"Two for the See Saw" (1962) Robert Mitchum and Shirley Maclaine

"Two for the See Saw" is a 1962 film. The opening credits showcase the Brooklyn Bridge and Fulton Fish Market, just as I remember them as a kid, but without the smell! 🤣

The film, with a score by Andre Previn, is a masterpiece. Robert Mitchum is wonderful as a newly separated, and "lost", lawyer from Nebraska, opposite an equally lost Shirley MacClaine, a would be dancer. The two strike up a tenative friendship which quickly turns romantic. 

In real life the two had a “long relationship” according to MacLaine. “I loved his complications. He was a bit of a coward, actually, and I was interested where that cowardliness came from when his demeanor was such the opposite,” she said. Perhaps this is what makes their parts ring so true. 

You will find yourself rooting for the relationship to work out. They belong together. They learn about themselves as they learn about one another. But will the weight of their past baggage be too much for love to conquer? 

Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman were originally cast in these roles, but Taylor was delayed while filming the last scenes in the epic "Cleopatra", and Newman was already committed to playing "Fast" Eddie in "The Hustler", so the parts fell to Robert Mitchum and Shirley McClaine. And I'm glad it did. 

While not a sucess at the box office, this film is a "hit" in my heart. I rooted so hard for these two to really make their love work, and you will too. 

Meantime, enjoy the view in the opening credits. Perhaps it will interest you enough to watch the entire film. And along the way, maybe even learn a bit about yourselves, and what really motivates us all in our search for lasting love.

Q is for Queer? Don't Blame Me!

Color me thick; or just plain stupid; but I don’t understand why the Gay Lesbian Bi-Sexual Transgender group has added the letter “Q”; as in “Queer”; to their organization’s name.  I am going to stick my neck out on this in the hopes that someone can explain to me why this is a good idea. Or, even simply how did this come to pass? And, of course, what the aim is.

“Queer”, we have been taught by the GLBT group, is the most vulgar term that can be used to describe another person’s alternate sexual identity. The word “queer” became the equivalent of the word “nigger”, which we have all learned to avoid; that is if we ever used it to begin with. Then we went from that to Negro; to African-American; to “black” and now, in some circles; particularly the field of entertainment; nigger is back. And that confuses me as well.

Note: I use the words “Queer” and “Nigger” in this post because I am writing about the words nigger and queer. I will not do as Alan Dershowitz did in his book; he used all the ethnic slurs imaginable for every race except African-Americans; for which he used the euphemism “the N- word” to de-note it; all while lauding his belief as an “absolutist” on the subject of free speech. I agree with Clarence Darrow who said that “there are too few words as it is. I think we should use them all.”  (He really did say that. Check the court transcript if you don’t believe me.)

As to the LGBT use of the word Queer, I have the following questions;

If Queer was so offensive to Gays and Lesbians, then for whom is the term now appropriate; and why?

If the people who consider themselves to be “Queer” can call refer to themselves as such, and even join an existing political lobbying group using that term, then is it okay for others to use that term again when describing people who live a lifestyle which may seem queer to them?

Further, if the people in this category seem queer to themselves; as well as the LGBT group; are they bigots in the same way as the people who used to call gay people queer because they found homosexual behavior to be, well, queer?

This is the same conundrum many of us have faced with the African-American use of the term nigger, nigah, nigga, etc. If such a vile word is now simply tossed off as being a part of entertainment, then the whole struggle to rid society of the racial prejudice which spawned the term to begin with has all been in vain. All those people who stood up to Bull Connors and the police dogs in Selma and Birmingham were wasting their time. Their own grandchildren would bring back the word with pride.

Now we have the GLBT movement telling us that they have a group of people whom they consider to be Queer. I’m wondering if this means that they’re straight. If so then I am offended. I don’t like being referred to as queer just because I have a different sexual identity than they do. I am proud to be a heterosexual. Where’s my parade?

The people who were beaten at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village in 1969; considered to be the birth of the Gay and Lesbian movement; must be appalled by the re-emergence of this term.

Women are another group who have presented a conundrum of sorts over the years. They had a big “revolution” in order to detach themselves from the rampant sexual exploitation of the media, and now they market shirts for women with the word “Bitch” on them. And women snap them up!

Just as I do not understand the GLBT community being willing to go back to the term Queer; in any form; and am equally appalled by the use of the term nigger in any of its incarnations (literature excepting); I am also dismayed that women have been reduced more than ever to “sex objects”; enough so that they would buy millions of these shirts. You can buy one at;

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS410US411&q=bitch+tee+shirts#q=bitch+tee+shirts&tbm=shop

So, not only am I confused about all these things, but I still haven’t got a clue as to why the LGBT group considers queer an acceptable term for any group under their banner. I must be getting very old.  And, finally, why do all reform movements seem to end in some sort of insanity? Now, I just have to find a picture “queer” enough to illustrate this post…

Addenda: 7-31-14 11:30 AM A few individuals have expressed their beliefs; in a rather crude fashion; that I am either a racist, or homophobic. I assure you that neither is the case. I feel that everyone should have the right to be called what they please. That is why we have names. But when you adopt a derogatory term which is applicable to a whole group of people who may be offended by that choice, I have to opt in favor of the most aggrieved party. That message is the intent of this post. You can put the pitchforks and torches away now, thanks!

"Ferlinghetti" with Allen Ginsburg and Bob Dylan (2010)

Most people first came across Lawrence Ferlinghetti in the film “The Last Waltz”, which chronicled the final concert of the group in San Francisco. The year was 1976. Lawrence Ferlinghetti had long ago made his mark on the world, but there were still many who had not read his poetry or even knew his name. 

His version of the Lord’s Prayer will forever be cemented in the minds of millions of movie goers who saw that film. (This version is from the film and is slightly different than the published one.)

“Our father whose art's in heaven

Hollow be thy name unless things change.

Thy kingdom come and gone

Thy will will be undone on Earth, as it isn't Heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread, at least three times a day

and lead us not into temptation too often on weekdays,

but deliver us from evil

whose presence remains unexplained in thy kingdom of power and

glory.”

Oh, man!"

In this film the poet explores the Beat Generation of poets and writers; many of whom appear in the film crediting Mr. Ferlinghetti with having been an inspiration to them. That list includes, Allen Ginsburg, Bob Dylan and Billy Collins. There are too many names to fit on the cover of this incredibly insightful documentary.

Poetry is one of the oldest arts; before stage and screen. It must have come about after people began telling tales around the fire at night. Certainly past the grunts and sounds which early on served as speech. But I suspect that as soon as words were formed someone started rhyming them, and shortly thereafter came free verse. And poetry has been around long enough to leave a complete account of history. "The Epic of Gilgamesh", an epic poem from Mesopotamia, is believed to date to the 18^th Century B.C.  The Greek tragedies are almost modern by comparison! And the poetry we call the Bible is pretty much contemporary in the grand scheme of things.

This film will inform you and entertain you; it will also help you understand the direction which poetry; and what we came to call the “sub-culture” of the post-war era; took in the most tumultuous years of the late 20^th century. 

For one of my favorite poems by Mr. Ferlinghetti; “I Am Waiting”, use this link;

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/171598

"Chronicles" by Bob Dylan (2004)

 

 

When I was about 5, or 6 years old, my parents used to take me to the Village; as in Greenwich Village in New York City. It was the thing to do then, back around 1960. The Beatniks were still in presence, and with their goatees and bohemian clothes, made quite an impression on me. These people were exciting in a mysterious, yet non-threatening way. There was a current of change in the air which was almost palpable. I didn’t know it then, but I was sharing the same streets with Bob Dylan as he explored this new world. He was 19 years old and the village would become his home for many years.

Writing in pastel tones, sometimes giving only the flavor of a particular encounter with another musician, Mr. Dylan writes of a time when singers and songwriters, the likes of The Clancy Brothers, Brownie McGhee, the Monk and everyone you can possibly think of, even Tiny Tim, who was working the Village scene as a novelty act, singing 1920’s songs with his ukulele.

He writes vividly of the frigid winters I remember in the city as a child, using phrases that evoke the chill and recall the brilliant starlit nights. In almost poetic fashion he recreates the sordid New York of better years, before the corporations took over, and art was still in the very air.

Moondog; the landmark street poet who roamed the city; usually to be found further uptown from the Village; was present in Mr. Dylan’s world. Dylan; the name. Where did he get it? We all know it came from Dylan Thomas, but what was the creative thinking that changed Robert Zimmerman into Bob Dylan? In an age of Bobby Vee, and Bobby Vinton, what made the author chose his new cognomen? Who was he when he arrived in New York and what was he trying to achieve? All valid questions concerning one of the most influential artists to emerge from the tail end of the “beat” scene.

Drawing on his memories of Dave Van Ronk, Ramblin’ Jack Elliott, and even the revered Woody Guthrie himself, Mr. Dylan paints a living literary portrait of one of the most creative eras of the 20^th century. He weaves back and forth through the decades of his life in poetic fashion, drawing no attention to the shifts in the narrative from one era to another. He moves ethereally, just as with the visions he created in his own songs.

Unabashedly candid in his recollections; and not always casting himself in the best light; the author lays bare his true sentiments concerning what constitutes “art”, folk music and reality in general. Pushing the boundaries of folk lyrics; while helping to create “folk-rock” music in the bargain; would have been enough for most. With this book, he has established himself as a true craftsman of the memoir as a genre. I should have read this 8 years ago.