Lives of Quiet Desperation: In praise of William Holden

"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them."
- Henry David Thoreau

My favourite actor from the golden age of Hollywood is William Holden.

Sure, the man was gorgeous. But beyond that, I've always been drawn to the type of characters he tended to play: the cynical, defeated anti-hero. The man who "could have been" but knows damn well that he never will be. I found this quote by Michael Atkinson, in a piece called "William Holden: A Different Kind of Hero", that sums up his appeal quite nicely:

Holden was 'on the surface one of the Hollywood century’s typical all-purpose leading men, but beneath it [he was] the keeper of poisoned secrets, and a living embodiment of America’s postwar self-doubt and idealistic failure. He seethed with disappointment as a persona, and we all knew what he meant. Holden was the anti-Duke, an avatar of hopelessness, shrouded in the smiling physique of an all-American boyo. For every high school football star turned pot-bellied gym teacher, every prom queen turned food-stamp mom, and every good-hearted B student turned Cracker Barrel waiter, Holden was the walking, talking, growling truth, in a sea of showbiz lies. He always radiated the confidence and physical grace of an Ivy League wunderkind, and his timing and pitch were always perfect. Yet in his voice and eyes lurked a crushed dream."

Like all studio contracted actors of the day, he made a lot of forgettable movies; but when he was great, he was sublime. Perhaps his greatest role was as gigolo Joe Gillis in "Sunset Boulevard"; a shamed man who pays the price for selling out his principles. I always associate him most with Cmdr. Shears, the bitter, self-loathing everyman, torn between his own selfishness and inescapable fate in "The Bridge on the River Kwai". Holden was a master of portraying characters who, either as a result of their own poor choices or by cruel destiny, are painfully aware that they are in a situation from which they can never escape. I have always found this to be a powerful theme.

Random Shuffle

When things get busy in my personal life I tend to have difficulty focusing on anything for very long. Tonight my thoughts are all over the place, so I'll put the blog on "random shuffle" and share a smattering of things that have been occupying my head space as of late.

Flickr. I've been addicted to Flickr for a quite some time. When I first got a Flickr account my intention was to have a place to post my drawings and photos (which I still do). A nice bonus of adding your stuff to Flickr is that total strangers will look at your stuff and often comment on it or even add it as a favourite, which is pretty cool. Getting feedback on your work is always great, especially when it's from an unbiased source. Lately I find myself trolling other people's Flickr sites and discovering a lot of cool stuff along the way. Sure, some people use it as a repository for their boring party photos and such, but you can also find a lot of really interesting creative and artistic work there too. It's great for archival information too. Admittedly, I can waste many hours just creeping around on Flickr.

kijiji. It's a well known & documented fact that I am a cheapskate. I like to bargain hunt and I also like old, retro things. Ok, I have yet to actually buy anything off kijiji... but I check it constantly just in case something I want ever shows up there! With the move into the townhouse brings the need for some new (to me) household items. Right now I'm in the market for bedroom furniture. I want something high quality, in good taste -- and I want to pay next to nothing for it! I realize it is highly unlikely I will ever find anything there... but I've gotta look! After browsing a great number of ads there, I've come to the conclusion that (a) most people have no idea how to use a digital camera (pictures, when provided, are usually blurry and displayed sideways!) and (b) some people don't really give a shit about presentation, or accurately describing their item or even about spelling.

Movies. I've never been what you'd call a "movie buff" but I am slowly getting around to watching some on my "want to see" list. I've been having a weekly "movie date" night with my husband which is a nice change of pace for us. He likes romantic comedies, whereas my taste usually gravitates more toward older classics or rough & tumble escapism so we're enjoying a mix. Usually whatever we can borrow for free is what we end-up watching (... remember what I said about being a cheapskate?) Showing this weekend: "The Wild Bunch", "The Great Escape" and "American Graffiti". Mmmm... young Harrison Ford.... To Flickr!!!

"Heroes" Since this series premiered I've tried to follow it but only caught episodes sporadically. I borrowed season 1 on DVD and am finally watching it in sequence. Liking it a lot so far... although Hiro's childlike goofiness and constant squealing grates on my nerves. Thankfully I really enjoy the rest of the ensemble cast so they're a good buffer! My current favourite series is still "Lost", which gets more deliciously convoluted every episode and I love it. I can't wait for the season 5 DVD to be released so I can re-watch it.

Music. I haven't really been listening to anything new lately. I'm sort of going through a dry period right now where nothing new has captured my attention. I've been listening to Daft Punk "Alive" a lot, and I got a newly remastered double CD of The Smiths a while ago that I'll probably blog about later.

And to shift gears for a moment: Is it just me, or have you noticed an increasing amount of musical plagiarism on top 40 radio these days? The radio plays at my work so I am subjected to it all day long, and it seems every other song uses the music of some hit from the 70s or 80s with new, irrelevant vocals over top? It's like some vapid karaoke. And I have yet to hear any song that has been improved upon in this way -- just the opposite actually-- which begs the question, why bother? What a lazy, obvious cash grab that is! More and more I am learning that pop music really is just for teenagers. A 3 minute pop song is just the aural equivalent of fast food anyway; there comes a point when your tastes change or you just outgrow it and you really can't stomach it anymore. People take their musical taste very personally and seriously (myself included -- I can be as big of a music snob as anyone!) but in the end it just boils down to one thing: ENTERTAINMENT. When I was in high school we had an English assignment where we had to choose a song and prove that it was poetry. Most of the class failed that assignment. (I didn't. I chose the alternate assignment: to do a literary comparison of a song to a specific piece of poetry). Anyway, to me it proved conclusively that no matter how strongly you may feel about it, Bon Jovi or Poison isn't poetry. Rhyming couplets set to a catchy tune does not make art. Anyway, maybe my musical memory is too long. The entire evolution of popular music seems to be the bastardization of something that has already been done. Meh. I think it's just my old fartism setting in.

Tenko

Does anybody else remember this British tv series, "Tenko"?

Several years ago they re-ran this on the Vision tv network on Sunday nights and I became hooked on it. I would love to find this on DVD someday.

If I were to try to describe the premise, it would sound absolutely horrible in a "women in prison" kind of way but actually it was a very engaging and quality drama (in the typical British style). It was wonderfully depressing. Think "Bridge on the River Kwai", only with an all-female cast.

Read a much better description here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenko_(TV_series)

I can't even find any clips on YouTube except the opening & closing credits and a cheesy fan video. o_O

I seem to have an affinity for stories about imprisonment. Must be something psychological about my own feelings of being trapped in my job, etc!

"Secrets in the Shadows: The Art & Life of Gene Colan" by Tom Field

"Gene's work is like the seam on a black stocking -- a glimpse of it leads you to want to see more, and yet you can't, and you're seduced into looking harder. This has to be played softly; it should never look like it's trying too hard."

- from the introduction by Glen David Gold

When I read the above quote in the introduction to "Secrets in the Shadows: The Art & Life of Gene Colan" I realized why I have always been attracted to Colan's artwork. In the overly exaggerated 4 colour world of comic book art where the standard was set by the bold, forceful graphics of Jack Kirby, and later evolved into the more aggressive, "in your face" styles of hotshot artists like Rob Liefeld or Todd McFarland, Gene Colan stands apart with his subtle, atmospheric tones and the soft interplay of light and shadows. It is often said that a great storyteller won't just "show you" what's going on but rather draw you into their world. This is the source of Gene Colan's greatness. And he doesn't beat you over the head with it! His pencils can convey so much through mood and impression; whether it is the mysterious astral plane of Doctor Strange or down foggy alleyways in search of Dracula, Colan's art can give you a wonderfully disoriented and decidedly creepy feeling!


As I've mentioned before, I tend to shy away from biographies... but I will read them when they lean more toward an insightful career retrospective. "Secrets in the Shadows" is a terrific example of this. Sure, a significant chunk of the opening part of the book is biography but even it is supplemented by lots of early artwork and meaningful anecdotes. Fields presents a delightful contrast, introducing us to an extremely timid and fretful boy -- afraid of the dark, the dead, and even afraid of an antique chair! -- who became the man whose name would be forever linked with one of the most evil characters in all of horror. Without dallying too long, the book gives us a quick but succinct account of Colan's early days in the military and as a young artist in the burgeoning comics industry in the 50s and 60s. Then we get to the reason we all came to the party: his work at Marvel.

The real "prize inside" of the book are the chapters "in conversation" with Colan and his greatest collaborators: Stan Lee, Tom Palmer, Steve Gerber, and his wife, Adrienne Colan. Here you get a glimpse of "Gentleman Gene" and the people who understood his talent and helped to bring out the best in his work. Until I read this book, I guess I never realized how misunderstood and under appreciated Colan's art is, and how viciously maligned it was by a few well known comic creators. (Suffice to say I lost a lot of respect for John Byrne after reading this book!) The book also includes a fun little experiment wherein different artists (including Byrne!) attempt to ink over Colan's pencils, showing what a difficult task that can be, surely giving fans a renewed appreciation for the skills of Tom Palmer! One piece in the book that I found particularly interesting shows the same scene from "Stewart the Rat" done by artist Tom Sutton and as done by Colan, effectivley illustrating the difference in pacing and storytelling technique.

Whether you're a fan or a detractor of Colan's art, "Secrets in the Shadows" will help you gain a greater appreciation of his unique style. There's really no secret as to which camp I belong... and this seems like a good time to show off a piece from my personal collection: a Gene Colan original featuring Dr Strange vs Dracula!

Deja Viewing

Truly this is the age when everything old is new again.

Personally, I've never been a fan of Hollywood remakes, revisionings, prequels, too long overdue sequels and so on. It's been my experience that these types of projects just fail to capture the creativity and spirit of the originals. Being "original" is what made things so great in the first place: they were new, unique, fresh, not pale imitations or wannabes. Sometimes remakes just miss the point completely and end up a bungled mess (looking at you here, "The Avengers" movie!) Often, part of what made classics so great were an "x factor" that really can't be recaptured: their success was driven by the personality or performance of a particular actor/actress, or it was "of an era" where the series came around at exactly the right time & just successfully captured the cultural zeitgeist of its day.

This year in particular seems to be the year when Hollywood is revisiting a lot of the staples of my pop culture diet, trying to cash-in on the series I have enjoyed the most from the past. Part of me gives the entertainment industry the benefit of the doubt & thinks they are just tapping into our collective sense of nostalgia & trying to rekindle the old flames. Still, I can't help but wonder if they're just completely bankrupt of ideas and have to rehash what's already been done. After all, using a premise that's already written & is already familiar to the viewing public seems like a quick and easy way to work.

Just this year there have been several "remakes" of my favourite tv series or books that have been released or announced:

Watchmen live action movie (2 thumbs way down from me on that one! I highly recommend watching the "motion comic" instead.)

Star Trek original series "elseworlds" movie (Which we've already seen & I discussed here previously.)

V a new mini-series on ABC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQoSCEMzJYE

The Prisoner a new mini-series from AMC starring Sir Ian McKellan & Jim Caviezel

http://www.amctv.com/originals/the-prisoner/

The Lone Ranger a movie from Disney starring Johnny Depp as Tonto

http://www.lonerangerfanclub.com/newlonerangermovie.html

Jonah Hex a live action movie starring Josh Brolin

http://movies.ign.com/articles/807/807581p1.html

All I can say is best of luck... I mean, can you really picture anyone else but Clayton Moore as the Lone Ranger? Or The Village without Patrick McGoohan as Number 6, who also masterminded the entire series? Those actors are synonymous with those roles and the success of the series hinged on their creative input. Also, now that the Cold War is over and done, do audiences really have the appetite for the grand resistance story that was "V"? It certainly didn't work for the Watchmen movie. And as much as I love a good western, are frontier stories as relevant now as in the heyday of the space race?

Admittedly, I realize that my tastes are not always compatible with the majority of the viewing public (for example: I love classic Dr. Who but despise the wildly popular new series!) so naturally take my opinion with a grain of salt.

(Lest we forget... as much as we'd like to!)

The great purge of '09

"Have you noticed that their stuff is 'shit' and your shit is 'stuff'? God! And you say, 'Get that shit offa there and let me put my stuff down!'"
- George Carlin

I'd like to think that I'm not a particularly materialistic person but I suppose like everyone I seem to own my fair share of "stuff". Well, ok, a lot of it is actually "shit". I like to harangue my husband for being a pack rat but I guess I must share some of the blame for the current state of our messy nest.

Honestly, I really hate the idea of owning things. I prefer to keep my assets "liquid" (I'm a notorious tightwad!) Physically, I need free, open space. My parents often like to say that "things tie you down" and it is true in many ways. The very ownership of "stuff" requires a certain amount of responsibility (ie, paying for it, maintaining it, protecting it, etc) which can be a bit onerous (...pardon the pun!). For better or for worse, having possessions also keeps you grounded in one place (like George Carlin says, "A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it.") making it much more difficult to just pick up and move freely whenever or wherever you choose. And of course, "stuff" can easily turn into clutter... and that's probably my biggest problem with it. What starts out as harmless purchases here and there can quickly turn into "Jenga"-like precariously stacked piles... the ugly mass of over consumption. Stuff can be a cancer that just spreads over your life if you let it. And inevitably the morbid side of my personality can't help but wonder what's the good of owning all these things -- in the end where will it get me and anyway who wants to sift through all this crap when I'm gone? I really feel that material possessions can be a huge burden on my life.

Every now and then I've just got to purge.

My biggest fetish seems to be paper. Books, comics, stationary, art supplies, photographs... these are probably my greatest sources of clutter. These are things I constantly buy and even by "consuming" them doesn't make them go away: sketches & writings are kept for posterity; books that I've read I'll hang onto for reference; photos have obvious sentimental and historical value. It's really hard to get rid of these things! Usually I don't have any problem divesting myself of material things. I am happy to free up the space in my life and happier still if I can give the items to charity or to someone who could use them. Still, paper seems to be my clutter drug of choice.

This week I have launched a crusade against clutter. We've tackled the bookshelves and our old trading card games, weeding out the collection of excess or unwanted items. I think we could have dug deeper and gotten rid of more than we have -- husband fought me on a few things -- but it's a start anyway.

They say you've got to choose the hill you want to die on... I just hope mine is not a pile of clutter!

Star Trek

It's no secret to anyone who knows me that I'm an "old school" Trekkie.

No, I don't just mean that I've been a fan for a long time. I mean I like the original series.

I realize that I'm probably in the minority but I never really cared much for any of the spin off series. When ST:TNG first premiered I was at the height of my Trekkiness, so I watched Picard & all for about 2 seasons then my interest trailed off.

My reasons are simple: For me, Trek is all about the dynamic of the "big 3": Kirk/Spock/McCoy -- and McCoy was always my favourite. (DeForest Kelley had an uncanny way of stealing every scene!) Also, I like action and a straightforward story. Sure, I like a bit of science, a bit of a morality tale and something to think about... but the joy of Trek is watching iconic, archetypal characters playing out in a big space opera. Basically Trek is a Western set in the future: an epic story of wagon trains to the frontier & "cowboys versus Indians". The spin off series seemed so stiff & bland by comparison: everything seemed too cozy & polished and too touchy-feely for my taste. (And, of course I'm a sucker for anything retro so it seems most of my favourite tv series were made in the 60s anyway!)

Needless to say I was a bit leery of the idea of a Trek "prequel". My fear was that the cozy, polished blandness would rub off on my Trek of choice.

So, no spoilers here... All I will say is:

1.) Go see it.
2.) It doesn't taint the "canon" of the original series in any way.
3.) It delivers exactly what you'd expect from the original series: action, straightforward story, and the casting stays true to the original characters.
4.) Karl Urban does a surprisingly decent Dr. McCoy. One step removed from an "imitation" but still manages to be reminiscent -- yet respectful -- of DeForest Kelley.

In short: yes, I liked it. (And I rarely like anything these days!) ;)

Worst. Cliche. Ever.

Here's a hugely over used cliche these days:

"Best. _______. Ever."

This phrase is completely meaningless and it is everywhere lately. It seems to be used mostly in conjunction with something kitschy (e.g., "Best. Shark attack. Ever.") or some tired worn-out internet meme, going hand in hand with Chuck Norris jokes, ninjas and pirates or poking fun of 80s hair band videos. And the people who say it tend to say it all the time... about everything.

Presumably this is just the thing to say when you absolutely must chime-in on a message board but have nothing of value to say and apparently no actual opinion whatsoever. I've noticed it crossing over into "mainstream" media such as magazines lately too (eg., "Lost: Best TV Show Ever"). Maybe they think hyperbole is a way to create a hip, attention getting headline. In reality this is as cliche as "Not!" was in the 90s. This is lazy, slack-assed sarcasm that passes for wit on Twitter or Facebook and it's hard to believe someone in the "legitimate" media would deem it fit to print. It's meaningless. To quote "Napoleon Dynamite":

Napoleon: "This is pretty much the worst video ever made."
Kip: "Napoleon, like anyone could even know that."

Which leads me to the second part of this rant: Another thing I've noticed in magazines (and even on tv) more and more is "lists". This is another completely lazy piece of filler that should be saved for the internet not for anything that is for sale. "The 50 Most Beautiful People in Hollywood"; "Top Ten Greatest Science Fiction Movies of All Time"; "One Hundred Books You Must Read Before You Die". According to whom?

All opinion is completely subjective -- that's its very definition. So, should I really care that some nameless staff writer prefers product A over product B? Furthermore is that worth shelling out the cover price to read it? Opinion and editorial have their place in the media -- of course! -- but these "best of" lists are the type of thing that should be saved for a blog. Even so: this is my blog, but would you really care to see me randomly itemize things I like into numerical order of preference? Unless you have some personal interest in the author, it makes for a very boring read! And again, it's all just opinion: there's rarely any "justification" in these lists. What's the criteria of "best"? Does "best" equal most popular? Most publicized? Earned the most money? Is the actress who is in the current top grossing movie somehow more beautiful than one who is not? Is something "better" if it is part of the current pop culture zeitgeist than something older or overlooked?

What's the standard? Whose standard? Why should we care? Do we really need someone to tell us what we should like? It's all personal preference and it's just that; personal. Or, do these lists exist just to justify our preferences and flatter our egos: I am right to like what I like because a magazine says it is good. Are we that unsure of ourselves that we need "best of" lists to reassure us that our tastes are somehow superior?

That's probably the Worst. Idea. Ever.

"Toads" by Philip Larkin

I often think of this poem...

"Toads" by Philip Larkin

Why should I let the toad work
Squat on my life?
Can't I use my wit as a pitchfork
And drive the brute off?

Six days of the week it soils
With its sickening poison -
Just for paying a few bills!
That's out of proportion.

Lots of folk live on their wits:
Lecturers, lispers,
Losels, loblolly-men, louts-
They don't end as paupers;

Lots of folk live up lanes
With fires in a bucket,
Eat windfalls and tinned sardines-
they seem to like it.

Their nippers have got bare feet,
Their unspeakable wives
Are skinny as whippets - and yet
No one actually starves.

Ah, were I courageous enough
To shout Stuff your pension!
But I know, all too well, that's the stuff
That dreams are made on:

For something sufficiently toad-like
Squats in me, too;
Its hunkers are heavy as hard luck,
And cold as snow,

And will never allow me to blarney
My way of getting
The fame and the girl and the money
All at one sitting.

I don't say, one bodies the other
One's spiritual truth;
But I do say it's hard to lose either,
When you have both.

"It keeps playing out -- in my mind"

A: Have you seen that movie? The one with J-Lo in it?
B: What?
A: That movie with J-Lo in it. And what's her name...? She's always in good movies.... Jane Fonda!
B: Uh..."Monster In-Law"?
A: Yeah, that's it! It was on tv last night. Did you see it?
B: Hmm. Yeah, a while ago.
A: It was SO funny!
B: Hmm.

(brief silence)

A: I keep thinking about it. It keeps playing out in my mind...

(silence)