Saturday, November 12, 2011

A Veterans Day response at The American Conservative blog





As a veteran myself, I am saddened by what I see every Veterans’ and Memorial Day. Most soldiers are remarkably like the rest of us and just want to be respected and treated fairly, not labeled with phony “hero” and “warrior” tags, not to mention the maudlin patriotism coupled with the outrageous huge American flags displayed at athletic events. My friends who were killed in ‘Nam died for nothing and it would have been better if they had been commemorated with a pledge of “never again” instead of the post facto regret that we weren’t given our due (we sure weren’t). In my small town here in Virginia the 23-year old kid who was killed in Afghanistan two years ago is being recalled today as a “hero.” He was a high school classmate of my daughter. On his last home leave he was shaking and terrified of going back. It seems he and his platoon were based in a valley surrounded by insurgents and were getting shelled every two hours. The officers in charge regularly described the position as untenable but were ignored by higher command. When the boy was ready to go back to the war he predicted that he would be killed. He was, bleeding to death because of a screw up on the medevac. A life lost for nothing. The position was abandoned two weeks after he died. These wars sure are shit and the sooner they are over the better for all of us individually and better for us as a nation.



(Philip Giraldi
, on November 11th, 2011 at 4:08 pm, responding a post at The American Conservative blog entitled "Moving Beyond the Yellow Ribbons and Flag Waving" by Kelley Vlahos, a piece outlining the continuing disconnect in attitude between the battlefield soldier and the returning veteran. Vlahos had written an earlier post, "Occupy Veterans Day," in which she wrote about the number of veterans participating in Occupy encampments: Veterans from coast to coast are finding out there are lots of people in this country who believe the validity of one’s First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly are tied to whether they are approved (Vlahos' emphasis)
by the rest of us. Vlahos' writing about military issues is a regular feature on The American Conservative site. She is also a Washington correspondent for the DC-based homeland security magazine, Homeland Security Today, a long-time political writer for FOXNews.com, and weekly columnist for Antiwar.com.)

(Image: from www.mfk-juxtapositions.blogspot.com)


Friday, November 11, 2011

Hemingway: "I spend a hell of a lot of time killing animals and fish so I won't kill myself."




Ernest Hemingway, author and the original, literary self-created image of a macho man, killed himself July 2, 1961. Yet after fifty years it's still unclear why Hemingway -- dressed in a favorite robe for his final exit -- fulfilled a kind of predestined end for himself.
For months his wife, Mary, publicly claimed he accidentally shot himself cleaning guns at six in the morning. Others knew better: He offered a much more likely warning to those who partied with him: "I spend a hell of a lot of time killing animals and fish," he told Ava Gardner, "so I won't kill myself."
When the written word finally failed him, he was devastated. He could not compose a single sentence for a presentation volume for Kennedy's inauguration in January, 1961. His fear of failure contributed a creeping sense of illness -- the edges of dementia have been suggested over the years since his death -- but specific causes have been a mystery.
A new, full examination of Hemingway's ultimate decision appeared in the Independent, UK, based on psychological research indicating Hemingway's bipolar mood disorder, depression, chronic alcoholism, repetitive traumatic brain injuries, the onset of psychosis. The twentieth century's most celebrated literary tough guy had a death wish, instilled at an early age from a doting mother and a bullying father.
Here's an excerpt from the lengthy article by correspondent John Walsh, in which he identifies Papa Ernest's restlessness and macho personality as "a galloping parody of masculinity":


... Some answers were offered in 2006 by a long article in the American Psychiatry magazine, called "Ernest Hemingway: A Psychological Autopsy of a Suicide". It was by Christopher D. Martin, whose official title is Instructor and Staff Psychiatrist at the Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston Texas. ...
He had no trouble in diagnosing the author as suffering from "bipolar disorder, alcohol dependence, traumatic brain injury, and probably borderline and narcissistic personality traits". He notes that many in the Hemingway family –- his father and mother, their siblings, his own son and his grand-daughter Margaux -– were prone to manic-depression (Margaux's was the fifth, or possibly sixth, suicide in four generations) and suggests that it was Ernest's manic episodes that drove him to his astonishing feats of creativity. But he locates the writer's trauma in two childhood experiences.
It seems that it was his mother Grace's habit to dress him, as a child, in long white frocks and fashion his hair like a little girl's. It was a 19th-century custom to dress infants alike, but she took it to extremes. She referred to him, in his cute lacy dress, as "Dutch dolly". She said she was his Sweetie, or, as he pronounced it, "Fweetee". Once, when Ernest was two, Grace called him a doll once too often. He replied, "I not a Dutch dolly ... Bang, I shoot Fweetee".
But she also praised him for being good at hunting in the woods and fishing in the stream in boys' clothes. It was too confusing for a sensitive kid. He always hated her, and her controlling ways. He always referred to her as "that bitch". He'd spend the rest of his life in a galloping parody of masculinity. Dutch dolly indeed. He'd show the bitch there was no confusion in his head.
"I shoot Fweetee." The trouble was, he also wanted to shoot his father. Clarence Hemingway was a barrel-chested, six-foot bully, a disciplinarian who beat his son with a razor strop. Ernest didn't retaliate directly. He bottled it up and subsumed it into a ritual, in which he'd hide in a shed in the family backyard with a loaded shotgun and take aim at his father's head.
Martin speculates that, when Clarence shot himself, Hemingway, aged 29, felt terrible guilt that he'd fantasised about killing him. Unable to handle this, he took to blaming his mother for his father's death. "I hate her guts and she hates mine," he wrote in 1949. "She forced my father to suicide."
After Clarence's death, Hemingway told a friend, "My life was more or less shot out from under me, and I was drinking much too much entirely through my own fault". ...


(Photo by George Karger, Time Life/Getty)

"The pure products of America go crazy": William Carlos Williams' pronouncement -- though not specifically aimed at Hemingway -- is a good analysis of the psychodrama of Hemingway's life, and the highwire act he performed in the glare of the camera lights. It's a supreme irony that at the end, as the river of creativity dried up, Hemingway couldn't handle the ultimate silence that echoed in his thoughts.
As with some other writers who try to silence that deafening roar with drugs, alcohol, and obsession, the sound Hemingway was trying to erase with the sound of a shotgun blast was the ultimate tolling of a single bell. At the end, it was the only sound Hemingway could really hear.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

"He'd rather be funny": Charles Portis and "The Dog of the South"



My wife Norma had run off with Guy Dupree and I was waiting around for the credit card billings to come in so I could see where they had gone. I was biding my time. This was October. They had taken my car and my Texaco card and my American Express card. Dupree had also taken from the bedroom closet my good raincoat and a shotgun and perhaps some other articles. It was just like him to pick the .410 -- a boy's first gun. I suppose he thought it wouldn't kick much, that it would kill or at least rip up the flesh in a satisfying way without making a lot of noise or giving much of a jolt to his sloping monkey shoulder.


Now that Joel and Ethan Coen have their remake of True Grit to compare with director Henry Hathaway's original 1969 film, it may be time to for the brothers to consider a version of another Charles Portis story, The Dog of the South. The overlooked and long-out-of print 1979 novel, rescued from obscurity by Overlook Press in 2007, is a kind of a hundred-year bookend to the saga of Rooster Cogburn. As expected in the debauched and trembling era of the 1970s, Ray Midge -- even the name is a giveaway -- sets off in a wobbly quest made not of Cogburn's righteous vengeance but his own boozy, broke-down certainty: "I had to keep the Buick speed below what I took to be about sixty because at that point the wind came up through the floor hole in such a way that the Heath wrappers were suspended behind my head in a noisy brown vortex." What the Coen brothers could do with that!


Portis, whose filmed novels beside True Grit include the equally-deserving-of-praise Norwood, is now 77. His reclusiveness has only added to his cult status but also encourages admiration among other writers. He recently emerged to receive a lifetime achievement award from Oxford American magazine. Roy Blount, Jr. -- who himself is Decatur, Georgia born and knows a thing or two about such things -- has said that Portis “could be Cormac McCarthy if he wanted to, but he’d rather be funny.”


Midge, the passive-aggressive, neurotically-perfectionist hero of The Dog of the South, is given to fits of stifling rage in this imperfect world. In a kind of Mutt-and-Jeff comic pairing, Midge and his traveling companion Dr. Reo Symes make their way with Symes' Maytag-wringer Spanish, wandering wildly to British Honduras in search of the disappeared Norma. Like much of what has gone before things never go quite right. The motion of the novel is more Quixote than Candide, and the twenty-six year old Midge's expectations are varnished with resignation more than youthful aspiration:

Now she was gone. She had gone to Mexico with Guy Dupree, for that was where my dotted line led....The last receipt was just twelve days old. Our Mexican friends have a reputation for putting things off to another day and for taking long naps but there had been no snoozing over this bill. I looked at Dupree's contemptuous approximation of my signature on the receipt. On some of the others he had signed "Mr. Smart Shopper" and "Wallace Fard."


Here he was then, cruising the deserts of Mexico in my Ford Torino with my wife and my credit cards and his black-tongued dog. He had a chow dog that went everywhere with him, to the post office and the ball games, and now that red beast was making free with his lion feet on my Torino seats. In exchange for my car he left me his 1963 Buick Special.

(Charles Portis at this year's Oxford American gala)


The novel's observational writing is part Barry Hannah, part Hunter S. Thompson. Tom Wolfe included Portis in his 1970s survey entitled The New Journalism (along with Gay Talese and Wolfe himself, Portis wrote for many magazines early in his career), and his eye for detail can be witheringly funny: "She had golden down on her forearms and a little blue vein or artery that ran across her forehead and became distended or pulsed noticeably when she was upset or expressing some strong opinion," Midge says of his beloved Norma.


It's humor of a sort that would seem right for a Coen film, with a befuddled protagonist and a world askew, where many things just don't come around right:

"I dozed and woke again. Baby frogs with a golden sheen were capering about at my feet. They were identical in size and appearance, brothers and sisters hatched from the same jellied mass, and they all moved as one like a school of fish when I wiggled a foot. I looked at them and they looked at me and I wondered how it was that I could see them so clearly, their placid frog faces. Then I realized it was dawn. The frogs only looked golden. I was lying in the middle of the road and I had slept for hours. The world's number one piddler had taken to his bed again."

"Not about a dog," one Amazon reviewer writes in her one-star review, aghast at the sheer un-literalness of the book's title. Herewith, her entire review, a quite Portis-like example of smashed expectations: "I'm sorry, but this is not all that funny and it's not about a dog. If you want funny, read something by Bill Bryson, a funny man who also writes about real life. Anybody can write a silly story about nothing much."


Unsuspecting readers have been warned. The rest of us should take up pens and write to Joel and Ethan Coen without further delay -- The Dog of the South is a silly story about nothing much at all, and an almost perfect one.


(photo by Rett Peek, Arkansas Times)

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

The 1973 children's crusade of Kurt Vonnegut



"I believe the theme, or message of the book is a question: Why are we killing each other still? The book deals with other concerns as well. The lack of dignity and respect with which we treat each other in increasing doses. The dissatisfaction that Billy Pilgrim, the hero of the book, feels with his life of obvious material success. The emptiness of his marriage. The matter of man's own free will, that seems to be no longer functioning. The resulting apathy. It is this apathy towards an increasing state of man's inhumanity to his fellow man that the author is crying out against in protest, through Billy Pilgrim. This is a moral book. It deals with a moral question that we as humans have been trying to deal with for time immemorial. The book begs the reader to come up with a workable answer. "


(Bruce Severy, Drake (ND) High School English teacher)



"We didn't approve of its obscene language."


(Charles McCarthy, Drake school board president, November 9, 1973)



And that short rejoinder apparently, was enough to set off a book-burning -- 32 copies of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughter-House Five were confiscated from Severy's sophomore students. Lockers were searched for errant copies, and the books were tossed in the school's coal burner. The book "shouldn't be read by anyone," according to one school board member. "It might have passed in college, but not in this school," board president McCarthy told the Minot Daily News in 1973. But Kurt was up for the battle: he wrote a letter to the school board, which eventually was published in his 1981 collection Palm Sunday.



Dear Mr. McCarthy:


I am writing to you in your capacity as chairman of the Drake School Board. I am among those American writers whose books have been destroyed in the now famous furnace of your school.


Certain members of your community have suggested that my work is evil. This is extraordinarily insulting to me. The news from Drake indicates to me that books and writers are very unreal to you people. I am writing this letter to let you know how real I am.


I want you to know, too, that my publisher and I have done absolutely nothing to exploit the disgusting news from Drake. We are not clapping each other on the back, crowing about all the books we will sell because of the news. We have declined to go on television, have written no fiery letters to editorial pages, have granted no lengthy interviews. We are angered and sickened and saddened. And no copies of this letter have been sent to anybody else. You now hold the only copy in your hands. It is a strictly private letter from me to the people of Drake, who have done so much to damage my reputation in the eyes of their children and then in the eyes of the world. Do you have the courage and ordinary decency to show this letter to the people, or will it, too, be consigned to the fires of your furnace?



Kurt Vonnegut, 1970 (photo by Jack Mitchell)



I gather from what I read in the papers and hear on television that you imagine me, and some other writers, too, as being sort of ratlike people who enjoy making money from poisoning the minds of young people. I am in fact a large, strong person, fifty-one years old, who did a lot of farm work as a boy, who is good with tools. I have raised six children, three my own and three adopted. They have all turned out well. Two of them are farmers. I am a combat infantry veteran from World War II, and hold a Purple Heart. I have earned whatever I own by hard work. I have never been arrested or sued for anything. I am so much trusted with young people and by young people that I have served on the faculties of the University of Iowa, Harvard, and the City College of New York. Every year I receive at least a dozen invitations to be commencement speaker at colleges and high schools. My books are probably more widely used in schools than those of any other living American fiction writer.


If you were to bother to read my books, to behave as educated persons would, you would learn that they are not sexy, and do not argue in favor of wildness of any kind. They beg that people be kinder and more responsible than they often are. It is true that some of the characters speak coarsely. That is because people speak coarsely in real life. Especially soldiers and hardworking men speak coarsely, and even our most sheltered children know that. And we all know, too, that those words really don’t damage children much. They didn’t damage us when we were young. It was evil deeds and lying that hurt us.


After I have said all this. I am sure you are still ready to respond, in effect, “Yes, yes–but it still remains our right and our responsibility to decide what books our children are going to be made to read in our community.” This is surely so. But it is also true that if you exercise that right and fulfill that responsibility in an ignorant, harsh, un-American manner, then people are entitled to call you bad citizens and fools. Even your own children are entitled to call you that.


I read in the newspaper that your community is mystified by the outcry from all over the country about what you have done. Well, you have discovered that Drake is a part of American civilization, and your fellow Americans can’t stand it that you have behaved in such an uncivilized way. Perhaps you will learn from this that books are sacred to free men for very good reasons, and that wars have been fought against nations which hate books and burn them. If you are an American, you must allow all ideas to circulate freely in your community, not merely your own.


If you and your board are now determined to show that you in fact have wisdom and maturity when you exercise your powers over the eduction of your young, then you should acknowledge that it was a rotten lesson you taught young people in a free society when you denounced and then burned books -– books you hadn’t even read. You should also resolve to expose your children to all sorts of opinions and information, in order that they will be better equipped to make decisions and to survive.


Again: you have insulted me, and I am a good citizen, and I am very real.



Vonnegut was not the only writer with words on the fire: the school board also burned sixty copies of James Dickey's Deliverance and an anthology, Short Story Masterpieces, containing work by Hemingway and Steinbeck. But the novel, published in 1969, gives Vonnegut a certain distinction: more than forty years on, Slaughter-House Five continues to be among the most challenged books in the nation's high schools, according to the American Library Association.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Ginsberg and Kissinger, 1971: "You can't set limits on human consciousness"



Without much further comment (which would be wildly superfluous in any case -- disentangling the decade of the 1970s is tougher than explaining the 1960s, for those of us who lived them: the remnants of a bad acid trip, mostly) here is an item in the March 2009 issue of Harper's magazine. It details a recently-declassified telephone conversation between Allen Ginsberg and Henry Kissinger.


Nixon is in the White House promising "peace with honor" in Vietnam, Elvis wants to be a deputy in the war on drugs,"Joy To the World" by Three Dog Night is number one on the radio. (And Karl Rove is attending the University of Utah; he became the Executive Director of the College Republican National Committee in June, 1971.) How on earth did some of us survive that bad acid trip? Oh, yeah -- more drugs.

Om Land Security

From an April 23, 1971, telephone conversation between Allen Ginsberg and Henry Kissinger, then national security advisor to President Richard Nixon. Eugene McCarthy had left the Senate that January. Richard Helms was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Rennie Davis and David Dellinger were leaders in the anti-war movement; Ralph Abernathy was a civil-rights activist and President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The transcript was made public in December by the National Security Archive.

ALLEN GINSBERG: My idea is to arrange a conversation between yourself, Helms, McCarthy, and maybe even Nixon with Rennie Davis, Dellinger, and Abernathy. It can be done at any time. They were willing to show their peaceableness, and perhaps you don't know how to get out of the war, and by a private meeting --


HENRY KISSINGER: I have been mee
ting with many members of peace groups, but what I find is that they always then rush right out and and give the contents of that meeting to the press. But I like to do this -- not just for the enlightenment of the people I talk to but to give me a feel of what concerned people think. I would be prepared to meet, in principle, on a private basis.


GINSBERG: That's true, but it is a question of personal delicacy. In dealing with human consciousness it is hard to set limits.
KISSINGER: You can't set limits to human cons
ciousness but --
GINSBERG: We can try to come to some kind of understanding.
KISSINGER: You can set limits to what you say publicly.
GINSBERG: It would be even more useful if we could do it naked on television.
KISSINGER: (Laughs)
GINSBERG: What should I tell them that
would be encouraging?
KISSINGER: That I would think about it very seriously.
GINSBERG: Good deal.

KISSINGER: When did you intend to do this?
GINSBERG: During the May Day meetings in Washington. They will be lobbying, and they could meet with you May 2 or 3.
KISSINGER: May 2 or 3. Damn it! I woul
d like to do it in principle, but --
GINSBERG: It is a good principle.

KISSINGER: Now, wait a minute. I
don't know about those dates, I may not be in town, but we can do it at some other reasonable date.
GINSBERG: I gather you don't know how to get out of the war.
KISSINGER: I thought we did, but I'm always interested in hearing other views.
GINSBERG: If you see Helms, ask him if he has be
gun meditating yet. He promised to meditate one hour a day. I still have to teach him how to hold his back straight.


KISSINGER: How do I reach you?
GINSBERG: City Lights, San Francisco.
KISSINGER: Where are you calling from?
GINSBERG: Sacramento, California. I just gave a talk on gay liberation to the students here, and I am going to San Francisco to join the march there. I will be at the following number --
KISSINGER: I won't be able to call you, I am leaving town. I will call McCarthy.

GINSBERG: Talk to him. I will try to arrange a private meeting. It would be good to talk to the Army too. You know, the war people and the antiwar people.
KISSINGER: It is barely conceivable that there are people who like war.
GINSBERG: They might have some ideas. They have been to Hanoi.
KISSINGER: I will call McCarthy. If we can set it up on the basis of --
GINSBERG: You may have to subject yourself to prayer.
KISSINGER: That is a private matter. That is permissible.


Ginsberg -- who enjoyed his role as arbiter in difficult times before his death in 1997 -- would likely relish the idea of a phone call to President Obama or John Boehner to discuss the current partisan impasse in Washington. The unending debate between Republicans, Tea Party hotheads, and Democrats will take more than a bit of Ginsberg/Kissinger diplomacy to bring about "peace with honor" in Washington before the congressional super committee decides where to slice the budget.


(top photo from the Allen Ginsberg Project)

Monday, November 7, 2011

An excerpt from "Literary Brooklyn," by Evan Hughes





Evan Hughes' new book Literary Brooklyn: The Writers of Brooklyn and the Story of American City Life surveys the writers' landscape of the borough, home at times over the years to authors as varied as Hart Crane, Richard Wright, Thomas Wolfe, and Henry Miller. Walt Whitman wrote for the Brooklyn Daily Eagle during his years there before the Civil War and was uncertain of the future for the American experiment. Here is an excerpt from Hughes' chapter "The Grandfather of Literary Brooklyn":
... Around him Whitman increasingly saw corruption and “a general laxity of morals” that “pervades all classes.” His empathy for the masses was being stretched to the limit by the increasingly chaotic nature of urban life. The political battles in the metropolitan area were fierce enough to explode into physical violence, as they did in Manhattan in 1857 when the Dead Rabbits, a gang allied with the Democratic Party, clashed with the nativist Bowery Boys, leaving eight dead and thirty wounded.

Later that year, Whitman would write, “Mobs and murderers appear to rule the hour.” Whitman sought, in Leaves of Grass, to channel all voices, to encompass all things — “I am large, I contain multitudes” — and thus, as biographer David Reynolds has suggested, to apply a kind of unity and a healing balm to the republic. If Whitman could say, “I am all people,” implicit was that we were all one people. It was a belief and hope that would be put to the most severe test within a decade of the first Leaves of Grass.

The social ills of the city echoed a looming national crisis. In the late 1850s, Whitman, in a gloomy period, wrote the elegiac poems “Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking” and “As I Ebb’d with the Ocean of Life,” both of which he added to the 1860 edition of Leaves. In that year, Whitman, ever a self-appointed “seer” and often a very good one, also wrote this line in a poem called “Year of Meteors (1859–60)”: “O year all mottled with evil and good — year of forebodings!” New York was divided over slavery and over Abraham Lincoln, but when the Civil War finally broke out, many Brooklynites, New Yorkers, and northerners generally, including Whitman, welcomed what they saw as a coming cleansing of the nation.

At the outset, Whitman watched exultant, blue-clad troops marching through Brooklyn, near where he and his family now lived, on Portland Avenue. The men had ropes tied to their muskets, in his words, “with which to bring back each man a prisoner from the audacious South, to be led in a noose, on our men’s early and triumphant return!” Walt’s brother George went off to war at once.

In 1863, writing for the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, his old paper, Walt wrote an article about George’s regiment called “Our Brooklyn Boys in the War.” Full of local pride, it said that in fourteen months the regiment had been in seven pitched battles, “some of them as important as any in American history.” Vague word of George’s injury at Fredericksburg in 1863 drew Walt to the front to find him. The wound was minor, but the sight of the war dead left a strong impression.

Soon after, Whitman moved to Washington and, while serving in government jobs, tended to the wounded as a hospital volunteer. Although he envisioned a short stay, he would remain in Washington for ten years. Over the course of the war, Whitman, who had been opposed to Lincoln’s candidacy in the Illinois Senate race of 1858, emerged as a devout convert. Lincoln became his political hero and probably his utmost hero of all. Whitman felt that Lincoln supplanted George Washington as the true democratic father of the country.



Whitman in 1848

Whitman rejoiced at the rise of a man who embodied, he felt, “the commonest average of life—a rail splitter and a flat-boatsman!” Whitman devoted four poems to the president and called him “the greatest, best, most characteristic, artistic, moral personality” in American life. Whitman’s two most famous Lincoln poems are the celebratory “O Captain! My Captain!” and the grave “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d,” both published after the president’s death, and added to late editions of Leaves of Grass.

Each is bold and emotionally raw, perhaps too much so, moving away from the incantatory hymns of his earlier verses into a tone of exaltation and almost rapturous grief — “But O heart! heart! heart! / O the bleeding drops of red.” David Reynolds has suggested that Whitman saw not only something of himself in Lincoln but something of the healing “I” that Whitman created in Leaves of Grass, a man who absorbed all and brought union.

What Whitman also found captivating was that Lincoln was “essentially non-conventional,” that he embodied the American spirit by taking unpopular positions. He didn’t care if he was the underdog. Often he liked it.

And so, too, did Whitman. After his time in Washington, during which he visited Brooklyn only for short periods, Whitman moved to Camden, New Jersey, where his brother George had settled, taking a room in his house. Now distant both physically and temporally from his farmhouse roots and his father’s working-class struggles in Brooklyn, Whitman became in a certain sense more conservative, as some do in old age.

At times he granted that the raffish youth pictured in the lithograph from Leaves of Grass — a thirtysomething firebrand who wrote, “I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world” — was no longer the same man. As his work slowly gained some acceptance and acclaim, he enjoyed the fruits of his work, giving speeches, granting audiences, and generally curating his legacy.

Back home in Brooklyn, the workings of the American republic, though often crooked and halting, were bringing more and more newcomers and an ever-greater frenzy of activity. A bridge was being built, not only a grand bridge across the East River but a bridge to modernity. The Brooklyn Whitman knew as a child was long gone, and the Brooklyn of his pre–Civil War adulthood was fading from memory, too. Yet the democratic spirit Whitman had given voice to and the urge to capture the whole of America would echo down through the decades, continuing to breathe life into the place and its literary tradition.
More about Whitman's life in Brooklyn and the era's architecture and history is at the Whitman's Brooklyn site, curated by Russell Granger. Literary Brooklyn is published by Henry Holt & Co.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

The film of "On The Road" gets closer to the multiplex

Garrett Hedlund, Stellar, and Sam Riley at The Beat Museum, San Francisco


After decades of dream-casting games (Brando and Dean and Hopper and Fonda and Depp and ... ), and generations of fans and film directors sitting around talking about it, a film version of On The Road will be completed this year for arrival in theaters this December.

The Beat Museum's webpage carries some coverage, with photos, of the film's final shooting days last December, complete with a bit of old-school Hollywood gushing by young star-struck fans ("we just saw Kirsten Dunst at City Lights ..."). The excitement there seems all very heart-felt and genuine -- as genuine as a film fifty years in development nearing completion can be -- and in the midst of the latest Beat boom, one can only imagine Neal and Jack and Allen and Bill ( ... and ... ) asking each o
ther "gee, what took ya so long?"

Maybe it's just been long enough now to forget George Peppard and Leslie Caron in The Subterraneans (1960). For the record: On The Road is directed by Walter Salles, the screenplay is by Jose Rivera (The Motorcycle Diaries). Featuring Garrett Hedlund, Sam Riley, Kristen Stewart, Kirsten Dunst, Viggo Mortensen.

There's probably a behind-the-scenes book about the entire fifty-year On The Road movie-making legend that would make a final volume to the whole Vanity of Duluoz saga. In any event, here's an excerpt from Joey Cimino's attempt at channeling Hedda Hopper. As they used to say, from on-the-scene reports in San Francisco:

It started three weeks ago when we got an unexpected email from the director of On the Road, Walter Salles. He mentioned the cast and crew would be in San Francisco for the final filming of On The Road in December. After a 68-day shooting schedule and 50,000 miles of travel they'd be wrapping up the final scenes here in the city.

In the email, Walter explained how everything had come together for this movie very quickly. As many of you know, Francis Coppola gave the green light to Walter and screenwriter Jose Rivera six years ago. I have already related previously how John Allen Cassady and I met Jose Rivera in 2005 in LA and then again at John's house in 2006. And then in 2007, we discovered Garrett Hedlund was the first person to be cast (as Neal Cassady) for the film when he stopped into The Beat Museum.

Garret Hedlund and Sam Riley ... and '41 Pontiac Torpedo

Walter explained how, as they shopped the project around in 2008 and 2009 to secure funding for production, they were simply unable to obtain any commitments. The economic climate had obviously changed with the recession and even with a modest budget request for $25M (a pretty small budget for a high profile story like On the Road) the project was going nowhere. Finally, a French company named MK2 made the commitment and Walter and company were off to the races! ...

It was a rainy week in San Francisco. We knew the relatively small crew team and cast for On the Road would be arriving any day. We didn't know how the weather might affect their shooting schedule or if they were doing interior or exterior shots. Plus, Walter had mentioned how the weather had not been cooperating in Montreal and things were taking longer than they'd planned.


We first got wind something was about to happen on Tuesday, 12/7/10 when we hosted a group of 70 students from Windsor High School. After explaining how The Beats became The Beatniks and then The Beatniks became The Hippies, we talked a little about "Howl" and the obscenity trial and then
On the Road and Neal Cassady. A couple of the kids spoke up: "They're making a movie out of On the Road now, right? Are they shooting in San Francisco this week?" "Yeah, how did you know?" "Because we just saw Kirsten Dunst at City Lights." ...

(Photographs from The Beat Museum, San Francisco)