Strange Loop, Ordinary Dilemma

A Strange Loop — which won the best musical Tony, the Pulitzer Prize, and the love of critics and its peers, but couldn’t fill the seats — is closing. Go see it if you can.

There's always this dilemma: whether to please an elite group more sophisticated in their taste, knowledgeable about the medium, and more educated in general or to please the hoi polloi. My mood has taken wild swings both ways my whole career. I don’t know. I think temperamentally, deep down, I’m an elitist. I love the obscure stuff, the weird, in-group, experimental. But sometimes you ‘re not in control of it. You do something strange and the people love it anyway.

Of course pleasing the critics and the audience is ideal. On Broadway, it seems like it's rare work that accomplishes that anymore. Many of the great mid-century musicals and plays were blockbuster popular and also masterpieces, but now it seems like you’re either Sondheim or Andrew Lloyd Webber with very little in between. My hunch is that this bifurcation has a lot to do with the fact that theater writers used to “come up in the business” but now they’re plucked by non-profit institutions from MFA programs at elite universities, but it’s possible I have no idea what the fuck I’m talking about. An argument as to whether and how and why is something I’d be more interested in reading than writing.

My painting teacher long ago used to say "your parents will never understand your work," and that maxim has guided me ever since as I negotiate the line between the two.

Coming Out.

Ten years ago, I said in a Facebook post on National Coming Out Day that my mother and I had different memories of my coming out, and that prompted some email correspondence that I’d long since forgotten till this morning when the post came up in my “Memories.” The two versions are described in my recent essay in Statorec, so I won’t go into mine, but I’m glad I dug up Mom’s email because it includes some small details I’d forgotten (like the fact that my sister was reading my diary in high school — wtf?!).

One thing I love about gmail is how it preserves everything. I’ve lost so much that was on old hard drives and email accounts; correspondence that, if it were paper, I would surely have saved: earthlink and aol, yahoo, Eudora … gone forever.

The bit about Mom and Dad leaving books around for me to notice — that memory is so vivid to me, but Mom didn’t recall it at all and it doesn’t seem like a thing you’d forget, so I question it now. How did that get in my head? My very close high school friend Laura Deer, for my 17th (or maybe 18th?) birthday, gave me a Holly Near album and the book based on the documentary “Word Is Out,” a hint so obvious it’s not even really a hint, but still I was afraid to come out to her, or to anyone I’d grown up with, until I’d been away to college and come back feeling more confident, safer.

Mom and I used to correspond regularly, by U.S. Mail for decades, and then by email nearly every day. I don’t think I’ll ever recover from the loss of that.

Steven Cheslik-DeMeyer <…>
Oct 13, 2012, 1:49 PM
to sharon

So what is your memory of me coming out? I think you said you
remembered it being when I was in college? I don't remember it ever
coming up until I came home with Eduardo. But I also don't remember
ever having any kind of direct conversation about it, just that at
some point it was understood. But I remember finding a book in your
magazine rack that made me think you were dropping a hint to me to
come out, something like "How to Talk to Your Gay Kid." But I
mentioned that when we talked recently and you said you don't remember
anything like that?

Strange how memory works!

Steven

sharon cheslik <…>
Oct 13, 2012, 2:02 PM
to me

Steven,

I knew sometime while you were still in high school, but waited for you to approach the issue. I think you mentioned leaving books around your room dealing with homosexuality that you hoped we would notice, and maybe that was when I knew, but can't remember that for sure. However, I suspected years earlier, but was confused because you dated girls. (Dumb me!)

Kay woke up in the middle of the night while you were in high school, crying, and told me she read in your diary that you were gay. I assured her it was all OK, but don't recall confronting you with the issue.

Maybe because I thought she shouldn't have been reading your diary! I think that happened in the summer when the two of you spent so much time together during a Putnam Co. play.

The first time I remember a real discussion was when you came home the first time from Miami of Ohio, with one ear pierced, which at the time was the mark of being gay. Dad and I had lunch with you at Moore's bar downtown in Greencastle and we talked about it, and Dad warned you to be careful where you went in Greencastle so you wouldn't be beat up.

I do remember telling Mike when he was home on leave from the Navy and he was stunned. He said "NO." Not because he couldn't accept it, but because he was absolutely so surprised.

That's how I remember it.

Love, Mom

"I feel very complete right now."

I was a sophomore studying theater at Miami University, dissatisfied — I don’t think I really had any reason to be, I’ve just always been a dissatisfied person — and I just wanted to go and be somewhere else. I’d gone to college with dreams of being an actor, and I felt like I was failing at it, not getting roles, not getting positive feedback in class, and not feeling like I was at all in command of it.

My two best friends, Scott and Dan, were similarly restless. Dan was auditioning at NYU, and Scott was auditioning at Syracuse, both to study acting. I couldn’t decide (never could, not when I was 8, not this week) whether to be a visual artist or a theater artist, so I sent my portfolio to Parsons and auditioned at Syracuse, and I thought I’d just see where I got accepted and let fate decide. I knew deep in my soul that I would end up in New York, but I think at this point I was still intimidated by the notion of moving here. I was accepted at both schools and chose New York, and the rest .…

I made this journal entry right after my Syracuse audition. i did a monologue from Shadow Box, a play that was very buzzy at the time but I don’t ever hear about it anymore. (I noticed when I was watching The Last Movie Stars that there’s a film of it with Joanne Woodward, so I’ll have to watch that.) It’s pre-AIDS (just barely), about a terminally ill gay man, his lover, and his ex-wife. Anyway, I thought I’d nailed it. Manning and Rosenberg and Bennison were my teachers at Miami. I don’t recall any of them doing anything deserving of such scorn.

I had decided midway through my second year at Miami that I wanted to direct, not act, and I chose Parsons because I thought studying painting and sculpture would be great director’s training. (Or that’s what I was telling myself.) It would have been, except that within a week or two I was completely seduced by the idea of being a painter.

Archaeology.

Yesterday was frustrating. I spent most of the day digging through an old hard drive, finding compelling stuff, having all the emotions these old journals and letters and what not bring up, without the reward of finding anything useful for the work at hand.

Today I’ll spend what’s left of the day trying to make some headway on a short essay I’m writing for a journal. It won’t exactly get me away from writing about tender personal subject matter — I don’t seem to be able to write anything anymore that isn’t tender and personal — but it will at least be a chance to work at a more circumscribed task for a bit, which is, if not easy, at least a relief.

Here’s a thing I found. Category: interesting but not immediately useful except as an oddity to share on my blog. It’s an excerpt from a letter to a close friend. For a chunk of 2003-4, I was renting a room in a sprawling Victorian house in Nashville while I made my film. I don’t think I saw it this way at the time, but reading it now, and all this stuff I describe in the letter is vividly accurate, I realize just how, well I’m not going to use the slur but it rhymes with “slight rash,” my life was then. It''s one of the periods of time I enjoyed most in my life, and I did know and feel that at the time, and the memories are sweet.

There’s no indication as to whether or not I sent the letter. (In case you’re curious, “my car” was a Fiat I got for I think $250 because it had been sitting in some guy’s yard for like 100 years. There was a hole in the floor on the driver’s side that you could put both feet through, if you wanted to, and there was moss growing on the seats. Eventually (as in, about a week after I bought it) it stalled on the road one too many times, and I pulled over onto the shoulder, got out and walked away.)

Knavin.

Rifling through the contents of an old hard drive I have kept but had forgotten about, or forgotten what was on it. Turns out to be backups of my old Mac G3 tower, the one I made Life in a Box on, the one I dragged from Jersey City to Nashville to West Hollywood to San Francisco, put in storage while I lived in Utah, and then brought to New York.

This image haunts me. The photo was taken (by Roger, that’s why he’s not in it) at the top of a hill overlooking Visalia, California in 2002. We’re packing up after a picnic, getting ready for the walk home.

We played a show at a Unitarian church in Visalia California in the spring of 2002. A young couple in the audience, Mike and Kerry, heard we hadn’t yet found a place to park our camper, they lived on a small farm, told us we could pull up next to the chicken coop and stay as long as we wanted. It was not at all unusual for us to receive this kind of hospitality when we lived on the road. I still remind myself of these encounters when I start to wonder if people are naturally good.

A few days into our stay, we all took the dogs — theirs was as I remember a chocolate lab, and ours (Roger’s) was a yellow lab named Knavin — for a long walk. We all, Mike and Kerry, their wonderful kids whose names I can’t remember now, Jay and me and Roger, walked along a short stretch of country road, jumped a fence, walked up a hill covered with long, gold grass, and picnicked at the top.

One the way down, nearly to the road, the dogs charged ahead. When we got to the fence, we saw that they’d crossed the road and were playing on the other side. Concerned about their safety, we called to them to come back and join us, but just as Knavin responded and started to cross back, a pickup truck came around the bend and slammed into him.

Knavin was badly injured. He did recover and live a long life, but none of us really survived that day intact.

(I told this story in the rough cut of Life in a Box. It didn’t make the final cut. I hated to lose it, but it was the best decision for the film. The Knavin story starts at 1:14:08.)

"Alexander Hamilton repents for his sins and accepts Jesus Christ as his lord and savior"

The Times story about this crazy production of Hamilton in McAllen, Texas is the most detailed, but their headline is misleading (shocker!) — sure, the production added “Christian themes,” but that’s mild language for the kind of vandalism they describe. The OnStage Blog story’s headline (“Texas Church Illegally Performs 'Hamilton' with Anti-LGBTQ Messaging”) gets closer.

This is interesting for so many reasons. I think most church people have the attitude that they're special and above the law. (For that matter, I think most Americans, or at least a very large portion of them, believe that churches are special and above the law.) But this kind of behavior isn't just churches. We've never come across an unlicensed production of LIZZIE, but we've been self-licensing the show for several years now, over a hundred productions, and you'd be surprised -- or maybe you wouldn't -- at how often people think they can change things to suit their own agendas, despite having signed a contract that clearly says they can't. The ways in which this Hamilton production was altered (among many other changes, they added a scene in which Hamilton "accepts Jesus Christ as his lord and savior") makes me think of our experience with the Communist Party censors in China who wanted us to change the ending of LIZZIE to have her convicted and sent to jail. Also, I'm kind of enjoying the irony of a fundamentalist Christian church taking what is already a fairly reactionary show and editing it to make it explicitly illiberal.

Chili Crisp.

Lately more often than usual, I'm being told or it is being implied that all I do is complain, which, on one hand is concerning because I'm like Mary Richards I want everyone to like me, but on the other hand fuck everybody I only complain when there's something to complain about. So, here's one:

Chili crisp. Seriously people. Do you not see our way of life circling the drain? Here’s what I want before I die: I want people to stop telling me that a thing which is just somebody putting a thing in a thing that people have been putting it in for 10,000 years is something brand new and worth a lot of money. Just stop.

Breakthroughs.

Apparently there’s a leak in the plumbing under our bathroom. It’s not affecting us but is, understandably, a problem for the people in the apartment below. Plumbers are here breaking a hole through the tile and the floor under our toilet this morning. I don’t know what the machine is that they’re using to do it, but it’s loud, and it’s going to take about three hours the guy tells me. High-rise problems.

All week I’ve been endeavoring to revise my unintentionally 4-hour long musical To make it shorter, but also better. I say “endeavoring to” because sometimes I’m actually revising, as in moving text around on a page, but more often I’m just sitting here thinking and frowning. I’m sure I’m not the first person to say that rewriting is like playing Jenga, but it’s really only like the part of Jenga where everything is falling in a pile on the table and you’re saying “fuck me.”

I started out thinking I could just go through everything and shorten it. I’m good at that. It’s not easy but it’s a specific kind of technical task that I know how to do. But pretty quickly I realized that wasn’t going to do it. I needed a plan, a method for wrangling all the disparate elements of my story. A theatrical idea that would, 1, make the piece more theatrical, 2, make it obvious to me what should stay and what should go, 3, clarify my point of view, and 4, make the piece more present, more urgent.

I’m not sure what words to use to describe how this process feels: sometimes it’s like a grinding anxiety, sometimes something approaching a panic attack, it’s a lot of telling myself to just breathe, and then there are moments when I feel like I am the smartest person and the greatest artist in the world. I was annoyed thinking I would lose a morning’s work because of the noise and the plumbers, but somehow that background distraction, and the fact that I need to pee and have to hold it for another two hours, has worked to dislodge the gunk in my brain and revealed an obvious solution. Hooray!

Now I just have to actually do it.

On Outing Ed Koch.

One of the most interesting, surprising (though I guess it shouldn’t be) things about the response to this article about Ed Koch’s “secret gay life” is that a large number of queer people will still argue against “outing” a public figure who had the power to help us but whose investment in secrecy about his own life led him to respond weakly or not at all to our suffering.

I’ve said already that on a personal level, it’s heartbreaking. I feel a deep sympathy for any queer person whose life has been corrupted and hollowed out by shame and fear of living an honest life. And of course on a public level, Koch’s avoidance of the AIDS crisis happening all around him was monstrous. Unambiguously evil. It looms over any good he may have done in one of the most powerful elected offices in the U.S.

Stories like this confirm my belief that the numbers of so-called LGBTQ people are vastly underestimated because they are based on self-disclosure in a society where the risks of coming out are massive, where people fear the loss of status, power, family, friends, their homes, livelihood, freedom, personal safety, their lives. People are always throwing around numbers, 3%, 10%, whatever, as if poll numbers reflect actual numbers of queer people. I have to laugh at the conservative freakout about recent polls showing more young people are identifying as queer. It’s contagious! Societal pressures, stigma, discrimination, are loosening (don’t get too used to it, though), so of course the numbers are ticking up.

To me, the Kinsey numbers from the 1940s have always felt pretty close to reality; over 1/3 of American males have some degree of gender nonconforming feelings or desire or experience. But we’ll never know.

I Love What I Do.

One thing we found out is that my new musical is four hours long. Oops. I had in my head that it would be under 2 hours because of the 1 page = 1 minute rule — my current draft is 89 pages — but I guess that doesn’t apply to musicals or to shows where one character tells lots of long, single-spaced stories.

We had to be out of the room by 10, so we didn’t quite finish reading it, but we got very close, and even though I was disappointed not to hear the ending, I count it a huge success. My brain is chattering away at me with all kinds of big and small ideas for the next draft. The main thing of course is to cut half of it. Some of those cuts will be chainsaw blunt, but most of it will be more like laser surgery.

It was a thrill to hear it out loud, to find out that it is mostly “actable.” That the convoluted mix of worlds and times and places I’ve created is — or at least is going to be — legible. And that it’s interesting, even compelling, to people other than me — if I can judge by having kept 8 actors engaged and energized through 3-1/2 hours of a dense, complex, and sometimes kind of heavy play. I’m always saying it, because it needs to be said, that actors are amazing. I spend my life and career in awe of what they do. That moment when a thing on a page becomes a thing in a room thrills me every single time. Theater is literally magic.

Today is my 10th wedding anniversary. Chan and I are going to Mohonk Mountain House (where we got married) for the weekend to celebrate, but today I’m going to do as close to nothing as I can manage. Monday I’ll dive back in. People always say that re-writing is harder than writing, but that’s not how I ever experience it. They’re both hard, just hard in different ways. I can’t wait.

First table reading of JACK, LaMama rehearsal space on Great Jones Street.

Ten Years Later.

It’s still almost two months away, May 5th, but Chan and I have been making plans to spend a weekend upstate at Mohonk Mountain House, where we got married, to celebrate our 10th wedding anniversary, so it’s on my mind. Ten years.

In my lately never-ending excavation of old stuff, photos, diaries, letters, and, my favorite but the most difficult to organize, scraps of old writing — ideas, images, drafts, beginnings of things I didn’t finish — I ran across what looks like I was working on an announcement that I was getting married. (When I read to the end, I realized it was probably a monologue idea for a solo show I was writing. This was the piece I was writing at McDowell and which turned a few years later into my musical, Jack.)

Anyone who’s known me a minute knows that I was strongly and openly against gay marriage for a long time. No one ever seems to care about what is still to me an important distinction between a couple’s decision to get married for any number of reasons people get married and a campaign to legalize same-sex marriage as a tactic in the gay rights struggle, so I won’t bore you (except to point out that we as a society, 7 years after a Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage, are still arguing over whether my marriage is actually equal to a straight marriage, or if so-called religious convictions override my equality.)

Anyway, here’s where my head was 10 years ago:

Company.

I can’t speak to the changed gender of some of the characters in this new revival of Company. This is the first full production of the show I’ve seen. Other than having watched video of Raul Esparza singing Being Alive a few times on Youtube, I don’t have a strong impression of what the show was like with a male Bobby, etc. Though Esparza is thrilling, Katrina Lenk’s Being Alive is gut-wrenching. Rather than just being a song about an idea, in Lenk’s performance something, lots of things, happen in the song. I was shaking I was so moved. I get the sense that, after the success (or not) of the gender switching, the casting of Katrina Lenk is provoking the most disagreement about this production. I am firmly on team Lenk. She is a peerless actor, in this, and always.

Seeing the Broadway revivals of The Music Man and Company within a week or two of each other was, to say the least, instructive. One thing that bears mentioning is that the audience for both shows seemed, I think mostly due to the pandemic, local, and to the extent there were tourists, they were Broadway tourists, people who are invested, who know this work and are experiencing it in the context of a long love of the show and New York and Broadway, and the excitement of being back in a Broadway house with fresh interpretations of these two seminal masterpieces. It’s heady.

Some thoughts:

It’s not hard to make the case that The Music Man is reactionary, or at least that it can be read that way, and that there is a kind of cynicism embedded in it. But Company is, I think unambiguously, reactionary and cynical, and it’s bitter. The Music Man is not bitter. Is this just indicative of how the times, and we, have changed? Have we seen how ugly people truly are and we’re no longer willing to let ourselves off the hook? Do we not believe anymore that love is the answer? 

With admittedly a very small data set, these two shows back to back, The Music Man from 1957 and Company from 1970, could not more starkly demonstrate what’s changed about “the American musical,” a change that’s almost impossible not to lay at the feet of Stephen Sondheim. I can’t imagine there are many writers of musical theater today who don’t revere Sondheim and cite him as a major influence. With the exception of the Disney shows (and that’s a whole nother conversation), how small the American musical has become. The Music Man et al. take place against the backdrop of the sweep of history. Company takes place in the mind of a sort of avatar of urban loneliness trying to sort out her neuroses. We don’t learn a thing about the characters in Company except what’s in their heads. Even the New York we see is an exceedingly narrow slice of the city.

How ugly a portrait of New Yorkers and life in New York Sondheim and George Furth paint. It’s bleak and pinched and I think ultimately profoundly sad. Which is not to say the show is not great art. But it’s dark. Musical theater used to be a populist art form, and now the most accomplished artists in the genre since the 1970s (if you can even say that the golden age musicals are in the same genre as Sondheim), make work that appeals to a rarified audience of jaded urbanites, or, in the case of Disney, children. One notable exception would be Hamilton. I think the most obvious reason for the massive popularity of Hamilton is that it is about big things, it’s about us, it’s about America, and Americans recognize themselves and the pressures of their own lives in it. It is, like the best of the big midcentury musicals, critical of America but ultimately optimistic.

I hope I don’t sound like I disliked the show. I didn’t. It was gripping, hilarious, moving, jam-packed with provocative questions. The cast is first-rate across the board, I loved the scenic design. The musical direction is sharp, the sound design crisp and bright. I loved it. It’s a great night at the theater.

Incidentally, I didn’t realize until last night that the song Side by Side is about being the third wheel and that the title of the show alludes to the expression, “Two’s company three’s a crowd.”

One last thought: Who are these lunch ladies and why is there a song about them in this musical? I had only ever heard this song in cabaret or concert performances, and it is a great great song, rightly revered, but why is it in this show? It’s puzzling, like who is she talking about?

What The Fuck, Now, MacBeth?

LIZZIE fans know there’s bits of Aeschylus and Shakespeare sprinkled throughout the book and lyrics. I think the Shakespeare is probably most concentrated in the song “What the Fuck, Now, Lizzie?” the lyrics of which take lines and images from MacBeth. All that blood, and a collaborative murder in which one partner goes rogue — it’s hard to resist.

Every song in LIZZIE came together differently, but several songs started with Tim bringing an idea to me along with a page or two of associative thoughts and images and, in the case of What the Fuck?, lines from MacBeth. My first draft had all the verses set to the same melody and chord structure, then Alan revised the “Foolish thought to say a sorry sight” verse and the final verse. (I didn’t set out to give you a peek behind the co-writing curtain, but there you have it.)

Watching the new Joel Cohen film The Tragedy of MacBeth last night reminded me that the song originally had a first verse that went:

The thane of fife had a wife where is she now?
Lying on the rug with her face in a puddle.
Now I gotta clean this up and I don’t know how
Blood on my hands and the house in a muddle.

(What’s great about working with collaborators whose judgment you trust is, among many things, there’s someone around to say, “Mm, maybe we can do without that first verse?”)

Storm Large and Carrie Manolakos, from LIZZIE the Studio Album.

We added What the Fuck? kind of late in the process. Emma had disappeared halfway through the first act thinking she and Lizzie had a plan to poison Mrs. Borden. She returns in the second act to find both Mr. and Mrs. hacked to death with an axe. It didn’t make sense that she wouldn’t have a big reaction. Emma has an outsize reaction to pretty much everything. Also, Emma has less stage time than the other three women so we wanted to give her another headbanger to balance it out.

Anyway, watch the new MacBeth film. It’s dark and scary and visually beautiful. If you know LIZZIE well, it’ll be fun to hear the borrowed lines in their original context. The stark expressionist cinematography and production design put me in mind of Carl Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc, which I learned about in college and have watched several times because of my fixation on Antonin Artaud, who is in the film. Artaud’s theoretical writing about theater blew my 18-year-old artist mind. I reread him every decade or so. His ideas are still a touchstone for me — I live by that notion in Theater of Cruelty that an artist’s task is to assault the audience, not like beat them up but assault them aesthetically, assault their senses. Attack their sensibilities.

Early on, we were told that the song What the Fuck? was too much, too many fucks, you can’t do that, the audience will not tolerate it, you can’t just scream “what the fuck?!” over and over and over, and I was like, but that’s the point. We took some of the fucks out and it totally deflated the song. It was just so obviously a giant pulled punch at the top of the second act. It made me cringe every time. When we recorded the album, we put the fucks back and there they stay.

Short clip from Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc. If you get a chance, watch the whole thing.

The video quality doesn’t do justice to the film but here’s a clip of Artaud.

The Music Man!

I’d love to have a long, rangey conversation about this new revival of The Music Man. I have lots of thoughts, but I’m hesitant to get too detailed here because, one, it’s in previews and anything I comment on could be different by opening night, and, two, most of what I want to talk about are the ways in which it is, or might be, different from what you know from past productions and, especially, from the movie. I’ll say up front: everything you expect and want The Music Man to be, this one is. But I’ll keep my commentary pretty general; I don’t want to color your experience. You need to see this.

So! Here are a few thoughts in no particular order, and we’ll wait till after it opens to get into the weeds:

  1. I loved it so much. I said on Facebook that I was on the edge of my seat the whole time and I was. The preview audience was electric because most of us I would imagine had bought tickets two years ago and waited out the Broadway shutdown and the show was canceled and rescheduled and then canceled again and rescheduled again and then Sutton Foster got sick and then Hugh Jackman got sick. When the curtain went up on that train car, the crowd burst into loud sustained applause. Big entrance applause for the stars, big ovations for nearly every song. It was the most exciting night of theater I can remember, the show feeding the audience and the audience feeding the show.

  2. Hugh Jackman and Sutton Foster are wonderful in the lead roles. Jackman’s Harold Hill is, maybe, sunnier than Robert Preston’s, and I would say that Foster plays Marian as earthier, smarter than, say, Barbara Cook or Shirley Jones did. And they look closer in age. The couple seems more evenly matched. Foster finds new, unexpected things in the acting of the book scenes and the songs. My White Night, especially, is a revelation.

  3. But this production is not all about the stars. The production design across the board — stage, costumes, lighting — is gorgeous, thoughtful, at times breathtaking. The sound design and music direction are impeccable. The orchestra and ensemble were crystal clear. And good lord, the supporting cast: Jane Houdyshell, Jefferson Mays, Shuler Hensley, and Marie Mullen are each so great and so funny. They are the heart and soul of it.

  4. The dancing! I had never thought of this show as one where much of the storytelling is accomplished through movement. The ensemble is so tight, every moment so full of heart, and what’s better than a stage packed with kids who can dance their asses off?

  5. Speaking of Marie Mullen. She reads at the older end of the Mrs. Paroo range, which sent me thinking about the family at the center of this story. Marian is maybe early to mid-30s? Winthrop is about 10. Their mother is 60 if she’s a day, so Winthrop is an Irish Catholic miracle baby being raised by his sister who is old enough to be his mother and his mother who is old enough to be his grandmother. And presumably a redeemed conman for a stepbrother/father figure. For all the complaining about how normative these old musicals are, they all seem to be stories about very unconventional families.

  6. I want to talk about Grant Wood (whose paintings are a main scenic element in this production) and how his work, much like The Music Man, is often misunderstood, but misunderstood in exactly the way it is intended to be misunderstood, but I’ll save that conversation for later.

Memories Are Lies.

As far back as I can remember I’ve told people that the first LP I bought was Jesus Christ Superstar, the movie soundtrack, but this morning I was thinking about the Partridge Family Christmas album and I went to Wikipedia to see when it came out (1971), and I noticed that the first Partridge Family album (called The Partridge Family Album) was released in 1970, the second in 1971. I had and loved and played to death both of those albums, and the JCS film didn’t come out until 1973. I guess it’s possible I didn’t get the Partridge Family records right away, but more than 3 years after they came out?

Another possibility is that my parents bought them for me, and JCS was the first LP I went to the store and bought with my own money, but that’s not really the story I’ve been telling all these years. I think what happened is that at some point — it must have been in my late teens or very early twenties when being regarded as cool was important because by my mid-twenties I was going through a “the more uncool something is, the more cool” phase; I used to say that I wanted the vocal arrangements for my band TV Goodbyes to sound like the Partridge Family — I started answering the question, “What was your first album?” with “the Jesus Christ Superstar soundtrack” because the Partridge Family Album would have been an embarrassing answer. And then over time the lie became the memory.

I know this is a thing that happens; I’ve been writing a lot about the past, sometimes before and sometimes after reading my journals and correspondence from any given period.

My brother and I had a conversation at Thanksgiving about how for a while as a kid, I was a terrible liar. It started with lying to try to avoid being punished (deny everything!) but it got to be a habit and soon I was lying all the time often for no reason at all. Maybe I can’t blame this first album story on the slipperiness of memory formation. Maybe it’s just me.

I know for a fact I did not own the Partridge Family Christmas album. Then again, the Partridge Family Christmas album would have been exponentially more uncool than even the regular albums, so maybe I’ve buried the memory of it even deeper.

You Could Do Worse, and Likely Would, Than Choosing Meet Me In St. Louis To Watch Once or Twice Every Year.

Chan was in North Carolina visiting his family for a few days, so I watched Meet Me In St. Louis twice in the last 2 days (not that he wouldn't have watched it with me, but probably not twice). If for some reason I could only watch one film for the rest of my life it would be this, and I wouldn't be mad about it. I've seen it a dozen or two times and I see new things every time (like I never noticed her striped stockings halfway through this song before yesterday).

Every singer should study Judy Garland. What made her special was not just the power of her voice but her absolute commitment to every word, sentence, image, the story, every single time -- what made her special was her acting. What other singer can make you believe a lyric like "And though I'm heartsore, the boy next door affection for me won't display"?

The other thing about this movie: I will go to hell for asking this, but how did Margaret O'Brien not win all the Oscars for this performance? Judy is so radiant and it's her story, so I guess it's easy to overlook what O'Brien does in this film, which is astonishing.

In obvious ways, it’s a reactionary film — MGM knew its audience — but this paean to small town values and the patriarchy is shot through with the ambivalence and anxiety of its director Vincente Minnelli — about family, about the Midwest, about marriage, about men — who knows that most of those patriarchal families were actually run by charismatic women. Speaking of which, his adoration of Garland illuminates every frame. No wonder she fell in love with him.

This next clip is only the second half of a longer sequence that is one of my favorites in any film. I wish I could find a video of the whole thing, which starts with their father coming home from work to announce that he’s taken a job offer in New York and they’ll be moving right after Christmas. Everyone is shaken by this news, they love living in St. Louis, they have friends and boyfriends, attachments, the World’s Fair is coming. They argue, shout, cry, and eventually everyone runs off to their rooms, except Mom and Dad, who sing this song which brings everyone back, and then they have cake. Besides showing Minnelli’s genius as a storyteller, it’s a lovely example of how he uses music in this movie, which is not really a musical — the songs are a mix of traditional songs, popular songs from the era the story is set in, and a handful of songs written for the film. Nothing is resolved in the scene, the disruption of their lives will still be painful, but family is everything. I find it heartbreaking.

(The other genius and Midwestern gay man whose work underpins lots of these great golden era MGM musicals is Roger Edens. Besides composing, arranging, supervising, and producing, he worked closely with Judy Garland from the beginning of her film career as a voice teacher and coach. All her greatest film performances are collaborations with Edens.)

I love this moment (starting at 2:10) at the end of the film, when John Truett delivers a line I can’t for the life of me make any sense of, and Judy’s reaction seems to show she’s similarly puzzled. What is he talking about?

There’s all kinds of other stuff that someone should write about, or maybe someone has? For a film with such a simple story, some say no story at all, its preoccupations, themes, resonances are expansive. It’s about urbanization and modernity, “traditional values,” race and colonialism (can we talk about that cake walk scene and all the African themed decor in the house?), it’s about America. It’s a wartime film, made in 1944, when the world order seemed to be spinning apart, and it’s set in and ostensibly about, a simpler time, but somehow the final sequence at the World’s Fair doesn’t bring to mind stability. It feels like a last gasp.

State Fair.

The anniversary today of the assassination of JFK reminded me of this short essay I wrote in 2008 when I was at U.T. Austin in the American Studies department, finishing my undergrad degree, about the 1962 film, State Fair (the only score Rogers and Hammerstein wrote for a film).

Fear of cities, urban/rural polarization, political violence — nothing ever changes in America.

“The blithe innocence of Texas, so little aware of the true nature of evil floating and coalescing in the world, was shattered by this tragedy that produced in the collective soul of the state a tormenting sense of guilt -- and shame. Strangely, perhaps, no such soul-searching, and certainly no such national condemnation, attended the assassination of Robert Kennedy in California or of Martin Luther King in Tennessee. But neither of those states is a paradigm, a microcosm, of the nation….” (Lon Tinkel, Introduction to The Super-Americans.)

“If Dallas is getting too big for you now, you are not expected to be happyover the prospect that it will get still bigger during the next decade. The best estimates show that Dallas has grown, since 1950, at the rate of about 44,000 a year. That could mean, at a like annual increase, a population for Dallas in 1970 of 1,300,000.

“Meanwhile, farms will practically disappear from these two counties and will be getting fewer in numbers throughout the state. Population in farming counties will be reduced, population in urban counties will be enormously increased. Farming is to become a highly technical, highly mechanized, highly capitalized business.

“The political, economic and sociologic meaning of this ought to engage the thought of every thinking man and woman in Texas. We should be able to look to the northeastern part of the United States and see pretty much the pattern that we shall be following for the cities. There the problems and the mistakes we shall confront are to be seen. The city man’s future is all laid out, pretty much as we may expect it to be here. Mass transportation, city planning, regional planning, master highways, crime problems, school development—all these will press upon us now as never before.” (Dallas Morning News, February 16, 1960)

 

Between WWII and the assassination of John F. Kennedy, practically everything in Texas -- politics, geography, culture, demographics, the landscape itself -- underwent massive changes. Texas’s one-party system which had held sway since Reconstruction started to break up, and liberals, minorities, the poor, women, and labor unions gained power. The federal government got more involved in Texas with court decisions affecting education, prisons, racial segregation and control over the tidelands. Thriving industries pulled workers to cities. Boom times didn’t benefit everyone, though; poverty, crime, and unemployment all rose. The population flipped from 70/30% rural/urban to just the opposite, and the center of Texas farming shifted from East Texas to the Lower Rio Grande Valley and the Panhandle. (Campbell 396-432) With agricultural land shrinking, Texans were concerned about soil conservation, water supply, crop surpluses and falling prices, mortgage debt, and shortages of doctors and teachers in rural Texas. Even farmers who managed to stay on the farm saw their lives come to resemble city life, with improvements in rural education, telephone service, and more electric appliances and televisions. (Dallas Morning News, 1/10/1960) Rural Texans were watching their way of life fade before their eyes, and they -- and by extension America -- were nervous.

The 1962 film, State Fair, opens with a panoramic shot of sky, farm fields stretching to the horizon, and a long straight country road. It’s Texas, but it looks enough like Iowa or the flat parts of Missouri to stand in for any American farm scene. A bright red race car cuts through the middle of the landscape, and Wayne Frake’s girlfriend screams, “Wait, be careful! Slow down!” He drops her off in front of a Greek Revival mansion that looks like the big house on a Virginia plantation.

“How do you like the sound of that engine?” Wayne says.

“Ah hate it!”

“Why Betty Jean, that’s the most beautiful noise I ever heard in my life.”

“Ah never want to hear it again!”

It’s clear from the first shot that State Fair is going to be concerned with the encroachment of the modern world on farm life. The opening scenes (except for that race car) are all sky and cows and gingham. You’ve never seen a farm so shiny. Even Mrs. Frake’s hair is salon-perfect, her white blouse crisp and spotless despite the fact that she spent the morning in the kitchen making mincemeat. The Frake family is getting ready for their annual excursion to the Texas State Fair, each of them with a goal: Wayne is going to win the racing cup, Mr. Frake’s hog Blue Boy will come home a champion, Mrs. Frake’s mincemeat will take the blue ribbon, and Wayne’s sister Margie is going to figure out why she is, as she sings, “starry-eyed and vaguely discontented, like a nightingale without a song to sing.” (She’d say that she had “spring fever, but it isn’t even spring.” If you get her drift.)

After hitching up Blue Boy and Wayne’s racer, Mr. Frake makes a bet with the veterinarian (who just gave him some pills in case he needs to dope the hog for the competition) that nothing will go wrong and the Frakes will return to the farm safe and happy. Mom, Dad, Wayne, and Margie head for the big city. They wake up the next morning on the interstate, cruising past the Dallas skyline. This is no small-town 4-H fair -- as in two earlier films and the 1930’s novel about an Iowa farm family upon which all three films are based -- but a big modern neon-lit city.

In updating the story, why did the producers move it from Iowa to Texas? It could be that Texas, before its gruesome and very public loss of innocence in 1963, was the last place in America where the idea that this story hangs on -- that the city is a place we visit in a rite of passage before we return to the land, rather than what we are inexorably becoming -- still holds a shred of plausibility. Through the rose-colored lens of Texas, it was still possible in 1962 to tell ourselves that the American landscape existed as a setting for a traditional way of life. It was possible to believe that there was still a pristine frontier. In 1961, the year this film was shot, John Bainbridge wrote in The Super-Americans, “To most Americans, Texas is the last real frontier…, and in this country the frontier still holds a mystical fascination. According to the idealized concept, life on the frontier has always been simpler and happier….” (Bainbridge 378)

If the Frake’s farm looks generic, once we get to the fair we are unmistakably in Texas. The film was shot at Dallas Fair Park, a sprawling art deco complex created for the 1936 Texas Centennial and boasting the world’s tallest Ferris Wheel and the world’s biggest cowboy statue, “Big Tex,” who bellows “Hurry, hurry, it’s the biggest, the brightest, and the best state fair on earth!” Margie’s arrival at the fairgrounds looks like a Chamber of Commerce promotional film. (Ragsdale 176-207)

The Frakes are fighting off modernity on every front. When Wayne zooms by in his race car, Dad says, “Twenty-two years of love and care and what do we raise? A piston farmer.” Mom is pitted against two large canning corporations in the mincemeat competition. Margie watches a staged tug-of-war between a tractor and a team of horses and says, “It must make them sad, if horses get sad, beaten by a tractor. Not even another horse.” Jerry, the fasttalking big city newscaster who woos her, says, “They’re no worse off than we are. Over at the commerce exhibit they got IBM machines that are smarter than people. They keep that up, in a couple years, they can do away with all of us.”

This story of two Texas teenagers’ sexual awakening can be read as a parable of Texas’s coming of age. It is a wistful snapshot of Texas at the end of its innocence, presented by (non- Texan) Hollywood producers who take the point of view of an affectionate parent who feels a nostalgic warmth and blind forgiveness in vicariously reliving its own last pure moments, knowing that there is a point past which, in order to believe you’re innocent, you have to lie to yourself a little. This wider American point of view lets us experience Texas’s impending loss of innocence remembering, and mourning, our own. As Mrs. Frake says when Margie comes to her unsure of whether to let Jerry kiss her or not, “Honey, where you’re going, we’ve been before.”

Wayne is played by Pat Boone, whose biography makes him an ideal stand-in for a conservative America’s image in the mirror. Hugely popular at the time, he was raised in the Church of Christ, born again, attended North Texas State University, and claims to be descended from Daniel Boone. (patboone.com) His late fifties/early sixties career consisted of recording watered-down rhythm and blues songs for a white audience. (Another change America was nervous about then was that its children’s music was growing louder, blacker, and more urban. Pat Boone was the antidote to rock and roll.)

The parable is most explicit in Wayne’s storyline: farm boy meets itinerant showgirl, Emily.Boy, she makes him nervous (He: “You’re not a b-b-bad girl, are you?” She: “No, but I wouldn’t run a Gallup poll on it.”), but he falls for her (“You’re the most exciting girl I’ve ever known”).They sing “Willing and Eager” and, if I read that fade to black correctly, he loses his virginity. But he has no conception of a life other than the one he’s destined for (“One day you’re a little boy out feedin’ chickens, the next day you’re an old man out feedin’ chickens.”), so he proposes to her. She dumps him (He: “I don’t understand. Last night you said everything was wonderful.” She: “So’s a martini, but sooner or later you drink it.”) He has learned his lesson: you can take the little red race car for a spin, but then you have to get back on the tractor.

State Fair reassures us that, in the end, growing up means coming home, that the cure for the modern world is a return to an agrarian life. After the fair, the Frakes return to their pristine farm telling themselves that nothing has changed or ever will. Blue Boy is a champion. Mrs. Frake’s mincemeat beat out the corporate competition. Wayne is wiser (though Betty Jean is not -- Dad advises Wayne not to tell her about his fling with Emily, as he himself has kept a similar youthful affair secret from Mrs. Frake). Only Margie is sad, but then at the last possible moment the phone rings. Jerry has given up the fast life and followed her home. Not only are the Frakes unscathed, the corrupt city boy is purified by Margie’s innocence, the redemptive power of the land. Dad has won his bet with the veterinarian.

State Fair is a plea to cling to this pastoral moment -- against a tidal wave of evidence that the moment is really already past -- when the myth of American innocence is still believable, when, as Emily sings (with a broad wink) “all the things we tell each other are true.” Americans “have turned the practice of conning ourselves into an art. And Texans, being Super-Americans, have perfected it.” (Bainbridge 213) A year and a half after State Fair came out, not far from where it was filmed, Texas’s illusions about itself would be blown apart in front of the world.

Works Cited

Bainbridge, John. The Super-Americans. Garden City, New York: Double Day, 1961.

Campbell, Randolph. Gone to Texas: A History of the Lone Star State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

“Gap Between Farm Life, City Standards Narrows.” Dallas Morning News 10 Jan. 1960, sec. 3: 13.

Landrum, Lynn. “Thinking Out Loud: Farms Getting Fewer.’” Dallas Morning News 16 Feb. 1960, sec. 4: 2.

“Pat Boone is the Original American Idol.’” PatBoone.com 28 April 2008 <patboone.com/bio.html>.

Ragsdale, Kenneth. The Year America Discovered Texas: Centennial ‘36. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1987.

Tinkel, Lon. Introduction. The Super-Americans. By John Bainbridge. Garden City, New York: Double Day, 1961.