Posts

Showing posts from March, 2024

1996, the best year in movie history, pt. 73: Angela

Ray Bradbury wrote a story, “The Miracles of Jamie,” about a boy with a sick mother, who believes that he has the power to heal: indeed, that he’s the second coming of Christ. I thought of it as I was watching Angela; and yet there’s a crucial difference between these stories.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Down by the bay
Where the watermelons grow
Back to my home
I dare not go
For if I do
My mother will say
Did you ever see a _____ (goose kissing a moose)/⁠(fly wearing a tie)/⁠(etc.)
Down by the bay

Six-year-old Ellie sings this during the opening credits. Perhaps she’s subconsciously thinking of her unwell mother (Anna Thomson – the scarred prostitute in Unforgiven) who alternates between despair and mania. But Ellie could just as easily be singing about Angie, her ten-year-old sister and de facto mother. Angie, too, is perturbed. She has visions of Lucifer, who supposedly lives in the cellar and intends to drag one of the family away with him. To stave him off, Angie and Ellie wander around their town and its environs, performing rituals of purification.

Their father neglects them. He is busy caring for their mother. Not a believer himself, he takes the family to church, hoping that it will have a calming effect. Instead, church provides Angie with the materials for building an alternate reality.

Dread suffuses this movie. Ellie re-enacts one of Angie’s rituals and sets a curtain on fire. Later, she and Angie drift toward menacing strangers: a sleepwalker, and a pedophile prowling a fairground. Angie is convinced that these people are angels. Amusingly, this belief is not unprotective. The pedophile is about to harm the girls when Angie’s religious fervor frightens him away. Angie attends a baptismal service. The baptizer, played by the ghoulish Vincent Gallo, dunks Angie in the river three times. Do it again, she insists. This is too much, even for Gallo.

Angie creates her own symbols, and the movie employs symbols I don’t understand. The girls find a white stallion in a field and lead him through the town. They visit a mechanic’s shop where all the workers are named Frank. Their babysitter suddenly goes into labor; Angie delivers the child. Angie and Ellie visit another family with many children. It’s announced that the cow is about to calve. The other children drop everything and leave to watch – but not Angie and Ellie, for whom birthing is old hat. Much of this is quietly funny. There’s dread, but there’s gentle humor, too. Even Lucifer, pale, handsome, and forlorn, is amusing, because he’s in his skivvies.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

A review of the Criterion DVD says:
The commentary track … works much like a crossword puzzle’s answer key: It gives everything away, effectively ending the interesting part of the puzzle, but it’s still nice to know it’s available to provide closure. The 1995 debut feature of writer-director Rebecca Miller … is more enigmatic and open to interpretation than a crossword puzzle, however, and her decision to clearly lay out all the answers is a little surprising.
Miller is interesting. I enjoyed her performance in Carroll Ballard’s Wind. I’ve not seen Personal Velocity, her most famous directorial effort, but I’ve seen The Ballad of Jack & Rose, in which an isolated girl insists on maintaining a very unconventional life for herself and her sick father.

Angie and Ellie are socially, if not spatially, isolated because their family has to keep moving (the mother keeps getting into trouble). The children may sporadically attend church and pick up some religious ideas, but no one checks whether they’re orthodox; for example, Angie never learns that one baptism suffices. The consequences of not grasping this point are disastrous. (Incidentally, my church held a baptism this morning, and our pastor explained what our church teaches about that practice. It was very clear. The Devil wasn’t mentioned. Curiously, he is mentioned in baptismal scenes in movies, like this one. I don’t know if any actual Christian baptismal tradition refers to the Devil.)

I doubt Miller is trying to say much about orthodoxy, but she certainly cares about making one’s belief system, and one’s way of life, authentically one’s own. The most obtuse adult in Angela is the father. Responsible and genial, he effaces himself to support his family. As a corollary, he placates his daughters and wife without taking them seriously; he ends up breaking promises and exploding in frustration. (Yet it’s hard to see what else he might have done.) His wife, an expressive type who used to perform onstage, may be breaking down, but she’s determined not to go a way that isn’t hers. Slender, sad-faced Thomson gives the movie’s best performance; is she supposed to recall Marilyn Monroe, who was married to Miller’s father, the playwright, Arthur? (I hope this rather crude speculation isn’t downright disrespectful.)


As for the children, Angie seems to be authentically following a vocation, however confusedly: saving her family from Lucifer. It involves real anguish. She fears someone must be sacrificed, and she struggles to accept that she might have to surrender herself; this is where the story differs from Bradbury’s. Finally, Ellie is the person for whom the sacrifice is made; the movie begins and ends with her.


Have a blessed Easter.

Bathtime; speech patterns; Orwell, pt. 2

Sick kids today. Right now they’re feeling OK; they’ve been medicated and bathed. Samuel has been granted six more minutes in the tub. I don’t want him to drown, but I don’t want to sit by the tub all that time, either. I’m a busy guy.

Sing to me, I tell him.

(I want him to make noises while I’m out of the room.)

No.

Sing “The Greatest Adventure.”

No.

(Alas, Samuel is no bathtime Pavarotti.)

I keep suggesting songs for him, he keeps saying no, and then it’s time for him to get out of the tub. That’s one way to do it.

Now the boys are chowing down on sandwiches. They wouldn’t eat the chicken noodle soup I cooked earlier tonight.

I usually drain the water out of it, says Karin.

Indeed.

Uh, says Daniel.

He means Ziva. He’s picked up the habit of saying only final syllables (or, in some cases, vowel sounds). If I put him to bed, he’ll say er, meaning pacifier. Suppose he’s talking about planets. He’ll say Nus. I’ll have to use contextual clues to figure out whether he means Venus or Uranus. He knows how to say full words; he’s just awfully casual.

Samuel, on the other hand, distinguishes every word, every syllable, every audible letter, with the utmost care. No “Mairzy Doats” for him.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

More Orwell. I’ve reached his Spanish Civil War essays. Not having read Homage to Catalonia – or any survey of that war – I find myself pretty badly out of my depth as to what all the different parties were trying to achieve. But then, Orwell’s point seems to be that the conflict was largely misunderstood outside of Spain, and that the few who did understand it used it for their own ends, as propaganda.

Interestingly, as the volume’s content becomes more complex and abstract, Orwell’s tone gets angrier. Traveling to Spain and fighting with a haphazardly chosen militia must have been a whole other kettle of fish than going, soused, into the clink for a few hours with burglars and embezzlers.

My bracket, pt. 2; Beast; Orwell; the clink

Out go Nebraska and New Mexico, my underdogs. I’ve fallen from ~250,000th to ~400,000th place.


♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

I saw Beast (2017), set on Jersey in the English Channel. The leads are Jessie Buckley and Johnny Flynn. I was going to say, Flynn is one of the best young actors; but he’s forty-one; he’s been playing good and bad young men for almost two decades. In Beast, he’s a suspected serial killer. Is he guilty? And how is this possibility regarded by the turbulent woman (Buckley, even better than Flynn) who’s drawn to him “as a moth to the flame?”

Critics say this is a Badlands- or Bonnie-and-Clyde-type story. I think it’s more like Chabrol’s La cérémonie or, especially, Le boucher. Anyway, it’s an old story.

Much of Jersey seems manicured for tourists. But there are unkempt places. Buckley and Flynn climb cliffs, swim in the sea, roll in the dirt, tramp through forests, shoot rabbits.

Buckley wounds one. Flynn tells her to finish it off. It’s kinder, he says. As if kindness were the motive.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

I found a cheap copy of the large volume of Orwell’s essays and have been reading through them. He was a fine blogger from the get-go (“journalist,” I guess you’d call him). What essay are you reading, Samuel asked. “The Clink,” about how Orwell gets himself jailed for drunkenness, I said. Samuel built an enclosure with blocks and soon was playing that his action figures were in the clink.

My bracket; Mitfords, pt. 7

Well, obviously, I picked: (1) UConn, to repeat (one of every three bracket-fillers has done so); (2) Creighton – UConn’s conference rivals – to reach the final; (3) Nebraska, because wouldn’t it be silly if two teams from that state reached the Final Four; and (4) New Mexico, so that the UConn Huskies might compete against other “canines” (it was a toss-up between New Mexico and Nevada).

When these four pieces have fallen into place, the windfall will be mine.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Daniel tipped himself headfirst off the bed, but I caught him just in time. I had been absorbed in Mitford novel no. 6, Love in a Cold Climate; when I lurched after Daniel the volume flew out of my hands and across the room, landing hard.

“My book!” I cried out.

“See, your father loves you dearly,” Karin told Daniel, “he dropped his book to save you.”

I rushed to my book; the landing had cracked its spine. But not fatally.

More marriage-woes in Mitfordania. Jane Austen has her detractors, notably Mark Twain; I think she’s fine to read, but not by herself (not even within her narrow field). N. Mitford is a necessary corrective.

Warning: oblique spoiler (but no worse than on dust-jackets).

Think of LCC as if the respectable Jane Bennet, not Lydia, were to have run off with Wickham – not Austen’s dashing Wickham but a dowdier one, more like Mr. Collins, with pedophilic urges.

Body-text fonts, pt. 25: Berthold Baskerville

This is useful:

“Irish Names You’re Probably Saying Wrong and How to Pronounce Them” (CNN).

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

This morning I was lured to a clickbait essay about Microsoft Office’s new default font, Aptos. The thesis: Aptos isn’t bad. The argument: (1) Aptos is wider than Calibri, and (2) the “l” has a curved bottom.

Gratuitous insults were hurled at Papyrus and Comic Sans.

The author, a breezy ignoramus, deserves no greater remuneration for this “analysis” than the cost of one McDonald’s double-cheeseburger.

I’d like to think that my own amateurish font discussions are better. But they, too, probably scrape the depths of witlessness. So I apologize.

Not all amateurs are hacks. John Baskerville was no seasoned pro in 1757 when he printed a book with his new typeface. The work was so good, Cambridge University commissioned more printing by him.

Alas, rival printers denigrated him, and he charged high fees, so his designs fell into disuse. But in the twentieth century, they became ubiquitous. Many variations were developed.

Here is a sample of Güntar Gerhard Lange’s 1961 version for the Berthold company.

The top-heavy “C” distinguishes Berthold’s from other “Baskervilles,” as does the less conspicuous “R” with its beautiful, flowing tail (compare with this later “Baskerville” by Lange).

See also Lange’s version of Garamond, discussed previously as URW Garamond (it was issued first by Berthold).

P.S. The above passage is from Lois Duncan’s Stranger with My Face, the creepiest young-adult novel I’ve read. One could do worse than to work through Duncan’s oeuvre. Beware, Hachette editions from the 2010s have been modernized; the protagonists use e-devices. Not cool.

March’s poem

… in recognition of World Contact Day, is by Café Tacvba. It’s about an E.T. encounter.

(1) The original, then (2) my paraphrase.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
¡Ay! ¡Qué hombre que maneja el aparato!
Cuando volteé lo tenía arriba
Es una luz
Algún tiempo me dejó inmóvil
Solo me quedó el zumbido de la luz

Lo escuchaba en mi cabeza
En lengua extraña me hablaba
Pero entendí
Lo juro que no había tomado
Solo estaba encandilado
La hora perdí

Ay
Yo sé que vendrá por mí
Ay
Y me llevará a un jardín

Ay (Ay)

(Cuando me encontré con Pablo
fue que me contó esta historia
No le creí
Eso fue algunos meses
desde entonces que no lo vemos
más por aquí

Ya no sé ni que pensar
desde que llegó una carta
del hospital:
Pablo tiene quemaduras y ceguera permanente
No quiere hablar)

Ay
Yo sé que vendrá por mí
Ay
Y me llevará a un jardín
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
¡Ay! … Such a man steering the vessel!
When I turned, it hovered over:
A beam of light …
Some time he paralyzed me
Only left me with the buzzing
Of the light

I listened to him in my head
Although strange words he said
His point I grasped
Trust me: I wasn’t sozzled
Only utterly bedazzled
The hours passed

Ay
I know he’ll come back for me
Ay
To a garden, he’ll take me

Ay (ay)

(When I last ran into Pablo, he related a wild tale
I wouldn’t hear
That was several months previous
These days we never see him
Near here

Since the clinic’s letter came here
I no longer have an inkling
What to think:
Pablo, badly burned, forever blinded,
Declines to speak)

Ay
I know he’ll come back for me
Ay
To a garden, he’ll take me
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯


Compare:
Acts 9
2 Corinthians 12

A fire-pit

I’ve added Olympic National Park (Washington) to the previous entry’s list.

To see a map of the Olympic Rain Shadow, click here and scroll down. The rain shadow covers Victoria, British Columbia, a place that seemed curiously arid when I visited fifteen years ago; now I know why.

Speaking of Olympian mountains, I learned that Olympus Mons, on Mars, is about as large as Poland.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

We bought a portable fire-pit for burning the wood that accumulated in our yard these last two years, and for placing our lawn-chairs around, roasting wieners in, grilling cucumbers over, etc.

Samuel’s much-studied book, Cooking with Foil, would have been useful had he not torn out the pages.

Not that we’d’ve been guided by it anytime soon. We’re unable to keep a fire going longer than five minutes. Certain twigs and sections of rotten logs burn, and the rest just don’t.

Last night, Daniel wandered off with the poker, and we crept around in the dark, looking for it with our phone-flashlights. No luck. We searched again today and were about to give up when Karin lowered her eyes and noticed it in plain view.

Poker or no poker, we are hapless.

Karin tried stimulating the fire with her breath; she extinguished it. I told her she should never carry the Olympic torch. (Not that I’ve kept the fire going any better.)

Our lawn-chairs sank pretty far down into the mud.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

This aftertoon I watched forty-one-year-old Pepe, of the immortals, in the UEFA Champions League. He played well. He’s a thug, but I like him; as John Huston says in Chinatown, “Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.” I watched through a thicket of climbing, niggling children. Daniel begged to watch “hungry planets” on YouTube, and Samuel, who is susceptible to advertising, kept asking for Heineken.

Awakenings; parks; Seusses; Mitfords, pt. 6

Warm-ish temps; constant rain patter. There’s nothing quite like reading Beowulf on the sofa, then dozing off, then waking – gradually and painfully – to the 1⁠-2⁠-3 punch of Modern Talking’s “Geronimo’s Cadillac,” “Brother Louie,” and “Cheri, Cheri Lady.” (The other songs in the queue were more soothing.)

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Karin obtained a puzzle with “thumbnail” sketches of the U.S. National Parks. Samuel spent hours gazing at the sketches and deciding which parks to visit. He’s keen on the Channel Islands (California).

I rose in his esteem by telling him which parks I’ve been to or seen from afar:

Acadia
Arches
Bryce Canyon
the Gateway Arch, glimpsed from I⁠-⁠70
the Grand Canyon, glimpsed from aircraft
Joshua Tree
Kings Canyon
Olympic, viewed from Vancouver Island (as in this photo, but not from so high up)
Mt. Rainier, viewed from Seattle (and see, again, the photo taken from Vancouver Island; I didn’t see this mountain during my stay)
Sequoia
Zion

I promised to go with Samuel to the Indiana Dunes. Poor boy, he rarely leaves the house, let alone the city.

He and Karin put the puzzle together last night, and this morning Daniel tore it up.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

ThriftBooks had a Seuss sale, and I bought a few of the immoral, discontinued titles (they were in a single omnibus, hee, hee), as well as I Had Trouble in Getting to Solla Sollew, which I’d been haunted by but hadn’t looked at since age four. It didn’t disappoint. I still don’t know how it concludes, though, because Daniel keeps slamming it shut before we reach the end. But I can guess.

As for the immoral ones, I re-read Mulberry Street and found mentions of a Rajah riding an elephant and a Chinese man using chopsticks.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

I finished The Pursuit of Love (1945), Nancy Mitford’s fifth and best-loved novel. At last, some contrition. Aristocrats celebrated … and punished: not for being aristocrats, but for making un-aristocratic marriages.

A passion for exactitude

It’s time for a long quotation from the philosopher Michael Dummett. I mention him once or twice every ten years.

(I just realized that, as of December, I’ve been blogging for twenty years. I started on Xanga, and when that service became costly I switched to Blogger/​Blogspot. I may write a recapitulation soon.)

This is from pp. 3–5 of Voting Procedures (1984), one of Dummett’s excursions into what, for him, is “popular” philosophy.
In view of all this, one would expect that voting procedures and their operation would have been the subject of a considerable amount of intellectual enquiry. One would expect also that the results of such investigations would be well known both to political and social theorists and to all those concerned with practical affairs, and would be applied both by those who have frequently to take part in voting and, above all, by those concerned to devise voting procedures to be as fair and as satisfactory as possible. Of these two natural expectations, the first is indeed satisfied, but the second hardly at all. In the period since the end of the Second World War, a considerable body of theory concerning voting has been built up. This topic was pioneered by Professor Duncan Black, an economist, who published some articles about it in the late 1940s, and a book, The Theory of Committees and Elections, in 1958: an important contribution, not expressed specifically in terms of voting, was made by Professor Kenneth Arrow in his book Social Choice and Individual Values of 1951 [see note 1 below]. Since then, and especially in the last two decades, the theory initiated by Black and Arrow has been extensively developed, principally in articles published in learned journals. One of the most surprising features of all this is how recent this work is. Duncan Black devoted a section of his book to a historical survey. From this it emerged that almost the only serious work on the theory of voting that had previously been done was carried out in France just before and during the Revolution, by Borda, Condorcet, and Laplace; this work had subsequently been almost entirely forgotten, save by a few British mathematicians of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, who made insignificant contributions to it. A minor exception, not noticed by Black, is the unimpressive section devoted to the subject by the German philosopher Hermann Lotze in his Logik of 1874. The only exception mentioned by Black is the remarkable intervention by C. L. Dodgson (Lewis Carroll), contained in three pamphlets which he wrote in complete ignorance of the work of his predecessors, and which were directed at the voting procedure to be adopted by the governing body of Christ Church, Oxford, to which he belonged [see note 2 below].

[Note 1:] See the Bibliography for works by Arrow and Black. Arrow’s possibility theorem (more exactly called an impossibility theorem) is so fundamental to the subject that he is often credited with having been the modern initiator of it, especially since his basic notation has become standard. This is unfair to Black, who was the real twentieth-century pioneer of the theory of voting, as well as a diligent researcher into its earlier history; it may be due in part to the fact that, although Black’s original papers on the subject appeared in 1948–9, his book was not published until 1958, while Arrow’s celebrated monograph came out in 1951. Black was, in particular, the originator of the concept of single-peakedness (not used in the present book), with which Arrow is sometimes credited but which he in fact took over from Black. Single-peakedness is a condition which guarantees the existence of a top. For the case when some preference scales are weak, the condition was weakened by Farquharson and myself in our paper of 1961; alternative though analogous sufficient conditions were later given by Inada, Sen, and Pattanaik.

[Note 2:] See the Bibliography. It is a matter for the deepest regret that Dodgson never completed the book that he planned to write on the subject. Such were his lucidity of exposition and his mastery of the topic that it seems possible that, had he ever published it, the political history of Britain would have been significantly different.
I especially like Dummett’s asides on Dodgson (Carroll) and the also-ran, Lotze.

Once, eleven years ago, I mentioned Dummett by way of griping about George Saunders. Since then, I’ve read and enjoyed four full books by Saunders and zero by Dummett. It wouldn’t hurt to finish Dummett’s trenchant On Immigration and Refugees; completing one of his Frege books, much as I adore them (all too often uncomprehendingly, it must be admitted), is above my pay grade.

The meaning of the bones


John-Paul: “Come here, son. What did you learn in church today?”

Samuel: “I learned about the skeleton.”

John-Paul: “Huh? … well, what person did you learn about?”

Crickets.

John-Paul: “Oh, right! Was it Ezekiel?”

Samuel: “Yes!”

Karin (who’d spent the morning in the classroom across the hall from Samuel): “Yes, they learned about the Valley of Dry Bones.”

John-Paul: “And what did you learn about the Valley of Dry Bones? Will God put flesh on our bones after we die?”

Samuel: “No.”

John-Paul: “Yes.”

Samuel: “Yes!”

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

I was going to say: I’m delighted that my four-year-old is learning about Ezekiel 37 in Sunday School, even if he doesn’t understand it; at least the image of the Bones is being paraded before his brain.

Thinking it over, though, I’m not sure I have a firm grasp of the meaning of the Bones.

I doubt I’ve heard the passage preached upon. Nor have I gone far out of my way to read about the Bones (although I’ve read the chapter many times).

Is the passage only about the House of Israel, or is it about the resurrection of all of God’s people? The commentators I’ve glanced at mostly say the former. But it is a vision, after all, and the meaning of a vision can be narrow or wide or both.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

From Wikipedia:
The novelist Anthony Powell named The Valley of Bones, the seventh novel in the sequence A Dance to the Music of Time, for this part of Ezekiel 37. The novel is about the opening days of World War II. The entirety of the relevant part of Ezekiel 37 is read from the pulpit at the end of Chapter 1 by a Church of England padre to a motley group of mostly Welsh miners and bankers as well as some officers from England’s upper classes as they begin to form a company. The padre suggests that not just they, but all of the British army as it prepares for war, should take this image as a way of thinking about how they need to come together.
I think not.

(Incidentally, Powell is on the docket for later this year, after I finish reading Nancy Mitford’s novels.)

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Then there’s the famous song. I like it pretty well on the nursery-rhyme level, better than during childhood when I thought it silly. The same is true of “Father Abraham.” I wouldn’t mind singing these songs in church today if we would all just stand still and not do any motions.

The lyrics of “Dem Bones” are confusing. Why connect the bones to each other first, and then disconnect them from each other? How will they walk around after they’ve been disconnected? Is verse 1 supposed to come after verse 2?

The lyrics of “Father Abraham” are easier to understand: Many sons had Father Abraham; I am one of them, and so are you. Join this idea with Dem bones gonna walk around (as one might, what with the similar body-part imagery), and you get the Christian resurrection.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

“Looked at one way,” says Joel Rosenberg (The Literary Guide to the Bible, p. 203), “the book of Ezekiel is a silent tribute to his deceased wife” (cf. 24:15ff.); “viewed in another way, it is an object lesson in which the prophet’s personal tragedy is but a sign of larger events.”

Why not both?