Joan Rivers: A Trailblazer Who Got Stuck in the Mud

Joan Rivers: A Trailblazer Who Got Stuck in the Mud

nullHumor can be the cut and the balm—sometimes
one-in-the-same, in the course of a single joke.  Sarah Silverman wryly laments: “I was raped
by a doctor, always a bittersweet experience for a Jewish girl.” Wanda Sykes riffs
on how “Black folks, we always have to be dignified, ‘cause if we fuck up, we
just set everybody else back a couple of years. We should have killed Flava
Flav like ten years ago!” A young Joan Rivers does a bit about her mother’s
desperation to marry her off: “Oh, Joan, there’s a man at the door with a mask
and a gun!”

Comedy can also be the hand on the backs of our
necks. Tracy Morgan tells his audience that, if his son came out to him, he’d
stab the boy to death. Daniel Tosh artlessly ponders the fate of a female
heckler: “Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right
now? Like, right now?” Joan Rivers serves as the commissioner of the fashion
police: “I took Elizabeth Taylor to Sea World. It was so embarrassing. Shamu
the whale jumps out of the water; she asks ‘does he come with fries?’”

Rivers occupies a complex position in comedy. Her
early work is rightly lauded for its unflinching candor about women’s issues,
and for bringing those issues—the pressure to marry and the tedium of
housewifery, the joys and annoyances of sex, and even abortion—to a national
audience. She is celebrated for serving as the first woman to host her own late
night talk show, and venerated for her tenacity in the wake of tragedy (the
betrayal of her beloved mentor, Johnny Carson; the suicide of her husband and
producer). As a writer and a feminist, I should have called in my own tribute
on the switchboard of Facebook. And yet, I can’t. Rivers’ early work may have
been a slingshot lobbing stones against the powers-that-be, but, in her later years,
her cruelty became a cannon unloading upon the oppressed. She trafficked in
tired slut-shaming and fat jokes.

In perhaps the only way that I will ever be likened
to Elizabeth Taylor, I too have endured my fair share of comparisons to Shamu.
I was a fat girl who became a fat woman, even after dieting and exercising and
binging and purging and taking “nutritional supplements” more potent than 50’s
housewife’s physician-prescribed speed. My fat ass has been the butt of so many
jokes over so many years that I’ve become intimately acquainted with the ways
that “humor” can be used to enforce social codes. Before I was ever aware of
her history, Joan Rivers was that voice that came from the TV in my mother’s
bedroom, a voice that, despite its off-putting raspiness, affected a favorite
wicked aunt chumminess that drew me in until it spit me out: “If Kate Winslet
had dropped a couple of pounds, the Titanic never would have sunk.”

I wasn’t one of those high school girls whose
ticket sales bought James Cameron a summer home, still, I could look up to Kate
Winslet: I would never have her hourglass figure (or her gorgeous red curls),
but her body, and its emancipation from Paltrow thinness, was far closer to
mine than any other modern starlet’s. And there she was on the silver screen,
the real ship of dreams. Ravishing. Desired. So, when Joan Rivers let it rip
with that joke, she was issuing a warning to every fat girl (every girl,
really): There’s only one way to be a woman, and there’s a price to pay for not
looking the part.

This is why,
unlike so many of my peers, I come to bury Joan Rivers, not to praise her.
Rivers famously quipped that, upon her death, her body shouldn’t be donated to
science, but to Tupperware: In truth, all of that plastic has been melted down
and sculpted into an altar to St. Joan of Snark, the groundbreaking vulgarian
who spoke the brutal truths that nice girls were never supposed to say (let
alone in public). Rivers muscled her way to prominence in a male-dominated
field, and she worked steadily for fifty years. It’s no wonder, then, that an
armada of think pieces seeks to defend Rivers as a capital-F feminist (even if
she’d have been reluctant to claim the label for herself). In Time magazine,
Eliana Dockterman equates Rivers’ legendary work ethic and savvy for
self-promotion as an innately feminist endeavor: “Nothing was off-limits as Rivers
wise-cracked her way to the top. And it was this
undisguised and ‘unladylike’ desire for success that made Rivers a feminist
icon.”

Assessments like this
strike me as an uncomfortably corporatized definition of feminism: The will to
work alone does not a feminist make, especially if the work affirms the
structures and mentalities that shame women—for their bodies (though weight was
one of Rivers’ primary comic milieux, she was also free and easy with the word
tranny); their sexualities (and anyone who fell on either side of the
virgin/whore dichotomy was fair game, as evidenced by her cracks about Taylor
Swift’s knees being “together more than Melissa and I” and the Kardashian
sisters needing to find “true love standing up. They’ve had more men land on
them than we’d had in Afghanistan.”); and even for being the victims of
violence (she once said that “those women in Cleveland” had more space in the basement
where they’d been raped and tortured than she had in her daughter’s supposedly
cramped living room; she also joked about slapping Rihanna for possibly
reconciling with Chris Brown).

If her latter-day
humor was particularly vicious toward women, it certainly didn’t spare the
gents. In Rivers’ world, men are shallow dogs following the bone of lithe,
leggy female beauty. They are sexual bullies who don’t see women as people.
They are simultaneously the arbiters of a very specific standard of female attractiveness
and horny devils unable to get it in their pants: “I
said to my husband, ‘Why don’t you call out my name when we’re making love?’ He
said, ‘I don’t want to wake you up.’”  

Rivers’ full buy-in to the aesthetic standards that confine
women manifests in more than her stage act; she co-signed with a scalpel. Over
the years, her face attained a stretched-taut surrealness that turned her into
a breathing caricature. There is an unintended but undeniably apt symbolism in
the idea that her natural ability to register and express authentic feeling was
tombed under layers of scar tissue. Her self-loathing, and not her wit, became
her weapon.

As a thirtysomething, I have grown up with the Joan Rivers
who puffed out her cheeks and imitated (her version of) a fat woman’s waddle on
the Letterman Show when discussing Adele, remarking that the latter’s song
“Rolling in the Deep” (which should surely be etched in a Mount Rushmore of
number one pop songs of all time) should be called “Rolling in the Deep Fried Chicken”—diminishing
Adele’s accomplishments as a singer and songwriter by reducing her to a body.
Today’s “Rolling in the Deep Fried Chicken” is yesterday’s “Elizabeth Taylor is
so fat, she has Ragu in her veins.”

As I see these remarks
on list after list of “Joan Rivers’ Best Burns,” I think of Margaret Cho’s
appearance on Rivers’ online interview series In Bed with Joan, and how
their conversation turned to Cho’s body—specifically, how svelte she’d become.
Rivers recalls meeting Cho years prior, when Cho was the anointed It Girl with
a sitcom in the works: “You were a bit of a …” she says, and her pause is the
plank that Cho must walk down before jumping into the deep. A bit of a fat
girl, she admits. Never mind that Cho’s studio-mandated compulsion to lose
weight (and lose it fast) resulted in kidney failure.

Cho may be considered one of Rivers’ heirs apparent, but she
proves that there’s more than one way to be woman who brings a carefully
calibrated cruelty to comedy. Her stand-up is more akin to Rivers’ early work,
bringing a “and fuck you if you don’t like it” bravado to her real talk about
her real pain. Her filth and fury is deployed against the double standards and
the beauty standards that Rivers, in her later years, always endorsed. Cho’s
stand-up film I’m the One that I Want details—with naked rage and
unexpected pathos—her own private Hell-as-a-hamster-wheel of constant dieting:
“I knew I was crazy because I was watching Jesus Christ Superstar and the part where Jesus carries the
cross up the mountain, I actually said to myself, ‘Wow! That must be a really good workout! Yeah, because you’re
doing arms and cardio!’”

She roars and
rampages and names names (including the actual producer whose “concerns” set
Cho on that hamster wheel); still, she shows the kind of woundedness and
vulnerability typically denied to any “nice girl,” in any era, by recounting,
with a necessary explicitness, the physical ravages of all that dieting. She
describes being in the ER, broken and bleeding, and then vaults into an
impersonation of the aggressively earnest nurse who tends to her: “Hi, my name
is Gwen and I’m here to wash your vagina!” This
hyper-attentiveness to the body and its failings (in terms of true mechanical
break-down and in meeting cultural expectations) isn’t just the province of
women.

Much has been written about “And So Did the
Fat Lady,” the episode of Louie that deals earnestly (if not always
successfully) with the stigmatization of fat women; and most of that critique
has focused on the epic monologue delivered by Vanessa, the titular fat
lady—however, the episode also shows how Louie’s hesitance to date Vanessa
stems from his own poor body image and fear of guilt by association (something
that Vanessa even calls him on: “You know, if
you were standing over there looking at us, you know what you’d see? That we
totally match.”).  This episode
skewers the contradictions between America’s cult of thinness and the glut of
consumption that comes with a Starbucks on every corner. Louie and his brother
partake in a “bang bang,” a family tradition of going to two different
restaurants (in this case, an Indian place and a diner) and ordering
full-course meals.

Louis C.K. ribs
himself about his weight, but he still shows great tenderness toward his own
fat body. In the season four finale, he takes a romantic bath with his
long-time crush, Pamela; the camera lingers on Louie’s derriere and Pamela
cracks a joke, and yes, when Louie lowers himself into the tub, water sloshes
to the floor, snuffing some of the candles. However, this awkwardness somehow
makes that final moment between Louie and Pamela even sweeter.

Watching Cho and C.K. prompts the question of what
Rivers could’ve done if she’d applied the same tenacity she showed for Liz
Taylor’s waist line to a culture that expects women to be perpetually thin and
everlastingly young. There could be something undeniably powerful in Rivers’
self-abnegation. When so many of our stories about women still hinge on their
prettiness and their experience of being desired, being an outlier to those
desires creates a sense of obliterating isolation. Rivers’ barbs at her own
expense may have come dressed in the baubles and furs of vicious wit, but
underneath those pearls and those stoles there was a naked little heart beating
in sorrow and wrath—and its pulse became a siren song.

Rivers was canny enough to recognize that the
breadth and intensity of her cosmetic surgeries had become a key component of
her celebrity, at times eclipsing her actual body of work. She played herself on
an episode of Nip/Tuck where she implored the plastic surgeon
protagonists to undo all that she’d had done because she wanted her grandson to
see her natural face. She’s horrified by the computer simulation of that
natural face, with all of the lines and wrinkles that anyone lucky enough to
live into their seventies could expect, and she opts for another face lift. The
predictability of this reversal is supposed to be the punchline, but the fact
that a woman with Rivers’ history and influence still views her self-worth
through the prisms of youth and attractiveness is just plain sad. 

The difference between Rivers’ quip that her
husband killed himself because she removed the bag over her head during sex (or
that the only she conceived her daughter because her husband rolled over in his
sleep) and Cho’s riff on the producer’s comment about the roundness of her face
(“I had no idea that I was this giant face taking over America! Here comes the
face!”) is that Cho places the shame squarely where it belongs—on our culture,
and its militant insistence on one type of beauty.

null

Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of what some
could view as Rivers’ artistic decline is that she was once brilliantly,
blazingly capable of taking our culture to task. “I feel sorry for any single
girls today … the whole society is not for single girls,” she says, in a now
widely circulated clip from the Ed Sullivan show. The clip was filmed in 1967,
and Rivers—who looks shockingly girlish, unrecognizable from the woman she’ll
become—speaks directly to those single girls because she was one of them,
peppering her bit with “you know that!” and “isn’t that so? Yes! Yes!” and “it
just kills me!” She rips into the double standards around attractiveness: “a
boy on a date, all he has to be is clean and able to pick up the check … the
girl has to be well-dressed, her face has to look nice, the hair has to be in
shape …” Her take on the pressure to settle down and start a family young (too
young) belongs in a more caustic version of The Bell Jar: “The neighbors
would come over and ask ‘how’s Joan, still not married?’ and my mother would
say ‘if she were alive.’ Do you know how that hurts, when you’re sitting right
there?”

As I watched this clip, still in shock that this
scrappy young woman (the kind of girl I’d want to get drinks with) had ever
become the comic who told women in her audience that they were single because
they were over-educated (“no man will ever put his hand up your dress looking
for a library card”), I thought of how timeless her words remain, of how I
could see them being written in a monologue on Girls, one likely
delivered by Lena Dunham, architect of lines like “So any mean thing someone’s gonna
think of to say about me, I’ve already said to me, about me, probably in the
last half hour.”
 

I may never be equipped to fully appreciate Joan Rivers;
if, in order to be thankful for her work, I needed to experience a time when
Happy Homemaker was the only role for women and the word abortion was verboten
on TV. She may always be a trailblazer who got stuck in the mud. But I know
that humor can burn and soothe in the same beat: I remember calling a good
friend after I was rushed to the ER with chest pains and palpitations; I told
her that the attending physician warned me off the diet pills, purging, and
starvation unless I wanted “a more severe cardiac incident.” Without pausing,
my friend quipped, “So, you have to choose between your face or your ass or
your heart.” I laughed, and that laugh, however short, was a moment away from my
fear; that laugh acknowledged the untenable position I’d allowed myself to be
put in, because of the things I believed I needed to be.

Laura Bogart’s work has appeared on The Rumpus, Salon, Manifest-Station,
The Nervous Breakdown, RogerEbert.com and JMWW Journal, among other
publications. She is currently at work on a novel.

ARIELLE BERNSTEIN: Bloody Handprints: What Comes After Domestic Violence in Television and Life

ARIELLE BERNSTEIN: Bloody Handprints: What Comes After Domestic Violence in Television and Life

nullIn episode “Fifty-One” of Breaking
Bad,
Walter White buys Walt Jr. a
gorgeous, fast-moving and expensive red sports car, even though Skyler has expressly
asked him not to. It’s a subtle move of dominance. Walt has already made it
clear that he is the one who will be calling all the shots, and this is another
way to drive a wedge between Walt Jr. and Skyler by painting himself as the
better, cooler parent. A few scenes
later we cut to Walt and Skyler in bed together, Skyler turned away from Walt
as they spoon; the camera affording us a view of a close up of Skyler’s face,
as Walt gently strokes her arm and tells her that everything is going to be
okay, putting in a coyly worded request for a chocolate cake to celebrate his
birthday. Throughout this monologue, Skyler’s eyes remain dead and far away.
She knows Walt’s gestures of affection are not meant to actually open a warm
dialogue about the future; they are about quietly asserting Walt’s dominance
and control. Skyler is no longer an equal partner to a man she loves; she is a
prisoner in her own home.

As TV dramas that focus on male antihero protagonists have
become increasingly in vogue over the last 10 years, the women who
bear the brunt of their specific brand of male entitlement and rage have become increasingly noticeable. Female
characters in shows ranging from Mad Men to Game of Thrones are constantly subjected to verbal, sexual and physical violence, sometimes from the
male characters we admire and love. Male-on-female violence is portrayed as
normal and is often sexualized or depicted as romantic or glamorous. While I’m
a fan of all three shows I just mentioned, I also worry about the ubiquity of the
victimized woman in many of these programs and how the attitudes towards women
presented in these otherwise nuanced, intelligent shows might bleed over into real
life.

I’ve been thinking recently of Breaking Bad in light of
the recently released footage showing Ray Rice punching his now wife, Janay
Rice, in the face. After all, at its heart, Breaking
Bad
is a story about family and
violence, the family that Walt continues to claim to love, even as he selfishly
destroys it in order to become a drug kingpin. Walt’s transformation from
gentle chemistry teacher to leader of a drug ring comes at the expense of his
wife and children. He goes from being a protector to being someone who controls
every aspect of his family’s small suburban life, continuously putting his
wife and children at immense risk. 

The fact that Walt wants to provide for his family is often
listed as the most sympathetic excuse for his actions. In reality, it is
probably his most evil trait. Walter White’s transformation into a formidable
antihero is complex and rife with important moral questions, but Walt’s bad
behavior is often presented as less menacing than edgy; the newly evolved
Heisenberg, after all, has his fast sports cars and pork pie hat, his pithy,
brilliant one-liners. While clearly Walt is intended to be a villain by the end
of the series, many people still view Walt as a sympathetic figure and, while
Walt’s actions are never forgiven, they often do seem to be lionized. By the
end of the series Walt is presented as a flawed and tragic hero who did what he
needed to do in order to save the person he loved most: himself.

Skyler, who goes from being a strong, smart and willful
protagonist to a kind of cowering shadow of her former self, is never portrayed
as a hero. Her story is swallowed up by Walt’s. Indeed, many viewers took
tremendous joy from her slow collapse under Walt’s thumb. Often feminists cite
hatred of female characters under the broad, nebulous heading of “misogyny,” but the specific reason that Skyler was such a maligned character may have less
to do with a general hatred of women than with a specific discomfort at seeing the
White household descend into domestic violence and not wanting to blame Walt
for the deterioration. Skyler’s defiant attitude towards Walt, her refusal to
be willed into submission and go along with his egomaniacal plans, were
initially what inspired fans rooting for Walt to hate her.
Others criticized her when she began to become more desperate, give in to
Walt’s demands and eventually align herself with him after being worn out,
terrorized, and brainwashed by a person who was once her loving partner.

We spend a lot of time criticizing victims of domestic violence,
but we also spend a lot of time talking about them as victims, rather than
seeing them as whole people who are forced, by circumstance, to make a series
of genuinely complex and heartbreaking decisions. When footage is released of
Ray Rice knocking out his fiancé, we rush to see the evidence but don’t really
know what to do with it. A few commentators have struggled to excuse or defend
Rice’s actions, while others have complained that we simply don’t have context
to understand why he would do such a thing. Most mainstream discussion has
rushed to Janay Rice’s defense by pointing out the ways that she was an
innocent victim of a horrible crime.

But when Janay Rice herself responded to the public distribution
of this footage, she was primarily angry that she had been directly embarrassed by the
sudden media exposure. And why wouldn’t she be? When discussing Janay Rice, many
commentators rushed to criticize her choices, or simply left her out of her own
story. While the term “victim” is meant to put the blame on the perpetrator, it
also serves to flatten the person who has been hurt. We may feel sympathy for
victims, but we don’t see them as full people, with rich life stories, with the
combination of triumphs and mistakes that comprises each of our lives. In the
case of Breaking Bad, the
audience often could only think of Skyler in absolutes: either a shrew or a
victim, a bitch or a victim, a ball-buster or a victim.

We have plenty of stories where male protagonists fight
adversity and triumph over it, with dedication, with fists, with spiritual and
intellectual epiphanies that nurture individual growth. For female survivors of
domestic violence, we don’t tend to offer a similar opportunity for triumph. I
admire the number of women who have come forward to share their own stories
about how they experienced partner violence, but I also resent the fact that the
media still often presents these stories like a series of broken sighs and
resignations, rather than a deeply heroic act.

Even when leaving is presented as strategic, it is still
presented as a victim’s last decision, the path of least resistance, the thing
the weaker animal does when it knows it lost. The Skyler at the end of Breaking Bad is a
shadow of her former self, forced to support herself off the ugly drug money
she swore she would never take. Walt meanwhile is given his swan song, his
bloody handprint a signature stamp on the top of his baby blue.

We forgive a lot of male bad behavior. We are primed to see male characters as awash in their own hero’s journeys,
where the choices they make fundamentally matter, where they are leading the
charge of their own destiny. When Walt bellows at Skyler, “I am the one who
knocks,” late in the series, audiences applaud how Walt has been utterly
transformed. We see him as both menacing and brave, badass and brutal. In
contrast, in the world of the antihero, women have never been the ones to knock. We’ve been the ones to respond to that
knocking, the girls who end up dead in bloody bags washed to the shore, the
women condemned to stand by their man, or the women finally saved by a good
man.

This isn’t necessarily true in all media representations of
women. One of the reasons Buffy the Vampire Slayer succeeded as a feminist T.V. series is that although Buffy was
sometimes victimized, she was never ultimately portrayed as a victim. Her
response to trauma was complex and multifaceted, but she was consistently
portrayed as someone who is a survivor, rather than a victim of circumstances
beyond her control. In the same way, The Hunger Games’ Katniss’s greatest asset was not simply her skill at using a
bow and arrow, but her sheer resilience in the face of evil. 

Of course both of these stories are the domain of fantasy,
rather than the gritty realism we are supposed to see on any number of
antihero-centered T.V. dramas, genuinely brilliant, riveting shows, where,
nonetheless, female characters are often created in order to be broken. It’s time for women (and men) to start pushing back harder against narratives
that flatten female characters into either villains or victims of circumstances
beyond their control, and demand that female characters
are afforded a chance at redemption. I want a story that doesn’t end with death or leaving,
a world where we expect female protagonists, even those who experience violence
and pain, to ultimately carve out a new future.

Arielle Bernstein is
a writer living in Washington, DC. She teaches writing at American
University and also freelances. Her work has been published in
The
Millions, The Rumpus, St. Petersburg Review and The Ilanot Review. She
has been listed four times as a finalist in
Glimmer Train short story
contests
. She is currently writing her first book.

Can We Be FRANK? What Semi-Fictional Band “The Soronprfbs” Means for Music

Can We Be FRANK? What Semi-Fictional Band “The Soronprfbs” Means for Music

The
drummer doesn’t speak. The lead guitarist speaks only French. The
theremin player is homicidal. The original keyboardist has been fired,
and now acts as roadie and manager. The replacement keyboardist has been
sectioned by local authorities after a suicide attempt. The replacement
for the replacement has never played in a band before. And the lead
singer wears a giant Frank Sidebottom head
at all times; no one in the band knows his last name or has ever seen
his face. Nor has the band ever successfully completed a gig or recorded
a single track. 

  
This is the state of affairs for the unpronounceable and obscure band "The Soronprfbs"—the subject of Frank—as the film opens. What Frank asks
us to be most perplexed by, however, is not the set of personalities that
comprise the Soronprfbs but the music itself. Indeed, in play throughout
Frank is a question almost
always answered in the affirmative in music biopics, and in the negative
in mockumentaries: "Is the music any good?" Frank
not only straddles the biopic and mockumentary genres, but also answers
this question only ambiguously: "Maybe." (And adds, implicitly, "Does
it matter?")
At
the center of the Soronprfbs is "Frank," a mysterious former asylum
inmate from Kansas whose commitment to his obtuse but possibly brilliant
musical vision calls to mind the late Syd Barrett. When Jon, an
ambitious but not particularly talented keyboardist, is recruited into
the Soronprfbs on an emergency basis, an unstated tug of war between
Frank and his newest band member is initiated, with the soul of the
Soronprfbs in the balance. The allegory behind the film’s iconic
struggle is reasonably well-defined: how do artists balance their
materialist ambitions and popular sensibilities with the antisocial and
tormented genius of authentic inspiration? It’s a question easily
answered when and where ambition and inspiration conjoin to produce a
popular sound (cf. Taylor Swift) or one embraced by a small but
committed legion of fans (cf. Deafheaven), but what about when the
ambition and inspiration
are real, but the sound they produce lies well outside any listener’s
present interest or even understanding? 
It’s
telling that Jon helps the Soronprfbs gain a grassroots following not
so much through dissemination of the band’s songs, but by using social
media (Twitter, Tumblr, and YouTube) to draw attention to the band’s
compositional process and camera-ready idiosyncracies. When the band
finally shows up at SXSW, many have heard of them but almost no one
knows their music–a perfect statement on how
social media drives an interest in artists that’s independent from the
art they make. Does this discrepancy between social media buzz and
genuine appreciation suggest that the Soronprfbs are mere poseurs? Frank
asks us to consider that perhaps there’s no such thing as a poseur
anymore, as (a) even self-consciously idiosyncratic music can be entirely
earnest, and (b) ultimately the excitement a band generates in and
around the national music scene has a longer-lasting impact than the
music itself.
To be clear, though, the Soronprfbs—in the opinion of this writer—are pretty great. The Frank
OST is an album of music experiments that’s eminently listenable; cross
the Doors with the United States of America and a skin-of-their-teeth
sixties garage band like the Lemon Drops and you’ve got a good idea of
what the Soronprfbs sound like. It’s Grinderman meets the Hombres;
Phosphorescent meets Piper at the Gates of Dawn.
In other words, there’s a tripped-out, DIY sensibility behind the
Soronprfbs that’s mirrored in more contemporary acts like Neutral Milk
Hotel and the other members of the Elephant Six Collective. That the
Soronprfbs are only semi-fictional—adding to the "meta" quality of a film whose
OST includes the album whose creation it documents, the Soronprfbs have actually played some live shows—only adds to the sense that Frank is a movie about the artist’s ethos in both our own and previous eras.

While
Michael Fassbender’s voice won’t win any awards, there’s something
winning about the improvisational sound of the Soronprfbs. If the New
Sincerity’s self-consciously hip earnestness—equally aware of and
committed to its studied but joyful eccentricities—had a sound, it
might well be this. Frank
cautions us, however, that in this new age of post-deconstructive
reconstruction, a swing to either of the most eligible extremes set
before the artist (the self-consciousness of ambition or the
inspirations of eccentricity) can be destructive. In the end, it’s not
clear whether the Soronprfbs can survive as both a popular and
an organically inspired band without inhabiting—and inhabiting
only—the ambiguous middle spaces of social media and barely-heard first
albums. While in the real world the Soronprfbs, along with Fassbender,
may give a well-received concert or two, or even appear (as they did) on
The Colbert Report, in the film
both the Klieg lights of SXSW and the bohemian isolation of a recording
studio nestled deep in the English woods pose terminal dangers to the
group. Maybe, in the
Internet Age, the pressures of a stage "IRL" mark the beginning of the
end for certain forms of art, while situation in the midst of perpetual
buzz and an ever-elusive artistic vision allows artists the room they
require to explore new methods of creation.

Seth Abramson is the author of three collections of poetry, most recently Thievery (University of Akron Press, 2013). He has published work in numerous magazines and anthologies, including Best New Poets, American Poetry Review, Boston Review, New American Writing, Colorado Review, Denver Quarterly, and The Southern Review.
A graduate of Dartmouth College, Harvard Law School, and the Iowa
Writers’ Workshop, he was a public defender from 2001 to 2007 and is
presently a doctoral candidate in English Literature at University of
Wisconsin-Madison. He runs a contemporary poetry review series for
The Huffington Post and has covered graduate creative writing programs for Poets & Writers magazine since 2008.

The Silence at the Heart of a Family: The Most Offensive Thing about WETLANDS

The Silence at the Heart of a Family: The Most Offensive Thing about WETLANDS

nullWhat do you consider offensive? The dictionary definition of
the word suggests that to be offended is to be hurt, or angered, by something
one has seen, or experienced. Wetlands,
a new film from director David Wnendt, contains many scenes which might easily be
called, by this criterion, offensive. One probably wouldn’t normally want to watch them, and
certainly not in close-up, if one had a choice. You might wince. You might look away. You
might walk out. Or, perhaps, you might watch, out of curiosity. Wnendt takes us, with this
work, on a very bumpy tour of a young woman’s maturation, sparing nothing to
show us his narrator’s body, as well as her body’s functions, its wounds, and
its moments of ecstasy, all equally vivid, all equally exciting. It also shows
us the tormented relationships she has with her parents, with her family, with
men—and the sort of violence perpetrated in those spheres. The question the
film asks, quite profoundly and with such confidence that it’s hard to stay shocked
at its earthiness for too long, is: why are we so offended by bodily functions,
and perhaps less by the ills humans visit on each other?

About those bodily functions: As has been noted widely in
the film’s critical reception, it begins ear-catchingly, with Helen’s (Carla Juri)
announcement, a la Proust by way of Scorsese, that as long as she can remember,
she’s had hemorrhoids. In an instant, ointment is applied to her thumb, and her
thumb is inserted up her rectum, where the ointment is applied to a painful,
chronic, sore. Having completed this gesture, she rubs her vagina around the
toilet seat, just to test her vaginal health, and then she pauses for a reverie
inspired by a pubic hair stuck to the particularly filthy rim of the bowl;
we immediately shoot into a Delicatessen-style
journey deep into the roots of the hair (again a bit like Scorsese’s tour of
the Copa Cabana in Goodfellas); microscopic
creatures chomp and gnash; spores float like so many balloons; we see what may
be the encroachment of a virus but looks a little more like germ-on-cell rape.
It’s an appropriate beginning to the story; the film zips along with an almost
jazz-like energy, even as the soundtrack is generally gravelly
punk-inspired guitar mash. What we get here is partly a sexual history, partly a family history, and
partly the story of an anal injury incurred while shaving. Shaving has a
special meaning for Helen; in one of numerous jarringly sensual flashbacks, we
see her being shaved, naked, by a similarly naked coworker. The scene stands
out as one of the more gentle scenes in a film about different kinds of
violence, and their effects. After nicking herself in the anus, she bleeds, and
bleeds, and bleeds, and finally ends up in the hospital, under the care of
Robin (Christoph Letkowski), a male nurse with slightly shaky judgment. One would think the gore and
filth would stop here, but in fact it doesn’t. Though the hospital stay
provides the framework for the film, it serves here as a means to an end—the
end being Helen’s wrestling with her family history. We learn other things
about Helen here; for instance, she has an innocent friend, Corinna (Marlen Kruse) whom she corrupts,
takes drugs with, gets in trouble with—and, as friends do, Corinna departs. We also
learn small pieces of Helen’s daily life, get a sense of her musical taste, watch
her grow from a cleanliness-obsessed toddler into a much rougher young adult. And yet Helen’s family history looms larger and turns out to be far more offensive than any
of her displays in the film: more than her licking her vaginal fluids off her
fingers before a date, more than her leaving semen on her hands after giving a
friend a hand job, more than the sight of her own poop, all around her, when
she wakes up in the hospital the morning after surgery.

What do we know about the family? Plenty, and little. But we
find out enough to make the average viewer, as the dictionary requires, angry.
They appear, in this telling, to be willfully negligent, carrying their own
disturbance into their relationship with their child a certain degree of
immunity, at least in this telling. Karen’s parents are divorced. Her
biological father is a rough, arrogant sort who, when Helen is small,
accidentally slams the door of a car trunk on Helen’s hand. We don’t see him
apologize, or rush to her side, and we get the sense that no such reaction is
forthcoming; as an indicator of the general timbre of their relationship, the
moment is chilling. In another scene, when Helen is older, we see her father
dancing wildly by the family pool, his erection waving around so obviously in
his swim trunks that Helen makes a voiceover comment about it, and we focus on
it. And still later, when Helen is in the hospital, his recovery gift to her is
not so affectionate: a hemorrhoid cushion, which he doesn’t bother to
inflate for her. Helen’s mother doesn’t receive much better exposure here; when
Helen is very young, she does a trust exercise, asking Helen to jump into her
arms—only to back away as Helen jumps, warning her, as she lies on the ground,
not to trust anyone, even parents. Her mother’s rage manifests itself in
different ways: her adoption of religions ranging from Judaism to Buddhism to
Catholicism; her lifting her skirt and showing her crotch at a dinner party
when her drunk husband begins relating the surgical procedure necessary to
complete Helen’s delivery; and finally, a violent act which Helen stumbles on,
which has scarred the family, scarred Helen’s brother, and scarred Helen in
ways she doesn’t entirely understand.

Admittedly, because the film is a self-portrait, and because
its spirited approach animates it so much that you can almost forget the poop,
the semen and the lubricant, it would be tempting to think the portraits of
Helen’s parents presented here are biased, shaped, or even imagined—but the
real-time encounters we see, the matter-of-fact conversations in the hospital,
at home, are dry, and the outward manner each parent displays does not indicate
the capacity for remorse at dereliction, only weary tolerance of Helen’s antics;
the conversations intimate a long history of missed apologies. And so, the
final question is, is it more offensive, or shocking, to see two girls rubbing
menstrual blood on each others’ faces, or to see misguided parental behavior,
which silently presages the more outrageous aspects of the film? When the end
comes, and it is a happy one, as much as it could be during recovery from anal
fissures, one is relieved to see that it involves pushing away from her past, most specifically her family. When watching a film like this, which has banked on the shock value of its content, one wants, in a sense, to be impressed: Wow, that was really… gross. It is to the film’s credit that characters who exist primarily on the margins of the narrative provide its points of greatest offense, casting the humanity and curiosity of the film’s central figure into a curiously positive light.

Max Winter is the Editor of Press Play.

METAMERICANA: RICK & MORTY: The Ballad of Abradolf Lincler

METAMERICANA: RICK & MORTY: The Ballad of Abradolf Lincler

null

The Back to the Future films gave us Doc and Marty, the former a catchphrase-spouting, drunk-seeming, AARP-eligible scientist who was equal parts madman and genius, and the latter a high-voiced square with an alternately plucky and anxious disposition. Rick & Morty,
Dan Harmon’s and Justin Roiland’s new animated series on the Cartoon Network, deviates from
that formula by giving us Rick and
Morty: the former a catchphrase-spouting, drunk-seeming, AARP-eligible
scientist who’s equal parts madman and genius, and the latter
a high-voiced square with an alternately plucky and anxious disposition.
If there’s another similarity between Bob Zemeckis’ 80s cult-classic
film series and Harmon’s latest instant classic, it’s that both share
an interest in exploring the vagaries of transdimensional travel. That,
and physical comedy.

Apart from its resemblance to the Back to the Future franchise, Rick & Morty seems deliberately calibrated to defy analogy. Is it Futurama meets Harmon’s earlier hit, Community? Men in Black
meets Picket Fences? The X-Files meets Brazil? While Rick & Morty
is certainly another entry in a long line of genre- and reality-bending
TV programs, none of these analogies will finally do, largely
because the creators’ interest in Rick & Morty
is not in creating an identifiably parodic mish-mash of styles, but
juxtaposing opposing principles to the point of irresolvable paradox.
It’s not merely that most episodes of Rick & Morty
take place in the fifth and sixth dimensions—in the fifth dimension,
humans are able to perceive all possible futures stemming from their
present timeline; in the sixth dimension, we perceive alternate
timelines entirely
divorced from our own past, present, and future—it’s that even within
these dimensions the plot and characters oscillate between sense and
nonsense, unidirectional and spiraling narratives, optimism and cynicism
for humankind’s ability to create order from chaos.

In short,
Harmon and Roiland want to deny us all of our comfortable psychosocial
poles—excessive sentimentality and excessive cynicism, for instance—by
forcing us to reside, as viewers, in the same sort of ambiguous
head-space the Internet and popular culture forces us to reside in
anyway. If Rick at one point describes the transdimensional
Intergalactic Council of Ricks (it’s a long
story) as a "who’s who of who’s you and me," he could equally be
describing our own space-time continuum, in which we retain our sanity
not by establishing stable selves ever willing to betray their own prime
directives, but by
embracing plural selves who
exhibit an abiding fidelity to certain core principles. You and I are
always you and I, the transdimensional adventures of Rick & Morty imply, but surviving the Internet Age intact means knowing exactly which you and I we are at all times.

Rick & Morty
so defies generalization that one must resort to anecdotes and clips
from the show to even approach an understanding of the program’s
particulars. So, first, an anecdote: In the eighth episode of the first
season of Rick & Morty, Rick
chastises his daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter for obsessing
over a pair of goggles that shows them their lives in alternate
dimensions rather than
watching Ball Fondlers, a
sixth-dimensional television program that has nothing to do with either
balls or fondling because those words mean something entirely different
in the sixth dimension. Seeing how miserable his relatives have been
made by visualizing how much better their lives would be in an alternate
reality, Rick says, "I don’t want to rub it in or anything, but you
guys clearly backed the wrong conceptual horse." What Rick means is
that, in the context of a workaday reality so nonsensically
contradictory that it requires highly conceptualized forms of resistance
to survive, the choice between fetishizing stable selves and a stable
reality and accepting the intertextuality (juxtaposition of
data-streams) and intersubjectivity (juxtaposition of consciousnesses)
of our daily experiences should be an easy one. If we treat realities as
multiple and elective instead of stable and imposed from
without, it enables us to better navigate an online cultural sphere in
which multiple and elective realities are already the order of the day.
Every day, in fact.

This, in a nutshell, is why Rick & Morty is like no other television program before it, and why even comparing it to alternate-reality cult hits like The X-Files or Brazil
is inadequate. In simple terms, the program’s plot and characters move
so seamlessly between opposing poles of thought and feeling that calling
it "sci-fi" does it a disservice. Instead of "sci-fi," Rick & Morty
is more appropriately termed "nonfi-fi": a subgenre in which the
boundaries between the things we can readily understand and those we
cannot possibly relate to our own experience is crossed so rapidly and
with such regularity that we enter an entirely new space (indeed an
entirely new dimension) simply by consuming it. We see this tendency in Nathan for You, a Comedy Central program which is ambiguously either an actual documentary or a mockumentary; in IFC’s Comedy Bang! Bang!,
which is ambiguously either an actual late night interview program or a
parody of a late night interview program; and–well, you get the
picture. These programs never give viewers the comfort of either earnest
immersion in a genre or ironic distance from any genre; instead,
viewers subsist in a central space between all possible received
expectations–a place in which the
normal rules of physics, individual morality, and collective culture
are intermittently suspended.

Yet Ricky & Morty
somehow takes even "nonfi-fi" to another level by being at once
meticulously written from a conceptual standpoint—its perspective on
the necessary flexibility of reality is unmistakable—and also
improvisational in its writing. Harmon’s and Roiland’s point, as seen in the episode "Rixty Minutes," seems to be that while we can
conceptualize approaches to reality, whatever our approach may be,
reality is simultaneously being improvised and solidified at every
moment. This, then, is the reason for its daily absurdity: we’re all
winging it all the time, but we all have to accept the aggregation of
all our improvisations to survive. As Morty observes when Rick upgrades the family’s cable package with programming from
every
conceivable reality, "Seems like TV from other dimensions has a
somewhat looser feel to it" (to which observation Rick responds, "Yeah,
it’s got an almost improvisational tone").

If there’s an iconic figure on Rick & Morty,
one whose composition best summarizes Harmon’s social and metaphysical
critique, it’s "Abradolf Lincler," a genetically engineered creation of
Rick’s who’s half Adolf Hitler and half Abraham Lincoln. Rick describes
him as "a crazed maniac—just a misguided effort of mine to create
a morally neutral super-leader . . . turns out it just adds up to a lame,
weird loser." Of course, that "lame, weird loser" is simply us—what
Lincler himself describes (in speaking of himself) as "an abomination,
tortured by the duality of its being"—and as much as the show may use
Lincler for comic relief, in fact his dilemma is our own. How do we
resolve our opposing inclinations without lapsing into a moral
neutrality that’s both uninteresting, perverse, and doomed to
self-destruction? In another several-minute stretch of Rick & Morty, its creators model for us how the fifth and sixth dimensions permit a
reconsideration of both the relationships between things and the
relationships between our selves and one another. In just a few minutes
of on-screen montage, we see all of the following
vignettes: (1) Two pizzas ordering humans on cell phones while sitting
on couches; (2) two cell phones
ordering couches on humans while sitting on pizzas; and (3) two couches
ordering cell phones on pizzas while sitting on humans.

In the
examples above, the point is not to create random permutations of
reality, but to render as equivalent all nouns (including pizzas,
humans, cell phones, and couches) in the fifth and sixth dimensions,
where the term "possible" is not limited by normative science or
psychology. Rick & Morty
doesn’t, however, contend that science is irrelevant, nor social
convention, nor human scruples—merely that all of these things are both
wholly integral and wholly context-dependent.

In parodies—a
postmodern art-form entirely divorced from Hamon’s twenty-first century
vision—we’re repeatedly reminded that certain social conventions are
integral to our lives by virtue of the fact that our lives
can’t function without them. In a show like Rick & Morty,
the takeaway is a very different one: that everything is always
integral within its own context. It’s for this reason that Rick’s
catchphrase in Season One of Rick & Morty
is a comically nonsensical string of syllables that’s only in the
season finale translated as "I am in great pain, please help me"; and
it’s for this reason that, at almost the same moment we discover this
translation, Rick switches his catchphrase to "I don’t give a f**k!" Of
course, Rick’s earlier pain is no less real because it’s completely
unintelligible to his family, nor is his subsequent happy-go-lucky
nihilism any less real because we find it sophomoric and banally
expressed.

By taking his "everyman" grandson Morty along on his
transdimensional adventures, Rick shows him
that anything which presently seems unreal or unintelligible either
can’t yet be translated or simply is not yet aligned with its proper
context. The lesson is an important one for all of us living in
twenty-first century America, where our reaction to online phenomena
that seem unreal or unintelligible is either to rail against them
ineffectually or to deconstruct them into tiny but largely irrelevant
parcels that briefly make sense to us but nevertheless leave us unhappy. The show’s creators would have us make neither of these mistakes: by forcing us to
watch the alternating harmony and disharmony of paradox, they ask us to
consider that paradox is our present state, and that our only remaining
action-step is to determine how we react to it. Perhaps the time for
microanalyzing the senselessness of popular culture is over, and the
time for somehow exploiting that senselessness to live better and richer
lives has begun. Rick and Morty are doing
it—and (spoiler alert) Abradolf Lincler dies doing it—so why can’t we?

Seth Abramson is the author of three collections of poetry, most recently Thievery (University of Akron Press, 2013). He has published work in numerous magazines and anthologies, including Best New Poets, American Poetry Review, Boston Review, New American Writing, Colorado Review, Denver Quarterly, and The Southern Review.
A graduate of Dartmouth College, Harvard Law School, and the Iowa
Writers’ Workshop, he was a public defender from 2001 to 2007 and is
presently a doctoral candidate in English Literature at University of
Wisconsin-Madison. He runs a contemporary poetry review series for
The Huffington Post and has covered graduate creative writing programs for Poets & Writers magazine since 2008.

The Cool of Science, from Bill Nye to David Rees

The Cool of Science, from Bill Nye to David Rees

null
I was a horrible science
student. It was always my worst class. Right through high school. The only time
I ever cheated on a test was in grade 7 science class, and when I got caught
Mr. McGinn, the teacher, saw the shame in my eyes and we never spoke of it
again. I guess I never liked how absolute science was. It lacked humility. It
was all ego. As I’ve gotten older, this early flawed relationship with science
has manifested itself in strange ways. For example, I don’t believe that the Apollo 11 moon landing happened. I
doubted our science was capable of making it work. I’m religiously
superstitious, because superstition is the antithesis of science. I’m a
romantic. I believe in fate, a most unscientific proposition. I mean, I respect
science. I’m not a creationist. I like its work. Whatever chemist developed the
pomade that settles down my beard seems to have had some good notions. Gravity
and electricity are pretty great. But what I’ve realized recently, and what
television creators are realizing as well, is that that ego, that lack of
humility, gives science a distinctly cool quality. Confident. Retro. Universal.

The roots of cool science on
contemporary TV can likely be traced back to Bill Nye the Science Guy. Nye, a
student of Carl Sagan’s at Cornell, was an engineer in the aeronautics industry
before falling into television offering science segments during programs long
since forgotten. His eponymous show broadcast 100 episodes, and since then he
has been the cheese sauce to science’s broccoli across multiple media
platforms. He’s the pundit networks call to explain complicated matters to
fickle audiences, reducing climate change and the Big Bang theory to its basic
elements. He’s easy to stomach because of his folksy manner and trademark bow
tie. And what is cool if not some folksy dude sporting an anachronistic fashion
accessory? I’m suspicious of the fact he doesn’t have a PhD, but his work is
virtuous (consider his debate with science denier Ken Ham, in which Nye argued
the absolute theories of Darwinism and Ham argued that Jesus rode dinosaurs) and
someone has to spoon feed the fact that the earth isn’t 2000 years old to the
creationists. And, hell, Bill Nye was on Dancing
with the Stars
, so he’s even cool with middle-aged suburban housewives. He’s
multi-demographic cool.

If Nye has a contemporary equivalent,
or perhaps competitor, it’s Neil deGrasse Tyson, the prominent astrophysicist,
who is jovial, adorably geeky, and, like Nye, able to make complicated ideas very
simple. He’s a funny tweeter. He has a moustache. If you’ve been to Brooklyn or
an Arcade Fire show, you know moustaches are cool. He’s the millenials’
favorite PhD. In contrast to Nye, Dr. deGrasse Tyson does his punditry on shows
like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Real Time with Bill Maher, where cool
hangs out, while squares watch Fallon, where the politically and socially
inclined go for their news. deGrasse Tyson recently hosted Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, a revisitation of the seminal Carl Sagan’s Cosmos: A Personal Voyage,
in which his passion for science is clear, and his belief in its crucial role
in an engaged and advancing civilization is infectious. Even for someone like
me, who thinks Neil Armstrong filmed the moon landing on a sound stage in
Studio City.

Currently, the most prominent
and culturally ingrained scientists on television aren’t really scientists. The Big Bang Theory, CBS’s hit sitcom,
features no less than six characters who are scientists. Well, five scientists
and one aerospace engineer. The show outfits its cast in attire straight out of
Williamsburg, the very centre of all things cool, gives them the flaws and
ticks that humanize us all, and infuses the narrative with pop humour and
scientific jargon. The show has ridden an inexplicable wave of affection for
science, which has made scientists cool.

But the problem with cool,
especially marketable and monetized cool, is that the entertainment industry
inevitably tries to duplicate it with disappointing results. That’s why every
new sitcom in the late 90s featured six beautiful friends in a coffee shop and
lasted four episodes.

Recently, I came across the
National Geographic Channel’s Going Deep
with David Rees
, which may be the beginning of the end of cool science on
TV. Rees is not a scientist. Or an engineer. He’s a writer. And a cartoonist.
And apparently has a vested interest in pencils. The show is not without its
merits. In watching this season I learned how to make ice, and tie my shoes, swat
a fly, and open a door, banal activities I had been carelessly attending to
without thought for nearly four decades. Rees investigates the benign and treats
us to the science behind it. But what is most striking about Rees’ show is its
almost desperate desire to be cool.

Going Deep borrows heavily from filmmaker Wes Anderson, crown
prince of the zeitgeist of cool, in its cinematography, score, and title fonts.
The program often attempts to replicate Anderson’s signature aesthetic:
perfectly centered shots, harmonized colors, and the Futura typeface for
titling. I was surprised to learn the score was not done by Mark Mothersbaugh.

Rees clowns relentlessly for the
camera. He breaks the fourth wall, talking to his crew. He swears. The result,
unfortunately, is a show that is the very opposite of cool because it doesn’t
understand what cool is. Desperate is not cool. Oddly, Rees strikes me as
someone who is cool, off-camera. He is personable, has an interesting
background, and is comfortable on camera. One can’t help but think while
watching the show that if Rees was less animated against the backdrop of the
Anderson homage, the show would be quite wonderful. 

Nye didn’t aspire to cool; he
fell into it. Like Neil Diamond circa 1998. deGrasse Tyson isn’t cool because
he’s on TV, he’s on TV because he’s cool. The
Big Bang Theory
isn’t cool because its characters are scientists. It’s cool
because its creator Chuck Lorre controls the universe. Well, no, but it’s cool
because it took a science and put it in the sitcom world, something that had
never been done before, and took that opportunity to explore science and geek-dom
through that familiar lens. Cool is often born either of what is new or what is
rediscovered. It’s why retro is cool. It’s the casual employment of the
contemporary and the forgotten. Instagram’s retro filters. DJs sampling music
of yesteryear. Your nana’s red plastic frames.

What Nye, deGrasse Tyson, and
Chuck Lorre understood was the marvel of science itself. Science has the
capability to answer, in absolute terms, every question about the universe. That
in and of itself is astounding. Science sells itself. It’s genuine. It’s
literally truth. And that’s what those who try to manufacture cool have never
been able to grip about cool. It just happens. It’s organic. It enters the
universe unannounced and disappears into the ether in the same manner. Going Deep with David Rees tries too
hard. And cool don’t try, man.

Mike Spry is a writer, editor, and columnist who has written for The
Toronto Star, Maisonneuve, and The Smoking Jacket, among
others, and contributes to MTV’s
 PLAY
with AJ
. He is the author of the poetry collection JACK (Snare
Books, 2008) and
Bourbon & Eventide (Invisible Publishing, 2014), the short story collection Distillery Songs (Insomniac Press,
2011), and the co-author of
Cheap Throat: The Diary of a Locked-Out
Hockey Player
(Found Press,
2013).
Follow him on Twitter @mdspry.

How GROUNDHOG DAY and THE ONE I LOVE Describe the Indescribable

How GROUNDHOG DAY and THE ONE I LOVE Describe the Indescribable

null

Note: This piece contains spoilers, in a sense.

The One I Love is a film very much in the tradition of
Groundhog Day, another film that employed bizarre structural
techniques in the service of a love story—but it seems, by and large, that this film
picks up where that one left off, so that each work shows stages in the
development of the human animal in the midst of a relationship. Both films are
light enough on their feet that you wouldn’t immediately think they had
anything all that serious to impart, but, in fact, they do.

It’s easy, when watching films like these, to pick up on the
wrong things. In the case of the older film, we marvel at how strange it is
that Murray’s fop lives the same day over and over, assuming that the chief
metaphor here is that life itself is repetitive, and that it’s hard to learn
from one’s mistakes, and that even the grumpiest malcontent can find true love
if given enough chances. The reality is, of course, that the film tells the
story of the difficulty of love, and the inevitability of stumbles and false
starts on the way towards it. With The One I Love, we marvel at the fact that the couple at
the center of the film, having gone to a weekend retreat recommended by their
couples counselor, have found themselves sharing a huge mansion with a couple
who looks exactly like them, with only slight differences.

Charlie McDowell’s film addresses not the difficulty of love,
but the strangeness of the idea of it. Think, for a second: two animals meet
each other, become more familiar with each other, and then, if both partners continue to
appreciate the other partner, spend the rest of their lives together, or a large part of it. As the animals
spend time with each other, they get to know each other better and better. They
come to know characteristics they appreciate, and characteristics they do not
appreciate. They watch out for each other. They fight. They have moments of
great love and affection. They have sex. They have children. This is a
fascinating process if you’re studying baby ducks, and it’s also fascinating if
you’re watching humans. One thing this film does, as Groundhog Day did, is that it forces us to look at humans in a
relationship as animals, and watch how they behave as they grow to know, and un-know, themselves and their partners.

Another important similarity between this film and its
predecessor is the seeming blankness of its performances. The actors chosen
here do not bear, in their performances here or elsewhere, a distracting heat.
Elizabeth Moss has played, throughout her career, characters of great subtlety, but she
has rarely played characters with great eccentricity (except perhaps for her
early turn in Girl, Interrupted, but that was more of an acting stunt). She is
best at a sort of plain, calm openness, which, ironically enough, could allow
for a number of different possible results; here, her Sophie wavers between drawing our sympathies and driving us away, her lip quivering at tense moments just enough to make us understand her anger at her spouse.  Mark Duplass’s performance is
fairly blank, as well—his Ethan wobbles between likability and unlikability
throughout the movie, having teetered into adultery, but nevertheless
presenting the affect of a nerdy everyman. In the earlier film, the actors seem
all similarly cherry picked for their blankness: Bill Murray’s deadpan, Andie
MacDowell’s mild-mannered attractiveness, Chris Elliott’s likable goofiness. Even Stephen Tobolowsky, in that film, seems like a well-chosen part of a set piece.
What these performances do, by not calling attention to themselves, is draw
attention to a central storyline, which in each case is a fairly basic but elegant one.

But in one film we learn what is wrong with us before we fall in
love; in the other, we learn what remains wrong with us afterwards. In Groundhog Day, Phil’s faults before he falls in love
are many: his egotism, his sarcasm, his misanthropy, his narcissism, his
cynicism. We can see him begin to expand, or open up, from the first minute he
sees Rita in the newsroom—regardless of whether or not this expansion manifests
itself outwardly from the start. Once the mornings begin to repeat themselves, Phil’s lying and bumbling begins a comic metamorphosis, as Rita remains
relatively the same. Indeed, the largest change we see in Rita is that she grows to
accept Phil’s quirks, or at least becomes more vocal about the traits in him she
dislikes. And so, by the end of the film, Phil has repaired himself, in a
sense, becoming a person who might, conceivably, be lovable. The film does not
suggest he has undergone an Ebenezer-Scrooge-level transformation, but it comes
close. He has gotten to this point by making the sorts of mistakes that are all too common in relationships, and learning from them–the moments of forgetfulness, or insensitivity, or clumsiness, that are part of the process by which the complicated animals called humans learn to share a burrow, either real or theoretical. The One I Love could be said to begin 10 years later, after marriage,
after the tenderness and rage that come with it. While neither Ethan nor Sophie are comparable with the characters in the earlier film, they
don’t need to be. The message remains the same: the phenomenon we are
witnessing is one of the strangest things we could see on a screen, even if it is happening all around us, all the time. The
characters here talk to each other, and then they talk to duplicates of each
other; they have experiences with each other, and then they realize those
experiences were with other versions of each other, which they did not realize
at the time. Even summarizing it is confusing, as is the experience depicted.
As the film continues, we see the two couples finally meeting and having dinner
with each other—and agreeing to spend the rest of the weekend hanging out with
each other, a happy foursome. Which is almost conceivable, as a social arrangement: one version of Ethan is uptight, the
other slightly more relaxed; one version of Sophie seems accepting, the
other slightly less content and more brittle. Which is all a roundabout way of
saying that we, as we’ve been told before, contain multitudes; while Whitman
might have meant that he identified with all people when he said those words, isn’t it also the case
that, when we have decided to share our lives, this is the greatest sort of
expansion, that two people could be, in a sense, a multitude? Additionally, isn’t it also true that one’s sense of a partner is perpetually revised in small ways, for good or ill, during the course of a relationship, so that the version of the Other one sees is shifting almost constantly?

As the saying goes, form is content. Some subjects
deserve a certain treatment, and the process by which they come to receive that
treatment can be rather mysterious. In the case of both Ramis’ film and the
current film, the filmmaker is describing something which, at its bottom,
cannot be mimetically represented—only some version of our idea of it would
make it there. So, what do the filmmakers do? They go out on a structural limb,
experimenting in wild ways with time, or with character development, or with
structure as a whole. And, in so doing, both directors manage to describe the frustrating and
somewhat bottomless nature of human relationships with what could be considered deeply enjoyable realism.

Max Winter is the Editor of Press Play.

First AMERICAN HORROR STORY, Now TRUE DETECTIVE: Why Award Nominations Say More Than You Think

First AMERICAN HORROR STORY, Now TRUE DETECTIVE: Why Award Nominations Say More Than You Think

null

With any spate of Emmy nominations
come the invariable snubs and the inevitable outcry.
Last year, the hot topic was Tatiana Maslany,
this year it’s True Detective. Why is this show categorized as a traditional drama when the likes of Fargo and American Horror
Story
—which share the same anthology format—reside in the miniseries
category? Why would HBO pit True
Detective
, certainly a great program, against the juggernaut final (half-)season
of Breaking Bad (among other notables)?
The explanation involving the wording of the rules
has hardly softened
the speculation
that this is a power play on HBO’s part. FX faced similar criticisms in the
past with American Horror Story,
ultimately settling into the miniseries category, a move that many viewed as a
convenient way to avoid competing with the likes of Homeland and Game of Thrones. This all might seem
superfluous (it’s about the art, not the awards!), but the way True Detective’s
categorization issue has been handled adds new economic value to the genre,
increasing the likelihood that we’ll see an exponential surge of anthologies in
years to come.

Though American Horror Story is hardly the
first of its kind,
it is without question the catalyst for the renewed interest in the form we’re witnessing
now. Its approach—closed seasons that bear no relation to the others save for
recurring cast members—has brought FX a diversified audience
and heaps of award nominations and wins.
Capitalizing on that success, True
Detective
and Fargo established
2014 as a breakout year for the televised anthology. In February, Mark Maurer
illustrated some of the benefits
of the form, citing its binge-friendly structure, potential to create
fulfilling storylines, and ability to attract star talent with demanding
schedules. I’d submit that another asset of the form is its ability to
undermine audience expectations. Like the ever-popular novel-in-stories genre
in the literary world, the anthology series allows its viewers’ minds to run
wild on a moment-to-moment basis. Where we pretty much knew that Breaking Bad wouldn’t kill off Walt in
Season 2, for instance, we can’t carry the same certainty for any of the protagonists
in Fargo—a show that is very aware of
this advantage. No matter how TV-literate we may fancy ourselves, the anthology
retains the capacity to surprise us in ways (kind, quality, and frequency) that
a traditional drama can’t match.

And there are other
benefits: self-reference and tie-ins in the form of cameos, recurring cast
members (or repeat characters played by new talent), or whole plotlines (as in
the announcement of Fargo’s setting
in Season 2). Once upon a time, syndication was king: a show needed to reach
the fabled 100-episode mark to earn the right to be bought by other networks
for reruns. Video-on-Demand streaming and rental services have changed the game
entirely. Where syndication regularly depended on the whims of the lowest
common denominator, streaming services have proven that niche consumer
interests can be just as profitable, particularly when involving cult,
award-winning, or critically acclaimed series. The result is that a quality
program—even one that didn’t necessarily wrangle many viewers during its initial
run—can still be sold to VOD services for a handsome price, thus earning its
keep in the eyes of the network, as Mad
Men’s
whopping $75-$100 million price tag
in 2011 evinces.

As television becomes
increasingly oriented around streaming, the sheer watchability of anthology
shows—which tend to feature fewer episodes with tighter storylines—alongside
the aforementioned advantages, imbues them with major cash-cow potential. One
bad season need not sound a show’s death knell. With American Horror Story, for example, I was taken with the first
season’s jarring visual style and juxtaposition of horror, lightheartedness,
and suburban claustrophobia, but found the second season’s gore-focus tiresome
enough to quit after a few episodes. Because each season is self-contained, I knew
I could check back in for Season 3 without fearing I’d missed vital information—not
the kind of thing one can realistically do in the middle of a serialized,
long-form narrative. As a result, anthologies also, with some exception, renew
their access points on a rolling basis; they can grab new viewers at the start
of each season. If a potential viewer of Fargo
wanted to watch the series in terms of chronology rather than release date, for
example, they could start with next year’s 1979 Sioux Falls setting,
then “backtrack” to Bemidji 2006. I can even imagine future programs toying
with this idea, creating jigsaw puzzles intended to be watched in a variety of
sequences.

The demand for high-quality
drama, which significantly increases the costs associated with producing new
programs, has steered many channels to invest more heavily in pre-vetted source
texts: offerings that have demonstrated profitability elsewhere, such as
novels, films, comics, and international series. Alongside Fargo, Hannibal, Bates Motel, Constantine, Gotham, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., The Killing, Homeland, Arrow, The Bridge, and Gracepoint are just some of the adaptations to have been green-lit
for the small screen in recent memory. With any show, the hope is for a long,
lucrative run. Ideally, each season after the first textures and builds on all
that’s been established without retreading old territory, but “topping” previous
work can be tricky without defaulting to far-fetched scenarios in hopes of
recreating the dynamism that attracted viewers in the first place. For this
reason, the anthology provides a nice home for original content. What is lost
in plot continuity is gained in ease of longevity; all things being equal,
networks can trust that each season of an anthology will perform similarly to
the ones before it, and writers/producers can create new, organic work each
season.

And now, the True Detective award kerfuffle has
revealed yet another strength: the ability to hop genres come award season. As
long as the likes of the Emmy committee continues to wash its hands of
responsibility, the precedent will hold. Networks will game the system, placing
their anthologies in whichever category they believe will yield the best
results (imagine the mess when they start dipping their fingers in proper
comedy anthologies). This form is one of the most exciting things in television;
in many ways, it’s the most organic structure for the medium and the habits of its
viewership. Relegating it to the miniseries category doesn’t fit, but it
equally doesn’t belong in the traditional drama category. Until there are
enough additions to the genre, we won’t see a designated anthology category. In
the meantime, the field is wide open for those willing to experiment.

Jesse Damiani is Series Co-Editor for Best American
Experimental Writing (Omnidawn, 2014). He lives in Madison,
WI.

Humor Is Life: RIP Robin Williams, 1951–2014

Humor Is Life: RIP Robin Williams, 1951–2014

null
Anyone who has more than a passing acquaintance with me
knows this: I consider humor very important. It can be a great social balm, a
means of communicating with others—but beyond that, it is one of the most
complex ways I can think of, besides poetry, to make sense out of the
peculiarity of waking up, functioning, and being in the world. For me, those who
through whatever gift are able to make humor their livelihood, and sustain that
livelihood over a lifetime, become like prophets, speaking the highest sort of
truth—but truth, ironically enough, that could either make your eyes water and
your nose run or make you wet your pants. So the mixture of feelings I had when
I read of Robin Williams’s suicide was dramatic. Grief, of course. Shock. Anger.
Confusion. These were all at the front of my mind, blaring, inescapable. But
above and beyond all of these, was, oddly enough, fear, whose source I could
not immediately identify. Then it came to me.

I remember being amazed, as a twelve-year-old, that
Williams could act seriously. When I learned that he had been cast in The World According to Garp, I was
baffled. But he’s Mork, I thought. Mork from Ork. What’s he doing in a film of
this stature? After all, the film was based on a novel by John Irving. A close
friend of the time, Steve Ingham, was nuts about Irving, and he had me nuts
about him, too. And so the idea that such a movie might be coming out assumed
gigantic importance for me. The fact that Robin Williams would star in it was
both wonderful and terrible: wonderful because I, like most people my age,
worshipped Williams, but terrible because I simply couldn’t imagine him being
serious. As it was, he gave a memorable performance as young human tabula rasa
T.S. Garp, up against formidable talents such as Glenn Close and John
Lithgow—though the film would not necessarily loom large amongst others, due to
its personal, small scope, I would always remember that as one of his best
performances. And, when thinking about the range of films he made over the
course of his career, it’s the serious roles that stand out most. He learned,
gradually, how to take control of the serious parts he was given, and to do so
in a way that seemed natural to him. Movies such as Dead Poets Society, or Awakenings, while certainly moving, offered lesser performances than Good Will
Hunting
, or The Fisher King, or Insomnia—where you were actually able to
forget, for a moment, that you were watching someone who, in another context,
could be continuously funny, for fifteen solid minutes, who might reduce you to
the point of pathetic laughter—and then would keep on, as if he didn’t care if
you were in pain, lying in your bed or on your sofa, in the dark, late at
night, clutching your stomach. It’s that feeling I’ll remember most about him,
in fact, the feeling you would get when watching him on stage, without props:
that of watching someone supremely in control of himself, of his voice, of his
posture, of his physical movements, but also, in a sense, anarchic within
himself, unable to sit still when appearing on a talk show, sometimes seeming
as if he were moving around a room when he was still seated, so animated, so
wise. And the irreverence: the fact that he could use a voice whose baseline
was a slightly worshipful tone to be wildly, brashly, politically incorrect, to
make fun of, frankly, anything he felt like making fun of. What inspiring,
beautiful freedom.

There’s really no explaining this death. Nothing works. He was depressed. His comic gifts masked a
deep darkness. We never knew the real man. Substance abuse took its toll.

These are all statements he probably would have made fun of. All we really know
is that yesterday, he felt bad enough, or desperate enough, or frustrated
enough, to put an end to his own life. All any one individual can speak of with
any accuracy is the effect of an event like this on that individual’s life.
This event will probably haunt me for a long time. I’ve been thinking a lot,
recently, about my own life, about its scope and span, and it occurred to me
that Williams’ public visibility began in the late 70s, just when I would have
first been able to laugh at his jokes, to recognize what it meant to witness
someone who was truly, indelibly funny. And he’s stayed present in my life
through almost four decades, as long as I’ve been on this planet. A presence like this
becomes a cultural cornerstone, a foundation, someone upon whom you rely for a
service, or a specific function. I knew that if I saw him appear in his natural
element, which was to say tossing his hilarious sagacity into space and seeing
where it landed, he could be relied upon to make me laugh, regardless of whatever had happened before I watched him, regardless of whatever feelings I had at the time. And so the fear I felt when I learned that
he died was fear of what his absence meant. And what is that? The best way
of saying it is this. It’s like cosmic slapstick: I lean against a wall, but someone’s
taken it away when I wasn’t looking, because it turned out to be a false wall, and so I’m stumbling, semi-comically, semi-tragically, slowly stumbling into darkness.

Max Winter is the Editor of Press Play.

What Does It Mean That Joe Swanberg Has Made a Feel-Good Movie?

What Does It Mean That Joe Swanberg Has Made a Feel-Good Movie?

null
The newest film from Joe Swanberg, whatever its faults and
virtues might be, makes one thing abundantly clear: that certain styles require
a form to pour themselves into if their best qualities are to be revealed. Swanberg’s
earlier films, works like Nights and Weekends, and Hannah Takes the Stairs,
were hybrids of fiction and documentary. With little of what you might call a
classic “story” to them, they depicted ordinary people going about
their lives: working, traveling, eating, sleeping, having sex, having
arguments. The script was generally improvised, the affect generally minimal—so
minimal, in fact, that the term mumblecore grew around his films, to describe
the only half-present delivery given to a lot of the dialogue. The idea was to
create as natural a film as possible, to include both uninteresting and
interesting activity on screen and hope that one type was equal to the other.
Any attempts to describe the reality of watching one of these films, though,
leads one in a Rumsfeldian direction: suffice it to say that that there are
uninteresting scenes that are interesting for being uninteresting, and there
are uninteresting scenes that are simply uninteresting. It was as if what we
might (broadly) call imagination had been bled out of the films, to get us to
look at the contours of ordinary, unaffected reaction.

In recent years, Swanberg has moved away from that: Drinking Buddies had more electricity
and sweetness to it than the films preceding it, possibly helped along by the
vivaciousness and skill of its actors; 24
Exposures
was a suspense film, which failed because it wasn’t that
suspenseful, given that relaxed improvisation doesn’t help a suspenseful mood;
the current film is a step forward from both of its predecessors: a real story,
with a real conflict, real characters, and real moments of poignancy, which are
allowed to breathe, as fictional, created moments. But, given that, the
question this movie raises is a complex one. I’ve written before about the way
in which cap-C culture eventually absorbs what it does not at first understand;
at the time, I used Andrew Garfield as an example of someone who had first
gained acclaim in smaller-exposure venues and was suddenly playing Spider-Man. In
Swanberg’s case, though, what seems to be happening is the reverse: a director
who was fairly staunch in his rawness (a rawness executed, it should be said,
with deliberation) has now made a nice, even heartwarming movie. So what does
that mean, for him, and for our notions of the way artists develop?

The form into which Swanberg’s sensibility has been poured
is as follows: Jeff lives with his wife Kelly and their child in a modest home in
Chicago. Jeff’s sister Jenny comes home for the holidays, having just broken up with
her boyfriend. Her very first night, she goes out with her rowdy friend Carson and
gets so drunk she has to be carried home; she’ll spend most of the film in a
grown-up-child daze. Kelly seems uptight at first, annoyed at Jenny’s antics, but then
reveals herself to be merely frustrated in her writerly ambitions. Jenny meets a
boy, loses him, gets upset, gets drunk, nearly burns the house down, doesn’t, and
is redeemed, sort of. End of story. It’s a heartwarming tale about the
importance of family, about finding your ambition, about following it, about
survival, and many other themes that might float around these. The performances
are understated and consistently strong: Anna Kendrick, as Jenny, proves herself to be a
supple, malleable intelligent actress with self-awareness to spare; Melanie Lynskey is complex as Kelly, offering us a mother who is annoying and
endearing by turns, all good things in such a close-up film; Dunham, too, has a
played-down presence here as Carson, a genuine wit, a genuine bad influence. As is the
case in all his films, Swanberg’s sense of place is solid, as he shows us the
pale tans and reds of Chicago neighborhoods in winter, sending an impression of
unmistakable coldness in the air.  The
film is tightly structured, as well—even at its most casual and Swanbergian,
there aren’t too many loose ends here. The elements work nicely together; the
film purrs smoothly, never going above a certain speed limit. It’s a pleasing
experience. And this is where the tricky questions begin. And they’re really
just questions.

What does it mean, for instance, that Swanberg has filmed a
story which could, one supposes, have been made by another filmmaker? With a bit more polish, a more poppy soundtrack, more big-name stars, more of a
big payoff, but basically the same story structure, the same tale could have been told by any director from Barry Levinson to Lisa Cholodenko. What does it mean that
Swanberg, who has prided himself on working within a carefully defined fiscal
and intellectual budget, has gravitated, starting with Drinking Buddies, towards using more well-known actors,
whom he will share with plenty of other directors and other films? And telling cozier, more comfortable stories? Is it as
simple as funding, simply having the ability to pay more for talent? Or is there a more subtle development taking place?
Could it be that Swanberg is reaching a point of compromise with the films
around him—or rather the films around him of this type, about local,
down-to-earth subjects, without too many special effects? And if so, what’s the nature of that compromise? What led to it? Were the raw, archly relaxed earlier films merely preparation for this point? A point which seems to be something of a middle ground?

Max Winter is the Editor of Press Play.