Thursday, November 29, 2018

JEWISH HORROR MOVIES: AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)


I had planned to write about the way Jewish filmmakers sometimes code their characters as being Jewish, sometimes in subterranean ways. However, upon a recent rewatching John Landis' "An American Werewolf in London," I realized there's nothing coded, nothing subterranean.

No, Landis' two doomed American leads are unambiguously Jewish. They hail from Long Island, lust over a young woman named Debbie Klein, and get upset when she beds a fellow named Rudy Levine. A nurse peeks under the sheets when one of the boys is hospitalized and declares him Jewish. They call each other putz and schmuck.

Most tellingly, when one of the boys has a nightmare, it is of werewolves breaking into his family home dressed as Nazis and massacring everyone with machine guns, which also destroys a prominently placed menorah.

I suppose I might have been a bit confused because Landis cast two Irish-Americans as the boys -- specifically David Naughton and Griffin Dunne. But, even then, Naughton has a certain swarthiness and Dunne is neurotic in a strangely cheerful, comic way that reads as Jewish. And who am I to complain that Irish Americans are playing Jews? Every single one of my biological ancestors came from Ireland, and I am a Jew.

So instead I will instead discuss the way the characters' Jewishness informs the film. The plot is brutally easy to summarize: Two American boys on a three-month tour of Europe are attacked by a werewolf on the moors of Northern England, and one is killed. The other awakens in a London hospital, falls in love with a nurse (the terrific Jenny Agutter), and received repeated and unwelcome visits from his dead friend informing him that when the moon is full, he will become a wolf and kill innocent people. And, on the full moon, that's exactly what happens.

I suppose one the the reasons the Jewishness of the film had seemed subtle to me is because the film feels so very English.

Landis is not English, of course -- he was born in Chicago and raised in Los Angeles. But he lived in London for a while, both working in film (sometimes as a stunt double) and cowriting, without credit, the James Bond film "The Spy Who Loved Me." Landis has also demonstrated a taste for Hammer horror films in later interviews and writing, and so "An American Werewolf" is heavy on English atmosphere.

The film opens with a series of long, static shots of the moors, demonstrating a fascination with the strangeness of the English countryside that I have only seen elsewhere in folk horror movies; it would hardly be surprising if he moved his camera and revealed people dancing naked around an enormous megalith while a figure burns in a wicker statue.

Instead, when the camera moves, it is to reveal our heroes, crushed into the back of a truck filled with sheep. It's a comic image, but a smart one, because it immediately shows them misplaced and ill-at-ease, but also because they are about to be lambs to the slaughter.

In fact, the next place they end up is a rural pub called The Slaughtered Lamb, with an appropriately gruesome bar sign. The bar is filled with English character actors, as is the whole film. There's the battered visage of screen heavy David Schofield, the brutal-looking ex-wrestler Brian Glover, the Cockney crime film star Alan Ford, and even the dazzling (and badly missed) comic actor Rik Mayall in a small role. The casting is perfect throughout the film.

A few reviews of the film claim that we shouldn't look for subtlety in a John Landis film, but this is a tremendously precise piece of filmmaking, from making sure Northerners speak with Northern accents to the fact that it is set in a London that is an international city, especially filled with Indian and Pakistani neighbors -- it was the only film I saw that captured a London that looked like that until the films of Hanif Kureishi some years later. Landis created a film that was supposed to be set in a London that felt like a real London, including a tour of the nurse's tiny apartment and complaints about the cost of living, which American films don't bother with.

That being said, Landis is also a satirist, and the film doesn't simply place London on the screen, but heightens it slightly:

Little children will always be dressed in Paddington Bear style duffle coats or schoolboy uniforms with cricket hats. Businessmen will always have their brollies with them, even when fleeing monsters. The police are either gruffly or genially incompetent, especially the bobbies, who all have 'ello 'ello wots all this then accents and seem puzzled and put out by any request for help.

More than that, Northerners all wear wellies and flat caps, are unwelcoming to visitors, and all have occult secrets. Even when we see a few moments of The Muppet Show, it is of Miss Piggy and Kermit watching a brutal English Punch and Judy show and arguing about its merits, a sequence that was only shown in England. There is a lot in the film that is genuinely daffy, and so these details don't spring out immediately, but they provide the whole film with a sense that Englishness is being slightly lampooned.

Our surviving American, Laughton, is contrasted with all this, in a variety of images that show him being wildly out of place. He finds himself surrounded by English punk rockers on public transit (and is caught when he briefly mocks them), he finds himself locked out of an apartment with children laughing at him, and, in ones of the film's longest sequences, he wakes up naked in the zoo and must nakedly navigate his way back to the apartment.

In fact, Naughton spends about 40 percent of the film naked, and I don't think it is unmeaningful that we hear about his circumcised penis early in the film, as he will spend a lot of the rest of the movie accidentally showing it to English people.

He's not just an outsider because he is American, or because he is naked, but especially because he cannot avoid demonstrating that he's Jewish. It's subtext, I know, but I feel like his Jewishness adds a sharpness to his foreignness. Even the film's Pakistanis and Indians feel somehow like they are part of the necessary texture of London -- they are immigrants, but immigrants from British colonies with a long history of expatriating to England.

Unlike them, for how out of place he seems, Naughton might as well be a space alien, or, I guess, a werewolf.

There was a sequel to this called "An American Werewolf in Paris," which I shan't bother with, but I will mentioned that I was terribly disappointed that we didn't revisit London, because there is more to explore of the tension between Jewishness and Englishness.

There is, after all, a very long history of Jews in England, and a lot of what we think of as typically English were either introduced by Jews (eg. fish and chips) or came out of markets that Jews dominated (eg. English fashion). I suppose it is a bit much to ask for a film in which a Jewish werewolf interacts with the Jewish population of London, but I would see that film.

JEWISH HORROR MOVIES: FORBIDDEN ZONE (1980)


We're at a strange moment in history, just now, where a vast amount of the popular culture of the past is accessible to us, instantly, on demand.

This is a utopian future for those of us who, when young, obsessively and frantically sought out the debris and forgotten oddball masterworks of earlier years: comic books, science fiction films, obscuro pop music, poverty row cartoons, that sort of thing.

They seemed then less like artifacts of the past than transmissions from an alternate dimension. You'd be listening to oldies radio late at night and a song like The Revels' "Foo Man Chew" would come on. This was a puzzling, punning doo wop song based on Sax Rohmer's weird pulp novels about an Asian supervillain, and you'd be left with nothing but questions: Why did this song get made? Who was it meant for?

But, if you were like me, it was meant for you, and so you'd add it to a list and spend years hunting for it in old record stores, and, when you finally found it, years or even decades after you first heard it, it was the most extraordinarily satisfying experience. A lot of us had these long lists of lost oddities, sometimes kept in our heads, sometimes written out, and we haunted the places that recycled these sorts of things, and we treasured what we found.

A recent search for "Foo Man Chew" took me three seconds before I lacked it; someone recorded it to YouTube. I can download it instantly from iTunes, or, if I am more old-fashioned, it's inconsequentially easy to locate a 45 RPM record of the song on eBay.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but it used to be that there was a lot of art made by fanatical collectors, and it all had the quality of collage, of a new work assembled from older work that the artist loved and desperately needed to share. There was a special taste for the camp, the kitsch, and the tchotchkes of the past, and you saw it in the New Wave movement, in bands like The Cramps and Man or Astroman, in the films of Tarantino and David Lynch, in pop surrealist art.

I suppose it's still around -- pop surrealism still seems to be chugging along, at least. But I can't help but wonder if the sheer easy availability of the pop works of the past has somehow devalued it, or, perhaps, instead I have simply aged to point where culture from my teen years is a new generation's nostalgia, and that's what they are ransacking, rather than the mid-20th century art that I grew up obsessed with.

Whatever the case, 1980's "Forbidden Zone" is a perfect representation of the sort of film I am talking about.

I don't know that it's appropriate to call it a horror film, despite the fact that much of it takes place in a pop version of hell. It's a midnight movie, from when there were such things as midnight movies, and the earliest review I have read of the film dismisses it as seeking to capitalize on the same circuit that supported "Rocky Horror Picture Show," as though that's something that could have been capitalized on.

But the film made its tour of college and art house theaters, attracting little attention, if the newspaper archives are to be trusted, but building a cult audience anyway, probably thanks in part to the fact that it was an early example of the work of composer Danny Elfman and his band Oingo Boingo.

The film really can be credited to Danny's older brother Richard, who cowrote and directed the thing, although it showcases Danny's then-passion for 1930's-40's big band jazz and novelty music and the cartoons of the Fleischer Brothers, whose influence on modern Jewish horror I have already mentioned. If I were being reductive, I would say the film is a feature-length examination of everything upsetting about Flesicher brothers cartoons, but "Forbidden Zone" is a film that defies easy reduction.

Let me give an exceptionally brief summary, which is unhelpful and probably impossible, but traditional in this sort of essay:

The film tells of the Hercules family, who seem to be a mix of Ma and Pa Kettle-type hillbillies, Jewish old men (including a wrestler in a fake beard), and a French woman. At some point, they all end up sliding into a hellish dimension through an alimentary canal-styled portal hidden in their house. There, they battle a monstrous queen (cult film great Susan Tyrrell), her diminutive husband (Hervé Villechaize), and the devil himself, played by Danny Elfman leading a swing band.

The whole of it plays out on sets that are largely painted onto wooden flats in the style of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," involves musical numbers borrowed from Cab Calloway and Yiddish novelty, and includes dozens of topless women (including Hell's princess, played by Gisele Lindley and looking like one of Bettie Page's more outrageous photo shoots had come to life), a frog-headed man, Warhol superstar Viva, trash film leading man Joe Spinell, and performance artists The Kipper Kids.

The film is deliberately outrageous, including frequent uses of racist imagery, which has been the subject of repeated criticism that Richard Elfman has been publicly defensive about.

The criticism is valid: The first thing we see is a blackface image, they recur throughout the film, and they feel like a legacy of underground comix, where white artists explored the things that shocked and upset them, including racist caricature. However, there, as here, the exploration felt blunt and abstracted, or, worse, intended to be funny, oblivious of the genuine hurt that these sorts of images can cause to people for whom they are not an abstraction.

A lot of this sort of thing shows up in the film, including images that seem to make sport of the transgender experience and sexual violence. It makes parts of the film difficult, and, for some viewers, impossible, and that's a fair cop. If people take issue with the film, well, the film has given them cause, and they get to.

I suspect the real function of these moments was similar to how the racist songs of Johnny Rebel and the repeated images of snails being killed is to Crispin Glover's film "What Is It?": To unnerve the audience.

There is a lot about "Forbidden Zone" that is unnerving, and I do think the act of unnerving someone is a valid artistic one; it's pretty central to horror films. But it is possible to unnerve someone right out the door, and purposeless cruelty is a good way to do that.

People probably draw the line at different places, based, in part, on their own experiences of the world. If I am forgiving of racism or transphobia or sexual violence in a film, it is likely because I have never experienced any of it. That's worth considering when making a film, even one intended to be upsetting, and doesn't seem to have been considered here.

But alongside the unnerving elements of the film, there is a lot that is genuinely beautiful. The most-available version is colorized, which was always Richard Elfman's intention with the film, and it looks fantastic, colored in a delicate, faded way that is reminiscent of hand-tinting.

Also, the hand-painted sets are a delight, and well-used, especially in an opening scene that gives a panorama of hell that both looks like it cost about $15 to make and nonetheless manages to astonish. The performances are often delicious, especially Tyrrell, who could always be counted to goose a movie with a style of furious overacting that somehow managed to be droll, as though her whole noisy performance is a very dry, very subtle joke.

And finally there is the film's Jewishness, which may only appeal to me, but is there, is abundant, and is fascinating.

The filmmakers seem to have sought out popular culture that is Jewish inflected and then set out to parody it, including a remake of a Three Stooges short called "Swingin' the Alphabet," the Fleischer Brothers' "Minnie the Moocher" cartoon, and even an old novelty number called "The Yiddishe Charleson." The gates of hell are guarded by an old Jewish man who speaks Yiddish, played by the Elfmans' own grandfather, Herman Bernstein.

Perhaps this was also meant to be disquieting. There is a little shock you get when you watch Flesicher Brothers cartoons, especially Betty Boop, and start to get the feeling that anyone in their university could be Jewish, and probably is.

"Forbidden Zone" magnifies this, makes it part of the texture of the whole unsettling world. Not only are our heroes bizarre grotesqueries who engage in mindless violence and have a doglike tendency to just hump any appealing curve they see, and not only must we watch them bumble around a surreal, hand-drawn hell, but so many of them are Jews?

Unlike the film's ironic racism, I'm okay with its ironic antisemitism, at least in part because the filmmakers are Jewish, and in part because it feels legitimately transgressive.

The Jews are not represented as caricatures, as with blackface, but are strange, distinct character with qualities drawn from real Jewish history (there actually were Jewish wrestlers, and The Yiddishe Charleston was created by Jewish musicians for a Jewish audience.) If audiences are unsettled by Jews in this film, it's not because the filmmakers seem to be mocking Jewishness in the way that blackface mocks black people, but because they are being exposed to a raw, Jewish id attempting to represent itself.

Besides which, I like the idea that it is possible to ransack the Jewish past for its own otherworldly transmissions of lost culture, and create new art from it. And unlike the pop debris of mainstream culture, a lot of the Jewish stuff is still harder to get your hands on: Try to locate Patsy Abbott's dirty Yiddish songs on YouTube or iTunes, as an example.

Maybe, because this sort of Jewish is still rare, it can still be discovered and treasured.

JEWISH HORROR MOVIES: THE WOLF MAN (1941)


“The Wolf Man” came out in the first year of the Holocaust and was written by a German Jew, Curt Siodmak, who fled after hearing an antisemitic speech by Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.
These few details alone make the film inevitably feel like the it must be addressing itself to the rise of Naziism in some way. It is, after all, set in a small European town that feel like it could be anywhere in the Pale of Settlement.

(Properly, the film is set in Wales, but that simply seems like an excuse for the fact that the entire cast speaks English. There is nothing especially Welsh about the set, which was filmed on Universal Studio’s generic European village backlot; there are no street signs written entirely in consonants or leek boutonnieres to be seen.)

Further, the film details an occult savagery that can seize men and turn them into monsters, and their victims are revealed by a star that marks them. This is not the only film to note the essential wolfishness of Naziism: It was one of the themes of Janusz Bardach’s memoir “Man is Wolf to Man,” and Nazis appear as wolves in “An American Werewolf in London.”

Additionally, the Nazis themselves made frequent use of wolf imagery: Hitler named his Eastern Front military headquarters The Wolf’s Lair, and would sometimes claim “wolf” as a nickname for himself; and, in a detail significant to the story, the Nazis also used the word “werewolf” to name both a Wehrmacht headquarters in Ukraine and a secret Nazi guerrilla organization that was intended to operate behind Allied lines.

Sidomak created a lot of the lore we now associate with the werewolf: the wolfsbane poem repeated throughout his film (“Even a man who is pure at heart …”); more significantly, he invented the pentagram markings shared by the werewolf and his victims, which so directly seem to echo the Jewish stars that Nazis forced Jews to wear.

It’s hard to say whether this was conscious on Siodmak’s part when he was writing the film. His script creates a complicated parable where victim become monster, where the film’s tragic hero, Larry Talbot, is both a victim of Naziism and then a Nazi. He is bitten by a murderous beast, then he becomes a beast and murders.

This makes for an uneasy parallel with Naziism. After all, when Jews were attacked by Nazis, they didn’t then become Nazis. I am tempted to see this as an expression of the fact that screenwriter Siodmak hailed from Dresden, and that German Jews were especially assimilated into German society.

That, for Siodmak, it may have felt less as though gentiles were turning murderous to Jews and more than Germans had turned murderous to Germans. After all, Larry Talbot isn’t a despised interloper in his little village, but instead the scion to the local Lord. (Although it is worth noting that the film makes him a bit of an alien in the village, as he has been aboard much of his life and returns having spent years laboring as an artisan.)

But this sort of examination may read too much into the text of the story. “The Wolf Man” does not need to have a one-to-one relationship with the Holocaust; it need merely suggest the event. Our horror is in knowing that the film doesn’t exist merely as a supernatural fantasy, but as something that gestures toward very real, and, when the film came out, contemporary monstrousness and savagery.

We cannot know how conscious Siodmak was of the Holocaust reference, but we know he was aware of it. "I am the Wolf Man," Siodmak told an interviewer for the Writers Guild magazine late in his life. "I was forced into a fate I didn't want: to be a Jew in Germany. I would not have chosen that as my fate."

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

A BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO BAD POETRY: HEINRICH HOFFMANN



Heinrich Hoffmann terrified children. And it wasn't his gloomy countenance that struck his patients with fear. Children were frightened of him because he was a doctor, and doctors always terrify children, even back in the mid-19th century in Germany.

But Hoffmann discovered an easy way to calm them, displaying a facile grasp of psychology that would eventually lead him to opening his own mental asylum in Frankfurt. Hoffmann found that by drawing small, oddly proportioned cartoons, he could capture the attention of a frightened child, and their nervousness would leave them.

The doctor would begin by sketching a boy. When he had caught the attention of his nervous charge, he would add to the drawing a mop of hair, allowing it to grow into a long, straw-like mass. Then he would add fingernails, which he would likewise extend to grotesque proportions.

Children were always fascinating and delighted by this image. On Christmas of 1844, displeased with the bland children's books that were then popular, Hoffmann decided to write and illustrate a book for his own son. Finding himself with an extra page at the end, he sketched in the slovenly boy and named him "Peter." He wrote this verse to accompany it:

See Slovenly Peter! Here he stands
With his dirty hair and hands.
See! His nails are never cut;
They are grim'd as black as soot;
No water for many weeks.
Has been near his cheeks;
And the sloven, I declare,
Not once this year has combed his hair!
Anything to me is sweeter
Than to see shock-headed Peter.

Almost 150 years later, children's book author and illustrator Maurice Sendak called Hoffmann's collection of stories, now titled Strewwelpeter, "one of the most beautiful books in the world." In The Lion and the Unicorn, a magazine devoted to children's literature, Dr. Jack Zipes wrote that "There is hardly a German adult or child, even today, who does not know that Struwwelpeter is the model of everything one is not supposed to become, the model of the disobedient child."

Hoffmann's book, published at the insistence of his friends, quickly became an international bestseller, a perennial favorite that was translated into dozens of languages and went through more than 700 separate printings.

But the horrific image of Slovenly Peter moved to the front of the book for later printings, paled in comparison to the grisly stories that made up the remainder of Dr. Hoffmann's "Cheerful Stories and Funny Pictures for Good Little Folk."

For example, there is "The Dreadful Story of Pauline and the Matches." In this, young Pauline defies the advice of her mother and her nurse (as well as her alarmed pet cats) and chooses to play with matches. Hoffmann describes her fate thusly:

So she was burnt with all her clothes,
And arms and hands, and eyes and nose;
Til she had nothing more to lose
Except her little scarlet shoes;
And nothing else but these were found
Among her ashes on the ground.

Accompanying this poem is an image of Pauline engulfed in flame, clouds of smoke billowing from her body, her hands thrown up in horror as her two cats repeat the frightened gesture on either side of her.

But even this seems tame compared to "The Story of Little Suck-A-Thumb," which I will reprint in entirety:

One day, Mamma said, "Conrad dear,
I must go out and leave you here.
But mind now, Conrad, what I say,
Don't suck your thumbs while I'm away.
The great tall tailor always comes
To little boys that suck their thumbs;
And ere they dream what he's about
He takes his great sharp scissors out
And cuts their thumbs clean off,--and then
You know, they never grow again."
Mamma had scarcely turn'd her back
The thumb was in, alack! Alack!
The door flew open, in he ran
That great, long, red-legged scissor-man.
Oh! Children, see! the tailor's come
And caught our little Suck-a-Thumb.
Snip! Snap! Snip! the scissors go;
And Conrad cries out--Oh! Oh! Oh!
Snip! Snap! Snip! They go so fast;
That both his thumbs are off at last.

Mamma comes home; there Conrad stands
And looks quite sad, and shows his hands;--
"Ah!" said Mamma, "I knew he'd come
To naughty little Suck-a-Thumb."

Hoffmann's simple line drawings are uncomfortably lurid here: The tailor springs into the frame with a single leap clutching massive, pinching scissors, his hair flying behind him, as Conrad throws an arm and a leg into the air from the agony of having his thumb severed.

What sort of parents would buy such a book for their child? Especially when you consider that elsewhere the book tells such stories as that of Augustus, who refused to eat his soup and died of starvation in four short days. There is also the story of Robert, who went out into a storm with an umbrella and was caught up by a gust of wind:

Up he flies
To the skies.
No one heard his screams and cries;
Through the clouds the rude winds bore him,
And his hat flew on before him.

Robert is lost: "No one ever yet could tell where they stopp'd, or where they fell," Hoffmann writes.

While these stories hypothetically serve the function of moral instruction, indoctrinating children into the Teutonic Kultur der ZurĂĽckhaltung ("Culture of Restraint"), where civility was defined by self-control, this is not enough to explain the books' massive popularity.

After all, Hoffmann's stories contain casual, but terrifying, inversions of the normal world. Robert, for example, does exactly what he should on a rainy day: he brings his umbrella with him. Yet winds catch that umbrella and carry the terrified child off to his unknown doom -- and what lesson is being taught here? That we should leave our umbrellas at home?

Perhaps children should be taught not to suck on their thumbs, but warning them that their punishment will be mutilation seems preposterous. Again Hoffmann is inverting the world; after all, tailors sew things together, they don't cut them apart.

As someone who was exposed to these stories when I was a boy in England, I can speak from experience when I say that they left me utterly horrified. I could hardly stand to look at the book, although I would frequently quickly peek at it in the same way I peeked in on horror movies on late-night television.

Audiences have remained perpetually ambivalent about Slovenly Peter and his cohorts, some arguing that the book is evidence of a sadistic streak that courses through children's literature and stems from a cheap delight parents get in frightening their children. Others argue that Hoffmann meant his book as a subtle parody of the excessively moralistic literature of his day.

Hoffmann's own text is profoundly ambivalent -- no amount of rereading the books sheds any further light on Hoffmann's intentions, although I asked Jack Zipes about it, and he insisted that Hoffmann really did mean the book as moral instruction.

In an introduction he wrote for a Feral House reprinting of the book (with ghastly, not-for-children illustrations by Sarita Vendetta), Zipes wrote that, "The voice that speaks in Struwwelpeter and the hand that draws are authoritative and directive. Hoffmann does not write and draw because he is [a lover of children]; he is more concerned in maintaining the strictures of bourgeois training than he is about caring for children."

Speaking with me, Zipes described Strewwelpeter as "humorous but savage." "Hoffmann's intentions were good, even if his methods were questionable. He was a product of the 19th century, when people did not believe in sparing the rod, but instead were didactic and moral."

But Zipes confessed that there is more complexity in the book, explaining that Hoffmann's views on psychiatry were progressive, even at their most authoritarian. In fact, Hoffmann's work with the mentally ill consisted primarily of encouraging them towards engaging in meaningful work. As one writer pointed out in an issue of "The Lion and the Unicorn" that was dedicated to Struwwelpeter, Hoffmann was a philanthropist who believed in civilizing people, rather than punishing them.

Hoffmann's book was extreme, but not unusual in his day. Children frequently died in the literature of the 1800s, a fact that 20th century humorist and illustrator Edward Gorey would parody extensively in his own Victorian-styled chapbooks.

However, Strewwelpeter's continued popularity raises trickier questions. Certainly, some modern are attracted to the book's sadism (I am, but I am in good company, as American humorist Mark Twain translated the book for his own children one Christmas, heightening every act of violence in the process).

The Feral House republication is a vision of cruelty, not simply because of Vendetta's garish illustrations, but also because it reprints the entirety of a 1915 American translation that added in a dozen additional (and anonymous) poems that increases the infant mortality rate considerably. Additional, it includes a British parody of Strewwelpeter printed during World War II called Struwwelhitler, which includes these immortal lines:

Here is cruel Adolf, see!
A horrid, wicked boy was he;
He made a purge to serve his end,
And shot up all his oldest friends.

(By the way, such parodies were common, including multiple British versions that were meant as barbs against the government, as well as a Sixties-era American version by Dr. Joseph Wortis called Tricky Dick and His Pals.)

In the 1990s, for those who wished to frighten their children at the theater rather than with stories at bedtime, Strewwelpeter was adapted to the stage and retitled Shockheaded Peter. Created by London's Cultural Industry Project, the play split the attitudes toward the book neatly in half.

On the side of pure sadism was cult band The Tiger Lillies, whose lead singer and accordionist Martyn Jaques followed Twain's example by increasing the violence of the text in his musical adaptations of Hoffmann's poems. Singing in a funereal falsetto, he gleefully called for the deaths of each of the offending children, at one point refusing to sing until the entire audience joined him in screaming for one boy's butchery.

This was balanced out by the direction of Improbable Theatre members Julian Crouch and Phelim McDermott, a team famous for creating epic plays out of puppets and garbage. They staged Shockheaded Peter in what looked like a Victorian toy stage, but their version radically reconsidered the story.

In their telling, Slovenly Peter was the infant child of two parents who were so appalled at their son's ghastly appearance that they buried him under their floorboards. As the Tiger Lillies played their songs of murder, these parents slowly went mad, eventually sprouting long hair and fingernails like their abandoned son.

In one horrifying scene, the father staggered past the mutilated body of young Conrad, who had bled to death after having his thumbs cut off. As the man watched, a giant insect emerged from the wall and carried the infant corpse off -- an image certainly not found in the original, and probably part of the reason Shockheaded Peter was not recommended for children.

At the play's climax, the deranged parents open the floorboards and reclaim their despised child, who by now has grown enormous and even more hideous. In this scene, Crouch and McDermott rejected the sadism of Hoffmann's original novel -- briefly.

But then the play's narrator, played as a sort of hammy Shakespearean by actor Julian Bleach, turned savagely on the audience and berated them for not understanding the play, sounding similar to Hoffmann himself, who often aired such opinions about his critics to the public. "This book is supposed to evoke fairy-tale-like, horrid, and exaggerated ideas," Hoffmann once whined, warning parents that they should look to their own children's education. He recommended museums.

But Hoffmann was a man of warnings, and we will leave you with this one, found at the very beginning of Strewwelpeter:

When children have been good,
That is, be it understood,
Good at meal-times, good at play,
Good at night, and good all day,--
They shall have the pretty things
Merry Christmas always brings
Naughty, romping girls and boys
Tear their clothes and make a noise,
Soil their aprons and their frocks,
And deserve no Christmas-box.
Such as these shall never look
At this pretty Picture-Book.

A BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO BAD POETRY: EPITAPHS


Humor is a great salve, an unction against despair; it is why somebody like Dorothy Parker, who suffered a notoriously bleak and agonized psyche, was, on the surface of things, relentlessly witty.

It is easy to dismiss her wit as a neurotic tic, a shallow defense against depression. I find it neither neurotic nor shallow -- were it either, she would not have used her scabrous humor to so directly address her own gloom in poems such as the following:

Razors pain you
Rivers are damp
Acids stain you
Drugs cause cramps
Guns aren't lawful
Nooses give
Gas smells awful
You might as well live

No, for Parker, humor was anodyne. Iy might be for this reason that the epitaph, those words carved into a tombstone, which seem like they should be serious expressions of grief, are so often funny.

There is something heartening about discovering that some gravestones offer up a little dark humor, although this goes against our generally dismal attitude toward the subject of mortality. It speaks well of us as a species that humans treat each new birth as an astounding miracle and treat death as a heartbreaking tragedy, when, in fact, the two are the only experiences so utterly common that they are shared by everything that lives.

Yet we do not treat death as common, we treat it as a stranger, and we fear it and address the subject as one that must be spoken of in hushed, awed whispers.

Still, there are times when it is best to laugh at death. I do not know whether it was at the request of the deceased that a Georgia tombstone reads "I told you I was sick!", but God bless whoever was responsible.

Certainly, Ellen Shannon of Girard, Pennsylvania, could not have predicted that her tombstone would be carved with bitterly ironic words, explaining that Shannon "was fatally burned March 21, 1870 by the explosion of a lamp filled with 'R.E. Danforth's Non-Explosive Burning Fluid.'" Would Shannon have appreciated such an epitaph? Perhaps, if she had a good sense of fun, and did not mind that her own unexpected death, which must have been terrible indeed, could be made light of when it was done. Whether she did or not, epitaphs are made for the living, not for the dead, and I appreciate the keen sense of irony that went into writing such a thing, even if Shannon would not have.

Some epitaphs are simply hateful. Some die unloved, and those that bury them see their gravestones as a final opportunity to mock the despised. Take Tom Smith, who was buried in Newbury, England, in 1742, and whose gravestone takes great pains to display as much apathy as possible toward the man's death: "Tom Smith is dead, and here he lies, Nobody laughs and nobody cries; Where his soul's gone, or how it fares, Nobody knows, and nobody cares."

Or consider the case of a Welland, Ontario tombstone, which not only mocks the corpse beneath it, but further pokes fun at the living women of Ontario, whose virtue, it seems, was not unblemished: "Here lies all that remains of Charlotte, Born a virgin, died a harlot. For sixteen years she kept her virginity, A marvellous thing for this vicinity." This may be the most famous epitaph ever written, as it is paraphrased by the shark hunter Quint in Jaws.

As far as anyone can tell, people have been writing epitaphs as long as they have been marking the graves of the dead. The ancient Egyptians stamped epitaphs on funerary cones. These were rather bland affairs, mostly consisting of prayers to deities for the safeguarding of the deceased. Most of the Middle East practiced the art of the epitaph in the age of antiquity -- Aramaic epitaphs date back as far as 100 BC.

But we must look further west a poetic flourishing in this art. The Greeks and Romans were great ones for writing epitaphs. The prolific Greek poet Simonides practiced the art of epitaphs as a purely literary exercise. His famous ode to the fallen soldiers of the battle of Thermopylae was never meant to be carved into a tombstone, but has, nonetheless, commemorated the dead of that battle, and of many subsequent battles: "Go tell the Spartans, Thou that passes by, That faithfully to their precepts, Here we lie."

The Greeks liked to meditate when composing epitaphs, even their own. When the philosopher Plato sat down to compose his own, he must have been in a particularly meditative mood, as he didn't bother to so much as name himself or his accomplishments. Instead, he modestly said this of his forthcoming grave: "I am a shipwrecked sailor's tomb; a peasant's there doth stand: Thus the same world of Hades lies beneath both sea and land."

The Romans, by contrast, were men of accomplishment, and their epitaphs tended toward a literalness that is of great interest to contemporary historian, but is rather dull to anybody else.

Occasionally, though, inspired by great feats, Roman poets would try their hand at literary epigraphs. In the 1st Century AD., the Roman poet Martial composed the following epitaph to a deceased charioteer: "I am Scorpus, the glory of the roaring circus, the object of Rome's cheers, and her short-lived darling. The Fates, counting not my years but the number of my victories, judged me to be an old man."

The earliest English epitaphs tend to likewise be fairly literal -- and disappointingly scant -- lists of dates and a few deeds, perhaps influenced by Rome's occupation of Britain. Once in a while, a poetic flourish is attempted, but these are usually humorless affairs.

A grave from Thornbill, dating back to the 14th century or earlier, reads "Bonys emongg stonys lys ful steyl gwylste the sawle wandens were that God wylethe." If you squint a little, this is almost intelligible. In modern English it reads "Bones among stones lie full still, whilst the soul wanders whither God willeth."

It is shortly after this time that we start seeing hints of humor in epitaphs. The Black Plague influenced the art of the 15th century, creating entire genres of art inspired by the phrase Memento Mori (Remember, You Will Die), which included Danse Macabre illustrations of merry dead dancing around the living, engaging them in satirical dialogues.

This grim humor found its way into poetry -- it's legacy is so strong that many, wrongly, still believe that it survives in the "Ring Around the Rosie" doggerel that is now common in nursery rhymes. It also found its way onto tombs, such as the following, commemorating the deaths of Edward and Mabel Courtenay, who died in 1419 of the plague:

What wee gave, wee have;
What wee spent, wee had;
What we left, we lost.

While this is undeniably unhilarious, it nonetheless represents a sort of epigrammatic approach that paved the way for future pithy epigrams that spoke, with a bit of sharpened wit, on the subject of death. Indeed, wit itself is the subject of the grave of Mrs. Aphra Behm, who died in 1689, and had this to say about the subject:

Here lies a Proof that Wit can never be
Defence enough against Mortality.

One cannot tell whether Lord Byron laughed or sobbed when he penned this ode, to be inscribed on the grave of Boatswain, his beloved dog -- I suspect he did a little of both:

Near this spot
are deposited the remains of one
who possessed Beauty without Vanity,
Strength without Insolence,
Courage without Ferocity,
and all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.
This praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery,
if inscribed over human Ashes,
is but a just Tribute to the memory of
Boatswain, a DOG
who was born in Newfoundland, May 1803,
and died at Newstead, Nov 18, 1808.

We are now in the era of the Romantics, when death was both a subject for determined meditation and ironic foolery. This was a period, after all, that still suffered the legacy of graveyard poetry. This was a genre that flourished in the 18th century and consisted mostly of rhymed broodings about ghosts, ruined churches, and wailing nuns (all of whom would make the leap from poetry to literature in the form of the Gothic novel).

Here's a particularly ponderous example, from "The Grave" by Scottish poet Robert Blair:

Well do I know thee by thy trusty yew,
Cheerless, unsocial plant! that loves to dwell
'Midst skulls and coffins, epitaphs and worms:
Where light-heel'd ghosts, and visionary shades,
Beneath the wan, cold moon (as fame reports)
Embodied thick, perform their mystic rounds,
No other merriment, dull tree! is thine.

With all due respects to Blair, it was not the tree that was dull.

The Romantics, thank goodness, were not so mired in groaning poetic language. The poet and critic William Wordsworth wrote a rather lively series of essays upon epitaphs titled, appropriately enough, "Essays Upon Epitaphs."

I cannot confirm that this new literary interest in the epitaph improved the quality of epitaph writing, but I can tell you that, after the romantic era, epitaphs got funnier. The grave of 19th century poet Peter Robinson, as an example, is inscribed with the very words I would want on my own tomb, were it not for the fact that Robinson beat me to it, as well as the fact that I don't wish to die. His grave reads:

Here lies the preacher, judge, and poet, Peter
Who broke the laws of God, and man, and metre.

And then there is this wonderful chastizement to death, offered up on the death of a Mrs. Patridge, who died in 1861:

What! Kill a partridge in the month of May!
Was that done like a sportsman? eh, death, eh?

And to close, I present the deliciously nasty, self-penned epitaph to poet and writer Hillaire Belloc:

When I am dead, I hope it may be said:
"His sins were scarlet, but his books were read."

A BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO BAD POETRY: ELSA LANCHESTER


I have been wanting to write about the subject of the English music hall for quite some time, but I am buffaloed as to how to approach it. It is, after all, a rather obscure subject for most Americans, dating back to the end of the 19th century and experiencing a rapid decline after World War I, similar to that of its American cousin, vaudeville.

But this style of English variety entertainment has intrigued me for a long time -- probably since I was a little boy and lived in England for a year.

Despite its antiquity, there were still hints of the music hall on British television. Ancient performers were drag their creaky bones onto late-night television and perform dazzling feats of physical comedy. Old English movies, glimpsed through the fog of illness on afternoons when fever kept me home from school, showed broad-faced performers strumming banjoleles while singing spritely, slightly naughty melodies.

Even The Muppet Show, which was filmed in England, borrowed its structure from vaudeville and the music hall, and gave credit where credit would do. On occasion, for no clear reason, Fozzie Bear would emerge onstage in a hat and vest that sparkled with shiny buttons -- a costermonger's costume -- and launch into songs from the golden age of the music hall.

However, the subject of the music hall is too large to tackle in one story -- I have not enough room to talk about Edwardian music hall star George Formby or his identically named son, the possessor of the banjolele in the above paragraph.

Rather than drive myself into a tizzy attempting to fit too much history into too little space, I shall cut it up into individual stories. I can't resist it, you see. I love the music, and particularly the winking, too-clever-by-half lyrics of the music hall. And so I shall begin by talking about Elsa Lanchester, one of the last of the truly serious music hall performers, because Ms. Lanchester is linked to another of my great childhood obsession, the horror movie. You see, Ms. Lanchester was The Bride of Frankenstein.

Anyone who has seen this movie (and if you haven't, you would do yourself a great favor to do so) knows the climactic image: Lanchester, swaddled in bandages and a ragged gown, her black and white-streaked Nefertiti hair rising behind her like a ghastly parody of a halo from a religious painting.

She twitches her head and stares unblinking at Frankenstein's monster, who lunges toward her, desperate to touch the mate he has demanded. However, the bride of Frankenstein responds in horror, pointing at the monster and hissing like a furious goose.

Boris Karloff's noble monster was not alone in his lust for Miss Lanchester. With apologies to Samuel Johnson, we can fairly say of Elsa Lanchester that she was not only lascivious, she was the cause of lasciviousness in others.

Throughout her long career as an actress, singer, and general muse, she inspired men to write odes -- many quite improper -- to her charms, all of which Lanchester remembered in her fascinating autobiography, Elsa Lanchester, Herself.

Lanchester was the product of scandal. The daughter of ardent socialists, Lanchester's mother had been kidnapped by her father and older brothers for her insistence on living with a lover rather than marrying him -- quite shocking behavior at the turn of the 20th Century.

Her family had her declared insane on the grounds that she was "over-educated," and the case was widely reported throughout the British Empire. Lanchester's mother, a 25-year-old woman with enormous willpower (she kicked the windows out of the carriage used for her kidnapping), quickly regained her independence and returned to her lover, a self-educated Irish laborer considered to be well below her "station." Angry letters flooded the papers, protesting that her immoral cohabitation would produce children that society would naturally reject.

Elsa was born in London on October 28,1902, and had the sort of childhood that now sounds like a romantic fiction. Her parents remained firebrands (they taught their parrot to scream "Votes for women!"), and Lanchester remembers witnessing a suffragette meeting that ended with a police riot, during which mounted policemen pushed protesting women up against walls and beat them with nightsticks.

The family moved frequently to avoid one legal entanglement or another, and consequently Lanchester's education was sparse and eccentric. She eventually ended up in a Summerhill-type all-boys school, as well as studying dance with both Raymond and Isadora Duncan, the founders of modern dance. She naturally gravitated toward the theater, and was endlessly fascinated by music mall performers.

At age 17, Lanchester started her own children's theater, which survived for a few tumultuous years (she had a talent both for exploiting her students' natural performing skills and for selecting material that displeased the local officials, who tried to shut her down), and eventually the whole project transformed into a professional cabaret.

Called The Cave of Harmony, performances were semi-improvised and often included odd ditties such as "Rat Catcher's Daughter" that Lanchester had dug up at the British Museum. The Cave of Harmony became a popular meeting place for London artists and intellectuals, including H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, Evelyn Waugh, and James Whale (who would direct Lanchester in The Bride of Frankenstein). A local wag was the first to immortalize Lanchester in song, struck by her shock of bronze hair and her brassy behavior. He wrote:

I may be fast, I may be loose,
I may be easy to seduce.
I may not be particular
To keep the perpendicular.
But all my horizontal friends
Are Princes, Peers and Reverends.
When Tom or Dick or Bertie call,
You'll find me strictly vertical!

Simultaneously, Lanchester fell in with a gang of radical socialists called the 1917 Club, and became something of their mascot. A Mr. John Armstrong wrote of the club, saying:

In nineteen one seven they founded a club
Partly as a brothel and partly as a pub,
With a membership mainly of literary bores
Redeemed by a girl in Giotto-pink drawers.

Lanchester claims she did not own a pair of pink drawers at the time, but her image was fixed: A bohemian socialist with loose morals, outrageous behavior, and brightly colored unmentionables. Her compatriot Geoffrey Dunlap wrote bitterly about her (he was bitter about everything, Lanchester complained), saying:

Pink drawers alas--why should her drawers be pink
Their colour gives me furiously to think--
Pink drawers--and do they never turn red
Flushed at their mistress' sin while she's in bed.
No they are pink, and peonies in their fair hue
Their innocence remains forever new.

Lanchester later noted that "art was a word that cloaked oceans of naughtiness," and she had her share of it, working as a nude model by day and a theatrical impresario by night. Her biography only hints at the wildness of London during the Roaring Twenties, but those hints are tantalizing: Stripping nude at strangers' houses, getting advice on abortion from Tallulah Bankhead, moving from one just-barely suppressed scandal to another while singing bawdy songs -- always singing bawdy songs.

Years later, when Lanchester was happily married to actor Charles Laughton (who only revealed his homosexuality after they were wed, news she received with aplomb) and had established herself as a respectable presence in Hollywood, she would still be singing these songs.

By day, Lanchester worked at the movie studios, and at night she would take the stage at the Turnabout Theater, changing costumes for each new song and warbling out numbers with names like "If You Peek In My Gazebo" and "Fiji Fanny."

The Turnabout was one of those improbable theatrical projects that turned out, despite its improbability, to be quite successful.

Begun in 1941 by a group of puppeteers, it consisted of two stages, one on either end of the audience. Between the stages sat reversible seats from streetcars, so that when one show finished on one side of the theater, the audience could simply switch position and watch another show as it began on the other stage.

The plan was to produce one hour of puppet theater and one hour of live theater, but eventually the venue became primarily known for Lanchester's elaborate, costumed song routines. One critic wrote that her show was "A breath of fresh air in our smoky night life ... Else Lanchester, with her abstract face, her thicket of apricot hair ... oddly diverting, funny, fantastic, wistful, and wayward ... a weird and wondrous will-of-the-wisp, being female, street urchin and witty in rapid succession."

While a collection of Lanchester's performances was released under the title Elsa Lanchester Sings Bawdy Cockney Songs, the title is misleading; Although a few of the songs (such as the morbid "Rat Catcher's Daughter") are holdovers from her Cave of Harmony days, and all are written in the style of the music hall, most of the songs on the recording were written specifically for Ms. Lanchester. The songwriter was one of the great, forgotten lyricists of the 20th Century: Forman Brown.

Brown had an extraordinary talent for telling stories in verse: He could pair a couplet in a way that was straightforward, intimate, and utterly compelling in its details. Let us look at a section from one of his unrecorded songs, titled "Lackadaisy Masie":

The tinker he was a dashing man,
flashing his smile so splendid.
The women would flock around his van
and buy what they'd never intended.

Brown's lyrics had a quiet playfulness. His subtle wordplay never announced itself, as did Cole Porter's, but instead built careful line upon careful line in order to create a rich, textured story. His songs are often bawdy, yes, but have a mournful quality to them that renders them quite striking. Let us look at a song of infidelity, for example, called "When a Lady Has a Piazza":

Every night when the sun goes down
On the little white house on the edge of town
I sit on my porch and rock
My neighbor on the left is Mrs. MacFaul
She never speaks to me at all
She's in bed by nine o'clock
Mrs. Pottington lives on the other side
She's a righteous women with a military stride
And she ignores me too
But Mr. Pottington and Mr. MacFaul
Have both dropped in rather late to call
A neighbourly thing to do

There is a hint of pettiness and loneliness in these lyrics that Lanchester echoed in her performance. "I am not first and foremost a singer," she once wrote, and it is not her voice that made her famous. Instead, in a now nearly lost tradition of musical theater, Lanchester would create a character for each of her songs, and create a voice for that character.

Thus, "When a Lady Has a Piazza" sounds as though it were sung by a rather exhausted, depressed gentlewoman, causing a critic to comment that "there is a desperate quality about her art; in some curious way, she takes her listeners out of a close, tidy world and into a disquieting place filled with sharp winds and unsteady laughter."

Off and on, Lanchester would perform songs from her Cave of Harmony and Turnabout Theater days for the remainder of her life, creating a variety of characters to warble out Brown's amazing, almost totally unknown rhymed couplets, such as these from "The Janitor's Boy":

When we play house in the janitor's garret,
I'm momma and he is the pop.
We quarrel and I scream just like old Mrs. Barrett,
While he beats me up with a mop.
Last week Mr. Jones got a splendid allotment
Of scotch and two bottles of gin,
And did we have fun in the Jones's apartment!
At least 'till the Joneses walked in.
The janitor's boy is a marvel,
Though he's not such a popular kid.
He swiped such a funny French novel
That Mrs. Cuducci had hid.
Some parts of that book were beyond me:
It was funny the way they would act.
But the janitor's boy made the reading a joy:
He supplied all the knowledge I lacked.

It is hard to imagine these words coming from the same mouth that produced the horrified swan hissing when unveiled before the monster in James Whale's masterpiece, but then it is also impossible to imagine her singing this song in a puppet theater -- and doing so for 10 years!

In London in the 1940s, critics would often complain that the music hall was not what it had once been, and the new stars could not compete with the old. "They were giants then," came the complaint, but it was a complaint produced by a lack of observation.

Giants of traditional British Music Hall still walked the earth, still producing the same delightful -- if somewhat unseemly -- popular ballads. The critics simply were not looking in the right location, which, odd as it still seems, was a Hollywood puppet theater.

A BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO BAD POETRY: EDWARD GOREY


Edward Gorey, whose strange, crabbed, finely detailed illustrations and blackly humorous accompanying text seems perpetually to hang on the walls of college dorm rooms, died in April of 2000, leaving behind a puzzling body of work.

There is, as an example, the strangely popular The Gashlycrumb Tinies, his little abecedarian poem about 26 hapless children and their gruesome fates: There is Ernest, who choked on a peach, and poor Neville, who died of ennui.

The book is written as a sort of plodding series of rhymed couplets -- the very blandness of the book's structure serves to highlight the extraordinary viciousness of the text. Look, for example, at the first Gorey's first four verses:

A is for AMY who fell down the stairs
B is for BASIL assaulted by bears
C is for CLARA who wasted away
D is for DESMOND thrown out of a sleigh

Speaking of hapless children, there is The Hapless Child, a bitter morality tale in the fashion of Victorian parlor poetry, which tells of Charlotte Sophia, a wide-eyed, blonde-locked innocent whose suffers a series of indignities, falling victim to abusive boarding school teachers and cruel drunks. Eventually Charlotte perishes, blind and malnourished, beneath the wheels of her father's car. Clutching his daughter, for whom he had been searching, the father does not recognize her.

Gorey's collected works, both anthologized and printed in compact, oddly sized book form, usually end up in the humor section of bookstores -- even with their parade of grave-bound children, Gorey's books seemed intended as bleak goofs.

His was a world of crumbling mansions and impenetrable, callous actions. This was the very stuff of English mystery novels, which he adored, but which he comically rendered nonsensical and absurd. Whatever evil happens in Gorey's books, it happens for our amusement, whether it be the dread-inspiring, uninvited presence of a birdlike, scarf- and tennis shoe-wearing creature in The Doubtful Guest or the tragedy of a family crushed by a rock formation in The Willowdale Handcar.

Gorey's work has been the subject of numerous printed retrospectives, all sounding delighted and baffled by the man's work in equal shares. Gorey himself steadfastly refused to comment on his own work in any meaningful way. When pressed on the meaning of his work, he dismissed the question. "Ideally, if anything were good, it would be indescribable," he once told an interviewer.

While Gorey's works were not beyond description, critics have had to repeatedly reach for antiquated language to find the right word for his illustrations, which seemed set just at the dawn of modernity, when Victorianism was fading and the Twentieth Century was just starting.

Karen Wilkin, writing of Gorey's meticulous line drawings in The World of Edward Gorey, pointed out that "Gorey's settings, like his period characters, demand words no longer in common use." She added, "They are rooms where antimacassars protect the upholstery, aspidistras fill the urns, pelmets hang at the windows, and the whatnot is decorated with ormolu."

For author Alexander Theroux, such creaky language is also required to describe the thin, bearded, fur coat-clad Gorey himself. Theroux, a novelist and playwright who authored a popular series of books on colors, was a neighbor and, from the sounds of it, something of a busybody friend of Gorey in Barnstable, Massachusets, where Gorey lived out the last years of his life.

Theroux authored The Strange Case of Edward Gorey, an unkempt and fascinating series of recollections of the man. If ever an author was guilty of gadzookery -- the use of archaism in writing -- it is Theroux. Perhaps inspired by the mannered, antique world that Gorey created, as well as by the fussy eccentricity of Gorey himself, Theroux authored a book dense with sentences that willfully defy rules 6 and 14 of Strunk and White's guide to style: Do not overwrite and avoid fancy words. As an example, describing a recurring image in Gorey's work, Theroux fashions this dense sentence:

"Demireps with eyes rounded by kohl -- most women in his books, the elegant ones certainly, are as identifiable for their black eye-liner as Claudia Cardinale -- stare hatefully at children."

This could result in an unreadable volume, but, thankfully, the results are witty and strange but entirely understandable.

It helps that Theroux is dealing with a fascinating subject, and one for whom he clearly has considerable affection. He makes it his task to sift through errant memories and scraps of interviews with Edward Gorey in order to construct a small, warm, weird portrait of the man.

While Gorey fans have long known of the illustrator's obsession with television -- he was said to watch dozens of hours per day -- how many knew that Gorey had a great fondness for Buffy the Vampire Slayer? And while Gorey's love of the ballet is renowned -- he religiously attended the New York City Ballet, until Balanchine retired, prompting Gorey's own move to Cape Cod -- but how many know of his equally passionate love of Oreo cookies? His hatred of fruitcake? How many know that he wrote and directed puppet shows in his waning years?

Who, but somebody such as Theroux, who made it his habit to sit opposite Gorey whenever he saw the man at a restaurant, would be able to relate Gorey's scorching, petty dismissals of popular culture figures such as Martha Stewart ("Get me a big mallet!"), Kathie Lee Gifford ("Her facial contortions would be excessive on Daffy Duck"), or Glenn Close ("sexless as a tea bag")?

There is a sense of Gorey as a real, albeit very weird, person in Theroux's book, a palpable sense of his character, which has previously been absent in works about the illustrator. Gorey, as a person, was a maddening mix of droll eccentric and rueful crank. Theroux steers clear of speculation about anything Gorey himself demurred from discussing. He touches on, but does not discuss, Gorey's reported homosexuality. Instead, Theroux's presentation of Gorey is as a somewhat hermetic aesthete with little interest in social interaction, but that it provided him the opportunity to spout off. Otherwise, the Gorey that Theroux gives us is, well, sexless as a tea bag.

Gorey was a frequent demurrer, failing to discuss his private life or even his own work in any consistent way, dismissing the subjects as though they were a horrendous bore. But Theroux gives us a man of odd passions, and Gorey never demurred from discussing his vast, ranging interests, from bean-bag toys to silent films.

Gorey was a collector of strange things and a connoisseur of easily dismissed culture. His interests often colluded to produce ghastly works, but they have been received warmly, despite the meanness of the poetry and the strangeness of the imagery.

It's heartening to read his works and discover that a fervent audience might sprout up around a man who would compose a limerick like the following, also from The Listing Attic:

There was a young curate whose brain
Was deranged from the use of cocaine;
He lured a small child
To a copse dark and wild,
Where he beat it to death with his cane.

As with filmmaker John Waters' autobiographical essays, with Theroux's character portrait of Edward Gorey we are given a glimpse into the process by which a witty mind can turn trash into art.

Gorey's stories and illustrations, disconnected from the everyday by their affected antiquity and their perverse subject matter, have puzzled fans for years. Theroux searches for the source of Gorey's art, and finds it in soap operas, popular movies, and trashy mystery novels -- unexpectedly common sources.

At the end of his book, Theroux recounts a brief discussion in which he quizzed Gorey on his inspiration: "I asked him, awkwardly, as I recall, why he thought that stark violence and horror and terror were the uncompromising focus of his work.

"'I write about everyday life,' came Gorey's simple reply, out of a shadow."

A BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO BAD POETRY: CHASTUSHKA


Charles Ludlam, the founder of the Ridiculous Theatre company, included in his mission statement his intentions to create a theater that was "without the stink of art," and this phrase of his has stuck with me.

It goes a long way toward explaining why I tend to avoid the poetry section of most bookstores, where, alphabetized among the works of genuinely good poets, such as Blake, are thousands of self-involved little tomes.

There is an unbearable floridity to much contemporary poetry, a groaning and wheezing desire to transform the plainest material -- too often in the form of pure autobiographical -- into something profound. Poets foist upon us sentence after sentence of banality wrapped in gasping, dizzy language, as though, through the sheer force of plumping up a bad idea with busy words, the idea can be made grand.

I don't much care for grand ideas anyway. I say take care of the poem and let the profundity take care of itself.

There is an illness in which people who do very mundane creative acts suddenly get it into their heads that they are the most special people in the world, and I, for one, can't bear it. There is craft to poetry, yes, and I would recommend that anyone who decides to set pen to paper, even to compose very bad poems, familiarize themselves with this craft.

But though poetry sometimes seems mired in the depths of morbid self-absorption in the United States, if you start scrounging through the ditches, you find a lot of plainer stuff. You'll quickly discover that children and soldiers, as just two examples, are quite happy to use rhymed verse. And there is often great cleverness there as well -- sly satires, broad parodies, and devious little experiments is both form an content.

You won't find any of these poems sitting alongside Blake, Byron, and Jewel on the poetry shelf of your local bookstore, but who cares? For my tastes, it is for the best that some forms of poetry fall below critical radar.

In fact, I recently stumbled across a form of poetry that is important exactly because it is disreputable. I speak of a style of Russian doggerel called the chastushka, it is not likely to be the toast of any artistic circles. Consider this example, translated from the Russian by some semi-anonymous online poster:


My dear darling - he's so nice,
He gave me four small pubic lice.
But how to feed them - how, how, how?
Because they're so very tiny now.

Or consider the following:

My sweet darling, out of grief,
Punched a hole through three boards with his cock.
This will strengthen year by year,
The power of the Soviet block.

I must say, my appreciation for the original poem is compounded by the awkwardness of the translation.

I do not know Russian, and so I cannot say how these translations compare with the original. I would be very disappointed, however, if the original poems were less vile in content, or less awkward in structure.

Here are poems that thrive in an entirely oral tradition -- but for occasional online collections, there is no established publishing environment for the chastushka, neither are the authors of such poems generally known. Instead, the travel by word-of-mouth, like dirty jokes, which they often resemble. Consider the following:

Little Nickie is very sad:
doesn't want to ride moped,
doesn't want to ride his horse
wants to have an intercourse.

There are similar traditions of bawdy poems in almost every culture, of course. However, the chastushka has a special place in Russian culture. After all, where else would so vile a poetic form find itself celebrated in a concerto for an orchestra by a virtuoso composer? Russia's foul poetic tradition, in the meanwhile, formed the basis for Rodion Shchedrin's Ozorniye Chastushki.

In his notes for the piece, Shchedrin made explicit the importance of this poetic tradition: "In a chastushka there is always humor, irony and a sharp satire of the status quo, its defenders and the 'leaders of the people.' Even such powerful or dreaded names as Marx, Lenin and Stalin have been ridiculed in chastushki."

It's true. The same poetic form used to describe Little Nicki's pathetic condition was also put to service mocking Raisa Gorbacheva in the following pair of couplets:

Get off your high horse, Raisa,
You're no queen, no actress either,
Don't wear those furs for foreign fans,
In the Soviet Union you're a flash in the pan.

I should point out at this moment that the chastushka has a more embedded position in Russian culture that, say, the limerick does in ours. chastushki are sung along to simple balalaika melodies in restaurants, and the more pedestrian verses sometimes find their way onto children's albums, such as the Middlebury Russian Choir's Little Golden Bee. Although this album consists mostly of Christmas music and Cossack songs, it also contains this chastushka:

We fell in love with the cook,
whenever he turns up he brings us butter and cottage cheese.
Our boys are so crazy,
they propose to seven girls in one night!

I would be very much surprised if there isn't a version of this in which the crazy boys in the poem do much more than "propose" to seven girls in one night.

We might expect that there are chastushki that lack any explicitly sexual or political content -- there is a long tradition of similar limericks in the West. When you consider that the chastushka has a place in a traditional folk festival, Whit Sunday, it makes sense that there some chastushki are composed for general audiences. After all, on Whit Sunday it wouldn't so to have a young Russian maidens follow the seasonal tradition of making an effigy of a woman out of birch branches, bringing it to a river, and dancing around it while accompanied by an accordion while singing:

No longer sad, no longer listeless,
I'm going to marry Khrushchev's mistress!
I will squeeze with these two hands,
The most Marxist tits in all the land!

Although, when you consider that Whit Sunday is the residue of a fertility ritual, such a poem might be perfectly appropriate.

The beauty of this common but subterranean Russian poetic form is that, because it was sourceless and rarely written, it could flourish outside state control. So the lowly chastushka became a beloved form for expressing dissent during Soviet years -- chastushki mocked everything from communist theory to the Soviet leadership. Consider these two examples of explicitly political chastushki:

Red cow of the collective farm, we all admire
How you give us milk and lots of fertilizer.
Instead of being fed, you were sent to school for Marxists,
Labor leaders are still awaiting cream because of this.
The whole collective farm is very, very proud of you,
Oh horned one, you're our very own main attraction true.
For in response to Lenin's own appeal throughout the land,
You heaped a load of fertilizer on the socialist plan.

A sickle left, a hammer right,
This is our own Soviet sign.
You want to forge, you want to reap,
All the same, you won't get beans.

Believe it or not, this poetic form proved so successful that the Soviet government attempted to produce its own versions, but with pro-Soviet messages. From what I understand, they met with limited success.

There's a lesson here for contemporary American poets. Before they sit down to write loquacious odes to their own self-importance, they might look to the anonymous chastushka. Superficially, this form seems like nothing more than an exercise in giddy pornography. After all, what value can there be in a poetic form that produced the following:

Train is speeding from Tambov
Tailgate lights are on and off,
Girls aboard would -- what the heck! --
Fuck their way through ticket check!

But this lowly, ignored form still packs a hell of a wallop in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Consider the case of Nikolai Markevich and Pavel Mozheiko, both of the newspaper Pahonia in Belarus. Both were sentenced to two-plus years of community service in 2002 for mocking President Alexander Lukashenko from the pages of their paper. Among the items used to convict the men was the following chastushka, which they presumably composed:

I promised my people that the mafia would be dead.
Congratulate me now -- I'm the mafia's new head.

Evidence, perhaps, that the most potent, dangerous satire is often the plainest and least self-important. Markevich and Mozheiko took care of their poem -- and it is not a great one by any standards. Nonetheless, the profundity took care of itself -- with a vengeance.

A BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO BAD POETRY: WILLIAM MCGONAGALL


There is some competition for the title of worst poet of all time. Two poet laureates of wretched verse are in steep competition. I speak of Julia A. Moore, otherwise known as the Sweet Singer of Michigan, and William McGonagall, otherwise known as the fellow who walked 50 miles to Balmoral to read a poem to Queen Victoria, was turned away unheard, and had to walk all the way back home.

At some later time I shall tackle the considerable specter of Moore, whose horrific verses about local tragedies were so beloved by her contemporary Mark Twain that he based on her one of his greatest comic inventions, the deceased poetess Emmeline Grangerford in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Instead I will discuss McGonagall, which is by no means an easier task. Yet I must. Just as good poets are entreated to read great poetry ("Great writers are great readers," South African playwright and author Zakes Mda once advised), bad poets must also look to their forebears.

Before I tell you any more about him, however, let me take a moment to cite two verses from one of his poems, titled "The Tay Bridge Disaster," so that we all know exactly what I am talking about:

Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv'ry Tay!
Alas! I am very sorry to say
That ninety lives have been taken away
On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
Which will be remember'd for a very long time.

'Twas about seven o'clock at night,
And the wind it blew with all its might,
And the rain came pouring down,
And the dark clods seem'd to frown,
And the Demon of the air seem'd to say--
"I'll blow down the Bridge of Tay."

This who wish to read the whole of it should be warned that it does not end well, for the 90-odd passengers on an Edinburgh train or for McGonagall.

McGonagall was a man of his time, sort of. As a poet who was born in the first half of the Nineteenth century, the sort of pastoral ditties and rhyming tales of catastrophe that he authored were in a style that was then very common. In fact, hundreds of unskilled authors of the era set quill to paper and composed melancholy odes to train wrecks or apple cheeked, fair-haired boys slowly but beautifully dying of consumption and the like while whispering comforting words to their mothers.

It is honestly astounding that McGonagall's verses could somehow rise above the pallid, quavering dreck that surrounded him. However, as the two stanzas above illustrate, McGonagall was uniquely gifted.

To be sure, he wasn't the only poet found it impossible to compose a line that can be scanned properly, but he was especially miserable at it. If we look at the first stanza of "Tay Bridge" as an example, we discover this astounding example of scansion: the first line above has 11 syllables, the next 10, then 10 again, and then a breathless 13, and then, perhaps having overtaxed himself, McGonagall returns to 12.

Further, there is no evidence of any meter whatsoever. Try pounding out the rhythm of that first two abominable lines. We begin pounding along with a rather steady DUM dah dah DUM dah dah waltz rhythm, and then, with the start of line two, we unexpectedly skip into ... what? Dizzy Gillespie couldn't have followed the counterrhythm that starts the next line.

And so it goes throughout the poem, and throughout all of McGonagall's poetry -- every time he seems about to establish a clear metric pace, he sudden goes rhythmically wild. Images of the poet show McGonagall to have been a dour, haggard man, but whenever I read his poems I see the poetic equivalent of Animal from The Muppet Show beating uncontrollably on his drum kit.

Lack of craft is not enough to inspire true greatness. If it were so, every aspiring poet who break a moody sentence in random places might be the next McGonagall. (Although, in fairness, McGonagall's lack of craft exceeded that of most childlike musings, which are merely uninspired in their approach to poetic structure; McGonagall was beastly.)

No, what makes the truly greatly bad is hubris, and McGonagall, dour though he may have looked, had hubris to spare.

Who else, unable to even get his syllables to match up, would nonetheless make extensive use of the poetic technique of "elision," a technique with only one major function -- getting the meter to match up!

Every time McGonagall drops a letter in his poetry and replaces it with an apostrophe -- and he does it constantly, such as with the words "Silv'ry" and "remember'd" -- he has committed an unforgivable act of elision. Obviously unaware of the technique's purpose, he has simply randomly dropped unstressed syllables, and to what end?

My own suspicion is that McGonagall noticed this technique in other poems, thought it looked grand, and so started simply banishing letters from his poetry without ever bothering to discover why anybody would do such a thing. And I can think of no greater act of poetic hubris than this. McGonagall has decided that he is a poet, and a great one, and so he has affected a technique of great poetry, but through his very use of that technique he betrays his lack of understanding of poetry. Magnificent!

And there is no doubt that McGonagall considered himself a great poet. He authored a deluded, impossible-to-read autobiography called The Book of the Lamentation of the Poet McGonagall, which exists only to laud his own contributions to literature.

In fact, the second chapter, after the obligatory "I am Born," is titled "The Genius of Poetry Visits Me." Here is a sample of his bizarre ramblings: " I, their sole surviving and orphan son, by a strange and eclectic natural process have had conserved in my own colossal cranium the best parts of both, the baser instincts having been eliminated by the sheer force of the perverfidum ingenium cotorum which I, though a Milesian on both aides of the house, possess in a much higher degree than that terribly over-praised and far more immoral than immortal Burns........................"

Where McGonagall was headed after all those ellipses is anybody's guess. More anti-Burns rambling? More babbling in pseudo Latin (this roughly translates as "perseverance of an innate quality through" ... what ... "inquiry," maybe?) It is another example of McGonagall's pretensions to greatness that he would suddenly discuss his genius in a language of antiquity, but that he further would simply invent the Latin to do so!

McGonagall avidly sought his notoriety as a poet. He received a small fee -- between a half-pound and a pound -- to travel and recite his poetry across Scotland, and, occasionally, as far south as London.

Audiences delighted in the poet, showing up in droves to make sport of him, and how could they resist? What dull evening would not be brightened by a snippet of bad rhyme, such as these two lines from "The Death of Lord and Lady Dalhousie:" "Alas! Lord and Lady Dalhousie are dead, and buried at last, / Which causes many people to feel a little downcast."

One newspaper report from the time related the indignities McGonagall suffered for his poor art. The story describes McGonagall, dressed in kilt, plaid, sporran, and feathered bonnet, hoarsely shouting his verses while his audience responds by pelting him with eggs, herrings, potatoes, stale bread, an event that culminated in McGonagall drawing a sword and slashing wildly at the air, and then taking a quick bow.

Bad poets must be prepared to make a spectacle of themselves, but they should be duly warned: McGonagall set the bar high. There was his disastrous trip to New York, a city that caused the poet to wax lyrical, saying:

OH mighty City of New York! you are wonderful to behold,
Your buildings are magnificent, the truth be it told,
They were the only things that seemed to arrest my eye,
Because many of them are thirteen storeys high.

However, things were not so mighty (OH!) when McGonagall actually visited the city in 1887, entreated to read by a series of letters that proved to be forged.

Arriving with only eight shillings, he made the rounds of music halls, where he was told, in no uncertain terms, that he would not be able to find an audience. He then set out to sell his poems, but, much to his chagrin, found people would not even read them.

After three weeks, penniless, he wrote home for money, pleading with a friend, "For God's sake, take me home from this second Babylon." He would later write of his adventure, "I love New York, for it made me Love my own land the better."

Alas, like his poetry, McGonagall did not end well. In 1902, after years of writing unhappy letters complaining of "bronchitis, deafness, 'noises in the head', &c.", he died and was buried in a pauper's grave.

But he has left us a comic image of lasting greatness. Who among us can live up to the vision of McGonagall, decked out in ill-fitting Scottish ceremonial regalia, besotted with egg and flour, shouting his fractured verse while waving his sword at a hooting audience? By these standards, most contemporary poetry readings are positively unwatchable.

JEWISH HORROR MOVIES: IT! (1967)


Let me say at the start that even though this odd, apocalyptic British film is a golem movie, it’s not an especially Jewish movie. Although they share a title, 1967’s “It!” is unrelated to the Stephen King novel of the same name, or the films adapted from them, which also feature a Jewish character and will be addressed later in this book.

Despite the fact that the film lacks a certain Jewishness, I include it in this collection because I find it interesting to see what non-Jewish filmmakers do with Jewish subject matter. Yes, that’s what I tell myself, yes, to sound reasonable.

But the fact is I include it because of it sheer, delicious oddness, and because it has Roddy McDowall in it.

I have now and have always had a fondness for actor Roddy McDowall. I am told when I was a boy he toured the various zoos in America to promote the “Planet of the Apes” television show, and that he leapt out a seized me and lifted me into the air dressed as a chimpanzee.

This seems unlikely. I was seized by a man in an ape costume, but why would it be McDowall? Behind the makeup, who would even know? Nonetheless, it persists as a family legend, and has made me feel a certain connection to the actor, even if it is a fanciful one.

McDowall was a child actor in England who became a child actor in America, appearing opposite Elizabeth Taylor in the original film adaptation of “Lassie Come Home” when both were still quite young.

They remained lifelong friends and navigated the complicated transition from child actor to adult actor together, occasionally still sharing the screen -- both were in “Cleopatra” in 1963. Taylor was, of course, the star of the film, having grown into one of the world’s most successful lead actresses. McDowall was what he wound up being -- a slightly eccentric character actor.

McDowall could carry a movie, but his lead roles typically happened in genre films, as in the “Planet of the Apes” series, where he gradually came to the forefront as the main character, even starring in the television show that marked my childhood. He had a distinctive voice, a high tenor that sounded at once intelligent and strained, with a precise, clipped London accent, and as a result he also often did voice work.

McDowall acted in a sort of demonstrative pre-Method style: he had big emotions and let them play right on the surface. It’s a style that might seem a little mannered, but British people always seem a bit mannered, and so it played well in 1960s and 70s films. He often played his character as being a bit too delicate for the story their are part of; that is the case here, as I shall describe.

This sort of emotionalism often worked quite well in horror films, which are a generally places of big emotions. He did a film relatively late in his career called “Fright Night” where he played an aging horror movie actor who is enlisted to help battle actual vampires. The whole film is an unexpectedly unsubtle metaphor for the LGBTQ experience.

There is a scene in the film where a young man is accosted by a vampire and talked into allowing himself to be bitten. It plays out as a seduction, with the vampire monologizing about the anguish of being an outsider. Later, McDowall will kill this boy, and his death will be agonizing. McDowall’s performance during the death is splendid, anguished, heartbroken. He himself was reported to be gay, and the sequence seems to reflect and comment on tragedy of youthful death, which is not what you expect when someone has just staked the undead.

McDowall was not Jewish, if I have not made that clear. He was Catholic, although he was his own sort of London minority, as he had an Irish mother and Scottish father. London is not an un-Jewish place, but, as I have mentioned, this is an un-Jewish film. As far as I can tell, nobody who had significant involvement in the film was Jewish, including writer/director Herbert J. Leder. And so the film is largely unconcerned with the Jewishness of the golem story, even when Roddy McDowall finds a golem in a museum warehouse.

That’s not to say the film’s golem is entirely divorced from Jewish history. Although this one is made from stone, rather than mud, it is supposed to be the famous Prague Golem created by Rabbi Judah Leow. The film also did enough research to know there are other golem stories, and even bring a rabbi in at one point to translate a Hebrew inscription.

But these are gestures at Judaism. The golem in this film primarily serves as a monster, and as an especially flat monster at that. He is, to the film’s credit, a horrific looking thing, a giant with a narrow, twisted head that looks at though somebody had tried to build a human out of a stalk of asparagus. But he is less a classic movie monster than a sort of supernatural automaton, a sort of destructive robot that can be aimed at anything and will mutely tear it down.

But a film about a weapon isn’t a monster movie. Thankfully, this film actually has a monster, and it is McDowall. We learn this very early on when the character he plays, a twitchy assistant curator at a museum, returns home to his mother. She is a taxidermied mummy, like Norman Bates’ mother, and McDowall talks to her as though she were still alive. He doesn’t think she is, as this is an element borrowed from “Psycho” but not quite stolen from it. Instead, McDowall is a bit of a psychic, and communicated with her spirit.

This talent comes in handy when he discovers the golem, and the film suggests, without making explicit, that he quickly develops a psychic bond with the statue that causes it to kill anyone he is irritated with. He is easily irritated, so bodies start mysteriously piling up underneath the statue.
McDowall’s control of the creature is, at first, accidental, but soon he discovers a scroll that, when placed in the statue’s mouth, makes the statue mobile.

Sort of. As killing machines go, this one is lethargic, meandering from place to place. It scarcely seems worth worrying about, except that McDowall has decided to show off for a disinterested young woman (Jill Haworth), and, being mad, his idea of showing off it to have the golem tear down a bridge. As mentioned, McDowall is a bit delicate for this sort of destruction: Ordering a man killed, he turns and shields his eyes, pleased to have the power to take life but too squeamish to witness it. He will overcome that quickly; by the end of the film he will burn a woman alive in a fit of anger.

The film grows increasingly apocalyptic. The golem comes with an inscribed warning in Hebrew, not present in the original myth, that has it gaining strength every 100 years, to the point of genocidal indestructibility by the start of the 21st century. The warning is clear that, if the golem had its druthers, it would cleanse the earth of human life. Fortunately, all one needs to do to stop this is to remove the scroll from its mouth.

Alas, McDowall is both mad and bad at controlling a golem. There is a scene where he is confronted by an American curator, plated by the stern-voiced Paul Maxwell. The American makes a list of everything you should not do with a golem and McDowall, to his own growing horror, confessing he has done every one of them. And what of the scroll? Even the scroll, which McDowall impulsively ordered the golem to swallow.

Needless to say, it all ends rather poorly. McDowall, unseen, is caught in the explosion of a small atomic bomb the British government has decided to use on the golem. The statue survives the blast and walks out into the ocean, where, one presumes, it will return sometime this century to begin the grim, unstoppable task of exterminating humanity.

It’s an interesting elaboration on the golem mythology, which, after all, was a tool of the Jewish community against their destruction. Some versions of the golem story have the monster go on a rampage, and there is a thematic ingenuity to elaborating on that, making the golem capable of exterminating human life, including that of the Jews. One could dig about in the story for the idea that the weapons we make to defend us can also be used to destroy us, and destroy yet more -- a really powerful weapon might destroy beyond our ability to comprehend.

This would be a fine story if it were one told by Jews about Jews. Unmoored from that setting, it becomes very strange, far more concerned with McDowall’s florid, selfish evil than with a morality play about the dangers of welding too much power, or the wrong sort of power.

And ultimately that’s just fine. It’s a very weird movie. It’s attention is probably best placed on its weirdest character.