Friday, February 29, 2008

Soul Sisters


THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE (1991)

LA DOUBLE VIE DE VERONIQUE

SOUL SISTERS

Director Krzysztof Kieslowski had previously explored the concept of multiple and parallel possibilities in life for the same person with his film, PRZYPADEK, (BLIND CHANCE) 1987, and with a brief subplot in the ninth episode of THE DECALOGUE (1990). With VERONIQUE, he probed deeper into the metaphysical probabilities in life, and postulated that each of us could, or might have a “doppelganger” out there, walking on this sphere just as we are, two almost identical parts of the same spiritual entity, and two separate but nearly identical souls. We can, or might be “aware” of that other presence, and we could share insights, instincts, fears, mishaps, dangers, and health issues.

From Wikipedia, “This film was a departure from Kieslowski’s earlier works. It was his first film produced partly outside Poland, and the parts taking place within Poland contain little reference to the social turmoil of the time; a pivotal scene is set in the midst of a political protest—yet it is barely acknowledged by the camera or the characters.”

But film critic Marek Haltof, like many in Poland, saw the film as a “political allegory”. He felt that the Weronika character did represent Poland, and Veronique represented France, or more generally “the West”. Both countries are portrayed as highly cultural, but while Veronique is “seemingly free to choose here own destiny.” Weronika’s early demise represented the sacrifice and tragedy of Poland under the Nazis during WWII, and its subsequent absorption into the Soviet control.

Kieslowski graduated from the Lodz Film Academy in 1969, and became a political and documentary filmmaker and script writer. He had been denied acceptance into film school twice, and he passed on the third try. He directed 40 films from 1966-1994; the first 30 were all award-winning documentaries. His first feature film success came with BLIND CHANCE (1987), followed by 4 more short documentary films before he made DEKALOG (1989-90). THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE (1991) followed that and firmly entrenched him as a feature film director. From 1992-94 he became involved in the massive undertaking of writing, directing, producing, and editing his THREE COLOR TRILOGY, BLUE (1993), WHITE (1994), and RED (1994). It was documented in late 1993 he was editing BLUE, filming WHITE, and writing RED. He was an important member in Poland of the “cinema of moral anxiety”, and films were made illustrating Poland’s plight under Soviet rule and Communism. Director Andrzej Wajda was also a member of that group. When Kieslowski died in 1996, after complications with open-heart surgery, it was reported in HELLO magazine, in his obituary, that he also was battling complications from AIDS.

Kieslowski wrote once, “VERONIQUE is about sensibility, presentiments, and relationships that are difficult to name, that are irrational. Showing this on film is difficult; if I show too much, the mystery disappears. I can’t show too little, because nobody will understand anything. My search for the right balance between the obvious and the mysterious is the reason for all the various versions made in the cutting room.”

Slavoj Zizek, Philosopher and Psychoanalyst, wrote, “After finishing RED (1994), he retired to the countryside to spend his remaining days fishing and reading—in short to realize the fantasy of a quiet life, redeemed of the burden of Vocation. However in a tragic way, he lost on both counts. It was already too late, so that after choosing peace and retirement, he died. Or does his sudden death signal that the retirement into a quiet country life was a false issue, a fantasy screen effectively functioning as a metaphor for death—that for Kieslowski, the only was to survive was to continue filming, even if this were to mean constantly courting death? Did Kieslowski not, at least from our retroactive view, die at the proper moment? Although premature, his death, like Mozart, seemed to occur precisely when his opus was rounded up—the ultimate case of the miraculous coincidence around which his films turn. It is as if his fatal heart attack was a free act, a staged death, striking at the right time—just after he announced that he could no longer be making films.”

Kieslowski wrote, “If I have a goal, then it is to escape from this liberalism. I will never achieve it, in the same way that I will never manage to describe what is in my heart—although I keep on trying.”

Kieslowski said, “I can identify with what Bergman says about life, and about what he says about love. I identify more or less with his attitude towards the world—towards men and women and what we do in everyday life; forgetting about what is most important.”

The music in the film, haunting and repetitive, was composed by Zbigniew Preisner. It was attributed to a classical Dutch composer, Van den Budenmayer, and often it seems to be archaic and lilting. I read as a left-handed tribute to the genius of Preisner, someone in the Netherlands contacted Kieslowski and wanted to be paid for the rights to use Van den Budenmayer’s music; who is a wholly fictional personage. Every note was written by Preisner. Unlike most film composers who create their scores while watching an edited film, things move differently while working with the eccentric and talented Kieslowski. He believes in collaboration, from the inception of the project. So Preisner was brought in early on by Kieslowski and writing collaborator Krzystof Piesiewicz, and he works with them on the script as it is being written. He usually takes part in the editing of the film as well.

Kieslowski said, ”Preisner is an exceptional composer, in that he is interested in working on the film right from the beginning and not just seeing the finished version and then thinking about how to illustrate it with music. That’s the rule, right? You show the composer your film, and then he fills the gaps with music. But “he” can have a different approach. He can think about the music right from the start, about its dramatic function, about the way it should say something that is not there in the picture. You can describe something perhaps isn’t there on the actual screen but that, together with the music, starts to exist. It is interesting—drawing out something that does not exist in the film alone or in the music alone. Combining the two, a certain meaning, a certain value, something that also determines a certain atmosphere, suddenly begins to exist. The Americans shove music in from beginning to end.”

Kieslowski wrote, “We used some of Dante’s poetry as lyrics to the music in DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE. That was not my idea; it was Preisner’s idea. The words have nothing to do with the subject. They’re sung in old Italian, and even the Italians probably can’t understand them. But it was important for Preisner to know what the music he was writing was about, what the words really meant, because he had a translation. And what those words meant, what the text was about, probably inspired him to write the music. We thought a lot about the music. For Preisner, instrumentation is just as important as the melody. But the sound of the old Italian is also beautiful. The French bought 50,000 copies of the disc.”

After DEKALOG (1989-90), Kieslowski became a hot commodity, “one of the most important directors in Europe”, and Preisner became quickly one of leading music composers of his generation. He has written 52 film scores since 1981. His collaboration with Kieslowski started with BEZ KONCA (NO END) 1985. He was brought to notoriety after the release of THE DECALOGUE (1990). Then he wrote the score for EUROPA, EUROPA (1990), and then the score we are discussing for VERONIQUE (1991). He wrote the music for OLIVIER, OLIVIER (1992), and the enchanting score for THE SECRET GARDEN (1993), before working again with Kieslowski on WHITE (1993), BLUE (1994), and RED (1994).

After Kieslowski’s death in 1996, Preisner has gone on to write an opera to be performed in London, and features the Varsovia Symphony Orchestra. Besides Kieslowski then, Preisner has worked with directors like Louis Malle, Agniezka Holland, and Hector Babenco.

Kieslowski wrote, “VERONIQUE is a film about music, too, in principle—or about singing, let’s say. Everything was very carefully written down in the screenplay. Where the music would go, what the music would be like, what the concert would be like, the nature of it and so on. All of this was carefully described, but the fact that it was described didn’t really change anything, because a composer has to come along in the end and make something of what’s been written in a literary language.
How can you describe music? That it is beautiful, for example, or sublime? That it is memorable? That it is mysterious? You can write all this down, but the composer’s got to come along and find the notes. Then the musicians have to come along and play those notes. And all this, in the end, has to remind you of what was written down in literary language. Zbigniew Preisner simply did it wonderfully.”

The stunning and effective photography for VERONIQUE was done by long-time Kieslowski collaborator, cinematographer Slawomir Idziak, and it contributed greatly to not only the look but the feel of the film. He has helmed 57 films since 1967. With Kieslowski he worked on A SHORT FILM ABOUT KILLING (1988), DEKALOG (1990), THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE (1991), and THE COLOR TRILOGY (1993-94). He went on to shoot THE JOURNEY OF AUGUST KING (1995), MEN WITH GUNS (1997), GATTACA (1997), PROOF OF LIFE (2000), BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001), KING ARTHUR (2004), and HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (2007).

Marjorie Baumgarten of THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE wrote, “Then there appear those glorious shots, shots so articulate, audacious and arresting that they fill you with the joy of watching movies. The shot of Weronika seeing her reflection in a bus completing a 180 degree turn as her “double” is shooting a photograph of her is an image that is enduringly thrilling and stimulating.” This shot, coming out so flawlessly smooth, so organic put us into a disassociative state, out of balance and at the same time in balance; just for a moment, a glimpse into the mechanism of the universe.

Kieslowski said, “There is much more improvisation in Poland. The same goes for collaboration with the lighting cameraman. We discuss things in the evenings. Besides the basic ideas involved in making the film, or course, we discuss what we are going to do the following day. In Poland the lighting cameraman is not a technician hired out to do the photography, as he is here [in the West]. This results from a tradition that we created in Poland ourselves. It existed before, but I think that we, that is--our generation, raised the level of cooperation with the cameraman. He is a colleague who is present right from the very beginning of the script; in fact, from the initial idea. As soon as I have an idea, I go to the lighting cameraman. I tell him my idea and we start to discuss it. When I write the screenplay, I show him the first, second, and third versions, and together we work out how to make the film. So he does not just do the lighting and photography—he also has a certain influence on the staging. He makes comments about the actors, and he’s got the right to do so. I expect it of him. He has ideas as to how to resolve scenes, and that becomes our joint concern. Because such a system of work has developed, and we have Polish cinematographers brought up in that way, used to it, what’s more, liking it—we all get a great deal out of it. He becomes a co-author of the film, really does. Later on, of course, one always has to acknowledge the he is a co-author—not only because it makes him feel good and predisposes him well for the next film, but above all, because it’s true.”

As viewers we could not help but notice that Idziak used golden-green filters a lot for many of his shots. This was extremely apparent in the interior shots, but also the exterior ones too. Kieslowski said, “We used one fairly basic filter in VERONIQUE—a golden yellow one. Thanks to it, the world of the film was complete. It’s whole. You can recognize it. Filters give uniformity, and that is very important. In VERONIQUE the world appeared far more beautiful than it really is. Most people felt that the world of this film was portrayed with warmth; this warmth came from the actress, of course, and the staging, but also from the dominant color; namely this shade of gold.” Odd that he would explicate the filters in this manner because mostly the shots showed up with a dominant green cast; sometimes so much so, like in the Weronika concert scene, that it created green halos around the white hair of the conductor, and bathed the floor with greenish glow.

Jonathan Romney wrote, “Kieslowski and cinematographer Slawomir Idziak consistently use a yellow-green filter that fills the world with a seemingly benign, autumnal glow. Kieslowski claimed that this choice of color was a matter of visual contrast, determined by the dominant gray of the film’s locations, Krakow and Clermont-Ferrard. Yet overall the golden filtering transcends any obvious motivation.”

Slavoj Zizek, philosopher, wrote, “The city and its surroundings are shown in a specific way. The lighting cameraman used filters, which he made specifically—green filters so that the color in the film is specifically greenish. Green is supposed to be the color of spring, the color of hope, but if you put a green filter on the camera lens, the world becomes much crueler, duller, and emptier.” Another odd statement, for I feel those sentiments and conclusions would be more apropos if the cameraman had used gray, or natural light. I think the golden-green jells created an unreality, a kind of Alice through the looking glass feel to the scenes; and of course, objects that were already green became more vibrantly green, with golden tresses and hues mixed—like those touched up remastered photos that the Sierra Society is always making into calendars.

All this “green” talk has put me in a “green” frame of mind. Today we live in a world where we are directed to live green, to think green, to clean green, to eat green, even defecate greenily. It puts me in mind of a poem I wrote in the 60’s and then rewrote yesterday:

Song of Chlorus

Chloropuscle II

Since the dusky dawn
primeval,
when great tree giants
greened out the sun,
and all the forests
bristling with the sharpness
of conifer
and the softness
of deciduous mantle,
stood dense, trunk to trunk,
there have been sapian homo,
who knew exactly
where to find
the sky.

The tiniest of children who
were wrenched into this plane
already knowing
about God
and wood magic, are
watching with toddler’s eyes, as
people prowl
in parks putting
things alive
and green
into their pie holes.

I am telling you
that huge winged birds,
hairless rodents,
wild and domestic,
have memories
of it, the tingle
and the taste
of green
shoots, moss, leaves,
grass and flower stems.

Nature does not bleed.
It’s essence is not red,
it’s green;
and so is
life;
all green,
if you look
unblinkingly
as you chew a leaf,
sucking the pulp
out of it
like a vegenimal
cannibal,
like a combine
with ears;

Somewhere near
even the sky
can be green,
with electric emerald
sunsets,
slick, textured, scaly,
like those cousin reptiles
who journeyed far
from the dankest depths
of a grayish-green sea,
who tired of
the swimming
and the darkness;
who squirmed up proud
on the land,
struggling to stand
erect and claiming
the whole planet
for themselves,
and many others
who would soon follow.

Green too
is the life between life,
and the life
after death,
with hard data already extant
as tarter on teeth,
mold on sun-bleached bones,
fungus on driftwood;
and the beauty
of rot
as flesh and wood decompose
and make their way
home;
past the expressway
of magma,
all the way to
the earth’s centerfold,
that verdant steaming
womb.

The girl
with the green eyes
smiles from the green poster,
instructing us
to think green,
to live green,
to breathe green;
and we do,
or try to.

Rebirth, children,
that is our reward
when we partner up
with our loving planet.

But in the meantime
try not to forget
as you are traveling
up another yellow brick road,
pounding your feet in Pumas
until the blood gushes
from beneath the toenails,
that you certainly can
and probably should
leap off that infinite stretch
of noway
that goes nowhere
in no time,
in real time,
and lie
peacefully in the green
fields of wildflowers and clover;
heart full to bursting
with green fire;
arms wide open
to a sun of grass.

Yes,
just let the legions
tramp by,
with their silver armor
clanking,
and their lethal pilum
held high,
for even the sweet ladybug
on your chin
knows that
hell and war
are not green.

Glenn A. Buttkus February 2008



Educated in London and Geneva, and an emancipated resident of Paris at 18, Irene Jacob, a Swiss-born starlet was picked to play Weronika/Veronique. She kept reminding me of another French actress, Juliette Binoche. Kieslowski must have seen it too, using Binoche in his first film, BLUE (1993), in THE COLOR TRILOGY, and Jacob in the last film, RED (1994). Jacob was beautiful, in her early twenties, without it being distracting. Her eyes appeared to be lovely green, but considering how heavily Kieslowski filtered the movie, I would have to check to see what her actual eye color is. She was Swiss, and spoke provincial French, but she had to learn Polish for the Weronika scenes. She did so successfully, but in the editing stages Kieslowski had her voice dubbed by Polish actress Anna Gornostaj, because she had too much of an accent in Polish.

Jacob has appeared in 41 films since 1987. Kieslowski had seen her in a good part within AU REVOIR, LES INFANTS (1987), directed by Louis Malle. She had done 8 films before she had a chance to get the lead in VERONIQUE. She also was in THE SECRET GARDEN (1993), then was in Kieslowski’s final film, RED (1994). She went on to play Desdemona to Laurence Fishburne’s OTHELLO (1995). She was in INCOGNITO (1997), and U.S.MARSHALS (1998), with Tommy Lee Jones.

Originally Kieslowski wanted American actress Andie MacDowell to play Veronique. He liked her in SEX, LIES, AND VIDEOTAPE (1989). She was very interested in the part, and accepted it. But the budget was too meager, and they could not meet her asking salary. The part went to Irene Jacob, and many of us are grateful that it did.

Peter Bradshaw of THE GUARDIAN wrote, “The sheer, heart-stopping beauty of Irene Jacob is what shines out firstly in this great movie. Maybe because she has not had the international career of her Kieslowski contemporary, Juliette Binoche, her face does not have that familiarity—and when we see it anew, rewatching this classic film, she re-emerges with added force and freshness.”

Hal Hinson of THE WASHINGTON POST wrote, “Only the sensual presence of the movie’s heroine, played by the smashingly expressive young French actress Irene Jacob, gives us a foothold on this slippery celluloid ice.”

Peter Cowie, film historian, wrote, “At the opening ceremony of the 1996 Cannes Film Festival, actress Irene Jacob was asked to pay tribute to Krzysztof Kieslowski, who had just died two months earlier. Her eyes brimming with tears, she stood brave and vulnerable on the huge stage, extraordinarily beautiful in a white dress, and spoke of her mentor with a wistful eloquence. They had made just two feature films together. Had he survived they might have made a dozen by now. But the great partnerships in film history rarely last that long. They burn with the ferocity and often blinding incandescence of a comet. Then each partner veers or drifts apart from the other—Lillian Gish from D.W. Griffith, Marlene Dietrich from Josef von Sternberg, Monica Vitti from Michelangelo
Antonioni.
Irene Jacob served as muse to Kieslowski even as she was his Galatea. In THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE (1991), she acts with the flawless candor born of total confidence in her director: her look transcends the words she utters. She confides in the camera and, by extension, in us, her audience. Kieslowski’s cinema is one of intimacy.
In Jacob, Kieslowski found an actress who could communicate her thoughts through tiny bits of business—the pensive twisting of a shoelace, a private laugh as she reads a fairy tale, the extra blink of an eye as she tells her father about a dream, or listens to a tape. During her first moments on screen, Jacob sings a chorale by Zbigniew Preisner of such celestial magic that the very rain drenching the other singers descends like some inebriating force, and so, cleansed, she clings to the closing note with exultation.
Some of the great Kunstlerpaar have been contemporaries—for example Jean-Luc Godard and Anna Karina, Federico Fellini and Giulietta Masina, and Kurt Weill with Lotte Lenya. The relationship between Jacob and Kieslowski, by contrast, drew its strength from the difference in age between them—like Ingmar Bergman with Liv Ullman, or Claude Chabrol with Isabelle Huppert (or Roman Polanski with Nastassja Kinski, or Luc Besson and Milla Jovovich). Kieslowski proved to be a father figure for the young actress, and this motif was explored double in VERONIQUE.”

Jonathan Romney, author of THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY, wrote, “Intensely focused on Jacob, VERONIQUE looks like one of those films designed expressly to make us fall in love with its star—an intention felt from the very first close-up of Weronika, in the rain, staying behind to sing alone in the rain as the choir disperses around her, her face is radiant with delight.” He wrote further, “As emotional beings, Weronika and Veronique are at once sexual and desexualized. Both women are sexually active, yet their truly intense ecstasies come in non-sexual situations; few cinematic images of female pleasure are as pronounced as Weronika’s face in the rain, or as that sweeping camera movement over Veronique when she gets up after reading on the bed. Such images make the two women appear less like adults than like presexual children; subject to the authority, influence, and manipulation of older men. Alexandre, the puppeteer, two beloved fathers, Weronika’s venerable conductor—and both women, like Jacob, literally come under the authority of the father figure who is Kieslowski himself; making both the actress and her twin characters disturbingly akin to the Veronique puppets seen at the end of the film”

Hal Hinson wrote, “The film itself is a kind of puppet show, with Kieslowski as marionette master—and in tying Jacob to his strings he’s made a brilliant choice and a major discovery for the movies. This is an actress with an uncanny openness and vulnerability to the camera. She is beautiful, but in a completely unconventional way, and she has such changeable features that our interest is never exhausted. What is remarkable about her performance is how quiet it is; as an actress, she seems to work almost off the decibel scale. And yet she is remarkably alive on the screen, remarkably present. She is a rare combination—a sexy yet soulful actress.”

Peter Cowie wrote further, “The particular distinction of Jacob’s performance for Kieslowski is that she is on the screen virtually all the time. The subjective texture means that she must react to the words of others even more than speaking herself. As she tells the puppeteer, “I always sense what I should do.” Trusting her instincts, Veronique will remain cinema’s quintessential romantic figure, and the apotheosis of Irene Jacob’s talent as an actress.”

Philip French of THE OBSERVER wrote, “The presence of a romantic puppeteer is part of movie tradition of fey, disturbed marionettes—think of LILI, Tony Hancock’s THE PUNCH AND JUDY MAN, or BEING JOHN MALKOVICH [or TEAM AMERICA].”

While writing the script for VERONIQUE, Kieslowski and Piesiewicz did not yet know what occupation to give the boyfriend. Then they remembered seeing a brilliant puppet show, put on my Jim Henson. They researched it and found out that the American puppeteer, Bruce Schwartz, had done the bit. They contacted him, and ironically he had just given up his marionette career from public lack of interest. Schwartz already had the puppets premade, the ballerina, the old lady, the butterfly, and he handmade all of the puppets himself. After he was hired, he constructed the two puppets of Irene Jacob.

Philippe Volter played Alexandre Fabbri, the marionette master. All the close ups of his hands working with the puppets were done with Bruce Schwartz. Volter found just the right balance for me of mystique, ardor, creativity, and passion. It was easy to see, and quite believable, considering the incredible circumstances of his courtship with Veronique, that she would fall for him. His character was essential to the semblance of plot, for it was he that first noticed the photograph of Weronika on the proof sheet that fell from Veronique’s huge purse.

Kieslowski said, “The male lead in VERONIQUE was to be played by the Italian director Nanni Moretti. I like him and his films very much. He is masculine, yet very delicate. He is not an actor, and only had played leading roles in his own films. But for me, strangely enough, he agreed very willingly. Then before shooting he became ill, and I replaced him with the French actor, Philippe Volter, whom I liked in Gerard Corblau’s THE MUSIC TEACHER.”

Kieslowski wrote, “I try not to tell the actors too much. To be honest, I try to give them one or two good sentences, no more, because I know that they simply listen to everything you say, especially in the initial stages of the filming, and if you tell them too much, they will quote you later on and you can’t get out of it. So I say as little as possible. Everything is written in the screenplay. When it comes to actors—I would rather listen to them. I love actors a lot. They are such strange people. They would do anything for me. It often happens to me that they bring their views, feelings, and their attitudes to the work. I make use of this; I simply take it. I love them for it. And if you love someone, you try and be close to them, and you want to see everything just as it is. Besides it pays dividends. They repay me in like manner. They are then prepared to give more than just their skill and glycerin.”

In the film, Weronika (Irene Jacob) lived in Poland, a young woman still residing at home with her father. She has a fabulous natural singing voice, and is discovered one day by a famous music teacher—but she also has a cardiac condition that she does not deal with. Disregarding her heart problems, she launched into strenuous voice training, and plunged headlong into a fledgling career—but during what would have been a triumphant singing debut, she collapsed and died mid-performance.

We then are introduced to Veronique (Irene Jacob) who lived in France. She was a music teacher, who seemed to be taking singing lessons. She had recently returned from a trip to Poland, and without realizing it, she and Weronika had glimpsed each other while in the Great Square at Krakow. Weronika had seen Veronique clearly, although she made little of it. Veronique had snapped a photograph of Weronika without recognition of her. There is a myth that if we ever meet our doppelganger, one of us will die. Krieslowski seemed to subscribe to this notion.

Slavoj Zizek wrote, “This episode of the near encounter in the Square in Krakow was rendered in a vertiginous circular shot reminiscent of the famous 360-degree shot from Hichcock’s VERTIGO. The camera’s circular movement, then, can be read as the signaling of the danger of the “end of the world”, like that standard scene from science-fiction films about alternative realities, in which the passage from one to another universe takes the shape of a terrifying primordial vortex threatening to swallow all consistent reality. So if the two women, Weronika and Veronique were actually to confront and recognize each other—reality would disintegrate, because such an encounter, of a person with her double, with her self in another time-space dimension, is precluded by the very fundamental structure of the universe.”

Moments after Weronika’s death, Veronique while making love suddenly felt a tremendous loss, an overwhelming sense of grief—somehow becoming aware that she was now “alone” in the world. She immediately contacted her singing teacher and cancelled her lessons, abandoned the notion of a singing career. This cross over of instinct or genetic knowledge was not explained—it is just presented.

Most of the film dealt with Veronique’s life in France. She fell in love with a dashing and enigmatic writer and puppeteer, who somehow seemed to “understand” the duality of her nature, and of her life. In a strange and magical way, Alexandre seduced her with a game of cleverness, requiring her to follow clues, and come to conclusion as to who he was, and later who she herself was. In the middle of the night Veronique received a mysterious anonymous phone call. She nearly hangs up, and then she hears a snatch of music, the music Weronika was singing when she died, and that she herself is teaching to her young music students at school. Somehow she is fascinated by this, and is connected to it. She also received several anonymous packages, one with just a shoe lace in it, another with a cassette of sounds, a collage of noise that she listens to repeatedly until she is able to do the detective work necessary to track down her admirer, her Svengali—at the train station, at Paris’s Gare Saint-Lazare, she finds the puppeteer Alexandre waiting for her. She has already figured out that seeing him perform at her school was beginning of a strong fascination she was nuturing; something she mentioned to her father. Alexandre tells her that the tape was part of an experiment, some research he was doing for a novel—was it truly psychologically plausible for a woman to follow such a trail of clues. Offended, Veronique bolted from the café, but he follows her, and soon they become lovers.

At some point later, after they have some sort of established relationship, he created two puppets, possibly representing this probability, this duality, Veronique fled from the relationship, fled from her full recognition of her special circumstance. It was if Weronika had ventured forth first on this firmament, like a fraternal twin, taking a breath mere minutes before the other. The choices she made for herself, however catastrophic, resulted somehow to serve as guidelines and considerations later for Veronique.

When VERONIQUE was shown in America, it included an alternate ending that Kieslowski had tacked on at the request of Harvey Weinstein of MIRAMAX. The original film closes with Veronique pausing in her car at the head of the driveway for her father’s house, rolling the car window down, and simply reaching out and placing her hand on a tree standing there, caressing the bark. It resonates with the sense of the naturalness her father represent as a beloved, and a woodworker, a return, a touching of hearth and heart. But remember Kieslowski, in the editing room, had constructed over a dozen alternate endings, and different cuts of the film. At one point he was going to put a different version of the film in all 20 French theaters where it opened. So the American ending had the father coming out of the house when he sensed she was there, and asking her to come in because it was cold outside. She turned off her car, and ran to his open arms for a long sustained hug. Like others, I disliked this version of ending. It was obvious overkill, unnecessary, redundant; nearly ridiculous.

Kieslowski said, “I imagine Veronique does not spend her life with Alexandre. At the end, you see her crying. She is crying when he suddenly reads her his book, and the way she looks at him is not in the least bit loving—because in effect, he has used her life. He has used what he knows about her for his own purposes. I think she is much wiser at the end of the film than at the beginning. Alexandre’s made her aware that something else exists, that the “other” Weronika did exist. He is the one that found the photograph. Veronique did not even notice it among the dozens of photographs she had. He is the one who noticed it, and perhaps he understood what she couldn’t understand herself. See, he understood, and then used it. And the moment he used it, she understood that he probably was not the man for whom she was waiting so desperately; because the moment this came out into the open, something she possessed, something that was so terribly intimate as long as it wasn’t disclosed, was automatically used—and when it was used, it stopped being hers; and when it stopped being hers, it was no longer mysterious. It was no longer personal. It had become a public secret.”

Slavoj Zisek, philosopher, wrote, “There is, however, a price to be paid for this retreat. When and why exactly, does Veronique return to her father in order to find a safe haven of calm? After her puppeteer lover stages for her the (unconscious) choice that structured her life, in the guise of the two marionettes. So what is Veronique retreating from when she abandons her lover? She perceives this staging as a domineering intrusion, while it is actually the very obverse; for it actually is the staging of her ultimate, unbearable FREEDOM. In other words, what is so traumatic for her in the puppeteer’s performance is not that she sees herself reduced to a puppet whose strings are pulled by the hidden hand of Destiny—but that she is confronted with the fundamental unconscious choice by means of which every one of us has to choose her or his existential project. Her escape from the puppeteer, back to the “safe haven”, under the wings of her father—is her escape from freedom.”

The theme of fathers and daughters was explored on screen, just as director and star explored it, on camera and off. Weronika’s father, played by Wladyslaw Kowalski, was an artist, a talented, yet reclusive man that nevertheless loved his talented young daughter. He was busy working on a painting of a Polish town or city, and those paying attention would have seen the real buildings appear in montage, other paintings, and passing imagery in train window glass. Weronika “felt” that she was not alone, and her father did not quite grasp the significance of this. The father was an intellectual, surrounded by music, his art, and his books. Veronique’s father, played by Claude Duneton, was more a natural man, a woodworker, furniture builder, and tinkerer. He too paid attention to and loved his teacher daughter, as she explained she was falling in love with a stranger; who turned out to be a writer and marionette master. The missing mothers were constants in both scenarios, Polish and French. The important naturalness and wholesomeness and close to nature temperament of Veronique’s father was essential to the semblance of a plot.

Kieslowski presented us several delicious overlapping and synchronicious symbols and objects that became the common warp and weave of the two lives in both countries—leaves, upside down imagery, landscapes, churches, colors, string, fathers, missing mothers, toys, and a weak heart among others; nothing overt yet still significant enough to reinforce our tingle of deju vu. There is a reoccurring character in both scenarios—a stern looking woman is a large hat; reminiscent of the angelic “observer” who appeared in most of the episodes of DECOLOGUE.

Kieslowski said, “I do not consciously work with symbols or metaphors. A bottle of milk is simply a bottle of milk; when it spills, it means milk has been spilled. Nothing more.”

Jonathan Romney wrote, “Kieslowski confessed that he aspired to those moments when a film escapes literalism. If VERONIQUE spurs us to search for meaning in a maze of fragmentary significance—it is perhaps because he made the film in such a spirit of pursuit, quite simply in the sense of teasing out narrative shape.”

The film’s opening montage at first is confusing, for it is a night shot of Krakow, and the sky and the earth is reversed, and we look at it upside down. Then we meet Weronika who is being held upside down by mother. Weronika has a toy, a transparent glass ball with plastic stars floating in it. When she peers into it, the stars from that opening scene reappear, and the image appears reversed. Much later on when Veronique empties the contents of her purse on the hotel bed for Alexandre, we see that she too has an identical glass toy ball with stars floating in it. Immediately, returning to the opening scene, we are introduced to the toddler Veronique, holding a delicate leaf, as her mother talks to her about nature and life. In both scenarios, the mothers are absent. This was there only appearance, as disembodied voices that might have been recalled later or introduced then abandoned by Kieslowski.

When the film shifts to France, to Veronique, she is shown making love just as the dirt is being tossed onto the casket of Weronika in Poland. She suddenly, mid-coitus, feels depressed and saddened in some free floating metaphysically challenging way. The boy friend dresses and leaves the distracted and depressed Veronique; never to return to the plot of movie. Later in the hotel room, after Veronique and Alexandre have become lovers, and she stares at the photograph that she has taken of Weronika, again the overwhelming realization that something significant has occurred spiritually, she feels the separation, the loss, the weight of that knowledge, and she begins to weep—but this time her lover does not retreat, he makes love to her again, and his love making transforms her gasps of sadness into groans of ecstacy; a temporal fix at best, but a lover’s earnest diversion. [By the way, what was up with that hotel room? Both Veronique and Alexandre have perfectly fine apartments, fitted with large comfortable beds that they could have chosen to create their new love life in. Perhaps it is more romantic, certainly more expensive, to start a love affair in a hotel room, on neutral ground, and see where it goes.]

The leaf that Veronique held as a child reappeared for Weronika when she had her first heart attack, as deep piles of dead leaves littered the ground and low walls. Later we find more deciduous symbols surrounding the small estate of Veronique’s father; allowing the natural symbol of growth, of life, to juxtapose with the symbol of death, and cyclic behavior of nature. Death strode unseen in this film as it does in most of our lives; unseen, unexpected, unheralded, ever-patient, and omnipresent.

Kieslowski lets certain metaphysical phenomenon occur without explication. When Weronika died, her spirit seemed to soar out over the audience, seen upside down, passing beneath her as she vacated her body and the building. Her spirit seemed present too at her own funeral, both in and out of the casket. When Veronique is napping in a chair in her apartment and a bright ball of light on her face awakens her. She opens her beautiful green eyes and sees that ball of brilliance bouncing all over the room. She goes to the window and immediately sees a young boy in the window across the lane, holding a mirror, and playing with the light. He goes inside and takes the mirror with him, yet when Veronique returns to the room, that brilliant ball of spectral light reappears, dancing and teasing as it darted about. She turned toward the camera and stared at “something” or “someone” above her head, above our head. Was it an image of Weronika, something amorphous yet friendly? Several times later Veronique fixated on something we cannot see.

We also had reflective reality versus perceived reality versus point of view for the viewer and the camera lens. Constantly both Weronika and Veronique’s faces were caught in reflection in mirrors, windows, and water. On the train to Krakow, as Weronika traveled to see her aunt, as she held her glass toy ball and looked at the landscape reversed, her face was constantly reflected in the window, peering back at her like a separate entity. By the way the buildings in the landscape were a repeat of the buildings Weronika’s father was painting earlier. In addition the scene described by Veronique later to her father, a scene in a dream, was there outside of the train window; a tall church steeple, red buildings, cobblestone streets. Also in France, there was a print or a painting of that same landscape near the slumbering Veronique. As Veronique looked out any of her apartment windows, or passed shop windows, her reflection like shadow of light taunted her, teased her and us.

There was a rampant repetitive use of the twin symbol. The two women were twins, somewhere between spiritually fraternal and identical; with dopplegangers maybe there is an Immaculate Conception, and Spirit or God is the father, and the earthly fathers were only fill-ins, genetic step-fathers, just a Joseph looking for the manger. Although it was not really stated, I think the two women were born in summer, and were probably Gemini’s; and that is why the young French Veronique held a green leaf in her baby’s hand. For both women their reflections became a presence, a twin of glass that once in a while was more, was the flesh and blood twin getting a metaphysical glimpse of one another. The two mothers were in absentia. The two loving fathers carried on solo. Alexandre created two puppets of Veronique, suggesting that one was in fact Weronika. Both women had the same type of identical glass ball toy. When they met in the Great Square in Krakow, midst the mêlée of the student demonstration, they both existed simultaneously in identical space, like the twins they were in the womb of the universe; and the lines of reality bent back on themselves for a tiny moment, as one looked, and one saw, while the other didn’t. Even when Weronika had her singing debut, she had to share the stage with another singer, performing for a time a duet. The room number where Weronika’s boyfriend, Anton, was staying, after he followed her to Krakow, was identical to the room number in the hotel used by Veronique and Alexandre for their love tryst. The weak hearts were twin burdens, twin receptacles for love and death.

Peter Bradshaw of THE GUARDIAN wrote, “The trope of double-identity becomes a brilliant meditation on choices and alternative lives, on the presence of death which forces these choices on us, and on the terrible demands which art can make—if we choose to let it. Veronique’s identity, her very existence, became vivid and deeply felt because the fable or mirage of its duality has allowed it to be questioned and examined. A single life should be sufficiently phenomenal; perhaps we would all fully appreciate the central astonishing fact of our existence only if a cosmic twin were to be revealed before us, as if projected from the surface of a divine mirror. But Kieslowski suggests that the appearance of an uncanny double would be the occasion not of shock or horror, but ineffable sadness, a proof that we are not unique and not immortal.”

There was the repeated use of string or shoe laces. Weronika played with the string that bound her music while she auditioned, and she consistently had trouble keeping her shoes lace up, fussing with and tying them a lot. When Veronique received the phone call late at night, and we discover later it was from Alexandre, a bit of the music from Preisner, disguised as Van den Badenmayer, was played, and later when the first mysterious package arrived; just a single shoelace—how could the puppeteer, still new to understanding the situation, understand, know, and manipulate such things? This was artistic license for Kieslowski; again falling into the dominion of the unexplained, even the inexplicable. After we see Veronique carrying her medical strip showing her heart rhythm, and while studying it and playing with the shoe lace simultaneously, suddenly she snapped the lace straight; the symbol for flat line, death laughing and reasserting itself in the scenario.

Jonathan Romney wrote, “One of the film’s most compelling aspects is its explicit self-reflexivity, of which the marionettes are the most extreme, most arch manifestation. The two women at different points twist threads around their fingers: Veronique stretches one over a printout of her EKG result, as if tracing an equivalence between her and Weronika’s life lines. Alexandre has also written a story about a thread, and reels Veronique in on a thread of intrigue.”

Roger Ebert of the CHICAGO SUN TIMES wrote, “Kieslowski is not interested in the answers to such questions, because they would be meaningless speculations. But the possibility of such connections between lives is infinitely interesting. To think about them is to touch the mystery of consciousness. The parts do not quite fit, and anyway this is not a puzzle to be assembled. It is a romance about those moments we all have when we think we see ourselves at a distance. Is there, we wonder, more than one of me? Why haven’t I ever seen a portrait in a gallery that looks exactly like my self—or anyone else I know? How would I feel if I did? By the way when I do think I see my self at a distance, I never hurry to catch up. What if I were right? What would we say to each other?

Marjorie Baumgarten wrote further, “This film achieves a rare grace; it tells a story that could only exist in the form of a movie; or perhaps a piece of poetry. The story is told not so much in customary narrative structures, but in glimpses, hints, and intimations. It has a way of taking the solid and making it chimerical. This movie manifests a rare sense of mortality with characters aware of their corporeal immediacy and their permanent ephemerality. It is as though all of us are but flesh and blood, specks of dust on the celluloid of life. Make your smudges while ye may.”

Ken DuBois of REEL.COM wrote, “Just before he began work on his stunning film trilogy, BLUE, RED, and WHITE, Polish writer/director Krzysztof Kieslowski made a film that could easily have been part of the same series, and probably should have been called YELLOW [or perhaps GREEN], but was titled THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE instead. Like the three “Color” films, VERONIQUE is a meditation on the interconnectedness of people, told in poetic style with a visual language that repeats itself with the comforting cadence of a nursery rhyme. It is a film experience, in other words, in which the sensuous nature of the medium takes over, and the plot matters less and less as the film goes on.”

Hal Hinson of THE WASHINGTON POST wrote, “VERONIQUE has a fragile, opiated atmosphere that hovers somewhere between eroticism and melancholy. It is a hushed, moody puzzle of a film with the haunted unresolved air of a ghost story by Henry James, or one of the Borges’ poetic labyrinths. You feel as if you are only half-seeing it, as you might see the image of a solar eclipse in smoked glass, or if your sense of time has been disrupted and the whole thing has flashed before your eyes in the instant between heartbeats.
Kieslowski never really brings his story to any resolution, and that is as it should be. The film is a mesmerizing poetic work composed in an eerie minor key. Its effect on the viewer is subtle but very real. The film takes us completely into its world, and in so doing, it leaves us with the impression that our own world, once we return to it, is far richer and portentous than we had imagined.”

Philip French wrote, “VERONIQUE is the movie that marked Kieslowski’s transition from his realistic, political movies to a mystically patterned self-consciously poetic cinema.”

Peter Bradshaw wrote further, “There is a daring as well as simplicity in Kieslowski’s conceit, and it will continue to baffle as many as it intrigues; every time I see it, I confess to wondering if Kieslowski quite worked out or worked through all the implications of his story. Part of what wrong foots the audience is the asymmetry resulting from Weronika’s departure from the story relatively early on, and another part might be a sense that having renounced her vocation (interest in singing), Veronique’s life does not have the romanticism of Weronika’s death. But the elusiveness of the film is precisely the point; it is beautiful and mysterious as a poem and its formal elegance and conviction are unarguable. What makes it a must-see, however, is the generous, unselfconscious passion of Jacob’s performance as the young women—two young women in love.”

Jonathan Romney wrote further, “History may have sidelined THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE, but that is not to say the film has not lasted. In its teasing, fragmentary nature, it well may outlast the THREE COLORS TRIOLOGY, with its somber attempt at a definitive encapsulation of the human predicament at the end of the European 20th Century. VERONIQUE retains the kind of mystery that subsists when the search for meaning and shape is pursued with the seriousness and pleasure of game playing. It is the sense of pervasive “trompe l’oell”, of the conjurer’s—rather than the puppeteer’s—art, that makes VERONIQUE endure as a spellbinding experience, as well as a perplexing one.”

Kieslowski’s universe was both Gnostic and existential, natural and surrealistic, mundane and nearly surreal at times—but there is no doubt that he led the way for many other film directors to explore to notions and philosophies he created. Many of us presently are less impressed with him than we should be, for we are inundated with CGI games that effortlessly offer us multiple choices for specific outcomes. We make one choice and our character is killed. We simply rewind, back up and start over, making another choice and hoping to emerge victorious, the master of our fantasy scenario. In the 1980’s however this was a “new” twist, a new concept—the role of both chance and parallel histories.

Kieslowski wrote, “I think that if you go to the cinema you want to give in to your emotions. But I am not saying that everybody has to like VERONIQUE. On the contrary I think it is a film for a very limited group of people. I don’t mean an age group, or a social group—but a group of people who are sensitive to the sort of emotions shown in the film. And such people can be found among the intelligentsia, among workers, among the unemployed, among students, and among old age pensioners. I do not think it is a film for the elite, by any means—unless we call sensitive people elite.”

THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE (1991) took Cannes and the world by storm in 1991—despite its nonsensical plot premise and unorthodox structure, liberally mixing non-linear and parallel storylines with metaphysical postulates. I feel that it is a classic, a barn burner, a trend setter, and it is not to be missed.

Glenn A. Buttkus 2008

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Song of Chlorus


Song of Chlorus

Chloropuscle II

Since the dusky dawn
primeval,
when great tree giants
greened out the sun,
and all the forests
bristling with the sharpness
of conifer
and the softness
of deciduous mantle,
stood dense, trunk to trunk,
there have been sapian homo,
who knew exactly
where to find
the sky.

The tiniest of children who
were wrenched into this plane
already knowing
about God
and wood magic, are
watching with toddler’s eyes, as
people prowl
in parks putting
things alive
and green
into their pie holes.

I am telling you
that huge winged birds,
hairless rodents,
wild and domestic,
have memories
of it, the tingle
and the taste
of green
shoots, moss, leaves,
grass and flower stems.

Nature does not bleed.
It’s essence is not red,
it’s green;
and so is
life;
all green,
if you look
unblinkingly
as you chew a leaf,
sucking the pulp
out of it
like a vegenimal
cannibal,
like a combine
with ears.

Somewhere near
even the sky
can be green,
with electric emerald
sunsets,
slick, textured, scaly,
like those cousin reptiles
who journeyed far
from the dankest depths
of a grayish-green sea,
who tired of
the swimming
and the darkness;
who squirmed up proud
on the land,
struggling to stand
erect and claiming
the whole planet
for themselves,
and many others
who would soon follow.

Green too
is the life between life,
and the life
after death,
with hard data already extant
as tarter on teeth,
mold on sun-bleached bones,
fungus on driftwood;
and the beauty
of rot
as flesh and wood decompose
and make their way
home;
past the expressway
of magma,
all the way to
the earth’s centerfold,
that verdant steaming
womb.

The girl
with the green eyes
smiles from the green poster,
instructing us
to think green,
to live green,
to breathe green;
and we do,
or try to.

Rebirth, children,
that is our reward
when we partner up
with our loving planet.

But in the meantime
try not to forget
as you are traveling
up another yellow brick road,
pounding your feet in Pumas
until the blood gushes
from beneath the toenails,
that you certainly can
and probably should
leap off that infinite stretch
of noway
that goes nowhere
in no time,
in real time,
and lie
peacefully in the green
fields of wildflowers and clover;
heart full to bursting
with green fire;
arms wide open
to a sun of grass.

Yes,
just let the legions
tramp by,
with their silver armor
clanking,
and their lethal pilum
held high,
for even the sweet ladybug
on your chin
knows that
hell and war
are not green.

Glenn A. Buttkus February 2008

Dance of the Sky Cadet


Alex took some pics of the lunar eclipse the other night, and shared them on her website, NOTES FROM THE KELP. The photos was far from clear, and this tickled her, so that she scanned one in regardless, and then laughed at the results. The whole affair was laced with such delicious levity that it conjured up some silly poetry in me.

DANCE OF THE SKY CADET

Wine and caffeine,
jazz and open air;
pointing my hungry lens
who knows where.

Hey,
there was another ecclipse
in Kelpville,
and I shot it,
shaky
and Paul Klee-like;
something unique,
amorphus and expressionistic,
with Regulus blue
for a hat,
and Saturn yellow
for a spat.

For right there
in the SJ secret
garden,
Charles presented
a warm platform
of kopf
for my Konica.

I clung to him
like chilled ivy,
wrapping
my loose apendages
around his
crooks and crannies
for support;
creating something
clothed yet
part Cirque
part Sutra.

I clicked my way
into infamy;
creating
an icon
for the ages,
or just a curiousity
so very rare,
no one shall encounter
its like again–
and so we say
our hosannas
and enjoy
the view.

Glenn Buttkus 2008

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Dream Vista


Dream Vista

On a clear day
you CAN see
forever,
almost.

To balance
that lovely view
of the Olympics
in my last post,
here’s another gift:
the Cascades,
directly to the east
framing
Lopez, Decatur, and Blakely islands.

I gaze
at this sight
and a sense of
absolute serenity
overtakes me.
I have no idea
why.

There is something
about the combination
of wind-whipped waters,
tree-blanketed islands,
and snow-covered mountains
that just makes everything
instantly wonderful.

Add
an 11,000 foot volcano
like Mt. Baker
to the mix,
and wow—
what a sight.

Alex Shapiro 2008.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Olympic Towers


Olympic Towers

Standing
At South Beach;
no,
not the one
in Miami—
this is what
you see
looming over
endless piles of driftwood
when you turn
your head
to the left.

Oh, having
a zoom lens
on your camera
helps,
too.

I could stay here
all day
and try to capture
the parade of colors
that bounce off this
snow-draped
mountain range.

The palette shifts
depending
on the slant
of the sea
and the mood
of the clouds.

Light
is a paintbrush
and this
is visual music.

Alex Shapiro 2008

The Mighty Chehalis


The Mighty Chehalis


On our way back
from the coast,
we took the road
out of Raymond
to I-5 at Centralia.
This road follows
the route
of the Chehalis river.

We had planned on
stopping at a park
(can't remember the name)
to stretch legs and use
the facilities.

The park,
being across the river
from the road,
is (used to be)
accessed
by a nice solid bridge
steel beamed
and cable anchored.

Gone.
The hefty granite
and masonry anchors shattered,
steel beams bent
and the whole thing
gone.

You remember
when I-5 was closed
due to flooding?
This was the river
that did it.

Ripped out trees,
fields knee deep in mud.
Farmers with 'dozers
and back hoes digging
out their driveways.

I hope
for their sake
that the free delivery
was good rich topsoil.
Floods and farmers
usually have
a good relationship.

Doug Palmer 2008

Friday, February 15, 2008

Fate's Elbow


SLIDING DOORS (1998)

FATE’S ELBOW

Director Peter Howitt had been a professional actor for over 15 years when he wrote the script for SLIDING DOORS (1998), and it became his directorial debut. I think he understood the creative debt he owed writer/director Krzysztof Kieslowski for the “concepts” put forth in his films BLIND CHANCE (1987), and THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE (1991). In BLIND CHANCE we found three parallel story lines having to do with catching, or not catching a train. Ironically, German director Tom Tykwer’s RUN, LOLA, RUN (1998) was being developed and filmed simultaneously with Howitt’s project. LOLA had three story lines all kicked off by arbitrary actions. So all together now—let’s have a tip of the director’s beret to Kieslowski.

In his biography, KIESLOWSKI ON KIESLOWSKI, the director described his attraction to the metaphysical concept this way, “The idea is rich and interesting—that every day we are faced with a choice which could end our entire life, yet of which we are completely unaware of.”

Peter Howitt said, “I got bored with acting. Dressing up pretending to be someone else seemed like a really silly thing to do. But I did like telling stories, so I thought I would have a go at doing it from the other side of the camera. I never thought that it would work out, but it did. I was very lucky that I was able to make the transition. I’m sure that there must be lots of people who would like the chance to do one, and don’t get to do either. I’m just a jammy git.”

Howitt as an actor made 27 film appearances from 1982. He was featured in IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER (1993), where he met actor John Lynch, whom he used later in SLIDING DOORS. Howitt had a role in the TV series HIGHLANDER (1993). He was also in SOME MOTHER’S SON (1996), again with John Lynch. He appeared as the “Cheeky Bloke” in SLIDING DOORS because suddenly while filming he realized had not cast the part. Since DOORS in 1998), he has directed six films, like JOHNNY ENGLISH (2003), with Rowan Atkinson, and LAWS OF ATTRACTION (2004), with Pierce Brosnan; who by the way had also worked with John Lynch in EVELYN (2003). What a small and tight little world the business of filmmaking can be.

The plot of SLIDING DOORS sets into motion a metaphysical maze. Helen Quilley (Gwyneth Paltrow) has been “sacked” from her male dominated PR job.

Helen: OK, I’ll go. I was getting a bit choked up with all the testosterone flying around the place. Best I get out of here before I start growing a penis.

The book Helen spills tea on during the credits as she readies to leave for work, and reads later is TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD by Harper Lee.

Heading home early she uses the underground. Rushing along we see her miss the train—but then zip-zap the film backs up like a one-reel silent comedy, and then we see her catch the subway. From this point on we start experiencing two parallel story lines with Helen both sitting on the train, and standing forlorn on the platform as the train pulls away.

Mick LaSalle of the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE wrote, “Writer-director Peter Howitt, in his film debut, handles the disparate strains with impressive smoothness. There is no sense of starting and stopping. We see two stories, but it feels as though we’re seeing one, and the audience is never lost. No doubt this seeming effortlessness was hard-won. Movies this smooth don’t happen by accident.”

James Berardinelli of REEL VIEWS wrote, “SLIDING DOORS is the first romantic comedy to plumb the depths of the “road not taken” approach. It is not just a plot device either. Writer/Director Peter Howitt expands upon both possible fates of a character after she just misses/catches a train. The audience watches, with ever-growing fascination, how this one event impacts upon every aspect of her life, her future career, where she lives, whom she loves, and whether she has a family. As her separate destinies diverge and then re-converge, she becomes two completely different individuals.
This is the first feature film for Peter Howitt, and he approaches the task with unimpeachable aplomb. The script is shrewd and inventive, combining wit, romance, and intelligent melodrama into a crowd pleasing whole. SLIDING DOORS grants more than a good time at the movies, however. For those who are so inclined, its central theme offers the opportunity to ponder some of the more philosophical questions about the workings of the universe—all while having a good time.”

Roger Ebert of THE CHICAGO SUN TIMES wrote, “ SLIDING DOORS uses parallel time-lines to explore the different paths that a woman’s life might take after she does, or doesn’t find her lover in bed with another woman. I submit that there is a simple test to determine if this plot can work. Is either time-line interesting in itself? If not, then no amount of shifting back and forth between them can help. And I fear they are not.”

Tod MCarthy of VARIETY wrote, “SLIDING DOORS is a frothy, lightweight romantic comedy that strives to seem richer and more complex than it really is. Peter Howitt, a British actor making his directorial debut, has whipped up a concoction with enough quick wit and charm to make this a sure fire audience pleaser for the dating crowd and couples, and it serves as a solid star vehicle for Gwyneth Paltrow. Howitt proves himself a good writer of glib, bubbly dialogue, and the frequency of yocks is sufficient to keep most viewers happy. But his direction shows nothing but by-the-numbers coverage, resulting in routine editing of scenes, and little sense of overall shaping.”

Helen A., who caught the train, arrived at her flat hoping to get some emotional comfort from her live-in boyfriend, Gerry (John Lynch)—who is being supported by her as he writes his first novel. But she does not find a loving and caring ear for her tale of vocational woe—rather she finds Gerry “shagging” a strange woman; who turns out to be named Lydia (Jeanne Tripplehorn). Outraged, Helen A. left the “wanker” standing naked, wrapped in a damp blanket.

Helen: I come home and catch you up to your nuts in Lady Shagging Godiva! You wanker—you sad, sad wanker.

She headed straight for a pub and she proceeded to get “drunk as a monkey”—where she is reunited with a chance acquaintance, James (John Hannah).

(Helen A. tells James her boyfriend is cheating on her)
James: Well, if it makes you feel any better…do you see that bloke over there?
(points to his friend at the end of the bar)
James: Not only does he own a personalized matching set of crocodile-skin luggage, but his favorite TV program is BAYWATCH. So you see there’s always someone sadder than you.
(Helen starts to cry)
James: Do you love him?
Helen: No, I could never love a Baywatch fan.

Helen’s best friend, Anna (Zara Turner) shows up at the pub.
Anna: Are you OK?
Helen: Yes, just going quietly mad.
Anna: Thank goodness for that. I was worried.
(later when on her feet, and obviously very inebriated)
Helen: I’m not as drunk as thinkle peep I am.
Anna: Put a wick in her mouth and she’d burn for a fortnight.

Zara Turner gave us an Anna that was the perfect “best friend”, loyal, witty, caring, open-armed, compassionate, level-headed, and willing to take on all comers to defend Helen; in short again the kind of woman, or female sidekick and friend we meet in romantic comedy films, but rarely bump into in the harshness and mundane wilderness of our regular ruts.

(Speaking about Gerry)
Helen A.: Bollocks to him. I’m over him.
Anna: (skeptically) Oh. You’re over him.
Helen: Yes. Totally and utterly and completely over him.
Anna: No you’re not.
Helen: I am.
Anna: You’re not.
Helen: Anna, I’m over him! What do you mean, I’m not? How do you know I’m not?
Anna: Well, two things really. One, you’re still counting how long you’ve been apart in days—and probably in hours and minutes—but the big flashing red light way of telling you’re not over someone is when you’re still reading their horoscope in the hope that they’re going to get wiped out in some freak napalming incident.
Helen: Smartass!
(Tossing the newspaper at Anna)
Anna: (Open the paper) What is he?
Helen: A wanker.
(pause)
Helen: Oh, Aries.
Anna: Aries, Aries…well, just shows you how much I know. (reads on) “With Mars your ruler in ascendancy, you will get wiped out in a freak napalming incident and Helen says bollocks to you.” This guy’s very good.

When James and Helen A. first met on the subway/tube/train, James talks about the Beatles. A little later in the film as Helen A. and Anna get into the taxi held for them by James they instruct the driver to take them to 9 Menlove Ave., which was the childhood home of John Lennon.

James: Everybody’s born knowing all the Beatle’s lyrics instinctively. They’re passed into the fetus subconsciously along with all the amniotic stuff. Fact, they should be called “The Fetals”.

Helen A. moves in with her best friend, Anna (Zara Turner), cuts and dyes her hair blond. Soon her life becomes enriched with her new and wonderful “independence”.

James: Haircut suits you, by the way.
(Helen demurs)
James: No, it does, it does! No gag. Never make a joke about a woman’s hair, clothes, or menstrual cycles—page one.

James: Cheer up. Remember what THE MONTY PYTHON boys say.
Helen: “Always look on the bright side of life”?
James: No. “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.”

John Hannah gave us a James Hemmerton who was funny, self-deprecating, cute, loveable, honest—sort of, and a gentleman; in short almost too good to be true, one of those characters you meet in romantic comedies that you never meet in the real world. Regardless, Hannah did a very credible job with this likeable bloke. Another actor might have made him too bland, too vanilla—but Hannah gives him superb energy, verve, and excellent coming timing; although his Scottish accent was at times a bit thick.

James: What are you doing two weeks on Saturday?
Helen: Probably killing myself.
James: Excellent. What time does that finish? Do you like boats?
Helen: I’m not—I’m not good at—at, you know…
James: Constructing sentences?

On one of their first dates at the Soda Fountain:
James: Come on! If you don’t drink your fatty drinks, you will never achieve quality cellulite.
Helen: Look, James. Maybe I shouldn’t be here. I’m sorry. I’m not being fair. You know, under normal circumstances, etcetera—you are really nice—and funny. My friend Anna thinks you’re cute…
James: Wait, wait! Your friend Anna thinks I’m cute? Your friend ANNA thinks I’m cute? Shit, I just blew it—wait (looks at the menu)—two eighty-five on the wrong girl!

Oddly while Helen and James are sitting in the diner, they are drinking distinctively “pink” milkshakes. As the shot cuts back and forth the milkshakes disappear and reappear; magical milk I guess. In the next scene James refers to them as “chocolate” shakes, which was odd. I have never seen pink chocolate milk. As a film buff this scene puts me in mind of the scene in SHALLOW HAL (2001), where Ms. Paltrow wearing a fat suit is swilling a milk shake the size of a gallon bucket at a fountain with Jack Black.

Todd McCarthy wrote, “John Hannah makes James impossibly charming and tactful, and one can almost her Hugh Grant delivering the same pithy lines.” Gee, is this a compliment or a slam?

John Hannah has had 50 film appearances since 1987. He is perhaps best known for playing the gay character Matthew in FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL (1994), with Hugh Grant, and the odd fellow Jonathan Carnahan who showed up in THE MUMMY (1999), with Brendan Fraser, repeated the role in THE MUMMY RETURNS (2001), and presently is putting some finishing touches on THE MUMMY III: Tomb of the Dragon Emporer (2008). I remember him as well in the HBO series CARNIVALE (2003). I read where he was “considered” for the part of Charlie on the TV series LOST. He is a graduate of the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama in Glasgow.

Helen B., who missed the train, is nearly mugged while hailing a taxi, and has to be taken to the emergency room to get some stitches in her forehead. She arrived at her apartment mere moments after Lydia had exited. Gerry was able to bluster his way through a miasma of lies regarding his activities of the morning, and she decided to believe him.

Helen: For God’s sake, Gerry, I asked you a simple question; there is no need for you to become Woody Allen.

But as the months went on, and she worked two jobs to support him, Gerry continued to cheat on her with Lydia. Finally fatigued waiting for him to leave Helen B., Lydia decided to intervene in their domestic life, demonstrating what a wicked and controlling vixen she really was. There was also the complication of pregnancy in both plot lines—Helen A. by James, and both Helen B. and Lydia by Gerry.

(Helen A. walks into the room holding a pregnancy test)
Anna: James?
(Helen nods)
Anna: Since last night?
(Helen stares)
Anna: Sorry.
(pause)
Anna: You can’t tell from one. They can be inaccurate.
Helen: I bought three packets—two in a packet. You can tell from six.

Jeanne Tripplehorn gave us a Lydia that was all bitch and pitch, rock and roll, an egocentric type that after being gone from England for three years has looked Gerry up and proceeded to seduce him, and is trying her level best to take him away from his Helen. It is a very unsympathetic role, and though she gets a lot of mileage out of it, she does not emerge as “likeable” at any point. She never gives us that moment we need to care about her, is never really vulnerable, and is always manipulative and controlling.

James Berardinelli wrote, “Only Jeanne Tripplehorn, who plays the over-the-top vixen, seems out of place. Her attempts at broad comedy are occasionally jarring, and it is occasionally difficult to see her Lydia as anything more than a plot element.”

Lydia: (on the phone) Who’s there?
Helen: It’s Helen, actually. We met once. I interrupted you faking your orgasm. Sorry I can’t be more specific.

Lydia: Gerry, I’m a woman! We don’t say what we WANT! But we reserve the right to get pissed off if we don’t get it. That’s what makes us so fascinating! And not a little bit scary.

FATAL ATTRACTION (1987) anyone?

While at their hotel room in Dorset:
Gerry: What are you trying to do?
Lydia: I’m trying to be your girlfriend, Gerry! I’m trying to win you back! I’m standing on the platform of Limbo Central with my heart and soul packed in my suitcase waiting for the Gerry Fucking Express to roll in and tell me what my ticket is still valid and that I may reboard the train. Only the station announcer keeps coming on and telling me that my train has been delayed as the driver has suffered a major panic attack in Indecision City. “We suggest you take the bus”! That’s what I have been trying to do, you cripple!!

Todd McCarthy wrote, “Lydia is played by Jeanne Tripplehorn as a monstrous shrew without a single redeeming feature that might explain her sustained appeal to Gerry [Perhaps her voluptuous figure had something to do with it]. Tripplehorn is even photographed grotesquely at times, as if the film needed to further underline her unrestrained bitchiness.”

Jeanne Tripplehorn has been in 30 films since 1991. Her career was launched with her role in BASIC INSTINCT (1992), doing a torrid love scene with Michael Douglas—when he wasn’t doing torrid love scenes with Sharon Stone, then she was in THE FIRM (1993), with Tom Cruise, WATERWORLD (1995), with a buff Kevin Costner and a nefarious Dennis Hopper, a great part in the TV film OLD MAN (1997), with Arliss Howard, and then MICKEY BLUE EYES (1999), with Hugh Grant. Lately she has been successful playing one of the Mormon wives on HBO’s BIG LOVE, with Bill Paxton. She attended Juliard in NYC. She had a relationship with Ben Stiller that lasted 6 years.
She had been cast as the female lead in FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL (1994), but had to drop out, and the part went to Andie McDowell. She had been cast in PULP FICTION (1998), but after some “complications”, the role went to Uma Thurman.

In the plot line for Helen B., boyfriend Gerry meets with his mate, Russell (Douglas McFerran) a favorite pub, and whines about his difficulties trying to balance his two relationships, Helen B. and Lydia. McFerran’s Russell steals every scene, he is enjoying Gerry’s plight so much.

Russell: Do you want my opinion?
Gerry: Will I like it?
Russell: Of course not—it’ll be based in reality.

Russell: I must say, being friends with you certainly makes the wait for the next episode of SEINFELD much easier to bear.

Russell: Gerry, you are a morality-free zone. Sorry, let me just—Lydia’s becoming more and more demanding and you feel bad because Helen’s working night and day to keep the money coming in. But you have asked Helen to come on a research trip to Dorset with you—knowing that she wouldn’t be able to—to cover up the fact that you are really taking Lydia. And despite the fact that Lydia gave you an out on the phone—which you didn’t take—you are having a moral dilemma?

James Berardinelli wrote, “One member of the supporting cast deserves special notice—Douglas McFerran, who plays Gerry’s best friend, Russell, is an absolute delight, stealing every scene that he is in. McFerran tears into this part with relish; his performance becomes one of the most memorable aspects of a top-notch comedy.”

During one of these encounters in the pub when Gerry tells Russell that he has ended the relationship with Lydia, after returning from Dorset, he entered the pub and sat down without buying a drink—then finishes off a nearly empty pint glass and leaves.

Both story lines proceed toward a tragic denouement. Then miraculously we witness the threads of one life cross over to the other. Perhaps there could have been more of that in this movie. Kieslowski would have allowed more synchronicity to be at work, more instinctual intuitive transfers, and more coincidence. Sometimes director Howitt became so frantic showing us the parallel plots that it became a bit confusing as to which “dimension” we were immersed in. Perhaps that is why he had Helen A. dye her hair blond, to ratchet down the possible confusion.

Mick LaSalle wrote, “But there isn’t enough of that sort of thing going on. The two version of her don’t diverge enough, and neither do the circumstances, really--despite the metaphysical hugeness of the gimmick. SLIDING DOORS does not go anywhere important. It is not concerned with soul of character—but more with what boyfriend the heroine will end up with. I can give the movie credit for being a different sort of romantic comedy, but still one has to regret the failure of imagination. Who would these women have been in 10 years, in 20 years? That’s the juicy stuff, not the fluff about boyfriends and infidelity.”

During one of the hospital scenes, when Helen A. is in surgery, the lead surgeon has several shots wearing a mask, and some more in which he wears no mask, while he is operating on her.

Jerry Lynch gave us a Gerry that really was a selfish butt, a man who listened to his second head before paying attention to his thoughts about it. Yet, somehow, he made this character a tiny bit likeable, especially in the end of both scenarios as he realized what an idiot he had really been; but he did not emerge as a tragic character. He has nice comic timing, and what man has not spent some time stammering a lame excuse to his lady?

Gerry: (looking in the mirror as Helen B. has passed out on the bed) Are you some peculiar, thus far undefined breed of dickhead? You have two head problems. One, that was close, very close. Put it in layman’s terms, she nearly caught you. Two, and this is far more worrying than the first one—you’re talking to yourself I the mirror again; really bad sign.

Mick LaSalle wrote, “Lynch is an actor best known in this country for his roles in the dour Irish dramas, NOTHING PERSONAL and IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER. Lynch shows us a comic aptness as a man who seems destined to blow it with Paltrow in both hairstyles and incarnations.”

Lynch has appeared in 43 films since 1984, movies like EDWARD II (1991), THE SECRET GARDEN (1993), IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER (1993), with Daniel Day-Lewis, PRINCESS CARABOO (1994), with Kevin Kline, MOLL FLANDERS (1996), with Morgan Freeman, EVELYN (2002), with Pierce Brosnan, and LASSIE (2005). He is a graduate of the Central School of Speech and Drama in London.


Somehow Gwyneth Paltrow was fully able to develop “both” Helens into individual characterizations, Helen A. becoming stronger and more independent, and Helen B. becoming more other directed and gullible. Paltrow’s English accent sounded very authentic. This was the first time she attempted that Brit accent, for EMMA (1996), her Oscar for SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (1998), and her role in POSSESSION (2002) were still projects for her future. In DOORS she reminded me of a young Audrey Hepburn—slim, sexy, and vulnerable.

Patron in the Restaurant: Hey, gorgeous. What do you do when you are not serving us mad cow burgers in here, eh?
Helen: Well, now, then, let me see. I get up at about 7:30am making and delivering sandwiches in the West End during the day before I come here about 6 o’clock and finish at midnight. After that, if I’ve got any energy left, I give my boyfriend a blow job.
(pause)
Helen: Would you like some mayonnaise with that?

Mick LaSalle wrote, “Paltrow is charming, as usual, and there are moments when she manages to suggest, with no help from the script, that circumstances are causing the women’s personalities to diverge. In her brunette incarnation [Helen B.], she remains open and guileless, while her blond self [Helen A.] becomes more urbane, and smiles in that Paltrow way—a disconcerting mix of warmth and mockery, as though to say, “Thank you so much for amusing me, you fool.”

James Berardinelli wrote, “Paltrow, who does double duty as both Helens who are initially the same, yet gradually become different, is the standout. She plays both of her roles effectively and believably—the shy, insecure woman who stays with Gerry, and the liberated platinum-blond who severs the ties to her old life and embarks on a new career with a new man.”

Roger Ebert wrote, “Gwyneth Paltrow is engaging as the two Helens, and I have no complaints about her performance. Pity about the screenplay. It required her to be unobservant, gullible and absent-minded as the faithless Gerry hems and haws through absurdly contrived emergencies. I am grateful that the movie provides Helen A. and Helen B. with different haircuts, which helps to tell the story lines apart. But as we switched relentlessly back and forth between A and B, I found that I was not looking forward to either story. I would have preferred Hypothetical Scenario C, in which Gwyneth Paltrow meets neither James nor Gerry, and stars in a smarter movie.”

Todd McCarthy of VARIETY wrote, “The entire picture is built around Paltrow, who sports a reasonable English accent and very nearly shines as a young career woman caught up short by professional and personal setbacks.”

Paltrow has appeared in 38 films since 1981, movies like HOOK (1991), with Robin Williams, FLESH & BONE (1993), with James Caan, JEFFERSON IN PARIS (1995), with Nick Nolte, SE7EN (1995), with Brad Pitt, EMMA (1996), GREAT EXPECTATIONS (1998), with Anne Bancroft, winning her Oscar for SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (1998), with Ben Affleck, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY (1999), with Matt Damon, THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (2001), with Owen Wilson, POSSESSION (2002), with Aaron Eckhart, and PROOF (2005), with Anthony Hopkins.

Her parents are Bruce Paltrow and Blythe Danner. She appeared with her father in the film, DUETS (2000). Her nickname to her friends is “Gwynnie”. She is quite the linguist who speaks fluent French and Spanish. She lived with Brad Pitt after they appeared together in SEVEN in 1996. They broke up in 1997. He was involved with Ben Affleck after they appeared together in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (1998), and BOUNCE (2000). She had auditioned for the part of Rose in TITANIC (1997), losing out to Kate Winslet. She is happily married to musician Chris Martin from the band COLDPLAY.
SLIDING DOORS was very enjoyable, vintage Paltrow. She actually lives in London now with her musician husband and two children. She can smile when she reads about herself being referred to as “that English actress who used to be engaged to Brad Pitt.”

James Berardinelli wrote, “On one level, for viewers who enjoy pondering the workings of fate, SLIDING DOORS can be viewed as a deep and wonderful experience. But for those who just appreciate a good romantic comedy characterized by solid acting, a script with a few twists, and a great deal of genuinely funny material, SLIDING DOORS still fits the bill. So one of its most obvious strengths is that it can satisfy many different types of audiences—those who demand something substantial from their motion pictures, and those who could care less.”

Todd McCarthy wrote for VARIETY, “If Howitt the director has acquitted himself nearly as well as did Howitt the writer, the result might well have been that rare commodity, a genuinely droll and sparkling modern romance. But the pic’s flat conventional style and the almost grotesque direction of the principal supporting players represent significant drawbacks that prove only more debilitating as the story’s crisscrossed predicaments become increasingly complicated.”

Now what a second, pard, I know you write for Variety and all that, and you speak to the BO grosses and salability of films, but obviously most of us disagree with you regarding the handling of the supporting characters, especially Russell and Anna, the best friends. They are both solidly acted, and provide great support for the two time-lines.

I think that director Peter Howitt has constructed a witty and fun romp that played around with metaphysical quantum physics, and never took itself too seriously. The writing was clever enough to remember many lines for weeks, and there were more than a average share of laughs. I do think it might have been a stronger film, a more intriguing film if he had let more transfer happen between the plot lines, subtle and inconsequential things that would have set up some motifs and symbols that we as viewers could have worked more with. I fell in love with Gwyneth Paltrow as Helen A., and felt appropriately sad for Helen B. I disliked Gerry and cheered on James. The two best friends, Russell and Anna, were marvelously cast, and wryly portrayed; stealing scene after scene.

Glenn A. Buttkus 2008

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Sink the Boat


SINK THE BOAT

When you consider
that the only truly
fresh and provocative music
of the 20th century
was created by guys
in a garage
with electric guitars,
maybe it is time
to abandon academia
altogether;
forget gigantic
publishing companies
and ossified
“classical”
thinking.

Forget music
that was.
Music
is life.
Don’t watch
someone else’s—
live
your own!

Doug Palmer February 2008

Monday, February 11, 2008

Without You


Without You

Piano speaks,
sax responds;
fingers dance
on divers
keys,
talking
in tongues and sign,
as the drummer finds
the heartbeat,
keeping the body
on its feet;

As dark waves crest,
high, harsh, and proud,
pushed
by brother wind,
kissed
by sister gray
skies;
there
near your home,
at it, within it, around it,
all of it
touching the sea
in every parameter;
creativity
that starts in trees
and stops in sand;
like a hundred miles
of beach belt,
holding up, bracing
the island;
keeping it
from sliding back
into the slippery salt
from whence
it came.

But certainly you know,
probably you understand,
that without you
we cannot find
the other shoe;
without you
we don’t know
what to do;
without you
the sky was never
blue,
not even once.

So
welcome back,
song lady.
For we missed your
guidance,
and counsel,
and your
eyes,
and your
heart.

Glenn Buttkus 2008

Friday, February 8, 2008

Without Borders


Without Borders

I am back
from a few days
of work and play
in Los Angeles.

It was a wonderful trip,
filled
with terrific friends
and experiences,
but still
I was relieved
to be home
on the Salish Sea;
the historical common name
for the watery
geologically gem-laden
environment
spawning the archipelago
that drizzles itself
across the U.S.
and lower B.C.

I am beginning
to wonder
if any stray parts
of me
might have lived
here
in a previous existence.

What was I?
Human?
Bald eagle?
Sea slug?

From the very day
I moved here,
it has felt oddly
as though this has been
home
to me
for many years.

As close to
Los Angeles
as I had become
in twenty-four
action-packed years—
not a pang
held my heart
for even a moment
upon my return
to that city.

And yet each time
my ferry
or light plane
lands
on San Juan Island—
the pang arrives
in the form
or joy
and comfort.

Two days before
I left for California,
I had ferried
to and from British Columbia’s
Salt Spring Island;
a neighbor
to the northwest
just across the border—
and the reason
I ended up living on
San Juan Island.

The day was cool
and foggy,
and presented
a fresh planet of visuals
to me
as I crossed
from one side
of the boundary waters
to the other.

Obscured
by a haunting marine layer
and coyly lit
by flecks of sunlight,
the islands
and the sea
were simultaneously
new and familiar;
just like
my life here.

Staring out
across a random border,
I wondered whether
this lone sailor
might have had similar
thoughts
as his vessel passed
effortlessly between
two worlds.

Alex Shapiro July 2007

Lunista Occludus


Lunista Occludus

As I type this
At 2:15 am
early Tuesday,
a black and white
phenomenon
is occurring
directly in front of my eyes:
a total lunar eclipse.

How is it
That this event—
not that uncommon,
is always
so fascinating?

To my delight,
the moon has risen
right in front
of my desk window.

With one eye
on the keyboard
and the other
to the sky,
I am marveling
as a larger and larger
bite
gets taken out
of this formerly electric
full moon,
causing
the surrounding woods
to dim
dramatically.

Opening my door
and stepping into
the forest
that shrouds my studio,
I realize
that it is the first time
I’ve been in such
a relatively isolated natural environment
while experiencing
this sight.

It deeply struck me
just how frightening
these inexplicable
skyward events were
to our ancestors,
whose lives were tethered
to the rise and fall
of the sun and moon.

Watching
an unidentifiable mass
of dark gray
begin to swallow
up the rock
above your head,
that which you have always
depended upon,
must have been
very scary.

Watching it
consume that orb
and then turn it
copper red
must have been nearly
terrifying.

Oh, the relief
they must have felt
in an hour
or so,
as the world
they knew
was returned to them.

Alex Shapiro August 2007

Rockbird, Cool Cello


I was cruising through the kelp on Alex Shapiro's blogsite, and I came across one special day for her, October 17, 2007. She just had a CD release [perhaps NOTES FROM THE KELP], and she was readying herself for a whirlwind week of activity on both coasts. As a hopeless poet myself, I continue to find poetry in her prose. To my surprise and chagrin, I also found that I am only one of "many" poets who has flocked to the Shapiro bandwagon. I thought that by giving her the gift of my poetic meanderings, I was doing something unique. Now I feel like the high schooler that finally gets up the courage to ask the cheer leader out, and find out that she has had several other offers for Saturday. No, actually, I am excited to be a new Kelphisto, and I will continue to find the rythmns and rhyme within her musings and prose.

The following came off her site:

I have no idea what kind of music this is.

I’ll be off the rock and off-island, as it’s called here, for the next week as I do business in Los Angeles and New York. Between the CD release today, the various events I’m speaking at and two new commissions that just rolled in, it’s an active time. Never too active to blog, but despite having a laptop in tow on the trip, I never quite know whether the technology will cooperate. Meanwhile, I have the bloginatrix decency to leave you with this soothing image from the shore that laps near this house. I very much look forward to being home again amidst this calm next week.

I noticed that Billboard has listed my new album under the category of rock. And a radio show in the midwest aired a track from it on their jazz program. And tomorrow I’ll be live in L.A. on a classical show. Frankly, I’m delighted with the lack of clarity here, although a few people might be scratching their heads when they take the new pup out for a spin if they expect the disc to adhere to one of these genres for very long. Categorization is the antithesis of listening openly, and I’m so pleased that I’ve stumped the judges with a collection of pieces for small ensembles, which pretty much describes most rock bands, jazz combos and chamber ensembles I know. Rock on.

poeticjustice said,
October 30, 2007 @ 5:55 pm

Hi, Alex! It’s been a while since I’ve visited your site, and I can’t tell you how pleased I am to see your good fortune, as displayed on your main site! You’ve quite a number of successful endeavors worthy of the accolades being showered on you like confetti raining from the sky. Congratulations!

How wonderful it is that your work defies categorization! Being listed under a number of music genres can only guarantee more listeners and exposure. It also allows you a fair amount of experimentation, if you choose to do so. *smile*

Although your specialty is in music and mine is in words, I’d like to provide a link to your blog for my readers, if it’s alright with you. I’d like to leave you with another poem, as our love for the sea is mutual:

Felician Fingers Strum

I watch the night settle over me
with the gentleness of a sleeping baby
at its mother’s breast,
and wonder where you are
and wonder where you are..

Somewhere on the distant shore -
Felician fingers strum a melody
the waves seem to carry out to Sea,
and wonder where you are.

Don’t tell me you’ve never held the hand
of love - for just one moment -
as love has been your companion
for years untold,
and wonder where you are.

Felician fingers strum our song
of Love and simple Truth -
to ride the winds and search afar,
and wonder where you are -
and wonder where you are..

Copyright © Janet Leigh

Alex Shapiro said,
October 31, 2007 @ 1:03 am

Hi Janet, thanks so much for your gift of this poem! Lovely, lovely. And thanks for your supportive message! It’s been a fun and busy time.

Peace and magic to you,
Alex

[Of course I can't but wonder if this particular poet is "the" Janet Leigh, the actress, who might have been a neighbor of Alex's while she lived in Malibu?]

And now it is my pleasure to present to you, the throbbing masses, the "hidden" poem within this particular piece of Shapiro prose:

Rockbird, Cool Cello

I noticed
that Billboard
had listed my new album
under the catagory
of rock.

And a radio show
in the Midwest
aired a track
from it
on their jazz program.

And tomorrow
I will be live in L.A.
on a classical show.

Frankly,
I am delighted
with the lack of clarity
here.

Although a few people
might be scratching
their heads
when they take
the new pup
out for a spin,
if they expect
the disc to adhere
to one of these genres
for very long.

Categorization
is the antithesis
of listening
openly--
and I am so pleased
that I have stumped
the judges
with a collection of pieces
for small ensembles;
which pretty much describes
most rock bands,
jazz combos,
and chamber ensembles
I know.

Rock on.

Alex Shapiro October 2007

Rock on indeed, Ms. Shapiro, rock on indeed.

Glenn