Monday, October 01, 2007

Dutch Treat

How does one begin to describe the splendor of the paintings that make up the Met's special exhibition of 17th Century Dutch masters? Words cannot hope to capture a beauty so profound, so elegant, so rich in glow and texture. It is as though one had stepped into a monastery of images, a place where vision lives at peace with itself, where light holds its breath, and colors meditate in silence.

It is here, in art's most breathless sanctum, that they are all gathered, the Masters: Vermeer with his celebrations of the light's purity; Ruisdael with his symphonic landscapes, the human figures dwarfed by the sheer grandeur of nature - the great sweep of the horizon, the majestic crescendos of the clouds and spreading trees; Cuyp with his cattle extending like great continents into a blue ocean of sky; Steen with his exquisitely raucous domestic scenes; Vlieger with his ghostly seascape of light and shadow; and Rembrandt, always and above all, Rembrandt.

But wait, wait. Before I get to Rembrandt, I must pay homage to three other great painters who I discovered via this exhibition.

The first of these magicians is Pieter de Hooch, whose paintings of household interiors marry a geometry of intelligence to a lavish warmth of tone. At one level, de Hooch is a kind of autumnal Vermeer - his paintings share Vermeer's fascination with interior spaces (and with light streaming through windows) but where light in Vermeer gleams with an almost virginal innocence, in de Hooch it is darker, mellower, more mature. But what fascinated me about the paintings I saw was the way de Hooch uses the resonance of shape to give his scenes an almost dreamlike quality. In Interior with a Young Couple (see left), for instance, the isolation of the two human figures in a fugue of rectangles gives the image just the right sense of uneasiness; in The Maidservant the blank reflection in the mirror between the two figures seems to emphasize the emotional emptiness of the scene; in another interior (that I can't seem to find online) the self-satisfaction of a family sitting at a table in a great gilded room finds its almost surrealist counterpoint in the figure of a young man going towards a door through which the figure of an old beggar approaches like a mirror image. Other favorites include Paying the Hostess, where two figures stand settling accounts, framed by parentheses of light, a sheaf of golden hay adding just the correct amount of luster to the painting.


My second discovery of the exhibition was Aert van der Neer. Fire is the essence and center of der Neer's paintings, the flaming light becoming, in his work, a kind of gravity, drawing everything into its grip. In his sunset scenes (such as Sports on a Frozen River - shown above - and Landscape at Sunset), the setting sun becomes the source from which light explodes, diffusing in a world that aches with its dying glow, the human figures limned in a golden transcendence, the sky touched with ochre and burnt sienna. But the finest of his three paintings on display here is, to my mind, The Farrier, where the light from the horizon lies like a ghost on the river, while two beating hearts of crimson flame illumine the human figures gathered around them - one a leaping bonfire that warms a small company of waiting men, the other the lonelier, quieter flame of the blacksmith, lost in his work.

My final major discovery for the afternoon was Frans Hals. I'd heard of and seen Hals' work before, but it's only in the context of this exhibition that I finally paid him the attention he deserves. What makes Hals stand out here, I think, is the way he provides a kind of counterpoint to the statelier, more meditative Rembrandt. Where Rembrandt's figures often seem to gaze out at us from the depths of a profound inwardness, Hals' men and women seem to burst with such exuberant energy that the canvas can barely contain them. By comparison to almost any of the other painters here, Hals is a boisterous extrovert, portraying men and women whose lives (and souls) seem as creased and crumpled as the sleeves he so exquisitely paints. Whether it's the complacent sneer of the face of The Smoker, or the happy-go-lucky figure of the man raising his glass in Young Man and Woman at an Inn (shown above), or even the way the figure of Petrus Scriverius (shown on the right) seems to be about to step out of the wooden frame that holds him, Hals' figures are alive and vivid, possessing an immediacy all their own.


So much for the masters. Other paintings that caught my eye included Vermeer's Allegory of the Catholic Faith, with its luminous glass globe and crimson spurt of snake's blood, which struck me as being rather unusual coming from Vermeer; DeWitt's Interior of the Old Church at Delft, where the vast grandeur of the old cathedral is undercut by the image of a dog peeing on one of its pillars; and, perhaps most memorably, The Sibyl, a painting now believed to be the work of Rembrandt's pupil Willem Drost [1], whose lush, muted darkness makes it, in the company of its peers, a work of hushed and seductive beauty (one that this picture, below, simply does not do justice to).


Of course, there's much, much more to the exhibition than just these paintings. Everywhere you look, there's another masterwork waiting to delight or awe you. You won't see much that's flamboyant or eye-catching; instead, you'll find yourself surrounded by a stately procession of immaculate images - the deep, deep red of lobsters, the delicate curling yellow of lemon peels, grapes like pearls gleaming with cores of light, the perfect reflection of light off a silver goblet, or the dance of its refraction in a glass, the impeccable white of ruffs and collars joined to the glowing black of people's clothes - everything that is luminous and lustrous and exquisite about the visual world laid out for you gallery upon gallery, frame after frame.


And at the heart of all this splendor there is Rembrandt. It seems a little presumptuous to call an entire period of such marvelous work, a time and a place that produced so many great painters, the 'Age of Rembrandt', yet browsing through these galleries there can be little doubt that Rembrandt is the greatest of these masters. Stare at the breathtaking Aristotle with a Bust of Homer (above), which captures, on a single canvas, an entire era of wisdom and poetry; gaze in wonder at the sultanic magnificence of the Man in Oriental Costume; marvel at the way a single flower in Woman with a Pink (left) becomes a blazing torch that lights up the entire portrait; stand still and calmed before the stark simplicity of his portrait of Hendirckje Stoffels; admire the directness with which the portrait of Herman Doomer meets your eye (right); or consider even what the Met calls "the least popular" of his paintings - Bellona [2] - and notice the black and silver face of the Gorgon blazoned on the shield, and you will see just why Rembrandt is the master he is.

In his own way, Rembrandt is as much a painter of interiors as Vermeer or Hooch - except the interiors Rembrandt paints live within his subjects. Part of the greatness of Rembrandt is the sheer weight of his figures, the way they seem to embody a kind of spiritual and moral seriousness. Staring into those sad, care-wrinkled eyes, you find yourself drawn inexorably into an infinity of self-contemplation, into the sad and sober realizations that make up the human consciousness. There is a tranquility to these figures, a timelessness, but it is a tranquility anchored in profound and intimate knowledge, in the depths of what, in a simpler time, we would have called the soul. You can feel the weight of this quiet gravity in painting after painting, whether it be his 1660 self-portrait, the 1654 Standard Bearer (below) or the 1632 Portrait of a Man.


In the end the true glory of Rembrandt is not (or not only) the way his canvases are flawless compositions of color and light. What makes him so important is the way his portraits capture their subjects in a kind of inner nakedness, an essentialness of being - a quality best seen, perhaps, in his portrait of Gerard de Lairesse below. Nowhere in art is beauty more human.


That's pretty much it for the 'Age of Rembrandt' exhibit. I spent another hour or so in the Met afterwards, starting with the Flemish painters (most notably Rubens and Van Dyck), whose work makes for an interesting comparison with the Dutch masters; then taking in a special exhibit on Abstract Expressionism, including work by Guston, Pollock, Rothko and Ernst, followed by a quick saunter through the Modern Art gallery, that revealed at least one Klimt (see below) that I d0n't remember seeing before (and which seems to have replaced one of my favorite Modiglianis) as well as Munch's The Vampire.


Notes

[1] The exhibition contains a number of such 'Style of Rembrandt' paintings - paintings originally believed to be Rembrandts but later discredited - some of them, such as this Old Woman Cutting Her Nails, fairly gorgeous in themselves

[2] I personally rather like it, but that's just me.

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Reviews Ahoy

I'm back. And have much to blog about. But first I need to recover from the 12+ hours I've spent in the movie theater in the last 48 hours. While I'm doing that, here's the list of films I watched this weekend (from the ones I liked best to those I liked least). Reviews coming up shortly. Stay tuned.

1. The Man from London

2. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

3. Hamlet (1920)

4. Lust, Caution

5. The Romance of Astree and Celadon

6. The Orphanage

Thursday, September 27, 2007

In New York...

...this weekend. Catching a slew of movies at the New York Film Festival, as well as the exhibition of Dutch paintings at the Met.

And if that doesn't reduce you to a blancmange of quivering jealousy, consider what I'm taking along with me for light reading - the new Philip Roth[1].

See you Monday.

[1] Okay, okay, so I know plenty of critics have panned the book. But it's still the new Roth. More - it's the new Zuckerman.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Women and Happiness

"feminism isn't an argument or a position but a kind of sanity ... a way of looking at the world that takes the humanity of female people seriously"

- Ariel Levy

Over at the Guardian, an article about books that served as introductions to feminism. Good to see Virginia Woolf in there.

And while it feels mean-spirited to be picking on the NY Times twice in one day, here's Language Log's Mark Liberman on why the NY Times article about women being unhappier than men (link via India Uncut) is, like most NY Times reporting that cites 'research' complete codswallop. Ah, the joys of ordered probit!

If it's Hip, Fast and Furious, Is It Journalism?

I know I've blogged about this before, but seriously, why is it so hard for the NY Times to turn out a news story about India that doesn't degenerate into misrepresentation, ridiculous stereotyping and general incoherence?

So India wins some new-fangled cricket tournament. Fine, whatever. This is not a hard story to write.

Para 1: "Cricket fans on the subcontinent were jubilant today as....Twenty20[1]...blah blah".

Para 2: New format - change from one day matches, which themselves were shortened form of test matches - 20-over format talked about for a while - (weren't there some earlier attempts to do something similar).

Para 3: Well received - hope will be more popular format - quotes from cricketers on how they feel about it? (note to self: if current team is not reachable, find retired cricketers and ask) - purists?

Para 4: Context of win - Cricket in the popular imagination - status of cricketers - yet, World Cup, etc. - excitement that Indian team actually won something - how much of popular reaction to this new form is biased by that?

Para 5: (Closing) Exciting new phase for cricket? Maybe, maybe not. Fireworks in New Delhi for now anyway.

There. Cheesy, true, but as simple as falling off a log.

Instead, we get this grotesque mockery of a piece from Somini Sengupta, who doesn't seem to have seen a cricket match since 1972 and apparently figures that just because she's writing a piece about cricket is no reason to leave out all the other tidbits she's been collecting for stories she's never going to get around to doing now.

Look, I have no interest in cricket and haven't watched a cricket match in ten years, but even I know that cricket does not consist of "gentleman players" distinguishing themselves in "white trousers and knit vests" in a "customary" five day match. Ms. Sengupta is contrasting this new format with a caricature of cricket that resembles the modern game about as much as life in England today resembles the novels of P. G. Wodehouse.

But that, frankly, is the least of her crimes. The really appalling bits are the ones that involve 'deep exploration of the Indian psyche'. So we're told that one of the gifts of this "new face of Indian cricket" is

"to present, for the first time, a powerfully athletic presence on the pitch. Athleticism has never been associated with Indian cricket, nor with Indians in general, and that has been a chip on the shoulder of Indian manhood."

Wtf? Not only am I supposed to have spent the last 28 years of my life feeling insecure about my manhood because I'm Indian and Indians are not athletic (why don't they tell you this stuff in school?), I can now stop feeling conflicted about it, not because I've got any fitter, but because some unshaven troglodyte can swing a piece of wood. Joy. I wonder what Indian manhood is going to do the next time the Indian cricket team gets trounced, which should take, oh, about two weeks? Ms. Sengupta attributes this opinion to one Rajdeep Sardesai [2] and "other cricket watchers" (whatever that means), but even if they actually said this, is it really so hard to see how completely ridiculous the statement is?

It gets worse. We're then told that

"The average age on the 11-man Indian lineup was about 23, and on the Pakistani team just under 25. That reflected two disproportionately young nations: the median age in India is about 24, and in Pakistan, 19."

Huh? Again, I know nothing about cricket, but I would think most cricket teams would tend to be fairly young - with average ages in the sub-25 range, completely independent of the demographic profile of the country they were drawn from. Surely it would be more relevant to tell us how the average ages of the Indian and Pakistani teams compare to the average age of other nations participating in the tournament? Or with the average age of the one-day sides of these two countries.

My favorite part, though, is this:

"It was impossible for the cricket-watching audience, which today excludes very few Indians, not to seize on the metaphors that Twenty20 offers for the changes sweeping the country, like the rise of small-town working class India and the fading of the old cricket decorum itself."

Really? So in a population of (purportedly) one billion viewers there wasn't a single one who was just enjoying the game for the sport itself? No, no, they were all sitting there thinking "What a lovely shot! Soaring straight into the stands! What a glorious metaphor for the rise of the Sensex". Or "Look, look, that boy from Ranchi hit another four! Don't Class A towns rock?". And just why was it "impossible" for them "not to seize on the metaphor"? What if they tried really, really hard? And will someone please explain to me how Twenty20 is a 'metaphor' for the fading of the old cricket decorum? Or for that matter how the fading of the old cricket decorum is a "change sweeping the country"?

The next paragraph achieves even greater incoherence:

"Much was made of the fact that the captain, Mr. Dhoni, grew up in an uncelebrated eastern city called Ranchi. The batsman S. Sreesanth, it was said, defied cricket manners by being unusually aggressive. The bowler Joginder Sharma was celebrated as the son of a small shopkeeper who could afford to buy no more than a cloth ball for his son."

I'm not even going to ask what "uncelebrated" means. Or what "cricket manners" are, or what being "unusually aggressive" consists of, or by whom "it was said". Or why Ms. Sengupta needs to say both "defied cricket manners" and "unusually aggressive" - surely each by itself would be enough? But I'd love for someone to tell me what sentence two has to do with sentences one and three. The latter are about cricketer's background, the former is (supposedly) about their behavior. Is there a reason why those two themes need to alternate? Twelve-year olds can write better than this.

Finally, I must make special mention of the line "Twenty20 was accompanied by cheerleaders wearing what resembled sports bras". First, what is something that resembles a sports bra? Can you buy them in stores? At what point do they stop resembling sports bras and actually become sports bras? I'm not being flippant, really. I'm genuinely curious. After all, these are weighty issues, probably allegorical of the uplift of India's poor and / or a long-standing chip on the shoulder of Indian womanhood. Second, was there a particular kind of garment these women were wearing, or did they just put on anything that struck them as resembling a sports bra? Third, were they really "cheerleaders" or were they just cheering fans?

Look, I understand that journalists get tough deadlines and don't have the luxury of doing as much research as they would like to. I get that they may have no interest in cricket and be bored and bewildered by having to write about it. Hell, I empathize. But that doesn't excuse writing this ridiculously bad - poorly structured, sloppily edited and full of non sequiturs and hyperbole. And it doesn't excuse propounding some half-baked theory or unsubstantiated generalization and passing it off as fact. This piece reads like it belongs in the Delhi Times. And it's a shame that people who know nothing about cricket or India are going to read it and come away with an even more warped understanding of both than they started with.

Notes

[1] By the way, Twenty20? Most uninspired name ever.

[2] And that's another thing - why is it that whenever the NY Times interviews people in India for 'public opinion' they always seem to find the loopiest fruitcakes? It is so difficult to find someone capable of offering an intelligent, lucid point of view? I don't know who this Sardesai character is, but someone should make him stay back after school and write "I shall not use shopworn cliches, such as the names of daytime soaps I watched in my hormone soaked adolescent days, in interviews with the international press" 500 times with a blunt pencil.

Monday, September 24, 2007

All together now

It would be easy to be all grown-up about Across the Universe, Julie Taymor's new film, which fashions an unlikely musical out of Beatles' songs. It would be easy to sit aloof at a critical distance and point to the hackneyed screenplay, the juvenile in-jokes, the incoherent plot and the unevenness of the music; easy to dismiss this film as a silly mish-mash of old pop tropes, ludicrous idealism and adolescent sensibility.

I hope I never get that old.

The truth is that Across the Universe is everything the Beatles were - silly, sentimental, hilarious, quirky, psychedelic, sexy, intense, innocent, idealistic, chaotic and gorgeously, heartbreakingly beautiful; a swirling kaleidoscope of a film shot through with snatches of pure poetry, that captures as well as anything ever could the joy, the goofiness, the sheer fucking exuberance of that most transcendent, most essential of rock bands. Even calling it a film is doing it an injustice - this is not a musical, nor (god forbid) a romantic comedy - it is a magical mystery tour, a collage of exquisite moments, a sequence of dreams turned into music videos, one long, freaky acid trip.

What this movie understands, I think, is that the Beatles were never about the lyrics (which were frequently trite) or the tunes (which were often cheesy), any more than the sixties (or what we now think of as 'the sixties') were really about sex and drugs and protest marches. All of that happened, existed, but underneath it all was the awareness that you didn't need some complicated philosophy or self-important achievement to be happy or alive - all you needed was the courage to go out there and live with all your heart, to give yourself to any and every cause and idea and person that moved you and not be afraid to feel or admit that you were moved; all you needed was to revel in the unadulterated exhilaration of being alive. The Beatles understood, as Taymor seems too, that art, like love, doesn't come from surrounding yourself in cleverness, protecting yourself with irony and cynicism, it comes from a willingness to risk being ridiculous. The Beatles were never afraid of making fools of themselves - on the contrary, they reveled in it - and it was this that gave them and their music a kind of irresistible honesty. Whatever else they were, the Beatles were always genuine, always real, and it was this unselfconscious spontaneity of theirs that put them beyond all criticism. It is a quality that Across the Universe shares. It's terrible, but it's also brilliant.

Czeslaw Milosz, in his Charles Eliot Norton Lectures (collected as The Witness of Poetry [1]) speaks of "the poet as a person who differs from others in that his childhood does not end and who preserves in himself something of the child throughout his life". If that is true, then John, Paul, George and Ringo have to rank among the greatest poets of the last century. If we continue to treasure the Beatles today, it is because they represent a kind of innocence, a kind of beautiful naivety that we, in our jaded, sophisticated, post-ironic, desperately self-conscious world need to cling to. That is why it doesn't matter that the plot of Across the Universe is corny, that the characters look like they've stepped out of a Benetton catalog and that at least some of the scenes will make you cringe. Nobody is trying to pretend that the 60's made sense, least of all this film, that makes it abundantly clear that the 'Revolution' such as it was, was a revolution of children. Of course they were being impractical. Of course there are things that can't be done, that can't be sung, that can't be made or saved - love is not all you need. But what matters here is the earnestness, the enthusiasm; what matters is that all of us, either as children, or, in some cases, as young people in the 60's, sincerely and in good faith believed in these things. It is that sense of possibility that the Beatles, and this movie, celebrate. e e cummings writes: "Because my father lived his soul / Love is the whole and more than all". Replace 'my father' with 'The Beatles' and you have it, precisely.

To be fair, the movie does do a good job of demonstrating the sheer range of the Beatles' music - taking it from corny pop songs to tender ballads to gospel to screaming, head-banging rock. Watch out for renditions of Helter Skelter, Why Don't We Do It In The Road, Something, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Come Together and, perhaps most memorably, Strawberry Fields, not to mention the sight of Bono singing I am the Walrus, or the scene when an impromptu band plays Don't Let Me Down at top volume from a Manhattan rooftop, which, of course, is how it's meant to be played (Oh! and IMDB confirms it - that is Joe Cocker playing a busker singing Come Together. Yaay!). But the real reason the film works, I think, is because for those of us who grew up listening to the Beatles, their songs constitute a language all their own, a special secret mother tongue whose every word sounds familiar, whose every line comes remembered from the heart. So when the characters in the film suddenly, often bizarrely, break into song, it doesn't strike us as odd or peculiar, it strikes us as natural as if they had suddenly switched to French or Hindi, and we understand exactly what they mean. If for no other reason, you should watch this film because, while there will always be other films in French and Italian and Japanese, this may be your only chance (outside of special showings of A Hard Day's Night et al) to see a film in Beatle-se.

P.S. I should say, though, that this is a film strictly for serious Beatles fans. If you've never heard the Beatles (you miserable loser!) or don't much care for them (die! die now!) then you are likely to find this film entirely inexplicable, and should probably stay away.

[1] Space Bar: Now there's my Bible!

Good Ol' Sergei

Isn't serendipity wonderful?

I borrowed a 3-CD set of Fritz Kreisler recordings from the library yesterday, mostly because it contained his 1936 recording of the Beethoven Violin Concerto [1] with the London Philharmonic conducted by John Barbirolli, and discovered that the set also included sonatas for Violin and Piano by Beethoven, Schubert and Grieg. Out of idle curiosity I decided to check who the pianist was, figuring it would be someone I'd never heard of (the recording is from 1926). It turned out to be Sergei Rachmaninoff. Immense fanboyishness ensued.

[1] A piece I'm a little obsessed by, to be honest. Kreisler's recording of it is a virtuoso performance - he pulls off the almost impossible task of making the cadenza at the end of the first movement sound fluid, before ending the movement on note of tenderness I've never heard before (most other recordings I've heard tend to end on a note of triumph), and then playing a second movement so achingly mellow it sounds almost like an Aria.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Brit Wit

Two selections from an anthology of New British Poetry (Graywolf, 2004) that I was reading this afternoon - both hilarious:

Alba Einstein

When proof of Einstein's Glaswegian birth
First hit the media everything else was dropped:
Logie Baird, Dundee painters, David Hume - all
Got the big E. Physics documentaries
Became peak-viewing; Scots publishers hurled awa
MacDiarmid like an overbaked potato, and swooped
On the memorabilia: Einstein Used My Fruitshop,
Einstein in Old Postcards, Einstein's Bearsden Relatives.
Hot on their heels came the A.E. Fun Park,
Quantum Court, Glen Einstein Highland Malt.
Glasgow was booming. Scotland rose to its feet
At Albert Suppers where The Toast to the General Theory
Was given by footballers, panto-dames, or restaurateurs.
In the US an ageing lab-technician recorded
How the Great Man when excited showed a telltale glottal stop.
He'd loved fiddler's rallies. His favourite sport was curling.
Thanks to this, Scottish business expanded
Endlessly. His head grew toby-jug-shaped,
Ideal for keyrings. He'd always worn brogues.
At bannocks in exile. As a wee boy he'd read The Beano.
His name brought new energy: our culture was solidly based
On pride in our here, The Universal Scot.

- Robert Crawford

That Old-Time Religion

God and His angels stroll in the garden
before turning in for the night.
They've adopted the style
of rich and gifted young Englishmen this evening
and also, bizarrely even for them, decided that they shall speak
in nothing but Sumerian to each other
which all agree was a truly heavenly language.

It isn't long before God starts boasting
in Sumerian of course, that He's the only Being He knows
who knows by heart The Bothie of Tober-na-Vuolich,
and is about to prove it when Lucifer intercedes
to make the points that

a) they've all agreed to speak Sumerian, which was never the tongue of that estimable poem, and that unless He wants to
pay the usual forfeit, which wouldn't really be consonant
with His divinity, He'd better give up the idea;

b) should He decide to do it into
instantaneous and perfect Sumerian metres,
a feat of which they're all aware He's capable,
He wouldn't be proving His grasp of the original
and would run the risk of them thinking Him a show-off;

& c) since He, God, and not Arthur Hugh Clough must be regarded
as the only true author of The Bothie, as of all things,
he, Satan, doesn't see what the point of it would be anyway.

In the silence which follows the Creator is keenly aware
of the voice of the nightingale, then murmurs of consensus,
them much delighted laughter from the angels.

Lucifer bows.

The nightingale stops singing.

God sighs. He could really do without these bitches sometimes
but then where would He be?

As if to answer this question to Himself
He withdraws to the farthest reaches of the garden,
and leans on the parapet, smoking in fitful gloom,
for what seems like an eternity.

He lights each gasper from the butt of His last
then flicks the flowing end far into the dark,
displeased at His foreknowledge of where it will fall.
To KNOW what His more intelligent creatures have thought
of these lights that appear in August out of Perseus
and not to have disabused them of it, as He's always meant to,
is unforgivable. He gazes in their direction in the dark
and gives them His Word that soon He will change all that,
silent at first, then whispered, then shouted in Sumerian.

- Peter Didsbury



Saturday, September 22, 2007

It didn't happen one night

Ian McEwan's On Chesil Beach

Early in Ian McEwan's On Chesil Beach, there is a scene where a pair of newly-weds sit glumly working their way through an unappetizing English supper, keen to get on with their evening but feeling that certain proprieties must be met. It's a feeling of being trapped by an unacknowledged rule that readers of McEwan's new novel will find familiar, as they ask themselves why they're bothering to go on reading this thing when they could be out enjoying the last of the Fall sunlight.

To put it mildly, On Chesil Beach is not McEwan's most successful novel. In fact, it's barely a novel at all, more like an insecure short story blustering its way into novel status by adding a lot of padding and pretending to be a lot more grown up and serious than it really is. The story revolves around Edward and Florence, two newly-weds who are, as the first line of the book informs us, "young, educated, and both virgins on this, their wedding night". The reference to the happy couple's mutual virginity is not incidental, since losing this virginity is the nub of all future events. It's a prospect that Florence views with apprehension bordering on disgust, while Edward, doing his part to live up to the gender stereotype, awaits with eagerness the prospect that "the most sensitive part of himself would reside, however briefly, within a naturally formed cavity inside this cheerful, pretty, formidably intelligent woman" - easily the most nauseating description of the sex act I've read all year (I mean really "naturally formed cavity" - what is she, a cave? a piece of missing tartar?). You have to feel sorry for a woman who's married to a man who would put it like that[1], even to himself. At any rate, it's no surprise that things go badly and the whole thing ends up being, both literally and figuratively, a mess.

The really sad part about On Chesil Beach is that the sequence of misunderstandings and thwarted communication that play out between these two silly young people would be deliciously funny (in a Stendhal kind of way) if the two lovebirds, and McEwan, weren't so hell bent on taking it all seriously. McEwan seems to have decided that the best way to get the maximum mileage out of this book is to combine the story of Edward and Florence with a socio-cultural visit to the sexual mores ( sexual lesses?) of England in the early-60s, a subject which is even more dreary now than it must have been then. It's almost as though McEwan, like a self-important grandfather taking pride in the hard old days wanted to show you just how bad things were when he was growing up.

The worst part of this is that his development of this theme is excruciatingly heavy-handed, so that we get a lot of lines of the 'they were listening to Macmillan on the radio because, you know, MacMillan was in power then and we used to sit around in the evenings listening to him on the radio' variety, and time and time again McEwan steps out of the narrative to point out that 'things were different then', as if we, living in the first decade of the 21st century, could not possibly notice the difference for ourselves. In places the book itself reads more like an outline of a potential novel than a novel itself, with the points to be made simply written down on paper, without any real attempt to weave them into the story.

If all this weren't bad enough, McEwan also decides to interfere with the clean, simple plot to add long chapters giving us the back-story on each of his characters - back-stories that do little but destroy entirely the fledgling comic possibilities of the book and make the eventual denouement seem even more grotesquely unlikely than it would anyway. What McEwan is after, I suspect, is providing us with a clear portrait (or rather two clear portraits) of what life was like a for a particular generation of people growing up in post-war England, showing us the typical experiences that shaped and defined the values and beliefs of an entire class of people. At the same time, though, he cannot resist the temptation to dramatize, to make his characters more 'fictional', more interesting, and this leaves us with large sections of prose that are, like the people they describe, pleasantly dull.

When the action finally returns to the bridal suite it moves swiftly enough, though in a manner that is so un-sexy as to be almost mechanical. If McEwan's aim here is to convey awkwardness and lack of skill, he does so admirably, but the overall effect is like reading something written by the illegitimate love-child of Iris Murdoch and D.H. Lawrence. Once we get past the sexual situation and enter the realm of the purely emotional / psychological, McEwan finds his rhythm again, and the final encounter between Edward and Florence is the first exchange between them that feels real. After that point, the book winds quickly and tidily to its end, in prose that is skilled and surefooted, but by then the book, like Edward and Florence's marriage, is already beyond saving.

As Julian Gough points out in his piece in the Guardian, On Chesil Beach is the latest variation on a familiar McEwan theme: the idea that a random event - a chance meeting, an accidental misunderstanding, an unlikely error - can change the course of your life forever. This 'great event' theory of our personal histories (most effectively demonstrated, perhaps, in Atonement) is not without its problems - the most obvious being that it requires McEwan to consistently invent the most outrageously improbable scenarios and make us believe them, convincing us that a combination of pride, small-mindedness and insecurity can make rational, reasonable human beings magnify an insignificant incident so out of proportion that it will come to blight the rest of their lives. McEwan's gift lies precisely in the fact that he can pull this off - that at his best he can turn out prose so mesmerizing, dialog and action so authentic, that we never stop to think about the gaping inconsistencies in the logic, never notice how ridiculous the whole premise is.

Where he doesn't succeed, however, we are left with the inexplicable prospect of people acting in ways that are so ludicrous as to be comical, and the sympathy McEwan is trying to make us feel turns to mockery. And that, I think, is the problem with On Chesil Beach. Because we never really develop an authentic connection with either Edward or Florence, because their sexual anxieties take up too much of the stage to allow us to develop a larger sense of their character, because they seem more like personifications of the attitudes of their time than real people, because it seems impossible to believe that two people could love each other deeply, could enter upon the massive enterprise that is marriage - clearly aware of the sacrifices and compromises this would entail - and then let it all fall apart on the basis of one quarrel, because McEwan neither manages to convincingly portray the love between these two people or clarify the reasons for their lasting division, On Chesil Beach is, ultimately, an unconvincing book.

I will say this, though: of the books on the Booker shortlist that I've read (and I've now read all except Darkmans), On Chesil Beach would be my second favorite pick after Animal's People. That isn't necessarily a compliment to McEwan's novel though, it's more a reflection of how disappointing this year's Booker shortlist has turned out to be.

[Part of the 2007 Booker Mela; cross-posted on Momus]

[1] Pun intended

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Yobmot

All my life, I've been envious of tomboys. Or rather, of the term 'tomboy'. It strikes me as deeply unfair that women who like hanging out with men and shun 'girly' things should get such a nice, precise, decent, respectable word to describe themselves, while people like me have to struggle to find a phrase the expresses the male equivalent. For as long as I can remember, my female friends have outnumbered my male friends, and I've always shunned any activity that involved the faintest aura of testosterone [1] (I would never dream, for example, of cutting ants in two - I'm much more likely to sit for hours watching them and then write a poem about it). And yet to even try to express this in words (as I'm doing here) is to open myself up to a litany of misrepresentation and insult. I realize this is probably because in the deep-rooted patriarchal order of things a woman wanting to be more like a man is perfectly understandable but a man wanting to be more like a woman has to be a sign of weakness - but that doesn't help much, does it? It's discriminatory, that's what it is. So I hereby demand that we coin a term that is the mirror image of tomboy and make it part of everyday use.

Except that - and this is the real point of the post - I can't come up with a word that seems appropriate (I refuse to go around describing myself as a 'vivgirl'). Any suggestions?

[1] My idea of a savage, heart-pounding blood rush is listening to Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps - as I did this evening in the opening concert of the new Philadelphia Orchestra season.

Stupidity and Cleverness

"Some say that poetry is stupid,
Some that it's too clever.
For undergraduate rhymes for Cupid
I hold with those who favor stupid.
But for more 'post-modern' endeavor
I must give irony its due
And say that for detachment clever
Will also do
and..." Oh, whatever!

(with apologies to Robert Frost)

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Reception

When the storm comes the tree shake its bare branches, like a man adjusting an antenna, who receives nothing but snow.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

There and back again

Just got back from a special screening of In the Shadow of the Moon - the new documentary that tells the story of the US moon missions by combining narratives from the astronauts who flew those missions with archival footage of the missions themselves. It's a nice enough film, though mostly because the subject matter is so inherently fascinating. It doesn't matter that the soundtrack is annoying, or that the film is about fifteen minutes too long (the last quarter of an hour being spent with the astronauts pontificating about God), or that there's a fair deal of American Jingo-ism involved, just watching the footage from the moon landings, the slow motion shots of the rockets blasting off from earth, the scenes from inside the NASA control center as the Eagle hovers above the lunar surface looking for a landing spot, all the thrilling detail of those flights combined with the sheer breathtaking awe of space travel is enough to make this film a marvelous watch.

But the person who really makes the film work, for me, is Michael Collins. We tend not to remember Collins much - he's the guy who stayed on the main space craft while Armstrong and Aldrin went down to the moon; a role he's splendidly philosophical about - but he effortlessly steals the show here. He's warm and thoughtful and funny and charming and you get the feeling, listening to him speak, that he's giving you the honest, sincere lowdown on how it really was. Oh, the other astronauts are nice enough - a great bunch of guys overall - but Collins is so real, such a delight to watch, that you can't help feeling, as Anthony Lane puts it in his review of the film, that he's "the ideal human to send into the unknown".

"Ephemeral but wonderful" is how Collins describes the goodwill that followed the first moon landing - and that's exactly how the film feels as well. By the time you get back home you've started to think about how chauvinistically male-centric the astronaut world is, how the whole thing, ultimately, was just a ridiculous PR exercise - you find yourself reaching for your Gil Scott-Heron CD to play Whitey on the Moon. But for the hour and a half you're sitting in that theater, all you're thinking about is the wonder of that furthest of all human voyages, and the incredible heroism of the men who made them.

UPDATE: Thinking about it, it occurs to me that Armstrong got it exactly wrong. This whole moon flight thing wasn't a giant leap for mankind - it was a very minor step that went nowhere. It may have provided us with a certain schoolboy thrill, but it didn't, as far as I can see, help make the world we live in any safer or happier. But for the people who actually flew the mission (as well as for the engineers on the ground who made it possible) it was, in fact, a giant leap, an incredible adventure requiring every ounce of courage and ingenuity that they possessed.

Am I a slacker Mom?

That's a question I ask myself everyday. Or, at least Gmail asks me everyday. That is, when it's not offering to tell me shocking secrets coffee companies don't want me to know.

Personally, I can think of a couple of biological objections to this hypothesis, but I'm not a search engine that employs half the desi engineer population and is worth billions of dollars, so what do I know?

Is slacker moms an equal opportunity sub-culture, do you think? Can you tell a Slacker Mom by the way she never makes fun of Britney Spears and is always anxious to know more about making "organic, nutritious meals usually involving the four food groups" for her little brat, right until she remembers that she's left him in the car with the windows rolled up? Are there I Am A Slacker Mom T-shirts for sale, and if you wear one, do you get a lot of plastic surgeons soliciting you for business?

***

Meanwhile, in yet another example of life imitating the movies, Yahoo! has this story about a village in Peru that's been struck by a mysterious illness after a meteorite crashed in the neighborhood. The villagers have apparently been suffering from headaches and nausea. I wonder if it's an alien life form taking over their bodies, contact with the Sperm of Satan (which the meteorite will doubtless turn out to be) or the shock of realizing that their lives consist of being extras in a John Carpenter film?

Monday, September 17, 2007

You know you're getting obsessed with this blogging thing when...

...you find yourself making mental notes for the obituary of someone who's still alive. Thinking "Well, eventually he's going to die, and I'm going to want to put up a post in appreciation, so what am I going to say?".

Does anyone have the number for Bloggers Anonymous?

P.S. In case you're wondering, it was Godard - this whole comparison between him and Aristophanes.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Mixed Medea

I've always been fascinated by Medea. She has to be one of the most complex and interesting female characters in all of Greek myth. Is she:

a) A strong-willed, independent woman striking out against the patriarchy

b) Jason's willing love slave turned woman scorned, whose fury hell hath no equal of

c) An evil, sadistic sorceress, hell-bent on perfecting betrayal into an art form. A sort of Hellenic Morgan le Fay

d) A dupe of the gods

e) Schizophrenic

f) All of the above?

What brought this on, you wonder? Well, Diane Wakoski has a radiant poem about Medea over at Agni Online, all moonlight and silver:

Perhaps bathed in his
wreath of golden decisions,
shimmering as he rowed his ship in the arms
of Apollo’s furled musings,
perhaps he felt manly for taking
her back with him,
for not abandoning her
after she helped him to murder her brother Apsyrtus so
that the Argonauts could
escape, and perhaps he even admired her silver body
under the mantle of dawn, after making love on the ocean that widened her
against her own people.


- Diane Wakoski (read the full thing here)

Wakoski glosses over this murder of Apsyrtus - she doesn't deny Medea's part in it, but she mentions it as a sort of off-hand fact - Ovid, in Tristia, has a more graphic description:

In the vessel that warlike
Minerva built, the first to sail uncharted seas,
heartless Medea, in flight from the father she'd deserted,
made landfall (so goes the story) off this coast.
The look-out from his hilltop espied her pursuer, told her:
'A stranger approaching - from Colchis - I know the sail!'
Panic among the Minyans. They cast off the cable, quickly
hauled in the anchor. All this while,
too-conscious of her deserts, Medea struck her breast with
the hand that had dared already, would dare again
so many unspeakable acts. Though her heart remained audacious
the girl was thunderstruck, her face dead white,
and when she too glimpsed the approaching sail - 'My father's
caught us', she cried, 'we have to find some trick
to delay him - ' Then, while searching in every direction
for an answer, her eye
chanced to alight on her brother. Aware now of his presence
she whispered: 'I've got it! Kill him, and we go free!'
At once, with the boy still ignorant, unsuspecting,
she drove a sword through his innocuous heart,
hacked the corpse from limb to limb, scattered the fragments
all over the countryside, a hard job to collect,
and - to make sure Papa saw them - stuck her brother's bloody
head and blanched hands up on a high crag: thus
their father would be held up by this fresh grief, would gather
the lifeless fragments up, delay his grim
journey.

- Ovid, Tristia III.9 (7-33), translated by Peter Green

Good fun.

P.S. I'm not too happy about the "innocuous heart" bit. The original reads:

Protinus ignari nec quicquam tale timentis
innocuum rigido perforat ense latus

Actually, the whole thing in Latin is:

Nam rate, quae cura pugnacis facta Mineruae
per non temptatas prima cucurrit aquas,
impia desertum fugiens Medea parentem
dicitur his remos applicuisse uadis.
Quem procul ut uidit tumulo speculator ab alto,
"hospes," ait "nosco, Colchide, uela, uenit."
Dum trepidant Minyae, dum soluitur aggere funis,
dum sequitur celeres ancora tracta manus,
conscia percussit meritorum pectora Colchis
ausa atque ausura multa nefanda manu;
et, quamquam superest ingens audacia menti,
pallor in attonitae uirginis ore fuit.
Ergo ubi prospexit uenientia uela "tenemur,
et pater est aliqua fraude morandus" ait.
Dum quid agat quaerit, dum uersat in omnia uultus,
ad fratrem casu lumina flexa tulit.
Cuius ut oblata est praesentia, "uicimus" inquit:
"hic mihi morte sua causa salutis erit."
Protinus ignari nec quicquam tale timentis
innocuum rigido perforat ense latus,
atque ita diuellit diuulsaque membra per agros
dissipat in multis inuenienda locis.
Neu pater ignoret, scopulo proponit in alto
pallentesque manus sanguineumque caput,
ut genitor luctuque nouo tardetur et, artus
dum legit extinctos, triste moretur iter.

Saturday, September 15, 2007

New Feature: Recent Reads

The more observant among you may have noticed that there's a new addition to the sidebar of this blog - a section called Recent Reads.

Technically, it's just a link to my Shelfari Book Shelf. The plan though, is this - every time I read a book I'm going to add it to the shelf, along with a rating [1] and (possibly) a short 2-3 line review. I may even include an extract. That way those of you who actually care about my opinions on books will have a constantly renewed list of things to read (and not read), those of you who just can't get enough of this Falstaff character will have more fuel for your fascination and, most importantly, I'll actually remember what I've read and how I felt about it.

A few requests:

Resist the urge to quibble with my choices or argue with my ratings. I'm happy to receive e-mail about books I've just finished but try not to start them with either "Why were you reading X? Everyone KNOWS that Y is his / her greatest work" or "How could you give my beloved Z only 2-stars?"

Resist the urge to try and keep up. Remember you have a job [2].

Resist the urge to tell me what an elitist, snobbish, pseudo-intellectual prat I am. I already know. And you'll only encourage me.

Resist the urge to take out your DIY Psychological Profiling at Home kit.

Resist the urge to beat either yourself or your bookseller up because a majority of these books aren't available at your local bookstore (this is especially true if you live in India). Feel free to congratulate yourself if you have access to a library that has all of these though.

Resist the urge to say "What! You're only reading that now?!"

Resist the urge to take print-outs of these lists and thrust them at your football / cricket- watching boyfriend / husband and say "Why can't you be more like Falstaff?".

Resist the urge to give me technical advice on how to make this thing look better. Do not use the words RSS, Widget or Javascript, all of which mean nothing to me.

Finally, resist the urge to ask "How do you find the time?". Okay, so I'm an insomniac and my life is meaningless and empty. Do you have to rub it in?

Enjoy.

Notes:

[1] I'm not, in general, a big fan of ratings, but I suppose they're better than nothing. Just so you know, the rating system I'm trying to follow in my head looks something like this:

1 star - It's crap!

2 stars - It's not bad. It had some good points, but overall I was unimpressed / bored

3 stars - It was fun. A bit spotty in parts, perhaps, and not brilliant, but I enjoyed it.

4 stars - It's very good. I really loved it.

5 stars - You have to read this! It's so brilliant I went out and bought myself a copy just to have on my shelf.

[2] Remember also that I'm not necessarily sticking to books I'm currently reading. Every now and then I may throw in a book that I read a while ago but that I feel like mentioning.

Friday, September 14, 2007

A different kind of booth capture

Over the last few weeks, there's been a great deal of media attention focussed on Senator Larry Craig, who's been accused of soliciting sex from a man in a public rest room. Amid all the mockery, accusations and outrage that the news has generated, I can't help feeling that everyone's overlooked an important feel-good message that comes out of the story - the robustness of US Democracy.

Think about it. This man is a three time United States Senator, a leading figure in the party that rules his country - politically speaking, he's a 'powerful' man. Yet when he wants to have illicit sex, what does he do? Does he use some corrupt, obliging aide to procure for him? Does he summon the bunch of goons he keeps on his payroll and ask them to threaten the intended victim into compliance? Does he have the secret police make a midnight arrest on some trumped up charge and then make sexual satisfaction a condition of release? Does he at least use his political clout to leverage himself some action by promising a few special favors in return? No. Instead, he's reduced to looking for cheap hook-ups in airport rest-rooms like any other Average Creep.

Now that's what I call democracy.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Goodness

"Goodness does exist! Not just evil, stupidity and Satan. Evil has more energy, and can act with the speed of lightning, like a blitzkrieg, whereas goodness likes to dawdle in the most peculiar fashion. This fatal disproportion leads to irreparable losses in many cases."

"But goodness returns, calm, unhurried, like those phlegmatic, elegantly dressed, pipe-smoking gentlemen detectives in old-fashioned mysteries, who appear upon the scene of the crime the day after it's been committed. It comes back slowly, as if it alone had no access to modern modes of transportation, no train, car, plane, rocket or even bicycle at its disposal. It returns, though, deliberately as a pilgrim, inevitably as the dawn. Unfortunately, it comes back too slowly, as if it doesn't want to recall that we are tragically caught up in time, we have so little time. Goodness treats us as though we were immortal; it is itself immortal in a certain light, dry way, and it apparently ascribes the same quality to us, dismissing time and the body, our aging, our extinction. Goodness is better than we are."

- Adam Zagajewski, Another Beauty

(Translated from the Polish by Clare Cavanagh)

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Pip Squeak

Lloyd Jones' Mister Pip

There is a scene in Lloyd Jones' Mister Pip where Matilda, the novel's (then) 13-year old protagonist, is caught writing the name of Pip (from Dickens' Great Expectations) next to the names of her ancestors, which she's been asked to memorize. Scolded by her mother for sticking the name of a make-believe person next to those of her kin, Matilda replies that though Pip isn't a relative, she still feels closer to him than to all the strangers whose names she's been made to write in the sand.

I know exactly how she feels. Pip, or rather the specter of Pip that hangs over Jones' novel, is about the only warm or believable character in the whole book - the only one I can bring myself to feel anything for, and that mostly for Dickens' sake. Everyone else in this book is so two-dimensional, so much a stock character, that it's a wonder that they manage to stay upright when a wind blows across the island.

Jones' Mister Pip is a feather-weight of a book whose chief merit is that it's really, really short. In fact, even calling it a novel feels like an exaggeration - it's more like a collection of crumbs and odd tit-bits left behind from the great feast of the Dickensian novel.

The story is set in a place called Bouganville and centers around the figure of Mr. Watts, the last Englishman left in this tiny Papua New Guinean village. When war breaks out on the island, a blockade is put in place that cuts Bouganville of from the rest of the world, leaving its inhabitants at the mercy of the army and the rebels (called - get this - the 'Redskins' and the 'Rambos'). It's a difficult time for the people of the village, and in it our Hero (for that, with a capital H, is what Mr. Watts infallibly is) steps forward and offers to serve as the schoolmaster for the village children - a task which, as he interprets it, consists of alternating between reading Great Expectations to them and getting their mothers and aunts to come in to fill their heads with local superstitions and (literally) old wives' tales.

What follows is about a 100 pages of the most sickening twee-ness involving the children's discovery that yes, they can relate to Pip, even though they live on an island while he's a character in a book set in far-off Victorian England, their childlike wonder at discovering the power of their own imaginations, and other such trite epiphanies. Oh, it's all very charming and clever, and there's a great deal of Post-Colonial sub-text, but the whole thing reads like it's been laid on like strawberry jam. Forget Dickens, if there's a guiding spirit here, it's Enid Blyton.

This phase of the book ends, mercifully, with the arrival of soldiers in the village, at which point events take a darker turn. Through a series of ridiculous coincidences and accidents, the fictional 'Pip' becomes a wanted rebel, and the search for him sets off a chain of violence and brutality that can only end in tragedy. This is easily the best part of the book, if only because Jones manages a couple of truly affecting scenes and his singing, clever prose manages to sustain, for a while, the illusion of something profound, almost mythical, taking place. There is magic here, but it's only the magic of fool's gold. The plot is thin and contrived and more or less inchoate, with one thing haphazardly following the other; the setting is poorly evoked - we are told that the villages live in fear and deprivation, but this never really comes across; and by the end even the power of Mr. Watts yarn spinning grows pale, until it becomes hard to believe that someone this pathetic could be a figure of fascination to anyone else.

Most damning of all, Jones never really manages to get you emotionally invested in his characters (mostly because they seem too artificial, too much like archetypes) so that when the denouement comes, horrible as it is, it leaves you largely unmoved. What makes this worse is that you get the constant feeling that Jones wants very desperately to move you - that he is constantly manipulating you, constantly tugging at every heart-string he can find in the hope of making you feel for his characters. So obvious and so labored are his attempts to do this, that you find yourself suppressing what little sympathy you do feel for the characters in order to resist being emotionally panhandled.

I said denouement, but the book isn't over yet. It feels strange to accuse a book that is a mere 250 odd pages of being too long, but too long Mister Pip undoubtedly is. The story reaches its climax somewhere around page 210, then proceeds to ramble disconsolately on for another 50 odd pages, throwing in a random assortment of musings on Dickens, revelations about Mr. Watts, forced parallels to Great Expectations and general plot developments, as though hoping that something among these odds and ends will connect and make the book come alive for you. It's as though Jones simply cannot let go of his characters, or is so worried that we will not realize that Mr. Watts is meant to be an enigmatic, unreliable figure that he feels the need to keep telling us this, thereby making him not only less enigmatic but also less interesting. Or perhaps he simply recognizes the slightness of the book and decides that it could use a little more padding. At any rate, I think it's safe to say that you could abandon this book on page 210 and not be the least bit the worse for it.

It's not all bad, of course. Jones is a master at turning a phrase, and the prose throughout sparkles with clever descriptions and images. In fact, Jones does manage to infuse the book with a great deal of charm, so that if it hadn't been quite so empty it may actually have made for a pleasant read. Jones also, to his credit, is extremely clear-eyed about the atrocities of war, and doesn't flinch from portraying the casual brutality of the soldiers. And the links to Great Expectations are interesting, or would have been if Jones hadn't gone on and on about them.

Overall, then, Mister Pip is a clever, well-crafted and charming book that reads like it is targeted at twelve-year olds. If the plot had been remotely credible, if the characters had been even slightly believable and if the entire tone of the novel hadn't been so relentlessly sentimental as to be almost cheesy, this might actually have been an interesting read. As it is, it's a trivial little book that's barely worth the two hours it takes to get through. You're better off reading Dickens.

[Part of the 2007 Booker Mela; Cross-Posted on Momus]