Author Archives: stephen

drama: Molière – The Misanthrope (1666)

Amidst the calls of John McCain in the last debate, “now, there’s just another example of Senator Obama’s eloquence” it’s rather fitting to read Alceste making the same arguments just about now, and to consider how Molière presents him. A friend mentioned that she’d heard Molière described as the French Shakespeare–I disagree, because Shakespeare, in myContinue reading “drama: Molière – The Misanthrope (1666)”

Whatever you focus on will grow; or, whatever you fight with, you keep.

Whatever you focus on will grow; or, whatever you fight with, you keep. My day could easily be ruined, but with this laughter, just a few seconds of distraction and separation from the event, I lose anything resembling anger. Should it be that the only time I’m focused and centered with all my being isContinue reading “Whatever you focus on will grow; or, whatever you fight with, you keep.”

album: Bill Evans: Explorations (1961)

Bill Evans had terrible posture: this much is true. His early days, his limp cigarette and his suit; his late days, his plaid, his beard, his booze belly–Leonard Bernstein describes the modern jazz musician of the 1950s, the Ivy League sweater and the horn-rimmed glasses, and Bill Evans comes to mind: boring. How does jazzContinue reading “album: Bill Evans: Explorations (1961)”

film: Nichols: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

I read this in one sitting. Back when I had concentration. It was brutal, I didn’t like it one bit, and I followed it up with a good dinner, having spent the afternoon sitting in a cafeteria corner flipping pages. The film–even more brutal, like a series of terrible volleys, leaving me unable to breathe,Continue reading “film: Nichols: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)”

film: Dieterle: The Devil and Daniel Webster (1941).

The Devil and Daniel Webster reminded me of Carol Reed’s cinematography–noir in very bright, open spaces, gothic proportions in the meanest of hovels, and the difference between good and evil is thus made clear in imagery alone, and from traditional, well-lit shots of smiling families, the picture blurs, the camera angles are strange, everything isContinue reading “film: Dieterle: The Devil and Daniel Webster (1941).”

On form.

I once asked James Tate what he thought of writing in form. He replied that one can’t write like a romantic anymore because it’s inapplicable. I think Paul Verlaine and Leonard Bernstein would disagree. Says Bernstein: “Form is not a mold for Jello, into which we pour notes and expect the result automatically to beContinue reading “On form.”

Elements of music

My roommate knows when I am lying, she knows when I am only pretending to understand what she’s saying, and she knows many other things about me that even I don’t know–so when I am asked “did you enjoy that music performance?” and I say yes, she knows that I am lying. But why didContinue reading “Elements of music”

Romanticism, sexual orientation, and rich people

Tim Blanning –BBC History “Art is no longer viewed as being representational or as recreational but as essentially expressive–that’s at the heart of the romantic revolution. It changes the purpose of culture from serving some other cause or patron to being artist-centered, that is, expressing what the artist feels inside himself or herself, and onceContinue reading “Romanticism, sexual orientation, and rich people”

film: Truffaut: Jules et Jim (1962)

Jules et Jim. It’s too great for me to speak of. When I first saw it I was sitting in an uncomfortable chair at a desk in a basement. I thought “what’s so great about this film–there’s nothing special about it.” Perhaps you cannot recognize greatness in anything until you’ve witnessed the vastness of mediocrityContinue reading “film: Truffaut: Jules et Jim (1962)”