How I Know I’m Not in New York (Part 7)

How I Know I’m Not in New York (Part 7)

“My car’s stuck in traffic.”

I was sitting in a café after work waiting for my Romanian friend Remus.  He was almost an hour late – so I called him.

“Remus, where are you?”

“I’m sorry, my friend.  I’m on my way.”

“You’re almost an hour late.”

“Yes, I know.”

“Where are you?”

“It’s terrible.  My car’s stuck in traffic.”

“Oh.”

“You know how it is.  It’s impossible to get into the center of town from my office at this hour.”

“Yes, I know.”

“It’s awful.”

“I know.”

“Oh well.  What are you going to do?”

“Are you in your car?”

“Of course, and I’m barely moving.”

“Why did you drive?”

“What do you mean?”

“I mean, you could have taken the subway.”

“The subway?”

“It stops right at your office.  And it comes two blocks from here.”

“I know, but I have my car.”

“So?”

“Well, I have my car.”

“Remus, you could have left it at work.”

“My car?”

“Sure.”

“How could I do that?”

“What do you mean ‘how?’”

“Then I don’t have my car.  It’d be stuck at the office.”

“So you get it tomorrow.”

“Leave my car at work?”

“Remus, you’d be here already if you took the subway.”

“Maybe.  But it’s too late.  I have my car.”

“You know, you don’t have to drive everywhere.”

“I know that.”

“And the subway would have been faster.”

“Maybe, but I don’t ride the subway.”

“Why not?”

“The subway is for poor people.”

“That’s silly.  I take the subway.”

“Sure, you’re from New York.”

“Ok, but I don’t see how…”

“It’s fine for you.  But here, the subway’s for people who don’t have cars.”

“Now that can’t be true.”

“Yes it is.  Look at yourself.  You don’t have a car and you take the subway.”

“Remus, I don’t need a car….”

“Exactly.”

“Because I take the subway.”

“Yes, but if you had a car, you wouldn’t need the subway.”

“Well, I’m not sure…”

“Besides, it’s not safe.”

“That’s ridiculous.”

“No, it’s not.  Those people on the subway, you know.…”

“Wait!  What are you talking about?!”

“I don’t feel right with those people on the subway.”

“There are a lot of nice people who ride the subway.”

“Maybe.  But you know, they wouldn’t be there if they had real jobs.”

“That’s not true.”

“And money for a car.”

“I’m sure some of those people have jobs…and even cars.”

“Well, who knows?”

“And Remus, every day you sit in traffic.  Going to work.  Coming from work.  And you always complain.”

“Why shouldn’t I?  The traffic’s awful.”

“And you live three streets from the subway.”

“Two, actually.”

“Ok.  And the subway stops right at your office.”

“So?”

“So wouldn’t it be faster to take the subway to work?”

“I suppose.”

“But you don’t take it.”

“No, I told you. I have a car.”

“Stop!”

“Stop what?”

“Saying you have a car.  I know you have a car.  We’ve driven together a thousand times.”

“Why would I stop saying it?  I do have a car.”

“Yes, I know you have a car.  You’re in it now, right?  Not moving.  Look, my point is your life would be easier if you simply took the subway sometimes.  You wouldn’t be stuck in traffic every day.  And you wouldn’t be late all the time.”

“But I have to take my car to work.”

“Why?”

“In case I need it.”

“For what?”

“In case I need to go somewhere.”

“Remus, you sit behind a desk.  You never go anywhere.”

“But what if I needed to?”

“You could take a taxi.”

“And throw my money away?”

“It’s not that expensive.”

“I should waste money on a taxi when I’m already paying for a car?  Wait!  HEY YOU!!!  MOVE YOUR FAT BUMPER, YOU IDIOT!!!  God, these people are so stupid!  Where do they come from!!  All right, what were you saying?”

“I’m saying you’re late.”

“It’s not my fault.  It’s rush hour.  Oh geez, now she’s in a wheelchair.  SERIOUSLY!!??  GET OUT OF THE STREET!!!”

“And it’s because you’re wasting your time – and mine – sitting in traffic!!”

“HEY!!!”

“What?”

“No, not you.  HEY!!!!!!!”

“Remus, relax.”

“God, I hate this.”

“Yeah, I know.”

“OK, YEAH, OK, OK, GO AHEAD!!”

“What?”

“She’s cute.”

“Look, you do what you want.  But I took the subway and I got here with no problem.”

“Sure, that was earlier.”

“What do you mean?”

“It’s rush hour now.”

“So?”

“No one takes the subway at rush hour.”

“Huh?”

“It’s too crowded.”

“Remus, so when will you be here?”

“HEY!!!”

“Yeah?”

“No, not you.  YOU!!!  MOVE THAT PIECE OF CRAP!!  I don’t know.  The traffic’s barely moving.”

“All right.”

“IT’S GREEN!!!  OH, NOOO!!”

“Are you talking to me?”

“Yes.”

“What’s the matter?”

“HEY!!!”

“REMUS, WHAT?!”

“No, not you.”

“Remus?”

“It’s starting to rain.”

“Oh.”

“I might never get there.  And then I have to park.”

“All right.  Listen, I have a book.  I’ll wait for you.”

“Ah, thanks.  Again, really, I’m sorry I’m so late.”

“It’s ok.  I’m having a vodka.  I’ll order you something.”

“NO!!”

“What?”

“That would be great!”

“Are you talking to me?”

“After today, and now with this traffic, I could really use a drink.”

“What do you want?”

“I don’t know.”

“I’ll just order what I’m having.  That way it’ll be here whenever you show up.”

“Ok, thanks.”

“No problem.”

“But no.”

“No?”

“I can’t.”

“What do you mean?”

“I can’t.”

“Why not?”

“I can’t.  I have my car.”

The Welcome Pain of Dislocation

In a wonderfully unexpected recent concurrence of conversations and thoughts (separated by a few weeks but coincident in memory), I was reminded to share with you a bit of writing from someone very much worth reading.

It’s from Occurrence in the Immediate Unreality by Max Blecher, published in 1936 and thankfully translated into English and published a few years ago by the University of Plymouth Press in conjunction with the “old” Romanian Cultural Institute.

If you don’t know Max Blecher, you should – especially if you’re Romanian as he’s part of your national heritage.

(I can only wish I could read the original, though it appears to me that Alistair Ian Blyth has done a terrifically intelligent translation in the version I read.)

Blecher was born in Botosani in 1909 and died at 28 after suffering for a decade with tuberculosis of the spine. He is often compared with the Surrealists, and while I enjoy the visual dislocation of their art, I find their verbal dislocation to be a bit too abstract. That, I suppose, is why I find Blecher’s more-structured “surrealism” in many ways more accessible and engaging. The dislocation is there, it’s just more coherent somehow.

I was reminded of all this when in a conversation the other day I went searching in my memory, without success, for the precise words of perhaps the most beautiful early example of this creative dislocation – a quote that’s often associated with the Dadaist movement. It’s from Comte de Lautréamont in his book Le Chants de Maldoror, written in the late 1860s, when he describes a young boy as “beautiful as the chance meeting on a dissecting-table of a sewing-machine and an umbrella.”

Yep, that was good. Extraordinarily good. And seems easy to imitate, too – to put the powerful and unexpected where it does not belong. Because when the powerful appears where it should not be expected, its impact and its lessons are simply there to be cherished.

And that precisely is the problem. The appeal of these powerful juxtapositions is too attractive to people who don’t know how to use them.  It’s too easy to copy. Too easy to fake. Because simply combining random images or contradicting ideas is not the same as creating a new thought – not a thought worth thinking anyway.

It’s why I tire so quickly of too many current artistic attempts that conflate disgust with true impact, or shock with ideas. They seek provocation, almost comic-like in depth, through scatological manipulations, bloody swords, writhing snakes, perverted Madonnas, twisted Christ-like figures, or any assorted and sordid computer-generated metamorphosis. Provocative simply to be provocative is not difficult. In fact, it’s too easy even to be considered creative. It (as well as that current popular style of writing that I can only describe as a hectic sleaze of consciousness), seems tired and unimaginative when compared with these originators.

Now I suspect most of these current writers and artists would not regard themselves as Dadaists or Surrealists. Their mission is different. Their sensibilities are different. Their rage, such as it is, is very, very different. But in terms of combining ideas that don’t appear to belong, I see only small differences and even less ingenuity.

Indeed, I have recently seen several examples of this here in Bucharest, in writing, in photography, and in video. Yes, what I saw was mostly provocative. Some were even clever. But mostly, they appeared created to impress a circle of like-minded acquaintances, a circle that may indeed bestow some notoriety and success on the creator but will finally remain only momentary in its impact. To me, it seemed mostly sophomoric and boring. To provoke – and not only, but also to evoke – something revealing in the reader or the viewer, effectively and challengingly, by breaking apart our imagination’s expectations – that is what’s needed to bring something new.

And Blecher does that. While his writing is more structured, what happens while you read him feels much the same as when you study the paintings of de Chirico or Magritte. It’s not the dislocation of objects so much, but the dislocation of concepts, images, and emotions that he uses to describe his life and his experiences.

I finished his book some weeks ago. But then, as these coincidences occur, confronted by bad memory, I went to the internet to check the spelling of Lautréamont, and there thanks to Wikipedia (yes, I confess) I came across this quote:

“The critic Alex De Jonge writes, ‘Lautréamont forces his readers to stop taking their world for granted. He shatters the complacent acceptance of the reality proposed by their cultural traditions and makes them see that reality for what it is: an unreal nightmare all the more hair-raising because the sleeper believes he is awake.’”

And that, my friends, is the connection that led me back to Blecher (you’ll see why in the second excerpt). As for the first, it’s interesting how Sartre’s Nausea was published just two years later. (Apparently, there was no chestnut tree in the town of Roman.) I hope you enjoy:

“I picked up one object after another and their variety dizzied me. In vain did I grip a file, slowly run my fingers over it, place it to my cheek, swivel it, let if fall spinning to the floor…In vain…in vain…nothing had any meaning.

“Everywhere, hard, inert matter surrounded me – here in the form of wooden balls and carvings – in the street in the form of trees, houses, and stones; immense and futile, matter enveloped me from head to foot. In whichever direction my thoughts turned, matter surrounded me, from my clothes to the springs in the forest, passing through walls, trees, stones, glass…

“Into every cranny the lava of matter had spilled from the earth, petrifying in the empty air, in the form of houses with windows; trees with branches that ever rose to pierce the emptiness; flowers, soft and colourful, which filled the small curved volumes of space; churches whose cupolas soared ever higher, as far as the slender cross at their pinnacle, where matter halted its trickling into the heights, powerless to ascend further.

“Everywhere, matter had infested the air, irrupting into it, filling it with the encysted abscesses of stones, with the wounded hollows of trees…

“I went maddened by the things I saw, things I was destined not to be able to escape.”

And:

“Sometimes, at night, I awake from a terrible nightmare…

“In the end, my final scream, the loudest, wakes me. All of a sudden I find myself in my real room, which is identical to the room in the dream, and in the same position in which I dreamt myself, at the same hour when I must have been floundering in the nightmare.

“What I now see around me differs very little from what I saw only a second before, but somehow it has an air of authenticity, which floats in things, in me, like a sudden cooling of the winter air, which all of a sudden magnifies all sonorities…

“In what does my sense of reality consist?

“Around me the life I will live until the next dream has returned. Memories and present pains weigh heavily in me and I want to resist them, not to fall into their sleep, whence I shall perhaps never return…

“Now I am struggling in reality, I scream, I beg to be woken, to be woken to a different life, to my real life. It is certain that it is broad daylight, that I know where I am and that I am alive, but in all these things something is missing, the same as in my terrifying nightmare.

“I struggle, scream, writhe. Who will wake me?

“Around me, a precise reality is pulling me ever lower, trying to submerge me.

“Who will wake me?

“It has always been like this, always, always.”

 

For those of you with some curiosity, you should also see the following two links about the role of some important Romanians in the early Dadaist movement:

First link, here

Second link, here

How I Know I’m Not in New York (Part 7)

How I Know I’m Not in New York (Part 6)

“Remus Unchained”

[Even more than my other conversations with Remus, this is essentially verbatim.  So you politically correct Americans out there, don’t send me any emails.  But, of course, being American, I apologize in advance if this offends anyone.]

Remus and I were in the office the other day.  We were waiting for a man who was hoping to sell us some products for a new business idea we had.  It was almost time for him to arrive.

“Hey Remus, let me know when that guy gets here for our meeting.”

“All right.  By the way, did you hear what happened to Mihai?”

“Not now, Remus.  We don’t have time.”

“Ok.  So do you know anything about this guy?”

“No.  He called last week and asked to meet.  He’s some sort of importer.  He represents a couple manufacturers and supplies those things we….”

“Wait a second.  My phone’s ringing….ok, that was security.  He’s here.” (more…)

Save Our Really Real Reality®

Save Our Really Real Reality®

I saw a movie a while ago in which a mouse got crushed. It was funny. I don’t remember what movie it was or why it was so funny. What I mostly remember is that some time later, I saw it was not a real mouse but only a computer generated image of a mouse. How disappointing.

It’s not that I wanted a real mouse to be crushed. It just took something out of the humor to find out it wasn’t. And it reminded me of the definition of “funny” by Groucho Marx. To paraphrase greatly: “Funny is when a stuntman dresses up as an old lady, sits in a wheel chair, and gets pushed off a cliff. Very funny is when it’s a real old lady.”

Yes, there is something more tangible, more immediate, (dare I say it?) more real about the real when it is, in fact, real.And I think you’ll agree, it’s almost all gone.  (I knew we were in trouble when an ad agency recently photoshopped more hair on my head in a photo they took.  I barely recognized myself.)  I say it’s time to fight back.

You say there is nothing new in all this?  “Everything is fake.” “No more real life.” “There is no real love.” “Real tomatoes are gone.” (I recommend you read Jean Baudrillard and, except for the terrifyingly Marxist and apocalyptic tone, learn about hyperreality and how the media and advertising are destroying the human race. Now, that part IS true.)

What is new, however, is there must be a line, and wherever it is, I believe we’ve finally crossed it.  (Did you know Shrek was not real?!!)  Yes, we’ve gone much too far!  And I say, let’s start a campaign. Call it the “Save Our Reality® Before There’s None Left” movement.

And I know just where to start. Hollywood – the single-biggest destroyer of Reality® in the history of the universe after the Death Star. Well, ok, that’s why we like it. Still, it’s time to take a stand.

Don’t misunderstand. This is not part of an effort to save humans from their atomic folly or their god-given desire to buy anything emblazoned with the coolest of cool logos on their way to self-annihilation. It’s too late for that.

My goal is much simpler. I merely want labels. Lots of labels. Many, many labels. And I’m going to start by trademarking the word Reality® (you might have noticed already). It will need to be capitalized whenever it’s printed. It can only be used if our organization approves it. And we’ll be paid for our endorsements because we will now own the name, if not the product itself. (Of course, then Reality® becomes its own brand name signifying the concept of “reality” that it has emptied by signifying the “reality” it signifies so that it’s no longer real. Yes, this could be a problem.)

Regardless, we’ll all become rich and have lots of colored plastic paper in our pockets that signifies that somewhere, before the centuries of abstraction and universal social alienation, there was once upon a time something of worth that ensured all this plastic paper its imputed value – I think.

No matter. I say if we can place nutrition labels on “food” like Cocoa Puffs, photos of cancerous organs on the side of cigarette packs, and warnings for me not to put my fingers into a spinning food blender, then why can’t we have labels safeguarding our reality? That is, I mean, Reality®? What, after all, is more important than that?

So to Hollywood we go. And here’s what we want, those of us in the Save Our Reality® Before There’s None Left campaign. From now on, we want to be assured at the end of each film: “No Reality® was harmed in the making of this movie.”

Yes, that’s right. It’s not because I feel threatened. I can still tell the difference – sometimes. It’s more about principle. I believe people who go out of their way to protect our basic Reality® should be rewarded, or at least acknowledged in some way.

And I know I’m not alone. We could probably fill a small room. There are websites all over. So now we all know Nicolas Cage does not have stomach muscles like the ones we saw in Ghost Rider. We also know the skinny guy in the beginning of Captain America wasn’t really so skinny, and that Robert Downey Jr. was not truly fighting on a half-finished bridge over the Thames River at the end of that movie.

But let’s step back. What if they were? What if all that was real? Wouldn’t you want to know? (Doesn’t anyone remember the immense accolades for Robert De Niro when he gained all that weight in Raging Bull?) In other words, shouldn’t the director and the actors get some credit for the fact they didn’t fake the whole thing? Seriously, whether you appreciate the artistry of movie-making by computer or not, there is something palpably impressive when you know that Tom Cruise actually hung from those towers, that Peter Jackson did go to New Zealand to find some really nice hills, and that Kate Beckinsale, in fact, well, she actually looks like she does.

It’s not always been this confusing. Just thirty years ago, some 300,000 extras were reportedly used in the filming of the movie Ghandi. I never saw it, but no matter, you have to give extra (no pun intended) credit to the director, Richard Attenborough, for remembering their names. And as long as we’re talking, how about Ben Hur’s chariot scene? That took a whole year just to cut the arena out of a huge piece of rock, and then another five weeks, 7000 extras, 78 horses, and weeks of training to film. That whole thing, I suspect, would take an afternoon in an air conditioned office today.

So if a director goes to all the trouble to find a real location and have a real actor actually dangle from a real clock tower (check out the famous Harold Lloyd stunt in Safety Last from 1923, here) — shouldn’t those people be somehow rewarded?

Ok, Harold Lloyd did it with angles, a stunt man, a fake wall, etc. But it was also real, in the sense that they were truly on a building, they were indeed way up high, they were actually there. And they tricked people for decades into thinking there was no net.

Now it might seem old-fashioned to do it that way. But I don’t think it’s old-fashioned to want to know it was done. What if you found out that Cristian Mungiu’s last movie, Beyond the Hills, was filmed entirely in a third floor office inside a building in Baneasa? Doesn’t that matter? In this case, I know that’s not true because I’ve seen enough computerized cold breath to now know the difference. (Then again, Kate Beckinsale was great in that movie up at the North Pole.)

Maybe I sound like a curmudgeon. But I’m not the first one. The role of mimesis was a topic that even ancient Greeks could not decide. Did it corrupt or was it cathartic? Imagine if they had video games. A little Mortal Kombat, Mr. Plato?

But humans like to be fooled. We like the pretend. We like make-believe. So instead of studying Aristotle’s Poetics, today we sit and watch cartoons. Or we go to museums and look at hyperreal photos and hyperreal paintings with perfect Chevys and very clean sidewalks. Ok, so nothing is real. Or rather it’s really too real.

Umberto Eco wrote about this 40 years ago in Faith in Fakes, Travels in Hyperreality, as he set off on a “journey into hyperreality, in search of instances where the American imagination demands the real thing and, to attain it, must fabricate the absolute fake; where the boundaries between game and illusion are blurred…” It seems we in America perfected these tricks, with over-stuffed museums and historically genuine fake towns. So much better than originals. So much cleaner. More real. (Oh, how well Romania has imported much of this. That, however, is a topic for another day.)

This is, for a few of us, a very real problem. For example, that French guy Baudrillard, who’s much too interesting to discuss here, was summed up recently this way: “It’s not so much that reality doesn’t exist, as that it is inaccessible from within a regime of simulation,” explained Ceasefire Magazine. And so? Melancholy (depression) has become the dominant tone in social life, “the brutal disaffection arising from generalised simulation and the loss of intensity and meaning.” Ouch, that’s not good.

And to think these ideas and all this “brutal disaffection” started even decades before the computer was born. At least, way back then, in the “generalised simulation,” we could still tell the difference between what was projected and what was still real – the street scenes that bounced out the back of Cary Grant’s car window, Godzilla fighting dinosaurs, Mary Poppins floating down, even most of the people who starred in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

But not nowadays. It all seems too real. And we can’t tell the difference, like in the movie S1m0ne. Isn’t it bad enough I have to pray that my daughters remember that none of the models in our real magazines actually have those waists or two elongated thighs?

If we don’t pay attention, just think where we’ll go. Why not add a little more fiend onto Jack Nicholson’s glare in the movie The Shining? Why shoot a scene one more time when we can dub a new sentence and make the actor’s lips move in sync – all in post-production after everyone goes home? And while we’re at it, as long as we can make Keanu Reeves float in The Matrix, why not also generate computerly a bit of acting ability?

Yes, we’ll no longer know which part of the bodies, or the background locations, or even the acting was genuinely fake. But would post-production tweaks be acceptable to all? What if half the acting was all dubbed in much later? Made up in the editing by a director and two geeks?

So let’s get all those labels. Let’s have a new category at the Oscars®. “The Best Completely Real Movie (in which no Reality® was hurt).” It’ll give credit to those who spent all that time and all of that effort to use ingenuity and artistry, creativity and guts to do things alive, out in the sun, in the wind. I say let’s call Kate Beckinsale and leave the computers at home.

I suppose if you don’t see the difference, you should not join our cause. For the rest of us, however, let’s print up some flyers and start wearing buttons. We’ll launch a huge movement. And the first thing we do is register Reality®. Then we’ll send pretty stuff we make up to the press. Maybe we’ll march through the streets. Then we can tweet our location. Pinterest some things. And instagram all our photos. But wait, before you send that one, first photoshop me more hair.

Metrosexual Me

Metrosexual Me

I typically stay away from the topic of fashion in any form at any time with any audience – except perhaps when my inseam is being measured by some 85-year-old Italian tailor at Brooks Brothers in New York. Or maybe when I give my monthly critique, in private, to my wife about her employer’s latest issue.

But when you come across a quote like the following, one is simply compelled to find a way to share it with others. So here it is:

“A garment that squeezes the testicles makes a man think differently.”

Yes, God bless you, Umberto Eco, for those immortal words. (By the way, shouldn’t that be the motto of GQ magazine?)

It’s not that I’ve ever given this topic much thought. Sure, periodically, I wonder if the “Wear By” date of my clothes has expired. And, the truth is, I can’t help this nagging suspicion that, while I’m pretty sure my brain is metrosexual from at least 2009, my style of clothing may very well be firmly rooted in 1978.

But it’s not my fault. I’ve tried to explain to my wife many times that American men are simply, genuinely, and genetically predisposed to be unfashionable. It’s our curse. It’s God’s little revenge for us having too much of everything else.

Sure there are exceptions in America. But most of them are rappers, basketball players, or actors we’ve never heard of, most of whom are playing the role of one vampire or another on TV. Few of us wake up in the morning, go to our closet and think: “I wonder what Donald Trump will be wearing today.”

And though this handicap lingers, it’s not for lack of trying. There are scores of publications that try to show us what to do. The New York Times fashion section alone pleads with us at least twice a year to open our minds and open our wallets, as its editors attempt to reassure us that a slim pair of pants does not necessarily mean we want to move to Milan and marry Bradley Cooper.

Indeed, this was the lede from its latest, not-very-subtle attempt just a month ago: “Designer fashion is no longer just for gay men and Europeans. Welcome to the age of sartorial enlightenment, in which the average male has shed schlumpiness for style.”

To which I respond, isn’t schlumpiness itself a perfectly good style? Do I really want to fall prey to what has been ingeniously (and hilariously) termed “manorexia?”

What that New York Times story does do, however, is inadvertently raise a very good point – when combined with the observations of Mr. Eco. Because now that I think about it, perhaps it’s past time that we American men – we of drab oversized shirts, forgettable dark ties, and loose sagging pants – share some advice. Maybe, just maybe, torn boxer shorts and low inseams are the secret to our success.

Don’t think so? Well let’s hear again from Mr. Eco:

“For people in my profession it is normal to walk along with your mind on other things: the article you have to write, the lecture you must give, the relationship between the One and the Many, the Andreotti government, how to deal with the problem of the Redemption, whether there is life on Mars, the latest song of Celentano, the paradox of Epimenides. In our line this is called ‘the interior life.’ Well, with my new jeans my life was entirely exterior. I thought about the relationship between me and my pants, and the relationship between my pants and me and the society we lived in. I had achieved heteroconsciousness, that is to say, an epidermic self-awareness.”

For those of you who are convinced, but might need some reminders, here are three little words, from the very same page as that lovely quote above, I suggest you pin to the door of your closet.

“Thought abhors tights.”

Yes, my male friends, the key to success gets no simpler than that.