT? As it stands, the movie has three protagonists I can identify. They are Wally, Lt. Birkhead and Cmdr Mitamura. Wally wants to win the jitterbug contest, Lt. Birkhead wants to bang this one girl, and Cmdr Mitamura wants to achieve “honor” by destroying Hollywood.
Now then: there are problems even here. Lt. Birkhead’s story conks out at the end of Act III, which makes him a minor protagonist at best, and we find, in Act IV, that Mitmura is, in fact, Wally’s antagonist, somethingthat neither character realizes until the beginning of Act IV. A protagonist who doesn’t even know he has an antagonist until Act IV is a very sad protagonist indeed, which is why I’m going to go ahead and call Mitamura a second protagonist. That, and there is a serious lack of antagonists in 1941. There is only Sitarsky, the meathead soldier who stands in Wally’s way of his goal, and Von Kleinschmidt, the Nazi who hangs out with Mitamura. Neither functions terribly well as an antagonist, which is another slight problem the movie has. 1941‘s lack of serious antagonists indicates a central problem of the movie — it has a generally sunny, light-hearted, forgiving, generous view of humanity, a stance in direct opposition to its screenplay.
Let’s go back to Wally for a moment. Wally has a girlfriend, Betty, whom he wants to take to a dance and win a jitterbug contest. Wally has a number of forces arrayed against him: he’s not a soldier (which makes him a second-class citizen), he wears a zoot suit (which casts him in an unfavorable light and means he can’t get in to the “soldiers only” dance hall, which has been converted into a USO), Betty’s father doesn’t approve of him, and there’s this guy Sitarsky who wants to muscle in on his action. Wally’s story arc goes like this: he steals a zoot suit from a department store by creating a fake air raid, he goes to Betty’s house to meet her and instead confronts Sitarsky, who beats him up and sends him packing. In Act II, Wally goes to the big dance contest, steals an army uniform to get in, finds Betty, and is confronted by Sitarsky again. A fight ensues, one that is interrupted by a real air raid. (It’s not a real air raid, but Wally doesn’t know that.) In Act III Wally, by dint of comic happenstance, bests Sitarsky, gets the girl and takes command of a tank. In Act IV Wally, now a tank commander and filled with patriotic fervor, drives his tank out to Santa Monica to do battle with Mitamura.
Here is Lt. Birkhead’s story: Lt. Birkhead is a young, randy general’s aide. He’s got his eye on Donna Stratton, a comely wench with a thing for airplanes. Birkhead knows that if he can get her up into an airplane, Donna can be his. In Act I, he tries to make it with Donna in a parked airplane and fails miserably. In Act II he journeys with Donna to Barstow, where a small airplane in the care of an insane army colonel is located. In Act III he gets Donna up in the air and, after some initial jitters, succeeds in getting a leg over with the comely wench. He is also, however, mistaken for a Japanese plane by the army, which sets off the air raid that disrupts Wally’s arc in Hollywood. In addition to being shot at by anti-aircraft guns in the streets of Hollywood, Birkhead is pursued by Capt. Wild Bill Kelso, a deranged, trigger-happy pilot, and is shot down into the La Brea Tar Pits. Birkhead’s story ends with the conclusion of Act III.
Here is Mitamura’s story: Mitamura is, for reasons unclear, commanding a submarine off the coast of California. He has taken it upon himself to destroy Hollywood. He has a number of forces arrayed against him: his ship is old and falling apart, his crew is incompetent and he’s got this Nazi on board who’s a pain in his ass. In Act I Mitamura, searching for Hollywood, first finds a skinnydipper, then a man named Hollis Wood, neither of whom helps him in the pursuit of his goal. In Act II he kind of isn’t in the movie much, in Act III he locates Santa Monica and settles on that as a substitute for Hollywood and does battle with Ward Douglas, Betty’s father, who happens to have an anti-aircraft gun stationed in his front yard. In Act IV Mitamura battles with Kelso, who comes at him after shooting down Birkhead, and Wally, who arrives with his newly acquired tank. Mitamura shoots down Kelso, blows up Wally’s tank and destroys the amusement park on the Santa Monica pier. He then tosses the Nazi overboard and sails back to Japan, contentthat he has achieved his goal of honor. As he leaves, he also acquires Kelso, who climbs into his submarine.
So far, so good. Three protagonists with neatly interlocking storylines and a coherent “vision” of wartime madness. Everyone in the movie operates under false pretenses, there is never any real threat from anywhere and the protagonists achieve their goals, if only in their own minds.
There are minor protagonists in the movie. There is Joan Douglass, Ward’s wife, whose goal is to keep order in her house. Not only is her goal uninteresting, her pursuit of it is passive and ineffective. She suffers, which is common enough in real life, but a weak arc for a comedy spectacle. There is General Stillwell, whose goal is to keep order in Los Angeles, which for him means going to see Dumbo in Hollywood. Stillwell is an interesting character but a passive, reactive protagonist. And there is Claude Crumm, whose goal is to watch out for submarines from the top of the Ferris Wheel in Santa Monica. He has been saddled with an antagonist in the form of Herbie Kazlminsky, an annoying, hyperactive teen and is, like the others, passive and reactive.
But wait, I hear you cry. Aren’t the stars of this movie John Belushi and Dan Ackroyd? That’s what the cover of the DVD says. Sadly, no. Belushi and Ackroyd play, respectively, Capt Kelso and Sgt Tree. Kelso is a minor antagonist in Lt. Birkhead’s storyline, and Sgt Tree is a minor plot-point in Wally’s storyline. Kelso is there to shoot down Birkhead and Tree is there to get knocked silly during the fake air raid, so that Wally can take command of the tank and become a war hero.
And there, dear readers, is the key to understanding what the primary problem is with 1941. Someone (all signs point to Spielberg) lost track of the protagonist of the movie (that is, Wally) and re-shaped the screenplay to devote significant screen-time to peripheral characters. Here’s what happens: the screenwriters have this minor character, Kelso, whose job it is to be a little trigger-happy and shoot down Lt. Birkhead over Hollywood. Spielberg casts John Belushi, the biggest comedy star on the planet at the time, in the role, and thus decides to expand the part into a major role. Problem is, there isn’t that much more that Kelso can contribute to the narrative. So we have, instead, in Acts I and II, numerous scenes of Kelso flying around, acting crazy and shooting at things, and in Act IV a totally superfluous attack on Mitamura’s submarine. Some of these scenes are indeed spectacular and some are even funny, but none of them contribute to the narrative and thus the audience finds them confusing and they contribute to the movie feeling overlong and unwieldy. Sgt Tree presents another problem which I will get to later.
Then there is the sad case of Hollis Wood. The role of Hollis Wood is, narratively speaking, a minor glitch in Mitamura’s pursuit of his goal. He sends his men ashore to find Hollywood, and they end up with Hollis Wood’s radio. That is all the character is required to do — to provide a radio for Mitamura. Spielberg cast beloved character actor Slim Pickens in the role and so the screenplay needed to be re-shaped to provide something for Hollis Wood to do — in this case, be kidnapped by Japanese soldiers dressed as Christmas trees, be interrogated by Mitamura, swallow a compass found in a box of Cracker Jack (“Popper Jacks” in the movie, for some reason) and be threatened with a prune-juice-informed bowel movement. None of this works for a number of different reasons and at the end of their encounter Hollis Wood gets away, Mitamura doesn’t get his compass (but does get his radio, which is all he needed) and Act I of 1941 is slowed down to a crawl.
(Having cast Pickens in the role, Spielberg could not resist inserting a reference to Dr. Strangelove, when Hollis Wood itemizes, Maj. Kong-style, the contents of his pockets. And for whatever reason, the joke had gone by me the previous 10 times or so I’ve seen this movie. When I did “get” it, it didn’t make the scene better for me — it made it worse. Because I suddenly realized that Spielberg had put Toshiro Mifune (who plays Mitamura), the quintessential Kurosawa star, and Slim Pickens, the icon of one of Kubrick’s greatest moments, in a scene together, put one of them in his underwear, and then had them discuss bowel movements. At one point in the scene, Mitamura turns to the camera and says, woefully, “This has not been honorable,” and all I could think was “I feel your pain, brother.”)
There is much more to say about this intriguing and complex misfire, but this will have to do for now. I will pick this up later, where I will discuss the missed opportunities of the movie and the “shadow movie” that exists beside the existing one.
Mace Windu for Chancellor
Say what you want about the Star Wars prequels, they are excellent tools for teaching a six-year-old boy about the basics of democracy.
Yesterday I was in a post office with my son Sam (6) and he saw a big cardboard standup for the HBO John Adams bio-pic, and he said “Who is that guy? I’m seeing this poster everywhere!” So I started to explain to him who John Adams was and what he did and what his role was in the formation of the United States, and that necessitated an explanation of monarchy vs. democracy, and at that point Sam chimed in and said “Yeah, like in Episode III, Chancellor Palpatine is supposed to be the leader of the Senate, where people are supposed to get together and talk about what’s best for everyone, but instead he’s just making everyone fight each other and sitting back and laughing at them all because he’s really controlling everything.” Then I blinked a few times and decided Sam didn’t need to know that much more about John Adams for a while.
Anyway, we were watching Revenge of the Sith the other day, and if you ever need to explain what is going on in this country right now to a six-year-old boy, you could certainly find worse teaching tools than this movie. All the players are there and the political delineations are as clear as could be. Palpatine is a corrupt, cynical politician scheming to become an emperor, starting a war to give himself expansive executive powers, controlling the Senate and the courts to make sure no one can oppose him, et cetera ad infinitum. This is not news, it’s pretty obvious that the movie is intended as a criticism of the Bush/Cheney doctrine.
And then, about 2/3 of the way through the movie, Sam, apropos of nothing, says “I think Mace Windu should be elected Chancellor.” Which kind of created a moment of clarity for me. Mace Windu (the “stoic” Jedi, according to starwars.com) is a wise, well-spoken, incorruptible warrior-priest, who sees (eventually) what Palpatine is and seeks to remove him from power. He fails, and dies, but Sam is correct — none of this would have happened if Mace Windu had been Chancellor. Which inspired me to make this:
Inspiration here.
UPDATE: Sam just walked in, saw this entry on my computer, and said “That guy with ‘HOPE’ on him? Is either Mace Windu or God.”
Oh, and honestly, I am going to do a post on 1941, and it honestly will be worth it.
Paul Scofield
It is not the function of this journal to become an Endless Parade of Death, but here we are again.
Paul Scofield didn’t make that many movies, and when he did make a movie he generally played classical roles, guys in doublets and funny hats. He’s best known for his performance as Sir Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons (opposite Robert Shaw as Henry VIII, who we were just discussing the other day). But I will always remember him as The Dad in Quiz Show, a film about which
once said: “You could bounce a quarter off that movie.”
One of the things that movies do, for good and for ill, is teach us how to behave. You like to think that, if you were a secret agent charged with saving the world, you could witness the grisly death of a mortal enemy and a witty quip would simply come to you, you wouldn’t need to practice it beforehand or have a running list in your head. You like to think that, if you were a nightclub owner in wartime Africa, you’d have the moral rectitude to force your old girlfriend to go off with her husband for the good of the world, even though every fiber of your being longs to have her with you always. On some level, dramatic structures exist to do just this: to present moral and behavioral circumstances and instruct us on what is the best way to behave under those circumstances. If your father is shot down in the street, you rush to his side and protect him, even if he’s a Mafia don and you can’t stand that part of him — that’s just what one does.
There is a scene somewhere in Act III of Quiz Show where The Son goes back home to ask The Dad for advice in his plight, and it’s the middle of the night, and The Dad is in his bathrobe, and the two men sit at the kitchen table and have some chocolate cake. And Ralph Fiennes and Scofield are wonderful in the scene, and director Robert Redford knows the lives of privileged WASPs like nobody’s business, and it’s a perfectly realized scene of WASPy father-son relations. And it all revolves around this chocolate cake, which symbolizes all the comforts and rights The Son has lost in straying from the True Path, and that cake in that scene is photographed so well, so dark and so light, so moist and so solid, so well photographed that it made me intensely nostalgic for some ideal lost piece of chocolate cake in my own wayward WASP life, and of course for the absence of a kind, wise, brilliant WASP father. Scofield in that scene became a kind of framework I could hang my notions of WASP fatherhood on, and someday, when my own full-grown son comes to my house in the middle of the night with a humiliating tale of dishonoring the family name by cheating on a quiz show, I hope to God I will have the foresight to have a perfectly-realized chocolate cake in sitting around nearby for comfort. And of course the wisdom Scofield so effortlessly conveyed.
Anthony Minghella
Oh my God, I completely missed the news that Anthony Minghella died. The Talented Mr. Ripley is one of my favorite movies of all time and now I’m sad I never got to tell him so. He also directed a stunning adaptation of Samuel Beckett’s Play that was a highlight of the Beckett on Film project, and is well worth seeking out.
At least I don’t have to worry about him being bored or uncomfortable during his long elevator ride to Heaven, he’s got Arthur C. Clarke to talk to. Unless, of course, Clarke went straight to being reborn as a giant foetus orbiting Jupiter.