I finally caught up with The September Issue, R.J. Kutler’s documentary about Anna Wintour and the making of Vogue’s large, vital September issue, this time in 2007. I thought it was great. I loved seeing Anna Wintour–I have never met her, but she reminded me of some of the great editors that I worked for, a person whose insistence on quality was so strong and uncompromising that she is considered tough and unfair and monstrous by the less perceptive, less committed people around her. I thought the movie captured very well the enormous pressures that she alone at the magazine carries on her narrow shoulders–meeting with the designers, the advertisers, the retailers, her publishing colleagues, even as she captains this complex, creative enterprise called Vogue magazine, demanding not only that it produce but lead, not only that it appear but that it astonish. I actually found her a sympathetic and approachable figure. I also loved the film’s depiction of Wintour’s relationship with Creative Director Grace Coddington (pictured left, with Wintour), which is often depicted as tense or testy, but which is clearly one of mutual respect and affection where the tension is a product not of ego (well, not altogether of ego) but of fierce commitments to slightly different imperatives (Coddington’s is to artistic vision, Wintour’s is to the overall success of the enterprise) that are usually but not always in sync. But the film was great–my stomach clenched, my heart raced, and I found myself wishing I had a magazine to go to work for.
Drove up to my house last Friday afternoon, found a guy in a car with Virginia plates in my driveway. This isn’t exactly a vision we’ve never experienced before. We’re the first driveway off the first street off an exit of a reasonably busy road that forbods people from making a left hand turn and going on their merry way. Hence: a right turn, a left onto the first street, a left into the first driveway; reverse course, and off they go. But this guy was different; he wasn’t turning, he was sitting–gabbing on his cell phone. I hovered nearly and honked–once, twice–but got nada: no wafted fingers promising an imminent response. So I elaboately turned around (in my neighbor’s driveway), parked on the street, grabbed the two big shopping bags I had with me, and went over and rapped on his window. So absorbed in his conversation was he that he leaped in his seat, and then turned to me. “I’m just turning around!” he blurted. The blatant lie of an excuse angered me. “Bullshit!” I said. “You’re talking on my phone. Now get the fuck out of my driveway.” And he immediately did so, and drove away. So: nastier phrasing than that used by Clint Eastwood’s cranky old man in Gran Torino (“Get off my lawn!”) and probably less provocation. But then I wasn’t brandishing a gun.
On Sunday Ginny and I went to the Burns Center for a big screen viewing of what has been one of her longtime favorites, Gone With the Wind. I had seen the film the view times, and it was never one of my favorites. But the critic and historian Molly Haskell (pictured at right, with critic Janet Maslin)introduced the picture Sunday, and some of her comments helped me appreciate what was going on, and I liked it very much. Haskell called Scarlett O’Hara a teen rebel, and I guess I never before really thought of her that way–as someone very young and very immature and equipped with a very age-specific set of social tools. I guess I had always thought of her as a grown woman, and as such, someone whose character flaws really made her an unpleasant person. Also, I never really considered what the film was “about”, but this time, Rhett Butler’s comments about southern self-delusion made their subsequent travails seem like self-inflicted wounds, and not the result of Yankee belligerence; during these days when our self-delusions about war and greed have come so painfully home to roost, this idea seemed very pertinent. And despite all the verbiage about cavaliers and chivalry, the film’s point of view is not terribly sympathetic to the south’s sufferings. Some other thoughts: Vivian Leigh was really beautiful and really an incredibly good actress; I wish she had done more film work. Clark Gable really was a limited actor; Haskell made a good point, though, about how he had to play against type, because in most films he easily gets the girl, and here he can’t get the girl no matter how hard he campaigns. Also, did Bernie Mac steal his act from Hattie McDaniel? Almost, almost. And overall, the first half is a really terrific movie; the second half, when it draws inward and concerns itself merely with the tangled feelings of Scarlett, Rhett, Ashley and Melanie, is really less interesting. It’s hard to care, ultimately, about these people who just can’t get out of their own way and accept some kind of happiness.
Many years ago, Walter Kirn worked in the cubicle next to me at Spy, and he was a most entertaining neighbor (in fact, Walter was succeeded by Jim Collins and then by Larry Doyle. On the other side, I had Joanne Gruber. Spy provided me with tremendous neighbors.) During Walter’s short tenure, we spent pretty much the first half hour of every day talking over the wall, and because Walter lived a very different life than mine–he was literary, and a drinker, and a midwestern Mormon Princetonian, and in the process of divorcing his pretty English wife–I found him endlessly fascinating. Plus he always had interesting stuff to say, like whether everybody in the world could be divided into digital and analog camps. There was a day, or maybe more than one day, when Walter came in and expounded on airport life, on how all the things you do there are different than what you do in real life. You eat food you never eat anywhere else and read USA Today, which you never read anywhere else, and read novels that you don’t read anywhere else. He went on and on. I Wish I remembered his riffs more exactly, because they were so smart and funny, and because this one, no doubt, became his novel Up in the Air. Which, I confess, I have not read, but which inspired a movie that I saw last night, and which I admired very much (even though the movie does not contain the novel’s best line, “Fast friends aren’t my only friends, but they’re my best friends.” There was much to like, mostly the rather sad and unsparing ending to which the film builds. My favorite moment, though, came in a scene that takes place at a meeting. All of the road warriors, of which George Clooney is one of the best, have been gathered by their boss Jason Bateman, and there, sitting at table next to George, playing one of the road warriors, is Walter. They are watching video of someone being fired, and the person doing the firing says to the displaced worker “Anybody who ever built an empire or changed the world sat where you are now. And it’s because they sat there that they were able to do it.” It’s a line George spoke earlier in the film, and at that moment, a disgruntled George turns to Walter and says “That’s my line! I came up with that!” or words to that effect. I like that–the actor telling the original writer “That’s my line! I came up with that!” I know for a fact where the whole thing originated. Congratulations, Walter!
Yesterday my sister Rose Marie drove up from Maryland for a post-Christmas visit. We had a very fine time, playing Guitar Hero, looking at some of dad’s old slides, continuing our holiday of overeating at Mughal Palace in Hawthorne, and going to the late show of Avatar in 3D at the City Center Imax in White Plains. I don’t know what this visually and aurally stunning film would be like on an ordinary big screen or in two mere Ds, but I’m awfully glad to have seen it with all bells and whistles attached and deployed.
Being from Chicago, but by way of Honolulu and Jakarta and many other points west and east, President Obama may not be fully steeped in the doctrines of the Chicago School of Management, as expounded by the eminent Professor Al Capone. Employing phraseology composed by wordsmith David Mamet, Mr. Capone discoursed on the fundamentals of organizational success by employing a baseball metaphor. “A man stands alone at a plate. This is a time for individual achievement. But in the field–what? [He’s} part of a team. Looks, throws, catches, hustles–part of one big team.” With his recalcitrant behavior on the health care bill this week, Joe Lieberman, the entirely-too-independent senator from Connecticut, has made it abundantly clear to the president and his colleagues on the hill that he has forgotten this principle entirely. Therefore, after the new year, after a weaker health care bill is passed, this entirely-too-independent senator should get a pointed reminder, and be replaced as chairman of the prestigious Senate Homeland Security Committee. It is past time to get tough. The president has spent his entire first year playing Kumbaya with the Congress, and it has netted him less than optimal results–a smaller and more scattered stimulus bill, more anemic health care reform than was once thought possible, no bipartisanship to speak of. Machiavelli advised the prince that it is better to be loved than feared, but since it is not possible to be loved all the time, it is more useful to be feared. Everyone in Washington loves President Obama, but no one fears him. He desperately needs to administer a dose of discipline, as close to Chicago-style as possible, and Joe Lieberman s begging to be the recipient.
A couple of weeks ago in London, at a fundraiser for a prisoners’ rights organization Reprieve, the British writer Philip Pullman, the author of the His Dark Materials trilogy (better known in the US as The Golden Compass) unveiled an alternative Bible passage that suggested a different fate for Jesus. According to a report in The Telegraph, Pullman, an outspoken atheist, imagined what would have happened if Jesus had had a fair trial. Which is all well and good, but my question is, If you’re going to start mucking about with one of the world’s best known stories, why limit yourself?
*
Slowly Jesus opened his eyes, Where am I, he wondered. He listened; from the other room, he could hear the sound of water running.
Confused, Jesus stepped into the hallway and pushed open the bathroom door. He was shocked to see a man inside the shower. “Good morning!’’ the man beamed.
“Bobby?’’ the mystified Jesus responded. “Bobby Ewing?’’
“What’s the matter. Jesus? You look like you’ve just seen a ghost!’’
“Oh Bobby, it was awful! I had a nightmare! When I woke up, I thought you were dead!’’
“Go back to sleep, Jesus,’’ said Bobby gently. “It was only a dream.’’
*
Jesus looked deep into Ilsa’s eyes. “If that plane leaves the ground and you’re not on it, you’ll regret it,’’ he said. “Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.’’
Ilsa’s eyes brimmed with tears. “But what about us?’’ she asked.
“We’ll always have Cana.’’
The couple turned towards Pilate. The urbane Roman consul shrugged. “Round up the usual suspects!’’ he barked.
*
Sprawled on the ground, bleeding from his wounds, the Scorpio Killer stared in the face of Jesus. His gun sat about three feet away. He knew it, and he knew Jesus knew it.
“I know what you’re thinking, punk,’’ Jesus said. “You’re thinking, `Did he recite all eight of the Beatitudes, or only seven?’ Now to tell you the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow you head clean off, you’ve gotta ask yourself a question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk?’’
The killer lunged for the revolver, and Jesus fired.
“You forgot,’’ he said quietly to himself. “ Blessed are the peacemakers.’’
*
“I’m going back to Charleston,’’ Jesus said wearily, “where I belong.’’ Scarlett threw herself at him. “Please take me!’’ she begged.
“No, I’m through. I want peace. I want to see if somewhere there isn’t something left in life of charm and grace.’’
“Jesus, where shall I go? What shall I do?’’
“Frankly, my dear,’’ said Jesus, “I don’t give a damn.’’
“Then—who will?’’ Scarlett demanded. “You and your father—you’re the big damners. ‘’
For a moment, Jesus was dumbstruck. He had never thought of it that way. “Maybe you’re right,’’ he said tentatively. “Things would sure be different if there was less damning.’’
“More patience,’’ says Scarlett. “More encouragement.’’
“I could be a kind of a Live and Let Live Jesus.’’
“It’s worth a try, don’t you think?’’
“Well come on, then,’’ said Jesus, holding out his hand. “You going to have to help me explain it to Pop.’’
*
“Sit down, Judas,’’ said Jesus. “You have to answer for your actions. You fingered me for the high priests and the Pharisees. That little farce you played out in Gethsemane–did Caiaphis make you think that would fool the Son of God’’
“Don’t do this to me, ‘’ pleaded Judas. “I swear I’m innocent.’’
“Caiaphis is dead,’’ said Jesus quietly. “So is Pilate. So are the Sanhedrin. Barzini. Philip Tattaglia. Moe Greene. Tonight I’m settling all the family accounts. But don’t worry—I’m not going to make my sister a widow. Just don’t insult my intelligence.’’
“It was Caiaphis,’’ said Judas, weeping.
“Good. Now I’m putting you in a car to take you to the airport.’’
In the car, Judas sighed with relief. His shirt was soaked with sweat. He turned his head to see if he knew the man who was in the back seat. It was John, the Beloved Disciple, who at that very moment slipped his garrote around Judas’s throat.
*
They sped away in Osgood’s roadster. Everything had worked out. Joe and Sugar had found one another, and all of them had escaped the gangsters. But still Jesus didn’t feel right. Osgood was a decent man, and Jesus was ashamed that he had disguised himself and played on Osgood’s feelings.
“Osgood, I’m gonna level with you,’’ Jesus said. “We can’t get married at all. ‘’Why not?’’
“Well,’’ Jesus prevaricated, “in the first place, I’m not a natural blonde.’’
“Doesn’t matter.’’
“And I have a terrible past. For three years now, I’ve been living with a saxophone player.’’
“I forgive you,’’ said Osgood.
“And I can never have children! ‘’
“We can adopt some,’’ Osgood said calmly.
“But you don’t understand, Osgood! ‘’ Jesus finally exclaimed. “I am the Resurrection and the Life!”
“Well,’’ Osgood shrugged, “nobody’s perfect!
“Provided that a character is smart enough and manipulative enough,” reads a post on tvtropes.org, “they can get the people around them to do just about anything. Sometimes this can be accomplished by the power of charisma, but other times it needs to be perpetrated through an elaborate scheme. This scheme takes into account everything that The Chessmaster (as well as the viewer) knows about the characters being manipulated, and uses it against them. The patsies in this scheme only act and respond as their own predictability dictates and all the pieces fall into place. This is the essence of the Batman Gambit, which is a storytelling device that can be used by any unusually intelligent character, be they good or evil, to achieve what they want by using their own intelligence to make sure that the most probable outcome that is beneficial to them arises.
“This trope relies heavily on Flaw Exploitation manipulating, although the term `flaw’ is used very loosely here. Sometimes the flaw is that the villains are so predictable that they’ll take the first chance they have to do something mean and underhanded. Other times, the flaw is that the heroes are so heroic that they’ll act for the greater good without even thinking about it. A particularly Genre Savvy person will recognize the fact that heroes always win — and design a plan based on the assumption that they will succeed. . . .The key to making a Batman Gambit work is by carefully guiding and manipulating the motivations of those involved, so that the `obvious’ course of action to them is to do what will make the gambit work and it never occurs to them to do things that would ruin the gambit. Because of the presence of this obvious failure mode, anyone who tries to pull off a Batman Gambit and fails often just ends up looking like a fool. In short, if you can say `but what if he does this?’ and that will mess up everything, then it’s a Batman Gambit.”
Our author goes on to cite characters from various genres who have used the Batman Gambit. In anime, Vegito in Dragon Ball Z, Akiyama Shinichi in Liar Game, and both Marik and Dark Bakura in Yu-Gi-Oh!; in television, The Mission: Impossible team and Doctor Who; in comics, Wolverine in Wolverine: Origins, Victor Von Doom and Lex Luthor pretty much all the time, Batman of course, Captain America in Earth X, Nick Fury in Ultimate Marvel Universe, and both Ava and Senator Roark in Sin City; in films, Palpatine/Sidious in the Star Wars Saga, General Koskov in the Bond film The Living Daylights, Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean, Neal McCauley in Heat, Mary Poppins, Jason Bourne, Billy Flynn in Chicago, and Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs; and in literature, Hari Seldon in Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series, GK Chesterton’s Father Brown in “The Sins of Prince Saradine”, Sherlock Holmes, Milady de Winter in Alexandre Dumas‘ The Three Musketeers, Dantes in The Count of Monte Cristo, Artemis Fowl, Bene Gesserit in Frank Herbert’s Dune, Voldemort in both Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chauvelin in The Scarlet Pimpernel, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, both Gandalf and Sauron in JRR Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, PG Wodehouse’s Jeeves, and (Ta-DAA) Godwin Pope in The Coup, in which “a US Vice-President engineers one of the most brilliant government ousters this troper has ever seen. He plays everybody like cards in a deck and does it with such panache that you find yourself cheering for the Magnificent Bastard.”
If you’re not flattered to among such company, check your pulse, because you must be dead. Thank you, oh anonymous wikidian!
Greg Olear, the author of a novel called Totally Killer that is “part thriller, part satire, part period piece” that has to do with the collision of conspiracy and pop culture in New York in 1991, writes about his “unlikely influences” on a blog on the Powell’s Bookstore site. After citing Weird Al Yankovic, Mad Magazine, The Pirates of Penzance, he comes to. . . Spy High:
“In AP English, we spent a few weeks learning about satire. We read pieces by Swift (right) and Pope (below) — Gulliver’s Travels and that essay about how starving Irishmen should eat their babies with a side of baked potato. We watched Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
I can’t define satire any more than Potter Stewart could define pornography, but like the late justice, I know it when I see it. You know the scene in the Kubrick film where George C. Scott starts brawling with the Russian attaché, and Peter Sellers says, “You can’t fight in here! This is the war room!”? That’s a walking definition of satire.
Around that time, either because of the influence of my English teacher, Joe Russo — this cool cat who had been to Woodstock and let kids call him Joe and smoked cigarettes in class — or because my parents decided to upgrade the Mad Magazine gift, I somehow found myself with a subscription to Spy magazine.
Excerpts from this period of that excellent periodical were recently re-issued in a tome called Spy: The Funny Years. So, I mean, it was funny. But I didn’t really get most of the jokes. I was a seventeen-year-old rube from the Jersey suburbs, and while I lived in a commuter town, I almost never went to New York City. When they wrote, say, a comedic letter to Bret Easton Ellis about American Psycho, I had no idea what they were talking about.
Better than the magazine itself, however, was a special paperback they did called Spy High, a fictional yearbook of the rich and famous. Maybe it was because I was working on editing my own class yearbook that year, but to me, that book was a laugh riot. George Bush père was the principal of the satirical school, and the students were celebrities like Madonna, Warren Beatty, Sting, Joe Montana, and Georgette Mosbacher, their headshots arranged like in an actual yearbook, with senior quotes and all of it. Like, under Al Sharpton’s “senior photo” was this ditty:
Al has got the pompadour,
And disposition sunny
But what we all would like to know is,
Where’d he get the money?
And Sylvester Stallone, as did many meatheads in real yearbooks, had just the senior quote:
“Where’s the beef?”
I’m sure that when Jamie Malanowski and Susan Morrison, the authors, were pitching the concept to editors, they envisioned their target audience as sophisticated, Manhattan-based purveyors of snark — witty chums with whom they’d sip Bellinis at a cocktail party at the Dakota — and not some dopey kid from New Jersey who wouldn’t know Georgette Mosbacher from a drag queen at Lucky Cheng’s.
But there isn’t a person alive who was more influenced by that book than Yours Truly. I read that thing until it curled up into itself and became impossible to open and my mother threw it away.I read that thing until it curled up into itself and became impossible to open and my mother threw it away. I found Spy High enormously, outrageously funny… even though I still have no idea who Georgette Mosbacher is.
So there you have it, my five essential influences. And Eric Blair, Gilbert, Sullivan, Jamie and Susan, and the two Als — I salute you. Were it not for your guidance and inspiration, I would probably have a law degree and a bulging 401(k) instead of something inestimably better: a novel on sale at Powell’s, for the low, low price of $9.79.”
Wow, Greg–that’s very flattering. But just for the record–I’ve never had a Bellini.
This is high season for sexual censoriousness. Facts are in short supply, but conclusions are abundant. We do know that David Letterman has allegedly been the victim of a crime involving affairs with members of his staff. We don’t know whether Letterman was married at the time of any of these events (as if it was any of our business), or if they may have involved acts of sexual harassment. Still, on Morning Joe today, Mika Brzezinski, the Red Queen of public affairs commentary (“Sentence first–verdict afterwards”) did not let a lack of facts keep her from condemning Letterman for “hypocrisy,” as he put it, for joking about Bill Clinton and other public figures whose sex lives became public fodder. Thus she ended the week with same tone of indignation that she began it when she, along with many others, declared Roman Polanski “guilty of rape” and “being a pedophile,” as well as lesser charges of being artistic, being foreign, being European, living in France, and having friends in Hollywood. Polanski may very well indeed be guilty of rape, but that’s something that a jury gets to decide after a fair trial in a court of law. It’s as though the word “allegedly” no longer existed, as though “innocent until proven guilty” was one of those niceties advised to children that adults feel free to ignore.
Now, into this raging storm of censoriousness arrives An Education, a movie that has already been touted as one of the year’s best. The film, which opens October 16th, is about a teenage girl’s romantic relationship with an older man, and—here’s what’s provocative—does not rush to condemn it.
Based on a memoir by the English journalist Lynn Barber, directed by Lone Scherfig, written by Nick Hornby, and featuring a brilliant, career-making performance by Carey Mulligan, An Education is set in the early sixties, in a suburb of London. Sixteen year-old Jenny, too intelligent for the confining middle-class life she is temporarily mired, dreaming of the day when she can join a smokier, jazzier, more francophonic world, one day meets David, a man nearly twice her age. The assured and sophisticated David (excellently played by a debonair Peter Sarsgaard) offers the most romantic gesture possible: he takes an interest in her, a genuine interest in who she is and what she wants. And while he woos Jenny by giving her access to art and music and eventually Paris, he also woos her parents, offering them a combination of a suitor’s respect and a peer’s recognition. And even though Jenny eventually sees that David supports his splendid lifestyle with a web of shady of not criminal enterprises, she turns her back on her the dull, earnest school teachers who have supported her efforts to get accepted into Oxford, and accepts David proposal of marriage.
What’s remarkable about the film—and what may leave it susceptible to condemnation by the Mika Brzezinskis of the world—is that David is never portrayed as exploiting Jenny. We may not end up trusting David very much, but we never really dislike him, and we never feel has mistreated Jenny. Instead, he is shown to be solicitous of desires and patient with her feelings. His sexual interest is part and parcel of the emotional and intellectual connection he feels with her. This is strikingly different from the way in which the movies, particularly Hollywood movies, portray adult male sexuality, as something dangerous, or destabilizing, or laughable, and which must usually be walled off in marriage or buried in widowhood if a protagonist is to be accepted. Very few male characters are allowed the latitude enjoyed by, say, Diane Lane in most of her films, or by the Sex and the City women. James Bond, once the exemplar of the predatory male, has been on a short leash since the dawn of the Timothy Dalton era. Indeed, one of the attractions of Mad Men is seeing what has become a piece of forbidden fruit: men at the height of their masculine power taking a sexual interest in women.
The complicated nature of Jenny and David’s relationship is summed up by the unspoken implication of the film’s title. Jenny received an education from David, a tutorial in things nice and not so nice, from which she profited. It’s an unsentimental view of the way romantic relationships often work, and the climate for its discussion has suddenly turned cold.