Isabelle Eberhardt: the Power of Youthful Idealism

Isabelle EberhardtOn this day in 1877, the great writer and activist Isabelle Eberhardt was born. She lived much of her adult like in Algeria during the French occupation. And she was often in conflict with it as she worked to help the native people. But as I’m going through a difficult period, let me just go over the 1991 film Isabelle Eberhardt — an accurate biopic that I wrote about a year and a half ago.

It tells the story of the real life title character and the end of her life as a journalist and advocate for the people of Algeria during the French occupation at the beginning of the 20th century. Eberhardt was an amazing woman. Her mother was an aristocrat and her father was the older children’s tutor. By the time the film starts, Eberhardt has long been a convert to Islam and most of the time after that involves her fighting with the French occupation forces.

Fundamentally, the film is about the disintegration of innocence. At the beginning of the film, her father tells her, “Never lose your innocence.” But it isn’t like Eberhadrt ever compromises hers ideals. It is just that self-knowledge is the opposite of innocence. And by the end of her short life, Eberhardt seems more resigned to the tragedy that is unfolding in Algeria than anything else.

Still, the film is not a downer. Eberhardt maintains her plucky exterior throughout, even as she seems to be dying on the inside. She is the kind of person who we all wish we would be in that situation but know that we would not. So if you are the kind of person who thinks that only results matter, then the film is ultimately depressing — even though Eberhardt does win important battles. But if you think that the struggle is what matters — what makes us human beings — then the film is inspiring. I am in the latter camp.

The production of the film is interesting. For this kind of film, it was made for almost nothing: a couple million dollars. And it shows. It looks like it was shot on 16 mm (maybe Super-16). It doesn’t look like they had more than a basic Lowel lighting kit for any of the indoor shoots. But what the production lacked in equipment, they made up for in personnel. The camera work and direction, for example, are all great. The art department did a good job of using locations. And the acting is without exception fantastic. The film doesn’t bother with accents, which may bother some. I don’t see the problem myself. The actors squeeze every drop of drama from every scene.

I do have a bit of a problem with the screenplay. As it stands, it is just fine. My problem is with the decision to dramatize the last 5 years of Eberhardt’s life. As a result of this, it is necessarily episodic. On the other hand, I don’t see how the arc of her life could be shown. A more entertaining film could have been made by focusing on a full blown war she prevented. But it wouldn’t have told us much about her. But there is definitely room to make other films about this fascinating woman.

The film ends with Eberhardt’s death due to a flash flood that destroys her home. Right before the walls crumble, she says, “I want to live!” It is a movie cliche, of course. But in the context of her life, it is a fitting epitaph for her. Because there is little doubt that in her 27 years, she lived a great deal more than those of us pushing twice that age.

Happy birthday Isabelle Eberhardt!

Lu Brent’s Exclusive Card Mysteries

Lu Brent's Exclusive Card MysteriesOne of the best things about magic is that amateurs have such a large impact on the art. My hometown of Santa Rosa, California, was also the home of one of the great card magic innovators, Jack McMillen. But better known magicians such as Ken Krenzel and Ed Marlo were also amateurs. Another such icon of the art was Benjamin Joseph Lubrant, who performed and published under the name Lu Brent.

Last year, Michael over at iTricks provided the only biography that I’ve ever seen of this unique magician, Bringing Lu Brent Into The Spotlight. He was born in 1903 in New Jersey. It seems that outside of his semi-professional performance schedule and writing for “every major magic magazine of his day,” he preferred to keep a low profile. Still, he was well known in the Philadelphia area where he was a frequent performer. He lived there the rest of his life, dying in 1993 at the age of 89.

In 1934, Chas C Eastman compiled 15 of Lu Brent’s effects in Exclusive Card Mysteries. They aren’t all originally Lu Brent’s effects. In fact, Lu Brent was more known as a technician — coming up with different ways of accomplishing established tricks. And in this book, he’s very fond of using short cards and stacked decks. It isn’t strictly necessary, however. For those with strong technical skills, most everything can be done with a normal deck.

Lu BrentIn my experience, magic has a tendency to get stuck in ruts — following fads. And the magicians who really stand out are the ones who are willing to go outside what people are doing now and revitalize older effects. Michael Vincent has done a great job of this, although combining it with flawless technique is what makes it transcendent.

The first trick in Exclusive Card Mysteries is a favorite of mine, “Thought Spelling.” The reason is that I love effects where the audience member doesn’t need to physically pick a card. In this trick, the magician shows a half dozen cards alternately to three different spectators and asks that each person mentally choose a card and remember it. Then the deck is given to each spectator to spell out their thought of card, turning over the card at the final “s,” which of course is the thought of card. It’s especially effective when done for fellow magicians, I find. And it requires no slight of hand, but the addition of a little goes a long way in heightening the effect.

There are other interesting effects. The “Reversed Card Location” is about the best use of a locator card that I’ve seen. And “The Suit and Value Coincidence” is very much like a popular Bill Simon effect from years later. It just goes to show that ideas cycle. But the point of reading old magic books is not to find new routines. In general, the effects in Exclusive Card Mysteries would seem old if presented as written. But the book is filled with different ways of looking at the art of magic.

Recently, I created a copy of Exclusive Card Mysteries in PDF form. I scanned it from an original 1934 edition of the book. And even though it is in the public domain, it is still available commercially. But you would have to pay for such updated versions. I’m sure that anyone interested in card magic will take away at least a couple of ideas from it. As for me, I actually perform “Thought Spelling” — and I really don’t like spelling tricks in general. So take a look. I don’t think you will be disappointed.


The PDF will be available in the next issue of Magic Roadshow, where this article will be reprinted. I’ll provide a direct link to it so you can get the file when it is available.

Update

It’s up! Click over to The Magic Roadshow #163. What a cool little zine it is! Go now. Check it out!

The Nightly Show Not Keeping It 100

Larry WilmoreThe other night on The Nightly Show, all the guests were asked the same question: if there was some random human and the guest’s favorite dog drowning and they could only save one, which would it be? One person picked a dog. Another picked the human, but because she’s allergic to dogs. And the other two equivocated. I found that shocking. I’m very fond of dogs. But I don’t think for a minute that any of those people would actually save a dog and let a fellow human being drown. It jut wouldn’t happen.

There are laws against animal cruelty. But as far as I know, there are no laws against humanely killing your own dog. Murder of a human is pretty much the most extreme law that one can break. There are even laws against assisted suicide in cases of people dying from an extremely painful cancer. So it just isn’t the case that we as a society would save the dog — cute and smart as it may be.

I know that I’m kind of obsessed with the “Keep it 100” segment on The Nightly Show. But it really is a stupid segment. It is the least honest thing on the show. People consistently do not keep it 100. They pander to the audience and to the other guests. It is too often the case that Larry Wilmore wants to hear a particular answer and so it is only that answer that is judged as having kept it 100. But sometimes it is the case that the “safe” answer is also the truthful one.

But by far the biggest problem I have with the segment is the assumption that an answer quickly blurted out is more authentic than one where the guest has to think. The implication is that what the guest is thinking about is how best to finesse the answer. But the truth is that a good question should take time to think. On this episode of the the show, Anthony Anderson was given “weak tea” simply because he took too long to answer. This is anti-intellectual nonsense that is beneath the level that The Nightly Show is clearly aiming at.

In a previous show, one of the guests was asked if she would kill Antonin Scalia thus assuring same sex marriage, if she knew she could get away with it. The guest gave a perfectly fine answer to the question. But I thought about what my answer would be and I am sure that I would be given weak tea. The truth is that killing Scalia is a fantasy of mine. Really: I think about it far more than is healthy. Just the same, I know that I would never do it. It is very simple: even though I think Antonin Scalia is a terrible person who makes our society far worse than it would otherwise be, he is still a human being. I could never kill someone for an abstract reason.

So what does it mean to “keep it 100”? I’m afraid that on The Nightly Show it means to just say the first thing that comes to your mind. It is your gut reaction. It is not the truth writ large or small. And it trivializes what are often deep questions. If Larry Wilmore wants some kind of gimmick to get people to say outrageous things, he should find something else. Because outrageous comments are very rarely truthful. And equating the two only coarsens public discussions of important matters.

Franco Zeffirelli

Franco ZeffirelliToday, the great film director Franco Zeffirelli is 92 years old. He has created a lot of great films. He is probably best known for making Shakespeare work on the screen better than anyone before him. And it is one of films that I want to focus on: his 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet. It is not a play that I’m particularly fond of. But when I was very young, my older sister would take care of me. It worked like this: my parents would have my sister babysit me, and my sister would drop me off at a movie while she went off to hang out with her friends. Usually, the film would be something appropriate like Escape to Witch Mountain. But one night, the only choice was Romeo and Juliet.

I saw the film at least two times — that was the drill. And I didn’t hate it. I think at that age, most things didn’t make much sense to me, so the awkward dialog didn’t stand out. And I knew that it was something I shouldn’t be watching, because I got to see Leonard Whiting’s bare butt and Olivia Hussey’s breasts ever so briefly. I dare say the film scarred me, however. It gave me a very skewed view of what love was all about. How could it be otherwise:

Of course they are both so very silly. But how was I to know at eight or ten (clearly, I did not see it when it was first released). It was very powerful. It isn’t the way that I think women ought to act, but rather the way that men should. And Romeo — long before he meets Juliet — is a very bad role model. So I blame Zeffirelli (and my sister and my parents) for my troublesome love life. But it could have been worse. I could have watched Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry repeatedly. Oh, wait — I did!

Happy birthday Franco Zeffirelli!

Magic News Site Review

Magic News

Back in October, I wrote an article based upon on old mentalism act The Piddingtons, Are Magic Secrets Always Ugly? It was based upon a Radio Lab story and the show brought on Penn Jillette to describe how the trick was done. Jillette explained that the secrets of magic tricks are always ugly. I countered that idea, and if you want to know more, click over and read the article. What I want to talk about here is the fact that a magic website, Magic News picked up on the article. All they did is provide the first two paragraphs of the article and then a link to the rest of it. I just noticed because a fair amount of traffic got pushed over to Frankly Curious. I’m always pleased to see that.

Sites like these are really useful. If you are interested in a subject that isn’t very popular, where do you go to find out what’s happening? Sure, you can go over to the website of The Society of American Magicians, but like all such sites, it is just interested in the things that it is doing. The same goes for The International Brotherhood of Magicians, which has a better website but is still just one big advertisement for the group. And the magazines like Genii are really no better.

Magic News is much more interesting. It isn’t really filled with magic “news” as such. But it does contain a lot of links to articles that relate to magic. For example, it printed a press release from the University of British Columbia, Pick a Card, Any Card: Researchers Show How Magicians Sway Decision-Making. Mostly, it is all good fun — including some really good, short videos. But the site doesn’t shy away from serious subjects. I was surprised to learn about, Syrian Street Magician Beheaded.

If there is one thing that makes me a little queasy about my fondness for magic it is how serious magicians take it. Ultimately, it isn’t any different from juggling. In general, it is really hard to do. It takes great skill and it shouldn’t be treated as though it is some big secret. As it is, the secret to every magic trick ever can be found in the Tarbell Course in Magic. I fancy myself so well informed that there is no magic trick that I don’t already know the secrets of or can’t figure out with a moment’s thought. But that doesn’t stop me from being amazed and entertained by a great performer.

Magic News has that same kind of attitude: magic is fun and not terribly serious. And the same people who produce Magic News also produce an online zine called, Magic Roadshow — which has been around for a decade. It is more like a regular magic magazine. It’s more oriented towards people who actually want to perform magic. I haven’t check it out that much, but it looks quite good. For example, in their April 2014 issue, an article starts, “What do you think of spelling tricks? NO!.. Don’t leave…” I can’t help but love people who are skeptical of spelling tricks.

So if you have any interest in magic, check out these sites. They are a lot of fun.

Afterword

Magic News also brought my attention to the fact that over the weekend, two great magicians died. The first was Dean Dill, who was only 67. Here is a nice bit from The Tonight Show where he is doing pure slight of hand:

The second is Rene Lavand — who lived a good long 86 years. Here he is doing a really simple cup and ball routine. It is brilliant:

Haskell Wexler

Haskell WexlerThe great cinematographer Haskell Wexler is 93 years old today. He got his start in documentaries and that is what I love about him. I have a great love of beautiful lighting, but Wexler did something else. He brought the documentarian’s eye to the narrative film. He provides a cinéma vérité style even to work that doesn’t especially call for it. It is very much apparent in two of the bigger films that he shot: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

Wexler is the cinematographer that John Sayles has used the most. It was a good match. They both are interested in social issues, even though Wexler is, at base, a spoiled rich boy. They worked together on a really great film that I discussed before in, John Sayles and Matewan. And they also made the brilliant Bush take-down, Silver City. Here is the trailer for Matewan, which provides a very good idea of Wexler’s style:

Wexler is probably best known for Medium Cool, which he also wrote and directed. Unfortunately, I have never seen it. But I’ve requested it, so when I see it, I’m sure I’ll write about it.

Happy birthday Haskell Wexler!

Jennifer Jason Leigh

Jennifer Jason LeighThe great actor Jennifer Jason Leigh is 53 years old today. How great is she? Is she even great? I don’t know. I’ve had a crush on her for decades. But there are three films that she stars in that I think are really good: The Hudsucker Proxy, Dolores Claiborne, and eXistenZ.

It isn’t surprising that she really came to my attention in The Hudsucker Proxy. In it, she does her own — over the top — version of Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday — one of my all time favorite films that I still watch regularly. Tim Robbins actually kind of annoys me in The Hudsucker Proxy, but Leigh more than makes up for that. But it remains a lesser Coen Brothers outing. Here’s the “I’ll stake my Pulitzer on it!” scene:

Dolores Claiborne is a really fine film, although deeply disturbing even as it also contains great humanity. Leigh again plays a journalist, but this time a deeply screwed up one. It’s an interesting film in that her character is actually what the story is about. Check it out if you get a chance. Here is a representative scene:

eXistenZ is a great film. And almost no one has seen it. I’ve been an evangelist for the film. But I get very few takers. I’ve given it out many times. I’ve purchased it at least five times. What do I have to do? It should at least be a cult classic, but it has managed to avoid even that. (Note: the following scene only has about 4,000 views, even though it was released over three years ago by a huge YouTube channel.) Regardless, Leigh is great in it:

Happy birthday Jennifer Jason Leigh!

Portrayal of Women in Game of Thrones

Game of Thrones - Rose LeslieI’ve never read any of George R R Martin’s novels. I only know him from the television series, Game of Thrones. And now, I am half way through the third season — far further than I ever thought I would make it. But once you get involved in these things, it is kind of hard to break away. There’s always just one more episode to watch. I can well see how people get addicted to soap operas. But there is one thing that really stands out to me in my recent viewing: its portrayal of women.

There are many aspects of this, of course. But I’m primarily interested in two. The first is the use of naked women. In one way, I really like this. I’m as keen to see beautiful naked women as anyone. But it bothers me that we don’t see more naked men. It makes me feel guilty, as though the filmmakers are pandering to men. And it leaves me with the impression, which I harbor anyway, that women really are better than men. This isn’t to say there isn’t any eye candy for women and others who appreciate male beauty. But the men are always facing away from the camera. Is this because no one actually wants to look at the penis? That’s probably true. But the fact remains that there are at least five times as many naked women as men — and that includes a lot of the female leads.

The other aspect of this is not specific to the television series. I think it relates to Martin himself, who, very much like myself, has a preference for women. It is kind of a naive preference — one that in me dates back to grammar school when all the girls seemed (because they were) so much more mature and worldly than us boys. The men in Game of Thrones fit broadly into two categories: decent and evil. A lot of those decent men are still total jerks. Tywin Lannister is a good example of a decent guy who is still awful. But then there are men who are simply evil such as King Joffrey and Ramsay Snow. There is also a fair amount of cowardice among the evil.

The situation is rather different for the women. I can’t think of any character who isn’t sympathetic to one extent or another. Again, as with the men, that doesn’t mean that they are exactly good. Cersei Lannister, for example, is not easy to love. In fact, at the beginning of the series, I hated her. But over time, I’ve become very sympathetic toward her. There are other characters, like Osha, who are difficult but ultimately of pure heart. And who does one not love Arya Stark — the live action version of that girl in Brave.

But I’m especially taken with Ygritte — currently Jon Snow’s girlfriend, I guess. She provides a kind of positive take on Lady Macbeth. The original has always bothered me in its misogyny. But here, Ygritte isn’t looking for status or power. She’s just really smart — and in love. And she’s trying to keep the two of them alive. Jon Snow has never shown himself to be particularly smart — from the very first episode. So I think Ygritte is a good example of Martin’s generally positive take on womankind.

Now if you will forgive me, I’m going to watch another episode. As I said, it’s very addictive.

Terry Jones

Terry JonesThe great comedian Terry Jones is 73 today. He is, of course, one of the members of Monty Python’s Flying Circus. I tend to think that he doesn’t get enough credit in the group. I suspect that this is more because he has the least distinctive face of the group. But that is a big part of what he adds to the group. He is the only one other than Michael Palin who gets lost in roles. Everyone else is pretty much John Cleese doing whatever part, and so on. Jones is especially great playing an older woman, as he does especially brilliantly in Life of Brian.

The critical dynamic in Monty Python was between Jones and Cleese. The consensus seems to be that Cleese was the brains of the outfit and Jones was the heart. Without those two, the show would have been at best just mediocre sketch comedy. Cleese is a comedic genius. But it was Jones that pushed the comedy outside the confines of the studio. It’s funny that many people think of the parrot sketch as a classic Python bit. But it is entirely typical of other sketch comedy of that time. What actually makes the show Pythonesque is stuff like the Michael Palin openings of the old man running toward the camera and saying, “It’s…” Of course, without Cleese, I believe the show would have been just too bizarre to have ever taken off.

One thing that wasn’t highlighted nearly enough was Jones’ physical comedy. He was the best of the bunch. Here is a good example of it. It also shows another aspect of him, which is that he has absolutely no shame:

Another aspect of Jones is that he is a rather good director. To begin with, I assume that the other members are just about impossible to direct. But more than that, all three of the main films — Holy Grail, Life of Brian, and Meaning of Life — look great given their budgets. But directors never get much credit for doing comedies, even though they are clearly the hardest kinds of films to make work. And after about two decades, Jones is coming out with a new comedy, Absolutely Anything — co-written with Gavin Scott and starring Simon Pegg and Kate Beckinsale.

And finally, he’s done some rather good and thought provoking documentary series like Terry Jones’ Medieval Lives and Terry Jones’ Barbarians. You can usually find them online.

Happy birthday Terry Jones!

Slap Shot as Prophetic Tragedy

Slap ShotI watched the 1977 film Slap Shot the other night. It’s a George Roy Hill film, and so that’s why I decided to view it again. I didn’t like it that much as a kid, but I figured I would like it a lot more now. That wasn’t really true. But I know what I found troubling as a kid: the gratuitous violence. It is meant to be funny, but I was always very sensitive to that. And now I just don’t think it works. But I’m in the minority. A lot of people really like the film. I’m not saying that I dislike the film, however. It is just that it is deeply depressing from the vantage point of America 2015.

The film came out the year after Rocky and I think Hill was trying to get the same feel in Slap Shot. The home town in the film seems every bit as dirty and unpleasant as the Philadelphia in John Avildsen’s classic. Similarly, the indoor scenes are under lit, giving it a very natural feel. But it is easier to take in a drama than a comedy. Here it is oppressive. In fact, I felt oddly disconnected from the characters, who seemed to be a lot more sunny than I was feeling.

One aspect of the film that stands out is how working class it is. But it is hard not to see it as pandering. For example, Charlestown, where the Chiefs are located, is a one factory town. And that factory closes in the middle of the film, throwing 10,000 people out of work. But no mention is made of this later in the film. The town doesn’t seem to have been affected by it. And the people on the team are just interested in getting bought by someone else, so they can continue to play in some other town. That’s understandable, but there is absolutely no solidarity.

Maybe that’s the way it should be. Films reflect the society. And 1977 was the leading edge of America’s hard right turn. People tend to think that things started to go bad under Reagan. That’s not true. The social decay and the destruction of the middle class really took off under Reagan, but it was Carter who started the whole neoliberal process with its deregulation. If Slap Shot has a theme, it is that everyone is so desperate that they don’t have the ability to care about anyone else.

This is most demonstrated in Paul Newman’s character, Reggie Dunlop. He isn’t so much callous towards others as he is just lost in his own fantasies. Throughout the film, there is a subplot about Dunlop trying to get back together with his wife, Francine, played by Jennifer Warren. At the end, Francine is moving to New York because business is so bad in Charlestown — the only (implicit) acknowledgement of the town’s economic problems. Dunlop is going on to coach another team in Minnesota. When Dunlop is asked if Francine will be coming to join him, he says, “Oh, for sure!” But of course, she isn’t. And he knows it. Your dreams only take you so far. In 1977, it was possible to still have dreams. It is 38 years later, and dreams seem like a quaint affectation of a bygone era. There are no more factories to close. No more wives to win back. No more jobs waiting in another town.

No wonder I didn’t find Slap Shot very fun. It was created at the start of our hopelessness. When Dunlop looks out at his wife as she drives away, he’s looking decades into the future. He sees that it doesn’t get better.

Paddy Chayefsky

Paddy ChayefskyOn this day in 1923, the great screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky was born. I know him primarily from three films: Marty, The Hospital, and Network. I’ll admit, I’ve never really understood Marty. Mostly it is just that no one could ever think that Betsy Blair wasn’t pretty enough for Ernest Borgnine. But the screenplay is quite good. It is a very sweet film — the kind that would likely be panned if it were released today.

But it is Chayefsky’s sharp satire in The Hospital and Network that he is most known for. I think they hold up quite well. But that may not speak so much of the films as it does to the fact that the world hasn’t much changed. The Howard Beale Show and The Mao Tse-Tung Hour in Network are only different from modern reality television in that these fictional shows actually showed so creativity. All that Chayefsky missed about the future was that the people who would bring it to us would be so unrelentingly boring — and that the nation would be just fine with that.

Most people remember the admittedly great “I’m mad as hell!” speech. But it isn’t really what Network is all about. It’s sad that people don’t remember the one scene that is really important. It’s a speech that tells humans that they are meaningless. It is the speech that eventually causes Howard Beale to be assassinated. But it isn’t Beale’s speech. It is the head of CCA, Arthur Jensen, who gives the important speech. It isn’t important because we should believe it. It is important because it completely summarizes what the Jensens of the world think about the rest of us. And if we don’t stand up to those people, we will continue to live in their worlds. “There are no peoples… There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars.”

Just five years after the success of Network, Chayefsky died of cancer at 58 years old. It’s sad because he was on a roll. It would have been interesting to see what he went on to do.

Happy birthday Paddy Chayefsky!

John Banner

John BannerOn this day in 1910, the fine character actor John Banner was born. And 63 years later — to the day — he died. He had gone back to visit his home town. So apparently, you can go home — but it will kill you.

Banner is known for one thing: he played Sergeant Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes. As you may know, I was crazy about the show when I was a kid. And I’ve never really abandoned that, although my interest has become much more about what the show said about American attitudes about its place in the world. There was the bumbling, by-the-book British Colonel Crittendon. There was the mysterious and never quite trustworthy Russian spy Marya. But most of all, there was Sergeant Schultz: the good German who is just caught in the middle of a bad situation.

In one episode where Hogan manages to convince the Nazis that the war is over, we learn that Schultz was the owner of Germany’s largest toy maker before the government took it over to convert it to military uses. He’s probably a social democrat. He doesn’t like the Nazis. But mostly, he just doesn’t like conflict, “When it comes to war, I don’t like to take sides.” But there are times when the plot is used to turn Schultz into a real Nazi as when he takes over as commandant and when he is put in charge of making a movie. As I wrote before, “Schultz was the heart of the show.”

A lot of people seem to have the idea that Banner died during the series run. This is not true. He went on to star in another situation comedy, The Chicago Teddy Bears. I don’t know much about it except that it took place in Chicago during Prohibition. Banner starred with Dean Jones (who by federal law had to star in every Disney movie from 1965 to 1980) as partners in a speakeasy. It sounds like a decent show, but few watched it and it was canceled after 13 episodes. The only thing I’ve found is this terrible copy of the opening credits:

Happy birthday John Banner!