Sense of Security

Imagine two people - neighbors living next door to each other in an apartment building. (They might even be friends, but it's unlikely, as America's political divide dictates.) In one apartment, a man lives alone, has a steady job, goes about his daily life, and goes to bed at night, sleeping soundly with his front door and sliding glass back door securely locked. In the second apartment, a man lives alone, has a steady job, goes about his daily life, and goes to bed at night - but he sleeps fitfully, sometimes awakened by "sounds" that may, he thinks, be caused by someone trying to break into his apartment. So the second man gets an extra lock for his front door, and puts a metal rod in the runner of his glass back door. But the sounds he hears at night persist. So he pays for a security service and installs an alarm. Then he gets a dog, and pays the deposit to his landlord to have it. Finally, when he still can't sleep, he purchases a Smith & Wesson .38 calibur pistol, and loads it with semi-jacketed hollow point rounds (for greater stopping power). But even with the loaded gun lying within reach in the night table drawer, he can't sleep soundly, and gets up in the morning, still tired.

Now, the question I have to ask is: will building a wall on the border with Mexico help the second guy get some sleep?

Now imagine, as hard as it might be, living in a place where you feel so secure and safe that, when you leave your house to go run an errand, you don't feel the need to lock your door. You walk away from your house not thinking "Oops! I forgot to lock the door." You don't even have to think about it. You just do it. The door closes behind you and you go and get in your car and you drive away and never once does it occur to you that you forgot to lock your door. The next question I want to ask some people is, would you want to live in such a place - such a town, such a state of our Union? Because there are such places. I have visited some of them.

As a lifelong city-dweller, I would still lock my door if I lived in such a place, and not from force of habit. Maybe it would take me years to get over the natural sense of insecurity that I developed over the years of living in cities. Maybe I would never get over it. There are some who would say that the people who don't lock their doors are simply asking for trouble. The trusting attitude they have is an invitation to criminals. There is always someone who might not even have a criminal mentality who is looking for just such an opportunity to take advantage of people who feel so secure they don't think about having to lock their doors. And they don't lose any sleep trying to remember if they did or they didn't do it.

I can guarantee that there are some people who would not want to live in such a place. It seems to me that such people have become defined by their insecurity. It has shaped their politics and their world-view. When they look around them and notice how many people don't look like them and don't share their ethnic history, whose ancestors came from a different place, who perhaps worship a strange god, worship in a strange church that probably isn't called a church - they feel threatened, as if their way of life were under siege and their country were no longer the exclusive property of people like them. And politicians have become expert at capitalizing on their insecurity. Rather than trying to assuage it, they exacerbate it. And Fox News fans their hate. Turn on Fox News any day and they will feature a story about an "illegal" committing some egregious crime against an American citizen.

We have all grown unnaturally paranoid about the tiniest things. Driving to work in the mornings, did we remember to turn off the iron? The thought that, if we didn't, we might return home to a pile of ashes that was our house gets under our skin. But we can't turn around and go back every time such a thought occurs to us when we drive away from our homes. So we adapt. We no longer react to our paranoia, as justified as it may it be. We adapt to the risks. We have to. Otherwise we would never accomplish anything. Think about the McAlister family, who, going through the exhaustive details of their Christmas vacation away from home, left behind their youngest child twice. They had the feeling that they forgot something, but they can't figure out what it was until it's too late. This is why Murphy's Law was invented. To drive us all crazy. I once worked as a security guard in a complex of medical office buildings, and after I was trained about all the little insignificant things I had to check to make sure nothing went wrong, and after doing it for a number of weeks, I understood that there is no such thing as Murphy's Law. Because if all the things that could go wrong did go wrong, the world would fly to pieces.

And I will admit that, though I have never felt unsafe in my apartment and I never lost any sleep because of noises I might have mistaken for burglars, if I was the second man I described above and I felt that I needed to buy a lethal weapon and keep it within reach just so I would feel more secure, I would move. And if I lived in a country where politicians and pundits had convinced me that the best thing in the world to insure a good night's sleep for me was a 2,000 mile wall on the border with Mexico, I would migrate to Canada.

So on the last day of 2018, a year to which I was not especially attached (it made me 60, after all), I will kiss my nearest (if not my dearest) at the stroke of midnight, turn off the lights, lock my front door, and sleep soundly, rising to pee only two or three times. The world is full of strangers.

Happy New Year.

Simon Said

Looking up articles by John Simon who, now 93, remains the sole surviving film critic of the Golden Age, I came across a querulous piece from 2015 that its author titled, "The Most Hilariously Damning Review Of The Original Star Wars". It was a post from one of the many blogs on which fans pour forth their seemingly unlimited adoration of pop culture fixtures - in this case the Star Wars movie franchise, created by George Lucas and now owned by Disney.

The author of the piece comes from a base of fans for whom Star Wars is unquestionably one of the pillars of movie art, along with what else I can only guess. His distaste for the "hilariously damning review" (by John Simon) derives from the assumption that the first Star Wars installment, released in 1977, is an inviolable film masterwork: "When Star Wars came out in 1977, nobody knew it would become the classic that we all recognize today. Some people were skeptical, for sure. But few reviewers were as hilariously savage as John Simon, with New York Magazine, who called it 'a set of giant baubles manipulated by an infant mind.'"

The author offers "some choice passages from Simon’s review," which I won't repeat here. Simon was possessed of two things that sometimes acted against each other: acute discernment and a sometimes brutal means of expressing it. While recognizing that shooting ducks in a barrel wasn't very sporting, he occasionally couldn't resist the sheer fun of it. Simon's conclusion ("Still, Star Wars will do very nicely for those lucky enough to be children or unlucky enough never to have grown up.") was virtually identical to Stanley Kauffmann's assessment: "This picture was made for those (particularly males) who carry a portable shrine within them of their adolescence, a chalice of a Self that was Better Then, before the world’s affairs or—in any complex way—sex intruded. Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers and their peers guard the portals of American innocence, and Star Wars is an unabashed, jaw-clenched tribute to the chastity still sacred beneath the middle-aged spread."

When the 3rd installment of the Star Wars franchise was released, in 1982 I think, Simon appeared on ABC News Nightline in a "debate" with Chicago movie reviewers Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel. Simon repeated his opinion that the Star Wars films were made for kids, both underage and overgrown, and that they were trying to make kids dumber. Siskel & Ebert, smiling like they were in firm possession of the high ground, played straight into Simon's argument first by questioning Simon's upbringing (the only explanation they can imagine for why he chooses not to revisit his childhood), and by pointing out the overwhelming popularity of the films among children. Siskel told Simon he should've been with him at a matinee, surrounded by delighted kids who easily identified the good guys and the bad guys, cheering and booing in perfect synchronization (I'm paraphrasing).

What Simon should've asked Siskel was what was he doing sitting among a throng of squealing kids at an matinee? Didn't he feel even the slightest bit out of place? And would he try to smuggle a child into an audience of grownups at an R-rated movie, at the risk of getting kicked out of the theater? (I argued before that the MPAA ratings should cut both ways. Adults should be prevented from watching films marketed to children. But, of course, Star Wars wasn't marketed exclusively to kids. It was given a PG rating, after all -  albeit there wasn't much parental guidance at Siskel's matinee.)

John Simon, like myself, probably had a perfectly normal childhood, of a normal duration, ending some time in his mid-teens when self-knowledge and knowledge of the ways of the world impelled him to turn away from childhood and embrace adulthood. Speaking for myself, if you had asked me when I was 12 what I wanted to be when I grew up, I am confident that I would've replied that I wanted to be an adult. That's all. My profession was unimportant. I saw my childish condition as manifestly, if necessarily, unfair. I was at a disadvantage - one that grownups capitalized on. I wasn't taken seriously because I was a child. And, of course, adults who used physical violence against me as a form of coercion did so precisely because I was too small to defend myself. Why is it that no one remembers this about being a child, but only the endless process of discovery and wonder that is the natural result of being new to everything?

I read comic books when I was a kid and loved watching Western movies and cheered when the cavalry arrived in the nick of time to save the white settlers from the clutches of the the savage "injuns". Even John Ford's "masterpiece" The Searchers is informed by this creed. My heroes were Johnny Unitas and Wilt Chamberlain and Hank Aaron. I thrilled to the Leatherstocking Tales of James Fenimore Cooper. On TV, I watched Daniel Boone and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and The Munsters. But when I arrived in my teens, I saw Fellini's La Strada (because it had two Hollywood stars, Anthony Quinn and Richard Basehart) and I was inadvertently made aware of a whole world of films that had been deliberately kept from me, just as they were kept from most Americans, by a monopolizing Hollywood.

What ultimately determines the value of any work - a book, a piece of music, a film? Not the opinions of critics, no matter how learned and deftly expressed. Longevity decides. Will it still be known and celebrated in 20, 50, 100 years? Only posterity will tell. Ask a film producer if he cares what posterity will say of his film. He only cares about the film's first run. Not even a cult following can make up for a film's disastrous first showing. The vast majority of what are stupidly called art-house films (by a generation of doofuses) are also known as "niche" productions. They aren't expected to make a killing at the box office. So when they don't, no one is surprised. But if a blockbuster bombs (the word blockbuster was first applied to an actual bomb), it sends shock waves through the film industry. A manufactured product designed expressly to put butts in movie theater seats has failed to function. The butts failed to materialize in sufficient numbers to offset the enormous cost of the production. Careers are in peril.

What can be done to prevent it? Is there no algorithm that can be used to guarantee box office receipts? I can tell you from experience, just as every other experiened critic can tell you, that there is no connection at all between critical success and sales. What is good and what sells exist in different dimensions that never touch. A good film can sometimes sell, but it is unlikely to. What sells, to the extent of its popularity, is mostly bad, but not invariably so.

The clash of sensibilities that the aforementioned Star Wars article highlights is not, of course, an isolated event. It happens whenever a believer comes in contact with the expressed views of a skeptic. I wrote about a similar encounter at the beginning of this month. A website for fans of J.R.R. Tolkien published a review of The Lord of the Rings (by Edmund Wilson) that was highly unfavorable. It was inconceivable to these fans that everyone couldn't share in their unquestioning enthusiasm for the books. Of course, it was also inconceivable to them that a literary world could exist in which Tolkien wasn't among the greatest writers who ever lived, even if they were unacquainted with the writing of Flaubert, Joyce, Mann, Fitzgerald, or any other writer whose work is esteemed to be great. Edmund Wilson came from such a literary world. Which is why, when his job as a professional literary critic required him to read Tolkien's books, because some misguided critics had praised their literary qualities, he had to denounce Tolkien as a writer for children. More recently, Harold Bloom denounced J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter books for identical reasons.(1)

John Simon came from a world of film that Star Wars fans know nothing about. It is a world in which the standards were set by films that no Star Wars fan has probably even heard of. So when Simon was required in 1977, as the film critic of the weekly New York Magazine, to express his judgement of the first Star Wars movie, it wasn't at all in accordance with the feelings of its fans. Simon saw it as a poorly written, clumsily executed (however buttressed it was by technical effects) dud aimed at undiscerning children and adults whose childhoods never ended. It's no wonder, then, that Ebert & Siskel took exception to Simon's judgement, even if, as critics, they were miserably unequal to Simon's standard. Had they been book reviewers (which is unlikely), they would've mistaken Stephen King's phenomenal success as some dubious proof of literary prowess, not knowing that sales is never enough of a guarantee of quality.


(1) “The writing was dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character stretched his legs’. I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling’s mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.” 

The Seventh Seal

Listening to some considerably lesser filmmakers than Ingmar Bergman ridicule his film The Seventh Seal has compelled me to look at it again. It was my very first Bergman film, which was shown at some parent/teacher meeting in 1972 or '73 when I was attending a Catholic school. A nun (most of my teachers were nuns, which only became a problem when we were instructed in sex education) had seen the film and had given in to its religious implications. As I learned later on, Bergman had been preoccupied with the ultimate question - the great WHY of existence - when he made the film, but he came up with the novel approach of addressing it directly rather than obliquely. Not long after he made it, however, he lost interest in the subject, even though it continued to appear in several of his subsequent films. But it was no longer a problem to be solved for him, but only a problem without ready-made solutions. (It is in this respect that I am one of those critics who found Wild Strawberries unsatisfying, since it confronts Isak Borg's imminent death momentarily, but loses its nerve, probably because Bergman loved Victor Sjöström too much to see through with his quietus. He is given an utterly unconvincing contented ending instead.)

However much Bergman may have moved on from the issues he confronts in The Seventh Seal, it is a stimulating confrontation. He didn't settle the matter, he simply let go of it. The argument (put forward by Alexander Payne in the documentary Trespassing Bergman) that the film somehow no longer "holds up" is preposterous. What he meant to say, of course, is that filmmakers no longer have the balls to confront such unwieldy subjects. Barry Levinson includes a scene in his masterpiece, Diner, in which two of his characters are in a Baltimore movie theater watching The Seventh Seal. When Death appears, Steve Guttenberg asks Tim Daly who that's supposed to be. "Death," Daly replies. "Oh, come on," Guttenberg says. "I've been to Atlantic City a thousand times and I never saw Death walking on the beach." "It's symbolic," Daly tells him.

But, of course, it's NOT symbolic at all. It isn't a symbol of Death in The Seventh Seal, walking on that stony beach, but Death personified. After the typically terse opening credits, a title appears that reads: It is the middle of the 14th century. Antonius Blok and his squire, after long years as crusaders in the Holy Land, have at last returned to their native Sweden, a land ravaged by the Black Plague.

We then hear a voiceover intoning lines from the New Testament's Book of Revelation, Chapter 8: "And when the Lamb had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour. . . . And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound." The opening scene is justly famous, but it has contributed to an image of Bergman that he had to work long and hard to escape. At dawn, the knight and his squire are lying on a deserted beach. A figure dressed in black with a pale white face appears suddenly and startles the knight, who asks him "Who are you?" "I am Death," the man in black replies matter of factly.

Two scenes, early in the film, make Bergman's intentions explicit. Jof awakes in his wagon and tumbles out into the brilliant morning. As he practices juggling, he sees a woman and a baby walking alone together. Jof smiles ecstatically and rubs his eyes. But when he opens them again the woman and child are gone. He climbs back inside the wagon and wakes Mia, his wife.

JOF: Mia, wake up. Wake up! Mia, I've just seen something. I've got to tell you about it!
MIA: (sits up, terrified) What is it? What's happened?
JOF: Listen, I've had a vision. No, it wasn't a vision. It was real, absolutely real.
MIA: Oh, so you've had a vision again!
MIA's voice isfilled with gentle irony. JOF shakes his head and grabs her by the shoulders.
JOF: But I did see her!
MIA: Whom did you see?
JOF: The Virgin Mary.
MIA can't help being impressed by her husband's fervor. She lowers her voice.
MIA: Did you really see her?
JOF: She was so close to me that I could have touched her. She had a golden crown on her head and wore a blue gown with flowers of gold. She was barefoot and had small brown hands with which she was holding the Child and teaching Him to walk. And then she saw me watching her and she smiled at me. My eyes filled with tears and when I wiped them away, she had disappeared. And everything became so still in the sky and on the earth. Can you understand...
MIA: What an imagination you have.
JOF: You don't believe me! But it was real, I tell you, not the kind of reality you see every day, but a different kind.
MIA: Perhaps it was the kind of reality you told us about when you saw the Devil painting our wagon wheels red, using his tail as a brush.
JOF: (embarrassed) Why must you keep bringing that up?
MIA: And then you discovered that you had red paint under your nails.
JOF: Well, perhaps that time I made it up. (eagerly) I did it just so that you would believe in my other visions. The real ones. The ones that I didn't make up.
MIA: (severely) You have to keep your visions under control. Otherwise people will think that you're a half-wit, which you're not. At least not yet as far as I know. But, come to think of it, I'm not so sure about that.
JOF: (angry) I didn't ask to have visions. I can't help it if voices speak to me, if the Holy Virgin appears before me and angels and devils like my company.

But Jof IS a fool - the kind whose truths are mistaken for jokes. The second scene that makes Bergman's intentions somewhat more explicit is in a church where Jons encounters a man painting inside.

To the right of the entrance there is a large fresco on the wall, not quite finished. Perched on a crude scaffolding is a PAINTER wearing a red cap and paint-stained clothes. He has one brush in his mouth, while with another in his hand he outlines a small, terrified human face amidst a sea of other faces.
JONS: What is this supposed to represent?
PAINTER: The Dance of Death.
JONS: And that one is Death?
PAINTER: Yes, he dances off with all of them.
JONS: Why do you paint such nonsense?
PAINTER: I thought it would serve to remind people that they must die.
JONS: Well, it's not going to make them feel any happier.
PAINTER: Why should one always make people happy? It might not be a bad idea to scare them a little once in awhile.
JONS: Then they'll close their eyes and refuse to look at your painting.
PAINTER: Oh, they'll look. A skull is almost more interesting than a naked woman.
JONS: If you do scare them...
PAINTER: They'll think.
JONS: And if they think...
PAINTER: They'll become still more scared.
JONS: And then they'll run right into the arms of the priests.
PAINTER: That's not my business.
JONS: You're only painting your Dance of Death.
PAINTER: I'm only painting things as they are. Everyone else can do as he likes.
JONS: Just think how some people will curse you.
PAINTER: Maybe. But then I'll paint something amusing for them to look at. I have to make a living, at least until the plague takes me.

For all the talk about God and the Devil, Bergman made The Seventh Seal to directly confront his fear of death. There is a scene, shot in just one day, in which a procession of flagellants passes through a village, led by a half-crazed monk who screams at the gathering of townsfolk.

MONK: God has sentenced us to punishment. We shall all perish in the black death. You, standing there like gaping cattle, you who sit there in your glutted complacency, do you know that this may be your last hour? Death stands right behind you. I can see how his crown gleams in the sun. His scythe flashes as he raises it above your heads. Which one of you shall he strike first? You there, who stand staring like a goat, will your mouth be twisted into the last unfinished gasp before nightfall? And you, woman, who bloom with life and self-satisfaction, will you pale and become extinguished before the morning dawns? You back there, with your swollen nose and stupid grin, do you have another year left to dirty the earth with your refuse? Do you know, you insensible fools, that you shall die today or tomorrow, or the next day, because all of you have been sentenced? Do you hear what I say? Do you hear the word? You have been sentenced, sentenced!

The monk (impressively played by Anders Ek) never mentions salvation or damnation. Why bother, when Death is much more imposing and terrifying? It is as if Bergman himself stood on a stage and addressed us in the audience directly. "You back there with the swollen nose ..." If I were in the audience, perhaps I would suddenly feel self-conscious about my nose.

The film was made on a tight budget with the expert resources of Gunnar Fischer's utterly raw black-and-white imagery, P. A. Lundgren's inventively economic design, and Erik Nordgren's evocatively authentic-sounding music. Max von Sydow is imposing as Blok. Gunnar Björnstrand is marvelous as the skeptical squire, Jons. Nils Poppe probably got fed up with comparisons to Chaplin, but, for once, they are earned. Bibi Andersson is captivating as Mia. And there was no better Death than Bengt Ekerot.

I have mentioned before that fewer people are reading and being enthralled by Dante's The Divine Comedy because, since hardly anyone continues to believe in personal immortality, heaven and hell have ceased to be interesting to readers even as abstract concepts. But death continues to be a perplexing problem - a problem that needs to be faced, rather than solved. When Bergman wanted to address the problem, he refused to face it in the usual philosophical or metaphysical terms. Especially since film is - as it should be - so damned literal. People in films are given visions, but they never appear to us the way they appear to the character in the film - as visions. Some special photographic or lighting effect may give them a strangeness that signals to us that what we are seeing, through the character's eyes, isn't supposed to be taken literally. When Henry James wrote The Turn of the Screw, he clearly wanted the reader to continually wonder if the ghosts that the children's governess sees are genuine ghosts or simply figments of her - presumably sexually - overheated imagination.

But in The Seventh Seal Bergman wanted to treat his subject in an utterly unambiguous, head-on manner. So why do so many responsible people respond to the film the same way Steve Guttenberg did in Barry Levinson's Diner? Could it be because they're made uncomfortable by it? Sneering at the film doesn't diminish its power or invalidate its argument. As Philip Larkin wrote,

Most things may never happen: this one will,
And realisation of it rages out
In furnace-fear when we are caught without
People or drink. Courage is no good:
It means not scaring others. Being brave
Lets no one off the grave.
Death is no different whined at than withstood.
("Aubade")

I think Larkin (and Bergman) would be incredulous of anyone who claimed that they weren't afraid of death. I think they would both have laughed at Woody Allen's line, "I'm not afraid of death. I just don't want to be around when it happens."

Trespassing Bergman

In the documentary Marcello Mastroianni: I Remember (1997), the great Italian actor describes how, in the 1960s, busloads of foreign tourists would stop outside the house of Federico Fellini in Rome to maybe catch a glimpse of the great filmmaker. Fellini was as much a part of their Roman itinerary as the Colosseum, the Spanish Steps, and the Trevi Fountain. Fellini's life was a part of the show.

But Ingmar Bergman's life was nobody's business. Once he had become world famous, he sought to protect his privacy from goofball fans who trekked all the way to his home on the remote island of Fårö to catch a glimpse of him. In 2013, five years after Bergman's death, a documentary was released called Trespassing Bergman. The title of this curiously mocking documentary comes from the garrisoned house on Fårö (off Götland, if that is any help) to which some of the people in the film - all filmmakers - come to visit, where Bergman lived and worked (on and off) for forty years. To any true cinephile who ever held the work of Ingmar Bergman in high esteem (and I don't believe it's possible to be one and to not do the other), the film lurches from touching reverence to effrontery and back again.

There is a quite bizarre fetishism at work here, almost as if Bergman's corpse was in the room while some of the people invited inside were poking around his inner sanctum (his study, his movie-viewing room), rifling through his books and collection of videos. Daniel Espinosa confesses that he feels like he is "trespassing" in Bergman's home, and Claire Denis becomes strangely spooked and has to leave the house. But a number of them had clearly shown up to bury Bergman rather than praise him. And what a very odd bunch of people they assembled to trespass on Bergman! Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Michael Haneke, John Landis, Lars von Trier, Tomas Alfredson, Daniel Espinosa, Claire Denis, Wes Craven, Ang Lee, Thomas Vinterberg, Isabella Rossellini, Harriet Andersson, Zhang Yimou, Woody Allen, Laura Dern, Francis Ford Coppola, Takeshi Kitano, Holly Hunter, Wes Anderson, Robert De Niro, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, Pernilla August, Alexander Payne - all of them have something to say about Bergman's films, sometimes illuminating, sometimes not.

Ask your average movie fan today to name a "great" director and you might get answers like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, or Ridley Scott. Further down the scale you might get J. J. Abrams, James Gunn, or Matthew Vaughn. Ask them to name a great foreign director and you would probably get the name of one of the many foreign directors who, early in their careers, defected to Hollywood. Like Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Denis Villeneuve, or Alfonso Cuarón.

Well, none of these "great" directors comes even close to my standard of greatness - a standard established by Ingmar Bergman and a handful of other filmmakers. I simply can't use the word in connection with them without putting it between quotation marks. Some of them have made good films. Michael Haneke, Claire Denis, Ang Lee, Zhang Yimou. And I got the feeling that the makers of Trespassing Bergman at least sensed this as well. At one point, John Landis calls The Seventh Seal, the film that made Bergman almost a household word, a "joke" and Alexander Payne claims that it "doesn't hold up" and its once "profound" qualities are now "laughable." One of the problems that The Seventh Seal presents to the viewer is its solidity and concreteness. It isn't in the least abstract, which was Bergman's point. He wanted to show how, in the Middle Ages, things like death and hell weren't just concepts but extremely real, and he used medieval church paintings that represented death and the devil almost as everyday, familiar objects, as his jumping off point. Just because the film has been parodied so much doesn't diminish its power. People can parody the pared-down writing style of Ernest Hemingway without diminishing the greatness of The Sun Also Rises.

The worst offender by far is Lars von Trier, the Danish imbecile who appears to lack the ability to control the puerilities coming out of his mouth. After showing off an obscene figurine on his desk, he asserts that, because Bergman supposedly claimed to be in a constant state of sexual arousal, even into old age, he must have been masturbating nonstop. Coming from someone who has by now made several quite ineffective hardcore pornographic films, Trier's remarks are merely asinine.

Martin Scorsese speaks about his first encounters with Bergman's early films, especially Summer With Monika, but then points out that, for a Roman Catholic like him, Bergman was on the "condemned list." And Robert de Niro appears briefly to inform us that, because he was too busy to watch the Bergman films with which the filmmakers provided him, he wasn't able to comment on them. Wes Anderson, whose Paris home is shown off to no purpose, makes some remarks about the lack of "comedians" among Bergman's actors. Anderson is becoming somewhat legendary for producing the longest string of totally pointless films on record. He should be in the Guinness book by now.

But before we're halfway through the film, the focus shifts abruptly from Bergman's work to Bergman's women. One of the things that the film points out is how Bergman was attacked by a new generation of Swedish filmmakers and critics and how Bergman responded to them in The Silence and Persona, radical departures from conventional narrative films. Bergman could have easily ignored the new generation and relax in his renown, without making another film to stand alongside Smiles of a Summer Night and The Seventh Seal. The fact that he continued to make films that challenged viewers, like Winter Light and A Passion attests to his stature as an artist.

The 1970s were by far the most turbulent and difficult years for Bergman. He gave up asking difficult questions about God and death and focused instead on marriage and family. He had to flee charges of tax evasion in Sweden and work in Germany. I think his work during this period began to parody itself. When Woody Allen, who has always revered Bergman, made Interiors, which was released almost simultaneously with Bergman's Autumn Sonata, Vernon Young suggested that Bergman was copying or even parodying the style of Allen's film, rather than vice-versa. Isabella Rossellini makes the pertinent point that Bergman's portrayal of a successful woman ( Ingrid Bergman is a concert pianist in Autumn Sonata) who neglects her children and her family obligations is quite sexist, not to mention outdated.

Finally arriving at Fanny and Alexander, which was the most expensive film ever made in Sweden, earning the Swedish Film Institute some criticism for spending its entire budget for the year on one film, some actresses mention their nervousness working with Bergman, but Lars von Trier expresses his - justified, I think - outrage about how "blasphemous" Fanny and Alexander is because it is little more than a travesty of his life's work.


The film returns repeatedly to shots of Fårö, its stark landscape and stony beaches, its occluded horizons. You get a sense of how much it might have inspired Bergman, looking out on that denuded island, blasted by Baltic winds. It doesn't seem lonely so much as it might be populated by ghosts. There is a starkness that is beautiful, even lyrical, that only someone like Bergman would notice. After covering so much ground, the film closes with a touching moment when, in still photographs, a very old Bergman embraces Ang Lee. It offers us a kind of forgiveness for the trespassing we have all committed by watching this exasperatingly uneven documentary.

Tiny Tim Lives

Charles Dickens is generally credited, on the strength of just one of his many books, A Christmas Carol, with nothing less than the invention of Christmas as it is now popularly celebrated. When he composed the tale in the last months of 1843, what he had on his mind was his own survival, since his publisher was threatening to cut his royalties in half because of a slump in the sales of his books, and his wife was pregnant with their fifth child. But he also had in mind the survival of London's poorest residents, which is why A Christmas Carol, while it is perennially associated with the overwhelming access of cheer in Ebeneezer Scrooge in the story's final "stave," is otherwise very somber and sobering.

In his marvelous introduction to the story, G. K. Chesterton informs us of so much about Christmas and how Dickens observed it and transformed it. He is especially insightful in his observation that it was no confusion of pagan and Christian calendars that placed Christmas in winter:

It is the element not merely of contrast, but actually of antagonism. It preserves everything that was best in the merely primitive or pagan view of such ceremonies or such banquets. If we are carousing, at least we are warriors carousing. We hang above us, as it were, the shields and battle-axes with which we must do battle with the giants of the snow and hail. Man chooses when he wishes to be most joyful the very moment when the whole material universe is most sad.

George Orwell said as much when he remarked that we can only know happiness in terms of contrast: we recognize happiness when we find it in life because we know its opposite so well. Scrooge gives us a picture of man at his most unkind and at his most generous. This is why it is so difficult for an actor to be successful in the role. For, while some of the actors who have played Scrooge are most convincing at portraying one half of the role, they too often fall short in portraying the other.

Dickens wasn't so sophisticated about politics that he could explain to us how to make a world in which both Scrooge's insatiable greed and Tiny Tim's tubercular leg would be equally inadmissible. He didn't want to remake the world, despite how horribly ill-made it was when he found it. But he could use his art to place before us the two figures of Ignorance and Want in the form of children hidden in the folds of the second ghost's garments:

From the foldings of its robe, it brought two children; wretched, abject, frightful, hideous, miserable.They knelt down at its feet, and clung upon the outside of its garment.

"Oh, Man! look here. Look, look, down here!" exclaimed the Ghost.

They were a boy and girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked; and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread.

Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.

''Spirit! are they yours?" Scrooge could say no more.

"They are Man's," said the Spirit, looking down upon them. "And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!" cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. "Slander those who tell it ye! Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And abide the end!''

This strange moment is often omitted from the Christmas Carol films. It introduces an element of polemics to the story. Those children continue to be, 175 years later, a powerful rebuke to a world that prides itself in - but can never live up to - its progressive values.

Despite Dickens's injection of serious purpose to his story, it was an immediate success (the first edition, published on December 19, was sold out by Christmas Eve), and it remains a favorite among his books. When he took up public readings, as always to make more money from his writings, he read A Christmas Carol to his delighted audiences. The English actor Seymour Hicks first performed as Scrooge in a stage production of A Christmas Carol in 1901. After playing him thousands of times on stage, he appeared in the role in a film made in 1913. It was only fitting, therefore, that Hicks should be the very first Scrooge in a sound film released in 1934 when he was 63. He was followed by Reginald Owen, Alastair Sim, Albert Finney, Michael Hordern, George C. Scott, Michael Caine, and lately by Jim Carrey and Patrick Stewart. And who can forget Rowan Atkinson's Blackadder Christmas Carol?

I don't remember which Scrooge was the first that I saw when I was a boy, but it was either Alastair Sim or Mr. Magoo (voiced by Jim Backus). Of all the ones I've seen, it's hard to tell which was the best Scrooge. The worst was Bill Murray in the insufferable "updating" of the tale called Scrooged. As I mentioned before, the role presents a singular difficulty to the actor, for, while it was relatively easy for Dickens to pull off the great change of heart that transforms Scrooge from a despicable, avaricious misanthropist into a sweet, lovable old philanthropist, it is exceptionally difficult for an actor to accomplish it in the span of a ninety minute movie. Alastair Sim failed because he was simply too endearing to begin with. He does the reformed Scrooge sweetly, but he fails to convince as the cruel old skinflint. George C. Scott presents us with the opposite problem. He is perfect as the bilious bastard through three quarters of the film, but is uetterly unbelievable as the loving and kind benefactor in the last quarter. Michael Caine acquitted himself beautifully, despite being surrounded by muppets. Jim Carrey is simply unqualified as the first (thoroughly creepy) "performance capture" Scrooge.

The problem with all the different film adaptations of the book is, since none of them is distinguished in cinematic terms (nobody has a reason to remember who directed each of them), the only thing that makes them distinguishable from one another is the actor who plays Scrooge. Only the lead actor can breathe life into the old tale. Which one is my favorite? Moira Armstrong directed a television adaptation in 1977 with Michael Hordern as Scrooge. It had a very small budget. (Why are only American films made wretched by shoestring budgets?) The outdoor scenes are drawings with the actors superimposed on them. And videotape doesn't age well. But, honestly, it is a far more evocative version than Robert Zemeckis's Walt Disneyfied version, with its CGI animation, the same sort that made The Polar Express the most unintentionally scary Christmas movie ever. And, as I already mentioned, Jim Carrey rings every false note.

Michael Hordern was Marley's Ghost to Alastair Sim's Scrooge in 1951. Consigned to supporting roles for most of his career, he was finally given a chance to play leading roles in the 1970s. Though he lacks the necessary menace to make us hate the former Scrooge, he is splendid in the latter stages, even better than Alastair Sim at his wimsiest. And, probably because I only recently unearthed a copy of the programme, which is just shy of one hour in length, Hordern is my favorite Scrooge.

What is it that brings about Scrooge's great metamorphosis? In his review of A Muppet Christmas Carol, Stanley Kauffmann wrote: "Foreknowledge of the sentimentalities in A Christmas Carol is no safeguard: it always makes me cry. Oscar Wilde, no Dickens enthusiast, said: 'One must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell [in The Old Curiosity Shop] without laughing.' Well, one must have an even stonier heart to read of the melting of Scrooge without melting a little."

Is it the vision of his own corpse carelessly covered by a sheet or a headstone engraved with his name that so frightens Scrooge that he is moved to be a different man? The 3rd Ghost reveals to Scrooge what the unimposing portion of his world would be like upon the event of his death. In another well beloved Christmas tale, Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, George Bailey is so afraid that he will be ruined by the accidental loss of a bank deposit that he resolves to take his own life, since his life insurance policy makes him worth more dead than alive. Before he can throw himself off a bridge, however, an angel falls in the river and, when George rescues him, the angel gives him a guided tour of what his small own would be like if he'd never been born. Such is the conceit of the tale that, of course, everything is worse off without George Bailey. Not even Dickens would stack the deck so shamelessly. When he has seen enough, George begs the angel to take him back, and they all lived happily after. But George only wanted to end his life, not nullify his whole lifetime. Capra wanted to show how interconnected our lives are, and how the removal of just one life affects the lives of everyone around it. Ten years ago on this blog, I proposed a remake of It's a Wonderful Life that took the story to an opposite extreme. The hero of the remake is shown how little his world is affected by his absence - except for one almost unnoticeable detail.

Scrooge begs the ghost of the future to give him another chance to make a positive impact on his world. And I believe the point at which I, too, always cry whenever I watch A Christmas Carol, is when Dickens tells us of the death of Tiny Tim. The Ghost of Christmas Present forebodes it:

"Spirit," said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, "tell me if Tiny Tim will live."

"I see a vacant seat," replied the Ghost, "in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the child will die."

Scrooge learns that the greatest rebuke to his greed is the effect it has on the most innocent life that it touches. The suffering of children is the most powerful challenge to all our principles - to our faith in goodness or in a beneficent God. For how can we believe in either when a child suffers or dies? If one child cannot be spared pain and death, of what use is a government, our laws, or progress? It is for Tiny Tim that Scrooge pleads for, and is granted, a second chance. His heart is broken by the fate of the child so that it should be made whole again.

Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did NOT die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world.

And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!

New One

I never cease to be disabused of the intelligence of celebrities. They have lives prior to becoming celebrities, and some of them never forget what it was like being unknown. But the moment some of them become celebrities, everything they experience thereafter is something that they themselves just discovered. This is never more true than when they have kids. Women get pregnant and give birth and it's all they talk about - until it dawns on them that every woman who's listening has been there, too. And men become fathers and all they can talk about is their bewilderment and amazement - and their feeling of utter uselessness.

Mike Birbiglia has been around a few years. I saw him in Trainwreck (2015) playing - you guessed it - an insufferable dad. He reminds me of Dana Carvey doing one of his impressions. I mean, he's like a Dana Carvey who can't do impressions. He's now on Broadway doing his one-man show, "New One." Seeing him doing the rounds of the talk shows and listening to him talk about the subject of his show made me wonder why he didn't learn anything from playing an insufferable dad in Trainwreck.

He isn't the first man to become a dad. So he's probably also not the first man to wonder at being a dad. What puzzles me is that, after expressing what amounts to an extreme ambivalence about fatherhood, he encourages men who haven't become fathers to go through with it, too. I get the feeling that it isn't because he wants us to experience all of the glories of the position. He also wants us to feel his pain.

At one point in the show, after having "agreed" to the conception of a child, gone through his wife's 75-month pregnancy (his own estimation), and having begun to understand what it's like to be “evicted from your own life sponsored by you,” he finds himself sidelined when the baby is born, as all men (except for the doctor) are, saying “I don’t know what I’m supposed to do. I guess I’ll just write an email to everyone I’ve ever met. Which is really the chief responsibility of the dad. The mother births a double bowling ball out of her vagina and then the dad just knocks out an email.” Most men stoically accept the division of labor (pun) involved in child-bearing. What else can they do? Go onstage and whinge about it? There are worlds that are forever closed off to men. But "womb-envy" is something better sublimated than openly expressed. Yes, Victor Frankenstein engendered human life all on his own and look where it got him (not to mention his poor creation).

The birth over, Mike's home life settles into its routine. But he gets into some trouble when he talks onstage about how his wife breastfeeds their child at the kitchen table while he washes the dishes. His wife had to remind him that he never did the dishes. They argue, and when he's alone he thinks (and repeats in his show) “I get why dads leave.” Oh, so that's why they leave? I thought it was some other reason. In most cases, I've found, fathers leave BECAUSE THEY CAN.

My father was always there, a rock. But a quiet, emotionally distant rock. Of course, I've found out since he died that he was that way only with my brother and me. To my sisters he was much more approachable, which makes perfect Freudian sense. I sometimes wish he had been a bit more of a presence in my life. But after listening to Mike Birbiglia's querulous prattle on the subject of being a father, I changed my mind. Thank you, daddy (I never called him "dad"), for being a functioning father in silence.

But I am childless. I live with a woman who once cried because she couldn't give me a child. Years before I met her, after her fifth - and final - pregnancy, which resulted in a C-section because her womb was shared by her daughter and an ovarian cyst the size of a 1-liter Coke bottle, the doctor put her under and performed a radical hysterectomy. The baby's father was the father of her two big brothers (a third boy died in infancy). When the daughter was 3, he seized the opportunity to bugger off - leaving the woman (they weren't married) alone to raise his three children, along with an older daughter from another relationship. When I entered her life 11 years ago and I came to live on my island, I brought her along with three of her children. Two of them have since grown up and moved out. I was their surrogate father, providing for them in a fashion their "real" father could never have managed. As the saying goes, I put a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, and food on the table.

Now tell me, Mike Birbiglia, what is a father?

Hobbitual

For everything, it seems, there is a category, a classification, or a genre to which it must be assigned before any discussion of it can get off the ground. I recently blundered onto a blog devoted to film wherein the author described what are now known as "art-house films" and their relation to "other film genres". It's probably no accident that the contemporary film consumer should have come up with the idea of placing films that defy categorization - like Renoir's The Rules of the Game, Antonioni's L'Avventura, Ozu's Late Spring, and our very own category-defying Citizen Kane - in a separate section of the Netflix catalog. There was simply nowhere else to put them. I posted a comment on the blog, asking, "Since when is art a 'genre'? Unless you have conceded, at last, that L'Avventura is art and The Searchers is a Western?"

Every writer who attempts a work of fiction works in two directions. They work to set down a record of the world as they see it or as they think it really is. But they also work, whether they know it or not, to record their visions, a world that exists only inside their heads. So however much they might strive to be "objective" and be nothing more than a pair of eyes, sacrificing their egos to the objects of their love, every word they write is a personal choice that inevitably reveals their presence in the created work.

For the past few decades, a seismic shift has occurred in American popular culture. Its first manifestations occurred in the mid-1970s, when two filmmakers, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, rose to such unprecedented prominence that they eventually established their own production companies, enjoying artistic freedom that rarely existed before. And they made a number of films that set box office records. The films they produced are examples of what I would call belated juvenilia - films that abide by an implied pact between the filmmaker and the viewer that adulthood is regrettable and that the point of their lives sometime prior to adulthood is not just preferable but endlessly renewable.

Go back still further in American pop culture to the 1950s, when the dictatorship of youth transformed popular music. A generation of Baby Boomer teens, with disposable incomes of their own, took music away from their parents' generation and haven't relinquished it since. So instead of songs written by and for adults, speaking from an experience of life and of love, exploring and satisfying that experience in creative ways, songs were passed into the hands of children who needed nothing but lyrics that strung together comforting platitudes through endless variations of cliché. A generation of singers, whose oldest survivor today is Tony Bennett, that responded to the challenge of singing and creating standards in ways distinctive enough to make the standards their own, were replaced by singers whose talents were drowned out by the screams of teen-aged girls, singing songs that addressed the problems of teenagers.

And if you look back still further to 1937, to popular fiction, an otherwise insignificant book called The Hobbit was published in England, quickly followed by an edition in America. It was an elaborate fantasy story marketed to children, replete with maps and illustrations of hobbit characters, as well as various elves and dwarves that inhabit an alternate world that existed long before industry and technology, where magic antedates religions, reminiscent of Europe's oldest fairy tales that emerged from extinct mythologies. The author of The Hobbit was J. R. R. Tolkien, a most unlikely teller of fairy tales: an Oxford scholar of philology, of ancient dead languages and the epics and sagas written in them. Spending most of his creative life with these languages and their obscure significance and meanings known only to him and his colleagues, Tolkien tried, evidently, to expand and improve on them, without having to appeal to any scholarly authority, but deriving from scholarship of the highest authority. But it was marketed as a children's book.

So serious was Tolkien, however, that his fairy tales should be taken seriously, when he learned of an American publisher's interest in The Hobbit that expressed their intention to publish color illustrations to supplement Tolkien's own drawings, Tolkien wrote to his British publisher, Allen & Unwin, “It might be advisable, rather than lose the American interest, to let the Americans do what seems good to them - as long as it was possible (I should like to add) to veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing).”

According to his biographers, Tolkien had gone to see Disney's first feature-length animated film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, accompanied by fellow Oxford don C. S. Lewis, and took umbrage at the depiction of the dwarfs. Who else but the creator of a (literary) world filled with elves and dwarves [to use Tolkien's spelling] should sit in judgement of Disney's silly misrepresentation of a classic fairy tale? What probably bothered Tolkien the most was that audiences took to Disney's film precisely because it is unlearned. Otis Ferguson, who called Snow White the best film of 1938, said that he found "something beautiful about all of it, I think, because it does not try to be wise about fairy tales, or fairy talish about its birds, rabbits, people." (1)

In 2009, I wrote in a post called "The Fairest of Them All" the following: "It was perhaps inevitable that folk tales should have been exiled to the nursery. before we renamed them fairy tales and heavily censored them, they were a kind of cultural subconscious. The original tales, like the ones collected by the Brothers Grimm, are filled with strange imagery and associations that only an ethnographer would understand." Or, indeed, a philoligist. But Tolkien rejected my hypothesis: "Folk-lore origins (or guesses about them) are here quite beside the point. It is of little avail to consider totemism." This line is from Tolkien's essay, "On Fairy Stories" in which he addressed the subject with much feeling and authority. What is most clear from my reading of the essay is that Tolkien wanted to rescue fairy tales from the nursery and convince people that they were worthy of being taken seriously. "Is there any essential connexion between children and fairy-stories? Is there any call for comment, if an adult reads them for himself? Reads them as tales, that is, not studies them as curios. Adults are allowed to collect and study anything, even old theatre programmes or paper bags."

Tolkien described how he himself came upon fairy stories:

"I was keenly alive to the beauty of 'Real things,' but it seemed to me quibbling to confuse this with the wonder of 'Other things.' I was eager to study Nature, actually more eager than I was to read most fairystories; but I did not want to be quibbled into Science and cheated out of Faerie by people who seemed to assume that by some kind of original sin I should prefer fairy-tales, but according to some kind of new religion I ought to be induced to like science. Nature is no doubt a life-study, or a study for eternity (for those so gifted); but there is a part of man which is not 'Nature,' and which therefore is not obliged to study it, and is, in fact, wholly unsatisfied by it."

But one important aspect of Tolkien's "escape" into fairy stories was his first-hand experience of war. He served in the British Army in World War I and his experience created in him a profound hatred for the modern world. "A real taste for fairy-stories was wakened by philology on the threshold of manhood, and quickened to full life by war." In other words, his discovery of ancient languages at university, followed by the traumatic experience of war, gave him a place of refuge from the modern world that could create such things as the maxim gun and mustard gas, whose effects on human beings he witnessed in the trenches.

But the subject of writing stories exclusively for children became an issue for Tolkien when his Lord Of the Rings trilogy was published, books that he insisted were written for an adult audience rather than for children. Literary critics (some of them anyway) took exception with Tolkien's claim. One review of The Rings that has had its own kind of immortality was written by Edmund Wilson. "Oo, Those Awful Orcs" is available for perusal in Wilson's collection, The Bit Between My Teeth, but, curiously, it is available online, quoted in its entirety, on some Tolkien fanzine sites, where Wilson's essay is used as an illustration of the lengths to which a literary critic will go to express his skepticism of their religion.

"Dr. Tolkien has announced that this series – the hypertrophic sequel to The Hobbit – is intended for adults rather than children, and it has had a resounding reception at the hands of a number of critics who are certainly grown-up in years." But Wilson, who had previously expressed his distaste of detective and horror fiction, refused to taken in by Tolkien's fairy stories. "One is puzzled to know why the author should have supposed he was writing for adults. There are, to be sure, some details that are a little unpleasant for a children’s book, but except when he is being pedantic and also boring the adult reader, there is little in The Lord of the Rings over the head of a seven-year-old child. It is essentially a children’s book – a children’s book which has somehow got out of hand, since, instead of directing it at the “juvenile” market, the author has indulged himself in developing the fantasy for its own sake ... An impotence of imagination seems to me to sap the whole story. The wars are never dynamic; the ordeals give no sense of strain; the fair ladies would not stir a heartbeat; the horrors would not hurt a fly."

Instead of simply dismissing Wilson's review as the expression of opinion that it is, and agreeing to disagree, some of these online Tolkien sites interrogate - feebly - Wilson's own motives for not falling in line with their orthodoxy. Especially since Wilson briefly examines the psychology of Tolkien's fiercest supporters - their insatiable taste for what I identified above as Belated Juvenilia:

"Now, how is it that these long-winded volumes of what looks to this reviewer like balderdash have elicited such tributes as those above? The answer is, I believe, that certain people – especially, perhaps, in Britain – have a lifelong appetite for juvenile trash. They would not accept adult trash, but, confronted with the pre-teen-age article, they revert to the mental phase which delighted in Elsie Dinsmore and Little Lord Fauntleroy and which seems to have made of Billy Bunter, in England, almost a national figure. You can see it in the tone they fall into when they talk about Tolkien in print: they bubble, they squeal, they coo; they go on about Malory and Spenser – both of whom have a charm and a distinction that Tolkien has never touched."

Perhaps in anticipation of Wilson's incredulity, Tolkien, in his "On Fairy Stories" essay, attacks the criticism directly:

"I do not deny that there is a truth in Andrew Lang's words (sentimental though they may sound): 'He who would enter into the Kingdom of Faerie should have the heart of a little child.' For that possession is necessary to all high adventure, into kingdoms both less and far greater than Faerie. But humility and innocence - these things 'the heart of a child' must mean in such a context - do not necessarily imply an uncritical wonder, nor indeed an uncritical tenderness. Chesterton once remarked that the children in whose company he saw Maeterlinck's Blue Bird were dissatisfied 'because it did not end with a Day of Judgement, and it was not revealed to the hero and the heroine that the Dog had been faithful and the Cat faithless.' 'For children,' he says, 'are innocent and love justice; while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.'”

The issue arises again whenever J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter books are examined by anyone other than fans of the books. They wonder that such "young adult" fiction [a stupid term, equal to "old child" perhaps?] that centers on the fantastic adventures of adolescents in an imaginary world should attract adult readers. I won't go there, since I have never read any of Rowling's books, and the films did nothing to change my mind. (I loved, however, all of the great old actors in the films, some of whom we have since lost to various ailments of extreme old age.) I could, but I have not, expressed the wish that Harry Potter had come along in 1970, when I might have been (but wasn't) more amenable to its attractions.

Tolkien wrote about one of the requirements of reading fairy stories, the "suspension of disbelief."

"Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called 'willing suspension of disbelief.' But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a  successful “sub-creator.” He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed."

But this is precisely where I find myself when I read Tolkien, or listen to popular music (which includes several genres, like rock, pop, rap/hip hop, country, et al), or watch the Indiana Jones or Star Wars movies - on the sidewalk outside, in the Primary World, my credulity reawakened, my disbelief functioning fully.

All of which reminds me of a remark made by G. B. Shaw in reference to the faith we have developed (even while some of us - including the current American president - seem to have abandoned) in Science:

"I have pointed out on a former occasion that there is just as much evidence for a law of the Conservation of Credulity as of the Conservation of Energy. When we refuse to believe in the miracles of religion for no better reason fundamentally than that we are no longer in the humor for them we refill our minds with the miracles of science, most of which the authors of the Bible would have refused to believe. The humans who have lost their simple childish faith in a flat earth and in Joshua's feat of stopping the sun until he had finished his battle with the Amalekites, find no difficulty in swallowing an expanding boomerang universe."

Look out. The Flat-Earthers are back.


(1) Otis Ferguson, "Walt Disney's Grimm Reality," The New Republic, January 26, 1938.

Damn Statistics

Last week I found a video clip of Buddy Rich on the Mike Douglas Show in 1971. Rich briefly showed off his drumming virtuosity, and then he sat down as Douglas brought out another guest. It was the character actor, George Lindsey, better known for playing Goober, the brother of Gomer Pyle, on The Andy Griffith Show. The conversation turned to country music, and Douglas mentioned that Rich had some strong opinions of country music, to which he responded with some enthusiasm: "I think that it's about time this country grew up in its musical taste, rather than making the giant step backwards that country music is doing." I don't think I've ever heard anyone attack the music genre as directly and emotionally as Rich did. He even called Glen Campbell, the "Wayne Newton of country music."

Rich was not only a great jazz musician. He was a great advocate and ambassador of jazz. He had to be because by 1971, when that particular episode of the Mike Douglas Show aired, jazz was already experiencing its great decline in popularity that would eventually see it almost disappear in the '70s. Jazz artists who wanted to be heard, who wanted to make a living commensurate with their talents, had to play some other kind of music to even survive. And who could blame them? Who could blame George Benson, who was one of the greatest jazz guitarists of his generation, for recording the album Breezin', which is marked the beginning of a movement of jazz musicians turning their backs on straight ahead jazz and playing a watered down, commercialized music instead, music that David Sanborn called "instrumental pop."

Jazz is the greatest musical idiom of the 20th century. With classical music in decline, and symphony orchestras surviving only on public fund drives, listeners who wanted to hear how a musical intelligence responded to their times, instead of to the music of composers long dead, found in jazz a worthy alternative. In the 1930s and '40s Swing music was the most popular musical genre. It wasn't exactly jazz, but it was heavily influenced by jazz and waz the closest that jazz ever came to being America's popular music. After the war, as the big bands were broken up, musicians turned to smaller combos in smaller clubs. Be-Bop created the form that jazz would take into the '60s, until some of them went too far, either into experimental free jazz that left most listeners behind in the dust, or fusion jazz that corrupted the form by trying to incorporate different idioms like funk.

The jazz music that survives today is Post-Bop, and sounds like a somewhat ossified form that is a throwback to the '60s. But at least jazz is still alive. Not long ago, I heard, or thought I'd heard, a staggering statistic - that sales of jazz albums worldwide constituted only 3% of total album sales. If that weren't saddening enough, what I came up with in my statistical search* made me at least twice as sad. In the U.S., where jazz was invented, the amount of the album total in 2017 was 1.2%. Of the twenty music genres, jazz was ranked tenth, after "Religious" (2.9%). What a kick in the head. It made me wonder what Buddy Rich would've said. He probably would've said that jazz was his religion.

But then I noticed that "Classical" music was even less popular, ranked 12th at 1.1%, with Blues and Folk music barely registering at 18th and 19th place, each with 0.4% of total sales. So, altogether, what I regard as the most challenging and most authentic music genres constituted a total of 3.1% of album sales in the U.S. Country music, which Buddy Rich couldn't resist ridiculing, is ranked 5th, with 8.1% of total sales. By far, the three most popular genres, constituting 56.9% of total sales, are Rock (22.2%), Rap/Hip Hop (17.5%) and Pop (17.2%).

I'm not going to waste time splitting hairs trying to define the differences between the genres, even if all three of the top sellers are technically all "Pop". The Beatles, for example, were a Pop band, as The Rolling Stones, their closest competitor, made abundantly clear. And while there is some serious Hip Hop music, most of Rap is so aggressively and disgracefully misogynistic that Wynton Marsalis, the unofficial contemporary ambassador for jazz, and for African-American contributions to music, often has to struggle against the image of black music that Rap/Hip Hop presents to the world.

And the argument that the top three genres appeal primarily to the uninformed musical tastes of the young doesn't hold up, since Rock has been around for more than sixty years and the generation of performers from what was the greatest era of Rock music, the 1970s, is already starting to die out. Rock originated as watered-down R & B, but has since moved into several sub-genres of its own. (R & B, which is at least true to its origins, out-sells Country at 8.7% of total album sales.)

Country has never made sense to me, unless it was when Ray Charles borrowed it with songs like "Georgia On My Mind" and "You Don't Know Me." Some have claimed its origins were in the Blues, like every other American musical genre. If there's a trace of the Blues in Country, I can't hear it. It appeals, exclusively it appears, to Red State white folks.

The statistics don't lie, but what if the list were turned upside down? Jazz would then be ranked 11th, but at least the worst music would be on the bottom where it belongs. But there has never been a clear correlative - except in the tiny minds of businessmen - between what sells and what's good.

If one were to limit oneself just to one instrument - the piano - the number and variety of talented Jazz pianists is daunting. Whether it's the technical brilliance of Oscar Peterson and Herbie Hancock or the idiosyncratic genius of Thelonious Monk and Errol Garner, there is so very much to hear, and hear again and again in the extraordinary recordings from the 1950s and '60s. Jazz wasn't the heavily orchestrated sound of Gordon Jenkins and Nelson Riddle, although they were a part of it. It was musicians creating every time they went onstage something out of thin air - the same air you were breathing if you were lucky enough to be in the club on the night they performed. The recordings were sometimes single takes, but sometimes there were alternate takes that demonstrate just how freely they could improvise. When John Coltrane launched into his saxophone solo, and it lasted sometimes ten or fifteen minutes, his drummer, Elvin Jones, would sometimes have to bring him back down to earth by tapping the rim of a drum. I was just a boy when Coltrane died, but I still think of his music as the music of my age. To not know it, to not respond to the challenge it presents to the listener, is to be wilfully ignorant. Fewer and fewer people, it seems, have an appetite for exaltation. So what if Jazz is such a lonely and private place by now?


* The statistics can be found here.