01.31.09
Abe Rothberg is A-Friend-A-Mine
Dr. Abraham Rothberg was one of my English professors at St. John Fisher College in Rochester, NY (let’s just say it was a helluva lot of years ago and leave it at that). I was always afraid of him because he was so damn smart, and he intimidated me, and I could never get anything better than a C in his classes. I’m sorry to say that back in those days I never knew he was a fiction writer. Only recently, after becoming reacquainted with him through another former teacher/current friend, did I learn that he was an author of some notoriety. All that is a prelude to this: Lots of years later, I finally read one of his novels, A Beast in View, and although I freely admit that it was impossible for me to separate the teacher I dreaded and the man I now know from the main character in his novel, I think I can say with just enough objectivity that I honestly enjoyed his book.
Set in the post WWII era, this is a story of several talented writers who all meet in a creative writing class at college. Friendships and alliances are struck, there are love affairs and fights, tragedies and joys, most of it told through characters who have been wounded (some physically and others emotionally) by the war. I found the details about writers and writing absolutely fascinating. Times have certainly changed in the publishing world. Anyone interested in the ways authors were “made” fifty or sixty years ago will immediately see this novel as a treasure. It’s as much about writing and writers as anything else. Sure, there were times when I could see my old professor unable to control his vast wealth of knowledge (I can only imagine having that problem), but only rarely did this bump into the storytelling. Overall I was impressed with how accessible the book was. Matters of the heart, doubts about life and death and God and our place in the universe, and the yearnings and sufferings of the human soul are the same in any era. This novel has all of those things (and a treasured autograph from my tormentor): Highly recommended.
Of further interest…
Abe’s books have been out of print for many years, but recently a very small press by the name of Edteck republished some of his work. I’m looking forward to reading more.
01.19.09
Still Great After All These Years
The Independent Film Channel (IFC) showed Raging Bull this week. It’s one of my favorite films and I hadn’t seen it in awhile, probably three or four years anyway, so I took the opportunity to turn off my computer and dim the lights and get lost in it all over again, shutting out the world. Every time I see this film I’m amazed at how good it is. Each scene tightly crafted and perfect, the brilliant closeups, the pristine black and white, the documentary style storytelling mixed in with moments of pure emotional angst…it’s Marty Scorsese at his finest. Di Niro and Pesci are fantastic. Their performances will rip your heart out, especially Di Niro, whose uncontrollable rage can be seen in every movement he makes, every expression on his face. The screenplay by Schrader and Mardik is out-of-this-world good, and the fact that it wasn’t nominated for an award is evidence of how badly the award shows can miss sometimes. (For example, it lost Best Director and Best Picture to Robert Redford’s Ordinary People in 1980, if you can believe that, UGH.) Highly recommended.
I first read the novel Revolutionary Road by Richard Yates in college. I thought it was all right then, although maybe a fair bit boring. I picked it up again so I could read it before I went to the movie, and it’s amazing what 30 years of perspective can do for a work of art. I have more of an appreciation and sympathy for Yates’ personal struggles now, his difficulties with alcohol and depression, and the obvious affects these struggles had on this classic story of disappointment and loss in America. Although set in the post WWII era, it could just as well have been written today as Yates expertly pulls apart life and society and how we all compromise ourselves to death behind a veneer of comfy cultural conformity. I can certainly understand why the novel might have seemed dull when I was just a kid in college, but today, after having lived, inevitably, some of the disillusionment Yates was writing about, it’s a whole new disturbing ball game. Read it (or re-read it) and reflect. It’s worth it: Highly recommended.
Of further interest…
See the trailer and film clips of Raging Bull at the NY Times site.
NPR story on Revolutionary Road.
01.08.09
JRR and JD and a Pleasant On-Screen Surprise
The two authors who influenced me the most when I was young were JRR Tolkien, who inspired my imagination, and JD Salinger, who made me want to write. Happy birthday in this first week of January to them both:
Born Jan. 3, 1892, JRR Tolkien (profile).
Born Jan. 1, 1919, JD Salinger (profile).
Cloverfield a Pleasant Surprise
Who would have guessed it? This film was universally panned when it was released in 2008, but I happened to catch it this past weekend and thought it was pretty good. The story is told documentary style, a la The Blair Witch Project, but I honestly think Cloverfield was better and had more good scares. It’s the story of a handful of young people trying to survive an unexpected alien attack in New York City (or maybe it wasn’t an alien, as the film points out, it might have been home grown). The special effects were especially good, and the film was not slowed down by awkward explanations of the what/why/how of the attack or the creature(s) wreaking havoc, a mistake that many SF films have suffered and died from in the past. (Heck, we’re not even sure why the movie is called Cloverfield.) It came in at a scant 75 minutes, which I think worked to its advantage. Director Matt Reeves did a fine job of concentrating on a few characters and allowing their terror and confusion to drive the story where it wanted to go. This resulted in a movie that felt natural and unscripted. The scenes of the panic and carnage in NYC were surprisingly realistic. You’ll absolutely love the head of the Empire State Building rolling down the street. WooHooo! I doubt this will become a classic (not even among SF fans), but it was great fun. Check out the trailer; you’ll love it. Recommended.
01.02.09
No Doubt
I’m sure I can’t be the only one disappointed in the already-critically-acclaimed film Doubt, based on John Patrick Shanley’s award-winning play. Other than Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Sister Aloysius, not much else came to life on screen for me in this one. I found the story and most of the performances uninspiring. The end of the film left little doubt. Without giving it away, I can say that the viewer is never given an alternate explanation for Father Flynn’s final action, leaving only one possible reason for it. Although it was a film built on innuendo, there really wasn’t much subtlety in the way the story was told: The stormy weather that always seemed to whip up at just the right dramatic moment; the light bulbs that popped on cue; the cat that caught the mouse, which alone might have been a nice touch except that Shanley felt the need to comment on it not once, but twice, in case we missed the thematic implications the first two times. Although I may catch some disagreement on this, I thought the characters were a bit stereotypical as well. Everything was done to make Streep as physically unappealing and as hard as possible; Sister James (Amy Adams) was the innocent and sweet child-nun, the film’s collateral damage; Father Flynn was the sensitive, sincere, and progressive priest; Mrs. Miller (played well by Viola Davis), the mother of the young black boy, was troubled, weepy, left with no choices, and just wanting to give her little boy a chance in life. Sympathetic, yes, all of them, even Sister Aloysius in her own way, but made-to-order down to the last rosary bead. The not-quite-right execution of the compelling themes in Doubt left me frustrated. Gosh, I love Hoffman, but he seemed uncomfortable in this role. Mildly Recommended.
Of further interest….
Slant’s review of Doubt. The most honest one I’ve seen so far. Explains a bit about why the play seemed to work so well and the film did not. I’ll add to it by pointing out that Shanley wrote and directed the film, which appears not to be his most natural art form.
