Posts

Showing posts from June, 2020

1996, the best year in movie history, pt. 28: Richard III

Ian McKellen twinkles in the titular role.

Yes, eventually, the usurping King sees ghosts. When he dies, he is absorbed into a hellish fireball.

No matter. His glee is uncontainable, overpowering. I chuckled all movie long. Upon reflection, I’m somewhat troubled by this.

Richard charms his victims while arranging for them to be destroyed. In an early scene, he reassures his older brother, George, the Duke of Clarence (Nigel Hawthorne). George is being transported to the Tower of London at the decree of their eldest sibling – the ailing, insecure King Edward IV.

However, the audience already knows that the discord between George and Edward has been contrived by Richard. Richard has looked directly into the camera and confided this secret.


Richard appears so forthright that he charms one antagonist after another, making them vulnerable to his scheming. Alas, his intentions are anything but pure.

After George resumes his journey to the Tower, Richard says:

Go tread that path that thou shalt ne’er return.
Simple, plain Clarence, I do love thee so
That I will shortly send thy soul to heaven,
If heaven will take the present at our hands.


“If heaven will accept anything from me, that is,” is the paraphrase of my trusty No Fear Shakespeare. (Its cover drawing even looks a little like Ian McKellen.)


Richard hires a pair of murderers to ensure that George doesn’t return from the Tower.

After George is killed, Edward feels so guilty that he, too, dies. Edward’s young sons become Richard’s main obstacles to the throne. At first, Richard assumes the ironical title of “Lord Protector” (although Shakespeare took some astounding liberties with the history, “Lord Protector” was Richard’s title in real life, not just in the play). It isn’t long, though, before Richard allows himself to be crowned King. He arranges the murder of his nephews.

Meanwhile, Richard has wooed and married Anne, the widow of the deposed King Henry VI’s son. Anne knows that Richard murdered her husband and King Henry (on this point, Shakespeare definitely fudged the truth). Richard woos Anne because he is amused by the outrageousness of the match.

When she accepts Richard’s hand, Anne becomes, in effect, another of his sycophants. Richard has surrounded himself with kowtowing courtiers. One by one, they are squeezed out by the rest of the court – and killed.

And yet each courtier can see that Richard will eventually come after him. Or each one ought to see. Curiously, some don’t. The blandest courtier – arguably, the most chilling one – is the Duke of Buckingham (Jim Broadbent), who remains tethered to Richard until it’s too late.

Buckingham’s is an “unrewarding” role, says Harold Bloom. Compared to Richard, all the supporting characters (except, perhaps, George) are wooden, uninteresting.

They may be so on the page. The movie, however, gets around this problem by employing a trick perfected many decades earlier in the hilarious gangster farce, Beat the Devil. The villains in that movie would have been interchangeable but for the inspired casting of such physically distinctive, peculiarly mannered actors as Peter Lorre and Robert Morley. Similarly, each supporting actor in Richard III is distinctive – archetypal, even. Three examples:

  • Jim Broadbent
  • Jim Carter (of Downton Abbey)
  • Robert Downey Jr.

Another inspired choice is the omission of the bitter Queen Margaret (King Henry VI’s widow). Mark Van Doren identifies her as the leader of a “chorus of women” whose purpose is to decry Richard. The chorus also includes the old Duchess of York, who is the mother of Richard, George, and Edward; Queen Elizabeth, Edward’s wife; and Richard’s Queen Anne. Piled up, their complaints grow tiresome. By leaving out the main plaintiff, the movie sharpens its focus upon the exuberant quality of Richard’s wickedness, which is what makes the play so much fun.

Two other women hardly speak, but their roles are magnified.

One is Princess Elizabeth, King Edward’s youthful daughter, whom Richard schemes to marry once he has unencumbered himself of Anne.

The other woman is an unnamed Pan Am flight attendant who is involved with the courtier played by Robert Downey Jr. Yes: a flight attendant. The movie is set in what appears to be an alternative 20th-century Britain.

This Britain is overtly fascist. The first scene shows the destruction of a library by a tank, which is driven by men who wear gas masks and carry Lugers. Edward’s court is decked in flags of red, white, and black. The courtiers wear armbands and sashes.

The set design alone provides sufficient reason for viewing the movie. What they most remind me of is the location shooting for the cult movie Hidden City (1987), which takes place in abandoned buildings, tunnels, garbage heaps, and other unseen but accessible areas of London. Richard III’s street scenes are shot in dingy pedestrian tunnels. There is also a vast morgue with rows of corpse-tables, apparently open to the public. Palace interiors, while expensively decorated, are strangely spare. From the outside, the buildings are queerly, rather brutalistically shaped – and huge. In the military camp scenes, tents are arranged in neat little rows next to a quaint railway line – under a parched, cloudless sky.

Most interesting is the exercise yard within the Tower of London. To reach it, George and his jailer climb up a long staircase. They unlatch a gate. Then George steps out into a yard that is just a small, circular slab of concrete surrounded by a great moat. The moat water is filty, and beyond it are enormous walls. Rain begins to fall on George. This is the setting in which he recounts his famous dream of drowning, in which Richard, who would rescue him, hinders him instead. The location looks realistic in its grimy detail, and yet it is a fantastical, forlorn sort of place.

Here the set design joins with George’s speech to create a scene of tremendous imaginative power. The movie briefly becomes something more than an anthology of Richard’s cruel witticisms.

Drive your plow, pt. 2

Now that I’ve finished reading Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead, I can identify other Books as its Aunts and Uncles:
  • J.M. Coetzee, The Lives of Animals (in Elizabeth Costello)
  • Mark Haddon, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time
  • Jean-Patrick Manchette, Fatale
Reviewers point out that Drive Your Plow is like a Novel by Agatha Christie. Well, it lacks the most important Characteristic of those Novels, which is Self-Effacing Narrative Voice.

Voicewise, Drive Your Plow is much more like the two aforementioned Works (which, though not Arrogantly narrated, are not Self-Effacing).

But yes, Drive Your Plow is a Whodunnit.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

There is one Christie Novel that may be ancestral to Drive Your Plow, and that is the great Endless Night. Its Title, also, is from Blake:

Every Night & every Morn
Some to Misery are Born.
Every Morn & every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight.
Some are Born to sweet delight,
Some are Born to Endless Night.


(These Lines, from “Auguries of Innocence,” are mentioned in Drive Your Plow.)

Drive Your Plow is a Good Read, but I’ve seen a lot of it before, in other Books.

Drive your plow over the bones of the dead

Scant rain has fallen the last two weeks. Large sections of the lawn have become tawny.

My neighbors water their grass. I am averse to doing this, as it encourages grass to grow, which makes for more frequent mowing.

Yesterday, I sheared the back lawn down to its nubs.

The lawn already was rather short. On this occasion, such a small length was cut off the top, I didn’t have to rake any of it into piles.

This is exactly the situation I aspire to, as far as the lawn is concerned.

Tonight there is rain and thunder. I am out on the back porch with Samuel, Jasper, and Ziva. Ziva, especially, is fond of the porch. When I go back inside the house, I have to lure her with treats.

The book I am reading – Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead – is by Olga Tokarczuk, of Poland, a recent Nobel Prize winner.

In this book, villagers keep popping off, slasher-movie style. The narrator, a semiretired schoolteacher and estate caretaker, suspects that the perpetrators are Animals (she capitalizes a good many common nouns, to charming effect). In particular, she suspects the Deer, who are often poached. She alleges that their motive for committing these Murders is Revenge. (I am reminded of M. Night Shyamalan’s movie, The Happening.)

The narrator has hobbies. She translates the poetry of William Blake. She is a firm believer in Astrology. She writes letters to the Police, explaining to them who has been committing the Murders.

She is eccentric but quite self-aware, and her narration is matter-of-fact. This makes the book very funny.

Also, the book is short. And yet I’ve been reading it since before the libraries closed for the pandemic. I’m forcing myself to finish it by Friday, which is the final due date after several renewals.

I find myself wondering how the narrator would judge me. I’d like to come out well, by her lights. She’s quite a humane person. I eat meat, which perhaps she’d not condemn absolutely (it’s the Order of this poorly designed Universe that some Creatures must survive by eating Others).

The narrator also despises Lawn Mowing.

Father’s Day

Here is my little boy in one of his most affecting poses, slumped over with sleep.


On this, my first Father’s Day, I played the role of third-tier father. We took Samuel to Goshen, in Elkhart County, to pay tribute to his grandpa and great-grandpa (on his mother’s side).

That county has suffered a recent spate of COVID. We tried to stay out of doors, but when a rainstorm broke out, ten or fifteen people huddled together in the kitchen. Samuel was passed from relation to relation.

I hope we haven’t caught the virus.

Samuel with his great-grandpa:


And with his grandpa:


A few of the relations, before the rainstorm:


In two days, Samuel will be eight months old. Here we are on the back porch where we live.


(This picture flatters me. I’m not usually so handsome. Samuel is smoothing out my belly.)

I also have enjoyed feline affection today. Happy Father’s Day to me.

The shipping news

These are tough times for the USPS. I ordered a book in early June. Although its shipping label was created in Saint Louis on June 5, the package remained in that city until June 12. It arrived in Memphis on June 13 and departed the next day. Thus far, not too terrible; but then, on the 15th, the package arrived in Springfield, Massachusetts, where it rested several days. Now it’s in Jersey City. I expect it to tour the eastern seaboard, and then maybe the Florida Keys, the Grand Canyon, and Las Vegas. Then it’ll rush like a shot to Indiana. I’ve noticed that everything that ships from Nevada comes promptly to Indiana.

Another package departed on June 1 from Eureka, Missouri. It, too, passed through Memphis. It appears to have become stranded ten days ago, in Detroit.

For what it’s worth, both packages contain apologetics textbooks.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Here is a quite interesting review of Roger Crisp’s new book on the British Moralists. I’ve been looking for a good guide to this group of philosophers. Several are on the market, but this one seems best. Alas, the current price is $70.

But still! The buyer is made privy to such tidbits as this one:
The appeal of impartiality for Hutcheson [notes the reviewer] is in part due to his ethical aestheticism: “Impartiality has a certain dignity or nobility, which can be explicated in analogy with architecture: ‘the most perfect Rules of Architecture condemn an excessive Profusion of Ornament on one Part, above the Proportion of the Whole’” (116).
Try persuading partialists with that argument today. “Treat strangers on a par with yourself, or with your children, because an evenly ornamented building looks nicer than an unevenly ornamented one.” I’d like to hear that on NPR.

June’s poem

The previous entry’s revisions are more substantial than is usually the case. You may wish to read that entry again.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Psalm 131

A song of ascents for David.
LORD, my heart has not been haughty,
nor have my eyes looked too high,
nor have I striven for great things,
nor for things too wondrous for me.

But I have calmed and contented myself
like a weaned babe on its mother –
like a weaned babe I am with myself.
Wait, O Israel, for the LORD,
now and forevermore.
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

(Translated by Robert Alter)

Little squirmo; reading; vampires; Kristen Stewart

A grueling week. Samuel is more restless than ever, but he can’t walk or crawl, and the floor seems too hard for him to practice on for very long. Throughout the day, I must either (a) hold him, (b) keep him strapped inside his chair, or (c) stay near him on a couch or bed, watching so that he doesn’t fall off. We’ll try to obtain a mat or some foam tiles to put over the rough wooden planks on the back porch.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Here’s some recent reading performed on the toilet – or else after Samuel’s bedtime (if I’m not blogging or philosophizing):
  • Patrick Allitt, I’m the Teacher, You’re the Student: A Semester in the University Classroom. A memoir of teaching a survey course on postbellum U.S. history. Quite funny. (The title, however, is no joke: the teacher/student hierarchy is constantly reinforced. Whether this is right or wrong, I won’t discuss here.)
  • J.M. Coetzee, Late Essays. Lots of interesting material to follow up on. Highlights so far: the essays on Philip Roth (mentioned here) and on Goethe’s Sorrows of Young Werther. I’m looking forward to the two essays on Patrick White.
  • C.P. Snow, Time of Hope. The first installment in the Strangers and Brothers series. A life story, narrated in a manner that is systematic, episodic, logical, unnovelistic. Uncanilly verisimilitudinous.
David has given me a dissertation chapter to read, so I’ll try to make time for that, too.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Karin will take a break from work tomorrow. She plans to view several Twilight movies and discuss them via text message with her friends. I’ve already sat with her for long stretches of two of these movies. I slept through most of the scenes but enjoyed watching one scene in which the vampires played baseball upon a gloomy field near the woods.

The movies are superior to the novels (or to the several hundred pages I read many years ago). Kristen Stewart is very good. I hope she gets to do a haunting grownup role some day.

Certain efforts

I’m rereading my dissertation so as to turn parts of it into an article. What effort I expended on it last year, and the year before!

The passages in which I pinpoint how, exactly, I disagree with my forebears are especially complicated. They read as if I were negotiating a maze of narrow hallways under a four-foot-high ceiling.

I’m carrying a heavy shovel loaded with dead grass. I’m trying not to spill a single blade.

I’m exhausted and confused.

Still, I can just about trace the right path.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

The image of the shovel comes easily. This week, I’ve been using a shovel to move severed grass up from the large back lawn into a tall trash bin. The chore has been draining.

I thought it would take a single day to do. In fact, it has taken three. Karin helped on the last day.

If the chore hadn’t been completed, dead grass would have piled up tonight at every turn of the mower, as it has been doing the last three weeks.

Tonight, I wouldn’t have been able to finish trimming the back lawn.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Well, as it happened, rain kept me from finishing, anyway; I left a half-hour’s mowing undone. Such was the hazard of waiting for Karin to return from work so that she could look after Samuel.

The rain will cause the still uncut grass to grow longer. After the grass is cut, it’ll block the mower during the lawn’s next trimming.

To ruminate is to chew and rechew the cud. I was well acquainted with that metaphor’s application to philosophy.

Now, the expression is showing a disconcerting tendency toward literalness.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Little Samuel has been paying closer attention to his books. Last night, he listened respectfully while Karin read to him about the “Little Blue Truck.” Then, a certain line –

CLUCK said the chicken, and the chick said PEEP!


– struck him as hilarious, and he laughed and laughed.

It’s good that our boy has a robust sense of humor, even if it’s rather unpredictable.

Some visitors

Samuel has been packing on the lbs. (not that he’s been eating larger portions). You can see it in this photo taken today out on the back porch with two of his grandparents: Karin’s dad and Carol (Karin’s dad’s girlfriend).


We ate burritos together. Karin’s dad, who rides his bicycle for dozens of miles every day, decided to fry the soft tortilla shells in the hamburger grease. The effect was that Karin & I had to sleep for several hours after the visitors left the house.

Why is Samuel being held by non-immediates, you may ask.

What about the COVID, you may ask.

Indeed.

The answer is that sometimes people just hold little Samuel no matter what. And today it enabled Karin to cook and me to mow the front lawn.

We had visitors on Tuesday, also. Our church’s small group held its last meeting of the season out on the porch. We all sat many feet apart and talked over the traffic and factory noises. Two fans blew, but the temperature, which was in the high eighties (Fahrenheit), was still a bit much. Ice-cream, when we tried to eat it, melted quickly. Through the porch screen, we surveyed the dead grass on the back lawn that I’d raked into piles earlier that day in conditions even more brutal.

Four days later, the live grass is longer, and those piles remain.

Research-based solutions to stop police violence

A thread on Twitter. This is worth sharing around. I got it from David.