Category Archives: Film & TV

In defense of the Western

“The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.” –D.H. Lawrence, 1920s.

This is the west, sir. When legend becomes fact, print the legend.
–John Ford’s The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Paramount Pictures, 1962.

America has contributed two great art forms to world culture: jazz music and the western.
–attributed to Clint Eastwood, early 1990s.

Around the time Clint Eastwood was doing publicity for his 1992 western Unforgiven, his somewhat reductive quote about jazz music and westerns began making the rounds. Now, I despise pretty much all jazz music (a bunch of instruments playing different songs at the same time, with drums that sound like shoes in a dryer), but I love westerns with an unseemly passion, and I have to agree with Clint that they are a uniquely American form of cinematic expression. Our historical background provides bottomless fodder for an art form that, like rock and roll, has been declared “dead” many times through the decades, but keeps hanging on. And we are all the more blessed for it.

Between the end of the Civil War (1865) and the year when the U.S. Census Bureau declared the American frontier “closed” (1890), was a relatively brief period of time that cast a huge shadow over the American character. The raw, primitive America of Daniel Boone and James Fenimore Cooper smashed up against the modern, materialistic America of John Rockefeller and Upton Sinclair. The two halves of the American Dream began an ugly grappling match – freedom & rugged individuality vs. wealth & community – which continues to this day, but much further below the surface. In those 25 or so years at the end of the 1800s, the naked savageness of this fight was very much on display, and the negative extremes of both sides had free reign. “Rugged individuality” often expressed itself in brutality and lawlessness, and “wealth” often expressed itself in a level of exploitation and greed far surpassing even today’s levels. When these two titanic forces clashed (or even circled each other warily) in such a tiny sliver of time, a modern mythology was created almost overnight.

The “Old West” began mythologizing itself before it was even over. The cheap pulp fiction about the exploits of such figures such as Wild Bill Hickock, Wyatt Earp, and Jesse James flew off the shelves during a time when the men themselves were still at the height of their careers. So many of the stock characters and situations (white-hatted good guys, showdowns at high noon) we see in westerns — usually bad ones — have their roots in the dime store fiction that was eagerly devoured by readers of the previous century.

A good western does not merely present us with the mythology, but attempts to answer why we’re attracted to that mythology in the first place through the actions of its characters. A good western is not merely a historical costume drama, but is a reflection of the era in which it was made. (For instance, the westerns of the 1940s and 50s emphasized duty and sacrifice, the westerns of the 1960s and 70s tended to be cynical and anti-authority, the westerns of the 1990s and 2000s explored the nature of violence and fame.) A good western gives us a glimpse into a funhouse mirror, showing an exaggerated reflection of all of our best and worst qualities.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Film & TV, History

Shame on you, Julie Taymor!

[This is my very first blog post. I wrote it over fifteen years ago.

It sucks.]

There is the casual Beatles fan, and then there’s me and Mark Lewisohn. (If you get that reference, you can join me and Mark Lewisohn.) About five people now have asked me if I’m going to see the new Beatles-oriented flick Across The Universe, and my answer is “No, and if you go see the Across The Universe and I find out you did, then you and I are no longer on speaking terms.” What director Julie Taymor has concocted is a paen to “casual” Beatles fans and obnoxious, aging Baby Boomers, and a slap in the face to “serious” Beatles fans everywhere.

OK, that last sentence was a little obnoxious itself, but, dammit, I’m upset. So let me lay my case out slowly and clearly, simple enough for even a Doors fan to understand.

First of all, I hate movie musicals. I’ll admit, I can enjoy a musical live on stage, where a certain larger-than-lifeness is required, but the minute a musical tries to be translated to celluloid, it becomes overblown, hokey, and uncomfortable. A sensitive viewer comes to feel genuinely bad for the performers high-stepping across the screen, mouthing the typical banalities of a “musical theater” number as their sweating, straining mug is projected in close-up twenty feet high on a large screen for viewing by movie audiences, half of whom are misguided enough to draw some kind of pleasure from this, and the other half dragged into the theater unwillingly by the first half.

The whole purpose of a song in the musical is to further the plot or illuminate the motives of the characters. Trying to shoehorn a cluster of unrelated Beatles songs into this format will do neither the songs nor the audience any favors. Not even if you name the lead characters “Jude” and “Lucy.” (Jeeeeeeeesus!) Has no one learned the lesson handed down by the 1978 Bee Gees movie Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band? (Female lead: “Strawberry Fields.” Male lead: “Billy Shears.” Results: Trainwreck.) Beatles songs exist on a universal plane, and to try to corral them into a half-assed narrative benefits no one.

Let’s talk about Julie Taymor, director of Titus, Frida, and the Broadway version of The Lion King. Although I was struck by some of her visual ideas in Titus, I’ve always felt there was something a little too PBS about Taymor. When you watch her stuff, you are going to Learn, by God. You are going to Appreciate. With this new film, she is making a BOLD STATEMENT about the SIXTIES and DRUGS and VIETNAM.

The music of the Beatles is timeless, not topical, and Taymor has misjudged that. By using their songs to make her “statement,” she has reduced them to another token of a bygone era. In her mind, their “cultural” impact is more important than their musical impact. They have been reduced to headshop novelties, lumped in with tie-dye, VW buses, and Che Guevara T-shirts. They have become cause-oriented sloganeers, figureheads rather than the best rock band of any era. Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Film & TV, Music -- 1960s