The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Elusive Trope's picture

    My Saturday with Trope

    My first art house film I watched in the theater was My Dinner with AndreI was sixteen and went to see it by myself at the Harvard Exit in Seattle.  I remember still walking out of the theater on Saturday late afternoon day, and just wandering into the bustling Capitol Hill flow.  There are a few moments in one's life when one knows there has been a major shift.  It is what some of us hope for every time we go to engage any art: let me see the world differently, pull the veil from eyes, make me question everything.

    That a simple film about two men having dinner and a conversation could do that...

    Many years later, in my last quarter of what was a long long time in the ivory towers of colleges I found myself in a philosophy class at  the alternative college attached to my last university I attended.  The students were hand picked by the professor (which caused some debate within the egalitarian philosophy of the alternative college).  As he put it, he didn't want students who were just discovering "deep thought," but those who wanted to take things to the "next level." 

    For the most of the ten weeks it was basically an ongoing discussion between Henry Giroux, Jacques Derrida, Helene Cixous, and Che Guevera.  Quite interesting and some incredible discussions. 

    Then we were to give our last presentation.  Everybody gave their pesentation in the typical fashion.  I got up.  The professor has loaned me a book Take Up the Bodies (which I still have) by Herbert Blau (which became one of the most influential books of my life),  So I wanted to do something with a theater angle.  After a little scene from Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are Dead and an excerpt from Irena Klepfisz's poem Monkey House and Other Cages, I ended with this compilation from Wally in My Dinner with Andre:

    Yeah, but I mean, are you saying that it's impossible, I mean...I mean, isn't it a little upsetting to come to the conclusion that there's no way to wake people up any more? Except to involve them in some kind of a strange christening in Poland, or some kind of a strange experience on top of Mount Everest? I mean, because you know, the awful thing is that if you're really saying that it's necessary to take everybody to Everest, it's really tough! Because everybody can't be taken to Everest! I mean, there must have been periods in history when it would have been possible to "save the patient" through less drastic measures. I mean, there must have been periods when in order to give people a strong or meaningful experience you wouldn't actually have to take them to Everest!

    I mean, you know, there was a time when you could have just, for instance, written, I don't know, Sense and Sensibility, by Jane Austen! And I'm sure the people who read it had a pretty strong experience. I'm sure they did. I mean, all right, now you're saying that people today wouldn't get it, and maybe that's true, but, I mean, isn't there any kind of writing, or any kind of a play that--I mean: isn't it still legitimate for writers to try to portray reality so that people can see it? I mean, really! Tell me: why do we require a trip to Mount Everest in order to be able to perceive one moment of reality? I mean...I mean: is Mount Everest more "real" than New York? I mean, isn't New York "real"? I mean, you see, I think if you could become fully aware of what existed in the cigar store next door to this restaurant, I think it would just blow your brains out! I mean...I mean, isn't there just as much "reality" to be perceived in the cigar store as there is on Mount Everest? I mean, what do you think? You see, I think that not only is there nothing more real about Mount Everest, I think there's nothing that different, in a certain way. I mean, because reality is uniform, in a way. So that if you're--if your perceptions--I mean, if your own mechanism is operating correctly, it would become irrelevant to go to Mount Everest, and sort of absurd! Because, I mean, it's just--I mean, of course, on some level, I mean, obviously it's very different from a cigar store on Seventh Avenue, but I mean...

    See, my actual response, I mean...I mean...I mean, I'm just trying to survive, you know. I mean, I'm just trying to earn a living, just trying to pay my rents and my bills. I mean, uh...ahhh. I live my life, I enjoy staying home with Debby. I'm reading Charlton Heston's autobiography, and that's that! I mean, you know, I mean, occasionally maybe Debby and I will step outside, we'll go to a party or something, and if I can occasionally get my little talent together and write a little play, well then that's just wonderful. And I mean, I enjoy reading about other little plays that other people have written, and reading the reviews of those plays, and what people said about them, and what people said about what people said, and.... And I mean, I have a list of errands and responsibilities that I keep in a notebook; I enjoy going through the notebook, carrying out the responsibilities, doing the errands, then crossing them off the list!

    And I mean, I just don't know how anybody could enjoy anything more than I enjoy reading Charlton Heston's autobiography, or, you know, getting up in the morning and having the cup of cold coffee that's been waiting for me all night, still there for me to drink in the morning! And no cockroach or fly has died in it overnight. I mean, I'm just so thrilled when I get up and I see that coffee there just the way I wanted it, I mean, I just can't imagine how anybody could enjoy something else any more than that! I mean...I mean, obviously, if the cockroach--if there is a dead cockroach in it, well, then I just have a feeling of disappointment, and I'm sad.

    But I mean, I just don't think I feel the need for anything more than all this. Whereas, you know, you seem to be saying that it's inconceivable that anybody could be having a meaningful life today, and you know, everyone is totally destroyed. And we all need to live in these outposts. But I mean, you know, I just can't believe, even for you, I mean, don't you find...? Isn't it pleasant just to get up in the morning, and there's Chiquita, there are the children, and the Times is delivered, you can read it! I mean, maybe you'll direct a play, maybe you won't direct a play, but forget about the play that you may or may not direct. Why is it necessary to...why not lean back and just enjoy these details? I mean, and there'd be a delicious cup of coffee and a piece of coffee cake. I mean, why is it necessary to have more than this, or to even think about having more than this. I mean, I don't really know what you're talking about. I mean...I mean I know what you're talking about, but I don't really know what you're talking about.

    And I mean, you know, even if I were to totally agree with you, you know, and even if I were to accept the idea that there's just no way for anybody to have personal happiness now, well, you know, I still couldn't accept the idea that the way to make life wonderful would be to just totally, you know, reject western civilization and fall back into some kind of belief in some kind of weird something. I mean...I mean, I don't even know how to begin talking about this, but, do you know...? In the Middle Ages, before the arrival of scientific thinking as we know it today, well, people could believe anything. Anything could be true: the statue of the Virgin Mary could speak, or bleed, or whatever it was. But the wonderful thing that happened was that then in the development of science in the western world, well, certain things did come slowly to be known, and understood. I mean, you know, obviously all ideas in science are constantly being revised; I mean, that's the whole point. But we do at least know that the universe has some shape, and order, and that, you know, trees do not turn into people, or goddesses. And they're very good reasons why they don't, and you can't just believe absolutely anything!

    You know, the truth is, I think I do know what really disturbs me about the work you've described, and I don't even know if I can express it. But somehow it seems that the whole point of the work that you did in those workshops, when you get right down to it and you ask: what was it really about; the whole point really, I think, was to enable the people in the workshops, including yourself, to somehow sort of strip away every scrap of purposefulness from certain selected moments. And the point of it was so that you would then all be able to experience somehow just pure being. In other words you were trying to discover what it would be like to live for certain moments without having any particular thing that you were supposed to be doing. And I think I just simply object to that. I mean, I just don't think I accept the idea that there should be moments in which you're not trying to do anything! I think it's our nature to do things, I think we should do things, I think that purposefulness is part of our ineradicable, basic human structure, and to say that we ought to be able to live without it is like saying that a tree ought to be able to live without branches or roots, but actually, without branches or roots it wouldn't be a tree. I mean, it would just be a log. You see what I'm saying?

    I had been looking down the whole time, reading the script, and looked up.  There was silence.  In a good way.  Everyone was sitting there a little stunned.  In a good way.  I have to say it was one of those moments in my life when I knew I had impacted people in a significant way. It was then I truly understood what art is capable of accomplishing, how it is a pathway forward.

    And also how far we have to go.  Together. Miles to go before we sleep.  Inconceivable.

    Comments

    Thanks for this.  It made me smile.


    Thanks for the feedback.  I hesitated about posting this.


    I also loved My Dinner with Andre when I saw it in college, soon after it was released.   I also had a friend who actually went to the forest retreat in Poland organized by theater director Jerzy Grotowski that is is described in the film by Andre Gregory.  My friend had a miserable time.


    Looked like fun times on the boards with Grotowski

    But seriously you should do a film with your friend having dinner and talking about his or her time with Grotowski in Poland.  It was only many years after the film that I learned this "incident" had actually happened, and not something of someone's imagination.


    For some reason I've never seen "Andre", but I can "hear" Wallace Shawn speak those words.  (Now I have to see it.)   (I'm trying to get past a 16 year old boy going to a theater by himself to see an art film about two men talking. I think I would really like that kid.)

    Art is about the artist, isn't it?  The painter, the writer, the actor, the musician -- what moves us about the work comes from the person producing the mood. 

    You've created a mood here that's just superb.  That's art.

     

     


    Well, if I can turn at least one person on to My Dinner than this has been a successful day. 


    Like many great movies, ``My Dinner With Andre'' is almost impossible to nail down. ``Two men talk and eat (in real time) at a fancy New York restaurant,'' writes CineBooks. Wrong, and wrong. Not in real time but filmed with exquisite attention to the smallest details by director Louis Malle over a period of weeks. And not in a New York restaurant but on a studio set. The conversation that flows so spontaneously between Andre Gregory and Wallace Shawn was carefully scripted. ``They taped their conversations two or three times a week for three months,'' Pauline Kael writes, ``and then Shawn worked for a year shaping the material into a script, in which they play comic distillations of aspects of themselves.''

    http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990613/REVIE...

    Okay, yes.  I may have to drop everything and find this thing.


    I would be interested in hearing your reaction after you do see it. 


    I think my tastes are far more philistine than yours, but for what it's worth, I also enjoyed this movie immensely. (I watched it on tape or DVD many years ago.)


    My Dinner With Andre made a deep impression upon me.

    I have had the good fortune of seeing Wallace Shawn in different Chekhov plays. The Andre film taught me how to watch them.


    Where your "Andre" compilation says

    I mean, you know, there was a time when you could have just, for instance, written, I don't know, Sense and Sensibility, by Jane Austen! And I'm sure the people who read it had a pretty strong experience. I'm sure they did. I mean, all right, now you're saying that people today wouldn't get it, and maybe that's true, but, I mean, isn't there any kind of writing, or any kind of a play that--I mean: isn't it still legitimate for writers to try to portray reality so that people can see it?

    it immediately came to my mind how the 1995 movie Clueless was based on Jane Austen's Emma. As someone who used ta consider herself a scholar of 19th-century "pop" culture, some rambling thoughts on that. I always thought the two were quite comparable and, that Clueless was of pretty equal caliber and meaning in its culture to the same for Emma in its own. It's a nice contrarian example to all the doomsayers about how little, rather than how much, our culture has changed since Austen.

    And personally, I like both but prefer Clueless because it's from my time, I can "relate" a little better because of that, despite the things I know about the 19th century. It just makes it a bit easier, more relaxing and enjoyable, if I know the "language" intimately, as it were. No surprise that I've watched Clueless many more times than I've watched Dinner with Andre (I've maybe watched the latter 2 times, Clueless perhaps 4 1/2 to 5.) Clueless is a real clever, charming portrait of its time, while having the universal architecture of the Austen set pieces, making them both understandable to a lot of cultures, classes and periods. I'm not so sure Andre is like that, though I enjoyed it, it is trying just a little bit too hard to be "high" art, just a little too "precious" and self-consciously intellectual.

    Can you tell I am very sympathetic to pop art, what some call "low culture"? I hate when people educated people bash a quality piece of it, whether its direction by Ron Howard in the 20th century or writing by Jane Austen in the 19th. I think those kind of things are kind of like little miracles when they reach a caliber where they can communicate something to many different audiences and "languages" while at the same staying very true to their own. Especially if they do it with Moliere style light comedy, something very difficult to do.

    On the other hand, I am very hard on those trying to reach for the level of "high art," especially when its meta about "high art" like Andre is; I'm much more demanding and critical because the standards are much higher for "miracle" status there. While I would cry if someone took my IFC and Sundance channels away, I also am always secretly rooting for the IMDB.com commenters on indie flicks that say stuff like "what a bunch of crap this movie was," just to keep em real . By em I mean the "artistes" I think it's right and good that they should be continually challenged if they are not communicating well to a sufficient size audience. The martyr saint artist where no one knows his true genius until his death is mostly myth and highly overrated; communication among the living is good.


    Thanks for giving some time and thought to your response. 

    First I would like to say that one of the facets of the brilliance of Wallace Shaw was that he isn't pretentious, even though he is about as deep as artists get.  I think the reason that My Dinner was impactful was because it was able to deal with big ideas, and talk about big ideas, but do it in a way that most of us would deal with it. 

    What I mean by this is that there are some theoretical ideas, such as those, say, Derrida, which can only be dealt with though developing an academic paper - ewrites after rewrites. But as we move through life, we don't have that luxury.  We may have deep thoughts, but they end up becoming something like:: "and maybe that's true, but, I mean, isn't there any kind of writing, or any kind of a play that--I mean: isn't it still legitimate for writers to try to portray reality so that people can see it?"

    Not the most concise and focused of thoughts.

    In one way, My Dinner showed the real side of the intelligentsia.  Which may have been why it was so moving for a teenager who had been sucked into the mythology of the intelligentsia. 

    The one comment I would make on films like Clueless is that for everything it might reveal  artistically, it also reinforces the very socio-political facets of society one might posit it is undermining. The classic example of today is that young conservatives enjoy The Colbert Report as the young liberals. 

    One can say that the difference between great art and good art is that with great art, nobody who at least somewhat engages it cannot but be confronted with their delusions and illusions. 

    Of course the intelligentsia cannot be fully judged based on the wannabes who post asinine comments.  the low brow in film will always have its place in our culture in significant way.  Whether we are talking about episodes of Family Guy or Harold Lloyd.

    The two great American film makers who I think brought the low brow and the high brow together in fascinating ways in recent years are Jim Jarmusch (Stranger than Paradise, Down by Law, Mystery Train) and Hal Hartley (Trust, Simple Men, Surving Desire)

    I will always believe one of the great film moments is the dance scene from Simple Men:

    But the probably the greatest of the great low brow/high brow films is Run Lola Run (Lola Rennt).  (which coincidently was the last film I saw at the Harvard Exit)

     


    When I saw you mention Jarmusch I knew you got what I was saying. Stranger than Paradise: another one of my all time favs.

    Wim Wenders is another one that fits here. The real high high-brows look down on him for "pandering" to pop interests (angels, ya know wink) and being too romantic. Paris, Texas is another great one....


    Wim's ode to Berlin - Wings of Desire has always been one my favorites since I saw in the theater.