Author Archives: Lloydville

THE THEATER OF GARDENS

Posted on by

Here's another piece by Mary Zahl about gardens — getting into the nuts and bolts of the way a garden works and how that contributes to what it means:

LOOKING AT THE HOUSE AND GARDEN RELATIONSHIP

by Mary Zahl


Reflecting on what is happening visually in what I consider good
residential garden design, whether my own or someone else’s, I have to
start with the relationship of the house to the garden.  For good or
ill, the house is the most important structure in the landscape.  That
makes creating an effective relationship between the two all the more
difficult if the house is a) not particularly attractive, and b) not
designed to open up to the outside visually. 


The first point is staring me in the face as I look at much of the
residential architecture around me:  In Central Florida, most new
housing is the big-box-with-a-roof look in stucco, the older houses are
one-story cinderblocks, and the terrain is pretty flat for both.  Only
where there are established large trees (live oaks!), is there much
hope for a satisfying complimentary landscape design.  The photo above shows a typical single-story Central Florida home graced with majestic live oaks.


The second point came home to me vividly in the last house we lived in,
a church-owned rectory situated next to a parking lot.  This was an
attractive two-story colonial stone house from the outside.  But from
the inside, the only views out from the living areas were of the
parking lot.  Even the screen porch had this vantage!  We might as well
have been living in a house with no windows, apart from some of the
filtered light.  I found it depressing.




When designing a garden, one of the primary tasks is to go into the
house and look out from the key windows and doors.  I ask the clients
where they like to sit, and it is almost always in a room with a view
of the garden.  Most gardens end up being a stage set, which means they
should look as attractive as possible as much of the year as possible
from the inside.  Above is a garden in Birmingham, Alabama, as seen from a favorite indoor spot of the clients.

Anyone who has a swimming pool understands that it
should be beautiful to look at, because it may seldom be used for what
it was intended.


Then, working on paper, I draw center lines out from each of those
important vistas, and try to make the garden’s axes work from them. 
Not only is this the classic design principle we inherited from the
Ancients, but an adaptation of this axial approach is what makes the
greatest gardens of the world — many in England — work so well:




I am often reminded of a friend’s explaining to me that Balanchine was
such a great choreographer because he never abandoned the classical
principles, but found creative ways to interpret them.  This same idea
is at work in the best English gardens, such as Sissinghurst or
Barnsley House.  That's Sissinghurst Garden in the photo above, in Kent, England, designed by Harold Nicholson and
Vita Sackville-West, among the first to combine strong geometric lines
with profuse planting, a marriage of two elements and two personalities
that matched them.



The challenge for me as a garden designer is to stick
to classical principles of axes and proportion with a huge variety of
residential architectural styles.  Above, the “axis” of a garden in Birmingham.


This is where the plants and the quality of hard materials come in. 
Planting needs to soften and “warm up” the geometry. Materials should
age as quickly as possible to do the same, which is why natural stone
or brick or pots are always preferable.  Geometry alone makes for a
cold garden.  A profusion of plants with no geometry or relationship to
the house’s architecture is too chaotic for my tastes, and makes for a
less integrated whole, and actually a less peaceful atmosphere
year-round.  Getting that balance right for the client’s taste is the
biggest challenge I have.  Well, that, and creating something that
doesn’t die!

Below, an example of strong geometry and natural  materials softened by planting in a Birmingham garden:




Finally, to go a step further, I want the views to be so appealing that
they actually draw the owner out into the garden.  This is my unstated
goal: to create a gardener — or at least someone who is drawn into
nature and away from the computer or television — to a place that might
feed their soul.

Below, an inviting space for sitting in a small courtyard garden in Birmingham:

I'm struck by Mary's comparison of the garden to a stage set, something that must work first as seen through the “proscenium arches” of a house's apertures — windows, doors, porch frames.  The same is true for a theatrical set, once the curtain rises, or for the shots in a movie.  All these “sets” must be pleasing in themselves but also invite us to enter them — literally in the case of gardens, imaginatively in the case of stage or screen.  A stage set or a shot in a film, like a garden, can't just offer us a pretty picture — it must have a spatial quality which lures us into it, makes us want to inhabit it.  Only then, as with a garden, can it work its real magic.

[Photos by Mary Zahl, who also designed all the Birmingham gardens pictured above.]

MAGIC

Posted on by

In an earlier post, no longer available on the site, I argued that theatrical illusions have little to do with “escapism” but serve a practical function — to make us “aware of the provisional and constructed nature of all perception.”

“[W]e know,” I said, “that there is wisdom to be found in being reminded of this fact . . .  [that] to enter such illusions knowing they’re illusions puts us into a very special state of mind, a state of grace, even, in which we engage the practical mechanics and mysteries of perception directly.  We escape into truth, about ourselves and about the world. “

Last year, Boing Boing posted a link to a scientific paper recording the results of a study of the methods of stage magicians as a key to understanding the “mechanics and mysteries of perception.” As an article on The Boston Globe’s web site reported:

At a major conference last year in Las Vegas, in a scientific paper
published last week and another due out this week, psychologists have
argued that magicians, in their age-old quest for better ways to fool
people, have been engaging in cutting-edge, if informal, research into
how we see and comprehend the world around us.  Just as studying the
mechanisms of disease reveals the workings of our body’s defenses,
these psychologists believe that studying the ways a talented magician
can short-circuit our perceptual system will allow us to better grasp
how the system is put together.



The study may be underplaying our collaboration in the trickery of stage magic.  The truth is that we’re not really fooled by what the magician does, since we know he’s tricking us.  What we enjoy about the experience, what’s profound about the experience, is the demonstration of the limits and imperfections of everyday perception — something we already know on a very deep level but need to be reminded of at regular intervals in safe surroundings.


                                           [Portrait of Flora Rankin by Lewis Carroll, 1863]

The phenomenon is similar to the delight we take in nonsensical wordplay, which reminds us of the limits and imperfections of language.  “The rule,” says Lewis Carroll, “is jam to-morrow, and jam yesterday — but never jam to-day.”  That’s a grammatical sentence in which the rules of language have been correctly employed to convey an illogical idea.  There is wisdom to be found in being reminded that language can be used in this way.

I would suggest that we have always known, on an intuitive level, what psychologists are starting to discover about the methods of stage magicians.

FRANÇOISE DORLÉAC

Posted on by

Françoise Dorléac, Catherine Deneuve's sister, obsessed me throughout my teenage years on the strength of three movies and a glamorous photo-spread of the two sisters in Look magazine.  The three movies were Truffaut's La Peau Douce, de Broca's L'Homme de Rio and Polanski's Cul-deSac.  In each of them Dorléac was a luminous presence — she had more than a little of her sister's remote mystery but without the barriers that seemed to forbid an approach to that mystery.

Photos of the sisters together suggested a kind of hall of mirrors, as though you were seeing multiple sides of the same woman from different angles.

Dorléac died in a car crash near Nice in 1967, when she was 25 years-old.  The crash created an explosion and Dorléac could only be identified by some personal possessions in the car that survived the fire.

She has haunted my imagination ever since.  Whenever I see images of Deneuve, I see the image of Dorléac's ghost in her face.

NO WOW

Posted on by

The second album by another two-person (guy-girl) group like The White
Stripes.  Good, solid, stripped-down rock — lyrics weak at times, with
a kind of shopworn left-over-from-the-20th-Century attitude . . . but
the music is edgy and inventive and exciting.  Quite cool, almost very cool.

(This is an old album but au courant, if you're in the right courant.)

DISINCLINATION

Posted on by

A current article in the online edition of The New York Times about
Roman Polanski says, “He is being held for possible extradition to the
United States more than three decades after fleeing sentencing on sex
charges in 1978.”


Sex charges?  Why be so vague?  Mr. Polanski was charged with rape.  It
was “statutory rape”, which can imply sex with a “consenting” minor —
assuming you think that a 13 year-old girl can give meaningful consent
to sex with a 43 year-old man — but the sex, according to the victim's
undisputed testimony, was not consensual.  It would have been rape, by
most reasonable definitions, even if she had been of age.


What can explain this strange disinclination to face what Polanski actually did?

ARS GRATIA ARTIS

Posted on by

James Naremore's The Films Of Vincente Minnelli is a thoughtful and illuminating work of criticism but Naremore, like any respectable modern critic, is fixated on the conflict between art and commerce, finding in Minnelli's work for “the dream factory” of MGM a paradigm for that conflict.

But what is this conflict, exactly?  When was that golden age when art and commerce were separated?  Where was that fabulous Arcadia which played host to artists who worked for the sake of art alone?  I cannot find it in history, anywhere I look.

We don't know much about the artists who created the great sculptures of ancient Greece — we have just a few quotes from them.  One of them is this — “Sculptors should strive for excellence in their works so they can win competitions and thus earn more money than their fellow sculptors.”  This was how the guys that decorated the Parthenon thought about art.

Vincent Van Gogh dreamed fondly of becoming a commercial artist, obsessively collecting and copying magazine illustrations that delighted him.  This is how the painter of Crows Over A Cornfield thought about his talent and the uses to which it might be put.

In the 20th Century, Igor Stravinsky said, “There are only two questions a musician should ask — how long should the piece be and how much money do I get paid for it?”  This is how the guy who created Le Sacre du Printemps thought about art.

The idea of art for art's sake, as Naremore points out, was created by artists at the dawn of the industrial age, when art began to be thought of as a mass-market commodity.  Artists who wanted to separate themselves from the values of the industrial age concocted a pose in which they were somehow above it, just by virtue of being artists.  The romance of the starving artist as cultural hero was born with this — starvation being an unknown ambition among artists of the past.

It's all a lot of hooey.  There has always been conflict between artists and their patrons, between artists and their audiences.  This is built into the nature of art, which navigates a fine line between novelty and familiarity, between challenge and reassurance.  The enterprise is hazardous for the artist, who must encompass the paradoxes involved and constantly renegotiate an inherently unstable compact.

But to see Minnelli's relationship with MGM as somehow different, conceptually, from the relationship of Phidias with the city fathers of Athens, from the relationship of Michelangelo with the Vatican, from the relationship of Bach with his vestry members, is absurd.

Art functions on so many different levels and is so intertwined with the everyday business of life, including commercial intercourse, that the idea of “art for art's sake” makes about as much sense as the idea of “food for food's sake”.  The French may think that they appreciate food for food's sake, but what they eat still gets converted into energy and fat and excrement.  However sublime a meal may be, it is still an integral part of a most prosaic human process . . . and so is art.

HELLO, MR. CHIPS

Posted on by

Paul Zahl, the Preacher From the Black Lagoon (see The Zahl File), revisits a commercial disaster from days gone by — the 1969 version of Goodbye, Mr. Chips:

A MOVIE WITH SOUL

by Paul Zahl


I am beginning to know James Hilton's books and the movies made of
them, such as Lost Horizon, in two wonderful versions; Random Harvest,
which is an almost perfect elegy to selfless love; and Goodbye, Mr.
Chips, also in two wonderful versions.




The second version of Chips, which bombed in 1969 (with the exception
of Pauline Kael's memorable praise), is an interesting case of a film
that more or less disappeared after its initial showing, became almost
notorious for its over-dubbed and stream-of-consciousness songs, and
co-starred the now less-remembered English pop star Petula Clark.


A personal interest in James Hilton, together with an interest in the
English playwright Terence Rattigan, led me to this movie recently,
which was released on DVD last January.  And yes, it is an odd
collection of things — a familiar drama (or so it seems at first) of
life in an English boarding school; a use of idyllic outdoor long shots
and zoom effects that are like ads for Tab, or even Coke, back in the
'60s; spectacular and also heavily edited musical numbers within a
story concerning a Latin master of the 1920's; and in the heart of it,
right at the core of it, a love story that rings completely true.


In short, this is a movie with soul, which is also greater than the sum
of its parts.




After watching two versions of Terence Rattigan's The Browning Version,
both of which were filmed on the same location (i.e., Sherborne School
in southern England) as the 1969 Chips, I felt saturated with this
elite context.  (The first version of The Browning Version, with Michael Redgrave, is illustrated above.)  Is there much left to say, after these two persuasive
works, about the introversion and disappointments of prep school
teachers of Latin and Greek?  Well, Rattigan must have believed there
was, because he took a familiar story, Hilton's novella of Brookfield
School, and batted it straight into the stratosphere.




His script, which now focusses almost completely on the love story of
Mr. Chipping, played by Peter O'Toole, and the unlikely love of his
life, played by Petula Clark, is literary and beautiful, full of
Classical allusions yet uncontrived.  When Rattigan puts the Ancient
Greek maxim “Know thyself”, together with the God Apollo, at the
turning point of the story, it is fully apt and touching and true.


He also writes a scene between the two meant-for-each-other lovers,
filmed by the Victorian greenhouse at Syon House on the Thames, which
is as affecting a proposal of marriage — it is basically she  who
proposes to him, yet with no tenor of forwardness — as anything of its
kind on film.  Incidentally, I write as someone who has performed
hundreds of marriages and who gladly embraces Lloydville's title, Preacher From the Black Lagoon.


How does a movie acquire soul?  We have an impressive script by a
master, Terence Rattigan.  We have a great theme from James Hilton: the
transformation in real time and life that is effected by a devoted
woman in relation to a shy misunderstood schoolmaster, and the
consequent effect of the couple's marriage on an entire community,
Brookfield School, petty, political, and witchy.  Yet these two
elements don't fully account for the movie's soul, which means you
start crying by the middle of act two and can't stop until way after
the end.


I think there are two other things that make Chips something like a
great movie, although probably not a great movie in the way of
cinematic art.  The first is its visual style, which, as I said, is
full of long shots of the heroine and hero, with flowers in the
foreground; constantly changing colors to mirror the emotions of the
leads; many zooms from high up (God's eye!); and basically the most
accomplished style of the kind of thing Dan Curtis was doing in his
made-for-television horror movies of the same era: a little arty,
consciously 'visual', and plain pretty.  It works here and you probably
wouldn't alter a thing.  Thus the sequence at Pompeii and Paestum works
because the honey-colored marble of the sublime ruins matches the early
love of the surprizing surprized couple.




The second added thing in this wondrous movie is the music.  The songs
are by Leslie Bricusse, who wrote “Stop the World, I Want To Get Off”;
and the instrumentation is by John Williams.  The songs were considered
forgettable when Goodbye, Mr. Chips first opened, without much for
tunes.  Yet they are mostly sung by Petula Clark and Peter O'Toole as
narrations rather than lip-synch performance.  They are internal
monologues.  They are therefore true to life.  Petula Clark's song
“Apollo”, for example is subtle and everything that the word “nuanced”
is now supposed to mean.  And I will guarantee something to the readers
of this blog:  If you see Chips  and do not go straight to YouTube or
iTunes and listen to “Fill the World With Love”, over and over again,
you had better check to see if you still have a heart.  To be honest
with you, now that I know what that Bricusse-composed school hymn means
in light of the powerful story in which it figures so prominently, I
don't ever want to sing anything else again.  (Maybe “Be True To Your
School” by the Beach Boys, but nothing more, ever again.)




So, here is a movie with soul.  Goodbye, Mr. Chips from that hinge year
1969 is hard to explain.  It's got Hilton in the first stratum,
Rattigan in the second, sublime if ever so slightly cheesy visuals, and
introspective songs that work, partly because they do not overwhelm the
other elements.




There is a fifth element, however, one more thing, to add.  There is
Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark.  These actors were made for each
other.  Clark embodies a kind of heroine that you rarely see any more. 
(I married one 36 years ago.)  She loves her husband,  supports him
with everything she has and thus brings out qualities in him that he
never knew he had, and she's humble while having a kind of luminosity
— a word like “nuanced” which suffers from over-use — or inner
spiritual strength that is contagious in this self-absorbed world. 
Katherine Brisket, which is the name of Clark's character, is the
strongest entity in the entire movie.  Yet her life's work is love. 
That is why the bull's eye center of Goodbye, Mr. Chips is the scene
when Mrs. Chipping takes the entire student body and faculty to a new
and noble level as she leads them, not by design, in the school hymn
“Fill the World With Love”.  This is not dumb!  It completely works. 
No wonder O'Toole's character falls in love with her, defends her, and
establishes an unforgettable rock of a life with her.


Goodbye, Mr. Chips is now available on a beautiful DVD, its soundtrack
also available on a connoisseur's three-disc CD from Film Score
Monthly.

 


Oh, and I just took a look at Joanna, made one year earlier in England
with Donald Sutherland and Genevieve Waite (and Rod McKuen — listen to
the warm) in order to get some perspective on the period.  Odd isn't
it:  I loved Joanna back then, and thought Chips was dumb.  Now I love
Chips and think Joanna is the queen of dumb.

STILL OUR TOWN

Posted on by

It's hard for any American to get through life without seeing at least one production of Thornton Wilder's Our Town.  The play is a perennial favorite of high school drama departments and amateur theatrical companies, because it has a lot of parts (only one of which has a lot of lines), requires little scenery and almost always packs a punch, emotionally.

I must be one of the very few who managed to get through almost 60 years in this great land of ours without ever encountering it.  My interest in it was aroused, however, by a report from Paul Zahl for this site on a celebrated production of the play done recently in New York.  I put a couple of filmed versions of it in my Netflix queue and one of them showed up in my mailbox last week — a videotaped record of a production by the Westport Country Playhouse starring Paul Newman as the Stage Manager (the part with a lot of lines.)

The Stage Manager sets the scenes for us, comments on them — he's a busier version of the Shakespearean chorus.  The setting of the play is a small town in New Hampshire in the first decades of the 20th Century, the characters are “ordinary” American folk.  The subject is the passing of time — which is to say, death, towards which all time on this earth trends.

The play asks, in effect, what will remain of us, what will our lives have added up to, in the gaze of Eternity?  In Grover's Corners, where the play unfolds, we know it will not be anything grand, or out of the ordinary, for anybody.  All virtues there, and all vices, all successes and all failures, are modest in the great scheme of things.

Of course, one is bound to reflect if there are any virtues, vices, successes or failures which are not modest in the great scheme of things — in the greatest scheme of things, in cosmic history.  When our sun has burned itself out, when the universe returns to the nothingness from which it emerged, as some believe it inevitably will, what difference will Shakespeare or Napoleon have made, not to mention you and I?

Wilder offers an answer to this question.  It is mystical, of course, as all such answers must be, but it is not facile, not made up of off-the-rack concepts of an intellectual or philosophical or theological sort.  It's flavored with Christian imagery but also calls to mind imagery from Buddhism and even Nietzche.  It can't be reduced to words, but one can say that it's more minatory than consolatory.

It might not change your life, but it could easily change the way you look at your life.

The videotaped version of the Westport Country Playhouse production, available on DVD, is very well done.  Newman is superb — I think it might be his best performance ever.  The Stage Manager could easily come off as a bit of a fuddy-duddy, but Newman brings a no-nonsense virility to the part which rivets our attention and cuts through what might at first seem like a flood of nostalgic sentimentality.  Our Town is not a sentimental play, nor is it, except technically, a period piece — which is one reason that productions of it go on and on.  Its purpose it to evoke the now — the eternal now, in which even death must take a supporting role.

Wilder suggests that we ought to start giving thanks for it now.  Right now.

MARIONETTES

Posted on by

Part of the appeal of puppets and marionettes is the contrast of scale they present to the real world.  They usually inhabit a smaller version of our world, and are smaller versions of ourselves — but sometimes they inhabit a larger one.  Very large puppets, however, generally represent creatures who are “naturally” large, imaginatively speaking — like the dragons in Chinese street parades.  Colossal representations of humans occur more often in sculpture, like the Statue Of Liberty, for example.

The colossal marionettes picture here, creations of the French Royal de Luxe street theater company, offer a delightfully witty inversion of the usual inversion.  Marionettes, customarily reduced versions of ourselves, here reduce humans to the proportions of marionettes, or even toy soldiers.

I find them unspeakably wonderful.

These photographs, from the Boston Globe's Big Picture site, record a performance at a celebration in Berlin marking the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  The deep-sea diver and the little girl moved towards  each other across the city for a reunion, which offered another inversion — the colossal girl became a little girl again.

For more pictures of this event go here (with thanks to Boing Boing.)

THE CITY UPON A HILL

Posted on by

Most of us likely recall how much Ronald Reagan loved to misquote John Winthrop's sermon to prospective members of the Massachusetts Bay Colony on shipboard before they landed in the New World, speaking of the new community they would found as “a shining city upon a hill”.  Winthrop (above) only spoke about “a city upon a hill” — Reagan added the “shining” for rhetorical effect.

Reagan never quoted the best and most inspiring line from that sermon — “We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice
together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having
before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of
the same body.”  That, after all, has the stink of socialism on it.  It might imply that there was something fundamentally, aboriginally, American about banding together to avert the terrors of old age for our fellow citizens with Social Security, or to avert the terrors of illness though publicly guaranteed health care.

It's the hypocrisy, the selective memory, the mendacity and the sheer unbridled meanness of the American right which are stinking up the body politic these days.  The American left is, and probably always will be, naive, incompetent, a tad deluded and more than a tad self-righteous, infuriating traits all, but the American right has become — there's no other way of saying it — morally depraved.  Winthrop, hardly a tolerant man, for all his Christian idealism, would have put modern-day conservatives in the stocks and left them to rot there, for abandoning their commitment to “community in the work”, the sine qua non of the American experiment and the only part of it authentically derived from the actual teachings of Jesus.

America remains a predominantly Christian nation, in the sense that most Americans identify themselves as Christians, and we are still a city upon a hill, shining or not.  People look upon this “Christian nation”, see how we treat our sick brother and sisters of modest means and draw their conclusions accordingly — just as Winthrop knew they would.

(With thanks to the writer Sarah Vowell for getting me to go back and read what Winthrop actually said . . .)

TOMBS OF THE BLIND DEAD

Posted on by


                                                                                               [Photo by Mary Zahl]

Here's
a piece by Paul Zahl (of The Zahl File) about another strange place he
visited this summer.  Paul forgot to take his camera along on his visit
and I wasn't able to find any images of it online, apart from the
low-res view of its exterior below — the modern-day travel industry in
Russia doesn't seem interested in promoting it as an attraction and no
tourists seem to have left snapshot records of it on the Internet —
but Paul vividly evokes what he saw there in prose:


This past August, I slipped away for an afternoon from the tour group I
was helping to lead in Russia and the Baltics.  I slipped away in order
to see a weird museum in St. Petersburg. 


I had heard heard of it before, and its original form under the
Soviets, the notorious Museum of Atheism.  Until a few years ago,
Russian young people used to be taken to the former St. Isaac's
Cathedral in Leningrad/Petrograd/St. Petersburg to witness a
State-operated exhibition displaying the folly, ignorance, and
wickedness of Christianity, with side-exhibits on Buddhism, Animism,
Judaism, Islam, and the Greek and Roman Gods.

 


After perestroika, the Museum was dismantled and St. Isaac's became a
Russian Orthodox cathedral again.  The exhibits persist, however, in
a big old gray crate of a building about three blocks away . . .

Click here, if you dare, to take the full tour . . .

TOMBS OF THE BLIND DEAD

Posted on by

A report by Paul Zahl about a strange, haunted museum in St. Petersburg, Russia:


This past August, I slipped away for an afternoon from the tour group I
was helping to lead in Russia and the Baltics.  I slipped away in order
to see a weird museum in St. Petersburg. 


I had heard heard of it before, and its original form under the
Soviets, the notorious Museum of Atheism.  Until a few years ago,
Russian young people used to be taken to the former St. Isaac's
Cathedral in Leningrad/Petrograd/St. Petersburg to witness a
State-operated exhibition displaying the folly, ignorance, and
wickedness of Christianity, with side-exhibits on Buddhism, Animism,
Judaism, Islam, and the Greek and Roman Gods. 


After perestroika, the Museum was dismantled and St. Isaac's became a
Russian Orthodox cathedral again.  The exhibits persist, however, in
a big old gray crate of a building about three blocks away.  To visit
the 'Museum of Religion' today, is to have a fascinating window on the
Soviet assault on religion, in general, and Christianity, in
particular.  And there is a lot to say about this, in that a whole new
generation of Western atheists would love this place, with its
overwhelming assumption that religion is a matter of competing
belief-systems with no judgments possible concerning the possible
truth-superiority of one system over against any another.


I could go on about the sociological, cultural, and even the
theological implications of St. Petersburg's Museum of Religion in the
Year of Our Lord 2009.  But that's not what really drew me to the
Museum.


What drew me to the Museum of Religion, located three blocks away from
its original Russian Orthodox/Stalinist home, were the visuals, the
absurd visuals, which I hoped, and guessed, would be there.


And they were there!


You pay your entrance fee and immediately notice that there are five
times more guards in this museum than there are visitors.  Once, Soviet
'confirmation' classes would have crowded the place, together with
masses of foreign tourists bussed over.  Today there is no one there at
all.  Today's Museum of Religion is not deemed as interesting as
yesterday's Museum of Atheism.  But it's the same material.


You go up a tiny staircase — have to be pointed in the right direction
by one of the half-dozen guards who are looking at you like fresh meat
— and then enter a series of small rooms that display the Origin of
Christianity and move directly into a series of four or five rooms on
Russian Orthodoxy.  None of the guards spoke English, but one of them
spoke German so I got the lay of the land from her.  The room on Jesus
emphasized his teachings, with a small dose of messianism.  In each
small room concerning Orthodoxy, paintings of episodes in Russian
Orthodox history were set up, together with liturgical vessels and
altar crosses and vestments.  There was a mannequin of an Orthodox
priest — really ragged and dusty and gross.  There was an amazing
painting of an Orthodox monk wandering in the snow looking like a
character from one of the “Blind Dead” movies as abducted by aliens, a
green Village of the Damned gleam streaming from both of his eyes. 
This is the Tolstoyan religious hermit depicted as insane man.


There was another shocking painting nearby, from around the time of the
1905 Revolution (i.e., the time of The Battleship Potemkin), depicting Nicholas and
Alexandra protected by a holy beam of light coming down from Christ and
the Father and Mary in heaven.  The Tsar and Tsarina are surrounded by
priests and martyrs, who are being shot at by squads of Reds, who are
in turn being given money by Jews.  The image is shocking and violent,
and also apocalyptic. 


Interestingly to me as a Christian, one item in the rooms dedicated to
Russian Orthodoxy stood out with a moving and unquestionable
intensity.  It is a marble statue, about four feet high, of Jesus naked
and bound, being led to his crucifixion.  He is muscular and intrepid,
but helplessly under restraint.  It is a beautiful image.  It leaped out
of its “wax museum” surroundings. 


Incidentally, I kept thinking of Professor Lampini's “Chamber of
Horrors” in House of Frankenstein, and also of Will Rogers' hay-seed
wax museum of American heroes in Steamboat 'round the Bend.  The people
who assembled the Russian exhibit on religion probably didn't  know
much about what they were exhibiting, except that it all needed to be
as ugly as possible.  To see it in the Summer of 2009, now tatty in the
extreme, and filthy, is extremely cool.


But wait, I'm not finished.  The Museum has a section on
Protestantism.  Behold, another manikin!: this time, of a “Reformed
Pastor”.  But it's mistaken.  The cassock is right, and the preaching
tabs, but the figure is wearing a large pectoral cross.  Reformed
ministers, at least until very recently, have not worn crosses around
their necks.  Heaven forfend!  And there's a  Hogarth engraving of an
18th Century church that has the complete wrong title.  On the other
hand, the “attitude” of the exhibit is nowhere near as vehement in
relation to Protestantism as it is in relation to the Russian National
Church.  Protestantism comes across as being a rare and relatively
enlightened bird.


Speaking of birds, the room on Animism is great.  There is a statue of
a big black bird, I think a Polynesian deity, with yellow and red
feathers.  They are coming unglued, so you start to sneeze as soon as
you enter the room.  But there are no other visitors to hear you or
notice.  Since I had brought no Kleenex, I was glad to be sneezing
alone.  One of the feathers that had come off and was lying on the
floor was too small to be of any aid.


One final item, and then a postscript.  The attempt at constructing a
Buddhist meditation area or temple — no words can do this justice —
was delightful.  There were a couple of small statues of the Buddha, on
a wooden platform about six inches off the ground in the center of the
room.  Overhead were a couple of scarves or pashminas, intended to be
drapes, but they were blowing in the wind because the Museum's fans
were on.  That was it.  I was just wishing for a little background
music by Enigma. 


All in all, the Museum of Religion in St. Petersburg is a relic of
fascinating persistence in the aftermath of an historical earthquake in
Russia, and in the world even.  Is it anti-religious?  Well, yes, as
the attitude is that of competing, fantastic, and anthropomorphic
attempts to represent the Unrepresentable.  It reflects what religious
studies departments in American universities used to call “phenomenology”, which is the idea that religion has got to be studied
purely in relation to its surface manifestations, rather than in
relation to the possibility of actual or possible transcendence.  So
yes, the Museum of Religion is anti-religious.


But it is also a Museum which has been demoted.  It is definitely not
the Museum of Atheism.  The cue cards to each room, which my
unrehearsed and unexpected guide explained to me in German, try to
sound objective.  But they are just reporting on what fools these
mortals be.  (Oh, and only in the room devoted to the French Revolution
does the visual material really go over the top, and this in its
satirizations of Roman Catholicism.  In this room, we are really in the
spirit of Robespierre and 1793.)


What appealed to me primarily in this messy nut-house of an exhibit
hall was its absurdity — the misconceived manequin of a Presbyterian
clergyman, the feathers-and-all large Polynesian bird (looking like the
monster in The Giant Claw), the hagiographic and extreme-polemical
painting of the martyred Nicholas and Alexandra, and the sudden
overwhelming appearance of the real thing: Jesus in white marble,
bound, humble, decided, suffering, pitying and to be pitied yet
wordlessly strong.  The “camp” value of the place, which is out of
Billy Wilder's One Two Three (remember “We Have No Bananas” in
Russian?), is high.  The sadness of its exhibits with many more warders
than visitors is also pathetic in the real sense.  And yet the flashes
of insight, both negative to organized religion and positive to bound
martyrs — and hermits of the forest — are really there. 

I left, a little bewildered, a little amused,
a little moved, as I said “Auf wiedersehen!” to my new Russian
guard/guide, who may have picked up her German during the Siege of
Leningrad.  I thought to myself: this is the kind of thing that the SS envisioned when they
gave orders that the Jewish Ghetto in Prague be turned into an open-air
museum after its inhabitants had been liquidated — a “time-capsule” of
a vanished people and a vanished way of life, which people of the
future could inspect and wonder at.  Today, however, the Ghetto in
Prague is the symbol of an entirely different kind of confidence, and
the tables are turned utterly.  I thought these things as I heard the
bells of St. Isaac's, just three blocks away, and observed the hundreds
and hundreds of people crowding to get in — and not just tourists from
overseas, but Russian citizens.  As Jack Kerouac said, “The world is
big enough to right itself.”

Postscript


If you enjoyed this piece, go over to YouTube and connect with Sergei
Eisenstein's silent film of 1927 entitled October.  It is also called
Ten Days That Shook the World.  In the fourth segment of the YouTube
version, when General Kornilov's army is approaching St. Petersburg,
Eisenstein creates a montage on the theme of God.  When the soldiers
are being enjoined, by reactionaries, to fight “For God and for the
State”, the director edits together a series of images of God. 


He starts with Jesus; then goes to the mosque in St. Petersburg, which
still looks like it did when Eisenstein's photographer Edward Tisse
shot it in the silent era; then shows the Buddha, incense billowing
around him this time, not a pashmina; then our Polynesian Giant Claw (I
really think it's the same statue.); then some tribal African statues;
then some spooky dangling hands from one of those statues; then a few
really horrible and very Pagan religious images.  There it is!  In
Eisenstein's film exists the direct origin of the now staggeringly
retro Museum of Religion.  That's what it was really all about: a
frontal and absolute ideological rejection of religion as being
anything other than competing disasters of projection and morbidity,
carrying the planetary virus of idolatry — religion as systematic
put-down of the humanity of the human race.


I want to tell Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris about this movie, not to
mention this museum.

PLUTOCRACY IN ACTION

Posted on by

Barack Obama was elected President, by a significant majority of Americans, on a platform that called for heath care reform with a public option.  In current opinion polls, a significant majority of Americans still favor heath care reform with a public option.  An overwhelming majority of the U. S. House of Representatives favors heath care reform with a public option.  A smaller but still solid majority of the U. S. Senate favors health care reform with a public option.  But we can't have heath care reform with a public option because a minority of the Senate opposes it — a minority made up of Senators who have taken millions of dollars in contributions from the health care industry and are standing with the health care industry to the bitter end, even though many of them represent states in which a significant majority of their own constituents favor health care reform with a public option.

What's going on here?

Plutocracy.  The vast financial resources of the health care industry have subverted the clear will of the people and their government.  That's what plutocracy means — rule by the wealthy — and that's what America has become . . . a plutocracy.

Get used to it.

THERE STANDS THE GLASS

Posted on by


                                                                                                              [Photo © 2009 Tristan Forward]

Tristan, over at the new emotional blackmailer's handbook, continues to post his lovely photographs of lovely things — and what could be lovelier than the pint glass above, sitting on a table in a cozy pub, filled with amber magic?

There stands the glass,
Fill it up to the brim
'til my troubles grow dim —
It's my first one today.

Cheers!

MASCULIN FÉMININ

Posted on by

It wasn’t the film we dreamed; the film we carried in our hearts; the film we wanted to make and secretly wanted to live.

                                                      — Jean-Luc Godard, Masculin Féminin, 1966