In actor Lee Marvin’s acceptance speech for the ‘Best Actor’ Oscar for the 1965 comedy ‘Cat Ballou’, he said, ‘Half this award belongs to some horse out in the Valley’, referring to the then iconic shot in the film of he and the horse he’s on — both drunk — leaning against a wall.

‘Film industry’ word at the time, however, was that in reality half the award belonged to the other of his two wildly different back-to-back performances that year, the second one in the movie ‘Ship of Fools’.

‘Ship of Fools’ was a ‘return to form’ for director Stanley Kramer in the sense that he’d previously directed three black and white (for somberness) movies in a row with ‘important’ themes.  The third in that series was ‘Judgement at Nuremberg’, which like ‘Ship of Fools’ employed ‘Grand Hotel’-style casting, a laundry list of stars.

Set aboard a passenger ship in the days before WWII, the whole thing has such a soundstage look that it leads one to imagine its I’m-watching-a-play feel being intentional.  Whatever the case, it is a kind of buffet of discrete scenes, the ones between Simone Signoret and Oskar Werner heartbreaking.

This movie was the final screen appearance of Vivien Leigh, fittingly (I suppose) the forth of her four screen Southern Belles.  She has a couple of scenes with Lee Marvin, one very memorable climatic one involving his being whacked with a shoe.  However, one of her best scenes is with actor Werner Klemperer, who must have been thrilled to have this pairing in his resume.  (see: ‘Hogan’s Heroes’)

In this scene, Klemperer, who plays a ship’s officer, makes a pass at Leigh’s character, she rebuffs him and he proceeds to read her beads — over-the-hill divorcée on a cruise, etc, etc — and she replies, ‘How extraordinary that a person such as yourself would be saying such things to me… [silence…] probably all true…’  Then, after a beat, she valiantly collects herself, smiles triumphantly, flips the boa she’s wearing over her shoulder and says, ‘Well, I believe this evening’s festivities have come to a close!’ and strides away.

If I’ve used that once, I’ve used it a hundred times.  No boa.

Lee Marvin’s half-an-Oscar scene in the movie is opposite actor Michael Dunn.  Both drunk, Marvin’s character is lamenting his faded professional baseball career, pantomiming so concisely missed swings at the ball, he finally collapses with a sort of anguished bleat.  Frightening.

In 1966, enjoying his post-Oscar contract power, on intuition Marvin handed over his script approval, final cut approval, etc, etc to John Boorman, the director of his next movie, the hallucinatory gangster movie Point Blank’.

‘Point Blank’ has a permanent spot in my Top Ten films.  I will not reveal how many times I may have seen it since seeing it the first time on the big screen in 1967.  Premiering the same month as ‘Bonnie and Clyde’, unlike the violence in that film, the violence in ‘Point Blank’ is more ‘balletic’ than ghastly.  I’ve just said that, and I’m sticking to it.

I met John Boorman very briefly at a sneak preview of his movie ‘Excalibur’, and gushed all over the poor man based on my fandom of ‘Point Blank’.

Now, that was ghastly.

At this time last weekend, we were attending a wedding in Oxford, Mississippi.  This was the second time we had ever been to Oxford MS.  The previous time was also to attend a wedding.  No one in either wedding lives in Oxford…

Oxford MS is the home of author William Faulkner.  My first cousin Dr. Edwin Turner Arnold III is a William Faulkner scholar.  Growing up with him, I became aware very late that his name was not actually ‘Chip’.  I myself have never had a nickname, in fact, no one ever even called me ‘Dave’ until I was in the Air Force.

In addition to being a Faulkner scholar, Chip is also a Cormac McCarthy authority, and has written books on a variety of subjects including oddly enough one on film director Robert Aldrich (Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?) not to be confused with Robert Altman (M.A.S.H., Gosford Park, …5 and Dime, Jimmy Dean…).

During the research for that book, Chip had ongoing telephone contact with actor Lee Marvin, who had starred in Aldrich’s The Dirty Dozen.  He once told me that it was a little surreal to answer the telephone and hear, ‘Chip, it’s Lee…’

Back to the wedding, this one was for the daughter of my lifelong friend Susan and her husband Hudson, who was — actually still is — a film producer.  After decades in Los Angeles, they have retired to Hudson’s birthplace, New Albany MS.

Los Angeles, California to New Albany, Mississippi.  The mind reels.

Though the current couple were married in a lovely little chapel in the absolute middle of nowhere near New Albany (is that a redundancy in this case?), the reception was a fairly enormous tented affair in the parents’ backyard.  As the groom is Canadian (the new couple live in Calgary), there were not a small number of Canadian guests.  Also, many from California.  Culture shock.

Now, as to the title of this post.  At last…

The cast of the previous wedding in Oxford MS included the parents of the bride, Broadway production folk (currently ‘The Lifespan of a Fact’ with Daniel Radcliffe).  The groom, the son of another of Stephen’s business partners, had worked for the Ford talent agency in Los Angeles and then in New York where he met his betrothed, who continues in the family business.

The bride’s parents were/are lifelong friends of (late) actor Edward Woodward and his wife (not late) actress Michele Dotrice.  Ms. Dotrice had apparently requested participation in the wedding ceremony in the form of a recitation.

In the middle of the proceedings, with the bride and groom frozen in-place, Ms. Dotrice recited — nay ‘performed’ — Edward Lear’s ‘The Owl and the Pussycat’.

The Owl and the Pussy-cat went to sea
In a beautiful pea green boat,
They took some honey, and plenty of money,
Wrapped up in a five pound note.
The Owl looked up to the stars above,
And sang to a small guitar,
‘O lovely Pussy! O Pussy my love,
What a beautiful Pussy you are,
You are,
You are!
What a beautiful Pussy you are!’

[etc.]

Nothing remotely that… mm… ‘remarkable’ occurred during last week’s ceremony.

Today is October 18th.  October 18th.

The high temperature today was 70°F (21°C for all you Celsius eccentrics and contrarians).

The temperature is forecast to drop below 50°F tonight for the first time since the recent equinox.

Yesterday the high was 86°F, with all the previous recent temperatures reaching 90°F and above.

For the last decade or so, we have had fake winters here in Georgia.

Now, fake autumns, or rather, ‘bogus’ ones. I suppose.

We live in an old house, with tall ceilings and drafty rooms.

I should be happy about chilly weather arriving late.

I am not.

One word… actually two: Peggy Lee.  Actually… four words: the Peggy Lee bit.

Without permission from the New Yorker.

–     –     –     –     –     –     –     –     –     –     –     –     –     –     –     –

What Most Disqualifies Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court?

By Adam Gopnik October 4, 2018

A book that every young man and woman starting out in life these days ought to have handy is Dariel Fitzkee’s “Magic by Misdirection,” a classic in the magical arts written decades ago by a once famous American performer. It basically tries to lay out all the varieties of misdirection—the ways that you can be asked to pay attention to one thing while the performer is doing another. A staggering catalogue not of gaffes or gimmicks but of behaviors, it’s a study in all the ways of drawing your attention away from this thing I’m doing here to that thing I’m doing there. The repeated moral is that everything I’m doing may be something other than it seems, and it doesn’t matter how brazenly I do it; you’ll still buy it. Intricate to the point of rococo, Fitzkee’s book makes a distinction between, for instance, simulation and dissimulation: “Simulation is a positive act. It shows a false picture. Dissimulation is a negative act. It hides a true picture. One reveals and the other conceals.” A good magician can be simulating with one hand and dissimulating with the other, and you don’t know which is which.

Donald Trump’s genius for misdirection is to pile so many obvious ruses upon so many ham-handed sleights that the easily fooled parts of his audience are impressed by the audacity, while the more sophisticated parts of his audience, on left and right both, become so fatigued by the constant motion that they stop paying sufficient attention to the core point of the deception. One is put in mind of Houdini’s most famous illusion, the “Vanishing Elephant,” in which an elephant was led into a large box that, at least according to legend, was then spun around by a large crew of stagehands. The huge animal “disappeared,” but you could see that it took a crowd to do it. Houdini’s name remains famous, but he was not a great illusionist by illusionists’ standards; the persistence of the elephant was obvious, but if you had bought a ticket you stayed for the next bit. The story shows that, very often, the most brazen kinds of misdirection are the most successful, especially in the hands of a brazen performer.

All of which is to put us in mind of the truth that the Brett Kavanaugh drama—with all the debates over the layout of suburban Maryland houses and the parsing of the repeated use of the letter “F”—is a distraction. Kavanaugh is not unqualified for the Supreme Court just because of something that he may have done when he was seventeen, or because of how he may have lied to the Senate about this or that specificity of his youthful behavior or about how he may have accepted illicitly obtained Democratic e-mails when he worked in the George W. Bush White House, or about his possible involvement in the effort to make torture seem acceptable. (Kavanaugh maintains innocence on all fronts.) He became disqualified for the Supreme Court the moment that he accepted the offer from Donald Trump. At this stage in his Presidency, Trump, already described in reports from his own aides as unfit for the office, implicated by his former lawyer as an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony, and now alleged, according to the Times, to have benefitted from tax schemes that in some instances amounted to “outright fraud”—not to mention being a liar and a con artist—should not be allowed to appoint Justices for lifetime appointments.

Whatever the effect of this truth on vote-counting congressional Realpolitik, it is the moral ground upon which all subsequent argument has to begin. Trump’s purpose in appointing Kavanaugh to the Court was clearly to provide himself with a protective vote for whenever one issue or another arising from his misbehavior makes its way there. Kavanaugh’s convenient late-arriving conviction that Presidents should be protected from investigation—late arriving since he evidently felt very differently when he was pursuing Bill Clinton—is catnip to Trump. And anyone who had illusions about Kavanaugh not being an acolyte of Trumpism should have been disabused by his partisan performance last week, in which he made it quite apparent. That’s the deal. That’s the trick. Everything else is simulation and dissimulation. Everything else is misdirection. However it happened, the elephant is supposed to have vanished. And yet there is still an obvious elephant in the obvious box.

The maddening part of this misdirection is the unwillingness on the part of people who imagine themselves to be full of good will to say who Trump is and what he remains. It has become an element of the orthodoxy of this moment that Trump is not the “cause” of all his catastrophes. Of course, he’s not the cause in some ultimate and singular sense, but Trump is the cause of Trumpism. No, he is not uniquely responsible for the existence of a revanchist core of white men who so fear the assertion of minority power that they will go to almost any lengths, and make any deal with any devil, to prevent it. That core has been a consistent feature of American life since the post-Civil War period. President Ulysses S. Grant basically faced the same two parties: a party that accommodated what is now called identity politics, reaching out to a coalition of people—those African-American, Jewish, Native American, and Irish petitioners whom Grant tried to favor—who thought that the world was getting better and who supported some kind of benevolent government protection, and a party rooted in a base of revanchist whites who believed that the world was getting worse, who wanted to keep other groups from exercising too much political power, and who hated the federal government for helping them.

But Trump is the direct cause of turning this enduring American fact into an active threat to democracy itself. There is no thread of double-sidedness to this process. Barack Obama may have had many faults, from his timidity on Syria to his timidity in pursuing the Russia investigation, but no sane person can accuse him of having been an immoderate or a non-conciliatory voice for his base. Indeed, his mistake was to vastly overestimate the reservoir of conciliation on the other side. That’s why he tried to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court—a judge who had been cited by Republicans as an acceptable candidate—in the innocent belief that they actually meant it. Two-sidedness is, in itself, a classic piece of misdirection, designed to draw your attention as much to the hand that isn’t doing anything as to the hand that is. Trump’s assault on the premises of democracy is not only unique in modern American history but unique in the annals of modern liberal democracy. No duly elected leader of any mature democratic state has gone on repeated public rants against his enemies, fed cries of “lock her up” directed at a political opponent, or routinely threatened and abused a free press. No such democratically elected leader has openly sneered at women. George H. W. Bush was doubtless angered by Anita Hill’s testimony, but he would no more have come to a rally of his followers and slandered her name and libelled her testimony than he would have mocked a journalist for his disabilities. He had some saving sense of the Washingtonian residue in the American Presidency.

This is Trump, and Trump alone, degrading American politics, and we should not get lost in side debates and sideshows. Some may be wringing their hands about the unending and presumably two-sided intolerance of red for blue and blue for red. But there is no figure in the Democratic Party who in any respect shares Trump’s rhetoric or mirrors Trump’s threats or repeats Trump’s hatreds. Such figures exist only on the fringes of the left, whereas Trumpism has now become the central and defining faith of the Republican Party.

The issues that Kavanaugh’s past behavior raises are crucial ones, and there is time and the need for a deep dive into the persistence of sexual assault and the necessity of hearing out victims and recognizing pathological cultural patterns. But do not let the simulations and dissimulations distract you. Kavanaugh is an instrument of Trumpism, an insurance policy that the con man is writing for himself. The rest is misdirection.

This is my father’s mother’s mother’s father — which makes him my great-great grandfather — John Weiry Rudisill, in his Confederate States of America uniform, and his ‘fearsome’ beard, which apparently he sported until his death April 24, 1885.  Rudisill is an Americanization of the Swiss German Rüdisühli or Rüedisüli.

Once in my own lifetime I hosted a beard just this impressive in its own right.  One day, however, something told me its time had come and I marched to the mirror with a pair of scissors and it was gone.  I was surprised at how easy it was to part with.  Today I know that I am far too neurotic for a beard.

Looking at the photo of John Rudisill, Stephen says I have the same cruel eyes.  Another picture from my ‘Media’ trove puts the lie to that.

Cruel eyes!  What a lot of nonsense…

I have tried repeatedly to decide where the needle on the wry meter is on these thoughts, or if indeed it’s on dead zero.  But, no matter.  I am not persuaded to deviate from believing that this person belongs in the pantheon of great writers based solely on this paragraph.  So there.

Do you remember the old Blogspot blog Lazy Circles?  I say ‘old’ because the current iteration is about computers and cars, and written in Indonesian, for heaven’s sake.  The old blog was hosted by a gay attorney from Texas — lots of showbiz posts — and when he announced that out of some necessity he was shuttering Lazy Circles, my reaction was ‘You can’t do that!’

It started to occur to me a couple of months ago, that it was probably time to consider shuttering Domani Dave.  Though I’ve made a wonderful handful of connections over these nine years, at this point I feel more than a bit like a looney just talking to himself.  That’s not supposed to sound boo-hooey.

Wandering though my WordPress ‘Media Library’, which still contains the entire trove of pictures I have attached to posts since 2009, I’ve hit upon the idea to post some of those during my anniversary month of October, just for the hell of it.  I think that will be fun, but I’ve been wrong before.

By the way, the rest of the title of this post is …δεν θα πάνε ποτέ τέλεια.  It translates:

If things don’t go perfectly from the outset, they will never go perfectly.

I like this sentence partly because it’s a tiny Greek language lesson in itself, but mostly because it’s s’darn bleak;-)

In no particular order… actually in sort of a particular order.

-1-   I don’t have a tattoo.

-2-   Please don’t think Māori or Irezumi.  Different subject.

-3-   Let me get the deranged curmudgeon conclusion out of the way.  I think the reason people get tattoos so cavalierly these days, whether they realize it or not, can be summed up with “I don’t have a future, there is no future”.

-4-   Here is a tale told previously on Domani Dave.  In my former workplace, there was once a sweet and bright and bookish student worker who approached me about her desire to get a tattoo.  She wanted a sun theme, and wondered if I had any suggestions to research a design.  I said maybe English garden gates, or tansom windows in the UK, sun-starved as those people are, as I had recalled just such a book of photographs.  She had success with that suggestion, found her sun and got her tattoo.  When she displayed it (on the back of her calf), my reaction was that it looked like a gunshot wound.  I did not tell her this.

-5-   Now for the nuts and bolts, as I understand them.  If you get bright colors in your tattoo, those will fade very quickly.  What remains is blue-black.  Tattoos for the most part these days are applied so inexpertly that other elements will also come into play.  The depth the ink is ‘inserted’ into the surface of the skin is apparently extremely important.  Injected too deep, the ink will drift into the lipids in the skin and begin a process called ‘clouding’.  No matter how crisp your tattoo in the beginning, eventually you have something out-of-focus and black and blue, rather like a bruise.

-6-   Who gets tattoos these days is a never-ending source of astonishment to me.  Longshoremen and bouncers?  Of course.  Petite jeune filles in their sundresses?  Tyler, Justin, or Brandon with their ‘sleeves’?  And when and if this pandemic subsides, what is the future pariah-potential for these trendy youths?

I am willing to be corrected, confronted, or rebuked outright on this topic, though actually, I cannot recall a single bonafide rebuke on Domani Dave.  [sigh…]

Two posts in rapid succession on Domani Dave is uncommon, but not unheard of.

After viewing the Diego Rivera murals at the headquarters of the Secretaría de Educación Pública building in Mexico City, we had a couple of hours’ energy left, and sought out the Mumedi Mexican Museum of Design, five or six blocks away.

Our phone GPS kept telling us that we had ‘arrived’, but to our frustration, it was nowhere to be found.  Then, finally, I walked to the opposite side of the street, turned around, and behold: an enormous graphic on a tarpaulin covering the scaffolding on the front of the building, with a small passthrough to the interior.

BTW, I worked for a good while to get a single figure passing by in that lower left space, but still got this lousy result.  Lousy or not, images clickable, as usual.

Apparently between shows, the building interior itself was worth the visit, and wandering through the all-things-considered-pretty-nice obligatory museum gift shop, I espied this display of Frida Kahlo-themed wallets.

Just a guess, but I don’t imagine Señora Kahlo would have found the [Disney’s ‘Frozen’] ‘Ilsa’ variation amusing.

We, on the other hand, did.

Why am I telling you this?

I started blogging in 2009, but in October 2016, I ditched the previous posts in a fit of cyber housecleaning. Some of it was really nice writing, but alas, as my old friend Susan once said: ‘Compulsion is a cruel master’.

Blog Stats

  • 35,399 hits

Archives

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 13 other followers