A Brief History of Gouda

In which I consider a career change

One of my more bizarre priorities in this pandemic-induced wilderness has been maintaining access to good cheese. Don’t roll your eyes at me, it’s a legitimate concern. (Difficult enough in non-troubled times, if you ask me.) Anyway, I did recently happen upon some quality Gouda—tangy but mild, probably pretty young—and I decided to do a bit of research into it. Over the course of my adult life I’ve sort of accidentally accumulated knowledge on the history and practice of cheesemaking, so I thought why not give it an intentional go this time.

But I absolutely had no idea what I was in for with Gouda.

It is a cow’s-milk cheese hailing from the Netherlands and taking its name from a Dutch city; technically the g is pronounced like a guttural h (think the h in ‘human’; the same goes for van Gogh, but I doubt native English speakers are ever going to come around to either). Written records of it first appeared in 1184, in the Geschichte des Käses, or ‘Book of Cheeses’—because, of course, ‘Dutch’ is only a corrupted form of ‘deutsch,’ or German. (For the record, I translated that easily, thanks to my growing German vocabulary. Enough about me.) This makes it one of the oldest known and named cheeses still produced today.

Likely due to that elevated historical status, certain aspects of its production are protected by regional law, as well as by a Protected Geographical Indication from the EU. (And, I suspect, by the memories of women; cheesemaking was originally a task imposed on women, ergo a female-dominated industry. What a power behind the throne we turned out to be.) Although a lot of Gouda, like a lot of other cheeses, is made industrially by now, there remains in the Netherlands a group of about three hundred farmers designated to continue on the traditional method of making boerenkaas (‘farmers’ cheese’ in Dutch) with unpasteurized milk.

And the auxiliary traditions that accompany this process are almost unbelievable. For starters, I was basically assuming that the cheese was named for the place where it was made until I found out that Gouda, South Holland, is merely the place where it is traded. Since the Middle Ages, the city has held market rights (originally feudal rights) to more or less monopolize the sale of this particular cheese. Which means that on Thursdays from June through August, 10:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m., for centuries on end, farmers have gathered in the city to have their cheeses tested, weighed, and priced.

Who gets to do all that testing, weighing, and pricing? Is that the job I’m destined for??

(How are they going to do it this year, if people aren’t allowed to—no, don’t get ahead of yourself! You’ll freak them out! Just tell the story!)

So, on such a Thursday, the market square in Gouda would teem with farmers looking to sell their wares and customers looking to buy them, as well as ‘cheese-porters’ (yep, that’s a thing) wearing colorful straw hats and toting the cheeses in wheelbarrows to be weighed. (I was personally hoping they’d just roll the cheese wheels down the cobblestoned streets, which would look awesome, but I guess would be kind of unsanitary.) Potential buyers would then sample the cheeses and employ a system of negotiating prices by performing something called, in Dutch, handjeklap. Look like something to do with hand-clapping? That’s because it is. The buyer and seller would clap each other’s hands and yell out prices until they reached an agreement. I really hope they kept yelling until they happened to say a single figure in unison.

A whole crowd in the center of the city, high-fiving, shouting out numbers, eventually leaving with huge blocks of cheese. Can you imagine?

I’m not entirely sure any of this extra negotiation happens today, but it certainly happened once upon a time, and the current industry—at least the historically-preserved one—bears the mark of the ritual. If there’s such a thing as a heartwarming capitalist tale, this one just about hits the bullseye.

Gouda of all ages continues to be enjoyed in different ways in its native country. Relatively young Gouda is an everyday snack; once it reaches about ten months it tends to be dressed up with sugars and syrups, and after twelve months it is often consumed alongside a good beer or port wine.

If only we could respect the aging of people the way we respect the aging of cheese.

Dang, now I’m hungry.

Image: from cheesemaking.com (really!)

One Great Music Video: “Sledgehammer”

In which I get animated

A literary magazine recently sent me one of the best rejection letters I could hope for. Even if the short story in question didn’t make their cut, they did call the opening sentence ‘a sledgehammer of engagement.’ This was pretty good bad news because 1) I had done something right, and 2) I could topically console myself by watching Peter Gabriel’s “Sledgehammer” video for the billionth time.

I think it remains the music video to beat. Well, when the folks at Aardman Animations are on it, what did you expect? (The whole middle section, with the Claymation and stop-motion effects, was engineered by Nick Park—this was still a few years before he created Wallace and Gromit.) It seems to factor significantly into the song’s status as Gabriel’s biggest North American hit and his only US #1–notwithstanding the song’s own merits, and there are many.

To be frank—and this may well reflect the times we live in—I have neither the energy nor the desire to search at length for something novel and compelling to say about this video. I can’t help thinking it would be a fool’s errand anyway; exactly 34 years on, it’s perfectly novel and compelling in its own right. The guy didn’t lie under a glass sheet just to kill sixteen hours. If a picture is worth a thousand words, this is a doctoral dissertation.

So for once I’ll content myself simply by bringing this jewel to your attention, or more likely back to your attention. Let it take you on the most exciting journey you’ve had since you were last allowed to actually go somewhere. Mmmmm, fruit.

Is Hawkeye Pierce the Perfect Character?

In which I ponder the big questions in the dregs of a limited-resources martini

The past few days have sparked a debate in my home country (that is, on my home country’s social media) over just how many doctors, real or fictional, are more qualified than Dr. Phil to assess the threat posed by COVID-19. I came up with one rather quickly.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin “Hawkeye” Pierce (as portrayed by my hero Alan Alda) captured my heart three years ago when I started watching M*A*S*H, and I’ve been thinking about him ever since. Because he is fun-loving, quick-witted, and charming, yes, but not only because he is fun-loving, quick-witted, and charming. (And, um, reliable with the ladies, as I think Aaron Burr once said.)

Allow me to elaborate by detouring to another show. In 2016, for a college class, I watched David Simon’s The Wire, which tops best-TV-shows-of-all-time lists far and wide (though I can’t say I got attached to any of those characters like I did to Hawkeye, with the possible exception of Omar Little). Across five seasons, the increasingly complex plot is underpinned by the idea of “good police”: who is it, what makes it, how you can spot it. Being good police is about more than just doing your job diligently: you have to try to live a morally upright life, championing the people who have no champion, striving for justice. Conflict flares when characters differ in their definitions of these things, or when they stumble in their pursuit (see: Detective Jimmy McNulty basically all the time).

Applying this standard to M*A*S*H, I can pretty confidently classify Hawkeye as a “good doctor.” He is an excellent surgeon, approaching his work just as seriously as he approaches his play; but he also reacts with horror to the inhumanity of the situation at the base, particularly to the untenable conditions under which he and his colleagues are expected to perform. At any given moment he is either railing against the atrocities of the war (ahem, police action) or staging absurd shenanigans to take everyone’s mind off it. Essentially, he does anything but grin and bear it.

This extraordinary balancing act—devotion to his job and revulsion for the reason behind it, absorption in little joys out of a firm belief that there are in fact bigger joys—leads me to a fascinating conclusion: that Hawkeye might be the ideal fictional character. The Vitruvian man of the canon.

I’m not calling him a perfect person: if anything, his imperfections keep us grounded. Whether he’s struggling to understand people who don’t share his views (looking at you, Frank Burns) or refusing to take criticism (like that episode where Radar gets mad at him and he just sort of loses it) or blatantly disregarding authority because it’s authority (every episode ever), it’s clear that this is someone with tremendous faith in his own ability to make the best of things and, thus, someone with a problem accepting his own limitations. He doesn’t like to consider that there are forces out there which are too big for him, and so he doesn’t consider them until they blow up in his face (occasionally literally). Heck, his steady presence at the heart of the show wasn’t enough to keep it at the top of its game for eleven seasons—which, to be fair, is much longer than it probably should have lasted, and nearly four times as long as the war it depicts actually lasted.

While I have no experience defusing a bomb, nor phoning in instructions for an emergency tracheotomy in the middle of a minefield, nor cobbling together a derby by racing gurneys around the compound, I have a lot of experience ignoring, resenting, and ultimately facing my own limitations. And I get the feeling I’m not the only one. Hawkeye gives us something we can understand. He might be rebellious to a fault, hide behind his humor as a defense mechanism, and engage in the ‘lovable misogyny’ of the time, but he does the right thing when the time comes and he is a beacon of hope for anyone who sees him in action. I will never not be inspired by his litany of things he would carry before a gun—surely one of the all-time greatest pledges to nonviolence. Besides, there has to be something to a character who can hold the effects of a terrible concussion at bay by monologuing about opposable thumbs. They might be the mark of human superiority, but I think there’s one human who’s a tiny bit superior to the rest of us.

If a vaccine for this thing ever appears, I’d get a shot from him any old time.

(P.S. Strange how no episode got around to a compound-wide quarantine—there are no more than one or two individuals isolated at once. There’s also that episode where he and Margaret are trapped under fire, but that’s, uh, not quite the same thing.)

(P.P.S. Of course, you’re all entitled to your favorites. I’m just making a case here. Who knows when invented personalities will start getting awards of their own; we’re only a month into our boredom.)

Image: “I brought a book with me to the war. A dictionary. I figure it has every other book in it.”

Always hoped that I’d be an Apostle…

In which I dive down the rabbit-hole I warned you about way back when

Holy Week is one of my favorite times of year, ostensibly because it’s the high point of the Church calendar and all that, but really because it grants me total immunity to have Jesus Christ Superstar—the original 1970 concept album—on an endless loop. I’m judged less for it now than during other seasons.

(1970? It’s fifty years old this year???)

I’ve been more or less under its spell since my formal introduction about ten years ago, although I’d been a fan of the early collaboration of Sirs Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice since doing a production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat five years before that. I maintain that these two shows are the highlights of both their repertoires (Phantom fans don’t @ me), and that their later works less successfully recycle the themes explored in these two (e.g. Rice’s libretto for Aïda, which he wrote with Elton John and which I also love in its own way, so again don’t @ me).

Beyond their corpus of work, I maintain that Superstar is a pinnacle of the musical/theatrical canon. It certainly changed the rules of the game when it was recorded and subsequently given a platform on Broadway and the West End. It opened people’s minds to hearing the latest forms of popular music in the context of a staged show. It upset a bunch of conservative religious groups. And, like all art of substance, it was initially banned by the BBC.

There would be no Hamilton without it: its influence is all over, the flamboyant king being only one example. It broke barriers for dramatic expression and broke ground for musical expression. On a personal note, it may or may not have talked me back into Catholicism as a bored teenager. But that’s another story.

Many fans I know do not merely like it—they are devoted to it, they can sing it by heart. This year, with extenuating circumstances keeping me holed up all by my lonesome, I took my appreciation one step further and arranged the score, in its entirety, for ukulele. And in doing so I experienced some new and wonderful revelations about the craft of this gem, not to mention about just how damn dense it is. To think I ever thought I had it all figured out!

(I have it all figured out now. It was an exhaustive, but more importantly exhausting, venture.)

So, without any more ado, a few thoughts on the genesis, structure, and impact of one of my all-time favorite musical works.

  1. This is not a musical. No, sir. It is an opera in the purest sense of the word. I feel like I hear the term ‘rock opera’ bandied about these days more than is accurate; but this was one of the originals, and it truly embodies the form. It is sung through; there are arias, recitatives, and choruses; each principal character is represented by at least one theme. Conventions of the musical theatre as established by, say, the songwriters of Tin Pan Alley are largely absent here—its composition owes more to Verdi than to Van Heusen.
  2. Speaking of themes, it’s a fascinating study to trace them as they pass between characters. For example, Jesus introduces a theme in the section called “Poor Jerusalem,” which is immediately reprised by Pilate in his dream sequence. This marks the only time Jesus and Pilate are united musically—in the same frame of mind, as it were—because by the time they meet in person Jesus has all but stopped speaking and famously refuses to engage with Pilate. For another example, Judas’s “Strange Thing Mystifying” theme is later taken up by Peter in his denial of Jesus. The two people who let Jesus down, sharing a musical idea? What could it mean?? Similarly, the tritone-riddled theme first associated with the chief priests (tritone = diabolus in musica, historically, so as devilish as it gets), the primary antagonists, is echoed by Pilate at the beginning of the trial scene. Which strikes me as an unfair lumping-in, since Pilate really isn’t a villain—in fact he’s Jesus’ last recourse, and he goes above and beyond to try to help him. But I’ve always had tremendous sympathy and curiosity for Pilate as a historical figure. I digress. The point is I could go on about themes all day.
  3. That tritone theme goes hand in hand with a poetic device. This is something I just worked out in this year’s listen. I’m not sure which materialized first on this section, music or libretto, but the lines are arranged in rhyming couplets of iambic pentameter. As I mentioned, only three characters sing this melody. And given that those characters are Annas (“Good Caiaphas, the council waits for you / The Pharisees and priests are here for you”), Caiaphas (“Ah, gentlemen, you know why we are here / We’ve not much time, and quite a problem here”), and Pilate (“And so the king is once again my guest / And why is this? Was Herod unimpressed?”), we could be meant to link this measured, syllabic speech to their education and positions of power. Their class is symbolized by the meter of their dialogue. Dramatic characterization of the highest order.
  4. Judas’s theme. I can’t. It’s honestly phenomenal to ponder that this show has two protagonists and that the one for whom the show is named is secondary. I can’t think of any other staged story where this is the case. Aside from its indelible introduction in “Heaven On Their Minds”—a number I’ve praised before and will continue to until I’m blue in the face—it follows Judas to his own death (spoiler?) and to the sequence in which Jesus is scourged. (Almost like the memory of his betrayer is haunting him, the betrayal felt anew with every lash?) Only three notes, and the most evocative sense of dread since “Gimme Shelter.” Which was less than a year prior, but still.
  5. Every principal gets either an aria or a memorable musical segment. I’m not talking about themes here necessarily, although some do overlap. In addition to Judas’s aforementioned highlight (a thrill at the top of the show, but also a bit disappointing that it’s over so soon), there’s “I Don’t Know How to Love Him” for Mary Magdalene, “Gethsemane” for Jesus, and “Superstar” again for Judas, who first sings the melody in his altercation with Jesus at the Last Supper. Judas also gets the arcing melody quoted by the choir in the overture and by the orchestra in the coda, which is only ever set to lyrics at the instant he informs on Jesus at the end of Act I. (Are you listening to this? To the Judas go the spoils!) The Apostles get their drinking song at three points throughout the Last Supper. Then there’s the great melodic idea given to Caiaphas and Annas in “This Jesus Must Die,” which they bring back in their two encounters with Judas. There’s no spoken dialogue because there’s no need for it: the personalities are what they sing.
  6. There’s something else about Mary. While “I Don’t Know How to Love Him” could be the show’s most famous number—probably the most performed out of context—her earlier number “Everything’s Alright” is more crucial to our picture of her place in this cast. The tune’s most distinctive feature is its time signature: 5/4, not too common in either popular or theatrical music. (Think Dave Brubeck’s “Take Five.” End of thinking.) This score is full of unconventional or just plain difficult time signatures—hello, 7/4 temple scene—but the fact that this one is attributed to Mary alone demonstrates from the start that she is not a traditional love interest. Hell, her big star turn describes not knowing how to be one. She’s a bit out of step, a bit apart. It’s almost as if old Andrew knew what he was doing.
  7. DMITRI SHOSTAKOVICH LOVED THIS SHOW. Toward the end of his life (he died in 1975), the composer saw the 1972 London production and commended in particular the melding of a rock-&-roll band with a full symphonic orchestra. He only wished he could have written something like that, he said. Look it up! Man, if that happened to me, I wouldn’t have to write another note.
  8. The sound of this score, particularly on the original album, owes a giant debt to The Beatles. Especially late-era. I can point to specific tracks that lay the groundwork for the aggressive guitar effects (“Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise),” “Hey Bulldog,” or the more heavy-metal influence of “I’ve Got a Feeling”), the melodic union of guitar and bass (“Birthday”), the chaotic choral pieces (“Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey”) and combined band jams (“The End”). Even, to an extent, the lyrical structures and ideas (“Baby You’re a Rich Man,” “The Ballad of John and Yoko”). Hey John, tell us more about how you’re more popular than Jesus!
  9. So. Much. Dissonance. No wonder Shosti dug it.

Phew. I’m quick to start pregaming with this soundtrack; assuming that “Heaven On Their Minds” and the subsequent action takes place a day or two before Palm Sunday, I’m knee-deep in the oeuvre for at least a week and a half each year. To say I’ll have to forcibly extricate myself as Easter season 2020 gets underway would be an understatement.

I DON’T KNOW HIM!

Image: the original cover for ‘the Brown Album’ (that’s what it’s called!!!)

Scott & Zelda Get Hitched

In which I celebrate an historic union

One hundred years ago yesterday—on 3 April 1920—F. Scott Fitzgerald of Minnesota and Zelda Sayre of Alabama were married at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. They had known each other a year and a half and the letters were intense.

Scott had recently been the latest whippersnapper to burst onto the literary scene with the publication of his novel This Side of Paradise, whose heroine he had amended to resemble Zelda more closely. The pair were soon to become a power couple of the New York intelligentsia, only to then move to Paris and become elders of the expat intelligentsia.

Being true equals in passion, ambition, and tempestuousness, they shared a life fraught with disagreement and darkness (mental illness, institutionalization, alcoholism, etc.); but the fair bit I’ve read about them also suggests tremendous devotion. While I’m not one to wax about soulmates, the personal and global events they experienced together and the unique ways in which they were able to complement and destroy each other collectively make for a fascinating story. All against the backdrop of one of the most infamous time periods in Western history. These two are synonymous with that decade; their relationship, to me, symbolizes it.

Here’s to an unforgettable romance. Raise a glass.

Image: Literary Hub

Words & Phrases That Need to Die

In which I do a snatch of etymological spring cleaning

Welcome back to the quarantine club, all. As the current, possibly false, warm spell increasingly causes us to actually take note of the outside world, we may find—at least I have—that a bit of spring cleaning is in order. Which I think goes especially for the collective English vocabulary.

(As Ron Weasley said, “She needs to sort out her priorities.”)

So, from me and several of my most opinionated friends, here is a list of words and phrases we wouldn’t miss if the coronavirus took them:

Impactful. Not a word. Well, word processors might recognize it now given its awful spread, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a word. Say something “makes an impact,” or “impacts” something else. Or, if you must use an adjective, use a real one!

Proactive. As my own father wrote to my fourth-grade teacher in a note attached to my homework, “‘active’ fits the bill.” You don’t ‘proact,’ do you? You act and react. When you want to stress the necessity of taking initiative, frame it in terms of being active versus reactive or passive. The pro– is obsolete.

Synergy. One of those corporate words, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. There is no shortage of other terms you could use to imply togetherness and collective energy. In fact, I just gave you two.

Iconic. A former professor mentioned how overused she finds this one to be. I admit my own guilt in that regard (using the word, not being it). Sure, we have plenty of people and places and events of note, and it’s all very well to render unto them what is due them—but if everything is iconic, then nothing is. (Except Freddie Mercury. He is perhaps the icon.)

Utilize. Strunk and White tear this one down in The Elements of Style, and when I read it as a verbose teenager I realized I agreed. Why all this syllabic clutter when “use” works just fine?

Meteoric rise. We get what you’re trying to say. But meteors don’t rise; they fall. I’m sure there’s some other space object we could substitute…I don’t know, a rocket, maybe…

The phobias. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of legitimate fears; this isn’t about those. One of the smartest people I know pointed out to me that the attachment of the Greek phobia to groups of people or ideologies (homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia) is misplaced. “It isn’t irrational fear,” he said, “it’s irrational hatred.” I’m a little stumped as to what to recommend in its place, other than…just not being those things, so we don’t need words for them.

Based off of. Drives me up the wall. Something is not based off something, it is based on it. Founded upon it. Built on top of it. An architect probably dies every time someone says this, or a construction worker is injured. I once had a professor who would take points off presentations if students used this phrase. My role model to this day.

Going viral. Need I explain what a sore spot this one will be by the time all of this is over?

So there’s your latest diversion—what words and phrases do you want to cleanse?

‘Breakfast’ Epiphanies

In which I poke at a kooky classic

With all this extra time on my hands lately, I figure I might as well get as much of a cinephile’s education as Netflix will allow. Leading me, the other night, to watch the 1961 Blake Edwards-directed Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Based on Harper Lee’s best work.

Just kidding.

A quick fact that exposes me for the real phony I am: I like to say that I like Truman Capote, but I have yet to read anything of his in full. I don’t have the stomach to finish In Cold Blood, and I was never interested enough in the idea of Tiffany’s to pursue it. Most of what I know about him concerns his life and personality, which made Tiffany’s much more compelling when I did even a little research into its genesis. According to some sources, he modeled Holly Golightly on his own mother as she moved herself and toddler Truman between Alabama and New York. He then wrote himself into the story as the character of Paul, invariably coding him gay. And thus the novella is essentially a family fanfiction: what would have happened if Capote had met and befriended this woman during her younger and more desperate years?

All that said, I did this research only after seeing the film, which contributed further to my feeling that this is a fundamentally misunderstood piece of cinema. Because I couldn’t help being deeply unsettled as I watched—and not merely on account of the horrifically racist caricature portrayed by Mickey Rooney. (From what I understand, the novella doesn’t even include a Mr. Yunioshi. Whose idea was this?)

Having been rather ignorant of the plot going in, I couldn’t help wondering if all the people with dorm-room posters of Audrey Hepburn, outfitted with tiara and cigarette holder, have actually seen this thing. There’s no other way to know what’s really at play—and at stake—here. It’s the troubling story of a young woman who has been effectively robbed of her youth by a bogus marriage to a man I can only describe as a somewhat sympathetic villain, who attempts to fashion a new identity in the city while suffering from limited career opportunities and a total lack of hobbies except partying. The partying fuels her alcohol habit, the defining feature of her life and her primary means of escape from herself. Pretty dark, if you ask me. (And this was 1961. We were still in Camelot.)

Speaking of the year, and the Production Code being in its heyday (Hays-day?), there was no possibility of Paul opposing Holly as anything but a securely masculine love interest. Capote’s original queered concept went out the window (and he was famously dissatisfied with the adaptation) in favor of a big final scene with a kiss in the rain. Even so, they make an unconventional couple, as two high-end sex workers searching for a more substantial connection in a world that is ready to punish them both. Paul (played by George Peppard, who is not, as I assumed from his name, a dashing Frenchman) aspires to be a writer, despite the skepticism of his client/sugar mama Mrs. Failenson (a winning Patricia Neal; I could have watched her for twice as much screen time as she had). And Holly keeps insisting on an ambition to marry well, flitting from one wealthy bachelor to another, although Paul ultimately calls her out on what she’s really after—misguided as he may be in his phrasing.

Holly, as buffs and critics have observed, is the prototype of the manic pixie dream girl I mentioned a couple weeks back: fast-talking, wildly gesticulating, amusingly childlike in her perceptions of the world, presumably unaware of her standard-upholding allure. (I want to smack the screenwriter who wrote the line “We’ll have to go somewhere they’ll let me in looking like this” for one of the most naturally gorgeous women in Western media history.) Except that Holly probably is aware of her own attractiveness, because she exploits it on a daily basis to keep herself alive and to get what she wants. Nonetheless, her beauty permits her to be a ‘kook,’ climbing in and out of windows, keeping a disastrous apartment, playing quirky songs on her guitar, and cohabiting with a cat whom she refuses to name until (or unless) she settles down.

Once Paul falls in love with this kookiness, he describes it to Mrs. Failenson in terms of ‘help’: Holly can’t help herself, but he can help her, and in so doing gain some autonomy over himself. What’s problematic in hindsight is Paul’s association of help with ownership. He tells Holly she belongs to him because he loves her (couldn’t they have Taylor Swifted the line to be “you belong with me”?). In another scene she asks if he thinks he owns her, to which he says…yes. Despite being perhaps more clearheaded than she is, he’s in no real position to provide for her, at least not financially, as Mrs. Failenson acerbically reminds him.

Besides, at the end of the day the only way he can truly help her is by getting her professional help. But there were far fewer resources for alcoholics back then. (For context, this was also the year Ernest Hemingway shot himself.)

Anyway, it all supposedly winds up happily ever after for the lovebirds, which was one of the issues Capote took (aside from that of Hepburn herself; he had envisioned Marilyn Monroe in the role). What began life as a cautionary tale about running from oneself and indulging in excess had become a romanticized paean to New York, teaching viewers that it was glamorous to be damaged.

I suppose Breakfast at Tiffany’s, the way it stands, is categorized as a rom-com, although I can’t say I found it all that funny. Nor all that romantic, really, as it follows people who cling to each other out of an increasing need to be saved from themselves. Maybe it’s one of those films I’ll return to years from now and muse on its ever-changing meaning. For now, here are some live tweets on its peculiarities:

  • Wow, that’s Audrey Hepburn’s real voice! The only other thing of hers I’ve seen is My Fair Lady, in which she affects a very obvious accent. And still there’s a bit where a character alludes to having given her dialect coaching to help her shed her Texas-country-bumpkin identity. What is it with people trying to change the way this woman talks??
  • She is alarmingly thin. Oh God, her collarbone. It’s like 13 Going On 30, except the face is thirty and the body is thirteen. Let me look this up. Okay, her family moved around a lot during World War II and she was malnourished enough that she couldn’t pursue her original dream of being a ballerina. That checks out.
  • Why is she calling him Fred? It weirds me out that she’s calling her clear potential love interest by her brother’s name.
  • Who puts a phone inside a suitcase???
  • This party is way too crowded. Disease Central right here. Don’t be crawling under one another like that, please. Does ‘six feet apart’ mean nothing to you people?
  • “Moon River” needs to be longer. Two verses aren’t enough.
  • Okay, I don’t know this song, but I predict that the last two words of this last line are “and me.”
  • Boom! Called it! Do I know my Tin Pan Alley lyrical tropes or what??
  • The two of them have a bit of the same vibe as Liz and Floyd on 30 Rock. Oh man, I liked Floyd. Liz should have stuck with him. What am I watching again?
  • So Doc Golightly is a statutory rapist, but he seems like a nice guy…what am I saying?? Note: this movie does not make the viewer a better person.
  • This score is very Mancini. Sneaking-around music is his brand, and they’re definitely sneaking around inside this shop.
  • (Chandler Bing voice) Could they be any more guilty?
  • STOP. YELLING. IN. THE. LIBRARY. Gallingly disrespectful. Maybe I’m not rooting for either of them anymore.
  • Yup, could have seen that coming about old Fred.
  • That cat could not actually have done that stunt. Impossible. Right?
  • Is this what I’m supposed to want for them? I guess…
  • I think this is the first kiss I’ve seen with a cat sandwiched in there. Animal inclusivity? Cue “Stuck in the Middle with You.”

Image: from the trailer

Life During COVID-19

In which a global health crisis is explained by the lyrics of Talking Heads

Every so often there is an event which inspires worldwide dread. (By ‘worldwide’ I really mean that the dread which exists constantly in less developed portions of the world is acknowledged by the developed West, and especially the United States, which has a talent for turning a blind eye to far-off atrocities.) Such an event has historically been either world war or disease. The latter of these two is longer-standing and not as easily controlled, and we are collectively entering a new incarnation of it.

Despite various governments’ attempts at containment and limitation—or perhaps because of them, since they are an admission that the virus is a real threat—the sense of doom and gloom which has long lingered dormant (again, largely over the United States) now pervades daily life at an elemental level. People structure their actions, or inactions, around their concerns. People stockpile supplies, frequently to the detriment of underprivileged communities. People squabble over who should be prioritized and how best to help them. Needless to say, it’s the only topic on Twitter. You can’t spell ‘pandemic’ without ‘panic.’

To whom, amidst of all this, does a girl turn when she too is staying in more often than not, ‘social distancing’ for the safety of her more vulnerable fellow Berliners, perpetually in search of distraction but also of sanity and clarity?

Well, this one turns to the band which perfected the art of reporting on modern damage, of diagnosing the underlying dread in the most innocent or mundane subjects, of crystallizing fear in deceptively cheery (dare I say…infectious?) arrangements. The idea that their work has only gained in relevance over time is both strangely comforting and incredibly unnerving. Here are a few bytes to get you dancing in your chambers of isolation, and to remind you that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Jump back, sit back, get back, relax

It’s okay

I’ve called in sick, I won’t go to work today

I’d rather be with the one I love

I neglect my duties

I’ll be in trouble but

I’ve been to college

I’ve been to school

I’ve met the people that you read about in books

                                                                        : “Uh-Oh, Love Comes to Town”

Every appointment has been moved to last week

Last week

Last week

Last week

                        : “First Week / Last Week…Carefree”

We’ve heard this little scene

We’ve heard it many times

People fighting over little things

And wasting precious time

                                                : “Found a Job”

I’m tired of looking out the window of the airplane

I’m tired of traveling

I want to be somewhere

It’s not even worth talking about those people down there

                                                                                    : “The Big Country”

Science won’t change you

Looks like I can’t change you

I’ve tried talking to you

To make things clear

But you’re not even listening to me

                                                : “Mind”

I got some groceries

Some peanut butter

To last a couple of days

But I

Ain’t got no speakers

Ain’t got no headphones

Ain’t got no records to play

                                                : “Life During Wartime”

(*my own postscript: Why stay in college? / College is cancelled)

What is happening to my skin?

Where is that protection that I needed?

Air can hurt you too

Air can hurt you too

Some people say not to worry about the air

Some people never had experience with air

                                                            : “Air”

Isn’t it weird?

Looks too obscure to me

Wasting away

That was their policy

                                    : “Crosseyed and Painless”

(*honestly, most of this song)

Doctor, doctor

We have nothing in our pockets

We’d continue

But we have nothing left to offer

Faces pressed against the window

Hey, they are just my friends

                                                : “Making Flippy Floppy”

What’s the matter with him? (He’s all right)

I see his face (The Lord won’t mind)

How do you know? (He’s all right)

And we’re going to the top

                                                : “Slippery People”

How did I get home?

I survived the situation

Somebody shut the door

Shut the door

Shut the door

Climbing up the wall

                                    : “I Get Wild / Wild Gravity”

You could pretend I’m a millionaire

A millionaire washing his hands

                                                : “Swamp”

Stop talking

Stop talking

Stop talking

Help us get ready

Stop

                        : “Big Business”

And that’s just scratching the surface.

Stay safe and healthy, folks. And look out for one another.

Image: from Redferns, Echoes

Not Like Other Girls

In which I join in the killing of a trope

Happy March, all! It’s been a couple weeks. I’d intended to acknowledge Leap Day in any number of ways (insert Pirates of Penzance reference); but Nature had other plans, namely laying me up in bed with a cold.

Now that I’m back up and running, allow me to dwell for a moment on women. We’ve been on my mind a lot lately—not only because today is International Women’s Day, and not only my mind. Between election-cycle drama and the categories of female characters I handle in my job, I’ve had to recognize and reconsider the roles women play in life…and particularly in media.

Women in media, particularly film, have spent much of their lives being molded by male fantasies. The idea of the “cool girl,” named and lacerated by Gillian Flynn in Gone Girl, has long been a staple of male-centric stories: a woman who performs interests and activities traditionally associated with masculinity while presenting as conventionally feminine (and attractive) in appearance. This trope reached its cringeworthy apex in the late ’90s and early ’00s, and, although it still took another decade to be explicitly diagnosed (Gone Girl was published in 2012), I’ve noticed a nice decline in the depiction of this particular stock character since then. On the other hand, the “manic pixie dream girl,” named by film critic Nathan Rabin almost a decade and a half ago now—the quirky, again conventionally attractive girl who inspires a pseudo-depressed, pseudo-intellectual male protagonist to LET GO and ENJOY LIFE a little more spontaneously—seems to be maintaining her grip on the cultural consciousness through YA fiction, especially in the rash of Netflix originals (or novel adaptations) we’ve seen over the past few years.

Whatever distinguishing feature the main girl of these stories possesses, the category from which she is distinguished is always “the other girls.” She’s not like them.

What?

Have you ever stopped to think about what that phrase means? You won’t get far. It’s a minefield of dichotomies. Does it refer to a woman who’s down to party when “the other girls” aren’t? A woman who isn’t interested in partying when “the other girls” are? A woman who wants to learn things for herself? A woman who doesn’t want to be an overachiever? A woman who eats hamburgers and drinks beer and stays Hollywood-thin? A woman who is vegan and turns her apartment into a greenhouse full of succulents? A woman who is flexible enough to go with trends or a woman who is free-spirited enough to reject them????

Despite the holes this idea (and it is an unattainable idea) presents, many girls grow up trying to master it, trying to become it. Then, amidst the other disillusionments of adulthood, they have to unlearn it. I think I unwittingly bought into it until the latter portion of college. Did I want to fit in, or did I want to stand out? And whom exactly did I want to notice me for it? Whose approval was I seeking?

The films and books which support this trope would have us believe that we want men to notice us and approve of us, and that men’s attention and approval will finally make us whole. Not only does this exclude and invalidate a whole spectrum of gender identification and sexual orientation, it isn’t even true. At least not in my experience.

Guys have called me “cool.” I recall the circumstances. And although the guys I’m thinking of were kind people who meant it in a kind spirit, it didn’t get me anywhere. I took it as a compliment because I’d been conditioned to. But for all the status it was supposed to confer, it didn’t unlock the relationships I wanted, nor did it fulfill me the way I had imagined it would. In fact, it only threw into starker relief whatever insecurity and loneliness I was grappling with and left me all the hungrier to be truly understood.

Such understanding and companionship I’ve found, both retrospectively in the long term and specifically in my postgrad life, in—you guessed it—women. I’m thankful to have formed close relationships with many women: some related by blood, some from childhood, some from quite recently, some contemporary, some much older. Whether I see them every day, or every week, or talk to them once a year when we happen to be in the same place, or pick up right where I left off with them even though we haven’t seen each other in multiple years, my life has been infinitely enriched by their communal presence. I hate to imagine what would have happened if the “other girls” mentality had infiltrated our worldviews to a point where we regarded one another as rivals rather than supporters. After all, someone is only an “other” until you take the time to talk to them.

In short, there’s no such thing as “the other girls.” No girl I’ve met is like any other girl I’ve met. We all make our unique contributions. And we’re all better off when we choose to contribute to one another’s lives. The sooner women, men, and others get on the same page about this, the sooner we can start representing the values we deserve in the media we love.

(Of course, I adopt the same attitude toward the men I know, and I’ve reaped some fruitful relationships that way as well. But there’s a Women’s Day for a reason!)

Image: me, gazing at the Arno near the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, February 2011, much like every other girl who has been there

Cathedral, Karneval, Köln

In which I contemplate a schism

My time as a Berliner has given me to understand that Berlin is no more Germany than London is England. This past Friday and Saturday proved it.

Or so I expected. What I found upon arriving was not a staunchly German counterpart to the capital city on the opposite border but a mishmash of overexcited people speaking on top of each other in a mishmash of overexcited languages. It turns out Köln is quite the destination for Karneval, and I was not prepared.

It wasn’t only that I was dressed like a rather ordinary human being in comparison to the friend clusters of cowboys, bishops, Elvises, and antenna-sporting aliens; or the families in which each member dressed as a different farm animal; or the lone dandies strutting the cobbled streets in paint-splattered three-piece suits. It was the contradictory offerings scattered throughout the city, the celebration and the condemnation, the shiny and the shadowy.

The main attraction for me was the cathedral, a staple of almost every European city whose history dates back to the Gothic period. I had no other local landmarks to refer to, so the cathedral was synonymous with Köln itself; it was the only site I really knew about before going (I’ve had a thing for cathedrals since childhood), and the one I wanted to visit. As it happened, I had only to exit the train station to be confronted by it. And it was everything I expected it to be and more: majestic, lofty, architecturally exquisite, wielding the kind of power only these buildings have—to put people in their place.

This isn’t to disparage humans, but we do have a tendency to get wrapped up in our own foibles and problems and lose our perspective. Cathedrals provide that perspective in spades. And this weekend specifically provided a fascinating twist on that perspective, because the typical crowd of tourists meandering through its archways comprised all manner of Karneval-goers bedecked in fur and latex and blue wigs. Watching these people marvel at an admittedly marvelous infrastructural feat while dressed in the garb that has evolved out of the commemoration of a traditionally religious festival (happy Mardi Gras, by the way) was all the more gratifying for it. There was a pervasive sense of solemnity in the sanctuary that afternoon; it felt almost as if people were seeking a moment’s respite and refuge before going out to their respective crazy nights. On top of which I loved hearing the murmurings of visitors from far and wide. I thought of it as a sort of pilgrimage, except we’d all only met up at our destination. In a matter of two hours, Köln had loaded me down with things to think about.

Luckily I had an enchanting walk to my lodging during which to entertain these thoughts. It was in these streets, narrowing and winding and roughening the farther they got from the cathedral, that I found the starkest differences to Berlin. This was a city that had weathered multiple wars and remained pretty much intact. I saw antique shops, as well as shops that looked antique; an old-fashioned Biergarten; and another, smaller church, St. Ursula, which looked as if the neighborhood had grown up around it over centuries. Unlike Berlin, whose postwar reconstruction has included something of a polyglot revolution, Köln would not be going out of its way to speak anything other than German.

Except in the city center, which is where I spent basically all my time. After an evening catching up on some reading and work of my own, I returned to the cathedral square in search of a colleague-recommended museum. The permanent exhibit at the Römisch-Germanisches Museum was being renovated; but there was an external display of stone tablets, complete with inscriptions, which gave at least a surface glimpse into the city’s Roman origins. Here I have to confess that, despite being the daughter of a classicist and professor of Greco-Roman literature, I still know relatively little about the culture and its famous figures. I couldn’t tell you a passage of Cicero from one of Catullus; I don’t remember who wrote those diatribes against Catiline; and, although I know a ‘Georgic’ has to do with farming, I don’t understand what it has to do with someone named George. Most of the Latin I know stems from my (often overlapping) experiences singing and churchgoing. Overall, I never get as much out of exhibits like these as I feel I should, and I fear I might not be interested at all if my dad weren’t so interested. Suffice it to say that staring at a bunch of rocks forced me to face my own ignorance.

Speaking of ignorance, I had no idea what lay in store at the neighboring museum, which I wandered into for lack of another specific destination. The Museum Ludwig is home to an impressive collection of Western art, with a special focus (at least right now) on junctures of identity—particularly national and ethnic. It seems to skew modern, with extensive photography collections and a variety of contemporary materials, including neon signage. (My relationship to modern art has grown and developed over the past five years, certainly since my first visit to London’s Tate Modern—remind me to talk about that later.) Many of the works I saw were by artists who spent (or, if living, have spent) different periods of their lives in different places, artists born in Europe who made their name in New York or vice versa.

The biggest shock came in the form of Jimmie Durham’s exhibit Building a Nation, which featured found objects, both natural and man-made, and direct quotations from American generals, presidents, and luminaries (all “heroes”) regarding the systemic destruction of Native Americans and their tribal identities. It felt like a giant archaeological dig, a ruin you could walk through—and the walk became a trek, an unflinching and painstaking look at the violence we’ve never heard about and the violence we’ve unwittingly come to accept, even cherish, in the media we absorb. The impression of the room was one of devastation, an invitation to investigate the debris which we have collectively left behind. A trial by fire.

I won’t lie: it brought me to tears, and I rather think it was meant to. As I have spent more and more time abroad—especially in the current political climate, or lack thereof—I have questioned more and more deeply the meaning of being American, or of belonging to any one nation. Identity is getting harder to grasp; the artificiality of the concept is revealing itself to me bit by bit. And yet the concept of identifying as one nationality or another, and the sense of superiority and righteousness that accompanies it, is so entrenched that it will probably never be possible to understand the full catalogue of crimes committed in its name. I’m still thinking about that exhibit, and I won’t stop trying to trace the evolutionary process that has brought me to where I am, however horrific sometimes. It’s just that it isn’t getting any easier.

A short while later I found myself in a room dedicated to the iconic ‘pop art’ movement of the 1950s and ’60s, spearheaded by Andy Warhol and others. While the gaudy colors of the form suggest joy, there is a deep undercurrent of criticism, the target being the proliferating culture of consumerism which has come to define contemporary America. Following the lead of their respective advertisements, the blown-up logos—Campbell’s, Coca-Cola—distort the products themselves in favor of the carefree, attractive lifestyle they promote. In this light, the colors become warning signs: beware of falling victim to the myth…the myth to which I subconsciously subscribe every day, even as a non-drinker of soda. Who would have thought a museum in a decidedly German city would bring me into such conflict with myself? But that is precisely what a good museum does.

After all that, my last evening in the city consisted of wandering the commercial strip directly adjacent to the cathedral square—the den of thieves, you might call it, which at times physically obscured the temple. I found the hallmarks of the commercialism I had just contended with at the museum: H&M, 4711 (“the original eau de cologne”), Claire’s. (Claire’s?!?) Not to mention I heard the noise of enough marching bands to drown in. Had I stumbled into Whoville?

In the midst of more sensory stimulation than my poor saturated brain could handle, it occurred to me that life proceeds in spite of (or maybe because of) the darkness and heaviness of the past. Another Karneval will come and go. There are moments to meditate and moments to enjoy. A few days removed, I feel I didn’t do enough of either. I still know very little of the history of Köln. Ironically, I learned more about myself and my native culture than about Germany. All the more reason to return.

Should that be at Karneval, I’ll be sure to have my habiliments in place. If Ida known this time, I woulda brought one of my favorite recent thrift-shop finds: a lime-green sequined fedora.

Image: my own, of the cathedral and Saturday-morning costumed procession